AB 2113: Pesticides.
- Session Year: 2023-2024
- House: Assembly
- Latest Version Date: 2024-07-02
Current Status:
Passed
(2024-07-02: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 60, Statutes of 2024.)
Introduced
In Committee
First Chamber
In Committee
Second Chamber
Enacted
What does this bill do?
The bill raises the per‑dollar sales assessment on registered pesticides and makes the first seller responsible for paying it, affecting pesticide manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). It requires DPR to post and meet timelines for reviewing registration applications, to begin more annual reevaluations of pesticides, and to adopt mitigation or take action if risks are found. It also defines integrated and sustainable pest management, expands exemptions for some sanitation, pool‑cleaning, and live‑capture services, extends enforcement limits to 3 years, sets data cost‑sharing and container‑recycling rules, requires appeal reporting, and lets DPR cancel registrations when a pesticide causes significant harms with no feasible mitigation.
The summary is provided by generative AI which can make mistakes. For original language, please view the details in the table below.
(1)Existing law prohibits a person from advertising, soliciting, or operating as a pest control business, unless the person has a valid pest control business license issued by the Director of Pesticide Regulation and has registered with the county agricultural commissioner. Existing law exempts from this prohibition persons engaged in specified activities, including household or industrial sanitation services.
This bill would exempt from that prohibition persons engaged in sanitation services for the collection, disposal, and treatment of wastewater, refuse, or sewage, rather than household or industrial sanitation services, persons engaged in pool cleaning services, unless the person is selling, applying, using, or distributing a restricted material, and persons engaged in the live capture and removal or exclusion of mice, rats, and pigeons.
(2)Existing law requires a licensed pest control dealer to report quarterly to the director the total dollars of sales and total pounds or gallons sold into or within this state of each pesticide labeled for agricultural use that are subject to the assessments described below.
This bill would require the above-described report to instead include each pesticide subject to the assessments described below, rather than only those pesticides labeled for agricultural use.
(3)Existing law requires every manufacturer of, importer of, or dealer in any pesticide, except as specified, to obtain a certificate of registration from the Department of Pesticide Regulation before the pesticide is offered for sale. Existing law requires the director to establish, by regulation, fees for the departments registration program. Existing law requires the director to endeavor to eliminate from use in the state specified pesticides, and in carrying out this responsibility, to develop an orderly program for the continuous evaluation of all pesticides actually registered, as specified.
This bill would require the department, on or before May 1, 2025, and annually thereafter until May 2, 2028, to report the average processing times to review and evaluate, and issue final decisions on applications to register new pesticide products or to amend existing product registrations for the prior calendar year. The bill would require the department, on or before January 31 of each year, to post on its internet website a determination that it might increase certain registration fees during the calendar year, as provided. The bill would require the department, on and after July 1, 2027, to meet certain timelines to review and evaluate, and issue final decisions on applications to register new pesticide products or amend existing pesticide product registrations, except as provided. The bill would require the department, on or before May 1, 2029, and annually thereafter, to report the average processing times for applications to register new pesticide products or amend existing pesticide product registrations for the prior calendar year, as specified.
This bill would require the department, on or before July 1, 2025, and each year thereafter, until July 2, 2029, to annually identify and initiate the reevaluation of potential adverse effects of at least one pesticide in addition to those already under reevaluation and would, on or before July 1, 2029, and each year thereafter, require the department to annually identify and initiate the reevaluation of potential adverse effects of at least 2 pesticides in addition to those already under reevaluation. The bill would also specify timelines for mitigation measures if the department identifies potential adverse effects for a pesticide pursuant to the above-described provisions.
(4)Existing law requires every person who sells a pesticide product for use in this state that has been registered by the director to pay an assessment on all sales of the pesticide product, and requires the director to establish by regulation a mill assessment rate, not to exceed $0.021. Existing law requires the revenues from the assessment to be deposited into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund, with $0.0076 per dollar of sales for all pesticides sales for use in this state distributed by the director to the counties as reimbursement for costs incurred in the administration and enforcement of provisions relating to pesticides, and the remainder available for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to support the Department of Pesticide Regulations operations. Existing law authorizes the director to collect an additional assessment of up to $0.00075 per dollar of sales for all pesticide sales for use in this state, except as specified, if necessary to fund, or augment the funding for, an appropriation to the Department of Food and Agriculture to provide pesticide consultation to the Department of Pesticide Regulation.
This bill would instead require the assessments to be paid by the person or entity that first sold the pesticide for use in this state. The bill would increase, beginning July 1, 2024, the mill assessment rate for registered pesticides. The bill would increase the maximum amount of the additional assessment to $0.00104 per dollar of sales.
This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 2/3 of the membership of each house of the Legislature.
(5)Existing law authorizes the director, after a hearing, to cancel the registration of, or refuse to register, a pesticide if one or more specified conditions apply, including that the pesticide has demonstrated serious uncontrollable adverse effects either within or outside the agricultural environment.
This bill would revise those specified conditions, including by revising the above-described condition to instead apply when the pesticide has significant adverse environmental effects for which there is no feasible mitigation available.
(6)Existing law requires an action brought pursuant to specified laws relating to pesticides to be commenced by the director, the commissioner, the Attorney General, the district attorney, the city prosecutor, or the city attorney within 2 years of the occurrence of the violation.
This bill would instead require an action to be brought within 3 years of the occurrence of the violation.
Existing law requires an action brought by the director to collect unpaid mill assessments and delinquent fees or to collect civil penalties for a violation of mill assessment requirements and other specified pesticide provisions to be commenced within 4 years of the occurrence of the violation.
This bill would require specified actions for the above-described violations that are discovered during the course of an audit to be commenced within 2 years from the date of the audits completion and would authorize those actions to be brought for a violation occurring within 4 years of the commencement of the audit.
(7)Existing law authorizes an interested person to request the county agricultural commissioner to review their action in issuing, refusing, revoking, suspending, or conditioning a permit to use or possess a restricted material and authorizes the commissioner to affirm, modify, or cancel the permit action reviewed. Existing law authorizes a directly affected person to appeal to the director to review the commissioners action. Existing law requires, before conducting a public review, the director to notify directly affected persons at least 72 hours in advance of the location and time of the public review.
This bill would instead authorize an interested person to appeal to the director to review the commissioners action within 30 days of the date of receiving the commissioners written decision. The bill would delete the above-described 72-hour notice requirement for a public review. The bill would also require the commissioner and the department to report certain information regarding these reviews and appeals.
(8)The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment.
This bill would expressly exempt from CEQA an approval by the Department of Pesticide Regulation of a pesticide emergency exemption pursuant to specified federal laws. Because a lead agency would be required to determine whether a project qualifies for this exemption, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(9)Under existing law, a violation of specified provisions of the Food and Agricultural Code relating to pest control and pesticides is a misdemeanor.
Because a violation of certain of the above provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons.
(10)This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1)Existing law prohibits a person from advertising, soliciting, or operating as a pest control business, unless the person has a valid pest control business license issued by the Director of Pesticide Regulation and has registered with the county agricultural commissioner. Existing law exempts from this prohibition persons engaged in specified activities, including household or industrial sanitation services.
This bill would exempt from that prohibition persons engaged in sanitation services for the collection, disposal, and treatment of wastewater, refuse, or sewage, rather than household or industrial sanitation services, persons engaged in pool cleaning services, unless the person is selling, applying, using, or distributing a restricted material, and persons engaged in the live capture and removal or exclusion of mice, rats, and pigeons.
(2)Existing law requires a licensed pest control dealer to report quarterly to the director the total dollars of sales and total pounds or gallons sold into or within this state of each pesticide labeled for agricultural use that are subject to the assessments described below.
This bill would require the above-described report to instead include each pesticide subject to the assessments described below, rather than only those pesticides labeled for agricultural use.
(3)Existing law requires every manufacturer of, importer of, or dealer in any pesticide, except as specified, to obtain a certificate of registration from the Department of Pesticide Regulation before the pesticide is offered for sale. Existing law requires the director to establish, by regulation, fees for the departments registration program. Existing law requires the director to endeavor to eliminate from use in the state specified pesticides, and in carrying out this responsibility, to develop an orderly program for the continuous evaluation of all pesticides actually registered, as specified.
This bill would require the department, on or before May 1, 2025, and annually thereafter until May 2, 2028, to report the average processing times to review and evaluate, and issue final decisions on applications to register new pesticide products or to amend existing product registrations for the prior calendar year. The bill would require the department, on or before January 31 of each year, to post on its internet website a determination that it might increase certain registration fees during the calendar year, as provided. The bill would require the department, on and after July 1, 2027, to meet certain timelines to review and evaluate, and issue final decisions on applications to register new pesticide products or amend existing pesticide product registrations, except as provided. The bill would require the department, on or before May 1, 2029, and annually thereafter, to report the average processing times for applications to register new pesticide products or amend existing pesticide product registrations for the prior calendar year, as specified.
This bill would require the department, on or before July 1, 2025, and each year thereafter, until July 2, 2029, to annually identify and initiate the reevaluation of potential adverse effects of at least one pesticide in addition to those already under reevaluation and would, on or before July 1, 2029, and each year thereafter, require the department to annually identify and initiate the reevaluation of potential adverse effects of at least 2 pesticides in addition to those already under reevaluation. The bill would also specify timelines for mitigation measures if the department identifies potential adverse effects for a pesticide pursuant to the above-described provisions.
(4)Existing law requires every person who sells a pesticide product for use in this state that has been registered by the director to pay an assessment on all sales of the pesticide product, and requires the director to establish by regulation a mill assessment rate, not to exceed $0.021. Existing law requires the revenues from the assessment to be deposited into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund, with $0.0076 per dollar of sales for all pesticides sales for use in this state distributed by the director to the counties as reimbursement for costs incurred in the administration and enforcement of provisions relating to pesticides, and the remainder available for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to support the Department of Pesticide Regulations operations. Existing law authorizes the director to collect an additional assessment of up to $0.00075 per dollar of sales for all pesticide sales for use in this state, except as specified, if necessary to fund, or augment the funding for, an appropriation to the Department of Food and Agriculture to provide pesticide consultation to the Department of Pesticide Regulation.
This bill would instead require the assessments to be paid by the person or entity that first sold the pesticide for use in this state. The bill would increase, beginning July 1, 2024, the mill assessment rate for registered pesticides. The bill would increase the maximum amount of the additional assessment to $0.00104 per dollar of sales.
This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 2/3 of the membership of each house of the Legislature.
(5)Existing law authorizes the director, after a hearing, to cancel the registration of, or refuse to register, a pesticide if one or more specified conditions apply, including that the pesticide has demonstrated serious uncontrollable adverse effects either within or outside the agricultural environment.
This bill would revise those specified conditions, including by revising the above-described condition to instead apply when the pesticide has significant adverse environmental effects for which there is no feasible mitigation available.
(6)Existing law requires an action brought pursuant to specified laws relating to pesticides to be commenced by the director, the commissioner, the Attorney General, the district attorney, the city prosecutor, or the city attorney within 2 years of the occurrence of the violation.
This bill would instead require an action to be brought within 3 years of the occurrence of the violation.
Existing law requires an action brought by the director to collect unpaid mill assessments and delinquent fees or to collect civil penalties for a violation of mill assessment requirements and other specified pesticide provisions to be commenced within 4 years of the occurrence of the violation.
This bill would require specified actions for the above-described violations that are discovered during the course of an audit to be commenced within 2 years from the date of the audits completion and would authorize those actions to be brought for a violation occurring within 4 years of the commencement of the audit.
(7)Existing law authorizes an interested person to request the county agricultural commissioner to review their action in issuing, refusing, revoking, suspending, or conditioning a permit to use or possess a restricted material and authorizes the commissioner to affirm, modify, or cancel the permit action reviewed. Existing law authorizes a directly affected person to appeal to the director to review the commissioners action. Existing law requires, before conducting a public review, the director to notify directly affected persons at least 72 hours in advance of the location and time of the public review.
This bill would instead authorize an interested person to appeal to the director to review the commissioners action within 30 days of the date of receiving the commissioners written decision. The bill would delete the above-described 72-hour notice requirement for a public review. The bill would also require the commissioner and the department to report certain information regarding these reviews and appeals.
(8)The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment.
This bill would expressly exempt from CEQA an approval by the Department of Pesticide Regulation of a pesticide emergency exemption pursuant to specified federal laws. Because a lead agency would be required to determine whether a project qualifies for this exemption, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(9)Under existing law, a violation of specified provisions of the Food and Agricultural Code relating to pest control and pesticides is a misdemeanor.
Because a violation of certain of the above provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons.
(10)This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1)Existing law prohibits a person from advertising, soliciting, or operating as a pest control business, unless the person has a valid pest control business license issued by the Director of Pesticide Regulation and has registered with the county agricultural commissioner. Existing law exempts from this prohibition persons engaged in specified activities, including household or industrial sanitation services.
This bill would exempt from that prohibition persons engaged in sanitation services for the collection, disposal, and treatment of wastewater, refuse, or sewage, rather than household or industrial sanitation services, persons engaged in pool cleaning services, unless the person is selling, applying, using, or distributing a restricted material, and persons engaged in the live capture and removal or exclusion of mice, rats, and pigeons.
(2)Existing law requires a licensed pest control dealer to report quarterly to the director the total dollars of sales and total pounds or gallons sold into or within this state of each pesticide labeled for agricultural use that are subject to the assessments described below.
This bill would require the above-described report to instead include each pesticide subject to the assessments described below, rather than only those pesticides labeled for agricultural use.
(3)Existing law requires every manufacturer of, importer of, or dealer in any pesticide, except as specified, to obtain a certificate of registration from the Department of Pesticide Regulation before the pesticide is offered for sale. Existing law requires the director to establish, by regulation, fees for the departments registration program. Existing law requires the director to endeavor to eliminate from use in the state specified pesticides, and in carrying out this responsibility, to develop an orderly program for the continuous evaluation of all pesticides actually registered, as specified.
This bill would require, on or before January 31 of each year, the department to, among other things, post on its internet website an estimated timeframe for processing an application for registration of a pesticide, its determination that it might increase registration fees during the calendar year, and a list of active ingredients that it might place under continuous evaluation in that calendar year, as specified. The bill would require the department, on and after July 1, 2028, to comply with specified timeframes to complete processing of an application for a certificate of registration and, on or before December 31, 2028, and annually thereafter, to report the average processing times for product registrations on its internet website, as provided. The bill would also require the department to post an estimated timeframe for completing the reevaluation of any active ingredient that is undergoing reevaluation on its internet website on or before January 31, 2025, and to initiate reevaluations of at least 2 additional active ingredients on or before January 1, 2026, and at least 5 additional active ingredients on or before January 1, 2027, and each year thereafter. The bill, beginning January 1, 2028, would require the department to complete a reevaluation of an active ingredient within 2 years of initiating the reevaluation. The bill would require each pesticide registrant or applicant to, upon request of the director, submit any data determined by the director to be necessary to carry out the above-described requirements.This bill would require the department, on or before May 1, 2025, and annually thereafter until May 2, 2028, to report the average processing times to review and evaluate, and issue final decisions on applications to register new pesticide products or to amend existing product registrations for the prior calendar year. The bill would require the department, on or before January 31 of each year, to post on its internet website a determination that it might increase certain registration fees during the calendar year, as provided. The bill would require the department, on and after July 1, 2027, to meet certain timelines to review and evaluate, and issue final decisions on applications to register new pesticide products or amend existing pesticide product registrations, except as provided. The bill would require the department, on or before May 1, 2029, and annually thereafter, to report the average processing times for applications to register new pesticide products or amend existing pesticide product registrations for the prior calendar year, as specified.
This bill would require the department, on or before July 1, 2025, and each year thereafter, until July 2, 2029, to annually identify and initiate the reevaluation of potential adverse effects of at least one pesticide in addition to those already under reevaluation and would, on or before July 1, 2029, and each year thereafter, require the department to annually identify and initiate the reevaluation of potential adverse effects of at least 2 pesticides in addition to those already under reevaluation. The bill would also specify timelines for mitigation measures if the department identifies potential adverse effects for a pesticide pursuant to the above-described provisions.
(4)Existing law requires every person who sells a pesticide product for use in this state that has been registered by the director to pay an assessment on all sales of the pesticide product, and requires the director to establish by regulation a mill assessment rate, not to exceed $0.021. Existing law requires the revenues from the assessment to be deposited into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund, with $0.0076 per dollar of sales for all pesticides sales for use in this state distributed by the director to the counties as reimbursement for costs incurred in the administration and enforcement of provisions relating to pesticides, and the remainder available for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to support the Department of Pesticide Regulations operations. Existing law authorizes the director to collect an additional assessment of up to $0.00075 per dollar of sales for all pesticide sales for use in this state, except as specified, if necessary to fund, or augment the funding for, an appropriation to the Department of Food and Agriculture to provide pesticide consultation to the Department of Pesticide Regulation.
This bill would instead require the assessments to be paid by the person or entity that first sold the pesticide for use in this state. The bill would increase, beginning July 1, 2024, the mill assessment rate for registered pesticides and would increase the rate only until June 30, 2027. The bill would require the remainder of the revenues to also be available for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to implement specified laws. pesticides. The bill would increase the maximum amount of the additional assessment to $0.00104 per dollar of sales.
This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 2/3 of the membership of each house of the Legislature.
(5)Existing law authorizes the director, after a hearing, to cancel the registration of, or refuse to register, a pesticide if one or more specified conditions apply, including that the pesticide has demonstrated serious uncontrollable adverse effects either within or outside the agricultural environment.
This bill would revise those specified conditions, including by revising the above-described condition to instead apply when the pesticide has significant adverse environmental effects for which there is no feasible mitigation available.
(6)Existing law requires an action brought pursuant to specified laws relating to pesticides to be commenced by the director, the commissioner, the Attorney General, the district attorney, the city prosecutor, or the city attorney within 2 years of the occurrence of the violation.
This bill would instead require an action to be brought within 3 years of the occurrence of the violation.
Existing law requires an action brought by the director to collect unpaid mill assessments and delinquent fees or to collect civil penalties for a violation of mill assessment requirements and other specified pesticide provisions to be commenced within 4 years of the occurrence of the violation.
This bill would require specified actions for the above-described violations that are discovered during the course of an audit to be commenced within 2 years from the date of the audits completion and would authorize those actions to be brought for a violation occurring within 4 years of the commencement of the audit.
(7)Existing law authorizes an interested person to request the county agricultural commissioner to review their action in issuing, refusing, revoking, suspending, or conditioning a permit to use or possess a restricted material and authorizes the commissioner to affirm, modify, or cancel the permit action reviewed. Existing law authorizes a directly affected person to appeal to the director to review the commissioners action. Existing law requires, before conducting a public review, the director to notify directly affected persons at least 72 hours in advance of the location and time of the public review.
This bill would instead authorize an interested person to appeal to the director to review the commissioners action. action within 30 days of the date of receiving the commissioners written decision. The bill would delete the above-described 72-hour notice requirement for a public review. The bill would also require the commissioner and the department to report certain information regarding these reviews and appeals.
(8)The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment.
This bill would expressly exempt from CEQA an approval by the Department of Pesticide Regulation of a pesticide emergency exemption pursuant to specified federal laws. Because a lead agency would be required to determine whether a project qualifies for this exemption, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(9)Under existing law, a violation of specified provisions of the Food and Agricultural Code relating to pest control and pesticides is a misdemeanor.
Because a violation of certain of the above provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons.
(10)This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1)Existing law prohibits a person from advertising, soliciting, or operating as a pest control business, unless the person has a valid pest control business license issued by the Director of Pesticide Regulation and has registered with the county agricultural commissioner. Existing law exempts from this prohibition persons engaged in specified activities, including household and or industrial sanitation services.
This bill would exempt from that prohibition persons engaged in sanitation services for the collection, disposal, and treatment of wastewater, refuse, or sewage, rather than household and or industrial sanitation services, and would also exempt persons engaged in pool cleaning services, unless the person is selling, applying, using, or distributing a restricted material, or and persons engaged in the live capture and removal or exclusion of mice, rats, and pigeons.
(2)Existing law requires a licensed pest control dealer to report quarterly to the director the total dollars of sales and total pounds or gallons sold into or within this state of each pesticide labeled for agricultural use that are subject to the assessments described below.
This bill would require the above-described report to instead include each pesticide subject to the assessments described below, rather than only those pesticides labeled for agricultural use.
(3)Existing law requires every manufacturer of, importer of, or dealer in any pesticide, except as specified, to obtain a certificate of registration from the Department of Pesticide Regulation before the pesticide is offered for sale. Existing law requires the director to establish, by regulation, fees for the departments registration program. Existing law requires the director to endeavor to eliminate from use in the state specified pesticides, and in carrying out this responsibility, to develop an orderly program for the continuous evaluation of all pesticides actually registered, as specified.
This bill would require, on or before January 31 of each year, the department to, among other things, post on its internet website an estimated timeframe for processing an application for registration of a pesticide, its determination that it might increase registration fees during the calendar year, and a list of active ingredients that it might place under continuous evaluation in that calendar year, and an estimated timeline for completing the reevaluation of any active ingredient that is undergoing reevaluation as of that date, as specified. The bill would require the department, on and after July 1, 2028, to comply with specified timeframes to complete processing of an application for a certificate of registration and, on or before December 31, 2028, and annually thereafter, to report the average processing times for product registrations on its internet website, as provided. The bill would also require the department to post an estimated timeframe for completing the reevaluation of any active ingredient that is undergoing reevaluation on its internet website on or before January 31, 2025, and to initiate reevaluations of at least 2 additional active ingredients on or before January 1, 2026, and at least 5 additional active ingredients on or before January 1, 2027, and each year thereafter. The bill, beginning January 1, 2028, would require the department to complete a reevaluation of an active ingredient within 2 years of initiating the reevaluation. The bill would require each pesticide registrant or applicant to, upon request of the director, submit any data determined by the director to be necessary to carry out the above-described requirements.
(4)Existing law requires every person who sells a pesticide product for use in this state that has been registered by the director to pay an assessment on all sales of the pesticide product, and requires the director to establish by regulation a mill assessment rate, not to exceed $0.021. Existing law requires the revenues from the assessment to be deposited into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund, with $0.0076 per dollar of sales for all pesticides sales for use in this state distributed by the director to the counties as reimbursement for costs incurred in the administration and enforcement of provisions relating to pesticides, and the remainder available for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to support the Department of Pesticide Regulations operations. Existing law authorizes the director to collect an additional assessment of up to $0.00075 per dollar of sales for all pesticide sales for use in this state, except as specified, if necessary to fund, or augment the funding for, an appropriation to the Department of Food and Agriculture to provide pesticide consultation to the Department of Pesticide Regulation.
This bill would instead require the assessment assessments to be paid by the person or entity that first sold the pesticide for use in this state. The bill would establish, increase, beginning July 1, 2024, a specified the mill assessment rate for pesticide products registered pesticides and would require increase the rate to increase only until July 1, 2028, after which the bill would authorize the director, after conducting public workshops, to adopt regulations setting one fixed rate, adequate to support the Department of Pesticide Regulations annual expenditures authorized in the annual Budget Act and to provide a prudent reserve that is no greater than $0.0339. June 30, 2027. The bill would require the remainder of the revenues to also be available for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to implement specified laws. The bill would increase the maximum amount of the additional assessment to $0.00104 per dollar of sales.
This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 2/3 of the membership of each house of the Legislature.
(5)Existing law authorizes the director, after a hearing, to cancel the registration of, or refuse to register, a pesticide if one or more specified conditions apply, including that the pesticide has demonstrated serious uncontrollable adverse effects either within or outside the agricultural environment.
This bill would revise those specified conditions, including by revising the above-described condition to instead apply when the pesticide has significant adverse environmental effects for which there is no feasible mitigation available.
(6)Existing law requires an action brought pursuant to specified laws relating to pesticides to be commenced by the director, the commissioner, the Attorney General, the district attorney, the city prosecutor, or the city attorney within 2 years of the occurrence of the violation.
This bill would instead require an action to be brought within 3 years of the occurrence of the violation.
Existing law requires an action brought by the director to collect unpaid mill assessments and delinquent fees or to collect civil penalties for a violation of mill assessment requirements and other specified pesticide provisions to be commenced within 4 years of the occurrence of the violation.
This bill would require specified actions for the above-described violations that are discovered during the course of an audit to be commenced within 2 years from the date of the audits completion and would authorize those actions to be brought for a violation occurring within 4 years of the commencement of the audit.
(7)Existing law authorizes an interested person to request the county agricultural commissioner to review their action in issuing, refusing, revoking, suspending, or conditioning a permit to use or possess a restricted material and authorizes the commissioner to affirm, modify, or cancel the permit action reviewed. Existing law authorizes a directly affected person to appeal to the director to review the commissioners action. Existing law requires, before conducting a public review, the director to notify directly affected persons at least 72 hours in advance of the location and time of the public review.
This bill would instead authorize an interested person to appeal to the director to review the commissioners action. The bill would delete the above-described 72-hour notice requirement for a public review.
(8)The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment.
This bill would expressly exempt from CEQA an approval by the Department of Pesticide Regulation of a pesticide emergency exemption pursuant to specified federal laws. Because a lead agency would be required to determine whether a project qualifies for this exemption, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(9)Under existing law, a violation of specified provisions of the Food and Agricultural Code relating to pest control and pesticides is a misdemeanor.
Because a violation of certain of the above provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons.
(1)Existing law makes it unlawful for prohibits a person to advertise, solicit, or operate from advertising, soliciting, or operating as a pest control business, unless the person has a valid pest control business license issued by the Director of Pesticide Regulation and has registered with the county agricultural commissioner. Existing law exempts from these provisions this prohibition persons engaged in specified activities, including household and sanitation services.
This bill would exempt persons engaged in sanitation services for the collection, disposal, and treatment of wastewater, refuse, or sewage, rather than household and sanitation services, and would also exempt persons engaged in pool cleaning services, unless the person is selling, applying, using, or distributing a restricted material, or engaged in the live capture and removal or exclusion of mice, rats, and pigeons.
(2)Existing law requires a licensed pest control dealer to report quarterly to the director the total dollars of sales and total pounds or gallons sold into or within this state of each pesticide labeled for agricultural use that are subject to the assessments described below.
This bill would require the above-described report to instead include each pesticide subject to the assessments described below, rather than only those pesticides labeled for agricultural use.
(3)Existing law requires every manufacturer of, importer of, or dealer in any pesticide, except as specified, to obtain a certificate of registration from the Department of Pesticide Regulation before the pesticide is offered for sale. Existing law requires the director to establish, by regulation, fees for the departments registration program. Existing law requires the director to endeavor to eliminate from use in the state specified pesticides, and in carrying out this responsibility, to develop an orderly program for the continuous evaluation of all pesticides actually registered, as specified.
This bill would require, on or before January 31 of each year, the department to, among other things, post on its internet website an estimated timeframe for processing an application for registration of a pesticide, its determination that it might increase registration fees during the calendar year, a list of active ingredients that it might place under continuous evaluation in that calendar year, and an estimated timeline for completing the reevaluation of any active ingredient that is undergoing reevaluation as of that date, as specified. The bill would also require the department to initiate reevaluations of at least 2 additional active ingredients on or before January 1, 2026, and at least 5 additional active ingredients on or before January 1, 2027, and each year thereafter. The bill would require each pesticide registrant or applicant to, upon request of the director, submit any data determined by the director to be necessary to carry out those the above-described requirements.
(4)Existing law requires every person who sells a pesticide product for use in this state that has been registered by the director to pay an assessment on all sales of the pesticide product, and requires the director to establish by regulation a mill assessment rate, not to exceed $0.021. Existing law requires the revenues from the assessment to be deposited into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund, with $0.0076 per dollar of sales for all pesticides sales for use in this state distributed by the director to the counties as reimbursement for costs incurred in the administration and enforcement of provisions relating to pesticides, and the remainder available for expenditure, upon appropriation, appropriation by the Legislature, to support the Department of Pesticide Regulations operations. Existing law authorizes the director to collect an additional assessment of up to $0.00075 per dollar of sales for all pesticide sales for use in this state, except as specified, if necessary to fund, or augment the funding for, an appropriation to the Department of Food and Agriculture to provide pesticide consultation to the Department of Pesticide Regulation.
This bill would instead require the assessment to be paid by the person or entity that first sold the pesticide for use in this state. The bill would establish, beginning July 1, 2024, a specified assessment rate for pesticide products and would require the rate to increase until July 1, 2027, 2028, after which the bill would authorize the director, after conducting public workshops, to adopt regulations setting one fixed rate, adequate to support the Department of Pesticide Regulations annual expenditures authorized in the annual Budget Act and to provide a prudent reserve that is no greater than $0.0339. The bill would require the remainder of the revenues to also be available for expenditure, upon appropriation, appropriation by the Legislature, to implement specified laws. The bill would increase the maximum amount of the additional assessment to $0.00104 per dollar of sales.
This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 2/3 of the membership of each house of the Legislature.
(5)Existing law authorizes the director, after a hearing, to cancel the registration of, or refuse to register, a pesticide if one or more specified conditions apply, including that the pesticide has demonstrated serious uncontrollable adverse effects either within or outside the agricultural environment.
This bill would revise those specified conditions, including by revising the above-described condition to instead apply when the pesticide has significant adverse environmental effects for which there is no feasible mitigation available.
(6)Existing law requires an action brought pursuant to specified pesticide provisions laws relating to pesticides to be commenced by the director, the commissioner, the Attorney General, the district attorney, the city prosecutor, or the city attorney within 2 years of the occurrence of the violation.
This bill would instead require an action to be brought within 3 years of the occurrence of the violation.
Existing law requires an action brought by the director to collect unpaid mill assessments and delinquent fees or to collect civil penalties for a violation of mill assessment requirements and other specified pesticide provisions to be commenced within 4 years of the occurrence of the violation.
This bill would require specified actions for the above-described violations that are discovered during the course of an audit to be commenced within 2 years from the date of the audits completion and would authorize those actions to be brought for a violation occurring within 4 years of the commencement of the audit.
(7)Existing law authorizes any an interested person to request the county agricultural commissioner to review their action in issuing, refusing, revoking, suspending, or conditioning a permit to use or possess a restricted material and authorizes the commissioner to affirm, modify, or cancel the permit action reviewed. Existing law authorizes a directly affected person to appeal to the director to review the commissioners action. Existing law requires, before conducting a public review, the director to notify directly affected persons at least 72 hours in advance of the location and time of the public review.
This bill would require the directly affected person to appeal to the director within 30 days of the date of receiving the commissioners written decision in response to the request to review. The bill would provide that an appellant is considered to be directly affected by the permit action when the appellant establishes that their residence, crop, property, or water supply point source lies within 1/2 mile of the site described in the permit. instead authorize an interested person to appeal to the director to review the commissioners action. The bill would delete the above-described 72-hour notice requirement for a public review.
(8)The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment.
This bill would expressly exempt from CEQA an approval by the Department of Pesticide Regulation of a pesticide emergency exemption pursuant to specified federal laws. Because a lead agency would be required to determine whether a project qualifies for this exemption, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(9)Under existing law, a violation of specified provisions of the Food and Agricultural Code relating to pest control and pesticides is a misdemeanor.
Because a violation of certain of the above provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons.
(1)Existing law makes it unlawful for a person to advertise, solicit, or operate as a pest control business, unless the person has a valid pest control business license issued by the Director of Pesticide Regulation and has registered with the county agricultural commissioner. Existing law exempts from these provisions persons engaged in specified activities, including household and sanitation services.
This bill would exempt persons engaged in sanitation services for the collection, disposal, and treatment of wastewater, refuse, or sewage, rather than household and sanitation services, and would also exempt persons engaged in pool cleaning services, unless the person is selling, applying, using, or distributing a restricted material, or engaged in the live capture and removal or exclusion of mice, rats, and pigeons.
(2)Existing law requires a licensed pest control dealer to report quarterly to the director the total dollars of sales and total pounds or gallons sold into or within this state of each pesticide labeled for agricultural use that are subject to the assessments described below.
This bill would require the above-described report to instead include each pesticide subject to the assessments described below, rather than only those pesticides labeled for agricultural use.
(3)Existing law requires the director to endeavor to eliminate from use in the state specified pesticides, and in carrying out this responsibility, to develop an orderly program for the continuous evaluation of all pesticides actually registered, as specified.
This bill would require each pesticide registrant or applicant to, upon request of the director, submit any data determined by the director to be necessary to carry out those requirements.
(4)Existing law requires every person who sells a pesticide product for use in this state that has been registered by the director to pay an assessment on all sales of the pesticide product, and requires the director to establish by regulation a mill assessment rate, not to exceed $0.021. Existing law requires the revenues from the assessment to be deposited into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund, with $0.0076 per dollar of sales for all pesticides sales for use in this state distributed by the director to the counties as reimbursement for costs incurred in the administration and enforcement of provisions relating to pesticides, and the remainder available for expenditure, upon appropriation, to support the Department of Pesticide Regulations operations. Existing law authorizes the director to collect an additional assessment of up to $0.00075 per dollar of sales for all pesticide sales for use in this state, except as specified, if necessary to fund, or augment the funding for, an appropriation to the Department of Food and Agriculture to provide pesticide consultation to the Department of Pesticide Regulation.
This bill would instead require the assessment to be paid by the person or entity that first sold the pesticide for use in this state. The bill would establish, beginning July 1, 2024, a specified assessment rate for pesticide products and would require the rate to increase until July 1, 2027, after which the bill would authorize the director, after conducting public workshops, to adopt regulations setting one fixed rate, adequate to support the Department of Pesticide Regulations annual expenditures authorized in the annual Budget Act and to provide a prudent reserve that is no greater than $0.0339. The bill would require the remainder of the revenues to also be available for expenditure, upon appropriation, to implement specified laws. The bill would increase the maximum amount of the additional assessment to $0.00104 per dollar of sales.
This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 2/3 of the membership of each house of the Legislature.
(5)Existing law authorizes the director, after a hearing, to cancel the registration of, or refuse to register, a pesticide if one or more specified conditions apply, including that the pesticide has demonstrated serious uncontrollable adverse effects either within or outside the agricultural environment.
This bill would revise those specified conditions, including by revising the above-described condition to instead apply when the pesticide has significant adverse environmental effects for which there is no feasible mitigation available.
(6)Existing law requires an action brought pursuant to specified pesticide provisions to be commenced by the director, the commissioner, the Attorney General, the district attorney, the city prosecutor, or the city attorney within 2 years of the occurrence of the violation.
This bill would instead require an action to be brought within 3 years of the occurrence of the violation.
Existing law requires an action brought by the director to collect unpaid mill assessments and delinquent fees or to collect civil penalties for a violation of mill assessment requirements and other specified pesticide provisions to be commenced within 4 years of the occurrence of the violation.
This bill would require specified actions for the above-described violations that are discovered during the course of an audit to be commenced within 2 years from the date of the audits completion and would authorize those actions to be brought for a violation occurring within 4 years of the commencement of the audit.
(7)Existing law authorizes any interested person to request the county agricultural commissioner to review their action in issuing, refusing, revoking, suspending, or conditioning a permit to use or possess a restricted material and authorizes the commissioner to affirm, modify, or cancel the permit action reviewed. Existing law authorizes a directly affected person to appeal to the director to review the commissioners action. Existing law requires, before conducting a public review, the director to notify directly affected persons at least 72 hours in advance of the location and time of the public review.
This bill would require the directly affected person to appeal to the director within 30 days of the date of receiving the commissioners written decision in response to the request to review. The bill would provide that an appellant is considered to be directly affected by the permit action when the appellant establishes that their residence, crop, property, or water supply point source lies within 1/2 mile of the site described in the permit. The bill would delete the above-described 72-hour notice requirement for a public review.
(8)The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment.
This bill would expressly exempt from CEQA an approval by the Department of Pesticide Regulation of a pesticide emergency exemption pursuant to specified federal laws. Because a lead agency would be required to determine whether a project qualifies for this exemption, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(9)Under existing law, a violation of specified provisions of the Food and Agricultural Code relating to pest control and pesticides is a misdemeanor.
Because a violation of certain of the above provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons.
Existing law, added by the Governors Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1991, creates the Department of Pesticide Regulation and authorizes the Director of Pesticide Regulation, among other things, to adopt regulations for the issuance and renewal of licenses and certificates for pest control operations.This bill would require the department, by July 1, 2024, to establish a Sustainable Pest Management Workgroup that would identify pathways to minimize the use of toxic pesticides and expand the use of integrated pest management practices, among other things. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2026.Existing law, added by the Governors Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1991, creates the Department of Pesticide Regulation and authorizes the Director of Pesticide Regulation, among other things, to adopt regulations for the issuance and renewal of licenses and certificates for pest control operations.
This bill would require the department, by July 1, 2024, to establish a Sustainable Pest Management Workgroup that would identify pathways to minimize the use of toxic pesticides and expand the use of integrated pest management practices, among other things. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2026.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)The Department of Pesticide Regulation is responsible for administering applicable provisions of Division 6 (commencing with Section 11401) and Division 7 (commencing with Section 12500) of the Food and Agricultural Code.
(b)Pursuant to Section 11501 of the Food and Agricultural Code, the purposes of Division 6 (commencing with Section 11401) and certain provisions of Division 7 (commencing with Section 12500) are as follows:
(1)To provide for the proper, safe, and efficient use of pesticides essential for production of food and fiber and for protection of the public health and safety.
(2)To protect the environment from environmentally harmful pesticides by prohibiting, regulating, or ensuring proper stewardship of those pesticides.
(3)To assure the agricultural and pest control workers of safe working conditions where pesticides are present.
(4)To permit agricultural pest control by competent and responsible licensees and permittees under strict control of the director and commissioners.
(5)To assure consumers and users that pesticides are properly labeled and are appropriate for the use designated by the label and that state or local governmental dissemination of information on pesticidal uses of any registered pesticide product is consistent with the uses for which the product is registered.
(6)To encourage the development and implementation of pest management systems, stressing application of biological and cultural pest control techniques with selective pesticides when necessary to achieve acceptable levels of control with the least possible harm to nontarget organisms and the environment.
(c)The department has multiple methods for assessing, evaluating, and mitigating risks from pesticides. Pursuant to Section 12824 of the Food and Agricultural Code, the department shall, among other things, endeavor to eliminate from use in the state any pesticide that endangers the agricultural or nonagricultural environment, is not beneficial for the purposes for which it is sold, or is misrepresented. The department may establish specific criteria to evaluate a pesticide with regard to the factors listed in Section 12825 of the Food and Agricultural Code, including where a pesticide is detrimental to public health and safety when properly used.
(d)Pursuant to Section 11454.1 of the Food and Agricultural Code, the department conducts pesticide risk assessments as appropriate to carry out its responsibilities set forth in Division 6 (commencing with Section 11401) and Division 7 (commencing with Section 12500) of the Food and Agricultural Code and subject to peer review by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
(e)The department may also require the development and submission of additional data through its reevaluation process described in Section 6220 et seq. of Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations.
(f)In carrying out these responsibilities, the department has developed an orderly program for the continuous evaluation of registered pesticides and other activities for evaluating and addressing risks to human health or the environment. These include, but are not limited to, conducting pesticide risk assessments, as appropriate, reevaluating pesticide active ingredients, and developing and implementing measures to mitigate pesticide risks, including by designating pesticides as restricted materials, taking other regulatory action to address risks, and taking action to cancel, suspend, or refuse to register pesticide products. These actions are data-driven and informed by pesticide use monitoring, exposure monitoring and modeling, pesticide illness reports, pesticide enforcement activities, the impacts of climate change, and other relevant information.
SEC. 2.Section 11401.7 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:11401.7.Integrated pest management means an ecosystem-based strategy that focuses on long-term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of techniques such as biological control, habitat manipulation, modification of cultural practices, and use of resistant varieties. Pesticides are used only after monitoring indicates they are needed according to established guidelines and treatments are made with the goal of removing only the target organism. Pest control materials are selected and applied in a manner that minimizes risks to human health, beneficial and nontarget organisms, and the environment.
SEC. 3.Section 11412 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:11412.Sustainable pest management means a holistic, whole system approach applicable to agricultural and other managed ecosystems and urban and rural communities that builds on the concept of integrated pest management to include the wider context of the three sustainability pillars: human health and social equity; environmental protection; and, economic vitality.
SEC. 4.Section 11502.5 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:11502.5.(a)The director may adopt regulations to establish the minimum requirements of education, continuing education, training, experience, and examination for applicants for any license or certificate, or renewal of any license or certificate, issued by the director pursuant to this division or Division 7 (commencing with Section 12500). A regulation adopted or amended pursuant to this section pertaining to continuing education requirements shall establish minimum course requirements related to pesticides and pest management. The director shall approve courses that include plant health, organic and sustainable practices, integrated pest management, water and air monitoring and residue mitigation, maximum residue levels, quarantine practices, and the on-farm storage of fumigants, all in the context of pesticides and pest management. The director shall not renew a license or certificate if the person who was issued the license or certificate did not complete the required continuing education during the period of validity of the license or certificate, and the person shall take and pass the examination to be again issued the license or certificate. The director shall act within 15 business days of receipt to approve or reject continuing education courses submitted to meet the requirements of this division or Division 7 (commencing with Section 12500).
(b)The director shall establish, by regulation, fees for the departments licensing and certification programs as established pursuant to this division or Division 7 (commencing with Section 12500). These programs include, but are not limited to:
(1)License and certificate examination, application, and renewal.
(2)Approval of continuing education courses and continuing education course providers.
(3)Changes related to any license or certificate, including, but not limited to, name or address changes, license or certificate replacement costs, duplicate copy of a license or certificate, and changes in qualified person, bond, insurance, or registered officers.
(4)Penalties for late payment of licensing and certification fees.
(c)The fees established pursuant to this section may include administrative costs, including overhead costs.
(d)The regulations shall provide that the examination fee may be charged to applicants who request the secretary to reschedule an examination due to the applicants failure to obtain a passing score or failure to appear for the scheduled examination, and for scheduling an examination to amend a license.
(e)The fees established pursuant to this section shall be set so that the total revenue collected each fiscal year is sufficient to support the expenditure levels for these programs contained in the annual Budget Act. If the secretary determines that the revenue collected during the preceding year was greater than, or less than, the expenditure levels for these programs set forth in the Budget Act, the secretary may further adjust the current fees to compensate for the overcollection or undercollection.
(f)Funds collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund, and shall be available for expenditure by the department, upon appropriation, for purposes of carrying out the programs established pursuant to this division or Division 7 (commencing with Section 12500).
(g)The regulations adopted pursuant to this section, or any amendment thereto, shall be adopted by the secretary in accordance with Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. The adoption of these regulations shall be considered by the Office of Administrative Law as an emergency, and necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, and general welfare. Notwithstanding any other law, the emergency regulations adopted pursuant to this section shall remain in effect until amended by the secretary.
(h)On or before January 31 of each year, if the director determines that they might increase the fees established pursuant to this section during that calendar year, the department shall post the determination on its internet website and shall distribute the determination through any of the departments relevant email lists.
SEC. 5.Section 11520 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:11520.(a)The Legislature finds and declares that it is important for California to implement sustainable pest management.
(b)In order to achieve the goal described in subdivision (a), it is the intent of the Legislature that the state do all of the following:
(1)Prioritize prevention and strengthen Californias commitment to pest prevention by doing both of the following fundamental actions:
(A)Proactively preventing the establishment of new invasive pest species through a significant expansion of the states biosecurity and invasive pest mitigation system.
(B)Proactively eliminating pest-conducive conditions both in agricultural and urban settings.
(2)Coordinate state-level leadership by doing all of the following:
(A)Creating an accountable and connected leadership structure so that the state effectively embeds sustainable pest management principles across agencies.
(B)Identifying ways to improve coordination within and between agencies and programs for both agricultural and urban pest management.
(C)Enhancing the ability to champion sustainable pest management practices in urban and agricultural settings.
(D)Prompting the development of alternatives by encouraging research and innovation.
(3)(A)Invest in building sustainable pest management knowledge by significantly reinvesting in sustainable pest management-focused research and outreach so that all pest management practitioners have equal and adequate access to the support and resources necessary to develop and implement their own sustainable pest management system in a way that effectively manages pests, minimizes adverse impacts to humans and the environment, and is economically viable.
(B)In agricultural pest management, subparagraph (A) includes securing a significant increase in sustainable pest management-trained technical advisers and funding for sustainable pest management research and outreach and increasing human capacity for those programs in ways that reflect and serve the diversity of California farms and agricultural producers.
(C)In urban pest management, subparagraph (A) includes expanding funding and infrastructure for urban sustainable pest management research, innovation, and outreach to align with and reflect the volume and impacts of pesticides used in urban contexts, which requires providing adequate dedicated annual funding for urban-focused academics, research, and extension.
(4)Improve Californias pesticide registration processes and bring more alternative products to market by doing all of the following:
(A)Creating mechanisms to improve the departments registration review process and to prioritize and expedite safer, more sustainable products.
(B)Requiring the departments processes to reflect the goals of sustainable pest management and requiring the department to provide clarity on its scientific review and decisionmaking process for both registrants and the public.
(C)Requiring the department to improve its processes for evaluating pesticides that are already registered.
(5)Enhance monitoring and data collection by significantly expanding and fully funding health and environmental monitoring infrastructure, data collection, and interpretation, which will enable the state to accurately track pesticide-related human illnesses and the presence of pesticides in land, water, air, biota, and structures and provide pesticide-use data and information needed for sound regulatory decisions.
SEC. 6.Section 11531 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:11531.Except as provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 12001), this division does not apply to any person while engaged in any of the following:
(a)An activity that is defined as structural pest control and required to be licensed under Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 8500) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code.
(b)Preservative treatment of fabrics or structural materials.
(c)Sanitation services for collection, disposal, and treatment of wastewater, refuse, or sewage.
(d)Seed treatment that is incidental to the persons regular business.
(e)Live capture and removal or exclusion of vertebrate pests, bees, or wasps without the use of pesticides. Vertebrate pests include, but are not limited to, bats, raccoons, skunks, squirrels, mice, rats, and pigeons. This section does not exempt a person from the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code).
(f)Pool cleaning services, unless the person is selling, applying, using, or distributing a restricted material.
SEC. 7.Section 12114 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12114.(a)Each licensed pest control dealer, and each person who is required to be licensed as a pest control dealer pursuant to Section 12101, shall maintain at their principal place of business the records of its purchases, sales, and distributions of pesticides into or within this state, including those of its branch locations, for four years. Each dealer shall also maintain the pesticide broker or pest control dealer license number of any pesticide broker or pest control dealer from whom the dealer purchased pesticides registered by the director and labeled for agricultural use. The records shall be available for audit by the director.
(b)Each licensed pest control dealer, and each person who is required to be licensed as a pest control dealer pursuant to Section 12101, shall report quarterly to the director the total dollars of sales and total pounds or gallons sold into or within this state of each pesticide subject to Sections 12841 and 12841.1. The quarterly report shall be in the form prescribed by the director and shall include information from the dealers licensed branch locations, if any, and any other information specified on the form or required by the director. The report shall include a certification, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained in the report is true and correct. The report shall accompany payment of assessments required by Sections 12841 and 12841.1.
SEC. 8.Section 12798 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12798.(a)The department shall establish a competitive grants program to make funds available to qualified public and private entities to conduct pest management research projects. All of the research related to pest management funded by the department shall be administered pursuant to this program.
(b)Research conducted pursuant to this section shall have the further development of alternative pest management practices and methods and the further development of pest exclusion detection and eradication methods as priorities. Before making research awards, the department shall assess existing research activities and developments in integrated pest management, alternatives to pesticides, and other alternative pest management practices and methods, including, but not limited to, cultural, biological, and biotechnological research.
(c)(1)The secretary shall establish a Pest Management Research Committee, which shall award all funds under the competitive grants program.
(2)The primary objective of the committee is the further development of pest prevention activities and alternative pest management practices, techniques, and methods that exclude serious pests, as determined by the committee, detect and quickly eliminate small infestations of foreign pests, and reduce pesticide use, minimize or eliminate pesticide residues, or result in the use of safer pesticides. In achieving that objective, the committee shall encourage the development and use of biological controls, integrated pest management, biotechnology, cultural, pest prevention, and other alternative pest management methods that are environmentally sound and economically viable.
(3)The committee shall consist of the following 12 persons, who shall serve at the pleasure of the secretary:
(A)The Secretary of Food and Agriculture or their designee, who shall serve as chairperson.
(B)The President of the University of California or their designee.
(C)The Chancellor of the California State University or their designee.
(D)Two members who represent the agricultural community, one of whom is an experienced organic farmer and one of whom is knowledgeable and experienced in alternative pest management techniques.
(E)Two members who represent pest management researchers, one of whom represents Californias public and private colleges and universities and one of whom represents Californias independent research community, both of whom are knowledgeable in pest prevention, control, eradication, and pest management.
(F)One member who represents public interest organizations, qualified in environmental or public health, or both, and knowledgeable in alternative pest management techniques.
(G)One member who represents the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, with experience in public health or toxicology.
(H)One member who represents county agricultural commissioners, knowledgeable and experienced in alternative pest management techniques and pest prevention, control, and eradication.
(I)One member who represents the Department of Pesticide Regulation, with experience in pest management systems.
(J)One member who represents the State Department of Public Health, with experience in public health.
(4)The committee shall award funds based upon a competitive application process that meets the eligibility of fulfilling, and has the ability to fulfill, the objectives of this section.
(5)The approval of research proposals shall be made by a majority vote of the membership of the committee.
(d)For any proposals funded pursuant to this section, the department shall require reasonable accountability, including performance standards, periodic reports, deadlines, and payments conditioned on compliance with performance standards and deadlines.
(e)Funding for second and subsequent years of a multiyear award shall be contingent upon satisfactory completion by the grantee of the prior year grant objectives or deliverables, as determined by the committee.
(f)In order to facilitate the use of pest management practices and methods developed pursuant to this section, the secretary shall cooperate with qualified public and private entities to provide outreach consultation, information dissemination, and educational services to the agricultural community and other interested parties.
SEC. 9.Section 12811.2 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:12811.2.(a)On or before May 1, 2025, and annually thereafter, until May 2, 2028, the department shall annually report the average processing times to review and evaluate, and issue final decisions on applications to register new pesticide products or amend existing pesticide product registrations for the prior calendar year, and post this information on its internet website. The report shall include the number of days, on average, that it took to complete an application and the number of days, on average, that an application spent in intake and in each stage of scientific evaluation.
(b)On or before May 1, 2029, and annually thereafter, the department shall report the average processing times for the applications described in subdivision (a) for the prior calendar year and post this information on its internet website. This information shall include all of the following:
(1)The number of applications by registration category that were completed within the timeframes specified pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 12839. This number shall be reported based on nonagricultural, agricultural, and dual use products.
(2)The number of applications that exceeded the timeframes specified in each of subdivision (a), (d), or (e) of Section 12839. This number shall be reported for each respective subdivision based on nonagricultural, agricultural, and dual use products.
(3)The number of days applications spent, on average, in intake and at each stage of scientific evaluation.
SEC. 10.Section 12811.5 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12811.5.The director may rely on any evaluations of previously submitted data to determine whether to accept an application for registration of a new pesticide product, an amendment to the registration of a registered pesticide product, or to maintain the registration of a registered pesticide product regardless of the ownership of the data previously evaluated, if the previously submitted data fulfills current data requirements. However, effective January 1, 2006, applicants will be subject to the following provisions:
(a)(1)If an applicant for registration of a pesticide product, or an amendment to the registration of a registered pesticide product, including a registrant that desires to maintain its registration of a registered pesticide product after the director makes a formal request for additional data pursuant to reevaluation or Section 12824, does not submit its own data to fulfill a current data requirement imposed by the director and relies on data that the applicant does not own or have written permission to rely on that was submitted to the director by another entity after January 1, 1991, and meets the three criteria set forth in this subdivision, the applicant shall either: (A) obtain written permission from the data owner to rely on the data; (B) formulate or obtain its product from a source that has data authorization from the data owner, or a source that complies with subdivision (c); or (C) if the data meets the criteria set forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2), irrevocably offer to pay the data owner a share of the cost of producing the data and comply with subdivision (d). The director may rely on data submitted before January 1, 1991, or that does not meet the criteria set forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2) to support any application or comply with any formal reevaluation request for additional data, without permission from the data owner. An offer to pay, and a payment pursuant to that offer, shall only be required as to data not submitted by the applicant that meets the criteria set forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2).
(2)To be eligible for cost sharing pursuant to this subdivision, the data shall meet all of the following requirements:
(A)The data was required by the director in order to obtain, amend, or maintain the data owners California registration or registrations for uses covered by the application, amendment, or formal request for additional data pursuant to reevaluation or Section 12824.
(B)There has been no arbitration award, data compensation, or data cost-sharing agreement pertaining to data supporting the product at the federal level pursuant to Section 3(c)(1)(F)(iii) or 3(c)(2)(B) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Sec. 136a(c)(1)(F)(iii) or 136a(c)(2)(B)), or, if an award or agreement exists, the use of data in California was excluded from compensation or cost sharing on its face.
(C)The data that fulfills a current requirement was submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the department no more than 15 years before the date of the applicants California registration, application, or amendment or the formal reevaluation request for additional data to which the registrants reliance responds, provided that as to data submitted to the department as of August 1, 2005, in support of the first registration of a product, the applicable period shall be 17 years from the date of submission to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
(b)If the director previously imposed a specific documented data requirement after January 1, 1991, to obtain, amend, or maintain the California registration of a pesticide product substantially similar to the applicants product and that data requirement is not currently imposed in California for registration, amendment, or maintenance of the applicants product, the applicant is further obligated to submit data to meet the requirement, obtain written permission from an owner of the data to rely on the data, formulate or obtain its product from a source that has authorization from the data owner to rely on the data or from a source that complies with subdivision (c), or, if the data meets the criteria set forth in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), irrevocably offer to pay the data owner a share in the cost of producing the data and comply with subdivision (c). An offer to pay, and a payment pursuant to that offer, shall only be required as to data not submitted by the applicant that meets the criteria set forth in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3). To be eligible for cost sharing pursuant to this subdivision, the data shall meet all of the following requirements:
(1)The data met a specific, documented requirement of the director to obtain, amend, or maintain the California registration of the data owners pesticide product for a use covered by the applicants application or amendment.
(2)There has been no arbitration award, data compensation, or data cost-sharing agreement pertaining to data supporting the product at the federal level pursuant to Section 3(c)(1)(F)(iii) or 3(c)(2)(B) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Sec. 136a(c)(1)(F)(iii) or 136a(c)(2)(B)), or, if an award or agreement exists, the use of the data in California was excluded from compensation or cost sharing on its face.
(3)The data was submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency or Department of Pesticide Regulation by the data owner after January 1, 1991, and no more than 15 years before the date of the applicants California application for registration or amendment or the response to a formal specific document data requirement to which the registrants reliance responds, provided that as to data submitted to the department as of August 1, 2005, in support of the first registration of a product, the applicable period shall be 17 years from the date of submission to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
(c)An applicant may formulate its product from a source that does not have data authorization if that source has submitted data to support the product or makes or has made an irrevocable offer to pay the data owner a share of the cost of producing the data required pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) for the applicants product and complies with or has made payment in accordance with subdivision (d). If the source has already reached a data compensation or cost-sharing agreement or there has been an arbitration award under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (commencing with 7 U.S.C. Sec. 136) that excludes the right to rely on the data to satisfy the California requirement on its face, the source shall make or have made a new irrevocable offer to pay a share of the cost of producing that data to support the applicants product in California and comply with subdivision (d).
(d)(1)If an applicant is required to offer to pay a share in the cost of producing the data pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b), or if a source of product makes an offer pursuant to subdivision (c), the applicant or source shall submit to the data owner upon application to the department an irrevocable offer to pay the data owner a share in the cost of producing the data and to comply with regulations promulgated under this subdivision to determine the amount and terms, if the parties cannot agree. If a data owner for which cost sharing is required under subdivision (a) or (b) cannot be identified from information readily available to the applicant, the applicants obligation under subdivision (a) or (b) will be absolved if the data owner does not identify themselves to the applicant within 12 months after registration of the pesticide product. If within 12 months of registration, the data owner identifies themselves to the applicant and the applicant has not already made an irrevocable offer to pay to the data owner, or the applicants source of product has not made an offer pursuant to subdivision (c), the applicant shall do so promptly. In either event, the specific terms and amount of payments to be made shall be fixed by agreement between the applicant and the data owner, but determination of those amounts and terms shall not delay approval of the applicants application.
(2)If agreement cannot be reached about the terms and amount of payment required by this section at any time more than 90 days after issuance of an irrevocable offer to pay, either the applicant, source, or data owner may initiate, or with the consent of all parties, join a proceeding under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (commencing with 7 U.S.C. Sec. 136), pursuant to regulations promulgated by the director pursuant to this section. The purpose of this proceeding shall be to determine the amount due under this section. The director shall promulgate those regulations as emergency regulations within 60 days of the enactment of the bill that enacts this section. The regulations shall provide all of the following:
(A)Allow the proceeding authorized by this subdivision, upon mutual agreement of the parties, to be consolidated with dispute resolution under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (commencing with 7 U.S.C. Sec. 136).
(B)Require that the decisionmaker consider, among other factors, that the data owners exclusive right to sell the pesticide resulted in the data owner recovering all or part of the costs of generating the data.
(C)Require that the parties to the proceeding share equally in the payment of the expenses thereof.
(e)If a data owner fails to participate in a procedure for reaching an agreement or in a proceeding as required by subdivision (d), or fails to comply with the terms of an agreement or decision conducted under subdivision (d), then that data owner forfeits their right to cost recovery as a result of the use of the data at issue.
(f)If the director finds that an applicant has failed to make an offer to pay as required under subdivision (a) or (b), or if its source of product has failed to make an offer pursuant to subdivision (c), or if an applicant or its source of product has failed to participate in a proceeding for reaching an agreement, has refused to participate in a proceeding pursuant to subdivision (d), or has failed to comply with an agreement or to comply with an order, or to pay an award resulting from that proceeding, the director shall cancel the registration of the pesticide product in support of which the data was used in accordance with subdivision (g), notwithstanding Section 12825.
(g)If the applicant subject to subdivision (a) or (b) fails to comply with this article, the data owner shall notify the director of the specific provision of noncompliance and provide proof of notification to the applicant of its claim of noncompliance. All parties shall have 30 days from the date of receipt of notification by the director to submit written evidence or arguments to the director regarding the claim and any defenses thereto. The director shall provide a written finding within 60 days of the deadline for submission as to the claim and the resulting consequences.
(h)A hearing or live testimony shall not be conducted under subdivision (g) and this proceeding shall not be used as mechanism to prevent or delay the registration or payment for cost sharing as determined by this article. The finding of the director shall be final and conclusive, except that any party aggrieved by such a finding may seek review within 30 days of the finding pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(i)In lieu of seeking a determination by the director and cancellation of the registration pursuant to subdivision (f), the data owner may bring an action in any California court of competent jurisdiction against the applicant to enforce the obligations of that party set forth in this section.
(j)Cost sharing as provided in subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) shall not be required to support an application for annual renewal of a pesticide product registration, provided this provision shall not authorize renewal of a product registered before the effective date of this section if that registration is declared to have been unlawfully issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(k)The Department of Pesticide Regulation shall make available in the public domain its index of data submitted in support of registration applications, the ownership of that data, and the date it was submitted to California.
SEC. 11.Section 12812 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12812.(a)The director shall establish, by regulation, fees for the departments registration program, as established pursuant to this division. The fees shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1)Annual fees for each product submitted for registration.
(2)Penalties for the late payment of registration fees.
(3)Fees for amendments to registered products.
(b)The fees established pursuant to this section may include costs for administration and overhead in connection with administering the fees.
(c)The fees established pursuant to this section shall be set so that the total revenue collected each fiscal year is sufficient to support the expenditure levels for the registration program contained in the annual Budget Act.
(d)Funds collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund, and shall be available for expenditure by the department, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for purposes of carrying out the departments pesticide registration program, as established pursuant to this division.
(e)The regulations adopted pursuant to this section, or any amendment or readoption thereto, shall be adopted by the director in accordance with Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. However, the adoption, amendment, readoption, or repeal of these regulations shall be considered by the Office of Administrative Law as an emergency, and necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, and general welfare. Notwithstanding any other law, the regulations shall remain in effect until amended by the director.
(f)On or before January 31 of each year, if the department determines that it might increase the fees established pursuant to this section during the calendar year, the department shall post the determination on its internet website and send the determination through any of its relevant, registration-related email lists.
SEC. 12.Section 12824 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12824.(a)The director shall endeavor to eliminate from use in the state any pesticide that endangers the agricultural or nonagricultural environment, is not beneficial for the purposes for which it is sold, or is misrepresented. In carrying out this responsibility, the director shall develop an orderly program for the continuous evaluation of all pesticides actually registered.
(b)Before a substance is registered as a pesticide for the first time, there shall be a thorough and timely evaluation in accordance with this section. Appropriate restrictions may be placed on its use, including, but not limited to, limitations on quantity, area, and manner of application. All pesticides for which renewal of registration is sought also shall be evaluated in accordance with this section.
(c)The director may establish specific criteria to evaluate a pesticide with regard to the factors listed in Section 12825. The department may establish performance standards and tests that are to be conducted or financed, or both conducted and financed, by the registrants, applicants for registration, or parties interested in the registration of those pesticides.
(d)Each pesticide registrant or applicant shall, upon request of the director, submit any data determined by the director to be necessary to carry out this section.
SEC. 13.Section 12824.5 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:12824.5.(a)(1)On or before July 1, 2025, and annually thereafter, until July 2, 2029, the department shall annually identify and initiate the reevaluation of potential adverse effects of at least one pesticide in addition to those already under reevaluation.
(2)On or before July 1, 2029, and each year thereafter, the department shall annually identify and initiate the reevaluation of potential adverse effects of at least two pesticides in addition to those already under reevaluation.
(b)(1)If the department identifies potential adverse effects of a pesticide pursuant to subdivision (a), the department shall adopt any necessary mitigation measures within 24 months.
(2)If the department is unable to adopt mitigation measures within 24 months, the director shall set forth the reasons this requirement has not been met in the report described in subdivision (c), and include an updated projected timeline for adopting mitigation measures, which shall not exceed an additional 6 months.
(c)The department shall annually report on, and post on its internet website, its actions to identify and evaluate potential adverse effects of pesticides, and to develop mitigation measures to address those effects. The report and internet website posting shall include, but not be limited to, a list of pesticides under risk assessment, reevaluation, or mitigation development, and shall provide the current status and projected timelines associated with each of those actions and all other applicable reporting requirements in this chapter.
(d)The department, on or before July 1, 2026, shall identify actions to improve the efficiency of its internal processes for reevaluating pesticides. The goal of these actions shall be to complete new reevaluations within five years of their initiation. If the department identifies any regulatory or statutory changes that would improve the efficiency of the reevaluation process, the director shall notify the respective policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature of those changes on or before July 1, 2026.
(e)The department, on or before January 1, 2025, shall post on its internet website an estimated completion time for the pesticides that the department has under reevaluation as of January 1, 2024.
SEC. 14.Section 12825 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12825.(a)Pursuant to Section 12824, the director, after a hearing, may cancel the registration of, or refuse to register, a pesticide if any of the following conditions apply:
(1)The pesticide has significant adverse environmental effects for which there is no feasible mitigation available.
(2)The use of the pesticide is of less public value or greater detriment to the environment than the benefit received by its use.
(3)There is a reasonable, effective, and practicable alternate material or procedure for the pesticide that is demonstrably less destructive to the environment.
(4)The pesticide, when properly used, is detrimental to vegetation, except weeds, to domestic animals, or to the public health and safety.
(5)The pesticide is of little or no value for the purpose for which it is intended.
(6)The registrant or their agent makes or implies a false or misleading statement concerning the pesticide, either verbally or in writing, or in the form of any advertising literature, for the purpose of meeting any registration requirement under this division, or that is otherwise related in any way to the pesticide.
(7)The director determines that the registrant has failed to report an adverse effect or risk for the pesticide as required by Section 12825.5.
(8)The director determines that the registrant has failed to comply with the requirements of a reevaluation or to submit the data required as part of the reevaluation of the registrants product or pursuant to Section 12824.
(9)The pesticide is required to be registered pursuant to the federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Sec. 136 et seq.) and is not so registered.
(b)In making a determination pursuant to this section, the director may require those practical demonstrations that are necessary to determine the facts.
SEC. 15.Section 12839 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, immediately following Section 12838, to read:12839.(a)On and after July 1, 2027, the department shall meet the following timelines to review and evaluate, and issue final decisions on applications to register new pesticide products or amend existing pesticide product registrations, as specified in this article, except as provided in subdivisions (b), (d), and (e).
(1)For review and evaluation of and issuance of a final decision on an application for registration of a new active ingredient, 30 months from the date of submittal of a complete application.
(2)For review and evaluation of and issuance of a final decision on an application for registration of a new product or letter of acceptance to amend an existing product registration, when previously evaluated data support registration or amendment and no supporting scientific data is required for review, six months from the date of submittal of a complete application.
(3)For review and evaluation of and issuance of a final decision on an application for registration of a new product or letter of acceptance to amend an existing product registration, when evaluation of data is required, 12 months from the date of submittal of a complete application.
(4)In cases where the submitted application for registration of a new product or amendment of an existing product registration does not include supporting scientific data for review, but the department subsequently determines that the application requires data evaluation, 12 months from the date of submittal of the required data.
(b)The department may toll the applicable timeline provided in subdivision (a) under any of the following circumstances:
(1)The applicant fails to correct a deficiency with the application identified by the department within a 15-business-day timeframe.
(2)An application requires United States Environmental Protection Agency approval.
(3)The applicant corrects a deficiency with the application, but also makes substantive changes to the product or label that exceeds correcting the deficiency.
(4)Nonpayment of a registration fee by the applicant for the certificate of registration.
(5)The application is reliant on data associated with another identical or substantially similar product submission undergoing registration review by the department.
(c)Upon the conclusion of a circumstance that was the basis for the department tolling an applicable timeline pursuant to subdivision (b), the tolling period shall end and the applicable timeline shall resume within 15 business days after the department became aware of the conclusion of the circumstance.
(d)If the department cannot meet an applicable timeline provided in subdivision (a), the director may extend the timeline for up to two 60-day periods by notifying the applicant in writing and specifying both of the following:
(1)The reasons why additional time is needed.
(2)The estimated number of days needed that would allow the director to complete the certificate of registration.
(e)In addition to subdivision (d), the director and the applicant may mutually agree, in writing, to additionally extend an applicable timeline provided in subdivision (a).
SEC. 16.Section 12840 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, immediately following Section 12839, to read:12840.(a)It is the intent of the Legislature that, when the department hires staff due to the mill increases described in Section 12841 and registration fee increases in 2024, the department prioritize hiring for positions within the pesticide registration branch.
(b)Beginning in 2025, the director, when requested by the appropriate policy committees of the Assembly and Senate, but no less than once every two years, shall appear before the appropriate policy committees of the Assembly and Senate to provide an update on the departments performance, including, but not limited to, its performance completing timely registrations and reevaluations pursuant to this chapter, and any other information that the committees request.
SEC. 17.Section 12841 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12841.(a)A person shall not sell for use in this state any pesticide products that have been registered by the director for which the mill assessment established by this article, and the regulations adopted pursuant to it, is not paid at the times specified in Section 12843.
(b)Except as provided in subdivision (d), every person who sells for use in this state a pesticide product that has been registered by the director shall pay to the director the applicable assessment. Those sales expressly include all sales made electronically, telephonically, or by any other means that result in a pesticide product being shipped to or used in this state. There is a rebuttable presumption that pesticide products that are sold or distributed into or within this state by any person are sold or distributed for use in this state.
(c)Upon application of a registrant, the director shall determine whether a fertilizer or paper product is used as a carrier for a pesticide, and is sold in combination, and whether the mill assessment under this article shall be on the pesticide value only, when the product is designed, developed, and manufactured, and sold primarily for other than a pesticide use. If the director finds that the combination product has such a major component and is designed, developed, manufactured, and sold primarily for other than a pesticide use, the assessment provided by this article shall be paid on the equivalent percentage of the sales price of the active ingredients of the pesticide product. The director shall establish this percentage of the sales price. The percentage shall be the ratio of that portion of the sales price attributable to the pesticide portion to the total sales price of the combination product.
(d)Assessments provided for in this article for sales of registered pesticides that are sold for use in this state shall be paid by the person or entity that first sold the pesticide for use in this state.
(e)It has been and continues to be the intent of the Legislature that this division requires the department to register all pesticides before their sale for use in this state and, except as otherwise provided by law, requires the department to regulate and control the use of pesticides in accordance with this division. Except as provided in Section 12841.1, the department shall continue to collect the assessment as provided in this article at the same rate on all registered agricultural and registered nonagricultural pesticides.
(f)(1)The mill assessment shall be paid at the following rates per dollar of sales for all sales of pesticides for use in this state:
(A)From July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025, inclusive, the rate shall be 24.5 mills ($0.0245) per dollar sales of all sales of registered pesticides for use in this state plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1.
(B)From July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2026, inclusive, the rate shall be 27 mills ($0.027) per dollar sales of all sales of registered pesticides for use in this state plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1.
(C)From July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2027, inclusive, the rate shall be 29 mills ($0.029) per dollar sales of all sales of registered pesticides for use in this state plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1.
(D)On and after July 1, 2027, the rate shall be 30 mills ($0.030) per dollar sales of all sales of registered pesticides for use in this state plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1.
(2)The regulations adopted pursuant to this section, or any amendment thereto, shall be adopted by the director in accordance with Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. However, the adoption, amendment, readoption, or repeal of these regulations shall be considered by the Office of Administrative Law as an emergency, and necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, and general welfare. Notwithstanding any other law, the regulations shall remain in effect until amended by the director. The director shall make available to the public, upon the adoption of an emergency regulation establishing a new rate, the information on which the director has calculated, based, or determined the new rate.
(g)The revenue collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund and distributed as follows:
(1)Notwithstanding Sections 2282 and 12784, the director shall pay, in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section 12844, the following amounts to the counties as reimbursement for costs incurred by the counties in the administration and enforcement of Division 6 (commencing with Section 11401), this chapter, Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 14001), Chapter 3.4 (commencing with Section 14090), and Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 14101):
(A)From January 1, 1998, to March 31, 1998, inclusive, five-eighths of the money received during that period pursuant to this section.
(B)From April 1, 1998, to June 30, 2004, an amount equal to the revenue derived from 6 mills ($0.006) per dollar of sales for all pesticide sales for use in this state.
(C)Beginning July 1, 2004, an amount equal to the revenue derived from 7.6 mills ($0.0076) per dollar of sales for all pesticide sales for use in this state.
(2)All funds not otherwise distributed pursuant to this subdivision shall remain in the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund and shall be available for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to support the departments operations.
(h)For purposes of this section, active ingredient means any active ingredient that is required to be stated on the label on any registered pesticide under Section 12883.
SEC. 18.Section 12841.1 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12841.1.(a)The director may collect an assessment, in addition to the mill assessment collected pursuant to Section 12841, for all pesticide sales for use in this state except for sales for use in this state of pesticides labeled solely for home, industrial, or institutional use. The director may only collect up to an additional 1.04 mills ($0.00104) per dollar of sales, in addition to the rate established pursuant to Section 12841, if necessary to fund, or augment the funding for, an appropriation to the Department of Food and Agriculture to provide pesticide consultation to the department pursuant to Section 11454.2. The necessity of this additional assessment shall be determined by the Secretary of Food and Agriculture, in consultation with the director, on an annual basis after consideration of all other revenue sources, including any reserves, that may be appropriated for this purpose. The secretarys written determination, including a request for a specified additional assessment and the basis for that request, shall be provided to the director by a time and in a manner prescribed by the director.
(b)The revenue collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited monthly into a separate account in the Department of Food and Agriculture Fund. These revenues shall be expended only by the Department of Food and Agriculture, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to provide consultation to the department pursuant to Section 11454.2. Funds shall not be expended before the execution of a memorandum of understanding pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 11454.2. The consultation activities to be undertaken by the Department of Food and Agriculture are limited solely to those specifically authorized in the memorandum of understanding executed pursuant to Section 11454.2. These funds shall not be expended for scientific risk assessment activities. The department shall be reimbursed from the Department of Food and Agriculture Fund for the departments revenue collection activities. If the director determines that a person is entitled to a refund of mill assessment funds that were collected pursuant to this section, the director shall inform the Secretary of Food and Agriculture of the amount of the refund due, which shall be reimbursed from the Department of Food and Agriculture Fund.
SEC. 19.Section 12841.4 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12841.4.(a)Every registrant of any production agricultural- or structural-use pesticide product sold for use in this state that is packaged in rigid, nonrefillable, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) containers of 55 gallons or less shall establish a recycling program, or demonstrate participation in a recycling program to ensure HDPE containers are recycled. Container recycling shall comply with the American National Standards Institute American Society of Agriculture and Biological Engineers Standard S596, entitled Recycling Plastic Containers from Pesticides and Pesticide-Related Products, as published in February 2006. The records required by these standards shall be maintained for four years and shall be subject to audit by the director.
(b)A registrant who is required to establish or participate in a recycling program pursuant to this section shall provide to the director, at least annually, a document certifying that this requirement has been met.
(c)(1)The director may adopt regulations to carry out the purposes of this section. Upon a federal pesticide container recycling program being adopted, the director may adopt regulations to conform to the federal program.
(2)It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section that any regulatory standards adopted by the department shall be at least as stringent as those standards referred to in subdivision (a).
(d)The department shall estimate a recycling rate for pesticide containers and propose suggestions for program improvements and post this information annually on its internet website.
SEC. 20.Section 12842 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12842.Every person who sells for use in this state any pesticide products that have been registered by the director shall maintain in this state, or with the directors permission at another location, an accurate record of all pesticide transactions for four years. The records are subject to audit by the director and shall clearly demonstrate proof of payment of all applicable assessments for each registered pesticide product sold for use in this state.
SEC. 21.Section 12847 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12847.Sales invoices for pesticides first sold into or within this state shall show that the assessments specified in Sections 12841 and 12841.1 will be paid by the person or entity that first sold the pesticide for use in the state. All other sales invoices for pesticides sold into or within this state, except retail sales of those nonagricultural pesticides labeled only for home, industrial, or institutional use, shall show as a comment on the invoice that the assessment will be paid, and may show an amount or rate that represents the assessment. However, only the person who actually will pay the assessment may show the amount or rate of the assessment as a line item on the sales invoice.
SEC. 22.Section 12999.4 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12999.4.(a)In lieu of civil prosecution by the director, the director may levy a civil penalty against a person violating subdivision (d) or (e) of Section 11792, Sections 12101, 12101.5, 12114, 12115, 12116, 12581, 12603, 12671, 12992, and 12993, Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 12400) of Division 6, Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 12841), Section 13186.5, Chapter 7.5 (commencing with Section 15300), or the regulations adopted pursuant to those provisions, and Sections 6560, 6562, 6564, 6568, 6574, 6576, and 6577 of Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations, of not more than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for each violation.
(b)Before a civil penalty is levied, the person charged with the violation shall be given a written notice of the proposed action, including the nature of the violation and the amount of the proposed penalty, and shall have the right to request a hearing within 20 days after receiving notice of the proposed action. A notice of the proposed action that is sent by certified mail to the last known address of the person charged shall be considered received even if delivery is refused or the notice is not accepted at that address. If a hearing is requested, notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given at least 10 days before the date set for the hearing. Before the hearing, the person shall be given an opportunity to review the directors evidence. At the hearing, the person shall be given the opportunity to present evidence on their own behalf. If a hearing is not timely requested, the director may take the action proposed without a hearing.
(c)If the person against whom the director levied a civil penalty requested and appeared at a hearing, the person may seek review of the directors decision within 30 days of the date of the decision pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(d)After the exhaustion of the review procedure provided in this section, the director, or the directors representative, may file a certified copy of a final decision of the director that directs the payment of a civil penalty and, if applicable, any order that denies a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus, with the clerk of the superior court of any county. Judgment shall be entered immediately by the clerk in conformity with the decision or order. Pursuant to Section 6103 of the Government Code, the clerk of the superior court shall not charge a fee for the performance of any official service required in connection with the entry of judgment pursuant to this section.
(e)Any money recovered under this section shall be paid into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund for use by the department, upon appropriation by the Legislature, in administering this division and Division 6 (commencing with Section 11401).
SEC. 23.Section 13000 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:13000.(a)Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), an action brought pursuant to this article shall be commenced by the director, the commissioner, the Attorney General, the district attorney, the city prosecutor, or the city attorney, as the case may be, within three years of the occurrence of the violation.
(b)When a commissioner submits a completed investigation to the director for action by the director or the Attorney General, the action shall be commenced within one year of that submission. However, this subdivision does not preclude the director from returning the investigation to the commissioner for action to be commenced by the commissioner, the district attorney, the city prosecutor, or the city attorney, as provided in subdivision (a).
(c)(1)An action brought by the director to collect unpaid mill assessments and delinquent fees required by Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 12841) or an action brought by the director to collect civil penalties pursuant to Section 12999.4 for violations of Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 12841), Section 12992, Section 12993, or Section 12995 shall be commenced within four years of the occurrence of the violation, except as provided in paragraph (2).
(2)An action brought by the director pursuant to Section 12999.4 or 12998 for violations of Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 12841) or Section 12992, 12993, or 12995 that are discovered during the course of an audit performed pursuant to Section 12842 shall be commenced within two years from the date of audit completion and may be brought for a violation occurring within four years of the commencement of the audit.
SEC. 24.Section 14006.5 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:14006.5.(a)Except as provided in Section 14006.6, a person shall not use or possess a pesticide designated as a restricted material for any agricultural use except under a written permit of the commissioner. A permit shall not be issued for any restricted material for use in any manner other than pursuant to its registration without the approval of the director. In addition, a permit shall not be granted if the commissioner determines that paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 12825 would be applicable to the proposed use.
(b)Before issuing a permit for a pesticide, the commissioner shall consider local conditions, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(1)Use in vicinity of schools, dwellings, hospitals, recreational areas, and livestock enclosures.
(2)Problems related to heterogeneous planting of crops.
(3)Applications of materials known to create severe resurgence or secondary pest problems without compensating control of pest species.
(4)Meteorological conditions for use.
(5)Timing of applications in relation to bee activity.
(6)Provisions for proper storage of pesticides and disposal of containers.
(c)Each permit issued for any pesticide shall include conditions for use in writing.
SEC. 25.Section 14009 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:14009.(a)(1)An interested person may request the commissioner to review their action in issuing, refusing, revoking, suspending, or conditioning a permit to use or possess a restricted material. The request for review of the commissioners action shall be limited to the issues described in subdivision (d). The commissioner shall review the request and issue a written decision in response to the request to review within 10 days of receipt of the request. If the commissioner is unable to complete the review within 10 days, the commissioner shall notify the person requesting a review in writing, including an estimated timeline for completion. The commissioner may affirm, modify, or cancel the permit action reviewed. An interested person may thereafter appeal to the director to review the commissioners action within 30 days of the date of receiving the commissioners written decision.
(2)No later than January 31 of each year, the commissioner shall report to the director the number and share of total reviews within their jurisdiction in the previous calendar year that were not completed within the 10-day timeline provided in this subdivision, the average number of days required for review, and the number of permits that were affirmed, modified, or cancelled.
(b)The commissioner and director shall conduct each review in an expeditious manner so that needed pest control measures are not adversely affected.
(c)Each request for review, limited to the issues described in subdivision (d), shall be submitted in writing to the commissioner by the person requesting the review and shall include all of the following:
(1)The location of persons, property, or areas that would be affected and the location of property to be treated.
(2)The name of the restricted material involved.
(3)The name and address of the person in charge of the property to be treated, if different from the person filing the request for review.
(4)Any other information that the person filing the request for review or the commissioner determines to be relevant.
(d)In an appeal of a commissioners action to the director, the issues are limited to any of the following:
(1)Whether the proposed permit use is consistent with applicable pesticide label restrictions and applicable regulations.
(2)Whether the commissioner properly considered Section 14006.5.
(3)Whether the commissioner abused their discretion in issuing, refusing, revoking, or conditioning the permit.
(e)The director shall act on these appeals within 10 days of receipt thereof. If the director is unable to complete the review within 10 days, the director shall notify the appellant, in writing, including an estimated timeline for completion. The director may stay the operation of a permit until their review is complete. As part of its annual reporting requirements pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 12824.5, the department shall report the number and share of total cases in which the director did not meet the timeline provided in this subdivision, the average number of days required for review of appeals, and the number of permits that were affirmed, modified, or cancelled.
(f)(1)Before acting on an appeal, the director shall make publicly available all of the information provided to them as specified in this section if requested to do so in writing by any interested person.
(2)At any time before acting on an appeal, the director may request additional testimony or other evidence specified in this section at the public review from interested persons.
(g)Judicial review of any decision by the director pursuant to this section shall be pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Review shall be limited to whether the proposed permit use is consistent with applicable pesticide label restrictions and regulations and whether the director abused their discretion.
SEC. 26.Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code is amended to read:21080.(a)Except as otherwise provided in this division, this division shall apply to discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies, including, but not limited to, the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of zoning variances, the issuance of conditional use permits, and the approval of tentative subdivision maps unless the project is exempt from this division.
(b)This division does not apply to any of the following activities:
(1)Ministerial projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies.
(2)Emergency repairs to public service facilities necessary to maintain service.
(3)Projects undertaken, carried out, or approved by a public agency to maintain, repair, restore, demolish, or replace property or facilities damaged or destroyed as a result of a disaster in a disaster-stricken area in which a state of emergency has been proclaimed by the Governor pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 8550) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(4)Specific actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency.
(5)Projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves.
(6)Actions undertaken by a public agency relating to any thermal powerplant site or facility, including the expenditure, obligation, or encumbrance of funds by a public agency for planning, engineering, or design purposes, or for the conditional sale or purchase of equipment, fuel, water (except groundwater), steam, or power for a thermal powerplant, if the powerplant site and related facility will be the subject of an environmental impact report, negative declaration, or other document, prepared pursuant to a regulatory program certified pursuant to Section 21080.5, which will be prepared by the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, by the Public Utilities Commission, or by the city or county in which the powerplant and related facility would be located if the environmental impact report, negative declaration, or document includes the environmental impact, if any, of the action described in this paragraph.
(7)Activities or approvals necessary to the bidding for, hosting or staging of, and funding or carrying out of, an Olympic Games under the authority of the International Olympic Committee, except for the construction of facilities necessary for the Olympic Games.
(8)The establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, or other charges by public agencies that the public agency finds are for the purpose of: (A) meeting operating expenses, including employee wage rates and fringe benefits; (B) purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment, or materials; (C) meeting financial reserve needs and requirements; (D) obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service areas; or (E) obtaining funds necessary to maintain those intracity transfers as are authorized by city charter. The public agency shall incorporate written findings in the record of any proceeding in which an exemption under this paragraph is claimed setting forth with specificity the basis for the claim of exemption.
(9)All classes of projects designated pursuant to Section 21084.
(10)A project for the institution or increase of passenger or commuter services on rail or highway rights-of-way already in use, including modernization of existing stations and parking facilities. For purposes of this paragraph, highway has the same meaning as defined in Section 360 of the Vehicle Code.
(11)A project for the institution or increase of passenger or commuter service on high-occupancy vehicle lanes already in use, including the modernization of existing stations and parking facilities.
(12)Facility extensions not to exceed four miles in length that are required for the transfer of passengers from or to exclusive public mass transit guideway or busway public transit services.
(13)A project for the development of a regional transportation improvement program, the state transportation improvement program, or a congestion management program prepared pursuant to Section 65089 of the Government Code.
(14)A project or portion of a project located in another state that will be subject to environmental impact review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321 et seq.) or similar state laws of that state. Any emissions or discharges that would have a significant effect on the environment in this state are subject to this division.
(15)Projects undertaken by a local agency to implement a rule or regulation imposed by a state agency, board, or commission under a certified regulatory program pursuant to Section 21080.5. Any site-specific effect of the project that was not analyzed as a significant effect on the environment in the plan or other written documentation required by Section 21080.5 is subject to this division.
(16)Approval by the Department of Pesticide Regulation of a pesticide emergency exemption pursuant to Section 136p of Title 7 of the United States Code.
(c)If a lead agency determines that a proposed project, not otherwise exempt from this division, would not have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall adopt a negative declaration to that effect. The negative declaration shall be prepared for the proposed project in either of the following circumstances:
(1)There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
(2)An initial study identifies potentially significant effects on the environment, but: (A) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur; and (B) there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.
(d)If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report shall be prepared.
(e)(1)For purposes of this section and this division, substantial evidence includes fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact.
(2)Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment.
(f)As a result of the public review process for a mitigated negative declaration, including administrative decisions and public hearings, the lead agency may conclude that certain mitigation measures identified pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) are infeasible or otherwise undesirable. In those circumstances, the lead agency, before approving the project, may delete those mitigation measures and substitute for them other mitigation measures that the lead agency finds, after holding a public hearing on the matter, are equivalent or more effective in mitigating significant effects on the environment to a less than significant level and that do not cause any potentially significant effect on the environment. If those new mitigation measures are made conditions of project approval or are otherwise made part of the project approval, the deletion of the former measures and the substitution of the new mitigation measures shall not constitute an action or circumstance requiring recirculation of the mitigated negative declaration.
(g)This section does not preclude a project applicant or any other person from challenging, in an administrative or judicial proceeding, the legality of a condition of project approval imposed by the lead agency. If, however, any condition of project approval set aside by either an administrative body or court was necessary to avoid or lessen the likelihood of the occurrence of a significant effect on the environment, the lead agencys approval of the negative declaration and project shall be invalid and a new environmental review process shall be conducted before the project can be reapproved, unless the lead agency substitutes a new condition that the lead agency finds, after holding a public hearing on the matter, is equivalent to, or more effective in, lessening or avoiding significant effects on the environment and that does not cause any potentially significant effect on the environment.
SEC. 27.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act or because costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
SEC. 28.This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to ensure that the state has long-term fiscal health to protect human health and the environment by fostering sustainable pest management and regulating pesticides, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)The Department of Pesticide Regulation is responsible for administering applicable provisions of Division 6 (commencing with Section 11401) and Division 7 (commencing with Section 12500) of the Food and Agricultural Code.
(b)Pursuant to Section 11501 of the Food and Agricultural Code, the purposes of Division 6 (commencing with Section 11401) and certain provisions of Division 7 (commencing with Section 12500) are as follows:
(1)To provide for the proper, safe, and efficient use of pesticides essential for production of food and fiber and for protection of the public health and safety.
(2)To protect the environment from environmentally harmful pesticides by prohibiting, regulating, or ensuring proper stewardship of those pesticides.
(3)To assure the agricultural and pest control workers of safe working conditions where pesticides are present.
(4)To permit agricultural pest control by competent and responsible licensees and permittees under strict control of the director and commissioners.
(5)To assure consumers and users that pesticides are properly labeled and are appropriate for the use designated by the label and that state or local governmental dissemination of information on pesticidal uses of any registered pesticide product is consistent with the uses for which the product is registered.
(6)To encourage the development and implementation of pest management systems, stressing application of biological and cultural pest control techniques with selective pesticides when necessary to achieve acceptable levels of control with the least possible harm to nontarget organisms and the environment.
(c)The department has multiple methods for assessing, evaluating, and mitigating risks from pesticides. Pursuant to Section 12824 of the Food and Agricultural Code, the department shall, among other things, endeavor to eliminate from use in the state any pesticide that endangers the agricultural or nonagricultural environment, is not beneficial for the purposes for which it is sold, or is misrepresented. The department may establish specific criteria to evaluate a pesticide with regard to the factors listed in Section 12825 of the Food and Agricultural Code, including where a pesticide is detrimental to public health and safety when properly used.
(d)Pursuant to Section 11454.1 of the Food and Agricultural Code, the department conducts pesticide risk assessments as appropriate to carry out its responsibilities set forth in Division 6 (commencing with Section 11401) and Division 7 (commencing with Section 12500) of the Food and Agricultural Code and subject to peer review by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
(e)The department may also require the development and submission of additional data through its reevaluation process described in Section 6220 et seq. of Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations.
(f)In carrying out these responsibilities, the department has developed an orderly program for the continuous evaluation of registered pesticides and other activities for evaluating and addressing risks to human health or the environment. These include, but are not limited to, conducting pesticide risk assessments, as appropriate, reevaluating pesticide active ingredients, and developing and implementing measures to mitigate pesticide risks, including by designating pesticides as restricted materials, taking other regulatory action to address risks, and taking action to cancel, suspend, or refuse to register pesticide products. These actions are data-driven and informed by pesticide use monitoring, exposure monitoring and modeling, pesticide illness reports, pesticide enforcement activities, the impacts of climate change, and other relevant information.
SEC. 2.Section 11401.7 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:11401.7.Integrated pest management means an ecosystem-based strategy that focuses on long-term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of techniques such as biological control, habitat manipulation, modification of cultural practices, and use of resistant varieties. Pesticides are used only after monitoring indicates they are needed according to established guidelines and treatments are made with the goal of removing only the target organism. Pest control materials are selected and applied in a manner that minimizes risks to human health, beneficial and nontarget organisms, and the environment.
SEC. 3.Section 11412 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:11412.Sustainable pest management means a holistic, whole system approach applicable to agricultural and other managed ecosystems and urban and rural communities that builds on the concept of integrated pest management to include the wider context of the three sustainability pillars: human health and social equity; environmental protection; and, economic vitality.
SEC. 4.Section 11502.5 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:11502.5.(a)The director may adopt regulations to establish the minimum requirements of education, continuing education, training, experience, and examination for applicants for any license or certificate, or renewal of any license or certificate, issued by the director pursuant to this division or Division 7 (commencing with Section 12500). A regulation adopted or amended pursuant to this section pertaining to continuing education requirements shall establish minimum course requirements related to pesticides and pest management. The director shall approve courses that include plant health, organic and sustainable practices, integrated pest management, water and air monitoring and residue mitigation, maximum residue levels, quarantine practices, and the on-farm storage of fumigants, all in the context of pesticides and pest management. The director shall not renew a license or certificate if the person who was issued the license or certificate did not complete the required continuing education during the period of validity of the license or certificate, and the person shall take and pass the examination to be again issued the license or certificate. The director shall act within 15 business days of receipt to approve or reject continuing education courses submitted to meet the requirements of this division or Division 7 (commencing with Section 12500).
(b)The director shall establish, by regulation, fees for the departments licensing and certification programs as established pursuant to this division or Division 7 (commencing with Section 12500). These programs include, but are not limited to:
(1)License and certificate examination, application, and renewal.
(2)Approval of continuing education courses and continuing education course providers.
(3)Changes related to any license or certificate, including, but not limited to, name or address changes, license or certificate replacement costs, duplicate copy of a license or certificate, and changes in qualified person, bond, insurance, or registered officers.
(4)Penalties for late payment of licensing and certification fees.
(c)The fees established pursuant to this section may include administrative costs, including overhead costs.
(d)The regulations shall provide that the examination fee may be charged to applicants who request the secretary to reschedule an examination due to the applicants failure to obtain a passing score or failure to appear for the scheduled examination, and for scheduling an examination to amend a license.
(e)The fees established pursuant to this section shall be set so that the total revenue collected each fiscal year is sufficient to support the expenditure levels for these programs contained in the annual Budget Act. If the secretary determines that the revenue collected during the preceding year was greater than, or less than, the expenditure levels for these programs set forth in the Budget Act, the secretary may further adjust the current fees to compensate for the overcollection or undercollection.
(f)Funds collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund, and shall be available for expenditure by the department, upon appropriation, for purposes of carrying out the programs established pursuant to this division or Division 7 (commencing with Section 12500).
(g)The regulations adopted pursuant to this section, or any amendment thereto, shall be adopted by the secretary in accordance with Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. The adoption of these regulations shall be considered by the Office of Administrative Law as an emergency, and necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, and general welfare. Notwithstanding any other law, the emergency regulations adopted pursuant to this section shall remain in effect until amended by the secretary.
(h)On or before January 31 of each year, if the director determines that they might increase the fees established pursuant to this section during that calendar year, the department shall post the determination on its internet website and shall distribute the determination through any of the departments relevant email lists.
SEC. 5.Section 11520 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:11520.(a)The Legislature finds and declares that it is important for California to implement sustainable pest management.
(b)In order to achieve the goal described in subdivision (a), it is the intent of the Legislature that the state do all of the following:
(1)Prioritize prevention and strengthen Californias commitment to pest prevention by doing both of the following fundamental actions:
(A)Proactively preventing the establishment of new invasive pest species through a significant expansion of the states biosecurity and invasive pest mitigation system.
(B)Proactively eliminating pest-conducive conditions both in agricultural and urban settings.
(2)Coordinate state-level leadership by doing all of the following:
(A)Creating an accountable and connected leadership structure so that the state effectively embeds sustainable pest management principles across agencies.
(B)Identifying ways to improve coordination within and between agencies and programs for both agricultural and urban pest management.
(C)Enhancing the ability to champion sustainable pest management practices in urban and agricultural settings.
(D)Prompting the development of alternatives by encouraging research and innovation.
(3)(A)Invest in building sustainable pest management knowledge by significantly reinvesting in sustainable pest management-focused research and outreach so that all pest management practitioners have equal and adequate access to the support and resources necessary to develop and implement their own sustainable pest management system in a way that effectively manages pests, minimizes adverse impacts to humans and the environment, and is economically viable.
(B)In agricultural pest management, subparagraph (A) includes securing a significant increase in sustainable pest management-trained technical advisers and funding for sustainable pest management research and outreach and increasing human capacity for those programs in ways that reflect and serve the diversity of California farms and agricultural producers.
(C)In urban pest management, subparagraph (A) includes expanding funding and infrastructure for urban sustainable pest management research, innovation, and outreach to align with and reflect the volume and impacts of pesticides used in urban contexts, which requires providing adequate dedicated annual funding for urban-focused academics, research, and extension.
(4)Improve Californias pesticide registration processes and bring more alternative products to market by doing all of the following:
(A)Creating mechanisms to improve the departments registration review process and to prioritize and expedite safer, more sustainable products.
(B)Requiring the departments processes to reflect the goals of sustainable pest management and requiring the department to provide clarity on its scientific review and decisionmaking process for both registrants and the public.
(C)Requiring the department to improve its processes for evaluating pesticides that are already registered.
(5)Enhance monitoring and data collection by significantly expanding and fully funding health and environmental monitoring infrastructure, data collection, and interpretation, which will enable the state to accurately track pesticide-related human illnesses and the presence of pesticides in land, water, air, biota, and structures and provide pesticide-use data and information needed for sound regulatory decisions.
SEC. 6.Section 11531 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:11531.Except as provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 12001), this division does not apply to any person while engaged in any of the following:
(a)An activity that is defined as structural pest control and required to be licensed under Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 8500) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code.
(b)Preservative treatment of fabrics or structural materials.
(c)Sanitation services for collection, disposal, and treatment of wastewater, refuse, or sewage.
(d)Seed treatment that is incidental to the persons regular business.
(e)Live capture and removal or exclusion of vertebrate pests, bees, or wasps without the use of pesticides. Vertebrate pests include, but are not limited to, bats, raccoons, skunks, squirrels, mice, rats, and pigeons. This section does not exempt a person from the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code).
(f)Pool cleaning services, unless the person is selling, applying, using, or distributing a restricted material.
SEC. 7.Section 12114 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12114.(a)Each licensed pest control dealer, and each person who is required to be licensed as a pest control dealer pursuant to Section 12101, shall maintain at their principal place of business the records of its purchases, sales, and distributions of pesticides into or within this state, including those of its branch locations, for four years. Each dealer shall also maintain the pesticide broker or pest control dealer license number of any pesticide broker or pest control dealer from whom the dealer purchased pesticides registered by the director and labeled for agricultural use. The records shall be available for audit by the director.
(b)Each licensed pest control dealer, and each person who is required to be licensed as a pest control dealer pursuant to Section 12101, shall report quarterly to the director the total dollars of sales and total pounds or gallons sold into or within this state of each pesticide subject to Sections 12841 and 12841.1. The quarterly report shall be in the form prescribed by the director and shall include information from the dealers licensed branch locations, if any, and any other information specified on the form or required by the director. The report shall include a certification, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained in the report is true and correct. The report shall accompany payment of assessments required by Sections 12841 and 12841.1.
SEC. 8.Section 12798 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12798.(a)The department shall establish a competitive grants program to make funds available to qualified public and private entities to conduct pest management research projects. All of the research related to pest management funded by the department shall be administered pursuant to this program.
(b)Research conducted pursuant to this section shall have the further development of alternative pest management practices and methods and the further development of pest exclusion detection and eradication methods as priorities. Before making research awards, the department shall assess existing research activities and developments in integrated pest management, alternatives to pesticides, and other alternative pest management practices and methods, including, but not limited to, cultural, biological, and biotechnological research.
(c)(1)The secretary shall establish a Pest Management Research Committee, which shall award all funds under the competitive grants program.
(2)The primary objective of the committee is the further development of pest prevention activities and alternative pest management practices, techniques, and methods that exclude serious pests, as determined by the committee, detect and quickly eliminate small infestations of foreign pests, and reduce pesticide use, minimize or eliminate pesticide residues, or result in the use of safer pesticides. In achieving that objective, the committee shall encourage the development and use of biological controls, integrated pest management, biotechnology, cultural, pest prevention, and other alternative pest management methods that are environmentally sound and economically viable.
(3)The committee shall consist of the following 12 persons, who shall serve at the pleasure of the secretary:
(A)The Secretary of Food and Agriculture or their designee, who shall serve as chairperson.
(B)The President of the University of California or their designee.
(C)The Chancellor of the California State University or their designee.
(D)Two members who represent the agricultural community, one of whom is an experienced organic farmer and one of whom is knowledgeable and experienced in alternative pest management techniques.
(E)Two members who represent pest management researchers, one of whom represents Californias public and private colleges and universities and one of whom represents Californias independent research community, both of whom are knowledgeable in pest prevention, control, eradication, and pest management.
(F)One member who represents public interest organizations, qualified in environmental or public health, or both, and knowledgeable in alternative pest management techniques.
(G)One member who represents the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, with experience in public health or toxicology.
(H)One member who represents county agricultural commissioners, knowledgeable and experienced in alternative pest management techniques and pest prevention, control, and eradication.
(I)One member who represents the Department of Pesticide Regulation, with experience in pest management systems.
(J)One member who represents the State Department of Public Health, with experience in public health.
(4)The committee shall award funds based upon a competitive application process that meets the eligibility of fulfilling, and has the ability to fulfill, the objectives of this section.
(5)The approval of research proposals shall be made by a majority vote of the membership of the committee.
(d)For any proposals funded pursuant to this section, the department shall require reasonable accountability, including performance standards, periodic reports, deadlines, and payments conditioned on compliance with performance standards and deadlines.
(e)Funding for second and subsequent years of a multiyear award shall be contingent upon satisfactory completion by the grantee of the prior year grant objectives or deliverables, as determined by the committee.
(f)In order to facilitate the use of pest management practices and methods developed pursuant to this section, the secretary shall cooperate with qualified public and private entities to provide outreach consultation, information dissemination, and educational services to the agricultural community and other interested parties.
SEC. 9.Section 12811.2 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:12811.2.(a)On or before May 1, 2025, and annually thereafter, until May 2, 2028, the department shall annually report the average processing times to review and evaluate, and issue final decisions on applications to register new pesticide products or amend existing pesticide product registrations for the prior calendar year, and post this information on its internet website. The report shall include the number of days, on average, that it took to complete an application and the number of days, on average, that an application spent in intake and in each stage of scientific evaluation.
(b)On or before May 1, 2029, and annually thereafter, the department shall report the average processing times for the applications described in subdivision (a) for the prior calendar year and post this information on its internet website. This information shall include all of the following:
(1)The number of applications by registration category that were completed within the timeframes specified pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 12839. This number shall be reported based on nonagricultural, agricultural, and dual use products.
(2)The number of applications that exceeded the timeframes specified in each of subdivision (a), (d), or (e) of Section 12839. This number shall be reported for each respective subdivision based on nonagricultural, agricultural, and dual use products.
(3)The number of days applications spent, on average, in intake and at each stage of scientific evaluation.
SEC. 10.Section 12811.5 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12811.5.The director may rely on any evaluations of previously submitted data to determine whether to accept an application for registration of a new pesticide product, an amendment to the registration of a registered pesticide product, or to maintain the registration of a registered pesticide product regardless of the ownership of the data previously evaluated, if the previously submitted data fulfills current data requirements. However, effective January 1, 2006, applicants will be subject to the following provisions:
(a)(1)If an applicant for registration of a pesticide product, or an amendment to the registration of a registered pesticide product, including a registrant that desires to maintain its registration of a registered pesticide product after the director makes a formal request for additional data pursuant to reevaluation or Section 12824, does not submit its own data to fulfill a current data requirement imposed by the director and relies on data that the applicant does not own or have written permission to rely on that was submitted to the director by another entity after January 1, 1991, and meets the three criteria set forth in this subdivision, the applicant shall either: (A) obtain written permission from the data owner to rely on the data; (B) formulate or obtain its product from a source that has data authorization from the data owner, or a source that complies with subdivision (c); or (C) if the data meets the criteria set forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2), irrevocably offer to pay the data owner a share of the cost of producing the data and comply with subdivision (d). The director may rely on data submitted before January 1, 1991, or that does not meet the criteria set forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2) to support any application or comply with any formal reevaluation request for additional data, without permission from the data owner. An offer to pay, and a payment pursuant to that offer, shall only be required as to data not submitted by the applicant that meets the criteria set forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2).
(2)To be eligible for cost sharing pursuant to this subdivision, the data shall meet all of the following requirements:
(A)The data was required by the director in order to obtain, amend, or maintain the data owners California registration or registrations for uses covered by the application, amendment, or formal request for additional data pursuant to reevaluation or Section 12824.
(B)There has been no arbitration award, data compensation, or data cost-sharing agreement pertaining to data supporting the product at the federal level pursuant to Section 3(c)(1)(F)(iii) or 3(c)(2)(B) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Sec. 136a(c)(1)(F)(iii) or 136a(c)(2)(B)), or, if an award or agreement exists, the use of data in California was excluded from compensation or cost sharing on its face.
(C)The data that fulfills a current requirement was submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the department no more than 15 years before the date of the applicants California registration, application, or amendment or the formal reevaluation request for additional data to which the registrants reliance responds, provided that as to data submitted to the department as of August 1, 2005, in support of the first registration of a product, the applicable period shall be 17 years from the date of submission to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
(b)If the director previously imposed a specific documented data requirement after January 1, 1991, to obtain, amend, or maintain the California registration of a pesticide product substantially similar to the applicants product and that data requirement is not currently imposed in California for registration, amendment, or maintenance of the applicants product, the applicant is further obligated to submit data to meet the requirement, obtain written permission from an owner of the data to rely on the data, formulate or obtain its product from a source that has authorization from the data owner to rely on the data or from a source that complies with subdivision (c), or, if the data meets the criteria set forth in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), irrevocably offer to pay the data owner a share in the cost of producing the data and comply with subdivision (c). An offer to pay, and a payment pursuant to that offer, shall only be required as to data not submitted by the applicant that meets the criteria set forth in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3). To be eligible for cost sharing pursuant to this subdivision, the data shall meet all of the following requirements:
(1)The data met a specific, documented requirement of the director to obtain, amend, or maintain the California registration of the data owners pesticide product for a use covered by the applicants application or amendment.
(2)There has been no arbitration award, data compensation, or data cost-sharing agreement pertaining to data supporting the product at the federal level pursuant to Section 3(c)(1)(F)(iii) or 3(c)(2)(B) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Sec. 136a(c)(1)(F)(iii) or 136a(c)(2)(B)), or, if an award or agreement exists, the use of the data in California was excluded from compensation or cost sharing on its face.
(3)The data was submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency or Department of Pesticide Regulation by the data owner after January 1, 1991, and no more than 15 years before the date of the applicants California application for registration or amendment or the response to a formal specific document data requirement to which the registrants reliance responds, provided that as to data submitted to the department as of August 1, 2005, in support of the first registration of a product, the applicable period shall be 17 years from the date of submission to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
(c)An applicant may formulate its product from a source that does not have data authorization if that source has submitted data to support the product or makes or has made an irrevocable offer to pay the data owner a share of the cost of producing the data required pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) for the applicants product and complies with or has made payment in accordance with subdivision (d). If the source has already reached a data compensation or cost-sharing agreement or there has been an arbitration award under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (commencing with 7 U.S.C. Sec. 136) that excludes the right to rely on the data to satisfy the California requirement on its face, the source shall make or have made a new irrevocable offer to pay a share of the cost of producing that data to support the applicants product in California and comply with subdivision (d).
(d)(1)If an applicant is required to offer to pay a share in the cost of producing the data pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b), or if a source of product makes an offer pursuant to subdivision (c), the applicant or source shall submit to the data owner upon application to the department an irrevocable offer to pay the data owner a share in the cost of producing the data and to comply with regulations promulgated under this subdivision to determine the amount and terms, if the parties cannot agree. If a data owner for which cost sharing is required under subdivision (a) or (b) cannot be identified from information readily available to the applicant, the applicants obligation under subdivision (a) or (b) will be absolved if the data owner does not identify themselves to the applicant within 12 months after registration of the pesticide product. If within 12 months of registration, the data owner identifies themselves to the applicant and the applicant has not already made an irrevocable offer to pay to the data owner, or the applicants source of product has not made an offer pursuant to subdivision (c), the applicant shall do so promptly. In either event, the specific terms and amount of payments to be made shall be fixed by agreement between the applicant and the data owner, but determination of those amounts and terms shall not delay approval of the applicants application.
(2)If agreement cannot be reached about the terms and amount of payment required by this section at any time more than 90 days after issuance of an irrevocable offer to pay, either the applicant, source, or data owner may initiate, or with the consent of all parties, join a proceeding under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (commencing with 7 U.S.C. Sec. 136), pursuant to regulations promulgated by the director pursuant to this section. The purpose of this proceeding shall be to determine the amount due under this section. The director shall promulgate those regulations as emergency regulations within 60 days of the enactment of the bill that enacts this section. The regulations shall provide all of the following:
(A)Allow the proceeding authorized by this subdivision, upon mutual agreement of the parties, to be consolidated with dispute resolution under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (commencing with 7 U.S.C. Sec. 136).
(B)Require that the decisionmaker consider, among other factors, that the data owners exclusive right to sell the pesticide resulted in the data owner recovering all or part of the costs of generating the data.
(C)Require that the parties to the proceeding share equally in the payment of the expenses thereof.
(e)If a data owner fails to participate in a procedure for reaching an agreement or in a proceeding as required by subdivision (d), or fails to comply with the terms of an agreement or decision conducted under subdivision (d), then that data owner forfeits their right to cost recovery as a result of the use of the data at issue.
(f)If the director finds that an applicant has failed to make an offer to pay as required under subdivision (a) or (b), or if its source of product has failed to make an offer pursuant to subdivision (c), or if an applicant or its source of product has failed to participate in a proceeding for reaching an agreement, has refused to participate in a proceeding pursuant to subdivision (d), or has failed to comply with an agreement or to comply with an order, or to pay an award resulting from that proceeding, the director shall cancel the registration of the pesticide product in support of which the data was used in accordance with subdivision (g), notwithstanding Section 12825.
(g)If the applicant subject to subdivision (a) or (b) fails to comply with this article, the data owner shall notify the director of the specific provision of noncompliance and provide proof of notification to the applicant of its claim of noncompliance. All parties shall have 30 days from the date of receipt of notification by the director to submit written evidence or arguments to the director regarding the claim and any defenses thereto. The director shall provide a written finding within 60 days of the deadline for submission as to the claim and the resulting consequences.
(h)A hearing or live testimony shall not be conducted under subdivision (g) and this proceeding shall not be used as mechanism to prevent or delay the registration or payment for cost sharing as determined by this article. The finding of the director shall be final and conclusive, except that any party aggrieved by such a finding may seek review within 30 days of the finding pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(i)In lieu of seeking a determination by the director and cancellation of the registration pursuant to subdivision (f), the data owner may bring an action in any California court of competent jurisdiction against the applicant to enforce the obligations of that party set forth in this section.
(j)Cost sharing as provided in subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) shall not be required to support an application for annual renewal of a pesticide product registration, provided this provision shall not authorize renewal of a product registered before the effective date of this section if that registration is declared to have been unlawfully issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(k)The Department of Pesticide Regulation shall make available in the public domain its index of data submitted in support of registration applications, the ownership of that data, and the date it was submitted to California.
SEC. 11.Section 12812 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12812.(a)The director shall establish, by regulation, fees for the departments registration program, as established pursuant to this division. The fees shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1)Annual fees for each product submitted for registration.
(2)Penalties for the late payment of registration fees.
(3)Fees for amendments to registered products.
(b)The fees established pursuant to this section may include costs for administration and overhead in connection with administering the fees.
(c)The fees established pursuant to this section shall be set so that the total revenue collected each fiscal year is sufficient to support the expenditure levels for the registration program contained in the annual Budget Act.
(d)Funds collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund, and shall be available for expenditure by the department, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for purposes of carrying out the departments pesticide registration program, as established pursuant to this division.
(e)The regulations adopted pursuant to this section, or any amendment or readoption thereto, shall be adopted by the director in accordance with Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. However, the adoption, amendment, readoption, or repeal of these regulations shall be considered by the Office of Administrative Law as an emergency, and necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, and general welfare. Notwithstanding any other law, the regulations shall remain in effect until amended by the director.
(f)On or before January 31 of each year, if the department determines that it might increase the fees established pursuant to this section during the calendar year, the department shall post the determination on its internet website and send the determination through any of its relevant, registration-related email lists.
SEC. 12.Section 12824 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12824.(a)The director shall endeavor to eliminate from use in the state any pesticide that endangers the agricultural or nonagricultural environment, is not beneficial for the purposes for which it is sold, or is misrepresented. In carrying out this responsibility, the director shall develop an orderly program for the continuous evaluation of all pesticides actually registered.
(b)Before a substance is registered as a pesticide for the first time, there shall be a thorough and timely evaluation in accordance with this section. Appropriate restrictions may be placed on its use, including, but not limited to, limitations on quantity, area, and manner of application. All pesticides for which renewal of registration is sought also shall be evaluated in accordance with this section.
(c)The director may establish specific criteria to evaluate a pesticide with regard to the factors listed in Section 12825. The department may establish performance standards and tests that are to be conducted or financed, or both conducted and financed, by the registrants, applicants for registration, or parties interested in the registration of those pesticides.
(d)Each pesticide registrant or applicant shall, upon request of the director, submit any data determined by the director to be necessary to carry out this section.
SEC. 13.Section 12824.5 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:12824.5.(a)(1)On or before July 1, 2025, and annually thereafter, until July 2, 2029, the department shall annually identify and initiate the reevaluation of potential adverse effects of at least one pesticide in addition to those already under reevaluation.
(2)On or before July 1, 2029, and each year thereafter, the department shall annually identify and initiate the reevaluation of potential adverse effects of at least two pesticides in addition to those already under reevaluation.
(b)(1)If the department identifies potential adverse effects of a pesticide pursuant to subdivision (a), the department shall adopt any necessary mitigation measures within 24 months.
(2)If the department is unable to adopt mitigation measures within 24 months, the director shall set forth the reasons this requirement has not been met in the report described in subdivision (c), and include an updated projected timeline for adopting mitigation measures, which shall not exceed an additional 6 months.
(c)The department shall annually report on, and post on its internet website, its actions to identify and evaluate potential adverse effects of pesticides, and to develop mitigation measures to address those effects. The report and internet website posting shall include, but not be limited to, a list of pesticides under risk assessment, reevaluation, or mitigation development, and shall provide the current status and projected timelines associated with each of those actions and all other applicable reporting requirements in this chapter.
(d)The department, on or before July 1, 2026, shall identify actions to improve the efficiency of its internal processes for reevaluating pesticides. The goal of these actions shall be to complete new reevaluations within five years of their initiation. If the department identifies any regulatory or statutory changes that would improve the efficiency of the reevaluation process, the director shall notify the respective policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature of those changes on or before July 1, 2026.
(e)The department, on or before January 1, 2025, shall post on its internet website an estimated completion time for the pesticides that the department has under reevaluation as of January 1, 2024.
SEC. 14.Section 12825 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12825.(a)Pursuant to Section 12824, the director, after a hearing, may cancel the registration of, or refuse to register, a pesticide if any of the following conditions apply:
(1)The pesticide has significant adverse environmental effects for which there is no feasible mitigation available.
(2)The use of the pesticide is of less public value or greater detriment to the environment than the benefit received by its use.
(3)There is a reasonable, effective, and practicable alternate material or procedure for the pesticide that is demonstrably less destructive to the environment.
(4)The pesticide, when properly used, is detrimental to vegetation, except weeds, to domestic animals, or to the public health and safety.
(5)The pesticide is of little or no value for the purpose for which it is intended.
(6)The registrant or their agent makes or implies a false or misleading statement concerning the pesticide, either verbally or in writing, or in the form of any advertising literature, for the purpose of meeting any registration requirement under this division, or that is otherwise related in any way to the pesticide.
(7)The director determines that the registrant has failed to report an adverse effect or risk for the pesticide as required by Section 12825.5.
(8)The director determines that the registrant has failed to comply with the requirements of a reevaluation or to submit the data required as part of the reevaluation of the registrants product or pursuant to Section 12824.
(9)The pesticide is required to be registered pursuant to the federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Sec. 136 et seq.) and is not so registered.
(b)In making a determination pursuant to this section, the director may require those practical demonstrations that are necessary to determine the facts.
SEC. 15.Section 12839 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, immediately following Section 12838, to read:12839.(a)On and after July 1, 2027, the department shall meet the following timelines to review and evaluate, and issue final decisions on applications to register new pesticide products or amend existing pesticide product registrations, as specified in this article, except as provided in subdivisions (b), (d), and (e).
(1)For review and evaluation of and issuance of a final decision on an application for registration of a new active ingredient, 30 months from the date of submittal of a complete application.
(2)For review and evaluation of and issuance of a final decision on an application for registration of a new product or letter of acceptance to amend an existing product registration, when previously evaluated data support registration or amendment and no supporting scientific data is required for review, six months from the date of submittal of a complete application.
(3)For review and evaluation of and issuance of a final decision on an application for registration of a new product or letter of acceptance to amend an existing product registration, when evaluation of data is required, 12 months from the date of submittal of a complete application.
(4)In cases where the submitted application for registration of a new product or amendment of an existing product registration does not include supporting scientific data for review, but the department subsequently determines that the application requires data evaluation, 12 months from the date of submittal of the required data.
(b)The department may toll the applicable timeline provided in subdivision (a) under any of the following circumstances:
(1)The applicant fails to correct a deficiency with the application identified by the department within a 15-business-day timeframe.
(2)An application requires United States Environmental Protection Agency approval.
(3)The applicant corrects a deficiency with the application, but also makes substantive changes to the product or label that exceeds correcting the deficiency.
(4)Nonpayment of a registration fee by the applicant for the certificate of registration.
(5)The application is reliant on data associated with another identical or substantially similar product submission undergoing registration review by the department.
(c)Upon the conclusion of a circumstance that was the basis for the department tolling an applicable timeline pursuant to subdivision (b), the tolling period shall end and the applicable timeline shall resume within 15 business days after the department became aware of the conclusion of the circumstance.
(d)If the department cannot meet an applicable timeline provided in subdivision (a), the director may extend the timeline for up to two 60-day periods by notifying the applicant in writing and specifying both of the following:
(1)The reasons why additional time is needed.
(2)The estimated number of days needed that would allow the director to complete the certificate of registration.
(e)In addition to subdivision (d), the director and the applicant may mutually agree, in writing, to additionally extend an applicable timeline provided in subdivision (a).
SEC. 16.Section 12840 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, immediately following Section 12839, to read:12840.(a)It is the intent of the Legislature that, when the department hires staff due to the mill increases described in Section 12841 and registration fee increases in 2024, the department prioritize hiring for positions within the pesticide registration branch.
(b)Beginning in 2025, the director, when requested by the appropriate policy committees of the Assembly and Senate, but no less than once every two years, shall appear before the appropriate policy committees of the Assembly and Senate to provide an update on the departments performance, including, but not limited to, its performance completing timely registrations and reevaluations pursuant to this chapter, and any other information that the committees request.
SEC. 17.Section 12841 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12841.(a)A person shall not sell for use in this state any pesticide products that have been registered by the director for which the mill assessment established by this article, and the regulations adopted pursuant to it, is not paid at the times specified in Section 12843.
(b)Except as provided in subdivision (d), every person who sells for use in this state a pesticide product that has been registered by the director shall pay to the director the applicable assessment. Those sales expressly include all sales made electronically, telephonically, or by any other means that result in a pesticide product being shipped to or used in this state. There is a rebuttable presumption that pesticide products that are sold or distributed into or within this state by any person are sold or distributed for use in this state.
(c)Upon application of a registrant, the director shall determine whether a fertilizer or paper product is used as a carrier for a pesticide, and is sold in combination, and whether the mill assessment under this article shall be on the pesticide value only, when the product is designed, developed, and manufactured, and sold primarily for other than a pesticide use. If the director finds that the combination product has such a major component and is designed, developed, manufactured, and sold primarily for other than a pesticide use, the assessment provided by this article shall be paid on the equivalent percentage of the sales price of the active ingredients of the pesticide product. The director shall establish this percentage of the sales price. The percentage shall be the ratio of that portion of the sales price attributable to the pesticide portion to the total sales price of the combination product.
(d)Assessments provided for in this article for sales of registered pesticides that are sold for use in this state shall be paid by the person or entity that first sold the pesticide for use in this state.
(e)It has been and continues to be the intent of the Legislature that this division requires the department to register all pesticides before their sale for use in this state and, except as otherwise provided by law, requires the department to regulate and control the use of pesticides in accordance with this division. Except as provided in Section 12841.1, the department shall continue to collect the assessment as provided in this article at the same rate on all registered agricultural and registered nonagricultural pesticides.
(f)(1)The mill assessment shall be paid at the following rates per dollar of sales for all sales of pesticides for use in this state:
(A)From July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025, inclusive, the rate shall be 24.5 mills ($0.0245) per dollar sales of all sales of registered pesticides for use in this state plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1.
(B)From July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2026, inclusive, the rate shall be 27 mills ($0.027) per dollar sales of all sales of registered pesticides for use in this state plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1.
(C)From July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2027, inclusive, the rate shall be 29 mills ($0.029) per dollar sales of all sales of registered pesticides for use in this state plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1.
(D)On and after July 1, 2027, the rate shall be 30 mills ($0.030) per dollar sales of all sales of registered pesticides for use in this state plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1.
(2)The regulations adopted pursuant to this section, or any amendment thereto, shall be adopted by the director in accordance with Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. However, the adoption, amendment, readoption, or repeal of these regulations shall be considered by the Office of Administrative Law as an emergency, and necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, and general welfare. Notwithstanding any other law, the regulations shall remain in effect until amended by the director. The director shall make available to the public, upon the adoption of an emergency regulation establishing a new rate, the information on which the director has calculated, based, or determined the new rate.
(g)The revenue collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund and distributed as follows:
(1)Notwithstanding Sections 2282 and 12784, the director shall pay, in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section 12844, the following amounts to the counties as reimbursement for costs incurred by the counties in the administration and enforcement of Division 6 (commencing with Section 11401), this chapter, Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 14001), Chapter 3.4 (commencing with Section 14090), and Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 14101):
(A)From January 1, 1998, to March 31, 1998, inclusive, five-eighths of the money received during that period pursuant to this section.
(B)From April 1, 1998, to June 30, 2004, an amount equal to the revenue derived from 6 mills ($0.006) per dollar of sales for all pesticide sales for use in this state.
(C)Beginning July 1, 2004, an amount equal to the revenue derived from 7.6 mills ($0.0076) per dollar of sales for all pesticide sales for use in this state.
(2)All funds not otherwise distributed pursuant to this subdivision shall remain in the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund and shall be available for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to support the departments operations.
(h)For purposes of this section, active ingredient means any active ingredient that is required to be stated on the label on any registered pesticide under Section 12883.
SEC. 18.Section 12841.1 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12841.1.(a)The director may collect an assessment, in addition to the mill assessment collected pursuant to Section 12841, for all pesticide sales for use in this state except for sales for use in this state of pesticides labeled solely for home, industrial, or institutional use. The director may only collect up to an additional 1.04 mills ($0.00104) per dollar of sales, in addition to the rate established pursuant to Section 12841, if necessary to fund, or augment the funding for, an appropriation to the Department of Food and Agriculture to provide pesticide consultation to the department pursuant to Section 11454.2. The necessity of this additional assessment shall be determined by the Secretary of Food and Agriculture, in consultation with the director, on an annual basis after consideration of all other revenue sources, including any reserves, that may be appropriated for this purpose. The secretarys written determination, including a request for a specified additional assessment and the basis for that request, shall be provided to the director by a time and in a manner prescribed by the director.
(b)The revenue collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited monthly into a separate account in the Department of Food and Agriculture Fund. These revenues shall be expended only by the Department of Food and Agriculture, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to provide consultation to the department pursuant to Section 11454.2. Funds shall not be expended before the execution of a memorandum of understanding pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 11454.2. The consultation activities to be undertaken by the Department of Food and Agriculture are limited solely to those specifically authorized in the memorandum of understanding executed pursuant to Section 11454.2. These funds shall not be expended for scientific risk assessment activities. The department shall be reimbursed from the Department of Food and Agriculture Fund for the departments revenue collection activities. If the director determines that a person is entitled to a refund of mill assessment funds that were collected pursuant to this section, the director shall inform the Secretary of Food and Agriculture of the amount of the refund due, which shall be reimbursed from the Department of Food and Agriculture Fund.
SEC. 19.Section 12841.4 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12841.4.(a)Every registrant of any production agricultural- or structural-use pesticide product sold for use in this state that is packaged in rigid, nonrefillable, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) containers of 55 gallons or less shall establish a recycling program, or demonstrate participation in a recycling program to ensure HDPE containers are recycled. Container recycling shall comply with the American National Standards Institute American Society of Agriculture and Biological Engineers Standard S596, entitled Recycling Plastic Containers from Pesticides and Pesticide-Related Products, as published in February 2006. The records required by these standards shall be maintained for four years and shall be subject to audit by the director.
(b)A registrant who is required to establish or participate in a recycling program pursuant to this section shall provide to the director, at least annually, a document certifying that this requirement has been met.
(c)(1)The director may adopt regulations to carry out the purposes of this section. Upon a federal pesticide container recycling program being adopted, the director may adopt regulations to conform to the federal program.
(2)It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section that any regulatory standards adopted by the department shall be at least as stringent as those standards referred to in subdivision (a).
(d)The department shall estimate a recycling rate for pesticide containers and propose suggestions for program improvements and post this information annually on its internet website.
SEC. 20.Section 12842 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12842.Every person who sells for use in this state any pesticide products that have been registered by the director shall maintain in this state, or with the directors permission at another location, an accurate record of all pesticide transactions for four years. The records are subject to audit by the director and shall clearly demonstrate proof of payment of all applicable assessments for each registered pesticide product sold for use in this state.
SEC. 21.Section 12847 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12847.Sales invoices for pesticides first sold into or within this state shall show that the assessments specified in Sections 12841 and 12841.1 will be paid by the person or entity that first sold the pesticide for use in the state. All other sales invoices for pesticides sold into or within this state, except retail sales of those nonagricultural pesticides labeled only for home, industrial, or institutional use, shall show as a comment on the invoice that the assessment will be paid, and may show an amount or rate that represents the assessment. However, only the person who actually will pay the assessment may show the amount or rate of the assessment as a line item on the sales invoice.
SEC. 22.Section 12999.4 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12999.4.(a)In lieu of civil prosecution by the director, the director may levy a civil penalty against a person violating subdivision (d) or (e) of Section 11792, Sections 12101, 12101.5, 12114, 12115, 12116, 12581, 12603, 12671, 12992, and 12993, Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 12400) of Division 6, Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 12841), Section 13186.5, Chapter 7.5 (commencing with Section 15300), or the regulations adopted pursuant to those provisions, and Sections 6560, 6562, 6564, 6568, 6574, 6576, and 6577 of Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations, of not more than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for each violation.
(b)Before a civil penalty is levied, the person charged with the violation shall be given a written notice of the proposed action, including the nature of the violation and the amount of the proposed penalty, and shall have the right to request a hearing within 20 days after receiving notice of the proposed action. A notice of the proposed action that is sent by certified mail to the last known address of the person charged shall be considered received even if delivery is refused or the notice is not accepted at that address. If a hearing is requested, notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given at least 10 days before the date set for the hearing. Before the hearing, the person shall be given an opportunity to review the directors evidence. At the hearing, the person shall be given the opportunity to present evidence on their own behalf. If a hearing is not timely requested, the director may take the action proposed without a hearing.
(c)If the person against whom the director levied a civil penalty requested and appeared at a hearing, the person may seek review of the directors decision within 30 days of the date of the decision pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(d)After the exhaustion of the review procedure provided in this section, the director, or the directors representative, may file a certified copy of a final decision of the director that directs the payment of a civil penalty and, if applicable, any order that denies a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus, with the clerk of the superior court of any county. Judgment shall be entered immediately by the clerk in conformity with the decision or order. Pursuant to Section 6103 of the Government Code, the clerk of the superior court shall not charge a fee for the performance of any official service required in connection with the entry of judgment pursuant to this section.
(e)Any money recovered under this section shall be paid into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund for use by the department, upon appropriation by the Legislature, in administering this division and Division 6 (commencing with Section 11401).
SEC. 23.Section 13000 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:13000.(a)Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), an action brought pursuant to this article shall be commenced by the director, the commissioner, the Attorney General, the district attorney, the city prosecutor, or the city attorney, as the case may be, within three years of the occurrence of the violation.
(b)When a commissioner submits a completed investigation to the director for action by the director or the Attorney General, the action shall be commenced within one year of that submission. However, this subdivision does not preclude the director from returning the investigation to the commissioner for action to be commenced by the commissioner, the district attorney, the city prosecutor, or the city attorney, as provided in subdivision (a).
(c)(1)An action brought by the director to collect unpaid mill assessments and delinquent fees required by Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 12841) or an action brought by the director to collect civil penalties pursuant to Section 12999.4 for violations of Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 12841), Section 12992, Section 12993, or Section 12995 shall be commenced within four years of the occurrence of the violation, except as provided in paragraph (2).
(2)An action brought by the director pursuant to Section 12999.4 or 12998 for violations of Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 12841) or Section 12992, 12993, or 12995 that are discovered during the course of an audit performed pursuant to Section 12842 shall be commenced within two years from the date of audit completion and may be brought for a violation occurring within four years of the commencement of the audit.
SEC. 24.Section 14006.5 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:14006.5.(a)Except as provided in Section 14006.6, a person shall not use or possess a pesticide designated as a restricted material for any agricultural use except under a written permit of the commissioner. A permit shall not be issued for any restricted material for use in any manner other than pursuant to its registration without the approval of the director. In addition, a permit shall not be granted if the commissioner determines that paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 12825 would be applicable to the proposed use.
(b)Before issuing a permit for a pesticide, the commissioner shall consider local conditions, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(1)Use in vicinity of schools, dwellings, hospitals, recreational areas, and livestock enclosures.
(2)Problems related to heterogeneous planting of crops.
(3)Applications of materials known to create severe resurgence or secondary pest problems without compensating control of pest species.
(4)Meteorological conditions for use.
(5)Timing of applications in relation to bee activity.
(6)Provisions for proper storage of pesticides and disposal of containers.
(c)Each permit issued for any pesticide shall include conditions for use in writing.
SEC. 25.Section 14009 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:14009.(a)(1)An interested person may request the commissioner to review their action in issuing, refusing, revoking, suspending, or conditioning a permit to use or possess a restricted material. The request for review of the commissioners action shall be limited to the issues described in subdivision (d). The commissioner shall review the request and issue a written decision in response to the request to review within 10 days of receipt of the request. If the commissioner is unable to complete the review within 10 days, the commissioner shall notify the person requesting a review in writing, including an estimated timeline for completion. The commissioner may affirm, modify, or cancel the permit action reviewed. An interested person may thereafter appeal to the director to review the commissioners action within 30 days of the date of receiving the commissioners written decision.
(2)No later than January 31 of each year, the commissioner shall report to the director the number and share of total reviews within their jurisdiction in the previous calendar year that were not completed within the 10-day timeline provided in this subdivision, the average number of days required for review, and the number of permits that were affirmed, modified, or cancelled.
(b)The commissioner and director shall conduct each review in an expeditious manner so that needed pest control measures are not adversely affected.
(c)Each request for review, limited to the issues described in subdivision (d), shall be submitted in writing to the commissioner by the person requesting the review and shall include all of the following:
(1)The location of persons, property, or areas that would be affected and the location of property to be treated.
(2)The name of the restricted material involved.
(3)The name and address of the person in charge of the property to be treated, if different from the person filing the request for review.
(4)Any other information that the person filing the request for review or the commissioner determines to be relevant.
(d)In an appeal of a commissioners action to the director, the issues are limited to any of the following:
(1)Whether the proposed permit use is consistent with applicable pesticide label restrictions and applicable regulations.
(2)Whether the commissioner properly considered Section 14006.5.
(3)Whether the commissioner abused their discretion in issuing, refusing, revoking, or conditioning the permit.
(e)The director shall act on these appeals within 10 days of receipt thereof. If the director is unable to complete the review within 10 days, the director shall notify the appellant, in writing, including an estimated timeline for completion. The director may stay the operation of a permit until their review is complete. As part of its annual reporting requirements pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 12824.5, the department shall report the number and share of total cases in which the director did not meet the timeline provided in this subdivision, the average number of days required for review of appeals, and the number of permits that were affirmed, modified, or cancelled.
(f)(1)Before acting on an appeal, the director shall make publicly available all of the information provided to them as specified in this section if requested to do so in writing by any interested person.
(2)At any time before acting on an appeal, the director may request additional testimony or other evidence specified in this section at the public review from interested persons.
(g)Judicial review of any decision by the director pursuant to this section shall be pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Review shall be limited to whether the proposed permit use is consistent with applicable pesticide label restrictions and regulations and whether the director abused their discretion.
SEC. 26.Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code is amended to read:21080.(a)Except as otherwise provided in this division, this division shall apply to discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies, including, but not limited to, the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of zoning variances, the issuance of conditional use permits, and the approval of tentative subdivision maps unless the project is exempt from this division.
(b)This division does not apply to any of the following activities:
(1)Ministerial projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies.
(2)Emergency repairs to public service facilities necessary to maintain service.
(3)Projects undertaken, carried out, or approved by a public agency to maintain, repair, restore, demolish, or replace property or facilities damaged or destroyed as a result of a disaster in a disaster-stricken area in which a state of emergency has been proclaimed by the Governor pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 8550) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(4)Specific actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency.
(5)Projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves.
(6)Actions undertaken by a public agency relating to any thermal powerplant site or facility, including the expenditure, obligation, or encumbrance of funds by a public agency for planning, engineering, or design purposes, or for the conditional sale or purchase of equipment, fuel, water (except groundwater), steam, or power for a thermal powerplant, if the powerplant site and related facility will be the subject of an environmental impact report, negative declaration, or other document, prepared pursuant to a regulatory program certified pursuant to Section 21080.5, which will be prepared by the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, by the Public Utilities Commission, or by the city or county in which the powerplant and related facility would be located if the environmental impact report, negative declaration, or document includes the environmental impact, if any, of the action described in this paragraph.
(7)Activities or approvals necessary to the bidding for, hosting or staging of, and funding or carrying out of, an Olympic Games under the authority of the International Olympic Committee, except for the construction of facilities necessary for the Olympic Games.
(8)The establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, or other charges by public agencies that the public agency finds are for the purpose of: (A) meeting operating expenses, including employee wage rates and fringe benefits; (B) purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment, or materials; (C) meeting financial reserve needs and requirements; (D) obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service areas; or (E) obtaining funds necessary to maintain those intracity transfers as are authorized by city charter. The public agency shall incorporate written findings in the record of any proceeding in which an exemption under this paragraph is claimed setting forth with specificity the basis for the claim of exemption.
(9)All classes of projects designated pursuant to Section 21084.
(10)A project for the institution or increase of passenger or commuter services on rail or highway rights-of-way already in use, including modernization of existing stations and parking facilities. For purposes of this paragraph, highway has the same meaning as defined in Section 360 of the Vehicle Code.
(11)A project for the institution or increase of passenger or commuter service on high-occupancy vehicle lanes already in use, including the modernization of existing stations and parking facilities.
(12)Facility extensions not to exceed four miles in length that are required for the transfer of passengers from or to exclusive public mass transit guideway or busway public transit services.
(13)A project for the development of a regional transportation improvement program, the state transportation improvement program, or a congestion management program prepared pursuant to Section 65089 of the Government Code.
(14)A project or portion of a project located in another state that will be subject to environmental impact review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321 et seq.) or similar state laws of that state. Any emissions or discharges that would have a significant effect on the environment in this state are subject to this division.
(15)Projects undertaken by a local agency to implement a rule or regulation imposed by a state agency, board, or commission under a certified regulatory program pursuant to Section 21080.5. Any site-specific effect of the project that was not analyzed as a significant effect on the environment in the plan or other written documentation required by Section 21080.5 is subject to this division.
(16)Approval by the Department of Pesticide Regulation of a pesticide emergency exemption pursuant to Section 136p of Title 7 of the United States Code.
(c)If a lead agency determines that a proposed project, not otherwise exempt from this division, would not have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall adopt a negative declaration to that effect. The negative declaration shall be prepared for the proposed project in either of the following circumstances:
(1)There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
(2)An initial study identifies potentially significant effects on the environment, but: (A) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur; and (B) there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.
(d)If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report shall be prepared.
(e)(1)For purposes of this section and this division, substantial evidence includes fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact.
(2)Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment.
(f)As a result of the public review process for a mitigated negative declaration, including administrative decisions and public hearings, the lead agency may conclude that certain mitigation measures identified pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) are infeasible or otherwise undesirable. In those circumstances, the lead agency, before approving the project, may delete those mitigation measures and substitute for them other mitigation measures that the lead agency finds, after holding a public hearing on the matter, are equivalent or more effective in mitigating significant effects on the environment to a less than significant level and that do not cause any potentially significant effect on the environment. If those new mitigation measures are made conditions of project approval or are otherwise made part of the project approval, the deletion of the former measures and the substitution of the new mitigation measures shall not constitute an action or circumstance requiring recirculation of the mitigated negative declaration.
(g)This section does not preclude a project applicant or any other person from challenging, in an administrative or judicial proceeding, the legality of a condition of project approval imposed by the lead agency. If, however, any condition of project approval set aside by either an administrative body or court was necessary to avoid or lessen the likelihood of the occurrence of a significant effect on the environment, the lead agencys approval of the negative declaration and project shall be invalid and a new environmental review process shall be conducted before the project can be reapproved, unless the lead agency substitutes a new condition that the lead agency finds, after holding a public hearing on the matter, is equivalent to, or more effective in, lessening or avoiding significant effects on the environment and that does not cause any potentially significant effect on the environment.
SEC. 27.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act or because costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
SEC. 28.This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to ensure that the state has long-term fiscal health to protect human health and the environment by fostering sustainable pest management and regulating pesticides, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)The Department of Pesticide Regulation is responsible for administering applicable provisions of Division 6 (commencing with Section 11401) and Division 7 (commencing with Section 12500) of the Food and Agricultural Code.
(b)Pursuant to Section 11501 of the Food and Agricultural Code, the purposes of Division 6 (commencing with Section 11401) and certain provisions of Division 7 (commencing with Section 12500) are as follows:
(1)To provide for the proper, safe, and efficient use of pesticides essential for production of food and fiber and for protection of the public health and safety.
(2)To protect the environment from environmentally harmful pesticides by prohibiting, regulating, or ensuring proper stewardship of those pesticides.
(3)To assure the agricultural and pest control workers of safe working conditions where pesticides are present.
(4)To permit agricultural pest control by competent and responsible licensees and permittees under strict control of the director and commissioners.
(5)To assure consumers and users that pesticides are properly labeled and are appropriate for the use designated by the label and that state or local governmental dissemination of information on pesticidal uses of any registered pesticide product is consistent with the uses for which the product is registered.
(6)To encourage the development and implementation of pest management systems, stressing application of biological and cultural pest control techniques with selective pesticides when necessary to achieve acceptable levels of control with the least possible harm to nontarget organisms and the environment.
(c)The department has multiple methods for assessing, evaluating, and mitigating risks from pesticides. Pursuant to Section 12824 of the Food and Agricultural Code, the department shall, among other things, endeavor to eliminate from use in the state any pesticide that endangers the agricultural or nonagricultural environment, is not beneficial for the purposes for which it is sold, or is misrepresented. The department may establish specific criteria to evaluate a pesticide with regard to the factors listed in Section 12825 of the Food and Agricultural Code, including where a pesticide is detrimental to public health and safety when properly used.
(d)Pursuant to Section 11454.1 of the Food and Agricultural Code, the department conducts pesticide risk assessments as appropriate to carry out its responsibilities set forth in Division 6 (commencing with Section 11401) and Division 7 (commencing with Section 12500) of the Food and Agricultural Code and subject to peer review by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
(e)The department may also require the development and submission of additional data through its reevaluation process described in Section 6220 et seq. of Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations.
(f)In carrying out these responsibilities, the department has developed an orderly program for the continuous evaluation of registered pesticides and other activities for evaluating and addressing risks to human health or the environment. These include, but are not limited to, conducting pesticide risk assessments, as appropriate, reevaluating pesticide active ingredients, and developing and implementing measures to mitigate pesticide risks, including by designating pesticides as restricted materials, taking other regulatory action to address risks, and taking action to cancel, suspend, or refuse to register pesticide products. These actions are data-driven and informed by pesticide use monitoring, exposure monitoring and modeling, pesticide illness reports, pesticide enforcement activities, the impacts of climate change, and other relevant information.
SECTION 1.SEC. 2.Section 11401.7 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:11401.7.Integrated pest management means an ecosystem-based strategy that focuses on long-term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of techniques such as biological control, habitat manipulation, modification of cultural practices, and use of resistant varieties. Pesticides are used only after monitoring indicates they are needed according to established guidelines and treatments are made with the goal of removing only the target organism. Pest control materials are selected and applied in a manner that minimizes risks to human health, beneficial and nontarget organisms, and the environment.
SEC. 2.SEC. 3.Section 11412 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:11412.Sustainable pest management means a holistic, whole system approach applicable to agricultural and other managed ecosystems and urban and rural communities that builds on the concept of integrated pest management to include the wider context of the three sustainability pillars: human health and social equity; environmental protection; and, economic vitality.
SEC. 4.Section 11502.5 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:11502.5.(a)The director may adopt regulations to establish the minimum requirements of education, continuing education, training, experience, and examination for applicants for any license or certificate, or renewal of any license or certificate, issued by the director pursuant to this division or Division 7 (commencing with Section 12500). A regulation adopted or amended pursuant to this section pertaining to continuing education requirements shall establish minimum course requirements related to pesticides and pest management. The director shall approve courses that include plant health, organic and sustainable practices, integrated pest management, water and air monitoring and residue mitigation, maximum residue levels, quarantine practices, and the on-farm storage of fumigants, all in the context of pesticides and pest management. The director shall not renew a license or certificate if the person who was issued the license or certificate did not complete the required continuing education during the period of validity of the license or certificate, and the person shall take and pass the examination to be again issued the license or certificate. The director shall act within 15 business days of receipt to approve or reject continuing education courses submitted to meet the requirements of this division or Division 7 (commencing with Section 12500).
(b)The director shall establish, by regulation, fees for the departments licensing and certification programs as established pursuant to this division or Division 7 (commencing with Section 12500). These programs include, but are not limited to:
(1)License and certificate examination, application, and renewal.
(2)Approval of continuing education courses and continuing education course providers.
(3)Changes related to any license or certificate, including, but not limited to, name or address changes, license or certificate replacement costs, duplicate copy of a license or certificate, and changes in qualified person, bond, insurance, or registered officers.
(4)Penalties for late payment of licensing and certification fees.
(c)The fees established pursuant to this section may include administrative costs, including overhead costs.
(d)The regulations shall provide that the examination fee may be charged to applicants who request the secretary to reschedule an examination due to the applicants failure to obtain a passing score or failure to appear for the scheduled examination, and for scheduling an examination to amend a license.
(e)The fees established pursuant to this section shall be set so that the total revenue collected each fiscal year is sufficient to support the expenditure levels for these programs contained in the annual Budget Act. If the secretary determines that the revenue collected during the preceding year was greater than, or less than, the expenditure levels for these programs set forth in the Budget Act, the secretary may further adjust the current fees to compensate for the overcollection or undercollection.
(f)Funds collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund, and shall be available for expenditure by the department, upon appropriation, for the purposes of carrying out the programs established pursuant to this division or Division 7 (commencing with Section 12500).
(g)The regulations adopted pursuant to this section, or any amendment thereto, shall be adopted by the secretary in accordance with Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. The adoption of these regulations shall be considered by the Office of Administrative Law as an emergency, and necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, and general welfare. Notwithstanding any other law, the emergency regulations adopted pursuant to this section shall remain in effect until amended by the secretary.
(h)On or before January 31 of each year, if the director determines that they might increase the fees established pursuant to this section during that calendar year, the department shall post the determination on its internet website and shall distribute the determination through any of the departments relevant email lists.
SEC. 3.SEC. 5.Section 11520 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:11520.(a)The Legislature finds and declares that it is important for California to implement sustainable pest management.
(b)In order to achieve the goal described in subdivision (a), it is the intent of the Legislature that the state do all of the following:
(1)Prioritize prevention and strengthen Californias commitment to pest prevention by doing both of the following fundamental actions:
(A)Proactively preventing the establishment of new invasive pest species through a significant expansion of the states biosecurity and invasive pest mitigation system.
(B)Proactively eliminating pest-conducive conditions both in agricultural and urban settings.
(2)Coordinate state-level leadership by doing all of the following:
(A)Creating an accountable and connected leadership structure so that the state effectively embeds sustainable pest management principles across agencies.
(B)Identifying ways to improve coordination within and between agencies and programs for both agricultural and urban pest management.
(C)Enhancing the ability to champion sustainable pest management practices in urban and agricultural settings.
(D)Prompting the development of alternatives by encouraging research and innovation.
(3)(A)Invest in building sustainable pest management knowledge by significantly reinvesting in sustainable pest management-focused research and outreach so that all pest management practitioners have equal and adequate access to the support and resources necessary to develop and implement their own sustainable pest management system in a way that effectively manages pests, minimizes adverse impacts to humans and the environment, and is economically viable.
(B)In agricultural pest management, subparagraph (A) includes securing a significant increase in sustainable pest management-trained technical advisers and funding for sustainable pest management research and outreach and increasing human capacity for those programs in ways that reflect and serve the diversity of California farms and agricultural producers.
(C)In urban pest management, subparagraph (A) includes expanding funding and infrastructure for urban sustainable pest management research, innovation, and outreach to align with and reflect the volume and impacts of pesticides used in urban contexts, which requires providing adequate dedicated annual funding for urban-focused academics, research, and extension.
(4)Improve Californias pesticide registration processes and bring more alternative products to market by doing all of the following:
(A)Creating mechanisms to improve the departments registration review process and to prioritize and expedite safer, more sustainable products.
(B)Requiring the departments processes to reflect the goals of sustainable pest management and requiring the department to provide clarity on its scientific review and decisionmaking process for both registrants and the public.
(C)Requiring the department to improve its processes for evaluating pesticides that are already registered.
(5)Enhance monitoring and data collection by significantly expanding and fully funding health and environmental monitoring infrastructure, data collection, and interpretation, which will enable the state to accurately track pesticide-related human illnesses and the presence of pesticides in land, water, air, biota, and structures and provide pesticide-use data and information needed for sound regulatory decisions.
SEC. 4.SEC. 6.Section 11531 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:11531.Except as provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 12001), this division does not apply to any person while engaged in any of the following:
(a)An activity that is defined as structural pest control and required to be licensed under Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 8500) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code.
(b)Preservative treatment of fabrics or structural materials.
(c)Sanitation services for collection, disposal, and treatment of wastewater, refuse, or sewage.
(d)Seed treatment that is incidental to the persons regular business.
(e)Live capture and removal or exclusion of vertebrate pests, bees, or wasps without the use of pesticides. Vertebrate pests include, but are not limited to, bats, raccoons, skunks, squirrels, mice, rats, and pigeons. This section does not exempt a person from the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code).
(f)Pool cleaning services, unless the person is selling, applying, using, or distributing a restricted material.
SEC. 5.SEC. 7.Section 12114 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12114.(a)Each licensed pest control dealer, and each person who is required to be licensed as a pest control dealer pursuant to Section 12101, shall maintain at their principal place of business the records of its purchases, sales, and distributions of pesticides into or within this state, including those of its branch locations, for four years. Each dealer shall also maintain the pesticide broker or pest control dealer license number of any pesticide broker or pest control dealer from whom the dealer purchased pesticides registered by the director and labeled for agricultural use. The records shall be available for audit by the director.
(b)Each licensed pest control dealer, and each person who is required to be licensed as a pest control dealer pursuant to Section 12101, shall report quarterly to the director the total dollars of sales and total pounds or gallons sold into or within this state of each pesticide subject to Sections 12841 and 12841.1. The quarterly report shall be in the form prescribed by the director and shall include information from the dealers licensed branch locations, if any, and any other information specified on the form or required by the director. The report shall include a certification, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained in the report is true and correct. The report shall accompany payment of assessments required by Sections 12841 and 12841.1.
SEC. 6.SEC. 8.Section 12798 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12798.(a)The department shall establish a competitive grants program to make funds available to qualified public and private entities to conduct pest management research projects. All of the research related to pest management funded by the department shall be administered pursuant to this program.
(b)Research conducted pursuant to this section shall have the further development of alternative pest management practices and methods and the further development of pest exclusion detection and eradication methods as priorities. Research conducted pursuant to this section shall consider how the research could help to implement sustainable pest management, as defined in Section 11412, and to implement and support integrated pest management, as defined in Section 11401.7. Before making research awards, the department shall assess existing research activities and developments in integrated pest management, alternatives to pesticides, and other alternative pest management practices and methods, including, but not limited to, cultural, biological, and biotechnological research.
(c)(1)The secretary shall establish a Pest Management Research Committee, which shall award all funds under the competitive grants program.
(2)The primary objective of the committee is the further development of pest prevention activities and alternative pest management practices, techniques, and methods that exclude serious pests, as determined by the committee, detect and quickly eliminate small infestations of foreign pests, and reduce pesticide use, minimize or eliminate pesticide residues, or result in the use of safer pesticides. In achieving that objective, the committee shall encourage the development and use of biological controls, integrated pest management, biotechnology, cultural, pest prevention, and other alternative pest management methods that are environmentally sound and economically viable.
(3)The committee shall consist of the following 12 persons, who shall serve at the pleasure of the secretary:
(A)The Secretary of Food and Agriculture or their designee, who shall serve as chairperson.
(B)The President of the University of California or their designee.
(C)The Chancellor of the California State University or their designee.
(D)Two members who represent the agricultural community, one of whom is an experienced organic farmer and one of whom is knowledgeable and experienced in alternative pest management techniques.
(E)Two members who represent pest management researchers, one of whom represents Californias public and private colleges and universities and one of whom represents Californias independent research community, both of whom are knowledgeable in pest prevention, control, eradication, and pest management.
(F)One member who represents public interest organizations, qualified in environmental or public health, or both, and knowledgeable in alternative pest management techniques.
(G)One member who represents the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, with experience in public health or toxicology.
(H)One member who represents county agricultural commissioners, knowledgeable and experienced in alternative pest management techniques and pest prevention, control, and eradication.
(I)One member who represents the Department of Pesticide Regulation, with experience in pest management systems.
(J)One member who represents the State Department of Health Care Services, Public Health, with experience in public health.
(4)The committee shall award funds based upon a competitive application process that meets the eligibility of fulfilling, and has the ability to fulfill, the objectives of this section.
(5)The approval of research proposals shall be made by a majority vote of the membership of the committee.
(d)For any proposals funded pursuant to this section, the department shall require reasonable accountability, including performance standards, periodic reports, deadlines, and payments conditioned on compliance with performance standards and deadlines.
(e)Funding for second and subsequent years of a multiyear award shall be contingent upon satisfactory completion by the grantee of the prior year grant awards. objectives or deliverables, as determined by the committee.
(f)In order to facilitate the use of pest management practices and methods developed pursuant to this section, the secretary shall cooperate with qualified public and private entities to provide outreach consultation, information dissemination, and educational services to the agricultural community and other interested parties.
SEC. 7.SEC. 9.Section 12811.2 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:12811.2.(a)On or before January 31 of each year, the department shall post an estimated timeframe for processing an application for registration of a pesticide on its internet website. May 1, 2025, and annually thereafter, until May 2, 2028, the department shall annually report the average processing times to review and evaluate, and issue final decisions on applications to register new pesticide products or amend existing pesticide product registrations for the prior calendar year, and post this information on its internet website. The report shall include the number of days, on average, that it took to complete an application and the number of days, on average, that an application spent in intake and in each stage of scientific evaluation.
(b)If the department determines, while processing the application, that processing will take longer than the posted estimated timeframe, the department shall contact the applicant and provide further details, such as whether more information is needed or the updated estimated timeframe for processing.(c)(b)On or before December 31, 2028, May 1, 2029, and each year annually thereafter, the department shall report the average processing times for product registrations the applications described in subdivision (a) for the prior calendar year and post this information on its internet website. This information shall include all of the following:
(1)The number of applications by registration category that were completed within the timeframes described in specified pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 12839. This number shall be reported based on nonagricultural and agricultural nonagricultural, agricultural, and dual use products.
(2)The number of applications that were not completed within exceeded the timeframes described specified in each of subdivision (a), (d), or (e) of Section 12839. This number shall be reported based on nonagricultural and agricultural use products. for each respective subdivision based on nonagricultural, agricultural, and dual use products.
(3)The number of days that applications spent spent, on average average, in intake and at each stage of scientific evaluation program. evaluation.
SEC. 8.SEC. 10.Section 12811.5 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12811.5.The director may rely on any evaluations of previously submitted data to determine whether to accept an application for registration of a new pesticide product, an amendment to the registration of a registered pesticide product, or to maintain the registration of a registered pesticide product regardless of the ownership of the data previously evaluated, if the previously submitted data fulfills current data requirements. However, effective January 1, 2006, applicants will be subject to the following provisions:
(a)(1)If an applicant for registration of a pesticide product, or an amendment to the registration of a registered pesticide product, including a registrant that desires to maintain its registration of a registered pesticide product after the director makes a formal request for additional data pursuant to reevaluation or Section 12824, does not submit its own data to fulfill a current data requirement imposed by the director and relies on data that the applicant does not own or have written permission to rely on that was submitted to the director by another entity after January 1, 1991, and meets the three criteria set forth in this subdivision, the applicant shall either: (A) obtain written permission from the data owner to rely on the data; (B) formulate or obtain its product from a source that has data authorization from the data owner, or a source that complies with subdivision (c); or (C) if the data meets the criteria set forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2), irrevocably offer to pay the data owner a share of the cost of producing the data and comply with subdivision (d). The director may rely on data submitted before January 1, 1991, or that does not meet the criteria set forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2) to support any application or comply with any formal reevaluation request for additional data, without permission from the data owner. An offer to pay, and a payment pursuant to that offer, shall only be required as to data not submitted by the applicant that meets the criteria set forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2).
(2)To be eligible for cost sharing pursuant to this subdivision, the data shall meet all of the following requirements:
(A)The data was required by the director in order to obtain, amend, or maintain the data owners California registration or registrations for uses covered by the application, amendment, or formal request for additional data pursuant to reevaluation or Section 12824.
(B)There has been no arbitration award, data compensation, or data cost-sharing agreement pertaining to data supporting the product at the federal level pursuant to Section 3(c)(1)(F)(iii) or 3(c)(2)(B) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Sec. 136a(c)(1)(F)(iii) or 136a(c)(2)(B)), or, if an award or agreement exists, the use of data in California was excluded from compensation or cost sharing on its face.
(C)The data that fulfills a current requirement was submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the department no more than 15 years before the date of the applicants California registration, application, or amendment or the formal reevaluation request for additional data to which the registrants reliance responds, provided that as to data submitted to the department as of August 1, 2005, in support of the first registration of a product, the applicable period shall be 17 years from the date of submission to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
(b)If the director previously imposed a specific documented data requirement after January 1, 1991, to obtain, amend, or maintain the California registration of a pesticide product substantially similar to the applicants product and that data requirement is not currently imposed in California for registration, amendment, or maintenance of the applicants product, the applicant is further obligated to submit data to meet the requirement, obtain written permission from an owner of the data to rely on the data, formulate or obtain its product from a source that has authorization from the data owner to rely on the data or from a source that complies with subdivision (c), or, if the data meets the criteria set forth in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), irrevocably offer to pay the data owner a share in the cost of producing the data and comply with subdivision (c). An offer to pay, and a payment pursuant to that offer, shall only be required as to data not submitted by the applicant that meets the criteria set forth in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3). To be eligible for cost sharing pursuant to this subdivision, the data shall meet all of the following requirements:
(1)The data met a specific, documented requirement of the director to obtain, amend, or maintain the California registration of the data owners pesticide product for a use covered by the applicants application or amendment.
(2)There has been no arbitration award, data compensation, or data cost-sharing agreement pertaining to data supporting the product at the federal level pursuant to Section 3(c)(1)(F)(iii) or 3(c)(2)(B) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Sec. 136a(c)(1)(F)(iii) or 136a(c)(2)(B)), or, if an award or agreement exists, the use of the data in California was excluded from compensation or cost sharing on its face.
(3)The data was submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency or Department of Pesticide Regulation by the data owner after January 1, 1991, and no more than 15 years before the date of the applicants California application for registration or amendment or the response to a formal specific document data requirement to which the registrants reliance responds, provided that as to data submitted to the department as of August 1, 2005, in support of the first registration of a product, the applicable period shall be 17 years from the date of submission to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
(c)An applicant may formulate its product from a source that does not have data authorization if that source has submitted data to support the product or makes or has made an irrevocable offer to pay the data owner a share of the cost of producing the data required pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) for the applicants product and complies with or has made payment in accordance with subdivision (d). If the source has already reached a data compensation or cost-sharing agreement or there has been an arbitration award under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (commencing with 7 U.S.C. Sec. 136) that excludes the right to rely on the data to satisfy the California requirement on its face, the source shall make or have made a new irrevocable offer to pay a share of the cost of producing that data to support the applicants product in California and comply with subdivision (d).
(d)(1)If an applicant is required to offer to pay a share in the cost of producing the data pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b), or if a source of product makes an offer pursuant to subdivision (c), the applicant or source shall submit to the data owner upon application to the department an irrevocable offer to pay the data owner a share in the cost of producing the data and to comply with regulations promulgated under this subdivision to determine the amount and terms, if the parties cannot agree. If a data owner for which cost sharing is required under subdivision (a) or (b) cannot be identified from information readily available to the applicant, the applicants obligation under subdivision (a) or (b) will be absolved if the data owner does not identify themselves to the applicant within 12 months after registration of the pesticide product. If within 12 months of registration, the data owner identifies themselves to the applicant and the applicant has not already made an irrevocable offer to pay to the data owner, or the applicants source of product has not made an offer pursuant to subdivision (c), the applicant shall do so promptly. In either event, the specific terms and amount of payments to be made shall be fixed by agreement between the applicant and the data owner, but determination of those amounts and terms shall not delay approval of the applicants application.
(2)If agreement cannot be reached about the terms and amount of payment required by this section at any time more than 90 days after issuance of an irrevocable offer to pay, either the applicant, source, or data owner may initiate, or with the consent of all parties, join a proceeding under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (commencing with 7 U.S.C. Sec. 136), pursuant to regulations promulgated by the director pursuant to this section. The purpose of this proceeding shall be to determine the amount due under this section. The director shall promulgate those regulations as emergency regulations within 60 days of the enactment of the bill that enacts this section. The regulations shall provide all of the following:
(A)Allow the proceeding authorized by this subdivision, upon mutual agreement of the parties, to be consolidated with dispute resolution under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (commencing with 7 U.S.C. Sec. 136).
(B)Require that the decisionmaker consider, among other factors, that the data owners exclusive right to sell the pesticide resulted in the data owner recovering all or part of the costs of generating the data.
(C)Require that the parties to the proceeding share equally in the payment of the expenses thereof.
(e)If a data owner fails to participate in a procedure for reaching an agreement or in a proceeding as required by subdivision (d), or fails to comply with the terms of an agreement or decision conducted under subdivision (d), then that data owner forfeits their right to cost recovery as a result of the use of the data at issue.
(f)If the director finds that an applicant has failed to make an offer to pay as required under subdivision (a) or (b), or if its source of product has failed to make an offer pursuant to subdivision (c), or if an applicant or its source of product has failed to participate in a proceeding for reaching an agreement, has refused to participate in a proceeding pursuant to subdivision (d), or has failed to comply with an agreement or to comply with an order, or to pay an award resulting from that proceeding, the director shall cancel the registration of the pesticide product in support of which the data was used in accordance with subdivision (g), notwithstanding Section 12825.
(g)If the applicant subject to subdivision (a) or (b) fails to comply with this article, the data owner shall notify the director of the specific provision of noncompliance and provide proof of notification to the applicant of its claim of noncompliance. All parties shall have 30 days from the date of receipt of notification by the director to submit written evidence or arguments to the director regarding the claim and any defenses thereto. The director shall provide a written finding within 60 days of the deadline for submission as to the claim and the resulting consequences.
(h)A hearing or live testimony shall not be conducted under subdivision (g) and this proceeding shall not be used as mechanism to prevent or delay the registration or payment for cost sharing as determined by this article. The finding of the director shall be final and conclusive, except that any party aggrieved by such a finding may seek review within 30 days of the finding pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(i)In lieu of seeking a determination by the director and cancellation of the registration pursuant to subdivision (f), the data owner may bring an action in any California court of competent jurisdiction against the applicant to enforce the obligations of that party set forth in this section.
(j)Cost sharing as provided in subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) shall not be required to support an application for annual renewal of a pesticide product registration, provided this provision shall not authorize renewal of a product registered before the effective date of this section if that registration is declared to have been unlawfully issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(k)The Department of Pesticide Regulation shall make available in the public domain its index of data submitted in support of registration applications, the ownership of that data, and the date it was submitted to California.
SEC. 9.SEC. 11.Section 12812 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12812.(a)The director shall establish, by regulation, fees for the departments registration program, as established pursuant to this division. The fees shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1)Annual fees for each product submitted for registration.
(2)Penalties for the late payment of registration fees.
(3)Fees for amendments to registered products.
(b)The fees established pursuant to this section may include costs for administration and overhead in connection with administering the fees.
(c)The fees established pursuant to this section shall be set so that the total revenue collected each fiscal year is sufficient to support the expenditure levels for the registration program contained in the annual Budget Act.
(d)Funds collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund, and shall be available for expenditure by the department, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for purposes of carrying out the departments pesticide registration program, as established pursuant to this division.
(e)The regulations adopted pursuant to this section, or any amendment or readoption thereto, shall be adopted by the director in accordance with Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. However, the adoption, amendment, readoption, or repeal of these regulations shall be considered by the Office of Administrative Law as an emergency, and necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, and general welfare. Notwithstanding any other law, the regulations shall remain in effect until amended by the director.
(f)On or before January 31 of each year, if the department determines that it might increase the fees established pursuant to this section during the calendar year, the department shall post the determination on its internet website and send the determination through any of its relevant, registration-related email lists.
SEC. 10.SEC. 12.Section 12824 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12824.(a)The director shall endeavor to eliminate from use in the state any pesticide that endangers the agricultural or nonagricultural environment, is not beneficial for the purposes for which it is sold, or is misrepresented. In carrying out this responsibility, the director shall develop an orderly program for the continuous evaluation of all pesticides actually registered. The continuous evaluation process may include, but is not limited to, reevaluating the active ingredient, making a change to the label, requiring a risk assessment of the active ingredient, designating the active ingredient as a restricted material, and requiring the mitigation of risks associated with the active ingredient.
(b)Before a substance is registered as a pesticide for the first time, there shall be a thorough and timely evaluation in accordance with this section. Appropriate restrictions may be placed on its use, including, but not limited to, limitations on quantity, area, and manner of application. All pesticides for which renewal of registration is sought also shall be evaluated in accordance with this section.
(c)The director may establish specific criteria to evaluate a pesticide with regard to the factors listed in Section 12825. The department may establish performance standards and tests that are to be conducted or financed, or both conducted and financed, by the registrants, applicants for registration, or parties interested in the registration of those pesticides.
(d)Each pesticide registrant or applicant shall, upon request of the director, submit any data determined by the director to be necessary to carry out this section.
SEC. 11.Section 12824.3 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:12824.3.(a)As part of the continuous evaluation of all pesticides registered pursuant to Section 12824, on or before January 31 of each year, the department shall post on its internet website a list of active ingredients that it might place under continuous evaluation in that calendar year.(b)When posting the information required pursuant to subdivision (a) on its internet website, the department shall also include whether it has placed an active ingredient under continuous evaluation and post an estimated timeframe for completing the evaluation.(c)The department, as part of the continuous evaluation of all pesticides, may contract with academic institutions, including, but not limited to, the University of California, for help with research.SEC. 12.Section 12824.5 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:12824.5.(a)On or before January 31, 2025, the department shall post an estimated timeframe for completing the reevaluation of any active ingredient that is undergoing reevaluation as of that date on its internet website.(b)On or before January 31, 2026, the department shall initiate the reevaluation of at least two additional active ingredients and post the estimated timeframe for completing the reevaluations on its internet website.(c)On or before January 31, 2027, and each year thereafter, the department shall initiate the reevaluation of at least five additional active ingredients and post the estimated timeframe for completing the reevaluations on its internet website.(d)On and after January 1, 2028, the department shall complete a reevaluation of an active ingredient within two years of initiating the reevaluation.(e)If the department identifies mitigation that is needed as part of a reevaluation or risk assessment, the department shall implement that mitigation within one year of completing the reeevaluation or risk assessment.SEC. 13.Section 12824.5 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:12824.5.(a)(1)On or before July 1, 2025, and annually thereafter, until July 2, 2029, the department shall annually identify and initiate the reevaluation of potential adverse effects of at least one pesticide in addition to those already under reevaluation.
(2)On or before July 1, 2029, and each year thereafter, the department shall annually identify and initiate the reevaluation of potential adverse effects of at least two pesticides in addition to those already under reevaluation.
(b)(1)If the department identifies potential adverse effects of a pesticide pursuant to subdivision (a), the department shall adopt any necessary mitigation measures within 24 months.
(2)If the department is unable to adopt mitigation measures within 24 months, the director shall set forth the reasons this requirement has not been met in the report described in subdivision (c), and include an updated projected timeline for adopting mitigation measures, which shall not exceed an additional 6 months.
(c)The department shall annually report on, and post on its internet website, its actions to identify and evaluate potential adverse effects of pesticides, and to develop mitigation measures to address those effects. The report and internet website posting shall include, but not be limited to, a list of pesticides under risk assessment, reevaluation, or mitigation development, and shall provide the current status and projected timelines associated with each of those actions and all other applicable reporting requirements in this chapter.
(d)The department, on or before July 1, 2026, shall identify actions to improve the efficiency of its internal processes for reevaluating pesticides. The goal of these actions shall be to complete new reevaluations within five years of their initiation. If the department identifies any regulatory or statutory changes that would improve the efficiency of the reevaluation process, the director shall notify the respective policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature of those changes on or before July 1, 2026.
(e)The department, on or before January 1, 2025, shall post on its internet website an estimated completion time for the pesticides that the department has under reevaluation as of January 1, 2024.
SEC. 13.SEC. 14.Section 12825 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12825.(a)Pursuant to Section 12824, the director, after a hearing, may cancel the registration of, or refuse to register, a pesticide if any of the following conditions apply:
(1)The pesticide has significant adverse environmental effects for which there is no feasible mitigation available.
(2)The use of the pesticide is of less public value or greater detriment to the environment than the benefit received by its use.
(3)There is a reasonable, effective, and practicable alternate material or procedure for the pesticide that is demonstrably less destructive to the environment.
(4)The pesticide, when properly used, is detrimental to vegetation, except weeds, to domestic animals, or to the public health and safety.
(5)The pesticide is of little or no value for the purpose for which it is intended.
(6)The registrant or their agent makes or implies a false or misleading statement concerning the pesticide, either verbally or in writing, or in the form of any advertising literature, for the purpose of meeting any registration requirement under this division, or that is otherwise related in any way to the pesticide.
(7)The director determines that the registrant has failed to report an adverse effect or risk for the pesticide as required by Section 12825.5.
(8)If the The director determines that the registrant has failed to comply with the requirements of a reevaluation or to submit the data required as part of the reevaluation of the registrants product or pursuant to Section 12824.
(9)The pesticide is required to be registered pursuant to the federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Sec. 136 et seq.) and is not so registered.
(b)In making a determination pursuant to this section, the director may require those practical demonstrations that are necessary to determine the facts.
SEC. 14.Section 12839 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, immediately following Section 12838, to read:12839.(a)For purposes of this section, time to complete the certificate of registration means the number of calendar months by which the department is required to complete a certificate of registration, beginning no more than 15 business days following the departments receipt of an application for the certificate of registration.(b)On and after July 1, 2028, the department shall comply with all of the following times to complete the certificate of registration, except as provided in subdivision (c).(1)For a certificate of registration for a new pesticide product, the department shall not exceed six months.(2)For a certificate of registration for a new active ingredient, the department shall not exceed 24 months.(3)For a certificate of registration for an amendment to the registration of a registered pesticide product, the department shall not exceed six months.(c)The department may toll the time to complete the certificate of registration under any of the following circumstances:(1)The applicant for the certificate of registration fails to correct an application deficiency, as described in the departments California Notice 2022-12 (May 9, 2022), Application Return Policy for Pesticide Product Registrations and Amendments, within the 15-business day timeframe.(2)A product revision requires United States Environmental Protection Agency approval.(3)The applicant for the certificate of registration corrects an application deficiency, but also makes substantive changes to the product or label that goes beyond correcting the deficiency.(4)Nonpayment of a registration fee by the applicant for the certificate of registration.(d)Upon the conclusion of a circumstance for which the department tolled a time to complete the certificate of registration pursuant to subdivision (c), the tolling period shall end and the time to complete the certificate of registration shall accrue within a reasonable and justifiable time period from the date on which the department became aware of the conclusion of the circumstance.SEC. 15.Section 12839 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, immediately following Section 12838, to read:12839.(a)On and after July 1, 2027, the department shall meet the following timelines to review and evaluate, and issue final decisions on applications to register new pesticide products or amend existing pesticide product registrations, as specified in this article, except as provided in subdivisions (b), (d), and (e).
(1)For review and evaluation of and issuance of a final decision on an application for registration of a new active ingredient, 30 months from the date of submittal of a complete application.
(2)For review and evaluation of and issuance of a final decision on an application for registration of a new product or letter of acceptance to amend an existing product registration, when previously evaluated data support registration or amendment and no supporting scientific data is required for review, six months from the date of submittal of a complete application.
(3)For review and evaluation of and issuance of a final decision on an application for registration of a new product or letter of acceptance to amend an existing product registration, when evaluation of data is required, 12 months from the date of submittal of a complete application.
(4)In cases where the submitted application for registration of a new product or amendment of an existing product registration does not include supporting scientific data for review, but the department subsequently determines that the application requires data evaluation, 12 months from the date of submittal of the required data.
(b)The department may toll the applicable timeline provided in subdivision (a) under any of the following circumstances:
(1)The applicant fails to correct a deficiency with the application identified by the department within a 15-business-day timeframe.
(2)An application requires United States Environmental Protection Agency approval.
(3)The applicant corrects a deficiency with the application, but also makes substantive changes to the product or label that exceeds correcting the deficiency.
(4)Nonpayment of a registration fee by the applicant for the certificate of registration.
(5)The application is reliant on data associated with another identical or substantially similar product submission undergoing registration review by the department.
(c)Upon the conclusion of a circumstance that was the basis for the department tolling an applicable timeline pursuant to subdivision (b), the tolling period shall end and the applicable timeline shall resume within 15 business days after the department became aware of the conclusion of the circumstance.
(d)If the department cannot meet an applicable timeline provided in subdivision (a), the director may extend the timeline for up to two 60-day periods by notifying the applicant in writing and specifying both of the following:
(1)The reasons why additional time is needed.
(2)The estimated number of days needed that would allow the director to complete the certificate of registration.
(e)In addition to subdivision (d), the director and the applicant may mutually agree, in writing, to additionally extend an applicable timeline provided in subdivision (a).
SEC. 15.SEC. 16.Section 12840 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, immediately following Section 12839, to read:12840.(a)It is the intent of the Legislature that, when the department hires staff due to the mill increases described in Section 12841 and registration fee increases in 2024, the department prioritize hiring for positions within the pesticide registration branch.
(b)When processing applications for registration of new active ingredients, the department shall prioritize reduced-risk pesticides.(c)Notwithstanding Section 10231.5 of the Government Code, on or before March 1, 2025, and each year thereafter, the department shall report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code, the average time it takes to process an application for registration of a new pesticide product and a new active ingredient and to start and complete a reevaluation of a pesticide, progress on hiring staff, and any additional efforts the department has made to improve the processing of an application for registration of a pesticide or the evaluation of a pesticide.(b)Beginning in 2025, the director, when requested by the appropriate policy committees of the Assembly and Senate, but no less than once every two years, shall appear before the appropriate policy committees of the Assembly and Senate to provide an update on the departments performance, including, but not limited to, its performance completing timely registrations and reevaluations pursuant to this chapter, and any other information that the committees request.
SEC. 16.SEC. 17.Section 12841 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12841.(a)A person shall not sell for use in this state any pesticide products that have been registered by the director for which the mill assessment established by this article, and the regulations adopted pursuant to it, is not paid at the times specified in Section 12843.
(b)Except as provided in subdivision (d), every person who sells for use in this state a pesticide product that has been registered by the director shall pay to the director the applicable assessment. Those sales expressly include all sales made electronically, telephonically, or by any other means that result in a pesticide product being shipped to or used in this state. There is a rebuttable presumption that pesticide products that are sold or distributed into or within this state by any person are sold or distributed for use in this state.
(c)Upon application of a registrant, the director shall determine whether a fertilizer or paper product is used as a carrier for a pesticide, and is sold in combination, and whether the mill assessment under this article shall be on the pesticide value only, when the product is designed, developed, and manufactured, and sold primarily for other than a pesticide use. If the director finds that the combination product has such a major component and is designed, developed, manufactured, and sold primarily for other than a pesticide use, the assessment provided by this article shall be paid on the equivalent percentage of the sales price of the active ingredients of the pesticide product. The director shall establish this percentage of the sales price. The percentage shall be the ratio of that portion of the sales price attributable to the pesticide portion to the total sales price of the combination product.
(d)Assessments provided for in this article for sales of registered pesticides that are sold for use in this state shall be paid by the person or entity that first sold the pesticide for use in this state.
(e)It has been and continues to be the intent of the Legislature that this division requires the department to register all pesticides before their sale for use in this state and, except as otherwise provided by law, requires the department to regulate and control the use of pesticides in accordance with this division. Except as provided in Section 12841.1, the department shall continue to collect the assessment as provided in this article at the same rate on all registered agricultural and registered nonagricultural pesticides.
(f)(1)The mill assessment shall be paid at the following rates per dollar of sales for all sales of pesticides for use in this state:
(A)From July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025, inclusive, the rate shall be 24 24.5 mills ($0.024) ($0.0245) per dollar sales of all sales of registered pesticides for use in this state plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1.
(B)From July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2026, inclusive, the rate shall be 27 mills ($0.027) per dollar sales of all sales of registered pesticides for use in this state plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1.
(C)From July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2027, inclusive, the rate shall be 29 mills ($0.029) per dollar sales of all sales of registered pesticides for use in this state plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1.
(D)On and after July 1, 2027, the rate shall be 30 mills ($0.030) per dollar sales of all sales of registered pesticides for use in this state plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1.
(2)The regulations adopted pursuant to this section, or any amendment thereto, shall be adopted by the director in accordance with Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. However, the adoption, amendment, readoption, or repeal of these regulations shall be considered by the Office of Administrative Law as an emergency, and necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, and general welfare. Notwithstanding any other law, the regulations shall remain in effect until amended by the director. The director shall make available to the public, upon the adoption of an emergency regulation establishing a new rate, the information on which the director has calculated, based, or determined the new rate.
(g)The revenue collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund and distributed as follows:
(1)Notwithstanding Sections 2282 and 12784, the director shall pay, in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section 12844, the following amounts to the counties as reimbursement for costs incurred by the counties in the administration and enforcement of Division 6 (commencing with Section 11401), this chapter, Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 14001), Chapter 3.4 (commencing with Section 14090), and Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 14101):
(A)From January 1, 1998, to March 31, 1998, inclusive, five-eighths of the money received during that period pursuant to this section.
(B)From April 1, 1998, to June 30, 2004, an amount equal to the revenue derived from 6 mills ($0.006) per dollar of sales for all pesticide sales for use in this state.
(C)Beginning July 1, 2004, an amount equal to the revenue derived from 7.6 mills ($0.0076) per dollar of sales for all pesticide sales for use in this state.
(2)All funds not otherwise distributed pursuant to this subdivision shall remain in the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund and shall be available for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to support the departments operations and to implement Chapters 354, 520, 662, and 836 of the Statutes of 2023. operations.
(h)For purposes of this section, active ingredient means any active ingredient that is required to be stated on the label on any registered pesticide under Section 12883.
SEC. 17.SEC. 18.Section 12841.1 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12841.1.(a)The director may collect an assessment, in addition to the mill assessment collected pursuant to Section 12841, for all pesticide sales for use in this state except for sales for use in this state of pesticides labeled solely for home, industrial, or institutional use. The director may only collect up to an additional 1.04 mills ($0.00104) per dollar of sales, in addition to the rate established pursuant to Section 12841, if necessary to fund, or augment the funding for, an appropriation to the Department of Food and Agriculture to provide pesticide consultation to the department pursuant to Section 11454.2. The necessity of this additional assessment shall be determined by the Secretary of Food and Agriculture, in consultation with the director, on an annual basis after consideration of all other revenue sources, including any reserves, that may be appropriated for this purpose. The secretarys written determination, including a request for a specified additional assessment and the basis for that request, shall be provided to the director by a time and in a manner prescribed by the director.
(b)The revenue collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited monthly into a separate account in the Department of Food and Agriculture Fund. These revenues shall be expended only by the Department of Food and Agriculture, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to provide consultation to the department pursuant to Section 11454.2. Funds shall not be expended before the execution of a memorandum of understanding pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 11454.2. The consultation activities to be undertaken by the Department of Food and Agriculture are limited solely to those specifically authorized in the memorandum of understanding executed pursuant to Section 11454.2. These funds shall not be expended for scientific risk assessment activities. The department shall be reimbursed from the Department of Food and Agriculture Fund for the departments revenue collection activities. If the director determines that a person is entitled to a refund of mill assessment funds that were collected pursuant to this section, the director shall inform the Secretary of Food and Agriculture of the amount of the refund due, which shall be reimbursed from the Department of Food and Agriculture Fund.
SEC. 18.SEC. 19.Section 12841.4 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12841.4.(a)Every registrant of any production agricultural- or structural-use pesticide product sold for use in this state that is packaged in rigid, nonrefillable, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) containers of 55 gallons or less shall establish a recycling program, or demonstrate participation in a recycling program to ensure HDPE containers are recycled. Container recycling shall comply with the American National Standards Institute American Society of Agriculture and Biological Engineers Standard S596, entitled Recycling Plastic Containers from Pesticides and Pesticide-Related Products, as published in February 2006. The records required by these standards shall be maintained for four years and shall be subject to audit by the director.
(b)A registrant who is required to establish or participate in a recycling program pursuant to this section shall provide to the director, at least annually, a document certifying that this requirement has been met.
(c)(1)The director may adopt regulations to carry out the purposes of this section. Upon a federal pesticide container recycling program being adopted, the director may adopt regulations to conform to the federal program.
(2)It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section that any regulatory standards adopted by the department shall be at least as stringent as those standards referred to in subdivision (a).
(d)The department shall estimate a recycling rate for pesticide containers and propose suggestions for program improvements and post this information annually on its internet website.
SEC. 19.SEC. 20.Section 12842 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12842.Every person who sells for use in this state any pesticide products that have been registered by the director shall maintain in this state, or with the directors permission at another location, an accurate record of all pesticide transactions for four years. The records are subject to audit by the director and shall clearly demonstrate proof of payment of all applicable assessments for each registered pesticide product sold for use in this state.
SEC. 20.SEC. 21.Section 12847 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12847.Sales invoices for pesticides first sold into or within this state shall show that the assessments specified in Sections 12841 and 12841.1 will be paid by the person or entity that first sold the pesticide for use in the state. All other sales invoices for pesticides sold into or within this state, except retail sales of those nonagricultural pesticides labeled only for home, industrial, or institutional use, shall show as a comment on the invoice that the assessment will be paid, and may show an amount or rate that represents the assessment. However, only the person who actually will pay the assessment may show the amount or rate of the assessment as a line item on the sales invoice.
SEC. 21.SEC. 22.Section 12999.4 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12999.4.(a)In lieu of civil prosecution by the director, the director may levy a civil penalty against a person violating subdivision (d) or (e) of Section 11792, Sections 12101, 12101.5, 12114, 12115, 12116, 12581, 12603, 12671, 12992, and 12993, Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 12400) of Division 6, Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 12841), Section 13186.5, Chapter 7.5 (commencing with Section 15300), or the regulations adopted pursuant to those provisions, and Sections 6560, 6562, 6564, 6568, 6574, 6576, and 6577 of Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations, of not more than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for each violation.
(b)Before a civil penalty is levied, the person charged with the violation shall be given a written notice of the proposed action, including the nature of the violation and the amount of the proposed penalty, and shall have the right to request a hearing within 20 days after receiving notice of the proposed action. A notice of the proposed action that is sent by certified mail to the last known address of the person charged shall be considered received even if delivery is refused or the notice is not accepted at that address. If a hearing is requested, notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given at least 10 days before the date set for the hearing. Before the hearing, the person shall be given an opportunity to review the directors evidence. At the hearing, the person shall be given the opportunity to present evidence on their own behalf. If a hearing is not timely requested, the director may take the action proposed without a hearing.
(c)If the person against whom the director levied a civil penalty requested and appeared at a hearing, the person may seek review of the directors decision within 30 days of the date of the decision pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(d)After the exhaustion of the review procedure provided in this section, the director, or the directors representative, may file a certified copy of a final decision of the director that directs the payment of a civil penalty and, if applicable, any order that denies a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus, with the clerk of the superior court of any county. Judgment shall be entered immediately by the clerk in conformity with the decision or order. Pursuant to Section 6103 of the Government Code, the clerk of the superior court shall not charge a fee for the performance of any official service required in connection with the entry of judgment pursuant to this section.
(e)Any money recovered under this section shall be paid into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund for use by the department, upon appropriation by the Legislature, in administering this division and Division 6 (commencing with Section 11401).
SEC. 22.SEC. 23.Section 13000 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:13000.(a)Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), an action brought pursuant to this article shall be commenced by the director, the commissioner, the Attorney General, the district attorney, the city prosecutor, or the city attorney, as the case may be, within three years of the occurrence of the violation.
(b)When a commissioner submits a completed investigation to the director for action by the director or the Attorney General, the action shall be commenced within one year of that submission. However, this subdivision does not preclude the director from returning the investigation to the commissioner for action to be commenced by the commissioner, the district attorney, the city prosecutor, or the city attorney, as provided in subdivision (a).
(c)(1)An action brought by the director to collect unpaid mill assessments and delinquent fees required by Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 12841) or an action brought by the director to collect civil penalties pursuant to Section 12999.4 for violations of Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 12841), Section 12992, Section 12993, or Section 12995 shall be commenced within four years of the occurrence of the violation, except as provided in paragraph (2).
(2)An action brought by the director pursuant to Section 12999.4 or 12998 for violations of Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 12841) or Section 12992, 12993, or 12995 that are discovered during the course of an audit performed pursuant to Section 12842 shall be commenced within two years from the date of audit completion and may be brought for a violation occurring within four years of the commencement of the audit.
SEC. 23.SEC. 24.Section 14006.5 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:14006.5.(a)Except as provided in Section 14006.6, a person shall not use or possess a pesticide designated as a restricted material for any agricultural use except under a written permit of the commissioner. A permit shall not be issued for any restricted material for use in any manner other than pursuant to its registration without the approval of the director. In addition, a permit shall not be granted if the commissioner determines that paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 12825 would be applicable to the proposed use.
(b)Before issuing a permit for a pesticide, the commissioner shall consider local conditions, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(1)Use in vicinity of schools, dwellings, hospitals, recreational areas, and livestock enclosures.
(2)Problems related to heterogeneous planting of crops.
(3)Applications of materials known to create severe resurgence or secondary pest problems without compensating control of pest species.
(4)Meteorological conditions for use.
(5)Timing of applications in relation to bee activity.
(6)Provisions for proper storage of pesticides and disposal of containers.
(c)Each permit issued for any pesticide shall include conditions for use in writing.
SEC. 24.SEC. 25.Section 14009 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:14009.(a)(1)An interested person may request the commissioner to review their action in issuing, refusing, revoking, suspending, or conditioning a permit to use or possess a restricted material. The request for review of the commissioners action shall be limited to the issues described in subdivision (d). The commissioner shall review the request and issue a written decision in response to the request to review within 10 days of receipt of the request. If the commissioner is unable to complete the review within 10 days, the commissioner shall notify the person requesting a review in writing, including an estimated timeline for completion. The commissioner may affirm, modify, or cancel the permit action reviewed. An interested person may thereafter appeal to the director to review the commissioners action. action within 30 days of the date of receiving the commissioners written decision.
(2)No later than January 31 of each year, the commissioner shall report to the director the number and share of total reviews within their jurisdiction in the previous calendar year that were not completed within the 10-day timeline provided in this subdivision, the average number of days required for review, and the number of permits that were affirmed, modified, or cancelled.
(b)The commissioner and director shall conduct each review in an expeditious manner so that needed pest control measures are not adversely affected.
(c)Each request for review, limited to the issues described in subdivision (d), shall be submitted in writing to the commissioner by the person requesting the review and shall include all of the following:
(1)The location of persons, property, or areas that would be affected and the location of property to be treated.
(2)The name of the restricted material involved.
(3)The name and address of the person in charge of the property to be treated, if different from the person filing the request for review.
(4)Any other information that the person filing the request for review or the commissioner determines to be relevant.
(d)In an appeal of a commissioners action to the director, the issues are limited to any of the following:
(1)Whether the proposed permit use is consistent with applicable pesticide label restrictions and applicable regulations.
(2)Whether the commissioner properly considered Section 14006.5.
(3)Whether the commissioner abused their discretion in issuing, refusing, revoking, or conditioning the permit.
(e)The director shall act on these appeals within 10 days of receipt thereof or as soon thereafter as is practicable. thereof. If the director is unable to complete the review within 10 days, the director shall notify the appellant, in writing, including an estimated timeline for completion. The director may stay the operation of a permit until their review is complete. As part of its annual reporting requirements pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 12824.5, the department shall report the number and share of total cases in which the director did not meet the timeline provided in this subdivision, the average number of days required for review of appeals, and the number of permits that were affirmed, modified, or cancelled.
(f)(1)Before acting on an appeal, the director shall make publicly available all of the information provided to them as specified in this section if requested to do so in writing by any interested person.
(2)At any time before acting on an appeal, the director may request additional testimony or other evidence specified in this section at the public review from interested persons.
(g)Judicial review of any decision by the director pursuant to this section shall be pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Review shall be limited to whether the proposed permit use is consistent with applicable pesticide label restrictions and regulations and whether the director abused their discretion.
SEC. 25.SEC. 26.Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code is amended to read:21080.(a)Except as otherwise provided in this division, this division shall apply to discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies, including, but not limited to, the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of zoning variances, the issuance of conditional use permits, and the approval of tentative subdivision maps unless the project is exempt from this division.
(b)This division does not apply to any of the following activities:
(1)Ministerial projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies.
(2)Emergency repairs to public service facilities necessary to maintain service.
(3)Projects undertaken, carried out, or approved by a public agency to maintain, repair, restore, demolish, or replace property or facilities damaged or destroyed as a result of a disaster in a disaster-stricken area in which a state of emergency has been proclaimed by the Governor pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 8550) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(4)Specific actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency.
(5)Projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves.
(6)Actions undertaken by a public agency relating to any thermal powerplant site or facility, including the expenditure, obligation, or encumbrance of funds by a public agency for planning, engineering, or design purposes, or for the conditional sale or purchase of equipment, fuel, water (except groundwater), steam, or power for a thermal powerplant, if the powerplant site and related facility will be the subject of an environmental impact report, negative declaration, or other document, prepared pursuant to a regulatory program certified pursuant to Section 21080.5, which will be prepared by the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, by the Public Utilities Commission, or by the city or county in which the powerplant and related facility would be located if the environmental impact report, negative declaration, or document includes the environmental impact, if any, of the action described in this paragraph.
(7)Activities or approvals necessary to the bidding for, hosting or staging of, and funding or carrying out of, an Olympic Games under the authority of the International Olympic Committee, except for the construction of facilities necessary for the Olympic Games.
(8)The establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, or other charges by public agencies that the public agency finds are for the purpose of: (A) meeting operating expenses, including employee wage rates and fringe benefits; (B) purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment, or materials; (C) meeting financial reserve needs and requirements; (D) obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service areas; or (E) obtaining funds necessary to maintain those intracity transfers as are authorized by city charter. The public agency shall incorporate written findings in the record of any proceeding in which an exemption under this paragraph is claimed setting forth with specificity the basis for the claim of exemption.
(9)All classes of projects designated pursuant to Section 21084.
(10)A project for the institution or increase of passenger or commuter services on rail or highway rights-of-way already in use, including modernization of existing stations and parking facilities. For purposes of this paragraph, highway has the same meaning as defined in Section 360 of the Vehicle Code.
(11)A project for the institution or increase of passenger or commuter service on high-occupancy vehicle lanes already in use, including the modernization of existing stations and parking facilities.
(12)Facility extensions not to exceed four miles in length that are required for the transfer of passengers from or to exclusive public mass transit guideway or busway public transit services.
(13)A project for the development of a regional transportation improvement program, the state transportation improvement program, or a congestion management program prepared pursuant to Section 65089 of the Government Code.
(14)A project or portion of a project located in another state that will be subject to environmental impact review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321 et seq.) or similar state laws of that state. Any emissions or discharges that would have a significant effect on the environment in this state are subject to this division.
(15)Projects undertaken by a local agency to implement a rule or regulation imposed by a state agency, board, or commission under a certified regulatory program pursuant to Section 21080.5. Any site-specific effect of the project that was not analyzed as a significant effect on the environment in the plan or other written documentation required by Section 21080.5 is subject to this division.
(16)Approval by the Department of Pesticide Regulation of a pesticide emergency exemption pursuant to Section 136p of Title 7 of the United States Code.
(c)If a lead agency determines that a proposed project, not otherwise exempt from this division, would not have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall adopt a negative declaration to that effect. The negative declaration shall be prepared for the proposed project in either of the following circumstances:
(1)There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
(2)An initial study identifies potentially significant effects on the environment, but: (A) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur; and (B) there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.
(d)If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report shall be prepared.
(e)(1)For purposes of this section and this division, substantial evidence includes fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact.
(2)Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment.
(f)As a result of the public review process for a mitigated negative declaration, including administrative decisions and public hearings, the lead agency may conclude that certain mitigation measures identified pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) are infeasible or otherwise undesirable. In those circumstances, the lead agency, before approving the project, may delete those mitigation measures and substitute for them other mitigation measures that the lead agency finds, after holding a public hearing on the matter, are equivalent or more effective in mitigating significant effects on the environment to a less than significant level and that do not cause any potentially significant effect on the environment. If those new mitigation measures are made conditions of project approval or are otherwise made part of the project approval, the deletion of the former measures and the substitution of the new mitigation measures shall not constitute an action or circumstance requiring recirculation of the mitigated negative declaration.
(g)This section does not preclude a project applicant or any other person from challenging, in an administrative or judicial proceeding, the legality of a condition of project approval imposed by the lead agency. If, however, any condition of project approval set aside by either an administrative body or court was necessary to avoid or lessen the likelihood of the occurrence of a significant effect on the environment, the lead agencys approval of the negative declaration and project shall be invalid and a new environmental review process shall be conducted before the project can be reapproved, unless the lead agency substitutes a new condition that the lead agency finds, after holding a public hearing on the matter, is equivalent to, or more effective in, lessening or avoiding significant effects on the environment and that does not cause any potentially significant effect on the environment.
SEC. 26.SEC. 27.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act or because costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
SEC. 28.This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to ensure that the state has long-term fiscal health to protect human health and the environment by fostering sustainable pest management and regulating pesticides, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.
Integrated pest management means an ecosystem-based strategy that focuses on long-term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of techniques such as biological control, habitat manipulation, modification of cultural practices, and use of resistant varieties. Pesticides are used only after monitoring indicates they are needed according to established guidelines and treatments are made with the goal of removing only the target organism. Pest control materials are selected and applied in a manner that minimizes risks to human health, beneficial and nontarget organisms, and the environment.
SEC. 3.Section 11407.8 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:11407.8.Priority pesticide means a pesticide product, active ingredient, or group of related products within the context of specific product uses or pest or location use combinations that are of greatest concern and warrant heightened attention, planning, and support to expedite its replacement and eventual elimination. The criteria for classifying a pesticide as a priority pesticide includes, but is not limited to, hazard and risk classifications, availability of effective alternative products or practices, and special consideration of pest management situations that potentially cause severe or widespread adverse impacts.SEC. 4.SEC. 2.Section 11412 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:11412.Sustainable pest management means a holistic, whole system approach applicable to agricultural and other managed ecosystems and urban and rural communities that builds on the concept of integrated pest management to include the wider context of the three sustainability pillars: human health and social equity; environmental protection; and, economic vitality.
SEC. 5.SEC. 3.Section 11520 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:11520.(a)The Legislature finds and declares that it is important for California to implement sustainable pest management and, by 2050, to eliminate the use of priority pesticides by transitioning to sustainable pest management practices and to adopt sustainable pest management as the de facto pest management system. management.
(b)In order to achieve the goal described in subdivision (a), it is the intent of the Legislature that the state do all of the following:
(1)Prioritize prevention and strengthen Californias commitment to pest prevention by doing both of the following fundamental actions:
(A)Proactively preventing the establishment of new invasive pest species through a significant expansion of the states biosecurity and invasive pest mitigation system.
(B)Proactively eliminating pest-conducive conditions both in agricultural and urban settings.
(2)Coordinate state-level leadership by doing all of the following:
(A)Creating an accountable and connected leadership structure so that the state effectively embeds sustainable pest management principles across agencies.
(B)Identifying ways to improve coordination within and between agencies and programs for both agricultural and urban pest management.
(C)Enhancing the ability to champion sustainable pest management practices in urban and agricultural settings.
(D)Promoting the development of alternatives to priority pesticides by encouraging research and innovation.(3)(A)Invest in building sustainable pest management knowledge by significantly reinvesting in sustainable pest management-focused research and outreach so that all pest management practitioners have equal and adequate access to the support and resources necessary to develop and implement their own sustainable pest management system in a way that effectively manages pests, minimizes adverse impacts to humans and the environment, and is economically viable.
(B)In agricultural pest management, subparagraph (A) includes securing a significant increase in sustainable pest management-trained technical advisors advisers and funding for sustainable pest management research and outreach and increasing human capacity for those programs in ways that reflect and serve the diversity of California farms and agricultural producers.
(C)In urban pest management, subparagraph (A) includes expanding funding and infrastructure for urban sustainable pest management research, innovation, and outreach to align with and reflect the volume and impacts of pesticides used in urban contexts, which requires providing adequate dedicated annual funding for urban-focused academics, research, and extension.
(4)Improve Californias pesticide registration processes and bring more alternative products to market by doing all of the following:
(A)Creating mechanisms to improve the departments registration review process and to prioritize and expedite safer, more sustainable alternative products to high-risk pesticides. products.
(B)Requiring the departments processes to reflect the goals of sustainable pest management and requiring the department to provide clarity on its scientific review and decisionmaking process for both registrants and the public.
(C)Requiring the department to improve its processes for evaluating pesticides that are already registered.
(5)Enhance monitoring and data collection by significantly expanding and fully funding health and environmental monitoring infrastructure, data collection, and interpretation, which will enable the state to accurately track pesticide-related human illnesses and the presence of pesticides in land, water, air, biota, and structures and provide pesticide-use data and information needed for sound regulatory decisions.
SEC. 6.SEC. 4.Section 11531 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:11531.Except as provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 12001), this division does not apply to any person while engaged in any of the following:
(a)An activity that is defined as structural pest control and required to be licensed under Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 8500) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code.
(b)Preservative treatment of fabrics or structural materials.
(c)Sanitation services for collection, disposal, and treatment of wastewater, refuse, or sewage.
(d)Seed treatment that is incidental to the persons regular business.
(e)Live capture and removal or exclusion of vertebrate pests, bees, or wasps without the use of pesticides. Vertebrate pests include, but are not limited to, bats, raccoons, skunks, squirrels, mice, rats, and pigeons. This section does not exempt a person from Chapter the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code. Code).
(f)Pool cleaning services, unless the person is selling, applying, using, or distributing a restricted material.
SEC. 7.SEC. 5.Section 12114 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12114.(a)Each licensed pest control dealer, and each person who is required to be licensed as a pest control dealer pursuant to Section 12101, shall maintain at their principal place of business the records of its purchases, sales, and distributions of pesticides into or within this state, including those of its branch locations, for four years. Each dealer shall also maintain the pesticide broker or pest control dealer license number of any pesticide broker or pest control dealer from whom the dealer purchased pesticides registered by the director and labeled for agricultural use. The records shall be available for audit by the director.
(b)Each licensed pest control dealer, and each person who is required to be licensed as a pest control dealer pursuant to Section 12101, shall report quarterly to the director the total dollars of sales and total pounds or gallons sold into or within this state of each pesticide subject to Sections 12841 and 12841.1. The quarterly report shall be in the form prescribed by the director and shall include information from the dealers licensed branch locations, if any, and any other information specified on the form or required by the director. The report shall include a certification, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained in the report is true and correct. The report shall accompany payment of assessments required by Sections 12841 and 12841.1.
SEC. 8.SEC. 6.Section 12798 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12798.(a)The department shall establish a competitive grants program to make funds available to qualified public and private entities to conduct pest management research projects. All of the research related to pest management funded by the department shall be administered pursuant to this program.
(b)Research conducted pursuant to this section shall have the further development of alternative pest management practices and methods and the further development of pest exclusion detection and eradication methods as priorities. Research conducted pursuant to this section shall consider how the research could help to implement sustainable pest management, as defined in Section 11412, and to implement and support integrated pest management, as defined in Section 11401.7, and alternatives to priority pesticides, as defined in Section 11407.8, and high-risk pesticides, as defined in Section 11401.5. 11401.7. Before making research awards, the department shall assess existing research activities and developments in integrated pest management, alternatives to pesticides, and other alternative pest management practices and methods, including, but not limited to, cultural, biological, and biotechnological research.
(c)(1)The secretary shall establish a Pest Management Research Committee, which shall award all funds under the competitive grants program.
(2)The primary objective of the committee is the further development of pest prevention activities and alternative pest management practices, techniques, and methods that exclude serious pests, as determined by the committee, detect and quickly eliminate small infestations of foreign pests, and reduce pesticide use, minimize or eliminate pesticide residues, or result in the use of safer pesticides. In achieving that objective, the committee shall encourage the development and use of biological controls, integrated pest management, biotechnology, cultural, pest prevention, and other alternative pest management methods that are environmentally sound and economically viable.
(3)The committee shall consist of the following 12 persons, who shall serve at the pleasure of the secretary:
(A)The Secretary of Food and Agriculture or their designee, who shall serve as chairperson.
(B)The President of the University of California or their designee.
(C)The Chancellor of the California State University or their designee.
(D)Two members who represent the agricultural community, one of whom is an experienced organic farmer and one of whom is knowledgeable and experienced in alternative pest management techniques.
(E)Two members who represent pest management researchers, one of whom represents Californias public and private colleges and universities and one of whom represents Californias independent research community, both of whom are knowledgeable in pest prevention, control, eradication, and pest management.
(F)One member who represents public interest organizations, qualified in environmental or public health, or both, and knowledgeable in alternative pest management techniques.
(G)One member who represents the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, with experience in public health or toxicology.
(H)One member who represents county agricultural commissioners, knowledgeable and experienced in alternative pest management techniques and pest prevention, control, and eradication.
(I)One member who represents the Department of Pesticide Regulation, with experience in pest management systems.
(J)One member who represents the State Department of Health Care Services, with experience in public health.
(4)The committee shall award funds based upon a competitive application process that meets the eligibility of fulfilling, and has the ability to fulfill, the objectives of this section.
(5)The approval of research proposals shall be made by a majority vote of the membership of the committee.
(d)For any proposals funded pursuant to this section, the department shall require reasonable accountability, including performance standards, periodic reports, deadlines, and payments conditioned on compliance with performance standards and deadlines.
(e)Funding for second and subsequent years of a multiyear award shall be contingent upon satisfactory completion by the grantee of the prior year grant awards.
(f)In order to facilitate the use of pest management practices and methods developed pursuant to this section, the secretary shall cooperate with qualified public and private entities to provide outreach consultation, information dissemination, and educational services to the agricultural community and other interested parties.
SEC. 9.SEC. 7.Section 12811.2 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:12811.2.(a)On or before January 31 of each year, the department shall post an estimated timeframe for processing an application for registration of a pesticide on its internet website.
(b)If the department determines, while processing the application, that processing will take longer than the posted estimated timeframe, the department shall contact the applicant and provide further details, such as whether more information is needed or the updated estimated timeframe for processing.
(c)On or before December 31, 2028, and each year thereafter, the department shall report the average processing times for product registrations and post this information on its internet website. This information shall include all of the following:
(1)The number of applications by registration category that were completed within the timeframes described in Section 12839. This number shall be reported based on nonagricultural and agricultural use products.
(2)The number of applications that were not completed within the timeframes described in Section 12839. This number shall be reported based on nonagricultural and agricultural use products.
(3)The number of days that applications spent on average in intake and at each scientific evaluation program.
SEC. 10.SEC. 8.Section 12811.5 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12811.5.The director may rely on any evaluations of previously submitted data to determine whether to accept an application for registration of a new pesticide product, an amendment to the registration of a registered pesticide product, or to maintain the registration of a registered pesticide product regardless of the ownership of the data previously evaluated, if the previously submitted data fulfills current data requirements. However, effective January 1, 2006, applicants will be subject to the following provisions:
(a)(1)If an applicant for registration of a pesticide product, or an amendment to the registration of a registered pesticide product, including a registrant that desires to maintain its registration of a registered pesticide product after the director makes a formal request for additional data pursuant to reevaluation or Section 12824, does not submit its own data to fulfill a current data requirement imposed by the director and relies on data that the applicant does not own or have written permission to rely on that was submitted to the director by another entity after January 1, 1991, and meets the three criteria set forth in this subdivision, the applicant shall either: (A) obtain written permission from the data owner to rely on the data; (B) formulate or obtain its product from a source that has data authorization from the data owner, or a source that complies with subdivision (c); or (C) if the data meets the criteria set forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2), irrevocably offer to pay the data owner a share of the cost of producing the data and comply with subdivision (d). The director may rely on data submitted before January 1, 1991, or that does not meet the criteria set forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2) to support any application or comply with any formal reevaluation request for additional data, without permission from the data owner. An offer to pay, and a payment pursuant to that offer, shall only be required as to data not submitted by the applicant that meets the criteria set forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2).
(2)To be eligible for cost sharing pursuant to this subdivision, the data shall meet all of the following requirements:
(A)The data was required by the director in order to obtain, amend, or maintain the data owners California registration or registrations for uses covered by the application, amendment, or formal request for additional data pursuant to reevaluation or Section 12824.
(B)There has been no arbitration award, data compensation, or data cost-sharing agreement pertaining to data supporting the product at the federal level pursuant to Section 3(c)(1)(F)(iii) or 3(c)(2)(B) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Sec. 136a(c)(1)(F)(iii) or 136a(c)(2)(B)), or, if an award or agreement exists, the use of data in California was excluded from compensation or cost sharing on its face.
(C)The data that fulfills a current requirement was submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the department no more than 15 years before the date of the applicants California registration, application, or amendment or the formal reevaluation request for additional data to which the registrants reliance responds, provided that as to data submitted to the department as of August 1, 2005, in support of the first registration of a product, the applicable period shall be 17 years from the date of submission to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
(b)If the director previously imposed a specific documented data requirement after January 1, 1991, to obtain, amend, or maintain the California registration of a pesticide product substantially similar to the applicants product and that data requirement is not currently imposed in California for registration, amendment, or maintenance of the applicants product, the applicant is further obligated to submit data to meet the requirement, obtain written permission from an owner of the data to rely on the data, formulate or obtain its product from a source that has authorization from the data owner to rely on the data or from a source that complies with subdivision (c), or, if the data meets the criteria set forth in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), irrevocably offer to pay the data owner a share in the cost of producing the data and comply with subdivision (c). An offer to pay, and a payment pursuant to that offer, shall only be required as to data not submitted by the applicant that meets the criteria set forth in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3). To be eligible for cost sharing pursuant to this subdivision, the data shall meet all of the following requirements:
(1)The data met a specific, documented requirement of the director to obtain, amend, or maintain the California registration of the data owners pesticide product for a use covered by the applicants application or amendment.
(2)There has been no arbitration award, data compensation, or data cost-sharing agreement pertaining to data supporting the product at the federal level pursuant to Section 3(c)(1)(F)(iii) or 3(c)(2)(B) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Sec. 136a(c)(1)(F)(iii) or 136a(c)(2)(B)), or, if an award or agreement exists, the use of the data in California was excluded from compensation or cost sharing on its face.
(3)The data was submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency or Department of Pesticide Regulation by the data owner after January 1, 1991, and no more than 15 years before the date of the applicants California application for registration or amendment or the response to a formal specific document data requirement to which the registrants reliance responds, provided that as to data submitted to the department as of August 1, 2005, in support of the first registration of a product, the applicable period shall be 17 years from the date of submission to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
(c)An applicant may formulate its product from a source that does not have data authorization if that source has submitted data to support the product or makes or has made an irrevocable offer to pay the data owner a share of the cost of producing the data required pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) for the applicants product and complies with or has made payment in accordance with subdivision (d). If the source has already reached a data compensation or cost-sharing agreement or there has been an arbitration award under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (commencing with 7 U.S.C. Sec. 136) that excludes the right to rely on the data to satisfy the California requirement on its face, the source shall make or have made a new irrevocable offer to pay a share of the cost of producing that data to support the applicants product in California and comply with subdivision (d).
(d)(1)If an applicant is required to offer to pay a share in the cost of producing the data pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b), or if a source of product makes an offer pursuant to subdivision (c), the applicant or source shall submit to the data owner upon application to the department an irrevocable offer to pay the data owner a share in the cost of producing the data and to comply with regulations promulgated under this subdivision to determine the amount and terms, if the parties cannot agree. If a data owner for which cost sharing is required under subdivision (a) or (b) cannot be identified from information readily available to the applicant, the applicants obligation under subdivision (a) or (b) will be absolved if the data owner does not identify themselves to the applicant within 12 months after registration of the pesticide product. If within 12 months of registration, the data owner identifies themselves to the applicant and the applicant has not already made an irrevocable offer to pay to the data owner, or the applicants source of product has not made an offer pursuant to subdivision (c), the applicant shall do so promptly. In either event, the specific terms and amount of payments to be made shall be fixed by agreement between the applicant and the data owner, but determination of those amounts and terms shall not delay approval of the applicants application.
(2)If agreement cannot be reached about the terms and amount of payment required by this section at any time more than 90 days after issuance of an irrevocable offer to pay, either the applicant, source, or data owner may initiate, or with the consent of all parties, join a proceeding under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (commencing with 7 U.S.C. Sec. 136), pursuant to regulations promulgated by the director pursuant to this section. The purpose of this proceeding shall be to determine the amount due under this section. The director shall promulgate those regulations as emergency regulations within 60 days of the enactment of the bill that enacts this section. The regulations shall provide all of the following:
(A)Allow the proceeding authorized by this subdivision, upon mutual agreement of the parties, to be consolidated with dispute resolution under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (commencing with 7 U.S.C. Sec. 136).
(B)Require that the decisionmaker consider, among other factors, that the data owners exclusive right to sell the pesticide resulted in the data owner recovering all or part of the costs of generating the data.
(C)Require that the parties to the proceeding share equally in the payment of the expenses thereof.
(e)If a data owner fails to participate in a procedure for reaching an agreement or in a proceeding as required by subdivision (d), or fails to comply with the terms of an agreement or decision conducted under subdivision (d), then that data owner forfeits their right to cost recovery as a result of the use of the data at issue.
(f)If the director finds that an applicant has failed to make an offer to pay as required under subdivision (a) or (b), or if its source of product has failed to make an offer pursuant to subdivision (c), or if an applicant or its source of product has failed to participate in a proceeding for reaching an agreement, has refused to participate in a proceeding pursuant to subdivision (d), or has failed to comply with an agreement or to comply with an order, or to pay an award resulting from that proceeding, the director shall cancel the registration of the pesticide product in support of which the data was used in accordance with subdivision (g), notwithstanding Section 12825.
(g)If the applicant subject to subdivision (a) or (b) fails to comply with this article, the data owner shall notify the director of the specific provision of noncompliance and provide proof of notification to the applicant of its claim of noncompliance. All parties shall have 30 days from the date of receipt of notification by the director to submit written evidence or arguments to the director regarding the claim and any defenses thereto. The director shall provide a written finding within 60 days of the deadline for submission as to the claim and the resulting consequences.
(h)A hearing or live testimony shall not be conducted under subdivision (g) and this proceeding shall not be used as mechanism to prevent or delay the registration or payment for cost sharing as determined by this article. The finding of the director shall be final and conclusive, except that any party aggrieved by such a finding may seek review within 30 days of the finding pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(i)In lieu of seeking a determination by the director and cancellation of the registration pursuant to subdivision (f), the data owner may bring an action in any California court of competent jurisdiction against the applicant to enforce the obligations of that party set forth in this section.
(j)Cost sharing as provided in subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) shall not be required to support an application for annual renewal of a pesticide product registration, provided this provision shall not authorize renewal of a product registered before the effective date of this section if that registration is declared to have been unlawfully issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(k)The Department of Pesticide Regulation shall make available in the public domain its index of data submitted in support of registration applications, the ownership of that data, and the date it was submitted to California.
SEC. 11.SEC. 9.Section 12812 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12812.(a)The director shall establish, by regulation, fees for the departments registration program, as established pursuant to this division. The fees shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1)Annual fees for each product submitted for registration.
(2)Penalties for the late payment of registration fees.
(3)Fees for amendments to registered products.
(b)The fees established pursuant to this section may include costs for administration and overhead in connection with administering the fees.
(c)The fees established pursuant to this section shall be set so that the total revenue collected each fiscal year is sufficient to support the expenditure levels for the registration program contained in the annual Budget Act.
(d)Funds collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund, and shall be available for expenditure by the department, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for purposes of carrying out the departments pesticide registration program, as established pursuant to this division.
(e)The regulations adopted pursuant to this section, or any amendment or readoption thereto, shall be adopted by the director in accordance with Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. However, the adoption, amendment, readoption, or repeal of these regulations shall be considered by the Office of Administrative Law as an emergency, and necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, and general welfare. Notwithstanding any other law, the regulations shall remain in effect until amended by the director.
(f)On or before January 31 of each year, if the department determines that it might increase the fees established pursuant to this section during the calendar year, the department shall post the determination on its internet website and send the determination through any of its relevant, registration-related email lists.
SEC. 12.SEC. 10.Section 12824 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12824.(a)The director shall endeavor to eliminate from use in the state any pesticide that endangers the agricultural or nonagricultural environment, is not beneficial for the purposes for which it is sold, or is misrepresented. In carrying out this responsibility, the director shall develop an orderly program for the continuous evaluation of all pesticides actually registered. The continuous evaluation process may include, but is not limited to, reevaluating the active ingredient, making a change to the label, requiring a risk assessment of the active ingredient, designating the active ingredient as a restricted material, and requiring the mitigation of risks associated with the active ingredient.
(b)Before a substance is registered as a pesticide for the first time, there shall be a thorough and timely evaluation in accordance with this section. Appropriate restrictions may be placed on its use, including, but not limited to, limitations on quantity, area, and manner of application. All pesticides for which renewal of registration is sought also shall be evaluated in accordance with this section.
(c)The director may establish specific criteria to evaluate a pesticide with regard to the factors listed in Section 12825. The department may establish performance standards and tests that are to be conducted or financed, or both conducted and financed, by the registrants, applicants for registration, or parties interested in the registration of those pesticides.
(d)Each pesticide registrant or applicant shall, upon request of the director, submit any data determined by the director to be necessary to carry out this section.
SEC. 13.SEC. 11.Section 12824.3 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:12824.3.(a)As part of the continuous evaluation of all pesticides registered pursuant to Section 12824, on or before January 31 of each year, the department shall post on its internet website a list of active ingredients that it might place under continuous evaluation in that calendar year.
(b)When posting the information required pursuant to subdivision (a) on its internet website, the department shall also include whether it has placed an active ingredient under continuous evaluation and post an estimated timeline timeframe for completing the evaluation.
(c)The department, as part of the continuous evaluation of all pesticides, may contract with academic institutions, including, but not limited to, the University of California, for help with research.
SEC. 14.SEC. 12.Section 12824.5 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:12824.5.(a)On or before January 31, 2025, the department shall post an estimated timeline timeframe for completing the reevaluation of any active ingredient that is undergoing reevaluation as of that date on its internet website.
(b)On or before January 31, 2026, the department shall initiate the reevaluation of at least two additional active ingredients and post the estimated timeline timeframe for completing the reevaluations on its internet website.
(c)On or before January 31, 2027, and each year thereafter, the department shall initiate the reevaluation of at least five additional active ingredients and post the estimated timeline timeframe for completing the reevaluations on its internet website.
(d)On and after January 1, 2028, the department shall complete a reevaluation of an active ingredient within two years of initiating the reevaluation.
(e)If the department identifies mitigation that is needed as part of a reevaluation or risk assessment, the department shall implement that mitigation within one year of completing the reeevaluation or risk assessment.
SEC. 15.SEC. 13.Section 12825 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12825.(a)Pursuant to Section 12824, the director, after a hearing, may cancel the registration of, or refuse to register, a pesticide if any of the following conditions apply:
(1)The pesticide has significant adverse environmental effects for which there is no feasible mitigation available.
(2)The use of the pesticide is of less public value or greater detriment to the environment than the benefit received by its use.
(3)There is a reasonable, effective, and practicable alternate material or procedure for the pesticide that is demonstrably less destructive to the environment.
(4)The pesticide, when properly used, is detrimental to vegetation, except weeds, to domestic animals, or to the public health and safety.
(5)The pesticide is of little or no value for the purpose for which it is intended.
(6)The registrant or their agent makes or implies a false or misleading statement concerning the pesticide, either verbally or in writing, or in the form of any advertising literature, for the purpose of meeting any registration requirement under this division, or that is otherwise related in any way to the pesticide.
(7)The director determines that the registrant has failed to report an adverse effect or risk for the pesticide as required by Section 12825.5.
(8)If the director determines that the registrant has failed to comply with the requirements of a reevaluation or to submit the data required as part of the reevaluation of the registrants product or pursuant to Section 12824.
(9)The pesticide is required to be registered pursuant to the federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Sec. 136 et seq.) and is not so registered.
(b)In making a determination pursuant to this section, the director may require those practical demonstrations that are necessary to determine the facts.
SEC. 14.Section 12839 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, immediately following Section 12838, to read:12839.(a)For purposes of this section, time to complete the certificate of registration means the number of calendar months by which the department is required to complete a certificate of registration, beginning no more than 15 business days following the departments receipt of an application for the certificate of registration.
(b)On and after July 1, 2028, the department shall comply with all of the following times to complete the certificate of registration, except as provided in subdivision (c).
(1)For a certificate of registration for a new pesticide product, the department shall not exceed six months.
(2)For a certificate of registration for a new active ingredient, the department shall not exceed 24 months.
(3)For a certificate of registration for an amendment to the registration of a registered pesticide product, the department shall not exceed six months.
(c)The department may toll the time to complete the certificate of registration under any of the following circumstances:
(1)The applicant for the certificate of registration fails to correct an application deficiency, as described in the departments California Notice 2022-12 (May 9, 2022), Application Return Policy for Pesticide Product Registrations and Amendments, within the 15-business day timeframe.
(2)A product revision requires United States Environmental Protection Agency approval.
(3)The applicant for the certificate of registration corrects an application deficiency, but also makes substantive changes to the product or label that goes beyond correcting the deficiency.
(4)Nonpayment of a registration fee by the applicant for the certificate of registration.
(d)Upon the conclusion of a circumstance for which the department tolled a time to complete the certificate of registration pursuant to subdivision (c), the tolling period shall end and the time to complete the certificate of registration shall accrue within a reasonable and justifiable time period from the date on which the department became aware of the conclusion of the circumstance.
SEC. 15.Section 12840 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, immediately following Section 12839, to read:12840.(a)It is the intent of the Legislature that, when the department hires staff due to the mill increases described in Section 12841 and registration fee increases in 2024, the department prioritize hiring for positions within the pesticide registration branch.
(b)When processing applications for registration of new active ingredients, the department shall prioritize reduced-risk pesticides.
(c)Notwithstanding Section 10231.5 of the Government Code, on or before March 1, 2025, and each year thereafter, the department shall report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code, the average time it takes to process an application for registration of a new pesticide product and a new active ingredient and to start and complete a reevaluation of a pesticide, progress on hiring staff, and any additional efforts the department has made to improve the processing of an application for registration of a pesticide or the evaluation of a pesticide.
SEC. 16.Section 12841 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12841.(a)A person shall not sell for use in this state any pesticide products that have been registered by the director for which the mill assessment established by this article, and the regulations adopted pursuant to it, is not paid at the times specified in Section 12843.
(b)Except as provided in subdivision (d), every person who sells for use in this state a pesticide product that has been registered by the director shall pay to the director the applicable assessment. Those sales expressly include all sales made electronically, telephonically, or by any other means that result in a pesticide product being shipped to or used in this state. There is a rebuttable presumption that pesticide products that are sold or distributed into or within this state by any person are sold or distributed for use in this state.
(c)Upon application of a registrant, the director shall determine whether a fertilizer or paper product is used as a carrier for a pesticide, and is sold in combination, and whether the mill assessment under this article shall be on the pesticide value only, when the product is designed, developed, and manufactured, and sold primarily for other than a pesticide use. If the director finds that the combination product has such a major component and is designed, developed, manufactured, and sold primarily for other than a pesticide use, the assessment provided by this article shall be paid on the equivalent percentage of the sales price of the active ingredients of the pesticide product. The director shall establish this percentage of the sales price. The percentage shall be the ratio of that portion of the sales price attributable to the pesticide portion to the total sales price of the combination product.
(d)Assessments provided for in this article for sales of registered pesticides that are sold for use in this state shall be paid by the person or entity that first sold the pesticide for use in this state.
(e)It has been and continues to be the intent of the Legislature that this division requires the department to register all pesticides before their sale for use in this state and, except as otherwise provided by law, requires the department to regulate and control the use of pesticides in accordance with this division. Except as provided in Section 12841.1, the department shall continue to collect the assessment as provided in this article at the same rate on all registered agricultural and registered nonagricultural pesticides.
(f)(1)The mill assessment shall be paid at the following rates per dollar of sales for all sales of pesticides for use in this state:
(A)From July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025, the rate shall be 24 mills ($0.024) per dollar sales of all sales of registered pesticides for use in this state plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1.
(B)From July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2026, the rate shall be 27 mills ($0.027) per dollar sales of all sales of registered pesticides for use in this state plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1.
(C)From July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2027, the rate shall be 29 mills ($0.029) per dollar sales of all sales of registered pesticides for use in this state plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1.
(D)Beginning on July 1, 2028, after conducting public workshops, the director may adopt regulations setting one fixed rate adequate to support the departments annual expenditures authorized in the annual Budget Act and to provide a prudent reserve. Any rate set by the director shall be no greater than 33.9 mills ($0.0339). However, if regulations are not adopted before a payment is due, payment shall be made at the rate of 28.6 mills ($0.0286), and, upon adoption of regulations, payment of any additional amount due shall be made.(2)The regulations adopted pursuant to this section, or any amendment thereto, shall be adopted by the director in accordance with Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. However, the adoption, amendment, readoption, or repeal of these regulations shall be considered by the Office of Administrative Law as an emergency, and necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, and general welfare. Notwithstanding any other law, the regulations shall remain in effect until amended by the director. The director shall make available to the public, upon the adoption of an emergency regulation establishing a new rate, the information on which the director has calculated, based, or determined the new rate.
(g)The revenue collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund and distributed as follows:
(1)Notwithstanding Sections 2282 and 12784, the director shall pay, in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section 12844, the following amounts to the counties as reimbursement for costs incurred by the counties in the administration and enforcement of Division 6 (commencing with Section 11401), this chapter, Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 14001), Chapter 3.4 (commencing with Section 14090), and Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 14101):
(A)From January 1, 1998, to March 31, 1998, inclusive, five-eighths of the money received during that period pursuant to this section.
(B)From April 1, 1998, to June 30, 2004, an amount equal to the revenue derived from 6 mills ($0.006) per dollar of sales for all pesticide sales for use in this state.
(C)Beginning July 1, 2004, an amount equal to the revenue derived from 7.6 mills ($0.0076) per dollar of sales for all pesticide sales for use in this state.
(2)All funds not otherwise distributed pursuant to this subdivision shall remain in the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund and shall be available for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to support the departments operations and to implement Chapters 354, 520, 662, and 836 of the Statutes of 2023.
(h)For purposes of this section, active ingredient means any active ingredient that is required to be stated on the label on any registered pesticide under Section 12883.
SEC. 17.Section 12841.1 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12841.1.(a)The director may collect an assessment, in addition to the mill assessment collected pursuant to Section 12841, for all pesticide sales for use in this state except for sales for use in this state of pesticides labeled solely for home, industrial, or institutional use. The director may only collect up to an additional 1.04 mills ($0.00104) per dollar of sales, in addition to the rate established pursuant to Section 12841, if necessary to fund, or augment the funding for, an appropriation to the Department of Food and Agriculture to provide pesticide consultation to the department pursuant to Section 11454.2. The necessity of this additional assessment shall be determined by the Secretary of Food and Agriculture, in consultation with the director, on an annual basis after consideration of all other revenue sources, including any reserves, that may be appropriated for this purpose. The secretarys written determination, including a request for a specified additional assessment and the basis for that request, shall be provided to the director by a time and in a manner prescribed by the director.
(b)The revenue collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited monthly into a separate account in the Department of Food and Agriculture Fund. These revenues shall be expended only by the Department of Food and Agriculture, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to provide consultation to the department pursuant to Section 11454.2. Funds shall not be expended before the execution of a memorandum of understanding pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 11454.2. The consultation activities to be undertaken by the Department of Food and Agriculture are limited solely to those specifically authorized in the memorandum of understanding executed pursuant to Section 11454.2. These funds shall not be expended for scientific risk assessment activities. The department shall be reimbursed from the Department of Food and Agriculture Fund for the departments revenue collection activities. If the director determines that a person is entitled to a refund of mill assessment funds that were collected pursuant to this section, the director shall inform the Secretary of Food and Agriculture of the amount of the refund due, which shall be reimbursed from the Department of Food and Agriculture Fund.
SEC. 18.Section 12841.4 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12841.4.(a)Every registrant of any production agricultural- or structural-use pesticide product sold for use in this state that is packaged in rigid, nonrefillable, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) containers of 55 gallons or less shall establish a recycling program, or demonstrate participation in a recycling program to ensure HDPE containers are recycled. Container recycling shall comply with the American National Standards Institute American Society of Agriculture and Biological Engineers Standard S596, entitled Recycling Plastic Containers from Pesticides and Pesticide-Related Products, as published in February 2006. The records required by these standards shall be maintained for four years and shall be subject to audit by the director.
(b)A registrant who is required to establish or participate in a recycling program pursuant to this section shall provide to the director, at least annually, a document certifying that this requirement has been met.
(c)(1)The director may adopt regulations to carry out the purposes of this section. Upon a federal pesticide container recycling program being adopted, the director may adopt regulations to conform to the federal program.
(2)It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section that any regulatory standards adopted by the department shall be at least as stringent as those standards referred to in subdivision (a).
(d)The department shall estimate a recycling rate for pesticide containers and propose suggestions for program improvements and post this information annually on its internet website.
SEC. 19.Section 12842 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12842.Every person who sells for use in this state any pesticide products that have been registered by the director shall maintain in this state, or with the directors permission at another location, an accurate record of all pesticide transactions for four years. The records are subject to audit by the director and shall clearly demonstrate proof of payment of all applicable assessments for each registered pesticide product sold for use in this state.
SEC. 20.Section 12847 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12847.Sales invoices for pesticides first sold into or within this state shall show that the assessment assessments specified in Sections 12841 and 12841.1 will be paid by the person or entity that first sold the pesticide for use in the state. All other sales invoices for pesticides sold into or within this state, except retail sales of those nonagricultural pesticides labeled only for home, industrial, or institutional use, shall show as a comment on the invoice that the assessment will be paid, and may show an amount or rate that represents the assessment. However, only the person who actually will pay the assessment may show the amount or rate of the assessment as a line item on the sales invoice.
SEC. 21.Section 12999.4 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12999.4.(a)In lieu of civil prosecution by the director, the director may levy a civil penalty against a person violating subdivision (d) or (e) of Section 11792, Sections 12101, 12101.5, 12114, 12115, 12116, 12581, 12603, 12671, 12992, and 12993, Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 12400) of Division 6, Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 12841), Section 13186.5, Chapter 7.5 (commencing with Section 15300), or the regulations adopted pursuant to those provisions, and Sections 6560, 6562, 6564, 6568, 6574, 6576, and 6577 of Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations, of not more than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for each violation.
(b)Before a civil penalty is levied, the person charged with the violation shall be given a written notice of the proposed action, including the nature of the violation and the amount of the proposed penalty, and shall have the right to request a hearing within 20 days after receiving notice of the proposed action. A notice of the proposed action that is sent by certified mail to the last known address of the person charged shall be considered received even if delivery is refused or the notice is not accepted at that address. If a hearing is requested, notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given at least 10 days before the date set for the hearing. Before the hearing, the person shall be given an opportunity to review the directors evidence. At the hearing, the person shall be given the opportunity to present evidence on their own behalf. If a hearing is not timely requested, the director may take the action proposed without a hearing.
(c)If the person against whom the director levied a civil penalty requested and appeared at a hearing, the person may seek review of the directors decision within 30 days of the date of the decision pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(d)After the exhaustion of the review procedure provided in this section, the director, or the directors representative, may file a certified copy of a final decision of the director that directs the payment of a civil penalty and, if applicable, any order that denies a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus, with the clerk of the superior court of any county. Judgment shall be entered immediately by the clerk in conformity with the decision or order. Pursuant to Section 6103 of the Government Code, the clerk of the superior court shall not charge a fee for the performance of any official service required in connection with the entry of judgment pursuant to this section.
(e)Any money recovered under this section shall be paid into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund for use by the department, upon appropriation by the Legislature, in administering this division and Division 6 (commencing with Section 11401).
SEC. 22.Section 13000 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:13000.(a)Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), an action brought pursuant to this article shall be commenced by the director, the commissioner, the Attorney General, the district attorney, the city prosecutor, or the city attorney, as the case may be, within three years of the occurrence of the violation.
(b)When a commissioner submits a completed investigation to the director for action by the director or the Attorney General, the action shall be commenced within one year of that submission. However, this subdivision does not preclude the director from returning the investigation to the commissioner for action to be commenced by the commissioner, the district attorney, the city prosecutor, or the city attorney, as provided in subdivision (a).
(c)(1)An action brought by the director to collect unpaid mill assessments and delinquent fees required by Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 12841) or an action brought by the director to collect civil penalties pursuant to Section 12999.4 for violations of Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 12841), Section 12992, Section 12993, or Section 12995 shall be commenced within four years of the occurrence of the violation, except as provided in paragraph (2).
(2)An action brought by the director pursuant to Section 12999.4 or 12998 for violations of Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 12841) or Section 12992, 12993, or 12995 that are discovered during the course of an audit performed pursuant to Section 12842 shall be commenced within two years from the date of audit completion and may be brought for a violation occurring within four years of the commencement of the audit.
SEC. 23.Section 14006.5 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:14006.5.(a)Except as provided in Section 14006.6, a person shall not use or possess a pesticide designated as a restricted material for any agricultural use except under a written permit of the commissioner. A permit shall not be issued for any restricted material for use in any manner other than pursuant to its registration without the approval of the director. In addition, a permit shall not be granted if the commissioner determines that paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 12825 would be applicable to the proposed use.
(b)Before issuing a permit for a pesticide, the commissioner shall consider local conditions, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(1)Use in vicinity of schools, dwellings, hospitals, recreational areas, and livestock enclosures.
(2)Problems related to heterogeneous planting of crops.
(3)Applications of materials known to create severe resurgence or secondary pest problems without compensating control of pest species.
(4)Meteorological conditions for use.
(5)Timing of applications in relation to bee activity.
(6)Provisions for proper storage of pesticides and disposal of containers.
(c)Each permit issued for any pesticide shall include conditions for use in writing.
SEC. 24.Section 14009 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:14009.(a)An interested person may request the commissioner to review their action in issuing, refusing, revoking, suspending, or conditioning a permit to use or possess a restricted material. The request for review of the commissioners action shall be limited to the issues described in subdivision (d). The commissioner shall review the request and issue a written decision in response to the request to review within 10 days of receipt of the request, or as soon as practicable. request. The commissioner may affirm, modify, or cancel the permit action reviewed. An interested person may thereafter appeal to the director to review the commissioners action.
(b)The commissioner and director shall conduct each review in an expeditious manner so that needed pest control measures are not adversely affected.
(c)Each request for review, limited to the issues described in subdivision (d), shall be submitted in writing to the commissioner by the person requesting the review and shall include all of the following:
(1)The location of persons, property, or areas that would be affected and the location of property to be treated.
(2)The name of the restricted material involved.
(3)The name and address of the person in charge of the property to be treated, if different from the person filing the request for review.
(4)Any other information that the person filing the request for review or the commissioner determines to be relevant.
(d)In an appeal of a commissioners action to the director, the issues are limited to any of the following:
(1)Whether the proposed permit use is consistent with applicable pesticide label restrictions and applicable regulations.
(2)Whether the commissioner properly considered Section 14006.5.
(3)Whether the commissioner abused their discretion in issuing, refusing, revoking, or conditioning the permit.
(e)The director shall act on these appeals within 10 days of receipt thereof or as soon thereafter as is practicable. The director may stay the operation of a permit until their review is complete.
(f)(1)Before acting on an appeal, the director shall make publicly available all of the information provided to them as specified in this section if requested to do so in writing by any interested person.
(2)At any time before acting on an appeal, the director may request additional testimony or other evidence specified in this section at the public review from interested persons.
(g)Judicial review of any decision by the director pursuant to this section shall be pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Review shall be limited to whether the proposed permit use is consistent with applicable pesticide label restrictions and regulations and whether the director abused their discretion.
SEC. 25.Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code is amended to read:21080.(a)Except as otherwise provided in this division, this division shall apply to discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies, including, but not limited to, the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of zoning variances, the issuance of conditional use permits, and the approval of tentative subdivision maps unless the project is exempt from this division.
(b)This division does not apply to any of the following activities:
(1)Ministerial projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies.
(2)Emergency repairs to public service facilities necessary to maintain service.
(3)Projects undertaken, carried out, or approved by a public agency to maintain, repair, restore, demolish, or replace property or facilities damaged or destroyed as a result of a disaster in a disaster-stricken area in which a state of emergency has been proclaimed by the Governor pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 8550) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(4)Specific actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency.
(5)Projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves.
(6)Actions undertaken by a public agency relating to any thermal powerplant site or facility, including the expenditure, obligation, or encumbrance of funds by a public agency for planning, engineering, or design purposes, or for the conditional sale or purchase of equipment, fuel, water (except groundwater), steam, or power for a thermal powerplant, if the powerplant site and related facility will be the subject of an environmental impact report, negative declaration, or other document, prepared pursuant to a regulatory program certified pursuant to Section 21080.5, which will be prepared by the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, by the Public Utilities Commission, or by the city or county in which the powerplant and related facility would be located if the environmental impact report, negative declaration, or document includes the environmental impact, if any, of the action described in this paragraph.
(7)Activities or approvals necessary to the bidding for, hosting or staging of, and funding or carrying out of, an Olympic Games under the authority of the International Olympic Committee, except for the construction of facilities necessary for the Olympic Games.
(8)The establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, or other charges by public agencies that the public agency finds are for the purpose of: (A) meeting operating expenses, including employee wage rates and fringe benefits; (B) purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment, or materials; (C) meeting financial reserve needs and requirements; (D) obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service areas; or (E) obtaining funds necessary to maintain those intracity transfers as are authorized by city charter. The public agency shall incorporate written findings in the record of any proceeding in which an exemption under this paragraph is claimed setting forth with specificity the basis for the claim of exemption.
(9)All classes of projects designated pursuant to Section 21084.
(10)A project for the institution or increase of passenger or commuter services on rail or highway rights-of-way already in use, including modernization of existing stations and parking facilities. For purposes of this paragraph, highway has the same meaning as defined in Section 360 of the Vehicle Code.
(11)A project for the institution or increase of passenger or commuter service on high-occupancy vehicle lanes already in use, including the modernization of existing stations and parking facilities.
(12)Facility extensions not to exceed four miles in length that are required for the transfer of passengers from or to exclusive public mass transit guideway or busway public transit services.
(13)A project for the development of a regional transportation improvement program, the state transportation improvement program, or a congestion management program prepared pursuant to Section 65089 of the Government Code.
(14)A project or portion of a project located in another state that will be subject to environmental impact review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321 et seq.) or similar state laws of that state. Any emissions or discharges that would have a significant effect on the environment in this state are subject to this division.
(15)Projects undertaken by a local agency to implement a rule or regulation imposed by a state agency, board, or commission under a certified regulatory program pursuant to Section 21080.5. Any site-specific effect of the project that was not analyzed as a significant effect on the environment in the plan or other written documentation required by Section 21080.5 is subject to this division.
(16)Approval by the Department of Pesticide Regulation of a pesticide emergency exemption pursuant to Section 136p of Title 7 of the United States Code.
(c)If a lead agency determines that a proposed project, not otherwise exempt from this division, would not have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall adopt a negative declaration to that effect. The negative declaration shall be prepared for the proposed project in either of the following circumstances:
(1)There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
(2)An initial study identifies potentially significant effects on the environment, but: (A) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur; and (B) there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.
(d)If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report shall be prepared.
(e)(1)For purposes of this section and this division, substantial evidence includes fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact.
(2)Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment.
(f)As a result of the public review process for a mitigated negative declaration, including administrative decisions and public hearings, the lead agency may conclude that certain mitigation measures identified pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) are infeasible or otherwise undesirable. In those circumstances, the lead agency, before approving the project, may delete those mitigation measures and substitute for them other mitigation measures that the lead agency finds, after holding a public hearing on the matter, are equivalent or more effective in mitigating significant effects on the environment to a less than significant level and that do not cause any potentially significant effect on the environment. If those new mitigation measures are made conditions of project approval or are otherwise made part of the project approval, the deletion of the former measures and the substitution of the new mitigation measures shall not constitute an action or circumstance requiring recirculation of the mitigated negative declaration.
(g)This section does not preclude a project applicant or any other person from challenging, in an administrative or judicial proceeding, the legality of a condition of project approval imposed by the lead agency. If, however, any condition of project approval set aside by either an administrative body or court was necessary to avoid or lessen the likelihood of the occurrence of a significant effect on the environment, the lead agencys approval of the negative declaration and project shall be invalid and a new environmental review process shall be conducted before the project can be reapproved, unless the lead agency substitutes a new condition that the lead agency finds, after holding a public hearing on the matter, is equivalent to, or more effective in, lessening or avoiding significant effects on the environment and that does not cause any potentially significant effect on the environment.
SEC. 26.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act or because costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
High-risk pesticide mean an active ingredient that is highly hazardous and poses a likelihood of, or is known to cause, significant or widespread human or ecological impacts from its use.
SEC. 2.Section 11401.7 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:11401.7.Integrated pest management means an ecosystem-based strategy that focuses on long-term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of techniques such as biological control, habitat manipulation, modification of cultural practices, and use of resistant varieties. Pesticides are used only after monitoring indicates they are needed according to established guidelines and treatments are made with the goal of removing only the target organism. Pest control materials are selected and applied in a manner that minimizes risks to human health, beneficial and nontarget organisms, and the environment.
SEC. 3.Section 11407.8 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:11407.8.Priority pesticide means a pesticide product, active ingredient, or group of related products within the context of specific product uses or pest or location use combinations that are of greatest concern and warrant heightened attention, planning, and support to expedite its replacement and eventual elimination. The criteria for classifying a pesticide as a priority pesticide includes, but is not limited to, hazard and risk classifications, availability of effective alternative products or practices, and special consideration of pest management situations that potentially cause severe or widespread adverse impacts.
SEC. 4.Section 11412 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:11412.Sustainable pest management means a holistic, whole system approach applicable to agricultural and other managed ecosystems and urban and rural communities that builds on the concept of integrated pest management to include the wider context of the three sustainability pillars: human health and social equity; environmental protection; and, economic vitality.
SEC. 5.Section 11520 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:11520.(a)The Legislature finds and declares that it is important for California to implement sustainable pest management and, by 2050, to eliminate the use of priority pesticides by transitioning to sustainable pest management practices and to adopt sustainable pest management as the de facto pest management system.
(b)In order to achieve the goal described in subdivision (a), it is the intent of the Legislature that the state do all of the following:
(1)Prioritize prevention and strengthen Californias commitment to pest prevention by doing both of the following fundamental actions:
(A)Proactively preventing the establishment of new invasive pest species through a significant expansion of the states biosecurity and invasive pest mitigation system.
(B)Proactively eliminating pest-conducive conditions both in agricultural and urban settings.
(2)Coordinate state-level leadership by doing all of the following:
(A)Creating an accountable and connected leadership structure so that the state effectively embeds sustainable pest management principles across agencies.
(B)Identifying ways to improve coordination within and between agencies and programs for both agricultural and urban pest management.
(C)Enhancing the ability to champion sustainable pest management practices in urban and agricultural settings.
(D)Promoting the development of alternatives to priority pesticides by encouraging research and innovation.
(3)(A)Invest in building sustainable pest management knowledge by significantly reinvesting in sustainable pest management-focused research and outreach so that all pest management practitioners have equal and adequate access to the support and resources necessary to develop and implement their own sustainable pest management system in a way that effectively manages pests, minimizes adverse impacts to humans and the environment, and is economically viable.
(B)In agricultural pest management, subparagraph (A) includes securing a significant increase in sustainable pest management-trained technical advisors and funding for sustainable pest management research and outreach and increasing human capacity for those programs in ways that reflect and serve the diversity of California farms and agricultural producers.
(C)In urban pest management, subparagraph (A) includes expanding funding and infrastructure for urban sustainable pest management research, innovation, and outreach to align with and reflect the volume and impacts of pesticides used in urban contexts, which requires providing adequate dedicated annual funding for urban-focused academics, research, and extension.
(4)Improve Californias pesticide registration processes and bring more alternative products to market by doing all of the following:
(A)Creating mechanisms to improve the departments registration review process and to prioritize and expedite safer, more sustainable alternative products to high-risk pesticides.
(B)Requiring the departments processes to reflect the goals of sustainable pest management and requiring the department to provide clarity on its scientific review and decisionmaking process for both registrants and the public.
(C)Requiring the department to improve its processes for evaluating pesticides that are already registered.
(5)Enhance monitoring and data collection by significantly expanding and fully funding health and environmental monitoring infrastructure, data collection, and interpretation, which will enable the state to accurately track pesticide-related human illnesses and the presence of pesticides in land, water, air, biota, and structures and provide pesticide-use data and information needed for sound regulatory decisions.
SECTION 1.SEC. 6.Section 11531 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:11531.Except as provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 12001), this division does not apply to any person while engaged in any of the following:
(a)An activity that is defined as structural pest control and required to be licensed under Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 8500) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code.
(b)Preservative treatment of fabrics or structural materials.
(c)Sanitation services for collection, disposal, and treatment of wastewater, refuse, or sewage.
(d)Seed treatment that is incidental to the persons regular business.
(e)Live capture and removal or exclusion of vertebrate pests, bees, or wasps without the use of pesticides. Vertebrate pests include, but are not limited to, bats, raccoons, skunks, squirrels, mice, rats, and pigeons. This section does not exempt a person from Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code.
(f)Pool cleaning services, unless the person is selling, applying, using, or distributing a restricted material.
SEC. 2.SEC. 7.Section 12114 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12114.(a)Each licensed pest control dealer, and each person who is required to be licensed as a pest control dealer pursuant to Section 12101, shall maintain at their principal place of business the records of its purchases, sales, and distributions of pesticides into or within this state, including those of its branch locations, for four years. Each dealer shall also maintain the pesticide broker or pest control dealer license number of any pesticide broker or pest control dealer from whom the dealer purchased pesticides registered by the director and labeled for agricultural use. The records shall be available for audit by the director.
(b)Each licensed pest control dealer, and each person who is required to be licensed as a pest control dealer pursuant to Section 12101, shall report quarterly to the director the total dollars of sales and total pounds or gallons sold into or within this state of each pesticide subject to Sections 12841 and 12841.1. The quarterly report shall be in the form prescribed by the director and shall include information from the dealers licensed branch locations, if any, and any other information specified on the form or required by the director. The report shall include a certification, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained in the report is true and correct. The report shall accompany payment of assessments required by Sections 12841 and 12841.1.
SEC. 8.Section 12798 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12798.(a)The department shall establish a competitive grants program to make funds available to qualified public and private entities to conduct pest management research projects. All of the research related to pest management funded by the department shall be administered pursuant to this program.
(b)Research conducted pursuant to this section shall have the further development of alternative pest management practices and methods and the further development of pest exclusion detection and eradication methods as priorities. Prior to Research conducted pursuant to this section shall consider how the research could help to implement sustainable pest management, as defined in Section 11412, and to implement and support integrated pest management, as defined in Section 11401.7, and alternatives to priority pesticides, as defined in Section 11407.8, and high-risk pesticides, as defined in Section 11401.5. Before making research awards, the department shall assess existing research activities and developments in integrated pest management, alternatives to pesticides, and other alternative pest management practices and methods, including, but not limited to, cultural, biological, and biotechnological research.
(c)(1)The secretary shall establish a Pest Management Research Committee Committee, which shall award all funds under the competitive grants program.
(2)The primary objective of the committee is the further development of pest prevention activities and alternative pest management practices, techniques, and methods that exclude serious pests, as determined by the committee, which detect and quickly eliminate small infestations of foreign pests, and which reduce pesticide use, minimize or eliminate pesticide residues, or result in the use of safer pesticides. In achieving that objective, the committee shall encourage the development and use of biological controls, integrated pest management, biotechnology, cultural, pest prevention, and other alternative pest management methods that are environmentally sound and economically viable.
(3)The committee shall consist of the following 12 persons, who shall serve at the pleasure of the secretary:
(A)The Secretary of Food and Agriculture or his or her their designee, who shall serve as chairperson.
(B)The President of the University of California or his or her their designee.
(C)The Chancellor of the California State University or his or her their designee.
(D)Two members who represent the agricultural community, one of whom is an experienced organic farmer and one of whom is knowledgeable and experienced in alternative pest management techniques.
(E)Two members who represent pest management researchers, one of whom represents Californias public and private colleges and universities and one of whom represents Californias independent research community, both of whom are knowledgeable in pest prevention, control, eradication, and pest management.
(F)One member who represents public interest organizations, qualified in environmental or public health, or both, and knowledgeable in alternative pest management techniques.
(G)One member who represents the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, with experience in public health or toxicology.
(H)One member who represents county agricultural commissioners, knowledgeable and experienced in alternative pest management techniques and pest prevention, control, and eradication.
(I)One member who represents the Department of Pesticide Regulation, with experience in pest management systems.
(J)One member who represents the State Department of Health Services, with experience in public health.
(4)The committee shall award funds based upon a competitive application process that meets the eligibility of fulfilling, and has the ability to fulfill, the objectives of this section.
(5)The approval of research proposals shall be made by a majority vote of the membership of the committee.
(d)For any proposals funded pursuant to this section, the department shall require reasonable accountability, including performance standards, periodic reports, deadlines, and payments conditioned on compliance with performance standards and deadlines.
(e)Funding for second and subsequent years of a multiyear award shall be contingent upon satisfactory completion by the grantee of the prior year grant awards.
(f)In order to facilitate the utilization use of pest management practices and methods developed pursuant to this section, the secretary shall cooperate with qualified public and private entities to provide outreach consultation, information dissemination, and educational services to the agricultural community and other interested parties.
SEC. 9.Section 12811.2 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:12811.2.(a)On or before January 31 of each year, the department shall post an estimated timeframe for processing an application for registration of a pesticide on its internet website.
(b)If the department determines, while processing the application, that processing will take longer than the posted estimated timeframe, the department shall contact the applicant and provide further details, such as whether more information is needed or the updated estimated timeframe for processing.
SEC. 3.SEC. 10.Section 12811.5 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12811.5.The director may rely on any evaluations of previously submitted data to determine whether to accept an application for registration of a new pesticide product, an amendment to the registration of a registered pesticide product, or to maintain the registration of a registered pesticide product regardless of the ownership of the data previously evaluated, if the previously submitted data fulfills current data requirements. However, effective January 1, 2006, applicants will be subject to the following provisions:
(a)(1)If an applicant for registration of a pesticide product, or an amendment to the registration of a registered pesticide product, including a registrant that desires to maintain its registration of a registered pesticide product after the director makes a formal request for additional data pursuant to reevaluation or Section 12824, does not submit its own data to fulfill a current data requirement imposed by the director and relies on data that the applicant does not own or have written permission to rely on that was submitted to the director by another entity after January 1, 1991, and meets the three criteria set forth in this subdivision, the applicant shall either either: (A) obtain written permission from the data owner to rely on the data, data; (B) formulate or obtain its product from a source that has data authorization from the data owner, or a source that complies with subdivision (c), (c); or (C) if the data meets the criteria set forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2), irrevocably offer to pay the data owner a share of the cost of producing the data and comply with subdivision (d). The director may rely on data submitted before January 1, 1991, or that does not meet the criteria set forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2) to support any application or comply with any formal reevaluation request for additional data, without permission from the data owner. An offer to pay, and a payment pursuant to that offer, shall only be required as to data not submitted by the applicant that meets the criteria set forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2).
(2)To be eligible for cost sharing pursuant to this subdivision, the data shall meet all of the following requirements:
(A)The data was required by the director in order to obtain, amend, or maintain the data owners California registration or registrations for uses covered by the application, amendment, or formal request for additional data pursuant to reevaluation or Section 12824.
(B)There has been no arbitration award, data compensation, or data cost-sharing agreement pertaining to data supporting the product at the federal level pursuant to Section 3(c)(1) (F)(iii) 3(c)(1)(F)(iii) or 3(c)(2)(B) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Sec. 136a(c)(1)(F)(iii) or 136a(c)(2)(B)), or, if an award or agreement exists, the use of data in California was excluded from compensation or cost sharing on its face.
(C)The data that fulfills a current requirement was submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the department no more than 15 years before the date of the applicants California registration, application, or amendment or the formal reevaluation request for additional data to which the registrants reliance responds, provided that as to data submitted to the department as of August 1, 2005, in support of the first registration of a product, the applicable period shall be 17 years from the date of submission to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
(b)If the director previously imposed a specific documented data requirement after January 1, 1991, to obtain, amend, or maintain the California registration of a pesticide product substantially similar to the applicants product and that data requirement is not currently imposed in California for registration, amendment, or maintenance of the applicants product, the applicant is further obligated to submit data to meet the requirement, obtain written permission from an owner of the data to rely on the data, formulate or obtain its product from a source that has authorization from the data owner to rely on the data or from a source that complies with subdivision (c), or, if the data meets the criteria set forth in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), irrevocably offer to pay the data owner a share in the cost of producing the data and comply with subdivision (c). An offer to pay, and a payment pursuant to that offer, shall only be required as to data not submitted by the applicant that meets the criteria set forth in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3). To be eligible for cost sharing pursuant to this subdivision, the data shall meet all of the following requirements:
(1)The data met a specific, documented requirement of the director to obtain, amend, or maintain the California registration of the data owners pesticide product for a use covered by the applicants application or amendment.
(2)There has been no arbitration award, data compensation, or data cost-sharing agreement pertaining to data supporting the product at the federal level pursuant to Section 3(c)(1)(F)(iii) or 3(c)(2)(B) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Sec. 136a(c)(1)(F)(iii) or 136a(c)(2)(B)), or, if an award or agreement exists, the use of the data in California was excluded from compensation or cost sharing on its face.
(3)The data was submitted to the U.S. United States Environmental Protection Agency or Department of Pesticide Regulation by the data owner after January 1, 1991, and no more than 15 years before the date of the applicants California application for registration or amendment or the response to a formal specific document data requirement to which the registrants reliance responds, provided that as to data submitted to the department as of August 1, 2005, in support of the first registration of a product, the applicable period shall be 17 years from the date of submission to the U.S. United States Environmental Protection Agency.
(c)An applicant may formulate its product from a source that does not have data authorization if that source has submitted data to support the product or makes or has made an irrevocable offer to pay the data owner a share of the cost of producing the data required pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) for the applicants product and complies with or has made payment in accordance with subdivision (d). If the source has already reached a data compensation or cost-sharing agreement or there has been an arbitration award under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (commencing at with 7 U.S.C. Sec. 136) that excludes the right to rely on the data to satisfy the California requirement on its face, the source shall make or have made a new irrevocable offer to pay a share of the cost of producing that data to support the applicants product in California and comply with subdivision (d).
(d)(1)If an applicant is required to offer to pay a share in the cost of producing the data pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b), or if a source of product makes an offer pursuant to subdivision (c), the applicant or source shall submit to the data owner upon application to the department an irrevocable offer to pay the data owner a share in the cost of producing the data and to comply with regulations promulgated under this subdivision to determine the amount and terms, if the parties cannot agree. If a data owner for which cost sharing is required under subdivision (a) or (b) cannot be identified from information readily available to the applicant, the applicants obligation under subdivision (a) or (b) will be absolved if the data owner does not identify themselves to the applicant within 12 months after registration of the pesticide product. If within 12 months of registration, the data owner identifies themselves to the applicant and the applicant has not already made an irrevocable offer to pay to the data owner, or the applicants source of product has not made an offer pursuant to subdivision (c), the applicant shall do so promptly. In either event, the specific terms and amount of payments to be made shall be fixed by agreement between the applicant and the data owner, but determination of those amounts and terms shall not delay approval of the applicants application.
(2)If agreement cannot be reached about the terms and amount of payment required by this section at any time more than 90 days after issuance of an irrevocable offer to pay, either the applicant, source, or data owner may initiate, or with the consent of all parties, join a proceeding under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (commencing at with 7 U.S.C. Sec. 136), pursuant to regulations promulgated by the director pursuant to this section. The purpose of this proceeding shall be to determine the amount due under this section. The director shall promulgate those regulations as emergency regulations within 60 days of the enactment of the bill that enacts this section. The regulations shall provide all of the following:
(A)Allow the proceeding authorized by this subdivision, upon mutual agreement of the parties, to be consolidated with dispute resolution under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (commencing at with 7 U.S.C. Sec. 136).
(B)Require that the decisionmaker consider, among other factors, that the data owners exclusive right to sell the pesticide resulted in the data owner recovering all or part of the costs of generating the data.
(C)Require that the parties to the proceeding share equally in the payment of the expenses thereof.
(e)If a data owner fails to participate in a procedure for reaching an agreement or in a proceeding as required by subdivision (d), or fails to comply with the terms of an agreement or decision conducted under subdivision (d), then that data owner forfeits their right to cost recovery as a result of the use of the data at issue.
(f)If the director finds that an applicant has failed to make an offer to pay as required under subdivision (a) or (b), or if its source of product has failed to make an offer pursuant to subdivision (c), or if an applicant or its source of product has failed to participate in a proceeding for reaching an agreement, has refused to participate in a proceeding pursuant to subdivision (d), or has failed to comply with an agreement or to comply with an order, or to pay an award resulting from that proceeding, the director shall cancel the registration of the pesticide product in support of which the data was used in accordance with subdivision (g), notwithstanding Section 12825.
(g)If the applicant subject to subdivision (a) or (b) fails to comply with this article, the data owner shall notify the director of the specific provision of noncompliance and provide proof of notification to the applicant of its claim of noncompliance. All parties shall have 30 days from the date of receipt of notification by the director to submit written evidence or arguments to the director regarding the claim and any defenses thereto. The director shall provide a written finding within 60 days of the deadline for submission as to the claim and the resulting consequences.
(h)A hearing or live testimony shall not be conducted under subdivision (g) and this proceeding shall not be used as mechanism to prevent or delay the registration or payment for cost sharing as determined by this article. The finding of the director shall be final and conclusive, except that any party aggrieved by such a finding may seek review within 30 days of the finding pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(i)In lieu of seeking a determination by the director and cancellation of the registration pursuant to subdivision (f), the data owner may bring an action in any California court of competent jurisdiction against the applicant to enforce the obligations of that party set forth in this section.
(j)Cost sharing as provided in subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) shall not be required to support an application for annual renewal of a pesticide product registration, provided this provision shall not authorize renewal of a product registered before the effective date of this section if that registration is declared to have been unlawfully issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(k)The Department of Pesticide Regulation shall make available in the public domain its index of data submitted in support of registration applications, the ownership of that data, and the date it was submitted to California.
SEC. 11.Section 12812 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12812.(a)The director shall establish, by regulation, fees for the Department of Pesticide Regulations departments registration program, as established pursuant to this division. The fees shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1)Annual fees for each product submitted for registration.
(2)Penalties for the late payment of registration fees.
(3)Fees for amendments to registered products.
(b)The fees established pursuant to this section may include costs for administration and overhead in connection with administering the fees.
(c)The fees established pursuant to this section shall be set so that the total revenue collected each fiscal year is sufficient to support the expenditure levels for the registration program contained in the annual Budget Act.
(d)Funds collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited in into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund, and shall be available for expenditure by the department, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the purposes of carrying out the departments pesticide registration program, as established pursuant to this division.
(e)The regulations adopted pursuant to this section, or any amendment or readoption thereto, shall be adopted by the director in accordance with Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. However, the adoption, amendment, readoption, or repeal of these regulations shall be considered by the Office of Administrative Law as an emergency, and necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, and general welfare. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the regulations shall remain in effect until amended by the director.
(f)On or before January 31 of each year, if the department determines that it might increase the fees established pursuant to this section during the calendar year, the department shall post the determination on its internet website and send the determination through any of its relevant, registration-related email lists.
SEC. 4.SEC. 12.Section 12824 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12824.(a)The director shall endeavor to eliminate from use in the state any pesticide that endangers the agricultural or nonagricultural environment, is not beneficial for the purposes for which it is sold, or is misrepresented. In carrying out this responsibility, the director shall develop an orderly program for the continuous evaluation of all pesticides actually registered. The continuous evaluation process may include, but is not limited to, reevaluating the active ingredient, making a change to the label, requiring a risk assessment of the active ingredient, designating the active ingredient as a restricted material, and requiring the mitigation of risks associated with the active ingredient.
(b)Before a substance is registered as a pesticide for the first time, there shall be a thorough and timely evaluation in accordance with this section. Appropriate restrictions may be placed on its use, including, but not limited to, limitations on quantity, area, and manner of application. All pesticides for which renewal of registration is sought also shall be evaluated in accordance with this section.
(c)The director may establish specific criteria to evaluate a pesticide with regard to the factors listed in Section 12825. The department may establish performance standards and tests that are to be conducted or financed, or both conducted and financed, by the registrants, applicants for registration, or parties interested in the registration of those pesticides.
(d)Each pesticide registrant or applicant shall, upon request of the director, submit any data determined by the director to be necessary to carry out this section.
SEC. 13.Section 12824.3 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:12824.3.(a)As part of the continuous evaluation of all pesticides registered pursuant to Section 12824, on or before January 31 of each year, the department shall post on its internet website a list of active ingredients that it might place under continuous evaluation in that calendar year.
(b)When posting the information required pursuant to subdivision (a) on its internet website, the department shall also include whether it has placed an active ingredient under continuous evaluation and post an estimated timeline for completing the evaluation.
SEC. 14.Section 12824.5 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:12824.5.(a)On or before January 31, 2025, the department shall post an estimated timeline for completing the reevaluation of any active ingredient that is undergoing reevaluation as of that date on its internet website.
(b)On or before January 31, 2026, the department shall initiate the reevaluation of at least two additional active ingredients and post the estimated timeline for completing the reevaluations on its internet website.
(c)On or before January 31, 2027, and each year thereafter, the department shall initiate the reevaluation of at least five additional active ingredients and post the estimated timeline for completing the reevaluations on its internet website.
SEC. 5.SEC. 15.Section 12825 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12825.(a)Pursuant to Section 12824, the director, after a hearing, may cancel the registration of, or refuse to register, a pesticide if any of the following conditions apply:
(1)The pesticide has significant adverse environmental effects for which there is no feasible mitigation available.
(2)The use of the pesticide is of less public value or greater detriment to the environment than the benefit received by its use.
(3)There is a reasonable, effective, and practicable alternate material or procedure for the pesticide that is demonstrably less destructive to the environment.
(4)The pesticide, when properly used, is detrimental to vegetation, except weeds, to domestic animals, or to the public health and safety.
(5)The pesticide is of little or no value for the purpose for which it is intended.
(6)The registrant or their agent makes or implies a false or misleading statement concerning the pesticide, either verbally or in writing, or in the form of any advertising literature, for the purpose of meeting any registration requirement under this division, or that is otherwise related in any way to the pesticide.
(7)The director determines that the registrant has failed to report an adverse effect or risk for the pesticide as required by Section 12825.5.
(8)If the director determines that the registrant has failed to comply with the requirements of a reevaluation or to submit the data required as part of the reevaluation of the registrants product or pursuant to Section 12824.
(9)The pesticide is required to be registered pursuant to the federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Sec. 136 et seq.) and is not so registered.
(b)In making a determination pursuant to this section, the director may require those practical demonstrations that are necessary to determine the facts.
SEC. 6.SEC. 16.Section 12841 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12841.(a)It is unlawful for a A person to shall not sell for use in this state any pesticide products that have been registered by the director for which the mill assessment established by this article, and the regulations adopted pursuant to it, is not paid at the times specified in Section 12843.
(b)Except as provided in subdivision (d), every person who sells for use in this state a pesticide product that has been registered by the director shall pay to the director the applicable assessment. Those sales expressly include all sales made electronically, telephonically, or by any other means that result in a pesticide product being shipped to or used in this state. There is a rebuttable presumption that pesticide products that are sold or distributed into or within this state by any person are sold or distributed for use in this state.
(c)Upon application of a registrant, the director shall determine whether a fertilizer or paper product is used as a carrier for a pesticide, and is sold in combination, and whether the mill assessment under this article shall be on the pesticide value only, when the product is designed, developed, and manufactured, and sold primarily for other than a pesticide use. If the director finds that the combination product has such a major component and is designed, developed, manufactured, and sold primarily for other than a pesticide use, the assessment provided by this article shall be paid on the equivalent percentage of the sales price of the active ingredients of the pesticide product. The director shall establish this percentage of the sales price. The percentage shall be the ratio of that portion of the sales price attributable to the pesticide portion to the total sales price of the combination product.
(d)Assessments provided for in this article for sales of registered pesticides that are sold for use in this state shall be paid by the person or entity that first sold the pesticide for use in this state.
(e)It has been and continues to be the intent of the Legislature that this division requires the department to register all pesticides before their sale for use in this state and, except as otherwise provided by law, requires the department to regulate and control the use of pesticides in accordance with this division. Except as provided in Section 12841.1, the department shall continue to collect the assessment as provided in this article at the same rate on all registered agricultural and registered nonagricultural pesticides.
(f)(1)The mill assessment shall be paid at the following rates per dollar of sales for all sales of pesticides for use in this state:
(A)From July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025, the rate shall be 26 mills ($0.026) 24 mills ($0.024) per dollar sales of all sales of registered pesticides for use in this state plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1.
(B)From July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2026, the rate shall be 27.5 mills ($0.0275) 27 mills ($0.027) per dollar sales of all sales of registered pesticides for use in this state plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1.
(C)From July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2027, the rate shall be 28.6 mills ($0.0286) 29 mills ($0.029) per dollar sales of all sales of registered pesticides for use in this state plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1.
(D)Beginning on July 1, 2027, 2028, after conducting public workshops, the director may adopt regulations setting one fixed rate adequate to support the departments annual expenditures authorized in the annual Budget Act and to provide a prudent reserve. Any rate set by the director shall be no greater than 33.9 mills ($0.0339). However, if regulations are not adopted before a payment is due, payment shall be made at the rate of 28.6 mills ($0.0286), and, upon adoption of regulations, payment of any additional amount due shall be made.
(2)The regulations adopted pursuant to this section, or any amendment thereto, shall be adopted by the director in accordance with Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. However, the adoption, amendment, readoption, or repeal of these regulations shall be considered by the Office of Administrative Law as an emergency, and necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, and general welfare. Notwithstanding any other law, the regulations shall remain in effect until amended by the director. The director shall make available to the public, upon the adoption of an emergency regulation establishing a new rate, the information on which the director has calculated, based, or determined the new rate.
(g)The revenue collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund and distributed as follows:
(1)Notwithstanding Sections 2282 and 12784, the director shall pay, in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section 12844, the following amounts to the counties as reimbursement for costs incurred by the counties in the administration and enforcement of Division 6 (commencing with Section 11401), this chapter, Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 14001), Chapter 3.4 (commencing with Section 14090), and Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 14101):
(A)From January 1, 1998, to March 31, 1998, inclusive, five-eighths of the money received during that period pursuant to this section.
(B)From April 1, 1998, to June 30, 2004, an amount equal to the revenue derived from 6 mills ($0.006) per dollar of sales for all pesticide sales for use in this state.
(C)Beginning July 1, 2004, an amount equal to the revenue derived from 7.6 mills ($0.0076) per dollar of sales for all pesticide sales for use in this state.
(2)All funds not otherwise distributed pursuant to this subdivision shall remain in the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund and shall be available for expenditure, upon appropriation, appropriation by the Legislature, to support the departments operations and to implement Chapters 354, 520, 662, and 836 of the Statutes of 2023.
(h)For purposes of this section, active ingredient means any active ingredient that is required to be stated on the label on any registered pesticide under Section 12883.
SEC. 7.SEC. 17.Section 12841.1 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12841.1.(a)The director may collect an assessment, in addition to the mill assessment collected pursuant to Section 12841, for all pesticide sales for use in this state except for sales for use in this state of pesticides labeled solely for home, industrial, or institutional use. The director may only collect up to an additional 1.04 mills ($0.00104) per dollar of sales, in addition to the rate established pursuant to Section 12841, if necessary to fund, or augment the funding for, an appropriation to the Department of Food and Agriculture to provide pesticide consultation to the department pursuant to Section 11454.2. The necessity of this additional assessment shall be determined by the Secretary of Food and Agriculture, in consultation with the director, on an annual basis after consideration of all other revenue sources, including any reserves, that may be appropriated for this purpose. The secretarys written determination, including a request for a specified additional assessment and the basis for that request, shall be provided to the director by a time and in a manner prescribed by the director.
(b)The revenue collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited monthly into a separate account in the Department of Food and Agriculture Fund. These revenues shall be expended only by the Department of Food and Agriculture, upon appropriation, appropriation by the Legislature, to provide consultation to the department pursuant to Section 11454.2. Funds shall not be expended before the execution of a memorandum of understanding pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 11454.2. The consultation activities to be undertaken by the Department of Food and Agriculture are limited solely to those specifically authorized in the memorandum of understanding executed pursuant to Section 11454.2. These funds shall not be expended for scientific risk assessment activities. The department shall be reimbursed from the Department of Food and Agriculture Fund for the departments revenue collection activities. If the director determines that a person is entitled to a refund of mill assessment funds that were collected pursuant to this section, the director shall inform the Secretary of Food and Agriculture of the amount of the refund due, which shall be reimbursed from the Department of Food and Agriculture Fund.
SEC. 8.SEC. 18.Section 12841.4 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12841.4.(a)Every registrant of any production agricultural- or structural-use pesticide product sold for use in this state that is packaged in rigid, nonrefillable, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) containers of 55 gallons or less shall establish a recycling program, or demonstrate participation in a recycling program to ensure HDPE containers are recycled. Container recycling shall comply with the American National Standards Institute American Society of Agriculture and Biological Engineers Standard S596, entitled Recycling Plastic Containers from Pesticides and Pesticide-Related Products, as published in February 2006. The records required by these standards shall be maintained for four years and shall be subject to audit by the director.
(b)A registrant who is required to establish or participate in a recycling program pursuant to this section shall provide to the director, at least annually, a document certifying that this requirement has been met.
(c)(1)The director may adopt regulations to carry out the purposes of this section. Upon a federal pesticide container recycling program being adopted, the director may adopt regulations to conform to the federal program.
(2)It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section that any regulatory standards adopted by the department shall be at least as stringent as those standards referred to in subdivision (a).
(d)The department shall estimate a recycling rate for pesticide containers and propose suggestions for program improvements and post this information annually on its internet website.
SEC. 9.SEC. 19.Section 12842 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12842.Every person who sells for use in this state any pesticide products that have been registered by the director shall maintain in this state, or with the directors permission at another location, an accurate record of all pesticide transactions for four years. The records are subject to audit by the director and shall clearly demonstrate proof of payment of all applicable assessments for each registered pesticide product sold for use in this state.
SEC. 10.SEC. 20.Section 12847 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12847.Sales invoices for pesticides first sold into or within this state shall show that the assessment specified in Sections 12841 and 12841.1 will be paid by the person or entity that first sold the pesticide for use in the state. All other sales invoices for pesticides sold into or within this state, except retail sales of those nonagricultural pesticides labeled only for home, industrial, or institutional use, shall show as a comment on the invoice that the assessment will be paid, and may show an amount or rate that represents the assessment. However, only the person who actually will pay the assessment may show the amount or rate of the assessment as a line item on the sales invoice.
SEC. 11.SEC. 21.Section 12999.4 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12999.4.(a)In lieu of civil prosecution by the director, the director may levy a civil penalty against a person violating subdivision (d) or (e) of Section 11792, Sections 12101, 12101.5, 12114, 12115, 12116, 12581, 12603, 12671, 12992, and 12993, Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 12400) of Division 6, Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 12841), Section 13186.5, Chapter 7.5 (commencing with Section 15300), or the regulations adopted pursuant to those provisions, and Sections 6560, 6562, 6564, 6568, 6574, 6576, and 6577 of Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations, of not more than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for each violation.
(b)Before a civil penalty is levied, the person charged with the violation shall be given a written notice of the proposed action, including the nature of the violation and the amount of the proposed penalty, and shall have the right to request a hearing within 20 days after receiving notice of the proposed action. A notice of the proposed action that is sent by certified mail to the last known address of the person charged shall be considered received even if delivery is refused or the notice is not accepted at that address. If a hearing is requested, notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given at least 10 days before the date set for the hearing. Before the hearing, the person shall be given an opportunity to review the directors evidence. At the hearing, the person shall be given the opportunity to present evidence on their own behalf. If a hearing is not timely requested, the director may take the action proposed without a hearing.
(c)If the person against whom the director levied a civil penalty requested and appeared at a hearing, the person may seek review of the directors decision within 30 days of the date of the decision pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(d)After the exhaustion of the review procedure provided in this section, the director, or the directors representative, may file a certified copy of a final decision of the director that directs the payment of a civil penalty and, if applicable, any order that denies a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus, with the clerk of the superior court of any county. Judgment shall be entered immediately by the clerk in conformity with the decision or order. Pursuant to Section 6103 of the Government Code, the clerk of the superior court shall not charge a fee for the performance of any official service required in connection with the entry of judgment pursuant to this section.
(e)Any money recovered under this section shall be paid into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund for use by the department, upon appropriation, appropriation by the Legislature, in administering this division and Division 6 (commencing with Section 11401).
SEC. 12.SEC. 22.Section 13000 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:13000.(a)Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), an action brought pursuant to this article shall be commenced by the director, the commissioner, the Attorney General, the district attorney, the city prosecutor, or the city attorney, as the case may be, within three years of the occurrence of the violation.
(b)When a commissioner submits a completed investigation to the director for action by the director or the Attorney General, the action shall be commenced within one year of that submission. However, this subdivision does not preclude the director from returning the investigation to the commissioner for action to be commenced by the commissioner, the district attorney, the city prosecutor, or the city attorney, as provided in subdivision (a).
(c)(1)An action brought by the director to collect unpaid mill assessments and delinquent fees required by Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 12841) or an action brought by the director to collect civil penalties pursuant to Section 12999.4 for violations of Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 12841), Section 12992, Section 12993, or Section 12995 shall be commenced within four years of the occurrence of the violation, except as provided in paragraph (2).
(2)An action brought by the director pursuant to Section 12999.4 or 12998 for violations of Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 12841) or Section 12992, 12993, or 12995 that are discovered during the course of an audit performed pursuant to Section 12842 shall be commenced within two years from the date of audit completion and may be brought for a violation occurring within four years of the commencement of the audit.
SEC. 13.SEC. 23.Section 14006.5 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:14006.5.(a)Except as provided in Section 14006.6, a person shall not use or possess a pesticide designated as a restricted material for any agricultural use except under a written permit of the commissioner. A permit shall not be issued for any restricted material for use in any manner other than pursuant to its registration without the approval of the director. In addition, a permit shall not be granted if the commissioner determines that paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 12825 would be applicable to the proposed use.
(b)Before issuing a permit for a pesticide, the commissioner shall consider local conditions, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(1)Use in vicinity of schools, dwellings, hospitals, recreational areas, and livestock enclosures.
(2)Problems related to heterogeneous planting of crops.
(3)Applications of materials known to create severe resurgence or secondary pest problems without compensating control of pest species.
(4)Meteorological conditions for use.
(5)Timing of applications in relation to bee activity.
(6)Provisions for proper storage of pesticides and disposal of containers.
(c)Each permit issued for any pesticide shall include conditions for use in writing.
SEC. 14.SEC. 24.Section 14009 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:14009.(a)An interested person may request the commissioner to review their action in issuing, refusing, revoking, suspending, or conditioning a permit to use or possess a restricted material. The request for review of the commissioners action shall be limited to the issues described in subdivision (d). The commissioner shall review the request and issue a written decision in response to the request to review within 10 days of receipt of the request, or as soon as practicable. The commissioner may affirm, modify, or cancel the permit action reviewed. A directly affected An interested person may thereafter appeal to the director to review the commissioners action within 30 days of the date of receiving the commissioners written decision. For purposes of this section, an appellant is directly affected by the permit action when the appellant establishes that their residence, crop, property, or water supply point source lies within one-half mile of the site described in the permit. A moveable campsite, trailer, or home, or other portable property temporarily located in proximity to the site, does not qualify the appellant as being directly affected by the permit action.
(b)The commissioner and director shall conduct each review in an expeditious manner so that needed pest control measures are not adversely affected.
(c)Each request for review, limited to the issues described in subdivision (d), shall be submitted in writing to the commissioner by the person requesting the review and shall include all of the following:
(1)The location of persons, property, or areas that would be affected and the location of property to be treated.
(2)The name of the restricted material involved.
(3)The name and address of the person in charge of the property to be treated, if different from the person filing the request for review.
(4)Any other information that the person filing the request for review or the commissioner determines to be relevant.
(d)In an appeal of a commissioners action to the director, the issues are limited to any of the following:
(1)Whether the proposed permit use is consistent with applicable pesticide label restrictions and applicable regulations.
(2)Whether the commissioner properly considered the provisions of Section 14006.5.
(3)Whether the commissioner abused their discretion in issuing, refusing, revoking, or conditioning the permit.
(e)The director shall act on these appeals within 10 days of receipt thereof or as soon thereafter as is practicable. The director may stay the operation of a permit until their review is complete.
(f)(1)Before acting on an appeal, the director shall make publicly available all of the information provided to them as specified in this section if requested to do so in writing by any interested person.
(2)At any time before acting on an appeal, the director may request additional testimony or other evidence specified in this section at the public review from interested persons.
(g)Judicial review of any decision by the director pursuant to this section shall be pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Review shall be limited to whether the proposed permit use is consistent with applicable pesticide label restrictions and regulations and whether the director abused their discretion.
SEC. 15.SEC. 25.Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code is amended to read:21080.(a)Except as otherwise provided in this division, this division shall apply to discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies, including, but not limited to, the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of zoning variances, the issuance of conditional use permits, and the approval of tentative subdivision maps unless the project is exempt from this division.
(b)This division does not apply to any of the following activities:
(1)Ministerial projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies.
(2)Emergency repairs to public service facilities necessary to maintain service.
(3)Projects undertaken, carried out, or approved by a public agency to maintain, repair, restore, demolish, or replace property or facilities damaged or destroyed as a result of a disaster in a disaster-stricken area in which a state of emergency has been proclaimed by the Governor pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 8550) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(4)Specific actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency.
(5)Projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves.
(6)Actions undertaken by a public agency relating to any thermal powerplant site or facility, including the expenditure, obligation, or encumbrance of funds by a public agency for planning, engineering, or design purposes, or for the conditional sale or purchase of equipment, fuel, water (except groundwater), steam, or power for a thermal powerplant, if the powerplant site and related facility will be the subject of an environmental impact report, negative declaration, or other document, prepared pursuant to a regulatory program certified pursuant to Section 21080.5, which will be prepared by the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, by the Public Utilities Commission, or by the city or county in which the powerplant and related facility would be located if the environmental impact report, negative declaration, or document includes the environmental impact, if any, of the action described in this paragraph.
(7)Activities or approvals necessary to the bidding for, hosting or staging of, and funding or carrying out of, an Olympic games Games under the authority of the International Olympic Committee, except for the construction of facilities necessary for the Olympic games. Games.
(8)The establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, or other charges by public agencies that the public agency finds are for the purpose of of: (A) meeting operating expenses, including employee wage rates and fringe benefits, benefits; (B) purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment, or materials, materials; (C) meeting financial reserve needs and requirements, requirements; (D) obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service areas, areas; or (E) obtaining funds necessary to maintain those intracity transfers as are authorized by city charter. The public agency shall incorporate written findings in the record of any proceeding in which an exemption under this paragraph is claimed setting forth with specificity the basis for the claim of exemption.
(9)All classes of projects designated pursuant to Section 21084.
(10)A project for the institution or increase of passenger or commuter services on rail or highway rights-of-way already in use, including modernization of existing stations and parking facilities. For purposes of this paragraph, highway shall have has the same meaning as defined in Section 360 of the Vehicle Code.
(11)A project for the institution or increase of passenger or commuter service on high-occupancy vehicle lanes already in use, including the modernization of existing stations and parking facilities.
(12)Facility extensions not to exceed four miles in length that are required for the transfer of passengers from or to exclusive public mass transit guideway or busway public transit services.
(13)A project for the development of a regional transportation improvement program, the state transportation improvement program, or a congestion management program prepared pursuant to Section 65089 of the Government Code.
(14)A project or portion of a project located in another state that will be subject to environmental impact review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321 et seq.) or similar state laws of that state. Any emissions or discharges that would have a significant effect on the environment in this state are subject to this division.
(15)Projects undertaken by a local agency to implement a rule or regulation imposed by a state agency, board, or commission under a certified regulatory program pursuant to Section 21080.5. Any site-specific effect of the project that was not analyzed as a significant effect on the environment in the plan or other written documentation required by Section 21080.5 is subject to this division.
(16)Approval by the Department of Pesticide Regulation of a pesticide emergency exemption pursuant to Section 136p of Title 7 of the United States Code.
(c)If a lead agency determines that a proposed project, not otherwise exempt from this division, would not have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall adopt a negative declaration to that effect. The negative declaration shall be prepared for the proposed project in either of the following circumstances:
(1)There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
(2)An initial study identifies potentially significant effects on the environment, but but: (A) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, occur; and (B) there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.
(d)If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report shall be prepared.
(e)(1)For purposes of this section and this division, substantial evidence includes fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact.
(2)Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment.
(f)As a result of the public review process for a mitigated negative declaration, including administrative decisions and public hearings, the lead agency may conclude that certain mitigation measures identified pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) are infeasible or otherwise undesirable. In those circumstances, the lead agency, before approving the project, may delete those mitigation measures and substitute for them other mitigation measures that the lead agency finds, after holding a public hearing on the matter, are equivalent or more effective in mitigating significant effects on the environment to a less than significant level and that do not cause any potentially significant effect on the environment. If those new mitigation measures are made conditions of project approval or are otherwise made part of the project approval, the deletion of the former measures and the substitution of the new mitigation measures shall not constitute an action or circumstance requiring recirculation of the mitigated negative declaration.
(g)This section does not preclude a project applicant or any other person from challenging, in an administrative or judicial proceeding, the legality of a condition of project approval imposed by the lead agency. If, however, any condition of project approval set aside by either an administrative body or court was necessary to avoid or lessen the likelihood of the occurrence of a significant effect on the environment, the lead agencys approval of the negative declaration and project shall be invalid and a new environmental review process shall be conducted before the project can be reapproved, unless the lead agency substitutes a new condition that the lead agency finds, after holding a public hearing on the matter, is equivalent to, or more effective in, lessening or avoiding significant effects on the environment and that does not cause any potentially significant effect on the environment.
SEC. 16.SEC. 26.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act or because costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
Except as provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 12001), this division does not apply to any person while engaged in any of the following:
(a)Any An activity that is defined as structural pest control and required to be licensed under Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 8500) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code.
(b)Preservative treatment of fabrics or structural materials.
(c)Household or industrial sanitation services.(c)Sanitation services for collection, disposal, and treatment of wastewater, refuse, or sewage.
(d)Seed treatment which that is incidental to such the persons regular business.
(e)Live capture and removal or exclusion of vertebrate pests, bees, or wasps without the use of pesticides. Vertebrate pests include, but are not limited to, bats, raccoons, skunks, and squirrels, but do not include mice, rats, or and pigeons. This section does not exempt a person from the provisions of Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code.
(f)Pool cleaning services, unless the person is selling, applying, using, or distributing a restricted material.
SEC. 2.Section 12114 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12114.(a)Each licensed pest control dealer, and each person who is required to be licensed as a pest control dealer pursuant to Section 12101, shall maintain at his or her their principal place of business the records of its purchases, sales, and distributions of pesticides into or within this state, including those of its branch locations, for four years. Each dealer shall also maintain the pesticide broker or pest control dealer license number of any pesticide broker or pest control dealer from whom the dealer purchased pesticides registered by the director and labeled for agricultural use. The records shall be available for audit by the director.
(b)Each licensed pest control dealer, and each person who is required to be licensed as a pest control dealer pursuant to Section 12101, shall report quarterly to the director the total dollars of sales and total pounds or gallons sold into or within this state of each pesticide labeled for agricultural use, for all sales subject to Sections 12841 and 12841.1. The quarterly report shall be in the form prescribed by the director and shall include information from the dealers licensed branch locations, if any, and any other information specified on the form or required by the director. The report shall include a certification, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained in the report is true and correct. The report shall accompany payment of assessments required by Sections 12841 and 12841.1.
SEC. 3.Section 12811.5 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12811.5.The director may rely upon on any evaluations of previously submitted data to determine whether to accept an application for registration of a new pesticide product, an amendment to the registration of a registered pesticide product, or to maintain the registration of a registered pesticide product regardless of the ownership of the data previously evaluated. evaluated, if the previously submitted data fulfills current data requirements. However, effective January 1, 2006, applicants will be subject to the following provisions:
(a)(1)If an applicant for registration of a pesticide product, or an amendment to the registration of a registered pesticide product, including a registrant that desires to maintain its registration of a registered pesticide product after the director makes a formal reevaluation request for additional data, data pursuant to reevaluation or Section 12824, does not submit its own data to fulfill a current data requirement imposed by the director and relies upon on data that the applicant does not own or have written permission to rely upon on that was submitted to the director by another entity after January 1, 1991, and meets the three criteria set forth in this subdivision, the applicant must shall either (i) (A) obtain written permission from the data owner to rely on the data, (ii) (B) formulate or obtain its product from a source that has data authorization from the data owner, or a source that complies with subdivision (c), or (iii) (C) if the data meets the criteria set forth in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2), irrevocably offer to pay the data owner a share of the cost of producing the data and comply with the provisions of subdivision (d). The director may rely upon on data submitted prior to before January 1, 1991, or that does not meet the criteria set forth in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2) to support any application or comply with any formal reevaluation request for additional data, without permission from the data owner. An offer to pay, and a payment pursuant to that offer, shall only be required as to data not submitted by the applicant that meets the criteria set forth in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3). To subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2).
(2)To be eligible for cost sharing pursuant to this subdivision, the data must shall meet all of the following requirements:
(1)(A)The data was required by the director in order to obtain, amend, or maintain the data owners California registration or registrations for uses covered by the application, amendment, or formal reevaluation request for additional data. data pursuant to reevaluation or Section 12824.
(2)(B)There has been no arbitration award, data compensation, or data cost-sharing agreement pertaining to data supporting the product at the federal level pursuant to Section 3(c)(1) (F)(iii) or 3(c)(2)(B) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Sec. 136a(c)(1)(F)(iii) or 136a(c)(2)(B)), or, if an award or agreement exists, the use of data in California was excluded from compensation or cost sharing on its face.
(3)(C)The data that fulfills a current requirement was submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the department no more than 15 years prior to before the date of the applicants California registration, application, or amendment or the formal reevaluation request for additional data to which the registrants reliance responds, provided that as to data submitted to the department as of August 1, 2005, in support of the first registration of a product, the applicable period shall be 17 years from the date of submission to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
(b)If the director previously imposed a specific documented data requirement after January 1, 1991, to obtain, amend, or maintain the California registration of a pesticide product substantially similar to the applicants product and that data requirement is not currently imposed in California for registration, amendment, or maintenance of the applicants product, the applicant is further obligated to submit data to meet the requirement, obtain written permission from an owner of the data to rely upon on the data, formulate or obtain its product from a source that has authorization from the data owner to rely upon on the data or from a source that complies with subdivision (c), or, if the data meets the criteria set forth in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), irrevocably offer to pay the data owner a share in the cost of producing the data and comply with the provisions of subdivision (c). An offer to pay, and a payment pursuant to that offer, shall only be required as to data not submitted by the applicant that meets the criteria set forth in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3). To be eligible for cost sharing pursuant to this subdivision, the data must shall meet all of the following requirements:
(1)The data met a specific, documented requirement of the director to obtain, amend, or maintain the California registration of the data owners pesticide product for a use covered by the applicants application or amendment.
(2)There has been no arbitration award, data compensation, or data cost-sharing agreement pertaining to data supporting the product at the federal level pursuant to Section 3(c)(1)(F)(iii) or 3(c)(2)(B) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Sec. 136a(c)(1)(F)(iii) or 136a(c)(2)(B)), or, if an award or agreement exists, the use of the data in California was excluded from compensation or cost sharing on its face.
(3)The data was submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or Department of Pesticide Regulation by the data owner after January 1, 1991, and no more than 15 years prior to before the date of the applicants California application for registration or amendment or the response to a formal specific document data requirement to which the registrants reliance responds, provided that as to data submitted to the department as of August 1, 2005, in support of the first registration of a product, the applicable period shall be 17 years from the date of submission to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
(c)An applicant may formulate its product from a source that does not have data authorization provided if that source has submitted data to support the product or makes or has made an irrevocable offer to pay the data owner a share of the cost of producing the data required pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) for the applicants product and complies with or has made payment in accordance with the provisions of subdivision (d). In the event that If the source has already reached a data compensation or cost-sharing agreement or there has been an arbitration award under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (commencing at 7 U.S.C. Sec. 136) that excludes the right to rely on the data to satisfy the California requirement on its face, the source must shall make or have made a new irrevocable offer to pay a share of the cost of producing that data to support the applicants product in California and comply with the provisions of subdivision (d).
(d)(1)If an applicant is required to offer to pay a share in the cost of producing the data pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b), or if a source of product makes an offer pursuant to subdivision (c), the applicant or source must shall submit to the data owner upon application to the department an irrevocable offer to pay the data owner a share in the cost of producing the data and to comply with regulations promulgated under this subdivision to determine the amount and terms, if the parties cannot agree. If a data owner for which cost sharing is required under subdivision (a) or (b) cannot be identified from information readily available to the applicant, the applicants obligation under subdivision (a) or (b) will be absolved if the data owner does not identify himself or herself themselves to the applicant within 12 months after registration of the pesticide product. If within 12 months of registration, the data owner identifies himself or herself themselves to the applicant and the applicant has not already made an irrevocable offer to pay to the data owner, or the applicants source of product has not made an offer pursuant to subdivision (c), the applicant must shall do so promptly. In either event, the specific terms and amount of payments to be made shall be fixed by agreement between the applicant and the data owner, but determination of those amounts and terms shall not delay approval of the applicants application.
If(2)If agreement cannot be reached about the terms and amount of payment required by this section at any time more than 90 days after issuance of an irrevocable offer to pay, either the applicant, source source, or data owner may initiate, or with the consent of all parties, join a proceeding under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (commencing at 7 U.S.C. Sec. 136), pursuant to regulations promulgated by the director pursuant to this statute. section. The purpose of this proceeding shall be to determine the amount due under this section. The director shall promulgate those regulations as emergency regulations within 60 days of the enactment of the bill that enacts this section. The regulations shall provide all of the following:
(1)(A)Allow the proceeding authorized by this subdivision, upon mutual agreement of the parties, to be consolidated with dispute resolution under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (commencing at 7 U.S.C. Sec. 136).
(2)(B)Require that the decisionmaker consider, among other factors, that the data owners exclusive right to sell the pesticide resulted in the data owner recovering all or part of the costs of generating the data.
(3)(C)Require that the parties to the proceeding share equally in the payment of the expenses thereof.
(e)If a data owner fails to participate in a procedure for reaching an agreement or in a proceeding as required by subdivision (d), or fails to comply with the terms of an agreement or decision conducted under subdivision (d), then that data owner forfeits his or her their right to cost recovery as a result of the use of the data at issue.
(f)If the director finds that an applicant has failed to make an offer to pay as required under subdivision (a) or (b), or if its source of product has failed to make an offer pursuant to subdivision (c), or if an applicant or its source of product has failed to participate in a proceeding for reaching an agreement, or has refused to participate in a proceeding pursuant to subdivision (d), or has failed to comply with an agreement or to comply with an order, or to pay an award resulting from that proceeding, the director shall cancel the registration of the pesticide product in support of which the data was used in accordance with the provisions of subdivision (g), notwithstanding the provisions of Section 12825.
(g)If the applicant subject to subdivision (a) or (b) fails to comply with the provisions of this article, the data owner shall notify the director of the specific provision of noncompliance and provide proof of notification to the applicant of its claim of noncompliance. All parties shall have 30 days from the date of receipt of notification by the director to submit written evidence or arguments to the director regarding the claim and any defenses thereto. The director shall provide a written finding within 60 days of the deadline for submission as to the claim and the resulting consequences.
(h)No A hearing or live testimony shall not be conducted under subdivision (g) and this proceeding shall not be used as mechanism to prevent or delay the registration or payment for cost sharing as determined by this article. The finding of the director shall be final and conclusive, except that any party aggrieved by such a finding may seek review within 30 days of the finding pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(i)In lieu of seeking a determination by the director and cancellation of the registration pursuant to subdivision (f), the data owner may bring an action in any California court of competent jurisdiction against the applicant to enforce the obligations of that party set forth in the provisions of this section.
(j)No cost Cost sharing as provided in subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) shall not be required to support an application for annual renewal of a pesticide product registration, provided this provision shall not authorize renewal of a product registered prior to before the effective date of this section if that registration is declared to have been unlawfully issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(k)The Department of Pesticide Regulation shall make available in the public domain its index of data submitted in support of registration applications, the ownership of that data, and the date it was submitted to California.
SEC. 4.Section 12824 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12824.(a)The director shall endeavor to eliminate from use in the state any pesticide that endangers the agricultural or nonagricultural environment, is not beneficial for the purposes for which it is sold, or is misrepresented. In carrying out this responsibility, the director shall develop an orderly program for the continuous evaluation of all pesticides actually registered.
Before(b)Before a substance is registered as a pesticide for the first time, there shall be a thorough and timely evaluation in accordance with this section. Appropriate restrictions may be placed upon on its use use, including, but not limited to, limitations on quantity, area, and manner of application. All pesticides for which renewal of registration is sought also shall be evaluated in accordance with this section.
The(c)The director may establish specific criteria to evaluate a pesticide with regard to the factors listed in Section 12825. The department may establish performance standards and tests that are to be conducted or financed, or both conducted and financed, by the registrants, applicants for registration, or parties interested in the registration of those pesticides.
(d)Each pesticide registrant or applicant shall, upon request of the director, submit any data determined by the director to be necessary to carry out this section.
SEC. 5.Section 12825 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12825.(a)Pursuant to Section 12824, the director, after a hearing, may cancel the registration of, or refuse to register, any pesticide: a pesticide if any of the following conditions apply:
(a)That has demonstrated serious uncontrollable adverse effects either within or outside the agricultural environment.(1)The pesticide has significant adverse environmental effects for which there is no feasible mitigation available.
(b)(2)The use of which the pesticide is of less public value or greater detriment to the environment than the benefit received by its use.
(c)For which there is(3)There is a reasonable, effective, and practicable alternate material or procedure for the pesticide that is demonstrably less destructive to the environment.
(d)That, when(4)The pesticide, when properly used, is detrimental to vegetation, except weeds, to domestic animals, or to the public health and safety.
(e)That is(5)The pesticide is of little or no value for the purpose for which it is intended.
(f)Concerning which any false(6)The registrant or their agent makes or implies a false or misleading statement is made or implied by the registrant or his or her agent, concerning the pesticide, either verbally or in writing, or in the form of any advertising literature. literature, for the purpose of meeting any registration requirement under this division, or that is otherwise related in any way to the pesticide.
(g)For which the(7)The director determines that the registrant has failed to report an adverse effect or risk for the pesticide as required by Section 12825.5.
(h)(8)If the director determines that the registrant has failed to comply with the requirements of a reevaluation or to submit the data required as part of the reevaluation of the registrants product. product or pursuant to Section 12824.
(i)That is(9)The pesticide is required to be registered pursuant to the federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Sec. 136 et seq.) and that is not so registered.
In(b)In making a determination pursuant to this section, the director may require those practical demonstrations that are necessary to determine the facts.
SEC. 6.Section 12841 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12841.(a)It is unlawful for a person to sell for use in this state any pesticide products that have been registered by the director for which the mill assessment established by this article, and the regulations adopted pursuant to it, is not paid at the times specified in Section 12843.
(b)Except as provided in subdivision (d), every person who sells for use in this state a pesticide product that has been registered by the director shall pay to the director the applicable assessment. Those sales expressly include all sales made electronically, telephonically, or by any other means that result in a pesticide product being shipped to or used in this state. There is a rebuttable presumption that pesticide products that are sold or distributed into or within this state by any person are sold or distributed for use in this state.
(c)(1)Upon application of a registrant, the director shall determine whether a fertilizer or paper product is used as a carrier for a pesticide, and is sold in combination, and whether the mill assessment under this article shall be on the pesticide value only, when the product is designed, developed, and manufactured, and sold primarily for other than a pesticide use. If the director finds that the combination product has such a major component and is designed, developed, manufactured, and sold primarily for other than a pesticide use, the assessment provided by this article shall be paid on the equivalent percentage of the sales price of the active ingredients of the pesticide product. The director shall establish this percentage of the sales price. The percentage shall be the ratio of that portion of the sales price attributable to the pesticide portion to the total sales price of the combination product.
(2)For purposes of this section, active ingredient means any active ingredient that is required to be stated on the label on any registered pesticide under Section 12883.(d)Assessments provided for in this article for sales of registered pesticides that are sold for use in this state shall be paid by the registrant except as follows: person or entity that first sold the pesticide for use in this state.
(1)In those cases where the registrant did not first sell the pesticide into or within this state or have actual knowledge, at the time of its sale, that the pesticide would be sold for use in this state, the assessment shall be paid by the licensed pesticide broker, licensed pest control dealer, or other person who first sold the pesticide for use in this state.(2)A person is not required to pay an assessment on registered products that are labeled only for use in further manufacturing or formulating of pesticides.(e)It has been and continues to be the intent of the Legislature that this division requires the department to register all pesticides prior to before their sale for use in this state and, except as otherwise provided by law, requires the department to regulate and control the use of pesticides in accordance with this division. Except as provided in Section 12841.1, the department shall continue to collect the assessment as provided in this article at the same rate on all registered agricultural and registered nonagricultural pesticides.
(f)(1)The mill assessment shall be paid at the following rates per dollar of sales for all sales of pesticides for use in this state:
(A)From January 1, 1998, to March 31, 1999, inclusive, the rate shall be 15.15 mills ($0.01515) plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1.(B)From April 1, 1999, to December 31, 2002, inclusive, the rate shall be 17.5 mills ($0.0175) plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1.(C)From January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2003, inclusive, the rate shall be 17.5 mills ($0.0175).(D)For all transactions on or after January 1, 2004, the actual rate shall be that set by regulations adopted by the director at a rate adequate to support the departments annual expenditures authorized in the annual Budget Act and provide a prudent reserve. The rate set by the director shall be no greater than 21 mills ($0.021). However, if regulations are not adopted before a payment is due, payment shall be made at the rate of 17.5 mills ($0.0175), and, upon adoption of regulations, payment of any additional amount due shall be made.(A)From July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025, the rate shall be 26 mills ($0.026) per dollar sales of all sales of registered pesticides for use in this state plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1.
(B)From July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2026, the rate shall be 27.5 mills ($0.0275) per dollar sales of all sales of registered pesticides for use in this state plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1.
(C)From July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2027, the rate shall be 28.6 mills ($0.0286) per dollar sales of all sales of registered pesticides for use in this state plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1.
(D)Beginning on July 1, 2027, after conducting public workshops, the director may adopt regulations setting one fixed rate adequate to support the departments annual expenditures authorized in the annual Budget Act and to provide a prudent reserve. Any rate set by the director shall be no greater than 33.9 mills ($0.0339). However, if regulations are not adopted before a payment is due, payment shall be made at the rate of 28.6 mills ($0.0286), and, upon adoption of regulations, payment of any additional amount due shall be made.
(2)The regulations adopted pursuant to this section, or any amendment thereto, shall be adopted by the director in accordance with Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. However, the adoption, amendment, readoption, or repeal of these regulations shall be considered by the Office of Administrative Law as an emergency, and necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, and general welfare. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the regulations shall remain in effect until amended by the director. The director shall make available to the public, upon the adoption of an emergency regulation establishing a new rate, the information upon on which the director has calculated, based, or determined the new rate.
(g)The revenue collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited in into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund and distributed as follows:
(1)Notwithstanding Sections 2282 and 12784, the director shall pay, in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section 12844, the following amounts to the counties as reimbursement for costs incurred by the counties in the administration and enforcement of Division 6 (commencing with Section 11401), this chapter, Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 14001), Chapter 3.4 (commencing with Section 14090), and Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 14101):
(A)From January 1, 1998, to March 31, 1998, inclusive, five-eighths of the money received during that period pursuant to this section.
(B)From April 1, 1998 to June 30, 2004, an amount equal to the revenue derived from 6 mills ($0.006) per dollar of sales for all pesticide sales for use in this state.
(C)Beginning July 1, 2004, an amount equal to the revenue derived from 7.6 mills ($0.0076) per dollar of sales for all pesticide sales for use in this state.
(2)All funds not otherwise distributed pursuant to this subdivision shall remain in the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund and shall be available for expenditure, upon appropriation, to support the departments operations. operations and to implement Chapters 354, 520, 662, and 836 of the Statutes of 2023.
(h)For purposes of this section, active ingredient means any active ingredient that is required to be stated on the label on any registered pesticide under Section 12883.
SEC. 7.Section 12841.1 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12841.1.(a)The director may collect an assessment, in addition to the mill assessment collected pursuant to Section 12841, for all pesticide sales for use in this state except for sales for use in this state of pesticides labeled solely for home, industrial, or institutional use. The director may only collect up to an additional three-fourths mill ($0.00075) 1.04 mills ($0.00104) per dollar of sales, in addition to the rate established pursuant to Section 12841, if necessary to fund, or augment the funding for, an appropriation to the Department of Food and Agriculture to provide pesticide consultation to the department pursuant to Section 11454.2. The necessity of this additional assessment shall be determined by the Secretary of Food and Agriculture, in consultation with the director, on an annual basis after consideration of all other revenue sources, including any reserves, which that may be appropriated for this purpose. The secretarys written determination, including a request for a specified additional assessment and the basis for that request, shall be provided to the director by a time and in a manner prescribed by the director.
(b)The revenue collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited monthly in into a separate account in the Department of Food and Agriculture Fund. These revenues shall be expended only by the Department of Food and Agriculture, upon appropriation, to provide consultation to the department pursuant to Section 11454.2. No funds may Funds shall not be expended prior to before the execution of a memorandum of understanding pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 11454.2. The consultation activities to be undertaken by the Department of Food and Agriculture are limited solely to those specifically authorized in the memorandum of understanding executed pursuant to Section 11454.2. These funds may shall not be expended for scientific risk assessment activities. The department shall be reimbursed from the Department of Food and Agriculture Fund for the departments revenue collection activities. If the director determines that a person is entitled to a refund of mill assessment funds that were collected pursuant to this section, the director shall inform the Secretary of Food and Agriculture of the amount of the refund due, which shall be reimbursed from the Department of Food and Agriculture Fund.
SEC. 8.Section 12841.4 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12841.4.(a)Every registrant of any production agricultural- or structural-use pesticide product sold for use in this state that is packaged in rigid, nonrefillable, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) containers of 55 gallons or less shall establish a recycling program, or demonstrate participation in a recycling program to ensure HDPE containers are recycled. Container recycling must shall comply with the American National Standards Institute American Society of Agriculture and Biological Engineers Standard S596, entitled Recycling Plastic Containers from Pesticides and Pesticide-Related Products, as published in February 2006. The records required by these standards shall be maintained for three four years and shall be subject to audit by the director.
(b)Any A registrant who is required to establish or participate in a recycling program pursuant to this section shall provide to the director, at least annually, a document certifying that this requirement has been met.
(c)(1)The director may adopt regulations to carry out the purposes of this section. Upon a federal pesticide container recycling program being adopted, the director may adopt regulations to conform to the federal program.
(2)It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section that any regulatory standards adopted by the department shall be at least as stringent as those standards referred to in subdivision (a).
(d)Commencing September 1, 2010, the The department shall estimate a recycling rate for pesticide containers and propose suggestions for program improvements and post this information annually on its Internet Web site. internet website.
SEC. 9.Section 12842 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12842.Every person who sells for use in this state any pesticide products that have been registered by the director shall maintain in this state, or with the directors permission at another location, an accurate record of all pesticide transactions subject to assessment for four years. The records are subject to audit by the director and shall clearly demonstrate proof of payment of all applicable assessments for each registered pesticide product sold for use in this state.
SEC. 10.Section 12847 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12847.Sales invoices for pesticides first sold into or within this state by a registrant, pesticide broker, pest control dealer, or other person subject to this article shall show that the assessment specified in Sections 12841 and 12841.1 will be paid by the registrant, broker, dealer, or person, respectively. person or entity that first sold the pesticide for use in the state. All other sales invoices for pesticides sold into or within this state, except retail sales of those nonagricultural pesticides labeled only for home, industrial, or institutional use use, shall show as a comment on the invoice that the assessment will be paid, and may show an amount or rate that represents the assessment. However, only the person who actually will pay the assessment may show the amount or rate of the assessment as a line item on the sales invoice.
SEC. 11.Section 12999.4 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:12999.4.(a)In lieu of civil prosecution by the director, the director may levy a civil penalty against a person violating subdivision (d) or (e) of Section 11792 or 11792, Sections 12101, 12101.5, 12114, 12115, 12116, 12581, 12603, 12671, 12992, and 12993, Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 12400) of Division 6, Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 12841), Section 13186.5, Chapter 7.5 (commencing with Section 15300), or the regulations adopted pursuant to those provisions, and Sections 6560, 6562, 6564, 6568, 6574, 6576, and 6577 of Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations, of not more than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for each violation.
(b)Before a civil penalty is levied, the person charged with the violation shall be given a written notice of the proposed action, including the nature of the violation and the amount of the proposed penalty, and shall have the right to request a hearing within 20 days after receiving notice of the proposed action. A notice of the proposed action that is sent by certified mail to the last known address of the person charged shall be considered received even if delivery is refused or the notice is not accepted at that address. If a hearing is requested, notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given at least 10 days before the date set for the hearing. Before the hearing, the person shall be given an opportunity to review the directors evidence. At the hearing, the person shall be given the opportunity to present evidence on their own behalf. If a hearing is not timely requested, the director may take the action proposed without a hearing.
(c)If the person against whom the director levied a civil penalty requested and appeared at a hearing, the person may seek review of the directors decision within 30 days of the date of the decision pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(d)After the exhaustion of the review procedure provided in this section, the director, or the directors representative, may file a certified copy of a final decision of the director that directs the payment of a civil penalty and, if applicable, any order that denies a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus, with the clerk of the superior court of any county. Judgment shall be entered immediately by the clerk in conformity with the decision or order. Pursuant to Section 6103 of the Government Code, the clerk of the superior court shall not charge a fee for the performance of any official service required in connection with the entry of judgment pursuant to this section.
(e)Any money recovered under this section shall be paid into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund for use by the department, upon appropriation, in administering this division and Division 6 (commencing with Section 11401).
SEC. 12.Section 13000 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:13000.(a)Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), an action brought pursuant to this article shall be commenced by the director, the commissioner, the Attorney General, the district attorney, the city prosecutor, or the city attorney, as the case may be, within two three years of the occurrence of the violation.
(b)When a commissioner submits a completed investigation to the director for action by the director or the Attorney General, the action shall be commenced within one year of that submission. However, nothing in this subdivision precludes does not preclude the director from returning the investigation to the commissioner for action to be commenced by the commissioner, the district attorney, the city prosecutor, or the city attorney, as provided in subdivision (a).
(c)(1)An action brought by the director to collect unpaid mill assessments and delinquent fees required by Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 12841) or an action brought by the director to collect civil penalties pursuant to Section 12999.4 for violations of Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 12841), Section 12992, Section 12993, or Section 12995 shall be commenced within four years of the occurrence of the violation. violation, except as provided in paragraph (2).
(2)An action brought by the director pursuant to Section 12999.4 or 12998 for violations of Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 12841) or Section 12992, 12993, or 12995 that are discovered during the course of an audit performed pursuant to Section 12842 shall be commenced within two years from the date of audit completion and may be brought for a violation occurring within four years of the commencement of the audit.
SEC. 13.Section 14006.5 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:14006.5.(a)Except as provided in Section 14006.6, no a person shall not use or possess any a pesticide designated as a restricted material for any agricultural use except under a written permit of the commissioner. No A permit shall not be issued for any restricted material for use in any manner other than pursuant to its registration without the approval of the director. In addition, no a permit shall not be granted if the commissioner determines that the provisions paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (a), (b), or (c) (a) of Section 12825 would be applicable to the proposed use.
Before(b)Before issuing a permit for any pesticide a pesticide, the commissioner shall consider local conditions conditions, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(a)(1)Use in vicinity of schools, dwellings, hospitals, recreational areas, and livestock enclosures.
(b)(2)Problems related to heterogeneous planting of crops.
(c)(3)Applications of materials known to create severe resurgence or secondary pest problems without compensating control of pest species.
(d)(4)Meteorological conditions for use.
(e)(5)Timing of applications in relation to bee activity.
(f)(6)Provisions for proper storage of pesticides and disposal of containers.
Each(c)Each permit issued for any pesticide shall include conditions for use in writing.
SEC. 14.Section 14009 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:14009.(a)Any An interested person may request the commissioner to review his or her their action in issuing, refusing, revoking, suspending, or conditioning a permit to use or possess a restricted material. The request for review of the commissioners action shall be limited to the issues described in subdivision (d). The commissioner shall review the request and issue a written decision in response to the request to review within 10 days of receipt of the request, or as soon as practicable. The commissioner may affirm, modify, or cancel the permit action reviewed. A directly affected person may thereafter appeal to the director to review the commissioners action. action within 30 days of the date of receiving the commissioners written decision. For purposes of this section, an appellant is directly affected by the permit action when the appellant establishes that their residence, crop, property, or water supply point source lies within one-half mile of the site described in the permit. A moveable campsite, trailer, or home, or other portable property temporarily located in proximity to the site, does not qualify the appellant as being directly affected by the permit action.
(b)The commissioner and director shall conduct each review in an expeditious manner so that needed pest control measures are not adversely affected.
(c)Each request for review review, limited to the issues described in subdivision (d), shall be submitted in writing to the commissioner by the person requesting the review and shall include all of the following:
(1)The location of persons, property, or areas that would be affected and the location of property to be treated.
(2)The name of the restricted material involved.
(3)The name and address of the person in charge of the property to be treated, if different from the person filing the request for review.
(4)Any other information that the person filing the request for review or the commissioner determines to be relevant.
(d)In an appeal of a commissioners action to the director, the issues are limited to any of the following:
(1)Whether the proposed permit use is consistent with applicable pesticide label restrictions and applicable regulations.
(2)Whether the commissioner properly considered the provisions of Section 14006.5.
(3)Whether the commissioner abused his or her their discretion in issuing, refusing, revoking, or conditioning the permit.
(e)The director shall act on these appeals within 10 days of receipt thereof or as soon thereafter as is practicable. The director may stay the operation of a permit until his or her their review is complete.
(f)(1)Prior to conducting a public review, the director shall notify directly affected persons at least 72 hours in advance of the location and time of the public review.(2)(f)(1)Before acting on an appeal, the director shall, in a specified location open to the public, review the shall make publicly available all of the information provided to him or her them as specified in this section if requested to do so in writing by any interested person.
(3)The director(2)At any time before acting on an appeal, the director may request additional testimony or other evidence specified in this section at the public review from interested persons.
(g)Judicial review of any decision by the director pursuant to this section shall be pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Review shall be limited to whether the proposed permit use is consistent with applicable pesticide label restrictions and regulations and whether the director abused his or her their discretion.
SEC. 15.Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code is amended to read:21080.(a)Except as otherwise provided in this division, this division shall apply to discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies, including, but not limited to, the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of zoning variances, the issuance of conditional use permits, and the approval of tentative subdivision maps unless the project is exempt from this division.
(b)This division does not apply to any of the following activities:
(1)Ministerial projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies.
(2)Emergency repairs to public service facilities necessary to maintain service.
(3)Projects undertaken, carried out, or approved by a public agency to maintain, repair, restore, demolish, or replace property or facilities damaged or destroyed as a result of a disaster in a disaster-stricken area in which a state of emergency has been proclaimed by the Governor pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 8550) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(4)Specific actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency.
(5)Projects which that a public agency rejects or disapproves.
(6)Actions undertaken by a public agency relating to any thermal powerplant site or facility, including the expenditure, obligation, or encumbrance of funds by a public agency for planning, engineering, or design purposes, or for the conditional sale or purchase of equipment, fuel, water (except groundwater), steam, or power for a thermal powerplant, if the powerplant site and related facility will be the subject of an environmental impact report, negative declaration, or other document, prepared pursuant to a regulatory program certified pursuant to Section 21080.5, which will be prepared by the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, by the Public Utilities Commission, or by the city or county in which the powerplant and related facility would be located if the environmental impact report, negative declaration, or document includes the environmental impact, if any, of the action described in this paragraph.
(7)Activities or approvals necessary to the bidding for, hosting or staging of, and funding or carrying out of, an Olympic games under the authority of the International Olympic Committee, except for the construction of facilities necessary for the Olympic games.
(8)The establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, or other charges by public agencies which that the public agency finds are for the purpose of (A) meeting operating expenses, including employee wage rates and fringe benefits, (B) purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment, or materials, (C) meeting financial reserve needs and requirements, (D) obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service areas, or (E) obtaining funds necessary to maintain those intracity transfers as are authorized by city charter. The public agency shall incorporate written findings in the record of any proceeding in which an exemption under this paragraph is claimed setting forth with specificity the basis for the claim of exemption.
(9)All classes of projects designated pursuant to Section 21084.
(10)A project for the institution or increase of passenger or commuter services on rail or highway rights-of-way already in use, including modernization of existing stations and parking facilities. For purposes of this paragraph, highway shall have the same meaning as defined in Section 360 of the Vehicle Code.
(11)A project for the institution or increase of passenger or commuter service on high-occupancy vehicle lanes already in use, including the modernization of existing stations and parking facilities.
(12)Facility extensions not to exceed four miles in length which that are required for the transfer of passengers from or to exclusive public mass transit guideway or busway public transit services.
(13)A project for the development of a regional transportation improvement program, the state transportation improvement program, or a congestion management program prepared pursuant to Section 65089 of the Government Code.
(14)Any A project or portion thereof of a project located in another state which that will be subject to environmental impact review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321 et seq.) or similar state laws of that state. Any emissions or discharges that would have a significant effect on the environment in this state are subject to this division.
(15)Projects undertaken by a local agency to implement a rule or regulation imposed by a state agency, board, or commission under a certified regulatory program pursuant to Section 21080.5. Any site-specific effect of the project which that was not analyzed as a significant effect on the environment in the plan or other written documentation required by Section 21080.5 is subject to this division.
(16)Approval by the Department of Pesticide Regulation of a pesticide emergency exemption pursuant to Section 136p of Title 7 of the United States Code.
(c)If a lead agency determines that a proposed project, not otherwise exempt from this division, would not have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall adopt a negative declaration to that effect. The negative declaration shall be prepared for the proposed project in either of the following circumstances:
(1)There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
(2)An initial study identifies potentially significant effects on the environment, but (A) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (B) there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.
(d)If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report shall be prepared.
(e)(1)For the purposes of this section and this division, substantial evidence includes fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact.
(2)Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment.
(f)As a result of the public review process for a mitigated negative declaration, including administrative decisions and public hearings, the lead agency may conclude that certain mitigation measures identified pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) are infeasible or otherwise undesirable. In those circumstances, the lead agency, prior to before approving the project, may delete those mitigation measures and substitute for them other mitigation measures that the lead agency finds, after holding a public hearing on the matter, are equivalent or more effective in mitigating significant effects on the environment to a less than significant level and that do not cause any potentially significant effect on the environment. If those new mitigation measures are made conditions of project approval or are otherwise made part of the project approval, the deletion of the former measures and the substitution of the new mitigation measures shall not constitute an action or circumstance requiring recirculation of the mitigated negative declaration.
(g)Nothing in this This section shall does not preclude a project applicant or any other person from challenging, in an administrative or judicial proceeding, the legality of a condition of project approval imposed by the lead agency. If, however, any condition of project approval set aside by either an administrative body or court was necessary to avoid or lessen the likelihood of the occurrence of a significant effect on the environment, the lead agencys approval of the negative declaration and project shall be invalid and a new environmental review process shall be conducted before the project can be reapproved, unless the lead agency substitutes a new condition that the lead agency finds, after holding a public hearing on the matter, is equivalent to, or more effective in, lessening or avoiding significant effects on the environment and that does not cause any potentially significant effect on the environment.
SEC. 16.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act or because costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
SECTION 1.Section 11502.6 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:11502.6.(a)To protect the environment and public health from the harmful effects of pesticides, and to accelerate the systemwide adoption of safer and sustainable pest control practices, the Department of Pesticide Regulation shall establish a Sustainable Pest Management Workgroup by July 1, 2024. The department may augment an existing task force or workgroup to accomplish the requirements of this section.(b)The functions and duties of the workgroup shall include all of the following:(1)Identify pathways to minimize the use of toxic pesticides and expand the use of integrated pest management practices.(2)Better protect public and environmental health.(3)Engage, educate, and promote collaboration to achieve the goals of paragraphs (1) and (2).(c)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2026, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute that is enacted before January 1, 2026, deletes or extends that date.(a)To protect the environment and public health from the harmful effects of pesticides, and to accelerate the systemwide adoption of safer and sustainable pest control practices, the Department of Pesticide Regulation shall establish a Sustainable Pest Management Workgroup by July 1, 2024. The department may augment an existing task force or workgroup to accomplish the requirements of this section.
(b)The functions and duties of the workgroup shall include all of the following:
(1)Identify pathways to minimize the use of toxic pesticides and expand the use of integrated pest management practices.
(2)Better protect public and environmental health.
(3)Engage, educate, and promote collaboration to achieve the goals of paragraphs (1) and (2).
(c)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2026, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute that is enacted before January 1, 2026, deletes or extends that date.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Jul 2, 2024 | Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 60, Statutes of 2024. |
| Jul 2, 2024 | Approved by the Governor. |
| Jul 1, 2024 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m. |
| Jul 1, 2024 | Urgency clause adopted. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Page 6119.). |
| Jun 27, 2024 | In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after June 29 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77. |
| Jun 27, 2024 | Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 29. Noes 9.). |
| Jun 26, 2024 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Jun 26, 2024 | From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (June 26). |
| Jun 25, 2024 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 0.) (June 25). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Jun 24, 2024 | Joint Rule 62(a) suspended. (Ayes 30. Noes 6. Page 4666.) |
| Jun 23, 2024 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on AGRI. |
| Jun 19, 2024 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on AGRI. (Ayes 4. Noes 2.) (June 19). Re-referred to Com. on AGRI. |
| May 29, 2024 | Referred to Coms. on E.Q. and AGRI. |
| May 22, 2024 | In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. |
| May 21, 2024 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 54. Noes 16. Page 5431.) |
| May 21, 2024 | Assembly Rule 69(d) suspended. (Page 5352.) |
| May 20, 2024 | Read third time and amended. Ordered to third reading. (Page 5290.) |
| May 20, 2024 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| May 16, 2024 | Joint Rule 62(a), file notice suspended. (Page 5215.) |
| May 16, 2024 | From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 11. Noes 4.) (May 16). |
| May 15, 2024 | In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file. |
| Apr 24, 2024 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (April 23). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Apr 15, 2024 | Re-referred to Com. on E.S. & T.M. |
| Apr 11, 2024 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on E.S. & T.M. Read second time and amended. |
| Feb 26, 2024 | Re-referred to Com. on E.S. & T.M. |
| Feb 22, 2024 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on E.S. & T.M. Read second time and amended. |
| Feb 20, 2024 | Referred to Com. on E.S. & T.M. |
| Feb 6, 2024 | From printer. May be heard in committee March 7. |
| Feb 5, 2024 | Read first time. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 1, 2024 | AB 2113 Garcia Concurrence - Urgency Added | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Jun 27, 2024 | Assembly 3rd Reading AB2113 Garcia By Becker Urgency Clause | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Jun 26, 2024 | Do pass | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Jun 25, 2024 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture |
Passed |
|
| Jun 19, 2024 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Agriculture] | Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality |
Passed |
|
| May 21, 2024 | AB 2113 Garcia Assembly Third Reading | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 16, 2024 | Do pass. | Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Apr 23, 2024 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural Council Of California | * Neutral | Jun 25, 2024 |
| Allman Alliance | * Support | Jun 19, 2024 |
| Almond Alliance | * Neutral | Jun 25, 2024 |
| American Chemistry Council | * Against | Apr 23, 2024 |
| American Pistachio Growers | * Neutral | Jun 25, 2024 |
| American Pistachio Growers | * N/A | Jun 25, 2024 |
| California Chamber Of Commerce | * Neutral | Jun 19, 2024 |
| California Citrus Mutual | * Neutral | Jun 25, 2024 |
| California Citrus Mutual | * N/A | Jun 25, 2024 |
| California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association | * N/A | Jun 25, 2024 |
| California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association | * Neutral | Jun 25, 2024 |
| California Farm Bureau | * N/A | Jun 25, 2024 |
| California Farm Bureau | * Neutral | Jun 25, 2024 |
| California Food and Farming Network | ** For If Amend | Apr 23, 2024 |
| California Fresh Fruit Association | * N/A | Jun 25, 2024 |
| California Fresh Fruit Association | * Neutral | Jun 25, 2024 |
| California Nurses for Environmental Health | * For If Amend | Jun 19, 2024 |
| California Pool & Spa Association | ** Support | |
| California Strawberry Commission | * N/A | Jun 25, 2024 |
| California Strawberry Commission | * Neutral | Jun 25, 2024 |
| California Tomato Growers Association | * N/A | Jun 25, 2024 |
| California Tomato Growers Association | * Neutral | Jun 25, 2024 |
| California Walnut Commission | * N/A | Jun 25, 2024 |
| California Walnut Commission | * Neutral | Jun 25, 2024 |
| Californians for Pesticide Reform | * Support | Jun 19, 2024 |
| Center for Biological Diversity | * For If Amend | Jun 19, 2024 |
| Center For Food Safety | * Support | Apr 23, 2024 |
| Clean Earth for Kids | * Support | Jun 19, 2024 |
| Coalition of California Farmers and Ranchers | * Against | Apr 23, 2024 |
| Community Alliance With Family Farmers | * Support | Apr 23, 2024 |
| Croplife America | * Neutral | Jun 26, 2024 |
| Environmental Working Group | * Support | Apr 23, 2024 |
| Families Advocating for Chemical Toxic Safety | * Support | Apr 23, 2024 |
| Household and Commercial Products Association | * Neutral | Jun 25, 2024 |
| Nisei Farmers League | * Neutral | Jun 25, 2024 |
| Nisei Farmers League | * N/A | Jun 25, 2024 |
| Pest Control Operators Of California | * Against Unless Amend | Apr 23, 2024 |
| Safe Ag Safe Schools | * For If Amend | Jun 19, 2024 |
| Tri Cal Group | * Against Unless Amend | Apr 23, 2024 |
| TriCal Group | * Neutral | Jun 19, 2024 |
| Western Growers Association | * Neutral | Jun 26, 2024 |
| Western Plant Health Association | * Neutral | Jun 26, 2024 |
(Without Reference to File)
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
CSA1 Bill Id:AB 2113
Author:(Garcia)
As Amended Ver:June 23, 2024
2/3 vote.Urgency
SUMMARY
Increases, over a four year period, the mill assessment (a fee on the sale of all pesticides sold into the state), in order to support the programs of the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR).
Senate Amendments
- Require DPR to complete the registration of pesticides within a specified timeframe, beginning in 2027.
- Require DPR, beginning in 2025, to initiate an additional re-evaluation of a pesticide each year until 2029, and then initiate an additional two re-evaluations of pesticides each year.
- Raise the mill fee incrementally over four years to a maximum of 30 mills.
- Require DPR to post certain information, such as the timelines of pesticide registration and the estimated timeline of completing certain re-evaluations, on its website.
- Require the Director of DPR, upon request, to appear before the respective legislative policy committees of the Assembly and Senate, no less than at least once every two years.
COMMENTS
DPR's Mission: Since most pesticides are, by design, inherently toxic to their target pest – and excess amounts of any substance may be harmful – pesticide use must be strictly controlled. Amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act have delegated responsibility and authority to states for training, registration, and enforcement through cooperative agreements, with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) maintaining oversight responsibility over state programs. In California, these duties lie with DPR, which is housed within the California Environmental Protection Agency and has the express mission "to protect human health and the environment by regulating pesticide sales and use, and by fostering reduced-risk pest management."
Sources of Funding: DPR's main revenue sources are:
- The mill assessment: the fee levied on pesticide sales at the point of first sale into the state. This is, by far, the greatest source of revenue for DPR;
- Product registration and renewal fees: annual fee imposed on manufacturers, importers, and dealers who wish to label and sell a pesticide product in the state;
- Licensing and certification fees: fees imposed on people and businesses that sell, apply, or recommend the use of pesticides. This includes examination and licensure of pesticide applicators, aircraft pilots, pest control dealer agents, pest control advisors, and businesses that sell or apply pesticides or use pest control methods or devices for hire. DPR also accredits more than 2,000 continuing education courses;
- Civil penalties;
- Other fees and reimbursements; and,
- Funds from US EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
2024 Governor's proposed budget: The Governor proposed several changes to increase revenues deposited into the DPR Fund, to generate a total of $30.4 million of new revenues in 2024-25 (growing to $43.9 million in future years). Of this amount, $9.8 million would address the structural deficit and $17.8 million would be used to expand programs and activities (growing to $32.5 million). The increased revenues would be generated by: (1) increasing the mill assessment ($22.1 million in 2024-25, growing to $33.8 million), (2) increasing registration fees through regulations ($6.3 million in 2024-25, growing to $7.2 million), and (3) increasing licensing fees through regulations ($2 million in 2024-25, growing to $2.9 million). The proposal also would provide $717,000 from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund on an ongoing basis to support additional programmatic expansions for the department.
Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) review of Governor's 2024 budget proposal: In its review of the Governor 2024 mill fee budget proposal, the LAO made the following determinations:
"Increasing Mill Assessment Is Justified. Overall, we find two key justifications for the state to increase the mill assessment. First, it has not been increased since 2004. Given the considerable amount of time since its last adjustment, an increase is warranted to ensure that it both aligns with current department expenditures and is able to support new state priorities related to pesticides going forward. Second, increasing the mill assessment to support these activities aligns with the 'polluter pays' principle, whereby those who produce or otherwise contribute to pollution (such as environmental impacts from pesticides) should bear the associated regulatory costs of managing and preventing damage to public health and the environment.
However, Legislative Priorities Should Also Be Incorporated. While we find the administration's proposed programmatic augmentations to be reasonable, they do not represent the only options for expanding DPR's activities. The Legislature has an important opportunity now to determine 1) the scope of activities it wants DPR to conduct, 2) the associated level of resources required, and 3) the corresponding level at which the mill assessment should be set. This could involve removing or refining activities proposed by the Governor or adding activities that are legislative priorities. Ensuring that legislative priorities are reflected is particularly important given the opportunity that adjusting taxes and fees provides in setting the state's overall goals for pesticide regulation and ensuring they are well supported. Depending on the actions taken, modifying planned programmatic augmentations could result in higher or lower increases to the mill assessment and registration and licensing fees than proposed by the Governor."
Stakeholder input: Since the introduction of the Governor's DPR budget proposal and this bill, many stakeholders have reached out and provided input on potential changes to the Governor's proposal and this bill. Below is a summary of the input received via letters and during numerous meetings regarding the Governor's proposal and this bill:
- Pesticide registration: Entities that register pesticides believe the current registration process is too slow and unpredictable. They would like more predictability as to when the registration of a pesticide would be completed, including seeking statutory deadlines that DPR would need to meet, as part of the pesticide registration process.
- Re-evaluation of pesticides: Environmental justice and environmental stakeholders are concerned that DPR's re-evaluation process is slow and not publicly transparent. DPR has re-evaluated approximately five pesticides since 1991 and is currently re-evaluating five pesticides (some of which have been under re-evaluation for 20 years). In comparison, DPR registers hundreds of pesticides a month. These stakeholders would like to see DPR move more efficiently with re-evaluations, to include initiating more re-evaluations and completing them in a timely manner.
- Mill Fee: Some stakeholders believe the mill fee proposed by DPR is too low; they believe it should at least be set at the rate recommended in a report by Crowe, Inc. (the independent contractor that DPR hired to conduct a statutorily directed study). Additionally these stakeholders do not think there should be a cap, and that DPR should be able to adjust the fee in the future to match resources that are approved in the annual budget. However, other stakeholders believe the fee is set too high, and that the increases proposed over the three year phase-in are too high in the first year. Additionally, these stakeholders think the fee increases should stop after the third year increase and that future increases in the mill fee should happen only through statute.
- Transparency: Virtually all stakeholders think DPR's program could benefit from added transparency, both through the pesticide registration process and the continuous evaluation process.
This bill: represents a compromise between the Assembly, Senate, and the Governor's office to fund DPR. Key elements of the compromise include:
- Require DPR to complete the registration of pesticides within a specified timeframe beginning in 2027;
- Removes the authority of DPR to raise the mill assessment in the future;
- Requires DPR to initiate an additional re-evaluation of a pesticide each year until 2029, and then initiate an additional two re-evaluations of pesticides each year;
- Raises the mill fee incrementally over four years to a maximum of 30 mills;
- Requires DPR to post certain information such as timelines of pesticide registration or the estimated timeline of completing certain re-evaluations on its website; and,
- Requires the Director of DPR to appear before the respective legislative policy committees of the Assembly and Senate, no less than at least once every two years.
According to the Author
"AB 2113 makes changes to the mill assessment, as well as other policy changes under DPR. I introduced AB 2113 to give the Legislature an opportunity, through the policy committee process, to hear from stakeholders and make further enhancements and refinements to the Governor's proposal to address issues raised by stakeholders and the Legislature. Since this bill was last heard in the Assembly, there has been an agreement reached between the Assembly, Senate and the Governor's Office. The recent amendments strike a compromise – a compromise that will help ensure that DPR is properly resourced to better carry out its mission."
Arguments in Support
According to the California Pool & Spa Association (CPSA), "The CPSA is the statewide umbrella trade association designed to promote the industry and to educate the public, local and state regulatory agencies, and the California Legislature on critical issues such as water and energy conservation, water safety and child drowning prevention, consumer protection, and unlicensed contractor abatement.
AB 2113 would, among other provisions, exempt persons engaged in pool cleaning services, unless the person is selling, applying, using, or distributing a restricted material, or engaged in the live capture and removal or exclusion of mice, rats, and pigeons, from the requirement to have a valid pest control business license issued by the Director of Pesticide Regulation.
Although chlorine is technically a pesticide, pool cleaning and maintenance professionals have traditionally not been considered pest control operators by the State of California. However, as far as we are aware, there is no specific statutory or regulatory exemption codifying this enforcement practice."
Arguments in Opposition
None on file.
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, enactment of this bill could annually generate additional revenue for DPR of an unknown but significant amount, in the tens of millions of dollars. Additionally, there could be costs of an unknown but significant amount, in the millions of dollars, for DPR to implement the requirements of the bill, however, some portion of these costs might be covered by the additional revenue from the increase in the mill assessment.
VOTES:
ASM ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS: 5-2-0
YES: Garcia, Connolly, McKinnor, Papan, Reyes
NO: Hoover, Ta
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-4-0
YES: Wicks, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Pellerin, Villapudua
NO: Sanchez, Dixon, Jim Patterson, Ta
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 54-16-10
YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Connolly, Mike Fong, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas
NO: Alanis, Chen, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Hoover, Lackey, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Waldron, Wallis
ABS, ABST OR NV: Bains, Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Friedman, Gabriel, Holden, Mathis, Stephanie Nguyen, Luz Rivas, Soria
UPDATED
VERSION: June 23, 2024
CONSULTANT: Josh Tooker / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965 FN: 0003648
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Anna Caballero, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular Session
AB 2113 (Garcia) - Pesticides
Version: June 23, 2024 | Policy Vote: E.Q. 4 - 2, AGRI. 4 - 0 |
Urgency: Yes | Mandate: Yes |
Hearing Date: June 26, 2024 | Consultant: Ashley Ames |
Bill Summary:
This bill would increase, over a four year period, the mill assessment (a fee on the sale of all pesticides sold into the state) to pay for programs within the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) related to the regulation of pesticide sales and use in California, among other things, and would declare its provisions are to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Fiscal Impact:
- DPR estimates ongoing costs of $33.8 million annually (DPR Fund) and 117 positions, ramping up over a four-year period, to implement the provisions of AB 2113. Staff note this is the same amount as requested in DPR’s Budget Change Proposal entitled “Sustainable Funding for Pest Management at DPR.”
- Ongoing revenue increases, building over a four-year period to be in the tens of millions of dollars annually (DPR Fund), due to higher mill assessments and registration/licensing fees. DPR estimates revenue increases will be the same as its increased costs—about $33.8 million annually.
Background:
Approximately 80 percent of DPR’s funding comes from the mill assessment, which is a fee paid by pesticide retailers, manufacturers, or wholesalers when a pesticide is first sold into or within California. This revenue supports core functions of DPR including evaluation and grants that support the development and implementation of alternatives; continuous evaluation of registered products; pesticide use enforcement and compliance; engagement with stakeholders; and other activities associated with the pesticide regulatory program. The mill revenue also supports DPR’s local partners, CACs, in local enforcement, as well as CDFA’s OPCA for its pesticide-related workload (approximately $2 million annually from its 0.75 mill from the mill assessment on agricultural use products).
Pesticide registration fees (15 percent of the DPR fund) and licensing fees (3 percent of the DPR Fund) support the registration and licensing programs within DPR. These fees are set by DPR through regulation to adequately support the programs.
The Legislature last increased the mill assessment in 2004; the 2004 mill assessment level has not kept pace with the expansion of essential programs and legislative mandates at DPR. DPR last adjusted registration fees in 2021 following a stakeholder engagement process; DPR has not updated licensing fees since 2004. DPR has operated with a structural imbalance in its fund since 2013.
DPR's main revenue sources are:
- The mill assessment: the fee levied on pesticide sales at the point of first sale into the state. This is, by far, the greatest source of revenue for DPR;
- Product registration and renewal fees: annual fee imposed on manufacturers, importers, and dealers who wish to label and sell a pesticide product in the state;
- Licensing and certification fees: fees imposed on people and businesses that sell, apply, or recommend the use of pesticides. This includes examination and licensure of pesticide applicators, aircraft pilots, pest control dealer agents, pest control advisors, and businesses that sell or apply pesticides or use pest control methods or devices for hire. DPR also accredits more than 2,000 continuing education courses;
- Civil penalties;
- Other fees and reimbursements; and,
- Funds from US EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The Mill Assessment Fee: All DPR-registered pesticides are subject to the "mill assessment" fee upon sale into the state. A "mill" is one-tenth of a cent ($0.001). The maximum assessment rate is set by statute in FAC sections 12841 and 12841.1, at 21 mills, or 2.1 cents, for every dollar in pesticide sales. An additional 0.75 mill is assessed on agricultural and dual-use products; these revenues support CDFA’s Pesticide Consultation and Analysis Unit. Products registered for manufacturing use only (i.e., sold for repackaging or to manufacture other pesticide products) are exempt from the mill fee; instead, a fee is assessed at the point of sale of the repackaged or completed product.
2021 Governor's proposed budget. The Governor’s 2021-22 budget included a proposal to increase and tier the mill assessment. Under that proposal, more acutely toxic pesticides would have been charged a higher rate (or tier). The additional funding generated would have been used to address a structural deficit in the DPR Fund and support various programmatic expansions across DPR, CDFA, and CACs. The Legislature rejected the proposal and instead provided General Fund resources of $10.3 million in 2021-22 and $8.8 million in 2022-23 to DPR. The funding provided relief to the DPR Fund and supported alternative pest management grants and outreach, environmental monitoring, and pesticide takeback events hosted by CACs. Budget bill language also directed DPR to use a portion of the funding to hire a consultant to study potential tiering of the mill assessment.
Crowe report. In August 2023, Crowe, Inc. (the independent contractor that DPR hired to conduct the statutorily directed study) released its final findings and recommendations. Among other things, the report recommends:
- That the mill assessment initially be set at a flat rate—such that all pesticides are assessed the same tax rate—increasing from 21 mills to 33.9 mills over a three- to five-year period.
- Allowing the mill assessment to be adjusted up to a cap, to be set in statute.
- That the mill assessment be set at a level sufficient to generate revenues above what is needed to cover the structural deficit, to enable DPR and CACs to address identified programmatic needs at an expanded level, and to provide an additional amount to CDFA to support its pesticide consultation services.
- That DPR revisits the possibility of adopting a tiered mill assessment once it has made progress in identifying priority pesticides pursuant to its SPM Roadmap. Under a tiered model, the state would levy a higher mill assessment on products that the department categorizes as priority pesticides. The report notes that such an approach would likely not incentivize the purchase of safer alternatives, but rather would (1) signal a need for alternatives and (2) generate additional revenues that could be used to support the research of and outreach for alternatives.
2024 Governor's proposed budget. The Governor proposes several changes to increase revenues deposited into the DPR Fund, to generate a total of $30.4 million of new revenues in 2024-25 (growing to $43.9 million in future years). Of this amount, $9.8 million would address the structural deficit and $17.8 million would be used to expand programs and activities (growing to $32.5 million). The increased revenues would be generated by: (1) increasing the mill assessment ($22.1 million in 2024-25, growing to $33.8 million), (2) increasing registration fees through regulations ($6.3 million in 2024-25, growing to $7.2 million), and (3) increasing licensing fees through regulations ($2 million in 2024-25, growing to $2.9 million). The proposal also would provide $717,000 from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund on an ongoing basis to support additional programmatic expansions for the department.
Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) review of Governor's 2024 budget proposal. In its review of the Governor 2024 mill fee budget proposal, the LAO made the following determinations:
"Increasing Mill Assessment Is Justified. Overall, we find two key justifications for the state to increase the mill assessment. First, it has not been increased since 2004. Given the considerable amount of time since its last adjustment, an increase is warranted to ensure that it both aligns with current department expenditures and is able to support new state priorities related to pesticides going forward. Second, increasing the mill assessment to support these activities aligns with the "polluter pays" principle, whereby those who produce or otherwise contribute to pollution (such as environmental impacts from pesticides) should bear the associated regulatory costs of managing and preventing damage to public health and the environment.
“However, Legislative Priorities Should Also Be Incorporated. While we find the administration's proposed programmatic augmentations to be reasonable, they do not represent the only options for expanding DPR's activities. The Legislature has an important opportunity now to determine (1) the scope of activities it wants DPR to conduct, (2) the associated level of resources required, and (3) the corresponding level at which the mill assessment should be set. This could involve removing or refining activities proposed by the Governor or adding activities that are legislative priorities. Ensuring that legislative priorities are reflected is particularly important given the opportunity that adjusting taxes and fees provides in setting the state's overall goals for pesticide regulation and ensuring they are well supported. Depending on the actions taken, modifying planned programmatic augmentations could result in higher or lower increases to the mill assessment and registration and licensing fees than proposed by the Governor."
Proposed Law:
This bill would increase, over a four year period, the mill assessment to pay for programs within the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) related to the regulation of pesticide sales and use in California, among other things, and would declare its provisions are to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Specifically, this bill would:
- Require DPR, on or before May 1, 2025, and annually thereafter until May 2, 2028, to report the average processing times to review, evaluate, and issue final decisions on applications to register new pesticide products or to amend existing product registrations for the prior calendar year.
- Require DPR, on or before January 31 of each year, if it determines that it might increase registration fees during the calendar year, to post that determination on its internet website and send that determination through any of its relevant, registration-related email lists.
- Require DPR, on and after July 1, 2027, to meet certain timelines to review, evaluate, and issue final decisions on applications to register new pesticide products or amend existing pesticide product registrations.
- Require DPR, on or before May 1, 2029, and annually thereafter, to report the average processing times for applications to register new pesticide products or amend existing pesticide product registrations for the prior calendar year.
- Require DPR, on or before July 1, 2025, and each year thereafter, until July 2, 2029, to annually identify and initiate the reevaluation of potential adverse effects of at least one pesticide in addition to those already under reevaluation and would, on or before July 1, 2029, and each year thereafter, require DPR to annually identify and initiate the reevaluation of potential adverse effects of at least 2 pesticides in addition to those already under reevaluation.
- Require DPR, upon completion of a reevaluation, if it determines mitigation is necessary, to develop and implement those mitigation measures within 24 months of completing the re-evaluation.
- Require, beginning in 2025, the director of DPR, when requested, to appear before the respective policy and fiscal committee of the Assembly and Senate no less than once every two years.
- Gradually raise the mill assessment over four years, capping at 30 mills.
- From July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025, inclusive, the rate shall be 24.5 ($0.0245) mills per dollar sales of all sales of registered pesticides for use in this state plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1;
- From July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2026, inclusive, the rate shall be 27 mills ($0.027) per dollar sales of all sales of registered pesticides for use in this state plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1;
- From July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2027, inclusive, the rate shall be 29 mills ($0.029) per dollar sales in this state plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1;
- On and after July 1, 2027, the rate shall be 30 mills ($0.030) per dollar sales of all sales of registered pesticides for use in this state plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1.
- Food and Agricultural Code Section 12841.1 allows the director to collect an assessment for all pesticide sales for use in this state (except for sales for use in this state of pesticides labeled solely for home, industrial, or institutional use) to help fund the California Department of Food and Agriculture to provide pesticide consultation to the department.
Related Legislation:
The Governor introduced a budget trailer bill that is similar to AB 2113, and that trailer bill language was rejected by the budget committees in both houses.
AB 363 (Bauer-Kahan, Chapter 520, Statutes of 2023) prohibits, beginning January 1, 2025, the sale, possession, or use of a pesticide containing one or more neonicotinoid pesticides, as defined, for any nonagricultural use on nonproduction outdoor or ornamental plants, trees, or turf, except by state certified applicators and state licensed pest control dealers. Requires DPR to evaluate the potential impacts of neonicotinoid pesticide uses on pollinating insects, aquatic ecosystems, and human health, as specified.
AB 652 (Lee, Chapter 662, Statutes of 2023) establishes a DPR Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (EJ Advisory Committee) to integrate environmental justice considerations into DPR’s programs, policies, decision-making, and activities.
AB 1322 (Friedman, Chapter 836, Statutes of 2023) prohibits the use of the rodenticide diphacinone in wildlife habitat areas, as defined, and prohibits the use of diphacinone in the state until DPR has completed a reevaluation and developed and adopted further restrictions on its use, as specified. Makes changes to existing restrictions on the use of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides consistent with those placed on diphacinone.
Staff Comments: According to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee analysis, the Senate/Assembly budget deal includes a rejection without prejudice of the Governor’s proposed Sustainable Funding for Pest Management at DPR trailer bill language and makes the approval of the department’s companion budget change proposal contingent upon passage of AB 2113.
AB 2113 would increase the mill assessment over four years instead of three as proposed in the TBL:
- From July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025, the rate shall be 24.5 mills (TBL had Y1 at 26 mills)
- From July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026, the rate shall be 27 mills (TBL had Y2 as 27.5 mills)
- From July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2027, the rate shall be 29 mills (TBL had Y3 as 28.6)
- Beginning July 1, 2027, the rate shall be 30 mills (TBL had no Y4 but a cap where mill could increase via regulations up to 33.9 mills)
In addition, AB 2113 would make several policy changes that reflect stakeholder input and that are different than the Governor's proposed trailer bill language, including: requiring pesticide registrations to be completed by a specified timeframe, requiring DPR to initiate one additional reevaluation each year until 2029 and then two additional reevluations each year thereafter, requiring reevalutations to be completed within two years, and requiring DPR to post certain information on its website and through relevant email lists as well as appear before the Legislature as specified, among other things.
-- END --
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | AB 2113 |
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2113
Author: Garcia (D)
Amended: 6/23/24 in Senate
Vote: 27 - Urgency
SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 4-2, 6/19/24
AYES: Allen, Gonzalez, Menjivar, Skinner
NOES: Dahle, Nguyen
NO VOTE RECORDED: Hurtado
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 6/26/24
AYES: Caballero, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Wahab
NOES: Jones, Seyarto
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 54-16, 5/21/24 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Pesticides
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill increases, over a four-year period, the mill assessment (a fee on the sale of all pesticides sold into the state) to pay for programs within the
Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) related to the regulation of pesticide sales and use in California, among other things, and would declare its provisions are to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Provides, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), for federal regulation of pesticide distribution, sale, and use. Requires that all pesticides distributed or sold in the United States be registered (licensed) by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Requires, before US EPA registers a pesticide under FIFRA, the applicant to show, among other things, that using the pesticide according to specifications will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. (7 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 136, et seq.)
- Authorizes the state’s pesticide regulatory program and mandates the DPR to, among other things, provide for the proper, safe, and efficient use of pesticides essential for the production of food and fiber, for the protection of public health and safety, for the protection of the environment from environmentally harmful pesticides, and to assure agricultural and pest control workers safe working conditions where pesticides are present by prohibiting, regulating, or otherwise ensuring proper stewardship of those pesticides. (Food and Agriculture Code (FAC) § 11401, et seq.)
- Requires the director of DPR to establish, by regulation, fees for DPR's pesticide registration program. (FAC § 12812)
- Requires the director to endeavor to eliminate from use in the state any pesticide that endangers the agricultural or nonagricultural environment, is not beneficial for the purposes for which it is sold, or is misrepresented. Requires the DPR director, in carrying out this responsibility, to develop an orderly program for the continuous evaluation of all pesticides actually registered. (FAC § 12824)
- Requires the mill assessment to be paid by the pesticide registrant, broker, dealer, or other person subject to the mill assessment. (FAC § 12847)
- Sets the maximum rate for the mill assessment at 21 mills ($0.021). (FAC § 12841)
This bill:
- Beginning July 1, 2024, increases the mill assessment on the sale of all registered pesticides, over a four-year period, capping at 30 mills ($0.03 per dollar sales), to pay for programs within DPR related to the regulation of pesticide sales and use.
- Requires the mill assessment to be paid by the person or entity that first sold the pesticide for use in the state.
- Requires DPR, on and after July 1, 2027, to complete the registration of new pesticides products or amend existing pesticide product registrations within specified timeframes.
- Establishes timelines for DPR to report the average processing times to review, evaluate, and issue final decisions on applications to register new pesticide products or to amend existing product registrations.
- Requires DPR, on or before January 31 of each year, to post on its website a determination that it might increase registration fees during a calendar year, as specified.
- Requires DPR, on or before May 1, 2029, and annually thereafter, to report the average processing times for applications to register new pesticide products or amend existing pesticide product registrations for the prior calendar year, as specified.
- Requires DPR, on or before July 1, 2025, and each year thereafter, until July 2, 2029, to annually identify and initiate the reevaluation of potential adverse effects of at least one pesticide in addition to those already under reevaluation. On or before July 1, 2029, and each year thereafter, requires DPR to annually identify and initiate the reevaluation of potential adverse effects of at least two pesticides in addition to those already under reevaluation.
- Specifies timelines for mitigation measures if the department identifies potential adverse effects for a pesticide pursuant to the above-described provisions.
- Authorizes an interested person to appeal to the director to review the county agricultural commissioner’s (CACs) action in issuing, refusing, revoking, suspending, or conditioning a permit to use or possess a restricted material within 30 days of the date of receiving the commissioner’s written decision. Requires the commissioner and the department to report certain information regarding these reviews and appeals.
- Extends the statute of limitations for DPR to take enforcement actions when audits reveal mill assessment payment violations within four years of the audit’s commencement, but no later than two years after the audit’s completion.
- Requires the DPR director to appear before the respective legislative policy committees of the Assembly and Senate, no less than at least once every two years.
- Extends the timeline for enforcement actions on pesticide use violations brought by DPR or CACs to within three years of the occurrence of the violation and authorizes DPR to levy administrative penalties of up to $15,000 on violations related to pesticide dealers.
- Exempts from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an approval by DPR of a pesticide emergency exemption pursuant to specified federal law.
- Makes various findings and declarations, including ensuring the proper, safe, and efficient use of pesticides for food production and implementing sustainable pest management.
Background
- DPR's Mission. Since most pesticides are, by design, inherently toxic to their target pest - and excess amounts of any substance may be harmful - pesticide use must be strictly controlled. Amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) have delegated responsibility and authority to states for training, registration, and enforcement through cooperative agreements, with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) maintaining oversight responsibility over state programs. In California, these duties lie with DPR, which is housed within the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and has the express mission "to protect human health and the environment by regulating pesticide sales and use, and by fostering reduced-risk pest management."
- Sources of Funding. DPR's main revenue sources are:
- The mill assessment: the fee levied on pesticide sales at the point of first sale into the state. This is, by far, the greatest source of revenue for DPR;
- Product registration and renewal fees: annual fee imposed on manufacturers, importers, and dealers who wish to label and sell a pesticide product in the state;
- Licensing and certification fees: fees imposed on people and businesses that sell, apply, or recommend the use of pesticides. This includes examination and licensure of pesticide applicators, aircraft pilots, pest control dealer agents, pest control advisors, and businesses that sell or apply pesticides or use pest control methods or devices for hire. DPR also accredits more than 2,000 continuing education courses;
- Civil penalties;
- Other fees and reimbursements; and,
- Funds from US EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
- 2024 Governor's proposed budget. The Governor proposes several changes to increase revenues deposited into the DPR Fund, to generate a total of $30.4 million of new revenues in 2024-25 (growing to $43.9 million in future years). The increased revenues would be generated by: (i) increasing the mill assessment ($22.1 million in 2024-25, growing to $33.8 million), (ii) increasing registration fees through regulations ($6.3 million in 2024-25, growing to $7.2 million), and (iii) increasing licensing fees through regulations ($2 million in 2024-25, growing to $2.9 million).
- Budget proposal includes several policy changes. The Governor proposes budget trailer legislation that would make several changes. Among other things, the trailer bill language:
- Changes mill assessment payer responsibility. The proposal would require the mill assessment to be paid by the entity that first sells a pesticide into the state.
- Extends the statute of limitations for mill assessment payment violations found in audits.
- Extends the statute of limitations for pesticide use violations. Currently, enforcement actions on pesticide use violations must be brought by DPR or CACs within two years of the occurrence of the violation. The proposal would extend this timeline to three years.
- Authorizes DPR to enforce California's laws on out-of-state pesticide dealers. The proposal would authorize DPR to levy administrative penalties of up to $15,000 on violations related to pesticide dealers, such as when entities act in this role without a license. Currently, the authority to levy administrative penalties related to pesticide dealers resides solely with CACs.
- Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) review of Governor's 2024 budget proposal. In its review of the Governor 2024 mill fee budget proposal, the LAO made the following determinations:
"Increasing Mill Assessment Is Justified. Overall, we find two key justifications for the state to increase the mill assessment. First, it has not been increased since 2004. Given the considerable amount of time since its last adjustment, an increase is warranted to ensure that it both aligns with current department expenditures and is able to support new state priorities related to pesticides going forward. Second, increasing the mill assessment to support these activities aligns with the "polluter pays" principle, whereby those who produce or otherwise contribute to pollution (such as environmental impacts from pesticides) should bear the associated regulatory costs of managing and preventing damage to public health and the environment.”
Comments
- Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “AB 2113 makes changes to the mill assessment, as well as other policy changes under the Department of Pesticide Regulation. I introduced AB 2113 to give the Legislature an opportunity, through the policy committee process, to hear from stakeholders and make further enhancements and refinements to the Governor's proposal to address issues raised by stakeholders and the Legislature. Since this bill was last heard in committee, there has been an agreement reached between the Assembly, Senate and the Governor's Office. The recent amendments strike a compromise – a compromise that will help ensure that the Department is properly resourced to better carry out its mission.”
- Compromise proposal. This bill represents a compromise between the Assembly, Senate, and the Governor's Office, with input from key agricultural and environmental justice stakeholders. Recent amendments include: requiring DPR to complete the registration of pesticides within a specified timeframe; removing the authority of DPR to raise the mill assessment in the future; requiring DPR to initiate additional re-evaluations of pesticides on a specified timeframe; and raising the mill fee incrementally over four years to a maximum of 30 mills.
This bill now also includes several provisions of added transparency, including requiring the department to post certain information, such as timelines of pesticide registration and estimated timelines of completing certain re-evaluations, on its website. Additionally, as added accountability, this bill requires the director of the department to appear before the respective legislative policy committees of the Assembly and Senate, no less than at least once every two years to provide an update on the department’s performance, including, but not limited to, its performance completing timely registrations and re-evaluations.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee analysis: DPR estimates ongoing costs of $33.8 million annually (DPR Fund) and 117 positions, ramping up over a four-year period, to implement the provisions of AB 2113. Staff note this is the same amount as requested in DPR’s Budget Change Proposal entitled “Sustainable Funding for Pest Management at DPR.” Ongoing revenue increases, building over a four-year period to be in the tens of millions of dollars annually (DPR Fund), due to higher mill assessments and registration/licensing fees. DPR estimates revenue increases will be the same as its increased costs—about $33.8 million annually.
SUPPORT: (Verified 6/26/24)
California Pool & Spa Association
OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/26/24)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 54-16, 5/21/24
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Connolly, Mike Fong, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas
NOES: Alanis, Chen, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Hoover, Lackey, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Waldron, Wallis
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bains, Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Friedman, Gabriel, Holden, Mathis, Stephanie Nguyen, Luz Rivas, Soria
Prepared by: Gabrielle Meindl / E.Q. / (916) 651-4108
6/26/24 20:19:50
SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
Senator Melissa Hurtado, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular
Bill No: AB 2113 Hearing Date: 6/25/24
Author: | Garcia | ||
Version: | 6/23/24 Amended | ||
Urgency: | Yes | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | Reichel Everhart | ||
Subject: Pesticides
SUMMARY
:
This bill would establish findings and declarations regarding, among other things, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) providing the proper, safe, and efficient use of pesticides essential for production of food and fiber and for the protection of the public health and safety. This bill would establish timelines for DPR to report the average processing times to review, evaluate, and issue final decisions on applications to register new pesticide products or to amend existing product registrations. This bill would increase, over a four year period, the mill assessment to pay for programs within DPR related to the regulation of pesticide sales and use in California. This bill would require DPR, on or before January 31 of each year, to post on their internet website if it determined that it might increase registration fees during the calendar year and send that determination through any of its relevant, registration-related email lists. This bill would require DPR to annually identify and initiate the reevaluation of potential adverse effects of at least one pesticide in addition to those already under reevaluation and each year thereafter would require DPR to annually identify and initiate the reevaluation of potential side effects of at least 2 pesticides in addition to those already under reevaluation. Finally, the bill would specify timelines for mitigation measures if the department identifies potential adverse effects for a pesticide pursuant to the above-described provisions.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
:
Existing law:
- Defines "pesticide" as including any substance, or mixture of substances, which is intended to be used for defoliating plants, regulating plant growth, or for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest, as defined, which may infest or be detrimental to vegetation, man, animals, or households, or be present in any agricultural or nonagricultural environment whatsoever (Food and Agricultural Code Section 12753).
- Provides, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), for federal regulation of pesticide distribution, sale, and use. Requires that all pesticides distributed or sold in the United States be registered (licensed) by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Requires, before US EPA registers a pesticide under FIFRA, the applicant to show, among other things, that using the pesticide according to specifications will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment (7 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 136, et seq.).
- Authorizes the state’s pesticide regulatory program and mandates DPR to, among other things, provide for the proper, safe, and efficient use of pesticides essential for the production of food and fiber, for the protection of public health and safety, for the protection of the environment from environmentally harmful pesticides, and to assure agricultural and pest control workers safe working conditions where pesticides are present by prohibiting, regulating, or otherwise ensuring proper stewardship of those pesticides (Food and Agriculture Code Section 11401, et seq.).
- Regulates the use of pesticides and authorizes the director of DPR to adopt regulations to govern the registration, sale, transportation, or use of pesticides, as prescribed (Food and Agricultural Code Section 11501, et. seq.).
- Requires the director of DPR to establish, by regulation, fees for DPR's pesticide registration program (Food and Agricultural Code Section 12812).
- Requires the director to endeavor to eliminate from use in the state any pesticide that endangers the agricultural or nonagricultural environment, is not beneficial for the purposes for which it is sold, or is misrepresented. Requires the DPR director, in carrying out this responsibility, to develop an orderly program for the continuous evaluation of all pesticides actually registered (Food and Agricultural Code Section 12824).
- Authorizes, the director, after a hearing, to cancel the registration of, or refuse to register, any pesticide, for a pesticide:
- That has demonstrated serious uncontrollable adverse effects either within or outside the agricultural environment;
- The use of which is of less public value or greater detriment to the environment than the benefit received by its use;
- For which there is a reasonable, effective, and practicable alternate material or procedure that is demonstrably less destructive to the environment; or,
- That, when properly used, is detrimental to vegetation, except weeds, to domestic animals, or to public health and safety (Food and Agricultural Code Section 12825).
- Establishes an agricultural commissioner for each county (Food and Ag Code Section 2101 - 2287 ).
- Charges each agricultural commissioner with the protection of California agriculture, the protection of the environment as well as protection of the public's health and safety. These goals are accomplished through the management of programs designed to achieve this mission through a combination of public outreach, industry education and enforcement actions. County agricultural commissioners carry out the programs listed below to accomplish these aims:
- Pest Exclusion
- Pest Detection
- Pest Eradication
- Pest Management
- Pesticide Enforcement
- Seed Certification
- Nursery Inspection
- Fruits, Nuts and Vegetable Standardization
- Egg Inspection
- Apiary Inspection
- Crop Statistics (Food and Agricultural Code Section 2282).
- Requires the director and the County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC) of each county, under the direction and supervision of the director, to enforce the pesticide program and the regulations that are issued pursuant to it (Food and Agricultural Code Section 11501.5).
- Requires the mill assessment to be paid by the pesticide registrant, broker, dealer, or other person subject to the mill assessment (Food and Agricultural Code Section 12847).
- Sets the maximum rate for the mill assessment at 21 mills ($0.021) (Food and Agricultural Code Section 12841).
PROPOSED LAW
:
This bill:
- Requires DPR, on or before May 1, 2025, and annually thereafter until May 2, 2028, to report the average processing times to review, evaluate, and issue final decisions on applications to register new pesticide products or to amend existing product registrations for the prior calendar year.
- Requires DPR, on or before January 31 of each year, if it determines that it might increase registration fees during the calendar year, to post that determination on its internet website and send that determination through any of its relevant, registration-related email lists.
- Requires DPR, on and after July 1, 2027, to meet certain timelines to review, evaluate, and issue final decisions on applications to register new pesticide products or amend existing pesticide product registrations.
- Requires DPR, on or before May 1, 2029, and annually thereafter, to report the average processing times for applications to register new pesticide products or amend existing pesticide product registrations for the prior calendar year.
- Requires DPR, on or before July 1, 2025, and each year thereafter, until July 2, 2029, to annually identify and initiate the reevaluation of potential adverse effects of at least one pesticide in addition to those already under reevaluation and would, on or before July 1, 2029, and each year thereafter, require DPR to annually identify and initiate the reevaluation of potential adverse effects of at least 2 pesticides in addition to those already under reevaluation.
- Requires DPR, upon completion of a reevaluation, if it determines mitigation is necessary, to develop and implement those mitigation measures within 24 months of completing the re-evaluation.
- Requires, beginning in 2025, the director of DPR, when requested, to appear before the respective policy and fiscal committee of the Assembly and Senate no less than once every two years.
- Gradually raises the mill assessment over four years, capping at 30 mills.
- From July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025, inclusive, the rate shall be 24.5 ($0.0245) mills per dollar sales of all sales of registered pesticides for use in this state plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1;
- From July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2026, inclusive, the rate shall be 27 mills ($0.027) per dollar sales of all sales of registered pesticides for use in this state plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1;
- From July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2027, inclusive, the rate shall be 29 mills ($0.029) per dollar sales in this state plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1;
- On and after July 1, 2027, the rate shall be 30 mills ($0.030) per dollar sales of all sales of registered pesticides for use in this state plus any additional assessment authorized by Section 12841.1.
- Food and Agricultural Code Section 12841.1 allows the director to collect an assessment for all pesticide sales for use in this state (except for sales for use in this state of pesticides labeled solely for home, industrial, or institutional use) to help fund the California Department of Food and Agriculture to provide pesticide consultation to the department.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:
According to the author:
"In January 2024, the Governor introduced, as part of his proposed budget, a proposal to increase the mill assessment that supports DPR. This budget proposal is designed to fill a structural deficit with DPR's funding and provide additional funding to support and enhance DPR's core functions. Additionally, the Governor included trailer bill language to implement his budget proposal. I introduced AB 2113 to give the Legislature an opportunity, through the policy committee process, to hear from stakeholders and make further enhancements and refinements to the Governor's proposal to address issues raised by stakeholders and the Legislature. I view this bill as an ongoing dialogue to ensure there is an effective and properly resourced DPR, in order to more effectively carry out its mission."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:
None received.
RELATED LEGISLATION
:
The Governor introduced a budget trailer bill that is similar to AB 2113, and that trailer bill language was rejected by the budget committees in both houses.
PRIOR ACTIONS
:
Assembly Floor: | 54 - 16 |
Assembly Appropriations Committee: | 11 - 4 |
Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee: | 5 - 2 |
SUPPORT
:
None received
OPPOSITION
:
None received
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Allen, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular
Bill No. | AB 2113 | Hearing Date: | 6/19/2024 |
Author: | Garcia | ||
Version: | 5/20/2024 | ||
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | Gabrielle Meindl | ||
SUBJECT: Pesticides
DIGEST: Increases, over a three-year period, the mill assessment (a fee on the sale of all pesticides sold into the state), in order to support the programs of the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR).
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Defines "pesticide" as including any substance, or mixture of substances, which is intended to be used for defoliating plants, regulating plant growth, or for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest, as defined, which may infest or be detrimental to vegetation, man, animals, or households, or be present in any agricultural or nonagricultural environment whatsoever. (FAC § 12753)
- Provides, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), for federal regulation of pesticide distribution, sale, and use. Requires that all pesticides distributed or sold in the United States be registered (licensed) by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Requires, before US EPA registers a pesticide under FIFRA, the applicant to show, among other things, that using the pesticide according to specifications will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. (7 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 136, et seq.)
- Authorizes the state’s pesticide regulatory program and mandates DPR to, among other things, provide for the proper, safe, and efficient use of pesticides essential for the production of food and fiber, for the protection of public health and safety, for the protection of the environment from environmentally harmful pesticides, and to assure agricultural and pest control workers safe working conditions where pesticides are present by prohibiting, regulating, or otherwise ensuring proper stewardship of those pesticides. (Food and Agriculture Code (FAC) § 11401, et seq.)
- Regulates the use of pesticides and authorizes the director of DPR to adopt regulations to govern the registration, sale, transportation, or use of pesticides, as prescribed. (FAC §11501, et. seq.)
- Requires the director of DPR to establish, by regulation, fees for DPR's pesticide registration program. (FAC § 12812)
- Requires the director to endeavor to eliminate from use in the state any pesticide that endangers the agricultural or nonagricultural environment, is not beneficial for the purposes for which it is sold, or is misrepresented. Requires the DPR director, in carrying out this responsibility, to develop an orderly program for the continuous evaluation of all pesticides actually registered. (FAC § 12824)
- Authorizes, the director, after a hearing, to cancel the registration of, or refuse to register, any pesticide, for a pesticide:
- That has demonstrated serious uncontrollable adverse effects either within or outside the agricultural environment;
- The use of which is of less public value or greater detriment to the environment than the benefit received by its use;
- For which there is a reasonable, effective, and practicable alternate material or procedure that is demonstrably less destructive to the environment; or,
- That, when properly used, is detrimental to vegetation, except weeds, to domestic animals, or to public health and safety. (FAC § 12825)
- Requires the director and the County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC) of each county, under the direction and supervision of the director, to enforce the pesticide program and the regulations that are issued pursuant to it. (FAC § 11501.5)
- Requires the mill assessment to be paid by the pesticide registrant, broker, dealer, or other person subject to the mill assessment. (FAC § 12847)
- Sets the maximum rate for the mill assessment at 21 mills ($0.021). (FAC § 12841)
This bill:
- Increases the mill assessment on the sale of all pesticides over a three-year period to (1) 24 mills ($0.024 per dollar sales) in 2024-25, (2) 27 mills in 2025-26, and (3) 29 mills in 2026-27.
- Requires the mill assessment to be paid by the person or entity that first sold the pesticide for use in the state.
- Provides that funding from the mill assessment shall support implementation of the following recently enacted laws: AB 363 (Bauer-Kahan, Chapter 520, Statutes of 2023), AB 652 (Lee, Chapter 662, Statutes of 2023), AB 1016 (Jones-Sawyer, Chapter 354, Statutes of 2023), and AB 1322 (Friedman, Chapter 836, Statutes of 2023).
- Requires DPR, on or before January 31 of each year, to post on its website the estimated timeframe for processing an application for registration of a pesticide, its determination that it might increase registration fees during a calendar year, as specified.
- Requires DPR, while processing an application for the registration of a pesticide, if it determines that the processing will be longer than the posted estimated timeframe to complete it, to contact the applicant and provide further details.
- Requires DPR, on or before July 1, 2028, to comply with specified timeframes to complete processing of an application for a certificate of registration and, on December 31, 2028, and each year thereafter, to report average processing times for product registrations and post this information on its website.
- Requires DPR when processing registration for new active ingredients to prioritize reduced-risk pesticides.
- Provides that the continuous evaluation process of pesticides may include, but is not limited to, re-evaluating the active ingredient, making a change to the label, requiring a risk assessment of the active ingredient, designating the active ingredient as a restricted material, and requiring the mitigation of risks associated with the active ingredient.
- Requires DPR, on or before January 31 of each year, as part of the continuous evaluation of all pesticides registered, to post on its internet website a list of active ingredients that it might place under continuous evaluation in that calendar year.
- Requires DPR, on or before January 31, 2025, to post on its internet website, an estimated timeline for completing the re-evaluation of any active ingredient that is undergoing re-evaluation and, on or before January 31, 2026, to initiate the re-evaluation of a least two additional active ingredients, and at least five additional active ingredients each year thereafter.
- Requires DPR, beginning on January 1, 2028, to complete a re-evaluation of an active ingredient within two years of initiating the re-evaluation.
- Extends the statute of limitations for DPR to take enforcement actions when audits reveal mill assessment payment violations within four years of the audit’s commencement, but no later than two years after the audit’s completion.
- Extends the timeline for enforcement actions on pesticide use violations brought by DPR or CACs to within three years of the occurrence of the violation and authorizes DPR to levy administrative penalties of up to $15,000 on violations related to pesticide dealers.
- Exempts from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an approval by DPR of a pesticide emergency exemption pursuant to specified federal law.
Background
- DPR's Mission. Since most pesticides are, by design, inherently toxic to their target pest - and excess amounts of any substance may be harmful - pesticide use must be strictly controlled. Amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) have delegated responsibility and authority to states for training, registration, and enforcement through cooperative agreements, with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) maintaining oversight responsibility over state programs. In California, these duties lie with DPR, which is housed within the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and has the express mission "to protect human health and the environment by regulating pesticide sales and use, and by fostering reduced-risk pest management."
- DPR’s Structure. DPR maintains the following six programmatic branches that work to fulfill DPR’s responsibilities and goals:
- Pesticide Registration Branch: responsible for the scientific evaluation and registration of pesticide products.
- Pest Management and Licensing Branch: evaluates pesticide and pest management problems and awards grants to develop and promote new strategies that reduce adverse environmental effects and hazards from pesticide use in agricultural and non-agricultural settings.
- Human Health Assessment Branch. reviews toxicological studies, prepares risk assessments, and evaluates the adequacy of product labels.
- Worker Health and Safety Branch: evaluates exposure and performs risk assessments to develop and implement mitigation measures that reduce the risk of workers and public exposure to pesticides.
- Environmental Monitoring Branch: monitors the environment to determine the fate of pesticides and analyzes potential hazards in air, soil, and ground and surface water.
- Pesticide Enforcement Branch: enforces federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to proper and safe use of pesticides.
- Sources of Funding. DPR's main revenue sources are:
- The mill assessment: the fee levied on pesticide sales at the point of first sale into the state. This is, by far, the greatest source of revenue for DPR;
- Product registration and renewal fees: annual fee imposed on manufacturers, importers, and dealers who wish to label and sell a pesticide product in the state;
- Licensing and certification fees: fees imposed on people and businesses that sell, apply, or recommend the use of pesticides. This includes examination and licensure of pesticide applicators, aircraft pilots, pest control dealer agents, pest control advisors, and businesses that sell or apply pesticides or use pest control methods or devices for hire. DPR also accredits more than 2,000 continuing education courses;
- Civil penalties;
- Other fees and reimbursements; and,
- Funds from US EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
- The Mill Fee: All DPR-registered pesticides are subject to the "mill assessment" fee upon sale into the state. A "mill" is one-tenth of a cent ($0.001). The maximum assessment rate is set by statute in FAC sections 12841 and 12841.1, at 21 mills, or 2.1 cents, for every dollar in pesticide sales. An additional 0.75 mill is assessed on agricultural and dual-use products; these revenues support CDFA’s Pesticide Consultation and Analysis Unit. Products registered for manufacturing use only (i.e., sold for repackaging or to manufacture other pesticide products) are exempt from the mill fee; instead, a fee is assessed at the point of sale of the repackaged or completed product.
- 2021 Governor's proposed budget. The Governor’s 2021-22 budget included a proposal to increase and tier the mill assessment. Under that proposal, more acutely toxic pesticides would have been charged a higher rate (or tier). The additional funding generated would have been used to address a structural deficit in the DPR Fund and support various programmatic expansions across DPR, CDFA, and CACs. The Legislature rejected the proposal and instead provided General Fund resources of $10.3 million in 2021-22 and $8.8 million in 2022-23 to DPR. The funding provided relief to the DPR Fund and supported alternative pest management grants and outreach, environmental monitoring, and pesticide takeback events hosted by CACs. Budget bill language also directed DPR to use a portion of the funding to hire a consultant to study potential tiering of the mill assessment.
- Crowe report. In August 2023, Crowe, Inc. (the independent contractor that DPR hired to conduct the statutorily directed study) released its final findings and recommendations. Among other things, the report recommends:
- That the mill assessment initially be set at a flat rate—such that all pesticides are assessed the same tax rate—increasing from 21 mills to 33.9 mills over a three- to five-year period.
- Allowing the mill assessment to be adjusted up to a cap, to be set in statute.
- That the mill assessment be set at a level sufficient to generate revenues above what is needed to cover the structural deficit, to enable DPR and CACs to address identified programmatic needs at an expanded level, and to provide an additional amount to CDFA to support its pesticide consultation services.
- That DPR revisits the possibility of adopting a tiered mill assessment once it has made progress in identifying priority pesticides pursuant to its SPM Roadmap. Under a tiered model, the state would levy a higher mill assessment on products that the department categorizes as priority pesticides. The report notes that such an approach would likely not incentivize the purchase of safer alternatives, but rather would (1) signal a need for alternatives and (2) generate additional revenues that could be used to support the research of and outreach for alternatives.
- 2024 Governor's proposed budget. The Governor proposes several changes to increase revenues deposited into the DPR Fund, to generate a total of $30.4 million of new revenues in 2024-25 (growing to $43.9 million in future years). Of this amount, $9.8 million would address the structural deficit and $17.8 million would be used to expand programs and activities (growing to $32.5 million). The increased revenues would be generated by: (1) increasing the mill assessment ($22.1 million in 2024-25, growing to $33.8 million), (2) increasing registration fees through regulations ($6.3 million in 2024-25, growing to $7.2 million), and (3) increasing licensing fees through regulations ($2 million in 2024-25, growing to $2.9 million). The proposal also would provide $717,000 from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund on an ongoing basis to support additional programmatic expansions for the department.
- Budget proposal includes several policy changes. The Governor proposes budget trailer legislation that would make several changes. Among other things, the trailer bill language:
- Changes mill assessment payer responsibility. The proposal would require the mill assessment to be paid by the entity that first sells a pesticide into the state. This contrasts with current law, under which it is paid by the entity that has registered the pesticide. DPR indicates that this change would address payment responsibility issues related to online retail and align the mill assessment with how the state collects other fees and taxes.
- Extends the statute of limitations for mill assessment payment violations found in audits. The proposal would extend the current statute of limitations for DPR to take enforcement actions when audits reveal mill assessment payment violations. Currently, DPR must bring enforcement actions within four years of the occurrence of the violation. The proposal would allow DPR to bring enforcement actions on violations that have occurred within four years of the audit’s commencement, but no later than two years after the audit’s completion. DPR indicates that this extended timeline would better reflect the period it needs to complete audits and take corresponding enforcement actions.
- Extends the statute of limitations for pesticide use violations. Currently, enforcement actions on pesticide use violations must be brought by DPR or CACs within two years of the occurrence of the violation. The proposal would extend this timeline to three years. DPR indicates that this change would better reflect the time needed to investigate and bring enforcement actions for pesticide use violations.
- Authorizes DPR to enforce California’s laws on out-of-state pesticide dealers. The proposal would authorize DPR to levy administrative penalties of up to $15,000 on violations related to pesticide dealers, such as when entities act in this role without a license. Currently, the authority to levy administrative penalties related to pesticide dealers resides solely with CACs. DPR indicates taking enforcement actions on out-of-state pesticide dealers would be a more appropriate role to assign to the state since the primary role of CACs is to be the main enforcement authorities within their jurisdictions.
- Exempts emergency pesticide use authorizations from CEQA review. CEQA requires state and local agencies to consider the potential environmental impacts associated with potential public or private projects or activities. Federal law authorizes the US EPA to allow federal and state agencies (such as DPR) to permit the unregistered use of a pesticide to address emergency conditions. For example, this might occur when no other registered pesticides are available to control a serious pest problem that would result in significant economic losses or adverse environmental impacts. These emergency authorizations are only permitted for a limited time within a defined geographical area and usually involve pesticides that have been registered for other uses (such as for different crops). The proposal would exempt such emergency pesticide use authorizations from requiring a CEQA review.
- Changes mill assessment payer responsibility. The proposal would require the mill assessment to be paid by the entity that first sells a pesticide into the state. This contrasts with current law, under which it is paid by the entity that has registered the pesticide. DPR indicates that this change would address payment responsibility issues related to online retail and align the mill assessment with how the state collects other fees and taxes.
- Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) review of Governor's 2024 budget proposal. In its review of the Governor 2024 mill fee budget proposal, the LAO made the following determinations:
"Increasing Mill Assessment Is Justified. Overall, we find two key justifications for the state to increase the mill assessment. First, it has not been increased since 2004. Given the considerable amount of time since its last adjustment, an increase is warranted to ensure that it both aligns with current department expenditures and is able to support new state priorities related to pesticides going forward. Second, increasing the mill assessment to support these activities aligns with the "polluter pays" principle, whereby those who produce or otherwise contribute to pollution (such as environmental impacts from pesticides) should bear the associated regulatory costs of managing and preventing damage to public health and the environment.
“However, Legislative Priorities Should Also Be Incorporated. While we find the administration's proposed programmatic augmentations to be reasonable, they do not represent the only options for expanding DPR's activities. The Legislature has an important opportunity now to determine (1) the scope of activities it wants DPR to conduct, (2) the associated level of resources required, and (3) the corresponding level at which the mill assessment should be set. This could involve removing or refining activities proposed by the Governor or adding activities that are legislative priorities. Ensuring that legislative priorities are reflected is particularly important given the opportunity that adjusting taxes and fees provides in setting the state's overall goals for pesticide regulation and ensuring they are well supported. Depending on the actions taken, modifying planned programmatic augmentations could result in higher or lower increases to the mill assessment and registration and licensing fees than proposed by the Governor."
- Stakeholder input. According to information provided by the author, since the introduction of the Governor's DPR budget proposal and this bill, many stakeholders have reached out and provided input on potential changes to the Governor's proposal and this bill. Below is a summary of the input received by the author regarding the Governor's proposal and AB 2113:
- Pesticide registration: Entities that register pesticides believe the current registration process is too slow and unpredictable. They would like more predictability as to when the registration of a pesticide would be completed, including seeking statutory deadlines that DPR would need to meet, as part of the pesticide registration process. Additionally, various stakeholders would like DPR to not only streamline the registration process but also provide for an expedited review for pesticides that pose a reduced risk, potentially including those pesticides that are organic.
- Pesticide registration fee: DPR's budget proposal includes positions for DPR that would be funded by an increase in the pesticide registration fee, which DPR can administratively increase through the regulatory process. Stakeholders that pay this fee would prefer the registration fee be moved into statute and only raised by future statutory changes.
- Re-evaluation of pesticides: Environmental justice and environmental stakeholders are concerned that DPR's re-evaluation process is slow and not publicly transparent. DPR has re-evaluated approximately five pesticides since 1991 and is currently re-evaluating five pesticides (some of which have been under re-evaluation for 20 years). In comparison, DPR registers hundreds of pesticides a month. These stakeholders would like to see DPR move more efficiently with re-evaluations, to include initiating more re-evaluations and completing them in a timely manner. The stakeholders are also concerned that the current process is vague and not transparent. For example, stakeholders say that they are not sure if there is a particular reason or rationale that DPR uses to select a pesticide for re-evaluation, that they are unsure of DPR's process; and, that they must wait for years for updates or action on DPR's re-evaluations.
- Mill Fee: Some stakeholders believe the mill fee proposed by DPR is too low; they believe it should at least be set at the rate recommended in the Crowe study. Additionally, these stakeholders do not think there should be a cap, and that DPR should be able to adjust the fee in the future to match resources that are approved in the annual budget. However, other stakeholders believe the fee is set too high, and that the increases proposed over the three-year phase-in are too high in the first year. Additionally, these stakeholders think the fee increases should stop after the third year increase and that future increases in the mill fee should happen only through statute.
- Transparency: Virtually all stakeholders think DPR's program could benefit from added transparency, both through the pesticide registration process and the continuous evaluation process.
- Sustainable Pest Management (SPM) and Integrated Pest Management (IPM): Some stakeholders would like the mill fee proposal to have a greater emphasis on both SPM and IPM, including additional funding (beyond what is in the Governor's proposal) for SPM.
- Research grants: Many stakeholders signaled a concern with DPR's current process for funding research. This includes a concern that the research is not connected to publicly stated goals such as SPM, IPM, or seeking alternatives to pesticides that pose a higher risk.
- Funding for DPR: All stakeholders either support or acknowledge that DPR's funding has not increased significantly over a couple of decades and that if the funding improves DPR's programs, some level of increase is needed.
- Pesticide registration: Entities that register pesticides believe the current registration process is too slow and unpredictable. They would like more predictability as to when the registration of a pesticide would be completed, including seeking statutory deadlines that DPR would need to meet, as part of the pesticide registration process. Additionally, various stakeholders would like DPR to not only streamline the registration process but also provide for an expedited review for pesticides that pose a reduced risk, potentially including those pesticides that are organic.
Comments
- Purpose of Bill. According to the author, "In January 2024, the Governor introduced, as part of his proposed budget, a proposal to increase the mill assessment that supports DPR. This budget proposal is designed to fill a structural deficit in DPR's funding and provide additional funding to support and enhance DPR's core functions. Additionally, the Governor included trailer bill language to implement his budget proposal. I introduced AB 2113 to give the Legislature an opportunity, through the policy committee process, to hear from stakeholders and make further enhancements and refinements to the Governor's proposal to address issues raised by stakeholders and the Legislature. I view this bill as an ongoing dialogue to ensure there is an effective and properly resourced DPR, in order to more effectively carry out its mission."
- Reflects stakeholder input. AB 2113 increases, over a three-year period, the mill assessment (a fee on the sale of all pesticides sold into the state), in order to resolve a deficit in DPR's funding and support, in some cases, an expansion of DPR's programs. In addition, AB 2113 makes several policy changes that reflect stakeholder input and that are different than the Governor's proposed trailer bill language, these include: requiring pesticide registrations to be completed by a specified timeframe, requiring re-evaluations of pesticides to be completed within two years, and removes the authority for the director of DPR to raise the mill assessment.
- On-going Budget conversations. The Senate/Assembly budget deal includes a rejection without prejudice of the Governor’s proposed Sustainable Funding for Pest Management at DPR trailer bill language and makes the approval of the department’s companion budget change proposal contingent upon passage of AB 2113. Negotiations between the Legislature and the Governor on this and other budget items are ongoing.
DOUBLE REFERRAL:
If this measure is approved by the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, the do pass motion must include the action to re-refer the bill to the Senate Agriculture Committee.
Related/Prior Legislation
AB 363 (Bauer-Kahan, Chapter 520, Statutes of 2023) prohibits, beginning January 1, 2025, the sale, possession, or use of a pesticide containing one or more neonicotinoid pesticides, as defined, for any nonagricultural use on nonproduction outdoor or ornamental plants, trees, or turf, except by state certified applicators and state licensed pest control dealers. Requires DPR to evaluate the potential impacts of neonicotinoid pesticide uses on pollinating insects, aquatic ecosystems, and human health, as specified.
AB 652 (Lee, Chapter 662, Statutes of 2023) establishes a DPR Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (EJ Advisory Committee) to integrate environmental justice considerations into DPR’s programs, policies, decision-making, and activities.
AB 1322 (Friedman, Chapter 836, Statutes of 2023) prohibits the use of the rodenticide diphacinone in wildlife habitat areas, as defined, and prohibits the use of diphacinone in the state until DPR has completed a reevaluation and developed and adopted further restrictions on its use, as specified. Makes changes to existing restrictions on the use of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides consistent with those placed on diphacinone.
SOURCE:
Author
SUPPORT:
California Pool & Spa Association
OPPOSITION:
None received
-- END --
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ATR Bill Id:AB 2113
Author:(Garcia)
As Amended Ver:April 11, 2024
2/3 vote
SUMMARY
Increases, over a three year period, the mill assessment (a fee on the sale of all pesticides sold into the state), in order to support the programs of the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR).
Major Provisions
1) Requires DPR, on or before January 31 of each year, to post on its website the estimated timeframe for processing an application for registration of a pesticide.
2) Requires DPR, on or before January 31 of each year, if it determines that it might increase registration fees during the calendar year, to post that determination on its internet website and send that determination through any of its relevant, registration-related email lists.
3) Requires DPR, on or before January 31 of each year, as part of the continuous evaluation of all pesticides registered, to post on its internet website a list of active ingredients that it might place under continuous evaluation in that calendar year.
4) Requires DPR, under its process for continuous evaluation of all pesticides registered, to post an estimated timeline for completing an evaluation for an active ingredient, if DPR listed the active ingredient as being under continuous evaluation.
5) Requires DPR, on or before January 31, 2025, to post on its internet website, an estimated timeline for completing the re-evaluation of any active ingredient that is undergoing re-evaluation.
6) Requires DPR, on or before January 31, 2026, to initiate the re-evaluation of at least two additional active ingredients and post the estimated timeline for completing the re-evaluations on its internet website.
7) Requires DPR, on or before January 31, 2027, and each year thereafter, to initiate the re-evaluation of at least five additional active ingredients and post the estimated timeline for completing the re-evaluations on its internet website.
8) Provides that funding from the mill assessment shall support implementation of the following recently enacted laws: Assembly Bill (AB) 363 (Bauer-Kahan), Chapter 520, Statutes of 2023, AB 652 (Lee), Chapter 662, Statutes of 2023, AB 1016 (Jones-Sawyer), Chapter 354, Statutes of 2023, and AB 1322 (Friedman), Chapter 836, Statutes of 2023.
9) Requires the mill assessment to be paid by the person or entity that first sold the pesticide for use in the state.
COMMENTS
DPR's Mission: Since most pesticides are, by design, inherently toxic to their target pest – and excess amounts of any substance may be harmful – pesticide use must be strictly controlled. Amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) have delegated responsibility and authority to states for training, registration, and enforcement through cooperative agreements, with United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) maintaining oversight responsibility over state programs. In California, these duties lie with DPR, which is housed within the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and has the express mission "to protect human health and the environment by regulating pesticide sales and use, and by fostering reduced-risk pest management."
Sources of Funding: DPR's main revenue sources are:
- The mill assessment: the fee levied on pesticide sales at the point of first sale into the state. This is, by far, the greatest source of revenue for DPR;
- Product registration and renewal fees: annual fee imposed on manufacturers, importers, and dealers who wish to label and sell a pesticide product in the state;
- Licensing and certification fees: fees imposed on people and businesses that sell, apply, or recommend the use of pesticides. This includes examination and licensure of pesticide applicators, aircraft pilots, pest control dealer agents, pest control advisors, and businesses that sell or apply pesticides or use pest control methods or devices for hire. DPR also accredits more than 2,000 continuing education courses;
- Civil penalties;
- Other fees and reimbursements; and,
- Funds from US EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
2024 Governor's proposed budget: The Governor proposes several changes to increase revenues deposited into the DPR Fund, to generate a total of $30.4 million of new revenues in 2024-25 (growing to $43.9 million in future years). Of this amount, $9.8 million would address the structural deficit and $17.8 million would be used to expand programs and activities (growing to $32.5 million). The increased revenues would be generated by: (1) increasing the mill assessment ($22.1 million in 2024-25, growing to $33.8 million), (2) increasing registration fees through regulations ($6.3 million in 2024-25, growing to $7.2 million), and (3) increasing licensing fees through regulations ($2 million in 2024-25, growing to $2.9 million). The proposal also would provide $717,000 from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund on an ongoing basis to support additional programmatic expansions for the department.
Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) review of Governor's 2024 budget proposal: In its review of the Governor 2024 mill fee budget proposal, the LAO made the following determinations:
"Increasing Mill Assessment Is Justified. Overall, we find two key justifications for the state to increase the mill assessment. First, it has not been increased since 2004. Given the considerable amount of time since its last adjustment, an increase is warranted to ensure that it both aligns with current department expenditures and is able to support new state priorities related to pesticides going forward. Second, increasing the mill assessment to support these activities aligns with the "polluter pays" principle, whereby those who produce or otherwise contribute to pollution (such as environmental impacts from pesticides) should bear the associated regulatory costs of managing and preventing damage to public health and the environment.
However, Legislative Priorities Should Also Be Incorporated. While we find the administration's proposed programmatic augmentations to be reasonable, they do not represent the only options for expanding DPR's activities. The Legislature has an important opportunity now to determine (1) the scope of activities it wants DPR to conduct, (2) the associated level of resources required, and (3) the corresponding level at which the mill assessment should be set. This could involve removing or refining activities proposed by the Governor or adding activities that are legislative priorities. Ensuring that legislative priorities are reflected is particularly important given the opportunity that adjusting taxes and fees provides in setting the state's overall goals for pesticide regulation and ensuring they are well supported. Depending on the actions taken, modifying planned programmatic augmentations could result in higher or lower increases to the mill assessment and registration and licensing fees than proposed by the Governor."
Stakeholder input: Since the introduction of the Governor's DPR budget proposal and this bill, many stakeholders have reached out and provided input on potential changes to the Governor's proposal and this bill. Below is a summary of the input received regarding the Governor's proposal and AB 2113:
- Pesticide registration: Entities that register pesticides believe the current registration process is too slow and unpredictable. They would like more predictability as to when the registration of a pesticide would be completed, including seeking statutory deadlines that DPR would need to meet, as part of the pesticide registration process. Additionally, various stakeholders would like DPR to not only streamline the registration process, but also provide for an expedited review for pesticides that pose a reduced risk, potentially including those pesticides that are organic.
- Pesticide registration fee: DPR's budget proposal includes positions for DPR that would be funded from an increase in the pesticide registration fee, which DPR can administratively increase through the regulatory process. Stakeholders that pay this fee would prefer the registration fee be moved into statute and only raised by future statutory changes.
- Re-evaluation of pesticides: Environmental justice and environmental stakeholders are concerned that DPR's re-evaluation process is slow and not publicly transparent. DPR has re-evaluated approximately five pesticides since 1991 and is currently re-evaluating five pesticides (some of which have been under re-evaluation for 20 years). In comparison, DPR registers hundreds of pesticides a month. These stakeholders would like to see DPR move more efficiently with re-evaluations, to include initiating more re-evaluations and completing them in a timely manner. The stakeholders are also concerned that the current process is vague and not transparent. For example, stakeholders say that they are not sure if there is a particular reason or rationale that DPR uses to select a pesticide for re-evaluation, that they are unsure of DPR's process; and, that they must wait for years for updates or action on DPR's re-evaluations.
- Mill Fee: Some stakeholders believe the mill fee proposed by DPR is too low; they believe it should at least be set at the rate recommended in the Crowe study. Additionally these stakeholders do not think there should be a cap, and that DPR should be able to adjust the fee in the future to match resources that are approved in the annual budget. However, other stakeholders believe the fee is set too high, and that the increases proposed over the three year phase-in are too high in the first year. Additionally, these stakeholders think the fee increases should stop after the third year increase and that future increases in the mill fee should happen only through statute.
- Transparency: Virtually all stakeholders think DPR's program could benefit from added transparency, both through the pesticide registration process and the continuous evaluation process.
- Sustainable Pest Management (SPM) and Integrated Pest Management (IPM): Some stakeholders would like the mill fee proposal to have a greater emphasis on both SPM and IPM, including additional funding (beyond what is in the Governor's proposal) for SPM.
- Research grants: Many stakeholders signaled a concern with DPR's current process for funding research. This includes a concern that the research is not connected to publicly stated goals such as SPM, IPM, or seeking alternatives to pesticides that pose a higher risk.
- Funding for DPR: All stakeholders either support or acknowledge that DPR's funding has not increased significantly over a couple of decades and that if the funding improves DPR's programs, that some level of increase is needed.
This bill: AB 2113 increases, over a three year period, the mill assessment (a fee on the sale of all pesticides sold into the state), in order to resolve a deficit in DPR's funding and support, in some cases, an expansion of DPR's programs. In addition, AB 2113 proposes policy changes that reflect input from multiple stakeholders. These proposals are intended to advance further conversations among stakeholders, the Legislature, and the Administration.
According to the Author
"In January 2024, the Governor introduced, as part of his proposed budget, a proposal to increase the mill assessment that supports DPR. This budget proposal is designed to fill a structural deficit with DPR's funding and provide additional funding to support and enhance DPR's core functions. Additionally, the Governor included trailer bill language to implement his budget proposal. I introduced AB 2113 to give the Legislature an opportunity, through the policy committee process, to hear from stakeholders and make further enhancements and refinements to the Governor's proposal to address issues raised by stakeholders and the Legislature. I view this bill as an ongoing dialogue to ensure there is an effective and properly resourced DPR, in order to more effectively carry out its mission."
Arguments in Support
According to a coalition of environmental, environmental health, and environmental justice organizations writing in support if amended:
"Implementing AB 2113 and increasing the pesticide mill fee would be an important step towards addressing these ongoing harms from chemical pesticides. However, the undersigned organizations recommend the following amendments in order to fully protect the public from the health impacts of pesticides:
- Maintain strong definitions while increasing the ambition of Sustainable Pest Management (SPM) adoption and add $20 million ongoing annual funding from the pesticide mill fee to establish an SPM Incentive Program;
- Include timelines for completing pesticide re-evaluations;
- Expedite only organic or biological pesticides for registration;
- Align mill fee increase with Crowe study's recommended fee increase; and,
- Propose actions for when monitoring detects unsafe pesticide exposure levels."
Arguments in Opposition
According to a coalition comprised of organizations representing the agricultural and consumer products sectors writing oppose unless amended:
"…AB 2113 currently does not provide specific detail and accountability requirements to ensure these additional resources address well-defined needs and will result in meaningful, measurable improvements in core program implementation. Below are a series of responses to the amendments as provided on April 11th:
- Registration Transparency: Both DPR's [budget change proposal] and AB 2113 lack critical transparency requirements about how the proposals conform to core statutory functions. Unfortunately, lack of transparency in departmental activities for fee payers is not a new phenomenon. We ask AB 2113 be amended to require annual reporting by DPR of registration timelines with specific information;
- Fee Transparency: Likewise, we appreciate the requirement for DPR to provide public notice by January 31st each year if they are considering raising registration or licensing fees. This coalition remains strongly opposed to granting DPR the authority to raise the mill beyond the 2026-27 budget year;
- Re-evaluations: Related to the mandates on reevaluations, this coalition would like to express concern. While we understand the new amendment was included to direct the Department to work more concertedly on reevaluation, the mandate to initiate reevaluation on two pesticides per year is without context and will result in a significant new workload. This coalition requests this mandate be removed.
- Mill Assessment: While we appreciate AB 2113 proposes the smallest increase first to lessen the initial impact on the taxpayers, our coalition asks that you eliminate the delegation of tax authority to DPR by striking SEC. 6. Section 12841 (f)(1)(D). If the Department would like additional resources above and beyond a 28% increase by year three, as proposed, they should return to the Legislature, provide a budget proposal of what activities they seek to fund and daylight any policy debate; and,
- Registration and licensing fees: We are seeking a statutory cap on registration fees and elimination of the emergency regulatory authority, to ensure DPR completes a robust and thorough stakeholder process which provides registrants ample time to budget for registration increases.
While we maintain these concerns, we support a strong DPR. We believe it is possible to achieve a balance between reasonable tax and fee increases, with improved services and transparency by DPR."
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, enactment of this bill could annually generate additional revenue for DPR of an unknown but significant amount, in the tens of millions of dollars. Additionally, there could be costs of an unknown but significant amount, in the millions of dollars, for DPR to implement the requirements of the bill, however, some portion of these costs might be covered by the additional revenue from the increase in the mill assessment.
VOTES
ASM ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS: 5-2-0
YES: Garcia, Connolly, McKinnor, Papan, Reyes
NO: Hoover, Ta
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-4-0
YES: Wicks, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Pellerin, Villapudua
NO: Sanchez, Dixon, Jim Patterson, Ta
UPDATED
VERSION: April 11, 2024
CONSULTANT: Josh Tooker / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965 FN: 0002984
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ATR Bill Id:AB 2113
Author:(Garcia)
As Amended Ver:May 20, 2024
2/3 vote
SUMMARY
Increases, over a three year period, the mill assessment (a fee on the sale of all pesticides sold into the state), in order to support the programs of the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR).
Major Provisions
1) Requires DPR, on or before January 31 of each year, to post on its website the estimated timeframe for processing an application for registration of a pesticide.
2) Requires DPR, on or before January 31 of each year, if it determines that it might increase registration fees during the calendar year, to post that determination on its internet website and send that determination through any of its relevant, registration-related email lists.
3) Requires DPR, on or before January 31 of each year, as part of the continuous evaluation of all pesticides registered, to post on its internet website a list of active ingredients that it might place under continuous evaluation in that calendar year.
4) Requires DPR, under its process for continuous evaluation of all pesticides registered, to post an estimated timeline for completing an evaluation for an active ingredient, if DPR listed the active ingredient as being under continuous evaluation.
5) Requires DPR, on December 31, 2028 and each year thereafter, to annually report average processing times for product registrations and post this information on its website. This number shall be reported based on non-agricultural and agricultural use products.
6) Requires DPR, beginning on January 1, 2028, to complete a re-evaluation of an active ingredient within two years of initiating the re-evaluation.
7) Requires DPR, on or before July 1, 2028, DPR to ensure that its evaluation of applications is completed within specified timeframes.
8) Requires DPR when processing registration for new active ingredients to prioritize reduced risk pesticides.
9) Deletes the authority for the director of DPR to raise the mill assessment.
COMMENTS
DPR's Mission: Since most pesticides are, by design, inherently toxic to their target pest – and excess amounts of any substance may be harmful – pesticide use must be strictly controlled. Amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) have delegated responsibility and authority to states for training, registration, and enforcement through cooperative agreements, with United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) maintaining oversight responsibility over state programs. In California, these duties lie with DPR, which is housed within the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and has the express mission "to protect human health and the environment by regulating pesticide sales and use, and by fostering reduced-risk pest management."
Sources of Funding: DPR's main revenue sources are:
- The mill assessment: the fee levied on pesticide sales at the point of first sale into the state. This is, by far, the greatest source of revenue for DPR;
- Product registration and renewal fees: annual fee imposed on manufacturers, importers, and dealers who wish to label and sell a pesticide product in the state;
- Licensing and certification fees: fees imposed on people and businesses that sell, apply, or recommend the use of pesticides. This includes examination and licensure of pesticide applicators, aircraft pilots, pest control dealer agents, pest control advisors, and businesses that sell or apply pesticides or use pest control methods or devices for hire. DPR also accredits more than 2,000 continuing education courses;
- Civil penalties;
- Other fees and reimbursements; and,
- Funds from US EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
2024 Governor's proposed budget: The Governor proposes several changes to increase revenues deposited into the DPR Fund, to generate a total of $30.4 million of new revenues in 2024-25 (growing to $43.9 million in future years). Of this amount, $9.8 million would address the structural deficit and $17.8 million would be used to expand programs and activities (growing to $32.5 million). The increased revenues would be generated by: (1) increasing the mill assessment ($22.1 million in 2024-25, growing to $33.8 million), (2) increasing registration fees through regulations ($6.3 million in 2024-25, growing to $7.2 million), and (3) increasing licensing fees through regulations ($2 million in 2024-25, growing to $2.9 million). The proposal also would provide $717,000 from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund on an ongoing basis to support additional programmatic expansions for the department.
Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) review of Governor's 2024 budget proposal: In its review of the Governor 2024 mill fee budget proposal, the LAO made the following determinations:
"Increasing Mill Assessment Is Justified. Overall, we find two key justifications for the state to increase the mill assessment. First, it has not been increased since 2004. Given the considerable amount of time since its last adjustment, an increase is warranted to ensure that it both aligns with current department expenditures and is able to support new state priorities related to pesticides going forward. Second, increasing the mill assessment to support these activities aligns with the "polluter pays" principle, whereby those who produce or otherwise contribute to pollution (such as environmental impacts from pesticides) should bear the associated regulatory costs of managing and preventing damage to public health and the environment.
However, Legislative Priorities Should Also Be Incorporated. While we find the administration's proposed programmatic augmentations to be reasonable, they do not represent the only options for expanding DPR's activities. The Legislature has an important opportunity now to determine (1) the scope of activities it wants DPR to conduct, (2) the associated level of resources required, and (3) the corresponding level at which the mill assessment should be set. This could involve removing or refining activities proposed by the Governor or adding activities that are legislative priorities. Ensuring that legislative priorities are reflected is particularly important given the opportunity that adjusting taxes and fees provides in setting the state's overall goals for pesticide regulation and ensuring they are well supported. Depending on the actions taken, modifying planned programmatic augmentations could result in higher or lower increases to the mill assessment and registration and licensing fees than proposed by the Governor."
Stakeholder input: Since the introduction of the Governor's DPR budget proposal and this bill, many stakeholders have reached out and provided input on potential changes to the Governor's proposal and this bill. Below is a summary of the input received regarding the Governor's proposal and AB 2113:
- Pesticide registration: Entities that register pesticides believe the current registration process is too slow and unpredictable. They would like more predictability as to when the registration of a pesticide would be completed, including seeking statutory deadlines that DPR would need to meet, as part of the pesticide registration process. Additionally, various stakeholders would like DPR to not only streamline the registration process, but also provide for an expedited review for pesticides that pose a reduced risk, potentially including those pesticides that are organic.
- Pesticide registration fee: DPR's budget proposal includes positions for DPR that would be funded from an increase in the pesticide registration fee, which DPR can administratively increase through the regulatory process. Stakeholders that pay this fee would prefer the registration fee be moved into statute and only raised by future statutory changes.
- Re-evaluation of pesticides: Environmental justice and environmental stakeholders are concerned that DPR's re-evaluation process is slow and not publicly transparent. DPR has re-evaluated approximately five pesticides since 1991 and is currently re-evaluating five pesticides (some of which have been under re-evaluation for 20 years). In comparison, DPR registers hundreds of pesticides a month. These stakeholders would like to see DPR move more efficiently with re-evaluations, to include initiating more re-evaluations and completing them in a timely manner. The stakeholders are also concerned that the current process is vague and not transparent. For example, stakeholders say that they are not sure if there is a particular reason or rationale that DPR uses to select a pesticide for re-evaluation, that they are unsure of DPR's process; and, that they must wait for years for updates or action on DPR's re-evaluations.
- Mill Fee: Some stakeholders believe the mill fee proposed by DPR is too low; they believe it should at least be set at the rate recommended in the Crowe study. Additionally these stakeholders do not think there should be a cap, and that DPR should be able to adjust the fee in the future to match resources that are approved in the annual budget. However, other stakeholders believe the fee is set too high, and that the increases proposed over the three year phase-in are too high in the first year. Additionally, these stakeholders think the fee increases should stop after the third year increase and that future increases in the mill fee should happen only through statute.
- Transparency: Virtually all stakeholders think DPR's program could benefit from added transparency, both through the pesticide registration process and the continuous evaluation process.
- Sustainable Pest Management (SPM) and Integrated Pest Management (IPM): Some stakeholders would like the mill fee proposal to have a greater emphasis on both SPM and IPM, including additional funding (beyond what is in the Governor's proposal) for SPM.
- Research grants: Many stakeholders signaled a concern with DPR's current process for funding research. This includes a concern that the research is not connected to publicly stated goals such as SPM, IPM, or seeking alternatives to pesticides that pose a higher risk.
- Funding for DPR: All stakeholders either support or acknowledge that DPR's funding has not increased significantly over a couple of decades and that if the funding improves DPR's programs, that some level of increase is needed.
This bill: AB 2113 increases, over a three year period, the mill assessment (a fee on the sale of all pesticides sold into the state), in order to resolve a deficit in DPR's funding and support, in some cases, an expansion of DPR's programs. In addition, AB 2113 makes several policy changes that reflect stakeholder input and that are different than the Governor's proposed trailer bill language, these include: requiring pesticide registrations to completed by a specified timeframe, requiring re-evaluations of pesticides to be completed within two years, and removes the authority for the director of DPR to raise the mill assessment.
According to the Author
"In January 2024, the Governor introduced, as part of his proposed budget, a proposal to increase the mill assessment that supports DPR. This budget proposal is designed to fill a structural deficit with DPR's funding and provide additional funding to support and enhance DPR's core functions. Additionally, the Governor included trailer bill language to implement his budget proposal. I introduced AB 2113 to give the Legislature an opportunity, through the policy committee process, to hear from stakeholders and make further enhancements and refinements to the Governor's proposal to address issues raised by stakeholders and the Legislature. I view this bill as an ongoing dialogue to ensure there is an effective and properly resourced DPR, in order to more effectively carry out its mission."
Arguments in Support
According to a coalition of environmental, environmental health, and environmental justice organizations writing in support if amended (on a prior version of the bill):
"Implementing AB 2113 and increasing the pesticide mill fee would be an important step towards addressing these ongoing harms from chemical pesticides. However, the undersigned organizations recommend the following amendments in order to fully protect the public from the health impacts of pesticides:
- Maintain strong definitions while increasing the ambition of Sustainable Pest Management (SPM) adoption and add $20 million ongoing annual funding from the pesticide mill fee to establish an SPM Incentive Program;
- Include timelines for completing pesticide re-evaluations;
- Expedite only organic or biological pesticides for registration;
- Align mill fee increase with Crowe study's recommended fee increase; and,
Propose actions for when monitoring detects unsafe pesticide exposure levels."
Arguments in Opposition
According to a coalition comprised of organizations representing the agricultural and consumer products sectors writing oppose unless amended (on a prior version of the bill):
"…AB 2113 currently does not provide specific detail and accountability requirements to ensure these additional resources address well-defined needs and will result in meaningful, measurable improvements in core program implementation. Below are a series of responses to the amendments as provided on April 11th:
- Registration Transparency: Both DPR's [budget change proposal] and AB 2113 lack critical transparency requirements about how the proposals conform to core statutory functions. Unfortunately, lack of transparency in departmental activities for fee payers is not a new phenomenon. We ask AB 2113 be amended to require annual reporting by DPR of registration timelines with specific information;
- Fee Transparency: Likewise, we appreciate the requirement for DPR to provide public notice by January 31st each year if they are considering raising registration or licensing fees. This coalition remains strongly opposed to granting DPR the authority to raise the mill beyond the 2026-27 budget year;
- Re-evaluations: Related to the mandates on reevaluations, this coalition would like to express concern. While we understand the new amendment was included to direct the Department to work more concertedly on reevaluation, the mandate to initiate reevaluation on two pesticides per year is without context and will result in a significant new workload. This coalition requests this mandate be removed.
- Mill Assessment: While we appreciate AB 2113 proposes the smallest increase first to lessen the initial impact on the taxpayers, our coalition asks that you eliminate the delegation of tax authority to DPR by striking SEC. 6. Section 12841 (f)(1)(D). If the Department would like additional resources above and beyond a 28% increase by year three, as proposed, they should return to the Legislature, provide a budget proposal of what activities they seek to fund and daylight any policy debate; and,
- Registration and licensing fees: We are seeking a statutory cap on registration fees and elimination of the emergency regulatory authority, to ensure DPR completes a robust and thorough stakeholder process which provides registrants ample time to budget for registration increases.
While we maintain these concerns, we support a strong DPR. We believe it is possible to achieve a balance between reasonable tax and fee increases, with improved services and transparency by DPR."
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, enactment of this bill could annually generate additional revenue for DPR of an unknown but significant amount, in the tens of millions of dollars. Additionally, there could be costs of an unknown but significant amount, in the millions of dollars, for DPR to implement the requirements of the bill, however, some portion of these costs might be covered by the additional revenue from the increase in the mill assessment.
VOTES
ASM ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS: 5-2-0
YES: Garcia, Connolly, McKinnor, Papan, Reyes
NO: Hoover, Ta
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-4-0
YES: Wicks, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Pellerin, Villapudua
NO: Sanchez, Dixon, Jim Patterson, Ta
UPDATED
VERSION: May 20, 2024
CONSULTANT: Josh Tooker / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319- 3965 FN: 0003428
Date of Hearing: May 15, 2024
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Buffy Wicks, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2113
Author:(Garcia) – As Amended Ver:April 11, 2024
Policy Committee: | Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials | Vote: | 5 - 2 |
|
| ||
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill increases, over a three period, the mill assessment, in order to support the programs of the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR).
Specifically, this bill, among other things:
1) Requires DPR, by specified deadlines, to post a range of specified information on its website, including information related to pesticide registration application processing timeframes, possible registration fee increases, evaluation and reevaluation of active ingredients, and other information.
2) Requires DPR, on or before January 31, 2026, to initiate the reevaluation of a least two additional active ingredients, and on or before January 31, 2027, and each year thereafter, to initiate the reevaluation of at least five additional active ingredients, and to post the estimated timeline for completing the reevaluations on its website.
3) Establishes the following mill assessment rates, per each dollar of sales of all sales of registered pesticide use in the state: from July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025, at 24 mills ($0.024); from July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2026, at 27 mills ($0.027); and from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2027, at 29 mills ($0.029). Increases the maximum amount of the additional assessment levied on agricultural use pesticides from 0.75 mils to 1.04 mills.
4) Authorizes the director of DPR, beginning on July 1, 2028, to adopt regulations setting one fixed rate for the mill assessment adequate to support DPR's annual expenditures authorized in the annual budget act and to provide a prudent reserve; provides that the rate shall not exceed 33.9 mills ($0.0339), as specified.
5) Provides that funding from the mill assessment, in addition to supporting DPR’s operations, shall support implementation of specified recently enacted laws.
6) Requires the mill assessment be paid by the person or entity that first sold the pesticide for use in the state.
For a more detailed summary of the provisions of this bill, please see the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials (ESTM) Committee analysis.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1) By increasing the mill assessment starting in fiscal year (FY) 2024-25, this bill will annually generate additional revenue for the DPR Fund of an unknown but significant amount, in the tens of millions of dollars.
2) Costs of an unknown but significant amount, in the millions of dollars, for DPR to implement the requirements of this bill (DPR Fund). Some portion – although it is not clear how much – of these costs will be covered by the increase in the mill assessment.
DPR contends this bill results in tens of millions of dollars in ongoing costs to the department beyond what is included in the Governor’s proposal. For example, DPR notes it currently has four to five staff overseeing reevaluations and risk assessments. In order to meet the requirement in this bill to annually initiate reevaluations of specified numbers of active ingredients, DPR will need to augment its staff resources overseeing reevaluations by at least 50% by 2026 and by 200% by 2027, resulting in annual costs in the millions of dollars.
3) This bill increases the statutory cap for the additional mill assessment levied on agricultural use pesticides from 0.75 mills to 1.04 mills. Should the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) choose to increase this additional assessment, there would be an increase in revenue to the Food and Agriculture Fund of an unknown amount.
CDFA estimates ongoing annual costs of approximately $400,000 (Food and Agriculture Fund) to implement this bill. DPR is required to consult with CDFA on pesticide regulations, including on reevaluations. CDFA notes its four existing staff members in its Office of Pesticide Consultation and Analysis are currently at workload capacity, and the pace of reevaluations proposed in this bill will necessitate two additional senior environmental scientists, resulting in an extra 0.0115 mill on top of what the bill is proposing.
4) The Department of Justice (DOJ) anticipates costs of an unknown but potentially significant amount (Legal Services Revolving Fund) resulting from increased referrals from its client, DPR, relating to client representation and litigation arising from this bill. Costs to DOJ will be reimbursable through direct billings to the client agency.
COMMENTS:
1) Purpose. According to the author:
In January 2024, the Governor introduced, as part of his proposed budget, a proposal to increase the mill assessment that supports DPR. This budget proposal is designed to fill a structural deficit with DPR's funding and provide additional funding to support and enhance DPR's core functions. Additionally, the Governor included trailer bill language to implement his budget proposal. I introduced AB 2113 to give the Legislature an opportunity, through the policy committee process, to hear from stakeholders and make further enhancements and refinements to the Governor's proposal to address issues raised by stakeholders and the Legislature. I view this bill as an ongoing dialogue to ensure there is an effective and properly resourced DPR, in order to more effectively carry out its mission.
2) Background.
DPR Fund. Historically, about 90% of DPR’s budget has been supported by the DPR Fund, with the remaining amount coming from other special funds and federal funds. The DPR Fund is a repository of taxes and fees paid by pesticide retailers, wholesalers, and businesses. The state uses the fund to support state and local activities related to regulating pesticides. The majority of the fund’s resources are provided to DPR to support its core functions and responsibilities. Roughly one‑quarter of the DPR Fund’s revenues are provided to county agricultural commissioners as partial reimbursement for their pesticide enforcement activities. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) projects expenditures from the DPR Fund to total roughly $138 million in FY 2023‑24. The DPR Fund is primarily supported by three main funding sources: the mill assessment, registration fees, and licensing fees.
Mill Assessment. The largest revenue source for the DPR Fund – about 80% – is the mill assessment, a tax levied on pesticides when first sold into or within the state. According to the LAO, in FY 2023‑24, the mill assessment is estimated to raise about $100 million. The mill assessment is currently set at the statutory maximum level of 21 mills, or 2.1 cents per dollar of sales. The state also levies an additional .75 mills on agricultural use pesticides. As noted previously, according to the LAO, in FY 2023‑24, this additional assessment is estimated to raise about $2 million. These revenues go to the Food and Agriculture Fund, not the DPR Fund. This funding supports CDFA in providing consultation services to DPR on certain regulatory actions.
DPR Fund’s Structural Imbalance. In recent years, the growth in expenditures from the DPR Fund has outpaced growth in revenues, creating a structural deficit within the fund. The LAO projects the DPR Fund to be insolvent in FY 2024-25. This is primarily due to revenues from the capped mill assessment not keeping pace with costs associated with expanded DPR programmatic responsibilities that have been enacted through legislation. The Governor’s FY 2021‑22 budget proposed to increase and tier the mill assessment. The Legislature rejected the proposal and instead provided General Fund resources of $10.3 million in FY 2021‑22 and $8.8 million in FY 2022‑23 to DPR. The funding provided relief to the DPR Fund and supported alternative pest management grants and outreach, environmental monitoring, and pesticide takeback events hosted by CACs. Budget bill language also directed DPR to use a portion of the funding to hire a consultant to study tiering the mill assessment. In August 2023, Crowe, Inc. (the independent contractor DPR hired to conduct the statutorily directed study) released its final findings and recommendations.
Governor’s Proposal. As part of his FY 2024-25 budget, the Governor proposes several changes to increase revenues into the DPR Fund which would generate a total of $30.4 million of new revenues in FY 2024‑25 (growing to $43.9 million in future years). Of this amount, $9.8 million would address the structural deficit and $17.8 million would be used to expand a number of programs and activities (growing to $32.5 million). The increased revenues would be generated by increasing the mill assessment, registration fees, and licensing fees through regulations. The proposal would also provide $717,000 from GGRF on an ongoing basis to support additional programmatic expansions for DPR.
The Governor has proposed trailer bill language that would, among a number of other policy and programmatic changes, increase the mill assessment over a three‑year period from the current level of 21 mills to 26 mills in FY 2024‑25, 27.5 mills in FY 2025‑26, and 28.6 mills in FY 2026‑27. Beginning in FY 2027‑28, the proposal would authorize DPR to further adjust the mill assessment as needed to align revenues with expenditures approved by the Legislature in the annual budget act, not to exceed a new statutory cap of 33.9 mills. The Governor’s proposal would also increase the statutory cap for the additional mill assessment levied on agricultural use pesticides. For a detailed summary and analysis of the Governor’s proposal, please see the LAO’s March 2024 report “Sustainable Funding for the Department of Pesticide Regulation.”
As noted, the Governor’s proposal increases the mill assessment over a three-year period from the current level of 21 mills to 26 mills in FY 2024‑25, 27.5 mills in FY 2025‑26, and 28.6 mills in FY 2026‑27. The administration estimates its proposed increases would generate an additional $22.1 million in FY 2024‑25, growing to $33.8 million in FY 2026‑27. As outlined in the bill summary above, this bill proposes slightly lower assessment rates in FYs 2024-25 and 2025-26 (thereby generating less revenue in those years compared to the Governor’s proposal) and a slightly higher rate than what is in the Governor’s proposal in FY 2026-27.
The Governor’s proposal, in addition to addressing the structural deficit within the DPR Fund, generates additional revenues to support a wide range of programmatic expansions for DPR. The Governor’s proposal would provide DPR with an additional $18.5 million in FY 2024‑25 beyond what is needed to address existing workload. This would cover 65 new positions in FY 2024‑25, increasing to $33.2 million and 117 positions in FY 2026‑27 and ongoing. Most of the programmatic expansions from the DPR Fund in the Governor’s proposal are supported by the additional revenues generated from increasing the mill assessment, while a smaller amount would come from new revenues associated with DPR increasing registration and licensing fees and from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). While both the requirements and the mill assessment rates in this bill differ from the Governor’s proposal (and this bill does not include increases to registration and licensing fees), it is reasonable to expect some share of the costs associated with this bill to be covered by the proposed increases in the mill assessment.
Both this bill and the Governor’s proposal increase the statutory cap for the additional mill assessment levied on agricultural use pesticides from 0.75 mills to 1.04 mills. In FY 2023‑24, the current assessment rate is estimated to raise about $2 million for the Food and Agriculture Fund. According to the LAO, the administration indicates that CDFA does not anticipate raising this additional mill assessment in FY 2024‑25 even if it is granted authority to do so.
Author’s Intent. The ESTM Committee analysis states:
AB 2113 increases, over a three period, the mill assessment (a fee on the sale of all pesticides sold into the state), in order to resolve a deficit in DPR's funding and support, in some cases, an expansion of DPR's programs. In addition, AB 2113 proposes policy changes that reflect input from multiple stakeholders. These proposals are intended to advance further conversations among stakeholders, the Legislature, and the Administration.
Analysis Prepared by: Nikita Koraddi / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
Date of Hearing: April 23, 2024
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS
Eduardo Garcia, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2113 (
Author:Garcia) – As Amended Ver:April 11, 2024
SUBJECT: Pesticides
SUMMARY: Increases, over a three period, the mill assessment (a fee on the sale of all pesticides sold into the state), in order to support the programs of the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). Specifically, this bill:
1) Defines "high-risk pesticide" as an active ingredient that is highly hazardous and poses a likelihood of, or is known to cause, significant or widespread human or ecological impacts from its use.
2) Defines "integrated pest management" (IPM) as an ecosystem-based strategy that focuses on long-term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of techniques such as biological control, habitat manipulation, modification of cultural practices, and use of resistant varieties. Pesticides are used only after monitoring indicates they are needed according to established guidelines and treatments are made with the goal of removing only the target organism. Pest control materials are selected and applied in a manner that minimizes risks to human health, beneficial and non-target organisms, and the environment.
3) Defines "priority pesticide" as a pesticide product, active ingredient, or group of related products within the context of specific product uses, or pest- or location-use combinations, that are of greatest concern and warrant heightened attention, planning, and support to expedite its replacement and eventual elimination.
4) Defines "sustainable pest management" (SPM) as a holistic, whole system approach applicable to agricultural and other managed ecosystems and urban and rural communities that builds on the concept of integrated pest management to include the wider context of the three sustainability pillars: human health and social equity; environmental protection; and, economic vitality.
5) Exempts, from the pesticide applicator requirements, sanitation services for the collection, disposal, and treatment of wastewater, refuse, or sewage; and pool cleaning services, unless the person is selling, applying, using, or distributing a restricted material.
6) Requires research funded by the DPR to consider how the research could help to implement SPM and implement and support IPM, andalternatives to priority pesticides and high-risk pesticides.
7) Requires DPR, on or before January 31 of each year, to post on its website the estimated timeframe for processing an application for registration of a pesticide.
8) Requires DPR, while processing an application for the registration of a pesticide, if it determines that the processing will be longer than the posted estimated timeframe to complete it, to contact the applicant and provide further details.
9) Requires DPR, on or before January 31 of each year, if it determines that it might increase registration fees during the calendar year, to post that determination on its internet website and send that determination through any of its relevant, registration-related email lists.
10) Provides that the continuous evaluation process of pesticides, may include, but is not limited to, re-evaluating the active ingredient, making a change to the label, requiring a risk assessment of the active ingredient, designating the active ingredient as a restricted material, and requiring the mitigation of risks associated with the active ingredient.
11) Requires DPR, on or before January 31 of each year, as part of the continuous evaluation of all pesticides registered, to post on its internet website a list of active ingredients that it might place under continuous evaluation in that calendar year.
12) Requires DPR, under its process for continuous evaluation of all pesticides registered, to post an estimated timeline for completing an evaluation for an active ingredient, if DPR listed the active ingredient as being under continuous evaluation.
13) Requires DPR, on or before January 31, 2025, to post on its internet website, an estimated timeline for completing the re-evaluation of any active ingredient that is undergoing re-evaluation.
14) Requires DPR, on or before January 31, 2026, to initiate the re-evaluation of a least two additional active ingredients and post the estimated timeline for completing the re-evaluations on its internet website.
15) Requires DPR, on or before January 31, 2027, and each year thereafter, to initiate the re-evaluation of at least five additional active ingredients and post the estimated timeline for completing the re-evaluations on its internet website.
16) Establishes the rate for the mill assessment on the sale of all pesticides, from July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025, to be 24 mills ($0.024) per dollar sales of all sales of registered pesticides for use in this state.
17) Establishes the rate for the mill assessment on the sale of all pesticides, from July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2026, to be 27 mills ($0.027) per dollar sales of all sales of registered pesticides for use in this state.
18) Establishes the rate for the mill assessment on the sale of all pesticides, from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2027, to be 29 mills ($0.029) per dollar sales of all sales of registered pesticides for use in this state.
19) Authorizes the director of DPR, beginning on July 1, 2028, to adopt regulations setting one fixed rate for the mills assessment adequate to support DPR's annual expenditures authorized in the annual Budget Act and to provide a prudent reserve; the rate shall not exceed 33.9 mills ($0.0339).
20) Provides that funding from the mill assessment shall support implementation of the following recently enacted laws: AB 363 (Bauer-Kahan, Chapter 520, Statutes of 2023), AB 652 (Lee, Chapter 662, Statutes of 2023), AB 1016 (Jones-Sawyer, Chapter 354, Statutes of 2023), and AB 1322 (Friedman, Chapter 836, Statutes of 2023).
21) Requires the mill assessment to be paid by the person or entity that first sold the pesticide for use in the state.
EXISTING LAW:
- Provides, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), for federal regulation of pesticide distribution, sale, and use. Requires that all pesticides distributed or sold in the United States be registered (licensed) by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Requires, before US EPA registers a pesticide under FIFRA, the applicant to show, among other things, that using the pesticide according to specifications will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. (7 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 136, et seq.)
- Authorizes the state’s pesticide regulatory program and mandates DPR to, among other things, provide for the proper, safe, and efficient use of pesticides essential for the production of food and fiber, for the protection of public health and safety, for the protection of the environment from environmentally harmful pesticides, and to assure agricultural and pest control workers safe working conditions where pesticides are present by prohibiting, regulating, or otherwise ensuring proper stewardship of those pesticides. (Food and Agriculture Code (FAC) § 11401, et seq.)
- Regulates the use of pesticides and authorizes the director of DPR to adopt regulations to govern the registration, sale, transportation, or use of pesticides, as prescribed. (FAC §11501, et. seq.)
- Requires the director of DPR to establish, by regulation, fees for DPR's pesticide registration program. (FAC § 12812)
- Requires the director to endeavor to eliminate from use in the state any pesticide that endangers the agricultural or nonagricultural environment, is not beneficial for the purposes for which it is sold, or is misrepresented. Requires the DPR director, in carrying out this responsibility, to develop an orderly program for the continuous evaluation of all pesticides actually registered. (FAC § 12824)
- Authorizes, the director, after a hearing, to cancel the registration of, or refuse to register, any pesticide, for a pesticide:
- That has demonstrated serious uncontrollable adverse effects either within or outside the agricultural environment;
- The use of which is of less public value or greater detriment to the environment than the benefit received by its use;
- For which there is a reasonable, effective, and practicable alternate material or procedure that is demonstrably less destructive to the environment; or,
- That, when properly used, is detrimental to vegetation, except weeds, to domestic animals, or to the public health and safety. (FAC § 12825)
- Requires the director and the County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC) of each county, under the direction and supervision of the director, to enforce the pesticide program and the regulations that are issued pursuant to it. (FAC § 11501.5)
- Requires the director to adopt regulations that govern the conduct of the business of pest control. (FAC § 11502)
- Defines "pesticide" as including any substance, or mixture of substances, which is intended to be used for defoliating plants, regulating plant growth, or for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest, as defined, which may infest or be detrimental to vegetation, man, animals, or households, or be present in any agricultural or nonagricultural environment whatsoever. (FAC § 12753)
- Requires the mill assessment to be paid by the pesticide registrant, broker, dealer or other person subject to the mill assessment. (FAC § 12847)
- Sets the maximum rate for the mill assessment at 21 mills ($0.021). (FAC § 12841)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
COMMENTS:
Need for the bill: According to the author, "In January 2024, the Governor introduced, as part of his proposed budget, a proposal to increase the mill assessment that supports DPR. This budget proposal is designed to fill a structural deficit with DPR's funding and provide additional funding to support and enhance DPR's core functions. Additionally, the Governor included trailer bill language to implement his budget proposal. I introduced AB 2113 to give the Legislature an opportunity, through the policy committee process, to hear from stakeholders and make further enhancements and refinements to the Governor's proposal to address issues raised by stakeholders and the Legislature. I view this bill as an ongoing dialogue to ensure there is an effective and properly resourced DPR, in order to more effectively carry out its mission."
DPR’s Mission: Since most pesticides are, by design, inherently toxic to their target pest – and excess amounts of any substance may be harmful – pesticide use must be strictly controlled. Amendments to FIFRA have delegated responsibility and authority to states for training, registration, and enforcement through cooperative agreements, with U.S. EPA maintaining oversight responsibility over state programs. In California, these duties lie with DPR, which is housed within the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and has the express mission "to protect human health and the environment by regulating pesticide sales and use, and by fostering reduced-risk pest management."
California’s first laws to regulate pesticides were in response to consumer fraud cases and counterfeit, adulterated, and mislabeled products in the early 1900s. For much of the 20th century, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) was tasked with the regulation of pesticides and related law enforcement. In 1991, CalEPA was established to unify the state’s environmental authority, bringing the Air Resources Board, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Integrated Waste Management Board, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), and DPR under one agency. Pesticide-related statutory responsibilities and authorities were transferred to DPR. Today, CDFA maintains only the analytical pesticide residue laboratory. Structural pesticide control is housed at the Department of Consumer Affairs, and local enforcement lies with CACs, who receive guidance and support from DPR.
DPR’s Structure: In addition to its Administrative Services Division and the Office of Technology Services, DPR maintains the following six programmatic branches that work to fulfill DPR’s responsibilities and goals:
- Pesticide Registration Branch: responsible for the scientific evaluation and registration of pesticide products. Any pesticide product must be registered with the state before its sale, possession, or use. The branch coordinates the required scientific data evaluation process across DPR’s branches and with other relevant state agencies. It also serves as the primary liaison to companies applying to register their products;
- Pest Management and Licensing Branch: evaluates pesticide and pest management problems and awards grants to develop and promote new strategies that reduce adverse environmental effects and hazards from pesticide use in agricultural and non-agricultural settings. This branch oversees, among others, the Pesticide Use Reporting Program, the Licensing and Certification Program, and the School and Child Care IPM Program;
- Human Health Assessment Branch: reviews toxicological studies, prepares risk assessments, and evaluates the adequacy of product labels;
- Worker Health and Safety Branch: evaluates exposure and performs risk assessments to develop and implement mitigation measures that reduce the risk of workers and public exposure to pesticides;
- Environmental Monitoring Branch: monitors the environment to determine the fate of pesticides and analyzes potential hazards in air, soil, and ground and surface water. The branch develops methods for the collection and analysis of environmental samples for pesticides. It also provides environmental monitoring data necessary for emergency eradication projects, environmental contamination assessments, pesticide registration and reevaluation, and human exposure evaluations; and,
- Pesticide Enforcement Branch: enforces federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to proper and safe use of pesticides. The branch has oversight responsibility for pesticide incident investigations, provides guidance to county regulators, trains inspectors, and evaluates the effectiveness of county pesticide use programs. Locally, pesticide use enforcement is largely carried out by CACs and their staff, to whom the Pesticide Enforcement Branch provides training, coordination, and technical support.
Sources of Funding: DPR's main revenue sources are:
- The "mill" assessment: the fee levied on pesticide sales at the point of first sale into the state. This is, by far, the greatest source of revenue for DPR;
- Product registration and renewal fees: annual fee imposed on manufacturers, importers, and dealers who wish to label and sell a pesticide product in the state;
- Licensing and certification fees: fees imposed on people and businesses that sell, apply, or recommend the use of pesticides. This includes examination and licensure of pesticide applicators, aircraft pilots, pest control dealer agents, pest control advisors, and businesses that sell or apply pesticides or use pest control methods or devices for hire. DPR also accredits more than 2,000 continuing education courses;
- Civil penalties;
- Other fees and reimbursements;and,
- Funds from US EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The Mill Fee: All DPR-registered pesticides are subject to the "mill assessment" fee upon sale into the state. A "mill" is one-tenth of a cent ($0.001). The maximum assessment rate is set by statute in FAC sections 12841 and 12841.1, at 21 mills, or 2.1 cents, for every dollar in pesticide sales. An additional 0.75 mill is assessed on agricultural and dual-use products; these revenues support CDFA’s Pesticide Consultation and Analysis Unit. Products registered for manufacturing use only (i.e., sold for repackaging or to manufacture other pesticide products) are exempt from the mill fee; instead, a fee is assessed at the point of sale of the repackaged or completed product.
The mill assessment is self-reported and reporting and payment responsibilities lie with the person or entity with first knowledge of a sale, at the time of sale. Those subject to the fee are required to maintain records and may be audited by DPR. If investigators find sales of unregistered products or unpaid mill assessments, sellers must pay the amount owed and a 10% late penalty. A civil penalty may also be levied. Civil penalties have been set at a maximum of $5,000 since 2000.
Revenues from mill assessment are placed in the DPR Fund, pursuant to FAC section 12841(g), and make up the majority of funding (approximately 80%) available to the DPR's programmatic branches. Importantly, an amount equal to 7.6 mills per dollar of pesticide sales per year is allocated to CACs for local enforcement action.
Through funding allocated to DPR in the 2021-2022 state budget, DPR recently announced a contract with Crowe, LLC to examine the department’s current and future funding structure and make recommendations on how to maintain its pest management programs while also accelerating the transition to more sustainable pest management practices.
Local Enforcement: County Agricultural Commissioners: California’s geographic and population size and the diversity of its agricultural commodities necessitate a more complex partnership between state and local authorities, when compared with any other state in the nation. While DPR is responsible for the delivery of an effective statewide pesticide regulatory program, the legislature has delegated local pesticide use enforcement to CACs.
County boards of supervisors appoint CACs who must be licensed by the state. Numbering approximately 400 in total, CACs and their staff of inspector-biologists receive funding for their enforcement activities from DPR, including the equivalent of 0.76% of all pesticide sales in the state; their respective county governments; grants; fees; fines; and CDFA. CACs are tasked with the enforcement of laws and regulations that cover environmental protection, pest prevention, worker and consumer protection, and other special services. Each year, CACs must negotiate with DPR on a pesticide enforcement work plan that prioritizes worker protection, illness investigations, application of high-toxicity pesticides, and agricultural pesticide applications near parks and schools.
Critically, CACs investigate reports of illnesses and injuries associated with pesticide use. They are also responsible for the inspection of operations and records of growers, non-agricultural pesticide applicators, pest control businesses (agricultural and structural), farm labor contractors, and government agencies to ensure compliance with safety standards and requirements. They further certify private applicators, issue restricted materials permits, train field workers, and conduct public outreach efforts. CAC staff also conduct inspections to prevent pesticide misapplication and drift, ground and surface water contamination, and to protect endangered species and non-target wildlife. If violations are found, CACs can levy civil penalties.
DPR and CACs have broad authority to enter public and private property for enforcement activities such as audits, inspections, investigations, and sample collection for laboratory analysis. DPR and CACs have several enforcement tools at their disposal, including fines; refusal, revocation, or suspension of licenses and certificates; civil and criminal court actions filed through the state Attorney General; cease-and-desist orders and warning letters; crop quarantine, seizure, or abatement; orders to prohibit the harvest of commodities; and others. CACs may also ask local prosecutors to file enforcement actions. DPR attorneys monitor and may help develop case files; prosecute administrative cases; or serve on prosecution teams with country district attorneys or the Attorney General’s office.
2021 Governor's proposed budget: The Governor’s 2021-22 budget included a proposal to increase and tier the mill assessment. Under that proposal, more acutely toxic pesticides would have been charged a higher rate (or tier). The additional funding generated would have been used to address a structural deficit in the DPR Fund and support various programmatic expansions across DPR, CDFA, and CACs. The Legislature rejected the proposal and instead provided General Fund resources of $10.3 million in 2021-22 and $8.8 million in 2022-23 to DPR. The funding provided relief to the DPR Fund and supported alternative pest management grants and outreach, environmental monitoring, and pesticide takeback events hosted by CACs. Budget bill language also directed DPR to use a portion of the funding to hire a consultant to study potential tiering of the mill assessment.
Crowe report: In August 2023, Crowe, Inc. (the independent contractor that DPR hired to conduct the statutorily directed study) released its final findings and recommendations. Among other things, the report recommends:
- That the mill assessment initially be set at a flat rate—such that all pesticides are assessed the same tax rate—increasing from 21 mills to 33.9 mills over a three- to five-year period.
- Allowing the mill assessment to be adjusted up to a cap, to be set in statute.
- That the mill assessment be set at a level sufficient to generate revenues above what is needed to cover the structural deficit, to enable DPR and CACs to address identified programmatic needs at an expanded level, and to provide an additional amount to CDFA to support its pesticide consultation services.
- That DPR revisit the possibility of adopting a tiered mill assessment once it has made progress in identifying priority pesticides pursuant to its SPM Roadmap. Under a tiered model, the state would levy a higher mill assessment on products that the department categorizes as priority pesticides. The report notes that such an approach would likely not incentivize the purchase of safer alternatives, but rather would (1) signal a need for alternatives and (2) generate additional revenues that could be used to support the research of and outreach for alternatives.
Finally, the report also found that DPR’s registration and licensing programs—which are not supported by the mill assessment—have unfunded programmatic needs.
Sustainable Pest Management (SPM): In January 2023, DPR released its SPM Roadmap, which includes strategies to transition the state to safer, more sustainable pest management. Actions in the plan include expediting the registration of new pesticide products, supporting research of and outreach for alternatives to high-risk pesticides, and expanding monitoring and data collection. A key goal of the roadmap is to eliminate the use of "priority pesticides" by 2050. The plan defines priority pesticides as those that warrant attention and planning to expedite their replacement and elimination, but does not list any specific pesticides as falling into this category. The criteria for priority pesticides include factors such as risk level and the availability of effective alternatives. The plan states that DPR will take future steps to identify which pesticides should receive this categorization under the advisement of a multi-stakeholder committee.
2024 Governor's proposed budget: The Governor proposes several changes to increase revenues deposited into the DPR Fund, to generate a total of $30.4 million of new revenues in 2024-25 (growing to $43.9 million in future years). Of this amount, $9.8 million would address the structural deficit and $17.8 million would be used to expand programs and activities (growing to $32.5 million). The increased revenues would be generated by: (1) increasing the mill assessment ($22.1 million in 2024-25, growing to $33.8 million), (2) increasing registration fees through regulations ($6.3 million in 2024-25, growing to $7.2 million), and (3) increasing licensing fees through regulations ($2 million in 2024-25, growing to $2.9 million). The proposal also would provide $717,000 from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund on an ongoing basis to support additional programmatic expansions for the department.
Budget proposal includes several policy changes: The Governor proposes budget trailer legislation that would make several changes. Among other things, the trailer bill language:
- Changes mill assessment payer responsibility. The proposal would require the mill assessment to be paid by the entity that first sells a pesticide into the state. This contrasts with current law, under which it is paid by the entity who has registered the pesticide. DPR indicates that this change would address payment responsibility issues related to online retail and align the mill assessment with how the state collects other fees and taxes.
- Extends the statute of limitations for mill assessment payment violations found in audits. The proposal would extend the current statute of limitations for DPR to take enforcement actions when audits reveal mill assessment payment violations. Currently, DPR must bring enforcement actions within four years of the occurrence of the violation. The proposal would allow DPR to bring enforcement actions on violations that have occurred within four years of the audit’s commencement, but no later than two years after the audit’s completion. DPR indicates that this extended time line would better reflect the period it needs to complete audits and take
corresponding enforcement actions.
- Extends the statute of limitations for pesticide use violations. Currently, enforcement actions on pesticide use violations must be brought by DPR or CACs within two years of the occurrence of the violation. The proposal would extend this time line to three years. DPR indicates that this change would better reflect the time needed to investigate and bring enforcement actions for pesticide use violations.
- Authorizes DPR to enforce California’s laws on out-of-state pesticide dealers. The proposal would authorize DPR to levy administrative penalties of up to $15,000 on violations related to pesticide dealers, such as when entities act in this role without a license. Currently, the authority to levy administrative penalties related to pesticide dealers resides solely with CACs. DPR indicates taking enforcement actions on out-of-state pesticide dealers would be a more appropriate role to assign to the state, since the primary role of CACs is to be the main enforcement authorities within their jurisdictions.
- Exempts emergency pesticide use authorizations from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. CEQA requires state and local agencies to consider the potential environmental impacts associated with potential public or private projects or activities. Federal law authorizes the US EPA to allow federal and state agencies (such as DPR) to permit the unregistered use of a pesticide to address emergency conditions. For example, this might occur when no other registered pesticides are available to control a serious pest problem that would result in significant economic losses or cause adverse environmental impacts. These emergency authorizations are only permitted for a limited time within a defined geographical area and usually involve pesticides that have been registered for other uses (such as for different crops). The proposal would exempt such emergency pesticide use authorizations from requiring a CEQA review.
Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) review of Governor's 2024 budget proposal: In its review of the Governor 2024 mill fee budget proposal, the LAO made the following determinations:
"Increasing Mill Assessment Is Justified. Overall, we find two key justifications for the state to increase the mill assessment. First, it has not been increased since 2004. Given the considerable amount of time since its last adjustment, an increase is warranted to ensure that it both aligns with current department expenditures and is able to support new state priorities related to pesticides going forward. Second, increasing the mill assessment to support these activities aligns with the "polluter pays" principle, whereby those who produce or otherwise contribute to pollution (such as environmental impacts from pesticides) should bear the associated regulatory costs of managing and preventing damage to public health and the environment.
However, Legislative Priorities Should Also Be Incorporated. While we find the administration’s proposed programmatic augmentations to be reasonable, they do not represent the only options for expanding DPR’s activities. The Legislature has an important opportunity now to determine (1) the scope of activities it wants DPR to conduct, (2) the associated level of resources required, and (3) the corresponding level at which the mill assessment should be set. This could involve removing or refining activities proposed by the Governor or adding activities that are legislative priorities. Ensuring that legislative priorities are reflected is particularly important given the opportunity that adjusting taxes and fees provides in setting the state’s overall goals for pesticide regulation and ensuring they are well supported. Depending on the actions taken, modifying planned programmatic augmentations could result in higher or lower increases to the mill assessment and registration and licensing fees than proposed by the Governor. Potential categories of modifications the Legislature could consider include:
Funding for SPM Roadmap Activities. The Governor’s proposal would use funding to support activities outlined in the department’s SPM Roadmap—such as identifying priority pesticides and expediting the registration of reduced-risk pesticides. While these activities could provide some benefits, we note that the SPM Roadmap is an administration-led initiative. The Legislature may wish to consider whether it agrees that these are worthwhile activities for DPR to undertake and whether any statutory guidance might be needed to further align the proposed actions with its own priorities.
Funding for CACs. A central component of the proposal is to ensure that sufficient state resources are provided to uphold pesticide laws and regulations. While the Governor’s proposal includes additional enforcement funding for DPR, it does not augment funding for CACs’ enforcement activities. This diverges from the recommendation made in the independent contractor’s report, which identified a $10.2 million funding need for CACs. We also note that the last time the state raised the mill assessment, the portion provided to CACs was also increased. While current allotments could be sufficient, this is an important opportunity for the Legislature to ensure that CACs are properly resourced to effectively complete their statutorily required enforcement activities.
Recently Chaptered Legislation. The proposal does not provide resources to implement recently chaptered legislation—such as for Chapter 662 of 2023 (AB 652, Lee), which requires DPR to convene an environmental justice committee. This omission is consistent with the administration’s overall approach in the Governor’s budget, which mostly excludes augmentations related to implementing recently chaptered legislation. (The administration indicates it will consider including such resources as part of the May Revision depending on the overall budget condition.) However, given the important opportunity the Legislature has right now to set DPR’s scope of work and corresponding funding needs, it is a key juncture for considering whether all of its desired activities are included—particularly those already enacted into law by the Legislature and Governor."
Stakeholder input: Since the introduction of the Governor's DPR budget proposal and this bill, many stakeholders have reached out and provided input on potential changes to the Governor's proposal and this bill. Below is a summary of the input received regarding the Governor's proposal and AB 2113:
- Pesticide registration: entities that register pesticides believe the current registration process is too slow and unpredictable. They would like more predictability as to when the registration of a pesticide would be completed, including seeking statutory deadlines that DPR would need to meet, as part of the pesticide registration process. Additionally, various stakeholders would like DPR to not only streamline the registration process, but also provide for an expedited review for pesticides that pose a reduced risk, potentially including those pesticides that are organic.
- Pesticide registration fee: DPR's budget proposal includes positions for DPR that would be funded from an increase in the pesticide registration fee, which DPR can administratively increase through the regulatory process. Stakeholders that pay this fee would prefer the registration fee be moved into statute and only raised by future statutory changes.
- Re-evaluation of pesticides: Environmental justice and environmental stakeholders are concerned that DPR's re-evaluation process is slow and not publicly transparent. DPR has re-evaluated approximately five pesticides since 1991 and is currently re-evaluating five pesticides (some of which have been under re-evaluation for 20 years). In comparison, DPR registers hundreds of pesticides a month. These stakeholders would like to see DPR move more efficiently with re-evaluations, to include initiating more re-evaluations and completing them in a timely manner. The stakeholders are also concerned that the current process is vague and not transparent. For example, stakeholders say that they are not sure if there is a particular reason or rationale that DPR uses to select a pesticide for re-evaluation, that they are unsure of DPR's process,; and that they must wait for years for updates or action on DPR's re-evaluations.
- Mill Fee: Some stakeholders believe the mill fee proposed by DPR is too low, they believe it should at least be set at the rate recommended in the Crowe study. Additionally these stakeholders do not think there should be a cap, and that DPR should be able to adjust the fee in the future to match resources that are approved in the annual budget. However, other stakeholders believe the fee is set too high, and that the increases proposed over the three year phase-in are too high in the first year. Additionally, these stakeholders think the fee increases should stop after the third year increase and that future increases in the mill fee should happen only through statute.
- Transparency: Virtually all stakeholders think DPR's program could benefit from added transparency, both through the pesticide registration process and the continuous evaluation process.
- SPM and IPM: Some stakeholders would like the mill fee proposal to have a greater emphasis on both SPM and IPM, including additional funding (beyond what is in the Governor's proposal) for SPM.
- Research grants: Many stakeholders signaled a concern with DPR's current process for funding research. This includes a concern that the research is not connected to publicly stated goals such as SPM, IPM, or seeking alternatives to pesticides that pose a higher risk.
- Funding for DPR: All stakeholders either support or acknowledge that DPR's funding has not increased significantly over a couple of decades and that if the funding improves DPR's programs, that some level of increase is needed.
This bill: AB 2113 increases, over a three period, the mill assessment (a fee on the sale of all pesticides sold into the state), in order to resolve a deficit in DPR's funding and support, in some cases, an expansion of DPR's programs. In addition, AB 2113 proposes policy changes that reflect input from multiple stakeholders. These proposals are intended to advance further conversations among stakeholders, the Legislature, and the Administration.
Issues under development: As noted, this bill is not a finished product, rather a vehicle for further input. Issues to be addressed in the near future include the amount of the mill fee, added transparency and accountability around both the pesticide registration process and the re-evaluation process, the role of SPM and IPM, and the focus of DPR funded research.
Arguments in support: According to a coalition of environmental, environmental health, and environmental justice organizations writing in support if amended:
"Implementing AB 2113 and increasing the pesticide mill fee would be an important step towards addressing these ongoing harms from chemical pesticides. However, the undersigned organizations recommend the following amendments in order to fully protect the public from the health impacts of pesticides:
- Maintain strong definitions while increasing the ambition of Sustainable Pest Management (SPM) adoption and add $20 million ongoing annual funding from the pesticide mill fee to establish an SPM Incentive Program;
- Include timelines for completing pesticide re-evaluations;
- Expedite only organic or biological pesticides for registration;
- Align mill fee increase with Crowe study’s recommended fee increase; and,
- Propose actions for when monitoring detects unsafe pesticide exposure levels."
Arguments in opposition: According to a coalition comprised of organizations representing the agricultural and consumer products sectors writing oppose unless amended:
"…AB 2113 currently does not provide specific detail and accountability requirements to ensure these additional resources address well-defined needs and will result in meaningful, measurable improvements in core program implementation. Below are a series of responses to the amendments as provided on April 11th:
- Registration Transparency: Both DPR’s [budget change proposal] and AB 2113 lack critical transparency requirements about how the proposals conform to core statutory functions. Unfortunately, lack of transparency in departmental activities for fee payers is not a new phenomenon. We ask AB 2113 be amended to require annual reporting by DPR of registration timelines with specific information;
- Fee Transparency: Likewise, we appreciate the requirement for DPR to provide public notice by January 31st each year if they are considering raising registration or licensing fees. This coalition remains strongly opposed to granting DPR the authority to raise the mill beyond the 2026-27 budget year;
- Re-evaluations: Related to the mandates on reevaluations, this coalition would like to express concern. While we understand the new amendment was included to direct the Department to work more concertedly on reevaluation, the mandate to initiate reevaluation on two pesticides per year is without context and will result in a significant new workload. This coalition requests this mandate be removed.
- Mill Assessment: While we appreciate AB 2113 proposes the smallest increase first to lessen the initial impact on the taxpayers, our coalition asks that you eliminate the delegation of tax authority to DPR by striking SEC. 6. Section 12841 (f)(1)(D). If the Department would like additional resources above and beyond a 28% increase by year three, as proposed, they should return to the Legislature, provide a budget proposal of what activities they seek to fund and daylight any policy debate; and,
- Registration and licensing fees: We are seeking a statutory cap on registration fees and elimination of the emergency regulatory authority, to ensure DPR completes a robust and thorough stakeholder process which provides registrants ample time to budget for registration increases.
While we maintain these concerns, we support a strong DPR. We believe it is possible to achieve a balance between reasonable tax and fee increases, with improved services and transparency by DPR."
Related legislation:
1) AB 363 (Bauer-Kahan, Chapter 520, Statutes of 2023). Prohibits, beginning January 1, 2025, the sale, possession, or use of a pesticide containing one or more neonicotinoid pesticides, as defined, for any nonagricultural use on nonproduction outdoor or ornamental plants, trees, or turf, except by state certified applicators and state licensed pest control dealers. Requires DPR to evaluate the potential impacts of neonicotinoid pesticide uses on pollinating insects, aquatic ecosystems, and human health, as specified.
2) AB 652 (Lee, Chapter 662, Statutes of 2023). Establishes a Department of Pesticide Regulation Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (EJ Advisory Committee) to integrate environmental justice considerations into DPR’s programs, policies, decision making, and activities.
3) AB 1016 (Jones-Sawyer, Chapter 354, Statutes of 2023). Establishes a private applicator designation under the unmanned pest control aircraft pilot's certificate. Requires proof of the pilot's completion of a program accredited by DPR as well as a valid private applicator certificate in order to be eligible for the unmanned pest control aircraft pilot's certificate under the status of private applicator.
4) AB 1322 (Friedman, Chapter 836, Statutes of 2023). Prohibits the use of the rodenticide diphacinone in wildlife habitat areas, as defined, and prohibits the use of diphacinone in the state until DPR has completed a reevaluation and developed and adopted further restrictions on its use, as specified. Makes changes to existing restrictions on the use of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides consistent with those placed on diphacinone.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support if Amended & Support
Alchemist CDC
California Food and Farming Network
California Nurses for Environmental Health & Justice
Californians for Pesticide Reform
Center for Biological Diversity
Center for Food Safety; the
Central California Environmental Justice Network
Ceres Community Project
Clean Earth 4 Kids
Clean Water Action
Community Alliance With Family Farmers
Environmental Working Group
Facts: Families Advocating for Chemical & Toxics Safety
Jaide Conservation Collective, LLC
Pesticide Action Network North America
Physicians for Social Responsibility - Los Angeles
Roots of Change
Sacramento Food Policy Council
Second Harvest of Silicon Valley
Socioenvironmental and Education Network (SEEN)
The Praxis Project
Veggielution
California Pool & Spa Association (SUPPORT)
Opposition
Agricultural Council of California
Almond Alliance of California
American Chemistry Council
American Pistachio Growers
Association of California Egg Farmers
California Agricultural Aircraft Association
California Apple Commission
California Association of Pest Control Advisers
California Association of Wheat Growers
California Association of Winegrape Growers
California Bean Shippers Association
California Blueberry Association
California Blueberry Commission
California Chamber of Commerce
California Cotton Ginners & Growers Association
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Fresh Fruit Association
California Grain and Feed Association
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Pear Growers
California Seed Association
California Strawberry Commission
California Tomato Growers Association
California Walnuts
California Women for Agriculture
Grower-shipper Association of Central California
Household and Commercial Products Association
Nisei Farmers League
Olive Growers Council of California
Pest Control Operators of California
Tri Cal
Western Agricultural Processors Association
Western Growers Association
Western Plant Health Association
Analysis Prepared by: Josh Tooker / E.S. & T.M. /
Discussed in Hearing
3MIN
Assembly Floor
5MIN
Senate Floor
2MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations
14MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture
18MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality
10MIN
Assembly Floor
20MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials
Bill Author
Bill Co-Author(s):