CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2015, VOLUME NO. 1-Z
 8the proposed regulations substantially as described in
this notice. If the Board makes modifications which aresufficiently related to the originally proposed text, it
will make the modified text (with the changes clearly
indicated) available to the public at least 15 days before
the Board adopts the regulations as revised. Please re-
quest copies of any modified regulations by contactingMs. Hart or Mr. Manieri at the address or telephone
number listed above. The Board will accept written
comments on the modified regulations for at least 15days after the date on which they are made available.
A V AILABILITY OF THE FINAL STATEMENT
OF REASONS
Upon its completion, copies of the Final Statement of
Reasons may be obtained by contacting Ms. Hart or Mr.
Manieri at the address or telephone number listed above
or via the internet.
A V AILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS ON
THE INTERNET
The Board will have rulemaking documents avail-
able for inspection throughout the rulemaking process
on its web site. Copies of the text of the regulations in an
underline/strikeout format, the Notice of Proposed ac-
tion and the Initial Statement of Reasons can be ac-cessed through the Standards Board’s website at
http://www.dir.ca.gov/oshsb
.
TITLE 13. AIR RESOURCES BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO
CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF
EV APORATIVE EMISSIONS CONTROL
REQUIREMENTS FOR SPARK–IGNITION
MARINE WATERCRAFT
The Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) will con-
duct a public hearing at the time and place noted below
to consider the adoption of evaporative emission con-
trol requirements for spark–ignition marine watercraft
(SIMW or marine watercraft).
DATE: February 19, 2015
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
PLACE: California Environmental 
Protection Agency 
Air Resources BoardByron Sher Auditorium
1001 I Street,
Sacramento, CA 95814This item may be considered at a two–day meeting of
the Board, which will commence at 9:00 a.m., February19, 2015, and may continue at 8:30 a.m., on February
20, 2015. This item may not be considered until Febru-
ary 20, 2015. Please consult the agenda for the hearing,
which will be available at least 10 days before February
19, 2015, to determine the day on which this item willbe considered.
INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION
AND POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 11346.5(a)(3)
Sections Affected:
 Proposed adoption of California
Code of Regulations, title 13, new sections 2850, 2851,
2852, 2853, 2854, 2855, 2856, 2857, 2858, 2859, 2860,
2861, 2862, 2863, 2864, 2865, 2866, 2867, 2868, 2869,
and 2870, and proposed amendments to sections 2440and 2442.
Proposed adoption of the following five test proce-
dures (TP) which will be incorporated by reference
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 13, §§ 2851, 2853, and 2856):
/C0068 TP–1501, Test Procedure for Determining
Diurnal Evaporative Emissions from
Spark–Ignition Marine Watercraft
/C0068 TP–1502, Test Procedure for Determining Hot
Soak Evaporative Emissions from Spark–Ignition
Marine Engines
/C0068 TP–1503, Test Procedure for Determining
Diurnal Vented Emissions from Installed Marine
Fuel Tanks
/C0068 TP–1504, Test Procedure for Determining
Permeation Emissions from Installed Marine Fuel
Tanks, Marine Fuel Hoses and Marine Fuel Caps
/C0068 TP–1505, Test Procedure for Determining
Pressure Relief Valve Performance
Documents Incorporated by Reference:
The following documents will also be incorporated in
the regulation by reference in California Code of Regu-
lations, title 13, as specified by section:
1. American Boat and Yacht Council (ABYC),
H–24: Gasoline Fuel Systems (July 2012), section
2855;
2. ARB, California 2015 and Subsequent Model
Criteria Pollutant Exhaust Emission Standards
and Test Procedures and 2017 and Subsequent
Model Greenhouse Gas Exhaust Emission
Standards and Test Procedures for Passenger
Cars, Light–Duty Trucks, and Medium–DutyVehicles (December 6, 2012), California
Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), El
Monte, CA, section 2853;CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2015, VOLUME NO. 1-Z
 93. ARB, Small Off–Road Engine Evaporative
Emission Control System Certification Procedure,CP–902 (July 26, 2004), Cal/EPA, Sacramento,
CA, section 2860;
4. ARB, Test Procedure for Determining Diurnal
Evaporative Emissions from Small Off–Road
Engines and Equipment, TP–902 (July 26, 2004),
Cal/EPA, Sacramento, CA, section 2853;
5. ASTM, Standard Test Method for Rubber
Deterioration–Discoloration from Ultraviolet
(UV) and Heat Exposure of Light–Colored
Surfaces (2007), ASTM D 1148–07a, West
Conshohocken, PA, section 2853;
6. ASTM, Standard Test Method for Determination
of Butane Working Capacity of Activated Carbon,
ASTM D 5228–92 (2010), West Conshohocken,
PA, section 2855;
7. International Standards Organization (ISO),
13331:1995(E) (June 1, 1995), section 2855;
8. Test Procedure to Determine the Hydrocarbon
Losses from Fuel Tubes, Hoses, Fittings, and FuelLine Assemblies by Recirculation, Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE), Surface Vehicle
Recommended Practice, J1737 (May 2013),
section 2855;
9. Reddy, Prediction of Fuel Vapor Generation from
a Vehicle Fuel Tank as a Function of Fuel RVP and
Temperature (September 1989), SAE Technical
Paper Series 892089, section 2855;
10. SAE, Fuel and Oil Hoses (December 2008), SAE
Standard J30, section 2853;
11. U.S. Coast Guard, Boats and Associated
Equipment, 33 CFR 183.590 (May 1987), section
2855;
12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA), Control of Evaporative Emissions from New
and In–use Nonroad and Stationary Equipment,
40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1060,
1060.101, 1060.240, 1060.515, 1060.520,
1060.525, 1045.801, and 1060.801, (October2008), sections 2853, 2854, 2855, and 2866;
13. U.S. EPA, Control of Evaporative Emissions from
New and In–use Nonroad and Stationary
Equipment, 40 CFR 1068.225 (April 2010),
section 2851.
The following documents will be incorporated by ref-
erence in the proposed Test Procedure for Determining
Diurnal Evaporative Emissions from Spark–Ignition
Marine Watercraft, (TP–1501):
1. ARB, California Evaporative Emission Standards
and Test Procedures for 2001 and Subsequent
Model Motor Vehicles (December 6, 2012),
Cal/EPA, El Monte, CA;2. U.S. EPA, Control of Emissions from New and
In–Use Highway Vehicles and Engines, 40 CFR
Part 86 Subparts 107–96, 108–00, and 508–78
(April 2014).
The following documents will be incorporated by ref-
erence in the proposed Test Procedure for Determining
Hot Soak Evaporative Emissions from Spark–Ignition
Marine Engines, (TP–1502):
1. ARB, California Evaporative Emission Standards
and Test Procedures for 2001 and Subsequent
Model Motor Vehicles (December 6, 2012),
Cal/EPA, El Monte, CA;
2. U.S. EPA, Control of Emissions from New and
In–Use Highway Vehicles and Engines, 40 CFR
Part 86 Subparts 107–96, 108–00, and 508–78
(April 2014).
The following documents will be incorporated by ref-
erence in the proposed Test Procedure for Determining
Diurnal Vented Emissions from Installed Marine Fuel
Tanks, (TP–1503):
1. ABYC, H–24: Gasoline Fuel Systems (July 2012);
2. ASTM, Standard Practice for Operating Salt
Spray (Fog) Apparatus (2011), ASTM B117–11,
West Conshohocken, PA;
3. ARB, California Evaporative Emission Standards
and Test Procedures for 2001 and Subsequent
Model Motor Vehicles (December 6, 2012),
Cal/EPA;
4. Reddy, Prediction of Fuel Vapor Generation from
a Vehicle Fuel Tank as a Function of Fuel RVP and
Temperature (September 1989), SAE Technical
Paper 892089;
5. U.S. EPA, Control of Emissions from New and
In–Use Highway Vehicles and Engines, 40 CFR
Part 86 Subparts 107–96, 108–00, and 508–78
(April 2014).
The following documents will be incorporated by ref-
erence in the proposed Test Procedure for Determining
Permeation Emissions from Installed Marine Fuel
Tanks, Marine Fuel Hoses and Marine Fuel Caps,
(TP–1504):
1. U.S. EPA, Control of Evaporative Emissions from
New and In–use Nonroad and Stationary
Equipment, 40 CFR 1060.501, 1060.505,
1060.515, 1060.520, 1060.521, and 1060.801(October 2008).
Background and Effect of the Proposed
Rulemaking:
In spite of a significant reduction in ozone precursors,
California needs additional reductions of reactive or-
ganic gases (ROG) to attain the federal ambient airquality standard for ozone in many areas of the State.
Mobile sources have historically been the largest source
of ROG emissions in California. As on–road mobileCALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2015, VOLUME NO. 1-Z
 10sources have become progressively cleaner, the relative
contribution of off–road sources has become more
significant.
In September 2007, the Board adopted amendments
to the State Implementation Plan (SIP), which com-prises State and local air quality planning documents
showing how and when California will meet federally
mandated national ambient air quality standards(NAAQS). One of the 2007 SIP measures requires fur-ther assessing the feasibility of achieving additionalevaporative ROG reductions from SIMW.
Based on the 2007 SIP commitment, staff began in-
vestigating the feasibility of controlling evaporativeemissions from SIMW. The investigation was formallyinitiated in 2007 because there were no federal and Staterules or regulations in place to control evaporative
emissions from SIMW. However, ARB was aware that
the U.S. EPA was considering national evaporativestandards. In October 2008, U.S. EPA finalized evapo-rative emissions standards for all SIMW. Implementedin 2009, the federal rule set new evaporative emissionsdesign standards for fuel system components. Howev-
er, ARB’s investigation revealed that lower evaporative
standards are technically feasible for SIMW and areneeded to address California’s unique air quality chal-lenges. By setting more stringent standards than thoseadopted by U.S. EPA, ARB can obtain additional
emissions reductions.
When the Board adopted the 2007 amendments to the
SIP, it was expected that the evaporative emissions reg-ulation would be considered for adoption in 2013. How-ever, the rulemaking has been delayed in order to devel-
op an updated emissions inventory, based on improved
emission factors and new usage surveys. Additionaltime was also needed to address a number of issues withstakeholders, notably the certification process.
Objectives and Benefits of the Proposed Regulatory
Action:
The primary purpose of this proposed regulation is to
set more stringent evaporative emission standards thanthose adopted by U.S. EPA. The proposed regulation
also includes provisions for certification, labeling, en-
forcement, and recall. The proposed regulation esta-blishes new test procedures for determining evapora-tive emissions from SIMW and evaporative emissionscomponents. ARB conducted extensive evaporative
emissions testing using the latest control technology to
confirm the technical feasibility of the proposedregulation.
The proposed regulation is designed to reduce ROG
emissions from SIMW in order to help meet the ozone
NAAQS. If adopted, the proposed regulation will pro-
vide ROG emissions reductions beginning in modelyear (MY) 2018. Additionally, the proposed amend-
ments would result in reduced exposure to benzene, atoxic air contaminant. Due to reduced fuel consumption
as well as ROG emissions reductions, climate co–
benefits are also anticipated.
DETERMINATION OF INCONSISTENCY AND
INCOMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING
STATE REGULATIONS
During the process of developing the proposed regu-
latory action, ARB has conducted a search of any simi-
lar regulations on this topic and has concluded that theseregulations are neither inconsistent nor incompatible
with existing state regulations.
MANDATED BY FEDERAL LAW
OR REGULATION
The proposed regulation helps California meet its SIP
commitments for ozone reduction and harmonizes
California’s evaporative emissions requirements for
SIMW with engines less than or equal to 30 kW with the
federal evaporative emissions requirements specifiedin 40 CFR Part 1060.
COMPARABLE FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Currently, SIMW in California are required to meet
the federal evaporative emissions requirements, whichare specified in 40 CFR Part 1060. The federal require-
ments specify design standards for SIMW fuel system
evaporative emissions components.
The proposed ARB regulation differs from the cur-
rent federal requirements by setting more stringentstandards for low permeation fuel tanks, low permea-
tion fuel hoses, and fuel tank venting loss control begin-
ning with MY 2018. Unlike the federal regulations, the
proposed regulation also requires fuel systems be fuel–
injected or have equivalent evaporative emissions per-formance and fuel fill deck plates that are compatible
with vapor recovery systems at gasoline stations.
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION
If adopted by the Board, ARB plans to submit the pro-
posed regulatory action to the U.S. EPA for approval as
a revision to the California SIP required by the federal
Clean Air Act (CAA). The adopted regulatory action
would be submitted as a SIP revision because it adopts
regulations intended to reduce emissions of air pollut-ants in order to attain and maintain the National Ambi-
ent Air Quality Standards promulgated by U.S. EPA
pursuant to the  CAA.CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2015, VOLUME NO. 1-Z
 11A V AILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS AND
AGENCY CONTACT PERSONS
ARB staff has prepared a Staff Report: Initial State-
ment of Reasons (ISOR) for the proposed regulatory ac-tion, which includes a summary of the economic and
environmental impacts of the proposal. The report is en-
titled: Adoption of Evaporative Emissions Control Re-
quirements for Spark–Ignition Marine Watercraft.
Copies of the ISOR and the full text of the proposed
regulatory language may be accessed on ARB’s Web
site listed below, or may be obtained from the Public In-
formation Office, Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street,
Visitors and Environmental Services Center, First
Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814, (916) 322–2990 onDecember 30, 2014.
Final Statement of Reasons Availability
Upon its completion, the Final Statement of Reasons
(FSOR) will be available and copies may be requested
from the agency contact persons in this notice, or maybe accessed on ARB’s Web site listed below.
Agency Contact Persons
Inquiries concerning the substance of the proposed
regulation may be directed to the designated agency
contact persons, Jim Watson, Manager, Engineeringand Regulation Development Section, (916) 327–1282,
or Scott Monday, Air Resources Engineer, (916)
445–9319.
Further, the agency representative to whom nonsub-
stantive inquiries concerning the proposed administra-tive action may be directed is Amy Whiting, Regula-
tions Coordinator, (916) 322–6533. The Board staff has
compiled a record for this rulemaking action, which in-
cludes all the information upon which the proposal is
based. This material is available for inspection uponrequest to the contact persons.
Internet Access
This notice, the ISOR and all subsequent regulatory
documents, including the FSOR, when completed, are
available on ARB’s Web site for this rulemaking athttp://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2015/simw2015/
simw2015.htm  .
DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE
PROPOSED REGULATION
The determinations of the Board’s Executive Officer
concerning the costs or savings necessarily incurred bypublic agencies and private persons and businesses in
reasonable compliance with the proposed regulatory
action are presented below.Fiscal Impact/Local Mandate
Pursuant to Government Code sections
11346.5(a)(5), and 11346.5(a)(6), the Executive Offi-
cer has determined that the proposed regulatory action
would create costs to ARB for enforcement and certifi-
cation by the state. The Executive Officer has deter-mined that the proposed regulatory action would not
create costs or savings in federal funding to the state,
costs or mandate to any local agency or school district
whether or not reimbursable by the state, or other non-
discretionary cost or savings to local agencies.
Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact
Directly Affecting Business, Including Ability to
Compete 
The Executive Officer has made an initial determina-
tion that the proposed regulatory action would not havea significant statewide adverse economic impact direct-
ly affecting businesses, including the ability of Califor-
nia businesses to compete with businesses in other
states, or on representative private persons.
Cost Impacts on Representative Private Persons or
Businesses
In developing this regulatory proposal, ARB staff
evaluated the potential economic impacts on represen-
tative private persons or businesses. Businesses that
manufacture SIMW and/or dealers that assemble theirown evaporative emissions systems for SIMW may in-
cur annual ongoing costs for SIMW certification.
Annual ongoing certification reporting costs are esti-
mated to range as high as $2,568 per year for businesses
opting to build and certify evaporative systems. The av-erage estimated retail price increase for manufacturers
to produce a compliant SIMW is estimated at $39 per
marine watercraft.
Results of the Economic Impact Analysis/
Assessment Prepared Pursuant to Government
Code Section 11346.3(b) 
Effect on Jobs/Businesses:
The Executive Officer has determined that the pro-
posed regulatory action would not affect the creation or
elimination of jobs within the State of California, thecreation of new businesses or elimination of existing
businesses within the State of California, or the expan-
sion of businesses currently doing business within the
State of California. A detailed assessment of the eco-
nomic impacts of the proposed regulatory action can befound in the ISOR.
Benefits of the Proposed Regulation:
The objective of the proposed regulation is to maxi-
mize ROG evaporative emissions reductions from
SIMW while minimizing the costs to businesses andconsumers. A detailed assessment of the economic im-
pacts of the proposed regulatory action can be found in
the Economic Impact Analysis section in the ISOR.CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2015, VOLUME NO. 1-Z
 12A summary of these benefits is provided, please refer
to “Objectives and Benefits”, under the Informative Di-
gest of Proposed Action and Policy Statement Over-
view Pursuant to Government Code 11346.5(a)(3) dis-
cussion above.
Effect on Small Business 
The Executive Officer has determined, pursuant to
California Code of Regulations, title 1, section 4, that
the proposed regulatory action would affect small busi-
nesses. The proposed regulation will have some impact
on small businesses that manufacture SIMW and/or
dealers that assemble their own evaporative emissions
systems for SIMW. Annual ongoing costs are estimatedto range as high as $2,568 per year for certification re-
porting costs should a small business opt to build and
certify evaporative systems and not pass on those costs
to purchasers of SIMW.
Housing Costs 
The Executive Officer has made the initial deter-
mination that the proposed regulatory action will not
have a significant effect on housing costs.
Business Report
In accordance with Government Code section
11346.3(c) and 11346.5(a)(11), the Executive Officer
has found that the reporting requirements of the pro-
posed regulatory action which apply to businesses are
necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of the
people of the State of California. Reporting require-ments are necessary to ensure manufacturer com-
pliance with the proposed standard.
Alternatives
Before taking final action on the proposed regulatory
action, the Board must determine that no reasonable al-
ternative considered by the board or that has otherwisebeen identified and brought to the attention of the board
would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for
which the action is proposed or would be as effective
and less burdensome to affected private persons than
the proposed action, or would be more cost–effective to
affected private persons and equally effective in imple-
menting the statutory policy or other provision of law.
Environmental Analysis
ARB, as the lead agency under the California Envi-
ronmental Quality Act (CEQA), has reviewed the pro-
posed regulation and concluded that it is exempt pur-suant to CEQA Guidelines section 15308 — Actions
Taken by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the En-
vironment. A brief explanation of the basis for reaching
this conclusion is included in Section V of the ISOR.WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD AND
SUBMITTAL OF COMMENTS
Interested members of the public may present com-
ments orally or in writing at the meeting and may pro-
vide comments by postal mail or by electronic submittal
before the meeting. The public comment period for thisregulatory action will begin on January 2, 2015. To be
considered by the Board, written comments not physi-
cally submitted at the meeting, must be submitted on orafter January 2, 2015 and received no later than 5:00
p.m. on February 17, 2015, and must be addressed to
the following:
Postal mail: Clerk of the Board, 
Air Resources Board 
1001 I Street, 
Sacramento, California 95814
Electronic
submittal: http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub
/
comm/bclist.php
Please note that under the California Public Records
Act (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.), your written and oral
comments, attachments, and associated contact in-
formation (e.g., your address, phone, email, etc.) be-
come part of the public record and can be released to the
public upon request.
ARB requests that written and email statements on
this item be filed at least 10 days prior to the hearing so
that ARB staff and Board members have additional timeto consider each comment. The Board encourages
members of the public to bring to the attention of staff in
advance of the hearing any suggestions for modifica-tion of the proposed regulatory action.
Additionally, the Board requests but does not require
that persons who submit written comments to the Board
reference the title of the proposal in their comments to
facilitate review.
AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE
This regulatory action is proposed under the authority
granted in Health and Safety Code, sections 39600,
39601, 41510, 43008.6, 43013, 43018, 43101, 43102,43104, and 43212. This action is proposed to imple-
ment, interpret, and make specific Health and Safety
Code, sections 41510, 41511, 43013, 43017, 43018,
43101, 43102, 43104, 43105, 43150, 43151, 43152,
43153, 43154, 43205.5, 43210, 43210.5, 43211, and43212.CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2015, VOLUME NO. 1-Z
 13HEARING PROCEDURES
The public hearing will be conducted in accordance
with the California Administrative Procedure Act (Gov.
Code, § 11340 et seq.).
Following the public hearing, the Board may adopt
the regulatory language as originally proposed, or with
non–substantial or grammatical modifications. TheBoard may also adopt the proposed regulatory language
with other modifications if the text as modified is suffi-
ciently related to the originally proposed text that thepublic was adequately placed on notice that the regula-
tory language as modified could result from the pro-
posed regulatory action. In the event that such modifi-
cations are made, the full regulatory text, with the modi-
fications clearly indicated, will be made available to thepublic, for written comments, at least 15 days before it
is adopted.
The public may request a copy of the modified regu-
latory text from ARB’s Public Information Office, Air
Resources Board, 1001 I Street, Visitors and Environ-mental Services Center, First Floor, Sacramento,
California, 95814, (916) 322–2990.
SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION REQUEST
Consistent with California Government Code section
7296.2, special accommodation or language needs may
be provided for any of the following:
/C0068 An interpreter to be available at the hearing;
/C0068 Documents made available in an alternate format
or another language;
/C0068 A disability–related reasonable accommodation.
To request these special accommodations or lan-
guage needs, please contact the Clerk of the Board at
(916) 322–5594 or by facsimile at (916) 322–3928 as
soon as possible, but no later than 10 business days be-fore the scheduled Board hearing. TTY/TDD/Speech to
Speech users may dial 711 for the California Relay Ser-
vice.
Consecuente con la sección 7296.2 del Código de
Gobierno de California, una acomodación especial onecesidades lingüísticas pueden ser suministradas para
cualquiera de los siguientes:
/C0068 Un intérprete que esté disponible en la audiencia;
/C0068 Documentos disponibles en un formato alterno u
otro idioma;
/C0068 Una acomodación razonable relacionados con unaincapacidad.
Para solicitar estas comodidades especiales o necesi-
dades de otro idioma, por favor llame a la oficina delConsejo al (916) 322–5594 o envíe un fax a (916)
322–3928 lo más pronto posible, pero no menos de 10
días de trabajo antes del día programado para la audien-cia del Consejo. TTY/TDD/Personas que necesiten este
servicio pueden marcar el 711 para el Servicio de Re-transmisión de Mensajes de California.
TITLE 13. AIR RESOURCES BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER
THE PROPOSED REGULATION ON THE
COMMERCIALIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE
DIESEL FUELS
The Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) will con-
duct a public hearing at the time and place noted below
to consider a proposed regulation governing the com-mercialization of motor vehicle Alternative Diesel
Fuels (ADF). The ADF regulation is intended to pro-
vide a pathway for emerging diesel fuel substitutes to
enter the commercial market in California, to manage
and minimize environmental and public health impacts,and to preserve the emissions benefits derived from the
ARB motor vehicle diesel regulations.
DATE: February 19, 2015
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
PLACE: California Environmental 
Protection Agency 
Air Resources BoardByron Sher Auditorium
1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
This item may be considered at a two–day meeting of
the Board, which will commence at 9:00 a.m., February
19, 2015, and may continue at 8:30 a.m., on February
20, 2015. This item may not be considered until Febru-
ary 20, 2015. Please consult the agenda for the meeting,
which will be available at least 10 days before February19, 2015, to determine the day on which this item will
be considered.
INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION
AND POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT 
CODE 11346.5(a)(3)
Sections Affected:
 Proposed amendment of Califor-
nia Code of Regulations (CCR), title 13, sections 2290,2291, and 2293; proposed renumbering of CCR, title
13, existing sections 2293 and 2293.5, and proposed
adoption of CCR, title 13, sections 2293, 2293.1,
2293.2, 2293.3, 2293.4, 2293.5, 2293.6, 2293.7,
2293.8, 2293.9, and Appendix A.
Existing sections 2290, 2291, 2292.1, 2292.2,
2292.3, 2292.4, 2292.5, 2292.6, and 2292.7 would be
grouped under new subarticle 1 (Specifications for Cur-CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2015, VOLUME NO. 1-Z
 14rent Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuels). Existing sec-
tions 2293 and 2293.5 would be renumbered to 2294
and 2295, and would be grouped under a new subarticle
3 (Ancillary Provisions).
Documents Incorporated by Reference:  The fol-
lowing documents, test methods, and model would be
incorporated in the regulation by reference as specifiedin the proposed sections indicated:
1. Chapters 5, 6, and 7 of “Guidance Document and
Recommendations on the Types of Scientific
Information Submitted by Applicants for
California Fuels Environmental MultimediaEvaluations (Revised June 2008),” University of
California, Davis, University of California,
Berkeley, and Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, available at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/multimedia/080608
guidance.pdf , section 2293.2(a)(18);
2. ASTM D613–14, “Standard Test Method for
Cetane Number of Diesel Fuel Oil (2010),”section 2293.6(a)(3), 2293.7(a)(1), Appendix
1(a)(2)(C), (D), and (E);
3. ASTM D5186–03, “Standard Test Method for
Determination of the Aromatic Content and
Polynuclear Aromatic Content of Diesel Fuels and
Aviation Turbine Fuels By Supercritical Fluid
Chromatography (2009),” Appendix 1(a)(2)(E);
4. ASTM D287–12b, “Standard Test Method for API
Gravity of Crude Petroleum and Petroleum
Products (Hydrometer Method) (2012),”
Appendix 1(a)(2)(C), (D), and (E);
5. ASTM D4629–12, “Standard Test Method for
Trace Nitrogen in Liquid Petroleum
Hydrocarbons by Syringe/Inlet OxidativeCombustion and Chemiluminescence Detection
(2012),” Appendix 1(a)(2)(C), (D), and (E);
6. ASTM D5453–93, “Standard Test Method for
Determination of Total Sulfur in Light
Hydrocarbons, Spark Ignition Engine Fuel, Diesel
Engine Fuel, and Engine Oil by Ultraviolet
Fluorescence (1993),” section 2293.7(a)(1),
Appendix 1(a)(2)(C), (D), and (E);
7. ASTM D6890–13be1, “Standard Test Method for
Determination of Ignition Delay and Derived
Cetane Number (DCN) of Diesel Fuel Oils by
Combustion in a Constant V olume Chamber
(2013),” section 2293.6(a)(3), 2293.7(a)(1),Appendix 1(a)(2)(C), (D), and (E);
8. ASTM D445–14e2, “Standard Test Method for
Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque
Liquids (and Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity)
(2012),” Appendix 1(a)(2)(C), (D), and (E);9. ASTM D93–13e1, “Standard Test Methods for
Flash Point by Pensky–Martens Closed Cup Tester(2013),” Appendix 1(a)(2)(C), (D), and (E);
10. ASTM D86–12, “Standard Test Method for
Distillation of Petroleum Products at Atmospheric
Pressure (2012),” Appendix 1(a)(2)(C), (D), and
(E);
11. EN 14103:2011, “Fat and oil derivatives. Fatty
acid methyl esters (FAME). Determination ofester and linolenic acid methyl ester contents
(2011),” Appendix 1(a)(2)(C) and (D);
12. Snedecor and Cochran, “Statistical Methods,”
(7th ed., 1980), p.91, Iowa State University Press,
Appendix 1(a)(2)(G);
Background and Effect of the Proposed
Rulemaking: 
The Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) (Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 17, §95480 et seq.) and the federal RenewableFuels Standard (RFS) (Clean Air Act §211(o), 42
U.S.C. §7545(o)) both incentivize the expansion of the
California transportation fuel pool to include more re-newable and low carbon replacements for conventional
motor vehicle gasoline and diesel. Existing California
and federal laws authorize ARB to regulate fuels, in-cluding for the purpose of controlling motor vehicle
emissions. (Health & Saf. Code §43013, Clean Air Act
§211(c)(o) and (t) [42 U.S.C. §7545(c)(o) and (t)].) Fur-thermore, title 13, California Code of Regulations sec-
tions 2281 through 2285, impose fuel quality standards
on conventional motor vehicle diesel fuel to limit bothsulfur and aromatic hydrocarbon content.
Existing law allows use of alternative diesel fuels in
California, such as biodiesel and renewable diesel, andthe LCFS, RFS, and other policies and programs will
encourage further innovations in fuels. Some of these
innovative fuels are already sold commercially andcontrolled through industry consensus standards that
are implemented by the California Department of Food
and Agriculture. Such fuels–related industry consensusstandards seek mainly to address vehicle performance
and fuel production quality issues. By contrast, air qual-
ity impacts from alternative diesel fuels are generallyaddressed by ARB or the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA).
The current California diesel fuel regulations focus
almost entirely on petroleum hydrocarbon–based fuels
for compression ignition engines. Because of the focus
on petroleum fuels, the existing diesel regulations areill–suited to providing a market pathway for innovative
non–hydrocarbon–based alternative diesel fuels (e.g.,
biodiesel, dimethyl ether) and for ensuring that the an-ticipated air quality benefits from ARB’s existing speci-CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2015, VOLUME NO. 1-Z
 15fications for California diesel (“CARB diesel”) are
preserved.
Therefore, staff is proposing to consolidate existing
administrative and legal procedures and requirements
for alternative diesel fuels in this new regulation. Theproposed regulation will establish clear legal require-
ments for the introduction and commercial use of ADFs
that are developed and introduced into the market in thefuture. The proposed regulation also includes in–use re-
quirements and fuel specifications for biodiesel as the
first commercial alternative diesel fuel under the pro-
posed regulation. The proposed biodiesel provisions
are designed to ensure fuel quality, safeguard againstpotential increases in oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emis-
sions, and maintain enforceability of these
requirements.
Objectives and Benefits of the Proposed Regulation:
The primary objective of the proposed ADF regula-
tion is to create a streamlined framework that protectsCalifornia’s residents and environment while encour-
aging innovative ADFs to enter the commercial market
as efficiently as possible. The proposal is intended toensure that the introduction and use of innovative ADFs
in California will have no significant adverse impacts
on public health or the environment relative to conven-
tional, petroleum–based “CARB diesel.”
The proposed ADF regulation establishes a compre-
hensive, multi–stage process governing the commer-
cialization of new ADFs in California. This process
would start with a screening analysis that would allowlimited sales of a regulated diesel substitute while it un-
dergoes an initial evaluation; an intermediate stage with
expanded sales governed by enhanced monitoring, test-
ing, and a multimedia evaluation; and a final stage with
full–scale commercial sales and provisions designed tomaintain environmental and public health protections
as needed. The main benefit to the State is to provide
and maintain safeguards that protect public health andthe environment while such new fuels are being tested
and used. The proposed regulation also benefits the
State by providing a framework and clear rules that, in
turn, will encourage the more rapid introduction of in-
novative fuels with demonstrated public health advan-tages. Many of the innovative fuels under development
have lower emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) and
criteria and toxic air pollutants, and a number of suchfuels can also be produced from renewable or waste
sources.
The proposal represents the culmination of a major
ARB effort to develop a clear pathway for the commer-
cialization of new diesel fuel substitutes. Over the pastseveral years, ARB staff has conducted research and
analyses to understand the air quality impacts of biodie-sel, renewable diesel, and other diesel fuel substitutes
and additives, and this research effort will continue.ARB also sponsored a comprehensive multimedia as-
sessment under Health and Safety Code section
43830.8 for biodiesel and renewable diesel to deter-
mine whether these fuels have any significant adverse
impacts relative to conventional CARB diesel. Renew-able diesel, while an innovative diesel fuel replacement,
is not considered an ADF under the regulation because
it consists solely of hydrocarbons and is chemically in-distinguishable from conventional diesel.
The effort started with the need to characterize and
quantify the emissions potential of biodiesel and renew-
able diesel, the ultimate goal being the establishment of
air quality–based fuel specifications for these two die-sel substitutes to govern any continued use in Califor-
nia. However, since that effort began, the LCFS, RFS,
and other fuels policies and programs came into effect.
Those programs encourage fuel producers to innovate,
not only with biodiesel and renewable diesel, but alsowith other lower carbon fuels such as dimethyl ether.
Consequently, ARB staff determined that a uniform and
comprehensive review and approval program is needed
to set clear ground rules for introducing and commer-
cializing diesel fuel substitutes, both current and futureones, while preserving or enhancing the emissions re-
ductions and health benefits that have been achieved
through standards developed for CARB diesel.
ARB staff has worked with major stakeholders such
as alternative fuel producers; petroleum refiners andmarketers; engine manufacturers; and environmental
and public health advocates and local air districts to so-
licit input via meetings and public workshops on this
proposal. Staff developed the proposal based on ARB
testing and research, and feedback from stakeholders.
DETERMINATION OF INCONSISTENCY AND
INCOMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING 
STATE REGULATIONS
During the process of developing the proposed regu-
latory action, ARB staff reviewed other programs re-
lated to ADFs and concluded that the proposal is consis-
tent and compatible with existing state regulations. Inparticular, staff reviewed two existing California pro-
grams: the ARB’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard and the
California Department of Food and Agriculture’s(CDFA) fuels program.
The Low Carbon Fuel Standard regulation (17 CCR
95480 et seq.) reduces the average carbon intensity (CI)
of California transportation fuels. However, the LCFS
does not set fuel specifications or any other require-ments on the properties of the regulated fuels, nor does
it establish provisions that govern the use and commer-
cialization of transportation fuels. Thus, the proposalCALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2015, VOLUME NO. 1-Z
 16would be consistent and compatible with the existing
LCFS regulation as well as a proposed new LCFS regu-lation that is also scheduled for the Board’s
consideration.
Staff’s proposal is also consistent and compatible
with the CDFA’s fuels program because the fuel specifi-
cations in the proposal are air quality–based, which isARB’s responsibility under State law. CDFA currently
regulates biodiesel and renewable diesel as part of their
authority to adopt consensus standards under the Busi-ness and Professions Code. Further, the proposal simi-
larly is consistent and compatible with CDFA’s devel-
opmental fuels variance program, which is intended to
generate engine performance and warranty data to in-
form development of a consensus standard designed tofocus on engine performance, while the proposal’s
screening analysis and multimedia evaluation provi-
sions are intended to characterize environmental and
public health impacts to avoid adverse impacts.
COMPARABLE FEDERAL REGULATIONS
There are no federal regulations that are comparable
to the proposed regulation or would accomplish the
same objectives and benefits. The U.S. EPA imple-
ments a registration program for fuels and fuel additives
under title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part
79. Under that program, proponents of new fuels andfuel additives need to provide to U.S. EPA requested in-
formation so that the agency can determine the fuel or
additive’s “product emissions that may pose an unrea-
sonable risk to public health.” In addition, the U.S. EPA
implements the Renewable Fuels Standard program(RFS2), 40 CFR part 80.1400 et seq., which mandates
fixed volumes of specified biofuels to be blended with
the national gasoline and diesel fuel pools. Under this
program, mandated annual volumes of biomass–based
diesel are specified, including biodiesel and renewablediesel.
There are a number of significant differences be-
tween the federal programs and the staff’s proposal.
First, the federal registration program applies only to
gasoline and diesel and their additives. By contrast, thestaff’s proposal applies to any new alternative diesel
fuel, including fuels that bear little or no resemblance to
conventional diesel but nevertheless are designed to beused in compression ignition engines. Another signifi-
cant difference is that the federal program applies only
to on–road fuels and additives, while the staff’s propos-
al applies to alternative diesel fuels used in on–road and
off–road motor vehicles. For these reasons the federalprogram under 40 CFR 79 is not comparable to the pro-
posal. Similarly, the proposal presents no conflict or in-
consistency with the RFS2 program since the proposaldoes not restrict the volume sales of biodiesel, other
biomass–based ADFs, or any other biofuels subject toRFS2. Instead, the proposal would impose specified
pollutant mitigation measures (which does not include
sales volume limits) if and when certain specified crite-
ria are met, and staff’s analysis projects it is highly un-
likely those criteria will be met in the foreseeable fu-ture. Further, the proposal is based on California’s gen-
eral police power authority and is consistent with the
provisions governing the State’s regulation of fuels andfuel additives under section 211 of the Clean Air Act.
A V AILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS AND
AGENCY CONTACT PERSONS
ARB staff has prepared a Staff Report: Initial State-
ment of Reasons (ISOR) for the proposed regulatory ac-tion, which includes a summary of the economic and
environmental impacts of the proposal. The ISOR is en-
titled, “Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for
the Proposed Regulation on the Commercialization of
New Alternative Diesel Fuels.”
Copies of the ISOR and the full text of the proposed
regulatory language may be accessed on ARB’s Web
site listed below, or may be obtained from the Public In-
formation Office, Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street,
Visitors and Environmental Services Center, FirstFloor, Sacramento, California, 95814, (916) 322–2990,
on December 30, 2014.
Final Statement of Reasons Availability
Upon its completion, the Final Statement of Reasons
(FSOR) will be available and copies may be requested
from the agency contact persons in this notice, or may
be accessed on ARB’s Web site listed below.
Agency Contact Persons 
Inquiries concerning the substance of the proposed
action may be directed to the designated agency contact
persons, Jim Aguila, Manager of the Substance Evalua-
tion Section, at (916) 322–8283, or Alexander “Lex”
Mitchell, Manager of the Emerging Technology Sec-tion, at (916) 327–1513.
Further, the agency representative to whom nonsub-
stantive inquiries concerning the proposed administra-tive action may be directed is Amy Whiting, Regula-
tions Coordinator, (916) 322–6533. The Board staff has
compiled a record for this rulemaking action, which in-
cludes all the information that staff relied upon in devel-
oping the proposal. This material is available for in-spection upon request to the contact persons.
Internet Access
This notice, the ISOR and all subsequent regulatory
documents, including the FSOR, when completed, areavailable on ARB’s website for this rulemaking at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2015/adf2015/
adf2015.htm .CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2015, VOLUME NO. 1-Z
 17DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE
PROPOSED REGULATION
The determinations of the Board’s Executive Officer
concerning the costs or savings necessarily incurred by
public agencies and private persons and businesses in
reasonable compliance with the proposed regulatory
action are presented below.
Fiscal Impact / Local Mandate
Pursuant to Government Code sections
11346.5(a)(5) and 11346.5(a)(6), the Executive Officer
has determined that the proposed regulatory actionwould not create any significant costs or savings to any
State agency or in federal funding to the State, costs or
mandate to any local agency or school district, whetheror not reimbursable by the State pursuant to Govern-
ment Code, title 2, division 4, part 7 (commencing with
section 17500), or other nondiscretionary cost or sav-
ings to State or local agencies. Of the many State and lo-
cal agencies contacted, only two reported the use of bio-diesel blends that would be subject to in–use require-
ments under the proposed regulation. These agencies
could incur some minor costs as a result of these re-
quirements, though these can likely be absorbed in
existing budgets.
Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact
Directly Affecting Business,  Including Ability to
Compete 
The Executive Officer has made an initial determina-
tion that the proposed regulatory action would not have
a significant statewide adverse economic impact direct-
ly affecting businesses, including the ability of Califor-
nia businesses to compete with businesses in other
states.
Cost Impacts on Representative Private Persons or
Businesses 
In developing this regulatory proposal, the Executive
Officer evaluated the potential economic impacts onrepresentative private persons or businesses. The
agency is not aware of any cost impacts that a represen-
tative private person or business would necessarily in-
cur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action.
STATEMENT OF THE RESULTS OF THE
STANDARDIZED REGULATORY
IMPACT ANALYSIS
In October 2014, ARB submitted a Standardized
Regulatory Impact Assessment (SRIA) to DOF for their
review. To determine the economic impacts of the regu-
lation, ARB modeled the impact of the combinedLCFS/ADF regulations using a hypothetical credit
price of $100. The economic impacts have very small
but negative impacts on macroeconomic indicators.The proposed regulation has been changed since the
SRIA was prepared. ARB chose to update the economicanalysis in the SRIA and presented the updated analysis
in Appendix F of the ISOR. The results of the updated
macroeconomic modeling are not significantly differ-
ent from the original SRIA as submitted to DOF. ARB
interprets these results as insignificant given the size ofCalifornia’s $2 trillion economy and the uncertainty of
the credit prices and fuels that are brought to California
for compliance. Private investment growth slows by–0.01 percent in 2016 and –0.13 percent in 2020 (–$20
million and –$520 million respectively). Personal in-
come growth slows by –0.01 percent in 2016 and –0.06
percent in 2020 (–$120 million and –$1,470 million re-
spectively). Gross State Product growth slows by 0.00percent in 2016 and –0.07 percent in 2020 (–$30 million
and –$1,730 million respectively). Employment
growth slows by –0.01 percent in 2016 and –0.08 per-
cent in 2020 (–2400 and –17,300 respectively).
While both the proposed LCFS and ADF regulations
were modeled together, the ADF regulation is driving
only a small portion of the results. For example, in 2018
the ADF regulation makes up less than 1 percent of the
direct costs attributable to the regulations. Therefore, a
relatively small fraction of the impacts identified in thecombined economic analysis for the two proposals is at-
tributable to the ADF proposal.
Effect on Jobs/Businesses:
The proposed LCFS and ADF regulations would
slow the growth in employment. To the extent that the
two proposals may affect transportation fuel prices, any
California business that uses transportation fuels may
be affected. There are opportunities under the proposed
regulations for producers of lower–CI fuels (e.g., bio-diesel, renewable diesel, low–CI ethanol) to construct
facilities in California, thereby creating new busi-
nesses. On the other hand, if the regulations reduce pe-
troleum dependence, some petroleum–related busi-
nesses may be affected. Precisely quantifying businessgains and losses is not possible. On a macroeconomic
scale, the estimated impacts on California’s economy
are negligible. There are opportunities for producers of
lower–CI fuels to construct or expand facilities in
California, thereby creating new jobs and businesses.On the other hand, if the proposed regulations reduce
petroleum dependence, some jobs related to producing
petroleum–based, high–carbon fuels may be elimi-nated. Jobs in the fuel distribution system are not ex-
pected to change, even if there is a change in the prod-
ucts being distributed.
Competitive Advantages/Disadvantages for Current
Businesses:
Pursuant to Government Code section 11346.5(a)(8),
the Executive Officer has made an initial determinationCALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2015, VOLUME NO. 1-Z
 18that the proposed regulatory actions covering the af-
fected regulation would not have a significant State-wide adverse economic impact directly affecting busi-
nesses, including the ability of California businesses to
compete with businesses in other states. In accordance
with Government Code sections 11346.5(a)(10) and
11346.3(b), the Executive Officer has further deter-mined that the proposed regulatory actions may lead to
the elimination of jobs within — as well as outside of —
the State of California, and the elimination of existingbusinesses within — as well as outside — the State of
California. However, these impacts are small on a state-
wide basis.
An assessment of the economic impacts of the pro-
posed regulatory action and its effect on Californiabusinesses can be found in the ISOR.
Investment Effects.
Private investment growth slows by –0.01 percent in
2016 and –0.13 percent in 2020 (–$20 million and–$520 million respectively).  ARB interprets these re-
sults as insignificant given the size of California’s $2
trillion economy and the uncertainty of the credit pricesand fuels that are brought to California for compliance.
Innovation Effects
The regulation will spur innovation, create a more di-
verse fuel market. For additional analysis, please see“SRIA Comments and Responses”, under item 2, titled,
“Incentives for Innovation”.
Benefits
The regulations will spur innovation, create a more
diverse fuel market, and set the stage for significant
greenhouse gas reductions in future years. Fuel diversi-
ty will benefit consumers and GHG reductions willbenefit public health and the environment.
The proposed regulations are expected to improve
California’s air quality. In fact, the proposals may re-
duce criteria pollutant emissions from the 2020 proj-
ected vehicle fleet, due to reduced use of petroleum–based diesel. The proposals are anticipated to deliver
environmental benefits that include a cumulative esti-
mated reduction in the PM
2.5 emissions of more than
1200 tons from transportation fuels in California from
2016 through 2020. Premature deaths caused by ultra–fine particles are expected to decrease by 90 in 2020 due
to biodiesel and renewable diesel replacing petroleum
diesel. These emissions reductions include the reducedtailpipe emissions of PM
2.5 associated with the replace-
ment of conventional diesel with substitute fuels, net of
any increased emissions of PM 2.5 associated with feed-
stock and fuel truck trips from additional California
biofuel production facilities and transport from out–of–state biorefineries. Any additional NOx emissions that
may result from the increased use of biodiesel blends
are mitigated by the proposed ADF regulation.Implementation of the proposals will also diversify
the transportation fuel portfolio, thereby reducing theeconomic impact of volatile global oil price changes on
gasoline and diesel prices in California.
A summary of these benefits is provided under the In-
formative Digest of Proposed Action and Policy State-
ment Overview Pursuant to Government Code11346.5(a)(3) discussion above.
SRIA Comments and Responses 
ARB summarized the comments received on Novem-
ber 18, 2014 from DOF. The original SRIA can befound in Appendix E.
1. DOF Comment: Because the proposed LCFS
regulations were not attached, DOF was unable
to determine whether all the estimated impacts
in the SRIA that may occur as a result of the
regulation were addressed.
Regulatory language can now be found in Appendix
A of both the LCFS and ADF ISOR documents. Addi-
tional information and analysis of the proposed regula-
tions can be found in the included Initial Statement of
Reasons (ISOR) for the Low Carbon Fuel Standard andthe Alternative Diesel Fuel Rulemakings.
2. DOF Comment: The purchasers and sellers of
the LCFS credits should be clearly stated.
All regulated parties have the ability to participate in
the LCFS credit market by buying and selling credits.
Fuel suppliers that produce and sell transportation fuelswith carbon intensity values (CI) above that year’s stan-
dard generate deficits and must retire sufficient credits
to offset the deficits generated in order to demonstrate
compliance; fuel suppliers that produce and sell trans-
portation fuels with carbon intensity values (as adjustedfor relative power train efficiencies) below that year’s
standard generate credits, which they can retire to meet
their compliance obligation, bank, and/or sell in the
LCFS credit market.
In general, the LCFS places compliance obligations
initially on regulated parties that are upstream entities
(i.e. producers and importers that are legally responsi-
ble for the quality of transportation fuels in California),
rather than downstream distributors and fueling sta-
tions. However, under specified conditions, the regu-lated party may be another entity further downstream
that can be held responsible for the CI of the fuels or
blendstocks that they dispense in California. The pro-posed regulation specifies the criteria under which an
entity would be deemed a regulated party for each par-
ticular fuel and how the responsibility for complying
with the LCFS can be transferred. Table 1 summarizes
the regulated parties for each transportation fuel.
The proposed regulation includes an opt–in provi-
sion, which explicitly recognizes that certain alterna-
tive fuels have full fuel–cycle CIs (as adjusted for rela-CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2015, VOLUME NO. 1-Z
 19tive power train efficiencies) that inherently meet the
proposed compliance standards through 2020. As a re-sult, these fuels may choose an opt–in provision. These
fuels are:
/C0068 Electricity;
/C0068 Hydrogen and hydrogen blends;
/C0068 Fossil CNG derived from North American
sources;
/C0068 Biogas CNG; and
/C0068 Biogas LNG.Parties that opt into the LCFS program will be those
parties that expect to generate LCFS credits under theregulation. By opting into the program, an entity be-comes a regulated party under the LCFS regulation andis required to meet the LCFS reporting obligations andrequirements.
The illustrative compliance scenario used for the
ISOR economic analysis indicates the projected gen-
eration of credits and deficits by fuel types as seen in
Appendix F in the ISOR.
3. DOF Comment: From a modeling standpoint,
because there will be offsetting price and
quantity impacts, consumer spending variables
in REMI would be a more appropriate means of
addressing impacts than consumer pricevariables alone, as was done in the SRIA.
The offsetting price and quantity impacts are projec-
tions of the industry response to the regulation and areused as inputs to the macroeconomic model. DOF sug-
gests that ARB use a different variable to represent the
potential change in consumer spending that would re-sult from the combined LCFS/ADF regulations. Using
the consumer expenditures category, as suggested by
DOF, would be interpreted in the model as a shift in thedemand by consumers and thus yield a higher quantity
demanded. This would be counter to the expected im-
pact of the LCFS, which should not increase demand for
conventional fuels in California. The LCFS acts to re-
duce the amount of conventional fuels and replace themwith lower carbon alternatives. Using the expenditure
changes would misrepresent demand impacts and over-ly complicate the analysis.
Ideally, the analysis would be performed by switch-
ing spending from the conventional fuels category to
the alternative fuels category, and then using consumer
expenditures in the modeling; however, the aggregation
of the fuels into the Petroleum and Coal Manufacturing
NAICS code makes macroeconomic modeling of the
LCFS regulation difficult. Instead, ARB modeled the
change using the consumer price variables because theybest estimate the flow of investment among consumers
and suppliers of various fuels. The “price premium” is
offset by the credit purchases by the petroleum industry
and credit sales by low–CI fuels and are modeled as pro-
duction cost changes. This same methodology was used
for the SRIA and the updated analysis, the results of
which can be found in Appendix F.CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2015, VOLUME NO. 1-Z
 204. DOF Comment: The LCFS program relies on
the supply of alternative fuels (and thereforethe generation of credits). The analysis could be
enhanced by discussing the volatility of credit
prices, the interaction of credit prices and the
incentives for innovation, and the cost impact
on businesses and individuals; this discussionshould include the cost–containment measure
and its effects. The incentives for innovation
will also depend on whether demand for lesscarbon–intensive fuels will be met through new
production in California, or whether such fuels
would be imported.
Fuel Availability and Credit Price
Just as the number of deficits generated is determined
by the quantity and carbon intensity of conventionalfuels sold in the California market, the supply of credits
is determined by the quantity and carbon intensity of
low–CI fuels sold in the California market.
The financial incentives provided by the LCFS credit
value is anticipated to stimulate investments in, and
production of, very low–CI fuels. The LCFS credit val-
ue represents a source of additional revenues for low–CI fuel producers and distributors, who can sell credits
generated by their fuel. The LCFS credit value can off-
set the higher initial costs of producing low–CI fuels,
and is anticipated to be used to reduce the higher initial
price of those fuels to enable them to compete with con-
ventional fuels. The value added from the sale of LCFS
credits depends on the fuel’s carbon intensity, the strin-
gency of the annual standards, the LCFS credit price,
and the volume of conventional fuel displaced.
Because the supply of credits depends on the avail-
ability of low–CI fuels, market participants may faceuncertainty regarding whether low–CI fuels will be
available in sufficient volumes to achieve compliance,
particularly in later years when the stringency of the
regulation increases. Staff has analyzed the projected
availability of low–CI fuel technologies, which is sum-marized in Chapter II. This analysis indicates that suffi-
cient volumes of low–CI fuels will be available for
compliance in all years analyzed. Historical data indi-cates a strong market response to the regulation stimu-
lating demand for low–CI fuels. A Low Carbon FuelStandard has been continuously implemented in
California since 2010, and regulated parties have gener-
ated more credits than needed every year. The accu-
mulation of banked credits has been augmented by a
standard that will have been frozen at 1% through 2015.The scenario projects approximately 3.6 million
banked credits available at the start of 2016.
Since 2010, the production of low–CI fuels has in-
creased in response to the financial incentives provided
by the existing LCFS regulation. Many innovative,
low–CI fuel technologies have moved past the demon-
stration stage, and have overcome techno–economic
challenges that have in recent years limited the supplies
of innovative, very–low CI fuels such as cellulosic etha-nol, renewable diesel, and renewable natural gas. Staff
analysis indicates that the supplies of low–CI fuels in
future years (2016–2020) will continue to exhibit the
existing trend of increasing production. As the scenario
shows, existing low–CI fuel technologies are antici-
pated to continue to play a large role in achieving LCFS
compliance. The stringency of the standard in laterCALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2015, VOLUME NO. 1-Z
 21years demands increasing quantities of very–low CI
fuels, and is anticipated to stimulate the increased pro-
duction of innovative emerging and nascent technolo-
gies like renewable diesel, cellulosic ethanol, biome-
thane, and electric vehicles.
Incentives for Innovation
Staff has identified innovative low–CI fuel technolo-
gies that are poised to increase production at the com-
mercial scale. The proposed regulation will increase the
incentive to invest in and increase the production of in-
novative, very low–CI fuels, particularly as the strin-
gency of the program increases in later years. A morestringent standard will likely result in higher credit
prices, all else equal. Higher credit prices, particularly if
they are sustained, will increase the incentive to inno-vate and invest because revenues generated by LCFS
credits can be used to increase profit margins or to offset
up–front capital costs; these additional revenues will at-
tract investments in low–CI fuels.
The LCFS proposal provides opportunities for busi-
nesses within and outside of California to generate
credits for low–CI transportation fuels. The proposed
LCFS stimulates demand for low–CI fuels, whichcreates incentives to invest in and produce innovative
low–CI fuels. Credits have a monetary value when sold
in the LCFS credit market and can be generated by pro-
ducers of low–CI biofuels, biomethane and natural gas
providers selling CNG and LNG, fleet operators utiliz-ing opt–in fuels such as electricity, utilities providing
electricity for the residential fueling of electric ve-
hicles, and service providers installing and maintainingpublic electric vehicle charging equipment. Because
the LCFS is a fuel–neutral, performance–based stan-
dard, it provides equal incentives to businesses, regard-
less of location, to increase the production of low–CI
fuels. It is unclear to what degree the demand for lesscarbon–intensive fuels will be met through new produc-
tion in California or elsewhere. The proposed regula-
tion provides the incentive structure to foster the low–CI fuels market; individual business decisions and the
economics of producing the low–CI fuels will deter-
mine where the resultant increases in supplies comes
from.
The proposed LCFS introduces competition into the
fuels market. Firms that are early investors in innova-
tive, low–CI fuel technologies may be at a competitive
advantage if LCFS–like carbon–intensity standards areadopted by other jurisdictions.
The incentives for innovation will depend on the de-
mand for less–carbon intensive fuels, which increases
with the increasing stringency of the compliance curve.
If the demand for low–CI fuel is met by new productionin California, then the investment in California will
likely be higher. However, the SRIA analysis did notrely on explicit assumptions of production location giv-
en that imbedded in the model are assumptions of re-gional purchasing and production which is dependent
upon the NAICS code. Given that the REMI model does
not accurately distinguish the conventional and alterna-
tive fuels, ARB relies on the imbedded assumptions for
aggregation, production location, demand for fuels,prices, and many other factors that are fundamental to
the model.
Cost Containment
If low–CI fuel technologies are slower to achieve
commercialization than anticipated, or if there is insuf-
ficient investment in low–CI technologies, tight supply
may cause upward pressure on credit prices from tightcredit supply. Because the credit price is highly depen-
dent on the availability and cost of production of low–
CI fuels, and because the action of regulated parties will
determine the supply of credits, there is uncertainty re-
garding future supplies of credits. To reduce the risk of apotentially destabilizing price spike, and to reduce price
volatility in the LCFS credit market, the proposed regu-
lation includes a cost–containment provision that is
summarized in Chapter II. The proposed cost–
containment provision will cap credit prices and pro-vide an upper boundary on the potential cost of comply-
ing with the regulation. The proposed price cap will also
limit the potential for volatility in the LCFS credit mar-
ket. Based on a review of the literature and input from
stakeholders, including during workshops, staff findsthat a cost–containment provision can reduce the risk of
higher than anticipated costs while maintaining the en-
vironmental integrity of the program:
/C0068 The risk of higher than anticipated prices resultingfrom tight supply can be reduced by implementing
a price cap and by ensuring regulated parties can
achieve annual compliance even under conditionsof tight supply.
/C0068 The environmental integrity of the program can bemaintained by ensuring that the use of acost–containment provision does not relax the
carbon intensity reductions that will be achieved
by the program.
The price cap is proposed to be set at $200/credit in
2016 and increase at the rate of inflation in subsequent
years. Although a price cap that is set too low may limit
the profitability of credit generators (i.e. low–CI fuelproducers and distributors), staff analysis of the price
cap indicates that $200/ton is high enough to provide a
sufficient value added to stimulate the investments in
and production of low–CI fuels, and sufficiently high to
attract these fuels to California if they are producedelsewhere. The proposed price cap at $200 is antici-
pated to result in multiple, ancillary market benefits, in-
cluding reduced price uncertainty, and reduced regula-CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2015, VOLUME NO. 1-Z
 22tory uncertainty. Reducing both these sources of uncer-
tainty is anticipated to increase the incentives for in-
vestment. Potential investors may be hesitant to invest
in low–CI fuel production facilities given conditions of
undue uncertainty, particularly because production fa-cilities for low–CI fuels are typically capital–intensive
projects with relatively long payback periods.
5. It would greatly enhance transparency of the
discussion to report these in terms of units that
are more easily comparable, such as price
increase per gallon or price decrease bykilowatt–hour. The economic impacts should
also be reported in standard units such as
constant dollars or numbers of jobs in addition
to the percentages cited.
In the Economic Impacts chapter of the LCFS ISOR,
results (outputs) of the macroeconomic modeling are
expressed in constant dollars and percentages, and can
be seen in Appendix F. Dollar–per–gallon price impactsare also included and displayed for the theoretical $100
credit price used for the macroeconomic results, and in
addition shown for a $25 and $57 credit prices to show arange of potential impacts on consumers. See Appendix
F of the ISOR for the outputs for the illustrative com-
pliance scenario at the theoretical $100 credit price.
6. DOF Comment: The analysis could be
supplemented by a discussion of the interaction
between the LCFS program and the Cap andTrade program. Additionally, discussing the
additional incentives for innovation due to the
LCFS above and beyond the Cap and Trade
program’s contribution.
In the transportation sector, ARB has outlined a com-
plementary, multi–pronged approach to meet the goals
of AB 32. Fuel suppliers have a compliance obligation
under the Cap–and–Trade program for the GHG emis-sions that result from the production and use of fuels.
This provides an incentive to reduce emissions and sell
cleaner fuels in the market. But it does not require clean-er fuels, as fuel suppliers can purchase allowances to
cover their emissions if they so choose.
The LCFS requires that fuel providers supply cleaner
fuels in California. As the LCFS reduces the carbon in-
tensity of fuels, it changes the composition of the state’stransportation fuel mix and dependence on traditional
petroleum–based fuels. The LCFS and Cap–and–Trade
programs are designed to complement one another. In-vestments made to comply with one of the programs
will result in reduced compliance requirements for the
other program. Reductions in the carbon intensity of
fuel due to the LCFS reduce compliance obligations un-
der the Cap–and–Trade Program. Similarly, sellingcleaner fuels to comply with Cap–and–Trade helps
meet the requirements of the LCFS.7. DOF Comment: The SRIA could do a better
job of laying out how the low carbon fuel
standards fit into the larger picture, and how
the regulatory impacts may interact with otherparts of the overall strategy for addressingcarbon emissions.
See response to question 6. The Economic Impacts
Chapter also discusses the effects of other programssuch as Advanced Clean Cars and ARB’s PavleyVehicle Standards.
8. DOF Comment: The discussion of alternatives
should be enhanced by including numbers sothat readers can directly compare the impacts.Stating that there are lower costs under analternative is not as useful as reporting on themagnitude of the difference.
These tables can be found in Appendix F in the ISOR.
9. DOF Comment: In the first alternative, we also
suggest it should be designed so that there is the
same carbon intensity standard for alltransportation fuels, rather than justexempting diesel. That is, there should havebeen an offsetting decrease in carbon intensityfor gasoline if diesel is exempted. This wouldraise costs for gasoline, which then could becompared to the avoided costs for diesel.
DOF suggested that ARB model a scenario, which
was proposed to ARB by the California TruckingAssociation as an alternative regulation, wherein the10% reduction in the carbon intensity of the transporta-tion fuels sold in California by 2020 (from a 2010 base-line) is achieved exclusively through a gasoline stan-dard where diesel and diesel substitutes are excludedfrom any carbon intensity requirements. Staff analyzedthis alternative and determined that it cannot achievethe same level of CI reduction as the proposed regula-tion due to constraints in the available supply of low–CIgasoline alternatives and physical constraints such asthe ethanol blendwall as well as limited penetration ofelectric and hydrogen vehicles and vehicles that can re–fuel with higher ethanol blends. With highly optimisticassumptions regarding the availability of very–low CIethanol and highly optimistic assumptions regardingthe reduction in carbon intensity values, staff analysisindicates that the gas only alternative could deliver a7.7% reduction in the carbon intensity of the transporta-tion fuels sold in California by 2020, from a 2010 base-
line. Therefore it is not technically feasible for the gaso-
line only alternative to result in a 10 percent reduction inthe carbon intensity of transportation fuels.
As it is anticipated to achieve only 7.7% of the goal of
the proposed regulation, the gas only alternative notonly falls short of providing a feasible pathway toachieve the proposed regulation’s carbon intensity re-CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2015, VOLUME NO. 1-Z
 23ductions, it is likely to deliver reduced benefits at an
higher cost, compared with the proposed LCFSregulation.
This alternative has a lower than 10% reduction in the
transportation sector CI level, and is cheaper than the
LCFS regulation. However, this alternative will likely
drive the price of credits higher, yielding a higher costper MMT of reductions.
10. DOF Comment: Additional clarification of
how the ADF costs are calculated and the
reaction of businesses due to the NOx controls
required by the regulation.
The $14.5 million value was based on preliminary
NOx control costs originally estimated early in the anal-
ysis. The NOx control costs have been updated and can
be found in Chapter 10 of the ADF ISOR, summarized
in Table 10.1. The updated economic impacts as identi-
fied in the LCFS and ADF ISOR economics chapterswere re–evaluated using the REMI model; the inputs to
and outputs from the REMI model can be found in in
Appendix F in the ISOR.
11. DOF Comment: Additional clarification of the
fiscal costs to the state for implementation of
the regulations is needed. In addition,
expansion of the discussion on price changesfaced by the consumers, and state and local
entities.
The fiscal costs were expanded and explained in both
the LCFS and ADF 399 Fiscal Impact Assessments. Im-pact of the changing fuel volumes and prices on the bud-
get can be found in Chapter 7 of the LCFS ISOR.
12. DOF Comment: Additional ARB personnel
needed for the regulation should be identified.
The personnel need assessment was identified in the
Fiscal Impact Assessment of Form 399.
Effect on Small Business
The Executive Officer has also determined, pursuant
to California Code of Regulations, title 1, section 4, that
the proposed regulatory action would not have any sig-nificant impacts on small businesses because any costs
of compliance are minimal and will not affect the retail
price of ADFs offered to the public.
Housing Costs 
The Executive Officer has also made the initial deter-
mination that the proposed regulatory action will not
have a significant effect on housing costs.
Business Reports 
In accordance with Government Code sections
11346.3(d) and 11346.5(a)(11), the Executive Officer
has found that the reporting requirements of the pro-posed regulatory action which apply to businesses are
necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of the
people of the State of California.Alternatives
Before taking final action on the proposed regulatory
action, the Board must determine that no reasonable al-
ternative considered by the Board, or that has otherwise
been identified and brought to the attention of theBoard, would 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–effec-
tive to affected private persons and equally effective in
implementing the statutory policy or other provisions oflaw. The analysis of such alternatives can be found inChapter 7 of the ISOR.
Environmental Analysis
ARB, as the lead agency for the proposed regulatory
action, has prepared a Draft Environmental Analysis(EA) under its certified regulatory program (California
Code of Regulations, title 17, §§ 60000 through 60008)
to comply with the California Environmental QualityAct (Pub. Resources Code § 21080.5). The Draft EAcovers both the proposed ADF and proposed Low Car-
bon Fuel Standard (LCFS) regulations. Although the
policy aspects and requirements of the proposed ADFand LCFS regulations do not directly change the physi-
cal environment, there are potential indirect physical
changes to the environment that could result from rea-sonable foreseeable actions undertaken by entities in re-
sponse to the proposed regulations and the market.
These indirect impacts are the focus of the programmat-ic level impacts analysis in this Draft EA.
The Draft EA stated that implementation of the pro-
posed regulations could result in beneficial impacts to
GHGs through substantial reductions in emissions fromtransportation fuels in California from 2016 through
2020 and beyond, long–term beneficial impacts to air
quality through reductions in criteria pollutants, andbeneficial impacts to energy demand. The Draft EA
also stated the proposed regulations could result in less
than significant or no impacts to mineral resources,population and housing, public services, and recre-ation; and potentially significant and unavoidable ad-
verse impacts to aesthetics, air quality, agriculture re-
sources, biological resources, cultural resources, geolo-gy and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrolo-
gy and water quality, land use and planning, noise,
transportation and traffic, and utilities, primarily re-lated to the reasonably foreseeable construction proj-ects and minor expansions to existing operations. The
Draft EA, included as Appendix D to the Initial State-
ment of Reasons, is entitled Draft Environmental Anal-
ysis prepared for the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and
Alternative Diesel Fuel Regulations. Written com-
ments on the Draft EA, submitted as described below,will be accepted during a public review period startingCALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2015, VOLUME NO. 1-Z
 24on January 2, 2015, and ending at 5:00 p.m. on Febru-
ary 17, 2015.
WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD AND
SUBMITTAL OF COMMENTS
Interested members of the public may present com-
ments orally or in writing at the meeting and may pro-
vide comments by postal mail or by electronic submittal
before the meeting. The public comment period for thisregulatory action will begin on January 2, 2015. To beconsidered by the Board, written comments not physi-cally submitted at the meeting must be submitted on or
after January 2, 2015 and received no later than 5:00
p.m. on February 17, 2015, and must be addressed to
the following:
Postal mail: Clerk of the Board, 
Air Resources Board 
1001 I Street, 
Sacramento, California 95814
Electronic 
submittal:  http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/
comm/bclist.php
Please note that under the California Public Records
Act (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.), your written and oralcomments, attachments, and associated contact in-formation (e.g., your address, phone, email, etc.) be-
come part of the public record and can be released to the
public upon request. All written comments, data, fac-tual information, studies, and reports submitted to ARBduring the public comment period or at the Board hear-
ing will be included in the rulemaking file for the pro-
posed regulation. Any person who provided ARB withwritten feedback or other materials prior to the openingof the public comment period must submit the feedbackor materials during the public comment period or at the
hearing to have them included in the rulemaking file.
ARB requests that written and email statements on
this item be filed at least 10 days prior to the hearingwhen possible so that ARB staff and Board membershave additional time to consider each comment. The
Board encourages members of the public to bring to the
attention of staff in advance of the hearing any sugges-tions for modification of the proposed regulatoryaction.
Additionally, the Board requests but does not require
that persons who submit written comments to the Boardreference the title of the proposal in their comments tofacilitate review.AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE
This regulatory action is proposed under the authority
granted in Health and Safety Code, sections  39600,
39601, 39667, 43013, 43018, and 43101, and Western
Oil and Gas Ass’n. v. Orange County Air Pollution
Control District, 14 Cal. 3d 411, 121 Cal.  Rptr. 249
(1975) . This action is proposed to implement, interpret,
and make specific sections 39000, 39001, 39002,
39003, 39010, 39500, 39515, 40000, 43000, 43016,
43018, 43026, 43101, 43830.8, and 43865, and Western
Oil and Gas Ass’n. v. Orange County Air Pollution
Control District, 14 Cal. 3d 411, 121 Cal. Rptr. 249
(1975) .
HEARING PROCEDURES
The first of two public hearings will be conducted in
accordance with the California Administrative Proce-dure Act, Government Code, title 2, division 3, part 1,
chapter 3.5 (commencing with section 11340).
Following the first public hearing, the Board may
consider the regulatory language as proposed and pro-
vide direction to staff regarding revisions to the pro-posed regulation. Any modifications to the proposed
regulatory language that are sufficiently related to the
originally proposed text will be made available to the
public for written comment at least 15 days before it is
adopted. Written comments on the Draft Environ-
mental Assessment must be submitted on or before
February 17, 2015 to be considered timely filed. Any
decision to adopt the proposed regulation, with or with-
out modifications, will be made at a second hearing lat-
er in 2015.
The public may request a copy of any modified regu-
latory text from ARB’s Public Information Office, Air
Resources Board, 1001 I Street, Visitors and Environ-
mental Services Center, First Floor, Sacramento,
California, 95814, (916) 322–2990.
SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION REQUEST
Consistent with California Government Code Sec-
tion 7296.2, special accommodation or language needsmay be provided for any of the following:
/C0068 An interpreter to be available at the hearing;
/C0068 Documents made available in an alternate formator another language;
/C0068 A disability–related reasonable accommodation.
To request these special accommodations or lan-
guage needs, please contact the Clerk of the Board at
(916) 322–5594 or by facsimile at (916) 322–3928 as
soon as possible, but no later than 10 business days be-fore the scheduled Board hearing. TTY/TDD/Speech to
Speech users may dial 711 for the California Relay
Service.CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2015, VOLUME NO. 1-Z
 25Consecuente con la sección 7296.2 del Código de
Gobierno de California, una acomodación especial onecesidades lingüísticas pueden ser suministradas para
cualquiera de los siguientes:
/C0068 Un intérprete que esté disponible en la audiencia;
/C0068 Documentos disponibles en un formato alterno uotro idioma;
/C0068 Una acomodación razonable relacionados con unaincapacidad.
Para solicitar estas comodidades especiales o necesi-
dades de otro idioma, por favor llame a la oficina delConsejo al (916) 322–5594 o envíe un fax a (916)
322–3928 lo más pronto posible, pero no menos de 10
días de trabajo antes del día programado para la audien-
cia del Consejo. TTY/TDD/Personas que necesiten este
servicio pueden marcar el 711 para el Servicio de Re-transmisión de Mensajes de California.
TITLE 14. FISH AND GAME
COMMISSION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN  that the Fish and
Game Commission (Commission), pursuant to the au-
thority vested by sections 200, 202, 203, 215, 219, 220,
331, 332, 460, 713, 1050, 1055, 1055.1, 1572, 3452,3453, 4302, 4304, 4331, 4334, 4336, 4340, 4657, 4753,
4902 and 10502; reference sections 200, 202, 203,
203.1, 207, 210, 215, 219, 220, 331, 332, 458, 459, 460,
713, 1050, 1055, 1055.1, 1570, 1571, 1572, 1573, 1575,2005, 3452, 3453, 3950, 3951, 4302, 4304, 4330, 4331,
4332, 4333, 4334, 4336, 4340, 4341, 4652, 4653, 4654,4655, 4657, 4750, 4751, 4752, 4753, 4754, 4755, 4902,
10500 and 10502, Fish and Game Code; proposes to
amend sections 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 702, 708.5,
708.11 and 713; and add Section 364.1, Title 14,
California Code of Regulations (CCR), relating toMammal Hunting Regulations for the 2015–2016
season.
INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT
OVERVIEW
Subsection 360(a)
Deer A, B, C and D Zone Hunts
Existing regulations provide for the number of li-
cense tags available for the A, B, C, and D Zones. This
regulatory proposal changes the number of tags for all
existing zones to a series of ranges presented in the table
below. These ranges are necessary because the finalnumber of tags cannot be determined until spring herd
data are collected in March/April. Because severe win-
ter conditions can have an adverse effect on herd re-cruitment and over–winter adult survival, final tag quo-
tas may fall below the proposed range into the “Low
Kill” alternative identified in the most recent Environ-
mental Document Regarding Deer Hunting.