Who Can Join Your Next OSHA Walkaround

See the primary source.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, writing for the Labor Department, published 89 FR 22558 on April 1, 2024. This final rule is effective on May 31, 2024. It amends 29 CFR Part 1903(c) so that a representative authorized by employees may be an employee of the employer or a third party during an OSHA inspection; it does not grant any organization a right of entry to the site outside an inspection.

What is in force now?

The DATES section of 89 FR 22558 states: “Effective date: This final rule is effective on May 31, 2024.” The notice carries RIN 1218-AD45 and amends 29 CFR Part 1903. Current regulation text for that part is on the eCFR.

The obligation that applies today is the walkaround rule as amended. When OSHA is inspecting, a representative authorized by employees may accompany the Compliance Safety and Health Officer. That representative may be an employee of the employer or a third party. A third party may accompany the inspector if, in the judgment of the Compliance Safety and Health Officer, good cause has been shown why accompaniment is reasonably necessary to the conduct of an effective and thorough physical inspection of the workplace.

The rule sets who may accompany the inspector. It does not open the gate on a Tuesday when no inspection is underway. It does not create a standing badge for a union, a community group, or a consultant. The accompaniment right in section 8(e) of the OSH Act, as implemented in 29 CFR Part 1903, is for the purpose of aiding the inspection.

This page sits inside a sealed index of 1086 U.S. federal rules from 11 agencies, published September 1, 2023 – September 1, 2026. The walkaround amendment is inside that window. A later Field Operations Manual revision is not this notice.

What does the amended paragraph actually say?

OSHA is amending its Representatives of Employers and Employees regulation to clarify that the representative(s) authorized by employees may be an employee of the employer or a third party; such third-party employee representative(s) may accompany the OSHA Compliance Safety and Health Officer when, in the judgment of the CSHO, good cause has been shown why they are reasonably necessary to aid in the inspection, according to the abstract in 89 FR 22558. OSHA also clarified that a third party may be reasonably necessary because of their relevant knowledge, skills, or experience with hazards or conditions in the workplace or similar workplaces, or language or communication skills.

The amended paragraph, quoted from the amendatory text of 89 FR 22558, reads: “The representative(s) authorized by employees may be an employee of the employer or a third party. When the representative(s) authorized by employees is not an employee of the employer, they may accompany the Compliance Safety and Health Officer during the inspection if, in the judgment of the Compliance Safety and Health Officer, good cause has been shown why accompaniment by a third party is reasonably necessary to the conduct of an effective and thorough physical inspection of the workplace (including but not limited to because of their relevant knowledge, skills, or experience with hazards or conditions in the workplace or similar workplaces, or language or communication skills).”

That is the whole change to 29 CFR Part 1903(c). OSHA retained the longstanding requirement that third-party representatives may accompany the CSHO when good cause has been shown why they are reasonably necessary. OSHA also retained the CSHO's authority to deny accompaniment to any person whose conduct interferes with a fair and orderly inspection under 29 CFR Part 1903(d), the requirement that inspections preclude unreasonable disruption of the employer's establishment under 29 CFR Part 1903(d), and the employer's right to limit entry of employee authorized representatives into areas that contain trade secrets under 29 CFR Part 1903(d).

The Executive Summary in 89 FR 22558 states that the role of the third-party representative is limited to aiding the inspection; they are only permitted to accompany the CSHO, and they may not stray from the CSHO or conduct their own searches. OSHA also states that all inspections, including those with a third-party walkaround representative, will be carried out either with the employer's consent or pursuant to a duly issued inspection warrant.

The rule does not say a penalty dollar amount for refusing a walkaround representative. The rule does not say that a roofing contractor must invite a third party onto every job. The rule does not say that a third party may walk a roof the inspector is not inspecting. Where 89 FR 22558 is silent, this page does not invent a duty.

Where do roofing contractors commonly fall short?

The pattern that shows up on jobs is treating the walkaround as an employer-only tour. Section 8(e) of the OSH Act and 29 CFR Part 1903 give a representative authorized by employees an opportunity to accompany the inspector for the purpose of aiding the inspection. A superintendent who assumes “only my people walk with OSHA” is reading a sentence the 2024 amendment removed from paragraph (c).

A second pattern is treating a third-party request as an automatic trespass. The reasonably-necessary test still belongs to the CSHO, according to 89 FR 22558. The employer may raise disruption, trade secrets, or conduct that interferes with a fair inspection under the provisions OSHA retained. The employer does not get to rewrite who employees may authorize.

A third pattern is the opposite overreach: treating the rule as a general right of entry for organizers, reporters, or competitors. The notice is explicit that the representative accompanies the CSHO during the inspection and does not conduct a separate search. A safety lead who lets a third party roam a multi-employer roof while the inspector is on another elevation is not following the role OSHA described.

This page does not invent inspection counts or citation rates. The rule does not say a civil money penalty figure for this amendment. OSHA's economic analysis in 89 FR 22558 states that, apart from a rule-familiarization cost, employers will incur no direct costs because of this rule. That sentence is not a finding about any named contractor.

Related roofing pages on this site include the Hazard Communication Standard note, the PPE fit rule for construction, and the construction standards advisory committee note. Those pages do not replace 29 CFR Part 1903.

What self-audit can a roofing shop run now?

The self-audit is an inspection-response file, not a new safety program. Each crew, each job, and each multi-employer site needs a named employer representative, a method for employees to say who they authorize, and a hold for trade-secret areas the inspector is not entitled to open to a third party under 29 CFR Part 1903(d).

1. Write down who speaks for the employer on an OSHA inspection, including after hours and on a storm-response roof, then keep that name with the job file.

2. Tell crews, in the language they actually work in, that they may authorize an employee or a third party as a walkaround representative, and that the CSHO decides whether a third party is reasonably necessary, quoting 29 CFR Part 1903(c) as amended by 89 FR 22558.

3. Map trade-secret or customer-restricted areas on the job — for example, a building owner's mechanical penthouse — so a request to limit entry can be made under 29 CFR Part 1903(d) without improvising on the roof.

4. Record that a third party accompanies the CSHO and does not run a separate inspection, per the Executive Summary in 89 FR 22558.

5. Route any dispute about who the employee representative is to the CSHO, which is where 29 CFR Part 1903(b) puts that decision, rather than turning it into a jobsite argument.

6. After any inspection, store who accompanied the CSHO, whether that person was an employee or a third party, and whether the CSHO limited or denied accompaniment under 29 CFR Part 1903(d).

AccuLynx is the job and customer system many roofing contractors already use to store addresses, crew assignments, and job notes. Safety Reports is the field inspection tool many of the same shops already use to record jobsite safety observations. Neither product is named in 89 FR 22558. The operational question is whether the job record in AccuLynx names an inspection owner, and whether Safety Reports can hold the post-inspection note about who walked, without pretending that a software row is the CSHO's reasonably-necessary finding.

The rule does not say how a contractor must configure AccuLynx or Safety Reports. The rule does not say that a logged toolbox talk proves employees authorized a particular person. Those tools can hold the job, the note, and the owner. A qualified professional still reads the inspection file.

How does a contractor operationalize the obligation at volume?

Stand up an obligations register: each obligation the rule creates maps to its owner, its evidence, and its due date. US Tech Automations flags obligations with missing evidence or a lapsed date and routes the gap to the owner.

That is a flag-and-route job. US Tech Automations can mark an AccuLynx job that has no named inspection owner, or a Safety Reports file that never recorded who accompanied a CSHO, and send that gap to the superintendent. It cannot decide whether a third party is reasonably necessary, cannot refuse entry, and cannot certify that the walkaround complied with 29 CFR Part 1903(c).

The useful volume pattern is one source event per inspection, not a standing “union access” task. An inspection that never happens does not create a third-party visit. An inspection that happens needs an employer representative, a chance for employees to authorize a representative, and a record of the CSHO's call on a third party. Mixing those into a general site-access policy is how a contractor either over-blocks a walkaround or under-limits a person who is not aiding the inspection.

US Tech Automations can keep the inspection event, the named owner, and the missing-evidence flag visible. A qualified professional still handles the inspection. The software routes; the CSHO and the employer representative conclude.

What questions do roofing shops still ask?

Is this rule already in effect?

Yes. This final rule is effective on May 31, 2024, according to 89 FR 22558.

Who may walk with the inspector as the employee representative?

The representative(s) authorized by employees may be an employee of the employer or a third party, according to amended 29 CFR Part 1903(c) as quoted in 89 FR 22558.

When may a third party accompany the inspector?

When, in the judgment of the Compliance Safety and Health Officer, good cause has been shown why accompaniment by a third party is reasonably necessary to the conduct of an effective and thorough physical inspection of the workplace, including because of relevant knowledge, skills, or experience with hazards or conditions, or language or communication skills, according to 89 FR 22558.

Does the rule let an organization enter the site when OSHA is not inspecting?

No. The rule sets who may accompany the inspector during an inspection. It does not grant any organisation a right of entry to the site outside an inspection. The Executive Summary in 89 FR 22558 limits the third party to accompanying the CSHO.

Can the employer refuse a third party whose conduct disrupts the job?

The CSHO may deny the right of accompaniment to any person whose conduct interferes with a fair and orderly inspection, under 29 CFR Part 1903(d), and inspections must preclude unreasonable disruption under 29 CFR Part 1903(d). Those limits remain, according to 89 FR 22558.

Does the notice set a penalty amount for this amendment?

The rule does not say a penalty dollar amount for this change. 89 FR 22558 amends who may accompany the inspector.

Key Takeaways

• 89 FR 22558, RIN 1218-AD45, amends 29 CFR Part 1903 and is effective on May 31, 2024.

• Amended 29 CFR Part 1903(c) says the employee-authorized representative may be an employee or a third party, and a third party may accompany the CSHO if good cause has been shown why that is reasonably necessary.

• A third party may be reasonably necessary because of relevant knowledge, skills, or experience with hazards or conditions, or language or communication skills.

• The rule sets who may accompany the inspector; it does not grant a right of entry outside an inspection.

• The notice does not publish a penalty dollar amount for this amendment; disruption, trade-secret, and conduct limits in Part 1903 remain.

**

Every date, citation, RIN, CFR reference, and figure in these posts is copied verbatim from the Federal Register and eCFR as of the snapshot date. Nothing is estimated, modeled, or extrapolated. This is not legal or tax advice.

Source: Federal Register / eCFR

This page is for informational purposes only. It is not legal or tax advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Read 89 FR 22558 and the current text of 29 CFR Part 1903, and consult a qualified professional about a particular inspection, jobsite, or representative request.

Last reviewed: April 1, 2024

The exception path is the agentic workflow layer.