Existing law requires the State Department of Public Health to establish, by January 1, 2010, and until January 1, 2015, the Umbilical Cord Blood Collection Program for the purpose of increasing the amount of umbilical cord blood that is donated in the state and that will be added to the national inventory. Existing law authorizes the department, to the extent private or public funds are identified for this purpose, to contract with blood banks that are licensed or accredited to provide umbilical cord blood banking storage services, for the purpose of collecting and storing umbilical cord blood. This bill would, instead, request the University of California to establish and administer the Umbilical Cord Blood Collection Program on or before July 1, 2011, to conclude no later than January 1, 2018, for the purpose of collecting units of umbilical cord blood for public use, as defined, for transplantation and for providing nonclinical units for specified research. Existing law provides that any funds made available for purposes of the program shall be deposited into the Umbilical Cord Blood Collection Program Fund. Existing law provides that moneys in the fund shall be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for purposes of the program. Existing law provides that the fund shall include any federal, state, and private funds made available for purposes of the program. Existing law requires the collection of a $7 fee for certified copies of birth certificates. Under existing law, $4 of the $7 fee is allocated to either the county Children's Trust Fund or to the State Children's Trust Fund, which exists in the State Treasury. Existing law requires that the money in the State Children's Trust Fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, be allocated to the State Department of Social Services for the purpose of funding child abuse and neglect prevention and intervention programs, as specified. This bill would, instead, until January 1, 2018, require the collection of a $9 fee for certified copies of birth certificates and require that $2 of any $9 fee be paid to the Umbilical Cord Blood Collection Program Fund. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Sponsored bills
The Senior Citizens and Disabled Citizens Property Tax Postponement Law, until February 20, 2009, authorized a claimant, as defined, to file a claim with the Controller to postpone the payment of ad valorem property taxes, where household income, as defined, did not exceed specified amounts. Existing law authorized the Controller, upon approval of the claim, to either make payment directly to specified entities, or to issue the claimant a certificate of eligibility that constituted a written promise of the state to pay the amount specified on the certificate, as provided. Existing law required these payments to be made out of specified funds appropriated to the Controller, as specified, and also required repaid property tax postponement payments to be transferred, as specified, to the General Fund. Existing law, on and after February 20, 2009, prohibits a person from filing a claim for postponement, and prohibits the Controller from accepting applications for postponement, under the Senior Citizens and Disabled Citizens Property Tax Postponement Law. This bill would establish the County Deferred Property Tax Program for Senior Citizens and Disabled Citizens, authorize a county to elect to participate in the program by adopting a resolution indicating the county's intention to participate in and administer the program, and specify that the requirements of a county or county officials set forth in the bill are conditioned upon the county's passage of the above-described resolution. Under the program, a participating county would be authorized to defer a claimant's property taxes retroactively, for property taxes due on or before February 20, 2010, and prospectively, as specified. This bill would require a claimant, as defined, to use the application form of a county to initiate participation in the program. The bill would authorize the county treasurer or county tax collector to review the claimant's application for program participation, as specified, and, if the claimant is eligible, and if there are sufficient funds within the county's Property Tax Deferral Fund, which this bill would require a participating county to establish within its treasury, to (1) defer property taxes on the claimant's residential dwelling for that fiscal year, (2) issue a subvention payment to that county, in an amount equivalent to the amount of the deferred property taxes, from the county's Property Tax Deferral Fund, (3) direct the county auditor to apportion that subvention payment in the same manner as if the property taxes had been paid, and (4) provide a letter or other written notice to the claimant, noting the relevant fiscal year of participation, for use as written confirmation of participation. The bill would authorize the county treasurer of a participating county, if he or she makes a specified determination, upon the adoption of a specified resolution by that county's board of supervisors, to deposit specified funds in the county treasury for the purpose of investment of those funds in the county's Property Tax Deferral Fund. This bill would require the amount of property taxes deferred, plus any interest accrued thereon, to be secured by a county property tax lien, as specified. The bill would also require the lien to be evidenced by a notice of lien, and various county officials to process and record the notice of lien, as specified. The bill would require a participating county to charge a claimant a specified adjusted rate of interest on the amount owed for the deferment of property taxes. The bill would require the amount secured by the lien to be increased to reflect the accrual of interest on the property taxes deferred, or decreased by the amount of any payment made to reduce the amount secured by the lien, as specified. The bill would provide procedures for the release of the lien if the obligation is paid in full or otherwise discharged, and would require all amounts owed by a claimant under the program to become due immediately under specified circumstances. This bill would authorize a participating county to charge an application fee to the claimant to offset the actual costs of administering the program, and would require the fee proceeds to be deposited in an account within the county's Property Tax Deferral Fund, to be used exclusively for those administrative costs. The bill would require the letter or other written confirmation of participation in the program provided by the county to be considered as evidence of program participation.
(1) Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations, as defined. Existing law requires every electrical corporation to file with the CPUC a standard tariff for electricity generated by an electric generation facility, as defined, that qualifies for the tariff, is owned and operated by a retail customer of the electrical corporation, and is located within the service territory of, and developed to sell electricity to, the electrical corporation. Existing law requires that, in order to qualify for the tariff, the electric generation facility: (1) have an effective capacity of not more than 3 megawatts, subject to the authority of the CPUC to reduce this megawatt limitation, (2) be interconnected and operate in parallel with the electric transmission and distribution grid, (3) be strategically located and interconnected to the electric transmission system in a manner that optimizes the deliverability of electricity generated at the facility to load centers, and (4) meet the definition of an eligible renewable energy resource under the California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program (RPS program) . Existing law requires that the tariff provide for payment for every kilowatthour of electricity purchased from an electric generation facility for a period of 10, 15, or 20 years, as authorized by the CPUC, and requires that the payment be the market price referent established by the CPUC pursuant to the RPS program and requires the price to include all current and anticipated environmental compliance costs. Existing decisions of the CPUC refer to a tariff adopted pursuant to these requirements as a feed-in tariff. Existing law requires a local publicly owned electric utility that sells electricity at retail to 75,000 or more customers to adopt and implement a feed-in tariff for electricity purchased from an electric generation facility meeting certain size, deliverability, and interconnection requirements and to consider certain factors. This bill would require a state agency, as defined, generating electricity from an electric generation facility that operates under a feed-in tariff adopted pursuant to these requirements, and that is owned by, operated by, or on property under the control of, the state agency, to take the total annual amount of kilowatthours exported to the grid into consideration when determining whether the state agency has achieved the policy goals and objectives established by law or executive order for the state agency. (2) Decisions of the CPUC adopted the California Solar Initiative. Existing law requires the CPUC to undertake certain steps in implementing the California Solar Initiative including the requirement that the CPUC authorize the award of monetary incentives for up to the first megawatt of alternating current generated by solar energy systems, as defined, that meet the eligibility criteria established by the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission) . This bill, until January 1, 2013, would require the CPUC to authorize the award of monetary incentives for up to 5 megawatts of alternating current generated by an eligible state solar energy system, as defined. The bill would require the CPUC to limit any incentives provided for eligible state solar energy systems to an aggregate of 26 megawatts of alternating current.
Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care and makes a willful violation of that act a crime. Existing law also provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law requires every health care service plan or health insurer that covers hospital, medical, or surgical expenses on a group basis to provide certain preventive health care benefits for children, including immunizations. Existing law prohibits a risk-based contract between a health care service plan and a physician or physician group from including a provision requiring the physician or physician group to assume financial risk for the acquisition costs of required immunizations for children and specifies the reimbursement rate with respect to immunizations that are not part of the current contract between a health care service plan and a physician or physician group. This bill would prohibit a plan from requiring a physician or physician group to assume financial risk for the acquisition or administration costs of required immunizations and would require a health care service plan or health insurer that provides coverage for childhood and adolescent immunizations to include in its reimbursement of a physician or physician group a reimbursement for the cost of administration of the vaccine, as specified. The bill would specify that these requirements would not apply to services provided pursuant to contracts or policies with the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System or to services provided pursuant to Medi-Cal or the Healthy Families Program. The bill would make other related changes. Because a willful violation of the bill's requirements relative to health care service plans would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law, known as the Donahoe Higher Education Act, sets forth, among other things, the missions and functions of California's public and independent segments of higher education, and their respective institutions of higher education. Provisions of the act do not apply to the University of California unless the regents of the university act, by resolution, to make them applicable. Among other things, the act provides that the University of California has exclusive jurisdiction in public higher education to award the doctoral degree in all fields of learning, except that it may agree with the California State University to award joint doctoral degrees in selected fields. With respect to doctoral degrees, the act limits the California State University to awarding these degrees jointly with the University of California, as described above, or jointly with independent institutions of higher education, provided that the proposed doctoral program is approved by the California Postsecondary Education Commission. This bill would instead authorize the California State University to award the Doctor of Physical Therapy degree. This bill would require the degree to be distinguished from doctoral degree programs at the University of California. The bill would require that the Doctor of Physical Therapy degree offered by the California State University be focused on preparing physical therapists to provide health care services and shall be consistent with meeting requirements of the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education. The bill would require that each student in the programs authorized by the bill be charged fees no higher than the rate charged for students in state-supported programs in physical therapy at the University of California. The bill would require the California State University, the Department of Finance, and the Legislative Analyst's Office to jointly conduct a statewide evaluation of the new programs implemented under the bill. The bill would specify topics to be included in this evaluation, and would require that the evaluation be submitted to the Legislature and the Governor on or before January 1, 2015. This provision would be repealed on January 1, 2019.
(1) Existing law requires, if a person is convicted of a specified driving-under-the-influence (DUI) offense and the offense occurred within 10 years of 2, or 3 or more, prior specified DUI offenses that resulted in a conviction, that the person be punished by enhanced penalties, and that the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle be revoked by the department for a period of 2, 3, 4, or 5 years, as applicable. Existing law authorizes the court to impose specified additional orders on a person when the person is convicted of a driving-under-the-influence (DUI) offense, depending on the circumstances. This bill would, beginning January 1, 2012, authorize the court to order a 10-year revocation of the driver's license of a person who has been convicted of 3 or more specified DUI offenses if the court considers certain factors, including, but not limited to, the period of time that has elapsed since his or her previous DUI convictions. The bill would also authorize a person who had his or her driver's license revoked for 10 years to apply to the Department of Motor Vehicles, 5 years from the date of the last DUI conviction, to have his or her privilege to operate a motor vehicle reinstated subject to certain conditions, including, among other things, the condition that the person was not convicted of any other drug- or alcohol-related offenses, under state law, during the driver's license revocation period. (2) Existing law requires that a person, convicted of driving under the influence, without bodily injury to another, within 10 years of being convicted of a separate violation of one or more specified DUI offenses, be punished by his or her driving privilege being suspended or revoked for a period of 2 or more years. Existing law requires, among other things, the Department of Motor Vehicles to advise a person, who was only under the influence of an alcoholic beverage at the time of the violation, that he or she may apply for a restricted driver's license after completion of 90 days, 6 months, or 12 months, of the suspension or revocation period, or if the person was under the influence of any drug or the combination of any drug and alcohol, or if the person concurrently did any act forbidden by law or neglected any duty imposed by law that proximately caused bodily injury to another person other than the driver, then after completion of 12 months of the revocation period, which may include credit for a specified concurrent suspension, subject to specified conditions. This bill would revise and recast the above provisions to make technical and nonsubstantive, as well as conforming, changes as a result of the changes made by Chapter 193 of the Statutes of 2009 (SB 598) .
Existing law prohibits the purchase, receipt, possession, or control of firearms for a period of 5 years by persons that have been admitted to a mental health facility on the basis of their being a threat to themselves or others or as a result of being certified for intensive treatment. Existing law requires a mental health facility that admits a person described above to immediately report specified information to the Department of Justice with respect to the person. This bill would require, commencing July 1, 2012, that those reports be submitted electronically, as specified.
Existing law makes it a crime for a person to willfully manufacture, intentionally sell, or knowingly possess for sale any counterfeit mark registered with the Secretary of State or registered on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Existing law imposes specified imprisonment and fines based upon the number of counterfeit marks involved in the offense and if the person is an individual or a business entity. Existing law also specifies certain imprisonment and fines for a subsequent conviction of this offense and provides other specified penalties if the conduct that was the basis of the conviction has directly and foreseeably caused death or great bodily injury to another through reliance on the counterfeited item for its intended purpose. Existing law makes it a crime for a person to knowingly and willfully transfer or cause to be transferred any sounds that have been recorded on a phonograph record, disc, wire, tape, film, or other article on which sounds are recorded, with intent to sell or cause to be sold, or to use or cause to be used for commercial advantage or private financial gain through public performance, the article on which the sounds are so transferred, without the consent of the owner. Existing law specifies certain penalties for a violation of these provisions, and certain other provisions regarding the transportation of an article with the knowledge that the sounds thereon have been so transferred without the consent of the owner, if the offense involves the transfer or transportation, or conduct causing that transfer or transportation, of not less than 1,000 of the articles. Existing law also specifies certain other penalties for any other violation of these provisions and for a 2nd or subsequent conviction. Existing law makes it a crime for any person to transport or cause to be transported for monetary or other consideration within the state, any article containing sounds of a live performance with the knowledge that the sounds thereon have been recorded or mastered without the consent of the owner of the sounds of the live performance. Existing law specifies certain penalties for a violation of these provisions if the offense involves transporting or causing to be transported not less than 1,000 articles. Existing law also specifies certain other penalties for any other violation of these provisions and for a 2nd or subsequent conviction. Existing law makes it a crime for any person to record or master or cause to be recorded or mastered on any article, with the intent to sell for commercial advantage or private financial gain, the sounds of a live performance with the knowledge that the sounds thereon have been recorded or mastered without the consent of the owner of the sounds of the live performance. Existing law specifies certain penalties for a violation of these provisions if the offense involves the recording, mastering, or causing the recording or mastering of at least 1,000 articles. Existing law also specifies certain other penalties for any other violation of these provisions and for a 2nd or subsequent conviction. Existing law provides that a person is guilty of failure to disclose the origin of a recording or audiovisual work if, for commercial advantage or private financial gain, he or she knowingly advertises, sells, rents, manufactures, or possesses for those purposes, a recording or audiovisual work that does not disclose the name of the manufacturer, author, artist, performer, or producer, as specified. Failure to disclose the origin of a recording or audiovisual work is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail, imprisonment in the state prison, or a fine, or by both imprisonment and a fine, as specified, depending on the number of articles of audio recordings or audiovisual works involved, and whether the offense is a first offense, or 2nd or subsequent offense. Existing law provides that every person who operates a recording device in a motion picture theater while a motion picture is being exhibited, for the purpose of recording a theatrical motion picture and without the express written authority of the owner of the motion picture theater, is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, by a fine not exceeding $2,500, or by both that fine and imprisonment. This bill would double the fines that may be imposed for a violation of any of the above provisions. Statutory law that became inoperative on January 1, 2010, provided that it was a crime, punishable by a fine not exceeding $2,500, imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment for a person located in California who knew that a particular recording or audiovisual work was commercial, to knowingly electronically disseminate all or substantially all of that commercial recording or audiovisual work to more than 10 other people without disclosing his or her e-mail address, and the title of the recording or audiovisual work. That statutory law also provided that a minor who violated these provisions was punishable by a fine not exceeding $250 for a first or 2nd offense and by a fine not exceeding $1,000, imprisonment in a county jail, or by both that fine and imprisonment for a 3rd or subsequent violation. This bill would again make operative those provisions and would double the fines that may be imposed for a violation of those provisions. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law provides that, in addition to any other penalty or fine, a court shall order any person who has been convicted of any violation of certain provisions of law relating to the transfer or transportation of misappropriated recorded music, the transportation of an article containing unauthorized recordation of sounds of live performances, the unauthorized recording of sounds of live performances, or the failure to disclose the origin of a recording or audiovisual work to make restitution to the owner or lawful producer, or trade association acting on behalf of the owner or lawful producer, of the phonograph record, disc, wire, tape, film, or other device or article from which the sound or visual images were derived that suffered economic loss resulting from the violation. Existing law provides how value is to be determined for the purpose of calculating restitution. This bill would also require a court to order restitution when the person has been convicted of violating certain other provisions of law relating to the manufacture or sale of a counterfeit registered mark and the electronic transmission of all or substantially all of a commercial recording or audiovisual work. This bill would incorporate changes to Section 653w of the Penal Code proposed by SB 830, contingent on the prior enactment of that bill. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing federal law requires that fur products be labeled with the names of any animals used, manufacturer, country of origin, and other specified information. Fur products with a relatively small quantity or value of fur that is worth $150 or less are exempt from these labeling requirements. This bill, commencing September 1, 2011, would prohibit the sale or display for sale of any coat, jacket, garment, or other clothing apparel made wholly or partially of fur, regardless of the price of the apparel or the amount or value of the fur contained therein, without having attached thereto and conspicuously displayed a tag or label including the names of the animals from which the fur was acquired and the country of origin of any imported furs. Used articles of clothing would be exempt from these labeling requirements. The bill would provide that any violation of the labeling requirements is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $500 for the first violation, and not more than $1,000 for each subsequent violation, except as specified.
(1) Existing law provides for the formation of the California Automobile Assigned Risk Plan for automobile bodily injury and property damage liability insurance. The Insurance Commissioner, after a public hearing, is required to approve or issue a reasonable plan for the equitable apportionment, among insurers admitted to transact liability insurance, of those applicants for automobile bodily injury and property damage liability insurance who are, in good faith, entitled to but are unable to procure that insurance through ordinary methods. Notice of the public hearing is required to be published at least 60 days prior to the hearing or close of the public comment period on the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation, in 2 newspapers of general circulation, one published in the City and County of San Francisco, and the other published in the City of Los Angeles. This bill would delete the notice requirement, and require that the hearings be conducted in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. Existing law requires the assigned risk plan to provide for effective dates of coverage, consistent with the required elements, including execution of the application forms and an electronic effective date procedure established by the plan. The insurance application form is also required to include a disclosure regarding the effective date of coverage. This bill would modify the notice and the effective dates of coverage requirements, as provided. (2) Existing law establishes, within the California Automobile Assigned Risk Plan, a low-cost automobile insurance program. Existing law establishes the low-cost automobile insurance program in several specified counties and makes the expansion to all other counties in California subject to a determination of need made by the commissioner following a public meeting, as specified. Existing law provides for the issuance of automobile liability policies pursuant to this program under specified terms and conditions, and provides that a policy so issued satisfies specified requirements regarding financial responsibility. Existing law provides that the low-cost automobile insurance program shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2011. This bill would provide that the low-cost automobile insurance program would remain in effect until January 1, 2016. Existing law requires the commissioner, on or before March 1 of each year, to prepare and propose a plan to the Senate Committee on Banking, Finance, and Insurance and the Assembly Committee on Insurance setting forth the methods the commissioner intends to implement to inform households eligible for the program about the availability of low-cost automobile insurance. The plan is required to contain specified information, including the most recent annual report to the Legislature on the status of the low-cost automobile insurance program from the California Automobile Assigned Risk Plan. This bill would delete the most recent annual report to the Legislature on the status of the low-cost automobile insurance program from the California Automobile Assigned Risk Plan from the information required to be contained in the plan. (3) Existing law, on and after January 1, 2011, makes certain automobile insurance proof of financial responsibility requirements no longer applicable to people in the County of Los Angeles and the City and County of San Francisco. This bill would extend the repeal date to January 1, 2016. (4) This bill would make conforming changes and delete obsolete provisions.