SAFETY & COMPLIANCE NEWS
Keep up to date on the latest
developments affecting OSHA, DOT,
EPA, and DOL regulatory compliance.
Copyright 2026 J. J. Keller & Associate, Inc. For re-use options please contact copyright@jjkeller.com or call 800-558-5011.
FEATURED NEWS
2026-02-17T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsSafety & HealthGeneral Industry SafetyForklifts and Powered TrucksPIT Training RequirementsIn-Depth ArticleEnglishFocus AreaUSA
These forklift operator violations commonly cause accidents
Forklift accidents often cause serious injuries. Unsafe behaviors can include failing to wear the seatbelt and reaching an arm outside the truck’s running lines. While those violations put the operator at risk, many unsafe behaviors also threaten other employees.
The most common forklift accidents involve rollovers, collisions with pedestrians, and loads falling from the tines. These incidents often result from operator error or (even worse) the operator knowingly engaging in unsafe behaviors.
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.
Keep reading...Show less
RECENT INDUSTRY HIGHLIGHTS
2026-02-17T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsEnglishDrug and Alcohol Testing - DOTDrug testing - Motor CarrierIn-Depth ArticleAlcohol testing - Motor CarrierFocus AreaUSA
5 necessities when bringing DOT testing in-house
The headache of finding a clinic or the cost of arranging a test could be reasons why a motor carrier may toy with the idea of bringing DOT testing in-house.
But the plan may be more of an undertaking than you realize when you look at the detailed requirements in 49 CFR Part 40, in addition to potential liabilities.
Consider the following areas if you’re looking into the option of conducting DOT tests internally.
1. Properly trained personnel
Both drug specimen collectors and alcohol testing personnel must receive specific training at least once every 5 years. Training covers basic regulatory information and procedures, step-by-step instructions on conducting a drug or alcohol test, and how to handle problems that may occur during the test. Training is concluded by demonstrating proficiency through error-free mock tests monitored by a qualified collector or technician.
In the event a collector or technician’s mistake causes a drug or alcohol test to be cancelled, the testing personnel must undergo error correction training within 30 days of learning of the mistake. This training is overseen by qualified collectors or technicians who observe error-free mock tests addressing the area that caused the test to be cancelled.
2. No claims of impropriety
To reduce any claims of wrongdoing, many carriers keep testing out of the hands of safety or operations personnel. An on-site facility may be the best option — using a company nurse or doctor with no relationship with drivers. This is especially important for urine collections that require direct observation.
“To avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest,” the drug testing rules limit who may act as a specimen collector, including:
- Anyone related to the employee being tested (e.g., spouse, ex-spouse, relative) or a close friend; and
- The immediate supervisor of the employee, unless no other collector is available and permitted under 49 CFR Part 382.
The alcohol testing rules have a similar stipulation restricting the immediate supervisor of the employee, unless no other technician is available and it’s permitted under Part 382.
When you examine Part 382, there’s one absolute to note in 382.307. The trained supervisor who requests a reasonable suspicion alcohol test can’t conduct the test. But it’s probably best not to allow this supervisor to conduct a drug test either, unless no one else is available.
3. An appropriate space
Both drug and alcohol clinics must be secure and private.
For urine specimen collections:
- The water must be turned off in the bathroom,
- There must be no access to soap or other adulterants, and
- The toilet water must be blue.
Collectors must secure areas and items (e.g., ledges, trash receptacles, paper towel holders, under-sink areas) that appear suitable for concealing contaminants. If this facility is used for other purposes, access to collection materials and specimens must be restricted, and no one is permitted access during the collection.
For alcohol testing, in addition to general privacy and security requirements, the site must have a suitable clean surface for writing, and all testing equipment must be stored in a secure place when not in use.
4. Approved equipment and forms
Only approved drug specimen collection kits can be used for DOT drug tests, along with Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Forms (CCFs). Employers aren’t permitted to use rapid tests or other testing methods (e.g., hair, blood), use a non-DOT (forensic) testing form, or test for drugs or thresholds outside of the DOT drug panel.
For alcohol testing, tests can only be performed using a device on the approved DOT list, along with a DOT alcohol testing form (ATF). If the employer’s site is only equipped with a non-evidential device for screening tests — and they’re unable to perform a confirmation test using an evidential breath testing (EBT) device — the in-house clinic must be prepared to transport the driver to an alternative facility to complete the test.
And just like an off-site alcohol testing facility:
- The employer’s clinic must maintain records on the EBT’s inspection, maintenance, and calibration.
- The technician must report the results to the company’s designated employer representative (DER). If the confirmation test is .02 BAC or greater, they immediately transmit the result directly to the DER in a confidential manner.
5. Analysis of drug testing specimens
The employer-based clinic is required to send drug test specimens for analysis to a certified lab. The results must be reviewed by a medical review officer (MRO) who’ll provide an official result.
This means the in-house facility must securely store the collected specimen until it can be sent via courier to the lab as soon as possible (no later than 24 hours or during the next business day). The collector must send the MRO and DER their respective copies of the CCF within 24 hours and retain the clinic’s copies for at least 30 days.
Key to remember: There are several considerations when deciding whether an in-house DOT drug and alcohol testing facility is a fit for your motor carrier.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-02-17T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsHR GeneralistFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleMedical ExaminationsAssociate RelationsEnglishUSAHR ManagementDisabilities and ADADisabilities and ADAHuman Resources
‘What do you mean, I can’t ask employees about their medications?’
Antihistamines, antidepressants, opioids, and drugs to treat anxiety or blood pressure. All these medications (and more) could cause employees to be sleepy, even while at work. Tiredness in certain jobs can be a safety risk for employees and others, yet employers must maintain safe workplaces. So, asking employees about their medications might seem like a step in the right safety direction.
But doing so could risk a discrimination claim. That’s because employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees because of a disability under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
As part of this, employers may ask employees medical questions, such as asking about medications, only when they have a reasonable belief, based on objective evidence (such as witnessing a situation firsthand), that a particular employee is unable to perform the job’s essential functions because of a medical condition. Employers may also ask about medications if they think an employee will pose a direct threat because of a medical condition.
Balancing safety concerns and limits
When employers have safety concerns about an employee, they may ask the employee medical questions, but there are limits.
According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces the employment provisions of the ADA:
- Employers must limit the scope of the inquiry to what is necessary to determine the employee’s ability to perform essential job functions or to assess the need for a reasonable accommodation.
- The employee must authorize any direct communication with their health care provider (think HIPAA).
What is a direct threat?
A direct threat is something that poses a significant risk of substantial harm that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation. To determine whether an employee poses a direct threat in the workplace, employers should consider the following factors:
- The duration of the risk,
- The nature and severity of the potential harm,
- The likelihood that potential harm will occur, and
- The imminence of the potential harm.
If, for example, an employee operating a forklift appears sleepy, the employer may tell the employee to get off the forklift and discuss the situation. The employer could discover that the employee is sleepy because:
- They had a late night out with friends,
- A colicky baby kept them up, or
- A drug or medication (legal or not) made them sleepy.
Employers shouldn’t jump to conclusions, but rather, document all related discussions and actions taken.
No hiding under a blanket
Blanket policies that require all employees to disclose all the medications they’re taking risk violating the ADA, because policies like that don’t focus on a particular employee, as required.
Employers with blanket policies should review them to make sure they aren’t adding risk.
If another federal law, such as the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act and its regulations, requires such medical questions, the ADA doesn’t stand in the way. If the laws don’t require the questions, the ADA steps in.
Key to remember: Unless required by another federal law, asking all employees to disclose the medications they take would risk violating the ADA.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-02-17T06:00:00Z
NewsTrainingSupervisor trainingTrainingTraining & DevelopmentUSAHuman ResourcesHR ManagementEnglishTalent Management & RecruitingAssociate Benefits & CompensationIndustry NewsIndustry NewsHR PoliciesPolicies and ProceduresGovernment contractsGovernment ContractsHR GeneralistFocus AreaAssociate RelationsDisabilities and ADADisabilities and ADAReasonable Accommodations
Remote work ends for federal employees — What this means for private employers
In response to a White House directive that instructs federal department heads to bring employees back to the office “as soon as practicable,” the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) have released a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) that addresses questions about remote work.
The FAQs assist federal agencies by helping them:
- Identify when they must grant or continue remote work;
- Know when they may rescind, modify, or deny remote work; and
- Know how to more effectively structure their processes for remote work accommodations.
Why guidance is needed
On January 20, the White House announced that the heads of all departments and agencies in the executive branch of the federal government must “take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis,” with few exceptions.
In response, on February 12, the EEOC and the OPM released guidance for agencies to help them stay consistent with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the “Act”).
The Act, which mirrors the standards under the Americans with Disabilities Act, provides equal employment opportunities for covered federal employees with disabilities, including reasonable accommodations, such as remote work.
What about private employers?
Although this directive specifically applies to federal employees, the FAQs illustrate the steps private employers should take with their employees when it comes to remote work accommodations. For example, as with federal employers, private employers must assess requests for remote work due to a disability on a case-by-case basis. In other words, a blanket “no remote work” policy won’t work.
Also, for both federal and private employers, retaliating against an employee who seeks an accommodation — even a remote work one — risks a violation. This means employers should train their frontline leaders to avoid making disparaging remarks or straight-up denying someone who asks to work from home because of a disability. This doesn’t mean employers must always agree to a remote work accommodation; there might be other options that are just as effective.
Key to remember: Federal employees must return to in-person work. Although this doesn’t impact private employers, recent FAQs published by the EEOC help provide guidance on the use of remote work as a workplace accommodation.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-02-16T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsEnforcement and Audits - OSHAEnforcement and Audits - OSHASafety & HealthGeneral Industry SafetyIn-Depth ArticleEnglishFocus AreaUSA
Watchdog warning: OSHA faces ‘significant challenges’ in protecting workers
A new report from an oversight agency concludes that OSHA struggles to meet its mission, particularly in high-risk industries like healthcare, meat packing, construction, and manufacturing. OSHA’s main mission is to assure the safe and healthful working conditions for about 144 million workers employed at over 11.6 million workplaces across the country.
In a “Top Management and Performance Challenges” report just issued by the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General (OIG), several pages point to OSHA’s difficulties in:
- Effectively enforcing annual injury and illness reporting requirements at 29 CFR 1904.41,
- Reaching the nation’s high-risk worksites for inspection, and
- Addressing workplace violence by regulatory or other action.
Employer injury/illness reporting
OSHA has limited ability to focus inspection and compliance efforts where they’re most needed because it has not effectively enforced its mandatory injury and illness reporting requirements for employers, the report contends. In fact, a September 2023 OIG audit found that on average, between 2016 and 2020, nearly 60 percent of establishments in all industries failed to report their annual injury and illness data to OSHA.
The report went on to say that:
- OSHA could not identify if an establishment met the reporting criteria. This meant the agency could not effectively cite employers for non-compliance or proactively remind specific establishments that they must report.
- Employer under- and non-reporting produces an incomplete view of workplace injury and illness. This, in turn, makes it difficult for OSHA to identify high-risk establishments to target.
Since the 2023 report, OSHA’s Tracking rule took effect January 1, 2024, with an added reporting category — establishments with 100 or more employees in industries designated as very high-risk. These establishments must submit data from the Forms 300, 301, and 300A annually. OSHA explains that it has updated its data collection capabilities. This includes new applications to analyze individual case reports of establishment-specific data.
The Inspector General report urges OSHA to complete its initiatives to improve employer reporting of injuries and illnesses. Meanwhile, each year, OSHA publicly posts employer injury and illness data reported under 1904.41.
Fewer inspectors, fewer inspections
Reaching millions of worksites is an ongoing challenge because the number of federal inspectors is going down, not up, DOL OIG charges, citing 846 in February 2024 and 736 in June 2025. Along with its state partners, in 2026 OSHA will have approximately 1,720 inspectors, or about one inspector for every 84,000 employees. Inspector numbers may continue to decline due to retirements, resignations, and other reductions.
The Inspector General puts it bluntly, “A lack of available inspectors can lead to fewer inspections, diminished enforcement in high-risk industries and ultimately, greater risk of fatalities, injuries, or compromised health for workers.”
It should be stated that fiscal year (FY) 2026 appropriations were approved and signed into law on February 3, 2026. The latest funding is: $243,000,000 for federal enforcement and $120,000,000 for OSHA State-Plan states.
- These numbers are unchanged from FY 2025 for federal OSHA enforcement, but slightly higher for state plans. While the funding is not lower than previous years, inflation limits how far OSHA can go with its dollars. Unchanged funding doesn’t necessarily translate to keeping the same number of inspectors.
Workplace violence
Although fatalities due to workplace violence plummeted about 13 percent from 2022 to 2023, workplace violence remains a top five leading cause of employee death, according to OIG. OSHA doesn’t have a standard addressing this issue but has relied instead on the General Duty Clause (GDC) for enforcement since 1993.
The agency must consider actions to address and prevent workplace violence, the Inspector General stresses. Such actions may include a rulemaking. OIG announced plans to perform an audit to determine the effectiveness of the GDC in OSHA’s enforcement efforts, including workplace violence.
Last summer, OSHA slid its Workplace Violence in Health Care and Social Assistance proposed rulemaking to the long-term regulatory agenda items without explanation. Any upcoming OIG results showing the GDC is ineffective for workplace violence may pressure OSHA to issue a regulation and/or fast forward its existing proposal.
The latest OIG report is not the first time the watchdog has recommended OSHA do something about workplace violence. It was noted in a November 2023 report, and an entire September 2001 report was devoted to the issue. Additionally, a 2016 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report outlined “additional efforts” OSHA should take to protect healthcare workers from workplace violence.
Two workplace violence bills currently in Congress would call on OSHA to take action on the issue. See 9 OSHA bills to mandate gap-closing rules, wider coverage, steeper fines.
Key to remember: A recent OIG report addresses what it calls OSHA’s most pressing challenges — annual injury/illness reporting, fewer inspectors, and workplace violence — and what the agency must do going forward to meet them.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-02-16T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsEnforcement and Audits - OSHAEnforcement and Audits - OSHASafety & HealthConstruction SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleEnglishOSHA Violations and PenaltiesUSA
Speed over safety could mean criminal charges
Criminal charges for safety violations may be more common than you think and can result from taking short cuts to save time and ultimately, money. When thinking about workplace safety violations, one might envision inspections, potential citations, and a list of corrective actions. The reality is more sobering, however. Willful negligence, fatalities, and falsified records can escalate into criminal charges against companies, employers, or other individuals for serious safety lapses.
These cases, especially surrounding incidents that resulted in fatalities, highlight the legal risks that go beyond regulatory penalties. Accountability drives true safety, and when it’s ignored, the consequences are often severe.
How do criminal charges happen?
OSHA has a formal process for referring criminal charges enabling the Agency to escalate serious violations to the Department of Justice (DOJ) or other law enforcement agencies when appropriate or warranted. Though limited, OSHA’s criminal enforcement powers can be swift, serious, and life changing.
Here's how the process flows:
- OSHA identifies willful or fraudulent violations which typically include violations resulting in a fatality, providing false statements or fraudulent records, obstructing investigations, or having unlawful advance notice of an inspection.
- An internal review is coordinated between OSHA’s legal team, the Department of Labor (DOL), and the DOL Inspector General.
- A referral is made to the DOJ for criminal prosecution.
- The DOJ evaluates whether the evidence meets the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence does meet the standard, the DOJ may pursue charges including willful violation causing death, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to commit fraud, etc.
- Individuals (e.g., company owners, managers, safety directors) are criminally prosecuted for anywhere from fines to up to 5 years in prison.
But it doesn’t happen that often, right?
Unfortunately, criminal convictions from workplace incidents happen more than many people realize. Here are just a few examples of cases that not only resulted in financial penalties but also lead to jail time for the individuals responsible.
- February 2025: A site supervisor at a New York residential construction project failed to take proper precautions during a 9-foot trench dig which resulted in a trench collapse and the death of a laborer. The supervisor pled guilty to one count of second-degree reckless endangerment which resulted in a sentence of 150 community service hours. The company was also cited by OSHA for willful and serious violations totaling $30,060.
- July 2022: A Connecticut contractor failed to provide legally required safeguards and ensure they were in place to prevent trench collapses. The failure contributed to the death of an employee who was buried when the 8-foot-deep trench caved in. The company owner and an equipment operator both entered guilty pleas to a second-degree manslaughter, and each received a two-year suspended sentence with two years of probation. The company was cited with over $375,000 in penalties.
- July 2021: A Colorado site manager was sentenced to 10 months in jail for negligent homicide and felony manslaughter after a trench collapsed at a construction site, resulting in a fatality. The site manager was found to have ignored safety warnings and failed to implement required trench protective systems while the employee was working on a water service line. The company was also cited over $90,000 in penalties.
- May 2017: A Wisconsin corn milling facility exploded, killing 5 workers and injuring several others. Ultimately, OSHA cited the company for more than 20 serious and willful violations and imposed $1.8 million in penalties. Just a few years later, six employees were indicted for conspiracy, making false statements, and fraud. The result was a sentence of 5 years’ probation, $10.25 million in victim restitution, and an additional $1 million fine. Several employees also pleaded guilty to criminal charges with two being convicted and one being acquitted.
- October 2016: Following the death of two workers in a flooded trench, a Massachusetts contractor owner was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment on each of two concurrent counts of manslaughter and three years of probation for witness intimidation (attempts to mislead OSHA during the investigation of the collapse). In addition to almost $1.5 million in OSHA citations, the court also fined the contractor $1,000 for each manslaughter count and $5,000 for witness intimidation, totaling $7,000.
- March 2016 : A Pennsylvania roofing company owner plead guilty to four counts of making false statements, one count of obstruction of justice, and one count of willfully violating an OSHA regulation causing death to an employee. The owner was sentenced to 10 months in prison after failing to provide fall protection equipment to employees and attempting to cover up the failure by falsely claiming the equipment, including safety harnesses, was provided for employees. In addition to the prison term, the owner was sentenced to one year of supervised release and was required to pay a $510 special assessment, on top of thousands of dollars in OSHA citations.
Key to remember: Workplace safety violations can lead to criminal charges more often than expected, especially when negligence results in serious harm or death. The growing number of cases underscores the importance of maintaining a strong safety culture and adhering to regulatory standards to protect lives and avoid prosecution.
Keep reading...Show less
Search all news
Got a Compliance Question?
We’ve Got You Covered!
Get clear, reliable answers from experts with 500+ years of combined experience.
J. J. Keller is the trusted source for DOT / Transportation, OSHA / Workplace Safety, Human Resources, Construction Safety and Hazmat / Hazardous Materials regulation compliance products and services. J. J. Keller helps you increase safety awareness, reduce risk, follow best practices, improve safety training, and stay current with changing regulations.
Copyright 2026 J. J. Keller & Associate, Inc. For re-use options please contact copyright@jjkeller.com or call 800-558-5011.