It’s management versus labor in the latest round of proposed regulations for refinery safety. What happens next after the Cal/OSHA Standards Board rejected a lawsuit settlement-inspired change to the Process Safety Management standard?

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

The Cal/OSHA Standards Board has rejected lawsuit-inspired revisions to the process safety management regulation for refineries. But what happens next – normal regulatory work or continued litigation?

California’s governor signs a new bill to protect outside workers along California’s southern border. Plus, what’s the fate of the bill to reform Cal/OSHA’s Bureau of Investigations?

Refinery safety has been a topic of discussion for Cal/OSHA, but chemical safety also has been in the news. Could the Standards Board apply the stricter regulations for oil facilities to other facilities?

Here are the workplace fatalities reported during August from around California.

Cal/OSHA has published draft language for a temporary ban on fabricating engineered stone in the countertop industry. Here’s the language and how you can weigh in on this momentous decision.

The Cal/OSHA Standards Board is looking for suggestions on how to improve its operations. Here’s how to participate in roundtable meetings at both ends of the state.

Cal/OSHA has released its list of industries that could be targeted for programmed inspections, based on their DART rates. Click here to see who is in and who is out on the High Hazard List for the coming year.

After a 20-year effort, Cal/OSHA has finally adopted revisions to its first-aid-kit requirements. When will the changes take effect? Plus, a crucial vote on PSM. The latest in Cal-OSHA Reporter.

49 COR 40-9123 [¶23,433R]

INJURY and ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3203(a)(4) and (a)(6)
The Appeals Board affirmed the ALJ’s Decision finding that Employer’s IIPP included procedures for identifying and evaluating hazards and for correcting unsafe conditions.

Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3203(a)(7)
The Appeals Board affirmed the ALJ’s Decision finding that Employer provided training and instruction to employees pursuant to its IIPP.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated September 21, 2026, Inspection No. 1531603.

49 COR 40-9124 [¶23,434R]

APPEAL – LATE FILING
Labor Code §6601 –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §359
Employer’s misunderstanding of the appeal process did not constitute good cause for filing its late appeal.

Labor Code §6614(a)
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §390.3(a)
The Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction to grant reconsideration of the untimely petition filed by Employer.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated September 24, 2026, Inspection No. 1842156.

49 COR 40-9119 [¶23,430]

HAZARDOUS ENERGY CONTROL –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3314(j)
The proffered evidence showed Employer regularly conducted periodic inspections to evaluate the effectiveness of its energy control procedures.

Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3314(g)
The proffered evidence showed Employer met Condition 1 of the exception to §3314(g)(2)(A).  Procedural steps in Employer’s general lockout/tagout program were applicable to all similar equipment.

Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3314(c)
The proffered evidence showed Employer established the exception found in §3314(c)(1).  The machine used by Employer had to be in operation for cleaning, the imposed hazard was minimized, and the employees were trained on how to perform the process safely.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
All citations were dismissed. No penalties were assessed.

 

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated August 28, 2026, Inspection No. 1722031 (Oakdale)

 

49 COR 40-9121 [¶23,431R]

INTERLOCUTORY ORDER – AMENDMENT OF CITATION
Labor Code §6614  –
The Division’s Petition for Reconsideration of a Denial Order was interlocutory in nature, and as such, the Petition was denied.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated September 17, 2026, Inspection No. 1752837.

49 COR 40-9117 [¶23,429R]

DISPOSITION OF APPEAL – SETTLEMENT
Labor Code §6617(a)
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §§350.1(a), 364.2 –

The Appeals Board rejected Employer’s assertions that the administrative law judge exceeded the Board’s authority in issuing a settlement order; that Employer entered into its settlement on the basis of misrepresentation or mutual mistake; or that Employer was entitled to rescind the settlement on the grounds that someone without authority entered into the agreement.

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated September 11, 2026, Inspection No. 1869449.

 

49 COR 40-9115 [¶23,428]

FIRST AID and CPR –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3421(m)
Employer failed to ensure that Employees were trained in first aid and CPR within 90 days of their hire dates.

 TREE FELLING –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3427(c)(3)(B)
Employer did not ensure a conventional notch, open-faced notch or Humboldt notch was used to fell a 25 inch in diameter Douglas Fir.

Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3427(c)(3)(D)
Employer failed to ensure an employee’s back cut did not penetrate the predetermined hinge area where a tree was felled.

Title 8, California Code of Regulations, section 3427(b)(2)
Employer failed to ensure the duties were so organized so that the actions of one employee did not create a hazard for other employees.

Title 8, California Code of Regulations, section 3427(c)(4)
Employer failed to ensure that non-involved personnel were safely out of range before tree felling.

 UNFORESEEABLE EMPLOYEE ACTION DEFENSE –
Employer could not avail itself of the affirmative defense because a Employer committed the violation.

SERIOUS VIOLATION – REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §6432(c)
The proffered evidence showed that Citations 2 through 5 were properly classified as Serious. Employer did not rebut the presumption.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citations 1 through 5 were affirmed, and the proposed penalties were assessed.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated Sept. 1, 2026, Inspection No. 1633708 (Pollock Pines)

 

49 COR 40-9121 [¶23,432R]

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §391.1
Labor Code §6619 –
Employer failed to submit the required proof of service showing that the petition for reconsideration was served upon all parties.  The petition for reconsideration was denied.

APPEAL – LATE FILING
Labor Code §6601 –
Employer failed to show good cause for its late appeal.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated September 18, 2026, Inspection No. 1866346.

49 COR 40-9113 [¶23,427R]

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION – TIMELINESS AND SERVICE
Labor Code §6614(a) –
The Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction to grant Employer’s petition for reconsideration.

Labor Code §6619 –
Employer’s failure to serve its petition for reconsideration required that the Board deny it.

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated August 28, 2026, Inspection No. 1801688.