Time- Dated Material GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW California Regulatory Notice Register REGISTER 2024, NUMBER 10–Z P UBLISHED WEEKLY BY THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW MARCH 8, 2024 PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS TITLE 2. F AIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Conflict–of–Interest Code — Notice File Number Z2024–0227–03 ......................................... 243 AMENDMENT MULTI–COUNTY: V ictory Valley Community College District Sage Oak Charter Schools TITLE 2. ST ATE ALLOCATION BOARD Leroy F .

Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, New Construction Additional Grant for Site Development Costs — Notice File Number Z2024–0227–05 .............................................. 244 TITLE 8. AGRICUL TURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Majority Support Petitions; Compliance; Bonds — Notice File Number Z2024–0226–02 ....................... 249 TITLE 8. DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH Recording and Reporting of Occupational Injuries — Notice File Number Z2024–0226–03 ..................... 260 TITLE 14.

DEP ARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY SB 54 Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act Regulations — Notice File Number Z2024–0227–04 ................................................................. 266 TITLE 14. FISH AND GAME COMMISSION Central Valley Sport Fishing — Notice File Number Z2024–0223–01 ....................................... 273 TITLE 14. FISH AND GAME COMMISSION Klamath River Basin Sport Fishing Regulations — Notice File Number Z2024–0223–02 ....................... 276 TITLE 21.

DEP ARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION State Route 710 Sales Program — Notice File Number Z2024–0226–04 ..................................... 281 (Continued on next page)

TITLE 28. DEPARTMENT OF MANAGED HEALTH CARE Scope of Fertility Preservation Services — Notice File Number Z2024–0227–01 .............................. 284 GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST FISH AND GAME COMMISSION Notice of Final Consideration of Petition ............................................................. 291

SUMMARY OF REGULATORY ACTIONS Regulations filed with the Secretary of State .......................................................... 291 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 $338.00 (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 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 10–Z 243 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 Political 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: Victory Valley Community College District Sage Oak Charter Schools A written comment period has been established commencing on March 8, 2024, and closing on April 22, 2024.

Written comments should be directed to the Fair Political Practices Commission, Attention Belen Cisneros, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3050, Sacramento, California 95811. At the end of the 45–day comment period, the proposed conflict–of–interest codes will be submitted to the Commission’s Executive Director for their review, unless any interested person or their duly authorized representative requests, no later than 15 days prior to the close of the written comment period, a public hearing before the full Commission. If a public hearing 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

Section 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 their 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, arguments 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 April 22, 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 increased 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. Therefore, they are not “costs mandated by the state” as defined 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 provide 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 Belen Cisneros, Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3050, Sacramento, California 95811, telephone (916) 322–5660.

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

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 10–Z 244 Commission should be made to Belen Cisneros, Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3050, Sacramento, California 95811, telephone (916) 322–5660. TITLE 2. STATE ALLOCATION BOARD AMEND REGULATION

SECTION 1859.76, TITLE 2, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, RELATING TO THE LEROY F. GREENE SCHOOL FACILITIES ACT OF 1998 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the State Allocation Board (SAB) proposes to amend the above– referenced regulation section, contained in Title 2, California Code of Regulations (CCR). A public hearing is not scheduled. A public hearing will be held if any interested person, or his or her duly authorized representative, submits a written request for a public hearing to the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) no later than 15 days prior to the close of the written comment period.

Following the public hearing, if one is requested, or following the written comment period if no public hearing is requested, OPSC, at its own motion or at the instance of any interested person, may adopt the proposals substantially as set forth above without further notice. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE CITATIONS The SAB is proposing to amend the above– referenced regulation

section under the authority provided by

Section 17070.35 of the Education Code. The proposal interprets and make specific reference Sections 17070.35, 17072.12, 17072.35 of the Education Code. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY OVERVIEW STATEMENT The Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 established, through Senate Bill (SB) 50,

Chapter 407, Statutes of 1998, the School Facility Program (SFP). The SFP provides a per–pupil grant amount to qualifying school districts for purposes of constructing school facilities and modernizing existing school facilities. The SAB adopted regulations to implement the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, which were approved by the Office of Administrative Law and filed with the Secretary of State on October 8, 1999.

At its September 27, 2023 meeting, the SAB adopted a proposed regulatory amendment, on an emergency basis, that would extend for two years (until January 1, 2026) the additional grant for general site development. This extension will prevent a lapse in regulatory authority and would continue to allow School Facility Program (SFP) new construction applications be processed with this additional grant. The Governor’s budget has appropriated $1.9 billion for funding eligible new construction and modernization projects under the SFP for the 2023/24 fiscal year.

The Legislature has declared its intent to appropriate an additional $875 million from the General Fund in the 2024/25 fiscal year for the same purpose, funding eligible new construction and modernization projects under the SFP. Attached to this Notice is the specific regulatory language of the proposed regulatory action, along with the proposed regulatory amendment. The proposed regulation can also be reviewed on OPSC’s website at: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OPSC/ Resources/Page–Content/Office–of–Public– School–Construction–Resources–List–Folder/ Laws–and–Regulations.

Copies of the proposed regulation will be mailed to any person requesting this information by using OPSC’s contact information set forth below in this Notice. The proposed regulation amends the SFP Regulations under the California Code of Regulations, Title 2,

Chapter 3, Subchapter 4, Group 1, State Allocation Board, Subgroup 5.5, Regulations relating to the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998.

Bond Funds Impacted The following five State school bonds were authorized by the Legislature and approved by the State’s electorate for purposes of school facility construction: ● Class Size Reduction Kindergarten–University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 1998 (Proposition 1A) ● Kindergarten–University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2002 (Proposition 47) ● Kindergarten–University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2004 (Proposition 55) ● Kindergarten–University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 1D) ● Kindergarten through Community College Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2016 (Proposition 51) General Fund Proceeds For the 2023/24 fiscal year, the Governor’s budget has appropriated $1.9 billion for funding eligible new construction and modernization projects under the SFP.

The Legislature has declared its intent to appropriate an additional $875 million from the General Fund in

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 10–Z 245 the 2024/25 fiscal year for the same purpose, funding eligible new construction and modernization projects under the SFP. Background and Problem Being Resolved As first implemented, the additional grant for general site development costs was to be suspended “no later than January 1, 2008” unless extended by the SAB.

The following is a sequence of events extending the additional grant for general site development: ● First One–Year Extension: The SAB, at its December 12, 2007 meeting, approved emergency regulations extending the suspension date to “no later than January 1, 2009,” which was approved by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and filed with the Secretary of State on March 3, 2008. ● Second One–Year Extension: The SAB, at its February 25, 2009 meeting, approved extending the suspension date to “no later than January 1, 2010,” which was approved by the OAL and filed with the Secretary of State on September 18, 2009. ● Third One–Year Extension: The SAB, at its November 4, 2009 meeting, approved extending the suspension date to “no later than January 1, 2011,” which was approved by the OAL and filed with the Secretary of State on April 8, 2010. ● Fourth One–Year Extension: The SAB, at its June 23, 2010 meeting, approved extending the suspension date to “no later than January 1, 2012,” which was approved by the OAL and filed with the Secretary of State on April 27, 2011. ● Fifth Two–Year Extension: The SAB, at its July 12, 2011 meeting, approved extending the suspension date to “no later than January 1, 2014,” which was approved by the OAL and filed with the Secretary of State on December 28, 2011. ● Sixth One–Year Extension: The SAB, at its May 22, 2013 meeting, approved extending the suspension date to “no later than January 1, 2015,” which was approved by the OAL, filed with the Secretary of State on October 30, 2013, and took effect January 1, 2014, due to Senate Bill (SB) 1099,

Chapter 295, Statutes of 2012. ● Seventh One–Year Extension: The SAB, at its August 20, 2014 meeting, approved extending the suspension date to “no later than January 1, 2016,” which was approved by the OAL, filed with the Secretary of State on February 9, 2015, and took effect on April 1, 2015, due to SB 1099,

Chapter 295, Statutes of 2012. ● Eighth One–Year Extension: The SAB, at its May 27, 2015 meeting, approved extending the suspension date to “no later than January 1, 2017,” which was approved by the OAL and filed With the Secretary of State on December 21, 2015. ● Ninth One–Year Extension: The SAB, at its May 25, 2016 meeting, approved extending the suspension date to “no later than January 1, 2018,” which was approved by the OAL and filed with the Secretary of State on December 12, 2016. ● Tenth One–Year Extension: The SAB, at its June 5, 2017 meeting, approved extending the suspension date to “no later than January 1, 2019,” which was approved by the OAL and filed with the Secretary of State on December 20, 2017. ● Eleventh Five–Year Extension: The SAB, at its June 27, 2018 meeting, approved extending the suspension date to “no later than January 1, 2024,” which was approved by the OAL and filed with the Secretary of State on December 18, 2018.

OPSC has been involved in an on–going analysis of the SFP new construction base grants for purposes of determining whether the general site development allowance was included in the base grant amounts. The preliminary analysis resulted in discrepancies between the previous funding program, the State School Building Lease–Purchase Program (LPP) and the SFP. It is reasonable to conclude that when the LPP converted to the SFP, general site development was not considered in the base grants.

The proposed regulatory amendment continues to be extended until a complete analysis of the new construction base grant can be conducted. The analysis must determine whether the extra costs associated with the additional grant for general site development, (such as landscaping, finish grading, driveways, walkways, outdoor instructional play facilities and permanent playground equipment, and athletic fields), are included in the SFP per–pupil base grant. There has not been conclusive evidence to show that this additional grant is not needed to complete the projects.

OPSC performed a search on whether the proposed regulatory amendment is consistent and compatible with existing State laws and regulations. After performing the search, OPSC, on behalf of the SAB, has determined that there are no other programs or regulations in existence that would not only provide the additional grant for general site development, but would extend the additional grant for general site development for any length of time. Therefore, the proposed regulatory amendment is determined to be consistent and compatible with existing State laws and regulations.

Proceeding with the implementation of the proposed regulatory amendment assists school districts in covering the costs for items such as landscaping, finish grading, driveways, walkways, outdoor instructional play facilities, permanent

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 10–Z 246 playground equipment, and athletic fields in order to complete their projects. Financial Impact For the 2024 calendar year, OPSC anticipates nine new construction projects will request approximately $10.0 million for the general site development grant and for the 2025 calendar year, nine new construction projects will request approximately $12.1 million.

These dollar amounts are based on new construction funding applications currently sitting on OPSC’s Workload List and Applications Received Beyond Bond Authority List and are projected to be presented for SAB approval in calendar years 2024 and 2025. In addition, these applications have not yet been processed and, therefore, the project counts and requesting funding amounts may change. Charter School Facilities Program projects and Facility Hardship/Rehabilitation and Seismic Mitigation Program (SMP) projects could be eligible for the general site development grant.

Facility Hardship/ Rehabilitation and SMP projects are health and safety projects and are presented to the SAB on an on–going basis. Anticipated Benefits of the Proposed Regulations Extending the SFP general site development grant for two years will have a positive impact on California businesses providing landscaping, finish grading, driveways, walkways, outdoor instructional play facilities, permanent playground equipment, and athletic fields, including the companies that supply the materials for these improvements.

Without this proposed regulatory amendment, school districts might be required to reduce the scope of work for some school projects. The State of California benefits from this regulation as it assists in increasing the State’s infrastructure investment resulting in a positive impact to the State’s economy as well as help to support job creation. This regulation will have a positive impact to various business, manufacturing, and construction–related industries such as architecture, engineering, trades and municipalities, along with the creation of an unknown amount of [temporary or permanent] jobs.

There is a public health and safety impact assigned to the regulation. School site occupants, especially young children, will have less risk of injury and safer ingress and egress when driveways and walkways are wide, level, and extensive; when finish grading is thorough; when play facilities are of high quality on safe ground cover material; and athletic fields are well–designed with safe playing surfaces, adequate protective fences, and appropriate walkways. The proposed regulatory amendment is therefore determined to be consistent and compatible with existing State laws and regulations.

Proceeding with the implementation of this regulatory amendment will have a positive impact on public health and safety at K–12 public schools because school site occupants will have less risk of injury for the reasons noted above.

Summary of the Proposed Regulatory Amendment The proposed emergency regulation change was adopted by the SAB at its September 27, 2023 meeting to extend the additional grant for general site development for two years (until January 1, 2026). The proposed additional grant for general site development costs utilizes the continuing availability of new construction funding through the Bond Funds and the General Fund Proceeds both identified on page 2. The Office of Administrative Law approved this regulatory amendment on an emergency basis with an effective date of December 18, 2023. A

summary of the proposed regulation is as follows: Existing Regulation

Section 1859.76 provides new construction additional grants for specific types and amounts of site development costs. The proposed amendment provides that the general site development shall be suspended no later than January 1, 2026 unless otherwise extended by the SAB. Statutory Authority and Implementation Education Code

Section 17070.35. (

a) In addition to all other powers and duties as are granted to the board by this chapter, other statutes, or the California Constitution, the board shall do all of the following:

(1) Adopt rules and regulations, pursuant to the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act,

Chapter 3.5 (commencing with

Section 11340) of

Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, for the administration of this chapter. Government Code

Section 15503. Whenever the board is required to make allocations or apportionments under this part, it shall prescribe rules and regulations for the administration of, and not inconsistent with, the act making the appropriation of funds to be allocated or apportioned. The board shall require the procedure, forms, and the submission of any information it may deem necessary or appropriate. Unless otherwise provided in the appropriation act, the board may require that applications for allocations or apportionments be submitted to it for approval.

Determination of Inconsistency or Incompatibility with Existing State Regulations As stated on page 3, OPSC has been involved in an on–going analysis of the SFP new construction base grants for purposes of determining whether the general site development allowance was included in the base grant amounts. The preliminary analysis resulted in discrepancies between the previous funding program, the LPP and the SFP. It is reasonable to conclude that when the LPP converted to the SFP, general site development was not considered in the base grants. Therefore, the proposed regulatory amendment

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 10–Z 247 continues to be extended until a complete analysis of the new construction base grant can be conducted. The analysis must determine whether the extra costs associated with the additional grant for general site development (such as landscaping, finish grading, driveways, walkways, outdoor instructional play facilities and permanent playground equipment, and athletic fields), are included in the SFP per–pupil base grant. There has not been conclusive evidence to show that this additional grant is not needed to complete the projects.

School districts may be eligible for the additional grant when building new schools and for additions to existing school sites where additional acreage is required. After conducting a review, OPSC, on behalf of the SAB, has concluded that this is the only regulation on this subject area, and therefore, the proposed regulation is neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing State laws and regulations. The proposed regulatory amendment is within the SAB’s authority to enact regulations for the SFP under Education Code

Section 17070.35 and Government Code

Section 15503. IMPACT ON LOCAL AGENCIES OR SCHOOL DISTRICTS The Executive Officer of the SAB has determined that the proposed regulatory amendment does not impose a mandate or a mandate requiring reimbursement by the State pursuant to

Part 7 (commencing with

Section 17500) of Division 4 of the Government Code. It will not require local agencies, school districts, or charter schools to incur additional costs in order to comply with the proposed regulatory amendment.

DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION The Executive Officer of the SAB has made the following initial determinations relative to the required statutory categories: ● The SAB has made an initial determination that there will be no significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. ● The SAB is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action. ● There will be no non–discretionary costs or savings to local agencies. ● The proposed regulatory amendment creates no costs to any local agency, school district, or charter school requiring reimbursement pursuant to

Section 17500 et seq., or beyond those required by law, except for the required district contribution toward each project as stipulated in statute. ● There will be no costs or savings in federal funding to the State. ● The proposed regulatory amendment creates no costs or savings to any State agency beyond those required by law. ● The SAB has made an initial determination that there will be no impact on housing costs.

RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC I M PACT A NA LYSIS Impact to Businesses and Jobs in California There is a positive economic impact to California business by extending for two years the SFP general site development grant. This will continue to provide the funds to school districts building new construction projects to contract with businesses and suppliers for necessary landscaping, finish grading, driveways, walkways, outdoor instruction play facilities, permanent playground equipment, and athletic fields, thus supporting jobs in these construction–related industries.

The proposed regulation: ● Continues to be extended until a complete analysis of the new construction base grant can be conducted. The analysis must determine whether the extra costs associated with the additional grant for general site development, (such as landscaping, finish grading, driveways, walkways, outdoor instructional play facilities and permanent playground equipment, and athletic fields) are included in the SFP per– pupil base grant.

There has not been conclusive evidence to show that this additional grant is not needed to complete the project. ● Extends this additional grant until “no later than January 1, 2026”; and ● Creates an unknown amount of [temporary or permanent] jobs in landscaping, concrete, asphalt, finishing, playground and athletic field equipment, and other construction trades, along with stimulating the economy.

This regulation affects various business, manufacturing, and construction–related industries, such as architecture, engineering, trades and municipalities, which continues to promote the stimulation of the economy and helps to support job creation. Therefore, the proposed regulatory amendment will have a positive impact on the creation of jobs, the creation of new businesses, and the expansion of businesses in California. It is not anticipated that the proposed regulatory amendment will result in the elimination of existing businesses or jobs within California.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 10–Z 248 Benefits to Public Health and Welfare, Worker’s Safety, and the State’s Environment ● There is a health and safety impact assigned to this regulatory amendment.

School site occupants, especially young children, will have less risk of injury and safer ingress and egress when driveways and walkways are wide, level, and extensive, when finish grading is thorough, when play facilities are of high quality on safe ground cover material, and athletic fields are well– designed with safe playing surfaces, adequate protective fences, and appropriate walkways. ● There are continued benefits to the health and welfare of California residents and worker safety.

School districts utilize construction and trades employees to work on school construction projects and although this proposed regulation does not directly impact worker’s safety, existing law provides for the availability of a skilled labor force and encourages improved health and safety of construction and trades employees through proper apprenticeship training.

Further, public health and safety is enhanced because a properly paid and trained workforce will build school construction projects that are higher quality, structurally code–compliant and safer for use by pupils, staff and other occupants on the site. ● There is no impact to the State’s environment from the proposed regulatory amendment. EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESSES It has been determined that the proposed regulatory amendment will not have an impact on small businesses in the ways identified in subsections (a) (1)–(4) of

Section 4, Title 1, CCR. Although the proposed regulation only applies to school districts and charter schools for purposes of funding school facility new construction projects, the demand on the manufacturing and construction–related industries could potentially stimulate the creation of small business in these areas. SUBMISSION OF COMMENTS, DOCUMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Any interested person may present statements, arguments or contentions, in writing, submitted via U.S. mail, email or fax, relevant to the proposed regulatory action.

Written comments submitted via U.S. mail, email or fax must be received at OPSC no later than April 22, 2024. The express terms of the proposed regulations as well as the Initial Statement of Reasons are available to the public.

Written comments, submitted via U.S. mail, email or fax, regarding the proposed regulatory action, requests for a copy of the proposed regulatory action or the Initial Statement of Reasons, and questions concerning the substance of the proposed regulatory action should be addressed to: Lisa Jones, Regulations Coordinator Mailing Address: Office of Public School Construction 707 3rd Street, 4th Floor West Sacramento, CA 95605 Email Address: lisa.jones@dgs.ca.gov Fax Number: (916) 375–6721 AGENCY CONTACT PERSONS General or substantive questions regarding this Notice of Proposed Regulatory Action may be directed to Ms.

Lisa Jones at (279) 946–8459. If Ms. Jones is unavailable, these questions may be directed to the backup contact person, Mr. Michael Watanabe, Deputy Executive Officer, at (279) 946–8463. ADOPTION OF REGULATIONS Please note that, following the public comment period, the SAB may adopt the regulation substantially as proposed in this notice or with modifications, which are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text and notice of proposed regulatory activity.

If modifications are made, the modified text with the changes clearly indicated will be made available to the public for at least 15 days prior to the date on which the SAB adopts the regulations. The modified regulation(

s) will be made available and provided to: all persons who testified at and who submitted written comments at the public hearing, all persons who submitted written comments during the public comment period, and all persons who requested notification from the agency of the availability of such changes. Requests for copies of any modified regulations should be addressed to the agency’s regulation coordinator identified above. The SAB will accept written comments on the modified regulations during the 15–day period.

SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES WILL REQUIRE A NEW NOTICE If, after receiving comments, the SAB intends to adopt the regulation with modifications not sufficiently related to the original text, the modified text will not be adopted without complying anew with the notice requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 10–Z 249 RULEMAKING FILE Pursuant to Government Code

Section 11347.3, the SAB is maintaining a rulemaking file for the proposed regulatory action. The file currently contains: 1. A copy of the text of the regulations for which the adoption is proposed in strikeout/underline. 2. A copy of this Notice. 3. A copy of the Initial Statement of Reasons for the proposed adoption. 4. The factual information upon which the SAB is relying in proposing the adoption. As data and other factual information, studies, reports or written comments are received they will be added to the rulemaking file. The file is available for public inspection at OPSC during normal working hours.

Items 1 through 3 are also available on OPSC’s Internet Web site at: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OPSC/ Resources/Page–Content/Office–of–Public–School– Construction–Resources–List–Folder/Laws–and– Regulations then scroll down to School Facility Program, Pending Regulatory Changes, and click on the links named 45–day Public Notice, Initial Statement of Reasons and Proposed Regulatory Text. ALTERNATIVES In accordance with Government Code

Section 11346.5(a) (13), the SAB must determine that no reasonable alternative it considered or that has otherwise been identified and brought to its attention would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed, would be as 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.

No alternatives were considered because the general site development grant is a supplemental grant to the new construction base grant. The proposed regulatory amendment continues to be extended until a complete analysis of the new construction base grant can be conducted. AVAILABILITY OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Upon its completion, the Final Statement of Reasons will be available and copies may be requested from the agency’s regulation coordinator named in this notice or may be accessed on the website listed above. TITLE 8.

AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB or Board) proposes to adopt the regulations described below after considering all comments, objections, and recommendations regarding the proposed action. PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION The Board proposes to: ● Repeal existing sections 20290, 20291, 20292, and 20293; and ● Adopt new sections 20290, 20291, 20292, 20293, 20294, 20295, 20296, 20297, 20297.5, 20391, and 20411. PUBLIC HEARING The Board has not scheduled a public hearing on this proposed action.

However, the Board will hold a hearing if it receives a written request for a public hearing from any interested person, or the representative of any interested person, no later than 15 days before the close of the written comment period. A written request for a hearing may be made to ALRB Executive Secretary Santiago Avila–Gomez by letter or email at the addresses below. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any interested person, or the representative of any interested person, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action to the Board.

The written comment period closes on April 22, 2024, which is 45 days after the publication of this notice. The Board will consider only comments actually received by that time. Written comments shall be submitted to: Santiago Avila–Gomez, Executive Secretary Agricultural Labor Relations Board 1325 J Street, Suite 1900–B Sacramento, CA 95814 Comments also may be submitted by email to Santiago.Avila–Gomez@alrb.ca.gov. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Pursuant to Labor Code

section 1144, the Board is authorized to adopt, amend, and repeal rules and regulations to carry out the provisions, and effectuate the purposes and policies, of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA or Act), codified at Labor Code

section 1140 et seq. General reference for proposed

section 20290 of the Board’s regulations: Sections 1149.3, 1160.3, 1160.8, 1160.11, Labor Code. General

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 10–Z 250 reference for proposed

section 20291 of the Board’s regulations: Sections 1149.3, 1160.3, 1160.8, 1160.11, Labor Code. General reference for proposed

section 20292 of the Board’s regulations: Sections 1149.3, 1160.3, 1160.8, 1160.11, Labor Code. General reference for proposed

section 20293 of the Board’s regulations: Sections 1149.3, 1160.3, 1160.8, 1160.11, Labor Code. General reference for proposed

section 20294 of the Board’s regulations: Sections 1149.3, 1160.3, 1160.8, 1160.10, 1160.11, Labor Code. General reference for proposed

section 20295 of the Board’s regulations: Sections 1149.3, 1160.3, 1160.8, 1160.11, Labor Code. General reference for proposed

section 20296 of the Board’s regulations: Sections 1149.3, 1160.3, 1160.8, 1160.11, Labor Code. General reference for proposed

section 20297 of the Board’s regulations: Sections 1149.3, 1160.3, 1160.8, 1160.11, Labor Code; Sections 995.020, 995.120, 995.130, 995.140, 995.160, 995.170, 995.185, 995.330, 995.340, Code of Civil Procedure. General reference for proposed

section 20297.5 of the Board’s regulations: Sections 1149.3, 1160.3, 1160.8, 1160.11, Labor Code; Sections 995.130, 995.160, 995.170, 995.710, 995.740, Code of Civil Procedure. General reference for proposed

section 20391 of the Board’s regulations:

Section 1156.37, Labor Code. General reference for proposed

section 20411 of the Board’s regulations: Sections 1164, 1164.3, 1164.5, Labor Code; Sections 995.020, 995.120, 995.130, 995.140, 995.160, 995.170, 995.185, 995.330, 995.340, 995.710, 995.740, Code of Civil Procedure. POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW The ALRB is a quasi–judicial administrative agency charged with administering and enforcing the ALRA, a landmark law enacted in 1975 that extended collective bargaining rights to farmworkers who were excluded from the coverage of the National Labor Relations Act.

The ALRB protects and enforces the organizational rights of farmworkers and oversees labor relations disputes between growers and the unions representing farmworkers. The proposed regulatory action generally is intended to implement recent amendments to the ALRA as enacted by Assembly Bill Number 113 (AB 113), Statutes of 2023,

chapter 7, which took effect immediately when signed by the Governor on May 15, 2023.

The ALRA declares the policy of this state “to encourage and protect the right of agricultural employees to full freedom of association, self– organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing … for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” (Labor Code, § 1140.2.) The California Supreme Court has recognized “[a] central feature in the promotion of this policy” is the Act’s secret–ballot election procedure by which agricultural employees may elect representatives for the purpose of negotiating with their employers regarding wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment. ( J.R.

Norton Co. v. ALRB (1979) 26 Cal.3d 1, 8; see Labor Code, § 1156.3.) New Labor Code

section 1156.37 establishes an alternative to the secret–ballot election process by which certain labor organizations may be selected by employees to serve as their collective bargaining representative in dealings with their employers upon demonstrating proof of support from a majority of workers. Proposed regulation

section 20391 implements this new “majority support petition process,” and this proposed rulemaking will provide critical guidance to staff responsible for processing and investigating such petitions and to parties regarding the handling of majority support petitions and their rights and obligations during such proceedings.

The Board also is responsible for adjudicating administrative complaints of unfair labor practices by agricultural employers and labor organizations. (Labor Code, §§ 1153, 1154, 1160, 1160.3.) Such complaints are prosecuted by the Board’s general counsel, who has final authority on behalf of the Board with respect to the investigation and prosecution of unfair labor practice charges. (Labor Code, § 1149.) Labor Code

section 1160.3 expressly authorizes the Board to award certain remedies to redress the effects of unfair labor practices, including backpay when necessary to make workers whole in cases where an employer’s unlawful conduct in terminating or disciplining a worker has caused a loss of pay. (See Superior Farming Co. v. ALRB (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 100, 123–124; Lily’s Green Garden, Inc. (2022) 48 ALRB Number 3, pp. 4–5.) Labor Code

section 1160.3 also authorizes the Board to award “bargaining makewhole” relief to workers when necessary to compensate them for losses incurred as a result of an employer’s unlawful bargaining conduct. ( Tri–Fanucchi Farms (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1161, 1163.) Under prior law, allegations regarding an agricultural employer’s or labor organization’s liability for engaging in unfair labor practices were litigated initially, and a party could obtain judicial review of a Board decision on issues of unfair labor practice liability before the commencement of any administrative proceedings to determine the specific amount of a monetary remedy due to workers.

Following the statutory amendments enacted by AB 113, administrative remedial proceedings to determine the amount of a monetary remedy awarded by the Board will be litigated immediately after a Board decision finding unfair labor practice liability and before judicial review of the Board’s proceedings is available to a party. (Labor Code § 1160.3 [AB 113 (2023–2024 Regular Session), § 14].) Furthermore, new

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 10–Z 251 Labor Code

section 1160.11 requires an agricultural employer who seeks to obtain judicial review of a Board decision where a monetary remedy has been awarded to post an appeal bond in the amount of such monetary remedy as a condition to obtaining judicial review. The proposed regulatory action implements these statutory revisions to the Board’s administrative proceedings for determining the amount of monetary remedies owed to workers by restructuring existing regulations governing such remedial proceedings to make them more efficient.

The proposed regulations include deadlines by which a compliance “specification” (which operates as a form of pleading during these types of remedial proceedings, similar to a complaint) must issue following a Board decision and include pleading requirements whereby respondents must clearly identify disputed or denied allegations in a specification. In addition, the proposed regulations adopt procedures for determining the amount of civil penalties owed by an employer found to have engaged in an unfair labor practice pursuant to Labor Code

section 1160.10. Under the proposed regulations, specifications in remedial proceedings involving monetary and non–monetary remedies, as well as civil penalties, may be consolidated in a single proceeding. This proposed rulemaking also provides guidance to agricultural employers regarding how appeal bonds, or cash deposits in lieu of a bond, will be processed and handled by the Board after the specific amount of the monetary remedy owed is determined.

The Board also administers mandatory mediation and conciliation proceedings under the ALRA, a form of interest arbitration designed to assist labor organizations in obtaining a first collective bargaining agreement with an agricultural employer. (Labor Code, § 1164 et seq.) Similar to unfair labor practice appeal bonds for agricultural employers as described above, AB 113 amended Labor Code

section 1164.5 to require agricultural employers to post an appeal bond in the amount of the economic value of a collective bargaining agreement ordered into effect by the Board as a condition of obtaining judicial review of a Board order. This proposed rulemaking provides guidance to agricultural employers regarding the Board’s processing and handling of an appeal bond or cash deposit in lieu of a bond when an employer seeks to obtain judicial review of a Board decision in mandatory mediation and conciliation proceedings. Finally, last year the Legislature adopted Assembly Bill Number 2183 (2021–2022 Regular Session), Statutes 2022,

chapter 673, which added new Labor Code

section 1160.10 to the ALRA. This statute requires the Board to assess civil penalties against an employer found to have committed an unfair labor practice, and describes certain factors relevant towards determining the amount of the penalties to be assessed. This proposed rulemaking describes the procedures to be used in determining the amount of civil penalties to be assessed against an employer, and thus provides guidance to ALRB staff and affected parties with respect to the manner in which such civil penalties will be determined and assessed. INFORMATIVE DIGEST A. Repeal of Existing Regulations

Section 20290: Subdivision (

a) describes the process for commencing a “compliance,” i.e., remedial, administrative proceeding when necessary to obtain a party’s compliance with remedies ordered by the Board after finding the party has engaged or is engaging in an unfair labor practice. As part of the Board’s restructuring of its compliance proceedings, the Board proposes to repeal this subdivision but to re–adopt substantially similar language in proposed new

section 20290, subdivision (b) , regarding the requirements of a compliance specification and notice of hearing involving monetary remedies, including when the regional director may proceed with a notice of hearing without a specification, and the requirement that a notice of hearing may not set a hearing to be held before an administrative law judge less than 15 days after service of the notice. Subdivision (

b) authorizes a regional director of the Board to consolidate backpay and liability proceedings when deemed appropriate to do so, including for efficiency purposes and to avoid delay. As part of the Board’s restructuring of its compliance proceedings, the Board proposes to repeal this subdivision but to re–adopt virtually identical language in proposed new

section

Section 20291: Subdivision (

a) sets forth the requirements for a compliance specification involving an award of backpay to employees, including allegations regarding how the proposed backpay amount was calculated. As part of the Board’s restructuring of its compliance proceedings, the Board proposes to repeal this subdivision but to re–adopt virtually identical language in proposed new

section 20292, subdivision (a). Subdivision (

b) sets forth the requirements for a compliance specification involving an award of bargaining makewhole to employees, including allegations regarding how the proposed makewhole amount was calculated. As part of the Board’s restructuring of its compliance proceedings, the Board proposes to repeal this subdivision but to re–adopt virtually identical language in proposed new

section 20292, subdivision (b).

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 10–Z 252 Subdivision (

c) sets forth the requirements for a compliance specification involving non–monetary remedies ordered by the Board, including a requirement that the specification contain a detailed description of the respondent’s alleged noncompliance with a Board order or court decree. As part of the Board’s restructuring of its compliance proceedings, the Board proposes to repeal this subdivision but to re–adopt substantially similar language in proposed new

section 20293, subdivision (b). Subdivision (

d) allows a regional director, upon a showing of good cause, to issue a partial specification when unable to prepare a full specification as otherwise required. As part of the Board’s restructuring of its compliance proceedings, the Board proposes to repeal this subdivision but to re–adopt virtually identical language in proposed new

section 20292, subdivision (c). Subdivision (

e) allows a regional director to issue a notice of hearing without a compliance specification in appropriate circumstances, which must set forth a clear and detailed statement of the matters in controversy and the relief sought. In such circumstances, the regional director must include in the notice of hearing the reason for proceeding without a specification, and the regional director must substantiate such reasons if requested. As part of the Board’s restructuring of its compliance proceedings, the Board proposes to repeal this subdivision but to re–adopt virtually identical language in proposed new

section 20292, subdivision (d). Subdivision (

f) allows a regional director in a compliance proceeding against a named respondent to allege that persons not named in the Board’s order may be jointly or derivatively liable to comply with the Board’s order. As part of the Board’s restructuring of its compliance proceedings, the Board proposes to repeal this subdivision but to re–adopt virtually identical language in proposed new

section 20292, subdivision (e).

Section 20292: Subdivision (

a) requires each person named as a respondent in a compliance specification or notice of hearing without a specification to file an answer thereto within 15 days after service of the specification or notice of hearing. As part of the Board’s restructuring of its compliance proceedings, the Board proposes to repeal this subdivision but to re–adopt substantially similar language and the same 15–day answer deadline in proposed new

section 20290, subdivision (c). Subdivision (

b) sets forth the contents required in an answer to a compliance specification or notice of hearing without a specification. The regulation requires a respondent to state which facts alleged in the specification or notice are admitted, denied, or outside the respondent’s knowledge. Except for matters not reasonably ascertainable by a respondent, general denials are insufficient.

As for ascertainable matters where a respondent disputes the facts or allegations by which a monetary remedy is calculated, the respondent must state the basis for its disagreement and state in detail its proposed methodology for calculating the amount of the remedy, including providing supporting facts and figures on which it relies. As part of the Board’s restructuring of its compliance proceedings, the Board proposes to repeal this subdivision but to re–adopt substantially similar language in proposed new

section 20290, subdivision (c). Subdivision (

c) describes the consequences where a respondent fails to file an answer to a compliance specification or notice of hearing without a specification or files an answer but fails to deny an allegation. If the respondent does not file an answer, the administrative law judge may find the allegations of the specification or notice of hearing to be true and issue a recommended order. If the respondent filed an answer but did not deny an allegation of the specification or notice of hearing, the administrative law judge may deem the allegation admitted.

As part of the Board’s restructuring of its compliance proceedings, the Board proposes to repeal this subdivision but to re–adopt substantially similar language in proposed new

section 20290, subdivision (d).

Section 20293: Subdivision (

a) states that a compliance specification or notice of hearing without a specification, and answers to them, may be amended in the same manner as unfair labor practice complaints and answers. As part of the Board’s restructuring of its compliance proceedings, the Board proposes to repeal this subdivision but to re–adopt identical language in the first sentence of proposed new

section 20290, subdivision (e). Subdivision (

b) states that a compliance specification or notice of hearing without a specification may be withdrawn in the same manner as an unfair labor practice complaint. As part of the Board’s restructuring of its compliance proceedings, the Board proposes to repeal this subdivision but to re–adopt identical language in the second sentence of proposed new

section 20290, subdivision (e). Subdivision (

c) states that after the issuance of a compliant specification or notice of hearing without specification, procedures applicable to the processing of unfair labor practice cases shall apply. As part of the Board’s restructuring of its compliance proceedings, the Board proposes to repeal this subdivision but to re–adopt identical language in the third sentence of proposed new

section 20290, subdivision (e).

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 10–Z 253 B. Adoption of New Regulations Proposed

section 20290: Compliance Proceedings Involving Monetary Remedies Subdivision (a): After the Board issues a decision ordering a respondent to pay a monetary remedy, the executive secretary of the ALRB is required to immediately assign the matter to an administrative law judge for further proceedings to determine the specific amount of the monetary relief owed. Subdivision (b): The regional director is required to file and serve a compliance specification or notice of hearing without a specification within 90 days of the date of the Board’s decision ordering payment of a monetary remedy.

In certain cases the regional director may issue a notice of hearing without a specification. A notice of hearing accompanying a specification or issued without a specification may set a hearing not less than 15 days after the date of service of the notice of hearing. These provisions incorporate substantially similar language from existing regulation 20290, subdivision (a), which is proposed to be repealed and re–adopted here as part of the restructuring of the Board’s compliance proceedings.

Subdivision (c): Each person named as a respondent in a compliance specification or notice of hearing without a specification shall file an answer thereto within 15 days from the date of service of the specification or notice. The answer shall state specifically which facts alleged in the specification or notice are admitted, denied, or outside the knowledge of the party. Allegations not expressly denied will be deemed admitted. A statement generally denying the allegations of a specification or a denial based only on the party’s lack of information are not sufficient.

If a respondent disputes facts or allegations concerning the calculation of a monetary remedy, the respondent must set forth facts and figures to support its own calculations and provide its own proposed method for calculating the amount of the monetary remedy. These provisions incorporate substantially similar language from existing regulation 20292, subdivisions (

a) and (b), which are proposed to be repealed and re– adopted here as part of the restructuring of the Board’s compliance proceedings. Subdivision (d): When a respondent does not file an answer to a specification or notice of hearing without a specification within the time allowed, the administrative law judge may find the allegations of the specification or notice of hearing to be true, and issue a recommended order consistent with such a determination.

If a respondent does file an answer but fails to deny an allegation in the specification or notice of hearing, the administrative law judge will deem the allegation to be admitted without taking evidence on it. These provisions incorporate substantially similar language from existing regulation 20292, subdivision (c), which is proposed to be repealed and re–adopted here as part of the restructuring of the Board’s compliance proceedings.

Subdivision (e): This subdivision states that (1) a compliance specification or notice of hearing without a specification, and answers to them, may be amended in the same manner as unfair labor practice complaints and answers; (2) a specification or notice of hearing without a specification can be withdrawn in the same manner as an unfair labor practice complaint; and (3) after issuance of a specification or notice of hearing without a specification, the procedures governing unfair labor practice proceedings generally will apply to proceedings to determine the amount of the monetary remedy owed by the respondent.

These provisions incorporate identical language from existing regulation 20293, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), respectively, which are proposed to be repealed and re–adopted here as part of the restructuring of the Board’s compliance proceedings. Proposed

section 20291: Consolidating Unfair Labor Practice and Compliance Proceeding Subdivision (a): A regional director may consolidate an unfair labor practice complaint with a compliance specification involving a monetary remedy alleged to be owed when the regional director deems it appropriate to do so, including to avoid unnecessary cost and delay. Consolidation of a compliance specification with an unfair labor practice complaint after a pre– hearing conference has begun requires the approval of the administrative law judge or the Board.

These provisions incorporate substantially similar language from existing regulation 20290, subdivision (a), which is proposed to be repealed and re–adopted here as part of the restructuring of the Board’s compliance proceedings. Subdivision (b): The regional director’s issuance of a compliance specification is not required before the Board may commence judicial proceedings to obtain a party’s compliance with remedies ordered by the Board pursuant to Labor Code

section 1160.8. Similarly, the regional director’s issuance of a compliance specification shall not bar the Board from commencing judicial proceedings to obtain a party’s compliance with remedies ordered by the Board. These provisions incorporate identical language from the final sentence of existing regulation 20290, subdivision (b), which is proposed to be repealed and re–adopted here as part of the restructuring of the Board’s compliance proceedings. Proposed

section 20292: Specification or Notice of Hearing Involving Monetary Remedies Subdivision (

a) sets forth the required contents for a compliance specification involving the amount of backpay ordered to be paid to an employee or employees. This subdivision incorporates identical

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 10–Z 254 language from existing regulation 20291, subdivision (a), which is proposed to be repealed and re–adopted here as part of the restructuring of the Board’s compliance proceedings. Subdivision (

b) sets forth the required contents for a compliance specification involving the amount of a bargaining makewhole remedy ordered to be paid to workers. This subdivision incorporates identical language from existing regulation 20291, subdivision (b), which is proposed to be repealed and re–adopted here as part of the restructuring of the Board’s compliance proceedings. Subdivision (

c) allows a regional director to issue a partial specification when unable to prepare a full specification. In such cases, the regional director must establish good cause why the regional director is unable to prepare a full specification. The partial specification must set forth in detail all information reasonably available to the regional director in preparing the partial specification and calculating the amount of the monetary remedy owed. This subdivision incorporates virtually identical language from existing regulation 20291, subdivision (d), which is proposed to be repealed and re–adopted here as part of the restructuring of the Board’s compliance proceedings. Subdivision (

d) allows a regional director to file a notice of hearing without a specification when the regional director deems it appropriate to do so. The notice of hearing must contain a detailed statement of the matters in dispute, the relief sought, and the reason for proceeding without a specification. The regional director will be required to substantiate the reasons for not proceeding with a specification if called upon to do so. These provisions incorporate virtually identical language from existing regulation 20291, subdivision (e), which is proposed to be repealed and re–adopted here as part of the restructuring of the Board’s compliance proceedings. Subdivision (

e) allows a regional director to allege and have determined the joint or derivative liability of a party not named as a respondent in the Board’s order directing payment of a monetary remedy. When the regional director contends a person is jointly or derivatively liable for a monetary remedy, the regional director must allege the legal and factual basis for such a contention. These provisions incorporate virtually identical language from existing regulation 20291, subdivision (f) , which is proposed to be repealed and re–adopted here as part of the restructuring of the Board’s compliance proceedings. Proposed

section 20293: Compliance Involving Non–Monetary Remedies Subdivision (

a) requires a regional director to file a compliance specification or notice of hearing without a specification involving non–monetary remedies ordered by the Board within 90 days of the date the Board’s decision becomes final. A respondent is required to file an answer within 15 days after service of the specification or notice. Subdivision (

b) sets forth the required contents of a compliance specification involving non–monetary remedies, such as cease–and–desist orders, bargaining orders where a labor organization or employer is ordered to bargain in good faith with the other, or notice remedies ordered by the Board. In such cases, the specification must include a detailed description of the manner in which the respondent has not complied with the Board’s order and state the acts necessary to obtain the party’s compliance.

These provisions incorporate substantially similar language from existing regulation 20291, subdivision (c) , which is proposed to be repealed and re–adopted here as part of the restructuring of the Board’s compliance proceedings. Subdivision (

c) allows a regional director to combine allegations regarding monetary and non–monetary remedies in a single compliance specification, or notice of hearing without a specification, when the Board’s unfair labor practice order includes both monetary and non–monetary remedies. If the non–monetary remedies are not included in a compliance specification regarding monetary remedies, the regional director may commence a compliance proceeding involving the non–monetary remedies at a later date within 90 days after the Board’s decision concerning the monetary remedies becomes final.

A Board decision ordering the payment of a specific monetary amount becomes final when no appeal is sought and the time to appeal has expired, or when an appeal is filed and the appeal is dismissed or the Board’s order affirmed. Proposed

section 20294: Compliance Involving Civil Penalties Subdivision (

a) requires a regional director to file a compliance specification or notice of hearing without a specification regarding the amount of civil penalties to be paid by an agricultural employer within 90 days after the Board’s decision finding the employer committed an unfair labor practice becomes final. A respondent must file an answer within 15 days after service of the specification or notice of hearing. Subdivision (

b) requires a specification regarding the amount of civil penalties owed by an employer to set forth specific facts relevant to determining the amount of the civil penalties to be assessed. Subdivision (

c) allows a specification concerning civil penalties owed by an employer with a specification involving monetary remedies ordered by the Board, a specification involving non–monetary remedies ordered by the Board, or with a specification following an administrative law judge’s decision that has become final because no exceptions were filed with the Board.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 10–Z 255 Subdivision (

d) provides that when a specification involving civil penalties is included with another specification involving monetary or non–monetary remedies, or when an administrative law judge’s decision has become final, that timeframes governing such other compliance proceedings will apply. Proposed

section 20295: Compliance After Administrative Law Judge Decision This

section establishes timeframes governing compliance proceedings when an administrative law judge’s decision ordering monetary or non–monetary remedies, or both, as well as civil penalties, becomes final because no exceptions were filed with the Board. In such cases, a compliance specification or notice of hearing without specification regarding the ordered remedies and civil penalties, if any, shall be filed within 90 days after the administrative law judge’s decision becomes final, and any answers thereto must be filed within 15 days after service of the specification or notice of hearing. Proposed

section 20296: Continuing Monetary Liability During Judicial Review This

section establishes a compliance procedure to collect on behalf of workers the full scope of a monetary remedy that continues to accrue during the course of subsequent judicial review proceedings after a previous unfair labor practice and compliance proceeding. In such cases, the regional director is required to issue a specification regarding the additional monetary relief owed within 90 days after the judicial review proceedings are final, and the respondent must file an answer within 15 days after service of the specification. Proposed

section 20297: Unfair Labor Practice Appeal Bonds This

section sets forth requirements for an agricultural employer who must post an appeal bond with the Board as a condition to seeking judicial review of a Board decision in an unfair labor practice case. This

section further details the required contents of the bond the employer must post with the Board, and provides the Board shall file the bond with the reviewing court. Proposed

section 20297.5: Cash Deposit in Lieu of Appeal Bond This

section sets forth requirements for an agricultural employer who seeks to deposit cash or a cash–equivalent (i.e., check, cashier’s check, or money order) with the Board in lieu of an appeal bond as a condition to seeking judicial review of a Board decision in an unfair labor practice case. An employer is required to provide notice to the Board of its intent to submit a deposit of cash so that the Board can arrange a time for the delivery of the deposit. This

section further states the Board will hold a deposit in trust in an interest–bearing account. This

section further describes the required contents of an agreement an employer must sign when making a deposit with the Board and authorizing the Board to execute and collect on the deposit if the Board’s decision is upheld, including that the agreement shall be signed under penalty of perjury by an individual with authorized to sign on behalf of the employer. This

section also provides that the Board will provide a receipt to the party confirming the deposit once the deposit is verified to be in the required amount and all other requirements for submitting the deposit are met. Proposed

section 20391: Majority Support Petitions Subdivision (

a) describes the requirements for filing and serving a majority support petition, including that the regional director must notify the employer named in the petition and whose employees are sought to be represented by the petitioning labor organization immediately upon receipt of all required materials for the petition. The petition must include a declaration signed under penalty of perjury attesting the contents of the petition are true to the best of the declarant’s knowledge. Evidence of support from a majority of employees in the bargaining unit sought to be represented, whether on petitions or cards, must be physically delivered to a regional office of the Board. This

section further describes the required contents of petitions or authorization cards signed by the employees, including that a signature on a petition or card is valid for one year from the date of signature and that it may not be revoked during that time period. Subdivision (

b) describes the requirements for an employer to file a response to the petition, including a list of its agricultural employees. The employer’s response and employee list must be filed and served within 48 hours after personal service of the majority support petition on the employer. Subdivision (

c) describes the investigation a regional director must conduct upon the filing of a majority support petition, including that the regional director must dismiss a petition when certain requirements necessary to determine a question of representation are not met. A petitioning labor organization may amend a petition to cure a defect that otherwise would result in its dismissal, upon approval of the regional director.

If a regional director dismisses a petition, the regional director must issue a letter to the parties explaining the reasons for the dismissal, and a party may seek review of the dismissal before the Board. In cases where the regional director determines the requirements for the filing of the petition are met but that the proof of employee support from the labor organization is insufficient to establish majority support, the regional director shall notify the parties of this determination in writing, and the labor organization is allowed 30 days to obtain and submit additional employee support.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 10–Z 256 Any proof of support previously submitted but found by the regional director to be defective will be returned to the labor organization. If at the conclusion of the 30–day cure period the labor organization still has not established proof of majority support, the regional director shall notify the executive secretary of this determination, including a tally of employee support received, and the executive secretary shall certify the result to the parties.

If the regional director determines proof of majority support to be established, the regional director shall notify the executive secretary of its determination, including a tally of the support received, and the executive secretary shall certify the result to the parties. Subdivision (

d) describes the requirements for an employer filing objections to the certification of a labor organization. The employer must file its objections within five days after service of the executive secretary’s certification of the labor organization. Subdivision (

e) states that the Board must dismiss objections that do not satisfy applicable filing and evidentiary requirements. The Board also must dismiss objections that, even if true, would not be sufficient to revoke the labor organization’s certification. This

section further describes the circumstances under which the Board will set objections for hearing, and requires that a hearing must begin within 14 days of the date of the Board’s order unless the labor organization agrees to an extension. This

section further states the general rules applicable to a hearing ordered by the Board. Subdivision (

f) describes procedures applicable when a labor organization files a majority support while a majority support petition filed by another labor organization already has been filed and is pending with the Board. In such cases, the second petition will be held in abeyance pending determination of the first petition, unless the second petition alleges the labor organization that filed the first petition was assisted, supported, created, or dominated by an employer. In cases involving such allegations, this

section describes the procedures by which the Board will review them and, if appropriate, set such allegations for hearing. This

section further describes the timeframes applicable to hearings conducted in such cases. This

section further states the penalties applicable to a labor organization or its representatives that are found to have been supported, assisted, created, or dominated by an employer. Subdivision (

g) describes procedures by which the executive secretary will notify the general counsel when employer objections or a majority support petition contains allegations of employer assistance, support, creation, or domination. Upon notice from the executive secretary, the general counsel may request to consolidate such objections or allegations with any pending unfair labor practice charges containing similar allegations. If the Board grants a consolidation request, this

section describes the procedures applicable to a hearing on such issues. Subdivision (

h) states that a majority support petition “campaign” by a labor organization will be deemed to be underway if the labor organization can establish proof of support of at least 10% of an employer’s agricultural employees. This threshold requirement applies to situations where a labor organization alleges an employer engaged in an unfair labor practice or misconduct or takes adverse action against an employee during the course of a labor organization’s majority support petition campaign under subdivisions (

j) and (

k) of Labor Code

section 1156.37. Under

section 1156.37, subdivision (j), a labor organization may be certified by the Board if an employer who engages in an unfair labor practice or misconduct during such a campaign and the Board finds the chances of a new majority support petition reflecting the fair and free choice of the employees to be slight. Under

section 1156.37, subdivision (k), an employer who takes adverse action against an employee during a campaign is presumed to have taken such action for unlawful retaliatory purposes unless the employer rebuts the presumption by “clear and convincing” evidence. Proposed

section 20411: Appeal Bonds and Cash Deposits in MMC Cases This

section adopts the unfair labor practice appeal bond and cash deposit requirements for purposes of the appeal bond an employer is required to post with the Board as a condition to seeking judicial review of a Board order in mandatory mediation and conciliation proceedings. For more information regarding specific proposed regulations, please refer to the proposed regulatory language. CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING STATE REGULATIONS The Board has determined the proposed regulatory adoptions are not inconsistent or incompatible with existing regulations.

The ALRB has exclusive jurisdiction to enforce and administer the provisions of the ALRA. There are no other regulations adopted by any other state agency that affect the procedures or laws affected by the proposed regulatory action. Thus, the Board has concluded these regulations are neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing state regulations.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 10–Z 257 ANTICIPATED BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS The proposed rulemaking is intended to implement statutory amendments to the ALRA enacted by AB 113, including specifically the majority support petition process and new appeal bond provisions.

The proposed regulatory action will provide guidance to ALRB staff and affected parties regarding the processing, handling, and investigation of majority support petitions, and describing affected parties’ respective rights and obligations with respect to the processing and disposition of majority support petitions. In addition, the proposed regulatory action will make more efficient the Board’s remedial administrative proceedings in unfair labor practice cases, including specifically with respect to orders involving monetary remedies.

In the past, a party aggrieved by a Board decision finding unfair labor practice liability could seek immediate judicial review of the Board’s decision, and any subsequent administrative proceedings to effectuate the remedies ordered by the Board, including monetary remedies, would not occur until after the completion of such judicial review proceedings. As a result, workers found to be owed monetary relief could have to wait years after a Board decision before any subsequent proceedings to determine the actual amount of money they are owed.

And a party could also seek judicial review of that subsequent Board decision determining the extent of a party’s monetary liability, thereby adding further delays for farmworkers entitled to receive a monetary remedy. Under AB 113, remedial proceedings where the Board has awarded monetary relief now must occur before judicial review is available to parties in order to determine the specific amount of the monetary remedy owed.

This is because the amount of the monetary remedy will represent the amount of the appeal bond, or cash deposit in lieu of a bond, an employer must post with the Board as a condition of seeking judicial review. This bond requirement will secure payment of the money owed to the workers in the event the employer’s judicial challenge to the Board’s decision is unsuccessful.

This proposed regulatory action restructures the Board’s administrative remedial proceedings to occur immediately following the issuance of a Board decision where unfair labor practice liability is found and a monetary remedy is awarded, and imposes new filing deadlines in such proceedings to make the proceedings more efficient and to comply with new statutory requirements that such proceedings be completed in less than one year.

The proposed regulatory action also provides guidance to parties regarding procedures governing the Board’s handling and processing of appeal bonds or cash deposits when an agricultural employer seeks judicial review of a Board decision awarding a monetary remedy. Also, the proposed regulatory action includes guidance to ALRB staff and affected parties regarding the procedures by which the Board will determine the amount of civil penalties owed by an employer found to have committed an unfair labor practice. Labor Code

section 1160.10 requires the Board to assess civil penalties against an employer found to have committed an unfair labor practice. Subdivision (

b) of

section 1160.10 describes the factors relevant towards determining the amount of the penalties. This proposed regulatory action would refer determination of the amount of civil penalties owed by an employer to the Board’s compliance proceedings, thereby establishing procedures to be used to establish facts relevant to setting the amount of the penalties.

Finally, the procedures described in the proposed regulatory action relating to the Board’s handling and processing of appeal bonds in unfair labor practice cases also will provide guidance to parties regarding similar bond requirements in mandatory mediation and conciliation proceedings. Under prior law, an employer who sought to challenge a Board decision ordering into effect a collective bargaining agreement reached through mandatory mediation and conciliation proceedings could do so and effectively forestall and delay implementation of the collective bargaining agreement.

Under AB 113, an employer who seeks to challenge a Board decision ordering a collective bargaining agreement into effect must post an appeal bond in the amount of the economic value of the collective bargaining agreement as a condition to seeking judicial review. This will secure for the benefit of the employees the economic value of the contract negotiated by their union on their behalf if the employer’s judicial challenge is unsuccessful.

This proposed regulatory action provides guidance to agricultural employers regarding the procedures governing the Board’s handling and processing of appeal bonds or cash deposits in mandatory mediation and conciliation proceedings. NO EXISTING AND COMPARABLE FEDERAL REGULATION OR STATUTE The Board has determined that there are no existing, comparable federal regulations or statutes addressing the matters encompassed by this regulatory action.

Agricultural employees are excluded from coverage under the National Labor Relations Act, and labor relations between agricultural employers and employees are governed by state law under the ALRA. Accordingly, the Board has concluded that these regulations are neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing federal regulations or statutes.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 10–Z 258 DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION The Board has made the following initial determinations: Mandate, cost or savings imposed on local agencies and school districts: The proposed action will not impact local agencies or school districts, result in any costs or savings to local agencies or school districts, or impose any new mandate on local agencies or school districts that must be reimbursed pursuant to Government Code

section 17500 et seq. Cost or savings to state agency: The proposed action will not result in any new costs or savings to any state agency. Non–discretionary cost or savings imposed upon local agencies: The proposed action will not result in any non–discretionary costs or savings to local agencies. Cost or savings in federal funding to the state: The proposed action will not result in any new costs or savings to the state.

Cost impact on private persons or directly affected businesses: The Board is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action. Significant adverse economic impact on business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states: The proposed action will have no significant adverse economic impact on California businesses. Significant effect on housing costs: The proposed action will have no effect on housing costs.

Business Reporting Requirement: The proposed action will not require a report to be made. The Board has determined the proposed regulations will not affect small business because the proposed regulations will not result in any additional costs or burdens on small businesses. RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT The proposed regulations clarify procedures to comply with obligations already enacted in statute.

The Board concludes that the adoption of the proposed regulations will neither create nor eliminate jobs in the State of California, nor result in the elimination of existing businesses, or create or expand businesses in the State of California. BEN EFIT A NA LYSIS The ALRB currently lacks regulations detailing procedures governing the handling of majority support petitions where a labor organization seeks to be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of an appropriate unit of agricultural employees.

The proposed regulatory action will provide guidance to staff responsible for processing, handling, and investigating such petitions, as well as parties involved in such proceedings regarding their respective rights and obligations. In addition, the ALRB aims to improve efficiencies in its administrative processes. The proposed regulatory action seeks to make the ALRB’s administrative “compliance,” or remedial, proceedings more timely and efficient in order that monetary remedies ordered by the Board, such as backpay owed to workers, are determined more expeditiously.

The proposed regulatory action will not adversely affect the health and welfare of California residents, worker safety, or the state’s environment. The proposed regulatory action will further the policies underlying the expedient determination of questions of representation when a labor organization seeks to represent workers in their negotiations and dealings with their employers. This, in turn, will contribute to achieving stability and labor peace and avoiding disruption in our agricultural industry due to labor disputes.

The proposed regulatory action also furthers policies in favor of the prompt resolution of labor disputes, including the determination of monetary remedies owed to workers to make them whole when unfair labor practices have been committed by employers or labor organizations. California residents’ general welfare will be benefited by stable labor relations and dispute resolution, which translates to less risk of disruption in California’s agricultural industry. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES In accordance with Government Code

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

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 10–Z 259 The Board invites interested persons to present statements or arguments with respect to alternatives to the proposed regulations during the written comment period or at any scheduled hearing if one is requested. CONTACT PERSONS Any questions or suggestions regarding the proposed action should be directed to: Santiago Avila–Gomez, Executive Secretary Agricultural Labor Relations Board 1325 J Street, Suite 1900–B Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 894–6840 Email: Santiago.Avila–Gomez@alrb.ca.gov The backup person for these inquiries is: Todd M.

Ratshin, Chief Board Counsel Agricultural Labor Relations Board 1325 J Street, Suite 1900–B Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 894–6836 Email: Todd.Ratshin@alrb.ca.gov Please direct requests for copies of the proposed text (i.e., the express terms) of the regulations, the initial statement of reasons, the modified text of the regulations, if any, or other information upon which the rulemaking is based, to Santiago Avila–Gomez at the above address.

PRELIMINARY ACTIVITIES The Board’s Regulations Subcommittee issued its original draft of proposed regulatory language to implement the statutory amendments to the ALRA enacted by AB 113 on June 9, 2023. The subcommittee conducted a public workshop on June 23, at which it received public comment and input from interested persons and stakeholders. On September 27, the subcommittee published updated proposed regulatory language, which was presented to the full Board and the public at the Board’s October 4 public meeting.

At this meeting, the Board approved the subcommittee’s proposal and directed the subcommittee to commence a formal rulemaking. AVAILABILITY OF STATEMENT OF REASONS, TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS, AND RULEMAKING FILE The Board 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 California Regulatory Notice Register, the rulemaking file consists of this notice, the express terms of the proposed regulations and the initial statement of reasons.

Copies of these documents may be obtained by contacting Santiago Avila–Gomez at the above address and are also available on the Board’s web site at https://www.alrb.ca.gov/rulemaking/ ab–113–implementing–regulations/. AVAILABILITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT After holding a hearing, if one is requested, and considering all timely and relevant comments, the Board may adopt the proposed regulations substantially as described in this notice.

If the Board makes modifications that are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text, the modified text with changes clearly indicated will be made available to the public for at least 15 days prior to the date on which the Board adopts the regulations as revised. Requests for copies of any modified regulations and/or the final statement of reasons should be sent to the attention of Santiago Avila–Gomez at the above address. The Board will accept written 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 Santiago Avila–Gomez at the above address or accessed on the ALRB’s web site as set forth below. AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS ON THE INTERNET Copies of this notice of proposed action, the initial statement of reasons, and the text of the proposed regulations in underline and strikeout, can be accessed on the ALRB’s web site at https://www.alrb.ca.gov/ rulemaking/ab–113–implementing–regulations/ throughout the rulemaking process.

Written comments received during the written comment period also will be posted on the ALRB’s web site. The final statement of reasons or, if applicable, notice of a decision not to proceed will be posted on the ALRB’s web site following the Board’s action.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 10–Z 260 TITLE 8. DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS TITLE 8, DIVISION 1,

CHAPTER 7, SUBCHAPTER 1,

ARTICLE 2,

SECTION 14300.41, APPENDIX H AND APPENDIX I PUBLIC PROCEEDINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“the Division”) within the Department of Industrial Relations proposes to amend

Section 14300.41 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations 8 CCR § 14300.41) regarding employers’ duty to record and report occupational injuries and illnesses. The Division proposes to adopt the proposed amendments described below after considering all comments, objections, and recommendations regarding the proposed action. PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing has been scheduled to permit all interested persons the opportunity to present statements or arguments, oral or in writing, with respect to the proposed amendments, on the following date: Date: April 23, 2024 Time: 10:00 a.m.

Place: Elihu Harris State Office Building — Room 1304 1515 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612 The State Office Building and meeting rooms are accessible to people with mobility impairments. Alternate formats, assistive listening systems, sign language interpreters, or other types of reasonable accommodations to facilitate effective communication for people with disabilities are available upon request.

Please contact the Statewide Disability Accommodation Coordinator at 1–866–326–1616 (toll free), or through the California Relay Service by dialing 711 or 1–800–735–2929 (TTY/English) or 1–800–855–3000 (TTY/Spanish) as soon as possible to request assistance. Accommodation requests should be made as soon as possible. Requests for an Assistive Listening System or Communication Access Realtime Translation should be made no later than five (5) days before the hearing.

At the hearing, any person may present statements or arguments, orally or in writing, relevant to the proposed amendments described below in the Informative Digest. The Division requests, but does not require, that any persons who make oral comments at the hearing also provide a written copy of their comments. Equal weight will be accorded to oral comments and written materials. Please note that public comment will begin promptly at 10:00 a.m. and will conclude when the last speaker has finished his or her presentation or at 3:00 p.m., whichever is earlier.

If public comment concludes before the noon recess, no afternoon session will be held. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any interested person, or their authorized repre - sentative, may submit written comments relevant to the Proposed Rulemaking. Written comments, regard- less of the method of transmittal, must be received by the Division by 11:59 p.m. on April 23, 2024, which is hereby designated as the close of the written com - ment period. Comments received after this date will not be considered timely. Persons wishing to use the California Relay Service may do so at no cost by dial- ing 711.

Written comments may be submitted as follows: 1. By email to: tmhenson@dir.ca.gov. It is requested that email transmissions of comments, particular- ly those with attachments, contain the regulation identifier “Recording and Reporting of Occupa - tional Injuries and Illnesses” in the subject line to facilitate timely identification and review of the comment; 2. By mail or hand–delivery to T. Michelle Hen - son, Staff Counsel, at Cal/OSHA Legal Unit, 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1901, Oakland, California 94612. All comments, regardless of the method of transmittal, should include the commenter’s name and U.S.

Postal Service mailing address or email address to enable the Division to provide the commenter with notice of any changes to the proposed amendments on which additional comments may be solicited. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE CITATIONS

Section 14300.41 Authority cited: Sections 50.7, 150(

b) and 6410, Labor Code. Reference:

Section 6410, Labor Code. NOTE: Under California Labor Code § 50.7, the Department of Industrial Relations is the state agency

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 10–Z 261 designated to administer the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 (Cal. Labor Code § 6300 et seq.) The California Division of Labor Statistics and Research (“DLSR”), formerly a division within the Department of Industrial Relations, promulgated 8 CCR § 14300.41. This regulation was promulgated by DLSR under the authority of California Labor Code §§ 50.7 and 6410 to fulfill the federal mandate established by 29 CFR §§ 1902.3(j); 1902.7, and 1904.37(

a) that California’s occupational injury and illness recording and reporting requirements under its state plan be “substantially identical” to the federal requirements. In 2012, Senate Bill 1038 abolished DLSR and amended Labor Code § 150 by transferring its responsibilities under

Chapter 7, Subchapter 1,

Article 1 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (commencing with

Section 14000) to the Division. Labor Code § 150(b), as amended, provides: To the extent not in conflict with this or any other section, on the date this subdivision be - comes operative, the responsibilities of the Di - vision of Labor Statistics and Research that are specified in Subchapter 1 (commencing with

Section 14000) and Subchapter 2 (commencing with

Section 14900) of

Chapter 7 of Division 1 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations are reassigned to the Division of Occupation - al Safety and Health and the responsibilities of the Division of Labor Statistics and Research that are specified in Subchapter 3 (commencing with

Section 16000) of

Chapter 8 of Division 1 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations are reassigned to the Division of Labor Stan - dards Enforcement. The Division now proposes to amend 8 CCR § 14300.41 under the authority provided in Sections 50.7, 150(

b) and 6410 of the Labor Code. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW The federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 USC § 651 et seq.) covers most private sector employers and their employees in all 50 states either directly through the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) or through a “state plan” approved by OSHA under 29 CFR 1902 et seq. A state plan is an OSHA–approved occupational safety and health program operated by an individual state instead of by OSHA. OSHA approves and monitors all state plans and provides funding for those plans.

California is a state plan state under 29 CFR 1902 et seq. If OSHA establishes a new or revised standard, a state plan must adopt its own standard that is at least as effective as the new or revised federal standard within six months.

With regard to OSHA ’s standards governing employers’ duties to record and report occupational injuries or illnesses, a state plan must adopt standards that are “substantially identical” to the federal standards. (See 29 CFR §§ 1902.3(j), 1902.7, and 1904.37(a).) DLSR previously promulgated 8 CCR § 14300.41 to ensure that California’s occupational injury and illness recording and reporting requirements for employers were “substantially identical” to the federal recording and reporting standard.

Existing Cal/ OSHA rule requires employers with 250 employees or more during the previous calendar year, employers in specific industries with 20–249 employees during the previous calendar year, and employers who do not fall in the previous categories who are responding to a request from OSHA, to annually electronically submit information from Form 300A

Summary of Work– Related Injuries and Illnesses. On July 21, 2023, OSHA issued a final rule amending the requirements for covered employers to report occupational injuries and illnesses data set forth in 29 CFR § 1904.41. According to OSHA, the amendments in their final rule made the following changes to the prior reporting requirements in 29 CFR,

part 1904: ● Establishments that are required to keep injury and illness records under

part 1904, that had 100 or more employees in the previous year, and that are in certain designated industries, must electronically submit the required information from the OSHA Log of Work–Related Injuries and Illnesses form (Form 300) and the OSHA Injury and Illness Incident Report form (Form 301) to OSHA or OSHA ’s designee, on an annual basis. OSHA ’s final rule did not change an employer’s obligation to complete and maintain occupational injury and illness records, nor did it change the recording criteria for the records.

The added data collection provisions in the proposed amendments will assist employers and OSHA in developing a more accurate picture of the extent and severity of work– related incidents. These provisions expand OSHA ’s, the Division’s and the public’s access to establishment– specific work–related injury and illness data, thus allowing OSHA (and the Division) to direct more of its enforcement and compliance assistance resources to those establishments where workers are at greatest risk.

Because the Division has assumed the rulemaking authority for the corresponding standards in California, it must now amend 8 CCR §14300.41 to ensure that it remains “substantially identical” to the federal regulations.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 10–Z 262 § 14300.41. Electronic Submission of Injury and Illness Records to OSHA. 29 CFR

section 1904.37(

a) requires a state plan to adopt rules regarding employer recording and reporting of occupational injuries and illness that are “substantially identical” to the federal regulations. Existing Cal/OSHA rule requires employers with 250 employees or more during the previous calendar year, employers in specific industries with 20–249 employees during the previous calendar year, and employers who do not fall in the previous categories who are responding to a request from OSHA, to annually electronically submit information from Form 300A

Summary of Work–Related Injuries and Illnesses. The proposed amendment of 8 CCR § 14300.41 would generally track the language and format of its corresponding federal counterpart, 29 CFR

section 1904.41. The proposed rulemaking would make the following specific changes to 8 CCR § 14300.41: 1. Subsection (a) (1) is renumbered to add subsec - tions (i), previously subsection (a) (1) and (ii), pre- viously subsection (a) (2). The renumbering of this proposed amendment tracks federal OSHA ’s current organization and format. 2. Subsection (a) (1) is amended to add “Form 300A

Summary of Work–Related” and deletes the fol - lowing text: “by establishments with 250 or more employees” The language of this proposed amendment tracks the format and language in 29 CFR

section 1904.41(a) (1). 3. Subsection (a) (1) (ii), formerly subsection (a) (2), is amended to delete the first sentence heading. This proposed amendment tracks the format in 29 CFR

section 1904.41(a) (1). 4. Subsection (a) (2) is amended to require employ - ers in designated industries that had 100 or more employees at any time during the previous cal - endar year to submit electronically certain occu - pational injury and illness data from Forms 300 and 301 to OSHA once per year by the date listed in

Section 14300.41(c). The language of this pro- posed amendment tracks the language in 29 CFR

section 1904.41(a) (2). 5. Subsection (b) (1) is amended to add a third cat - egory of employers who must annually sub - mit certain occupational injury and illness data to OSHA. If an employer has 100 or more em - ployees at any time during the preceding calen - dar year, and is classified as an industry listed in newly added Appendix I, then it must submit cer- tain information on its Form 300 and Form 301 to OSHA once a year, in addition to the required in- formation from Form 300A. The language of this proposed amendment tracks the language in 29 CFR

section 1904.41(b) (1). 6. Subsection (b) (7) is amended to correct “Web site” to “website” and “Web site’s” to “website’s” to be consistent with the usage in Title 8 and 29 CFR

section 1904.41(b) (5). 7. Subsection (b) (11) is added to specify the infor - mation an affected employer must submit from the recordkeeping forms under subsection (a) (2). If an employer is required to submit information under

section 14300.41(a) (2), it must submit all the information except the employee name in col- umn B of the Log of Work–Related Injuries and Illnesses, Form 300 and all the information ex - cept employee name (field 1), employee address (field 2), name of physician or other health care professional (field 6), facility name and address if treatment was given away from the worksite (field 7) of the Injury and Illness Incident Re - port, Form 301. The language of this proposed amendment tracks the language in 29 CFR Sec - tion 1904.41(b) (9). 8.

Subsection (b) (12) is added to specify that an em- ployer must include its legal company name as part of the submission of the occupational inju - ry and illness data for the affected employer to OSHA. The language of this proposed amend - ment tracks the language in 29 CFR

section 1904.41(b) (10). 9. Subsection (

c) is amended to eliminate the ini - tial phase–in of the reporting date deadlines for affected employers to submit their occupational injury and illness data to OSHA. The reporting date deadline of March 2 of the year after the cal- endar year of the form(

s) remains the same, with an updated example. The language of this pro - posed amendment tracks the language in 29 CFR

section 1904.41(c). Appendices H and I for Title 8 Sections 14300–14300.48 1. Appendix H for Title 8 sections 14300–14300.48 is amended to update the North American Indus - try Classification System (NAICS) codes for spe- cific industries which are included in the report - ing requirements set forth in subsection (a) (1) (ii) for employers that had 20 to 249 employees at any time in the previous calendar year. The language of this proposed appendix tracks the language of Appendix A to subpart E of 29 CFR

section 1904.41. 2. Appendix I for Title 8 sections 14300–14300.48 is added to specify which industries are included in the reporting requirements set forth in subsec - tion (a) (2) for employers that had 100 or more em- ployees at any time in the previous calendar year.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 10–Z 263 The language of this proposed appendix tracks the language of Appendix B to subpart E of 29 CFR

section 1904.41. Anticipated Benefits of the Proposed Rulemaking: The added data collection provisions in the proposed amendments will assist employers and OSHA in developing a more accurate picture of the extent and severity of work–related incidents. These provisions expand OSHA ’s, the Division’s and the public’s access to establishment–specific work–related injury and illness data, thus allowing OSHA (and the Division) to direct more of its enforcement and compliance assistance resources to those establishments where workers are at greatest risk.

The public disclosure of the electronic data submission required by the proposals could also lead to safer workplaces for workers.

The public disclosure of this information could: ● Encourage employers to abate hazards to prevent occupational injuries and illnesses to their workers so as to preserve their reputations as good places to work or with whom to do business; ● Allow employers to gauge the effectiveness of their injury and illness prevention programs by comparing their occupational injury and illness rates with those of comparable employers; ● Allow investors to compare occupational injury and illness rates among competing employers when looking for investment opportunities; ● Allow members of the public to make more– informed decisions on what businesses to patronize based on competing employers’ ability to address workplace hazards impacting their workers; ● Provide better information to job–seekers regarding the occupational injury and illness rates of prospective employers.

Evaluation as to Whether the Proposed Regulations Are Inconsistent or Incompatible with Existing State Regulations: The Division has determined that the proposed amendments are not inconsistent or incompatible with existing state regulations. After conducting a review for any regulations that would relate to or affect this area, the Division concluded that no other state regulations address the same subject matter. Explanation of Substantial Differences Between the Proposed Regulations and Comparable Federal Regulations or Statutes: The proposed amendments and additions to

section 14300.41 would make California’s regulations substantially identical to corresponding federal regulations, 29 CFR

section 1904.41, being implemented by federal OSHA. Forms Incorporated by Reference: None. MANDATED BY FEDERAL REGULATIONS The proposed amendments to

section 14300.41 are compatible with 29 CFR

section 1904.41. Because California is a state plan state under 29 CFR,

Part 1902, these proposed amendments are mandated by federal law, which requires that California’s requirements for employers to record and report occupational injuries and illnesses be “substantially identical” to the corresponding federal requirements. (See 29 CFR §§ 1902.3(j), 1902.7, and 1904.37(a).) OTHER STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS There are no other statutory requirements that are specific to the Division or this type of regulation. LOCAL MANDATE The proposals do not impose a mandate on local agencies or school districts. The Division has determined that the proposals do not impose a mandate requiring reimbursement by the state pursuant to

Part 7 (commencing with

section 17500) of Division 4 of the Government Code because they do not constitute a “new program or higher level of service of an existing program” within the meaning of

section 6 or

Article XIII B of the California Constitution. The California Supreme Court has established that a “program” within the meaning of

section 6 or

Article XIII of the California Constitution is one which carries out the governmental function of providing services to the public, or which, to implement a state policy, imposes unique requirements on local governments and does not apply generally to all residents and entities in the state. (County of Los Angeles v. State of California (1987) 43 Cal.3d 46.) The proposed amendments do not require any local agency to carry out the governmental function of providing services to the public, nor do they impose unique requirements on local governments that do not apply generally to all entities in the state.

Furthermore, any new costs associated with the recording and reporting of occupational injuries and illnesses required by the proposed amendments are costs mandated by the federal government. As such, even if the proposed amendments were held to constitute a “new program or higher level of service of an existing program” under

section 6 of

Article XIII B of the California Constitution, any associated costs would not be considered costs mandated by the state. (See Cal. Government Code § 17556(c).) FISCAL IMPACT Costs or Savings to any local agency or school district which must be reimbursed in accordance

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 10–Z 264 with Government Code sections 17500 through 17630: None. Costs or savings to any state agency: The cost to an individual state agency to comply with the proposals will be less than or equal to $136 per year. (See Cost Impacts on Representative Person or Business

section below.) There will be no savings. Other nondiscretionary costs or savings imposed on local agencies : The cost to an individual local agency to comply with the proposals will be less than or equal to $136 per year (See Cost Impacts on Representative Person or Business

section below.) There will be no savings. Costs or savings in federal funding to the State : None. HOUSING COSTS The proposals will not affect housing costs. SIGNIFICANT STATEWIDE ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACT DIRECTLY AFFECTING BUSINESS, INCLUDING ABILITY TO COMPETE Although the proposed rulemaking will directly affect covered businesses statewide, the Division anticipates that the statewide adverse economic impact will be insignificant.

The Division anticipates that the proposals will have no effect on the ability of California businesses to compete with business in other states because all federal OSHA states and other state plan states will have to adopt substantially identical requirements. RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT Creation or Elimination of Jobs Within California: The Division concludes that it is unlikely that the proposals will either create or eliminate jobs within California.

Creation of New Business, Elimination of Existing Businesses, or Expansion of Businesses Currently Doing Business in California: The Division concludes that it is unlikely that the proposed amendments will: (1) create new businesses in California; (2) eliminate any existing businesses in California; or (3) result in the expansion of businesses currently doing business in California. Benefits of the Proposed Amendments to the Health and Welfare of California Residents, Worker Safety, and the State’s Environment: The proposals will benefit worker safety and health in California.

The added data collection provisions in the proposals will provide more detailed reporting on the extent and severity of injuries and illnesses for the occupational injury and illness data that employers are required to record and report under

Article 2. These provisions expand OSHA ’s, the Division’s and public’s access to additional specific occupational injury and illness data, thus allowing OSHA (and the Division) to direct more of its enforcement and compliance assistance resources to those establishments where workers are at greatest risks. The public disclosure of the electronic data submission required by the proposals could also lead to safer workplaces for workers. (See Anticipated Benefits of the Proposed Rulemaking

section above.) The proposals will not otherwise significantly benefit the health and welfare of California’s residents and will not likely benefit California’s environment. COST IMPACTS ON REPRESENTATIVE PERSON OR BUSINESS The Division has determined that the proposed amendments will have some economic impacts on covered employers, but that these economic impacts will not be significantly adverse.

During its rulemaking process that led to the July 21, 2023 final rule, OSHA conducted an economic analysis to determine the economic impact on employers to comply with the new requirement to report injury and illness data electronically. According to OSHA, the amendments in their final rule made the following changes to the prior recording and reporting requirements in 29 CFR,

part 1904: ● Establishments that are required to keep injury and illness records under

part 1904, that had 100 or more employees in the previous year, and that are in certain designated industries, must electronically submit the required information from the OSHA Log of Work–Related Injuries and Illnesses form (Form 300) and the OSHA Injury and Illness Incident Report form (Form 301) to OSHA or OSHA ’s designee, on an annual basis. OSHA ’s final rule did not change an employer’s obligation to complete and maintain occupational injury and illness records, nor did it change the recording criteria for the records.

OSHA determined that an employer’s electronic submission of occupational injury and illness data to OSHA “would be a relatively simple and quick matter” involving, in most cases, these basic steps:

(1) Logging on to OSHA ’s web–based submission system;

(2) Entering basic establishment information into the system (the first time only);

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 10–Z 265

(3) C opying the required injury and illness information from the establishment’s records into the electronic submission forms; and

(4) H itting a button to submit the information to OSHA. OSHA ’s economic analysis of its final rule determined that the average cost to employers to comply with the electronic reporting of Form 300 and Form 301 data would be $136 per year. 1 BUSINESS REPORT The proposed regulations will require subject businesses to report additional occupational injury and illness records to OSHA. This reporting requirement is mandated by federal law. It is necessary for the health, safety, or welfare of the people of the state that the regulation apply to businesses.

SMALL BUSINESS DETERMINATION The Division has determined that the proposed amendments does not affect small business as the additional reporting requirements apply to employers with 100 or more employees listed in specific industries. (See Cal. Government Code § 11346.3(b) (4) (B).) ALTERNATIVES STATEMENT In accordance with Government Code

section 11346.5, subdivision (a) (13), the Division must deter- mine that no reasonable alternative considered or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the atten- tion of the Division would be more effective in carry - ing out the purpose for which the regulations are pro - posed, 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 per - sons and equally effective in implementing the statu- tory policy or other provisions of law. No alternatives were considered because the proposed amendments are mandated by federal law. The proposed amendments are compatible with 29 CFR

section 1904.41. 1Federal OSHA arrived at these cost estimates by dividing the total estimated cost of submission by the estimated number of establishments that would be required to submit data. In its cal - culation, OSHA estimates 52,092 establishments that would be required to submit data. OSHA looked at the cost for an estab - lishment who submits via batch file and those establishments that submit manually. OSHA estimated batch file submission cost to be $252,048 and manual submission to be $6,647,982 with a sum total cost of $6,900,030 to submit 766,257 records.

OSHA then combined the annualized cost of $75,781 per year for familiariza - tion and $122,308 for software upgrade costs to employers sub - mitting batch–files using custom computer software, at a 7 per - cent discount rate, the estimated total annual cost of the final rule is $7,098,120, which yields an average cost of submission of $136. The Division invites interested people to present statements or arguments with respect to alternatives to the proposed amendments at the scheduled hearing or during the written comment period.

CONTACTS Non–substantive inquiries concerning the propos - als or this rulemaking, such as requests for copies of the text of the proposed amendments, and the location of public records, may be directed to Omar Robles at (510) 286–7348 or orobles@dir.ca.gov. Inquiries re - garding the substance of the proposed amendments may be directed to T. Michelle Henson at (510) 286– 7348 or tmhenson@dir.ca.gov.

AVAILABILITY OF STATEMENT OF REASONS, TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS, AND RULEMAKING FILE: The full text of the proposals, and all information upon which the proposed rulemaking is based, are available upon request from the contacts named in this Notice. As of the date of publication of this Notice, the rulemaking file consists of this Notice, the Initial Statement of Reasons, the proposed text of the regulations, the Economic and Fiscal Impact Statement (Form 399), and a copy of the document entitled “Federal Register, Vol. 88.

Number 139, July 21, 2023, pp. 47254–47349.” As public comments are received during the rulemaking process, they will be added to the rulemaking file. The Division’s rulemaking file is available for inspection and copying throughout the rulemaking process, Monday through Friday, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., at 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1901, Oakland, CA 94612. The full text of the proposals, and the principle documents upon which the proposed rulemaking is based, also may be accessed through the agency’s Internet website at www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/rulemaking/ dosh_rulemaking_proposed.html .

AVAILABILITY OF CHANGES FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARING After considering all timely and relevant comments received, the Division may adopt the proposed amendments substantially as described in this Notice. If the Division makes modifications which 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 it adopts the amendments as revised. Any such modifications also will be posted on the Division’s website.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 10–Z 266 Please send requests for copies of any modified amendments to the attention of Omar Robles at the above telephone number or email address. The Division will accept written 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 Omar Robles at the above telephone number or email address.

The Final Statement of Reasons may also be accessed on the Division’s website at: www.dir.ca.gov/ dosh/rulemaking/dosh_rulemaking_proposed.html . If adopted, the Proposed Rulemaking will appear in Title 8, California Code of Regulations,

Section 14300.41. TITLE 14. DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY SB 54 PLASTIC POLLUTION PREVENTION AND PACKAGING PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY ACT REGULATIONS DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY DIVISION 7, CHAPTERS 11.1 AND 11.5 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) proposes to add to the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 7,

Chapter 11.1 (commencing with

section 18980.1) and

Chapter 11.5 (commencing with

section 18981). The proposed regulations interpret, make specific, and implement the requirements of Senate Bill Number 54 (2021–2022 Regular Session), the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (Statutes 2022,

chapter 75), (the Act) and establish various elements of CalRecycle’s oversight and enforcement responsibilities under the Act. The proposed regulations will also establish the criteria and procedures necessary to implement the requirement established by Assembly Bill Number 1201 (2021–2022 Regular Session) (Statutes 2021,

chapter 504) (AB 1201) that products labeled “compostable” must be certified by third–party entities according to certain technical standards. After considering all comments, objections, and recommendations regarding the proposed action, CalRecycle may adopt the proposals substantially as described in the below Informative Digest or may modify such proposals if such modifications are sufficiently related to the original text. PUBLIC HEARING CalRecycle will hold a hybrid public hearing starting at 9:00 a.m. (PDT) on April 23, 2024, and concluding upon submission of any