time- dated material · 2017. 5. 13. · register 2017, no. 13−z published weekly by the office...

MARCH 31, 2017REGISTER 2017, NO. 13−Z PUBLISHED WEEKLY BY THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAWEDMUND G. BROWN, JR., GOVERNOR

(Continued on next page)

Time-DatedMaterial

PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONSTITLE 2. FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSIONConflict−of−Interest Code — Notice File No. Z2017−0321−01 465. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AmendmentMulti−County: Partnership HealthPlan of California

Alta Irrigation District

TITLE 3. DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTUREAsian Citrus Psyllid Interior Quarantine — Monterey County — Notice File No. Z2017−0317−04 466. . . . . . . . . . . . .

TITLE 3. DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTUREAsian Citrus Psyllid Interior Quarantine — Solano and Napa Counties — Notice File No. Z2017−0317−05 468. . . . .

TITLE 8. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS BOARD General Industry Safety Orders (GISO) New Section 3345 — Hotel Housekeeping Musculoskeletal Injury Prevention — Notice File No. Z2017−0321−03 471. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TITLE 15. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATIONParole Holds and Revocation — Notice File No. Z2017−0315−01 476. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GENERAL PUBLIC INTERESTFISH AND GAME COMMISSIONNotice of Receipt — Cascades Frog (Rana cascadae) Petition 479. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FISH AND GAME COMMISSIONCentral Valley Chinook Salmon Sport Fishing — Additional Public Meetings (Previously Published in Notice Register 2017, No. 3−Z) 479. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RULEMAKING PETITION DECISIONDEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURENotice of Petition Decision from Thomas Wheeler Concerning Adding English ivy (Hedera helix) to the California noxious weed list 479. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The California Regulatory Notice Register is an official state publication of the Office of Administrative Law containingnotices of proposed regulatory actions by state regulatory agencies to adopt, amend or repeal regulations contained in theCalifornia Code of Regulations. The effective period of a notice of proposed regulatory action by a state agency in theCalifornia 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 (USPS 002−931), (ISSN 1041-2654) is published weekly by the Officeof Administrative Law, 300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1250, Sacramento, CA 95814-4339. The Register is printed by Barclays, asubsidiary of West, a Thomson Reuters Business, and is offered by subscription for $205.00 (annual price). To order or makechanges to current subscriptions, please call (800) 328−4880. The Register can also be accessed at http://www.oal.ca.gov.

DISAPPROVAL DECISION

OFFICE OF SPILL PREVENTION AND RESPONSEOil Spill Prevention Administration Fund Fee 480. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

AVAILABILITY OF INDEX OF PRECEDENTIAL DECISIONS

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICESNotice of Availability of Precedential Decisions Index 481. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SUMMARY OF REGULATORY ACTIONS

Regulations filed with the Secretary of State 481. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sections Filed, October 19, 2016 to March 22, 2017 485. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2017, VOLUME NO. 13-Z

465

PROPOSED ACTION ONREGULATIONS

Information contained in this document ispublished as received from agencies and is

not edited by Thomson Reuters.

TITLE 2. FAIR POLITICALPRACTICES COMMISSION

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Fair PoliticalPractices Commission, pursuant to the authority vestedin it by Sections 82011, 87303, and 87304 of the Gov-ernment Code to review proposed conflict−of−interestcodes, will review the proposed/amended conflict−of−interest codes of the following:

CONFLICT−OF−INTEREST CODES

AMENDMENT

MULTI−COUNTY: Partnership HealthPlan of California

Alta Irrigation DistrictA written comment period has been established com-

mencing on March 31, 2017, and closing on May 15,2017. Written comments should be directed to the FairPolitical Practices Commission, Attention Cesar R.Cuevas, 428 J Street, Suite 620, Sacramento, California95814.

At the end of the 45−day comment period, the pro-posed conflict−of−interest code(s) will be submitted tothe Commission’s Executive Director for her review,unless any interested person or his or her duly autho-rized representative requests, no later than 15 days priorto the close of the written comment period, a publichearing before the full Commission. If a public hearingis requested, the proposed code(s) will be submitted tothe Commission for review.

The Executive Director of the Commission will re-view the above−referenced conflict−of−interestcode(s), proposed pursuant to Government Code Sec-tion 87300, which designate, pursuant to GovernmentCode Section 87302, employees who must disclose cer-tain investments, interests in real property and income.

The Executive Director of the Commission, upon heror its own motion or at the request of any interested per-son, will approve, or revise and approve, or return the

proposed code(s) to the agency for revision and re−submission within 60 days without further notice.

Any interested person may present statements, argu-ments or comments, in writing to the Executive Direc-tor of the Commission, relative to review of the pro-posed conflict−of−interest code(s). Any written com-ments must be received no later than May 15, 2017. If apublic hearing is to be held, oral comments may be pre-sented to the Commission at the hearing.

COST TO LOCAL AGENCIES

There shall be no reimbursement for any new or in-creased costs to local government which may resultfrom compliance with these codes because these are notnew programs mandated on local agencies by the codessince the requirements described herein were mandatedby the Political Reform Act of 1974. Therefore, they arenot “costs mandated by the state” as defined in Govern-ment Code Section 17514.

EFFECT ON HOUSING COSTSAND BUSINESSES

Compliance with the codes has no potential effect onhousing costs or on private persons, businesses or smallbusinesses.

AUTHORITY

Government Code Sections 82011, 87303 and 87304provide that the Fair Political Practices Commission asthe code−reviewing body for the above conflict−of−interest codes shall approve codes as submitted, revisethe proposed code and approve it as revised, or returnthe proposed code for revision and re−submission.

REFERENCE

Government Code Sections 87300 and 87306 pro-vide that agencies shall adopt and promulgate conflict−of−interest codes pursuant to the Political Reform Actand amend their codes when change is necessitated bychanged circumstances.

CONTACT

Any inquiries concerning the proposed conflict−of−interest code(s) should be made to Cesar R. Cuevas,Fair Political Practices Commission, 428 J Street, Suite620, Sacramento, California 95814, telephone (916)322−5660.


466

AVAILABILITY OF PROPOSEDCONFLICT−OF−INTEREST CODES

Copies of the proposed conflict−of−interest codesmay be obtained from the Commission offices or the re-spective agency. Requests for copies from the Commis-sion should be made to Cesar R. Cuevas, Fair PoliticalPractices Commission, 428 J Street, Suite 620, Sacra-mento, California 95814, telephone (916) 322−5660.

TITLE 3. DEPARTMENT OF FOODAND AGRICULTURE

The Department of Food and Agriculture (Depart-ment) amended subsection 3435(b) in Title 3 of the Cal-ifornia Code of Regulations pertaining to Asian CitrusPsyllid (ACP) Interior Quarantine as an emergency ac-tion which was effective on January 10, 2017. The De-partment proposes to continue the regulation as amend-ed and to complete the amendment process by submis-sion of a Certificate of Compliance no later than July 10,2017.

This notice is being provided to be in compliancewith Government Code Section 11346.4.

PUBLIC HEARING

A public hearing is not scheduled. A public hearingwill be held if any interested person, or his or her dulyauthorized representative, submits a written request fora public hearing to the Department no later than 15 daysprior to the close of the written comment period.

WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD

Any interested person or his or her authorized repre-sentative may submit written comments relevant to theproposed amendment to the Department. Commentsmay be submitted by mail, facsimile (FAX) at916.654.1018 or by email to [email protected] written comment period closes at 5:00 p.m. on May15, 2017. The Department will consider only commentsreceived at the Department offices by that time. Submitcomments to:

Sara KhalidDepartment of Food and AgriculturePlant Health and Pest Prevention Services1220 N Street Sacramento, CA [email protected] (FAX)

Following the public hearing if one is requested, orfollowing the written comment period if no public hear-ing is requested, the Department, at its own motion, orat the instance of any interested person, may adopt theproposal substantially as set forth without furthernotice.

INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENTOVERVIEW

Existing law provides that the Secretary is obligatedto investigate the existence of any pest that is not gener-ally distributed within this state and determine the prob-ability of its spread and the feasibility of its control oreradication (Food and Agricultural Code (FAC) Sec-tion 5321).

Existing law also provides that the Secretary may es-tablish, maintain and enforce quarantine, eradicationand other such regulations as she deems necessary toprotect the agricultural industry from the introductionand spread of pests (FAC Sections 401, 403, 407 and5322).Anticipated Benefits from This Regulatory Action

Existing law, FAC Section 403, provides that the de-partment shall prevent the introduction and spread ofinjurious insect or animal pests, plant diseases, andnoxious weeds.

Existing law, FAC Section 407, provides that the Sec-retary may adopt such regulations as are reasonablynecessary to carry out the provisions of this code thatthe Secretary is directed or authorized to administer orenforce.

Existing law, FAC Section 5321, provides that theSecretary is obligated to investigate the existence of anypest that is not generally distributed within this Stateand determine the probability of its spread, and the fea-sibility of its control or eradication.

Existing law, FAC Section 5322, provides that theSecretary may establish, maintain, and enforce quaran-tine, eradication, and such other regulations as are in heropinion necessary to circumscribe and exterminate orprevent the spread of any pest that is described in FACSection 5321.

The existing law obligates the Secretary to investi-gate and determine the feasibility of controlling or erad-icating pests of limited distribution but establishes dis-cretion with regard to the establishment and mainte-nance of regulations to achieve this goal. This amend-ment provides the necessary regulatory authority to pre-vent the artificial spread of a serious insect pest, whichis a mandated statutory goal.

The amendment of this regulation benefits the citrusindustries (nurseries, fruit growers, wholesalers, retail-ers, exporters) and the environment by having a quaran-tine program to prevent the artificial spread of ACP


467

over long distances. Almost all of the commercial citrusfruit and nursery stock production is located outside thisproposed quarantine area boundary.

The national and international consumers of Califor-nia citrus benefit by having high−quality fruit availableat lower cost. It is assumed that any increases in produc-tion costs will ultimately be passed on to the consumer.

The amendment of this regulation benefits home-owners who grow citrus for consumption and host ma-terial that is planted as ornamentals in various rural andurban landscapes.

FAC Section 401.5 states, “the department shall seekto protect the general welfare and economy of the stateand seek to maintain the economic well−being of agri-culturally dependent rural communities in this state.”The amendment of this regulation is preventing the arti-ficial spread of ACP to uninfested areas of the State.

Huanglongbing (HLB) is generally distributed inFlorida due to ACP being generally distributed there.The University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricul-tural Sciences Extension calculated and compared theimpact of having and not having HLB present in Floridaand concluded HLB had a total impact of $3.64 billionand eliminated seven percent of the total Florida work-force. The overall California economy benefits by theamendment of this regulation, which is intended to pre-vent ACP from becoming generally distributed in Cali-fornia and resulting in a similar effect on our economyas to what happened in Florida. This is now critical asHLB has been introduced into California.

There is no existing, comparable federal regulation orstatute regulating the intrastate movement of ACPhosts.

The Department considered any other possible relat-ed regulations in this area, and we find that these are theonly regulations dealing in this subject area, and the on-ly State agency that can implement plant quarantines.As required by Government Code Section11346.5(a)(3)(D), the Department has conducted anevaluation of this regulation and has determined that itis not inconsistent or incompatible with existing stateregulations.

AMENDED TEXT

The emergency rulemaking action expanded thequarantine area for ACP in Monterey County by ap-proximately 69 square miles. The effect of the amend-ment of this regulation is to provide authority for theState to perform quarantine activities against ACPwithin this additional area. The total area that would beunder regulation is now approximately 61,969 squaremiles.

DISCLOSURES REGARDING THEPROPOSED ACTION

The Department has made the following initialdeterminations:

Mandate on local agencies or school districts: None.Cost or savings to any state agency: None.Cost to any local agency or school district which must

be reimbursed in accordance with Government CodeSections 17500 through 17630: None and no nondiscre-tionary costs or savings to local agencies or schooldistricts.

Cost or savings in federal funding to the state: None.The Department has made an initial determination

that there will be no significant, statewide adverse eco-nomic impact directly affecting business, including theability of California businesses to compete with busi-nesses in other states.

Cost impacts on a representative private person orbusiness: Most businesses will not be affected. Thereare zero citrus production nurseries in the affected areathat will be impacted. There are zero retail nurseries inthe affected area. There are zero citrus growers in theproposed area. There is no additional cost to growerswho take their fruit to a packinghouse inside the currentquarantine area. Growers choosing a packinghouse out-side the quarantine area have three options: 1. Conductpre−harvest treatments with an approved pesticidewhile fruit is still on the trees; 2. Field−clean the fruit toremove leaves and stems during harvest; 3. Send thefruit to a packinghouse within the quarantine area to becleaned. Pre−harvest treatments cost growers approxi-mately $60 per acre. Field−cleaning the fruit will costthe grower approximately $150−$320 per acre depend-ing on the citrus variety. Field−cleaned fruit can bemoved within or from the quarantined area. Cleaning ata packinghouse within the quarantine area will cost thegrower approximately $300−$400 per acre, and thefruit must remain within the quarantine area. There arezero citrus packinghouses located within this quaran-tine area.

Based on the preceding information, it was deter-mined that due to the amendment of Section 3435(b),the agency is not aware of any cost impact on a repre-sentative business or private person. For the vast major-ity of businesses within the regulated area, no additionalcosts will be incurred.Small Business Determination

The Department has determined that the proposedregulations may affect small business.

Significant effect on housing costs: None.Results of the Economic Impact Analysis

Amendment of these regulations will not:(1) Create or eliminate jobs within California;


468

(2) Create new businesses or eliminate existingbusinesses within California; or

(3) Affect the expansion of businesses currently doingbusiness within California.

The Department is not aware of any specific benefitsthe amendment of this regulation will have on workersafety or the health of California residents. The Depart-ment believes the amendment of this regulation benefitsthe welfare of California residents by protecting theeconomic health of the entire citrus industry. In 2010the estimated value was $2.1 billion for citrus fruit and$28.5 million for citrus nursery stock without all the up-stream buyers and downstream retailers included (Ref-erence: John Gilstrap of California Citrus NurseryBoard for citrus nursery stock value and USDA−National Agricultural Statistics Service 2010 data forcitrus fruit). This is a needed source of revenue for theState’s economic health and this amendment will helpprotect this source of revenue.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

The Department must determine that no reasonablealternative it considered to the regulation or that hasotherwise been identified and brought to its attentionwould either be more effective in carrying out the pur-pose for which the action is proposed or would be as ef-fective and less burdensome to affected private personsthan the proposed action or would be more cost−effective to affected private persons and equally effec-tive in implementing the statutory policy or other provi-sion of law than the proposal described in this Notice.

AUTHORITY

The Department proposes to amend Section 3435(b)pursuant to the authority vested by Sections 407, 5301,5302 and 5322 of the FAC.

REFERENCE

The Department proposes this action to implement,interpret and make specific Sections 5301, 5302 and5322 of the FAC.

CONTACT

The agency officer to whom written comments andinquiries about the initial statement of reasons, pro-posed actions, location of the rulemaking files, and re-quest for a public hearing may be directed is: SaraKhalid, Department of Food and Agriculture, PlantHealth and Pest Prevention Services, 1220 N Street,

Room 210, Sacramento, California 95814, (916)654−1017, FAX (916) 654−1018, E−mail:[email protected]. In her absence, you maycontact Laura Petro at (916) 654−1017. Questions re-garding the substance of the proposed regulation shouldbe directed to Sara Khalid.

INTERNET ACCESS

The Department has posted the information regard-ing this proposed regulatory action on its Internet web-site (www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/Regulations.html).

AVAILABILITY OF STATEMENT OF REASONSAND TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS

The Department has prepared an initial statement ofreasons for the proposed action, has available all the in-formation upon which its proposal is based, and hasavailable the express terms of the proposed action. Acopy of the initial statement of reasons and the proposedregulations in underline and strikeout form may be ob-tained upon request. The location of the information onwhich the proposal is based may also be obtained uponrequest. In addition, when completed, the final state-ment of reasons will be available upon request. Re-quests should be directed to the contact named herein.

If the regulations adopted by the Department differfrom, but are sufficiently related to the action proposed,they will be available to the public for at least 15 daysprior to the date of adoption. Any person interested mayobtain a copy of said regulations prior to the date ofadoption by contacting the agency officer (contact)named herein.

TITLE 3. DEPARTMENT OF FOODAND AGRICULTURE

The Department of Food and Agriculture (Depart-ment) amended subsection 3435(b) in Title 3 of the Cal-ifornia Code of Regulations pertaining to Asian CitrusPsyllid (ACP) Interior Quarantine as an emergency ac-tion which was effective on January 10, 2017. The De-partment proposes to continue the regulation as amend-ed and to complete the amendment process by submis-sion of a Certificate of Compliance no later than July 10,2017.

This notice is being provided to be in compliancewith Government Code Section 11346.4.

PUBLIC HEARING

A public hearing is not scheduled. A public hearingwill be held if any interested person, or his or her dulyauthorized representative, submits a written request for


469

a public hearing to the Department no later than 15 daysprior to the close of the written comment period.


Any interested person or his or her authorized repre-sentative may submit written comments relevant to theproposed amendment to the Department. Commentsmay be submitted by mail, facsimile (FAX) at916.654.1018 or by email to [email protected] written comment period closes at 5:00 p.m. on May15, 2017. The Department will consider only commentsreceived at the Department offices by that time. Submitcomments to:

Sara KhalidDepartment of Food and AgriculturePlant Health and Pest Prevention Services1220 N Street Sacramento, CA [email protected] 916.654.1018 (FAX)

Following the public hearing if one is requested, orfollowing the written comment period if no public hear-ing is requested, the Department, at its own motion, orat the instance of any interested person, may adopt theproposal substantially as set forth without furthernotice.


Existing law provides that the Secretary is obligatedto investigate the existence of any pest that is not gener-ally distributed within this state and determine the prob-ability of its spread and the feasibility of its control oreradication (Food and Agricultural Code (FAC) Sec-tion 5321).

Existing law also provides that the Secretary may es-tablish, maintain and enforce quarantine, eradicationand other such regulations as she deems necessary toprotect the agricultural industry from the introductionand spread of pests (FAC Sections 401, 403, 407 and5322).Anticipated Benefits from This Regulatory Action

Existing law, FAC Section 403, provides that the de-partment shall prevent the introduction and spread ofinjurious insect or animal pests, plant diseases, andnoxious weeds.

Existing law, FAC Section 407, provides that the Sec-retary may adopt such regulations as are reasonablynecessary to carry out the provisions of this code that

the Secretary is directed or authorized to administer orenforce.

Existing law, FAC Section 5321, provides that theSecretary is obligated to investigate the existence of anypest that is not generally distributed within this Stateand determine the probability of its spread, and the fea-sibility of its control or eradication.

Existing law, FAC Section 5322, provides that theSecretary may establish, maintain, and enforce quaran-tine, eradication, and such other regulations as are in heropinion necessary to circumscribe and exterminate orprevent the spread of any pest that is described in FACSection 5321.

The existing law obligates the Secretary to investi-gate and determine the feasibility of controlling or erad-icating pests of limited distribution but establishes dis-cretion with regard to the establishment and mainte-nance of regulations to achieve this goal. This amend-ment provides the necessary regulatory authority to pre-vent the artificial spread of a serious insect pest, whichis a mandated statutory goal.

The amendment of this regulation benefits the citrusindustries (nurseries, fruit growers, wholesalers, retail-ers, exporters) and the environment by having a quaran-tine program to prevent the artificial spread of ACPover long distances. Almost all of the commercial citrusfruit and nursery stock production is located outside thisproposed quarantine area boundary.

The national and international consumers of Califor-nia citrus benefit by having high−quality fruit availableat lower cost. It is assumed that any increases in produc-tion costs will ultimately be passed on to the consumer.

The amendment of this regulation benefits home-owners who grow citrus for consumption and host ma-terial that is planted as ornamentals in various rural andurban landscapes.

FAC Section 401.5 states, “the department shall seekto protect the general welfare and economy of the stateand seek to maintain the economic well−being of agri-culturally dependent rural communities in this state.”The amendment of this regulation is preventing the arti-ficial spread of ACP to uninfested areas of the State.

Huanglongbing (HLB) is generally distributed inFlorida due to ACP being generally distributed there.The University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricul-tural Sciences Extension calculated and compared theimpact of having and not having HLB present in Floridaand concluded HLB had a total impact of $3.64 billionand eliminated seven percent of the total Florida work-force. The overall California economy benefits by theamendment of this regulation, which is intended to pre-vent ACP from becoming generally distributed in Cali-fornia and resulting in a similar effect on our economyas to what happened in Florida. This is now critical asHLB has been introduced into California.


470

There is no existing, comparable federal regulation orstatute regulating the intrastate movement of ACPhosts.

The Department considered any other possible relat-ed regulations in this area, and we find that these are theonly regulations dealing in this subject area, and the on-ly State agency that can implement plant quarantines.As required by Government Code Section11346.5(a)(3)(D), the Department has conducted anevaluation of this regulation and has determined that itis not inconsistent or incompatible with existing stateregulations.

AMENDED TEXT

The emergency rulemaking action expanded thequarantine area for ACP in Solano and Napa Countiesby approximately 120 square miles. The effect of theamendment of this regulation is to provide authority forthe State to perform quarantine activities against ACPwithin this additional area. The total area that would beunder regulation is now approximately 62,101 squaremiles.


The Department has made the following initialdeterminations:

Mandate on local agencies or school districts: None.Cost or savings to any state agency: None.Cost to any local agency or school district which must

be reimbursed in accordance with Government CodeSections 17500 through 17630: None and no nondiscre-tionary costs or savings to local agencies or schooldistricts.

Cost or savings in federal funding to the state: None.The Department has made an initial determination

that there will be no significant, statewide adverse eco-nomic impact directly affecting business, including theability of California businesses to compete with busi-nesses in other states.

Cost impacts on a representative private person orbusiness: Most businesses will not be affected. Thereare zero citrus production nurseries in the affected areathat will be impacted. There are five retail nurseries inthe affected area. There are zero citrus growers in theproposed area. There is no additional cost to growerswho take their fruit to a packinghouse inside the currentquarantine area. Growers choosing a packinghouse out-side the quarantine area have three options: 1. Conductpre−harvest treatments with an approved pesticidewhile fruit is still on the trees; 2. Field−clean the fruit toremove leaves and stems during harvest; 3. Send the

fruit to a packinghouse within the quarantine area to becleaned. Pre−harvest treatments cost growers approxi-mately $60 per acre. Field−cleaning the fruit will costthe grower approximately $150−$320 per acre depend-ing on the citrus variety. Field−cleaned fruit can bemoved within or from the quarantined area. Cleaning ata packinghouse within the quarantine area will cost thegrower approximately $300−$400 per acre, and thefruit must remain within the quarantine area. There arezero citrus packinghouses located within this quaran-tine area.

Based on the preceding information, it was deter-mined that due to the amendment of Section 3435(b),the agency is not aware of any cost impact on a repre-sentative business or private person. For the vast major-ity of businesses within the regulated area, no additionalcosts will be incurred.Small Business Determination

The Department has determined that the proposedregulations may affect small business.

Significant effect on housing costs: None.Results of the Economic Impact Analysis

Amendment of these regulations will not:(1) Create or eliminate jobs within California;(2) Create new businesses or eliminate existing

businesses within California; or(3) Affect the expansion of businesses currently doing

business within California.The Department is not aware of any specific benefits

the amendment of this regulation will have on workersafety or the health of California residents. The Depart-ment believes the amendment of this regulation benefitsthe welfare of California residents by protecting theeconomic health of the entire citrus industry. In 2010the estimated value was $2.1 billion for citrus fruit and$28.5 million for citrus nursery stock without all the up-stream buyers and downstream retailers included (Ref-erence: John Gilstrap of California Citrus NurseryBoard for citrus nursery stock value and USDA−National Agricultural Statistics Service 2010 data forcitrus fruit). This is a needed source of revenue for theState’s economic health and this amendment will helpprotect this source of revenue.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

The Department must determine that no reasonablealternative it considered to the regulation or that hasotherwise been identified and brought to its attentionwould either be more effective in carrying out the pur-pose for which the action is proposed or would be as ef-fective and less burdensome to affected private personsthan the proposed action or would be more cost−effective to affected private persons and equally effec-


471

tive in implementing the statutory policy or other provi-sion of law than the proposal described in this Notice.

AUTHORITY

The Department proposes to amend Section 3435(b)pursuant to the authority vested by Sections 407, 5301,5302 and 5322 of the FAC.

REFERENCE

The Department proposes this action to implement,interpret and make specific Sections 5301, 5302 and5322 of the FAC.

CONTACT

The agency officer to whom written comments andinquiries about the initial statement of reasons, pro-posed actions, location of the rulemaking files, and re-quest for a public hearing may be directed is: SaraKhalid, Department of Food and Agriculture, PlantHealth and Pest Prevention Services, 1220 N Street,Room 210, Sacramento, California 95814, (916)654−1017, FAX (916) 654−1018, E−mail:[email protected]. In her absence, you maycontact Laura Petro at (916) 654−1017. Questions re-garding the substance of the proposed regulation shouldbe directed to Sara Khalid.

INTERNET ACCESS

The Department has posted the information regard-ing this proposed regulatory action on its Internet web-site (www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/Regulations.html).

AVAILABILITY OF STATEMENT OF REASONSAND TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS

The Department has prepared an initial statement ofreasons for the proposed action, has available all the in-formation upon which its proposal is based, and hasavailable the express terms of the proposed action. Acopy of the initial statement of reasons and the proposedregulations in underline and strikeout form may be ob-tained upon request. The location of the information onwhich the proposal is based may also be obtained uponrequest. In addition, when completed, the final state-ment of reasons will be available upon request. Re-quests should be directed to the contact named herein.

If the regulations adopted by the Department differfrom, but are sufficiently related to the action proposed,they will be available to the public for at least 15 days

prior to the date of adoption. Any person interested mayobtain a copy of said regulations prior to the date ofadoption by contacting the agency officer (contact)named herein.

TITLE 8. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETYAND HEALTH STANDARDS BOARD

General Industry Safety Orders, New Section 3345

Hotel Housekeeping Musculoskeletal InjuryPrevention

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the OccupationalSafety and Health Standards Board (Board) proposes toadopt, amend or repeal the foregoing provisions of Title8 of the California Code of Regulations in the mannerdescribed in the Informative Digest, below.

PUBLIC HEARING

The Board will hold a public hearing starting at 10:00a.m. on May 18, 2017 in the Auditorium of the HarrisState Building, 1515 Clay Street, Oakland, Califor-nia. At this public hearing, any person may presentstatements or arguments orally or in writing relevant tothe proposed action described in the InformativeDigest.


Any interested person may present statements orarguments orally or in writing at the hearing on theproposed changes under consideration. The writtencomment period commences on March 30, 2017 andcloses at 5:00 p.m. on May 18, 2017. Commentsreceived after that deadline will not be considered bythe Board unless the Board announces an extension oftime in which to submit written comments. Writtencomments are to be submitted as follows:

By mail to Sarah Money, Occupational Safety andHealth Standards Board, 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite350, Sacramento, CA 95833; or

By fax at (916) 274−5743; orBy e−mail sent to [email protected].

AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE

Labor Code Section 142.3 establishes the Board asthe only agency in the State authorized to adopt occupa-tional safety and health standards. In addition, LaborCode Section 142.3 requires the adoption of occupa-tional safety and health standards that are at least as ef-


472

fective as federal occupational safety and health stan-dards and permits the Board to prescribe, where appro-priate, suitable protective equipment and control ortechnological procedures to be used in connection withoccupational hazards and provide for monitoring ormeasuring employee exposure for their protection.

INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSEDACTION/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW

In January 2012, Kurt Peterson and Pamela Vossenas,on behalf of UNITE HERE, filed Petition No. 526, re-questing the Board to promulgate a safety and healthstandard to address the occupational hazards faced byhousekeepers in the hotel and hospitality industry.UNITE HERE, a labor organization representing thou-sands of California workers employed in the hotel andhospitality industry, proposed adopting a comprehen-sive standard that would prevent debilitating injuriesand reduce the high injury rates suffered byhousekeepers.

The Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Di-vision) and Board staff evaluated the petition in March2012 and recommended granting the petition. In May2012, the Board rejected the recommendations, buttook no further action on whether to grant or deny thepetition. In June 2012, the Board reconsidered recom-mendations made by the Division and Board staff andadopted a revised petition. Based on the high preva-lence of musculoskeletal injuries, the Board requestedthe Division convene an advisory committee to deter-mine what control measures would be necessary to ad-dress the musculoskeletal injury hazards faced by hotelhousekeeping employees.

The Division developed this proposal with the assis-tance of advisory stakeholders by means of five adviso-ry committee meetings and the release of three separatediscussion drafts to ensure that the proposal providedsufficient protection for housekeeping employees fromdeveloping occupational musculoskeletal injuries andprovided employers with sufficient flexibility to ad-dress these risks in the least burdensome manner.

This proposed rulemaking action is not inconsistentor incompatible with existing state regulations. Thisproposal is part of a system of occupational safety andhealth regulations. The consistency and compatibilityof that system’s component regulations is provided bysuch things as (1) the requirement of the federal govern-ment and the Labor Code that state regulations be atleast as effective as their federal counterparts, and (2)the requirement that all state occupational safety andhealth rulemaking be channeled through a single entity(the Standards Board).

This proposed rulemaking action differs from exist-ing federal regulations, in that federal OSHA does nothave a specific counterpart standard for protectinghousekeeping employees against musculoskeletal in-juries and disorders.

Anticipated Benefits

The proposed rulemaking will require employers inhotels and other lodging establishments to develop andimplement a Musculoskeletal Injury Prevention Pro-gram (MIPP), evaluate each housekeeping task,process or operation of work to identify potential haz-ards that lead to the development of musculoskeletal in-juries and curtail the high number of these debilitatinginjuries. Employers will be required to conduct a work-site evaluation to assess each housekeeping task withrespect to potential causes of musculoskeletal injuriesto housekeepers, control exposures and train employeeson the employer’s MIPP, the recognition of signs andsymptoms commonly associated with musculoskeletalinjuries, body mechanics and safe practices among oth-er required elements, to mitigate the risk factors andminimize the injuries associated with tasks specificallyrelated to hotel housekeeping jobs.

Employee input will be sought in designing and con-ducting the worksite evaluation and in the identificationand evaluation of possible corrective measures. Em-ployee involvement will improve the implementationof the recommendations and solutions and thus increasethe effectiveness of the prevention program. These re-quirements should reduce the number of serious muscu-loskeletal injuries suffered by housekeeping employ-ees, and in turn should reduce the fiscal losses due towork absence, staff replacement, workers’ compensa-tion, and possibly other legal costs.

The specific changes are as follows:

New Section 3345. Hotel HousekeepingMusculoskeletal Injury Prevention.

Proposed subsection (a) establishes the scope ofworkplaces that are required to comply with the provi-sions of this section. The intended effect is to identifythe affected employers so that they are made aware ofthe requirement to implement a prevention program in-cluding corrective measures to control the risk of mus-culoskeletal injuries and disorders.

Subsection (b) of the proposed standard includes anumber of definitions. The effect of these definitions isto establish the exact meanings for the terms as usedwithin the context of the requirements of this section.

Subsection (c) requires each employer covered bythis section to establish, implement, and maintain an ef-fective written MIPP that must be readily accessibleduring each work shift and is specific to the hazardsfaced by hotel housekeeping employees. The intendedeffect is to make employers aware of the requirement to


473

have a program that prevents or minimizes muscu-loskeletal injuries, which allows employees on all shiftsto access the written MIPP. This is also intended to alertemployers to the specific elements that an employerwould be responsible for addressing through its MIPP.

Subsection (c)(1) requires that the names or job titlesof the individuals who are responsible for implement-ing the MIPP are included. The intended effect is tomake administrators and employees aware of whoshould be contacted if there are questions or difficultieswith carrying out the MIPP.

Subsection (c)(2) requires a system for ensuring thatsupervisors and housekeeping employees comply withthe MIPP, follow the employer’s safe workplace prac-tices and use the housekeeping tools or equipmentdeemed appropriate for each housekeeping task. In ad-dition, this provision provides guidance to employerson how to achieve substantial compliance with the re-quirements of the subsection. The intended effect is toreduce the high number of musculoskeletal injuries anddisorders by having all personnel follow the employers’MIPP and ensure a successful implementation of theMIPP. This is also intended to ensure consistency withSection 3203(a)(2).

Subsection (c)(3) requires the employer to establish asystem for communicating with housekeeping employ-ees in a form readily understandable by all housekeep-ers on matters relating to occupational safety and healthand includes provisions to encourage employees to in-form the employer of hazards at the worksite, and in-juries or symptoms without fear of reprisal. The intend-ed effect is to ensure that all employees, regardless oftheir own primary language, know how to avert muscu-loskeletal injuries, inform the employer of the presenceof hazards at the worksite and report early symptoms orinjuries. The subsection is also intended to ensure con-sistency with Section 3203(a)(3) and to make an em-ployer aware that retaliation against an employee whoreports a hazard, injuries or symptoms related to muscu-loskeletal injuries is prohibited.

Subsection (c)(4) requires the employer to have pro-cedures for identifying and evaluating housekeepinghazards through a worksite evaluation. The intended ef-fect is to ensure that the employer knows of the require-ment to evaluate each housekeeping task for potentialcauses of musculoskeletal injuries and make correc-tions to effectively control the risk of musculoskeletalinjuries and disorders. The requirement is also intendedto ensure consistency with Section 3203(a)(4).

Subsection (c)(4)(A) establishes the timeframe forcompleting the initial worksite evaluation. The intend-ed effect is to make certain that housekeeping employ-ees are protected against musculoskeletal disorders andinjuries by having the employer implement an effectiveMIPP without delay.

Subsection (c)(4)(B) requires that the employer es-tablish effective procedures to include housekeepersand their union representative in designing and con-ducting the worksite evaluation. The intended effect isto ensure that the employer will have procedures for theactive involvement of employees and their representa-tives, including participation in the identification andevaluation of hazards specific to housekeeping. The ef-fect of this provision is to make certain that affected em-ployees and their union representative provide valuableinput from their experiences and observations, to en-sure housekeeping hazards are effectively addressedand to prevent musculoskeletal injuries.

Subsection (c)(4)(C) requires employers to notifyhousekeepers of the results of the worksite evaluation inwriting or by posting in a language easily understood bythe housekeepers. The intended effect is to ensure ap-propriate communication of evaluation results to allemployees regardless of their primary language and toensure employees receive critical information regard-ing housekeeping hazards present in the work environ-ment and controls needed to effectively prevent muscu-loskeletal injuries.

Subsections (c)(4)(D)(1)−(3) require the worksiteevaluation to be reviewed and updated and specifieswhen employers are required to comply with the provi-sions of this subsection. The intended effect is to ensureemployers are made aware of new or previously unrec-ognized hazards. The requirement is also intended toensure that the employer will have different methods todiscover potential workplace hazards to effectually pre-vent musculoskeletal injuries to housekeepers.

Subsection (c)(4)(E) requires the worksite evaluationto identify and address potential injury risks to house-keepers and lists various potential sources of injury. Theintended effect is to make certain that potential sourcesof injury are addressed, so as to effectually preventmusculoskeletal injuries to housekeepers. A note fol-lowing subsection (c)(4)(E) references Appendix A,which provides additional information regarding work-site evaluations.

Subsection (c)(5) requires the employer to have pro-cedures consistent with Section 3203(a)(5) to investi-gate musculoskeletal injuries to housekeepers. The in-vestigation is intended to assess the need for imple-menting corrective measures by evaluating informationabout the injuries. The intended effect is to ensure thatthe employer investigates each musculoskeletal injuryand that appropriate steps are taken to address the causeof the injury and prevent additional musculoskeletalinjuries.

Subsection (c)(6) requires the employer to havemethods or procedures for correcting hazards identifiedin the worksite evaluation or in the investigation ofmusculoskeletal injuries, in a timely manner, consistent


474

with Section 3203(a)(6), and to include procedures fordetermining whether identified corrective measures areimplemented appropriately. This subsection requiresthe employer to take measures to protect employeesfrom musculoskeletal injuries. The intended effect isfor employers to implement corrective measures in atimely manner, to make certain that affected employeesand their union representatives provide valuable input;to ensure that appropriate equipment and tools or othercorrective measures are properly assessed and selected;and to ensure that housecleaning tools and equipmentare readily available. This is also intended to ensure thatemployees have access to and utilize housecleaningtools and equipment to effectually prevent muscu-loskeletal injuries.

Subsection (c)(7) requires the employer to have pro-cedures for reviewing the MIPP at least annually, ateach worksite. The review of the MIPP is intended todetermine its effectiveness and make any correctionswhen necessary. The intended effect is to ensure thatemployers conduct a review and update of their MIPP,involve housekeepers and their union representative inthe reviewing process and make certain critical docu-ments associated with musculoskeletal injuries are tak-en into consideration to address the cause of injuries andprevent future ones. This is also intended to ensure thatproblems found during the review of the MIPP can becorrected in accordance with subsection (c)(6).

Subsection (d) requires each employer covered bythis section to provide training to housekeepers andtheir supervisors consistent with Section 3203(a)(7)and requires training be provided in a language easilyunderstood by these employees. The effect of this sub-section is to set clear guidelines on the frequency of thetraining and the required elements of the employer’straining procedures to ensure that employees are pro-vided with training applicable to their housekeeping as-signments and to effectively prevent musculoskeletaldisorders and injuries.

Subsections (d)(1)(A)−(E) establish clear guidelineson the frequency of housekeeper and supervisor train-ing in accordance with Section 3203(a)(7). The effect ofthis subsection is to ensure that employees acquire thenecessary knowledge and understanding to follow theemployer’s prevention procedures, to recognize poten-tial sources of injury and their proper preventive mea-sures, and to know how to use the appropriate house-keeping tools or equipment to effectively prevent mus-culoskeletal disorders and injuries. The intent is tomake certain that housekeepers and supervisors main-tain and update their knowledge especially whenchanges to the MIPP have been made to correct prob-lems or improve procedures.

Subsections (d)(2)(A)−(H) establish clear guidelineson the elements and content required to comply with theprovisions of these subsections. The intended effect isto ensure that employers provide effective training, thatit is applicable to the housekeeper’s assignment and thatboth housekeepers and supervisors know how to carryout the necessary actions to reduce musculoskeletal in-juries.

Subsections (e)(1)−(4) establish clear guidelines onthe recordkeeping requirements that employers need tofollow to comply with these subsections. The require-ments are consistent with Sections 3203(b) and 3204.These sections establish the requirements for creatingand maintaining the records that have been identifiedwithin this proposed standard. The effect of these sub-sections is to ensure that the employer will have ade-quate documentation needed to evaluate the effective-ness of the MIPP, make certain that employers have ad-equate documentation of their control measures and as-certain that employees and designated representativeshave access to information that they need.Appendix A — Reference Materials for WorksiteEvaluation (Non−Mandatory)

This proposed appendix is intended to identify andreference materials that can be used in performing aworksite evaluation for housekeeping.


Mandate on Local Agencies and School Districts:None.

Cost or Savings to State Agencies: None.Cost to any Local Government or School District

which must be Reimbursed in Accordance withGovernment Code Sections 17500 through 17630:None.

Other Nondiscretionary Cost or Savings Imposedon Local Agencies: None.

Cost or Savings in Federal Funding to the State:None.Cost Impacts on a Representative Private Person orBusiness:

This proposal does not mandate specific hazard anal-ysis, technologies, tools or equipment, or that a health,safety or medical professional be hired to conduct theworksite evaluation. The Board anticipates that any po-tential costs in reasonably complying with the proposedaction would be offset by avoiding or minimizing thecosts inherent in workers’ compensation claims, lostwork time, and productivity losses that would havebeen caused by acute, repetitive and chronic muscu-loskeletal injuries to hotel housekeeping employees.


475

Statewide Adverse Economic Impact DirectlyAffecting Businesses and Individuals, Including theAbility of California Businesses To Compete:

The Board has made an initial determination that thisproposal should not result in a significant, statewide ad-verse economic impact directly affecting businesses/individuals, including the ability of California busi-nesses to compete with businesses in other states. TheDivision does not anticipate that there would be suffi-cient fiscal impact to reduce the number of hotels or oth-er travel accommodation establishments currently inexistence in the state and the health of the industry hasbeen on the rise along with an increase in occupancyrate. The proposal does not mandate that a health, safetyor medical professional be hired to conduct the worksiteevaluation. In addition, the proposal does not mandatethe purchase of specific tools or equipment. Increasingor decreasing the existing workforce should not be anoutcome of the requirements.

Significant Effect on Housing Costs: None.

DETERMINATION OF MANDATE

The Occupational Safety and Health StandardsBoard has determined that the proposed standard doesnot impose a local mandate. There are no costs to any lo-cal government or school district which must be reim-bursed in accordance with Government Code Sections17500 through 17630.

SMALL BUSINESS DETERMINATION

The Board has determined that the proposed amend-ments may affect small businesses. Small businessessuch as small motels may incur minor costs involved inensuring that their existing prevention program in-cludes a worksite evaluation and training which meetsthe specific requirements in this section. This proposaldoes not mandate specific hazard analysis, technolo-gies, tools or equipment. The proposed regulation pro-vides the employer with a range of options and does notrequire a health, safety or medical professional to con-duct the worksite evaluation or training. These costswould be offset by reduced indemnification and fewerworkers’ compensation claims.

RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACTASSESSMENT/ANALYSIS

The proposed regulation will not have any effect onthe creation or elimination of California jobs or the cre-ation or elimination of California businesses or affectthe expansion of existing California businesses. The to-tal statewide costs of all the requirements in the pro-

posed regulation are estimated to be $4.5 million thefirst year and $3.4 million annually thereafter. TheBoard anticipates that any potential costs in reasonablycomplying with the proposed action would be balancedby avoiding or minimizing the costs inherent in work-ers’ compensation claims, lost work time, reduced ab-senteeism and productivity losses that would have beencaused by acute, repetitive and chronic musculoskeletalinjuries to hotel housekeeping employees. The Divisiondoes not anticipate that there would be sufficient fiscalimpact to reduce the number of travel accommodationestablishments in the state, or to create new industries toaddress requirements created by the proposal. The pro-posal also does not mandate that a health, safety or med-ical professional be hired to conduct the worksite evalu-ation. Increasing or decreasing the existing workforceshould not be an outcome of the requirements.

BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

This proposal should reduce the number of acute,repetitive and chronic musculoskeletal injuries sufferedby hotel housekeeping employees with the implemen-tation of a musculoskeletal injury prevention program,corrective measures and training. Consequently, thenumber of workers’ compensation claims against ho-tels and other travel accommodation establishmentsshould also decrease. This proposal creates an enforce-able regulation that provides clear guidance to employ-ers and employees regarding how to implement thislaw.

CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES

In accordance with Government Code Section11346.5(a)(13), the Board must determine that no rea-sonable alternative it considered or that has otherwisebeen identified and brought to its attention would bemore effective in carrying out the purpose for which theaction is proposed, would be as effective and less bur-densome to affected private persons than the proposedaction, or would be more cost−effective to affected pri-vate persons and equally effective in implementing thestatutory policy or other provision of law than the pro-posal described in this Notice.

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

CONTACT PERSONS

Inquiries regarding this proposed regulatory actionmay be directed to Marley Hart (Executive Officer) orthe back−up contact person Michael Manieri (Principal


476

Safety Engineer) at the Occupational Safety and HealthStandards Board, 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 350,Sacramento, CA 95833; (916) 274−5721.

AVAILABILITY OF STATEMENT OF REASONS,TEXT OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS AND

RULEMAKING FILE

The Board will have the entire rulemaking file avail-able for inspection and copying throughout the rule-making process at its office at the above address. As ofthe date this notice is published in the Notice Register,the rulemaking file consists of this notice, the proposedtext of the regulations, the Initial Statement of Reasons,supporting documents, or other information uponwhich the rulemaking is based. Copies may be obtainedby contacting Ms. Hart or Mr. Manieri at the address ortelephone number listed above.

AVAILABILITY OF CHANGED ORMODIFIED TEXT

After holding the hearing and considering all timelyand relevant comments received, the Board may adoptthe proposed regulations substantially as described inthis notice. If the Board makes modifications which aresufficiently related to the originally proposed text, itwill make the modified text (with the changes clearlyindicated) available to the public at least 15 days beforethe Board adopts the regulations as revised. Please re-quest copies of any modified regulations by contactingMs. Hart or Mr. Manieri at the address or telephonenumber listed above. The Board will accept writtencomments on the modified regulations for at least 15days after the date on which they are made available.

AVAILABILITY OF THE FINAL STATEMENTOF REASONS

Upon its completion, copies of the Final Statement ofReasons may be obtained by contacting Ms. Hart or Mr.Manieri at the address or telephone number listed aboveor via the internet.

AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS ONTHE INTERNET

The Board will have rulemaking documents avail-able for inspection throughout the rulemaking processon its web site. Copies of the text of the regulations in anunderline/strikeout format, the Notice of Proposed Ac-tion and the Initial Statement of Reasons can be ac-

cessed through the Standards Board’s web site athttp://www.dir.ca.gov/oshsb.

TITLE 15. DEPARTMENT OFCORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Secretary ofthe California Department of Corrections and Rehabili-tation (CDCR) proposes to amend Sections 3000, 3753,3754, 3763, 3766, and 3769.6 of the California Code ofRegulations, Title 15, concerning parole hold and revo-cation procedures, pursuant to the authority granted byGovernment Code Section 12838.5 and Penal Code(PC) Section 5055, and the rulemaking authority grant-ed by PC Section 5058, in order to implement, interpretand make specific PC Sections 5054 and 3000.08.

PUBLIC HEARING

Date and Time: May 23, 2017 — 10:00 a.m. to

11:00 a.m.Place: California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation Kern/Colorado Room1515 S Street, North Building Sacramento, CA 95811

Purpose: To receive comments about this action.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

The public comment period will close May 23, 2017,at 5:00 p.m. Any person may submit public commentsin writing (by mail, by fax, or by e−mail) regarding theproposed changes. To be considered by the Department,comments must be submitted to the CDCR, Regulationand Policy Management Branch, P.O. Box 942883,Sacramento, CA 94283−0001; by fax at (916)324−6075; or e−mail at [email protected] before theclose of the comment period.

CONTACT PERSON

Please direct any inquiries regarding this action to:

Timothy M. Lockwood, ChiefRegulation and Policy Management Branch Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation P.O. Box 942883Sacramento, CA 94283−0001 Telephone (916) 445−2269

In the event the contact person is unavailable, in-quiries should be directed to the following back−upperson:


477

Joshua JugumRegulation and Policy Management Branch Telephone (916) 445−2228

Questions regarding the substance of the proposedregulatory action should be directed to:

Roger GoldDivision of Adult Parole Operations Telephone (916) 324−3253

AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE

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

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

PC Section 5058 authorizes the Director to prescribeand amend regulations for the administration ofprisons.


These regulations implement, interpret, and complywith Penal Code (PC) sections 3000.08(c) and3000.08(f) concerning the handling and filing of a peti-tion to revoke parole in court and the forms used to noti-fy a parolee of their rights under the Americans withDisabilities Act while in custody at a county jail pend-ing parole revocation proceedings.

When there is probable cause that a parolee has vio-lated a condition of parole, the Department addressesthe violation by the imposition of remedial sanctions orby filing a petition for parole revocation in the superiorcourt for the county in which the parolee is residing/being supervised. As a result of the 2011 Public SafetyRealignment Act, effective July 1, 2013, pursuant to PCsection 3000.08(c) the courts have jurisdiction to adju-dicate parole violations. Prior to July 1, 2013, parole vi-olations were adjudicated by the Board of Parole Hear-ings.

When a parolee is in custody for a violation, theparolee has a right to be notified of the violationcharges. This is done via two forms which are incorpo-rated by reference in these regulations.

This action will update parole revocation proceduresand forms used to notify parolees of certain rights, incompliance with the 2011 Public Safety RealignmentAct and Penal Code section 3000.08.

FORMS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

CDCR Form 1502−B (Rev. 5/15) Probable CauseDetermination.

CDCR Form 2271 (Rev. 04/16) Notice and Requestfor Assistance while in a County Jail.

Judicial Council of California CR−300 (Rev. 1/15)Petition for Revocation.

SPECIFIC BENEFITS ANTICIPATED BY THEPROPOSED REGULATIONS

The safety of California residents may be enhancedby identifying and directing resources toward programsand services that will improve the reintegration of of-fenders to their communities upon being released fromstate prison. The offender’s successful reintegration tothe community will improve public safety.

EVALUATION OFCONSISTENCY/COMPATIBILITY WITHEXISTING LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Pursuant to Government Code 11346.5(a)(3)(D), theDepartment has determined the proposed regulationsare not inconsistent or incompatible with existing regu-lations. After conducting a review, the Department hasconcluded that these are the only regulations that con-cern the specific technical changes to parole proceduresaffected by the proposed regulations.

LOCAL MANDATES

This action imposes no mandates on local agencies orschool districts, nor a mandate which requires reim-bursement of costs or savings pursuant to GovernmentCode Sections 17500−17630.

FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT

� Cost or savings to any state agency: None.� Cost to any local agency or school

district that is required to be reimbursed: None.� Other nondiscretionary cost or savings

imposed on local agencies: None.� Cost or savings in federal funding to

the state: None.


478

EFFECT ON HOUSING COSTS

The Department has made an initial determinationthat the proposed action will have no significant effecton housing costs.

COST IMPACTS ON REPRESENTATIVEPRIVATE PERSONS OR BUSINESSES

The Department is not aware of any cost impacts thata representative private person or business would nec-essarily incur in reasonable compliance with the pro-posed action.

SIGNIFICANT STATEWIDE ADVERSEECONOMIC IMPACT ON BUSINESS

The Department has made an initial determinationthat the proposed regulations will not have a significantstatewide adverse economic impact directly affectingbusiness, including the ability of California businessesto compete with businesses in other states, because theproposed regulations make technical changes to paroleprocedures only and place no obligations or require-ments on any business.

EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESSES

The Department has determined that the proposedregulations will not affect small businesses. This actionhas no significant adverse economic impact on smallbusiness because they place no obligations or require-ments on any business. The proposed regulations maketechnical changes to parole procedures only.

RESULTS OF THE ECONOMICIMPACT ASSESSMENT

The Department has determined that the proposedregulations will have no effect on the creation of new, orthe elimination of existing, jobs or businesses withinCalifornia, or affect the expansion of businesses cur-rently doing business in California.

The Department has determined that the proposedregulations promote worker safety and benefit the wel-fare of California residents because the identificationand direction of resources toward programs and ser-vices that will improve the reintegration of offenders totheir communities upon being released from stateprison will improve public safety.

CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES

The Department must determine that no reasonablealternative considered by the Department or that hasotherwise been identified and brought to the attention ofthe Department would be more effective in carrying outthe purpose for which the action is proposed, would beas effective and less burdensome to affected private per-sons than the proposed regulatory action, or would bemore cost−effective to affected private persons andequally effective in implementing the statutory policyor other provisions of law. Interested persons are invitedto present statements or arguments with respect to anyalternatives to the changes proposed at the scheduledhearing or during the written comment period.

AVAILABILITY OF PROPOSED TEXT ANDINITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS

The Department has prepared and will make avail-able the text and the Initial Statement of Reasons(ISOR) of the proposed regulations. The rulemakingfile for this regulatory action, which contains thoseitems and all information on which the proposal is based(i.e., rulemaking file) is available to the public upon re-quest directed to the Department’s contact person. Theproposed text, ISOR, and Notice of Proposed Actionwill also be made available on the Department’swebsite: www.cdcr.ca.gov.

AVAILABILITY OF THE FINAL STATEMENTOF REASONS

Following its preparation, a copy of the Final State-ment of Reasons may be obtained from the Depart-ment’s contact person.

AVAILABILITY OF CHANGES TOPROPOSED TEXT

After considering all timely and relevant commentsreceived, the Department may adopt the proposed regu-lations substantially as described in this Notice. If theDepartment makes modifications that are sufficientlyrelated to the originally proposed text, it will make themodified text, with the changes clearly indicated, avail-able to the public for at least 15 days before the Depart-ment adopts, amends or repeals the regulations as re-vised. Requests for copies of any modified regulationtext should be directed to the contact person indicated inthis Notice. The Department will accept written com-ments on the modified regulations for at least 15 daysafter the date on which they are made available.


479

GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST

FISH AND GAME COMMISSION

NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF PETITION

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to theprovisions of Section 2073.3 of the Fish and GameCode, the California Fish and Game Commission(Commission), on March 1, 2017, received a petitionfrom the Center for Biological Diversity to list the Cas-cades frog (Rana cascadae) as threatened or endan-gered under the California Endangered Species Act.

The Cascades frog is a medium−sized frog that inhab-its lakes, ponds, wet meadows, and streams at moderateto high elevations in the Cascades Range.

Pursuant to Section 2073 of the Fish and Game Code,on March 6, 2017, the Commission transmitted the peti-tion to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife(Department) for review pursuant to Section 2073.5 ofsaid code. The petition is scheduled for receipt at theCommission’s April 26−27, 2017, meeting in VanNuys. It is anticipated that the Department’s evaluationand recommendation relating to the petition will be re-ceived by the Commission at its June 21−22, 2017,meeting.

Interested parties may contact Scott Gardner,Wildlife Branch, California Department of Fish andWildlife, 1812 Ninth Street, Sacramento, CA 95811[916−445−5545 or [email protected]],for information on the petition or to submit informationrelating to the petitioned species.

FISH AND GAME COMMISSION

March 30, 2017

TO ALL AFFECTED AND INTERESTEDPARTIES:

Re: Central Valley Chinook Salmon Sport Fish-ing, Subsections (b)(5), (b)(68), and (b)(156.5) ofSection 7.50, Title 14, California Code of Regula-tions; published in California Notice Register, Janu-ary 20, 2017, Notice File No. Z2017−0109−02, Regis-ter 2017, No. 3−Z.

NOTICE WAS GIVEN that any person interestedmay present statements, orally or in writing, relevant tothis action at a proposed adoption hearing to be held viateleconference originating in the Fish and Game Com-mission conference room, 1416 Ninth Street, Suite1320, Sacramento, California, on Thursday, April 13,2017, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter

may be heard. It was requested all comments must be re-ceived no later than April 13, 2017, at the teleconfer-ence hearing.

NOTICE IS NOW GIVEN that any person interest-ed may present statements, orally or in writing, relevantto this action at a discussion hearing to be held via tele-conference, originating in the Fish and Game Commis-sion conference room, 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1320,Sacramento, California, on Thursday, April 13, 2017, at8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may beheard.

IT IS NOW FURTHER GIVEN that any person in-terested may present statements, orally or in writing,relevant to this action at a new proposed adoption hear-ing to be held in Airtel Plaza Hotel, 7277 Valjean Ave.,Van Nuys, California, on Wednesday, April 26, 2017, at8:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may beheard. It is requested, but not required, that written com-ments be submitted on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 12,2017 at the address given below, or by email [email protected]. Written comments mailed, oremailed to the Commission office, must be received be-fore 12:00 noon on April 21, 2017. All comments mustbe received no later than April 26, 2017, at the hearingin Van Nuys, California. If you would like copies of anymodifications to this proposal, please include yourname and mailing address.

Additional information and all associated documentsmay be found on the Fish and Game Commission web-site at http://www.fgc.ca.gov/regulations/2017/index.aspx#cv.Sincerely,/s/Melissa Miller−HensonDeputy Executive Director

RULEMAKING PETITIONDECISION

DEPARTMENT OF FOOD ANDAGRICULTURE

Decision on Petition re: English ivySubject: Petition to add English ivy (Hedera helix) to

the California noxious weed listDecision: DenyPetition: Any interested party has the right to obtain a

copy of the petition to the agency by contacting theagency contact person listed below

Party Submitting Petition: Thomas Wheeler, Exec-utive Director and Staff Attorney, Environmental Pro-tection Information Center

California Code of Regulations: Noxious weedsare established by listing in Title 3, Section 4500


480

California Food and Agricultural (FAC) Code:Existing law provides that the Secretary may establish,maintain and enforce quarantine, eradication and othersuch regulations as necessary to protect the agriculturalindustry from the introduction and spread of pests (FACSections 407, 5301, 5302, and 5322)

FAC 5004 provides regulatory authority for the Sec-retary to designate species of plants as noxious whenthey are liable to be troublesome, aggressive, intrusive,detrimental, or destructive to agriculture, silviculture,or important native species, and difficult to control oreradicate.

Reasons Supporting the Denial: The purpose oflisting a plant as a noxious weed is to prevent, throughregulation, the artificial spread of the weed. To mini-mize natural spread there is generally an eradication,suppression or control component. Algerian ivy (H. al-geriana) has also been recorded as invasive in the sameareas referenced in this petition (California InvasiveSpecies Council). Based upon the current wild and hor-ticultural range of ivy in California, we do not think thatlisting English ivy as a noxious weed will reduce or haltthe artificial or natural spread of ivy for the followingreasons:1. No weed species that has occupied more than 50

hectares has ever been eradicated; ivy exceeds thisby far;

2. No weed with the extensive, established range ofivy has ever been effectively stopped fromspreading, although local control is possible;

3. Listing on the California Noxious Weed Listrenders the sale of the plant illegal; however, itdoes nothing to reduce the number of plants thathave been planted on private land and in gardens.Birds feed on ivy berries and can travel longdistances from existing residential and naturalizedsources.

4. The California Food and Agricultural CodeSection 5004 states that “In determining whetheror not a species shall be designated a noxious weedfor the purposes of protecting silviculture orimportant native plant species, the director shallnot make that designation if the designation will bedetrimental to agriculture.” As ivy is largely aweed of forest areas and is a mainstay of thenursery agricultural sector, it would fall under thisstricture.

5. Ivy taxonomy is difficult; listing English ivy(Hedera helix) would not preclude the sale anddistribution of H. hibernica, H. algeriana andplants labelled as such. Enforcement would becomplicated and, in many cases, infeasible.

6. Classifying English ivy as a noxious weed wouldnot significantly impact its current or futuredistribution, as it would continue to spread despiteregulation.

Agency Contact Person:

Dean Kelch, Primary BotanistCDFAPlant Health and Pest Prevention Services 1220 N Street Sacramento, CA [email protected] (916) 403−6650

DISAPPROVAL DECISION

DECISION OF DISAPPROVAL OFREGULATORY ACTION

Printed below is the summary of an Office of Admin-istrative Law disapproval decision. The full text of thedisapproval decision is available at www.oal.ca.gov un-der the “Publications” tab. You may also request a copyof a decision by contacting the Office of AdministrativeLaw, 300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1250, Sacramento, CA95814−4339, (916) 323−6225 — FAX (916) 323−6826.Please request by OAL file number.

OFFICE OF SPILL PREVENTION ANDRESPONSE

State of CaliforniaOffice of Administrative Law

In re:Office of Spill Prevention and Response

Regulatory Action:

Title 14, California Code of Regulations

Adopt sections: 870.17 Amend sections: 870.15Repeal sections: 870.17, 870.19, 870.21

DECISION OF DISAPPROVAL OF REGULATORY ACTION

Government Code Section 11349.3

OAL Matter Number: 2017−0126−01

OAL Matter Type: Certificate of ComplianceResubmittal (CR)


481

SUMMARY OF REGULATORY ACTION

The Office of Spill Prevention and Response (Office)submitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL)this timely Certificate of Compliance action. This ac-tion would have permanently amended section 870.15;repealed sections 870.17, 870.19, and 870.21; andadopted new section 870.17 in title 14 of the CaliforniaCode of Regulations (CCR) to implement changes tothe Statewide Oil Spill Prevention and Response Pro-gram fees pursuant to Senate Bill 861 (Stats. 2014, ch.35). These regulatory changes were originally imple-mented via an emergency file and print action (OALFile No. 2014−1013−04EFP).1

On April 13, 2016, the Office submitted a Certificateof Compliance (OAL File No. 2016−0413−03C) toOAL for review. On May 23, 2016, the Office requestedto withdraw the action. On January 26, 2017, the Officeresubmitted the above−referenced rulemaking action toOAL for review. On March 10, 2017, OAL notified theOffice that OAL disapproved the proposed regulations.This Decision of Disapproval of Regulatory Action ex-plains the reasons for OAL’s action.

DECISION

OAL disapproved the above−referenced rulemakingaction for the following reasons:1. The proposed regulations failed to comply with

the necessity standard of Government Codesection 11349.1, subdivision (a)(1); and

2. The Office did not meet the requiredAdministrative Procedure Act (APA) proceduralrequirements due to its failure to accuratelyindicate changes to the regulation text pursuant toGovernment Code sections 11343 and 11346.8,and sections 8 and 46 of title 1 of the CCR.

All APA issues must be resolved prior to OAL’s ap-proval of any resubmission.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, OAL disapproved theabove−referenced rulemaking action. Pursuant to Gov-ernment Code section 11349.4, subdivision (a), the Of-

1 The file and print matter was a deemed emergency and exemptfrom OAL review pursuant to Government Code section8670.7.5. Therefore, at that time, the emergency regulations werenot reviewed by OAL for the six substantive standards in Govern-ment Code section 11349.1 and the procedural requirements ofthe Administrative Procedure Act. The Certificate of Complianceis not exempt from OAL review and is subject to the Administra-tive Procedure Act.

fice may resubmit this rulemaking action within 120days of its receipt of this Decision of Disapproval. Acopy of this disapproval decision will be e−mailed to theOffice contact person on the date specified as the datethis decision was signed below. The documentationsupporting the six and one−half cent barrel fee must bemade available to the public for at least 15 days pur-suant to Government Code section 11347.1. Addition-ally, the properly illustrated text must be made availableto the public for at least 15 days pursuant to Govern-ment Code section 11346.8 and section 44 of title 1 ofthe CCR. If you have any questions, please contact meat (916) 323−6820.Date: March 16, 2017/s/Lindsey S. McNeill AttorneyFor: Debra M. CornezDirectorOriginal: Thomas M. Cullen, Jr. Copy: Christine Kluge

AVAILABILITY OF INDEX OFPRECEDENTIAL DECISIONS

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

Notice is hereby given that the California Departmentof Social Services (CDSS) maintains an index of casesCDSS has designated as precedential decisions. The in-dex is available on the Internet at http://ccld.ca.gov/PG505.htm.

This notice is published pursuant to California Gov-ernment Code section 11425.60, subdivision (c).

SUMMARY OF REGULATORYACTIONS

REGULATIONS FILED WITHSECRETARY OF STATE

This Summary of Regulatory Actions lists regula-tions filed with the Secretary of State on the dates indi-cated. Copies of the regulations may be obtained bycontacting the agency or from the Secretary of State,Archives, 1020 O Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, (916)653−7715. Please have the agency name and the datefiled (see below) when making a request.

File# 2017−0207−05BOARD OF BEHAVIORAL SCIENCESTechnical Changes Without Regulatory Effect


482

This filing of changes without regulatory effect bythe Board of Behavioral Sciences amends and repealssections in Title 2 of the California Code of Regula-tions. The non−substantive changes include updatingreference and authority sections, renumbering and re−lettering, and deleting inoperative sections.

Title 16AMEND: 1803, 1812, 1813, 1814, 1816.1, 1816.2,1822.50, 1822.51, 1822.52, 1829.1, 1829.2, 1829.3,1846, 1850.6, 1850.7, 1854, 1856, 1877.2, 1877.3,1886, 1886.10, 1886.20, 1886.30, 1886.50,1886.60, 1886.70, 1886.80, 1887, 1887.2, 1887.3,1887.4.0, 1887.4.1, 1887.4.2, 1887.4.3, 1887.11.0REPEAL: 1816.8, 1819.1, 1829, 1877, 1887,1887.2,1887.3, 1887.6, 1887.13, 1887.14Filed 03/21/2017 Agency Contact: Christy Berger (916) 574−7817

File# 2017−0202−02BOARD OF EQUALIZATIONInterest and Penalties

This action by the Board of Equalization adds lan-guage to establish when a negligence penalty may beapplied to a deficiency determined in the first audit of ataxpayer; revises subsections related to taxes on motorvehicle, aircraft jet, and diesel fuel based on statutorychanges; and makes revisions based on the repeal of anumber of sections of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

Title 18AMEND: 1703Filed 03/17/2017Effective 07/01/2017Agency Contact: Richard Bennion (916) 445−2130

File# 2017−0203−01BOARD OF PHARMACYContinuing Education

In this regular rulemaking, the Board of Pharmacy(the “Board”) is amending sections 1732.05, 1732.2,and 1732.5 in title 16 of the California Code of Regula-tions. These amendments (1) update the name of aBoard−approved continuing education (“CE”)provider, (2) grant CE credit for serving on a committeedeveloping the California Practice Standards and Ju-risprudence Examination, (3) grant CE credit for at-tending Board or committee meetings, and (4) requirethat two of the 30 hours required for pharmacist licenserenewal are completed by participation in a Board−pro-vided CE course in Law and Ethics.

Title 16AMEND: 1732.05, 1732.2, 1732.5Filed 03/20/2017Effective 07/01/2017Agency Contact: Lori Martinez (916) 574−7917

File# 2017−0203−02BOARD OF PHARMACYCompounding Title 24 Updates

This action by the Board of Pharmacy amends cross−references in regulation sections 1751 and 1751.4 in ti-tle 16 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) toaccount for a change in numbering of sections 505.5and 5.5.1 in title 24 of the CCR.

Title 16AMEND: 1751, 1751.4Filed 03/20/2017Agency Contact: Lori Martinez (916) 574−7917

File# 2017−0309−01CALIFORNIA CHILDREN AND FAMILIESCOMMISSIONConflict−of−Interest Code

This is a Conflict−of−Interest code that has been ap-proved by the Fair Political Commission and is beingsubmitted for filing with the Secretary of State andprinting only.

Title 2AMEND: 58000Filed 03/22/2017Effective 04/21/2017Agency Contact: Frank Furtek (916) 263−1313

File# 2017−0207−02CALIFORNIA PRISON INDUSTRY AUTHORITYInmate Pay Scale Increase

In this rulemaking action, the Prison Industry Au-thority adopts an across−the−board pay rate increase offive cents per hour for inmate workers at all skill levelsand pay rate steps.

Title 15AMEND: 8006Filed 03/22/2017Effective 07/01/2017Agency Contact: Dawn Eger (916) 358−1612

File# 2017−0207−03CALIFORNIA PRISON INDUSTRY AUTHORITYPrison Industry Board Definition and Statement ofEconomic Interests

The California Prison Industry Authority submittedthis action to make changes without regulatory effect,


483

pursuant to title 1, California Code of Regulations, sec-tion 100, to adopt section 8900 and amend section 8901in title 15 of the California Code of Regulations. Sec-tion 8900 provides a definition of the Prison IndustryBoard (Board). The amendment to section 8901 addssubdivision (e), which references the requirement forBoard members to file a Statement of Economic Inter-ests in Title 15, California Code of Regulations, section8199.

Title 15ADOPT: 8900AMEND: 8901Filed 03/21/2017 Agency Contact: Diana Harbaugh (916) 358−1711

File# 2017−0310−02DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICESCommunity Crisis Home

In this emergency rulemaking action, the Departmentof Developmental Services adopts 23 new sections inTitle 17 of the California Code of Regulations to estab-lish the requirements for the certification of Communi-ty Crisis Homes pursuant to Senate Bill 856, Chapter30, Statutes of 2014. The regulations establish require-ments for: facility program plan contents and approval;administrator qualifications; staffing and staff training;continuing education; consumer admission; behaviorsupport plans; facility and consumer records; regionalcenter monitoring; facility contracts, contract termina-tions and appeals; corrective action plans and sanctions;and facility and individual rates of reimbursements.

Title 17ADOPT: 59000, 59001, 59002, 59003, 59004,59005, 59006, 59007, 59008, 59009, 59010, 59011,59012, 59013, 59014, 59015, 59016, 59017, 59018,59019, 59020, 59021, 59022Filed 03/20/2017Effective 03/20/2017Agency Contact: Tiffani Andrade (916) 654−3016

File# 2017−0207−09DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCEException Requests for Prescription Drug PriorAuthorization and Step Therapy

The California Department of Insurance (Depart-ment) is amending title 10, section 2218.30 of the Cali-fornia Code of Regulations (CCR). The Department isalso amending the Prescription Drug Prior Authoriza-tion or Step Therapy Exception Request Form. Theseamendments are in response to new statutory require-ments and specify a 72− and 24− hour deadline for ap-proval or disapproval of a prescription drug prior autho-rization request, authorize the use of an electronic

process developed specifically for transmitting priorauthorization information that meets the NCPDPSCRIPT standard for electronic prior authorizationtransactions, and authorizes a step therapy exception re-quest to be submitted, and responded to, in the samemanner as a request for prior authorization for prescrip-tion drugs.

Title 10AMEND: 2218.30Filed 03/22/2017Effective 07/01/2017Agency Contact: Christopher Citko (916) 492−3187

File# 2017−0207−01 DEPARTMENT OF MANAGED HEALTH CAREPrescription Drug Prior Authorization

In this rulemaking action, the Department of Man-aged Health Care (DMHC) amends section1300.67.241 of Title 28 of the California Code of Regu-lations to conform the regulation to statutory changesmade by Senate Bill 282 (Chapter 654, Statutes of2015) and Assembly Bill 374 (Chapter 621, Statutes of2015). More specifically, the action updates the processfor submission of and response to a uniform Prescrip-tion Drug Prior Authorization Request form and addsStep Therapy Exception Request as an alternative useof the same form. The action establishes an alternativeelectronic process which a prescribing provider mayuse in lieu of using the paper form. The action also spec-ifies the entities exempted from either use of the form orthe regulation as a whole, the consequences for a healthplan’s failure to respond to a prior authorizatio

time- dated material · 2017. 5. 13. · register 2017, no. 13−z published weekly by the office...

Documents