
SAFETY & COMPLIANCE NEWS
Keep up to date on the latest developments affecting OSHA, DOT, EPA, and DOL regulatory compliance.
SAFETY & COMPLIANCE NEWS
Keep up to date on the latest developments affecting OSHA, DOT, EPA, and DOL regulatory compliance.
OSHA has long opposed incentive programs that discourage injury reporting, but has specifically allowed post-incident drug testing for many years. Some of OSHA’s pre-2018 memos appeared to substantially restrict post-incident drug testing, but those memos have been withdrawn. Still, online searches may turn up some outdated memos.
The recordkeeping rule at 1904.35(b)(1)(iv) states, “You must not discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee for reporting a work-related injury or illness.” In a memo dated October 11, 2018, OSHA stated that this provision “does not prohibit workplace safety incentive programs or post-incident drug testing.”
The memo noted that many employers establish incentive programs and conduct drug tests to promote safety. It clarified that such programs would be in violation of that regulation only if the employer took action to penalize an employee for reporting an injury.
Regarding post-incident testing, the memo did add that employers “should test all employees whose conduct could have contributed to the incident, not just employees who reported injuries.” For example, if a forklift operator strikes a pedestrian, the employer should test the operator, not just the injured pedestrian.
If injuries do not get reported, employers cannot address the underlying hazards to prevent future injuries. Consistently enforcing safety rules (whether or not an injury was reported) helps demonstrate that employers are serious about eliminating risks, not merely concerned with reducing recorded injuries. Rewarding employees for reporting near-misses and hazards, and encouraging involvement in safety programs, should help reduce injuries by improving safety rather than just reducing the number of reported injuries.
For related information, see our article Peer pressure and workplace incidents: A dangerous combination.
Some incentive programs focus on the injury and illness rate and reward employees with a prize or bonus at the end of an injury-free period (whether a month or a year). Such programs are permissible as long as they are not implemented in a manner that discourages reporting.
The memo indicated that even if the employer withholds a prize or bonus because of a reported injury, OSHA will not cite the employer — if the employer “implemented adequate precautions to ensure that employees feel free to report an injury or illness.”
However, simply telling employees that the company won’t retaliate may not be good enough. The memo suggested taking positive steps to emphasize safety rather than injury rates. Examples could include:
Even though rate-based programs are permissible, they can be challenging to implement without creating negative incentives that discourage reporting. Instead, employers should implement programs that reward desired behaviors (such as reporting hazards) rather than rewarding employees for avoiding negative outcomes (like not getting injured). For more information, see our article, How to build a more effective safety incentive program.
Key to Remember: OSHA does allow post-incident drug tests and incentive programs, but employers should focus on rewarding positive behaviors and ensure that employees are not discouraged from reporting incidents.
For motor carriers, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) audits, sometimes called “DOT audits,” are high-stakes investigations. Staying audit-ready improves safety, reduces potential liability, and strengthens operational integrity.
An FMCSA audit is a review to ensure that commercial motor vehicle (CMV) operations comply with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs).
Audits assess compliance under the following six factors:
Factor 1— General: Parts 387 (financial responsibility) and 390 (accident register and records, FMCSA registration, and vehicle markings);
Factor 2—Driver: Parts 382 (drug and alcohol testing), 383 (commercial driver’s license (CDL) and 391 (driver qualification);
Factor 3—Operational: Parts 392 (CMV driving) and 395 (hours-of-service);
Factor 4—Vehicle: Parts 393 (parts and accessories), 396 (inspection, repair, and maintenance);
Factor 5—Hazardous Materials: Parts 171, 177, 180 and 397; and
Factor 6—Accident: Recordable accident rate per million miles.
Carriers are subject to three types of audits, including:
1. New entrant safety audits within the first 18 months of operation.
2. Focused audits that center on specific compliance issues in one or two factors.
3. Compliance reviews are comprehensive audits usually triggered by poor Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) scores or valid safety complaints.
The FMCSA will only assign a safety rating to a motor carrier after performing a compliance review or comprehensive investigation. Appendix B to Part 385 details the method used in the compliance review to arrive at one of the following three safety ratings:
Satisfactory: The motor carrier’s safety management controls are functioning and adequate.
Conditional: The carrier does not have adequate safety management controls to ensure compliance and must correct problem areas.
Unsatisfactory: The motor carrier does not have adequate safety management controls in place, and its violations prohibit the carrier from operating CMVs.
Compliance isn’t just about avoiding fines—it’s about protecting lives and livelihoods. Non-compliance can lead to:
By maintaining compliance, carriers demonstrate a commitment to safety and reliability, which can enhance customer trust and business opportunities.
DOT audits, and preferably proactive mock audits, offer a structured opportunity to identify and mitigate risks before they escalate. Here’s how:
Early detection of issues: Audits can uncover gaps in recordkeeping, driver behavior, or vehicle maintenance that might otherwise go unnoticed.
Improved safety culture: Regular reviews encourage a culture of accountability and continuous improvement among drivers and staff.
Data-driven decisions: Audit findings provide actionable insights that can inform training programs, route planning, and equipment investments.
Insurance leverage: Demonstrating a strong compliance record can lead to better insurance rates and fewer claims.
The best defense includes diligent recordkeeping, regular training, and compliance monitoring.
Carriers should:
Keys to remember: FMCSA audits a vital checkpoint for motor carriers. Embrace the potential for a review as an opportunity to build a safer, more resilient business.
If you’re in charge of workplace safety, you’ve probably asked yourself, “Do I actually need to post emergency maps to stay OSHA compliant?” It’s a fair question and the answer might surprise you.
In 29 CFR 1910.38 OSHA says that if your workplace falls under certain standards, you need to have an Emergency Action Plan (EAP). This plan then must cover how people will evacuate during an emergency, who’s responsible for making sure everyone gets out safely, and how you’ll account for everyone once they’re outside. However, OSHA doesn’t specifically say that you must post emergency maps.
Even though they’re not technically required, emergency maps are still “highly recommended.” OSHA even includes them in a non-mandatory appendix as a best practice. Think of them as a visual cheat sheet that helps people quickly figure out:
In a real emergency, when stress levels are high and time is short, a clear map can make all the difference in minimizing injury and protecting lives.
Compliance to regulatory requirements is a necessity, but is not always enough to ensure a safe workplace in all scenarios. To truly ensure safety workers, we need to dig deeper. Emergency maps enhance safety beyond compliance by:
Simplifying training: For new employees, contractors, or visitors, emergency maps provide an immediate visual reference. Instead of relying solely on verbal instructions or lengthy instructions, people can quickly see where they are and how to exit safely.
Reducing confusion: In large or complex buildings, it’s easy to get disoriented, especially in high stress situations. Clear, well-placed emergency maps help people make quick, informed decisions. They show not just exits, but can also show fire extinguisher locations, first aid kits, and safe assembly areas.
Demonstrating preparedness and proactive safety: Having visible, up-to-date emergency maps signals that your organization takes safety seriously. This can be reassuring to employees and visitors alike. It also reflects positively during inspections and audits showing that you’ve taken proactive steps to mitigate risk.
Recognizing other authorities may require it: While OSHA doesn’t require emergency maps, many local fire codes, building regulations, or industry-specific standards may. This can cause organizations to be non-compliant and face penalties without them. Additionally, insurance carriers may provide incentives to including maps in planning for emergencies.
Overall emergency maps should be easy to read and understand, posted in visible or “conspicuous” spots like near exits, elevators, and break rooms, and updated whenever your layout or procedures change. Below is a simple checklist you can use to review your organization’s emergency maps.
Site accuracy
Design
Accessibility
Placement and visibility
Maintenance and testing
Key to remember: OSHA doesn’t require posting emergency maps; however, they are strongly recommended as a best practice. Clear, visible maps help reduce confusion, speed up decision-making, and demonstrate your organization’s commitment to preparedness.
While many Americans are recovering from fireworks, festivities, and freedom celebrations following the July 4th holiday, there’s another (unofficial) holiday waiting on deck.
July 5th is National Workaholics Day. This day can either be a cause for celebration or a reminder that everyone needs a certain level of work-life balance.
Generally, the term “workaholic” denotes someone who is overly dedicated to their job, perhaps to their own detriment. Whether an employee is skipping lunch breaks or working into the wee hours of the morning, if they’re classified as a nonexempt (hourly) employee, that time must be counted and paid, including if it’s overtime.
The federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires that a nonexempt employee be paid time and one-half the regular rate for all “hours worked” in excess of 40 during a work week. In order to determine what overtime is owed, hours worked must be calculated.
Usually, that’s relatively simple. Hours worked includes all the time the employee is doing principal duties, whether directed to do so, or merely permitted to do so. “Volunteer” or “off-the-clock” work must be counted.
Employers that choose to look the other way while employees work off-the-clock, could face wage and hour claims, fines, penalties, and more. Those kinds of violations will give someone more heartburn than a 4th of July hot dog eating contest!
Whether it’s National Workaholics Day or any other workday, remind staff to only work their assigned hours and be sure to track all employees’ hours worked correctly. While being dedicated to work is admirable, it’s not good if it comes at a cost of a burnt out employee.
Effective date: July 1, 2026
This applies to: Washington employers with 15 or more employees. (Employers with less than 15 employees must comply starting January 1, 2027.)
Description of change: On April 21, 2025, Governor Bob Ferguson signed House Bill 1747 into law, amending the Washington Fair Chance Act to expand protections for job applicants and employees with criminal records. The amended law has new requirements for how and when criminal history can be considered in hiring and employment decisions.
Key updates to the Act include:
Timing of Criminal History Inquiries
Restrictions on Use of Criminal Records
Pre-Adverse and Adverse Action Process
Disclosure Requirement
If a background check is mentioned in a job posting, employers must provide a written summary of the law and a copy of the Attorney General’s Fair Chance Act guide.
View related state info:Background checks – Washington
Did you know the difference between atmospheric testing and continuous monitoring? Some believe they are different while others say they are the same. Let’s breathe oxygen into the topic, shall we?
There are several differentiating factors between a confined space (CS) and a permit-required confined space (PRCS), one of which is the potential for the space to contain a hazardous atmosphere. Air monitoring will determine if a confined space has the potential for hazardous vapors, combustible gases, or deadly toxins and therefore would require a permit and specific actions to protect workers.
Since there can be no hazardous atmosphere when employees are within a confined space, the internal atmosphere must be tested prior to any entry using a calibrated direct-reading instrument according to 1910.146(c)(5)(ii)(C)). Testing should be for oxygen content, flammable or combustible gases and vapors, and then for potentially toxic air contaminants, in that order.
As an additional precaution, clean forced air should also be directed to ventilate the immediate areas within the space where employees are present and must continue as long as there are employees in the space.
The area must then be periodically tested to ensure hazardous atmospheres do not accumulate. If a hazardous atmosphere is detected, employers must exit the space immediately and testing must be performed before anyone is permitted to re-enter the space.
Continuous monitoring is key to alerting employees immediately to dangerous atmospheres that may arise. The confined space standard requires in paragraph (d)(3)(vi) atmospheric conditions be verified throughout the duration of an authorized entry. The standard reiterates this in 1910.146(d)(5)(ii) with the requirement to test or monitor the permit space as necessary to determine conditions are acceptable for entry and “are being maintained during the course of entry operations.”
Continuous monitoring is required when isolation of a space is infeasible. This may be due to the size of the area or being part of a continuous system like a sewer system. Continuous monitoring is also required when hot work is being performed in a confined space since there’s a likelihood of an accumulation of flammable or combustible gas or vapor.
The confined space attendant typically performs monitoring. Additionally, many employers choose personal 4- or 5-gas monitors (depending upon the chemical exposures) as a way to continuously monitor the atmosphere, so they don't need to worry about moving a single monitor from one location to another. In smaller confined space areas, however, a single stationary monitor may be sufficient.
PRCS permits require the results of initial and periodic atmospheric tests to be documented. Test results should be accompanied by the names or initials of the testers, the time the monitoring was performed, and the equipment used for testing .
Cancelled entry permits, which includes atmospheric testing records related to the permit, must be kept for at least one year, to facilitate the review of the permit space program. This is to facility the review of the permit space program as required in 1910.146(d)(14).
Key to remember: Confined space entry can be deadly, and anything can happen even to the best trained personnel. Understanding the difference between atmospheric testing and continuous monitoring is imperative for keeping workers safe during entry.
Did You Know You Can Ask Unlimited Questions to Our Compliance Experts?
Get answers to your most puzzling compliance questions from the industry’s top experts!