{"id":11475,"date":"2026-07-09T11:10:12","date_gmt":"2026-07-09T15:10:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/?p=11475"},"modified":"2026-07-09T11:10:14","modified_gmt":"2026-07-09T15:10:14","slug":"cal-osha-responds-to-stakeholder-feedback-on-proposed-walkaround-rule","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/osha-defense-report\/cal-osha-responds-to-stakeholder-feedback-on-proposed-walkaround-rule\/","title":{"rendered":"Cal\/OSHA Responds to Stakeholder Feedback on Proposed Walkaround Rule"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Cal\/OSHA has issued a Notice of Proposed Modifications<\/a> to its proposed walkaround regulation following its review of the written and oral comments submitted during the initial public comment period. While the revisions are relatively narrow, they directly reflect CMC\u2019s Employers Cal\/OSHA Walkaround Rulemaking Coalition\u2019s comments and testimony.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Proposed Revisions Reflect Coalition Recommendations<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Among the most significant changes, Cal\/OSHA has revised the proposed rule to clarify that any third-party representative accompanying an inspection must do so \u201cfor the purpose of aiding such inspection.\u201d<\/strong> The agency also replaced references to a representative\u2019s \u201cparticipation\u201d<\/strong> in the inspection process with the more limited term \u201caccompaniment.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

These revisions directly address concerns raised by our coalition during both the written comment period and the public hearing. We urged Cal\/OSHA to clearly distinguish between a third-party representative accompanying an inspector to assist with an inspection and language that could be interpreted as allowing outside representatives to actively participate in the inspection itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proposed modifications appear responsive to those recommendations and represent meaningful improvements to the original draft.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Progress Made\u2014But Important Concerns Remain<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Although these changes are encouraging, they do not resolve all the coalition\u2019s concerns with the proposed regulation as previously outlined in our April 13, 2026<\/a> and February 23, 2026<\/a> blog posts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition, the employer coalition challenging the federal OSHA walkaround rule and fed OSHA have jointly requested that the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas decide the case based on the existing briefing without oral argument. This approach is intended to expedite a judicial decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because California\u2019s proposed regulation closely mirrors the federal rule, a court decision\u2014particularly one addressing constitutional issues\u2014could have significant implications for California\u2019s proposal. If the federal regulation is invalidated, especially on constitutional grounds, the ruling could substantially affect, or even determine, the legality of California\u2019s corresponding regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For that reason, the coalition continues to believe that Cal\/OSHA should pause this rulemaking until the federal litigation has been resolved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next Opportunity to Comment<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Cal\/OSHA is accepting comments on these proposed modifications through July 16, 2026<\/strong>, although the agency has limited this comment period to issues directly related to the proposed revisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The coalition anticipates submitting comments that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n