A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 3.2-3700 and 3.2-3704 of the Code of Virginia, relating to fertilizer and lime permit requirements.
HB761 amends Virginia law governing liming materials by revising definitions in § 3.2-3700 and updating the permit rules for selling bulk liming material in § 3.2-3704. The bill largely restates and clarifies technical terms used in the chapter, including categories of agricultural liming material such as calcitic, dolomitic, hydrated, burnt, and marl, as well as related measurement and labeling terms. It also defines “contractor” more specifically as a person required to hold a permit to sell bulk liming material to consumers.
On the regulatory side, the bill tightens and clarifies who may sell bulk liming material and under what permit structure. It requires most sellers of bulk liming material to obtain a contractor license and pay the annual fee, while preserving exceptions for registrants, licensees, regulated-product distributors, contractor-applicators, and their employees or agents. It also keeps the existing permit expiration and renewal framework, including a 15-working-day grace period for late permit acquisition and the possibility of a stop-sale, use, removal, or seizure order if a contractor fails to obtain the required permit. The bill also updates the consumer guarantee language to require authorized sellers to guarantee compliance with the chapter’s bulk liming material sale and delivery requirements.
If enacted, HB761 would amend Title 3.2 of the Code of Virginia to refine the state’s regulatory framework for liming materials, especially bulk lime sales. The practical effect would be to reinforce permit and licensing requirements for contractors who sell bulk liming material, clarify exemptions, and preserve enforcement tools for the Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The bill would affect lime distributors, contractors, contractor-applicators, and related agricultural input businesses, while leaving the broader fertilizer and liming-material regulatory scheme in place.
The available legislative history shows little recorded debate or voting activity, and the bill was left in the House Committee on Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources. Based on the text, the measure appears technical and administrative rather than controversial, suggesting a generally neutral or procedural posture. The absence of recorded votes or committee transcript discussion indicates no documented public split in the available materials.
The main potential points of contention are the permit requirement, the $50 annual fee, the late fee, and the stop-sale enforcement mechanism for sellers who fail to comply. Businesses that sell bulk liming material may view the bill as adding or reaffirming regulatory burdens, while regulators and agricultural oversight interests may see it as a clarification that improves compliance and consumer protection. The bill also narrows and specifies who qualifies for exemptions, which could matter to contractors, contractor-applicators, and their employees or agents.