
Welcome to J. J. Keller COMPLIANCE NETWORK
Make regulatory compliance easier than ever at your company with expert guidance and resources custom-tailored to your exact needs.
Welcome to J. J. Keller COMPLIANCE NETWORK
Make regulatory compliance easier than ever at your company with expert guidance and resources custom-tailored to your exact needs.
Workplace safety (OSHA).
Transportation (DOT).
Environment (EPA).
Human resources (DOL).
The date of December 1 often evokes thoughts of colder weather, the start of the Christmas season, and … waste manifests?! That’s certainly the case this year for hazardous waste handlers. On December 1, 2025, the rest of the Third Rule’s compliance requirements for electronic manifests take effect.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) final Third Rule, established under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), amends the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System (e-Manifest system) standards. Many of the requirements began in January 2025. The Third Rule’s remaining regulatory changes start on December 1, 2025. Are you prepared to comply?
Use this checklist to help you ensure that your business is set to comply with the rest of the Third Rule’s requirements that take effect in December.
Under the Third Rule, EPA replaced the 5-copy paper manifests and continuation sheets with 4-copy paper manifests (EPA Form 8700-22) and continuation sheets (EPA Form 8700-22A). However, the agency allows hazardous waste handlers to continue using the 5-copy paper forms until further notice. EPA will provide a 90-day notice before it intends to stop accepting the 5-copy forms.
Note: At the time of the publication of this article, EPA has not yet given any authorized printer approval to print the new 4-copy manifest forms. As an authorized printer of the hazardous waste manifest forms, J. J. Keller & Associates, Inc. is working closely with EPA for approval to print the new 4-copy forms.
Users need Certifier permission on the e-Manifest module or Site Manager permission on the RCRA Information (RCRAInfo) Industry Application to submit manifests.
Compliance check:
☑ Begin to use the 4-copy manifests and continuation sheets as soon as they’re made available.
☑ Ensure that at least one user has Certifier or Site Manager permission.
As of December 1, 2025, domestic hazardous waste exporters must submit all export manifests and continuation sheets (paper and electronic) to the e-Manifest system and pay the associated user fees.
An exporter is considered any entity that originates a manifest to export a hazardous waste shipment. This includes generators; transporters; treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; and recognized traders.
EPA will invoice exporters monthly for the manifest activities conducted during the previous month. The agency applies a fee per manifest, and the amount varies based on the type of submission (scanned image upload, data and image upload, or fully/hybrid electronic manifest).
Only individuals with Site Manager permission on RCRAInfo can pay manifest fees.
Compliance check:
☑ Prepare to use the e-Manifest system for export manifests and pay user fees.
☑ Verify that at least one person has Site Manager permission.
The Third Rule requires hazardous waste handlers to submit all Discrepancy, Exception, and Unmanifested Waste Reports to the e-Manifest system starting on December 1, 2025.
Generators submit Exception Reports, and receiving facilities submit Discrepancy and Unmanifested Waste Reports. No fees apply.
To submit the manifest-related reports to the e-Manifest system, users require Certifier permission for the module.
Compliance check:
☑ Be ready to submit manifest-related reports to the e-Manifest system.
☑ Confirm that at least one user has Certifier permission.
Beginning on December 1, 2025, entities that transport hazardous waste export shipments out of the U.S. (i.e., last transporters) have to send a signed copy of the manifest and continuation sheet to the exporter instead of the generator.
Further, the Third Rule clarifies that starting on December 1, 2025, transporters can use the e-Manifest system to export hazardous waste and send exporters copies of the signed manifest and continuation sheet. Transporters planning to do so need to set up a RCRAInfo account to use the e-Manifest system and assign Certifier permission to the user(s) who will submit the manifests.
Compliance check:
☑ Plan to send signed copies of the manifest and continuation sheet to the exporter.
☑ If applicable, register an account on RCRAInfo, and ensure at least one user has Certifier permission.
EPA has multiple resources to help regulated hazardous waste handlers comply with e-Manifest regulations, including the upcoming Third Rule’s requirements that take effect on December 1, 2025. Consider using the resources the agency provides on “The Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest (e-Manifest) System” website, such as:
The compliance checklist and e-Manifest resources can help you ensure that your facility will be ready to comply with the rest of the Third Rule’s requirements by December.
Key to remember: The remaining e-Manifest Third Rule requirements take effect on December 1, 2025. Facilities should confirm that they’re prepared to comply.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it will accept 5-copy paper manifest forms from entities regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste manifest program until further notice.
What changed?
The final Third Rule (effective on January 22, 2025) made multiple changes to the hazardous waste manifest regulations, one of which requires regulated entities to use 4-copy manifests (EPA Form 8700-22) and continuation sheets (EPA Form 8700-22A) instead of the previous 5-copy forms.
Initially, EPA stated that it would no longer accept 5-copy forms starting on December 1, 2025. However, the agency has removed the limit and will accept the 5-copy forms until further notice. Additionally, EPA will give a 90-day notice before the agency plans to stop accepting the 5-copy forms.
As an authorized printer of the hazardous waste manifest forms, J. J. Keller & Associates, Inc. is working closely with EPA for approval to print the new 4-copy forms. At the time of publication of this news article, the federal agency hasn’t yet approved any authorized printer to print the new forms.
Exporter and importer requirements
Hazardous waste exporters and importers that use the 5-copy manifest forms are required to put the consent numbers for their wastes in the Special Handling Instructions and Additional Information Field (Item 14) of the 5-copy manifest. If applicable, exporters must also enter their EPA Identification (ID) Numbers in Item 14. The agency recommends using this format: “Exporter EPA ID #AAANNNNNNNNN."
Please note that we will monitor any additional changes that result from EPA's decision to continue accepting 5-copy paper manifest forms and provide updates accordingly.
Key to remember: EPA will accept 5-copy manifests and continuation sheets beyond the initial deadline of December 1, 2025, until further notice.
Starting January 1, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will enforce sweeping changes under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act, targeting the use and management of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)—potent greenhouse gases used in refrigeration, air conditioning, and fire suppression.
These rules apply to all businesses with equipment containing 15 pounds or more of refrigerant with a Global Warming Potential (GWP) over 53, including but not limited to grocery stores, refrigerated transport fleets, repair shops, and small businesses.
1. Leak detection and repair
2. Refrigerant reclamation
3. Recordkeeping and reporting
4. Disposal and recycling
Grocery retailers
Refrigerated transport
Repair shops
All end users: what you must do now
States like California, Washington, and New York are implementing stricter refrigerant rules that may exceed federal AIM Act standards. Businesses operating across state lines must monitor local regulations and prepare for additional reporting and inspections.
Key to remember: If your business uses refrigerants, the AIM Act likely applies to you. Start preparing now to avoid penalties and ensure compliance by 2026.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Spring 2025 Semiannual Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions on August 30, 2025. The agenda outlines the agency’s upcoming regulatory actions and their status in the rulemaking process.
EPA has major updates on the docket, such as:
Additionally, the agency intends to address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) across multiple media. For example, EPA plans to:
This article highlights some of the major rules we’re monitoring closely. You can review the entire agenda to learn about all the rulemakings on EPA’s docket. Please note that the agenda dates are tentative, indicating when the agency seeks to publish the rulemakings in the Federal Register.
Final Rule Stage | |
Projected publication date | Title |
December 2025 | Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Reconsideration of Certain Regulatory Requirements Under the Technology Transitions Provisions of the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020 |
January 2026 | Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act; Common Sense Approach to Chemical Accident Prevention |
February 2026 | Addition of Certain Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) |
February 2026 | Initial Air Quality Designations for the 2024 Revised Primary Annual Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) |
April 2026 | Listing of Specific PFAS as Hazardous Constituents |
Proposed Rule Stage | |
Projected publication date of notice of proposed rulemaking | |
October 2025 | Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction Category (40 CFR 435 Subpart E) |
October 2025 | New Source Performance Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry |
November 2025 | Additional Reconsideration of Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review |
November 2025 | PFAS Requirements in NPDES Permit Applications |
November 2025 | Steam Electric Effluent Limitations Guideline Reconsideration Rule |
December 2025 | Updates to the RCRA Hazardous Waste Regulations and Related Technical Corrections — Permitting Updates Rule |
January 2026 | Paper Manifest Sunset Rule; Modification of the Hazardous Waste Manifest System |
January 2026 | Revision to “Begin Actual Construction” in the New Source Review Preconstruction Permitting Program |
April 2026 | Reconsideration of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Gasoline Distribution Technology Reviews and New Source Performance Standards Review for Bulk Gasoline Terminals |
May 2026 | Formaldehyde; Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) |
Pre-Rule Stage | |
Projected publication date or other action | Title |
September 2025 (advanced notice of proposed rulemaking) | Visibility Protection: Regional Haze State Plan Requirements Rule Revision |
December 2025 (end review) | National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing |
Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news. Let’s take a look at what’s happened over the past month!
OSHA extended the comment period for multiple proposed rules it published on July 1. Stakeholders now have an extra 60 days, until November 1, to comment. Impacted rules include those for respiratory protection, construction illumination, COVID-19, and the General Duty Clause.
OSHA is expanding its Voluntary Protection Programs to help employers develop strong safety programs and lower injury rates. To participate, employers must submit an application to OSHA and undergo an onsite evaluation by a team of safety and health professionals.
Following a series of recent trench collapses, OSHA urges employers to take steps to protect workers. Trench collapses can be prevented by sloping or benching trench walls at an angle, shoring trench walls with supports, and shielding walls with trench boxes. More information can be found on OSHA’s website.
The Mine Safety and Health Administration launched a webpage for its new Compliance Assistance in Safety and Health, or CASH, program. The agency anticipates a surge in domestic mining productivity and seeks to proactively provide miners and mine operators with compliance assistance materials.
Turning to environmental news, EPA proposes challenges to California’s Clean Truck Check program. The program aims to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter for heavy-duty vehicles. EPA supports the regulation as it applies to California-registered vehicles but disapproves the regulation as it applies to out of state and out of country vehicles. Stakeholders have until September 25 to comment on the proposal.
On August 14, EPA released the July 2025 nonconfidential TSCA Inventory of chemical substances manufactured, processed, or imported in the U.S. The Inventory contains over 86 thousand chemicals, nearly half of which are in active use. The next inventory update is planned for late 2026.
And finally, EPA proposes to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repeal greenhouse gas emissions for new motor vehicles and vehicle engines. The agency will accept comments on the proposal through September 15.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
On September 4, 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew a direct final rule it issued on July 22, 2025, that offered active and inactive coal combustion residuals (CCR) facilities an alternative reporting option and delayed corresponding compliance obligations for CCR management units (CCRMUs). However, the parallel proposed rule that was published with the direct final rule remains in place, and EPA has extended the comment period through September 15, 2025.
Who does this affect?
The direct and proposed rules impact (a) active CCR facilities and (b) inactive CCR facilities with inactive surface impoundments (called legacy CCR surface impoundments) that are regulated by the 2024 Legacy Rule.
What does this mean?
Because the direct rule was withdrawn, the alternative reporting option for the Facility Evaluation Report (FER) Part 1 doesn’t apply, and the compliance deadlines for the related CCRMU requirements revert to the previous timelines.
The parallel proposed rule remains active and contains the same changes as the withdrawn direct final rule, including:
Further, the proposed rule seeks public input on potentially delaying both FER reporting deadlines and adjusting the CCRMU compliance timelines accordingly. The proposed additional extension would give CCR facilities the option to:
You can submit comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2020-0107.
Please see the original Industry News article ("EPA offers CCR facilities delayed reporting option and extends compliance deadlines") for more information about the withdrawn direct rule and the active proposed rule.
Key to remember: EPA has withdrawn a direct final rule that offered active and inactive coal combustion facilities an alternative reporting option, but the agency has kept the corresponding proposed rule in place.
In a renewed alliance, OSHA, the National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA), and the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) will continue to work together to improve the safety and health of workers in the solid waste and recycling industry.
The partnership will focus on safety issues such as:
OSHA, NWRA, and SWANA will develop resources to help employers prevent and mitigate hazards, including:
The group will share these resources and additional information at conferences, forums, and meetings, with much of their outreach aimed at reaching small- and medium-sized employers who may have limited access to safety information.
Effective date: July 29, 2025
This applies to: Oil and gas operations
Description of change: The New Mexico Oil Conservation Commission adopted amendments to ban per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from being used in completions (bringing into production) or recompletions (restarting production) of oil wells. The amendments to 19.15 N.M.A.C.:
Effective date: January 1, 2026
This applies to: Residential windows, doors, and skylights sold or leased for residential use in the state
Description of change: As of January 1, 2026, all residential windows, doors, and skylights sold or leased for residential use in Colorado must meet specific energy efficiency standards established by House Bill 23-1161. The Colorado Energy Office established an alternative energy standard for compliance. Manufacturers may choose between the standard at C.R.S. 6-7.5-105(5)(j)(l) and the alternative standard at 5 CCR 1004-2(1.1).
Effective date: August 21, 2025
This applies to: Businesses subject to the Climate Commitment Act Program rule
Description of change: The Department of Ecology updated the offset protocol for ozone-depleting substances (ODS) to expand the scope of offset projects available to Cap-and-Invest Program participants. The amendments to chapter 173-446 WAC:
View related state info: Clean air operating permits — Washington
Effective date: January 1, 2026
This applies to: Entities subject to the Well Construction Rules
Description of change: The Board of Examiners of Water Construction and Pump Installation Contractors adopted amendments to:
Effective date: July 1, 2025
This applies to: Any entity that sells or supplies transportation fuel in the state
Description of change: The California Air Resources Board (or CARB) amended the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to set more stringent LCFS carbon intensity (CI) benchmarks. The amendments require:
The amendments also:
View related state info: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulation State Comparison
Effective date: June 6, 2025
This applies to: Sources required to record monthly data for nitrogen oxide emissions and/or distributed/emergency generators with a general permit
Description of change: The Office of Air Resources removed monthly recordkeeping limits for:
The office amended Part 27 to remove the requirement to record within the first 15 days of the month:
The office also amended Part 43 to remove the requirement to record within the first five days of the month:
Sources may record the data at any time within the month.
View related state info: Clean air operating permits — Rhode Island
“Operator error” isn’t something anyone likes to see, especially when it applies to leaks from underground tanks of petroleum or hazardous materials. That’s why it’s essential to train individuals to manage underground storage tanks (USTs) correctly. Training obligations vary for each type of UST operator. Federal regulations establish three categories:
Properly trained operators are vital to managing USTs safely and in compliance. Use this guide to understand the different training requirements for Class A, B, and C operators.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires all owners and operators of UST systems to designate:
Class A operators are responsible for operating and maintaining USTs in line with the regulations. A Class A operator generally manages the resources and personnel involved to ensure UST operations comply.
A successfully trained Class A operator:
Class B operators handle the day-to-day responsibilities for managing USTs (like conducting in-field operations).
A Class B operator with sufficient training implements applicable regulatory requirements in the field on typical UST system components or site-specific equipment.
Class C operators provide immediate responses to UST-related problems.
An adequately trained Class C operator takes the necessary response actions to emergencies or alarms caused by UST spills and releases.
EPA outlines the minimum training requirements for each operator type at 40 CFR Part 280 Subpart J. All classes of operators must be trained or pass a comparable examination. Class C operators have the additional option to receive training from a Class A or B operator at the facility.
A facility can designate an individual for multiple operator classes. Any person with multiple designations must complete the required training or comparable examination for all applicable classes.
Class A and Class B operators must be trained within 30 days of beginning UST duties. Class C operators have to be trained before starting their UST responsibilities.
Class A operators should understand the purpose, methods, and functions of:
Class B operators may be trained in either:
Additionally, Class B operators need to know the purpose, methods, and functions of:
Class C operators must know how to respond with the correct actions to emergencies or alarms that are caused by spills or releases from UST operations, including notifying the authorities.
Consider these FAQs to help ensure your UST operator training programs comply.
How are operators evaluated?
Facilities must evaluate each operator via testing, a practical demonstration, or another approved approach.
When is retraining required?
If a UST system is found to be noncompliant, Class A and Class B operators at the facility must complete a training program or comparable examination that at least covers the areas out of compliance (unless exempt per 280.244).
Retraining should be completed within 30 days of the noncompliance determination. The training program or examination has to be developed or administered by a third party (i.e., an independent organization, the implementing agency, or a recognized authority).
How is training tracked?
Facilities are required to keep paper or electronic records that verify training and retraining for as long as the operators are designated. The records should contain at a minimum the information at 280.245(b).
What about state requirements?
It’s essential to check state UST regulations where your facilities operate. EPA has approved most states to implement the UST program. State requirements are at least as stringent as federal standards, and many state programs impose stricter rules.
Usually, operator training is obtained from third-party organizations that must be registered and approved by state environmental agencies to ensure the programs comply with federal and state requirements.
Key to remember: Training requirements for underground storage tank operators are based on their designated class: A, B, or C.
Understanding how hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are counted is key to accurate reporting and staying in compliance. These pollutants often overlap, but how they're treated depends on the situation — especially when comparing emission inventories to permitting rules. Misunderstanding the differences can lead to underreporting, permit mistakes, and other compliance problems. This article will also discuss how state rules can make things more complex.
Emission inventories help regulatory agencies track actual emissions from facilities over time. These records support air quality models, guide policy, and help protect public health.
In many cases, HAPs that are also VOCs (like toluene or xylene) are included in the total VOC count. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) includes HAP-VOCs in its National Emissions Inventory, which supports regional air quality models, like the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) system.
Frequently Asked Question: What's the National Emissions Inventory?
As an example, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality recommends using conservative “first-cut” estimates for both VOCs and HAPs. This makes early reporting easier and helps avoid underestimating emissions.
PTE calculations are used to determine a facility’s regulatory status, such as whether it qualifies as a major source under the New Source Review (NSR) or Title V programs or is subject to Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards.
In this context, HAPs and VOCs are counted separately because they're subject to different thresholds, including:
This separation is critical. A facility might exceed the HAP threshold and trigger MACT requirements, even if its VOC emissions are below NSR thresholds — or vice versa. As an example, if a paint booth has the potential to emit 500 pounds of toluene, this is counted as 500 pounds of HAP and 500 pounds of VOC. Even though that seems like double-counting for the same emission, it's important to include both totals separately.
While federal rules provide a baseline, states often have their own interpretations and requirements:
Failing to understand how HAPs and VOCs are counted can lead to serious compliance issues:
To stay compliant and avoid costly mistakes, implement the following:
Key to Remember: The way HAPs and VOCs are counted depends heavily on context. Understanding these distinctions — and how they vary by state — is key to maintaining compliance and protecting air quality.
A 2022 law requires that some sections of end-use pesticide product labeling be translated into Spanish. So, now the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a notice requesting comments on how it wants to track the adoption of bilingual labeling. The agency also updated its Bilingual Labeling Questions & Answers webpage.
The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) has been enacted and reauthorized five times. The latest version (PRIA 5) was signed on December 29, 2022. It amended the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to require Spanish language translation for sections of the end-use pesticide product labels. However, those translations are only required where translation is available in EPA's Spanish Translation Guide for Pesticide Labeling.
Those sections deal with the health and safety of the product. Specifically, the guide has Spanish translations of the:
When a registered pesticide product is released for shipment, PRIA 5 requires translations or a link to translations on the product container. Any link would be via scannable technology or other accessible methods. Antimicrobial pesticide products and non-agricultural/non-RUP products have yet another option. They may provide a link to the Spanish Safety Data Sheets instead of a link to label translations.
PRIA 5 establishes a rolling schedule for the implementation of bilingual labeling. The schedule runs from December 2025 to 2030, with the translations for the most hazardous and toxic pesticide products required first. In fact, EPA is starting with RUPs and agricultural pesticides classified as acute toxicity category I. All end-use pesticide labels must have translations by 2030.
The dates when bilingual labeling is due are based on pesticide product type:
Pesticide product type: | Bilingual labeling due: |
RUPs | December 29, 2025 |
Agricultural products (non-RUPs): | |
Acute toxicity category I | December 29, 2025 |
Acute toxicity category II | December 29, 2027 |
Antimicrobial and non-agricultural products: | |
Acute toxicity category I | December 29, 2026 |
Acute toxicity category II | December 29, 2028 |
All other pesticide products | December 29, 2030 |
PRIA 5 also requires EPA to develop, implement, and make publicly available a plan for keeping track of the adoption of bilingual labeling. The agency previously proposed and received comments on using the annual paper maintenance fee filing form to track adoption. It would have used a checkbox to indicate whether products included bilingual labeling.
However, EPA has scrapped that approach. It’s now proposing to track adoption through its electronic MyPeST app. In this case, registrants would electronically check a box next to each pesticide product indicating whether it includes the required bilingual labeling. MyPeST would display product information — such as product type and signal word — to help registrants determine their products’ compliance dates.
The agency also wants to add a checkbox to MyPeST to indicate that a pesticide product will not be released for shipment. This helps distinguish between noncompliance and nonapplicable circumstances.
For tracking purposes, registrants would not need to submit the labels to EPA.
Comments on the proposed tracking method must be received on or before September 19, 2025. Send comments to docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2025-0049 at www.regulations.gov. Any comments are welcome, but EPA is particularly looking for examples of how it could reduce this tracking paperwork burden for businesses employing fewer than 25 workers.
The proposed method is anticipated to take 24 hours and cost just over $3,000 per covered entity per year. Entities potentially affected by the notice and comment request include:
EPA says it has also updated its Bilingual Labeling Questions & Answers webpage. Additional questions and answers touch on topics relating to, but not limited to:
This living document now has over 50 Q&As. It will be updated as PRIA 5 requirements and deadlines are met and new information is available.
EPA issued a notice requesting comments by September 19 on how it wants to track the adoption of bilingual labeling. Spanish language translation for sections of the end-use pesticide product labels has a rolling schedule from 2025 to 2030. The agency also updated its Bilingual Labeling Questions & Answers webpage.
On August 14, 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the biannual update to the nonconfidential Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory). The inventory includes all TSCA-regulated chemical substances manufactured, processed, or imported in the U.S.
The July 2025 TSCA Inventory contains 86,862 chemicals, adding 15 chemical substances since the last update. Nearly half of the substances (42,578) are active (i.e., in use). EPA also updated:
Further, the agency updated the TSCA Master Inventory File. It includes chemical identity information claimed as confidential that’s excluded from the nonconfidential TSCA Inventory. The TSCA Master Inventory File is the only list with comprehensive, authoritative information about which chemical substances are on the inventory.
The agency plans to make the next inventory update in Winter 2026.
How do I access the inventory?
View the TSCA Inventory by:
How does this impact my business?
The TSCA Inventory helps facilities determine compliance requirements for chemicals they (a) manufacture or use or (b) plan to manufacture or use. Chemicals that are on the TSCA Inventory are likely subject to rules, like manufacturing limits and reporting requirements. Chemicals that aren’t on the list must meet notification and review requirements before they can be used.
Key to remember: EPA released the July 2025 nonconfidential TSCA Inventory of chemical substances manufactured, processed, or imported in the U.S.
Industrial wastewater pretreatment systems are evolving quickly. With tighter regulations, aging infrastructure, and rising costs, many facilities are turning to digital tools to modernize their operations. From real-time monitoring to predictive analytics, these technologies help permitted systems stay compliant, reduce risks, and improve performance.
One of the most important advancements is the use of real-time sensors and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems. These tools allow operators to monitor key factors like pH, flow rate, temperature, and contaminant levels around the clock. If something goes out of range, alerts are sent immediately – helping prevent violations and environmental damage.
Automated sampling and reporting also make it easier to meet regulatory requirements. By reducing manual work and improving accuracy, facilities can respond faster to changes in discharge conditions. This is especially helpful in industries where wastewater characteristics vary, such as food processing or chemical manufacturing.
Beyond monitoring, predictive analytics and artificial intelligence (AI) help facilities anticipate problems before they happen. By analyzing past data, these systems can predict equipment failures, detect changes in influent quality, and recommend better chemical dosing strategies.
Such a proactive approach reduces downtime, lowers maintenance costs, and improves treatment results. It also helps with long-term planning by identifying trends that may point to needed upgrades or process changes.
Some facilities are using digital twins – virtual models of their pretreatment systems. These models simulate real-world operations, allowing engineers to test changes in flow, chemical use, or equipment without affecting actual processes.
Digital twins are also useful for training. New staff can explore how the system works and practice emergency responses in a safe, controlled environment.
As more systems become connected, cybersecurity is a growing concern. Facilities must protect their digital systems from unauthorized access and data breaches. This includes using secure networks, encrypted communication, and regular system checks to ensure data is safe and reliable.
The future of smart pretreatment lies in system integration. Facilities are looking for platforms that combine data from sensors, lab tests, maintenance logs, and compliance reports. When digital tools work together, operators get a clearer view of system performance and can make better decisions.
Key to Remember: Digital tools are no longer optional—they’re essential for modern industrial wastewater pretreatment. By adopting smart technologies, facilities can improve compliance, reduce costs, and support environmental goals.
Wouldn’t it be helpful to know ahead of time if a chemical that your facility uses may soon face additional or stricter regulations? Such an alert system exists! It’s in the form of risk evaluations conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires EPA to evaluate existing chemicals in the U.S. marketplace for safety. If the agency determines that a chemical substance poses an unreasonable risk to human or environmental health, it immediately begins the risk management process. Through the process, EPA develops compliance rules to control the risk.
Consider EPA’s final risk evaluation for 1,1-dichloroethane published in June 2025. In it, the agency determined that three uses present an unreasonable risk of injury to workers. EPA will now develop and finalize regulations to address the risk.
If EPA issues a final risk evaluation on a chemical substance that your facility manufactures (including imports), processes, distributes, uses, and/or disposes of, take note! It answers multiple questions that can help your facility prepare for future compliance obligations.
EPA’s risk evaluation determines whether an existing chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk to health or the environment under specific conditions of use (COUs). Risk management regulations only apply to the COUs that present an unreasonable risk. If your facility engages in any covered COU, it will have to comply with the applicable future restrictions.
Let’s revisit the 1,1-dichloroethane risk evaluation. One of the three COUs that endanger the health of workers through inhalation exposure is the processing of the chemical substance for recycling. If a facility doesn’t process 1,1-dichloroethane for recycling, it won’t have to comply with future regulations for that COU.
The final risk evaluation defines the categories of human and environmental populations covered by the assessment (such as consumers, the general population, workers, and aquatic species), and it identifies the COUs that apply to them.
Knowing the types of populations that a covered COU affects can help facilities narrow down the kinds of compliance requirements that may apply. For instance, a final risk management rule may require facilities to:
TSCA grants EPA one year from the publication date of the final risk evaluation to propose a risk management rule and another year after that to finalize it. So, potentially covered facilities can expect regulations within two years of the final risk evaluation.
For example, EPA published the final risk evaluation for 1,1-dichloroethane in June 2025, so the agency should finalize a rule by June 2027.
Compliance obligations for a final rule likely won’t begin immediately; EPA usually gives facilities time to make any needed changes to things like operations, equipment, etc.
Keep these tips in mind:
Key to remember: EPA’s final chemical risk evaluations give facilities a heads-up that compliance changes are likely within the next couple of years.
Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news. Let’s take a look at what’s happened in the past month!
In response to Executive Orders calling for deregulation efforts, on July 1 OSHA issued one final rule and 25 proposed rules. The proposed rules cover a variety of topics, including respiratory protection, construction illumination, safety color codes for signs, and the General Duty Clause. Stakeholders have until September 2 to comment on them. The final rule took effect July 1 and makes changes to the rules of procedure for promulgating, modifying, and revoking standards applicable to construction work.
OSHA updated its penalty guidance for small employers, impacting businesses with 25 or fewer employees. This includes reduced penalties of up to 70 percent in certain circumstances. These changes took effect July 14.
Effective July 1, California OSHA extended its safety and health laws to protect domestic workers, such as house cleaners, caregivers, and gardeners. The laws apply to businesses that employ both temporary and permanent domestic service workers.
OSHA’s Safe + Sound Week is scheduled for August 11-17 and focuses on emergency preparedness and response. Businesses of all sizes are encouraged to participate by conducting safety stand-downs, evacuation drills, or other activities that help highlight the importance of safety and health programs. More information and resources can be found on OSHA’s website.
And finally, turning to environmental news, EPA issued a final rule that offers coal combustion facilities an alternative option to comply with the Facility Evaluation Report. It also adjusts the compliance timelines for regulations related to coal combustion residuals management units. In addition, EPA issued a proposed rule requesting public feedback on further delaying the Facility Evaluation Report.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
ENTER THE INSTITUTE
Be your company’s leading compliance authority with a robust library of articles, videos, and practical exercises designed to grow your knowledge of 120+ regulatory subjects.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a rule to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repeal all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for:
What’s the Endangerment Finding?
In 2009, EPA issued two findings: the Endangerment Finding and the Cause or Contribute Finding, generally referred to as the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The agency uses the findings as the foundation for statutory authority to regulate GHG emissions under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. In other words, the 2009 Endangerment Finding is the legal basis the agency uses to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines.
Under the 2009 Endangerment Finding, EPA regulates new motor vehicles and vehicle engines through:
How does this impact vehicle regulations?
If EPA rescinds the 2009 Endangerment Finding, it will no longer have the statutory authority to regulate emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines. As a result, EPA would remove all GHG emissions regulations that apply to new motor vehicle and vehicle engine manufacturers in 40 CFR:
Affected compliance requirements include:
Manufacturers would no longer have to measure, control, or report GHG emissions for any vehicle or vehicle engine, including previously manufactured model years.
What won’t change?
The proposed rule doesn’t affect:
What’s next?
EPA will accept public comments on the rule through September 15, 2025. Additionally, the agency will hold a virtual public hearing on August 19 and 20, 2025. EPA will use the feedback to inform how it will proceed in the rulemaking process.
Key to remember: EPA has proposed a rule to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repeal GHG emissions standards for new motor vehicles and vehicle engines.
The date of December 1 often evokes thoughts of colder weather, the start of the Christmas season, and … waste manifests?! That’s certainly the case this year for hazardous waste handlers. On December 1, 2025, the rest of the Third Rule’s compliance requirements for electronic manifests take effect.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) final Third Rule, established under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), amends the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System (e-Manifest system) standards. Many of the requirements began in January 2025. The Third Rule’s remaining regulatory changes start on December 1, 2025. Are you prepared to comply?
Use this checklist to help you ensure that your business is set to comply with the rest of the Third Rule’s requirements that take effect in December.
Under the Third Rule, EPA replaced the 5-copy paper manifests and continuation sheets with 4-copy paper manifests (EPA Form 8700-22) and continuation sheets (EPA Form 8700-22A). However, the agency allows hazardous waste handlers to continue using the 5-copy paper forms until further notice. EPA will provide a 90-day notice before it intends to stop accepting the 5-copy forms.
Note: At the time of the publication of this article, EPA has not yet given any authorized printer approval to print the new 4-copy manifest forms. As an authorized printer of the hazardous waste manifest forms, J. J. Keller & Associates, Inc. is working closely with EPA for approval to print the new 4-copy forms.
Users need Certifier permission on the e-Manifest module or Site Manager permission on the RCRA Information (RCRAInfo) Industry Application to submit manifests.
Compliance check:
☑ Begin to use the 4-copy manifests and continuation sheets as soon as they’re made available.
☑ Ensure that at least one user has Certifier or Site Manager permission.
As of December 1, 2025, domestic hazardous waste exporters must submit all export manifests and continuation sheets (paper and electronic) to the e-Manifest system and pay the associated user fees.
An exporter is considered any entity that originates a manifest to export a hazardous waste shipment. This includes generators; transporters; treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; and recognized traders.
EPA will invoice exporters monthly for the manifest activities conducted during the previous month. The agency applies a fee per manifest, and the amount varies based on the type of submission (scanned image upload, data and image upload, or fully/hybrid electronic manifest).
Only individuals with Site Manager permission on RCRAInfo can pay manifest fees.
Compliance check:
☑ Prepare to use the e-Manifest system for export manifests and pay user fees.
☑ Verify that at least one person has Site Manager permission.
The Third Rule requires hazardous waste handlers to submit all Discrepancy, Exception, and Unmanifested Waste Reports to the e-Manifest system starting on December 1, 2025.
Generators submit Exception Reports, and receiving facilities submit Discrepancy and Unmanifested Waste Reports. No fees apply.
To submit the manifest-related reports to the e-Manifest system, users require Certifier permission for the module.
Compliance check:
☑ Be ready to submit manifest-related reports to the e-Manifest system.
☑ Confirm that at least one user has Certifier permission.
Beginning on December 1, 2025, entities that transport hazardous waste export shipments out of the U.S. (i.e., last transporters) have to send a signed copy of the manifest and continuation sheet to the exporter instead of the generator.
Further, the Third Rule clarifies that starting on December 1, 2025, transporters can use the e-Manifest system to export hazardous waste and send exporters copies of the signed manifest and continuation sheet. Transporters planning to do so need to set up a RCRAInfo account to use the e-Manifest system and assign Certifier permission to the user(s) who will submit the manifests.
Compliance check:
☑ Plan to send signed copies of the manifest and continuation sheet to the exporter.
☑ If applicable, register an account on RCRAInfo, and ensure at least one user has Certifier permission.
EPA has multiple resources to help regulated hazardous waste handlers comply with e-Manifest regulations, including the upcoming Third Rule’s requirements that take effect on December 1, 2025. Consider using the resources the agency provides on “The Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest (e-Manifest) System” website, such as:
The compliance checklist and e-Manifest resources can help you ensure that your facility will be ready to comply with the rest of the Third Rule’s requirements by December.
Key to remember: The remaining e-Manifest Third Rule requirements take effect on December 1, 2025. Facilities should confirm that they’re prepared to comply.
Starting January 1, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will enforce sweeping changes under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act, targeting the use and management of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)—potent greenhouse gases used in refrigeration, air conditioning, and fire suppression.
These rules apply to all businesses with equipment containing 15 pounds or more of refrigerant with a Global Warming Potential (GWP) over 53, including but not limited to grocery stores, refrigerated transport fleets, repair shops, and small businesses.
1. Leak detection and repair
2. Refrigerant reclamation
3. Recordkeeping and reporting
4. Disposal and recycling
Grocery retailers
Refrigerated transport
Repair shops
All end users: what you must do now
States like California, Washington, and New York are implementing stricter refrigerant rules that may exceed federal AIM Act standards. Businesses operating across state lines must monitor local regulations and prepare for additional reporting and inspections.
Key to remember: If your business uses refrigerants, the AIM Act likely applies to you. Start preparing now to avoid penalties and ensure compliance by 2026.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it will accept 5-copy paper manifest forms from entities regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste manifest program until further notice.
What changed?
The final Third Rule (effective on January 22, 2025) made multiple changes to the hazardous waste manifest regulations, one of which requires regulated entities to use 4-copy manifests (EPA Form 8700-22) and continuation sheets (EPA Form 8700-22A) instead of the previous 5-copy forms.
Initially, EPA stated that it would no longer accept 5-copy forms starting on December 1, 2025. However, the agency has removed the limit and will accept the 5-copy forms until further notice. Additionally, EPA will give a 90-day notice before the agency plans to stop accepting the 5-copy forms.
As an authorized printer of the hazardous waste manifest forms, J. J. Keller & Associates, Inc. is working closely with EPA for approval to print the new 4-copy forms. At the time of publication of this news article, the federal agency hasn’t yet approved any authorized printer to print the new forms.
Exporter and importer requirements
Hazardous waste exporters and importers that use the 5-copy manifest forms are required to put the consent numbers for their wastes in the Special Handling Instructions and Additional Information Field (Item 14) of the 5-copy manifest. If applicable, exporters must also enter their EPA Identification (ID) Numbers in Item 14. The agency recommends using this format: “Exporter EPA ID #AAANNNNNNNNN."
Please note that we will monitor any additional changes that result from EPA's decision to continue accepting 5-copy paper manifest forms and provide updates accordingly.
Key to remember: EPA will accept 5-copy manifests and continuation sheets beyond the initial deadline of December 1, 2025, until further notice.
Following an eight-month criminal trial, a jury convicted a cast iron pipe company and four of its managers of various crimes. These included conspiring to commit a host of environmental pollution and worker safety violations, attempting to cover up or impede a federal investigation of those violations, and substantive violations of the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. Although the company and its managers appealed the jury's verdict raising a detailed account of the issues, the District Court affirmed the final judgments of conviction and sentence in this case.
Specifically, the defendants were found to have illegally pumped contaminated water into storm drains and, as a result, into the Delaware River; to have unlawfully burned 50-gallon drums of paint waste in a cupola and emitted the fumes from those activities into the air; and to have attempted to cover up several work-related accidents at its facility, one of which resulted in the death of an employee. The jury also found that the Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to commit these acts — and to impede the resulting federal investigation — in order to maximize productivity and profits at the plant.
Clean Water Act violations
Although the company held a discharge permit that fundamentally allowed the plant to discharge two types of substances — storm water runoff (e.g., rainwater) and "non-contact cooling water" — it was not permitted to discharge wastewater created from the cleaning of equipment, the pipes produced in the plant, or the plant's facilities.
Due to the company's manufacturing processes, however, a significant amount of non-dischargeable wastewater was collected in pits and needed to be drained almost daily. Workers were instructed to pump the wastewater through trenches that ran alongside the casting equipment and into large holding tanks located outside the building, even if the tanks were too full to handle more wastewater. The result of this pumping was that the tanks overflowed, sending "dark, hot, muddy water" flowing down the roadway alongside the plant, and into the nearby storm drains. Night-shift employees were also sometimes instructed to pump the water out of the pit and directly onto the ground outside the plant. The unpermitted discharges from the plant resulted in at least three separate oil spills on the Delaware River.
Clean Air Act violations
Because the company's manufacturing process involves the smelting of metals in a cupola, it was required to obtain and comply with a New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection-issued emissions permit. Under the relevant permits, the company could use only certain types of fuel, which was usually coke, but was also permitted to use non-hazardous waste paint in limited amounts. At all times relevant to this case, the plant was permitted to burn no more than 55 gallons of non-hazardous waste paint per day. Testimony revealed that an average of four drums of waste paint was burned in the cupola each day.
OSHA incidents
Between 1999 and 2002, several of the company's employees suffered severe injuries at the plant due to unsafe working conditions. The evidence introduced at trial demonstrated that the company's management took steps to conceal the cause of those injuries and to obstruct OSHA investigators' inquiries.
Specifically, the first accident occurred on April 27, 1999 when a forklift driver struck a plant supervisor. Since the injury had not been recorded, as required, in the plant's OSHA 300 logs, no investigation by OSHA was conducted. However, when the same forklift driver ran over and killed an employee on March 24, 2000, management tried to cover up the extent of the injuries incurred by the supervisor and blamed the second incident on a lack of forklift training. Further review by OSHA investigators, which included employee interviews, revealed that the supervisor was threatened by the Human Resources Manager that if he did not lie about his injuries, he would be fired. A more in-depth review of the second incident also showed that several drivers' maintenance checklists for the forklift involved in the incident noted extensive problems, including that the brakes were defective. Moreover, the forklift's repair logs showed no work performed on the forklift, suggesting that it could not have been in "perfect" condition during or immediately after the accident, which the company attested to.
The other accident occurred on June 25, 1999, and involved an employee that was injured and lost his eye when a piece of a rotating blade from the cut saw he was using broke off from the blade and struck him in the face. Upon investigation two weeks later, the compliance officer visited the accident site and witnessed a worker operating the machine from behind a sliding plexiglass shield with a wooden frame and a wire mesh screen that was designed to protect the worker. The officer observed that the shield appeared to have been newly built, but the Human Resources Manager assured him that it had existed in that condition for 16 years. Despite these representations, evidence and testimony at trial indicated that no wire mesh safety shield had been in place on the day of accident. Rather, the plexiglass and wire mesh covering had been built by a carpenter a few days after the injury.
Attempts to conceal deficient safety measures and employee injuries were made again in December 2002, after another employee lost three fingers in a cement mixer accident.
Final ruling
Having carefully considered arguments, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, upheld the final convictions, judgments, and sentences of the District Court, which consisted of:
As for the Company, the Court opted to apply the Alternative Fines Act (the “AFA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3571(c)(1), rather than the CWA and CAA, in imposing criminal penalties. Applying the AFA, the Court fined the Company the 37 maximum penalty of $500,000 per violation on Count 1 (conspiracy), Counts 8-11 (obstruction), Counts 12-16 (CWA—cement pit discharge), Counts 28-32 (CWA—Number Four Pit discharge), and Count 34 (CAA) for a total fine of $8 million dollars. It also sentenced the Company to 4 years’ probation, with a court-ordered monitor to ensure regulatory compliance going forward.
In an effort to streamline hazardous waste regulations and encourage responsible practices, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized the Solvent-Contaminated Wipes Rule in 2013 (codified under 40 CFR 261.4(a)(26) for exclusions and 261.4(b)(18) for exemptions). The rule makes it easier for businesses to manage certain used rags and wipes. If your company uses rags or shop towels with cleaning solvents on them, this rule can help you reduce the regulatory burden of managing wipes as hazardous waste, but only if you follow EPA’s conditions closely.
EPA’s rule states that used wipes with certain cleaning solvents on them do not have to be treated as hazardous waste. The types of wipes or rags that apply are:
It is important to remember that this rule only applies to wipes that are used with specific types of solvents. So, if the rags are contaminated with oils, paints, or other types of chemicals, they would not qualify for the exemption. Also, the wipes cannot be dripping wet or, as EPA states, the wipes contain “no free liquids.” Common solvents allowed under the rule are:
While EPA's rule applies at the federal level, states with authorized Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) programs may have more stringent or different rules. For example, California does not adopt this exclusion and regulates solvent wipes as hazardous waste unless they are truly clean. Employers should always check with their state environmental agency to confirm alignment with or differences from the federal rule.
The Solvent-Contaminated Wipes Rule is a great opportunity for businesses to reduce waste costs and paperwork — but only if you follow the conditions. With good storage, labeling, and recordkeeping, most shops and facilities can stay in compliance without too much trouble. It is an easy way to stay legal and keep operations running smoothly.
Key to remember: EPA allows certain solvent-contaminated wipes to be excluded from hazardous waste if they’re managed and stored properly, contain no free liquids, are labeled correctly, and are sent to approved facilities within 180 days.
As of August 2025, violations for operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) without proof of annual inspection have skyrocketed to nearly 100,000, making it the top roadside violation so far this year.
Do you know which vehicles need the inspection — and how to prove it was done?
Under 49 CFR 396.17, every CMV — including trucks, tractors, and trailers of any size — must undergo a comprehensive inspection at least once every 12 months. This is tied to the “commercial motor vehicle” definition in 49 CFR 390.5T, which includes vehicles or vehicle combinations over 10,000 pounds and operating in interstate commerce, even if a commercial driver’s license is not required.
The inspection must cover all components listed in Appendix A to Part 396, and proof of passing the inspection must be carried on or with the vehicle at all times.
How does a driver prove the vehicle(s) passed the inspection? There are two ways:
The sticker may be located anywhere, as long as the driver knows where it is and it’s not overly difficult for the inspector to find it.
Violations typically occur due to:
During an audit, if the investigator finds that 10 percent or more of your fleet’s annual inspections were not done as required, it’s considered a “critical” violation that could harm your safety rating. In addition, a J. J. Keller analysis found that the average fine that motor carriers paid for this violation was $5,713 (over the period from 2021-2024).
Liability is another key concern. A crash involving a CMV that wasn’t inspected in the past year could call your safety practices into question and result in a sizable verdict in the plaintiff’s favor.
Motor carriers must take proactive steps to avoid these costly violations: • Ensure annual inspections are performed on time. Schedule inspections before the 365-day mark from the last inspection.
With violations climbing, motor carriers must treat 396.17 compliance as a top priority. The cost of noncompliance isn’t just financial — it can lead to out-of-service orders, fines, failed audits, liability, and reputational damage.
Key to remember: Stay ahead of the curve when it comes to annual inspections. Review your inspection protocols and ensure every vehicle in your fleet is documented, inspected, and compliant.
In the trucking industry, load securement is more than a best practice. It’s a regulatory requirement that directly affects safety, liability, and operational efficiency.
Despite this, improper cargo securement remains one of the most frequently cited violations during roadside inspections. According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Association (FMCSA), cargo securement issues continue to rank among the top out-of-service violations.
One of the most common violations involves insufficient tie-downs. Drivers often misjudge the number or strength of tie-downs required for a particular load. Regulations require that cargo be secured to prevent movement in every direction — forward, backward, sideways, and vertically. Failure to meet these standards can result in citations and immediate out-of-service orders.
Another frequent issue is the use of damaged or worn securement equipment. Inspectors regularly flag:
These defects not only violate FMCSA regulations but also pose serious safety risks. A single failed strap on a flatbed hauling heavy machinery can lead to disastrous consequences.
Improper blocking and bracing is also a recurring problem, especially in enclosed trailers. Freight that is not adequately stabilized can shift during transit.
This can lead to:
To avoid these violations, fleets must prioritize driver training and thorough inspection protocols. Pretrip inspections should include a detailed check of all securement devices to ensure they meet regulatory standards and are free of defects. Drivers should be trained not only on how to secure loads but also on assessing risk based on cargo type, weight, and distribution.
Preventive measures go beyond routine checks. They require a proactive mindset and a system that catches issues before they become violations. Fleets should:
These tools help drivers verify that loads remain secure throughout the journey, especially during long hauls or in adverse weather conditions.
Key to remember: By staying informed, maintaining equipment, and fostering a safety-first culture, carriers can reduce violations, protect their Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) scores, and ensure every load arrives safely and securely.
Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Reducing those emissions requires a significant shift away from gasoline- and diesel-fueled internal combustion engines to electric motors powered by renewable sources.
Electric vehicle industry experts and scientists at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) are at work on a new high-power charging standard for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles called the Megawatt Charging System (MCS). MCS will allow charging capacity up to 3.75 megawatts—seven times higher than the current light-duty fast charging technology.
Current electric vehicle charging standards accommodate slower charging for medium- and heavy-duty trucks, typically over a few hours. The peak charging power of 3.75 megawatts these facilities will provide for a single vehicle is equivalent to the average power needed for 3,200 U.S. homes, or enough power to transfer the daily energy consumption of a typical home, in about 28 seconds. Transferring this much energy over a short duration requires unique design in the cabling, connector, and charging inlet.
Learn more about NREL’s transportation and mobility research and electric vehicle grid integration work at https://www.nrel.gov/transportation/index.html.
After a long delay, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has issued its rulemaking plans for the year ahead, including a variety of actions that will impact motor carriers and drivers.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and DOT plan to issue over 20 final rule changes before the end of the year and propose another 25 changes within the next 12 months, though such projections are often overly optimistic.
Among the changes: updates to the Drug & Alcohol Clearinghouse and electronic logging device (ELD) rules, changes to the bumper labeling requirements, removal of the need to carry spare fuses, and an increase in fines.
Gone from the agenda are controversial rules mandating the use of speed limiters and requiring reflective tape on straight trucks.
The following key actions affecting motor carriers appear on the latest rulemaking roadmap, listed in the order in which they’re expected to arrive. The public will have a chance to comment on all proposed rules.
Subject | Description | Next Step |
Fines | The DOT will make annual inflation adjustments to its fines. | Final rule: Sept. 2025 |
Straight truck visibility | The DOT plans to withdraw a proposal to require reflective tape and/or underride guards on straight trucks. | Withdrawal: Sept. 2025 |
Hair testing | The Department of Health and Human Services will be adopting hair-testing guidelines for federal employees, which will eventually affect commercial vehicle drivers. | Proposed rule: Oct. 2025 |
Emergency exemption | This change would increase to 30 days the amount of time drivers would be exempt from hours-of-service regulations when responding to regional emergencies, up from 14 days. | Proposed rule: Dec. 2025 |
Bus accessibility | The DOT will be adopting new accessibility guidelines for buses and vans under 36 CFR 1192. | Proposed rule: Dec. 2025 |
Emergency brakes | The DOT plans to require and/or standardize equipment performance for automatic emergency braking on heavy trucks. | Proposed rule: Dec. 2025 |
Technical amendments | The FMCSA will issue its annual list of technical corrections to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. | Final rule: Dec. 2025 |
Violation reporting | This action would remove the requirement that CDL drivers self-report motor vehicle violations to their state. | Final rule: Dec. 2025 |
Military CDLs | The FMCSA intends to allow dual-status military technicians to qualify for the CDL licensing exception. | Final rule: Dec. 2025 |
ELD manual | This action would remove the requirement for drivers to carry a copy of the user manual for their ELD. | Final rule: Dec. 2025 |
Railroad crossings | The FMCSA will be easing the requirements for bus and hazmat carriers to stop at railroad crossings. | Final rule: Dec. 2025 |
Inspection reports | This rule change will leave it up to states to decide if or when motor carriers must return roadside inspection reports. | Final rule: Dec. 2025 |
Accidents | The FMCSA plans to revise the term “medical treatment” for purposes of accident reporting, to incorporate revised guidance. | Final rule: Dec. 2025 |
Aircraft fuel | The FMCSA intends to allow states to waive hazardous materials endorsements for drivers who transport Jet A fuel in support of seasonal agricultural operations. | Final rule: Dec. 2025 |
License-plate lamps | This action would remove a requirement for an operating license-plate lamp on the rear of a truck tractor towing a trailer. | Final rule: Dec. 2025 |
Rear impact guards | The FMCSA plans to rescind the requirement that rear-impact guards have a permanent certification label from the manufacturer. | Final rule: Dec. 2025 |
Emergency equipment | The FMCSA plans to remove the requirement to carry spare fuses and the option to use liquid-burning flares. | Final rule: Dec. 2025 |
Registration system | The FMCSA plans to update the Unified Registration System (URS) and procedures for granting/revoking registration. | Proposed rule: March 2026 |
Entry-level training | The FMCSA will be looking for ways to amend its new-driver training rules to address sexual harassment and the safety of women drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists. | Info-gathering: May 2026 |
New-entrant testing | This rule would enact methods (such as an exam) to ensure new motor carriers are knowledgeable about safety requirements before being granted New Entrant authority. | Info gathering: May 2026 |
Household goods | This rule would add a proficiency exam for new household-goods motor carriers. | Proposed rule: May 2026 |
Safety rating process | The FMCSA will be reevaluating its safety rating process, including its acute/critical violation lists, its three-tier rating system, and how it unearths unfit carriers. | Proposed rule: May 2026 |
Recordkeeping | The FMCSA intends to propose changes to the record retention rules in Appendix A to Part 379 to remove unnecessary requirements. | Proposed rule: May 2026 |
Property brokerage | This rule would add new restrictions to the property-carrier broker rules. | Proposed rule: May 2026 |
Cargo securement & vehicle defects | This change would further harmonize cargo securement rules with Canada, alter the rules for securing lumber, and add specificity to violations grouped under 49 CFR 396.3(a)(1). | Proposed rule: May 2026 |
ELD update | The FMCSA will be “streamlining and improving the clarity” of its ELD rules. | Proposed rule: May 2026 |
CDLIS | This action will establish a user-fee system for the Commercial Driver’s License Information System. | Proposed rule: May 2026 |
Vehicle automation | The FMCSA plans to update its regulations to account for commercial vehicles equipped with automated driving systems. | Proposed rule: May 2026 |
Medical examiners | The FMCSA wants to adopt a formal process to remove non-compliant examiners from the National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners. | Proposed rule: May 2026 |
Drug & Alcohol Clearinghouse | The FMCSA intends to revise its Clearinghouse rules to improve error-correction procedures, queries, and consent requirements. | Proposed rule: May 2026 |
Seizure standard | The FMCSA intends to ease the medical qualification requirements for drivers with epilepsy or other conditions that may cause seizures. | Proposed rule: May 2026 |
Drug/alcohol records | The DOT is planning to update its drug/alcohol testing rules in Part 40 to allow electronic recordkeeping. | Final rule: May 2026 |
CDL flexibility | This rule would add more flexibility to the CDL testing process. | Final rule: May 2026 |
Test refusals | The DOT plans to establish an appeals process for drivers accused of refusing a drug or alcohol test. | Proposed rule: Aug. 2026 |
Drug testing | The DOT plans to add fentanyl to its drug testing panel, among other changes to the drug testing rules in Part 40. | Final rule: 2026 (date TBD) |
The DOT is working on other rule changes that have an uncertain future. This includes:
Key to remember: The DOT is planning numerous rule changes for late 2025 and beyond. Stay tuned for rulemaking actions from the FMCSA and other DOT agencies, and weigh in when public comments are sought.
Options for corrective vision surgery have significantly increased over the past 25 years. Commercial drivers who meet vision standards post-surgery must update their licensing and medical certifications. They must also understand the consequences of inaction.
During a roadside inspection after vision surgery, if the driver's license or medical card states that corrective lenses are required, the driver must prove they are wearing them. If the driver is not wearing glasses or contacts, but the driver's license or medical card still lists them as required, the driver will be cited and placed out of service.
Below are three questions and the answers to which can help avoid citations and out-of-service orders relating to vision requirements.
1. What must a driver do after vision surgery if they no longer require corrective lenses?
Answer: The driver must:
The driver may also need to undergo an eye exam from an optometrist or ophthalmologist if requested by the CME.
2. If a medical certification says corrective lenses are required, but the license does not, or vice versa, is this a violation in a roadside inspection?
Answer: Yes. If the driver is not wearing corrective lenses, it is a medical qualification violation per Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Regulations (FMCSRs) §391.11(b)(4), and the driver must be placed out of service.
Alternatively, if the license says corrective lenses are required, and the driver is not wearing them, then the citation is written as a licensing violation (§391.11(b)(5) or §383.21(a)(2)), and the driver must also be placed out of service.
3. Is the discrepancy a violation if the driver wears corrective lenses as specified by their medical certification but not on their license?
Answer: No. The violation only exists if the license or the medical certification requires corrective lenses and the driver is not wearing them.
Some states do not use the same criteria for requiring corrective lenses as are specified in the FMCSRs vision standard in §391.41(b)(10), so there's a difference it's not a violation. In many states, it is possible to have a license without the corrective lens restriction and not be able to pass the federal vision standard.
Drivers are usually licensed for more than five years. Vision can change during periods far longer than the maximum two-year medical certification.
Keep in mind, a medical qualification violation cannot be challenged in the FMCSA's DataQs system because "the driver didn't need corrective lenses anymore." Post-surgery, the medical certification, and license must reflect that no corrective lenses are needed, or the driver will face consequences.
Key to remember: Educate drivers on the requirement to update their license and medical certification after corrective vision surgery to keep them compliant.
When most people think of preventive maintenance (PM), they see it as a way to avoid costly breakdowns and keep production running. While that is true, it’s only part of the story. A well-run PM program is one of the most effective and underrated safety tools an employer can have. From preventing equipment-related injuries to avoiding hazardous leaks or fires, PM isn’t just about operating efficiently. It’s about keeping employees, the environment, and the bottom line safe.
Neglected maintenance can create serious risks, including:
These risks aren’t just hypothetical; OSHA frequently cites employers after incidents where the root cause was poor or non-existent preventative maintenance.
A well-run preventative maintenance program is, at its heart, a safety program. While cost savings and productivity gains are valuable, the greatest benefit is protecting workers from harm’s way. By preventing equipment failures, ensuring safety systems function correctly, and reinforcing a culture of care, PM programs create a safer workplace where employees can perform their jobs with confidence. Simply put, machines can be replaced – people cannot. That’s why preventative maintenance isn’t just smart business, it’s a commitment to worker safety.
Keys to remember: A safety driven PM program isn’t just about keeping machines running. It’s about making sure every inspection, service, and repair is performed with worker safety in mind.
Back in October 2018, Laffon had a medical emergency and needed some time off under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
Her leave lasted until November 15. Ten days after she returned to work, on November 26, her employer terminated her.
She sued, arguing that the employer retaliated against her because of her FMLA leave.
The catch? She didn't bring the suit until almost three years later.
No link between leave and termination
In court, the employer argued that there was no causal link between Laffon taking FMLA leave and her termination. Although the court documents aren't robust, they do reveal that the employer indicated that Laffon's allegations didn't show that her taking FMLA leave was a factor in the decision to terminate her. The documents showed only that the termination chronologically followed her leave.
The court agreed with the employer. It also agreed that Laffon failed to allege a willful violation of the FMLA, which would allow her to benefit from the FMLA's three-year statute of limitations.
Laffon appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit.
Statute of limitations
Under the FMLA, employees have two years from the date of the last event constituting the alleged violation for which they can bring a claim.
Those two years are extended to three years if the employer's actions were "willful." This means that an employee must show that the employer either knew or showed reckless disregard for whether its conduct violated the FMLA.
Ruling overturned
Fast forward to August 2023, when the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision. It indicated that, based on Laffon's amended complaint and liberally construing the law, her allegations establish that her leave was causally connected to her termination and that the employer's action (her termination) was willful.
Glymph v. CT Corporation Systems, No. 22-35735, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, August 22, 2023.
Key to remember: Terminating an employee soon after returning from FMLA leave is risky, unless there is a clear, well-documented, non-leave-related reason. Case documents did not show such a clear reason, which can also increase the risk of a willful finding. Employees have time to file claims, even years.
“What’s new?” HR professionals might hesitate to answer that question – not because there’s nothing happening, but because there’s so much going on it’s difficult to know where to begin.
Executive orders, court challenges, ICE enforcement, DEI scrutiny, and funding uncertainty have required HR to be on high alert this year, making sure policies, programs, and procedures are in keeping with current standards and their budget.
In addition, states are rolling out changes to paid leave, discrimination, and non-compete agreement laws that deserve attention. And there’s always the question of what will come next.
Emily Dickens, head of government affairs for the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), has had a front row seat to regulatory and legislative changes this year. She has some tips for HR pros and others with HR duties who want to be proactive rather than reactive when dealing with all the changes.
It starts with pausing and realizing that you can’t do it all, Dickens said.
“The first thing I want you to do is breathe!” she said. “You cannot handle all this alone.”
HR professionals should focus on their strengths and the changes they are best able to address. For other issues, they should leverage the expertise of those in their network.
“Don’t give yourself whiplash” by looking at all the changes taking place every day, she said.
Instead, focus on two or three things that fall into your wheelhouse.
“Anything outside that box, find someone else who is an expert,” she said.
Those experts might be inside or outside an organization. Within their own company, HR professionals can work with their company’s legal counsel, for example, to understand the impact of legislative and regulatory changes and steps that need to be taken.
“You can lead in saying what the strategy is and let people do the things that they are good at,” Dickens noted. “You don’t necessarily have to lead everything by doing the work and executing on the work.”
If a company does not have an outside counsel, she advises HR professionals to champion for one to be added to the budget. She also suggests that HR professionals get to know the people in their company who specialize in government affairs.
“Take them out to lunch, go walk, have some or coffee,” she said. “Start talking to them about what your concerns are so that gets on their radar.”
When hiring for HR roles, she suggests looking for individuals who have expertise in areas that are not current strengths for team members. “Every HR generalist has an area they are really, really good at,” she noted.
While these strategies can’t stem the tide of change, they can make it a little easier to manage. As Dickens said, “These are practical things that can help you make your way through this.”
Key to remember: HR professionals and others with HR duties shouldn’t work in isolation when dealing with change. They should pause, consider what they are best at, and tap into their network for support.
If you’re reading this, you’ve likely seen certifications that indicate an employee needs leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for a condition that lasts for the employee’s (or a family member’s) lifetime.
Many health conditions linger for years. Until medical science advances to eliminate long-lasting illnesses, you can expect to continue seeing such certifications.
These lifelong conditions might be chronic ones, such as asthma, or one that is permanent or long-term where treatment might not be effective, such as Alzheimer’s disease.
Lifelong conditions often involve flare-ups and intermittent FMLA leave for your employees who are managing symptoms, doctor appointments, etc. A certification should provide you with an idea as to when an employee might be absent. Remember, however, that this is just an estimate, so you might need to be flexible.
The certification could state that it is valid for 12 months. Such an indication, however, does not mean that you need to wait 12 months before asking for updated information.
Situations change, so you might want to get fresh information regarding a lifelong condition and continuing need for leave. Enter recertifications.
Recertifications
You may request a recertification no more often than every 30 days in connection with an employee’s absence unless the condition will last for more than 30 days — which would be the case for lifelong conditions.
For conditions certified as having a minimum duration of more than 30 days, you must wait to request a recertification until the specified period has passed.
In all cases, including those where the condition is indefinite or lifelong, you may request recertification every six months in connection with an employee’s absence.
Employee example
If Joe Employee requests and takes eight weeks of FMLA leave for a back operation and gives you a medical certification listing an eight-week absence, you can assume he will be back by that time.
At the end of the eight-week period, what if Joe tells you he needs more leave? Now he needs three days of FMLA leave per month for an indefinite period for additional therapy. You may request a recertification at that time, as Joe has asked for an extension of the original leave.
Six months later, and in connection with an absence for the same reason, you may ask Joe to recertify the need for FMLA leave. From that recertification, you learn that Joe will continue to need time off every now and then for his back condition.
Summary
Lifelong conditions don’t usually change much in 30 days, so it makes sense to request updated information only every six months. Of course, when the employee requests leave for the first time in a new 12-month period, you may request a new certification.
In some situations, a condition could change in less than six months. Therefore, you may request a recertification sooner than six months if any of the following occurs:
Key to remember: Certifications and recertifications are great tools to help keep you informed regarding lifelong conditions. The FMLA does, however, put limits on when you may request such information.
One of the most common questions involving the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) that we see is: “Can ________ fill out the medical certification?”
This question stumps a lot of HR people and can be a little confusing.
It might be easier to start with who CAN’T fill out an FMLA certification. That includes your coworker, best friend, neighbor, or pet.
Jokes aside, often (but not always) a doctor fills out the FMLA certification, and since March 30 is “Doctors’ Day,” this is a great time to discuss this topic.
Employers aren’t required to use certifications, but if they do, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has five different certification forms to use for various FMLA leave situations.
The forms are as follows:
Let’s focus on the first two, as these are the most common ones HR administrators use.
The FMLA regulations describe the person who has the authority to fill out a certification as a “health care provider.” The good news is, the regulations include a lengthy list of medical professionals who fit this role.
Under the FMLA, a health care provider includes:
To be qualified to fill out FMLA forms, medical professionals must be authorized to practice in the state and perform within the scope of their practice. This means that the provider must be authorized to diagnose and treat physical or mental health conditions.
If an employee or an employee's family member is visiting another country, or a family member resides in another country, and a serious health condition develops, the employer must accept a medical certification from a health care provider who practices in that country. This includes second and third opinions.
If a medical certification from a foreign health care provider is not in English, the employee may be required to provide a written translation of the certification.
Key to remember: The FMLA regulations spell out which medical professionals can fill out certification forms.
A new year often begins a new round of employee performance reviews. Since the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows eligible employees to take up to 12 (or 26) weeks of leave, many events can occur during an employee’s leave, including the employee’s pre-scheduled performance review. Such reviews might take place on an annual or other scheduled basis. How you treat the timing of those reviews should include some thought.
If, for example, Jo Employee takes 12 weeks of FMLA leave, during which her annual performance review is scheduled, here are some questions to ponder:
Delaying a review
An annual performance review generally takes into consideration a full years’ worth of work. Some employers think it’s best to delay the performance review by the same amount of time an employee took FMLA leave to capture an entire years’ work. This practice, however, might risk running afoul of one of the cornerstones of the FMLA: Returning the employee to his or her position, including the equivalent pay, benefits, and working conditions.
The issues can be particularly concerning if the performance review affects wage increases or other compensation.
What the regulations say
The FMLA regulations indicate that an equivalent position includes equivalent pay, which includes any unconditional pay increases that may have occurred during the FMLA leave period. Equivalent pay also includes bonuses or payments, whether discretionary or non-discretionary. FMLA leave cannot undermine the employee’s right to such pay.
Furthermore, “… employers cannot use the taking of FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment actions, such as hiring, promotions, or disciplinary actions; nor can FMLA leave be counted under no fault attendance policies.” [29 CFR 825.220(c)]
Avoiding a negative factor
Therefore, you would need to look at whether delaying an employee’s performance review could be seen as having a negative factor for the employee.
If, for example, Jo Employee took 12 weeks of leave from April through June, during which she would otherwise have obtained a pay increase in May, but you delayed this increase until September (so you could use a full 12 months of work), you may have violated the equivalent pay provision. If delaying a review creates a new review schedule going forward, the negative impacts could continue.
If, however, a pay increase is conditioned upon seniority, length of service, or work performed, you would grant it in accordance with your policy or practice as applied to other employees on an equivalent leave status for a reason that does not qualify as FMLA leave.
In other words, don’t treat an employee on FMLA leave differently than you would an employee on other forms of leave.
Key to remember: It might be less risky to keep the performance review on schedule and prorate wage increases to account for FMLA leave.
To take leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), employees have to work for covered employers and also meet three eligibility criteria. They must:
Once an employee meets these three criteria for a particular reason, their eligibility lasts for the duration of the entire 12-month leave year period. Employers don’t need to reassess an employee’s eligibility during that timeframe for that leave reason.
If, however, that same employee needed leave for a different qualifying reason, then employers would reassess whether the employee met the eligibility criteria.
This can result in employees being eligible to take FMLA leave for one qualifying reason, but not another.
On the flip side, once employers deny an employee’s leave because the employee didn’t meet the eligibility criteria, employers must reassess that denial once the employee meets the eligibility criteria. The denial doesn’t remain intact for the duration of the 12-month leave year.
If, after not meeting the eligibility criteria, an employee does meet it, regardless of when that happens in the 12-month leave year period, the employee will be eligible to take FMLA leave for a qualifying reason. Employers would need to designate any leave taken after an employee meets the eligibility criteria as FMLA leave.
An employee might, for example, be on non-FMLA leave when they meet the 12-month eligibility criterion. In that situation, any leave taken after the employee meets the 12-months worked threshold would be FMLA leave. The same would be true for the 1,250-hours worked threshold.
For employers that use the rolling backward method to calculate the 12-month leave year period, an employee’s eligibility for leave for a particular reason would continue for 12 months from the date of the first FMLA absence for the condition.
Regardless of which method employers use to calculate the 12-month leave year, they would recalculate an employee’s eligibility when the employee asked for leave for the first time in a new 12-month leave year.
Key to remember: If employers deny FMLA leave because employees didn’t meet the eligibility criteria, they have to reassess eligibility once employees meet the criteria; the denial doesn’t automatically remain intact. Eligibility, once met, however, doesn’t change for a particular leave reason.
Who needs to worry about guards if lockout/tagout (LOTO) is in place? We all do, and we are reminded of the importance of both following a workplace fatality on July 13, 2025. A 19-year-old sanitation worker was tragically killed after falling into an industrial meat grinder they were cleaning. The grinder at the California food processing facility was then unexpectedly activated. Although coworkers heard cries for help and attempted to stop the machine, it was too late.
So, what happens when these standards seem to contradict each other? Can a machine be safely serviced without full lockout if guards are in place, OR does removing a guard automatically trigger the need for LOTO? Let’s explore the gray areas where these two critical safety systems meet, overlap, and sometimes collide—offering clarity, context, and practical guidance for navigating compliance without compromising worker protection.
The Machine Guarding under 29 CFR 1910 Subpart O and the Control of Hazardous Energy Sources (LOTO) standard at 29 CFR 1910.147 serve a very similar purpose of protecting workers. Fundamentally, they complement one another:
Together, these standards form a layered safety approach with guards protecting workers during operations, and LOTO protecting them during maintenance. Since guards may be removed during servicing, the risk of injury is increased, which is where LOTO takes over to control energy and unexpected startup. Without proper LOTO, even a well-guarded machine can become deadly during maintenance or servicing tasks.
While both standards are intended to prevent injuries, they approach worker safety from different angles which can sometimes create confusion or conflict in implementation. The life of the young sanitation worker could have been saved if guards had been in place to prevent the fall into the grinder and proper LOTO had been performed to prevent unexpected start-up of the machine.
Both machine guarding and LOTO are essential safeguards designed to protect workers from machinery and energy source hazards, yet they operate under different OSHA standards with distinct expectations and applications. Additionally, confusion is created when dealing with routine vs. non-routine tasks. OSHA allows some minor servicing tasks to be performed without full LOTO if they are routine, repetitive, and integral to production, and if effective machine guarding is in place. As with the incident shared above, how would the employee have determined if cleaning the meat grinder was routine or non-routine — what qualifies as “routine?”
Routine operations are regular, recurring daily tasks with specific procedures. These may include inspections or daily adjustments to machines or equipment (e.g., frequent die changes or clearing regular jams. Non-routine operations are infrequent, unexpected, or new activities with unique risks. These often include emergency maintenance or process start-ups. Cleaning the meat grinder would likely be a routine activity; however, with the unique layout or size of the machinery, guarding alone was not sufficient.
Some maintenance does require removing guards, which exposes workers to hazards. If LOTO procedures aren’t strictly followed, there is a gap in protection. This can often result in the underuse LOTO while relying too heavily on guards when both should be used for full protection.
The confusion between machine guarding and LOTO requirements can be cleared up by:
Modern machines often include advanced guarding systems like light curtains or presence-sensing devices. While these tech marvels enhance safety, they can blur the lines between guarding and energy control. From an OSHA lens, these systems do not replace LOTO during servicing, which can add to the confusion for many trying to interpret compliance requirements. It’s imperative to understand that technology often helps protect workers from getting injured by machines, but they aren’t intended to necessarily control energy sources.
Once employers have sifted through the collision confusion, workers must also be brought up to speed. Often, they have been trained in one standard but not the other, leading to inconsistent application. For example, operators may understand guarding but not LOTO procedures, especially in situations where operations and maintenance are handled by separate personnel.
Keys to remember: LOTO and machine guarding are not just essential, they are complimentary. When used together and correctly, they provide multi-layered approach to protection against serious injuries and fatalities.
Do you have aerial lifts or scissor lifts, or both? It’s not surprising if you do, since they make work tasks so much easier. However, there’s one safety issue to consider — falls from the lift. Looking at OSHA requirements for protecting employees from falls, we see they are different for aerial and scissor lifts.
OSHA regulates aerial lifts at 29 CFR 1910.67 for general industry facilities and at 1926.453 for construction. Aerial lifts operate differently (the basket moves diagonally rather than just vertically like a scissor lift), so OSHA feels there’s a greater chance of a worker falling out. Hence, the requirement for the use of personal fall protection when in the basket.
General industry’s regulation (1910.67(c)(1)(v) is very clear and states, “A personal fall arrest or travel restraint system that meets the requirements in subpart I of this part shall be worn and attached to the boom or basket when working from an aerial lift.”
Construction’s regulation (1926.453(b)(1)(v) isn’t as clear, stating, “A body belt shall be worn, and a lanyard attached to the boom or basket when working from an aerial lift.” But there’s a note to read: “As of January 1, 1998, subpart M of this part … provides that body belts are not acceptable as part of a personal fall arrest system. The use of a body belt in a tethering system or a restraint system is acceptable.”
As a best practice, most companies provide only a fall protection harness to employees and not a body belt. This takes away the chance a worker could wear the body belt when they shouldn’t.
Scissor lifts are considered mobile scaffolds and are only regulated in the construction standard at 1926.452(w). However, the requirement for fall protection in a scissor lift is addressed at 1926.451(g)(1)(vii) and it calls for either standard guardrails or the use of a personal fall arrest system (PFAS).
Considering every scissor lift I’ve seen came equipped with standard manufacturer’s guardrails, OSHA doesn’t require a PFAS (harness, lanyard, and tie off) to be used. However, many employers still require workers to wear one and tie off. That way, there’s no chance they’ll forget to put one on when using an aerial lift. Employees will know anytime they use a scissor or aerial lift, they need to wear their fall protection harness and tie off to an approved anchor point.
Interested in more information on fall protection requirements? See our ezExplanation on Fall protection for construction activities. |
Look at your company’s policy for the use of PFAS systems when operating an aerial or scissor lift. Do you require a harness, lanyard, and tie off routine to be used in both lifts? If not, maybe you should. It’ll be less confusing to employees, since they know to don their harness and tie off anytime they use a lift.
Falls from aerial and scissor lifts are a concern. That’s why many employers require workers using these lifts to where a fall protection harness and use a lanyard to tie off to an approved anchor point.
The most common accidents involve rollovers, collisions with pedestrians, and loads falling from the tines. Since these incidents often result from operator violations, we’ll review the most common violations that cause them.
Since lack of training can increase accidents, check the related article Considerations when designing practical training for PITs. |
Failing to conduct the pre-shift inspection. If the operator skips (or rushes through) the inspection, safety concerns won’t get identified. Problems with critical systems like hydraulics, brakes, or steering can obviously contribute to accidents. But even things like a non-functioning horn or lights could increase the risk of collisions.
Related to this, 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 should have been reported. Equipment failures may occur during operation, not during idle time between shifts. If something goes wrong, 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 shift.
Carrying loads too high. Operators should carry loads as low as possible. During OSHA inspections, compliance officers commonly see loads carried too high. This limits both visibility and stability. When the load size restricts visibility and no other options are feasible, the operator should use a spotter.
Related, operators should never raise or lower a load while moving or turning. Doing so increases the risk of accidents from falling loads, and limited visibility can increase the risk of striking pedestrians or objects.
Driving too fast for conditions. Employers might communicate “speed limits” but forklifts don’t usually have speedometers. Still, operators should understand what constitutes a safe (and unsafe) speed under various conditions. In some locations, this might be a walking speed, which can seem painfully slow. Certain areas like intersections or locations with limited visibility require slowing down even further.
OSHA compliance officers commonly issue citations for excessive speed. Excessive speed increases the risk of spilling a load, striking a pedestrian, and rollover potential.
Operator not certified. 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 operating controls for a different vehicle type, but that does not constitute “training.” OSHA commonly issues citations for lacking operator certification.
In addition, employers must evaluate each operator’s performance at least once 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. Remember that OSHA also requires additional training when physical changes to the workplace introduce new hazards.
If the operator is not certified for the particular vehicle used, the lack of understanding regarding handling characteristics (or different safety precautions) can contribute to accidents such as falling loads or collisions.
Watch for unsafe behaviors. While spills and collisions threaten workers around the forklift, unsafe operator behaviors such as failing to wear the seatbelt, attempting to operate the controls while standing beside the truck, and leaning or reaching outside the running lines all put the operator (and others) at risk.
Key to remember: Forklift operator behaviors can cause serious injuries — or help avoid them if the operator uses appropriate caution.
Training forklift operators is an OSHA requirement per 1910.178(l). Do you want to do it in house? If you said yes, follow this step-by-step guide.
It all starts with a competent trainer. OSHA’s view is that all operator training and evaluation must be conducted by persons who have the “knowledge, training, and experience” to train operators and evaluate their competence. The standard doesn’t go into any more detail. It’s up to the employer to ensure trainers meet these general qualifications, but OSHA has no requirements for trainers to take certain classes, hold any sort of certifications, or be re-certified as trainers at specified intervals.
Need more information on OSHA’s Forklift Standard? See our ezExplanation on Powered Industrial Trucks. |
The only aspect that OSHA has clarified is that the trainer does need to have experience operating the equipment and attachments. However, the standard doesn’t require that the trainers operate a forklift regularly (that is, outside of their operator training duties) as part of their job function or responsibility.
First, OSHA requires that all operators must be trained prior to being allowed to operate forklifts. And the same thing goes for pallet trucks, order pickers, and stand-up units…. Any powered type of material handling equipment requires training.
But what does training entail? Well, the OSHA regulations are very specific. All operators must receive a combination of training. Training must consist of formal training, which is a lecture, discussion, interactive computer learning, video tape, written material, and so on.
They must also receive practical training, which means demonstrations performed by the trainer and practical exercises performed by the trainee.
And the third component is that operators must receive a performance evaluation. So, they must operate the equipment and be observed and evaluated before being considered trained per the OSHA standard.
Usually, you’ll introduce the concepts during the classroom portion of training, the more informational aspects, such as the OSHA requirements. Then you’ll use the practical part of training to familiarize trainees with controls, talk about load handling, and so on. With the practical part, it’s usually best to ramp up the training, meaning start with simple skills and then build on those.
Aside from requirements for how to do the training, OSHA gives us a detailed list of topics to cover during the training.
The main categories are truck-related and workplace-related topics. And remember that OSHA does require you to include information on OSHA’s forklift standard as part of the training program. This requirement can be easy to overlook, but a good way to approach it is in the classroom portion of the program.
Keep in mind that if a topic doesn’t apply to your trucks or workplace, you don’t have to train on it. For example, if you don’t have any ramps or hazardous (classified) locations in your facility, your forklift operators don’t need training on these topics.
Truck-related topics include the following:
Workplace-related topics are examples like these:
The trainees must successfully complete the formal and practical instruction, but how you determine success is up to you. For the classroom portion, you could give a written or oral test or otherwise evaluate the trainees’ knowledge. For the practical training, the trainee must be able to safely perform all the operations used on the job.
An evaluation of the operator’s performance in the workplace must be conducted at the time of initial training. And an evaluation is required to determine the effectiveness of any refresher training.
Also, you must conduct an evaluation at least every three years. This means that at least once every three years every operator must be observed while they operate in the workplace under actual workplace conditions. During the evaluation, the operator must also be able to answer pertinent questions to demonstrate they have the knowledge to operate the forklift safely.
A key point to note here, this evaluation must be more than just a written or verbal test. The employer must observe the operator in action performing all typical tasks related to running the forklift. And, going back to where we started, the evaluation must be conducted by someone who has the knowledge, training, and experience to evaluate the truck operator’s competence.
Document the evaluation — this means placing a record in your training file that includes the name of the operator, the date of the training, the date of the evaluation, and the identity of the person(s) performing the training or evaluation.
This may be a good time for you to review your options for training forklift operators to ensure they’re meeting these guidelines. And, it’s always a great idea to have all your training procedures in written format for consistency.
Training forklift operators is an OSHA requirement. Follow this step-by-step guide and you can do it in-house.
Employers must select a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for every establishment, which usually means a single business location. This code determines whether the establishment is exempt from keeping an OSHA 300 Log. For locations that must keep a 300 Log, the code determines whether the establishment must submit injury data to OSHA by March 2nd.
The NAICS codes get updated every five years, with 2022 as the most current. Adding confusion, different OSHA regulations use different versions of the codes. For example:
Searching codes online may default to the 2022 version, and some codes changed. For example, the 1904.41 appendix lists 4529 for “Other general merchandise stores” which covers retail outlets like dollar stores and variety stores. However, searching that code in the 2022 list shows “no result” since that number changed. The 2022 NAICS code for general merchandise stores is 4552, but that code does not appear in OSHA’s appendix. Employers using the 2022 NAICS codes may incorrectly believe their establishment is not on OSHA’s list.
Employers can search older versions of the NAICS codes at https://www.census.gov/naics/ which also indicates whether a particular code has changed in more recent versions.
In addition to using the NAICS list for the correct year, employers must choose the correct code for each establishment. If a location engages in more than one type of business activity, employers must choose only one NAICS code for OSHA recordkeeping. OSHA says to choose the code for the activity that generates the most revenue or has the most employees.
In some cases, employers can divide a single physical location into more than one “establishment” as defined in 1904.46. To split a single location into multiple establishments, all of the following must apply:
For example, OSHA noted that if an employer operates a construction company at the same physical location as a lumber yard, the employer may consider each business as a separate establishment.
For employers with multiple establishments, the NAICS code for each location should reflect the primary business activity at each establishment. For example, a manufacturing company might have a separate administration office. Using a manufacturing code for the office might not be appropriate, even though it supports the other manufacturing locations. However, NAICS codes starting 5511 for “Management of Companies and Enterprises” might apply.
For example, code 551114 gives examples as follows:
That might better describe a corporate administrative office, if the location does not have any warehousing or manufacturing operations. In fact, codes starting 5511 appear on OSHA’s list of establishments under 1904.2 that are exempt from keeping a 300 Log, so applying the correct code could mean that office doesn’t need a 300 Log at all.
Finally, counting employees gets confusing because some OSHA regulations require counting all employees in the company (combining all locations) and others require counting only the employees at each establishment.
Key to remember: NAICS codes update every five years, and employers must use the correct list, which may differ in various regulations.
A loading dock tends to be a busy area, making it a dangerous place to work. Areas where outgoing freight is staged and incoming material is unloaded can be chaotic and hazardous for both pedestrians and forklifts. Make sure all employees follow proper safety procedures.
A number of things can cause injuries in loading dock areas, including:
In addition, the following conditions can cause injuries:
For outdoor areas where trailers are backed into loading docks, some general rules for truck traffic include the following:
Forklift operators should be especially careful when unloading trailers by using the following precautions:
Whether operating a forklift, breaking down or stacking pallet loads, receiving and checking in freight, driving the delivery truck, or just walking through the loading dock area, employees must remember to keep alert for all of these hazards.