Time- Dated Material GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW California Regulatory Notice Register REGISTER 2023, NUMBER 48–Z PUBLISHED WEEKLY BY THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DECEMBER 1, 2023 PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS TITLE 2. FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Conflict–of–Interest Codes — Notice File Number Z2023–1121–08 ....................................... 1545 AMENDMENT MULTI–COUNTY: Central Sierra Child Support Agency STATE AGENCY: Office of State Treasurer TITLE 2.

CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT Procedures of Community Conflict Resolution — Notice File Number Z2023–1113–01 ........................ 1546 TITLE 2. SECRETARY OF STATE Safe at Home Program — Notice File Number Z2023–1121–07 .......................................... 1548 TITLE 8. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS BOARD Fall Protection in Residential Construction — Notice File Number Z2023–1117–01 .......................... 1550 TITLE 10.

HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGE Hardship and Religious Conscience Exemptions Process Through the Exchange — Notice File Number Z2023–1121–06 ................................................................ 1562 TITLE 13. AIR RESOURCES BOARD On–Road Motorcycle Emission Standards and Test Procedures and Adoption of New On–Board Diagnostics and Zero–Emission Motorcycle Requirements — Notice File Number Z2023–1114–06 ................................................................ 1566 TITLE 14.

FISH AND GAME COMMISSION Department of Fish and Wildlife Lands — Notice File Number Z2023–1121–03 .............................. 1579 TITLE 14. FISH AND GAME COMMISSION Recreational Sea Urchin — Notice File Number Z2023–1121–04 ......................................... 1582 (Continued on next page)

TITLE 15. BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS Updated Requirements for In–Person and Videoconference Proceedings — Notice File Number Z2023–1117–02 ................................................................ 1585 TITLE 17. AIR RESOURCES BOARD Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality Standards — Notice File Number Z2023–1114–05 .......................................................................... 1588 TITLE 17.

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH Clinical Laboratory Personnel Standards — Notice File Number Z2023–1120–01 ............................ 1592 GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT Preliminary Agenda and Change to Virtual–Only Format for Meeting of the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee ...................................... 1597

SUMMARY OF REGULATORY ACTIONS Regulations filed with the Secretary of State ......................................................... 1598 The California Regulatory Notice Register is an official state publication of the Office of Administrative Law containing notices of proposed regulatory actions by state regulatory agencies to adopt, amend or repeal regulations contained in the California Code of Regulations. The effective period of a notice of proposed regulatory action by a state agency in the California Regulatory Notice Register shall not exceed one year [Government Code § 11346.4(b)].

It is suggested, therefore, that issues of the California Regulatory Notice Register be retained for a minimum of 18 months. CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER is published weekly by the Office of Administrative Law, 300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1250, Sacramento, CA 95814-4339. The Register is printed by Barclays, a subsidiary of West, a Thomson Reuters Business, and is offered by subscription for $205.00 (annual price). To order or make changes to current subscriptions, please call (800) 328−4880. The Register can also be accessed at https://oal.ca.gov .

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 48–Z 1545 PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS Information contained in this document is published as received from agencies and is not edited by Thomson Reuters. TITLE 2.

FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Fair Polit - ical Practices Commission, pursuant to the authority vested in it by Sections 82011, 87303, and 87304 of the Government Code to review proposed conflict–of– interest codes, will review the proposed/amended conflict–of–interest codes of the following: CONFLICT–OF–INTEREST CODES AMENDMENT MULTI–COUNTY: Central Sierra Child Support Agency STATE AGENCY: Office of State Treasurer A written comment period has been established commencing on December 1, 2023 and closing on Jan- uary 16, 2024.

Written comments should be directed to the Fair Political Practices Commission, Attention Daniel Vo, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sacramento, California 95811. At the end of the 45–day comment period, the pro - posed conflict–of–interest codes will be submitted to the Commission’s Executive Director for his review, unless any interested person or his or her duly autho - rized representative requests, no later than 15 days pri- or to the close of the written comment period, a public hearing before the full Commission.

If a public hear - ing is requested, the proposed codes will be submitted to the Commission for review. The Executive Director of the Commission will review the above–referenced conflict–of–interest codes, proposed pursuant to Government Code Sec - tion 87300, which designate, pursuant to Government Code

Section 87302, employees who must disclose certain investments, interests in real property and income. The Executive Director of the Commission, upon his or its own motion or at the request of any interested person, will approve, or revise and approve, or return the proposed codes to the agency for revision and re– submission within 60 days without further notice. Any interested person may present statements, ar - guments or comments, in writing to the Executive Director of the Commission, relative to review of the proposed conflict–of–interest codes.

Any written comments must be received no later than January 16, 2024. If a public hearing is to be held, oral comments may be presented to the Commission at the hearing. COST TO LOCAL AGENCIES There shall be no reimbursement for any new or in- creased costs to local government which may result from compliance with these codes because these are not new programs mandated on local agencies by the codes since the requirements described herein were mandated by the Political Reform Act of 1974. There- fore, they are not “costs mandated by the state” as de- fined in Government Code

Section 17514. EFFECT ON HOUSING COSTS AND BUSINESSES Compliance with the codes has no potential effect on housing costs or on private persons, businesses or small businesses. AUTHORITY Government Code Sections 82011, 87303 and 87304 provide that the Fair Political Practices Commission as the code–reviewing body for the above conflict–of– interest codes shall approve codes as submitted, revise the proposed code and approve it as revised, or return the proposed code for revision and re–submission.

REFERENCE Government Code Sections 87300 and 87306 pro - vide that agencies shall adopt and promulgate conflict– of–interest codes pursuant to the Political Reform Act and amend their codes when change is necessitated by changed circumstances. CONTACT Any inquiries concerning the proposed conflict– of–interest codes should be made to Daniel Vo, Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sacramento, California 95811, telephone (916) 323–9103.

AVAILABILITY OF PROPOSED CONFLICT–OF–INTEREST CODES Copies of the proposed conflict–of–interest codes may be obtained from the Commission offices or the respective agency. Requests for copies from the Com-

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 48–Z 1546 mission should be made to Daniel Vo, Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sac- ramento, California 95811, telephone (916) 323–9103. TITLE 2. CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT PROCEDURES OF COMMUNITY CONFLICT RESOLUTION The Civil Rights Department (“Department”) pro - poses to add sections 10300 et seq. to Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations in order to further im- plement Government Code sections 12931–12933 after considering all comments, objections, and recommen- dations regarding the proposed action. The Depart - ment further proposes to modify the title of

Chapter 1 of Division 4.1 of Title 2 of the Government Code to reflect the Department’s current name. PUBLIC HEARING The Department has not scheduled a public hear - ing on this matter. However, any interested person, or their authorized representative, may request, no later than 15 days prior to the close of the below comment period, a public hearing pursuant to Government Code

section 11346.8. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any interested person, or their authorized represen- tative, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action to the Department. The written comment period closes on Friday, January 19, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. The Department will consider only comments received by the end of that day. Writ - ten comments can be mailed to: Civil Rights Department Attention: Rachael Langston 555 12th Street — Suite 2050 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: 916–809–4371 Comments may also be submitted by email to rachael.langston@calcivilrights.ca.gov.

Although not required, comment submission via email is strongly preferred. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Government Code

section 12930(

e) authorizes the Department to adopt these proposed regulations. The proposed regulations implement, interpret, and make specific Government Code sections 12931 through 12933, as well as SB 189 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review,

Chapter 48, Statutes of 2022). INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW Current law authorizes the California Civil Rights Department (“Department”) to provide community conflict resolution assistance to communities experi - encing disputes, disagreements, or difficulties arising from discriminatory practices that impair the rights of persons therein and threaten peaceful community relations (Gov. Code sections 12931–12932).

In Fiscal Year 2022–2023, the Department received funding to establish a new Community Conflict Res - olution Unit to provide community conflict resolution conciliation assistance to eligible communities and persons. This rulemaking will adopt suitable proce - dural rules and regulations to carry out the Depart - ment’s community conflict resolution functions as well as other functions and duties of the Community Conflict Resolution Unit. The proposed regulations would also further imple - ment SB 189 (Chapter 48, Stats. 2021–2022) by up - dating references to the Department’s former name.

SB 189, in pertinent part, effectuated the Department’s name change from the “Department of Fair Employ - ment and Housing” to the “Civil Rights Department.” The Department has determined that the proposed amendments are not inconsistent or incompatible with existing regulations. After conducting a review for any regulations that would relate to or affect this area, the Department has concluded that these are the only regulations that concern the Department’s community conflict resolution procedures.

These proposed regulations will benefit communi - ties and persons by providing a low–cost means to re- solve conflict related to discrimination. DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACTION The Department has made the following initial determinations: Mandate on local agencies and school districts : No additional mandate beyond that imposed by exist - ing law. Cost or savings to any state agency : No addition- al costs or savings beyond those imposed by existing law. Cost to any local agency or school district, which must be reimbursed in accordance with Govern - ment Code sections 17500 through 17630: None.

Other nondiscretionary cost or savings imposed on local agencies: No additional costs or savings be - yond those imposed by existing law.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 48–Z 1547 Cost or savings in federal funding to the state : None. Cost impacts on a representative private person or businesses: No additional costs or savings beyond those imposed by existing law. Therefore, the agency is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action.

Results of the economic impact assessment/anal - ysis: The Department anticipates that the adoption of the regulations will not impact the creation or elimina- tion of jobs within the state, the creation of new busi - nesses or the elimination of existing businesses within the state, or the expansion of businesses currently do - ing business within the state. To the contrary, adoption of the proposed regulations is anticipated to benefit the health and welfare of California residents and commu- nities, providing a means to resolve disputes relating to civil rights violations that does not involve litigation.

The proposed regulations would also make it easier to understand respective rights and obligations as well as reduce litigation costs. These regulations would not affect worker safety or the state’s environment. Statewide adverse economic impact directly af - fecting businesses and individuals: The Department has made an initial determination that the proposed action will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses, in - cluding the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. Significant effect on housing costs: None.

Small Business Determination: The proposed reg- ulations may affect small businesses to the extent that they would provide guidance to small businesses that could benefit from the Department’s community con - flict resolution services. Business Report: The Department has determined that the proposed regulations do not require a report to be made. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES In accordance with Government Code

section 11346.5(a)(13), the Department must determine that no reasonable alternative it considered or that has other - wise been identified and brought to the Department’s attention would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which this 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 implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law.

The Department has thus far not become aware of a better alternative and invites interested persons to present statements or arguments with respect to alter - natives to the proposed regulations during the written comment period.

CONTACT PERSONS Inquiries concerning the proposed administrative action may be directed to: Rachael Langston, Assistant Chief Counsel Civil Rights Department 555 12th Street — Suite 2050 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (916) 478–7251 Email: rachael.langston@calcivilrights.ca.gov The backup contact person for these inquiries is: Adam Romero, Deputy Director Civil Rights Department 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 Elk Grove, CA 95758 Telephone: (916) 478–7251 Email: adam.romero@calcivilrights.ca.gov Please direct requests for copies of the proposed text (express terms) of the regulations, the Initial Statement of Reasons, any modified text of the proposed regula- tions, or other information upon which the rulemaking is based, should other sources be used in the future, to Rachael Langston at the above address.

AVAILABILITY OF STATEMENT OF REASONS, TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS, AND RULEMAKING FILE The Department will have the entire rulemaking file available for inspection and copying throughout the rulemaking process at its office at the above Oakland address. As of the date this notice is published in the Notice Register, the rulemaking file consists of this notice, the proposed text of the regulations, and the Initial Statement of Reasons. Copies may be obtained by contacting Rachael Langston at the address, email, or phone number listed above.

AVAILABILITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT After considering all timely and relevant comments received, the Department may adopt the proposed reg- ulations substantially as described in this notice. If the Department makes modifications that are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text, it will make the modified text (with the changes clearly indicated) available to the public for at least 15 days before the Department adopts the regulations as revised. Please send requests for copies of any modified regulations to the attention of Rachael Langston at the address,

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 48–Z 1548 email, or phone number listed above. The Department will accept written comments on the modified regula - tions for 15 days after the date on which they are made available. AVAILABILITY OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Upon its completion, the Final Statement of Rea - sons will be available on the Department’s website at https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/. Copies also may be obtained by contacting Rachael Langston at the address, email, or phone number listed.

AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS ON THE INTERNET Copies of the Notice of Proposed Action, the Initial Statement of Reasons, the text of the regulations, any modified texts, and the Final Statement of Reasons can be accessed through the Department’s website at https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/. TITLE 2. SECRETARY OF STATE SAFE AT HOME PROGRAM The Secretary of State Safe at Home Program (here- after referred to as Safe at Home) proposes to amend and adopt the proposed regulations described below after considering all comments, objections, and rec - ommendations regarding the proposed actions.

The Secretary of State intends to amend sections 22100 through 22101.5 of the California Code of Regulations. PUBLIC HEARING No hearing date scheduled. A public hearing will be held if any interested person, or their duly autho - rized representative, submits a written request for a public hearing to the contact person listed below no later than 15 days prior to the close of the written com- ment period. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any interested person, or their authorized represen- tative, may submit written comments about the pro - posed regulatory action to the Safe at Home Program administration.

The written comment period closes at 5:00 p.m. on January 16, 2024. The administration must receive all comments by that time. Submit com - ments to: Liz Hall, Program Director Safe at Home P.O. Box 846 Sacramento, CA 95812 Telephone 1–877–322–5227 Email: safeathome@sos.ca.gov AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Government Code sections 6209 and 6215.9 autho - rize the Secretary of State to amend and/or adopt these proposed regulations. The regulations implement, in - terpret, and make specific Government Code sections 6205 through 6210, and sections 6215 through 6216.

INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW This rulemaking action clarifies and makes specific the administrative requirements and activities of the Safe at Home Program. The passing of SB 1131, that was signed into law on September 26, 2022, added an entire new list of individuals eligible to participate in Safe at Home. This created a more urgent need to amend the current regulations to include these indi - viduals and provide guidance on responsibilities and procedures, both internally and externally. Most of the amendments and additions are made to incorporate the new bill into regulations.

Safe at Home is also us - ing this opportunity to clarify, organize, and correct procedures, code and form references, grammatical errors, and understanding. Government Code

section 6205 et seq. enables state and local agencies to respond to requests for public records without disclosing the changed name or loca - tion of a victim of domestic violence, stalking, sex - ual assault, human trafficking, and elder/dependent adult abuse, to enable interagency cooperation with the Secretary of State in providing name and address confidentiality for victims and their household mem - bers, and to enable state and local agencies to accept a program participant’s use of an address designated by the Secretary of State as a substitute mailing address.

Section 6215 et seq. enables a very similar program for reproductive healthcare service providers, employees, volunteers and patients, and other individuals who face threats or violence because of work for a public entity. The broad objective of the proposed rulemaking actions would clarify how basic services will be pro - vided for both programs and help specify how the ser- vices may differ between the two programs. Another key objective is to amend the regulations in a way that is best suited for Safe at Home, enrolling agencies, and program participants. With the program’s exponential growth over the last two years, some procedures have

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 48–Z 1549 been found to be infeasible, while others have been found to be burdensome to participants and/or enroll - ing agencies. An additional change throughout the regulations is the updated gender–neutral language. This is consistent with California’s legislative intent to update state laws and documents with gender–neutral terms.

The benefits anticipated from the regulation amendments are increased protection for participants, better interagency cooperation, more up to date and accurate advocacy through our enrolling agencies, continued growth, compliance with statutes, and the promotion of inclusion and diversity of all people. The Secretary of State has conducted a search and determined that these are the only regulations con - cerning the Safe at Home program. Therefore, the pro- posed regulations are not inconsistent or incompatible with existing state regulations.

Material Incorporated by Reference The following documents are incorporated by refer- ence into the proposed new regulations: Safe at Home Enrolling Agency Designation Agreement, revised 10/2023 Safe at Home Enrollment Application , revised 10/2023 Safe at Home Declaration Confirming Court Or - ders, revised 6/2019 Safe at Home Supplemental Guardianship/Con - servatorship, revised 6/2019 Safe at Home Notice of Renewal, revised 10/2023 Safe at Home Confidential Notice of Intent of Name Change Form, revised 10/2023 DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACTION Safe at Home has made the following initial determinations: Cost or savings to any state agency: Safe at Home anticipates negligible, if any, cost or savings to any state agency will result from these new or amended regulations.

Additionally, some state agencies who have a bona fide need to know the residential address of a participant to provide services may incur costs associated with the process Safe at Home has created for determining whether or not that agency receives an exemption pursuant to Government Code

section 6207(a). Mandate on local agencies and school districts: None. Costs to any local agency or school district which must be reimbursed in accordance with Government Code sections 17500 through 17630: None. Other nondiscretionary costs or savings imposed on local agencies: None. Costs or savings in federal funding to the state: None. Cost impacts on a representative private person or business: The Secretary of State is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable com - pliance with the proposed action.

Business Impact: The proposed regulations will not have a significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. Significant effect on housing costs: None.

Results of the Economic Impact Analysis/Assessment The Board concludes that it is 1) unlikely that the amendments will eliminate any jobs, 2) possible that the amendments will create an unknown number of jobs for enrolling agencies and/or Safe at Home staff, 3) unlikely that the amendments will create new busi - nesses, and 4) unlikely that the amendments will elim- inate any existing businesses. The proposed regulations are not expected to affect worker safety or the state’s environment.

Safe at Home has determined the proposed regula - tion does not affect small businesses because the pro - gram does not require anything from private entities generally. Benefits of the Proposed Action: The regu - lations may benefit the public of California by giving people more explanation about the services provided by Safe at Home and how, specifically, to obtain those services as a participant resulting in increased safety in the community.

There will be benefits to agencies and organizations that want to become designated Safe at Home Enrolling Agencies because it will be clear how to become an Enrolling Agency. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES In accordance with Government Code

section 11346.5, subdivision (a)(13), Safe at Home must deter- mine that no reasonable alternative it considered to the regulations or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the agency would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the ac- tion is proposed or would be as effective and less bur- densome to affected private persons than the proposed action or would be more cost–effective to affected pri- vate persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law. Any interested person may present statements or ar- guments relevant to the above determinations during the written comment period.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 48–Z 1550 CONTACT PERSON Inquiries concerning the proposed administrative action may be directed to: Liz Hall, Program Director Safe at Home Administration P.O. Box 846 Sacramento, CA 95812 1–877–322–5227 Or to: safeathome@sos.ca.gov The backup contact person for these inquiries is: Alicia Morales, Analyst Safe at Home Administration P.O.

Box 846 Sacramento, CA 95812 1–877–322–5227 Or to: safeathome@sos.ca.gov Please direct requests for copies of the proposed text (the “express terms”) of the regulations, the ini - tial statement of reasons, the modified text of the regulations, if any, or other information upon which the rulemaking is based to Ms. Morales at the above address. AVAILABILITY OF STATEMENT OF REASONS, TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS, AND RULEMAKING FILE Safe at Home will have the entire rulemaking file available for inspection and copying throughout the rulemaking process at its office at the above address.

As of the date this notice is published in the Notice of Register, the rulemaking file consists of this Notice of Proposed Action, the proposed Express Terms of the new and amended regulations, the Initial Statement of Reasons, Form 399 (Economic Impact Statement) and Form 400 (Notice Publication/Regulation Sub - mission). Copies may be obtained by contacting Ms. Morales at the address or phone number listed above. AVAILABILITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT After considering all timely and relevant comments received, Safe at Home may adopt the proposed regu- lations substantially as described in this notice.

If the administration makes modifications which are suffi - ciently related to the originally proposed text, it will make the modified text (with the changes clearly indi- cated) available to the public for at least 15 days before the administration adopts the regulations as revised. Please send requests for copies of any modified regu - lations to the attention of Alicia Morales at the address indicated above. The administration will accept writ - ten comments on the modified regulations for 15 days after the date on which they are made available.

AVAILABILITY OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Upon its completion, copies of the Final Statement of Reasons may be obtained by contacting Ms. Mo - rales at the above address. AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS ON THE INTERNET Copies of the Notice of Proposed Action, the Initial Statement of Reasons, and the text of the regulations in underline and strikeout can be accessed through our website at https://www.sos.ca.gov/registries/ safe–home/governing–laws. TITLE 8.

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS BOARD CONSTRUCTION SAFETY ORDERS SECTIONS 1671.1, 1716.2, 1730 AND 1731 FALL PROTECTION IN RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Occupation- al Safety and Health Standards Board (Board) propos- es to adopt, amend or repeal the foregoing provisions of title 8 of the California Code of Regulations in the manner described in the Informative Digest, below.

PUBLIC HEARING The Board will hold a public hearing starting at 10:00 a.m. on January 18, 2024 in the East The - ater of the California State Railroad Museum, 111 I Street, Sacramento, California as well as via the following. ● Video–conference at www.webex.com (meeting ID 1469 63 6425) ● Teleconference at (844) 992–4726 (Access code 1469 63 6425) ● Live video stream and audio stream (English and Spanish) at https://videobookcase.com/california/ oshsb/ At this public hearing, any person may present state- ments or arguments orally or in writing relevant to the proposed action described in the Informative Digest.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 48–Z 1551 WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD In addition to written or oral comments submitted at the public hearing, written comments may also be submitted to the Board’s office. The written comment period commences on December 1, 2023 and closes at 5:00 p.m. on January 18, 2024. Comments received after that deadline will not be considered by the Board unless the Board announces an extension of time in which to submit written comments.

Written com - ments are to be submitted as follows: By mail to Sarah Money, Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 350, Sacramento, CA 95833, or by email sent to oshsb@dir.ca.gov. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Labor Code

section 142.3 establishes the Board as the only agency in the State authorized to adopt oc - cupational safety and health standards. In addition, Labor Code

section 142.3 requires the adoption of occupational and health standards that are at least as effective as federal occupational safety and health standards. INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW Federal Occupational Safety and Health Adminis - tration (Fed–OSHA) fall protection requirements for the construction industry are set forth in subpart M of title 29 Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR)

part 1926 published on August 9, 1994. Fed–OSHA resi - dential fall protection standards are contained in sub - part M at 29 CFR

section 1926.501(b)(13) and require fall protection (usually conventional fall protection, i.e. guardrail systems, safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems, fall restraint and fall positioning systems) for work six feet or more above lower lev - els, except where employers can demonstrate that such fall protection systems are infeasible or would create a greater hazard. The comparable California standard contained in Construction Safety Orders (CSO) sec - tion 1716.2 establishes a fall protection trigger height at 15 feet for residential and light commercial framing.

Title 8 residential roofing standards specify trigger heights varying from zero to 20 feet depending on the type and slope of the roof. After Fed–OSHA promulgated subpart M in 1994, representatives of the residential construction industry argued that they needed more compliance flexibility than the standard allowed. As a result, Fed–OSHA is - sued Standard Instruction 3.1 1 on December 8, 1995, which established an interim compliance policy that permitted employers engaged in certain residential construction activities to use specified alternative pro- cedures instead of conventional fall protection.

These alternative procedures could be used without a prior showing of infeasibility or greater hazard and with - out a written, site specific fall protection plan. On June 18, 1999, Fed–OSHA issued Standards Directive (STD) 3–0.1A 2, re–designated as STD 03–00–001 a plain language replacement for Standard Instruction 3.1.

California did not adopt either of the Fed–OSHA directives and continued to enforce its established res- idential framing and roofing industry fall protection standards which emphasized the use of positive fall protection means, albeit at higher trigger heights than Fed–OSHA, together with employee training. On December 16, 2010, Fed–OSHA published an - other instruction designated STD 03–11–002 3 which rescinded STD 03–00–001. In this new compliance guidance, employers engaged in residential construc - tion must comply with 29 CFR

section 1926.501(b)(13) requiring workers engaged in residential construction six feet or more above lower levels to be protected from falls by conventional fall protection. The new guidance also stipulated that if employers are able to demonstrate that the use of such measures is infeasi - ble or presents a greater hazard, they may implement a written, site–specific fall protection plan. As a re - sult of the December 16, 2010 compliance guidance, Fed–OSHA began the process of reviewing all corre - sponding state plan standards, policies and procedures covering fall protection in residential construction.

This process was performed to ensure that state plan residential fall protection standards conformed to their counterpart Fed–OSHA construction fall protection standards. In a letter to the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) dated May 28, 2013 4, Fed– OSHA expressed concern over the non–conformity of California’s residential fall protection standards with those of Fed–OSHA and asserted that California’s 15 foot trigger heights for residential construction, and 1 Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Fed– OSHA).

Interim Fall Protection Compliance Guidelines for Residential Construction. https://www.osha.gov/enforcement/ directives/std–31. 2 Fed–OSHA. Plain Language Revision of OSHA Instruction STD 3.1, Interim Fall Protection Compliance Guidelines for Residential Construction. https://www.osha.gov/enforcement/ directives/std–03–00–001 . 3 Fed–OSHA.

Compliance Guidance for Residential Construc - tion. https://www.osha.gov/enforcement/directives/std–03–11– 002. 4 Letter from Fed–OSHA to Cal/OSHA Chief, dated May 28, 2013. https://www.dir.ca.gov/oshsb/documents/Federal–Fall– Protection–Trigger–Heights–for–Residential–Construction– AC–Letter–5–28–13.pdf .

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 48–Z 1552 varying trigger heights for residential roofing opera - tions, did not provide California workers with protec - tion from falls equal to that provided by Fed–OSHA standards specifying a six foot trigger height. Hence the necessity for California to lower its residential construction fall protection trigger height from their present trigger heights to six feet.

In response to Fed–OSHA concerns, the Board staff convened an advisory committee meeting on Novem - ber 3 and 4, 2015, to discuss California versus Fed– OSHA residential fall protections standards in terms of their effectiveness and the necessity to address any issues that may merit amendments to title 8 residential fall protection standards. Findings from this meeting were presented to the Board at their January 21, 2016 Business meeting in Costa Mesa, California.

At that time the Board concluded that action to address the trigger height issue in residential construction was needed and directed staff to “…treat as high priori - ty and work expeditiously with stakeholder involve - ment, to assure California’s regulatory compliance with Federal construction industry fall protection standards.” In response to the Board’s directive, Board staff convened an advisory committee on April 11, 2016, which reached consensus with Cal/OSHA and Fed– OSHA participation on proposed amendments to CSO sections 1671.1, 1716.2, 1730 and 1731.

This rulemak- ing proposal reflects the committee’s consensus and addresses the central issue, consisting of a reduction in the fall protection trigger heights for residential construction and residential roofing from their pres - ent trigger heights to six feet consistent with the Fed– OSHA standard. The proposal also addresses new and amended residential framing and roofing defini - tions and a reorganization/clarification of the roofing standards with regard to roof slope and required fall protection.

The proposal expands its scope to include custom home construction as well as production style housing, roofing and re–roofing operations. Further - more, the proposal addresses Fed–OSHA ’s concern over the non–conformity of California’s residential fall protection plan, namely that it should clarify to employers that they must be able to demonstrate that the use of conventional fall protection measures is infeasible or presents a greater hazard, before imple - menting a site–specific fall protection plan. The Board evaluated the proposed regulations pur - suant to Government Code

section 11346.5(a)(3)(

D) and has determined that the regulations are not in - consistent or incompatible with existing state regula - tions. This proposal is part of a system of occupation - al safety and health regulations. The consistency and compatibility of that system’s component regulations is provided by such things as: (1) the requirement of the federal government and the Labor Code that the State regulations be at least as effective as their federal counterparts, and (2) the requirement that all state oc - cupational safety and health rulemaking be channeled through a single entity (the Board).

The Board has evaluated the comparable federal - ly–mandated standards [Federal Register, Volume 59, Number 152, beginning on page 40,672, Safety Stan - dards for Fall Protection in the Construction Industry, August 9, 1994] and has found no substantial differ - ence from existing federal rules (See California Gov - ernment Code 11346.5(a)(3)(D)). Anticipated Benefits ● California will continue to meet its statutory obli- gation set forth in Labor Code

section 142.3(a)(2) to adopt standards that are at least as effective as those promulgated by Fed–OSHA for all occupa- tional safety and health issues addressed by Fed– OSHA standards. ● The Cal/OSHA program will avoid the possibil - ity of Fed–OSHA imposing concurrent jurisdic - tion and enforcing the Federal standard upon Cal- ifornia employers, thus creating regulatory and enforcement liability confusion. ● This proposal is expected to generate both ben - efits in terms of improved worker safety, as well as benefits for residential roofing and framing contractors.

The benefits of the proposed regu - lation are the reduction in fatalities and injuries at heights below the current trigger height and above the proposed six foot trigger height.

Roof - ing and framing workers would be the primary beneficiaries of this proposed regulatory change. ● A safer residential construction workplace con - tributes to improved worker health, morale, and may increase productivity. ● The proposed amendments are also anticipated to provide benefits to businesses by a reduction in accident/fatality rates as well as a reduction in health care expenditures and lower workers’ compensation (WC) rates. ● Incentives to innovate new products, materials or processes could help businesses find more inno - vative ways to meet the standards at lower costs, thus slightly reshaping how framing and roofing activities under 15 feet are conducted.

The specific changes are as follows:

Section 1671.1. Fall Protection Plan. This

section contains requirements which pertain to the development and administration of fall protection plans at construction jobsites. Subsection (

a) is essen - tially a scope and application subsection and explains the circumstances when a fall protection plan may be used in lieu of conventional fall protection methods. Amendments are proposed to clarify, consistent with Fed–OSHA standards, when a fall protection plan

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 48–Z 1553 may be used; and make clear that the employer has to demonstrate that the use of conventional fall protec - tion systems is infeasible as opposed to impractical as currently worded. This is necessary to address Fed– OSHA ’s concern and ensure that

section 1671.1 will be commensurate with the Fed–OSHA standard, as required by Labor Code

section 142.3. In addition, an informative Note is proposed, which is verbatim of Fed–OSHA fall protection plan lan - guage 5, to clarify that the employer has the burden of establishing that conventional fall protection methods are not feasible or create a greater hazard, prior to implementing a fall protection plan. These proposed amendments will ensure complete protection for em - ployees engaged in construction activities and render California standards commensurate with those of Fed–OSHA. The proposal follows the existing title 8, CSO for - mat and organization as far as how the State’s fall pro- tection standards are displayed. Residential framing is contained within

section 1716.2 and residential roofing standards are contained within sections 1730 and 1731. The most profound amendments in this proposal are the elimination of the 15 and 20 foot residential con - struction fall protection trigger heights in favor of the federal six foot trigger height.

Section 1716.2. W ood and Light Gage Steel Frame Construction, Residential/Light Commercial. This existing

section addresses standards pertain - ing to the framing of residential and light commercial structures which include but are not limited to: scope and application,

definitions, construction methods during various stages of construction such as raising walls, stabilization of structures, working on floors and walking/working surfaces and the use of fall pro - tection at elevations 15 feet above the level below. Amendments are proposed to change the

section title to delete the words “Residential/Light Commercial” at the end of the title for replacement by the words “Res- idential–type Framing Activities” at the beginning of the title consistent with the amended content of

section 1716.2. An editorial amendment is proposed for subsection (

a) adding the words “and light commercial” to the scope and application, consistent with the intent and content of

section 1716.2. The proposed amendments will aid the regulated public in understanding that this standard also applies to framing activities asso - ciated with light commercial structures. Light com - mercial framing involves wood frame construction 5 Federal Register, Volume 59, Issue Number 152, Tuesday, Au- gust 9, 1994, Safety Standards for Fall Protection in the Construc- tion Industry (120 pages). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR–1994–08–09/html/94–19000.htm . materials and methods identical to residential–type construction.

Further amendments are proposed to the definition of residential–type framing activities in subsection (b)(7) to add Fed–OSHA language from STD 03– 11–002 defining residential–type construction in terms of the use of structural steel and clarifying that residential–type framing activities include commer - cial structures that use wood frame construction mate- rials and methods The definition will aid the regulated public in understanding the scope of the regulation and will ensure clarity and consistency with Fed–OSHA residential construction enforcement policy.

It is also proposed to delete subsection (b)(10) which defines slide guards, as the use of such devices as a means of fall protection is not permitted by Fed– OSHA standards. Additionally, it is proposed to re - number the remaining

Definitions subsections for title 8 format consistency. The former proposed change will ensure California’s framing standards are com - mensurate with comparable federal standards and the latter is editorial in nature. Amendments are proposed for subsection (e)(1) with regard to lowering the fall protection trigger height from 15 feet to six feet for employees working on top plate, joists and roof structure during framing.

The proposed amendment will require employers to provide positive fall protection when employees work above the lower, six foot, trigger height, consistent with what is required by Fed–OSHA in 29 CFR sec - tion 1926.501(b)(13). In addition, amendments are proposed to list each type of permissible fall protec - tion method to help employers understand what is ex - plicitly required, yet give employer choices on how to ensure compliance.

Additional language is proposed to clarify to the employer that the use of fall protec - tion plans is permitted only when the employer has demonstrated that the use of conventional fall protec - tion methods is infeasible. It is proposed to remove the phrase that cites CSO

article 24, to address Fed– OSHA ’s concern of referencing less protective fall pro- tection measures. These proposed amendments will ensure complete protection for employees engaged in residential framing and render California standards commensurate with those of Fed–OSHA. Amendments are proposed to delete subsection (

A) of the exception to (e)(1) pertaining to walking/ working on joists, rafters or roof trusses, to address Fed–OSHA ’s concern and to ensure that the use of conventional fall protection methods will be explicit - ly required. The deletion of this exception will ensure California’s framing standards are commensurate with Fed–OSHA standards and the requirement to use fall protection. Further amendments are proposed to delete subsec - tion (

B) of the exception to (e)(1) pertaining to joists

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 48–Z 1554 laid upon top plates, to address Fed–OSHA ’s concern and to ensure that the use of conventional fall protec - tion methods will be explicitly required. The deletion of this exception will ensure California’s framing standards are commensurate with federal standards and the requirement to use fall protection. Amendments are proposed for subsection (

f) to low- er the fall protection trigger height from 15 feet to six feet for floor work and other walking surfaces to en - sure California fall protection standards conform to counterpart federal residential construction language. The proposed amendment will require the employer to implement a method of positive fall protection at a reduced working elevation. Amendments are also pro- posed to relocate the phrase “the surrounding grade or floor level below” earlier in the subsection for clar- ity.

In addition, amendments are proposed to list each type of conventional fall protection method to help employers understand what is explicitly required, yet give employers choices on how to ensure compliance. Additional language is proposed to clarify to the em - ployer that the use of fall protection plans is permitted only when the employer has demonstrated that the use of conventional fall protection methods is infeasible. It is proposed to remove the phrase that cites CSO

article 24, to address Fed–OSHA ’s concern of refer - encing less protective fall protection measures. These proposed amendments will ensure complete protec - tion for employees engaged in residential framing and render California standards commensurate with those of Fed–OSHA. A new subsection is proposed to be added follow - ing subsection (

f) to clarify to the employer that fall protection requirements for work around floor, roof or wall openings are found in CSO

section 1632. Pro - posed subsection (f)(1) will aid the regulated public in understanding that employees need to be protected against falls from temporary floor and roof openings and will ensure that the employer knows which types of fall protection measures must be utilized. This pro- posed change is to provide consistency with existing title 8 regulations.

Amendments are proposed for subsection (g)(1) pertaining to work on starter board, roof sheathing and fascia board, to clarify to the employer that the employees are to be protected at all times from falls to the surrounding grade or level below when work - ing at elevations above six feet. In addition, amend - ments are proposed to list each type of conventional fall protection method to help employers understand what is explicitly required, yet give employers choices on how to ensure compliance.

Additional language is proposed to clarify to the employer that the use of fall protection plans is permitted only when the employ - er has demonstrated that the use of conventional fall protection methods is infeasible. It is also proposed to remove the phrase that cites CSO

article 24, to address Fed–OSHA ’s concern of referencing less protective fall protection measures. These proposed amend - ments will ensure complete protection for employees engaged in residential framing and render California standards commensurate with those of Fed–OSHA. Further amendments are proposed to delete sub -

section (g)(1)(

A) relating to a 15 foot trigger height, (g) (1) (

B) which refers to sloped roofs greater than 7:12, and an exception to (g)(1)(

B) which permits the use of slide guards in lieu of fall protection. These proposed deletions will ensure complete protection for employees engaged in residential framing and ren- der California standards commensurate with those of Fed–OSHA. These proposed modifications will also ensure consistency with the other changes proposed in these amendments associated with the trigger height, roofing and the use of slide guards. It is also proposed to delete subsection (g)(2) as this is not a conventional means of fall protection and is therefore not commensurate with Fed–OSHA stan - dards.

This deletion will ensure California’s framing standards are commensurate with Fed–OSHA stan - dards and the requirement to use fall protection. Existing subsection (g)(3) is editorially renumbered as (g)(2) consistent with title 8 format. Additional re - visions are proposed to add language in the new (g)(2) to address the requirement to use conventional means of fall protection to protect employees working at six feet or more above the surrounding grade or floor level below, and to list each type of conventional fall protec- tion method allowed.

Additional amendments are pro- posed to clarify to the employer that the use of fall pro- tection plans is permitted only when the employer has demonstrated that the use of conventional methods is infeasible. It is also proposed to remove the phrase that cites CSO

article 24, to address Fed–OSHA ’s concern of referencing less protective fall protection measures. These proposed amendments will ensure complete protection for employees engaged in residential fram - ing and render California standards commensurate with those of Fed–OSHA. The exception to existing (g)(3) is proposed to be deleted as it is inconsistent with federal residential fall protection standards which do not contain such an ex- ception.

California proposes to not allow employers to bypass residential fall protection requirements for employees working at or above six feet by use of the short duration exception. This deletion will ensure California’s framing standards are commensurate with Fed–OSHA standards and the requirement to use fall protection. Amendments are proposed for subsection (

i) which contains requirements for the use of scaffolds during residential–type construction. Subsection (i)(2) per - tains to the use of scaffolds and permits the omission

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 48–Z 1555 of the interior railing when the scaffold is placed next to a wall (on the wall side of the scaffold) to install joists, rafters or trusses under certain specified condi - tions relating to scaffold platforms that are 15 feet or less from the interior floor below. It is proposed that the 15 foot trigger height be changed to six feet.

The proposed amendment will avert confusion and ensure that subsection (i)(2) is consistent with the rest of sec- tion 1716.2 which is proposed to be based upon a six foot fall protection trigger height rather than 15 feet. The proposed amendments will also ensure that em - ployees are protected from a fall whenever they work at elevations at six feet or higher.

Section 1730. Roof Hazards. This

section contains standards that address roof hazards associated with the roofing and non–residen - tial structures which include but are not limited to: fall protection methods as a function of roof slope and the hazards associated with the use of equipment on the roof. Subsection (

a) refers the employer to sections 1509 and 1510, regarding accident and injury prevention. A sentence for (

a) is added to inform the employer that

section 1730 does not apply to residential–type roof - ing activities defined in

section 1731. This amendment will clarify and differentiate to the employer the scope and application of the two title 8 roofing safety orders; one commercial, one residential. Further amendments are proposed to convert the Note found after subsection (f), which determines how the employee’s working measurement is to be taken, into a new subsection (g). This proposed revision makes clear to employers how the employee’s height working measurement is to be taken, and deletes the words “lowest edge of the roof or eaves”, which could cause misunderstandings.

The proposed amendments are necessary to clarify to the employer how this crit - ical measurement is to be taken, and fall protection is to be implemented, consistent with the comparable Fed–OSHA standard. It is also proposed to delete the exception to

section 1730, which follows revised subsection (g), since this clarification has been incorporated into the proposed amendments of subsection (a). This deletion will en - sure consistency with other amendments in this pro - posal and compliance with Fed–OSHA fall protection standards.

Section 1731. Roof Hazards — New Production– Type Residential Construction. This

section contains safety standards addressing hazards associated with residential construction. To be consistent with the proposed amendments described below which would address both new residential and existing residential roofing operations, it is proposed that the

section title be reworded to simply read: “Res- idential–type Roofing Activities” for consistency with the

section 1716.1 title which refers to residential–type framing activities. Subsection (

a) pertains to Scope and Application. Subsection (a)(1) applies to work on new production– type residential construction with roof slopes 3:12 or greater. Amendments are proposed to reword existing subsection (a)(1) to read that it pertains to residen - tial–type roofing activities regardless of roof slope and whether it is new production type residential con- struction. Amendments are also proposed to delete subsection (a)(1) and make the proposed text part of subsection (a).

The proposed amendment is necessary to ensure the California standard conforms with the Fed–OSHA standard which pertains to all types of residential roofing operations: new, existing and re - gardless of roof slope. It is further proposed to delete existing subsection (a)(2), which states that “this

section does not apply to custom–built homes, re–roofing operations, roofing replacements or additions on existing dwelling units”, since the comparable Fed–OSHA standards have no such limitations. The proposed amendments will en - sure that the California standard conforms to Fed– OSHA standards. The Note following existing subsection (a)(2) is also proposed for deletion to ensure employers are clear about the amended scope applying to all forms of res- idential roofing activities without regard to slope as the amended

section 1731 standards would apply to all residential roofing activities. Subsection (

b) Definitions. Existing subsection (

b) contains six

definitions for terms used in

section 1731. The

definitions for “cus - tom–built home”, “eaves”, “production–type residen - tial construction”, and “roof work” are proposed to be deleted. Deletion of the terms custom–built home and production–type residential construction are neces - sary to ensure that it is clear to the employer that the amended

section 1731 applies to all types of residen - tial construction activities. The definition of “eaves” is proposed to be deleted since the term is no longer used in this section. The definition of “roof work” is proposed to be deleted but consolidated under the new proposed definition of “residential–type roofing activ- ities” a new term proposed for subsection (

b) which defines roofing and re–roofing work for various types of residential habitation as well as the other structures called out in

section 1716.2. The proposed definition includes various other residential roofing operations including, but not limited to, loading and installation of roofing materials. These proposed amendments will ensure that California’s residential roofing standards are inclusive and hence commensurate with the com - parable Fed–OSHA standard.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 48–Z 1556 Subsection (

c) Fall protection for roofing work. Existing subsection (

c) contains standards segre - gated into two subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2) that are designed to prevent falls from heights during roofing activities. They are based upon the slope (steepness) of the roof and the working elevation above the grade or level below. The slope of the roof determines the actions employers are to take to protect their employ - ees from a fall when they work at elevations above 15 feet which include, but are not limited to: personal fall protection, guardrails and scaffolds.

Amendments are proposed to create a new subsection (c)(1) to address protecting employees against falling from roofs with slopes 0:12 up to and including 7:12, and reduce the trigger height to when the employee fall distance is six feet or more above the grade or level below. In ad- dition, amendments are proposed to list each type of conventional fall protection method to help employers understand what is explicitly required, yet give em - ployers choices on how to ensure compliance.

Addi - tional language is proposed to clarify to the employer that the use of fall protection plans is permitted only when the employer has demonstrated that the use of conventional methods is infeasible. These proposed amendments will ensure complete protection for em - ployees engaged in residential roofing activities and render California standards commensurate with those of Fed–OSHA. Further amendments are proposed to delete exist - ing subsection (c)(1)(

A) through (c)(1)(

F) pertaining to the types of fall protection to be used according to a roof slope greater than 3:12, which is no longer needed given the proposed amendments to subsection (c)(1) which addresses fall protection and roof slopes from 0:12 to 7:12 (inclusive of 3:12). These proposed amendments will improve clarity and ensure title 8 residential roofing standards are commensurate with Fed–OSHA standards in terms of the use of conven - tional fall protection and fall protection plans. Subsection (c)(2) addresses roof slopes greater than 7:12.

Amendments are proposed to replace the term “steeper” with “greater”, and clarify that this para - graph addresses roof slopes greater than 7:12. Further amendments are proposed to clarify that personal fall protection is to be used as prescribed in subsection (c)(1) regardless of height (essentially a zero trigger height). These proposed amendments will continue to per - mit the employer selective discretion as far as which fall protection method(

s) to use per their site and con- struction circumstances, thereby ensuring that the most effective method is utilized or combination of methods to prevent employee falls. Reorganizing the slope ranges into two distinct groups conforms to the recommendation of the advisory committee and will simplify the proposed standard by aiding the employer in recognizing when and what types of fall protection actions need to be taken according to their situation and provide conformity with Fed–OSHA standards. Subsection (e). Amendments are proposed to add a new subsection (

e) following subsection (d), which explains and clar - ifies to the employer how the roof–to–ground mea - surement is to be taken. These proposed amendments will also clarify that the height of parapets shall not be included in the roof height measurement. These proposed amendments will aid the regulated public in understanding how this critical measurement is to be taken and how fall protection is to be implement - ed, consistent with California standards, proposed amendments in

section 1730, and comparable Fed– OSHA standards. DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACTION Mandate on Local Agencies or School Districts: None. Cost or Savings to State Agencies: None. The proposed regulations are not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on state and local govern - ments. However, there are several areas where minor fiscal impacts could occur. For example, state and local governments both own and develop property for ad - ministrative use.

If any new properties are constructed that meet the definition of residential construction in the proposed regulation, then the framing and roof - ing costs of such projects would increase by the in - cremental amount outlined in the direct cost section. This could apply to any single–story residences con - structed by state and local governments, or the first– story of any multi–story residential dwellings.

Data was not available to complete a detailed quantitative assessment of these impacts; however, after consulta - tion with the Department of General Services (DGS), there are not expected to be many units built by the State that would be subject to the lower trigger height. Cost to any Local Government or School District which must be Reimbursed in Accordance with Gov- ernment Code Sections 17500 through 17630: None. Other Nondiscretionary Cost or Savings Imposed on Local Agencies: None. The proposed regulations are not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on local agencies.

Cost or Savings in Federal Funding to the State: None. Cost Impacts on a Representative Private Person or Business: The proposed amendments are expected to primari - ly affect residential framing operations (North Amer - ica Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 238130), and roofing/re–roofing operations (NAICS

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 48–Z 1557 code 238160) in California. These businesses will be required to provide fall protection to all employees working at heights greater than six feet above the sur- rounding level, in conformance with Fed–OSHA ’s res- idential construction regulations. The current Califor - nia standards require fall protection only for heights of 15 feet and above.

The additional compliance costs are the incremental costs necessary to provide workers additional fall safe- ty protections, including the costs of harness systems, scaffolding, and fall protection plans. These costs are expected to ultimately be passed along to consumers, and roofing and framing businesses are likely to raise their prices for services marginally. The California legislature defines small business - es as businesses that have fewer than 100 employees, are not dominant in their field, and are independently owned and operated.

Both of the roofing and fram - ing businesses are predominately comprised of small businesses. According to U.S. Census Bureau data, in 2015 95.3% of framing contractors and 99.1% of roofing contractors, respectively, had fewer than 100 employees. This suggests that small businesses will bear nearly all of the compliance costs of the proposed regulation. Direct compliance costs identified in the 2019 SRIA were revised to account for inflation (using the De - partment of Finance (DOF) Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI–

U) forecast and long term projections values) and are estimated to be on average $84 million per year for 2023 and $104 million per year for 2030. Compliance costs for residential fram - ers are expected to range from $54–$66 million per year. Compliance costs for residential roofers are ex - pected to range from $30.5–$38 million per year. Direct benefits for workers in residential framing and roofing are estimated to total approximately $84 million per year once these amendments are fully im - plemented.

Avoided mortality is expected to account for 39% of these benefits ($32.6 million) and avoided injuries account for 61% of the benefits ($51.2 million). Roofing and framing workers would be the primary beneficiaries of this proposed regulatory change. The Board also expects that the proposed amend - ments will provide benefits to businesses by a reduc - tion in accident/fatality rates, a reduction in health care expenditures and lower WC rates.

While there are no direct impacts on housing costs expected, there is a potential for indirect impacts to the extent that developers choose to pass on compli - ance costs to their customers.

If developers pass on all costs to their customers, the impact would be the equivalent of about $536 per housing unit, or 0.1% of the July 2023 median home sales price of $832,340. 6 Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Directly Affecting Businesses and Individuals: Including the Ability of California Businesses to Compete: The proposed amendments will require that busi - nesses engaged in residential roofing and framing ac - tivities provide fall protection to all employees work - ing at heights of six feet or greater, in conformance with Fed–OSHA ’s residential construction regula - tions.

The proposed amendments are based on per - formance standards rather than prescriptive standards and California Labor Code

section 142.3 requires Cal- ifornia occupational safety and health regulations to be at least as effective as Fed–OSHA standards. The current California standards require fall protection for heights of 15 feet and above, thus, the Board has deter- mined that this proposal will not result in a significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses and individuals. The Board does not anticipate that California busi - nesses will be at a competitive disadvantage with framing or roofing businesses outside of the state, be - cause the six feet trigger height is based on existing Fed–OSHA performance standards and California Labor Code

section 142.3 requires California occupa- tional safety and health regulations to be at least as ef- fective as Fed–OSHA standards. Likewise, companies seeking to do business in California are likely to incur, on average, identical costs. Significant Effect on Housing Costs: The compliance costs discussed in the 2019 SRIA are the incremental costs of compliance for roofing and framing activities conducted at heights between six feet and 15 feet, and will primarily affect single– story residential housing units, since work done at heights 15 feet and above are already covered under the current California rules.

These incremental costs include the costs of harness systems, scaffolding, and fall protection plans. The 2019 SRIA analysis assumed that complying with the lower trigger height would result in an ad - ditional compliance cost for providing scaffolding for re–roofing projects to be on average $320 per dwell - ing. For roofing projects, the 2019 SRIA estimated an incremental unit cost for providing fall protection with scaffolding systems to be on average of $500 per unit/ dwelling.

The average incremental cost for providing scaffolding for framers working on single–story, sin - gle–family units is $1,176 per unit. For the first story of multi–story, single–family units, the incremental cost is on average $1,279 per unit. The incremental cost of providing scaffolding for multi–family homes 6 Source: California Association of Realtors (July 2023 median home sales price).

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 48–Z 1558 is expected to be approximately $125 per unit. This cost is considerably lower because of the higher dwell- ing density and the lower number of exterior walls that require framing. While there are no direct impacts on housing costs expected, there is a potential for indirect impacts to the extent that developers choose to pass on compli - ance costs to their customers. If developers pass on all costs to their customers, the impact would be the equivalent of about $536 per housing unit, or 0.1% of the July 2023 median home sales price of $832,340.

SMALL BUSINESS DETERMINATION The Board has determined that the proposed amend- ments may affect small businesses, primarily indepen- dent residential framers and roofers, and there will be a cost impact attributable to the reduction in fall pro - tection trigger heights from their present thresholds. Direct compliance costs identified in the 2019 SRIA were revised to account for inflation (using CPI–U forecast and long term projection values) and are esti- mated to be on average $84 million per year for 2023 and $104 million per year for 2030.

Compliance costs for residential framers are expected to range from $54– $66 million per year. Compliance costs for residential roofers are expected to range from $30.5–$38 million per year. Costs vary primarily due to differences in assumed growth rates of the residential construction sector. These slight adverse economic impacts assume that the incremental fall protection costs in residential construction are passed along to consumers and thus raise the prices of framing and roofing operation ser - vices marginally.

The proposed amendments are also anticipated to provide benefits to businesses by a reduction in acci - dent/fatality rates as well as a reduction in health care expenditures and lower WC rates. RESULTS OF THE STANDARDIZED REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS (SRIA) California Labor Code

section 142.3 requires Cal - ifornia occupational safety and health regulations to be at least as effective as Fed–OSHA standards. The Board is proposing to amend fall protection rules for residential construction activities. The proposed changes would lower the height at which fall protec - tion is required for residential framing from 15 feet to six feet and for residential roofing from 15 feet to six feet to conform to Fed–OSHA ’s six foot trigger height for residential construction.

The 2019 SRIA conducted by Berkeley Econom - ic Advising and Research (BEAR) LLC provides an economic analysis of the Board’s proposed revisions to the residential framing and roofing fall protection standards. The analysis identifies the affected indus - tries, potential direct compliance costs for each indus- try, and expected direct benefits from improved work- er safety. The proposed regulation is expected to primarily affect businesses and employees in two industries: res- idential framing and residential roofing.

Under current regulations, for most residential framing and roofing activities, employees working on a single–story dwell- ing, or the first story of a multi–story dwelling, are not required to have fall protection. The compliance costs discussed in the 2019 SRIA are the incremen - tal costs of compliance for roofing and framing ac - tivities conducted at heights between six feet and 15 feet, since work done at heights 15 feet and above are already covered under the current California rules. Residential framing and roofing businesses would be affected primarily by incurring increased compliance costs.

Direct compliance costs identified in the 2019 SRIA were revised to account for inflation (using the CPI–U forecast and long term projections values) and are estimated to be on average $84 million per year for 2023 and $104 million per year for 2030. The updated direct benefits are estimated to be approximately $84 million per year. The Creation or Elimination of Jobs in the State. The proposed regulation is expected to primarily affect businesses and employees in two industries: res- idential framing and residential roofing.

Businesses engaged in residential roofing and framing activities will be required to provide fall protection to all em - ployees working at heights greater than six feet above the surrounding level, in conformance with Fed–OS - HA ’s residential construction regulations. According to Fed–OSHA, California is the only state in the na - tion currently not complying with the mandate to pro- vide fall protection at heights greater than six feet. The current California standards require fall protection only for heights of 15 feet and above.

No jobs creation or elimination is expected among employees working in roofing and framing activities due to decreasing the trigger height for providing fall protection from 15 feet down to six feet. While the point estimate of jobs lost is zero, the range is up to 84 full–time equiv- alent (FTE) lost economy wide (or 0.0005% of total nonfarm jobs) if all 84 FTE translate to full–time jobs lost. However, businesses may instead reduce hours of employees without layoffs.

Workers in the residential framing and roofing in - dustry would be affected primarily through the reduc- tion in fall–related fatalities and non–fatal injuries. The Creation of New Businesses or the Elimination of Existing Businesses in the State. Although the proposed amendments to the fall safe- ty standards will apply to residential framing opera - tions (NAICS code 238130), and roofing/re–roofing

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 48–Z 1559 operations (NAICS code 238160) in California, no business loss or creation is expected from lowering the requirement to six feet. The amendments will provide safety equivalent to that provided by the comparable Fed–OSHA regulation as it applies to residential con - struction and related roofing operations. According to the 2019 SRIA, compliance costs in the residential construction sector are expected to have a negligible impact on the California economy. The Expansion of Businesses Currently Doing Business in the State.

Businesses engaged in residential roofing and fram- ing activities are already required to provide fall pro - tection. The proposed regulation could create new de- mand for scaffolding and harness systems, however, existing firms are likely to absorb any new demand. The Competitive Advantages or Disadvantages for Businesses Currently Doing Business in the State.

The proposed amendments will require that busi - nesses engaged in residential roofing and framing ac - tivities provide fall protection to all employees work - ing at heights of six feet or greater, in conformance with Fed–OSHA ’s residential construction regula - tions. In addition, the current Cal/OSHA standards require fall protection for heights of 15 feet and above.

Since all residential roofing and framing activities in the state are covered by the proposed amendments, the Board does not expect the proposed regulation to put California businesses at a competitive disadvan - tage relative to framing and roofing businesses outside of the state. All companies seeking to do business in California would incur, on average, identical costs.

Additionally, the slight adverse macroeconomic im- pacts observed in the 2019 SRIA assume that the in - cremental fall protection costs in residential construc - tion are passed along to consumers and thus raise the prices of these services marginally. The Increase or Decrease of Investment in the State. The proposed amendments will require that busi - nesses engaged in residential roofing and framing ac - tivities provide fall protection to all employees working at heights of six feet or greater, in conformance with Fed–OSHA ’s residential construction regulations.

The current Cal/OSHA standards require fall protection for heights of 15 feet and above, so the proposed reg - ulation is not expected to have a considerable impact on the increase or decrease of investment in the state. The Incentives for Innovation in Products, Materials, or Processes. The proposed regulation is not expected to have a considerable impact on innovation in the state. It is plausible that businesses will find more innovative ways to meet the standards at lower costs, thus slight - ly reshaping how framing and roofing activities un - der 15 feet are conducted.

It is also plausible that the increased demand for fall protection equipment (both scaffolding and harness systems) could induce some innovation in those fields, but it is difficult to predict a priori what the innovation, if any, would look like. It is also impossible to say if such innovations would actu- ally represent an enhancement to worker safety and be found to be acceptable for use as a true fall protection method by Cal/OSHA. Another possible incentive would be a reduction in the employer’s WC rates.

All employers are required under the California Labor Code to purchase WC in - surance for their employees. WC rates are influenced by metrics such as the experience modification or x– mod (the x–mod is a loss–based comparison of a given employers WC claims experience to other employers of a similar size operating in the same business and is used to tailor insurance costs to the characteristics of a given business). Any reduction brought about by the proposal resulting in a reduction in accident/fatality rates would have the effect of lowering the employer’s x–mod and the employer’s WC premium.

A safer residential construction workplace con - tributes to improved worker health, morale, and may increase productivity. The economic implications of a fall, injury or fatality upon a California residential framing and roofing business can be very significant. The avoidance of fatalities and severe injuries due to falls will save money, which will in turn benefit Cali - fornia businesses and residents. Costs to Employers to Comply with Proposed Regulations. The proposed regulation is expected to primarily affect businesses and employees in two industries: res- idential framing and residential roofing.

Under current regulations, for most residential framing and roofing activities, workers working on a single–story dwell - ing, or the first story of a multi–story dwelling, are not required to have fall protection. The compliance costs discussed in the 2019 SRIA are the incremental costs of compliance for roofing and framing activities con - ducted at heights between six feet and 15 feet, since work done at heights 15 feet and above are already covered under the current Cal/OSHA rules.

These es - timates include costs necessary to provide workers ad- ditional fall safety protections, including the costs of harness systems, scaffolding, and fall protection plans. The California legislature defines small business - es as businesses that have fewer than 100 employees, are not dominant in their field, and are independently owned and operated. The proposed amendments to the residential fall protection standards are expect - ed to primarily affect residential framing operations (NAICS code 238130), and roofing/re–roofing oper - ations (NAICS code 238160) in California.

Both of the industries are predominately comprised of small businesses. According to U.S. Census Bureau data,

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 48–Z 1560 in 2015 95.3% of framing contractors and 99.1% of roofing contractors, respectively, had fewer than 100 employees. This suggests that small businesses will bear nearly all of the compliance costs of the proposed regulation. Direct compliance costs identified in the 2019 SRIA were revised to account for inflation (using CPI–U forecast and long term projections values) and are es - timated to be on average $84 million per year for 2023 and $104 million per year for 2030.

Compliance costs for residential framers are expected to range from $54–$66 million per year. Compliance costs for resi - dential roofers are expected to range from $30.5–$38 million per year. Costs vary primarily due to differ - ences in assumed growth rates of the residential con - struction sector. Fiscal Impacts to Local and State Government. The proposed regulations are not expected to have a fiscal impact on state and local governments. State and local governments both own and develop property for administrative use.

However, these new properties are neither directly built nor overseen/managed by local and state government while being built. Representa - tives from California Department of General Services (DGS) Real Estate Division — Project Management Development Branch and California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) stated that they either go through a bidding process to hire a contractor or third party inspectors to develop the property or check for code violations. Enforcement Costs.

Under current conditions there is no reason to ex - pect that the proposed regulations will have a fiscal impact on the implementing agency. Cal/OSHA will implement the propose regulations using currently ap- proved resources and staffing levels. The Benefits of the Regulations, Including, but not Limited to, Benefits to the Health, Safety, and Welfare of California Residents, Worker Safety, Environment and Quality of Life, and any Other Benefits Identified by the Agency.

The Board’s proposal to lower the trigger height at which fall protection is required for residential con - struction is expected to generate both benefits in terms of improved worker health, safety, and welfare, as well as benefits for residential roofing and framing contrac- tors. The benefits of the proposed regulation are the reduction in fatalities and injuries at heights below the current trigger height and above the proposed six foot trigger height. Roofing and framing workers would be the primary beneficiaries of this proposed regulatory change.

The proposed amendments are also anticipated to provide benefits to businesses by a reduction in acci - dent/fatality rates as well as a reduction in health care expenditures and lower WC rates. The proposed amendments will also allow the state of California to comply with Labor Code

section 142.3, which requires that California have a system of occupational safety and health regulations that at least mirror the equivalent Fed–OSHA regulations, and avoid Fed–OSHA imposing concurrent jurisdiction (as the State of Arizona faced in 2015) 7. The additional compliance costs are the incremental costs necessary to provide workers additional fall safe- ty protections, including the costs of harness systems, scaffolding, and fall protection plans. These costs are expected to accrue to framing and roofing contractors, and ultimately would be passed along to consumers.

Incentives to innovate new products, materials or processes could help businesses find more innovative ways to meet the standards at lower costs, thus slightly reshaping how framing and roofing activities under 15 feet are conducted. A safer residential construction workplace contrib - utes to improved worker health, morale, quality of life, and may increase productivity. The economic impli - cations of a fall, injury or fatality upon a California residential framing and roofing business can be very significant.

The avoidance of fatalities and severe in - juries due to fall, will save money, which will in turn benefit California residents. No significant environ - mental impact is anticipated from the proposed action. Department of Finance (DOF) Comments on 2019 SRIA and Occupational Safety and Health Standard Board (Board) Responses. There were two concerns raised in DOF’s comments on the 2019 SRIA. DOF Comment 1. “First, the benefits from avoided incidents should also increase over time in conjunc - tion with increased permits.

The estimates of costs are appropriately scaled by the amount of construction, but the benefits are assumed to be static.” Board Response to DOF Comment 1. The benefits reflected in Table 6 (page 16 of the 2019 SRIA) have been revised to be scaled by the amount of actual con- struction, to account for inflation (using DOF CPI–U forecast and long term projections), to reflect the COVID–19 Recession, and take into account DOF’s recent projections. For the revision, OSHSB utilized the DOF California Economic Forecast — Annual & Quarterly, and the DOF Consumer Price Index Fore- cast. Updated information from Table 6.

Summary of Expected Benefits (Revised) is listed below: 7 Fed–OSHA. Federal Register, Volume 80. Issue Number 25. Friday February 6, 2015. Rejection of Arizona’s Standard for Fall Protection in residential construction. https://www.osha.gov/ laws–regs/federalregister/2015–02–06 .

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 48–Z 1561 Avoided Mortality Benefits (in millions) Original Estimates = $24.72 2023 Estimates (revised to account for inflation) = $32.58 2030 Estimates (revised to account for inflation) = $40.43 Avoided Injuries Benefits (in millions) Original Estimate = $38.87 2023 Estimates (revised to account for inflation) = $51.22 2030 Estimates (revised to account for inflation) = $63.58 Total Benefits (in millions) Original Estimates = $63.59 2023 Estimates (revised to account for inflation) = $83.80 2030 Estimates (revised to account for inflation) = $104.01 DOF Comment 2. “Second, the SRIA must add and analyze a second alternative to the proposed standards, as a “no change” alternative is merely the ba seline.” Board Response to DOF Comment 2.

Table 13 (page 26 of the 2019 SRIA) has been revised to detail the second alternative that the OSHSB identified. Fall protection plans, a cheaper and less stringent alterna - tive was considered.

This alternative was originally rejected by the Board because fatalities and injuries would remain high and worker safety benefits would not be realized, and because fall protection plans are not at least as effective as the federal standard, as re - quired by Labor Code 142.3. [The SRIA ’s initial costs in 2015 dollar values were converted to 2023 dollar values by multiplying the initial cost by the ratio of CPI–U 2023 to CPI–U 2015. For example, 2023 value = (2015 value)*(CPI for 2023 / CPI for 2015). ] Updat- ed information from Table 13.

Compliance Costs by Sector for the Proposed Regulation, More Stringent and Less Stringent Alternatives (in millions) is listed below: Sector: New Roofs (revised dollar values in millions)

a) Proposed Regulation (2023) = $5.26; (2030) = $6.53

b) Stricter Alternative (2023) = $11.73; (2030) = $14.56

c) Less Stringent Alternative (2023) = $0.32; (2030) = $0.40 Sector: Re–Roofing (revised dollar values in millions)

a) Proposed Regulation (2023) = $25.25; (2030) = $31.34

b) Stricter Alternative (2023) = $61.59; (2030) = $76.45

c) Less Stringent Alternative (2023) = $0.76; (2030) = $0.94 Sector: Framing (revised dollar values in millions)

a) Proposed Regulation (2023) = $53.54; (2030) = $66.45

b) Stricter Alternative (2023) = $128.97; (2030) = $160.08

c) Less Stringent Alternative (2023) = $0.55; (2030) = $0.68 Total for All Sectors (revised dollar values in millions)

a) Proposed Regulation (2023) = $84.05; (2030) = $104.32

b) Stricter Alternative (2023) = $202.30; (2030) = $251.10

c) Less Stringent Alternative (2023) = $1.63; (2030) = $2.02 CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES The Board considered two regulatory alterna - tives, a less stringent alternative and a more stringent alternative. First, a more stringent regulatory alternative (strict - er) considers an alternate approach to mandating the trigger height requirement. Instead of allowing fram - ing and roofing contractors the option to utilize either scaffolding or personal fall protection equipment, the stricter approach would mandate scaffolding for all work that would be covered under the new regulations.

Therefore, the 2019 SRIA assumed that employers would comply with the lower trigger height require - ment by using more expensive scaffolding systems rather than personal fall protection systems (i.e., har - ness systems). The Board rejected the stricter alternative because the benefits would be similar to those estimated under the proposed regulation, suggesting that the regulato - ry alternative was not a cost–effective approach. Second, a less stringent regulatory alternative was analyzed, where it was assumed that employers would use fall protection plans.

However, this alternative was rejected because: fall protection plans do not provide a physical or positive means of protection against falls; fatalities and injuries would remain high: and worker safety benefits would not be realized. Similarly, fall protection plans would not comply with California La- bor Code

section 142.3(a)(2), which requires the Board to adopt regulations that are at least as effective as Fed–OSHA standards. In accordance with Government Code

section 11346.5(a)(13), the Board must determine that no rea- sonable alternative it considered to the regulation or that has otherwise been identified and brought to its at- tention would either be more effective in carrying out

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 48–Z 1562 the purpose for which the action is proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons or would be more cost–effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law than the proposal described in this Notice (see also Reasonable Alternatives to the Proposal and the Board’s Reasons for Rejecting Those Alternatives, contained in the Ini- tial Statement of Reasons).

The Board considered proposed alternatives that would lessen any adverse economic impact on busi - ness and invites interested persons to submit propos - als at the scheduled public hearing or during the writ - ten comment period. CONTACT PERSONS Inquiries regarding this proposed regulatory action may be directed to Autumn Gonzalez (Chief Coun - sel) or the back–up contact person, Amalia Neidhardt (Principal Safety Engineer) at the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 350, Sacramento, CA 95833; (916) 274–5721.

AVAILABILITY OF STATEMENT OF REASONS, TEXT OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS AND RULEMAKING FILE The Board will have the entire rulemaking file available for inspection and copying throughout the rulemaking process BY APPOINTMENT Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., at the Board’s office at 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 350, Sacramento, California 95833. Appointments can be scheduled via email at oshsb@dir.ca.gov or by call - ing (916) 274–5721.

As of the date this Notice of Pro- posed Action is published in the Notice Register, the rulemaking file consists of this Notice, the proposed text of the regulation, the Initial Statement of Reasons and supporting documents. Copies may be obtained by contacting Autumn Gonzalez or Amalia Neidhardt at the address or telephone number listed above. AVAILABILITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT After holding the hearing and considering all timely and relevant comments received, the Board may adopt the proposed regulations substantially as described in this Notice.

If the Board makes modifications which are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text, it will make the modified text (with the changes clear- ly indicated) available to the public at least 15 days before the Board adopts the regulations as revised. Please request copies of any modified regulations by contacting Autumn Gonzalez or Amalia Neidhardt at the address or telephone number listed above. The Board will accept written comments on the modified regulations for at least 15 days after the date on which they are made available.

AVAILABILITY OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Upon its completion, copies of the Final Statement of Reasons may be obtained by contacting Autumn Gonzalez or Amalia Neidhardt at the address or tele - phone number listed above or via the internet. AVAILABILITY 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 action and the Initial Statement of Reasons can be ac - cessed through the Board’s website at http://www.dir. ca.gov/oshsb/proposedregulations.html. TITLE 10.

HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGE HARDSHIP AND RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTIONS PROCESS THROUGH THE EXCHANGE: ADOPTION OF SECTIONS 6910, 6912, 6914, 6916, 6918, 6920, 6922 The California Health Benefit Exchange/Covered California (the Exchange) Board proposes to adopt the regulations described below after considering all comments, objections, and recommendations regard - ing the proposed action. PUBLIC HEARING The Exchange has not scheduled a public hearing on this proposed action.

However, the Exchange will hold a hearing if it receives a written request for a public hearing from any interested person, or his or her au - thorized representative, no later than 15 days before the close of the written comment period. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any interested person, or his or her authorized rep - resentative, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action to the Exchange. The written comment period closes at 5:00 p.m. on Janu- ary 16, 2024 (45 days after the published date). The Exchange will consider only comments received at the

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 48–Z 1563 Exchange’s office by that time. Submit written com - ments to: Faviola Adams Regulations Coordinator California Health Benefit Exchange (Covered California) 1601 Exposition Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95815 Comments may also be submitted by facsimile (FAX) at 916–403–4468 or by email to regulations@ covered.ca.gov. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Government Code sections 100725(

a) and 100504(a)(6) authorize the Exchange Board to adopt these proposed regulations. The proposed regula - tions implement, interpret, and make specific sections 100700 and following and 100502(

h) of the Govern - ment Code; The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Pub. Law 111–148), as amended by the federal Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (Pub. L. 111–152); and Title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

section 155.600 and following. CONSULTATION REQUIREMENT The Exchange complied with the consultation re - quirement specified in Government Code

section 100725, which requires the Exchange to consult with the Franchise Tax Board when promulgating regula - tions to implement Title 24 of the Government Code. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW

Summary of Existing Laws and Effect of the Proposed Regulations In March 2010, President Obama signed federal healthcare reform legislation called the Patient Pro - tection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). It created the opportunity for each state to establish a state–based health insurance exchange to implement the ACA.

California chose to operate an exchange that is com - monly known as “Covered California.” For purposes of this Notice, Covered California will be referred to as the “Exchange.” The Exchange’s mission is to increase the number of insured Californians, improve health care quality, lower costs, and reduce health disparities through an innovative, competitive marketplace that empowers consumers to choose their health plan. State law also specifies the powers and duties of the executive board of the Exchange. Government Code

section 100504(

a) authorizes the Exchange’s Board of Directors to adopt rules and regulations, as necessary. Additionally, Government Code

section 100725, sub - division (

a) authorizes the Exchange’s Board of Direc- tors to adopt rules and regulations to implement title 24 (commencing with

section 100700) of the Govern- ment Code.

Section 1311(d)(4)(

H) of the ACA (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 18031) requires the Exchange to determine eligibility and issue certificates of exemption for hard- ship and religious conscience exemptions from the federal individual responsibility penalty under

section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code to qualified indi- viduals over the age of 30 who wish to enroll in a cat- astrophic plan pursuant to

section 18022(e)(2) of title 42 of the United States Code. Federal regulations es - tablish a process for determining eligibility for a hard- ship or religious conscience exemption and issuing a certificate of exemption to eligibility individuals. (45 C.F.R. § 155.600 et seq.)

Chapter 38 of the Statutes of 2019 (SB 78) created the Minimum Essential Coverage Individual Mandate (Mandate), a program similar to the federal individual shared responsibility penalty under the ACA admin - istered by the Internal Revenue Service. Beginning January 1, 2020, California residents and their depen - dents are required to obtain and maintain minimum essential coverage, unless they qualify for an exemp - tion from the mandate. Pursuant to title 24 (commenc- ing with

section 100700) of the Government Code, if an individual that is required to obtain minimum essential coverage under the mandate does not obtain and maintain health care coverage or obtain an exemp- tion, an Individual Shared Responsibility Penalty will be imposed pursuant to

Part 32 (commencing with

section 61000) of the Revenue and Taxation Code. Government Code

section 100715, subdivisions (

a) and (

b) direct the Exchange to grant exemptions for hardship and religious conscience from the mandate. The Exchange is required under Government Code

section 100715, subdivision (

c) to establish a process for determining whether an individual is entitled to a hardship or religious conscience exemption and for issuing a certificate of exemption to qualified individ- uals. State law also incorporates the federal regula - tions promulgated under

section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code as of December 15, 2017 to the extent that those regulations do not conflict with state law or regulations. (Gov. Code § 100725, subdivision (d).) The regulations proposed in this rulemaking action would establish the Exchange’s policies and proce - dures for determining eligibility for religious con - science and hardship exemptions and issuing a certif - icate of exemption to eligible individuals. Currently, there are emergency regulations that establish the el - igibility standards and specify the eligibility process, notice requirements, the verification process, eligibil - ity redetermination process, and the right to appeal

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 48–Z 1564 for the hardship and religious conscience exemptions. The Exchange is now proposing to make permanent those emergency regulations at California Code of Regulations, title 10, sections 6910, 6912, 6914, 6916, 6918, 6920, and 6922 with modifications to sections 6912 and 6914.

Objectives and Anticipated Benefits of the Proposed Regulation The broad objectives of this proposed regulatory ac- tion are to; (1) provide the public with clear standards and eligibility requirements to qualify for hardship and religious conscience exemptions through the Ex - change; (2) establish a process for accepting applica - tions, making determinations and issuing certificates of exemption for hardship and religious conscience exemptions through the Exchange; (3) complete Cer - tificate of Compliance requirements for sections 6910, 6912, 6914, 6916, 6918, 6920, and 6922; and (4) make minor modifications to reduce the information collect- ed from applicants and clarify circumstances which qualify applicants for the hardship exemption.

Anticipated benefits include providing the public with clear standards and eligibility requirements to qualify for hardship and religious conscience exemp - tions through the Exchange, increasing access to af - fordable health coverage for individuals who are un - able to afford employer–sponsored or subsidized Ex - change coverage, relieving eligible individuals of the financial penalty associated with failing to maintain minimum essential coverage, and aligning Califor - nia’s regulations with federal and state law.

Evaluation of Consistency and Compatibility with Existing State Regulations After an evaluation of current regulations, the Ex - change determined that these proposed regulations are not inconsistent or incompatible with any existing state regulations. California Code of Regulations, title 18,

section 26000.61000 et seq. were reviewed. The Exchange has made its best effort to conform its reg - ulations to State law and does not know of any State statutes or regulations conflicting with these proposed regulations. DOCUMENTS TO BE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE 26 C.F.R.

Section 1.5000A–1(d)(10) (December 26, 2013) 45 C.F.R.

Section 156.145 (February 27, 2015) 42 C.F.R.

Section 447.51 (January 1, 2014) 26 C.F.R.

Section 54.9802–1(f) (February 24, 2014) All documents were also incorporated by reference in the emergency regulations. JUSTIFICATION FOR DUPLICATION These proposed regulations were developed with significant stakeholder engagement to implement and clarify the mandates of the ACA and the requirements of the federal regulations. These regulations duplicate texts from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) regulations in 45 C.F.R.

Part 155, Subpart G related to Exchange eligibility determina - tions for religious conscience and hardship exemp - tions under the ACA. This duplication is necessary to provide clarity, to avoid consumer’s confusion, and to put all applicable requirements in one place. (1 C.C.R.

section 12(b)(1).) DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACTION The Executive Director of the California Health Benefit Exchange has made the following initial determinations: Matters prescribed by statute applicable to the agen- cy or to any specific regulation or class of regulations: None. Mandate on local agencies or school districts: None. Cost or savings to any state agency: The propos - al results in additional costs to the California Health Benefit Exchange, which is currently financially self– sustaining. The proposal does not result in any costs or savings to any other state agency.

Cost to any local agency or school district which must be reimbursed pursuant to Government Code sections 17500 et seq.: None. Other nondiscretionary costs or savings imposed on local agencies: None. Costs or savings in federal funding to the state: The proposal results in additional costs to the California Health Benefit Exchange, which is currently financial- ly self–sustaining and is not funded by federal grant money. There is no other impact on federal funding to the state as a result of these regulations. Significant effect on housing costs: None.

Effect on small business: These proposed regula - tions are not expected to create or expand small busi - ness within the State of California. The proposed reg - ulations do not create or expand the operations of any small businesses. Significant, statewide adverse economic impact di - rectly affecting business, including the ability of Cali- fornia businesses to compete with businesses in other states: None.

Cost impacts on a representative private person or business: The Exchange is not aware of any cost im - pacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 48–Z 1565 Business Reporting Requirement: None.

RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT/ANALYSIS Results of the Economic Impact Assessment/ Analysis The Exchange concludes regarding the proposed regulations that it is: (1) unlikely to create or eliminate any jobs in the State; (2) unlikely to create or eliminate businesses within the State; (3) unlikely to impact the expansion of businesses currently doing business in California; (4) likely to provide benefits to the health and wel - fare of California residents; and (5) unlikely to provide benefits to worker safety and the state’s environment.

Benefits of the regulations, including, but not limited to, benefits to the health, safety, and welfare of California residents, worker safety, and the state’s environment and quality of life, among any other benefits identified by the agency The proposed regulations will benefit California residents by providing clear guidelines for obtaining a religious conscience or hardship exemption through the Exchange. It will provide the public with clear standards and eligibility requirements to qualify for religious conscience and hardship exemptions through the Exchange.

The proposed regulations will increase access to affordable health coverage for individuals who are unable to afford employer–sponsored or sub - sidized Exchange coverage which will help save lives and increase the health of the public in California. The proposed regulations will benefit Californians by relieving eligible individuals of the financial penalty associated with failing to maintain minimum essential coverage. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES In accordance with Government Code

section 11346.5, subdivision (a)(13), the Exchange must de - termine that no reasonable alternative considered or otherwise identified and brought to the attention of the Exchange would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed, would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action, or would be more cost–effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law.

The Exchange invites interested persons to present statements or arguments with respect to alternatives to the proposed regulations at the scheduled hearing or during the written comment period. CONTACT PERSONS Inquiries concerning the proposed administrative action may be directed to: Faviola Adams California Health Benefit Exchange (Covered California) 1601 Exposition Blvd.

Sacramento, CA 95815 Telephone: (916) 228–8668 The backup contact person for inquiries concerning the proposed administrative action may be directed to: Crystal Hirst California Health Benefit Exchange (Covered California) 1601 Exposition Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95815 Telephone: (916) 228–8313 Please direct copies of the proposed text of the reg - ulations, the Initial Statement of Reasons, the modi - fied text of the regulations, if any, or other information upon which the rulemaking is based to Crystal Hirst at the above contact information.

AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS Availability of Initial Statement of Reasons, Text of Proposed Regulations and Rulemaking File The Exchange will have the entire rulemaking file available for inspection and copying throughout the rulemaking process at its office at the above address. As of the date of this notice is published in the No - tice Register, the rulemaking file will consist of this notice, the proposed text of the regulation and the Ini- tial Statement of Reasons. There is currently no other information upon which the proposed rulemaking is based.

Copies may be obtained by contacting Crystal Hirst at the address or phone number listed above. Availability of Changed or Modified Text After holding a hearing, if requested, and consid - ering all timely and relevant comments received, the Exchange may adopt the proposed regulations sub - stantially as described in this notice. If the Exchange makes modifications which are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text, it will make the modified text to the public at least 15 days before the Exchange adopts the regulations as revised.

Please send requests for copies of any modified regulations to the attention of Crystal Hirst at the address indicated above. The Exchange will accept written comments on the mod -

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 48–Z 1566 ified regulations for 15 days after the date on which they are made available. Availability of the Final Statement of Reasons Upon its completion, copies of the Final Statement of Reasons may be obtained by contacting Crystal Hirst at the above address. Availability of Documents on the Internet Copies of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Initial Statement of Reasons and the proposed text of the regulations in underline and strikeout can be ac - cessed through our website at www.hbex.coveredca. com/regulations.

WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD AND SUBMITTAL OF COMMENTS In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, interested members of the public may present comments orally or in writing during the hearing and may provide comments by postal mail or by electronic submittal before the hearing. The public comment pe- riod for this regulatory action will begin on December 1, 2023. Written comments not submitted during the hearing must be submitted on or after December 1, 2023, and received no later than January 16, 2024. Comments submitted outside that comment period are considered untimely.

CARB may, but is not required to, respond to untimely comments, including those raising significant environmental issues. The Board also 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 regulatory ac - tion. Comments submitted in advance of the hearing must be addressed to one of the following: Postal mail: Clerks’ Office, California Air Resources Board 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 Electronic submittal: https://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bclist.php Please note that under the California Public Records Act (Gov.

Code, § 7920.000 et seq.), your written and oral comments, attachments, and associated contact information (e.g., your address, phone, email, etc.) be- come part of the public record and can be released to the public upon request. Additionally, the Board requests but does not re - quire that persons who submit written comments to the Board reference the title of the proposal in their comments to facilitate review.

AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE This regulatory action is proposed under the au - thority granted in California Health and Safety Code, sections 38501, 38505, 38510, 38560, 39010, 39600, 39601, 39602.5, 39667, 43013, 43018, 43019, 43019.1, 43100, 43101, 43104, 43105, 43105.5, 43106, 43107, 43202.6 and 43806; and California Vehicle Code, sec- tion 28114.

This action is proposed to implement, in - terpret, and make specific sections California Health and Safety Code, sections 38501, 38505, 38510, 38560, 38562, 39002, 39003, 39010, 39018, 39500, 39600, 39601, 39602.5, 43000, 43000.5, 43009.5, 43013, 43016, 43018, 43018.5, 43019, 43019.1, 43100, 43101, 43101.5, 43102, 43104, 43105, 43105.5, 43106, 43107, 43151, 43152, 43153, 43154, 43202, 43204, 43205, 43205.5, 43206, 43210, 43211, 43212, 43213, 43806, TITLE 13.

AIR RESOURCES BOARD AMENDMENTS TO ON–ROAD MOTORCYCLE EMISSION STANDARDS AND TEST PROCEDURES AND ADOPTION OF NEW ON–BOARD DIAGNOSTICS AND ZERO–EMISSION MOTORCYCLE REQUIREMENTS The California Air Resources Board (CARB or Board) will conduct a public hearing at the date and time noted below to consider approving for adoption the proposed amendments to the On–Road Motorcy - cle (ONMC) emission standards and test procedures and adoption of new provisions relating to ONMCs under Division 3,

Chapter 1,

Article 2 (Approval of Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Devices) under Title 13, California Code of Regulations (collectively “Pro- posed Regulatory Action”). Date: January 25, 2024 Time: 9:00 a.m. In–Person Location: California Air Resources Board Byron Sher Auditorium 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 Remote Option: Zoom This public meeting may continue at 8:30 a.m., on January 26, 2024.

Please consult the public agenda, which will be posted ten days before the January 25, 2024, Board Meeting, for important details, including, but not limited to, the day on which this item will be considered, how to participate via Zoom, and any ap - propriate direction regarding a possible remote–only Board Meeting if needed.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 48–Z 1567 44004, 44010, 44011, 44012, 44015 and 44017; and California Vehicle Code,

section 28114. INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION AND POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW (Gov. Code, § 11346.5, subdivision (a)(3)) Existing statutes declare that emissions from motor vehicles with internal combustion engines are a signif- icant public health threat.

Existing statutes direct the Board to “endeavor to achieve the maximum degree of emission reduction possible from vehicular and oth- er mobile sources to accomplish the attainment of the state [ambient air quality] standards [for air pollution] at the earliest practicable date.” The Board has adopted numerous regulations to re - duce harmful emissions from motor vehicles and ON- MCs. These existing regulations establish emission standards for ONMC exhaust and evaporative emis - sions from ONMCs with internal combustion engines.

The Proposed Regulatory Action will amend and extend these existing regulations, identified below un- der Sections Affected, to further reduce harmful pol - lution from ONMCs. The Proposed Regulatory Action will increase the stringency of existing regulations to ensure emissions are reduced under a wider range of conditions un - der which vehicles are used and will transition new ONMC sales in California to 50% zero–emission by 2035. Sections Affected: Proposed adoption to the California Code of Regu- lations, Title 13, Division 3,

Chapter 1,

Article 2, Sec- tions 1958.1 through 1958.7. Proposed amendment to the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Division 3,

Chapter 1,

Article 2, Sections 1958, and 1976;

Article 6,

Section 2036;

Chapter 2,

Article 2.1,

Section 2112; and

Chapter 16,

Article 2, Sections 2903, and 2904. Documents Incorporated by Reference (Cal. Code Regs., title 1, § 20, subdivision (c)(3)): The following documents and test methods are in - corporated in the regulation by reference as specified by section: ● T he following sections of Subparts E and F,

Part 86, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), as they existed on April 15, 1978, in

section 1958, subsection (c). These CFR sections were adopt - ed on January 5, 1977 1, and several specified sec- tions were amended on October 28, 1977. 2 ○ S ubpart E,

Part 86, Title 40, CFR 1 42 Fed. Reg. 1121–1161 (January 5, 1977). 2 42 Fed. Reg. 56729–56748 (October 28, 1977). ■ T he following sections of Subpart E,

Part 86, Title 40, CFR that are incor - porated by reference in

section 1958, (c) “as they existed on April 15, 1978” were adopted January 5, 1977 and do not include any subsequent amend - ments: 86.401–78, 86.403–78, 86.404– 78, 86.405–18, 86.406–78, 86.407– 78, 86.408–78, 86.409–78, 86.410–78, 86.410–80, 86.411–78, 86.412–78, 86.414–78, 86.415–78, 86.417–78, 86.418–78, 86.419–78, 86.420–78, 86.421–78, 86.422–78, 86.423–78, 86.424–78, 86.425–78, 86.427–78, 86.428–80, 86.429–78, 86.430–78, 86.431–78, 86.433–78, 86.434–78, 86.435–78, 86.438–78, 86.439–78, 86.441–78, 86.443–78, 86.444–78. ■ T he following sections of Subpart E,

Part 86, Title 40, CFR that are incorpo- rated by reference in

section 1958, (c) “as they existed on April 15, 1978” were adopted January 5, 1977 and amended October 28, 1977: 86.402–78, 86.413– 78, 86.416–78, 86.416–80 (new sec - tion), 86.426–78, 86.428–78, 86.432– 78, 86.436–78, 86.437–78, 86.440–78, 86.442–78. ○ S ubpart F,

Part 86, Title 40, CFR ■ T he following sections of Subpart F,

Part 86, Title 40, CFR that are incor - porated by reference in

section 1958, (c) “as they existed on April 15, 1978” were adopted January 5, 1977 and do not include any subsequent amend - ments: 86.501–78, 86.502–78, 86.503– 78, 86.504–78, 86.505–78, 86.506, 86.507, 86.509–78, 86.510, 86.511–78, 86.512, 86.514–78, 86.515–78, 86.516– 78, 86.517, 86.518–78, 86.520, 86.521– 78, 86.522–78, 86.523–78, 86.524–78, 86.525, 86.526–78, 86.527–78, 86.528– 78, 86.529–78, 86.530–78, 86.531–78, 86.532–78, 86.533, 86.534, 86.536–78, 86.538, 86.539, 86.541, 86.543. ■ T he following sections of Subpart F,

Part 86, Title 40, CFR that are in - corporated by reference in

section 1958, (c) “as they existed on April 15, 1978” were adopted January 5, 1977 and amended October 28, 1977: Sec - tions 86.508–78, 86.513–78, 86.519– 78, 86.535–78, 86.537–78, 86.540–78, 86.542–78, 86.544–78.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2023, VOLUME NUMBER 48–Z 1568 ● T he following sections of Subparts E and F,

Part 86, Title 40, CFR, as they existed on July 7, 1986 3, in

section 1958, (c), as adopted or as last amended on the dates shown below. ○ S ubpart E,

Part 86, Title 40, CFR ■ § 86.401–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.402–78, December 10, 1984 ■ § 86.403–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.404–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.405–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.406–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.407–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.408–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.409–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.410–80, December 10, 1984 ■ § 86.411–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.412–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.413–78, October 28, 1977 ■ § 86.414–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.415–78, December 10, 1984 ■ § 86.416–80, December 10, 1984 ■ § 86.417–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.418–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.419–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.420–78, August 17, 1979 ■ § 86.421–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.422–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.423–78, December 10, 1984 ■ § 86.425–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.426–78, October 28, 1977 ■ § 86.427–78, December 10, 1984 ■ § 86.428–80, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.429–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.430–78, December 10, 1984 ■ § 86.431–78, December 10, 1984 ■ § 86.432–78, December 10, 1984 ■ § 86.434–78, December 10, 1984 ■ § 86.435–78, December 10, 1984 ■ § 86.436–78, December 10, 1984 ■ § 86.437–78, November 2, 1982 ■ § 86.438–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.439–78, December 10, 1984 ■ § 86.440–78, December 10, 1984 ■ § 86.441–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.442–78, October 28, 1977 ■ § 86.443–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.444–78, January 5, 1977 3 40 CFR §§ 86.401–86.444 & 86.501–86.544 (July 1, 1986). ○ S ubpart F,

Part 86, Title 40, CFR ■ § 86.501–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.502–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.503–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.504–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.505–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.508–78, October 28, 1977 ■ § 86.509–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.511–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.513–82, November 2, 1982 ■ § 86.514–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.515–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.516–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.518–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.519–78, October 28, 1977 ■ § 86.521–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.522–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.523–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.524–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.526–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.527–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.528–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.529–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.530–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.531–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.532–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.535–78, October 28, 1977 ■ § 86.536–78, January 5, 1977 ■ § 86.537–78, December 10, 1984 ■ § 86.540–78, October 28, 1977 ■ § 86.542–78, October 28, 1977 ■ § 86.544–78, November 16, 1983 ● “ California 2028 and Subsequent Model Year Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for On–Road Motorcycles,” adopted [INSERT ADOPTION DATE], State of California, Air Re- sources Board, in

section 1958, (h)(4) ● “ Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 of the Europe - an Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2013 on the approval and market surveillance of two– or three–wheel vehi