Dept. of Industrial Relations logo
Occupational Safety & Health Standards Board (OSHSB)

November 2003 Public Hearing Notice

NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING/PUBLIC HEARING/BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS BOARD
AND NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO TITLE 8
OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS

Pursuant to Government Code Section 11346.4 and the provisions of Labor Code Sections 142.1, 142.2, 142.3, 142.4, and 144.6, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board of the State of California has set the time and place for a Public Meeting, Public Hearing, and Business Meeting:

PUBLIC MEETING: On November 20, 2003 at 10:00 a.m.
in the Auditorium of the California State Building,
1350 Front Street, San Diego, California.

At the Public Meeting, the Board will make time available to receive comments or proposals from interested persons on any item concerning occupational safety and health.

PUBLIC HEARING: On November 20, 2003 following the Public Meeting
in the Auditorium of the California State Building,
1350 Front Street, San Diego, California.

At the Public Hearing, the Board will consider the public testimony on the proposed changes noticed below to occupational safety and health regulations in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations.

BUSINESS MEETING: On November 20, 2003 following the Public Hearing
in the Auditorium of the California State Building,
1350 Front Street, San Diego, California.

At the Business Meeting, the Board will conduct its monthly business.

The meeting facilities and restrooms are accessible to the physically disabled. Requests for accommodations for the disabled (assistive listening device, sign language interpreters, etc.) should be made to the Board office no later than 10 working days prior to the day of the meeting. If Paratransit services are needed, please contact the Paratransit office nearest you.


NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO TITLE 8
OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
BY THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS BOARD

Notice is hereby given pursuant to Government Code Section 11346.4 and Labor Code Sections 142.1, 142.4 and 144.5, that the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board pursuant to the authority granted by Labor Code Section 142.3, and to implement Labor Code Section 142.3, will consider the following proposed revisions to Title 8, Construction Safety Orders of the California Code of Regulations, as indicated below, at its Public Hearing on November 20, 2003.

 

1. title 8: construction safety orders
chapter 4, subchapter 4, article 10
section 1593
securing loads on haulage vehicles

 

2. title 8:

construction safety orders
chapter 4, subchapter 4, article 29
section 1716.2
proposed vertical standard - fall protection for
residential-type framing activities

 


A description of the proposed changes are as follows:

1. title 8: construction safety orders
chapter 4, subchapter 4, article 10
section 1593
securing loads on haulage vehicles

INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW

The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Board) initiates this rulemaking as a result of Board staff evaluation and consideration of the issue of securing loads under Section 1593(f) of the Construction Safety Orders and as described in Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (OSHAB) Decision After Reconsideration (DAR), Docket No. 98-R5D2-3674, in the matter of Obayashi Corporation. As indicated in the Appeals Board Decision, there was confusion and uncertainty on the part of the employer with regard to the meaning of subsection (f), entitled “ Unstable Loads.” The employer argued that the regulation only requires unstable loads to be secured and not all loads, as is the intent of the regulation. The Appeals Board found the employer’s position to be untenable because such an interpretation would lead to “unwieldy subjective enforcement”, since a load that was stable one moment might be unstable the next and vice versa. Board staff believes the term “unstable” in the title of subsection (f), “Unstable Loads”, leads some to surmise that a load must be unstable before a load must be stabilized and secured. Consequently, Board staff proposes to replace the term “unstable” with “securing” in order to eliminate any possible confusion over the meaning of the regulation.

Section 1593. Haulage Vehicle Operation.

Section 1593 addresses various issues relating to haulage vehicle operations which include, but are not limited to: vehicle speeds, use of mechanical threading devices, vehicle maintenance and tire repair.

Existing Subsection (f), entitled “Unstable Loads,” requires loads on vehicles to be secured against displacement. A revision is proposed to replace the term “unstable” in the subsection title with the term “securing.” The proposed revision will have the effect of clarifying to the employer that all loads are to be secured against displacement.

COST ESTIMATES OF PROPOSED ACTION

Costs or Savings to State Agencies

No costs or savings to state agencies will result as a consequence of the proposed action.

Impact on Housing Costs

The Board has made an initial determination that this proposal will not significantly affect housing costs.

Impact on Businesses

The Board has made an initial determination that this proposal will not result in a significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states.

Cost Impact on Private Persons or Businesses

The Board is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action.

Costs or Savings in Federal Funding to the State

The proposal will not result in costs or savings in federal funding to the state.

Costs or Savings to Local Agencies or School Districts Required to be Reimbursed

No costs to local agencies or school districts are required to be reimbursed. See explanation under “Determination of Mandate.”

Other Nondiscretionary Costs or Savings Imposed on Local Agencies

This proposal does not impose nondiscretionary costs or savings on local agencies.

DETERMINATION OF MANDATE

The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board has determined that the proposed regulation does not impose a local mandate. Therefore, reimbursement by the state is not required pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of the Government Code because the proposed amendment will not require local agencies or school districts to incur additional costs in complying with the proposal. Furthermore, the regulation does not constitute a “new program or higher level of service of an existing program within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.”

The California Supreme Court has established that a “program” within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution is one which carries out the governmental function of providing services to the public, or which, to implement a state policy, imposes unique requirements on local governments and does not apply generally to all residents and entities in the state. (County of Los Angeles v. State of California (1987) 43 Cal.3d 46.)

The proposed regulation does not require local agencies to carry out the governmental function of providing services to the public. Rather, the regulation requires local agencies to take certain steps to ensure the safety and health of their own employees only. Moreover, the proposed regulation does not in any way require local agencies to administer the California Occupational Safety and Health program. (See City of Anaheim v. State of California (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1478.)

The proposed regulation does not impose unique requirements on local governments. All employers - state, local and private - will be required to comply with the prescribed standard.

EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESSES

The Board has determined that the proposed amendments may affect small businesses.

ASSESSMENT

The adoption of the proposed amendments to this regulation will neither create nor eliminate jobs in the State of California nor result in the elimination of existing businesses or create or expand businesses in the State of California.

REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Our Board must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the Board or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the Board would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action.


A description of the proposed changes are as follows:

2. title 8:

construction safety orders
chapter 4, subchapter 4, article 29
section 1716.2
proposed vertical standard - fall protection for
residential-type framing activities

INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW

This rulemaking action is the result of a petition to the Board from the California Building Industry Association (CBIA) to develop and adopt an industry-specific fall protection standard for residential-type framing activities. The petition (OSHSB File No. 440, adopted May 16, 2002) was initiated in response to enforcement actions resulting from Construction Safety and Health Inspection Project (CSHIP) “sweeps” of residential framing worksites throughout the state coupled with what the Petitioner feels is a more restrictive interpretation by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Division) when a fall protection plan may be implemented. The CSHIP sweeps have resulted in a significant increase in fall protection citations in the residential construction industry. The last comprehensive update of fall protection standards for residential construction was conducted in 1997. The changes made at that time were initiated by revisions to Federal 29 CFR Part 1926, Subpart M, Fall Protection, on August 9, 1994. The revised Subpart M established the employer’s duty to provide fall protection at a trigger height of 6 feet and above. California Labor Code, Section 142.3(a)(2), requires the State to adopt standards at least as effective as federal standards.

Most of Subpart M was proposed to be adopted verbatim into California Code of Regulations, Title 8. Due to comments received on the proposal at a December 1994 public hearing, a majority of which were submitted by roofers, the Board convened an advisory committee to compare existing State fall protection standards with Subpart M and determine where changes to the State standards were necessary. The committee’s consensus was that Federal OSHA’s six-foot trigger height was unreasonable, economically onerous and unacceptable, both to labor and management. Subsequent meetings between all interested parties, including Federal OSHA, culminated in the comprehensive 1997 rulemaking.

Revisions made at that time concerned fall protection systems and procedures and were intended to prevent employees from falling off, onto, or through working levels. They included revisions to CSO Article 24, Fall Protection, Sections 1669, 1670, 1671, 1671.1 and 1671.2. These sections prescribe fall protection systems and procedures for the construction industry, including residential frame construction.

One of the problems expressed by the residential framing industry is that the present fall protection standards have different requirements based on the nature of the work and the height above which the work is being performed. For example, the trigger height for roofers is 20 feet. For employees working on 4 inch or wider structural members the trigger height is 15 feet, and for anyone working on unprotected platforms, scaffolds, or the edge of structures, it is 7-1/2 feet.

Due to the nature of residential construction, under the current regulations, employees can frequently be subject to different fall protection requirements within a single day, even on single story construction, and the various work activity-based trigger heights create confusion which often results in non-compliance. The Board directed staff to convene an advisory committee to consider the following:

§ Developing industry specific fall protection requirements for residential framing.

§ Reviewing residential framing fall protection trigger heights for possible modification.

§ Considering clarifying when conventional fall protection is "impractical or creates a greater hazard," and thus when a fall protection plan may be used for residential framing.

The Petitioner requested to limit the scope of the petition to residential framing since this is where almost all of the questions and concerns of their members have been focused.

Section 1716.2. Wood-Frame Construction, Residential/Commercial.

This proposal would amend the title to read “Wood and Light Gage Steel Frame Construction, Residential/Light Commercial” (new text underscored). Light gage steel has been added to the title to accommodate current industry practice to use light gage steel as well as traditional dimensional wood products for residential framing. Residential-type framing is used in some “light commercial” structures as well, and the proposal is written to apply to this type of framing whether it is found in a residential or a light commercial structure. The effect of this amendment will be to use performance-based regulations to address a type of framing which is increasingly being used in the framing of residential-type structures and about which the regulations are currently silent, and to ensure that employees engaged in residential framing operations are protected from falls by specific regulations which can be readily located by the employer.

Subsection (a)

Existing subsection (a) requires that before manually raising wood framed walls that are 10 feet or more in height, temporary restraints such as cleats on the foundation/floor system or straps on the wall bottom plate shall be installed to prevent inadvertent horizontal sliding or uplift of the wood framed wall bottom plate when it is being tilted up.

This proposal would revise and relocate subsection (a) to subsection (c)(1) in order to accommodate two new subsections: (a) entitled “Scope and Application” and (b) “Definitions.” The proposed changes will create a vertical standard for fall protection that will apply to work associated with the framing of new buildings or structures using the operations, methods, and procedures associated with residential-type framing activities, i.e., joists or trusses resting on stud walls. The effect of this proposed change is to clarify the applicable types of framing for this vertical standard. Although residential-type framing is understood by most to consist of joists or trusses resting on stud walls, the term “light-commercial,” although widely used, is more ambiguous, and the effect of the proposed subsection will be to clarify applicable types of structures for this standard.

Subsection (b)

Existing subsection (b) requires that anchor bolts shall not be used for blocking or bracing when raising wood framed walls. This proposal would revise and relocate subsection (b) to subsection (c)(2) in order to accommodate a new subsection (b) entitled “Definitions” which will contain definitions of framing terms. These definitions were developed from two main sources: (1) glossaries of residential framing terms available on the Internet, and (2) input from ad hoc advisory committee participants. The committee recognized there are regional differences in meaning and usage of framing terms throughout the United States. Therefore, all of these terms have been reviewed by the committee and determined by consensus to be as generally used and understood in the framing industry in California. Furthermore, each definition has been determined by consensus of the ad hoc advisory committee to be necessary for proper application of the proposed vertical standard. The effect of these proposed changes will be to clarify terms for the proper understanding and application by employers of fall protection requirements to residential-type framing activities.

Subsection (c)

New subsection (c) entitled “Raising Walls” will contain relocated subsections (a) and (b) as new subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2) respectively. The effect of this amendment will be to facilitate compliance by consolidating existing standards for raising framed walls into one subsection within the new vertical standard for residential framing, thus assuring that employees will be protected from hazards when raising framed walls.

Subsection (c)(1)

Existing subsection (a) is proposed to be modified and relocated to new subsection (c)(1). “Wood framed” is proposed to be changed to “framed” to provide performance-oriented language which will include light gage steel framing as well as other materials that may be used for residential-type framing in the future. The trigger height is proposed to be increased from 10 feet to 15 feet for consistency with the trigger height used throughout the rest of the proposed vertical standard. Input from advisory committee members indicated that framed walls up to and including 15 feet are already commonly being manually raised safely using the prescribed precautions. The effect of the proposed amendments will be to promote compliance by establishing a uniform trigger height for residential framing and to prescribe proper bracing when raising framed walls, thus ensuring that employees are protected from hazards when raising framed walls.

Subsection (c)(2)

Existing subsection (b) is proposed to be relocated to new subsection (c)(2). Performance-based modifications are proposed to accommodate light gage steel and other residential-type framing materials, and to establish a consistent 15-foot trigger height for raising framed walls. The modifications will also clarify that, while anchor bolts can be used for blocking or bracing, they cannot be used alone; i.e., they must be used in conjunction with other forms of restraint to prevent horizontal sliding or uplift when raising framed walls. The effect of the proposed modifications will be to establish a uniform trigger height for residential framing and to prescribe proper blocking and bracing when raising framed walls, to ensure that employees are protected from hazards when raising framed walls.

Subsection (d)

A new subsection (d) entitled “Stabilization of Structures” will require top plates, joists, rafters, trusses, beams or other structural members be braced, supported or secured before employees are permitted to work from or walk on them. Although these requirements are contained generally in Section 1709, General Requirements, the advisory committee consensus was that they should be prescribed within the vertical standard for residential framing. The effect of this proposed amendment will be to establish structural stabilization prior to the implementation of other practices permitted by this vertical standard for residential framing thus ensuring that employees are protected from falling when working from or walking on top plates, beams or other structural members, joists, rafters, trusses, etc.

Subsection (e)

A new subsection (e) entitled “Work on Top Plate and Roof Structure Framing” will prescribe safe work practices for work on the top plate and roof structure framing. Application of roofing materials is not a framing activity; and thus, the proposed standard will not overlap or duplicate vertical standards for roofing operations found in existing Article 30, Roofing Operations and Equipment. The effect of this new subsection will be to clarify to the regulated public the location of regulations prescribing safe practices for residential framing work on top plates and on roof structures, thus ensuring that employees will be protected from falls from the top plate and roof structure during framing.

Subsection (e)(1)

New subsection (e)(1) requires the provision of fall protection when employees are walking or working on top plates, joists, rafters, trusses, beams or other similar structural members over 15 feet above the surrounding grade or floor level below. An exception will provide that employees shall be considered protected from falls between rafters or roof trusses when they are walking/working on securely braced rafters or roof trusses on center spacing not exceeding 24 inches when more than 6 feet from an unprotected side or edge. The effect of this subsection will be to clarify fall protection requirements contained in Article 24 as they apply to the unique circumstances of residential framing. The exception will permit employees to install decking and/or sheathing by permitting them to walk and work on securely braced top plate and roof structure framing.

Subsection (e)(2)

A new subsection (e)(2) will prescribe minimum standards for truss support plates which are often used when installing roof trusses over large open spans such as multi-car garages. The effect of this subsection will be to promote safe working conditions for employees by prescribing minimum requirements for a stable walking/working surface during the truss installation process when employees may find it necessary to work on or from trusses or a truss support plate during the course of framing.

Subsection (f)

A new subsection (f) entitled “Work on Floor Joists” will prescribe safe work practices for work on floor joists using a 15-foot trigger height. The effect of this new subsection will be to maintain uniformity in trigger height for implementation of fall protection measures and to assist the employer in locating regulations pertaining to safe practices for residential framing work on floor joists, which are intended to protect employees from falls when working on joists over 15 feet above the surrounding grade or floor level below.

New subsections (f)(1)-(3) will cover the sequence of work in placing, rolling and installing floor joists. Subsection (f)(1) prescribes that employees shall be considered protected from falls when installing floor joists up to and including 15 feet above the surrounding grade or floor level below when standing on or working from joists laid on their sides on center spacing not exceeding 24 inches on the top plate within 24 inches of the top plate or other structural support. The effect of subsection (f)(1) will be to clarify this practice as a legal walking/working surface below the 15-foot trigger height. Subsections (f)(2) and (f)(3) prescribe fall protection requirements for work on installed floor joists and floor joists within 6 feet of the building perimeter or other unprotected sides or edges over 15 feet above the surrounding grade or floor level below. The effect of subsections (f)(2) and (f)(3) is to require the employer to provide fall protection for work on floor joists consistent with the requirements for similar work on the top plate and roof structure framing found in subsection (e)(1) to prevent employees from falling from or through floor joists to the level below.

Subsection (g)

A new subsection (g) entitled “Work on Floors and Other Walking/Working Surfaces” is proposed that will prescribe safe work practices for work on floors after the deck has been installed and while walls are being framed and placed, using a consistent 15-foot trigger height for fall protection. The effect of this new subsection will be to maintain consistency in trigger height for implementation of fall protection measures and to assist the employer in locating regulations for residential framing work on decked floors and other walking/working surfaces.

Subsection (h)

A new subsection (h) entitled “Work on Starter Board, Roof Sheathing and Fascia Board” will prescribe fall protection requirements for sheathing and trimming roof framing in preparation for roofing operations. This subsection will not address installation of roofing materials which is already regulated by Article 30, Roofing Operations and Equipment. Subsection (h)(1) clarifies that fall protection requirements will only apply to structures greater than one story in height where the fall height exceeds 15 feet and/or where the roof slope exceeds 7 in 12 consistent with Section 1670. An exception will permit the use of slide guards for fall protection on roofs with slopes up to 12 in 12 with fall heights of 15 feet or less. This subsection establishes a provision for work on limited portions of single story roof structures that may exceed 15 feet. The exception is based on provisions similar to Federal Subpart M, except that committee consensus was to limit the use of slide guards to a maximum slope of 45 degrees (12:12). Subsections (h)(2) and (h)(3) prescribe options for safe work procedures at the gable end of the structure, including an exception for work outside the gable end truss which is of short duration and limited exposure. The effect of this subsection will be to identify available safe work practice options when applying starter board, roof sheathing and fascia board to roof framing.

Subsection (i)

A new subsection (i) entitled “Installation of Windows” will clarify for residential construction the guarding of wall openings as required by Section 1632 while permitting removal of the guarding where necessary immediately prior to installation of window components in those openings. The effect of this subsection will be to clarify guarding requirements for window openings in residential construction, thus ensuring that employees are protected from falls through wall openings for windows.

Subsection (j)

A new subsection (j) entitled “Scaffolding” prescribes construction and installation standards for scaffolding used in residential construction. Subsection (j)(1) is included to assist the employer in locating existing Title 8 requirements for scaffolding pertinent to residential framing. Subsection (j)(2) is proposed to permit the omission of guardrails on the interior side of the scaffold under specific conditions similar to those for masons and bricklayers found in Section 1644(a)(6)(B). Subsection (j)(3) will permit scaffolding to be used as a form of edge protection subject to specified limitations. The concept of the edge protection platform is modeled after that of a catch platform which is permitted as a means of fall protection for roofing operations in Section 1724(c). The effect of subsection (j) is to clarify acceptable construction, installation and use of scaffolding for residential-type framing activities and to ensure that scaffolding is used during residential framing activities in a manner that will prevent an employee from falling to a level below.

Subsection (k)

A new subsection (k) entitled “Training” is proposed that will supplement the Illness and Injury Prevention Programs prescribed in CSO Section 1509 and GISO Section 3203 by providing industry-specific guidance for residential-type framing activities. The effect of this subsection will be to ensure that employees engaged in residential framing operations receive specific fall protection training in order to minimize the hazards associated with the erection and construction activities that the framing employee(s) will be exposed to.

COST ESTIMATES OF PROPOSED ACTION

Costs or Savings to State Agencies

No costs or savings to state agencies will result as a consequence of the proposed action.

Impact on Housing Costs

The Board has made an initial determination that this proposal will not significantly affect housing costs.

Impact on Businesses

The Board has made an initial determination that this proposal will not result in a significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. This determination is based on advisory committee input that compliance with the proposed industry-specific standards will not be greater, and may actually be less costly than compliance with existing requirements generally applicable to the construction industry.

Cost Impact on Private Persons or Businesses

The Board is not aware of any cost impact that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action.

Costs or Savings in Federal Funding to the State

The proposal will not result in costs or savings in federal funding to the state.

Costs or Savings to Local Agencies or School Districts Required to be Reimbursed

No costs to local agencies or school districts are required to be reimbursed. See explanation under “Determination of Mandate.”

Other Nondiscretionary Costs or Savings Imposed on Local Agencies

This proposal does not impose nondiscretionary costs or savings on local agencies.

DETERMINATION OF MANDATE

The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board has determined that the proposed regulations do not impose a local mandate. Therefore, reimbursement by the state is not required pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of the Government Code because the proposed amendments will not require local agencies or school districts to incur additional costs in complying with the proposal. Furthermore, these regulations do not constitute a “new program or higher level of service of an existing program within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.”

The California Supreme Court has established that a “program” within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution is one which carries out the governmental function of providing services to the public, or which, to implement a state policy, imposes unique requirements on local governments and does not apply generally to all residents and entities in the state. (County of Los Angeles v. State of California (1987) 43 Cal.3d 46.)

These proposed regulations do not require local agencies to carry out the governmental function of providing services to the public. Rather, the regulations require local agencies to take certain steps to ensure the safety and health of their own employees only. Moreover, these proposed regulations do not in any way require local agencies to administer the California Occupational Safety and Health program. (See City of Anaheim v. State of California (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1478.)

These proposed regulations do not impose unique requirements on local governments. All employers - state, local and private - will be required to comply with the prescribed standards.

EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESSES

The Board has determined that the proposed amendments may affect small businesses.

ASSESSMENT

The adoption of the proposed amendments to this regulation will neither create nor eliminate jobs in the State of California nor result in the elimination of existing businesses or create or expand businesses in the State of California.

REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Our Board must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the Board or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the Board would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action.

The above proposals do not contain building standards as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 18909.

A copy of the proposed changes in STRIKEOUT/UNDERLINE format is available upon request made to the Occupational Safety and Health Standard Board’s Office, 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 350, Sacramento, CA 95833, (916) 274-5721. Copies will also be available at the Public Hearing.

An INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS containing a statement of the purpose and factual basis for the proposed actions, identification of the technical documents relied upon, and a description of any identified alternatives has been prepared and is available upon request from the Standards Board’s Office.

Notice is also given that any interested person may present statements or arguments orally or in writing at the hearing on the proposed changes under consideration. It is requested, but not required, that written comments be submitted so that they are received no later than November 14, 2003. The official record of the rulemaking proceedings will be closed at the conclusion of the public hearing and written comments received after 5:00 p.m. on November 20, 2003 will not be considered by the Board unless the Board announces an extension of time in which to submit written comments. Written comments should be mailed to the address provided below or submitted by fax at (916) 274-5743 or e-mailed at oshsb@hq.dir.ca.gov. The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board may thereafter adopt the above proposal substantially as set forth without further notice.

The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board's rulemaking file on the proposed actions including all the information upon which the proposals are based are open to public inspection Monday through Friday, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the Standards Board's Office, 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 350, Sacramento, CA 95833.

The full text of proposed changes, including any changes or modifications that may be made as a result of the public hearing, shall be available from the Executive Officer 15 days prior to the date on which the Standards Board adopts the proposed changes.

Inquiries concerning either the proposed administrative action or the substance of the proposed changes may be directed to Keith Umemoto, Executive Officer, or Michael Manieri, Principal Safety Engineer, at (916) 274-5721.

You can access the Board’s notice and other materials associated with this proposal on the Standards Board’s homepage/website address which is http://www.dir.ca.gov/oshsb. Once the Final Statement of Reasons is prepared, it may be obtained by accessing the Board’s website or by calling the telephone number listed above.