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.

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.

Here are the latest employers – and employees – to earn recognition for their safety efforts through Cal/OSHA’s Golden Gate Recognition Program.

Cal/OSHA is proposing changes to its wildfire smoke standard. Here’s what they entail, and how to join the discussion.

Cal/OSHA not only has a regulatory backlog. It is also far behind in updating its consensus standard references. Here’s what Helen Cleary, one of the best and brightest stakeholders, recommends to end the logjam.

A horrific 2023 incident at a California biofuels facility led to regulatory reform about what constitutes a “refinery.” Here are the latest changes to Cal/OSHA's process safety management regulations.

Here are the latest California workplace fatalities.

Today marks the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. What are your reflections on this somber remembrance?

The Cal/OSHA Appeals Board continues to refine its rules to make them more effective and efficient. Here are the latest changes proposed by the quasi-judicial body.

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 40-9113 [¶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.

 

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.