Cal/OSHA has made revisions to its proposal on who can accompany inspectors during site site inspections. Here’s what’s being proposed.

Grand Jury Indicts Seven in 2025 Explosion

Despite misgivings, the construction industry has accepted Cal/OSHA’s final version of reforms on construction personnel hoists. Here’s what the misgivings were all about and how the final product came out.

The Cal/OSHA Standards Board has a full complement of seven members as two new representatives take their seats on the rulemaking body.

Employers who create effective Injury and Illness Prevention Programs can get recognition from Cal/OSHA Consultation. Here are the latest Golden Gate Recognition Program employers.

Was a major near-miss at a chemical plant in Garden Grove last May a wake-up call for the Cal/OSHA community? That’s what the agency intends to find out, with possible reform to the regulation that covers such facilities.

Was it just bad luck or bad safety planning? Cal/OSHA says the latter, as it cites a backcountry guide company following the deaths of three employees and six clients in a Sierra Nevada avalanche in February 2026. The company disagrees.

Even the best safety programs need refreshing from time to time. Here’s how one construction company recognized it needed help, who it hired, and how that effort paid off with savings of $3M.

2022’s AB 2243 calls for Cal/OSHA to make changes to the heat illness and wildfire smoke standards. Here’s what the Division of Occupational Safety and Health is proposing and how it affects employers.

Here’s how three bills affecting California occupational safety and health are progressing in the state legislature.

49 COR 40-9111 [¶23,425R]

INJURY and ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3203(a)(4)

The Appeals Board affirmed the ALJ’s Decision finding that Employer had identified workplace hazards posed by COVID-19.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated August 14, 2026, Inspection No. 1488312.

 

49 COR 40-9111 [¶23,426R]

MACHINERY and EQUIPMENT DESIGN and ENGINEERING –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3328(a)(1) and (a)(2)

The Appeals Board concluded that the proffered evidence showed that equipment used by Employer was not designed or engineered to safely sustain all reasonably anticipated loads.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated August 13, 2026, Inspection No. 1486176.

49 COR 40-9107 [¶23,423R]

APPEAL – LATE FILING
Labor Code §6614(a) –
The Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction to grant Employer’s petition for reconsideration.

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated August 12, 2026, Inspection No. 1784640.

49 COR 40-9107 [¶23,424R]

INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM (IIPP) –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1509(a)/§3203(a)(4)
The Appeals Board agreed with the ALJ’s Decision, which found that Employer failed to effectively implement its IIPP by identifying and evaluating new workplace processes.

EXCAVATION COVERINGS –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1541(l)(2)
The Appeals Board agreed with the ALJ’s Decision, which found that Employer failed to adequately protect remotely located excavations.

MULTI-EMPLOYER WORKSITE – CORRECTING EMPLOYER, DUE DILIGENCE DEFENSE
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §336.10
The Appeals Board agreed with the ALJ’s Decision, determining that Employer was not relieved of liability.

LABOR CODE §6432(c) –
Employer failed to rebut the presumption of a serious citation as to Citation 2.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated August 13, 2026, Inspection No. 1454931.

49 COR 40-9105 [¶23,421R]

JURISDICTION – GOOD CAUSE
Labor Code §6614(a) –
The Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction to grant reconsideration over the Division’s untimely petition for reconsideration.

 

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated July 30, 2026, Inspection No. 1625267.

49 COR 40-9105 [¶23,422]

DAMAGED LADDERS –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §3276(e)(3)
The proffered evidence showed that Employer did not violate the cited safety order as it was not required to withdraw the ladder from service prior to the accident.

PORTABLE LADDER TRAINING –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §3276(f)
The proffered evidence showed the Division failed to meet its burden of proof to show Employer did not provide training on the safe use of ladders.

INJURY AND ILLNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3203(a)(4)
The proffered evidence showed Employer had procedures for identifying hazards and implemented them with respect to the work that gave rise to the accident.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 1, Item 1, was affirmed and the proposed penalty was affirmed.  Citation 1, Item 2, and Citations 2 and 3 were dismissed, and the associated penalties were vacated.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated July 22, 2026, Inspection No 1551180 (San Diego)

49 COR 40-9103 [¶23,420]

INJURY AND ILLNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3203(a)(2)
The proffered evidence showed Employer ensured employee compliance with safe and healthful work practices.

HAZARD ASSESSMENT –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3380(f)(1)(A) –
The evidence proffered by the Division established that Employer failed to adequately assess the hazards in the restaurant kitchen and select the proper PPE to protect against those hazards.

PROTECTION FROM SLIPPERY FLOOR SURFACES –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3272(d) –
The proffered evidence showed that Employer effectively protected its employees from the hazard of slippery floors.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 1, Item 1 and Citation 2 and their associated penalties were vacated.  Citation 1, Item 2, and its associated penalty was affirmed.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated July 14, 2026, Inspection No. 1808018 (Simi Valley)

 

49 COR 40-9103 [¶23,419R]

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION – VERIFICATION
Labor Code §6616 –
Employer’s Petition for Reconsideration was not verified.

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated July 24, 2026, Inspection No. 1637991.