
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).
Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news. There’s a lot going on, so let’s get started!
As happens at the start of most incoming presidential administrations, a freeze has been placed on all regulatory activity at the federal level, giving the new administration time to review agencies’ plans. The Office of Management and Budget, which must approve most rulemaking activities, has sent numerous pending rules back to the agencies for review. In addition, OSHA withdrew its infectious diseases proposed rule and its COVID-19 in healthcare rule prior to the inauguration.
OSHA’s penalties increased on January 15. The maximum penalty amounts for serious and other-than-serious violations increased to $16,550. For willful or repeated violations, the maximum penalty increased to $165,514 per violation.
OSHA updated its directive on injury and illness recordkeeping policies and procedures. While it’s intended for OSHA compliance officers, employers can use the information to help with recordkeeping compliance.
Fewer workers died on the job in 2023, as fatal work injuries decreased 3.7 percent from 2022. Transportation incidents remained the most frequent type of fatal event, accounting for over 36 percent of all occupational fatalities.
California’s Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board voted to adopt a permanent silica standard. If approved, it would extend and strengthen the state’s emergency temporary standard, which was put in place in December 2023.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health updated its List of Hazardous Drugs in Healthcare Settings. This is a resource for employers and employees in identifying drugs that are hazardous to the health and safety of those who handle them.
Turning to environmental news, EPA released the biannual update of the nonconfidential TSCA inventory. The inventory helps facilities determine their regulatory requirements for the chemicals they use or plan to use.
And finally, EPA added new Management Method Codes to describe how hazardous waste will be managed after temporary storage and transfer. As of January 1st, hazardous waste handlers must use the codes on the Biennial Report Waste Generation and Management forms.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) controls the amount of pollutants that reach the waters of the United States through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. The NPDES program covers two types of discharges from industrial sources:
Although they’re under the same federal permitting program, stormwater and wastewater discharges are distinct, and their permits are too. Know the basic differences between these types of industrial discharges to ensure your facility complies.
Rain and snow that flow over land or impervious surfaces (like building rooftops and parking lots) and don’t soak into the ground generate stormwater runoff. The runoff can gather pollutants generated by industrial activities at a facility and transport them into nearby waterbodies. Your facility must have a permit to discharge stormwater associated with industrial activities to waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.26).
The NPDES program regulates stormwater discharges from 11 categories of industrial activities, listed at 122.26(b)(14). Examples of covered activities include:
Note, however, that construction sites that disturb 5 or more acres (the tenth category) are permitted individually.
The permit contains stormwater control measures (including “best management practices”) to limit pollutants that enter stormwater runoff. Containment systems, employee training, and infiltration devices are all ways to control runoff.
Most states issue industrial stormwater discharge permits. EPA issues individual permits and the Multi-Sector General Permits (MSGPs) to facilities where the agency is the permitting authority. The MSGP is EPA’s general permit for industrial stormwater discharges.
Many industrial processes use or generate water that contains pollutants, referred to as industrial wastewater. There are two types of wastewater:
Your facility must have a permit to discharge industrial wastewater to surface waters (122.21(a)).
The NPDES program regulates direct wastewater discharges from industrial sources through rules based on the type of facility and activity. The regulations also have industry-specific requirements for:
Effluent limitations are the primary control method for industrial wastewater discharges. EPA establishes Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELGs) for industrial categories and subcategories. These pollution-reduction performance standards are based on the best available technology that’s economically achievable by facilities in the industry. The ELGs are then incorporated into the permits through effluent limitations.
Additionally, industrial facilities must meet water quality-based effluent limitations when the technology-based standards don’t achieve the required water quality standards. Both industrial stormwater and wastewater discharge permits may include technology- and water quality-based effluent limitations.
As with stormwater permits, most states issue industrial wastewater permits. Facilities in areas where EPA is the permitting authority must obtain either a general or individual NPDES permit.
Because a majority of the states run stormwater and wastewater permitting programs, it’s crucial to check the state regulations. State permits must contain limits as stringent as EPA’s federal permits, and some states may impose stricter limits and/or additional requirements.
EPA’s website lists the states authorized to issue NPDES permits with links to the state agencies that run the NPDES program.
Key to remember: Industrial stormwater and wastewater discharges, and the permits that regulate them, are different.
A new executive order from the Trump administration takes aim at government regulations, vowing to remove 10 rules for every new one issued.
The new directive, signed January 31, 2025, will apply to all new “rules, regulations, or guidance” issued by government agencies such as the Department of Transportation, the Department of Labor, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The order says over-regulation has increased costs and inflation, killed jobs and businesses, reduced choice, discouraged innovation, and infringed on liberties.
The move aims to cut much more than a similar “two-for-one” order issued at the start of President Trump’s first stint in the White House in 2017. That order applied only to regulations that would cost $100 million or more.
The White House says the 2017 order was “the most aggressive and successful regulatory reduction effort in history” and eliminated five and one-half regulations for every new one issued.
The new order, according to a White House fact sheet, says that whenever an agency promulgates a new rule, regulation, or guidance, it must identify at least 10 existing rules, regulations, or guidance documents to be repealed.
It will be up to the head of the White House Office of Management and Budget to enforce the order and ensure agencies use a standard measuring stick to verify compliance.
The order also requires that for fiscal year 2025 (which ends September 30), “the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations, be significantly less than zero,” the fact sheet says. The order itself was not available on the White House website when this article was published.
The new executive order comes on the heels of another directive, issued January 20, 2025, that put a freeze on all pending regulations until the new administration has time to review them.
With a backlog of 17 chemical incident investigations in the rearview mirror, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) released three safety-related deliverables — an animated video, a hazard alert, and a compilation of incident summaries. The agency also updated its reporting form.
Expect even more videos and summaries “soon.” That’s the word from CSB Chairperson Steve Owens last week, during the board’s quarterly business meeting. The board also noted that it is forging ahead with nine new investigations. It means we’ll see investigative reports down the line.
The CSB’s new 17-minute safety video, "Fire from the Storm," includes a riveting animation of the events leading to a fire and toxic gas release. The incident occurred when Hurricane Laura damaged a chemical storage facility in Louisiana.
Rainwater then reached the chemical storage. The chemical decomposed, producing toxic chlorine gas and a fire. A large plume of chlorine traveled over the community.
The CSB video calls on OSHA and EPA to amend regulations on Process Safety and Risk Management, respectively. Five key safety issues contributing to the incident are covered:
The latest video follows two others issued in October and July. It also aligns with an alert shared last July on hurricane preparedness.
Cold weather can crack or break pipes. It can also lead to ruptured or damaged process equipment and/or failing instruments. In December, CSB rang alarm bells over an uptick in chemical incidents during cold weather. The CSB alert listed over a dozen safety steps and links to guidance on cold weather operations.
Process safety management programs are regulated at 29 CFR 1910.119. Per the alert, these programs should consider how low temperatures may affect piping, equipment, and instruments. Equipment susceptible to ice or hydrate formation should also be identified and properly winterized.
Extreme weather dangers are a recurring theme for CSB. Last July, during hurricane season, Owens said, “When it comes to extreme weather, chemical companies should expect the unexpected and must always be prepared for the worst-case scenario.”
In a move toward transparency, CSB compiled summaries for 26 of the chemical incident reports it has received. These events summarized in Incident Reports Volume 1 resulted in five fatalities, 17 serious injuries, and about $697M in property damage in 15 states since April 2020.
For over two years the board has posted “overall” data about incidents reported under 40 CFR 1604. That’s the Reporting of Accidental Releases standard. CSB now calls this standard the “Accidental Release Reporting Rule (ARRR).”
For the record, CSB has received 460 reports in the last five years. The reports reveal 68 fatalities and 249 serious injuries/illnesses. Over 200 of these incidents involved property damage of $1M or more.
The overall data reports provide:
However, the latest Volume 1 also reveals:
Owens argued, “The American people have a right to know about the kinds of dangerous chemical incidents that happen across this country every week.”
It’s worth noting that CSB updated its Accidental Release Reporting Form and Instructions last June. The changes:
CSB continues to deliver videos, weather-related alerts, and data. The agency has also updated its reporting form and launched an initiative to reveal more incident details on a regular basis. Expect more from the board in 2025, along with any number of investigative reports.
Effective date: January 1, 2025, to June 29, 2025
This applies to: Public and private fleets purchasing new model year 2025 medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, vehicle dealerships selling new medium- and heavy-duty vehicles with internal combustion or zero-emission engines, vehicle manufacturers selling medium- and heavy-duty vehicles with internal combustion or zero-emission engines, and engine manufacturers selling medium- and heavy-duty vehicle internal combustion engines
Description of change: The temporary rule incorporates additional compliance flexibilities for manufacturers to meet the requirements of the California Air Resource Board’s (CARB’s) Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) rule, which CARB recently amended. The temporary rule also delays implementation of the Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulation rules by a year, taking effect with engine model year 2026 and/or vehicle model year 2027 (based on the specific rule section). It also adds more certification options for complete medium-duty zero-emission vehicles.
Effective date: February 24, 2025
This applies to: Agricultural use notices of intent (NOIs), soil fumigation NOIs, and restricted material NOIs
Description of change: The rule requires all agricultural use notices of intent (NOIs) must be submitted electronically on CalAgPermits.org unless granted an exemption. It also requires that NOIs for soil fumigation and restricted materials that require a permit to produce an agricultural commodity be electronically submitted on the same website. Finally, the rule requires the Department of Pesticide Regulation to publicize and provide status updates on NOI information it receives.
Effective date: December 5, 2024
This applies to: Airbag waste handlers and collection facilities
Description of change: This emergency readoption adds definitions for “airbag waste,” “airbag waste collection facility,” and “airbag waste handler.” It also gives airbag waste handlers a conditional exemption for transporting airbag waste to the waste collection facility.
View related state info:Solid and hazardous waste - California
Effective date: November 28, 2024
This applies to: Operators of surface facilities of high-volume Class II Disposal and Class II Commercial Disposal Wells
Description of change: The rule gives full regulatory authority to the Oil and Gas Commission, from which operators must obtain a permit to drill and operate disposal wells. It removes the need for operators to obtain an additional permit from the Department of Environmental Quality to operate the surface facilities. The Oil and Gas Commission assumes all regulatory responsibility for Class II well operations.
Effective date: January 2025 (dates vary by amendment)
This applies to: Entities subject to certain nonroad vehicle and engine emissions regulations under the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Description of change: The Environmental Protection Agency granted four amendment authorizations to CARB, allowing the state to implement and enforce more stringent emission standards for certain off-road (nonroad) vehicles and engines.
Small Off-Road Engine (SORE) regulation
Nearly all new SOREs with Model Year (MY) 2024 or later must achieve zero emissions of hydrocarbons and NOx and zero evaporative emissions. Large pressure washers and portable generators must meet the same zero-emission standards starting with MY 2028.
Effective date: January 6, 2025
In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets regulation
The amendments require fleets to replace older vehicles with newer ones gradually through 2036. The phaseout timeline is based on fleet size and MY. The rule also restricts fleets from adding older vehicles (with a timeline also based on fleet size and MY through 2035) and requires all fleets to use specific renewable diesel.
Effective date: January 10, 2025
Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets regulation
CARB’s rule imposes refrigerant use requirements for certain TRUs, sets particulate matter standards for non-truck TRUs, requires fleets to transition a percentage of TRUs to zero-emission technology refrigeration units (ZETRUs), and contains registration and reporting requirements for facilities with TRUs. The authorization, however, excludes CARB’s requirement for TRU owners to turn over 15 percent or more of its TRU fleet to ZETRUs by December 31, 2023, and each subsequent year.
In January 2025, CARB withdrew its authorization request for the rule’s mandate that TRU owners turn over 15 percent or more of their TRU fleet to ZETRUs by December 31, 2023, and each subsequent year.
Effective date: January 10, 2025
Commercial Harbor Craft regulation
EPA’s authorization excludes decisions on the Zero-Emission and Advanced Technologies standards for in-use short-run ferries and the standards for specific in-use engines and vessels with expiring feasibility extensions.
In January 2025, CARB withdrew its authorization request for the rule’s Zero-Emission and Advanced Technologies standards for in-use short-run ferries as well as the standards for specific in-use engines and vessels with expiring feasibility extensions.
Effective date: January 10, 2025
Effective date: December 12, 2024
This applies to: Operators of closed-loop geothermal injection wells and Class V injection wells used for brine mining
Description of change: The amendment gives the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) jurisdiction over closed-loop geothermal injection wells and injection wells used for brine mining as established by Senate Bills 786 and 1186. Operators of closed-loop geothermal injection wells and Class V injection wells used for brine mining are subject to RRC regulation and authority.
Effective date: December 23, 2024
This applies to: Manufacturers that sell vehicles in Maryland with a gross vehicle weight rating above 8,500 pounds
Description of change: The rule adds a year to the time frame for manufacturers to earn, bank, and trade credits, giving them two years before the Advanced Clean Truck Program begins (in model year 2027).
Effective date: December 23, 2024
This applies to: Agricultural anhydrous ammonia facilities (including retailers) and distributor or terminal agricultural anhydrous ammonia facilities
Description of change: The rule defines the Agricultural Anhydrous Ammonia Program and facility requirements.
Effective date: December 25, 2024
This applies to: Packaging material producers that sell their products in or import their products into Maine
Description of change: The rule requires producers to pay annually into the packaging stewardship fund based on the amount of packaging material associated with the products it sells in or imports into Maine. Certain producers and packaging materials are exempt. The program will be fully operational in 2027. Producers first register and report in May 2026 and make the first annual payment to the fund in September 2027.
Effective date: January 1, 2025
This applies to: Entities regulated by the Colorado Water Quality Control Act (CWQCA)
Description of change: The maximum civil penalty for violating the CWQCA, an issued permit under the Act, a related control regulation, or a final cease-and-desist order or clean-up order is $65,544 per day per violation.
View related state info:Industrial water permitting state comparison
Effective Date: February 14, 2025
This applies to: Regulated medical waste generators storing untreated medical waste
Description of change: This final rule clarifies how medical waste generators (that generate 220 or more pounds of medical waste per month) store untreated medical waste, including:
View related state info:Medical waste - Alabama
A staggering $9.5 million penalty was levied against a former major hazardous waste management company, marking one of the largest penalties ever under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The settlement addresses numerous violations related to the transportation, storage, and recordkeeping of hazardous materials.
The company in question, a former nationwide provider of hazardous waste services, operated across all ten Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regions and served a wide range of clients, including federal and state entities as well as private businesses. Between May 2014 and April 2020, the company violated key RCRA requirements designed to protect human health and the environment.
A core issue was the improper tracking and transportation of hazardous waste. The company routinely lost track of waste shipments and sent waste to disposal facilities not designated by the original waste generators. In some instances, hazardous waste was transported without the legally required manifests, which are crucial tracking documents.
These manifests detail the type and quantity of waste being transported, its origin, and its intended destination. Without accurate manifests, it becomes extremely difficult to monitor the movement of hazardous materials, increasing the risk of accidents and improper disposal.
Further violations involved improper storage of hazardous waste at transfer facilities. RCRA regulations stipulate strict time limits for storage at these facilities, generally limiting storage to 10 days to prevent long-term accumulation of hazardous materials. The company repeatedly exceeded these limits, effectively turning transfer facilities into unauthorized storage sites. This practice poses a significant risk of leaks, spills, and other environmental hazards.
Recordkeeping failures also played a significant role in the violations. The company failed to properly resolve and report discrepancies between the waste described on manifests and the waste received at their facilities. They also frequently failed to return signed copies of manifests to the waste generators within the required 30 days, hindering the generators’ ability to track their waste.
Perhaps most significantly, the company failed to submit thousands of manifests to EPA’s electronic manifest (e-Manifest) system timely. The e-Manifest system tracks hazardous waste shipments electronically, allowing for greater transparency and accountability. By failing to use this system correctly, the company undermined efforts to effectively monitor hazardous waste movement nationwide.
While the company has since sold its hazardous waste division, it remains accountable for its past actions. This settlement serves as a powerful reminder to all companies involved in hazardous waste management of the importance of complying with RCRA regulations.
Strict adherence to these regulations is key to protecting public health and safeguarding the environment from the dangers of improper hazardous waste handling. It emphasizes the need for robust internal tracking systems, rigorous employee training, and a commitment to using available electronic tracking tools like the e-Manifest system.
Key to remember: A recent $9.5 million settlement with a waste management company highlights systemic failures in hazardous waste handling, including improper tracking, storage, and recordkeeping. This case stresses the key need for strict adherence to RCRA regulations for hazardous waste.
Chemical suppliers must notify customers that a product contains a 40 CFR 372 regulated PFAS. However, right now, that timeline is confusing to some suppliers. So, EPA just published a proposal to amend the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Reporting standard to clarify the timeline.
Once PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) have been added to the TRI program, TRI-covered facilities must report information to EPA by July 1 of the next year. They’re covered if they’re in designated industry sectors or are federal facilities and manufacture, process, or otherwise use these PFAS above set quantities.
However, it’s the notification from the supplier that helps to make TRI-covered facilities aware of their TRI-reporting obligations. You may be affected by the latest proposal if you own or operate a facility required to provide TRI supplier notifications under 40 CFR 372.45.
Supplier notification helps ensure that purchasers are informed that products they purchase have TRI-listed substances. Covered suppliers must send notifications for mixtures or trade name products with TRI chemicals to:
Supplier notifications must include:
The supplier notification must be in writing. If you’re required to prepare and distribute a safety data sheet (SDS) for the mixture or trade name product under OSHA 29 CFR 1910.1200, then:
Typically, the supplier notification is found in section 15 of the SDS.
Notifications must be provided by a facility or establishment that:
If a facility meets all three criteria, then a supplier notification is required with at least the first shipment of the calendar year containing that TRI chemical. For chemicals newly added to the TRI list, notifications must be provided starting with the effective year of the chemical on the TRI list.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2020 automatically updates the list of toxic chemicals subject to TRI reporting. This update happens annually as of January 1 of the year following specific triggering events. (See the preamble to the proposed rule for a list of triggering events.)
EPA must also publish a final rule to update the TRI list in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs). However, the problem is these final rules and conforming CFR edits have trailed the January 1 effective date. Stakeholders have questioned whether the supplier notification requirements for such NDAA-added PFAS begin either:
The answer is the supplier notification requirements begin on January 1, when the PFAS is added to the statutory TRI chemical list. Suppliers that wait until EPA issues a rule may run into noncompliance.
On January 17, EPA proposed to edit the definition of “toxic chemical.” Specifically, EPA includes in the definition the PFAS that are automatically added to the TRI chemical list pursuant to the NDAA. Such PFAS are effectively TRI-listed chemicals as of the applicable January 1st following specific triggering events.
Put another way, EPA proposes to amend the CFR to confirm that the TRI chemical list includes:
Because some covered PFAS will not be listed in the CFR right away, the regulated community can find information on the latest NDAA-added PFAS here.
Let’s say a PFAS or class of PFAS is listed as added automatically to TRI on January 1, 2024. That means it was added for reporting year 2024. Supplier notifications would start January 1, 2024. Then, TRI-covered facilities would report for that PFAS or class of PFAS by the July 1, 2025, reporting deadline (and in later years).
Similarly, a PFAS or class of PFAS listed as added on January 1, 2025, means it’s added this reporting year (2025). So, those supplier notifications started January 1, 2025, and TRI-covered facilities would report the PFAS or class of PFAS by the July 1, 2026, deadline (and in later years).
According to the proposed rule, comments must be received on or before February 18, 2025.
EPA proposes to clarify the timeline for chemical suppliers. It specifies when to notify customers that a product contains a PFAS regulated under 40 CFR 372. Comments are due by February 18, 2025.
In the waning weeks of the last administration, OSHA was “full steam ahead” with its enforcement directives and memos. Since November, the agency extended two, updated four, added one, and cancelled one. OSHA directives and memos are like instructions for OSHA offices and inspectors. In this way, enforcement and other agency activities are consistent nationwide.
The changes come on the heels of a flurry of earlier memos in 2024. Those dealt with meat plants, ergonomics, injury reporting, and walkaround representation. They also covered issuing citations and enforcement exemptions.
No doubt the new administration will pore over “all” of OSHA’s enforcement documents, not just the latest ones. Therefore, it’s important to keep an eye on any shifts in enforcement strategy from the agency. Knowing what OSHA is targeting may help you prioritize your compliance efforts.
On January 16, the agency extended its National Emphasis Program (NEP) on outdoor and indoor heat-related hazards. The program was due to expire April 8, 2025. However, OSHA extended it until April 8, 2026. The program (described in CPL 03-00-024) targets over 70 high-risk industries when a heat warning or advisory is issued for a local area. Inspections are also conducted for heat-related fatalities, complaints, and referrals, no matter the industry.
Between April 8, 2022, and December 29, 2024, OSHA:
OSHA argues that employees are frequently injured when working on or around machinery and equipment. This is especially the case with insufficient guarding and/or energy control procedures. For that reason, on November 18, OSHA directed its offices to continue inspections under CPL 03-00-022 until June 30, 2025. That’s the NEP on amputations in manufacturing. It targets industrial and manufacturing workplaces with machinery and equipment that could cause amputations.
Effective January 13, OSHA issued CPL 02-00-172. This directive provides enforcement guidance for 29 CFR 1904, which goes over injury and illness recordkeeping and reporting. The latest directive replaces a 20-year-old CPL.
OSHA says the new CPL reflects updated recordkeeping policies. It also incorporates revisions related to exemptions, employee rights, and electronic submissions. These stem from final rules published in 2014, 2016, 2019, and 2023.
On November 13, OSHA published CPL 02-01-066. The directive concerns the agency’s authority over workers not only on vessels but also at facilities on/adjacent to U.S. navigable waters or on the Outer Continental Shelf.
The new directive provides guidance related to towing vessels, marine construction, and personal flotation devices. It supersedes older directives.
On November 14, OSHA issued a memo with a revised table listing “low-hazard industries.” These industries had days away, restricted, or transferred work injury/illness incidence rates in 2023 below the national private sector average. That national average was 1.5 per 100 full-time equivalent workers.
The table is referenced in CPL 02-00-170, which provides enforcement exemptions and limitations as required by Congress. Check out the article, “Is YOUR location immune from OSHA safety inspections?”
On January 7, OSHA issued its memo, “2025 Annual Adjustments to OSHA Civil Penalties.” The memo goes over gravity-based penalty amounts for serious violations. While high gravity violations can reach $16,550, low gravity violations are just $7,093. A maximum $16,550 penalty may be proposed if OSHA thinks it’s appropriate to achieve deterrence.
The memo also offers a table of serious-willful penalty reductions for employer size. For example, an employer with 10 or fewer employees may receive an 80 percent reduction.
On December 17, OSHA and EPA entered into a memo of understanding to coordinate protections for workers using chemical substances under two laws. Those include the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Under the memo, OSHA and EPA will share information on chemical-related priorities, risk evaluation, rulemaking, and enforcement activity.
TSCA regulates the use of chemicals more broadly, while the OSH Act regulates health and safety in the workplace. TSCA also covers a wider range of workers than OSHA, such as volunteers, self-employed workers, and some state and local government workers. That means EPA’s findings and worker protection regulations may differ from OSHA’s.
On January 16, OSHA tossed its NEP on COVID-19. According to the agency, this enforcement program (DIR 2021-03 (CPL 03) in place since 2021) was cancelled because of:
We’re waiting to see if OSHA will post a new Site-Specific Targeting (SST) Program. Its existing one (CPL 02-01-064) expires on February 7, 2025.
Under the SST Program, OSHA selects random targets of non-construction, non-office, non-government workplaces (with 20 or more employees) that are either:
The last administration continued to issue a stream of enforcement instructions for its offices and inspectors up to the last week. Of course, the new administration may revisit all enforcement documents.
As happens at the start of most incoming administrations, President Donald Trump has issued a freeze on all regulatory activity at the federal level, giving the new administration some breathing room to review agencies’ plans.
The new executive order, “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” says agencies like the Department of Transportation and the Department of Labor must:
The order goes on to say that agencies should consider seeking more public input on any postponed rules and, if necessary, consider further delays beyond the initial 60 days.
The order covers not only final and proposed regulations but also “notices of inquiry,” any type of notice of proposed rulemaking, and guidance documents that interpret existing statutes or regulations.
The order will be overseen by the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), a position to which Trump has nominated Russ Vought.
The OMB, which must approve most rulemaking activities, has already sent numerous pending rules back to the agencies for review. Among the rules withdrawn on January 21, 2025:
In addition, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration withdrew a proposed rule on infectious diseases on January 14 and its COVID-19 healthcare rule on January 15, prior to the inauguration.
President Trump issued a similar regulation freeze upon his 2017 inauguration. Soon after, he announced a “two for one” order requiring agencies to eliminate two regulations for every new one issued.
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.
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 new executive order from the Trump administration takes aim at government regulations, vowing to remove 10 rules for every new one issued.
The new directive, signed January 31, 2025, will apply to all new “rules, regulations, or guidance” issued by government agencies such as the Department of Transportation, the Department of Labor, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The order says over-regulation has increased costs and inflation, killed jobs and businesses, reduced choice, discouraged innovation, and infringed on liberties.
The move aims to cut much more than a similar “two-for-one” order issued at the start of President Trump’s first stint in the White House in 2017. That order applied only to regulations that would cost $100 million or more.
The White House says the 2017 order was “the most aggressive and successful regulatory reduction effort in history” and eliminated five and one-half regulations for every new one issued.
The new order, according to a White House fact sheet, says that whenever an agency promulgates a new rule, regulation, or guidance, it must identify at least 10 existing rules, regulations, or guidance documents to be repealed.
It will be up to the head of the White House Office of Management and Budget to enforce the order and ensure agencies use a standard measuring stick to verify compliance.
The order also requires that for fiscal year 2025 (which ends September 30), “the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations, be significantly less than zero,” the fact sheet says. The order itself was not available on the White House website when this article was published.
The new executive order comes on the heels of another directive, issued January 20, 2025, that put a freeze on all pending regulations until the new administration has time to review them.
Chemical suppliers must notify customers that a product contains a 40 CFR 372 regulated PFAS. However, right now, that timeline is confusing to some suppliers. So, EPA just published a proposal to amend the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Reporting standard to clarify the timeline.
Once PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) have been added to the TRI program, TRI-covered facilities must report information to EPA by July 1 of the next year. They’re covered if they’re in designated industry sectors or are federal facilities and manufacture, process, or otherwise use these PFAS above set quantities.
However, it’s the notification from the supplier that helps to make TRI-covered facilities aware of their TRI-reporting obligations. You may be affected by the latest proposal if you own or operate a facility required to provide TRI supplier notifications under 40 CFR 372.45.
Supplier notification helps ensure that purchasers are informed that products they purchase have TRI-listed substances. Covered suppliers must send notifications for mixtures or trade name products with TRI chemicals to:
Supplier notifications must include:
The supplier notification must be in writing. If you’re required to prepare and distribute a safety data sheet (SDS) for the mixture or trade name product under OSHA 29 CFR 1910.1200, then:
Typically, the supplier notification is found in section 15 of the SDS.
Notifications must be provided by a facility or establishment that:
If a facility meets all three criteria, then a supplier notification is required with at least the first shipment of the calendar year containing that TRI chemical. For chemicals newly added to the TRI list, notifications must be provided starting with the effective year of the chemical on the TRI list.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2020 automatically updates the list of toxic chemicals subject to TRI reporting. This update happens annually as of January 1 of the year following specific triggering events. (See the preamble to the proposed rule for a list of triggering events.)
EPA must also publish a final rule to update the TRI list in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs). However, the problem is these final rules and conforming CFR edits have trailed the January 1 effective date. Stakeholders have questioned whether the supplier notification requirements for such NDAA-added PFAS begin either:
The answer is the supplier notification requirements begin on January 1, when the PFAS is added to the statutory TRI chemical list. Suppliers that wait until EPA issues a rule may run into noncompliance.
On January 17, EPA proposed to edit the definition of “toxic chemical.” Specifically, EPA includes in the definition the PFAS that are automatically added to the TRI chemical list pursuant to the NDAA. Such PFAS are effectively TRI-listed chemicals as of the applicable January 1st following specific triggering events.
Put another way, EPA proposes to amend the CFR to confirm that the TRI chemical list includes:
Because some covered PFAS will not be listed in the CFR right away, the regulated community can find information on the latest NDAA-added PFAS here.
Let’s say a PFAS or class of PFAS is listed as added automatically to TRI on January 1, 2024. That means it was added for reporting year 2024. Supplier notifications would start January 1, 2024. Then, TRI-covered facilities would report for that PFAS or class of PFAS by the July 1, 2025, reporting deadline (and in later years).
Similarly, a PFAS or class of PFAS listed as added on January 1, 2025, means it’s added this reporting year (2025). So, those supplier notifications started January 1, 2025, and TRI-covered facilities would report the PFAS or class of PFAS by the July 1, 2026, deadline (and in later years).
According to the proposed rule, comments must be received on or before February 18, 2025.
EPA proposes to clarify the timeline for chemical suppliers. It specifies when to notify customers that a product contains a PFAS regulated under 40 CFR 372. Comments are due by February 18, 2025.
With a backlog of 17 chemical incident investigations in the rearview mirror, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) released three safety-related deliverables — an animated video, a hazard alert, and a compilation of incident summaries. The agency also updated its reporting form.
Expect even more videos and summaries “soon.” That’s the word from CSB Chairperson Steve Owens last week, during the board’s quarterly business meeting. The board also noted that it is forging ahead with nine new investigations. It means we’ll see investigative reports down the line.
The CSB’s new 17-minute safety video, "Fire from the Storm," includes a riveting animation of the events leading to a fire and toxic gas release. The incident occurred when Hurricane Laura damaged a chemical storage facility in Louisiana.
Rainwater then reached the chemical storage. The chemical decomposed, producing toxic chlorine gas and a fire. A large plume of chlorine traveled over the community.
The CSB video calls on OSHA and EPA to amend regulations on Process Safety and Risk Management, respectively. Five key safety issues contributing to the incident are covered:
The latest video follows two others issued in October and July. It also aligns with an alert shared last July on hurricane preparedness.
Cold weather can crack or break pipes. It can also lead to ruptured or damaged process equipment and/or failing instruments. In December, CSB rang alarm bells over an uptick in chemical incidents during cold weather. The CSB alert listed over a dozen safety steps and links to guidance on cold weather operations.
Process safety management programs are regulated at 29 CFR 1910.119. Per the alert, these programs should consider how low temperatures may affect piping, equipment, and instruments. Equipment susceptible to ice or hydrate formation should also be identified and properly winterized.
Extreme weather dangers are a recurring theme for CSB. Last July, during hurricane season, Owens said, “When it comes to extreme weather, chemical companies should expect the unexpected and must always be prepared for the worst-case scenario.”
In a move toward transparency, CSB compiled summaries for 26 of the chemical incident reports it has received. These events summarized in Incident Reports Volume 1 resulted in five fatalities, 17 serious injuries, and about $697M in property damage in 15 states since April 2020.
For over two years the board has posted “overall” data about incidents reported under 40 CFR 1604. That’s the Reporting of Accidental Releases standard. CSB now calls this standard the “Accidental Release Reporting Rule (ARRR).”
For the record, CSB has received 460 reports in the last five years. The reports reveal 68 fatalities and 249 serious injuries/illnesses. Over 200 of these incidents involved property damage of $1M or more.
The overall data reports provide:
However, the latest Volume 1 also reveals:
Owens argued, “The American people have a right to know about the kinds of dangerous chemical incidents that happen across this country every week.”
It’s worth noting that CSB updated its Accidental Release Reporting Form and Instructions last June. The changes:
CSB continues to deliver videos, weather-related alerts, and data. The agency has also updated its reporting form and launched an initiative to reveal more incident details on a regular basis. Expect more from the board in 2025, along with any number of investigative reports.
Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news. There’s a lot going on, so let’s get started!
As happens at the start of most incoming presidential administrations, a freeze has been placed on all regulatory activity at the federal level, giving the new administration time to review agencies’ plans. The Office of Management and Budget, which must approve most rulemaking activities, has sent numerous pending rules back to the agencies for review. In addition, OSHA withdrew its infectious diseases proposed rule and its COVID-19 in healthcare rule prior to the inauguration.
OSHA’s penalties increased on January 15. The maximum penalty amounts for serious and other-than-serious violations increased to $16,550. For willful or repeated violations, the maximum penalty increased to $165,514 per violation.
OSHA updated its directive on injury and illness recordkeeping policies and procedures. While it’s intended for OSHA compliance officers, employers can use the information to help with recordkeeping compliance.
Fewer workers died on the job in 2023, as fatal work injuries decreased 3.7 percent from 2022. Transportation incidents remained the most frequent type of fatal event, accounting for over 36 percent of all occupational fatalities.
California’s Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board voted to adopt a permanent silica standard. If approved, it would extend and strengthen the state’s emergency temporary standard, which was put in place in December 2023.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health updated its List of Hazardous Drugs in Healthcare Settings. This is a resource for employers and employees in identifying drugs that are hazardous to the health and safety of those who handle them.
Turning to environmental news, EPA released the biannual update of the nonconfidential TSCA inventory. The inventory helps facilities determine their regulatory requirements for the chemicals they use or plan to use.
And finally, EPA added new Management Method Codes to describe how hazardous waste will be managed after temporary storage and transfer. As of January 1st, hazardous waste handlers must use the codes on the Biennial Report Waste Generation and Management forms.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
OSHA requires employers to provide all workers with immediately available and sanitary restroom or toilet facilities. But does this include truckers and delivery drivers that stop at your facilities? The sanitation standards (1910.141, 1926.51, and 1928.110) are meant to protect all workers from adverse health effects from unsanitary toilets facilities, or the unavailability of facilities when needed.
Bipartisan legislation has recently been introduced in the House that would require businesses to provide restroom access to truckers who are loading or delivering cargo at their warehouses, manufacturers, distribution centers, retailers, and ports.
Supported by leading organizations in the trucking industry, the Trucker Bathroom Access Act (H.R. 9592) was introduced on Dec. 15, 2022. The bill requires retailers, warehouses, and other establishments with existing restrooms to provide access to drivers who are loading or delivering cargo. Additionally, operators of ports and marine terminals must provide access for drayage and parking while accessing such restrooms.
This amendment to Title 49 would exempt some employers from the bill including filling and service stations, and restaurants 800-square feet or smaller with restrooms intended for employee use only. The bill doesn’t require employers to construct new restrooms but to give truck drivers the same access as employees or customers.
Commercial truckers and delivery drivers are the lifeline of our supply chain of supplies, products, and consumables. Working tirelessly all hours, during holidays and weekends, and throughout the pandemic, they continue to deliver critical food and emergency supplies to companies everywhere. Employers have the privilege of demonstrating gratitude to truckers and delivery drivers with a positive work environment.
The benefits of allowing truckers and delivery drivers the convenience and safety of readily available, sanitary restroom facilities are plenty. They’re able to rest and reset when necessary, which keeps them and others safer on the roads. Equally important, restroom availability prevents drivers from having to search for available facilities elsewhere, allowing them to keep a timely delivery schedule, limit supply chain delays, and ultimately lower costs for employers and customers.
The proposed Trucker Bathroom Access Act will require retailers, warehouses, and other establishments with existing restrooms to provide access to truckers and delivery drivers who are loading or delivering cargo. Access to restrooms keeps them refreshed and ready to deliver essential supplies to companies across the country.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) controls the amount of pollutants that reach the waters of the United States through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. The NPDES program covers two types of discharges from industrial sources:
Although they’re under the same federal permitting program, stormwater and wastewater discharges are distinct, and their permits are too. Know the basic differences between these types of industrial discharges to ensure your facility complies.
Rain and snow that flow over land or impervious surfaces (like building rooftops and parking lots) and don’t soak into the ground generate stormwater runoff. The runoff can gather pollutants generated by industrial activities at a facility and transport them into nearby waterbodies. Your facility must have a permit to discharge stormwater associated with industrial activities to waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.26).
The NPDES program regulates stormwater discharges from 11 categories of industrial activities, listed at 122.26(b)(14). Examples of covered activities include:
Note, however, that construction sites that disturb 5 or more acres (the tenth category) are permitted individually.
The permit contains stormwater control measures (including “best management practices”) to limit pollutants that enter stormwater runoff. Containment systems, employee training, and infiltration devices are all ways to control runoff.
Most states issue industrial stormwater discharge permits. EPA issues individual permits and the Multi-Sector General Permits (MSGPs) to facilities where the agency is the permitting authority. The MSGP is EPA’s general permit for industrial stormwater discharges.
Many industrial processes use or generate water that contains pollutants, referred to as industrial wastewater. There are two types of wastewater:
Your facility must have a permit to discharge industrial wastewater to surface waters (122.21(a)).
The NPDES program regulates direct wastewater discharges from industrial sources through rules based on the type of facility and activity. The regulations also have industry-specific requirements for:
Effluent limitations are the primary control method for industrial wastewater discharges. EPA establishes Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELGs) for industrial categories and subcategories. These pollution-reduction performance standards are based on the best available technology that’s economically achievable by facilities in the industry. The ELGs are then incorporated into the permits through effluent limitations.
Additionally, industrial facilities must meet water quality-based effluent limitations when the technology-based standards don’t achieve the required water quality standards. Both industrial stormwater and wastewater discharge permits may include technology- and water quality-based effluent limitations.
As with stormwater permits, most states issue industrial wastewater permits. Facilities in areas where EPA is the permitting authority must obtain either a general or individual NPDES permit.
Because a majority of the states run stormwater and wastewater permitting programs, it’s crucial to check the state regulations. State permits must contain limits as stringent as EPA’s federal permits, and some states may impose stricter limits and/or additional requirements.
EPA’s website lists the states authorized to issue NPDES permits with links to the state agencies that run the NPDES program.
Key to remember: Industrial stormwater and wastewater discharges, and the permits that regulate them, are different.
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!
Transporting dangerous goods is a highly regulated activity in Canada and it requires carriers to ensure their drivers are adequately trained. The topic is complex, and it can be easy to make errors during the training process. Understanding these common mistakes can help you improve your training program and ensure compliance with Transportation of Dangerous Goods (TDG) regulations.
Here are 10 common errors that can undermine your training efforts and advice for avoiding those errors.
One major error is providing training that does not cover all parts of the TDG. According to Transport Canada, training must include aspects of the TDG that relate directly to the driver's duties. This includes understanding the classification, packaging, labeling, documentation, and emergency response procedures for dangerous goods.
Ensure you don’t overlook training on different classes of dangerous goods, which can lead to gaps in knowledge.
While classroom instruction is essential, practical training is equally important. Practical training allows your drivers to apply what they learn in a controlled environment, reinforcing their understanding and preparing them for real-world scenarios. Without this practical component, your drivers may struggle to handle emergencies or unexpected situations effectively.
TDG regulations are continually evolving, and your training should, too. If you fail to provide updated training, you risk missing the latest regulation updates. Regularly reviewing and updating your training ensures that your drivers are aware of any changes and can adapt their practices accordingly.
If your company has multiple locations, ensuring consistent training across all sites can be challenging. Inconsistencies can lead to confusion and errors among drivers who may receive different information depending on their location. Ensure you standardize your training as best you can and ensure that all drivers, regardless of location, receive the same high-quality training.
New drivers might require close supervision during their initial training period. Failing to provide supervision may leave your new drivers unprepared to handle dangerous goods safely. Supervision should include direct, physical accompaniment by a trained and experienced driver, rather than relying on remote monitoring or camera surveillance.
A required component of TDG training is the training certificates. These certificates are proof your drivers have received the necessary training and are qualified to handle dangerous goods.
If you don’t issue these certificates, or don’t record the required information on the certificates, it’s difficult to prove your drivers are adequately trained. Plus, your drivers need to carry their certificates. If drivers don’t have them, it may result in an out-of-service violation.
Canada is a diverse country with a multilingual workforce. You must ensure that your training materials are accessible to all drivers, including those who may not be fluent in English. Providing training in multiple languages or offering translation services can help overcome language barriers and ensure that all your drivers understand the critical information.
Your drivers are on the front lines and can provide valuable insights into potential improvements in the training program. If you ignore driver feedback, you miss opportunities to enhance your training program. Encouraging open communication and actively seeking feedback from your drivers can lead to more effective and comprehensive training.
Emergency response training is a crucial aspect of TDG training. Your drivers must be prepared to handle spills, leaks, and other emergencies involving dangerous goods. Comprehensive emergency response training should include practical exercises, such as spill containment and first aid procedures.
You should regularly monitor and evaluate your training programs. This includes assessing your drivers' knowledge and skills through tests and practical evaluations. Continuous improvement of training programs based on these assessments helps maintain high standards and ensures that your drivers are well-prepared to handle dangerous goods safely.
By addressing these common errors and implementing comprehensive, up-to-date training programs, you can enhance safety, ensure compliance with regulations, and protect your drivers and the public from the risks associated with transporting dangerous goods.
Key to remember: By being vigilant in your approach to TDG driver training, you can avoid these common mistakes and ensure compliance with TDG regulations.
If you’re planning to start a motor carrier operation or add a different type of service to an existing business, you need to know what type of carrier you will be. Motor carriers are considered either a for-hire carrier or a private carrier. To be a private carrier, 100 percent of the company’s movements must be to support its own operation. If the carrier is engaged in any for-hire activities, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) considers them a for-hire carrier.
For-hire carriers use vehicles to transport people or property and are paid for their service. The fee could be a direct fee like a fare or a rate but could also be other indirect forms of compensation. Examples of for-hire operations include a trucking company that hauls other people’s property for a fee (direct compensation) or a hotel that includes in its service the transportation to and from the airport to the hotel (indirect compensation).
Private carriers, on the other hand, transport only their own goods or people. Examples include a manufacturer that uses its own commercial vehicles to transport its product, a construction or landscaping company that uses commercial vehicles to transport equipment and employees to job sites, or a utility company that operates commercial vehicles in support of its operations.
While private carriers are not required to obtain operating authority from the FMCSA, for-hire carriers are required to get authority to move property or people that belong to somebody else and get paid for their service. Having authority is often referred to as having an MC Number.
The most common types of authority are:
If a company never operates a commercial motor vehicle (CMV), it is possible to have authority, but not have a USDOT number. For example, straight brokers or freight forwarders.
As part of obtaining for-hire authority, carriers must designate process agents and demonstrate financial responsibility (have proper insurance coverage).
Authorities are not all-inclusive. Separate authority is needed for each type of service offered. For instance, a for-hire, over-the-road carrier that also wants to be able to resell its extra demand will need both for-hire and brokerage authorities. A company is required to pay a $300 one-time fee for each type of authority needed.
There are no temporary permits available to substitute for authority. For-hire operations may not be performed until the proper authority has been granted. It’s not uncommon for otherwise private carriers to become for-hire carriers to generate revenue on back-hauls or help balance capacity and demand during slow periods or seasons.
Carriers need to get it right when it comes to authority. Carriers required to have authority — but don’t and operate anyway — can get themselves into trouble. Penalties for operating without proper authority can get expensive and can result in out-of-service orders.
Key to remember: Carriers are either for-hire or private, with for-hire carriers being paid for their services while private carriers transport only their own goods or people.
Related article: Process agents — what are they and do you need them?
One of Brad’s job responsibilities is to conduct driver training. Brad’s training program covers critical subjects including defensive driving, regulatory issues, and company policy and procedure. The instruction is conducted on a regular basis.
Though Brad believes the program is solid, Brad often questions whether drivers are understanding and applying the information presented.
Effective evaluation of the training session can help in determining the level of learning that took place and whether the session helped to improve driver job performance. The following are a few ways to evaluate training sessions.
Pre-tests and post-tests allow trainers to evaluate their drivers’ level of understanding prior to and at the conclusion of training.
The pre-test provides information on the drivers’ current understanding and/or misunderstanding of the subject being presented. It also helps to identify areas that should be focused on during the session.
In addition to serving as a review of the session, the post-test helps a trainer evaluate its effectiveness. The post-test should be used in conjunction with the pre-test to identify any area(s) that may require additional instruction.
Distribute a survey as the session is wrapping up, but prior to closing remarks. Make sure enough time is allotted to complete the survey.
Doing this after closing remarks or asking drivers to complete the survey after the scheduled ending time for the training session does not leave enough time for drivers to provide thoughtful feedback.
When creating the survey, make sure it includes both open and closed questions about how drivers are using what they learned in class. This will help in determining the relevance and appropriateness of the topic(s) presented.
Supervisors are a valuable resource. They are able to observe a driver’s performance before and after a training session and note changes or improvements.
Make sure supervisors are aware of the training schedule and the subjects being taught. Provide a copy of the training materials to the supervisors.
After the training session, reach out to supervisors on a periodic basis to check on driver progress when it comes to the topics presented.
Compare safety, productivity, or quality measures for the month before and the month after the training.
Again, at the end of six months, compare these same measures to the results for the month prior to and after the training. Look for improvement as well as problems or issues that should be addressed with refresher training.
Key to remember: Effective evaluation of a training session can aid in determining whether the session helped to improve driver job performance.
Most motor carriers review their roadside inspection reports for the obvious reasons: fixing mechanical defects and identifying unsafe or noncompliant driver behavior.
Some violations are easy to decipher, such as a burned-out light bulb or exceeding the speed limit by a specific range. Others take a little more to figure out, such as doing the math to determine when and how a driver exceeded hours-of-service (HOS) limits. Then there are all those 392.2 violations with suffixes. Some count against a carrier’s Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) scores, while others do not, depending on whether they contribute to causing a crash.
One that often baffles motor carriers is 392.2C.
Section 392.2C is enforcement’s code for “failure to obey traffic control device.” The C stands for control.
The citation appears in the severity table for the Unsafe Driving BASIC (Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Category). The violation has been assigned a value of 5 out 10, with 10 being the most severe. The violation is used when calculating both the carrier’s and driver’s Unsafe Driving BASIC scores.
In most instances, the traffic control device is not a signal light or stop or yield sign. Rather, it is the sign that instructs the driver to pull into a weigh station.
View our Weigh Stations ezExplanation for additional information. |
The vehicles that must stop at scales and inspection locations vary from state to state and even from location to location within a state. The “weigh scale ahead” or similar sign should be the driver’s guide.
If the sign reads:
Often those who operate commercial vehicles not requiring a commercial driver’s license, such as a large pickup truck or small box truck, mistakenly believe weigh scale inspections are just for larger rigs.
If a driver goes past a weigh station without pulling in as directed by a traffic control device, enforcement will pursue and pull over the driver. The officer will then escort the driver back to the weigh station for a roadside inspection.
Even if the driver was honestly confused whether the sign applied to the vehicle, it is too late. And more than likely enforcement’s interest has been piqued. It is highly unlikely the driver will be waived through at this point, and 392.2C will be entered on the roadside inspection report.
CSA’s enforcement model suggests finding the root cause of roadside inspection violations to prevent future occurrences and ultimately improve BASIC scores.
A violation of 392.2C may have one of several root causes, such as:
Whatever the reason, it must be addressed with the driver. Corrective actions range from refresher training to termination. If the driver was trying to avoid enforcement for other reasons (drugs, alcohol, over HOS limits), these other violations need to be addressed accordingly.
Key to remember: Failing to obey a traffic control device will be used in calculation of the CSA Unsafe Driving BASIC scores. Motor carriers should address the root cause of the violation so it does not recur.
The State of Georgia is one step closer to implementing a final rule published in 2015 to streamline the medical certification process for drivers who hold commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) or permits (CLPs). Effective February 24, 2025, the Georgia Department of Driver Services (DDS) will no longer accept medical certificates from drivers.
Under a new process, certified medical examiners (CMEs) will input the driver’s medical information into the National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners (NRCME) and then the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) will transmit it to DDS. Drivers and their carriers should allow 48 business hours from the medical examination before checking the status of new or updated medical certifications via DDS Online Services.
No later than Wednesday, February 19, 2025, CDL and CLP drivers licensed in Georgia are instructed to submit current supporting medical documentation to DDS via email, an upload through the department’s Online Services, or in-person presentation at a local Customer Service Center.
The new process eliminates the need for states to manually enter specific data elements onto a driver’s motor vehicle record. Instead, FMCSA will communicate the following information to DDS from the NRCME:
FMCSA published a rulemaking in 2015 that connects the state driver’s licensing agencies (SDLAs) directly to NRCME. This transmission streamlines the process and accounts for every driver medical examination, including those where the CME medically disqualifies the driver.
The original implementation date was June 22, 2018, but it was pushed back to 2021 and again to 2025 to help accommodate technology development to transmit and receive information from the NRCME to the SDLAs. The current implementation date requires all SDLAs to be connected to NRCME no later than June 23, 2025.
Drivers who operate commercial motor vehicles are still required to be medically certified through an examination by a CME. The medical examination and its standards remain the same. What has changed is recordkeeping. The only the means of communicating CDL/CLP holders’ examination results to the SDLA is through FMCSA’s data transmission.
Most people assume workplace violence is rare—but the numbers tell a different story. From nonfatal injuries to tragic deaths, workplace violence affects more individuals than you might expect. These five shocking facts reveal just how serious the problem is.
Workplace violence is a growing concern across various industries, affecting employees' safety and well-being. From physical assaults to verbal threats, these incidents can lead to serious injuries, emotional trauma, and even fatalities.
Understanding workplace violence is essential for employers and employees alike. Here are five key facts that highlight the prevalence and impact of workplace violence.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 20,050 workers in private industries experienced trauma from nonfatal workplace violence in 2020, requiring days away from work to recover. These incidents not only disrupt employees' lives but also create significant financial and operational challenges for businesses.
The impact of workplace violence extends beyond physical injuries, often leaving long-term psychological scars on victims.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) reported that of the 5,283 fatal workplace injuries in the U.S. in 2023, 740 were caused by violent acts. This alarming statistic highlights that workplace violence is not just about threats and harassment—it can be deadly.
Employers must implement preventative measures such as workplace safety policies, training programs, and emergency response plans to reduce risks and ensure employees' safety.
While workplace violence can occur in any profession, some industries experience a higher level of risk. The top five industries most affected by workplace violence include:
All employers must make an effort to recognize and prevent workplace violence, especially those in the industries listed above.
A common misconception about workplace violence is that it is primarily caused by external threats, such as criminals or unknown attackers. However, less than half (47%) of nonfatal workplace violence incidents were committed by strangers. Many cases involve co-workers, clients, customers, or personal relationships.
This statistic emphasizes the importance of fostering a positive and safe work environment, addressing conflicts early, and providing employees with de-escalation training.
Workplace violence does not affect all workers equally. Of the 37,210 nonfatal workplace violence incidents in 2023, 65% of the victims were female, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Many of these cases occur in professions dominated by women, such as healthcare, social work, and education.
As mentioned above, many cases of workplace violence are committed by people who have a personal relationship with the victim.
When the perpetrator is an employee’s spouse or domestic partner, they could bring conflicts from home to the workplace. When a victim leaves an abuser, the one place they know the victim will be every day is at work. That’s why domestic violence presents a unique set of challenges for employers, supervisors, and company security staff.
Addressing gender-based violence and implementing targeted safety strategies can help protect female workers in high-risk industries or situations.
Workplace violence is a serious issue that affects thousands of workers every year. It is crucial for businesses to adopt proactive measures, such as employee training, security protocols, and conflict resolution programs.
Key to remember: By increasing awareness and fostering a culture of safety, organizations can reduce the risk of workplace violence and protect their employees from harm.
Employers sometimes get tripped up on how to calculate the 1,250 hours worked eligibility criterion when employees need leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
Does working overtime count toward the 1,250?
Recently, someone asked if overtime hours counted toward the 1,250 hours worked requirement (it does).
All hours actually worked apply to the 1,250, whether overtime or regular time, even if the overtime is not mandatory.
The 1,250 hours is calculated in relation to when the leave will begin, not when the employee puts an employer on notice of the need for leave.
Whether an employee is allowed to work overtime, however, is generally up to company policy. As far as pay goes, remember, if the employee is nonexempt (“hourly”) and works any overtime (mandatory or voluntary) the employee must be paid time and one-half for all hours worked over 40 within the workweek.
More about FMLA leave requirements
To be eligible to take FMLA leave, employees must:
Whether an employee has worked the minimum 1,250 hours is calculated based on determining compensable hours or work under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Calculating the 1,250 hours worked
When it comes to figuring out if an employee has worked at least 1,250 hours, it can get tricky. As was mentioned above, all hours worked, regular and overtime, must be counted.
Hours not worked should not be counted. The “not worked hours” include such time off as vacation time, sick leave, paid or unpaid holidays, or any other time in which an employee isn’t actually working — which can include disability, bereavement, FMLA and other forms of leave.
Once an employee meets the three eligibility criteria, including the 1,250 hours worked, for a particular leave reason, the employee remains eligible for the duration of the 12-month leave year period.
If the employee needs leave for another, different reason, eligibility would be recalculated.
Key to remember: All hours worked must be included in the 1,250 hours criterion when determining whether an employee is eligible for FMLA leave. Hours that aren’t worked (like vacation) are not included.
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.
Just because someone tends a bar does not necessarily mean that person may receive pooled tips.
In a recent opinion letter, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) reminded employers that managers may not keep pooled tips under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The letter described a situation where bartenders at a brewery and taproom received a direct cash wage of at least $7.25 per hour (the federal minimum wage). Bartenders also regularly received tips from customers, which were pooled and distributed among the bartenders.
One employee at the brewery held at least a 20 percent equity interest in the business and managed and supervised the bartenders. This employee also tended the bar regularly to engage with customers. The employer wondered if that particular employee could receive pooled tips while working as a bartender.
The DOL responded with a “no.”
If employees qualify as managers or supervisors, even if they also perform tipped work, they may not keep other employees’ tips. This includes, for example, taking them from a tip pool or getting tips based in part on other employees’ work, which were collected in a tip jar.
Managers may, however, keep tips that they received directly from a customer based on the service that they directly and solely provided. If, for example, this manager is the only one tending bar during a certain period of the day, they may keep tips during that timeframe because the tips are for the service that the manager directly provided.
If, however, the employer can't attribute a tip solely to the service the manager provides, the manager may not keep any portion of the tip. If, for example, the taproom pools all of the bartending tips together, the manager may not take any portion of the tips from the pool even if the manager also tends bar.
A manager or supervisor includes any employee who meets the FLSA “executive” duties test. This is the same duties test used (along with other tests) to determine whether an employee is exempt from the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime provisions because they are employed in a bona fide executive capacity.
Business owners who own at least a bona fide 20 percent equity interest in the enterprise in which they work and who are actively engaged in its management also satisfy the executive duties test.
Because the manager in question was a part business owner and was actively engaged in its management, the employer may not allow him to keep other employees’ tips.
Key to remember: Managers and supervisors may keep direct tips but may not take tips from a tip pool.
Motor carriers wanting to onboard drivers quickly may get some legislative relief for their hiring headaches. A solution to the ongoing truck driver shortage comes in the form of a cross-party bill that was recently introduced in Congress.
The Licensing Individual Commercial Exam-takers Now Safely and Efficiently (LICENSE) Act, introduced on January 24, is garnering support as a way to help ease supply chain challenges by increasing the number of truck drivers in the U.S.
The bill builds on waivers the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. It helps truck drivers get their commercial driver’s license (CDL) faster to get them on the road delivering freight sooner.
If passed, the LICENSE Act will:
“The LICENSE Act streamlines the CDL testing process by allowing states to test applicants regardless of their residency or training location,” Ryan Streblow, President and CEO of the National Tank Truck Carriers, said in a press release.
Streblow went on to say that this type of efficiency is a commonsense approach to addressing workforce shortages.
While this bill, if passed, could signify a win for carriers, it’s only one step in the driver recruiting and retention process. It might speed things up on the front end, but from there the ball’s in the carrier’s court to retain a new driver.
Recruiting and retaining quality drivers is perhaps the biggest contributing factor to any motor carrier’s overall success. Industry studies support the fact that the longer a company retains a driver, the safer, more efficient, and profitable that driver becomes.
Effective recruitment and retention may include looking at both internal or external sources for drivers, ensuring that pay and benefit packages are attractive to both new and existing drivers, and closely examining the work environment.
Key to remember: A bill was recently introduced to speed up the CDL process. But that’s only one part of a solid driver hiring and retention program.
A question came up recently: Does time off for weight loss surgery fall under the FMLA? In short, it certainly could.
When it comes to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), let’s first dispel the myth that employees are not allowed to take FMLA leave for elective procedures. They may. Like any situation involving an employment law, much would depend upon the facts involved, such as whether the surgery resulted in a serious health condition, or a serious health condition existed before the surgery.
Just because a procedure is elective does not mean it does not qualify for FMLA protections. An employee could, for example, elect to donate a kidney. The procedure would result in the employee having a serious health condition and, therefore, the reason for absence would qualify for FMLA protections. Assuming the employee meets the eligibility criteria, the employee would be entitled to the FMLA leave.
When it comes to weight loss surgery, an employee may have been perfectly healthy before the procedure, so the surgery itself might not be required due to the employee’s health reasons. An employee might, however, have underlying health conditions prompting the procedure.
It’s true that conditions for which cosmetic treatments are given (such as most treatments for acne or certain types of plastic surgery) are not serious health conditions unless inpatient hospital care is needed or complications develop. This caveat generally points to the definition of a serious health condition (inpatient care or continuing treatment). Therefore, if the treatment results in a serious health condition, it qualifies for FMLA protections.
The bottom line is, if you have an employee who needs time off for weight loss surgery that requires an overnight stay in a health care facility, the reason for the absence would qualify for FMLA protections. If the employee is incapacitated for more than three days and receives treatment twice, the reason would also qualify for FMLA protections.
As with any type of FMLA case, if an employee puts you on notice of the need for leave for elective surgery, including weight loss surgery, treat it as you would any other notice of the need for leave. Provide an eligibility/rights and responsibilities notice, and request a medical certification.
The certification should give you the information needed to determine if the employee has (or will have) a serious health condition.
If the certification indicates that the employee has not had or does not need an overnight stay, move on to whether the employee will be incapacitated for more than three days and will need continuing treatment. Continuing treatment would need to involve treatment at least once, followed by a regimen of continuing treatment (such as a prescription or therapy), or treatment at least twice.
Key to remember: Don’t discount leave for elective surgery without consideration. It very well could qualify for FMLA protections.
OSHA issued several new fact sheets in the last few months, ranging from lithium-ion battery safety to workplace violence and more. These publications don’t create new regulations or obligations, but rather provide guidance and information on specific topics.
Lithium-ion batteries supply power to a variety of products we use every day, from smart phones to laptops to electric vehicles. An increase in manufacturing and industrial use of these batteries requires an understanding of the safety and health hazards they pose, and how to protect workers from those hazards.
OSHA’s fact sheet (OSHA FS 4480) is directed towards facilities that manufacture lithium-ion batteries, items that include installation of the batteries, energy storage facilities, and facilities that recycle lithium-ion batteries. It describes the battery’s components; potential, chemical, and safety hazards; safety by design; establishing a safety and health management system; hazard controls; training; OSHA standards; and consensus/industry standards and programs.
Workplace violence is a growing concern for employers and employees nationwide. It can range from threats and verbal abuse to physical assaults and homicide, one of the leading causes of job-related deaths. Although there’s no OSHA standard that addresses workplace violence, the General Duty Clause of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act requires employers to provide employees a place of employment free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.
This fact sheet (OSHA FS 3509) explains who’s most vulnerable to workplace violence (e.g., lone workers, delivery drivers, visiting nurses, retail workers), what employers can do to help protect employees, how employees can protect themselves, and what employers should do following a workplace violence incident.
Semiconductors are used in a range of devices we use every day, from personal computers to smartphones to cars. Due to rapid changes in the semiconductor industry, manufacturing processes and their associated hazards may change completely every few years, making hazard assessments challenging. Common hazards may include exposure to solvents, acid and caustic solutions, toxic metals, and radiation.
Safety in Semiconductor Manufacturing discusses the importance of establishing a safety and health management system, common industry hazards, hazard controls, training, EPA requirements and industry consensus standards, and OSHA standards.
Establishments that meet certain size and industry criteria must electronically submit case-specific injury and illness data from their OSHA 300 log to OSHA using the agency’s secure Injury Tracking Application (ITA). The data is used to analyze occupational injuries and illnesses and hazardous conditions in workplaces and is made available to the public.
OSHA minimizes the collection of workers’ PII (e.g., name, address, social security number, etc.) during this process and takes steps to ensure data protection. This fact sheet (OSHA 4388) explains what PII is, how establishments can avoid submitting PII through the ITA, and how OSHA protects worker privacy during the collection process.
Employees may file a complaint with OSHA concerning a hazardous working condition at any time. Under the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act, it’s illegal for employers to retaliate against employees who do so. This fact sheet (OSHA 3812) outlines employee protections and explains “adverse actions,” how to file a whistleblower complaint and the deadline for doing so, and what happens once OSHA investigates the claim.
Although private employers most often come to mind when we think of OSHA coverage, federal employees also are covered by OSHA regulations. This fact sheet (OSHA 4470) describes what Executive Branch agencies must do to protect the safety and health of federal employees, as well as federal employees’ rights and protections under OSHA.
Key to remember: Employers can look to OSHA’s newly published fact sheets for information and guidance on lithium-ion batteries, semiconductors, workplace violence, PII and whistleblower protections, and how OSHA applies to federal employees.
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 safety professional’s job is keeping employees safe, but they can’t do it alone. Safety professionals know that procedures and rules don’t keep employees safe. Employees must follow those rules to keep themselves safe, and management must support this and maintain accountability.
A recent survey revealed that a common challenge is getting employees to understand the importance of safety and consistently following procedures. Overcoming resistance to change and building a strong safety culture were also challenges for many employers.
Survey participants were asked to share their greatest EH&S challenge in their own words. Common themes included:
In a strong safety culture, everyone understands the role they play in safety. Employees watch out for themselves and each other. They recognize that taking shortcuts puts them at greater risk for injury, and that injuries affect them at home as well as at work. Supervisors know this also (or should know this) and will not only hold employees accountable for following rules but will also recognize them for positive safety efforts.
Employers with strong safety cultures experience fewer injuries which translates to lower workers’ compensation premiums and less down-time for incidents and investigations. They may have higher employee engagement and lower turnover. For related information, see our article Getting buy-in for safety changes.
The survey also listed six EH&S initiatives and asked respondents to rank them from “most impactful” to “least impactful.” The results were:
These responses aligned with survey participant comments regarding the challenges of building a strong safety culture and getting management support.
A strong safety culture should make an EH&S professional’s job easier for two reasons. First, the safety manager is not viewed as solely responsible for safety since everyone actively participates and takes personal accountability. Second, the EH&S professional should get more support when safety is not viewed as being in competition with production.
J. J. Keller & Associates, Inc. conducted this EH&S benchmark study to better understand the challenges faced by EH&S professionals. The findings will contribute to a broader understanding of the challenges and help create improvements within the industry. The survey was open to all individuals with responsibilities falling within the realm of environmental, health and safety, with 979 respondents.
Key to remember: Key challenges for EH&S professionals include getting employee buy-in and engagement, shifting the organization’s mindset and culture to prioritize EH&S, and dealing with resource constraints such as time, budget, and staffing.
OSHA will not enforce COVID-19 recordkeeping and reporting requirements under its Healthcare Emergency Temporary Standard (Healthcare ETS) at 1910.502. In a February 5 enforcement memorandum, the agency stated:
“Effective immediately and until further notice, OSHA will not enforce those COVID-19 recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Therefore, OSHA will not cite employers for violations of the requirement to establish, maintain, and provide copies of a COVID-19 log under 29 CFR §1910.502(q)(2)(ii) and (q)(3)(ii)-(iv) or to report COVID-19 fatalities and hospitalizations under 29 CFR 1910.502(r) … OSHA will continue to enforce applicable recordkeeping and reporting requirements under 29 CFR part 1904.”
This means that while the COVID-19 log and reporting provisions under 1910.502 remain in effect, OSHA is using its enforcement discretion not to enforce those particular regulations until further notice.
In June 2021, OSHA issued a Healthcare ETS (29 CFR 1910 Subpart U) to protect workers from COVID-19 in healthcare settings and where healthcare services were provided. In December 2021, the agency withdrew the non-recordkeeping and reporting portions of the Healthcare ETS but retained the COVID log and reporting provisions at 1910.502(q)(2)(ii), (q)(3)(ii)-(iv), and (r).
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.
If you could increase productivity and reduce injury risk at the same time, would you? Of course you would! And lean management is the way to get there! Companies like Toyota and McDonald’s show how simple material handling changes can mean success.
One key aspect of lean management is the “5S” method. When used for material handling, it can significantly reduce waste, improve productivity, and enhance overall workplace safety.
Find success with these five steps:
Lean management made a name for itself during World War II, a time when resources were scarce, demand was high, and time was critical. Manufacturers were forced to enhance production without compromising quality to keep up with wartime business needs. Lean management, when used strategically, empowers every worker in the organization to identify, communicate, and resolve challenges that does not contribute to company’s optimization and success.
The secret of Toyota’s success was designing their production system around lean management principles where personnel were empowered to stop the moving production line when an abnormality occurred. When this happened, operators, alongside their supervisors, discussed the issue, offered recommendations, and adopted a corrective action that resolved the issue. This strategy not only streamlined the process, but it also improved overall productivity and encouraged engagement from all company stakeholders.
After Ray Kroc purchased the McDonald’s company from Richard and Maurice McDonald in 1961, he put lean management to work by focusing on consistency and standardization. His belief that every restaurant should offer the same menu, quality of food, and customer experience catapulted trust and loyalty from customers and employees. They knew what to expect from McDonald's.
Key to remember: Lean management ensures continuous improvement by reducing safety risk, trimming waste, and ensuring quality. Lean management can also increase profit margins, build a positive safety culture, and impress your customers.