Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutfg3COM19MISSIONERS Jim Kellogg, President ECf\'10N© G. BRO~ViV, JR. Discovery Bay Richard Rogers, Vice President .,;, , Michael Sntton, Member . Monterey ~ ~~,,.~' ~ Daniel V1'. Richards, Member Upland Governor Jack Baylis, Member Los Angeles STATE OF CALfFORN[A Fish and Game Commission May 27, 2011 To All Interested and Affected Parties, l4lb :Vrrrlh Slreel Bos 94=1209 5ucrarrrenla, CA 44244-11190 (4l b) 6~3-4849 (416) b33-SO40 F¢r fgc@fgc.ca.gov SQp,~ OF S-~F~4iV4S0~S MAC 2~~ 2D1t ORO~II.~• CALI~ORNtA This is to provide you with a copy of the notice of proposed regulatory action relative to amendments of Sections 671.1 and 703, and addition of Section 671.8, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, relating to Inspection of Facilities for Restricted Species, which will be published in the California Regulatory Notice Register on May 27, 2011. Associated documents will also be published to the Fish and Game Commission website at http:llwww.fgc.ca.govlregulationslnew120111craposedregs1l.asp . Piease note, on page three of the attachment, the dates of the public hearings related to this matter and associated deadlines far receipt of written comments. Dr. Eric Loft, Department of Fish and Game, phone (91G) 544-3555, has been designated to respond to questions on the subs#ance of the proposed regulations. . Sincerely, Jon D. Snellstrom Associate Governmental Program Analyst Attachment TITLE 14. Fish and Game Commission Notice of Proposed Changes in Regulations NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Fish and Game Commission (Commission), pursuant to the authority ves#ed by sections 200, 202; 205, 215, 220, 240, 315 and 316.5 of the Fish and Game Code and to implement, interpret or make specific sections 200, 202, 205, 206, 215, 220, 316.5, 5508 and 5509, of said Cade, proposes to amend Sections fi71.1 and 703, and Add Section 671.8, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, relating to Inspection of Facili#ies for Restricted Species. Informative ~igestlPolicy Statement Overview Existing regulations specify the conditions under which an individual or entity can lawfully possess restricted species in California. The proposed regulatory change completes the modifcations needed in regulation #o comport with AB 820 (Statutes of 2005) {now sections 2116-2195 Fish and Game Code). The s#atute and consequent regulations are intended to implement a more comprehensive, self- -~;: '''~~lsfaittirlg;Wsglfi.f~u~ded program for inspection and monitoring of facilities in California. There is a provision in regulation that essentially delegated Department authority for facility inspections to veterinarians in 'some cases and resulted in waived fees to permit holders. The Department has •:~<~.•;de)errr~`ined that the authority needs to be with the Department and that the Department still had incurred costslexperfses~~r'fen when a veterinarian exercised the approval. Fish & Game Code section 2150.2 explicitly requires #hat the inspection program be self-funding. To conform to this requirement, the Department must eliminate the veterinarian "fee waiver" provision. Because the Department is obligated to conduct its own inspections under Fish & Game Code section 2150.4 regardless of whether or not a veterinarian also inspects the animals, the fee waiver would cause the Department to conduct inspections without receiving any compensation; were the Department to do so, the program would not be self-funding. The Department has assessed the anticipated costs to implement this inspection program and based on cost-calculations, has estimated an average annual cast per permit (Table 1). The.$670 annual inspection fee is to cover the costs of implementing the legislation and regulation through hiring of two environmental scientists and ahalf--time office assistant. Table 1. Estimated Average Inspection Costs far Restricted Species Permits (assumes 320 permitslyear and excluding fishlayuaculture permits) 200 mile round trip (estimated average) from dufy station to permit facilities and return Inspection #ime' 2 hrs. $105 Vehicle travel costs ~ 200 miles $100 Lodging and mealss Estimated that 113 of trips will require overnight travel (average . cost $47 Travel time a 4 hrs. $210 Staff time and vehicle costs total $462 Dept. overhead (20.43%) $116 Fixed annual DFG casts {OfFce rent, Technology support) $ $52 One time fees- averaged aver 5 year phase-in6 $40 Total Cost $670 Comprehensive estimated cost for each inspection assuming an average 200 mile roundtrip = $670 Hourly Inspection Fee (applies fa additional hours and represents average cost estimate whether the Department responden# is in a scientisf classification or Law Enforcement classification) Inspection time ~ 1 hr. $60.00 Staff time total $60.00 Dept. overhead (20% rounded) $12.00 Total Cost per hour $72.00 Estimated cost for an extra hour of ins action time = One-time casts required to establish inspection tea Vehicles (2) $50,000 Computers, Desks, Equipment $15,000 Total Cost $ss,aao Estimated One-time Costs to implement Regulations (averaged in on a per inspection cost over five years and assumin 32a ins actions! r) =$65,aaa Footnotes 1) Salary estimates derived from 2 ES positions ($42.281hr and 1 %rtime OA ($10.24Ihr}. 2) Vehicle costs based 5tJ cents per mile for vehicles. 3) Lodging 8~ meals based on estimate that 1 of 3 trips will be distant enough #o require overnight travel. 4) Travel lime based is estimated considering travel in Southern California as well as N. California. 5) Fixed costs are $fi,0041pylyr for office rent and $7501pytyr for Technology support (x 2,5 py) = $16,8fi51yr fi) One-time costs to Implement Regulations (averaged in on a per inspection cost over five years and assuming 320 inspectionstyr 7) Does not include administrative cast of Office Asst. position which is assumed to be the same for each inspection regardless of duration- Permitted individuals and facilities for restricted species occur throughout the state. Currently, the Department has approximately 320 permitted facilities that would require inspection. The Department estimates that 2.5 new positions (two Environmental Scientists (ES) for 160 inspections and reports each (one northern California, one Southern California); and one'/2-time OfFce Assistant (OA) for compiling records and maintaining databases) could handle the workload. Estimated total casts for these positions is currently $87,2741yr for each ES; and $21,1501yr for the half-time OA, not including operating casts. Administrative costs would be borne by the Department at the estimated overhead rate of 20.43%. Department office rental costs are currently $6,OOOIposition, $7501yr for technology support {emails, Internet, etc.) or $15,OOOlyr for this proposal. Operating costs consisting of training, two vehicles, computers/desks, inspection equipment, vehicle maintenance, fuel, and travel costs are approximately $1,OOOImonth per field position. One time costs for computers, vehicles, etc. would total appraxima#ely $65,000. Monthly vehicle rentals from the State garage are in approximately $7001mo in addition to added cost of staff time to pick up and drop off. With the current number of permit inspections the cast to the department for state garage vehicles would annually exceed $16,800; ar $84,000 prorated to five years. Additionally, these employees will have fiat! time.. jobs traveling daily for inspections around the state, lJse of private cars would be also an expensive alternative for the state ak >0.50 cents a mile. Therefore the best financial solution for transportation will be to purchase two state awned vehicles at a five year prorated total of $50,000; or $10,000 annually. Existing regulations specify fees for the permitted activities of possession of restricted species and activities #hat may. be undertaken with them. The proposed regulatory changes will establish fees for inspection of restricted species facilities including clarifying the aquaculture and fish species facilities inspections. The proposed regulatory change additionally clarifies the type of permit(s) required to enable a permit holder to sell restricted species. NOTICE IS GIVEN that any person interested may presenk statements, orally or in writing, relevant to this action at a hearing to be held at the Lexington Plaza Waterfront Hotel, Stockton, California, on Thursday, June 30, 2011, at 8:30 a.m., or as loan thereafter as the matter may be heard. NOTICE IS Al-50 GIVEN that any. person interested may present statements, orally or in writing, relevant to this action at a hearing to be held in the State of California Resources Agency Building Auditorium, 1416 Nin#h Stree#, Sacramento, California, on Thursday, August 4, 2011, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard. It is requested, but not required, that written comments be submitted on or before July 25, 2011 at the address given below, or by fax at {916) 653-5040, or bye-mail 2 to FGC f c.ca. ov. Written comments mailed, faxed or e-mailed to the Commission office, must be received before 5:00 p.m. on July 25, 2011. All comments must be received no later than August 4, 2011, at the hearing in Ontario, CA. If you would like copies of any modifications to this proposal, please include your name and mailing address. The regulations as proposed in strikeout-underline format, as well as an initial statement of reasons, including environmental considers#ions and all informs#ion upon which the proposal is based (rulemaking fle), are on file and- available for public review from the agency representative, Jon K. Fischer, Acting Executive Director, Fish and Game Commission, 1416 Ninth Street, Box 944209, Sacramento, California 94244-2090, phone {916) 653-4899. Please direct requests far the above mentioned documents and inquiries concerning the regulatory process to Jon K. Fischer or Jon Snellstram at the preceding address or phone number. Dr. Eriic Loft, Department of Fish and Game, (916) 445-3555, has been designated to respond to questions on the substance of the proposed regulations. Copies of the Initial Statement of Reasons, including the regulatory language, may be obtained from the address above. Notice of the proposed action shat! be posted on the Fish and Game Commission website at http:l/www.fgc.ca.gov. Availability ofi Modified Text If the regulations adopted by the Commission differ from but are sufficiently related to the action proposed, they will be available to the public for at least 15 days prior to the date of adop#ion. Circumstances beyond the control of the Commission (e.g., timing of Federal regulation adop#ion, timing of resource data collection, timelines do not allow, etc.) or changes made to be responsive to public recommendation and comments during the regulatory process may preclude full compliance with the 15-day comment period, and the Commission will exercise its powers under Section 202 of the Fish and Game Code. Regulations adopted pursuant to this section are not subject #o the time periods for adoption, amendment or repeal of regulations prescribed in Sections 11343.4, 11346.4 and 11346.8 of the Government Code. Any person. interested may obtain a copy of said regulations prior to the date of adoption by contacting the agency representative named herein. If the regulatory proposal is adopted, the final statement of reasons may be obtained from the address above when it has been received from the agency program staff. Impact of Renulatorv Action The potential for significant statewide adverse economic impacts #hat might result from the proposed regulatory action has been assessed, and the following initial determinations relative to the required statutory categories have been made: (a) Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Directly Affecting Businesses, Including the Ability of California Businessmen to Compete with Businesses in Other States. The proposed action will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. Considering the small number of permits issued over the entire s#a#e, this proposal is economically neutral to business in general. As the number of permitted persons is so small (approximately 300- 320 in all of California) there will be cost impacts that a representative private person or business who is among the 300-320 permi#tees would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with legislative requirements directing this proposed action. Fish and Game Code Section 2150.2 states the Department "shall establish fees... in amounts sufficient to cover the costs... ". These costs would occur in applying for an inspection to house res#ricted wild animals and subsequent maintenance if deficiencies are found. Part of the reason that costslperson are at the proposed levels are because of the relatively small number of permittees and the high amount of Department staff time needed for reviewinglapproving applications and/or conducting inspections. (b) Impact on the Creation or Elimination of Jobs Within the S#ate, the Creation of New Businesses or the Elimination of Existing Businesses, or the Expansion of Businesses in California. Due to the limited number of permittees, the impacts are expected to be minimal but are unknown at this time. (c) Cost Impacts on Private Persons. There will be cost impacts that a representative private person conducting business and who is among the 300-320 permittees would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with legislative requirements directing this proposed action. (d) Costs or Savings to State Agencies or CostslSavings in Federal Funding to the State. Costs to the State for application reviews, processing, issuing permits, maintaining databases, inspections, development and maintenance of a mammal regis#ry, and other administrative or enforcement costs are intended to be revenue neutral by being offset through an appropriate fee structure. (e} ~ Other Nondiscretionary CostslSavings to Local Agencies. None. (f) Programs Mandated on Local Agencies or School Districts. None. (g) Casts Imposed on Any Local Agency or School District that is Required to be Reimbursed under Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4. None. (h) Effect on Housing Casts. None. Effect on Small Business It has been determined that the adap#ion of these regulations may affect small business. The Commission has drafted the regulations in Plain English pursuant #o Government Code sections 11342.580 and 11346.2(a}(1). Consideration of Alternatives The Commission must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the Commission, or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the at#ention of the Commission, would be more effec#ive 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 ac#ion. FISH AND GAME COMMISSION Jon K. Fischer Dated: May 17, 2011 Acting Executive Director 4