GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR OFFICE OF ADMI NISTRATIVE LAW REGISTER 2019, NUMBER 46−Z PUBLISHED WEEKLY BY THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW NOVEMBER 15, 2019 PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS TITLE 2. FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Commission Governance — Notice File Number Z2019−1 105−02 ....................................... 1551 TITLE 2. FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Conflict−of−Interest Code — Notice File Number Z2019−1 105−05 ...................................... 1552 Amendment State Agency: Department of Education Air Resources Board TITLE 2.

FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Materiality Standard: Financial Interest in a Personal Financial Effect — Notice File Number Z2019−1105−04 .............................................................. 1553 TITLE 2. FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Materiality Standard: Financial Interest in a Source of Gift — Notice File Number Z2019−1 105−03 ........... 1554 TITLE 4. CALIFORNIA HORSE RACING BOARD Authorized Medication During Workouts — Notice File Number Z2019−1030−02 .......................... 1555 TITLE 11.

COMMISSION ON PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING Training and Testing Specifications — Notice File Number Z2019−1031−02 .............................. 1559 TITLE 15. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION Parole Consideration: Determinately−Sentenced Nonviolent Offenders — Notice File Number Z2019−1105−08 .............................................................. 1561 TITLE 16. PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT BOARD Substantial Relationship Criteria; Rehabilitation — Notice File Number Z2019−110 5−06 ................... 1564 TITLE 18.

FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Conflict−of−Interest Code — Notice File Number Z2019−1030−01 ...................................... 1568 (Continued on next page) Time- Dated Material

TITLE 23.

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD Water Conservation and the Prevention of Waste and Unreasonable Use — Notice File Number Z2019−1031−01 ............................................................. 1568 GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Consistency Determination Request for Walker Creek Bridge Replacement 2080−2019−009−02, Glenn County ......................... 1573 OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT Issuance of Safe Use Determinations and Interpretive Guidelines for Chlorothalonil Residues in Certain Foods Resulting from Pesticidal Use of the Chemical .................... 1573 RULEMAKING PETITION DECISION CALIFORNIA GAMBLING CONTROL COMMISSION Notice of Decision on Petition from Jarhett Blonien Concerning Adequate Financing/Bankroll Procedures Regulations ........................................................ 1580 CALIFORNIA GAMBLING CONTROL COMMISSION Notice of Decision on Petition from Jarhett Blonien Concerning Games/ Gambling Equipment .......................................................................... 1582

SUMMARY OF REGULATORY ACTIONS Regulations filed with the Secretary of State ........................................................ 1583 The California Regulatory Notice Register is an official state publication of the Office of Administrative Law containing notices of proposed regulatory actions by state regulatory agencies to adopt, amend or repeal regulations contained in the California Code of Regulations. The effective period of a notice of proposed regulatory action by a state agency in the California Regulatory Notice Register shall not exceed one year [Government Code § 11346.4(b)].

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

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 46-Z PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS Information contained in this document is published as received from agencies and is not edited by Thomson Reuters. TITLE 2. FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Fair Political Practices Commission (the Commission), under the au- thority vested in it by the Political Reform Act (the Act)1 by

Section 83112 of the Government Code pro- poses to adopt, amend, or repeal regulations in Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations. The Commission will consider the proposed regulation at a public hearing on or after December 19, 2019, at the of- fices of the Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q Street, Sacramento, CA 95811, commencing at approx- imately 10:00 a.m. Written comments should be re- ceived at the Commission offices no later than 5:00 p.m. on December 17, 2019.

BACKGROUND/OVERVIEW In 2018, after researching challenges faces by the Commission, and several rounds of interviews and de- liberations, the Commission’s Ad Hoc Committee on Governance found that “the Commission’s governance challenges are persistent;” “the Commission has strug- gled with integrating the full commission, including part−time commissioners, into its oversight and man- agement;” and the “governance practices, ever since these were adopted in writing by the full Commission, have not been consistently observed over time.” Addressing these concerns, at the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee, the Commission adopted a se- ries of regulations establishing governance principles for the Commission.

Adopted in June 2018, Regula- tions 18308 through 18308.3 establish:  The scope of authority for the Commission, Commission Chair, and Executive Director. 1 The Political Reform Act is contained in Government Code sec- tions 81000 through 91014. All further statutory references are to the Government Code.

The regulations of the Fair Political Prac- tices Commission are contained in sections 18110 through 18997 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations (hereafter Regulation).  The delegation and allocation of duties to and between the Commission Chair and Executive Director.  Standing advisory committees. REGULATORY ACTION Amend or Repeal 2 Cal. Code Reg. Sections 18308 through 18308.3. The Commission will broadly examine the scope and effectiveness of the provisions adopted in June 2018.

With the additional insight of more than a year of expe- rience operating under the current governance princi- pals, the Commission may consider any issues still per- taining to the governance of the Commission, as well as any successes and deficiencies in the current regula- tions. The Commission may act to amend or repeal Reg- ulations 18308 through 18308.3. Adopt 2 Cal. Code Reg. Sections 18308.4.

The Commission will examine its review and ap- proval of the Commission’s budget, including but not limited to the adoption of a regulation establishing the Commission’s policy and procedures for the adoption of the Commission’s budget and budget change process. SCOPE The Commission may adopt the language noticed herein, choose new language to implement its decisions concerning the issues identified above or any related is- sues, or act to repeal current Regulations 18308 through 18308.3. FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT Fiscal Impact on Local Government.

This regulation will have no fiscal impact on any local entity or program. Fiscal Impact on State Government. This regulation will have no fiscal impact on any state entity or program. Fiscal Impact on Federal Funding of State Programs. This regulation will have no fiscal impact on the federal funding of any state program or entity. AUTHORITY Government Code

Section 83112 provides that the Fair Political Practices Commission may adopt, amend, and rescind rules and regulations to carry out the pur- poses and provisions of the Political Reform Act. 1551

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 46-Z REFERENCE The purpose of this regulation is to implement, inter- pret, and make specific Government Code Sections 83108, 83111 and 83117. CONTACT Any inquiries should be made to Dave Bainbridge, General Counsel, Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sacramento, CA 95811; tele- phone (916) 322−5660 or 1−866−ASK−FPPC. Pro- posed regulatory language can be accessed at http://www.fppc.ca.gov/the−law/fppc−regulations/ proposed−regulations−and−notices.html. TITLE 2.

FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Fair Political Practices Commission, pursuant to the authority vested in it by Sections 82011, 87303, and 87304 of the Gov- ernment Code to review proposed conflict−of−interest codes, will review the proposed/amended conflict−of−interest codes of the following: CONFLICT−OF−INTEREST CODES AMENDMENT STATE AGENCY: Department of Education Air Resources Board A written comment period has been established com- mencing on November 15, 2019 and closing on Decem- ber 30, 2019.

Written comments should be directed to the Fair Political Practices Commission, Attention Bri- anne Kilbane, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sacramento, California 95811. At the end of the 45−day comment period, the pro- posed conflict−of−interest code(

s) will be submitted to the Commission’s Executive Director for his review, unless any interested person or his or her duly autho- rized representative requests, no later than 15 days prior to the close of the written comment period, a public hearing before the full Commission. If a public hearing is requested, the proposed code(

s) will be submitted to the Commission for review. The Executive Director of the Commission will re- view the above−referenced conflict−of−interest code(s), proposed pursuant to Government Code Sec- tion 87300, which designate, pursuant to Government Code

Section 87302, employees who must disclose cer- tain investments, interests in real property and income. The Executive Director of the Commission, upon his or its own motion or at the request of any interested per- son, will approve, or revise and approve, or return the proposed code(

s) to the agency for revision and re−submission within 60 days without further notice. Any interested person may present statements, argu- ments or comments, in writing to the Executive Direc- tor of the Commission, relative to review of the pro- posed conflict−of−interest code(s). Any written com- ments must be received no later than December 30, 2019. If a public hearing is to be held, oral comments may be presented to the Commission at the hearing.

COST TO LOCAL AGENCIES There shall be no reimbursement for any new or in- creased costs to local government which may result from compliance with these codes because these are not new programs mandated on local agencies by the codes since the requirements described herein were mandated by the Political Reform Act of 1974. Therefore, they are not “costs mandated by the state” as defined in Govern- ment Code

Section 17514. EFFECT ON HOUSING COSTS AND BUSINESSES Compliance with the codes has no potential effect on housing costs or on private persons, businesses or small businesses. AUTHORITY Government Code Sections 82011, 87303 and 87304 provide that the Fair Political Practices Commission as the code−reviewing body for the above conflict−of−interest codes shall approve codes as sub- mitted, revise the proposed code and approve it as re- vised, 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 Re- form Act and amend their codes when change is neces- sitated by changed circumstances. CONTACT Any inquiries concerning the proposed conflict−of− interest code(

s) should be made to Brianne Kilbane, Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q Street, 1552

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 46-Z Suite 3000, Sacramento, California 95811, telephone (916) 322−5660. A V AILABILITY OF PROPOSED CONFLICT−OF−INTEREST CODES Copies of the proposed conflict−of−interest codes may be obtained from the Commission offices or the re- spective agency. Requests for copies from the Commis- sion should be made to Brianne Kilbane, Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sacramento, California 95811, telephone (916) 322−5660. TITLE 2.

FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Fair Political Practices Commission (the Commission), under the au- thority vested in it under the Political Reform Act (the Act) 1 by

Section 83112 of the Government Code, pro- poses to adopt, amend, or repeal regulations in Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations. The Commission will consider the proposed regulation at a public hearing on or after December 19, 2019, at the of- fices of the Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sacramento, California, commenc- ing at approximately 10:00 a.m. Written comments should be received at the Commission offices no later than 5:00 p.m. on December 17, 2019. BACKGROUND/OVERVIEW Governing Statutes.

The Act’s conflict−of−interest provisions ensure that public officials perform their du- ties in an impartial manner, free from bias caused by their own financial interests or the financial interests of persons who have supported them.

Section 87100 pro- hibits an official from using his official position to in- fluence a governmental decision in which he knows or has reason to know he has a financial interest. Under

Section 87103, an official has a financial interest in a decision within the meaning of

Section 87100 if it is “reasonably foreseeable” that the decision will have a “material financial effect” on the official’s personal fi- nances or those of immediate family. 1 The Political Reform Act is contained in Government Code Sec- tions 81000 through 91014. All statutory references are to the Government Code, unless otherwise indicated. The regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission are contained in Sections 18110 through 18997 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regula- tions. All regulatory references are to Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations, unless otherwise indicated. Existing Regulation. Regulation 18702.5(

a) pro- vides that a “personal financial effect” means a govern- mental decision’s reasonably foreseeable financial ef- fect on a public official’s personal finances or those of immediate family. That subdivision also sets forth the materiality standard applicable to such an effect, and provides the effect is material if the official or his or her immediate family “will receive a measurable financial benefit or loss from the decision.” Regulation 18702.5(

b) provides that a “personal fi- nancial effect” does not include certain specified finan- cial effects of governmental decisions on an official’s personal finances or those of immediate family. Regu- lation 18702.5(

c) provides that if the decision at issue affects the official’s financial interest in a business or real property, materiality is determined pursuant to Regulation 18702.1, applicable to a decision’s effect on an official’s business interest, or Regulation 18702.2, applicable to a decision’s effect on an official’s real property interest, respectively. REGULATORY ACTION Repeal and Adopt 2 Cal. Code Regs.

Section 18702.5 — Materiality Standard: Financial Interests in a Personal Financial Effect. Repeal and Adoption of Regulation 18702.5. The Commission may consider all provisions of existing Regulation 18702.5, the repeal of existing Regulation 18702.5, and the adoption of a proposed new Regula- tion 18702.5.

At a minimum, Commission staff antici- pates proposing the following:  The update of Regulation 18702.5’s materiality standard applicable to a personal financial effect for improved clarity and guidance to make that standard an objective, bright−line standard, met when a decision would have a personal financial effect worth $500 or more rather than when “the official or the official’s immediate family member will receive a measurable financial benefit or loss from the decision.”  The recasting of Regulation 18702.5(b)’s exceptions for improved clarity and guidance, so that they are exceptions to when personal financial effect is material rather than when such an effect is a personal financial effect.  The express reestablishment of an exception to subdivision (a)’s materiality standard for a decision which affects only the salary, per diem, or reimbursement for expenses the official or an immediate family member receives from a federal, state, or local government agency, except in specified circumstances.  The reframing of Regulation 18702.5(c), which provides that materiality is determined pursuant to 1553

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 46-Z Regulation 18702.1 when the decision at issue affects the official’s business interest, or pursuant to Regulation 18702.2 when the decision affects the official’s real property interest, for improved clarity and guidance. SCOPE The Commission may adopt the language noticed herein, or it may choose new language to implement its decisions concerning the issues identified above or any related issues. FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT Fiscal Impact on Local Government. This regulation will have no fiscal impact on any local entity or program.

Fiscal Impact on State Government. This regulation will have no fiscal impact on any state entity or program. Fiscal Impact on Federal Funding of State Programs. This regulation will have no fiscal impact on the federal funding of any state entity or program. AUTHORITY

Section 83112 provides that the Fair Political Prac- tices Commission may adopt, amend, and rescind rules and regulations to carry out the purposes and provisions of the Act. REFERENCE Sections 87100, 87102.5, 87102.6, 87102.8, and 87103. CONTACT Any inquiries should be made to Matthew F. Christy, Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q St., Suite 3000, Sacramento, CA 95811; telephone (916) 322−5660 or 1−866−ASK−FPPC. Proposed regulatory language can be accessed at http://www.fppc. ca.gov/ the−law/fppc−regulations/proposed−regulations−and− notices.html. TITLE 2.

FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Fair Political Practices Commission (the Commission), under the au- thority vested in it under the Political Reform Act (the Act)1 by

Section 83112 of the Government Code, pro- poses to adopt, amend, or repeal regulations in Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations. The Commission will consider the proposed regulation at a public hearing on or after December 19, 2019, at the of- fices of the Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sacramento, California, commenc- ing at approximately 10:00 a.m. Written comments should be received at the Commission offices no later than 5:00 p.m. on December 17, 2019. BACKGROUND/OVERVIEW Governing Statutes.

The Act’s conflict−of−interest provisions ensure that public officials perform their du- ties in an impartial manner, free from bias caused by their own financial interests or the financial interests of persons who have supported them.

Section 87100 pro- hibits a public official from using his official position to influence a governmental decision in which he knows or has reason to know he has a financial interest. Under

Section 87103(c), a public official has a financial inter- est in a decision within the meaning of

Section 87100 if it is “reasonably foreseeable” that the decision will have a “material financial effect” on the certain enumerated interests including “[a]ny donor of, or any intermediary or agent for a donor of, a gift or gifts aggregating [five hundred dollars ($500)] or more in value provided to, received by, or promised to the public official within 12 months prior to the time when the decision is made.” Existing Regulation. Regulation 18702.4 provides the materiality standards for interests in sources of gifts. When the source of a gift is a nonprofit organization, Regulation 18702.4(

c) provides that the financial effect of a governmental decision on that nonprofit is material if the organization “will receive a measurable financial benefit or loss, or the official knows or has reason to know that the nonprofit has an interest in real property that will be financially affected under the standards ap- plied to a financial interest in Regulation 18702.2 . . .” REGULATORY ACTION Amend 2 Cal. Code Regs.

Section 18702.4 — Materiality Standard: Financial Interest in Source of Gift Amendments to Regulation 18702.4. The Commis- sion may consider amendment to all provisions of cur- 1 The Political Reform Act is contained in Government Code Sec- tions 81000 through 91014. All statutory references are to the Government Code, unless otherwise indicated. The regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission are contained in Sections 18110 through 18997 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regula- tions. All regulatory references are to Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations, unless otherwise indicated. 1554

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 46-Z rent Regulation 18702.4, including, but not limited to, the appropriate materiality standards for economic in- terests in sources of gifts.

At a minimum, Commission staff anticipates proposing the amendment of subdivi- sion (c), pertaining to nonprofit sources of gifts, such that a financial effect on a nonprofit source of income would be considered material if “[t]he source is a non- profit organization that will be financially affected un- der the materiality standards applied to a nonprofit source of income interest in Regulation 18702.3 . . .” SCOPE The Commission may adopt the language noticed herein, or it may choose new language to implement its decisions concerning the issues identified above or any related issues.

FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT Fiscal Impact on Local Government. This regulation will have no fiscal impact on any local entity or program. Fiscal Impact on State Government. This regulation will have no fiscal impact on any state entity or program. Fiscal Impact on Federal Funding of State Programs. This regulation will have no fiscal impact on the federal funding of any state entity or program. AUTHORITY

Section 83112 provides that the Fair Political Prac- tices Commission may adopt, amend, and rescind rules and regulations to carry out the purposes and provisions of the Act. REFERENCE Sections 87100, 87102.5, 87102.6, 87102.8 and 87103. CONTACT Any inquiries should be made to Kevin Cornwall, Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q St., Suite 3000, Sacramento, CA 95811; telephone (916) 322−5660 or 1−866−ASK−FPPC. Proposed regulatory language can be accessed at http://www.fppc. ca.gov/ the−law/fppc−regulations/proposed−regulations−and− notices.html. TITLE 4.

CALIFORNIA HORSE RACING BOARD The California Horse Racing Board (Board/CHRB) proposes to add the regulation described below after considering all comments, objections or recommenda- tions regarding the proposed action. PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION The Board proposes to add Rule 1868, Authorized Medication During Workouts. The proposed regulation would place restrictions on the use of local anesthetics, narcotic analgesics, and non−steroidal anti− inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for horses completing timed workouts.

The proposed regulation provides that no person shall administer a local anesthetic or narcotic analgesic to any horse within 24 hours of a timed work- out, and that not more than one approved NSAID may be detected in an official test sample taken from a horse after it completes a timed workout.

The regulation sets levels for NSAIDs in official test samples taken from horses after a timed workout and provides that if a test sample contains authorized NSAIDs more than allowed levels, the Official Veterinarian shall work with the vet- erinarian who administered or prescribed the substance to establish a dosage amount or time of administration that will comply with the limits of Rule 1868. The pro- posed regulation provides that if a test sample is taken from a horse after a timed workout, the penalty provi- sions of

Article 15 shall apply in the same manner as to a scheduled race. Rule 1868 provides a definition of “timed workout.” PUBLIC HEARING The Board will hold a public hearing starting at 9:30 a.m., Thursday, January 23, 2020 or as soon after that as business before the Board will permit, at the Santa Anita Park Race Track, 285 Huntington Drive, Ar- cadia, California . At the hearing, any person may present statements or arguments orally or in writing about the proposed action described in the informative digest.

It is requested, but not required, that persons making oral comments at the hearing submit a written copy of their testimony. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any interested persons, or their authorized represen- tative, may submit written comments about the pro- posed regulatory action to the Board. The written com- ment period closes on December 30, 2019. The Board must receive all comments at that time; however, writ- 1555

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 46-Z ten comments may still be submitted at the public hear- ing. Submit comments to: Harold Coburn, Regulation Analyst California Horse Racing Board 1010 Hurley Way, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 263−6026 Fax: (916) 263−6022 E−Mail: haroldc@chrb.ca.gov AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Authority: Sections 19440, 19562, and 19580, Busi- ness and Professions Code. Reference:

Section 19580, Business and Professions Code. Business and Professions Code sections 19440, 19562, and 19580, authorize the Board to adopt the pro- posed regulation, which would implement, interpret or make specific

section 19580, Business and Professions Code. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW Business and Professions Code

section 19440 pro- vides that the Board shall have all powers necessary and proper to enable it to carry out fully and effectually the purposes of this chapter. Responsibilities of the Board shall include adopting rules and regulations for the pro- tection of the public and the control of horse racing and pari−mutuel wagering. Business and Professions Code

section 19562 states the Board may prescribe rules, reg- ulations and conditions under which all horse races with wagering on their results shall be conducted in Califor- nia. Business and Professions Code

section 19580 re- quires the Board to adopt regulations to establish poli- cies, guidelines, and penalties relating to equine medi- cation to preserve and enhance the integrity of horse racing in California. The CHRB currently conducts a post−race testing program intended to prevent and detect the unautho- rized use of certain medications and drug substances during horse races. The purpose of the program is twofold: to guard the health and welfare of horse and rider, and to ensure the integrity of horse racing in this State to protect participating licensees and the wagering public.

To date, however, the industry has gone without similar protections when horses complete timed work- outs at licensed racing facilities 1.

The proposed addi- 1 The exception is that a horse required to complete a timed work- out for removal from the V eterinarian’s List is subject to the same medication restrictions as a horse participating in a race, pursuant to CHRB Rule 1866(e). tion of Rule 1868 is intended to address this issue by es- tablishing restrictions on the use of local anesthetics, narcotic analgesics, and non−steroidal anti− inflammatory drug substances (NSAID) for horses en- gaging in timed workouts.

A primary purpose of the Board’s drug testing pro- gram is to prevent horses from being administered med- ications and other substances that could increase the likelihood of them becoming injured during a race. These same risks exist, however, during timed work- outs. In a timed workout, a horse will run at full speed or near full speed, meaning the same concerns about cer- tain medications increasing the chance of injury during a race are equally applicable.

One such medication is NSAIDs, which are typically used to treat muscu- loskeletal and inflammatory processes in horses but can also mask a horse’s pain when used in excess. Such use potentially allows horses to train and race while injured and before they are fully healed. Masking a horse’s con- dition with medications has the potential to obscure lameness and cause additional injuries to occur. Using pain−masking medications before a horse is fully healed can place a horse at a higher risk for breakdown, which can cause injury to horse and rider.

Local anes- thetics and narcotic analgesics can have similar masking−effects by deadening or reducing pain from an injury. The ability to detect signs of inflammation and/ or lameness is critical for trainers, jockeys and other li- censees to detect injuries, and prevent injured horses from training. Another purpose of the CHRB’s post−race testing program is to ensure that the horse’s performance is not enhanced, hindered, or altered using unauthorized med- ications and other substances.

Such efforts can give horses an unfair advantage or disadvantage in a race, which not only may impact the jockeys riding in the race, but other trainers and owners with competing horses. The use of unauthorized medications and other substances also defrauds the wagering public. Similar fraud can also result when the timed workout perfor- mance of a horse is enhanced, hindered, or altered. Many handicappers rely on the past performance of horses to determine what they predict the order of finish will be in a race.

Past performances often include the re- sults of timed workouts, which means when these work- outs are altered by the overuse of pain−masking medi- cations the wagering public is deceived regarding the true condition of the horse and its natural skill and abili- ty over time. Subsection 1868(

a) provides that no person shall ad- minister a local anesthetic or narcotic analgesic to any horse within 24 hours of a timed workout, nor shall any horse participating in a timed workout carry in its body any local anesthetic or narcotic analgesic. Local anes- thetics are substances that induce insensitivity to pain; 1556

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 46-Z narcotic analgesics are drugs used to treat pain. It is nec- essary to prohibit the use of such substances in horses participating in timed workouts to prevent injury in horses with pre−existing conditions that may be run- ning before they are fully healed, to protect the health of horse and rider, and to ensure the results of the timed workout is not altered.

The 24−hour period is consistent with the provisions of Board Rule 1844, Authorized Medication, which provides that no drug substance, other than an authorized bleeder medication, shall be administered to a horse within 24 hours of the race in which it is entered. After 24 hours of administration, the local anesthetic or narcotic analgesic should no longer be active. Subsection 1868(

b) provides that not more than one approved NSAID may be detected in an official test sample taken from a horse after it completes a timed workout. This provision is consistent with Board Rule 1844, Authorized Medication, which provides that not more than one approved NSAID may be administered to a horse that is entered to race. Subsection 1868(

b) is necessary to prevent concurrent and excessive adminis- trations of NSAIDs. While NSAIDs can improve heal- ing and recovery from injury, they can also inhibit the effects of the natural healing process, including swelling and associated pain that would prevent a horse from sustaining further injury. Using more that one NSAID, or “stacking” NSAIDs, can pose a threat to equine health and welfare. Using two or more NSAIDs at a time can put the horse at increased risk of complica- tions, including colic, protein loss, diarrhea, gastric ul- cers, colitis and kidney damage.

Some complications, such as gastric ulcerations are performance limiting, while others can be life−threatening. Regular adminis- tration of NSAIDs to horses in active training can mask the signs of musculoskeletal injury, making it difficult for trainers to accurately assess the soundness of a horse during and following exercise. Subsections 1868(b)(1) through (b)(3) provide a list- ing of approved NSAIDs, and the levels of the sub- stances that may be present in an official test sample taken from a horse after it completes a timed workout.

The approved NSAIDs, phenylbutazone, flunixin and ketoprofen are consistent with the NSAIDs allowed un- der Board Rule 1844. The levels that may be present in an official test sample, however, differ from those in Rule 1844, which allow for a 24−hour administration. Rule 1868 provides for allowed levels of NSAIDs con- sistent with a 48−hour administration. The allowed lev- els under Rule 1868 are in line with protocols instituted in 2019 by The Stronach Group (TSG) at Golden Gate Fields and Santa Anita Park Race Track.

The TSG con- ditions are the result of an agreement between TSG and the Thoroughbred Owners of California, which is in- tended to monitor the horse population and enhance racing safety. Under the TSG protocols, all horses that perform a workout are subject to TSG administered post−work blood testing. The 48−hour administration is also consistent with the Association of Racing Com- missioners International (ARCI) Model Rules of Racing. Subsection 1868(b)(4) states metabolites or ana- logues of approved NSAIDs may be present in test sam- ples collected after a timed workout.

This provision is consistent with Rule 1844(c)(4), which provides that metabolites or analogues of approved NSAIDs may be present in an official post−race test sample. A metabo- lite results when a drug is metabolized by the body into a modified form and continues to produce effects on the body. Usually these effects are like those of the parent drug but weaker. An analog is a compound having a structure like that of another compound but differing from it in respect to a certain component. Subsection 1868(

c) provides that if a blood test sam- ple collected from a horse after it completes a timed workout contains an authorized NSAID in excess of the limit for that drug under Rule 1868, the official veteri- narian shall work with the veterinarian who adminis- tered or prescribed the NSAID to establish a dosage amount or time of administration that will comply with the limits under the rule. The intent of Rule 1868 is pri- marily to ensure that California’s race horses train and work without excess levels of medication in their sys- tems.

Current testing of horses performing timed work- outs has demonstrated that most horsemen and private veterinarians comply with the Board’s medication reg- ulations. Subsection 1868(

c) provides an opportunity for the official veterinarian to work with horsemen and private veterinarians to correct NSAID overages. If, however, the official veterinarian determines no dosage amount or change in time of administration will result in a test sample level within the limits of Rule 1868, withdrawal of authorization for use of any one NSAID may occur. Subsection 1868(

d) provides that if a blood and/or urine test sample is taken from a horse after a timed workout, the penalty provisions of

Article 15 shall ap- ply in the same manner as to a scheduled race. The CHRB currently provides a post−race testing program intended to prevent and detect the unauthorized use of certain medications and drug substances during horse races. The program is intended to guard the health and welfare of horse and rider, to ensure the integrity of horse racing in this State, and to protect participating li- censees and the wagering public. The industry, howev- er, has gone without similar protections when horses complete timed workouts at licensed racing facilities. Subsection 1868(

d) will address the issue by allowing the Board to apply the penalty provisions of

Article 15. The subsection is consistent with Rule 1866, which ap- 1557

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 46-Z plies the provisions of

Article 15 to horses performing workouts to be removed from the Veterinarian’s List. Subsection 1868(

e) provides a definition of “timed workout” for purposes of clarity. POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW OF ANTICIPATED BENEFITS OF PROPOSAL The proposed addition of Rule 1868 promotes the safety and welfare of all horses participating in timed workouts, as well as CHRB licensees who ride horse performing such workouts. The proposed amendment will also protect the wagering public.

The regulation provides that local anesthetics or narcotic analgesics shall not be administered to any horse within 24 hours of a timed workout, and that not more than one ap- proved NSAID may be detected in an official test sam- ple taken from a horse after it completes a timed work- out. The proposed addition of Rule 1868 will establish restrictions on the use of local anesthetics, narcotic analgesics, and NSAID for horses engaging in timed workouts.

The proposed regulation will act to prevent horses from being administered medications and other substances that could increase the likelihood of them becoming injured during timed workouts. In a timed workout, a horse will run at or near full speed, meaning the same concerns about certain medications increasing the chance of injury to horse and rider during a race are equally applicable. When the timed workout perfor- mance of a horse is enhanced or hindered, the wagering public is defrauded.

Many handicappers rely on the past performance of horses to determine what they predict the order of finish will be in a race. Past performances often include the results of timed workouts, which means when these workouts are altered by the overuse of pain−masking medications the wagering public is de- ceived regarding the true condition of the horse and its natural skill and ability. Rule 1868 will help to ensure that timed workouts accurately reflect the true condi- tion and ability of the horse.

CONSISTENCY EV ALUATION During the process of developing the proposed regu- lation, the Board has conducted a search of any similar regulations on this topic and has concluded that the reg- ulation is neither inconsistent nor incompatible with ex- isting state regulations. DISCLOSURE REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACTION/RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Mandate on local agencies and school districts: none. Cost or savings to any state agency: none. Cost to any local agency or school district that must be reimbursed in accordance with Government Code Sections 17500 through 17630: none.

Other non−discretionary costs or savings imposed upon local agencies: none. Cost or savings in federal funding to the state: none. The Board has made an initial determination that the proposed addition of Rule 1868 will not have a signifi- cant statewide adverse economic impact directly affect- ing businesses including the ability of California busi- nesses to compete with businesses in other states. The following studies/relevant data were relied upon in making the above determination: none. Cost impact on representative private persons or businesses: none.

The Board is not aware of any cost impacts that a rep- resentative private person or business would necessari- ly incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action. Significant effect on housing costs: none. RESULT OF ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS The adoption of the proposed regulation will not (1) create or eliminate jobs within California; (2) create new businesses or eliminate existing businesses within California; or (3) affect the expansion of businesses currently doing business within California.

The pro- posed addition of Rule 1868 promotes the health and welfare of equine athletes, the health and welfare of ex- ercise riders and jockeys, and will protect the wagering public. The proposed regulation will act to prevent horses from being administered medications and other substances that could increase the likelihood of them becoming injured during timed workouts. When a horse works under the influence of medications that mask its condition, the likelihood of a breakdown and injury to horse and rider increases.

Additionally, when the per- formance of a horse is enhanced, or hindered, the wa- gering public is defrauded. Many horse racing fans use the past performance of horses to determine what they predict the order of finish will be in a race. When timed workouts are altered by the use of pain−masking medi- cations the wagering public is deceived regarding the true condition of the horse and its ability. Rule 1868 will help to ensure that timed workouts accurate reflect the true condition and ability of the horse. The proposed ad- dition of Rule 1868 will not benefit California’s environment.

Effect on small businesses: none. The proposal to add Rule 1868 does not affect small businesses because horse racing is not a small business under Government Code

Section 11342.610. 1558

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 46-Z CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES In accordance with Government Code

Section 11346.5, subdivision (a)(13), the Board must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the Board, or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the Board, would be more effective in car- rying out the purpose for which the action is proposed, or would be as effective and less burdensome on 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 provision of law.

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

CONTACT PERSON Inquiries concerning the substance of the proposed action and requests for copies of the proposed text of the regulations, the initial statement of reasons, the modi- fied text of the regulations, if any, and other information upon which the rulemaking is based should be directed to: Harold Coburn, Regulation Analyst California Horse Racing Board 1010 Hurley Way, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 263−6026 E−mail: hcoburn@chrb.ca.gov If the person named above is not available, interested parties may contact: Amanda Drummond, Manager Policy and Regulations Telephone: (916) 263−6033 A V AILABILITY OF INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS AND TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATION The Board will have the entire rulemaking file avail- able for inspection and copying throughout the rule- making process at its offices at the above address.

As of the date this notice is published in the Notice Register, the rulemaking file consists of this notice, the proposed text of the regulation, and the initial statement of rea- sons. Copies may be obtained by contacting Harold Coburn, or the alternative contact person at the address, phone number or e−mail address listed above. A V AILABILITY OF MODIFIED TEXT After holding a hearing and considering all timely and relevant comments received, the Board may adopt the proposed regulation substantially as described in this notice.

If modifications are made which are suffi- ciently related to the originally proposed text, the modi- fied text, with changes clearly marked, shall be made available to the public for at least 15 days prior to the date on which the Board adopts the regulations. Re- quests for copies of any modified regulation should be sent to the attention of Harold Coburn at the address stated above. The Board will accept written comments on the modified regulation for 15 days after the date on which it is made available.

A V AILABILITY OF STATEMENT OF REASONS Requests for copies of the final statement of reasons, which will be made available after the Board has adopt- ed the proposed regulation in its current or modified form, should be sent to the attention of Harold Coburn at the address stated above. BOARD WEB ACCESS The Board will have the entire rulemaking file avail- able for inspection throughout the rulemaking process at its website. The rulemaking file consists of the notice, the proposed text of the regulation and the initial state- ment of reasons. The Board’s website address is: www.chrb.ca.gov. TITLE 11.

COMMISSION ON PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING Notice is hereby given that the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) proposes to amend regulations in Division 2 of Title 11 of the Cali- fornia Code of Regulations as described below in the In- formative Digest. A public hearing is not scheduled. Pursuant to Government Code section11346.8, any in- terested person, or his/her duly authorized representa- tive, may request a public hearing. POST must receive the written request no later than 15 days prior to the close of the public comment period.

PUBLIC COMMENTS DUE BY DECEMBER 30, 2019 Notice is also given that any interested person, or au- thorized representative, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action by fax at (916) 227−6932 or by letter to: Commission on POST Attn: Cheryl Smith 860 Stillwater Road, Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95605−1630 1559

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 46-Z AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE This proposal is made pursuant to the authority vest- ed by Penal Code

section 13503 (authority of Commis- sion on POST) and Penal Code

section 13506 (POST authority to adopt regulations). This proposal is intend- ed to interpret, implement, and make specific Penal Code section13503(

e) which authorizes POST to de- velop and implement programs to increase the effec- tiveness of law enforcement, including programs in- volving training and education courses. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW Penal Code

section 13510 requires that POST devel- op guidelines and a course of instruction and training for law enforcement officers who are employed as peace officers, or who are not yet employed as a peace officer but are enrolled in a training academy for law en- forcement officers. This proposed action will update the incorporated by reference document, Training and Testing Specifications for Peace Officer Basic Courses (revised 4/1/2020), to include principled policing, im- plicit and explicit bias, de−escalation, strategic commu- nication, and additional content to First Aid.

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

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

The completed work of all com- mittees is presented to the POST Commission for final review and adoption. Upon adoption of the proposed amendments, academies and course presenters will be required to teach and test the updated curriculum. The proposed effective date is April 1, 2020. DOCUMENT INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE Training and Testing Specifications for Peace Officer Basic Courses, revised 4/1/2020.

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

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

ESTIMATE OF ECONOMIC IMPACT Fiscal Impact on Public Agencies including Costs or Savings to State Agencies or Costs/Savings in Federal Funding to the State: None. Non−Discretionary Costs/Savings to Local Agen- cies: None. Local Mandate: None. Costs to any Local Agency or School District Affect- ing Government Code

section 17500−17630 requires reimbursement: None. Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Di- rectly Affecting California Businesses, including Small Business: The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training has made an initial determination that the amended regulations will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting California business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states.

The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Train- ing has found that the proposed amendments will not af- fect California businesses, including small businesses, because the Commission sets selection and training standards for law enforcement which does not impact California businesses, including small businesses. Affect on Housing Costs: The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training has made an initial de- termination that the proposed regulations would have no affect on housing costs. 1560

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 46-Z RESULTS OF ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT PER GOVERNMENT CODE

SECTION 11346.3(

b) The adoption of the proposed amendments of regula- tions will neither create, nor eliminate, jobs in the State of California, nor result in the elimination of existing businesses or create, or expand, businesses in the State of California. The proposed amendments of regulations will in- crease the effectiveness of law enforcement standards for peace officers in preserving peace, protection of public health and safety, and welfare of California. There would be no impact that would affect worker safety or the state’s environment.

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

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

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

TEXT OF PROPOSAL Individuals may request copies of the exact language of the proposed regulations and of the initial statement of reasons, and the information the proposal is based upon, from the Commission on POST at 860 Stillwater Road, Suite 100, West Sacramento, CA 95605−1630. These documents are also located on the POST Website. A V AILABILITY AND LOCATION OF THE RULEMAKING FILE AND THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS The rulemaking file contains all information upon which POST is basing this proposal and is available for public inspection by contacting the person(

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

s) named above. TITLE 15. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabili- tation (CDCR or the Department), proposes to amend sections 3492 and 3493 of Title 15, Division 3, Sub-

chapter 5.5,

Article 1, and amend sections 2449.3, 2449.4, 2449.5, 2449.6, and 2449.7, and repeal

section 2449.2, of Title 15, Division 2,

Chapter 3,

Article 15, re- garding Supplemental Reforms to Parole Consideration for Determinately−Sentenced Nonviolent Offenders. PUBLIC HEARING Date and Time: January 7, 2020 — 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Place: Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Conference Room 100N 1515 S Street — North Building Sacramento, CA 95811 Purpose: To receive comments about this action. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD The public comment period begins November 15, 2019 and closes on January 7, 2020 at 5:00 p.m.

Any person may submit written comments by mail ad- dressed to the primary contact person listed below, or by e−mail to rpmb@cdcr.ca.gov, before the close of the comment period. For questions regarding the subject matter of the regulations, call the program contact per- son listed below. 1561

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 46-Z CONTACT PERSONS Primary Contact Josh Jugum Telephone: (916) 445−2266 Regulation and Policy Management Branch P.O. Box 942883 Sacramento, CA 94283−0001 Back−Up Y. Sun Telephone: (916) 445−2269 Regulation and Policy Management Branch P.O. Box 942883 Sacramento, CA 94283−0001 AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE In California, adopting, amending, or repealing a reg- ulation requires an express grant of authority in law. As stated in Government Code

section 11349, subdivision (b), “ ‘Authority’ means the provision of law which permits or obligates the agency to adopt, amend, or re- peal a regulation.” Ordinarily, the authority to adopt, amend, or repeal regulations in Division 3 of Title 15 (“Adult Institu- tions, Programs and Parole”) is found in Penal Code

section 5058, subdivision (a): “The [Secretary] may prescribe and amend rules and regulations for the ad- ministration of the prisons . . .” The authority to do the same in Division 2 of Title 15 (“Board of Parole Hear- ings”) is found in Penal Code

section 3052, which states, “The Board of Parole Hearings shall have the power to establish and enforce rules and regulations un- der which inmates committed to state prisons may be al- lowed to go upon parole outside the prison buildings and enclosures when eligible for parole.” With the passage of Proposition 57, The Public Safe- ty and Rehabilitation Act of 2016 (“the Act”),

Article 1 of the California Constitution was amended to include

section 32, subdivision (b), which states, “The Depart- ment of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall adopt reg- ulations in furtherance of these provisions, and the Sec- retary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilita- tion shall certify that these regulations protect and en- hance public safety.” Accordingly, the Secretary has been granted broad authority under the California Con- stitution to adopt, amend, or repeal regulations in fur- therance of the goals of the Act and hereby invokes that provision of law in support of this rulemaking action and affirmatively certifies that these regulations do pro- tect and enhance public safety.

Moreover, as noted above, the court in In re McGhee ordered the Depart- ment to repeal portions of

section 3492 of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations and to make any further conforming changes necessary to effectuate the court’s decision. Government Code

Section 12838.5 provides that commencing July 1, 2005, CDCR succeeds to, and is vested with, all the powers, functions, duties, responsi- bilities, obligations, liabilities, and jurisdiction of abol- ished predecessor entities, such as: Department of Cor- rections, Department of the Youth Authority, and Board of Corrections. Penal Code (PC)

Section 5000 provides that com- mencing July 1, 2005, any reference to Department of Corrections in this or any code, refers to the CDCR, Di- vision of Adult Operations. PC

Section 5050 provides that commencing July 1, 2005, any reference to the Director of Corrections in this or any other code, refers to the Secretary of the CDCR. As of that date, the office of the Director of Cor- rections is abolished. PC

Section 5054 provides that commencing July 1, 2005, the supervision, management, and control of the State prisons, and the responsibility for the care, cus- tody, treatment, training, discipline, and employment of persons confined therein are vested in the Secretary of the CDCR. PC

Section 5055 provides that commencing July 1, 2005, all powers and duties previously granted to and imposed upon the Department of Corrections shall be exercised by the Secretary of the CDCR. PC

Section 5058 authorizes the Director to prescribe and amend rules and regulations for the administration of prisons and for the administration of the parole of persons.

INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW Following the publication on April 19, 2019, of No- tice of Change to Regulations 19−02, concerning sup- plemental reforms to parole consideration for indeter- minately−sentenced inmates, the court found in the matter of In re McGhee (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 902, that regulations previously promulgated by CDCR estab- lishing the determinately−sentenced nonviolent parole process did not comport with the constitutional provi- sion they sought to implement.

Specifically, the court struck down the public safety screening process which allowed CDCR to screen out certain nonviolent offend- ers from referral to the Board for parole consideration under the Board’s determinately−sentenced nonviolent parole review. Therefore, CDCR and the Board determined that amendments to these regulations are necessary to re- 1562

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 46-Z move the public safety screening process and all other regulatory provisions related to CDCR’s screening of inmates for public safety reasons prior to referral to the Board. This rulemaking action will remove any process for CDCR to screen nonviolent offenders for public safety reasons prior to referral to the Board as well as the portion of the Board’s jurisdictional review process re- lated to confirming agreement with CDCR’s public safety screening results for a referred nonviolent offender.

This action will:  Repeal the public safety screening process prior to referring otherwise eligible inmates to the Board of Parole Hearings for parole consideration, consistent with the In re McGhee court ruling.  Repeal the Board’s jurisdictional review process. This process has been made obsolete by the repeal of the public safety screening process.  Establish a timeframe to ensure inmates who were determined to be ineligible under the now repealed public safety screening are reviewed again under the amended regulations.

Specific Benefits Anticipated By The Proposed Regulations The establishment of the nonviolent offender parole consideration process will make prisons and communi- ties safer by encouraging and motivating indeterminately−sentenced nonviolent offenders to participate in rehabilitative programs and service op- portunities that create skills and, employability. The proposed regulations establish rigorous screening crite- ria for inmates and notification procedures for regis- tered victims and prosecuting agencies.

Establishing screening criteria benefits public safety by excluding inmates who are more likely to pose a risk to the public and provides nonviolent offenders with substantial mo- tivation to avoid prison misconduct and focus on their rehabilitation. Establishing notification processes ben- efits public safety by ensuring that registered victims and prosecuting agencies, as well as other interested parties, have the opportunity to submit additional infor- mation regarding the nonviolent offender for the Board’s consideration.

Under the proposed regulations, the Board will review all relevant and reliable evidence, including an inmate’s full criminal history, institutional behavior, rehabilitative efforts, and statements from in- terested parties to determine whether the inmate poses a current unreasonable risk to public safety. This process will enhance public safety by motivating eligible in- mates to take responsibility for their own rehabilitation and work to prepare them to be productive members of the community upon their release.

EV ALUATION OF CONSISTENCY/COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING LAWS AND REGULATIONS The Department has determined the proposed regula- tions are not inconsistent or incompatible with existing State regulations. Pursuant to this determination and because the Act authorizes the Department to adopt reg- ulations “notwithstanding anything in this

article or any other provision of law” (Cal. Const., art. 1,

section 32, subd. (a)), the proposed regulations are not inconsistent or incompatible with any existing laws or regulations. LOCAL MANDATES This action imposes no mandates on local agencies or school districts, or a mandate which requires reim- bursement of costs or savings pursuant to Government Code Sections 17500−17630.

FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT  Cost to any local agency or school district that is required to be reimbursed: None.  Cost or savings to any state agency: Cost of $643,000 in fiscal year 2020−21, and ongoing cost will be $698,000.  Cost or savings in federal funding to the state: None.  Other nondiscretionary cost or savings imposed on local agencies: None. EFFECT ON HOUSING COSTS The Department has made an initial determination that the proposed action will have no effect on housing costs.

COST IMPACTS ON REPRESENTATIVE PRIV ATE PERSONS OR BUSINESSES The Department is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would nec- essarily incur in reasonable compliance with the pro- posed action. SIGNIFICANT STATEWIDE ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACT ON BUSINESS The Department has made an initial determination that the proposed regulations will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses, including the ability of California business- 1563

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 46-Z es to compete with businesses in other states, because private businesses are not significantly affected by the management of correctional facilities or the Board of Parole Hearings, or by technical changes to an inmate’s eligibility for parole consideration. EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESSES The Department has made an initial determination that the proposed regulations will not affect small busi- nesses.

It is determined that this action has no signifi- cant adverse economic impact on small business be- cause the proposed regulations affect the internal man- agement of the Department and the Board of Parole Hearings only, and place no requirements or restrictions on businesses. RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT The proposed regulations will create state jobs due to the additional parole reviews required by the Act. The Department and the Board have determined that addi- tional staff is necessary to conduct the additional review on the merits.

The Board is requesting 3.1 Administra- tive Law Judge and 0.5 Administrative Law Judge II positions starting August 1, 2019. This rulemaking action will have no impact on exist- ing businesses, the creation of new businesses, or the expansion of businesses currently doing business with- in the State of California.

The regulations enhance public safety by incentiviz- ing determinately−sentenced nonviolent offenders to avoid prison misconduct and focus on their rehabilita- tion by participating in rehabilitative programs and ser- vice opportunities that create skills and employability to prepare themselves to be productive members of the community upon their release.

This regulation also ben- efits public safety by ensuring that registered victims and prosecuting agencies, as well as other interested parties, have the opportunity to submit additional infor- mation regarding the nonviolent offender for the Board’s consideration.

CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES The Department must determine that no reasonable alternatives considered, or that have otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the Depart- ment and the Board would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which this action is proposed, would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the action proposed, or would be more cost−effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing and equally effective in im- plementing The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016.

A V AILABILITY OF PROPOSED TEXT AND INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS The Department has prepared and will make avail- able the text and the Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) of the proposed regulations. The rulemaking file for this regulatory action, which contains those items and all information on which the proposal is based (i.e., rulemaking file) is available to the public upon re- quest directed to the Department’s contact person. The proposed text, ISOR, and Notice of Proposed Action will also be made available on the Department’s web- site: www.cdcr.ca.gov.

A V AILABILITY OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Following its preparation, a copy of the Final State- ment of Reasons may be obtained from the Depart- ment’s contact person. A V AILABILITY OF CHANGES TO PROPOSED TEXT After considering all timely and relevant comments received, the Department may adopt the proposed regu- lations substantially as described in this Notice.

If the Department makes modifications which are sufficient- ly related to the originally proposed text, it will make the modified text, with the changes clearly indicated, available to the public for at least 15 days before the De- partment adopts, amends or repeals the regulations as revised. Requests for copies of any modified regulation text should be directed to the contact person indicated in this Notice. The Department will accept written com- ments on the modified regulations for at least 15 days after the date on which they are made available. TITLE 16.

PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT BOARD The Physician Assistant Board (board) proposes to adopt the proposed regulation described below after considering all comments, objections, and recommen- dations regarding the proposed action. PUBLIC HEARING The Board will hold a public hearing starting at 10:00 a.m. on January 13, 2020, in the Hearing Room locat- 1564

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 46-Z ed at 2005 Evergreen Street, Suite 1150A, Sacramento, California 95815. The Hearing Room is wheelchair ac- cessible. At the hearing, any person may present state- ments or arguments orally or in writing relevant to the proposed action described in the Informative Digest. The Board requests but does not require that persons who make oral comments at the hearing also submit a written copy of their testimony at the hearing.

WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any interested person, or his/her authorized repre- sentative, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action to the Board. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile (FAX) at (916) 263−2671 or by e−mail to anita.winslow@mbc.ca.gov. The written comment period closes at 5:00 p.m. on January 13, 2020. The Board will consider only com- ments received at the Board’s office by that time.

Sub- mit comments to: Anita Winslow, Regulatory Coordinator Physician Assistant Board 2005 Evergreen Street, Suite 1100 Sacramento, CA 95815−3893 AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Business and Professions Code sections 141, 480, 481, 482, 490, 493, 2018, and 3510 authorize the Board to adopt this proposed regulation. The proposed regula- tion implements, interprets, and makes specific sec- tions 141, 480, 481, 482, 488, 490, 493, 3527, 3530 and 3531 of the Business and Professions Code.

INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW The Physician Assistant Board (board) licenses physician assistants, who are health care practitioners that provide medical services under the supervision of a licensed physician and surgeon (Business and Profes- sions Code

section 3502). Existing law (Business and Professions Code sections 480 and 490) presently au- thorizes the board to deny an application for licensure or discipline a physician assistant based on a conviction for a crime or act substantially related to the licensed business or profession. Business and Professions Code

section 481 requires the board to develop criteria for de- termining whether a crime or act is substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of the physi- cian assistant profession. Business and Professions Code

section 482 requires the board to develop criteria to evaluate an applicant’s or licensee’s rehabilitation when considering the denial or discipline of a physician assistant license. Consistent with that authority, the board has adopted regulations that set forth its substan- tial relationship criteria and rehabilitation criteria for crimes or acts considered substantially related to quali- fications, functions, or duties of a physician assistant licensee.

Effective July 1, 2020, under the provisions of As- sembly Bill (AB) 2138 (Stats. 2018, ch. 995), the board’s existing authority to deny an applicant a license based upon a substantially related criminal conviction will significantly change. This proposal seeks to update the board’s current regulations consistent with this re- cently enacted legislation and to more accurately reflect the board’s authority to consider denials, discipline or petitions for reinstatement or modification of penalty. Effective July 1, 2020, Business and Professions Code

section 481(

b) will require the board’s existing substantial relationship criteria regulations to include all of the following:  the nature and gravity of the offense,  the number of years elapsed since the date of the offense, and  the nature and duties of the profession in which the applicant seeks licensure or in which the licensee is licensed. Further amendments to the board’s regulations will be needed to address other changes to law enacted by AB 2138. These proposed amendments include the ad- dition of references to “professional misconduct” as this will be considered a legal basis for denial under Business and Professions Code

section 480. The pro- posed language will also add references to discipline under Business and Professions Code

section 141 be- cause substantially related acts that are the basis for dis- cipline in another jurisdiction may be used to discipline a licensee under that section. In addition, the board pro- poses to add new rehabilitation criteria to help the board consider whether an applicant or licensee made a “showing of rehabilitation” as required by AB 2138 (Bus. and Prof. Code, sections 480, 482, as added by AB 2138, sections 4, 9).

This proposal will also implement changes to how the board considers rehabilitation evi- dence when considering denials, discipline or a petition for reinstatement of a license or modification of a disci- plinary penalty (e.g., petition for early termination of probation). Anticipated Benefits of the Proposed Regulation: The proposed amendments would place applicants and licensees on notice that the board is statutorily au- thorized to deny, suspend, or revoke a license on the ba- sis of professional misconduct and discipline taken by another licensing board or jurisdiction.

The proposal would also make relevant parties (e.g., the Deputy At- 1565

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 46-Z torneys General, Administrative Law Judges, respon- dents, and respondent’s counsels) aware that when con- sidering denial or discipline of applicants or licensees, the board uses the listed criteria to determine whether the crime, act, or professional misconduct is substan- tially related to the practice of medicine. AB 2138 was enacted to reduce licensing and employment barriers for people who are rehabilitated.

These proposed amendments would further that goal by adopting crite- ria that would emphasize an applicant’s or licensee’s re- habilitative efforts and what would be needed to make a showing of rehabilitation. This may lead to fewer de- nials and an increase in the number of licensed physi- cian assistants in the marketplace, therefore allowing for more health care providers to treat increasing num- bers of California consumers.

Evaluation of Inconsistency/Incompatibility with Existing State Regulations: During the process of developing these regulations and amendments, the board has conducted a search of any similar regulations on this topic and has concluded that these regulations are neither inconsistent nor in- compatible with existing state regulations. DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACTION The Board has made the following initial determinations: Mandate on local agencies and school districts: None. Cost or savings to any state agency: None.

Cost to any local agency or school district which must be reimbursed in accordance with Government Code sections 17500 through 17630: None. Other nondiscretionary cost or savings imposed on local agencies: None. Cost or savings in federal funding to the state: None. Cost impacts on a representative private person or business: The board is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action. Statewide adverse economic impact directly affect- ing businesses and individuals: None.

Significant effect on housing costs: None. Business Impact: This regulation will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses. This initial determination is based on the following facts: The board has approximately 12,690 licensees for the current fiscal year. During the 2016/2017 fiscal year the board issued 1,064 licenses and denied two (2), in fiscal year 2017/2018 the board issued 1,096 licenses and de- nied two (2), and in the first half of fiscal year 2018/2019 the board has issued 794 licenses and denied one (1).

Therefore, the board has denied 0.17 percent of all applicants. Since the board has denied less than 1 percent of all applicants this proposal will not have an adverse eco- nomic impact. AB 2138 was enacted to reduce licensing and employment barriers for people who have been convicted of a crime or due to acts underlying the con- viction, who have a certificate of rehabilitation, were granted clemency, made a showing of rehabilitation, or the conviction was dismissed or expunged.

These amendments will further assist in that effort through adoption of standards designed to implement new sub- stantial relationship and rehabilitation criteria. As a re- sult, it is anticipated that there may be fewer denials or disciplinary actions based upon criminal convictions and therefore, no significant or statewide adverse eco- nomic impacts. Effect on Small Business: The board has determined that the proposed regula- tion would not affect small businesses because the pro- posal is not of sufficient magnitude to expand business- es.

Historically, similar regulations adopted by the board resulted in less than one percent (1 percent) of all applicants being denied. Even assuming that the num- ber of denials or discipline would decrease as a result of these amendments, the board believes that this data demonstrates that it would not be significant enough to expand businesses who hire physician assistants.

RESULTS OF ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT/ANALYSIS This regulatory proposal will not create new busi- ness, eliminate existing businesses, or create or elimi- nate jobs, and will not affect the expansion of business- es currently doing business within the State of Califor- nia because the proposal is not of sufficient magnitude to create, expand, or eliminate businesses. Historically, similar regulations adopted by the board resulted in less than one percent (1 percent) of all applicants being de- nied.

Even assuming that the number of denials or disci- pline would decrease as a result of these amendments, the board believes that this data demonstrates that these amendments would not be significant enough to create, expand, or eliminate businesses who hire physician assistants. This regulatory proposal will benefit the health and welfare of California residents because by implement- ing criteria that emphasize rehabilitative efforts, it will create an opportunity for employment for people who have been convicted of a crime and are able to make a showing of rehabilitation. This may lead to an increase 1566

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 46-Z in physician assistants in the marketplace, therefore al- lowing for more health care providers to treat increas- ing numbers of California consumers. This regulatory proposal will not affect worker safety because the proposal does not involve worker safety.

The proposal will amend regulations to add substantial relationship criteria and rehabilitation criteria that em- phasize an applicant’s or licensee’s rehabilitative ef- forts, which may result in having fewer license denials or disciplinary actions based on substantially related crimes, acts or professional misconduct. This regulatory proposal will not affect the State’s en- vironment because it does not involve environmental issues.

The proposal will amend regulations to add sub- stantial relationship criteria and rehabilitation criteria that emphasize an applicant’s or licensee’s rehabilita- tive efforts, which may result in having fewer license denials or disciplinary actions based on substantially re- lated crimes, acts or professional misconduct. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES In accordance with Government Code

section 11346.5, subdivision (a)(13), the board must determine that no reasonable alternative it considered or that has otherwise been identified and brought to its attention would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the regulation is proposed, would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the adopted regulation, or would be more cost−effective to affected private persons and equally effective in im- plementing the statutory policy or other provision of law.

The board invites interested persons to present state- ments or arguments with respect to alternatives to the proposed regulation at the scheduled hearing or during the written comment period.

CONTACT PERSONS Inquiries concerning the proposed administrative ac- tion may be directed to: Name: Anita Winslow Address: 2005 Evergreen Street, Suite 1100 Sacramento, CA 95815−3893 Telephone Number: (916) 561−8782 Fax Number: (916) 263−2671 E−Mail Address: anita.winslow@mbc.ca.gov The backup contact person is: Name: Lynn Forsyth Address: 2005 Evergreen Street, Suite 1100 Sacramento, CA 95815−3893 Telephone Number: (916) 561−8785 Fax Number: (916) 263−2671 E−Mail Address: lynn.forsyth@mbc.ca.gov A V AILABILITY OF STATEMENT OF REASONS, TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS AND RULEMAKING FILE The board will have the entire rulemaking file avail- able for inspection and copying throughout the rule- making process at its office at the above address.

As of the date this notice is published in the Notice Register, the rulemaking file consists of this notice, the proposed text of the regulation, the initial statement of reasons, and other information which the rulemaking is based, including the Physician Assistant Board’s August 10, 2018 meeting minutes, the Physician Assistant Board’s November 5, 2018 meeting minutes, the Physician As- sistant Board’s January 28, 2019 meeting minutes, As- sembly Bill 2138 (as amended in Assembly April 2, 2018), Assembly Bill 2138 (as amended in Senate June 20, 2018), Assembly Bill 2138 (chapter 995, Statutes of 2018), Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development Analysis dated June 18, 2018, and Assembly Floor Analysis dated August 24, 2018.

A V AILABILITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT After holding the hearing and considering all timely and relevant comments received, the board may adopt the proposed regulations substantially as described in this notice. If the board makes modifications which are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text, it will make the modified text (with the changes clearly indicated) available to the public for at least 15 days be- fore the board adopts the regulation as revised. Please send requests for copies of any modified regulations to the attention of Anita Winslow at the address indicated above.

The board will accept written comments on the modified regulation for 15 days after the date on which they are made available. 1567

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 46-Z A V AILABILITY OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Upon its completion, copies of the Final Statement of Reasons may be obtained by contacting Ms. Winslow at the above address. A V AILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS ON THE INTERNET Copies of the Notice of Proposed Action, the Initial Statement of Reasons, and the text of the regulation in underline and strikeout can be accessed through our website at: https://www.pac.ca.gov/about_us/ lawsregs/regulations.shtml. TITLE 18. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Franchise Tax Board, pursuant to the authority vested in it by

section 87306 of the Government Code, proposes amendment to its conflict−of−interest code. A comment period has been established commencing on November 15, 2019 and closing on December 30, 2019. All inquiries should be directed to the contact listed below. The Franchise Tax Board proposes to amend its con- flict−of−interest code to include employee positions that involve the making or participation in the making of decisions that may foreseeably have a material effect on any financial interest, as set forth in subdivision (

a) of

section 87302 of the Government Code. The amend- ment carries out the purposes of the law and no other al- ternative would do so and be less burdensome to affect- ed persons. Changes to the conflict−of−interest code include: As a result of changes in the Information Technology related positions, the position titles on many designated positions needed to be updated. There are also other technical changes. Information on the code amendment is available on the agency’s intranet site and/or attached to this email.

Any interested person may submit written comments relating to the proposed amendment by submitting them no later than December 30, 2019, or at the conclusion of the public hearing, if requested, whichever comes later. At this time, no public hearing is scheduled. A person may request a hearing no later than December 13, 2019. The Franchise Tax Board has determined that the pro- posed amendments: 1. Impose no mandate on local agencies or school districts. 2. Impose no costs or savings on any state agency. 3. Impose no costs on any local agency or school district that are required to be reimbursed under

Part 7 (commencing with

Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. 4. Will not result in any nondiscretionary costs or savings to local agencies. 5. Will not result in any costs or savings in federal funding to the state. 6. Will not have any potential cost impact on private persons, businesses or small businesses. All inquiries concerning this proposed amendment and any communication required by this notice should be directed to: Dennis Haase, Tax Counsel IV , (916)845−3187 and dennis.haase@ftb.ca.gov. TITLE 23. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD DIVISION 3. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARDS

CHAPTER 3.5. CONSERV ATION AND THE PREVENTION OF WASTE AND UNREASONABLE USE

ARTICLE 2. REPORTING The State Water Resources Control Board (State Wa- ter Board) proposes to adopt the proposed regulations described below after considering all comments, objec- tions, and recommendations regarding the proposed action. PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION The State Water Board proposes to establish Califor- nia Code of Regulations, title 23, division 3,

chapter 3.5 on Conservation and the Prevention of Waste and Un- reasonable Use and within this chapter,

article 2, on Re- porting. This

Article is proposed to provide for ongoing monthly reporting by urban water suppliers consistent with emergency regulation requirements in the Califor- nia Code of Regulations, title 23, division 3,

chapter 2,

article 22.5, sections 865 and 866 that expired Novem- ber 25, 2017, by operation of law. Since that date, many, but not all, urban water suppliers have voluntarily sub- mitted monthly reports. The reporting that is proposed would be largely consistent with prior reporting re- quirements that have expired. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE The State Water Board is implementing, interpreting and making specific: Authority: Sections 275, 1058, 10609.28, Water Code. 1568

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 46-Z References:

Article X,

Section 2, California Consti- tution;

Section 51201, Government Code; Sections 102, 104, 105, 350, 1122, 1123, 1124, 1846, 1846.5, 10617, and 10632, Water Code. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any interested person, or his or her authorized repre- sentative, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action to the State Water Board. Written comments must be received on or before Mon- day, December 30, 2019. The State Water Board will only consider written comments received by that time. Please send comment letters to Ms.

Jeanine Townsend, Clerk to the Board, by email at commentletters@waterboards.ca.gov, (916) 341−5620 (fax), or by mail or hand delivery addressed to: Jeanine Townsend, Clerk to the Board State Water Resources Control Board P.O. Box 100 Sacramento, CA 95812−2000 (by mail) 1001 I Street, 24th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 (by hand delivery) Please also indicate in the subject line, “Comment Letter — Proposed Urban Water Conservation Re- porting Regulations.” Hand and special deliveries should also be addressed to Ms. Townsend at the ad- dress above.

Couriers delivering comments must check in with lobby security and have them contact Ms. Townsend at (916) 341−5600. Due to the limitations of the email system, emails larger than 15 megabytes are rejected and cannot be delivered or received by the State Water Board. We request that comments larger than 15 megabytes be submitted under separate emails.

If you would like to request a copy of the public comment let- ters received by the Board for this item, send an email to commentletters@waterboards.ca.gov and identify that you are requesting copies of public comments for Pro- posed Urban Water Conservation Reporting. To be added to the mailing list for this rulemaking and to receive notification of updates of this rulemaking, you may subscribe to the listserv for “Water Conser- vation Regulations” at: https://www.waterboards.ca. gov/resources/email_subscriptions/swrcb_ subscribe.html (select “General Interests”, then select “Water Conservation Regulations”).

PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing has not been scheduled for this pro- posed action. However, as provided in Government Code

section 11346.8, any interested person, or his or her duly authorized representative, may request a pub- lic hearing if the request is submitted in writing in the manner described below to the State Water Board no later than 15 days prior to the close of the written com- ment period. If a request for a public hearing is made, the State Water Board shall, to the extent practicable, provide notice of the time, date, and place of the hearing in accordance with Government Code

section 11346.4 by mailing the notice to every person who has filed a re- quest for notice with the State Water Board. In addition, as prescribed by Government Code

section 11340.85, notice may be provided by means of electronic commu- nication to those persons who have expressly indicated a willingness to receive notice by this means. Notices will be sent to those who subscribe to the “Water Con- servation Regulations” listserv. Any information about a public hearing, the date, time, and place, will be noticed on the webpage: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/ programs /conservation_portal/regs/. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The proposed regulation is exempt under California Code of Regulations, title 14,

section 15306 (Class 6 ex- emption). The reporting to be required pursuant to the regulation does not raise a reasonable possibility of having a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW

Summary of existing laws and regulations The proposed regulations would establish in Califor- nia Code of Regulations, title 23, division 3, a new

Chapter 3.5 on Conservation and the Prevention of Waste and Unreasonable Use and within this

Chapter a new

Article 2 on Reporting. This

Chapter is proposed to provide for ongoing monthly reporting by urban water suppliers. Currently, urban water suppliers submit vol- untary monthly conservation reports that were required under an emergency regulation that expired November 25, 2017. The reporting requirements in the proposed regulation would keep key metrics from the expired re- quirements in California Code of Regulations, title 23, sections 865 and 866, while maintaining continuity in data as the state transitions to a water efficiency stan- dards approach set forth in 2018 water conservation and efficiency legislation (SB 606 and AB 1668).

Specifically, each urban water supplier shall prepare and submit to the Board by the 21 st of each month a monitoring report on forms provided by the Board. The 1569

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 46-Z monitoring report shall include the following information:

(1) The urban water supplier’s public water system identification number(s).

(2) The urban water supplier’s volume of total potable water production, including water provided by a wholesaler, in the preceding calendar month;

(3) The population served by the urban water supplier during the reporting period;

(4) The percent residential use that occurred during the reporting period;

(5) The water shortage response action level. During certain period of water shortage or when the Governor declares a drought emergency, several addi- tional pieces of information would be required in the monthly report:

(1) Descriptive statistics on the supplier’s achievement of its water contingency plan response actions, and progress toward achieving a reduction in water consumption associated with the supplier’s existing water shortage response action level; (2) communication actions; and (3) compliance and enforcement actions. Comparable Federal Laws and Regulation The State Water Board has determined that there are no comparable federal laws or regulations related to the proposed regulation on monthly reporting by urban wa- ter suppliers. Policy Overview, Objectives and Benefits of the Proposed Regulatory Action

Article 10,

section 2, of the California Constitution states in part: [B]ecause of the conditions prevailing in this State the general welfare requires that the water resources of the State be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable, and that the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented, and that the conservation of such waters is to be exercised with a view to the reasonable and beneficial use thereof in the interest of the people and for the public welfare.

The proposed regulations would safeguard urban wa- ter supplies, minimize the potential for waste and unrea- sonable use of water as required by the California Con- stitution, and realize the directives of Executive Order B−37−16 and Executive Order B−40−17.

The State Board has made a determination that the proposed regulation would improve the protection of the public’s health and welfare by providing informa- tion on potable water production and conservation mea- sures to the State Water Board, other state agencies, lo- cal governments, non−profit organizations, academia, water consumers, and others that will help ensure ade- quate supplies of potable water and encourage greater water conservation.

More specifically, the proposed regulation would in- crease the transparency of urban water use and provide timely access to local data on potable water production and local water agency actions in California. Stake- holders could continue analyzing data to understand the recent drought, changes after drought, impacts of state and local policies and programs, associated costs of wa- ter deficiencies, and learn more about what actions may be helpful to avoid future water shortages.

Additionally, the reporting requirements support ongoing water con- servation, which extends current water suppliers and benefits the environment through reduction in energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. As such, California residents, worker safety, and the state’s environment all benefit. Further benefits may include increased conservation and a shared sense of responsibility among urban water users and reduced potential for severe economic disrup- tion due to future water shortages.

An Evaluation of Inconsistency or Incompatibility with Existing State Regulations The State Water Board evaluated whether the pro- posed regulation is inconsistent or incompatible with existing regulations. The State Water Board found that the proposed regulation is not inconsistent or incompat- ible with existing state regulations on reporting. The State Water Board’s Drinking Water Program currently requires urban water suppliers to submit an Electronic Annual Report each April.

This Report covers the prior calendar year and contains some metrics that are similar to the monthly conservation reporting under the pro- posed regulation. However, relying on Electronic An- nual Reports for monthly water use and conservation data is not effective for ensuring the state and public have timely information on which to base real−time ac- tion. This is because the Electronic Annual Reports cover entire calendar years, which means that data for January, for example, is not available until the follow- ing year (more than 12 months later).

The reported data goes through a submittal and review process by both the reporter and the state before it may be available, which adds additional time (4−6 months). A January report be- comes available about 1.5 years later,

whereas monthly reports pursuant to the proposed regulation will be available within two months of the reporting period. Furthermore, the proposed regulation allows the State Water Board to decrease the frequency of monthly reporting requirements at such time as an equivalent or more comprehensive reporting system addresses the 1570

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 46-Z need for time−sensitive data. This recognizes that im- proved reporting options may be available in the future. In time, and as required by Water Code

section 10609.15, the State Water Board and the Department of Water Resources must streamline reporting and im- prove accessibility. The state could work with reporters to set up its data systems so that the supplier’s monthly data is submitted once and shared within State Govern- ment to satisfy other reporting obligations. Such an ap- proach would mean that urban water suppliers would not need to re−enter monthly data into an annual report and would thus make reporting easier for suppliers. The proposed regulation would allow such an approach, if that becomes desirable and achievable.

In the future, there will likely be additional reporting requirements as part of implementation of 2018 conser- vation legislation (SB 606 and AB 1668). The State Wa- ter Board will be adopting regulations to implement as- pects of those bills by June 2022 and the proposed regu- lation may be adjusted to complement any new report- ing requirements at that time. MANDATED BY FEDERAL LAW OR REGULATIONS (Gov. Code, sections 11346.2, subd.(c)) The proposed regulatory action is not identical to pre- viously adopted or amended federal regulations.

LOCAL MANDATE This proposal does not impose a mandate on local agencies or school districts, or a mandate which re- quires reimbursement pursuant to

part 7 (commencing with

section 17500) of division 4 of the Government Code. NON−MAJOR REGULATION: RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS The State Water Board has determined that the pro- posed regulatory action will not have a significant ef- fect on the creation or elimination of jobs within Cali- fornia. Nor will the proposed regulatory action have a significant effect on the creation of new businesses, the elimination of existing businesses, or the expansion of existing businesses doing business within California.

However, additional conservation data can foster inno- vation among data analytic service companies and be used to develop more efficient water use practices or re- porting processes. Monthly urban water use reporting provides the State Water Board, other state agencies, local agencies, academia, non−profit organizations, and the public with timely information on potable water production and the impacts of conservation measures.

Having near “real−time” information is valuable for the State, stake- holders, and the public to understand and respond to things that can change quickly, including drought con- ditions, the impacts of state and local policies and pro- grams, and what actions could effectively help avoid fu- ture water shortages and associated costs.

COST OR SA VINGS IMPOSED ON LOCAL AGENCIES OR SCHOOL DISTRICTS The State Water Board has determined that there is no cost or savings imposed on local agencies or school dis- tricts as a result of the proposed regulations, or other nondiscretionary costs or savings imposed on local agencies or school districts, with the exception of urban water agencies that are submitting reports.

This pro- posed regulation will not have a significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting these local agencies because the new regulations establish and con- tinue the method of reporting for specified information that has been in place since June 2014 using the same electronic data submittal process. The reporting cost is estimated to be less than $300 per month for each of the 349 urban water suppliers that report.

BUSINESS REPORTING REQUIREMENT Assuming for purposes of this analysis that investor− owned and privately−owned mutual water companies that function as urban water suppliers are “businesses” for purposes of Government Code

section 11346.3, there will be expenses for 61 businesses. The State Wa- ter Board finds that it is necessary for the health, safety, or welfare of the people of this state that the proposed regulation requires reports by these urban water suppli- ers. The reports would continue, essentially unchanged, from what was in place in response to drought emergen- cy regulation and is currently voluntary.

BUSINESS IMPACT/SMALL BUSINESS The State Water Board has determined and declares that the proposed regulation does not have a significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses, including the ability of California business- es to compete with businesses in other states. Nor will the proposed regulatory action adversely affect small businesses in California because there are no small businesses submitting reports. Government Code chap- ter 3.5,

article 2,

section 11342.610 excludes water utili- ties from the definition of small business. 1571

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 46-Z COST IMPACTS ON REPRESENTATIVE PRIV ATE PERSONS OR BUSINESSES The State Water Board is not aware of any cost im- pacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed regulations, with the exception of those urban water suppliers that are defined as businesses, i.e., investor−owned or privately owned mutual water companies that function as urban water suppliers. The reporting cost is estimated to be less than $300 per month for each of these 61 urban water suppliers.

EFFECT ON HOUSING COSTS The State Water Board has determined that the pro- posed regulatory action will have no effect on housing costs. COST OR SA VINGS TO STATE AGENCIES The State Water Board has determined that there are no costs or savings to state agencies as a result of the proposed regulations. Implementation of the proposed updated emergency regulation will not result in addi- tional workload for the State Water Board.

COST OR SA VINGS IN FEDERAL FUNDING TO THE STATE The State Water Board has determined that there is no cost or savings in federal funding to the state as a result of the proposed regulations.

ALTERNATIVES The State Water Board must determine that no rea- sonable alternative it considered or that has otherwise been identified and brought to its attention would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed, 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.

Interested persons may present statements or argu- ments with respect to alternatives to the proposed regu- lation during the written comment period or at a hear- ing, if a hearing is requested, on this matter. A V AILABILITY OF INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS, TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATION, AND THE RULEMAKING FILE The State Water Board has prepared an Initial State- ment of Reasons for the proposed action.

The statement includes the specific purpose for the regulations pro- posed for adoption and the rationale for the State Water Board’s determination that adoption is reasonably nec- essary to carry out the purpose for which the regulations are proposed. All the information upon which the pro- posed regulations are based is contained in the rulemak- ing file. The Initial Statement of Reasons, the express terms of the proposed regulation, and the rulemaking file are available from the contact person listed below or at the website listed below.

A V AILABILITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT After considering all timely and relevant comments received, the State Water Board may adopt the proposed regulation substantially as described in this notice. If the State Water Board makes modifications that are suf- ficiently related to the originally proposed text, it will make the modified text (with the changes clearly indi- cated) available to the public for at least fifteen (15) days before the State Water Board adopts the regula- tions as modified. A copy of any modified regulations may be obtained by contacting Ms.

Kathy Frevert, the primary contact person identified below. The State Wa- ter Board will accept written comments on the modified regulations for fifteen (15) days after the date on which they are made available. A V AILABILITY OF FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Upon its completion, a copy of the Final Statement of Reasons (FSOR) may be obtained by contacting either of the persons listed below. A copy may also be ac- cessed on the State Water Board website identified below.

CONTACT PERSONS Requests of copies of the text of the proposed regula- tions, the statement of reasons, or other information up- on which the rulemaking is based, or other inquiries should be addressed to the following: Name: Kathy Frevert Address: State Water Resources Control Board 1572

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 46-Z Office of Research, Planning and Performance 1001 “I” Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone Number: (916) 322−5274 E−mail address: Kathy.Frevert@waterboards.ca.gov The backup contact person is: Name: Charlotte Ely Address: State Water Resources Control Board Office of Research, Planning and Performance 1001 “I” Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone Number: (916) 319−8564 E−mail address: Charlotte.Ely@waterboards.ca.gov A number of core documents relating to this proposed action may also be found on the State Water Board’s website at the following address: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/ programs/conservation_portal/regs/.

GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CESA CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION REQUEST FOR Walker Creek Bridge Replacement 2080−2019−009−02 Glenn County The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a notice on November 1, 2019 that the Glenn County Public Works Agency proposes to re- ly on a consultation between federal agencies to carry out a project that may adversely affect a species protect- ed by the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).

The proposed project involves the replacement of a de- ficient low water crossing with a new two−lane, multi− span, continuous concrete slab bridge. Proposed activi- ties will include, but are not limited to, vegetation clear- ing, channel grading, water diversion, demolition with a hydraulic ram, pile−driving, concrete casting, and construction of the new bridge and approach slabs. The proposed project will occur on County Road 35 at Walker Creek, approximately 0.25 miles east of Inter- state 5 and 4.5 miles south of the city of Artois in Glenn County. The U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) issued a federal biological opinion (Service Ref. No. 08ESMF00−2018−F−2324−1) in a memorandum to the California Department of Transportation on August 29, 2019, which considered the effects of the proposed project on state and federally threatened giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas). Pursuant to California Fish and Game Code

section 2080.1, the Glenn County Public Works Agency is re- questing a determination that the BO and its associated ITS are consistent with CESA for purposes of the pro- posed project. If CDFW determines the BO and its asso- ciated ITS are consistent with CESA for the proposed project, the Glenn County Public Works Agency will not be required to obtain an incidental take permit under Fish and Game Code

section 2081 subdivision (

b) for the proposed project. OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT SAFE DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1986 (PROPOSITION 65) ISSUANCE OF SAFE USE DETERMINATIONS AND INTERPRETIVE GUIDELINES FOR CHLOROTHALONIL RESIDUES IN CERTAIN FOODS RESULTING FROM PESTICIDAL USE OF THE CHEMICAL The California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is the lead agency for the implementation of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 19861.

OEHHA received a request for a Safe Use Deter- mination (SUD) for exposures to chlorothalonil 2 residue in certain foods resulting from pesticidal use of the chemical. The request was made by Dentons US LLP and Technology Sciences Group Inc., on behalf of Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC pursuant to Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations,

section 25204(b)(3). In accordance with the process set forth in

Section 25204(f), OEHHA held a written public comment peri- 1 The Safe Drinking Water and Toxics Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as Proposition 65, is codified at Health and Safety Code

section 25249.5 et seq. 2 Chlorothalonil was listed under Proposition 65 as a chemical known to the state to cause cancer effective January 1, 1989. 1573

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 46-Z od on this request from October 27, 2017 to December 18, 2017. One public comment was received. As provided in Sections 25204(

a) and (k), OEHHA is issuing the following SUDs to Syngenta Crop Protec- tion, LLC for chlorothalonil exposures resulting from consumption of residues in certain foods, as specified below. In addition, for nine foods or food groups OEHHA is issuing Interpretive Guidelines (IGs) 3 in re- sponse to this request. The Interpretive Guideline docu- ment is available on OEHHA’s website, http://www.oehha.ca.gov.

Raw and Cooked Apricots: Consumption of chlorothalonil residues by the average consumer of raw and cooked apricots does not result in exposures that ex- ceed the Proposition 65 No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) of 41 micrograms per day for the chemical, when the residue levels in fresh apricots are at recent historical levels measured for chlorothalonil in Depart- ment of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) surveys (i.e., at or below 0.09 ppm) and up to the tolerance level of 0.5 parts per million.

Dried Apricots: Consumption of chlorothalonil residues by the average consumer of dried apricots does not result in exposures that exceed the Proposition 65 NSRL of 41 micrograms per day for the chemical, when the residue levels in fresh apricots are at recent histori- cal levels measured for chlorothalonil in DPR surveys (i.e., at or below 0.09 ppm) and up to the tolerance level of 0.5 parts per million.

Apricot Juice: Consumption of chlorothalonil residues by the average consumer of apricot juice does not result in exposures that exceed the Proposition 65 NSRL of 41 micrograms per day for the chemical, when the residue levels in fresh apricots are at recent histori- cal levels measured for chlorothalonil in DPR surveys (i.e., at or below 0.09 ppm) and up to residue levels of 0.29 parts per million.

Raw and Cooked Peeled Bananas: Consumption of chlorothalonil residues by the average consumer of raw and cooked peeled bananas does not result in exposures that exceed the Proposition 65 NSRL of 41 micrograms per day for the chemical, when the residue levels in fresh peeled bananas are at recent historical levels mea- sured for chlorothalonil in US Department of Agricul- ture (USDA) surveys (i.e., at or below 0.008 ppm) and up to the tolerance level of 0.05 parts per million.

Peeled, Dried Bananas: Consumption of chlorothalonil residues by the average consumer of peeled, dried bananas does not result in exposures that exceed the Proposition 65 NSRL of 41 micrograms per day for the chemical, when the residue levels in fresh peeled bananas are at recent historical levels measured for chlorothalonil in USDA surveys ( i.e., at or below 3 Title 27, California Code of Regulations,

section 25203. 0.008 ppm) and up to the tolerance level of 0.05 parts per million. Cooked Bitter Melon: Consumption of chlorothalonil residues by the average consumer of cooked bitter melon does not result in exposures that ex- ceed the Proposition 65 NSRL of 41 micrograms per day for the chemical when the residue levels in fresh bit- ter melon are at or below 0.79 parts per million.

Cooked Black Beans: Consumption of chlorothalonil residues by the average consumer of cooked black beans does not result in exposures that exceed the Proposition 65 NSRL of 41 micrograms per day for the chemical, when the residue levels in fresh or canned black beans are at recent historical levels measured for chlorothalonil in USDA surveys (i.e., at or below 0.02 ppm) and up to the tolerance level of 0.1 parts per mil- lion.

Raw and Cooked Blueberries: Consumption of chlorothalonil residues by the average consumer of raw and cooked blueberries does not result in exposures that exceed the Proposition 65 NSRL of 41 micrograms per day for the chemical, when the residue levels in fresh or frozen blueberries are at recent historical levels mea- sured for chlorothalonil in USDA and DPR surveys (i.e., at or below 0.75 ppm) and up to the tolerance level of 1.0 parts per million.

Cooked Broad Beans: Consumption of chlorothalonil residues by the average consumer of cooked broad beans does not result in exposures that ex- ceed the Proposition 65 NSRL of 41 micrograms per day for the chemical, when the residue levels in fresh broad beans are at recent historical levels measured for chlorothalonil in DPR surveys ( i.e., at or below 0.05 ppm) and up to the tolerance level of 0.1 parts per mil- lion.

Raw and Cooked Broccoli: Consumption of chlorothalonil residues by the average consumer of raw and cooked broccoli does not result in exposures that exceed the Proposition 65 NSRL of 41 micrograms per day for the chemical, when the residue levels in fresh broccoli are at recent historical levels measured for chlorothalonil in DPR surveys ( i.e., at or below 0.22 ppm) and up to residue levels of 0.69 parts per million.

Cooked Chinese Broccoli: Consumption of chlorothalonil residues by the average consumer of cooked Chinese broccoli does not result in exposures that exceed the Proposition 65 NSRL of 41 micrograms per day for the chemical, when the residue levels in fresh Chinese broccoli are at recent historical levels measured for chlorothalonil in DPR surveys (i.e., at or below 0.51 ppm) and up to residue levels of 0.81 parts per million. Raw and Cooked Brussels Sprouts: Consumption of chlorothalonil residues by the average consumer of raw and cooked Brussels sprouts does not result in expo- 1574

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NUMBER 46-Z sures that exceed the Proposition 65 NSRL of 41 micro- grams per day for the chemical, when the residue levels in fresh Brussels sprouts are at recent historical levels measured for chlorothalonil in DPR surveys (i.e., at or below 0.15 ppm) and up to residue levels of 0.60 parts per million.

Raw and Cooked Cabbage: Consumption of chlorothalonil residues by the average consumer of raw and cooked cabbage does not result in exposures that exceed the Proposition 65 NSRL of 41 micrograms per day for the chemical, when the residue levels in fresh cabbage are at recent historical levels measured for chlorothalonil in DPR surveys (i.e., at or below 0.446 ppm) and up to the tolerance level of 5.0 parts per mil- lion.

Raw Cantaloupe: Consumption of chlorothalonil residues by the average consumer of raw cantaloupe does not result in exposures that exceed the Proposition 65 NSRL of 41 micrograms per day for the chemical, when the residue levels in fresh cantaloupe are at or be- low 0.62 parts per million.

Raw Carrots: Consumption of chlorothalonil residues by the average consumer of raw carrots does not result in exposures that exceed the Proposition 65 NSRL of 41 micrograms per day for the chemical, when the residue levels in fresh carrots are at recent historical levels measured for chlorothalonil in DPR and USDA surveys (i.e., at or below 0.05 ppm) and up to the toler- ance level of 1 parts per million.

Cooked Carrots: Consumption of chlorothalonil residues by the average consumer of cooked carrots does not result in exposures that exceed the Proposition 65 NSRL of 41 micrograms per day for the chemical, when the residue levels in fresh carrots are at recent his- torical levels measured for chlorothalonil in DPR and USDA surveys (i.e., at or below 0.05 ppm) and up to the tolerance level of 1 parts per million.

Carrot Juice: Consumption of chlorothalonil residues by the average consumer of carrot juice does not result in exposures that exceed the Proposition 65 NSRL of 41 micrograms per day for the chemical, when the residue levels in fresh carrots are at recent historical levels mea- sured for chlorothalonil in DPR and USDA surveys (i.e., at or below 0.05 ppm) and up to the tolerance level of 1 parts per million.

Raw and Cooked Cauliflower: Consumption of chlorothalonil residues by the average consumer of raw and cooked cauliflower does not result in exposures that exceed the Proposition 65 NSRL of 41 micrograms per day for the chemical, when the residue levels in fresh cauliflower are at recent historical levels measured for chlorothalonil in DPR surveys ( i.e., at or below 0.05 ppm) and up to residue levels of 0.73 parts per million.

Raw and Cooked Celery: Consumption of chlorothalonil residues by the average consumer of raw and cooked celery does not result in exposures that ex- ceed the Proposition 65 NSRL of 41 micrograms per day for the chemical when the residue levels in fresh celery are at or below 1.81 parts per million. Celery Juice: Consumption of chlorothalonil residues by the average consumer of celery juice does not result in exposures that exceed the Proposition 65 NSRL of 41 micrograms per day for the chemical when the residue levels in fresh celery are at or below 0.18 parts per million.

Cooked Chayote: Consumption of chlorothalonil residues by the average consumer of cooked chayote does not result in exposures that exceed the Proposition 65 NSRL of 41 micrograms per day for the chemical, when the residue levels in fresh chayote are at recent historical levels measured for chlorothalonil in DPR surveys (i.e., at or below 0.08 ppm) and up to residue levels of 0.84 parts per million.

Raw Cherries: Consumption of chlorothalonil residues by the average consumer of raw cherries does not result in exposures that exceed the Proposition 65 NSRL of 41 micrograms per day for the chemical, when the residue levels in fresh cherries are at recent histori- cal levels measured for chlorothalonil in DPR and US- DA surveys (i.e., at or below 0.05 ppm) and up to the tolerance level of 0.5 parts per million.

Cooked Cherries: Consumption of chlorothalonil residues by the average consumer of cooked cherries does not result in exposures that exceed the Proposition 65 NSRL of 41 micrograms per day for the chemical, when the residue levels in fresh cherries are at recent historical levels measured for chlorothalonil in DPR and USDA surveys (i.e., at or below 0.05 ppm) and up to the tolerance level of 0.5 parts per million.

Raw and Cooked Corn: Consumption of chlorothalonil residues by the average consumer of raw and cooked corn does not result in exposures that ex- ceed the Proposition 65 NSRL of 41 micrograms per day for the chemical, when the residue levels in fresh or frozen corn are at recent historical levels measured for chlorothalonil in DPR and USDA surveys (i.e., at or be- low 0.05 ppm) and up to residue levels of 0.83 parts per million.

Raw and Cooked Cranberries: Consumption of chlorothalonil residues by the average consumer of raw and cooked cranberries does not result in exposures that exceed the Proposition 65 NSRL of 41 micrograms per day for the chemical, when the residue levels in fresh cranberries are at recent historical levels measured for chlorothalonil in USDA and DPR surveys (i.e., at or be- low 0.60 ppm) and up to residue levels of 1.17 parts per million. Dried Cranberries: Consumption of