
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).
Let’s be honest, managing compliance is tough. But when it comes to Universal Waste (UW), items like fluorescent bulbs, used batteries, aerosol cans, and old thermostats can expose employers to fines without them even realizing it. Why? Because Universal Waste is the ultimate regulatory paradox. These items are still classified as hazardous waste, but the EPA created a streamlined rule set (40 CFR Part 273) to make recycling easier. The problem is that many employers assume "streamlined" means "ignorable." Fixing these problems is incredibly straightforward. By tackling the most common UW mistakes, you don’t just avoid penalties; you build a predictable, efficient, and cost-effective waste program.
Keys to remember: Universal waste compliance hinges on keeping containers closed, labeled, dated, and ensuring employees managing these materials are trained and documenting their actions. When your program is consistent, simple, and intentional, you eliminate preventable violations and turn UW management into a predictable, low-risk process.
The rapid growth of data centers creates new challenges for other regulated facilities. Expansion driven by artificial intelligence (AI) and cloud computing increases their impact on environmental compliance. Key areas include air permitting, attainment status, and regional power supply.
Data centers depend on backup power to stay online during outages. Most use natural gas or diesel generators. These units release pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOₓ) and particulate matter. When many generators operate together, their potential emissions can push regions close to or beyond National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This shift can threaten local attainment status and make it harder for nearby facilities to get new permits.
On December 11, 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA’s) Office of Air and Radiation launched a “Clean Air Act Resource for Data Centers” webpage. It provides regulatory guidance, permitting tools, and technical letters. The goal is to make air permitting for data centers faster and more transparent while protecting air quality.
Large data centers add cumulative emissions from multiple generators. Even permitted emissions from nearby plants can combine and push an area into nonattainment. That change triggers stricter air permitting rules for everyone.
Data centers use large amounts of electricity. They often need on-site generators or new grid connections. This can strain local power supplies. In some cases, grid operators give data centers priority during peak demand, leaving other facilities with less reliable power.
Some states now require detailed modeling for backup generators. For example, Illinois reviewed 34 generators for one data center before granting a permit. If modeling shows high emissions, regulators may limit operating hours or require extra controls.
EPA recently updated its interpretation of New Source Review (NSR) rules. In September 2025, the agency said construction can start before full air permits are issued, as long as emission-related work waits for approval. This speeds up projects but makes it harder for neighboring facilities to predict cumulative emissions early.
Watch for new data center projects in your area. Their emissions could affect your permits.
Join public comment periods for data center permits. Push for full modeling of combined impacts.
Work with grid operators. Understand how demand-response programs and EPA’s “50-hour rule” for emergency generators affect your reliability.
Consider locating new projects in areas with robust infrastructure and cleaner attainment status. Data centers might compete for the same grid upgrades or site approvals.
Key to remember: Data centers are more than tech hubs. They influence air permitting and power allocation. Their growth can affect your ability to expand, or even operate, under current compliance rules.
Did you know that the federal government regulates the power sector’s impact on rain? The Acid Rain Program limits the amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) — the main causes of acid rain — that fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (EGUs) may emit. However, the SO2 and NOx reduction programs operate differently, and the ways that facilities can meet the SO2 and NOx limits are distinct.
It's essential to know the compliance options because facilities that don’t meet the SO2 and NOx standards must pay penalties for their excess emissions. And in November 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set higher penalties for the next two compliance years.
So, what are the differences?
The first thing to confirm is whether your facility is subject to the Acid Rain Program (40 CFR 72.6). The program regulates fossil fuel-fired power plants. It applies to:
Note that the NOx program applies to a specific subset of coal-fired boilers.
EPA operates the SO2 reduction program through an allowance trading system (Part 73). The agency sets a cap on the total SO2 emissions for the year and then allocates SO2 allowances to regulated units. One allowance represents 1 ton of SO2 emissions.
For each compliance year, a facility must show that it has enough allowances to cover its emissions of SO2. It’s similar to EPA’s hydrofluorocarbon allowance program.
There are multiple compliance options. Facilities may:
Facilities can purchase allowances from or sell allowances to individuals, companies, groups, or brokers. Additionally, facilities may bid on allowances at EPA’s annual Acid Rain Program SO2 Allowance Auction.
EPA sets annual emission limits for the NOx reduction program (Part 76), which applies to these types of boilers:
Like the SO2 program, the NOx program offers multiple compliance options. Facilities can:
Additional requirements apply to facilities that use options other than complying with the limits:
Excess emissions penalties can add up quickly. That’s why it’s vital to ensure your facility understands how to comply with the SO2 and NOx reduction programs properly.
The adjustment rates that EPA set for compliance years 2025 and 2026 (2.5265 and 2.6001, respectively) are used to calculate the total penalties a facility must pay if it exceeds SO2 or NOx limits during these compliance years.
Here are the formulas:
Let’s run through a couple of examples of what noncompliance could cost.
| Factors | Penalty Per Ton | Total Penalties |
|---|---|---|
| $2,000 x 2.5265 = $5,053 | $5,053 x 10 = $50,530 |
| $2,000 x 2.6001 = $5,200.20 | $5,200.20 x 5 = $26,001 |
As shown in the example above, excess emissions can cost facilities a lot in penalties. Just 1 ton of excess emissions will result in more than $5,000! Knowing your compliance options for the Acid Rain Program’s SO2 and NOx reduction programs can help your facility avoid steep fines.
Key to remember: The Acid Rain Program limits SO2 and NOx emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants, but the compliance options for each type of emission differ. Understanding the distinct options can help facilities avoid penalties for excess emissions.
The clock is ticking for environmental teams. By 2026, several new EPA regulations will reshape compliance obligations for U.S. companies. Organizations that act now will avoid costly penalties and operational disruptions.
Although EPA has been deregulating or loosening some requirements, there are still some standards being tightened across multiple fronts in the coming year:
Failure to prepare could lead to fines, reputational damage, supply chain disruptions, and permit delays. Companies that weave compliance planning into their 2026 strategy will be positioned not just to meet legal deadlines but to sustain operations smoothly.
The EPA’s 2026 updates reflect a trend toward increased transparency and environmental accountability. Companies that treat compliance as strategic will not only avoid enforcement but also gain resilience and stakeholder trust.
Key to remember: Start planning now. Early action on EPA rule changes will save time, money, and headaches when enforcement begins.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a rule on December 3, 2025, that finalizes compliance deadline extensions for certain emissions standards applicable to crude oil and natural gas facilities. The final rule also further delays compliance timelines for two requirements.
EPA’s delays affect:
EPA’s December 2025 final rule is a direct response to the interim final rule (IFR) it issued in July 2025.
The July 2025 IFR extended the compliance deadline for net heating value (NHV) monitoring of flares and enclosed combustion devices (ECDs) to November 28, 2025. The IFR moved the rest of the compliance deadlines to January 22, 2027, for:
What’s the same?
EPA’s December 2025 final rule maintains the same compliance deadlines for all requirements delayed to January 22, 2027.
What’s different?
The agency’s December 2025 final rule sets a new compliance date of June 1, 2026, for the NHV monitoring requirements. This includes an alternative performance test (sampling demonstration) option for flares and ECDs.
Additionally, the rule moves the compliance date for annual reporting, establishing that no annual report is due before November 30, 2026. It gives owners and operators until November 30, 2026, to submit any reports that were originally due before this date. Note that the final rule specifies that annual reports due after November 30, 2026, must be submitted within 90 days of the end of each annual compliance period.
Key to remember: EPA’s final rule confirms deadline extensions for certain emissions standards that apply to crude oil and natural gas facilities. It also further delays a couple of the requirements.
Effective date: October 6, 2025
This applies to: Facilities with air permits in the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington
Description of change: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency adopted new rules mandating that facilities with air permits (except for Option B registration permits) in the Minnesota counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington submit annual air toxics emissions reports. The covered toxics include certain hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and other pollutants of concern. Annual emissions reports on HAPs, PFAS, and other covered pollutants are due by April 1.
View related state info: Clean air operating permits — Minnesota
Effective date: October 7, 2025
This applies to: All nonexempt new and unused products sold, offered for sale, or distributed for sale in Maine that contain intentionally added PFAS
Description of change: The Maine Department of Environmental Protection established designations for currently unavoidable uses of intentionally added per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in products subject to sales prohibitions that start on January 1, 2026.
Effective date: January 1, 2026
This applies to: Public water systems
Description of change: The Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation made multiple changes to the Water Supply Rule. Some of the major amendments include:
Effective date: November 5, 2025
This applies to: Emission units and source categories that qualify for an air permit by rule
Description of change: The Utah Department of Environmental Quality added new emission units and source categories that qualify for air permits by rule that are exempt from the requirement to obtain an Approval Order (per R307-401-8).
New emission units added include:
New source categories added include:
View related state info: Clean air operating permits — Utah
Effective date: December 1, 2025
This applies to: Owners and operators of composting facilities
Description of changes: The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency amended the regulations that apply to composting facilities. Major changes include:
Effective date: November 16, 2025
This applies to: Medium- and heavy-duty engine and vehicle manufacturers as well as heavy-duty internal combustion engine manufacturers
Description of change: The Washington State Department of Ecology amended the Clean Vehicles Program rules to incorporate changes made to the California Air Resources Board’s Advanced Clean Trucks and Heavy-Duty Vehicle and Engine Omnibus Low NOx regulations. The changes ease compliance requirements for the heaviest vehicles.
Effective date: October 1, 2025
This applies to: Entities participating in permanent underground carbon dioxide storage projects
Description of the change: The rule establishes carbon sequestration project applicability and establishes regulations for:
Effective date: November 20, 2025
This applies to: Title V permit holders
Description of change: The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality requires all Title V operating permittees to use standard department-approved forms to submit the:
View related state info: Clean air operating permits — Louisiana
Effective date: October 2, 2025
This applies to: Entities subject to CARB’s vehicle emissions regulations
Description of change: Congressional resolutions disapproved the waivers for the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) Advanced Clean Cars II and Heavy-Duty Vehicle and Engine Omnibus Low NOx (Omnibus) regulations.
Through an emergency rulemaking, CARB adopted the Emergency Vehicle Emissions Regulations, reinstating at a minimum earlier-adopted regulations displaced by Advanced Clean Cars II and Omnibus:
The regulation applies until litigation is resolved.
Regulated entities may follow either:
View related state info: Air programs — California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Effective date: November 13, 2025
This applies to: Owners and operators of wastewater treatment systems and businesses that install sanitary sewers
Description of changes: The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency amended the Permit to Install (PTI) program rules, which regulate the design and installation of wastewater conveyance and treatment systems. Most notably, the department extended the expiration date of PTIs from 18 months to start construction to 60 months to start construction. The amendments also exempt boat wash marinas and force mains serving one structure from PTIs.
View related state info: Industrial water permitting — Ohio
Effective date: November 6, 2025
This rule applies to: Out-of-state licensed treatment plant operators and distribution system operators
Description of change: The Florida Department of Environmental Protection adopted rules to:
Effective date: November 20, 2025
This applies to: Owners and operators of all facilities that generate, transport, treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste
Description of change: The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality added hazardous waste aerosol cans to the universal waste program. The program streamlines hazardous waste management requirements and is identical to the federal universal waste requirements for aerosol cans.
View related state info: Universal waste — Louisiana
Effective date: March 28, 2026
This applies to: Mining operations with stormwater discharges
Description of change: The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection reissued the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Associated with Mining Activities (BMP GP-104). Mining operation sites must obtain an NPDES permit to discharge stormwater if the site has expected or potential stormwater runoff discharges.
The new permit made one substantial change to clarify that entities covered under this general permit must meet the 2-year, 24-hour event design standards at 25 Pa. Code Chapter 102. The BMP GP-104 takes effect on March 28, 2026, and expires on March 27, 2031.
View related state info: Industrial water permitting — Pennsylvania
What do the manufacturers of hairspray cans, foam wall insulation, and ice cream machines have in common? If their products contain hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), they have to report annually on the HFCs they use, and the first report due date is quickly approaching! Through the Technology Transitions Program, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates HFCs used for new products and equipment in three sectors: aerosols, foams, and refrigeration, air conditioning, and heat pumps (RACHP). Among other compliance requirements of the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule, manufacturers and importers of HFC-containing products and equipment must submit annual reports.
Note: EPA’s October 2025 proposed rule to amend the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule doesn’t impact annual reporting requirements.
Use this overview to help you determine whether your business needs to report and, if so, what’s required.
Annual reporting applies to manufacturers and importers of products and equipment that use HFCs. An organization has to submit an annual report if:
Reporting requirements apply to manufacturers and importers in all sectors and subsectors, and they start with data from calendar year 2025. The first annual report is due to EPA by March 31, 2026.
Note that the annual reporting requirements don’t apply to entities that only:
In each annual report, covered manufacturers and importers must provide:
Entities in all three sectors also have to report the total mass in metric tons of each HFC or HFC blend contained in all products and components manufactured, imported, and exported annually.
Further, sector-specific standards apply.
| Sector | Requires additional information for: | See 40 CFR: |
|---|---|---|
| Aerosol |
| 84.60(a)(5) |
| Foam |
| 84.60(a)(4) |
| RACHP |
| 84.60(a)(3) |
According to the latest information shared by EPA in the “Technology Transitions Program: What You Need to Know for January 1, 2025” webinar presentation, the agency is still designing the electronic platform for submitting annual reports. EPA plans to provide reporting instructions and forms before the upcoming deadline.
HFCs are greenhouse gases that were developed to replace ozone-depleting substances for use in various products and equipment (primarily refrigeration and air-conditioning systems). The American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020 gives EPA the authority to address HFCs by:
The 2023 Technology Transition Rule established the Technology Transitions Program to restrict HFC uses in sectors and subsectors where lower global warming potential (GWP) technologies are or will soon be available. The regulations apply to manufacturers (including importers), exporters, sellers, distributors, and installers of systems or products in covered sectors that use HFCs.
What about the proposed changes to the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule?
On October 3, 2025, EPA proposed a rule to amend the existing 2023 Technology Transition Rule. However, the proposed changes don’t affect the annual reporting requirements for manufacturers and importers. All covered manufacturers and importers must submit the annual report by March 31, 2026.
The proposed rule impacts specific subsectors, including refrigerated transport, industrial process refrigeration, chillers, retail food (for supermarkets and remote condensing units), cold storage warehouses, and stationary residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps. EPA proposes to:
Key to remember: The first annual reports required by the Technology Transitions Program for manufacturers and importers of HFC-containing products and equipment are due by March 31, 2026.
EPA issued a direct final rule to update its safety data sheet (SDS) reporting and Tier II inventory reporting requirements. The changes align EPA 40 CFR 370 with OSHA’s Hazard Communication (HazCom) standard at 29 CFR 1910.1200.
| News update: EPA extended the public comment period for this direct final rule that made technical amendments to 40 CFR 370 to conform to the 2024 OSHA HazCom standard. An EPA memo lodged in docket EPA-HQ-OLEM-2025-0299 at Regulations.gov, explains, “This document will be open for public comment until December 24, 2025.” Also, note that the docket offers 23 supporting and related materials, including a draft updated Tier II form, draft updated Tier II instructions, and a redline strikeout version of the rule changes. |
The biggest change is that facilities will be able to copy the hazard categories directly from section 2 of the SDSs to their Tier II report forms. This eliminates the guesswork. However, facilities may face added strain with their first Tier II submission under the rule. Instead of relying on the grouped hazard categories selected in the previous year’s forms, it looks like facilities will need to spend extra time retrieving specific categories from their SDSs.
EPA 40 CFR 370 applies to a facility owner or operator if:
If the applicability criteria are met, the facility owner/operator must submit to the state emergency response commission (SERC), local emergency planning committee (LEPC), and local fire departments:
A state may make its own laws and regulations in addition to or more stringent than federal Part 370.
Last year, OSHA amended its HazCom standard to conform to the seventh edition of the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). Changes to the chemical hazard classifications and categories were part of the amendments to 1910.1200. This is important because EPA Part 370 relies on the OSHA HazCom standard for the definition of “hazardous chemical” and the hazard categories that must be reported.
In the latest rule published November 17, 2025, EPA takes several actions to harmonize its regulations with OSHA’s. The preamble offers a complete list of amendments to Part 370. Here’s a summary:
| Change: | Details: | Sections affected: |
| Adopts all 112 OSHA hazard categories |
| 370.3, 370.30, 370.41, and 370.42 |
| Updates terminology |
| 370.3 and 370.66 |
| Removes the term MSDS |
| 370.3, 370.10, 370.12, 370.13, 370.14, 370.20, 370.30, 370.31, 370.32, 370.33, 370.60, 370.62, 370.63, and 370.64 |
| Makes minor plain language, clarifying, and consistency corrections |
| 370.1, 370.2, 370.3, 370.10, 370.14, 370.30, 370.32, 370.33, 370.40, 370.41, 370.42, 370.43, 370.44, 370.45, 370.60, 370.61, 370.62, 370.64, 370.65, and 370.66 |
The direct final rule is effective January 16, 2026, unless EPA receives an adverse comment during its 30-day comment period. [However, see the "news update," earlier in this article.] If that happens, the agency will publish a timely withdrawal. Then, it will move along with the proposed rule (also published in the November 17, 2025, Federal Register) and address public comments in a subsequent final rule.
Assuming no adverse comment is received on the original direct final rule, EPA gives covered facilities time to prepare. The rule offers a compliance date of December 1, 2026, for both SDS reporting and Tier II reporting. Note that for Tier II reporting, the updates kick in for the 2026 inventory reporting year, which impacts forms due by March 1, 2027, and thereafter. (Forms due on or before March 1, 2026, are unchanged.)
EPA took action to harmonize Part 370 with the changes OSHA made to 1910.1200 last year. The latest amendments to Part 370 have a compliance date of December 1, 2026. For Tier II reporting, the updates start with forms due on or before March 1, 2027.

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.
Effective date: October 6, 2025
This applies to: Facilities with air permits in the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington
Description of change: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency adopted new rules mandating that facilities with air permits (except for Option B registration permits) in the Minnesota counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington submit annual air toxics emissions reports. The covered toxics include certain hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and other pollutants of concern. Annual emissions reports on HAPs, PFAS, and other covered pollutants are due by April 1.
View related state info: Clean air operating permits — Minnesota
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Spring 2025 Semiannual Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions on September 4, 2025. The agenda outlines the agency’s upcoming regulatory actions and their status in the rulemaking process.
EPA has major updates on the docket, such as:
Additionally, the agency intends to address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) across multiple media. For example, EPA plans to:
This article highlights some of the major rules we’re monitoring closely. You can review the entire agenda to learn about all the rulemakings on EPA’s docket. Please note that the agenda dates are tentative, indicating when the agency seeks to publish the rulemakings in the Federal Register.
| Final Rule Stage | |
| Projected publication date | Title |
| December 2025 | Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Reconsideration of Certain Regulatory Requirements Under the Technology Transitions Provisions of the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020 |
| January 2026 | Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act; Common Sense Approach to Chemical Accident Prevention |
| February 2026 | Addition of Certain Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) |
| February 2026 | Initial Air Quality Designations for the 2024 Revised Primary Annual Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) |
| April 2026 | Listing of Specific PFAS as Hazardous Constituents |
| Proposed Rule Stage | |
| Projected publication date of notice of proposed rulemaking | |
| October 2025 | Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction Category (40 CFR 435 Subpart E) |
| October 2025 | New Source Performance Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry |
| November 2025 | Additional Reconsideration of Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review |
| November 2025 | PFAS Requirements in NPDES Permit Applications |
| November 2025 | Steam Electric Effluent Limitations Guideline Reconsideration Rule |
| December 2025 | Updates to the RCRA Hazardous Waste Regulations and Related Technical Corrections — Permitting Updates Rule |
| January 2026 | Paper Manifest Sunset Rule; Modification of the Hazardous Waste Manifest System |
| January 2026 | Revision to “Begin Actual Construction” in the New Source Review Preconstruction Permitting Program |
| April 2026 | Reconsideration of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Gasoline Distribution Technology Reviews and New Source Performance Standards Review for Bulk Gasoline Terminals |
| May 2026 | Formaldehyde; Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) |
| Pre-Rule Stage | |
| Projected publication date or other action | Title |
| September 2025 (advanced notice of proposed rulemaking) | Visibility Protection: Regional Haze State Plan Requirements Rule Revision |
| December 2025 (end review) | National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing |
The clock is ticking for environmental teams. By 2026, several new EPA regulations will reshape compliance obligations for U.S. companies. Organizations that act now will avoid costly penalties and operational disruptions.
Although EPA has been deregulating or loosening some requirements, there are still some standards being tightened across multiple fronts in the coming year:
Failure to prepare could lead to fines, reputational damage, supply chain disruptions, and permit delays. Companies that weave compliance planning into their 2026 strategy will be positioned not just to meet legal deadlines but to sustain operations smoothly.
The EPA’s 2026 updates reflect a trend toward increased transparency and environmental accountability. Companies that treat compliance as strategic will not only avoid enforcement but also gain resilience and stakeholder trust.
Key to remember: Start planning now. Early action on EPA rule changes will save time, money, and headaches when enforcement begins.
Quick action using cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and automated external defibrillators (AEDs) can save the lives of the nearly 350,000 cardiac event victims each year outside of a hospital setting. But what does OSHA require for the workplace? What you didn’t know about OSHA regulations regarding AEDs may surprise you.
For every minute a patient is in cardiac arrest, their chances of survival decrease dramatically. When a patient doesn’t have a pulse and isn’t breathing, CPR should be performed until an AED is available. It’s important to note that CPR alone does not restart the heart. CPR is an oxygen circulation procedure. AEDs, on the other hand, are meant for lifesaving intervention.
CPR and early defibrillation are vital components of the emergency medical services (EMS) chain of survival that increases the odds of cardiac patient survival. However, according to the American Heart Association (AHA), even the best CPR can’t provide enough circulation of oxygen to the brain and heart for more than a few minutes. In fact, a patient whose brain is deprived of oxygen for 10 minutes or more seldom recovers.
Just like a reliable vehicle, the circulatory system is the human body’s blood transportation system, and the heart is the engine. Amazingly, the heart generates its own electrical impulses, pumping in a regular, rhythmic manner. As with any engine, the heart requires a certain amount of pressure to function and doesn’t work well when clogged with grease or debris. The most common causes of sudden cardiac arrest include a heart attack, electrocution, and asphyxiation — all of which could occur in the workplace. Common signs and symptoms include:
CPR provides the pressure for the body’s “engine” to oxygen circulating, while an AED provides the electrical impulses to keep the engine pumping.
OSHA 1910.151 requires first aid treatment be provided in the absence of an infirmary, clinic, or hospital in near proximity to the workplace used to treat injured employees. This may include assisting a victim of cardiac arrest using CPR or defibrillation.
OSHA requirements for CPR and defibrillation differ considerably. Standards requiring CPR include:
OSHA recommends basic adult CPR refresher training and retesting every year, and first aid training at least once every three years. CPR training include facilitated discussion along with ’hands-on’ skills training that uses mannequins and partner practice.
Though OSHA recognizes AEDs as important lifesaving technology that plays a role in treating cardiac arrest, the agency doesn’t currently require their use in the workplace. Instead, OSHA wants employers to assess their own requirements for AEDs as part of their first aid response.
AEDs are considered Class III medical devices which means the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has some oversight on their use. Almost all AEDs require the purchaser to obtain a prescription from a physician under FDA regulations. The prescription process is meant as a quality control mechanism to ensure AEDs are properly maintained, that all designated responders are properly trained, and assist employers with establishing an emergency response plan for their workplace AED program.
The AHA requires AED operators to also receive CPR training as an “integral part of providing lifesaving aid to people suffering sudden cardiac arrest.” Though easy to use, each AED is slightly different, so training helps users understand the unique traits and supplies for the individual units at their workplace. Additionally, AED users must be trained to understand the signs of a sudden cardiac arrest, when to activate the EMS system, and how to perform CPR.
AEDs are light, portable, easy to use, and inexpensive. They’re best placed near high-hazard areas such as confined spaces, near electrical energy, or in remote work areas. Response time to reach AEDs should be kept within 3–5-minutes.
| Need more information on defibrillators in the workplace? See our ezExplanation on AEDs. |
Many states require or encourage CPR and AED training from nationally recognized organizations. Any AED training should include CPR training. OSHA doesn’t offer first aid or CPR training, nor certify trainers. Training by a nationally recognized organization, such as AHA, the American Red Cross, or National Safety Council is recommended.
While OSHA doesn’t currently require the use of AEDs in the workplace, they do expect employers to assess their own AED requirements as part of their first aid response. AED training is required by most states and should include CPR with a hands-on practical component.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the biannual update of the nonconfidential Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory) on January 17, 2025. It includes all nonexempt chemical substances manufactured, processed, and imported in the U.S. that TSCA regulates.
Please note that the nonconfidential TSCA Inventory contains no chemical identities claimed as confidential business information, so it’s not a comprehensive list. The TSCA Master Inventory File is the only complete list.
How does this impact my facility?
The TSCA Inventory helps facilities determine TSCA’s regulatory requirements for the chemicals they use or plan to use. Chemicals on the list (i.e., “existing chemicals”) may be subject to rules such as reporting requirements and manufacturing limits. Chemicals not on the list (i.e., “new chemicals”) have specific notification and review requirements before they can be used.
About the updated TSCA Inventory
The TSCA Inventory has 86,847 chemicals, and 42,495 of these chemicals are active (i.e., in use). EPA also updated commercial activity data as well as regulatory flags that indicate:
EPA plans to release the next updated TSCA Inventory by Summer 2025.
How to access the TSCA Inventory
You can download the nonconfidential TSCA Inventory from EPA’s website or view it online via the agency’s Substance Registry Services (search by list).
Key to remember: EPA updated the nonconfidential TSCA Inventory, including regulatory flags that indicate certain regulatory restrictions and/or reporting exemptions.
Effective date: November 5, 2025
This applies to: Emission units and source categories that qualify for an air permit by rule
Description of change: The Utah Department of Environmental Quality added new emission units and source categories that qualify for air permits by rule that are exempt from the requirement to obtain an Approval Order (per R307-401-8).
New emission units added include:
New source categories added include:
View related state info: Clean air operating permits — Utah
Not every student learns in the same way. Because of this, a single delivery method will not reach everyone in your training session. Varying your approach can have a positive effect on your students.
The following are some different delivery methods that can be used in your driver training sessions.
Video is one of the more popular methods used to deliver training on a subject. As well as being cost effective and easy for the trainer to use, studies show that videos help students retain information presented.
When selecting a video for your training session, consideration should be given to:
The video should be well-produced, current, and retain the interest of your drivers.
The use of handouts is one of the most cost effective, but often misused tools used by trainers. A handout should be able to be used by a driver as a quick and easy reference tool once the driver has left the training session. Effective handouts must be:
The number of handouts distributed should be kept to a minimum. Too many can clutter or confuse a presentation.
Demonstration can help a driver relate to a situation they may face on the job or a skill they may need to use at a later date.
When demonstrating a skill, encourage driver participation.
A guest speaker can bring an authoritative atmosphere to your training session.
Credibility is important when using a guest speaker to enhance your training session. The speaker must have an expert understanding of the topic being presented.
Examples of guest speakers include a law enforcement officer to present information on roadside inspections or a firefighter to present a lesson on fire prevention.
Veteran drivers are considered credible by other drivers, as they speak from experience. A veteran driver who conducts training sessions should:
Key to remember: Training isn’t a “one size fits all” proposition – not all students learn in the same way. Use of varied delivery methods will help you conduct meaningful and memorable training for all students.
When a claimant’s attorney casts doubt on your motor carrier’s safety program, everyone’s role at your company is open to scrutiny. Claims of negligence are not limited to your commercial drivers. Dispatcher and technician behavior could very well be the crux of a costly lawsuit.
Consider the following tips to help protect your operation.
An injured party can use the concept of “negligent hiring” against you. Negligent hiring is based on the premise that you knew or should have known that the background of the person you hired indicated the person was dangerous or untrustworthy.
About half the states believe an employer is responsible for checking both backgrounds and references of job applicants. Red flags you should look for include:
To avoid negligent hiring, make sure you:
Perform an investigation on anyone you plan to hire. Call previous employers to verify employment.
Once an individual is hired, another legal concept comes into play: negligent entrustment. In this case, the claimant asserts that you gave someone a “dangerous instrumentality” which resulted in injury to another party. You can also be party to a negligent retention lawsuit — no matter how long someone has worked for you.
The basis of these types of suits is that the employer continued to employ someone they knew or should have known had the potential to be dangerous or unqualified for their job. To protect yourself from these types of lawsuits:
While it may be a bit more difficult to pinpoint problematic dispatcher and technician behavior — since they are not subject to the same inspections as drivers — there are some things you can look at.
A common metric for your individual technicians is their maintenance and repair “come-backs.” Technicians with a higher percentage of come-backs than others may need a closer look.
Are the come-backs:
In addition, technicians are supposed to inspect and repair anything noted on a driver’s daily vehicle inspection report. If drivers are complaining that issues are not being resolved, you need to investigate what is happening. Remind technicians of their responsibility to take drivers’ complaints seriously, and institute disciplinary actions for any technicians who continue to ignore this important safety practice.
Dispatchers can also affect driver safety — especially as it relates to hours-of-service (HOS) compliance. The electronic logging device (ELD) mandate has specific provisions addressing driver harassment. It clearly defines harassment as: “Action by a motor carrier toward a driver (whether an employee or a contractor) that the carrier knew or should have known would result in an HOS violation.”
Make sure your dispatchers are not coercing or harassing drivers into violating HOS rules to make a delivery window. This requires taking driver harassment complaints seriously. Then you must follow through with disciplinary action against any dispatcher who you find harassing drivers to violate HOS rules.
Key to remember: Failing to monitor your technicians and dispatchers with an eye for safety could make you liable, and the final price of such negligence may be found on the inside of a courtroom.
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!
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has announced the rollout of Motus, a new USDOT registration system designed to streamline compliance and modernize the way motor carriers, brokers, and supporting companies manage their regulatory obligations.
Motus represents a significant shift from the current patchwork of portals, consolidating USDOT numbers, biennial updates, hazmat registrations, and other filings into one secure, user-friendly platform. The initiative aims to:
Beginning in December 2025, Motus will open with limited access for supporting companies. These organizations will be able to create user and business profiles, ensuring their systems are prepared to meet industry needs once the platform expands. This early phase is critical for testing functionality and building readiness before carriers join.
Motor carriers don’t need to re-register immediately. Existing USDOT registrations remain valid until the system fully transitions in 2026.
At that time, all carriers will be required to:
FMCSA anticipates registration requirements will begin in mid to late 2026.
In response to industry feedback, FMCSA confirmed that Motus won’t initially introduce safety registration, eliminate docket numbers (MC/FF/MX), or alter BOC-3 filing processes. These proposals remain under consideration and will be subject to public comment.
FMCSA emphasized that stakeholder engagement will remain central throughout the Motus rollout. The agency plans to host informational webinars, industry roundtables, and training sessions to ensure registrants understand the new system and can provide feedback on its usability.
Motus is a step toward a safer, more efficient future for the transportation industry. By consolidating forms, improving verification, and reducing fraud, FMCSA is ensuring that carriers and support companies can navigate compliance with confidence.
For truck and bus drivers, having too much to drink can be problematic in several ways — even if the drink is just water.
Staying hydrated is normally a good thing, but drinking too much water can cause a driver’s urine to become so diluted that testing it for drugs becomes difficult. There can be multiple (and legitimate) reasons for dilute urine, but so far this year, over 1,000 drivers have tested positive but dilute, according to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).
If your medical review officer (MRO) reports that a driver’s urine was dilute, do you know what to do next? The actions you need to take will depend on a few specifics.
If a test result is positive but dilute, you’ll need to treat it the same as a positive test result. You must:
The MRO will report the test result to the Drug & Alcohol Clearinghouse, the same as any other positive test.
| Learn more about Clearinghouse reporting in our ez Explanation! |
For results that are negative but dilute, your actions will depend on the creatinine level (creatinine is a waste product found in urine), as follows:
2 to 5 mg/dL — The MRO will contact you to request an immediate re-collection under direct observation.
Over 5 mg/dL — No retest required. However, you can have a company policy requiring a retest, as long as you communicate it to drivers and enforce it uniformly. If you do retests in this situation, be aware that:
A positive, adulterated, or substituted test result on any retest becomes the result of record, and all the consequences of a drug testing violation apply.
Key to Remember: If a driver’s drug test result comes back as dilute, be sure you know what to do next.
After the recent removal of over 3000 CDL trainers, labeled as CDL mills, from the Training Provider Registry (TPR), and notice of 1500 in-person audits, schools and trucking companies alike are hoping to be found compliant with their training program. If you have received a notice of audit, don’t panic. Review your files, be sure you have the correct documentation, and know how to access it.
Beginning in 2022, truck driving schools are required to register with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to offer CDL training. The schools are required to meet minimum training standards and self-certify that they will meet these standards when they register on the TPR to provide this training. All CDL trainees must complete training at a school registered on the TPR before they can take a skills test to obtain a CDL. Like a motor carrier audit, CDL schools are audited to confirm compliance, and an alarming number of providers on the registry were recently found to have serious violations.
The most common reason for removal is some form of documentation deficiency. If training is not documented, there is no evidence it was actually completed. The Entry Level Driver Training (ELDT) requirements include documenting and retaining documentation of all training. Other reasons for removal are:
Pay attention to the details of the notice. Often it outlines the specific items the auditor will be inspecting. Gather this information and be sure it will be easily accessible on the day of the audit. Being prepared is a sign of competency. Prioritizing the arrival of the auditor can go a long way. You will need to provide:
Key to remember: Complete, accurate training files that are readily accessible are paramount to success in an audit.
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.
A blanket policy against drug use might sound like a simple way to keep abuse out of the workplace, but doing it the wrong way can land a company in trouble.
A concrete and construction company recently learned about the problems these policies can cause when its practice of refusing to hire applicants who used methadone brought a lawsuit from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Methadone is an opioid and can be abused, but it can also be used as a treatment for opioid addiction. A drug policy that fails to take those differences into account, and always treats methadone use the same way, opens the door to a disability discrimination claim.
The issue with the company’s policy was brought to light when a job applicant applied for a laborer position and the hiring manager asked him about medications he was taking. The applicant said he was taking methadone, and the hiring manager said the company would not hire him due to its policy prohibiting employment of people who took the drug.
The applicant then checked with the company’s head of HR who confirmed that this was the company’s policy.
The EEOC charged the company with violating federal law because a policy of barring applicants who used methadone violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Employers covered by the ADA cannot impose unlawful barriers to a job for people with disabilities, the agency noted, and this includes workers with records of opioid addiction who are taking methadone or other medication as part of their recovery.
In addition, the timing of the employer’s question about methadone use was problematic. The applicant was at the stage of applying for a job and had not yet been offered a position.
Before a job offer is made, the ADA does not allow employers to ask job applicants for information that may reveal the existence, nature, or severity of a disability. This includes questions about medication.
Even after a job offer is extended, a question like this must be carefully considered. Employers cannot have a job qualification standard that tends to screen out workers with disabilities (such as requiring applicants not to use methadone) unless it is job-related for the position and is also consistent with business necessity.
When applicants ask about a job, questions about medications such as methadone should not be part of the conversation. The ADA prohibits employers from asking about prescription medications until after an offer of employment is made. While it’s fine to ask about medications or give a drug test after offering an applicant a job, it’s also risky at that stage to have a policy of turning an applicant away because of methadone use or a positive drug test for methadone.
Instead, the employer should give the applicant an opportunity to provide information about lawful medication use. An employer never needs to accommodate the illegal use of drugs, but an employee taking a lawfully prescribed medication should not be automatically disqualified from a job.
If there are concerns that the employee’s legal opioid use or treatment for opioid addiction would interfere with safe and effective job performance, an employer should consider whether there is a reasonable accommodation that resolves the concerns. The employee can check with their healthcare provider for risks the medication poses in light of job duties, and the employee and employer can discuss possible accommodations.
Moving too quickly to dismiss an employee using prescription medication, and skipping this step, risks a discrimination claim.
Key to remember: An employee legally using prescribed medication, including methadone, has ADA protections. Employers should not automatically disqualify an applicant because of methadone use.
‘Tis the season for Ho Ho Ho and maybe, the HOliday’s impact on leave administration. This could be true for any holiday, depending on how many employees take time off. Employers might also wonder whether they have to issue holiday pay to employees on leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The answers will depend upon some specifics.
To determine how much FMLA leave an employee uses when holidays are involved, employers must look at whether employees are taking the leave in full weeks or not. If an employee is taking leave for one or more full weeks, the fact that a holiday occurs within the week of FMLA leave has no effect; the employer counts the whole week as FMLA leave.
When an employee is using FMLA leave in increments of less than one week, such as intermittent leave or working a reduced schedule, the employer doesn’t count the holiday as FMLA leave unless the employee was scheduled to work during the holiday, but didn’t because of an FMLA-qualifying reason.
If, for example, Jo Employee will be on FMLA leave for the last three weeks of December, and Jo’s employer gives employees time off on Christmas Day as a holiday, the employer would count the week of Christmas as a whole week of FMLA leave for Jo.
If, on the other hand, Jo took FMLA leave the Monday and Tuesday before Christmas Day, worked Wednesday, wasn’t scheduled to work Thursday because of the holiday, then worked Friday of that week, the employer would count only Monday and Tuesday as FMLA leave. If Jo also needed Friday off that week for an FMLA-qualifying reason and was scheduled to work on that day, the employer would also count Friday as FMLA leave.
When it comes to holiday pay and FMLA leave, employers must apply their company policies. The FMLA doesn’t govern holiday pay. An employee’s entitlement to benefits other than group health care plan coverage is determined by the employer’s established policy for providing pay when the employee is on other forms of leave, paid or unpaid, as appropriate.
Employers might, for example, have a policy that requires employees to be at work the day before and after a holiday to receive holiday pay. The policy could have exceptions, such as when an employee is on paid time off on either of those days. In those situations, if an employee is using paid time off (like sick pay) while on FMLA leave for either of those days, they would be entitled to receive the holiday pay.
If a policy indicates that employees on unpaid leave the day before and/or after a holiday aren’t eligible to receive holiday pay, and an employee is on unpaid FMLA leave for either or both of those days, the employee wouldn’t be eligible to receive the holiday pay, per the policy.
Key to remember: Whether employers can count time off around a holiday as FMLA leave, or whether an employee will be entitled to holiday pay, will depend upon some specific facts, such as whether employees take leave in full weeks and what company policies indicate.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics reported in July 2024 that there are 8.2 million job openings in the U.S., but only 7.2 million unemployed workers.
With that in mind, employers might choose to hang onto employees even if they’re under performing. But what about when complaints are rolling in from different angles? Take, for example, a lackluster supervisor who’s annoying employees and disappointing customers.
An employer could be hesitant to let the supervisor go, especially if there’s no documentation backing up claims of misconduct. The employer must weigh their options to decide if putting the supervisor on a performance improvement plan (PIP) or moving right to termination is the ideal choice.
At-will employment
For starters, in most states employers may terminate an employee at-will, meaning they can fire employees for pretty much any reason as long as it doesn’t discriminate against someone in a protected class based on sex, age, race, religion, etc. Employers also cannot terminate in retaliation for an employee making a claim of harassment, discrimination, or safety concerns.
Aside from these limits, employers can terminate employees for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all.
PIP or terminate
Deciding whether to put an employee on a PIP or terminate must be decided on a case-by-case basis.
A PIP is usually for job performance issues (hence, performance improvement plan). This could mean anything from not making enough sales to being inept at the job’s essential functions. If job performance doesn’t improve under the PIP, termination may be the end result depending on company policies and practices.
Even if an employee has job performance issues, the employer can terminate without going through the PIP process first, unless the usual process is to implement a PIP with employees who have had similar problems. In that case, not doing a PIP could be seen as discrimination against an employee, especially if the person falls into a protected class.
Workplace misconduct, however, is another situation altogether. This could be anything from a one-off poor joke to pervasive harassment. Snapping at customers or coworkers (or worse), for example, is a conduct issue. An employer could issue a warning or move right to termination if the behavior is clearly illegal or a serious threat to workplace safety.
| Read more: ezExplanation on discharging employees |
Termination tips
If an employer decides to terminate, they should treat the employee as respectfully as possible during the termination process. Also, an employer should carefully and clearly communicate the job-related reasons for the termination to avoid any hint of discrimination. Lastly, an employer should document the reasons and reiterate the steps taken leading up to the termination and keep those records handy in case the employee files a wrongful termination lawsuit.
Key to remember: Employers sometimes struggle when making termination decisions. Having a process in place and documenting steps along the way can help if a case lands in court.
Effective date: February 1, 2026
This applies to: All employers
Description of change: Employers must provide a stand-alone written notice about the Workplace Know Your Rights Act to employees by February 1, 2026, and annually after that. The Workplace Know Your Rights Act notice may be provided through personal service, email, or text message, if it can reasonably be anticipated to be received by the employee within one business day of sending. The notice is also to be provided to each new employee and is also provided annually to the employee’s authorized representative, if any, by either electronic or regular mail. The notice includes information about rights relating to workers’ compensation, union organizing, and immigration-related practices. The state is to create a sample notice by January 1, 2026.
View related state info: Unions - California
One of the most common questions involving the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) that we see is: “Can ________ fill out the medical certification?”
This question stumps a lot of HR people and can be a little confusing.
It might be easier to start with who CAN’T fill out an FMLA certification. That includes your coworker, best friend, neighbor, or pet.
Jokes aside, often (but not always) a doctor fills out the FMLA certification, and since March 30 is “Doctors’ Day,” this is a great time to discuss this topic.
Employers aren’t required to use certifications, but if they do, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has five different certification forms to use for various FMLA leave situations.
The forms are as follows:
Let’s focus on the first two, as these are the most common ones HR administrators use.
The FMLA regulations describe the person who has the authority to fill out a certification as a “health care provider.” The good news is, the regulations include a lengthy list of medical professionals who fit this role.
Under the FMLA, a health care provider includes:
To be qualified to fill out FMLA forms, medical professionals must be authorized to practice in the state and perform within the scope of their practice. This means that the provider must be authorized to diagnose and treat physical or mental health conditions.
If an employee or an employee's family member is visiting another country, or a family member resides in another country, and a serious health condition develops, the employer must accept a medical certification from a health care provider who practices in that country. This includes second and third opinions.
If a medical certification from a foreign health care provider is not in English, the employee may be required to provide a written translation of the certification.
Key to remember: The FMLA regulations spell out which medical professionals can fill out certification forms.
Most employers know that OSHA requires chocking or similarly securing trailers for loading and unloading, but many also know about an exemption for commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). In short, that exemption is narrow and applies only to employers that are motor carriers.
Several OSHA regulations require using chocks or similar measures (such as dock locks) during loading or unloading operations. To avoid conflicts, federal OSHA created an agreement with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) for that agency to retain jurisdiction over CMVs. That means OSHA cannot (in theory) enforce chocking requirements on CMVs.
There is a catch to OSHA’s enforcement limitation, however. In fact, there are several issues that employers should know.
First, many states run their own OSHA programs (state-plan states). Since the FMSCA jurisdiction agreement is with federal OSHA, states are not subject to the agreement could enforce chocking requirements in all cases, even for CMVs.
Second, OSHA expects employers to require chocking on CMVs if the employer’s workers (such as forklift drivers) will enter the trailer. Basically, OSHA stated that the FMCSA regulations (and jurisdiction issues) apply only to motor carrier employers that fall under FMCSA authority, not to other employers. To illustrate, if a CMV backs into the dock at a grocery store, and the store workers will unload the trailer, then OSHA has jurisdiction over the store workers.
OSHA addressed these issues in a letter of interpretation dated March 7, 2011, outlining the history of the agency’s agreement with the FMCSA. The letter clarifies that the FMSCA parking brake regulations “do not apply to companies which do not own, operate, or lease CMVs” and therefore OSHA can enforce chocking requirements against those employers.
If a manufacturing or retail employer is not subject to FMCSA regulations, but that employer has forklift operators unloading trailers, OSHA expects that employer to “take precautions to protect their workers ... from the movement of trailers.” Further, the letter clarifies that forklift operators “must be trained” not to enter a trailer “unless the trailer is properly secured or restricted from movement prior to boarding.”
For similar information, see our article, Five forklift facts that are not in the OSHA regulations.
The above letter also asked who is responsible for confirming that no employees are injured when the truck driver attempts to move the trailer. OSHA responded that the employer must “ensure that forklift operators are not in the trailer or hostler when the driver attempts to remove the trailer from the loading dock.” Employers may adopt whatever procedures are necessary to ensure this.
The bottom line is that OSHA won’t enforce wheel chocking requirements on CMVs that are operated by a company under FMSCA jurisdiction. Other employers (like warehouses and manufacturing facilities) not under FMCSA jurisdiction must still take steps to protect workers from unexpected trailer movement — and OSHA will enforce those provisions.
Key to Remember: Although FMSCA regulations allow motor carriers to rely on parking brakes to secure trailers during loading and unloading operations, OSHA requires employers who are not motor carriers to secure trailers with chocks or similar means.
OSHA issued seven new letters of interpretation (LOIs) on a variety of workplace topics. These letters help ensure the consistent application of federal workplace safety and health standards, and provide regulatory clarification to employers, workers, and safety professionals.
This year's LOIs address the following topics:
To review these LOIs, previous guidance, or to submit new LOI requests, visit OSHA’s LOI interpretation page.
Ever since OSHA published its Trade Release on December 11, 2023, people have been scratching their heads about the “new” PPE requirement.
But here’s the thing. There isn’t a new requirement for “helmets” instead of hard hats.
So where’s the confusion? And what is actually required?
OSHA released a Safety and Health Bulletin (SHIB 11-22-2023) on November 22, 2023, detailing the key differences and benefits of using modern safety helmets over traditional hard hats.
And just a few weeks later, in the December 11, 2023 Trade Release, the Agency announced it would now require its inspectors to wear Type II head protection, which is also commonly referred to as safety helmets.
The November 22, 2023 SHIB discussed two main benefits of choosing modern safety helmets over traditional hard hats -- the construction of materials and the use of chinstraps.
| Construction of Materials: | The SHIB first explained that one of the benefits of safety helmets lies in their construction materials. While hard hats are made from hard plastics, safety helmets incorporate a combination of materials, including lightweight composites, fiberglass, and advanced thermoplastics. Such materials can help enhance the impact resistance of the helmets but also include the added benefit of reducing the overall weight of the helmet. This reduces neck strain and improves comfort during extended use. |
| Use of Chinstraps: | The SHIB also discussed the potential benefits of chinstraps used in conjunction with Type II safety helmets. The general idea here is that chinstraps can be helpful in maintaining the position of the safety helmet and protecting the worker’s head in the event of a slip, trip, or fall. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, head injuries accounted for nearly 6% of non-fatal occupational injuries involving days away from work. About 20% of those were caused by slips, trips, and falls. |
And while OSHA has recognized the benefits of Type II safety helmets, and is actively taking steps to protect its own employees, it’s important to understand that there is not a new requirement for employers to make the switch to safety helmets.
That being said, a growing number of employers have recognized the benefits of added head protection and are choosing to use Type II helmets for their workers. In addition, some clients are starting to contractually require their construction contractors to make the switch as well.
Hard hats will have a Type I or Type II rating on the manufacturer’s sticker. These markings are based on ANSI Z89.1’s impact ratings.
Type I hard hats protect from objects or impacts from the top center area of the hard hat and are often used in work areas with no lateral head impact hazards.
Type II hard hats, on the other hand, offers protection from both top and lateral impacts and objects and is often found on construction job sites or complex general industry settings where workers face multiple head contact exposures.
Hard hats are classified based on their level of voltage protection. See the chart below.
| Class G – (General) low voltage protection. Class E – (Electrical) high voltage protection. Class C – (Conductive) no voltage protection. |
Employers should conduct a job hazard analysis and/or a PPE assessment to determine which style hard hat is best for their workers. In general, OSHA recommends the use of Type II safety helmets at the following locations:
1. Construction Sites: For construction sites, especially those with high risks of falling objects and debris, impacts from equipment, or slips, trips, and falls, safety helmets have enhanced impact resistance and additional features that offer superior protection compared to the components and construction of traditional hard hats.
2. Oil and Gas Industry: In these sectors where workers face multiple hazards, including potential exposure to chemicals and severe impacts, safety helmets with additional features can provide comprehensive protection.
3. Working from Heights: For tasks or jobs that involve working from heights, safety helmets offer protection of the entire head and include features that prevent the safety helmet from falling off.
4. Electrical Work: For tasks involving electrical work or proximity to electrical hazards, safety helmets with non-conductive materials (Class G and Class E) provide protection to prevent electrical shocks. However, some traditional hard hats also offer electrical protection.
5. High-Temperature Environments: In high temperatures or where there is exposure to molten materials, safety helmets with advanced heat-resistant properties can provide additional protection to workers.
Key to remember: While there isn’t a new requirement for safety helmets, employers should review their workplace hazards to determine which style of hard hat will best protect their employees.
A portable fire extinguisher provides zero benefit if the employee can’t access it. To counter this, OSHA created requirements relating to fire extinguisher placement based on travel distance between the employee and the fire extinguisher. This distance will vary depending on the type of fire.
Note that local ordinances or insurance agency expectations may be more stringent. The OSHA requirements described here apply only if the employer provides extinguishers for employee use.
OSHA specifies in 1910.157(c)(1) that employers provide portable fire extinguishers and mount, locate, and identify them so that they are readily accessible to employees. While lacking a formal definition, the term “readily accessible” typically means immediately available and within normal paths of travel. To help fill in the gaps regarding mounting, locating, and identifying, the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) offers additional guidance.
Depending on the type and size, portable fire extinguishers should be mounted on brackets or in wall cabinets to prevent them from being moved or damaged. Those with a gross weight of 40 pounds or less should be mounted with their carrying handles no higher than 5 feet from the floor. Any fire extinguishers over 40 pounds need to be mounted with their carrying handles no more than 3 ½ feet from the floor. All portable fire extinguishers need to have at least 4 inches of clearance between their bottoms and the floor.
You can usually find portable fire extinguishers in offices, hallways, storage areas, meeting rooms, kitchens, mechanical/electrical rooms, and near exit doors. The fire extinguisher must be positioned based on the potential type and size of fire that can occur.
While not specified in the OSHA standard, NFPA does mention that in areas where fire extinguishers aren’t visible due to obstructions, signs or other means must be provided to indicate the extinguisher location. It is seen as a best practice, especially when extinguishers are stored in a cabinet, to mount a sign near the extinguisher to identify its location.
By looking further into the regulations and NFPA guidance, employers can assure that extinguishers are available in a way that is compliant with OSHA requirements, are available if a fire occurs and those extinguishers are needed immediately.
For many outdoor workers, contact with poisonous plants is a common hazard. Workers at risk include construction workers, landscapers, gardeners, outdoor painters, roofers, and wildland firefighters. If a workplace exposure to a poisonous plant results in medical treatment, restricted work, or days away, the employer must record the case on the OSHA 300 Log as a skin disorder (a type of illness).
The allergenic dermatitis of plants like poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac is caused by urushiol. Contrary to popular belief, for urushiol to come into contact with human skin, the plant must be damaged. Brushing up against the leaves is usually not enough to cause an allergic reaction.
Unknown factors potentially affecting severity include the relationship between a worker’s age, health status, environmental conditions, and their susceptibility to poisonous plants.
Types of exposures or reactions may include the following:
Along with skin contact, workers can get exposed to plant toxins by breathing in poisonous plant matter (inhalation) or by getting the plant toxin into their mouth (ingestion) from hands, tools, equipment, or other surfaces containing the toxin.
Key to remember: To protect themselves from poisonous plants, workers must recognize which plants are dangerous, understand how exposure occurs, and know how to address an exposure.
Each year, the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) reminds employers not to prop open fire doors for convenience. Propping open doors has become a common violation of fire codes after the pandemic because workers didn’t want to become exposed to germs on common touchpoints.
I know firsthand this is an issue at construction jobsites and remember telling workers not to prop open fire doors in our clients’ facilities. Workers were doing this out of convenience because they carried things into and out of the existing facility. Propping open a fire door, or wedging it open, are serious fire and safety hazards. Keep fire doors closed to prevent smoke and fire from spreading into the fire evacuation route, like a stairwell. OSHA and NFPA don’t prohibit propping open a fire exit door but caution employers against doing this for safety and security reasons.
Fire doors must remain closed, although some may be designed to automatically close when fire and smoke are sensed by jobsite fire detection equipment. To reduce the need to disinfect frequently touched points, workers can push open fire doors using their sleeves by pushing against the push bar instead of using their hands. You can also increase housekeeping efforts and the frequency that doorknobs, handles, and push bars are cleaned throughout the shift.