Leaders of the Division of Occupational Safety and Health got a four-hour grilling by state legislators in the wake of a critical state audit. The fire is still hot. Click here to read about it…

DIR’s Director is leaving, and you may be a surprised to learn where she’s going and what she’ll be doing. Click here for the whole story.

The Office of Administrative Law has approved a long-running quest to keep California-specific professional diving rules intact. See how these new OSHA regulations work and learn what Hookah diving is in this week’s Cal-OSHA Reporter.

It took nearly 20 years after stakeholders began petitioning Cal/OSHA for reforms to its requirements for first-aid kits. Finally, the changes have been published – for the second time. Will this version stick? Learn the new requirements in this week’s premium edition of Cal-OSHA Reporter. Subscribers can click here …

After more than 10 years of effort and several tries, confined space rules for construction have received their final “clean-up.” Click here to see what the changes are and when they become effective.

Six years after an oil industry group sued Cal/OSHA over its Process Safety Management reforms, the Standards Board has published its revisions in an effort to settle. An insider exclusively reveals the story of what was really behind all the folderol in the first place. It’s quite the inside story.

Almost two years ago, Australia banned engineered stone after attempts to get a handle on a silicosis crisis failed. Is California marching down the same path? And what happens in the meantime?

A Cal/OSHA advisory committee has been working to find a way forward on the use of autonomous equipment in agriculture. Here’s what the Standards Board staff has recommended, along with arguments for and against.

Surface mining can be extremely hazardous. These individuals and organizations have been recognized by the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association for their efforts to make their workplaces safe.

Here are the latest workplace fatalities from around California.

49 COR 40-9005 [¶23,373]

ILLNESS AND INJURY PREVENTION PROGRAM (IIPP)
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3203(a)(4)(B) –
The evidence presented demonstrated that the Division did not meet its burden to show that Employer failed to effectively implement its IIPP by adequately inspecting, identifying and evaluating hazards at the worksite.

INSPECTION
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §2941(d) –
The Division did not provide sufficient evidence that there was a failure to inspect the poles to ensure they were in a safe condition before climbing.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated Oct. 31, 2025, Inspection No. 1484149 (Soda Springs)

49 COR 40-9006[¶23,374]

HAZARDOUS ENERGY CONTROL –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3314(l)(1)
Employer did not provide training records on the de-energization and lockout or tagout process of the Kopper Press Machine during cleaning operations.
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3314(c)(1)
The proffered evidence showed Employer did not thoroughly train on the safe use of extension tools.
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3314(g)
The proffered evidence showed Employer did not provide a written hazardous energy control procedure.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES –
INDEPENDENT EMPLOYEE ACT DEFENSE (IEAD)
Employer did not establish all five elements of IEAD, the defense failed.

SERIOUS VIOLATION – REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §6432(c)
The proffered evidence showed that Citations 2 and 3 were properly classified as Serious as there was a realistic possibility of serious physical harm.  Employer did not rebut the presumption.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 1, Item 1, was resolved by stipulation. Citation 1, Item 3, and Citations 2 and 3 were affirmed and adjusted penalties were assessed.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated Oct. 29, 2025, Inspection No. 1446266 (Hayward)

49 COR 40-9003 [¶23,372R]

 LATE APPEAL – GOOD CAUSE
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §359(d) –
Labor Code §§6600, 6601and 6602 –

The 15 working day period may be extended by the Appeals Board for good cause. Employer demonstrated good cause for its late appeal.

 

49 COR 40-9003 [¶23,371R]

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

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated November 3, 2025, Inspection No. 1698769.

49 COR 40-8999 [¶23,369R]

FAILURE TO APPEAR – GOOD CAUSE
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §383(c) –
The Appeals Board found that Employer did not have good cause for failing to appear at the status conference, which was properly noticed.

 PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION – VERIFICATION AND SERVICE
Labor Code §§6616, 6617 and 6619 –
Employer’s petition failed to assert grounds upon which the Board may have considered reconsideration.  The Petition was not verified, and proof of service was not provided.

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated October 31, 2025, Inspection No. 1745466.

49 COR 40-8999 [¶23,370]

LOAD HANDLING
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §4999(i)(2) –
The ALJ determined the safety order was not applicable because the proffered evidence showed the load (cage) was not considered suspended by the crane.

 Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §5008(e) –
The proffered evidence showed Employer failed to ensure the crane operator secured the cage before leaving the crane unattended.

 SERIOUS CLASSIFICATION AND REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION –
Labor Code §6432 (c) –
Citation 2 was properly classified as Serious.  Employer did not rebut the presumption.

 ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 1, Items 1, 2 and 4 were vacated.  Citation 1, Item 3, and Citation 2 were affirmed, and penalties were assessed for a total of $7,125.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated Oct. 13, 2025, Inspection No. 1487520 (Bakersfield)

49 COR 40-8997 [¶23,367]

DE-ENERGIZING LINES AND EQUIPMENT
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §2940.14(c)(2)  –
The Division established that Employer failed to ensure that a portable switch, through which a source of electric energy could be supplied to a line to be de-energized, was open.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated Oct. 22, 2025, Inspection No. 1529748 (Los Angeles)

49 COR 40-8998 [¶23,368R]

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

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated October 30, 2025, Inspection No. 1751481.