(Continued on next page) REGISTER Time- Dated Material EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., GOVERNOR OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 2019, NO. 1−Z PUBLISHED WEEKLY BY THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JANUARY 4, 2019 PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS TITLE 10. DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE Conflict−of−Interest Code — Notice File No. Z2018−1224−01 ............................................ 1 TITLE 13 AND 17. AIR RESOURCES BOARD Zero−Emission Powertrain Certification — Notice File No. Z2018−1218−08 ................................. 2 TITLE 15. BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS Parole Consideration Hearings for Youth Offenders — Notice File No.

Z2018−1224−03 ....................... 10 TITLE 15. CALIFORNIA PRISON INDUSTRY AUTHORITY Settlement Authority — Notice File No. Z2018−1217−01 ................................................ 15 TITLE 15. CALIFORNIA PRISON INDUSTRY AUTHORITY Incentive Compensation Authority — Notice File No. Z2018−1217−02 ..................................... 18 TITLE 16. STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL BOARD Wood Destroying Organism (WDO) Inspection Reporting Fee Increase — Notice File No. Z2018−1221−01 ................................................................... 21 TITLE 17.

AIR RESOURCES BOARD Zero−Emission Airport Shuttle Bus — Notice File No. Z2018−1218−07 .................................... 24 TITLE 17. AIR RESOURCES BOARD 2018 State Area Designations — Notice File No.

Z2018−1218−06 ........................................ 35 GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CESA Consistency Determination Request for Cottonwood Creek Bridge Restoration Project 2080−2018−016−02, Butte County ........................................... 40 DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUSTANCES CONTROL Consent Decree — Former Davis Chemical Site ....................................................... 41

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS BOARD Public Meeting and Business Meeting ............................................................... 42 A V AILABILITY OF INDEX OF PRECEDENTIAL DECISION BUREAU OF AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR Precedential Decisions Index Annual Notice .......................................................... 42

SUMMARY OF REGULATORY ACTIONS Regulations filed with the Secretary of State .......................................................... 42 Sections Filed, July 25, 2018 to December 26, 2018 ................................................... 44 The California Regulatory Notice Register is an official state publication of the Office of Administrative Law containing notices of proposed regulatory actions by state regulatory agencies to adopt, amend or repeal regulations contained in the California Code of Regulations.

The effective period of a notice of proposed regulatory action by a state agency in the California Regulatory Notice Register shall not exceed one year [Government Code § 11346.4(b)]. It is suggested, therefore, that issues of the California Regulatory Notice Register be retained for a minimum of 18 months. CALIFORNIA REGULA TORY NOTICE REGISTER is published weekly by the Office of Administrative Law, 300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1250, Sacramento, CA 95814-4339. The Register is printed by Barclays, a subsidiary of West, a Thomson Reuters Business, and is offered by subscription for $205.00 (annual price).

To order or make changes to current subscriptions, please call (800) 328−4880. The Register can also be accessed at http://www.oal.ca.gov .

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 1-Z 1 PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS Information contained in this document is published as received from agencies and is not edited by Thomson Reuters. TITLE 10. DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE CONFLICT−OF−INTEREST CODE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE The Department of Real Estate (“DRE”), pursuant to the authority vested in it by

section 87306 of the Gov- ernment Code, proposes amendment to its conflict−of− interest code. A comment period has been established commencing on January 4, 2019 and closing on Febru- ary 19, 2019. All inquiries and comments should be di- rected to the contact listed below. DRE proposes to amend its conflict−of−interest code to add position types that came into use since the last up- date of the code and that involve the making or partici- pation in the making of decisions that may foreseeably have a material effect on any financial interest, as set forth in subdivision (

a) of

section 87302 of the Govern- ment Code. Other changes are described immediately below. These amendments carry out the purposes of the law and no other alternative would do so and be less bur- densome on affected persons.

Changes to the conflict−of−interest code also include: • Updated reporting requirement language. • Removal of redundant requirements. • Reorganized Appendix to reflect the organizational structure of DRE. • Removal of position types that are no longer in use. • Updated and clarified reporting categories. • Updated addresses for DRE’s headquarters and the Fair Political Practices Commission (“FPPC”). The proposed amendments and explanation of the reasons can be obtained from the contact person set forth below.

Any interested person may submit written comments relating to the proposed amendment by submitting them no later than February 19, 2019, or at the conclusion of the public hearing, if requested, whichever comes later. At this time, no public hearing is scheduled. A person may request a hearing no later than February 4, 2019. DRE has determined that the proposed amendments: 1. Impose no mandate on local agencies or school districts. 2. Impose no costs or savings on any state agency. 3. Impose no costs on any local agency or school district that are required to be reimbursed under

Part 7 (commencing with

Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. 4. Will not result in any nondiscretionary costs or savings to local agencies. 5. Will not result in any costs or savings in federal funding to the state. 6. Will not have any potential cost impact on private persons, businesses or small business. All inquiries concerning these proposed amendments and any communication required by this notice should be directed to: Regular Mail Department of Real Estate Attn: Daniel E. Kehew, Sacramento Legal Office P.O.

Box 137007 Sacramento, CA 95813−7007 Electronic Mail DRERegs@dre.ca.gov Facsimile (916) 263−8767 Comments may be submitted until 5:00 p.m., Feb- ruary 19, 2019. CONTACT PERSON Inquiries concerning this action may be directed to Daniel Kehew at (916) 576−7842, or via email at DRERegs@dre.ca.gov. The backup contact person is Stephen Lerner at (916) 576−8100.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 1-Z 2 TITLE 13 AND TITLE 17. AIR RESOURCES BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AND TEST PROCEDURES FOR HEA VY− DUTY ELECTRIC AND FUEL−CELL VEHICLES AND PROPOSED STANDARDS AND TEST PROCEDURES FOR ZERO−EMISSION POWERTRAINS (ZERO−EMISSION POWERTRAIN CERTIFICATION REGULATION) The California Air Resources Board (CARB or Board) will conduct a public hearing at the time and place noted below to consider approving for adoption the proposed Zero−Emission Powertrain Certification Regulation.

DATE: February 21, 2019 TIME: 9:00 a.m. LOCATION: California Environmental Protection Agency California Air Resources Board Byron Sher Auditorium 1001 I Street Sacramento, California 95814 This item will be considered at a meeting of the Board, which will commence at 9:00 a.m., February 21, 2019, and may continue at 8:30 a.m., on February 22, 2019. Please consult the agenda for the hearing, which will be available at least ten days before February 21, 2019, to determine the day on which this item will be considered.

WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD AND SUBMITT AL OF COMMENTS Interested members of the public may present com- ments orally or in writing at the hearing and may pro- vide comments by postal mail or by electronic submittal before the hearing. The public comment period for this regulatory action will begin on January 4, 2019. Written comments not physically submitted at the hearing must be submitted on or after January 4, 2019, and received no later than 5:00 p.m. on February 19, 2019.

CARB requests that when possible, written and email statements be filed at least 10 days before the hearing to give CARB staff and Board members additional time to consider each com- ment. The Board also encourages members of the pub- lic to bring to the attention of staff in advance of the hearing any suggestions for modification of the pro- posed regulatory action.

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

Additionally, the Board requests but does not require that persons who submit written comments to the Board reference the title of the proposal in their comments to facilitate review. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE This regulatory action is proposed under the authority granted in California Health and Safety Code, sections 8501, 38505, 38510, 38560, 38580, 39010, 39500, 39600, 39601, 40000, 43013, 43018, 43100, 43101, 43102, 43104, 43105, 43106, 43107 and 43806.

This action is proposed to implement, interpret, and make specific California Health and Safety Code, sections 38501, 38505, 38510, 38560, 38580, 39002, 39003, 39010, 39017, 39033, 39500, 39600, 39601, 39610, 39650, 39657, 39667, 39701, 40000, 43000, 43000.5, 43009, 43009.5, 43013, 43017, 43018, 43100, 43101, 43101.5, 43102, 43104, 43105, 43106, 43107, 43202, 43204, 43205, 43205.5, 43206, 43210, 43211, 43212, 43213 and 43806 and California Vehicle Code

section 28114. INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION AND POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW (GOV . CODE, § 11346.5, subd. (a)(3)) Sections Affected: Proposed amendments to California Code of Regula- tions, title 13,

section 1956.8, title 17,

section 95663, and the proposed adoption of the following document incorporated by reference therein: “California Stan- dards and Test Procedures for New 2021 and Subse- quent Model Heavy−Duty Zero−Emission Power- trains,” adopted [INSERT ADOPTION DATE]. Pro- posed amendments to the “California Greenhouse Gas Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 1-Z 3 2014 and Subsequent Model Heavy−Duty Vehicles,” last amended [INSERT AMENDMENT DATE], incor- porated by reference in California Code of Regulations, title 17,

section 95663. Documents Incorporated by Reference (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 20, subd. (c)(3)): The following documents are incorporated by refer- ence in the “California Standards and Test Procedures for New 2021 and Subsequent Model Heavy−Duty Zero−Emission Powertrains”: • Society of Automotive Engineers International (SAE) Standard J1798: “Recommended Practice for Performance Rating of Electric Vehicle Battery Modules,” as revised on July 8, 2008. Copyrighted. •

Section 1037.801, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, as last amended by United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) on July 1, 2015. The following documents are incorporated by refer- ence in the proposed amended test procedure document entitled “California Greenhouse Gas Exhaust Emission Standards and T est Procedures for 2014 and Subse- quent Model Heavy−Duty Vehicles,” adopted October 21, 2014, last amended [INSERT AMENDMENT DATE]: •

Section 86.1803−01, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, as last amended by United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) on July 1, 2011. • SAE J2402: “Road Vehicles — Symbols for Controls, Indicators, and T ell−Tales,” as last revised January 7, 2010. • International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 2575: “Road Vehicles — Symbols for controls, indicators, and tell−tales,” as revised on July 1, 2010. Copyrighted.

Background and Effect of the Proposed Regulatory Action: While California has made dramatic progress to im- prove its air quality, the state must continue its transi- tion to significantly cleaner transportation and freight movement technologies to achieve its long−term cli- mate and public health goals, which include: • Reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, as directed in Senate Bill (SB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act 1; • Reducing GHG emissions from the transportation sector to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, as directed in Governor Brown’s Executive Order B−16−2012 2; • Deploying 1.5 million zero−emission vehicles by 2025, as directed in Governor Brown’s Executive Order B−16−2012; • Deploying 5 million zero−emission vehicles by 2030, as directed in Governor Brown’s Executive Order B−48−183; • Deploying 100,000 freight vehicles and equipment capable of zero−emission operation by 2030, as set forth in the California Sustainable Freight Action Plan4; and • Achieving carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter, as directed in Governor Brown’s Executive Order B−55−18 5.

Actions to deploy zero−emission technology will be essential to meeting these goals. Accordingly, CARB’ s 2016 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan6, 2016 Mobile Source Strategy7, and the California Sus- tainable Freight Action Plan identify several measures intended to accelerate deployment of zero−emission technology in the mobile source sector. For heavy−duty on−road vehicles in particular, applications targeted by these measures include airport shuttle buses, transit buses, and delivery trucks.

In addition, new zero− emission priorities have emerged since the publication of the aforementioned documents, and drayage trucks have also been identified for near−term deployment to zero−emission technology. Staff believes the vehicles that would be targeted by these measures operate in applications that are well− suited, both technically and economically , for the first launch of zero−emission technologies in the heavy− duty sector.

In fact, the proposal for the Innovative Clean Transit Regulation was presented to the Board at its September 2018 hearing and the proposal for the 1 Chap. 249, Stats. 2016 (Pavley) California HSC § 38566. 2 Governor Brown’s Executive Order B−16−2012: http://www. gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=17472, accessed on September 12, 2018. 3 Governor Brown Takes Action to Increase Zero−Emission Vehi- cles, Fund New Climate Investments: https://www.gov.ca. gov/2018/01/26/governor−brown−takes−action−to−increase− zero−emission−vehicles−fund−new−climate−investments/, accessed on September 12, 2018. 4 Sustainable Freight Action Plan: http://www.casustainablefreight.org/documents/PlanElements/ FINAL_07272016.pdf, July 2016. 5 Governor Brown’s Executive Order B−55−18: https://www.gov. ca.gov/wp−content/uploads/2018/09/9.10.18−Executive− Order.pdf, September 2018. 6 CARB; Proposed 2016 State Strategy for the State Implementa- tion Plan; May 17, 2016; http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/ 2016sip/2016statesip.pdf. 7 CARB; 2016 Mobile Source Strategy, May 2016; http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2016sip/2016mobsrc.htm.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 1-Z 4 Zero−Emission Airport Shuttle Regulation will be con- sidered at the same February 2019 hearing as this pro- posed regulatory action. That said, the heavy−duty zero−emission industry is still relatively new, and thus is subject to many of the is- sues associated with any emer ging market.

For exam- ple, there is still substantial variability in vehicle quality and support; purchasers are still relatively unfamiliar with zero−emission technology and its operational im- pacts; and there is limited historical information avail- able by which to judge manufacturers. Given time, staff believes the market could eventually resolve these is- sues on its own. However, considering California’s near−term zero−emission goals, it’s necessary to take actions today to help provide additional support to the market as the state begins to roll out its suite of heavy− duty zero−emission measures.

In order to provide this needed support, the proposed regulatory action would build upon existing certifica- tion requirements set forth in California’s Heavy−Duty Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Standards 8 for heavy−duty electric and fuel−cell vehicles and establish an alterna- tive certification procedure that helps ensure such vehi- cles are well−supported once deployed and consistent and reliable information is available to fleets when making purchase decisions.

In addition, the proposed regulatory action would also establish new standards with certification requirements for zero−emission pow- ertrains installed in heavy−duty electric and fuel−cell vehicles that certify to the proposed alternative procedure. Specifically, staff’s proposal would include the fol- lowing: New Alternative Certification Pathway for Heavy−Duty Electric and Fuel−Cell Vehicles Staff’ s proposal would establish an alternative certi- fication pathway for heavy−duty electric and fuel−cell vehicles9 that builds upon existing heavy−duty Phase 2 requirements.

The proposed pathway would be avail- able beginning with model year 2021. While the pro- posed Zero−Emission Powertrain Certification Regula- tion (ZEPCert) does not establish a mandatory certifica- tion process, it creates a framework that would support both new, “cutting−edge” technologies (i.e., early along the commercialization arc) as well as those that have demonstrated commercial viability. Future zero− emission measures could incorporate the alternative certification pathway as a requirement.

Until then, man- ufacturers, at their own discretion, could certify a heavy−duty electric or fuel−cell vehicle to either the ex- isting Phase 2 requirements or the proposed alternative pathway requirements. a. Required Use of a Certified Zero−Emission Powertrain In order to certify a vehicle family in accordance with the proposed alternative vehicle certification pathway, the vehicles within said family would be required to use a zero−emission powertrain that is certified in accor- dance with the zero−emission powertrain requirements (further described below) that would be established by staff’s proposal.

While existing heavy−duty Phase 2 re- quirements do not include a mechanism to certify a zero−emission powertrain, staff is proposing to estab- lish a separate zero−emission powertrain certification process as part of the proposed regulation to better ac- commodate the multi−stage manufacturing process of heavy−duty vehicles today. b. Labeling The proposed ZEPCert provisions would require ve- hicle manufacturers to include a compliance statement on their Phase 2 vehicle labels indicating if the proposed certification pathway was used and would enable these vehicles to be identified in the field. c.

Purchase Guidance Manufacturers would be required to provide pur- chasers with a prescribed guidance statement identify- ing considerations that should be made when choosing a heavy−duty electric or fuel−cell vehicle. The list of considerations would include range, top speed, maxi- mum grade, and impacts of vehicle load and battery degradation on performance. T he manufacturer would also be required to provide a detailed description to the purchaser of its vehicle diag- nosis and repair process, and the implications of said process on repair timeframes and potential vehicle transportation costs.

While providing a battery−capacity warranty would not be required, manufacturers would be required to en- sure that whatever coverage is provided, even if no cov- erage, it is explicitly disclosed to the purchaser at the time of sale. Given that zero−emission technologies are still unfa- miliar to many of the fleets who will be considering such technologies in the near−term, these proposed pro- visions would help ensure consumers consider the ap- propriate parameters when selecting a particular vehi- cle model.

The intent of these provisions is to increase th e likelihood that a fleet chooses a heavy−duty electric or fuel−cell vehicle that fits its operational needs. d. Repairability Provisions Vehicle manufacturers would be required to make available its internal service manual as well as any re- 8 CARB, Phase 2 and Tractor−Trailer Amendments Regulation, https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2018/phase2/phase2.htm, accessed September 25, 2018 9 The proposal would also apply to medium−duty electric and fuel−cell vehicles (from 8,501 through 14,000 pounds gross vehi- cle weight rating) certified as incomplete vehicles.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 1-Z 5 quired service tools to third−party repair facilities at reasonable cost. The manufacturer could require spe- cial training in order to gain access to the service manu- al and tools. The intent of these provisions is to help increase the efficiency of the repair network to reduce repair time- frames and potential vehicle transportation costs. e .

On−Board V ehicle Information Staff’s proposal would require that certain vehicle in- formation be accessible on−board to the fleet owner, such as battery energy used per trip and remaining us- able battery capacity . These parameters would help fleet owners determine the efficiency of a particular ve- hicle or driver as well as provide the ability to assess the condition of a powertrain, which would be useful dur- ing a resale transaction, for example. f.

Fuel−Fired Heaters Specific emission and operational requirements would be established for fuel−fired heaters used on heavy−duty electric and fuel−cell vehicles. Specifical- ly , fuel−fired heaters would be required to meet the Low Emission Vehicle II program’s Ultra Low Emission V e- hicle standards 10 and demonstrate zero−evaporative emissions under any and all possible operational modes and conditions. The proposal would align fuel−fired heater requirements with those set forth in the LEV II program and add clarity to the existing Phase 2 certifi- cation procedures.

New Emission Standards for Zer o−Emission Powertrains Staff’s proposal would establish new zero−emission greenhouse gas and criteria pollutant standards and cer- tification requirements for 2021 model year and subse- quent zero−emission powertrains. Certifying to the ze- ro−emission powertrain standards would be voluntary, except for those powertrains installed in heavy−duty electric and fuel−cell vehicles certified in accordance with the alternative certification pathway that would be established by staff’s proposal.

The “powertrain” would include components, such as the energ y storage system, the electric motor, and on− board charger, which are responsible for the storage, de- livery, and conversion of energy within the vehicle to mechanical power. a. Standardized Battery Test for Battery−Based Powertrains Currently, there is no one procedure all manufactur- ers use to determine the usable battery capacity. There- fore, while battery−capacity information is widely cited (e.g., in vehicle marketing materials), the information cannot be reliably used to compare product offerings.

Staff is proposing to establish a standardized battery− capacity test for certification under the alternative certi- fication pathway. Specifically , the proposed regulation would require the use of the constant current battery de- pletion test set forth in the SAE Standard J1798, “Rec- ommended Practice for Performance Rating of Electric Vehicle Battery Modules,” or another test procedure that is substantially similar. While this test would not provide information on actual vehicle range, it would provide a useful reference point by which different battery−based powertrains could be compared.

Fuel−cell powertrains without plug−in capabilities, would not be subject to this requirement. b. Powertrain Monitoring and Diagnostic Strategy Information Staf f’s proposal would require powertrain manufac- turers to describe the monitoring and diagnostic strate- gies they use. The proposal would not however, dictate h ow a manufacturer should monitor a powertrain or di- agnoses powertrain problems.

The information provid- ed under these provisions would help staff understand potential causes of, and solutions to, problems experi- enced by heavy−duty electric and fuel−cell vehicles, which could help inform the development of future zero−emission measures. Staff could also use this infor- mation to validate the effectiveness of zero−emission powertrain diagnostics systems should in−use prob- lems arise. c.

Repairability Provisions The powertrain manufacturer would be required to make available its internal service manual as well as a ny required service tools to third−party repair facilities at reasonable cost. The manufacturer could require spe- cial training in order to gain access to the service manu- al and tools. This requirement would help facilitate the expansion of the repair network for such powertrains, thereby re- ducing repair timeframes and potential vehicle trans- portation costs. d.

Standardized Connector and Compatibility with Automotive Scan Tools Th e proposal would establish the requirement to use a diagnostic connector that meets the requirements set forth in California’ s On−Board Diagnostics regula- tions This requirement would help facilitate the expansion of the repair network for such vehicles and powertrains, thereby reducing repair timeframes and potential vehi- c le transportation costs. 11. The proposal would also require malfunction codes and certain powertrain parameters to be readable by a generic automotive scan tool. 10 Title 13, California Code of Regulations,

Section 1961.1, ac- cessed October 2018. 11 Title 13, California Code of Regulations,

Section 1971.1, ac- cessed October 2018.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 1-Z 6 e. Labeling The proposed labeling provisions would require powertrain manufacturers to af fix a label on each pow- ertrain assembly that includes the following information: • Manufacturer Name; • Compliance Statement, indicating that the zero−emission powertrain has been certified to the proposed requirements; • Certification Family Name; • Model Code, identifying the specific configuration; and • Build Date. The proposed labeling requirements would allow consumers to identify powertrains certified to the pro- posed alternative pathway requirements.

In addition, the proposed labeling requirements would also enable these powertrains to be identified in the field, either for compliance o r research purposes. Warranty and Recall Each powertrain certified in accordance with the pro- posed alternative pathway would be required to be cov- ered, a t a minimum, by a 3−year, 50,000 mile warranty against workmanship and defects. In addition, other provisions currently applicable to the warranty of emission−control components, such as recall provi- sions, would apply.

These provisions would help ensure heavy−duty electric and fuel−cell vehicles are well supported once deployed. By ensuring such vehicles are adequately re- paired, or removed from commerce, if and when prob- lems arise, potential “poisoning” of the market could be prevented. Other Changes CARB may also consider other changes to the sec- tions af fected, as listed above, during the course of this rulemaking process.

Objectives and Benefits of the Proposed Regulatory Action: In its continuing effort to combat poor air quality and climate change, California has set aggressive near− and long−term zero−emission goals. T o help achieve those goals, staff has identified several mobile source mea- sures to help accelerate the transition to zero−emission technology. Among those measures are ones that specifically target heavy−duty trucks and buses.

While the applications targeted by these measures have been determined to be well−suited for zero−emission tech- nology today, both technically and economically, the success of those measures will depend on whether the actual heavy−duty electric and fuel−cell vehicles de- ployed are as effective as the internal combustion vehi- cles they replace.

The proposed regulation is expected to increase the likelihood that such vehicles are success- ful in their intended applications through certification requirements that help ensure heavy−duty electric and fuel−cell vehicles are well supported once deployed and fleet purchasers are provided with consistent and reli- able information when making purchase decisions.

While the certification pathway that would be estab- lished by the proposed regulation would be optional, staff expects it to be incorporated as a requirement for other future zero−emission measures, such as the Zero− Emission Airport Shuttle Regulation being considered concurrently a t the same February 2019 hearing. In ad- dition, manufacturers could, at their discretion, choose to certify to the certification pathway even if not re- quired, in order to gain a potential market advantage by “proving” their technology over a more−stringent certi- fication process.

Therefore, the proposed regulation could encourage the development of more robust heavy−duty electric and fuel cell vehicles, and to the ex- tent that certified products experience greater utiliza- tion (due either to increased vehicle deployments or more−optimal vehicle performance), the proposed reg- ulation could indirectly benefit California, in terms of both the advancement of the zero−emission market as well as the potential displacement of emission− producing internal combustion engines.

Furthermore, disadvantaged communities are ex- pected to benefit from the transition of the heavy−duty sector t o zero−emission technologies. Most, if not all, of CARB’s planned heavy−duty zero emission measures are expected to have the greatest emission impact in dis- advantaged communities because these communities are disproportionately impacted by heavy−duty truck traffic. While benefits would not be directly attribut- able, the proposed regulation is expected to benefit dis- advantaged communities to the extent that it would help ensure the success of CARB’s other zero−emission efforts.

There are no expected benefits to public safety or worker safety as a result of this rulemaking. Comparable Federal Regulations: Staf f’s proposal would amend California’s Phase 2 regulations, which lar gely align with U.S. EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Phase 2 regulations (Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium−and Heavy− Duty Engines and Vehicles — Phase 2, 81 Federal Reg- ister 73478−74274, (October 25, 2016)).

Specifically, staff’s proposal would establish an optional certifica- tion pathway for heavy−duty electric and fuel−cell ve- hicles that would contain enhanced (i.e., more strin- gent) requirements. In addition, the proposed regulation would establish new standards and certification procedures for zero−

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 1-Z 7 emission powertrains. There are currently no federal emission regulations that apply to zero−emission powertrains. An Evaluation of Inconsistency or Incompatibility with Existing State Regulations (Gov. Code, § 11346.5, subd. (a)(3)(D)): During the process of developing the proposed regu- latory action, CARB conducted a search of any similar regulations on this topic and concluded these regula- tions are neither inconsistent nor incompatible with ex- isting state regulations.

DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS Fiscal Impact/Local Mandate Determination Regarding the Proposed Action (Gov. Code, § 11346.5, subds. (a)(5)&(6)): The determinations of the Board’s Executive Officer concerning the costs or savings incurred by public agencies and private persons and businesses in reason- able compliance with the proposed regulatory action are presented below.

Under Government Code sections 11346.5, subdivi- sion (a)(5) and 11346.5, subdivision (a)(6), the Execu- tive Officer has determined that the proposed regulation would not impose a mandate on any local agency or school district, but the regulations would create costs to local agencies and school districts; however these costs would not be reimbursable by the State under Govern- ment Code, title 2, division 4,

part 7 (commencing with

section 17500). Cost to any Local Agency or School District Requiring Reimbursement under

section 17500 et seq.: None. The Executive Officer has made the determi- nation that the proposed regulatory proposal would cre- ate costs to local agencies and school districts but only if manufacturers choose to certify their vehicles through the alternative certification pathway and pass on costs to consumers, and local government agencies or school districts choose to purchase such certified vehicles. However, those voluntarily incurred costs would not re- quire reimbursement from the State.

Cost or Savings for State Agencies: Staff estimates three CARB staff would be needed starting in fiscal year 2020/2021 to handle the addition- al administrative workload: one Air Resources Engi- neer, one Air Pollution Specialist, and one Air Re- sources Technician. These additional personnel would be responsible for reviewing technical documents and determining vehicle or powertrain compliance. Further details are provided in the Staff Report: Initial State- ment of Reasons (ISOR).

The Executive Officer has made the determination that the proposed regulatory actions would not create cost or savings to state agencies other than the addition- al CARB staffing costs described above. Other Non−Discretionary Costs or Savings on Local Agencies: The Executive Officer has made the determination that the proposed regulatory actions would not create non−discretionary costs or savings to local agencies. Cost or Savings in Federal Funding to the State: The Executive Officer has made the determination that the proposed regulatory actions would not create costs or savings in federal funding to the State.

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

Code, §§ 11346.3, subd. (a), 11346.5, subd. (a)(7), 11346.5, subd. (a)(8)): The Executive Officer has made an initial determina- tion that the proposed regulatory action would not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact direct- ly affecting businesses, including the ability of Califor- nia businesses to compete with businesses in other states, or on representative private persons. Results of The Economic Impact Analysis/ Assessment (Gov. Code, § 11346.5, subd. (a)(10)): A detailed assessment of the economic impacts of the proposed regulatory action can be found in

Section IX of the ISOR. NON−MAJOR REGULATION: Statement of the Results of the Economic Impact Assessment (EIA): Although the certification pathway that would be es- tablished by the proposed regulatory action would be optional, an Economic Impact Assessment was prepared.

Effect on Jobs/Businesses: The Executive Officer has determined that the pro- posed regulatory action would not directly affect the creation or elimination of jobs within the State of Cali- fornia, the creation of new businesses or elimination of existing businesses within the State of California, or the expansion of businesses currently doing business with- in the State of California. A detailed assessment of the economic impacts of the proposed regulatory action can be found in the Economic Impact Analysis in the ISOR.

Benefits of the Proposed Regulation: The objective of the proposed regulatory action is to support future zero−emission measures by helping en- sure heavy−duty electric and fuel−cell vehicles certi- fied to the proposed requirements are well supported

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 1-Z 8 once deployed and fleets are better informed when making purchase decisions. A

summary of these benefits is provided; please refer to “Objectives and Benefits”, under the Informative Di- gest of Proposed Action and Policy Statement Over- view Pursuant to Government Code 11346.5(a)(3) dis- cussion above. Business Report (Gov. Code, §§ 11346.5, subd. (a)(11); 11346.3, subd. (d)): In accordance with Government Code sections 11346.5, subdivisions (a)(11) and 11346.3, subdivision (d), the Executive Officer finds the reporting require- ments of the proposed regulatory action which apply to businesses are necessary for the health, safety, and wel- fare of the people of the State of California.

Cost Impacts on Representative Private Persons or Businesses (Gov. Code, § 11346.5, subd. (a)(9)): In developing this regulatory proposal, CARB staff evaluated the potential economic impacts on represen- tative private persons or businesses. No manufacturer would be required to participate and only those who have determined it would be in the best financial inter- est of the company would be expected to do so.

If no manufacturers participate, the proposed regulatory ac- tion would have no cost; if all manufacturers (from 16 in 2021 to 24 in 2025) choose to participate, then incurred costs would average approximately $86,360 annually from 2021 through 2025. Staff estimates that approxi- mately 600 vehicles would be produced by these manu- facturers within that timeframe at an average incremen- tal cost of $720 per vehicle, which would likely be passed on to the purchaser.

However, if a purchaser (whether a private person or business) chooses to pur- chase such a vehicle, it would likely be because it has been determined it would be in the best financial inter- est of the purchaser. Effect on Small Business (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 4, subds. (

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

section 4, that the proposed regulatory action would affect small busi- nesses. While there would be costs associated with par- ticipation, participation would be optional. Therefore, if a small business chooses to participate, it would be because the business has determined it would be in its best financial interest. The same could be stated for small business fleets that choose to purchase vehicles certified in accordance with the proposed provisions. Alternatives Statement (Gov.

Code, § 11346.5, subd. (a)(13)): Before taking final action on the proposed regulatory action, the Board must determine that no reasonable al- ternative considered by the Board, or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the Board, would be more effective in carrying out the pur- pose for which the action is proposed, would be as ef- fective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action, or would be more cost− effective to affected private persons and equally effec- tive in implementing the statutory policy or other provi- sions of law.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CARB, as the lead agency for the proposed regula- tion, prepared a Draft Environmental Analysis (EA) in accordance with the requirements of its regulatory pro- gram certified by the Secretary of Natural Resources. (California Code of Regulation, title 17, sections 60006−60008; California Code of Regulations, title 14,

section 15251, subdivision (d).) The Draft EA provides a single coordinated programmatic environmental anal- ysis of an illustrative, reasonably foreseeable compli- ance scenario that could result from implementation of the proposed ZEPCert as well as the proposed Zero− Emission Airport Shuttle Regulation. The proposed ZEPCert and Zero−Emission Airport Shuttle Regula- tions have two separate notices and staff reports and will be considered by the Board in separate proceed- ings, but are connected actions. This approach is consis- tent with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA’

s) requirement that an agency consider the whole of an action when it assesses a project’s environ- mental effects, even if the project consists of separate approvals (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15378(a)). The resource areas from the CEQA Guidelines Envi- ronmental Checklist were used as a framework for a programmatic environmental analysis of the direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed amend- ments to the Cap−and−Trade Regulation.

The Draft EA provides an analysis of both the beneficial and adverse impacts and feasible mitigation measures for the rea- sonably foreseeable compliance responses associated with the proposed amendments.

Because the proposed warranty and service require- ments in ZEPCert would not result in an increase in con- struction of new facilities and because the testing re- quirements are functionally similar to tests that are common industry practice and would not require modi- fications to existing test facilities, the Draft EA deter- mined that the reasonably foreseeable compliance re- sponses associated with the proposed ZEPCert would not result in adverse impacts to any of the environmen- tal resource areas.

However, the Draft EA concluded, under a conserva- tive approach, that implementation of the proposed Zero−Emission Airport Shuttle Regulation could result

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 1-Z 9 in the following beneficial and adverse impacts: benefi- cial impacts to: air quality (long term), energy demand, and greenhouse gases; less than significant, or no im- pacts, to: air quality (odors), energy, hazards and haz- ardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use planning, mineral resources, noise, population employ- ment, housing, public service, recreation, and trans- portation and traffic; and potentially significant and un- avoidable adverse impacts to aesthetics, agricultural and forest resources, air quality (short term), biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, haz- ards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use planning, noise, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems.

The Draft EA is included as Appendix B to the ISOR and can be obtained from CARB’s website at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2019/zero− emission−powertrain−certification . SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION REQUEST Consistent with California Government Code Sec- tion 7296.2, special accommodation or language needs may be provided for any of the following: • An interpreter to be available at the hearing; • Documents made available in an alternate format or another language; and • A disability−related reasonable accommodation.

To request these special accommodations or lan- guage needs, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (916) 322−5594 or by facsimile at (916) 322−3928 as soon as possible, but no later than 10 business days be- fore the scheduled Board hearing. TTY/TDD/Speech to Speech users may dial 711 for the California Relay Service.

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

Para solicitar estas comodidades especiales o necesi- dades de otro idioma, por favor llame a la oficina del Consejo al (916) 322−5594 o envié un fax a (916) 322−3928 lo más pronto posible, pero no menos de 10 días de trabajo antes del día programado para la audien- cia del Consejo. TTY/TDD/Personas que necesiten este servicio pueden marcar el 711 para el Servicio de Re- transmisión de Mensajes de California.

AGENCY CONTACT PERSONS Inquiries concerning the substance of the proposed regulatory action may be directed to the agency repre- sentative David Eiges, Air Resources Engineer, Ad- vanced Emission Control Strategies Section, (626) 575−6602 or (designated back−up contact) David Chen, Manager, Advanced Emission Control Strategies Section, at (626) 350−6579. A V AILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS CARB staff has prepared an ISOR for the proposed regulatory action, which includes a

summary of the eco- nomic and environmental impacts of the proposal.

The report is entitled: “Proposed Alternative Certification Requirements and Test Procedures for Heavy−Duty Electric and Fuel−Cell Vehicles and Proposed Stan- dards and Test Procedures for Zero−Emission Powertrains.” Copies of the ISOR and the full text of the proposed regulatory language, in underline and strikeout format to allow for comparison with the existing regulations (if applicable), may be accessed on CARB’s website listed below, or may be obtained from the Public Information Office, California Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street, Visitors and Environmental Services Center, First Floor, Sacramento, California, 95814, on December 31, 2018.

Further, the agency representative to whom nonsub- stantive inquiries concerning the proposed administra- tive action may be directed is Chris Hopkins, Regula- tions Coordinator, at (916) 445−9564. The Board staff has compiled a record for this rulemaking action, which includes all the information upon which the proposal is based. This material is available for inspection upon re- quest to the contact persons. HEARING PROCEDURES The public hearing will be conducted in accordance with the California Administrative Procedure Act, Government Code, title 2, division 3,

part 1,

chapter 3.5 (commencing with

section 11340). Following the public hearing, the Board may vote on a resolution directing the Executive Officer to: make any proposed modified regulatory language that is suf- ficiently related to the originally proposed text that the public was adequately placed on notice and that the reg- ulatory language as modified could result from the pro- posed regulatory action, and any additional supporting documents and information, available to the public for a period of at least 15 days; consider written comments submitted during this period; and make any further modifications as may be appropriate in light of the com-

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 1-Z 10 ments received available for further public comment. The Board may also direct the Executive Officer to: evaluate all comments received during the public com- ment periods, including comments regarding the Draft Environmental Analysis, and prepare written responses to those comments; and present to the Board, at a subse- quently scheduled public hearing, the final proposed regulatory language, staff’s written responses to com- ments on the Draft Environmental Analysis, along with the Final Environmental Analysis for action.

FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS A V AILABILITY Upon its completion, the Final Statement of Reasons (FSOR) will be available and copies may be requested from the agency contact persons in this notice, or may be accessed on CARB’s website listed below. INTERNET ACCESS This notice, the ISOR and all subsequent regulatory documents, including the FSOR, when completed, are available on CARB’s website for this rulemaking at https://www.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2019/zero− emission−powertrain−certification. TITLE 15. BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS TITLE 15. CRIME PREVENTION AND CORRECTIONS DIVISION 2. BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS

CHAPTER 3. PAROLE RELEASE Enactment of:

ARTICLE 14. PAROLE CONSIDERATION HEARINGS FOR YOUTH OFFENDERS Enactment of Sections 2440−2446, governing parole consideration hearings for youth offenders 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 3051, 3052, and 5076.2, authorizes the board to adopt the proposed added Sections 2440 through 2446 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Division 2, concerning Parole Consideration Hearings for Youth Offenders. 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 3051, subdivision (e), requires the board to review and revise existing regulations, or adopt new regulations, regarding determinations of suitability for youth offenders as defined in that section. 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 pro- mulgate, maintain, publish, and make available to the general public a compendium of its rules and regulations. Penal Code

section 667 contains prior felony or “strike” sentencing requirements for persons sentenced to felonies who have already been convicted of prior vi- olent felonies. Penal Code

section 667.61 contains “one−strike” sentencing requirements for persons sentenced to cer- tain enumerated sex crimes committed under specified circumstances. Penal Code

section 1170.12 contains prior felony or “strike” sentencing requirements for persons sentenced to felonies who have already been convicted of prior vi- olent felonies. Penal Code

section 3041.5 establishes the require- ments and conditions concerning parole denial periods. Penal Code

section 3046 establishes the requirement for youth offenders to be paroled upon receiving a grant from the board, subject to the board and Governor’s statutory decision review periods, regardless of how the board would normally calculate an inmate’s parole date. Penal Code

section 3051 establishes youth offender parole hearings and the procedures for reviewing the parole suitability of any inmate who was under the age of 26 at the time the inmate committed his or her con- trolling offense as defined in that section, or under the age of 18 at the time the inmate committed his or her controlling offense that resulted in a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. Penal Code

section 3051.1 establishes the timeline under which the board must complete youth offender parole hearings for inmates who became eligible for youth offender parole hearings on January 1, 2016, the effective date of this section. Penal Code

section 4801 establishes the requirement for panels to give great weight to three specified youth

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 1-Z 11 factors when assessing the suitability of a youth offender. In the case Roper v. Simmons (2005) 543 U.S. 551, the United States Supreme Court abolished capital pun- ishment as a legal sentence for any juvenile offender. In the case Graham v . Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48, the United States Supreme Court abolished the sentence of life without the possibility of parole as a legal sentence for a juvenile who had committed a non−homicide crime. In the case Miller v.

Alabama (2012) 132 S.Ct. 2455, the United States Supreme Court prohibited courts from imposing a mandated sentence of life without the possi- bility of parole on a juvenile who committed a homicide crime without the court’s individual consideration of specified youth factors and whether the life−without− parole sentence was appropriate for the circumstances of the particular juvenile. In the case People v.

Caballero (2012) 55 Cal.4th 262, the California Supreme Court held that sentencing a non−homicide juvenile offender to a term of life with the possibility of parole with a minimum term of years that would be expected to exceed the juvenile’s natural life expectancy violated the Graham abolition against sentencing non−homicide juvenile offenders to life without the possibility of parole. In the case Moore v.

Biter (2013) 725 F.3d 1184, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that sen- tencing a non−homicide juvenile offender to a determi- nate term of years that would be expected to exceed the juvenile’s natural life expectancy similarly violated the Graham abolition against sentencing non−homicide ju- venile offenders to life without the possibility of parole. In the case People v.

Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, the California Supreme Court concluded that the Legis- lature’s enactment of the youth offender parole laws in Penal Code sections 3051 and 4801, subdivision (c), mooted an inmate’s claim that he received an unconsti- tutional sentence under Miller because the youth of- fender parole process already provided an appropriate remedy. In the case Montgomery v.

Louisiana (2016) 136 S.Ct. 718, the United States Supreme Court determined that the holding of the Miller case applied retroactively to juveniles sentenced before the date of that decision, such that juveniles with older sentences can legally challenge their sentences under that case.

In the case In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181, 1214, the California Supreme Court held that, when a board hearing panel conducts a parole consideration hearing, the panel members must grant the inmate’s pa- role unless they find evidence that the inmate continues to pose a current unreasonable risk of danger to the pub- lic safety if released on parole. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Any interested person, or his or her authorized repre- sentative, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulations to the board.

THE WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD ON THIS PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION WILL COMMENCE ON FRIDAY, JANUARY 4, 2019, AND WILL CLOSE AT 5:00 P.M. ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2019. 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 State- ment of Reasons, the Proposed Text of the Regulation, or other information upon which the rulemaking is based to: Christopher J. Hoeft, Staff Attorney Board of Parole Hearings P.O.

Box 4036 Sacramento, CA 95812−4036 Phone: (916) 322−6729 Facsimile: (916) 322−3475 E−mail: BPH.Regulations@cdcr.ca.gov If Christopher Hoeft 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 regula- tion control number BPH RN 18−02. 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 autho- rized representative, no later than 15 days before the close of the written comment period. Written or facsim- ile comments submitted during the prescribed comment period have the same significance and influence as oral comments presented at a public hearing. If scheduled, the purpose of a public hearing would be to receive oral comments about the proposed regula- tions.

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.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 1-Z 12 INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW In 2005, the United States Supreme Court abolished capital punishment as a legal sentence for a juvenile of- fender, based on significant differences in the brain de- velopment between juveniles and adults. (Roper v. Sim- mons (2005) 543 U.S. 551.) Using this same reasoning, the United States Supreme Court later abolished the sentence of life without the possibility of parole for a ju- venile who had committed a non−homicide crime (Gra- ham v.

Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48), and subsequently prohibited courts from imposing a mandated sentence of life without the possibility of parole on a juvenile who committed a homicide crime without the court’s individual consideration of specified youth factors and whether the life−without−parole sentence was appro- priate for the circumstances of the particular juvenile (Miller v . Alabama (2012) 132 S.Ct. 2455).

The California Supreme Court extended the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Graham to cases in which a non−homicide juvenile offender was sentenced to a term of life with the possibility of parole with a mini- mum term of years that would be expected to exceed the juvenile’s natural life expectancy. (People v.

Caballero (2012) 55 Cal.4th 262.) Similarly, in 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal used the same legal reasoning to extend the Graham decision to cases in which a non− homicide juvenile offender was sentenced to a determi- nate term of years that would be expected to exceed the juvenile’s natural life expectancy. (Moore v. Biter (2013) 725 F.3d 1184.) On January 1, 2014, the California Legislature enact- ed Senate Bill No. 260 (2013−2014 Reg. Sess.) (SB 260), which established parole consideration hearings for youth offenders. Specifically, this bill enacted Penal Code

section 3051 and amended Penal Code sections 3046 and 4801 to establish alternative hearing dead- lines and requirements for persons who were under the age of 18 when they committed their controlling offens- es, as defined by statute, and who were not disqualified under

section 3051 from youth offender status.

Section 3051, subdivision (e), mandated the board to “revise ex- isting regulations and adopt new regulations” regarding determinations of suitability for qualified youth offend- ers under that section. On January 1, 2016, before the board could file its proposed regulations, the California Legislature enact- ed Senate Bill No. 261 (2015−2016 Reg. Sess.) (SB 261), which amended Penal Code sections 3051 and 4801 to raise the qualifying age of youth offenders to persons who were under the age of 23 when they com- mitted their controlling offenses, as defined by statute.

On January 27, 2016, the United States Supreme Court found that its prior decision in Miller v. Alabama, prohibiting mandatory life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders, was retroactive on state collateral review. (Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016) 136 S.Ct. 718.) Consequently, juveniles currently serving sen- tences of life without the possibility of parole have the right to request resentencing following individualized consideration of factors relating to their youth at any time.

Alternatively, the court noted that “[a] State may remedy a Miller violation by permitting juvenile homi- cide offenders to be considered for parole, rather than by resentencing them.” (Id. at 736.) On January 1, 2018, again before the board could file its proposed regulations, the California Legislature en- acted two bills that impacted parole consideration hear- ings for youth offenders. First, Assembly Bill No. 1308 (2017−2018 Reg.

Sess.) (AB 1308) amended Penal Code sections 3051 and 4801 to raise the qualifying age of youth offenders to persons 25 years of age or younger when they committed their controlling offenses, as de- fined by statute. Second, in accordance with the Mont- gomery decision, Senate Bill No. 394 (2017−2018 Reg. Sess.) (SB 394) amended Penal Code

section 3051 to establish parole hearing deadlines for persons who were sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for their controlling offense, as defined by statute, so long as they committed that offense under the age of 18, and are not disqualified from youth offender status under any exemptions in subdivision (

h) of

section 3051. This proposed regulation package is submitted to comply with the statutory mandate to regulate the board’s process for providing parole consideration hearings for qualified youth offenders. In this package, the board is providing clarity on youth offender qualifi- cation, the board’s process for scheduling and holding youth offender parole consideration hearings, and the youth offender factors that require different levels of consideration throughout the hearing process.

ANTICIPATED BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS Defining who qualifies as a youth offender benefits all stakeholders by resolving several ambiguities and clarifying how to determine whether an inmate will qualify for youth offender protections. Additionally, clarifying the methods through which inmates may seek administrative remedy or one−time board review for er- roneous disqualifications or Youth Parole Eligible Date (YPED) calculations benefits inmates by clarifying how to resolve potential errors.

These processes also benefit public safety by ensuring the greatest possible accuracy in qualifying inmates for youth offender status and calculating their parole eligibility dates. Clarifying the process for calculating a YPED, as well as how initial and subsequent hearings will be

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 1-Z 13 scheduled, benefits inmates, victims, and other hearing participants because each stakeholder will have a better understanding of when to prepare for a youth offender’s initial or subsequent parole consideration hearing. Al- so, specifying how a board psychologist will consider the youth offender factors when preparing a risk assess- ment for a youth offender and document the considera- tion in the risk assessment benefits hearing participants by ensuring a more unified approach to presenting this information in a risk assessment.

Interpreting the three youth factors also benefits each stakeholder by clarify- ing what information will be discussed and given great weight at hearings for youth offenders, and considered by board psychologists in risk assessments for youth of- fenders.

Moreover, collating each of the at−hearing rights and requirements into a single subdivision further benefits these stakeholders by providing a single loca- tion from which to identify all of the ways in which hearings for youth offenders differ from other parole consideration hearings, which allows each hearing par- ticipant to better prepare for their role in the hearings. DETERMINATION OF INCONSISTENCY/INCOMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING STATE REGULATIONS The board has determined that this proposed regula- tion is not inconsistent or incompatible with existing regulations.

After conducting a review for any regula- tions 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 conducting parole hearings for youth offenders. DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACTION Local Mandates: The board has determined that the proposed action imposes no mandate upon local agen- cies 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: TOTAL COST $4,813,975: This budget increase was already granted to the board for implementation of statutory youth offender requirements. The implementation of these regulations will be absorbed by the current increased budget and resources and will not result in additional discretionary costs or savings to the board.

In the current and next two subsequent fiscal years, the board has not and will not request any additional funding for the sole purpose of implementing the youth offender laws or these proposed regulations. While the board may request additional funding during the current and two subsequent fiscal years due to an anticipated general increase in workload across all board functions, which may include youth offender parole hearings, the board does not anticipate any necessary increase in budget specifically to implement these regulations.

Additionally, the anticipated budget increase requests would not be necessary solely to complete all anticipated youth offender parole hearings over these fiscal years.

In prior fiscal years, the board requested, and was granted, funding of $1,297,741 (Fiscal Year 2014−2015), $314,528 (Fiscal Year 2015−2016), and $3,201,706 (Fiscal Year 2016−2017) for a total of 11.5 psychologist positions, 2 senior psychologist positions, 1.5 limited−term attorney III positions, 4 administrative law judges, 2 commissioners, 1 associate governmental program analyst, and 1 office technician, and including associate governmental program analyst overtime pay and additional contracted interpreter, transcription, and attorney services, all for the specific purpose of implementing the statutory requirements for youth offender hearings following the enactment of Senate Bills 260 (2013−2014 Reg.

Sess.) and 261 (2015−2016 Reg. Sess.). • 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 direct- ly 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 im- pacts 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 Cre- ation, Elimination or Expansion: The board has de- termined 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

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 1-Z 14 currently doing business within California. While the enactment of Senate Bills 260 and 261, establishing the youth offender statutes, necessitated the board’s estab- lishment of new positions as noted above, these jobs were already established to implement the board’s new duties under the statutory youth offender laws. The adoption of these regulations will not result in the cre- ation or elimination of additional jobs beyond those al- ready established in the previously granted budget change proposals.

Effect on Housing Costs: The board has made an ini- tial determination that the proposed action will have no significant effect on housing costs because housing costs are not affected by the internal processes govern- ing the board’s requirements in conducting parole con- sideration hearings or parole reconsideration hearings for youth offenders.

Small Business Determination: The board has de- termined that the proposed regulations do not have a significant adverse economic impact on small business because small businesses are not affected by the internal processes governing the board’s requirements in con- ducting parole consideration hearings or parole recon- sideration hearings for youth offenders.

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 proposed regula- tions 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 regulations will benefit all stakeholders by providing greater clarity on how to de- termine which inmates qualify as youth offenders and when each hearing participant should prepare for the youth offender’s initial hearing.

We anticipate that hav- ing a better understanding for how to prepare for these hearings will ultimately help to reduce some of the risk and anxiety hearing participants experience when faced with these hearings. Additionally, the proposed regula- tions reduce the risk of error through the appeal and re- view processes and ensure greater uniformity in how the youth factors are considered and applied to inmate cases. This will ultimately benefit public safety and welfare by ensuring that the candidates most suitable for parole will be released.

CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES The board must determine that no reasonable alterna- tive 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 pro- posed, 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 pri- vate 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 pro- posed changes during the public comment period. A V AILABILITY OF PROPOSED TEXT The board will make the rulemaking file available to the public throughout the rulemaking process at its of- fices 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 (No- tice of Submission of Regulation), the Proposed Text of the Regulation and Initial Statement of Reasons. Copies of any of these documents may be obtained by contact- ing 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.

A V AILABILITY 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 which are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text, it will make the modified text (with the changes clearly indicated) available to the public for at least 15 days 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.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 1-Z 15 A V AILABILITY 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 15.

CALIFORNIA PRISON INDUSTRY AUTHORITY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the California Prison Industry Authority (CALPIA) and the Prison In- dustry Board (PIB) pursuant to the authority granted by Penal Code (PC) Sections 2801 and 2808 in order to im- plement, interpret and make specific Penal Code 2808, propose to add

section 8903 of

Article 3, of the Califor- nia Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 15, Division 8.5, Settlement Authority. PUBLIC HEARING At this time, no public hearing has been scheduled concerning the proposed adoption to regulations. Any- one may request a public hearing by contacting the Con- tact Person set forth below. Requests for public hearings must be made no later than February 3, 2019. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD The public comment period will close February 18, 2019. Any person may submit public comments regard- ing the proposed changes in writing.

To be considered, comments must be received before the close of the com- ment period. Use one of the following to submit: MAIL or HAND DELIVER CALPIA/Legal Services Unit 560 East Natoma Street Folsom, CA 95630 FAX (916) 358−2709 E−MAIL PIAregs@calpia.ca.gov CONTACT PERSONS Please direct any inquiries regarding this action or questions of substance of the proposed regulatory ac- tion to: M.

Doherty, Regulatory Analyst California Prison Industry Authority 560 East Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone (916) 358−1711 In the event the contact person is unavailable, in- quiries should be directed to the following back−up person: C. Pesce, Administrative Assistant California Prison Industry Authority 560 East Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone (916) 358−1711 AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE The California Prison Industry Authority (CALPIA) and the Prison Industry Board (PIB) pursuant to the au- thority granted by Penal Code (PC)

Section 2808, in or- der to implement, interpret and make specific Penal Code Sections 2808 and 2809, propose to add

section 8903 of

Article 3, of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 15, Division 8.5, Settlement Authority. INFORMATIVE DIGEST PIB is adding

Section 8903 to provide notice and af- firm the PIB’s authority to approve CALPIA settle- ments. The proposed regulatory action will allow PIB to implement its authority vested by the Legislature. In PC

section 2808, the Legislature granted PIB powers equal to “all of the things that the board of directors of a pri- vate corporation would do . . . .” This regulatory action is necessary to implement, in- terpret, clarify and make specific Penal Code (PC) Sec- tion 2801 regarding inmate participation for work as- signments with CALPIA. PC Sections 2801 and 2808 provide the PIB with implied rulemaking authority to establish regulations for developing and operating en- terprises to employ prisoners. Pursuant to these statutes, the PIB has authority to approve settlements.

POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW Historically, the Department of Finance (DOF) has asserted that CALPIA must submit settlements through DOF oversight for approval pursuant to DOF’s budget authority and because DOF controls the state budget. CALPIA is not subject to this budget authority and its budget is not within the state budget but is outside the DOF oversight. As noted below, CALPIA’s indepen- dent authority exists over settlements, and this regula- tion implements and makes more specific Penal Code sections 2801 and 2808.

In order for CALPIA to function safely and efficient- ly, this revised regulation is needed to provide notice

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 1-Z 16 and affirm the PIB’s authority to approve settlements. Presently, CALPIA has settlements pending approval that are delayed by the DOF approval process. CALPIA operates like a private business in order to meet its mis- sion of reducing recidivism by training and employing inmate workers. Like a private business, CALPIA has occasions to enter into settlement agreements that will be cost−effective and expeditiously resolve disputes that arise in the ordinary course of its operations.

ANTICIPATED BENEFITS • Will continue to provide a nonmonetary benefit for the protection and safety of public health and safety, by ensuring ongoing efficiency of operations employment inmate workers, and providing work experiences for inmate workers to utilize upon release from custody. • Will allow resolution on a timelier and more expeditious basis in a business−like fashion an estimated $685,000 per annum in legal settlements which benefits the public and general welfare of California.

These settlements are time sensitive and current de- lays may be up to six months creating a slowdown and hampering CALPIA’s operations. In addition, these set- tlements are in the best business interests of CALPIA. An estimated $685,000 annually in settlements have been stagnated by the cumbersome DOF approval process. As of July 2018, $400,000 in settlements were pending and delayed. As the PIB has the authority to do all the things a board of directors would do, this includes the authority to approve settlements on behalf of CALPIA.

Therefore, to promote CALPIA’s operations, reduce costs and delays that impede operations,

section 8903 is added to affirm the PIB’s authority to approve settlements. The proposed regulatory action will save costs and promote operations by affirming the PIB’s settlement authority to resolve business disputes and matters impeding CALPIA ’s effective operations. The CALPIA has independent authority separate from DOF and the Prison Industry Board (PIB) has rulemaking authority to promulgate the proposed regu- lation. In addition, the proposed

Section 8903 is consis- tent with, not in conflict with, applicable statutes and reasonably necessary to effectuate the purpose of the relevant statutes. In 1982, the California Legislature restructured the Department of Corrections’ industries and vocational training program abolishing the Correctional Industries Commission and replacing it with the newly created Prison Industry Authority (PIA) (subsequently re- named CALPIA) under the direction of the Prison In- dustry Board. The Legislature established the Prison In- dustry Board as autonomous from the Department of Corrections.

In 1982, the new Prison Industry Authori- ty was given independent autonomy. The 1982 autono- my of CALPIA provides that normally applicable statutes and administrative regulations placing DOF oversight for approval with DOF over state agencies whose budgets are within the state budget do not apply to CALPIA.

EV ALUATION OF INCONSISTENCY/INCOMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING REGULATIONS During the process of developing this regulation, the PIB has conducted a search of any similar regulations on this topic and has concluded that the proposed regu- latory action is neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing laws and regulations. LOCAL MANDATES This action imposes no mandates on local agencies or school districts, or a mandate which requires reim- bursement pursuant to Government Code Sections 17500 through 17630.

FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT Cost to any local agency or school district that is re- quired to be reimbursed in accordance with Govern- ment Code Sections 17500 through 17630: None. Cost or savings to any state agency: None. Other nondiscretionary cost or savings imposed on local agencies: None. Cost or savings in federal funding to the State: None. EFFECT ON HOUSING COSTS The PIB has made an initial determination that the proposed action will have no significant effect on hous- ing costs.

SIGNIFICANT STATEWIDE ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACT ON BUSINESS The PIB has determined that the proposed action will not have a significant statewide adverse economic im- pact directly affecting businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states because they are not affected by the internal management of CALPIA employees. RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS/ASSESSMENT In accordance with the Government Code

Section 11346.3(a), CALPIA has made the following assess- ments regarding the proposed regulation:

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 1-Z 17 BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION As stated above under the Informative Digest and Policy Statement Overview, the benefits of the regula- tory action include: • Providing a nonmonetary benefit for the protection and safety of public health and safety, by ensuring ongoing efficiency of operations employment inmate workers, and providing work experiences for inmate workers to utilize upon release from custody. • Allowing resolution on a timelier and more expeditious basis in a business−like fashion an estimated $685,000 per annum in legal settlements which benefits the public and general welfare of California. • Allowing processing and final conclusion of $400,000 in settlements were pending since July 2018 and delayed.

To promote CALPIA’s operations, reduce costs and delays that impede operations,

section 8903 is added to affirm the PIB’s authority to approve settlements. The proposed regulatory action will save costs and promote operations by affirming the PIB’s settlement authority to resolve business disputes and matters impeding CALPIA’s effective operations. Thus, this proposed action benefits the public and general welfare.

CREATION OR ELIMINATION OF JOBS WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA The PIB has determined that the proposed regulatory action will have no impact on the creation or elimina- tion of existing jobs within California because those jobs are not affected by the internal management of CALPIA employees. CREATION OF NEW BUSINESSES OR ELIMINATION OF EXISTING BUSINESSES WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA This proposed regulatory action will have no effect on the creation of new or elimination of existing busi- nesses within California because those businesses are not affected by the internal management of CALPIA employees.

EXPANSION OF BUSINESSES CURRENTLY DOING BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA This proposed regulatory action will have no effect on the expansion of businesses currently doing business within the State of California because they are not af- fected by the internal management of CALPIA employees. COST IMPACTS ON REPRESENTATIVE PRIV ATE PERSONS OR BUSINESSES CALPIA is not aware of any cost impacts that a repre- sentative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action.

EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESSES CALPIA has determined that this action has no sig- nificant adverse economic impact on small businesses because they are not affected by the internal manage- ment of CALPIA inmate workers.

CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES CALPIA has determined that no reasonable alterna- tive considered by CALPIA, or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of CALPIA, would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed, would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action, or would be more cost−effective to af- fected private persons and equally effective implement- ing the statutory policy or other provision of law.

Inter- ested persons are invited to submit written statements or arguments with respect to any alternatives to the changes proposed during the written comment period. REPORTS RELIED UPON None. A V AILABILITY OF PROPOSED TEXT, INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS, AND RULEMAKING RECORD; DOCUMENTS ON CALPIA’S WEBSITE The Proposed Text, Initial Statement of Reasons, and all the information upon which this proposal is based have been placed in the rulemaking record, which is

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 1-Z 18 available to the public upon request directed to the CALPIA’s contact person. The documents will also be made available on the CALPIA website: www.calpia. ca.gov. A V AILABILITY OF CHANGES TO PROPOSED TEXT After considering all timely and relevant comments received, the PIB may approve the proposed regula- tions substantially as described in this Notice.

If CALPIA makes modifications which are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text, it will make the modified text (with the changes clearly indicated) avail- able to the public for at least 15 days before the PIB re- views and approves the regulations as revised. CALPIA will accept written comments on the modified regula- tions for 15 days after the date on which they are made available. Requests for copies of any modified regula- tion text should be directed to the contact person indi- cated in this Notice or can be viewed by visiting CALPIA’s website: www.calpia.ca.gov.

A V AILABILITY OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Following its preparation, a copy of the Final State- ment of Reasons may be obtained from CALPIA’s con- tact person or by visiting the CALPIA website: www.calpia.ca.gov. TITLE 15. CALIFORNIA PRISON INDUSTRY AUTHORITY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the California Prison Industry Authority (CALPIA) and the Prison In- dustry Board (PIB) pursuant to the authority granted by Penal Code (PC) Sections 2801 and 2808 in order to im- plement, interpret and make specific Penal Code 2808, propose to add

section 8904 of

Article 3, of the Califor- nia Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 15, Division 8.5. PUBLIC HEARING At this time, no public hearing has been scheduled concerning the proposed adoption to regulations. Any- one may request a public hearing by contacting the Con- tact Person set forth below. Requests for public hearings must be made no later than February 3, 2019. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD The public comment period will close February 18, 2019. Any person may submit public comments regard- ing the proposed changes in writing. To be considered, comments must be received before the close of the com- ment period.

Use one of the following to submit: MAIL or HAND DELIVER CALPIA/Legal Services Unit 560 East Natoma Street Folsom, CA 95630 FAX (916) 358−2709 E−MAIL PIAregs@calpia.ca.gov CONTACT PERSONS Please direct any inquiries regarding this action or questions of substance of the proposed regulatory ac- tion to: M. Doherty, Regulatory Analyst California Prison Industry Authority 560 East Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone (916) 358−1711 In the event the contact person is unavailable, in- quiries should be directed to the following back−up person: C.

Pesce, Administrative Assistant California Prison Industry Authority 560 East Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone (916) 358−1711 AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE The California Prison Industry Authority (CALPIA) and the Prison Industry Board (PIB) pursuant to the au- thority granted by Penal Code (PC)

Section 2808, in or- der to implement, interpret and make specific Penal Code Sections 2808 and 2809, propose to add

section 8904 of

Article 3, of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 15, Division 8.5. INFORMATIVE DIGEST PIB is adding

Section 8904 to provide notice and af- firm the PIB’s authority to approve CALPIA to provide recruitment and ongoing retention compensation incen- tives. The proposed regulatory action will allow PIB to implement its authority vested by the Legislature. In PC

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 1-Z 19

section 2808, the Legislature granted PIB powers equal to “all of the things that the board of directors of a pri- vate corporation would do . . . .” This regulatory action is necessary to implement, interpret, clarify and make specific Penal Code (PC)

Section 2801. PC Sections 2801, 2808, and 2809 provide the PIB with implied rulemaking authority to establish regulations for devel- oping and operating enterprises to employ prisoners. . Pursuant to these statutes, the PIB has authority to pro- vide recruitment and ongoing retention compensation incentives. In PC

section 2809, the Legislature speci- fied that the PIB has authority to provide recruitment and retention compensation for employees. The PIB and CALPIA intend to provide incentive compensation as necessary to fulfill its mission in any manner that PIB determines to be commercially reasonable and compet- itive with procurement systems used by private indus- try. The proposed regulation is reasonably necessary to effectuate the statute’s purpose, and recruit and retain the most qualified staff. POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW CALPIA proposes to add

section 8904 to Title 15, Di- vision 8.5, titled Compensation, to expressly notice and affirm the authority of the Prison Industry Board (PIB) to authorize a recruitment and ongoing compensation differential to employees. CALPIA is currently in the process of recruiting a General Manager upon the re- tirement of the current General Manager in January 2019. In addition, in various other positions, CALPIA has vacancies that are continuing to rise and require com- petitiveness to recruit and retain staff. For example, CALPIA has position authority for a total of 446 posi- tions in the Custodian (CF) series.

Since 2015, there has been more than a 400% increase in positions for this classification. This number of personnel will continue to increase as the Health Care Facilities Improvement Project (HCFIP) continues to complete new construc- tion of medical space and buildings statewide. With the projected increase in square footage, a 38% vacancy rate is anticipated. CALPIA has a turnover rate of 49%, in part due to workers taking positions both inside and outside of civil service which offer a higher salary and incentives.

In order to recruit the most qualified indi- vidual and to reach a broad a segment of qualified and skilled professionals, it is necessary to affirm the PIB’s authority to authorize a recruitment and ongoing com- pensation differential to employees. In 1982, the California Legislature restructured the Department of Corrections’ industries and vocational training program abolishing the Correctional Industries Commission and replacing it with the newly created Prison Industry Authority (PIA) (subsequently re- named CALPIA) under the direction of the Prison In- dustry Board.

The Legislature established the Prison In- dustry Board as autonomous from the Department of Corrections. In 1982, the new Prison Industry Authori- ty was given independent autonomy. CALPIA is tasked with operating similar to a private business, established for the mission of providing train- ing, skills, and employment to inmates in order to re- duce recidivism upon release from incarceration. The PIB has the authority to do all the things that a private board of directors would do, such as hiring a CEO who reports to the board of directors.

Therefore, this change will better address the desire to reach the most qualified applicants and retain the most qualified candidate for this position. Without additional recruitment incentives and ongoing incentive compensation, many qualified applicants may not apply, and the PIB and CALPIA lose the opportunity to reach the most qualified applicants and retain the most qualified candidates for its work- force.

As CALPIA competes directly with the private sector in its staff recruitments, recruitment incentives and ongoing incentive compensation will increase the competitiveness of CALPIA in its executive search. Using recruitment incentives and ongoing incentive compensation also addresses the State Auditor’s find- ings issued in its report regarding the challenges of State agencies with a workforce of approximately 41% with- in potential reach of retiring, as they are age 50 or older.

See State Auditor’s Report 2015−608, titled “State De- partments Need to Improve Their Workforce and Suc- cession Planning Efforts to Mitigate the Risks of In- creasing Retirements.” In addition, as of October 2018, California’s unemployment rate is at a low of 3.5% making it timely to more competitively recruit staff with recruitment incentives and ongoing incentive compensation.

ANTICIPATED BENEFITS • Will continue to provide a nonmonetary benefit for the protection and safety of public health and safety, by ensuring ongoing efficiency of operations, employment for inmate workers, and providing work experiences for inmate workers to utilize upon release from custody. • Will allow more effective recruitment and retention of staff to support CALPIA operations. • Will reduce CALPIA’s position vacancy rate and provide additional employment opportunities to the public. • Staff may save these earnings, add them to retirements accounts, or otherwise use them in the state, national, or worldwide economy.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 1-Z 20 This proposed regulatory action will benefit CALPIA by providing recruitment and ongoing reten- tion compensation incentives to compete with the pri- vate marketplace to meet CALPIA’s labor and staffing needs. Thus, this proposed action benefits the public and general welfare.

EV ALUATION OF INCONSISTENCY/INCOMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING REGULATIONS During the process of developing this regulation, the PIB has conducted a search of any similar regulations on this topic and has concluded that the proposed regu- latory action is neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing laws and regulations. LOCAL MANDATES This action imposes no mandates on local agencies or school districts, or a mandate which requires reim- bursement pursuant to Government Code Sections 17500 through 17630.

FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT Cost to any local agency or school district that is re- quired to be reimbursed in accordance with Govern- ment Code Sections 17500 through 17630: None. Cost or savings to any state agency: None. Other nondiscretionary cost or savings imposed on local agencies: None. Cost or savings in federal funding to the State: None. EFFECT ON HOUSING COSTS The PIB has made an initial determination that the proposed action will have no significant effect on hous- ing costs.

SIGNIFICANT STATEWIDE ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACT ON BUSINESS The PIB has determined that the proposed action will not have a significant statewide adverse economic im- pact directly affecting businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states because they are not affected by the internal management of CALPIA employees. RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS/ASSESSMENT In accordance with the Government Code

Section 11346.3(a), CALPIA has made the following assess- ments regarding the proposed regulation: BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION As stated above under the Informative Digest and Policy Statement Overview, the benefits of the regula- tory action include: • Nonmonetary benefit for the protection and safety of public health and safety. • Supports and ensures ongoing efficiency of operations. • By effective operations through incentive compensation, promotes continued employment for inmate workers. • By effective operations through incentive compensation, promotes and provides work experiences for inmate workers to utilize upon release from custody. • Will allow more effective recruitment and retention of staff to support CALPIA operations. • Will reduce CALPIA’s position vacancy rate and provide additional employment opportunities to the public. • Staff may save these earnings, add them to retirements accounts, or otherwise use them in the state, national, or worldwide economy.

This proposed regulatory action will benefit CALPIA by providing recruitment and ongoing reten- tion compensation incentives to compete with the pri- vate marketplace to meet CALPIA’s labor and staffing needs. Thus, this proposed action benefits the public and general welfare. CREATION OR ELIMINATION OF JOBS WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA The PIB has determined that the proposed regulatory action will have no impact on the creation or elimina- tion of existing jobs within California because those jobs are not affected by the internal management of CALPIA employees.

CREATION OF NEW BUSINESSES OR ELIMINATION OF EXISTING BUSINESSES WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA This proposed regulatory action will have no effect on the creation of new or elimination of existing busi- nesses within California because those businesses are

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 1-Z 21 not affected by the internal management of CALPIA employees. EXPANSION OF BUSINESSES CURRENTLY DOING BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA This proposed regulatory action will have no effect on the expansion of businesses currently doing business within the State of California because they are not af- fected by the internal management of CALPIA employees.

COST IMPACTS ON REPRESENTATIVE PRIV ATE PERSONS OR BUSINESSES CALPIA is not aware of any cost impacts that a repre- sentative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed ac- tion. EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESSES CALPIA has determined that this action has no sig- nificant adverse economic impact on small businesses because they are not affected the internal management of CALPIA inmate workers.

CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES CALPIA has determined that no reasonable alterna- tive considered by CALPIA, or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of CALPIA, would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed, would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action, or would be more cost−effective to af- fected private persons and equally effective implement- ing the statutory policy or other provision of law.

Inter- ested persons are invited to submit written statements or arguments with respect to any alternatives to the changes proposed during the written comment period. REPORTS RELIED UPON None. A V AILABILITY OF PROPOSED TEXT, INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS, AND RULEMAKING RECORD; DOCUMENTS ON CALPIA’S WEBSITE The Proposed Text, Initial Statement of Reasons, and all the information upon which this proposal is based have been placed in the rulemaking record, which is available to the public upon request directed to the CALPIA’s contact person.

The documents will also be made available on the CALPIA website: www.calpia. ca.gov. A V AILABILITY OF CHANGES TO PROPOSED TEXT After considering all timely and relevant comments received, the PIB may approve the proposed regula- tions substantially as described in this Notice. If CALPIA makes modifications which are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text, it will make the modified text (with the changes clearly indicated) avail- able to the public for at least 15 days before the PIB re- views and approves the regulations as revised.

CALPIA will accept written comments on the modified regula- tions for 15 days after the date on which they are made available. Requests for copies of any modified regula- tion text should be directed to the contact person indi- cated in this Notice or can be viewed by visiting CALPIA’s website: www.calpia.ca.gov. A V AILABILITY OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Following its preparation, a copy of the Final State- ment of Reasons may be obtained from CALPIA’s con- tact person or by visiting the CALPIA website: www.calpia.ca.gov. TITLE 16.

STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL BOARD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Structural Pest Control Board (SPCB) is proposing to take action as described in the Informative Digest. Any person in- terested may present statements or arguments orally or in writing relevant to the action proposed at a hearing to be held at: Department of Consumer Affairs Lake Tahoe Conference Room 2005 Evergreen Street Sacramento, CA 95747 February 19, 2019 9:00 a.m.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 1-Z 22 Any interested person, or his or her authorized repre- sentative may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action to the SPCB. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to the SPCB at (916) 263−2469 or by email to pestboard@dca.ca.gov. The written comment period closes at 5:00 p.m. on Febru- ary 18, 2019. The SPCB will only consider comments received at the SPCB Office by that time.

Submit com- ments to: David Skelton, Administrative Analyst Structural Pest Control Board 2005 Evergreen Street, Suite 1500 Sacramento, CA 95815 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 per- son designated in this Notice as the contact person and will be mailed to those persons who submit written or oral testimony related to this proposal or who have re- quested notification of any changes to the proposal. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Pursuant to the authority granted by Business and Professions (B&

P) Code

Section 8525 and to imple- ment, interpret, or make specific B&P Code Sections 8518 and 8674, the SPCB is proposing to amend Cali- fornia Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 16,

section 1997. INFORMATIVE DIGEST Currently, CCR

section 1997 mandates a fee for pest control companies of $2.50 for each property address reported to the SPCB where a Wood Destroying Organ- ism (WDO) inspection has been performed. This regulatory proposal would increase that fee from $2.50 per reported property address, to $3.00 per re- ported property address. This is currently the statutory maximum fee that may be charged pursuant to B&P Code

section 8674(n). Effective January 1, 2019, the maximum authorized fee will increase to $5.00. (Stats. 2018, Ch. 572,

Sec. 16.) POLICY STATEMENT/OVERVIEW During the 2017−18 legislative session, the SPCB underwent an oversight process known as “sunset re- view” during which the Senate Business, Professions, and Economic Development Committee, and the As- sembly Committee on Business and Professions (Com- mittees) examined all aspects of the SPCB’s functions and performance. While performing SPCB’s sunset review, the Com- mittees identified the SPCB’s long−term fund condition as an area of concern. By fiscal year 2018−19, the SPCB is projected to have a reserve balance of less than two months, and a negative reserve by 2020−21.

To ensure the continued ability to fulfill its primary mission of protecting the public, the SPCB, like other boards and bureaus within the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), strives to maintain an operating budget reserve of at least six months and no more than two years, to ac- count for fluctuations in licensee populations, enforce- ment costs, and other unforeseen expenses.

In order to address the committees’ concerns about the SPCB’s operating budget reserve, the SPCB is proposing to raise the WDO inspection reporting fee from $2.50 per property address to the statutory maxi- mum of $3.00 per property address. In taking this ac- tion, the SPCB projects an annual revenue increase of over $682,000 which will equate to an additional 1.6 months in reserve funding in 2019−20. The SPCB antic- ipates that the fee increase will result in a reserve bal- ance in 2019−20 of approximately 6 months.

CONSISTENCY AND COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING STATE REGULATIONS During the process of developing the proposed regu- lation the SPCB conducted a search for any similar reg- ulations relating to this topic. The SPCB determined that the proposed regulatory action is not inconsistent or incompatible with existing regulations. FISCAL IMPACT ESTIMATES Fiscal Impact on Public Agencies Including Costs or Savings to State Agencies or Costs / Savings in Federal Funding to the State: In taking this action the SPCB projects an annual revenue increase of approximately $682,000.

This revenue translates into an additional 1.6 months of reserve funding in 2019−20. 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 STATEMENT The Board has determined that the proposed regula- tion will not have a significant statewide adverse eco- nomic impact directly affecting businesses including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states.

The Board has determined that the following types of businesses may experience a minimal adverse econom-

• CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 1-Z 23 ic impact — Businesses that perform WDO inspec- tions. COST IMPACT ON REPRESENTATIVE PRIV ATE PERSON OR BUSINESS The cost impact that a representative private person or business would incur to be in reasonable compliance with the proposed regulation is as follows: Impact on Businesses That Perform WDO Inspections Currently, there are 1,544 companies registered with the SPCB with the proper license to perform WDO in- spections.

Over 2013−14, 2014−15, 2015−16, and 2016−17 these companies reported an annual average total of 1,365,414 WDO inspections per year. This translates to an average of 884 annual WDO inspections per registered company. The proposed regulation would increase the fee registered companies pay to re- port a WDO inspection by $0.50. Therefore, the aver- age cost impact of the proposed regulation on a repre- sentative business is $442 per year. Effect on Housing Costs: None.

EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESS The SPCB has determined that the proposed regula- tion will affect small businesses in the following ways: Small businesses that perform WDO inspections will incur an increase of $0.50 in the fee that they are re- quired to pay to the SPCB when they report a WDO in- spection. While the SPCB does not keep statistics on how many small businesses it registers, the average an- nual cost increase for a company that performs WDO inspections is expected to be $442.

RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT The SPCB has determined that the proposed regula- tory action will not affect the creation or elimination of jobs within the state. The SPCB made this determina- tion because the economic impact of the proposed regu- lation is expected to be minor and therefore would not affect job creation. The SPCB has determined that the proposed regula- tory action will not affect the creation of new businesses or the elimination of existing businesses within the state.

The SPCB made this determination because the economic impact of the proposed regulation is expected to be minor and therefore would not affect the creation of new businesses or the elimination of existing businesses. The SPCB has determined that the proposed regula- tory action will not affect the expansion of businesses currently doing business within the state. The SPCB made this determination because the economic impact of the proposed regulation is expected to be minor and therefore would not affect the expansion of businesses currently operating within the state.

The SPCB has determined that the proposed regula- tory action will benefit the health and welfare of Cali- fornia’s residents, worker safety, and the state’s envi- ronment in the following way: • The health and welfare of California residents will benefit from the proposed regulation because it will enable the SPCB to address the concerns about its fund condition and therefore ensure that the SPCB can continue to fulfill its primary function of protecting the public. EFFECT ON HOUSING COSTS The SPCB has determined that the proposed regula- tion will have no effect on housing costs.

The SPCB made this determination because the economic impact of the proposed regulation is expected to be minor and therefore would not affect the cost of housing. BUSINESS REPORTING REQUIREMENT STATEMENT The SPCB has determined that the proposed regula- tion will not create a reporting requirement for businesses.

CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES The SPCB must determine that no reasonable alterna- tive it considered to the regulation or that has otherwise been identified and brought to its attention would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed, would be as effective and less bur- densome to affected private persons than the proposal described in this Notice, or would be more cost effec- tive to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law.

Any interested person may present statements or ar- guments orally or in writing relevant to the above deter- minations at the above−mentioned hearing.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 1-Z 24 INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS AND INFORMATION The SPCB has prepared an initial statement of the reasons for the proposed action and has available all the information upon which the proposal is based.

TEXT OF PROPOSAL Copies of the exact language of the proposed regula- tions, and any document incorporated by reference, and of the initial statement of reasons, and all of the infor- mation upon which the proposal is based, may be ob- tained at the hearing or prior to the hearing upon request from the Board’s office located at 2005 Evergreen Street, Suite 1500, Sacramento, California, 95815, or by visiting the Board’s website at http://www.pest board.ca.gov/forms/index.shtml.

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

The SPCB will accept written comments on the modified regulations for 15 days after the date on which they are made available. A V AILABILITY AND LOCATION OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS AND RULEMAKING FILE All the information upon which the proposed regula- tions are based is contained in the rulemaking file which is available for public inspection by contacting the per- son named below. You may obtain a copy of the final statement of rea- sons once it has been prepared by making a written re- quest to the contact person named below or by access- ing the website listed below.

WEBSITE ACCESS Materials regarding this proposal can be found at the Board’s website at: http://www.pestboard.ca.gov/ forms/index.shtml.

CONTACT PERSON Inquiries or comments concerning the proposed rulemaking action may be addressed to: Name: David Skelton Address: Structural Pest Control Board 2005 Evergreen Street Suite 1500 Sacramento, CA 95815 Telephone Number: 916−561−8722 Fax Number: 916−263−2469 Email Address: david.skelton@dca.ca.gov BACKUP CONTACT PERSON Name: Ronni O’Flaherty Address: Structural Pest Control Board 2005 Evergreen Street Suite 1500 Sacramento, CA 95815 Telephone Number: 916−561−8700 Fax Number: 916−263−2469 Email Address: ronni.oflaherty@dca.ca.gov TITLE 17.

AIR RESOURCES BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED ZERO−EMISSION AIRPORT SHUTTLE REGULATION The California Air Resources Board (CARB or Board) will conduct a public hearing at the time and place noted below to consider approving for adoption the proposed Zero−Emission Airport Shuttle Regula- tions (California Code of Regulations, title 17, sections 95690.1 through 95690.7.). DATE: February 21, 2019 TIME: 9:00 a.m.

LOCATION: California Environmental Protection Agency California Air Resources Board Byron Sher Auditorium 1001 I Street Sacramento, California 95812 This item will be considered at a meeting of the Board, which will commence at 9:00 a.m., February 21, 2019, and may continue at 8:30 a.m., on February 22, 2019. Please consult the agenda for the hearing, which

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 1-Z 25 will be available at least ten days before February 21, 2019, to determine the day on which this item will be considered. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD AND SUBMITTAL OF COMMENTS Interested members of the public may present com- ments orally or in writing at the hearing and may pro- vide comments by postal mail or by electronic submittal before the hearing. The public comment period for this regulatory action will begin on January 4, 2019.

Written comments not physically submitted at the hearing must be submitted on or after January 4, 2019, and received no later than 5:00 p.m. on February 19, 2019. CARB requests that when possible, written and email state- ments be filed at least ten days before the hearing to give CARB staff and Board members additional time to con- sider each comment. The Board also encourages mem- bers of the public to bring to the attention of staff in ad- vance of the hearing any suggestions for modification of the proposed regulation.

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

Additionally, the Board requests but does not require that persons who submit written comments to the Board reference the title of the proposal in their comments to facilitate review. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE This regulatory action is proposed under the authority granted in Health and Safety Code sections 38501, 38505, 38510, 38560, 38566, 39002, 39003, 39500, 39516, 39600, 39601, 39602, 39602.5, 39650, 39658, 39659, 39677, 43013, 43018, 43100, 43101, 43102, 43104, 43105, and 43106.

This action is proposed to implement, interpret, and make specific sections from Health and Safety Code Sections 38501, 38505, 38510, 38560, 39650, 39658, 39659, 39667, 43000, 43000.5, 43009, 43009.5, 43013, 43018, 43100, 43101, 43101.5, 43102, 43104, 43105, 43106, 43204, 43205, 43205.5, and 43600. INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION AND POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW (GOV . CODE, § 11346.5, subd. (a)(3)) Sections Affected: Proposed adoption of California Code of Regulations, title 17, sections 95690.1, 95690.2, 95690.3, 95690.4, 95690.5, 95690.6, and 95690.7.

CARB may also consider other changes to the sec- tions affected, as listed earlier in this notice, during the course of this rulemaking process. Background and Effect of the Proposed Regulation CARB is responsible for protecting the public from the harmful effects of air pollution and developing pro- grams and actions to fight climate change. Meeting these public health goals necessitates the transition from internal combustion engines in both light− and heavy−duty applications toward zero−emission vehicle (ZEV) technology.

The State Implementation Plan, California’s roadmap toward achieving federal health− based standards, identified zero−emission technology measures for this sector. The proposed Zero−Emission Airport Shuttle regulation would mandate the use of ZEV technology in a specific medium− and heavy−duty vehicle sector that is ideally suited for the technology. The proposed regulation would accelerate the adoption of zero−emission technology in airport shuttles and transition these fleets to full ZEV adoption by 2035.

As part of a comprehensive suite of measures tasked to meet our air quality and climate goals this proposal would virtually eliminate tailpipe emissions from air- port shuttles operating at and around California air- ports, thus improving the air quality in impacted com- munities both regionally and throughout the State. The proposed regulation is well−positioned to act as a mech- anism for increasing adoption of zero emission technol- ogy in a compatible market sector.

This acceleration of the use of zero−emission technology is necessary to provide cleaner air for all Californians while slowing down the effects of climate change. California has a vast network of airports, serving both urban and rural communities, which provide a variety of essential functions critical to California’s economy. Eleven of the North American’s top 100 passenger air- ports are located in California, with Los Angeles Inter- national Airport and San Francisco International Air- port ranking number two and seven, respectively, in terms of annual commercial airline passengers.

This level of activity brings commensurate emissions. Re- ducing emissions of criteria pollutants, toxic air con- taminants, and greenhouse gas (GHG) from all sectors,

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2019, VOLUME NO. 1-Z 26 including the aviation sector, will support CARB’s mis- sion to meet federal health−based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California’s climate change abatement goals. Currently, almost 1,000 public and private airport shuttles operate in California, transporting travelers to parking lots, rental car offices, hotels, and other destina- tions at California’s 13 largest airports.

The shuttles themselves consist of vans, cutaways, and transit−style buses and are owned either by local government agen- cies or by private businesses, such as independent off− airport parking lots and hotels. The majority of airport shuttles currently use gasoline and compressed natural gas, although some use electric, propane, and diesel. Shuttle operators have already recognized that ZEVs can be a good fit for their operations.

Currently over 110 ZEV shuttles are in−use or are on order, including 33 in operation at Wally Park, a private off−airport parking business serving the Los Angeles International Airport that became the first all−electric airport shuttle fleet in the nation. These fleet owners utilized incentive funds to offset the incremental cost of the battery electric shut- tles and are seeing operational benefits of reduced fuel- ing and maintenance costs.

As noted previously, airport shuttles are small in number, relative to the larger transportation vehicle populations, and therefore their impact on air pollution is similarly small. However, airport shuttle operation characteristics (i.e., fixed short routes, stop−and−go op- eration, and low average speeds) are an optimal match to current battery electric vehicle technology. There- fore, this category of vehicles (along with transit buses) are a logical initiation point for medium− and heavy− duty ZEV implementation from which the technology can expand to the larger population of buses and trucks.

Technology transformation regulations, like the pro- posed regulation, contribute to CARB’s air quality and climate change goals by increasing the use of ZEVs in the medium− and heavy−duty on−road sector while pro- viding a bridge toward zero−emission pathways in oth- er sectors. This regulatory effort will expand medium− and heavy−duty electric charging and hydrogen fueling infrastructure, build consumer awareness and public visibility of ZEVs, send a market signal to assist in en- couraging economies of scale, and support technology transfer to other medium− and heavy−duty on−road and off−road sections.

CARB has the authority to regulate mobile sources and to adopt motor vehicle standards and measures to attain ambient air quality standards and climate change requirements and goals. Furthermore, CARB is tasked with developing the State Implementation Plan, Cali- fornia’s road map toward achieving the NAAQS. Addi- tional oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and GHG emission re- ductions are needed from the transportation sector in or- der to attain the NAAQS, reduce individual health risk, and meet climate change goals while promoting the transportation sector’s transition to ZEV technology.

Shuttles that serve California’s commercial airports are among the first that will be required to transition to the cleanest technologies available. Objectives and Benefits of the Proposed Regulation: The Revised Proposed 2016 State Strategies for the State Implementation Plan included several areas that are key to launching heavy−duty zero−emission tech- nology in the on−road heavy−duty sector including transit buses, delivery trucks, and airport shuttles. These efforts — besides providing NOx, parti