FMCSA Final Rule: Updates to Medical Advisory Critera

What is the current status of the federal 2021 Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP)?

EPA issued the current MSGP in 2021, and it remains in effect beyond its February 28, 2026 expiration until EPA finalizes the proposed 2026 MSGP. Because the proposed 2026 permit is still under review, the 2021 MSGP continues to govern covered facilities.

Why has the proposed 2026 MSGP not taken effect?

EPA released the proposed 2026 MSGP in December 2024. Public comments, including an extended comment period ending May 19, 2025, must be reviewed before finalizing the permit. Since the existing MSGP remains valid until replaced, the 2021 permit stays in force while EPA completes its process.

What is a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)?

A SWPPP outlines how a facility prevents pollutants from reaching stormwater. It identifies pollutant sources, control measures, inspection routines, monitoring steps, and staff training. A SWPPP must be written before submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) for permit coverage and updated when operations or stormwater risks change.

What are the requirements for authorized state stormwater permits?

Most states issue their own industrial stormwater permits modeled on the federal MSGP. These permits typically require:

• Preparation and maintenance of a SWPPP;
• Inspections and monitoring (such as benchmark, effluent, or visual monitoring);
• Corrective actions when control measures fail; and
• Reporting through state online systems.

States may add requirements based on local conditions. When EPA updates the MSGP, states often revise their permits to align with new federal standards.

Who needs coverage under the MSGP?

Industrial facilities that discharge stormwater to waters of the United States generally need permit coverage unless they qualify for a no‑exposure exclusion. The federal MSGP applies in areas where EPA, not the state, holds National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) authority.

How does a facility obtain coverage?

To obtain coverage, a facility must:

• Prepare and implement a SWPPP;
• Put pollution controls in place, such as good housekeeping and spill prevention;
• Identify sector specific requirements based on the permit; and
• Submit a Notice of Intent through EPA’s online system.

The proposed 2026 MSGP includes updated forms and appendices, but current requirements remain based on the 2021 version until a new permit is published.

What monitoring is required?

Under the 2021 MSGP, required monitoring may include:

• Quarterly visual assessments,
• Benchmark monitoring in designated years, and
• Effluent limitations monitoring for specific regulated discharges.

The proposed 2026 MSGP would expand per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) sampling, increase benchmark monitoring frequency, and add requirements for impaired waters. These changes remain pending.

What happens if benchmark thresholds are exceeded?

A benchmark exceedance requires the facility to investigate causes, improve control measures, and document actions in the SWPPP. The proposed 2026 MSGP would formalize additional implementation measures and reporting steps, but these wouldn’t apply until the new permit takes effect.

What about common real world compliance scenarios?

Industrial stormwater issues often arise from everyday activities. Consider these examples:

Employees’ vehicles leaking oil in parking lots

Leaks from employee vehicles can contaminate stormwater. While the MSGP does not regulate personal vehicles directly, the facility is responsible for any pollutants that enter stormwater from its property. Good housekeeping practices include absorbent stations, spill kits, drip pans, and designated parking areas with routine inspection.

Nonroutine outdoor maintenance

Temporary outdoor activities such as conducting maintenance, unloading equipment, or staging materials, can introduce pollutants. The SWPPP should address nonroutine tasks by requiring temporary controls like tarps, containment pads, or scheduling activities during dry weather. Documentation of these activities is also part of good recordkeeping.

Outdoor waste storage or scrap piles

These materials should be covered or sheltered, kept away from storm drains, and inspected frequently. If runoff contacts industrial materials, the discharge becomes regulated and must be managed under the permit.

These scenarios reinforce the need for strong housekeeping practices, staff training, and prompt corrective actions.

What documentation must facilities keep?

Facilities must maintain monitoring records, inspection logs, SWPPP updates, and corrective action reports. EPA may request these documents at any time. Appendices in the proposed 2026 MSGP preview updated forms, but the 2021 requirements remain in place for now.

What should facilities do while waiting for the 2026 MSGP?

Facilities should continue full compliance with the 2021 MSGP, track regulatory updates, and prepare for more frequent monitoring and PFAS sampling likely included in the 2026 permit. Reviewing proposed changes now helps facilities plan needed SWPPP updates in advance.

Key to remember: Industrial facilities covered under the 2021 MSGP or a state equivalent must continue following that permit until EPA issues a new federal MSGP. Staying informed, maintaining strong housekeeping, and keeping SWPPP documentation current remain the most effective strategies for compliance.

What does this mean?

Manufacturers (including importers) of motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines no longer have future obligations to measure, control, report, or comply with federal GHG emission standards for any highway vehicle or engine, including for previously manufactured MYs.

Specifically, the final rule removes the requirements for controlling GHG emissions, which include:

• Emission standards;
• Test procedures;
• Averaging, banking, and trading requirements;
• Reporting requirements; and
• Fleet-average emission requirements.

Additionally, the final rule eliminates off-cycle credits for manufacturers that added certain technologies to their vehicles and engines (like waste heat recovery) and EPA’s incentives for manufacturers to install a start-stop system (which automatically shuts off a vehicle’s engine when idling).

When do the changes apply?

The final rule takes effect on April 20, 2026. However, a legal challenge has already been brought against the rulemaking, and more litigation is likely.

It’s important to keep an eye on the status of the rule. Legal challenges could result in changes to the rule, such as delaying its effective date.

What regulations were removed?

The final rule repeals all GHG emission regulations in 40 CFR:

• Parts 85, 86, and 600 (light- and medium-duty vehicles);
• Part 1036 (heavy-duty vehicle engines); and
• Part 1037 (heavy-duty vehicles).

Why did EPA remove the standards?

The road to reversal begins in 2009. That’s when EPA issued two findings: the Endangerment Finding and the Cause or Contribute Finding. Collectively, these findings are referred to as the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The agency used the 2009 Endangerment Finding as the legal basis under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines based on global climate change concerns.

However, upon reconsideration, EPA no longer believes that it has the statutory authority under Section 202(a) of the CAA to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines in response to global climate change concerns. The agency bases its determination on three factors:

• EPA concludes that the best reading of Section 202(a) of the CAA authorizes the agency to regulate air pollution that threatens to endanger health and welfare through local and regional exposure. Therefore, the CAA doesn’t give EPA the authority to regulate GHG emissions based on global climate change concerns. The agency conducted the “best reading” by using standard interpretation principles and being informed by the Supreme Court’s overturning of “Chevron deference” in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024).
• EPA lacks the congressional authorization required to regulate GHG emissions based on global climate change concerns. The agency determined that the major questions doctrine (i.e., federal agencies may not decide issues of major national significance without clear authorization granted by Congress) applies to the Endangerment Finding and that Congress doesn’t give EPA the authority under Section 202(a) of the CAA to decide a national policy response to global climate change concerns.
• The GHG emission regulations don’t and can’t have a meaningful impact on the identified health and welfare dangers that the Endangerment Finding attributed to global climate change. EPA based this conclusion on the results of climate impact modeling that the public submitted in response to the proposed rule and on the agency’s modeling analysis used to evaluate the submissions.

By rescinding the Endangerment Finding, EPA has no legal basis to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines. Accordingly, the final rule also repeals all GHG emission standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines.

Key to remember: EPA’s final rule eliminates the 2009 Endangerment Finding and the related GHG emission requirements for on-highway vehicles and vehicle engines.

Who’s covered by TRI reporting?

Generally, TRI reporting applies if the facility:

• Is in a covered industry sector (40 CFR 372.23);
• Employs 10 or more full-time-equivalent employees; and
• Manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses a covered chemical or chemical category (372.65) in quantities above the threshold levels (372.25, .27, and .28) in a given year.

TRI tip: The TRI reporting year (RY) reflects the calendar year covered by the report, not the year in which you submit the report. For example, TRI reports for RY 2025 are due by July 1, 2026.

What’s covered by TRI reporting?

Facilities must submit the TRI Form R (or the streamlined Form A Certification Statement if eligible) for each TRI-listed chemical manufactured, processed, or used during the previous calendar year. The data covers chemical waste management activities (including releases to the environment) and any actions taken to reduce or prevent chemical waste.

Facilities usually report for each chemical:

• The quantities of releases (routine and accidental),
• Any releases caused by catastrophic or other one-time events,
• The maximum amount on-site during the year, and
• The amount contained in wastes managed on-site or transferred off-site.

What’s new for RY 2025?

The TRI reports for RY 2025 contain three differences from previous years:

• The de minimis level for anthracene was lowered from 1.0 percent to 0.1 percent. Anthracene’s Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CASRN) is 120-12-7.
• More activity sub-use codes were added to the sub-use codes for “processing” and “otherwise use” activities.
• Nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) were added to the TRI chemical list:

How are TRI reports submitted?

Facilities must submit TRI reports electronically to the TRI-MEweb application on EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). Even if a facility uses its own software to prepare TRI forms, it must upload and submit the forms to TRI-MEweb.

TRI tip: To complete the submission process on TRI-MEweb, you need to assign one user the Preparer role and another user the Certifying Official role. Ensure both users have added TRI-MEweb to their CDX user accounts.

TRI reports must be submitted to both EPA and the state. If your facility’s state participates in the TRI Data Exchange (TDX), TRI-MEweb will automatically send your report to the state. If your facility’s state doesn’t participate, you must send a hard copy of the report to the TRI state contact.

TRI tip: Use EPA’s “TRI Data Exchange” webpage to determine whether your facility’s state participates in TDX. As of March 2026, all 50 states participate in TDX. The District of Columbia doesn’t participate.

More TRI tips

Keep these things in mind when preparing your TRI reports:

• You must submit a Form R (or Form A if eligible) for each TRI-listed chemical your facility manufactured, processed, or otherwise used above the threshold quantity.
• TRI data is publicized. If a chemical’s identity needs to be protected, you have to submit substantiation forms to claim the chemical identity as a trade secret. EPA must approve the claims. Further, for each chemical with a trade secret claim, you have to mail hard copies of the substantiation forms and the corresponding Form R (or Form A if eligible) to EPA and the state.
• EPA’s online GuideME platform offers comprehensive guidance for TRI reporting, including reporting forms and instructions, the TRI chemical list, and Q&As.
• Contact the state environmental agency directly to confirm the submission method. EPA’s “TRI State Contacts” webpage contains state contact information.
• Register your facility on CDX or ensure your facility’s CDX account is updated as soon as possible to avoid delays caused by technical issues.

Start preparing for TRI reporting now to give your facility plenty of time to gather data, complete the forms, and respond to unexpected issues that could arise. That way, your facility can breathe easily throughout the whole reporting season.

Key to remember: The submission deadline for TRI reporting is July 1, 2026. Make sure your facility is ready to report.

The EPA definition: “RCRA empty” explained

Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), a container that once held hazardous waste is only legally “empty” if it meets particular criteria outlined in 40 CFR 261.7. The first standard that must be satisfied is that all material has been removed from the container using normal means such as pouring, pumping, or aspirating. Secondly, no more than 2.5 centimeters or 1 inch of residue remains on the container's bottom or inner lining. Additionally, if the container holds less than 110 gallons, it is “empty” if no more than 3% of the total weight or volume exists. Of course, sometimes special circumstances require further evaluation. For example, a gas cylinder is not “empty” until the pressure has reduced to atmospheric levels, and acute hazardous waste containers must be triple rinsed with an appropriate solvent or cleaned by another approved method. If these conditions are not met, the container is still legally considered to contain hazardous waste, even if it feels empty.

The OSHA definition: “Empty” under the Hazard Communication Standard

While the EPA focuses on environmental disposal and waste management, OSHA’s concern with empty containers centers on worker safety—particularly the potential for exposure to hazardous residues or vapors. Under OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200), a container that previously contained hazardous chemicals must retain its original hazard label until it is adequately cleaned or until the employer removes the label following proper decontamination procedures. For example, a drum labeled “Flammable” must keep this label even if it appears empty, as residual material or vapors may still pose a significant ignition or fire risk. Removing such labels prematurely could lead to workplace hazards and violations of OSHA regulations.

How to stay compliant

Employers must first clearly determine which rules apply to them: whether the container held hazardous materials governed by EPA regulations, hazardous chemicals subject to OSHA requirements, or both. Emptying procedures should be followed, including properly draining the container, performing triple-rinsing when required, and thoroughly documenting all decontamination activities.  Original hazard labels must be maintained on containers until they are thoroughly cleaned or reconditioned, as removing labels prematurely violates OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard. Additionally, employers should provide employees with training on the proper handling, labeling, and disposal of containers and ensure they fully understand what constitutes an ‘empty’ container under federal standards. Finally, a detailed record of all rinsing, draining, and cleaning processes should be maintained to demonstrate compliance during EPA or state inspections.

Keys to remember: Employers should educate their teams, enforce proper cleaning procedures, and maintain compliance records to ensure they are staying compliant with “empty” container standards.

Current requirements

Motor carriers must request and review their regulated drivers’ MVRs at least once every 12 months. The MVR is requested from every driver licensing authority where the driver held a license during the previous year. Depending on the state, carriers may satisfy this annual review requirement by enrolling drivers in an Employer Notification System (ENS), also referred to as MVR monitoring.

Between MVRs, carriers should learn of MVR changes, especially if they impact safety and compliance. But drivers don’t always comply with regulations, such as:

• 383.31 – CDL drivers must report convictions;
• 383.33 – CDL drivers must report suspended license; and
• 391.15 – CMV drivers report loss of license and violations while in a CMV.

Storytime

A carrier employs 50 CMV drivers and completes all annual MVR reviews each April. In May, the carrier hires Joe, a CDL Class A driver. As required by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR), the carrier runs a new-hire MVR; however, Joe’s MVR shows two recent convictions, including a:

• Speeding violation for 10 mph over the limit at the end of 2025, and
• Failure-to-stop violation from mid-2025.

Under the carrier’s internal scoring system, Joe falls just below the company’s disqualification threshold. One additional traffic conviction would result in the loss of driving privileges per company policy.

With a large project approaching and an immediate need for drivers, the carrier moves forward with hiring Joe. During orientation, Joe’s manager reminds him that company policy and the FMCSR (383.31) require CDL drivers to report all traffic convictions. Joe is also told that another conviction within the next year will disqualify him from driving for the company.

Two months later, Joe receives a citation for driving 15 mph over the speed limit in his personal vehicle. Knowing that reporting the citation will cost him his diving position, he avoids telling his manager. Later that month, he’s convicted of the citation, and the state automatically suspends his license for 60 days under its driver point system.

If the carrier relies only on an annual MVR review, several serious issues could occur in the 10 months before Joe’s driving record is reviewed by management. Joe could be:

• Involved in a crash while operating a CMV with a suspended license, opening the door for a plaintiff’s attorney to allege negligent supervision against the carrier and place Joe in legal jeopardy.
• Stopped during a roadside inspection and placed out of service for driving with a suspended CDL, resulting in a 30-point hit to the carrier’s Driver Fitness CSA BASIC score – a critical impact that will follow the company for 2 years.

If the carrier had implemented MVR monitoring — or even quarterly MVR reviews — this situation would likely have been identified and addressed much sooner. While Joe made a serious error by not reporting the conviction and license suspension, the carrier is responsible for ensuring that only safe and qualified drivers operate its vehicles.

Key to remember: An annual MVR review is required by the FMCSRs. Safety-focused carriers consistently go beyond the minimum. Implementing more frequent MVR reviews, including continuous MVR monitoring, is a best-practice approach carriers should consider.

Why a list of reminders for SAPs?

The USDOT has previously provided reminders to SAPs as issues came to light, so this recent action isn’t unique. This newest March 2026 notification is the result of the USDOT learning of recent issues related to SAPs’ roles and responsibilities, including:

• Employers having trouble in getting the follow-up testing plans from SAPs;
• SAPs referring employees solely to online programs as opposed to in-person programs, as appropriate;
• SAPs prescribing the minimum number of follow-up tests in response to pressure from consortium/third-party administrators (C/TPA) or risk being removed from the C/TPA's list of recommended SAPs;
• SAPs administering follow-up tests;
• SAPs not holding an appropriate credential to act as a DOT-qualified SAP;
• SAPs performing the RTD process in a very short timeframe to get the employee back to work quicker;
• SAPs going outside their credential's geographical limit to perform remote evaluations; and
• SAPs performing remote evaluations without real time two-way audio and visual communication with the employee.

Key points for SAPs

The USDOT provided several key points for SAPs to take action on in the Federal Register notice, including the following:

• SAPs must hold and maintain required qualification requirements, including ongoing professional development credits.
• SAP evaluations must:
  • Be done face-to-face (whether in-person or remote);
  • Delve into the employee's emotional and mental health and history of drug and alcohol use;
  • Provide a diagnosis, treatment recommendations, and a treatment plan that the employee must complete before becoming eligible for the required follow-up evaluation and subsequent return to safety-sensitive functions;
  • Result in a recommended course of education or treatment unique to each employee;
  • Never result in promises to “fast track” the process; and
  • Never provide employees with an estimated RTD timeline before conducting an initial SAP evaluation and assessment.
• SAP reports:
  • Must include all required elements;
  • Must be securely retained for at least 5 years from the date of the second report;
  • Must be provided to the employer or subsequent employer when requested; and
  • Can be provided to the employee upon request if the follow-up testing plan is redacted.

When are the RTD steps required?

The RTD process applies to employees who test positive, refuse a test, or violate other DOT agency testing rules. The covered employee is removed from safety-sensitive functions (SSFs) and must successfully complete the program prior to resuming SSFs.

SAPs play an important role as “gatekeepers” for DOT's RTD process, taking on the roles of evaluation, referral, and treatment of employees. The SAP’s decisions determine whether an employee returns to operating a commercial motor vehicle, plane, oil tanker, train, subway, or controls the valves of a natural gas pipeline. The SAP also decides on the number of follow-up drug and/or alcohol tests over what duration of time after returning to duty.

1. Rear-impact guard labels

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is removing the requirement that rear-impact guards be permanently labeled. Under current rules, trailers are required to have a label certifying that the rear underride guard met federal manufacturing standards at the time it was built.

Though the label is applied by the manufacturer, motor carriers and drivers were expected to ensure it remained in place, a sometimes-frustrating task stretching over the lifetime of the vehicle.

Why the change? The bumper label requirement has been controversial for years. Enforcement agencies and industry groups repeatedly pointed out that the labels frequently fade, wear off, or are removed during repairs, even though the guard itself remains structurally compliant.

Compounding the problem, most manufacturers will not issue replacement certification labels or “re-certify” guards once they leave the factory. As a result, carriers were often cited for a condition they had no practical way to correct.

Although FMCSA previously issued guidance instructing inspectors not to cite missing or illegible labels, confusion persisted at the roadside. Eliminating the requirement altogether resolves that enforcement disconnect without altering the underlying safety standards for rear-impact guards.

What should carriers do?

• Continue inspecting rear-impact guards for structural integrity, mounting, height, and width as required under 49 CFR 393.86 and the annual inspection standards in Appendix A to Part 396.
• Don’t remove existing labels, but understand that their presence (or absence) will no longer determine compliance.
• Update inspection checklists and training materials to remove label verification as a compliance item.

2. Tractor license-plate lamps

Truck tractors will no longer be required to have a functioning rear license-plate lamp while towing a trailer. The lamp will still be required when the tractor is operating without a trailer, however.

Why the change? When a tractor is coupled to a trailer, the rear license plate and its lamp are typically obscured and serve no practical enforcement or safety purpose. The FMCSA concluded that requiring carriers to maintain a lamp that isn’t visible or relevant during normal operations added unnecessary maintenance costs without a safety benefit.

What should carriers do?

• Review maintenance policies to ensure tractors still have operational license-plate lamps when operated bobtail.
• Ensure drivers and maintenance personnel understand when a functioning license-plate lamp is required.

3. Emergency equipment

Drivers will no longer be required to carry spare fuses starting April 20, and they will no longer have the option to use liquid-burning flares as warning devices after March 23. Reflective triangles and/or solid-fuel flares will still be required, as will fire extinguishers.

The rule change for fuses is significant because over 10,000 drivers were cited in 2025 for failing to have them.

Why the change? The spare‑fuse requirement has remained in the regulations for decades, even as vehicle electrical systems have improved. The FMCSA concluded that:

• Blown fuses rarely occur during normal operation and, when they do, the repair is typically handled by maintenance personnel rather than drivers. Nevertheless, spare fuses are widely available at truck stops.
• Other regulations already prohibit operation of a vehicle when required electrical equipment isn’t functioning properly, regardless of whether spare parts are carried.

Similarly, liquid-burning flares are widely considered obsolete and are rarely used in modern fleet operations. Their continued presence in the regulations caused confusion.

What should carriers do?

• Verify that emergency-equipment kits contain at least three compliant reflective triangles or six flares, as appropriate.
• Update driver inspection checklists to remove spare fuses as required items and liquid-burning flares as an option. Motor carriers are free to continue having their drivers carry spare fuses, however.
• Remind drivers that vehicles may not be operated if required electrical systems are inoperative, regardless of whether a spare fuse is available.

What if you’re cited?

Roadside enforcement practices don’t always change overnight. In addition, states that enforce the FMCSA regulations may adopt different effective dates for rule changes. Motor carriers and drivers should be vigilant about reviewing roadside inspection reports and challenging any citations that were issued improperly.

Bearing in mind that state requirements may vary, motor carriers should use the online DataQs system to challenge any erroneous bumper label or license-plate lamp violations cited after March 20, and any spare-fuse violations cited after April 20.

Key to remember: On March 23 and April 20, 2026, three important rule changes go into effect. Be sure your drivers, maintenance personnel, and others know the impact.

Driver OOS Criteria

• ELD tampering: With electronic logging device (ELD) tampering becoming a growing concern, the criteria for placing drivers OOS for log falsification have been clarified to address situations where a record is falsified so much that the officer cannot determine when the driver was driving and/or resting. Drivers will continue to be placed OOS “until such time as eligibility to drive is re-established” if a required log is false due to inaccurate entries and the officer is able to determine when driving and rest breaks occurred. A new criterion was added to place drivers OOS for 10 hours (or 8 hours for passenger carriers) for ELD tampering that makes the entire record suspect and the inspector is unable to verify when driving and resting occurred. Officers will cite 49 CFR 395.8(e)(2) for ELD tampering where the truth cannot be ascertained, and paragraph (e)(1) for false logs when the officer can determine rest periods and drive time.
• ELP violations: A new violation was added to place drivers OOS if the driver cannot satisfy the ELP requirements of 391.11(b)(2), per enforcement guidance issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) in May 2025.
• License-restriction violations: Officers will begin using new citation codes for license-restriction violations, to distinguish them from endorsement-related violations. Drivers without a commercial driver’s license (CDL) will be cited for “392.2NCDLR” (instead of 391.11(b)(5)) if violating a restriction, while CDL holders will be cited for “392.2LCDLR” (instead of 383.23).
• In-state-restricted drivers: The CVSA has clarified the standard for enforcing the “K” (in-state only) restriction, which is intended to keep the driver in their home state. Such drivers will only be placed OOS if they are actually operating in another state at the time of the inspection.
• Alcohol content threshold: The OOS Criteria will now specify the alcohol concentration at which drivers will be placed OOS when in possession of wine or beer, making it easier for officers to apply the existing standard. Drivers will be placed OOS if they possess wine or beer that contains 0.5% or more alcohol by volume or distilled spirits in any dilution.

Vehicle OOS Criteria

• Air connections: The criteria for air-brake hose/tubing were revised to change the term “gladhands” to the more inclusive “service air connections.” In addition, the criteria were changed to clarify the conditions for placing vehicles OOS when the air system is disconnected but still functional.
• Brake pad thickness: The standard for front-axle hydraulic brake pad thickness was updated to say “less than 1/16 inch” instead of “1/16 inch or less” to reflect a thinner measurement than found in 49 CFR 393.47(d)(1).
• Parking brakes: “Parking Brake” was changed to “Parking/Emergency Brake” in the section on parking brake systems due to confusion about whether an automatic transmission placed into Park was considered to have a parking brake control.
• Log securement: New criteria were added to address the use of the “ExTe Com90” hydraulic load securement system for logs.
• Wire rope: A new wire-rope damage chart was added to help inspectors determine when a wire rope is damaged to the point that it’s OOS.
• Upper couplers: A new OOS criterion was added for broken or loose countersunk screws in an upper coupler. Previously, the criteria only addressed bolts, not countersunk screws.
• Rims: A new OOS criterion was added for a broken wheel/rim that has “any missing piece exceeding 3 inches (76.2 mm) in length.”
• Wheel hub lubricant: The criterion for placing vehicles OOS when there is “no visible or measurable amount of lubricant showing in hub” was removed. The CVSA concluded that there is no good way for inspectors to know if there is oil in a hub that requires oil, or grease in hubs requiring grease, due to the many varieties of hubs and hub caps/covers in the marketplace.
• Emergency exit markings: A new criterion was added for emergency exits that are “not properly marked with operating instructions.” The instructions are needed whether the exit is a required exit or a marked exit.
• Placarding: The prior criteria placed vehicles OOS if “50% or more of the required placards for a hazard class are missing.” This was clarified to read “50% or more of the required placards for a category of material (hazard class or division) are missing.”

Key to remember: A variety of changes to the North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria take effect on April 1, 2026. Reviewing the changes can help avoid being placed out of service.

Periodic inspections

Cargo tanks aren’t something you hook up and forget about. They’re subject to periodic inspections and tests, and those dates matter every time the tank is used. Even if you aren’t the one performing the tests, you should know whether the tank is current and legal to haul.

Before heading out, take a moment to confirm the inspection status through the markings or the documentation your company uses. An out-of-date cargo tank isn’t just a paperwork issue; legally, it can’t be filled. If something doesn’t look right or you’re not sure what you’re looking at, it’s better to ask before you move.

Slosh and surge

Liquid loads move, and that movement changes how your truck handles in ways solid freight never will. Surge can push you forward when braking, and slosh can make curves and ramps feel unpredictable if you take them too fast. Even experienced drivers have to respect how quickly that load can start "talking back."

Smooth driving isn’t just "nice to have" with a cargo tank, it’s the whole game. Brake early, accelerate gradually, and slow down well before turns so the liquid has time to settle. Leave more following distance than you think you need, because it buys you reaction time without having to stab the brakes.

Know your product

You don’t need to be a chemist, but you do need to know the basics of what you’re hauling. Flammable, corrosive, toxic, and oxidizer loads don’t all get treated the same, especially when you’re thinking about stops, parking, and what you’d do if something went wrong. Knowing the general hazards helps you make better decisions without overthinking it.

It also helps to understand your tank’s design and key controls. Baffled and unbaffled tanks can feel very different, and emergency shutoffs and valve locations matter when seconds count. If you don’t know where something is or how it operates, that’s worth fixing before you’re in a stressful situation.

Be ready for inspections

Cargo tanks tend to get more attention during roadside inspections, and that’s not a surprise. Inspectors often look closely at placards, markings, closures, and any signs of leakage or product residue. Being prepared makes the stop quicker and a lot less stressful.

Keep your paperwork organized so you can produce it without digging through a mess. Know what you’re hauling, and be able to speak to the basics without sounding unsure. A calm, professional approach usually sets the tone and keeps the whole interaction smooth.

Habits and patience

Most cargo tank problems don’t come from one big mistake. They come from small things that were rushed, skipped, or assumed to be fine. Good cargo tank drivers build habits that don’t change, even on busy days.

Check the tank, drive smoothly, and think a few steps ahead, especially in traffic and bad weather. If something feels off, stop and look instead of hoping it’ll work itself out. Patience and consistency are what keep cargo tank trips boring, and boring is exactly what you want.

Key to remember: From understanding inspection requirements to handling slosh and surge, cargo tank driving requires a different mindset. Patience and attention to detail are what keep trips safe.

Dust off your registrations

Verify that you are up to date with your registrations. Do you know when they are set to renew? Will you need to make any big changes this year? Some programs to verify include: UCR, IRP, and PHMSA Hazmat Registration.

Sweep up risks with mock audits

Conducting mock audits gives you the opportunity to identify and mitigate risks before they escalate. For example, audits can uncover gaps in recordkeeping, driver behavior, or vehicle maintenance that might otherwise go unnoticed. From there, you can modify your training, processes, and more in order to improve the areas which may be lacking, such as your compliance, safety culture, recordkeeping, and more.

Freshen up driver training materials

Take the time to review your training materials and question:

• Are they effective?
• Can they be improved?
• Is there anything my drivers are struggling with despite being trained?

If “yes” is the answer to any of these questions, you may want to consider implementing some changes to your training.

Declutter operations: consider consolidating DOT numbers

Consolidating DOT numbers involves merging several active Department of Transportation (DOT) registrations under one single number. This action helps to streamline operations. Rather than juggling multiple registrations, carriers can manage their entire fleet under one identifier. A single registration can help avoid regulatory red flags, streamline compliance and safety tracking, and reduce administrative overhead.

Key to remember: Checking in on your compliance gives you the opportunity to eliminate clutter, stay ahead of requirements, and streamline operations.

Reassess the need for accommodation

After employers grant an accommodation, they may assess whether there continues to be a need for the accommodation based on individualized circumstances, including whether alternative accommodations might meet the employee’s needs.

Employers have the discretion to choose between effective accommodations. This means employees aren’t necessarily entitled to their preferred accommodation forever. Employers may, therefore, reevaluate a previously granted remote work accommodation and replace it with an effective, reasonable one. When there are several reasonable and effective options, employers may choose an accommodation other than remote work.

Don’t hide under a blanket

Employers shouldn’t take a blanket approach to rescind and deny all remote work accommodations. In some cases, employees will continue to need remote work as an accommodation. Employers need to look at each situation individually, based on its own merits.

When to reassess the type of accommodation

Employers should occasionally reevaluate accommodations in response to changes, such as changes to:

• An employee’s condition,
• Job requirements,
• Operational needs, and
• A related law.

Employers might also, for example, find it helpful to reevaluate a remote work accommodation once a year to confirm the accommodation remains effective and manageable.

After reassessment

If supported by an individualized assessment, employers may allow the employee to continue to work remotely if doing so is necessary to ensure continued compliance with the ADA.

If, however, reevaluation and individualized assessment demonstrate that an employee no longer needs remote work as an accommodation, employers may replace it with a reasonable and effective in-office option (or combination of options). This can include, but isn’t limited to, assistive devices, modified equipment, environmental modifications (sound, smell, light, etc.), job restructuring, modified or flexible work scheduling, etc. It can also include reducing remote work, combined with in-office accommodations, provided the result is still reasonable and effective.

Key to remember: Employers may review whether employees continue to need remote work accommodations. Employers may rescind remote work accommodations if they no longer suit employee or company needs, but they might have to provide an alternative solution.

FMLA certification basics

Employers aren’t required to use certifications, but if they do, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has five different certification forms to use for various FMLA leave situations.

The forms are as follows:

1. Certification of Health Care Provider for Employee's Serious Health Condition,
2. Certification of Health Care Provider for Family Member's Serious Health Condition,
3. Certification of Qualifying Exigency for Military Family Leave,
4. Certification for Serious Injury or Illness of a Current Servicemember for Military Family Leave, and
5. Certification for Serious Injury or Illness of a Veteran for Military Family Leave.

Let’s focus on the first two, as these are the most common ones HR administrators use.

Who can fill out an FMLA certification?

The FMLA regulations describe the person who has the authority to fill out a certification as a “health care provider.” The good news is, the regulations include a lengthy list of medical professionals who fit this role.

Under the FMLA, a health care provider includes:

• A doctor of medicine or osteopathy,
• A podiatrist,
• A dentist,
• A clinical psychologist,
• An optometrist,
• A chiropractor (limited to manual manipulation of the spine as demonstrated by X-ray),
• A nurse practitioner,
• A nurse midwife,
• A clinical social worker,
• A physician assistant,
• A Christian Science practitioner, and
• Any health care provider from whom the employer or the employer's group health plan's benefits manager will accept a medical certification to substantiate a claim for benefits.

To be qualified to fill out FMLA forms, medical professionals must be authorized to practice in the state and perform within the scope of their practice. This means that the provider must be authorized to diagnose and treat physical or mental health conditions.

What about doctors in a foreign country?

If an employee or an employee's family member is visiting another country, or a family member resides in another country, and a serious health condition develops, the employer must accept a medical certification from a health care provider who practices in that country. This includes second and third opinions.

If a medical certification from a foreign health care provider is not in English, the employee may be required to provide a written translation of the certification.

Key to remember: The FMLA regulations spell out which medical professionals can fill out certification forms.

The story

As an agency manager, Jerry supervised a team of insurance agents. The employer classified all agency managers, including Jerry, as independent contractors. Jerry:

• Set his own schedule,
• Decided how many hours he worked every day, and
• Had no obligation to track his time, and
• Didn’t have to disclose to the company the hours he worked.

The employer didn’t supervise Jerry’s hours worked or his completion of daily tasks. The employer paid Jerry a commission for policies sold and renewed.

In November 2019, Jerry sued the employer, challenging his classification as an independent contractor. Claiming to be an employee of the company, he sought unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The court’s ruling

Bad news for the employer: The court ruled that it should have classified Jerry as an employee (not an independent contractor) and that he had worked at least 816 hours of overtime. The bigger issue, however, was whether or not the employer knew about Jerry’s extra hours worked.

Jerry argued that the employer owed him overtime pay because it “suffered” or “permitted” him to work as much as he wanted. Because the employer allowed him to work unlimited hours, Jerry argued that the employer’s knowledge of his overtime work was irrelevant.

The court disagreed. Allowing Jerry to work as much as he wanted can’t mean the employer automatically owed him for any time he happened to work overtime, regardless of the employer's knowledge of those overtime hours. Rather, employees claiming to be entitled to overtime pay must be able to prove that employers knew employees were working overtime.

Employers don’t need to be clairvoyant

Employees must notify employers when they’re working extra hours. If employers neither knew nor had reason to believe that overtime work was being performed, that time doesn’t constitute “hours worked” under the FLSA.

The employer in this case didn’t know, or should have known, about Jerry’s overtime.

Jerry then argued that the employer should have known because it made “no effort” to record his time despite an alleged legal requirement to do so. This lack of a timekeeping system, he claimed, showed the employer’s failure to exercise “reasonable diligence” to find out about his overtime. Jerry went on to say that he had no “common-law” duty to notify the employer of his overtime; his only duty was to comply with the company’s timekeeping system, which didn’t exist.

The court again disagreed with Jerry on these two points:

1. It was his burden to show the employer knew he was working overtime.
2. An employer’s failure to maintain a timekeeping system in itself doesn’t mean the employer should have known about an employee’s overtime work.

The employer didn’t require agency managers to track their time, nor did it pay them hourly. Consequently, it had no reason to think of Jerry’s work in terms of “regular time” versus “overtime” hours.

Meritt v. Texas Farm Bureau et al., Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-50127, February 6, 2026.

Key to remember: The FLSA doesn’t require employers to pay overtime if employees don’t tell them about it.

Inpatient care explained

Inpatient care is an overnight stay in a health care facility. If the employee or family member had an overnight stay, it’s an FMLA serious health condition regardless of how many days of work the employee missed.

If the employee or family member did not have an overnight stay, employers move on to the continuing treatment part of the definition.

Continuing treatment defined

A serious health condition involving continuing treatment includes the following:

• A period of incapacity of more than three, consecutive, full calendar days, and any subsequent treatment that also involves:
  • Treatment two or more times within 30 days of the first day of incapacity by a health care provider, or
  • Treatment at least once, resulting in a regimen of continuing treatment.
• Any period of incapacity due to pregnancy or for prenatal care.
• Any period of incapacity (or treatment for) a chronic serious health condition requiring treatments at least twice per year and continuing over an extended period of time. These may cause episodic rather than continuing periods of incapacity.
• A period of incapacity for a permanent or long-term condition in which treatment may not be effective.
• Any period of absence to receive multiple treatments (i.e., chemotherapy, radiation, physical therapy, dialysis), for restorative surgery, or for a condition that would likely result in a period of incapacity of more than three consecutive, full, calendar days if treatment isn’t received.

Not all parts of the definition above will apply to a particular situation. The only part of the continuing treatment segment that involves three days, for example, falls under the first bullet. For all the other parts, any period of incapacity would be FMLA leave. An employee doesn’t need to miss three days of work.

Focus on incapacity not absence when applying FMLA leave

The period of more than three days applies to how long the individual is incapacitated, not how many days of work the employee missed. If, for example, an employee who normally works Monday through Friday suffers a serious health condition on Friday evening and is incapacitated until Wednesday, the period of incapacity is more than three days. The employee missed only two days of work, but those two days would be FMLA leave.

Failure to designate an absence as FMLA leave when it is called for risks a claim that the employer interfered with the employee’s FMLA rights.

Key to remember: Employees don’t have to miss three days of work to trigger an employer’s FMLA obligations.

The cost of non-compliance

Lack of time is often cited as rationale for bypassing safety protocols. However, while time pressures are a reality in every workplace, a proactive approach to safety helps prevent incidents and minimize potentially devastating long-term results.

The cost of workplace non-compliance with safety regulations can be staggering, including the human impact, operational disruption, financial penalties, and in some cases, damage to the company’s reputation. Non-compliance can lead to workplace accidents, injuries, or fatalities, which affect employee morale and productivity. Companies sometimes wait, however, to learn that failing to meet safety standards risks incurring hefty regulatory fines, lawsuits or potential criminal charges, and even increased insurance premiums.

There is no price tag attached to losing a loved one! However, there are monetary costs that are easy to see regardless of the industry. Here are just a few examples of the financial fallout of non-compliance in 2025:

• Construction - Workplace drowning
  • The safety cost: The estimated cost of one fall harness ($400-1000) and employee training.
  • The final cost: A Florida painting contractor was cited for 5 willful and 3 serious violations totaling over $877,000 for failing to ensure employees used fall protection and life jackets while working on a bridge resulting in a drowning death of one of their workers. An additional $26,480 was proposed for the controlling contractor of the site as well.

• Railroad - Suffocation
  • The safety cost: The estimated cost of proper atmospheric testing, ventilation, rescue planning, and employee training.
  • The final cost: OSHA proposed a fine of $602,938 to an environmental services contractor for failing to protect workers from lethal environments, one of which lost their life while working inside a railroad tanker car. The confined space had oxygen readings as low as 5% oxygen; however, permit-required confined space safety measures were not implemented. These included not only proper atmospheric testing, but also ventilation and a non-entry rescue plan.

• Entertainment - Crushing
  • The safety cost: The estimated cost of performing a structural risk assessment and engineering analysis followed by employee training, which can vary greatly.
  • The final cost: Two event production companies were cited by OSHA after a worker death for serious violations related to failing to maintain structural stability during the setup of staging for a concert. One company paid $19,860 in fines while the other is contesting additional fines.

These consequences, only 3 of many for 2025, underscore the importance of investing in proactive safety measures and fostering a culture of compliance to protect both people and the business.

A free tool for cost impact

Not sure how these stories apply to you in a fiscal way? OSHA has a tool to help! Their Safety Pays Program offers a way for employers to assess the impact workplace injuries and illness would have on their bottom line. Though not a detailed analysis tool, the estimator casts some light on the cost of injuries, illness based on your profit margin and an indirect cost multiplier showing how much your sales department would need to generate to cover those costs.

Once you’ve seen the costs of non-compliance for yourself, you can start working toward improving safety compliance. This can be done through fostering a proactive safety culture that benefits from:

• Leadership commitment through visibly supporting safety initiatives and allocating necessary resources to ensure compliance.
• Employee engagement where workers feel free to report hazards or safety concerns, participate in safety committees, and contribute ideas for improvement.
• Clear policies and procedures that are regularly reviewed and updated to ensure alignment with regulatory standards and easily accessible to all employees.
• Regular audits and inspections to identify hazards, verify compliance, and address gaps before they lead to incidents.
• Training and education so employees understand their roles, exposures, and risks while ensuring employees understand both the “how” and “why” of safe practices.
• Leveraging technology for assessing risks, tracking incidents, managing corrective actions, and analyzing safety data to guide decision-making.

Key to remember: Investing as much time, money, and resources into workplace safety not only protects employees, but it also reduces operational risks and helps organizations avoid costly regulatory citations.

Look for systemic patterns

A pattern of incidents at one battery construction site is a great example of how individual decisions and company safety systems intertwine to determine the outcome of daily events. OSHA’s report on the March 2025 death of a company CEO showed that while individual decisions played a role, the fatality occurred within a broader pattern of systemic safety failures at the construction site.

According to Agency findings, the employee chose to cross a roadway while wearing a black vest instead of the required high visibility vest, which drastically reduced the employee’s visibility. At the same time, a site forklift driver was reportedly talking on the phone while operating the vehicle which also contributed to the result of the incident.

OSHA’s conclusions made clear that organizational systems and controls, not just the individuals’ choices, were the primary shortcomings. Multiple companies on site failed to enforce safety rules, maintain traffic controls, or ensure proper operator behavior. For example, the forklift driver’s employer received the largest fine for exposing workers to struck-by hazards and failing to ensure operators followed basic safety practices such as speed limits, phone use, use of spotters, and horn use when visibility was obstructed.

The report reflected an even larger pattern, finding that the employee’s death was one of many safety incidents at the construction mega site, which had recorded dozens of previous traumatic injuries, multiple fatalities, and at least 15 OSHA investigations. Previous incidents included falls, other forklift injuries, a conveyor entrapment, a pipe explosion, and a fatal crushing incident earlier in 2025. This track record should have been an early warning that system-level safety gaps and inconsistent safety management were key contributors, far outweighing any single person’s decisions.

Stomp out systemic failures

While individual decisions like walking into a traffic zone or operating equipment while distracted may influence an incident, they rarely tell the whole story. Root causes usually reflect deeper underlying weaknesses in the organization’s safety systems, such as:

• Fragmented safety oversight that leads to inconsistent enforcement of safety rules, policies, PPE requirements, and behavioral expectations;
• Inadequate traffic and equipment controls that invite a mingling of vehicles with pedestrians or dangerous forklift operational habits;
• Breakdowns in communication between workers including unreported injuries, language barriers, or inadequate signage that results in workers missing warnings or misunderstanding proper procedures; and
• Normalized incidents or near misses, which eventually become serious incidents and fatalities and result in a reactive rather than proactive safety culture.

These conditions can quickly create an environment where ordinary human mistakes are far more likely to lead to severe or fatal outcomes. Employers need to look beyond the individual employee decisions and investigate which systemic failures allowed the decision to become deadly. This is where OSHA regulations help.

Leverage OSHA regulations

You’ve likely heard the saying, “OSHA regulations have been written in blood” meaning someone (or many someones) have been seriously injured in the workplace which resulted in regulations aimed at protecting others from a repeat of similar situations.

Since OSHA was established nearly 55 years ago, its standards and enforcement efforts have helped save more than 712,000 workers’ lives. Even so, employers must continue to identify and strengthen gaps in their safety programs and systems to shield workers from the consequences of inevitable human decisions.

Employers shouldn’t just use OSHA regulations as a means for compliance but to actively protect workers by controlling hazards and setting clear expectations for safe work. Standards such as 1910.147 (Lockout/Tagout), 1910.1200 (Hazard Communication), 1926.501 (Fall Protection), and 1910.178 (Powered Industrial Trucks) give employers concrete requirements for preventing injuries and keeping employees safe on the job. Filling systemic safety gaps by using these standards can prevent thousands of serious injuries and fatalities every year. As demonstrated with this forklift struck-by fatality, most workplace deaths stem from hazards that OSHA rules are designed to control.

Key to remember: Serious incidents and fatalities are rarely caused by individual decisions but by broader system failures like insufficient safety oversight, inconsistent rule enforcement, and poor worksite communication. Employers can prevent these incidents by leveraging regulatory compliance to identify and correct weaknesses in their safety systems.

Compliance is the starting line, not the finish

OSHA outlines the minimum expectations for workplace evacuation readiness under 29 CFR Subpart E (Exit Routes and Emergency Planning). These requirements include written emergency action plans, clear exit routes, functional alarms and emergency lighting, and a method for accounting for employees after evacuation. Meeting these requirements is necessary, but it is only the baseline.

True preparedness goes beyond documentation. It requires validating that people, processes, and systems work together under realistic conditions.

Predictability can hide risk

Many times, drills are announced well in advance. Employees are reminded to review evacuation routes, supervisors prepare for headcounts, and operations adjust accordingly. While this approach reduces disruption, it also reduces realism. When people know a drill is coming, their reactions are calm, deliberate, and rehearsed.

In an actual emergency, there is no warning. The alarm is unexpected, information is incomplete, and reactions are instinctive. People hesitate, look at others for cues, question whether the alarm is real, or try to finish what they’re doing before leaving. Stress and uncertainty change how decisions are made, often slowing response time in ways that a scheduled drill never reveals.

Combat this challenge by providing a time window for drills rather than a fixed date. This allows organizations to observe more authentic responses while still managing operational needs.

People don’t stay in one place

Traditional drills often assume employees are at their assigned workstations. In reality, people move throughout the day; they may be in restrooms, break areas, offices, and other departments. A strong evacuation program tests whether employees know how to respond from wherever they are, not just from where training materials or maps say they should be.

Do employees recognize the nearest exit in unfamiliar areas? Do they know alternate routes? These questions only get answered when drills reflect true movement patterns.

Behavior matters as much as results

One of the most valuable aspects of a drill is observing behavior. Do employees evacuate immediately, or do they hesitate? Do they treat the alarm seriously or assume it’s “just a drill?” Small delays such as grabbing personal items, finishing a task, stopping at the restroom, or chatting with a friend, can have serious consequences in a real emergency.

Drills should reinforce instinctive action. The goal is to build muscle memory so that when an alarm sounds, the response is immediate and automatic.

Accountability isn’t always simple

Accounting for employees after an evacuation is critical, but drills should test more than ideal scenarios. What happens if someone can’t reach their designated assembly area? What if supervisors are absent or teams are split?

Effective drills challenge accountability processes and ensure they are flexible enough to handle real world fluctuations.

Test the entire system

Evacuation drills are also one of the best opportunities to test emergency systems under live conditions. Alarms, emergency lighting, exit signage, and exit doors may appear functional during inspections but fail during use.

Having designated observers during drills allows organizations to verify:

• Alarms are audible over workplace noise,
• Emergency lighting activates properly,
• Exit routes are clear and free of bottlenecks, and
• Exit doors function as intended.

Many organizations discover equipment failures during drills, issues that might otherwise go unnoticed until an actual emergency occurs.

The real value comes after the drill

The most important part of an evacuation drill happens afterward. Organizations that gain the most value collect observations from multiple perspectives, document findings, and identify specific improvement actions.

Common findings include evacuation delays, exit congestion, alarm audibility issues, and gaps in training or supervision. These insights should drive follow up and meaningful changes to continuously improve the organization’s overall emergency evacuation response.

Key to remember: When leaders shift their mindset from “running a drill” to testing actual readiness, evacuation exercises become powerful tools for protecting people, strengthening systems, and building a culture of safety that performs when it matters most.

Choose interviewers

Conduct interviews privately with no more than two interviewers present. By keeping the interviews small and away from others, you have a much better chance of having a factual and productive conversation. The person conducting the interview should be neutral and trusted by employees.

It may be tempting to let management sit in, but a supervisor’s presence may cause an employee to clam up. Keeping this conversation informal can help employees relax and talk more freely. Simply ask what happened and let the witnesses tell the story in their own words. Remind them that the goal of this conversation is to identify hazards, not to get anyone in trouble.

Asking questions

Ask open-ended questions like “describe what happened leading up to the incident” and “what happened next?” Avoid leading questions that might cause someone to make things up in an attempt to answer. Along the same lines, avoid questions that suggest an accusation, such as “do you think he wasn't paying attention?”

Witnesses might give their opinions, and you can make notes, but distinguish between the facts and their opinions. Repeat their conclusions back to them to confirm your understanding.

Keep in mind that memories or viewpoints might differ. Statements from multiple witnesses might be contradictory such that both statements cannot possibly be factual. This doesn't mean either worker is lying. It could just be how they remember the events, or they saw things from a different angle. Of course, some witnesses might describe an incident with the goal of avoiding blame.

As necessary, go back to previously interviewed witnesses for additional information or clarification.

Example situation

Suppose a near-miss incident involved a forklift operator who stopped suddenly, causing the load he was carrying to slide off the tines, nearly striking a pedestrian. You might hear statements like, “I didn't see the forklift” or “the pedestrian came out of nowhere.” Now, that may be how witnesses remember things. But there's probably something else going on.

Follow-up questions might be along the lines of, “what were you focused on at the time of the accident?” Maybe the pedestrian was reading a document or computer pad and didn't see or hear the forklift approaching. Or perhaps the forklift operator was going too fast or failed to stop and sound the horn at an intersection. There could be several contributing factors, and you'll want to identify all of them.

Witness interviews provide valuable information in determining what happened before, during, and after an incident. As an interviewer, your goal is to gather key information while keeping the witnesses comfortable. Remind them the goal of investigating is to help prevent future incidents and injuries, not to blame employees.

Key to remember: Conducting effective interviews requires skill and consideration that goes beyond simply asking, “Tell me what happened.”

How to find legitimate OSHA Outreach trainers and classes

There’s been an increase in fraudulent activity related to these courses over the past several years. The following points can help workers and employers avoid fraudulent trainers and courses.

1. Only OSHA-authorized trainers may teach 10- and 30-hour safety courses and issue OSHA student course completion cards. OSHA-authorized Outreach trainers – that is, trainers that deliver OSHA 10- and 30-hour training - are not OSHA personnel. Trainers are authorized (not certified) through the Outreach program to deliver OSHA 10- and 30-hour classes. All authorized trainers must possess a trainer card which includes an expiration date along with the name of the authorizing OSHA Training Institute (OTI) Education Center.
   Trainers are independent service providers, and their schedules and fees may vary. OSHA recommends contacting multiple trainers to find one that best meets the student’s needs. Students may verify the status of an authorized Outreach trainer.
2. Qualified individuals can become authorized OSHA Outreach trainers through OTI Education Centers. Individuals must meet industry safety experience requirements and complete a training course in the applicable OSHA standards and a trainer course to become authorized. Trainers must attend an update course, available through OTI Education Centers, every four years.
3. On its website, OSHA provides a list of authorized trainers to find instructors for the 10- and 30-hour safety courses. The list provides trainer names and contact information and denotes which course each trainer is authorized to teach (i.e., construction, general industry, maritime, disaster site worker). Courses are also available in Spanish and online from the appropriate authorized trainer.
   A trainer “watch list” contains a list of individuals whose status as authorized OSHA Outreach trainers has been suspended or revoked as a result of failing to comply with the Outreach training program requirements.
4. OSHA’s website also contains a program overview, FAQs, and resources for finding an OTI center, replacing a card, avoiding card fraud, and searching for classes.
5. Taking a 10- or 30-hour course does not guarantee employment. While OSHA believes this training is an important first step towards workplace safety, beware of advertisements “guaranteeing” jobs after taking the course.

Key to Remember: If a trainer’s offer sounds too good to be true, it probably is. To find a legitimate OSHA Outreach trainer and classes, start at osha.gov and look for Outreach Training Program under Help and Resources.

Background

In August 2015, OSHA announced a new “high-penalty map.” The agency remarked, “For the first time, this map shows high-penalty cases in states that operate under federal OSHA as well as in states that operate under OSHA-approved state plans.” An alternative “table view” was also available. It could be sorted by initial penalty amount, date, case number, employer name, state, and city.

Fast forward to today, an OSHA spokesperson tells J. J. Keller® Compliance Network, “The ‘Enforcement Cases with Initial Penalties of $40,000 or Above’ page was discontinued and removed (in December 2025) as it was no longer going to be updated … Data found on https://www.osha.gov/data is what is available.”

The spokesperson adds, “We do not have webpages on enforcement cases with specific dollars amounts, except the ‘Top Enforcement Cases in History Based on Total Issued Penalty’ webpage.” That historical page highlights only 25 cases since 1988. Each one amounts to $2.89 million to $81.3 million in initial penalties.

Data are not lost

While the data have disappeared from OSHA’s Data page, they’re archived here, here, here, and here. Frozen in time, the data reveals 15,797 cases spanning from January 1, 2015, to June 20, 2025.

The introduction to the $40,000 or Above page said the data “includes citations issued starting January 1, 2015.” The table view tallies 16,119 cases. However, 322 of them had an issuance date prior to 2015, and we do not analyze them here.

Some employers are listed more than once if they had more than one penalty case at or over $40,000.

Top high-penalty cases

Single inspections with the highest initial penalty figures include:

1. $4.13 million for an auto parts manufacturer in Nevada.
2. $2.89 million for an auto parts manufacturer in Ohio.
3. $2.81 million for a frozen food manufacturer in Illinois.
4. $2.51 million for an auto parts manufacturer in Alabama.
5. $2.47 million for a sawmill in Alabama.
6. $2.03 million for a fruit farm in Washington state.
7. $1.92 million for a meat processor in Ohio.
8. $1.92 million for a metal-product manufacturer in New Jersey.
9. $1.86 million for a utility construction company in North Dakota.
10. $1.84 million for a milk manufacturer in Washington state.
11. $1.84 million for a long-distance trucking company in Washington state.

Most inspections did not reach millions of dollars

The majority (about 79 percent) of inspections on the list have under $100,000 in initial penalties:

• 0.2 percent ranged from $1 million to over $4.13 million.
• 0.5 percent ranged from $500,000 to under $1 million.
• 5 percent ranged from $200,000 to under $500,000.
• Almost 16 percent ranged from $100,000 to under $200,000.
• Almost 14 percent ranged from $75,000 to under $100,000.
• Almost 65 percent ranged from $40,000 to under $75,000.

“Initial penalty” amounts are not necessarily the current penalty amounts. Some cases might have even ended up with a final total penalty under $40,000.

Number of high-penalty cases per month

Taking the number of high-penalty cases in a year and dividing by the number of months gives us a case rate per month. The case rate increased over the 10.5-year period. This may be associated with the maximum civil penalties at 29 CFR 1903.15 that were increased annually per 28 U.S.C. 2461 statutory notes. Yet, you’ll see the rate of high-penalty cases decreases during the pandemic and last year:

• 2015 — 82.9 cases per month.
• 2016 —101.5 cases per month.
• 2017 —122.25 cases per month.
• 2018 —126.9 cases per month.
• 2019 —131.4 cases per month.
• 2020 —97.3 cases per month.
• 2021 —108.8 cases per month.
• 2022 —128.4 cases per month.
• 2023 —170.2 cases per month.
• 2024 —180.5 cases per month.
• 2025 —140.1 cases per month.

States with the most high-penalty cases

Thirteen states had the greatest number of cases at or over $40,000 in initial penalties. They made up over 70 percent of all high-penalty cases on the list:

1. California with about 1,850 cases.
2. Ohio with about 1,530 cases.
3. Texas with about 1,280 cases.
4. New Jersey with about 1,190 cases.
5. Illinois with about 1,000 cases.
6. Florida with about 630 cases.
7. New York with about 620 cases.
8. Georgia with about 560 cases.
9. Wisconsin with about 560 cases.
10. Pennsylvania with about 550 cases.
11. Massachusetts with about 500 cases.
12. Washington state with about 500 cases.
13. Missouri with about 380 cases.

The remaining states and territories had under 300 high-penalty cases each.

Key to remember

Data for the over $40,000-plus penalty cases slid off the OSHA Data page. The agency says it discontinued and removed it in December. The data is frozen and archived elsewhere.