California 2023-2024 Regular Session Status: Enacted

AB 2113 — Pesticides.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 60, Statutes of 2024.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  4. ✓
    Passed Senate
  5. ✓
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 05, 2024. Enacted.

Signed by Governor Gavin Newsom (Democratic) on July 02, 2024.

Odds of enactment

High chance

Based on the sponsor, cosponsors, and committee posture, this bill has a high chance of becoming law.

Upgrade to see the exact probability and what's driving it.

A statistical estimate from our own model of past outcomes — an insight, not a guarantee. Policymaking is volatile.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 70% · moderate confidence
  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 8 recorded votes so far.

Based on stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes, and cross-state momentum — a description of the observable signals, not a prediction.

Summary

(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 department's 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 Regulation's 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 23 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 audit's 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 commissioner's 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 commissioner's action within 30 days of the date of receiving the commissioner's 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.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 60, Statutes of 2024.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m.

  4. Urgency clause adopted. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Page 6119.).

  5. In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after June 29 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.

  6. Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 29. Noes 9.).

  7. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  8. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (June 26).

  9. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 0.) (June 25). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  10. Joint Rule 62(a) suspended. (Ayes 30. Noes 6. Page 4666.)

  11. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on AGRI.

  12. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on AGRI. (Ayes 4. Noes 2.) (June 19). Re-referred to Com. on AGRI.

  13. Referred to Coms. on E.Q. and AGRI.

  14. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  15. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 54. Noes 16. Page 5431.)

  16. Assembly Rule 69(d) suspended. (Page 5352.)

  17. Read third time and amended. Ordered to third reading. (Page 5290.)

  18. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  19. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 11. Noes 4.) (May 16).

  20. Joint Rule 62(a), file notice suspended. (Page 5215.)

  21. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  22. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (April 23). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  23. Re-referred to Com. on E.S. & T.M.

  24. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on E.S. & T.M. Read second time and amended.

  25. Re-referred to Com. on E.S. & T.M.

  26. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on E.S. & T.M. Read second time and amended.

  27. Referred to Com. on E.S. & T.M.

  28. From printer. May be heard in committee March 7.

  29. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 21 voted No

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Passed 56 Yea · 14 Nay · 9 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 43004
Unaffiliated 13204
Republican 01201
Total 561409
% of votes cast 71%18%0%11%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Holden — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Villapudua — Yea
Ting — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Wood — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Low — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Essayli — Nay
Waldron — Not Voting
Jones-Sawyer — Not Voting
Rendon — Not Voting
Mathis — Not Voting
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Nay
Luz Rivas — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Addis, Dawn Democratic Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Alvarez, David Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bains, Jasmeet Democratic Not Voting
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Not Voting
Connolly, Damon Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
McKinnor, Tina Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Ortega, Liz Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Schiavo, Pilar Democratic Yea
Soria, Esmeralda Democratic Not Voting
Valencia, Avelino Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Not Voting
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Zbur, Rick Chavez Democratic Yea
Alanis, Juan Republican Nay
Chen, Phillip Republican Nay
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Davies, Laurie Republican Nay
Dixon, Diane Republican Nay
Flora, Heath Republican Not Voting
Gallagher, James Republican Nay
Hoover, Josh Republican Nay
Lackey, Tom Republican Nay
Patterson, Joe Republican Nay
Sanchez, Kate Republican Nay
Ta, Tri Republican Nay
Wallis, Greg Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Passed 29 Yea · 9 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 8201
Democratic 20101
Republican 1600
Total 29902
% of votes cast 73%23%0%5%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Roth — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Newman — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Wilk — Nay
Min — Nay
Atkins — Not Voting
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Ashby, Angelique V. Democratic Yea
Becker, Josh Democratic Yea
Blakespear, Catherine S. Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Not Voting
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Menjivar, Caroline Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Nay
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Rubio, Susan Democratic Yea
Smallwood-Cuevas, Lola Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Alvarado-Gil, Marie Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay
Niello, Roger W. Republican Nay
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Nay
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Passed 4 Yea · 2 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 3101
Unaffiliated 1000
Republican 0100
Total 4201
% of votes cast 57%29%0%14%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Skinner — Yea
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Not Voting
Menjivar, Caroline Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Nay
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Passed 54 Yea · 16 Nay · 10 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 42005
Unaffiliated 12404
Republican 01201
Total 5416010
% of votes cast 68%20%0%13%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Maienschein — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Villapudua — Yea
Ting — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Wood — Yea
Low — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Essayli — Nay
Waldron — Nay
Holden — Not Voting
Friedman — Not Voting
Mathis — Not Voting
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Nay
Luz Rivas — Not Voting
Vince Fong — Nay
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Addis, Dawn Democratic Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Alvarez, David Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bains, Jasmeet Democratic Not Voting
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Not Voting
Connolly, Damon Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Not Voting
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
McKinnor, Tina Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Not Voting
Ortega, Liz Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Schiavo, Pilar Democratic Yea
Soria, Esmeralda Democratic Not Voting
Valencia, Avelino Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Zbur, Rick Chavez Democratic Yea
Alanis, Juan Republican Nay
Chen, Phillip Republican Nay
Dahle, Megan Republican Not Voting
Davies, Laurie Republican Nay
Dixon, Diane Republican Nay
Flora, Heath Republican Nay
Gallagher, James Republican Nay
Hoover, Josh Republican Nay
Lackey, Tom Republican Nay
Patterson, Joe Republican Nay
Sanchez, Kate Republican Nay
Ta, Tri Republican Nay
Wallis, Greg Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 11 Yea · 4 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 9000
Unaffiliated 2100
Republican 0300
Total 11400
% of votes cast 73%27%0%0%
How each member voted (15)
Member Party Vote
Villapudua — Yea
Jim Patterson — Nay
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Nay
Sanchez, Kate Republican Nay
Ta, Tri Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Subjects

Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 2113 do?
(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 department's 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 Regulation's 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 23 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 audit's 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 commissioner's 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 commissioner's action within 30 days of the date of receiving the commissioner's 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.
Who sponsors AB 2113?
AB 2113 is sponsored by Eduardo Garcia.
What is the current status of AB 2113?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 05, 2024. Enacted.
Where can I track AB 2113?
Track AB 2113 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 2113

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Stay ahead of AB 2113

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →