MTV-26-07-00006-A Motor Vehicle Accident Prevention Course by Internet or Other Technologies

3/26/08 N.Y. St. Reg. MTV-26-07-00006-A

NEW YORK STATE REGISTER

VOLUME XXX, ISSUE 13

March 26, 2008

RULE MAKING ACTIVITIES

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

NOTICE OF ADOPTION

 

I.D No. MTV-26-07-00006-A

Filing No. 237

Filing Date. Mar. 11, 2008

Effective Date. Mar. 26, 2008

Motor Vehicle Accident Prevention Course by Internet or Other Technologies

PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE State Administrative Procedure Act, NOTICE is hereby given of the following action:

Action taken:

Addition of Part 141 to Title 15 NYCRR.

Statutory authority:

Vehicle and Traffic Law, sections 215(a), 399-I, and 399-n and Insurance Law, section 2336

Subject:

Motor vehicle accident prevention course by internet or other technologies (alternate delivery methods).

Purpose:

To establish criteria for a PIRP course delivered with alternate technologies.

Substance of final rule:

15 NYCRR 141 — Summary of Express Terms

The following is a summary of 15 NYCRR Part 141, which establishes the Motor Vehicle Accident Prevention Course by Internet or Other Technologies (Alternate Delivery Methods (ADM)).

The rule establishes eligibility criteria to apply to deliver an ADM course.

The rule sets forth the minimum requirements essential for all ADM courses and the details of the application process. An application must be accompanied by a $7,500 fee. A sponsor must post a $100,000 bond or letter of credit.

DMV must be given access to all course materials and must be able to audit all ADM courses. Sponsoring agencies shall allow and cooperate with DMV or its designee's monitoring of ADM courses. If the Department is unable to engage a third party monitor, the sponsoring agencies shall be required to procure an independent third party monitor.

The rule requires course sponsors to evaluate the effectiveness of their AMD course.

The rule extensively sets forth the course requirements, including the length of the course, its content, customer support requirements, identity validation techniques, content questions that insure student participation, and proctored exam requirements, where appropriate.

The rule establishes information security guidelines for course sponsors and requirements for course administration.

The rule sets forth the basis for DMV to suspend or revoke approval of a sponsoring or delivery agency.

The rule establishes guidelines for acceptable advertising produced by the sponsors.

Final rule as compared with last published rule:

Nonsubstantive changes were made in sections 141.5, 141.6, 141.8 and Appendix A.

Text of rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from:

Heidi A. Bazicki, Counsel's Office, Department of Motor Vehicles, Six Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12228, [phone], e-mail: [e-mail]

Regulatory Impact Statement, Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Rural Area Flexibility Analysis, and Job Impact Statement

The Department is not submitting revised statements for the RIS, RFA, RAFA and JIS because changes made to the proposal do not require revision to the previously published RIS, RFA, RAFA and JIS.

Assessment of Public Comment

15 NYCRR 141 — Assessment of Public Comment

Comment: The Department received comments from three out-of-state course providers opposing the statutory criteria limiting participation in the pilot program to currently approved classroom sponsors. The reasons cited are based on limiting competition, limiting participation to those who have traditionally delivered classroom courses and may be ill equipped to deliver Internet or other alternate delivery method (ADM) based courses, and providing the current sponsors with an unfair competitive advantage. Suggestions were made to require that participants be chosen from among only providers with 5 years of experience delivering ADM courses and not requiring prior classroom approval as a condition of eligibility.

Response: The Department recognizes the commenters concerns but the participation eligibility criteria are based in statute and cannot be revised in the Commissioner's regulation. (See Vehicle and Traffic Law Article 12-C).

Comment: The Department received comments from three course sponsoring agencies opposing the requirement that the starting date of ADM pilot program is contingent on of the approval of at least two ADM courses and suggests amending the language to require the pilot to start with a single sponsor if, 30 days after the sponsor has been approved, no other sponsor has been approved. This would allow for immediate competition but would not unnecessarily delay a sponsor who is poised, and has invested in the course, from moving forward.

Response: DMV expects to receive multiple applications simultaneously. It is unlikely that any one sponsor will be in a position to move forward before all other sponsors. Initiating the pilot with two sponsors provides the public with a choice which DMV believes is necessary to the program's success.

Comment: The Department received comments from two sponsoring agencies and an out-of-state security services provider supporting the proposed use of third party organizations to monitor each sponsor's ADM course activity. However, several comments were received from sponsoring agencies opposing the proposed requirement that sponsoring agencies fund program third party monitoring of their courses because Finance Law Article 89-g already provides for establishment of a special revenue fund and disbursement of monies from such fund for administration and monitoring of the pilot.

Response: Third party monitoring is essential to ensuring the quality and integrity of ADM courses. The proposed rule requiring sponsor funding is based upon the fact that the Legislature has failed to enact the appropriate authority to use such fees for third party monitoring for two consecutive years despite the Legislature's establishment of the dedicated fund for course administration and monitoring purposes. With such funding uncertainty, an alternative funding source is necessary to ensure that monitoring is in place throughout the pilot program. The Department proposes having sponsors fund the monitoring of their own programs by independent third parties. Though not the most desirable option, it is the only means by which to guarantee that monitoring and oversight will continue in the absence of monies allocated by the Legislature.

Comment: In addition to their comments opposing the sponsor funding of third party monitoring, two sponsoring agencies and two out-of-state course providers oppose the requirement that sponsoring agencies select the monitoring organization that will be policing them. One comment suggests that the Department should conduct the monitoring, designating a single monitor or select the monitor for each sponsor. Finally, one comment recommends that any monitor, whether DMV contracted or sponsor-contracted, be independent of the sponsors and that contact be made with DMV on monitoring issues, findings or deficiencies, before any contact is made with any sponsor.

Response: The Department does not maintain the expertise in monitoring online or other ADM courses. Consequently, the most efficient and effective way to achieve the necessary level of expertise in monitoring is to utilize third party monitoring. It would be inappropriate for the Department to have sponsors police their courses completely, but a third party with the appropriate level of expertise and independence from the sponsor can achieve this. With regard to sponsor-selected monitors, the proposed rule requires DMV to review and approve the sponsor's monitoring plan, contract and proposed monitoring organization. Part of the process will be for the monitor to disclose any relationship with owners, operators etc. DMV will not approve a course if an apparent business or financial relationship exists. In addition, due to the independent nature of the monitor, the Department will ensure that the monitor will communicate deficiencies to DMV before taking action to notify the sponsor. This is essential to the integrity of any monitoring efforts.

Comment: The Department received two comments from sponsoring agencies that oppose allowing sponsors to discontinue delivering their classroom course after they are approved to deliver an ADM course.

Response: The proposed rule does not exclude sponsors from discontinuing delivery of the classroom course but allows the Commissioner the discretion to require that a sponsor continue providing classes. When considering this provision, the Department weighed the impact of not requiring ADM sponsors to continue providing classroom courses and also considered the experience of other states. The Department does not believe there will be a mass exodus of classroom sponsors. For those sponsors who may choose to deliver ADM only classes, we believe that classroom capacity would be absorbed by other classroom course sponsors during the pilot program. The Department also wants to ensure that the sponsoring agencies participating in the pilot have the discretion to focus their resources accordingly to best serve the motorists attending the course.

Comment: The Department received one comment from a sponsoring agency that pointed to a technical error in the proposed rule relating to the comparison of ADM course effectiveness to classroom course effectiveness as part of measuring the overall effectiveness of the ADM pilot program. The commenter pointed out that if it was the intent of the program to compare classroom courses to ADM courses then all sponsors would be required to continue delivering classroom courses throughout the five year pilot program so that data could be available to conduct an effectiveness study.

Response: Appendix A, Page 27 included a technical error in referencing the comparison between the ADM course and the sponsor's classroom course. The intent of the statute is to evaluate the effectiveness of the ADM course in delivering the accident prevention course, not in comparing one course type to another. Sponsors will not be required to continue delivering classroom courses if they choose not to. The proposed rule has been amended to clarify that in measuring the effectiveness of a sponsor's ADM course, there will be no comparison between the ADM course and its classroom course. Further, a sponsor will not be required to maintain a classroom course during the pilot. This will enable each sponsor to focus its resources on providing the best course(s) possible -for the benefit of the motoring public.

Comment: The Department received two comments that oppose sponsoring agencies conducting their own course effectiveness study on the grounds that such action lacks integrity.

Response: Under the proposed rule, sponsors will be required to provide evidence of course effectiveness whether they conduct their own study or contract with a third party to conduct the study. The study will be conducted in accordance with prescribed regulatory and statutory standards, just as they are now in the classroom courses (See Article 12-B & C of the Vehicle and Traffic Law). DMV will review the each sponsor's effectiveness study and compile a report to the Legislature on the program's overall effectiveness at the end of the five year pilot. The methodology and data used prevent the sponsor from crafting a report in their favor and any attempt to do so would be uncovered in the State's review of the sponsor's study. These standards have been used successfully in the classroom course for quite some time.

Comment: The Department received one comment from an out-of-state course provider suggesting that if proctored testing is used to validate student identity and/or course participation, that real-time transmission of completion information to the sponsor be required so that if/when the student fails the test, the sponsor can immediately generate additional new test questions.

Response: A sponsor may choose to incorporate this into their proposed testing solution but it is not required. A sponsor will be required to allow a student to retake a content/environment question in an effort to answer 75% of the questions correctly, but the course must present a different question from the sponsor's bank of questions. A question cannot be repeated until the course has asked all questions from its bank. A student will not be exposed to the same question twice in the same course.

Comment: The Department received one comment requesting clarification on what data must be retained for five years and what data must be discarded between five and thirty days. The commenter also questioned how DMV or a third party will audit whether the sponsor successfully validated a biometric sample.

Response: Under the proposed rule, sponsoring agencies have between five and thirty days to store biometric data and the sponsor's approved monitor has that time frame to audit and conduct any follow-up reviews. The contract between the sponsor and the monitor will address what data will be available during the 30 day period and what steps the monitor will take to audit the data. DMV will review the proposed monitor contract and approve the sponsor's selected monitor. In the event that DMV elects to review samples, the sponsor must provide the appropriate hardware and software that allows DMV to ensure that the validation was correct. Sections 141.8, 10 & 11 of the proposed rule provide more detail on data retention.

Comment: The Department received one comment requesting clarification about the proposed requirement that a student shall be excluded from the course after failing the biometric log-in two times and whether this means that two samples can be wrong for each attempt or only two times throughout the entire course. A similar comment inquired about the Personal/Content Questions section in the proposed rule's Appendix and whether a student's failure to respond to a question is the same as responding incorrectly.

Response: Students who fail to have their identity verified by the sponsor's biometric technique after two attempts shall be excluded from the course. This is intended to mean that a student will have one opportunity to be validated — if that validation is not successful, the student will have one additional opportunity. If the student's identity is not validated with the additional opportunity then he or she must be excluded from the course because his or her identity cannot be validated. On the other hand, if the first validation fails and the second passes, the student may continue on with the course and the validation process will begin again at the next validation point (and will allow two additional opportunities at that point). Additionally, a student's failure to respond to a question in the specified time frame should have the same effect as answering the question incorrectly. An incorrect answer in this area constitutes a failure by the student to prove identity, participation or both.

Comment: The Department received several comments regarding various aspects of the proposed identity and participation validation requirements. One of the comments inquired about the use of Social Security Numbers (SSN) in validating the identity of students and whether the last four digits of the number would suffice for validation processes.

Response: This depends on the sponsors' proposed identity validation solution. DMV strongly encourages sponsors not to collect the SSN unless it is essential to their specific identity validation solution. DMV will review each sponsors proposed ID validation solution as part of the application process. The last four digits of a SSN are not unique to a single person (countless individuals could share the same last four digits), so it is unlikely that capturing this information would be sufficient beyond having it as a single ID question out of a pool of many other personal questions. Third party database is the solution known to require a SSN because it primarily accesses credit bureau data which would not be accessible with a partial SSN.

Comment: The Department received one comment that expressed concern about the method or methods used to validate identity as some biometric methods could require an in-person sample. The comment suggests that the regulation not require all students to make an in-person visit to give a biometric sample before proceeding with the online program.

Response: The Department recognizes that some validation methods have different requirements than others. Sponsors must ensure that they have mastery over the method they propose to use and that every possible measure is taken through the use of the biometric technology to positively identify the student registering for and taking the course to completion. The Department will review and approve each sponsor's proposed solution.

Comment: The Department received two comments on the biometric samples used to validate student identity and participation. The proposal requires an initial sample collection and periodic validation of ongoing participation against the initial sample throughout the course at random intervals. One of the commenters is concerned about how the sample will be taken from students- whether there is an initial sample that can be given completely online or whether a student must appear in person to provide their identity and give a sample that can later be used to validate against. This recommendation was echoed by a second commenter who is concerned about how to authenticate the original sample as belonging to the person who will be taking the course. Joe Smith may provide the sample and complete the course on behalf of Mary Smith and the proposed rule can measure that a sample belongs to the same person throughout the course, but not that it actually belongs to the person who is receiving the benefits for course completion. Both comments recommend that that biometric sample be taken and verified in person since there is no State database with such characteristics that can be validated completely online. The Department also received two comments supporting the proposed requirement that sponsors who cannot develop a completely online solution for validating a student's identity and course participation may utilize third party testing in the form of a proctored exam for validation purposes. Both comments did request assurance that the proposed rule will allow sponsors to utilize their currently approved classroom course providers to conduct proctored testing.

Response: The Department recognizes that the validation methods differ. DMV intends to review each sponsor's proposed solution for validating identity and course participation. The biometric tool and the sponsor's proposed use of the tool will dictate whether a sample can be provided completely online or whether additional steps must be taken to establish a baseline identity for the student. In cases where validation cannot be accomplished completely online, proctored testing may be utilized. Several sponsors have expressed an interest in having their approved classroom delivery agencies provide validation through proctored testing. This will be permissible but the sponsor will need to demonstrate, as part of their application, that sufficient controls are in place in order to deter fraud, just as they would in utilizing any third party in the delivery of proctored exams.

Comment: The Department received one comment recommending the Department specify the differences between the biometric voiceprint method and other forms of phone contact for ID and participation validation. Voiceprint requires specialized software; sampling-speaking into a phone- is not the same.

Response: The Department will address such points through policy. Sponsoring agencies will be required to demonstrate their specific validation solution to the satisfaction of the Department prior to conducting classes.

Comment: The Department received one comment recommending that sponsoring agencies using specialized software for their validation solutions also be required to provide standardized hardware to the student, e.g., if facial recognition is used, a web camera must be provided. Without uniform hardware, validation accuracy will be an issue.

Response: The Department will address this point through policy. We recognize that standardization and uniformity are factors that could impact validation accuracy rates.

Comment: The Department received one comment opposing the use of third party databases in validating a student's identity due to privacy and liability issues (though no specifics were given by the commenter). Two additional comments supported both proctored exams and the use of biometrics to validate identity and course participation.

Response: The Department is aware of only one form of third party database that is likely to be used in New York. The method is based on credit bureau data and it appears that sufficient controls exist to protect the privacy and security of a student's information. However, DMV will review every sponsor's proposed validation solution to ensure that the privacy and security of student data is addressed. DMV will not approve a particular method wholesale, but instead, how the method is used, what specific controls are in place and the sponsor's mastery over the controls. The Department believes that biometric technology and/or proctored examinations are viable methods for validating a student's identity and course participation. The strength of these methods is in the particular application by sponsoring agencies as part of their overall validation solution.

Comment: The Department received three comments recommending a completion examination for all students as a requirement of completion to ensure that the student has an understanding of safe driving practice and traffic laws and one of the commenters suggests that DMV contract with a third party monitor to oversee online test taking and grading.

Response: It is the Department's intent not to require a final examination unless one is required as part of a sponsoring agency's proposed ID/participation solution. All courses will be monitored by the Department and third party monitor on an ongoing basis. A completion examination is not required for the classroom course and should not then be deemed necessary for an ADM course, unless, of course, the examination is a proctored examination used in a sponsor's proposed solution for validating a student's identity and participation in the course.

Comment: The Department received one comment recommending that if proctored testing is used to validate student identity and participation, there should be real-time transmission of completion information to the sponsor so that if/when the student fails the test, the sponsor can immediately generate additional new test questions.

Response: A sponsor may choose to adopt real-time transmission of completion data for determining retest questions as part of their proposed proctored testing solution which will be reviewed and approved by the Department. However, the specific method will not be mandated. The proposed rule would require the sponsor to ensure that no the student who is eligible to be retested not be exposed to the same question in any subsequent attempt. The sponsor will require a new question from its pool of 100 questions which is required by the proposed rule.

Comment: The Department received one comment inquiring how sponsoring agency reporting ADM course completion data to DMV will be different from the current method of reporting classroom course completion data.

Response: The current course completion reporting format will be the foundation of the Alternate Delivery Method (ADM) course reporting. Sponsors will use DMV designated delivery agency codes for the course they are delivering. Each delivery method will be assigned a separate code for subsequent research purposes. Sponsors will keep ADM and classroom course completion data separate and will pay reporting fees by separate check. (Reporting fees are $2 per student record for classroom courses and $8 per student record for ADM courses.) DMV plans to eventually automate the data reporting and payment process.

Comment: The Department received several comments inquiring about course participant information; what must be reported to DMV, what information must be retained by the sponsor and whether sponsors are only required to retain information that is collected for reporting to DMV. One of the comments questioned why DMV doesn't just collect all of the available data the sponsors must collect. Another comment opposed the number of available “course reason codes” (this is the student's chosen response as to why they enrolled in the course — it is part of the student footprint data used for later analysis purposes) and that having eight possible choices would confuse the student. No further explanation of how the number of choices would be confusing was provided.

Response: Sections 141.5 and 141.6 of the proposed rule identifies what student information must be collected by sponsors, the purpose for which it is to be used, and the timeframes for which it must be reported to DMV, retained by the sponsor and or discarded. Data reported to DMV will be used primarily for audit and verification purposes and for recording student course completion information. The data that a sponsor retains is primarily for the sponsor's own records, for auditing and oversight by the sponsor, DMV and/or a third party monitor, and for conducting analysis of course effectiveness. With regard to reason code choices for why a student is attending the program, the responses are all unique and designed to solicit a single response from the student, and to avoid the impulse to select more than one choice. The student's accurate response is a necessary part of the overall evaluation of the pilot program.

Comment: The Department received one comment referencing Page 36 of Appendix A in the proposed rule related to student footprint logs. The comment states that in calculating total time for classroom instruction, the stated formula would not actually calculate the total time the student was engaged in instruction but only the date and time the student began the course and ended the course.

Response: Page 36 of Appendix A is intended to capture the actual instruction start date/time and end date/time and will be used in calculating the 30 day maximum time frame in which the motorist has to complete the course and the period which the student must complete the proctored exam after completing the classroom portion of the course. However, the comment does raise a deficiency in the proposed rule as there appears to be an omission regarding log-in/log-out times used to calculate actual instruction time. Though each sponsor will be required to provide a proposed solution that will demonstrate how time is calculated but the initial proposed rule did not specifically address the data elements that must be reported by the sponsor so that class time can be audited and monitored. The proposed rule has been amended to clarify that each sponsoring agency application, submitted in accordance with section 141.5, must include a specific plan for how instruction time will be calculated. In addition, a record of such calculations, including all instruction time, will be recorded and stored by the sponsor and made available to the third party monitor and the Department for monitoring and quality control purposes. This information, as part of each student's completion record, must clearly differentiate actual interactive instruction time from non-instruction time such as log-in procedures, administrative tasks, help functions, validation processes, and audio/visual media download times. This information shall also be used by the sponsor in fulfilling its monitoring responsibilities as defined in section 141.6. The sponsor shall store this data for a minimum of five (5) years.

Comment: The Department received one comment questioning how DMV will stem the imminent flood of companies, who are not approved by DMV, from advertising their course to students with false claims of approval and benefits. The commenter recommends that DMV contract with independent organization to police such fraudulent sites.

Response: The Department will continue to investigate allegations of false and misleading advertising by non-approved entities as it presently does-internally as part of the Department's overall program oversight functions. We also intend to publicize the DMV-approved ADM courses in literature and on DMV website to reduce consumer confusion.

Comment: The Department received one comment inquiring whether a sponsor can use a website name that has the term “Driving School” in the URL. A similar comment was received questioning whether the sponsor's “affiliate”, which is also an insurance company, can add a hyperlink to its website so that motorists can sign up and take an online course.

Response: Only a DMV licensed driving school conducting business in accordance with Part 76 of the Commissioner's Regulations may use the term “driving school” in its business name, description, advertising or statement of purpose. On the second comment, links to the sponsor's site are acceptable, provided that any enrollment activity and instruction must be on the sponsor's DMV approved site. Any advertising on the sponsor's affiliate's site must identify the sponsor in accordance with the proposed rule. This essentially amounts to the referral of potential students to the sponsor's approved site.

Comment: The Department received two comments opposing the six minute time limitation on audio visual clips to be used in the course. It was suggested that the proposed rule be amended to allow for longer clips which are presently used in the classroom.

Response: Sponsors must accommodate various internet connection bandwidth rates so the program is accessible to the greatest number of motorists statewide. Bandwidth and processing speed may affect download times for multimedia presentations. Download and processing time may not be factored into the overall 320 minute instruction. In an effort to enable the ADM course to be consistent with the classroom course, the Department may consider audio/visual clips longer than six minutes provided that the sponsor is able to demonstrate expedited download speed where the download does not unnecessarily delay or detract from the course experience. The proposed rule has been amended to clarify that audio/visual clips shall be no more than 6 minutes in duration, except where approved by the department in accordance with the amended Audio/Visual Requirements section on page 40 and 41 of the proposed rule (the appendix section).

Comment: The Department received several comments related to the application forms and application procedures and requirements. One sponsor inquired about physical security reviews by DMV staff and whether travel to multiple sites would be necessary. The sponsor has its servers in one state and their programmers in another and wants to know if the security review will require a visit to both sites.

Response: Travel to one or more sites may be necessary for the Department to effect the required security review, depending on the sponsor's IT infrastructure. DMV will work with each sponsor during the application process to review as much information as possible in order to reduce the need for travel, though travel to sponsor sites may be necessary, as specified in the proposal.

Comment: One comment inquired about what forms the Department will utilize for the application and whether the current classroom form could be submitted by sponsors applying for participation in the pilot and a second comment recommended that the Department review the standing of the owners and operators of the sponsoring agencies to ensure that they are of the highest possible quality and integrity.

Response: DMV will provide applicants with new application forms and materials specific to the pilot program. The proposed rule, sections 141.5 and 141.6, also specifies standards for integrity in terms of the disclosure of the company's financial stability and the criminal history of owners, operators, partners, etc.

Comment: One comment opposes the $100K bond and suggests a lower amount.

Response: The Department lowered the bond from $250K to $100K and permits the use of a letter of credit (LOC) as an alternative to bonding. Bonding is necessary to insure that funds are available to provide notification to motorists in the event of a security breach on the part of a sponsor where personal information is compromised.

Comment: One comment requested clarification about the proposed limitations on course ownership outlined in section 141.5 with regard to the requirement to prove course ownership upon application and that once approved, the course may not be used by another sponsor.

Response: The intent of this section is to prevent transferal of DMV's approval of a sponsoring agency or course. Sale of a company or transfer in ownership will terminate DMV's approval and the new owner(s) must apply for approval as a new sponsor.

Comment: One comment suggests that DMV produce the official completion certificate and sell books to sponsors in advance of ADM courses to fund the initial monitoring contract.

Response: The actual completion certificate has not been a problem in the past because regulations have required DMV approval of a sponsor's certificate that includes security features that prevent or deter fraud and forgery, and the certificates are not issued in class- they are issued by the course sponsors within eight weeks of course completion. In classroom courses, the issue has been with individual delivery agencies reporting that persons successfully completed a course when they had not- hence the “credit” for attending is more valuable than the certificate. This will not be a problem in an ADM course, provided that security controls are in place and the courses are monitored. DMV intends to continue allowing sponsors to issue DMV-approved certificates to course completers.

Comment: The Department received one public comment from a citizen who expressed concern about the cost to students and delivery agencies that have to purchase computers in order to complete the course.

Response: Participation in the course is voluntary. Persons will not be required to purchase a computer in order to complete a course. They may still choose to attend the classroom course or complete a course online at their local public library, at a web-café or via any other ADM method that becomes approved.

Comment: The Department received one public comment from a citizen who opposes the fact that he was forced to have his picture taken in order to get a driver's license.

Response: The requirement that motorists have their photo taken for the driver's license is not addressed in the proposed rule.

Comment: Though no public comments were received on this issue, a technical error was discovered in the numbering of section 141.5 which includes course approval criteria. The proposed rule has been amended to correct the numbering scheme, though none of the factual content of section 141.5 has been changed.