GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW California Regulatory Notice Register REGISTER 2021, NUMBER 23-Z P UBLISHED WEEKLY BY THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW J UNE 4, 2021 PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS TITLE 2.

F AIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Conflict–of–Interest Code — Notice File Number Z–2021–0525–04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .701 Amendment Multi–County: Santa Cruz–Monter ey–Merced Managed Medical Care Commission dba Central California Alliance for Health Santa Rosa Regional Resources Authority Oakdale Joint Unified School District Partnership Healthcare Plan of California Kings River East Groundwater Sustainability Agency El Dorado Irrigation District State Agency: Boar d of Equalization TITLE 4.

HORSE RACING BOARD Use of the Riding Crop — Notice File Number Z2021–0519–01 ........................................... 702 TITLE 11. COMISSION ON PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING Minimum Standards for Legislatively Courses, Regulation 1081 — Notice File Number Z2021–0524–02 .......... 706 TITLE 13. AIR RESOURCES BOARD On–Board Diagnostic System Amendments — Notice File Number Z2021–0518–18 ........................... 708 TITLE 13. NEW MOTOR VEHICLE BOARD Protests and Petitions — Notice File Number Z2021–0525–01 ............................................ 717 TITLE 13.

NEW MOTOR VEHICLE BOARD Case Management — Notice File Number Z2021–0525–02 ............................................... 720 TITLE 15. PRISON INDUSTRY AUTHORITY Inmate Worker Hiring Standards and Requirements — Notice File Number Z2021–0430–01 .................... 723 (Continued on next page) Time- Dated Material

TITLE 16. BOARD OF PHARMACY Reporting Drug Loss — Notice File Number Z2021–0524–01 ............................................. 726 TITLE 16. ARCHITECTS BOARD — LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS TECHNICAL COMMITTEE Abandonment of Applications — Notice File Number Z2021–0520–01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .729 TITLE 16. MEDICAL BOARD Approved Certified Organizations — Notice File Number Z2021–0524–03 ................................... 732 TITLE 19.

GOVERNOR ’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES Private Fire Prevention Resource — Notice File Number Z2021–0520–03 ................................... 735 RULEMAKING PETITION DECISIONS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION In Response to Petition from Griselda Moore re: Inmate Publications ...................................... 738 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION In Response to Petition from Griselda Moore re: Inmate Tablets ........................................... 739 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION In Response to Petition from Griselda Moore re: Board of Parole Hearings Tablet Access ...................... 740 A V AILABILITY OF INDEX OF PRECEDENTIAL DECISIONS DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Designation of Precedential Decision and Decision Index Pursuant to Government Code

Section 11425 .60(b) ...... 741

SUMMARY OF REGULATORY ACTIONS Regulations filed with Secretary of State .............................................................. 742 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 REGULATORY 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 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 23-Z 701 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 Government Code to review proposed conflict– of–interest codes, will review the proposed/amended conflict–of–interest codes of the following: CONFLICT–OF–INTEREST CODES AMENDMENT M U LT I – COU N T Y: Santa Cruz–Monterey Merced Managed Medical Care Commission dba Central California Alliance for Health Santa Rosa Regional Resources Authority Oakdale Joint Unified School District Partnership Healthcare Plan of California Kings River East Groundwater Sustainability A g e n c y El Dorado Irrigation District STATE AGENCY: Board of Equalization A written comment period has been established commencing on June 4, 2021 and closing on July 19, 2021.

Written comments should be directed to the Fair Political Practices Commission, Attention Daniel Vo, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sacramento, California 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 pri- or to the close of the written comment period, a public hearing before the full Commission. If a public hear - ing is requested, the proposed code(

s) will be submit - ted to the Commission for review. The Executive Director of the Commission will review the above–referenced conflict–of–interest code(s), proposed pursuant to Government Code

Section 87300, which designate, pursuant to Government Code

Section 87302, employees who must disclose certain 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 person, 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, ar - guments or comments, in writing to the Executive Director of the Commission, relative to review of the proposed conflict–of–interest code(s). Any writ - ten comments must be received no later than July 19, 2021. 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 increased costs to local government which may re - sult 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 Government 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 Daniel Vo, Fair

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 23-Z 702 Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sacramento, California 95811, telephone (916) 322–5660. AVAILABILITY OF PROPOSED CONFLICT–OF–INTEREST CODES Copies of the proposed conflict–of–interest codes may be obtained from the Commission offices or the respective agency. Requests for copies from the Commission should be made to Daniel Vo, Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sacramento, California 95811, telephone (916) 322–5660. TITLE 4.

HORSE RACING BOARD AMEND RULE 1688, USE OF RIDING CROP The California Horse Racing Board (Board) proposes to amend the regulation described below after considering all comments, objections, or recommendations regarding the proposed action. PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION The Board proposes to amend Board Rule 1688, Use of Riding Crop. Board Rule 1688 provides clarity regarding the proper use of the riding crop within the Board’s jurisdiction.

The proposed amendment provides that in all races where a jockey will not ride with a riding crop, an announcement shall be made over the public address system of such fact, and such fact shall be noted in the official program. The amendment also provides that during a race, if a jockey rides in a manner contrary to this rule, the stewards shall impose a minimum fine of $500. Additionally, a greater fine or a minimum of three suspension days, or both, can be imposed, if, in the opinion of the stewards, the violation is egregious or intentional.

The proposed amendment also provides a definition for egregious or intentional violations: “Factors in de- termining whether a violation is egregious, include but are not limited to: recent history of similar violations; number of uses over the total and consecutive limits described in subsections (b)(7) and (8); and using the crop in the overhand position.” Lastly, the proposed amendment adds new subsection (

f) which provides that in trial heats, any suspension shall include the subsequent related stakes race regardless of whether the related stakes race is designated pursuant to Board Rule 1766, Designated Races. PUBLIC HEARING The Board has not scheduled a public hearing on this proposed action. However, the Board will hold a hearing if it receives a written request for a public hearing from any interested person, or his or her authorized representative, no later than 15 days prior to the close of the written comment period.

WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any interested persons, or their authorized representative, may submit written comments about the proposed regulatory action to the Board. The written comment period closes on July 19, 2021. The Board must receive all comments at that time; however, written comments may still be submitted at the public hearing, should one be requested.

Submit comments to: Zachary Voss, Regulation Analyst California Horse Racing Board 1010 Hurley Way, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 263–6036 Fax: (916) 263–6022 Email: zavoss@chrb.ca.gov AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Authority cited: Sections 19420, 19440 and 19562, Business and Professions Code (BPC). Reference: Sections 19440, 19481 and 19562, BPC. BPC

section 19420 provides that the Board is vested with jurisdiction and supervision over meetings in California where horse races with wagering on their results are held or conducted, and over all persons or things having to do with the operation of such meetings. BPC

section 19440 provides the Board shall have all powers necessary and proper to enable it to carry out fully and effectually the purposes of BPC Division 8,

Chapter 4,

Article 2. The Board’s responsibilities shall include, but not be limited to, adopting rules and regulations for the protection of the public and the control of horse racing and parimutuel wagering, administration and enforcement of all laws, rules, and regulations affecting horse racing and parimutuel wagering, and delegating the Board’s powers and duties to the stewards appointed pursuant to Division 8,

Chapter 4,

Article 15 of the BPC to carry out fully and effectuate the purposes of Division 8,

Chapter 4 of the BPC. BPC

section 19562 provides that the Board may prescribe rules, regulations, and conditions, consistent with the provisions of BPC Division 8,

Chapter 4, under which all horse races with wagering on their results shall be conducted in California. BPC

section

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 23-Z 703 19481 provides that, in performing its responsibilities, the Board shall designate a steward at all horse racing meetings to be responsible for enforcing compliance with safety standards. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW The riding crop is a tool designed to encourage movement or aid in guidance and control over horses, either through direct contact or as a visual directional cue.

In recent years, many horse racing jurisdictions have taken steps toward limiting the use of riding crops, including how many times a rider may strike the horse and where and how the horse may be struck. The Board last amended Board Rule 1688 in 2020 to provide clarity and guidance in response to the California horse racing industry’s desire for more humane and restricted use of the riding crop.

The 2020 amendment prohibits use of the riding crop during training except when necessary to preserve the safety of the horse and rider, and describes the correct use of the riding crop, including prescribed limits on the number of times the crop may be used during a race. The 2020 amendment also provides penalties for jockeys and exercise riders who use the riding crop in a manner contrary to Board Rule 1688.

However, the 2020 amendment provides that, absent mitigating circumstances, if a jockey or exercise rider rides in a manner contrary to Board Rule 1688, the stewards shall impose a maximum fine of $1,000 and a minimum suspension of three days. While significant, the penalty imposed for riding contrary to Board Rule 1688 is not always severe enough to disincentivize violating the Board’s rules governing crop use when riding in races that award sizeable purse money.

For example, the Breeder’s Cup, an annual series of Grade I thoroughbred stakes races held in California, routinely sees collective purse prize moneys exceeding $20 million. When a single race can carry a purse worth millions of dollars, a maximum fine of $1,000 and a minimum suspension of three days is not always significant enough to deter use of the riding crop contrary to the requirements of Board Rule 1688.

Therefore, the Board has determined it is necessary to amend Board Rule 1688 to provide the Board stewards with greater flexibility when imposing penalties such that the stewards can impose penalties commensurate with both the severity of the violation, and commensurate with the level of severity necessary to effectively disincentivize anything but strict adherence to the Board’s rules governing crop use, even when faced with lucrative stakes races bearing high–value purses. Consequently, the Board proposes to amend subsection 1688(

d) to impose a minimum penalty instead of the current maximum penalty, thereby allowing the stewards a greater range of financial penalties to choose from to ensure that the severity of the penalty is commensurate with the degree of violation and severe enough to disincentivize future violations of Board Rule 1688. Amendments to subsection 1688(

d) also define when the stewards shall consider imposing higher than the minimum penalties, and which factors determine whether a violation is egregious or intentional, thereby warranting a more severe penalty. The proposed amendment also provides clarity regarding how suspensions imposed for violations of Board Rule 1688 apply to races designated pursuant to Board Rule 1766, Designated Races.

Board Rule 1766 provides that the board of stewards appointed for a race meeting shall, immediately prior to the commencement of that meeting, designate the stakes, futurities or futurity trials or other races in which a jockey or a driver who is under suspension for ten days or less for a riding or driving infraction will be permitted to compete, notwithstanding the fact that such jockey or driver is technically under suspension at the time the designated race is to be run. Board Rule 1766 creates a lack of clarity when contrasted with subsection 1688(

d) which provides the stewards the ability to suspend jockeys a minimum of three days for riding contrary to Board Rule 1688 when the violation is egregious or intentional. Should a steward assess a suspension penalty for a violation of Board Rule 1688 during a trial heat, it is currently unclear if that suspension applies to races designated pursuant to 1766.

Therefore, it is necessary for the Board to clarify that any suspension imposed for violations of Board Rule 1688 imposed during a trial heat do indeed apply to the subsequent related stakes race regardless of whether that stakes race is designated pursuant to Board Rule 1766. The proposed amendment also corrects a reference to the definition of “showing or waiving the crop or tapping the horse on the shoulder” mentioned in current subsection 1688(b)(8).

Current subsection 1688(b)(8) provides that, although the use of a riding crop is not required, any jockey or exercise rider who uses a riding crop during a race or training is prohibited from using a riding crop on a horse more than six times during a race, excluding showing or waiving the crop or tapping the horse on the shoulder as defined in subsection (d). However, the definition of “showing or waiving the crop or tapping the horse on the shoulder” is outlined in subsection 1688(c), not in subsection 1688(d).

Therefore, it is necessary to update subsection 1688(b)(8) such that it uses the correct reference to subsection 1688(c).

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 23-Z 704 Lastly, the proposed amendment provides further transparency to the wagering public about which jockeys will not ride with a riding crop during a race. The proposed amendment modifies subsection 1688(

a) to include that in all races where a jockey will not ride with a riding crop, such fact shall be noted in the official program in addition to being announced over the public address system. The Board is committed to transparency and ensuring that the wagering public can make informed decisions about races in California. Therefore, the Board has determined that it is necessary to increase the wagering public’s access to information about which jockeys will not ride with a riding crop during a race.

POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW OF ANTICIPATED BENEFITS OF PROPOSAL The proposed amendment to Board Rule 1688 provides clarity regarding the proper use of the riding crop in the Board’s jurisdiction. The proposed amendment specifies the penalties for riding contrary to Board Rule 1688, including when and in which types of races the penalties apply, and the severity of the penalties for violations of Board Rule 1688. The proposed amendment also provides for further transparency with the wagering public regarding which jockeys will not ride with a riding crop in a race.

The proposed amendment has the benefit of increasing transparency for the wagering public. The proposed amendment modifies subsection 1688(

a) to provide that in all races where a jockey will not ride with a riding crop, an announcement shall be made over the public address system of such fact, and such fact shall be noted in the official program. The inclusion of information that makes the wagering public aware of whether a jockey is riding without a riding crop, not just via an announcement over the public address system, but also as a note in the official program, increases the avenues with which the wagering public can be made aware of information that may impact their behavior toward and perception of a race.

Increased information about which jockeys will ride without a riding crop has the benefit of helping the wagering public make more informed decisions about a race. The proposed amendment also has the benefit of promoting racehorse safety and welfare by discouraging the use of the riding crop in a manner contrary to the Board’s rules. The proposed amendment modifies the penalties for riding contrary to Board Rule 1688 from “a maximum fine of $1,000 and a minimum suspension of three days” to “a minimum fine of $500.

A greater fine or a minimum of three suspension days, or both, can be imposed, if, in the opinion of the stewards, the violation is egregious or intentional”. The amended penalties provide a greater disincentive against riding contrary to Board Rule 1688 because a minimum fine of $500 can, if the stewards determine that the violation is egregious or intentional, reach much greater heights than a maximum $1,000 fine which can never exceed $1,000.

By modifying the penalty from a maximum to a minimum fine, the potential to incur much more severe financial sanctions from riding contrary to Board Rule 1688 better discourages violations by threat of larger penalties for said violations. Improper use of the riding crop is dangerous for the horse and rider, therefore, further discouraging improper use of the riding crop benefits racehorse safety and welfare. Furthermore, the proposed amendment has the benefit of providing clarity to licensees regarding proper use of the riding crop.

The proposed amendment defines egregious violations by outlining “Factors determining whether a violation is egregious”, including but not limited to, a recent history of similar violations, the number of crop uses over the total and consecutive limits described in subsections 1688(b) (7) and 1688(b)(8), and the use of the riding crop in the overhanded position. A clear definition of what constitutes an egregious violation provides jockeys and exercise riders with clarity such that they can better avoid heightened financial sanctions and better safeguard the wellbeing of the racehorses that they ride.

Lastly, the proposed amendment has the benefit of providing clarity regarding how suspensions imposed as a result of violating Board Rule 1688 apply to designated races.

Board Rule 1766 provides that the Board of Stewards appointed for a race meeting shall, immediately prior to the commencement of that meeting, designate the stakes, futurities or futurity trials or other races in which a jockey or a driver who is under suspension for ten days or less for a riding or driving infraction will be permitted to compete, notwithstanding the fact that such jockey or driver is technically under suspension at the time the designated race is to be run.

However, the proposed amendment to Board Rule 1688 clarifies that, in trial heats, any suspension shall include the subsequent related stakes race regardless of whether the related stakes race is designated pursuant to Board Rule 1766. The proposed amendment, therefore, has the benefit of clarifying for licensees how a potential suspension may impact their ability to participate in designated races while under suspension for violating Board Rule 1688.

CONSISTENCY EVALUATION During the process of developing the amendment to Board Rule 1688, the Board has conducted a search of any similar regulations on this topic and has

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 23-Z 705 concluded that the regulation is neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing state regulations. DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACTION Mandate on local agencies and school districts: none. Cost or savings to any state agency: none. Cost to any local agency or school district that must be reimbursed in accordance with Government Code (GC) sections 17500 through 17630: none. Other non–discretionary cost or savings imposed upon local agencies: none. Cost or savings in federal funding to the state: none.

The Board has made an initial determination that the proposed amendment to Board Rule 1688 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. The following studies/relevant data were relied upon in making the above determination: None. ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT The results of the Board’s Economic Impact Assessment as required by GC

section 11346.3(

b) are as follows: The adoption of the proposed amendment to Board Rule 1688 will not (1) create or eliminate jobs within California; (2) create new businesses or eliminate existing businesses within California; or (3) affect the expansion of businesses currently doing business within California.

The proposed amendment to Board Rule 1688 provides clarification regarding the proper use of the riding crop, the penalties for violating the Board’s rules regarding the use of the riding crop, when and how the penalties imposed for violating the Board’s riding crop rules apply, and when and how the wagering public is to be made aware of jockeys who will not be using a riding crop during a race. The proposed amendment to Board Rule 1688 will impact Board–licensed jockeys, exercise riders, and racing associations responsible for printing the official program for race meetings.

However, the net economic effect of the proposed regulation will be negligible. The proposed regulation imposes no compliance costs, only penalties for violations of Board Rule 1688. Therefore, the proposed regulation will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. The proposed regulation will not impact the state’s environment.

Cost impact on representative private persons or businesses: The Board 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 businesses: none. The proposal to amend Board Rule 1688 does not affect small businesses because horse racing is not a small business under GC

section 11342.610. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES In accordance with GC

section 11346.5, subdivision (a)(13), the Board has determined that no reasonable alternative it considered or that has otherwise been identified and brought to its attention 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, or would be more cost–effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law.

The Board invites interested persons to present statements or arguments with respect to alternatives to the proposed regulation at the scheduled hearing or during the written comment period.

CONTACT PERSON Inquiries concerning the substance of the proposed action and requests for copies of the proposed text of the regulation, the initial statement of reasons, the modified text of the regulation, if any, and other information upon which the rulemaking is based should be directed to: Zachary Voss, Regulation Analyst California Horse Racing Board 1010 Hurley Way, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 263–6036 Fax: (916) 263–6022 Email: zavoss@chrb.ca.gov If the person named above is not available, interested parties may contact: Amanda Drummond, Manager Policy and Regulations Telephone (916) 263–6033 Email: amdrummond@chrb.ca.gov

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 23-Z 706 A VAILABILITY OF INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS AND TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATION The Board will have the entire rulemaking file available for inspection and copying throughout the rulemaking process at its offices 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 regulation, and the initial statement of reasons.

Copies of these documents, or any of the information upon which the proposed rulemaking is based on, may be obtained by contacting Zachary Voss, or the alternative contact person at the address, phone number or e–mail address listed above. AVAILABILITY OF MODIFIED TEXT After holding a hearing, if required, and considering all timely and relevant comments received, the Board may adopt the proposed regulation substantially as described in this notice.

If modifications are made which are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text, the modified text, with changes clearly marked, shall be made available to the public for at least 15 days prior to the date on which the Board adopts the regulation. Requests for copies of any modified regulations should be sent to the attention of Zachary Voss at the address stated above. The Board will accept written comments on the modified regulation for 15 days after the date on which it is made available.

A VAILABILITY OF FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Requests for copies of the final statement of reasons, which will be available after the Board has adopted the proposed regulation in its current or modified form, should be sent to the attention of Zachary Voss at the address stated above. BOARD WEB ACCESS The Board will have the entire rulemaking file available for inspection throughout the rulemaking process at its web site. The rulemaking file consists of this notice, the proposed text of the regulation, and the initial statement of reasons. The Board’s website address is: www.chrb.ca.gov. TITLE 11.

COMMISSION ON PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING AMEND MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR LEGISLATIVELY MANDATED COURSES REGULATION 1081 Notice is hereby given that the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) proposes to amend regulations in Division 2 of Title 11 of the California Code of Regulations as described below in the Informative Digest. A public hearing is not scheduled. Pursuant to Government Code

section 11346.8, any interested person, or his/ her duly authorized representative, may request a public hearing. POST must receive the written request no later than 15 days prior to the close of the public comment period. Public Comments Due by July 19, 2021.

Notice is also given that any interested person, or authorized representative, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action by fax at (916) 227– 4547, by email to Law Enforcement Consultant Rob Patton at rob.patton@post.ca.gov, or by letter to: Commission on POST Attention: Rulemaking 860 Stillwater Road, Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95605–1630 AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE This proposal is made pursuant to the authority vested by Penal Code

Section 13503 (authority of the Commission on POST) and Penal Code

section 13506 (POST authority to adopt regulations). This proposal is intended to interpret, implement, and make specific Penal Code

section 13503(e), which authorizes POST to develop and implement programs to increase the effectiveness of law enforcement, including programs involving training and education courses. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW Commission Regulation 1081’s minimum standards for legislatively mandated courses covers a variety of topics, one of which is Human Trafficking training. According to Regulation 1081, ‘Human Trafficking Training’ subsection (7) reads as follows: “Participat- ing in the Human Trafficking Training course or courses by peace officers or the agencies employing them is voluntary.”

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 23-Z 707 Currently, California Penal Code 13519.14(

e) states “every law enforcement officer who is assigned to field or investigative duties shall complete a minimum of two hours of training in a course or courses of instruction pertaining to the handling of Human Trafficking complaints as described in subdivision (

a) by July 1, 2014, or within six months of being assigned to that position, whichever is later.” Currently, in Commission Regulation 1081, Human Trafficking training verbiage does not coincide with California Penal Code 13519.14(e). The proposed changes to Commission Regulation 1081 would eliminate confusion. Specifically, changing ‘voluntary’ to ‘required.’ The proposed change to Regulation 1081 is necessary for clarity purposes and will resolve the inconsistency and align the Regulation with statute.

Anticipated Benefits of the Proposed Amendments: The benefits anticipated by the proposed amendments to the regulations will be to resolve the inconsistency and align Regulation 1081 with statute, which will increase the efficiency of the state of California in delivering services to stakeholders. Thus, the law enforcement standards are maintained and effective in preserving peace, protection of public health, safety, and welfare of California. The proposed amendments will have no impact on worker safety or the State’s environment.

Evaluation of Inconsistency/Incompatibility with Existing State Regulations: The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training has determined that these proposed amendments are not inconsistent or incompatible with existing regulations. After conducting a review for any regulations that would relate to or affect this area, POST has concluded that these are the only regulations that concern minimum standards for legislatively mandated courses. FORMS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE There are no forms incorporated by reference.

ADOPTION OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS Following the public comment period, the Commission may adopt the proposal substantially as set forth without further notice, or the Commission may modify the proposal if such modifications remain sufficiently related to the text as described in the Informative Digest.

If the Commission makes changes to the language before the date of adoption, the text of any modified language, clearly indicated, will be made available at least 15 days before adoption to all persons whose comments were received by POST during the public comment period and to all persons who request notification from POST of the availability of such changes. A request for the modified text should be addressed to the agency official designated in this notice. The Commission will accept written comments on the modified text for 15 days after the date that the revised text is made available.

ESTIMATE OF ECONOMIC IMPACT Fiscal impact on Public Agencies including Costs or Savings to State Agencies or Costs/Savings in Federal Funding to the State: None. Non–Discretionary Costs/Savings to Local Agencies: None. Local Mandate: None. Costs to any Local Agency or School District for which Government Code sections 17500–17630 requires reimbursement: None.

Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Directly Affecting California Businesses: The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training has made an initial determination that the amended regulations will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting California businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states.

Small Business Determination: The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training has found that the proposed language will not affect small business because the amended language addresses solely the minimum standards for legislatively mandated courses. The proposed amendment does not require any additional training, nor does it eliminate the time and work needed to develop any course documents. Additionally, the Commission’s main function to select and maintain training standards for law enforcement has no effect financially on small businesses.

Effect on Housing Costs: The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training has made an initial determination that the proposed regulation would have no effect on housing costs. RESULTS OF ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT per Gov. Code

section 11346.3(

b) The adoption of the proposed amendments of regulations will neither create nor eliminate jobs in the State of California, nor result in the elimination of existing businesses or create or expand businesses in the State of California. The benefits of the proposed amendments of regulations to the regulations will increase the efficiency of the state of California in delivering services to stakeholders. Thus, the law enforcement standards are maintained and effective in preserving

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 23-Z 708 peace, protection of public health, safety, and welfare in California. There would be no impact that would affect worker safety or the State’s environment. COST IMPACTS ON REPRESENTATIVE PRIVATE PERSONS OR BUSINESSES The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action.

CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES To take this action, the Commission must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the Commission, or otherwise identified and brought to the attention of the Commission, would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed, or would be as effective as and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action, or would be more cost–effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law than the proposed action.

CONTACT PERSONS Questions regarding this proposed regulatory action may be directed to Law Enforcement Consultant Rob Patton, Commission on POST, 860 Stillwater Road, Suite 100, West Sacramento, CA 95605–1630 at (916) 227–4829. General questions regarding the regulatory process may be directed to Katie Strickland at (916) 227–2802. TEXT OF PROPOSAL Individuals may request copies of the exact language of the proposed regulations and of the initial statement of reasons, and the information the proposal is based upon, from the Commission on POST at 860 Stillwater Road, Suite 100, West Sacramento, CA 95605–1630.

These documents are also located on the POST Website at https://post.ca.gov/Regulatory–Actions. AVAILABILITY AND LOCATION OF THE RULEMAKING FILE AND THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS The rulemaking file contains all information upon which POST is basing this proposal and is available for public inspection by contacting the person(

s) named above. To request a copy of the Final Statement of Reasons once it has been approved, submit a written request to the contact person(

s) named above. TITLE 13.

AIR RESOURCES BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE ON–BOARD DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS AND ASSOCIATED ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS FOR PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT–DUTY TRUCKS, MEDIUM–DUTY VEHICLES AND ENGINES, AND HEAVY–DUTY ENGINES The California Air Resources Board (CARB or Board) will conduct a public hearing at the date and time noted below to consider approving for adoption the proposed amendments to California’s On–Board Diagnostic System Requirements for Passenger Cars, Light–Duty Trucks, and Medium–Duty Vehicles and Engines (OBD II) and Heavy–Duty Engine On–Board Diagnostic System Requirements (HD OBD).

Date: July 22, 2021 Time: 9:00 a.m. Please see the public agenda which will be posted ten days before the July 22, 2021, Board Meeting for any appropriate direction regarding a possible remote–only Board Meeting. If the meeting is to be held in person, it will be held at the California Air Resources Board, Byron Sher Auditorium, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814. This item will be considered at a meeting of the Board, which will commence at 9:00 a.m., July 22, 2021, and may continue at 8:30 a.m., on July 23, 2021.

Please consult the agenda for the hearing, which will be available at least ten days before July 22, 2021, to determine the day on which this item will be considered. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD AND SUBMITTAL OF COMMENTS In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, interested members of the public may present comments orally or in writing during the hearing and may provide comments by postal mail or by electronic submittal before the hearing. The public comment period for this regulatory action will begin on June 4, 2021.

Written comments not submitted during the hearing must be submitted on or after June 4, 2021, and received no later than July 19, 2021. Comments

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 23-Z 709 submitted outside that comment period are considered untimely. CARB may, but is not required to, respond to untimely comments, including those raising significant environmental issues. CARB requests that when possible, written and email statements be filed at least ten days before the hearing to give CARB staff and Board members additional time to consider each comment. The Board also encourages members of the public to bring to the attention of staff in advance of the hearing any suggestions for modification of the proposed regulatory action.

Comments submitted in advance of the hearing must be addressed to one of the following: Postal mail: Clerks’ Office, California Air Resources Board 1001 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 Electronic submittal: https://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bclist.php Please note that under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.), your written and oral comments, attachments, and associated contact information (e.g., your address, phone, email, etc.) become part of the public record and can be released to the public upon request.

Additionally, the Board requests but does not require that persons who submit written comments to the Board reference the title of the proposal in their comments to facilitate review. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE This regulatory action is proposed under the authority granted in California Health and Safety Code, sections 38501, 38505, 38510, 39010, 39600, 39601, 39602.5, 43000.5, 43013, 43018, 43100, 43101, 43104, 43105, 43105.5, 43106, 43154, 43211, and 43212; and Engine Manufacturers Association v . California Air Resources Board (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1022.

This action is proposed to implement, interpret, and make specific sections 38501, 38505, 38510, 39002, 39003, 39010, 39018, 39021.5, 39024, 39024.5, 39027, 39027.3, 39028, 39029, 39031, 39032, 39032.5, 39033, 39035, 39037.05, 39037.5, 39038, 39039, 39040, 39042, 39042.5, 39046, 39047, 39053, 39054, 39058, 39059, 39060, 39515, 39600, 39601, 39602.5, 43000, 43000.5, 43004, 43006, 43013, 43016, 43018, 43100, 43101, 43102, 43104, 43105, 43105.5, 43106, 43150, 43151, 43152, 43153, 43154, 43155, 43156, 43204, 43211 and 43212 of the Health and Safety Code.

INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION AND POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW (Gov. Code, § 11346.5, subdivision (a)(3)) Sections Affected: Proposed amendments to California Code of Regulations, title 13, sections 1968.2, 1968.5, 1971.1, and 1971.5. DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (Cal.

Code Regs., title 1, § 20, subdivision (c)(3)) The following documents would be incorporated in the regulation by reference as specified by section: ● SAE International (SAE) J1979–DA, “Digital Annex of E/E Diagnostic Test Modes,” April 2021, sections 1968.2(g)(1.4.1) and 1971.1(h) (1.4.1) ● SAE J1979–2 — “E/E Diagnostic Test Modes: OBDonUDS,” April 2021, sections 1968.2(g) (1.4.2) and 1971.1(h)(1.4.2) ● Data Record Reporting Procedures for Over–the– Air Reprogrammed Vehicles and Engines Using SAE J1979–2, June 1, 2021; sections 1968.2(g) (8.1.1) and 1971.1(h)(6.1.1) BACKGROUND AND EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION On–Board Diagnostic (OBD) systems serve an important role in helping to ensure that on–road vehicles and engines maintain low emissions throughout their full lives.

OBD systems monitor virtually all emission controls on engines and vehicles, including catalysts, particulate matter (PM) filters, exhaust gas recirculation systems, oxygen sensors, evaporative systems, fuel systems, electronic powertrain components, and other components and systems that can affect emissions when malfunctioning. The systems also provide specific diagnostic information in a standardized format through a serial data link on–board each vehicle.

The use and operation of OBD systems also ensure reductions of in–use motor vehicle and motor vehicle engine emissions through the incentive they create for manufacturers to improve emission system durability and performance. The Board originally adopted comprehensive OBD regulations in 1990, requiring all 1996 and newer model year passenger cars, light–duty trucks, and medium– duty vehicles and engines to have OBD II systems.

The Board subsequently updated the OBD requirements in 2002 with the adoption of California Code or Regulations, title 13, sections 1968.2 and 1968.5, which established OBD II requirements (Cal. Code Regs.,

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 23-Z 710 title 13, § 1968.2) and enforcement requirements (Cal. Code Regs., title 13, § 1968.5) for 2004 and subsequent model year vehicles. The Board has modified the OBD II regulation in several updates since initial adoption to address manufacturers’ implementation concerns and, where needed, to strengthen specific monitoring requirements. In 2005, CARB adopted California Code or Regulations, title 13,

section 1971.1, which established comprehensive OBD requirements for 2010 and subsequent model year heavy–duty engines and vehicles (i.e., vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds), referred to as HD OBD. The Board subsequently updated the HD OBD regulation in 2009 and adopted HD OBD–specific enforcement requirements (Cal. Code Regs., title 13, § 1971.5). The Board last adopted updates to the OBD II and HD OBD regulations in 2018. Since then, CARB staff has identified a number of new proposed amendments to the OBD II and HD OBD regulations that it believes are warranted.

The majority of the proposed amendments are related to the new proposed requirement for manufacturers to implement Unified Diagnostic Services (UDS) features on vehicles and engines using the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15765–4 communication protocol.

The use of UDS for OBD communications would significantly increase the number of available fault codes for manufacturers to use, provide more information related to emissions–related malfunctions that are detected by OBD systems, improve the usefulness of the generic scan tool to repair vehicles, and provide needed information on in–use monitoring performance. UDS implementation would be required for all 2027 and subsequent model year light– and medium–duty vehicles and engines, as well as heavy– duty vehicles and engines that use the ISO 15765–4 protocol.

Notwithstanding, manufacturers would be permitted to implement UDS as early as the 2023 model year.

The proposed amendments related to the use of UDS include: ● Increasing the amount of information required to be provided by each supported fault code ● Increasing the number of freeze frames, readiness status, and in–use monitor performance ratio (IUMPR) data required to be supported ● Adding new data parameters that are required to be tracked and reported for the purposes of evaluating in–use monitoring activity ● Adding necessary SAE International document references to complement these new UDS requirements Staff has also identified other proposed amendments to the OBD II regulation that it believes are warranted and necessary.

The proposed amendments would address manufacturers’ implementation concerns, enhance some existing requirements, and provide clarification on other requirements.

The proposed amendments to the OBD II regulation include: ● Revising the monitoring requirements for cold start emission reduction strategies (CSERS) to include more details on which features of the emission control system need to be monitored and under which conditions, and requiring new data to be tracked and reported related to CSERS activity ● Adding new monitoring requirements to detect engine stalls on gasoline vehicles/engines to ensure the idle speed system monitor covers stall malfunctions on virtually all engine starts ● Requiring more stringent emission malfunction thresholds for the PM filter monitor in conjunction with relaxing the IUMPR requirements ● Revising the non–methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) catalyst and catalyzed PM filter monitoring requirements for feedgas generation performance to provide clarify and to make compliance easier to achieve ● Updating the supporting data requirements for the diesel oxides of nitrogen (NOx) sensor diagnostic to better ensure the robustness of monitoring strategies that rely on sensor readings ● Specifying the data manufacturers are required to submit to support the diesel catalyst/adsorber laboratory aging protocols and catalyst/adsorber monitor malfunction criteria and the associated acceptance criteria ● Requiring the ability of vehicles to seal the evaporative system when commanded by a generic scan tool to aid service technicians in finding and fixing detected evaporative system leaks ● Revising the durability demonstration testing requirements to allow for alternate methods to conduct retesting ● Revising the production vehicle evaluation testing requirements to decrease the number of tests required for verification of monitoring requirements and to collect more data from in– use vehicles Staff is also proposing similar amendments to the HD OBD regulation,

section 1971.1, where necessary to harmonize the requirements with regard to the UDS–related amendments, the CSERS monitor and tracking data amendments, the engine stall monitor amendments, the NOx sensor monitoring amendments, and the diesel catalyst/adsorber monitor malfunction criteria amendments. Lastly, staff is proposing amendments to correct regulatory language regarding diesel misfire monitoring.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 23-Z 711 A number of minor amendments are also proposed as part of this rulemaking. Staff is proposing amendments to the OBD II enforcement regulation (section 1968.5) to align with the proposed changes to the OBD II regulation, specifically to account for the proposed amendments related to the UDS features and to add nonconformance criteria for the proposed IUMPRs applicable to the PM filter monitor.

Staff is also proposing amendments to the HD OBD enforcement regulation (section 1971.5) to align with the proposed amendments related to the UDS features in the HD OBD regulation. Lastly, additional amendments are being proposed to correct

section reference errors, typographical errors, and other minor errors in the regulations. CARB may also consider other changes to the sections affected, as listed on page two of this notice, during the course of this rulemaking process. OBJECTIVES AND BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION The proposed amendments to the OBD II and HD OBD regulations will provide manufacturers with greater compliance flexibility, and will strengthen and clarify the requirements they are expected to meet in designing and developing robust OBD systems.

These amendments will further ensure that OBD systems will be effective in detecting emission–related malfunctions during in–use driving and providing more timely identification and repair of malfunctions, therefore minimizing excess in–use emissions. Manufacturers will also be further encouraged to design and build more durable engines and emission– related components, all of which will help ensure that forecasted emission reduction benefits from adopted light–, medium–, and heavy–duty vehicle and engine emission control programs are achieved in–use.

Ultimately, the proposed action will further the goal of CARB, which is to promote and protect public health, welfare and ecological resources through the effective and efficient reduction of air pollutants, and provide safe, clean air to Californians. No quantifiable benefit to worker safety is expected. CARB carried out an extensive public process. CARB began the OBD regulatory update process at the end of 2016, when CARB staff had meetings with industry to discuss UDS–related amendments to the OBD regulation.

CARB staff then began meetings with SAE committee members in 2017 to help develop the specifications related to the proposed UDS–related requirements in the SAE standards. CARB held a public workshop in El Monte on February 27, 2020, to discuss the proposal and to seek comments. Interested stakeholders participated in the workshop in person or via webinar. The workshop notice and workshop presentation were posted on the OBD Program website prior to the workshop.

CARB staff also presented and sought comments regarding elements of the upcoming proposed amendments to the OBD regulations during SAE OBD symposiums held in September 2019 (Garden Grove, California), September 2020 (virtual symposium) and March 2021 (virtual symposium). These symposiums were attended by vehicle and engine manufacturers, scan tool manufacturers, and individuals involved in various other aspects of the automotive industry. CARB also presented and sought comments about the proposal during a Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) compliance workshop in April 2020.

Additionally, CARB staff held numerous teleconferences with the Alliance for Automotive Innovation and EMA, which represents the vast majority of stakeholders affected by the proposed rulemaking, as well as numerous meetings and correspondences (comprising of teleconferences, in–person meetings, and e–mail correspondences) with individual manufacturers. The proposal was developed in close collaboration with these stakeholders.

As a result of the comments received throughout the regulatory process, staff made significant changes to the proposed amendments to the OBD II and HD OBD regulations, which are reflected in the final proposal. COMPARABLE FEDERAL REGULATIONS In February 1993, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) promulgated OBD requirements for federally certified light–duty vehicles and trucks. (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

Part 86, §§ 86.094–2, 86.094–17, 86.094–18(a), 86.094–21(h), 86.094–25(d), 86.094–30(f), 86.094– 35(l), 86.095–30(f), 86.095–35(l); see 58 Fed.Reg. 9468–9488 (February 19, 1993).) These requirements were later amended to require OBD systems on medium–duty vehicles by the 2008 model year. The final rule with the latest modifications of the requirements was published on February 24, 2009. A central part of the federal regulation is that, for federal certification of vehicles, U.S. EPA will deem California–certified OBD II systems to comply with the federal regulations.

In Health and Safety Code sections 43013, 43018, and 43101, the Legislature directed CARB to adopt emission standards for new motor vehicles that are necessary and technologically feasible and to endeavor to achieve the maximum emission reduction possible from vehicular and other mobile sources to accomplish the attainment of the State standards at the earliest practicable date. CARB initially adopted the OBD II regulations to meet those legislative directives. The OBD II regulation was first adopted in 1990. On

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 23-Z 712 October 11, 1996, the U.S. EPA granted California’s request for a waiver regarding the OBD II regulation, as last amended in December 1994, 1 recognizing that the OBD II regulation is at least as stringent in protecting public health and welfare as the federal regulation, and that unique circumstances exist in California necessitating the need for the State’s own motor vehicle regulations program. In 2014, the U.S.

EPA adopted Tier 3 regulations that include provisions (40 CFR 86.1806–17) that generally align federal OBD requirements for 2017 and subsequent model year light duty vehicles, light–duty trucks, medium–duty passenger vehicles, and complete heavy–duty vehicles between 8,501 and 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating with CARB’s California OBD II regulation, as last amended in 2013. The federal requirements differ from the corresponding California OBD requirements in several aspects.

For example, the malfunction thresholds for the emission threshold monitors may differ based on the emission standard the vehicle is certified to, especially in cases involving vehicles certified to Tier 3 standards that have no corresponding Low Emission Vehicle standard. Additionally, the federal OBD requirements do not incorporate the anti–tampering provisions of the OBD II regulation (that prevent unauthorized modifications of the computer–coded engine operating parameters of the on–board computer).

Further, while the federal regulation does not incorporate the specific deficiency provisions of the California OBD II regulation, it contains its own deficiency provisions that contain differences from the deficiency provisions in the OBD II regulation. Specifically, the federal requirements do not assign fines for deficiencies while California’s OBD II regulation would require manufacturers to pay fines if their OBD system is certified with three or more deficiencies.

Additionally, the California OBD II regulation allows for deficiencies that are applied after certification of the OBD system (i.e., retroactive deficiencies), while the federal OBD regulation does not contain such provisions. Further, the federal requirements specifically do not allow deficiencies for complete lack of major monitors.

Further, considering California updated the OBD II regulation with more stringent requirements after 2013, including the requirement for the vehicle to track and report certain data parameters to characterize the vehicle’s NOx control performance as well as the greenhouse gas emissions in the real world, California’s OBD II regulation establishes more comprehensive and stringent requirements than the federal regulation. 1 California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Waiver of Federal Preemption; Decision , 61 Fed. Reg. 53371 (October 11, 1996). CARB initially adopted the HD OBD regulation in 2005.

A waiver for the regulation was granted by U.S. EPA in 2008. 2 CARB amended the regulation in 2010, and was granted another waiver action by U.S. EPA in 2012. 3 On November 7, 2016, the U.S. EPA formally granted California’s request for a waiver regarding the HD OBD regulation, as last amended on June 26, 2013, 4 recognizing that the HD OBD regulation is at least as stringent in protecting public health and welfare as the federal regulation, and that unique circumstances exist in California necessitating the need for the State’s own motor vehicle regulations program. The U.S.

EPA has also adopted OBD requirements for vehicles and engines above 14,000 pounds, which is the weight range for California’s “heavy–duty” class. The federal regulation (40 CFR 86.010–18) was published on February 24, 2009, and subsequently amended on September 15, 2011, and June 17, 2013. The federal regulation is consistent with CARB’s California regulation in the most important aspects. However, the California HD OBD regulation in general still establishes more comprehensive and stringent requirements than the federal OBD regulation.

For example, the HD OBD regulation generally requires California OBD systems on diesel engines to detect malfunctions before emissions exceed more stringent thresholds than those required by the federal HD OBD regulation. Further, the federal regulation does not require the OBD system to detect diesel oxidation catalyst malfunctions before a specific emission threshold is exceeded like the California OBD regulations—it is only required to detect a failure if the catalyst completely lacks NMHC conversion capability.

As another example, under the federal HD OBD regulation, the malfunction thresholds for the emission threshold monitors are not required to be adjusted to account for emissions due to infrequent regeneration events. The proposed 2021 amendments would continue California’s efforts to require more comprehensive and robust monitoring of emission related systems and components than required by federal OBD regulations.

Historically, virtually every light– and medium–duty 2 California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Notice of Waiver of Clean Air Act Preemption; California’s 2010 Model Year Heavy–Duty Vehicle and Engine On–Board Diag - nostic Standards , 73 Fed. Reg. 52042 (September 8, 2008). 3 California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Notice of Waiver of Clean Air Act Preemption; California’s 2010 Model Year Heavy–Duty Vehicle and Engine On–Board Diag - nostic Standards , 77 Fed.

Reg. 73459 (December 10, 2012). 4 California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements for 2010 and Subsequent Model Year Heavy–Duty Engines; Notice of Deci - sion, 81 Fed. Reg. 78149 (November 7, 2016).

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 23-Z 713 vehicle sold in the U.S. is designed and certified to California’s OBD II requirements in lieu of the federal OBD requirements, and virtually all heavy–duty engine manufacturers have also certified to California’s HD OBD regulation, since U.S. EPA ’s regulation directly allows acceptance of systems that have been certified to California’s regulations.

While this process is expected to continue, this may not be the case for some future heavy–duty engines that will be certified to the lower emission standards recently proposed as part of CARB’s Heavy–Duty Omnibus rulemaking update 5. This rulemaking, which will result in California regulations having different emission standards than the federal regulation, may result in heavy–duty engine manufacturers producing federal– only engines that do not meet California’s regulations.

Therefore, it is expected that heavy–duty engine manufacturers will need to design different OBD systems, one meeting the California OBD regulation and the other meeting the federal OBD regulation, for a portion of their future product lines. However, if U.S. EPA adopts emission standards in the future that align with CARB’s lower emission standards, it is expected that heavy–duty manufacturers will continue to design one OBD system to meet both the California and federal OBD requirements. AN EVALUATION OF INCONSISTENCY OR INCOMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING STATE REGULATIONS (Gov.

Code, § 11346.5, subdivision (a)(3)(D)) During the process of developing the proposed regulatory action, CARB conducted a search of any similar regulations on this topic and concluded these regulations are neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing state regulations. 5 S taff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking: Pro - posed Heavy–Duty Engine and Vehicle Omnibus Regulation and Associated Amendments: Proposed Amendments to the Exhaust Emissions Standards and Test Procedures for 2024 and Subse - quent Model Year Heavy–Duty Engines and Vehicles, Heavy– Duty On–Board Diagnostic System Requirements, Heavy–Duty In–Use Testing Program, Emissions Warranty Period and Use - ful Life Requirements, Emissions Warranty Information and Reporting Requirements, and Corrective Action Procedures, In–Use Emissions Data Reporting Requirements, and Phase 2 Heavy–Duty Greenhouse Gas Regulations, and Powertrain Test Procedures, June 23, 2020. ( https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2020/ hdomnibuslownox/isor.pdf ) DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED REGULATION Fiscal Impact/Local Mandate Determination Regarding the Proposed Action (Gov.

Code, § 11346.5, subdivisions (a)(5)&(6)): The determinations of the Board’s Executive Officer concerning the costs or savings incurred by public agencies and private persons and businesses in reasonable compliance with the proposed regulatory action are presented below.

Under Government Code sections 11346.5, subdivision (a)(5) and 11346.5, subdivision (a)(6), the Executive Officer has determined that the proposed regulatory action would create costs or savings to any State agency, would not create costs or savings in federal funding to the State, would create costs or mandate to any local agency or school district, whether or not reimbursable by the State under Government Code, title 2, division 4,

part 7 (commencing with

section 17500), or other nondiscretionary cost or savings to State or local agencies. Cost to any Local Agency or School District Requiring Reimbursement under

section 17500 et seq .: The proposed amendments are estimated to have a cumulative $491,655 in cost and $528,885 in revenue over the regulatory lifetime through 2034 for local agencies and school districts. The cost accounts for the incremental costs associated with the new vehicles purchased by local agencies during the regulatory lifetime, while the revenue accounts for the share of State sales tax revenue the local government will receive for all affected new vehicles sold in California during the regulatory lifetime. More details about the costs can be found in

Chapter VIII.E. of the Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR). Any cost to local government is not reimbursable by the State, pursuant to Government Code, title 2, division 4,

part 7 (commencing with

section 17500) because the additional costs associated with the proposed amendments apply generally to all entities that purchase affected engines and vehicles, private fleets and owners as well as State and local agencies. The proposed amendments do not mandate a new program or higher level of service on any local government. Cost or Savings for State Agencies: The proposed amendments are estimated to have a cumulative $180,062 in cost and $458,135 in revenue over the regulatory lifetime through 2034 for State agencies.

The cost accounts for the incremental costs associated with the new vehicles purchased by State agencies during the regulatory lifetime and the estimated costs incurred by the Bureau of Automotive Repair for software and database updates needed to

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 23-Z 714 accommodate the proposed UDS features in the Smog Check program. The revenue results from the share the State government will receive from the State sales tax revenue associated with the incremental costs for all affected new vehicles sold in California during the regulatory lifetime. More details about the costs can be found in

Chapter VIII.E. of the ISOR. The proposed amendments may require a small amount of additional time for CARB staff to review new OBD II and HD OBD requirements in manufacturer applications. However, clarifications in the proposed amendments would streamline other parts of the review process for CARB staff, since it will be easier to determine compliance with the requirements. Any additional staff time required as part of the proposed amendments are anticipated to be offset by a reduction in staff time from the proposed clarifications.

Other Non–Discretionary Costs or Savings on Local Agencies: No other non–discretionary costs or savings to local agencies are expected. Cost or Savings in Federal Funding to the State: No costs or savings in federal funding is anticipated. HOUSING COSTS (Gov. Code, § 11346.5, subdivision (a)(12)) The Executive Officer has also made the initial determination that the proposed regulatory action will not have a significant effect on housing costs. SIGNIFICANT STATEWIDE ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACT DIRECTLY AFFECTING BUSINESS, INCLUDING ABILITY TO COMPETE (Gov.

Code, §§ 11346.3, subdivision (a), 11346.5, subdivision (a)(7), 11346.5, subdivision (a)(8)) The Executive Officer has made an initial determination that the proposed regulatory action would not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states, or on representative private persons. Support for this determination is set forth in the Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR). RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS/ASSESSMENT (Gov.

Code, § 11346.5, subdivision (a)(10)) Non–Major Regulation: Statement of the Results of the Economic Impact Assessment (EIA): (

A) The creation or elimination of jobs within the State of California. The proposed amendments are not expected to cause a noticeable change in California employment because California accounts for only a small share of motor vehicle, heavy–duty engine, and parts manufacturing employment, and the minimal additional work done by engine and vehicle manufacturers can be done with existing staff; for example, some engineering jobs may be reassigned to design and calibrate OBD II and HD OBD systems. (

B) The creation of new business or the elimination of existing businesses within the State of California. The proposed amendments are not expected to affect business creation or elimination within California. (

C) The expansion of businesses currently doing business within the State of California. The proposed amendments are not expected to affect the expansion of existing business currently within the State of California. (

D) The benefits of the regulation to the health and welfare of California residents, worker safety, and the state’s environment. The proposed amendments are not expected to result in direct emission benefits, but rather increase the certainty that emission benefits projected for the light–, medium–, and heavy–duty vehicle programs are realized in practice. Although not quantified, the proposed amendments are expected to result in cleaner vehicles than those currently produced and improve the reliability of emissions controls and the efficiency of repair.

As a result, Californians will benefit from more durable vehicles and more efficient diagnosis and repair of malfunctioning vehicles. No quantifiable benefit to worker safety is expected. Effect on Jobs/Businesses: The Executive Officer has determined that the proposed regulatory action would not affect the creation or elimination of jobs within the State of California, the creation of new businesses or elimination of existing businesses within the State of California, or the expansion of businesses currently doing business within the State of California.

A detailed assessment of the economic impacts of the proposed regulatory action can be found in the Economic Impact Analysis in the ISOR. Benefits of the Proposed Regulation: The objective of the proposed regulatory action is to strengthen the OBD II and HD OBD requirements, provide manufacturers to greater compliance flexibility, and clarify the performance requirements manufacturers are expected to meet in designing and

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 23-Z 715 developing robust OBD II and HD OBD systems. These amendments will further ensure that OBD systems will be effective in detecting emission–related malfunctions during in–use driving and providing more timely identification and repair of malfunctions, therefore minimizing excess in–use emissions. This will encourage manufacturers to design and build more durable engines and emission–related components, all of which will help ensure that forecasted emission reduction benefits from adopted light–, medium–, and heavy–duty vehicle and engine emission control programs are achieved in–use. A

summary of these benefits is provided; please refer to “Objectives and Benefits”, under the Informative Digest of Proposed Action and Policy Statement Overview Pursuant to Government Code

section 11346.5, subdivision (a)(3) discussion on page five. BUSINESS REPORT (Gov. Code, §§ 11346.5, subdivision (a)(11); 11346.3, subdivision (d)) In accordance with Government Code sections 11346.5, subdivisions (a)(11) and 11346.3, subdivision (d), the Executive Officer finds the reporting requirements of the proposed regulatory action which apply to businesses are necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the State of California. COST IMPACTS ON REPRESENTATIVE PRIVATE PERSONS OR BUSINESSES (Gov.

Code, § 11346.5, subdivision (a)(9)) In developing this regulatory proposal, CARB staff evaluated the potential economic impacts on representative private persons or businesses. Based on the cost analysis, staff estimated that a representative private person or business would incur an impact of $0.67 to $7.37 per light–duty and medium–duty vehicle and $14.34 to $25.87 per heavy–duty vehicle to comply with the proposed amendments. The cost impacts depend on the number of new vehicles the private person or business purchases during the lifetime of the regulatory proposal. EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESS (Cal.

Code Regs., title 1, § 4, subdivisions (

a) and (b)) The Executive Officer has also determined under California Code of Regulations, title 1,

section 4, that the proposed regulatory action would affect small businesses. There is no light–duty, medium–duty, or heavy–duty vehicle/engine manufacturer that is a “small business” in California. However, any vehicle owner in California that purchases a new vehicle will be impacted by a price increase of $0.67 to $7.37 per light–duty and medium–duty vehicle and $14.34 to $25.87 per heavy–duty vehicle. For example, a small heavy–duty vehicle fleet could incur costs ranging from $0 to $51.74 for a fleet purchasing 0 to 2 heavy– duty diesel vehicles.

Vehicle/engine repair shops in California will be impacted by an incremental cost of $8 per shop owner associated with upgrading scan tools for diagnostics and repairs of vehicles. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES (Gov.

Code, § 11346.5, subdivision (a)(13)) Before taking final action on the proposed regulatory action, the Board must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the Board, or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the Board, 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 action, or would be more cost–effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provisions of law.

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION If adopted by CARB, CARB plans to submit the proposed regulatory action to the U.S. EPA for approval as a revision to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) required by the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). The adopted regulatory action would be submitted as a SIP revision because it amends regulations intended to reduce emissions of air pollutants in order to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards promulgated by U.S. EPA pursuant to the CAA.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CARB, as the lead agency for the proposed amendments, has concluded that this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15061, because the action is both an Action Taken by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment (as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15308 for “class 8” exemptions); and it is also exempt as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15306 (“class 6” exemption for the purposes of data collection) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed action may result in a significant adverse impact on the environment.

A brief explanation of the basis for reaching this conclusion is included in

Chapter VI of the ISOR.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 23-Z 716 SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION REQUEST Consistent with California Government Code

section 7296.2, special accommodation or language needs may be provided for any of the following: ● An interpreter to be available at the hearing; ● Documents made available in an alternate format or another language; and ● A disability–related reasonable accommodation. To request these special accommodations or language needs, please contact the Clerks’ Office at cotb@arb.ca.gov or (916) 322–5594 as soon as possible, but no later than ten business days before the scheduled Board hearing. TTY/TDD/Speech to Speech users may dial 711 for the California Relay Service.

Consecuente con la sección 7296.2 del Código de Gobierno de California, una acomodación especial o necesidades lingüísticas pueden ser suministradas para cualquiera de los siguientes: ● Un intérprete que esté disponible en la audiencia; ● Documentos disponibles en un formato alterno u otro idioma; y ● Una acomodación razonable relacionados con una incapacidad.

Para solicitar estas comodidades especiales o necesidades de otro idioma, por favor Ilame a la oficina del Consejo al cotb@arb.ca.gov o ( 9 1 6) 3 22– 5594 lo más pronto posible, pero no menos de 10 días de trabajo antes del día programado para la audiencia del Consejo. TTY/TDD/Personas que necesiten este servicio pueden marcar el 711 para el Servicio de Retransmisión de Mensajes de California.

AGENCY CONTACT PERSONS Inquiries concerning the substance of the proposed regulatory action may be directed to the agency representative Jason Wong, Manager, On– Board Diagnostics Program Development Section, at (626) 575–6838 or Jason.Wong@arb.ca.gov, or (designated back–up contact) Adriane Chiu, Air Resources Engineer, On–Board Diagnostics Program Development Section, at (626) 350–6453 or Adriane.Chiu@arb.ca.gov. If you are unable to reach the preceding designated contacts, please contact Chris Hopkins, Regulations Coordinator, at Chris. Hopkins@arb.ca.gov or (916) 445–9564.

AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS CARB staff has prepared a Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) for the proposed regulatory action, which includes a

summary of the economic and environmental impacts of the proposal. The report is entitled: Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Revisions to the On–Board Diagnostic System Requirements and Associated Enforcement Provisions for Passenger Cars, Light–Duty Trucks, Medium–Duty Vehicles and Engines, and Heavy– Duty Engines. Copies of the ISOR and the full text of the proposed regulatory language, in underline and strikeout format to allow for comparison with the existing regulations, may be accessed on CARB’s website listed below, on June 1, 2021.

Please contact Chris Hopkins, Regulations Coordinator, at Chris.Hopkins@arb. ca.gov or (916) 445–9564 if you need physical copies of the documents. Because of current travel, facility, and staffing restrictions, the California Air Resources Board’s offices have limited public access. Pursuant to Government Code

section 11346.5, subdivision (b), upon request to the aforementioned Regulations Coordinator, physical copies would be obtained from the Public Information Office, California Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street, Visitors and Environmental Services Center, First Floor, Sacramento, California, 95814. Further, the agency representative to whom nonsubstantive inquiries concerning the proposed administrative action may be directed is Chris Hopkins, Regulations Coordinator, (916) 445–9564.

The Board staff has compiled a record for this rulemaking action, which includes all the information upon which the proposal is based. This material is available for inspection upon request to the contact persons. HEARING PROCEDURES The public hearing will be conducted in accordance with the California Administrative Procedure Act, Government Code, title 2, division 3,

part 1,

chapter 3.5 (commencing with

section 11340). Following the public hearing, the Board may take action to approve for adoption the regulatory language as originally proposed, or with non–substantial or grammatical modifications. The Board may also approve for adoption the proposed regulatory language with other modifications if the text as modified is sufficiently related to the originally proposed text that the public was adequately placed on notice and that the regulatory language as modified could result from the proposed regulatory action.

If this occurs, the full regulatory text, with the modifications clearly indicated, will be made available to the public, for written comment, at least 15–days before final adoption. The public may request a copy of the modified regulatory text from CARB’s Public Information Office, Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street, Visitors

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 23-Z 717 and Environmental Services Center, First Floor, Sacramento, California, 95814. FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS A VAILABILITY Upon its completion, the Final Statement of Reasons (FSOR) will be available and copies may be requested from the agency contact persons in this notice, or may be accessed on CARB’s website listed below. INTERNET ACCESS This notice, the ISOR and all subsequent regulatory documents, including the FSOR, when completed, are available on CARB’s website for this rulemaking at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2021/obd2021. TITLE 13.

NEW MOTOR VEHICLE BOARD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the California New Motor Vehicle Board (“Board”), pursuant to the authority vested in the Board by subdivision (

a) of Vehicle Code

section 3050 proposes to adopt the proposed regulations as described below, after consid- ering all comments, objections, and recommendations regarding the proposed regulatory action. PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION The Board proposes to amend

section 556 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations and add

section 586.5 to Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations pertaining to protests and petitions. PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS PRIOR TO NOTICE Prior to the publication of this notice, the Board con- sidered the proposed regulations at a noticed General Meeting held on December 2, 2019. Eighteen (18) days prior to the meeting, a detailed agenda including the consideration of the proposed text of the regula - tions was mailed to all individuals and entities on the Board’s Public Mailing list, Electronic Public Mailing list, and website subscription list. The agenda was also posted on the Board’s website.

Comments by the public were received at the December 2, 2019, General Meeting in relation to the proposed regulations and the Board took those com - ments into consideration. The Board subsequently considered the proposed regulations at a noticed General Meeting held on March 5, 2020. Fourteen (14) days prior to the meet - ing, a detailed agenda including the consideration of the proposed text of the regulations was mailed to all individuals and entities on the Board’s Public Mailing list, Electronic Public Mailing list, and website sub - scription list. The agenda was also posted on the Board’s website.

No comments by the public were received at the March 5, 2020, General Meeting and no further public discussion was held prior to publication of the notice. At this meeting, the Board voted to move forward with final version of the regulatory amendments. PUBLIC HEARING The Board has not scheduled a public hearing on this proposed action. However, the Board will hold a hearing if it receives a written request for a public hearing from any interested person, or his or her au - thorized representative, no later than 15 days before the close of the written comment period.

WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any person interested, or his or her authorized rep - resentative, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action to the Board by e– mail at danielle.phomsopha@nmvb.ca.gov or nmvb@ nmvb.ca.gov or by facsimile (FAX) at (916) 323–1632. The written comment period closes at midnight on July 20, 2021. The Board will only consider comments received at the Board’s offices by that time. Submit comments to: Danielle R. Phomsopha, Senior Staff Counsel New Motor Vehicle Board P.O.

Box 188680 Sacramento, CA 95818–8680 (916) 327–3129 direct line (916) 445–1888 main line (916) 323–1632 fax danielle.phomsopha@nmvb.ca.gov AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Vehicle Code

section 3050, subdivision (a), autho - rizes the Board to amend the proposed regulations. The proposed regulations implement, interpret, and make specific Vehicle Code sections 3050 and 3065.3. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW The adopted mission of the Board is to: “…enhance relations between dealers and manufacturers through - out the State by resolving disputes in the new motor vehicle industry in an efficient, fair and cost–effective manner.” The adopted vision statement provides that the Board “demonstrate professionalism, integrity,

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 23-Z 718 and accountability in securing fair resolutions to mo - tor vehicle industry disputes.” The Board proposes to amend

Section 556 and add

Section 586.5 to include the information necessary to conform the regulations with statute due to recently enacted legislation and provide clarity for those wish- ing to file protests and petitions before the Board. A new type of protest was created by legislation ef- fective January 1, 2020, where a franchisee can file a protest with the Board to determine whether a franchi- sor has complied with the Vehicle Code requirements that “[n]o franchisor shall establish or maintain a per - formance standard, sales objective, or program for measuring a dealer’s sales, service or customer service performance that is inconsistent with the standards set forth in subdivision (

g) of

Section 11713.13 [of the Vehicle Code]” (“performance standard protest”).

Section 556 describes the form and filing of a petition. Additional information is being added to describe what shall be included in the petition. Specifically, a petition shall include facts, legal authority and relief sought and include declarations or other evidence and documentation to support the petition. The additional language clarifying what is required in filing a petition provides clarity to those who wish to have a petition heard by the Board while also providing the Board with the information it needs to hear a petition before it.

Section 586.5 is being added to provide the information needed to file a new type of protest created by recently enacted legislation. The language of the proposed regulation is nearly identical to language already describing protests filed pursuant to other related statutes (see 13 CCR sections 585 and 586). OBJECTIVE AND ANTICIPATED BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION The broad objective of the regulations is to clarify for litigants that appear before the Board the informa - tion necessary to effectively represent themselves or their clients.

The specific benefit anticipated from the regulations is promoting the expeditious and economical resolu - tion of statutorily enumerated disputes between new motor vehicle dealers (franchisees) and their manufac- turers or distributors (franchisors). The Board keeps these types of cases from further clogging our already congested courts. It provides a uniformity of deci - sions across the state, allowing franchisors and their dealers to conduct their business in compliance with California law.

EVALUATION OF INCONSISTENCY/ INCOMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING STATE REGULATIONS The Board conducted an evaluation of the proposed regulations’ potential inconsistency or incompatibility with existing state regulations and has found that they are neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing state regulations.

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: 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. ■ Cost impacts on a representative private person or business: The Board 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, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses, including the ability of California business to compete with businesses in other states: None. ■ Significant effect on housing costs: None.

RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS/ASSESSMENT The Board concludes that the proposed regula - tions will not (1) create any jobs within the State of California, (2) eliminate any jobs within the State of California, (3) create any new businesses within the State of California, (4) eliminate any existing busi - nesses within the State of California, or (5) cause the expansion of businesses currently doing business within the State of California. BENEFITS OF THE REGULATION The proposed regulations will promote the expedi - tious and economical resolution of disputes between

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 23-Z 719 new motor vehicle dealers and their manufacturers or distributors. SMALL BUSINESS DETERMINATION The Board has determined that the proposed regu - lations will have no effect on small businesses. This determination was made because no small businesses are legally required to comply with the regulations, are legally required to enforce the regulations, or de - rive a benefit from or incur an obligation from the enforcement of the regulations.

The proposed regula - tions merely clarify case management for franchised new motor vehicle dealers and their franchisors (new vehicle manufacturers or distributors) who choose to file a protest or petition with the Board. 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 Board 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 action, or would be more cost–effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law.

The Board invites interested persons to present comments, statements or arguments with respect to al- ternatives to the proposed regulation, during the writ - ten comment period or at the public hearing, if one is requested. CONTACT PERSONS Please direct requests for copies of the proposed text (the “express terms”) of the regulations, the initial statement of reasons, the modified text of the regu - lations, if any, or other information upon which the rulemaking is based to Ms. Phomsopha at the follow - ing address: Danielle R. Phomsopha, Senior Staff Counsel New Motor Vehicle Board P.O.

Box 188680 Sacramento, CA 95818–8680 (916) 327–3129 direct line (916) 445–1888 main line (916) 323–1632 fax danielle.phomsopha@nmvb.ca.gov The backup contact person for these inquiries is: Robin P. Parker, Chief Counsel New Motor Vehicle Board P.O. Box 188680 Sacramento, CA 95818–8680 (916) 323–1536 direct line (916) 445–1888 main line (916) 323–1632 fax robin.parker@nmvb.ca.gov A VAILABILITY OF STATEMENT OF REASONS, TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATION, AND RULEMAKING FILE The Board will have the entire rulemaking file available for inspection and copying throughout the rulemaking process at its offices by appointment.

Please contact the contact persons listed above should you wish to make an appointment for in–office inspec- tion and copying. 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, the initial statement of reasons, the Economic and Fiscal Impact Statement, and all the information upon which the proposal is based. Copies may be obtained by con- tacting the contact persons identified above.

AVAILABILITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT After considering all timely and relevant comments received, the Board may adopt the proposed regula - tions 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 indicat - ed) available to the public for at least 15 days before the Board adopts the regulations as revised. Requests for copies of any modified regulations should be ad - dressed to the Board contact person or back–up con - tact person at the addresses indicated above.

The Board will accept written comments on the modified regulations for 15 days after the date on which they are made available to the public. A VAILABILITY OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Upon completion of the Final Statement of Reasons, copies thereof may be obtained by contacting Ms. Phomsopha or Ms. Parker at the above address.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 23-Z 720 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 font can be accessed through the Board’s website at www.nmvb.ca.gov. TITLE 13. NEW MOTOR VEHICLE BOARD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the California New Motor Vehicle Board (“Board”), pursuant to the authority vested in the Board by subdivision (

a) of Vehicle Code

section 3050 proposes to adopt the proposed regulations as described below, after consid- ering all comments, objections, and recommendations regarding the proposed regulatory action. PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION The Board proposes to amend sections 550, 551.8, 551.12, 553.40, 558, 586 and 590 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations pertaining to case management. PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS PRIOR TO NOTICE Prior to the publication of this notice, the Board considered and adopted the proposed regulations at a noticed General Meeting held on December 2, 2019.

Eighteen (18) days prior to the meeting, a detailed agenda including the consideration of the proposed text of the regulations was mailed to all individuals and entities on the Board’s Public Mailing list, Electronic Public Mailing list, and website subscription list. The agenda was also posted on the Board’s website. No comments by the public were received at the December 2, 2019, General Meeting in relation to the regulations in this notice, and no further public dis - cussion was held prior to publication of the notice. PUBLIC HEARING The Board has not scheduled a public hearing on this proposed action.

However, the Board will hold a hearing if it receives a written request for a public hearing from any interested person, or his or her au - thorized representative, no later than 15 days before the close of the written comment period. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any person interested, or his or her authorized rep - resentative, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action to the Board by e– mail at danielle.phomsopha@nmvb.ca.gov or nmvb@ nmvb.ca.gov or by facsimile (FAX) at (916) 323–1632. The written comment period closes at midnight on July 20, 2021.

The Board will only consider comments received at the Board’s offices by that time. Submit comments to: Danielle R. Phomsopha, Senior Staff Counsel New Motor Vehicle Board P.O. Box 188680 Sacramento, CA 95818–8680 (916) 327–3129 direct line (916) 445–1888 main line (916) 323–1632 fax danielle.phomsopha@nmvb.ca.gov AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Vehicle Code

section 3050, subdivision (a), autho - rizes the Board to amend the proposed regulations. The proposed regulations implement, interpret, and make specific Business and Professions Code

section 472.5, Code of Civil Procedure sections 2015.5 and 2016.020, Government Code

section 11425.40, Vehicle Code sections 1504, 3050, 3050.7, 3060, 3062, 3064, 3065, 3065.1, 3065.3, 3065.4, 3066, 3070, 3072, 3074, 3075, 3076, 3080, 3085 and 3085.2.

INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW The adopted mission of the Board is to: “… enhance relations between dealers and manufacturers through - out the State by resolving disputes in the new motor vehicle industry in an efficient, fair and cost–effective manner.” The adopted vision statement provides that the Board “… demonstrate professionalism, integrity, and accountability in securing fair resolutions to mo - tor vehicle industry disputes.” The Board proposes to amend Sections 550, 551.8, 551.12, 553.40, 558, 586 and 590 to include the in - formation necessary to conform the regulations with statute due to recently enacted legislation.

Several new types of protests were created by recently enacted legislation including, a protest where an association primarily owned by, or comprised of, new motor ve - hicle dealers and that primarily represents the interest of dealers can be filed challenging an export or sale– for–resale prohibition policy of a manufacturer or distributor (“association protests”); a protest where a franchisee may file a protest with the Board for a dec- laration of its retail labor rate or retail parts rate when such rates are in dispute or the franchisor fails to com- ply with the requirements in statute (“warranty reim - bursement protest”); and a franchisee can file a protest with the Board to determine whether a franchisor has complied with the Vehicle Code requirements that “[n]

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 23-Z 721 o franchisor shall establish or maintain a performance standard, sales objective, or program for measuring a dealer’s sales, service or customer service perfor - mance that is inconsistent with the standards set forth in subdivision (

g) of

Section 11713.13 [of the Vehicle Code]” (“performance standard protest”).

Section 550 defines a “Protest” and “Protestant.” “Protest” is being amended to include the new types of protests created in statute. “Protestant” is being amended to include the new type of Protestant that can file a protest: an association primarily owned by, or comprised of, new motor vehicle dealers and that primarily represents the interest of dealers. The new statutes are also being added to the Reference

section of the regulation.

Section 551.8 describes the dismissals of petitions or protests. This regulation is being amended to add that an order of dismissal of an association protest shall be a final order. The statutory

section regarding association protests is also being added to the Reference section.

Section 551.12 describes who may file a peremptory challenge and the mechanism for doing so. Language is being added to this

Section to conform with the amendments made in statute. In addition, reference to the new association protest is being added to the regulation language to clarify that the regulation does not limit the provisions of the statute. The new association protest is being added to the Reference

section as well.

Section 553.40 relates to the Board’s filing fees upon receipt of a new protest. The new protest statutes are being added to the Reference

section so the Board may be able to collect filings fees, as it does for all protests.

Section 558 clarifies how a Respondent may submit information as exhibits to its answer. In addition, a subsection is removed from the Reference

section for clarity.

Section 586 relates to warranty reimbursement filings and protests. This

Section is being amended to remove all references to a requirement that has been removed from statute. In addition, the new warranty reimbursement protest is being referenced as needed in this Section. The new protest is also being added to the Reference section, as well as the removal of specific subsections for clarity.

Section 590 relates to hearings by the Board and is being amended to add the new protest rights added in statute. Further, the appropriate Vehicle Code sections are being added to the Reference section, as well as specific subsections are being removed for clarity. OBJECTIVE AND ANTICIPATED BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION The broad objective of the regulations is to clarify for litigants that appear before the Board the informa - tion necessary to effectively represent themselves or their clients.

The specific benefit anticipated from the regulations is promoting the expeditious and economical resolu - tion of statutorily enumerated disputes between new motor vehicle dealers (franchisees) and their manufac- turers or distributors (franchisors). The Board keeps these types of cases from further clogging our already congested courts. It provides a uniformity of deci - sions across the state, allowing franchisors and their dealers to conduct their business in compliance with California law.

EVALUATION OF INCONSISTENCY/ INCOMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING STATE REGULATIONS The Board conducted an evaluation of the proposed regulations’ potential inconsistency or incompatibility with existing state regulations and has found that they are neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing state regulations.

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: 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. ■ Cost impacts on a representative private person or business: The Board 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, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses, including the ability of California business to compete with businesses in other states: None. ■ Significant effect on housing costs: None.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 23-Z 722 RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS/ASSESSMENT The Board concludes that the proposed regula - tions will not (1) create any jobs within the State of California, (2) eliminate any jobs within the State of California, (3) create any new businesses within the State of California, (4) eliminate any existing busi - nesses within the State of California, or (5) cause the expansion of businesses currently doing business within the State of California.

BENEFITS OF THE REGULATION The proposed regulations will promote the expedi - tious and economical resolution of disputes between new motor vehicle dealers and their manufacturers or distributors. SMALL BUSINESS DETERMINATION The Board has determined that the proposed regu - lations will have no effect on small businesses. This determination was made because no small businesses are legally required to comply with the regulations, are legally required to enforce the regulations, or de - rive a benefit from or incur an obligation from the enforcement of the regulations.

The proposed regula - tions merely clarify case management for franchised new motor vehicle dealers and their franchisors (new vehicle manufacturers or distributors) who choose to file a protest or petition with the Board. 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 Board 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 action, or would be more cost–effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law.

The Board invites interested persons to present comments, statements or arguments with respect to al- ternatives to the proposed regulation, during the writ - ten comment period or at the public hearing, if one is requested. CONTACT PERSONS Please direct requests for copies of the proposed text (the “express terms”) of the regulations, the initial statement of reasons, the modified text of the regu - lations, if any, or other information upon which the rulemaking is based to Ms. Phomsopha at the follow - ing address: Danielle R. Phomsopha, Senior Staff Counsel New Motor Vehicle Board P.O.

Box 188680 Sacramento, CA 95818–8680 (916) 327–3129 direct line (916) 445–1888 main line (916) 323–1632 fax danielle.phomsopha@nmvb.ca.gov The backup contact person for these inquiries is: Robin P. Parker, Chief Counsel New Motor Vehicle Board P.O. Box 188680 Sacramento, CA 95818–8680 (916) 323–1536 direct line (916) 445–1888 main line (916) 323–1632 fax robin.parker@nmvb.ca.gov A VAILABILITY OF STATEMENT OF REASONS, TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATION, AND RULEMAKING FILE The Board will have the entire rulemaking file available for inspection and copying throughout the rulemaking process at its offices by appointment.

Please contact the contact persons listed above should you wish to make an appointment for in–office inspec- tion and copying. 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, the initial statement of reasons, the Economic and Fiscal Impact Statement, and all the information upon which the proposal is based. Copies may be obtained by con- tacting the contact persons identified above.

AVAILABILITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT After considering all timely and relevant comments received, the Board may adopt the proposed regula - tions 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 indicat - ed) available to the public for at least 15 days before the Board adopts the regulations as revised. Requests for copies of any modified regulations should be ad - dressed to the Board contact person or back–up con - tact person at the addresses indicated above.

The Board will accept written comments on the modified

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 23-Z 723 regulations for 15 days after the date on which they are made available to the public. A VAILABILITY OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Upon completion of the Final Statement of Reasons, copies thereof may be obtained by contacting Ms. Phomsopha or Ms. Parker 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 strikeout font can be accessed through the Board’s website at www.nmvb.ca.gov. TITLE 15.

PRISON INDUSTRY AUTHORITY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the California Prison Industry Authority (CALPIA) and the Prison Industry Board (PIB) pursuant to the authority granted by Penal Code (PC) Sections 2800, 2802, 2807, 2808, and 2809 in order to implement, interpret and make specific Penal Code 2808, propose to amend Sections 8000, 8004.1 and 8004.2, in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 15, concerning requirements for inmate educational achievements. PUBLIC HEARING At this time, no public hearing has been scheduled concerning the proposed regulatory action.

Anyone may request a public hearing by contacting the Contact Person set forth below. Requests for public hearings must be made no later than July 4, 2021, 15 days before the close of public notice. SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION REQUEST Consistent with California Government Code

Section 7296.2, special accommodation or language needs may be provided, including any of the following: ● An interpreter to be available at a hearing. ● Documents made available in an alternate format or another language. ● A disability–related reasonable accommodation. To request these special accommodations or language needs, please contact Roxanna Leffel at CALPIA at (916) 358–1721 or Roxanna.Leffel@ calpia.ca.gov as soon as possible, but no later than 10 business days before a scheduled hearing.

Para solicitor estas adaptaciones especiales o servicios de idioma, puede contactar a CALPIA at (916) 358–1721 or Roxanna.Leffel@calpia.ca.gov lo más pronto possible y a más tarder 10 dias habiles antes de la fecha de la audiencia de la Junta (Board). PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD The public comment period will close on July 21, 2021. Any person may submit public comments regarding the proposed changes in writing. To be considered, comments must be received before the close of the comment period.

Use one of the following to submit: MAIL or HAND DELIVER Regulatory Manager CALPIA/Legal Services Unit 560 East Natoma Street Folsom, CA 95630 FAX (916) 358–2709 E–MAIL PIAregs@calpia.ca.gov Due to limitations of the email system, emails larger than 15 megabytes (MB) may be rejected and will not be delivered and received by CALPIA. Therefore, emails larger than 15 MB should be submitted in several separate emails or another form of delivery should be used. CALPIA requests but does not require that reports or articles in excess of 25 pages submitted with any comments include a

summary of the reports or articles. This

summary should include a concise overview of the report or article, describe the reason for submitting the report and describe the relevance of the reports or articles to the proposed regulation. Please note that under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code

Section 6250, et . seq ., your written and oral comments, attachments, and associated contact information ( e .g ., your address, phone, email, etc.) become part of the public record and can be released to the public upon request. CONTACT PERSONS Please direct any inquiries regarding this action or questions of substance of the proposed regulatory action, or for copies of the proposed text of the regulations, the initial statement of reasons, the modified text of the regulations, if any, or other information upon which the rulemaking is based to: M. Doherty, Regulatory Manager California Prison Industry Authority 560 East Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone (916) 358–1711

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 23-Z 724 In the event the contact person is unavailable, inquiries should be directed to: C. Pesce, Executive Assistant California Prison Industry Authority 560 East Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone (916) 358–1711 AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Penal Code

Section 2800: In 1982, the California Legislature restructured the Department of Corrections’ industries and vocational training program for inmates, abolishing the Correctional Industries Commission and replacing it with the newly created Prison Industry Authority (PIA) (subsequently renamed CALPIA) under the direction of the Prison Industry Board. Penal Code

Section 2807(a):

Section 2807(

a) provides that CALPIA is authorized and empowered to operate industrial, agricultural, and service enterprises which will provide products and services needed by the state, or any political subdivision thereof, or by the federal government, or any department, agency, or corporation thereof, or for any other public use. By giving CALPIA these duties and power by statute, rulemaking authority is implicitly delegated to adopt those rules and regulations necessary for the due and efficient exercise of a duty or power expressly granted. Penal Code

Section 2802:

Section 2802 provides for the existence of a Prison Industry Board (PIB). Penal Code

Section 2808:

Section 2808 provides the PIB, in the exercise of its duties, all of the powers and do all of the things that the board of directors of a private corporation would do. State Departments have been given “Quasi– Legislative” powers to adopt rules (regulations) that are consistent with state law so that they can run the programs that they are responsible for. One court opinion described this as the power to “fill in the details” of the state statute(

s) that empower a department to operate a program. Helene Curtis, Inc . v . Assessment Appeals Bd . (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 124. By the implied terms of Penal Code Sections 2808, 2802, 2807, 2800, CALPIA has the authority to adopt regulations to implement, interpret, make specific or otherwise carry out the provisions of these statutes. INFORMATIVE DIGEST The proposed regulatory action is necessary to provide revisions to inmate educational requirements for CALPIA inmate assignments. The identified need for this regulation is the following.

The Prison Law Office believes that the educational focus on a High School Diploma (HSD) or Graduate Equivalence Degree also known as General Education Diploma (GED), discriminates against DDP inmates who are unable to earn an HSD or GED. The proposed regulatory amendment is to accept a Certificate of Attendance and Participation (CAP), known as a Certificate of Participation, alternative for these individuals.

Existing regulations require that to participate in CALPIA assignments, within two years of the inmate’s initial CALPIA assignment, an inmate must complete a General Education Diploma (GED) or high school diploma (HSD). This regulatory action permits a third option for DDP participants as they may earn a Certificate of Attendance and Participation (CAP) rather than obtaining a GED or HSD. The CAP validates that the inmate has satisfactorily completed a prescribed high school alternative course of study for employment applications, Department of Rehabilitation (DOR) services, and graduation participation.

This option for students with severe cognitive disabilities is consistent with the practice in public education, and therefore, adding this option to CALPIA ’s regulations, affords nondiscriminatory access to CALPIA assignments. CDCR enters the CAP into the Certificates/Diplomas Awarded

section in the Strategic Offender Management System (SOMS). The inmate is then eligible to participate in a CDCR graduation ceremony and, with this regulatory action, will meet the requirements for ongoing CALPIA assignments. CALPIA does not discriminate in employment or the admission and access to its programs or activities. Inmates with physical or developmental disabilities, or inmates who participate in CDCR’s Mental Health Services Delivery System, and who otherwise meet the hiring requirements, are not excluded from CALPIA job or training positions.

CALPIA affords inmates reasonable accommodation to access programs as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), and applicable nondiscrimination laws. POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW The purpose and the necessity of this regulatory action are to eliminate potential discrimination against Developmentally Disabled Program (DDP) inmates with severe cognitive disabilities who have earned a Certificate of Attendance and Participation (CAP) referred to as a Certificate of Completion, from engaging in CALPIA assignments.

Anticipated Benefits of the Proposed Regulation: The proposed regulatory action will provide the following benefits:

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 23-Z 725 ● Eliminate the possibility of the appearance of disability discrimination in CALPIA inmate assignments. ● Provide revisions to inmate educational requirements for CALPIA inmate assignments. ● Meet the concerns of the Prison Law Office, which represents CDCR inmates on issues of discrimination. ● Support CALPIA ’s goal that inmates with physical or developmental disabilities, or inmates who participate in CDCR’s Mental Health Services Delivery System, and who otherwise meet the hiring requirements, are not excluded from CALPIA job or training positions.

Evaluation of Inconsistency/Incompatibility with Existing Regulations: CALPIA evaluated whether the proposed regulations are inconsistent or incompatible with existing state regulations and has determined that no other state regulations address the same subject matter and that the proposed regulations are consistent and compatible with other existing state regulations. During the process of developing this regulation, CALPIA has conducted a search of any similar regulations on this topic and has concluded that these regulations are neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing laws and regulations.

After conducting a review for regulations that would relate to or affect this area, CALPIA has concluded that these are the only CALPIA regulations that concern this exact processes and procedures for the adoption, amendment, and repeal of regulations by California state agencies. Mandated by Federal Law or Regulations: The proposed regulations are not federally mandated. DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACTION Local Mandates: Mandate on local agencies and school districts: None.

This action imposes no mandates on local agencies or school districts, or a mandate which requires reimbursement pursuant to Government Code Sections 17500 through 17630. Fiscal Impact Statement: Cost or savings to any state agency: None. Cost to any local agency or school district that is required to 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 Cost impact on a representative private person or business: None.

CALPIA 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 Statewide Adverse Economic Impact on Business: CALPIA has initially determined that the proposed action will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states because they are not affected by the internal management of CALPIA employees.

Effect on Housing Costs: CALPIA has determined that the proposed action will have no significant effect on housing costs. Results of the Economic Impact Analysis/Assessment: CALPIA concludes that it is unlikely that the proposed regulations will: (1) create or eliminate any jobs; (2) create or eliminate any businesses; or (3) result in the expansion of businesses currently doing business within the state. In accordance with the Government Code

Section 11346.3(b), the CALPIA has made the following assessments regarding the proposed regulation.

Benefits of Proposed Action: As stated above under the Informative Digest and Policy Statement Overview, the benefits of the regulatory action include that the proposed regulatory action will provide the following benefits: ● Eliminate the possibility of the appearance of disability discrimination in CALPIA inmate assignments. ● Provide revisions to inmate educational requirements for CALPIA inmate assignments. ● Meet the concerns of the Prison Law Office, which represents CDCR inmates on issues of discrimination. ● Support CALPIA ’s goal that inmates with physical or developmental disabilities, or inmates who participate in CDCR’s Mental Health Services Delivery System, and who otherwise meet the hiring requirements, are not excluded from CALPIA job or training positions.

Creation or Elimination of Jobs within the State of California: CALPIA has determined that these regulatory changes will have no impact on the creation or elimination of existing jobs within California because those jobs are not affected by the internal management of CALPIA employees.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 23-Z 726 Creation, Expansion, or Elimination of Existing Bus