ASAP

Cal/OSHA Takes Next Step Toward Worker Walkaround Rule

By Alka Ramchandi-Raj, David Dixon, Sean Kearney, and Krystal Weaver

July 7, 2026
3 minute read

On July 1, 2026, Cal/OSHA took another step toward implementing a California variation of federal OSHA’s “worker walkaround rule”¹ by posting proposed modifications to the proposed text and providing a narrow 15-day period for public comment, through July 16, 2026.

This action follows a previous comment period on the initial proposal and a public hearing conducted on April 1, 2026. The initial proposal raised concerns both because of its timing and substantial differences from the federal rule. While Cal/OSHA is now pursuing a regular rulemaking process,² it has not to date responded to public comments questioning the agency’s rationale for the rule. Specifically, in its Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) for the proposal, the agency asserted that it is required by Labor Code § 50.7(d) to take “all steps necessary to prevent withdrawal of approval for the state plan by the Federal Government.” Yet there is no data or evidence to suggest that the federal government is currently interested in withdrawing its approval of California’s state plan if Cal/OSHA does not promulgate this proposal. Instead, the federal rule is the subject of an ongoing legal challenge³ and the current administration has not expressed an interest in requiring California to adopt a similar rule.

In addition to questioning the legal basis for the proposal, employer representatives, including the California Chamber of Commerce, detailed numerous problematic aspects of the proposal during the public comment period and April 1 public hearing. These include concerns about the lack of a clear process for the selection of representatives to accompany investigators during an inspection, particularly in non-unionized settings; the lack of a clear process for appeal from an inspector’s determination that particular individuals would be reasonably necessary for an inspection; concerns that individuals designated as representatives may not adhere to security, PPE, confidentiality, trade secret protection, or other requirements that agency inspectors are expected to comply with; potential misconduct by designated representatives, such as distributing union organizational materials and gathering and using information for purposes unrelated to the inspection; and the lack of adequate time for full public comment and consideration of the many practical details implicated by the proposal. Notably, the modifications to the proposal provided on July 1, 2026, do not address any of these employer-community concerns.⁴ The modifications are instead limited to changing the term “participation” of a third-party representative to “accompaniment” and adding the phrase “for the purpose of aiding such inspection” to clarify a purpose for such accompaniment.

The public comment period through July 16, 2026, may be limited to comment on these minor changes. Yet, the larger problems already placed on record by employer representatives remain to be addressed. Perhaps most significantly, Cal/OSHA’s decision to release the new modifications directly signals its intent to move forward with the implementation of the proposed rule, and to continue to do so on a relatively compressed time frame.

Littler will continue to monitor this Cal/OSHA proposal. Employers should remain attentive and contact their employment counsel to consider opportunities to participate during the notice and comment period, as well as be prepared for potential compliance, should the proposal complete the regulatory rulemaking process.

¹ The federal rule allows non-employee third parties to serve as employee representatives during an OSHA workplace inspection provided they are reasonably necessary to conduct an effective and thorough inspection.

² While our initial update referred to the proposal as a “Horcher” proposal, Cal/OSHA has provided other rulemaking components consistent with requirements for a regular rulemaking rather than an expedited Horcher process, yet still rely on an asserted need to promulgate something like the federal rule as a basis for doing so, similar to a Horcher rationale.

³ Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, et al., No. 6:24-cv-00271 (W.D. Tex. 2024).

⁴ The modifications also do not include changes that were urged by labor representatives during earlier public comment that would seek to further expand the presence of designated representatives at inspections conducted by Cal/OSHA inspectors.