GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR OFFI CE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REGISTER 2019, NUMBER 27−Z PUBLISHED W EEKLY BY THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JULY 5, 2019 PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS TITLE 2. FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Conflict−of−Interest Code — Notice File Number Z2019−0625−04 ....................................... 961 TITLE 3. DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION Field Fumigation Posting — Notice File Number Z2019−0625−07 ....................................... 962 TITLE 8.

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH APPEALS BOARD Rules of Practice and Procedure — Notice File Number Z2019−0620−01 .................................. 965 TITLE 10. BUREAU OF REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS Minimum Experience — Notice File Number Z2019−0621−02 ........................................... 971 TITLE 10. DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE California Automobile Assigned Risk Plan (CAARP) Plan of Operations — Notice File Number Z2019−0621−03 ............................................ 973 TITLE 10.

GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Film and Television Tax Credit Program 3.0 — Notice File Number Z2019−0624−03 ........................ 976 TITLE 14. BOARD OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION Permanent Post−Fire Recovery Exemption — Notice File Number Z2019−0625−02 .......................... 981 TITLE 14. BOARD OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION Stocking and Silvicultural Standards Amendments — Notice File Number Z2019−0625−01 .................... 985 TITLE 15. BOARD OF JUVENILE HEARINGS Honorable Discharge — Notice File Number Z2019−0624−01 .......................................... 990 TITLE 23.

DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL Proposed Amendment to Sections 5001 and 5012 — Notice File Number Z2019−0625−05 .................... 994 TITLE MPP/22. DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES Repeal Manual of Policies and Procedures — Notice File Number Z2019−0617−01 ........................ 1001 (Continued on next page) Time- Dated Material

TITLE MPP. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES CalWORKs Maximum Aid Payment (MAP) Increase — Notice File Number Z2019−0624−02 ................. 1004 GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Act Consistency Determination Number 1653−2019−037−001−R1, Siskiyou County ...................................... 1006 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Proposed Research on Fully Protected Species: Salvage of Peregrine Falcon — Katelyn J.

Bishop, University of California, Los Angeles ............................. 1008 OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT Notice of 15−Day Modification to Text of Proposed Regulation — Title 27, California Code of Regulations — Proposed Amendment to Sections 25821(

a) and (

c) Level of Exposure to Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity: Calculating Intake by the Average Consumer of a Product .......................... 1009 RULEMAKING PETITION DECISION CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION Notice of Decision on a Petition from Steve Uhler Concerning Implementation of Statutory Provision PUC

Section 399.30(c)(4) ....................................... 1010

SUMMARY OF REGULATORY ACTIONS Regulations filed with the Secretary of State ........................................................ 1011 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 REGULA TORY NOTICE REGISTER is published weekly by the Office of Administrative Law, 300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1250, Sacramento, CA 95814-4339. The Register is printed by Barclays, a subsidiary of West, a Thomson Reuters Business, and is offered by subscription for $205.00 (annual price). To order or make changes to current subscriptions, please call (800) 328−4880. The Register can also be accessed at http://www.oal.ca.gov.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 27-Z PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS Information contained in this document is published as received from agencies and is not edited by Thomson Reuters. TITLE 2.

FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Fair Political Practices Commission, pursuant to the authority vested in it by Sections 82011, 87303, and 87304 of the Gov- ernment Code to review proposed conflict−of−interest codes, will review the proposed/amended conflict−of− interest codes of the following: CONFLICT−OF−INTEREST CODES ADOPTION MULTI−COUNTY: Julian Charter Schools AMENDMENT STATE AGENCY: Department of Fair Employment and Housing A written comment period has been established com- mencing on July 5, 2019 and closing on August 19, 2019.

Written comments should be directed to the Fair Political Practices Commission, Attention Amanda Apostol, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sacramento, Cali- fornia 95811. At the end of the 45−day comment period, the pro- posed conflict−of−interest code(

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

s) will be submitted to the Commission for review. The Executive Director of the Commission will re- view the above−referenced conflict−of−interest code(s), proposed pursuant to Government Code Sec- tion 87300, which designate, pursuant to Government Code

Section 87302, employees who must disclose cer- tain investments, interests in real property and income. The Executive Director of the Commission, upon his or its own motion or at the request of any interested per- son, will approve, or revise and approve, or return the proposed code(

s) to the agency for revision and re− submission within 60 days without further notice. Any interested person may present statements, argu- ments or comments, in writing to the Executive Direc- tor of the Commission, relative to review of the pro- posed conflict−of−interest code(s). Any written com- ments must be received no later than August 19, 2019. 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. Therefore, they are not “costs mandated by the state” as defined in Govern- ment Code

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

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

s) should be made to Amanda Apostol, Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sacramento, California 95811, telephone (916) 324−5854. A V AILABILITY OF PROPOSED CONFLICT−OF−INTEREST CODES Copies of the proposed conflict−of−interest codes may be obtained from the Commission offices or the re- 961

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 27-Z spective agency. Requests for copies from the Commis- sion should be made to Amanda Apostol, Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sacramento, California 95811, telephone (916) 324−5854. TITLE 3. DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION PESTICIDE HANDLERS, COTTON HARVEST AIDS, PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT EXEMPTIONS AND FIELD FUMIGATION POSTING DPR REGULATION NO. 19−002 The Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) pro- poses to amend Title 3, California Code of Regulations (3 CCR) sections 6000, 6470, 6738.4, 6776, and 6784.

The pesticide regulatory program activities affected by the proposal are those pertaining to pesticide worker safety and pesticide enforcement. In

summary, the pro- posed action will amend DPR’s existing regulations to increase clarity, enforceability and consistency with federal standards, and align field soil fumigation post- ing requirements with pesticide product labeling. Field soil fumigation posting requirements include posting responsibility, sign content, and posting duration. SUBMITTAL OF COMMENTS Any interested person may present comments in writ- ing about the proposed action to the agency contact per- son named below. Written comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. on August 21, 2019.

Comments regarding this proposed action may also be transmitted via e−mail to <dpr19002@cdpr.ca.gov> or by facsimile at 916−324−1491. A public hearing is not scheduled. However, one will be scheduled if any interested person submits a written request to DPR no later than 15 days prior to the close of the written comment period. 1 EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESS DPR has determined that the proposed regulatory ac- tion does affect small businesses. 1 If you have special accommodation or language needs, please include this in your request for a public hearing.

TTY/TDD speech−to−speech users may dial 7−1−1 for the California Relay Service. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW DPR protects human health and the environment by regulating pesticide sales and use, and by fostering re- duced−risk pest management. DPR’s strict oversight in- cludes: product evaluation and registration; statewide licensing of commercial and private pesticide applica- tors, pest control businesses, dealers, and advisers; en- vironmental monitoring; and residue testing of fresh produce. This statutory scheme is set forth primarily in Food and Agricultural Code (FAC) Divisions 6 and 7. FAC

section 12980 requires that DPR work jointly with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard As- sessment (OEHHA) to develop regulations to ensure safe working conditions for persons handling pesticides and working in and around pesticide−treated areas. FAC

section 12981 requires DPR to adopt regulations to accomplish the Legislature’s intent relative to ensur- ing safety in the pesticide workplace. DPR’s current regulatory requirements for pesticide safety training, personal protective equipment (PPE), field posting, and notice of completed applications are designed to reduce the risk of pesticide exposure and injuries among pesti- cide handlers and workers exposed to pesticides. “Handle” is currently defined in 3 CCR

section 6000 and the definition includes the term “greenhouse.” In 2017 and 2018, DPR amended California’s pesticide worker safety regulations to be consistent with the re- vised federal Worker Protection Standard (WPS). Dur- ing the 2017 regulatory action, the definition of “green- house” was deleted from

section 6000 and the defini- tion of “enclosed space,” which includes greenhouses, was added to

section 6000 to align with the federal WPS usage of the term “enclosed space production.” Since the definition of “greenhouse” was deleted, DPR changed “greenhouse” to “enclosed space” throughout 3 CCR Division 6 where its use is consistent with the federal WPS. The

section 6000 definition of “Handle” was inadvertently overlooked when the earlier changes were made. This proposed action amends the definition of “Handle” by changing the term “greenhouse” to the new term “enclosed space.” Additionally, the definition is proposed to be split into subsections to aid in clarity and readability. Subsection 6470(

a) describes requirements for em- ployers using the listed pesticides as cotton harvest aids. This subsection also refers to a definition of “closed system” in

section 6000 that no longer exists. Effective January 1, 2016, the definition of “closed system” was removed from

section 6000 as DPR adopted a performance−based standard for this equipment during a regulatory action. For clarity, this proposed action re- moves the reference to

section 6000 from subsection 6470(

a) and makes minor grammatical edits. 962

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 27-Z

Section 6738.4 currently allows PPE to be modified in certain situations and states that exempted PPE must be “available” for use at the worksite. The federal WPS requires exempted labeling PPE to be “immediately available” to the handler when the handler is using a closed system or enclosed cab. DPR proposes to amend

section 6738.4 by establishing that labeling−required PPE must be within immediate reach when using a closed system or enclosed cab. Minor edits are also be- ing made for readability. Currently, subsection 6776(

f) requires that when a fu- migant is applied to a field, the field must be posted with a sign containing specific information, such as the date and time of fumigation. Subsection 6784(

a) currently requires that this sign remain posted until aeration is complete. The proposed amendments to these sections address: posting responsibility, sign content, and post- ing duration. DPR’s proposed amendments to these subsections establish the operator of the property as the party responsible for posting a warning sign when a soil fumigant is applied to a field, and require the field fumi- gation warning sign to include information specified by product labeling, such as the date and time the Entry Re- stricted Period ends.

The proposed regulations also amend the sign posting duration requirements, specify- ing when the sign is to be posted, how long the sign shall remain posted, and when the sign shall be removed. It also clarifies that the posted signs are to remain legible for the duration of the posting. The amendments also in- clude a proposed restructure of both subsections for clarity and readability. Adoption of these regulations will provide a benefit to worker safety.

The FAC requires that DPR adopt reg- ulations that provide for safe working conditions for persons handling pesticides and working in pesticide− treated areas, including regulations on the subject of PPE and other protective devices. The regulations clari- fy and reduce ambiguity of current requirements, more closely align California’s requirements with the federal WPS and pesticide labeling, and help ensure that pesti- cide users correctly comply with requirements that ben- efit worker safety.

During the process of developing these proposed reg- ulations, DPR conducted a search of any similar regula- tions on this topic and has concluded that these pro- posed regulations are neither inconsistent nor incom- patible with existing state regulations. Although DPR and the California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health, have regu- latory mandates to protect workers from health and safety hazards in workplaces, DPR enforces pesticide laws in workplaces where pesticides are used.

IMPACT ON LOCAL AGENCIES OR SCHOOL DISTRICTS DPR determined that the proposed regulatory action does not impose a mandate on local agencies or school districts. DPR also determined that there are no costs to any local agency or school district requiring reimburse- ment pursuant to Government Code

section 17500 et seq. There are no other nondiscretionary costs or sav- ings imposed upon local agencies that are expected to result from the proposed regulation action. COSTS OR SA VINGS TO STATE AGENCIES DPR determined that no savings or increased costs to any state agency will result from the proposed regulato- ry action. EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDING TO THE STATE DPR determined that no costs or savings in federal funding to the state will result from the proposed action. EFFECT ON HOUSING COSTS DPR made an initial determination that the proposed action will have no effect on housing costs.

SIGNIFICANT STATEWIDE ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACT DIRECTLY AFFECTING BUSINESSES DPR made an initial determination that adoption of this regulation will not have a significant statewide ad- verse economic impact directly affecting businesses, including the ability of California businesses to com- pete with businesses in other states. COST IMPACTS ON REPRESENTATIVE PRIV ATE PERSONS OR BUSINESSES DPR is not aware of any cost impacts that a represen- tative private person or business would necessarily in- cur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action.

RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Impact on the Creation, Elimination, or Expansion of Jobs/Businesses: DPR determined it is not likely the 963

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 27-Z proposed regulatory action will impact the creation or elimination of jobs, the creation of new businesses or the elimination of existing businesses, or the expansion of businesses currently doing business with the State of California because the proposed regulations are intend- ed to align with federal standards.

The proposed regulations will benefit worker safety by further strengthening current regulations that are al- ready designed to reduce the risk of pesticide poison- ings and injuries among pesticide handlers and other agricultural workers exposed to pesticides. Ensuring that pesticide users comply with the newly adopted reg- ulations will benefit worker safety. Implementation of the proposed regulations will not adversely affect the health and welfare of California residents or the environment.

CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES DPR must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the agency, or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the agency, would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed, would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed regulatory action, or would be more cost− effective to affected private persons and equally effec- tive in implementing the statutory policy or other provi- sion of the law.

AUTHORITY This regulatory action is taken pursuant to the author- ity vested by FAC sections 11456, 12976, 12981, 14005, and 14102. REFERENCE This regulatory action is to implement, interpret, or make specific FAC sections 11501, 12980, 12981, 14006, and 14102. A V AILABILITY OF STATEMENT OF REASONS AND TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS DPR prepared an Initial Statement of Reasons and is making available the express terms of the proposed ac- tion, all of the information upon which the proposal is based, and a rulemaking file.

A copy of the Initial State- ment of Reasons and the proposed text of the regulation may be obtained from the agency contact person named in this notice. The information upon which DPR relied in preparing this proposal and the rulemaking file are available for review at the address specified below. A V AILABILITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT After the close of the comment period, DPR may make the regulation permanent if it remains substantial- ly the same as described in the Informative Digest.

If DPR does make substantial changes to the regulation, the modified text will be made available for at least 15 days prior to adoption. Requests for the modified text should be addressed to the agency contact person named in this notice. DPR will accept written com- ments on any changes for 15 days after the modified text is made available.

AGENCY CONTACT Written comments about the proposed regulatory ac- tion; requests for a copy of the Initial Statement of Rea- sons, and the proposed text of the regulation; and in- quiries regarding the rulemaking file may be directed to: Lauren Otani, Environmental Scientist Department of Pesticide Regulation 1001 I Street, P.O.

Box 4015 Sacramento, California 95812−4015 916−445−5781 Note: In the event the contact person is unavailable, questions on the substance of the proposed regulatory action may be directed to the following back−up person at the same address as noted above: Nathan Desjarlais Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) Enforcement Branch 916−445−5779 This Notice of Proposed Action, the Initial Statement of Reasons, and the proposed text of the regulation are also available on DPR’s Internet Home Page <http://www.cdpr.ca.gov>.

Upon request, the docu- ments can be made available in another language, or an alternate form as a disability−related accommodation. A V AILABILITY OF FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Following its preparation, a copy of the Final State- ment of Reasons mandated by Government Code sec- tion 11346.9(

a) may be obtained from the contact per- son named above. In addition, the Final Statement of Reasons will be posted on DPR’s Internet Home Page and accessed at <http://www.cdpr.ca.gov>. 964

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 27-Z TITLE 8. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH APPEALS BOARD Modifying Requirement to Produce Citations on Appeal and Modifying Discovery Rules The Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (“Board”) proposes to adopt the proposed regulations described below after considering all comments, objec- tions, and recommendations regarding the proposed actions.

PUBLIC HEARING The Board will hold a public hearing on August 22, 2019, at its normally scheduled public meeting held at 2520 V enture Oaks Way, Suite 300 in Sacramento, CA 95833 and 100 North Barranca Street, Suite 410, West Covina, CA 91791 at 9:30 a.m. The locations are wheel- chair accessible. At the hearing, any person may present statements orally or in writing relating to the proposed action described in the Informative Digest. The Board requests, but does not require, that persons who make oral comments at the hearing also submit a written copy of their testimony at the hearing.

WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any interested person, or his or her authorized repre- sentative, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory actions to the Board. Comments may also be submitted by email to ajackson@dir.ca.gov. The written comment period closes at 5:00 p.m. on August 22, 2019. The Board will consider only those comments received at the Board of- fices by that time. Written comments should be submit- ted to: Aaron Jackson, Staff Counsel Cal/OSHA Appeals Board 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95833 AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Labor Code (LC)

section 148.7 authorizes the Board to adopt, amend, or repeal rules of practice and proce- dure pertaining to hearing appeals and other matters falling within its jurisdiction. The Board is charged with hearing and resolving appeals filed by employers for occupational safety and health citations issued by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Division). INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW The Board initiates this rulemaking to modify its Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Board consists of three members appointed by the Governor and con- firmed by the Senate.

The Board hears and resolves ap- peals from private and public−sector employers regard- ing citations issued by the Division alleging violations of workplace safety and health laws and regulations. Appeals are initially held before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) appointed by the Board. If a party is dissat- isfied with the ALJ’s decision, a party may request re- consideration by the Board. The Board may also recon- sider a matter on its own motion.

The Board proposes to make several modifications to its Rules of Practice and Procedure to add greater clarity and transparency to the Board’s current practices, and to provide greater efficiencies in its proceedings. The Board proposes several modifications to Califor- nia Code of Regulations, title 8, sections 359.1 and 361.3. The Board’s rules do not currently distinguish between a docketed and a perfected appeal; the terms are functionally synonymous. In order for an employ- er’s appeal to be docketed and perfected,

section 359.1 requires, among other things, that the employer provide the Board copies of the citations it is appealing. The Board proposes modifications to sections 359.1 and 361.3 that will eliminate the requirement that the em- ployer provide the Board copies of the citations it is ap- pealing. The Board proposes instead to require that the Division provide copies of the appealed citations.

To re- move the requirement that an employer provide copies of the citations being appealed and place that burden on the Division, it is necessary for the Board to modify its rules concerning docketing and perfecting an appeal. The Board will need to distinguish the procedures for docketing and perfecting an appeal, and allow an em- ployer’s appeal to be docketed before it is deemed per- fected. The Board will have to delay determination of whether an appeal has been perfected until after it re- ceives a copy of the appealed citations from the Division.

The Board proposes modifications to sections 359.1 and 361.3 that will allow an employer’s appeal to be docketed, without first being perfected, when it pro- vides the Board certain basic information, such as its contact information, the inspection number, the citation and item numbers it is appealing, and the components of the citation(

s) it is challenging. An employer need not provide the Board a copy of the citations it is appealing. Once the appeal is docketed, the Board will serve on the parties a “Notice of Docketed Appeal.” After service of this notice, the Division will have 15 working days to provide the Board a copy of all the citations being ap- 965

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 27-Z pealed. Once the Division provides a copy of the cita- tions being appealed, if the Board determines that the employer’s appeal was initiated timely and all required information has been properly submitted, the employ- er’s appeal will then be deemed perfected and the Board will provide the parties a notice advising that the appeal has been perfected. Further, the proposed revisions to

section 359.1 will specify that party discovery may commence upon per- fection of an appeal. The Board will provide the parties a notice informing them of their right to conduct discov- ery. The notice shall inform the parties of the discovery mechanisms available under its regulations, including those contained in sections 372, 372.1, 372.2, and 372.3. The Board also proposes to reword certain portions of

section 359.1 and 361.3 to make them more readily un- derstandable and proposes a modification to the title of

section 359.1. The aforementioned changes to sections 359.1 and 361.3, which modify the Board’s rules concerning docketing and perfecting an appeal, will require modifi- cation to several other regulations in order to make the Board’s rules internally consistent. The Board proposes changes to the

definitions contained in

section 347 to make them consistent with the proposed changes to sec- tions 359.1 and 361.3. The definition of “Docketed” will be modified to reflect that an appeal need not be perfected in order to be docketed. Further, a definition will be created for “Docket Number,” which provides that the docket number will be the same as the inspec- tion number. The Board also proposes modifications to

section 373, concerning expedited proceedings, to make it con- sistent with the changes to sections 359.1 and 361.3. Specifically, the Board proposes to modify

section 373, subsection (c), to require that the Board provide an em- ployer a copy of the notice advising that the appeal has been perfected. The Board also proposes to alter

section 373, subsection (c)(1) to require, in expedited proceed- ings, that a telephonic status conference be held within 30 days of perfection of the appeal, rather than within 30 days of docketing. The Board also proposes two modifications to

section 372.2 concerning the issuance of subpoenas in Board proceedings in an effort to create greater efficiencies. First, the Board proposes to modify

section 372.2 to re- quire licensed members of the California State Bar, act- ing in a representative capacity, to issue their own sub- poenas and subpoenas duces tecum. Attorneys may use an optional subpoena form provided by the Board for the issuance of the subpoenas. A subpoena issued by an attorney must advise the subpoenaed party or witness of their right to file a motion to quash or modify the sub- poena with the Appeals Board. Second, the Board pro- poses to give Board staff five working days to process requests for subpoenas, except that this time period may be shortened on a showing of good cause. Finally, the Board proposes the repeal of

section 372.9, which requires that the Division provide em- ployers copies of all documents and evidence in its pos- session within a specified 30−day period. Anticipated Benefits of the Proposed Regulations: Anticipated Benefits of Proposed Revisions to Sections 359.1 and 361.3 — The current requirement, contained in

section 359.1, that an employer provide copies of the citations it is appealing in order to docket and perfect its appeal has proven to be confusing and counterintuitive for some employers, such as small businesses, resulting in the dismissal of some appeals on procedural grounds. The Board seeks to reduce the number of appeals dismissed for procedural reasons by making the appeal and docketing process simpler for employers and removing the requirement that the em- ployer provide copies of the citations.

The Board antici- pates that these regulatory changes will reduce the num- ber of appeals dismissed on procedural grounds and in- crease the number of employer appeals heard on the merits. Anticipated Benefits of Proposed Revisions to Sections 347 and 373 — The proposed changes to these rules will make them consistent with the proposed changes to sections 359.1 and 361.3, discussed above. Anticipated Benefits of Proposed Revisions to

Section 372.2 — Several California jurisdictions allow licensed members of the California State Bar to issue subpoenas. It is routinely allowed by California courts and some other state agencies. (See, e.g., Code of Civil Procedure § 1985.) The Board discerns no reason why attorneys permitted to issue subpoenas in California courts should not also be allowed to do so in Board pro- ceedings. Board staff must spend time processing re- quests for subpoenas, including for those parties repre- sented by counsel. The Board anticipates that the pro- posed modification to

section 372.2, requiring mem- bers of the California State Bar to issue their own sub- poenas, will reduce the amount of Board staff time spent processing subpoena requests. This modification will ensure better utilization of Board resources. In ad- dition, for those parties not represented by counsel who continue to request subpoenas from the Board, the pro- posed modification to

section 372.2 allowing Board staff five working days to process subpoenas will en- sure that Board staff is not unnecessarily burdened by last minute and dilatory requests for issuance of sub- poenas. The proposed modification will allow Board staff to better plan and manage their workload, and pro- mote greater efficiencies in Board operations. 966

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 27-Z Anticipated Benefits of Proposed Repeal of

Section 372.9 — The Board proposes repeal of

section 372.9 because application of the rule is not desirable or bene- ficial in all cases.

Section 372.9 currently requires, in each and every case, that the Division automatically provide each appealing employer copies of all docu- ments and evidence within its possession related to the employer’s appeal within a 30−day time period. Divi- sion staff must spend time providing these documents in each case. However, not every case needs or benefits from this mandatory discovery rule. Many cases settle early without the need for an exchange of documents and evidence. In such cases, the automatic production of discovery required in

section 372.9 becomes an un- necessary burden on the Division. The repeal of this

section will provide greater efficiencies and ensure bet- ter utilization of resources, as the Division will only be required to produce discovery when it receives a written discovery request, i.e. where the discovery is needed and wanted by the requesting employer. The repeal of

section 372.9 may also save employers money. Under

section 372.9, the Division has to make copies of all documents and evidence in its file and provide them to the employer. The Division requires an employer to pay a certain amount of money for these copies, e.g. 20 dol- lars for production of a compact disc containing data. The repeal of the

section will benefit employers be- cause they will no longer be required to incur copying charges in each and every case, but rather only in cases where they explicitly make a written discovery request. Determination of Inconsistency/Incompatibility with Existing State Regulations: The Board has concluded that these changes related to the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure are not inconsistent or incompatible with existing state regula- tions.

After conducting a review for any regulations that would relate to or affect this area, the Board has con- cluded that these are the only regulations that concern the Board’s internal rules of practice and procedure concerning the perfection of an employer’s appeal, sub- poenas in Board proceedings, and the Division’s pro- duction of evidence when an appeal is filed. 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: There are three major elements to the Board’s current proposal. The proposed rule changes will result in some additional costs and savings for both the Division and the Appeals Board. While the exact costs and savings are unknown, they should not exceed the amounts specified below. Sections 347, 359.1, 361.3, and 373 — The proposed changes to these sections will shift the duty to provide the citation package from the employer to the Division. Both the Division and Board will incur some costs as a result of this change.

It is estimated that Division Man- agement Services Technicians (MSTs) will spend 10−15 minutes per case, on average, electronically up- loading the citations to the Board’s electronic case file within the Board’s OASIS system. The Board receives approximately 2,800 appealed cases per year.

The MSTs are estimated to work at an hourly rate (with ben- efits) of 30.60 dollars, 1 meaning the costs for the Divi- sion’s MSTs to provide the citations should not exceed 21,420 dollars. (2,800 appealed cases * .25 hours * 30.60 hourly wage = 21,420 dollars.) The Board also es- timates a 0.6 percent increase in the number of overall appeals it receives, representing an increase of approxi- mately 17 appeals per year. However, the Board cannot quantify the exact costs it will incur handling this in- crease.

It would require speculation as to whether each 1 The MST hourly rate was calculated using the mid−range monthly salary for the position on the Civil Service Pay Scale <https://www.calhr.ca.gov/Pay%20Scales%20Library/PS_Sec_ 15.pdf>. The base salary for that position was 2,822 dollars and the max salary 4,111 dollars, making the mid−range salary 3,467 dollars. The Board determined the hourly rate for the employees based on an estimate of 173.33 hours per month.

The Board then added an additional 53% for other benefits. 3,467 dollar monthly salary / 173.33 hours per month = 20 dollars per hour. 20 dollars * 1.53 benefits = 30.60 dollar hourly rate with benefits. 967

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 27-Z additional case will settle early, require a hearing, re- quire a decision, require reconsideration, or proceed to a writ stage. No savings are anticipated from these rule changes.

Section 372.2 — This rule change will require attor- neys issue their own subpoenas. It is not anticipated that either the Division or the Board will incur any costs as a result of the proposed rule change. The Board will incur some savings. The Board receives approximately 1000 requests for subpoenas each year, with each taking on average 15 minutes to process. The subpoena requests are generally processed by a Legal Analyst, working at an estimated hourly rate (with benefits) of 43.89 dollars, 2 which means that the Board incurs approxi- mately 10,9723 dollars per year in personnel costs pro- cessing subpoenas.

The Board anticipates a 90 percent reduction in the amount of subpoena requests it will re- ceive, since most subpoena requests come from attor- neys. This will result in annual personnel savings of ap- proximately 9,875 dollars.

Section 372.9 — The repeal of this rule will produce savings to the Division. The Board estimates it takes on average one hour and 15 minutes for a Division MST to produce discovery to an Employer. Assuming that the Division strictly complied with

section 372.9 for all ap- pealed cases, the Division would incur annual costs of approximately 107,100 dollars producing discovery for each appealed case. (2,800 appealed cases *1.25 hours * 30.60 hourly wage = 107,100 dollars.) Following the repeal of this rule, while the Division would still be re- quired to incur discovery production costs when a writ- ten discovery request is made, it would not automatical- ly incur such costs in all cases as required by

section 372.9. The Board estimates that at least 34 percent of cases, or approximately 952 cases annually, will settle without issuance of a written discovery request, since approximately 34 percent of cases settle within the first 90 days. Following the repeal of

section 372.9, the Divi- sion may be required to produce discovery in, at most, 66 percent of cases rather than 100 percent of cases, conveying savings of 36,414 dollars. However, this projection of savings may be high. First, the projection assumes the Division’s strict compliance with

section 2 The Legal Analyst hourly rate was calculated using the mid− range monthly salary of 4,973 dollars for the position on the Civil Service Pay Scale <https://www.calhr.ca.gov/Pay%20Scales% 20Library/PS_Sec_15.pdf.> The base salary for that position is 4344 dollars and the max salary is 5602 dollars, making the mid− range salary 4973 dollars. The Board determined the hourly rate for the employees based on an estimate of 173.33 hours per month.

The Board then added an additional 53% for other bene- fits. 4,973 dollars monthly salary/173.33 hours per month = 28.69 dollars per hour. 28.69 dollars * 1.53 benefits = 43.89 dollars hourly rate with benefits. 3 Derived from following formula: 1,000 subpoena requests * .25 hours * 43.89 dollars hourly rate = 10,972 dollars. 372.9, but the Board is informed that the Division does not currently strictly comply with the

section meaning they are not automatically incurring such costs in all cases. Next, there are also other reasons why the projec- tion may be inaccurate. The percentage of cases where no written discovery request is made may be higher. Therefore, the exact savings are unknown. It is not an- ticipated that any costs will be incurred as a result of this rule change. Cost to any local agency or school district which must be reimbursed in accordance with Govern- ment Code sections 17500 through 17630: None.

Other nondiscretionary cost or savings imposed on local agencies: Based on a six−month sample of cas- es (cases both opened and closed in that time period), lo- cal government entity appeals represent approximately 1.3 percent of the appeals before the Board, or approxi- mately 36 of 2800 appealed cases per year. The Board estimates that local government entities will have repre- sentatives. Assuming there was current strict compli- ance with

section 372.9, following the repeal of that section, if a local entity wanted discovery from the Di- vision, their representative will have to issue written discovery request. The Board estimates the representa- tives charge an hourly rate of approximately 300 dollars per hour. The Board estimates that the representatives will spend no more than 15 minutes issuing a written discovery request following the repeal of rule 372.9. The costs for issuance of a discovery request will be ap- proximately 75 dollars per case.

Due to the number of cases that settle within the first 90 days, the Board esti- mates written discovery requests may be made in, at most, 66 percent of appealed cases, representing 24 cas- es. The annual costs for issuance of discovery for such local government entities may be as much as 1,800 dol- lars annually (24 discovery requests × 75 dollars = 1,800 dollars), but is not expected to exceed that amount. But, as discussed above, this projection may be high. The projection assumes the Division’s current strict compliance with

section 372.9, but the Board is informed that the Division does not currently strictly comply with the section, meaning parties already often incur such costs. Next, there are also other reasons why the projection may be inaccurate. The percentage of cases where no written discovery request is made may be higher. Cost or savings in federal funding to the state: None. Cost impacts on a representative private person or business: There are three major elements to the Board’s current proposal. While the exact costs and sav- ings are unknown, they should not exceed the amounts specified below.

Sections 347, 359.1, 361.3, and 373 — The proposed changes to these regulations remove the requirement 968

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 27-Z that an appealing employer provide copies of the cita- tions being appealed to the Board, and shifts that burden to the Division. It is estimated no business will incur costs as a result of this rule change. However, savings are anticipated from these rule changes. By removing the requirement that employer provide copies of the ci- tations, the proposed rule changes will make it easier and more efficient for employers and their representa- tives to file appeals, conveying a monetary benefit and savings to some employers.

For self−represented busi- nesses or individuals, the monetary benefit will be neg- ligible and unquantifiable. It will simply make the process of filing an appeal faster and simpler. For busi- nesses or individuals represented by an attorney or non− attorney representative, accounting for approximately half of all appeals before the Board, savings will depend on the rate charged by the representative. The Board es- timates that employers in half of all appealed cases, or approximately 1,400 cases per year, have representa- tion.

The Board estimates that it takes representatives approximately 15 minutes to submit copies of the cita- tions to the Board during the appeal process. As dis- cussed above, the Board estimates an average hourly rate of 300 dollars per hour. The costs for submission of the citations will be approximately 75 dollars per case for represented parties, and the elimination of that re- quirement will convey an annual savings of approxi- mately 105,000 dollars. (1,400 appealed cases with rep- resentatives × 75 dollars = 105,000 dollars.)

Section 372.2 — The proposed changes to this regu- lation require licensed members of the California State Bar to issue their own subpoenas rather than requesting them from the Board. It is estimated that no business will incur a cost due to this proposed rule change. There are also no anticipated savings.

Section 372.9 — The repeal of

section 372.9, requir- ing the Division to automatically produce documents and evidence in its possession to an appealing employer within a specified 30−day time period may require em- ployers to incur costs that would not be necessary were there strict compliance with

section 372.9. However, the exact costs are unknown. Following the repeal of

section 372.9, an employer desiring discovery will not be entitled to discovery as a matter of right, but will need to make a written request to the Division pursuant to the Board’s other discovery rules (i.e., sections 372 and 372.1). Based on a sample of approximately 900 cases, approximately 34 percent of cases will be unlike- ly to require discovery requests since they settle within the first 90 days. Therefore, the Board estimates that written discovery requests may be made in, at most, 66 percent of appealed cases, representing approximately 1,848 cases per year.

For self−represented businesses or individuals, the costs for requesting discovery will be negligible and un- quantifiable, amounting to no more than preparation of a written request for the limited items of discovery per- missible under the Board’s other discovery rules.

For business or individuals represented by an attor- ney or non−attorney representative, accounting for ap- proximately half of appeals before the Board, the costs for issuance of a discovery request will depend on the rate charged by the representative, which will vary based on the representative’s experience, qualifica- tions, attorney status, and other metrics. The Board esti- mates an average hourly rate for representatives of 300 dollars per hour.

The Board estimates representatives will spend no more than 15 minutes issuing a written discovery request, as the Board’s discovery rules permit only limited discovery. The costs for issuance of a dis- covery request will be approximately 75 dollars per case for represented parties. The Board further esti- mates that businesses or individuals will be represented in half of all appealed cases.

The annual costs for is- suance of discovery for represented parties may be as much as 69,300 dollars annually (1,848 discovery re- quests − 50 percent of cases × 75 dollars = 69,300 dol- lars), but is not expected to exceed that amount. These costs would not be required if

section 372.9 were in ef- fect and strictly enforced. However, this initial cost pro- jection may be high. The projection assumes the Divi- sion’s strict compliance with

section 372.9, but the Board is informed that the Division does not strictly comply with

section 372.9, meaning parties already of- ten incur such costs issuing written discovery. Next, there are also other reasons why the projection may be inaccurate. The percentage of cases where no written discovery request is made may be higher. Thus, the ex- act costs are unknown. The repeal of the automatic discovery rule may also provide some savings to employers since they will only be required to incur copying charges for discovery that they specifically request, rather than automatically in- curring copying charges in all cases. The Division is en- titled to receive 0.19 cents per page copied.

The Divi- sion charges approximately 20 dollars for compact disks containing digital copies of the discovery file. Following the repeal of

section 372.9, the Board esti- mates that at least 34 percent of cases, or approximately 952 cases annually, will settle without issuance of a written discovery request. Again, approximately 34 percent of cases settle within the first 90 days (based on a sample of approximately 900 cases), conveying sav- ings annually of as much as approximately 19,040 dol- lars. (952 × 20 dollars =19,040 dollars.) However, as discussed above, this projection of savings may be quite high. The projection assumes the Division’s strict com- pliance with

section 372.9 and it assumes 20 dollars for copying costs, but the Board is informed that the Divi- sion does not strictly comply with

section 372.9 and that 969

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 27-Z copying costs may be lower in some instances. For these reasons, the exact savings are unknown. Like- wise, discovery may be requested in a smaller percent- age of cases. Significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states: None. Effect on Small Business: The Board estimates the percentage of small businesses that appeal citations to the Board correlates to the percentage of small busi- nesses in the economy at large.

Based on data received from the California Employment Development Depart- ment (EDD), approximately 81.9 percent of businesses have less than nine total employees. 4 The effect on small business will be the same as for any employer. However, on balance, it is unlikely that the proposed regulations will negatively affect small business as these regulations generally serve to clarify the Board’s policies and procedures and make the appeal process simpler for smaller employers.

The Board anticipates that these regulatory changes will reduce the number of appeals dismissed on procedural grounds, particularly for small employers, and increase the number of em- ployer appeals heard on the merits.

Results of the Economic Impact Analysis The Board concludes that it is (1) unlikely that the proposed regulations will either create or eliminate any jobs in the State of California; (2) unlikely that the pro- posed regulations will lead to the creation of new busi- nesses or the elimination of existing businesses within the State of California; and (3) unlikely that the pro- posed regulations will lead to the expansion of busi- nesses currently doing businesses within the state of California.

Benefits of the Proposed Action: The procedural amendments directly benefit the health and welfare of California workers by clarifying and increasing the effi- ciency in the administrative process generally, which helps achieve the purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and also benefits the public. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES In accordance with Government Code

section 11346.5 subdivision (a)(13), the Board must determine that no reasonable alternative it considered or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the agency would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private per- 4 EDD, California Establishments by Size Class, Third Quarter 2017 <https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/indsize/ chart_sob2017_3.pdf> [accessed 4.2.2019]. sons than the proposed action or would be more cost− effective to affected private persons and equally effec- tive in implementing the statutory policy or other provi- sion of law.

The Board invites interested persons to present state- ments or arguments with respect to alternatives to the proposed regulations at the scheduled hearing or during the written comment period.

CONTACT PERSONS Inquiries concerning the proposed administrative ac- tion may be directed to: Aaron Jackson, Staff Counsel ajackson@dir.ca.gov Cal/OSHA Appeals Board 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95833 Phone Number: (916) 274−5751 Please direct requests for copies of the proposed text (the “express terms”) of the regulations, the initial state- ment of reasons, the modified text of the regulations, if any, or other information upon which the rulemaking is based to Mr. Jackson at the above address. The designated backup contact person to whom in- quiries may be made is J.

Jeffrey Mojcher, and inquiries may be made to J. Jeffrey Mojcher, Chief Counsel jmojcher@dir.ca.gov Cal/OSHA Appeals Board 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95833 Phone Number: (916) 274−5751 A V AILABILITY OF STATEMENT OR REASONS, TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS, AND RULEMAKING FILE The Board will have the entire rulemaking file avail- able for inspection and copying throughout the rule- making process at its office 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 and the initial statement of rea- sons. Copies may be obtained by contacting Mr. Jack- son at the contact information listed above. A V AILABILITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT After holding the hearing and considering all timely and relevant comments received, the Board may adopt the proposed regulations substantially as described in 970

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 27-Z this notice. If the Board makes modifications which are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text, it will make the modified text (with the changes clearly indicated) available to the public for at least 15 days be- fore the Board adopts the regulations as revised. Please send requests for copies of any modified regulations to the attention of Mr. Jackson at the address indicated above. The Board will accept written comments on the modified regulations for 15 days after the date on which they are made available.

A V AILABILITY OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Upon its completion, copies of the Final Statement of Reasons may be obtained by contacting Mr. Jackson at the above address. A V AILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS ON THE INTERNET Copies of the Notice of Proposed Action, the Initial Statement of Reasons, and the text of the regulations in underline and strikethrough can be accessed through our website at https://www.dir.ca.gov/oshab/ Rulemak- ing.htm. TITLE 10.

BUREAU OF REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Bureau of Re- al Estate Appraisers (“Bureau” or “BREA”) is propos- ing to take the action described in the informative digest below. PUBLIC HEARING The Bureau has not scheduled a public hearing on this proposed action. However, the Bureau will hold a hear- ing if it receives a written request for a public hearing from any interested person, or his or her authorized rep- resentative, no later than 15 days prior to the close of the written comment period.

A hearing may be requested by making such request in writing addressed to the indi- viduals listed under “Contact Person” in this Notice. COMMENT PERIOD Written comments, including those sent by mail or email to the address listed under “Contact Person” in this Notice, must be received by the Bureau at its office not later than 5:00 p.m. on August 23, 2019.

A V AILABILITY OF MODIFICATIONS The Bureau, upon its own motion or at the instance of any interested party, may thereafter adopt the proposals substantially as described below or may modify such proposals if such modifications are sufficiently related to the original text.

With the exception of technical or grammatical changes, the full text of any modified pro- posal will be available for 15 days prior to its adoption from the person designated in this Notice as contact per- son and will be mailed to those persons who submit written comments related to this proposal or who have requested notification of any changes to the proposal.

AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Pursuant to the authority vested by Sections 11313, 11314, 11324, 11340, 11350, and 11352 of the Business and Professions Code and to implement, interpret and make specific Sections 11340, 11350, and 11351 of the Business and Professions Code, the Bureau is consider- ing revising sections 3525, 3541, and 3542 to Title 10 of the California Code of Regulations as described in this Notice. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW Title 10,

Section 3525(

c) of the California Code of Regulations (“CCR”) requires Temporary Practice Per- mit (TPP) applicants be from states that are compliant with Title XI as determined by the Appraisal Subcom- mittee (ASC). The problem is the ASC rarely finds any state compliant with Title XI. Usually, there are minor and easily remedied deficiencies. These state deficien- cies should not prohibit an applicant from receiving a TPP. The more meaningful measure is whether the ASC recognizes the state. Derecognition only occurs if the state has severe violations of Title XI.

In those cases, li- censees from that state should not be allowed to practice in California, even on a temporary basis. Therefore, the Bureau proposes to change the standard from “compli- ant” to “recognized.”

Section 3525 explains when a TPP is required. Cur- rently, a TPP is required when any appraiser licensed in another state enters California to appraise or provide technical review services in a federally related transac- tion. The proposed change to the categories mentioned above includes removing the definition of “technical re- view.” As a result,

section 3525(e)’s reference to “tech- nical review” will become ambiguous and needs to be removed for clarity. Additionally, effective January 1, 2018, Business and Professions Code

section 11302(

b) redefined the term “appraisal” to be more encompass- ing as “the act or process of developing an opinion of 971

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 27-Z value for real property.” Considering the changes men- tioned above, the Bureau proposes to require a TPP when a person licensed as an appraiser in a state other than California enters California to conduct an ap- praisal in a federally related transaction.

Section 3541 sets the minimum experience required for applicants to receive an appraiser license. The Ap- praisal Foundation’s Appraisal Qualification Board (AQB) reduced the experience requirements effective May 1, 2018. The Bureau must meet the requirements established by the AQB. 1 The Bureau is proposing to reduce its requirements to the AQB’s requirements. The proposed reduction will still ensure licensees have ade- quate experience while reducing the level needed to en- ter the profession and upgrade licenses. Sections 3541 and 3542 contain a list of eleven cate- gories.

The applicant completes the license application and categorizes their experience. Regardless of catego- ry, all experience must be written and comply with the minimum requirements of Uniform Standards of Pro- fessional Practice (USPAP). 2 The categories are unnec- essary as they merely detail the type of experience such as: fee; ad valorum; and review. The Bureau does not need to know what type (category) of experience was earned by the applicant. Instead, the Bureau simply needs to verify the work is written and complies with USPAP.

This simplification will make the application process easier for the applicant because they will no longer need to spend time categorizing their experi- ence. This will also make the Bureau’s evaluation process faster as categories will not be included in the application. ANTICIPATED BENEFITS The benefit is a streamlined application process with a lower level of experience required. This will assist in completing the application and encouraging more ap- plicants to apply. While applicants will be encouraged to apply, the Bureau does not expect an increase in ap- plicants and any increase would be unquantifiable.

Ad- ditionally, it will benefit license applicants by clarifying

section 3525 and ensuring all appraisals for federally 1 Business and Professions Code

section 11314. 2 Business and Professions Code

section 11314 states in relevant part: “Requirements for each level of licensure shall, at a mini- mum, meet the criteria established by the Appraiser Qualification Board of the Appraisal Foundation.” The Appraiser Qualification Board states in relevant part: “All experience must be obtained af- ter January 30, 1989, and must be USPAP−compliant.” (See page 9 of AQB’s generic experience criteria.) related transactions are completed by licensed individ- uals as required by federal3 and state4 law.

CONSISTENCY OR COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING STATE REGULATIONS During the process of developing these regulations, the Bureau has conducted a search of any similar regu- lations on this topic and has determined that there is no reasonable

interpretation of any state regulation that is inconsistent or incompatible with the proposed action. FISCAL IMPACT ESTIMATES Fiscal Impact on Public Agencies Including Costs or Savings to State Agencies or Costs/Savings in Federal Funding to the State: There will be no substantial cost or savings. There may be a small increase in the number of applications due to the decrease in licensing require- ments. However, the Bureau does not expect an in- crease and if there is an increase it will be unquantifiable. Nondiscretionary Costs/Savings to Local Agencies: None.

Cost to, or mandate imposed on, any Local Agency or School District for Which Government Code Sections 17500−17630 Require Reimbursement: None. Business Impact: The Bureau initially determines that the proposed regulations will not have a significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. This is be- cause the requirements for licensure are being slightly reduced, which will cause a modest and absorbable in- crease in applications.

Impact on Jobs/New Businesses: There will likely not be a significant enough increase in applications to impact jobs or businesses. Cost Impact on Representative Private Person or Business: The agency is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action. Effect on Housing Costs: None. Effect on Small Businesses: The proposal slightly re- duces the experience requirement which may cause a small increase in licensure, but will not be enough to ef- fect small businesses.

RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT Impact on Jobs/New Businesses: There will be no creation or elimination of jobs or businesses nor will the 3 12 U.S.C. 3331. 4 Business and Professions Code

section 11320. 972

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 27-Z proposed regulations affect the expansion of existing businesses. Benefits: The benefit is a streamlined application process that is easier for the applicant and the Bureau to complete and process. Occupations/Businesses Impacted: None. Reporting Requirements: There will be no new reporting. Comparable Federal Regulations: None. Benefits of the Regulation to the Health and Welfare of California Residents, Worker Safety, and the State’s Environment: The benefit will be less time and stress spent filling out applications.

There will be no benefit related to worker safety or the environment because the proposed action does not involve worker safety issues or the environment.

CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES The Bureau must determine that no reasonable alter- native considered by the Bureau or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the Bu- reau would be more effective in carrying out the pur- pose for which the action is proposed, would be as ef- fective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action, or would be more cost− effective to affected private persons and equally effec- tive in implementing the statutory policy or other provi- sion of law.

INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS AND INFORMATION The Bureau has prepared an initial statement of rea- sons which contains the purpose, rationale, and necessi- ty for the proposed action. The proposed text, this notice, the statement of rea- sons, and any other relevant documents are on the Bu- reau’s website at www.brea.ca.gov. Click the “Laws & Enforcement” tab at the top of the page.

Under the head- ing “Rulemaking Notifications” find the documents as- sociated with this rulemaking subject: “Minimum Experience.” A V AILABILITY AND LOCATION OF THE STATEMENT OF REASONS, TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATION AND RULEMAKING FILE All the information upon which the proposed regula- tions are based is contained in the rulemaking file, which is available for public inspection by contacting the person named below. As of the date this notice is published in the Notice of Register, the rulemaking file consists of this notice, the proposed text of the regula- tion and the initial statement of reasons.

Copies may be obtained by contacting the person named below or by accessing the website as provided above. A V AILABILITY OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Upon its completion, copies of the Final Statement of Reasons may be obtained by contacting the person named below.

CONTACT PERSON Inquiries or comments concerning the proposed rule- making action may be addressed to: Kyle Muteff, Legal Counsel 3075 Prospect Park Drive, Ste. 190, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Phone: 916−341−6126 FAX: 916−464−0131 kyle.muteff@brea.ca.gov The backup person is: Mary Ann Lopez 3075 Prospect Park Drive, Ste. 190, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Phone: 916−440−7876 FAX: 916−464−0131 maryann.lopez@brea.ca.gov TITLE 10.

DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE REG−2019−00018 NOTICE OF PROPOSED ACTION AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE CALIFORNIA AUTOMOBILE ASSIGNED RISK PLAN PLAN OF OPERATIONS SUBJECT OF HEARING California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara will hold a public hearing to address the proposed amendments to the California Automobile Assigned Risk Plan (CAARP) Plan of Operations. AUTHORITY TO ADOPT RULES AND PROCEDURES AND REFERENCE The Commissioner will consider the proposed changes pursuant to the authority vested in him by Sec- 973

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 27-Z tion 11620 of the California Insurance Code. The Com- missioner’s decision on the proposed changes will im- plement, interpret, or make specific the requirements of Insurance Code

Section 11624(e). Insurance Code Sec- tion 11620(

c) applies to this proceeding. HEARING DATE AND LOCATION Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held to permit all interested persons the opportunity to present statements or arguments, orally or in writing, with respect to the application at the following date, time, and place: Date: August 22, 2019 Time: 1:00 p.m. Place: Department of Insurance Hearing Room 300 South Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 The hearing will continue on the date noted above until all testimony has been submitted or until 5:00 p.m., whichever is earlier.

ACCESS TO HEARING ROOM The facilities to be used for the public hearing are ac- cessible to persons with mobility impairments. Persons with sight or hearing impairments are requested to noti- fy the contact person (listed below) for this hearing in order to make special arrangements, if necessary. WRITTEN AND/OR ORAL COMMENTS: AGENCY CONTACT PERSON All persons are invited to submit written comments to the Insurance Commissioner on the application prior to the public comment deadline.

Comments should be ad- dressed to the contact person for this proceeding: Contact Person: Michael Riordan, Attorney California Department of Insurance Rate Enforcement Bureau 45 Fremont Street, 21 st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 riordanm@insurance.ca.gov Telephone: (415) 538−4226 Facsimile: (415) 904−5490 The backup agency contact person for this proceed- ing will be: Emily Gallagher, Attorney California Department of Insurance Rate Enforcement Bureau 45 Fremont Street, 21 st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 gallaghere@insurance.ca.gov Telephone: (415) 538−4108 All persons are invited to present oral and/or written testimony at the scheduled public hearing.

DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS All written materials, unless submitted at the hearing, must be received by the Insurance Commissioner at the address listed above no later than 5:00 p.m. on Au- gust 22, 2019. Any written materials received after that time will not be considered. Written comments may al- so be submitted to the contact person by e−mail or fac- simile transmission. Please select only one method to submit written comments.

ADVOCACY OR WITNESS FEES Persons or groups representing the interest of con- sumers may be entitled to reasonable advocacy fees, witness fees, and other reasonable expenses, in accor- dance with the provisions of California Code of Regula- tions, Title 10, Sections 2662.1−2662.6 in connection with their participation in this matter. Interested persons must submit a Petition to Participate, as specified in California Code of Regulations, Title 10,

Section 2661.4. The Petition to Participate must be submitted to the Commissioner at the Office of the Public Advisor at the following address: California Department of Insurance Office of the Public Advisor 300 Spring Street, 12 th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 346−6635 A copy of the Petition to Participate must also be sub- mitted to the contact person for this hearing (listed above). For further information, please contact the Of- fice of the Public Advisor.

INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW CA 19−03 In the past two years, CAARP has experienced an in- crease in the number and size of Commercial Automo- bile Insurance Program (“CAIP”) premium charge− offs. Many of the premium char ge−offs can be attrib- uted to cost of hire coverage. When the application is 974

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 27-Z completed, Federal Highway Administration or Feder- al Motor Carrier Safety Administration filings or en- dorsements are required for certain commercial risks. The fields are not always completed and if they are the number of vehicles/units is not always accurate. This leads to inaccurate policy amounts and vehicles being under−insured. To provide more accurate premium development at the time of application or completion of a policy change request CAARP proposes a new CAIP supporting doc- umentation requirement introducing a new Inspected Units Form.

Producers will be required to complete the form when a commercial risk requires Federal Highway Administration or Federal Motor Carrier Safety Ad- ministration filings or endorsements. The producer must access the Safety and Fitness Electronic Records System (“SAFER”) offered by the Federal Motor Carri- er Safety Administration (“FMCSA”) to review in- spected vehicle/unit information and verify the number of vehicles/units involved. This protects consumers by calculating the correct premium and truckers having the correct coverages.

COMPARABLE FEDERAL LAW There are no comparable existing federal regulations or statutes. LOCAL MANDATE DETERMINATION The Insurance Commissioner has initially deter- mined that the application will not result in any new program mandates on local agencies or school districts. MANDATES ON LOCAL AGENCIES OR SCHOOL DISTRICTS OR COSTS WHICH MUST BE REIMBURSED PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 17500 THROUGH 17630 The Insurance Commissioner has initially deter- mined that the application will not result in any cost or significant savings to any local agency or school district for which

Part 7 (commencing with

Section 17500) of Division 4 of the Government Code would require re- imbursement, or in other nondiscretionary costs or sav- ings to local agencies. COST OR SA VINGS TO ANY STATE AGENCY; FEDERAL FUNDING The Commissioner has determined that the applica- tion will result in no cost or savings to any state agency and no cost or savings in federal funding to the state.

SIGNIFICANT STATEWIDE ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACT ON BUSINESSES AND THE ABILITY OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESSES TO COMPETE The Commissioner has initially determined that the proposal will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses, includ- ing the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. This proposal will have no ef- fect on the creation or elimination of jobs in California, the creation of new businesses, the elimination of exist- ing businesses in California, or the expansion of busi- nesses in California.

COST IMPACTS ON PRIV ATE PERSONS OR ENTITIES The Insurance Commissioner has initially deter- mined that the proposal will not affect private persons or entities. IMPACT ON HOUSING COSTS The Insurance Commissioner has initially deter- mined that the application will not affect housing costs. IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESS The proposed rate changes could affect small businesses. SPECIFIC TECHNOLOGIES OR EQUIPMENT The application would not mandate the use of specif- ic technologies or equipment.

ALTERNATIVES The Insurance Commissioner must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the agency, or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the atten- tion of the agency, would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action. PLAIN ENGLISH The application describing the proposal is in plain English. However, the application itself is based on technical actuarial principles. 975

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 27-Z TEXT AND INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS The Department has prepared an Initial Statement of Reasons addressing the proposed rate application in ad- dition to the Informative Digest included in this notice. The Initial Statement of Reasons, Notice of Proposed Action and Regulation Text are available for inspection or copying, and will be provided at no charge upon re- quest to the contact person listed above. Further details on CAARP’s proposal are on file with the Commission- er and available for review as set forth below.

FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS A Final Statement of Reasons will be prepared at the conclusion of this proceeding. Upon written or e−mail request to the contact person listed above, the Final Statement of Reasons will be made available for inspec- tion and copying once it has been prepared. A copy of the Final Statement of Reasons will also be posted on the Department’s website.

ACCESS TO RULEMAKING FILE Any interested person may inspect a copy of or direct questions about CAARP’s application, the statement of reasons, and any supplemental information contained in the rulemaking file by contacting the contact person listed above. By prior appointment, the rulemaking file is available for inspection at 45 Fremont Street, 21 st Floor, San Francisco, California 94105, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. AUTOMATIC MAILING A copy of this Notice, including the Informative Di- gest, is being sent to all persons on the Insurance Com- missioner’s mailing list.

A V AILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS ON THE INTERNET The Initial Statement of Reasons, proposed text, and this Notice of Proposed Action will be published online and may be accessed through the Department’s website at www.insurance.ca.gov. A V AILABILITY OF MODIFIED TEXT OF REGULATIONS If the Department amends the application with changes that are sufficiently related to the original ap- plication, the Department will make the full text of the amended rates, with the changes clearly indicated, available to the public for at least 15 days before the date the Department adopts the amended rates. TITLE 10.

GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT California Film and Television Tax Credit Program 3.0 Title 10,

Chapter 7.75, Sections 5520−5528 Notice is hereby given that the California Film Com- mission proposes to adopt the regulations described be- low after considering all comments, objections and rec- ommendations regarding the proposed action. PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION The Office proposes to adopt new sections 5520 through 5528 in Title 10 of the California Code of Regu- lations in order to implement, interpret and make spe- cific Revenue and Taxation Code sections 17053.98 and 23698 relating to a film and television tax credit program.

No public hearing is scheduled; however, any inter- ested person or his or her duly authorized representative may request a public hearing no later than fifteen (15) days prior to the close of the public comment period. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any interested person, or his or her authorized repre- sentative, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action to the Agency. Written com- ments will be accepted by the Agency until August 19, 2019. Submit comments to: Name: Nancy Rae Stone Address: California Film Commission 7080 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, CA 90028 976

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 27-Z Email: Nancy.Stone@film.ca.gov AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE The proposed regulation has been adopted under the authority of Government Code

section 11152, and Rev- enue and Taxation Code sections 17053.98(

e) and 23698(

e) and in order to implement, interpret and make specific Revenue and Taxation Code sections 17053.98 and 23698. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW The California Film Commission (CFC) proposes to adopt new sections 5520, 5521, 5522, 5523, 5524, 5525, 5526, 5527 and 5528. The regulations establish a procedure for allocating tax credits to qualified taxpay- ers in the motion picture industry. This tax credit pro- gram shall be named the California Film and Television Credit Program 3.0.

Existing law provides for a similar program, allocat- ing tax credits to qualified taxpayers in the motion pic- ture industry until July 1, 2020. The provisions in the existing program provide for applicants to file a written application for the allocation of the tax credit; and for the California Film Commission to establish criteria for allocating tax credits, determine and designate appli- cants who meet the requirements to apply for the tax credit, and issue the credit certificate to the qualified taxpayer upon completion of the Qualified Motion Pic- ture.

The existing program limits the aggregate amount of credits that may be allocated to qualified motion pic- tures in any fiscal year to $330,000,000. The California Film and Television Credit Program 3.0 includes the ability for all types of qualified productions to qualify for additional tax credits for the hiring of labor which resides and works outside the Los Angeles studio zone, bifurcates the Independent Film category by budget level, and includes a skilled pilot training program for underserved populations.

Section 5520 provides

definitions of terms used in the California Film and Television Tax Credit Program. This

section defines terms that are specific to this Pro- gram: Applicable Period, Applicant, California Film Commission, California in−state Vendor, Credit Allo- cation Letter, Contracted Services, Independent Film, Jobs Ratio, Local Hire Labor, Office or other place of business, Production Budget, and Reasonable Cause. This

section also defines the following terms used in the statute or regulation that are industry terms: Feature Film, Force Majeure, Hiatus, Miniseries, Outside Los Angeles Zone Vendor, Pass−through Business, Pick Up Order, Pilot, Principal Photography Days, Producer, Production budget, Recurring Series, Television Project, Television Season, Television Series and Vis- ual Effects. Local Hire Labor and Recurring series are new

definitions added for clarity; Miniseries was rede- fined in the statute and the regulatory definition was re− written to conform to it. Defining these terms will clari- fy the requirements in these regulations.

Section 5521 provides for an application process for the allocation of the tax credits. This

section will pro- vide for the announcement of a period of time when the production companies can apply for eligible tax credits in each fiscal year based on category type. The applica- tion process shall be in two phases. Phase 1 requires the applicant to complete an online application and to sub- mit a synopsis of the Qualified Motion Picture. The on- line application requires both the applicant’s contact and business structure information as well as informa- tion on the project, such as proposed filming days and proposed qualified wages and expenditures.

The project information allows the CFC to determine if there are any additional percentage points, known as “bonus points” in the industry, and to determine the Jobs Ratio of the applicant. The Jobs Ratio will be used to initially rank the applicants. The top ranked appli- cants will be notified and begin Phase II of the applica- tion process. Phase II will require the applicant to sub- mit a qualified expenditure budget, a One−Line Sched- ule, a Fringe Matrix, Screenplay, narrative statement or relocating statement, a financial plan.

If the Applicant is a Pilot, Relocating TV Series or New TV series, a Pick− up Order is also required. Recurring TV series may sub- mit an application without a pick up order but if not re- ceived within 140 calendar days, will be removed from the queue and may reapply during a future allocation period. All projects are required to submit their policies against unlawful harassment, specific company struc- tural and financial information, and, excluding the low- est tier Independent Film, a

summary of voluntary pro- grams to increase representation of women and minori- ties as well as information about how these programs are publicized to interested parties. Materials will be re- viewed for accuracy and an approved Adjusted Jobs Ratio will be determined. The top ranked applicants for which credits are available will be issued a Credit Allo- cation Letter (CAL), which is a reservation of tax cred- its. This

section shall also require a production compa- ny to commence filming no later than 180 calendar days after the Credit Allocation Letter is issued; projects with qualified expenditures over $100 million dollars have a deadline of 240 days. This program will also re- quire specific production company staff to attend an orientation meeting with the California Film Commis- sion. This

section provides that any television series 977

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 27-Z that has been approved and issued tax credits shall be placed at the top of the queue for the following open al- location period in the next fiscal year for the life of that series. However, a television series shall submit a new application each year and the queue placement will be based on the fiscal year of the original credit allocation and, if necessary, the current job ranking for that series.

Section 5522 identifies the eligibility requirements for Program 3.0. This

section requires that the applicant plans to produce a qualified motion picture and pro- vides that the qualified motion picture must be consis- tent with the requirements in the Revenue and Taxation Code. It also specifies that the applicants must plan to film at least 75% of principal photography days wholly in California or incur 75% of the production expendi- tures within California. This

section provides the crite- ria for a New Television Series or a Television Pilot for a New Television Series to be qualified. It also states that an animated production is not a Qualified Motion Pic- ture. This

section also specifies the maximum qualified expenditure amount eligible for tax credits for an Inde- pendent Film and the maximum qualified expenditure amount for a Feature Film, Television series, Pilot or Mini−series. The same maximum per category applies to the 5% augmentation. Also included is a provision which states that revocation of the tax credit reservation is final and not subject to review.

Section 5523 identifies the provisions in the statute for Qualified Expenditures and clarifies that State and Federal income taxes, Certified Public Accountant (CPA) fees, expenditures for rentals or purchases out of the state, expenditures for services performed outside of California, financial contributions related to the pilot career pathways training program and expenditures for exhibition of the production are not qualified expendi- tures. This

section also clarifies that elements created for foreign distribution and archival purposes are not considered final elements of the production. This sec- tion also states that the CFC shall provide charts identi- fying qualified expenditures and wages. These charts will be posted on the CFC website and provided only as a guide for the applicant.

Section 5524 provides for the procedures in allocat- ing the tax credits. The

section clarifies that the statute provides for the percentage of qualified expenditures allowed for a Qualified Motion Picture. A provision is included which delineates how unused credits from pre- vious tax credit programs will be allocated. This

section also provides that if the tax credits have been allocated for any allocation period, any applications still in the queue will remain in their Jobs Ratio ranking order until allocations become available, the applicant withdraws the application or the allocation period ends. A provi- sion in this

section allows for a five percent augmenta- tion to the tax credit allocated to the Qualified Motion Picture for productions that purchase or lease tangible personal property outside the Los Angeles zone during the applicable period and the personal property is used or consumed outside the Los Angeles zone or for a pro- duction company that incurs qualified wages for ser- vices performed relating to original photography out- side the Los Angeles zone. This

section also describes the methodology by which outside the Los Angeles zone partially consumed or totally consumed qualified non−wage expenditures are calculated and provides ex- amples of totally consumed non−wage expenditures. A 10% additional augmentation to the tax credit for the hiring of local labor working outside the Los Angeles zone is included. This

section will not apply to Indepen- dent Films or Relocating Television series already allo- cated 25% tax credits; however, these productions qual- ify for a 5% additional augmentation to the tax credit for the hiring of local labor working outside the Los Ange- les zone.

Section 5525 sets forth the elements of Phase III and provides reporting requirements for a production com- pany during the filming of the Qualified Motion Pic- ture, including submittal of daily call sheets, final pro- duction reports for Principal Photography and a report of any significant changes to the project, if applicable. This

section also requires the production company to be involved in the local training and public service pro- grams aimed at exposing high school students, commu- nity college students, and/or approved career−based learning program participants to jobs in the entertain- ment industry. Specific time requirements for profes- sional skills tours, faculty externships and internships are delineated and the minimum hours for workshops or panels have been eliminated.

The applicant will also have the option to make a financial contribution based on 0.25 percent of the estimated tax credit reservation with minimum and maximum requirements. This sec- tion also outlines the requirement to make a financial contribution to fund a pilot career pathways training program. The contribution is based on 0.25 percent of the estimated tax credit and must be paid no later than 10 days after acceptance into the program. The contribu- tion is refundable, in whole or in part, under specified circumstances.

Section 5526 provides for Phase IV — the issuance of the Tax Credit Certificate — which is the document is- sued to the qualified taxpayer upon completion of the Qualified Motion Picture. This

section defines a com- pleted project and requires the applicant to submit doc- uments verifying the completion of the project: proof of copyright registration of the screenplay; seller’s permit number, if applicable; documentation certifying date of completion of post−production; list of all cast and crew; and copy of script supervisor’s lined script or continuity/spotting log of the project. The Expenditure 978

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 27-Z

Summary Report must be completed via the portal on the CFC website. The applicant will provide informa- tion related to the completed production, including qualified expenditures, production shoot days and loca- tions, financial statistics, diversity and gender statistics for both qualified and non−qualified individuals which were voluntarily submitted by cast and crew and all oth- er information needed to determine bonus points and augmentation to the tax credit.

Also required: layout of the main and end titles; documentation for each visual effect, title, digital effects and /or post sound company contracted by the production company; a listing of lo- cales outside of California where any member of the ap- plicant’s combined reporting group has shot in the pre- ceding year; updated company structure and financial information; verification of participation in a career based learning program; and payment for the pilot ca- reer pathways training program.

The Agreed Upon Pro- cedures report is required to be completed by an inde- pendent licensed Certified Public Accountant (CPA) who has attended a California Film Commission CPA orientation meeting whose firm has a successful Peer Review. Miniseries shall be required to submit addi- tional documentation verifying initial distribution. This

section states that if the application is disapproved, the finding is final and not subject to administrative appeal.

Section 5527 provides for the Jobs Ratio Ranking Process. The statute requires the CFC to rank the appli- cations by a Jobs Ratio computation. The base ratio ranking is the amount of qualified wages paid to quali- fied individuals plus 35% of non−wage expenditures di- vided by the estimated amount of tax credits. Visual ef- fects vendor expenditures for work performed in Cali- fornia will be apportioned 70% labor, 30% non−labor. This ranking will be calculated online based on the data entered by the applicant. This

section also provides that an adjustment to the job ratio will be made for dollars spent on qualified visual effects performed in the state, number of principal photography days outside the Los Angeles studio zone and amount paid in qualified wages for music scoring and/or track recording. The Jobs Ratio calculation does not include tax credit amounts increased by the 5% or 10% augmentation for outside of the Los Angeles zone photography or visual effects expenditures. It also does not include a contin- gency or bond. Bonus points will be awarded in each area based on methodology provided for in this section.

The ranges used to assign the bonus points will be post- ed on the CFC website before each application period. Overstatement of the production plan may result in penalties as per the statute.

Section 5528 requires the holder of the Credit Certifi- cate to comply with promotional requirements, includ- ing an on−screen acknowledgement to the CFC, CFC logo, and five production stills. The production stills must come with cast approvals and illustrate the diver- sity of California locations and/or job creation and be used for promotional purposes by the CFC. This regulation will incorporate by reference the Cal- ifornia Film Commission forms that are required to be submitted during the application, filming and comple- tion of the motion picture phases of the process.

The following forms are incorporated by reference in these regulations: Credit Allocation Letter, CFC Form D3 (new. 06/25/19) This form provides for the written approval of the applicant and identifies the approved jobs ratio number and the number of tax credits for which the ap- plicant is eligible. Local Community Expenditure Report, CFC Form LE3 (new. 06/25/19). This form provides production expenditure statistics on wage and non−wage expendi- tures outside the Los Angeles studio zone and is re- quired of productions with expenditures of $100,000 or more outside the Los Angeles studio zone.

The Tax Credit Certificate, CFC Form M3 (new. 06/25/19) is the actual tax credit certificate that will be issued by the CFC and is the document that will be sub- mitted to the Franchise Tax Board or the Board of Equalization. Career Readiness Forms, CFC Forms CR 1−5 (as applicable): CFC Form CR1 (new. 06/25/19) verifies paid internship(

s) CFC Form CR2 (new. 06/25/19) verifies professional skills tour participation CFC Form CR3 (new. 06/25/19) verifies faculty ex- ternship participation CFC Form CR4 (new. 06/25/19) verifies classroom workshop/panel participation CFC Form CR5 (new. 06/25/19) verifies financial contribution CONSISTENCY AND COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING STATE REGULATIONS After conducting a review for any regulations that would relate to or affect this area, the California Film Commission Board evaluated this regulatory proposal and finds that it is not inconsistent or incompatible with existing state regulations.

ANTICIPATED BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION The proposed regulations will provide a program to the motion picture industry allocating tax credits for qualified motion pictures. These tax credit incentives will encourage production companies regardless of dis- tribution outlet to film in California instead of other 979

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 27-Z states, provinces and countries offering incentives. Pro- gram 3.0 is structured to emphasize job creation when allocating tax credits and provides separate funding cat- egories to ensure tax credits for multiple types of pro- ductions. The program is enabling California to in- crease the number of productions and therefore, jobs and dollars spent in state. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE The proposed regulations have been adopted under the authority of Revenue and Taxation Code sections 17053.98(

e) and 23698(

e) to implement, interpret and make specific Revenue and Taxation Code sections 17053.98 and 23698.

ESTIMATES OF ECONOMIC IMPACT The California Film Commission has made the fol- lowing 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 Government Code sections 17500 through 17630: None.  Other nondiscretionary cost or savings imposed on local agencies: None.  Cost or savings in federal funding to the state: None.  Significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states: None.  Potential cost impact on representative persons or businesses: The agency is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action.  Significant effect on housing costs: None.

EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESS The California Film Commission has determined that the proposed regulations will not directly affect small business. The businesses that are complying with these regulations are film production companies and are not small businesses. Small businesses in California do, however, provide goods and services to the businesses complying with these regulations and will benefit from the additional filming in California.

RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Adoption of these regulations will: (1) facilitate the creation of jobs within California; (2) facilitate the cre- ation of businesses within California; and (3) facilitate the expansion of businesses currently doing business within California. As stated above under Anticipated Benefits of the Proposed Regulation, these tax credit in- centives will encourage production companies regard- less of distribution outlet to film in California instead of other states, provinces and countries offering incen- tives.

Program 3.0 is structured to emphasize job cre- ation and provides separate funding categories to en- sure tax credits for multiple types of productions. The program is enabling California to increase the number of productions and therefore, jobs and dollars spent in state.

REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The California Film Commission must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the Com- mission or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the Board would be more ef- fective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed or would be as effective as and less burden- some to affected private persons than the proposed ac- tion, or would be more cost effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law.

CONTACT PERSON Inquiries concerning the proposed action may be di- rected to: Name: Nancy Rae Stone Email: Nancy.Stone@film.ca.gov The backup contact person for these inquiries is: Name: Leah Medrano Email: Leah.Medrano@film.ca.gov Phone Number: 323−860−2960 Questions on the substance of the proposed regula- tions may be directed to: Name: Nancy Rae Stone Phone Number: 323−860−2960 980

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 27-Z A V AILABILITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT After the close of the forty−five (45) day public com- ment period, the California Film Commission (CFC) may adopt the proposed regulation. As a result of public comments, either oral or written, that are received by the CFC regarding this proposal, the CFC may deter- mine that changes to the proposed regulations are ap- propriate.

If the CFC makes modifications that are suf- ficiently related to the originally proposed text, it will make the modified text (with the changes clearly indi- cated) available to the public for at least 15 days before the CFC adopts the regulations as revised. The CFC will provide notification of any such modifications to all persons whose comments were received during the public comment period, all persons whose comments (written or oral) were received at the public hearing (if one is held) and all persons who requested notice of such modifications.

Otherwise, please send requests for copies of any modified regulations to the attention of Nancy Rae Stone at the above email address. The CFC will accept written comments on the modified regula- tions for 15 days after the date on which they are made available. A V AILABILITY OF INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS, RULEMAKING FILE AND EXPRESS TERMS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS The CFC has established a rulemaking file for this regulatory action, which contains those items required by law.

The file is available for inspection at the Califor- nia Film Commission, 7080 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 900, Hollywood, California during normal busi- ness working hours (9:00 a.m.−5:00 p.m.). Please con- tact Leah Medrano at the above email address to arrange a date and time to inspect the files. As of the date this Notice is published in the Notice Register, the rulemak- ing file consists of this Notice, the Initial Statement of Reasons and the proposed text of the regulations. Copies of these items are available, upon request, from the Contact Person designated in this Notice.

A V AILABILITY OF FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS The CFC is required to prepare a Final Statement of Reasons. Once the CFC has prepared a Final Statement of Reasons, a copy will be made available to anyone who requests a copy. Requests for copies should be ad- dressed to the Contact Person identified in this Notice. OFFICE INTERNET WEBSITE The Office maintains an Internet website for the elec- tronic publication and distribution of written material. Copies of the Notice of Proposed Action, the Initial Statement of Reasons and the text of the regulations can be accessed through our website at: www.film.ca.gov.

TITLE 14. BOARD OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION “Post−Fire Recovery Exemption, 2019” Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (14 CCR), Division 1.5,

Chapter 4 Subchapters 7,

Article 2 Amend: §§ 1038, 1038.1, and 1038.2 Repeal: § 1038.6 NATURE OF PROCEEDING Notice is hereby given that the California State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (Board) is proposing to take the action described in the Informative Digest. PUBLIC HEARING The Board will hold a public hearing on August 21, 2019, at its regularly scheduled meeting commencing at 9:00 a.m., at the Natural Resources Building Auditori- um, 1416 9 th Street, Sacramento, CA. At the hearing, any person may present statements or arguments, orally or in writing, relevant to the proposed action.

The Board requests, but does not require, that persons who make oral comments at the hearing also submit a written sum- mary of their statements. Additionally, pursuant to Government Code (GOV) § 11125.1(b), writings that are public records pursuant to GOV § 11125.1(

a) and that are distributed to members of the state body prior to or during a meeting, pertaining to any item to be consid- ered during the meeting, shall be made available for public inspection at the meeting if prepared by the state body or a member of the state body, or after the meeting if prepared by some other person. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any person, or authorized representative, may sub- mit written comments relevant to the proposed regula- tory action to the Board. The written comment period ends on August 21, 2019 at the conclusion of the public hearing. 981

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 27-Z The Board will consider comments received at the Board office by that time and those comments received at the public hearing, including written comments sub- mitted in connection with oral testimony at the public hearing. The Board requests, but does not require, that persons who submit written comments to the Board ref- erence the title of the rulemaking proposal in their com- ments to facilitate review.

Written comments shall be submitted to the following address: Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Attn: Eric Hedge Regulations Program Manager P.O.

Box 944246 Sacramento, CA 94244−2460 Written comments can also be hand delivered to the contact person listed in this notice at the following address: Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Room 1506−14 1416 9 th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Written comments may also be sent to the Board via facsimile at the following phone number: (916) 653−0989 Written comments may also be delivered via e−mail at the following address: PublicComments@BOF.ca.gov AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE (pursuant to GOV § 11346.5(a)(2) and 1 CCR § 14) Authority cited: Sections 4551, 4553, 4584 and 4584.1, Public Resources Code.

Reference: Sections 4290, 4291, 4516, 4527, 4584, 4584.1 and 4597, Public Resources Code. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW (pursuant to GOV § 11346.5(a)(3)(A)−(D)) Pursuant to the Z’berg−Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 (FPA), Public Resources Code (PRC) § 4511, et seq., the Board is authorized to construct a system of forest practice regulations applicable to timber man- agement on state and private timberlands.

Pursuant to PRC §4584 the Board is authorized to ex- empt a person engaged in specific forest management activities, upon determining that the exemption is con- sistent with the purposes of the FPA, from the FPA, or portions of the FPA. PRC § 4584 authorizes the Board to adopt regula- tions to provide an exemption, from all or portions of the FPA, to a person engaging in certain forest manage- ment activities specified by the statute, including the cutting or removal of dead, dying, or diseased trees of any size.

Additionally, pursuant to PRC § 4551.5, the rules and regulations that the Board is authorized to adopt include measures for fire prevention and control and for preven- tion and control of damage by forest insects, pests, and diseases.

The history of the development of this regulation is as follows:  The Board adopted and authorized for submission to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) the regulatory action entitled “Emergency Rulemaking to Facilitate Post−Fire Recovery Efforts within the County of Butte” as emergency regulations in accordance with Government Code (GOV) §§ 11346.1, 11346.5 (2)−(6) and 11349.6 at their regularly scheduled meeting on January 23, 2019.  This regulatory action (OAL File No. 2019−0206−01E) became effective February 19, 2019 and is set to expire on August 20, 2019.  To avoid a lapse in the effective period, at their regularly scheduled meeting on June 12, 2019, the Board authorized re−adoption of the findings of emergency, with minor revisions to the rule text.

Wildfires in California Modern California wildfire activity represents a sig- nificant public risk and hazard. In 2018, over 8,500 fires burned nearly 2 million acres throughout the state, re- sulting in over $3.5 billion in damages, the destruction of over 18,000 structures, and the deaths of at least 98 people. These severe wildfires also create significant and widespread issues with tree mortality, resulting in a large number of dead and dying trees across the land- scape, including those areas surrounding homes and other structures.

The problem that the proposed action seeks to address is that the large number of trees which are damaged and weakened as a result of these fires can hamper rebuilding and recovery efforts. Additionally, trees which are dead or dying as a result of wildfires rep- resent a potential hazard to life or property as they dete- riorate and ultimately collapse.

Additionally, there currently exists an issue of consis- tency within the FPRs in which the term “Approved and Legally Permitted Structures” is used throughout the regulations in its defined capacity, but the regulatory definition is limited to one specific provision. 982

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 27-Z The purpose of the proposed action is to: 1) provide a person engaging in the cutting or removal of dead or dy- ing trees an exemption from the plan preparation and submission requirements (PRC § 4581) and from the completion report and stocking report requirements (PRC §§ 4585 and 4587) of the Forest Practice Act, when specific requirements are met; and 2) to clarify that the term “Approved and Legally Permitted Struc- tures” is not exclusive in application to 14 CCR § 1038(c).

The effect of the proposed action is to provide an ex- emption from portions of FPA to allow the harvesting of dead or dying trees around Approved and Legally Per- mitted Structures, or those that have been damaged or destroyed by wildfire, in order to facilitate the removal of hazardous materials from and assist in the recon- struction and revitalization of areas directly affected by wildfires when those activities are consistent with, and within the geographic scope of, an existing valid and ef- fective gubernatorial executive order or proclamation of a state of emergency.

If a fire has caused dead or dy- ing trees surrounding an Approved and Legally Permit- ted Structure where no such gubernatorial action has been taken, a timberland owner may also be eligible for the exemption with the certification of a Registered Professional Forester that those trees are dead or dying as a result of wildfire which had occurred no more than three years prior to the submission of the notice of ex- emption.

The proposed action will provide exemption from the plan preparation and submission requirements (PRC § 4581) and from the completion report and stocking report requirements (PRC §§ 4585 and 4587) of the FPA when specific requirements are met. The primary benefit of the proposed action is the re- duction in risk to life, property, and the environment posed by dead and dying trees by streamlining their har- vest and removal and enabling landowners to success- fully recover from destructive wildfire events. There is no comparable Federal regulation or statute.

Board staff conducted an evaluation on whether or not the proposed action is inconsistent or incompatible with existing State regulations pursuant to GOV § 11346.5(a)(3)(D). State regulations related to the pro- posed action were, in fact, relied upon in the develop- ment of the proposed action to ensure the consistency and compatibility of the proposed action with existing State regulations. Otherwise, Board staff evaluated the balance of existing State regulations related to sec- ondary egress routes and found no existing State regula- tions that met the same purpose as the proposed action.

Based on this evaluation and effort, the Board has deter- mined that the proposed regulations are neither incon- sistent nor incompatible with existing State regulations. The proposed regulation is entirely consistent and com- patible with existing Board rules. Statutes to which the proposed action was compared: §§ 4584, 4584.1, and 4584.2, Public Resources Code. MANDATED BY FEDERAL LAW OR REGULATIONS The proposed action is not mandated by Federal law or regulations. The proposed action neither conflicts with, nor dupli- cates, Federal regulations.

There are no comparable Federal regulations related to management plans for the non−industrial harvesting of timber. No existing Federal regulations meeting the same purpose as the proposed action were identified. OTHER STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS (pursuant to GOV § 11346.5(a)(4)) There are no other matters as are prescribed by statute applicable to the specific State agency or to any specific regulation or class of regulations. LOCAL MANDATE (pursuant to GOV § 11346.5(a)(5)) The proposed action does not impose a mandate on local agencies or school districts.

FISCAL IMPACT (pursuant to GOV § 11346.5(a)(6)) There is no cost to any local agency or school district that is required to be reimbursed under

Part 7 (com- mencing with

Section 17500) of Division 4 of the Gov- ernment Code. A local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by the act, within the meaning of

Section 17556 of the Govern- ment Code. The proposed action will not result in the imposition of other non−discretionary costs or savings to local agencies. The proposed action will not result in costs or savings in Federal funding to the State. The proposed action will not result in costs to any State agency. The proposed action represents a continu- ation of existing forest practice regulations related to exemptions from the Forest Practice Act and allows for an additional exemption type for utilization by the regu- 983

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 27-Z lated public, but does not create additional burden on any state agency. The proposed action will not result in the imposition of other non−discretionary costs or savings to local agencies. HOUSING COSTS (pursuant to GOV § 11346.5(a)(12)) The proposed action will not significantly affect housing costs.

SIGNIFICANT STATEWIDE ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACT DIRECTLY AFFECTING BUSINESS, INCLUDING ABILITY TO COMPETE (pursuant to GOV §§ 11346.3(a), 11346.5(a)(7) and 11346.5(a)(8)) The proposed action will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states (by making it costlier to produce goods or services in California).

FACTS, EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTS, TESTIMONY , OR OTHER EVIDENCE RELIED UPON TO SUPPORT INITIAL DETERMINATION IN THE NOTICE THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT HA VE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACT ON BUSINESS (pursuant to GOV § 11346.2(b)(5) and GOV § 11346.5(a)(8)) Contemplation by the Board of the economic impact of the provisions of the proposed action through the lens of the decades of contemplating fire safety in land use and development in California that the Board brings to bear on regulatory development.

STATEMENTS OF THE RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) The results of the economic impact assessment are provided below pursuant to GOV § 11346.5(a)(10) and prepared pursuant to GOV § 11346.3(b)(1)(A)−(D) .

The proposed action:  Will not create jobs within California (GOV § 11346.3(b)(1)(A));  Will not eliminate jobs within California (GOV § 11346.3(b)(1)(A));  Will not create new businesses (GOV § 11346.3(b)(1)(B));  Will not eliminate existing businesses within California (GOV § 11346.3(b)(1)(B));  Will not affect the expansion or contraction of businesses currently doing business within California (GOV § 11346.3(b)(1)(C));  Will yield nonmonetary benefits (GOV § 11346.3(b)(1)(D)).

For additional information on the benefits of the proposed regulation, please see anticipated benefits found under the Informative Digest/Policy Statement Overview. COST IMPACTS ON REPRESENTATIVE PERSON OR BUSINESS (pursuant to GOV § 11346.5(a)(9)) The agency is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would neces- sarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action. No adverse impacts are to be expected. BUSINESS REPORT (pursuant to GOV §§ 11346.5(a)(11) and 11346.3(d)) The proposed action does not impose a business re- porting requirement.

SMALL BUSINESS (defined in GOV § 11342.610) Small businesses, within the meaning of GOV § 11342.610, are not expected to be affected by the pro- posed action. Small business, pursuant to 1 CCR § 4(a):

(1) Is legally required to comply with the regulation;

(2) Is not legally required to enforce the regulation;

(3) Does not derive a benefit from the enforcement of the regulation;

(4) May incur a detriment from the enforcement of the regulation if they do not comply with the regulation. Pursuant to 1 CCR § 4(b), the reason(

s) the regulation affects small business are the same as provided in the Economic Impact Analysis in the Initial Statement of Reasons. ALTERNATIVES INFORMATION In accordance with GOV § 11346.5(a)(13) , the Board must determine that no reasonable alternative it considers, or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the Board, would be more ef- fective in carrying out the purpose for which the action 984

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 27-Z is proposed, or would be as effective and less burden- some to affected private persons than the proposed ac- tion, or would be more cost−effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law.

CONTACT PERSON Requests for copies of the proposed text of the regula- tions, the Initial Statement of Reasons, modified text of the regulations and any questions regarding the sub- stance of the proposed action may be directed to: Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Attn: Eric Hedge Regulations Program Manager P.O. Box 944246 Sacramento, CA 94244−2460 Telephone: (916) 653−8007 The designated backup person in the event Mr. Hedge is not available is Matt Dias, Executive Officer for the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. Mr. Dias may be contacted at the above address or phone.

A V AILABILITY STATEMENTS (pursuant to GOV § 11346.5(a)(16), (18)) All of the following are available from the contact person: 1. Express terms of the proposed action using UNDERLINE to indicate an addition to the California Code of Regulations and STRIKETHROUGH to indicate a deletion. 2.

Initial Statement of Reasons, which includes a statement of the specific purpose of each adoption, amendment, or repeal, the problem the Board is addressing, and the rationale for the determination by the Board that each adoption, amendment, or repeal is reasonably necessary to carry out the purpose and address the problem for which it is proposed. 3. The information upon which the proposed action is based (pursuant to GOV § 11346.5(b)). 4. Changed or modified text.

After holding the hearing and considering all timely and relevant comments received, the Board may adopt the proposed regulations substantially as described in this notice. If the Board makes modifications which are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text, it will make the modified text — with the changes clearly indicated — available to the public for at least 15 days before the Board adopts the regulations as revised.

Notice of the comment period on changed regulations, and the full text as modified, will be sent to any person who testified at the hearings, submitted comments during the public comment period, including written and oral comments received at the public hearing, or requested notification of the availability of such changes from the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. The Board will accept written comments on the modified regulations for 15 days after the date on which they are made available.

FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS When the Final Statement of Reasons (FSOR) has been prepared, the FSOR will be available from the contact person on request. INTERNET ACCESS All of the material referenced in the Availability Statements is also available on the Board website at: https://bof.fire.ca.gov/regulations/proposed−rule− packages/. TITLE 14. BOARD OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION “STOCKING AND SILVICULTURAL STANDARDS AMENDMENTS, 2019” Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (14 CCR), Division 1.5,

Chapter 4 Subchapters 4, 5 & 6 Articles 2, 3 & 6 Subchapter 7

Article 7 Amend: §§ 912.7, 932.7, 952.7, 913.2, 933.2, 953.2, 913.3, 933.3, 953.3, 913.4, 933.4, 953.4, 916.9, 936.9, 956.9, 1072.6 and 1080.1 Adopt: §§ 912.7(e), 932.7(

e) and 952.7(

e) NATURE OF PROCEEDING Notice is hereby given that the California State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (Board) is proposing to take the action described in the Informative Digest. 985

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 27-Z PUBLIC HEARING The Board will hold a public hearing on August 21, 2019, at its regularly scheduled meeting commencing at 9:00 a.m., at the Natural Resources Building Auditori- um, 1416 9th Street, Sacramento, CA. At the hearing, any person may present statements or arguments, orally or in writing, relevant to the proposed action. The Board requests, but does not require, that persons who make oral comments at the hearing also submit a written sum- mary of their statements. Additionally, pursuant to Government Code (GOV) § 11125.1(b), writings that are public records pursuant to GOV § 11125.1(

a) and that are distributed to members of the state body prior to or during a meeting, pertaining to any item to be consid- ered during the meeting, shall be made available for public inspection at the meeting if prepared by the state body or a member of the state body, or after the meeting if prepared by some other person. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any person, or authorized representative, may sub- mit written comments relevant to the proposed regula- tory action to the Board. The written comment period ends on August 21, 2019 at the conclusion of the public hearing.

The Board will consider comments received at the Board office by that time and those comments received at the public hearing, including written comments sub- mitted in connection with oral testimony at the public hearing. The Board requests, but does not require, that persons who submit written comments to the Board ref- erence the title of the rulemaking proposal in their com- ments to facilitate review. Written comments shall be submitted to the following address: Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Attn: Eric Hedge Regulations Program Manager P.O.

Box 944246 Sacramento, CA 94244−2460 Written comments can also be hand delivered to the contact person listed in this notice at the following address: Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Room 1506−14 1416 9 th Street Sacramento, CA 95814