J. J. Keller® Compliance Network

What happened

The release occurred in a room with an immersion-spiral freezer system. A conveyor belt carried cooked poultry pieces through a liquid nitrogen bath in the immersion freezer before sending them into a spiral freezer.

The immersion freezer had a liquid level measurement device known as a “bubbler tube.” The tube was intended to provide input to the level control system and a high-level safety interlock. At some point, the tube became bent above the overflow level. That meant the system incorrectly measured no liquid level. The system continued calling for more liquid nitrogen to be added and failed to activate the high-level interlock. The substance then overflowed the freezer and vaporized in the room.

High concentrations of nitrogen gas in an enclosed area can displace oxygen, creating an oxygen-deficient atmosphere. In this incident, two maintenance workers (who were were troubleshooting a freezer malfunction) died from asphyxiation. After coworkers spotted a worker on the floor in the freezer room, they reported what they saw to management, and a facility evacuation began.

During the evacuation, at least 14 plant workers responded to the freezer area to try to determine what happened or attempt rescue efforts. Of the workers that responded to the area, four were fatally injured, three were seriously injured, and at least seven sustained minor injuries or were uninjured.

Safety issues

The CSB determined the cause of the release was the failure of the immersion freezer’s liquid level control system to accurately measure and control the liquid level inside the freezer. This resulted from deformation of the system’s bubbler tube component.

The CSB’s investigation and subsequent animation identified five key safety issues that contributed to the severity of the event:

• The immersion freezer design relied on only one device (the bubbler tube) to monitor liquid level. Once the tube became bent, there was nothing else to prevent the overflow.
• No atmospheric monitoring equipment or alarms were installed in the freezer room. As such, no equipment would detect the oxygen-deficient atmosphere, automatically shut off the liquid supply, and notify personnel to evacuate.
• Employees were not informed, trained, equipped, drilled, or otherwise prepared for a release of liquid nitrogen. They did not recognize the oxygen-deficient atmosphere and lacked personal protective equipment to allow safe entry.
• The poultry plant had no documented process safety management (PSM) policy and did not evaluate process hazards.
• The freezer owner leasing the equipment to the poultry plant identified issues with the plant’s safety practices and nonconformance to industry guidance. Yet, the owner continued to supply liquid nitrogen to the plant. CSB concluded that had the owner suspended service until corrections were made, the incident may have been prevented.

Recommendations

CSB made recommendations to the plant and the freezer owner. Yet, it is noteworthy that the video also highlights safety recommendations made to OSHA. Specifically, CSB calls for OSHA to develop a standard on cryogenic asphyxiants. The purpose would be to prevent and/or mitigate hazards arising from the storage, use, and/or handling of these substances. It would address:

• Process equipment design,
• Atmospheric monitoring,
• Emergency shutdown systems,
• Employee training,
• Emergency planning, and
• PSM elements.

Currently, neither OSHA nor EPA define liquid nitrogen as a highly hazardous chemical or extremely hazardous substance. Consequently, OSHA’s PSM standard at 29 CFR 1910.119 and EPA’s Risk Management Program (RMP) rule at 40 CFR 68 did not apply to the Georgia poultry plant’s liquid nitrogen process.

CSB also requested OSHA to publish a guidance document. The document would cover PSM practices applicable to processes involving cryogenic asphyxiants and compressed gases. This recommendation is still open and awaiting a response, but OSHA did publish hazard alert HA-4450 in 2024, “Hazards Associated with the Release of Liquid Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide During Flash Freezing Processes.”

Other findings

OSHA cited the food plant, freezer owner, sanitation service, and equipment servicing company in this case for a total of 59 alleged violations in July 2021. Proposed penalties were almost $1 million. While the food plant is contesting its nearly $600,000 penalty, the other three employers settled at just over $232,000.

The alleged violations related to walking-working surfaces, exit routes, personal protective equipment, confined spaces, lockout/tagout, eyewash stations, and hazard communication. OSHA also cited under the General Duty Clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

The case is a reminder that not only the site employer but also service providers need to consider safety and health hazards at facilities they work at. OSHA has a Multi-employer Citation Policy for issuing citations on multi-employer worksites.

Key to remember

CSB posted a video that explores a deadly liquid nitrogen release incident. The board urges OSHA to issue a new standard on cryogenic asphyxiants.

Background on the rule

EPA explained in the May 8, 2024, final rule that the agency:

• Evaluated the available scientific information about PFOA and PFOS,
• Determined that the substances may present a substantial danger to public health or welfare or the environment when released, and
• Found that the hazardous substance designation is warranted.

Among its provisions, the rule requires entities to immediately report releases of PFOA or PFOS (or their salts and structural isomers) that meet or exceed one pound in any 24-hour period. These notifications must be made to the National Response Center, state or Tribal emergency response commission (SERC), and the local or Tribal emergency planning committee (LEPC). See 40 CFR 302.

Designation as a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) hazardous substance under 40 CFR 302 enables EPA to take earlier action. Specifically, the agency can identify, characterize, and clean up the most contaminated sites expeditiously. At the same time, CERCLA ensures that those responsible for contamination pay to clean it up. This is known as “polluter pays.”

This law also generally requires federal agencies selling land contaminated with these substances to provide notice of their presence. In addition, CERCLA requires the Department of Transportation (DOT) to list and regulate PFOA and PFOS as “hazardous materials” under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act.

How did the petitioners challenge the rule?

According to the latest court opinion, the petitioners submitted three challenges to the designation rule. They argued:

• EPA misinterpreted the term “may present substantial danger” in CERCLA’s definition of a hazardous substance;
• EPA’s cost-benefit analysis provided insufficient notice to the parties; and
• EPA’s cost-benefit analysis and decision to regulate in the face of uncertainties (i.e., the locations and quantities of PFOA/PFOS, economic costs of the rule, and unintended consequences to real estate) were arbitrary and capricious.

What did the Court find?

D.C. Circuit Opinion No. 24-1193, dated August 18, 2026, can be found at https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/08/24-1193-2188689.pdf. In over 50 pages of opinion text, the court found, “None of those [petitioner] claims succeeds.” The Court reasoned:

• The plain language of CERCLA allows EPA to designate as “hazardous substances” those chemicals like PFOA and PFOS that repeatedly have been linked to adverse health effects in myriad peer-reviewed studies.
• EPA provided adequate notice of its cost-benefit analysis through its earlier Economic Assessment and request for comments on it.
• EPA acted reasonably based on the record in its calculation of costs and benefits and in its decision to take this regulatory step to designate PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances.

The appeals court explored the layers of protection for responsible parties faced with liability. It contended, “Petitioners have come forward with no evidence that those responsible for the presence of hazardous substances at a site have been unfairly saddled with liability or that the statute’s operation has hamstrung industry.”

In its concluding remarks, the court summarized, “Having adequately considered and reasonably explained its decision to regulate at this initial stage even in the face of acknowledged uncertainties, EPA made a reasoned decision on the record before it in designating the forever chemicals PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances … For the foregoing reasons, the petitions for review are denied.”

Why the ruling matters

EPA has remarked that PFOA and PFOS can accumulate and persist in the human body for long periods of time. The agency says that evidence from studies demonstrates that exposure to PFOA and/or PFOS is linked to adverse health effects, including:

• Cancer, and
• The effects on the immune system, cardiovascular system, liver, and developing fetus.

Before the 2024 final rule, commentators observed that EPA had never “directly” listed a substance as a CERCLA hazardous substance under 40 CFR 302 using its authority under CERCLA section 102(a). Historically, EPA had defined CERCLA hazardous substances that were first regulated by:

• Clean Water Act section 307(a),
• Clean Water Act section 311(b)(2)(A),
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act section 3001,
• Clean Air Act section 112, or
• Toxic Substances Control Act section 7.

Yet, in the 2024 rule, EPA used its section 102(a) authority to declare the two chemicals CERCLA hazardous substances, rather than relying on regulation under those other laws. This is characterized as “CERCLA first.” Therefore, challenges to EPA’s rule were anticipated, but the latest decision leaves it in place.

EPA is using enforcement discretion

PFOA and PFOS are members of the broader class of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). On April 19, 2024, EPA issued a memo, “PFAS Enforcement Discretion and Settlement Policy under CERCLA.” It describes how the agency will focus on holding responsible entities who significantly contributed to the release of PFAS contamination into the environment. This includes parties that have manufactured PFAS (or used PFAS in the manufacturing process), federal facilities, and other industrial parties.

According to the memo, “EPA does not intend to pursue entities where equitable factors do not support seeking response actions or costs under CERCLA,” such as farmers, municipal landfills, water utilities, municipal airports, and local fire departments.

Key to remember

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied challenges to EPA’s May 8, 2024, final rule on the designation of PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances. The opinion keeps the rule in effect. In addition to the rule, EPA has a related enforcement discretion memo.

FMCSA: Clearly defined

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) clearly defines a safety-sensitive position.

It is one where the employee is expected to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) requiring a commercial driver’s license (CDL). Only these drivers can be placed in the motor carrier’s DOT drug and alcohol testing program under 49 CFR Part 382.

As a result, a carrier would not classify a forklift operator, driver helper, and other positions as safety sensitive for purposes of testing under Part

What about non-CDL CMV drivers?

A driver who operates an FMCSA-regulated vehicle that does not require a CDL fits within the scope of workplace safety-sensitive duties, but not FMCSA.

For property-carrying vehicles, a non-CDL CMV is one that is:

• 10,001-26,000 pounds inclusive of a towed trailer, and
• Not transporting placardable quantities of hazmat.

For passenger carriers, a non-CDL CMV is designed to transport 9-15 passengers, including the driver, for compensation.

Even though the above vehicles and drivers are subject to the bulk of FMCSA’s safety regulations, the vehicles (and subsequently the drivers) do not qualify for CDL licensing or FMCSA testing.

If the driver happens to hold CDL, it still does not qualify as a safety-sensitive position. Applicability is always based on whether the employee is assigned to operate a CDL CMV.

Are non-CDL CMV drivers subject to any drug and alcohol prohibitions?

Non-CDL CMV drivers are prohibited from operating while impaired under 49 CFR 392.4 and 392.5, but there is no testing mechanism under DOT authority. Testing would be best practice (non-DOT) and managed under the workplace drug program.

Vague definition under OSHA

If a motor carrier mistakenly uses the workplace criteria for its DOT testing, the number and types of positions placed in the random pool far exceed commercial drivers.

For the general workforce, the term “safety sensitive” has been tossed around, but never clearly defined by OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). Many safety professionals tie the term to OSHA’s General Duty Clause (GDC), which requires that employers provide all workers with a safe and healthful workplace.

Specifically, the GDC requires employers to recognize hazards that cause or likely will cause death or serious physical harm. Any job title that is likely to cause death or serious harm to someone — including the employee, coworkers, or the general public — is usually put on a list of safety-sensitive positions.

The employer must look at each job’s hazards and decide if the position is classified by its organization as safety sensitive. Examples may include:

• Forklift drivers,
• Heavy machinery operators, and
• Crane operators.

Even someone who works as a roofer may be considered a safety-sensitive position because the employee could trip and fall from a high elevation, causing serious personal harm.

Key to remember: When assembling the list of names for your DOT testing program, only include those individuals who are expected to operate a CDL CMV.

How do you know if you need to apply for authority?

Per the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), all interstate commercial motor vehicles (private, for-hire[TL1.1], and exempt) that meet the definition of commercial motor vehicle found in 390.5 must submit them online through Motus at https://motus.dot.gov and obtain a USDOT number before beginning operations.

The commercial motor vehicle definition includes a vehicle which operates in interstate commerce, and:

• Has a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) or gross combination weight rating (GCWR), or gross vehicle weight (GVW) or gross combination weight (GCW) of 10,001 pounds or more, whichever is greater;
• Is designed to transport more than 8 passengers (including the driver) for compensation;
• Is designed to transport 16 or more passengers including the driver, and isn’t used to transport passengers for compensation; or
• Is transporting hazardous materials in quantities requiring the vehicle to be placarded.

Not operating as an interstate carrier doesn’t mean you’re in the clear, as many states require USDOT numbers for intrastate carriers. If you fall into this category, it’s important to check your states' requirements.

How do you obtain operating authority?

If you don’t already have a USDOT number, you can obtain one by applying for authority through Motus. The registration process requires basic company demographics to be provided. This information isn’t directly used for safety scoring but does provide information that is helpful to the FMCSA for studies and investigations.

After being issued a new entrant registration, the carrier is subject to an 18-month safety-monitoring period. During this safety monitoring period, the carrier’s roadside safety performance will be closely monitored to ensure the carrier’s basic safety management controls are operating effectively. Also, during this safety-monitoring period, the motor carrier (MC) will receive a safety audit.

For those operating intrastate, the process may be different. Check with your state's department of transportation to learn more about what you need to do.

Why is this necessary?

Larger vehicles, as well as those carrying hazardous materials, pose a higher risk to both themselves and the motoring public. By regulating who may operate these vehicles, and for how long, the FMCSA prioritizes keeping the roadways safe for all who use them.

Key to remember: All companies who operate a commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce are expected to adhere to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations — even those who don’t operate as a “traditional trucking company.”

1. Better visibility where drivers need it most

Commercial vehicles frequently operate in tight loading docks, crowded truck stops, urban delivery areas, construction zones, and customer facilities. In these environments, mirrors may not provide enough information to safely complete a lane change, turn, or backing maneuver.

Side-mounted cameras can help drivers monitor blind spots and adjacent lanes. They may reveal passenger vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, or other hazards that would otherwise be difficult to see. Rear and cargo area cameras can provide a direct view of equipment, parked vehicles, people, and obstacles behind the truck. This added visibility can be especially valuable when backing into docks or maneuvering through confined spaces.

2. More context for coaching and incident review

Auxiliary cameras do more than help prevent collisions. They also give fleet managers additional context when reviewing driving events. Footage from multiple angles can show what the driver saw, where a hazard developed, and whether a safer technique could have been used.

That fuller perspective supports more meaningful coaching. Instead of relying on assumptions or incomplete accounts, supervisors can discuss the event with the driver and identify practical ways to improve. When used appropriately, video can reinforce safe habits, support professional development, and build trust between drivers and management.

3. Clearer evidence when questions arise

Multiple camera views can help clarify what happened after an incident. A side camera may show another vehicle entering the truck’s blind spot. A rear camera may confirm that a driver checked the area and followed the company’s backing procedures. This evidence can reduce uncertainty, resolve disputes, and support a more accurate investigation.

Not a replacement for defensive driving

Auxiliary cameras cannot replace attentive driving, proper mirror use, or established safety procedures. They can, however, give drivers another valuable tool for managing difficult situations. By improving visibility, strengthening coaching, and providing clearer evidence, these cameras help fleets address risk from more than one angle.

Key to remember: When drivers have the information needed to make safer decisions, the result can be fewer preventable incidents, greater confidence behind the wheel, and a safety culture built around awareness and support.

What must the markings contain?

Enforcement officers should be able to quickly and easily identify the motor carrier operating the vehicle. The marking must include:

• The legal name or one trade name of the motor carrier operating the vehicle, as listed with FMCSA.
• The carrier’s FMCSA-issued identification number, preceded by “USDOT.”
• If another company name appears on the vehicle, the operating carrier’s name and USDOT number must be shown after the words “operated by.”

If you wish to go above and beyond, you may add your operating location or additional contact information, but this is not required per the FMCSRs.

How should the markings be displayed?

The key to properly displaying your markings is to ensure they are easily legible. To ensure this, the FMCSA has implemented the following guidelines:

• The markings must appear on both sides of the self-propelled CMV;
• The lettering must contrast sharply with the background color;
• The markings must be readable from 50 feet during daylight hours while the vehicle is stationary; and
• The markings must be maintained so they remain legible.

While permanent markings are most common, FMCSA permits removable signs, as long as they meet the visibility, location, and durability requirements listed above.

What about leased vehicles?

Vehicles that are leased for a longer period of time must follow the same marking requirements as listed above. They will need to either change the existing markings to their own information, or add their information after the rental company’s information preceded by the words “operated by.”

In this scenario, the markings should look something like this:

Rental Company

Operated by Trucking Company A

USDOT 123456

However, a vehicle that is rented for a short period of time – (30 days or less) may be marked with the rental company’s name and USDOT number. To qualify for the exceptions:

• The vehicle is rented for 30 days or less;
• The vehicle is properly marked with the rental company’s legal name and USDOT number; and
• A rental agreement — containing all required information and entered into by the lessor and the renting motor carrier — is carried on the rental CMV during the full term of the rental agreement.

Key to remember: Ensure enforcement officials are able to quickly and easily identify your vehicles with clear markings on both sides of your vehicles.

Ferreting out leave abuse

From the employer’s perspective, using FMLA leave solely to avoid working on or around holidays, weekends, vacations, and rest days constituted dishonesty in violation of company policy.

Jolanda from HR had an automated system that ferreted out FMLA misuse. Each week, the system looked back at every employee’s FMLA usage over the preceding 12 weeks. If an employee had 5 suspicious uses of FMLA leave within 12 weeks, the algorithm flagged that employee. A suspicious use was any FMLA use on a weekend and any FMLA use that was taken immediately before or after a day off.

If Jolanda believed that an employee’s actions amounted to FMLA “pattern use,” she would conduct an individualized review. This involved reviewing each employee’s:

• Medical information,
• Absences that were identified as pattern use, and
• Statuses of those absences.

To further investigate this FMLA usage, Jolanda used a modified version of the algorithm, which flagged any employee who had used FMLA leave on 4 of the 10 most recent holidays and other special occasions (such as Black Friday and Christmas Eve). Jolanda removed from the list anyone whose leave involved cancer, a terminal illness, or was about to give birth.

Court disagrees with employer

Despite dozens of employees being terminated for misusing their leave, only three of the employees continued their lawsuit. In court, the judge pointed out that the algorithm didn’t show their total FMLA leave, just their holiday use. It didn’t include non-holiday use, so it didn’t give the whole picture.

If an employee used FMLA leave for 10 days in 12 months, and 5 of those days were holidays, an employer might have reason to suspect misuse. If an employee used FMLA leave for 60 days in 12 months and 5 of those days were holidays, there would be much less reason for an investigation. The employer focused on employees’ use of FMLA leave on holidays without considering the context of each situation.

The employer argued in court that it acted on its honest belief that the employees were abusing FMLA leave.

The employees argued that the company’s stated reason for the discipline was untrue and that retaliation was the actual reason for the discipline. The employees were given an internal hearing, but the hearings were suspicious, as a company manager acted both as judge by conducting the hearing and ruling on objections, and as prosecutor by questioning witnesses. The company witness told the hearing manager which questions the prosecutor (the same manager) should ask.

Employees, on the other hand, weren’t allowed to have legal counsel present, nor were there formal rules of evidence that governed the hearings. They also didn’t know the questions in advance, as the employer did.

In denying the employer’s request to have the entire case dismissed, the court determined that the employer’s decision process wasn’t credible and its reliance on that process was, therefore, not honestly held. It sent the case to a jury.

Burgess, et al., v. CSX Transportation, Inc., District of Maryland, No. JKB-18-0744, July 6, 2026.

Court decisions are based on the specific facts presented and each court’s interpretation of the law. Because courts may reach different conclusions, similar situations can lead to different outcomes. Employers should avoid relying on a single case as definitive guidance and instead assess each situation carefully, considering applicable laws and seeking advice when needed.

Key to remember: Employers may use procedures and tools to discern FMLA leave abuse, but they have to use those procedures and tools through the lens of the big picture.

Fall hazards aren't always obvious

Some workplace hazards are easy to spot. Fall hazards can be different. Employees may perform the same elevated task repeatedly without incident, creating the impression that the work is low risk, but the absence of a previous incident does not mean the hazard has been eliminated. Familiarity can make employees less likely to recognize physical hazards, changing conditions, and gaps in the fall protection program, including:

• Damaged or improperly used fall protection equipment,
• Unprotected edges or openings,
• Improper ladder or platform use,
• Missing or inadequate training,
• Poor equipment inspections, and
• Changes in work surfaces, weather, housekeeping, or other job-site conditions that were not addressed before work began.

Planning is the first layer of fall protection

Many fall incidents can be traced to decisions made before employees start work. Before the task begins, employers should identify where fall hazards exist, determine what protection is required, and establish how employees will perform the work safely. Deliberate planning helps prevent employees from having to make critical decisions while exposed to a fall hazard. Pre-job planning should consider:

• The location and height of the work,
• Access methods such as ladders, lifts, or stairs,
• The type of fall protection needed,
• Potential swing-fall or lower-level hazards,
• Environmental conditions that could affect employee safety, and
• The rescue procedures, equipment, and personnel needed before work begins.

Inspections help catch problems before equipment fails

Fall protection equipment is often stored, transported, exposed to weather, and used in demanding environments. Over time, components can wear, become damaged, or be altered in ways that reduce their effectiveness. Inspection programs work best when employees understand that reporting equipment concerns is expected, not optional, and know how to identify conditions that may require equipment to be removed from service, including:

• Cuts, tears, abrasions, or excessive wear,
• Damaged stitching,
• Deformed hooks, connectors, or hardware,
• Missing labels or identification markings,
• Signs of chemical damage, corrosion, or heat exposure, and
• Equipment that has been subjected to a fall or has any other condition that could affect its safe performance.

Don't overlook rescue planning

One of the most overlooked aspects of fall protection is what happens after a fall occurs. Arresting a fall is only the first step. Employers must also determine how the employee will be rescued and how quickly help can be provided. Rescue planning should be treated as part of the job rather than something addressed only after an incident and should include, as applicable:

• Identifying primary and backup rescue methods,
• Determining what equipment will be used,
• Establishing emergency communication procedures,
• Verifying rescue equipment is available and accessible,
• Training designated personnel on rescue procedures, and
• Reviewing rescue plans whenever work conditions change.

Strong programs rely on multiple layers of protection

No single piece of equipment eliminates fall hazards. A strong fall protection program brings prevention, equipment selection, inspection, training, and rescue planning together, so each layer supports the others before, during, and after work at height. Before work begins, make sure your program includes the following:

Plan the work: Evaluate fall hazards before work begins and select appropriate protection.

Provide the right equipment: Ensure employees have equipment that matches the task and work environment.

Conduct inspections: Verify equipment remains in safe working condition and remove damaged equipment from service.

Train employees: Train employees to recognize fall hazards, equipment limitations, safe work practices, and rescue procedures.

Prepare for emergencies: Develop and communicate rescue procedures before employees are exposed to fall hazards.

Key to remember: Effective fall protection is more than wearing a harness. When hazards are identified early, equipment is matched to the task, employees are trained, and rescue is planned so that employers are better prepared to prevent serious fall-related injuries.

Reclassification impacts downstream chemical users

According to 1910.1200(j), chemical manufacturers, importers, and distributors evaluating substances (see the definition in 1910.1200(c)) based on the new classifications had until May 19, 2026, to:

• Reclassify the substances under revised criteria,
• Update their safety data sheets (SDSs) and shipping labels for these substances, and
• Otherwise be in compliance with all the modified provisions of the standard for those substances.

Hazard classification is the process of identifying a chemical’s hazards and determining how severe those hazards are. Chemical manufacturers and importers use 1910.1200(d), along with Appendix A (for health hazards) and Appendix B (for physical hazards) to make these determinations. When OSHA aligned HazCom with Revision 7 of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) in 2024, the agency revised its classification categories for aerosols, desensitized explosives, and flammable gases.

Once a classification is determined, it dictates the warnings, pictograms, hazard statements, and other safety and health information that must appear on SDSs and shipping labels. OSHA explains that the classification should provide downstream users with sufficient information to perform a hazard assessment specific to their own workplace and to understand how employees must use the chemical product there.

How the November 20 deadline impacts employers

Employers who purchase substances that are aerosols, desensitized explosives, and flammable gases will receive (or may already have received) revised SDSs and see updated container labels with their shipments.

In addition, according to 1910.1200(j), all employers must, as necessary:

• Update any alternative workplace (in-house) labeling per 1910.1200(f)(6);
• Update their HazCom training program required by 1910.1200(h)(1); and
• Provide additional employee training in line with 1910.1200(h)(3) for newly identified physical, health, or other hazards covered by the standard.

Employers will also need to retain any new SDSs they receive. However, if they have not purchased new inventory, they’re not required to contact the manufacturer, importer, or distributor for a new SDS. Still, an employer may proactively request new ones from their suppliers anyway.

Further HazCom compliance dates in paragraph (j)

Chemical manufacturers, importers, and distributors evaluating mixtures (as defined in 1910.1200(c)) based on the new classifications have until November 19, 2027, to reclassify them based on the new criteria, update their SDSs and shipping labels, and otherwise be in compliance with all the modified provisions of the standard for those mixtures.

Also, for mixtures, employers have until May 19, 2028, to update any alternative workplace labeling, update their HazCom training program, and provide additional employee training for newly identified physical, health, or other hazards.

Key to remember: OSHA paragraph (j) to 1910.1200 has several compliance dates for chemical manufacturers, importers, distributors, and employers. One date has already passed, and the next one (November 20, 2026) applies to employers. Two more are slated for November 19, 2027, and May 19, 2028.

Inspection failure

If the operator skips or rushes through the pre-shift inspection, safety concerns could get overlooked. Problems with systems like hydraulics, brakes, or steering can obviously contribute to accidents. However, even things like a non-functioning horn or lights could increase the likelihood of collisions.

Also, operators must report any problems that arise during the shift. If a pre-shift inspection identifies failures, the problem likely occurred during the previous shift and perhaps could have been reported. Equipment failures more likely occur during operation, not during idle time between shifts. If something goes wrong mid-shift, the operator must remove the truck from service. Make sure operators know how to report problems, send the truck for service, and obtain an alternate vehicle for the remainder of the shift.

Carrying loads too high

Operators should carry loads as low as possible. During inspections, OSHA compliance officers commonly see loads carried too high. This limits both visibility and stability. When the load size restricts visibility and the truck cannot travel in reverse (like going up a ramp), the operator should use a spotter.

Similarly, operators must never raise or lower a load while moving or turning. Doing so increases the risk of accidents from falling loads. Also, driving while watching the load (not the road) can increase the risk of striking pedestrians or objects.

Driving too fast

Employers might communicate speed limits, but most forklifts don’t have speedometers. Therefore, operators should understand what constitutes safe (and unsafe) speeds under various conditions. In locations with pedestrians or limited visibility, this might mean at walking speed, which can seem painfully slow.

OSHA compliance officers can issue citations for excessive speed. Excessive speed increases the risk of spilling a load, striking a pedestrian, and rollover potential.

Not certified for truck type

Forklift operators must receive training that covers the types of vehicles used. An operator trained on a sit-down counterbalanced forklift needs additional training to operate a stand-up model or even a powered pallet jack. A supervisor might be able to explain the controls for a different vehicle type, but that does not constitute “training” and certainly not certification. OSHA commonly issues citations for lacking operator certification.

In addition, employers must evaluate each operator’s performance every three years. Typically, this involves questioning the operator on safety rules and observing the operator performing typical duties. If the evaluation identifies problems, the employer must provide refresher training. Skipping this evaluation could result in a failure to identify violations that contribute to accidents.

An operator who is not certified for the vehicle type may lack understanding of critical handling characteristics or safety precautions, which increases the risk of accidents.

Key to Remember: When forklift operators feel under time pressure, they might focus on speed over safety. Skipping the inspection, driving too fast, raising loads while moving, and other behaviors put the operator and other employees at risk.

Letters of Interpretation

As clarified in an OSHA Letter of Interpretation (LOI) dated October 18, 1995, “When any part of the body of an entrant breaks the plane of the opening of a PRCS large enough to allow full entry, entry is considered to have occurred and a permit is required, regardless of whether there is an intent to fully enter the space.”

This definition of “entry” might seem to be too strict. Still, OSHA’s letter clarifies that there are situations where a partial entry would be hazardous: “Examples of situations where entry by only part of the body into a PRCS can expose an entrant to the possibility of injury or illness are as follows:

1. An entrant can possibly suffer a burn while reaching into a PRCS, which is so classified because it contains a thermal hazard.
2. An entrant can possibly fall into a below-grade PRCS while standing on a vertical ladder in the opening of the space, which is so classified because it contains an oxygen-deficient atmosphere.
3. An entrant can possibly become unconscious as result of his head accidentally entering a PRCS while they are reaching into a PRCS, which is so classified because it contains an oxygen deficient atmosphere.”

As another example, if the space contains a flammable or oxygen-enriched atmosphere, and if the activities during a partial entry could produce a spark or other ignition source, then a fire in the space could flash out of the opening and cause serious injuries to the employee.

OSHA’s guidance continues

This doesn’t necessarily mean you’d be fined if a permit wasn’t followed when someone reached a tank. OSHA’s guidance continues: “However, if entry by only part of the body does not expose the entrant to the possibility of injury or illness, then the violation may be considered a ‘de minimis’ violation.”

A de minimis violation is one in which a standard is violated, but the violation has no direct or immediate relationship to employee safety or health. These violations are documented but no citations are issued.

OSHA says examples of situations where entry by only part of the body into a PRCS would not expose an entrant to the possibility of injury or illness are as follows:

1. An entrant reaches through the opening of a horizontal PRCS, which is so classified only because it contains exposed live electrical parts ten feet from the opening.
2. An entrant puts his head through the opening of an overhead PRCS, which is so classified only because it contains unguarded rotating parts ten feet from the opening.

Also, consider a situation such as a worker reaching through a small grate to take a sample from a permitted space. The LOI further states, “If a part of the body were placed in an opening through which the worker could not pass into the permit-required confined space, no PRCS entry will have occurred.”

Keep in mind, however, that the employee would still need protection from any hazards involved in the task, but a permit would not be needed.

Key to remember

When any part of the body of an entrant breaks the plane of the opening of a PRCS large enough to allow full entry, entry is considered to have occurred, and a permit is required.

Top violations by frequency

Scanning the list of top citations, the Hazard Communication standard was the number one frequently cited OSHA standard in Part 1910 last fiscal year. The regulation at 1910.1200 requires covered employers to implement a written program to inform workers about the hazards of non-exempted chemicals they may be exposed to on the job. Workers have a “right to know and understand” the hazardous chemicals they work with or near.

The Lockout/Tagout standard took the number two spot on the preliminary OSHA list. Under 1910.147, workers servicing or maintaining machines or equipment may be seriously injured or killed if hazardous energy is not properly controlled. The standard requires covered employers to implement a program and procedures to disable machinery and equipment, thereby preventing the unexpected release of hazardous energy (like electricity), while workers perform these servicing and maintenance activities.

When effective engineering controls are not feasible, or while they are being instituted, appropriate respirators must be provided and used when necessary to protect the health of the worker. This requirement is per OSHA’s Respiratory Protection standard at 1910.134, which ranked number three on the list. Under this standard, covered employers must identify and evaluate the respiratory hazards in the workplace and develop and implement a written respiratory protection program with site-specific procedures and elements for respirator use. When respirators are not required but are worn voluntarily, 1910.134 generally imposes more limited obligations for the employer.

Top citations by penalty rate among the 20

The top 20 had an average overall penalty rate of $3,991. However, the highest penalty rate among these 20 most-cited standards went to the Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals standard. In FY 2026, the preliminary data show that the price tag on that regulation averaged $8,757 per citation. Catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemicals have resulted in toxic, fire, or explosion hazards. OSHA 1910.119 provides requirements for the management of hazards associated with processes using threshold quantities of highly hazardous chemicals.

The Machine Guarding standard at 1910.212 came in second, at $7,383 on average per citation. Moving machine parts have the potential to cause severe workplace injuries, such as crushed fingers or hands, amputations, burns, or blindness. The standard applies to employers when workers are exposed to dangerous moving parts. Covered employers must provide one or more methods of machine guarding to protect the operator and other workers in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips, and sparks.

The Lockout/Tagout standard took third place when ranking the 20 standards by penalty rate. The preliminary dollar amount was $6,836 per citation on average for 1910.147. Injuries resulting from the failure to control hazardous energy during servicing or maintenance activities can be serious or fatal. The standard is intended to address these risks.

Key to remember

New enforcement data for Part 1910 are now available for FY 2026. While the top 20 citations tend to line up almost identically every year, ranking these top 20 by penalty rate offers a different way to view the data. Both tables above give general industry employers insight when they evaluate and prioritize compliance at their own site.