MSHA reopens comment period for proposed respirator rule

Pesticide registration tracking app

On April 18, EPA made enhancements to its MyPest app, which sources say was initially launched in mid-January. EPA is proud to say that MyPest already boasts over 1,200 registrants. The new app allows registrants of pesticide products to:

• Monitor the status of their registration submissions in real-time,
• Drill down to a detailed view of each application, and
• Communicate directly with EPA staff about registration packages in review.

Updates to MyPest include an enhanced dashboard page. The page offers information about the registrant’s cases and products. More updates are planned later this year.

Policy changes impacting two forms

On April 4, EPA announced in the Federal Register the issuance of Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 2025-1. The notice itself is dated effective March 27, 2025. Its subject line reads, “Revised Procedures for Citing Data to Support Pesticide Registrations (EPA Forms No. 8570-34 and 8570-35).”

The latest PR notice supersedes PR Notice 98-5, dated June 12, 1998. While the revisions were proposed last June, the agency only finalized them now. According to PR Notice 2025-1:

• EPA Form 8570-34 — This is the Certification with Respect to Citation of Data. Pesticide registrants use this form to indicate how they will meet their data submission/citation obligations under the law. When a registrant refers to another company’s data, the registrant must certify that:
  • It offered compensation to the original data submitter, or
  • It has the original data submitter’s permission to cite the data.
• EPA Form 8570-35 — This is the Data Matrix. Pesticide registrants use this form to indicate to whom they made offers of compensation.

The two forms — EPA Forms 8570-34 and 8570-35 — have not been modified. Only policies regarding the submission of the two forms have changed. The agency:

• Eliminated the instruction to use “paper” submissions;
• Says registrants should complete and submit the two forms electronically through the Pesticide Submission Portal;
• Eliminated the instruction that registrants submit two versions of the Data Matrix, i.e., the ‘‘Internal Agency Use Copy’’ and the ‘‘Public File Copy’’; and
• Requires that registrants submit a single Data Matrix without redactions.

EPA contends that none of the information on Form 8570-35 is confidential. Put another way, none of the information on the Data Matrix is protected from public release. Therefore, the agency claims there is no reason to submit two versions of the form.

According to EPA, entities potentially affected by the policy changes include, but are not limited to:

• Crop production,
• Animal production,
• Food manufacturing, and
• Pesticide manufacturing.

Efficiencies and transparencies gained

Using electronic reporting for EPA Forms 8570-34 and 8570-35 brings efficient data transmittal, argues EPA. A bonus is that electronic reporting will also reduce errors. That’s because of automated validation tools in the portal. Submitters should experience lower costs and faster review and transmission of data, the agency adds.

In 2024, EPA received a total of 3,309 Data Matrices. Moving from two versions to just one for the Data Matrix form should save registrants and EPA time. Specifically, completing, submitting, and processing the Data Matrix should be quicker. EPA will also experience time savings when providing the public access to the information. Extra steps under the Freedom of Information Act would not be needed.

The MyPest app update is a step forward in efficiency and transparency, concludes EPA. The app enhancements are part of the agency’s overall move toward digital and streamlined processes. EPA projects that the app will improve the timeliness of pesticide registration decisions.

Key to remember

Recent actions streamline the pesticide registration process and make it more transparent. These actions relate to the MyPest app and EPA Forms 8570-34 and 8570-35.

What does “systematic” mean?

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) provides carriers with a lot of flexibility to design their maintenance program. Because vehicle use varies from fleet to fleet or even individual vehicles in a fleet, maintenance intervals can vary. For this reason, FMCSA does not establish a universal maintenance interval. Instead, they provide carriers with guidance stating “systematic” generally means a regular or scheduled program designed to keep vehicles in a safe operating condition.

Vehicles used in long haul, interstate transit will need a different schedule than a local delivery truck making frequent stops and starts. The important thing is that the carrier establishes a regular schedule and follows it.

How does FMCSA verify compliance?

One of the primary ways compliance is demonstrated is through a carrier's maintenance records. Any vehicle controlled by a motor carrier for 30 consecutive days must have maintenance records identifying the vehicle, make, serial number, and year.

The records must show the nature and due date of inspections and maintenance operations to be performed. They must also document the actual date and type of inspection, repair, or maintenance that was actually performed.

In short, a carrier should be able to demonstrate:

• What maintenance is required,
• When it is due, and
• When it was completed.

Producing a folder with invoices and receipts may show that a vehicle was repaired, but a well-documented program demonstrates that maintenance is being proactively managed.

Recordkeeping requirements

These maintenance records generally must be retained where a vehicle is housed or maintained for a period of one year and then for six months after the vehicle leaves the carrier's control.

Systematic maintenance isn't about creating more paperwork. It’s about developing a repeatable process that keeps vehicles safe, identifies problems before they become more serious, and documents the work performed.

This information can also help carriers evaluate whether their current preventive maintenance intervals are appropriate for the equipment and how it is being used.

Systematic maintenance can save money

A good preventive maintenance program isn't just about satisfying a regulation. Identifying worn brakes, tire problems, fluid leaks, or other problems before they result in a failure is critical to reducing roadside breakdowns, emergency repairs, towing expenses, service disruption, and even unplanned downtime.

Preventive maintenance also gives carriers control over when repairs occur. A defect discovered during scheduled shop time can be addressed more efficiently, and at a lower cost than the same problem discovered on the side of the road.

This information can help carriers evaluate whether their current maintenance intervals are appropriate for the equipment and how the equipment is being used.

Key to remember: FMCSA requires you to keep records. Good records can help you run a better, less expensive maintenance program.

The utility exemption explained

This exemption applies to drivers of vehicles that qualify as “utility service vehicles” as defined in 395.2.

Here is a critical point: The vehicle/driver must meet all three requirements listed in the definition of a utility service vehicle provided in 395.2 to be able to use this exemption. The three requirements are:

• The driver/vehicle must be repairing, maintaining, or operating structures or other physical facilities necessary for the delivery of public utility services,
• The driver/vehicle must be involved in activities related to the ultimate delivery of utility services to the consumers, and
• Except for any occasional emergency use, the driver/vehicle must operate primarily within the service area of a utility’s subscribers or consumers.

Drivers involved in building new utility structures in general are not eligible for this exception. However, if the driver is going back and forth from new construction to repairing, maintaining, or operating utility infrastructure, the driver will be covered by the exemption when involved in these activities, but not covered while involved in new construction.

When involved in new construction and covered by the hours-of service requirements, the driver would have to follow the limits in the hours-of-service regulations and maintain a log (or a time record if the 150 air-mile exemption applies). If the driver had to complete a log more than 8 days in the previous 30 days, the driver would have to use an electronic log on the days the driver is required to log.

It starts with the shipper

The person offering hazardous material for transportation has significant responsibilities before the carrier accepts the shipment. Those responsibilities can include properly classifying the material, selecting authorized packaging, and providing required hazard communication.

Shipping papers are particularly important. When required, the hazardous material description includes information such as the identification number, proper shipping name, hazard class and packing group, when applicable. PHMSA guidance on Shipping Papers and Emergency Response Information identifies these as elements of hazardous materials descriptions.

The carrier still has responsibilities

Once a carrier accepts a hazardous material shipment for transportation, carrier-specific requirements come into play. Part 177 of the HMR addresses carriage by public highway, while other portions of the regulations establish requirements involving shipping papers, placarding, training, emergency response information, packaging, and hazard communication.

That makes the acceptance process an important compliance checkpoint.

A driver does not necessarily need to independently perform the shipper’s entire classification process. However, carriers should have procedures designed to identify obvious problems before transportation begins. Is the shipping paper present when required? Does the shipment have the required markings or labels? Do the placards correspond with the shipment? Is the package visibly damaged or leaking?

A roadside inspection is the wrong time to find out

If a problem is discovered during transportation, the consequences can quickly become more significant. What began as an error at the shipping location can become an enforcement issue once the material enters transportation.

The better approach is prevention. Carriers should train affected hazmat employees for the functions they actually perform and establish a clear process for drivers to stop and ask questions when something about a shipment does not look right.

The takeaway is simple. Do not let the loading dock become your last compliance check. When hazardous materials are involved, both shippers and carriers have responsibilities. Catching a questionable shipment before the wheels start turning is far easier than explaining it on the side of the road.

Key to remember: Hazmat compliance begins before the carrier ever accepts the shipment.

FMCSA guidance

1. DQ files - An acquiring carrier does not have to create a new DQ file for drivers when:

• The acquired company deactivates their United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) number and Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN), and
• There is no break in employment for the drivers.

“No break in employment” means that the acquired company’s drivers did not have to reapply for their job.

Best Practice: To avoid confusion during an FMCSA audit, put a note in each file showing that the driver files were part of an acquisition, along with the date the drivers started working for the acquiring company.

2. Clearinghouse queries - There is no need to run a pre-employment Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse query for the acquired company’s commercial driver’s license (CDL) drivers if there is no break in employment. However, an annual query must be run within one year of the last query while at the acquired company. The dates of the prior annual query may be a different date for each driver, which is not easy to track.

Best Practice: Run the annual query on the new drivers before they operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) requiring a commercial driver’s license (CDL) for the acquiring company. This query is to verify that no driver is in a “Prohibited” status due to a positive test and missing a negative return-to-duty test. The query also resets the next annual query date to a known day a year in advance for each driver.

What are the risks of not creating new DQ files?

The acquiring company owns all errors and omissions in a DQ file. If, for any reason, a driver is not fully qualified and all documents are not current, the acquiring carrier is responsible.

Suppose serious violations on a new driver’s motor vehicle record (MVR) do not meet the company’s hiring criteria. If an MVR wasn’t run as is normally required for new-hire DQ files, a plaintiff’s attorney may accuse the acquiring company of negligent hiring in post-crash litigation.

Best practices:

• Audit each file for compliance gaps as part of the acquisition process.
• Document violations along with remedial actions, if any.
• Review the MVR and any other performance history available for each driver.

If documents are missing or incorrect, the acquiring carrier would still be subject to a violation if audited by FMCSA. Acknowledging errors and documenting “meaningful action” could mitigate penalties.

Keys to remember: Audit the DQ files of an acquired company’s drivers and document compliance issues and remedial actions. Also, run an annual query to detect drivers prohibited from driving a CMV.

Importance of a good onboarding process

Done well, onboarding can increase employee retention and overall job satisfaction. Done poorly, the onboarding process can be disjointed and overwhelming, causing a new employee to question whether they made the right decision to join a company. In fact, 20 percent of those surveyed said their less-than-ideal onboarding experience made them second-guess their decision to take the job.

Even if new hires sign documents acknowledging that they’ve received certain forms, it doesn’t mean they understand the materials. Almost half of those surveyed (41 percent) admitted to signing onboarding documents without reading them first. This gap in knowledge indicates that HR needs to do more to convey information during the onboarding process to make it more effective.

Onsite, remote, or hybrid

Onboarding challenges vary depending on whether employees work onsite, hybrid, or remote. According to the study, 59 percent of both remote and onsite employees said they retained more than half of their onboarding information, while only 47 percent of hybrid workers did. Remote employees were the most likely to call out contradictions in onboarding documentation or information that was outdated; however, they were also the ones most likely to be unable to find onboarding materials and resources to refer back to after the first week.

Biggest opportunities for improvement

Many companies are using artificial intelligence (AI) to streamline processes. However, one of the biggest complaints of survey participants was that they (38 percent) didn’t receive any guidance on company AI policies. This was the largest information gap in the study.

Aside from AI, other areas survey respondents said companies could improve upon included having a single hub for onboarding information that was searchable. They also said they’d prefer fewer materials that are more consolidated in those first few days of employment. Using checklists would be ideal, along with having information dispensed gradually rather than all at once.

The bottom line is that better, more consistent communication in the first week or two of employment could make the onboarding process better all around.

Key to remember: A recent study shed light on the pitfalls of onboarding new hires.

The ADA

Unlike the FMLA, the ADA isn’t an employee leave entitlement law. In other words, employees aren’t “entitled” to leave as an ADA accommodation. Rather, the ADA requires covered employers to provide a reasonable accommodation to an employee’s or applicant’s known disability to enable them to perform the job’s essential functions. Providing leave can be one form of accommodation, but accommodations can be almost anything that effectively solves a disability-related workplace problem.

The ADA defines a disability as an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.

Employers should focus on accommodations that enable an employee to stay at work, but sometimes, leave is the only effective accommodation. Unlimited leave, however, isn’t reasonable. If employees can’t provide at least an estimated return date, employers don’t have to provide the leave as an accommodation.

Employers also don’t have to provide an accommodation that would add significant costs or difficulties to the business.

Employers, however, should talk to the employee and discuss possible solutions. This is called the interactive process. Employees must participate in the interactive process; otherwise, the ADA accommodation process ends.

The PWFA

The federal PWFA also isn’t an employee leave entitlement law, but an accommodation law. It’s similar to the ADA, but there are differences. Covered employers must, for example, provide reasonable accommodations to employees with limitations related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Again, like with the ADA, employers don’t have to provide an accommodation that will cause an undue hardship.

Under the PWFA, leave is considered an accommodation of last resort, but in some situations, leave will be the only logical accommodation, such as for delivery and recovery. The law doesn’t apply only to pregnant employees; it also applies to employees who have conditions related to pregnancy, such as postpartum depression, IVF (trying to get pregnant), stillbirth, and varicose veins.

State laws

Beyond the federal laws, many state laws provide for employee leave. Because of how they’re written, employees might be able to stack state leave on top of federal FMLA leave. If, for example, an employee uses all their FMLA leave, but then needs time off for a reason that’s excluded from FMLA leave, such as safe leave, but is included in the state law, the employee could take more leave under the state law.

Key to remember: Just because an employee runs out of FMLA leave for their own condition, it doesn’t mean the employee is out of options under other laws.

Get it in writing

Under the FMLA, if an employee gives clear, unmistakable notice of the intent not to return to work after leave ends, the employer obligations under the FMLA cease. This means the employer doesn’t have to maintain health benefits (subject to COBRA requirements) or restore the employee to the job held before leave began.

Employees don’t have the right to continue to take FMLA leave or have other FMLA protections after they resign, but employers should wait to stop such protections until they accept and acknowledge such a decision.

These employer obligations continue, however, if the employee indicates they might be unable to return to work but expresses a continuing desire to do so.

Employers that receive information that an employee will not be returning to work should get written documentation confirming the employee’s intent and acknowledge whether the notice will be accepted.

Employees might not realize that such a decision could result in an end to their group health care coverage earlier than expected. They might think that the coverage would continue through the originally scheduled FMLA leave.

Periodic updates can help avoid surprises

Employers may require employees on FMLA leave to report periodically on their status and intent to return to work. The employer policy regarding such reports may not be discriminatory and must consider all relevant facts and circumstances related to an employee's leave situation.

Such updates, however, can help avoid surprises, like finding out that employees won’t be returning to work. Employees on FMLA leave after having a baby could, for example, provide such updates every couple of weeks. The updates can ask for information confirming when the employee is expected to return to work.

During such updates, employers can remind employees that they risk losing their group health care coverage instantaneously if they indicate they will not be returning to work.

Employers might not want to share such information to avoid risking an employee keeping secret their intent not to return to work until the end of the full FMLA leave period.

Employers may also require that employees give reasonable notice (i.e., within two business days) of the changed circumstances, where foreseeable.

Key to remember: If employees indicate that they will not return to work after FMLA leave, employers’ obligations to continue FMLA protections end, but employers should first accept and acknowledge such a decision in writing.

How we got to this point

OSHA published its updated HazCom final rule on May 20, 2024 (89 FR 44144), aligning the standard with Revision 7 of the UN's Globally Harmonized System plus selected Revision 8 elements. In January 2026, with the first deadline days away and its own guidance documents unfinished, OSHA pushed every compliance date back four months (91 FR 1695). The schedule under 1910.1200(j) now reads:

• May 19, 2026: Manufacturers, importers and distributors: substances (passed)
• November 20, 2026: Employers: substances
• November 19, 2027: Manufacturers, importers and distributors: mixtures
• May 19, 2028: Employers: mixtures

The upcoming November date requires employers to update alternative workplace labeling, revise their written hazard communication programs, and train workers on newly identified hazards for substances whose classifications changed.

The manufacturer deadline for substances passed in May, which means reclassified safety data sheets have been arriving. Some products picked up new hazard classes, such as the new Category 3 for non-flammable aerosols or the subdivided flammable gas categories. Others shifted or changed hazard statements or precautionary language.

Each of those revised SDSs will need to be studied by employers because they could contain triggers. Under 1910.1200(h)(1), employers must train workers whenever a new chemical hazard is introduced into the work area. That includes a reclassified product. If your workplace labels, inventory and training still reflect the old SDS, you are out of step with the first document an inspector will ask for.

The cost of falling behind

Federal OSHA's maximum penalty is $16,550 per serious violation and $165,514 per willful or repeat violation. Those figures didn't rise this year and OSHA skipped the 2026 inflation adjustment because the fall 2025 government shutdown delayed the CPI data it relies on. Expect an adjustment in 2027.

Individual HazCom citations rarely make headlines. The real exposure is cumulative. HazCom violations often pop up alongside respiratory protection and PPE citations, and a HazCom citation today becomes the possibility for a repeat classification tomorrow, at ten times the price.

A 30-day action plan

With about a month left to prepare, focus on what an inspector will actually ask for.

1. Audit your SDS library: Request current SDSs from every supplier and compare Section 2 against the versions on file. Flag every changed classification.
2. True up the chemical inventory: The list required by 1910.1200(e)(1)(i) must use product identifiers that match the current SDS.
3. Audit workplace labels: Secondary containers and alternative systems such as HMIS or NFPA must convey hazard information consistent with the updated SDS. Reclassified products need relabeling.
4. Revise the written program: Document how you receive, review and distribute updated SDSs, and reference the 2024 standard. Inspectors usually start here.
5. Retrain, and document it: Target training to the products that changed rather than running a generic refresher. Record dates, attendees and content.
6. Prepare for 2028: The mixtures deadline is a pretty big wave, because most workplace chemicals are mixtures. The SDS review process you build this month is the one you'll lean on through May 2028.

Keys to remember: November 20, 2026, is the employer HazCom deadline for substances. Employers must be ready to address updated hazard classifications flowing downstream from manufacturers and importers.

The five principles behind HOP

HOP is built around five core principles. The wording may vary, but the underlying ideas remain the same.

1. Error is normal

People make mistakes. That's part of being human. No amount of training, experience, or motivation will completely eliminate human error. Employees will occasionally forget a step, misread information, become distracted, or make a decision that doesn't work out as intended.

Instead of expecting perfect performance, HOP encourages employers to ask:

• What happens if someone makes a mistake?
• Will the error be detected?
• Is there a safeguard in place?
• Could the mistake lead directly to an injury or serious event?

Employers shouldn't rely on employees getting it right every single time. Processes and safeguards help catch mistakes before they lead to an injury or serious event.

2. Blame fixes nothing

Blame may identify who was involved, but it rarely explains why the event happened.

When an investigation stops at "employee error," valuable learning opportunities are often missed. Maybe the procedure wasn't practical or outdated. Maybe production demands influenced the decision. Maybe communication, training, staffing, equipment, or supervision played a role.

Accountability is important, but effective investigations dive deeper to examine the pressures, workplace factors, and system weaknesses that contributed to the event.

3. Context drives behavior

People generally do what makes sense to them at the time. That's why understanding the work environment matters. Factors that can influence decisions include:

• Production pressure,
• Staffing levels,
• Fatigue,
• Time constraints,
• Equipment design,
• Resource availability,
• Workload, and
• Conflicting priorities.

Looking back after an incident, it can be easy to wonder why someone made a particular decision. In the moment, however, the employee was responding to the circumstances in front of them from their perspective. Understanding those circumstances often helps explain why the decision seemed reasonable at the time and where improvements may be needed.

4. Leader response matters

How leaders respond after an incident can have a lasting impact. If employees expect blame and punishment, they're less likely to report concerns, admit mistakes, or speak up when something isn't right.

When leaders focus on understanding what happened and learning from it, employees are more likely to share information that can help prevent future incidents.

Employees are generally more willing to report concerns, share lessons learned, and discuss mistakes when they believe the goal is to improve the workplace rather than assign blame.

5. Learning is vital

Every near miss, hazard report, equipment problem, employee concern, and incident creates an opportunity to learn.

Organizations don't have to wait for someone to get hurt before making improvements. Most warning signs show up long before an injury occurs.

Paying attention to those warning signs can help employers address problems before they contribute to an injury or serious incident.

Why the system matters

One of the biggest lessons from HOP is that workplace outcomes are rarely driven by one person alone. Procedures, equipment, staffing, schedules, training, maintenance practices, production expectations, and leadership decisions all influence how work gets done.

Looking beyond the employees’ actions often reveals controllable risks that contributed to the event. By identifying and controlling what shapes the decision-making environment, organizations can move beyond blame and toward effective and lasting incident prevention.

Putting HOP into practice

Organizations don't need to create a new safety program to begin using HOP principles. In many cases, it starts by changing how incidents, near misses, and operational problems are discussed and investigated.

The next time an incident, near miss, equipment problem, or operational issue occurs, consider asking:

• What made this action seem reasonable at the time?
• What factors influenced the decision?
• What pressures or obstacles were present?
• What safeguards were missing, weak, or ineffective?
• What can we improve so the next person doesn't face the same situation?

Open conversations like this often identify issues that wouldn't have been found by simply concluding that the employee made a mistake.

Key to remember: Human error may explain what happened, but it rarely explains why it happened. Looking at the factors surrounding the work often provides a clearer picture of what contributed to the event and what can be done to help prevent it from happening again.

2 Feet

There are two circumstances where the number 2 comes into play.

• Spoil piles must be at least 2 feet from the edge of an excavation or trench provided the surface is able to support such a load.
• If using a trench box or other engineered protection system, the bottom of the protection system cannot be more than 2 feet above the bottom of the trench or excavation.

4 Feet with 25 feet

Four feet is the trench or excavation depth that triggers the requirement to have a means of egress such as a ladder. Depending on the length of the trench/excavation, the maximum travel distance to or between egress points is 25 feet.

5 Feet

A protective system is required for trenches and excavations 5 feet deep or deeper unless a competent person determines the excavation is entirely in stable rock.

6 Feet

If employees are working near the edge of a trench/excavation with a depth of 6 feet or more, then fall protection/prevention is required.

20 Feet

If the depth of a trench/excavation is greater than 20 feet, then the protective system must be designed and approved by a professional engineer. While this number quiz does not encompass every aspect of trench/excavation safety, it may help reinforce key concepts before the first scoop of soil is moved. Remember to follow specific jobsite requirements for each trench and excavation.

Why this matters

Electrical equipment labels provide vital information when a worker must inspect or service energized equipment. This information helps workers choose the proper personal protective equipment (PPE) the worker needs to wear when performing work on that piece of equipment.

Of course, the safest plan is to work on the system in a deenergized state. However, qualified workers may still need to wear appropriate PPE to verify that no electrical current is flowing in the system and to take voltage, amperage, or other electrical measurements during initial energization of circuits and equipment.

Information on the label comes from an Incident Energy Analysis Method which is typically performed by an electrical engineer using calculations found in NFPA 70E Annex D. The label provides information workers need to stay safe.

Required label information

NFPA 70E 130.5(H) requires arc flash labels to include information that helps workers understand the electrical hazards and choose the proper PPE for the task. This information includes:

• Nominal System Voltage (such as120/240 volts, 480/277 volts, or 600 volts);
• Arc flash boundary, which identifies the distance at which incident energy reaches 1.2 cal/cm² (5 J/cm²). This is when serious burn injuries can happen; and
• At least one of the following:
  • Available incident energy and the corresponding working distance,
  • Minimum arc rating of clothing to be worn as PPE, or
  • Site-specific level of PPE.

Other valuable information on a label

While NFPA 70E requires certain minimum information on an arc flash label, employers may choose to include additional details that help workers identify electrical hazards. Two examples are the Limited Approach Boundary and Restricted Approach Boundary.

These boundaries address shock hazards, which NFPA 70E defines as the risk of injury from electric current passing through the body. Depending on the amount of current, the path it takes through the body, and the duration of exposure, an electric shock can result in anything from a mild sensation to significant injury or even death.

• Limited Approach Boundary: Marks the distance where a shock hazard exists. Unqualified workers must remain outside this boundary unless escorted by a qualified person and properly advised of the hazards.
• Restricted Approach Boundary: Establishes the shock protection boundary for qualified workers. Crossing this boundary requires additional protective measures to prevent contact with exposed energized parts.

Always read the fine print on the label.

Key to remember: Arc flash labels provide critical information to workers before they perform tasks on electrical equipment. Understanding this information is an essential part of assessing risk, determining proper protective measures, and most importantly ensuring the safety of the workers.

Top violations by frequency

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

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

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

Top citations by penalty rate among the 20

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

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

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

Key to remember

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