GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW California Regulatory Notice Register REGISTER 2021, NUMBER 33-Z P UBLISHED WEEKLY BY THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW A UGUST 13, 2021 PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS TITLE 2. F AIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Conflict–of–Interest Codes — Notice File Number 2021–0803–11 ........................................ 1027 AMENDMENT MULTI–COUNTY: T ahoe Forest Hospital District ADOPTION STATE AGENCY: California Privacy and Protection Agency TITLE 2.

F AIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Behested Payment Reporting — Notice File Number 2021–0802–01 ...................................... 1028 TITLE 2. ST ATE ALLOCATION BOARD Leroy F . Greene School Facilities Act of 1998; Charter School Facilities Program Successor — Notice File Number 2021–0803–01 ...................................... 1030 TITLE 4. CALIFORNIA HORSE RACING BOARD Entries and Workouts — Notice File Number 2021–0803–02 ............................................ 1034 TITLE 11.

DEP ARTMENT OF JUSTICE Dealer Record of Sale Fee — Notice File Number 2021–0804–01 ......................................... 1037 TITLE 24. CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION Amend the 2019 CALGreen for Inclusion in the 2022 CALGreen Code,

Part 11, Title 24, CCR — Notice File Number Z2021–0803–04 ........................................... 1041 (Continued on next page) Time- Dated Material

(Continued on next page) TITLE 24. CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION/ DIVISION OF THE STATE ARCHITECT Title 24,

Part 2, California Building Code — 2021 Triennial Code Cycle — Notice File Number Z2021–0803–05 ........................................................ 1047 TITLE 24. CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION/ DIVISION OF THE STATE ARCHITECT 2022 California Green Building Standards Code — CCR, Title 24,

Part 11 — Notice File Number Z2021–0803–06 ................................................ 1050 TITLE 24. CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION/ DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2022 California Building Code,

Part 2,

Chapter 11A — Notice File Number Z2021–0803–07 .................. 1054 TITLE 24. CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION/ DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2022 California Green Building Standards Code,

Part 11 — Notice File Number Z2021–0803–08 ............... 1058 GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CESA Consistency Determination Request for Stone Lakes Restoration Project: Serra Property 2080–2021–011–03 Sacramento County ......................................... 1063 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CESA Consistency Determination Request for 2753 Gypsy Canyon Road Project 2080–2021–009–05 Santa Barbara County ........................................ 1063 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES Notice of 30–Day Comment Period and Webinar, 2022 Home and Community–Based Alternatives (HCBA) Waiver Renewal ............................................... 1064 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH Notice of 30–Day Comment Period and Webinar, HIV/AIDS Medi–Cal Waiver Renewal Application ............. 1064 DECISION NOT TO PROCEED Editor’s Note: The Department of Justice is publishing the following Notice of Decision Not to Proceed to cancel a previously published Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Action that was originally published on January 29, 2021.

The Department is publishing a new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Action on this same topic in this Notice Register. Please see PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS above.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Concerning Dealer Record of Sale Fee .............................................................. 1065

SUMMARY OF REGULATORY ACTIONS Regulations filed with Secretary of State ............................................................. 1065 Editorial Correction: In the July 23, 2021 edition of the California Regulatory Notice Register (Notice Register 2021, Number 31–Z), under the weekly

Summary of Regulatory Actions, Regulations filed with the Secretary of State, there was an erroneous entry for the Board of Behavioral Sciences, File No. 2021–0604–05, Title 16, which indicated that the file was filed with the Secretary of State on July 14, 2021. This is incorrect. This file was not approved by the Office of Administrative Law nor filed with the Secretary of State on that date and as of August 13, 2021, is still under review by the Office of Administrative Law. We apologize for the error.

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 $205.00 (annual price). To order or make changes to current subscriptions, please call (800) 328−4880. The Register can also be accessed at http://www.oal.ca.gov .

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 33-Z 1027 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 Political Practices Commission, pursuant to the authority 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 Multi–County: Tahoe Forest Hospital District ADOPTION State Agency: California Privacy and Protection Agency A written comment period has been established com- mencing on August 13, 2021 and closing on September 27, 2021.

Written comments should be directed to the Fair Political Practices Commission, Attention Daniel Vo, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sacramento, California 95811. At the end of the 45–day comment period, the pro - posed conflict–of–interest code(

s) will be submitted to the Commission’s Executive Director for his review, unless any interested person or his or her duly autho - rized representative requests, no later than 15 days pri- or to the close of the written comment period, a public hearing before the full Commission. If a public hear - ing is requested, the proposed code(

s) will be submit - ted to the Commission for review. The Executive Director of the Commission will review the above–referenced conflict–of–interest code(s), proposed pursuant to Government Code

Section 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 his or its own motion or at the request of any interested person, will approve, or revise and approve, or return the proposed code(

s) 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 code(s). Any written comments must be received no later than September 27, 2021. If a public hearing is to be held, oral com - ments may be presented to the Commission at the hearing.

COST TO LOCAL AGENCIES There shall be no reimbursement for any new or increased costs to local government which may re - sult 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. Therefore, they are not “costs mandated by the state” as defined 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 Commission as the code–reviewing body for the above conflict–of– interest codes shall approve codes as submitted, revise the proposed code and approve it as revised, or return the proposed code for revision and re–submission.

REFERENCE Government Code Sections 87300 and 87306 pro - vide that agencies shall adopt and promulgate conflict– of–interest codes pursuant to the Political Reform Act and amend their codes when change is necessitated by changed circumstances. CONTACT Any inquiries concerning the proposed conflict– of–interest code(

s) should be made to Daniel Vo, Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sacramento, California 95811, telephone (916) 322–5660.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 33-Z 1028 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 Commission should be made to Daniel Vo, Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sacramento, California 95811, telephone (916) 322–5660. TITLE 2. F AIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Fair Political Practices Commission (the Commission), under the au- thority vested in it under the Political Reform Act (the Act) 1 by

Section 83112 of the Government Code, pro- poses to adopt, amend, or repeal regulations in Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations. The Commission will consider the proposed regulations at a public hearing on or after September 16, 2021, at the offices of the Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sacramento, California, commencing at approximately 10:00 a.m. Written comments should be received at the Commission of - fices no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 15, 2021. BACKGROUND/OVERVIEW The proposed regulations pertain to the Act’s be - hested payment reporting provisions:

Section 82004.5, defining a behested payment,

Section 82041.3 defining “made at the behest of” and

Section 84224, reporting requirements applicable to an elected officer or Public Utilities Commission member (hereinafter referred to collectively as “official”). The purpose of the behest - ed payment reporting requirements is to capture pay - ments that are not contributions or clear gifts to offi - cials but are payments in which the public would have an interest given the official’s role in the exchange. Generally, under

Section 84224 a payment made at the behest of an official and made “principally for charitable, legislative, or governmental purposes” is subject to reporting by the official within 30 days of the date a single source makes a payment or payments that aggregate or exceed $5,000 in a calendar year. The official must report the names and addresses of the parties involved (payor and payee), the amount and 1 T he Political Reform Act is contained in Government Code Sections 81000 through 91014. All statutory references are to the Government Code, unless otherwise indicated.

The regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission are contained in Sec - tions 18110 through 18997 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations. All regulatory references are to Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations, unless otherwise indicated. date of the payment(s), a brief description of any goods or services provided or purchased, and a description of the specific purpose or event for which the payments were made.

Once the reporting threshold is met, all additional payments made by the single source in the calendar year must also be reported within 30 days after the payment was made. Additionally, within 30 days after receipt of a behested payment report, state agencies must forward a copy of the report to the Commission, and local agencies must send a copy to the local elections official. For transparency and ac - countability purposes, behested payments reported by state officials are posted on the Commission’s website.

The Commission has identified three behested pay - ment reporting issues that may be addressed through regulatory action to facilitate meaningful disclosures in reports, timely compliance, and provide clearer guidance to officials when involved in a charitable fundraising solicitation. Staff is directed to provide regulatory language that balances prompt, informa - tive, and accurate public disclosure of behested pay - ments involving officials with the need to not discour- age the important public service that these payments can provide for the Commission’s consideration. REGULATORY ACTION Adopt 2 Cal.

Code Regs.

Section 18424. Behested Payment Reporting. Additional Information. Adopt proposed Regulation 18424 to require addi - tional disclosure in a behested payment report in two circumstances that raise questions of the payment’s purposes and potential for influence: first, where the official has a relationship of control over, or is em - ployed by, a payee nonprofit organization; and second, where the payor of a behested payment is involved in a proceeding before the official’s agency at the time the behested payment is made or within the past 12 months. Subdivision (

a) requires in a brief description of the relationship where the official, the official’s immediate family member, executive campaign staff or executive officeholder staff, is a founding member, a salaried employee, or an executive board member of the non - profit organization payee, to the extent this informa- tion is known by the official. Subdivision (

b) requires a brief description of any proceeding before the official’s agency in which the payor is currently involved or was involved within the past 12 months to the extent the information is known to the official. These are relationships that raise concerns about the self–interest or control of the official and the possibil- ity of undue influence or access for the payee or pay - or as a result of the payment. The brief descriptions will provide information the public would want to see in the behested payment reports where there is a po -

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 33-Z 1029 tential for influence in order to understand and assess the payment transaction, its purposes and the parties involved. Adopt 2 Cal. Code Regs.

Section 18424.1 Behested Payment Reporting. Good Faith Estimate. Adopt proposed Regulation 18424.1 to provide a re- porting procedure when an official is unable to obtain the necessary payment information from a behested payment payee within the 30 days required to file a behested payment report. Regulation 18424.1 allows for the use of a good faith estimate of the payment amount and the payment date. Subdivision (

a) and (

b) require that the official must have practiced reasonable efforts to obtain the required information from the payee prior to the reporting deadline and the amount must reflect the official’s best efforts to ascertain an accurate information. This language is consistent with the statutory language for reports filed under the Act. (Section 81004.) Proposed subdivision (

c) requires that the official must also file an amended report within 10 days of receiving the correct information from the payee, so that timely and accurate information is re - ported. Subdivision (

d) requires that in the event the official is unable to obtain the accurate information, within 90 days of the original filing date the official must file an amended report stating their efforts and the circumstances under which the payee is unable to provide the information. This regulation allows that an official may properly file a behested payment report with good faith esti - mates of payment amounts and dates, under certain conditions. This regulation facilitates timely reporting and provides a clear process for filing and then amend- ing with accurate data. Adopt 2 Cal. Code Regs.

Section 18424.2. Behested Payment Reporting. Charitable Organization Fundraising Solicitations. Repeal and Replace 2 Cal. Code Regs.

Section 18215.3. In response to requests to clarify the language in Regulation 18215.3, staff proposes to repeal Regulation 18215.3 and replace it with proposed Regulation 18242.2, addressing situations where a payment is in response to a charitable organization’s fundraising solicitation, and the official is involved. Proposed Regulation 18424.2 subdivisions (

a) and (

b) are nonsubstantive changes to better word the current safe harbor provision in Regulation 18215.3(b). The proposed language makes it clear that when an official acts in concert with the charitable organization in a fundraising solicitation and is featured in the solicita - tion, the official must report all resulting payments in accordance with

Section 84224. It also clarifies that being featured in a solicitation, by itself, does not raise behested payment reporting duties for an official. Proposed subdivision (

a) states that a payment made in response to a charitable organization fundraising solicitation is a reportable behested payment when the solicitation is sent under the control or at the direc - tion of, in cooperation, coordination, or concert with, at the request or suggestion of, or with the express, prior consent of the official, or agent thereof; and the solicitation “features” the official. Proposed subdivi - sion (

b) restates the current definition of “features” in Regulation 18215.3(b)(1) and (2) with nonsubstantive changes. Subdivision (

c) would provide a bright line rule for officials who merely appear in a charitable fundrais - ing solicitation and accompanying event as a guest speaker, and the official’s involvement does not extend beyond the role of guest speaker. This language recog- nizes the limited role that a guest speaker typically has at an organization’s event. SCOPE The Commission may adopt the language noticed herein, or it may choose new language to implement its decisions concerning the issue identified above or any related issue. FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT Fiscal Impact on Local Government. None. Fiscal Impact on State Government. None. Fiscal Impact on Federal Funding of State Programs. None. AUTHORITY

Section 83112 provides that the Fair Political Practices Commission may adopt, amend, and rescind rules and regulations to carry out the purposes and provisions of the Act. REFERENCE The purpose of these regulations is to clarify and implement Sections 82004.5, 82041.3, and 84224. CONTACT Any inquiries should be made to L. Karen Harrison, Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q St., Suite 3000, Sacramento, CA 95811; email KHarrison@fppc. ca.gov. telephone (916) 322–5660 or 1–866–ASK– FPPC. Proposed regulatory language can be accessed at http://www.fppc.ca.gov/the–law/fppc–regulations/ proposed–regulations–and–notices.html .

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 33-Z 1030 TITLE 2. STATE ALLOCATION BOARD THE STATE ALLOCATION BOARD PROPOSES TO AMEND REGULATION

SECTION 1859.171, RELATING TO LEROY F. GREENE SCHOOL FACILITIES ACT OF 1998 REGULATION

SECTION PROPOSED FOR AMENDMENTS ● 1859.171 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the State Allocation Board (SAB) proposes to amend the above– referenced regulation section, 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 authorized representative, submits a written request for a public hearing to the Office of Public School Construction (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 requested, OPSC, at its own motion or at the instance of any interested person, may adopt the proposals substantially as set forth above without further notice. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE CITATIONS The SAB is proposing to amend the above– referenced regulation sections under the authority provided by Sections 17070.35 and 17078.64 of the Education Code. The proposal interprets and make specific reference

Section 17078.62, of the Education Code. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY OVERVIEW STATEMENT The Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 established, through Senate Bill 50,

Chapter 407, Statutes of 1998, the School Facility Program (SFP). The SFP provides a per–pupil grant amount to qualifying school districts for purposes of constructing school facilities and modernizing existing school facilities. The SAB adopted regulations to implement the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, which were approved by the Office of Administrative Law and filed with the Secretary of State on October 8, 1999.

At its June 23, 2021 meeting, the State Allocation Board adopted proposed regulatory amendments that would provide additional clarity on how to proceed with the selection of a successor Charter School under the Charter School Facilities Program (CSFP). This would include notification of interested applicants and selecting a successor Charter School, while ensuring statutory intent for providing CSFP facilities is met.

Bond Funds Impacted ● Kindergarten–University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2002 (Proposition 47) ● Kindergarten–University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2004 (Proposition 55) ● Kindergarten–University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 1D) ● Kindergarten through Community College Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2016 (Proposition 51) Attached to this Notice is the specific regulatory language of the proposed regulatory action, along with the proposed regulatory amendments.

The proposed regulation can also be reviewed on OPSC’s website at: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OPSC/Resources/Page– Content/Office–of–Public–School–Construction– Resources–List–Folder/Laws–and–Regulations . Copies of the proposed regulatory amendments 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 under the California Code of Regulations, Title 2,

Chapter 3, Subchapter 4, Group 1, State Allocation Board, Subgroup 5.5, Regulations relating to the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998. Background and Problem Being Resolved SFP Regulation

Section 1859.171 already allows for a successor Charter School in the event a CSFP funded Charter School no longer occupies the facility. The authority for this is Education Code

Section 17078.62. However, neither the current regulation

section or the Education Code

section provides specificity on the process by which charter schools would be notified or selected, nor was it clearly stated which entity would be responsible for the process. Successor charter schools must be financially sound, provide classroom–based instruction, and be able to take over the facilities on equal terms as the original occupant. Additionally, OPSC was notified of two scenarios requiring a successor charter school which illustrated the need for regulatory amendments.

The process for notifying and selecting the successor Charter School for these impacted schools served as a reference point for adding several of the proposed requirements. These proposed amendments provide the additional clarity necessary for transparency and consistency in the process of selecting a successor Charter School. OPSC and the California School Finance Authority held two virtual joint public stakeholder meetings; one on February 25, 2021 and one on May 26, 2021 to discuss

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 33-Z 1031 the proposed amendments. Stakeholders provided feedback regarding the proposed amendments at the February meeting. The comments were discussed at the May meeting; no additional comments were received after the May meeting. OPSC performed a search on whether the proposed regulatory amendments were consistent and compatible with existing State laws and regulations. After performing the search, OPSC, on behalf of the SAB, has determined that the proposed regulatory amendments are consistent and compatible with existing State laws and regulations.

Proceeding with the proposed regulatory amendments aligns with the statute and carries out the will of the voters. Anticipated Benefits of the Proposed Regulations The proposed amendments promote transparency and consistency because the process will be clarified in regulation. This will benefit school districts and charter schools by ensuring equitability to all parties involved. The State of California will benefit because the State’s investment will be maintained; meaning that a CSFP funded facility will continue to operate once a successor Charter School has been selected.

The proposed amendments do not have a direct impact on the State’s economy or job creation because the successor Charter School will take over the facility on equal terms as the original occupant. The proposed amendments are therefore determined to be consistent and compatible with existing State laws and regulations. Proceeding with the implementation of the proposed amendments align with statute and carries out the will of the voters.

Summary of the Proposed Regulatory Amendments Existing Regulation

Section 1859.171 provides provisions for the use of or disposal of a charter school facility once a facility is no longer occupied by the original applicant or in cases where an applicant has received advance site acquisition funding but has not met the specified time limits in regulation. The proposed regulatory amendments provide specific guidance and additional clarity that promotes transparency and consistency necessary for the process of selecting a successor Charter School. 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 Constitution, the board shall do all of the following:

(1) Adopt rules and regulations, pursuant to the rulemaking 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 apportionments under this part, it shall prescribe rules and regulations for the administration of, and not inconsistent 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 information it may deem necessary or appropriate. Unless otherwise provided in the appropriation act, the board may require that applications for allocations or apportionments be submitted to it for approval. Determination of Inconsistency or Incompatibility with Existing State Regulations SFP Regulation

Section 1859.171 already allows for a successor Charter School in the event a CSFP funded Charter School no longer occupies the facility. The authority for this is Education Code

Section 17078.62. However, neither the current regulation

section or the Education Code

section provides specificity on the process by which charter schools would be notified or selected, nor was it clearly stated which entity would be responsible for the process. After conducting a review, the SAB has concluded that these are the only regulations on this subject area, and therefore, the proposed amendments are neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing State laws and regulations. The proposed regulatory amendment is within the SAB’s authority to enact regulations for the SFP under Education Code

Section 17070.35 and Government Code

Section 15503. IMPACT ON LOCAL AGENCIES OR SCHOOL DISTRICTS The Executive Officer of the SAB has determined that the proposed regulatory amendments do not impose a mandate 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, school districts, or charter schools to incur additional costs in order to comply with the proposed regulatory amendments.

DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION The Executive Officer of the SAB has made the following 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, including 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.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 33-Z 1032 ● There will be no non–discretionary costs or savings to local agencies. ● The proposed regulatory amendments create no costs to any local agency, school district, or charter school requiring reimbursement pursuant to

Section 17500 et seq., or beyond those required by law, except for the required district contribution toward each project as stipulated in statute. ● There will be no costs or savings in federal funding to the State. ● The proposed regulatory amendments create no costs or savings 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 amendments promote transparency and consistency because the process will be clarified in regulation. This will benefit school districts and charter schools by ensuring equitability to all parties involved. The State of California will benefit because the State’s investment will be maintained; meaning that a CSFP funded facility will continue to operate once a successor Charter School has been selected.

The proposed amendments do not have a direct impact on the State’s economy or job creation because the successor Charter School will take over the facility on equal terms as the original occupant. Proceeding with the implementation of the proposed amendments align with statute and carries out the will of the voters. Although the proposed amendments do not have a direct impact on the State’s economy, creation of jobs, creation of new businesses, or expansion of businesses, it will not eliminate jobs or eliminate existing businesses within California.

Benefits to Public Health and Welfare, Worker’s Safety, and the State’s Environment ● The proposed amendments promote transparency and consistency because the process will be clarified in regulation. This will benefit school districts and charter schools by ensuring equitability to all parties involved. The State of California will benefit because the State’s investment will be maintained; meaning that a CSFP funded facility will continue to operate once a successor Charter School has been selected.

The proposed amendments do not have a direct impact on the State’s economy or job creation because the successor Charter School will take over the facility on equal terms as the original occupant. ● There are continued benefits to the health and welfare of California residents and worker safety.

School districts, charter schools, and local educational agencies utilize construction and trades employees to work on school construction projects 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 safety of construction and trades employees through proper apprenticeship and training.

Further, public health and safety is enhanced because a properly 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 consistent with the stated purposes and benefits.

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

Section 4, Title 1, CCR. Although the proposed regulatory amendments only apply to school districts, charter schools, and local education agencies for purposes of funding school facility projects, the proposed regulatory amendments do not have a direct impact on the creation of new [small] businesses, or expansion of [small] businesses and it will not eliminate jobs or eliminate existing [small] businesses within California.

Further, the nature of the proposed regulatory amendments is to provide specific guidance and additional clarity that promotes transparency and consistency necessary for the process of selecting a successor Charter School. SUBMISSION OF COMMENTS, DOCUMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Any interested person may present statements, arguments or contentions, in writing, submitted via U.S. mail, e–mail or fax, relevant to the proposed regulatory action. Written comments submitted via U.S. mail, e–mail or fax must be received at OPSC no later than September 27, 2021 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, e– mail or fax, regarding the proposed regulatory action, requests for a copy of the proposed regulatory action or the Initial Statement of Reasons, and questions

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 33-Z 1033 concerning the substance of the proposed regulatory action should be addressed to: Lisa Jones, Regulations Coordinator Mailing Address: Office of Public School Construction 707 Third Street, 6th Floor West Sacramento, CA 95605 E–mail Address: lisa.jones@dgs.ca.gov Fax Number: (916) 375–6721 AGENCY CONTACT PERSONS General or substantive questions regarding this Notice of Proposed Regulatory Action may be directed to Ms. Lisa Jones at (916) 376–1753. If Ms. Jones is unavailable, these questions may be directed to the backup contact person, Mr.

Michael Watanabe, Chief of Administrative Services, at (916) 376–1646. ADOPTION OF REGULATIONS Please note that, following the public comment period, 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 modifications 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 regulations should be addressed to the agency’s regulation coordinator identified above. The SAB will accept 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 sufficiently 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, reports 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 website at: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OPSC/ Resources/Page–Content/Office–of–Public–School– Construction–Resources–List–Folder/Laws–and– Regulations then scroll down to School Facility Program, Pending Regulatory Changes, and look under Charter School Facilities Program for the above–noted bulleted documents. ALTERNATIVES In accordance with Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(13), the SAB has determined that no reasonable 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 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.

The alternative to these proposed amendments would be to take no action and not provide the guidance and clarity that is needed for the process. Without the proposed amendments, different processes would be followed leading to inconsistencies and ultimately a longer period of time for a CSFP funded facility to remain unoccupied. A VAILABILITY 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 notice or may be accessed on the website listed above.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 33-Z 1034 TITLE 4. HORSE RACING BOARD RULE 1581.1, ENTRIES AND RULE 1878, WORKOUTS The California Horse Racing Board (Board) proposes to amend the regulations described below after considering all comments, objections, or recommendations regarding the proposed action. PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION The Board proposes to amend Board Rule 1581.1, Entries, and Board Rule 1878, Workouts.

The proposed regulation provides that a trainer’s attending veterinarian shall examine a horse either for the express purposes of determining its fitness to race before it can be entered to race or examine a horse for the express purpose of determining its fitness to participate in a workout before it can be permitted to workout. Both types of examinations shall be conducted during the preceding 72 hours before the horse is either entered to race or permitted to workout, respectively.

The proposed amendment also provides that a horse cannot be entered to race unless the evaluation conducted by the attending veterinarian results in a determination that the horse is fit to race, and a horse cannot be permitted to workout unless the evaluation conducted by the attending veterinarian results in a determination that the horse is fit to workout.

Furthermore, the proposed amendment mandates that both the inspection to determine the horse’s fitness to race and the inspection to determine the horse’s fitness to workout shall include, but not be limited to, a close inspection of the eyes, examination of the legs, and observation of the horse at rest and while in motion.

Following a determination that the horse is either fit to race or to workout, the attending veterinarian and trainer are obligated to inform the Official Veterinarian of any changes in the horse’s fitness, either after entry but before race day in the case of the horse’s fitness to race, or after the examination but before working out in the case of the horse’s fitness to workout. The evaluation that the horse is either fit to race or fit to workout shall be recorded in the Veterinarian Report, pursuant to Board Rule 1842, Veterinarian Report. Lastly, the proposed amendment defines the term “workout” for clarity.

PUBLIC HEARING The Board has not scheduled a public hearing on this proposed action. However, the Board will hold a hearing if it receives a written request for a public hearing from any interested persons, or their authorized representative, no later than 15 days prior to the close of the written comment period. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any interested persons, or their authorized representative, may submit written comments about the proposed regulatory action to the Board. The written comment period closes September 27, 2021. The Board must receive all comments at that time.

Submit comments to: Zachar y Voss California Horse Racing Board 1010 Hurley Way, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 263–6036 Fax: (916) 263–6022 E–mail: zavoss@chrb.ca.gov AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Authority: Sections 19440, 19562 and 19590, Business and Professions Code (BPC). Reference: Sections 19440 and 19562, BPC. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW BPC

section 19440 provides that the Board shall have all powers necessary and proper to enable it to carry out fully and effectually the purposes of Division 8,

Chapter 4 of the BPC. BPC

section 19562 provides that the Board may prescribe rules, regulations, and conditions, consistent with the provisions of Division 8,

Chapter 4 of the BPC, under which all horse races with wagering on their results shall be conducted in the State of California. BPC

section 19590 provides that the Board shall adopt rules governing, permitting, and regulating parimutuel wagering on horse races under the system known as the parimutuel method of wagering, and parimutuel wagering shall be conducted only by a person or persons licensed under this

chapter to conduct a horse racing meeting or authorized by the Board to conduct advance deposit wagering. Racing and training require racehorses to move at high speeds and exert large pressures on joints, tendons, and the suspensory apparatus. Athletic injuries are common and may result from the strenuous activity involved with racing and training. These injuries can occur more frequently or become exacerbated if a horse is already suffering from an existing injury or illness yet continues to race or participate in workouts. Such injuries or illnesses may disrupt further racing or

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 33-Z 1035 training, often necessitating prolonged periods of rest or, in severe cases, retirement or euthanasia. Existing injuries or illness negatively impact a horse’s fitness to race or train. A sick or injured horse is not capable of exerting its best effort during racing or training and cannot fully absorb the large pressures on the suspensory apparatus and respiratory system required from racing and participation in a workout during training.

If a sick or injured horse does run a race or participate in a workout, that horse is at elevated risk of further injury, catastrophic breakdown, or death.

In an effort to minimize the risks of injury to horses present when racing or training when unfit to do so, many racing associations in California have already implemented rules and conditions for racing and training that prohibit horses from being entered to race unless the horse has been examined by the trainer’s attending veterinarian preceding the race entry day for the express purpose of evaluating the horse’s fitness to race, or that prohibit horses from participating in a workout unless the horse has been examined by the trainer’s attending veterinarian for the express purpose of evaluating the horse’s fitness to participate in a workout.

The rules and conditions further stipulate that a determination following the evaluation must be positively made that the horse is either fit to race or participate in a workout before being permitted to do so, and if any changes to the horse’s fitness occur prior to working out or racing, the trainer and attending veterinarian are obligated to inform the association’s examining veterinarian. However, these rules and conditions are private agreements between the racing associations and the horsemen participating in a race meeting.

The agreements only apply to single or limited number of racetracks and are only applicable during the agreed upon race meeting. While these rules are effective for minimizing the risk of injury to racehorses by preventing unfit horses from racing or training, they are currently applied inconsistently across the Board’s jurisdiction and not enforceable by the Board. In order to promote consistency and further safeguards that ensure racehorse safety and welfare, the Board has determined to codify these rules and conditions in regulation.

The Board proposes to amend Board Rule 1581.1 and Board Rule 1878 to promote consistency with the ongoing racing association efforts to further safeguards for racehorses entering to race and workout and to promote the safety and health of California’s racehorses. The proposed amendment modifies Board Rule 1581.1 and Board Rule 1878 to provide that horses are examined to determine that they are fit to race or workout before being permitted to enter in a race or participate in a workout.

The examination and subsequent evaluation must result in a positive determination that the horse is indeed fit to race or workout before being allowed to do so. The resulting evaluation must be recorded in the Veterinarian Report, pursuant to Board Rule 1842, Veterinarian Report. The proposed amendment also requires an attending veterinarian to examine the horse’s eyes, legs, and observe the horse while at rest and in motion as components of the examination.

The examination must take place during the 72 hours immediately preceding entry to race or workout, and if any change in the horse’s fitness to race or workout occurs following the examination and before entry to race or participation in a workout, the trainer and attending veterinarian are obligated to inform the Official Veterinarian.

ANTICIPATED BENEFIT OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION The proposed amendment to Board Rule 1581.1 and Board Rule 1878 benefits California’s horse racing industry, the horsemen, and the wagering public by ensuring that measures are implemented to minimize the risk to racehorses being injured or harmed when racing or training.

The proposed amendment ensures that horses entered to race or permitted to workout have been thoroughly examined for their fitness to do so, that an evaluation has determined their fitness to do so, and that if any change to their fitness were to occur following that examination and determination, the Official Veterinarian would be notified and given the opportunity to intervene should continuing to allow the horse to race or train be detrimental to its wellbeing.

Therefore, the proposed amendment has the benefit of promoting the health and safety of California’s racehorses, and by extension, the health and safety of the jockeys and drivers who ride them. Thus, the proposed amendment benefits worker safety among horsemen. CONSISTENCY EVALUATION During the process of developing the amendment to Board Rule 1581.1 and Board Rule 1878, the Board has conducted a search of any similar regulations on this topic and has concluded that the regulation is neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing State regulations.

DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACTION Mandate on local agencies and school districts: none. Cost or savings to any State agency: none.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 33-Z 1036 Cost to any local agency or school district that must be reimbursed in accordance with Government Code (GC) sections 17500 through 17630: none. Other non–discretionary cost or savings imposed upon local agencies: none. Cost or savings in federal funding to the State: none.

The Board has made the initial determination that the proposed amendment to Board Rule 1581.1 and Board Rule 1878 will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC I M PACT A NA LYSIS The results of the Board’s Economic Impact Assessment as required by GC

section 11346.3(

b) are as follows: The adoption of the proposed amendment to Board Rule 1581.1 and Board Rule 1878 will not (1) create or eliminate jobs within California; (2) create new businesses or eliminate existing businesses within California; or (3) affect the expansion of businesses currently doing business within California. The proposed amendment to Board Rule 1581.1 and Board Rule 1878 will provide consistency with existing efforts by California racing associations to implement safeguards that prevent horses unfit to race or workout from doing so at the risk of injury.

The proposed amendment applies these safeguards across the Board’s jurisdiction and enables the Board to enforce them as regulation, thereby promoting safer practices throughout California and promoting the health and welfare of California racehorses and their jockeys and riders. The proposed amendment will impact Board– licensed trainers, attending veterinarians, and businesses offering the services of attending veterinarians. The proposed amendment may result in a modest increase in the responsibilities of trainers and, by extension, in the responsibilities of their attending veterinarians.

However, the net economic impact of the proposed amendment will be minimal. The proposed regulation will not impact the State’s environment. Cost impact on representative private persons or businesses: The proposed amendment may result in a modest increase in the responsibilities of attending veterinarians employed by trainers. Trainers may experience a slight increase in their need to acquire and pay for veterinary services to fulfill the requirements of the proposed amendment.

However, many private racetracks and racing associations already require such responsibilities, so for most licensees the increase in responsibilities and required services will be negligible. Therefore, the cost impact on representative private persons or businesses will likely be negligible. Significant effect on housing costs: none. Effect on small businesses: none. The proposal to amend Board Rule 1581.1 and Board Rule 1878 does not affect small businesses because horse racing is not a small business under GC

section 11342.610. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES In accordance with GC

section 11346.5, subdivision (a)(13), the Board has determined that no reasonable 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 or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law.

The Board invites interested persons to present statement or arguments with respect to alternatives to the proposed regulation during the public hearing, should one be scheduled, or during the written comment period.

CONTACT PERSONS Inquiries concerning the substance of the proposed action and requests for copies of the proposed text of the regulation, the initial statement of reasons, the modified text of the regulation, if any, and other information upon which the rulemaking is based should be directed to: Zachar y Voss California Horse Racing Board 1010 Hurley Way, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 263–6036 Fax: (916) 263–6022 E–mail: zavoss@chrb.ca.gov If the person named above is not available, interested parties may contact: Amanda Drummond, Manager Policy, Regulations, and Administrative Hearings Telephone: (916) 263–6033 E–mail: amdrummond@chrb.ca.gov A VAILABILITY OF INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS AND TEXT OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS The Board will have the entire rulemaking file available for inspection and copying throughout the

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 33-Z 1037 rulemaking process at its offices at the above address. As of the date this notice is published in the Notice Register, the rulemaking file consists of this notice, the proposed text of the regulation, and the initial statement of reasons. Copies of these documents, or any of the information upon which the proposed rulemaking is based, may be obtained by contacting Zachary Voss or the alternative contact person at the address, phone number, or email address listed above.

AVAILABILITY OF MODIFIED TEXT After holding a hearing and considering all timely and relevant comments received, the Board may adopt the proposed regulation substantially as described in this notice. If modifications are made which are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text, the modified text, with changes clearly marked, shall be made available to the public for at least 15 days prior to the date on which the Board adopts the regulation. Requests for copies of any modified regulations should be sent to the attention of Zachary Voss at the address stated above.

The Board will accept written comments on the modified regulation for 15 days after the date on which it is made available. A VAILABILITY OF FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Requests for copies of the final statement of reasons, which will be available after the Board has adopted the proposed regulation in its current or modified form, should be sent to the attention of Zachary Voss at the address stated above. BOARD WEB ACCESS The Board will have the entire rulemaking file available for inspection throughout the rulemaking process at its web site.

The rulemaking file consists of this notice, the proposed text of the regulation, and the initial statement of reasons. The Board’s website address is: www.chrb.ca.gov. TITLE 11. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE The Department of Justice (Department) proposes to amend

section 4001 of Title 11, Division 5,

Chapter 1 of the California Code of Regulations concerning the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) Fee. PUBLIC HEARING The Department has not scheduled a public hearing on this proposed regulatory action. However, the Department will hold a hearing if it receives a written request for a public hearing from any interested person, or their authorized representative, no later than 15 days before the close of the written comment period. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any interested person or their authorized representative may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action.

The written comment period closes on September 28, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. Only written comments received by that time will be considered. Submit written comments to: Kelan Lowney, Associate Governmental Program Analyst Department of Justice P.O. Box 160487 Sacramento, CA 95816–0487(916) 210–2377 DROSfeeincrease@doj.ca.gov NOTE: Written and oral comments, attachments, and associated contact information (e.g., address, phone, email, etc.) become part of the public record and can be released to the public upon request. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Authority: Penal Code sections 28233 and 28240.

Reference: Penal Code sections 28220, 28225, 28230, 28235 and 28240. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW

Summary of Existing Laws and Regulations: Existing law generally requires purchases and transfers of firearms to be conducted through a licensed firearms dealer. The firearms dealer must submit the purchaser or transferee’s personal information to the Department, via the DROS system, for the purpose of conducting a background check on the purchaser or transferee prior to release of a firearm to that person. If the background check reveals that the person is prohibited by state or federal law from owning a firearm, the purchase or transfer is denied.

Existing law provides that certain fees may be assessed at the time of the application to purchase or transfer a firearm. These fees are paid by the purchaser or transferee, collected by the dealer, and remitted to the Department. One such fee, the DROS Fee, is used to fund various statutorily specified activities, primarily the background check. Until January 1, 2020, the DROS Fee was set at $19 per transfer of one or more firearms. Authority for the DROS Fee was repealed by Assembly Bill (AB) 1669 (Bonta, 2019), effective January 1, 2020. As of that date, Penal Code

section

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 33-Z 1038 28233 went into effect, authorizing a new fee of $31.19. This new fee funds the same activities that had been funded by the previous DROS Fee. On December 30, 2019, the Office of Administrative Law approved the Department’s emergency rulemaking to set the fee authorized by Penal Code

section 28233 at $31.19. Because the new fee funds the same activities that had been funded by the previous DROS Fee, the Department retained the DROS Fee name. Effect of the Proposed Rulemaking: This rulemaking makes permanent the emergency action that implemented the $31.19 fee authorized by Penal Code

section 28233. If adopted, this fee will continue to be charged to a firearm purchaser or transferee at the time of a purchase or transfer of one or more firearms. Anticipated Benefits of the Proposed Regulations: This rulemaking protects public safety by providing a consistent revenue stream for the activities of the Department’s Bureau of Firearms. The Department anticipates that this rulemaking would result in revenue $27,678,006 in Fiscal Year 2021–22, and then $24,535,738 for Fiscal Year 2022–23 and each year thereafter.

Specifically, those activities related to checking the background of potential firearm purchasers serve to protect public safety by ensuring that a person prohibited by state or federal law does not purchase, or maintain possession of, a firearm. The ownership or possession of a firearm by convicted felons, persons found to be a danger to self or others because of a mental illness, persons addicted to the use of narcotics, and other prohibited persons pose a risk of immediate, serious harm to the people of the state of California.

Other activities funded by the DROS Fee, such as the maintenance of the Automated Firearm System (AFS) and certain aspects of the Armed and Prohibited Persons

Section (APPS), are directed toward the investigation and prosecution of firearms– related crimes. Addressing these important public safety issues requires a consistent revenue stream that is directly related to the number of firearms sold and possessed in the state. Penal Code

section 28233, which this rulemaking implements, structures the DROS Fee in exactly this manner. Comparable Federal Regulations: There are no existing federal regulations or statutes comparable to the proposed regulations. Determination of Inconsistency/Incompatibility with Existing State Regulations: The Department has determined that the proposed regulations are not inconsistent or incompatible with existing state regulations.

After conducting a review for any regulations that would relate to or affect this area, the Department has concluded that these are the only regulations that concern the setting of the DROS Fee. Forms Incorporated by Reference: None. Other Statutory Requirements: The Department has determined that this is a “major regulation.” The Department has prepared a standardized regulatory impact analysis (“SRIA”) pursuant to Government Code

section 11346.3 and has complied with the requirements of subdivision (

f) of that code. DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACTION The Department has made the following initial determinations: Mandate on local agencies or school districts: None. Cost or savings to any state agency: By making permanent the fee authorized by Penal Code

section 28233, the Department projects revenue of $27,678,006 in Fiscal Year 2021–22, and then $24,535,738 for Fiscal Year 2022–23 and each year thereafter. Due to the potential decrease of retail firearm sales resulting from the fee increase, the Department anticipates a decrease in state sales tax collected, in a range between $0 and $3,351,054 in the first 12 months following full implementation of the proposed regulation. Cost to any local agency or school district which must be reimbursed in accordance with Government Code sections 17500 through 17630: None.

Other non–discretionary costs or savings imposed on local agencies: Due to the potential decrease of retail firearm sales resulting from the fee increase, the Department anticipates a potential decrease in local sales tax revenue to local governments of between $0 and $1,256,645 in the first 12 months following full implementation of the proposed regulation. Cost or savings in federal funding to the state: None. Cost impacts on representative person or business: At the time of an application to purchase or transfer one or more firearms, a representative person would pay a fee of $31.19.

Collection of statutorily authorized fees, and remission of such monies to the Department, is current practice for licensed firearms dealers. Only the dollar amount of the DROS Fee would change due to the proposed action. This dollar amount change

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 33-Z 1039 would be made automatically within the DROS Entry System (DES), the electronic system through which firearm purchaser information is communicated to the Department, and the means by which fees are remitted. The agency is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action. Significant effect on housing costs: None.

Significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses, including ability to compete: The Department has made an initial determination that the proposed action will not have a significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states.

Results of the Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment (SRIA): In the first 12 months following full implementation of the proposed regulation, the Department estimates a direct impact of $23,396,056 on firearm purchasers, due to their payment of the DROS Fee. This direct impact may result in additional indirect and induced economic impacts; the total impact statewide due to payment of the proposed DROS Fee is estimated to be $47,049,469 in the first 12 months following implementation.

The Department estimates further indirect economic impact of up to $55,850,900 on firearms dealers, due to the potential decrease of demand for firearms because of the $31.19 increase in the effective price. This indirect impact may result in additional indirect and induced economic impacts; the total impact statewide due to potential lost sales is estimated to be $112,316,160 in the first 12 months following implementation. The Department anticipates the possible elimination of between 0 and 1,011 jobs in the first 12 months following full implementation.

The Department does not anticipate that the new fee will lead to the elimination of existing businesses. The Department does not anticipate the creation of businesses due to the new fee. The Department does not anticipate that the new fee will put California businesses at a competitive disadvantage compared to businesses in other states. The Department anticipates a possible decrease in investment in the state of between $0 and $68,344,746 in the first 12 months following full implementation.

The Department does not anticipate that the new fee will result in incentives for innovation in products, materials, or processes. The Department anticipates the following benefits from the proposed action: The revenue collected from the DROS Fee will fund the Department’s public safety efforts. Specifically, the revenue will provide a consistent revenue stream for the Department’s firearms–related regulatory and enforcement activities related to the sale, purchase, manufacture, possession, loan, or transfer of firearms pursuant to any provision listed in

Section 16580. Activities related to checking the background of potential firearm purchasers protects public safety by ensuring that a person prohibited by state or federal law does not purchase, or maintain possession of, a firearm. The ownership or possession of a firearm by convicted felons, persons found to be a danger to self or others because of a mental illness, persons addicted to the use of narcotics, and other prohibited persons, pose a risk of immediate, serious harm to the people of the state of California.

Other activities funded by the DROS Fee, such as the maintenance of the Automated Firearms System and certain aspects of the Armed Prohibited Persons System, are directed toward the investigation and prosecution of firearms–related crimes. Addressing these important public safety issues requires a consistent revenue stream that is directly related to the number of firearms sold and possessed in the state. Penal Code

section 28233, which this rulemaking implements, structures the DROS Fee in exactly this manner.

Summary of Department of Finance Comments to SRIA and Department’s Response: The Department of Finance (“Finance”) generally agreed with the Department’s SRIA, but had two comments. First, Finance commented that the SRIA should consider the economic impact of the fee increase on long gun sales, not just hand gun sales. Second, Finance commented that the SRIA should provide more information regarding the fiscal impact of the fee increase.

In response to these comments, the Department revised the SRIA to include an analysis of how the price effect of the proposed DROS fee will influence long gun purchases, and to provide more detail regarding program costs. Business report requirement: None. Small business determination: The Department has determined that the proposed action affects small businesses. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES In accordance with Government Code

section 11346.5(a)(13), the Department must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the Department or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the Department would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 33-Z 1040 proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected 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. The Department has determined that the proposed regulation is the most effective way to implement this fee. Although Penal Code

section 28233 grants authority to the Department to require a firearms dealer to charge a $31.19 fee, the statute is not self– executing. At its discretion, the Department may promulgate regulations to implement the fee. Penal Code

section 28233 does not grant the Department the discretion to set the initial fee at any other amount. As an alternative, the Department could use its discretion to not implement a DROS fee at all. The Department has determined that this alternative is unreasonable, because not implementing the DROS Fee would remove the primary funding mechanism for the Department’s firearms programs.

If the fee implemented by the emergency regulation is not made permanent, the Department projects that the subsequent decrease in revenue would result in the insolvency of the Bureau of Firearms, as the operating budget would have a deficit of $12,367,074 for Fiscal Year 2021–22, and a deficit of $27,736,279 for each fiscal year thereafter. A second alternative considered by the Department concerned the method of fee collection. The DROS Entry System (DES) is a web–based application used by dealers to report the purchase of firearms to the Department. (See Cal. Code Regs, tit. 11, § 4200 et seq.) Proposed

Section 4001, subdivision (

a) would require that DROS Fees be paid at the same time a dealer submits a purchaser’s identifying information through DES for a background check. Proposed

Section 4001, subdivision (

b) would require that DROS Fees be remitted through DES as described in

Section 4240. The Department considered alternative methods of collecting the fee, such as bypassing the current DES payment mechanism, or waiting to charge the fee until the time of the physical transfer of the firearm. The Department rejected alternative methods of collection as less effective in funding the program. A third alternative considered by the Department would be to impose a DROS Fee for each firearm purchased, rather than once per transaction of one or more firearms, as proposed.

Because some people purchase multiple firearms in a single transaction, the number of billable DROS transactions are fewer than the total number of DROS transactions. If the Department imposed the $31.19 DROS Fee for each firearm purchased, rather than for each transaction of one or more firearms, the Department would collect additional revenue. The Department rejected this alternative due to statutory constraints. Per Penal Code

section 28240, for a single transaction of any number of firearms on the same date, only one billable fee may be charged. CONTACT PERSONS Inquiries concerning the proposed administrative action may be directed to: Kelan Lowney, Associate Governmental Program Analyst California Department of Justice P.O. Box 160487 Sacramento, CA 95816–0487(916) 210–2377 Questions regarding procedure, comments, or the substance of the proposed action should be addressed to the above contact person.

In the event the contact person is unavailable, inquiries regarding the proposed action may be directed to the following backup contact person: Matthew Mercado, Associate Governmental Program Analyst California Department of Justice P.O. Box 160487 Sacramento, CA 95816–0487(916) 210–2607 A VAILABILITY OF STATEMENT OF REASONS, TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS, AND RULEMAKING FILE The Department will have the entire rulemaking file available for inspection and copying throughout the rulemaking process at its office at the above address.

As of the date this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) is published in the Notice Register, the rulemaking file consists of this Notice, the Text of the Proposed Regulations (the “express terms” of the regulations), the Initial Statement of Reasons, and any information upon which the proposed rulemaking is based. The text of the Notice, the express terms, the Initial Statement of Reasons, and any information upon which the proposed rulemaking is based are available on the Department’s website at https://oag.ca.gov/ firearms/regs.

Please refer to the contact information listed above to obtain copies of these documents. AVAILABILITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT After the Department analyzes all timely and relevant comments received during the 45–day public comment period, the Department will either adopt the regulations substantially as described in this notice or make modifications based on the comments. If the Department makes modifications which are sufficiently

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 33-Z 1041 related to the originally–proposed text, it will make the modified text (with the changes clearly indicated) available to the public for at least 15 days before the Department adopts the regulations as revised. Please send requests for copies of any modified regulations to the attention of the name and address indicated above. The Department will accept written comments on the modified regulations for 15 days after the date on which they are made available.

A VAILABILITY OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Upon its completion, a copy of the Final Statement of Reasons will be available on the Department’s website at: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs. Please refer to the contact information listed above to obtain a written copy of the Final Statement of Reasons. A V AILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS ON THE INTERNET Copies of this Notice, the express terms, the Initial Statement of Reasons, and any information upon which the proposed rulemaking is based are available on the Department’s website at https://oag.ca.gov/ firearms/regs. TITLE 24.

CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION REGARDING THE 2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 24,

PART 11 (BSC 03/21) Note to agencies: The laws associated with the instructions in this form are found primarily in Government Code

Section 11346.5 et sequentes. For clarity during the administrative review process, do not remove the headings or statutory references to applicable sections being completed. Notice is hereby given that the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) proposes to adopt, approve, codify, and publish changes to building standards contained in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24,

Part 11. CBSC is proposing building standards related to the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(17). A public hearing has not been scheduled; however, written comments will be accepted from August 13, 2021 until midnight on September 27, 2021. Comments may be submitted to CBSC via: e–Comment form: dgs.ca.gov/BSC/e–comments U.S. Mail postmarked no later than September 27, 2021: California Building Standards Commission Michael Nearman, Deputy Executive Director 2525 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 130 Sacramento, CA 95833 Note: Only comments received in an accessible format will be viewable via CBSC’s website. Use the e–Comment form to ensure accessibility.

Any interested person, or his or her duly authorized representative, may request no later than 15 days prior to the close of the written comment period that a public hearing be held. The public will have an opportunity to provide both written and/or oral comments regarding the proposed action on building standards at a public meeting to be conducted by CBSC to be scheduled at a date near the end of the current adoption cycle. A meeting notice will be issued announcing the date, time and location of the public meeting. POST–HEARING MODIFICATIONS TO THE TEXT OF THE REGULATIONS Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(18). Following the public comment period, CBSC may adopt the proposed building standards substantially as proposed in this notice or with modifications that are sufficiently related to the original proposed text and notice of proposed changes. If modifications are made, the full text of the proposed modifications, clearly indicated, will be made available to the public for at least 15 days prior to the date on which CBSC adopts, amends, or repeals the regulation(s). CBSC will accept written comments on the modified building standards during the 15–day period.

NOTE: To be notified of any modifications, you must submit written/oral comments or request that you be notified of any modifications. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(2). CBSC proposes to adopt these building standards under the authority granted by Health and Safety Code Sections 18930.5. The purpose of these building standards is to implement, interpret, or make specific the provisions

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 33-Z 1042 of Health and Safety Code (H&SC) Sections 18930.5, 18931.7(b), and 18941.10. INFORMATIVE DIGEST Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(3).

Summary of Existing Laws H&SC 18930.5 grants CBSC the authority, if no state agency has the authority or expertise to propose green building standards applicable to a particular occupancy, to adopt, approve, codify, update, and publish green building standards for those occupancies. H&SC 18931.7(

b) Building Standards Administration Special Revolving Fund; availability of monies. (

b) Moneys deposited in the fund shall be available, upon appropriation, to the commission, the department, and the Office of the State Fire Marshal for expenditure in carrying out the provisions of this part, and the provisions of

Part 1.5 (commencing with

Section 17910) that relate to building standards, as defined in

Section 18909, with emphasis placed on the development, adoption, publication, and updating of green building standards, the updating of verification guidelines for Tier 1 or Tier 2 green building standards and educational efforts, including, but not limited to, training for local building officials associated with green building standards. H&SC 18941.10 Installation of future electric vehicle charging infrastructure for parking spaces in multifamily dwellings and nonresidential development; adoption of mandatory standards; consultation with interested parties.

In proposing and adopting mandatory building standards under this section, the Department of Housing and Community Development and the commission shall use Sections A4.106.6, A4.106.6.1, A4.106.6.2, A5.106.5.1, and A5.106.5.3 of the California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) as the starting point for the mandatory building standards and amend those standards as necessary, and shall actively consult with interested parties, including, but not limited to, investor–owned utilities, municipal utilities, manufacturers, local building officials, commercial building and apartment owners, and the building industry.

Summary of Existing Regulations The California Green Building Standards Code,

Part 11 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), also known as the CALGreen Code, is amended for inclusion into the 2022 CALGreen Code effective January 1, 2023. The CALGreen Code contains the green building standards for various mandatory and voluntary regulations that will be amended as necessary based on the proposed code changes.

Summary of Effect This proposed action will implement the proposed modifications to the California Green Building Standards Code for buildings within CBSC authority. The proposed amendments have some editorial and non–substantive changes with no intended change in regulatory effect. However, there are several amendments that are substantive.

The substantive changes include increasing the Electric Vehicle infrastructure percentages for both the mandatory and the voluntary provisions and new requirements for the mandatory installed electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS) with the option for using direct current fast chargers. Also proposed are increased percentages for EVCS for both Tier 1 and Tier 2. Another proposed amendment is the requirement for EV infrastructure for medium– and heavy–duty zero emissions vehicles (ZEV).

Once filed with Secretary of State, the standards will be codified and published by July 1, 2022, and will become effective January 1, 2023. The Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) provides a complete description of the proposed building standards and their effect. Comparable Federal Statutes or Regulations There are no federal statutes or regulations that are comparable to the proposed updates to the CALGreen Code.

Policy Statement Overview The broad objectives of the regulation are to propose changes to the building standards for electric vehicle infrastructure for statewide application for both light– duty and medium– and heavy–duty zero emissions vehicles (ZEV). The specific benefits anticipated by the proposed amendment is to realize substantial environmental benefits through reduction in energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, criteria pollutants, and fossil fuel dependency leading to improved public health.

CBSC is responsible for the development of green building standards for nonresidential occupancies for which no other state agency has authority or expertise. Evaluation of Consistency CBSC has determined that the proposed regulations are not inconsistent or incompatible with existing state regulations. OTHER MATTERS PRESCRIBED BY STATUTE APPLICABLE TO THE AGENCY OR TO ANY SPECIFIC REGULATION OR CLASS OF REGULATIONS Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(4).

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 33-Z 1043 CBSC has determined that there are no other matters prescribed by statute applicable to the agency or to any specific regulation or class of regulations. MANDATE ON LOCAL AGENCIES OR SCHOOL DISTRICTS Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(5). CBSC has determined that the proposed regulatory action would not impose a mandate on local agencies or school districts. CBSC does not have authority to impose building standards or regulations on school districts. Further, the proposed regulatory actions are administrative in nature and would not enact a mandate on local agencies or school districts. ESTIMATE OF COST OR SA VINGS Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(6). An estimate, prepared in accordance with instructions adopted by Department of Finance, of cost or savings to any state agency, local agency, or school district. A. Cost or Savings to any state agency: All new state buildings are subject to these amendments. Based on a ten–year sequencing plan for state buildings in Sacramento, CBSC identifies a total of 4 new state buildings that are likely to be constructed between 2023 and 2025. Since Sacramento is the center of State government, these estimates represent total new construction planned in the 2023 to 2025 timeframe.

Since the cost to typical businesses is $675 to $109,099 the total cost to state government over the 3–year life of the amendments is estimated at $2,700 to $436,396. B. Cost to any local agency required to be reimbursed under

Part 7 (commencing with

Section 17500) of Division 4: No cost or savings. C. Cost to any school district required to be reimbursed under

Part 7 (commencing with

Section 17500) of Division 4: No cost or savings. D. Other nondiscretionary cost or savings imposed on local agencies: No cost or savings. E. Cost or savings in federal funding to the state: No cost or savings. Estimate: NONE. INITIAL DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT STATEWIDE ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACT ON BUSINESSES Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(8). If the agency makes an initial determination that the adoption/amendment/repeal of this regulation will not have a significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states, it shall make a declaration to that effect. CBSC has made an initial determination that the adoption of this regulation will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact on businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. DECLARATION OF EVIDENCE Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(8). In making the declaration, the agency shall provide in the record of facts, evidence, documents, testimony, or other evidence that the agency relies upon to support its initial determination of no effect.

Regarding the proposal to increase the electric vehicle infrastructure for both light–duty vehicle percentages in both the mandatory and voluntary code provisions and the proposed medium– and heavy– duty EV capable infrastructure, CBSC conducted two stakeholder workshops on January 7, 2021 and March 30, 2021, which were attended by state agencies, interested parties and stakeholder representatives such as the California Air Resources Board (CARB), California Energy Commission, Department of Housing and Community Development, California Department of Public Health, California Building Industry association, Electric Vehicle Charging Association, Tesla, Southern California Edison, Underwriters Laboratory, Energy Solutions, various local enforcing agencies, and private consultants.

Based on testimony presented at the workshop and comments received from various stakeholders, CBSC proposes to increase the percentages as suggested at the workshop. CBSC has made an initial determination of no significant adverse economic impact on businesses.

However, this regulatory action for light–duty vehicles would marginally increase costs to California business enterprises representing up to 0.9 percent of the total new construction costs of nonresidential buildings over the 3–year life of the amendments and with significant benefits to Californians due to improved air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction. The proposal will also help to alleviate expensive future retrofit costs for applicable building owners, saving them more than six times the cost of adding panel capacity and conduit in standalone retrofits of existing buildings.

See rulemaking file number BSC–03–21–ISOR–PT11–45day. CBSC has made an initial determination that this regulatory action for medium–and heavy–duty vehicles would have no significant increase costs to California business enterprises. These costs represent less than 0.5 percent of the total new construction

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 33-Z 1044 costs of nonresidential buildings over the 8–year life of the amendments and with significant benefits to Californians due to improved air quality and GHG emissions reduction. The proposal will also help to alleviate expensive future retrofit costs for applicable building owners, saving them up to seven times the cost of the proposed requirements. This determination is based on comments received at the workshop and the cost benefit analysis provided by the California Air Resources Board.

This analysis is based on the following: “Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure: Nonresidential Building Standards, CARB Technical and Cost Analysis, September 30, 2019” ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/ files/2020–08/CARB_Technical_Analysis_EV_ Charging_Nonresidential_CALGreen_2019_2020_ Intervening_Code.pdf; “2021 National Construction Estimator 68th Edition” “2012 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey Preliminary Results”; eia. gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/index. php?view=characteristics “Benefits and Considerations of Electricity as a Vehicle Fuel”; afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_ benefits.html “2018 Grid Average Electricity Emissions Factor; EMFAC ( ca.gov), arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions– inventory/e2e58e924ef97f439a293441205c5121af 7360e9 Assembly Bill 2127 Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Assessment, efiling.energy.ca.gov/ getdocument.aspx?tn=236237 , and CARB staff estimated nonresidential new construction building projections from CEC.

CBSC has shown in the Economic and Fiscal Impact Statement (399) and the Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) that the zero emissions vehicle infrastructure adjustments pose a marginal increase but do not pose a significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business in California and their ability to compete with businesses in other states. FINDING OF NECESSITY FOR THE PUBLIC’S HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(11). Any regulation that requires a report shall not apply to businesses, unless the agency makes a finding that it is necessary for the health, safety, or welfare of the public that the regulations apply to businesses. CBSC has assessed the proposed code changes and has determined that these changes do not require a report. COST IMPACT ON REPRESENTATIVE PRIVATE PERSON OR BUSINESS Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(9). Describe all cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action. If no cost impact, provide the following statement: CBSC is aware of initial cost impacts that a representative private person or business could incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action.

The cost impact has been determined to be less than 0.5 percent of all new applicable construction totals for medium–and–heavy duty vehicle infrastructure provisions, and up to 0.9 percent of all new applicable construction totals for the light–duty vehicle infrastructure provisions. However, it is also anticipated that such costs would be recouped in long– range savings expressed in utility and transportation costs, worker productivity, health costs, and goodwill. The Initial Statement of Reasons and the Economic and Fiscal Impact Statement support this statement.

ASSESSMENT OF EFFECT OF REGULATIONS UPON JOBS AND BUSINESS EXPANSION, ELIMINATION OR CREATION Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(10). The California Building Standards Commission has assessed whether and to what extent this proposal will affect the following: A. The creation or elimination of jobs within the State of California. These regulations may cause some jobs to be created for the installation, maintaining and manufacturing of Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE). These regulations will not affect the elimination of jobs within the State of California. B. The creation of new businesses or the elimination of existing businesses within the State of California.

These regulations may cause the creation of businesses that expand the EV market. These regulations will not affect the elimination of jobs within the State of California. C. The expansion of businesses currently doing business within the State of California. These regulations will likely promote the expansion of businesses currently involved with EV manufacturing, installation, maintenance and technology development within the State of California.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 33-Z 1045 D. The benefits of the regulation to the health and welfare of California residents, worker safety, and the state’s environment. These regulations will increase the sustainability of California’s natural resources by reducing fuel use, GHG emissions, criteria pollutants, and fossil fuel dependence, and provide increased protection of public health and safety, worker safety and the environment.

Adopting proposed code changes for medium– and heavy–duty vehicles would also support the reduction of 19 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) total by 2050 from the Innovative Clean Transit Regulation, 0.5 MMTCO2e total by 2040 from the Zero– Emission Airport Shuttle Regulation, and 1.7 MMTCO2e per year by 2040 from the Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation. ESTIMATED COST OF COMPLIANCE OF STANDARDS THAT WOULD IMPACT HOUSING Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(12). CBSC has determined there would be no cost to comply with these proposed building standards. CBSC does not have authority to impose building standards or regulations applicable to housing. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(13). 1. CBSC considered the following alternative for EV vehicles in Sections 5.106.5.3 and A5.106.5.3 in an effort to further advance the potential for EV preparedness for EV vehicles. CBSC conducted a stakeholder workshop on January 7, 2021 in which it proposed to include a mandatory requirement for level 2 charging stations in new nonresidential buildings requiring one Level 2 charger for parking lots that had 10 or more parking spaces. Additionally, CBSC proposed a voluntary Tier 1 and Tier 2 requirement for Level 2 chargers.

Tier 1 requires Level 2 chargers in 3 percent of the total parking spaces and 5 percent for Tier 2. Based on comments received at the workshop, this initial EV proposal was superseded by the more stringent current proposal which is needed further advance EV preparedness. 2. CBSC considered the following two alternatives for EV vehicle charging in voluntary Sections A5.106.5.3.1 and A5.106.5.3.2 in an effort to further advance the potential for EV preparedness for EV vehicles as voluntary tier options which are currently being proposed for adoption in this rulemaking.

Alternative 1 Tier 1: Adopt an additional 5% Level 2 EV charging requirement for new nonresidential buildings with 10 or more actual parking spaces and adopt an additional 5% Level 2 EV capable space requirement. Alternative 1 Tier 1 analysis: The proposed amendments require new nonresidential buildings with 0–9 actual parking spaces to install EV capable infrastructure in 30% of the total number of actual parking spaces with no requirement for EVSE.

New nonresidential buildings with 10 or greater actual parking spaces shall install EV capable infrastructure in 30% of the total number of actual parking spaces and 33% of the number of required EV capable spaces need to be provided with electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE). The net resulting percentage for the required EV capable infrastructure is 20% for 10 or more actual parking spaces. The net resulting percentage for the required EVSE is 10% for 10 or more actual parking spaces.

The incremental percentage increase for EV capable spaces above the proposed mandatory respective code in Table 5.106.5.3.1 is from 20% (net 15%) to 30% (net 20%) and the incremental percentage increase for Level 2 EVSE above the proposed mandatory respective code in Table 5.106.5.3.1 is from net 5% to net 10%. This alternative was rejected at this time as a mandatory requirement at the state level because it is more costly. However, this alternative can still be adopted by local governments as mandatory at the local level as a Tier 1 option and is being proposed in this rulemaking by CBSC.

This alternative would add 0.3 – 1.0 percent to total costs for nonresidential new construction above the proposed mandatory provisions. This requirement would result in the installation of an additional 56,135 to 69,248 Level 2 EV capable spaces and 62,924 to 75,778 Level 2 EV chargers over the proposed mandatory provisions during the 3–year life of the amendments.

Initial construction costs for Alternative 1 were estimated to total an additional $188 to $353 million with avoided retrofit costs of $833 to $1,160 million resulting in a statewide benefit of $481 to $972 million over the 3–year life of the amendments compared to the proposed mandatory provisions. An additional 492,000 to 597,000 metric tons CO2e emission reduction annually could be achieved compared to the proposed mandatory provisions.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 33-Z 1046 Alternative 2 Tier 2: Adopt an additional 10% Level 2 EV charging requirement for new nonresidential buildings with 10 or more actual parking spaces and adopt an additional 15% Level 2 EV capable space requirement. Alternative 2 Tier 2 analysis: The proposed amendments would require new nonresidential buildings with parking lots between 0–9 spaces to install EV capable infrastructure in 45% of the total number of actual parking spaces with no requirement for EVSE.

Parking lots with 10 or greater parking spaces shall install EV capable infrastructure in 45% of the total number of actual parking spaces. 33% of the number of required EV capable spaces need to be provided with electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) triggered at 10 or greater parking spaces. The net resulting percentage for the required EV capable infrastructure is 30% for parking lots with 10 or more spaces. The net resulting percentage for the required EVSE is 15% for parking lots with 10 or more spaces.

The incremental percentage increase for EV capable spaces above the proposed mandatory respective code in Table 5.106.5.3.1 is from 20% (net 15%) to 45% (net 30%) and the incremental percentage increase for Level 2 EVSE above the proposed mandatory respective code in Table 5.106.5.3.1 is from net 5% to net 15%. This alternative was rejected at this time as a mandatory requirement at the state level because it is more costly. However, this alternative can still be adopted by local governments as mandatory at the local level as a Tier 2 option and is being proposed in this rulemaking by CBSC.

This alternative would add 0.6 – 2.1 percent to total costs for nonresidential new construction above the proposed mandatory provisions. This requirement would result in the installation of an additional 168,404 to 207,745 Level 2 EV capable spaces and 119,058 to 145,027 Level 2 EV chargers over the proposed mandatory provisions during the 3–year life of the amendments.

Initial construction costs for Alternative 2 were estimated to total an additional $398 to $752 million with avoided retrofit costs of $2,012 to $2,822 million resulting in a statewide benefit of $1,260 to $2,424 million over the 3–year life of the amendments compared to the proposed mandatory provisions. An additional 1,047,000 to 1,280,000 metric tons CO2e emission reduction annually could be achieved compared to the proposed mandatory provisions. A V AILABILITY OF RULEMAKING DOCUMENTS Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(16) and 11346.5(a)(20). All of the information upon which the proposed regulations are based is contained in the rulemaking file, which is available for public review, by contacting the person named below. This notice, the express terms and initial statement of reasons can be accessed from the CBSC website: dgs.ca.gov/BSC. Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(19). Interested parties may obtain a copy of the final statement of reasons, once it has been prepared, by making a written request to the contact person named below or at the CBSC website: dgs.ca.gov/BSC. Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(21). CBSC shall provide, upon request, a description of proposed changes included in the proposed action, in the manner provided by

Section 11346.6, to accommodate a person with a visual or other disability for which effective communication is required under state or federal law and that providing the description of proposed changes may require extending the period of public comment for the proposed action. CBSC CONTACT PERSON FOR PROCEDURAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTIONS Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(14). General questions regarding procedural and administrative issues should be addressed to: Michael L. Nearman, Deputy Executive Director California Building Standards Commission 2525 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 130 Sacramento, CA 95833 Telephone Number: (916) 263–0916 michael.nearman@dgs.ca.gov PROPOSING STATE AGENCY CONTACT PERSON FOR SUBSTANTIVE AND/OR TECHNICAL QUESTIONS ON THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO BUILDING STANDARDS Specific questions regarding the substantive and/ or technical aspects of the proposed changes to the building standards should be addressed to:

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 33-Z 1047 Primary Contact: Enrique M. Rodriguez, Associate Construction Analyst California Building Standards Commission 2525 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 130 Sacramento, CA 95833 Telephone Number: (916) 263–0916 enrique.rodriguez@dgs.ca.gov Back up Contact: Michael L. Nearman, Deputy Executive Director California Building Standards Commission 2525 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 130 Sacramento, CA 95833 Telephone Number: (916) 263–0916 michael.nearman@dgs.ca.gov TITLE 24.

CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION/DIVISION OF THE STATE ARCHITECT NOTICE OF PROPOSED ACTION TO BUILDING STANDARDS OF THE DIVISION OF THE STATE ARCHITECT (DSA–AC) REGARDING THE 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 24,

PART 2 (DSA–AC 01/21) Note to agencies: The laws associated with the instructions in this form are found primarily in Government Code

Section 11346.5 et sequentes. For clarity during the administrative review process, do not remove the headings or statutory references to applicable sections being completed. Notice is hereby given that the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) on behalf of the Division of the State Architect (DSA–AC) proposes to adopt, approve, codify, and publish changes to building standards contained in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24,

Part 2. DSA– AC is proposing building standards related to 2022 California Building Code. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(17). A public hearing has not been scheduled; however, written comments will be accepted from August 13, 2021 until midnight on September 27, 2021. Comments may be submitted to CBSC via: e–Comment form: dgs.ca.gov/BSC/e–comments U.S. Mail postmarked no later than September 27, 2021: California Building Standards Commission Michael Nearman, Deputy Executive Director 2525 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 130 Sacramento, CA 95833 Note: Only comments received in an accessible format will be viewable via CBSC’s website. Use the e–Comment form to ensure accessibility.

Any interested person, or his or her duly authorized representative, may request no later than 15 days prior to the close of the written comment period that a public hearing be held. The public will have an opportunity to provide both written and/or oral comments regarding the proposed action on building standards at a public meeting to be conducted by CBSC to be scheduled at a date near the end of the current adoption cycle. A meeting notice will be issued announcing the date, time and location of the public meeting. POST–HEARING MODIFICATIONS TO THE TEXT OF THE REGULATIONS Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(18). Following the public comment period, CBSC may adopt the proposed building standards substantially as proposed in this notice or with modifications that are sufficiently related to the original proposed text and notice of proposed changes. If modifications are made, the full text of the proposed modifications, clearly indicated, will be made available to the public for at least 15 days prior to the date on which CBSC adopts, amends, or repeals the regulation(s). CBSC will accept written comments on the modified building standards during the 15–day period.

NOTE: To be notified of any modifications, you must submit written/oral comments or request that you be notified of any modifications. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(2). CBSC proposes to adopt these building standards under the authority granted by Health and Safety Code

Section 18928. For DSA–AC, the purpose of these building standards is to implement, interpret, or make specific the provisions of Government Code Sections 4450 through 4461, 12955.1 and 14679; Health and Safety Code Sections 18949.1 and 19952 through 19959; and Vehicle Code

Section 22511.8. The Division of the State Architect is proposing this regulatory action based on Government Code

Section 4450.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 33-Z 1048 INFORMATIVE DIGEST Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(3).

Summary of Existing Laws Government Code

Section 4450 authorizes the State Architect to develop regulations for making buildings, structures, sidewalks, curbs, and related facilities accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities.

Summary of Existing Regulations Existing regulations promulgated by DSA–AC are contained in the California Building Code (Title 24,

Part 2). These regulations are applicable to: 1. Publicly funded buildings, structures, sidewalks, curbs and related facilities; 2. Privately funded public accommodations and commercial facilities; 3. Public housing and private housing available for public use; 4. Any portable buildings leased or owned by a school district; and 5. Temporary and emergency buildings and facilities.

Summary of Effect The proposed action would update the CCR, Title 24,

Part 2 by: ● Adding requirements for maintencane of accessible features to inlcude facilities regulated in

Chapter 11B. ● Revising defintion of access aisle. ● Revising requirements for accessible means of egress. ● Amendments to clarify multi–bedroom requirements for housing at a place of education. Comparable Federal Statutes or Regulations Comparable federal statutes and regulations include: ● Regulations for Title II and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as adopted by the U.S. Department of Justice. The regulations provide enforceable standards for accessible design, known as the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, in three parts: 1. 2010 Standards for State and Local Government Facilities: Title II Regulations at 28 CFR

Part 35.151; 2. 2010 Standards for Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities: Title III Regulations at 28 CFR

Part 36, Subpart D; and 3. 2010 Standards for Title II and III Facilities: 2004 ADAAG. ● Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.

Policy Statement Overview The proposed building standards are intended to implement new accessibility provisions and clarify existing accessibility provisions contained in the 2019 California Building Code to ensure that publicly funded buildings, structures, sidewalks, curbs, and related facilities shall be accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities; privately funded public accommodations and commercial facilities shall be accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities; and public housing shall be accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities.

Evaluation of Consistency There are no inconsistent or incompatible regulations proposed. OTHER MATTERS PRESCRIBED BY STATUTE APPLICABLE TO THE AGENCY OR TO ANY SPECIFIC REGULATION OR CLASS OF REGULATIONS Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(4). There are no other matters prescribed by statute applicable to DSA–AC, or to any specific regulation or class of regulations. MANDATE ON LOCAL AGENCIES OR SCHOOL DISTRICTS Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(5). DSA–AC has determined that the proposed regulatory action WOULD NOT impose a mandate on local agencies or school districts. ESTIMATE OF COST OR SA VINGS Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(6). An estimate, prepared in accordance with instructions adopted by Department of Finance, of cost or savings to any state agency, local agency, or school district. A. Cost or Savings to any state agency: None. B. Cost to any local agency required to be reimbursed under

Part 7 (commencing with

Section 17500) of Division 4: None. C. Cost to any school district required to be reimbursed under

Part 7 (commencing with

Section 17500) of Division 4: None. D. Other nondiscretionary cost or savings imposed on local agencies: None. E. Cost or savings in federal funding to the state: None. Estimate: $0.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 33-Z 1049 INITIAL DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT STATEWIDE ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACT ON BUSINESSES Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(8). If the agency makes an initial determination that the adoption/amendment/repeal of this regulation will not have a significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states, it shall make a declaration to that effect. DSA–AC has made an initial determination that the adoption/amendment/repeal of this regulation will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact on businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. DECLARATION OF EVIDENCE Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(8). In making the declaration, the agency shall provide in the record of facts, evidence, documents, testimony, or other evidence that the agency relies upon to support its initial determination of no effect. No facts, evidence, documents, testimony or other evidence have been relied upon to support the initial determination of no effect. FINDING OF NECESSITY FOR THE PUBLIC’S HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(11). Any regulation that requires a report shall not apply to businesses, unless the agency makes a finding that it is necessary for the health, safety, or welfare of the public that the regulations apply to businesses. N/A COST IMPACT ON REPRESENTATIVE PRIVATE PERSON OR BUSINESS Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(9). Describe all cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action. If no cost impact, provide the following statement: DSA–AC is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action. ASSESSMENT OF EFFECT OF REGULATIONS UPON JOBS AND BUSINESS EXPANSION, ELIMINATION OR CREATION Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(10). The DSA–AC has assessed whether or not and to what extent this proposal will affect the following: A. The creation or elimination of jobs within the State of California. DSA–AC has determined that the proposed action has no effect. B. The creation of new businesses or the elimination of existing businesses within the State of California. DSA–AC has determined that the proposed action has no effect. C. The expansion of businesses currently doing business within the State of California. DSA–AC has determined that the proposed action has no effect. D.

The benefits of the regulation to the health and welfare of California residents, worker safety, and the state’s environment. DSA–AC has determined that the proposed action has no effect. ESTIMATED COST OF COMPLIANCE OF STANDARDS THAT WOULD IMPACT HOUSING Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(12). DSA–AC has made an initial determination that this proposal would not have a significant effect on housing costs. DSA–AC is coordinating this proposal with the Department of Housing and Community Development. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(13). DSA–AC has determined that no reasonable alternative considered by DAS–AC or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of DSA–AC would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected 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 provisions of law.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 33-Z 1050 A V AILABILITY OF RULEMAKING DOCUMENTS Reference: Government Code Sections 11346.5(a)(16) and 11346.5(a)(20). All of the information upon which the proposed regulations are based is contained in the rulemaking file, which is available for public review, by contacting the person named below. This notice, the express terms and initial statement of reasons can be accessed from the CBSC website: dgs.ca.gov/BSC. Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(19). Interested parties may obtain a copy of the final statement of reasons, once it has been prepared, by making a written request to the contact person named below or at the CBSC website: dgs.ca.gov/BSC. Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(21). DSA–AC shall provide, upon request, a description of proposed changes included in the proposed action, in the manner provided by

Section 11346.6, to accommodate a person with a visual or other disability for which effective communication is required under state or federal law and that providing the description of proposed changes may require extending the period of public comment for the proposed action. CBSC CONTACT PERSON FOR PROCEDURAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTIONS Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(14). General questions regarding procedural and administrative issues should be addressed to: Michael Nearman, Deputy Executive Director 2525 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 130 Sacramento, CA 95833 Telephone: (916) 263–0916 PROPOSING STATE AGENCY CONTACT PERSON FOR SUBSTANTIVE AND/OR TECHNICAL QUESTIONS ON THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO BUILDING STANDARDS Specific questions regarding the substantive and/ or technical aspects of the proposed changes to the building standards should be addressed to: Primary Contact: Derek M.

Shaw, Supervising Architect Division of the State Architect Headquarters Phone: (916) 324–7178 Derek.Shaw@dgs.ca.gov Back up Contact: Susan Moe, Senior Architect Division of the State Architect Headquarters Phone: (916) 323–1687 Susan.Moe@dgs.ca.gov TITLE 24. CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION/DIVISION OF THE STATE ARCHITECT NOTICE OF PROPOSED ACTION TO BUILDING STANDARDS OF THE DIVISION OF THE STATE ARCHITECT REGARDING THE 2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 24,

PART 11 (DSA–SS/CC 03–21) Note to agencies: The laws associated with the instructions in this form are found primarily in Government Code

Section 11346.5 et sequentes. For clarity during the administrative review process, do not remove the headings or statutory references to applicable sections being completed. Notice is hereby given that the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) on behalf of Division of State Architect proposes to adopt, approve, codify, and publish changes to building standards contained in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24,

Part 11. The DSA is proposing building standards related to Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, building standards related to carbon dioxide monitors in K–12 public school classrooms, and addressing clarity to existing green building standards. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(17). A public hearing has not been scheduled; however, written comments will be accepted from August 13, 2021 until midnight on September 27, 2021. Comments may be submitted to CBSC via: e–Comment form: dgs.ca.gov/BSC/e–comments

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 33-Z 1051 U.S. Mail postmarked no later than September 27, 2021: California Building Standards Commission Michael Nearman, Deputy Executive Director 2525 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 130 Sacramento, CA 95833 Note: Only comments received in an accessible format will be viewable via CBSC’s website. Use the e–Comment form to ensure accessibility. Any interested person, or his or her duly authorized representative, may request no later than 15 days prior to the close of the written comment period that a public hearing be held.

The public will have an opportunity to provide both written and/or oral comments regarding the proposed action on building standards at a public meeting to be conducted by CBSC to be scheduled at a date near the end of the current adoption cycle. A meeting notice will be issued announcing the date, time and location of the public meeting. POST–HEARING MODIFICATIONS TO THE TEXT OF THE REGULATIONS Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(18). Following the public comment period, CBSC may adopt the proposed building standards substantially as proposed in this notice or with modifications that are sufficiently related to the original proposed text and notice of proposed changes. If modifications are made, the full text of the proposed modifications, clearly indicated, will be made available to the public for at least 15 days prior to the date on which CBSC adopts, amends, or repeals the regulation(s). CBSC will accept written comments on the modified building standards during the 15–day period.

NOTE: To be notified of any modifications, you must submit written/oral comments or request that you be notified of any modifications. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(2). CBSC proposes to adopt these building standards under the authority granted by Health and Safety Code

Section 18928. For Division of the State Architect (DSA–SS) the purpose of these building standards is to implement, interpret, or make specific the provisions of Education Code sections 17280–17317, and 81130–81147. DSA– SS is proposing this regulatory action based on Education Code sections 17310 and 81142. For DSA–SS/CC the purpose of these building standards is to implement, interpret, or make specific the provisions of Education Code

section 81052, 81053, and 81130–81147. DSA–SS/CC is proposing this regulatory action based on Education Code

section 81053. INFORMATIVE DIGEST Reference: Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(3).

Summary of Existing Laws Sections 17310, 81142, and 81053 of the Education Code authorize the State Architect to establish building standards for the design, construction and inspection of building systems for public elementary and secondary schools, and community colleges.

Summary of Existing Regulations Existing green building standards apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure throughout the State of California. It is not the intent that the green building standards substitute or be identified as meeting the certification requirements of any green building program. The green building standards for public elementary and secondary schools and community colleges are promulgated by the Division of the State Architect. These regulations are contained in the California Green Building Standards Code (Cal. Code of Regs., title 24,

part 11) and incorporate the following: California Code of Regulations, title 24,

part 3 (California Electrical Code), which prescribe the design and construction requirements for electrical systems of public elementary and secondary schools, and community colleges. California Code of Regulations, title 24,

part 4 (California Mechanical Code), which prescribe the design and construction requirements for mechanical systems of public elementary and secondary schools and community colleges. California Code of Regulations, title 24,

part 5 (California Plumbing Code), which prescribe the design and construction requirements for plumbing systems of public elementary and secondary schools, and community colleges. California Code of Regulations, title 24,

part 6 (California Energy Code), which contains minimum energy efficiency standards for the non–residential buildings in California promulgated by the California Energy Commission (CEC). California Code of Regulations, title 24,

part 11 (California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen)), which contains mandatory and voluntary green building standards for residential and non–residential facilities. Other relevant provisions of the California Code of Regulations:

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 33-Z 1052 California Code of Regulations, title 17, includes regulations for air quality promulgated by the California Air Resources Board.

Summary of Effect The proposed action will implement the proposed modifications to the California Green Building Standards Code for buildings within DSA authority.

The proposed amendments contain substantive changes which include mandatory provisions for doubling the number of required electric vehicle (EV) spaces provided with EV capable infrastructure and requiring the installation of minimum level 2 electric vehicle supply equipment for 25% of EV capable spaces, the installation of carbon dioxide monitors in new public K–12 schools, and new provisions for indoor air quality by limiting the off–gassing of thermal insulation and acoustical ceiling and wall panels, clarifying amendments to the regulations for