Objection to OSHA inspection

The CSHO must stop the inspection or limit it to areas where no objection is raised and promptly report the refusal to the Area Director. Under 1903.4(a) the Compliance Safety and Health Officer shall terminate the inspection or confine it to other areas, attempt to find out why entry was denied, and immediately report the refusal and reasons to the Area Director, who will consult the Regional Solicitor for appropriate action.

The CSHO must confine the inspection to unobjected areas or terminate it and report the refusal to the Area Director. 1903.4(a) explicitly covers refusal to permit an employee representative to accompany the CSHO (in accordance with 1903.8), and requires the officer to limit or stop the inspection and report the matter up the chain.

OSHA should seek compulsory process in advance when the employer's past practice indicates that a warrantless inspection will likely be refused. 1903.4(b)(1) lists as an example the situation "when the employer's past practice either implicitly or explicitly puts the Secretary on notice that a warrantless inspection will not be allowed," meaning the Area Director and Regional Solicitor may decide to obtain a warrant before going on site.

Yes — OSHA may seek compulsory process in advance when the inspection is far from the local office to avoid having to return for a warrant if entry is refused. 1903.4(b)(2) identifies inspections scheduled far from the local office as a circumstance where preinspection compulsory process may be desirable or necessary.

Yes — when special equipment or experts are required, OSHA may seek compulsory process beforehand to avoid coordination problems if entry is refused. 1903.4(b)(3) explains that preobtaining a warrant can alleviate difficulties or costs of assembling special equipment or experts if access is denied.

With Regional Administrator and Regional Solicitor approval, the Area Director or the Area Director’s designee may obtain compulsory process. 1903.4(c) authorizes the Area Director or a designee to seek compulsory process provided the Regional Administrator and Regional Solicitor approve the action.

Compulsory process includes any appropriate action such as an ex parte application for an inspection warrant, and ex parte inspection warrants are the preferred form. 1903.4(d) defines compulsory process as institution of any appropriate action, including an ex parte application for an inspection warrant or its equivalent, and states ex parte warrants are preferred.

Yes — OSHA may continue the inspection in areas, conditions, devices, records, or interviews where no objection was raised. 1903.4(a) allows the Compliance Safety and Health Officer to confine the inspection to other areas and activities that are not objected to rather than ending the entire inspection.

The CSHO must try to learn the reason for the refusal and immediately report the refusal and its reason to the Area Director. 1903.4(a) requires the officer to endeavor to ascertain the reason for the refusal and promptly inform the Area Director so higher-level consultation can occur.

The Area Director consults with the Regional Solicitor, who will take appropriate action, including seeking compulsory process. 1903.4(a) states the Area Director shall consult the Regional Solicitor, who shall take appropriate steps if necessary.

Practical signs include a history of the employer refusing warrantless entry, inspections located far from the local office, and inspections that require special equipment or experts. 1903.4(b) and its subparts (1903.4(b)(1), 1903.4(b)(2), 1903.4(b)(3)) list these exact examples as situations where compulsory process in advance may be desirable.

Ex parte warrants are the preferred form of compulsory process but the rule allows any appropriate compulsory action including the ex parte application; the Area Director and counsel will decide the best tool. 1903.4(d) states ex parte inspection warrants shall be the preferred form where compulsory process is relied upon, meaning they are generally used but the statute contemplates other appropriate actions when warranted.

A CSHO has authority to enter workplaces, inspect, review records, and question employers and employees as part of official duties under 1903.3, and 1903.4(a) directs actions if that authority is refused.

OSHA will normally suspend investigatory activities once a notice of contest is filed, but it may still take enforcement if necessary to address imminent danger or other appropriate circumstances. The September 11, 2023 letter of interpretation explains that OSHA generally ceases investigatory activities after a timely contest (see the referenced Field Operations Manual), but reserves authority to seek relief or issue citations if imminent danger exists or other enforcement actions are appropriate.

An ex parte inspection warrant is obtained without advance notice to the employer so OSHA can secure entry without prior warning. 1903.4(d) defines ex parte application as a preferred compulsory tool, meaning the court considers the agency's request without the employer present to prevent evidence loss or safety risks associated with advance notice.

Behaviors include explicit statements or written policies denying warrantless entry, repeated prior refusals, or other conduct showing a pattern of noncooperation. 1903.4(b)(1) uses an employer's past practice as the trigger; practical examples are prior refusals, posted signs or written instructions to staff to deny OSHA entry, or consistent legal challenges to warrantless inspections.

An employer should grant reasonable access, permit records review and employee interviews, and allow a representative to accompany the CSHO when appropriate. 1903.4(a) makes clear that refusing access triggers administrative escalation; cooperating reduces the need for the Area Director and Regional Solicitor to pursue compulsory process.

Compulsory process may be obtained by the Area Director or designee only with approval from the Regional Administrator and the Regional Solicitor. 1903.4(c) explicitly requires those approvals before compulsory process is pursued.

Ex parte inspection warrants are preferred because they allow OSHA to obtain court authorization for entry without alerting the employer, which helps prevent loss or concealment of evidence and protects worker safety. 1903.4(d) states that ex parte inspection warrants shall be the preferred form of compulsory process when entry is sought under this section.