SAFETY & COMPLIANCE NEWS
Keep up to date on the latest
developments affecting OSHA, DOT,
EPA, and DOL regulatory compliance.
Copyright 2026 J. J. Keller & Associate, Inc. For re-use options please contact copyright@jjkeller.com or call 800-558-5011.
FEATURED NEWS
2026-03-05T06:00:00Z
NewsEnforcement and Audits - OSHAPersonal Protective EquipmentForklifts and Powered TrucksIn-Depth ArticleUSAEnglishPersonal Protective EquipmentWork ZonesIndustry NewsEnforcement and Audits - OSHASafety & HealthForklifts and Powered TrucksConstruction SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyWork ZonesFlaggersFocus AreaSafety Vests
Killed by a forklift or a high vis vest?
Fatal injuries have a ripple effect throughout an organization – least of all the painstaking task of performing an investigation without placing blame on employees. What’s the true cause of an incident when a forklift strikes a worker wearing the wrong-colored vest? Worker behavior may play a role, but the issue usually lies much deeper.
Look for systemic patterns
A pattern of incidents at one battery construction site is a great example of how individual decisions and company safety systems intertwine to determine the outcome of daily events. OSHA’s report on the March 2025 death of a company CEO showed that while individual decisions played a role, the fatality occurred within a broader pattern of systemic safety failures at the construction site.
According to Agency findings, the employee chose to cross a roadway while wearing a black vest instead of the required high visibility vest, which drastically reduced the employee’s visibility. At the same time, a site forklift driver was reportedly talking on the phone while operating the vehicle which also contributed to the result of the incident.
OSHA’s conclusions made clear that organizational systems and controls, not just the individuals’ choices, were the primary shortcomings. Multiple companies on site failed to enforce safety rules, maintain traffic controls, or ensure proper operator behavior. For example, the forklift driver’s employer received the largest fine for exposing workers to struck-by hazards and failing to ensure operators followed basic safety practices such as speed limits, phone use, use of spotters, and horn use when visibility was obstructed.
The report reflected an even larger pattern, finding that the employee’s death was one of many safety incidents at the construction mega site, which had recorded dozens of previous traumatic injuries, multiple fatalities, and at least 15 OSHA investigations. Previous incidents included falls, other forklift injuries, a conveyor entrapment, a pipe explosion, and a fatal crushing incident earlier in 2025. This track record should have been an early warning that system-level safety gaps and inconsistent safety management were key contributors, far outweighing any single person’s decisions.
Stomp out systemic failures
While individual decisions like walking into a traffic zone or operating equipment while distracted may influence an incident, they rarely tell the whole story. Root causes usually reflect deeper underlying weaknesses in the organization’s safety systems, such as:
- Fragmented safety oversight that leads to inconsistent enforcement of safety rules, policies, PPE requirements, and behavioral expectations;
- Inadequate traffic and equipment controls that invite a mingling of vehicles with pedestrians or dangerous forklift operational habits;
- Breakdowns in communication between workers including unreported injuries, language barriers, or inadequate signage that results in workers missing warnings or misunderstanding proper procedures; and
- Normalized incidents or near misses, which eventually become serious incidents and fatalities and result in a reactive rather than proactive safety culture.
These conditions can quickly create an environment where ordinary human mistakes are far more likely to lead to severe or fatal outcomes. Employers need to look beyond the individual employee decisions and investigate which systemic failures allowed the decision to become deadly. This is where OSHA regulations help.
Leverage OSHA regulations
You’ve likely heard the saying, “OSHA regulations have been written in blood” meaning someone (or many someones) have been seriously injured in the workplace which resulted in regulations aimed at protecting others from a repeat of similar situations.
Since OSHA was established nearly 55 years ago, its standards and enforcement efforts have helped save more than 712,000 workers’ lives. Even so, employers must continue to identify and strengthen gaps in their safety programs and systems to shield workers from the consequences of inevitable human decisions.
Employers shouldn’t just use OSHA regulations as a means for compliance but to actively protect workers by controlling hazards and setting clear expectations for safe work. Standards such as 1910.147 (Lockout/Tagout), 1910.1200 (Hazard Communication), 1926.501 (Fall Protection), and 1910.178 (Powered Industrial Trucks) give employers concrete requirements for preventing injuries and keeping employees safe on the job. Filling systemic safety gaps by using these standards can prevent thousands of serious injuries and fatalities every year. As demonstrated with this forklift struck-by fatality, most workplace deaths stem from hazards that OSHA rules are designed to control.
Key to remember: Serious incidents and fatalities are rarely caused by individual decisions but by broader system failures like insufficient safety oversight, inconsistent rule enforcement, and poor worksite communication. Employers can prevent these incidents by leveraging regulatory compliance to identify and correct weaknesses in their safety systems.
Keep reading...Show less
RECENT INDUSTRY HIGHLIGHTS
2026-03-05T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsHazmat Driver TrainingHazmat SafetyHazmat TrainingFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleEnglishTransportationUSA
What function-specific training means for drivers
Most hazmat violations don’t start with bad paperwork or missing placards. They start with a simple question during a roadside inspection, followed by a pause. Inspectors aren’t always looking for a wrong answer. They’re trying to determine whether the driver understands why they made a certain decision. That expectation is tied to something DOT calls function-specific training, and it plays a bigger role in inspections than many drivers realize.
Function-specific training isn’t about memorizing regulations. It is about knowing how hazmat regulations apply to the work drivers perform on the road. When inspectors ask questions, they’re often evaluating whether the driver understands the hazmat functions tied to their role, not just whether the load looks compliant.
More than general awareness
Hazmat general awareness training helps drivers recognize hazardous materials and understand basic requirements. Function-specific training goes a step further. For drivers, it focuses on tasks such as verifying shipping papers, maintaining placards, selecting safe parking locations, following routing restrictions, and responding appropriately when plans change.
Inspectors assume drivers understand these responsibilities because they are part of the driving job. When a driver cannot explain why a vehicle was parked in a certain location or why a specific route was chosen, the issue often becomes a training concern rather than a simple mistake.
Training gaps
Many training-related violations happen because drivers didn’t realize a rule applied to them. Parking and attendance are common examples. A driver may believe that locking the truck or parking in a familiar spot is sufficient. Inspectors expect drivers to know when attendance is required and how parking decisions affect public safety.
Routing decisions also reveal training gaps. Drivers who rely only on GPS may unknowingly travel through restricted areas. From an enforcement perspective, route selection is a driver function. Inspectors expect drivers to recognize when hazmat restrictions apply and when a route needs to be questioned.
In these situations, intent doesn’t matter. Inspectors focus on whether the driver was trained to perform the hazmat function correctly.
Training doesn't stop at the gate
One of the most important points for drivers to understand is that hazmat training doesn’t end when the truck leaves the facility. Every decision made with a hazmat load is part of a regulated function. That includes where to stop, how long to stay parked, which route to take, and what to do when delays or breakdowns occur.
Drivers who understand this tend to pause and ask questions when something feels questionable. That pause often prevents violations. Drivers who treat hazmat loads like general freight are more likely to make decisions that inspectors challenge.
Knowledge matters
During roadside inspections, inspectors are not just checking for compliance. They are assessing whether the driver understands the hazmat responsibilities tied to their role. When a driver can clearly explain their decisions, inspections tend to go more smoothly. When they can’t, inspectors are more likely to dig deeper and conduct a more thorough inspection.
Key to remember: Drivers are expected to understand how hazmat regulations apply to the decisions they make every day on the road. When drivers see those decisions as part of their training responsibility, they are better prepared for inspections and less likely to be surprised by citations.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-03-04T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsSafety & HealthGeneral Industry SafetyLabor Law PostersLabor Law PostersEnglishFocus AreaUSA
OSHA releases updated “Job Safety and Health Workplace Poster”
OSHA recently released an updated Job Safety and Health Poster, which informs workers of their rights under the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970. The revised poster is part of the agency’s “OSHA Cares” initiative. Employers can use either the revised version or the older one, but the poster must be displayed in a conspicuous place where workers can easily see it.
Under the OSH Act, employers must provide employees with a safe and healthful work environment. Employees also have a right to:
- Speak up about safety and health concerns without retaliation;
- Report an injury or illness;
- Have training in a manner they understand;
- Be provided with required safety equipment;
- Request an OSHA inspection and speak with the inspector;
- File a complaint with OSHA about workplace hazards; and
- Ask for free safety and compliance assistance from OSHA at any time.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-03-04T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsWater PermittingWater ProgramsEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)EnvironmentalCWA ComplianceStormwaterEnglishFocus AreaUSA
EPA temporarily extends 2021 MSGP coverage
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued an administrative continuance of the 2021 Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) and a No Action Assurance memorandum for industrial stormwater discharges regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
The 2021 MSGP expired on February 28, 2026. However, because EPA hasn’t reissued a new permit to replace the expired permit, the 2021 MSGP remains in effect for facilities previously covered. Additionally, the No Action Assurance allows facilities without previous coverage to discharge industrial stormwater in compliance with the 2021 MSGP.
Who’s affected?
Facilities are required to obtain MSGPs for stormwater discharges from industrial activities in areas where EPA is the permitting authority, including:
- Existing facilities (those that had active coverage under the 2021 MSGP), and
- New facilities (those that didn’t obtain coverage under the 2021 MSGP before it expired).
What do existing facilities do?
The administrative continuance automatically applies to existing facilities that were actively covered by the 2021 MSGP before it expired. The facility’s coverage status should show “Admin. Continued” in the NPDES eReporting Tool (NeT-MSGP).
Facilities will remain covered by the 2021 MSGP until EPA issues a new MSGP and the facilities obtain coverage under the new MSGP. Until then, existing facilities should continue to comply with the 2021 MSGP requirements.
EPA will provide further guidance on renewing coverage when it issues the new MSGP.
What do new facilities do?
New facilities can’t obtain coverage under the MSGP until EPA issues a new permit. However, EPA issued a memorandum on February 27, 2026, establishing a No Action Assurance. The agency won’t take enforcement action against new facilities for unpermitted stormwater discharges if the facilities meet specific conditions.
The No Action Assurance extends from March 1, 2026, to the new MSGP’s effective date.
Applicability
EPA’s No Action Assurance applies to facilities that:
- Discharge stormwater on or after March 1, 2026 (but before the new MSGP’s effective date); and
- Didn’t submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) for coverage under the 2021 MSGP before its expiration on February 28, 2026.
The assurance doesn’t apply to existing facilities that started stormwater discharges before February 28, 2026, without obtaining 2021 MSGP coverage.
Conditions
To be covered by the No Action Assurance, new facilities have to:
- Meet the 2021 MSGP eligibility criteria,
- Submit an NOI form (Appendix G of the MSGP) via msgp@epa.gov to notify EPA of their intention to operate according to all applicable 2021 MSGP requirements before discharging industrial stormwater, and
- Comply with all applicable 2021 MSGP regulations, such as:
- Developing and implementing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan,
- Installing and maintaining stormwater controls, and
- Conducting site inspections and monitoring.
What’s next?
Once EPA issues the new MSGP, facilities planning to continue industrial stormwater discharges must submit a new NOI through Net-MSGP within 90 days of the new MSGP’s effective date to obtain coverage under the new MSGP.
EPA provides guidance for existing and new facilities on its “Administrative Continuance of EPA’s 2021 MSGP” webpage.
Key to remember: EPA has temporarily extended coverage under the 2021 MSGP for industrial stormwater discharges until the agency issues a new general permit.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-03-04T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsEnglishFuel/Mileage Tax PermitsInternational Registration Plan (IRP)Credentials for unlicensed vehicles/trailersTemporary trip permitsVehicle Registration PermitsFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleFleet OperationsFleet TaxesTransportationRegistration and Permits - Motor CarrierUSA
In-depth IRP: Can trip permits be used with restricted plates?
Carriers operating vehicles with restricted plates often assume trip permits allow short‑term interstate travel. However, under the International Registration Plan (IRP), restricted plates are treated differently than fully apportioned registrations. And trip permits don’t change those limitations.
In most cases, trip permits do not legalize interstate travel for restricted plates. What does that mean, and are there exceptions?
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.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-03-04T06:00:00Z
NewsFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)LeaveFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Time offHR ManagementEnglishLeaveUSAAssociate Benefits & CompensationIndustry NewsIndustry NewsHR GeneralistAssociate RelationsFocus AreaHuman Resources
U.S. House committee holds hearing on paid leave
What if the U.S. had only one paid leave law? On February 24, the U.S. House Employee Protections subcommittee held a hearing titled “Balancing Careers and Care: Examining Innovative Approaches to Paid Leave.” The hearing was held to examine the issues and challenges of the U.S. paid leave landscape.
The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) gives eligible employees unpaid, job-protected leave. State paid leave laws, however, help fill in the wage gap to provide employees with paid leave, since only 27 percent of private sector workers in the U.S. currently have access to some form of paid time off. More than 20 states and the District of Columbia have enacted paid leave laws that allow employers to access private insurance and offer paid leave to their employees.
With the patchwork of state paid leave laws, House members at the hearing recognized the challenge private-sector benefits managers have in navigating them. State leave laws have different details, such as:
- Employer coverage;
- Employee eligibility to take leave;
- How leave is paid;
- State involvement in administering the leave;
- Reasons for leave, including the definition of a family member;
- Documentation of leave;
- Amount of leave; and
- Job protections.
One plan to try to cover all applicable state leave laws is not usually effective, given all the differences. Members of the House Bipartisan Paid Leave Working Group have been working to produce a common-sense, bipartisan proposal at the federal level to improve paid leave. Last year, they came up with the More Paid Leave for More Americans Act (H.R. 3089), which rests on several pillars, including:
- Establishing a public-private partnership, and
- Incentivizing coordination and harmonization of paid leave benefits across states through an Interstate Paid Leave Action Network, or I-PLAN.
The I-PLAN would work toward having state laws have commonality with current distinctions, such as employer coverage and employee eligibility. Historically, however, employers haven’t taken advantage of optional private-public programs.
Members also asked witnesses about the need to address fraud in these paid leave programs, as they try to design a roadmap to a better employee paid leave solution.
Could a federal paid leave law be in the future? Employers shouldn’t hold their breath on this or whether H.R. 3089 will become law. They should, however, keep an eye on Congress’s interest in this issue.
Key to remember: Members of Congress continue to keep paid employee leave at a federal level in their sights, as indicated by a recent hearing on the subject.
Keep reading...Show less
Search all news
Got a Compliance Question?
We’ve Got You Covered!
Get clear, reliable answers from experts with 500+ years of combined experience.
J. J. Keller is the trusted source for DOT / Transportation, OSHA / Workplace Safety, Human Resources, Construction Safety and Hazmat / Hazardous Materials regulation compliance products and services. J. J. Keller helps you increase safety awareness, reduce risk, follow best practices, improve safety training, and stay current with changing regulations.
Copyright 2026 J. J. Keller & Associate, Inc. For re-use options please contact copyright@jjkeller.com or call 800-558-5011.