
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).
A 2022 law requires that some sections of end-use pesticide product labeling be translated into Spanish. So, now the agency 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 the EPA “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 wants to also 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 less 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 19th 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!
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.
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.
Compliance with the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program can seem just as intimidating as driving on a multi-level interchange in a major city that you’ve never been to before. Thankfully, helpful guidance (like a reliable GPS) can help gasoline and diesel refiners and importers route a path to success.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a partial waiver on July 7, 2025, that lowers the 2024 renewable fuel volume requirement for cellulosic biofuel. As a result, refiners and importers have a lower volume threshold to meet for this category of renewable fuel. EPA’s recent action highlights the key to the program: volume requirements.
Use this road map of the basics to understand how refiners and importers of gasoline and diesel comply with the RFS program.
The RFS program (see 40 CFR Part 80 Subpart M) requires gasoline and diesel fuel (called transportation fuel) that’s sold in the U.S. to contain a specific volume of renewable fuel. There are four renewable fuel categories:
The route to compliance for refiners and importers that produce, distribute, and sell transportation fuel consists of annual standards, volume requirements, and demonstration.
EPA sets national annual volume requirements for renewable fuel that must be blended into the U.S. market’s total amount of transportation fuel. The agency establishes volumes for each renewable fuel category in addition to corresponding percentage standards.
For example, EPA’s waiver for cellulosic biofuel lowered the 2024 annual volume requirement to 1.01 billion gallons and the percentage standard to 0.59 percent, due to lower-than-expected production volume.
Refiners and importers of transportation fuel (“obligated parties”) use the annual percentage standards to determine the number of gallons of gasoline or diesel fuel they must blend individually.
Obligated parties have to meet Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) for each type of renewable fuel. RVOs are based on the amount of fuel the parties produce or import (essentially, their share of total transportation fuel). They calculate individual RVOs using this formula:
Consider an example using the amended 2024 requirements for cellulosic biofuel with these factors:
In this example, the RVO for cellulosic biofuel in 2024 is 2,950 gallons.
Obligated parties must demonstrate compliance with their individualized RVOs annually. To do so, they need to obtain and retire enough Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) to meet the RVO for each renewable fuel category (80.1434(a)(1)).
Obligated parties can get RINs by:
Let’s look at a common path to obtaining RINs using a fuel blender:
Obligated parties report the retired RINs in their annual compliance report (80.1451(a)(1)).
Key to remember: The route to successful compliance with the Renewable Fuel Standard program for gasoline and diesel refiners and importers consists of annual standards, volume requirements, and demonstration.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a direct final rule that adds a reporting option for regulated coal combustion residuals (CCR) facilities and extends compliance deadlines for CCR facilities with CCR management units (CCRMUs). These units include (a) inactive CCR landfills and (b) closed CCR surface impoundments and landfills.
Who’s impacted?
The direct rule applies to facilities subject to EPA’s final rule published in 2024 (2024 Legacy Rule), including:
The 2024 Legacy Rule established regulations for:
What are the changes?
The 2024 regulations (40 CFR Part 257 Subpart D) require active CCR facilities and legacy CCR surface impoundments to submit the Facility Evaluation Report (FER) Part 1 and FER Part 2 that identify any CCRMUs of 1 ton or more on-site.
Facilities with CCRMUs must also:
EPA’s 2025 direct final rule gives regulated facilities the option to:
The rule also delays the compliance timelines for related CCRMU requirements.
Requirement | 2024 Legacy Rule deadline | 2025 direct final rule deadline |
FER Part 1 | February 9, 2026 | February 9, 2026, or February 8, 2027 |
FER Part 2 | February 8, 2027 | February 8, 2027 |
CCR website | February 9, 2026 | February 9, 2026, or February 8, 2027 |
Groundwater monitoring requirements | May 8, 2028 | August 8, 2029 |
Initial annual report | January 31, 2029 | January 31, 2030 |
Closure/post-closure care plan | November 8, 2028 | February 8, 2030 |
Initiate closure | May 8, 2029 | August 8, 2030 |
About the proposed rule
In conjunction with the direct final rule, EPA published a proposed rule to obtain public feedback on further delaying the FERs. The rule offers two compliance timeline options for the evaluation reports:
Additionally, the proposed rule adjusts the deadlines for the other compliance requirements to 12 months from the 2024 Legacy Rule deadlines. The only exception is the CCR website requirement, which corresponds to the FER Part 1 submission date; it could be delayed for up to 24 months.
If EPA receives adverse comments on the direct final rule, the agency will publish a withdrawal of the specific requirements that won’t take effect. The remaining regulations in the direct final rule will take effect. If the agency determines (based on public feedback) to extend the FER Part 2 deadline by 12 months, the agency will withdraw the 2025 direct final rule and conduct the standard rulemaking procedures to apply the extension.
Key to remember: EPA offers active and inactive coal combustion residuals (CCR) facilities an alternative option to comply with the Facility Evaluation Report and adjusts the compliance timelines for regulations related to CCR management units.
In the world of industrial operations, environmental compliance and workplace safety are often treated as parallel tracks. But in truth, they’re deeply intertwined and two sides of the same coin. Nowhere is this more evident than in the management of hazardous waste and chemical storage.
I recall a visit to a mid-sized manufacturing facility in the Midwest a few years ago. The team had recently undergone a rigorous inspection by the Environmental Protection Agency and proudly walked me through their updated hazardous materials storage area. Everything looked pristine with clearly labeled drums, secondary containment, and a digital tracking system for waste manifests. But as we rounded a corner, I noticed an unlabeled 55-gallon drum tucked behind a stack of pallets. It was leaking.
The safety manager’s face fell. “That’s from a maintenance crew swap last week,” the manager admitted. “It slipped through the cracks.”
That single oversight triggered a cascade of actions: an internal safety audit, retraining on labeling protocols, and a temporary halt to operations in that zone. Fortunately, no one was harmed, but it was a stark reminder that environmental compliance isn’t just about avoiding fines. It’s about protecting people.
When hazardous waste is mismanaged, the risks extend beyond environmental damage. Improper storage can lead to chemical reactions, fires, or toxic exposures. Compliance frameworks like the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (or RCRA) and OSHA’s Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (known as HAZWOPER) standard exist not just to satisfy regulators but also to safeguard the very people who keep our industries running.
As we continue to navigate evolving regulations and sustainability goals, let’s remember: every label, every log, and every inspection is a step toward a safer, healthier workplace. Compliance isn’t a checkbox; it’s a commitment.
Chemical substances appear in nearly every type of workplace, but what happens when a chemical substance is found to unreasonably endanger the health of workers and others who encounter it? The law mandates that environmental regulations be implemented to reduce or eliminate such risks. That’s where a workplace chemical protection program (WCPP) comes in. It’s designed to protect individuals who are or may be exposed to potentially harmful chemical substances.
Take, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) December 2024 final rule on trichloroethylene (TCE), which ultimately bans all uses of the chemical. But, the rule allows certain industrial and commercial uses to continue for a limited time if facilities comply with the rule’s WCPP.
It’s important to note that on June 23, 2025, EPA delayed the effective date for WCPP requirements that apply to the Toxic Substances Control Act’s (TSCA’s) Section 6(g) exemptions (40 CFR 751.325) to August 19, 2025. However, the delay doesn’t apply to nonexempt industrial and commercial uses with longer phaseout timelines (751.305), such as using TCE as a processing solvent in battery manufacturing.
Discover what to expect if your facility becomes subject to a WCPP.
When specific uses of chemical substances (i.e., conditions of use) in an occupational setting may pose unreasonable risks of injury to employees or the environment, Section 6 of TSCA requires EPA to develop regulations that reduce or mitigate those risks. The agency implements WCPPs to address the risks.
A WCPP requires covered entities to take certain actions in the workplace that shield individuals who engage with the conditions of use from inhalation and/or dermal risk.
The requirements of a WCPP may apply to entities that manufacture (including import), process, distribute in commerce, use, or dispose of a TSCA-regulated chemical substance.
The WCPP program extends beyond those who directly handle a regulated chemical substance to anyone in the workplace who’s exposed or who could be exposed to it (e.g., employees, independent contractors, volunteers, etc.).
A WCPP generally consists of multiple elements:
If your facility is subject to a WCPP, it’s essential to know the regulations that apply to the specific chemical substance. The chemical’s rule will define the conditions of use to which the WCPP applies and may contain different or additional requirements. Also, state or local regulations may have stricter rules that dictate how (and if) your facility can use the chemical substance.
Key to remember: Facilities that use TSCA-regulated chemical substances may have to comply with EPA’s workplace chemical protection program to protect workers and other exposed individuals from unreasonable health risks.
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 last month!
Two never-before-mentioned rulemakings reached the Office of Management and Budget for review on June 18. The two actions (one on respiratory protection and the other on the General Duty Clause) are only at the proposed rule stage, so stakeholders will have a chance to comment. At this time, it’s unclear whether the proposals are regulatory or de-regulatory. We’ll provide an update in a future monthly roundup as more information becomes available.
OSHA updated its Site-Specific Targeting program to reflect the use of Form 300A data for calendar years 2021 through 2023. This is OSHA’s primary planned inspection program for general industry establishments with 20 or more employees with the highest injury and illness rates. OSHA uses the data to target establishments for inspection.
Each year, backover incidents lead to serious injuries and fatalities in construction zones and workplaces. These incidents happen when drivers lose sight of people, objects, or vehicles behind them. To help prevent these incidents, OSHA launched #MirrorCheck, an initiative to raise awareness of safe work practices that can prevent backovers.
Effective June 27, Kentucky’s occupational safety and health standards are limited to those enforced by federal OSHA. The state will no longer adopt, promulgate, or enforce rules that are more stringent than federal OSHA. Kentucky operates an OSHA-approved State Plan covering most private sector workers and all state and local government workers.
As part of its Heat Illness Prevention campaign, OSHA has added two new resources for employers. One is a customizable guide for creating a toolbox talk on handling heat emergencies. The other explains the risks of heat illness for young workers.
And finally, turning to environmental news, EPA has again delayed the deadline for submitting data on 16 chemical substances required by the Toxic Substances Control Act Health and Safety Data Reporting rule. Manufacturers now have until May 22, 2026, to report on all of the covered chemical substances.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) updated air quality rules for fine particle pollution (PM2.5), reducing the annual standard from 12.0 to 9.0 micrograms per cubic meter. The rule change was announced on February 7, 2024 and was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on March 6, 2024. The change was based on research linking PM2.5 to health problems like heart disease and early death.
Within one year of the final rule (February 7, 2025), governors from each state were required to submit area designation recommendations (attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable) to EPA. By February of 2026 (at the latest) EPA is expected to issue final area designations based on State recommendations, air quality data, and other factors.
There is a caveat that on March 12, 2025, EPA announced that the agency will reconsider the rule that tightened the standard from 12.0 to 9.0 micrograms per cubic meter by reviewing implementation concerns and getting stakeholder feedback, but as of this writing, the tighter standard is still in place.
If your business is in one of the areas that will be newly listed as nonattainment for PM2.5, you will face new rules designed to improve air quality. Understanding these changes will help you stay compliant and keep operations running smoothly.
Check out this explanation of nonattainment on Compliance Network's Environmental Institute.
The stricter PM2.5 rule will impact many industries, particularly those that emit a lot of fine particle pollution. Some of the most affected sectors include:
These industries may see higher costs, stricter permits, and changes to operations to meet the new standards.
Businesses in nonattainment areas must follow stricter PM2.5 rules. This may mean updating operations or investing in better pollution control technology. The goal is to reduce fine particle emissions that harm air quality and health.
Businesses expanding or changing operations that increase PM2.5 pollution may need new permits. These permits show compliance with tighter pollution limits.
States with nonattainment areas must update their air quality plans. This could mean new industry rules, such as lowering emissions, increasing monitoring, or changing reporting requirements.
Expect closer tracking of your business’ pollution levels, including real-time monitoring and more frequent reports. Compliance checks may be stricter in nonattainment areas.
If a business increases PM2.5 pollution, it may need to offset that by reducing pollution somewhere else in the same area. This ensures the total pollution level does not rise.
Businesses in nonattainment areas may see higher costs due to stricter rules. Local governments might offer rewards or fines to encourage pollution reductions. Companies may need to find cost-effective ways to lower their PM2.5 levels while staying efficient.
Key to Remember: By having a plan for the possibility of nonattainment now, your business can adjust to the new PM2.5 rules while helping improve air quality and public health.
At first glance, an empty container seems like a non-issue — no product, no problem. But in the eyes of regulators, “empty” is a carefully defined status that can determine whether a container is harmless or still subject to hazardous waste rules, labeling, and fire or environmental risk controls. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and OSHA have detailed definitions of what “empty” truly means. Misunderstanding these rules can lead to serious incidents, hefty fines, and unintentional noncompliance.
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), a container that once held hazardous waste is only legally “empty” if it meets particular criteria outlined in 40 CFR 261.7. The first standard that must be satisfied is that all material has been removed from the container using normal means such as pouring, pumping, or aspirating. Secondly, no more than 2.5 centimeters or 1 inch of residue remains on the container's bottom or inner lining. Alternatively, if the container holds 119 gallons or less, it is empty if no more than 3 percent of the total weight exists, or, if the container holds more than 119 gallons, it is empty if no more than 0.3 percent of the total weight exists.
Of course, sometimes special circumstances require further evaluation. For example, a gas cylinder is not empty until the pressure has reduced to atmospheric levels, and acute hazardous waste containers must be triple rinsed with an appropriate solvent or cleaned by another approved method. If these conditions are not met, the container is still legally considered to contain hazardous waste, even if it feels empty.
While EPA focuses on environmental disposal and waste management, OSHA’s concern with empty containers centers on worker safety, particularly the potential for exposure to hazardous residues or vapors. Under OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200), a container that previously held hazardous chemicals must retain its original hazard label until it is adequately cleaned or until the employer removes the label following proper decontamination procedures. For example, a drum labeled “Flammable” must keep this label even if it appears empty, as residual material or vapors may still pose a significant ignition or fire risk. Removing such labels prematurely could lead to workplace hazards and violations of OSHA regulations.
Employers must first clearly determine which rules apply to them: whether the container held hazardous materials governed by EPA regulations, hazardous chemicals subject to OSHA requirements, or both. Emptying procedures should be followed, including properly draining the container, performing triple-rinsing when required, and thoroughly documenting all decontamination activities. Original hazard labels must be maintained on containers until they are thoroughly cleaned or reconditioned, as removing labels prematurely violates OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard. Additionally, employers should provide employees with training on the proper handling, labeling, and disposal of containers and ensure they fully understand what constitutes an empty container under federal standards. Finally, a detailed record of all rinsing, draining, and cleaning processes should be maintained to demonstrate compliance during EPA or state inspections.
Keys to remember: Employers should educate their teams, enforce proper cleaning procedures, and maintain compliance records to ensure they are staying compliant with “empty” container standards.
When it comes to oil spill prevention, it’s a good thing to be in “tiers.” Why? It’s because Tier I or Tier II qualified facilities have simplified requirements for the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires facilities subject to the SPCC rule (40 CFR Part 112) to develop and implement a plan that describes how they will use operating procedures, control measures, and countermeasures to prevent oil spills from reaching navigable waters or adjoining shorelines. Typically, SPCC Plans must be certified by a professional engineer (PE), but qualified facilities can self-certify the plans.
Let’s compare Tier I and Tier II qualified facilities.
A qualified facility:
The SPCC rule identifies two types of qualified facilities:
SPCC Tier Tip: EPA provides a fact sheet (Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan Qualified Facilities Applicability) to help facilities determine eligibility as a qualified facility and (if applicable) which tier applies.
Tier I and Tier II qualified facilities are subject to many of the same requirements for SPCC Plans, including basic requirements, certification, and updates to qualification changes.
All qualified facilities have to develop and implement a written SPCC Plan. Each plan is unique to the facility, but all plans must include:
The primary similarity is that Tier I and Tier II qualified facilities may self-certify their SPCC Plans and amendments to the plan.
SPCC Tier Tip: Some states may not allow self-certification. EPA recommends checking with the state engineer licensing board to determine whether SPCC Plans can be self-certified.
When the status of a facility changes, the owner or operator must prepare and implement an SPCC Plan according to the requirements that apply to its new designation within six months.
Tier I facilities may still be able to self-certify if they meet the Tier II criteria; if so, these facilities can comply with the Tier II rules. However, facilities that are no longer eligible as qualified facilities have to comply with the full SPCC Plan requirements, including obtaining PE certification of the plan.
The primary difference between Tier I and Tier II facilities is the extent of the SPCC Plan. Additionally, Tier II facilities may employ certain alternative spill control methods.
Tier I qualified facilities may use the template in Appendix G of Part 112 as their SPCC Plan. It’s a simplified plan that only contains the requirements applicable to Tier I facilities.
These facilities must also:
Tier II qualified facilities have to develop a full SPCC Plan that complies with 112.7 and the applicable requirements of Subparts B and C of Part 112. This includes developing facility diagrams.
Tier II qualified facilities (with certification) may implement certain alternative measures and methods that Tier I facilities can’t. Tier II facilities must obtain written certification from a PE to include:
Qualified facilities, whether Tier I or Tier II, benefit from the ability to self-certify their SPCC Plans. That’s something that can make owners and operators “tier” up with happiness.
Key to remember: Tier I and Tier II qualified facilities share many similarities under the SPCC rule, but knowing where the requirements differ is vital to maintaining compliance.
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 happened over the last month!
OSHA will host an informal public hearing on its proposed Heat Injury and Illness Prevention rule on June 16. Information about the proposed rule and instructions on how to watch the hearing can be found on OSHA’s website.
OSHA’s National Safety Stand-Down to Prevent Falls in Construction event, held the week of May 5, raised awareness of fall hazards in an effort to help prevent injuries and fatalities. Slips, trips, and falls were the leading cause of death in the construction industry in 2023, accounting for 421 fatalities.
After concluding its investigation of a California chemical facility fire, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board is calling for improved heater safeguards to prevent similar incidents. The fire was caused by an overheated refinery furnace. The Board also made several safety recommendations for chemical facilities.
Following a number of recent fall incidents, the Mine Safety and Health Administration issued a safety alert advising miners to use fall protection. The most recent incident occurred when a miner fell from the deck of a bulldozer.
Turning to environmental news, EPA further delayed the PFAS manufacturing report submission period. The date was moved from July 11, 2025, to April 13, 2026. This is a one-time reporting requirement for manufacturers of per- and polyfluoroalkyl, or PFAS, substances.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has again delayed the deadline for submitting data on 16 chemical substances required by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Health and Safety Data Reporting rule. Manufacturers (including importers) now have until May 22, 2026, to report on all of the covered chemical substances.
What’s required?
The TSCA Section 8(d) Health and Safety Data Reporting rule (40 CFR Part 716) requires manufacturers (including importers) of 16 chemical substances to report data from:
The covered chemical substances include:
|
|
Note that EPA’s first extension in March 2025 moved the submission deadline for vinyl chloride to June 11, 2025, and for the remaining 15 chemical substances to September 9, 2025. This rule pushes the submission deadline for all chemical substances (including vinyl chloride) to May 22, 2026.
Who’s covered?
The rule applies to manufacturers in the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes for chemical manufacturing (NAICS code 325) and petroleum refineries (NAICS code 324110) that:
The reporting requirement also applies to manufacturers of substances for commercial purposes that coincidentally produced a covered chemical substance during the manufacture, processing, use, or disposal of another substance or mixture (including byproducts and impurities).
How do you report?
Reporters submit the TSCA Section 8(d) data via the Chemical Information Submission System (or CISS) tool on the Chemical Safety and Pesticide Program (CSPP) system. The CSPP is accessed through EPA’s Central Data Exchange.
Key to remember: Manufacturers now have even more time to submit TSCA Section 8(d) health and safety data reports for 16 chemical substances.
There’s one question that all potential purchasers should ask before buying an industrial or commercial property: Could the business be held liable for hazardous substance contamination? The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also called “Superfund,” allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to make both current and past facility owners and operators responsible for cleaning up sites contaminated by hazardous substances.
However, CERCLA offers liability protections to landowners and potential purchasers who didn’t cause or contribute to property contamination if they meet specific requirements, including conducting All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI).
Here’s how AAI can shield your organization from Superfund liability.
EPA defines AAI as “the process of evaluating a property’s environmental conditions and assessing potential liability for any contamination.” It encompasses the activities required by the AAI rule (40 CFR Part 312) to:
Potential property owners must comply with the AAI rule to claim protection from CERCLA liability. They may use one of three landowner defenses:
You must meet the AAI requirements if you plan to purchase a property for nonresidential use and may want to use CERCLA liability protections for hazardous substance releases or threatened releases after purchase.
The AAI rule requires an environmental professional to conduct most of the activities (312.21), but it also contains provisions that the potential owner must meet (312.22).
Who qualifies as an environmental professional?
An environmental professional has the needed background to identify conditions of a property that indicate releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances. According to 312.10, an environmental professional needs:
The AAI rule lists the actions needed to qualify for CERCLA liability protection using the landowner defenses. All AAI tasks must be completed before acquiring the property. Most tasks need to be completed within one year prior to purchasing a property. However, a handful of actions must happen within 180 days before purchase:
The environmental professional:
The potential landowner:
Report the results
The AAI results must be documented in a written report that’s signed by the environmental professional. It must include:
The regulations don’t provide specific requirements for the AAI format, and although the rules outline the actions you must take, it can be daunting to implement AAI without further guidance.
Consider using industry standards! EPA even references ASTM International Standards at 312.11 that you can use to comply.
Key to remember: Potential landowners can shield themselves from CERCLA liability for hazardous substance contamination by conducting All Appropriate Inquiries.
Thank you to all our members that have taken the time to provide the Compliance Network team with feedback on what they like and do not like about the site. We have taken this feedback to heart and have redesigned the homepage to better serve our members. Our goal is to make finding the information you need easier and faster.
Let’s take a tour!
Sitewide Search
We heard you. Search has been brought front and center to help you find the information you need quickly.
Activity Overview
The Activity Overview will provide quick access to items that matter to you.
Latest in your favorite Topics
This section will highlight any new content added to your selected topics of interest.
Network Polls and Discussion Activity
See what other professionals in your field are saying.
Premium Content
Exclusive content only available to Compliance Network members.
Trending
Catch up with what other professional like yourself are reading.
The new homepage will go live in June. Don’t hesitate to let us know what you think: compliancenetwork@jjkeller.com
A Title V operating permit is a legally enforceable document with the federal and state air emissions regulations that a facility must meet to operate. One requirement that applies to all Title V permit holders is the annual compliance certification. It answers whether a facility fulfills the permit’s terms and conditions (such as emissions limits, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting).
Whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or a state or local regulatory agency issues the Title V permit, your facility must complete the annual compliance certification.
Discover what your facility needs to comply, certify, and repeat.
Facilities submit annual compliance certifications to the Title V permitting authority, which is usually a state or local regulatory agency (40 CFR 70.6). An EPA Regional Office serves as the permitting authority (71.6) for federally issued permits.
Title V tip: Check the state or local regulations for Title V compliance certification rules. They may require more frequent submissions and additional information.
At a minimum, the annual compliance certification covers two major areas for every permit term or condition:
Let’s take a closer look at each element.
Your facility’s compliance methods are the ways it tracks whether it’s meeting the Title V permit requirements or not. When a term or condition isn’t met (like exceeding an emission limit), it’s known as a deviation.
Compliance methods consist of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting:
Three questions determine the compliance status of each permit requirement during the covered period:
Intermittent vs. continuous compliance
For each permit term or condition, your facility has intermittent compliance if it doesn’t meet the requirements at any time during the covered period. Your facility achieves continuous compliance only if it:
Possible exception to compliance
EPA defines a possible exception to compliance as “any periods during which compliance is required and in which an excursion or exceedance … occurred” (70.6(c)(5)(iii)(C)).
Simply put, a possible exception to compliance is a deviation that occurs when compliance is mandated. If compliance isn’t required or another permit requirement excuses it, the deviation isn’t a possible exception.
Your facility’s Title V permit provides instructions for how to submit the annual compliance certification, including the required forms and methods (via mail or electronic submission). You can also confirm requirements with your permitting authority. Generally, federally permitted facilities use the Annual Compliance Certification (EPA Form 5900-04).
Title V tip: Electronic submissions may be an option through the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) on EPA’s Central Data Exchange. Check with your permitting authority to determine whether you may submit the annual compliance certification electronically via CEDRI.
Annual compliance certification is vital to maintaining your Title V permit. Keep in mind: comply, certify, and repeat.
Key to remember: Facilities with a Title V operating permit must certify compliance with the requirements at least annually.
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.
A 2022 law requires that some sections of end-use pesticide product labeling be translated into Spanish. So, now the agency 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 the EPA “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 wants to also 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 less 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 19th 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.
Over the past few years, federal environmental regulations have targeted a specific group of chemicals: per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) isn’t the only entity taking action to control PFAS; state agencies are too.
So, how should businesses respond? Stay alert to the PFAS regulations at the state level.
PFAS, called “forever chemicals,” are long-lasting manufactured chemicals that may pose risks to human and environmental health. With thousands of PFAS chemicals, however, controlling their use to reduce the risks is no easy task.
Additionally, PFAS appear in nearly every sector. They’re used in a wide range of products (like food packaging, cleaning products, and textiles) and for commercial and industrial applications.
Multiple states already have PFAS rules on the books. Check out these examples:
Many states also have proposed PFAS rules under consideration.
If your facility uses PFAS, it’s essential to know whether the state has regulations that apply to your operations. Plus, knowing the state’s potential future PFAS rules coming down the pipeline can help you better prepare to comply.
Consider these general tips to support your facility’s efforts to track state PFAS actions:
Staying alert to state PFAS regulations can help your organization maintain compliance.
Key to remember: States across the country continue to consider and implement regulations related to PFAS. Staying alert to state PFAS actions is key for businesses to stay compliant.
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.
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.
Just like all-terrain tires, mobile emission regulations are built for paved and unpaved landscapes. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets federal emission standards for mobile sources, and the rules extend beyond vehicles on the road. The requirements also apply to off-road mobile sources, ranging from the humble lawnmower to imposing construction equipment.
While most requirements affect off-road vehicle, engine, and equipment manufacturers, certain rules apply to owners and operators. So, before you fire up the forklift or any other mobile off-road source, ensure your equipment complies.
Mobile sources, according to EPA, include vehicles, engines, and motorized equipment with exhaust and evaporative emissions. There are two types of mobile sources:
Nonroad emission requirements are based on the source and emission system types.
Nonroad source | Emission system | Regulations (40 CFR) |
Aircraft | Exhaust | Part 1031 Part 1065 Part 1068 |
Nonroad compression-ignition engines | Exhaust | Part 1039 Part 1065 Part 1068 |
Nonroad large spark-ignition engines | Exhaust Evaporative | Part 1048 Part 1065 Part 1068 |
Locomotives | Exhaust | Part 1033 Part 1065 Part 1068 |
Marine compression-ignition engines and vessels | Exhaust | Part 1042 Part 1065 Part 1068 |
Marine spark-ignition engines and vessels | Exhaust Evaporative | Part 1045 Part 1065 Part 1068 |
Nonroad recreational engines and vehicles | Exhaust Evaporative | Part 1051 Part 1065 Part 1068 |
Nonroad small spark-ignition engines (up to 19 kilowatts) | Exhaust Evaporative | Part 1054 Part 1065 Part 1068 |
The rules for owners and operators primarily relate to handling, maintaining, and rebuilding the emission-controlling components on nonroad vehicles, engines, and equipment.
Don’t tamper with emission controls
The regulation at 1068.101(b) bans owners, operators, and everyone else from impeding or removing emission controls from certified mobile nonroad vehicles, engines, and equipment. Examples include using software to increase emissions, removing emission control devices from equipment, and operating engines with incorrect fuel.
It also prohibits anyone from making, selling, or using defeat devices to bypass, impair, defeat, or disable emission controls.
Follow the manufacturer’s instructions
Manufacturers are required to provide emission-related installation and maintenance instructions as well as a warranty that the nonroad engine or equipment complies with EPA’s regulations. Owners and operators are responsible for maintaining the product (1068.110(e)).
Implement these actions to help ensure proper maintenance of your nonroad engine or equipment:
Rebuild engines according to the regulations
Anyone who installs or has a rebuilt engine installed in a regulated piece of nonroad equipment must confirm that the engine complies with 1068.120. These are some of the major requirements:
Key to remember: EPA regulates emissions from all mobile sources, including off-road vehicles, engines, and equipment.
Over the next several weeks, schools across the country are opening their doors to begin a new school year. With an increase in young pedestrians, crossing guards, and school buses, now is the perfect time to remind your drivers about the importance of school zone safety. Use the following safety tips to start the conversation.
Key to remember: With schools throughout the country starting the new school year, now is the time to review the importance of operating in a defensive frame of mind.
As every great military commander will tell you, “Know your enemy.” For motor carriers, this means gaining a deeper understanding of anyone who poses a security threat to the operation.
The following tabletop exercise may help you peer into the minds of those who might cause harm (physical or data theft, terrorism, violence, etc.). Seeing your facility from their perspective may be eye-opening and reveal real threats to security at your company.
The first step is assembling a team of “experts” to look at the vulnerabilities that exist in your organization. This brainstorming team should represent all departments, locations, and shifts.
During this tabletop exercise, participants take on the persona of a security threat and let their imaginations run wild. By putting themselves in the criminal’s shoes, participants look at how someone might gain entry, steal, vandalize, or cause physical harm based on their knowledge of the facility and organization.
A team cannot function properly unless it has specified objectives.
Members of the risk assessment team:
The objective of the group is simple: Find real-life vulnerabilities (and roadblocks) when considering fictitious security scenarios. The “enemy” in the scenario has an objective (e.g., stealing load information, workplace violence), and the group needs to think like the perpetrator to figure out how they might accomplish this goal.
Meetings need a sense of order no matter how much you promote thinking outside the box. You will need to explain the parameters being set.
Other important rules for the exercise include:
Discussion should be timed, and someone should be designated to take notes on the ideas. No idea should be viewed as “crazy.” Sometimes what appears totally absurd has merit and could be a real threat against an individual or the organization.
The notetaker should write all ideas down on a dry erase board or flip chart. Documenting what has been said:
By the close of the tabletop exercise, you hopefully have a wide array of ideas to consider. The group should select those vulnerabilities that warrant a more detailed examination.
Consider the following when determining which ideas to pursue:
The team’s decision should not be influenced by that of the leader/ facilitator. You do not want to experience groupthink. Whichever ideas receive the most votes should be investigated in greater detail.
Key to remember: A fun and engaging tabletop exercise that puts your staff in the shoes of a criminal might just reveal some overlooked vulnerabilities.
One issue that some carriers fail to understand is that all safety-related violations written against a carrier or its driver during a roadside inspection are scored against the carrier in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) tracking systems. This includes the Safety Measurement System (SMS) within the Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) program.
This is true whether the violation was written against the driver or the vehicle. This is because the carrier is always responsible for the driver’s qualifications and actions, and the condition of the vehicle.
Common questions surrounding violations on a roadside inspection are:
In the above situations, because you are the carrier (the entity whose DOT number the vehicle was operating under), you would be the one assigned the violations in the FMCSA tracking systems.
A violation is a warning
Another point to remember is that anytime the officer notes a violation on a roadside inspection report, the officer is giving you an informal warning. As a result of this, you need to correct the violation as soon as possible. For a vehicle violation that means addressing the defect that led to the violation the day of the inspection or as part of the DVIR process at the end of the driver’s workday.
The exception is if the officer placed the driver or vehicle out of service due to the violation.
Out of service
Whenever an officer writes a violation against a driver or vehicle, the next step is the officer checking the North American Out-of-Service Criteria (OOSC), published by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA). If the situation surrounding the violation matches the OOSC, the driver or vehicle will be placed out of service. When this happens, the violation must be corrected before the driver or vehicle operates again.
If the driver or vehicle are caught operating before the out-of-service violation has been corrected, the driver can be cited for jumping an out-of-service order. If convicted, the driver will be fined and the driver’s commercial driving privileges can be suspended for 90 days to one year or more (see 391.15 and 383.51). The carrier can also be fined in excessive of $39,000 (Appendix B to Part 386).
Formal written warnings and citations
Also, after the violation has been recorded on the roadside inspection report, the officer will decide if a formal warning or citation is warranted. The decision on issuing a formal warning or citation will be based on the severity of the violation, the officer’s judgment, the officer’s standing orders, the officer’s agency policies, and state laws. Not all violations and out-of-service orders result in a formal warning or citation.
Key to remember: The FMCSA consequences happen as soon as the officer notes a violation on the roadside inspection report. From there on, the additional consequences (out-of-service order, formal warning, citation) will depend on the OOSC, the officer, and the instructions provided to the officer.
As of August 21, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has updated a previous waiver to allow a paper copy of the medical examiner’s certificate to serve as proof of certification for up to 60 days after issue. The previous waiver, posted July 14, allowed the paper copy for 15 days. As before, this waiver is valid through October 12, 2025.
The FMCSA made this update to give carriers and drivers more support while medical examiners transition to the secure electronic transmission to medial certification data update. The FMCSA decided drivers should not be punished for delays that may occur while medical examiners and State Driver’s Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) transition to the new system. The agency feels that this waiver is in the best interest of the public and will provide the same, if not a greater, level of safety.
The agency recommends that certified medical examiners continue to issue paper medical examiner’s certificates as well as submit examination results electronically, until further notice.
This waiver applies to both CDL and commercial learner’s permit (CLP) holders. Non-CDL drivers are not affected by this waiver since they already are required to be issued a paper medical card.
As a reminder, the two key impacts of this waiver include:
The waiver does not apply to:
Additionally, the FMCSA reserves the right to revoke the waiver if safety conditions are negatively impacted in terms of the goals and objectives of the original order.
A crane service provider in Texas will pay $525,000 to settle a racial harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The agency announced details about the case, including the hefty fine and other relief measures, in August.
According to the suit, four black employees were subjected to a hostile work environment by their coworkers and supervisors. The employees were subjected to:
The company failed to stop the harassment, despite the employees’ complaints. The EEOC also charged that the company neglected to act when a white employee, who witnessed the racial harassment, reported it to company managers and HR.
Instead, the company retaliated against the white employee by reducing his work hours. It also failed to stop mistreatment from his white coworkers, which forced him to quit his job, according to the EEOC’s suit.
The company’s alleged conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from causing or permitting racial harassment of their employees. The Act also prohibits retaliation against employees because they report workplace conduct that they reasonably believe to be unlawful harassment or discrimination, or otherwise take appropriate actions to oppose such conduct.
“Under federal law, employers must exercise reasonable care to prevent and promptly stop any racially harassing behavior in the workplace,” EEOC Dallas District Director Travis Nicholson said.
The EEOC and the company agreed to settle the case, and on July 31, a federal court approved the agreed-upon three-year consent decree resolving the litigation.
In addition to paying $525,000 to the five workers, the company must also:
Key to remember: A Texas crane service provider must pay $525,000 to settle a racial harassment and retaliation suit filed by the EEOC.
The 150 air-mile exemptions, which are in the regulations at 395.1(e)(1) and (2), allow a driver to use a time record in place of a log, provided that certain conditions are met. While this is possibly the most widely used hours-of-service exemption, it may be the most commonly misused exemption, as well.
To be able to use this logging exemption in 395.1(e)(1), the driver must:
The company must retain the time record and have it available for inspection for six months.
Need more info? View our ezExplanation on the 150 air-mile exception. |
If the driver cannot meet the terms of the exemption (he or she goes too far or works too many hours), the driver must complete a regular driver’s log for the day as soon as the exemption no longer applies.
If the driver has had to complete a log 8 or fewer days out of the last 30 days, the driver can use a paper log for the day. If the driver had to complete a log more than 8 days out of the last 30 days, the driver needs to use an electronic log for the day (unless one of the ELD exemptions applies, such as operating a vehicle older than model year 2000).
When a property-carrying driver is operating under the 150 air-mile exemption, the driver is also exempt from having to take the required 30-minute break (see 395.3(a)(3)(ii)).
If the driver began the day as a 150 air-mile driver and has driven more than 8 consecutive hours without a break, and something unexpected happens and the driver can no longer use the 150 air-mile exemption, the driver must stop and immediately take the 30-minute break as well as start logging. If the driver went outside of the 150 air-mile area before the driver had 8 hours of driving without a break from driving, the driver would be expected to take the break at the appropriate time.
Here are some of the common myths and misunderstandings about the 150 air-mile exemption:
The 150 air-mile exemption at 395.1(e)(2) only applies to drivers that: Operate property-carrying vehicles that do not require a CDL to operate, and Stay within the 150 air-miles of their work reporting location.
If the driver stays within the 150 air-mile radius of the work reporting location, and returns to the work reporting location within 14 hours on 5 of the last 7 days, and 16 hours on 2 of the last seven days, the driver is allowed to use a time record in place of a log.
If the driver does not meet the terms of the exception, the driver will need to complete a log for the day. If the driver had to log more than 8 days out of the last 30 days, the driver will need to use an electronic log for the day. All of the other issues discussed above would apply to these drivers as well.
If you have drivers that use these exemptions, you will need to check time records to make sure they are complying with the appropriate time limits. You will also need to check movement records to verify that the drivers using these exemptions are staying within the mandated area (within 150 air-miles of the work reporting location for the day).
If a driver is over the hours limit, or has gone too far, you need to verify that the submitted a log for the day, either paper or electronic, depending on how many days the driver had to log out of the previous 30 days.
During an audit, if it is discovered that your drivers are using these exemptions incorrectly, you will be cited for not having drivers’ logs when required. Each day this occurred will be another violation, so the fine could be rather large if you are not managing the use of these exemptions!
It’s been years since the COVID-19 virus created unique workplace challenges. Given a growing trend, another virus could be spreading among employees and their families: Measles.
The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that as of July 29, 2025, 40 jurisdictions reported a total of 1,333 confirmed measles cases. For comparison:
These trends coincide with more employees returning to offices, which can exacerbate an outbreak.
Employees who are exposed to someone with measles should contact their health care provider and report the exposure. Employers should encourage them to stay home to help avoid spreading it at work. Employers should also notify the local health department and follow its recommended actions. As with any other employee medical information, employers should keep the identity of infected employees private.
People carrying the virus are contagious from four days before they develop a rash through four days after it appears. Employers might want to give employees measles information on:
Symptoms of measles include:
Employers might also revisit their old COVID-19 procedures to help keep employees safe, such as cleaning, distancing, working from home, or providing leave. Exposure prevention measures are critical in workplaces located in communities experiencing a measles outbreak.
Key to remember: Parts of the U.S. are experiencing a measles outbreak. Employers need to know how to deal with potential issues.
State drug testing laws are typically slow to change, but this summer three states made revisions. Iowa and Ohio made their laws more employer-friendly, while Minnesota added a new requirement.
Iowa employers who conduct drug tests may now use electronic communication to notify employees about positive results when employees agree to this method of communication. They can also use an in-person exchange of written materials if that is what an employee would like to do.
These methods of communication can also be used when an applicant or parent of a minor agrees to receive notices this way.
Employers used to be required to send notifications by certified mail, return receipt requested. This method can still be used when it’s preferred by an employee, prospective employee, or parent of a minor.
In addition, the state has:
Ohio has merged its Drug-Free Safety Program, Drug-Free Safety Program Grants, and Substance Use and Recovery and Workplace Safety Program into a new entity: The Substance Use and Prevention Recovery Program (SUPR).
The voluntary program is available to public employer taxing districts and private employers with state workers’ compensation insurance. Self-insured employers can enroll at the comparable level to be included on the list approved state construction contractors.
Under the new program:
Employers may enroll at a basic, advanced, or reimbursement-only level, or may enroll with a comparable program. The basic, advanced, and comparable levels require employers to train supervisors and employees, conduct drug and alcohol testing, and have a written policy.
Employers applying only for reimbursement must keep documentation to support the reimbursement request for three years.
The state is creating an online portal where employers will be able to report program completion and request reimbursement for eligible expenses.
Minnesota employers must now comply with a notice requirement when taking certain negative actions against medical marijuana patients.
State law prohibits employers from discriminating against patients because of medical marijuana use or because of a positive drug test for marijuana. There are exceptions for employees who are impaired by marijuana at work, and when failing to act would cause an employer to:
Employers who decide to take a negative action because not doing so would violate the law or result in the loss of benefits must now provide a written notice to employees at least 14 days before the action. The notice must:
A patient may bring legal action against an employer for violating the law, and an employer must not retaliate against a patient who asserts their rights.
Key to remember: Some states have detailed drug testing laws, and while they do not change often, employers need to stay on top of changes to remain in compliance.
Are your forklift operators certified? Do they need a state driver’s license? Are they physically able to operate forklifts? All are commonly asked questions — so, let’s make sure you're compliant.
OSHA’s powered industrial truck (PIT) standard (29 CFR 1910.178) is intended to ensure the safe use of fork trucks, tractors, platform lift trucks, motorized hand trucks, and other specialized industrial trucks powered by electric motors or internal combustion engines. The standard outlines requirements for operational permits and certification.
And, though not specified in the standard itself, PIT operators must be at least 18 years old per federal child labor regulations.
The OSHA PIT standard clearly defines requirements for training and certification. However, some licensing and certification information isn’t as clear. Here are some clarifications:
Q: Who can train, evaluate, and certify PIT operators?
A: OSHA requires in 1910.178(l)(2)(iii) that, “All operator training and evaluation shall be conducted by persons who have the knowledge, training, and experience to train powered industrial truck operators and evaluate their competence.” The OSHA standard doesn’t further define this requirement or set any specific or additional certifications.
Q: Does OSHA require PIT operators to have a valid driver's license?
A: Federal OSHA has no requirement that a forklift operator has a valid motor vehicle driver's license. Some states are more stringent, so check your local and state requirements to confirm.
Q: Does OSHA have regulations that impact an employee’s ability to operate PITs if they’ve received a DUI or suspended license?
A: Because OSHA doesn't require a valid motor vehicle driver's license, the status of that license doesn’t impact PIT operator permitting. Individual states or the employer may have policies that dictate otherwise.
Q: Are PIT drivers required to have their license on them when they are working?
A: Federal OSHA doesn’t require PIT operators to have a license or permit. However, some states such as Michigan do require this. Typically, in states that require a permit or license, the license must be “readily available.” Companies have the option to require the permit or license be carried with the operator.
Q: Are operators required to be trained on each manufacture of PIT model?
A: A June 15, 1999, OSHA letter of interpretation (LOI) clarifies that operators are to be trained and evaluated in the safe operation for the type of truck they’ll be assigned. Operators wouldn’t need additional training for same truck types but would need additional training when truck- or workplace-related training topics are different.
Q: Do PIT operators need to be recertified if they move from one state to another with the same company?
A: In an LOI dated October 1, 1999, OSHA states, "As long as the employer has a reasonable basis to believe that the third-party trainer is qualified and has a program that meets the requirements of the standard, it can rely on that trainer to conduct the training and evaluation of employees and can certify that these employees have been trained. However, the employer may need to provide additional training on site-specific or truck-specific matters." This shouldn’t require retraining for the same type of forklift as already certified; however, workplace conditions or other factors of the new work location may require training for forklift operation in the other state(s).
Interested in information on how material handler training can help forklift operators? See our Compliance Network article "To improve forklift safety, train material handlers." |
In addition to being properly trained and evaluated, OSHA expects employers to ensure physical capabilities. OSHA references the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard B56.1-1969. Section 6 clarifies that, “Operators of powered industrial trucks shall be physically qualified. An examination should be made on an annual basis and include such things as field of vision, hearing, depth perception, and reaction timing."
Employers should consider OSHA PIT regulations and the General Duty Clause, ANSI standards, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements when evaluating physical qualifications. In short, if a worker demonstrates the visual, auditory, and mental ability to safely operate PITs, he or she is permitted to operate them.
OSHA requires employers ensure the safe use of forklifts and other powered industrial vehicles. Employers must ensure operators have the knowledge, skills, and physical ability to safely operate PITs.
Eligible employees may take leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) on an intermittent or reduced schedule basis when medically needed and for military family qualifying exigencies. This can include time off for their own conditions or those of a spouse, child, or parent. They may also take leave intermittently when employers agree to allow it for bonding with a healthy child.
Sometimes, employees might need continuous FMLA leave, only to be followed by intermittent leave.
If, for example, “Jo Employee” has surgery for a torn rotator cuff. She will likely need a few weeks off to recover. Over time, Jo might be able to work partial days. This means that Jo would take intermittent FMLA leave going forward until she’s fully recovered and able to work her normal schedule.
If, after taking intermittent FMLA leave, Jo reinjured herself, she might need to revert to continuous leave for a while.
How can employers stay on top of such changes? First, they may ask for an initial certification supporting the need for leave. The certification should give employers enough information to determine whether the employee needs FMLA leave for a qualifying reason.
For medical certifications, it should indicate which part of the FMLA’s definition of a serious health condition is involved. It should also include information on how much leave the employee needs.
Because things can change, employers may ask for recertifications now and then. They may ask for them no more often than every 30 days unless the certification indicates that the minimum duration of the condition is more than 30 days. In that situation, employers must wait until that minimum duration expires before requesting a recertification.
In all cases, employers may request a recertification of a medical condition in six months in conjunction with an employee’s absence (i.e., not just a random request).
Employers don’t have to wait the 30 days, the minimum duration, or six months to ask for a recertification in limited situations. This happens if:
Taking Jo’s example, if the initial certification indicated that she needed four weeks of continuous leave, but after three weeks, Jo said she could do some work, employers could ask for a recertification, as something had changed. If, after taking intermittent leave, Jo reinjured herself and went back to needing continuous weeks of FMLA leave, the employer could ask for a recertification.
Key to remember: Life situations seldom work on a straight trajectory. Things change, and so can an employee’s FMLA leave needs. What can start as a continuous leave can change to an intermittent leave, and vice versa. Employers can keep up with such changes using recertifications.
“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.
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.
Are you swimming in a sea of material handling compliance confusion? Fear not — where questions abound, we have answers! Let’s dive into the 5 most common material handling questions we receive. Whether you're a seasoned professional or new to the field, these answers will help you navigate your warehouse and storage with ease!
OSHA doesn’t have a specific regulation that sets a height for materials stacked on pallets or shelving. However, the Agency does require in 1910.176(b) that:
“Storage of material shall not create a hazard. Bags, containers, bundles, etc., stored in tiers shall be stacked, blocked, interlocked and limited in height so that they are stable and secure against sliding or collapse.”
Additionally, OSHA does have a requirement in 1910.159(c)(10) regarding sprinkler clearance. A minimum 18” vertical clearance must be maintained between the sprinkler heads and stored materials to ensure effective sprinkler operation.
It’s important to also remember there could be height limitations based on the type of materials and potential fire load (for example, empty pallets can pose a hazard from fast developing fire and intense heat released from pallet stacks. Due to this, there are height limitations based on type of material, sprinkler system, and whether storage is indoor/outdoor, etc. Employers should always check with their local fire authority for additional guidance.
Under 1910.178, OSHA doesn't set any specific retention periods for this material handling equipment's daily inspection. Technically, the regulation doesn’t even require documentation, but they do require the inspections to be completed.
As a best practice, employers should determine how long inspection records should be retained and document the retention period in the company policy/program. Additionally, some employers also keep inspection records that identify issues or maintenance needs for a longer period as a systematic process focused on keeping machinery and equipment in optimal working condition.
OSHA’s materials handling and storage standard at 1910.176(b) states that “storage of material shall not create a hazard.” From an OSHA standpoint, employers must assess how chemicals are stored and managed to minimize hazard potential to workers. Additionally, OSHA’s HazCom standard at 1910.1200 requires that containers of hazardous chemicals be specifically labeled.
The agency expects employers to:
OSHA regulations also don’t specifically specify that capacity ratings or load limits be placed on storage racks; however, the agency has used the General Duty Clause (GDC) to cite for this in cases where a rack collapsed from overloading. To justify a GDC citation, OSHA may refer to the rack manufacturer’s recommendations or to the American National Standards Institute consensus standard ANSI/MH 16.1.
Though the Material Handling and Storage standard at 1910.176(b) tells us, “Storage of material shall not create a hazard,” OSHA does not give exact details on HOW one would ensure their storage systems don’t create hazards. In these cases, the situation would likely fall under the General Duty Clause.
As an example, OSHA issued a citation in 2015 to a facility in which pallet racks were not anchored and bolted to the ground. As part of this citation, OSHA mentions that “one feasible and acceptable method to correct the hazards noted are to follow the manufacturer installation instructions and/or conform with installation and assembly instructions and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard MH16.1-2012 (a revision of MH16.1-2008): Specifications for the Design, Testing and Utilization of Industrial Steel Storage Racks...”
Key to remember: OSHA material handling and storage regulations require, “Storage of material shall not create a hazard” which includes securing materials and shelving, ensuring adequate clearances for sprinkler systems, and maintaining clear exit routes.
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.
OSHA recently proposed to strip away the last of its COVID-19 regulations found in portions of 29 CFR 1910 subpart U. These surviving regulations relate to recordkeeping and reporting (R&R). The deregulatory move comes four years after the subpart was first published in the Federal Register.
Note that OSHA stopped enforcing all provisions of subpart U on December 27, 2021, except for the R&R provisions. The agency also ceased work on January 15, 2025, on a rulemaking to create a permanent COVID-19 for Healthcare standard. Moreover, OSHA issued a memo in February 2025 announcing that it’s not enforcing the R&R requirements in subpart U.
Therefore, right now just the COVID-19 R&R provisions are in effect but not enforced. Those are the provisions that OSHA intends to eliminate, according to a July 1, 2025, proposed rule. Comments are due by September 2, 2025.
The COVID-19 R&R provisions currently found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) call for over 562,000 covered healthcare employers to:
Duty: | 1910.502: |
Establish and maintain a COVID-19 log to record all employee cases of COVID-19, regardless of whether the cases are work-related | (q)(2)(ii) |
Make the COVID-19 log or some version of it available to their employees, employee representatives, and OSHA | (q)(3)(ii) - (iv) |
Report work-related COVID-19 fatalities/hospitalizations among employees to OSHA, regardless of how much time passed between the work-related exposure to COVID-19 and the employer learning about the fatality/hospitalization | (r) |
OSHA specifically proposes to remove:
What: | Including: |
COVID-19 R&R provisions in 29 CFR 1910 subpart U | 1910.502(q)(2)(ii), (q)(3)(ii) - (iv), and (r) |
Regulatory references to 1910.501 | 29 CFR 1915.1501, 1917.31, 1918 subpart K, 1926.58, and 1928.21(a)(8) |
OSHA offers 12 reasons for removing the R&R provisions that are in subpart U:
Therefore, OSHA says it’s no longer appropriate to apply R&R regulations to COVID-19 that are more burdensome than those already prescribed under 29 CFR 1904 for other infectious diseases. Part 1904 is the Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses standard. The agency argues that 1910.502(q)(2)(ii), (q)(3)(ii) - (iv), and (r) should be removed from the CFRs.
Also, Part 1915, 1917, 1918, 1926, and 1928 references to 29 CFR 1910 subpart U are outdated, contends OSHA, because they refer to provisions in the CFR that no longer exist. Omitting these references would be purely administrative.
Given the new administration, it’s unknown whether OSHA would withdraw its Infectious Diseases rulemaking from the agenda. Yet, a statement in the latest COVID-19 proposal teases stakeholders about the possibility of an Infectious Diseases proposal.
The preamble text states, “On January 15, 2025, OSHA terminated the [permanent COVID-19 for Healthcare rulemaking] on the basis that the COVID-19 public health emergency was over and any ongoing COVID-19 hazards would be better addressed in a rulemaking focusing on the broader hazard of infectious diseases … To the extent additional [R&R] tools are necessary and appropriate, they could be considered as part of a broader rulemaking that would facilitate employer adoption of more cohesive and consistent [R&R] policies to address workplace-transmissible diseases.”
OSHA proposed to discard the R&R provisions of its COVID-19 regulations in 29 CFR 1910 subpart U. These regulations are more burdensome than R&R requirements for other infectious diseases, argues OSHA. Comments are due September 2nd.
Although tornadoes can occur at any time, the “tornado season” generally runs from March through June, with May typically having the most storms. Although OSHA’s regulations do not specifically mention tornadoes, OSHA does require an Emergency Action Plan under 1910.38. The plan must include procedures for reporting fires or other emergencies (such as severe weather).
Below are some questions our experts commonly get regarding tornadoes.
Does OSHA require an alarm? Generally, yes, unless the workplace has 10 or fewer employees per 1910.165. Employers must provide a way to communicate an emergency in a manner that notifies employees of the expected response. A fire alarm typically warns employees to evacuate to a headcount location. If the nature of the emergency requires a different response (such as proceeding to a tornado shelter), employees must recognize the alarm and understand the appropriate response.
Does OSHA require annual drills? OSHA does not require drills, but does require annual testing of alarms under 1910.165. In addition, 1910.38 requires that employees understand their responsibilities under the Emergency Action Plan. Conducting annual fire evacuation drills is common, and your insurance company may require them. However, many employers do not conduct annual tornado drills because employees would typically proceed to the nearest shelter, which may not allow for a headcount. Still, annual alarm testing can let employees know what it sounds like, and employers can deliver reminders on shelter locations at that time.
Does OSHA require tornado shelters? No, OSHA does not specifically require tornado shelters, but does list recommendations from other agencies regarding preferred shelter areas. If a building lacks an ideal location, employers should identify the best potential shelter areas. Employers might also check with their insurance company about building shelter areas. Typically, employees should:
What about remote or traveling employees? Many employees work remotely, travel for business, or even report to off-site locations (such as construction sites). These employees cannot rely on an alarm and should monitor the weather in their area. They should also know how to protect themselves, whether driving, working from home, or working outdoors.
Tornado safety involves three phases: Preparing in advance, Staying safe during the storm, and Staying safe after the storm.
Employees should prepare a plan and an emergency kit, monitor weather conditions during thunderstorms, and know the best places to shelter wherever they work.
Employers should prepare a business continuity plan for dealing with the aftermath, from cleaning up the site to resuming business operations.
During a tornado warning, employees should remain in a shelter until given an all-clear signal. At a fixed worksite, this may come from an employer announcement. At other locations, employees may need to monitor conditions on their phone or radio.
After the storm, employees may need a way to communicate if they are trapped or injured. They should also watch for hazards such as downed power lines, gas leaks, building damage, or debris.
Key to remember: Tornadoes can happen at any time, but Spring is most active, and employers should prepare to protect workers.
OSHA extended the comment period from September 2 to November 1 on multiple proposed rules it published in the July 1 Federal Register. In some instances, the agency seeks input on specific questions pertaining to the rule. Comments may be submitted at regulations.gov.
Proposed action | Affected regulation |
Remove some medical evaluation requirements for the use of medical evaluations for filtering facepiece respirators and loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirators. | • Respiratory protection, 1910.134 |
Revise some substance-specific respirator requirements to allow different types of respirators to be used. | • 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane, 1910.1044 • 1,3-Butadiene, 1910.1051 • Asbestos, 1910.1001, 1915.1001, 1926.1101 • Benzene, 1910.1028 • Cadmium, 1910.1027, 1926.1127 • Coke oven emissions, 1910.1029 • Cotton dust, 1910.1043 • Ethylene oxide, 1910.1047 • Inorganic arsenic, 1910.1018 • Lead, 1910.1025, 1926.62 • Methylene chloride, 1910.1052 • Methylenedianiline, 1910.1050, 1926.60 |
Remove duplicative language related to respiratory protection. | • Acrylonitrile, 1910.1045 • Formaldehyde, 1910.1048 • Vinyl chloride, 1910.1017 |
Revise respirator requirements; clarify policies and procedures for implementing a respiratory protection program. | • 13 Carcinogens, 1910.1003 |
Remove entire regulation. | • Construction illumination, 1926.26, 1926.56 • Occupational exposure to COVID-19 in healthcare settings, 1910 Subpart U • COVID-19, 1915.1501, 1917.31, 1918 Subpart K, 1926.58, 1928.21(a)(8) |
Add a regulatory section clarifying OSHA’s interpretation of the General Duty Clause to exclude from enforcement known hazards that are inherent and inseparable from the core nature of a professional activity or performance, such as animal handling, motor sports, and combat simulation training. | • 1975.7, Application of the General Duty Clause to inherently risky professional activities |
Did you know that OSHA’s standard on permit-required confined spaces (PRCS) says entry occurs as soon as any part of the entrant’s body breaks the plane of the opening into the permit space?
Many workers and employers mistakenly think that placing part of the body or hands into a confined space isn’t entry. Knowing the difference between when entry occurs and not will help employers determine if a permit is required.
As clarified in an OSHA Letter of Interpretation (LOI) dated October 18, 1995, “When any part of the body of an entrant breaks the plane of the opening of a PRCS large enough to allow full entry, entry is considered to have occurred and a permit is required, regardless of whether there is an intent to fully enter the space.”
This definition of “entry” might seem to be too strict. Still, OSHA’s letter clarifies that there are situations where a partial entry would be hazardous: “Examples of situations where entry by only part of the body into a PRCS can expose an entrant to the possibility of injury or illness are as follows:
As another example, if the space contains a flammable or oxygen-enriched atmosphere, and if the activities during a partial entry could produce a spark or other ignition source, then a fire in the space could flash out of the opening and cause serious injuries to the employee.
This doesn’t necessarily mean you’d be fined if a permit wasn’t followed when someone reached a tank. OSHA’s guidance continues: “However, if entry by only part of the body does not expose the entrant to the possibility of injury or illness, then the violation may be considered a ‘de minimis’ violation.”
A de minimis violation is one in which a standard is violated, but the violation has no direct or immediate relationship to employee safety or health. These violations are documented but no citations are issued.
OSHA says examples of situations where entry by only part of the body into a PRCS would not expose an entrant to the possibility of injury or illness are as follows:
Also, consider a situation such as a worker reaching through a small grate to take a sample from a permitted space. The LOI further states, “If a part of the body were placed in an opening through which the worker could not pass into the permit-required confined space, no PRCS entry will have occurred.”
Keep in mind, however, that the employee would still need protection from any hazards involved in the task, but a permit would not be needed.
When any part of the body of an entrant breaks the plane of the opening of a PRCS large enough to allow full entry, entry is considered to have occurred, and a permit is required.