Time- Dated Material GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW California Regulatory Notice Register REGISTER 2023, NUMBER 45–Z PUBLISHED WEEKLY BY THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW NOVEMBER 10, 2023 PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS TITLE 2.

FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Conflict–of–Interest Codes — Notice File Number Z2023–1031–04 ....................................... 1429 AMENDMENT MULTI–COUNTY: East Bay Regional Park District Pajaro Valley Public Cemetery District STATE AGENCY: California Catastrophe Response Council ADOPTION MULTI–COUNTY: Le Grand–Athlone Water District Pioneer Community Energy TITLE 8. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD Civil Penalties: Violations of Government Code 3550 — Notice File Number Z2023–1026–01 .................. 1430 TITLE 13.

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES Requesting Information from the Department — Notice File Number Z2023–1027–01 ........................ 1435 TITLE 13. AIR RESOURCES BOARD Proposed Zero–Emission Forklift Regulation — Notice File Number Z2023–1024–06 ......................... 1438 TITLE 14. FISH AND GAME COMMISSION Exotic Game Mammals and Wild Pig Validations — Notice File Number Z2023–1030–02 ..................... 1451 TITLE 14. FISH AND GAME COMMISSION Recreational California Halibut Updates — Notice File Number Z2023–1031–03 ............................ 1454 TITLE 16.

BUREAU OF AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR Vehicle Safety Systems Inspection Program — Notice File Number Z2023–1030–01 .......................... 1456 (Continued on next page)

TITLE 22.

DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL Listing Laundry Detergents Containing Nonylphenol Ethoxylates as a Priority Product — Notice File Number Z2023–1030–03 ................................................................ 1461 GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST BOARD OF EQUALIZATION Notice of Rescheduled Public Hearing and Extension of Written Comment Period (Original Notice Published on September 8, 2023, Notice Register 2023, Number 36–Z, Concerning Audit Selection) ....................................................................... 1467 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Consistency Determination Number 1653–2020–130–001–R1, Chamberlain Creek Restoration Project, Mendocino County ....................................................................... 1470 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Consistency Determination Request for Kelt Reservoirs Project, 2080–2023–017–05, Santa Barbara County ........................................................................... 1472

SUMMARY OF REGULATORY ACTIONS Regulations filed with the Secretary of State ......................................................... 1472 The California Regulatory Notice Register is an official state publication of the Office of Administrative Law containing notices of proposed regulatory actions by state regulatory agencies to adopt, amend or repeal regulations contained in the California Code of Regulations. The effective period of a notice of proposed regulatory action by a state agency in the California Regulatory Notice Register shall not exceed one year [Government Code § 11346.4(b)].

It is suggested, therefore, that issues of the California Regulatory Notice Register be retained for a minimum of 18 months. CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER is published weekly by the Office of Administrative Law, 300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1250, Sacramento, CA 95814-4339. The Register is printed by Barclays, a subsidiary of West, a Thomson Reuters Business, and is offered by subscription for $205.00 (annual price). To order or make changes to current subscriptions, please call (800) 328−4880. The Register can also be accessed at https://oal.ca.gov .

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 45–Z 1429 PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS Information contained in this document is published as received from agencies and is not edited by Thomson Reuters. TITLE 2.

FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Fair Polit - ical Practices Commission, pursuant to the authority vested in it by Sections 82011, 87303, and 87304 of the Government Code to review proposed conflict–of– interest codes, will review the proposed/amended conflict–of–interest codes of the following: CONFLICT–OF–INTEREST CODES AMENDMENT MULTI–COUNTY: East Bay Regional Park District Pajaro Valley Public Cemetery District STATE AGENCY: California Catastrophe Response Council ADOPTION MULTI–COUNTY: Le Grand–Athlone Water District Pioneer Community Energy A written comment period has been established commencing on November 10, 2023 and closing on December 26, 2023.

Written comments should be di - rected to the Fair Political Practices Commission, At - tention Daniel Vo, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sacra - mento, California 95811. At the end of the 45–day comment period, the pro - posed conflict–of–interest codes will be submitted to the Commission’s Executive Director for his review, unless any interested person or his or her duly autho - rized representative requests, no later than 15 days pri- or to the close of the written comment period, a public hearing before the full Commission.

If a public hear - ing is requested, the proposed codes will be submitted to the Commission for review. The Executive Director of the Commission will review the above–referenced conflict–of–interest codes, proposed pursuant to Government Code Sec - tion 87300, which designate, pursuant to Government Code

Section 87302, employees who must disclose certain investments, interests in real property and income. The Executive Director of the Commission, upon his or its own motion or at the request of any interested person, will approve, or revise and approve, or return the proposed codes to the agency for revision and re– submission within 60 days without further notice. Any interested person may present statements, ar - guments or comments, in writing to the Executive Director of the Commission, relative to review of the proposed conflict–of–interest codes.

Any written comments must be received no later than December 26, 2023. If a public hearing is to be held, oral com - ments may be presented 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. There- fore, they are not “costs mandated by the state” as de- fined in Government Code

Section 17514. EFFECT ON HOUSING COSTS AND BUSINESSES Compliance with the codes has no potential effect on housing costs or on private persons, businesses or small businesses. AUTHORITY Government Code Sections 82011, 87303 and 87304 provide that the Fair Political Practices Commission as the code–reviewing body for the above conflict–of– interest codes shall approve codes as submitted, revise the proposed code and approve it as revised, or return the proposed code for revision and re–submission.

REFERENCE Government Code Sections 87300 and 87306 pro - vide that agencies shall adopt and promulgate conflict– of–interest codes pursuant to the Political Reform Act and amend their codes when change is necessitated by changed circumstances. CONTACT Any inquiries concerning the proposed conflict– of–interest codes should be made to Daniel Vo, Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q Street, Suite

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 45–Z 1430 3000, Sacramento, California 95811, telephone (916) 323–9103. AVAILABILITY OF PROPOSED CONFLICT–OF–INTEREST CODES Copies of the proposed conflict–of–interest codes may be obtained from the Commission offices or the respective agency. Requests for copies from the Com- mission should be made to Daniel Vo, Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sac- ramento, California 95811, telephone (916) 323–9103. TITLE 8.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) proposes to adopt the regulations described below after considering all comments, objections, and recommendations regarding the proposed action. PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION The Board proposes to adopt new sections 32095, 32610.2 and 32611.8.

Section 32095 defines the term “special remedies.”

Section 32610.2 informs public employers and labor organizations of the precondi - tions for filing an unfair practice charge at PERB al - leging a violation of Government Code

section

Section 32611.8 provides the procedures for PERB to adjudicate issues regarding an award of special rem - edies related to claims filed under Government Code sections 3550 and 3558. PUBLIC HEARING The Board has not scheduled a public hearing on this proposed action. However, the Board will hold a hearing if it receives a written request for a public hearing from any interested person, or his or her au - thorized representative, no later than 15 days before the close of the written comment period.

WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any interested person, or his or her authorized rep - resentative, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action to the Board. Com - ments may also be submitted by facsimile (FAX) at (916) 327–6377 or by email at jeremy.zeitlin@perb. ca.gov. The written comment period closes on Decem- ber 26, 2023, which is 46 days after the publication of this notice. The Board will only consider comments received at the Board offices by that time. Submit writ- ten comments to: Jeremy Zeitlin, Senior Regional Attorney Public Employment Relations Board Elihu M.

Harris State Office Building 1515 Clay St., Suite 2206 Oakland, CA 94612 1031 18th Street (415) 654–2358 Email: jeremy.zeitlin@perb.ca.gov AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Pursuant to Government Code

section 3541.3(g), the Board is authorized to adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations to carry out the provisions and effectuate the purposes and policies of the Education - al Employment Relations Act (EERA; Government Code

section 3540 et seq.). Pursuant to Government Code sections 3509(

a) and 3541.3(g), the Board is au- thorized to adopt, amend and repeal rules and regu - lations to carry out the provisions and effectuate the purposes and policies of the Meyers–Milias–Brown Act (MMBA; Government Code

section 3500 et seq.). Government Code

section 3513(

h) authorizes the Board to adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations to carry out the provisions and effectuate the purposes and policies of the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act; Gov- ernment Code

section 3512 et seq.). Government Code

section 3563(

f) authorizes the Board to adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations to carry out the pro - visions and effectuate the purposes and policies of the Higher Education Employer–Employee Relations Act (HEERA; Government Code

section 3560 et seq.). Pursuant to Public Utilities Code

section 99561(f), the Board is authorized to adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations to carry out the provisions and effec - tuate the purposes and policies of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Tran - sit Employer–Employee Relations Act (TEERA; Pub- lic Utilities Code

section 99560 et seq.). Pursuant to Government Code sections 3541.3(

g) and 71639.1(b), the Board is authorized to adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations to carry out the provisions and effectuate the purposes and policies of the Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act (Trial Court Act; Government Code

section 71600 et seq.). Pursuant to Government Code sections 3541.3(

g) and 71825(b), the Board is authorized to adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations to carry out the provisions and effectuate the purposes and policies of the Trial Court Interpreter Employment and Labor Relations Act (Court Interpreter Act; Government Code

section 71800 et seq.). Government Code

section 3524.52(a), authorizes the Board to adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations to carry out the provisions and effec - tuate the purposes and policies of the Judicial Council Employer–Employee Relations Act (JCEERA; Gov -

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 45–Z 1431 ernment Code

section 3524.50 et seq.). Pursuant to Government Code sections 3541.3(

g) and 3555.5(c), the Board is authorized to adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations to carry out the provisions and effec - tuate the purposes and policies of the Public Employee Communication

Chapter (PECC; Government Code

section 3555 et seq.). Pursuant to Government Code sections 3541.3(

g) and 3551(a), the Board is authorized to adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations to carry out the provisions and effectuate the purposes and policies of the Prohibition on Public Employers Deterring or Discouraging Union Membership chap - ter (PEDD; Government Code

section 3500 et seq.). Pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code

section 10421(e), the Board is authorized to adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations to carry out the provisions and effectuate the purposes and policies of the Building a Better Early Care and Education System Act (Child- care Provider Act; Welfare and Institutions Code sec - tion 10420 et seq.). Pursuant to Public Utilities Code

section 40122.1(a), the Board is authorized to adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations to carry out the provisions and effectuate the purposes and policies of the Orange County Transit District Act (OCTDA; Public Utilities Code

section 40122.1 et seq.). Pursuant to Public Utilities Code

section 28849(b), the Board is authorized to adopt, amend and repeal rules and reg - ulations to carry out the provisions and effectuate the purposes and policies of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Act (BART Act; Public Utilities Code

section 28848 et seq.). Pursuant to Public Utili - ties Code

section 102399(b), the Board is authorized to adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations to car - ry out the provisions and effectuate the purposes and policies of the Sacramento Regional Transit District Act (SacRT Act; Public Utilities Code

section 102398 et seq.). Pursuant to Public Utilities Code

section 98160.5(

b) and Government Code

section 3541.3(g), the Board is authorized to adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations to carry out the provisions and effectuate the purposes and policies of the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District Act of 1967 (SCMTD Act; Public Utilities Code

section 98160 et seq.). Pur- suant to Public Utilities Code

section 100309(b), the Board is authorized to adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations to carry out the provisions and effec - tuate the purposes and policies of the Santa Clara Val- ley Transportation Authority Act (SCVTA Act; Public Utilities Code

section 100300 et seq.). General reference for

section 32095 of the Board’s regulations: sections 3550, 3551, 3551.5 and 3558, Government Code. General reference for

section 32610.2 of the Board’s regulations:

section 3558, Government Code. General reference for

section 32611.8 of the Board’s regulations: sections 3550, 3551, 3551.5 and 3558, Government Code. POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW PERB is a quasi–judicial agency which oversees public sector collective bargaining in California. PERB presently administers sixteen collective bargaining statutes, ensures their consistent implementation and application, and adjudicates disputes between the parties subject to them.

The statutes administered by PERB are: the Meyers–Milias–Brown Act (MMBA) of 1968, which established collective bargaining for California’s city, county, and local special district em- ployers and employees; the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) of 1976, establishing collective bargaining in California’s public schools (K–12) and community colleges; the State Employer–Employee Relations Act of 1978, known as the Ralph C.

Dills Act (Dills Act), establishing collective bargaining for state government employees; the Higher Education Employer–Employee Relations Act (HEERA) of 1979, extending the same coverage to the California State University System, the University of California Sys - tem and Hastings College of Law; the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Tran - sit Employer–Employee Relations Act (TEERA) of 2003, which covers supervisory employees of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Author - ity; the Trial Court Employment Protection and Gov - ernance Act (Trial Court Act) of 2000 and the Trial Court Interpreter Employment and Labor Relations Act (Court Interpreter Act) of 2002, which together provide for collective bargaining rights for most trial court employees; the Public Employee Communica - tion

Chapter (PECC) of 2017, which conferred PERB jurisdiction over violations of the PECC; the Prohibi - tion on Public Employers Deterring or Discouraging Union Membership (PEDD) of 2018, which conferred PERB jurisdiction over violations of the PEDD; the Building a Better Early Care and Education System Act of 2019, known as the Childcare Provider Act (CCPA), establishes collective bargaining for family childcare providers who participate in a state–funded early care and education program.

In 2020, the Legislature gave PERB jurisdiction over the Bay Area Rapid Transit District Act (BART Act), where the Board has jurisdiction over disputes relating to employer–employee relations at BART, and jurisdiction over the Orange County Transit Dis - trict Act (OCTDA) in the Public Utilities Code giving PERB jurisdiction over unfair practice charges at the Orange County Transportation Authority. In 2021, the Legislature gave PERB jurisdiction over disputes re - lating to employer–employee relations of the Sacra -

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 45–Z 1432 mento Regional Transit District (SacRT) for those ex- clusive representatives that have elected to move one or more of its bargaining units to the jurisdiction of PERB for unfair practice charges. In addition, in 2022, the Legislature gave PERB ju - risdiction over disputes related to employer–employee relations at both the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District (SCMTD) and the Santa Clara Valley Trans - portation Authority (SCVTA). In 2021, the Legislature amended the Public Em - ployee Communication

Chapter of 2017 (PECC, Gov. Code, § 3555 et seq.) to establish new standards for unfair practice charges under Government Code sec - tion 3558, which requires public employers to provide certain bargaining unit employee information to an exclusive representative within 30 days of hire and subsequently at least every 120 days. The Legislature amended

section 3558 to require exclusive representa- tives to provide public employers notice of the alleged violation and an opportunity to cure the alleged vio - lation within 20 calendar days. Public employers are only permitted to cure three times during a 12–month period before an unfair practice charge is filed.

Section 3558, subdivision (d)(2) provides that a pub- lic employer found to violate

section 3558 is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000, paid to the General Fund, based on the following criteria: (1) the public employer’s annual budget; (2) the severity of the violation; and (3) any prior history of violations by the public employer. Additionally,

section 3558, subdivision (d)(4) re - quires the Board to award the prevailing party an attorney fee award and costs accruing from the in - ception of proceedings before PERB’s Division of Ad- ministrative Law. If the Board is required to defend a decision under

section 3558 after a party seeks judicial review, or the Board is required to seek enforcement action in superior court to achieve compliance with a Board order, a court should award attorneys fees and costs to the Board if it is the prevailing party. In 2022, the Legislature amended the Prohibition on Public Employers Deterring or Discouraging Union Membership (PEDD, Gov. Code, § 3550 et seq.) to es- tablish similar civil penalty and attorney fee and costs provisions as the PECC has. The Legislature added Government Code

section 3551.5, which establishes civil penalties of up to $1,000 per affected employ - ee, not to exceed $100,000 in total. The penalty will be deposited into the General Fund, and the Legisla - ture prescribed the following factors to determine the amount of the penalty: (1) the public employer’s annu- al budget; (2) the severity of the violation; and (3) any prior history of violations by the public employer.

Section 3551.4, subdivision (

b) allows the Board to award attorney’s fees and costs to prevailing employ - ee organizations, accruing from the inception of pro - ceedings before the Division of Administrative Law, provided that the claim was not frivolous, unreason - able, or groundless when brought, or the employee or- ganization continued to litigate after it clearly became so. Additionally, the Board is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs when it is required to seek superior court enforcement or defend the decision after an employer seeks judicial review. INFORMATIVE DIGEST

Section 32095 concerns the

definitions of certain “special remedies.” This proposed regulation defines special remedies as attorney’s fees and costs sought under Government Code sections 3551.5, subdivision (b)(1), and 3558, subdivision (d)(4). It further defines special remedies as civil penalties assessed under Government Code sections 3551.5, subdivision (a), and 3558, subdivision (d)(2).

Section 32610.2 concerns pre–filing procedures for PECC charges. The proposed regulation clarifies that an unfair practice charge must allege that the exclu - sive representative notified the employer in writing of the facts and theories of the alleged violation(s). It also provides that employers are not liable for vi - olations that it cures within 20 days from the date it receives written notice from the exclusive representa - tive, so long as the employer has not cured three or more alleged violations within the 12 months imme - diately preceding the current cure.

The opportunity to cure is only available in instance where an employer’s submission is inaccurate or incomplete, not when the employer entirely fails to provide the list of employee information. The proposed regulation further clarifies that the three–cure limit is counted regardless of the exclusive representative or bargaining unit involved in the prior cure.

Section 32611.8 concerns special remedies for PECC and PEDD charges. The proposed regulation establishes that an administrative law judge or the Board itself may resolve special remedies issues in conjunction with resolving liability issues. The pro - posed regulation further provides a procedure for a party to resolve any outstanding issues related to spe - cial remedies before PERB’s Office of the General Counsel. CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING STATE REGULATIONS The Board has determined that the proposed regu - lations are not inconsistent or incompatible with ex - isting regulations.

After conducting a review of all regulations that would relate to or affect this area of California law, the Board has determined that due to PERB’s exclusive jurisdiction to implement and en -

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 45–Z 1433 force the labor relations acts within its jurisdiction, the proposed regulations are the only regulations concerning the implementation and enforcement of the special remedies set forth in Government Codes sections 3551.5 and 3558 or any other statue PERB en- forces. Therefore, the Board has concluded that these regulations are neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing state regulations.

ANTICIPATED BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION Since April 2017, PERB has been seeking to stream- line its procedures as part of a general Case Process - ing Efficiency Initiative. Adopting these proposed regulations will extend that effort to PERB’s statutory obligation to enforce the PEDD and PECC and those statutes’ new provisions for special remedies.

The proposed regulations will aid PERB in effi - ciently adjudicating claims for special remedies under these two statutes by clearing defining what remedies qualify as “special remedies” (Section 32095), setting forth the pre–filing requirements for pursuing a claim under the PECC (Section 32610.2), and establishing a definite procedure for claiming and resolving requests for special remedies under the PECC and PEDD (Sec- tion 32611.8).

This guidance will permit PERB and the public sector employers and unions that appear before the agency to save time and resources when determin- ing the extent of any claim for special remedies under the PECC and PEDD. Essentially, the proposed amendments continue the Board’s efforts to update its case processing regula - tions to provide constituents with easy to understand yet comprehensive rules on case processing.

NO EXISTING AND COMPARABLE FEDERAL REGULATION OR STATUTE During the process of developing these proposed regulatory adoptions, the Board has conducted a search for any similar federal regulations and statutes on this topic and has determined that there are no ex - isting, comparable federal regulations or statutes that govern this topic, as these proposed regulatory chang- es apply solely to public employers and employee or - ganizations under the jurisdiction of the California public sector labor relations statutes set forth above.

Therefore, the Board has concluded that these regu - lations are neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing federal regulations or statutes. DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACTION The Board has made the following initial determinations: Mandate on local agencies and school districts: The proposed action would not impose any new mandate. Cost to any local agency or school district which must be reimbursed in accordance with Government Code

section 17500 et seq.: The proposed action would not impose any new costs which must be reimbursed. Other non–discretionary cost or savings imposed upon local agencies: The proposed action would not result in any new costs which must be reimbursed, or savings imposed upon local agencies. Cost or savings to state agency: The proposed action would not result in any new costs or saving to a state agency. Cost or savings in federal funding to the state: The proposed action would not result in any new costs or savings regarding federal funding.

Cost impact on private persons or directly affected businesses: The agency is not aware of any cost im - pacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action. Significant adverse economic impact on business including the ability of California businesses to com - pete with businesses in other states: The proposed ac - tion will have not have a significant adverse economic impact on California businesses. Significant effect on housing costs: There will be no effect on housing costs.

Business Reporting Requirement: The proposed ac- tion will not require a report to be made. The Board has determined that the proposed regula- tions will not affect small business because they only apply to the public sector. RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT The Board concludes that the adoption of the pro - posed regulations will neither create nor eliminate jobs in the State of California, nor result in the elimi - nation of existing businesses, or create or expand busi- nesses in the State of California.

BEN EFIT A NA LYSIS The proposed regulations will impose standard pro- cedures for public sector employers and unions that are litigating requests for special remedies under the PECC and PEDD. These regulations will likely reduce litigation costs for these constituents, improve PERB’s

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 45–Z 1434 case processing efficiency, and promote public sector labor harmony. The proposed regulatory action will not adversely affect the health and welfare of California residents, worker safety, or the state’s environment. In addition, California residents’ general welfare will be benefitted by stable collective bargaining and dispute resolution, which translates to continuous delivery of the essen - tial services that California’s public agencies and em - ployees provide to California’s communities. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES In accordance with Government Code

section 11346.5, subdivision (a)(13), a rulemaking agency must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the agency or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the agency would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the ac- tion is proposed, would be as effective and less bur - densome to affected private persons than the proposed action, or would be more cost–effective to affected pri- vate persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law.

The Board invites interested persons to present statements or arguments with respect to alternatives to the amended regulations at the scheduled hearing or during the written comment period. CONTACT PERSONS Any questions or suggestions regarding the pro - posed action should be directed to: Jeremy Zeitlin, Senior Regional Attorney Public Employment Relations Board Elihu M.

Harris State Office Building 1515 Clay St., Suite 2206 Oakland, CA 94612 1031 18th Street (415) 654–2358 Email: Jeremy.zeitlin@perb.ca.gov The backup person for these inquiries is: Laura Ziegler Davis, Supervising Regional Attorney Public Employment Relations Board Elihu M.

Harris State Office Building 1515 Clay St., Suite 2206 Oakland, CA 94612 1031 18th Street (415) 654–2251 Email: Laura.Davis@perb.ca.gov Please direct requests for copies of the proposed text (the “express terms”) of the regulations, the initial statement of reasons, the modified text of the regu - lations, if any, or other information upon which the rulemaking is based, to Jeremy Zeitlin at the above address. PRELIMINARY ACTIVITIES PERB held public meetings on April 14, 2022 and August 11, 2022 wherein the public was given the opportunity to provide comments regarding the pro - posed regulations.

On December 8, 2022, the Board itself approved the publication of the proposed regulatory text and the commencement of the formal rulemaking process. AVAILABILITY OF STATEMENT OF REASONS, TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS, AND RULEMAKING FILE The Board will have the entire rulemaking file available for inspection and copying throughout the rulemaking process at its office at the above address. As of the date this notice is published in the California Regulatory Notice Register, the rulemaking file con - sists of this notice, the express terms of the amended regulations and the initial statement of reasons.

Cop - ies of these documents may be obtained by contacting Jeremy Zeitlin at the above address, and are also avail- able on the Board’s website at www.perb.ca.gov. AVAILABILITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT After holding a hearing, if one is requested, and con- sidering all timely and relevant comments, the Board may adopt the regulations substantially as described in this notice.

If the Board makes modifications that are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text, the modified text with changes clearly indicated shall be made available to the public for at least 15 days prior to the date on which the Board adopts the regu - lations as revised. Requests for copies of any modified regulation and/or the final statement of reasons should be sent to the attention of Jeremy Zeitlin at the above address. The Board will accept written comments on the modified regulations for 15 days after the date on which they are made available.

AVAILABILITY OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Upon its completion, copies of the final statement of reasons may be obtained by contacting Jeremy Zeitlin at the above address.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 45–Z 1435 AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS ON THE INTERNET Copies of this notice of proposed action, the initial statement of reasons, and the text of the adopted regu- lations in underline, can be accessed through PERB’s website located at www.perb.ca.gov throughout the rulemaking process. Written comments received during the written comment period will also be posted on PERB’s website. The final statement of reasons or if applicable, notice of a decision not to proceed, will be posted on PERB’s website following the Board’s action. TITLE 13. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES DIVISION 1,

CHAPTER 1

ARTICLE 5.0 — REQUESTING INFORMATION FROM THE DEPARTMENT The Department of Motor Vehicles (department) proposes to amend Sections 350.06 in

Article 5.0,

Chapter 1, Division 1, Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, related to Government Requester Accounts. PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing regarding this proposed regulato - ry action is not scheduled. However, a public hearing will be held if any interested person or his or her duly authorized representative requests a public hearing to be held relevant to the proposed action by submitting a written request to the contact person identified in this notice no later than fifteen (15) days prior to the close of the written comment period.

DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS Any interested party or his or her duly authorized representative may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulations to the contact person iden- tified in this notice. All written comments must be re - ceived at the department no later than December 25, 2023, the final day of the written comment period, in order for them to be considered by the department be- fore it adopts the proposed regulation. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE The department proposes to adopt/amend/repeal these regulations under the authority granted by Ve - hicle Code

section 1651, in order to implement, inter - pret, or make specific Vehicle Code sections 1808.21, 1808.47, 1810, 1810.7 and 1811; and Civil Code

section 1798.26. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW Vehicle Code

section 1810 authorizes the depart - ment to permit inspection of information from its records concerning the registration of a vehicle or information from the files of driver’s licenses. Vehi - cle Code

section 1810 also allows the department to adopt regulations establishing the process by which a requester provides information to the department that identifies the requester and requires an indication of the reason for which the information is requested. The department issues requester codes for commer - cial purposes, such as auto auctions, dealers, financial institutions, and process servers. The department also issues governmental requester codes to entities such as the federal, state, city, and county government and also used by attorney general, district attorney, pub - lic defenders.

Upon verification of the information, the department issues either a commercial requester code or a government requester code. As part of the application process, the requester is also required to implement procedures to ensure the privacy of the in - formation contained in the department’s records. The current regulation requires government request- ers to complete a Government Requester Account Ap- plication, form INF 1130.

This form is used by federal, state, and local agencies to access information related to the employee pull notice program, vehicle/vessel information, driver’s license information, and occupa- tional licensing information. The department is proposing to amend the form INF 1130 and adopt a new form called the Government Re- quester Account Application for California Courts, Tax Collectors, and Parking/Toll Agencies, form INF 1130A. The department has determined that separat - ing the courts, tax collectors and parking/toll agencies from other government requesters will streamline the application process.

BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION The department anticipates this action will benefit the residents of California by ensuring governmental entities applying for a requester account have robust procedures in place to ensure the information ac - cessed will be maintained in a secure manner and only by those employees who are authorized to access and review the information.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 45–Z 1436 CONSISTENCY AND COMPATIBILITY WITH STATE REGULATIONS The department has conducted a review of other state regulations and has determined there are no other regulations related to government requester accounts for departmental records, therefore, this proposed ac - tion is neither inconsistent nor incompatible with other state regulations. COMPARABLE FEDERAL STATUTES OR STATE REGULATIONS There are no existing federal statues or regulations that govern governmental entities accessing depart - mental records.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE The following documents are incorporated by reference: ● Governmental Requester Account Application, Form INF 1130 (Rev. 4/2023) ● Governmental Requester Account Application for California Courts, Tax Collectors, and Park - ing/Toll Agencies, INF 1130A (Rev. 9/2023) These forms are not published in the California Code of Regulations because it would be impractical and cumbersome to do so; however, the documents are readily available to interested parties by contacting the department representative identified below.

ECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACT DETERMINATIONS The department has made the following initial de - terminations concerning the proposed regulatory action: ● Cost or Savings to Any State Agency: None. ● Other Non–Discretionary Cost or Savings to Lo - cal Agencies: None. ● Costs or Savings in Federal Funding to the State: None. ● Effects on Housing Costs: None. ● Cost to any local agency or school district re - quiring reimbursement pursuant to Gov. Code

section 17500 et seq.: None. ● Cost Impact on Representative Private Persons or Businesses : The department is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private per- son would necessarily incur in reasonable com - pliance with the proposed action. This proposed action does not have any costs associated with private persons. ● Small Business Impact: This proposed action will not impact small businesses.

Section 350.06 es - tablishes an application process only for govern - ment requesters. There are no small businesses required to comply with

Section 350.06. ● Local Agency/School District Mandate: The pro- posed regulatory action will not impose a man - date on local agencies or school districts, or a mandate that requires reimbursement pursuant to

Part 7 (commencing with

Section 17500) of Divi- sion 4 of the Government Code. ● Significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses, including the abil - ity of California businesses to compete with busi- nesses in other states : The department does not anticipate this action will have a significant state- wide adverse economic impact on businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT (GOVERNMENT CODE

SECTION 11346.3) The department has made the following determina - tions related to this proposed regulatory action: ● Creation or Elimination of Jobs Within the State of California This proposed action amends two forms used by en- tities applying for Government Requester Accounts. The rulemaking will neither create nor eliminate jobs within the State of California. ● Creation or Elimination of Existing Businesses Within the State of California This proposed action amends two forms used by en- tities applying for Government Requester Accounts.

The rulemaking will neither create nor eliminate ex - isting businesses within the State of California. ● Expansion of Business Currently Doing Business Within the State of California This proposed action amends two forms used by en- tities applying for Government Requester Accounts.

The rulemaking will not expand businesses currently doing business within the State of California. ● Benefits of Regulation to the Health and Welfare of California Residents, Worker Safety, and the State’s Environment This action is unlikely to impact the health of Cal - ifornia residents, worker safety, or the state’s envi - ronment.

The department anticipates this action will benefit the welfare of California residents by adopting two forms that have been expanded to ensure entities with requester codes have in place robust procedures to ensure the safety and integrity of the information contained in the department’s records.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 45–Z 1437 RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT The department has made the following determina - tions when assessing the economic impact associated with this proposed regulation: The department has made the initial determination that this action will not impact, 1) the creation or elim- ination of jobs within the State of California, 2) the creation or elimination of existing businesses within the State of California, 3) the expansion of businesses currently doing business within the State of California, or 4) the health of California residents, worker safety, or the state’s environment.

The department anticipates this action will benefit the welfare of California resi - dents by adopting two forms that have been expanded to ensure entities with requester codes have in place robust procedures to ensure the safety and integrity of the information contained in the department’s records. PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS A pre–notice workshop, pursuant to Government Code

section 11346.45, is not required because the is- sues addressed in the proposal are not so complex or large in number that they cannot easily be reviewed during the comment period.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The department must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the department or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the department would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed, or would be effective as and less burdensome to affect - ed private persons than the proposed action, or would be more cost–effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provisions of law.

CONTACT PERSON Any inquiries or comments concerning the pro - posed rulemaking action may be addressed to: Randi Calkins, Regulations Specialist Department of Motor Vehicles Legal Affairs Division P.O.

Box 932382, MS C–244 Sacramento, CA 94232–3820 Any inquiries or comments concerning the pro - posed rulemaking action requiring more immediate response may use: Telephone: (916) 282–7294 Facsimile: (916) 657–6243 Email: LADRegulations@dmv.ca.gov In the event the contact person is unavailable, in - quiries should be directed to the following back–up person: Peggy Gibson, Attorney IV Department of Motor Vehicles Telephone: (916) 657–6469 AVAILABILITY OF STATEMENT OF REASONS AND TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS The department has prepared an Initial Statement of Reasons for the proposed regulatory action and has available all the information upon which the proposal is based.

The contact person identified in this notice shall make available to the public upon request the Ex- press Terms of the proposed regulatory action using underline or italics to indicate additions to, and strike- out to indicate deletions from the California Code of Regulations. The contact person identified in this notice shall also make available to the public, upon request, the Final Statement of Reasons, and the location of public records, including reports, documenta - tion and other materials related to the proposed ac - tion.

In addition, the above–cited materials (the Notice of Proposed Regulatory Action, the Initial Statement of Reasons, and Express Terms) may be accessed at https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/about– the–california–department–of–motor–vehicles/ california–dmv–rulemaking–actions/ . AVAILABILITY OF MODIFIED TEXT Following the written comment period, and the hearing if one is held, the department may adopt the proposed regulations substantially as described in this notice.

If modifications are made which are sufficient- ly related to the originally proposed text, the fully modified text, with changes clearly indicated, shall be made available to the public for at least 15 days prior to the date on which the department adopts the resulting regulations. Requests for copies of any modified regu- lations should be addressed to the department contact person identified in this notice. The department will accept written comments on the modified regulations for 15 days after the date on which they are first made available to the public.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 45–Z 1438 TITLE 13. AIR RESOURCES BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED ZERO–EMISSION FORKLIFT REGULATION The California Air Resources Board (CARB or Board) will conduct a public hearing at the date and time noted below to consider the proposed Zero– Emission Forklift Regulation (Proposed Regulation). Date: June 27, 2024 Time: 9:00 a.m. In–Person Location: Mary D.

Nichols Campus, Southern California Headquarters California Air Resources Board | Haagen–Smit Auditorium 4001 Iowa Avenue, Riverside, California 92507 Remote Option: Zoom This public meeting may continue at 9:00 a.m., on June 28, 2024. Please consult the public agenda, which will be posted ten days before the June 28, 2024 Board Meeting, for important details, including, but not lim - ited to, the day on which this item will be considered, how to participate via Zoom, and any appropriate di - rection regarding a possible remote–only Board Meet- ing if needed.

WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD AND SUBMITTAL OF COMMENTS In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, interested members of the public may present comments orally or in writing during the hearing and may provide comments by postal mail or by electronic submittal before the hearing. The public comment pe- riod for this regulatory action will begin on November 10, 2023. Written comments not submitted during the hearing must be submitted on or after November 10, 2023, and received no later than December 26, 2023. Comments submitted outside that comment period are considered untimely.

CARB may, but is not required to, respond to untimely comments, including those raising significant environmental issues. The Board also encourages members of the public to bring to the attention of staff in advance of the hearing any sugges- tions for modification of the proposed regulatory ac - tion.

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

Additionally, the Board requests but does not re - quire that persons who submit written comments to the Board reference the title of the proposal in their comments to facilitate review. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE This regulatory action is proposed under the author- ity granted in California Health and Safety Code, sec- tions 39600, 39601, 43013, 43018, 43101, 43102, and 43104. This action is proposed to implement, interpret, and make specific sections 43013, 43017, 43018, 43101, 43102, 43104, 43105, 43150, 43151, 43152, 43153, 43154, 43205.5, 43211, and 43212.

INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION AND POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW (Gov. Code, § 11346.5, subdivision (a)(3)) Sections Affected: CARB proposes to modify sections 2433 and 2775.1 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), title 13 and add to the CCR, title 13, the following sections: 3000, 3001, 3002, 3003, 3004, 3005, 3006, 3007, 3008, 3009, 3010, and 3011. Documents Incorporated by Reference (Cal.

Code Regs., title 1, § 20, subdivision (c)(3)): The following documents, test methods, and model would be incorporated in the regulation by reference as specified by section: ● American National Standard Institute, “Safe - ty Standard for Rough Terrain Forklift Trucks,” 2021, ANSI B56.6–2021, incorporated by refer - ence in CCR, title 13,

section 3000. ● American National Standard Institute, “Safety Standard for Vehicle Mounted Forklifts,” 2020, ANSI B56.14–2020, incorporated by reference in CCR, title 13,

section 3000. ● Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations,

Part 1910.147(b), last amended on July 25, 2011,

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 45–Z 1439 incorporated by reference in CCR title 12, sec - tion 3000. Background and Effect of the Proposed Regulatory Action: CARB mobile source programs have made signifi - cant progress in improving air quality throughout Cal- ifornia. However, many areas throughout the State still fail to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Stan - dards (NAAQS) for ozone and fine particulate mat - ter (PM) (i.e., PM2.5). About 26 million Californians live in areas exceeding the NAAQS, out of the total population of about 39 million.

Consequently, about 67 percent of California’s population live in areas ex - posed to concentrations above the federal ozone and PM2.5 standards. 1 In addition, climate change contin- ues to impact California communities and the envi - ronment by increasing smog formation; 2, 3, 4 extending the pollen season; contributing to intense wildfires; 5 creating hotter temperatures that could cause heat– related health problems; 6, 7 cause weather extremes, such as drought 8 and flooding; 9, 10 and increase preva - 1 Based on 2021 monitored ozone design values contoured over population by census tract. 2 Reidmiller, D.R., et al., Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II,

Chapter 14, Human Health, U.S.

Global Change Research Program, 2018 (web link: https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/ chapter/14/). 3 McMichael, A.J. et al. (Eds.), Climate Change and Hu - man Health: Risks and Responses, World Health Or - ganization, page 12, 2003 (web link: https://apps.who. int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/42742/924156248X_eng. pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y). 4 NRDC, Issue Brief: Climate Change and Health in Califor - nia, page 3, February 2019 (web link: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/ default/files/climate–change–health–impacts–california– ib.pdf ). 5 Singleton, M.P. et al., Increasing Trends in High–Severity Fire in the Southwestern USA from 1984 to 2015, Forest Ecology and Management, Volume 433, 2019 (web link: https://www.fs.usda. gov/rm/pubs_ journals/2019/rmrs_2019_singleton_m001.pdf ). 6 Kadir, T. et. al (Eds.), Indicators of Climate Change in Califor - nia, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, August 2013 (web link: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/climate– change/document/climatechangeindicatorsreport2013.pdf ). 7 California Air Resources Board, Health and Air Pollution (web link: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/health–air–pollution , last accessed August 2023). 8 Mann, M.E. and Gleick, P.H., Climate Change and California Drought in the 21st Century, Proceedings of the National Acade - my of Sciences of the United States of America, March 2015 (web link: https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.1503667112). 9 Swain, D.L. et al., Increasing Precipitation Volatility in Twenty–First–Century California, Nature, 2018 (web link: https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/ FireForestEcology/ThreatsForestHealth/Climate/Cl_Swain_ etal_2018_Increasing_Precip_Volatility.pdf ). 10 Dettinger, M., Climate Change, Atmospheric Rivers, and Floods in California—a Multimodel Analysis of Storm Frequen - cy and Magnitude Changes, Journal of the American Water Re - sources Association, June 2011 (web link: https://ca.water.usgs. gov/pubs/2011/climate–change–atmospheric–rivers–floods– california–dettinger.pdf ). lence of infectious diseases. 11, 12 Taking action to reduce criteria–pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emis - sions is urgently needed to reduce the toll air pollution and climate change is taking on Californians.

Mobile sources and the fossil fuels that power them are the largest contributors to the formation of ozone, GHG emissions, fine PM (i.e., PM2.5), and toxic diesel PM.

The combustion of fossil fuel by mobile sources accounts for approximately 80 percent of smog–form- ing nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, 90 percent of the diesel PM emissions, and nearly 40 percent of state - wide GHG emissions. 13, 14, 15 Of that, off–road equip - ment contributes to approximately 14 percent of the NOx emissions and seven percent of the PM emissions attributable to mobile sources. 16 The Proposed Regulation has been identified in the 2016 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan, the 2016 Mobile Source Strategy (MSS), the 2020 MSS, and the Sustainable Freight Action Plan as one of several measures necessary for California to achieve its established air–quality and climate goals.

Forklifts that use internal combustion engines can be spark–ignited (i.e., gasoline, propane, or nat - ural gas) or compression–ignited (i.e., diesel). Large Spark–Ignition (LSI) forklifts are spark–ignited fork - lifts of 25 horsepower or greater. The Proposed Regulation would reduce criteria–pol- lutant and GHG emissions within the State by accel - erating the transition of LSI engine powered forklifts to zero–emission technology (i.e., battery–electric, fuel cell–electric, or other zero–emission technology as the only source of power for propulsion and work).

Certain types of forklifts, such as rough–terrain fork - 11 Lindgren, E. et al., Monitoring EU Emerging Infectious Disease Risk Due to Climate Change, Science, April 2012 (web link: https:// www.researchgate.net/publication/224856024_Monitoring_ EU_Emerging_Infectious_Disease_Risk_Due_to_Climate_ Change). 12 Solomon, G. et al., Airborne Mold and Endotoxin Concen - trations in New Orleans, Louisiana, After Flooding, October through November 2005, Environmental Health Perspectives, September 2006 (web link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ articles/PMC1570051/). 13 California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, page 184, December 2022 (web link: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023–04/2022– sp.pdf ). 14 California Air Resources Board, Mobile Source Strategy , page 5, May 2016 (web link: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/planning/ sip/2016sip/2016mobsrc.pdf). 15 California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, page 56, Figure 1–8: 2019 State GHG emission contributions by Scoping Plan sector, De - cember 2022 (web link: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/ files/2023–04/2022–sp.pdf ). 16 California Air Resources Board, Staff Report for the Proposed Amendments to the In–Use Off–Road Diesel–Fueled Fleets Regulation, page 35, September 2022 (web link: https://ww2.arb. ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/off–roaddiesel/isor. pdf ).

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 45–Z 1440 lifts and diesel forklifts, would not be addressed by the Proposed Regulation. About half of the forklift population in California already uses zero–emission technology largely due to advantages that zero–emission technology can pro - vide, such as reduced indoor air pollution and lower operating costs. The Proposed Regulation would tar - get most existing LSI forklifts for use of zero–emis - sion technology.

CARB may also consider other changes to the sec - tions affected, as listed on page 2 of this notice, or oth- er sections within the scope of this notice, during the course of this rulemaking process. Objectives and Benefits of the Proposed Regulatory Action: The primary objectives of the Proposed Regulation include the following: ● Accelerate the deployment of Zero–Emission Forklifts (ZEFs), which achieve the maximum emissions reduction possible to assist in the at - tainment of NAAQS for criteria air pollutants (Health and Safety Code Sections 43000.5(

b) and 43018(a)). ● Decrease and eliminate emissions from petro - leum and fossil–fuel use by forklifts by setting standards that eliminate exhaust emissions from forklifts. Emissions from petroleum use as an en- ergy resource contribute substantially to the fol - lowing public health and environmental prob - lems, among others: air pollution and its associat- ed health impacts, acid rain, global warming, and the degradation of California’s marine environ - ment and fisheries (PRC

Section 25000.5[b], [c]). ● Decrease GHG emissions in support of statewide GHG reduction goals by adopting strategies to deploy ZEFs in California to support the Scoping Plan, which was developed to reduce GHG emis- sions in California, as directed by Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (Nuñez,

Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006) and Executive Order S–3–05 (Chapter 249, Stats. 2016, Pavley). ● Develop a regulation that is consistent with and meets the goals of the State Implementation Plan (SIP), providing necessary emissions reductions for all of California’s nonattainment areas to meet NAAQS (Health and Safety Code Sections 39002, 39003, 39602.5, 43000, 43000.5, 43013, and 43018). ● Maintain and continue reductions in emissions of GHGs beyond 2020, in accordance with Sen - ate Bill (SB) 32 (Health and Safety Code Sec - tions 38551(b), 38562, 38562.5, 38566); and pur- sue measures that implement reduction strate - gies covering the State’s GHG emissions in fur - therance of California’s mandate to reduce GHG emissions to the 1990 level by 2020 and 40 per - cent below the 1990 level by December 31, 2030.

In addition, target and achieve carbon neutrali - ty in California as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, pursuant to SB 100 (De León, Chap - ter 312, Statutes of 2018) and AB 1279 (Murat - suchi,

Chapter 337, Statutes of 2022), maintain net negative emissions thereafter in accordance with AB 1279 and Executive Order B–55–18, and to ensure that by 2045, statewide anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 85 percent below the 1990 levels, pursuant to AB 1279. ● Lead the transition of California’s off–road sector from internal combustion to zero–emission tech - nology.

Support ZEF sales and Executive Order N–79–20’s goal to transition off–road operations to zero–emission by 2035. ● Complement existing programs and plans to en - sure, to the extent feasible, that activities under - taken pursuant to the measures complement, and do not interfere with, existing planning efforts to reduce GHG emissions, criteria pollutants, pe - troleum–based transportation fuels, and toxic air contaminant emissions. ● Incentivize and support emerging zero–emis - sion technology that will be needed to achieve CARB’s SIP goals. ● Achieve emission reductions that are real, per - manent, quantifiable, verifiable, and enforce - able (Health and Safety Code Sections 38560, 38562(d)(1)). ● Provide market certainty for zero–emission tech - nologies and charging and hydrogen–fueling in - frastructure to guide the acceleration of the de - velopment of environmentally superior ZEFs that will continue to deliver performance, utility, and safety demanded by the market. ● Take steps to ensure all Californians can live, work, and play in a healthful environment free from harmful exposure to air pollution.

Protect and preserve public health and well–being, and prevent irritation to the senses, interference with visibility, and damage to vegetation and property (Health and Safety Code

Section 43000(b)). ● Spur economic activity of zero–emission tech - nologies in the off–road sectors. Incentivize inno- vation that will transition California’s economy into greater use of clean and sustainable zero– emission technologies and promote increased economic and employment benefits that will ac - company this transition (AB 1493,

Section 1(g) (Pavley,

Chapter 200, Statutes of 2002); Health and Safety Code

Section 38501(e)).

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 45–Z 1441 ● E stablish a fair and level playing field among fleet operators, forklift manufacturers, forklift deal - ers, and forklift rental agencies. ● C raft requirements in a way that ensures institu - tional capacity for CARB to manage, implement, and enforce requirements. The Proposed Regulation is one of many regulato - ry measures that will be needed to achieve Califor - nia’s air–quality, climate, and zero–emission goals.

The Proposed Regulation would establish phase–out requirements applicable to the most–common inter - nal–combustion forklifts used in industrial and other applications across the State. Given operational con - straints (such as indoor operation and forklift size) and the state of zero–emission forklift technology, phased–out LSI forklifts are expected to be ultimately replaced with zero–emission forklifts (battery–elec - tric or fuel–cell powered).

Full implementation of the Proposed Regulation through calendar year 2043 is expected to result in the following emission reductions: ● 1 8,724 tons of NOx. ● 2 ,075 tons of PM2.5. ● 4 ,973 tons of reactive organic gases (ROG). ● 9 .4 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon dioxide (CO2).

Estimated cumulative health impacts of the Pro - posed Regulation through calendar year 2043 include the following: ● 5 44 avoided cardiopulmonary mortalities. ● 1 15 fewer hospital admissions for cardiovascular disease. ● 1 48 fewer cases of cardiovascular Emergency De - partment visits. ● 6 2 fewer cases of nonfatal acute myocardial infarction. ● 1 7 fewer hospitalizations for respiratory disease. ● 3 21 fewer cases of respiratory Emergency De - partment visits. ● 4 2 fewer cases of lung cancer incidence. ● 1 ,295 fewer cases of asthma onset. ● 1 09,800 fewer cases of asthma symptoms. ● 8 0,635 fewer cases of work loss days. ● 2 72 fewer hospitalizations for Alzheimer’s disease. ● 3 9 fewer hospitalizations for Parkinson’s disease.

Cumulative cost–savings from full implementation of the Proposed Regulation through calendar year 2043 are estimated as follows: ● $ 7.5 billion in health benefit savings. ● $ 0.25 to $1 billion in social cost of carbon savings. ● $ 2.7 billion in net fleet cost savings. Without the Proposed Regulation, the ZEF pop - ulation is expected to remain somewhat constant, at a population of about 79,000. The Proposed Regula- tion is projected to significantly increase the number of ZEFs in California.

The estimated number of ZEFs would increase from about 79,000 to about 109,000 in 2031, and to about 168,000 ZEFs by 2038, when full implementation would be reached.

Summary of Proposed Regulation The Proposed Regulation would require California fleets to phase out most LSI forklifts over time. The Proposed Regulation includes two primary compo - nents: a restriction on the sale and acquisition of LSI forklifts starting on January 1, 2026, and phase–out requirements starting on January 1, 2028, for existing LSI forklifts. The Proposed Regulation would also es- tablish requirements for forklift manufacturers, fork - lift dealers, and forklift rental agencies. The follow - ing bullets provide more detailed information on each component of the Proposed Regulation. A.

Scope ● A pplicable forklifts would fall into two catego - ries, Class IV and Class V, based on the pow - ered industrial truck classification system de - veloped by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 17 ○ A Class IV forklift is one that uses an internal–combustion engine, has cush - ion tires, and is typically used indoors on smooth surfaces. ○ A Class V forklift is one that uses an internal–combustion engine, has pneumatic tires (air–filled, foam–filled, or solid), and is typically used outdoors on uneven surfaces. ● T he Proposed Regulation would apply to Class IV and Class V forklifts that use LSI engines (hereinafter “Class IV LSI Forklifts” and “Class V LSI Forklifts,” respectively).

However, certain types of forklifts, such as rough terrain forklifts, vehicle mounted forklifts, diesel forklifts, combat and tactical support equipment, and others would be excluded from the Proposed Regulation. ● T he performance requirements of the Proposed Regulation (i.e., purchase restriction and phase– out requirements) would apply to Class IV LSI Forklifts of any lift capacity and Class V LSI Forklifts with a lift capacity of up to 12,000 pounds (hereinafter “Targeted Class IV fork - lifts” and “Targeted Class V forklifts,” respec - tively, and collectively as “Targeted Forklifts”).

Although the performance requirements of the 17 Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Powered In - dustrial Trucks (Forklift) eTool (web link: https://www.osha.gov/ etools/powered–industrial–trucks/types–fundamentals/types/ classes, last accessed August 2023).

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 45–Z 1442 Proposed Regulation would not apply to Class V LSI Forklifts with a lift capacity greater than 12,000 pounds, reporting of said forklifts would be required. B.

Forklift Fleet Operators ● Beginning on January 1, 2026, fleets would not be allowed to acquire or take possession of a new Targeted Forklift. ● Beginning on January 1, 2026, fleets would not be allowed to acquire or take possession of a used 2026 or subsequent model year (MY) Targeted Forklift. ● MY Phase–Out Schedule: Beginning January 1, 2028, Targeted Forklifts in operation prior to Jan- uary 1, 2026, would be required to be phased out of the California fleet in accordance with the MY

schedule that is summarized as follows: ○ Class IV LSI forklifts with a lift capacity of 12,000 pounds or less: ● For Large Fleets (26 or more forklifts), phase–out would begin on January 1, 2028, starting with 2018 and previ - ous MY forklifts, and end on January 1, 2035, by which 2025 MY forklifts would be required to be phased out. ● For Small Fleets (less than 26 forklifts) and Agricultural Operations, phase– out would begin on January 1, 2029, starting with 2016 and previous MY forklifts, and end on January 1, 2038, by which 2025 and previous MY fork - lifts would be required to be phased out. ○ Class IV LSI forklifts with a lift capacity of more than 12,000 pounds ● For Large Fleets, phase–out of 2025 and previous MY forklifts would be re- quired to occur by January 1, 2035. ● For Small Fleets and Agricultural Operations, phase–out of 2025 and pre- vious MY forklifts would be required to occur by January 1, 2038. ○ Class V LSI forklifts with a lift capacity of 12,000 pounds or less ● For all fleets, phase–out would be - gin on January 1, 2030, starting with 2017 and previous MY forklifts, and end on January 1, 2038, by which 2025 MY forklifts would be required to be phased out. ● Forklift fleets would be expected to replace phased–out Targeted Forklifts with ZEFs, either battery–electric or fuel–cell electric. ● Until January 1, 2038, forklift fleets would still be able to purchase, lease, or rent used 2025 and pre- vious MY Targeted Forklifts for use in California so long as said forklifts have not yet been phased out according to the applicable MY Phase–Out

Schedule summarized above. ● Until January 1, 2038, forklift fleets would be able to rent 2026, 2027, and 2028 MY Targeted Class V Forklifts for use in California. ● The Proposed Regulation would include compli - ance exemptions for low usage, emergency oper- ations, and temporary storage of Targeted Fork - lifts to be removed from the fleet as well as com- pliance extensions for infrastructure construc - tion, ZEF delivery delays, and feasibility issues. ● The Proposed Regulation would allow a Fleet Operator to delay the phase–out of one Target - ed Forklift until January 1, 2038, for each Class V LSI Forklift with a lift capacity greater than 12,000 pounds replaced with an equivalent ZEF. ● The Proposed Regulation includes annual report- ing and recordkeeping requirements starting Jan - uary 1, 2026, and labeling requirements in cer - tain situations. ● Staff’s proposal includes amendments to exist - ing reporting and labeling requirements in the LSI Engine Fleet Requirements Regulation (LSI Fleet Regulation), set forth in Title 13, Califor - nia Code of Regulations, Sections 2775, 2775.1, and 2775.2.

The revisions would simplify that regulation’s reporting requirements, which would reduce the compliance burden for operators as well as increase clarity of the annual reporting requirements, since many of the operators that would be subject to the Proposed Regulation are currently subject to the LSI Fleet Regulation. ● Beginning January 1, 2026, a commercial or governmental entity that hires a Fleet Operator would also be responsible for the operation of an LSI Forklift that does not comply with the provi- sions in the Proposed Regulation. C.

Forklift Manufacturers ● The Proposed Regulation would establish a new zero–emission standard for engines and power - trains used in zero–emission forklifts. ● Manufacturers would no longer be allowed to produce for sale in California or offer for sale in California new Targeted Class IV Forklifts as of January 1, 2026, and no longer be allowed to pro- duce for sale in California or offer for sale in Cal- ifornia new Targeted Class V Forklifts January 1, 2029, unless the forklift engine meets the zero– emission standards set forth by the Proposed Regulation.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 45–Z 1443 ● B eginning January 1, 2026, manufacturers would be required to submit production and sales in - formation to the Executive Officer annually for all LSI forklifts produced for sale or sold in California. D. F orklift Dealers ● A dealer would not be allowed to possess the following: ○ 2 026 and subsequent MY Targeted Class IV Forklifts starting January 1, 2026; ○ N ew Targeted Class IV Forklifts starting January 1, 2026; ○ 2 025 and previous MY Targeted Class IV Forklifts that have already been phased out in accordance with the phase–out

schedule for Class IV LSI Forklifts in Small Fleets and Agricultural Operations, summarized above, starting January 1, 2026; ○ 2 025 or previous MY Targeted Class V Forklifts that have already been phased out in accordance with the Class V LSI Fork - lift phase–out

schedule summarized above, starting January 1, 2026; ○ 2 026 and subsequent MY Targeted Class V Forklifts starting January 1, 2029; and ○ A ny Targeted Forklift starting January 1, 2038. ● S tarting January 1, 2026, a dealer would not be able sell, lease, offer for sale, offer for lease, or de- liver to a fleet operator in California: ○ A n ew Targeted Forklift. ○ A used 2026 or subsequent MY Targeted Forklift. ○ A 2025 or previous MY Targeted Forklift if the MY of said forklift has already been phased out in accordance with the applica- ble

schedule summarized above. For Target- ed Class IV Forklifts, a dealer would use the phase–out

schedule for Small Fleets and Ag- ricultural Operations to determine whether or not a Forklift has been phased out. ● S tarting January 1, 2026, a dealer would not be able to sell, lease, offer for sale, offer for lease, or deliver to a rental agency in California: ○ A n ew Targeted Class IV Forklift. ○ A used 2026 or subsequent MY Targeted Class IV Forklift. ○ A 2025 or previous MY Targeted Class IV Forklift if the MY of said forklift has al - ready been phased out in accordance with the applicable

schedule for Class IV Fork - lifts in Small Fleets and Agricultural Opera- tions, as summarized above. ○ A 2025 or previous MY Targeted Class V Forklift if the MY of said forklift has al - ready been phased out in accordance with the Class V Forklift phase–out

schedule summarized above. ● S tarting January 1, 2029, a dealer would not be able to sell, lease, offer for sale, offer for lease, or deliver to a rental agency in California: ○ A n ew Targeted Class V Forklift. ○ A used 2026 or subsequent MY Targeted Class V Forklift. ● T he Proposed Regulation would include exemp - tions for dealers to sell and transport new Tar - geted Forklifts to out–of–state purchasers and to fleet operators that would operate such forklifts as dedicated emergency forklifts. ● T he Proposed Regulation includes recordkeeping requirements on LSI forklift sales transactions starting January 1, 2026.

E. F orklift Rental Agencies ● R ental agencies would be subject to the same MY phase–out

schedule as fleet operators. ● U nlike fleet operators, between January 1, 2026, and December 31, 2028, rental agencies would be allowed to acquire Targeted Class V Forklifts as forklifts they offer for rent.

Such forklifts would be required to be phased out by January 1, 2038. ● T he Proposed Regulation would allow a rent - al agency to delay the phase–out of one Target - ed Forklift until January 1, 2038, for each Class V LSI Forklift with a lift capacity greater than 12,000 pounds replaced with an equivalent ZEF. ● T he Proposed Regulation includes annual report - ing and recordkeeping requirements starting Jan - uary 1, 2026.

Comparable Federal Regulations: The SIP acknowledges the need for emission reduc- tions in the off–road vehicle sector and has included the Proposed Regulation as one of the measures that will support meeting the air quality standards estab - lished in the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). 18 There are currently no federal requirements for fleets or rental agencies to phase out the purchase or use of Targeted LSI forklifts.

There are also no feder - al requirements prohibiting manufacturers or dealers from selling Targeted LSI forklifts. 18 The federal Clean Air Act sets out requirements for adoption of air quality standards, as well as the required elements of State Implementation Plans, which must demonstrate how a nonat - tainment area will meet the standards by the required attainment deadline.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 45–Z 1444 An Evaluation of Inconsistency or Incompatibility with Existing State Regulations (Gov. Code, § 11346.5, subdivision (a)(3)(D)): During the process of developing the proposed regulatory action, CARB conducted a search of any similar regulations on this topic and concluded these regulations are neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing state regulations. DISCLOSURE REGARDING THE PROPOSED REGULATION Fiscal Impact/Local Mandate Determination Regarding the Proposed Action (Gov.

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

Under Government Code sections 11346.5, subdivi- sion (a)(5) and 11346.5, subdivision (a)(6), the Execu- tive Officer has determined that the proposed regula - tory action would create costs or savings to any State agency, would not create costs or savings in federal funding to the State, and would create costs or man - date to any local agency or school district, whether or not reimbursable by the State under Government Code, title 2, division 4,

part 7 (commencing with sec- tion 17500), or other nondiscretionary cost or savings to State or local agencies. Cost to any Local Agency or School District Requiring Reimbursement under

section 17500 et seq.: Pursuant to Government Code sections 11346.5, subdivision (a)(5) and 11346.5, subdivision (a)(6), this regulatory action will result in a mandate that would create costs and cost–savings to local agencies and school districts. However, these costs are not reimburs- able by the State pursuant to Government Code, title 2, division 4,

part 7 (commencing with

section 17500), because this action neither compels local agencies to provide new governmental functions (i.e., it does not require such agencies to provide additional services to the public), nor imposes requirements that apply only on local agencies or school districts. 19 Instead, this regulatory action establishes requirements that would apply to all individuals and entities that own or operate regulated forklifts.

This action also does not compel local agencies to increase the actual level or quality of services that they already provide the pub - lic. 20 For the foregoing reasons, any costs incurred by 19 County of Los Angeles v. State of California (1987) 43 Cal.3d 46, 56. 20 San Diego Unified School Dist. v. Commission on State Man - dates (2004) 33 Cal.4th 859, 877. local agencies to comply with this regulatory action are not reimbursable. 21 Cost or Savings for State Agencies: To implement the Proposed Regulation, CARB would need permanent staffing resources.

This would be met through a combination of new staffing resourc- es and redirecting existing staffing resources. In addi - tion to staffing needs, the Proposed Regulation would require modifying and upgrading existing reporting systems. State government is assumed to incur an incremen - tal cost from the purchase of ZEFs, while also realiz - ing operational savings from the use of ZEFs. State and local government fleets are estimated to make up about 3 percent of the California’s affected fork - lift fleet.

Assuming the number of forklifts owned by State and local governments is proportional to their share of government employment, it is estimated that 2.2 percent and 0.8 percent of the statewide forklift cost and operational savings resulting from the Pro - posed Regulation would be realized by local govern - ment fleets and State government fleets, respectively. 22 Annual net total fiscal impact to the State govern - ment is estimated to range between a net positive bud- getary impact of $7.2 million in 2030, primarily due to increased sales tax revenue, to a net negative bud - getary impact of $49.3 million in 2040.

Through 2043, the cumulative total upfront cost to the State govern - ment is estimated to be $32.8 million, and the cumula- tive total fiscal impact is estimated to be a net negative budgetary impact of $159.7 million from 2024 through 2043. A negative net budgetary or fiscal impact results when revenue losses and costs exceed revenue gains and cost savings. Other Non–Discretionary Costs or Savings on Local Agencies: Local government fleets are estimated to make up roughly 2.2 percent of California’s fleet.

All local gov- ernment fleets are subject to the Proposed Regulation with requirements beginning for most fleets in 2026. Upfront costs would include the cost of purchasing new ZEFs as well as infrastructure costs for adding forklift battery chargers, facility improvements, and electrical upgrades. Local governments would also be expected to realize cost savings related to reduced ZEF energy cost, lower ZEF maintenance cost, and revenue from Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) credits.

In addition, local governments would be impacted by re- duced gasoline and use taxes due to reduced usage of gasoline and propane, respectively, and increased sales 21 County of Los Angeles v. State of California, 43 Cal.3d. 46, 58. 22 Based on REMI Policy Insight Plus (v3.0.0), Local govern - ments’ share of State and Local government employment is 77 percent.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 45–Z 1445 taxes due to the sale of ZEFs and associated equipment and utility user fees. Accounting for both total upfront costs and total operational costs results in total costs of $157.9 mil - lion for local governments from 2026 through 2043. Over that same period, staff estimates total cost– savings of $220.2 million due to operational savings.

In terms of tax and fee revenue, the Proposed Regula- tion would result in increases in Utility User fees rev - enue and sales tax revenue totaling $167.0 million and in decreases in gasoline tax revenue and use tax rev - enue totaling $398.1 million. Accounting for all costs and savings, the total fiscal impact is estimated to be a net negative budgetary impact (i.e., a cost) of $168.9 million from 2026 through 2043. Cost or Savings in Federal Funding to the State: The Proposed Regulation is not expected to impose any costs or savings in federal funding to the State. Housing Costs (Gov.

Code, § 11346.5, subdivision (a)(12)): The Executive Officer has also made the initial de - termination that the proposed regulatory action will not have a significant effect on housing costs. Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Directly Affecting Business, Including Ability to Compete (Gov.

Code, §§ 11346.3, subdivision (a), 11346.5, subdivision (a)(7), 11346.5, subdivision (a) (8)): The Executive Officer has made an initial determi - nation that the proposed regulatory action would not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states, or on representative private persons. In addition, as discussed further below, the Proposed Regulation would apply equally to all fleets operat - ing forklifts in California whether they are California businesses or out–of–state businesses.

Furthermore, forklifts are not generally transported from one state to another in order to perform work, so staff does not expect that California forklift fleets are competing for work with out–of–state forklift fleets. Finally, al - though the proposed forklift requirements could make it more expensive in the very short term to operate in California (due to the capital needed to purchase ZEFs), the Proposed Regulation is projected to result in overall net savings for fleets within the state. Results of The Economic Impact Analysis/ Assessment (Gov.

Code, § 11346.5, subdivision (a) (10)): Major Regulation: Statement of the Results of the Standardized Regulatory Impact Analysis (SRIA) (Gov. Code, § 11346.3, subdivision (c)): In April 2023, CARB submitted a Standardized Regulation Impact Assessment (SRIA) to the Depart - ment of Finance (DOF) for its review. CARB has up - dated the Proposed Regulation since the original SRIA submittal and addressed DOF comments on the SRIA. Details are provided in Appendix B of the ISOR. (

A) The creation or elimination of jobs within the state. The Proposed Regulation is estimated to result in an initial decrease in employment growth that is less than 0.01 percent of baseline employment and begins to di- minish towards the end of the regulatory horizon. The job impacts represent the net change in employment across the economy, which is composed of positive impacts for some industries and negative impacts for others. In 2043, the Proposed Regulation is estimated to result in job gains of 8,047, primarily in construc - tion, retail and wholesale, and services, and zero jobs foregone. (

B) The creation of new businesses or the elimination of existing businesses within the state. The macroeconomic model used in this analysis cannot directly estimate the creation or elimination of businesses. However, changes in jobs and output for the California economy can be used to understand some potential impacts.

The overall jobs and output impacts of the Proposed Regulation are small relative to the total California economy, representing chang - es of no greater than 0.02 percent; hence, the overall impact on creation and elimination of businesses is also expected to be small relative to the total Califor - nia economy. However, impacts to some specific in - dustries are relatively larger than this. The industrial equipment repair industry is estimated to see negative impacts, as ZEFs become a greater portion of the fleet.

This trend would suggest that the number of business- es providing those services may decrease along with the reduced demand. Additionally, the decreasing trend in demand for propane and gasoline has the potential to result in the elimination of businesses downstream of refineries, such as propane wholesalers and merchants, if sus - tained over time, though the overall retail and whole - sale sectors are projected to expand. (

C) The competitive advantages or disadvantages for businesses currently doing business within the state. Staff does not believe the Proposed Regulation would advantage or disadvantage California fleets versus out–of–state fleets. The Proposed Regulation would apply equally to all fleets operating forklifts in California whether they are California businesses or out–of–state businesses. Furthermore, forklifts are not generally transported from one state to another to perform work, so staff do not expect that California forklift fleets are competing for work with out–of– state forklift fleets. Although the proposed forklift re -

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 45–Z 1446 quirements could make it more expensive in the very short term to operate in California (due to the capital needed to purchase ZEFs), the Proposed Regulation is projected to result in overall net savings for fleets op - erating within the state. The rental agencies near the state border could gain a competitive advantage over rental agencies out–of– state with limited zero–emission offerings. California rental agencies could potentially recapture the busi - ness of fleets that have historically rented forklifts from out–of–state rental agencies. (

D) T he increase or decrease of investment in the state. Private domestic investment consists of purchases of residential and nonresidential structures and of equip - ment and software by private businesses and nonprofit institutions. It is used as a proxy for impacts on invest- ments in California because it provides an indicator of the future productive capacity of the economy. The relative changes to growth in private investment for the Proposed Regulation are estimated to result in an increase of private investment of about $33 million in 2030, which trends towards an increase of $563 mil- lion by 2043.

Overall, there is an estimated cumulative increase of about $1.75 billion for 2026–2043. (

E) T he incentives for innovation in products, materials, or processes. The Proposed Regulation would provide flexibility to fleets that replace Targeted Class IV and V Forklifts with ZEFs ahead of their phase–out deadlines. Fork - lifts replaced ahead of compliance deadlines would provide fleet owners with the ability to reduce com- pliance burden in future years. Furthermore, financial incentive programs are more likely to fund compli - ance actions that are early or over–and–above what is required.

Considering these reasons, staff believes that some fleets could opt to comply ahead of phase– out deadlines to access these incentives as well as to start reaping the operational benefits of zero–emission technology. Staff anticipates growth in industries that manufac - ture or support ZEFs, including ZEF and ZEF–com - ponent manufacturers and suppliers, infrastructure installers, electrical powertrain technicians, and oth - ers. This growth is, in turn, expected to strengthen the ZEF supply chain, generate greater technology awareness, and foster a greater ZE market.

In addi - tion, because the Proposed Regulation would provide a strong signal of California’s continued commitment to zero–emission technology, staff believes it would spur greater private investment, and accelerate tech - nology innovation and market growth. (

F) T he benefits of the regulations, including, but not limited to, benefits to the health, safety, and welfare of California residents, worker safety, and the state’s environment and quality of life, among any other benefits identified by the agency. The Proposed Regulation would improve air quality by reducing statewide NOx, PM2.5, and ROG emis - sions. The Proposed Regulation would also achieve GHG emission reductions needed to combat climate change and its impacts.

From 2026 to 2043, the Pro - posed Regulation is estimated to result in 18,724 tons reduction in NOx, 2,075 tons reduction in PM2.5, 4,973 tons reduction in ROG, and 9.4 MMT reduction of CO 2, relative to business–as–usual.

The Proposed Regulation will lead to an estimated 544 fewer cardiopulmonary deaths; 115 fewer hospital admissions for cardiovascular disease; 148 fewer cas - es of cardiovascular Emergency Department visits; 62 fewer cases of nonfatal acute myocardial infarction; 17 fewer hospitalizations for respiratory disease; 321 few- er cases of respiratory Emergency Department visits; 42 fewer cases of lung cancer incidence; 1295 fewer cases of asthma onset; 109,800 fewer cases of asthma symptoms; 80,635 fewer cases of work loss days; 272 fewer hospitalizations for Alzheimer’s disease; and 39 fewer hospitalizations for Parkinson’s disease.

These health outcomes result in a total cost savings of $7.5 billion. The avoided social cost of carbon ranges from about $0.25 to $1 billion over this same timeframe Although not quantified, the Proposed Regulation would also reduce occupational exposure to carbon monoxide (CO), a pollutant that can cause fatigue, headaches, confusion, and dizziness, especially in indoor environments where forklifts commonly oper - ate. 23 The emission reductions expected from the Pro- posed Regulation would benefit California residents by reducing their exposure to harmful air pollutants associated with adverse health impacts.

In particu - lar, individuals who operate Class IV and V forklifts, those who work at facilities where said forklifts oper - ate, and those who live within communities that are disproportionately impacted by air pollution would benefit most from the Proposed Regulation. The Proposed Regulation could decrease the occu - pational exposure to air pollution of forklift operators and other people who work around forklifts in Cali - fornia. These individuals are likely at higher risk of developing cardiovascular and respiratory issues as a result of forklift PM emissions.

Although CARB staff cannot quantify the potential effect on occupational 23 CARB, Carbon Monoxide and Health (web link: https:// ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/carbon–monoxide–and– health#:~:text=Carbon%20monoxide%20is%20harmful%20 because,oxygen%20delivery%20to%20the%20brain , last ac - cessed on August 2023).

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 45–Z 1447 exposure, the Proposed Regulation is expected to pro- vide larger health benefits for these individuals. Targeted Class IV and Class V Forklifts are well– suited to transition to zero–emission technology. As more fleets convert to ZEFs due to the Proposed Reg- ulation, forklift manufacturers would be expected to maintain or possibly even increase their investments in developing zero–emission technologies and expand their zero–emission product lines.

Such investments could contribute to break–through technologies and broader acceptance of zero–emission technologies in off–road vehicle applications. The increased use of electric charging infrastruc - ture by off–road electric vehicles would decrease the amount of fossil fuel consumed in California, helping the State meet the goals of SB 350. 24 Furthermore, SB 350 directs investor–owned utilities (IOU) to implement programs to accelerate widespread trans - portation electrification, including the deployment of charging infrastructure.

SB 350 goals include increas- ing the sales of zero–emission vehicles, reducing air pollutant emissions to help meet air quality standards, and reduce GHGs. As a result of SB 350, the States’ three large IOUs (PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE) are es - tablishing or have established commercial electric - ity rate programs that reduce battery charging rates at specified times of the day. Some publicly–owned utilities have developed similar transportation electri - fication rate programs as the IOUs.

By increasing the number of ZEFs in the State, the Proposed Regulation would support the utilities programs and help meet SB 350 goals. (

G) D epartment of Finance Comments and Responses. 1. S RIA needs to identify any changes in the amount of operating income received by state and local agencies. DOF Comment: The SRIA must identify any chang- es in the amount of operating income received by state and local agencies. The SRIA estimates that the im - pact on state personal income will exceed $1 billion in several years. State income tax revenue is typically equal to about 4 percent of state personal income, thus, a $1 billion change in income could cause income tax revenue to change by about $40 million.

The SRIA should provide estimates for the regulation’s expect - ed impact on income tax revenue in each year of the analysis. Response: The model used to estimate the macro - economic impacts of the Proposed Regulation on the California economy includes impacts to personal in - come. Changes in personal income in California may change the amount of revenue the State of California 24 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml? bill_id=201520160SB350 collects in personal income tax.

From 2026 to 2043, the average change in California State Personal In - come and Personal Income Tax Revenue are estimated at $168.1 million and $6.7 million (2021$), respective- ly. A table detailing the estimated change in personal income and personal income tax revenue over the reg- ulatory horizon can be found in

Chapter VIII,

Section E.2.f of the ISOR. The change in personal income tax is estimated based on a statewide average tax rate of about four percent. 25 2. S RIA needs to explain the rationale, use a dis - tribution of forklift lifespans, or conduct a sensitivity analysis for assuming 15–year lifes- pans for new forklifts without a corresponding distribution of forklift lifespans. DOF Comment: T he SRIA must explain the ratio - nale of any assumption material to the impact estimate.

It assumes that capital expenditures on new forklifts will spike in 2041 as all the forklifts purchased in 2026 reach the end of their expected 15–year lifespans and will need to be replaced. The SRIA should ex - plain why this is the most plausible assumption for the analysis or use a distribution of forklift lifespans (or possibly a sensitivity analysis with several plausible distributions) that is more typical for vehicles. Response: The Proposed Regulation, at the time the SRIA was finalized, required retirement of exist - ing LSI forklifts from 2026 to 2038 (with exceptions based on lift capacity).

CARB staff assumed each re - tired LSI forklift would be replaced with an electric forklift. CARB staff modeled a 15–year life for each of the electric forklifts purchased under the regula - tion. The 15–year life for electric forklifts leads to re - placement purchases for each forklift that mirror the original regulatory

schedule exactly 15 years later. For example, all electric forklifts purchased in 2026 to comply with the Proposed Regulation are replaced in 2041, etc. The 15–year life was based on the age dis - tribution of the electric forklifts reported to CARB in the online reporting database, DOORS. Fifteen years represents the median useful life of forklifts, or the 25 The statewide average income tax rate varies over time. It av - eraged about four percent over the period of 2015–2022 based on historical personal income data.

Specifically, statewide av - erage income tax rate was calculated by dividing annual per - sonal income tax revenue projections obtained from the May Revision of the California Governor’s Proposed Budget for fis - cal years 2017–2018 through 2023–2024, which are available through https://ebudget.ca.gov/, last accessed October 2023, and dividing by total personal income provided in the California Economic Forecast spreadsheet prepared by the California De - partment of Finance (web link: https://dof.ca.gov/wp–content/ uploads/sites/352/Forecasting/Economics/Documents/ California–Economic–Forecast–MR–2023–24.xlsx ); the Califor- n i a E c o n o m i c Fo r e c a s t s p r e a d s h e e t i s a l s o a v a i l a b l e t h r o u g h t h e D e- partment of Finance’s Economic Forecasts webpage at https://dof. ca.gov/forecasting/Economics/economic–forecasts–u–s–and– california/, last accessed October 2023.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 45–Z 1448 age where 50 percent of the electric forklifts appear to be retired from service. Based on the comments from DOF, CARB staff modeled two additional scenarios where the replace - ment of electric forklifts was spread over a range of years rather than all being replaced exactly at 15 years. Under the first scenario, purchases were spread over the 3–year range from age 14 to 16, and under the sec- ond scenario, purchases were spread even further over an 11–year range from age of 10 to 20.

If electric forklifts are replaced from age 14 to 16, the peak replacement purchases would occur in 2042, and would be 26 percent lower than the previous peak in 2041. If electric forklifts are replaced from age 10 to 20, the peak replacement year would not occur un - til 2046, and would be 35 percent below the previous 2041 peak replacement purchases. Ultimately, the total purchases during the period from 2036 to 2050 would vary by less than half of one percent. However, peak year costs would be signifi - cantly reduced in either of the scenarios explored.

The 15–year life was selected as a typical lifespan for an electric forklift. Realistically, the exact behavior and replacement of electric forklifts will depend on use, owner preferences, economic conditions, and ad - ditional details specific to the forklift and owner. This analysis demonstrates that peak year costs may vary but the overall number of forklifts replaced during the period (and therefore overall costs) is consistent across various retirement assumptions and modeling. Business Report (Gov.

Code, §§ 11346.5, subdivision (a)(11); 11346.3, subdivision (d)): In accordance with Government Code sections 11346.5, subdivisions (a)(11) and 11346.3, subdivision (d), the Executive Officer finds the reporting require - ments of the proposed regulatory action which apply to businesses are necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the State of California. Cost Impacts on Representative Private Persons or Businesses (Gov.

Code, § 11346.5, subdivision (a) (9)): In developing this regulatory proposal, CARB staff evaluated the potential economic impacts on represen- tative private persons or businesses. CARB staff expects that there would not be direct costs to individuals as a result of this Proposed Reg - ulation. Individuals would realize health benefits, as described in the Health Benefits

section of the ISOR, from statewide, regional, and local emission benefits due to ZEFs displacing LSI forklifts. However, indi - viduals could be impacted by indirect costs and sav - ings realized by fleet operators, rental agencies, and manufacturers, which are further discussed in the Macroeconomic Impacts

chapter of the ISOR. A typical business that currently owns and/or oper - ates Class IV or Class V forklifts would incur upfront capital costs and on–going operating costs due to the Proposed Regulation. These costs would include, as applicable, the purchase cost of ZEFs, ZEF batteries, and ZEF chargers; costs associated with installing chargers and/or upgrading facility–side electrical or fueling infrastructure; electricity or fuel costs; main - tenance costs; finance charges; and taxes. In addition, a typical business would also incur compliance costs, such as recordkeeping and reporting costs.

A typical business would also be expected to realize cost sav - ings that offset costs; such savings would include re - duced fuel and maintenance costs and potential LCFS credit revenue. Effect on Small Business (Cal. Code Regs., title 1, § 4, subdivisions (

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

section 4, that the proposed regulatory action would affect small businesses. The methodology and full details for esti - mating the cost impact to an example small business is provided in

Chapter VIII of the ISOR. Consideration of Alternatives (Gov. Code, § 11346.5, subdivision (a)(13)): Before taking final action on the proposed regula - tory action, the Board must determine that no reason - able alternative considered by the Board, or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the Board would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed, would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action, or would be more cost–effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or oth - er provisions of law. As explained in the accompany - ing

Chapter IX of the ISOR, the Proposed Regulation is the most effective and least burdensome means of achieving the purposes of the proposal. The Executive Officer analyzed several alternatives to the Proposed Regulation and summarized the find - ings of this analysis in

Chapter IX of the ISOR, and the rationale behind rejecting them in favor of the Pro- posed Regulation. The following is a brief

summary of the major alternatives proposed and the rationale for rejecting such major alternatives. Alternative 1 (more stringent) would accelerate the phase–out of both Targeted Class IV Forklifts and Targeted Class V Forklifts. As discussed in the Sum - mary of Proposed Rulemaking, the Proposed Regula - tion would phase out Targeted Class IV Forklifts be - tween 2028 and 2038 and Targeted Class V Forklifts between 2030 and 2038. Alternative 1 would phase out both Targeted Class IV and Class V Forklifts between 2028 and 2032. Although Alternative 1 would achieve greater emis- sion benefits and greater cumulative net savings due to the accelerated turnover of Targeted Class IV and

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 45–Z 1449 Class V Forklifts to ZEFs, it was rejected for the fol - lowing reasons: ● T he turnover rate of Targeted Forklifts under Al - ternative 1 would create a significantly greater cost burden for fleets during the first five years of the regulation. While using ZEFs is expected to result in cost savings over time, the upfront cost of Alternative 1 could be too challenging to over- come for fleets that are more constrained with re- spect to available capital.

Alternative 1 has an estimated cumulative net cost of approximate - ly $593 million from 2026 through 2030 where - as the Proposed Regulation has an estimated cu - mulative net savings of approximately $116 mil - lion over that same period (a difference of about $709 million). From 2026 to 2043, the estimat - ed upfront costs (forklift purchases, sales tax, and infrastructure installation) for Alternative 1 are $5.5 billion,

whereas the estimated upfront costs over the same period for the Proposed Regula - tion are $5.1 billion. From 2026 to 2043, the pres- ent value 26 upfront costs for Alternative 1 and the Proposed Regulation are approximately $3.9 bil - lion and $2.7 billion, respectively. Consequent - ly, the present value upfront costs of Alternative 1 are roughly $1.2 billion (or 44 percent) higher than the Proposed Regulation. ● I n addition, Alternative 1’s turnover rate could also pose a challenge for manufacturers to build sufficient numbers of ZEF products in the pro - posed timeframe.

Under the baseline scenario, an estimated 9,250 ZEF and 18,470 LSI Forklift purchases (due to natural turnover) are expect - ed during the first three years of the phase–out schedule. Under Alternative 1, in addition to the estimated 9,250 ZEF purchases needed to main- tain the existing ZEF baseline population, 52,280 ZEFs would be purchased within the first three years of the phase–out schedule. By contrast, un- der the Proposed Regulation, 18,810 ZEFs (sur - plus to baseline) would be purchased during the same timeframe.

Consequently, during the first three years of the phase–out schedule, Alterna - tive 1 would require added purchases of almost three times more ZEFs than the Proposed Regu - lation and five times more ZEFs than the baseline scenario. ● F urthermore, based on stakeholder feedback, manufacturer supply chain delays are responsi - ble for current forklift delivery delays of an ad - ditional one to one–and–a–half years, relative to pre–pandemic delivery timelines. Especially 26 Present value accounts for the time value of money.

For the purpose of this analysis, the present value is based on a five per - cent rate of return. for Alternative 1, which has a more–accelerated turnover rate, the anticipated growth in demand for certain components used in ZEFs could exac- erbate delays in manufacturing and supply chain disruptions, which could further impact deliv - ery dates of ZEFs.

Difficulty in procuring nec - essary components could also place manufactur - ers in difficult competitive and financial positions in market segments where they could be required to redesign their products and retool their opera - tions earlier than planned to accommodate parts that are available. Alternative 2 (less stringent) would only apply to Targeted Class IV and Class V Forklifts with a lift capacity of 8,000 pounds or less. That is, unlike the Proposed Regulation, Alternative 2 would not require the phase–out of Targeted Class IV and Class V Fork- lifts with a lift capacity greater than 8,000 pounds.

The phase–out schedules for Alternative 2 would be the same as those in the Proposed Regulation for both forklift classes. The projected upfront cost for Alternative 2 is low - er than the Proposed Regulation, and its benefit–cost ratio is higher than for the Proposed Regulation (2.72 versus 2.26). However, Alternative 2 would also re - sult in lower NOx, PM2.5, ROG, and CO 2 emission benefits and fewer ZEFs deployed. Although CARB’s 2016 SIP commitment for ROG reductions of 0.2 tons per day (TPD) by 2031 would be met through Alterna- tive 2, the commitment for NOx reductions of 2 TPD by 2031 would not be met.

Alternative 2 would obtain only 0.81 TPD NOx by 2031. The deployment of zero–emission vehicles and equipment is a key component of California’s long– term strategy to meet its aggressive air quality, cli - mate, and zero–emission goals. Alternative 2 was rejected because it would not be as effective as the Proposed Regulation at improving air quality and pro- tecting public health, combating climate change, and accelerating the adoption of ZE technology.

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION If adopted by CARB, CARB plans to submit the proposed regulatory action to the United States Envi - ronmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) for approv - al as a revision to the California SIP required by the federal CAA. The adopted regulatory action would be submitted as a SIP revision because it adopts regula- tions intended to reduce emissions of air pollutants in order to attain and maintain the NAAQS promulgated by U.S. EPA pursuant to the CAA.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 45–Z 1450 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CARB, as the lead agency for the Proposed Reg - ulation, has prepared a draft environmental impact analysis (EIA) under its certified regulatory program (CCR, title 17, §§ 60000 through 60008) to comply with the requirements of the California Environmen - tal Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Res. Code § 21080.5).

The EIA concluded implementation of the Proposed Regulation could result in: beneficial impacts to air quality (long–term operational–related), greenhouse gas emission (short–term construction and long–term operational–related); less than significant impacts to energy (short–term construction–related and long– term operational–related), mineral resources, pop - ulation and housing, public services, recreation, and wildfire; and potentially significant [indirect/second - ary] adverse impacts to aesthetics, agriculture and for- estry resources, air quality (short–term construction– related), odors, biological resources, cultural resourc - es, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materi - als, hydrology and water quality, land use planning, noise and vibration, transportation, tribal cultural re - sources, and utilities and service systems.

The Draft EIA is included as Appendix C the ISOR. Written comments on the Draft EIA will be accepted during a 45–day public review period starting on October 20, 2023, and ending on December 4, 2023. SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION REQUEST Consistent with California Government Code sec - tion 7296.2, special accommodation or language needs may be provided for any of the following: ● An interpreter to be available at the hearing; ● Documents made available in an alternate format or another language; and ● A disability–related reasonable accommodation.

To request these special accommodations or lan - guage needs, please contact the Clerks’ Office at cotb@ arb.ca.gov or (916) 322–5594 as soon as possible, but no later than ten business days before the scheduled Board hearing. TTY/TDD/Speech to Speech users may dial 711 for the California Relay Service.

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

Para solicitar estas comodidades especiales o nece - sidades de otro idioma, por favor llame a la oficina del Consejo al cotb@arb.ca.gov o (916) 322–5594 lo más pronto posible, pero no menos de 10 días de trabajo an- tes del día programado para la audiencia del Consejo. TTY/TDD/Personas que necesiten este servicio pue - den marcar el 711 para el Servicio de Retransmisión de Mensajes de California.

AGENCY CONTACT PERSONS Inquiries concerning the substance of the proposed regulatory action may be directed to the agency rep - resentative Keith Roderick, Air Resources Engineer, Staff Lead, Advanced Emission Control Strategies Section, at 279–208–7768 or Lori Berard, Air Pollu - tion Specialist, Cost Analysis Lead, Advanced Emis - sion Control Strategies Section, at 951–542–3083. AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS CARB staff has prepared an ISOR for the proposed regulatory action, which includes a

summary of the economic and environmental impacts of the proposal. The report is entitled: Public Hearing to Consider the Proposed Zero–Emission Forklift Regulation. Copies of the ISOR and the full text of the proposed regulatory language, [in underline and strikeout for - mat to allow for comparison with the existing regu - lations (if applicable), may be accessed on CARB’s website listed below, on October 17, 2023. Please contact Bradley Bechtold: Regulations Coordinator, at Bradley.Bechtold@arb.ca.gov or (279) 208–7266 if you need physical copies of the documents.

Because of current travel, facility, and staffing restrictions, the California Air Resources Board’s offices have limited public access. Pursuant to Government Code

section 11346.5, subdivision (b), upon request to the afore - mentioned Regulations Coordinator, physical copies would be obtained from the Public Information Office, California Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street, Visi - tors and Environmental Services Center, First Floor, Sacramento, California, 95814. Further, the agency representative to whom nonsub- stantive inquiries concerning the proposed adminis - trative action may be directed is Bradley Bechtold, Regulations Coordinator, (279) 208–7266.

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

part 1,

chapter 3.5 (commencing with

section 11340).

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 45–Z 1451 Following the public hearing, the Board may take action to approve for adoption the regulatory language as originally proposed, or with non–substantial or grammatical modifications. The Board may also ap - prove for adoption the proposed regulatory language with other modifications if the text as modified is suf- ficiently related to the originally proposed text that the public was adequately placed on notice and that the regulatory language as modified could result from the proposed regulatory action.

If this occurs, the full reg- ulatory text, with the modifications clearly indicated, will be made available to the public, for written com - ment, at least 15–days before final adoption. The public may request a copy of the modified reg - ulatory text from CARB’s Public Information Office, Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street, Visitors and En - vironmental Services Center, First Floor, Sacramento, California, 95814.

FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS A VAILABILITY Upon its completion, the Final Statement of Reasons (FSOR) will be available, and copies may be requested from the agency contact persons in this notice or may be accessed on CARB’s website listed below. INTERNET ACCESS This notice, the ISOR and all subsequent regulato - ry documents, including the FSOR, when completed, are available on CARB’s website for this rulemak - ing at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2023/ zeforkliftsregulation TITLE 14.

FISH AND GAME COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Fish and Game Commission (Commission), pursuant to the authority vested by Sections 200, 203, 219, 265, 270, 275, 355, 1050, 1572, 2000, 2001, 2127, 2150.2, 3000, 3003.1, 3005.5, 3800, 3960.2, 3965, 4005, 4009.5, 4150, 4181, 4181.5, 4331, 4657, and 10502 of the Fish and Game Code and to implement, interpret or make specific Sections 110, 200, 201, 203, 203.1, 219, 260, 265, 270, 275, 355, 713, 1008, 1050, 1570, 1571, 1572, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2055, 2150.4, 2192, 3000, 3003.1, 3004.5, 3005.5, 3500, 3511, 3800, 3950, 3960, 3960.2, 3965, 4000, 4004, 4005, 4009.5, 4150, 4152, 4180, 4181, 4181.5, 4190, 4652, 4652.5, 4653, 4654, 4655, 4656, 4657, 4700, 4800, 4900, 4902, 10500, and 10502 of said Code and

Section 8670.61.5 of the Government Code, proposes to amend Sections 250, 251.5, 252, 257.5, 258, 350, 352, 353, 401, 465.5, 679, and 708.13, add Sections 375, 376, 377, 378, and 379, and repeal

Section 368, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, relating to Exotic Game Mammals and Wild Pig Validations. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW Governor Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 856 (2022) — Wild Pig Validations sponsored by Senator Dodd from Napa. Most of the provisions of this bill are effective July 1, 2024. This bill made sweeping changes to Fish and Game Code (FGC) which includ- ed changes to laws regarding

definitions, licensing, hunting take, captive hunting preserves and capture, possession, and release of wild pigs. The intent of his legislation is to give the public and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) more tools to manage wild pigs and the damage they cause to private property and the environment. Following the lead of the legislature who made con- siderable amendments to FGC, the Department pro - poses a number of changes to California Code of Reg- ulations, Title 14, Division 1, Subdivision 2,

Chapter 3. This

chapter has been historically Big Game, but un - der this proposal, would be changed to Big Game and Exotic Game Mammals. The first proposed change recommended by the Department follows suit with the removal of wild pigs from FGC

Section 3950 (Game Mammals Defined), and the creation and addition of wild pigs to FGC

Section 3965 (Exotic Game Mam - mals Defined), by the legislature. This change requires the Department to strike wild pigs from Title 14 sec - tion 350 (Big Game Defined), and associated sections 352 (Shooting Hours for Big Game), and 353 (Methods Authorized for Taking Big Game). The Department is proposing to repeal and renumber

section 368 (Wild Pigs) to follow the new flow to this section. The Department is proposing to create four new sections for exotic game mammals directly related to sport hunting. To do this, exotic game mammals must be added to supporting regulations sections 250, 251.5, 252, 257.5 and 258. The first new

section proposed is 375 (Exotic Game Mammals Defined), which char - acterizes such an animal as a mammal, nonnative to California, seen to be detrimental to the ecology and conservation of native species and their habitat. This

section would list wild pigs, feral pigs, European wild pigs and their hybrids as the only group. Following Big Game as an example, the next

section proposed is 376 (Shooting Hours for Exotic Game Mammals), followed by

section 377 (Methods Authorized for Tak- ing Exotic Game Mammals), and

section 378 (Wild Pig), renumbered from 368, which defines the hunting season, bag and possession limits for wild pigs. The proposed

section 379 (Prohibition on Feeding Exotic

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 45–Z 1452 Game Mammals), places a prohibition on knowingly feeding exotic game mammals. The Department proposes to amend Title 14 sec - tion 401 (Issuance of Permit to Take Animals Causing Damage), by allowing depredation permits for wild pigs to extend for up to five years rather than the cur - rent one–year scenario. This should reduce annual ad- ministrative duties for both the Department and per - mit holders. Another proposed amendment to

section 401 include extends the reporting period to one year rather than monthly, which creates uniformity with new proposed reporting requirements for sport take per the requirements set forth in FGC

Section 4657. The Department proposes to remove the tagging re - quirement for wild pigs taken under depredation per - mits and require individuals to have their permit in their possession. Finally, the Department proposes to remove language related to wanton waste for pigs tak- en under a depredation permit. The Department proposes to add exotic game mam- mals to Title 14

section 465.5 (Use of Traps), to in - dicate that exotic game mammals may not be taken with the use of steel–jawed traps. The addition of ex - otic game mammals to

section 465.5 also means that the requirements for trap placement, trap marking and trap–check frequency ((g)(1)–(g)(5)), all apply to any body gripping trap set for an exotic game mammal, for the purposes described in this section. The Department proposes to make changes Title 14

section 708.13 (Wild Pig License Tags), for conformi- ty with statute, by replacing “tag” with “validation.” The Department also proposes a reporting method for sport harvest to address requirements in statute. Indi - vidual must report their take annually in the Automat- ed License Data System before procuring a validation for the next hunting license year whether they have harvested wild pigs or not. The Department proposes reporting criteria of county, month and number taken facilitated in the Automated License Data System at the end of each license year.

The proposed changes to Title 14 are assumed to have little impact, if any, on businesses. Assessment of financial impacts to the Department indicates the Department may lose an estimated $156,000 annually, after wild pig tags are transitioned to validations. Benefits of the Proposed Regulations: