GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW California Regulatory Notice Register REGISTER 2021, NUMBER 6-Z PUBLISHED WEEKLY BY THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW FEBRUARY 5, 2021 PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS TITLE 2. COMMISSION ON ST ATE MANDATES General Cleanup Provisions — Notice File Number Z2021–0125–04 ....................................................125 TITLE 2.

FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Amendment Multi County: Napa Valley Community College District Compass Charter Schools Conflict–of–Interest — Notice File Number Z2021–0126–01 ..............................................................129 TITLE 7. BOARD OF PILOT COMMISSIONERS FOR THE BAYS OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN PABLO, AND SUISUN Amendments to Fitness Regulations — Notice File Number Z2021–0125–03 .............................................130 TITLE 10. DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE CAARP PLAN OF OPERATIONS — Notice File Number Z2021-1026-07................................................134 TITLE 14.

FISH AND GAME COMMISSION Klamath River Basin Sport Fishing — Notice File Number Z2021–0125–01 .............................................137 TITLE 14. FISH AND GAME COMMISSION Central Valley Sport Fishing — Notice File Number Z2021–0125–02 ....................................................141 TITLE 15. BOARD OF P AROLE HEARINGS Parole Consideration Procedures for Life Prisoners and Nonlife 1168 Prisoners — Notice File Number Z2021–0126–03 ..........................................................144 (Continued on next page) Time- Dated Material

TITLE 16. BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS Licensing Boards: Denial of Application: Revocation or Suspension of Licensure: Criminal Conviction — Notice File Number Z2021–0121–01 .............................................................147 TITLE 17. AIR RESOURCES BOARD Consumer Products Amendments — Notice File Number Z2021–0119–04 ................................................150 TITLE 19. OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES California Accidental Release Prevention (Cal A R

P) Regulations — Notice File Number Z2021–0126–05 .............160 PETITION DECISIONS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION Petition Decision Concerning Request from Melvin Williams Regarding Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome ..............162 DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION Decision on Reconsideration (Petition by Daniel A. Raichel and Samuel D.

Eisenberg (on behalf of Natural Resources Defense Council, Californians for Pesticide Reform, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, Pesticide Action Network North America, and the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation)) Concerning Regulating Neonicotinoid–Treated Seeds ....................................................163 O A L REGULATORY DETERMINATION DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITALS 2021 O A L DETERMINATION NUMBER 1 Department of State Hospitals Administrative Directive No. 610, titled “Patient Property.” .............................166 A V AILABILITY OF INDEX OF PRECEDENTIAL DECISIONS DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES Precedential Decisions Index ...............................................................................................168

SUMMARY OF REGULATORY ACTIONS Regulations filed with Secretary of State ...................................................................................169 The California Regulatory Notice Register is an official state publication of the Office of Administrative Law containing notices of proposed regulatory actions by state regulatory agencies to adopt, amend or repeal regulations contained in the California Code of Regulations. The effective period of a notice of proposed regulatory action by a state agency in the California Regulatory Notice Register shall not exceed one year [Government Code § 11346.4(b)].

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

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 6-Z 125 PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS Information contained in this document is published as received from agencies and is not edited by Thomson Reuters. TITLE 2. COMMISSION ON STATE MANDATES The Commission on State Mandates (Commission) proposes to adopt the regulations described below after considering all comments, objections, and recommendations regarding the proposed action. PUBLIC HEARING The Commission has not scheduled a public hearing for this proposed action.

However, if it receives a written request for a public hearing from any interested person or their authorized representative no later than 15 days before the close of the written comment period, by March 8, 2021, the Commission will conduct a public hearing on this proposed action on March 26, 2021, and will notify all persons of the date, time, and location of the hearing pursuant to Government Code

section 11346.8(a). WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any interested person or their authorized representative, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action to the Commission. The comment period closes at 5:00 p.m. on March 22, 2021. The Commission will only consider written comments received at the Commission offices by that time. Commenters are strongly encouraged to submit their written comments electronically if possible (to prevent the spread of COVID–19) via the Commission website “Drop Box” at: http://www.csm. ca.gov/dropbox.php.

Written comments may also be submitted to: Jill Magee, Program Analyst Commission on State Mandates 980 Ninth Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, C A 95814 Phone: (916) 323–3562 AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Government Code

section 17527(

g) authorizes the Commission to adopt the proposed regulations. Reference citations: Government Code sections 11123, 11346.4, 11347, 11347.1, and 17500 et seq. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW The Commission on State Mandates (Commission) is a seven–member quasi–judicial body authorized to resolve disputes regarding the existence of state– mandated local programs (Government Code

section 17500 et seq.) and to hear matters involving county applications for a finding of significant financial distress (Welfare and Institutions Code

section 17000.6). The purpose of this rulemaking is to generally clean– up, clarify, and streamline Commission regulations and update language for consistency.

The proposed regulations: (1) add a definition of “normal business hours” to clarify the Commission’s normal business hours from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. of each day from Monday to Friday, excluding state holidays, and that 5 p.m. is the filing cutoff for new filings and written materials to be deemed filed that day; (2) clarify the requirements for test claim filing; (3) clarify that test claims and incorrect reduction claims may be either rejected or dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and clarify the process for rejecting or dismissing a test claim for lack of jurisdiction; (4) clarify that service charge and assessment authority are to be included as offsetting revenues and reimbursements in parameters and guidelines consistent with the purpose of

article XIII B,

section 6 of the California Constitution; (5) clarify the evidentiary standard for requests for extension of time and postponement of hearing; (6) make minor, non–substantive consistency edits, corrections; and (7) update reference citations. Therefore, the Commission proposes revised language and citations in Articles 1, 3, 5, and 7 of the California Code of Regulations, Division 2, Title 2,

Chapter 2.5 (Sections 1181.2, 1181.3, 1181.4, 1183.1, 1183.7, 1183.17, 1185.2, 1185.3, 1185.4, 1187.9) with a proposed effective date of October 1, 2021.

Anticipated Benefits of the Proposed Regulation The specific benefits anticipated from the proposed regulations are: clarifying the Commission’s “normal business hours” for purposes of determining the date and time of filing new filings and written materials with the Commission; clarifying the requirements for test claim filing; clarifying that test claims and incorrect reduction claims may be either rejected or dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and clarifying the processes for dismissing and rejecting test claims filed by ineligible claimants; clarifying the offsetting revenues and reimbursements which must be included in parameters and guidelines; clarifying the evidentiary standards applicable to requests for extensions of time

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 6-Z 126 and postponement of hearings; increased accessibility in the mandates process for local agencies, school districts, state agencies, and interested parties/ persons participating in the Commission’s processes; consistency in the use of terms; improved readability; and a more complete and accurate listing of references.

Consistency and Compatibility with Existing State Regulations After conducting a review of existing regulations, the Commission has concluded that California Code of Regulations, title 2, sections 1181.1 et seq., are the only regulations concerning the Commission’s process. Therefore, the proposed regulations are consistent and compatible with existing state regulations. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS I. Add a Definition of “Normal Business Hours” to

Section 1181.2 and Clarify Filing Cutoff Times in

Section 1181.3.

Section 1181.2.

Definitions;

Section 1181.3. Certification, Filing, and Service of Written Materials and New Filings. The proposed amendments to

section 1181.2(

f) and

section 1181.3(

c) of the regulations are intended to clarify the Commission’s normal business hours, which are the hours that the Commission’s office is open: from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding state holidays. This is consistent with Government Code

section 11020(a), which requires all state agency offices to remain open, at a minimum and subject to certain exceptions not applicable to the Commission, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding state holidays.

Section 1181.2(

f) defines “filing date” as the date received at the Commission’s office during normal business hours. The definition of “normal business hours” is being added to

section 1181.2(

f) to clarify that the Commission’s normal business hours are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding state holidays. The proposed addition of subdivision (c)(3) to

section 1181.3 is to clarify that new filings and written materials filed with the Commission must be filed no later than 5 p.m. on a business day to be deemed filed that day. II. Clarify the Requirements for Test Claim Filing in

Section 1183.1.

Section 1183.1. Test Claim Filing. The proposed changes clarify that test claims must comply with the requirements of Government Code sections 17551 and 17553 and must be filed by a person who meets the requirements of subdivision (a). Removing “may file” from subdivision (

a) is intended to clarify that the individual who files the test claim on behalf of a local agency or school district must fall into one of the categories enumerated in subdivision (a)(1)–(5). This change is consistent with 1185.1(a), pertaining to who may file an incorrect reduction claim on behalf of a local agency or school district. Language is proposed to be added to subdivision (

f) to clarify that for a test claim to be considered complete, the requirements of Government Code

section 17553 and

section 1183.1 of the Commission’s regulations must be met. The proposed amendments also move the requirements for when a test claim may be filed as a joint effort from subdivision (

g) to subdivision (

b) for greater readability and clarity. Current subdivision (

g) is eliminated, and current subdivision (

h) is renumbered as subdivision (g). III. Clarify Rejection and Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction of Test Claims in

Section 1183.1 and of Incorrect Reduction Claims in Sections 1185.2, 1185.3, and 1185.4.

Section 1183.1. Test Claim Filing;

Section 1185.2. Review of Incorrect Reduction Claims;

Section 1185.3. Consolidation of Claims Initiated by an Individual Claimant;

Section 1185.4. Joining a Consolidated Incorrect Reduction Claim. The proposed changes to proposed

section 1183.1(g) (which is being renumbered from 1183.1(h)) are intended to clarify that when the Commission lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine a timely and otherwise complete test claim filed by a local agency that is not eligible to claim reimbursement under

article XIII B,

section 6 because it is not subject to the tax and spend provisions of articles XIII A and B of the California Constitution, the test claim must proceed under

section 1187.14, which requires notice, the opportunity for an eligible claimant to take over the claim by a substitution of parties, a written comment period on the proposed dismissal, and a hearing by the Commission to dismiss the claim if no party is substituted in. Sections 1185.2, 1185.3, and 1185.4 pertain to incorrect reduction claim filings.

These regulations currently provide that an incorrect reduction claim, consolidated incorrect reduction claim, or notice of intent to join a consolidated incorrect reduction claim, respectively, or portions thereof, may be dismissed by the executive director for lack of jurisdiction with a written notice explaining the reason for the dismissal. The proposed changes to these regulations make them consistent with the proposed language in proposed

section 1183.1(g) (renumbered from 1183.1(h)) by clarifying that incorrect reduction claims may be rejected before the claim is deemed complete or dismissed by the executive director for lack of jurisdiction with a written notice explaining the reason for the rejection or dismissal.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 6-Z 127 IV. Clarify Offsetting Revenues to be Included in Parameters and Guidelines.

Section 1183.7(g). Conte nt of Parameters and Guidelines.

Section 1183.7 of the regulations governs the content of parameters and guidelines, which must describe the claimable reimbursable activities and costs and contain specified information, including offsetting revenues and reimbursements that are required to be deducted from the costs claimed. The proposed amendments are intended to clarify in

section 1183.7(g)(4) that, in addition to fee authority, service charge and assessment authority to offset mandate costs are offsetting revenues that reduce the cost of reimbursable activities and which must be identified in the parameters and guidelines consistent with the purpose of

article XIII B,

section 6 of the California Constitution.

Article XIII B,

section 6 was specifically designed to preclude “the state from shifting financial responsibility for carrying out governmental functions to local agencies, which are ‘ill equipped’ to assume increased financial responsibilities because of the taxing and spending limitations that articles XIII A and XIII B impose.” 1

Article XIII A imposes a limit on state and local power to adopt and levy taxes.

Article XIII B “restricts the amounts state and local governments may appropriate and spend each year from the ‘proceeds of taxes.’” 2

Article XIII B defines “proceeds of taxes” that are subject to the appropriations limit to include all tax revenues, as well as those revenues from regulatory licenses, user charges, and user fees but only “to the extent such proceeds exceed the costs reasonably borne by such entity in providing the regulation, product, or service.” 3

Article XIII B does not place limits on revenues that do not constitute a local entity’s “proceeds of taxes.” 4 Revenues that do not constitute a local entity’s “proceeds of taxes” include federal funds; and service charges, fees, or assessments. 5 Thus, when a local government funds the mandated activities with funds that are not its proceeds of 1 Department of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates (2016) 1 Cal.5th 749, 763; see also, County of Fresno v. State of Califor- nia (1991) 53 Cal.3d 482, 487. 2 Department of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates (2016) 1 Cal.5th 749, 762. 3

Article XIII B,

section 8 of the California Constitution; County of Fresno v. State of California (1991) 53 Cal.3d 482, 487. 4

Article XIII B,

section 8 of the California Constitution; County of Placer v. Corin (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 443, 447; County of Fresno v. State of California (1991) 53 Cal.3d 482, 487. 5

Article XIII B, sections 8, 9; County of Placer v. Corin (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 443, 449, 455; County of Fresno v. State of Cali - fornia (1991) 53 Cal.3d 482, 487. taxes (e.g., service charges, fees, or assessments authorized to be used on the mandate), then those funds are not reimbursable, and must be identified as offsetting revenue.

Because service charges, fees, and assessments authorized to be used on the mandate do not constitute “proceeds of taxes,” the language proposed to be added to subdivision (g)(4) clarifies that, in addition to fee authority, service charge and assessment authority to offset mandated program costs must also be identified and deducted from the reimbursement claim. V. Clarify the Evidentiary Standards Applicable to Requests for Extensions of Time and Postponement of Hearing in

Section 1187.9.

Section 1187.9. Exte nsions of Time to File Comments or Rebuttals and Postponements of Hearings.

Section 1187.9 of the regulations governs requests for extension of time and requests for postponement of hearing. As

section 1187.9(

a) and (

b) currently exist, a request for extension or postponement must be certified under penalty of perjury in accordance with

section 1181.3 declaring that the contents are true and correct to the best of the declarant’s personal knowledge, information, or belief, and if the request is based on facts, must also include additional direct evidence supporting that fact (i.e., another declaration or admissible document supporting the fact that is not based solely on hearsay evidence). The proposed changes to

section 1187.9(

a) and (

b) remove the requirement that declarations or evidence under

section 1187.5 accompany a request for extension or postponement that contains representations of fact because the existing requirement to certify the request under penalty of perjury pursuant to

section 1181.3 satisfies the evidentiary standards for procedural requests and is consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act, and the Code of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Court for civil actions. The facts contained in a certified request for extension or postponement are submitted under penalty of perjury that the facts are true and correct to the best of the declarant’s personal knowledge, information, or belief, which assures that the facts stated are made in good faith. VI.

Minor, Nonsubstantive Consistency Edits and Corrections The following proposed amendments make minor, nonsubstantive consistency edits or correct usage and errors in sections 1181.4, 1183.17, 1185.2 and 1187.9 of the regulations. Update Usage and Increase Clarity These amendments are proposed to update usage or improve style and readability, and for consistency with the existing regulations. The proposed amendments to

section 1185.2(a), pertaining to completeness of incorrect reduction claims, change the words “any

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 6-Z 128 of the elements in

section 1185.1(

a) and (

b) and (

d) through (h)” to “any of the requirements of

section 1185.1” to simplify the language and make it consistent with the proposed changes to

section 1183.1(f). The amendments also delete unnecessary words in

section 1181.4(c)(7) by removing the modifier “Joint Request for” from “Joint Request for Legislatively Determined Mandate.” In

section 1187.9(c)(2), the provision “Continuances will be granted only upon a clear showing of good cause” is moved from the last sentence to the first sentence for greater clarity. The phrase “within the meaning of subdivision (a)” is changed to “as described in subdivision (b)” (reference to subdivision (

a) is also changed to subdivision (b), as discussed below) and is moved to the end of the new first sentence to clarify where the description of “good cause” for purposes of this subdivision is located. Correct Minor Errors These amendments are also proposed to correct errors in the current regulations, including changing the reference in

section 1183.17(a)(5) from “section 1183.1(d)” to “section 1183.7(d)” to correct a typographical error and the reference in

section 1187.9(c)(2) from “subdivision (a)” to “subdivision (b)” because that is where the description of good cause is located. VII. Update to Reference Citations in Sections 1181.2 and 1181.3.

Section 1181.2.

Definitions;

Section 1181.3. Certification, Filing, and Service of Written Materials and New Filings. The proposed amendments to the reference statutes for sections 1181.2 and 1181.3 add Government Code

section 11020(a), which provides that “[u]nless otherwise provided by law, all offices of every state agency shall be kept open for the transaction of business from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. of each day from Monday to Friday, inclusive, other than legal holidays.” TECHNICAL, THEORETICAL, AND/ OR EMPIRICAL STUDY, REPORTS, OR DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON TO DEVELOP REGULATIONS Commission staff did not rely on any technical, theoretical, or empirical studies or reports in proposing the adoption of these regulations.

The Commission relied upon the statutes and cases cited in the authority and reference sections for the regulations. DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACTION The Commission has made the following initial determinations: Mandate on local agencies and school district: 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 non–discretionary cost or savings imposed on local agencies: None. Cost or savings in federal funding to the state: None.

Significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states: None. Significant effect on housing costs: None. Cost impacts on a representative private person or business: The Commission is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action.

Results of the Economic Impact Analysis/Assessment The Commission concludes that the proposal will: (1) not create or eliminate jobs within California; (2) not create new businesses or eliminate existing businesses within California; and (3) not affect the expansion of businesses currently doing business within California. Small Business Determination Because the Commission has no jurisdiction over small businesses and small businesses are not parties before the Commission, the proposed regulatory action will have no impact on small businesses. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES In accordance with Government Code

section 11346.5(a)(13), the Commission must determine that no reasonable alternative it considered or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the Commission would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action, or would be more cost–effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law. The Commission invites interested persons to present statements or arguments with respect to alternatives to the proposed regulations during the written comment period.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 6-Z 129 CONTACT PERSONS Inquiries concerning the proposed administrative action may be directed to: Jill Magee, Program Analyst Commission on State Mandates 980 Ninth Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, C A 95814 Telephone: (916) 323–3562 (jill.magee@csm.ca.gov) The backup contact person for these inquiries is: Heidi Palchik, Assistant Executive Director Commission on State Mandates 980 Ninth Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, C A 95814 Telephone: (916) 323–3562 (heidi.palchik@csm.ca.gov) Please direct requests for copies of the proposed text (the “express terms”) of the regulations, the initial statement of reasons, the modified text of the regulations, if any, or other information on which the rulemaking is based to Ms.

Jill Magee (see contact information above) or download it from the Commission’s website at http://www.csm.ca.gov/ rulemaking.php. A VAILABILITY OF STATEMENT OF REASONS, AND TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS The Commission will have the entire rulemaking file available for inspection and copying throughout the rulemaking process at its office at the above address. As of the date this notice is published in the Notice Register, the rulemaking file consists of this notice, the proposed text of the regulations, the initial statement of reasons, and the Commission order to initiate rulemaking proceedings.

Copies may be obtained on the Commission’s website (see below) or by contacting Ms. Jill Magee (see contact information above). All persons on the Commission’s interested persons mailing list will be provided a copy of the rulemaking file by making it available on the Commission’s website and providing notice of how to locate it. AVAILABILITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT AND DOCUMENTS RELIED ON After considering all timely and relevant comments received, and holding a public hearing, if necessary, the Commission may adopt the proposed regulations substantially as described in this notice.

If the Commission makes modifications which are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text, it will make the modified text (with the changes clearly indicated) and any documents relied on available to the public for at least 15 days before the Commission adopts the regulations as revised. Please send requests for copies of any modified regulations or documents relied on to the attention of Ms. Jill Magee (see contact information above). The Commission will accept written comments on the modified regulations for 15 days after the date on which they are made available.

A VAILABILITY OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Upon its completion, copies of the Final Statement of Reasons and any Documents Relied Upon may be obtained by contacting Ms. Jill Magee at the address, phone number, or email address listed above. A V AILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS ON THE INTERNET Copies of the Notice of Proposed Action, the Initial Statement of Reasons, and the text of the regulations in underline and strikeout can be accessed through the Commission’s website at http://www.csm.ca.gov/ rulemaking.php. TITLE 2.

FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Fair Political Practices Commission, pursuant to the authority vested in it by Sections 82011, 87303, and 87304 of the Government Code to review proposed conflict– of–interest codes, will review the proposed/amended conflict–of–interest codes of the following: CONFLICT–OF–INTEREST CODES AMENDMENT M U LT I COU N T Y: Napa Valley Community College District Compass Charter Schools A written comment period has been established commencing on February 5, 2021 and closing on March 22, 2021.

Written comments should be di - rected to the Fair Political Practices Commission, Attention Amanda Apostol, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sacramento, California 95811. At the end of the 45–day comment period, the pro - posed conflict–of–interest code(

s) will be submitted to the Commission’s Executive Director for his review, unless any interested person or his or her duly autho -

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 6-Z 130 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 sub- mitted to the Commission for review. The Executive Director of the Commission will review the above–referenced conflict–of–interest code(s), proposed pursuant to Government Code

Section 87300, which designate, pursuant to Government Code

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

s) to the agency for revision and re– submission within 60 days without further notice. Any interested person may present statements, ar - guments or comments, in writing to the Executive Director of the Commission, relative to review of the proposed conflict–of–interest code(s). Any written comments must be received no later than March 22, 2021. If a public hearing is to be held, oral comments may be presented to the Commission at the hearing.

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

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

REFERENCE Government Code Sections 87300 and 87306 pro - vide that agencies shall adopt and promulgate conflict– of–interest codes pursuant to the Political Reform Act and amend their codes when change is necessitated by changed circumstances. CONTACT Any inquiries concerning the proposed conflict–of– interest code(

s) should be made to Amanda Apostol, Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sacramento, California 95811, telephone (916) 322–5660. AVAILABILITY OF PROPOSED CONFLICT–OF–INTEREST CODES Copies of the proposed conflict–of–interest codes may be obtained from the Commission offices or the respective agency. Requests for copies from the Commission should be made to Amanda Apostol, Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sacramento, California 95811, telephone (916) 322–5660. TITLE 7.

BOARD OF PILOT COMMISSIONERS FOR THE BAYS OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN PABLO, AND SUISUN Notice is hereby given that the Board of Pilot Commissioners for the Bays of San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun (Board) proposes to adopt the proposed regulations described below after considering all comments, objections, and recommendations regarding the proposed action. The Board proposes to amend the following sections of the California Code of Regulations, Title 7, Harbors and Navigation, Division 2, State Board of Pilot Commissioners for the Bays of San Francisco, San Pablo and Suisun: ● § 202. Other

Definitions. ● § 217. Purpose of Fitness Regulations. ● § 217.5. Duty to Submit to Medical Assessment; Overall Standards. ● § 217.10. Events Requiring Medical Assessment. ● § 217.15. Description of Medical Assessment; Detailed Standards. ● § 217.20. Duty to Report Medical Information. ● § 217.25. Fitness Determination by Board– Appointed Physicians Following Receipt of Medical Information. ● § 217.30. Board–Initiated Fitness Determination. ● § 217.35. Consequences of Not Fit for Duty Determination. ● § 217.40. Proceedings Following Fitness Determinations.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 6-Z 131 ● § 217.45. Qualification Standards for Board– Appointed Physicians; Duties of Physicians. The Board proposes to add a new

section to its regulations: ● § 217.37. Reevaluation of Pilots on Medical Disability Leave. PUBLIC HEARING The Board has not scheduled a public hearing on this proposed action. However, the Board will hold a hearing if it receives a written request for a public hearing from any interested person, or his or her authorized representative, not later than 15 days before the close of the written comment period. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any interested person, or his or her authorized representative, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action to the Board.

Comments may also be submitted by facsimile (FAX) at (415) 397–9463 or by e–mail to bopc@bopc.ca.gov. The written comment period closes at 5:00 p.m. on March 23, 2021. The Board will consider only comments received at the Board office by that time. Submit comments to: Allen Garfinkle, Executive Director Board of Pilot Commissioners for the Bays of San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun 660 Davis Street San Francisco, California 94111 AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Authority: Harbors and Navigation Code (H N C) §§ 1154 and 1171.5 authorize the Board to adopt these proposed regulations.

The proposed regulations implement, interpret, and make specific H N C §§ 1101, 1141, 1157, 1157.1, 1157.2, 1157.3, 1157.4, 1171, 1171.5, 1176, 1176.5, 1180, 1181, 1182, and 1183. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW Existing Law and Effect of Proposed Amendments H N C

section 1176 requires that pilots and pilot trainees be examined by Board–appointed physicians to evaluate their fitness to perform their duties. Board regulations set forth in Title 7 of the California Code of Regulations, sections 217 through 217.45, require that (1) pilots and pilot trainees be mentally and physically fit, (2) set forth the means of evaluating fitness, and (3) prescribe the intervals at which the fitness evaluations are to be performed. The current fitness regulations, which became effective in 2014, substantially expanded and improved the Board’s program for fitness evaluation.

The Board now has over six years of experience with this new regime for evaluating fitness and has determined that certain updates, clarifications, and changes are necessary to render the existing system more effective and efficient. In

summary, the updates, clarifications, and changes are as follows: ● One of the Board’s principal standards for fitness evaluation is the same as that used by the U.S. Coast Guard, which also licenses pilots and certifies their fitness. The Board also uses a Coast Guard form to obtain information from pilots and trainees concerning their medical condition. The Coast Guard’s fitness standards have recently changed, as has the medical information form that a pilot or trainee submits to initiate the fitness evaluation.

These amendments will update the regulations to specify the current fitness evaluation standards and the current reporting form used by the Coast Guard. ● Under the current system, a fit–for–duty (F F

D) determination is effective for a period of one year unless the pilot or trainee experiences some intervening medical condition that may impair their ability to perform their duties. With certain medical conditions, a physician may wish to re– examine a pilot or trainee at an interval shorter than one year after an F F D determination. A proposed amendment would allow a physician to issue an F F D determination for a period shorter than one year. If the examining physician and the Medical Review Officer (M R

O) require reevaluation at different intervals shorter than one year, the shorter interval would be applied. ● Medical assessments and agility tests of trainees are required prior to entry into the training program and annually during the training program. Medical assessments and agility tests are required of pilots prior to licensure as a pilot and prior to annual renewal of a pilot license.

To ensure that assessments and tests are conducted close in time to the event requiring the assessment or test, the amendments would specify that a required assessment or test must be commenced and completed within 90 days prior to the triggering event. ● Both the medical assessment and the agility test may also be required by a physician at other times. It sometimes happens that an individual has undergone a medical assessment or agility test shortly before an upcoming event that triggers a requirement that an assessment or agility test be

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 6-Z 132 performed.

These amendments would provide that a new assessment or a new test will not be required if a prior assessment or test has been commenced and completed within 90 days prior to the event that would otherwise trigger the need for an assessment or test. ● The amendments clarify that, at the discretion of Board–appointed physicians, the full medical assessment process need not be completed in every case in which a Board–appointed physician determines that a fitness evaluation of a trainee or pilot is required. ● Certain deadlines in the current regulations have proven overly short.

Amendments would allow the Board’s Executive Director to extend those deadlines for prescribed periods for good cause shown. ● The current regulations require two fitness determinations, one by the examining physician and one by the M R O. An amendment would eliminate the need for a fitness determination by the M R O if the examining physician has determined that the trainee or pilot is not fit for duty (N F F D). ● This subsection is proposed for addition to the regulations. Pilots and trainees may be required to undergo drug and alcohol tests.

Currently, there is nothing in the Board’s regulations requiring the test results to be reported to the Board, nor is there any provision for evaluation of the test results with regard to the fitness of the pilot or trainee who was the subject of the tests. This addition will cure that omission. ● A pilot who is determined N F F D is placed on medical disability leave and may not return to piloting until determined to be F F D. A new proposed regulation would require that pilots on medical disability leave have their fitness reevaluated at intervals of not less than 120 days.

This will ensure that the number of pilots available for piloting duties is maximized, so as to reduce potential for fatigue among pilots available for assignment. ● The current regulations require that examining physicians have at least five years of experience in occupational medicine. Because the evaluations of these physicians are subject to review by the Medical Review Officer, who must have at least 10 years of experience in occupational medicine, this standard is overly strict and results in delays, given the limited number of examining physicians with the required experience.

The amendment would require that examining physicians have at least one year of experience in occupational medicine. ● Throughout, the proposed amendments would distinguish the process for evaluating fitness (“fitness evaluation”) from the conclusion concerning fitness (“fitness determination”). ● Where necessitated by the proposed amendments, the Board’s various forms will be amended to conform to the new language of the regulations.

Anticipated Benefits of the Proposed Regulations The broad objective of the proposed amendments to the fitness regulations is to ensure that the Board administers its program for determining the mental and physical fitness of pilots and pilot trainees in a more effective and efficient manner. The amendments will enhance protection of public health and safety and protection of the environment by enacting stricter standards for issuance of fit–for–duty determinations, by maximizing the number of pilots available for assignment, and by rendering the fitness evaluation process quicker and more efficient.

Determination of Inconsistency/Incompatibility with Existing State Regulations The Board has determined that the proposed amendments are not inconsistent or incompatible with existing state regulations or statutes. After conducting a review for any state regulations that would relate to or affect the regulatory sections proposed to be amended, the Board has concluded that these are the only state regulations that concern the fitness for duty of pilots and pilot trainees under the jurisdiction of the Board.

DISCLOSURES AND DECLARATIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACTION The Board has made the following 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: None. ● Cost or savings in federal funding to the state: None. ● The amendments will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. ● The 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. ● Effect on housing cost: None.

Results of the Economic Impact Analysis/ Assessment The Board has concluded that the proposed regulations will not facilitate the creation or

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 6-Z 133 elimination of jobs within California. The proposed regulations will not affect the creation or elimination of businesses within California or the expansion of businesses currently doing business within California.

Benefits of the Proposed Action: The proposed amendments to the fitness regulations will benefit California residents and the state’s environment by enacting stricter standards for issuance of fit–for– duty determinations to pilots and pilot trainees, by maximizing the number of pilots available for assignment, and by rendering the fitness evaluation process quicker and more efficient. CONSIDERATON OF ALTERNATIVES In accordance with Government Code

section 11346.5, subdivision (a)(13), the Board must determine that no reasonable alternative it considered or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the Board would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed, 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 provisions of law.

The Board invites interested persons to present statements or arguments with respect to alternatives to the proposed regulations at the scheduled hearing, if one is held, or during the written comment period. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any interested person, or his or her authorized representative, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory actions to the Board. Written comments will be accepted by the Board until 5:00 p.m., on March 23, 2021.

Submit comments to: Allen Garfinkle, Executive Director Board of Pilot Commissioners for the Bays of San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun 660 Davis Street, San Francisco, California 94111 bopc@bopc.ca.gov CONTACT PERSON Inquiries concerning the proposed administrative action may be directed to: Name: Roma Cristia–Plant Email: bopc@bopc.ca.gov Phone: (415) 397–2253 The backup contact person for these inquiries is: Name: Allen Garfinkle Email: bopc@bopc.ca.gov Phone: (415) 397–2253 Please direct requests for copies of the proposed text (Express Terms) of the regulations, the Initial Statement of Reasons, the modified text of the regulations, if any, or other information upon which the rulemaking is based to Ms.

Cristia–Plant at the above address. A VAILABLITY OF INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS, TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS AND RULEMAKING FILE The Board has established a rulemaking file for this regulatory action, which contains those items required by law. The file is available for inspection at the above address during normal business hours (9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.). Please contact Roma Cristia–Plant at the above email address to arrange a date and time to inspect the files.

As of the date this Notice is published in the Notice Register, the rulemaking file consists of this Notice, the Initial Statement of Reasons, and the proposed text of the regulations. Copies of these items are available upon request from the Board Contact Person designated in this Notice. AVAILABILITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT After the close of the 45–day public comment period, the Board may adopt the proposed regulations.

As a result of public comments, either oral or written, that are received by the Board regarding this proposal, the Board may determine that changes to the proposed regulations are appropriate. If the Board makes modifications that are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text, it will make the modified text (with the changes clearly indicated) available to the public for at least 15 days before the Board adopts the regulations as revised.

The Board will provide notification of any such modifications to all persons whose comments were received during the public comment period, all persons whose comments (written or oral) were received at the public hearing (if one is held), and all persons who requested notice of such modifications. Otherwise, please send requests for copies of any modified regulations to the attention of Ms. Cristia–Plant at the above email address. The Board will accept written comments on the modified regulations for 15 days after the date on which the modified regulations are made available.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 6-Z 134 A VAILABILITY OF FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS The Board is required to prepare a Final Statement of Reasons. Once the Board has prepared a Final Statement of Reasons, a copy will be made available to anyone who requests a copy. Requests for copies should be addressed to the Board Contact Person identified in this Notice. BOARD INTERNET WEBSITE The Board maintains an Internet website for the electronic publication and distribution of written material.

Copies of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Initial Statement of reasons, and the text of the regulations in underline and strikeout can be accessed through the Board’s website at www.bopc. ca.gov. TITLE 10. D EPARTMENT OF INSURANCE REG-2020-00018 AUTOMOBILE ASSIGNED RISK PLAN PLAN OF OPERATIONS SUBJECT OF HEARING California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara will hold a public hearing to address the proposed amendments to the California Automobile Assigned Risk Plan (CAARP) Plan of Operations.

AUTHORITY TO ADOPT RULES AND PROCEDURES AND REFERENCE The Commissioner will consider the proposed changes pursuant to the authority vested in him by

Section 11620 of the California Insurance Code. The Commissioner’s decision on the proposed changes will implement, interpret, or make specific the require - ments of Insurance Code

Section 11624(e). Insurance Code

Section 11620(

c) applies to this proceeding. HEARING DATE AND LOCATION Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held to permit all interested persons the opportunity to present statements or arguments, orally or in writing, with respect to the application at the following date, time, and place: Date: March 30, 2021 Time: 1:00 p.m. TELEPHONIC PARTICIPATION ONLY Toll-Free Conference Call Telephone N umber: 844-867-6169 Participant Access Code: 8021221 Participants will be given instructions on how to provide testimony once they have accessed the hearing.

The hearing will continue on the date noted above until all testimony has been submitted or until 5:00 p.m., whichever is earlier. Access to Telephonic Conference Call. This hearing will be open to the public.

To make it possi - ble for the Department to advise attendees of future rulemaking activity, as well as to aid the Department of Insurance in managing attendance, we request that you voluntarily R S V P as soon as possible, prefera- bly by March 25, 2021, by providing your name(s), the name of the organization you represent, and your contact information, including email address of each attendee to RiordanM@insurance.ca.gov An R S V P is not required to attend the telephonic conference and all attendees are invited to participate regardless of whether there was an RSVP.

The telephonic conference to be used for the public hearing is accessible to persons with mobility impair - ment. Persons with sight or hearing impairments are requested to notify the contact person for these hear - ings (listed below) in order to make specific arrange - ments, if necessary. WRITTEN AND/OR ORAL COMMENTS: AGENCY CONTACT PERSON All persons are invited to submit written comments to the Insurance Commissioner on the application pri- or to the public comment deadline.

Comments should be addressed to the contact person for this proceeding: Contact Person: Michael Riordan, Attorney California Department of Insurance Auto Enforcement Bureau 1901 Harrison Street 4 th Floor Oakland, C A 94612 riordanm@insurance.ca.gov Telephone: (415) 538-4226 Facsimile: (510) 238-7830 The backup agency contact person for this proceed- ing will be:

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 6-Z 135 Emily Gallagher, Attorney California Department of Insurance Rate Enforcement Bureau 1901 Harrison Street 4th Floor Oakland, C A 94612 gallaghere@insurance.ca.gov Telephone: (415) 538-4108 All persons are invited to present oral and/or written testimony at the scheduled public hearing. DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS All written materials, unless submitted at the hear - ing, must be received by the Insurance Commissioner at the address listed above no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 30, 2021.

Any written materials received after that time will not be considered. Written comments may also be submitted to the contact person by e-mail or facsimile transmission. Please select only one meth- od to submit written comments. ADVOCACY OR WITNESS FEES Persons or groups representing the interest of con - sumers may be entitled to reasonable advocacy fees, witness fees, and other reasonable expenses, in ac - cordance with the provisions of California Code of Regulations, Title 10, Sections 2662.1-2662.6 in connection with their participation in this matter.

Interested persons must submit a Petition to Participate, as specified in California Code of Regulations, Title 10,

Section 2661.4. The Petition to Participate must be submitted to the Commissioner at the Office of the Public Advisor at the following address: California Department of Insurance Office of the Public Advisor 300 Spring Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, C A 90013 Telephone: (213) 346-6635 A copy of the Petition to Participate must also be submitted to the contact person for this hearing (list - ed above). For further information, please contact the Office of the Public Advisor. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW C A 20-07 California law requires that all licensed insurers to participate in CAARP.

Currently, private passenger applications that come to CAARP are directly assigned to insurers on a percentage basis. The insurer issues personal auto policies, provide policyholder services, and are responsible for claims related to the applica - tion. The Limited Assignment Distribution Procedure (L A D), is a program that allows insurers to contract out of its obligation to service CAARP assignments. By contracting the obligation, the L A D carrier per - forms the same services for their buy-out companies who do not want to receive direct assignments.

A Private Passenger Pool (“P P P”) will supplement the current private passenger assignment mechanism and provides a means by which A I P S O, as a service provider, can act as a back-up should changes in Plan volume occur or the availability of L A D servicing companies change in the future. The PPP would operate independently from the direct assignment mechanism and L A D procedure. The CAARP Advisory Committee would allocate a percentage of the Plan private passenger applications to the P P P.

A I P S O will adjust assignment volumes directed to the P P P to match the specified percentage of Plan volume over time as Plan volumes fluctuate. Assignment quotas will continue to be calculated based on the percentage of volume the insurers write. Insurers will continue to take direct assignments. L A D will continue to provide a remedy to insurers who do not want to write and service Plan private pas- senger applications. Because the quota system will continue to function as if the P P A doesn’t exist, in - surer under/over assignment positions will continue to be calculated by the quota system.

Participation ratios for insurer shares of P P P operating results will be determined using the same voluntary private passen - ger nonfleet automobile liability net direct written car years used for quota determination. All insurers writing voluntary private passenger au- tomobile insurance must participate in P P P. A service provider will issue and service Plan personnel auto in- surance policies on behalf of the member companies. The policies are issued in the Plans name with the Plan as the insurer.

Premiums, expenses, and losses will be pooled and the operating results shared among insurers writing personal auto polices in the voluntary market. The operating results will be apportioned to member companies through assessments and compa - nies will be able to book their shares as Board and Bureau Expenses. In addition, specific references to the Electronic Application Submission Interface (E A S

i) have been replaced with broader generic references that will not require revisions should a transition from E A S i to an- other system occur in the future. COMPARABLE FEDERAL LAW There are no comparable existing federal regula - tions or statutes.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 6-Z 136 LOCAL MANDATE DETERMINATION The Insurance Commissioner has initially deter - mined that the application will not result in any new program mandates on local agencies or school districts. MANDATES ON LOCAL AGENCIES OR SCHOOL DISTRICTS OR COSTS WHICH MUST BE REIMBURSED PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 17500 THROUGH 17630 The Insurance Commissioner has initially deter - mined that the application will not result in any cost or significant savings to any local agency or school district for which

Part 7 (commencing with

Section 17500) of Division 4 of the Government Code would require reimbursement, or in other nondiscretionary costs or savings to local agencies. COST OR SA VINGS TO ANY STATE AGENCY; FEDERAL FUNDING The Commissioner has determined that the applica- tion will result in no cost or savings to any state agency and no cost or savings in federal funding to the state.

SIGNIFICANT STATEWIDE ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACT ON BUSINESSES AND THE ABILITY OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESSES TO COMPETE The Commissioner has initially determined that the proposal will not have a significant statewide ad - verse economic impact directly affecting businesses, including the ability of California businesses to com - pete with businesses in other states. This proposal will have no effect on the creation or elimination of jobs in California, the creation of new businesses, the elimi - nation of existing businesses in California, or the ex - pansion of businesses in California.

COST IMPACTS ON PRIVATE PERSONS OR ENTITIES The Insurance Commissioner has initially deter - mined that the proposal will not affect private person or entities. IMPACT ON HOUSING COSTS The Insurance Commissioner has initially deter - mined that the application will not affect housing costs. IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESS The proposed rate changes could affect small businesses. SPECIFIC TECHNOLOGIES OR EQUIPMENT The application would not mandate the use of spe - cific technologies or equipment.

ALTERNATIVES The Insurance Commissioner must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the agency, or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the agency, would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is pro - posed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action. PLAIN ENGLISH The application describing the proposal is in plain English. However, the application itself is based on technical actuarial principles.

TEXT AND INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS The Department has prepared an Initial Statement of Reasons addressing the proposed rate application in addition to the Informative Digest included in this notice. The Initial Statement of Reasons, Notice of Proposed Action and Regulation Text are available for inspection or copying, and will be provided at no charge upon request to the contact person listed above. Further details on CAARP’s proposal are on file with the Commissioner and available for review as set forth below.

FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS A Final Statement of Reasons will be prepared at the conclusion of this proceeding. Upon written or e-mail request to the contact person listed above, the Final Statement of Reasons will be made available for inspection and copying once it has been prepared. A copy of the Final Statement of Reasons will also be posted on the Department’s web site.

ACCESS TO RULEMAKING FILE Any interested person may inspect a copy of or di - rect questions about CAARP’s application, the state - ment of reasons, and any supplemental information contained in the rulemaking file by contacting the contact person listed above. By prior appointment,

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 6-Z 137 the rulemaking file is available for inspection at 1901 Harrison Street, 6th Floor Oakland, CA 94612, be - tween the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. AUTOMATIC MAILING A copy of this Notice, including the Informative Digest is being sent to all persons on the Insurance Commissioner’s mailing list.

A V AILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS ON THE INTERNET The Initial Statement of Reasons, proposed text, and this Notice of Proposed Action will be published on - line and may be accessed through the Department’s website at www.insurance.ca.gov. AVAILABILITY OF MODIFIED TEXT OF REGULATIONS If the Department amends the application with changes that are sufficiently related to the original ap- plication, the Department will make the full text of the amended rates, with the changes clearly indicated, available to the public for at least 15 days before the date the Department adopts the amended rates. TITLE 14.

F ISH AND GAME COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Fish and Game Commission (Commission), pursuant to the authority vested by sections 200, 205, 265, 270, 315, 316.5, 399 and 2084 of the Fish and Game Code and to implement, interpret or make specific sections 200, 205, 265, 270, 316.5 and 2084 of said Code, proposes to amend subsection (b)(50) of

Section 7.40, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, relating to Klamath River Basin sport fishing regulations. Informative Digest/Policy Statement Overview Unless otherwise specified, all

section references in this document are to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. Office of Administrative Law (O A

L) rulemaking file 2020–1204–02s, adopted by the Commission on October 14, 2020, but not yet approved by O A L, made significant changes to the inland sport fishing regulations. This proposed rulemaking uses the adopted regulations of O A L file 2020–1204–02s as a baseline for proposed changes. The Klamath River Basin, which consists of the Klamath River and Trinity River systems, is managed for fall–run Chinook Salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) through a cooperative system of State, federal, and tribal management agencies.

Salmonid regulations are designed to meet natural and hatchery escapement needs for salmonid stocks, while providing equitable harvest opportunities for ocean sport, ocean commercial, river sport, and tribal fisheries. The Pacific Fishery Management Council (P F M

C) is responsible for adopting recommendations for the management of sport and commercial ocean salmon fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone (three to 200 miles offshore) off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. When approved by the Secretary of Commerce, these recommendations are implemented as ocean salmon fishing regulations by the National Marine Fisheries Service (N M F S).

The California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) adopts regulations for the ocean salmon sport (inside three miles) and the Klamath River Basin (in–river) sport fisheries, which are consistent with federal fishery management goals. Tribal entities within the Klamath River Basin maintain fishing rights for ceremonial, subsistence, and commercial fisheries that are managed consistent with federal fishery management goals. Tribal fishing regulations are promulgated by the tribes. Klamath River Fall–Run Chinook Salmon Adult Klamath River fall–run Chinook Salmon (K R F

C) harvest allocations and natural spawning escapement goals are established by P F M C. The Klamath River Basin in–river sport salmon fishery is managed using adult quotas. The K R F C harvest allocation between tribal and non–tribal fisheries is based on court decisions and allocation agreements between the various fishery representatives. For the purpose of implementing P F M C adult allocation and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) salmon fishery harvest assessment, within the Klamath River Basin the Department currently considers 23 inches total length as a provisional cutoff.

Salmon greater than 23 inches total length are defined as adult salmon (ages 3–5) and salmon less than or equal to 23 inches total length are defined as grilse salmon (age–two). P F M C Overfishing Review K R F C stocks have been designated as “overfished” by P F M C. This designation is the result of not meeting conservation objectives for this stock. Management objectives and criteria for K R F C are defined in the P F M C Salmon Fishery Management Plan (F M P). The threshold for overfished status of K R F C is a three–year geometric mean less than or equal to 30,525 natural area adult spawners.

This overfished– threshold was met for K R F C during the 2015–2017 period. The 30,525 K R F C natural area adult spawners is considered the minimum stock size threshold, per the F M P. The K R F C adult natural area spawning

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 6-Z 138 escapement for 2019 was 20,245 natural area adult spawners, which is below the one–year conservation threshold of 40,700 natural area adult spawners. The most–recent three–year geometric mean is still less than the required 40,700 natural area adult spawners, therefore the K R F C are still considered as an “overfished” stock. Accordingly, the F M P outlines a process for preparing a “rebuilding plan” that includes assessment of the factors that led to the decline of the stock, including fishing, environmental factors, model errors, etc.

The rebuilding plan includes recommendations to address conservation of K R F C, with the goal of achieving rebuilt status. Rebuilt status requires meeting a three–year geometric mean of 40,700 adult natural area K R F C spawner escapement. The plan developed by representatives of N M F S, P F M C, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department), and tribal entities, was submitted to P F M C in February 2019, adopted by P F M C in June 2019 and submitted to N M F S in August 2019.

Forthcoming recommendations from the rebuilding plan may alter how K R F C are managed in the future, including changing the in–river allocation number, and/or allocating less than the normal target number. K R F C Allocation Management The P F M C 2020 allocation for the Klamath River Basin sport harvest was 1,296 adult K R F C. Preseason stock projections of 2021 adult K R F C abundance will not be available from P F M C until March 2021.

The 2021 basin allocation will be recommended by P F M C in April 2021 and presented to the Commission for adoption as a quota for the in–river sport harvest at its May 2021 teleconference meeting. The Commission may modify the K R F C in–river sport harvest quota, which is normally a minimum of 15 percent of the non–tribal P F M C harvest allocation. Commission modifications need to meet biological and fishery allocation goals specified in law or established in the F M P. The annual K R F C in–river sport harvest quota is specified in subsection 7.40(b)(50)(D)1.

The quota is split between four geographic areas with a subquota for each area, expressed as a percentage of the total in–river quota, specified in subsection 7.40(b)(50)(D)2. For angler convenience, the subquotas, expressed as the number of fish, are listed for the affected river segments in subsection 7.40(b)(50)(E).

The in–river sport subquota percentages are as follows: 1. for the main stem Klamath River from 3,500 feet downstream of the Iron Gate Dam to the Highway 96 bridge at Weitchpec — 17 percent of the in– river sport quota; 2. for the main stem Klamath River downstream of the Highway 96 bridge at Weitchpec to the mouth — 50 percent of the in–river sport quota; 3. for the main stem Trinity River downstream of the Old Lewiston Bridge to the Highway 299 West bridge at Cedar Flat –– 16.5 percent of the in–river sport quota; and 4. for the main stem Trinity River downstream of the Denny Road bridge at Hawkins Bar to the confluence with the Klamath River — 16.5 percent of the in–river sport fishery quota.

Proposed Changes Because the P F M C recommendations are not known at this time, ranges are shown in [brackets] in the proposed regulatory text below of bag and possession limits which encompass historical quotas. All are proposed for the 2021 K R F C fishery in the Klamath and Trinity rivers. The final K R F C bag and possession limits will align with the final federal regulations to meet biological and fishery allocation goals specified in law, or established in the F M P.

K R F C SPORT FISHERY (QUOTA MANAGEMENT) Quota: For public notice requirements, the Department recommends the Commission consider a quota range of 0–67,600 adult K R F C in the Klamath River Basin for the in–river sport fishery. This recommended range encompasses the historical range of the Klamath River Basin allocations and allows P F M C and Commission to make adjustments during the 2021 regulatory cycle.

Subquotas: The proposed subquotas for K R F C stocks are as follows: ● Main stem Klamath River from 3,500 feet downstream of the Iron Gate Dam to the Highway 96 bridge at Weitchpec — 17 percent of the total quota equates to [0–11,492]; ● Main stem Klamath River downstream of the Highway 96 bridge at Weitchpec to the mouth — 50 percent of the total quota equates to [0– 33,800]; ● Main stem Trinity River downstream of the Old Lewiston Bridge to the Highway 299 West bridge at Cedar Flat — 16.5 percent of the total quota equates to [0–11,154]; and ● Main stem Trinity River downstream of the Denny Road bridge at Hawkins Bar to the confluence with the Klamath River — 16.5 percent of the total quota equates to [0–11,154].

Seasons: No changes are proposed for the Klamath River and Trinity River K R F C seasons: ● Klamath River — August 15 to December 31

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 6-Z 139 ● Trinity River — September 1 to December 31 Bag and Possession Limits: As in previous years, no retention of adult K R F C is proposed once the subquota has been met. ● Bag Limit — [0–4] Chinook Salmon — of which no more than [0–4] fish over 23 inches total length may be retained until the subquota is met, then 0 fish over 23 inches total length. ● Possession limit — [0–12] Chinook Salmon of which no more than [0–4] fish over 23 inches total length may be retained when the take of salmon over 23 inches total length is allowed.

K R S C SPORT FISHERY The Klamath River Basin also supports Klamath River spring–run Chinook Salmon (K R S C). Presently, K R S C stocks are not managed or allocated by P F M C. No regulatory changes are proposed for the general K R S C opening and closing season dates, and bag, possession and size limits. OTHER CHANGES FOR CLARITY The Department is proposing additional changes for clarity and consistency, as follows: 1. Throughout the regulatory text in subsection 7.40(b)(50), update the year from 2020 to 2021. 2. In the first paragraph of subsection 7.40(b)(50), delete cross reference to

Section 7.00, subsection (

a) for consistency with amendments made to

Section 7.00 in O A L file 2020–1204–02s (Simplification of Statewide Inland Sport Fishing Regulations). Benefits of the Proposed Regulations The Commission anticipates benefits to the environment in the sustainable management of Klamath River Basin salmonid resources. Other benefits of the proposed regulations are conformance with federal fishery management goals, health and welfare of California residents and promotion of businesses that rely on salmon sport fishing in the Klamath River Basin. Consistency and Compatibility with Existing Regulations

Article IV,

Section 20 of the State Constitution specifies that the Legislature may delegate to the Fish and Game Commission such powers relating to the protection and propagation of fish and game as the Legislature sees fit. The Legislature has delegated authority to the Commission to promulgate sport fishing regulations (Fish and Game Code sections 200, 205, 315, and 316.5). The Commission has reviewed its own regulations and finds that the proposed regulations are neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing State regulations.

Commission staff has searched the California Code of Regulations and has found no other State regulations related to sport fishing in the Klamath River Basin. Public Participation NOTICE IS GIVEN that any person interested may present statements, orally or in writing, relevant to this action at a webinar/teleconference hearing to be held on Wednesday, April 14, 2021, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard. Instructions for participation in the webinar/teleconference hearing will be posted at www.fgc.ca.gov in advance of the meeting or may be obtained by calling 916–653–4899.

NOTICE IS ALSO GIVEN that any person interested may present statements, orally or in writing, relevant to this action at a webinar/teleconference hearing to be held on Tuesday, May 11, 2021 , at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard. Instructions for participation in the webinar/ teleconference hearing will be posted at www.fgc. ca.gov in advance of the meeting or may be obtained by calling 916–653–4899. It is requested, but not required, that written comments be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on April 28, 2021 at the address given below, or by email to FGC@fgc. ca.gov.

Written comments mailed, or emailed to the Commission office, must be received before 12:00 noon on May 6, 2021. All comments must be received no later than May 11, 2021, during the webinar/ teleconference hearing. If you would like copies of any modifications to this proposal, please include your name and mailing address. Mailed comments should be addressed to Fish and Game Commission, PO Box 944209, Sacramento, C A 94244–2090.

Availability of Documents Copies of the Notice of Proposed Action, the Initial Statement of Reasons, and the text of the regulation in underline and strikeout format can be accessed through the Commission website at www.fgc.ca.gov. The regulations as well as all related documents upon which the proposal is based (rulemaking file), are on file and available for public review from the agency representative, Melissa Miller–Henson, Executive Director, Fish and Game Commission, 1416 Ninth Street, Box 944209, Sacramento, California 94244– 2090, phone (916) 653–4899.

Please direct requests for the above–mentioned documents and inquiries concerning the regulatory process to Melissa Miller– Henson or Sherrie Fonbuena at FGC@fgc.ca.gov or at the preceding address or phone number. Senior Environmental Scientist, Wade Sinnen, Department of Fish and Wildlife, ( Wade.Sinnen@ wildlife.ca.gov or (707) 822–5119), has been designated to respond to questions on the substance of the proposed regulations.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 6-Z 140 Availability of Modified Text If the regulations adopted by the Commission differ from but are sufficiently related to the action proposed, they will be available to the public for at least 15 days prior to the date of adoption. Circumstances beyond the control of the Commission (e.g., timing of Federal regulation adoption, timing of resource data collection, timelines do not allow, etc.) or changes made to be responsive to public recommendation and comments during the regulatory process may preclude full compliance with the 15–day comment period, and the Commission will exercise its powers under

Section 265 of the Fish and Game Code. Regulations adopted pursuant to this

section are not subject to the time periods for adoption, amendment or repeal of regulations prescribed in sections 11343.4, 11346.4, 11346.8 and 11347.1 of the Government Code. Any person interested may obtain a copy of said regulations prior to the date of adoption by contacting the agency representative named herein. If the regulatory proposal is adopted, the final statement of reasons may be obtained from the address above when it has been received from the agency program staff.

Impact of Regulatory Action/Results of the Economic Impact Assessment The potential for significant statewide adverse economic impacts that might result from the proposed regulatory action has been assessed, and the following initial determinations relative to the required statutory categories have been made: (

a) Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Directly Affecting Business, Including the Ability of California Businesses to Compete with Businesses in Other States: The proposed action will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. The proposed regulations are projected to range from minor to no impact on the net revenues to local businesses servicing sport fishermen.

If the 2021 K R F C quota is reduced, visitor spending may correspondingly be reduced, and in the absence of alternative visitor activities, the drop in spending could induce some business contraction. If the 2021 K R F C quota remains similar to the K R F C quotas allocated in previous years, then local economic impacts are expected to be unchanged. Neither scenario is expected to directly affect the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. (

b) Impact on the Creation or Elimination of Jobs Within the State, the Creation of New Businesses or the Elimination of Existing Businesses, or the Expansion of Businesses in California; Benefits of the Regulation to the Health and Welfare of California Residents, Worker Safety, and the State’s Environment: An estimated 30–50 businesses that serve sport fishing activities are expected to be directly and/ or indirectly affected depending on the final K R F C quota. The impacts range from no impact to small adverse impacts.

Depending on the final K R F C quota, the Commission anticipates the potential for some impact on the creation or elimination of jobs in California. The potential adverse employment impacts range from no impact to the loss of 23 jobs. Under all alternatives, due to the limited time period of this regulation’s impact, the Commission anticipates no impact on the creation of new businesses, the elimination of existing businesses, or the expansion of businesses in California. For all of the proposed scenarios, the possibility of growth of businesses to serve alternative recreational activities exists.

Adverse impacts to jobs and/or businesses would be less if fishing of other species and grilse K R F C is permitted, than the impacts to jobs and/or businesses under a complete closure to all fishing. The impacted businesses are generally small businesses employing few individuals and, like all small businesses, are subject to failure for a variety of causes. Additionally, the long–term intent of the proposed regulatory action is to increase sustainability in fishable salmon stocks and, consequently, promote the long–term viability of these same small businesses.

The Commission anticipates benefits to the health and welfare of California residents. Providing opportunities for a salmon sport fishery encourages a healthy outdoor activity and the consumption of a nutritious food. The Commission anticipates benefits to the environment by the sustainable management of California’s salmonid resources. The Commission does not anticipate any benefits to worker safety because the proposed action does not affect working conditions. (

c) Cost Impacts on a Representative Private Person or Business: The Commission is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 6-Z 141 (

d) Costs or Savings to State Agencies or Costs/ Savings in Federal Funding to the State: None. (

e) Nondiscretionary Costs/Savings to Local Agencies: None. (

f) Programs Mandated on Local Agencies or School Districts: None. (

g) Costs Imposed on any Local Agency or School District that is Required to be Reimbursed Under

Part 7 (commencing with

Section 17500) of Division 4, Government Code: None. (

h) Effect on Housing Costs: None. Effect on Small Business It has been determined that the adoption of these regulations may affect small business. The Commission has drafted the regulations in Plain English pursuant to Government Code Sections 11342.580 and 11346.2(a)(1).

Consideration of Alternatives The Commission must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the Commission, or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the Commission, would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed, would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action, or would be more cost effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law. TITLE 14.

FISH AND GAME COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Fish and Game Commission (Commission), pursuant to the authority vested by sections 200, 205, 265, 270, 315, 316.5, 399 and 2084 of the Fish and Game Code and to implement, interpret or make specific sections 200, 205, 265, 270, 316.5 and 2084 of said Code, proposes to amend subsections (b)(4), (b)(43), (b)(66), and (b) (80) of

Section 7.40, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, relating to Central Valley sport fishing. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW Unless otherwise specified, all

section references in this document are to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. Office of Administrative Law (O A

L) rulemaking file 2020–1204–02s, adopted by the Commission on October 14, 2020, but not yet approved by O A L, made significant changes to the inland sport fishing regulations. This proposed rulemaking uses the adopted regulations of O A L file 2020–1204–02s as a baseline for proposed changes. Current regulations in subsections (b)(4), (b)(43), (b)(66), and (b)(80) of

Section 7.40 prescribe the 2020 seasons and daily bag and possession limits for Sacramento River fall–run Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha; S R F

C) sport fishing in the American, Feather, Mokelumne, and Sacramento rivers, respectively. Collectively, these four rivers constitute the “Central Valley fishery” for S R F C for purposes of this document. Each year, the Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) recommends new Chinook Salmon bag and possession limits for consideration by the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) to align the fishing limits with up–to– date management goals, as set forth below. The Pacific Fishery Management Council (P F M

C) is responsible for adopting recommendations for the management of recreational and commercial ocean salmon fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone (three to 200 miles offshore) off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. When approved by the Secretary of Commerce, these recommendations are implemented as ocean salmon fishing regulations by the National Marine Fisheries Service (N M F S).

The P F M C will develop the annual Pacific coast ocean salmon fisheries regulatory options for public review at its March 2021 meeting and will adopt its final regulatory recommendations at its April 2021 meeting based on the P F M C salmon abundance estimates and recommendations for ocean harvest for the coming season. Based on the April 2021 recommendation by P F M C, the Department will recommend specific bag and possession limit regulations to the Commission at its April 14, 2021 meeting. The Commission will then consider adoption of the Central Valley sport fishing regulations at its May 11, 2021 meeting.

PROPOSED REGULATIONS Chinook Salmon Bag and Possession Limits The Department recognizes the uncertainty of S R F C in–river harvest projections. Therefore, for the 2021 Central Valley fishery, the Department is presenting three regulatory options for the Commission’s consideration to tailor 2021 Central Valley fishery management to target 2021 in–river fisheries harvest projections. ● Option 1 is the most liberal of the three options, and allows take of any size Chinook Salmon up to the daily bag and possession limits.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 6-Z 142 ● Option 2 allows for take of a limited number of adult Chinook Salmon, with grilse Chinook Salmon making up the remainder of the daily bag and possession limits. ● Option 3 is the most conservative option, and allows for a grilse–only Chinook Salmon fishery. All options would be applicable to the following river segments and time periods: American River, subsection 7.40(b)(4): (

B) From the U S G S gauging station cable crossing near Nimbus Hatchery to the S M U D power line crossing the southwest boundary of Ancil Hoffman Park, July 16 through October 31 (

C) From the S M U D power line crossing at the southwest boundary of Ancil Hoffman Park to the Jibboom Street bridge, July 16 through December 31 (

D) From the Jibboom Street bridge to the mouth, July 16 through December 16 Feather River, subsection 7.40(b)(43): (

D) From the unimproved boat ramp above the Thermalito Afterbay Outfall to 200 yards above the Live Oak boat ramp, July 16 through October 31 (

E) From 200 yards above the Live Oak boat ramp to the mouth, July 16 through December 16 Mokelumne River, subsection 7.40(b)(66): (

A) From Comanche Dam to Elliott Road, July 16 through October 15 (

B) From Elliott Road to the Woodbridge Irrigation District Dam and including Lodi Lake, July 16 through December 31 (

D) From the Lower Sacramento Road bridge to the mouth, July 16 through December 16 Sacramento River below Keswick Dam, subsection 7.40(b)(80): (

C) From Deschutes Road bridge to the Red Bluff Diversion Dam, August 1 through December 31 (

D) From the Red Bluff Diversion Dam to the Highway 113 bridge, July 16 through December 16. (

E) From the Highway 113 bridge to the Carquinez Bridge, July 16 through December 16. The following options are provided for Commission consideration: Option 1 — Any Size Chinook Salmon Fishery This option is the Department’s preferred option if the 2021 S R F C stock abundance forecast is sufficiently high to avoid the need to constrain inland S R F C harvest. Bag limit of [0–4] Chinook Salmon. Possession limit — [0–12] Chinook Salmon. Option 2 — Limited Adult and Grilse Salmon Fishery Bag limit of [0–4] Chinook Salmon of which no more than [0–4] fish over 27 inches total length may be retained.

Possession limit — [0–12] Chinook Salmon of which no more than [0–4] fish may be over 27 inches total length. Option 3 — Grilse Salmon Fishery Only Bag limit of [0–4] Chinook Salmon less than or equal to 27 inches total length. Possession limit — [0–12] Chinook Salmon less than or equal to 27 inches total length. BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS The Commission anticipates benefits to the environment in the sustainable management of Central Valley Chinook Salmon resources.

Other benefits of the proposed regulations are consistency with federal fishery management goals, health and welfare of California residents, and promotion of businesses that rely on Central Valley Chinook Salmon sport fishing. CONSISTENCY AND COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING REGULATIONS

Article IV,

Section 20 of the State Constitution specifies that the Legislature may delegate to the Commission such powers relating to the protection and propagation of fish and game as the Legislature sees fit. The Legislature has delegated to the Commission the power to regulate sport fishing in waters of the state (Fish and Game Code sections 200, 205, 315 and 316.5). The Commission has reviewed its own regulations and finds that the proposed regulations are neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing state regulations.

The Commission has searched the California Code of Regulations and finds no other state agency regulations pertaining to Chinook Salmon sport fishing seasons, bag, and possession limits for Central Valley sport fishing. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION NOTICE IS GIVEN that any person interested may present statements, orally or in writing, relevant to this action at a webinar/teleconference hearing to be held on Wednesday, April 14, 2021, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard.

Instructions for participation in the webinar/teleconference hearing will be posted at www.fgc.ca.gov in advance of the meeting or may be obtained by calling 916–653–4899. NOTICE IS ALSO GIVEN that any person interested may present statements, orally or in writing,

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 6-Z 143 relevant to this action at a webinar/teleconference hearing to be held on Tuesday, May 11, 2021 , at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard. Instructions for participation in the webinar/ teleconference hearing will be posted at www.fgc. ca.gov in advance of the meeting or may be obtained by calling 916–653–4899. It is requested, but not required, that written comments be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on April 28, 2021 at the address given below, or by email to FGC@fgc. ca.gov.

Written comments mailed, or emailed to the Commission office, must be received before 12:00 noon on May 6, 2021. All comments must be received no later than May 11, 2021, during the webinar/ teleconference hearing. If you would like copies of any modifications to this proposal, please include your name and mailing address. Mailed comments should be addressed to Fish and Game Commission, PO Box 944209, Sacramento, C A 94244–2090.

A VAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS Copies of the Notice of Proposed Action, the Initial Statement of Reasons, and the text of the regulation in underline and strikeout format can be accessed through the Commission website at www.fgc.ca.gov. The regulations as well as all related documents upon which the proposal is based (rulemaking file), are on file and available for public review from the agency representative, Melissa Miller–Henson, Executive Director, Fish and Game Commission, 1416 Ninth Street, Box 944209, Sacramento, California 94244– 2090, phone (916) 653–4899.

Please direct requests for the above–mentioned documents and inquiries concerning the regulatory process to Melissa Miller– Henson or Sherrie Fonbuena at FGC@fgc.ca.gov or at the preceding address or phone number. Senior Environmental Scientist, Karen Mitchell, Department of Fish and Wildlife, ( Karen. Mitchell@wildlife.ca.gov or (916) 376–1917), has been designated to respond to questions on the substance of the proposed regulations.

A VAILABILITY OF MODIFIED TEXT If the regulations adopted by the Commission differ from but are sufficiently related to the action proposed, they will be available to the public for at least 15 days prior to the date of adoption. Circumstances beyond the control of the Commission (e.g., timing of Federal regulation adoption, timing of resource data collection, timelines do not allow, etc.) or changes made to be responsive to public recommendation and comments during the regulatory process may preclude full compliance with the 15–day comment period, and the Commission will exercise its powers under

Section 265 of the Fish and Game Code. Regulations adopted pursuant to this

section are not subject to the time periods for adoption, amendment or repeal of regulations prescribed in sections 11343.4, 11346.4, 11346.8 and 11347.1 of the Government Code. Any person interested may obtain a copy of said regulations prior to the date of adoption by contacting the agency representative named herein. If the regulatory proposal is adopted, the final statement of reasons may be obtained from the address above when it has been received from the agency program staff.

IMPACT OF REGULATORY ACTION/RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT The potential for significant statewide adverse economic impacts that might result from the proposed regulatory action has been assessed, and the following initial determinations relative to the required statutory categories have been made: (

a) Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Directly Affecting Business, Including the Ability of California Businesses to Compete with Businesses in Other States: The proposed action will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. The proposed changes are necessary for the continued preservation of the resource, while providing inland sport fishing opportunities and thus, the prevention of adverse economic impacts. (

b) Impact on the Creation or Elimination of Jobs Within the State, the Creation of New Businesses or the Elimination of Existing Businesses, or the Expansion of Businesses in California; Benefits of the Regulation to the Health and Welfare of California Residents, Worker Safety, and the State’s Environment: The Commission does not anticipate significant adverse economic impacts but acknowledges the potential for short–term negative impacts on the creation or elimination of jobs within the state.

The Commission anticipates no adverse impacts on the creation of new business, the elimination of existing businesses or the expansion of businesses in California. Minor variations in the bag and possession limits and/or the implementation of a size limit are unlikely to significantly impact the volume of business activity. The loss of up to 42 jobs with Option 3 is not expected to eliminate businesses because reduced fishing days will be

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 6-Z 144 partially offset by opportunities to fish for grilse Chinook Salmon and other species. The Commission anticipates benefits to the health and welfare of California residents. Providing opportunities for a Chinook Salmon sport fishery encourages consumption of a nutritious food. The Commission anticipates benefits to the environment by the sustainable management of Chinook Salmon resources in the Central Valley. The Commission does not anticipate any benefits to worker safety.

Other benefits of the proposed regulations are concurrence with federal fishery management goals and promotion of businesses that rely on Central Valley sport fishing. (

c) Cost Impacts on a Representative Private Person or Business: The Commission is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action. (

d) Costs or Savings to State Agencies or Costs/ Savings in Federal Funding to the State: None. (

e) Nondiscretionary Costs/Savings to Local Agencies: None. (

f) Programs Mandated on Local Agencies or School Districts: None. (

g) Costs Imposed on any Local Agency or School District that is Required to be Reimbursed Under

Part 7 (commencing with

Section 17500) of Division 4, Government Code: None. (

h) Effect on Housing Costs: None. EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESS It has been determined that the adoption of these regulations may affect small business. The Commission has drafted the regulations in Plain English pursuant to Government Code Sections 11342.580 and 11346.2(a)(1).

CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES The Commission must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the Commission, or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the Commission, would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed, would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action, or would be more cost effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law. TITLE 15.

BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS B P H RN 21–01 PAROLE CONSIDERATION PROCEDURES FOR LIFE PRISONERS AND NONLIFE 1168 PRISONERS Amendment of Sections 2268 Initial Parole Hearing and 2270 Subsequent Parole Hearing NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Executive Officer of the Board of Parole Hearings (Board), under the authority granted by Government Code

section 12838.4 and Penal Code sections 3052 and 5076.2, authorizes the Board to amend Sections 2268 and 2270 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Division 2,

article 4, concerning Parole Consideration Procedures for Life Prisoners and Nonlife 1168 Prisoners. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Government Code

section 12838.4 vests the Board with all the powers, duties, responsibilities, obligations, liabilities, and jurisdiction of the Board of Prison Terms and Narcotic Addict Evaluation Authority, which no longer exist. Penal Code

section 3052 generally vests with the Board the authority to establish and enforce rules and regulations under which prisoners committed to state prisons may be allowed to go upon parole outside of prison when eligible for parole. Penal Code

section 5076.2 requires the Board to promulgate, maintain, publish, and make available to the general public a compendium of its rules and regulations. Penal Code

section 3041, subdivisions (a)(2) and (d), and Penal Code

section 5076.1, subdivision (

c) establishe the minimum requirement of two–person hearing panels for parole consideration hearings. Penal Code

section 3041.5 establishes the requirements and conditions concerning parole denial periods. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Any interested person, or his or her authorized representative, may submit written comments rele -

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 6-Z 145 vant to the proposed regulations to the Board. THE WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD ON THIS PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION WILL COMMENCE ON FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2021, AND WILL CLOSE ON MONDAY, MARCH 22, 2021. For comments to be considered by the Board, they must be submitted in writing to the Board’s Contact Person identified in this Notice no later than the close of the comment period.

CONTACT PERSON Please direct requests for copies of the Initial Statement of Reasons, the Proposed Text of the Regulation, or other information upon which the rulemaking is based to: George P. Bakerjian, Senior Staff Attorney Board of Parole Hearings P.O. Box 4036 Sacramento, C A 95812–4036 Phone: (916) 322–6729 Facsimile: (916) 322–3475 E–mail: BPH.Regulations@cdcr.ca.gov If George Bakerjian is unavailable, please contact Assistant Chief Counsel, Heather L. McCray at Heather.McCray@cdcr.ca.gov. In any such inquiries, please identify the action by using the Board’s regulation control number B P H RN 21–01.

NO PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED The Board has not scheduled a public hearing on this proposed regulatory action. The Board, however, will hold a hearing if it receives a written request for a public hearing from any interested person, or his or her authorized representative, no later than 15 days before the close of the written comment period. Written or facsimile comments submitted during the prescribed comment period have the same significance and influence as written or oral comments presented at a public hearing.

If scheduled, the purpose of a public hearing would be to receive written or oral comments about the proposed regulations. It would not be a forum to debate the proposed regulations, and no decision regarding the permanent adoption of the proposed regulations would be rendered at a public hearing. The members of the Board would not necessarily be present at a public hearing. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW On November 4, 2008, the People of the State of California approved Proposition 9, the Victims’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008, otherwise known as Marsy’s Law.

This measure amended the California Constitution and Penal Code to provide additional rights to victims during criminal, juvenile, and parole matters. Of relevance, Marsy’s Law amended Penal Code

section 3041.5, subdivision (b), by changing the period for scheduling an inmate’s subsequent parole consideration hearing following a denial of parole. Prior to Marsy’s Law, inmates denied parole were eligible to receive annual parole consideration hearings; however, the Board had discretion to deny parole for up to two years for non–murderers and up to five years for murderers. Marsy’s Law amended Penal Code

section 3041.5, subdivision (b), to require the Board to set a denial length of 15, 10, 7, 5, or 3 years following a decision to deny parole. Drafted prior to Marsy’s Law, California Code of Regulations, title 15, sections 2268, subdivision (b). and 2270, subdivision (d), currently permit the Board, when denying parole for more than one year, to defer an inmate’s subsequent parole consideration hearing for two, three, four, or five years, in conflict with the Marsy’s Law amendments to Penal Code

section 3041.5, subdivision (b)(3). Sections 2268, subdivision (b), and 2270, subdivision (d), state in pertinent part, “[the panel] shall make specific written findings stating the bases for the decision to defer the subsequent suitability hearing for two, three, four, or five years.” (Cal. Code Regs., title 15, §§ 2268, subdivision (b), 2270, subdivision (d).) Additionally, prior to 2004, hearing panels were comprised of three members. In accordance, the California Code of Regulations, title 15,

section 2270, subdivision (

b) still references this prior requirement for three–person panels. However, to reduce a backlog of hearings, the California Legislature amended the Penal Code in 2004 to allow for two–person panels. Penal Code

section 3041, subdivision (a)(2), now provides that a hearing panel at a parole consideration hearing must be composed of, at minimum, two or more commissioners or deputy commissioners, only one of which can be a deputy commissioner. Similarly, Penal Code

section 5076.1 specifies that the Board may meet and transact business in panels, each of which shall consist of two or more persons, subject to subdivision (

d) of Penal Code

section 3041. Penal Code

section 3041, subdivision (d), provides that, during times when there is no backlog of inmates awaiting parole hearings, hearings will be conducted by a panel of three or more members, the majority of whom shall be commissioners. Thus, this proposed regulation package is also submitted to remove

Section 2270, subdivision (b), as it is inconsistent with changes to the Penal Code made after its enactment. This proposed regulation package is submitted to bring Sections 2268, subdivision (b), and 2270,

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 6-Z 146 subdivision (d), into compliance with the denial length requirements outlined in Penal Code

section 3041.5, subdivision (b)(3). Specifically, these sections are amended to harmonize the conflicting text between the Penal Code and regulations concerning the setting of denial lengths following the enactment of Marsy’s Law. Additionally, repealing California Code of Regulations, title 15,

section 2270, subdivision (

b) is necessary to allow the Board to conduct parole hearings using two–person panels and to

schedule subsequent hearings without requiring a panel member from the previous hearing. ANTICIPATED BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS These amendments will bring the Board’s regulations regarding the setting of a denial length in harmony with Penal Code

section 3041.5, subdivision (b)(3). Clarifying the process for setting a parole denial length benefits commissioners, hearing participants, and all stakeholders because it provides transparency to the Board’s process of setting a denial length following a finding of parole unsuitability, and clarifies how that process will be implemented. This will benefit all stakeholders by clarifying how the Board imposes parole denial lengths.

In addition, these amendments would remove the currently unfeasible requirements of a three–member hearing panels and scheduling subsequent hearing panels to include a member of a prior panel. These changes will benefit all parties by providing the flexibility needed for the Board to conduct hearings as timely as possible and continue to reduce the parole consideration hearing backlog. DETERMINATION OF INCONSISTENCY/ INCOMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING STATE REGULATIONS The Board has determined that these proposed amendments are not inconsistent or incompatible with existing regulations.

After conducting a review for any regulations that would relate to or affect this area, the Board has concluded that these are the only regulations that concern the Board’s requirements in selecting denial length periods following a decision to deny parole and they are the only regulations that concern the number of panel members required to conduct a parole hearing. DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACTION Local Mandates: The Board has determined that the proposed action imposes no mandate upon local agencies or school districts.

Fiscal Impact Statement: The Board has made the following initial determinations: ○ Cost to any local agency or school district which must be reimbursed in accordance with Government Code §§ 17500 through 17630: None. ○ Cost or savings to any state agency: None. ○ Other non–discretionary cost or savings imposed on local agencies: None. ○ Cost or savings in federal funding to the state: None.

Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact on Business: The Board has determined that there is no significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. Cost Impacts on Representative Private Persons or Businesses: The Board is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action.

Assessment of Effects on Job and/or Business Creation, Elimination or Expansion: The Board has determined that adoption of this regulation will not: (1) create or eliminate jobs within California; (2) create new businesses or eliminate existing business within California; or (3) affect the expansion of businesses currently doing business within California.

Effect on Housing Costs: The Board has made an initial determination that the proposed action will have no significant effect on housing costs because housing costs are not affected by the internal processes governing the Board’s requirements in selecting denial length periods following a decision to deny parole. Small Business Determination: The Board has determined that the proposed regulations do not have a significant adverse economic impact on small business because small businesses are not affected by the setting of denial lengths for inmates denied parole at a parole consideration hearing.

RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS/ASSESSMENT The Board concludes that it is (1) unlikely that the proposed regulations will create or eliminate any jobs in California, (2) unlikely that the proposed regulations will create any new business or eliminate any existing businesses, and (3) unlikely that the

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 6-Z 147 proposed regulations will result in the expansion of businesses currently doing business within the state. Anticipated Benefits to the health and welfare of California residents, worker safety, and the state’s environment: As further explained in the Economic Impact Analysis, contained within the Initial Statement of Reasons, these proposed amendments will bring the Board’s regulations in harmony with statutory law.

In addition, the amendments will benefit all stakeholders by providing greater clarity and transparency regarding the process of setting a denial length following the Board’s decision to deny parole, and provide greater clarity regarding the number of panel members required to conduct a parole hearing.

Ensuring that parole denial lengths are properly imposed in accordance with Marsy’s Law helps the Board protect and preserve public safety by setting appropriate denial lengths for offenders who remain a current, unreasonable risk to public safety while ensuring due process to all offenders who come under the Board’s jurisdiction. This would allow the Board to maintain a high performing and professional parole hearing and review system that protects California’s communities and is fair to all offenders.

CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES 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 action is proposed, or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons, than the proposed regulatory action, or would be more cost–effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law.

Interested parties are accordingly invited to present statements or arguments with respect to any alternatives to the proposed changes during the public comment period. A VAILABILITY OF PROPOSED TEXT The Board will make the rulemaking file available to the public throughout the rulemaking process at its offices located at 1515 K Street, Suite 600, Sacramento, California.

As of the date this Notice is published in the Office of Administrative Law’s Notice Register, the rulemaking file consists of this Notice, Form 400 (Notice of Submission of Regulation), the Proposed Text of the Regulation, Initial Statement of Reasons, and the Form 399 (Fiscal and Economic Impact Statement). Copies of any of these documents may be obtained by contacting the Board’s Contact Person identified in this notice at the mailing address, fax number, or email address listed above or by visiting the Board’s website at: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/BOPH/ reg_revisions.html.

AVAILABILITY OF CHANGES TO PROPOSED TEXT After considering all timely and relevant comments received, the Board may adopt the proposed regulations substantially as described in this Notice. If the Board makes modifications that are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text, it will make the modified text (with the changes clearly indicated) available to the public for at least 15 days before the Board adopts the regulations as revised.

Please send requests for copies of any modified regulation text to the attention of the Contact Person identified in this Notice or by visiting the Board’s website at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/BOPH/ reg_revisions.html. If the Board makes modifications, the Board will accept written comments on the modified regulations for 15 days after the date on which they are made available.

A VAILABILITY OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Upon its completion, copies of the Final Statement of Reasons may be obtained by contacting the Board’s Contact Person identified in this notice at the mailing address, phone number, fax number, or email address listed above or by visiting the Board’s website at: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/BOPH/reg_revisions.html. TITLE 16.

BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS CONCERNING SUBSTANTIAL RELATIONSHIP CRITERIA AND CRITERIA FOR REHABILITATION Subject Matter of Proposed Regulations : Licensing boards: denial of application: revocation or suspension of licensure: criminal conviction Sections Affected: California Code of Regulations (C C R), Title 16, Division 4, Sections 316.5, 326, and 327 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Chiropractic Examiners (hereafter “Board”) is proposing to amend regulations described in the Informative Digest below.

Any person interested in providing the Board with comments may present statements or arguments relevant to the action proposed in writing. Written comments, including those sent by mail, facsimile, or e–mail to the address listed under Contact Person in this Notice, must be received by

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 6-Z 148 the Board of Chiropractic Examiners, at its office, by 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, March 23, 2021. The Board does not intend to hold a hearing on this matter. If any interested party desires that a hearing be held, they must make the request, in writing, to the Board. The request must be received in the Board office no later than 15 days before the close of the written comment period.

The Board, upon its own motion or at the request of any interested party, may thereafter adopt the proposals substantially as described below or may modify such proposals if such modifications are sufficiently related to the original text. With the exception of technical or grammatical changes, the full text of any modified proposal will be available for 15 days prior to its adoption from the person designated in this Notice as contact person and will be mailed to those persons who submit written or oral testimony related to this proposal or who have requested notification of any changes to the proposal.

AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Pursuant to the authority vested by sections 4(b), 4(c), 10(a), 10(

b) of the Chiropractic Initiative Act of California Stats. 1923 p. lxxxviii, and to implement, interpret or make specific regulatory revisions as required in sections of 7.5, 480, 481, 482, 488, and 493 of the Business and Professions Code (B P C), the Board is considering changes to Title 16, Division 4, of the California Code of Regulations as follows: INFORMATIVE DIGEST The Chiropractic Initiative Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act,

section 4(b), authorizes the Board to adopt regulations as they may deem proper and necessary for the performance of its work, the effective enforcement and administration of this act, the establishment of educational requirements for license renewal, and the protection of the public. Additionally, in conformity with the intent of Assembly Bill (AB) 2138 (Chiu,

Chapter 995, Statutes of 2018), the primary purpose of this proposal is to implement, interpret, and make specific the provisions of B P C sections 7.5, 141, 475, 480, 481, 482, 488, 490, 492, and 493, relative to substantial relationship and rehabilitation criteria, the Board is proposing the following changes: Add

Section 316.5 to

Article 2 of Division 4 of Title 16 of the C C R (Substantial Relationship Criteria): The proposed regulation, for purposes of denial, suspension, or revocation of a license, will add professional misconduct and out–of–state discipline as grounds requiring the Board to consider the substantially related criteria, and require the Board, in making the substantial relationship determination for a crime, to consider the following criteria: (1) the nature and gravity of the offense; (2) the number of years elapsed since the date of the offense; and (3) the nature and duties of a person holding the license.

The proposal will also add that substantially related crimes, professional misconduct or acts will include violating the laws of other state[s] or federal laws governing the practice of chiropractic. Amend

Section 326 to

Article 2 of Division 4 of Title 16 of the C C R (Criteria for Rehabilitation) The proposed regulation will clarify that the Board, when considering a license denial on the ground that the applicant or licensee was convicted of a crime, would have to determine whether the applicant or licensee made a showing of rehabilitation and is presently eligible for a license, if the applicant or licensee completed the criminal sentence without a violation of parole or probation.

In making that determination, the proposal will require the Board to consider the nature and gravity of the crime, the length of the parole or probation period, the extent to which the parole or probation period was shortened or lengthened, and the reasons therefor, the terms or conditions of parole or probation and the extent to which they bear on the applicant’s or licensee’s rehabilitation, and the extent to which the terms or conditions of parole were modified, and why.

The proposal will also require a broader set of rehabilitation criteria to be considered for applicants and licensees who had not completed the criminal sentence without a violation of parole or probation, did not sufficiently demonstrate their rehabilitation under the narrower set of criteria, or when the denial or discipline was based on something other than a conviction. Add

Section 327 to

Article 2 of Division 4 of Title 16 of the C C R (Rehabilitation Criteria for Suspensions or Revocations) The proposed regulation would clarify that the Board, when considering the discipline of a license on the ground that the applicant or licensee was convicted of a crime, would have to determine whether the applicant or licensee made a showing of rehabilitation and is presently eligible for a license, and if the applicant or licensee completed the criminal sentence without a violation of parole or probation.

In making that determination, the proposal will require the Board to consider the nature and gravity of the crime, the length of the parole or probation period, the extent to which the parole or probation period was shortened or lengthened, and the reasons therefor, the terms or conditions of parole or probation and the extent to which they bear on the applicant’s or licensee’s rehabilitation, and the extent to which the terms or conditions of parole were modified and why.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2021, VOLUME NUMBER 6-Z 149 The proposal will require a broader set of rehabilitation criteria to be considered for applicants and licensees who had not completed the criminal sentence without a violation of parole or probation, did not sufficiently demonstrate their rehabilitation under the narrower set of criteria, or when the suspension or revocation was based on something other than a conviction.

POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW/ ANTICIPATED BENEFITS OF PROPOSAL As specified in the legislative analyses of AB 2138, this proposal seeks to reduce barriers to licensure for individuals with prior criminal convictions, which may reduce recidivism and provide economic opportunity to California’s residents. In addition, the proposal seeks to improve clarity, transparency, and consistency for applicants and licensees in the Board’s use of their criminal history. Further, by reducing barriers to licensure, the Board anticipates benefits to consumers who may have greater access to licensed health care professionals.

Consistency and Compatibility with Existing State Regulations During the process of developing these regulations and amendments, the Board has conducted a search of any similar regulations of these topics and has concluded that these regulations are neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing state regulations. FISCAL IMPACT ESTIMATES Fiscal Impact on Public Agencies Including Costs or Savings to State Agencies: Because the Board historically denies less than one initial application per year, no increase in the number of initial applications approved per year is anticipated.

As a result, the proposed regulations are not anticipated to increase licensing and/or enforcement costs related to any expansion of the licensee population. Cost or Savings in Federal Funding to the State: None. Nondiscretionary Costs/Savings to Local Agencies: None. Local Mandate: None. Cost to Any Local Agency or School District for Which Government Code Sections 17500–17630 Require Reimbursement: None.

Business Impact: The Board has made an initial determination that the proposed regulatory action will have no significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. This initial determination is based on the following facts: By reducing barriers to licensure for applicants and licensees with criminal histories or license discipline, businesses may find a greater applicant pool from which to hire.

The Board has determined that this regulatory proposal will not have any impact on the creation of jobs or new businesses, the elimination of jobs or existing businesses, or the expansion of businesses in the State of California. Business Reporting Requirements The regulatory action does not require businesses to file a report with the Board. Cost Impact on 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. Effect on Housing Costs: None.

EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESS Although the total number of small businesses impacted is unknown, the Board has determined that this regulatory proposal will not have a significant adverse economic impact on small businesses. By reducing barriers to licensure for applicants and licensees with criminal history or license discipline, small businesses may find a greater applicant pool from which to hire.

RESULTS OF ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT/ANALYSIS Impact on Jobs/Businesses: The Board has determined that this regulatory pro - posal will not have a significant impact on the creation of jobs or new businesses, the elimination of jobs or existing businesses, or the expansion of businesses in the State of California. Benefits of Regulation: The Board has determined that this proposal may benefit individuals, who would have greater access to licensure, reduce criminal recidivism, and provide economic opportunity to California residents with a criminal history.

The public may benefit from the proposal with increased access to licensed health care professionals, which may benefit the health and welfare of California’s health care consumers. Chiropractic businesses may also benefit as they would have a larger pool of licensed professionals from which to hire. The regulatory proposal does not affect worker safety or th