Time- Dated Material GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW California Regulatory Notice Register REGISTER 2024, NUMBER 44–Z PUBLISHED WEEKLY BY THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW NOVEMBER 1, 2024 PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS TITLE 2. OFFICE OF THE STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER Conflict–of–Interest Code — Notice File Number Z2024–1017–04 ........................................ 1403 TITLE 4. DEPARTMENT OF CANNABIS CONTROL Cultivation License Changes Pursuant to Business and Professions Code

Section 26061.5 — Notice File Number Z2024–1022–01 ................................................................ 1404 TITLE 8. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS BOARD Construction Safety Orders

Section 1635, Steel Framed Buildings, Fall Protection Around Floor Openings and Use of Cone and Bar Barricades — Notice File number Z2024–1021–01. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1410 TITLE 16. BOARD OF BARBERING AND COSMETOLOGY Pre–Apprentice Training — Notice File Number Z2024–1017–02 ......................................... 1416 TITLE 16. BOARD OF BEHA VIORAL SCIENCES Telehealth — Notice File Number Z2024–1017–03 ..................................................... 1420 TITLE 16.

BUREAU OF AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR Omnibus Clean Up of Related Regulations — Notice File Number Z2024–1022–05 .......................... 1423 TITLE 16. BUREAU OF AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR Readiness Monitor Limits — Notice File Number Z2024–1016–01 ........................................ 1426 TITLE 16. BUREAU OF AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR Tear Down Disclosure Requirements for Automotive Repair Dealers — Notice File Number Z2024–1017–01 ................................................................................ 1429 TITLE 22.

DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL Listing Nail Products Containing MMA as a Priority Product — Notice File Number Z2024–1022–02 ........... 1432 (Continued on next page)

GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST HORSE RACING BOARD Notice of Correction to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Action Published in the October 25, 2024 Notice Register Concerning Confidentiality of Applications and Rulings by the Stewards ...................... 1439 DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE Annual Fee Hearing ............................................................................ 1440 DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL Public Comment Period for Settlement Agreement in the Matter of 1300–1310 Old Bayshore Road .............. 1441 DECISION NOT TO PROCEED FISH AND GAME COMMISSION Regarding White Sturgeon Fishing (Previously Published in Notice Register 2024, Number 22–Z, May 31, 2024) .................................................................................. 1441

SUMMARY OF REGULATORY ACTIONS Regulations filed with Secretary of State ............................................................. 1441 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 $372.00 (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 44–Z 1403 PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS TITLE 2. OFFICE OF THE STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER NOTICE OF INTENTION TO AMEND THE CONFLICT–OF–INTEREST CODE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Office of the State Public Defender, p urs uan t to th e a u th o ri- ty vested in it by

section 87306 of the Government Code, proposes amendment to its conflict–of–interest code. A comment period has been established com - mencing on October 22, 2024 and closing on Decem - ber 16, 2024. All inquiries should be directed to the contact listed below. The Office of the State Public Defender proposes to amend its conflict–of–interest code to include em - ployee positions that involve the making or participa - tion in the making of decisions that may foreseeably have a material effect on any financial interest, as set forth in subdivision (

a) of

section 87302 of the Gov - ernment Code. The amendment carries out the pur - poses of the law and no other alternative would do so and be less burdensome to affected persons. Changes to the conflict–of–interest code include:

(1) Updating the designated positions to include new po - sitions and/or those that have changed since the last conflict–of–interest code,

(2) Adding Category 4 dis - closure. Employees in this category must report in - vestments and business positions in business enti - ties and sources of income (including receipt of gifts, loans and travel payments) if the business entity or source is of the type to receive grants or other fund - ing from or through the Agency,

(3) Updating desig - nated positions to include title changes. Each of the following positions is involved as a State employee, at other than a clerical type, in the function of negotiat - ing or signing contracts awarded through competitive bidding, in making decisions in conjunction with the competitive bidding process, or in negotiations, sign - ing or making decisions on contracts executed pursu - ant to

Section 10122 of Public Contact Code. Executive Office 1. The State Public Defender is assigned to the new disclosure Category 4. 2. The Deputy Director of Indigent Defense Im - provement has been renamed to Director of Indi - gent Defense Improvement is assigned to the new disclosure Category 4. 3. The Assistant Chief Counsel has been renamed to Attorney, Assistant Chief Counsel is assigned to the disclosure Category 1,3. 4.

The Project and Policy Manager has been re - named to Staff Services Manager II (Manageri - al) — Executive Manager & Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Officer is assigned to the dis- closure Category 1,3. 5. The addition of the Associate Governmental Pro- gram Analyst — Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB) Analyst is assigned to the dis- closure Category 1. Administration 1. The addition of the Staff Services Analyst — Fiscal Analyst and the Staff Services Analyst — Contracts and Procurement Analyst is assigned to the disclosure Category 1,3. 2.

The Chief Administrator has been renamed and is included in Staff Services Manager (All Levels) is assigned to the disclosure Category 1,3. 3. The Chief, Fiscal & Business Services has been renamed and is included in Staff Services Manag- er (All Levels) is assigned to the disclosure Cat - egory 1,3. 4. The Staff Services Manager I (Oakland) has been renamed and is included in Staff Services Manag- er (All Levels) is assigned to the disclosure Cat - egory 1,3. 5.

The deletion of the Office Technician (Sacramen- to) and (Oakland) positions that have no role in making financial decisions for the department has been removed from the conflict–of–interest code. 6. The Associate Governmental Program Analyst has been removed from the conflict–of–interest code. Appellate & Indigent Defense Movement 1. The addition of the Staff Services Manager I — Research Unit Manager is assigned to the disclo - sure Category 1. 2.

The Supervising Deputy State Public Defender, Senior Deputy State Public Defender, and Deputy State Public Defender has been renamed and is included in Attorneys (All Levels) is assigned to the disclosure Category 1. Information Technology 1. The Information Technology Supervisor II has been renamed and is included in Information Technology (All Levels) is assigned to the disclo- sure Category 3. 2. The Information Technology Specialist has been renamed and is included in the Information Tech-

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 44–Z 1404 nology (All Levels) is assigned to the disclosure Category 3. 3. The Information Technology Associate has been renamed and is included in the Information Tech- nology (All Levels) is assigned to the disclosure Category 3. Information of the code amendment is available on the agency’s intranet site under Administration Memo 24–014.

Any interested person may submit written com - ments relating to the proposed amendment by submit- ting them no later than December 16, 2024, or at the conclusion of the public hearing, if requested, which - ever comes later. At this time, no public hearing is scheduled. A person may request a hearing no later than December 2, 2024. The Office of the State Public Defender has deter - mined that the proposed amendments: 1. Impose no mandate on local agencies or school districts. 2. Impose no costs or savings on any state agency. 3.

Impose no costs on any local agency or school district that are required to be reimbursed under

Part 7 (commencing with

Section 17500) of Divi- sion 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. 4. Will not result in any nondiscretionary costs or savings to local agencies. 5. Will not result in any costs or savings in federal funding to the state. 6. Will not have any potential cost impact on private persons, businesses or small businesses. All inquiries concerning this proposed amendment and any communication required by this notice should be directed to: Lady Diana Gutierrez, Human Re - sources Analyst by telephone (916) 322–9325, or by email at LadyDiana.Gutierrez@ospd.ca.gov. TITLE 4.

DEPARTMENT OF CANNABIS CONTROL Subject Matter of Proposed Regulations: Cultiva- tion license changes pursuant to Business and Profes - sions Code (BPC)

section 26061.5.

Section Affected: Title 4, California Code of Regu- lations (CCR), sections 15020.1, 15020.2, and 15020.3. Notice is hereby given that the Department of Can- nabis Control (Department) proposes to adopt the pro- posed amended regulations, described below, after considering all comments, objections, and recommen- dations regarding the proposed action. The Depart - ment, upon its own motion or at the request of any interested party, may thereafter adopt the proposals substantially as described below, or may modify such proposals if such modifications are sufficiently relat - ed to the original text.

With the exception of technical or grammatical changes, the full text of any modified proposal will be available for inspection and copying 15 days prior to its adoption from the person designat- ed in this Notice as contact person and will be mailed to those persons who submit written or oral testimony related to this proposal or who have requested notifi - cation of any changes to the proposal. All the proposed text sections are proposed to be added to the California Code of Regulations (CCR), under Division 19 of Title 4.

PUBLIC HEARING The Department will hold a virtual public hearing at the following date and time listed below: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Attendees may participate via WebEx online meet - ing platform or telephone conferencing. To participate via WebEx online meeting platform please email Ran- dy Allen at Randy.Allen@cannabis.ca.gov or (916) 465–9025 by 4:30 p.m. on Monday, December 16, 2024, to request a link to the meeting. The link to the meeting will also be posted on the Department’s web- site no later than 9:00 a.m. the day of the hearing.

As a reasonable accommodation, limited in–person seating may be available at the hearing in the Department Hearing Room, 2920 Kilgore Road, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670. Attendees must com - ply with all COVID–19 safety protocols. Please con - tact Randy Allen at Randy.Allen@cannabis.ca.gov or (916) 465–9025 by 4:30 p.m. on Monday, December 16, 2024, if an accommodation is necessary. Participants will be given instructions on how to pro- vide oral comment once they have accessed the hear - ing. The hearing will proceed on the date noted above until all testimony is submitted or 1:00 p.m., whichev- er is later.

At the hearing, any person may present oral or written statements or arguments relevant to the pro- posed action described in the Informative Digest. The Department requests, but does not require, that per - sons who make oral comments at the hearing also sub- mit a written copy of their testimony via email. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any interested person, or the interested person’s authorized representative, may submit written com - ments relevant to the proposed regulatory action to the Department.

Written comments, including those sent by mail or email to the addresses listed below must be received by the Department at its office by Decem- ber 17, 2024. Submit comments to:

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 44–Z 1405 Department of Cannabis Control Legal Affairs Division 2920 Kilgore Road Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Email: publiccomment@cannabis.ca.gov AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE BPC

section 26061.5 requires the Department to allow cultivation licensees to make certain changes, including: change the type of size of a cultivation li - cense; place a cultivation license in inactive status; or make a one–time change to a cultivation license’s date of renewal. These regulations will implement, make specific, or reference BPC

section 26249. INFORMATIVE DIGEST / POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW The purpose of these proposed regulations is to fur- ther clarify or make specific sections of Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) pertaining to cultivation license chang - es pursuant to Senate Bill 833 (Chapter 886, Statutes of 2023; BPC

section 26249). The proposed regulations will implement the Department’s responsibility to al - low for certain cultivation license changes, including: change the type of size of a cultivation license; place a cultivation license in inactive status; or make a one– time change to a cultivation license’s date of renew - al. The proposed regulations will not only establish a regulatory process for licensees to request such chang- es, but will clarify what information shall accompany a request for changes to a cultivation license.

More - over, the proposed regulations will inform cultivation licensees of their duties and responsibilities if certain changes are granted by the Department. Existing Law Pursuant to MAUCRSA, the Department regulates commercial cannabis license holders in California, in- cluding cultivators, retailers, manufacturers, distribu - tors, testing laboratories, microbusinesses, and tem - porary cannabis events. BPC

section 26050, subdivi - sion (

a) authorizes the Department to issue 15 different commercial cultivation licenses based on three factors: lighting type used by the cultivator; the size of the cul- tivation operation; the scope of cultivation activities. BPC

section 26050, subdivision (

c) further provides that a license issued by the Department shall be valid for no more than 12 months from the date it was issued or renewed. BPC

section 26012 authorizes the Depart- ment to collect fees in connection with its regulation of such commercial cannabis activities. BPC

section 26180 further establishes a scale of application, li - censing, and renewal fees intended to cover the costs of administering the Medicinal and Adult–Use Can - nabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA, BPC §§ 26000 et seq.). BPC

section 26249 requires the De- partment to develop and implement a program to pro - vide waivers or deferrals of application fees, licens - ing fees, and renewal fees. Additionally, BPC

section 26061.5 requires the Department to allow cultivation licensees to make certain changes, including: change the type of size of a cultivation license; place a culti - vation license in inactive status; or make a one–time change to a cultivation license’s date of renewal. The present emergency regulations established the framework for the Department’s processing of certain cultivation license changes at renewal and were filed with the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on Feb- ruary 29, 2024.

The emergency regulations were ap - proved on March 11, 2024, and filed the same day with the Secretary of State, making them effective immedi- ately. Following the establishment of the Department’s emergency regulations, on August 23, 2024, the De - partment filed an action with OAL to readopt the emergency regulations. The readoption action was ap- proved by OAL on September 3, 2024, and filed with the Secretary State with an effective date of Septem - ber 9, 2024. Policy Statement This rulemaking action would make permanent pro- visions that enable the Department to comply with the requirements found in BPC

section 26061.5. BPC sec- tion 26061.5 requires the Department to allow cultiva- tion licensees to make certain changes to their licens - es, including: change the type of size of a cultivation license; place a cultivation license in inactive status; or make a one–time change to a cultivation license’s date of renewal. The rulemaking would provide an overview of the

definitions that are applicable to the cultivation license change regulations. The proposed regulations would also provide an overview of what constitutes a complete request for cultivation license changes. The proposed regulations would clarify how license fees are calculated depending on the types of cultivation license changes that are requested. Finally, the proposed regulations would identify any require - ments or conditions associated with requested cultiva- tion license changes.

Regulation Objectives and Anticipated Benefits of the Proposed Regulations The broad objectives of these regulations are to further clarify or make specific sections of MAUCRSA pertaining to cultivation license changes pursuant to Senate Bill 833 (Chapter 886, Statutes of 2023). The proposed regulations will implement the Department’s responsibility to allow for certain culti - vation license changes required by MAUCRSA, while establishing a regulatory process for licensees to re - quest such changes. Accordingly, the proposed regula- tions will clarify what information shall accompany a

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 44–Z 1406 request for changes to a cultivation license, and inform cultivation licensees of their duties and responsibili - ties if certain changes are granted by the Department. Under MAUCRSA, there are 15 different cultivation types which are based on the lighting type utilized by the cultivator licensee, the cultivator licensee’s oper - ation size, and the scope of the cultivator licensee’s cultivation activities.

A variety of commercial can - nabis market forces — including, but not limited to, market volatility, climate, drought, and oversupply — may persuade a cultivation licensee to reduce their op- erations and thus their cultivation crop yield. Howev - er, there has been no pathway for cultivation licensees to change their state license type to a smaller size or cease operations temporarily, without having to reap - ply for licensure and pay the application and licensing fees associated with submitting a new application for licensure. Designed to assist cultivators, BPC

section 26061.5 requires the Department to allow cultivation licensees to make certain changes, including: change the type of size of a cultivation license; place a cultivation license in inactive status; or make a one–time change to a cul- tivation license’s date of renewal. Allowing for cultivation license changes such as changes to the type of size of a cultivation license or placing the cultivation license in inactive status gives cultivator licensees more control over their operations.

Processing these types of changes will eliminate the need for cultivation licensees to submit new applica - tions for licensure if certain material changes are made to their cultivation licenses, thereby reducing admin - istrative burdens on cultivation licensees and the De - partment. Moreover, cultivation licensees will be able to respond to commercial cannabis market fluctua - tions in a timely manner by adjusting their operations at the time of renewal, while maintaining state com - mercial cannabis licensure at reduced administrative and financial costs.

Allowing such changes at renewal allows cultivators, who may otherwise drop out of the regulated commercial cannabis market due to unfore - seen market forces, to retain licensure while operating at a reduced size or ceasing operations temporarily. Allowing for a one–time change to a cultivation li - cense’s date of renewal provides cultivation licensees more control as to when they submit their renewals and remit their annual licensing fees to the Depart - ment. BPC

section 26050, subdivision (

c) provides that a license issued by the Department shall be valid for up to 12 months from the date it was issued or renewed. The date of license issuance is dependent upon when the Department completes its review of an application for licensure, which could occur at any point during the calendar year. If the date of renewal falls prior to or during harvest, this can be administratively and fi - nancially burdensome for a cultivation licensee.

This is largely due to the cyclical nature of commercial can- nabis cultivation; the time period leading up to harvest can be labor intensive and often cultivation licensees have less financial capital prior to selling their harvest. In contrast, a cultivation licensee may have more time to process administrative submittals and more finan - cial capital available to pay annual license fees follow- ing a harvest. The ability to modify the date of expira- tion on a license will provide cultivation licensees the opportunity to plan their time and financial resources around the busy harvest season.

Under the proposed regulations, the Department would be able to approve certain changes to active cul- tivation licenses. The proposed regulations are neces - sary to provide clear guidance to licensed cultivators and will reduce the risk of confusion regarding how cultivation licensees may request certain changes to their licenses. The proposed regulation will also pro - vide specific guidance regarding the Department’s process for calculating relevant fees. Providing clarity regarding how the Department will process such re - quests reduces the risk of confusion for licensed culti- vators.

Moreover, the proposed regulation will provide clarity regarding any duties or conditions if changes are granted by the Department, thereby reducing the risk of confusion for cultivator licensees who request changes to their license. The Department’s process - ing of these changes for cultivation licensees will not only further the stated intent of MAUCRSA by reduc- ing barriers to maintaining licensure in the regulated commercial cannabis industry, but will aid the state in its goal of reducing the illegal cannabis market by keeping more people in the regulated marketplace.

Section 15020.1. Cultivation License Limited Operations Status. BPC

section 26061.5 requires the Department to al- low cultivation licensees to place a cultivation license in inactive status. Accordingly, the proposed

section would provide clarity regarding the Department’s pro- cess for evaluating cultivation licensee requests to be placed in Limited Operations Status. The proposed regulations would define the term “Limited Opera - tions Status.” The proposed regulations would clari - fy prohibitions on cultivation licensees with a Limit - ed Operations Status from maintaining mature plants. The proposed regulations would specify the contents of a request to be placed in Limited Operations Status.

The proposed regulations would clarify that the De - partment will notify the cultivation licensee in writing regarding whether the requirements for the requested Limited Operations Status have been met. The pro - posed regulations will clarify the duration of the Lim- ited Operations Status. The proposed regulations will clarify that processor licenses and nursery licenses are not eligible to request to be placed on Limited Op- erations Status. Finally, the proposed regulation will

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 44–Z 1407 clarify that cultivation licenses that are changed to a Reduced–Size Cultivation License pursuant to

section 15020.2 shall not be placed in Limited Operations Sta- tus during the same license term.

Section 15020.2. Cultivation License Reductions in Size. BPC

section 26061.5 requires the Department to al- low cultivation licensees to change the type of size of a cultivation license. Accordingly, the Department proposes adopting

section 15020.2 to provide clar - ity regarding the Department’s process for evaluat - ing cultivation licensee requests to be changed to a Reduced–Size Cultivation License. The proposed reg- ulations would define the terms “Original Cultivation License” and “Reduced–Size Cultivation License.” The proposed regulations would specify the contents of a request to change to a Reduced–Size Cultivation License.

The proposed regulations would clarify that the Department will notify the cultivation licensee in writing regarding whether the requirements for the re- quested change to a Reduced–Size Cultivation License have been met. The proposed regulations will clarify the duration of the Reduced–Size Cultivation License. The proposed regulation will clarify considerations for provisional licensees who wish to change to a Reduced–Size Cultivation License. The proposed reg- ulations will clarify that processor licenses and nurs - ery licenses are not eligible to request to be placed on Limited Operations Status.

Finally, the proposed reg - ulation will clarify that cultivation licenses that have been placed in Limited Operations Status pursuant to

section 15020.1 shall not be changed to a Reduced– Size Cultivation License during the same license term.

Section 15020.3. Modifying Cultivation License Renewal Date. BPC

section 26061.5 requires the Department to al- low cultivation licensees to make certain changes, in - cluding making a one–time change to a cultivation li - cense’s date of renewal. Accordingly, the Department proposes adopting

section 15020.3 to provide clari - ty regarding the Department’s process for evaluating cultivation licensee requests for a modified renewal date. The proposed regulations would define the terms “Modified License Term,” “Original Renewal Date,” and “Prorated Daily License Fee.” The proposed regu- lations would specify the contents of a request to mod- ify a cultivation license’s date of renewal. The pro - posed regulations would clarify that the Department will notify the cultivation licensee in writing regard - ing whether the requirements for the requested Lim - ited Operations Status have been met.

The proposed regulation would clarify how to calculate the license fee that must be paid for the Modified License Term or the amount that will be refunded to the cultiva - tion licensee by the Department. The proposed regu - lations will clarify when fees must be paid of the re - questing cultivation licensee has received a fee defer - ral. The proposed regulations will clarify that cultiva - tion licensees may request to be placed in Limited Op- erations Status or change to a Reduced–Size Cultiva - tion License for the duration of the Modified License Term.

Additionally, the proposed regulations would clarify that, consistent with BPC

section 26061.5, a cultivation licensee may only modify the renewal date of a cultivation license one time. Incorporated by Reference There are no documents incorporated by reference. Evaluation of Inconsistency/Incompatibility with Existing State Regulations: As required by Government (Gov.) Code

section 11346.5(a) (3) (D), the Department has conducted an evaluation of these proposed regulations and has de - termined that they are not inconsistent or incompati - ble with existing regulations. Evaluation of Inconsistency with Federal Regulation or Statute The United States Drug Enforcement Administra - tion (DEA) under the Controlled Substances Act lists cannabis as a

Schedule 1 Drug. This means that com - mercial cannabis activity is illegal under federal law. However, California, through the MAUCRSA and other laws, has decriminalized the cultivation, sale, and possession of cannabis goods for persons aged 21 or older and for medicinal patients. Plain English Requirement Department staff prepared these proposed regula - tions pursuant to the standard of clarity provided in Gov. Code

section 11349 and the plain English require- ments of Gov. Code sections 11342.580 and 11346.2, subsection (a) (1). The proposed regulations are writ - ten to be easily understood by the persons that will use them. Disclosures Regarding the Proposed Action The Department has made the following initial determinations: Local mandate: There will be no local mandate. Cost to any local agency or school district requiring reimbursement pursuant to Gov. Code

section 17500, et seq.: None. Any other non–discretionary cost or savings im - posed upon local agencies: None. Cost or savings to any state agency: The Depart - ment’s staff workload associated with processing cul - tivation license changes under these regulations can be absorbed by existing staff. However, the reduced li- censing fees associated with entering Limited Opera - tions Status would result in an estimated net reduction in license fees by $1,914,694. Cost or savings in federal funding to the state: None. Effect upon housing: The proposed regulations will have no fiscal or other effect upon housing in the state.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 44–Z 1408 Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Directly Affecting Businesses: The Department has determined there will not be a significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business - es, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. Small Business Determination: The proposed regu - lations may affect small businesses. The proposed reg- ulations would affect approximately 2,953 distinct cul- tivation businesses.

Of these businesses, an unknown number are estimated to meet the criteria for being classified as a small business. Cost Impacts on a Representative Private Person or Business: The proposed regulations would result in net annual cost savings for cultivation businesses from $2,965 to $19,875 per year. Economic Impact and Fiscal Impacts Business Impact The proposed regulation does not impose any new licensure eligibility or operational requirements.

Rather, it provides an opportunity for active cultiva - tor licensees to make certain changes to their culti - vation licenses, which may result in a reduction in li - cense fees or a one–time adjustment to the license re - newal date. Requesting changes to an active cultiva - tion license is voluntary and only requires submission of information to establish eligibility for the requested changes. The Department initially implemented the cultiva - tion license change program on March 11, 2024.

Based on currently available information, the Department be- lieves that there are approximately 2,953 distinct cul - tivation businesses, each of which may hold multiple licenses, that could be eligible to make changes under the proposed regulations. The businesses impacted by the regulation are cultivation licensees who wish to change the type of size of a cultivation license; place a cultivation license in inactive status; or make a one– time change to a cultivation license’s date of renewal.

Estimated Costs to Businesses The proposed regulations require cultivation licens- ees to complete and submit certain information pre - scribed by the Department to request changes to a cul- tivation license. Cultivation licensees who use the Lim- ited Operations Status established by statute would be able to pay a reduced license fee at a minor adminis - trative cost.

However, cultivators will incur some ad - ministrative costs associated with the proposed regu - lations, including time spent reviewing the new reg - ulations, deciding on what actions to take, and filing the necessary submittals associated with the Limited Operations Status, temporary license size change, and one–time license renewal date change. The total direct cost of administrative and consultant costs incurred under the proposed regulations amounts to approxi - mately $1,722,669 per year.

Estimated Benefits of Regulation The Department anticipates that the proposed reg - ulations would allow cannabis cultivation licensees who use the Limited Operations Status established by statute to pay a reduced license fee. They also facili - tate the statutory requirements to allow cultivators to change licenses sizes and to change the renewal date of licenses. Between the license fee savings for culti - vation licensees entering Limited Operations Status, and the savings associated with renewal date changes, the proposed regulations would amount to direct eco - nomic benefits of approximately $2,892,494.

The proposed regulations could also indirectly re - sult in the expansion of cannabis cultivation business- es by allowing more businesses to stay in the market in the long run, which would facilitate the potential expansion of businesses when market conditions are favorable. The regulatory framework would allow for the retention of licensed cultivators in the licensed cannabis market, while discouraging transitions to the unlicensed market. Thus, the Department’s ability to enable certain license changes under BPC

section 26061.5 will further the stated intent of MAUCRSA by reducing barriers to maintaining licensure in the regulated commercial cannabis industry. Results of the Economic Impact Assessment The proposed regulations will not have a significant adverse economic impact on businesses. The proposed regulations would result in a net de - crease of 85.7 full–time equivalent (FTE) jobs. Nota - bly, this net reduction is a short–term impact on em - ployment resulting from cultivators no longer produc- ing at a loss during years with poor market conditions.

In the long run, more firms would stay in the licensed market and employ workers. The proposed regulations would neither create nor eliminate businesses. The proposed regulations would affect approximate- ly 2,953 distinct businesses. These businesses are li - censed cannabis cultivators, each of which may have multiple licenses. Of these businesses an unknown number are estimated to meet the criteria for being classified as a small business.

The representative costs for a typical business to request cultivation license changes under the proposed regulations would equal $750 to $9,713 in the initial year, with annual ongo - ing costs of $750 to $7,813 per year. However, the pro- posed regulations allow cannabis cultivation licensees who use the limited operations status established by statute to pay a reduced license fee. They also facili - tate statute allowing cultivators to change license siz - es and to change the renewal date of licenses, amount- ing to total statewide benefits in approximately $2,892 million per year.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 44–Z 1409 The proposed regulations could indirectly result in the expansion of cannabis cultivation businesses by al- lowing more businesses to stay in the market in the long run, which would facilitate more potential ex - pansion of businesses when market conditions are favorable. The proposed regulations would not affect worker safety. The proposed regulations would provide benefits to public health and safety by retaining cultivation busi - nesses in the licensed cannabis market, and discourag- ing transitions to the unlicensed market.

Fiscal Effect on State Government The primary fiscal impact of the proposed regula - tions to the Department is changes in Department rev- enue from license fees as a result of cultivators that obtain Limited Operations Status. The Department determined that the reduced licensing fees associat - ed with entering Limited Operations Status would re - sult in an estimated net reduction in license fees by $1,914,694.

This includes a reduction in fees due to cultivators that opt to use the Limited Operations Sta - tus instead of producing and paying their full license fee, and an increase in fees due to more cultivators staying in the licensed market in the long run. The De- partment’s staff workload associated with processing cultivation license changes under these regulations can be absorbed by existing staff.

Consideration of Alternatives The Department 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 ac- tion is proposed, would be as effective and less bur - densome to affected private persons than the proposed action, or would be more cost–effective to affected pri- vate persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law.

Set forth be- low are the alternatives which were considered and the reasons each alternative was rejected: The first alternative considered was not adopting the regulations. This alternative was rejected because BPC

section 26061.5 requires the Department to pro - vide cultivation licensees an opportunity to make cer - tain changes, including: changing the type of size of a cultivation license; placing a cultivation license in in - active status; or making a one–time change to the li - cense’s renewal date. If the Department does not adopt regulations, there will be no specific process for appli- cants and licensees to follow to make changes to their existing cultivation licenses. The second alternative considered was to impose a larger fee to enter Limited Operations Status.

This al - ternative was rejected because it would provide insuf- ficient benefits to cultivators that elect to use the Lim- ited Operations Status. The purpose of the Limited Operations Status option is to allow cultivators to save costs during times with adverse market conditions. Reducing the fees paid by cultivators using the limit - ed operations by only 50 percent would save cultiva - tors substantially less than under the proposed regula- tions.

While the fiscal impact of this alternative would be less of a reduction in gross revenue from license fee revenue for the Department, it would not encour - age as much participation in using the Limited Oper - ations Status. The final alternative considered was to not impose a fee to enter Limited Operations Status.

Although this alternative would maximize benefits for cultiva - tors who wish to enter Limited Operations Status and maximize participation, this alternative was reject - ed because it would not cover any costs for the De - partment to conduct activities related to licensing and compliance, which would continue to be necessary for licenses in limited operations.

Contact Person Inquiries concerning the proposed administrative action may be directed to: Kaila Fayne Department of Cannabis Control 2920 Kilgore Road Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 916– 465–9025 Regulations@cannabis.ca.gov The backup contact person for these inquiries is: Nicole Niermeyer Department of Cannabis Control 2920 Kilgore Road Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 916–251–4535 Nicole.Niermeyer@cannabis.ca.gov Please direct requests for copies of the proposed text (the “express terms”) of the regulations, the ini - tial statement of reasons, the modified text of the regulations, if any, or other information upon which the rulemaking is based to the contact persons listed above.

Availability of Statement of Reasons, Text of Proposed Regulations, and Rulemaking File The Department will have the entire rulemaking file available for inspection and copying, throughout the rulemaking process, at its office at the address above. As of the date this Notice is published in the Notice Register, the rulemaking file consists of this Notice, the proposed text of the regulations, and the Initial Statement of Reasons. Copies of materials may be ob- tained by contacting the contact person at the address, email or phone number listed above.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 44–Z 1410 Availability of Changed or Modified Text After considering all timely and relevant comments received, the Department may adopt the proposed reg- ulations, substantially, as described in this Notice. If the Department makes modifications that are suffi - ciently related to the originally proposed text, it will make the modified text (with the changes clearly in - dicated) available to the public for at least 15 days be- fore the Department adopts the regulations, as revised.

Please send requests for copies of any modified regu - lations to the attention of the contact person at the ad - dress, email, or phone number indicated above. The Department will accept written comments on the modified regulations for at least 15 days after the date on which they are made available. Availability of The Final Statement of Reasons Upon its completion, copies of the Final Statement of Reasons may be obtained by contacting the contact person at the above address, email, or phone number indicated above.

Availability of Documents on the Internet Copies of the Notice of Proposed Action, the Initial Statement or Reasons, and the text of the regulations can be accessed through the Department’s website at: https://cannabis.ca.gov/cannabis–laws/rulemaking/. TITLE 8. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS CONSTRUCTION SAFETY ORDERS

SECTION 1635 STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS — FALL PROTECTION AROUND FLOOR OPENINGS AND USE OF CONE AND BAR BARRICADES (CBB) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Occupation- al Safety and Health Standards Board (Board) propos- es to adopt, amend or repeal the foregoing provisions of title 8 of the California Code of Regulations in the manner described in the Informative Digest, below.

PUBLIC HEARING The Board will hold a public hearing starting at 10:00 a.m. on December 19, 2024 in the American River Room of the Rancho Cordova City Hall, 2729 Prospect Park Drive Rancho Cordova, CA 95670, as well as via the following: ● Video–conference at www.webex.com (meeting ID 268 984 996) ● Teleconference at (844) 992–4726 (Access code 268 984 996) ● Live video stream and audio stream (English and Spanish) at https://videobookcase.com/california/ oshsb/ At this public hearing, any person may present state- ments or arguments orally or in writing relevant to the proposed action described in the Informative Digest.

WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD In addition to written or oral comments submitted at the public hearing, written comments may also be submitted to the Board’s office. The written comment period commences on November 1, 2024, an d c l os- es at 5:00 p.m. on December 19, 2024. Comments re- ceived after that deadline will not be considered by the Board unless the Board announces an extension of time in which to submit written comments.

Written comments can be submitted as follows: By mail to Attention: Cone and Bar Rulemak - ing, Occupational Safety and Health Stan - dards Board, 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 350, Sacramento, CA 95833; or By email sent to oshsbrulemaking@dir.ca.gov. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Labor Code (LC)

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

section 142.3 requires the adoption of occupation- al safety and health standards that are at least as ef - fective as federal occupational safety and health stan - dards. These proposed regulations will implement, in- terpret and make specific LC

section 142.3. INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION/ POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW On January 17, 2019, the Board adopted a petition decision granting Petition 570 by Western Steel Coun- cil and District Council of Ironworkers (Petitioners). The decision directed Board staff to convene an ad - visory committee to consider the issues raised by the petition. The Petitioners sought amendments in

section 1710, Structural Steel Erection, relating to protections around floor openings and leading edges. The Petitioners pro- posed to add rules regarding the use of cones and bars as barricades for work involving openings, when work is considered as work in progress. This proposal is in- tended to address fall hazards due to openings in tem- porary floors, however, the rulemaking does not ad - dress one of the items in the petition, which is the tim-

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 44–Z 1411 ing of mid–rail installation in structural steel erection covered by title 8,

section 1710. The Board evaluated the proposed regulations pur - suant to Government Code

section 11346.5(a) (3) (

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

The proposal differs from the federal standard be - cause the proposal specifically addresses openings where work is in progress. Anticipated Benefit The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Ad - ministration (federal OSHA) has long focused on the “Constructions Fatal Four,” which are the leading causes of death in the construction industry.

Falls are the number one cause of construction related fatalities followed by struck by an object, electrocutions and caught–between. 1 The proposal will help reduce falls through floor openings in unfinished floors while work is in prog - ress by clarifying what is considered a barricade. Ac - cording to stakeholders, industry has been using the cone and bar barricades (CBB) along with other ma - terials (such as rope, caution tape, piled materials) for years. The proposal eliminates the use of rope, caution tape and piled materials as a barricade.

The use of CBB as proposed is a safer option be - cause of the rules that are being proposed regarding its use, such as standardizing its set–up, materials used and training. In addition, the cone and bar clear - ly communicates the presence of the opening and its use coupled with personal fall protection protects the worker inside the CBB. The specific changes are as follows:

Section 1635 The Petitioners asked to include the use of CBBs in title 8,

section 1710. The CBB system includes multi - ple interconnected traffic cones and retractable light - weight plastic bars set up and maintained at least 6 feet and no more than 10 feet from a floor opening for the purpose of warning employees of the opening, limit - 1 EHS Daily Advisor. OSHA’s “Fatal Four” — Leading Causes of Fatalities in the Workplace. Updated June 3, 2019. https://ehsdailyadvisor.blr.com/2019/05/oshas–fatal–four– leading–causes–of–fatalities–in–the–workplace/ ing access to a nearby opening and demarcating areas where personal fall protection is required. Although the Petitioners proposed amendments to

section 1710 to address the hazards due to openings in temporary floors,

section 1635 is the more appropri - ate

section to amend.

Section 1635 addresses hazards relating to temporary floors of buildings and hazards where construction is still in progress, which includes when the structure does not have a finished or perma- nent floor. Subsection (

c) applies to steel erection construction where work is in progress and requires floor openings to be uncovered. Currently, subsection (c) (2) permits the use of barricades to protect workers from a fall hazard created by floor openings. However, there are no specifications to describe an acceptable barricade. The proposed amendments to

section 1635 are as follows: ● Subsection (

c) was amended to clarify that subsec- tion (

c) also applies to newly created floor open - ings and not just existing floor openings that were once covered. The effect of the proposed change will prevent a misinterpretation of the rules. On construction sites, there are existing deck open - ings and openings created due to a job change or- der, design change or to correct a mistake. ● Subsection (c) (2) was amended to delete “floor area adjacent to the” because this vague phrase has been replaced with more specific placement language via the proposed addition of the CBB system explained in subsection (c) (2) (B).

Subsection (c) (2) was also amended to require that openings only be barricaded by guardrails or CBB sys- tems by adding “by guardrails, the cone and bar bar - ricade (CBB) system or” after the phrase “The floor opening shall be barricaded.” “Guardrails” was added as a type of permitted barricade for consistency with

section 1632. Existing subsection (c) (2) requires floor openings be barricaded, but does not specify the type of materials that can be used to create a barricade. The effect of the proposal is to clarify that no other form or type of barricade is permitted other than guardrails and the CBB system. The phrase “the floor opening shall” was deleted as a grammatical correction. The effect of this modifica- tion is to better describe the need to barricade or cov - er floor openings to protect workers from fall hazards due to floor openings in structural steel framed build - ing construction. A Note was added to subsection (c) (2) to direct the reader to the Appendix to

section 1635 to illustrate and inform the reader what the CBB system looks like. ● Proposed new subsection (c) (2) (

A) adds spec - ifications on the materials for the CBB system.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 44–Z 1412 The effect is to inform the reader of the required materials. ● Proposed subsection (c) (2) (A)1. contains the spec- ifications of the cones; color, height, weight and labeling requirements. The effect is to inform the employer of the type of cones required and how the cones must be labeled.

These specifications are intended to increase visibility, which makes the employees more aware of their surroundings. ● Proposed subsection (c) (2) (A)2. requires the bar, plastic pipe or rigid material be of high visibility color in solid or pattern so that it will be more noticeable to employees working in the area. This is necessary because increased visibility makes the employees more aware of their surroundings and this awareness helps workers identify floor openings and the risk of falls. ● Proposed new subsection (c) (2) (

B) contains rules regarding the installation and use of the CBB sys- tem. These proposed amendments are necessary to organize the rules regarding use. The materi - als and the rules listed under subsection (c) (2) (

B) are what makes the CBB system effective to help prevent falls. ● Proposed subsection (c) (2) (B)1. requires the cones be firmly connected to each other by bar, plastic pipe or a similar substantial rigid con - necting medium to cordon off the area of the fall hazard. If a portion of the CBB system is not in - terconnected, the disconnected

section could be mistaken as an entry point. The effect of the in - terconnecting cones and bars is to create a phys - ical barricade that clearly demarcates the area of restricted access. The subsection also specifies the bar be placed 6 inches from the top of the cone, which determines the height of the bar from the floor. Floors in construc - tion sites are uneven, making it necessary to measure from the top of the cone.

The effect is to standardize the placement of the cones and height of bars to ensure that the CBB system will be used as intended. ● Proposed subsection (c) (2) (B)2. requires the cones and bars be set up prior to creating the opening and the CBB system to be maintained at least 6 feet from the opening until the task is completed or the opening is covered. The effect of setting up the CBB before creating the opening communicates to the employees the impending presence of a fall hazard as the opening is being created.

It also limits access to the area prior to creating a fall hazard. ● Proposed subsection (c) (2) (B)3. requires the CBB system remain in position and maintain its integrity to form a functioning barricade. If the barricade material breaks, loses its form or gets displaced, it is no longer an effective barricade. The effect of the requirement is to ensure a func - tioning barricade for the duration of its use. ● Proposed subsection (c) (2) (B)4. requires that employees setting up, walking inside or work - ing inside the demarcated area use personal fall protection.

The effect is to ensure the employees are protected from falls while creating the floor opening, removing the cover and lifting up or cutting the decking material. This requirement is consistent with

section 1710(m) (2). ● Proposed subsection (c) (2) (B)5. requires that the barricade not be used for falling object protection and prohibits work directly below the floor open- ing barricaded by the CBB system. This require - ment clarifies that the CBB system’s purpose is not to prevent objects from falling into the open - ing and it would not be effective for falling object protection. The CBB system is used to barricade openings when work is in progress. Work near the floor opening has an inherent risk of items such as tools and building materials falling through the opening.

Working below an opening where work is in progress presents a hazard to employ - ees due to falling objects, debris and sparks from grinding or welding operations. The effect of the requirement is to prohibit work directly below an opening barricaded by a CBB system and prevent injuries due to falling objects. ● Proposed subsection (c) (2) (B)6. prohibits unau - thorized employees from disturbing or entering the area demarcated by the CBB system.

The success of the CBB system is dependent on em - ployees respecting the barricade and the effect is to permit only workers who are authorized by the employer to enter the barricaded area. ● Proposed subsection (c) (2) (B)7 requires employ- ers to train their employees on the proper set up and use of the CBB system. The effect is to en - sure employees know what is required to keep themselves and their co–workers safe. This sub -

section also requires the employer to document the training consistent with existing requirements under sections 1509 and 3203(b). The effect is to enhance clarity and improve consistency with ex- isting regulations. ● Subsection (c) (5) is amended to require the place- ment of the CBB system be verified by a qualified person prior to each shift and following strong wind conditions. The requirement provides the employer the opportunity to correct the place - ment of the barricade. The effect is to ensure the CBB system is properly set up and has not been displaced to protect workers from fall hazards.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 44–Z 1413 Appendix to

Section 1635 The proposal adds a non–mandatory appendix, consisting of: Figure 1635.1. Cone and Bar Barricade (CBB System); Figure 1635–2. CBB System In–Use; and Notes to provide information regarding its use. The effect is to show what a CBB system looks like. DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACTION Mandate on Local Agencies or School Districts: None. Cost or Savings to State Agencies: None. The proposal does not consider potential sales tax revenues.

Cone and bar systems is being added as one of the ways to protect employees from falling through openings and leading edges; therefore, it would be speculative to consider potential sales tax revenues. Since an employer has the option to use plank and ply- wood or guardrails, there is no way to determine the number of instances where substitution will be made. The proposal is not expected to increase the con - tracting cost for new construction or remodeling of existing buildings.

According to stakeholders, indus - try has been using the CBB for years, so the cost for the CBB would have already been absorbed in prior contracts where CBB was used. So, there will likely be no incremental contracting cost due to purchasing of CBB materials. According to stakeholders, industry has been us - ing the CBB along with other materials (such as rope, caution tape, piled materials) as a barricade for about 10 years.

Although the proposal eliminates the use of caution rope, caution tape, and piled material as bar - ricade, the use of CBB as proposed is safer because of the rules that are being proposed regarding its use, such as standardizing its set–up, materials used and training. The cone and bar system clearly communi - cates the presence of the floor opening and its use cou- pled with personal fall protection protects the worker inside the CBB. The use of CBB also decreases the use of plank and plywood. There is a potential for cost savings through the use of less plank and plywood.

However, the exact amount of cost savings is uncertain as the use of CBB is an alternative to the use of plank and plywood for certain circumstances where work is still in progress. Additionally, it is not known how much less plank and plywood would be used if it was not used to cover an opening. The cost savings are dependent on how wide- spread CBB use becomes. The materials that make up a CBB system are more durable, lightweight and easi- er to install than plank and plywood, which would re - sult in decreased cost in storage, transportation, labor and materials.

Additionally, the amount of substitution is difficult to quantify as it varies per project and the use of plank and plywood would not be entirely elimi- nated by the proposal.

Therefore the use of CBB will not have an incre - mental cost on contracts or to the specialized contrac - tors because industry has been using the CBB as a barricade for years and any potential savings due to the decreased use of plank and plywood is unknown since the amount of substitution is difficult to quantify as it varies by project and it is not known how much less plank and plywood would be used if it was not used to cover an opening. Cost to Any Local Government or School District Which Must be Reimbursed in Accordance with Gov- ernment Code Sections 17500 through 17630: None.

Other Nondiscretionary Cost or Savings Imposed on Local Agencies: None. Cost or Savings in Federal Funding to the State: None. Cost Impact on a Representative Private Person or Business: The Board is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would nec - essarily incur in reasonable compliance with the pro - posed action.

Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Directly Af - fecting Businesses and Individuals: Including the Ability of California Businesses to Compete: The Board has made an initial determination that this proposal will not result in a significant, state - wide adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses/individuals, including the ability of Cali - fornia businesses to compete with businesses in oth - er states. The proposal would affect 1,513 structural steel con- tractors, costing these specialized contractors approx - imately $14.32 million in materials over the 10–year lifetime of the regulation.

However, the exact amount of cost savings is uncertain as the use of CBB systems is one of the permissible means of protecting employ- ees from falls through openings and it is not known how much less plank and plywood would be used if it was not used to cover an opening. There is no additional cost for personal fall protec - tion because iron workers are already equipped with full body harnesses and lanyards as required by sec - tion 1710. There is no additional cost for training be - cause existing regulations like sections 1509, 1510 and 3203 require training and safety meetings.

Further - more, some employers already use CBB systems, but the rules regarding the use are not standardized. General contractors of multi–story buildings with structural steel skeletons would be affected only to the extent that they need to be familiar with the pro - posed rules as the controlling employer of the jobsite who has the authority to stop unsafe work and require the structural steel contractor to correct the hazard.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 44–Z 1414 However, the proposal is not expected to increase the contracting cost for new construction or remodeling of existing buildings since, according to stakeholders, in- dustry has been using the CBB for years. The proposal will not create, eliminate or expand jobs or businesses in California. Significant Effect on Housing Costs: None. SMALL BUSINESS DETERMINATION The proposal will affect small businesses.

The per - centage of businesses with less than 100 employees — which are considered small businesses — is approxi - mately 93% of all structural steel contractors. 2 RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT/ANALYSIS The proposed regulation will not have any effect on (1) the creation or elimination of California jobs; (2) the creation of new businesses or the elimination of existing California businesses or (3) the expansion of existing California businesses. Employers are already required to cover, barricade or provide fall protection to address fall hazards due to floor openings in temporary floors.

The proposal pre - scribes what is considered a barricade and standardiz- es the use of CBB systems by providing specifications and rules for use. According to an email communication received from Western Steel Council in 2019, the cost per em - ployer for CBB systems was approximately $3,000, or equivalent to the purchase of 85 cones and 85 bars. Since then, the cost of cones and bars has increased, which amounts to $4,984.58 per employer, including sales tax.

According to the California Contractor’s State Li - censing Board data, there are approximately 1,513 structural steel contractors (C–51 license). 3 When taking the number of contractors (1,513) multiplied by the cost of CBB system materials shown below ($4,984.58) it equals approximately $7.54 million. In addition, the annual ongoing replacement cost is ap - proximately $498.46 per business, representing 10% of the initial cost. Multiplied by 1,513 contractors, this yields $6.79 million over the 10–year regulation’s life- time.

Including the initial cost of $7.54 million, the to- tal statewide costs that businesses may occur to com - 2 United States Census Bureau. 2019 SUSB Annual Data Tables by Establishment Industry. U.S. & states, 6–digit NAICS. Re - leased December 2023. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2021/ econ/susb/2021–susb–annual.html . 3 California Contractor’s State License Board. Publica Data Portal, List of Contractors by Classification. Accessed March 15, 2024. https://www.cslb.ca.gov/onlineservices/dataportal/ . ply with the regulations over its lifetime are approxi - mately $14.32 million.

Cost of Cones Number = 85 28–inch cones (estimated as number of cones needed to cover roughly 2,000 square feet). Cost per cone = $26.30. 4 Cost of 85 cones = $2,235.50. Total cost of cones with 10.75% tax rate = $2,475.82. Cost of Bars N um b e r = 8 5 ( e s t i m a t e d a s n um b e r o f b a r s n e e d- ed to cover roughly 2,000 square feet) Cost per bar = $26.65. 5 Cost of 85 bars = $2,265.25. Total cost of bars with 10.75% tax rate = $2,508.76. Initial Statewide Cost of CBB Systems CBB system material cost with 10.75% tax rate = $4,984.58.

Number of structural steel contractors in California = 1,513 Total initial statewide cost of CBB systems = $7,541,669.54. Ongoing Cost of CBB Systems Annual ongoing replacement CBB system material cost (10%) = $498.46 Number of structural steel con - tractors in California = 1,513. Annual statewide ongoing cost = $754,169.98. Total ongoing cost over 10–year lifetime ($754,169.98 x 9 years) = $6,787,529.82. Total Cost of CBB Systems Total initial statewide cost of CBB systems = $7,541,669.54 Total ongoing cost over 10–year life - time = $6,787,529.82 Grand total = $14,329,199.36.

There is no additional cost in personal fall protec - tion because iron workers are already equipped with full body harnesses and lanyards as required by sec - tion 1710. There is no additional cost for training be - cause sections 1509, 1510 and 3203 require training and safety meetings. Furthermore, some employers al- ready use CBB systems, but the rules regarding their use are not standardized. BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The proposal will help prevent falls through floor openings in unfinished floors of buildings by clar - ifying what is considered a barricade.

According to stakeholders, industry has been using the CBB along with other materials (such as rope, caution tape, piled materials) for years. The proposal eliminates the use of rope, caution tape and piled materials as a barri - cade. The use of CBB as proposed is a safer option 4 Traffic Safety Store. 28” Traffic Cones. Accessed March 15, 2024. https://www.trafficsafetystore.com/traffic–cones/orange– economy–28#C28HDS2X. 5 Traffic Safety Store. 6’ to 10’ Traffic Cone Bar by JBC Safety. Accessed March 15, 2024. https://www.trafficsafetystore.com/ traffic–cones/cone–bars–6–10#CB10OW.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 44–Z 1415 because of the rules that are being proposed regard - ing its use, such as standardizing its set–up, materials used and training. In addition, the cone and bar clear - ly communicates the presence of the opening and its use coupled with personal fall protection protects the worker inside the CBB. The use of the CBB with personal fall protection is an alternative to the use of plank and plywood for cer- tain circumstances where work is still in progress.

For example, work where a cover is used would require re- peat opening and covering throughout the day. There is a potential for cost savings by using less plank and plywood. However, the exact amount of cost savings is uncertain, because the use of CBB is an alternative (not mandated) to plank and plywood in certain circumstances where work is still in prog - ress. Additionally, it is not known how much the use of CBB will offset the amount of plank and plywood pur- chased. The cost savings are dependent on how wide - spread CBB use becomes.

The materials that make up a CBB system are more durable, lightweight and easi- er to install than plank and plywood, which would re - sult in decreased cost in storage, transportation, labor and materials. Additionally, the amount of substitution is difficult to quantify as it varies per project and the use of plank and plywood would not be entirely elimi- nated by the proposal.

The use of CBB will not have an incremental cost on contracts or to the specialized contractors because in - dustry has been using the CBB as a barricade for years and any potential savings due to the decreased use of plank and plywood is unknown since the amount of substitution is difficult to quantify as it varies by proj- ect and it is not known how much less plank and ply - wood would be used if it was not used to cover an opening. The proposed regulation ultimately protects the health and safety of California workers but does not offer a direct benefit to the state’s environment.

CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES In accordance with Government Code

section 11346.5(a) (13), the Board must determine that no rea- sonable alternative it considered to the regulation or that has otherwise been identified and brought to its attention would either be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affect - ed 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 than the proposal described in this Notice.

The Board invites interested persons to present statements or arguments with respect to alternatives to the proposed regulation at the scheduled public hear - ing or during the written comment period. The advisory committee discussed the use of delin - eators (looper tubes) versus cones. During the adviso- ry committee meetings, the advisory committee mem- bers stated that cones were more stable and heat resis- tant than delineators.

The cost of a delineator with a 12–pound base is approximately $23.30. 6 This alterna- tive was rejected because in a high heat environment the delineators melt and fall over, making it an ineffec- tive barricade. CONTACT PERSONS Inquiries regarding this proposed regulatory action may be directed to Ruth Ibarra, Staff Services Manag- er I or the back–up contact person, Amalia Neidhardt, Principal Safety Engineer at the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 350, Sacramento, CA 95833; (916) 274–5721.

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

As of the date this Notice of Proposed Action is published in the Notice Register, the rulemaking file consists of this Notice, the proposed text of the reg - ulations, the Initial Statement of Reasons, support - ing documents, or other information upon which the rulemaking is based. Copies may be obtained by contacting Autumn Gonzalez or Amalia Neidhardt at the address or tele - phone number listed above.

AVAILABILITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT After holding the hearing and considering all timely and relevant comments received, the Board may adopt the proposed regulations substantially as described in this Notice. If the Board makes modifications which are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text, it will make the modified text (with the changes clear- 6 Traffic Safety Store. 42” Looper Tube. Accessed March 15, 2024. https://www.trafficsafetystore.com/delineator–tubes/ looper–tube–42#TL42–3 .

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 44–Z 1416 ly indicated) available to the public at least 15 days before the Board adopts the regulations as revised. Please request copies of any modified regulations by contacting Autumn Gonzalez or Amalia Neidhardt at the address or telephone number listed above. The Board will accept written comments on the modified regulations for at least 15 days after the date on which they are made available.

AVAILABILITY OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Upon its completion, copies of the Final Statement of Reasons may be obtained by contacting Autumn Gonzalez or Amalia Neidhardt at the address or tele - phone number listed above or via the internet. AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS ON THE INTERNET The Board will have rulemaking documents avail - able for inspection throughout the rulemaking pro - cess on its website.

Copies of the text of the regula - tions in an underline/strikeout format, the Notice of Proposed Action and the Initial Statement of Rea - sons can be accessed through the Board’s website at http://www.dir.ca.gov/oshsb/CBB.html. TITLE 16. BOARD OF BARBERING AND COSMETOLOGY PRE–APPRENTICE TRAINING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Barbering and Cosmetology (hereafter Board) is proposing to amend California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 16, Division 9,

Section 917 as described in the Informative Digest below, after considering all comments, objections, and recommendations regard - ing the proposed action. PUBLIC HEARING The Board has not scheduled a public hearing on this proposed action. However, the Board will hold a hear- ing if it receives a written request for a public hearing from any interested person, or their authorized repre - sentative, no later than 15 days prior to the close of the written comment period. A hearing may be requested by making such request in writing addressed to the in- dividuals listed under “Contact Person” in this notice.

WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Written comments relevant to the action proposed, including those sent by mail, facsimile, or email to the addresses listed under “Contact Person” in this No - tice, must be received by the Board at its office no lat- er than by Monday, December 16, 2024, or must be received by the Board at the hearing, should one be scheduled. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Pursuant to the authority vested by

Section 7312 of the Business and Professions Code (BPC), and to im - plement, interpret, or make specific BPC

section 7334, the Board is considering amending

section 917 of title 16 of the CCR. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW The Board of Barbering and Cosmetology (Board) licenses and regulates barbers, cosmetologists, man - icurists, estheticians, hairstylists, electrologists, bar - ber apprentices, cosmetology apprentices, electrology apprentices, and the establishments where they work in California, totaling over 58,000 establishments and over 581,000 individuals. In addition to licens - ing individuals and establishments, the Board shares joint oversight over apprenticeship program sponsors along with the Division of Apprenticeship Standards (DAS) and Local Education Agency (LEA) pursuant to Business and Professions Code

section 7333. Pro - gram sponsors act as the school and point of contact for apprentices and provide related training classes for apprentices. It is the Board’s duty to enforce and administer the Barbering and Cosmetology Act (Chapter 10 (com - mencing with

section 7300) of Division 3 of the Busi- ness and Professions Code (BPC)) (Act). The Board is authorized to make rules and regulations in aid or in furtherance of the Act in accordance with the Admin - istrative Procedure Act. (BPC § 7312.) Prior to 2022, the Act and the Board’s accompany - ing regulation at CCR 917 provided that in addition to meeting other requirements, to become a licensed ap - prentice, applicants had to complete a minimum of 39 hours of pre–apprentice training in a facility approved by the Board prior to serving the general public. (BPC §§ 7334(

c) and (d), as enacted by Stats. 2003,

Chapter 788 (SB 362), and existing CCR

section 917.) In the Board’s 2018 Sunset Review report, it was not- ed that problems existed for those attempting to obtain the required pre–apprentice training at schools and the Board proposed statutory changes to this current requirement to allow the Board the option to develop its own online training. Senate Bill 803 (SB 803 –– (Chapter 648, Statutes of 2021)) was enacted in 2021 and made changes to BPC

section 7334(

c) in response to these concerns relevant to pre–apprentice training

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 44–Z 1417 for the barbering profession only. In 2023, Assembly Bill (AB) 2196 (Chapter 527, Statutes of 2022) was en- acted, which among other things, amended BPC sec - tion 7334 and required that pre–apprentice training for all applicable apprenticeship programs (barbering, cosmetology, skin care, nail care, or electrology) be “administered by the board for the length of time es - tablished by the board” prior to serving the general public.

The Board’s current regulation at CCR 917 does not address the content of pre–apprentice training admin - istered by the Board, how the Board would adminis - ter such training or the process and procedures an ap - plicant for apprentice licensure would need to follow to show satisfactory completion of this requirement in accordance with BPC

section 7334. This propos - al would establish those standards. The Board is also proposing to amend CCR 917 to reduce the current thirty–nine hours of instruction in specified subjects to two hours. The current proposal would retain ex - isting pre–apprentice training subject matter require - ments but would further define the meaning of “basic patron protection and sanitation and disinfection pro - cedures” training as specified in the proposal.

The proposed amendments and additions to Sec - tion 917 are to specify the minimum hours of pre–apprentice training, the timeframe in which the applicant for licensure as an apprentice shall com - plete the training, what topics the training will cov - er, how the applicant shall register and complete the training with the Board, how the Board will adminis - ter the training, and what the applicant will be provid- ed with upon completion of the training program. The

section is also being amended to make non–substan - tive, technical changes to adopt subdivision numbers to increase readability and make it easier for subdivi - sions to be referenced. Anticipated Benefits of Proposal The Board has determined that this regulatory pro - posal will have the following benefits to the health and welfare of California residents, and worker safety.

The Board has determined that the regulatory pro - posal will explain how the Board will administer the required pre–apprentice training and what applicants for licensure as an apprentice can expect to receive from completing the online training course. This will help ensure that applicants for licensure as an appren - tice intending to enroll in an apprenticeship program do not incur unnecessary costs and expenses charged by apprenticeship sponsors.

This will also strength - en protection of public health and welfare and worker safety as the Board can ensure that applicants receive more effective training on the laws and regulations of the Board and basic patron protection and sanitation and disinfection procedures. This regulatory proposal will benefit the health and welfare of California residents by ensuring that ap - prentice applicants receive instruction in the laws and regulations of the Board, basic patron protection and sanitation, and disinfection procedures.

This would help ensure that individuals are knowledgeable and prepared for their work as a licensee for the protec - tion of the public. This proposal also helps ensure that applicants and do not inadvertently incur unnecessary costs and expenses from sponsors charging for the pre–apprentice training.

This regulatory proposal strengthens worker safety because it provides applicants for licensure as appren- tices with current information on sanitation and disin- fection procedures as well as resources to other gov - ernment agencies that may be beneficial to their safety when using hazardous chemicals, such as the Califor - nia Division of Occupational Safety and Health. This regulatory proposal does not affect the state’s environment because it does not involve the environ - ment.

The regulation only concerns pre–apprentice training and helping ensure that individuals are pre - pared prior to enrolling in an apprenticeship program. Evaluation of Consistency and Compatibility with Existing State Regulations During the process of developing this regulato - ry proposal, the Board has conducted a search of any similar regulations on these topics and has concluded that these regulations are neither inconsistent nor in - compatible with existing state regulations.

DISCLOSURES REGARDING THIS PROPOSED ACTION FISCAL IMPACT ESTIMATES Fiscal Impact on Public Agencies Including Costs or Savings to State Agencies or Costs/Savings in Federal Funding to the State: The regulations result in one–time costs of approxi- mately $31,000 to develop and post the online training module on the Board’s website. Additionally, the Board will be required to pay $2 per individual to register and take the online training module. The Board estimates up to 2,300 individu - als will register per year, which will result in ongoing costs of $4,600 per year and up to $46,000 over a ten– year period.

The regulations do not result in costs or savings in federal funding to the state. Nondiscretionary Costs/Savings to Local Agen - cies: None. Cost to any Local Agency or School District for which Government Code Sections 17500–17630 Re- quire Reimbursement: None. Mandate Imposed on Local Agencies or School Districts: None.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 44–Z 1418 Significant Effect on Housing Costs: None. BUSINESS IMPACT ESTIMATES The Board has made the initial determination that the proposed regulatory action would have no signif - icant statewide adverse economic impact directly af - fecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. This initial determination is based on the following facts: The proposed online pre–apprentice training pro - gram is offered free of charge to applicants as the Board is not authorized to charge a fee for providing this training to applicants. The requirements that were removed from BPC

section 7334 for applicants to take pre–apprenticeship training “in a facility approved by the board” and instead added a new requirement that an applicant take training administered by this Board was legislatively determined by AB 2196 with amend- ments to BPC

section 7334. The Board notes, applicants are currently required to pay up to $2,500 per pre–apprenticeship train - ing course, which results in annual costs to individ - uals (2,300) of approximately $5.75 million per year with corresponding tuition fee revenues to training providers. The Board further notes, any economic impacts, in- cluding costs (savings) or decreased revenues, are a result of current law and not this regulatory proposal. This proposal also does not require any significant new expense or reporting, recordkeeping, or compli - ance measures on the part of businesses.

As a result, the regulations do not result in business impacts to the state. Any economic impacts, includ - ing costs, savings, or decreased revenues are a result of current law. Cost Impact on Representative Private Person or Business The Board is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would nec - essarily incur in reasonable compliance with the pro - posed action. As described under the “Business Impact Esti - mates”

section of this Notice, the proposed online pre–apprentice training program is offered free of charge to applicants. The requirements that were re - moved from BPC

section 7334 for applicants to take pre–apprenticeship training “in a facility approved by the board” and instead added a new requirement that an applicant take training administered by this Board was legislatively determined by AB 2196 with amend- ments to BPC

section 7334. The Board notes, applicants are currently required to pay up to $2,500 per pre–apprenticeship train - ing course, which results in annual costs to individ - uals (2,300) of approximately $5.75 million per year with corresponding tuition fee revenues to training providers. The Board further notes, any economic impacts, in- cluding costs (savings) or decreased revenues, are a result of current law and not this regulatory proposal.

RESULTS OF ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT/ANALYSIS Impact on Jobs/Businesses: The Board has determined that this regulatory pro - posal will not have any impact on the following: 1) the creation or elimination of jobs within the state, 2) the creation of new businesses or the elimination of existing businesses within the state, 3) the expansion of businesses currently doing busi- ness within the state.

Benefits of Regulation: The Board has determined that this regulatory pro - posal will have the following benefits to the health and welfare of California residents and worker safety: ● Ensuring that apprentice applicants receive in - struction in the laws and regulations of the Board, basic patron protection and sanitation, and disin - fection procedures in the most effective manner possible.

Knowledge of these topics will improve the health and welfare of consumers as this would help ensure that individuals are prepared for their work as a licensee. ● Helping ensure that apprentices do not inad - vertently incur unnecessary costs and expenses from sponsors charging for the pre–apprentice training. ● Strengthening worker safety because it provides applicants for licensure as apprentices with cur - rent information on sanitation and disinfection procedures as well as resources to other gov - ernment agencies that may be beneficial to their safety when handling hazardous chemicals, such as the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health.

This regulatory proposal does not affect the state’s environment because it does not involve the environ - ment. The regulation only concerns pre–apprentice training and ensuring that individuals are prepared prior to enrolling in an apprenticeship program. Business Reporting Requirements The regulatory action does not require businesses to file a report with the Board. Effect on Small Business The Board has determined that the proposed regula- tions will not affect small businesses. Although small

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 44–Z 1419 businesses owned by licensees of the Board may be impacted the Board does not maintain data relating to the number or percentage of licensees who own a small business; therefore, the number or percentage of small businesses that may be impacted cannot be predicted. However, to the extent that a licensee owns a small business, the proposed online pre–apprentice training program is offered free of charge to applicants as the Board is not authorized to charge a fee for providing this training to applicants. The requirements that were removed from BPC

section 7334 for applicants to take pre–apprenticeship training “in a facility approved by the board” and instead added a new requirement that an applicant take training administered by this Board was legislatively determined by AB 2196 with amend- ments to BPC

section 7334. The Board notes, applicants are currently required to pay up to $2,500 per pre–apprenticeship train - ing course, which results in annual costs to individ - uals (2,300) of approximately $5.75 million per year with corresponding tuition fee revenues to training providers. The Board further notes, any economic impacts, in- cluding costs (savings) or decreased revenues, are a result of current law and not this regulatory proposal. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES In accordance with Government Code

section 11346.5, subdivision (a) (13), the Board must deter - mine that no reasonable alternative it considered to the regulation or that has otherwise been identified and brought to its attention would be more effective in car- rying out the purpose for which the action is proposed; would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposal described in this No- tice; or would be more cost–effective to affected pri - vate persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law.

Any interested person may submit comments to the Board in writing relevant to the above determi - nations at 1625 North Market Boulevard., Suite 202, Sacramento, California 95834 during the written com- ment period, or at the hearing if one is scheduled or requested. AVAILABILITY OF STATEMENT OF REASONS AND RULEMAKING FILE The Board has compiled a record for this regulato - ry action, which includes the Initial Statement of Rea- sons (ISOR), proposed regulatory text, and all the in - formation on which this proposal is based.

This mate- rial is contained in the rulemaking file and is available for public inspection upon request to the contact per - sons named in this notice. TEXT OF PROPOSAL Copies of the exact language of the proposed regu - lations, and any document incorporated by reference, and of the initial statement of reasons, and all of the information upon which the proposal is based, may be obtained upon request from the Board, at 1625 North Market Boulevard, Suite 202, Sacramento, California 95834.

AVAILABILITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT After considering all timely and relevant comments, the Board, upon its own motion or at the request of any interested party, may thereafter adopt the proposals substantially as described below or may modify such proposals if such modifications are sufficiently relat - ed to the original text.

With the exception of techni - cal or grammatical changes, the full text of any modi - fied proposal, with the modifications clearly indicated, will be available for review and written comment for 15 days prior to its adoption from the persons desig - nated in this Notice as the Contact Persons and will be mailed to those persons who submit written comments or oral testimony related to this proposal or who have requested notification of any changes to the proposal.

AVAILABILITY AND LOCATION OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS AND RULEMAKING FILE All the information upon which the proposed reg - ulations are based is contained in the rulemaking file which is available for public inspection by contacting the person named below. You may obtain a copy of the Final Statement of Reasons once it has been prepared by making a writ - ten request to the Contact Persons named below or by accessing the website listed below.

CONTACT PERSONS Inquiries or comments concerning the proposed rulemaking action may be addressed to: Name: Jennifer Huetter Address: 1625 North Market Boulevard, Suite 202 Sacramento, CA 95834 Telephone Number: (279) 278–5098 Fax Number: (916) 928–6810 E–Mail Address: Jennifer.Huetter@dca.ca.gov The backup contact person is:

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 44–Z 1420 Name: Allison Lee Address: 1625 North Market Boulevard, Suite 202 Sacramento, CA 95834 Telephone Number: (279) 278–5107 Fax Number: (916) 928–6810 E–Mail Address: Allison.Lee@dca.ca.gov AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS ON THE INTERNET Copies of the Notice of Proposed Action, the Initial Statement of Reasons, and the text of the regulations with modifications noted, as well as the Final State - ment of Reasons when completed, and modified text, if any, can be accessed through the Board’s website at http://www.barbercosmo.ca.gov/laws_regs/prop_regs. shtml.

TITLE 16. BOARD OF BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES TELEHEALTH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN t h a t t h e C a l i f o r- nia Board of Behavioral Sciences (Board) is proposing to take the action described in the Informative Digest below, after considering all comments, objections and recommendations regarding the proposed action. PUBLIC HEARING The Board has not scheduled a public hearing on this proposed action.

However, the Board will hold a hear- ing if it receives a written request for a public hearing from any interested person, or their authorized repre - sentative, no later than 15 days prior to the close of the written comment period. A hearing may be requested by making such request in writing addressed to the in- dividuals listed under Contact Person in this Notice.

WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Written comments relevant to the action proposed, including those sent by mail, facsimile, or email to the addresses listed under Contact Person in this No- tice, must be received by the Board at its office not lat- er than by Monday, December 16, 2024, or must be received by the Board at the hearing, should one be scheduled.

AVAILABILITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT After considering all timely and relevant comments, the Board, upon its own motion or at the request of any interested party, may thereafter adopt the proposals substantially as described below or may modify such proposals if such modifications are sufficiently relat - ed to the original text.

With the exception of technical or grammatical changes, the full text of any modified proposal will be available for 15 days prior to its adop- tion from the person designated in this Notice as Con- tact Person and will be mailed to those persons who submit written or oral testimony related to this pro - posal or who have requested notification of any chang- es to the proposal.

AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Pursuant to the authority vested by Sections 4980.60 and 4990.20 of the Business and Professions Code (BPC), and to implement, interpret, or make specif - ic BPC Sections 2290.5, 4980, 4989.50, 4996, 4999.30 and 4999.82 and Civil Code sections 56 et seq., the Board is considering changes to Division 18 of Title 16 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) as follows: INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW The Board of Behavioral Sciences (Board) licens - es and regulates Licensed Marriage and Family Ther - apists (LMFTs) (Bus. & Prof.

Code (BPC), §§ 4980 et seq.), Licensed Educational Psychologists (LEPs) (BPC §§ 4989.10 et seq.), Licensed Clinical Social Workers (LCSWs) (BPC §§ 4991 et seq.), and Li - censed Professional Clinical Counselors (LPCCs) (BPC §§ 4999.10 et seq.). The Board also registers and regulates individuals gaining supervised experience toward meeting the re - quirements for licensure. This includes registered As - sociate Marriage and Family Therapists (AMFTs), As- sociate Professional Clinical Counselors (APCCs) and Associate Clinical Social Workers (ASWs), and ap - plicants pending registration.

While the Board does not register, nor does it directly regulate individuals enrolled in a degree program designed to lead an in - dividual to licensure, the Board’s law for two of its professions does set forth certain provisions applica - ble to these students, and designates these individ - uals as “trainees” (Marriage and Family Therapist (MFT) Trainees and Professional Clinical Counselor Trainees). BPC

section 4990.16 mandates that the protection of the public shall be the highest priority of the Board in exercising its licensing, regulatory, and disciplinary functions. Whenever the protection of the public is in- consistent with other interests sought to be promoted, the protection of the public shall be paramount.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 44–Z 1421 BPC

section 4990.20 authorizes the Board in accor- dance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (Government Code sections 11400 et seq.), to adopt, amend, or repeal such rules and regulations as may be reasonably necessary to enable it to carry into ef - fect the provisions of BPC Chapters 13, 13.5, 13.7, 14 and 16. The Board’s current telehealth regulations were ad - opted in 2016. The practice of psychotherapy via tele- health continues to evolve, and the Board has received feedback from stakeholders that some provisions of the telehealth regulations need to be updated or clari - fied to avoid inconsistent compliance and enforcement of the requirements in CCR

section 1815.5. This pro - posal would address these concerns by amending ex - isting regulations as follows. The proposal would be revised to more accurate - ly reflect the status that an individual needs to hold (either as a trainee in accordance with BPC

section 2290.5 or a licensee with a current and active license). In addition, existing regulation at subsection (d) (3) simply states that each time a licensee or registrant provides services via telehealth they shall utilize in - dustry best practices for telehealth to ensure both cli - ent confidentiality and the security of the communica- tion medium, without further specification. This pro - posal would address such ambiguity by removing ref- erences to “industry best practices” for ensuring the security, privacy and confidentiality of the communi - cation medium.

Instead, this proposal would specifi - cally list those laws and regulations that a licensee or registrant would need to comply with to ensure that the technology, method and equipment used to pro - vide services via telehealth comply with existing state and federal laws and regulations regarding privacy, confidentiality and security of information. The pro - posal would also make non–substantive changes that strike language duplicating statute in subsection (

f) of CCR

section 1815.5, and make other non–substantive changes. Aside from non–substantive changes for easier com- prehension and consistency of use, including the use of gender–neutral terms (removal of references to his/ her and replacing them with “they” or “their”), and correction of punctuation and the addition of further legal citations in the Note

section of the regulation, the proposed amendments include the following spe - cific changes. Existing

Section 1815.5(

a) specifies that in order to practice via telehealth with a client located in Califor- nia, a “valid and current” California license or reg - istration is required. This proposal would instead re - quire the license to be “current and active” which is the specific license status that the Board requires to practice with all clients, including those seen via tele - health. In addition, this

section does not currently ad - dress MFT Trainees and Professional Clinical Coun - selor Trainees who are authorized to provide telehealth services under BPC

section 2290.5. These individuals are not registered or licensed by the Board but are in - stead under the purview of their school while pursu - ing their qualifying degree. This proposal would add a reference to the statute at BPC

section 2290.5 that al - lows trainees to provide services via telehealth despite not being licensed or registered with the Board.

Section 1815.5(d) (3) currently requires that each time a therapist provides services via telehealth, they must “utilize industry best practices for telehealth to ensure both client confidentiality and the security of the communication medium.” The proposal would in- stead require a licensee or registrant to ensure that the technology, method, and equipment used to provide services via telehealth comply with applicable state and federal laws and regulations and further speci - fy the laws which contain the requirements for con - fidentiality, privacy and security; specifically, the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and regulations promulgated under HI - PAA by the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services. The Board proposes to repeal subsection (

f) of ex - isting CCR 1815.5 as duplicative of existing law. “Fail- ure to maintain confidentiality” is already listed as un- professional conduct in statute for each of the Board’s license types (BPC sections 4982(m), 4989.54(q), 4992.3(

n) and 4999.90(m)). In addition, BPC sections 4982(e), 4989.54(f), 4992.3(

f) and 4999.90(

e) state that unprofessional conduct includes “Violating, attempt - ing to violate, or conspiring to violate any of the pro - visions of this

chapter or any regulation adopted by the board.” As a result, this proposal would repeal subsec- tion (

f) of

section 1815.5, which specifies that “Failure to comply with these provisions shall be considered unprofessional conduct.” ANTICIPATED BENEFITS OF PROPOSAL The objectives of the amendments and anticipat - ed benefits in this regulatory proposal include the following: ● Increase clarity and conciseness in regulation by removing unnecessary language that duplicates statute; by clarifying the license status necessary to provide telehealth services; and resolve ambi - guity in regulation regarding the meaning of in - dustry best practices. ● Increase awareness of and compliance with tele - health–related confidentiality, privacy and secu - rity laws among Board licensees, which strength- ens confidentiality and privacy for consumers of mental health services.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 44–Z 1422 Evaluation of Consistency and Compatibility with Existing State Regulations During the process of developing this regulato - ry proposal, the Board has conducted a search of any similar regulations on these topics and has concluded that these regulations are neither inconsistent nor in - compatible with existing state regulations.

DISCLOSURES REGARDING THIS PROPOSED ACTION Fiscal Impact Estimates Fiscal Impact on Public Agencies Including Costs or Savings to State Agencies or Costs/Savings in Fed- eral Funding to the State: The proposed regulations do not result in a fiscal impact to the state. This pro - posal would merely provide clarity of existing law and strike regulations that duplicate existing statute. The Board does not anticipate additional workload or costs from the proposed regulations. Any workload or costs of implementation are a result of current law.

There is no fiscal impact to the State in the form of feder - al funding or any cost or savings to any state agency. Nondiscretionary Costs/Savings to Local Agen - cies: None. Local Mandate: None. Cost to Any Local Agency or School District for Which Government Code Sections 17500–17630 Re- quire Reimbursement: None. Significant Effect on Housing Costs: None.

Business Impact Estimates : The Board has made an initial determination that the proposed regulato - ry action would have no significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, includ - ing the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. This initial determina - tion is based on the following facts: The Board indicates this regulation will not affect businesses. This proposal would only impact licens - ees or registrants who provide services via telehealth.

However, the Board believes the impact to individual licensees or registrants would not be significant for the following reasons: ● Striking regulations that duplicate statute has no adverse economic effect because the statutory provisions will continue to be in effect. ● Adding references to the CMIA and HIPAA has no adverse economic effect because these laws already apply to Board licensees and registrants providing services under telehealth pursuant to these state and federal laws. The rulemaking file includes the facts, documents, and other evidence which supports this determination.

Cost Impact on Representative Private Person or Business: The Board is not aware of any cost im - pacts that are representative private person or busi - ness would necessarily incur in reasonable compli - ance with the proposed action for the reasons set forth above in the “Business Impact Estimates” section. Effect on Small Business : The Board has deter - mined that the proposed regulations will not have an impact on small businesses. This is because striking language duplicated in statute has no effect on small businesses as described in the “Business Impact Es - timate”

section above. In addition, the CMIA and HIPAA already apply to Board licensees. RESULTS OF ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT/ANALYSIS Impact on Jobs / Businesses : The Board has deter - mined that the proposed regulatory action would not have a significant statewide adverse economic on the following: 1) The creation or elimination of jobs within the state, 2) The creation of new businesses or the elimination of existing businesses within the state, or, 3) The expansion of businesses currently doing business within the state. This proposal would not have any of the above–ref- erenced impacts as explained in the “Business Impact Estimates”

section of this notice. Benefits of the Regulation to the Health and Wel - fare of California Residents, Worker Safety, and the State’s Environment: The Board has determined that this regulatory proposal will benefit the health and welfare of California residents, as it may increase awareness of the telehealth requirements of CMIA and HIPAA among Board licensees and increase compli - ance, which strengthens confidentiality and privacy for consumers of mental health services by potential - ly leading to fewer violations of client confidentiality.

The proposal will have no effect on worker safety or the State’s environment because it does not relate to worker safety or the environment. Business Reporting Requirements : This proposed regulation does not require businesses to file a report with the Board. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES In accordance with Government Code

section 11346.5, subdivision (a) (13), the Board must deter - mine that no reasonable alternative it considered to the regulation or that has otherwise been identified and brought to its attention would be more effective in car- rying out the purpose for which the action is proposed; would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposal described in this No- tice, or would be more cost–effective to affected pri -

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 44–Z 1423 vate persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law. Any interested person may submit comments to the board in writing relevant to the above determinations at 1625 North Market Blvd, Suite S200, Sacramento CA 95834 during the written comment period, or at the hearing if one is scheduled or requested.

AVAILABILITY OF INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS AND RULEMAKING FILE The Board has compiled a record of for this regu - latory action, which includes the Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR), proposed regulatory text, and all the information on which this proposal is based. This ma- terial is contained in the rulemaking file and is avail - able for public inspection upon request to the Contact Persons named in this notice.

TEXT OF PROPOSAL Copies of the exact language of the proposed regu - lations and of the initial statement of reasons, and all of the information upon which the proposal is based, may be obtained at the hearing or prior to the hearing upon request from the person designated in this Notice under Contact Person listed below, or by accessing the Board’s website at https://www.bbs.ca.gov/about/law_ reg.html.

AVAILABILITY AND LOCATION OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS AND RULEMAKING FILE All of the information upon which the proposed reg- ulations are based is contained in the rulemaking file, which is available for public inspection by contacting the Contact Person named below. You may obtain a copy of the Final Statement of Reasons once it has been prepared, by making a writ - ten request to the Contact Persons named below or by accessing the website listed below.

CONTACT PERSON Inquiries or comments concerning the proposed rulemaking action may be addressed to: Name: Christy Berger Address: Board of Behavioral Sciences 1625 North Market Boulevard, Suite S200 Sacramento CA 95834 Telephone: 916–574–7995 Fax: 916–574–8625 Email: BBS.Rulemaking@dca.ca.gov The backup contact person is: Name: Rosanne Helms Address: Board of Behavioral Sciences 1625 North Market Boulevard, Suite S200 Sacramento CA 95834 Telephone: 916–574–7939 Fax: 916–574–8625 Email: Rosanne.Helms@dca.ca.gov AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS ON THE INTERNET Copies of the Notice of Proposed Action, the Initial Statement of Reasons, and the text of the regulations with modifications noted, as well as the Final State - ment of Reasons when completed, and modified text, if any, can be accessed through the Board’s website at: https://www.bbs.ca.gov/about/law_reg.html.

TITLE 16. BUREAU OF AUTOMOTIVE R EPAIR OMNIBUS CLEAN UP OF RELATED REGULATIONS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Bureau of Automotive Repair (“Bureau” or “BAR”) is proposing to take the action described in the Informative Digest below, after considering all comments, objections, and recommendations regarding the proposed action. PUBLIC HEARING The Bureau has not scheduled a public hearing on this proposed action.

However, the Bureau will hold a hearing if it receives a written request for a public hearing from any interested person, or his or her au - thorized representative, no later than 15 days prior to the close of the written comment period. A hearing may be requested by making such request in writing addressed to the individuals listed under “Contact Per- son” in this notice.

WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Written comments relevant to the action proposed, including those sent by mail, facsimile, or email to the addresses listed under “Contact Person” in this No - tice, must be received by the Bureau at its office no later than Monday, December 16, 2024, or must be received by the Bureau at the hearing, should one be scheduled.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 44–Z 1424 AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Pursuant to the authority vested by sections 9882, 9884, 9884.4, 9884.7, 9884.9, 9884.19, 9887.1, and 9888.5 of the Business and Professions Code (BPC) and sections 44002 and 40034 of the Health and Safety Code (HSC), the Bureau is considering the following change to the California Code of Regulations (CCR): amending sections 3303, 3312.1, 3312.1.1, 3340.10, 3351, 3351.1, and 3395.8 of Title 16, Division 33, Chap- ter 1 of the CCR.

INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW The Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), Bu - reau of Automotive Repair is the state agency charged with licensing automotive repair dealers (ARDs), smog check stations, STAR stations, brake and lamp adjusting stations, and their respective inspectors, re - pair technicians, and adjusters.

The mission of both DCA and the Bureau, and therefore the main pur - pose of any regulatory proposal, is consumer protec - tion, which includes ensuring “all Californians are in - formed, empowered, and protected.” (DCA, About Us <https://www.dca.ca.gov/about_us/index.shtml> [as of Aug. 31, 2023]) In 2021, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 471 (“AB 471”; Low,

Chapter 372, Statutes of 2021), which modified the BPC (adding new sections, and amend - ing or repealing existing sections), requiring the Bu - reau to develop regulations implementing a new vehi- cle safety systems inspection program. This new pro - gram “promote[s] the safe and uniform installation, maintenance, and servicing of vehicle safety systems and components.” (BPC

section 9888.5.) The program includes inspection criteria and standards for specific vehicle safety systems and components, and the issu - ance of vehicle safety systems inspection licenses to stations and technicians to conduct inspections of, and repair, vehicle safety systems. Additionally, AB 471 modified BPC

section 9888.5(

d) to include that these vehicle safety systems inspection licenses replace li - censes issued pursuant to existing provisions — gov - erning the licensure of brake and lamp adjusting sta - tions and adjusters — that the bill repealed on the ef - fective date of the new regulations. Modifications to the current regulations are necessary to comply with the requirements of AB 471 and the BPC. In 2023, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1263 (“AB 1263”; Berman,

Chapter 681, Statues of 2023), which set provisions that allow to Bureau to sun - set the outdated brake and lamp programs within six months of the new regulations’ effective date. As a re- sult of these provisions, several effected sections re - garding current brake and lamp regulations will be - come inoperative six months after the Vehicle Safety Systems Inspection Program regulations take effect. However, within those sunsetting sections exist cer - tain

definitions that will still be applicable to the pro - gram and therefore need to be added back into reg - ulations. Additionally, several sections that reference these definition sections will need to be amended to cross–reference the new sections where these defini - tions will be located. Also, with updates to automotive repair dealer and vehicle safety system applications, it has become nec- essary to codify a definition for Responsible Manag - ing Employee (RME), a term which has longstand - ing and critical use within the Bureau and across the industry.

Lastly, references to now–obsolete Health and Safe- ty Code sections are being removed from regulation text. Anticipated Benefits of Proposal By implementing these regulatory changes, the Bu - reau will reinstate

definitions that are in CCR sec - tions that will become inoperative six months after the effective date of the Vehicle Safety Systems In - spection program regulations, adding the

definitions into existing and current regulation sections in or - der to provide

definitions for terms used throughout BAR’s regulations. The Bureau will also add another definition for a term used in applications, and update cross–references (including removing references to outdated Health and Safety Code sections). Evaluation of Consistency and Compatibility with Existing State Regulations During the process of developing this regulatory proposal, the Bureau has conducted a search of any similar regulations on these topics and has concluded that these regulations are neither inconsistent nor in - compatible with existing state regulations. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE None.

DISCLOSURES REGARDING THIS PROPOSED ACTION FISCAL IMPACT ESTIMATES Fiscal Impact on Public Agencies Including Costs or Savings to State Agencies or Costs/Savings in Federal Funding to the State: The regulations do not result in a fiscal impact to the state. The amendments are intended to re–implement and clarify existing provisions related to the Vehicle Safe- ty Systems Inspection Program, as specified.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 44–Z 1425 The regulations do not result in costs or savings in federal funding to the state. Nondiscretionary Costs/Savings to Local Agen - cies: None. Cost to any Local Agency or School District for which Government Code Sections 17500–17630 Re- quire Reimbursement: None. Mandate Imposed on Local Agencies or School Districts: None Significant Effect on Housing Costs: None.

BUSINESS IMPACT ESTIMATES The Bureau has determined this regulatory proposal would have no significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses, including small businesses and the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. Cost Impact on Representative Private Person or Business The Bureau is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would nec - essarily incur in reasonable compliance with the pro - posed action.

RESULTS OF ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT/ANALYSIS The Bureau has determined this regulatory proposal would have no significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses, including small businesses and the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. Impact on Jobs/Businesses This regulatory proposal will not create or elimi - nate jobs within the State of California because it rein- states

definitions, adds another definition, and updates cross–references. This regulatory proposal will not create new busi - ness or eliminate existing businesses within the State of California because it reinstates

definitions, adds an- other definition, and updates cross–references. This regulatory proposal will not affect the expan - sion of businesses currently doing business within the State of California because it reinstates

definitions, adds another definition, and updates cross–references. Benefits of Regulation This regulatory proposal does not affect the health and welfare of California residents, worker safety, or the state’s environment as this proposal is not related to any of those issues. By implementing these regulatory changes, the Bu - reau will reinstate

definitions that are in CCR sections that will become inoperative six months after the ef - fective date of the Vehicle Safety Systems Inspection program regulations, putting them into existing and current regulation sections in order to provide defi - nitions for terms used throughout BAR’s regulations. The Bureau will also add another definition for a term used in applications, and update cross–references (in - cluding removing references to outdated Health and Safety Code sections). Business Reporting Requirements The regulatory action does not require businesses to file a report with the Bureau.

Effect on Small Business The Bureau has determined this regulatory propos - al would have no effect on small businesses. This pro- posal simply reinstates

definitions into current defini - tions CCR from sections that will become inoperative upon the effective date of the Vehicle Safety Systems Inspection Program regulations, adds another defini - tion for a term used in applications, and update cross– references (including removing references to outdated Health and Safety Code sections). CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES In accordance with Government Code

section 11346.5(a) (13), the Bureau must determine that no rea- sonable alternative it considered to the regulation 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 per - sons than the proposal described in this Notice, would be more cost– effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law.

Any interested person may submit comments — relevant to the above determinations — in writing to the Bureau at 10949 North Mather Boulevard, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 during the written comment peri- od, or at the hearing if one is scheduled or requested. AVAILABILITY OF STATEMENT OF REASONS AND RULEMAKING FILE The Bureau has compiled a record for this regulato- ry action, which includes the Initial Statement of Rea- sons (ISOR), proposed regulatory text, and all the in - formation on which this proposal is based.

This mate- rial is contained in the rulemaking file and is available for public inspection upon request to the contact per - sons named in this notice. TEXT OF PROPOSAL Copies of the exact language of the proposed regu - lations, any document incorporated by reference, the Initial Statement of Reasons, and all of the informa - tion upon which the proposal is based, may be ob -

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2024, VOLUME NUMBER 44–Z 1426 tained upon request from the Bureau at 10949 North Mather Boulevard, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670. AVAILABILITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT After considering all timely and relevant comments, the Bureau, upon its own motion or at the request of any interested party, may thereafter adopt the pro - posals substantially as described below or may modi - fy such proposals if such modifications are sufficient- ly related to the original text.

With the exception of technical or grammatical changes, the full text of any modified proposal, with the modifications clearly in - dicated, will be available for review and written com - ment for 15 days prior to its adoption from the person designated in this Notice as the Contact Person and will be mailed to those persons who submit written comments or oral testimony related to this proposal or who have requested notification of any changes to the proposal.

AVAILABILITY AND LOCATION OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS AND RULEMAKING FILE All the information upon which the proposed regu - lations are based is conta