Hit a home run with your labor law posters

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’s happened?

A quick look at the rule’s development shows:

• 7/28/2025 — OSHA received a petition for rulemaking that covers obligations for ladder retrofits under 1910.28(b)(9).
• 9/15/2025 — OSHA posted a memo confirming it intends to eliminate 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D).
• 12/18/2025 — OSHA sent its Walking-Working Surfaces (WWS) - Fixed Ladders proposal to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).
• 1/13/2026 — OIRA and OSHA met with the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM).
• 1/21/2026 — OIRA and OSHA met with the Employers OSHA Modernization Coalition.
• 1/27/2026 — OIRA plans to meet with attorneys representing the American Petroleum Institute (API).

What did the petition request?

The seven-page petition, written by legal counsel on behalf of the AFPM, API, and American Chemistry Council (ACC), requests that OSHA:

• Withdraw the provision under the WWS standard for fixed ladders that extend more than 24 feet to be equipped with personal fall arrest systems (allowing the continued use of ladder cages or wells); or
• Grandfather fixed ladders installed before a particular date (authorizing the continued use of existing ladder cages or wells for those ladders).

Unjustified provision?

Petitioners argue that OSHA, in its 2010 proposed WWS rule, failed to:

• Take comments on the effectiveness of cages in protecting workers from falls,
• Disclose that the agency was evaluating whether to prohibit cages, and
• Give stakeholders a chance to submit evidence regarding cages.

The petition outlines the differences between the earlier proposed and final rules, noting that the 2010 proposal gave employers the choice to use any of four fall-protection types — cages, wells, ladder safety systems, or personal fall protection systems. However, the 2016 final rule gave a 2036 phase-out date for cages and wells.

The petition goes on to contend that:

• OSHA lacks sufficient evidence to justify prohibiting cages and wells;
• Data collected during the rulemaking process leaned toward preserving employer choices for fall protection; and
• Although the 2016 rulemaking preamble acknowledged the shift away from cages and wells, it did not fully discuss evidence in favor of cages and wells.

Other arguments in the petition

The petition raises several points questioning the benefits of paragraph (b)(9)(i)(D), stating that:

• In the past decade, AFPM, API, and ACC facilities have suffered only a few injuries, with no fatalities involving cages and wells;
• Cages offer passive protection, whereas ladder safety systems and personal fall arrest systems require workers to take action to comply;
• Personal protective equipment (PPE) lies at the bottom of the hierarchy of controls;
• Safety risks also exist for ladder safety systems and personal fall arrest systems; and
• Installing new ladders or retrofitting existing ones introduces hazards to those performing that work.

Finally, the petition addresses significant compliance costs, estimating several billion dollars for tens of thousands of ladders at U.S. refineries alone. Petitioners also cited additional expenses for rerating pressure vessels and engineering any process equipment changes.

What does OSHA say?

OSHA officially announced in a September 2025 memo that it is proposing to remove 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D). The agency calls it a deregulatory action in line with Executive Order 14192. The memo reasons, “OSHA anticipates this change will allow employers to update their ladders when the ladders reach the end of their service lives, accommodating the lengthy service life of fixed ladders, while significantly reducing costs and offering greater flexibility.”

The WWS - Fixed Ladders proposal reached OIRA on December 18. OIRA typically takes 90 to 120 days for review, but recently a maximum 28-day review period for deregulatory actions was implemented. That means we anticipate OIRA will rush this proposal, so that OSHA may publish it in the Federal Register.

Key to remember

An upcoming OSHA proposal would withdraw 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D). The rule was spurred by a petition.

Common local level programs

A strong example of local involvement can be seen in air quality management. The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) reports that 117 local air agencies participate in implementing federal and state clean air programs, highlighting how implementation frequently happens at the local level.

EPA’s AirNow directory lists numerous local air quality agencies across the country; Examples include air pollution control districts in California (such as the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, the San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District) as well as local air programs in Maricopa County, Arizona; Jacksonville, Florida; and Omaha, Nebraska. These districts conduct inspections, issue permits, investigate complaints, and maintain air monitoring networks, all of which support state and federal clean air requirements.

Local authority is also central to solid waste management, where many states rely heavily on counties and municipalities to manage planning, facilities, and enforcement. For instance, Washington State requires local governments to develop comprehensive solid and hazardous waste management plans that guide all waste handling and recycling programs within each county or city. These plans determine facility needs, outline reduction and recycling strategies, and shape local ordinances designed to meet state goals.

Additional examples appear across the country. Maryland’s Montgomery County, California’s Alameda County, and the District of Columbia all implement ambitious local waste diversion plans that supplement or exceed state requirements, demonstrating how counties and cities directly shape waste reduction and recycling policy. Likewise, South Carolina places most solid waste management responsibility on county governments, which must develop local plans, designate recycling coordinators, and report progress toward statewide goals.

Why is local involvement critical?

Local environmental regulatory authority matters because conditions vary widely across the nation. Counties and municipalities better understand their own industries, land uses, and growth patterns, allowing them to respond quickly to complaints, target outreach effectively, and adopt ordinances that go beyond state or federal minimums when necessary. Their proximity to communities makes local agencies essential partners in achieving environmental compliance and advancing public health protections.

As federal and state programs evolve, the role of local agencies continues to expand. Air quality districts, solid waste authorities, and local environmental health departments all demonstrate how counties and municipalities contribute directly to national environmental objectives.

Key to remember: With thousands of local agencies responsible for on the ground regulatory tasks, the strength and responsiveness of the United States’ environmental protection system depend heavily on the active engagement of local governments.

What the final rule requires

The final rule sharply limits eligibility for non domiciled CDLs and Commercial Learner’s Permits (CLPs). Under the new regulation, only three immigration categories qualify:

• H 2A – Temporary agricultural workers
• H 2B – Temporary non agricultural workers
• E 2 – Treaty investors and qualifying employees

No other immigration status, regardless of employment authorization, may be used to obtain, renew, transfer, or upgrade a non domiciled CDL or CLP.

A key requirement of the rule is mandatory immigration status verification. State Driver Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) must verify a driver’s lawful status through the federal SAVE system and may not rely on Employment Authorization Documents (EADs), or pending immigration applications as proof of eligibility. If a state cannot meet these verification standards, it is required to halt issuance of all non domiciled CDLs and CLPs until compliance is achieved.

The rule also restricts the validity period of non domiciled CDLs. Licenses may not exceed one year or extend beyond the expiration date of the driver’s lawful immigration status, whichever comes first. Each renewal requires fresh verification under the same standards.

Who the rule affects

The rule directly affects foreign domiciled drivers who operate commercial motor vehicles in the United States under non resident CDLs. FMCSA estimates that approximately 190,000–200,000 drivers could lose eligibility over time due to non renewals or license revocations. Drivers previously relying on broader categories are no longer eligible under the final rule. Motor carriers are also affected. FMCSA guidance makes clear that carriers employing drivers whose licenses later become invalid face increased exposure during driver qualification audits, investigations, and enforcement actions. The rule reinforces that responsibility for compliance extends beyond the driver to the employer. Importantly, the rule does not apply to U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, or drivers licensed in Canada or Mexico who operate under existing reciprocity agreements.

Why FMCSA Implemented the Rule

FMCSA found widespread state non compliance and systemic weaknesses in the verification of foreign driving histories as the primary reasons for the rule. According to the agency, a nationwide review found that more than 30 states had issued tens of thousands of non domiciled CDLs using standards that did not meet existing federal requirements.

Safety concerns were central to the decision. FMCSA documented 17 fatal crashes in 2025 resulting in 30 deaths involving non domiciled CDL holders who would not have been eligible under the new rule. While acknowledging that these crashes represent a small fraction of overall CMV fatalities, FMCSA stated they illustrate the potential risks created when driver history, status, and qualification cannot be reliably verified.

The agency framed the rule as necessary to restore integrity, uniformity, and accountability to the CDL system while closing gaps that allowed improperly issued licenses to remain in circulation.

Key to Remember: The Non Domiciled CDL Final Rule represents a decisive shift from flexibility to strict federal oversight. It narrows eligibility, mandates verification, shortens license duration, and places renewed emphasis on carrier responsibility.

What are restricted plates?

The IRP defines a “restricted plate” as:

• A plate that has a time, geographic area, distance, or commodity restriction; or
• A mass transit or other special plate issued for a bus leased or owned by a municipal government, a state or provincial transportation authority, or a private party, and operated as part of an urban mass transit system.

Definitions and limitations vary by the jurisdiction that issues the plate. Common examples of restricted plates include:

• Farm,
• Transporter,
• Dealer,
• Manufacturer,
• Repair,
• Special mobile equipment, and
• Forestry.

Understanding how restricted plates are defined is only the first step. Whether those plates are recognized outside the base jurisdiction depends on reciprocity.

It’s all about reciprocity

Under IRP, a vehicle displaying restricted plates is not an apportionable vehicle. When a vehicle is non-apportionable, it’s up to each jurisdiction to determine how the jurisdiction’s laws apply.

A non-apportionable vehicle (one operating with restricted plates) may or may not be granted reciprocity outside of the base jurisdiction. This varies by state, and you need to verify whether the states where you operate have reciprocity agreements in place with your base state to recognize those restricted plates.

For example, under a reciprocal agreement between Wisconsin and Minnesota:

• Commercial vehicles that display intrastate vehicle registration (license plates) from Minnesota may operate interstate within a 30-air-mile range of the Minnesota-Wisconsin boundary line without carrying any additional registration credentials, and
• Vehicles that display Wisconsin intrastate vehicle registration (license plates) may operate interstate in Minnesota within a 30-air-mile range of the Wisconsin border.

In contrast, many jurisdictions treat farm, dealer, or transporter plates as valid only in the state of issue, requiring full IRP or other registration (regardless of a trip permit). When there’s no reciprocity agreement, vehicles not apportioned are subject to registration and fee payment according to each base jurisdiction’s general registration statutes.

Because reciprocity is inconsistent — and often misunderstood — many carriers look to trip permits as a workaround. Unfortunately, that approach usually doesn’t solve the problem.

What about trip permits?

In most cases, full IRP apportioned registration is required, and trip permits don’t override the limitations of restricted plates.

In other words, trip permits do not convert an ineligible or restricted plate into an unrestricted interstate plate.

As a result, a vehicle operating on restricted plates may still be considered improperly registered for interstate travel — even if a trip permit has been purchased.

Key to remember: Because restricted plate rules and reciprocity agreements vary by jurisdiction, carriers should verify registration requirements before operating interstate. When interstate travel is anticipated, full IRP apportioned registration is typically the safest and most compliant option.

Recruiting approach

Economic uncertainty has only increased as this year has progressed. However, Carriers are expected to keep recruiting channels active, but largely to replace driver attrition rather than fuel meaningful growth. Incremental hiring may occur where equipment is available, but only modestly.

Equipment plays a vital role in shaping recruiting needs. A potential uptick in used truck pricing could lead some fleets to sell excess or higher mileage units rather than attempt to seat them. Aging equipment brings higher maintenance costs and is often less attractive to drivers, making divestment a rational alternative to expansion in a soft market.

Despite margin pressure and measured hiring plans, one strategy remains unchanged: abandoning recruiting altogether is rarely a smart move. Allowing recruiting channels to go dormant makes it significantly harder to regain visibility and trust among drivers when conditions improve. This risk is amplified if freight volumes rebound quickly. Maintaining a consistent presence—at least enough to capture driver interest and inquiries—helps preserve long term competitiveness.

Technology’s role in retention and efficiency

Given current conditions, many carriers are prioritizing selective recruitment and driver retention over growing their fleet. Focusing on safe, productive drivers rather than expanding headcount is a prudent approach until economic strength proves sustainable.

Technology continues to play a key role here. Camera systems, paired with effective coaching programs, are valuable tools for proactively addressing unsafe behaviors, preventing crashes, and keeping experienced drivers productive and engaged.

As is typical during slower cycles, carriers also have an opportunity to improve overall driver quality. Retaining drivers who are unwilling or unable to meet safety expectations ultimately raises risk and costs. Where feasible, carriers are better served replacing those drivers with individuals who have stronger safety records and align with long term standards.

Increased use of AI in back office functions—such as routing, fuel optimization, and maintenance planning—may create efficiency gains or reduce overhead. However, investment in roles that directly support drivers remains essential. At its core, driver retention is still about relationships, trust, and consistent communication.

If the economy accelerates

If the economy strengthens rapidly, driver recruiting will become intensely competitive. The impact of non domiciled commercial driver's license (CDL) revocations will be felt as carriers attempt to scale to meet surging demand. In that environment, driver pay would likely climb sharply—potentially echoing the increases seen during the COVID freight surge—unless carriers choose to lower hiring standards.

Relaxing safety standards, however, is not a sustainable solution and introduces long term risk. Carriers that hold firm on safety will face tighter labor markets but be better positioned over time.

Private fleets are likely to emerge as relative winners in a tight market. Many will feel pressure to expand to protect their supply chains rather than rely on brokered capacity. With pay premiums, superior schedules, and robust benefits already in place, private fleets are especially attractive to experienced and aging drivers planning their final years before retirement.

Key to remember: 2026 promises to be a dynamic year. To stay ready for a rebound, keep recruiting and performance management programs focused on driver quality and safety, not quantity.

What’s changing

Motor carriers should review the changes now to determine how they might impact their operations. Except as noted, the new rules take effect on March 23, 2026:

• Bumper labels: Motor carriers will no longer need to ensure that their vehicles’ rear-impact guards have a permanent certification label from the manufacturer. These labels often fall off or become unreadable over time, resulting in citations even when guards meet the safety standard.
• License-plate lamps: Tractors will no longer need a working rear license-plate lamp while pulling a trailer. If there’s no trailer, the light will need to be operational.
• Spare fuses (effective April 20, 2026): Drivers will no longer be required to carry spare fuses for powering required equipment. The FMCSA says today’s vehicles don’t commonly suffer from blown fuses, making the requirement unnecessary.
• eDVIRs: Though already allowed under 49 CFR 390.32, the vehicle inspection rules in Part 396 will explicitly allow drivers and motor carriers to use electronic drivers’ vehicle inspection reports (DVIRs).
• Auxiliary fuel pumps: Motor carriers will be able to use gravity- or siphon-fed auxiliary fuel pumps with tanks up to 5 gallons, mounted on the trailer and used only when the vehicle is not in motion. The rule revises 393.65(d) to reflect modern small-capacity auxiliary systems used for trailer-mounted equipment. capacity auxiliary systems used for trailer-mounted equipment.
• Fuel tank fill limit: It will no longer be a violation to use fuel tanks that can be filled beyond 95 percent of their capacity. Modern liquid-fuel tanks have vented caps that can safely accommodate a 100-percent fill, the FMCSA says.
• Liquid-burning flares: The FMCSA has removed the option to use liquid-burning flares as emergency warning devices. Drivers must use reflective triangles or solid-fuel flares instead.
• CDLs for military techs: Dual-status military technicians (as defined in 10 U.S.C. 10216) are now explicitly included in the commercial driver’s license (CDL) exemption for military vehicle operations. Previously, only National Guard technicians qualified; Air Force Reserve and Army Reserve technicians were excluded.
• Portable conveyors: Portable conveyors used in the aggregate industry and manufactured before 2010 are now exempt from the “brakes on all wheels” requirement, provided certain weight and speed limits are met.
• Tire markings: The FMCSA has clarified that its rules do not require tire load-rating markings on sidewalls. That requirement falls to manufacturers only, not motor carriers.
• Vision waivers: An obsolete grandfathering provision related to an old vision waiver study program has been removed from the regulations (391.64) in favor of today’s alternative vision standard in 391.44.
• Water carriers: The FMCSA has removed outdated references to “water carriers,” updating parts 365, 370, 379, 386, and 390 to reflect the agency’s lack of jurisdiction over maritime carriers.

More rules on the way?

Additional deregulatory actions proposed last May are still in process but are expected to be finalized soon. This includes rules to:

• Remove the need to carry a user manual for electronic logging devices (ELDs).
• Remove the requirement for drivers to self-report moving violations.
• End the requirement that carriers return completed roadside inspection reports unless requested by the issuing agency.
• Exempt certain buses and hazmat drivers from stopping at railroad crossings equipped with active warning devices (unless the devices are activated).
• Record information about accidents where medical treatment consisted only of imaging or a prescription without actual treatment.
• Delete the outdated requirement to retrofit older trailers with retroreflective tape.

Key to remember: The FMCSA has finalized 12 deregulatory actions among 18 proposed in May 2025. The changes could save time and money for both motor carriers and drivers.

For-hire vs. private

For-hire carriers use vehicles to transport people or property and are paid for their service. The fee could be a direct fee like a fare or a rate but could also be other indirect forms of compensation. Examples of for-hire operations include a trucking company that hauls other people’s property for a fee (direct compensation) or a hotel that includes in its service the transportation to and from the airport to the hotel (indirect compensation).

Private carriers, on the other hand, transport only their own goods or people. Examples include a manufacturer that uses its own commercial vehicles to transport its product, a construction or landscaping company that uses commercial vehicles to transport equipment and employees to job sites, or a utility company that operates commercial vehicles in support of its operations.

For-hire operating authority

While private carriers are not required to obtain operating authority from the FMCSA, for-hire carriers are required to get authority to move property or people that belong to somebody else and get paid for their service. Having authority is often referred to as having an MC Number.

The most common types of authority are:

• Property for-hire
• Passenger for-hire
• Household goods
• Broker
• Freight forwarder

If a company never operates a commercial motor vehicle (CMV), it is possible to have authority, but not have a USDOT number. For example, straight brokers or freight forwarders.

As part of obtaining for-hire authority, carriers must designate process agents and demonstrate financial responsibility (have proper insurance coverage).

One size does not fit all

Authorities are not all-inclusive. Separate authority is needed for each type of service offered. For instance, a for-hire, over-the-road carrier that also wants to be able to resell its extra demand will need both for-hire and brokerage authorities. A company is required to pay a $300 one-time fee for each type of authority needed.

Permanent authority required

There are no temporary permits available to substitute for authority. For-hire operations may not be performed until the proper authority has been granted. It’s not uncommon for otherwise private carriers to become for-hire carriers to generate revenue on back-hauls or help balance capacity and demand during slow periods or seasons.

Getting it right

Carriers need to get it right when it comes to authority. Carriers required to have authority — but don’t and operate anyway — can get themselves into trouble. Penalties for operating without proper authority can get expensive and can result in out-of-service orders.

Combustible dust

The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) released a new video examining a fatal combustible dust explosion/fire. Five employees at a Wisconsin corn mill were killed and 14 others were injured. Board Member Sylvia Johnson states, “The CSB has been calling for a comprehensive [OSHA] standard on combustible dust for many years to help prevent tragic, deadly incidents like [this] one … from continuing to occur. Robust regulation is absolutely essential to keep these incidents from happening in the future.”

First aid and eye, face, and head protection

Nine safety organizations petitioned OSHA urging the agency to adopt more modern consensus standards. Those standards include:

• ANSI/ISEA Z308.1-2026, -2019, and -2014 — American National Standard for Minimum Requirements for Workplace First Aid Kits and Supplies;
• ANSI/ISEA Z87.1-2025, -2020, and -2015 — American National Standard for Occupational and Educational Personal Eye and Face Protection Devices; and
• ANSI/ISEA Z89.1-2026, -2019, and -2014 — American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection.

The petition argues that the suggested updates to 29 CFR 1910 would not add compliance costs. Rather, the changes would offer employers greater choices in first aid kits and personal protective equipment, while improving safety, the organizations contend.

Workplace violence

A recent report from the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General states that OSHA could “enhance its efforts to address workplace violence, which may include taking regulatory action.” OSHA currently uses the General Duty Clause (not a regulation) for enforcement of work violence hazards.

The Inspector General says it will audit the effectiveness of the General Duty Clause in OSHA’s enforcement of workplace violence. The latest Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data show that 9.3 percent of all work fatalities in 2024 were attributed to homicide.

A Workplace Violence in Healthcare and Social Assistance proposed rule is on OSHA’s long-term agenda.

Musculoskeletal disorders, heat, and more

Federal lawmakers are moving to force OSHA to issue regulatory rulemaking to protect American workers. The House and Senate have ten bills on the table so far. Topics addressed by these Congressional bills include musculoskeletal disorders, heat stress, infectious diseases, wildfire smoke, and workplace violence. See our previous article, “9 OSHA bills to mandate gap-closing rules, wider coverage, steeper fines,” dated February 3, 2026. One bill was added after the issuance of that article.

Healthcare, transportation, warehousing, retail, and manufacturing injuries/illnesses

According to a new OSHA report, four industries, together, reported over 85 percent of all the injury and illness incidents tallied in data submitted under 29 CFR 1904.41 for 2024. Those included:

• Healthcare and social assistance,
• Transportation and warehousing,
• Retail trade, and
• Manufacturing.

The “2024 Annual Report: Work-related Injuries and Illnesses” also put a spotlight on three safety and health topics:

• Robotics in the manufacturing sector,
• Meat processing industry, and
• Young workers.

Transportation incidents

Transportation incidents continued to be the most frequent type of fatal event, per BLS data posted last month. These incidents accounted for 38.2 percent of all work fatalities in 2024. This is an uptick from the 36.8 percent reported in 2023. The good news is roadway incidents involving motorized land vehicles dropped 8.5 percent. The figure plummeted to 1,146 in 2024 from 1,252 in 2023. Roadway incidents still made up over one-in-five fatal work incidents in 2024.

In mid-January last year, OSHA said it wanted employers to “make safety a core principle by integrating safe driving and transportation practices into their businesses' safety and health management systems.” The idea was to foster a culture of safety and preventive practices to protect workers on the nation's roads. The statement was part of a joint initiative with the National Safety Council and the Road to Zero Coalition. The agency pointed to its Motor Vehicle Safety webpage.

While transportation incidents persist as the number one source of work fatalities, the 2025 BLS data, which should be issued in December 2026, may reveal whether OSHA’s joint-initiative efforts are making a dent.

Key to remember

Several forces are nudging OSHA to address a number of workplace hazards and high-hazard industries. Each points to a different safety and health concern, competing for OSHA’s bandwidth.

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.

The case

After several years of employment, the employee who had signed both the application and the agreement filed a lawsuit against the employer alleging breach of contract. The employer claimed the employee missed the deadline to file the lawsuit under the 6-month time limit in the job application.

The trial court rejected this argument and ruled in favor of the employee. The court ruled that because the employment agreement said it was the final agreement, the employer couldn’t use the deadline found in the earlier job application.

The employer appealed, arguing that the application and employment agreement should be read together because they were both signed during the onboarding process. The employer also argued that the limitations provision in the application should apply because it didn’t conflict with the employment agreement. The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected both arguments.

The Court of Appeals explained that when an employment agreement includes a clear and unambiguous integration clause, prior documents can’t be read together with the agreement or used to supplement its terms. An integration clause is simply a statement in a contract that the agreement is final and complete. The court noted that the employment agreement’s silence on a shortened limitations period didn’t allow the employer to rely on the application.

Because the agreement specifically barred modification or supplementation, any additional terms needed to be included directly in the agreement itself.

A lesson for employers

While this was a Michigan case, the Mayberry decision serves as an important reminder to all employers about the need to draft employment documents carefully and make sure those documents are consistent.

If language in an employment agreement says the agreement is final and can only be changed in writing, it’s important to make sure everything an employer wants to include is included in that agreement. Employers shouldn’t count on language in job applications or other earlier documents being valid later.

Key to remember: Courts will hold employers to the exact wording of their employment agreements. If an important term is left out of the final agreement, a court may ignore it — even if it appeared in paperwork that the employee signed earlier, such as an application.

Concurrency

Many of the state laws allow the time off to run concurrently with FMLA leave, when:

• The employer is covered by both,
• The employee meets the eligibility criteria for both, and
• The reason qualifies for both.

When the leave runs concurrently, employers have to comply with both laws. A state law could have specific employer requirements, and employers have to meet them. That could involve giving employees certain information. The Colorado Family and Medical Leave Insurance (FAMLI), for example, requires employers to not only post the program notice in a prominent location, but it also requires employers to give employees written notice of the program upon hiring and when learning of an employee experiencing an event that triggers the employee’s eligibility.

Under the FMLA, when employees put the employer on notice of the need for leave, employers must give the employee an eligibility/rights & responsibilities notice within five business days. Once employers have enough information to determine if the absence qualifies for FMLA protections (such as from a certification), employers have five business days to give the employee a designation notice.

Employers can't overlook those FMLA steps, even if they seem redundant with state requirements.

Risks

If employers fail to designate an absence as FMLA leave, they may retroactively designate it only if doing so doesn’t cause harm or injury to the employee. If so, employers can’t retroactively designate it, which could result in the employee having more than the 12 weeks of FMLA leave.

Employers that don’t comply with the FMLA’s notice requirements can risk fines and penalties, even if the employers gave the employee the 12 workweeks of leave and the employee suffered no actual harm.

Therefore, overlooking the FMLA would not only risk violations but would also add another layer of unnecessary complexity.

Key to remember: Employers need to remember to comply with the federal FMLA’s requirements in addition to a state’s requirements.

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.

Electrical safety and control measures

Electrical hazards affect more than just electricians. In fact, 74 percent of workplace electrical fatalities occur in non-electrical occupations, including tree trimming, HVAC, roofing, and painting. Many employees may not be trained to perform electrical work. That means they may not recognize electrical hazards.

An OSHA toolbox talk (OSHA 4496) outlines how to prevent injury when using electrical equipment. Specifically, it suggests that you employ the hierarchy of controls: elimination/substitution, engineering controls, administrative controls, personal protective equipment, and work practices.

Extension cords: 5 things to know

OSHA’s requirements for flexible cords and cables, at 29 CFR 1910.305(g), were cited nearly 1,300 times last fiscal year, according to OSHA enforcement data. A new publication (OSHA 4495) explains the top five things you and your employees should know about using extension cords safely.

Grain safety poster

Suffocation and falls are the two leading causes of death at grain handling facilities. Other hazards include fire, explosions, electrocution, and injuries from improperly guarded machinery. Exposures to grain dust and associated airborne contaminants can also occur. Such contaminants might include molds, chemical fumigants, and gases from decaying and/or fermenting sileage.

Each year, OSHA partners with several organizations to sponsor Stand Up 4 Grain Safety Week. The event takes place March 30 to April 3 this year. A printable poster (OSHA 3967) highlights the event and lists seven steps to grain safety.

Silica hazards in countertop work

OSHA and NIOSH have identified exposure to silica as a serious health hazard to workers. These workers might be involved in manufacturing, finishing, and installing natural and engineered stone countertop products. However, the respirable crystalline silica hazard can be mitigated in most countertop operations with dust control methods. These are spelled out in OSHA’s silica standards for general industry (29 CFR 1910.1053) and construction (29 CFR 1926.1153).

An OSHA/NIOSH Hazard Alert (OSHA 3768) explains silica hazards in the stone countertop industry, why it’s a concern, how to protect workers and control exposure, and more.

Responding to OSHA inquiries on complaints and referrals

A call from OSHA asking about alleged hazards reported in a complaint or referral can be stressful. Knowing what’s involved can help you prepare. The agency says it will work with you to address the matter through a timely and adequate response. According to OSHA, if the issues are resolved through this process, an onsite inspection is generally not conducted.

A fact sheet (OSHA 4498) for small employers outlines the inquiry process from initial contact to resolution, tells you what happens at each step, and provides best practices for a safe and successful outcome.

Key to remember: Several new OSHA publications provide guidance and information on a variety of topics, from electrical safety to the OSHA inquiry process.

Welding hazards

Employers must review the company welding safety program with their welders. Whenever welding or working around welding and other hot work, you should know the following:

• The name and job title of the person responsible for safety in welding operations.
• The job hazards associated with welding such as: hazards from fumes and gases, radiation hazards, fire hazards, noise hazards, and electrical hazards.
• Any special procedures for the equipment being used, such as: care of compressed gas cylinders, the use of ventilation, and fire prevention methods.
• The use of engineering controls, such as flash screens and fire blankets.
• Any necessary personal protective equipment is required for the work being done.

How can I protect myself and others?

Here are a few practices for working safely that apply in welding situations.

• When working above ground or floor level, use a platform with toeboards and standard railings or a safety belt and lifeline. Also, protect workers from stray sparks or slag in areas below an elevated surface where welding occurs.
• Aim the welding torch away from cement or stone surfaces. Moisture within these materials could cause them to explode when they reach a certain temperature.
• When finished welding or cutting, warn other workers of hot metal by marking or putting up a sign. Keep floors clean by putting electrodes or rod stubs in an appropriate container. Keep floors clear of tripping hazards; store tools safely.
• Never use bare conductors, damaged regulators, torches, electrode holders, or other defective equipment.
• Do not arc or resistance weld while standing on damp surfaces.

Safely working with compressed gas cylinders

If employees properly handle compressed gas cylinders (CGCs), they can safely perform many welding tasks. The following procedures will reduce the hazards of handling CGCs:

• Minimize banging and clanking of CGCs. When in storage, keep the steel protective cap screwed on. This step reduces the chance that a blow to the valve will allow gas to escape.
• Don’t let cylinders fall or have things fall on them.
• Keep CGCs secured and upright. (But never secure CGCs to conduit carrying electrical wiring.)
• When accepting an acetylene delivery, make sure it arrives upright. Don’t accept CGCs of acetylene that arrives in a horizontal position. Such CGCs may be unstable.
• Ensure valves, hoses, connectors, and regulators are in good condition. Don’t use cylinders without them or without them being in good working order.
• Check whether regulators, hoses, and gauges can be used with different gases. Assume they cannot.
• Never open valves until regulators are drained of gas, and pressure-adjusting devices are released. When opening CGCs, point outlets away from people and sources of ignition, such as sparks or flames. Open valves slowly. On valves without hand wheels, use only supplier-recommended wrenches. On valves with hand wheels, never use wrenches. Never hammer a hand wheel to open or close a valve.
• When empty, close and return CGCs. Empty CGCs must be marked “MT” or “Empty.” Empty acetylene CGCs must be so labeled.

Here are several things to ensure your employees remember when moving CGCs:

• Don’t drop or bang CGCs.
• Don’t roll, drag, or slide CGCs.
• You may roll CGCs along the bottom rim.
• Don’t lift CGCs by their cap unless using hand trucks so designed.
• Ropes and chains should only be used if a CGC has special lugs to accommodate this.
• Some CGCs may require special hand trucks.

Employees must identify gas and its dangers before they use it. They can find this information on labels, SDSs, and cylinder markings. Instruct employees not to use it if they don’t know what’s in a cylinder.

Key to remember

Whenever welding, cutting, or brazing occurs, everyone involved in the operations must take precautions to prevent fires, explosions, or personal injuries from welding hazards.

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.

What causes electrical accidents?

Electrical accidents are caused by one or more of the following:

• Unsafe equipment and/or installation.
• Unsafe workplaces caused by environmental factors.
• Unsafe work practices.

An accident such as high-voltage shocks can cause serious injury or even death.

How can it hurt me?

The effects of an electrical shock on the body can range from a tingle to immediate cardiac arrest.

Electrical currents travel in closed circuits through conducting material. Workers can receive a shock when a part of their body comes into contact with the following:

• Both wires of an electrical circuit.
• One wire of an energized circuit and the ground.
• Part of a machine that is ’hot’ because it is contacting an energized wire and the ground.

Severe shock can cause more damage than can be seen by the naked eye.

Safety 101

Workers must:

• Always make sure equipment is de-energized.
• Maintain electrical equipment.
• Regularly inspect tools, cords, grounds, and accessories. Have damaged equipment taken out of service immediately.
• Always use safety features like three-pronged plugs, double-insulated tools, and safety switches.
• Make sure that all machine guards are in place.
• Keep electrical cables and cords clean and free from kinks. Never carry equipment by the cord.
• Avoid touching water, damp surfaces, ungrounded metal, or any bare wires if you are not protected. Wear approved rubber gloves when working with live wires or ungrounded surfaces. Rubber-soled shoes or boots should be worn when working on damp or wet surfaces.
• Avoid wearing jewelry or metal objects when working with electricity.
• Keep the required safe distance from energized parts.

If workers are working where there are electrical hazards, employers must provide them with the appropriate PPE. Ensure that the equipment remains de-energized during service and maintenance activities by using lockout/tagout procedures.

Key to remember

Ensure that workers are familiar with the safety procedures for the job they are assigned to do. They should always use good judgment and common sense when working around electricity.

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.