GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REGISTER 2020, NUMBER 14−Z PUBLISHED WEEKLY BY THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APRIL 3, 2020 PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS TITLE 2. CALIFORNIA COLLABORATIVE FOR EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE Conflict−of−Interest Code Amendment — Notice File Number Z2020−0324−06 ............................. 485 TITLE 2. FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Conflict−of−Interest Code — Notice File Number Z2020−0324−05 ....................................... 485 Amendment Multi−County: Central Sierra Child Support Agency Public Entity Risk Management Authority (PERMA) TITLE 4.

CALIFORNIA HORSE RACING BOARD Use of Riding Crop — Notice File Number Z2020−0324−03 ............................................ 486 TITLE 5. EDUCATION AUDIT APPEALS PANEL Supplement to Audits of K−12 Local Education Agencies (LEAs) — Fiscal Year (FY) 2019−2020 — Notice File Number Z2020−0324−14 ..................................... 490 TITLE 8. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS BOARD Protection from Wildfire Smoke General Industry Safety Orders (GISO) New

Section 5141.1 — Notice File Number Z2020−0324−02 ............................................ 493 TITLE 11. COMMISSION ON PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING Amend and Update the Training and Testing Specifications for Peace Officer Basic Courses — Notice File Number Z2020−0324−07 ..................................... 502 TITLE 11. COMMISSION ON PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING Amendment to Regulation 1015, Reimbursements for Training — Notice File Number Z2020−0324−08 ..................................................... 504 (Continued on next page) Time- Dated Material

TITLE 11. COMMISSION ON PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING Training and Testing Specifications for Peace Officer Basic Courses — Notice File Number Z2020−0324−09 ................................................ 507 TITLE 13. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL Smoking on School Bus — Notice File Number Z2020−0323−01 ......................................... 509 TITLE 24. BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION Title 24,

Part 2, California Building Code — 2019 Intervening Code Cycle — Notice File Number Z2020−0324−10 .................................................. 511 TITLE 24. BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION 2019 California Building Code,

Part 2,

Chapter 11A — Notice File Number Z2020−0324−11 ................. 514 TITLE 24. BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION 2019 Intervening Code Adoption Cycle —

Part 1 — California Administrative Code — Notice File Number Z2020−0324−12 .................................. 518 TITLE 24. BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION 2019 Intervening Code Adoption Cycle —

Part 2 Volume 1 — California Building Code — Notice File Number Z2020−0324−13 ....................................... 522 DECISION NOT TO PROCEED DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT Notice of Decision Not to Proceed Concerning Public List of Certain Port Motor Carriers (Previously Published in Notice Register 2020, Number 12−Z) ............................. 525 STATE TEACHERS’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM Notice of Decision Not to Proceed Concerning Public Comment (Previously Published in Notice Register 2020, Number 12−Z) .......................................... 525 OAL REGULATORY DETERMINATION DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION 2020 OAL DETERMINATION NUMBER 2(

S) SUMMARY DISPOSITION Serious Rule Violations, Loss of Family Visiting (Overnight) Program Issued by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ........................... 526 DISAPPROV AL DECISION DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES Adoptions Regulations Revisions .................................................................. 527 (Continued on next page)

NOTICE OF EDITORIAL CORRECTION FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION .................................................... 528

SUMMARY OF REGULATORY ACTIONS Regulations filed with the Secretary of State ......................................................... 528 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 REGULA TORY NOTICE REGISTER (USPS 002−931), (ISSN 1041-2654) 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) 888-3600. “Periodicals Postage Paid in Saint Paul, MN.” POSTMASTER: Send address changes to the: CALIFORNIA REGULA TORY NOTICE REGISTER, Barclays, a subsidiary of West, a Thomson Reuters Business, P .O. Box 2006, San Francisco, CA 94126. The Register can also be accessed at http://www.oal.ca.gov.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 14-Z PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS Information contained in this document is published as received from agencies and is not edited by Thomson Reuters. TITLE 2. CALIFORNIA COLLABORATIVE FOR EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO AMEND THE CONFLICT−OF−INTEREST CODE OF THE CALIFORNIA COLLABORATIVE FOR EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (“CCEE”), pursuant to the authority vested in it by

section 87306 of the Government Code, proposes amendment to its conflict−of−interest code. A comment period has been established commencing on April 3, 2020, and closing on May 18, 2020. All inquiries should be directed to the contact listed below. The CCEE proposes to amend its conflict−of−interest code to include employee positions that involve the making or participation in the making of decisions that may foreseeably have a material effect on any financial interest, as set forth in subdivision (

a) of

section 87302 of the Government Code. The amendment carries out the purposes of the law and no other alternative would do so and be less burdensome to affected persons.

Changes to the conflict−of−interest code include: (1) addition of the Deputy Executive Director as a desig- nated position; (2) revising the titles of the three Direc- tor positions to reflect their current titles: Director, Sys- tems Improvement and Innovation; Director, Systems Improvement and Leadership Development; Director, Continuous Improvement; (3) listing the Administra- tive Agent instead of Fiscal Agent as a designated posi- tion; (4) providing for electronic submission of the statements of economic interests, and (5) other techni- cal changes.

The proposed amendment and explanation of the rea- sons can be obtained from the agency’s contact. Any interested person may submit written comments relating to the proposed amendment by submitting them no later than May 18, 2020, or at the conclusion of the public hearing, if requested, whichever comes later. At this time, no public hearing is scheduled. A person may request a hearing no later than May 3, 2020. The CCEE has determined that the proposed amendments: 1. Impose no mandate on local agencies or school districts. 2. Impose no costs or savings on any state agency. 3.

Impose no costs on any local agency or school district that are required to be reimbursed under

Part 7 (commencing with

Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. 4. Will not result in any nondiscretionary costs or savings to local agencies. 5. Will not result in any costs or savings in federal funding to the state. 6. Will not have any potential cost impact on private persons, businesses or small businesses. All inquiries concerning this proposed amendment and any communication required by this notice should be directed to: Erika Barragan, Executive Assistant, (916) 619−7480, ebarragan@ccee−ca.org 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 Gov- ernment 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 MULTI−COUNTY: Central Sierra Child Support Agency Public Entity Risk Management Authority (PERMA) A written comment period has been established com- mencing on April 3, 2020 and closing on May 18, 2020.

Written comments should be directed to the Fair Politi- cal Practices Commission, Attention Amanda Apostol, 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 prior to the close of the written comment period, a public hearing before the full Commission. If a public hearing is requested, the proposed code(

s) will be submitted to the Commission for review. 485

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 14-Z The Executive Director of the Commission will re- view the above−referenced conflict−of−interest code(s), proposed pursuant to Government Code Sec- tion 87300, which designate, pursuant to Government Code

Section 87302, employees who must disclose cer- tain 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 per- son, 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, argu- ments or comments, in writing to the Executive Direc- tor of the Commission, relative to review of the pro- posed conflict−of−interest code(s). Any written com- ments must be received no later than May 18, 2020. If a public hearing is to be held, oral comments may be pre- sented to the Commission at the hearing.

COST TO LOCAL AGENCIES There shall be no reimbursement for any new or in- creased costs to local government which may result 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 Govern- ment 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 Amanda Apostol, Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sacramento, California 95811, telephone (916) 324−5854. A V AILABILITY OF PROPOSED CONFLICT−OF−INTEREST CODES Copies of the proposed conflict−of−interest codes may be obtained from the Commission offices or the re- spective agency. Requests for copies from the Commis- sion should be made to Amanda Apostol, Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sacramento, California 95811, telephone (916) 322−5660. TITLE 4. CALIFORNIA HORSE RACING BOARD AMEND RULE 1688.

USE OF RIDING CROP The California Horse Racing Board (Board) propos- es to amend the regulation described below after con- sidering all comments, objections, or recommendations regarding the proposed action. PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION The Board proposes to amend Board Rule 1688, Use of Riding Crop, to place new restrictions on the use of the riding crop during a race and in training. The pro- posed amendment describes the correct use of the riding crop and limits the number of times the crop may be used during a race.

The proposed regulation provides for penalties for jockeys or exercise riders who use the riding crop in a manner contrary to the regulation. If in the opinion of the stewards the use of the crop was nec- essary for the safety of the horse or rider, however, the rider will not be penalized. PUBLIC HEARING The Board will hold a public hearing starting at 9:30 a.m., Thursday, May 21, 2020, or as soon after that as business before the Board will permit, at the Depart- ment of Consumer Affairs, 1625 N. Market Blvd, 1st Floor Hearing Room, Sacramento, California.

At the hearing, any person may present statements or argu- ments orally or in writing about the proposed action de- scribed in the informative digest. It is requested, but not 486

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 14-Z required, that persons making oral comments at the hearing submit a written copy of their testimony. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any interested persons, or their authorized represen- tative, may submit written comments about the pro- posed regulatory action to the Board. The written com- ment period closes on May 18, 2020. The Board must receive all comments at that time. However, written comments may still be submitted at the public hearing.

Submit comments to: Rick Pimentel, Regulation Analyst California Horse Racing Board 1010 Hurley Way, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 274−6043 Fax: (916) 263−6022 E−mail: repimentel@chrb.ca.gov AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Authority cited: Sections 19420, 19440, and 19562, Business and Professions Code (BPC). Reference: Sec- tions 19440, 19481, and 19562, BPC. BPC sections 19440, 19562, and 19580 authorize the Board to adopt the proposed regulation, which would implement, interpret, or make specific sections 19440, 19481, and 19562 of the BPC. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW BPC

section 19420 provides that the Board shall have jurisdiction and supervision over meetings in Califor- nia 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 states the Board shall have all powers necessary and proper to enable it to carry out fully and effectually the purposes of

Chapter 4, BPC. Responsibilities of the Board shall include, but not be limited to, adopting rules and regulations for the protection of the public and the control of horse racing and pari−mutuel wagering. BPC

section 19580 provides that the Board shall adopt regu- lations to establish policies, guidelines, and penalties relating to equine medication to preserve and enhance the integrity of horse racing in the state. BPC

section 19481 provides that in performing its responsibilities, the Board shall establish safety standards governing equipment for horse and rider. BPC

section 19562 pro- vides that the Board may prescribe rules, regulations, and conditions consistent with

Chapter 4 of the BPC, under which all horse races with wagering on their re- sults shall be conducted in this State. The proposed amendment to Board Rule 1688 will add a new subsection 1688(b)(1) to provide that the rid- er may not use the riding crop during training except when necessary for the safety of horse or rider. Training occurs in the mornings generally between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. Training sessions can include walking, trot- ting, galloping, and working (running). The trainer schedules workouts depending on the horse’s level of fitness and the distance it is training to race.

Training sessions can also be used to get younger horses used to other horses on a track, where they may be bumped or have dirt flying up in their face. Training also allows younger horses to learn to be guided to the rail by their rider. During training sessions, there are ways, other than using a riding crop, to let the horse know it is time to perform. If an exercise rider is trying to encourage a horse to go forward, changes in posture, shaking the reins, nudging at the withers, and vocalizations such as a whistle or chirp may be used to encourage the horse.

Subsection 1688(b)(1), however, allows exercise riders to use a riding crop as necessary for the safety of horse or rider. Safety is paramount on the racetrack. Exercise riders are required to wear safety helmets and safety vests, and the racing association is required to provide ambulance services during racing and training. These safety precautions are necessary because many things can happen during training sessions to put horse and rid- er at risk. There can be problems with equipment, such as saddles slipping or reins snapping. Horses can stum- ble or panic. A horse that unseats its rider can cause chaos.

The Board has determined that at such times, the use of the riding crop may be necessary for the safety of horse and rider. The crop can be used for guiding and communicating with the horse when circumstances cause other methods of control to prove ineffective. The existing subsection 1688(b)(1) has been renum- bered and is now subsection (b)(2). Subsection 1688(b)(2) has been renumbered and is now subsection (b)(3). The subsection has been amend- ed to allow the use of the riding crop after the finish of the race when it is necessary to control the horse.

Horses are powerful animals that may become fractious after the excitement of a race. At such times, the jockey may not be able to control the horse, and it may be appropri- ate and necessary to use the riding crop. The existing subsections 1688(b)(3) through (b)(6) have been renumbered for the purposes of clarity and are now subsections 1688(b)(4) through (b)(7). Subsection 1688(b)(7) has been amended to provide that the jockey may not use the riding crop on a horse more than two times in succession without giving the horse a chance to respond before using the crop again. 487

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 14-Z The reduction in the number of times the crop may be used in succession is consistent with the industry’s ini- tiative to set reasonable basic riding crop guidelines and place restrictions on its unnecessary use. A new subsection 1688(b)(8) provides that the jockey may not use the 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) 1.

Under the current subsection 1688(b)(6) (renumbered as subsection (b)(7)), the jock- ey is prohibited from using the riding crop more than three times in succession without giving the horse time to respond before using the crop again. However, the current version of the rule has no restriction on the total number of times the crop may be used during a race.

The proposed addition of subsection 1688(b)(8) and the amendment of subsection (b)(7) are necessary to place restrictions on the use of the crop during a race to pre- vent abuse of the horse, to ensure the appropriate and proper use of the crop as a means of guidance and en- couragement, and to keep the rider and horse out of trouble. Subsection (

c) has been amended to reflect the renumbering of the subsections that do not apply to jockeys and exercise riders during training. Subsection 1688(

d) has been amended to provide the correct uses of the riding crop. The amended subsection 1688(d)(1) states the jockey may show or waive the crop without touching the horse. During a race, a horse may lose focus or become distracted by other horses running in the race. This is especially true for younger, inexperienced horses. In these instances, showing or waiving the riding crop is a way to get the horse to pay more attention to the jockey. Subsection 1688(d)(2) provides how the jockey is to hold the riding crop (ex- cept when showing or waiving the crop).

The jockey must hold the crop in an underhanded position at or be- low the shoulder level of the jockey. Holding the crop in this manner is consistent with the Association of Racing Commissioners International Model Rules of Racing, which are used in racing jurisdictions throughout the United States and is the rule in other racing jurisdictions such as Canada and England. The underhanded position and the inability to raise the riding crop above shoulder level is necessary to help ensure the jockey cannot use the crop with enough force to cause welts or breaks in the horse’s skin.

Subsections 1688(d)(3) through (d)(3)(

B) provide that the jockey may tap the horse on the shoulder with the crop in a down position while hav- ing both hands holding onto the reins and touching the 1 In effect, the jockey may only use the riding crop on the horse’s hind quarters two times in succession, giving the horse a chance to respond before using the crop again, for a total of six times dur- ing a race. neck of the horse. This position is natural to the jockey and horse during the race, so requiring the jockey to have both hands holding the reins and touching the horse’s neck is not unreasonable. Subsections 1688(d)(3) through (d)(3)(

B) are necessary, however, to prevent the jockey from raising the crop to even shoulder level height; all the jockey can do with the crop is tap the horse on its shoulders. A new subsection 1688(

e) provides for penalties should a jockey or exercise rider use a riding crop in vi- olation of the regulation. The subsection states that ab- sent mitigating circumstances, the jockey or exercise rider who rides in a manner contrary to the rule shall re- ceive a fine and shall be suspended by the stewards. The maximum fine has been set at $1,000. The maximum fine is designed to be sufficiently punitive to encourage compliance. However, the stewards may impose a less- er fine in consideration of the severity of the violation.

The stewards shall also suspend the jockey, with a mini- mum suspension set at three days. If the violation oc- curred during a trial heat 2, the suspension shall include the subsequent related stakes race 3. Suspension of li- cense for a jockey means a loss of income, as he or she cannot work. A suspension for a jockey who violates Rule 1688 during a trial heat will mean that he or she al- so cannot participate in the related stakes race and so forfeits the related jockey riding fee. The Board has de- termined that the penalties provided under subsection 1688(

e) are necessary to ensure that riders understand there are consequences for the unwarranted or exces- sive use of the riding crop. Subsection 1688(

f) provides that if in the opinion of the stewards the use of a riding crop was necessary for the safety of horse and rider, the jockey or exercise rider shall not be penalized. Safety is paramount on the race- track, and no jockey or exercise rider should be penal- ized for use of a riding crop to control a fractious or un- manageable horse. An out−of−control horse is a danger to itself, the rider, and other horses and riders on the track.

POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW OF ANTICIPATED BENEFITS OF PROPOSAL The proposed amendment of Board Rule 1688 pro- motes the safety and welfare of all horses and riders par- ticipating in recognized race meetings. The proposed amendment provides a guide to the acceptable use of the riding crop during racing and training.

It describes the correct use of the riding crop and limits the number of 2 Trial heat: a race run in preparation for a more important race, usually held a week in advance and at a different distance. 3 Stakes race: a horse race in which the purse offered consists in part of monies such as subscriptions, and entry and starting fees paid by the owners of the horses nominated to run in the race. 488

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 14-Z times the crop may be used during a race or in training. The regulation provides for penalties for jockeys or ex- ercise riders who use the riding crop in a manner con- trary to the regulation. If in the opinion of the stewards the use of the crop was necessary for the safety of the horse or rider, however, the rider will not be penalized. The proposed regulation will encourage an acceptable use of the riding crop, which will promote animal wel- fare and good horsemanship and will help to create a positive image of horse racing.

CONSISTENCY EV ALUATION During the process of developing the amendment, the Board has conducted a search of any similar regulation on this topic and has concluded that the regulation is neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing state regulations. DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACTION/RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 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 costs 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 direct- ly affecting businesses including the ability of Califor- nia businesses to compete with businesses in other states. The following studies/relevant data were relied upon in making the above determination: none. Cost impact on representative private persons or businesses: none.

The Board is not aware of any cost impacts that a rep- resentative private person or business would necessari- ly incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action. Significant effect on housing costs: none. RESULT OF ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 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 exist- ing businesses within California; (3) result in the expan- sion of businesses currently doing business with the state.

The proposed amendment of Board Rule 1688 promotes the safety and welfare of horses and riders participating in recognized race meetings. The pro- posed amendment provides a guide to the acceptable use of the riding crop during racing and training. It de- scribes the correct use of the riding crop and limits the number of times the crop may be used during a race or in training. The regulation provides for penalties for jock- eys or exercise riders who use the riding crop in a man- ner contrary to the regulation. The Board takes its re- sponsibilities in relation to animal welfare seriously.

As such, the Board believes that high standards of animal welfare and good horsemanship are central to the sport of horse racing. The proposed amendment to Board Rule 1688 will encourage a judicial, more careful use of the riding crop, which will promote animal welfare and good horsemanship and will help to create a positive image of horse racing. The proposed amendment to Board Rule 1688 will benefit worker safety in that it will allow the use of the riding crop when necessary for control of the horse and the safety of horse and rider.

The proposed amendment to Board Rule 1688 will not benefit the state’s environment. Effects on small businesses: none. The proposal to amend Board Rule 1688 does not affect small business- es 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 must determine that no reasonable al- ternative 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 pur- pose for which the action is proposed, would be as ef- fective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action, or would be more cost− effective to affected private persons and equally effec- tive in implementing the statutory policy or other provi- sion of law.

The Board invites interested persons to present state- ments 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: 489

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 14-Z Rick Pimentel, Regulation Analyst California Horse Racing Board 1010 Hurley Way, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 274−6043 Fax: (916) 263−6022 E−mail: repimentel@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 A V AILABILITY OF INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS AND TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATION The board will have the entire rulemaking file avail- able for inspection and copying throughout the rule- making 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 rea- sons. Copies of these documents, or any of the informa- tion upon which the proposed rulemaking is based, may be obtained by contacting Rick Pimentel or the alterna- tive contact person at the address, phone number, or e−mail address listed above.

A V AILABILITY OF MODIFIED TEXT After holding a hearing 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 that are sufficient- ly related to the originally proposed text, the modified text, with changes clearly marked, shall be made avail- able 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 regulation should be sent to the attention of Rick Pimentel at the address stated above.

The Board will accept written comments on the modi- fied regulation for 15 days after the date on which it is made available. A V AILABILITY OF FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Requests for copies of the final statement of reasons, which will be made available after the Board has adopt- ed the proposed regulation in its current or modified form, should be sent to the attention of Rick Pimentel at the address stated above. BOARD WEB ACCESS The Board will have the entire rulemaking file avail- able for inspection throughout the rulemaking process at its website.

The rulemaking file consists of the notice, the proposed text of the regulation, and the initial state- ment of reasons. The Board’s website address is: www.chrb.ca.gov. TITLE 5. EDUCATION AUDIT APPEALS PANEL Supplement to Audits of K−12 Local Education Agencies Fiscal Year 2019−2020 as of March 1, 2020 The Education Audit Appeals Panel (EAAP) propos- es to adopt an Audit Guide for Fiscal Year 2019−20, Supplemented as of March 1, 2020, as well as the Guide’s incorporating regulation, as described below, after considering all comments, objections, and recom- mendations regarding the proposed action.

PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing regarding this proposal is not cur- rently scheduled. Not later than 15 days prior to the close of the written comment period, any interested per- son, or his or her authorized representative, may make a written request for a public hearing pursuant to Govern- ment Code

section 11346.8, and a public hearing will be held. Requests for a public hearing should be addressed to Mary Kelly. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any interested person, or his or her authorized repre- sentative, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action. The written comment peri- od closes on Monday, May 18, 2020. EAAP will con- sider only written comments received by that time. 490

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 14-Z Written comments for EAAP’s consideration should be directed to: Mary Kelly Education Audit Appeals Panel 770 L Street, Suite 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Fax: (916) 445−7626 e−mail: mkelly@eaap.ca.gov AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Authority cited:

Section 14502.1, Education Code. Reference: Sections 14501, 14502.1, 14503, 42010, and 46146(

h) of the Education Code. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW This rulemaking amends title 5, California Code of Regulations,

section 19810 to clarify the incorporation by reference language and make reference to the audit guide. It also adopts the Audit Guide for 2019−20, Sup- plemented as of March 1, 2020, which makes technical revisions and addresses legislative changes that will af- fect audits and possibly the conditions of apportion- ment of school funding. This rulemaking meets the requirements of Educa- tion Code

section 14502.1, which mandates that an an- nual audit guide be adopted by the EAAP, and the addi- tional laws and Constitutional provisions listed under “Authority cited” below the proposed amended text of

Section 19810 as shown below. The purpose of the audit guide is to define terms and specify procedures to guide accountants in the conduct of statutorily required finan- cial and compliance audits of K−12 local education agencies. The Controller, in a letter dated December 13, 2019, pursuant to Education Code

section 14502.1, pro- posed supplemental changes to the 2019−20 audit guide to be reflected in the 2019−20 audit guide. (Later, the Department of Education proposed, and the stakehold- ers discussed in a January 13, 2020 meeting, changes to Sections P [Transportation Maintenance of Effort] and T [Clean Energy Jobs Act], both of which are technical changes included in this Rulemaking). The proposed changes derive from the Controller’s proposals and also contain changes designed to clarify audit steps.

EAAP does not anticipate that these proposed amendments would create specific benefits for the pro- tection of public health and safety, worker safety, or the environment, the prevention of discrimination, the pro- motion of fairness or social equity, nor the increase in openness and transparency in business and govern- ment.

EAAP has determined that the proposed amend- ments will ultimately benefit the welfare of California residents by ensuring that local education agencies are in compliance with regulatory requirements, and that educational funds are being properly utilized, which would ultimately affect the quality of students’ educa- tional experiences. In developing the rulemaking, EAAP evaluated the proposed changes to regulations and determined that they are not inconsistent or incom- patible with existing regulations, state or federal. A description of proposed changes to

section 19810, and a discussion of revisions to the audit guide, follow. Title 5, Division 1.5

Chapter 3. Audits of California K−12 Local Education Agencies

Article 1. General Provisions § 19810. Annual Audit Guides. The “2019−20 Guide for Annual Audits of K−12 Lo- cal Education Agencies and State Compliance Report- ing,” (July 1, 2019March 1, 2020), adopted by the Edu- cation Audit Appeals Panel, is incorporated by refer- ence. The guide provides the audit steps, reporting re- quirements, and other guidance, for the required annual financial and compliance audits, subject to auditor judgment where alternative or additional audit steps may be appropriate.

The annual guide is superseded by a supplemental audit guide, if needed, adopted before March 1 of each fiscal year. Each annual guide and any applicable supplement are available on www.eaap.ca. gov/audit−guide, with paper or electronic copies avail- able on request. Note: Authority cited: Sections 14502.1 and 47612, Education Code; California Constitution,

Article XIII,

Section 36, subdiv. (e), subpara 7, and

Article XIIIA,

Section 1, subdiv. (b), subparas 3(

C) and 3(D). Refer- ence: California Constitution

Article XIIIB,

Section 1.5; and Sections 2574(b)(3)(C), 8482.3(f)(5), 14501, 14502.1, 14503, 14509, 15286, 41020, 41024, 42238.02(b)(3)(B), 47612.5, 47634.2 and 48000, Edu- cation Code. INFORMATIVE DIGEST This rulemaking adopts the supplemental Audit Guide for 2019−20, as required by

Section 14502.1, through incorporation by reference in

Section 19810. The purpose of the Audit Guide is to define terms and specify procedures to guide accountants in the conduct of statutorily required financial and compliance audits of K−12 local education agencies. This supplemental filing ensures that audits include subjects pertinent to and/or required by Legislation through January 1, 2020. 491

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 14-Z AUDIT GUIDE AMENDMENTS Step 6 a technical amendment changes “include a finding” to “report a finding,” for clarity. The proposed supplemental 2019−20 Audit Guide in- cludes the following changes: 

Section E. Continuation Education, changes to this procedure relocates procedure 6(

c) to new step 7, as the requirement that no more than 10% of continuation high school ADA at P2 (excluding pupils who are pregnant or a child’s primary caregiver) was generated through independent study applies to all continuation high school pupils, and not just those from whom the step 6 requires a sample, i.e., regardless of which pupils are earning work experience credit. As a result, the step requiring a finding is renumbered to Step 8. 

Section F . Instructional Time , recognizes the exemption from the ordinary minimum instructional days requirement for the three districts named in Ed. Code

section 37700, and potentially others pursuant to subdivision (

c) of that section, to operate on a four days per week schedule; and provides, in a sentence added to Step 9, that those districts are only subject to penalties for insufficient instructional days if they fail to offer the required number of educational minutes required by Ed. Code

section 46208. 

Section O. K−3 Grade Span Adjustment deletes language applicable only to the period when some or all districts had not met their Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) target, thus making the requirement for each schoolsite’s average class enrollment no greater than 24 unless a collective bargaining agreement provides a different limit. Consequently, the reference to Education Code

section 42238.02(d)(3)(

B) or (

C) is replaced with a reference to

section 42238.02(d)(3)(D). Previously, this audit guide

section referenced “maximum average class enrollment” as adjusted by

section 15498.1(

g) of this Title. 

Section P . Transportation Maintenance of Effort technically amend Item 2 to make clearer the steps auditors can follow to access the exhibit on the California Department of Education’s website, which details pupil transportation revenue received by the LEA during the benchmark fiscal year of 2012−13. 

Section T. California Clean Energy Jobs Act takes language requiring a finding and disallowance of construction project funds when there has been no timely final completion report of expenditure from Step 6, which applies only in specific circumstances and restates that requirement to apply to all projects failing this requirement. In 

Section U. After School Education and Safety Program is amended to provide an exception to the release time requirement (5:00 p.m. rather than 6:00 p.m.) for schools located in an area with population density of less than 11 persons per square mile, because many pupils in such areas will travel relatively greater distances after the after school program. The change implements amendments effective January 1, 2019 to Education Code

section 8483(a). 

Section W. Unduplicated LCFF Pupil Counts makes a technical amendment to update the references to date maintained on the California Department of Education web site which reflects LEA reporting of the numbers of students applicable to the Unduplicated LCFF Pupil Count. Specifically, it defines “certified” data as data satisfying the “SELPA approved” filter, available only if both the LEA and the SELPA approved their data. NOTE: The changes described above are already in effect on an emergency basis. DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 1. Mandate on local agencies and school districts: None. 2.

Cost to any local agency or school district which must be reimbursed: None. 3. Cost or savings to any state agency: None. 4. Other non−discretionary cost or savings imposed upon local agencies: None. 5. Cost or savings in federal funding to the state: None. 6. Significant effect on housing costs: None. 7. Significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states: None. 8.

The Economic Impact Assessment found that adoption of these regulations will not:  create or eliminate jobs within California;  create new businesses or eliminate existing businesses within California; or,  affect the expansion of businesses currently doing business within California. As stated in the Informative Digest/Policy Statement Overview above, EAAP has determined that the proposed amendments will ultimately benefit the welfare of 492

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 14-Z California residents by ensuring that local education agencies are in compliance with regulatory requirements, and that educational funds are being properly utilized, which would ultimately affect the quality of students’ educational experiences. 9. Cost impact on a representative private person or business: EAAP is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action. 10. Business report requirements: None. 11.

Effect on small businesses: The proposed regulations will have no effect on small businesses because they do not materially alter the requirements for LEA audits. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES In accordance with Government Code

Section 11346.5(a)(13), EAAP must determine that no reason- able alternative it has considered or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the EAAP’s attention 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 af- fected private persons and equally effective in imple- menting the statutory policy or other provision of law.

CONTACT PERSONS Inquiries concerning the substance of the proposed action, requests for a copy of the proposed text of the regulations, the Initial Statement of Reasons, the modi- fied text of the regulations, if any, and other technical information upon which the rulemaking is based, and questions on the proposed administrative action may be directed to Timothy Morgan, Staff Attorney III, at (916) 445−7745 or by e−mail: tmorgan@eaap.ca.gov, or Mary C. Kelly, Executive Officer, at (916) 445−7745.

A V AILABILITY OF RULEMAKING FILE The entire rulemaking file will be available for in- spection and copying throughout the rulemaking process at EAAP’s office 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 regulations, the initial statement of reasons, and the Economic Impact Assessment. A copy may be ob- tained by contacting Timothy Morgan at the above ad- dress. The bill analyses are also available online at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/ billSearchClient.xhtml.

A V AILABILITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT Following the comment period, a hearing, if request- ed, and consideration of all timely and relevant com- ments received, EAAP may adopt the proposed regula- tions substantially as described in this notice. If EAAP makes modifications that are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text, the modified text (with changes clearly indicated) will be available to the pub- lic for at least 15 days before EAAP adopts the regula- tions as revised.

Requests for copies of any modified regulations should be sent to the attention of Timothy Morgan at the address stated above. EAAP will accept written comments on the modified regulations for 15 days after the date on which they are made available. A V AILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS ON THE INTERNET Copies of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Initial Statement of Reasons, text of the regulations in under- line and strikeout, any changed or modified text, and the Final Statement of Reasons will be accessible through the EAAP website: www.eaap.ca.gov. TITLE 8.

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS BOARD General Industry Safety Orders New

Section 5141.1 PROTECTION FROM WILDFIRE SMOKE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Board) proposes to adopt, amend, or repeal the foregoing provisions of Ti- tle 8 of the California Code of Regulations in the man- ner described in the Informative Digest, below. PUBLIC HEARING The Board will hold a public hearing starting at 10:00 a.m. on May 21, 2020 in the Council Chambers of the Rancho Cordova City Hall, 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Rancho Cordova, California. At this public hearing, any person may present statements or argu- ments orally or in writing relevant to the proposed ac- tion described in the Informative Digest. 493

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 14-Z WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD In addition to written or oral comments submitted at the public hearing, written comments may also be sub- mitted to the Board’s office. The written comment peri- od commences on April 3, 2020 and closes at 5:00 p.m. on May 21, 2020. Comments received after that dead- line will not be considered by the Board unless the Board announces an extension of time in which to sub- mit written comments.

Written comments can be sub- mitted as follows: By mail to Sarah Money, Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 350, Sacramento, CA 95833; or By e−mail sent to oshsb@dir.ca.gov. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE California Labor Code

section 142.3 establishes the Board as the only agency in the State authorized to adopt, amend, or repeal occupational safety and health standards. In addition, Labor Code

section 142.3 re- quires the adoption of occupational safety and health standards that are at least as effective as federal occupa- tional safety and health standards.

Section 142.3 per- mits the Board to prescribe suitable protective equip- ment and control or technological procedures to be used in connection with occupational hazards and to provide for monitoring or measuring employee exposure for the protection of employees. Additionally, California Labor Code

section 144.6 requires the Board, when dealing with standards for toxic materials and harmful physical agents, to “adopt that standard which most adequately assures, to the ex- tent feasible, that no employee will suffer material im- pairment of health or functional capacity even if such employee has regular exposure to a hazard regulated by such standard for the period of his working life.” Sec- tion 144.6 also requires that the Board base standards on research, demonstrations, experiments and other appro- priate information, taking into consideration the latest scientific literature, the reasonableness of the stan- dards, and the experience gained under the health and safety laws.

Authority: Labor Code

section 142.3. Reference: Labor Code sections 142.3 and 144.6. INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW During its March 21, 2019 meeting, the Board con- sidered Petition 573, submitted by Mitch Steiger, Cali- fornia Labor Federation; Douglas Parker, Worksafe; and Anne Katten, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (Petitioners) on December 10, 2018, which requested an emergency rulemaking to address the po- tential harm posed to outdoor workers by wildfire smoke.

The Petition sought an emergency standard that would apply to outdoor occupations including agricul- ture, construction, landscaping, maintenance, commer- cial delivery, and “other activities not considered to be ‘first response’,” such as work performed by “nurses, caregivers, and school staff evacuating patients, resi- dents, and students.” The Board voted to grant the petition in part, stating that it found “specific grounds for considering exposure of outdoor workers to wildfire smoke events to consti- tute the basis for an emergency regulation.” The Board requested that the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Division) draft an emergency rule- making proposal; the subsequent proposed

section 5141.1 was approved by the Board on July 18, 2019. The emergency regulation became effective on July 29, 2019.

Summary of Existing Regulation and the Effect of the Proposed Regulation Existing law, Title 8,

section 3203, “Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP),” establishes a general framework for the identification, evaluation, and cor- rection of unsafe or unhealthy work conditions; com- munication with employees; and employee safety and health training. Existing law, Title 8,

section 5140, “Definitions,” states that a “harmful exposure” is an “exposure to dusts, fumes, mists, vapors, or gases” which is either “(

a) In excess of any permissible limit prescribed by

section 5155; or (

b) Of such a nature by inhalation as to result in, or have a probability to result in, injury, illness, disease, impairment, or loss of function.” No permissi- ble limit for PM2.5 is prescribed by

section 5155, and no existing Title 8 regulation specifies when wildfire smoke may result in injury, illness, disease, impair- ment, or loss of function. Existing law, Title 8,

section 5141, “Control of Harm- ful Exposures to Employees,” lists the hierarchy of con- trols that employers must follow to address employee exposure to harmful air contaminants. Employers must first rely on engineering controls whenever feasible, but if engineering controls are not feasible or do not achieve full compliance, administrative controls must be imple- mented “if practicable.” When engineering and admin- istrative controls fail to achieve full compliance, then respiratory protective equipment shall be used. Existing law, Title 8,

section 5144, “Respiratory Pro- tection,” establishes that respirators “applicable and suitable for the purpose intended” must be provided “when such equipment is necessary to protect the health of the employee.” To determine when respiratory 494

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 14-Z equipment is necessary,

section 5144 requires employ- ers to “identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard(

s) in the workplace” and “include a reasonable estimate of employee exposures to respiratory hazard(

s) and an identification of the contaminant’s chemical state and physical form.”

Section 5144 sets forth the require- ments for respiratory protection programs, how appro- priate respirators should be selected, and related mat- ters. This regulation does not expressly state the protec- tion necessary for wildfire events, the concentration of PM2.5 necessitating respiratory protection, nor does it expressly identify a type of respirator providing at least minimally effective filtration of PM2.5 from wildfire smoke exposure, or make specifically clear what cir- cumstances and conditions in which voluntary use of such respirators could occur in permissible accord with existing Title 8 respiratory protection requirements. Existing law, Title 8,

section 5155, “Airborne Con- taminants,” sets permissible exposure limits for partic- ular substances. No permissible exposure limit is listed for either wildfire smoke or PM2.5. The specific changes are as follows: New

Section 5141.1. Protection from Wildfire Smoke. This proposed standard, new

section 5141.1, would be in

Article 107, Dusts, Fumes, Mists, Vapors and Gas- es, directly after

section 5141, Control of Harmful Ex- posure to Employees. The regulation would include the following specific requirements. New

Section 5141.1(a). Scope. This proposed subsection (a)(1) establishes the appli- cation of the proposed regulation to all workplaces where the current Air Quality Index (AQI) for PM2.5 is 151 or greater and the employer should reasonably an- ticipate that employees may be exposed to wildfire smoke. The subsection is necessary to establish the condi- tions in which employers will be required to comply with the proposed regulation and to take action to pro- tect employees from the harmful effects of wildfire smoke. Proposed subsection (a)(2) sets forth exceptions to the application of the regulation.

Petition 573 sought protection from wildfire smoke for outdoor workers in particular, and the scope of proposed regulation limits its application to workers with direct, immediate expo- sure to outdoor air. This is accomplished by exempting enclosed and mechanically ventilated buildings and structures, as long as any windows, doors, bays, or other openings are kept closed, except when it is necessary to open doors for persons to enter or exit.

Likewise, en- closed vehicles are exempted when the air is filtered by a cabin air filter and windows, doors, and other open- ings are kept closed when not using a door to enter or exit. Workplaces are also exempt if the employer can demonstrate that the concentration of PM2.5 in the air does not exceed a concentration that corresponds to a current AQI of 150. This is necessary to allow employ- ers who choose to monitor the PM2.5 level at their worksites rather than relying on the reported current AQI.

Employers seeking this exemption would have to follow Appendix A, described below, to ensure the ac- curacy of their measurements. This subsection also exempts employees exposed to a current AQI for PM2.5 of 151 or greater for an hour or less during a shift, and firefighters engaged in wildland firefighting. Proposed subsection (a)(3) makes it clear that em- ployers within the scope of this regulation should com- ply with this

section for the purpose of addressing the hazard of wildfire smoke resulting in a current AQI for PM2.5 of 151 or higher, rather than referring to the more general requirements in the existing respiratory protections found in sections 5141 and 5155. New

Section 5141.1(b).

Definitions. This proposed subsection provides

definitions for the terms “Current Air Quality Index (Current AQI),” “NIOSH,” “PM2.5,” and “Wildfire Smoke.” The table listing the levels of health concerns for the AQI categories was sourced from Title 40 Code of Fed- eral Regulations,

Part 58, Appendix G. https://gov.ecfr.io/cgi−bin/text−idx?SID= 455b88cb0ce9e587f8162e9eb0b2bece&mc= true&node=ap40.6.58.0000_0nbspnbspnbsp. g&rgn=div9. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is a division of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and is the rec- ognized national expert on workplace safety and health research.

NIOSH is the world’s preeminent occupation- al safety and health research organization who through the scientific method, develops the data that is often used to established occupational safety and health stan- dards by the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration and other public entities charged with this responsibility. NIOSH tests, approves, and certifies respirators used in the workplace pursuant to Title 42 Code of Federal Regulations

Part 84. https://gov. ecfr.io/cgi−bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID= bc6a566fab760f99f57e382e3f16fac5&mc=true&n= pt42.1.84&r=PART&ty=HTML#se42.1.84_130. The subsection is necessary to clarify the application and meanings of terms used in the proposed regulation. 495

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 14-Z New

Section 5141.1(c). Identification of harmful exposures. This proposed subsection requires employers to ob- tain the current AQI for PM2.5 for their workplaces at the start of each shift and periodically thereafter, as needed to protect the health of employees. An employer may acquire this information by checking specified government agency websites, obtaining the current AQI for PM2.5 directly from listed government agen- cies, or by measuring the PM2.5 levels at the worksite.

This subsection encourages compliance by listing rep- utable resources for employers to easily find AQI fore- casts for current AQI for PM2.5, while allowing em- ployers to also identify other effective methods that may be more suitable for their work environment. The subsection is necessary to ensure that employers regularly check the AQI levels during wildfire events so they will be able to determine when protective mea- sures are needed. An exception is provided for employers who assume the AQI is over 500 and comply with subsection (f), control of harmful exposures to employees, using that assumption.

This exception is included because there is no need for an employer to monitor the current AQI for PM2.5 if the employer is already complying with the maximum respiratory protection requirements of the regulation. For the same reason, there is an exception for em- ployers in an emergency subject to subsection (f)(4). If they assume an AQI of 151 or greater and comply with (f)(3)(

A) using that assumption, there is no need to monitor the AQI because they are already providing the maximum protection required by the regulation in emergency situations. New

Section 5141.1(d). Communication. The proposed subsection refers to

section 3203, In- jury and Illness Protection Program (IIPP), which re- quires employers establish a system for communicating wildfire smoke hazards with employees in a language and manner readily understandable by employees. This subsection clarifies the application of that requirement in the context of wildfire smoke. Under the proposed subsection, employers must communicate the current AQI for PM2.5 and related protective measures in a lan- guage and manner that employees can understand.

The subsection also requires employers to encourage em- ployees to inform their employer about worsening air quality or possible adverse symptoms of wildfire smoke exposure. This subsection identifies minimum items to be communicated to employees for compliance with the communication requirement of 5141.1, and guidelines for when employees should report to employers condi- tions that may indicate 5141.1 triggering events exist. The subsection is necessary both to ensure employees receive accurate and timely information and to ensure the employer receives necessary feedback from em- ployees at their work location.

New

Section 5141.1(e). Training and instruction. The proposed subsection refers to

section 3203, In- jury and Illness Protection Program (IIPP), which re- quires employers to provide effective training and in- struction. The training shall contain, at a minimum, the information contained in Appendix B, described below, and must be presented in a language and manner readily understandable by employees. The subsection is necessary to ensure that employees understand various topics necessary to protect their health during wildfire events, including the hazards posed by wildfire smoke and the appropriate use of respirators. New

Section 5141.1(f). Control of harmful exposures to employees. The proposed subsection requires employers to pro- tect employees using the hierarchy of controls set forth in existing

section 5141. In order of priority, these are: engineering controls, administrative controls, and con- trol by respiratory protective equipment. Proposed subsections (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3) clarify the application of the hierarchy of controls to the specif- ic context of wildfire smoke exposure. Subsections (f)(1) and (f)(2) give examples of engi- neering and administrative controls that may reduce employees’ exposure to PM2.5 from wildfire smoke. Engineering controls should be used to the extent feasi- ble and include providing enclosed structures or vehi- cles where the air is filtered.

If engineering controls are not feasible, employers shall implement administrative controls, if practicable. Administrative controls can in- clude relocating work, changing work schedules, re- ducing work intensity, or providing additional breaks. Proposed subsections 5141.1(f)(1) and (f)(2) are simi- lar to existing subsections 5141(

a) and (b). Subsections (f)(1) and (f)(2) are necessary to clarify for employers that engineering and administrative con- trols (already required in existing

section 5141) are ap- propriate to reduce employees’ exposure to PM2.5 from wildfire smoke. Subsection (f)(3)(

A) mandates that employers pro- vide a sufficient number of respirators consistent with Title 8,

section 5144 for employees’ voluntary use when the current AQI for PM2.5 is 151 or greater, but not exceeding 500. Subsection (f)(3)(

A) specifically states that N95 filtering facepiece respirators are appro- priate for these conditions and provides requirements for the selection, maintenance, and replacement of res- pirators. It also explains that employers shall provide 496

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 14-Z training about respirator use in accordance with

section 5141.1 Appendix B rather than

section 5144 Appendix D. This subsection is necessary because it provides clar- ity for those employers who may be uncertain about what type of respiratory protection is appropriate for wildfire smoke. Under

section 5144(c)(2), if respirators are provided but not required, employers may give filtering face- piece respirators such as N95s to their workers without completing medical evaluations or fit testing as re- quired under

section 5144(c)(1) when respiratory use is mandatory. A Note to the proposed subsection (f)(3)(

A) ensures that employers understand this. Under the proposed subsection (f)(3)(B), respirator use would be required when the AQI for PM2.5 exceeds 500. The U.S. EPA AirNow program has occasionally published AQI levels above 500 within California, but that occurs so rarely that the EPA’s AQI categories, de- picted in the chart in proposed subsection (b), only go up to 500. This subsection is necessary to address conditions that are so infrequent, and pose such a serious potential health risk, that more protective measures are neces- sary. Subsection (f)(3)(

B) also states that respirators provided for mandatory use should have an assigned protection factor in accordance with

section 5144. The existing

section 5144 provides a method for employers to determine which respirators will reduce the current AQI for PM2.5 within the respirator to 151 or less. Proposed subsection (f)(4) states that only voluntary respiratory protection per subsection (f)(3)(

A) is re- quired during emergencies, including rescue and evac- uation, for all AQI levels of 151 or above. Emergencies include utilities, communications, and medical opera- tions, when they are directly aiding firefighting or emergency operations. This subsection is necessary to allow employers and workers responding to an emergency to act quickly, without evaluating the possible application of engineer- ing or administrative controls, and without performing medical evaluations and fit testing for mandatory respi- rator use.

Under this subsection, respirators for volun- tary use can be provided quickly and easily to emergen- cy personnel and other employees directly assisting emergency response. New Appendix A to New

Section 5141.1: Measuring PM2.5 Levels at the Worksite (Mandatory if an Employer Monitors with a Direct Reading Instrument) This appendix sets forth the requirements for measur- ing the PM2.5 levels using a direct−reading particulate monitor for employers who elect this option to deter- mine PM2.5 levels. The appendix also states how such measurements can be used to determine the equivalent current AQI for the purposes of proposed

section 5141.1, using a table adapted from Title 40 Code of Fed- eral Regulations,

Part 58, Appendix G, Table 2. The ap- pendix also states that a person with the necessary train- ing or experience shall conduct and evaluate the moni- toring and the

interpretation of the results, so that expo- sures are not underestimated. This appendix is necessary to ensure that employers who elect to perform their own PM2.5 monitoring do so using accurate equipment and methods. New Appendix B to New

Section 5141.1: Information to Be Provided to Employees (Mandatory) The appendix provides information about the health effects of wildfire smoke, medical treatment, how to obtain the current AQI for PM2.5, the requirements of the proposed regulation, the employer’s two−way com- munication system, employer’s methods to protect em- ployees from wildfire smoke, the benefits and limita- tions of respirators when exposed to wildfire smoke, and how to properly use and maintain employer provid- ed respirators.

This appendix is necessary in order to assist employ- ers with training regarding wildfire smoke hazards and to ensure that employees have information critical for protecting their health. Employers addressing the potential hazard of wild- fire smoke for the first time may be uncertain about what training should be provided. This appendix pro- vides a convenient method for ensuring that critical in- formation is conveyed to employees, including the health effects of wildfire smoke, available protections, and the appropriate use of respirators.

For ease of use, the appendix includes blank lines to allow employers to easily customize the information. FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND STATUTES Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29,

section 1910.134 is similar to the existing respiratory protec- tion regulation in California Code of Regulations, Title 8,

section 5144. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, subsection 1910.1000(

e) is similar to the existing regulation to control harmful exposures to employees in California Code of Regulations, Title 8,

section 5141. No federal law or regulation exists or has been pro- mulgated that specifically addresses occupational ex- posure to either wildfire smoke or PM2.5. 497

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 14-Z POLICY STATEMENT AND ANTICIPATED BENEFITS Wildfires in California became dramatically worse in 2018, causing deaths and economic damage that dwarfed previous years. The catastrophic Camp Fire was the deadliest and most destructive wildfire in state history, killing 86 people and destroying 18,804 struc- tures. On January 8, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom is- sued Executive Order N−05−19, declaring that 2018 was the most destructive fire season in California histo- ry, with over 7,600 wildfires burning across 1,846,445 acres.

Consistent with the Governor’s Order, research conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agen- cy (U.S. EPA) found that fires are increasing in frequen- cy, size, and intensity, creating the potential for greater smoke production and chronic smoke exposures in the United States, particularly in the West. While thousands of chemical compounds are present in wildfire smoke, the principal harmful pollutant of concern for persons not in close proximity to the flames is particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or smaller, known as PM2.5.

The ad- verse health effects of PM2.5 include, but are not limit- ed to, increased local lung and systemic inflammation, acute and chronic cardiovascular effects, and acute and chronic respiratory effects. Epidemiological studies al- so show that short−term exposures to PM2.5 can cause stroke, heart failure, and arrhythmias, as well as myo- cardial ischemia and infarction.

Occupational safety and health standards within Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations protect workers from harmful respiratory hazards in general, but there is currently no regulation that specifically addresses ei- ther PM2.5 or wildfire smoke. The primary measure- ment of air quality is the Air Quality Index (AQI) estab- lished by the U.S. EPA, but AQI standards are not men- tioned anywhere in Title 8. Current regulations are not sufficiently specific as to what employers are required to do during wildfire events.

This results in confusion on behalf of both employers and employees, leaving many employees unprotected. The Board is proposing this regulation, Title 8, new

section 5141.1, to preserve worker safety and health, and to clarify employers’ existing obligations, making compliance easier and more straightforward. As wild- fire seasons worsen, the proposed regulation will avoid a potential increase in debilitating and sometimes life− threatening illnesses faced by workers exposed to wild- fire smoke. This will reduce the financial costs caused by medical care and lost workdays, costs that may be borne by employees, their families, employers, insur- ers, and public benefits programs. EV ALUATION OF INCONSISTENCY/INCOMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING STATE REGULATION The Board evaluated the proposed regulations pur- suant to Government Code

section 11346.5(a)(3)(

D) and has determined that the regulations are not incon- sistent or incompatible with existing state regulations. This proposal is part of a system of occupational safety and health regulations. The consistency and compati- bility of that system’s component regulations is provid- ed by such things as: (1) the requirement of the federal government and the Labor Code to the effect that the State regulations be at least as effective as their federal counterparts, and (2) the requirement that all state occu- pational safety and health rulemaking be channeled through a single entity (the Standards Board). To the extent that there may be any unforeseen con- flict between the proposed

section 5141.1 and existing sections 5141 Control of Harmful Exposures to Em- ployees and 5155 Airborne Contaminants, that has been resolved by proposed

section 5141.1(a)(3). This sub-

section expressly states that an employer following sec- tion 5141.1 will be considered compliant with sections 5141 and 5155 for the limited purpose of exposures to a current AQI for PM2.5 of 151 or greater from wildfire smoke. DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACTION Mandate on Local Agencies or School Districts: The Board has determined that proposed

section 5141.1 does not impose a mandate on local agencies or school districts requiring reimbursement by the State pursuant to

Part 7 of Division 4 of the Government Code (commencing with

section 17500). Cost or Savings to State Agencies: State agencies, like other employers, should already be providing respirators to employees exposed to un- healthy levels of PM2.5 from wildfire smoke, under ex- isting law. Likewise, under existing law, public em- ployers should be using engineering and administrative controls when appropriate, for instance by moving tasks indoors or delaying non−critical tasks until the smoke clears, and should provide effective training and communication as required in the proposed regulation.

However, the proposed regulation includes some newly prescriptive elements that simplify and clarify existing performance standards, so the cost of these por- tions of the proposed regulation have been estimated below. These calculations assume that all covered state enti- ties unable to limit employee exposure to unhealthy 498

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 14-Z PM2.5 from wildfire smoke through feasible adminis- trative or engineering controls — i.e. those public em- ployers which cannot readily postpone work during a wildfire or move work indoors to enclosed buildings — will incur new costs when complying with the require- ments for respiratory protective equipment and train- ing. In fact, the Division believes that the majority of state entities with workers who may be exposed to wild- fire smoke during the 2020 fire season are already com- pliant with the proposed

section 5141.1. In addition, state entities should already provide respirators for em- ployees when the air quality is unhealthy under existing Title 8, sections 5141, 5144, and Labor Code sections 6400, 6401, 6402, 6403, and 6404. The numbers below have not been reduced to account for this; however, be- cause of the difficulty in ascertaining the percentage of state entities that already provide N95s in response to wildfire smoke. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protec- tion (CalFire) employees have not been included in the estimates below.

Nearly all CalFire employees exposed to wildfire smoke are engaged in wildland firefighting. That activity is expressly excluded from proposed sec- tion 5141.1. Among other large state agencies, the California De- partment of Transportation (CalTrans) and the Califor- nia Highway Patrol (CHP) are the entities with the most workers subject to the proposed regulation. Although a large number of the individuals working on outdoor CalTrans projects are actually employed by private en- tities, the Division estimated that about half of Cal- Trans’ own workforce could possibly be covered dur- ing a wildfire smoke event.

The Division also estimated that about 70% of the CHP workforce (the percentage of CHP employees who are sworn officers) could possi- bly be covered by the proposal, even though employees in enclosed vehicles are exempt. For other state entities, the Division estimates that about 15% of employees could also be covered, taking into account that state em- ployees in office buildings, most other buildings, and vehicles are exempt from the proposed regulation.

The cost per N95 filtering facepiece respirator was estimated by the Public Agency Safety Management Association (PASMA) to be approximately $0.75 per respirator. Based on 2018 data from the California Air Resources Board, in the worst−case scenario, one third of the California population would be exposed to un- healthy levels of PM2.5 from wildfire smoke for ten days over the course of year. The proposed regulation also includes a training requirement specific to the haz- ard of PM2.5 from wildfire smoke.

The training re- quired in Appendix B of the proposed regulation, plus the time required for distributing and donning N95 masks, is estimated to take about 20 minutes to com- plete.

Cost has been estimated based on average hourly earnings as reported by EDD. 1 Number of possible public employees per year, worst−case scenario Entity2: CalTrans — Total employees: 22,209 — % of employees possibly covered by regulation: 50% — # of employees possibly covered by regulation: 11,104 — Possible per year (Total * 1/3): 3,702 Entity2: CHP — Total employees: 11,491 — % of employees possibly covered by regulation: 70% — # of employees possibly covered by regulation: 8,044 — Possible per year (Total * 1/3): 2,681 Entity2: University of California — Total employees: 306,007 — % of employees possibly covered by regulation: 15% — # of employees possibly covered by regulation: 45,901 — Possible per year (Total * 1/3): 15,300 Entity2: California State University — Total employees: 123,717 — % of employees possibly covered by regulation: 15% — # of employees possibly covered by regulation: 18,558 — Possible per year (Total * 1/3): 6,186 Entity2: All other state departments, excluding CalFire — Total employees: 209,752 — % of employees possibly covered by regulation: 15% — # of employees possibly covered by regulation: 31,463 — Possible per year (Total * 1/3): 10,488 Total employees: 673,176 — Total # of employees possibly covered by regulation: 115,070 — Total Possible per year (Total * 1/3): 38 ,357 1 Statewide average wage in California for Q1 2019, the most re- cent data available as of this writing, at https://www. labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/oes−employment−and− wages.html#OES 2 Number of employees taken from the State Controller’s Office, December 2019.

CalTrans: https://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/State/StateEntity. aspx?entityid=3854&year=2018 CHP: https://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/State/StateEntity.aspx? entityid=3743&year=2018 All State Departments: https://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/State/ State.aspx University of California: https://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/ HigherEducations/UniversityOfCalifornia.aspx California State University: https://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/ HigherEducations/StateUniversity.aspx 499

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 14-Z Annual state government costs, worst−case scenario Safety and Health Requirement in 5141.1: N−95 Respirator — Total exposed employees: 38,357 — Cost per employee 3: $0.75 — Days of wildfire exposure: 10 —Cost/year: $287,677 Safety and Health Requirement in 5141.1: Training & Use of Respirators — Total exposed employees: 38,357 — Cost per employee 3: $9.69 — Days of wildfire exposure: 10 —Cost/year: $371,679 Total Cost: $659,356 The proposed regulation may result in marginal sav- ings to state agencies in their capacity as employers, since improved regulatory clarity could save those enti- ties staff time that would otherwise be spent trying to understand and apply the current regulations to the spe- cific situation of wildfire smoke exposure, and because the proposed regulation allows public employers to pro- vide N95 filtering facepiece respirators to workers without a medical evaluation or fit testing.

However, public employers with workers who are regularly ex- posed to smoke or other respiratory hazards, including public agencies involved in emergency response, al- ready have fully developed respiratory protection plans with required respirator use, medical evaluations, and fit testing. Among the remaining public agencies, it is unknown how many will recognize this potential sav- ings. Wildfires are unpredictable; the number, location, extent, and length of fires in 2020 and later years is un- known.

Smoke adds another layer of uncertainty, since the people and entities affected by a given wildfire may be far from the event. The extent and intensity of wild- fire smoke is dependent on multiple variable weather conditions that cannot be predicted in advance. The Division expects that it would receive fewer queries about wildfire smoke if proposed

section 5141.1 is enacted. The proposed regulation would also make it easier and faster for Division staff to respond to questions. However, this is unlikely to lead to any fiscal savings. Those staff who have been diverted from their usual duties in response to wildfire smoke−related is- sues would simply be returned to their usual enforce- ment activities, due to their full schedules before the wildfire crisis occurred.

The Division would need to train its enforcement staff about the new regulation, which would probably require a webinar lasting approximately 60 minutes for approximately 200 associate safety engineers (the 3 Training costs based on the statewide average wage in California for Q1 2019. https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/oes−employment −and−wages.html#OES. As stated above, the per−mask cost of the N95 respirator was estimated by PASMA. equivalent of 1 associate safety engineer for one year) and other staff. However, the Division believes this can be absorbed into the existing budget.

Cost to Any Local Government 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: The above analysis for state agencies’ costs and sav- ings applies to local agencies as well. The Division esti- mated costs for the prescription portions of the pro- posed regulation by assuming that these will be entirely new costs for local agency employers within the scope of the regulation, even though the Division believes that the majority of local agencies are already in compliance with the proposed

section 5141.1. The Division calculated respirator and training costs in the same manner as the estimates for state agencies, above. Affected local agency employees would include certain inspectors/code enforcement personnel and people working in parks/outdoor recreation, traffic con- trol, public safety, some types of vehicle and building maintenance, and other fields. The Division estimated that approximately 15% of local agency employees may fall within the scope of the proposed regulation.

Applying that assumption to a total of 1,416,219 local entity employees, 4 the maximum possible number of local government employees who could possibly be covered by this regulation is 212,433. Using the worst− case scenario discussed above, in which a third of the California population is exposed to an AQI over 150 from wildfire smoke over the course of a year, about 70,811 local government employees could be covered by this regulation in a given year. The total cost per year to local agencies is calculated at $1,217,241 per year as shown below. 4 Source: State Controller’s Office https://publicpay.ca.gov/.

Please note that the estimated percentage of employees possibly covered by the regulation has been changed since the 399 for the emergency regulation was submitted. This was done because the data collected by the Controller’s Office, although more accurate than the previous source, included more individuals working within educational buildings with filtered air. 500

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 14-Z Annual local government costs, worst−case scenario Safety and Health Requirement in 5141.1: N−95 Respirator — Total exposed employees: 70,811 — Cost per employee 5: $0.75 — Days of wildfire smoke exposure: 10 — Cost/year: $531,082 Safety and Health Requirement in 5141.1: Training & Use of Respirators — Total exposed employees: 70,811 — Cost per employee 5: $9.69 — Days of wildfire smoke exposure: 10 — Cost/year: $686,159 Total Cost: $1,217,241 Cost or Savings in Federal Funding to the State: None.

COST IMPACT ON A REPRESENTATIVE PRIV ATE PERSON OR BUSINESS The proposal does not impose any costs on private persons who are not employers. The number of businesses affected by wildfire smoke will vary greatly from year to year. Many workplaces are exempt from the proposal, including buildings and vehicles with air filtration, along with workers who are exposed to outdoor air for less than an hour per shift (for instance, while traveling between buildings or walking to or from a vehicle).

Based on EDD data on the average number of em- ployees per business in California (17,624,394 employees/1,584,626 businesses) and the average number of employees per small business (13,886,430 employees/1,581,846 businesses), the per−employee costs described above [$7.50 (respirators for 10 days) + $9.69 (training) = $17.19] result in an annual cost of $191.19 for a typical business and $150.74 for a small business. 6 STATEWIDE ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACT DIRECTLY AFFECTING BUSINESSES AND INDIVIDUALS, INCLUDING THE ABILITY OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESSES TO COMPETE The Board has made an initial determination that this proposal will not result in a significant, statewide ad- 5 Training costs based on the statewide average wage in California for Q1 2019. https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/oes−employment − and−wages.html#OES.

As stated above, the per−mask cost of the N95 respirator was estimated by PASMA. 6 EDD for 2018 Q3 and Q4, the most recent data available as of this writing, Table 2A and 2B: https://www.labormarketinfo.edd. ca.gov/LMID/Size_of_Business_Data_for_CA.html verse economic impact directly affecting businesses/ individuals, including the ability of California busi- nesses to compete with businesses in other states. The annual cost to a typical business is very low, and there is no cost to private individuals.

In addition, many Cali- fornia businesses affected by this regulation are already prepared to provide N95 respirators and related training to employees in the event of wildfire smoke exposure, in compliance with existing Title 8 sections. Significant Affect on Housing Costs: None. SMALL BUSINESS DETERMINATION The Board has determined that the proposed regula- tion may affect small businesses; however, no signifi- cant impact is anticipated. Small businesses are expect- ed to incur a cost of $150.74 per year.

RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT/ANALYSIS The proposed regulation will not have any effect on the creation or elimination of jobs within California, the creation of new businesses or the elimination of exist- ing businesses in the state, or the expansion of existing California businesses. The Division has estimated that, in a worst−case sce- nario, the costs to private business would be $13,748,098 per year. However, the annual cost of the proposal for a typical business is very low: $191.19 per year.

This should not result in any changes to hiring practices within existing companies or to the number of new businesses in the state. The total, statewide savings that would result from the proposed regulation cannot be quantified. The Board is not aware of a study that quantifies the effects of deaths/illnesses from occupational wildfire smoke− related PM2.5 as opposed to exposures to PM2.5 from other sources, such as dust and pollution, or non− occupational exposures.

Despite that, there is ample ev- idence that reducing exposure to PM2.5 in general and wildfire smoke in particular will result in improved health for California employees and reduce the finan- cial costs caused by medical care and lost workdays, costs which may be borne by employees, their families, employers, insurers, and public benefits programs. In addition, there may be some unquantifiable sav- ings to employers because compliance with the pro- posed regulation is simpler and less expensive than fol- lowing existing

section 5144(d)(1)(C), and because employers will be able to provide N95s to workers with- out performing medical evaluations or fit testing. 501

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 14-Z BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The Board is proposing this regulation, Title 8, new

section 5141.1, to preserve worker safety and health and to clarify employers’ existing obligations, making compliance easier and more straightforward. As wild- fire seasons worsen, the proposed regulation will avoid a potential increase in debilitating and sometimes life− threatening illnesses faced by workers exposed to wild- fire smoke. This will reduce the financial costs caused by medical care and lost workdays, costs that may be borne by employees, their families, employers, insur- ers, and public benefits programs.

This regulation is ex- pected to be neutral to and will provide neither a benefit nor a detriment to the state’s environment. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES In accordance with Government Code

section 11346.5(a)(13), the Board must determine that no rea- sonable alternative it considered to the regulation or that has otherwise been identified and brought to its at- tention would either 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 than the proposal described in this Notice.

The Board invites interested persons to present state- ments or arguments with respect to alternatives to the proposed regulation at the scheduled public hearing or during the written comment period. CONTACT PERSONS Inquiries regarding this proposed regulatory action may be directed to Christina Shupe (Executive Officer) or the back−up contact person, Michael Manieri (Prin- cipal Safety Engineer) at the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 350, Sacramento, CA 95833; (916) 274−5721.

A V AILABILITY OF STATEMENT OF REASONS, TEXT OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS AND RULEMAKING FILE The Board will have the entire rulemaking file avail- able for inspection and copying throughout the rule- making process at its office at the above address. As of the date this Notice of Proposed Action is published in the Notice Register, the rulemaking file consists of this Notice, the proposed text of the regulations, the Initial Statement of Reasons, supporting documents, or other information upon which the rulemaking is based. Copies may be obtained by contacting Ms. Shupe or Mr.

Manieri at the address or telephone number listed above. A V AILABILITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT After holding the hearing and considering all timely and relevant comments received, the Board may adopt the proposed regulations substantially as described in this Notice. If the Board makes modifications that are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text, it will make the modified text (with the changes clearly indicated) available to the public at least 15 days before the Board adopts the regulations as revised. Please re- quest copies of any modified regulations by contacting Ms. Shupe or Mr.

Manieri at the address or telephone number listed above. The Board will accept written comments on the modified regulations for at least 15 days after the date on which they are made available. A V AILABILITY OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Upon its completion, copies of the Final Statement of Reasons may be obtained by contacting Ms. Shupe or Mr. Manieri at the address or telephone number listed above or via the internet. A V AILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS ON THE INTERNET The Board will have rulemaking documents avail- able for inspection throughout the rulemaking process on its web site.

Copies of the text of the regulations in an underline/strikeout format, the Notice of Proposed Ac- tion and the Initial Statement of Reasons can be ac- cessed through the Standards Board’s website at http://www.dir.ca.gov/oshsb. TITLE 11. COMMISSION ON PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING 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 Cali- fornia Code of Regulations as described below in the In- formative Digest. A public hearing is not scheduled.

Pursuant to Government Code §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. 502

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 14-Z PUBLIC COMMENTS DUE BY MAY 18, 2020 Notice is also given that any interested person, or au- thorized representative, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action by fax at (916) 227−6932 or by letter to: Commission on POST Attn: Cheryl Smith 860 Stillwater Road, Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95605−1630 AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE This proposal is made pursuant to the authority vest- ed by Penal Code §13503 (authority of Commission on POST) and Penal Code §13506 (POST authority to adopt regulations). This proposal is intended to inter- pret, implement, and make specific Penal Code §13503(

e) which authorizes POST to develop and im- plement programs to increase the effectiveness of law enforcement, including programs involving training and education courses. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW Penal Code § 13510 requires that POST develop guidelines and a course of instruction and training for law enforcement officers who are employed as peace officers, or who are not yet employed as a peace officer but are enrolled in a training academy for law enforce- ment officers.

This proposed action will update the in- corporated by reference document, Training and Test- ing Specifications for Peace Officer Basic Courses (re- vised 10/1/2020), to include the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity, the terminology used to identify and describe sexual orientation, and how law enforcement can respond effectively to do- mestic violence and hate crimes involving sexual orien- tation and gender identity minorities as described in newly added Penal Code § 13519.41.

Additionally, the incorporation by reference statements in POST Regula- tions sections 1005, 1007, and 1008 will be revised to reflect the updated revised date for the Training and Testing Specifications for Peace Officer Basic Courses. The benefit anticipated by the proposed amendments to the regulations will be to update the training specifi- cations for Peace Officer Basic Courses, which will in- crease the effectiveness of law enforcement standards for peace officers in preserving peace, protection of public health and safety, and welfare of California.

During the process of developing these regulations and amendments, POST has conducted a search of any similar regulations on this topic and has concluded that these regulations are neither inconsistent nor incompat- ible with existing state regulations. All changes to curriculum begin with recommenda- tions from law enforcement practitioners or in some cases via legislative mandates. POST then facilitates meetings attended by curriculum advisors and subject matter experts who provide recommended changes to existing curriculum.

The completed work of all com- mittees is presented to the POST Commission for final review and adoption. Upon adoption of the proposed amendments, academies and course presenters will be required to teach and test the updated curriculum. The proposed effective date is October 1, 2020. DOCUMENT INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE Training and Testing Specifications for Peace Officer Basic Courses, revised 10/1/2020.

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

If the Com- mission 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 designat- ed 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 Agen- cies: None. Local Mandate: None. Costs to any Local Agency or School District Affect- ing Government Code § 17500−17630 requires reim- bursement: None.

Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Di- rectly Affecting California Businesses, including Small Business: The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training has made an initial determination that the amended regulations will not have a significant 503

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 14-Z statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting California business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Train- ing has found that the proposed amendments will not af- fect California businesses, including small businesses, because the Commission sets selection and training standards for law enforcement which does not impact California businesses, including small businesses.

Affect on Housing Costs: The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training has made an initial de- termination that the proposed regulations would have no affect on housing costs. RESULTS OF ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT PER GOVERNMENT CODE § 11346.3(

b) The adoption of the proposed amendments of regula- tions 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 proposed amendments of regulations will in- crease the effectiveness of law enforcement standards for peace officers in preserving peace, protection of public health and safety, and welfare of California. There would be no impact that would affect worker safety or the state’s environment.

COST IMPACT ON REPRESENTATIVE PRIV ATE PERSONS OR BUSINESSES The Commission is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would nec- essarily incur in reasonable compliance with the pro- posed action.

CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES To take this action, the Commission must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the Com- mission, or otherwise identified and brought to the Commission, 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 than the proposed action.

CONTACT PERSON Questions regarding this proposed regulatory action may be directed to Cheryl Smith, Commission on POST, 860 Stillwater Road, Suite 100, West Sacramen- to, CA 95605−1630 at (916) 227−0544. General ques- tions regarding the regulatory process may be directed to Katie Strickland at (916) 227−2802, or by FAX at (916) 227−5271.

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://www.post.ca.gov/regulatory−actions.aspx.

A V AILABILITY 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 prepared, submit a written request to the contact person(

s) named above. TITLE 11. COMMISSION ON PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING 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 Cali- fornia Code of Regulations as described below in the In- formative Digest. A public hearing is not scheduled. Pursuant to Government Code

section 11346.8, any in- terested person, or his/her duly authorized representa- tive, 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 MAY 18, 2020 Notice is also given that any interested person, or au- thorized representative, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action by fax at (916) 227−4547, by email to Maria Sandoval, or by let- ter to: 504

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 14-Z Commission on POST Attention: Maria Sandoval 860 Stillwater Road, Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95605−1630 AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE This proposal is made pursuant to the authority vest- ed by Penal Code

Section 13503 (authority of the Com- mission on POST) and Penal Code

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

section 13503(e), which authorizes POST to develop and implement programs to increase the effec- tiveness of law enforcement, including programs in- volving training and education courses. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW At the February 13, 2020 meeting, the Commission approved the proposed amendments to Regulation 1015, Reimbursements for Training.

The amendment was proposed in order to modify the regulation as follows:  Update the reimbursement rate for Basic Course Subsistence for the Regular Basic Course from $50.00 per day to $75.00 per day.  Update the number of hours for reimbursement for the Regular Basic Course from 664 up to 800. On July 1, 1994, POST established 664 hours as the minimum number of hours to cover required curricu- lum for the RBC. A reimbursement rate of $50.00 per day for agency sponsored trainees up to 664 hours was also implemented at that time.

For the proposed budget for FY 2019−20, POST sub- mitted a Budget Change Proposal (BCP), which among other things, proposed an increase for local assistance/ agency reimbursement for the RBC at a rate of $75.00 per day, up to 800 hours. The BCP indicated that under this proposal, RBC reimbursement could result in ex- penditures of no more than $7.5M. The BCP was ap- proved and the FY 2019−20 budget was ultimately enacted. The cost of living index has increased over the years.

The agency reimbursement rates for the RBC have not been adjusted since 1994, nor have the number of reim- bursable training hours changed since that time. As a point of reference, the lowest number of training hours currently offered by a POST academy is 720 hours, with the highest academy at 1,240 hours. The current maximum reimbursement stands at $4,150.00 per recruit (664 hours/8 hours per day X $50.00 = $4,150.00). This amendment to the regulation will change the new maximum reimbursement to $7,500.00 per recruit (800 hours/8 hours per day X $75.00 = $7,500.00).

An increase of $25.00 for a total of $75.00 per day, and for up to 800 hours of training, will be more reflec- tive of the training costs for the RBC. It will increase a rate which has not been adjusted for 25 years. The specific benefits anticipated by the proposed reg- ulatory changes to Regulation 1015 will offer a more accurate reflection of the current cost of living index as well as accurately reflect the current amount of training hours at a POST−participating academy.

Since POST is expected by governmental law enforcement agencies to implement an increase to reimbursement rates due to the FY 2019−2020 local assistance budget increase, this regulatory change will provide financial relief to agen- cies to assist with the rising costs of training for the RBC. The benefits of the proposed amendments to the regu- lation will be the enhancement of police processes and operations through the enactment of increasing reim- bursement rates for training.

Thus, California law en- forcement agencies can adequately maintain their stan- dards to preserve peace; protect public the health, safe- ty, and welfare; and interact in a positive manner with their communities. The proposed amendments will nei- ther benefit nor harm worker safety or the State’s environment. EV ALUATION OF INCONSISTENCY/INCOMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING STATE REGULATIONS POST has determined that this proposed regulation amendment is not inconsistent nor 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 only regulations that con- cern Training and Testing Specifications. ADOPTION OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS Following the public comment period, POST may adopt the proposal substantially as set forth without fur- ther notice, or POST may modify the proposal if such modifications remain sufficiently related to the text as described in the Informative Digest.

If POST 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 dur- ing 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 505

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 14-Z addressed to the agency official designated in this no- tice. POST will accept written comments on the modi- fied 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 Agen- cies: None. Local Mandate: None. Costs to any Local Agency or School District for which Government Code sections 17500−17630 re- quires reimbursement: None.

Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Di- rectly Affecting California Businesses, including Small Business: 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 Califor- nia businesses to compete with businesses in other states.

The Commission on POST has found that the proposed amendments will not affect California busi- nesses, including small businesses, because the Com- mission sets selection and training standards for law en- forcement which does not impact California business- es, including small businesses. Cost Impacts on Representative Private Persons or Businesses: The Commission on POST has determined that there should be little to no cost impacts that a repre- sentative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action.

POST is not aware of any cost impact that a represen- tative private person or business would necessarily in- cur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action. Effect on Housing Costs: The Commission on POST has made an initial determination that the proposed reg- ulation 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 regula- tions will neither create nor eliminate jobs in the State of California, nor result in the elimination of existing busi- nesses or create or expand businesses in the State of California. The benefits of the proposed amendments of the reg- ulation to the health and welfare of California residents would be improved community/police relations, en- hanced police processes, and operations by the enact- ment of increasing reimbursement rates for training.

Thus, the law enforcement standards and missions of the organizations are maintained and will be effective in preserving 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. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES In accordance with Government Code

section 11346.5, subdivision (a)(13), to take this action, POST must determine that no reasonable alternative consid- ered, or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of POST, would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is pro- posed, 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 per- sons and equally effective in implementing the statuto- ry policy or other provision of the law.

A V AILABILITY OF MODIFIED TEXT Following the written comment period, and the hear- ing, if one is held, the department may adopt the pro- posed regulations substantially as described in this no- tice. If modifications are made which are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text, the fully modi- fied text of this regulation, with changes clearly indicat- ed, pursuant to

Section 11346.8, shall be made available to the public for at least 15 days prior to the date on which the department adopts, amends, or repeals the re- sulting regulations. Requests for copies of any modified regulations should be addressed to the department con- tact person in this notice. The department will accept written comment on the modified regulation for 15 days after the date on which they’re first made available to the public.

CONTACT PERSONS Questions regarding this proposed regulatory action may be directed to Maria Sandoval, Commission on POST, 860 Stillwater Road, Suite 100, West Sacramen- to, CA 95605−1630 at (916) 227−2808. General ques- tions regarding the regulatory process may be directed to Katie Strickland at (916) 227−2802. 506

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 14-Z 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. A V AILABILITY 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 11. COMMISSION ON PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING 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 Cali- fornia Code of Regulations as described below in the In- formative Digest. A public hearing is not scheduled. Pursuant to Government Code

section 11346.8, any in- terested person, or his/her duly authorized representa- tive, 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 MAY 18, 2020 Notice is also given that any interested person, or au- thorized representative, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action by fax at (916) 227−4547, by email to Anita Finner, or by letter to: Commission on POST Attention: Anita Finner 860 Stillwater Road, Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95605−1630 AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE This proposal is made pursuant to the authority vest- ed by Penal Code

Section 13503 (authority of the Com- mission on POST) and Penal Code

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

section 13503(e), which authorizes POST to develop and implement programs to increase the effec- tiveness of law enforcement, including programs in- volving training and education courses. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW Penal Code § 13510 requires that POST develop guidelines and a course of instruction and training for law enforcement officers who are employed as peace officers, or who are not yet employed as a peace officer but are enrolled in a training academy for law enforce- ment officers.

This proposed action will update the in- corporated by reference document, Training and Test- ing Specifications for Peace Officer Basic Courses (re- vised 4/1/2020) document. As part of an ongoing review of the Regular Basic Course content, POST staff and curriculum consultants review Learning Domain content to determine currency and job task relevancy. This process is facilitated by POST and attended by subject matter experts, academy directors, and coordinators. Some of the more signifi- cant outcomes of these workshops are recommenda- tions for updating and enhancing the basic courses.

There are a range of non−deadly force options avail- able to peace officers, such as de−escalation, baton, control hold, chemical agents, taser, etc. Currently, POST requires students to be tested on two of those op- tions, baton and control hold. Proposed changes were made to allow students to uti- lize any presenter approved non−deadly force option or options during scenario testing. The existing baton and control hold scenario test specifications were merged into one non−deadly force option test specification.

Ad- ditionally, the “or presenter−developed forms ap- proved by POST” verbiage was removed for statewide consistency in the evaluation process. The benefit anticipated by the proposed amendments to the regulations will be to update the Training and Testing Specifications for Peace Officer Basic Courses, which will increase the effectiveness of law enforce- ment standards for peace officers in preserving peace, protection of public health and safety, and welfare of California.

During the process of developing these regulations and amendments, POST has conducted a search of any similar regulations on this topic and has concluded that these regulations are neither inconsistent nor incompat- ible with existing state regulations. All changes to curriculum begin with recommenda- tions from law enforcement practitioners or in some cases via legislative mandates. POST then facilitates meetings attended by curriculum advisors and subject 507

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 14-Z matter experts who provide recommended changes to existing curriculum. The completed work of all com- mittees is presented to the POST Commission for final review and adoption. Upon adoption of the proposed amendments, academies and course presenters will be required to teach and test the updated curriculum. The proposed effective date is October 1, 2020. DOCUMENT INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE Training and Testing Specifications for Peace Officer Basic Courses revised 04/01/2020.

ADOPTION OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS Following the public comment period, the Commis- sion 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 Di- gest.

If the Commission makes changes to the language before the date of adoption, the text of any modified lan- guage, 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 pe- riod 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 of- ficial 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 Agen- cies: None. Local Mandate: None. Costs to any Local Agency or School District for which Government Code sections 17500−17630 re- quires reimbursement: None.

Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Di- rectly Affecting California Businesses, including Small Business: 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 Califor- nia businesses to compete with businesses in other states.

The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training has found that the proposed amendments will not affect California businesses, including small busi- nesses, because the Commission sets selection and training standards for law enforcement which does not impact California businesses, including small businesses. Effect on Housing Costs: The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training has made an initial de- termination 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 regula- tions will neither create nor eliminate jobs in the State of California, nor result in the elimination of existing busi- nesses or create or expand businesses in the State of California. The benefits of the proposed amendments of regula- tions to the regulations will increase the efficiency of the state of California in delivering services to stake- holders. Thus, the law enforcement standards are main- tained and effective in preserving 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.

CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES To take this action, the Commission must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the Com- mission, or otherwise identified and brought to the at- tention of the Commission, would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is pro- posed, 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 per- sons and equally effective in implementing the statuto- ry policy or other provision of law than the proposed action.

CONTACT PERSONS Questions regarding this proposed regulatory action may be directed to Anita Finner, Commission on POST, 860 Stillwater Road, Suite 100, West Sacramento, CA 95605−1630 at (916) 227−3901. General questions re- garding the regulatory process may be directed to Katie Strickland at (916) 227−2802. 508

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 14-Z 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. A V AILABILITY 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. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL DIVISION 2,

CHAPTER 6.5,

ARTICLE 4, AMEND

SECTION 1222 SMOKING ON SCHOOL BUS (CHP−R−2019−06102) The California Highway Patrol (CHP) proposes to adopt changes to Title 13 of the California Code of Reg- ulations (CCR),

Section 1222, to establish and clarify that smoking is not permitted on a school bus, school pupil activity bus (SPAB), or pupil activity bus (PAB), at any time, and reference the statute (Section 22950.5 of the Business and Professions Code) that defines smoking. A recommendation for these changes was submitted to the CHP by the School Pupil Transporta- tion Advisory Committee (SPTAC). AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE

Section 34501.5 of the California Vehicle Code