California Code of Regulations|§ 4316 - Placement and Size of Holes and Notches in Joists, Beams, Plates, and Studs

                                                  
 (a) Joist. (1) A notch on the end of a joist must not be deeper than one-fourth (¼) the depth of the joist.
 (2) The edge of a hole bored in a joist must be at least two (2) inches from the top and at least two (2) inches from the bottom of the joist. The diameter of the hole must not exceed one-third (1/3) the depth of the joist.
 (3) A notch in the top or bottom of a joist must not be deeper than one-sixth (1/6) the depth of the joist. The notch must not be located in the middle one-third (1/3) of the span of the joist.
 
 (b) A hole in a ridge beam must not be more than 2inches in diameter and must be located in the middle one-third (1/3) of the depth of the beam.
 (c) Top or bottom wall plate or a sill plate.(1) A hole must not exceed 40% of the width of the plate,
 (2) The edge of a hole must be at least 5/8 inch from any edge of the plate.
 (3) The edge of a hole must be separated by at least 12 inches from the nearest edge of other holes or notches in the same plate.
 
 (d) Wall studs. (1) A hole in a wall stud must not exceed 40% of the width of the stud,
 (2) The edge of a hole in a wall stud must be at least 5/8 inch from any edge of the stud.
 (3) A hole in a wall stud must not be located in the middle one-third (1/3) of the length of the stud.
 (4) Only one hole is allowed in the upper or lower one-third (1/3) length of a wall stud.
 
 
  Notes
  Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 25, § 4316 
   Note: Authority cited: Sections 18015, 18025, 18029 and 18029.5, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 18015, 18025, 18029, 18029.5 and 18030.5, Health and Safety Code.
  
   1. New section filed 1-17-2001; operative 1-17-2001 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(c) (Register 2001, No. 3).
 2. Amendment of subsections (b) and (c) filed 2-10-2011; operative 3-12-2011 (Register 2011, No. 6).

View Latest Rulings

GRISELDA BRAMHAM VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This argument is rejected because Section 4316(a) of USERRA entitles a returning service member who has served for at least 90 days to the seniority and other rights and benefits determined by seniority that the person had on the date of the commencement of service in the uniformed services plus the additional seniority and rights and benefits that such person would have attained if the person had remained continuously employed.

Name

GRISELDA BRAMHAM VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Case No.

20STCV49464

Hearing

Feb 09, 2023

County

Los Angeles County, CA

CITY OF LOS ANGELES A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS DEPT OF WATER AND POWER VS GREAT BASIN UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT, ET AL.

The District disputes the Citys allegations that the authority of the 2021 Board Order was converted from the 2014 Stipulated Judgment to Section 4316 because of the wording in the agreement. The District believes [t]he Court may find as a matter of law in this demurrer that the statutory authority for all District Orders to the City for air pollution controls at the Owens Lake bed is Section 42316. ( Id . at 19:1-3.)

Name

CITY OF LOS ANGELES A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS DEPT OF WATER AND POWER VS GREAT BASIN UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT, ET AL.

Case No.

22STCP03796

Hearing

Feb 21, 2023

County

Los Angeles County, CA

CITY OF LOS ANGELES A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS DEPT OF WATER AND POWER VS GREAT BASIN UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT, ET AL.

Name

CITY OF LOS ANGELES A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS DEPT OF WATER AND POWER VS GREAT BASIN UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT, ET AL.

Case No.

22STCP03796

Hearing

Mar 21, 2023

County

Los Angeles County, CA

View More Rulings

Next Section

§ 4314 - Construction Methods and Workmanship

View Latest Documents

TOMMY MCCLAIN et al VS. ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED ASBESTOS document preview

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION F…

12 pages

HAKE Law, “A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION _ Oo wD RO a ae a COON AAR BN mS || MCCLAIN, Deceased; and LORRIE William M. Hake, Esq. (State Bar No. 110956} Catherine E. Golden, Esq. (State Bar No. 127694) . ELECTRONICALLY Rachael A. Buckman, Esq. (State Bar No. 263224) FILED. HAKE LAW, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Superior Court of California, 343 Sansome Street, Suite 425 County of San Francisco . San Francisco, CA 94104 . : JUL 30 2012 Tel: -. (415) 364-0370 . : Clerk of the Court Fax: .. (415)…

Case Name TOMMY MCCLAIN et al VS. ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED

Case # (Subscribe to View)

Case Filed

Jun 10, 2010

County

San Francisco County, CA

Filed Date

Jul 30, 2012