CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2017, VOLUME NO. 7-Z
 213The back−up contact person for these inquiries is:
Felicity Wood
Regulations AnalystCalifornia Debt Limit Allocation Committee915 Capitol Mall, Room 308 
Sacramento, CA 95814 
(916) 651−8484
Please direct requests for copies of the proposed text
(the “express terms”) of the regulations, the initial state-
ment of reasons, forms to be incorporated by reference,
or other information upon which the rulemaking is
based to Felicity Wood at the above address.
A V AILABILITY OF THE STATEMENT OF
REASONS, TEXT OF PROPOSED
REGULATIONS, AND RULEMAKING FILE
The Committee will have the entire rulemaking file
available for inspection and copying throughout therulemaking process at its office at the above address. As
of the date this notice is published, the rulemaking file
consists of this notice, the proposed text of the regula-tions, the forms to be incorporated by reference, and the
initial statement of reasons. Copies may be obtained by
contacting Felicity W ood.
A V AILABILITY OF CHANGED OR
MODIFIED TEXT
After holding the written comment period and public
hearing and considering all timely and relevant com-ments received, the Committee may adopt the proposed
regulations substantially as described in this notice. If
the Committee makes modifications which are suffi-
ciently related to the originally proposed text, it willmake the modified text (with the changes clearly indi-cated) available to the public for at least 15 days before
the Committee adopts the regulations as revised. Please
send requests for copies of any modified regulations tothe attention of Misti Armstrong at the address indicat-
ed above. The Committee will accept written comments
on the modified regulations for 15 days after the date onwhich 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 Felicity Woodat 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 strikeout can be accessed through our
website at 
http://www.treasurer .ca.gov/cdlac/ procedures.asp.
TITLE 27. OFFICE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
HAZARD ASSESSMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Office of En-
vironmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) pro-
poses to repeal Sections 25607.30 and 25607.31 from
Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations.1 Subse-
quent to the May 11, 2015 addition of bisphenol A(BPA) to the Proposition 65 list of chemicals,
2 OEHHA
proposed an emergency rulemaking to amend Article 6
of Title 27, California Code of Regs, section 25603.3.
The emergency rulemaking temporarily added provi-sions related to the responsibility to provide warningsfor exposures to BPA from canned and bottled foods
and beverages, and added safe harbor warning methods
and content that have been deemed “clear and reason-able” by OEHHA for these types of exposures. These
provisions were added to Section 25603.3 as subsec-
tions (f) and (g) in April 2016. OEHHA additionally in-
cluded these emergency provisions as Sections25607.30 and 25607.31 in a separate regulatory action
to repeal and reenact Article 6 that was adopted in Au-
gust 2016. OEHHA then completed a regular (non−emergency)  rulemaking that placed updated BPA warn-
ing provisions into Section 25603.3 effective January 1,
2017. The final regulatory text of Section 25603.3 in-
cludes operative and sunset provisions that vary fromcomparable provisions in Sections 25607.30 and25607.31. OEHHA proposes to repeal Sections
25607.30 and 25607.31 to ensure consistency with the
provisions of Section 25603.3, subsections (f) and (g)that reflect OEHHA’s intent concerning the BPA warn-
ing responsibility, methods and content provisions and
an inoperative date of December 30, 2017. This rule-
making will repeal Sections 25607.30 and 25607.31but not Section 25603.3, subsections (f) and (g), re-
lated to warnings for BPA exposures from canned
and bottled foods and beverages.
1 All further references are to sections of Title 27, Cal. Code of
Regs., unless indicated otherwise.
2http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/CRNR_notices/
list_changes/051115listBPA.html.CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2017, VOLUME NO. 7-Z
 214PUBLIC PROCEEDINGS
Any written comments concerning this proposed reg-
ulatory action, regardless of the form or method oftransmission, must be received by OEHHA by 5:00
p.m. on April 3, 2017, the designated close of the writ-
ten comment period. All comments will be posted on
the OEHHA website at the close of the public comment
period.
The public is encouraged to submit written informa-
tion via e−mail, rather than in paper form. Send e−mail
comments to P65Public.Comments@oehha.ca.gov
.
Please include “Article 6 Repeal BPA Warnings” in the
subject line. Hard−copy comments may be mailed,
faxed, or delivered in person to the appropriate address
below.
Monet V ela
Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentP. O. Box 4010 
Sacramento, California 95812−4010 
Telephone: 916−323−2517E−mail: P65Public.Comments@oehha.ca.gov
Please be aware that OEHHA is subject to the Cali-
fornia Public Records Act and other laws that requirethe release of certain information upon request. If you
provide comments, please be aware that your name, ad-
dress and e−mail may be available to third parties.
A public hearing on this proposed regulatory amend-
ment will be scheduled on request. To request a hearing,
send an e−mail to Monet Vela at monet.vela@oehha.
ca.gov  or to the address listed above by no later than
March 20, 2017, which is at least 15 days before the
close of the comment period. OEHHA will mail a notice
of the hearing to the requester and interested parties onthe Proposition 65 mailing list for regulatory publichearings. The notice will also be posted on the OEHHA
web site at least ten days before the public hearing date.
The notice will provide the date, time, and location ofthe hearing.
If a hearing is scheduled and you have special accom-
modation or language needs, please contact Monet Vela
at (916) 323−2517 or monet.vela@oehha.ca.gov
 at
least one week in advance of the hearing. TTY/TDD/Speech−to−Speech users may dial 7−1−1 for the Cali-
fornia Relay Service.
CONTACT
Please direct inquiries concerning the proposed regu-
latory action described in this notice to Monet Vela at
(916) 323−2517, or by e−mail to monet.
vela@oehha.ca.gov . Mario Fernandez is a back−up
contact person for inquiries concerning processing ofthis action and is available at (916) 323−2635 or
mario.fernandez@oehha.ca.gov .
AUTHORITY
Health and Safety Code section 25249.12 and Health
and Safety Code section 25249.8(a).
REFERENCE
Health and Safety Code sections 25249.5, 25249.6,
25249.8(a), 25249.10, 25249.11 and 25249.12.
INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT
OVERVIEW
BACKGROUND
OEHHA is the state entity responsible for the imple-
mentation of Proposition 65.3 OEHHA has the authori-
ty to adopt and amend regulations to make specific and
further the purposes of Proposition 65. OEHHA main-
tains a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or repro-
ductive toxicity. Proposition 65 requires businesses toprovide a warning when they knowingly and intention-
ally cause an exposure to a listed chemical, and pro-
hibits the discharge of listed chemicals into sources ofdrinking water. Article 6 contains provisions address-
ing the responsibility to provide warnings, and “safe
harbor” warning methods and content that OEHHA has
determined to be “c lear and reasonable” under the Act.
The BPA safe harbor warnings were proposed to fur-
ther the purposes of the Act by providing interim guid-
ance on the methods for providing warnings and a stan-
dard warning message for BPA exposures from canned
and bottled foods and beverages that can be posted at
the retail point of sale. OEHHA has completed emer-
gency and regular rulemakings for BPA warning provi-
sions regarding the responsibility to provide warningsand safe harbor methods and content. This rulemaking
will not add new provisions to Article 6, but rather will
repeal outdated Sections 25607.30 and 25607.31 thatare in conflict with the operative and sunset provisions
of subsections (f) and (g) of Section 25603.3. Subsec-
tions (f) and (g) of 25603.3 are currently effective andaccurately reflect OEHHA’s intent concerning the BPA
warning responsibility, methods and content provi-
sions, and the inoperative date of December 30, 2017.
3 The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986,
codified at Health and Safety Code section 25249.5 et seq. , com-
monly referred to as “Proposition 65.” Hereafter referred to as“Proposition 65” or “the Act.”CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2017, VOLUME NO. 7-Z
 215SPECIFIC BENEFITS OF THE
PROPOSED REGULATIONS
The proposed regulatory action will facilitate busi-
nesses’ compliance with the Act by removing the inter-
nal conflict within the regulations concerning the BPA
warning provisions.
NO INCONSISTENCY OR INCOMPATIBILITY
WITH EXISTING REGULATIONS
OEHHA has conducted an evaluation and has deter-
mined that Article 6 is the only regulation concerning
Proposition 65 warnings. Therefore, the proposed regu-
latory action is neither inconsistent nor incompatiblewith any other existing state regulations. The regulatory
action does not change the existing mandatory require-
ments on businesses subject to Proposition 65, state orlocal agencies and does not address compliance with
any other law or regulation.
LOCAL MANDATE/FISCAL IMPACT
Because Proposition 65 by its terms
4 does not apply
to local agencies or school districts, OEHHA has deter-
mined the proposed regulatory action would not impose
a mandate on local agencies or school districts. Thereare also no costs to any local agency or school districtrequiring reimbursement under Part 7 (commencing
with Section 17500) of Division 4 of the Government
Code. OEHHA has also determined that no nondiscre-tionary costs or savings to local agencies or school dis-
tricts will result from the proposed regulatory action,
nor will there be any costs or savings to the state becauseof the proposed regulatory action. There are also nocosts or savings in federal funding to the state.
EFFECT ON HOUSING COSTS
OEHHA has initially determined that the proposed
regulatory action will have no effect on housing costsbecause it does not impose any new mandatory require-
ments on any business.
SIGNIFICANT STATEWIDE ADVERSE
ECONOMIC IMPACT DIRECTLY AFFECTING
BUSINESS, INCLUDING ABILITY TO COMPETE
The proposed regulatory action provides compliance
assistance to businesses subject to the Act by clarifying
an existing regulation and does not impose any manda-
4 See Health and Safety Code section 25249.11(b).tory requirements on those businesses. OEHHA has
therefore made an initial determination that the adop-
tion of the regulation will not have a significantstatewide adverse economic impact directly affecting
businesses, including the ability of California business-
es to compete with businesses in other states.
RESULTS OF ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
(Gov. Code section 11346.3(b))
Creation or Elimination of Jobs within the State of
California
This regulatory action will not impact the creation or
elimination of jobs within the State of California. The
repeal of Sections 25607.30 and 25607.31 will remove
regulations that are now inconsistent with the recently
adopted regulations in Section 25603.3, subsections (f)
and (g).
Creation of New Businesses or Elimination of
Existing Businesses within the State of California
This regulatory action will not impact the creation of
new businesses or the elimination of existing business-es within the State of California. The repeal will simply
ensure consistency with the provisions of Section
25603.3, subsections (f) and (g).
The Expansion of Businesses Currently Doing
Business within the State
OEHHA does not anticipate any major impact on the
expansion of businesses currently doing business with-in the state because the proposed regulation will not
change whether businesses must provide BPA warn-
ings. The regulatory action simply clarifies existingprocedures relating to BPA warnings for canned andbottled foods and beverages.
Benefits of the Pr oposed Regulation
Repealing Sections 25607.30 and 25607.31 would
benefit the public by reducing confusion that could re-
sult from inconsistent regulatory provisions concerning
the responsibility to provide warnings for certain expo-
sures to BPA. Affected businesses would benefit be-
cause the repeal of the now−unnecessary sections
would increase the ability to understand and correctlyuse the safe harbor provisions in Article 6.
CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES
OEHHA must determine that no reasonable alterna-
tive it considered or that has otherwise been identifiedand brought to its attention would be more effective in
carrying out the purpose for which the action is pro-
posed, would be as ef fective and less burdensome to af-
fected private persons than the proposed action, orwould be more cost−effective to affected private per-CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2017, VOLUME NO. 7-Z
 216sons and equally effective in implementing the statuto-
ry policy or other provision of law.
EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESSES
The proposed regulatory action will not adversely
impact very small businesses because Proposition 65 is
limited by its terms to businesses with 10 or more em-ployees (Health and Safety Code Sections 25249.5,25249.6, and 25249.1 1(b)).
COST IMPACTS ON REPRESENTATIVE
PERSON OR BUSINESS
OEHHA is not aware of any cost impacts that a repre-
sentative private person or business would necessarily
incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed ac-tion. The proposed repeal does not impose any new re-
quirements u pon private persons or business because it
removes regulatory provisions that are inconsistent
with similar, more recently adopted regulations.
A V AILABILITY OF STATEMENT OF REASONS
AND TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS
OEHHA has prepared and has available for public re-
view an Initial Statement of Reasons for the proposedregulation, all the information upon which the regula-
tion is based, and the text of the proposed regulation.
These documents are available on OEHHA’s website at
www.oehha.ca.gov
.
A V AILABILITY OF CHANGED OR
MODIFIED TEXT
The full text of any proposed regulation that is
changed or modified from the express terms of this pro-
posed action will be made available at least 15 days pri-
or to the date on which OEHHA adopts the resultingregulation. Notice of the comment period on the revised
proposed regulation and the full text will be mailed to
individuals who testified or submitted oral or writtencomments at the public hearing, whose comments were
received by OEHHA during the public comment peri-
od, and anyone who requests notification from OEHHA
of the availability of such change. Copies of the noticeand the changed regulation will also be available on theOEHHA website at www .oehha.ca.gov
.A V AILABILITY OF THE FINAL STATEMENT
OF REASONS
A copy of the Final Statement of Reasons may be ob-
tained, when it becomes available, from Monet Vela at
the e−mail or telephone number indicated above. The
Final Statement of Reasons will also be available onOEHHA’s web site at www .oehha.ca.gov
.
GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE
CESA CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
REQUEST FOR
Klamath River Bridge Replacement
2080−2017−003−01
Siskiyou County
California Department of Fish and W ildlife (CDFW)
received a notice February 6, 2017, that the California
Department of T ransportation proposes to rely on a con-
sultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service(Service) to carry out a project that may adversely af fect
a species protected by the California Endangered
Species Act (CESA). The proposed project involves re-
placing an existing bridge in order to meet modernhighway design standards. The proposed project in-
cludes construction of the new bridge and removal of
the existing bridge. The proposed project will occur im-
mediately south of the junction of State Route 263 and
State Route 96 in Siskiyou County, Califor nia.
The Service issued a federal biological opinion (Ser-
vice Ref. No. WRC−2016−4152) (BO) and incidentaltake statement (ITS) to the California Department of
Transportation on October 3, 2016, which considered
the effects of the proposed project on the state threat-ened and federally threatened coho salmon (On-
corhynchus kisutch), Southern Oregon−Northern Cali-
fornia Coast (SONCC) evolutionarily significant unit.
Pursuant to California Fish and Game Code section
2080.1, the California Department of Transportation is
requesting a determination that the BO and associated
ITS are consistent with CESA for purposes of the pro-posed project. If CDFW determines the BO and associ-
ated ITS are consistent with CESA for the proposed
project, the California Department of Transportation
will not be required to obtain an incidental take permitunder Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision(b) for the proposed project.