Existing law prohibits a person from disposing, or attempting to dispose, of a lead-acid battery at a solid waste facility or on or in any land, surface waters, watercourses, or marine waters, but authorizes a person to dispose of a lead-acid battery at certain locations. Existing law requires a dealer to accept, when offered at the point of transfer, a lead-acid battery from a consumer in exchange for the new lead-acid battery purchased by that consumer from the dealer. A violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor. This bill, the Lead-Acid Battery Recycling Act of 2016, would, as of January 1, 2017, revise these provisions to require a dealer to accept, at the point of transfer, specified types of used lead-acid batteries and would prohibit the dealer from charging any fee to accept these used lead-acid batteries. The bill, on and after April 1, 2017, would require a dealer to collect a refundable deposit for each new lead-acid battery of these types from a person who purchases the battery and who does not simultaneously provide a used lead-acid battery of the same size and type, and would require the dealer to refund the deposit to the person if, within 45 days of the sale of that lead-acid battery, the person presents a used lead-acid battery of the same type and size. The bill would require a dealer to post a specified notice or include specified information on the purchaser's receipt for one of these lead-acid batteries with regard to these provisions. The bill would allow the dealer to keep any lead-acid battery refundable deposit that is not properly claimed within 45 days after the date of sale of the new lead-acid battery. This bill, on and after April 1, 2017, until March 31, 2022, would require a California battery fee in the amount of $1 to be imposed on a person, except as specified, for each replacement lead-acid battery purchased that is of one of the specified types. The bill would authorize the dealer to retain 112% of the fee as reimbursement for any costs associated with the collection of the fee and would require the dealer to remit the remainder to the State Board of Equalization (state board) for deposit into the Lead-Acid Battery Cleanup Fund, except as specified. On and after April 1, 2022, the bill would increase the California battery fee to $2. This bill, on and after April 1, 2017, until March 31, 2022, would require a manufacturer battery fee of $1 to be imposed on a manufacturer of lead-acid batteries for each lead-acid battery it sells at retail to a person in California, or that it sells to a dealer, wholesaler, distributor, or other person for retail sale in California, for deposit into the Lead-Acid Battery Cleanup Fund. The bill would require manufacturer battery fees remitted pursuant to these provisions to be credited against amounts owed by the manufacturer to the state under a judgment or determination of liability under specific hazardous materials provisions or any other law for removal, remediation, or other response costs relating to a release of a hazardous substance from a lead-acid battery recycling facility. The bill would require that the amount paid by a manufacturer for a manufacturer battery fee be considered to reduce the manufacturer's share of liability in the allocation of costs among potentially responsible parties in a contribution action brought by a private party related to a release of hazardous substances from a lead-acid battery recycling facility. Of moneys collected pursuant to this act, the bill would require the board to retain moneys necessary for the payment of refunds and to reimburse the board for expenses in the collection of the California battery fee and the manufacturer battery fee. The bill would require that the remaining moneys be deposited into the Lead-Acid Battery Cleanup Fund, which would be created by the bill, and would make the moneys available upon appropriation by the Legislature for purposes of response actions at any area of the state that is reasonably suspected to have been contaminated by the operation of a lead-acid battery recycling facility, administration of the fund, the department's administration and implementation of the act's provisions, and reimbursement of certain loans for lead cleanup. The bill would make the reimbursement money available for further loans, as specified. The bill would require $1,200,000 be loaned from the California Tire Recycling Management Fund to the board for implementing the collection of the California battery fee and the manufacturer battery fee and would require that the loan be repaid before October 1, 2017. This bill would require, on and after July 1, 2017, a manufacturer to place a recycling symbol, as specified, and other information on all replacement lead-acid batteries sold in California. This bill would require, by February 1, 2018, and annually thereafter, the department to report to the Legislature on the status of the Lead-Acid Battery Cleanup Fund and on the department's progress in implementing these provisions. This bill would authorize the board to adopt regulations to implement these lead-acid battery management provisions. Because a violation of these regulations would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would require, on or before January 1, 2017, manufacturers to notify distributors, wholesalers, and dealers of the lead-acid batteries it manufactures of the bill's requirements, as specified. 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Sponsored bills
(1) Under existing law, as amended by Proposition 35, an initiative measure approved by the voters at the November 6, 2012, statewide general election, a person who deprives or violate another person's personal liberty with the intent to obtain forced labor or services or who deprives or violates another person's personal liberty for the purpose of prostitution or sexual exploitation is guilty of human trafficking, a felony. Proposition 35 provides that it may be amended by a statute in furtherance of its objectives by a majority of the membership of each house of the Legislature concurring. Existing law allows a court to issue an order to set aside a verdict of guilty and dismiss an accusation or information against a defendant who has been convicted of solicitation or prostitution if the defendant has completed any term of probation for that conviction and if he or she can establish by clear and convincing evidence that the conviction was a result of his or her status as a victim of human trafficking. This bill would instead allow an individual convicted of a nonviolent crime that was a direct result of the individual being a human trafficking victim to apply to the court to vacate the conviction if the individual is not then in custody and has either not been convicted of any crime for two years or has successfully completed probation for the crime. The bill would allow an individual adjudicated a ward of the juvenile court as the result of a nonviolent crime committed while he or she was a human trafficking victim to apply to have the petition dismissed if the individual has not had a sustained petition for any crime or been convicted of any crime for one year prior to the date of application. The bill would specify various court procedures for adjudication of an application. If the application is granted, the bill would require the court to have all records in the case sealed, except as specified, and to release the defendant from all penalties and disabilities, as provided. The bill would define "human trafficking victim" and "nonviolent crime" for these purposes. The bill would require the individual applying for vacatur to submit the application and all evidence in support of the application under penalty of perjury. By expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law requires the Attorney General to compile and disseminate state summary criminal history information pertaining to the identification and criminal history of any person. This bill would require the state summary criminal history information to exclude any charge or conviction for which relief has been granted pursuant to the provisions of this bill. (3) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 8712 of the Family Code, proposed by AB 1997, that would become operative only if this bill and AB 1997 are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2017, and this bill is chaptered last. (4) 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.
Existing law authorizes a court in a criminal proceeding, upon written notice by the prosecutor made at least 3 days prior to the date of the preliminary hearing or trial date on which the testimony of the minor is scheduled or during the course of the proceeding on the court's own motion, to order that the testimony of a minor 13 years of age or younger at the time of the motion be taken by contemporaneous examination and cross-examination in another place and out of the presence of the judge, jury, defendant or defendants, and attorneys, and communicated to the courtroom by means of closed-circuit television, if the court makes specified findings. One of the findings required by existing law requires is that the minor's testimony will involve a recitation of the facts of specified crimes, including an alleged violent felony of which the minor is a victim. This bill would authorize, under specified conditions, a minor 15 years of age or younger to testify by contemporaneous examination and cross-examination in another place and out of the presence of the judge, jury, defendant or defendants, and attorneys if the testimony will involve the recitation of the facts of an alleged offense of human trafficking.
Existing law requires the State Board of Education, on or before June 1, 2009, to adopt content standards for teaching foreign languages in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, pursuant to recommendations developed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. This bill would require the Superintendent, in consultation with the Instructional Quality Commission, to recommend revisions to the World Language Content Standards for California Public Schools, adopted pursuant to the above requirement, to the state board and to present those recommended revisions to the state board by a specified date. The bill would require the Superintendent, in consultation with the Instructional Quality Commission and the state board, to select a group of experts, as specified, to assist the Superintendent in developing the recommended revisions, and would require the recommended revisions to be based on the work of this group of experts. The bill would also require the Superintendent, before presenting his or her recommended revisions to the state board, to hold a minimum of 2 public hearings in order for the public to provide input on the recommended revisions. The bill would require the state board, by a specified date, to adopt, reject, or modify the recommended revisions. The bill would require the state board to take specified actions if it rejects the recommended revisions or if it modifies the recommended revisions. If the state board adopts either the Superintendent's recommended revisions or its own modified revisions to the World Language Content Standards, the bill would require the state board to consider adopting curriculum framework and evaluation criteria for instructional materials that are aligned to the revised World Language Content Standards and authorize the state board to adopt instructional materials for kindergarten and grades 1 to 8, inclusive, that are aligned to those standards.
Existing law authorizes a peace officer, humane officer, or animal control officer to take all steps reasonably necessary to remove an animal from a motor vehicle because the animal's safety appears to be in immediate danger of specified harm. Existing law requires those persons who remove an animal from a vehicle to take the animal to an animal shelter or other place of safekeeping or, if deemed necessary, to a veterinary hospital for treatment, and to leave a notice in the vehicle that notifies the owner of, among other things, the location where the animal may be claimed. Existing law authorizes the owner to claim the animal only after paying all charges that have accrued for the maintenance, care, medical treatment, or impoundment of the animal. This bill would expand the authorization and requirements applicable to a peace officer, humane officer, or animal control officer described above to include a firefighter or other emergency responder. The bill would additionally provide that a person may be required to pay for charges that have accrued for the maintenance, care, medical treatment, or impoundment of the animal removed from the vehicle. The bill would exempt a person from criminal liability for actions taken reasonably and in good faith to remove an animal from a vehicle under the circumstances described above if the person satisfies specified conditions, including immediately turning the animal over to a representative from law enforcement, animal control, or other emergency responder who responds to the scene. The bill would exempt a person from civil liability for property damage or trespass to a motor vehicle if the property damage or trespass occurred while the person was rescuing an animal pursuant to these provisions.
Under the Dental Practice Act, the Dental Board of California is responsible for the licensure and regulation of dentists. Existing law establishes the Dental Corps Loan Repayment Program of 2002 to assist dentists who practice in an underserved area with loan repayment pursuant to an agreement between the board and the dentist, as specified. Existing law governs eligibility, application, selection, placement, and repayment for the program, and authorizes the board to adopt standards to implement the program relating to eligibility, placement, and termination. Existing law creates the Dentally Underserved Account within the State Dentistry Fund and moneys in the account are continuously appropriated for purposes of the program. This bill would require that the program be known as the California Dental Corps Loan Repayment Program and would revise program provisions regarding eligibility, application, selection, and placement. The bill would require the board to develop a process for repayment of loans or grants disbursed if the participant is terminated from the program or is not able to complete the required service obligation, as provided. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care. A willful violation of the act is a crime. Existing law requires a health care service plan to reimburse providers for emergency services and care provided to its enrollees, until the care results in stabilization of the enrollee. Existing law prohibits a health care service plan from requiring a provider to obtain authorization prior to the provision of emergency services and care necessary to stabilize the enrollee's emergency medical care, as specified. Existing law also provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Insurance Commissioner. Existing law requires a health insurance policy issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2014, that provides or covers benefits with respect to services in an emergency department of a hospital to cover emergency services without the need for prior authorization, regardless of whether the provider is a participating provider, and subject to the same cost sharing required if the services were provided by a participating provider, as specified. This bill would require a health care service plan contract or health insurance policy issued, amended, or renewed on or after July 1, 2017, to provide that if an enrollee or insured receives covered services from a contracting health facility, as defined, at which, or as a result of which, the enrollee or insured receives covered services provided by a noncontracting individual health professional, as defined, the enrollee or insured would be required to pay the noncontracting individual health professional only the same cost sharing required if the services were provided by a contracting individual health professional, which would be referred to as the "in-network cost-sharing amount." The bill would prohibit an enrollee or insured from owing the noncontracting individual health professional at the contracting health facility more than the in-network cost-sharing amount if the noncontracting individual health professional receives reimbursement for services provided to the enrollee or insured at a contracting health facility from the health care service plan or health insurer. However, the bill would make an exception from this prohibition if the enrollee or insured provides written consent that satisfies specified criteria. The bill would require a noncontracting individual health professional who collects more than the in-network cost-sharing amount from the enrollee or insured to refund any overpayment to the enrollee or insured, as specified, and would provide that interest on any amount not refunded to the enrollee or insured shall accrue at 15% per annum, as specified. Existing law requires a contract between a health care service plan and a provider, or a contract between an insurer and a provider, to contain provisions requiring a fast, fair, and cost-effective dispute resolution mechanism under which providers may submit disputes to the plan or insurer. Existing law requires that dispute resolution mechanism also be made accessible to a noncontracting provider for the purpose of resolving billing and claims disputes. This bill would require the department and the commissioner to each establish, by September 1, 2017, an independent dispute resolution process that would allow a noncontracting individual health professional who rendered services at a contracting health facility, or a plan or insurer, to appeal a claim payment dispute, as specified. The bill would authorize the department and the commissioner to contract with one or more independent dispute resolution organizations to conduct the independent dispute resolution process, as specified. Contracts entered into pursuant to these provisions would be exempt from specified statutory provisions and related state agency review and approval requirements. The bill would provide that the decision of the organization would be binding on the parties. The bill would require a plan or insurer to base reimbursement for covered services on the amount the individual health professional would have been reimbursed by Medicare for the same or similar services in the general geographic area in which the services were rendered pursuant to a specified methodology and would specify, among other responsibilities, the duties of health care service plans, their delegated entities, and health insurers in identifying and calculating the applicable reimbursement rates, as well as various related duties of the department and the commissioner. The bill would require the department and the commissioner to report on the data and information provided in the independent dispute resolution process to the Governor and other specified recipients by January 1, 2019. The bill would require a noncontracting individual health professional, health care service plan or delegated entity, or health insurer that disputes that claim reimbursement to utilize the independent dispute resolution process. The bill would provide that these provisions do not apply to emergency services and care, as defined. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. Because a willful violation of the bill's provisions relative to a health care service plan 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 a specified reason.
Existing law establishes the Department of Motor Vehicles, the State Board of Equalization, and the California Environmental Protection Agency, and prescribes the powers and duties of those state agencies. Under existing law, it is unlawful for any person to act as an automobile dismantler without having an established place of business, meeting specified requirements, and having a current, valid license or temporary permit issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles. This bill would, until January 1, 2020, require the department to collaborate with the State Board of Equalization, the California Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, and the State Air Resources Board to review and coordinate enforcement and compliance activity related to unlicensed and unregulated automobile dismantling, including resulting tax evasion, environmental impacts, and public health impacts. The bill would require the department, in consultation with those agencies, on or before January 1, 2019, to submit a report to the Legislature including specified information. The bill would state related findings and declarations of the Legislature.
Existing law authorizes the board of supervisors in specified counties, as part of a pilot jail industry program not to exceed 4 years, to establish, with the concurrence of the county sheriff, a Jail Industry Commission for that county. Existing law also requires the county board of supervisors, upon the establishment of a commission, to create a Jail Industries Fund, as specified, which may be used to fund specified purposes. Existing law specifies the composition of these commissions. This bill would repeal the authorization to create a Jail Industry Commission as a pilot program, and would instead authorize the board of supervisors of the Counties of Lake, Los Angeles, Madera, Sacramento, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tulare, Tuolumne, and Ventura to authorize the county sheriff or county director of corrections to create a Jail Industry Authority, as specified. The bill would also make conforming changes. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of Lake, Los Angeles, Madera, Sacramento, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tulare, Tuolumne, and Ventura.
Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires a city or county to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the city or the county and of any land outside its boundaries that bears relation to its planning. That law requires the general plan to contain specified mandatory elements, including a housing element. Existing law requires the housing element to contain an inventory of land suitable for residential development, as defined, and requires that inventory to be used to identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period and that are sufficient to provide for the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need for all income levels. This bill would revise the definition of land suitable for residential development to include the airspace above sites owned or leased by a city, county, or city and county. By imposing new duties upon local agencies with respect to the housing element of the general plan, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the department to provide guidance to local governments to properly survey, detail, and account for sites listed within the local governments inventory of land suitable for residential development. 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.