GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW California Regulatory Notice Register REGISTER 2020, NUMBER 43-Z P UBLISHED WEEKLY BY THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW O CTOBER 23, 2020 PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS TITLE 2. SECRET ARY OF STATE Business Entity Names — Notice File Number Z2020–1008–01 .............................................. 1387 TITLE 4. DE P ARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL Administrative Emergency Decision — Notice File Number Z2020–1013–01 .................................. 1391 TITLE 10.

DE P ARTMENT OF INSURANCE California Automobile Assigned Risk Plan — Notice File Number Z2020–1013–03 ............................. 1393 TITLE 17. CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD Enhanced Vapor Recovery Amendments — Notice File Number Z2020–1006–05 ............................... 1396 TITLE 17.

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD Prohibition on Certain Hydroflourocarbons — Notice File Number Z2020–1006–01 ............................ 1407 GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST CALIFORNIA DE P ARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDFIRE Notice concerning M–1 Road Fish Passage Improvement Project ............................................ 1416 DECISION NOT TO PROCEED COMMISSION ON PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING Concerning Services Provided by the Commission (Previously Published in the Notice Register 2020 Number 10Z) ....................................................................... 1418 (Continued on next page) Time- Dated Material

The California Regulatory Notice Register is an official state publication of the Office of Administrative Law containing notices of proposed regulatory actions by state regulatory agencies to adopt, amend or repeal regulations contained in the California Code of Regulations. The effective period of a notice of proposed regulatory action by a state agency in the California Regulatory Notice Register shall not exceed one year [Government Code § 11346.4(b)]. It is suggested, therefore, that issues of the California Regulatory Notice Register be retained for a minimum of 18 months.

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

SUMMARY OF REGULATORY ACTIONS Regulations filed with Secretary of State .................................................................. 1418

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 43-Z 1387 PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS Information contained in this document is published as received from agencies and is not edited by Thomson Reuters. TITLE 2. SECRETARY OF STATE

Chapter 8.5. Business Entity Names Amending Sections 21000, 21001, 21001.2, 21001.3, 21002, 21003, 21004, 21005, 21006 Repealing Sections 21004.5, 21005.5 and 21008 (Business Entity Names) Notice is hereby given that the Secretary of State in- tends to amend the regulations described below after considering all comments, objections, and recommen- dations regarding the proposed action. Hearing Date: No hearing date is scheduled.

A pub- lic hearing will be held if any interested person, or his or her duly authorized representative, submits a writ - ten request for a public hearing to the contact person listed no later than 15 days prior to the close of the written comment period. Written Public Comment Period: October 23, 2020, through December 7, 2020.

PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION The Secretary of State proposes the following reg - ulatory action: Amend provisions of 2 California Code of Regulations sections 21000, 21001, 21001.2, 21001.3, 21002, 21003, 21004, 21005, 21006 and repeal sec - tions 21004.5, 21005.5 and 21008 to reflect statutory changes in anticipation of the passing of Senate Bill 522 in the California Legislature’s 2019 to 2020 ses - sion, effective January 1, 2021 and further implement and interpret the requirements of Corporations Code sections 110, 201, 2601, 5008, 5122, 7122, 9122, 10010, 10013, 12214, 12302, 13409, 15901.08, and 17701.08.

AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Authority cited: Corporations Code sections 8, 110, 201, 2106, 2601, 5008, 5122, 7122, 9122, 10010, 10013, 12214, 12302, 13409, 15901.08, 15909.05, 17701.08 and 17708.02. Reference cited: Corporations Code sections 8, 167, 171, 201, 2101, 2106, 2601, 5008, 5122, 6910, 7122, 8910, 9122, 12302, 13409, 15901.02, 15901.08, 15901.09, 15909.02, 15909.05, 17701.02, 17701.08, 17701.09, 17708.02 and 17708.05.

INFORMATIVE DIGEST / POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW The Secretary of State proposes to amend sections 21000 through 21009 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations, which implement, interpret or make specific sections 201, 2601, 5122, 7122, 9122, 12302, 15901.08 and 17701.08 of the Corporations Code. These sections concern the availability of business entity names for Corporations, Foreign Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Foreign Limited Liability Companies, Limited Partnerships and Foreign Limited Partnerships.

The proposed amend - ments are intended to reflect the new statutory stan - dards effective January 1, 2021. The specific benefits anticipated by the proposed amendment of these regulations includes helping per - sons and businesses trying to determine the avail - ability of business entity names prior to filing their documents with the Secretary of State. The existing regulations will not reflect the statutory standards, ef - fective January 1, 2021, that are required to be used in evaluating proposed names for corporations and limited partnerships.

Leaving the existing regula - tions intact would result in confusion among appli - cants.

Amending the regulations to be consistent with the California General Corporations Law, the Social Purpose Corporations Act, the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, the Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation Law, the Nonprofit Religious Corporation Law, the Cooperative Corporation Law, Uniform Limited Partnership Act of 2008, and the California Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act should result in fewer documents being rejected by the Secretary of State based on unavailable business enti - ty names, which will save those individuals and busi - nesses time and money.

The Secretary of State has considered any other re - lated regulations and statutes on this matter and has de- termined that this proposed amendment is not incon - sistent or incompatible with existing regulations and statutes.

The Secretary of State is the only state office responsible for administering the California General Corporations Law, the Social Purpose Corporations Act, the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, the Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation Law, the Nonprofit Religious Corporation Law, the Cooperative Corporation Law, Uniform Limited Partnership Act of 2008, and the California Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act. Specifically, through this proposed rulemaking, the Secretary of State proposes to amend California Code

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 43-Z 1388 of Regulations, Title 2, Division 7,

Chapter 8.5 in the following respects: 1) The changes to Subsection 21000(

a) updates the references to reflect numbering changes to other sections of the Business Entity Name Regulations. The phrase “the same, deceptively similar to, sub- stantially the same as” is being removed to reflect the new standard of distinguishable in the record. 2) Changes to Subsection 21000(

b) removes the same phrase “the same, deceptively similar to, substantially the same as” to apply the statutory name standard of distinguishable in the record. 3) Changes to Subsection 21000(

c) removes the phrases “the same as, deceptively similar to,” “or whether a proposed name will require consent from an existing business entity of record for use of a proposed name,” to reflect the new standard of distinguishable in the record. 4) Subsection 21001(

b) is deleted as the term “Deceptively similar” is no longer part of the standard and no longer needs to be defined. 5) Subsection 21001(

c) is renumbered to Subsection 21001(

b) as the existing 21001(

b) is being deleted. 6) Subsection 21001(

d) is renumbered to Subsection 21001(

c) as the existing 21001(

c) is being renumbered. 7) Subsection 21001(

e) is renumbered to Subsection 21001(

d) as the existing 21001(

d) is being renumbered. 8) Subsection 21001(

f) is renumbered to Subsection 21001(

e) as the existing 21001(

e) is being renumbered. 9) Subsection 21001(

f) is added to define the term “punctuation.” 10) Subsection 21001(

g) is added to define the term “symbol.” 11) Existing Subsection 21001(

g) is renumbered to Subsection 21001(

h) with the addition of Subsection 21001(

f) and Subsection 21001(g). 12) Subsection 21001.1(

b) is being deleted to apply the statutory name standard (“distinguishable in the records of the Secretary of State”) as “the same as or deceptively similar to” and “substan - tially similar to” is no longer part of the standard. 13) Subsection 21001.1(

c) is renumbered to Subsection 21001.1(

b) as the existing Subsection 21001.1(

b) is being deleted. 14) Subsection 21001.3(

b) is added to reflect the cur- rent standard “likely to mislead the public” to Limited Partnership names. 15)

Section 21002 is being renamed to delete the stan- dard of “Same or Deceptively Similar Names” and to name it “Punctuation & Symbols” to re - flect the statutory standard and retain the punctu- ation and symbol examples. 16)

Section 21002, first paragraph is being deleted as it is no longer the applicable standard. 17) Subsection 21002(

a) is being deleted as it is no longer the applicable standard. 18) Subsection 21002(

b) is being deleted as it is no longer the applicable standard. 19) Subsection 21002(

c) is being deleted as it is no longer the applicable standard. 20) Subsection 21002(

d) is being deleted as it is no longer the applicable standard. 21) Subsection 21002(

e) is being deleted as it is no longer the applicable standard. 22) Subsection 21002(f), first sentence is being delet- ed to list the following examples of punctuation and symbols. 23) Subsection 21002(f)(1) is renumbered to Subsection 21002(a). 24) Subsection 21002(f)(2) is renumbered to Subsection 21002(b). 25) Subsection 21002(f)(2) examples are deleted to remove the deceptively similar standard exam - ples as it is no longer the applicable standard. 26) Subsection 21002(f)(3) is being deleted to remove the deceptively similar standard as it is no longer the applicable standard. 27) Subsection 21002(

g) is being deleted to remove the deceptively similar standard as it is no longer the applicable standard. 28) Subsection 21002(

h) is being deleted to remove all examples of the deceptively similar standard as it is no longer the applicable standard. 29)

Section 21003 is being deleted in its entirety to remove the “Substantially Similar” standard as it is no longer the applicable standard. 30)

Section 21004 is being deleted in its entire - ty as it is part of the “Substantially Similar” or “Substantially the Same” standard which requires consent. 31)

Section 21004.5 is being deleted in its entirety as the “Deceptively Similar and Substantially the Same As” standard is no longer the applicable standard. 32)

Section 21005 is being renumbered to

Section 21003 as the existing

Section 21003 contents are being deleted in its entirety. 33)

Section 21005.5 is being renumbered to

Section 21004 as the existing

Section 21004 contents are being deleted in its entirety. 34) Existing Subsection 21005.5(b)(3) which will be renumbered to Subsection 21004(b)(3), is being amended to reflect the change in reference to the

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 43-Z 1389 subsection regarding the

definitions to punctua - tions and symbols. 35) Existing Subsection 21005.5(b)(3) which will be renumbered to Subsection 21004(b)(3), examples are being amended to reflect corporate names consistent in the change of the statutory standard to “distinguishable in the record” regarding cor - porate names. 36) Existing Subsection 21005.5(

b) which will be renumbered to Subsection 21004(b), will add Subsection 21004(b)(4) to distinguish the symbol of ampersand with the word “and” to clarify any ambiguity. 37) Existing Subsection 21005.5(b)(4) is being re - numbered to Subsection 21004(b)(5) to reflect the addition of the Subsection 21004(b)(4). 38) Existing

Section 21006 is being renumbered to

Section 21005 as the existing

Section 21005 is be- ing renumbered to

Section 21003 and the name is reflected to add “Court Judgments” where the existing parts of Subsection 21004.5(

b) regarding court judgments is being retained. 39) Existing Subsection 21006(

a) which is being renumbered to Subsection 21005(a), is being amended to delete the references to the “substan- tially the same as” standard as it is no longer the applicable standard. 40) Existing Subsection 21006 which is being re - numbered to

Section 21005, is adding Subsection 21005(

c) regarding court judgments that were originally in Subsection 21004.5(

b) as it is being retained. 41) Existing

Section 21008 is being renumbered to

Section 21006 as existing

Section 21006 is being renumbered to

Section 21005. 42) Existing

Section 21008, first paragraph, which is being renumbered to

Section 21006, is being amended to remove the references to “same as, deceptively similar to or substantially the same as” standard which will no longer be used. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any interested person, or the interested person’s authorized representative, may submit written com - ments relevant to the proposed regulatory action to the Secretary of State. The written comment period clos - es on December 7, 2020. The Secretary of State will consider only comments received at the Secretary of State’s office by that time.

Submit comments to: Lauro Feliciano, Attorney Secretary of State 1500 11th Street, Sixth Floor Sacramento, C A 95814 Telephone: 916–695–1290 The backup contact person for comment submission is: Janessa Huez, Supervising Attorney Secretary of State 1500 11th Street, Third Floor Sacramento, C A 95814 Telephone: 916–695–1242 All inquiries regarding this proposed rulemaking, including requests for obtaining the Final Statement of Reasons, should be directed to Lauro Feliciano at the address listed above. DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACTION The Secretary of State has made the following initial determinations: 1.

Mandate on local agencies and school districts: None. 2. Costs or savings to any state agency: None be- yond those budgeted or expected to be budgeted for the Secretary of State. 3. Cost to any local agency or school district which must be reimbursed in accordance with Government Code sections 17500 through 17630: None. 4. Other nondiscretionary costs or savings im - posed on local agencies: None. 5. Costs or savings in federal funding to the state: None. 6.

Significant, statewide adverse economic im - pact directly affecting business including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states: None. 7. Cost impacts on a representative private person or businesses: The Secretary of State anticipates negligible overall cost savings to private persons and businesses.

The proposed changes to the reg- ulations will help persons and businesses deter - mine the availability of business entity names prior to filing their documents with the Secretary of State and will reflect statutory changes based on the California General Corporations Law, the Social Purpose Corporations Act, the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, the Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation Law, the Nonprofit Religious Corporation Law, the Cooperative Corporation Law, Uniform Limited Partnership

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 43-Z 1390 Act of 2008, and the California Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act. This should re - sult in fewer documents being rejected by the Secretary of State based on unavailable business entity names, which will save those individuals and businesses time and money. The net result is expected to be neutral or result in a very small savings to applicants. 8. Adoption of these amendments will not: (

A) create or eliminate jobs within California; (

B) create new businesses or eliminate existing businesses within California; or (

C) affect the expansion of businesses currently doing business within California. 9. Significant effect on housing costs: None. 10. Effect on small business: None. The proposed amendments do not impose any mandatory fees on small businesses or require any forms or re - ports be prepared or filed by any business.

RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS/ASSESSMENT The proposed regulatory amendments reflect the statutory changes in anticipation of the passing of Senate Bill 522 in amending the California General Corporations Law, the Social Purpose Corporations Act, the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, the Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation Law, the Nonprofit Religious Corporation Law, the Cooperative Corporation Law, Uniform Limited Partnership Act of 2008, and the California Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act.

Accordingly, no jobs in California will be created or eliminated, no new businesses in California will be created or existing businesses eliminated, and no existing businesses in California will be expanded or eliminated.

Amending the Business Entity Name Regulations will help persons and businesses trying to determine the availability of business entity names prior to filing their documents with the Secretary of State and will re- flect statutory changes based on the California General Corporations Law, the Social Purpose Corporations Act, the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, the Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation Law, the Nonprofit Religious Corporation Law, the Cooperative Corporation Law, Uniform Limited Partnership Act of 2008, and the California Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act.

The existing regulations will not reflect the statutory standards, effective January 1, 2021, in evaluating limited liability company proposed names and left intact would result in confusion among applicants.

Amending the regulations to be consistent with the California General Corporations Law, the Social Purpose Corporations Act, the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, the Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation Law, the Nonprofit Religious Corporation Law, the Cooperative Corporation Law, Uniform Limited Partnership Act of 2008, and the California Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act should result in fewer documents being rejected by the Secretary of State based on unavailable business enti - ty names, which will save those individuals and busi - nesses time and money.

CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES In accordance with Government Code

section 11346.5(a)(13), the Secretary of State must determine that no reasonable alternative it considered or that has otherwise been identified and brought to its attention would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed, would be as effec - tive as and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action, or would be more cost–ef - fective to affected private persons and equally effec - tive in implementing the statutory policy or other pro- vision of law.

The Secretary of State invites persons to present statements or arguments with respect to alternatives to the proposed amendments during the written com - ment period. A VAILABILITY OF STATEMENT OF REASONS AND TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS The Secretary of State will have the entire rulemaking file available for inspection and copying throughout the rulemaking process at the above address. As of the date this notice is published in the Notice Register, the rulemaking file consists of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the regulations as proposed, and the Initial Statement of Reasons.

The rulemaking file includes all the information upon which the proposed action is based. Copies are posted on the Secretary of State’s website at http://www.sos. ca.gov/admin/regulations/proposed/ and may also be obtained from the contact person indicated above. A VAILABILITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT After considering all timely and relevant comments received, the Secretary of State may adopt the pro - posed regulations substantially as described in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

If the Secretary of State makes modifications that are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text, it will make the modi - fied text (with the changes clearly indicated) available to the public for at least 15 days before the Secretary

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 43-Z 1391 of State adopts the regulations as revised. Please send requests for copies of any modified regulations to the attention of the contact person indicated above. The Secretary of State will accept written comments on the modified regulations for 15 days after the date on which the modified regulations are made available. A VAILABILITY OF RULEMAKING DOCUMENTS AND THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Copies of rulemaking documents can be accessed through the Secretary of State’s website at http://www. sos.ca.gov/admin/regulations/proposed/.

Upon com - pletion, the Final Statement of Reasons will be posted on the Secretary of State’s website or obtained from the contact person indicated above. TITLE 4. DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (A B

C) proposes to adopt the proposed regulations de- scribed below after considering all comments, objec - tions, and recommendations regarding the proposed action. This proposed rulemaking is a certificate of compliance action for a previously approved emergen- cy rulemaking action that is effective through January 25, 2021. PUBLIC HEARING A B C has not scheduled a public hearing on this proposed action.

However, the department will hold a hearing if it receives a written request for a public hearing from any interested person, or his or her au - thorized representative, no later than 15 days before the close of the written comment period. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any interested person, or his or her authorized rep - resentative, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action to A B C. Comments may also be submitted by email to RPU@abc.ca.gov, please include “Emergency Administrative Decisions” in the subject line of your email.

The written comment period closes at 12:00 p.m. on December 9, 2020. A B C will consider only comments received at A B C Headquarters by that time. Submit comments to: Law and Policy Unit Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control 3927 Lennane Drive, Suite 100 Sacramento, C A 95834 AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Government Code

section 11460.20, Business and Professions Code

section 23080 authorizes A B C to adopt these proposed regulations. The proposed regulations implement, interpret, and make specif - ic Government Code sections 11460.10, 11460.20, 11460.30, 11460.40, 11460.50, 11460.60, 11460.70, and 11460.80; and Business and Professions Code sec - tions 23080, 23090.5, 23095, 24044.5, 24045.5, 24201, 24203, 24204, 24300, and 24301.

INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW Current law has a large bureaucratic loophole through which unscrupulous A B C licensees can con - tinue to present an immediate danger to public health, safety, and welfare during the lengthy administrative process of holding A B C licensees accountable for their violations of the A B C Act.

The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (the Department) aims to close the loophole with this regulatory action which will authorize the Department to issue emergency de - cisions to protect the public health, safety, and wel - fare as provided under the Administrative Procedures Act (A P

A) without waiting for protracted litigation. Protracted litigation has the potential to defer decisive action from the Department for months or years pro - viding opportunity for licensees to continue to harm the public.

Summary of Existing Laws and Regulations Business and Professions Code

section 23082 re - quires A B C to complete its entire normal disciplinary process prior imposing administrative remedies in - tended to prevent or stop the illegal conduct from con- tinuing at a licensed premises. This formal process can last months. Even when an A B C decision is fi - nal, A B C decisions are subject to an automatic stay if appealed to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board. This allows licensees endangering the public health, safety, and welfare to continue operation for years prior to effective A B C action.

Summary of Effect If a business is operating in a fashion egregious enough to warrant an administrative emergency de - cision, the likelihood of the inappropriate behavior continuing is too great to allow it to continue during A B C’s disciplinary proceedings. Bad actors are gam- ing the system as they see an impending loss of li - cense for their business on the horizon. They have no reasonable incentive to correct their behavior and abide by the rules, instead they elect to continue liti - gating, thereby extending the appeals process and fis - cally profiting for as long as they can with an absolute disregard for the law. The proposed regulatory action

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 43-Z 1392 will make permanent the emergency administrative decision regulations previously established under an emergency regulation in early 2020. Administrative emergency decisions allow A B C to implement limits on the ongoing harm to the public health, safety, and welfare in the form of temporary suspensions, tem - porary limitations on licensed privileges, and tempo - rary license conditions while the normal accusation process is pending.

The regulations will ensure A B C complies with due process in issuing administrative emergency decisions pending completion of an accu - sation process while also protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. Comparable Federal Statute or Regulations A B C has determined that this proposed regula - tion does not have a comparable federal statute or regulation.

Policy Statement Overview A B C’s mission to protect the public health, safe - ty, and welfare through licensing alcohol businesses and enforcing legislative standards is limited when its normal accusation process takes years to bring a fi - nal decision. By limiting bad actions from the licensed premises on an emergency temporary basis pending final rulings, California residents will have a high - er quality of life through the benefits of better pub - lic health, safety, and welfare. The proposed regula - tions are consistent and compatible with existing state regulations.

Benefits Anticipated By establishing immediate consequences for unac - ceptable behavior, A B C anticipates a reversal in the current trend of multiple appeals and prolonged liti - gation in many of A B C’s disciplinary actions which have become less of a deterrent and more of an unan - ticipated cost of doing business which bad actors are willing to pay for. This will also limit additional vio - lations of the law by A B C licensees from harming the public while A B C completes its normal disciplinary process, or while the A B C Appeals Board reviews an A B C decision.

Determination of Inconsistency/Incompatibility with Existing State Regulations A B C has determined that this proposed regulato - ry action is not inconsistent or incompatible with ex - isting state regulations. After conducting a review for any regulations that would relate to or affect this area, A B C has concluded that these are the only regulations that concern administrative emergency decisions by A B C in California. Effect upon Small Businesses in California A B C has determined this proposed regulatory ac - tion does affect small businesses.

However, the laws that A B C seeks to enforce via the proposed regulation are laws to which small businesses are already sub - ject and the only change is how these laws are inves - tigated and enforced. While some A B C licensees are small businesses, this regulation is affecting all A B C licensees who present and immediate harm to the pub- lic health, safety, and welfare through their actions. A B C is not affecting any business with this regulation without due process and the Department providing ev- idence that the business presents an immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.

Disclosures Regarding the Proposed Action The A B C has made the following initial determinations: 1. Mandate on local agencies or school districts: None. 2. Costs or Savings to any state agency: A B C esti - mates a $10,000 per year cost to the department through a rare appeal of a temporary order at the Superior Court of the county where a licensed premises subject to an emergency decision is lo - cated. This new cost will be absorbed into A B C’s current budget, and could be offset by a similar reduction of additional violations at licensed premises occurring during the A B C normal dis - ciplinary process. 3.

Cost to any local agency or school district that is required to be reimbursed by the state: None. 4. Other nondiscretionary cost or savings imposed on local agencies: None. 5. Cost or savings in federal funding to the state: None. 6. Cost impacts on housing costs: None. Determination of Statewide Adverse Economic Impact on Business The A B C has made an initial determination that the adoption of this regulation will have negligible eco - nomic impact on businesses that do not violate the law. The laws that A B C seeks to enforce via the pro - posed regulation are laws to which businesses are al - ready subject.

The proposed action only lays out the process by which A B C will investigate and discipline licenses for potential violations and seek enforcement of these same laws. There is no foreseeable impact on businesses based on the process laid out in the pro - posed regulation.

Results of the Economic Impact Assessment: A B C concludes that it is (1) unlikely that the pro - posal will eliminate any jobs, (2) unlikely that the proposal will create an unknown number of jobs, (3) unlikely that the proposal will create an unknown number of new businesses, (4) unlikely that the pro - posal will eliminate any existing businesses, and (5) unlikely that the proposed regulations will result in the expansion of businesses currently doing business within the state.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 43-Z 1393 A B C does anticipate the proposed regulations will allow increased public health, safety, and welfare from a better check upon A B C licensees that currently can continue violating the A B C Act during A B C’s nor - mal accusation process. It will provide clarity to law enforcement officers, A B C licensees, and the public of the regulatory procedure to implement administra - tive emergency decisions to stop the above conduct.

This proposed regulation will further A B C’s mission which is to protect the public health, safety, and wel - fare through licensing alcohol businesses and enforc - ing legislative standards. Additionally, the proposed regulations will promote more safety, as well as con - sistent enforcement of these laws throughout the state. The proposed regulations will not benefit worker safe- ty or the state’s environment.

Description of All Economic Impacts That a Representative Private Person or Business Would Necessarily Incur in Reasonable Compliance with the Proposed Action A B C has made the determination that the adoption of this regulation will have negligible economic im - pact on a representative private person or business that does not violate the law. The laws that A B C seeks to enforce via the proposed regulation are laws to which persons and businesses are already subject. The pro - posed action lays out the process by which A B C will investigate potential violations and seek enforcement of these same laws.

There is no foreseeable impact on representative private persons or businesses based on the process laid out in the proposed regulation. Thus, A B C is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative person or business would necessari - ly incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action. The Need to Require Report from Businesses The proposed regulation does not require any reports from A B C licensees or any other business.

Consideration of Alternatives A B C has determined that no reasonable alternative considered by the department or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the de - partment would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed, would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action, or would be more cost–effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or oth - er provision of law.

A B C invites interested persons to present statement or arguments with respect to alter - natives to the proposed regulation during the written comment period. Agency Contact Person Inquiries concerning the proposed regulatory action may be directed to the agency representative Robert de Ruyter, Assistant General Counsel, (916) 419–8958 or (designated backup contact) Sonny Bains, Associate Governmental Program Analyst, Law and Policy Unit, (916) 285–0891. Availability of Documents A B C prepared an Initial Statement of Reasons for the proposed action.

Copies of the Initial Statement of Reasons, and the full text of the proposed regula - tions may be accessed on A B C’s website listed below or may be obtained from the Regulations and Policy Unit, Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 3927 Lennane Drive, Suite 100, Sacramento, C A 95834, on or after October 23, 2020. A B C staff has compiled a record for this rulemak - ing action, which includes all the information upon which the proposal is based. This material is available for inspection upon request to the contact persons.

Change to the Proposed Full Text of the Regulation Action If there is any change to the proposed full text of the regulation action in a substantial, or sufficiently relat - ed way, it will be made available for comment for at least 15 days prior to the date on which the department adopts the resulting regulation. Final Statement of Reasons Availability Upon its completion, the Final Statement of Reasons will be available, and copies may be requested, from the department contact persons in this notice or may be accessed on A B C’s website listed below.

Internet Access This notice, the Initial Statement of Reasons, and all subsequent regulatory documents, includ - ing the Final Statement of Reasons, when complet - ed, are available on A B C’s website for this rulemak - ing at https://www.abc.ca.gov/law–and–policy/ regulations–rulemaking/ TITLE 10.

DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED ACTION AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REVISIONS TO CALIFORNIA LOW COST AUTOMOBILE PLAN OF OPERATIONS SUBJECT OF HEARING California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara will hold a public hearing to address the proposed amendments to the California Low Cost Automobile (“C L C A”) Plan of Operations.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 43-Z 1394 AUTHORITY TO ADOPT RULES AND PROCEDURES AND REFERENCE The Commissioner will consider the proposed changes pursuant to the authority vested in him by

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

Section 11624(e). Insurance Code

Section 11620(

c) applies to this proceeding. HEARING DATE AND LOCATION Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held to permit all interested persons the opportunity to present statements or arguments, orally or in writing, with respect to the proposed changes at the following date, time, and place: Date: December 7, 2020 Time: 1:00 p.m. TELEPHONIC PARTICIPATION ONLY Toll–Free Conference Call Telephone Number: 844–867–6169 Participant Access Code: 3576416 Participants will be given instructions on how to provide testimony once they have accessed the hearing.

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

To make it possible for the Department to advise attendees of future rulemaking activity, as well as to aid the Department of Insurance in managing attendance, we request that you voluntarily R S V P as soon as possible, preferably by Wednesday December 2, 2020, by providing your name(s), the name of the organization you represent, and your contact information, including email address of each attendee to RiordanM@insurance.ca.gov. An R S V P is not required to attend the telephonic conference and all attendees are invited to participate regardless of whether there was an R S V P.

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

Comments should be addressed to the contact person for this proceeding: Contact Person: Michael Riordan, Attorney California Department of Insurance Auto Enforcement Bureau 1901 Harrison Street 4th Floor Oakland, C A 94612 riordanm@insurance.ca.gov Telephone: (415) 538–4226 Facsimile: (510) 238–1830 The backup agency contact person for this proceed- ing will be: Emily Gallagher, Attorney California Department of Insurance Rate Enforcement Bureau 1901 Harrison Street 4th Floor Oakland, C A 94612 gallaghere@insurance.ca.gov Telephone: (415) 538–4108 All persons are invited to present oral and/or written testimony at the scheduled public hearing.

DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS All written materials, unless submitted at the hear - ing, must be received by the Insurance Commissioner at the address listed above no later than 5:00 p.m. on, December 7, 2020. Any written materials received af- ter that time will not be considered. Written comments may also be submitted to the contact person by e–mail or facsimile transmission. Please select only one meth- od to submit written comments.

ADVOCACY OR WITNESS FEES Persons or groups representing the interest of con - sumers may be entitled to reasonable advocacy fees, witness fees, and other reasonable expenses, in ac - cordance with the provisions of California Code of Regulations, Title 10, Sections 2662.1–2662.6 in connection with their participation in this matter. Interested persons must submit a Petition to Participate, as specified in California Code of Regulations, Title 10,

Section 2661.4. The Petition to Participate must be submitted to the Commissioner at the Office of the Public Advisor at the following address:

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 43-Z 1395 California Department of Insurance Office of the Public Advisor 300 Spring Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, C A 90013 Telephone: (213) 346–6635 A copy of the Petition to Participate must also be submitted to the contact person for this hearing (list - ed above). For further information, please contact the Office of the Public Advisor. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW L C 20–07 The Electronic Application Submission Interface (“EASi”) Electronic Effective Date Retraction Request Form is a multi–mechanism form used by the L C A.

In conjunction with the introduction of the Private Passenger Pool for CAARP, generic references to an electronic application submission process are being introduced that eliminate references to EASi through - out the L C A Plan of Operation and related applica - tions and forms. CAARP proposes the introduction of generic refer - ences to electronic transmittal or electronic applica - tion submission and elimination if the references to EASi. L C 20–08 The US Department of Treasury has issued an Executive Order that prohibits transactions with per - sons who commit, threaten to commit, or support ter - rorism.

This Executive Order applies to property ca - sualty insurers and to claims paid by those insurers. Due to recent enforcement actions by the Department of the Treasury, clarification should be provided to the policyholder that no payment will be made to a third party in violation of the Executive Order. L C 20–09 The California Low Cost Plan of Operations, appli - cations, and Program forms must be updated to com - ply with Senate Bill 570 that was enacted September 6, 2019.

The California Automobile Assigned Risk Program propose amendments to the Plan of Operations to in - corporate changes reflected in Senate Bill 570. CAARP proposes expansion of eligible vehicles to include a private passenger vehicle that is not regis - tered to the applicant, insured, or their spouse that is furnished to the applicant or insured by another indi - vidual for personal use. COMPARABLE FEDERAL LAW There are no comparable existing federal regula - tions or statutes.

LOCAL MANDATE DETERMINATION The Insurance Commissioner has initially deter - mined that the proposal will not result in any new pro- gram mandates on local agencies or school districts. MANDATES ON LOCAL AGENCIES OR SCHOOL DISTRICTS OR COSTS WHICH MU S T BE REIMBURSED PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 17500 THROUGH 17630 The Insurance Commissioner has initially deter - mined that the proposal will not result in any cost or significant savings to any local agency or school district for which

Part 7 (commencing with

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

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

COST IMPACT ON PRIVATE PERSONS OR ENTITIES The Insurance Commissioner has initially deter - mined that the proposal will not affect private person or entities. IMPACT ON HOUSING COSTS The Insurance Commissioner has initially deter - mined that the proposal will not affect housing costs.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 43-Z 1396 IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESS The Insurance Commissioner has initially deter - mined that the proposal will not affect small business. SPECIFIC TECHNOLOGIES OR EQUIPMENT The Insurance Commissioner has initially deter - mined that specific technologies or equipment will be needed.

ALTERNATIVES The Insurance Commissioner must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the agency, or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the agency, would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is pro - posed or would be as effective as and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action. PLAIN ENGLISH The proposed changes describing CAARP’s pro - posals are in plain English.

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

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

ACCESS TO RULEMAKING FILE Any interested person may inspect a copy of or direct questions about CAARP’s proposed amend - ments, the statement of reasons, and any supplemental information contained in the rulemaking file by con - tacting the contact person listed above. By prior ap - pointment, the rulemaking file is available for inspec- tion at 45 Fremont Street, 21 st Floor, San Francisco, California 94105, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday.

AUTOMATIC MAILING A copy of this Notice, including the Informative Digest is being sent to all persons on the Insurance Commissioner’s mailing list. A VAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS ON THE INTERNET The Initial Statement of Reasons, proposed text, and this Notice of Proposed Action will be published on - line and may be accessed through the Department’s website at www.insurance.ca.gov.

A VAILABILITY OF MODIFIED TEXT OF REGULATIONS If the Department amends the proposed regulations with changes that are sufficiently related to the origi - nal text, the Department will make the full text of the amended regulations, with the changes clearly indicat- ed, available to the public for at least 15 days before the date the Department adopts the amended regulations. TITLE 17.

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ENHANCED VAPOR RECOVERY REGULATIONS The California Air Resources Board (CARB or Board) will conduct a public hearing at the date and time noted below to consider approving for adoption the proposed amendments to Certification Procedures,

Definitions, and Test Procedures for Vapor Recovery Systems at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities (Enhanced Vapor Recovery Regulations). DATE: December 10, 2020 TIME: 9:00 a.m. Please see the public agenda which will be post - ed ten days before the December 10, 2020, Board Meeting for any appropriate direction regarding a pos- sible remote–only Board Meeting. If the meeting is to be held in person, it will be held at the 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., December 10, 2020, and may continue at 8:30 a.m., on December

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 43-Z 1397 11, 2020. Please consult the agenda for the hear - ing, which will be available at least ten days before December 10, 2020, to determine the day on which this item will be considered. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD AND SUBMITTAL OF COMMENTS In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, interested members of the public may present comments orally or in writing at the hearing and may provide comments by postal mail or by electronic sub- mittal before the hearing. The public comment period for this regulatory action will begin on October 23, 2020.

Written comments not submitted at the hearing must be submitted on or after October 23, 2020, and received no later than December 7, 2020. Comments submitted outside that comment period are considered untimely. CARB may, but is not required to, respond to untimely comments, including those raising signifi- cant environmental issues. CARB requests that, when possible, written and email statements be filed at least ten 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 advance of the hearing must be addressed to one of the following: Postal mail: Clerks’ Office, California Air Resources Board 1001 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 Electronic submittal: https://www.arb.ca.gov/ lispub/comm/bclist.php Please note that under the California Public 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 public upon request. Additionally, the Board requests but does not re - quire that persons who submit written comments to the Board reference the title of the proposal in their comments to facilitate review. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE This regulatory action is proposed under the author- ity granted in California Health and Safety Code, sec- tion 41954.

This action is proposed to implement, in - terpret, and make specific

section 41954. INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION AND POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW (GOV. CODE, § 11346.5, SUBD. (a)(3)) Sections Affected: Proposed amendments to California Code of Regulations, title 17, sections 94010, 94011, 94016, and 94017. Documents Incorporated by Reference (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 20, subd. (c)(3)): The following documents would be incorporated in the regulation by reference in California Code of Regulations, title 17, §§ 94010, 94011, 94016, and 94017, respectively: ● D–200 –

Definitions for Vapor Recovery Procedures [insert amendment date] ● C P–201 – Certification Procedure for Vapor Recovery Systems at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities [insert amendment date], including: ○ T P–201.1C – Leak Rate of Drop Tube/Drain Valve Assembly [insert amendment date] ○ T P–201.1D – Leak Rate of Drop Tube Overfill Protection Devices and Spill Container Drain Valves [insert amendment date] ○ T P–201.21 – Test Procedure for In–Station Diagnostic Systems [insert amendment date] ● C P–206 – Certification Procedure for Vapor Recovery Systems at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities Using Aboveground Storage Tanks [in- sert amendment date] ● C P–207 – Certification Procedure for Enhanced Conventional (E C

O) Nozzles and Low Permeation Conventional Hoses at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities [insert amendment date] The above listed documents are also being amended by this regulation and thus the amendment date would be the date that the regulation is adopted by CARB. In addition, the following documents are incorporat- ed by reference in Certification Procedures C P–201, C P–206, and C P–207: ● Society of Automotive Engineers (S A E), 2019.

Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice S A E J285: Dispenser Nozzle Spouts for Liquid Fuels Intended for Use with Spark Ignition and Compression Ignition Engines, as revised by S A E April 2019. Copyrighted. ● S A E, 2019. Recommended Practice S A E J1140: Filler Pipes and Openings of Motor Vehicle Fuel Tanks, as revised by S A E October 2019. Copyrighted. Documents incorporated by reference are attached as separate appendices in the Initial Statement of Reasons (I S O R), except for S A E J285 and S A E

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 43-Z 1398 J1140, which are copyrighted documents and will be on file as part of the public record. Background and Effect of the Proposed Regulatory Action: State law requires CARB to adopt procedures to certify and test vapor recovery systems or components used at gasoline dispensing facilities (G D F).

Since the first certification and test procedures were adopted in 1975, CARB has periodically updated these proce - dures to reflect improvements in vapor recovery tech- nologies, to modify requirements for existing installa- tions to achieve additional emission reductions, and to improve cost–effectiveness. CARB staff is now pro - posing a suite of regulatory amendments to the certi - fication and test procedures that would improve their cost–effectiveness, preserve emission reductions, and clarify the procedures for better regulatory certainty and enforceability.

Vapor Recovery Program Background Gasoline vapor emissions are controlled during the transfer of gasoline from storage tanks at terminals, or bulk plants, to tanker trucks (cargo tanks) that deliver fuel to a G D F, from which gasoline is then transferred into vehicles. At a typical G D F, gasoline vapor emis - sions are controlled during gasoline transfer from the cargo tank to G D F storage tanks (Phase

I) and from the storage tank to vehicles (Phase II). Additional con- trols include limiting storage tank headspace pres - sure and the volume of liquid spillage from the nozzle during vehicle refueling. CARB approved Enhanced Vapor Recovery (E V

R) regulations for G D Fs equipped with an underground storage tanks (U S

T) or aboveground storage tank (A S

T) in March 2000 and June 2007. E V R regula - tions established 80 new standards and test procedures for vapor recovery systems to further reduce emis - sions and to increase reliability. Over the last two de - cades, CARB has amended the regulations numerous times to refine requirements and improve cost effec - tiveness, practicality, and efficiency of the program. Issues Leading to and the Effect of the Proposed Regulatory Amendments The proposed amendments are intended to continue to refine the E V R regulations to address the following issues. 1. I S D O verpressure A larms The in–station diagnostic (I S

D) system continuous- ly monitors the collection and containment of gasoline vapors within the U S T and issues alarms when regu- latory thresholds are exceeded. The alarms provide an early indicator of equipment malfunctions so that re - pairs are made promptly. Once the alarm is triggered, the G D F operator will typically

schedule a contractor for troubleshooting and repair service. In September 2009, CARB staff, in cooperation with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAP COA), issued Advisory 405, when CARB staff found some G D Fs were experiencing fre- quent I S D overpressure alarms during the wintertime that were not effective in detecting equipment mal - functions.

This advisory was envisioned as a tempo - rary mechanism to provide G D F operators with relief from alarm response costs by self–clearing alarms and to provide CARB staff the necessary time to collect and analyze field data to evaluate potential regulatory solutions.

Investigations conducted over the last decade re - vealed that in an overwhelming majority of instanc - es, overpressure alarms are mainly attributed to the high volatility and evaporation rate of winter blend gasoline, and changes in newer vehicle fill pipe de - signs that result in a poor seal between the nozzle and vehicle fill pipe interface. 1 Since overpressure alarms are not effective at detecting repairable equipment malfunctions, they result in response costs for G D F owners without reducing emissions. Further, eliminat- ing overpressure alarms would have no impact on air quality.

The proposed amendments would remove the I S D overpressure alarm criteria from the regulations, which would then require I S D manufacturers to re - move the alarm criteria from their software the next time they seek CARB certification. The updated I S D software would be required for new G D Fs and exist - ing G D Fs undergoing major modifications, and would be voluntary at all other existing G D Fs. 2.

I S D Report Improvements The I S D software generates and stores an electron - ic archive of monthly and daily reports that can be ac- cessed to verify the vapor recovery system is operat - ing within set parameter limits. Several improvements are needed to make the stored pressure information more useful and to ensure that the reports can be cor - 1 A poor seal at the fill pipe interface increases air ingestion at the nozzle, which increases the evaporation rate of gasoline within the U S T headspace and results in excess pressure driven emis - sions and I S D overpressure alarms.

In October 2018, the Board approved amendments to the certification procedures to stan - dardize E V R and E C O nozzle spout and bellows dimensions to improve compatibility with newer vehicle fill pipes. The amend - ments were designed to reduce air ingestion at the nozzle and associated I S D overpressure alarms and pressure driven emis - sions.

However, CARB staff expects that the high volatility of winter blend gasoline and site–specific factors such as variation in monthly gasoline throughput and limited operating hours (e.g., shut down at night and on holidays, or reduced weekend hours) can cause some G D Fs to continue to have I S D overpressure alarms.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 43-Z 1399 rectly and easily identified. The proposed amendments would require the daily reports to identify the month and year, and reported pressure values to have a mini- mum of two decimal places. 3. Alternative Communication Ports for I S D System Consoles C P–201 currently requires all I S D system consoles to be equipped with an antiquated RS–232 commu - nication port. I S D manufacturers have reported both difficulty and high costs in procuring these ports.

I S D manufacturers requested that CARB staff revise this requirement to allow modern technologies, such as US B, Ethernet, or Bluetooth. CARB staff agrees and proposes amendments that would remove the RS–232 requirement to allow for more flexibility. 4. Nozzle Spillage Standard Nozzle spillage occurs when liquid gasoline enters the environment before, during, and after vehicle refu- eling. As the liquid gasoline evaporates, vapor emis - sions are created.

The spillage performance standard for C P–201 and C P–206 is 0.24 pounds emissions per thousand gallons of gasoline dispensed (lbs/kgal) for E V R nozzles, and for C P–207 is 0.12 lbs/kgal for E C O nozzles. CARB staff has evaluated the performance of the five currently certified nozzles and found they are all performing much better than the existing standards. Therefore, CARB staff recommends lowering the standards in all three certification procedures to 0.05 lbs/kgal.

This would preserve emission reductions that are already occurring and help safeguard public health benefits by preventing manufacturers from requesting CARB to certify less efficient nozzles that would lead to emission increases. Since all currently certified nozzles meet the proposed standard, all in–use noz - zles can stay in place until end of useful life. 5. Physical Sample Requirement for Vapor Recovery Equipment CARB certification procedures currently do not re - quire manufacturers to submit physical samples of cer- tified systems and components for CARB to archive.

Without archived physical samples of certified com - ponents, it has been difficult for CARB to enforce re - quirements, or hold manufacturers accountable, when undisclosed changes were made. Undisclosed changes made to component materials or dimensional speci - fications can negatively affect compliance with per - formance standards.

Therefore, CARB staff propos - es amendments to C P–201, C P–206, and C P–207 to require equipment manufacturers to provide physical samples of new systems and/or components, once they have successfully demonstrated compliance with the applicable performance standards or specifications. 6. Amend Test Procedures for Remote Fill Phase I System Configurations Test procedures T P–201.1C and T P–201.1D are used to quantify the leak rate of the fuel delivery pathway within Phase I E V R systems. While conducting the tests, if the specified pressure is not reached within five minutes, the system fails the test.

In 2001, when T P–201.1C and T P–201.1D were adopted, Phase I E V R systems were configured with the fuel delivery pathway located directly above the U S T or the fuel pathway had an offset (remote fill) no greater than 50 feet. For remote fill configurations with offset lengths greater than 50 feet, the additional volume in the fuel delivery pathway is too great to pressurize within five minutes. Therefore, CARB staff proposes to amend both test procedures by including a table that lists the time to pressurize the system as a function of pathway length. 7.

Correct the Phase II E V R Upgrade Date in C P–206 On July 25, 2019, the Board adopted amendments to C P–206, granting existing A S Ts in ozone non–attain- ment areas that have an annual gasoline throughput of 480,000 gallons or less additional time before they are required to upgrade to Phase II E V R. The intent was to designate July 25, 2019, as the applicable cutoff date for existing G D Fs. When drafting the regulatory text for C P–206, CARB staff accidentally listed an incor - rect date of March 13, 2015.

This inadvertently creat - ed a population of existing A S Ts, installed between March 13, 2015, and July 25, 2019, which regardless of annual throughput, would be required to upgrade to Phase II E V R, creating a grey area for Air District enforcement for these A S Ts. CARB staff proposes re- placing the date, March 13, 2015, in three sections of C P–206 with the date of the Board Hearing, July 25, 2019. This action would alleviate confusion by restor- ing the intent of the prior rulemaking activity. 8.

Various Administrative Changes The proposed amendments include administrative changes that clarify intent, improve regulatory cer - tainty, and improve cost effectiveness by reducing confusion. These administrative changes do not intro- duce any new requirements. Further details are avail - able in

Chapter II of the I S O R. The proposed admin - istrative amendments would: 1. Replace placeholder language with actual dates for the effective and operative dates for E C O noz- zles in C P–207; 2. Clarify language for performance standard ver - sus performance specification in C P–207 by making it consistent with language in C P–201; 3. Amend the title of C P–201 to include “Underground Storage Tanks” to provide clarification;

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 43-Z 1400 4. Decrease the length of C P–201, C P–206, and C P–207 by ten pages by incorporating nozzle di- mensions by reference to identical dimensions in S A E J285 and S A E J1140 documents; and 5. Replace placeholder language with the actual effective date for Phase II E V R requirements in C P–206. CARB may also consider other changes to the sec - tions affected, as listed above, during the course of this rulemaking process.

Objectives and Benefits of the Proposed Regulatory Action: The proposed amendments refine some parts of the E V R regulations to improve cost effectiveness, pre - serve the current level of air quality benefits, and clar- ify and improve the certification and test procedures for better regulatory certainty and enforceability. The benefits of the proposed amendments are the result of air quality goals developed by CARB based on explic- it statutory authority in the Health and Safety Code § 41954.

State law (Health and Safety Code § 41954(a)) directs CARB to adopt procedures for determining the compliance of any system designed for the control of gasoline vapor emissions during gasoline market - ing operations, including storage and transfer opera - tions, with performance standards that are reasonable and necessary to achieve or maintain any applicable ambient air quality standard.

The following sections provide a general overview of health benefits to Californians, specific benefits provided by each of the proposed amendments, and the process CARB staff completed to make the deter - mination of the proposed amendments. Protection of Public Health and Safety Gasoline vapor emissions from G D Fs can lead to increased health risk through two primary mecha - nisms. First, gasoline vapors contain reactive organic gases (ROG) that lead to the formation of ground level ozone, which can cause adverse health effects.

Second, gasoline vapors contain benzene, which is a toxic air contaminant and known carcinogen. Reducing ROG emissions benefits the health and welfare of California residents and is an integral part of California’s goals of attaining and maintaining federal and State ozone standards and reducing public exposure to benzene emissions. The proposed amendments to the vapor recovery regulations are designed to fine–tune the regulations to further ensure no increase in existing gasoline va - por emissions occurs. Benefits from Each Proposed Amendment 1.

Replace overpressure alarm criteria in I S D software with informational reports: This proposed amendment would provide several benefits: ● Flexibility. The proposed amendments require new G D Fs and existing G D Fs that undergo ma - jor modifications to install updated I S D software, but provide flexibility for other existing G D Fs. Existing G D F owners and operators would be allowed to choose whether to install the updat - ed I S D software based on their site–specific as - sessments of potential cost savings and business priorities. ● No impact on current emission reduction bene - fits.

Eliminating overpressure alarms would have no effect on Vapor Recovery Program emission reductions for two reasons. First, more than 95 percent of overpressure alarms are not associat - ed with any repairable vapor recovery equipment problem. Second, other I S D alarms, routine in - spections, and compliance testing can find the equipment problems that cause excess overpres - sure emissions. ● Statewide cost savings . Installation of updat - ed I S D software would eliminate overpressure alarm response costs.

CARB staff estimates that, in the absence of Advisory 405, G D F business owners would have cost savings of approximate - ly $780 to $17,000 per G D F per year (avoiding 2 to 22 overpressure alarm responses per year) by installing updated software. The total statewide net cost–savings between 2024 and 2030 would be about $31.8 million to $97.9 million for G D F businesses. ● Regulatory solution . Currently, Advisory 405 provides some relief from overpressure alarm response cost and inconvenience by allowing G D F operators to clear I S D overpressure alarms during the winter fuel period but not the summer period.

In addition, Advisory 405 is a temporary mechanism, not a regulation, and therefore can - not remain indefinitely. The proposed regulatory amendments provide a comprehensive solution. ● Improved cost effectiveness . Eliminating alarm response costs that do not reduce emissions im - proves the overall cost–effectiveness of imple - menting the E V R regulations. ● Reduced complacency .

Eliminating ineffective I S D overpressure alarms would reduce acciden - tal clearing of and operator complacency toward responding to the remaining I S D alarms (for example, nozzle vapor collection, processor op - eration, and vapor leak detection) that effective - ly indicate repairable vapor recovery equipment problems. These benefits are achievable without installing new hardware; an I S D system software update is all that is required.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 43-Z 1401 2. Improve I S D reports : The proposed amend - ments would benefit G D F owners and operators, ser - vice contractors, and regulators by ensuring the reports are easily identified, accurate, useful for understand - ing site–specific conditions, and enable more effective trouble–shooting to identify equipment problems. 3.

Allow alternative communication ports for I S D system consoles : The proposed amendments would allow manufacturers to install modern com - munication ports in I S D consoles, instead of the cur - rently required antiquated RS–232 port. The proposed amendments would result in net cost–savings for I S D manufacturers during 2021–2030, and would improve the access and quality of downloaded data. 4. Make the nozzle spillage performance stan - dard more stringent : The proposed amendments would preserve emission reductions that are already occurring.

This will help safeguard public health ben - efits by preventing manufacturers from requesting the certification of less efficient nozzles that would lead to emission increases. In addition, G D F owners would not need to replace existing nozzles, since they al - ready comply with the proposed standard. 5. Require physical samples of certified vapor recovery equipment: The proposed amendments ben- efit CARB and equipment users (G D F owners and op- erators) by providing an archive of as–certified com - ponents available for comparison should undisclosed changes cause problems or complaints in the future. 6.

Amend test procedures for remote fill Phase I system configurations: The proposed amendments benefit owners and operators of G D Fs with remote fill configurations, service contractors, and Air Districts by preventing false indications of system leaks and improving the test procedures for better regulatory certainty. 7. Correct the Phase II E V R upgrade date for G D Fs with A S Ts : The incorrect date currently in C P–206 creates confusion for Air District enforce - ment staff and certain A S T owners.

The proposed amendment will alleviate that confusion and ensure that A S T owners do not perform inadvertent and cost- ly upgrades before the end of useful life of their exist- ing systems. 8. Make administrative changes to improve clarity and consistency : As described earlier, the proposed amendments include several administrative changes, which would result in cost savings. Some of these were requested by industry, while others were recommended by Office of Administrative Law and CARB legal counsel.

The primary benefit of the pro - posed administrative changes is clarifying the certi - fication and test procedures for better regulatory cer - tainty and enforceability. Development of Proposed Amendments To make the determination that the proposed regula- tory amendments to I S D overpressure alarms are nec- essary and appropriate, CARB staff took the following collaborative approaches with external stakeholders: 1. P ublic Workshops ● H eld eleven public workshops statewide between 2012 and 2018 to explain and solicit comments about potential causes of I S D overpressure alarms, study designs,

interpretation of results, and potential solutions. ● H eld a public workshop on May 5, 2020 where CARB staff presented the full suite of proposed regulatory amendments to CARB’s certifica- tion and test procedures and received input from stakeholders. The workshop was attended by nearly 100 participants representing various as - pects of the industry. 2. T echnical Support Documents ● C ollaborated with industry and CAP COA Vapor Recovery Subcommittee to conduct a series of investigations and field studies to identify caus - es of alarms and characterize the magnitude of emissions.

These investigations are documented in sixteen technical support documents, which are posted on CARB’s Vapor Recovery Program webpage. Supporting data compilations and spreadsheet calculations cited in these documents were made available upon request. 3. S takeholder Consultations ● C ARB staff consulted with a variety of stake - holders throughout development of the proposed regulatory amendments in an effort to obtain ad - ditional insight, build consensus, and minimize areas of disagreement.

These stakeholders include representatives of CAP COA, State agencies that regulate G D Fs, equipment manufacturers, G D F owners and operators, and representatives of in - dustry groups, such as the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance (C F C A). 2 Comparable Federal Regulations: There are no federal regulations or programs di - rectly comparable to California’s E V R program for G D Fs, nor are there federal regulations establish - ing the requirements for E C O nozzles and low per - meation hoses at G D Fs that exclusively refuel vehi - cles with onboard refueling vapor recovery systems.

California’s existing E V R regulations already exceed 2 C F C A is the industry’s California trade association represent - ing the needs of independent wholesale and retail marketers of gasoline, diesel, lubricating oils and other petroleum products; transporters of those products; and retail convenience store op - erators. The majority of C F C A’s members are small and family owned businesses.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 43-Z 1402 federal requirements. Other states and countries often require the installation of vapor recovery systems cer- tified by CARB. Thus, changes to CARB E V R certi - fication requirements may have a national and interna- tional impact. 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 reg - ulatory action, CARB conducted a search of any sim - ilar regulations on this topic and concluded these reg - ulations are neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing state regulations. DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED REGULATION 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.

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, sub - division (a)(5) and 11346.5, subdivision (a)(6), the Executive Officer has made the following determina - tions with regard to costs or savings to any State agen- cy, costs or savings in federal funding to the State, and costs or mandates to any local agency or school district, whether or not reimbursable by the State un - der Government Code, title 2, division 4,

part 7 (com- mencing with

section 17500), or other nondiscretion - ary cost or savings to State or local agencies. Cost to any Local Agency or School District Requiring Reimbursement under

section 17500 et seq.: None. Because the regulatory requirements apply equally to all regulated entities and unique require - ments are not imposed on local agencies, the Executive Officer has determined that the proposed regulatory action imposes no costs on local agencies that are re - quired to be reimbursed by the State pursuant to

part 7 (commencing with

section 17500), division 4, title 2 of the Government Code, and does not impose a mandate on local agencies that is required to be reimbursed pur- suant to

Section 6 of

Article XIII B of the California Constitution. The proposed regulatory action would not create costs to any school district reimbursable by the state pursuant to

Part 7 (commencing with

section 17500), division 4, title 2 of the Government Code. Cost or Savings for State Agencies: Agencies that operate G D Fs are the regulated en - tities under the proposed amendments and could be impacted by new costs and cost–savings. The pro - posed amendments also could result in new costs and cost–savings for CARB and other state agencies that participate in the certification process for vapor recov- ery equipment.

Fiscal impacts to these agencies are analyzed for the fiscal year the proposed regulatory amendments will become effective (Fiscal Year [F Y] 2021/22) through December 2030, the regulatory life- time, in the absence of Advisory 405. There are about 496 state government–owned G D Fs in California that are required to have either some type of vapor recovery system or E C O nozzles and low per- meation hoses. The proposed I S D amendments would have no effect on state government–owned G D Fs be- cause an Air District survey indicates that no state agencies own or operate G D Fs with I S D.

Several of the other proposed amendments may indirectly affect state government–owned G D Fs due to the potential to incur pass through costs from vapor recovery equip - ment manufacturers that are directly impacted by the amendments. If equipment manufacturers were able to pass on all costs and savings along with an estimated 60 percent mark–up, this would result in about $1.53 in additional cost to about $14.76 in cost–savings per im- pacted G D F over the 10–year lifetime of the proposed amendments, depending on the type of vapor recovery system installed.

Such potential passed–through costs and cost–savings are considered to be negligible. The proposed amendments could result in addi - tional certification costs for CARB’s Vapor Recovery Program of about $67,000 through 2030. These agen - cy costs are fully recovered from the manufacturers seeking certification because CARB has legal author - ity to charge fees to recover the costs of certification. 3 As a result, these certification costs would have no net fiscal impact on CARB.

The proposed amendments also could result in regulatory lifetime costs of about $200 that would not be recovered from manufactur - ers, cost–savings of about $2,200, and net cost–sav - ings of about $2,000 for the Vapor Recovery Program. The net cost–savings are expected to be re–allocated to other aspects of the Vapor Recovery Program with no fiscal impact on CARB. The proposed amendments also could result in additional certification costs of about $200 for the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Office 3 H ealth and Safety Code § 41954(

e) states that CARB may charge a reasonable fee for certification of a gasoline vapor con - trol system or a component thereof, not to exceed the actual cost.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 43-Z 1403 of the State Fire Marshall (S F M), and about $500 for the Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Occupational Safety and Health (D O S H), to re - view updated I S D software and issue approval letters. Because S F M and D O S H have legal authority under State law to charge fees to recover the costs of certi - fication, the review costs would have no net fiscal im- pact on S F M and D O S H.

Other Non–Discretionary Costs or Savings on Local Agencies Local agencies and school districts that operate G D Fs are the regulated entities under the proposed amendments and could be impacted by new costs and cost–savings. Air Districts and Certified Unified Program Agencies also could be affected because they issue and enforce permits for G D F activities and Air Districts participate in CARB’s certification pro - cess for vapor recovery equipment.

Fiscal impacts to these agencies are analyzed for the fiscal year the pro- posed regulatory amendments will become effective (F Y 2021/22) through December 2030, the regulatory lifetime. There are about 1,600 local government–owned G D Fs in California that are required to have some type of vapor recovery system or E C O nozzles and low permeation hoses. Air District surveys indicate about four of these G D Fs have I S D systems. The installation of updated I S D software under the pro - posed amendments could result in net cost–savings for the local agencies that operate these G D Fs.

Net cost–savings are expected to be re–allocated to other aspects of the agency programs and would have no fis- cal impact for local agencies. Several of the other pro- posed amendments can indirectly affect local govern - ment–owned G D Fs due to the potential to incur pass through costs from vapor recovery equipment man - ufacturers that are directly impacted by the amend - ments.

If equipment manufacturers were able to pass on all costs and savings along with an estimated 60 percent mark–up, this would result in about $1.53 in additional cost to about $14.76 in cost–savings per im- pacted G D F over the 10–year lifetime of the proposed amendments, depending on the type of vapor recovery system installed. Such potential passed–through costs and cost–savings are considered to be negligible. Air Districts participate in the certification pro - cess by issuing research and development (R&

D) permits for CARB certification test sites and by pro - viding review of CARB staff’s draft certification doc- uments (e.g., Executive Orders, Exhibits, Certification Summaries, etc.). In addition, some Air Districts re - quire G D F owners to obtain permits to install updat - ed I S D software. The proposed amendments for I S D software requirements could result in increased costs (statewide total) of about $7,200 for issuing R&D per- mits, about $4,000 for reviewing draft certification documents, and up to about $74,800 for issuing per - mits for I S D software updates, over regulatory life - time.

The permitting costs are fully recovered from equipment manufacturers and G D F owners because Air Districts have legal authority under State law to recover permitting related costs by imposing fees, and therefore these costs would have no net fiscal im- pact on Air Districts. However, Air District costs to review certification documents would not be recover - able from manufacturers nor reimbursable by the State because State law does not specify that Air Districts can impose fees or be reimbursed for these certifica - tion costs.

California’s Certified Unified Program Agencies (C U P A), consisting of 81 certified local government agencies, are responsible for enforcing regulatory stan- dards established by five different state agencies. The proposed amendments for I S D software requirements could result in increased costs of up to about $886,000 (statewide total) through 2030 for C U P As that require G D F owners to obtain permits to install I S D software updates. C U P As have legal authority to recover relat- ed costs by imposing fees.

As a result, these permit - ting costs are fully recovered from G D F owners and would have no net fiscal impact on C U P As. Cost or Savings in Federal Funding to the State: None. Pursuant to Government Code sections 11346.5(a)(5) and 11346.5(a)(6), the Executive Officer has determined that the proposed regulatory action 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 de - termination that the proposed regulatory action will not have a significant effect on housing costs.

Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Directly Affecting Business, Including Ability to Compete (Gov. Code, §§ 11346.3, subd. (a), 11346.5, subd. (a)(7), 11346.5, subd. (a)(8)): The Executive Officer has made an initial determi - nation that the proposed regulatory action would not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states, or on representative private persons. 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

Chapter VIII of the I S O R. G D Fs and vapor recovery equipment manufacturers are the regulated entities under the proposed amend - ments and would be directly impacted (either positive- ly or negatively) by the amendments. The proposed amendments are estimated to have direct costs of ap -

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 43-Z 1404 proximately $379,000 to $14.1 million through 2030 for business–owned G D Fs and vapor recovery equip- ment manufacturers, when both required and volun - tary actions are considered in the absence of Advisory 405. This estimate does not include cost–savings un - der the proposed amendments. The proposed amend - ments would minimize new implementation costs and provide some savings for equipment manufacturers, and could provide substantial cost savings for busi - ness–owned G D Fs.

In total, direct cost–savings from the proposed amendments could range from about $31.9 million to $109.0 million. When compared to the costs, these savings result in net direct cost–sav - ings of about $31.8 million to $97.9 million for G D F businesses. There are about 2,721 businesses that own G D Fs that could be impacted by the proposed amendments, if both required and voluntary actions are considered. The proposed amendments to eliminate overpressure alarm criteria from I S D software directly affect G D Fs with U S Ts required to have I S D systems.

Once updat- ed software has been certified by CARB (anticipated by December 2022), the proposed amendments would require owners and operators of existing G D Fs with I S D systems to install the updated I S D software if they have major modifications or replace consoles due to irreparable damage and/or normal wear and tear. The proposed amendments would require owners and operators of new G D Fs to install I S D systems with the updated I S D software at the time of construction.

These existing and new G D Fs also would be affected by the proposed amendments that would allow I S D manufacturers to install modern communication ports instead of RS–232 ports in I S D consoles. In addition, owners of existing G D Fs with I S D systems could vol- untarily install updated software to eliminate ineffec - tive I S D overpressure alarm response costs. Several of the other proposed amendments also can indirectly affect business–owned G D Fs due to the po- tential to incur pass through costs from vapor recovery equipment manufacturers that are directly impacted by the amendments.

While most of these manufac - turers are located outside of California, staff assumed the direct costs imposed on these manufacturers, as well as potential cost–savings, would be fully passed on to G D F owners and operators who purchase their equipment. If manufacturers were to pass on these costs and cost–savings to California businesses (retail and other types of G D Fs), these could result in ap - proximately $1.53 in additional cost to approximate - ly $14.76 in cost–savings per impacted G D F through 2030, depending on the type of vapor recovery system installed.

These potential passed–through costs and cost–savings are considered to be negligible. These costs or cost–savings do not impose any fiscal impacts because they are not unique to government and affect private and public sectors equally. The proposed amendments directly affect certifi - cation procedures for manufacturers of Phase I and Phase II vapor recovery systems and components, and manufacturers of E C O nozzles and low permeation hoses.

There are currently 16 manufacturers that ei - ther produce equipment already certified by CARB for sale in California, have submitted applications for certification, or have discussed submitting an applica- tion. The proposed amendments are estimated to have direct costs of approximately $325,000 to $3.0 million through 2030 for equipment manufacturers. This es - timate does not include cost–savings under the pro - posed amendments. The proposed amendments would minimize new implementation costs and provide about $35,000 in cost–savings for equipment manufacturers.

When compared to the costs, these savings result in net direct costs of about $290,000 to $3.0 million for equipment manufacturers. NON–MAJOR REGULATION: STATEMENT OF THE RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT (E I

A) The creation or elimination of jobs within the State of California: The proposed amendments are expected to result in overall cost–savings to G D Fs while reducing service contractor revenue as an increasing number of G D Fs no longer require overpressure alarm responses by the contracted service technicians. This could result in creation or elimination of some jobs at G D Fs and ser- vice companies. The proposed amendments may re - sult in creation of a maximum of 26 jobs at G D Fs and elimination of maximum of 122 jobs at service con - tractor businesses by 2030.

The creation of new business or the elimination of existing businesses within the State of California: No businesses are expected to be created or elimi - nated in response to the proposed amendments. The expansion of businesses currently doing business within the State of California: The proposed amendments are expected to have no quantifiable effect on the expansion of businesses cur- rently doing business within the State of California.

The benefits of the regulation to the health and welfare of California residents, worker safety, and the state’s environment: As described in the Objectives and Benefits sec - tion above, the proposed amendments will preserve the emission reductions achieved by implementation of emission controls at G D Fs. Reducing ROG emis - sions benefits the health and welfare of California res- idents and worker safety by reducing ambient ground

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 43-Z 1405 level ozone and benzene exposure. Reducing ambient ground level ozone also helps to reduce smog, which is a benefit for the state’s environment. Effect on Jobs/Businesses: The Executive Officer has determined that the pro - posed regulatory action would affect the creation or elimination of jobs within the State of California, the creation of new businesses or elimination of existing businesses within the State of California, or the ex - pansion of businesses currently doing business within 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 Initial Statement of Reasons (I S O R). Benefits of the Proposed Regulation: The objectives of the proposed regulatory amend - ments are to improve the Vapor Recovery Program while safeguarding public health benefits by ensuring emission rates do not increase.

The proposed amend - ments to the certification and test procedures improve cost–effectiveness of G D F vapor recovery systems, preserve emission reductions from equipment with su- perior performance, and clarify and improve the certi- fication and test procedures for better regulatory cer - tainty and enforceability. A

summary of these benefits is provided, please refer to “Objectives and Benefits,” under the Informative Digest of Proposed Action and Policy Statement Overview Pursuant to Government Code 11346.5(a)(3) discussion above. 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 repre - sentative private persons or businesses. CARB is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person would necessarily incur in reasonable compli - ance with the proposed action.

Information provid - ed by the Air Districts indicates no individuals, only businesses and government agencies, own G D Fs di - rectly affected by the proposed amendments. The typical business that could be affected by the proposed amendments, not including small business - es, is a business that owns 12 or more retail G D Fs. There are about 45 California–based businesses, and 12 businesses headquartered outside of California, that own from 12 to nearly 600 retail G D Fs each.

The most common types of business are mid–sized inde - pendent retail businesses that own an average of about 14 G D Fs, and large independent retail businesses that own an average of about 79 G D Fs. The initial and ongoing cost to a typical California business for updated I S D software required under the proposed amendments depends on the number and timing of major modifications at its existing G D Fs or construction of new G D Fs. A mid–sized independent retail business could have initial costs that range from $23 to $230, depending on how many of its G D Fs have a major modification in the same year.

A large in- dependent retail business could have initial costs that range from $23 to $1,300. These estimates assume that vapor recovery equipment manufacturers are able to pass on their compliance costs entirely to G D Fs. The installation of updated I S D software, howev - er, will eliminate overpressure alarm response costs. Based on average I S D overpressure alarm frequen - cies observed by a statewide survey, CARB staff esti- mates a typical mid–sized business required to install updated I S D software at ten G D Fs could have cost– savings of up to about $23,000 per year.

CARB staff estimates a large business required to install updated I S D software at 58 G D Fs could have cost–savings of about $132,000 per year. In addition, CARB staff estimates G D F owners could decide to voluntarily install updated I S D soft - ware at about 19 percent of retail G D Fs not owned by small business between 2023 and 2026 based on site–specific assessment of cost–effectiveness from eliminating I S D overpressure alarm response costs. There could be a total cost per G D F of approximately $3,600 for permit fees, I S D software, installation, and loan interest.

Therefore, a mid–sized G D F business could experience initial costs that range from $3,600 to $10,800 while a large G D F business could experi - ence initial costs that range from $3,600 to $54,000. Based on average I S D overpressure alarm frequen - cies observed by a statewide survey, CARB staff es - timates a typical mid–sized business that voluntarily installs updated I S D software at three G D Fs could have cost–savings of about $12,000 per year. CARB staff estimates a large business that voluntarily installs updated I S D software at 16 G D Fs could have cost– savings of about $60,000 per year.

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 businesses. The typical small business that could be affected by the proposed amendments is a business that owns 1 to 11 retail G D Fs. The proposed amendments will po - tentially affect 2,662 California small businesses that own G D Fs, of which approximately 741 businesses are required to install updated I S D software that elim- inates I S D overpressure alarms at the time of new G D F construction or major modification of an exist - ing G D F.

The updated software would be included with the purchase of the new I S D console that would already be part of the major modification or new con - struction. Assuming that vapor recovery equipment manufacturers are able to pass on their compliance

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 43-Z 1406 costs entirely to G D Fs, a G D F small business could experience an additional initial cost of about $23 for the updated software for a new G D F or a major modi- fication of an existing G D F, as a result of the proposed amendments. Since a small G D F business can own 11 or less G D Fs and most small business owned G D Fs likely will not be required to install updated I S D soft- ware, the initial costs to a small G D F business can range from zero to $46.

The installation of updated I S D software, however, may result in eliminating overpressure alarm response costs. Based on average I S D overpressure alarm fre - quencies observed by a statewide survey, CARB staff estimates a small G D F business required to install up- dated I S D software at two G D Fs may experience an - nual ongoing cost–savings of zero to $7,000.

In addition, CARB staff estimates small business G D F owners could decide to voluntarily install up - dated I S D software at about 47 percent of their G D Fs between 2023 and 2026 based on site–specific as - sessment of cost–effectiveness from eliminating I S D overpressure alarm response costs. There could be a total cost per G D F of approximately $3,600 for per - mit fees, I S D software, and installation. Therefore, the initial costs to a small G D F business that volun - tarily installs I S D software can range from $3,600 to $18,000 (i.e., $3,600 per G D F × 5 G D Fs).

Based on average I S D overpressure alarm frequen - cies observed by a statewide survey, CARB staff esti- mates a small G D F business that voluntarily installs updated I S D software at one to five G D Fs may ex - perience annual ongoing cost–savings of $4,600 to $23,000. Consideration of Alternatives (Gov.

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

CARB staff considered reasonable alternatives to the proposed amendments, as described in

Chapter IX of the I S O R. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CARB, as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (C E Q A), has reviewed the proposed regulation and concluded that this is exempt pursuant to C E Q A Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed action may result in significant ad - verse impact on the environment. A brief explanation of the basis for reaching this conclusion is included in

Chapter VI of the I S O R. SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION REQUEST Consistent with California Government Code sec - tion 7296.2, special accommodation or language needs may be provided for any of the following: ● An interpreter to be available at the hearing; ● Documents made available in an alternate format or another language; and ● A disability–related reasonable accommodation. To request these special accommodations or lan - guage needs, please contact the Clerks’ Office at (916) 322–5594 or by facsimile at (916) 322–3928 as soon as possible, but no later than ten 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 nece - sidades 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 au - diencia del Consejo. TTY/TDD/Personas que necesi - ten este servicio pueden marcar el 711 para el Servicio de Retransmisión de Mensajes de California.

AGENCY CONTACT PERSONS Inquiries concerning the substance of the proposed regulatory action may be directed to the agency rep - resentative Michelle Wood, Air Pollution Specialist, Vapor Recovery Regulatory Development Section, at (916) 445–3641 or (designated back–up contact) Donielle Jackson, Air Pollution Specialist, Vapor Recovery Regulatory Development Section, at (916) 445–9308. A VAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS CARB staff has prepared a Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons (I S O

R) for the proposed reg - ulatory action, which includes a

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

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 43-Z 1407 report is entitled: Proposed Amendments to Enhanced Vapor Recovery Regulations for Gasoline Dispensing Facilities. Copies of the I S O R and the full text of the proposed regulatory language, in underline and strikeout for - mat to allow for comparison with the existing regula- tions, may be accessed on CARB’s website listed be - low, 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 October 20, 2020.

Because of current travel, facility, and staffing restrictions, the California Air Resources Board’s of - fices may have limited public access. Please contact Chris Hopkins, Regulations Coordinator, at chris.hop- kins@arb.ca.gov or (916) 445–9564 if you need physi- cal copies of the documents. Further, the agency representative to whom non - substantive inquiries concerning the proposed ad - ministrative action may be directed is Chris Hopkins, Regulations Coordinator, (916) 445–9564.

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

part 1,

chapter 3.5 (commencing with

section 11340). Following the public hearing, the Board may take action to approve for adoption the regulatory language as originally proposed, or with non–substantial or grammatical modifications. The Board may also ap - prove for adoption the proposed regulatory language with other modifications if the text as modified is suf- ficiently related to the originally proposed text that the public was adequately placed on notice and that the regulatory language as modified could result from the proposed regulatory action.

If this occurs, the full reg- ulatory text, with the modifications clearly indicated, will be made available to the public, for written com - ment, at least 15 days before final adoption. The public may request a copy of the modified regulatory text from CARB’s Public Information Office, Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street, Visitors and Environmental Services Center, First Floor, Sacramento, California, 95814. FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS A VAILABILITY Upon its completion, the Final Statement of Reasons (F S O

R) 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 I S O R and all subsequent regulato - ry documents, including the F S O R, when completed, are available on CARB’s website for this rulemaking at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/evr2020 TITLE 17.

C ALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PROHIBITIONS ON USE OF CERTAIN HYDROFLUOROCARBONS IN STATIONARY REFRIGERATION, CHILLERS, AEROSOLS– PROPELLANTS, AND FOAM END–USES REGULATION The California Air Resources Board (CARB or Board) will conduct a public hearing at the time noted below to consider approving for adoption the Proposed Amendments to the Prohibitions on Use of Certain Hydrofluorocarbons in Stationary Refrigeration, Chillers, Aerosols–Propellants and Foam End–Uses (Title 17, California Code of Regulations,

section 95371 et seq.). The Proposed Amendments are part of the effort by CARB to reduce emissions of hydrofluo- rocarbons (H F C), a class of highly potent greenhouse gases, as required by Senate Bill 1383. 1 DATE: December 10, 2020 TIME: 9:00 a.m. Please see the Public Agenda which will be post - ed ten days before the December 10, 2020, Board Meeting for any appropriate direction regarding a pos- sible remote–only Board Meeting. If the meeting is to be held in person, it will be held at the California Air Resources Board, Byron Sher Auditorium, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814.

This item may be considered at a two–day meet - ing of the Board, which will commence at 9:00 a.m., December 10, 2020, and may continue at 8:30 a.m., December 11, 2020. Please consult the agenda for the meeting, which will be available at least ten days before December 10, 2020, to determine the day on which this item will be considered. 1 S B 1383 (Lara, Stat. 2016, Ch. 395); Health & Saf. Code § 39730.5.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 43-Z 1408 WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD AND SUBMITTAL OF COMMENTS In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, interested members of the public may present comments orally or in writing at the hearing and may provide comments by postal mail or by electronic sub- mittal before the hearing. The public comment period for this regulatory action will begin on October 23, 2020. Written comments not physically submitted at the hearing must be submitted on or after October 23, 2020, and received no later than December 7, 2020.

Comments submitted outside that comment period are considered untimely. CARB may, but is not re - quired to, respond to untimely comments, including those raising significant environmental issues. 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 consider each comment. The Board also encourag - es members of the public to bring to the attention of CARB staff in advance of the hearing any suggestions for modification of the proposed regulatory action.

Comments submitted in advance of the hearing must be addressed to one of the following: Postal mail: Clerks’ Office, California Air Resources Board 1001 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 Electronic submittal: https://www.arb.ca.gov/ lispub/comm/bclist.php Please note that under the California Public 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 public upon request.

Additionally, the Board requests but does not re - quire that persons who submit written comments to the Board reference the title of the proposal in their comments to facilitate review. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE This regulatory action is proposed under the au- thority granted in California Health and Safety Code, sections 38510, 38598, 38560, 38562, 38566, 38580, 39600, 39601, 39730, 39730.5, 39734, and 41511. This action is proposed to implement and interpret, sections 38510, 38598, 38560, 38562, 38566, 38580, 39600, 39601, 39730, 39730.5, 39734, and 41511 of the Health and Safety Code.

INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION AND POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW (GOV. CODE, § 11346.5, SUBD. (a)(3)) Sections Affected: Proposed Amendments to California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Division 3,

Chapter 1, Subchapter 10 Climate Change,

Article 4, sections 95371, 95372, 95373, 95374, 95375, 95376, and 95377. Background and Effect of the Proposed Regulatory Action: Hydrofluorocarbons (H F Cs) are among the most harmful greenhouse gases (G H

G) emitted today. While they remain in the atmosphere for a much shorter time than carbon dioxide (C O 2), their rela - tive climate forcing (how effectively they trap heat in the atmosphere) can be tens, hundreds or even thousands of times greater than C O 2. CARB iden - tified the importance of H F C mitigation in the ear - ly 2000s, and proposed several early action measures as part of a comprehensive, ongoing program to re - duce G H G emissions in California. CARB adopted the Refrigerant Management Program 2 as one of the early action measures to address H F C refrigerant use.

Further recognizing the importance of reducing H F Cs, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1383 (S B 1383) 3 in 2016, requiring a 40 percent reduction of H F C emissions below 2013 levels by 2030. California took into account existing national H F C regulations and continued working to develop additional regu- latory efforts to reduce H F C emissions to meet this goal. Unfortunately, beginning in 2017 — the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. E P

A) key H F C prohibitions — Rules 20 4 and 21,5 un- der the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) 2 Management of High Global Warming Potential Refrigerants for Stationary Sources, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 17, § 95380 et seq. 3 S B 1383 (Lara, Stat. 2016, Ch. 395); Health & Saf. Code § 39730.5. 4 40 C.F.R. Pt. 82, Subpt. G, App. U; 80 Fed. Reg. 42870–01 (July 20, 2015); 81 Fed. Reg. 86778–01 (Dec. 1, 2016). 5 4 0 C.F.R. Pt. 82, Subpt. G, App. V; 81 Fed. Reg. 86778–01 (Dec. 1, 2016).

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 43-Z 1409 Program,6 were partially vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.7 To prevent the harmful impacts of the litigation, in 2018, California incorporated both SNAP Rules 20 and 21 — first through adopting an H F C Regulation 8 and then the Legislature enacted the “California Cooling Act” or Senate Bill 1013 (S B 1013). 9 In 2019, CARB incorporated S B 1013’s stat - utory provisions into its H F C Regulation to provide clarity to the regulated industry. 10 Despi te these cur- rent rules, CARB must undertake further actions to meet its statutory mandates for H F C reduction.

Summary of the Proposed Amendments: CARB staff proposes amending the existing California H F C Regulation (hereinafter “Proposed Amendments”). A

summary of the Proposed Amendments are as follows: ● N ew refrigeration systems containing more than 50 pounds of refrigerant and used in newly con - structed and fully remodeled facilities will be required to contain refrigerants with a global warming potential (G W

P) less than 150, effective January 1, 2022. This includes the following end– uses: retail food refrigeration, industrial process refrigeration (I P R) (except chillers), cold storage, and ice rinks. ● C ompanies owning existing systems containing more than 50 pounds of refrigerant in retail food facilities will be required to meet a G W P–Based Company–wide standard — either through a re - duction in their company–wide weighted–aver - age G W P to less than 1,400 G W P by 2030, or, in the alternative, reduce their Greenhouse Gas Emission Potential or G H Gp by 55 percent by 2030.

All non–retail food facilities installing new systems must meet the G W P limit of less than 1,500 or 2,200, depending on the end use. ● N ew air conditioning (AC) equipment used for both residential and non–residential purposes must use refrigerants with a G W P less than 750, effective January 1, 2023. 6 42 U.S.C. § 7671k; 40 C.F.R. Pt. 82, Subpt. G 7 Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency (D.C. Cir. 2017) 866 F. 3d 451 (Mexichem

I) and Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency (D.C. Cir. 2019) Case No. 17–1024 (Mexichem II) (collectively the “Mexichem decisions”) 8 Prohibitions on Use of Certain Hydrofluorocarbons in Station - ary Refrigeration and Foam End–Uses, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 17, §§ 95371, et seq. 9 S B 1013 (Lara, Stat. 2018, Ch. 375); Health & Saf. Code § 39734. 10 Prohibitions on Use of Certain Hydrofluorocarbons in Station - ary Refrigeration, Chillers, Aerosols–Propellants, and Foam End Uses, Cal.

Code Regs., tit. 17, §§ 95371, et seq. ● A variance provision was added to address the issue of impossibility and force majeure events including the feasibility of the phase–in schedule. ● R ecordkeeping, reporting, registration, and la - beling requirements were added as enforcement mechanisms. The existing disclosure statement was modified to reduce regulatory burden. ● N ew

definitions were added and existing defini - tions were modified to add clarity and align with U.S. E P A

definitions. ● O ther grammatical and typographical errors were fixed and the numbering was reorganized for clarity and flow.

Summary of Potential Additional Compliance Pathway Under Consideration While some A C manufacturers and stakeholders have conveyed support for the 2023 compliance date, several stakeholders have requested that CARB delay the effective date for the 750 G W P limit for new A C equipment from January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2025.

The reasons put forth for this request include: (1) al - lowing additional time for A C manufacturers to tran - sition refrigerants, (2) the A1 alternative (R–466A) may require more time to be ready as a substitute re - frigerant, and (3) the California Building Standards Code may not have the necessary updates to allow A2L refrigerants to be used in 2023. These stakehold- ers have provided ideas for incorporating an addition- al compliance pathway in addition to the 2023 compli- ance pathway.

A C manufacturers and other stakeholders have pro- posed achieving needed emissions reductions through use of refrigerant reclaim in new equipment, servicing existing equipment, refrigerant destruction, as well as potential crediting system based on type of refriger - ant used to account for charge and G W P reduction. For a complete description of their proposals, please see Appendix D to the Initial Statement of Reasons (I S O R), which is incorporated herein. Any revisions may be incorporate through a 15–day notice and will be an outgrowth of these proposals.

In response to these proposals, CARB staff is con - sidering incorporating a compliance pathway as part of subsequent proposed 15–day changes. CARB staff intends to keep the 2023 date for those that can com - ply with that date.

An additional compliance pathway for ACs manufacturers and other regulated entities could include the allowance of a two–year delay or temporary exemption from the 750 G W P requirement for A C manufacturers if the manufacturer is able to offset the C O 2 equivalent amount of refrigerant equal to the initial refrigerant charge size through the pur - chase and use of reclaimed refrigerant in equipment placed on the market in California during the delay. If reclaimed refrigerant is not used in equipment during

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 43-Z 1410 the delay then manufacturers would need to offset the initial charge plus the anticipated additional service gas for the lifetime of the exempted equipment within five years. In addition, manufacturers would need to show the following: ● Contractual agreements to purchase reclaimed refrigerants for use or distribution with reclaim - ers or distributors. ● All activities related to the exemption or delay are subject to verification and reporting.

CARB staff is considering this verification being done through a third–party audit, reporting on an an - nual basis to CARB, or annual self–certification to CARB. ● Non–compliance is subject to strict liability pen - alties equivalent to the California cost of carbon estimates per C O2e offset not met. CARB is evaluating the feasibility of these addition- al compliance pathways as well as a hybrid of them, from the standpoint of enforcement, implementation, and emissions benefits and may incorporate changes through a 15–day notice.

CARB may consider needs for collecting research and development information for specialized systems. CARB may also consider oth- er changes to the sections affected during the course of this rulemaking process. Any changes to the propos - al would be presented to the Board for consideration during the Board Hearing scheduled for December 10–11, 2020.

Objectives and Benefits of the Proposed Amendments: There are three main objectives of the Proposed Amendments: (1) curb the emissions of H F Cs from the largest end–use sectors, namely A C and refriger - ation end–uses; (2) provide additional clarity and con- venience to the regulated industry; and (3) support growth in technologies that lower H F C emissions. The primary benefits of the Proposed Amendments are emissions reductions that will help California meet its H F C reduction mandates.

It is anticipated that the Proposed Amendments will reduce H F C emissions from the refrigeration and A C sectors by nearly 40 and 50 percent below baseline by 2040, respectively. Cumulatively, from 2022 through 2040, the Proposed Amendments are expected to yield 72 million met - ric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (M M T C O 2e) in G H G reductions. Using 20–year G W P values, the Proposed Amendments are expected to yield cu - mulative G H G emissions reductions of nearly 140 M M T C O2e by 2040.

The total benefits in avoid - ed harms range between $1.7 billion to $7.2 billion through 2040, depending on the discount rate. These numbers are underestimated because of the lack of of- ficial social costs of H F Cs. Reducing climate change protects the environment as well as public health and safety. While direct health benefits cannot be quantified using present methodologies, there is mounting evi - dence that climate change can impact local air quali - ty. For example, atmospheric warming can lead to an increase in the formation of ground–level ozone and photochemical smog.

Thus, there are co–benefits of controlling global warming by removing G H G emis - sions. The direct impacts of climate change are be - coming clearer and have a disproportionate impact on the sensitive age groups as well as disadvantaged communities. Wildfires are becoming more frequent and severe and in addition to the death and injury from the fires, millions are exposed to harmful smoke. The number of extreme heat days is increasing. The high - est ever number of extreme heat days was recorded in 2019.

Illnesses and deaths from extreme heat events will likely increase, causing heatstroke and other heat–related illnesses, particularly for vulnerable in - dividuals such as the elderly and those who are more isolated. Millions of residents across the state live in disad - vantaged communities that experience a combination of increased vulnerability to adverse health effects from air pollution and increased exposure to pollu - tion sources. These communities are also extremely vulnerable to the health effects of climate change. For these residents, actions to reduce G H G pollution is even more critical.

Health, equity, and resiliency are integrally related. Those individuals and communities that are at a social and financial disadvantage are less able to deal with stresses caused by climate change such as food and water scarcity, high temperatures, and wildfires, and they are more likely to suffer phys- ical and psychological harm. In addition, some refrigerated facilities that will switch to using low–G W P alternative refrigerants are expected to experience savings related to increased energy efficiency, particularly for the cold storage and industrial process refrigeration (I P

R) sectors. Additionally, supermarkets and grocery stores retro - fitting to lower–G W P refrigerants are also expected to benefit from improved energy efficiency of systems undergoing the retrofits. These benefits are discussed in detail in the Initial Statement of Reasons (I S O R),

Section VIII. Comparable Federal Regulations: Currently, there are no federal regulations that lim - it the global warming impacts of refrigerants used in stationary air conditioning. Some prohibitions for the stationary refrigeration sector were present in U.S. E P A ’s SNAP Rules 20 (40 CFR