This measure would proclaim the month of September 2014 as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, and state the commitment of the Legislature to support efforts to find cures for, and achieve prevention of, childhood cancer.
Existing law imposes various requirements on a test sponsor, also known as a test agency, with respect to the administration of standardized tests for purposes of postsecondary education. Existing law provides that a test sponsor that intentionally violates these provisions is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $750 for each violation. Existing law provides that these requirements do not apply to instances where the cancellation of all test scores results from the complete disruption of the administration of the test, such as by natural disasters, national emergencies, inadequate or improper test conditions, answer sheet printing errors, or testing agency errors. This bill would require a test agency, where there has been a complaint or a notice of inadequate or improper test conditions relating to an administration of an Advanced Placement test, to immediately initiate an investigation. The bill would require the school in charge of the test site to cooperate with the test agency's investigation by providing information requested by the test agency, as specified. If the test agency, upon completing the investigation, determines that the inadequate or improper test conditions will prevent it from reporting valid test scores, the bill would require the test agency to notify the school in charge of the test site of the decision within 2 business days. The bill would require the school in charge of the test site, following notification from the test agency of the decision that scores will not be reported, to notify the affected test subjects of the decision within 2 business days. The bill would require the school in charge of the test site to provide all affected test subjects with at least 5 business days' prior notice of an opportunity to retest. The bill would require such a retest to be administered within 30 calendar days of the completion of the investigation. The bill would require proctors administering an Advanced Placement test to create a seating chart, including the seat location of each test subject, for each Advanced Placement test administered at the test site. The bill would further require the school in charge of the test site to retain and preserve each such seating chart for at least one year after the administration of the Advanced Placement test to which that seating chart applies. The bill would require the school in charge of the test site to submit these seating charts to the test agency upon its request to assist with its investigation of a complaint or notice of inadequate or improper test conditions. An intentional violation of these requirements would subject a test sponsor to the civil penalty referenced above.
(1) Existing law, until July 1, 2015, authorizes a county, city and county, or city to establish a capital investment incentive program, pursuant to which the county, city and county, or city is authorized to pay a capital investment incentive amount, as defined, that does not exceed the amount of property tax derived from that portion of the assessed value of a qualified manufacturing facility that exceeds $25,000,000, to a proponent of a qualified manufacturing facility. Existing law defines a "proponent" as a party and requires a party to meet certain requirements, including that the party will be the fee owner of the qualified manufacturing facility upon the completion of that facility, as provided. This bill would, until July 1, 2015, additionally authorize the party to be the lessee or the occupant under a government-owned contractor-operator enhanced use lease agreement of the qualified manufacturing facility upon the completion of that facility. (2) Existing law, the Corporation Tax Law, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2015, and before January 1, 2030, allows, with regard to the manufacture of a new advanced strategic aircraft for the United States Air Force, a credit against the taxes imposed under that law in an amount equal to 1712% of qualified wages, as defined, paid or incurred with respect to qualified full-time employees, as multiplied by an annual full-time equivalent ratio, by the qualified taxpayer, defined as a taxpayer that is a major first-tier subcontractor with regard to the manufacture of that aircraft. This bill would define a qualified taxpayer to also include a prime contractor awarded a prime contract to manufacture a new advanced strategic aircraft for the United States Air Force. The bill would limit this credit by providing that the aggregate number of total annual full-time equivalents, as defined, of all qualified taxpayers may not exceed 1,100. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law authorizes, as a pilot program, until December 31, 2017, elections in Yolo County, other than statewide primary or general elections, or special elections to fill a vacancy in a state office, the Legislature, or Congress, to be conducted wholly by mail if specified conditions are satisfied. If Yolo County conducts an all-mailed ballot election, existing law requires the county to report to the Legislature and the Secretary of State, as specified. This bill would also authorize San Mateo County to conduct all-mailed ballot elections pursuant to these provisions. The bill would require that ballot dropoff locations be fixed in a manner so that the number of residents for each ballot dropoff location does not exceed 100,000 on the 88th day prior to the day of election if it would result in more dropoff locations, as specified.
The California Public Records Act requires public records to be open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency that retains those records, and provides that every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as provided. Existing law requires a business to take reasonable steps to protect unintended disclosure of customer information and limits the way personal information on customers can be used and disseminated. This bill would prohibit a person, as defined, who publishes a booking photograph, as defined, via print or electronic means from soliciting, requiring, or accepting a fee or other consideration from a subject individual, as defined, to remove, correct, modify, or to refrain from publishing or otherwise disseminating that photograph, as specified. The bill would authorize a subject individual who is aggrieved by a violation of these provisions to bring a civil suit to recover the greater of actual damages or a $1,000 penalty for each violation, as specified.
Existing law, the California Finance Lenders Law, provides for the licensure and regulation of finance lenders and brokers by the Commissioner of Business Oversight who is the chief officer of the Department of Business Oversight. Existing law prohibits a person from engaging in the business of a finance lender or broker without obtaining a license from the commissioner. Under existing law, a finance lender includes any person who is engaged in the business of making consumer loans or making commercial loans and the business of making those loans includes lending money and taking, in the name of the lender, or in any other name, in whole or in part, as security for a loan, any contract or obligation involving the forfeiture of rights in or to personal property, the use and possession of which property is retained by other than the mortgagee or lender, or any lien on, assignment of, or power of attorney relative to wages, salary, earnings, income, or commission. Under existing law, a broker includes any person who is engaged in the business of negotiating or performing any act as broker in connection with loans made by a finance lender. Existing law makes certain persons and entities exempt from, or not subject to, the law if certain requirements are met. In any proceeding, under this law, the burden of proving an exemption is upon the person or entity claiming it. This bill would make exempt from this law a nonprofit organization that facilitates one or more zero-interest, low-cost loans with a minimum principal amount upon origination of $250 and a maximum principal amount upon origination of $2,500 if certain requirements are met, including, among other things, that the organization is exempt from federal income taxes, no part of the net earnings of the organization inures to the benefit of private persons, and that the loan terms meet certain requirements. The bill would authorize any organization wishing to operate pursuant to an exemption to file a specified application with, and pay a fee in an amount to be determined by, the commissioner. The bill would authorize the commissioner to refuse to grant an exemption, or to suspend or revoke an exemption, if he or she makes a specified finding and finds that such action is in the best interests of the public. The bill would require an organization granted an exemption, referred to as an exempt organization, to, among other things, offer a borrower a credit education program or seminar at no cost to the borrower, report each borrower's payment performance to at least one consumer reporting agency, and underwrite each loan and ensure that a loan is not made if the organization determines that the borrower's total monthly debt service payments exceeds a specified amount. This bill would make the law inapplicable to a nonprofit organization that partners with an exempt organization for the purpose of facilitating zero-interest, low-cost loans, if certain requirements are met, including, but not limited to, that this nonprofit organization, to be known as the partnering organization, meet specified requirements for federal income tax exemption, that no part of the net earnings of the organization shall inure to the benefit of private persons, and that the loan terms meet certain requirements. The bill would require the partnership of each exempt organization and each partnering organization to be formalized through a specified written agreement to be provided to the commissioner upon his or her request. The bill would require each exempt organization to provide the commissioner with notice and certain information upon entering into a written agreement with a partnering organization. Upon a determination that a partnering organization has acted in violation of certain requirements, the bill would authorize the commissioner to, among other things, disqualify that partnering organization from facilitating zero-interest, low-cost loans, bar that partnering organization from performing services at one or more specific locations, terminate a written agreement, and prohibit the use of that partnering organization by all organizations granted exemptions if the commissioner determines it is in the public interest. The bill would authorize the commissioner to examine each exempt organization and each partnering organization for compliance with these provisions upon reasonable notice. The bill would require any examined organization to make available to the commissioner all books and records requested by the commissioner. The bill would require the cost of any such examination to be paid by the exempt organization. The bill would require every exempt organization whose exemption is approved to file an annual report with the commissioner on or before March 15 containing specified information. The bill would also require an exempt organization to include information regarding the loans facilitated by a partnering organization in this annual report. On or before July 1 annually, the bill would require the commissioner to post a report on the department's Internet Web site that summarizes information relating to exempt organizations, partnering organizations, and the facilitation of these zero-interest, low-cost loans including that information compiled by the commissioner from the annual reports submitted by the exempt organizations. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
(1) Existing law, the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2012, if approved by the voters, would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $11,140,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance a safe drinking water and water supply reliability program. Existing law provides for the submission of the bond act to the voters at the November 4, 2014, statewide general election. This bill would repeal these provisions. (2) Under existing law, various measures have been approved by the voters to provide funds for water supply and protection facilities and programs. Existing law, the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006, an initiative measure approved by the voters as Proposition 84 at the November 7, 2006, statewide general election, authorizes the issuance of bonds in the amount of $5,388,000,000 for the purposes of financing safe drinking water, water quality and supply, flood control, natural resource protection, and park improvements. Existing law, the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006, approved by the voters as Proposition 1E at the November 7, 2006, general statewide election, authorizes the issuance of bonds in the amount of $4,090,000,000 for the purposes of financing disaster preparedness and flood prevention projects. Existing law, the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002, an initiative measure approved by the voters as Proposition 50 at the November 5, 2002, statewide general election, authorizes, for the purposes of financing a safe drinking water, water quality, and water reliability program, the issuance of bonds in the amount of $3,440,000,000. Existing law, the Costa-Machado Water Act of 2000, approved by the voters as Proposition 13 at the March 7, 2000, statewide primary election, authorizes the issuance of general obligation bonds in the amount of $1,970,000,000 for the purposes of financing a safe drinking water, clean water, watershed protection, and flood protection program. Existing law, the Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act, approved by the voters as Proposition 204 at the November 5, 1996, statewide general election, authorizes the issuance of general obligation bonds in the amount of $995,000,000 for the purposes of financing a safe, clean, reliable water supply program. Existing law, the Water Conservation and Water Quality Bond Law of 1986, approved by the voters as Proposition 44 at the June 3, 1986, statewide primary election, authorizes the issuance of general obligation bonds in the amount of $150,000,000 for the purposes of financing a water conservation and water quality program. This bill would enact the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014, which, if approved by the voters, would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $7,120,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance a water quality, supply, and infrastructure improvement program. This bill, upon voter approval, would reallocate $425,000,000 of the unissued bonds authorized for the purposes of Propositions 1E, 13, 44, 50, 84, and 204 to finance the purposes of a water quality, supply, and infrastructure improvement program. This bill would provide for the submission of these provisions to the voters at the November 4, 2014, statewide general election. (3) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
This measure would urge the United States Department of Transportation and other relevant federal entities to (1) safeguard communities and environmentally sensitive areas from rail accidents involving transportation of crude oil by expediting rail safety reforms, (2) prioritize safety considerations over cost-effectiveness in deliberations about improving the transport of crude oil by rail, (3) mandate, at a minimum, the best practices explained in a 2014 safety initiative, as specified and (4) partner with the Canadian Transportation Agency to improve safety of the North American railroad tank car fleet by swiftly adopting a stricter design standard, and by retrofitting or phasing out tank cars that do not meet that standard.
This measure would urge the United States Congress to enact legislation that would establish reasonable deadlines for the prohibition of the testing and marketing of cosmetic products that have been tested on animals. The measure would also urge the federal government to mandate alternative methods to animal testing of cosmetic products and to prioritize the validation and acceptance of additional nonanimal tests.
