The Toxics in Packaging Prevention Act, as part of the hazardous waste control laws, prohibits a person from offering for sale or for promotional purposes in this state a package, packaging component, or product in a package if the sum of the incidental total concentration levels of all regulated metals, defined as lead, cadmium, mercury, or hexavalent chromium, present in a single-component package or in an individual packaging component exceeds 100 parts per million by weight. This bill would exempt from that prohibition a glass package or packaging component that would not exceed that maximum regulated metal concentration level but for the addition of recycled material, provided that the sum of the incidental total concentration levels of all regulated metals present in the glass package or packaging component does not exceed 200 parts per million by weight. This exemption would be repealed on January 1, 2024.
Sponsored bills
This measure would urge specified state departments and the Attorney General to use their authority to ensure that health care service plans and health insurers subject to their authority comply with the federal Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008.
(1) The Lead-Acid Battery Recycling Act of 2016 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. The act requires, until March 31, 2022, 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. The act requires the manufacturer battery fee to be paid to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration and requires dealers and manufacturers of lead-acid batteries to register with the department. The act defines "manufacturer" for these purposes. This bill would, on and after April 1, 2022, increase the amount of the manufacturer battery fee to $2 and would provide that the fee would continue indefinitely. The bill, on and after January 1, 2020, would authorize a person who manufactures a lead-acid battery and is not subject to the jurisdiction of the state to agree in writing with the importer, as defined, of that lead-acid battery to pay the manufacturer battery fee on behalf of the importer. The bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2022, to submit to the Legislature a report that includes, among other things, any regulations or policies adopted by the department for purposes of ensuring compliance with the registration, returns, reporting, payments, audits, refunds, or collection requirements related to the manufacturer battery fee. The bill would require a manufacturer, if a lead-acid battery is sold or will be used in a manner or for a purpose entitling the manufacturer to regard the purchase as not subject to the manufacturer battery fee, to obtain written documentation from the purchaser certifying that the lead-acid battery will be used in a manner or for a purpose entitling the manufacturer to regard the purchase as not subject to the manufacturer battery fee. The bill would make a purchaser who subsequently sells or uses the lead-acid battery, such that no exception to the requirement to pay the applicable fee or fees applies, liable for the payment of any applicable fees. The act requires manufacturer battery fees remitted pursuant to the act 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. This bill would additionally require that manufacturer battery fees remitted pursuant to the act be credited to the account of the manufacturer remitting those fees. The bill would require that a person who agrees in writing to pay the manufacturer battery fee on behalf of an importer be credited for a payment of the manufacturer battery fee only if certain conditions are met, including that the person provide to the importer of a lead-acid battery a statement that includes specified information on the invoice, contract, or other record documenting the transaction. The bill would relieve an importer of a lead-acid battery who receives that statement in a timely manner from liability for the manufacturer battery fee that would otherwise be imposed on the sale of that battery, provided that the manufacturer remits payment of the manufacturer battery fee to the state for the sale of that battery. The bill would authorize an importer who has paid the manufacturer battery fee and who receives an untimely statement that the fee has been paid for that battery to file a claim for a refund of any overpaid fees. The bill would authorize the department to disclose the name, address, account number, and account status of a person registered with the department to pay the manufacturer battery fee. The bill would provide that account status does not include the amount of the manufacturer battery fee paid by any person, except as provided. (2) The act imposes a California battery fee on a person for specified types of replacement lead-acid batteries purchased from a dealer. This bill would provide, on and after January 1, 2020, if a new motor vehicle dealer sells or leases to a person a used vehicle into which the new motor vehicle dealer has incorporated a replacement lead-acid battery, that the California battery fee does not apply to the person with regard to that replacement lead-acid battery. The bill would require a dealer, if a lead-acid battery is sold or will be used in a manner or for a purpose entitling the dealer to regard the purchase as not subject to the California battery fee, to obtain written documentation from the purchaser certifying that the lead-acid battery will be used in a manner or for a purpose entitling the dealer to regard the purchase as not subject to the California battery fee. The bill would make a purchaser who subsequently sells or uses the lead-acid battery, such that no exception to the requirement to pay the applicable fee or fees applies, liable for the payment of any applicable fees. (3) This bill would require the Department of Toxic Substances Control to establish a Lead-Acid Battery Recycling Facility Investigation and Cleanup Program, or LABRIC Program, which would be responsible for identifying areas of the state that are eligible for expenditure of moneys from the Lead-Acid Battery Cleanup Fund for certain purposes. The bill would require the program to provide public notice of the initiation of the investigation or site evaluation of any area reasonably suspected to have been contaminated by the operation of a lead-acid battery recycling facility. The bill would require the department, upon completion of an investigation or site evaluation, to provide notice and an opportunity for comment on the proposed designation of a site as determined with reasonable certainty to have been contaminated by releases from the operation of a facility known to have been a lead-acid battery recycling facility. The bill would provide that expenditure from the fund for purposes of further investigation or evaluation for a site is no longer authorized if, within 2 years of a public notice of the initiation of the investigation or evaluation, the department is unable to designate a site as determined with reasonable certainty to have been contaminated by the operation of a lead-acid battery recycling facility. (4) The act creates in the State Treasury the Lead-Acid Battery Cleanup Fund and requires that the fees collected pursuant to the act, except for specified administrative expenses, be deposited into the fund, and provides that moneys in the fund are available upon appropriation by the Legislature to the department for specified activities, including the investigation, site evaluation, cleanup, remedial action, removal, monitoring, or other 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, and for the repayment of specified loans. This bill would revise the authorization for expenditure from the fund to permit expenditure for cleanup, remedial action, removal, monitoring, or other response actions to address contamination directly attributable to releases from a facility known to have been a lead-acid battery recycling facility at any area of the state that the department determines with reasonable certainty was contaminated by releases from the operation of that lead-acid battery recycling facility. The bill would authorize expenditure of moneys from the fund for the repayment of the loans described above only after the other specified activities have been fully funded in a given fiscal year. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) , an initiative measure enacted by the approval of Proposition 64 at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, provides for the licensure and regulation of businesses that engage in commercial cannabis activity, including licensed testing laboratories. Existing law prohibits cannabis and cannabis products from being sold unless a representative sample of the cannabis or cannabis products have been tested by a licenced testing laboratory. Existing law requires, for each batch tested, that a testing laboratory issue a certificate of analysis for selected lots to report specified information, including whether the profile of the sample conforms to the labeled contents of compounds. This bill would authorize a testing laboratory to amend a certificate of analysis under these provisions to correct minor errors, as defined by the Bureau of Cannabis Control. The bill would also authorize the testing laboratory to retest the sample, if the test result falls outside the specifications authorized by law or regulation, when the testing laboratory notifies the bureau, in writing, that the test was compromised due to equipment malfunction, staff error, or other circumstances allowed by the bureau and the bureau authorizes the retest. AUMA authorizes the Legislature to amend by majority vote certain provisions of the act to implement specified substantive provisions, provided that the amendments are consistent with and further the purposes and intent of AUMA. This bill would declare that its provisions implement specified substantive provisions of AUMA and are consistent with and further the purposes and intent of AUMA.
Existing law establishes the policy of the Legislature to ensure equal access to specific information about the many local regulating and advisory boards, commissions, and committees and to ensure equal opportunity to be informed of vacancies on those boards. Existing law requires each legislative body of a local agency to prepare an appointments list of all regular and ongoing boards, commissions, and committees that are appointed by the legislative body of the local agency. This bill, on and after January 1, 2030, would require, with respect to a city with a population of 50,000 or more, that the city not appoint members of nonsalaried, nonelected boards or commissions consisting of 5 or more members such that individuals of the same gender identity comprise more than 60% of the board or commission's membership. The bill would also prohibit a board or commission with 4 or fewer nonelected and nonsalaried members from being comprised exclusively of people with the same gender identity. The bill would define "gender identity" for purposes of the bill, and would exclude from its provisions a board or commission that has as its primary purpose addressing issues of relevance to a particular gender identity. By imposing new requirements on cities, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would include findings that the 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 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 provides, notwithstanding any other law, for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, that the preliminary project alternative referred to as Alternative F-6 in the December 2012 Alternative Analysis Report of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority is no longer deemed to be a feasible alternative for consideration in any state environmental review process for the Interstate 710 North Gap Closure project. This bill would revise this provision to instead provide that the preliminary project alternatives referred to as Alternative F-5, F-6, and F-7 in the December 2012 Alternative Analysis Report of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority and any other freeway or tunnel alternatives to close the Interstate 710 North Gap are no longer deemed to be feasible alternatives for consideration in any environmental review process for the Interstate 710 North Gap Closure project. (2) Existing law vests the Department of Transportation with full possession and control of all state highways and associated property. Existing law designates and describes state highway routes, and also describes the state highway routes in the California freeway and expressway system, including all of Route 710 in the County of Los Angeles. This bill would, on January 1, 2024, remove from the California freeway and expressway system the portion of Route 710 between Alhambra Avenue in the City of Los Angeles and California Boulevard in the City of Pasadena.
Existing law requests the University of California to compile specified information, including a survey of existing resources throughout California's governmental and administrative structure that are available to address the needs of an aging society. Existing law requires the Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency, based upon the information compiled by the University of California and with the consultation or advice of specified entities, to develop a statewide strategic plan on aging for long-term planning purposes and submit the plan to the Legislature. By executive order, the Governor ordered that a master plan for aging be developed and issued to serve as a blueprint to implement strategies and partnerships that promote healthy aging and prepare the state for upcoming demographic changes. The executive order requires the Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency to convene a Cabinet-level Workgroup for Aging to advise the secretary in developing and issuing the master plan. This bill would require the secretary, in coordination with the Director of the California Department of Aging, to lead the development and implementation of the master plan established pursuant to that executive order. The bill would require the secretary and the director, with the assistance of the workgroup, to work with specified agencies, as needed, to identify policies, efficiencies, and strategies necessary to implement the master plan. The bill would also require the workgroup to solicit input and gather information to assist with the implementation of the master plan. The bill would require the department to submit a report to the Governor and the Legislature by October 1, 2020, and submit updates annually thereafter, until October 1, 2030, regarding the master plan.
Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, makes specified employment and housing practices unlawful, including discrimination against or harassment of employees and tenants, among others. Existing law authorizes a person claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged unlawful practice to file a verified complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing within one year from the date upon which the unlawful practice occurred, unless otherwise specified. This bill would extend the above-described period to 3 years for complaints alleging employment discrimination, as specified. The bill would specify that the operative date of the verified complaint is the date that the intake form was filed with the Labor Commissioner. The bill would make conforming changes in provisions that grant a person allegedly aggrieved by an unlawful practice who first obtains knowledge of the facts of the alleged unlawful practice after the expiration of the limitations period, as specified. Existing law authorizes the Director of Fair Employment and Housing to bring a civil action in the name of the department on behalf of a person claiming to be aggrieved in the case of failure to eliminate an unlawful practice through conference, conciliation, mediation, or persuasion. Existing law requires the director to bring the civil action within a specified time after the filing of the complaint. This bill would, for those purposes, define filing a complaint to mean filing an intake form with the department, and would specify that the operative date of the verified complaint relates back to the filing of the form. This bill would prohibit its provisions from being interpreted to revive lapsed claims.
Existing law prohibits an employer, who is required by law to give an employee a rest period during a workday, from requiring the employee to work during the rest period. Existing law requires an employer to pay the employee one additional hour of pay, at the employee's regular rate of compensation, for each rest period not provided. Existing law requires employers to provide a reasonable amount of break time to employees desiring to express milk for the employee's infant child. Existing law also requires an employer to make reasonable efforts to provide the employee with the use of a room, or other location, other than a bathroom, in close proximity to the employee's work area, for the employee to express milk in private. Existing law exempts an employer from the break time requirement if the employer's operations would be seriously disrupted by providing that time to employees desiring to express milk. Existing law subjects employers who violate these provisions to a civil penalty of $100 per violation and authorizes the Labor Commissioner to issue citations for those violations. This bill would instead require an employer to provide a lactation room or location that includes prescribed features and would require an employer, among other things, to provide access to a sink and refrigerator in close proximity to the employee's workspace, as specified. The bill would deem denial of reasonable break time or adequate space to express milk a failure to provide a rest period in accordance with state law. The bill would prohibit an employer from discharging, or in any other manner discriminating or retaliating against, an employee for exercising or attempting to exercise rights under these provisions and would establish remedies that include filing a complaint with the Labor Commissioner. The bill would authorize employers with fewer than 50 employees to seek an exemption from the requirements of these provisions if the employer demonstrates that the requirement posed an undue hardship by causing the employer significant difficulty or expense, as specified. The bill would require an employer who obtains an exemption to make a reasonable effort to provide a place for an employee to express milk in private, as specified. The bill would require an employer to develop and implement a policy regarding lactation accommodation and make it available to employees, as specified.
Existing law, the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, requires a mandated reporter, as defined, to report whenever they, in their professional capacity or within the scope of their employment, have knowledge of or observed a child whom the mandated reporter knows or reasonably suspects has been the victim of child abuse or neglect. Failure by a mandated reporter to report an incident of known or reasonably suspected child abuse or neglect is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months of confinement in a county jail, by a fine of $1,000, or by both that imprisonment and fine. This bill would add qualified autism service providers, qualified autism service professionals, and qualified autism service paraprofessionals, as defined, to the list of individuals who are mandated reporters. By imposing the reporting requirements on a new class of persons, for whom failure to report specified conduct is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1165.7 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 1153 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1153 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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.