GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW California Regulatory Notice Register REGISTER 2025, NUMBER 24–Z P UBLISHED WEEKLY BY THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW J UNE 13, 2025 PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS TITLE 2. F AIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Conflict–of–Interest Code — Notice File Number Z2025–0603–03 ......................................... 731 AMENDMENT MULTI–COUNTY: South Bay Regional Public Safety Training Consortium Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District TITLE 3.

DEP ARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE Emerald Ash Borer Eradication Area — Notice File Number Z2025–0530–01 ................................ 732 TITLE 4. DEP ARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL Responsible Beverage Service Training Program Update for Drink Spiking — Notice File Number Z2025–0529–02 ................................................................................. 734 TITLE 4. DEP ARTMENT OF CANNABIS CONTROL Pesticide Testing — Notice File Number Z2025–0603–01 ................................................ 737 TITLE 13.

NEW MOTOR VEHICLE BOARD Annual Board Fee — Notice File Number Z2025–0602–02 ............................................... 741 TITLE 17. DEP ARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH Serving Size and Age for Industrial Hemp — Notice File Number Z2025–0528–01 ............................ 745 TITLE 22.

DEP ARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL Manifest Exemption — Notice File Number Z2025–0603–04 .............................................. 755 GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Dowdell Extension Project, 2080–2025–001–03, Sonoma County .......................................... 759 (Continued on next page) Time- Dated Material

DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Lurline Creek Check and Siphon Replacement, 2080–2025–004–02, Colusa County ........................... 760 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Snowstorm Creek Project (Tracking Number: 1653–2025–164–001–R1), Lassen County ....................... 763 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Steppingstone Wetland Enhancement Project, 1653–2025–160–001–R3, Santa Clara County .................... 763 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Walters Creek Streamflow and Habitat Enhancement Project (Tracking Number: 1653–2025–165–001–R4), San Luis Obispo County ..................................................... 766 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Wheeler Gorge Campground Aquatic Organism Passage and Stream Restoration (Tracking Number: 1653–2025–163–001–R5), Ventura County ............................................................ 766 DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL Public Comment Period – Proposed Settlement ........................................................ 767 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS BOARD Public Meeting and Business Meeting ................................................................ 767 DECISION NOT TO PROCEED DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH Concerning GACH Clinical Lab, Pharmaceutical, Dietetic Services (Previously Published in Notice Register 2024, Number 30–Z, July 26, 2024) .................................................................. 768 RULEMAKING PETITION DECISIONS FISH AND GAME COMMISSION Notice of Decision on Petition from Richard Montre Regarding Authorization to use a Crossbow with a Scope for those with Visual Disabilities and from Cheryl Wilen Regarding Modifying Language to Allow a Flexible Blade or Knife, e.g. “putty knife” for the take of Limpets. ........................ 768 SUSPENSION OF ACTION REGARDING UNDERGROUND REGULATIONS BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS Concerning Policy Prohibiting Submission of Photographs by Parole Hearing Stakeholders .................... 769 (Continued on next page)

SUMMARY OF REGULATORY ACTIONS Regulations filed with Secretary of State .............................................................. 770 The California Regulatory Notice Register is an official state publication of the Office of Administrative Law containing notices of proposed regulatory actions by state regulatory agencies to adopt, amend or repeal regulations contained in the California Code of Regulations. The effective period of a notice of proposed regulatory action by a state agency in the California Regulatory Notice Register shall not exceed one year [Government Code § 11346.4(b)].

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

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 24–Z 731 PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS Information contained in this document is published as received from agencies and is not edited by Thomson Reuters. TITLE 2.

FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Fair Po - litical Practices Commission, pursuant to the au - thority vested in it by Sections 82011, 87303, and 87304 of the Government Code to review proposed conflict–of–interest codes, will review the proposed/ amended conflict–of–interest codes of the following: CONFLICT–OF–INTEREST CODES AMENDMENT MULTI–COUNTY: South Bay Regional Public Safety Training Consortium Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District A written comment period has been established commencing on June 13, 2025, and closing on July 28, 2025.

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

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

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

Any written com - ments must be received no later than July 28, 2025. If a public hearing is to be held, oral comments may be presented to the Commission at the hearing. COST TO LOCAL AGENCIES There shall be no reimbursement for any new or in- creased costs to local government which may result from compliance with these codes because these are not new programs mandated on local agencies by the codes since the requirements described herein were mandated by the Political Reform Act of 1974. There- fore, they are not “costs mandated by the state” as de- fined in Government Code

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

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

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 24–Z 732 AVAILABILITY OF PROPOSED CONFLICT–OF–INTEREST CODES Copies of the proposed conflict–of–interest codes may be obtained from the Commission offices or the respective agency. Requests for copies from the Com- mission should be made to Andrea Spiller Hernandez, Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3050, Sacramento, California 95811, or email aspiller–hernandez@fppc.ca.gov. TITLE 3. DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE EMERALD ASH BORER ERADICATION AREA The California Department of Food and Agricul - ture (Department) proposes to adopt Title 3, Califor - nia Code of Regulations (CCR)

Section 3591.33 Emer- ald Ash Borer Eradication Area. This regulation will allow the Department to create an eradication area for emerald ash borer which will help prevent the spread of these pests within California should it be detected within the state. PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing is not scheduled. However, a pub - lic hearing will be held if any interested person, or his or her duly authorized representative, submits a writ - ten request for a public hearing to the Department no later than 15 days prior to the close of the written com- ment period.

WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any interested person or their authorized represen - tative may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulations to the Department. Comments may be submitted by USPS, FAX or email. The writ - ten comment period closes on July 28, 2025. The De - partment will consider only comments received at the Department offices by that date or postmarked no later than July 28, 2025.

Submit comments to: Erin Lovig, Senior Environmental Scientist Supervisor California Department of Food and Agriculture Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services 1220 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 654–1017 Permits@cdfa.ca.gov Questions regarding the substance of the pro - posed regulation should be directed to Erin Lovig. In her absence, you may contact Rachel Avila at (916) 698–2947 or Rachel.Avila@cdfa.ca.gov. AUTHORITY The Department proposes to amend

Section 3591.33 pursuant to the authority vested by Sections 407 and 5322 of the Food and Agricultural Code (FAC). REFERENCE The Department proposes this action to implement, interpret and make specific Sections 5761, 5762, and 5763 of the FAC. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW This regulation will allow the Department to create an eradication area for emerald ash borer which will help prevent the spread of this pest within California should they be detected within the state. EXISTING LAWS AND REGULATIONS Existing law, FAC

Section 407, provides that the Secretary may adopt such regulations as are reason - ably necessary to carry out the provisions of this code that the Secretary is directed or authorized to admin - ister or enforce. Existing law, FAC

Section 5322, provides that the Secretary may establish, maintain, and enforce quar - antine, eradication, and such other regulations as are in their opinion necessary to circumscribe and exter - minate or prevent the spread of any pest that is de - scribed in FAC

Section 5321. Existing law, FAC

Section 5761, provides that the Secretary may proclaim any portion of the state to be an eradication area with respect to the pest, prescribe the boundaries of such area, and name the pest and the hosts of the pest which are known to exist within the area, together with the means or methods which are to be used in the eradication or control of such pest. Existing law, FAC

Section 5762, provides that the Secretary may proclaim any pest with respect to which an eradication area has been proclaimed, and any stag- es of the pest, its hosts and carriers, and any premis - es, plants, and things infested or infected or exposed to infestation or infection with such pest or its hosts or carriers, within such area, are public nuisances, which are subject to all laws and remedies which relate to the prevention and abatement of public nuisances. Existing law, FAC

Section 5763, provides that the Secretary, or the commissioner acting under the su - pervision and direction of the director, in a

summary

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 24–Z 733 manner, may disinfect or take such other action, in - cluding removal or destruction, with reference to any such public nuisance, which he thinks is necessary.

ANTICIPATED BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT This regulatory action will allow the Department to eradicate and prevent the spread of emerald ash borer in California through the implementation of this regu- lation, which economically benefits: ● the general public. ● policies that maintain street trees. ● homeowners and community gardens. ● agricultural industry. ● the State’s general fund. There are no existing, comparable federal regula - tions or statutes. EVALUATION OF INCONSISTENCY/ INCOMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING STATE REGULATIONS As required by Government Code

Section 11346.5(a) (3) (D), the Department has conducted an evaluation of

Section 3591.33 and has determined that they are not inconsistent or incompatible with existing state regulations. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) Prior to conducting any action authorized by this regulation, the Department shall comply with the Cal- ifornia Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources Code

Section 21000 et seq. as amended) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 California Code of Regulations

Section 15000 et seq.). 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: None. Cost to any local agency or school district requiring reimbursement pursuant to Gov. Code

sec. 17500 et seq. (Gov. Code

sec. 11346.5(a) (6).): None. Other nondiscretionary cost or savings imposed on local agencies: None. Cost or savings in federal funding to the State: None. Cost impacts on a representative private person or business: The agency is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative person or business would neces - sarily incur in reasonable compliance with the pro - posed action.

Significant, statewide adverse economic impact di - rectly affecting businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states: The cost impacts are expected to be none and minimal/non–consequential. The Department makes the initial determination that the proposed ac - tion will not have a significant, statewide adverse eco- nomic impact. Significant effect on housing costs: None.

Small business determination: The proposed action will not affect small business because this action only provides authority for state quarantine activities and does not require reporting, recordkeeping, or compli - ance by businesses. RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS/ASSESSMENT The adoption of this regulation is designed to create an eradication area for emerald ash borer which will help prevent the spread of this pest within California should they be detected within the state.

The Department has made an assessment that the adoption of these regulations will help maintain the economic baseline and (1) will have no significant im- pact on the creation or elimination of jobs in the State of California, (2) will have no impact on the creation of new businesses or elimination of existing business- es within the State of California, (3) will have no im - pact on the expansion of businesses within the State of California, (4) will have an impact on the health and welfare of California residents, (5) will have an impact on the state’s environment, and (6) is not expected to benefit workers’ safety.

Health and welfare: The proposed action will ben - efit the health and welfare of California residents by making it more likely that the Department can react quickly and effectively if an emerald ash borer infes - tation is detected. Speed of response is key to eradi - cating an incipient pest infestation. Programmatic de - lays potentially can lead to larger and more costly pest quarantines, as well as increased production costs and potential job loss.

The state’s environment: The proposed action will benefit the state’s environment by making it more like- ly that the Department can react quickly and effective- ly if an emerald ash borer infestation is detected. If the Department fails to act quickly and effective to pre - vent the spread and eradicate an infestation, this pest could easily spread into the local environment and non–agricultural ecosystems. This could adversely impact private and commercial landscape plantings, local, regional, state and national parks, other recre - ational sites, open habitats, and wild lands. Affect -

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 24–Z 734 ed plants could become less vigorous and may pro - duce fewer seeds. Plants/trees with low propagule out- put can result in major changes to plant community structure.

CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES The Department must determine 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 ac- tion is proposed, would be as effective and less bur - densome to affected private persons than the proposed action, or would be more cost–effective to affected pri- vate persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law. The Department invites interested persons to pres - ent alternatives during the written comment period.

AVAILABILITY OF STATEMENT OF REASONS, TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS, AND RULEMAKING FILE The Department has prepared an initial statement of reasons for the proposed action and has made avail- able all the information upon which its proposal is based and the express terms of the proposed action. The Department has posted the information regarding this proposed regulatory action on its Internet website (www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/Regulations.html). A copy of the initial statement of reasons and the proposed reg - ulations in underline and strikeout form may be ob - tained upon request.

The location of the information on which the proposal is based may also be obtained upon request. In addition, the final statement of rea - sons will be available upon request. Requests should be directed to the contact named herein. AVAILABILITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT After the comment period and considering all timely and relevant comments received, the Department may adopt the proposed regulations substantially as de - scribed in this notice.

If the Department makes modi - fications which are sufficiently related to the original- ly proposed text, it will make the modified text (with the changes clearly indicated) available to the pub - lic for at least 15 days before the Department adopts the regulations as revised. Any person interested may obtain a copy of said regulations prior to the date of adoption by contacting the agency officer named here- in. The Department will accept written comments on the modified regulations for 15 days after the date on which they are made available.

AVAILABILITY OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Upon its completion, copies of the Final Statement of Reasons may be obtained by contacting the agency officer named herein. TITLE 4. DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL RESPONSIBLE BEVERAGE SERVICE TRAINING PROGRAM UPDATE FOR DRINK SPIKING The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (“ABC”) proposes to adopt the proposed regulation amendments below after considering all comments, objections, and recommendations regarding the pro - posed action. PUBLIC HEARING ABC has not scheduled a public hearing on this pro- posed action.

However, the ABC will hold a hearing if it receives a written request for a public hearing from any interested person, or his or her authorized repre - sentative, no later than 15 days before the close of the written comment period. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any interested person, or his or her authorized representative, may submit written comments rel - evant to the proposed regulatory amendments to ABC. Comments may also be submitted by email to RPU@abc.ca.gov. The comment period begins June 13, 2025, and closes at 12:00 p.m. on July 29, 2025.

ABC will only consider comments received at ABC Headquarters by that time. Submit written comments to: Law and Policy Unit — RBS Regulation Amendments Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control 3927 Lennane Drive, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95834 AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Business and Professions Code

Section 25681 and 25685 authorizes ABC to adopt these proposed reg - ulations. The proposed regulations implement, inter - pret, and make specific sections 25680–25686 of the Business and Professions Code.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 24–Z 735 INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW

Summary of Existing Laws and Regulations The Legislature adopted Subsection (f) (AB 2402) to CA Business and Professions Code

Section § 2 5681 which requires the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) to develop, implement, and administer a curriculum addressing drink spiking to go into ef - fect on or before January 1, 2027. This addendum adds to the current Responsible Beverage Service Training Program (RBS) which was adopted in 2017.

RBS au- thorized ABC to develop, implement, and administer a curriculum for a statewide RBS Program and grant - ed ABC general authority to adopt rules necessary for the administration of program. 1 AB 2402 was passed by the Legislature on August 27, 2024, and signed by Governor Newsom on Sep - tember 28, 2024. The Legislature has addressed the issue of drink spiking before, including AB 1013 and AB 2375. However, AB 2402 is the first bill to require alcohol servers to be trained on preventing and miti - gating the effects of drink spiking.

The proposed regulation is presented to establish a baseline of topics for a training provider to expound upon in an RBS course regarding preventing and mit - igating the effects of drink spiking.

Summary of Effect The proposed regulation will add to California Business and Professions Code, Title 4,

Article 25 in adding § 1 65.1–165.2, creating curriculum to be ex - pounded upon by training providers and taught to al - cohol servers in preventing drink spiking and proto - col to follow if a person believes they have, or some - one they know has, become the victim of drink spik - ing. The proposed regulation will ensure that train - ing providers and alcohol servers in California have a better understanding of the requirements to meet the standards of responsible beverage service training to curb the harms to the California community caused by drink spiking.

Comparable Federal Statute or Regulations ABC has determined that this proposed regula- tion does not have a comparable federal statute or regulation. Policy Statement Overview This regulation is necessary to establish a minimum baseline of topics to be expounded upon by a training provider for the prevention of drink spiking to comply with AB 2402.

Benefits Anticipated In creating curriculum aimed at preventing drink spiking, the proposed regulation will ensure alcohol - 1 Business and Profession Code § 25685(b). ic beverage servers are aware of the danger of drink spiking and the signs and symptoms to watch for. By enabling the alcohol serving community to be vigilant of these problems, the risk of drink spiking can be re - duced for a safer California. The proposed regulation will ensure the continued viability and success of the RBS Training program and will be ready well before its required implementation date of January 1, 2027.

Determination of Inconsistency/Incompatibility with Existing State Regulations ABC has determined that this proposed regulatory action is not inconsistent or incompatible with existing state regulations. The proposed regulation will estab - lish a minimum baseline of topics that address the pre- vention and mitigation of drink spiking to be taught by an accredited training provider as part of the broad - er RBS training program, thus creating standards for training provider and alcohol server requirements.

Effect upon Small Businesses in California Although training providers may be small business owners, this proposed regulation will have limited ef - fect on them except for the costs of changing and mod- ifying their programs. There will be no fees associated with the ABC review and submission of these changes because they are statutorily mandated changes pursu - ant to Title 4 California Code of Regulations 168.3(h). The cost per training provider should not be so great as to have a large effect upon small businesses in Cal- ifornia, even if the training providers happen to be small businesses.

Disclosures Regarding the proposed Action The ABC has made the following initial determinations: 1. Mandate on local agencies or school districts: None. 2. Costs or Savings to any state agency: None. 3. Cost to any local agency or school district that is required to be reimbursed by the state: None. 4. Other nondiscretionary cost or savings imposed on local agencies: None. 5. Cost or savings in federal funding to the state: None. 6. Cost impacts on housing costs: None.

Determination of Statewide Adverse Economic Impact on Business ABC has made an initial determination that the pro- posed regulations will not have a significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to com - pete with businesses in other states. However, the proposed amendments do directly af - fect a small percentage of responsible beverage ser - vice training providers who will need to modify their training programs to include the required changes to

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 24–Z 736 curriculum. These training provider costs will vary depending on their process to resubmit their program to ABC, but all fees and costs for changes to existing training programs imposed by ABC are waived be - cause these changes constitute a statutorily required change pursuant to Title 4 California Code of Regula- tions

section 168.3(h). Results of the Economic Impact Assessment: ABC concludes that it is (1) unlikely that the pro - posal will eliminate any jobs, (2) unlikely that the pro- posal will create an unknown number of jobs, (3) un - likely that the proposal will create an unknown num - ber of new businesses, (4) unlikely that the proposal will eliminate any existing businesses, and (5) unlike- ly that the proposed regulations will result in the ex - pansion of businesses currently doing business within the state.

The proposed regulation will benefit the health and welfare of California residents by ensuring alcohol servers are trained to watch for, prevent, and miti - gate the harmful effects of drink spiking. By enabling the alcohol serving community to be vigilant of drink spiking problems, the risk of it can be reduced and remedied for a safer California. ABC has made the de- termination that the adoption of these regulations will have minimal economic impact on current and pro - spective training providers due to the addition of new curriculum to their already existing programs.

None of these amendments or additions add or remove costs of the program not already accounted for in past reg - ulatory actions on the Responsible Beverage Service Training Program Acr (RBSTPA). The proposed regulations will not affect worker safety because it does not address specific safety con - cerns for the workers, and so it will not improve work- er safety. The proposed regulation will not affect the environment because the changes focus on preventing harmful effects of drink spiking.

Description of all Cost Impacts That a Representative Private Person or Business Would Necessarily Incur in Reasonable Compliance with the Proposed Action. ABC approved responsible beverage service train - ing providers who choose to change their current training program will not incur any cost for fees paid to ABC because this is a mandated change. The only costs that they may incur will be for the man–hours spent to make the changes to their program.

However, if the training providers choose not to add the mandat- ed information, they will be removed from participat - ing in the Responsible Beverage Service Training Pro- gram as they will no longer meet the mandated cur - riculum requirements determined by the Legislature. ABC is not aware of any cost impacts that a repre - sentative private person or business would necessari - ly incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed actions The Need to Require Report from Businesses The proposed regulation does not require any re - ports from ABC licensees or any other business.

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

ABC invites interested persons to present state - ments or arguments with respect to alternatives to the proposed amended regulations during the written comment period. AGENCY CONTACT PERSON Inquiries concerning the proposed regulatory ac - tion prior to the open comment period may be di - rected to the agency representative Robert de Ruyter, Assistant General Counsel, (916) 419–8958, or Sar - ah Easter, Associate Government Program Analyst, (916) 928–7627. During the comment period, comments or questions should be addressed to RPU@abc.ca.gov.

AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS The ABC prepared an Initial Statement of Reasons for the proposed action, which includes a

summary of the economic impacts of the proposal. Copies of the Initial Statement of Reasons and the full text of the proposed regulations may be ac - cessed on ABC’s website listed below or may be ob - tained from the Law and Policy Unit — RBS Regula - tion Amendments, Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 3927 Lennane Drive, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95834, on or after June 13, 2025. The ABC staff has compiled a record for this rulemaking action, which includes all the informa - tion upon which the proposal is based. This material is available for inspection upon request to the contact persons.

CHANGE TO THE PROPOSED FULL TEXT OF THE REGULATION ACTION If there is any change to the proposed full text of the regulation action in a substantial, or sufficiently related way, it will be made available for comment for

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 24–Z 737 at least 15 days prior to the date on which the ABC adopts the resulting regulation. FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS A V AILABILITY Upon its completion, the Final Statement of Reasons will be available, and copies may be requested from the ABC contact persons in this notice or may be ac - cessed on ABC’s website listed below.

INTERNET ACCESS This notice, the Initial Statement of Reasons, and all subsequent regulatory documents, including the Final Statement of Reasons, when completed, are available on ABC’s website for this rulemaking at https://www.abc.ca.gov/law–and–policy/regulations/ TITLE 4. DEPARTMENT OF CANNABIS CONTROL PESTICIDE TESTING Notice is hereby given that the Department of Can - nabis Control (Department) proposes to adopt the amended regulations described below after consider - ing all comments, objections, and recommendations regarding the proposed action.

PUBLIC HEARING The Department will hold a virtual public hearing on Tuesday, July 29, 2025, beginning at 10:00 a.m. Attendees may participate via WebEx online meeting platform or telephone conferencing. To participate via WebEx online meeting platform, please contact Randy Allen at (916) 465–9025 or Randy.Allen@cannabis.ca.gov by 4 :30 p.m. on Mon- day, July 28, 2025, to request a link to the meeting. A link to the meeting will also be posted on the Depart - ment’s website no later than 9:00 a.m. the day of the hearing.

For those who wish to attend the hearing in person, including those who require reasonable accommoda - tions, limited seating will be available in the Depart - ment Hearing Room, 2920 Kilgore Road, Rancho Cor- dova, CA 95670. Please contact Randy Allen at (916) 465–9025 or Randy.Allen@cannabis.ca.gov by 4:30 p.m. on Monday, July 28, 2025, to request to attend the hearing in person or by 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 15, 2025, if reasonable accommodations are necessary. Participants will be given instructions on how to pro- vide oral comment once they have accessed the hear - ing.

The hearing will proceed on the dates noted above until all testimony is submitted or 1:00 p.m., whichev- er is later. At the hearing, any person may present oral or written statements or arguments relevant to the pro- posed action. The Department requests, but does not require, that persons who make oral comments at the hearing also submit a written copy of their testimony via email.

WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any interested person, or their authorized represen- tative, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action by mail or email to: Department of Cannabis Control Legal Affairs Division 2920 Kilgore Road Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Email: publiccomment@cannabis.ca.gov The written comment period closes on Monday, July 28, 2025. To be considered by the Department, a comment must be received by July 28, 2025. AUTHORITY Business and Professions Code

section 26013. REFERENCE Business and Professions Code sections 26100, 26104, and 26110. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW

Summary of Existing Laws and Effect of the Proposed Action The Medicinal and Adult–Use Cannabis Regula - tion and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26000 et seq.) generally governs commercial can - nabis activity in California. Business and Professions Code (BPC)

section 26100 requires all cannabis goods to be tested by a licensed testing laboratory before be- ing sold to consumers, and generally authorizes the Department to implement regulations governing re - quired testing. BPC

section 26060(

c) requires the De - partment of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to develop guidelines for action levels for pesticide residues in harvested cannabis. BPC

section 26100(d) (2) requires the Department to consider DPR’s guidelines when establishing maximum allowable levels of contami - nants, including pesticide residues, in representative samples of cannabis goods. Existing provisions within California Code of Reg - ulations (CCR), title 4, division 19,

chapter 6 fur - ther implement, interpret, and make specific the above–referenced MAUCRSA statutes. Existing sec - tion 15719 (“Residual Pesticides Testing”) establishes

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 24–Z 738 action levels for pesticide residues and related proce - dural testing requirements. These action levels were adopted in 2017 by the Department’s predecessor, the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) under the Depart - ment of Consumer Affairs, based on guidance DPR provided to BCC at that time. Existing

section 15731 establishes acceptable methods of calculating limits of detection (LOD) and limits of quantitation (LOQ), which testing laboratories must use when developing their pesticide residue test methods. The changes proposed in this rulemaking action would revise existing action levels for currently test - ed pesticides and establish new action levels for ad - ditional pesticides, all of which are set according to new guidance provided by DPR in December 2024. The proposed changes would also update and refine acceptable methods of LOD and LOQ calculation. Evaluation of Inconsistency with Federal Laws The United States Drug Enforcement Administra - tion lists cannabis as a

Schedule 1 Drug under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 812). This means that commercial cannabis activity is illegal under federal law. However, California, through the MAUCRSA and other laws, has decriminalized the cultivation, sale, and possession of cannabis goods for persons aged 21 or older and for medicinal patients. Objectives and Anticipated Benefits of the Proposed Regulations The objectives of this proposed regulatory action are implementing improved pesticide testing protocols and harmonizing laboratory testing practices.

Testing requirements that prioritize human health and man - date scientifically rigorous testing practices support the Department’s goal of a safe, well–regulated mar - ket. Consumers will benefit from reduced risk of pesti- cide exposure as a result of updated action levels. This is especially beneficial for medical cannabis patients who may be immunocompromised and face greater risk from exposure to residual pesticides due to un - derlying health conditions.

Increased standardization between licensed laboratories reduces the opportuni - ties for lab shopping, which benefits both consumers and the regulated cannabis industry. When cannabis and cannabis products sold in the legal market are re - liably tested, accurately labeled, and shown to be free from contaminants, consumers have greater incentive to purchase through licensed retailers rather than risk- ing their health on cannabis sold in the illicit market.

Offering safe cannabis and cannabis products gives licensed businesses an advantage in the marketplace and incentivizes participation in the regulated canna - bis market. Evaluation of Inconsistency/Incompatibility with Existing State Regulations After careful evaluation, the Department has deter - mined that the proposed changes are not inconsistent or incompatible with existing regulations.

DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACTION The Department has made the following initial determinations: ● Mandate on local agencies or school districts: None. ● Cost to any local agency or school district required to be reimbursed in accordance with Government Code sections 17500 through 17630: None. ● Cost or savings to any state agency: The Depart - ment will incur costs of ensuring that licensed testing laboratories are accredited to test all re - quired pesticides and reviewing an increased number of remediation requests resulting from an increased number of failed tests.

These costs are expected to be minor and will be absorbable within existing resources. The proposed regula - tions are not expected to have any fiscal impact on any other state agencies. ● Other nondiscretionary cost or savings imposed upon local agencies: None. ● Cost or savings in federal funding to the state: None. ● Effect on housing costs: None. ● Cost impacts on a representative private person or business: For a typical business, including a small business, one–time up–front expenses of $935,420 and annual recurring expenses of $427,590.

Significant, Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Directly Affecting Business, Including the Ability of California Businesses to Compete with Businesses in Other States The Department has made an initial determination that these regulatory changes may have a significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting licensed testing laboratories. Many, if not all, of these businesses would need to upgrade their instruments to be capable of testing at lower LOQs. Recalibrating their methods for lower LOQs also necessitates revali- dating tests, which requires the work of highly educat- ed analytical chemists.

Achieving lower LOQs would also require additional time spent preparing samples and calibrating instruments, longer chromatographic total runtime, additional quality control checks, more frequent equipment downtime for maintenance, and more detailed data analysis.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 24–Z 739 However, these regulatory changes will not affect the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states because legally produced cannabis goods cannot be transported between states; thus, goods produced in California cannot be tested by any out–of–state laboratories. The Department has considered proposed alterna - tives that would lessen any adverse economic impact on business and invites you to submit proposals.

Sub - missions may include the following considerations: ● The establishment of differing compliance or re - porting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to businesses. ● Consolidation or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements for businesses. ● The use of performance standards rather than prescriptive standards. ● Exemption or partial exemption from the regula - tory requirements for businesses.

Results of the Standardized Regulatory Impact Analysis (SRIA) The Department believes that the proposal will eliminate approximately 840 existing jobs and 42 ex - isting businesses. The Department believes that larg - er laboratories will be at a competitive advantage over smaller laboratories when these changes take effect. The Department believes that the proposal would re - sult in an increase in investment in California of ap - proximately $20 million. The Department believes that the proposal will incentivize innovation in labo - ratory testing methods.

The Department believes that the proposal will improve the health of California resi- dents, worker safety, and the state’s environment. Summaries of, and Responses to, Department of Finance (DOF) Comments on the Standardized Regulatory Impact Analysis Comment #1: All fiscal impacts must be disclosed, regardless of magnitude, and the SRIA should include a discussion of impacts on state revenue. Response #1: The SRIA has been edited to show the estimated fiscal costs. All costs for implement - ing the proposed regulations would be absorbed with- in the existing Department budget.

The Department may see minor increased costs for workload associat - ed with updating internal laboratory test methods to align with the new action levels and additional pesti - cides, and for purchasing additional consumable lab - oratory supplies and updating training materials. The costs are expected to be no more than $50,000 and are absorbable within existing resources. The SRIA has been edited to further highlight and provide additional details requested by DOF regard - ing impacts to state tax revenues.

The SRIA applies an economic model of the California cannabis mar - ket that is used to estimate the impact of the pro - posed regulations, which includes changes in produc - er and consumer surplus. Mean, upper–bound, and lower–bound estimates are provided to illustrate the range of potential outcomes based on uncertainty in some of the market parameters applied to the econom- ic model. Additional one–time and ongoing invest - ments by labs and associated businesses will also con- tribute to an increase in state tax revenues. Sections 2.4, 4.5.6, and 4.6.1 of the SRIA have been revised accordingly.

Comment #2: A second regulatory alternative to the proposal must be provided. Response #2 : The Department has considered al - ternatives to the proposed regulations that are based on stakeholder input and grounded in available sci - entific evidence and data. The alternative regulation included in the SRIA for partial validation was sup - ported by available data, science, and industry feed - back. There is technology currently available to labs that would allow for testing at reduced thresholds, which would reduce economic costs as shown in the SRIA.

The Department did not identify a scientific basis for a more stringent testing alternative because 1) lab testing equipment and technology cannot apply more stringent Limits of Quantitation and 2) the re - validation process is already required under the pro - posed regulations. Under Government Code

section 11346.2(b) (4) (C), the Department is not required to “artificially construct alternatives or describe unrea - sonable alternatives.” Comment #3: Clarify the number of laboratories im- pacted by the proposal and update the impact analysis accordingly. Response #3: The direct cost of the proposed regula- tions, and alternatives, would affect all licensed labora- tories that conduct compliance testing. Some of those laboratories would close (SRIA estimate is 50%); labs that remain in business would process more cannabis, and those labs would incur the direct costs calculated in the SRIA.

In short, the direct cost includes the addi- tional cost of the proposed regulations for exiting labs, and lab exits reflect the response to increased costs and changing market conditions. In the case of labs closing, new or existing labs would incur additional regulatory costs as they enter the market, expand op - erations to meet testing demand, and/or take over the regional market space of exiting labs.

Section 4.5.3 of the SRIA has been edited to clarify these impacts. Comment #4: Disclose indirect and induced impacts separately without netting. Response #4 : Gross and net, as well as direct, in - direct, and induced economic impacts are included in the analysis and described in the SRIA. The eco - nomic impact

summary tables show the net econom - ic impact. The SRIA has been updated to include a bullet–list

summary of each of the components of the

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 24–Z 740 direct, indirect, and induced effects individually, as well as showing the net impact in

section 4.4. The gross impact on laboratories equals an addi - tional $71.21 million in gross output value, includ - ing all indirect and induced effects. The gross impact on the retail sector equals a loss of $96.24 million in gross output value, including all indirect and induced effects.

The net direct, indirect, and induced impacts are: ● Direct Effects: 969 jobs, $32.86 million in la - bor income, $42.99 million in value added, and $83.80 million in output. ● Indirect Effects: 245 jobs, $17.45 million in la - bor income, $25.43 million in value added, and $39.08 million in output. ● Induced Effects: 234 jobs, $15.03 million in la - bor income, $26.63 million in value added, and $44.58 million in output. Comment #5: Clarify the costs of compliance in the subsection for one–time material costs.

Response #5: Page 33 of the SRIA states: “method validation may fail during initial attempts and require repetition.” The following paragraph, “One–time la - bor costs,” describes that two chemists would conduct two validations each (i.e., one repetition per chemist). Validation of testing methods requires separate kits for LC–MS and GC–MS. Therefore, each chemist would need 4 kits (2 for LC–MS and 2 for GC–MS, for a to - tal of 8 kits — 4 for LC–MS and 4 for GC–MS).

The final sentence in “One–time materials costs” on p.33 has been corrected to read: “8 mix kits per laboratory, 4 of each type.” The analysis is unchanged. Small Business Determination The proposed regulations would affect approxi - mately 5,500 businesses, approximately 97 percent of which are estimated by the Department to be small businesses. These businesses include licensed labora - tories, cultivators, and retailers. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES In accordance with Government Code

section 11346.5, subdivision (a) (13), the Department must de- termine 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, as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action, or more cost–effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policies or other provisions of law.

Public protection remains our highest priority, which is why the Department is proposing to adopt DPR’s risk–based, health–protective action levels. At the same time, the Department is committed to en - suring that regulatory requirements are practical and achievable for licensees. To that end, the Department welcomes timely and relevant comments on this pro - posal, particularly regarding the feasibility of the up - dated action levels and LOQs for each pesticide. Spe - cifically, the Department seeks input on whether these levels are achievable with current equipment.

If not, the Department seeks input on what levels are more reasonable, and what investments would be needed for compliance.

CONTACT PERSONS Inquiries concerning the proposed rulemaking ac - tion may be directed to: Nicole Niermeyer Department of Cannabis Control 2920 Kilgore Road Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 916– 465–9025 Regulations@cannabis.ca.gov The backup contact person for these inquiries is: Kaila Fayne Department of Cannabis Control 2920 Kilgore Road Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 916–251–4544 Kaila.Fayne@cannabis.ca.gov AVAILABILITY OF THE INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS, PROPOSED REGULATION TEXT, AND RULEMAKING FILE The Department will make the entire rulemaking file available for inspection and copying throughout the rulemaking process at its office at the above ad - dress.

As of the date this Notice is published in the Notice Register, the rulemaking file consists of this Notice, the proposed text of the regulations, the Ini - tial Statement of Reasons, the STD. 399, and the docu- ments relied upon. Please direct requests to inspect or copy the rulemaking file to the contact person(

s) list - ed above. AVAILABILITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT After considering all timely and relevant comments received, the Department may adopt the proposed regulations substantially as described in this notice. If the Department makes modifications that are suffi - ciently related to the originally proposed text, it will make the modified text (with the changes clearly in -

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 24–Z 741 dicated) available to the public for at least 15 days be- fore adopting the regulations as revised. Please direct requests for copies of any modified regulations to the contact person(

s) listed above. The Department will accept written comments on the modified regulations for the duration of the period of public availability. AVAILABILITY OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Upon its completion, the Department will make cop- ies of the Final Statement of Reasons available. Please direct requests for copies to the contact person(

s) list - ed above. AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS ON THE INTERNET Copies of the Notice of Proposed Action, the Ini - tial Statement of Reasons, and the text of the regu - lations with modifications highlighted, as well as the Final Statement of Reasons, when complet - ed, and modified text and notices thereof, if any, may be accessed via the Department’s website at https://www.cannabis.ca.gov/cannabis–laws/ rulemaking/. TITLE 13. NEW MOTOR VEHICLE BOARD ANNUAL BOARD FEE As required by

section 11346.4 of the Government Code, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Cali - fornia New Motor Vehicle Board (“Board”), pursuant to the authority vested in the Board by subdivision (

a) of Vehicle Code

section 3050 proposes to adopt the proposed regulations as described below, after consid- ering all comments, objections, and recommendations regarding the proposed regulatory action. PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION The Board proposes to amend sections 553 and 553.20 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regula - tions pertaining to the Annual Board Fee. PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS PRIOR TO NOTICE Prior to the publication of this notice, and at a noticed General Meeting held on November 1, 2024, the Board considered and adopted the proposed regulations.

Fif- teen days prior to the meeting, a detailed agenda in - cluding the consideration of the proposed text of the regulations was mailed to all individuals and entities on the Board’s Public Mailing list and Electronic Pub- lic Mailing list. The agenda and materials were also posted on the Board’s website. The public was invited to comment at the Gener - al Meeting in relation to the proposed changes to the regulations in this notice. No comments by the public were received at the November 1, 2024, General Meet- ing, and no further public discussion was held prior to publication of the notice.

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 person, or their autho - rized representative, no later than 15 days before the close of the written comment period. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any person interested, or their authorized rep - resentative, may submit written comments rele - vant to the proposed regulatory action to the Board. Comments may also be submitted by email at Robin.Parker@nmvb.ca.gov or nmvb@nmvb.ca.gov.

The written comment period closes on Monday, July 28, 2025. The Board will only consider comments re - ceived at the Board’s offices by that time. Submit com- ments to: Robin Parker, Chief Counsel New Motor Vehicle Board 2415 1st Avenue, MS L242 Sacramento, CA 95818 (916) 244–6776 direct line (916) 445–1888 main line robin.parker@nmvb.ca.gov AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Vehicle Code

section 3050, subdivision (a), autho - rizes the Board to adopt the proposed regulations. The proposed regulations implement, interpret, and make specific Vehicle Code sections 3016, 3050, and 11723.

SUMMARY OF EXISTING LAWS AND REGULATIONS Subdivision (

a) of Vehicle Code

section 3050 autho- rizes the Board to adopt rules and regulations govern - ing such matters as specifically committed to it. Vehicle Code

section 3016 authorizes the Board to charge a fee to new motor vehicle dealers and other licensees under its jurisdiction in an amount sufficient to fully fund the Board’s activities.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 24–Z 742

Section 553 sets the Board’s annual fee for new mo- tor vehicle dealers and new motor vehicle manufactur- ers and distributors.

Section 553.20 specifies the method for calculating the annual fee to be paid by each manufacturer and distributor by multiplying the numerical coefficient by the number of new motor vehicles distributed by the manufacturer or distributor in the preceding cal - endar year. The Board also proposes to amend

Section 553.20 to conform it to the proposed amendments to

Section 553. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW The adopted mission of the Board is to “enhance re- lations between dealers and manufacturers through - out the State by resolving disputes in the new motor vehicle industry in an efficient, fair and cost–effective manner.” The adopted vision statement provides that the Board “demonstrate professionalism, integrity, and accountability in securing fair resolutions to mo - tor vehicle industry disputes.” This rulemaking action makes specific the amount of fees required to be paid by licensees under the Board’s jurisdiction to fully fund the Board’s activities. Subdivision (

a) of Vehicle Code

section 3050 autho- rizes the Board to adopt rules and regulations govern - ing such matters as specifically committed to it. The Board proposes to amend

Section 553 to in - crease the Annual Board Fee from $300 per year to $425 per year for new motor vehicle dealers and in - crease the annual fee paid to the Board by new mo - tor vehicle manufacturers or distributors by raising the numerical coefficient, on which the fee is based, from $0.45 to $0.65 per new motor vehicle sold, leased or otherwise distributed in California to a consumer of such new motor vehicles during the preceding cal - endar year. The proposed amendment would also in - crease the minimum Annual Board Fee due from a manufacturer or distributor from $300 to $425 per year.

Section 553.20 specifies the method for calculating the annual fee to be paid by each manufacturer and distributor by multiplying the numerical coefficient (as set forth in

Section 553, subdivision (

b) and discussed above) by the number of new motor vehicles distribut- ed in California to a consumer of such new motor ve - hicles during the preceding calendar year. The Board also proposes to amend

Section 553.20 to conform it to the proposed amendments to

Section 553. Vehicle Code

section 3016 authorizes the Board to charge a fee to new motor vehicle dealers and other licensees under its jurisdiction in an amount sufficient to fully fund the Board’s activities. The Board conservatively forecasts that if the sub - ject fees remain at current levels, the Board will lack sufficient operating funds, and by the end of the 2028–29 fiscal year, the Board’s cash reserves will be depleted.

BROAD OBJECTIVES AND SPECIFIC BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RULEMAKING The broad objective of the regulations is to ensure that the Board receives funds adequate to maintain a reserve fund that will, in turn, make certain that the Board has funds adequate to fulfill its statutory mandate. The specific benefit anticipated from the regulation is assurance of the continued operation of the Board, which, in turn, promotes the expeditious and econom- ical resolution of statutorily enumerated disputes be - tween new motor vehicle dealers (franchisees) and their manufacturers or distributors (franchisors).

The Board keeps these types of cases from further clog - ging our already congested courts. It provides a uni - formity of decisions across the state, allowing fran - chisors and their dealers to conduct their business in compliance with California law. Lastly, through its Consumer Mediation Program, the Board offers, at no cost to the consumer, an informal means for efficient- ly resolving disputes between members of the public and any new motor vehicle dealer, manufacturer, or distributor.

DETERMINATION OF INCONSISTENCY/ INCOMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING STATE REGULATIONS The Board has determined that the proposed regu - lations are not inconsistent or incompatible with ex - isting regulations. After conducting a review for any regulations that would relate to or affect this area, the Board has concluded that these are the only regula - tions that authorize the Board’s collection of annual fees that are the subject of the proposed regulations.

DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACTION The Board has made the following initial determinations: ● Mandate on local agencies and school districts: None. ● Cost or savings to any state agency: None. ● Cost to any local agency or school district which must be reimbursed in accordance with Govern - ment Code sections 17500 through 17630: None.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 24–Z 743 ● Other nondiscretionary cost or savings imposed on local agencies: None. ● Cost or savings in federal funding to the state: None. ● Cost impacts on a representative private person or business: The Board is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action. ● Statewide adverse economic impact directly af - fecting businesses and individuals: The proposed regulations raise fees by modest amounts.

Although the proposed action will directly affect a limited, discreet class of businesses statewide, including small businesses and individuals, the Board has initially determined that the adverse economic im- pact, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states, would not be significant. In making this initial determination, the Board relied on the following documents:

(1) Fiscal Committee Memorandum dated Oc - tober 10, 2024 pertaining to amendments to sections 553 and 553.20;

(2) Policy and Procedure Committee Memoran- dum dated October 16, 2024, pertaining to amendments to sections 553 and 553.20. The Board relied upon the following historical doc- uments for background information on its annual fee collection, and its revenue and expenditures from fis - cal years 2019–20 to the present:

(1) California New Car Dealers Association 2016 Economic Impact.

(2) California New Car Dealers Association 2017 Economic Impact.

(3) California New Car Dealers Association “California Auto Outlook” released August 2020 covering 2nd quarter 2020.

(4) California New Car Dealers Association “California Auto Outlook” released Febru - ary 2023 covering 4th quarter 2022.

(5) Fund Condition Statement [FY 19_20 Ex - penditure Revenue] 2021–22 State Budget.

(6) Fund Condition Statement [FY 20_21 Ex - penditure Revenue] 2022–23 State Budget.

(7) Fund Condition Statement [FY 21_22 Ex - penditure Revenue] 2023–24 State Budget.

(8) Fund Condition Statement [FY 22_23 Ex - penditure Revenue] 2024–25 State Budget.

(9) Fund Condition Statement [FY 23_24 Ex - penditure Revenue] 2024–25 State Budget.

(10) Department of Motor Vehicles, Expenditure Management Plan — 1st Qtr. (Jul–Sep), New Motor Vehicle Board, FY 2024/25.

(11) Department of Motor Vehicles, Expenditure Management Plan — 2 nd Qtr. (Oct–Dec), New Motor Vehicle Board, FY 2024/25.

(12) DMV Expenditure Report; Report Date: 20–Mar–25 [New Motor Vehicle Board].

(13) Department of Motor Vehicles, Revenue

Summary Year to Date, Month Ending Jun 30, 2020, New Motor Vehicle Board, Dealer Fees.

(14) Department of Motor Vehicles, Revenue

Summary Year to Date, Month Ending Jun 30, 2021, New Motor Vehicle Board, Dealer Fees.

(15) Department of Motor Vehicles, Revenue

Summary Year to Date, Month Ending Jun 30, 2022, New Motor Vehicle Board, Dealer Fees.

(16) Department of Motor Vehicles, Revenue

Summary Year to Date, Month Ending Jun 30, 2023, New Motor Vehicle Board, Dealer Fees.

(17) Department of Motor Vehicles, Revenue

Summary Year to Date, Month Ending Jun 30, 2024, New Motor Vehicle Board, Dealer Fees.

(18) DMV Expenditure Report; Report Date: 02– Sept–22 [New Motor Vehicle Board], Rent.

(19) DMV Expenditure Report; Report Date: 30– Aug–23 [New Motor Vehicle Board], Rent.

(20) Governor’s Proposed Budget, Fund Condi - tion, Statement fiscal year 2025–26. ● Significant effect on housing costs: None. RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS/ASSESSMENT The Board concludes that the proposed regulations will not (1) create any jobs within the State of Califor- nia, (2) eliminate any jobs within the State of Califor - nia, (3) create any new businesses within the State of California, (4) eliminate any existing businesses with- in the State of California, or (5) cause the expansion of businesses currently doing business within the State of California.

The Board resolves disputes between motor vehicle dealers (franchisees) and their manufacturers or dis - tributors (franchisors), helping to reduce congestion in the courts. This amendment will enable the Board to continue its statutory mandate and fund its operations and activities. The proposed regulation will not impact the health and welfare of California residents, and worker safe - ty because they do not regulate worker safety stan - dards and will also not benefit the environment be -

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 24–Z 744 cause it does not change any applicable environmental standards. BENEFITS OF THE REGULATION The proposed regulations will promote the expedi - tious and economical resolution of disputes between new motor vehicle dealers and their manufacturers or distributors. Also, the proposed regulations benefit the public or consumer at no cost through the Board’s Consumer Mediation Program, an informal means in efficiently resolving disputes between the public and any new motor dealer, manufacturer, or distributor.

SMALL BUSINESS DETERMINATION The Board has determined that the proposed regula- tions will have a minimal effect on small business, in that the proposed regulations will marginally increase fees paid by a minor number of small businesses that are within the Board’s limited jurisdiction. The Board’s operations concern franchised new motor vehicle dealers and their franchisors (new mo - tor vehicle manufacturers or distributors) within the Board’s jurisdiction. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES In accordance with Government Code

section 11346.5, subdivision (a) (13), the Board must deter - mine that no reasonable alternative it considered or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the Board would be more effective in car- rying out the purpose for which the action is proposed, would be as effective and less burdensome to affect - ed private persons than the proposed action, or would be more cost–effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law.

The Board invites interested persons to present comments, statements or arguments with respect to alternatives to the proposed regulations, during the written comment period or at the public hearing, if one is requested. CONTACT PERSONS Please direct requests for copies of the proposed text (the “express terms”) of the regulations, the ini - tial statement of reasons, the modified text of the reg - ulations, if any, or other information upon which the rulemaking is based to Ms.

Parker at the following address: New Motor Vehicle Board 2415 1st Avenue, MS L242 Sacramento, CA 95818 (916) 244–6776 direct line (916) 445–1888 main line Robin.Parker@nmvb.ca.gov The backup contact person for these inquiries is: Alejandro Martinez New Motor Vehicle Board 2415 1st Avenue, MS L242 Sacramento, CA 95818 (916) 244–6789 direct line (916) 445–1888 main line Alejandro.Martinez2@nmvb.ca.gov AVAILABILITY OF STATEMENT OF REASONS, TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS, AND RULEMAKING FILE The Board will have the entire rulemaking file available for inspection and copying throughout the 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 regulations, the initial state - ment of reasons, the Economic and Fiscal Impact Statement, and all the information upon which the proposal is based. Copies may be obtained by contact- ing the contact persons identified above. AVAILABILITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT After considering all timely and relevant comments received, the Board may adopt the proposed regula - tions substantially as described in this notice.

If the Board makes modifications which are sufficiently re - lated 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 Board adopts the regulations as revised. Requests for copies of any modified regulation should be addressed to the Board contact person or back–up contact person at the addresses indicated above. The Board will ac - cept written comments on the modified regulations for 15 days after the date on which they are made avail - able to the public.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 24–Z 745 AVAILABILITY OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Upon completion of the Final Statement of Reasons, copies thereof may be obtained by contacting Ms. Parker or Mr. Martinez at the above address. AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS ON THE INTERNET Copies of the Notice of Proposed Action, the Ini - tial Statement of Reasons, and the text of the regula - tions in underline and strikeout font can be accessed through the Board’s website at www.nmvb.ca.gov. TITLE 17.

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH SERVING SIZE AND AGE FOR INDUSTRIAL HEMP Notice is hereby given that the California Depart - ment of Public Health (Department) is proposing the regulation described below. This notice of pro - posed rulemaking commences a rulemaking to make the regulation permanent after considering all com - ments, objections, and recommendations regarding the regulation.

PUBLIC PROCEEDINGS The Department is conducting a 45–day written public proceeding during which time any interested person or such person’s duly authorized representa - tive may present statements, arguments or contentions (all of which are hereinafter referred to as comments) relevant to the action described in the Informative Digest/Policy Statement Overview

section of this notice. To request copies of the regulatory proposal in an alternate format, please write or call: Dawn Bascia - no, Office of Regulations, 1415 L Street Suite 500, Sacramento, CA 95814, at (916) 558–1710, email to dawn.basciano@cdph.ca.gov or use the California Re- lay Service by dialing 711. PUBLIC HEARING The Department has scheduled public hearings to accept comments on the proposed action. Any per - son may present statements or arguments described in the Informative Digest.

The Department requests, but does not require, that persons who make oral com- ments at the hearing also submit a written copy of their testimony at the hearing. Date: Monday, July 28, 2025 Time: 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

Location: On–line (link below): https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup- join/19%3ameeting_MjdlMjU0NDgtYjUxZi0 0ODQzLTk1YmItNDhkMTQxNjhhM2E5%40 thread.v2/0?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%22 1f 311b51-f6d9-4153-9bac-55e0ef9641b8%22% 2c%22Oid%22%3a%2227998457-1579-4714- af3e-322cf7da3ca6%22%7d Dial in by phone: +1 916 –306 – 8051,,818135213# United States, Sacramento Phone conference ID: 818 135 213# An agenda for the public hearing will be posted at the time and place of hearing location.

WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Written comments pertaining to this proposal, re - gardless of the method of transmittal, must be received by the Office of Regulations on July 28, 2025, which is hereby designated as the close of the 45–day written comment period. Comments received after this date will not be considered timely. Written Comments must be submitted as follows: 1. By email to: regulations@cdph.ca.gov.

It is re - quested that email transmission of comments, particularly those with attachments, contain the regulation package identifier “DPH–24–005” in the subject line to facilitate timely identification and review of the comment. 2. By fax transmission to: (916) 636–6220. 3. By postal service or hand delivered to: California Department of Public Health, Office of Regula - tions, 1415 L Street, Suite 500, Sacramento, CA 95814.

All comments, including email or fax transmissions, should include the regulation package identifier, DPH– 24–005 Serving Size and Age Industrial Hemp, along with your name and your mailing address or email ad- dress in order for the Department to provide copies of any notices for proposed changes to the regulation text on which additional comments may be solicited. ASSISTIVE SERVICES For individuals with disabilities, the Department will provide assistive services such as conversion of written materials into Braille, large print, audio for - mat, and computer disk.

For public hearings, assis - tive services can include sign–language interpreta - tion, real–time captioning, note takers, reading, or writing assistance. To request these assistive services,

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 24–Z 746 please call (916) 558–1710 or (California Relay at 711 or 1–800–735–2929), email Regulations@cdph.ca.gov or write to the Office of Regulations at the address not- ed above. Note: The range of assistive services avail - able may be limited if requests are received less than 10 business days prior to public hearing. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE The Department is proposing to adopt the proposed rulemaking under the authority provided in sections 100275, 110065, 111921.3, 111922, 111925, and 131200 of the Health and Safety Code.

The Department is proposing to make permanent sections 23000, 23005, 23015, and 23100 to Subchap- ter 2.6 of

Chapter 5 of Division 1 of Title 17, California Code of Regulations in order to implement, interpret, or make specific sections 110045, 110085, 110095, 110100, 110390, 110395, 110398, 110400, 110660, 110680, 110760, 110765, 111920, 111921, 111921.3, 111922, 111925, 111925.2, 111926, 111926.2, 131095, and 131100 of the Health and Safety Code;

Section 15731, Title 4 California Code of Regulations; and

Part 101, Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations. INFORMATIVE DIGEST

SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The proposed regulations specify the (1) serving size limit for total tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and package size limit, for industrial hemp final form food products intended for human consumption, and (2) age requirement for offering or sale of industrial hemp fi - nal form food products intended for human consump - tion. The proposed regulations will protect public health and safety by protecting consumers especially youth under 21 years of age and reducing risk of ill - ness, injury, or death.

Currently, the California Department of Public Health (Department) is enforcing emergency regu - lations (DPH–24–005E), which became effective on September 23, 2024, under statutory authority of As - sembly Bill (AB) 45 (Chapter 576, Statutes of 2021). This proposed rulemaking action will make sections 23000, 23005, 23015, and 23100 of the emergency reg- ulations permanent and also includes edits for con - sistency with the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC). Please note that

section 23010 “List of Intox - icating Cannabinoids” in the emergency regulations remains in effect for 18 months from September 23, 2024, pursuant to Health and Safety Code

section 111921.7(d). Thus,

section 23010 is not included in this regulatory action. BACKGROUND AND

SUMMARY OF EXISTING LAWS AND REGULATIONS Background: Existing state law AB 45 requires the Department to implement statu - tory requirements, codified in Health and Safety Code sections 111920 et seq., to regulate industrial hemp in extracts, food, beverages, dietary supplements, pro - cessed pet food, cosmetics, and inhalable products.

AB 45 established the Industrial Hemp Enrollment and Oversight Fund for the collection of fees to pay for the new regulatory work, including establishing and maintaining an industrial hemp enrollment and autho- rization, registration, and inspection program for in - dustrial hemp manufacturers who produce raw hemp extract or who produce industrial hemp final form products. AB 45 requires that all industrial hemp products that are sold or distributed in California shall conform with all applicable state laws and regulations.

AB 45 also requires that industrial hemp products can - not include more than 0.3% total THC (delta–8 THC, delta–9 THC, delta–10 THC, and THC acid). Indus - trial hemp products cannot include THC isolate as an added ingredient; cannabinoids produced through chemical synthesis are also prohibited. Manufactur - ers must include a certificate of analysis to confirm allowable total THC concentration and product con - tent, and they must provide proof that the industrial hemp product in its final form or extract was from an approved industrial hemp growing program.

The De - partment conducts licensure and compliance activities statewide to ensure these facilities and their products meet state and federal laws. To implement AB 45, the Department added industrial hemp firms into its exist- ing registration structure, including licensing, inspect- ing, and conducting enforcement. The Department must separately license and evaluate the operations of firms that manufacture industrial hemp extracts out–of–state for import into California, as well as Cal- ifornia firms that manufacture industrial hemp inhal - able products for sales out–of–state.

Industrial hemp inhalable products may be manufactured in California for the sole purpose of sale in other states; sale in Cal- ifornia is prohibited until the Legislature establishes a tax on industrial hemp inhalable products. The Department may investigate misbranding, adul- teration, food manufacturing safety, unapproved drug products, and other issues to determine compliance with AB 45 or other laws, pursuant to authority in AB 45 and under the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law (Sherman law). Enforcement may include: ● Regulatory warnings ● Public health advisories or warnings

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 24–Z 747 ● Administrative and civil penalties ● Criminal penalties including imprisonment ● Recall of products ● Seizure and embargo of products ● Condemnation of embargoed products Health and Safety Code sections 111922(

a) and 111925(

b) state that the Department “may determine maximum serving sizes for hemp–derived cannabi - noids, hemp extract, and products derived therefrom, active cannabinoid concentration per serving size, the number of servings per container, and any other re - quirements for foods and beverages,” and may “reg - ulate and restrict the cap on extract and may cap the amount of total THC concentration at the product lev- el based on the product form, volume, number of serv- ings, ratio of cannabinoids to THC in the product, or other factors, as needed.” Health and Safety Code

section 111921.3 states that the Department “may adopt regulations imposing an age requirement for the sale of certain industrial hemp products upon a finding of a threat to public health.” Additionally, the Department promulgated emer - gency regulations to specify the serving size for total THC, and package size limit, for industrial hemp final form food products intended for human consumption; an age requirement for offering or sale of industrial hemp industrial hemp final form food products intend- ed for human consumption; and intoxicating cannabi - noids included in the definition of THC or “THC or comparable cannabinoid.” Federal law Under the federal 2018 Farm Bill, industrial hemp is defined as the Cannabis sativa Linnaeus plant with a delta–9 THC concentration of not more than 0.3% (United States Code, Title 7,

Section 5940(b) (2)). In - dustrial hemp regulation under AB 45 is stricter than federal law by limiting THC acid, delta–8 THC, delta–9 THC, and delta–10 THC and any intoxicating cannabinoid as defined by the Department to 0.3% or less. In addition, industrial hemp cannot be syntheti - cally derived or contain any THC isolates.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), whose authority was not affected by the 2018 Farm Bill, has deemed hemp in food as prohibited in interstate com - merce (other than FDA–recognized hemp ingredi - ents Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS), which are hulled hemp seed, hemp seed protein powder, and hemp seed oil). When hemp other than GRAS is found in food, the hemp is considered an unapproved addi - tive, regardless of the source. Federally unapproved products are illegal to enter interstate commerce.

Establishment of permanent regulations This proposed rulemaking action will make perma - nent sections 23000, 23005, 23015, and 23100 of the emergency regulations and include edits for consisten- cy with DCC. Specifically, the Department proposes the following revisions to the emergency text: ● In proposed

section 23000, the Department re - places the definition of limit of detection with a reference to DCC’s related regulation at Title 4, California Code of Regulations,

section 15700(jj) to clarify that the Department is aligned with DCC’s definition. Additionally, the Department removes the letter and number hierarchy for or - dering

definitions. ● In proposed

section 23100(b), the Department re- places specific methods with a reference to DCC’s related regulation at Title 4, California Code of Regulations,

section 15371 to clarify that the De- partment is aligned with DCC’s regulations so that an independent testing laboratory must use DCC’s method to calculate and establish the limit of detection (LOD). Key policy elements of the proposed action The Department’s policy focus for the proposed reg- ulations is on improving product safety and protecting consumers, especially protecting youth.

The Depart - ment has explicit authority to establish regulations re- garding age and serving size related to industrial hemp food products, and the proposed regulations all work toward enhancing and protecting the public’s health. Prior to the emergency regulations, anyone of any age could purchase these products containing exces - sive concentrations of cannabinoids with limited safe- ty data. Some manufacturers marketed their products to children with graphics and labeling which mim - icked brands of conventional candies and snacks.

Be - cause industrial hemp food products are consumed and widely available, clear and effective regulations are needed to protect the public health. Establishing a minimum age of 21 to purchase in - dustrial hemp final form food products through this regulation helps the Department address consumption of cannabinoids by youth. This action protects them from the potential negative effects to their still devel - oping bodies and brains. Establishing a maximum of five servings per pack - age helps the Department address accidental overcon- sumption by adults and consumers with little experi - ence with cannabinoids.

Requiring each package of industrial hemp food products to contain no detectable amount of to - tal THC helps protect purchasers of industrial hemp products who only want to consume non–intoxicating cannabinoids. These actions combined allow the Department to protect consumers from accidental consumption of in- toxicating cannabinoids and provide a clear regulatory framework for the industry to follow.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 24–Z 748 POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW Problem Statement: Prior to the implementation of the emergency regulations, access to industrial hemp food products with excess levels of cannabinoids was unconstrained and underregulated. After AB 45 al - lowed for the lawful manufacturing and sale of some products, novel items began to appear in the market - place that were not contemplated when the law was adopted. Specifically, food products with intoxicating and synthetic cannabinoids were being marketed to youth.

As a result, youth and the public in general ex - perienced illness and injury from these products, and a death of a child occurred. Objectives: The broad objective of this proposed regulatory action is to protect the public health and safety from injury, illness, or death through regula - tion of industrial hemp food products. The regulato - ry action will assure consumers that products sold as industrial hemp meet a consistent standard and that extractors, manufacturers, and retailers are follow - ing standards to ensure the quality and safety of their products.

The proposed regulations focus on protecting our youth and the public in general by setting the serving size limit for total THC, package size limit, and age requirement for industrial hemp final form food prod- ucts intended for human consumption, including food, food additives, beverages, and dietary supplements. Benefits: Setting serving size limit for total THC and package size limit. AB 45 allows for up to 0.3% of total THC for extracts in industrial hemp final form products with no limits on the serving size of total THC and no limits on servings per package.

Current - ly, the Department’s emergency regulations require that industrial hemp final form food products intend - ed for human consumption must have no detectable amount of total THC per serving and require no more than five servings per package. Prior to the emergency regulations, many hemp–derived food and beverage products were pro - duced and sold with intoxicating levels of total THC, and some caused illness, injury, and death.

Depending on the size of the product serving and how many serv- ings are packaged together, an individual could receive significantly more THC in an industrial hemp food or beverage than in a cannabis product, which could im - pair a person, particularly youth.

Many firms actively marketed their hemp products as having the same ef - fect as cannabis, using statements such as a “full body buzz that’ll have you feel like you’re floating in zero gravity,” “[t]he same potency edibles you’d find at a dispensary,” “designed for the THC connoisseur crav- ing that cosmic high without the hassle,” “satisfy even the most experienced cannabis connoisseurs,” and “[e] njoy a euphoric headspace.” The proposed regulations permanently clarify a serving size limit for total THC, and package size lim- it, for these products.

These requirements mean the products are not psychoactive, significantly decreas - ing the risks associated with the products. Age requirement for human food AB 45 does not set an age requirement for the sale of industrial hemp products. Currently, the Department’s emergency regulations require a minimum age of 21 for the sale of industrial hemp final form food prod - ucts intended for human consumption. Prior to the emergency regulations, anyone could purchase these products with no restrictions.

By permanently setting a minimum age requirement of 21 years, it will be clear that industrial hemp final form food products in- tended for human consumption, including food, food additives, beverages, and dietary supplements, are not intended for sale to youth and may not be safe for youth to consume. EFFECT OF REGULATORY ACTION Currently, the California Department of Public Health (Department) is enforcing emergency regu - lations (DPH–24–005E), which became effective on September 23, 2024, under statutory authority of As - sembly Bill (AB) 45 (Chapter 576, Statutes of 2021).

This proposed rulemaking action will make sections 23000, 23005, 23015, and 23100 of the emergency reg- ulations permanent and also includes edits for con - sistency with the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC). Please note that

section 23010 “List of Intox - icating Cannabinoids” in the emergency regulations remains in effect for 18 months from September 23, 2024, pursuant to Health and Safety Code

section 111921.7(d). Thus,

section 23010 is not included in this regulatory action. EVALUATION AS TO WHETHER THE REGULATIONS ARE INCONSISTENT OR INCOMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING STATE REGULATIONS The Department has made a determination that these regulations are not inconsistent or incompat - ible with existing state regulations. As the oversight of industrial hemp activity is a newly created state re - sponsibility, no other state regulations are already in existence that address the same topics. In addition, the Department must ensure that its regulations must not conflict with the Food and Agriculture Code, Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, and division 9 (commencing with

Section 23000) of the Business and Professions Code (see Health and Safety Code

section 110040). This evaluation included a review of the Department’s existing state regulations and those regulations spe -

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 24–Z 749 cific to California Department of Public Health, Food and Drug Branch regulations. An internet search of other state agency regulations was also performed, and it was determined that no other state agency regu- lation addressed the same subject matter and that this proposal is not inconsistent or incompatible with other state regulations. Therefore, the Department has de - termined that the regulations is not inconsistent or in - compatible with existing state regulations.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE The Department has made a determination these regulations are not proposing any incorporation by reference. MANDATED BY FEDERAL LAW OR REGULATIONS The Department has made a determination that this proposal is not mandated by federal law or regulations. OTHER STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS None. LOCAL MANDATE DETERMINATION The Department has determined that this regulatory action would not impose a mandate on local agencies or school districts, nor are there any costs for which re- imbursement is required by

part 7 (commencing with

Section 17500) of division 4 of the Government Code. HOUSING COSTS The Department has determined that the proposed regulations would not have a significant economic im- pact on California housing costs. DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACTIONS FISCAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT A. Cost to Any Local Agency or School District: None. B. Cost or Savings to Any State Agency: None. C. Other Nondiscretionary Cost or Savings Imposed on Local Agencies: None. D. Cost or Savings in Federal Funding to the State: None.

SIGNIFICANT STATEWIDE ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACT DIRECTLY AFFECTING BUSINESS, INCLUDING ABILITY TO COMPETE The Department has determined that the proposed regulatory action would have significant statewide ad- verse economic impact directly affecting business, in- cluding the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. This regulation is con- sidered a Major Regulation with a statewide impact of over $50 million. The Department has considered proposed alterna - tives that would lessen any adverse economic impact on business and invites you to submit proposals.

Sub - missions may include the following considerations: (

i) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to businesses. (ii) Consolidation or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements for businesses. (iii) The use of performance standards rather than prescriptive standards. (iv) Exemption or partial exemption from the regulatory requirements for businesses The following businesses will be affected: ● Retailers, including alternative or herbal med - icine stores, smoke shops, grocery and food stores, wine stores, liquor stores, supermarkets, convenience stores, and superstores. ● Hemp growers, distributors and wholesalers. ● Hemp manufacturers. ● Restaurants, bars, and cafés. ● Licensed cannabis retailers.

STATEMENTS OF THE RESULTS OF THE STANDARDIZED REGULATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT (SRIA) The Department has determined that the proposed regulatory action would have a significant econom - ic impact on California business enterprises and individuals. The Department prepared a Standardized Regulato- ry Impact Analysis (SRIA), which is required for ma - jor regulations by the California Administrative Pro - cedure Act. Due to its extensive length and in the in - terest of ease–of–reading, the SRIA is available as At- tachment 1 of this document.

The Department has determined that the regulations affect the following as described: A. The creation or elimination of jobs within the State of California. The proposed regulations will create some jobs but eliminate others in

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 24–Z 750 California. See Attachment 1, SRIA, for further details. B. The creation of new businesses or the elimina- tion of existing businesses within the State of California. The proposed regulations will elim - inate some existing businesses in California. See Attachment 1, SRIA, for further details. C. The competitive advantages or disadvantages of businesses currently doing business with - in the State of California.

The proposed reg - ulations will create competitive advantages for some businesses and competitive disadvantages for other businesses currently doing business in California. See Attachment 1, SRIA, for further details. D. The increase or decrease of investment in the state. The proposed regulations are likely to de - crease investment in California. See Attachment 1, SRIA, for further details. E. The incentive for innovation in products, ma - terials, and processes. The proposed regula - tions could induce innovation. See Attachment 1, SRIA, for further details. F.

The benefits of the regulations, including but not limited to, benefits to the health, safety, and wellbeing of California’s residents, worker safety, and the state’s environment and quality of life. The proposed regulations will benefit pub- lic health and safety of California residents. See Attachment 1, SRIA, for further details.

SUMMARY OF DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE REVIEW OF SRIA AND DEPARTMENT R ESPONSE Department of Finance comment #1: “[T]he SRIA estimates that total economic impacts would result in a loss of $173 million in hemp market revenues in the first 12–month period following full implementation in 2025 for manufacturers, wholesalers, retail stores and delivery services, and decrease by $897 million in the five–year period following full implementation (2025–2029).” Department response: The numbers referenced do not reflect the actual estimates of decreases in Cali - fornia hemp market revenues.

Below, for clarity, we state the correct numbers for estimates of decreases in revenues collected by all California businesses in the 12–month and five–year time period following im - plementation of the Proposed Regulations, compared with the AB 45 baseline: Estimates (as shown in SRIA Table A2.0, p. 108), are as follows: ● Total revenue decrease of $602 million in the first 12 months. ● Total revenue decrease of $3.14 billion in the first five years.

Estimated direct revenue impacts on different cat - egories of California businesses due to the Proposed Regulations, compared with the AB 45 baseline (see SRIA Table A2.0, p. 108): ● Manufacturers: Revenue decrease of $120 mil - lion in the first 12 months and decrease of $615 million in the first five years. ● Wholesalers: Revenue decrease of $42 million in the first 12 months and decrease of $227 million in the first five years. ● Carry–out retailers: Revenue decrease of $392 million in the first 12 months and decrease of $2.02 billion in the first five years. ● Food service retailers: Revenue decrease of $47 million in the first 12 months and decrease of $268 million in the first five years. ● All California businesses (sum of four catego - ries): Total revenue decrease of $602 million in the first 12 months and decrease of $3.14 billion in the first five years. (These numbers correspond to the total revenue impacts stated above.).

To clarify further, $173 million and $897 million referenced in the comment are not estimated revenue impacts or total market impacts, but rather Type II (in- duced) impacts on economy–wide earnings (corre - sponding roughly to corporate profits or net income), one of the estimates estimated by RIMS II models whose results (including impacts on value added and jobs as well as earnings) are shown in SRIA Table 4.2, p. 88. Type II induced earnings estimates are one of sev - eral impacts and indirect economic “ripple effects” re- ported in the SRIA.

Earnings impacts are not typical - ly used as a primary indicator of economic impacts, and are not one of the central results of the SRIA.

Department of Finance comment #2: The Depart- ment of Finance requests “a fiscal impact analysis on how the proposed regulation impacts state and/or local government funding and enforcement and compliance costs,” and asks to “quantify any possible state reve - nue impacts, such as losses in sales tax revenue that may result from the business revenue losses.” Department response: The primary fiscal impacts of the Proposed Regulations are losses in tax revenue resulting from revenue losses at businesses in Califor- nia.

These include impacts on sales and use tax rev - enue, cannabis excise tax revenue, and corporate in - come tax revenue. Estimates of retail revenue impacts under the Pro - posed Regulations, as shown in SRIA Table 3.7, and economy–wide earnings impacts, as shown in SRIA table 4.2, are used to generate estimates of the impacts on state tax revenue.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 24–Z 751 Tax revenue impacts are calculated assuming a statewide average sales and use tax rate of 8.375% (in- cluding the 7.25% state sales tax plus a statewide aver- age local sales tax rate of 1.125%), the current Califor- nia cannabis excise tax of 19%, and the current Cali - fornia corporate income tax of 8.84%.

Retail revenue estimates are as follows: In the first 12 months after implementation, California retail rev- enue from hemp food and beverage products decreas - es by $445 million, and revenue from licensed canna - bis increases by $6 million, for a net retail revenue de- crease of $439 million. In the first five years after im- plementation, retail revenue from hemp food and bev- erage products decreases by $2.37 billion, and retail revenue from licensed cannabis increases by $78 mil - lion, for a net retail revenue decrease of $2.29 billion.

Earnings impact estimates are as follows: In the first 12 months after implementation, earnings decrease by $173 million. In the first five years after implementa - tion, earnings decrease by $897 million.

Estimates of tax impacts of the Proposed Regula - tions, using the above estimates and tax rates as in - puts, are as follows: ● Sales and use tax impacts: ○ Decrease of ($439 million × 8.375%) = $37 million in the first 12 months. ○ Decrease of ($2.29 billion × 8.375%) = $192 million in the first five years. ● Cannabis excise tax impacts: ○ Increase of ($6 million × 19%) = $1 million in the first 12 months. ○ Increase of ($78 million × 19%) = $15 mil - lion in the first five years. ● Corporate income tax impacts: ○ Decrease of ($173 million × 8.84%) = $15 million in the first 12 months. ○ Decrease of ($897 million × 8.84%) = $79 million in the first five years. ● Total state tax impacts: ○ Decrease of $51 million in the first 12 months. ○ Decrease of $256 million in the first five years.

The other fiscal impacts of the Proposed Regulations are limited to Department costs of administration, en - forcement and other aspects of ensuring compliance with the Proposed Regulations. Given the limited con- sumer demand for hemp products with no detectable total THC, costs to State enforcement and compliance of enforcing the minimum age of 21 or no–detectable– total–THC standard are negligible. ● Total State Enforcement and Compliance Costs: ○ $758,000 per year.

Department of Finance comment #3: “The SRIA states that 100 of the 115 manufacturers are assumed to be eliminated, while it also states that 50 busi - nesses are estimated to need to comply with packag - ing redesign.

The SRIA should clarify the number of manufacturers that would remain active in California and would be required to comply with the proposed regulations.” Department response: The group of 50 businesses that must comply with packaging redesign (at an aver- age cost of about $20,000 per business, and an aggre - gate cost of $1 million) is not the same group of busi - nesses as the 15 manufacturers (of 115 current manu - facturers) that would remain active with the Proposed Regulations in place.

In the California hemp market, as in the national hemp market, many manufacturers and distributors that package hemp products (e.g. gummies or bever - ages) are out of state and not required to be licensed with the Department. The majority of the 50 business- es facing relabeling costs due to the Proposed Reg - ulations, at an average of $20,000 per business, are out of state distributors/manufacturers rather than Department–licensed manufacturers.

Therefore, while there is some overlap between the 15 remaining Department–licensed hemp manufac - turers and the 50 businesses that must comply with packaging redesign, these are two different and only partially overlapping groups, as some hemp manufac- turers produce packaged products that are ready to sell at retail,

whereas others do not. In some cases, distrib- utors or retailers package the products, and thus are the businesses that would incur repackaging costs. Of the 15 Department–licensed manufacturers remaining in the market, approximately 10 are expected to incur relabeling costs. These estimates come with a particularly high de - gree of uncertainty, as the Department did not have access to information about the internal strategies, product assortments, or future contingency plans of hemp manufacturers.

Department of Finance comment #4: “Current - ly, the SRIA quantifies the total cost as equal to the revenue losses from the elimination of manufacturers, however, the SRIA should also include the total com - pliance costs for the manufacturers that will need to comply with the proposed regulation (separate from the revenue losses, but as part of the total economic cost analysis, without netting).” Department response: Neither the age limit of 21 nor the no–detectable–total–THC standard in the Pro - posed Regulations imposes any costs on businesses manufacturing, distributing, or retailing, aside from the $1 million ($20,000 × 50 businesses, as described in SRIA

Section 2.5 and clarified in

Section 2 above) in aggregate costs of designing and manufacturing

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 24–Z 752 compliant packaging, and phasing out non–compliant packaging. A small number of non–psychoactive cannabidiol (CBD) products will likely remain on the California market with the Proposed Regulations in place, result- ing in the need for manufacturers of those products to reduce total THC content from current total THC lev - els (less than 0.3%) to a non–detectable level of total THC. As discussed in the SRIA, CBD isolate and other cannabinoid isolates that contain no detectable total THC are costly.

It is estimated that there were not any pre–existing hemp products in the California market, prior to the Emergency Regulations, that would have reliably complied with the no–detectable–total–THC standard. Many products previously available that were marketed as “CBD” had very low levels of total THC, but would still have been non–compliant with the Proposed Regulations due to trace amounts of to - tal THC that would still be detectable at some level. To comply with the Proposed Regulations (and Emergency Regulations), manufacturers need to use a purified CBD isolate that eliminates traces of total THC.

Given that consumers who buy CBD products do not demand that they have no detectable total THC, producers had no reason to use the purified CBD iso - late prior to the Emergency Regulations. Products that would be able to reliably comply with the Proposed Regulations would thus be newly designed products. The need to use more costly ingredients to com - ply with the no–detectable–total–THC standard will not result in any direct economic costs to man - ufacturers, distributors, or sellers. The large majori - ty of producers, distributors, and retailers will not enter the market for such products.

In cases where businesses alter existing products to create new no–detectable–total–THC products, it is estimated that such products will be offered at corresponding - ly higher prices to consumers at the wholesale and re- tail level; thus economic costs will not be imposed on hemp manufacturers, distributors, or sellers. Prod - ucts, if any, that may have had non–detectable total THC levels prior to the regulations would not need to change their manufacturing processes and thus would not be expected to change their prices.

At this time, limited consumer demand exists for these new products at the higher price points that would be necessary for businesses (manufacturers, distributors, or retailers) to break even on manufac - turing these products. Some businesses may none - theless choose to manufacture, distribute, or retail no–detectable–total–THC products. An estimated 100 of 115 businesses in the manufac- turing segment will exit the California hemp manu - facturing market, either by shutting down their busi - nesses or by moving their businesses to another state. This is where some costs will arise.

Businesses incur certain costs (including legal costs, lease obligations, employee severance, service fees, moving and transportation costs, etc.) when they shut down or leave the California market for another state. In many cases, businesses that close must sell off their assets below market value, resulting in additional economic losses or take their assets out of state. Shut– down and dissolution costs are not currently covered in the SRIA, so estimates are added below.

It is estimated that no retail businesses will shut down as a direct result of the Proposed Regulations because hemp products are not the primary source of income for legal retail businesses in California. Hemp manufacturing businesses in California vary widely by size, and financial information is not avail - able for private companies (all businesses in the sec - tor are currently private), so these estimates come with an unusually high degree of uncertainty.

Clos - ing and shut–down costs are estimated to range be - tween $5,000 and $1 million per business, with an av- erage of about $75,000 per business, for a total of $7.5 million in total costs for the 100 manufacturing busi - nesses that will exit the market due to the Proposed Regulations. COST IMPACTS ON REPRESENTATIVE PERSON OR BUSINESS 1. Compliance costs to businesses in California As detailed in the SRIA, costs of re–labeling new compliant products are estimated at an average of $20,000 per business for 50 businesses that will re–label such products, a total of $1 million in costs in the first 12 months.

Closing and shut–down costs are estimated to aver - age $75,000 per business for 100 businesses that close, for a total of $7.5 million in costs for the 100 manufac- turing businesses that will exit the market due to the Proposed Regulations. 2. Compliance costs to private individuals in California Consumers of certain hemp products with THC will substitute a significant portion of their in–state hemp purchases (e.g. purchases of hemp beverages) with purchases by mail order from out–of–state providers (prohibited products within California).

Market prices are not significantly different for such products in oth- er states, so it is estimated that there is no additional direct cost of purchasing hemp. However, such con - sumers will incur additional shipping costs from or - dering out–of–state. About 70,000 California residents (1% of Califor - nia’s 7 million regular cannabis users) who regular - ly consume hemp products would be likely to order hemp products by mail order, and would receive ship-

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 24–Z 753 ments about once per month (6 times per year), at an average shipping cost of $7.50 per order, for a total cost of $45 per year per hemp consumer, or $3.15 mil- lion per year. 3. Enforcement compliance costs The Department will incur costs of administration and enforcement, in compliance with the Proposed Regulations. The Department estimates these costs at $758,000 per year. 4.

Costs of revenue, earnings, and tax losses As detailed in the SRIA, in addition to the direct out–of–pocket costs listed above, compliance and en - forcement of the Proposed Regulations results in loss- es that are not direct “costs” in the sense of being nec- essary out–of–pocket spending of dollars on compli - ance or enforcement by businesses or individuals in California, but rather are direct, indirect, and induced costs incurred by businesses, individual, and the state.

The Proposed Regulations are estimated to result in first–year revenue losses of $602 million to California businesses ($120 million in losses to manufacturers, $42 million in losses to wholesalers, and $439 in loss- es to retailers) resulting the Proposed Regulations in the first 12 months; losses of $173 million in earnings, which transfer from businesses to private individuals holding shares in California businesses; and losses of $51 million in state and local tax collections.

BUSINESS REPORTING REQUIREMENTS The proposed regulations do not impose a new re - porting or recordkeeping requirement, as there al - ready is an existing process. Currently, absent the pro- posed regulations, manufacturers are required to show a product is compliant with the industrial hemp pro - gram by submitting a Certificate of Analysis (COA) to the Department. THC is one of multiple cannabi - noids on the COA that already is required. The pro - posed regulations now require a certain amount of total THC, which is a nondetectable amount, on the COA.

Thus, the proposed regulation requires a cer - tain result on the COA and is not a new reporting or recordkeeping requirement. EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESS The Department has determined that the proposed regulatory action may affect small businesses.

The proposed regulations, compared with the AB 45 baseline, affects the following categories of small businesses as follows: ● Independent general–purpose small retailers (al - ternative or herbal medicine stores, smoke shops, grocery and food stores, wine shops, liquor stores, convenience store franchisees): Will lose an aggregate of $1.9 billion in revenue and 5,567 jobs over 5 years. ● Small hemp growers, distributors and wholesal - ers: Will lose an aggregate of $204 million in rev- enue and 112 jobs over 5 years.

Ninety percent are small businesses. ● Small hemp manufacturers (About 111 of 115 industrial hemp businesses licensed by CDPH): Will lose an aggregate of $586 million in whole - sale revenue and 1,049 jobs over 5 years. ● Small restaurants, bars, and cafes: Will lose an aggregate of $242 million in wholesale revenue and 2,449 jobs over 5 years. ● Licensed cannabis retailers: Will gain an aggre - gate of $69.8 million in revenue and 232 jobs over 5 years.

These numbers are comparatively low to retail sales lost in other sectors because demand for THC beverages are low through the licensed cannabis channel (1% of all licensed cannabis re- tail sales).

Small businesses, compared with larger businesses, are more sensitive (especially in terms of the risk of closing) to the types of revenue impacts above as well as the overall revenue impacts for the following reas - ions: (1) they are typically operating with less work - ing capital reserves than larger businesses, (2) have a higher proportion of fixed to variable costs, and (3) thus face more direct threats of having to shut down due to a change in revenue.

Of all categories mentioned above, it is estimated — with the caveat that individual businesses vary widely in each of their financial stability — that retail busi - nesses, particularly restaurants, bars, and small food stores, are the most sensitive to short–term changes in monthly revenue. Impacts to these businesses would be reflected in impacts estimated for revenue, jobs, and value added, but not in income.

MANDATED USE OF SPECIFIC TECHNOLOGIES, EQUIPMENT, ACTIONS, OR PROCEDURES The Department has determined the proposed regu - lations will have no mandated use of specific technol- ogies, equipment, actions, or procedures. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANT STATEWIDE ADVERSE IMPACT DIRECTLY AFFECTING PRIVATE PERSONS OR BUSINESSES, INCLUDING ABILITY TO COMPETE The Department has made an initial determination that the proposed regulations would have a significant economic impact on California business enterprises

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 24–Z 754 and individuals. This regulation is considered a Major Regulation with a statewide impact of over $50 mil - lion. The required SRIA is included as Attachment 1 to this document. There are significant statewide adverse economic impacts directly affecting private persons and busi - nesses in California, including ability to compete.

Statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting private persons or businesses ● The estimate is a total of $3.14 billion in lost rev- enue to California businesses; $1.19 billion in lost value added, $666 million in lost earnings, and 13,522 jobs from Type 1 indirect impacts; and $1.64 billion in lost value added, $897 million in lost earnings, and 17,875 jobs from Type 2 induced impacts, in the 5 years after implementation. ● It is estimated a total of 115 businesses will close and 18,478 jobs will be lost in the 5 years after implementation. ● Impacts on revenue affect the ability of business- es to remain financially stable and economically viable, and to have sufficient monthly cash flow to cover overhead and operating costs.

These im- pacts disproportionately affect small businesses. ● Impacts on value added directly affect busi - nesses and represent the economic value in the supply chain that is eliminated by the proposed regulations. ● Impacts on earnings directly affect individuals in California, including owners and investors in businesses, and people with investment or sav - ings accounts. ● Economic “ripple effects” estimated by Type 1 and Type 2 impacts, as discussed above, have fi - nancial impacts on a wide variety of private per - sons, across all regions of California, who work in a wide variety of industries. ● Businesses affected by Type 1 and Type 2 im - pacts are not limited to the categories mentioned above, but include a wide variety of businesses across industries in California.

Ability to compete ● All the businesses affected will experience a de - crease in competitiveness, and manufacturing and processing of hemp products will move out of state. ● Out–of–state businesses and the illegal market will supply the California THC hemp market. ● About 100 CDPH–licensed hemp businesses will close or exit the California hemp manufacturing market.

Types of businesses affected ● Retailers, including alternative or herbal med - icine stores, smoke shops, grocery and food stores, wine stores, liquor stores, supermarkets, convenience stores, and superstores. ● Hemp growers, distributors and wholesalers. ● Hemp manufacturers. ● Restaurants, bars, and cafés. ● Licensed cannabis retailers. INVOLVEMENT WITH AFFECTED PARTIES The proposed regulations do not involve complex proposals or a large number of proposals that can - not easily be reviewed during the comment period.

Instead, the proposed regulations are limited to only four subjects, one of which is a severability provision. The Department sought public input on the Emer - gency Regulations. As part of the emergency rulemak- ing process, a 5–day public comment period was pro - vided for the first emergency promulgation and for the readoption, during which the Department received public feedback from stakeholders, industry represen- tatives, and the general public. The Department later conducted informal stake - holder engagement between April 4, 2025, and April 18, 2025, and received approximately 20 comments.

The Department also will hold a 45–day public com - ment period during which the public may submit com- ments regarding the proposed regulations. EVALUATION AS TO WHETHER THE REGULATIONS ARE INCONSISTENT OR INCOMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING STATE REGULATIONS The Department has made a determination that these regulations are not inconsistent or incompatible with existing state regulations. As the oversight of in - dustrial hemp activity is a newly created state respon - sibility, no other state regulations are already in ex - istence that address the same topics.

In addition, the Department must ensure that its regulations must not conflict with the Food and Agriculture Code, Alcohol- ic Beverage Control Act, and division 9 (commencing with

Section 23000) of the Business and Professions Code (see Health and Safety Code

section 110040). This evaluation included a review of the Department’s existing state regulations and those regulations spe - cific to California Department of Public Health, Food and Drug Branch regulations. An internet search of other state agency regulations was also performed and it was determined that {no} other state agency regu - lation addressed the same subject matter and that this proposal is not} inconsistent or incompatible with oth- er state regulations. Therefore, the Department has de-

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2025, VOLUME NUMBER 24–Z 755 termined that the regulations is not} inconsistent or in- compatible with existing state regulations. SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE FROM FEDERAL REGULATION OR STATUTE The Department has determined these regulations are not substantially different from either a federal regulation or statute.

CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES The Department must determine 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 ac- tion is proposed, would be as effective and less bur - densome to affected private persons than the proposed action, or would be more cost-effective to affected pri- vate persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law. The Depart- ment considered reasonable alternatives as addressed in related sections, specifically in

section 23005 (Age Requirement for Human Food) and

section 23100 (Serving and Package Requirements). CONTACT PERSON Inquiries regarding the substance of the pro - posed regulations described in this notice may be di - rected to Ashley Mills, Food and Drug Branch at: Ashley.mills3@cdph.ca.gov. All other inquiries concerning the action described in this notice may be directed to Dawn Basciano, Of - fice of Regulations, at (916) 558–1710 or to the desig- nated backup contact person, Michael Boutros at (916) 949–3514. In any inquiries or written comments, please identify the action by using the Department regu - lation package identifier, DPH–24–005.

A V AILABILITY STATEMENTS The Department has prepared and has available for public review an initial statement of reasons for the proposed regulations, all the information upon which the proposed regulations are based, and the text of the proposed regulations. The Office of Regulations, 1415 L Street, Suite 500, Sacramento, CA 95814, will be the custodian of public records, including reports, docu - mentation, and other material related to the proposed regulations (rulemaking file).

In order to request that a copy of this public no - tice, the regulation text, and the initial statement of reasons or alternate formats for these documents be mailed to you, please call (916) 558–1710, or the California Relay Service at 711, send an email to regulations@cdph.ca.gov, or write to the Office of Regulations at the address previously noted. Upon specific request, these documents will be made avail - able in Braille, large print, audio format, or computer disk.

The full text of any regulation which is changed or modified from the express terms of the proposed ac - tion will be made available by the Department’s Of - fice of Regulations at least 15 days prior to the date on which the Department adopts, amends, or repeals the resulting regulation. FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS: A copy of the final statement of reasons (when pre - pared) will be available upon request from the Office of Regulations.

INTERNET ACCESS Materials regarding the action described in this no - tice (including this public notice, the text of the pro - posed regulations, and the initial statement of reasons) that are available via the Internet may be accessed at: DPH–24–005E Emergency Regulations for Serving Size, Age, and Intoxicating Cannabinoids for Indus