Why OSHA Enforcement is Intensifying in 2026
From reactive to predictive. Learn why "calm" regs don't mean relaxed enforcement and how to prep for high-stakes audits.
- By Eric Conn, Valerie Butera, Aaron Gelb
- Feb 27, 2026
Many business leaders assume that a lack of "new" Fed OSHA workplace safety regulations equates to a period of regulatory calm and relaxed enforcement efforts by the agency. However, it has become apparent that developing a workplace safety and health strategy based on such an assumption could be a costly mistake.
While OSHA has launched an impressive number of initiatives intended to meet employers where they are, increase engagement, expand compliance assistance, and create new pathways to its voluntary recognition programs, the Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA, David Keeling, has reiterated on several occasions that OSHA remains an enforcement agency that will continue inspecting and issuing citations to employers who fail to comply with applicable regulations.
Confirmed in October 2025, Mr. Keeling is a decorated, lifelong safety professional who began his career as a union package handler at UPS, rising through the ranks and becoming the Global VP of Health and Safety. In a recent presentation to the Small Business Administration, Mr. Keeling explained that his experience on the "concrete rather than the carpet" means he views enforcement not just as a bureaucratic hurdle, but as a vital tool for ensuring every worker goes home safely.
Even without a flurry of new regulations, OSHA has a bag full of tools that it can use to hold, find and fine workplace safety and health hazards, using National, Regional, and Local Emphasis Programs, as well as legacy policies including the Severe Violator Enforcement Program (SVEP), instance-by-instance citations, and enforcement press releases.
1. The Expansion of Targeted Inspections
Unbeknownst to many employers, OSHA does not have to wait for an employee complaint or self-reported SIF (serious injury or fatality) to gain access to your workplace. Over the past decade, OSHA has strategically added to its portfolio of National, Regional, and Local Emphasis Programs (NEPs, REPs, and LEPs), which are developed through exhaustive data analysis and field experience to target specific industries and/or hazards through proactive inspections.
Similarly, the agency’s Site-Specific Targeting (SST) program selects employers with elevated injury and illness rates for unannounced inspections that are comprehensive in scope. This means that OSHA inspectors can go wall-to-wall looking at a broad range of programs and work practices in search of the reasons the site has a higher-than-average number of injuries and/or illnesses.
Additionally, OSHA retains the ability to issue separate fines for each individual instance of certain violations (typically for training and/or PPE violations) in certain situations, often leading to six and seven-figure fines accompanied by a shaming press release.
2. Heat Illness: Enforcement Without a Final Rule
Although a federal "Heat Standard" has yet to be finalized, OSHA continues to issue citations under the General Duty Clause for both indoor and outdoor settings. Inspectors regularly launch "heat inquiries" during any site visit where temperatures reach or exceed 80°F as part of the Heat Illness National Emphasis Program that was renewed for another 12 months in April 2025. These inspections typically focus on mandatory "ramp-up" periods for new or returning workers and engineering and/or administrative controls.
This can include, but is not limited to, training for workers and supervisors alike, job rotation, cooling rooms and/or PPE, acclimatization and temperature monitoring programs, as well as basic elements like mandated hydration, rest, and shade. Crucially, this scrutiny extends to indoor environments like warehouses and kitchens, confirming that OSHA continues to focus on exposure to heat hazards, whether the workers are on a factory floor, in a warehouse, or atop a roof.
3. Mandated Transparency: OSHA’s Electronic Reporting Rule
OSHA has similarly continued to leverage data as a tool for enforcement by transparency, effectively putting self-reported injury and illness data under public scrutiny. Under the agency’s Injury Tracking Application (ITA) requirements, establishments with 100 or more employees in high-hazard industries must now electronically submit detailed Form 300 logs and Form 301 incident reports by March 2.
This shift ensures that case-specific injury data is increasingly accessible to the public, competitors, and labor unions, significantly raising the reputational stakes for employers. To manage this influx of information, OSHA and third-party watchdogs are now utilizing AI to scan narratives for anomalies or evidence of underreporting. Consequently, providing vague or inconsistent descriptions of "how an injury happened" can effectively flag a facility for a prioritized inspection.
4. Hazard Communication and PPE: The Rules are Shifting
In 2026, OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard reached a critical implementation phase as it aligns with the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) Revision 7. On January 15, 2026, OSHA issued a final rule extending the compliance deadlines by four months to allow for further guidance. This means chemical manufacturers, importers, and distributors now have until May 19, 2026, to evaluate substances and update Safety Data Sheets (SDS).
In turn, employers must update their workplace labeling, HazCom policies, and employee training by November 20, 2026. These updates introduce revised criteria for the classification of certain health and physical hazards, revised provisions for updating labels, new labeling provisions for small containers, significant new provisions related to trade secrets, and technical amendments related to the contents of safety data sheets (SDS).
Simultaneously, a major shift in Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) enforcement is now in effect, particularly for the construction industry. As of January 13, 2025, the updated Construction PPE Standard (29 CFR 1926.95) explicitly requires that all equipment be selected to ensure that it properly fits each affected employee. This change eliminates the legal viability of ‘one-size-fits-all’ inventory strategies that have often left employees with body sizes outside certain parameters at risk.
The updated rule specifies that all PPE, including universal-fit items, like adjustable helmets and gloves, as well as non-universal-fit items that may need to be tailored for individual workers, must fit the worker properly. While OSHA has made clear that it expects properly fitting PPE, it does not seem to be demanding a perfect fit – rather, employers are expected to provide PPE that will adequately protect workers from the hazards of the worksite without creating additional risk.
5. Documentation and Training: Under the Microscope After a Serious Incident
While producing a batch of training session sign-in sheets or rosters will often be enough to check the box for certain OSHA inspectors, employers should expect an exacting review of the effectiveness of their training program following a serious incident such as a fatality or amputation. Even without such an incident, there are many inspectors who will take the time to assess whether your employees truly understood the subject covered in the training, especially when serious hazards are involved.
For example, employees who are authorized to perform servicing and/or maintenance under the lockout/tagout (LOTO) standard must be able to recognize applicable hazardous energy sources, the type and magnitude of the energy available in the workplace. This includes the methods and means necessary for energy isolation and control. If an employee cannot do so when questioned by an OSHA inspector who looks beyond the basic training records, the entity employing that individual will likely be cited. Comprehension and competence should be the goal, not mere documentation.
Similarly, the use of generic, "cookie-cutter" safety programs and procedures is now a major red flag that often triggers more extensive regulatory scrutiny. OSHA inspectors will be looking for customized, thoughtful programs that reflect the reality out on the shop floor or at the job site. One specific parameter is LOTO procedures that accurately reflect the unique day-to-day conditions of the facility.
6. Additional Health and Safety Concerns to Monitor
Another developing area of enforcement that is being increasingly targeted by OSHA, particularly in state plan states, is workplace violence through the General Duty Clause or state-specific regulations. This is a result of it becoming more common and being quite onerous for employers. Workplace violence has become a focus, particularly in high-risk sectors like healthcare and social services. OSHA compliance officers most commonly cite facilities for, among other things, a lack of a comprehensive, written workplace violence prevention plans/safeguards to prevent incidents.
Additionally, citations are made for failure to provide training to employees, including de-escalation training. OSHA has also scrutinized lone worker safety in the workplace violence context. For employees operating in isolation—such as remote maintenance techs or home health aides—OSHA expects to see actions like documented check-in procedures and emergency response protocols to ensure support and timely assistance.
Powered industrial truck (“PIT”) safety also remains a critical focal point, consistently ranking in the top 10 most frequently cited standards based on data from federal OSHA. It is essential for employers using PITs to understand their regulatory obligations. For example, initial training and evaluation of PIT operators to confirm competent operation are required alongside a re-evaluation every 3 years.
These need to meet the specific elements outlined in the standard. Employers can face heavy fines for failing to perform the required training and evaluation, as well as failure to properly certify the same. Those provisions serve as some of the most frequently cited in 29 C.F.R. 1910.178, particularly if they are cited as a Repeat violation.
Conclusion: The Proactive Path Forward
The intensification of OSHA enforcement in 2026 represents a fundamental shift toward a transparent, data-driven, and unforgiving regulatory environment. Under Assistant Secretary David Keeling’s leadership, the agency has moved decisively from a reactive posture to one of "predictive vigilance," where compliance is no longer a static goal but a continuous operational discipline.
For employers, the path forward requires a three-pillared approach:
- maintaining absolute data integrity in electronic reporting to avoid AI-triggered audits
- replacing generic "cookie-cutter" safety manuals with site-specific programs tailored to localized hazards
- shifting the focus from mere training attendance to verifiable employee retention
In this new era, a supervisor’s signature on a log carries far less weight than an employee’s ability to accurately explain hazard controls during an unexpected floor interview.
Ultimately, 2026 is the year of the "safety guy" at the helm of OSHA, and the agency’s constructively dissatisfied stance means enforcement will continue to be leveraged as the primary tool for progress. The businesses that thrive this year will be those that treat safety as a high-stakes operational priority rather than a secondary administrative task.
By conducting aggressive internal audits and fostering a culture of competency before an inspector arrives, you can ensure that your safety documentation is as robust as your physical barriers. Embracing this proactive stance is the only way to protect your workforce, your brand reputation, and your bottom line in an era where the rules may be familiar, but the scrutiny has never been more intense.