(1) Existing law prohibits a person from using or operating, or assisting in using or operating, a boat, aircraft, net, trap, line, or other appliance to take fish for commercial purposes unless the person holds a commercial fishing license issued by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Existing law generally requires any person who engages in any business for profit involving fish to have a commercial fish business license issued by the department, and requires specialty licenses for specified classes of fish business. Existing law requires all fish taken or otherwise dealt with under the law to be exhibited upon demand to any person authorized by the department to enforce any law relating to the protection and conservation of fish. A violation of the Fish and Game Code or a regulation adopted pursuant to the code is a crime. This bill would require a person who holds a commercial fishing license or a commercial fish business license, upon request of an authorized agent or employee of the department, to immediately relinquish, at no charge, fish or parts of fish caught or landed in California to the department for the purpose of collecting a biological sample. Because a violation of this provision would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law requires the Ocean Protection Council to make a grant, upon appropriation of funding by the Legislature, for the development and administration of a Dungeness crab task force. Under existing law, the task force is comprised of 21 voting members and 6 nonvoting members, with the voting members representing various fishing and crab processing interests. Existing law requires the task force, among other things, to make recommendations on various topics and requires these recommendations to be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Fish and Game Commission upon an affirmative vote of at least 23 of the task force members. Existing law also authorizes a proposed recommendation of the Dungeness crab task force regarding a modification to the Dungeness crab trap limit program to be transmitted to the Director of Fish and Wildlife and the Legislature if the recommendation receives an affirmative vote of at least 15 of the non-ex officio members of the Dungeness crab task force. This bill would revise the vote threshold for these purposes by requiring an affirmative vote of at least 23 of the voting members of the task force to forward or transmit a recommendation. (3) Existing law prohibits a person from using a vessel to take, possess, or land Dungeness crab for commercial purposes using Dungeness crab traps without a Dungeness crab vessel permit. Existing law prohibits the transfer of a Dungeness crab vessel permit except under certain circumstances. Existing law authorizes, upon written approval of the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the owner of a vessel to whom a Dungeness crab vessel permit has been issued to retain that permit upon the sale of that permitted vessel for the purpose of transferring the permit to another vessel to be purchased by that individual within one year of the time of sale of the vessel for which the permit was originally issued if certain requirements are satisfied. This bill would delete the requirement that the vessel to which the permit will be transferred be purchased by that individual within one year of the time of sale of the vessel for which the permit was originally issued, and would provide that if the permit is not transferred to a new vessel within one year of the sale of the permitted vessel, the permit shall become void by operation of law. Existing law authorizes, in the event of loss or destruction of a vessel for which a Dungeness crab vessel permit was issued, or serious damage that renders the vessel inoperable, and upon written approval of the department, the owner of the vessel to whom the permit was issued to retain the permit and to transfer the permit to another equivalent vessel during the period of 2 years after the loss or damage of the vessel for which the permit was originally issued. Existing law provides that, if the permit is not permanently transferred to another vessel owned by the person to whom the vessel permit was originally issued within 2 years of the loss or damage, the permit shall become void by operation of law. This bill would delete the requirement that the vessel to which the permit will be transferred be owned by the person to whom the vessel permit was originally issued. (4) Existing law prohibits a person from taking, possessing onboard, or landing Dungeness crab for commercial purposes from a vessel in any ocean waters for 30 days after the opening of those waters for the commercial Dungeness crab fishing season if the opening of the season for those waters has been delayed and the same vessel was used to take, possess onboard, or land Dungeness crab for commercial purposes, from ocean waters outside of the delayed waters, before the opening of the delayed waters for the season. This law is commonly referred to as "fair start." Existing law specifies the circumstances in which a delay has occurred for the purposes of the fair start law. Existing law requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife, on or before November 1, 2020, to adopt regulations establishing criteria and protocols to evaluate and respond to potential risk of marine life entanglement, as prescribed. Upon the effective date of these regulations, existing law authorizes the Director of Fish and Wildlife to restrict the take of Dungeness crab pursuant to the criteria and protocols. This bill would specify that a delay in the opening of waters implemented pursuant to these criteria and protocols or a delay in the opening of waters in Oregon or Washington by a closure to prevent a risk of marine life entanglement constitutes a delay for purposes of the fair start law. (5) Existing law authorizes crab traps to be set and baited 64 hours prior to the opening date of the Dungeness crab season in Fish and Game Districts 6, 7, 8, and 9. Existing law also authorizes crab traps to be set and baited in advance of that opening date in those districts if no other attempt is made to take or possess Dungeness crab in those districts. Existing law also provides, except in Fish and Game Districts 6, 7, 8, and 9, that crab traps may be set and baited 18 hours in advance of the opening date of the Dungeness crab season if no other attempt is made to take or possess Dungeness crab. This bill would instead authorize crab traps to be set and baited 64 hours before the opening date of the Dungeness crab season regardless of the Fish and Game District. The bill would also make conforming changes. (6) Existing state law, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, makes it unlawful to manufacture, sell, deliver, hold, or offer for sale adulterated food. Existing law prescribes when a food is adulterated, including if it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance that may render it injurious to the health of a person or other animal that may consume it. Existing law makes a violation of the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law or a regulation adopted pursuant to that law a misdemeanor. Existing law authorizes the Director of Fish and Wildlife to order the closure of any waters or otherwise restrict the taking in state waters of any species of fish if the Director of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, in consultation with the State Public Health Officer, determines that the species or subspecies of fish is likely to pose a human health risk from high levels of toxic substances. Existing law requires the Director of Fish and Wildlife, upon receiving notification from the Director of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment that a human health risk no longer exists and a request to reopen those waters, to reopen those waters in a manner that promotes a fair and orderly fishery. A violation of the Fish and Game Code or a regulation adopted pursuant to the code is a crime. This bill would authorize a fishing vessel to transit closed waters in possession of species where take is otherwise restricted pursuant to those provisions if the vessel adheres to electronic monitoring requirements specified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The bill would require the State Department of Public Health to issue an order authorizing the evisceration, as defined, of Dungeness crab or rock crab if the domoic acid for Dungeness crab or rock crab exceeds the allowable levels for viscera in certain areas when specified criteria exist. The bill would require the State Department of Public Health to only authorize the evisceration of Dungeness crab or rock crab by a licensed processor, as defined, that also has a Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point plan approved by the State Department of Public Health for handling and preparing eviscerated crab. The bill would require the State Department of Public Health to collect from a processor a fee of $350 for the cost of reviewing the processor's Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point plan for handling and preparing eviscerated crab, to be deposited in the Food Safety Fund for expenditure by the State Department of Public Health, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the costs of reviewing the plans. The bill would also require the State Department of Public Health to establish labeling requirements for eviscerated crab, as specified, and to require the processor to maintain written recall procedures. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the State Department of Public Health to consult with the Dungeness crab task force or a successor task force or committee to establish the criteria for the manufacture, sale, delivery, holding, or offering for sale of Dungeness crab or rock crab caught in areas subject to an evisceration order by the State Department of Public Health. The bill would require the State Department of Public Health to publish notice of the proposed criteria, as specified, and make the criteria effective by operation of law as regulations 90 days after the notice is published. Because a violation of these regulations would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize the Director of Fish and Wildlife, in accordance with specified requirements, to open waters that are otherwise restricted for the commercial take of Dungeness crab or rock crab during a time period when the State Department of Public Health authorizes the manufacture, sale, delivery, holding, or offering for sale of eviscerated Dungeness crab or rock crab pursuant to the above-described provisions. The bill would require the holder of a Dungeness crab vessel permit or rock crab permit to submit to electronic monitoring of the vessel while engaged in the take of Dungeness crab or rock crab, as specified. The bill would authorize a person who takes Dungeness crab or rock crab to sell or provide the Dungeness crab or rock crab only to a processor licensed and approved by the State Department of Public Health, as specified. The bill would require the Director of Fish and Wildlife, when evisceration procedures established pursuant to the bill are no longer in effect, to lift related restrictions in a manner that promotes a fair and orderly fishery. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (7) 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 a specified reason. (8) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Sponsored bills
Existing law imposes various limitations on the emissions of air contaminants for the control of air pollution from vehicular and nonvehicular sources. Existing law assigns the responsibility for controlling vehicular sources of air pollution to the State Air Resources Board. This bill would require the state board, by July 1, 2022, consistent with federal law, to adopt cost-effective and technologically feasible regulations to prohibit engine exhaust and evaporative emissions from new small off-road engines, as defined by the state board. The bill would require the state board to identify and, to the extent feasible, make available funding for commercial rebates or similar incentive funding as part of any updates to existing applicable funding program guidelines to local air pollution control districts and air quality management districts to implement to support the transition to zero-emission small off-road equipment operations.
(1) The Alcoholic Beverage Control Act contains various provisions regulating the application for, the issuance of, the suspension of, and the conditions imposed upon alcoholic beverage licenses by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Existing law generally provides that a violation of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act is a misdemeanor. Existing law authorizes the issuance of a caterer's permit, upon application to the department, to a licensee under an on-sale general license, an on-sale beer and wine license, a club license, or a veterans' club license, that authorizes the holder of the permit to sell alcoholic beverages at specified locations and events, including, among others, conventions, sporting events, and trade exhibits. Under existing law, licensees are required to first obtain consent from the department for sales of alcoholic beverages at each event in the form of a catering or event authorization. The department, pursuant to its powers and in furtherance of emergency declarations and orders of the Governor under the California Emergency Services Act regarding the spread of the COVID-19 virus, has prescribed temporary relief measures to suspend certain legal restrictions relating to, among other things, the expansion of a licensed footprint, sales of alcoholic beverages to-go, and delivery privileges. This bill would prohibit the issuance of a catering authorization for use at any one premises for more than 36 events in one calendar year, except as specified. This bill would authorize the department, for a period of 365 days following the end of the state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor on March 4, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, to permit licensees to exercise license privileges in an expanded license area authorized pursuant to a COVID-19 Temporary Catering Authorization approved in accordance with the Fourth Notice of Regulatory Relief issued by the department, as specified. The bill would also authorize the department to extend the period of time during which the COVID-19 Temporary Catering Authorization is valid beyond 365 days if the licensee has filed a pending application with the department for the permanent expansion of their premises before the 365-day time period expires. The bill would make these provisions effective only until July 1, 2024, and repeal them as of that date. (2) Existing law, with exceptions, prohibits a licensee from having, upon the licensed premises, any alcoholic beverages other than the alcoholic beverage that the licensee is authorized to sell at the premises under their license, and makes a violation of this prohibition punishable as a misdemeanor. This bill would, as an exception to that prohibition, authorize a licensed manufacturer to share a common licensed area with multiple licensed retailers, subject to specified provisions, including, but not limited to, that (A) a licensee sharing the common licensed area with a licensed manufacturer is prohibited from selling or serving any alcoholic beverages that are manufactured, produced, bottled, processed, imported, rectified, distributed, represented, or sold by the manufacturer, as provided, (B) the licensed manufacturer may, in connection with the operation of the shared common area only, advertise or promote the common licensed area, provided that each retailer pays its pro rata share of the costs of such advertising or promotion, as specified, (C) no thing of value may be given or furnished by the manufacturer to the retailers, except as specified, (D) the manufacturer may have on the area of its licensed premises that encompass the shared common licensed area alcoholic beverages that would not otherwise be permitted on the manufacturer's licensed premises, as provided, (E) all licensees sharing the common licensed area are required to hold the same license type retailers, (F) all licensees holding licenses within the shared common licensed area are jointly responsible for compliance with all laws that may subject their license to discipline, and (G) the manufacturer maintains records necessary to establish its compliance, as specified. (3) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law requires a city, county, or city and county to administratively approve an application to install an electric vehicle charging station through the issuance of a building permit or similar nondiscretionary permit subject to a limited review by the building official of that city, county, or city and county. Existing law allows the building official to require the applicant to apply for a use permit if the official finds that the station could have a specific adverse impact upon the public health or safety and prohibits the city, county, or city and county from denying the application for a use permit to install an electric vehicle charging station unless it makes written findings that the proposed installation would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. Existing law requires every city, county, and city and county to create an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations and to adopt a checklist pursuant to which an application that satisfies the information requirements in that checklist shall be deemed complete and therefore eligible for expedited review. This bill would clarify that these provisions apply to all cities, including charter cities. This bill would require an application to install an electric vehicle charging station to be deemed complete if, either 5 business days or 10 business days after the application was submitted, depending on the number of electric vehicle charging stations proposed in the application, the city, county, or city and county has not deemed the application to be incomplete or issued a written correction notice detailing all deficiencies in the application, as specified. The bill would require an application to install an electric vehicle charging station to be deemed approved if 20 business days or 40 business days after the application was deemed complete, depending on the number of electric vehicle charging stations proposed in the application, (1) the city, county, or city and county has not approved the application, (2) the building official has not made a finding that the proposed installation could have an adverse impact upon the public health or safety or required the applicant to apply for a use permit, (3) the building official has not denied the permit, and (4) an appeal has not been made to the planning commission of the city, county, or city and county, as specified. The bill would provide that these requirements do not expand or restrict the role or responsibility of a local publicly owned electric utility in providing new electric service to an electric vehicle charging station in a manner consistent with safety, reliability, and engineering requirements. The bill would require a city, county, or city and county to reduce the number of required parking spaces to accommodate the electric vehicle charging station, as specified. This bill's provisions would become operative on January 1, 2022, but for every city, county, or city and county with a population of less than 200,000 residents, the bill's provisions would apply beginning on January 1, 2023. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
The Trial Jury Selection and Management Act requires all persons be selected for jury service at random, from a source or sources inclusive of a representative cross section of the population of the area served by the court. The act further requires a juror in a civil or criminal superior court case to be paid a fee of $15 a day for each day's attendance as a juror after the first day, except as specified, plus reimbursement for mileage. This bill would, notwithstanding these payment provisions, authorize the Superior Court of San Francisco, in conjunction with the City and County of San Francisco and their justice partners, as defined, to conduct a pilot program to analyze and determine whether paying certain low-income trial jurors $100 per day for each day they are required to report for service as a trial juror in a criminal case promotes a more economically and racially diverse trial jury panel that more accurately reflects the demographics of the community. The bill would require the pilot program court to be developed and implemented at no cost to the Superior Court of San Francisco and to only fund the $100 fee using funding provided by The Financial Justice Project of the City and County of San Francisco. The bill would require the pilot program court to collect data self-reported by jurors who receive the increased fee and would require the pilot program court and its justice partners to select a third-party entity to prepare an analysis and report of that data and conclusion about the pilot program without any cost to the pilot program court. The bill would require the pilot program court to terminate the pilot program on or before December 31, 2023, or at any time it determines the increased financial reimbursement is causing prejudice to the rights of litigants or the interests of justice. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2025. The bill would also make related findings and declarations.
Existing law authorizes a court, within 120 days after sentencing the defendant or at any time upon a recommendation from the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Board of Parole Hearings, the district attorney, to recall an inmate's sentence and resentence that inmate to a lesser sentence. Existing law requires the court, when resentencing, to apply the rules of the Judicial Council to eliminate disparity of sentences and promote uniformity of sentencing. Existing law authorizes a court to reduce a defendant's term of imprisonment and modify the judgment if it is in the interest of justice. This bill would require the court to state its reasons for a resentencing decision on the record, as specified. The bill would require the court to provide notice to the defendant, set a status conference within 30 days of the receipt of the request, and appoint counsel for the defendant. The bill would authorize the court to grant a resentencing without a hearing, if the parties are in agreement. The bill would additionally create a presumption favoring recall and resentencing the defendant in those hearings, as specified. By requiring the court to appoint counsel for the defendant, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1170 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 124 and SB 567 to be operative only if this bill and AB 124 and SB 567 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1170.03 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 124 to be operative only if this bill and AB 124 are enacted, without regard to chaptering. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
(1) Existing law establishes various default speed limits for vehicles upon highways, as specified. Existing law authorizes state and local authorities to adjust these default speed limits, as specified, based upon certain findings determined by an engineering and traffic survey. Existing law defines an engineering and traffic survey and prescribes specified factors that must be included in the survey, including prevailing speeds and road conditions. Existing law authorizes local authorities to consider additional factors, including pedestrian and bicyclist safety. This bill would authorize local authorities to consider the safety of vulnerable pedestrian groups, as specified. (2) Existing law establishes a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour on any highway, other than a state highway, located in any business or residence district, as defined. Existing law authorizes a local authority to change the speed limit on any such highway, as prescribed, including erecting signs to give notice thereof. This bill would establish a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour on state highways located in any business or residence district and would authorize the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to change the speed limit on any such highway, as prescribed, including erecting signs to give notice thereof. (3) Existing law establishes a speed limit of 65 miles per hour on state highways, as specified. Existing law authorizes Caltrans to declare a speed limit on any such highway, as prescribed, of 60, 55, 50, 45, 40, 35, 30, or 25 miles per hour, including erecting signs to give notice thereof. Existing law also authorizes a local authority, on a section of highway, other than a state highway, where the speed limit is 65 miles per hour to declare a lower speed limit, as specified. This bill would additionally authorize Caltrans and a local authority to declare a speed limit of 20 or 15 miles per hour, as specified, on these highways. (4) Existing law authorizes a local authority, without an engineering and traffic survey, to declare a lowered speed limit on portions of highway, as specified, approaching a school building or school grounds. Existing law limits this authority to sections of highway meeting specified requirements relating to the number of lanes and the speed limit of the highway before the school zone. This bill would similarly authorize a lowered speed limit on a section of highway contiguous to a business activity district, as defined, and would require that certain violations be subject to a warning citation, for the first 30 days of implementation. (5) Existing law requires Caltrans, by regulation, to provide for the rounding up or down to the nearest 5 miles per hour increment of the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic on a portion of highway as determined by a traffic and engineering survey. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to create and implement an online tool by June 30, 2024, for the adjudication of traffic infractions, among other things. This bill would authorize a local authority to further reduce the speed limit, as specified, and require that certain violations be subject to a warning citation, for the first 30 days of implementation. The bill would, in some circumstances, authorize the reduction of a speed limit beginning June 30, 2024, or when the Judicial Council has developed an online tool for adjudicating traffic infraction violations, whichever is sooner. The bill would require Caltrans to accordingly revise the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, as specified. (6) Existing law defines a speed trap and prohibits evidence of a driver's speed obtained through a speed trap from being admissible in court in any prosecution against a driver for a speed-related offense. Existing law deems a road where the speed limit is not justified by a traffic and engineering survey conducted within the previous 7 years to be a speed trap, unless the roadway has been evaluated by a registered engineer, as specified, in which case the speed limit remains enforceable for a period of 10 years. Existing law exempts a school zone, as defined, from certain provisions relating to defining a speed trap. This bill would extend the period that a speed limit justified by a traffic and engineering survey conducted more the 7 years ago remains valid, for purposes of speed enforcement, if evaluated by a registered engineer, as specified, to 14 years. This bill would also exempt a senior zone and business activity district, as defined, from those provisions.
Existing law defines a "hate crime" as a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of actual or perceived characteristics of the victim, including, among other things, race, religion, disability, and sexual orientation. Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to develop guidelines and a course of instruction and training for law enforcement officers addressing hate crimes. Existing law requires state law enforcement agencies to adopt a framework or other formal policy created by POST regarding hate crimes. Existing law requires any local law enforcement agency that adopts or updates a hate crime policy to include specified information in that policy, including information on bias motivation. This bill would include a statement of legislative findings and declarations and require the basic course curriculum on the topic of hate crimes to be developed in consultation with subject matter experts, as specified. The bill would, subject to an appropriation of funds for this purpose in the annual Budget Act or other statute, require POST to update the basic course to include the viewing of a specified video course developed by POST. The bill would also require POST to make the video available via the online learning portal, and would require all peace officers to complete specified training materials no later than one year after the commission makes the updated course available. The bill would require POST to develop and periodically update an interactive course on hate crimes for in-service peace officers, and require officers to take the course every 6 years. This bill would also require any local law enforcement agency that adopts or updates a hate crime policy to include specified information on recognizing religion-bias hate crimes, and would require those policies to include the discriminatory selection of victims as a form of bias motivation.
Existing law provides for the implementation of the resource family approval process, which replaces the multiple processes for licensing foster family homes, certifying foster homes by foster family agencies, approving relatives and nonrelative extended family members as foster care providers, and approving guardians and adoptive families. Existing law defines a resource family as an individual or family who has successfully met both the home environment assessment standards and permanency assessment criteria, as specified, necessary for providing care for a child placed by a public or private child placement agency by court order, or voluntarily placed by a parent or legal guardian. Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services to adopt standards pertaining to the home environment and permanency assessments of a resource family according to specified standards, including that the total number of children residing in the home of a resource family be no more than the total number of children the resource family can properly care for, regardless of status, and may not exceed 6 children, except as specified. Existing law states the intent of the Legislature for siblings to be placed in foster care together, unless it has been determined that placement together is contrary to the safety or well-being of any sibling, and requires the responsible local agency to make a diligent effort in all out-of-home placements of dependent children and wards in foster care, including those with relatives, to place siblings together in the same placement, and to develop and maintain sibling relationships. Existing law requires the court to suspend sibling interaction if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that sibling interaction is detrimental to the well-being of any of the siblings. This bill would prohibit the physical capacity of the home from being the sole reason to deny placement of a sibling group if each child in the home has an age-appropriate place to sleep and there are no other safety risks. The bill would repeal an obsolete requirement on the department to provide specified recommendations and would make conforming changes consistent with the implementation of the resource family approval process. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 16519.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code proposed by SB 354 and SB 584 to be operative only if this bill and SB 354, this bill and SB 584, or all 3 bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law prohibits the manufacture, sale, or distribution in commerce of any toy or child care article, as defined, that contains phthalates exceeding a specified percentage. Existing law prohibits the manufacture, sale, or distribution in commerce of any bottle or cup that contains bisphenol A, above a specified detectable level, if the bottle or cup is designed or intended to be filled with any liquid, food, or beverage intended primarily for consumption from that bottle or cup by children 3 years of age or younger. Existing law, beginning January 1, 2025, prohibits the manufacture, sale, delivery, hold, or offer for sale in commerce of any cosmetic product that contains any of several specified intentionally added ingredients, such as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) , except under specified circumstances. This bill would prohibit, beginning January 1, 2023, any person from distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state any food packaging that contains regulated perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS, as defined. The bill would require a manufacturer to use the least toxic alternative when replacing regulated perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS in food packaging to comply with this requirement. The bill would define "food packaging," in part, to mean a nondurable package, packaging component, or food service ware that is comprised, in substantial part, of paper, paperboard, or other materials originally derived from plant fibers. This bill would require, beginning January 1, 2024, a manufacturer, as defined, of cookware, as defined, sold in the state that contains one or more intentionally added chemicals, as defined, present on a designated list, as defined, in the handle of the product or in any product surface that comes into contact with food, foodstuffs, or beverages to list the presence of those chemicals on the product label, as defined, and include a statement on the product label and on the product listing for online sales, in both English and Spanish, regarding how a consumer can obtain more information about the chemicals in the cookware, as provided. The bill would exclude cookware that meets specified conditions from the product label requirement, but would still require a manufacturer of exempt cookware to include the required information on the product listing for online sales. The bill would require, beginning January 1, 2023, a manufacturer of this cookware to post on an internet website for the cookware a list of chemicals in the cookware that are present on the designated list, among other information. The bill would prohibit a manufacturer from making a claim, either on the cookware package commencing January 1, 2024, or on the internet website for the cookware commencing January 1, 2023, that the cookware is free of any specific chemical if the chemical belongs to a chemical group or class identified on the designated list, unless no individual chemical from that chemical group or class is intentionally added to the cookware. The bill would prohibit this cookware from being sold, offered for sale, or distributed in the state unless the cookware and the manufacturer of the cookware comply with these provisions.