OSHA issues hazard alert on avian flu

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.

What’s changing and why it matters

Although EPA has been deregulating or loosening some requirements, there are still some standards being tightened across multiple fronts in the coming year:

• Renewable fuel standards (RFS): The EPA proposed higher volume requirements for 2026, including 24.02 billion renewable identification numbers (RINs), up nearly 8% from 2025. This increase pushes stricter expectations on fuel producers and organizations purchasing renewable fuels.
• Stormwater multi-sector general permit (MSGP): A new MSGP set to take effect by February 2026 will require quarterly PFAS indicator monitoring, expanded benchmark sampling, and resiliency measures in stormwater control designs.
• PFAS Reporting under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): TSCA Section 8(a)(7) mandates PFAS manufacturing and import data collection beginning in April 2026, through October 2026, with extended deadlines for certain small manufacturers.

Failure to prepare could lead to fines, reputational damage, supply chain disruptions, and permit delays. Companies that weave compliance planning into their 2026 strategy will be positioned not just to meet legal deadlines but to sustain operations smoothly.

Key areas of impact

• Renewable fuel standards (RFS) and air emissions The proposed increase in 2026 Renewable Identification Numbers (RIN) volumes, from 24.02 billion to 24.46 billion for 2027, signals tightening air and fuels policy that affects fuel use and emissions accounting.
• Stormwater management The upcoming 2026 MSGP requires expanded quarterly PFAS monitoring, new benchmark triggers, corrective action plans, and integration of climate resilience in design standards.
• PFAS disclosure (TSCA Section 8(a)(7)) Manufacturers and importers of PFAS must submit electronic reporting of usage, volumes, disposal, and exposure data between April and October 2026, with extensions available for smaller operations.

Steps to take now

• Audit compliance programs: Cross-check operations against RIN inventory, stormwater permits, and TSCA reporting duties.
• Upgrade monitoring and recordkeeping: Implement robust electronic systems to track PFAS, stormwater quality, fuel volumes, and emissions.
• Staff training: Educate teams on PFAS obligations, new stormwater protocols, and RFS structures.
• Engage regulators early: Comment on proposed rules, consult during permit drafting, and flag issues during the notice-and-comment period.

Looking ahead

The EPA’s 2026 updates reflect a trend toward increased transparency and environmental accountability. Companies that treat compliance as strategic will not only avoid enforcement but also gain resilience and stakeholder trust.

Key to remember: Start planning now. Early action on EPA rule changes will save time, money, and headaches when enforcement begins.

More than just rules

The order covers not only final and proposed regulations but also “notices of inquiry,” any type of notice of proposed rulemaking, and guidance documents that interpret existing statutes or regulations.

The order will be overseen by the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), a position to which Trump has nominated Russ Vought.

OMB wastes no time

The OMB, which must approve most rulemaking activities, has already sent numerous pending rules back to the agencies for review. Among the rules withdrawn on January 21, 2025:

• A proposal to update the new-driver training regulations to address sexual harassment and the safety of women truck drivers and vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and bicyclists.
• A proposal to amend the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations to account for the use of trucks and buses equipped with automated driving systems.
• A proposal from the Department of Health and Human Services to implement hair testing for federal workers.
• Proposed railroad noise-emission enforcement rules from the Federal Railroad Administration.
• A proposed air-emissions reporting requirement from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as well as proposed EPA standards for emissions from PFAS manufacturing facilities.

In addition, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration withdrew a proposed rule on infectious diseases on January 14 and its COVID-19 healthcare rule on January 15, prior to the inauguration.

President Trump issued a similar regulation freeze upon his 2017 inauguration. Soon after, he announced a “two for one” order requiring agencies to eliminate two regulations for every new one issued.

How the NRII process works (and why delays happen)

Under the NRII, medical examiners must enter a driver’s exam result into the National Registry no later than the end of the next calendar day. The FMCSA then sends these results to the appropriate SDLA so the information can be posted to the CDL MVR.

The most frequent source of delays is data-entry errors in the examiner’s electronic medical card (MCSA5850). Mistakes in key identifying information — such as name, date of birth, CDL number, or state of licensure — prevent the SDLA from validating the submission. When this happens, examiners receive an email alert but must correct the error before the SDLA can receive and post the record.

The FMCSA recognized early that MVR update delays were widespread, which led to several waivers. The current waiver, effective January 11 through April 10, 2026, allows carriers and drivers to rely on paper medical cards for up to 60 days after the exam.

Best practices for drivers and carriers

Proactive steps can significantly reduce both delays and compliance disruptions. Consider implementing the following:

1. Schedule exams early.

Encourage drivers to complete their exams at least two weeks before their certification expires. Maintain internal reminders to ensure drivers promptly report exam results and share a copy of their medical card.

2. Verify license information at the end of the exam.

Ask drivers to confirm that their personal information — name, date of birth, CDL number, and licensing state — matches what appears on the medical examination report (MCSA5876). Incorrect CDL formatting continues to be one of the most common causes of the NRII upload failures.

3. Request and retain a paper medical card.

Even though examiners aren’t required to issue a paper medical card, the FMCSA recommends that they do so during the NRII transition. Drivers should receive a paper card as these are legal proof of certification for up to 60 days under the current waiver and help prevent them from being placed out of service. A copy should go in the driver qualification file to be replaced by the updated MVR within 60 days.

4. Check MVRs within 2–5 days after each exam.

Early monitoring helps identify issues while examiners may be more receptive and able to quickly correct errors.

How to troubleshoot delayed MVR updates

The FMCSA recommends following a structured, three step troubleshooting process:

Step 1: Contact the medical examiner.

Confirm that they addressed any National Registry validation errors and resubmitted the MCSA5850. This is the most common issue that’s easily resolved.

Step 2: Reach out to the SDLA’s CDL help desk.

If issues pop up, carriers and drivers should contact the CDL help desk, not the general help line. Ideally, the call should include both a knowledgeable carrier representative and the driver. Begin by explaining that the examiner has already corrected any errors. Then request that the SDLA’s medicalcertification team “pull” the record directly from the National Registry.

Step 3: Contact the FMCSA Registry Support team if needed.

If steps 1 and 2 don’t resolve the issue, carriers and drivers should contact the FMCSA Registry Support team:

Phone: (617) 4943003

Email: fmctechsup@dot.gov

If the problem still isn’t resolved, carriers and drivers should document the steps taken to show good-faith efforts were made. If the driver’s MVR doesn’t update within the waiver period, to reduce the risk of having a disqualified driver citation, carriers should consider removing them from CMV driving until the MVR updates.

Key to remember: When carriers and drivers proactively manage medical exam timing and closely track MVR updates, they are less likely to face disqualification surprises or other compliance issues.

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.

What this means for California/CARB

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) may continue state-level enforcement of CTC for all in-state, out-of-state, and foreign-registered vehicles. However, they cannot claim SIP credit for emissions reductions from vehicles not registered in California.

What this means for trucking companies

Trucks not registered in California may still be subject to California enforcement, but EPA will not enforce those requirements federally. California cannot use those inspections or emissions reductions for SIP compliance.

Compliance options for testing

To comply with CARB’s CTC requirements, trucking companies can choose from multiple emissions testing options. Those options include:

• A telematics-based approach: The telematics option is a “set-it-and-forget-it” onboard diagnostics (OBD) test option. With this option, once the telematics device is set up on the vehicle, required data is automatically submitted to CARB.
• Hiring a credentialed tester to perform compliance testing: There are more than 30,000 credentialed testers, 15,000 of which are for hire. The “Credentialed Tester List - CTC-VIS” website features real-time updates to the list.
• Checking out a testing device from specified locations: Anyone can become a credentialed tester by taking the Tester Training Course and passing the exam in the Clean Truck Check-Vehicle Inspection System (CTC-VIS). Fleets can then perform the testing in-house without the need to hire third-party testers.
• Permit option: Finally, for vehicles that rarely operate in California, the HD I/M Regulation includes a five-day pass provision that allows any vehicle in the fleet to be operated in California for up to five consecutive days once per year without meeting the requirements of the rule.

FAQ: Does this regulation apply to my truck or fleet?

CTC applies to almost all diesel, alternative fuel, and hybrid vehicles, with a gross vehicle weight rating over 14,000 pounds, operating on public roads and highways in California — even if they are not registered in California. This includes:

• Government vehicles;
• Motorcoaches;
• Transit, shuttle, and school buses;
• Hybrid vehicles;
• Commercial and personal use vehicles;
• California registered motorhomes; and
• Single-vehicle fleets.

Freight contractors and brokers must:

• Only contract with compliant vehicles or fleets, and
• Comply with the record keeping requirements.

Ports and railyards also have requirements regarding CTC compliance status of vehicles and access to their facility.

Key to remember: EPA’s recent action does not end California’s CTC program. CARB enforcement continues, and trucks operating in the state are still required to comply with all program requirements.

Do exempt carriers need to have proof of insurance?

Carriers that haul exempt commodities are required to have the minimum level of financial responsibility required by 49 CFR 387, and their insurance provider must provide the carrier with an MCS-90 endorsement. However, the insurance need not be on file with the FMCSA. Many states have insurance requirements both for the amount required and the need to carry proof of coverage in the vehicle. Federally exempt for-hire carriers are not exempted from any state requirement.

Are exempt for-hire carriers required to name process agents?

Currently, exempt-for hire carriers are not required to name process agents for each state of operation as other for-hire carriers are required to do so on the BOC-3 form. That may change when the FMCSA fully implements their Unified Registration System, or URS. The system was introduced with a final rule in the summer of 2013 and included a provision requiring exempt carriers to have process agents. Much of the rule was suspended at the beginning of 2017. At some point, the agency would like to get the URS ball rolling again.

Are exempt carriers exempt from IFTA, IRP, HVUT, and UCR?

Exempt for-hire carriers are not exempt from the alphabet soup of revenue generating programs of the International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) allowing for the sharing of fuel tax revenue, the International Registration Plan (IRP) allowing for the sharing of vehicle registration fees, the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) tax for heavy vehicles that weight 55,000 pounds or more, or for the Unified Carrier Registration (UCR) revenue generating program.

Are exempt carriers exempt from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs)?

Exempt carriers are not automatically exempt from the safety regulations such as driver qualifications, drug and alcohol testing, commercial driver licenses, vehicle inspections, or the hours-of-service rules. Although livestock and agriculture commodity carriers may qualify for the hours-of-service agriculture exemption.

Key to remember: “Exempt” commodity haulers are exempt from very little. Primarily they are exempt from needing for-hire authority and designating process agents.

Key provisions

Key provisions of the final rule include:

Strict Eligibility: To be eligible for a non-domiciled CDL, the driver must possess an unexpired foreign passport and hold one of the following non-immigrant statuses:

• H-2A (Temporary Agricultural Workers),
• H-2B (Temporary Non-Agricultural Workers), and
• E-2 (Treaty Investors).

Proof of Eligibility: Applicants must present an unexpired foreign passport and specific Form I-94 documentation to the state driver licensing agency (SDLA). Employment Authorization Documentation (EAD) will no longer be accepted as proof of eligibility.

Mandatory SAVE Verification: State driver licensing agencies must query the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system to confirm every applicant's lawful immigration status.

Specific Validity Period: The validity period for a non-domiciled CDL may not exceed the expiration date of the “Admit Until Date” of the driver’s I-94 documentation or one year, whichever is sooner.

This rulemaking is effective March 16, 2026.

Case in point

In April, Toby, an employee, applied for FMLA leave for his chronic kidney stones. The certification indicated that he would need intermittent leave up to 3 times per month for 1 day per episode.

Things went fine until August 23, when Toby asked for time off. The conversation went something like this:

• Toby: Can I have a personal day tomorrow because my kids are starting a new school?
• Employer: Let me see if one’s available. It’s not available for tomorrow.
• Toby: Well, okay. I guess you’ll have to put me on FMLA leave then.
• Employer: OK, so FMLA for your kids’ school event.
• Toby: Thank you.

Toby ended up taking 4 days of medical leave.

Based on the phone conversation, the employer charged Toby with FMLA misuse and removed him from work pending an investigatory hearing.

At the hearing, Jolanda, the company’s FMLA manager, said it was clear, based on the conversation, that Toby “….marked off FMLA for an unapproved reason”—so clear that “[t]here wasn’t a need” for the company to “determine if the leave that [Toby] requested was actually used for FMLA protection or for purposes of the FMLA.”

Toby said that he needed to be off both because his kids were starting a new school and because his medical condition had started to flare up. He explained that he initially asked for a personal day, rather than FMLA leave, so he would be paid for the day and could avoid using up his FMLA time.

Toby said he saw a doctor for his flare-up and provided a doctor’s note dated August 24. The note said that Toby had been under a doctor’s care from August 24 to 27.

After the hearing (and despite the doctor’s note), the employer concluded that Toby had misused FMLA leave and fired him.

Toby sued, and the court sided with him, disagreeing with the employer’s argument that Toby had misused FMLA leave. Toby had enough evidence to establish that the employer’s decision to fire him wasn’t “reasonably informed and considered….”

The employer’s only basis for believing Toby misused FMLA leave was his phone call. The call didn’t conclusively establish that Toby engaged in misconduct, especially given his testimony that he needed to deal with both medical needs and family obligations. The doctor’s note also provided evidence that Toby’s request for leave was legitimate.

Pack v. CSX Transportation, Inc.; Southern District of West Virginia; No. 3:24-0688; January 14, 2026.

Key to remember: Employers should look at all the facts of a situation before concluding that an employee abused FMLA leave.

The courts weigh in

After being dismissed from the hiring process, the applicant sued the trucking company, arguing that the rejection violated Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act. The Act is a state law that defines how employers can use a person’s criminal past when making hiring decisions. Under the law, employers must:

• Show that a conviction relates to whether someone can do the job in question, and
• Put it in writing if they turn down an applicant based on criminal history.

A district court threw out the case, saying that the law applies only when employers obtain criminal records from state agencies, not when applicants disclose information themselves.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit disagreed. In reversing the lower court’s decision, the judge explained that the statute focuses on what kind of information an employer receives, not where it comes from. The law protects information that is part of someone's criminal history record, regardless of the source.

The key distinction, the court found, is between the type of information and its origin. When the applicant disclosed his robbery conviction, the company received information that exists in his criminal history record file maintained by state agencies. That triggered the law's protections, even though the company learned about it directly from the applicant rather than through an official background check. 

No impact on ‘ban-the-box’ laws

The trucking company argued that interpreting the law this way would make legislation known as “ban-the-box” laws meaningless. Local ban-the-box ordinances prohibit employers from asking about criminal history on job applications. But the court rejected that reasoning. Pennsylvania's law doesn’t stop employers from asking about convictions; it just limits what they can do with the answers. Ban-the-box laws are another layer of protection cities can choose to require.

The company also tried to use an exception in the statute for information from certain public sources like court documents and police blotters. The court wasn’t persuaded by this argument because even if that exception applied to hiring discrimination claims, it doesn’t cover what an applicant voluntarily shares. The law lists specific exempted sources, and by omitting applicant disclosures from that list, the legislature signaled they shouldn’t be exempt. 

The decision sent the case back to the lower court, where the company will have to defend its actions. That means the trucking company must show why the applicant’s robbery conviction makes him unsuitable to drive their trucks, and whether the company provided proper written notice when it turned him down. 

Employers, especially those in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands – the states covered by the Third Circuit – should be aware that this ruling clarifies that criminal history laws apply uniformly. The protections don’t disappear if an applicant chooses to be honest during the hiring process. 

Key to remember: A federal circuit court ruled that learning about a criminal conviction from a job applicant triggered the same legal protections as learning about it through an official background check during the hiring process. 

Balancing safety concerns and limits

When employers have safety concerns about an employee, they may ask the employee medical questions, but there are limits.

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces the employment provisions of the ADA:

• Employers must limit the scope of the inquiry to what is necessary to determine the employee’s ability to perform essential job functions or to assess the need for a reasonable accommodation.
• The employee must authorize any direct communication with their health care provider (think HIPAA).

What is a direct threat?

A direct threat is something that poses a significant risk of substantial harm that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation. To determine whether an employee poses a direct threat in the workplace, employers should consider the following factors:

• The duration of the risk,
• The nature and severity of the potential harm,
• The likelihood that potential harm will occur, and
• The imminence of the potential harm.

If, for example, an employee operating a forklift appears sleepy, the employer may tell the employee to get off the forklift and discuss the situation. The employer could discover that the employee is sleepy because:

• They had a late night out with friends,
• A colicky baby kept them up, or
• A drug or medication (legal or not) made them sleepy.

Employers shouldn’t jump to conclusions, but rather, document all related discussions and actions taken.

No hiding under a blanket

Blanket policies that require all employees to disclose all the medications they’re taking risk violating the ADA, because policies like that don’t focus on a particular employee, as required.

Employers with blanket policies should review them to make sure they aren’t adding risk.

If another federal law, such as the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act and its regulations, requires such medical questions, the ADA doesn’t stand in the way. If the laws don’t require the questions, the ADA steps in.

Key to remember: Unless required by another federal law, asking all employees to disclose the medications they take would risk violating the ADA.

Why guidance is needed

On January 20, the White House announced that the heads of all departments and agencies in the executive branch of the federal government must “take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis,” with few exceptions.

In response, on February 12, the EEOC and the OPM released guidance for agencies to help them stay consistent with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the “Act”).

The Act, which mirrors the standards under the Americans with Disabilities Act, provides equal employment opportunities for covered federal employees with disabilities, including reasonable accommodations, such as remote work.

What about private employers?

Although this directive specifically applies to federal employees, the FAQs illustrate the steps private employers should take with their employees when it comes to remote work accommodations. For example, as with federal employers, private employers must assess requests for remote work due to a disability on a case-by-case basis. In other words, a blanket “no remote work” policy won’t work.

Also, for both federal and private employers, retaliating against an employee who seeks an accommodation — even a remote work one — risks a violation. This means employers should train their frontline leaders to avoid making disparaging remarks or straight-up denying someone who asks to work from home because of a disability. This doesn’t mean employers must always agree to a remote work accommodation; there might be other options that are just as effective.

Key to remember: Federal employees must return to in-person work. Although this doesn’t impact private employers, recent FAQs published by the EEOC help provide guidance on the use of remote work as a workplace accommodation.

Topics and worker types covered

Topics addressed by these bills include musculoskeletal disorders, heat stress, infectious diseases, wildfire smoke, and workplace violence. Federal OSHA does not have comprehensive standards for any of those hazards. Some existing standards are related — sanitation, first aid, personal protective equipment, and injury/illness recordkeeping and reporting.

Without comprehensive standards, OSHA may turn to enforce these hazards under the General Duty Clause (GDC), Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Yet, the GDC poses a high bar for inspectors. OSHA can only cite under Section 5(a)(1) if the alleged hazard: exists, is recognized, is serious, and has a feasible means to reduce that hazard.

If any one of the four criteria is missing, a GDC citation will not hold. On the other hand, putting a standard in place both mandates protections and makes it much easier for OSHA to cite employers for the hazards.

Worth noting, some of the bills specifically cover domestic workers, firefighters, warehouse workers, public sector workers, and healthcare and social service workers.

Nine bills to watch

Below are the nine Congressional bills (and companions) currently under consideration:

• LET’S Protect Workers Act, H.R. 6597 — Introduced 12/10/2025. This bill would raise civil monetary penalties for employers that violate occupational safety and health requirements. Willful and repeat violations would jump to $800,000 each. The bill would also direct OSHA to close a loophole that prevents citations for failing to maintain required injury and illness records if the violation is not discovered within six months. Instead, every day an employer fails to make or maintain a record during the five-year record retention period would be a violation.
• Domestic Workers Bill of Rights Act, S. 3396 and H.R. 3971 — Introduced 12/9/2025 and 6/12/2025, respectively. This bill would require a board to make recommendations to OSHA for standards that affect the well-being of domestic employees, including infectious diseases protections.
• Healthy Lungs for Heroes Act, S. 3183 — Introduced 11/18/2025. This bill would require OSHA to develop an appropriate exposure limit for wildfire smoke for wildland firefighters and supporting staff where current PELs are not a good fit for wildfire situations. The bill would also require the incorporation by reference of a National Fire Protection Association standard on respirators for wildland fire-fighting operations.
• Warehouse Worker Protection Act, H.R. 4896 and S. 2613 — Introduced 8/5/2025 and 7/31/2025, respectively. This bill would require OSHA to publish a standard for ergonomic program management with elements including hazard identification, job evaluations, hazard control, training, and medical management. The bill also calls for OSHA to publish a standard on first aid and employer-provided occupational medicine consultation services. Finally, it would update the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) so a contest notice would not stay abatement of a violation.
• Asunción Valdivia Heat Illness, Injury, and Fatality Prevention Act, H.R. 4443 and S. 2298 — Both introduced 7/16/2025. These bills would require OSHA to promulgate a standard to protect workers from heat-related injuries and illnesses. Such a standard may have measures like engineering controls, administrative controls, personal protective equipment, medical and emergency protocols, training, and a written plan.
• Recognizing that climate change poses a growing threat to public health and necessitates coordinated action to mitigate its impacts and safeguard the health and well-being of all people in the United States, H.Res. 568 and S.Res. 318 — Both introduced 7/10/2025. These bills say that OSHA “should” promulgate a worker heat protection standard that, in accordance with the best available evidence, establishes the highest degree of health and safety protection feasible.
• Protecting America’s Workers Act, H.R. 3036 — Introduced 4/28/2025. This bill would require OSHA to update its incorporations by reference of national consensus standards, with some exceptions. The bill makes other changes to the OSH Act to expand coverage to public sector workers, increase protections, and raise penalties.
• Safe Workplaces Act, H.R. 2647 — Introduced 4/3/2025. This bill taps OSHA to issue nonmandatory guidance on activities and work practice controls that can be implemented at work to reduce workplace violence.
• Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers, H.R. 2531 and S. 1232 — Both introduced 4/1/2025. These bills mandate OSHA to issue a standard that requires covered employers within the healthcare and social service industries to develop and implement a comprehensive workplace violence prevention plan. The plan must include procedures and methods for risk assessment and identification of risks, hazard prevention and controls, reporting and investigation, emergency response, and training.

Key to remember

Several bills in Congress would modernize the OSH Act and mandate OSHA rulemaking to strengthen or increase worker protections.

Sampling results

Testing for a hazardous substance in Subpart Z would create an exposure record. Those regulations cover asbestos, lead, chromium, formaldehyde, and many other substances. In addition, the tables in 1910.1000 list hundreds of substances from carbon dioxide to vegetable oil mist. Testing for harmful substances that are not listed could also create an employee exposure record.

In addition, measuring noise, vibration, temperature extremes, or particulate matter will usually create an exposure record that must be retained for 30 years. However, measurements of conditions in a normal range (such as office temperature readings) are not exposure records under the OSHA standard.

Not every sample or measurement will create an exposure record. OSHA clarified that exposure records describe the identity of, and possibly the level of exposure to, a toxic substance or harmful physical agent. For example, if an indoor air quality evaluation sampled the HVAC system, the results might identify non-toxic bacteria typical in office or work environments. That result would not be an employee exposure record.

Known hazards

If employers test for a substance with known human health effects, OSHA considers the results to be an employee exposure record even if the levels are below a listed action level or permissible exposure limit (PEL). The term “employee exposure record” is not limited to records showing that exposure exceeds a particular level, but rather on the mere fact that occupational exposure exists. For example, testing for carbon dioxide levels would create an exposure record even if the results were well within safe parameters.

Of course, if exposures are below the action level, the employer can usually stop monitoring, unless a process or work practice changes in a way that could increase exposure. However, if exposures are above the action level but below the PEL, employers may need to conduct periodic monitoring, all of which become exposure records.

On the other hand, the standard does not cover situations where the employer can demonstrate that the toxic substance or harmful physical agent is not used, handled, stored, generated, or present in the workplace in any manner different from typical non-occupational situations.

Finally, OSHA notes that employee questionnaires are not exposure records because they don’t characterize exposures. For example, employers might survey the workforce about things like comfort, temperature, or similar conditions without actually measuring conditions.

However, if questionnaires address medical information, they can be “employee medical records” under 1910.1020. For instance, the questionnaire under the respiratory protection standard is a medical record, but not an exposure record. OSHA also requires maintaining certain medical records. For more information, see our article, Who retains employee medical records?

Key to remember: Employers must save employee exposure records of hazardous substances even if the measured amount was within acceptable levels.

Inspection failure

If the operator skips or rushes through the pre-shift inspection, safety concerns could get overlooked. Problems with systems like hydraulics, brakes, or steering can obviously contribute to accidents. However, even things like a non-functioning horn or lights could increase the likelihood of collisions.

Also, operators must report any problems that arise during the shift. If a pre-shift inspection identifies failures, the problem likely occurred during the previous shift and perhaps could have been reported. Equipment failures more likely occur during operation, not during idle time between shifts. If something goes wrong mid-shift, the operator must remove the truck from service. Make sure operators know how to report problems, send the truck for service, and obtain an alternate vehicle for the remainder of the shift.

Carrying loads too high

Operators should carry loads as low as possible. During inspections, OSHA compliance officers commonly see loads carried too high. This limits both visibility and stability. When the load size restricts visibility and the truck cannot travel in reverse (like going up a ramp), the operator should use a spotter.

Similarly, operators must never raise or lower a load while moving or turning. Doing so increases the risk of accidents from falling loads. Also, driving while watching the load (not the road) can increase the risk of striking pedestrians or objects.

Driving too fast

Employers might communicate speed limits, but most forklifts don’t have speedometers. Therefore, operators should understand what constitutes safe (and unsafe) speeds under various conditions. In locations with pedestrians or limited visibility, this might mean at walking speed, which can seem painfully slow.

OSHA compliance officers can issue citations for excessive speed. Excessive speed increases the risk of spilling a load, striking a pedestrian, and rollover potential.

Not certified for truck type

Forklift operators must receive training that covers the types of vehicles used. An operator trained on a sit-down counterbalanced forklift needs additional training to operate a stand-up model or even a powered pallet jack. A supervisor might be able to explain the controls for a different vehicle type, but that does not constitute “training” and certainly not certification. OSHA commonly issues citations for lacking operator certification.

In addition, employers must evaluate each operator’s performance every three years. Typically, this involves questioning the operator on safety rules and observing the operator performing typical duties. If the evaluation identifies problems, the employer must provide refresher training. Skipping this evaluation could result in a failure to identify violations that contribute to accidents.

An operator who is not certified for the vehicle type may lack understanding of critical handling characteristics or safety precautions, which increases the risk of accidents.

Key to Remember: When forklift operators feel under time pressure, they might focus on speed over safety. Skipping the inspection, driving too fast, raising loads while moving, and other behaviors put the operator and other employees at risk.

Total hours worked

Determining the total hours worked probably involves your Human Resources or payroll department. They key is to count only hours worked, not hours paid. Do not include vacation, sick leave, holidays, or other non-working time even if employees were paid for that time. If some employees are not paid the by the hour (such as salaried or commission employees) you can estimate their total hours.

The total hours are used to calculate the Total Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR), or incident rate, which is expressed as a ratio of injuries per 100 workers. For instance, a rate of 2.3 means that for every 100 employees, 2.3 employees had recordable injuries.

However, the incident rate is actually a ratio of injuries per 200,000 hours worked (representing 100 employees working 40 hours per week for 50 weeks). This allows OSHA to compare locations regardless of part-time staff, since the rate depends on hours worked, not on the number of people. This is also why employers don’t count vacation or holiday hours; employees cannot get work-related injuries during those hours.

Key to remember: Correctly calculating your workforce size and total hours worked ensures an accurate 300A summary and incident rate.

How do criminal charges happen?

OSHA has a formal process for referring criminal charges enabling the Agency to escalate serious violations to the Department of Justice (DOJ) or other law enforcement agencies when appropriate or warranted. Though limited, OSHA’s criminal enforcement powers can be swift, serious, and life changing.

Here's how the process flows:

1. OSHA identifies willful or fraudulent violations which typically include violations resulting in a fatality, providing false statements or fraudulent records, obstructing investigations, or having unlawful advance notice of an inspection.
2. An internal review is coordinated between OSHA’s legal team, the Department of Labor (DOL), and the DOL Inspector General.
3. A referral is made to the DOJ for criminal prosecution.
4. The DOJ evaluates whether the evidence meets the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence does meet the standard, the DOJ may pursue charges including willful violation causing death, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to commit fraud, etc.
5. Individuals (e.g., company owners, managers, safety directors) are criminally prosecuted for anywhere from fines to up to 5 years in prison.

But it doesn’t happen that often, right?

Unfortunately, criminal convictions from workplace incidents happen more than many people realize. Here are just a few examples of cases that not only resulted in financial penalties but also lead to jail time for the individuals responsible.

• February 2025: A site supervisor at a New York residential construction project failed to take proper precautions during a 9-foot trench dig which resulted in a trench collapse and the death of a laborer. The supervisor pled guilty to one count of second-degree reckless endangerment which resulted in a sentence of 150 community service hours. The company was also cited by OSHA for willful and serious violations totaling $30,060.
• July 2022: A Connecticut contractor failed to provide legally required safeguards and ensure they were in place to prevent trench collapses. The failure contributed to the death of an employee who was buried when the 8-foot-deep trench caved in. The company owner and an equipment operator both entered guilty pleas to a second-degree manslaughter, and each received a two-year suspended sentence with two years of probation. The company was cited with over $375,000 in penalties.
• July 2021: A Colorado site manager was sentenced to 10 months in jail for negligent homicide and felony manslaughter after a trench collapsed at a construction site, resulting in a fatality. The site manager was found to have ignored safety warnings and failed to implement required trench protective systems while the employee was working on a water service line. The company was also cited over $90,000 in penalties.
• May 2017: A Wisconsin corn milling facility exploded, killing 5 workers and injuring several others. Ultimately, OSHA cited the company for more than 20 serious and willful violations and imposed $1.8 million in penalties. Just a few years later, six employees were indicted for conspiracy, making false statements, and fraud. The result was a sentence of 5 years’ probation, $10.25 million in victim restitution, and an additional $1 million fine. Several employees also pleaded guilty to criminal charges with two being convicted and one being acquitted.
• October 2016: Following the death of two workers in a flooded trench, a Massachusetts contractor owner was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment on each of two concurrent counts of manslaughter and three years of probation for witness intimidation (attempts to mislead OSHA during the investigation of the collapse). In addition to almost $1.5 million in OSHA citations, the court also fined the contractor $1,000 for each manslaughter count and $5,000 for witness intimidation, totaling $7,000.
• March 2016 : A Pennsylvania roofing company owner plead guilty to four counts of making false statements, one count of obstruction of justice, and one count of willfully violating an OSHA regulation causing death to an employee. The owner was sentenced to 10 months in prison after failing to provide fall protection equipment to employees and attempting to cover up the failure by falsely claiming the equipment, including safety harnesses, was provided for employees. In addition to the prison term, the owner was sentenced to one year of supervised release and was required to pay a $510 special assessment, on top of thousands of dollars in OSHA citations.

Key to remember: Workplace safety violations can lead to criminal charges more often than expected, especially when negligence results in serious harm or death. The growing number of cases underscores the importance of maintaining a strong safety culture and adhering to regulatory standards to protect lives and avoid prosecution.