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.

As Cal/OSHA works toward its own version of workplace violence prevention for general industry, new issues keep cropping up. Here’s the latest on this long-running rulemaking project.

The San Francisco District Attorney charges three men from a construction company, including the safety representative, in the 2023 death of a laborer in a trench collapse. Here’s what’s being alleged and the possible punishment.

A seven-year-old case involving a fatal crane collapse is finally complete with a settlement involving one of the companies involved. Here’s what happened and how the case ultimately came out.

The San Francisco District Attorney charges three men from a construction company, including the safety representative, in the 2023 death of a laborer in a trench collapse. Here’s what’s being alleged and the possible punishment.

The list of California workplace fatalities from September is long. Here is a roundup of these tragic cases.

A tunnel collapse at a Central Valley project kills one worker and injures another. Cal/OSHA has cited two employ-ers, and criminal trouble could be in store for them.

Five years after SB 606 became law, Cal/OSHA is finalizing its mandate to create “egregious” and “enterprise-wide” violations – and potentially huge increases in penalties. Here’s what these terms mean, whom they will apply to, and how you can participate in the rulemaking process.

After 14 years, Cal/OSHA has finally adopted a rulemaking package to update the Elevator Safety Orders. Here’s why this development is important, and when it could take effect.

49 COR 40-9127 [¶23,436]

TOWER CRANE ASSEMBLY/DISASSEMBLY –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1611.1(a)
The proffered evidence showed the Division did not establish that Employer failed to follow manufacturer’s procedures during disassembly.

Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1611.2(d)
The Division presented insufficient evidence to show that Employer failed to ensure the crew understood instructions.

Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1611.2(h)(3)(B)
The proffered evidence showed the Division established a violation because blocking was not in the proper location to prevent dangerous movement of the outer jib.

Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1611.2(h)(7)
The proffered evidence showed the Division established a violation because the other jib was not rigged or supported to maintain stability.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES –
Logical Time Defense
The evidence showed this defense did not apply to the facts because the logical time had arrived to support the outer jib with rigging and blocking for pin removal.

Newbery Defense
The evidence showed that at least one of the key elements existed and therefore Employer did not meet its burden of proving the violation was unforeseeable. The defense did not apply.

SERIOUS VIOLATION – REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §6432(c)
Citation 2 was properly classified as Serious as there was a realistic possibility of serious physical harm.  Employer did rebut the presumption, and the citation was reclassified to General.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 1, Items 1 and 2, was dismissed. Citation 1, Item 3 and Citation 2 were affirmed with appropriate penalties assessed.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated September 14, 2026, Inspection No. 1597182 (West Sacramento)

49 COR 40-9130 [¶23,437R]

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 October 9, 2026, Inspection No. 1854500.

49 COR 40-9125 [¶23,435]

FOOT PROTECTION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3385(a)
The proffered evidence showed Employer failed to provide appropriate foot protection to employees exposed to falling objects or crushing or penetrating actions.

 SLIP PROTECTION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3273(a)
The proffered evidence showed Employer failed to provide protection against slipping.

SERIOUS CLASSIFICATION, ACCIDENT-RELATED AND REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION –
Labor Code §6432(a) and (c)
The causal nexus between the Serious violation and the injury was sufficient to sustain the Accident-Related classification. Employer did not rebut the presumption.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 1, Item 1, and Citation 2, were affirmed and the proposed penalties were deemed reasonable.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated Sept. 15, 2026, Inspection No. 1512604 (Northridge)

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.