GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW California Regulatory Notice Register REGISTER 2025, NUMBER 34–Z P UBLISHED WEEKLY BY THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW A UGUST 22, 2025 PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS TITLE 2. F AIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Conflict–of–Interest Code –— Notice File Number Z2025–0812–05 ....................................... 1039 AMENDMENT STATE–AGENCY: Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board ADOPTION MULTI–COUNTY: Peninsula Clean Ener gy Central Valley Energy Authority TITLE 2. ST ATE ALLOCATION BOARD Leroy F .

Green School Facilities Act of 1998; Proposition 2: New Construction and Modernization Eligibility and Grant Agreement –— Notice File Number Z2025–0812–02 .................................. 1040 TITLE 2. OFFICE OF DATA AND INNOV ATION Conflict–of–Interest Code –— Notice File Number Z2025–0806–01 ....................................... 1046 TITLE 14. FISH AND GAME COMMISSION Commercial Bull Kelp Harvest Restrictions –— Notice File Number Z2025–0812–08 ......................... 1047 TITLE 14.

FISH AND GAME COMMISSION Invasive Non–Native Mussels and Green Crab –— Notice File Number Z2025–0812–07 ...................... 1051 TITLE 14. DEP ARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY SB 54 Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act Permanent Regulations –— Notice File Number Z2025–0812–04 ................................................................ 1056 TITLE 27. OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT Proposition 65, Amendment to

Section 25705(b), Specific Regulatory Levels Posting No Significant Risk: 1–Bromopropane and Diethanolamine (Dermal) –— Notice File Number Z2025–0812–06 ..................... 1065 (Continued on next page) Time- Dated Material

GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Final Notice Concerning the Unified Program State Surcharge Adjustment ................................. 1069 DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 2025 California TANF State Plan .................................................................. 1069 RULEMAKING PETITION DECISION BUREAU OF SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES Notice of Decision on Petition from Mr. Salguero Concerning Petition to Amend Bureau of Security and Investigative Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070

SUMMARY OF REGULATORY ACTIONS Regulations filed with Secretary of State ............................................................. 1073 The California Regulatory Notice Register is an official state publication of the Office of Administrative Law containing notices of proposed regulatory actions by state regulatory agencies to adopt, amend or repeal regulations contained in the California Code of Regulations. The effective period of a notice of proposed regulatory action by a state agency in the California Regulatory Notice Register shall not exceed one year [Government Code § 11346.4(b)].

It is suggested, therefore, that issues of the California Regulatory Notice Register be retained for a minimum of 18 months. CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER is published weekly by the Office of Administrative Law, 300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1250, Sacramento, CA 95814-4339. The Register is printed by Barclays, a subsidiary of West, a Thomson Reuters Business, and is offered by subscription for $409.00 (annual price). To order or make changes to current subscriptions, please call (800) 328−4880. The Register can also be accessed at https://oal.ca.gov .

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 34–Z 1039 PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS Information contained in this document is published as received from agencies and is not edited by Thomson Reuters. TITLE 2.

FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Fair Po - litical Practices Commission, pursuant to the au - thority vested in it by Sections 82011, 87303, and 87304 of the Government Code to review proposed conflict–of–interest codes, will review the proposed/ amended conflict–of–interest codes of the following: CONFLICT–OF–INTEREST CODES AMENDMENT STATE AGENCY: Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board ADOPTION MULTI–COUNTY: Peninsula Clean Energy Central Valley Energy Authority A written comment period has been established commencing on August 22, 2025, and closing on Oc - tober 6, 2025.

Written comments should be directed to the Fair Political Practices Commission, Attention: Andrea Spiller Hernandez, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3050, Sacramento, California 95811. At the end of the 45–day comment period, the pro - posed conflict–of–interest codes will be submitted to the Commission’s Executive Director for their review, unless any interested person or their duly authorized representative requests, no later than 15 days prior to the close of the written comment period, a public hear- ing before the full Commission.

If a public hearing is requested, the proposed codes will be submitted to the Commission for review. The Executive Director of the Commission will review the above–referenced conflict–of–interest codes, proposed pursuant to Government Code Sec - tion 87300, which designate, pursuant to Government Code

Section 87302, employees who must disclose certain investments, interests in real property and income. The Executive Director of the Commission, upon their own motion or at the request of any interested person, will approve, or revise and approve, or re - turn the proposed codes to the agency for revision and re–submission within 60 days without further notice. Any interested person may present statements, ar - guments, or comments, in writing to the Executive Director of the Commission, relative to review of the proposed conflict–of–interest codes.

Any written comments must be received no later than October 6, 2025. If a public hearing is to be held, oral comments may be presented to the Commission at the hearing. COST TO LOCAL AGENCIES There shall be no reimbursement for any new or in- creased costs to local government which may result from compliance with these codes because these are not new programs mandated on local agencies by the codes since the requirements described herein were mandated by the Political Reform Act of 1974. There- fore, they are not “costs mandated by the state” as de- fined in Government Code

Section 17514. EFFECT ON HOUSING COSTS AND BUSINESSES Compliance with the codes has no potential effect on housing costs or on private persons, businesses, or small businesses. AUTHORITY Government Code Sections 82011, 87303 and 87304 provide that the Fair Political Practices Com - mission as the code–reviewing body for the above conflict–of–interest codes shall approve codes as sub- mitted, revise the proposed code, and approve it as re- vised, or return the proposed code for revision and re–submission.

REFERENCE Government Code Sections 87300 and 87306 provide that agencies shall adopt and promulgate conflict–of–interest codes pursuant to the Political Re- form Act and amend their codes when change is ne - cessitated by changed circumstances. CONTACT Any inquiries concerning the proposed conflict–of–interest codes should be made to Andrea Spiller Hernandez, Fair Political Practices Commis - sion, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3050, Sacramento, Califor - nia 95811, or email aspiller–hernandez@fppc.ca.gov.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 34–Z 1040 AVAILABILITY OF PROPOSED CONFLICT–OF–INTEREST CODES Copies of the proposed conflict–of–interest codes may be obtained from the Commission offices or the respective agency. Requests for copies from the Com- mission should be made to Andrea Spiller Hernandez, Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3050, Sacramento, California 95811, or email aspiller–hernandez@fppc.ca.gov. TITLE 2.

STATE ALLOCATION BOARD AMEND VARIOUS REGULATION SECTIONS, ALONG WITH AN ASSOCIATED FORM; ADOPT THE GRANT AGREEMENT [PROPOSITION 2] MASTER TEMPLATES, RELATING TO THE LEROY F. GREENE SCHOOL FACILITIES ACT OF 1998 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING REGULATION SECTIONS: ● 1859.2, 1859.51, 1859.60, 1859.61, 1859.78.8, 1859.79.2, AND 1859.81. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING FORM: ● Form SAB 50–03, Eligibility Determination, (Rev. 12/10 03/25), which is incorporated by reference and referenced in Regulation

Section 1859.2. PROPOSED ADOPTION OF THE FOLLOWING FORM: ● Grant Agreement [Proposition 2], (New 03/25), which is incorporated by reference and refer - enced in Regulation

Section 1859.2. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the State Allocation Board (SAB) proposes to amend the above–referenced regulation sections, including an as- sociated form, as well as adopt a new form, contained in Title 2, California Code of Regulations (CCR). A public hearing is not scheduled. A public hearing will be held if any interested person, or his or her duly au - thorized representative, submits a written request for a public hearing to the Office of Public School Con - struction (OPSC) no later than 15 days prior to the close of the written comment period.

Following the public hearing, if one is requested, or following the written comment period if no public hearing is re - quested, OPSC, at its own motion or at the instance of any interested person, may adopt the proposals sub - stantially as set forth above without further notice. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE CITATIONS The SAB is proposing to amend the above–referenced regulation sections under the author- ity provided by Sections 17070.35, 17075.15, 17078.64, 17078.72 and 17592.73 of the Education Code.

The pro- posal interprets and make specific reference Sections 17009.5, 17017.6, 17017.7, 17021, 17047, 17050, 17051, 17052, 17070.15, 17070.51, 17070.51(a), 17070.71, 17070.77, 17071.10, 17071.25, 17071.30, 17071.33, 17071.35, 17071.40, 17071.75, 17071.76, 17072.10, 17072.12, 17072.15, 17072.18. 17072.20, 17072.33, 17073.15, 17073.20, 17073.25, 17074.10, 17074.25, 17074.30, 17075.10, 17075.15, 17077.40, 17077.42, 17077.45, 17078.52, 17078.56, 17078.72, 17078.72(k), 17079, 17079.10, 17079.20, 17079.30, 17280, 42268, 42270, 56026, 100420(

c) and 101012(a) (8), Education Code;

Section 53311, Government Code; and Sections 1771.3 in effect on January 1, 2012 through June 19, 2024 and 1771.5, Labor Code. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY OVERVIEW STATEMENT The Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 established, through Senate Bill 50,

Chapter 407, Stat- utes of 1998, the School Facility Program (SFP). The SFP provides a per–pupil grant amount to qualifying school districts for purposes of constructing school fa- cilities and modernizing existing school facilities. The SAB adopted regulations to implement the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, which were ap- proved by the Office of Administrative Law and filed with the Secretary of State on October 8, 1999. At its meeting on March 26, 2025, the SAB adopt - ed proposed regulatory amendments, on an emergen - cy basis, that align with provisions of Assembly Bill (AB) 247 (Muratsuchi,

Chapter 81, Statutes of 2024) and include the following topics: 1) the maximum level of total bonding capacity a school district could have to be automatically el - igible for financial hardship assistance increases from $5 million to $15 million (Education Code

Section 17075.15). In addition to this criterion, the longstanding policy of using bridge financing to allow for interfund borrowing as a tool for school districts to use to continue with their projects while waiting for financial hardship funding has been put in regulation. This mechanism provides school districts the authorization to use tempo - rary funding, ensuring that projects can proceed without delay caused by delays in receiving SFP

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 34–Z 1041 funding while waiting for a statewide general obligation bond sale or other source available to the program. Although this mechanism is not in Proposition 2, it is an important piece of the fi - nancial hardship funding to help school districts progress their projects while waiting for financial hardship funding. 2) the timeframe for requiring an update to small school districts’ new construction enrollment projections is extended from three years to five years starting from the date the school district’s eligibility is approved by the SAB (Education Code

Section 17071.75). 3) specific assistance to school districts that have a school facility located on a military installation that is a recipient of a federal grant on the site for facilities modernization that requires a lo - cal matching share. It is stipulated that for these schools the school districts are eligible for an ap- portionment for the modernization of a perma - nent or portable building that is at least ten years old or is at least ten years old after the date of the previous modernization apportionment from state funds under this

chapter (Education Code

Section 17073.15). 4) incorporation by reference of a second Grant Agreement [Proposition 2] (New 03/25) used specifically for those applications received by OPSC on or after October 31, 2024 and that have received SFP grant funding. The Grant Agree - ment [Proposition 2] is not in Proposition 2; how- ever, there are new eligible project expenditures in Proposition 2 that have been made part of the Grant Agreement.

OPSC submitted the emergency regulations to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and the OAL ap- proved the emergency regulations and filed them with the Secretary of State with an effective date of June 20, 2025. Attached to this Notice is the specific reg - ulatory language of the proposed regulatory action. The proposed regulations can also be reviewed on OPSC’s website at: Laws, Regulations for School Con- struction Projects.

Copies of the proposed regulations, along with the associated form and Grant Agreement [Proposition 2] master templates will be mailed to any person requesting this information by using OPSC’s contact information set forth below in this Notice. The proposed regulation amends the SFP Regulations un - der the California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Chap- ter 3, Subchapter 4, Group 1, State Allocation Board, Subgroup 5.5, Regulations relating to the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998.

Bond Funds Impacted ● Kindergarten Through Grade 12 Schools and Lo- cal Community College Public Education Facili - ties Modernization, Repair, and Safety Bond Act of 2024 (Proposition 2). Background and Problem Being Resolved At its meeting on December 3, 2024, the SAB ad - opted recommendations implementing provisions of Proposition 2, which are contained in AB 247. In part, Proposition 2 provides $8.5 billion in proceeds from the sale of bonds for the construction and moderniza - tion of Transitional Kindergarten (TK) through Grade 12 school facilities.

Proposition 2 specifies that the $8.5 billion will be allocated to the SFP as follows: ● New Construction = $3.3 billion, of which up to ten percent ($330 million) shall be available to small school districts. ● Modernization = $4.0 billion, of which up to ten percent ($400 million) shall be available to small school districts and up to $115 million shall be available to address the remediation of lead in water. ● Charter School Facilities Program = $600 mil - lion, and, ● Career Technical Education Facilities Program = $600 million.

Proposition 2 also makes numerous changes to the SFP as follows: ● Requires the submittal of a five–year school fa - cilities master plan as a condition of participating in the SFP; ● Establishes a points–based methodology for cal - culating the local contribution a school district is required to make to be eligible to receive state funding; ● Requires school districts participating in the SFP New Construction or Modernization programs after November 5, 2024, to submit an updated re- port of the school district’s existing school build- ing capacity; ● Authorizes additional state funding for the re - placement of school buildings that are at least 75 years old; ● Establishes several new supplemental grants (minimum essential facilities, energy efficiency, career technical education, and TK); ● Authorizes the SAB to provide interim housing assistance funding or any other assistance follow- ing specified natural disasters; ● Provides specified assistance to school districts with a school facility on a military installation, small school districts, and for the testing and re - mediation of specified lead levels in water foun - tains and faucets used for drinking or preparing food on school sites; and, ● Increases the maximum level of total bond - ing capacity allowable for a school district to

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 34–Z 1042 be automatically eligible for financial hardship assistance. It was noted at the December 3, 2024 SAB meet - ing that it would take time for OPSC to process ap - plications received before October 31, 2024, but nec - essary for OPSC to receive early guidance from the SAB to inform school districts who submitted applica- tions on or after October 31, 2024, or who are current- ly planning to submit applications for funding.

OPSC also determined the need for the SAB to set some pro- gram parameters expeditiously so that Facility Hard - ship Program and Seismic Mitigation Program appli - cations, which address imminent health and safety needs and receive expedited processing and funding under existing SFP regulations, are processed under Proposition 2 quickly and without delay. The problem being resolved is not necessarily a problem but an opportunity to replenish the SFP with $8.5 billion in bond authority and to implement Prop - osition 2 provisions in the SFP.

As indicated on page 2, the proposed regulations provide school districts with unique opportunities to qualify for financial hardship at an increased total bonding capacity level; to have new construction eligibility locked in for five years for small school districts; and to allow school districts that have a school facility located on a military installa - tion that is a recipient of a federal grant that requires a local matching share to receive an apportionment for the modernization of a permanent or portable building that is at least ten years old.

OPSC performed a search on whether the proposed regulatory amendments were consistent and com - patible with existing State laws and regulations and did not identify any inconsistent or incompatible ex - isting State laws or regulations. The proposed regu - latory amendments are consistent with and imple - ment several provisions of statutory changes enact - ed with the passage of Proposition 2. Proceeding with the implementation of the proposed regulations will provide a positive impact on the state’s economy, as well as the creation of an unknown number of jobs in the school construction industry.

Once school dis - tricts request the release of state funds, manufacturing and construction–related industries such as architec - ture, engineering, trades and municipalities may ex - pand based on the demand on these industries. School districts will also have the ability to take advantage of the new Proposition 2 provisions. The proposed regu - lations will maintain equity, consistency, and the in - tegrity of the SFP. Anticipated Benefits of the Proposed Regulations There are benefits associated with the proposed reg- ulations.

The SAB has the opportunity to administer the SFP with new Proposition 2 provisions that make program modifications beneficial to school districts, including small school districts and to replenish the SFP with $8.5 billion in bond authority.

The proposed regulations also provide school districts with addi - tional opportunities to qualify for financial hardship at an increased total bonding capacity level; to have new construction eligibility locked in for five years for small school districts; and to allow school districts that have a school facility located on a military in - stallation that is a recipient of a federal grant that re - quires a local matching share to receive an apportion - ment for the modernization of a permanent or porta - ble building that is at least ten years old.

In addition, there is a positive impact on the state’s economy, as well as the creation of an unknown number of jobs in the school construction industry. Once school districts request the release of state funds, manufacturing and construction–related industries such as architecture, engineering, trades and municipalities may expand based on the demand on these industries. The proposed regulations are therefore determined to be consistent and compatible with existing State laws and regulations.

Proceeding with the implemen - tation of the proposed regulations maintains the in - tegrity of the SFP funding process, as well as equity amongst school district projects.

Summary of the Proposed Regulations A

summary of the proposed regulations are as follows: Existing Regulation

Section 1859.2 represents a set of defined words and terms used exclusively for these regulations. The proposed amendments define an ad - ditional specific term essential to these regulations and stipulate the applicable dates when a certain Grant Agreement will be used for projects. Additionally, the Form SAB 50–03 is being amended so the revision date must change. Existing Regulation 1859.51 outlines the criteria for adjusting a district’s new construction baseline eligi - bility.

In subsection (j), small school districts (schools with an enrollment of 2,500 students or fewer) new construction baselines will not be adjusted until three years after the district’s eligibility was approved by the SAB. The proposed amendment locks in their baseline eligibility from three years to five years. This is in alignment with Education Code

Section 17071.75. Existing Regulation

Section 1859.60 sets forth the criteria for a school district to calculate its modern - ization baseline eligibility for each school site. The proposed amendments provide specific assistance to school districts that have a school facility located on a military installation that is the recipient of a feder - al grant that requires a local matching share. Further, these school districts are eligible for a modernization apportionment of a permanent or portable building that is at least ten years old or is at least ten years old after the date of the previous modernization appor -

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 34–Z 1043 tionment. This is in alignment with Education Code

Section 17073.15. Existing Regulation

Section 1859.61 sets forth spe - cific factors which impact a district’s capacity to house pupils and therefore require adjustments to the mod - ernization baseline eligibility. The proposed amend - ments add a new subsection that pertains to the mod - ernization baseline eligibility for additional facilities located on a military installation. This is in alignment with Education Code

Section 17073.15(b). With the addition of the new subsection, there is renumbering of the subsections which is considered a non–substan- tive change. Existing Regulation

Section 1859.78.8 specifies that an additional apportionment will be provided by Edu- cation Code

Section 17074.10(

a) for facilities previous- ly modernized with State funds. The proposed amend- ments add two new subsections that specify new eli - gibility criteria for permanent and portable school fa - cilities that are located on a military installation. This is in alignment with Education Code

Section 17073.15. Existing Regulation

Section 1859.79.2 sets forth guidelines for eligible and ineligible expenditures re - lated to the use of modernization grant funds. The proposed amendments clarify that portable class - room facilities funded under Education Code Sec - tion 17073.15(

b) are also included in the exception of portable classroom facilities eligible for an additional apportionment. Existing Regulation

Section 1859.81 sets forth spe - cific criteria for school districts and county offices of education to qualify for financial hardship status. The proposed amendments increase the maximum level of total bonding capacity that a school district can have and still be automatically eligible for financial hard - ship assistance from $5 million to $15 million. This is in alignment with Education Code

Section 17075.15. In addition to this proposed amendment, new subsec - tion (

i) is being added to formalize the longstanding policy/practice of allowing school districts to utilize bridge financing. This policy has been used as a tool for interfund borrowing for school districts to con - tinue with their projects while waiting for the receipt of financial hardship project funding. Lastly, there are non–substantive changes throughout this

Section that capitalizes the “F” and “H” in the term Financial Hardship as it is a defined term. Existing Form SAB 50–03, Eligibility Determina - tion, (Rev. 12/10 03/25), is used by school districts to calculate their eligibility for new construction and modernization funding under the SFP. The proposed amendments incorporate provisions of Proposition 2 related to eligibility determination for school facili - ties located on military installations that are a recip - ient of a federal grant for facilities modernization that requires a local matching share.

This is in alignment with the proposed amendments to the regulation sec - tions noted above. There are two proposed amend - ments not related to Proposition 2 and that is the data and year on pages 2 and 3 of the form. The enrollment year information will help streamline the verification process and allow for a more concise verification of California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS) enrollment being utilized on each Form SAB 50–03 as it is processed by OPSC.

As discussed earlier, the proposed Grant Agreement [Proposition 2] (New 03/25) master templates are used for projects submitted to OPSC on or after Oc - tober 31, 2024 and incorporate some of the new provi- sions of Proposition 2. The Grant Agreement [Propo - sition 2] is entered into for every future funding appli- cation that is processed; therefore, each Grant Agree - ment will contain the relevant program’s sections. The Grant Agreements were developed to address the Of - fice of Statewide Audits and Evaluation’s audit find - ings by improving program oversight and expendi - ture accountability.

The Grant Agreements serve as binding documents and key resources that define the responsibilities of the state and school districts from the determination of the amount of eligible state fund- ing to the reporting of all project funds, including any savings achieved. This ensures transparency and ac - countability for the program grants being awarded un- der the SFP. Statutory Authority and Implementation Education Code

Section 17070.35. (

a) In addition to all other powers and duties as are granted to the board by this chapter, other statutes, or the California Con - stitution, the board shall do all of the following:

(1) Adopt rules and regulations, pursuant to the rulemak - ing provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act,

Chapter 3.5 (commencing with

Section 11340) of

Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, for the administration of this chapter. Government Code

Section 15503. Whenever the board is required to make allocations or apportion - ments under this part, it shall prescribe rules and reg - ulations for the administration of, and not inconsis - tent with, the act making the appropriation of funds to be allocated or apportioned. The board shall require the procedure, forms, and the submission of any infor- mation it may deem necessary or appropriate. Unless otherwise provided in the appropriation act, the board may require that applications for allocations or appor- tionments be submitted to it for approval.

Determination of Inconsistency or Incompatibility with Existing State Regulations At the December 3, 2024 SAB meeting, it was not - ed that it would take time for OPSC to process ap - plications received before October 31, 2024, but nec - essary for OPSC to receive early guidance from the SAB to inform school districts who submitted applica-

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 34–Z 1044 tions on or after October 31, 2024, or who are current- ly planning to submit applications for funding. OPSC also determined the need for the SAB to set some pro- gram parameters expeditiously so that Facility Hard - ship Program and Seismic Mitigation Program appli - cations, which address imminent health and safety needs and receive expedited processing and funding under existing SFP regulations, are processed under Proposition 2 quickly and without delay.

The SFP is replenished with $8.5 billion in bond au- thority and Proposition 2 provisions are/will be imple- mented in the SFP.

The proposed regulations provide school districts with unique opportunities to quali - fy for financial hardship at an increased total bond - ing capacity level; to have new construction eligibil - ity locked in for five years for small school districts; and to allow school districts that have a school located on a military installation that is a recipient of a feder - al grant that requires a local matching share to receive an apportionment for the modernization of a perma - nent or portable building that is at least ten years old.

After conducting a review, the SAB has concluded that these are the only regulations on this subject area, and therefore, the proposed regulations are neither in - consistent nor incompatible with existing State laws and regulations. The proposed regulations are within the SAB’s authority to enact regulations for the SFP under Education Code

Section 17070.35 and Govern - ment Code

Section 15503. Documents Incorporated by Reference ● Form SAB 50–03, (Rev. 12/10 03/25), referenced in Regulation

Section 1859.2 and is incorporated by reference. ● Grant Agreement [Proposition 2], (New 03/25), referenced in Regulation

Section 1859.2 and is in- corporated by reference. IMPACT ON LOCAL AGENCIES OR SCHOOL DISTRICTS The Executive Officer of the SAB has determined that the proposed regulations do not impose a man - date or a mandate requiring reimbursement by the State pursuant to

Part 7 (commencing with

Section 17500) of Division 4 of the Government Code. It will not require local agencies or school districts to incur additional costs in order to comply with the proposed regulations.

DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION The Executive Officer of the SAB has made the fol- lowing initial determinations relative to the required statutory categories: ● The SAB has made an initial determination that there will be no significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, in - cluding the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. ● The SAB is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action. ● There will be no non–discretionary costs or sav - ings to local agencies. ● The proposed regulations create no costs to any local agency or school district requiring reim - bursement pursuant to

Section 17500 et seq., or beyond those required by law, except for the re - quired district contribution toward each project as stipulated in statute. ● There will be no costs or savings in federal fund- ing to the State. ● The proposed regulations create no costs or sav - ings to any State agency beyond those required by law. ● The SAB has made an initial determination that there will be no impact on housing costs.

RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC I M PACT A NA LYSIS Impact to Businesses and Jobs in California The proposed regulations promote transparency be- cause school districts and the school district commu - nity have been collaborating on the proposed regula - tions through a series of stakeholder meetings. The SAB has the opportunity to administer the SFP with new Proposition 2 provisions that make program mod- ifications beneficial to school districts, including small school districts and replenishes the SFP with $8.5 bil- lion in bond authority.

The proposed regulations also provide school districts with additional opportunities to qualify for financial hardship at an increased total bonding capacity level; to have new construction eligi- bility locked in for five years for small school districts; and to allow school districts that have a school facili - ty located on a military installation that is a recipient of a federal grant that requires a local matching share to receive an apportionment for the modernization of a permanent or portable building that is at least ten years old.

In addition, the proposed regulations will not negatively impact the creation of jobs, the creation of new businesses, and the expansion of businesses in California. It is not anticipated that the proposed reg - ulations will result in the elimination of existing busi - nesses or jobs within California. Additionally, the pro- posed regulations expand the SFP while aligning with

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 34–Z 1045 the statute, as well as maintain program integrity and equity amongst school district projects. Benefits to Public Health and Welfare, Worker’s Safety, and the State’s Environment ● The proposed regulations promote transparency because school districts and the school district community have been collaborating on the pro - posed regulations through a series of stakeholder meetings.

The SAB has the opportunity to ad - minister the SFP with new Proposition 2 provi - sions that make program modifications beneficial to school districts, including small school dis - tricts and replenishes the SFP with $8.5 billion in bond authority. ● There are continued benefits to the health and welfare of California residents and worker safety.

School districts, charter schools, and local edu - cational agencies utilize construction and trades employees to work on school construction proj - ects and although this proposed regulation does not directly impact worker’s safety, existing law provides for the availability of a skilled labor force and encourages improved health and safe - ty of construction and trades employees through proper apprenticeship and training.

Further, pub - lic health and safety is enhanced because a prop - erly paid and trained workforce will build school construction projects that are higher quality, structurally code–compliant and safer for use by pupils, staff, and other occupants on the site. ● There is no impact to the State’s environment from the proposed regulatory amendments. The SAB finds the proposed regulations fully con - sistent with the stated purposes and benefits.

EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESSES It has been determined that the proposed regulations will not have a negative impact on small businesses in the ways identified in subsections (a) (1)–(4) of

Section 4, Title 1, CCR. The proposed regulations only ap - ply to school districts and local education agencies for purposes of funding school facility projects. Manufac- turing and construction–related industries such as ar - chitecture, engineering, trades and municipalities may expand based on the demand on these industries. This may include new [small] businesses, or the expansion of [small] businesses, which has a positive impact on the state’s economy and may also create an unknown number of jobs.

SUBMISSION OF COMMENTS, DOCUMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Any interested person may present statements, ar - guments or contentions, in writing, submitted via U.S. mail, email or fax, relevant to the proposed regulato - ry action. Written comments submitted via U.S. mail, email or fax must be received at OPSC no later than October 6, 2025 end of day. The express terms of the proposed regulations as well as the Initial Statement of Reasons are available to the public.

Written comments, submitted via U.S. mail, email or fax, regarding the proposed regulatory action, re - quests for a copy of the proposed regulatory action or the Initial Statement of Reasons, and questions con - cerning the substance of the proposed regulatory ac - tion should be addressed to: Lisa Jones, Regulations Coordinator Mailing Address: Office of Public School Construction 707 Third Street, 3rd Floor West Sacramento, CA 95605 Email Address: lisa.jones@dgs.ca.gov Fax Number: (916) 375–6721 AGENCY CONTACT PERSONS General or substantive questions regarding this No - tice of Proposed Regulatory Action may be directed to Ms.

Lisa Jones at (279) 946–8459. If Ms. Jones is un- available, these questions may be directed to the back- up contact person, Mr. Michael Watanabe, Deputy Ex- ecutive Officer, at (279) 946–8463. ADOPTION OF REGULATIONS Please note that, following the public comment pe - riod, the SAB may adopt the regulation substantially as proposed in this notice or with modifications, which are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text and notice of proposed regulatory activity.

If modifi - cations are made, the modified text with the changes clearly indicated will be made available to the public for at least 15 days prior to the date on which the SAB adopts the regulations. The modified regulation(

s) will be made available and provided to: all persons who testified at and who submitted written comments at the public hearing, all persons who submitted written comments during the public comment period, and all persons who requested notification from the agency of the availability of such changes. Requests for copies of any modified regula - tions should be addressed to the agency’s regulation coordinator identified above. The SAB will accept

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 34–Z 1046 written comments on the modified regulations during the 15–day period. SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES WILL REQUIRE A NEW NOTICE If, after receiving comments, the SAB intends to adopt the regulation with modifications not sufficient- ly related to the original text, the modified text will not be adopted without complying anew with the notice requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. RULEMAKING FILE Pursuant to Government Code

Section 11347.3, the SAB is maintaining a rulemaking file for the proposed regulatory action. The file currently contains: 1. A copy of the text of the regulations for which the adoption is proposed in strikeout/underline. 2. A copy of this Notice. 3. A copy of the Initial Statement of Reasons for the proposed adoption. 4. The factual information upon which the SAB is relying in proposing the adoption. As data and other factual information, studies, re - ports or written comments are received they will be added to the rulemaking file.

The file is available for public inspection at OPSC during normal working hours. Items 1 through 3 are also available on OPSC’s Internet Web site at: Laws, Regulations for School Construction Projects then scroll down to School Fa - cility Program, Pending Regulatory Changes, and click on the links entitled 45–day Public Notice, Initial Statement of Reasons and Proposed Regulation Text. ALTERNATIVES In accordance with Government Code

Section 11346.5(a) (13), the SAB must determine that no rea - sonable alternative it considered or that has otherwise been identified and brought to its attention would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed, would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the pro - posed action, or would be more cost–effective to af - fected private persons and equally effective in imple - menting the statutory policy or other provision of law.

The alternative to these proposed regulations would be the SAB take no action and be in violation of the statute (AB 247). The SAB is charged with ensuring that the provisions of Proposition 2 are implemented timely in the SFP. AVAILABILITY OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Upon its completion, the Final Statement of Reasons will be available, and copies may be requested from the agency’s regulation coordinator named in this no - tice or may be accessed on the website listed above. TITLE 2.

OFFICE OF DATA AND INNOVATION NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ADOPT A CONFLICT–OF–INTEREST CODE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the California Office of Data and Innovation, pursuant to the author- ity vested in it by

section 87300 of the Government Code, proposes its conflict–of–interest code. A com - ment period has been established commencing on Au- gust 22, 2025, and closing on October 6, 2025. The California Office of Data and Innovation pro - poses to adopt its conflict–of–interest code to include employee positions that involve the making or partici- pation in the making of decisions that may foreseeably have a material effect on any financial interest, as set forth in subdivision (

a) of

section 87302 of the Gov - ernment Code. A written explanation of why each po- sition was selected and the reasons for the disclosure categories is available. The California Office of Data and Innovation drives innovation across California state government, us - ing data, technology, and human centered design to achieve exceptional, equitable outcomes for all Cali - fornians. The California Office of Data and Innovation collaborates with leaders and communities through - out California and the world.

The California Office of Data and Innovation partners to build empathy for the people it serves and create a government that is easy to interact with and solves big problems. Copies of the proposed code are available and may be requested from the Contact Person set forth below. Any interested person may submit written state - ments, arguments, or comments relating to the pro - posed code by submitting them in writing no later than October 6, 2025, or at the conclusion of the pub - lic hearing, if requested, whichever comes later, to the Contact Person set forth below.

At this time, no public hearing has been scheduled concerning the proposed amendments. If any inter - ested person or the person’s representative requests a public hearing, he or she must do so no later than Sep- tember 21, 2025, by contacting the Contact Person set forth below. The California Office of Data and Innovation has determined that the proposed code:

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 34–Z 1047 1. Impose no mandate on local agencies or school districts. 2. Impose no costs or savings on any state agency. 3. Impose no costs on any local agency or school district that are required to be reimbursed under

Part 7 (commencing with

Section 17500) of Divi- sion 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. 4. Will not result in any nondiscretionary costs or savings to local agencies. 5. Will not result in any costs or savings in federal funding to the state. 6. 6Will not have any potential cost impact on pri - vate persons, businesses or small businesses. All inquiries should be directed to: Michael Palmisano 1304 O Street, Suite 300 Sacrament, California 95814 (916) 938–0813 Michael.Palmisano@govops.ca.gov TITLE 14.

FISH AND GAME COMMISSION COMMERCIAL BULL KELP HARVEST RESTRICTIONS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN t h a t t h e C a l i f o r- nia Fish and Game Commission (Commission), pur - suant to the authority vested by sections 6653, 6653.5, 6700 and 6701 of the California Fish and Game Code and to implement, interpret or make specific sections 51, 6650, 6651, 6652, 6653, 6653.5, 6654, 6656, 6680, 6700, 6701, 6701.5, 6702, 6703, 6704, 6705, 6706, and 6707 of said Code, proposes to amend sections 165 and 165.5, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, relating to commercial bull kelp harvest restrictions and lease of kelp beds for exclusive harvest of giant and bull kelp.

Unless otherwise specified, all

section references in this document are to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Commission refers to the Califor- nia Fish and Game Commission, and Department re - fers to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW Current Regulations The current regulations in

Section 165 provide the general licensing provisions for the commercial har - vest of kelp and other aquatic plants. The

section also establishes harvest reporting and harvest royalty fee requirements, establishes geographical limitations on bull kelp harvesting, establishes harvesting meth - od limitations on giant kelp, bull kelp, agar–bearing marine plants, and edible seaweed and prohibits the disturbance of certain aquatic plants. Although Sec - tion 165 provides regulations for kelp and other aquat- ic plants overall, it also contains subsections which provide more nuanced regulations depending on the species harvested and/or use of the harvest, including temporary harvest restrictions and weekly reporting for bull kelp which sunset on January 1, 2026. The existing regulations in

Section 165.5 define procedures for leasing administrative kelp beds for the exclusive right to harvest giant or bull kelp. In ad- dition, the regulation spatially describes the existing 87 administrative kelp beds under the following man - agement categories: open, closed, leaseable, and lease only. The designations were designed for optimal har- vest, while ensuring sustainable management of the resource and the species that depend upon kelp.

Ad - ministrative kelp beds 308, 309, and 312 in Mendoci - no, Humboldt, and Del Norte counties are designated as lease only beds wherein only harvest by lease hold- ers is allowed; however, current regulations allow lim- ited harvest for human consumption of the lease only and closed beds within the limits specified in subsec - tion 165(e).

Section 165.5 also provides information on temporary lease closures for bull kelp beds 308, 309, and 312 which sunset on January 1, 2026.

Proposed Amendments Subsection 165(c): The Department recommends temporary prohibitions, limits, weekly reporting, and lease restrictions for commercial harvest of bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana). ● The proposed amendment to subsection 165(c) (9) extends the sunset date pertaining to the current harvest restrictions and weekly reporting for bull kelp in Del Norte and Humboldt counties from January 1, 2026 to January 1, 2029. ● Two options are provided for Mendocino and Sonoma counties. ○ Under Option 1 (Department recommenda - tion), the proposed amendment to subsection 165(c) (9) extends the sunset date pertaining to the closure of commercial bull kelp har - vest in Mendocino and Sonoma counties from January 1, 2026 to January 1, 2029. ○ Under Option 2, the proposed amendment to subsection 165(c) (9) implements an annual fishery quota, from 1 to 2,000 pounds wet weight, in Mendocino and Sonoma counties combined with the amount to be determined by the Commission; mandatory weekly reporting for bull kelp harvesters in Men - docino and Sonoma counties; authorization for the Department to temporarily close

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 34–Z 1048 harvest in order to obtain an accurate tally of the harvest; the potential for individual harvester allotments to ensure the quota is not exceeded; the mathematical formula to calculate the fishery allotments if the fish - ery is temporarily closed and reopened; the process by which the Department will notify the public and harvesters of the attainment of the quota; the harvesters’ responsibility to monitor the Department’s website to be kept informed of the remaining annual fish - ery quota; and the requirement that harvest in excess of the annual overall fishery quota or allotments shall be disposed of or used in a manner determined by the Department by forfeiting the excess harvest to the De - partment.

These provisions would sunset on January 1, 2029. Subsection 165.5(c): The proposed amendment to subsection 165.5(

c) extends the temporary closure and lease prohibition of the lease only administrative kelp beds 308, 309, and 312 from January 1, 2026 to Jan - uary 1, 2029 and amends the availability to lease ad - ministrative kelp beds 308, 309, and 312 from “on or after January 2, 2026” to “on or after January 2, 2029.” The Department is also recommending correcting a coordinate error for administrative kelp bed 109. Subsection 165.5(k) (2) (I): The proposed amend - ment to subsection 165.5(k) (2) (

I) corrects the sec - ond coordinate in the description of administra - tive kelp bed 109 from 34° 58.999’ North lati - tude 119° 29.556’ West longitude to 33° 58.999’ North latitude 119° 29.556’ West longitude A typo - graphical error was introduced in rulemaking file 2013–1205–01S that placed the coordinate on land; this proposed amendment will correct the coordinate to that which was originally noticed in that rulemaking. Minor edits are proposed for clarity and consistency.

Benefits of the Regulations Under the Marine Life Management Act (MLMA), it is the policy of the state to ensure the conservation, sustainable use, and restoration of California’s liv - ing marine resources for the benefit of all citizens of the state (Fish and Game Code (FGC),

Section 7050). Furthermore, FGC defines a fishery as one or more populations of marine fish or marine plants that may be treated as a unit for purposes of conservation and management and that are identified on the basis of geographical, scientific, technical, recreational, and economic characteristics (FGC,

Section 94).

Kelp is therefore considered a fishery and is subject to the policy of the state that programs for the con - servation and management of the marine fishery re - sources of California shall be established and admin - istered to prevent overfishing, to rebuild depressed stocks, to ensure conservation, to facilitate long–term protection, and, where feasible, restoration of marine fishery habitats, and to achieve the sustainable use of the state’s fishery resources [subdivision 7055(b), FGC] and that fisheries are conducted sustainably so that long–term health of the resources is not sacrificed in favor of short–term benefits [subdivision 7056(a), FGC].

To meet the goals of these policies, the Department has determined that a precautionary approach is war - ranted to protect and maintain the remaining bull kelp along the northern California coast. The changes to the bull kelp regulations are pro - posed with the goal to protect and maintain the re - maining bull kelp beds in Sonoma, Mendocino, Hum- boldt, and Del Norte counties.

The temporary nature of the proposed bull kelp reg- ulations provides an interim management measure to protect the resource while allowing for the Depart - ment, Tribes, industry, and interested stakeholders to continue to collaboratively develop the Kelp Resto - ration and Management Plan, a comprehensive man - agement framework for kelp. The proposed regulations will provide benefits to the sustainable management of kelp resources and will provide regulatory clarity and enforceability.

Business Reporting Requirements The Commission finds it is necessary for the welfare of the people of the state that the proposed reporting requirements apply to business. Consistency and Compatibility with Existing Regulations The proposed regulatory changes are neither in - consistent nor incompatible with existing state regu - lations.

Section 20,

Article IV, of the state Constitu - tion specifies that the Legislature may delegate to the Commission such powers relating to the protection and propagation of fish and game as the Legislature sees fit. The Legislature has delegated to the Commis- sion the power to adopt regulations governing the har- vest of kelp and other aquatic plants for profit (FGC,

Section 6653). No other state agency has the authori - ty to adopt regulations governing the harvest of kelp and other aquatic plants for profit. Commercially man- ufactured and processed food for human consump - tion in California is regulated by the California De - partment of Public Health (CDPH); however, CDPH regulations do not address the harvesting of kelp. The Commission has reviewed its own regulations and finds that the proposed regulatory changes are neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing state reg - ulations.

The Commission has searched the CCR and has found no other state agency regulations pertaining to the commercial harvest of kelp and other aquatic plants; therefore, the Commission has concluded that the proposed regulatory changes are neither inconsis - tent nor incompatible with existing state regulations.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 34–Z 1049 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Comments Submitted by Mail or Email It is requested, but not required, that written com - ments be submitted on or before September 26, 2025 at the address given below, or by email to FGC@fgc.ca.gov. Written comments mailed, or emailed to the Commission office, must be received before 12:00 noon on October 7, 2025. If you would like copies of any modifications to this proposal, please include your name and mailing address. Mailed com - ments should be addressed to Fish and Game Commis- sion, P.O.

Box 944209, Sacramento, CA 94244–2090. Meetings NOTICE IS ALSO GIVEN t h a t a n y p e r s o n i n- terested may present statements, orally or in writ - ing, relevant to this action at a hearing to be held in the East End Complex Auditorium, 1500 Capitol Av - enue, Sacramento, California, which will commence at 8:00 a.m. on October 8, 2025 and may continue at 8:00 a.m., on October 9, 2025.

The Commission will make a reasonable effort to provide the public addi - tional opportunities to observe or provide comment in the meeting through the Zoom videoconference plat - form by computer, mobile device, or telephone con - nections. However, the Commission cannot guarantee the accessibility or functionality of the remote con - nection options. Should technical issues affect remote attendee access or quality, an attempt will be made to resolve them, but the meeting will continue with in–person attendees.

Instructions for participation in the webinar/teleconference hearing will be posted at www.fgc.ca.gov in advance of the meeting or may be obtained by calling 916–653–4899. Please refer to the Commission meeting agenda, which will be available at least 10 days prior to the meeting, for the most cur - rent information. AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS Copies of the Notice of Proposed Action, the Ini - tial Statement of Reasons, and the text of the regula - tion in underline and strikeout format can be accessed through the Commission website at www.fgc.ca.gov.

The regulations as well as all related documents upon which the proposal is based (rulemaking file), are on file and available for public review from the agency representative, Melissa Miller–Henson, Executive Director, Fish and Game Commission, 715 P Street, Box 944209, Sacramento, California 94244–2090, phone (916) 653–4899. Please direct requests for the above–mentioned documents and inquiries concern - ing the regulatory process to Melissa Miller–Hen - son or Sherrie Fonbuena at FGC@fgc.ca.gov or at the preceding address or phone number.

Environ- mental Scientist, Rebecca Flores Miller, Depart - ment of Fish and Wildlife, who can be reached at kelp@wildlife.ca.gov, has been designated to re - spond to questions on the substance of the proposed regulations. AVAILABILITY OF MODIFIED TEXT If the regulations adopted by the Commission dif - fer from but are sufficiently related to the action pro - posed, they will be available to the public for at least 15 days prior to the date of adoption. Any person inter- ested may obtain a copy of said regulations prior to the date of adoption by contacting the agency representa - tive named herein.

If the regulatory proposal is adopted, the final state- ment of reasons may be obtained from the address above when it has been received from the agency pro- gram staff. IMPACT OF REGULATORY ACTION/ RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT The potential for significant statewide adverse eco - nomic impacts that might result from the proposed regulatory action has been assessed, and the following initial determinations relative to the required statutory categories have been made: (

a) Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Directly Affecting Business, Including the Ability of California Businesses to Compete with Businesses in Other States: The proposed action will not have a significant ad - verse economic impact directly affecting business, in- cluding the ability of California businesses to compete with business in other states.

The proposed amendments extend the current tem - porary regulatory amendments established through OAL rulemaking file 2022–1014–04SR that closed all commercial bull kelp harvest in Sonoma and Men- docino counties and imposed an annual fishery quota and weekly reporting for bull kelp harvest in Hum - boldt and Del Norte counties. The temporary four ton (8,000 lbs) annual fishery quota restriction that expires on January 1, 2026 for Del Norte and Humboldt counties combined has not restricted the industry from harvest in these counties.

Weekly reporting of commercial harvest of bull kelp in the combined counties reflected 1,620.2 lbs in 2023 and 2,926.2 lbs in 2024. Extending the current annu - al fishery quota in Del Norte and Humboldt counties combined would maintain current use and harvest post–2014. Due to the temporary closure, no commer- cial harvest of bull kelp was reported in Sonoma and Mendocino counties in 2023 and 2024.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 34–Z 1050 Commercial harvesters in Mendocino and Sono - ma counties did not shift their harvest to Del Norte and Humboldt counties during the temporary closure in 2023 and 2024. Under Option 2, the reopening of Mendocino and Sonoma counties to harvest could po- tentially yield an annual monetary benefit of approx - imately $21,406 if the full 2,000–pound wet weight harvest quota is met while also introducing approxi - mately $120 in reporting costs per harvester. See the Addendum to the economic and fiscal impact state - ment (STD 399) for further details.

Commercial harvest of wild marine algae is not al - lowed in nearby states of Oregon and Washington. Therefore, the industry is not competing with nearby markets for harvested kelp. (

b) Impact on the Creation or Elimination of Jobs Within the State, the Creation of New Businesses or the Elimination of Existing Businesses, or the Expansion of Businesses in California; Benefits of the Regulation to the Health and Welfare of California Residents, Worker Safety, and the State’s Environment: The Commission does not anticipate any impacts on the creation or elimination of jobs, the creation of new business, the elimination of existing businesses or the expansion of businesses in California.

Under Option 2 harvesters in Sonoma and Mendocino counties may resume their harvesting activities, but it is anticipat - ed that this will reactivate existing harvesters from that area who did not move to Del Norte or Humboldt counties. The Commission does not anticipate any benefits to health and welfare of California residents or worker safety under either option. The Commission anticipates benefits to the state’s environment in the sustainable management of this re- source.

As a foundational species forming the phys - ical structure of kelp forest habitats, bull kelp sup - ports fisheries, cultural and ceremonial traditions, and tourism. (

c) Cost Impacts on a Representative Private Person or Business: The current long–standing monthly harvest report - ing requirement for all commercially harvested ma - rine alga will continue. The proposed extension of the current weekly reporting requirement for bull kelp harvest would continue to introduce additional time for harvesters in Del Norte and Humboldt counties, which is estimated to be about $200 annually per har - vester (see Table 1. Bull Kelp Harvester Weekly Re - porting Costs for Del Norte and Humboldt Counties in the STD 399 Addendum).

If Option 2 is selected, it is estimated that harvesters in Sonoma and Mendocino counties would face annual reporting costs of approx- imately $120 per harvester (see STD 399 Addendum for further details). (

d) Costs or Savings to State Agencies or Costs/ Savings in Federal Funding to the State: Management of bull kelp harvest quota and week - ly reporting of harvest will continue for an addition - al three years for the Department.

Management tasks in counties with a harvest quota will include: week - ly compiling and tracking of harvest and posting sta - tus updates on the Department webpage, comparison of weekly to monthly reporting and communications with license holders as needed if discrepancies occur in the reports, determining status of harvest toward the quota as needed, drafting and emailing notices to license holders prior to implementation of restrictions triggered by the quota, posting notice of temporary closure or closures on the Department webpage, and ensuring any harvest in excess of any established quo- ta is forfeited to the Department through a Release of Property form.

The continuation of these activities by the Department does not represent a new cost to the state as it has already been budgeted. However, un - der Option 2 the Department could see up to $24 in additional annual revenue from the collection of the edible seaweed royalty in the reopened Sonoma and Mendocino counties, see STD 399 Addendum for fur- ther details. (

e) Nondiscretionary Costs/Savings to Local Agencies: None. (

f) Programs Mandated on Local Agencies or School Districts: None. (

g) Costs Imposed on any Local Agency or School District that is Required to be Reimbursed Under

Part 7 (commencing with

Section 17500) of Division 4, Government Code: None. (

h) Effect on Housing Costs: None. (

i) Business Reporting Requirements: The current long–standing monthly harvest report - ing requirement for all commercially harvested ma - rine algae will continue. The proposed regulations ex- tend the current weekly reporting requirements for commercial harvest of bull kelp in Humboldt and Del Norte counties for three years and, under Option 2, implement weekly reporting requirements for com - mercial harvest of bull kelp in Sonoma and Mendoci - no counties for three years.

The data provided in the weekly reports will help the Department to monitor bull kelp harvest in order to obtain an accurate tally of harvest and avoid exceeding the annual harvest quota. Without these weekly reporting requirements for com- mercial harvester businesses, the Department’s ability to closely monitor bull kelp harvest in order to obtain

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 34–Z 1051 an accurate tally of harvest and to avoid exceeding the annual harvest quota would not be realized.

It is the policy of the state to ensure the conserva - tion, sustainable use, and restoration of California’s living marine resources for the benefit of all citizens of the state and that programs for the conservation and management of the marine fishery resources be estab- lished and administered to prevent overfishing, to re - build depressed stocks, to ensure conservation, to fa - cilitate long–term protection, and, where feasible, restoration of marine fishery habitats, and to achieve the sustainable use of the state’s fishery resources and that fisheries are conducted sustainably so that long–term health of the resources is not sacrificed in favor of short–term benefits.

Therefore, the Commis - sion finds it is necessary for the welfare of the people of the state that the proposed reporting requirements apply to business. EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESS It has been determined that the adoption of these regulations may affect small business. The Commis - sion has drafted the regulations in Plain English pur - suant to Government Code Sections 11342.580 and 11346.2(a) (1).

CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES The Commission must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the Commission, or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the Commission, would be more effective in carry- ing out the purpose for which the action is proposed, would be as effective and less burdensome to affect - ed private persons than the proposed action, or would be more cost–effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law. TITLE 14.

FISH AND GAME COMMISSION INVASIVE NON–NATIVE MUSSELS AND GREEN CRAB NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission), pursuant to the authority vested by sections 2118 and 2120 of the California Fish and Game Code and to implement, interpret or make specific sections 1002, 2116, 2118, 2118.2, 2118.4, 2119, 2120, 2122, 2123, 2124, 2125, 2126, 2127, 2150, 2190 and 2271 of said Code, propos- es to amend

Section 671, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, to add invasive non–native mussels and green crab to the list of live restricted animals. Unless otherwise specified, all

section references in this document are to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Commission refers to the Califor- nia Fish and Game Commission and Department re - fers to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW Current regulations in

Section 671 contain the list of restricted species that are unlawful for any person to import, transport, or possess except as authorized in a permit issued by the Department. Under emergen - cy regulatory authority, golden mussel ( Limnoperna fortunei) was added to the list of restricted animals in December 2024 (Office of Administrative Law File Number 2024–1213–03E).

The proposed changes will add green crab (Carcinus maenas), an invasive, non–native crustacean species, and the Limnoperna, Sinanodonta and Xenostrobus genera which are invasive, non–native bivalve species, to the list of restricted animals consistent with Califor- nia Fish and Game Code sections 2118 and 2120. Background Green Crab (C. maenas) The green crab (C. maenas), also known as the Eu - ropean green crab, native to the northeast Atlantic Ocean and northern Africa, is an invasive non–native species in California. Green crab was first detected in California in 1989 in the southern San Francisco Bay.

It is suspected that the green crab arrived in seaweed–wrapped bait ship - ments from the East Coast of the U.S. Since then, green crab has been identified in many California bays and estuaries including, but not limited to, San Francisco Bay and Bay Delta, Elkhorn Slough, Bolinas Lagoon, Bodega Bay, Tomales Bay, Morro Bay and Humboldt Bay. There is concern that green crab can continue to expand beyond currently established populations in California and cause extensive damage to recreational and commercial fishery resources, aquaculture, native fisheries, and sensitive habitat.

On July 7, 2017, the Commission received a petition for regulatory change (Petition 2017–006) from Mr. Joshua Russo, President of the Watermen’s Alliance, requesting that regulations be adopted to list green crab as an invasive aquatic species. The Department evaluated the petition and provided a recommendation to the Commission to grant the petition. At its April 2018 meeting, the Commission agreed with the Department’s recommendation and granted the petition for consideration in a future rulemaking.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 34–Z 1052 Golden Mussel (genus Limnoperna) On October 17, 2024, golden mussel (L. fortunei), an invasive, freshwater bivalve native to rivers and creeks of China and Southeast Asia, was discovered in the Port of Stockton by California Department of Water Resources (DWR) staff while conducting routine op - erations. This was the first known occurrence of this highly invasive species in North America.

Additional discoveries of golden mussel have occurred through - out the Delta and interconnected waters, including the lower reach of the San Joaquin River (San Joaquin County), and at several points in the California Aq - ueduct including, from north–to–south, Bethany Res - ervoir (Alameda County), O’Neill Forebay (Merced County), Dos Amigos Pumping Plant (Merced Coun - ty), Pleasant Valley Pumping Plant (Fresno County), Las Perillas Pumping Plant on the Coastal Branch Aq- ueduct (Kings County), and Check 24 (Kings Coun - ty).

Without actions to prevent further spread, gold - en mussel is also likely to spread overland on trail - ered watercraft and equipment out of the Delta and to nearby and distant fresh and brackish waters, includ - ing rivers, lakes, and reservoirs within California and the rest of North America. Golden mussel is known to be established outside of its native range in Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Argentina.

Impacts in these invaded regions include heavy encrustations of golden mussels forming dense reef–like structures that block municipal and industrial water supplies, agricultural irrigation, and power plant operations, necessitating ongoing biofouling removal. In most cases, the invad- ed range has expanded upstream from the point of in - troduction, and inland from ports through local, hu - man–mediated pathways. Within the invaded range, significant impacts resulting from the dense coloni - zation of golden mussels on hard surfaces are widely documented.

At its December 11, 2024 meeting, the Commission approved an emergency rulemaking to add golden mussel (L. fortunei) to the list of restricted animals in

Section 671 (Office of Administrative Law File Num- ber 2024–1213–03E). The proposed rulemaking will serve as the certificate of compliance for the addition of L. fortunei to the list of restricted animals. Beyond the immediate threat of L. fortunei, the oth- er five species within the genus Limnoperna mussels have the potential to be inadvertently introduced to California, and likely to have similar negative impacts to California as L. fortunei. Other species within the genus Limnoperna include L. siamensis, L. ngocngai, L. bogani, L. sambasensis, and L. taprobanensis.

Lim- noperna mussels are native to Asia, primarily South - east Asia. Most Limnoperna species can be found in freshwater to estuarine habitats, although it is hypoth- esized that L. taprobanensis is a marine species. Outside of L. fortunei, there are few records of in - vasions outside of their native ranges by other spe - cies of Limnoperna; however, available literature in - dicates they may have similar biology and impacts as L. fortunei.

Pond Mussels (genus Sinanodonta) Pond mussels (Sinanodonta) (also known as Asian pond mussels) are freshwater unionid bivalves of 26 species that are fast–growing and can reach high den - sities. Species within Sinanodonta are difficult to mor- phologically identify, which has led to extensive mis - identification of species. Additionally, the molecular taxonomy within the genus is still being resolved.

Native to Eastern Asia including China and east - ern Russia, Japan and Korea, three species of Sinan- odonta (S. woodiana , S. lauta , and S. pacifica) have been documented to be invasive outside of their native ranges and have spread rapidly to other countries in - cluding Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Iran, South Korea, Myanmar, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Borneo, Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Spain, France, Ita - ly, Germany, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland, Croatia, Serbia, Romania, Moldova, Belgium, Ukraine and Sweden.

In 2010, S. woodiana was detected for the first time in the United States within aquaculture ponds in Franklin Township, New Jersey. Pond mussel has not been detected in California, or any other U.S. state with the exception of New Jersey. Based on the establishment of S. woodiana in North America, potential vectors of introduction, and antic - ipated impacts to native species and the environment, prohibiting all species in the genus Sinanodonta is warranted.

Axe–Head Mussel (genus Xenostrobus) Axe–head mussel ( Xenostrobus securis ), a small, non–native, invasive, biofouling brackish water bi - valve, was discovered on December 6, 2024, just north of the Port of Long Beach and Port of Los Angeles in the lower reaches of Dominguez Channel, Los Ange - les County. This detection was made by Department staff conducting early detection monitoring for inva - sive mussels. This is the first known occurrence of the invasive species in North America.

Shortly after, axe–head mussels were detected in high densities at additional sites including the lower reaches of San Ga- briel River (February 21, 2025) and Los Angeles River (February 27, 2025). Axe–head mussel is one of eight extant species of the genus Xenostrobus. These species include X. pu - lex and X. securis from Australia and New Zealand, X. inconstans from Australia, X. balani , X. mangle and X. sambasensis from Southeast Asia , X. hepatica from Fiji, and X. atratus from Japan, Korea, and Chi - na. Axe–head mussel (X. securis) has been introduced

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 34–Z 1053 and established outside of its native ranges in Japan, China, Korea, Hong Kong, Italy, France, and Spain. Globally axe–head mussel was likely introduced by ballast water discharge and biofouling on ships. With- out containment, axe–head mussel is likely to spread via watercraft in the marine environment to other es - tuaries, brackish waters, and ports of California, oth - er U.S. states and territories, and internationally, and overland on trailered vessels and equipment in North America.

Beyond the immediate threat of axe–head mussel, the other seven species of Xenostrobus mussels have the potential to be inadvertently introduced to Califor- nia, and are likely to have similar negative impacts to California as axe–head mussel. PROPOSED CHANGES The proposed regulations add green crab, and the Limnoperna, Sinanodonta, and Xenostrobus genera to the list of live animals restricted from importation, transportation and possession:

Section 671. Importa - tion, Transportation and Possession of Live Restrict - ed Animals. Amend subsection (c) (8) from Class Crustacea to Class Malacostraca to update and correct the Class for the species in this subsection. The Class Crustacea has been reclassified by The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to a higher level and is now a subphylum of the phylum Arthropoda. Add subsection (c) (8) (

C) Carcinus maenas (green crab) (D). Adding green crab, which causes harm to native species and the ecosystems they depend on to sur - vive, to the list of restricted animals is necessary to protect against the spread of this invasive species in California. Prohibiting importation, transportation, and possession of this species will prevent further in - troductions and slow the spread within and outside of California. Amend subsection (c)

(10) Class Bivalvia–Bivalves to move “All members of the genus Dreissena (zebra and quagga mussels) (D).” under subsection (

A) to al- low for the addition of other species under this class. Add subsection (c) (10) (

B) All members of the genus Limnoperna (golden mussel) (D). Adding all members of the genus Limnoperna (golden mussel), which can cause harm to native spe - cies and the ecosystems they depend on to survive, as well as infrastructure, to the list of restricted animals is necessary to protect against the spread of these in - vasive species in California. Prohibiting importation, transportation, and possession of the species will pre - vent further introductions and slow the spread within and outside of California. Add subsection (c) (10) (

C) All members of the genus Sinanodonta (pond mussel, Asian pond mussel) (D). Adding all members of the genus Sinanodonta (pond mussel), which can cause harm to native species and the ecosystems they depend on to survive, to the list of restricted animals is necessary to protect against the spread of these invasive species in California. Pro- hibiting importation, transportation, and possession of the species will prevent further introductions and slow the spread within and outside of California. Add subsection (c) (10) (

D) All members of the genus Xenostrobus (axe–head mussel) (D). Adding all members of the genus Xenostrobus (axe–head mussel), which can cause harm to native species and the ecosystems they depend on to sur - vive, as well as infrastructure, to the list of restricted animals is necessary to protect against the spread of these invasive species in California. Prohibiting im - portation, transportation, and possession of the spe - cies will prevent further introductions and slow the spread within and outside of California.

BENEFITS OF THE REGULATION The California Legislature has declared that some wild animals are a threat to native wildlife or the ag - ricultural interests of the state and that some wild an - imals are a threat to public health and safety. It is the Legislature’s intention that the importation, transpor - tation and possession of wild animals be regulated to protect the native wildlife and agricultural interests of the state against damage from the existence at large of certain wild animals and to protect the health and safety in this state.

The proposed regulations will help to prevent the new introductions of species within the Limnoperna, Sinanodonta, and Xenostrobus genera to waterbodies of the state and the translocation of green crab, and members of the Limnoperna and Xenostro- bus genera to other waterbodi es in the state and be - yond, thereby protecting native wildlife, the agricul - tural interests of the state and public health and safety. CONSISTENCY AND COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING REGULATIONS

Article IV,

Section 20 of the California Constitution specifies that the Legislature may delegate to Commis- sion such powers relating to the protection and propa- gation of fish and game as the Legislature sees fit. The Legislature has delegated to the Commission the pow- er to regulate the importation, transportation and pos - session of wild animals to protect the native wildlife, agricultural interests of the state, and the health and safety in this state (California Fish and Game Code

Section 2118). The Commission has reviewed its own regulations and finds that the proposed regulations are

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 34–Z 1054 consistent with other regulations in Title 14, CCR, and therefore finds that the proposed regulations are nei - ther inconsistent nor incompatible with existing state regulations. The Commission has searched the Cali - fornia Code of Regulations and finds no other state agency regulations pertaining to species on the list of restricted animals.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Comments Submitted by Mail or Email It is requested, but not required, that written com - ments be submitted on or before September 26, 2025 at the address given below, or by email to FGC@fgc.ca.gov. Written comments mailed, or emailed to the Commission office, must be received before 12:00 noon on October 7, 2025. If you would like copies of any modifications to this proposal, please include your name and mailing address. Mailed com - ments should be addressed to Fish and Game Commis- sion, P.O. Box 944209, Sacramento, CA 94244–2090.

Meetings NOTICE IS ALSO GIVEN t h a t a n y p e r s o n i n- terested may present statements, orally or in writ - ing, relevant to this action at a hearing to be held in the East End Complex Auditorium, 1500 Capitol Av - enue, Sacramento, California, which will commence at 8:00 a.m. on October 8, 2025 and may continue at 8:00 a.m., on October 9, 2025. The Commission will make a reasonable effort to provide the public addi - tional opportunities to observe or provide comment in the meeting through the Zoom videoconference plat - form by computer, mobile device, or telephone con - nections.

However, the Commission cannot guarantee the accessibility or functionality of the remote con - nection options. Should technical issues affect remote attendee access or quality, an attempt will be made to resolve them, but the meeting will continue with in–person attendees. Instructions for participation in the webinar/teleconference hearing will be posted at www.fgc.ca.gov in advance of the meeting or may be obtained by calling 916–653–4899. Please refer to the Commission meeting agenda, which will be available at least 10 days prior to the meeting, for the most cur - rent information.

AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS Copies of the Notice of Proposed Action, the Ini - tial Statement of Reasons, and the text of the regula - tion in underline and strikeout format can be accessed through the Commission website at www.fgc.ca.gov. The regulations as well as all related documents upon which the proposal is based (rulemaking file), are on file and available for public review from the agency representative, Melissa Miller–Henson, Executive Director, Fish and Game Commission, 715 P Street, Box 944209, Sacramento, California 94244–2090, phone (916) 653–4899.

Please direct requests for the above–mentioned documents and inquiries concern - ing the regulatory process to Melissa Miller–Hen - son or Sherrie Fonbuena at FGC@fgc.ca.gov or at the preceding address or phone number. Environmen- tal Program Manager, Martha Volkoff, Depart - ment of Fish and Wildlife, who can be reached at Invasives@wildlife.ca.gov, has been designated to respond to questions on the substance of the pro - posed regulations.

AVAILABILITY OF MODIFIED TEXT If the regulations adopted by the Commission dif - fer from but are sufficiently related to the action pro - posed, they will be available to the public for at least 15 days prior to the date of adoption. Any person inter- ested may obtain a copy of said regulations prior to the date of adoption by contacting the agency representa - tive named herein. If the regulatory proposal is adopted, the final state- ment of reasons may be obtained from the address above when it has been received from the agency pro- gram staff.

IMPACT OF REGULATORY ACTION/ RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT The potential for significant statewide adverse eco - nomic impacts that might result from the proposed regulatory action has been assessed, and the following initial determinations relative to the required statutory categories have been made: (

a) Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Directly Affecting Business, Including the Ability of California Businesses to Compete with Businesses in Other States: The proposed action will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California business - es to compete with businesses in other states. The pro- posed regulations are not expected to impact business- es, as adding a species to the list of restricted animals in

Section 671 does not impose any actions that should be taken by businesses to comply, nor does it impose fees or fines upon them. Because these effects are eco- nomically neutral, it is not anticipated that any busi - nesses will experience adverse economic impacts that would affect their ability to compete with businesses from other states as a result of these regulations. (

b) Impact on the Creation or Elimination of Jobs Within the State, the Creation of New Businesses or the Elimination of Existing Businesses, or the

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 34–Z 1055 Expansion of Businesses in California; Benefits of the Regulation to the Health and Welfare of California Residents, Worker Safety, and the State’s Environment: The proposed regulations are not expected to impact businesses, as adding a species to the list of restricted animals in

Section 671 does not necessitate that any actions should be taken by businesses to comply, nor does it impose fees or fines upon them. Because these effects are economically neutral, it is not anticipated that any businesses will experience adverse economic impacts that would affect the creation or elimination of jobs within the state, create new businesses or elim- inate existing businesses, affect the expansion of exist- ing businesses, or benefit worker safety as a result of these regulations.

The proposed changes are sought to protect native wildlife and the agricultural interests of the state and public health and welfare and the state’s environment. The Commission anticipates benefits to the health and welfare of California residents from better pro - tection of the state’s natural resources. The proposed regulations will help to prevent the introduction and/or translocation of members of the Limnoperna (golden mussel), Sinanodonta and Xenostrobus genera to other waterbodies in the state and beyond, which may help to protect water conveyance and hydroelectric power systems.

The Commission anticipates benefits of the regula - tion to the state’s environment. The California Legis - lature has declared that some wild animals are a threat to native wildlife or the agricultural interests of the state and that some wild animals are a threat to pub - lic health and safety. It is the Legislature’s intention that the importation, transportation and possession of wild animals be regulated to protect the native wild - life and agricultural interests of the state against dam - age from the existence at large of certain wild animals and to protect the health and safety in this state.

The proposed regulations will help to prevent the new in - troductions of species within the Limnoperna, Sinan- odonta, and Xenostrobus genera to waterbodies of the state and the translocation of green crab, and members of the Limnoperna and Xenostrobus genera to other waterbodies in the state and beyond, thereby protect - ing native wildlife, and the agricultural interests of the state. (

c) Cost Impacts on a Representative Private Person or Business: The Commission is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action. The proposed regulations are not expected to cre - ate direct cost impacts for businesses or individuals, as adding a species to the list of restricted animals in

Section 671 does not necessitate that any actions should be taken by businesses or individuals to com - ply, nor does it impose fees or fines upon them. (

d) Costs or Savings to State Agencies or Costs/ Savings in Federal Funding to the State: Including the species and genera proposed on the list of restricted animals does not necessarily compel a requirement to act upon state agencies, but rather en- ables existing programs to include the species in their enforcement actions for detection and prevention. As such, the Commission does not anticipate any direct costs or savings to the Department or other state agen- cies as a result of this action.

There may be future complementary authorities or requirements for man - aging the species proposed that will come from else - where, such as legislation, compelling costs associated with preventing the spread of these invasive species. (

e) Nondiscretionary Costs/Savings to Local Agencies: None. (

f) Programs Mandated on Local Agencies or School Districts: None. (

g) Costs Imposed on any Local Agency or School District that is Required to be Reimbursed Under

Part 7 (commencing with

Section 17500) of Division 4, Government Code: None. (

h) Effect on Housing Costs: None. (

i) Business Reporting Requirements: The proposed action does not impose a business re - porting requirement. EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESS It has been determined that the adoption of these regulations may affect small business. The Commis - sion has drafted the regulations in Plain English pur - suant to Government Code Sections 11342.580 and 11346.2(a) (1).

CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES The Commission must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the Commission, or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the Commission, would be more effective in carry- ing out the purpose for which the action is proposed, would be as effective and less burdensome to affect - ed private persons than the proposed action, or would be more cost–effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 34–Z 1056 TITLE 14. DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY PLASTIC POLLUTION PREVENTION AND PACKAGING PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY ACT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Depart - ment of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecy- cle) proposes to add to the California Code of Regula- tions, Title 14, Division 7,

Chapter 11.1 (commencing with

section 18980.1) and

Chapter 11.5 (commencing with

section 18981). The proposed regulations inter - pret, make specific, and implement the requirements of Senate Bill Number 54 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.), the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (Stats. 2022, chapter75) (the Act), and establish various elements of CalRecycle’s over - sight and enforcement responsibilities under the Act. The proposed regulations will also establish the cri - teria and procedures necessary to implement the re - quirement established by Assembly Bill Number 1201 (2021–2022 Reg.

Sess.) (Stats. 2021, chapter504) (AB 1201) that products labeled “compostable” must be certified by third–party entities according to certain technical standards. After considering all comments, objections, and recommendations regarding the proposed action, Cal - Recycle may adopt the proposals substantially as de - scribed in the below Informative Digest or may modi- fy such proposals if such modifications are sufficiently related to the original text.

PUBLIC HEARING CalRecycle will hold a hybrid public hearing start - ing at 10:00 a.m. (PDT) on October 7, 2025 and con - cluding upon submission of any public hearing com - ments. The public hearing will be accessible in per - son in the Byron Sher Auditorium located on the 2 nd floor of the CalRecycle headquarters at 1001 I Street, Sacramento, California. The Byron Sher Auditorium room is wheelchair accessible. The public hearing will also be accessible virtually via Zoom for direct par - ticipation and via Webcast for observation only.

In - structions for how to access the Zoom public hear - ing (registration required) or Webcast (no registration required), can be found on CalRecycle’s website at https://calrecycle.ca.gov/Laws/Rulemaking/. Please note that Webcast participants will not be able to provide comments during the public hearing. To participate remotely and provide comments, it is recommended to join via Zoom, or to email any com - ments to regulations@calrecycle.ca.gov. No registra - tion is necessary to view the Webcast.

At the public hearing, any person may present state- ments or arguments, orally or in writing, relevant to the proposed action. CalRecycle requests, but does not require, that any person who makes oral comments also submit a written copy of their testimony at the hearing. All comments at the public hearing will be collected and recorded.

INTERPRETATION SERVICES Interpretación simultánea del inglés al español será disponible para todos los participantes al taller, sea en persona, o remotamente a través de Zoom, o por trans- misión en vivo en línea. Para los participantes en per - sona que requieren servicios de interpretación del in - glés al español, habrá audífonos disponibles que serán proporcionados por el personal de CalRecycle antes o durante el taller. If

interpretation services are needed in a lan - guage other than Spanish, contact CalRecycle at regulations@calrecycle.ca.gov by September 26, 2025, and CalRecycle staff will do their best to ac - commodate this request. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD The written comment period permits any interested person, or their authorized representative, to submit written comments addressing the proposed amend - ments to CalRecycle. Written comments, which offer a recommendation and/or objection, or support the pro - posed amendments, should indicate the amended sec - tion to which the comment or comments are directed.

CalRecycle will only consider written comments sent to CalRecycle and received during the written com - ment period, which begins on August 22, 2025, and ends on October 7, 2025. Written comments received by CalRecycle after the close of the public comment period are considered untimely. CalRecycle may, but is not required to, respond to untimely comments, in - cluding those raising significant environmental issues.

Comments submitted in writing must be addressed to one of the following: Postal mail: Csilla Richmond SB 54 Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act Permanent Regulations Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Regulations Unit 1001 “I” St., MS–24B, Sacramento, CA 95814

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 34–Z 1057 Electronic submittal: SB 54 Plastic Pollution Prevention & Packaging Producer Responsibility Act Regulations (45–Day Comment Period) https://calrecycle.commentinput.com/ ?id=VfBKce95R. Please note that under the California Public Records Act (Government Code

section 7920.000 et seq.), your written and oral comments, attachments, and associat- ed contact information (e.g., your address, phone num- ber, email address, etc.) become part of the public re - cord and can be released to the public upon request. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCES Public Resources Code Sections 40401, 40502, 42041, 42052, 42053, 42057, 42060, 42061, 42061.5, 42063, 42064, 42080, 42081, and Government Code Sections 11415.10 and 11440.20 provide authority for this regulation.

The purpose of the proposed actions is to implement, interpret, and make specific, and im - plement the requirements of Senate Bill Number 54 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.), the Plastic Pollution Pre - vention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (Stats. 2022, chapter75), (the Act).

The following is a list of references cited in this pro- posed regulation: Public Resources Code Sections 40062, 40120.1, 40121, 40192, 41780.01, 42040, 42041, 42050, 42051, 42051.1, 42051.2, 42051.3, 42052, 42053, 42054, 42056, 42057, 42060, 42060.5, 42061, 42061.5, 42062, 42063, 42064, 42067, 42070, 42080, 42081, 42083, 42281.2, 42281.5, 42355, 42355.51, 42356, 42356.1, 42356.2, 42357, 42357.5, 42358, 42358.5, and 42649.8, Government Code Sections 7921.500, 7922.530, 11445.10, 11440.20, 11445.30, 11445.40, 11445.50, 11445.60, 11505, 11506, Health and Safety Code

Section 25249. INFORMATIVE DIGEST

Summary of Existing Laws The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (Pub. Resources Code,

section 40000 et seq.)), administered by CalRecycle, regulates the dispos - al, management, and recycling of, among other sol - id waste, packaging and single–use food ware. It also imposes various reporting requirements on disposal facility operators, solid waste handlers, and transfer station operators regarding the types and quantities of materials disposed of, sold, or transferred to oth - er entities. Pursuant to Assembly Bill Number 341 (2011–2012 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2011,

chapter 476), the state’s policy goal was that at least 75 percent of solid waste generat- ed would be source–reduced, recycled, or composted by 2020. That goal has not yet been met. Senate Bill Number 1335 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.), the Sustainable Packaging for the State of California Act of 2018 (Stats. 2018,

chapter 510) (SB 1335), ap - plies to food service packaging used by food service facilities located in a state–owned facility, operating on, or acting as a concessionaire on state property, or under contract to provide food service to a state agen- cy. CalRecycle publishes a list of food service packag- ing items that, for purposes of SB 1335, it deems re - usable, recyclable, or compostable, and facilities sub - ject to the law are prohibited from using food service packaging items not identified on that list. Senate Bill Number 343 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021,

chapter 507) (SB 343), establishes spe - cific standards for what constitutes deceptive labeling concerning recyclability. Products can only be labeled “recyclable” or with the “chasing arrows” logo if they are regularly collect- ed and processed for recycling and meet certain design and composition characteristics affecting recyclabili - ty, or if they satisfy other criteria related to recycling rates, alternative collection programs, or government programs governing recyclability.

CalRecycle must conduct periodic material characterization studies ex - amining the material types and forms that are collect - ed, sorted, sold, or transferred by solid waste facilities in the state. Determinations of whether items can be considered recyclable in California must be based on the information that CalRecycle publishes. Assembly Bill Number 1201 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021,

chapter 504) (AB 1201) establishes re - quirements that products labeled “compostable” must meet. The requirements concern certification that ma- terial meets certain technical standards related to bio - degradation and disintegration, whether material is an allowable organic input pursuant to the United States Department of Agriculture National Organic Pro - gram, presence of perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances, clarity and conspicuousness of the label - ing, and association with the recovery of desirable or- ganic wastes.

Effect of the Proposed Action By interpreting, making specific, and implement - ing the Act, the proposed regulations will establish the various substantive and procedural requirements ap - plicable to the extended producer responsibility (EPR) program that the Act requires producers of single–use packaging and single–use plastic food service ware (covered materials) to administer. The proposed reg - ulations will also establish how CalRecycle will ex - ercise its oversight and enforcement responsibilities.

The proposed regulations will also implement the AB 1201 requirement that products must be certi - fied by third parties to meet a technical standard es - tablished under

chapter 5.7 of

part 3 of division 30 of the Public Resources Code (commencing with sec -

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 34–Z 1058 tion 42355). By implementing this requirement of AB 1201, the proposed regulations will cause the require - ment to take effect generally, not just with respect to covered materials.

Policy Statement Overview and Anticipated Benefits of the Proposed Regulations The broad objective of the proposed regulations is to implement the Act, ensuring that it achieves its goals: source reduction of plastic covered material, elimination of covered material that is not recyclable or compostable, and significant improvements in re - cycling rates for covered material.

The proposed reg - ulations also serve the objective of improving the in - tegrity of product labeling by implementing a certi - fication requirement for when any product (including those using covered materials) can lawfully be labeled “compostable.” These objectives are consistent with the more gen - eral policy goals of shifting California to a circular economy and shifting responsibility for end–of–life management of various materials onto the producers of them, thereby lessening the materials’ effects on the environment and public health and easing the burdens on local jurisdictions and consumers.

Shifting respon- sibility through EPR statutes like the Act will bene - fit solid waste handling in the state by requiring pro - ducers to address the costs of such management and incentivizing the development of infrastructure, tech - nological innovation, and increased usage of reusable and refillable products. By giving effect to the certification requirement of AB 1201, the proposed regulations will reduce de - ception of consumers regarding whether products are compostable.

Consumers will be able to make more informed purchasing choices and better understand what materials are appropriate to discard with mate - rials collected for composting. In turn, this will en - hance the technical and economic viability of com - posting programs statewide. By implementing the Act, the proposed regulations will also spur improvements in recycling and compost- ing infrastructure, which will lead to decreased pollu - tion and environmental harm associated with disposal of covered materials. These effects will, in turn, have positive effects on human health.

Decreased disposal of covered material will also decrease greenhouse gas emissions associated with such disposal.

Specific anticipated benefits of the proposed regu - lations’ implementation and enforcement of the Act include: ● Reduction of plastic pollution and litter. ● Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. ● Decreased material disposal burdens. ● Decreased raw material extraction and virgin material usage. ● Greater use of reusable and refillable items and expansion of reuse and refill systems. ● Reduced presence of toxins and other chemicals that would render products non–compostable or interfere with recycling. ● Increased access to recycling and composting. ● Investments in communities disproportionately impacted by the effects of plastic pollution. ● Supporting a stable circular economy. ● Supporting consistent recycling systems state–wide. ● Increased revenue for businesses from the sale of recycled material product. ● Decreased public health concerns such as cancer, asthma, and birth defects. ● Encouragement of packaging innovation. ● Reduced exposure to chemicals and microplastics from shifts to plastic alternatives. ● Ensuring that refillable or reusable materials can be used safely and hygienically. ● Promoting openness and transparency in busi - ness and government through creation and imple- mentation of Producer Responsibility Organiza - tion (PRO) plans and plans created by individual businesses. ● Reduced deception of consumers and increased transparency in business by imposing certifi - cation requirements for labeling products as “compostable”.

Consistency With State Regulations Pursuant to Government Code

Section 11346.5(a) (3) (D), CalRecycle conducted an evaluation of existing state regulations. CalRecycle determined that the proposed regulations are neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing state regulations and that CalRecycle is the only agency that can implement this proposed regulation.

INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE The following documents are incorporated by refer- ence in the proposed regulation: ● ISO/IEC 17025:2017(E), “General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration lab- oratories,” International Organization for Stan - dardization/International Electrotechnical Com - mission, November 2017. ● ISO/IEC 17065:2012(E), “Conformity assess - ment—Requirements for bodies certifying products, processes and services,” International Organization for standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission, September 2012.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 34–Z 1059 ● State Administrative Manual,

section 9213.1, Al- location of Costs—Indirect Cost Rate Determi - nation Methodology, California Department of General Services (as published on 01/2022). ● ISO 59014: 2024(en), “Environmental manage - ment and circular economy — Sustainability and traceability of the recovery of secondary mate - rials — Principles, requirements and guidance,” International Organization for Standardization, October 2024.

EXISTING COMPARABLE FEDERAL REGULATION OR STATUTE CalRecycle has determined that the proposed regu - lations do not significantly differ from federal law be- cause there are no existing comparable federal statutes or regulations in this subject area. OTHER STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS (GOVERNMENT CODE

SECTION 11346.5(A) (4)) CalRecycle has determined that no other matters, as prescribed by statute, need to be addressed. MANDATES ON LOCAL AGENCIES OR SCHOOL DISTRICTS CalRecycle has made the following initial determinations: Mandate Imposed on Local Agencies: Yes. Costs to any local agency which requires reim - bursement in accordance with

Part 7 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code: None. The statute mandates that local jurisdictions and re- cycling service providers (local agencies) include cer- tain materials in their collection and recycling pro - grams. Fulfilling that mandate involves collaboration with the producer responsibility organization (PRO) and certain producers to undertake various activi - ties, such as education and outreach, material collec - tion and processing, infrastructure improvement, and related investments.

Local agencies’ costs for fulfill - ing their mandate are influenced by local circumstanc- es, including population density and market proximi - ty. While certain costs may be initially borne by local agencies, they are not reimbursable by the State be - cause, under the Act and the proposed regulations, the PRO and certain producers must pay local agencies to cover the expenses they incur to meet their statutory obligations. Mandate Imposed on School Districts: None.

FISCAL IMPACT Costs to Any Local Agencies or School Districts Requiring Reimbursement CalRecycle has determined that the proposed reg - ulations do not result in costs to any local agency or school district that must be reimbursed by the State pursuant to

Section 6 of

Article XIII B of the Califor - nia Constitution and

Part 7 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code (Section 17500 et seq.). Cost or Savings to Any State Agency CalRecycle has determined that adoption of these proposed regulations does have a cost to state agencies. The total annual cost to the state is estimated to total $76.75 million which will be incurred by CalRecycle and funded by the PRO through the Circular Economy Fund. CalRecycle also anticipates a $2 million reduc - tion in revenue to the state from a decrease in disposal stream tipping fees.

Non–Discretionary Cost or Savings Imposed Upon Local Agencies CalRecycle has determined that there are non–discretionary costs or savings imposed on lo - cal agencies. These costs are not required to be reim - bursed by the State. Rather, the PRO and certain pro - ducers are responsible for fully paying local agencies to cover the expenses they incur to meet their statu - tory obligation.

CalRecycle expects local agencies to improve and expand their recycling collection services in complying with the proposed regulations and esti - mates that the average cost per Fiscal Year for these activities is anticipated to be $18.1 million through 2024–25, 2025–26, and 2026–2027. Local agencies will collaborate with the PRO and certain producers to undertake activities that may involve additional non–discretionary costs depending on local circum - stances, including education and outreach, materi - al processing, and additional infrastructure improve - ments.

Local agencies will be paid by the PRO or cer- tain producers for any such non–discretionary costs. Cost or Savings in Federal Funding to the State CalRecycle has determined that adoption of these regulations will not have an impact on costs or savings in federal funding to the State. HOUSING COSTS CalRecycle has determined that adoption of these regulations will have no significant effect on housing cost.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 34–Z 1060 SIGNIFICANT STATEWIDE ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACT DIRECTLY AFFECTING BUSINESS CalRecycle has made an initial determination that the adoption of this regulation may have a significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. CalRecycle has considered proposed alternatives that would lessen any adverse economic impact on business and invites the public to submit proposals. Submissions may include the following considerations: (

i) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to businesses. (ii) Consolidation or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements for businesses. (iii) The use of performance standards rather than prescriptive standards. (iv) Exemption or partial exemption from the regulatory requirements for businesses. The businesses most directly affected by these proposed regulations are referred to in the Act as “producers” of single–use packaging and plastic single–use food service ware.

Entities may be produc- ers based on their ownership or licenses to use brands or trademarks or because they sell, offer for sale, or distribute such materials in the state. As of 2032, the Act will require that all single–use packaging and plastic single–use food service ware be recyclable or compostable. It also requires that plastic single–use packaging and plastic single–use food ser - vice ware achieve source reduction targets and certain recycling rates.

These proposed regulations will require producers to maintain records and report data to CalRecycle that demonstrate their compliance with the Act’s require - ments. Producers will also be required to reduce, col - lectively, the overall amount of the regulated materials that are sold into the state. The Act requires producers to participate in a pro - gram operated by a PRO pursuant to a plan approved by CalRecycle. Alternatively, producers that meet cer- tain requirements can create and implement their own plan.

Producers, either through the PRO or individu - ally, will be required to prepare and submit plans ad - dressing all requirements stated in the Act, submit an- nual budgets and reports concerning their plans, and maintain records documenting their compliance with the Act.

The reporting and recordkeeping require - ments encompass the following: the amount and types of single–use packaging and plastic single–use food service ware that producers sell, distribute, or import; the amount and types of such materials that produc - ers collect for recycling; the basis asserted for certain materials to be considered recyclable; estimations of recycling rates for particular types of materials; cal - culations of source reduction with respect to plastic single–use packaging and food service ware; and re - cords demonstrating that entities that collect and pro - cess materials subject to the Act do so in a manner that satisfies certain criteria.

These proposed regulations will also impose com - pliance requirements on businesses that assert they are not “producers” of covered material because some oth- er entity is the producer or because the packaging or plastic food service ware is excluded from being con - sidered “covered material.” Such businesses may be required to support their claim that they are not a pro - ducer, such as by demonstrating that such items satis - fy specific criteria in the Act or proposed regulations.

Solid waste enterprises that provide solid waste handling services on behalf of a local jurisdiction will also be affected because the Act may require them to add certain types of materials to their collection and recycling programs. RESULTS OF STANDARDIZED REGULATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Creation or Elimination of Jobs within the State of California CalRecycle has determined that the proposed action will not eliminate jobs within California.

Over the course of implementation, it is projected that 219,950 jobs may be created in the manufacturing industries specializing in recyclable plastics, paper, glass, and metal products, as well as within the construction, wholesale, retail, and food service industries. Creation of New Businesses or Elimination of Existing Businesses within California CalRecycle has determined that the proposed ac - tion will create new businesses within California. It is anticipated that at least 15 businesses will be cre - ated statewide.

These businesses include at least one PRO (a non–profit organization), and several material recovery facilities (MRFs). CalRecycle has determined that the proposed ac - tion will not eliminate existing businesses within California. Competitive Advantages or Disadvantages for Businesses Currently Doing Business within the State CalRecycle has determined that the proposed action will not have Competitive Advantages or Disadvan - tages for Businesses Currently Doing Business within California.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 34–Z 1061 Increase or Decrease of Investment in the State CalRecycle has determined that the proposed action will increase investment in California. Private invest - ment will experience an initial increase of $49 million in 2024 and peak in 2030 at $952 million. There is no indication that there will be a net decrease in invest - ment in the state because of the proposed regulations.

Incentives for Innovation in Products, Materials or Processes CalRecycle has determined that the proposed ac - tion will provide incentives for innovation in products, materials, and manufacturing and waste management processes that ensure cost–effective approaches for producers to be in compliance with the Act.

The pro - posed regulations establish material packaging stan - dards that will incentivize manufacturers to develop innovative and new packaging with covered material, increase the utilization of reuse and refill infrastruc - ture, and develop new processes for recycling in order to meet the requirements of the Act.

Benefits of the Regulation, Including But Not Limited To, Benefits to the Health, Safety, and Welfare of California Residents, Worker Safety, the State’s Environment, and Quality of Life CalRecycle has determined that the proposed ac - tion will have benefits, including but not limited to, benefits to health and welfare of California residents, the state’s environment, and quality of life.

In addi - tion to generating less packaging waste through plas - tic source reduction and shifting to reusable and re - fillable material, reducing plastic pollution through the funds from the California Plastic Pollution Mit - igation Fund will lead to a decrease in negative hu - man health and environmental impacts especially in disadvantaged and low–income communities dispro - portionately affected by plastic pollution.

Additional - ly, California residents will also benefit from greater accessibility to recycling and composting due to the increase in infrastructure for collection, sortation, and processing of such materials. Creating recyclable and compostable packaging will lead to harmonization with our recycling infrastructure that will lead to less disposal and prolong our landfill capacity and use. It will also lead to a decrease in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and a decrease of fossil fuels used in the production of virgin plastic.

Because this regulation doesn’t directly impact workers, CalRecycle does not anticipate any direct benefits to worker safety as a re - sult of this regulation.

Summary of the Department of Finance’s (DOF’

s) Comments on the Proposed Regulations and the Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment The Department received the following comments from the Department of Finance on the draft Stan - dardized Regulatory Impact Assessment (SRIA). The Department’s responses are stated below and do not materially alter the estimations reported in the SRIA.

DOF Comment #1: First, the 42.1–percent downward revision to the to- tal cost, from $36.3 billion in the original SRIA to $21 billion in this revised SRIA, is driven almost entirely by a lower estimate of annual plastic waste generat - ed in California, decreasing from 5.5 million tons in the 2021 estimate to 2.9 million tons in 2023. Estimat- ing plastic waste is difficult and subject to uncertainty and the SRIA must provide a detailed explanation for the significant difference between the two estimates as well as a justification for why the revised estimate is more appropriate.

CalRecycle Response: Due to the lack of available data on plastic cov - ered material generation in California at the time Cal - Recycle wrote the SRIA for the initial rulemaking in 2024, for that analysis CalRecycle estimated the amount of plastic covered material by adding togeth - er the amounts of plastic covered material disposed of and recycled. To estimate the amount of disposed plastic covered material, CalRecycle utilized the most recent waste characterization study, containing data from 2021 disposal surveys.

To estimate the amount of recycled plastic covered material, CalRecycle uti - lized data in the Recycling and Disposal Reporting System (RDRS), which contains self–reported data from entities that recycle material. In both sources, material categories are broad and do not include in - formation specific to the amounts of covered materi - al present. This means that those source data included large quantities of materials that are not covered ma - terial.

For example, the waste characterization study includes an estimate for “Other Film Bags and Plas - tic Mailing Pouches.” This category may include both plastic bags that qualify as packaging under the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Respon- sibility Act (the Act) and plastic bags purchased as consumer goods for home use, such as storing items, which would not qualify as packaging or food service ware. From these sources, CalRecycle estimated that approximately 5.5 million tons of plastic covered ma - terial was generated in California every year.

Howev - er, due to the lack of specificity in the available data, this estimate included materials that would not be cov- ered materials under the Act. Since the time of the first SRIA analysis, CalRecycle has worked on developing more specific data on covered material generation as required by the Act. Per Public Resources Code (PRC)

section 42057(b), CalRecycle was required to establish a baseline for the 25 percent source reduction goal for plastic by Janu - ary 1, 2025. This study was underway while CalRe - cycle was developing the first SRIA but it had not yet produced usable data. Since that time, updated data on

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 34–Z 1062 plastic covered material generation became available when CalRecycle published its study in the Source Re- duction Baseline (SRB) report at the end of 2024. This report estimated that nearly 2.9 million tons of plastic covered material were generated in California in 2023. The data in this report are specific to covered material and do not include non–covered materials, unlike the waste characterization study and RDRS data.

As the data are specific to materials covered under the Act, this SRB report estimate for plastic covered material is more accurate and resulted in a number lower than CalRecycle’s previous estimate. The majority of the costs identified in CalRecycle’s economic impact anal- ysis are costs to meet required source reduction and recycling rate goals, including costs to switch plastic covered materials to more recyclable forms and to set up infrastructure for collecting, sorting, and process - ing increased amounts of material. These cost calcu- lations rely directly upon the plastic covered material estimate.

Using the SRB estimate for plastic covered material enables CalRecycle to more