
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. Let’s take a look at what happened over the past month.
Fatal work injuries fell 4 percent in 2024, largely due to a decline in workplace drug- and alcohol-related overdoses. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, overdose fatalities fell from 512 in 2023 to 410 in 2024. Across all types of workplace incidents, there were 5,070 fatal work injuries in 2024, compared to 5,283 in 2023. Transportation incidents continue to be the most frequent type of fatal event, accounting for over 38 percent of all occupational fatalities in 2024.
OSHA is fast-tracking a proposal to remove the 2036 obligation to upgrade fall protection systems on fixed ladders that extend over 24 feet. This follows an industry petition from major chemical and petroleum industry groups, which argue the provision is unjustified, costly, and not supported by the rulemaking record. OSHA frames the upcoming proposed action as deregulatory, allowing employers to update fixed ladders at the end of their service lives. We’ll provide updates as more information becomes available.
As OSHA leans into “deregulatory” actions, lawmakers are moving to pressure the agency to issue “regulatory” rulemaking to protect American workers. The latest legislative wave of bills aims to fill regulatory gaps, tackle emerging hazards, expand OSHA authority, and raise penalties. Topics addressed by these bills include musculoskeletal disorders, heat stress, infectious diseases, wildfire smoke, and workplace violence.
In a recently issued letter of interpretation, OSHA states that a burn injury caused by a personal lithium-ion battery fire is work related if it occurs in the workplace during assigned working hours. The letter details an incident where an employee was burned when their rechargeable lithium-ion batteries for e-cigarettes sparked a fire after coming into contact with a key used for work.
A new report from the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General concludes that OSHA struggles to meet its mission, particularly in high-risk industries like healthcare, construction, and manufacturing. Several pages point to OSHA’s difficulties in effectively enforcing annual injury and illness reporting requirements, reaching the nation’s high-risk worksites for inspection, and addressing workplace violence by regulatory or other action.
Turning to environmental news, EPA extended the deadlines for Facility Evaluation Reports and related requirements for coal combustion residuals facilities. In most instances, the deadlines have been moved one or two years out.
And finally, EPA announced a final rule eliminating the 2009 Endangerment Finding and related greenhouse gas emission requirements for on-highway vehicles and vehicle engines. When the final rule takes effect, manufacturers and importers of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines will no longer have to measure, report, certify, or comply with federal greenhouse gas emission standards.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
Effective date: February 14, 2026
This applies to: Open and closed municipal solid waste landfills
Description of change: The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission added Regulation 31, which establishes new emission control and monitoring requirements for municipal solid waste landfills. Applicability is based on the landfill’s amount of waste it holds and methane emissions.
Significant changes implemented by Regulation 31 include:
Related state info: Clean air operating permits state comparison
Effective date: January 20, 2026
This applies to: Participating entities
Description of change: The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) revised the Voluntary Environmental Self-Audit Program rules in January 2026. Some of the changes include:
Effective date: March 11, 2026
This applies to: Construction activities that discharge stormwater into Waters of the State
Description of change: The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) revised the Delaware National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit (CGP), which implements the DNREC Sediment and Stormwater Management Program.
It applies to construction activities that plan to disturb 1 or more acres (or activities that plan to disturb less than 1 acre but are part of a larger common plan of development or sale that will disturb more than 1 acre) that discharge stormwater to Waters of the State.
The DNREC made minimal changes to the NPDES CGP. The 2026 NPDES CGP will provide coverage for 5 years.
Related state info: Construction water permitting — Delaware
Effective date: February 1, 2026
This applies to: Water right holders who divert more than 10 acre-feet per year
Description of change: The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) updated the Water Measurement and Reporting Regulation (SB 88) with changes primarily affecting reporting requirements, such as:
Updated measuring and reporting requirements take effect on October 1, 2026.
On March 5, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed rule to end the use of paper hazardous waste manifests and require waste handlers to use electronic manifests on the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest (e-Manifest) System to track all shipments of hazardous waste regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
What are the proposed changes?
EPA proposes to “sunset” (i.e., phase out) the use of paper manifests and shift to using only electronic manifests (either fully electronic or hybrid) to track RCRA hazardous waste shipments.
The sunset compliance date would be 2 years from the publication date of a final rule. On and after the sunset compliance date, EPA would no longer accept paper hazardous waste manifests (image-only and data-plus-image submission types). In other words, regulated waste handlers would have to use fully electronic or hybrid manifests on the e-Manifest System for all hazardous waste shipments initiated on and after the sunset compliance date.
Who would be impacted?
The proposed rule would affect waste handlers involved in manifesting hazardous waste, including:
Many of the proposed changes would align RCRA regulations with the shift to electronic-only manifesting and with the 2024 e-Manifest Third Rule’s changes. The proposed rule also contains technical corrections to import and export regulations.
Additionally, EPA’s proposed rule would add requirements for:
Examples of these requirements include:
EPA will accept public comments on the proposed rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2025-3456) through May 4, 2026.
Key to remember: EPA proposes to end the use of paper manifests and require waste handlers to use electronic manifests to track all RCRA hazardous waste shipments.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued an administrative continuance of the 2021 Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) and a No Action Assurance memorandum for industrial stormwater discharges regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
The 2021 MSGP expired on February 28, 2026. However, because EPA hasn’t reissued a new permit to replace the expired permit, the 2021 MSGP remains in effect for facilities previously covered. Additionally, the No Action Assurance allows facilities without previous coverage to discharge industrial stormwater in compliance with the 2021 MSGP.
Who’s affected?
Facilities are required to obtain MSGPs for stormwater discharges from industrial activities in areas where EPA is the permitting authority, including:
What do existing facilities do?
The administrative continuance automatically applies to existing facilities that were actively covered by the 2021 MSGP before it expired. The facility’s coverage status should show “Admin. Continued” in the NPDES eReporting Tool (NeT-MSGP).
Facilities will remain covered by the 2021 MSGP until EPA issues a new MSGP and the facilities obtain coverage under the new MSGP. Until then, existing facilities should continue to comply with the 2021 MSGP requirements.
EPA will provide further guidance on renewing coverage when it issues the new MSGP.
What do new facilities do?
New facilities can’t obtain coverage under the MSGP until EPA issues a new permit. However, EPA issued a memorandum on February 27, 2026, establishing a No Action Assurance. The agency won’t take enforcement action against new facilities for unpermitted stormwater discharges if the facilities meet specific conditions.
The No Action Assurance extends from March 1, 2026, to the new MSGP’s effective date.
Applicability
EPA’s No Action Assurance applies to facilities that:
The assurance doesn’t apply to existing facilities that started stormwater discharges before February 28, 2026, without obtaining 2021 MSGP coverage.
Conditions
To be covered by the No Action Assurance, new facilities have to:
What’s next?
Once EPA issues the new MSGP, facilities planning to continue industrial stormwater discharges must submit a new NOI through Net-MSGP within 90 days of the new MSGP’s effective date to obtain coverage under the new MSGP.
EPA provides guidance for existing and new facilities on its “Administrative Continuance of EPA’s 2021 MSGP” webpage.
Key to remember: EPA has temporarily extended coverage under the 2021 MSGP for industrial stormwater discharges until the agency issues a new general permit.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule on February 27, 2026, extending the submission deadline for the 2025 annual greenhouse gas (GHG) report from March to October 2026.
Who’s impacted?
The final rule applies to facilities regulated by the GHG Reporting Program (GHGRP) at 40 CFR Part 98. Generally, the GHGRP’s annual reporting requirement applies to three types of reporters:
What’s the change?
The final rule extends the submission deadline for the reporting year (RY) 2025 annual GHG report from March 31, 2026, to October 30, 2026. The delay applies only to RY 2025.
EPA explains in the final rule that delaying the submission deadline for the RY 2025 GHG report gives the agency time to take final action on the proposed revisions to the GHGRP (published in September 2025).
What does the GHG report cover?
The GHGRP requires facilities to report GHG data and other related information covering the previous calendar year.
The subparts under Part 98 contain the reporting requirements, and regulated facilities must report emissions for all applicable source categories. Reporters must use specific methods to calculate GHG emissions, which are detailed in the regulations; they can usually choose from a collection of methods.
Key to remember: EPA’s final rule delays the submission deadline for the 2025 annual GHG report from March to October 2026.
“Road Closed Ahead.” That’s the sign that now stands at the entrance of the regulatory road leading to the federal greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for vehicle and engine manufacturers.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule on February 18, 2026, to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repeal all GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines. The final rule applies to vehicles and engines of model years 2012 to 2027 and beyond.
This overview will help you navigate EPA’s final rule that puts GHG emission requirements for vehicles in the rearview mirror.
Manufacturers (including importers) of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines will no longer have future obligations to measure, control, report, or comply with federal GHG emission standards.
Specifically, the final rule removes the requirements for controlling GHG emissions, which include:
Additionally, the final rule eliminates off-cycle credits for manufacturers that added certain technologies to their vehicles and engines (like waste heat recovery) and EPA’s incentives for manufacturers to install a start-stop system (which automatically shuts off a vehicle’s engine when idling).
The final rule takes effect on April 20, 2026. However, a legal challenge has already been brought against the rulemaking, and more litigation is likely.
It’s important to keep an eye on the status of the rule. Legal challenges could result in changes to the rule, such as delaying its effective date.
The final rule repeals all GHG emission regulations in 40 CFR:
The road to reversal begins in 2009. That’s when EPA issued two findings: the Endangerment Finding and the Cause or Contribute Finding. Collectively, these findings are referred to as the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The agency used the 2009 Endangerment Finding as the legal basis under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines based on global climate change concerns.
However, upon reconsideration, EPA no longer believes that it has the statutory authority under Section 202(a) of the CAA to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines in response to global climate change concerns. The agency bases its determination on three factors:
By rescinding the Endangerment Finding, EPA has no legal basis to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines. Accordingly, the final rule also repeals all GHG emission standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines.
Key to remember: EPA’s final rule eliminates the 2009 Endangerment Finding and the related GHG emission requirements for on-highway vehicles and vehicle engines.
On February 24, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule repealing the 2024 amendments made to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (EGUs). It’s also referred to as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for power plants.
Effective April 27, 2026, this rule (2026 Final Rule) repeals stricter compliance requirements made to the MATS rule in May 2024 (2024 Final Rule) and reverts them to the less stringent standards established by the 2012 MATS Rule.
Who’s affected?
The rule applies to power plants with coal- and oil-fired EGUs subject to the NESHAP (40 CFR 63 Subpart UUUUU).
What are the changes?
The final rule repeals these 2024 amendments:
The 2026 Final Rule also reinstates the low-emitting EGU (LEE) program for fPM and non-Hg HAP metals. The LEE program requires less frequent stack testing for sources with emissions below 50 percent of the corresponding limit for 3 consecutive years.
Further, EPA’s final rule updates the fPM sampling requirements for EGUs that demonstrate compliance with a PM CEMS. These units must collect either a minimum catch of 6.0 milligrams or a minimum sample volume of 4 dry standard cubic meters (dscm) per test run. EGUs demonstrating compliance using other methods must collect a lower minimum sample volume of 1 dscm per PM test run.
| Compliance requirement | 2024 Final Rule | 2026 Final Rule |
|---|---|---|
| fPM emission limit for existing coal-fired EGUs | 0.010 pounds per million British thermal units of heat input (lb/MMBtu) | 0.030 lb/MMBTu |
| fPM emission compliance demonstration for all coal-and oil-fired EGUs | EGUs must use PM CEMS. | EGUs may use:
|
| Hg emission limit for existing lignite-fired EGUs | 1.2 pounds per trillion British thermal units of heat input (lb/TBtu) | 4.0 lb/TBtu |
Per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) pose one of the most urgent and complex challenges for wastewater systems in the United States. As federal agencies reconsider their regulatory strategies and states impose their own standards, publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and the industries that discharge to them face increasing pressure to control PFAS at the source. These pressures affect pretreatment permits, industrial dischargers, and biosolids management, forming a rapidly evolving compliance landscape. Recent federal assessments and state actions show that PFAS in wastewater and biosolids is no longer a distant regulatory issue. It is a primary driver shaping future POTW permitting.
PFAS enter POTWs through a mix of industrial wastewater, landfill leachate, household products, and consumer goods. Because PFAS are persistent and resistant to conventional treatment, they pass through biological processes largely unchanged. This means industrial contributors sending PFAS to a POTW can cause downstream compliance problems, even at low concentrations. EPA has emphasized that the best way to manage PFAS in wastewater is to prevent the chemicals from entering treatment systems in the first place, placing new attention on upstream industrial sources.
EPA’s 2025 trajectory indicates broader PFAS rulemaking is coming under several environmental statutes, including the Clean Water Act (CWA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act, although the federal landscape remains in flux. Still, agencies agree on one point: pretreatment programs will be an essential component of PFAS control.
Pretreatment permits regulate indirect dischargers, meaning industrial facilities that send wastewater to POTWs instead of directly to surface waters. These permits already manage pollutants that interfere with treatment or pass through into receiving waters. Now, PFAS has become a central focus.
States and POTWs are increasingly requiring:
EPA’s PFAS strategy specifically encourages states and POTWs to deploy all available pretreatment authorities to control PFAS at the source. This approach aligns with statements from EPA representatives asserting that upstream controls are one of the most effective tools for preventing PFAS from entering wastewater systems.
The PFAS problem does not end with liquid effluent. It extends into biosolids, the treated sewage sludge generated by POTWs. In 2025, EPA released a Draft Sewage Sludge Risk Assessment evaluating risks associated with PFOS and PFOA in biosolids applied to land. The assessment found potential human health risks under certain scenarios when biosolid concentrations exceeded 1 part per billion. Although EPA emphasized the assessment is not a regulatory standard, many states immediately treated the value as a de facto limit for biosolid land application.
This rapid adoption has created a challenging environment for POTWs. Unless PFAS inputs from industrial sources are reduced, biosolid PFAS levels remain high, limiting disposal options such as:
Some states have already implemented bans or strict standards on biosolid land application due to PFAS concerns.
EPA’s PFAS regulatory posture has shifted several times. In 2025, EPA announced its intent to rescind certain PFAS drinking water designations while maintaining standards for PFOS and PFOA, signaling continued reassessment of its overall PFAS approach. These actions underscore the unsettled nature of federal rulemaking.
Meanwhile, the 2021 PFAS Strategic Roadmap and its subsequent progress updates outline multiple forthcoming actions under the CWA, including potential effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) for PFAS manufacturers and metal finishers. These ELGs, if finalized, would apply to industrial direct and indirect dischargers and shape pretreatment standards nationwide. Yet, as of early 2026, EPA has not finalized technology based effluent limits for PFAS nor established national PFAS biosolids requirements, leaving states to fill the regulatory void.
Despite uncertainty, actions today can reduce long term liability:
POTWs should also coordinate with state environmental agencies, which continue to implement PFAS restrictions independent of federal action.
Pretreatment programs and biosolids management are becoming central to U.S. PFAS compliance. POTWs sit at the intersection of regulatory expectations, industrial discharges, and community concerns. While federal PFAS rules remain in development, state actions and EPA’s strategic direction make one fact clear: controlling PFAS at the source is essential.
Key to remember: For both industrial users and POTWs, proactive PFAS management is no longer optional. It is a core element of future permitting, planning, and risk reduction.
Recent changes in federal environmental policy have created uncertainty for regulated industries. When federal agencies slow rulemaking, reduce enforcement, or narrow requirements, states often step in. As a result, states are taking a stronger role in setting environmental rules, especially on climate change, air quality, and environmental justice.
This shift is changing how industrial facilities understand and manage regulatory risks.
Several states have moved to the front of environmental policymaking. California is the most well-known example. Through the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the state enforces air and climate rules that go beyond federal standards. These include strict vehicle emissions limits and greenhouse gas controls for industrial sources. Because California’s economy is so large, its rules often shape compliance decisions across the country.
Other states are following similar paths. For example, New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act sets clear, enforceable emissions-reduction goals. It also requires agencies to consider climate and environmental justice impacts during permitting. Washington has adopted a cap-and-invest program that limits carbon emissions from major sources and fuel suppliers.
For industrial operators, state-led regulation adds complexity and risk. Companies with facilities in multiple states may face very different rules, timelines, and reporting requirements. Meeting federal standards alone may no longer be enough.
Facilities can still fall out of compliance with state rules covering air emissions, water discharges, waste management, or community impacts. These differences can affect permitting schedules, capital planning, and long-term site decisions.
State enforcement is often more focused and, in many cases, more stringent than federal enforcement. Many states are increasing inspections and placing greater emphasis on environmental justice.
Facilities located near overburdened or historically impacted communities may face closer review, even when federal enforcement activity is limited.
To operate successfully in this environment, companies need a proactive approach. Tracking state regulatory changes is essential, since states often move faster than federal agencies. Building compliance programs around the most stringent applicable rules can reduce long-term risk.
Early engagement with state regulators and local communities can also make a difference. Open communication can improve relationships, reduce conflict, and support smoother permitting outcomes.
For industrial facilities, success now depends less on watching Washington and more on understanding the growing influence of state capitals.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule on February 18, 2026, to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repeal all federal greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for:
The final rule takes effect on April 20, 2026, and applies to vehicles and engines of model years 2012 to 2027 and beyond.
What are the changes?
Manufacturers (including importers) of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines no longer have to measure, report, or comply with federal GHG emission standards. The final rule removes all GHG emission regulations in 40 CFR:
The final rule also eliminates:
What doesn’t change?
EPA’s following regulations remain in effect for new motor vehicles and vehicle engines:
About the 2009 Endangerment Finding
In 2009, EPA issued two findings: the Endangerment Finding and the Cause or Contribute Finding. Collectively, these findings are referred to as the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The agency used the 2009 Endangerment Finding as the legal basis to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
EPA regulated GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines through:
However, upon reconsideration, EPA stated that it no longer believes it has the statutory authority under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines. Therefore, the agency has simultaneously rescinded the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repealed the related federal GHG emission regulations.
Key to remember: EPA's final rule eliminates the 2009 Endangerment Finding and the related GHG emission requirements for on-highway vehicles and vehicle engines.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule that extends the deadlines for Facility Evaluation Reports (FERs) required for active and inactive coal combustion residuals (CCR) facilities. The final rule also delays compliance deadlines for related requirements that apply to CCR facilities with CCR management units (CCRMUs).
Who’s impacted?
The final rule applies to:
The 2024 Legacy Final Rule (40 CFR Part 257 Subpart D) requires active CCR facilities and legacy CCR surface impoundments to submit FER Part 1 and FER Part 2, identifying any CCRMUs of 1 ton or more on-site. CCRMUs include previously unregulated CCR surface impoundments and landfills that closed before October 19, 2015, as well as inactive CCR landfills.
Additionally, the 2024 Legacy Final Rule requires facilities with CCRMUs to:
What are the changes?
EPA’s final rule extends compliance deadlines for the following standards:
| Compliance requirement(s) | 2024 Legacy Final Rule deadline | 2026 final rule new deadline |
|---|---|---|
| Establish CCR website | February 9, 2026 | February 9, 2027 |
| Submit FER Part 1 | February 9, 2026 | February 9, 2027 |
| Submit FER Part 2 | February 8, 2027 | February 8, 2028 |
| Install groundwater monitoring system | May 8, 2028 | February 10, 2031 |
| Develop groundwater sampling and analysis program | May 8, 2028 | February 10, 2031 |
| May 8, 2028 | February 10, 2031 |
| Submit initial GWMCA report | January 31, 2029 | January 31, 2032 |
| Submit closure plan | November 8, 2028 | August 11, 2031 |
| Submit post-closure care plan | November 8, 2028 | August 11, 2031 |
| Initiate closure | May 8, 2029 | February 9, 2032 |
How do businesses keep confidential information “off the record”? Companies that are required to report on federally regulated chemical substances may soon face this question, as the first round of confidential business information (CBI) claims starts expiring in June 2026.
Thankfully, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has answered how to keep CBI off the record. On January 6, 2026, the agency published in the Federal Register the process to request extensions of expiring CBI claims for information submitted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Here’s what you need to know.
Businesses that seek to extend a CBI claim beyond its expiration date must submit an extension request. The Federal Register notice describes the following general process:
1. EPA notifies the entity of an expiring CBI claim.
The agency will publish a list of TSCA submissions with expiring CBI claims on the Confidential Business Information Under TSCA (TSCA CBI) website at least 60 days before the claims expire.
EPA will also notify submitters directly through its online Central Data Exchange (CDX). Verify that your company’s contact information on CDX is updated!
Submitters with CBI claims for specific chemical identities should reference the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (column EXP) to confirm expiration dates.
2. The entity submits an extension request.
The extension request for an expiring CBI claim includes:
EPA lists the general questions that apply to all CBI claims at 703.5(b)(3). Additional questions at 703.5(b)(4) apply to entities claiming CBI for specific chemical identities.
Businesses must submit the extension through EPA’s CDX at least 30 days before the CBI claim expires. The agency is currently developing a new application on CDX for submitting extension requests, which it plans to launch before CBI claims begin expiring in June 2026.
If there’s a delay, EPA will notify submitters on the TSCA CBI website. Additionally, the agency won’t publicize any information from expiring CBI claims until businesses have the opportunity to submit extension requests and the agency reviews them.
3. EPA reviews the extension request.
If the agency approves the extension request, the information in the CBI claim will remain protected for up to another 10 years.
If the agency denies the extension request, the information in the CBI claim can be publicized once the claim expires. EPA will notify submitters of denied claims through CDX at least 30 days before it plans to disclose the information.
Regulated entities have three ways to address expiring CBI claims:
Keep in mind that if you withdraw a CBI claim or allow it to expire, EPA can publicize this information without notifying you beforehand.
The CBI extension request process applies to companies that have made CBI claims under TSCA on or after June 22, 2016.
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (signed into law on June 22, 2016) made amendments to TSCA, including adding a 10-year expiration date to CBI claims.
Key to remember: EPA established the process for entities to request extensions of expiring CBI claims for information submitted under TSCA.
Submitting accurate air emissions inventories (AEIs) is essential for regulatory compliance, public transparency, and long-term environmental planning. Yet companies routinely make mistakes that delay approvals, trigger enforcement, or compromise data quality. Many of these errors stem from misunderstanding the reporting rules, such as the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA’s) Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) and Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). Awareness of these pitfalls helps facilities avoid compliance failures and improve emission tracking systems.
One of the most common errors is failing to understand which pollutants must be included. Under the AERR, states and delegated agencies must report annual emissions of criteria air pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and ammonia. These pollutants drive national air quality planning and modeling.
However, many companies overlook hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). While past AERR rules made HAP reporting voluntary, EPA’s proposed revisions would require annual HAP reporting for many sources starting in 2027, significantly expanding reporting duties. Failing to include HAP data or assuming it's still voluntary is a growing compliance risk.
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are another reporting blind spot. The GHGRP requires large emitters and certain suppliers to report carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, and other GHGs each year. Companies often assume GHG reporting applies only to the largest industries, yet thousands of facilities fall within the rule’s thresholds.
Facilities often make calculation errors when converting raw activity data into emissions. Many rely on outdated emission factors or incomplete process data. EPA urges states and regulated entities to use standardized estimation guidance from the Air Emissions Inventory Improvement Program whenever possible. But companies may choose default factors without confirming they apply to the specific process, control efficiency, fuel type, or measurement method.
Under EPA’s proposed AERR revisions, if approved, the agency will require more detailed stack information, such as release point coordinates, exhaust parameters, control device data, and stack test results. Failure to collect these details early can lead to rushed estimates or missing data.
Another major issue is misidentifying emission sources. The AERR distinguishes between point, nonpoint, mobile, and portable sources. Mislabeling a source may cause a facility to submit incomplete inventories or fail to meet the required reporting frequency. For example, point sources often require annual reporting, while nonpoint sources may follow triennial schedules.
Similarly, GHGRP reporting is broken into numerous subparts that define equipment types, fuel suppliers, industrial processes, and CO2 injection activities. Companies sometimes choose the wrong subpart or assume their process is exempt, leading to incomplete data submissions.
Both the AERR and GHGRP have emission-based thresholds. Companies frequently make errors when determining:
These mistakes usually occur when internal data systems lack consistent tracking or when actual emissions deviate from "potential to emit" estimates used in permitting.
EPA requires extensive documentation for emission calculations, monitoring methods, stack tests, control equipment operation, and assumptions. GHGRP rules include detailed monitoring, Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC), missing data, and record retention requirements. Under proposed AERR rules, companies would also need to submit performance test and evaluation data. Missing or incomplete records often lead to rejected inventories.
Both the AERR and GHGRP are undergoing major revisions. EPA’s proposed AERR updates aim to convert some triennial reporting to annual schedules, add HAP reporting, expand mobile source requirements, and require more detailed facility-level data. Meanwhile, the GHGRP is facing proposed cuts that would eliminate reporting requirements for many source categories while delaying petroleum and natural gas reporting until 2034.
Companies that rely on outdated guidance or assume reporting rules remain static are at risk of major compliance failures.
Avoiding common errors begins with three fundamentals:
Key to Remember: Accurate air emissions inventories play a crucial role in protecting public health, supporting air quality regulation, and demonstrating corporate responsibility. By understanding the most common pitfalls, companies can improve compliance and reduce costly reporting errors.
Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news. Let’s take a look at what happened over the past month.
Chemical manufacturers, importers, distributors, and employers will have an extra four months to comply with the provisions of OSHA’s revised Hazard Communication standard. When the rule was revised in 2024, it contained staggered compliance dates for those who classify or use chemical substances and mixtures. The first compliance date is now May 19 rather than January 19 of 2026.
On January 8, OSHA issued further technical corrections to its Hazard Communication final rule. An initial set of corrections was published in October 2024, and OSHA continued to review the standard for errors. The agency said these corrections should reduce confusion during the chemical classification process and prevent errors on labels and safety data sheets.
In 2024, private industry employers reported 2.5 million nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This is down 3.1 percent from 2023 and largely due to a decrease in respiratory illnesses. The greatest number of cases involving days away from work, job restriction, or transfer were caused by overexertion, repetitive motion, and bodily conditions, followed by contact incidents.
Registration is open for OSHA’s Safety Champions Program, which is designed to help employers develop and implement effective safety and health programs. Participants can work at their own pace through Introductory, Intermediate, and Advanced levels.
Turning to environmental news, on January 9, EPA withdrew its direct final rule on SDS/Tier II reporting tied to OSHA HazCom, before it had a chance to take effect. The direct final rule was published back on November 17, 2025, and was intended to relax the Tier II and safety data sheet reporting requirements and align with OSHA’s HazCom standard. EPA said it plans to write a new rule addressing all public comments.
And finally, EPA published a final rule that changes certain requirements for wastewater discharges from coal-fired steam electric power plants. It applies to the deadlines established by the preceding rule finalized in 2024.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
It’s wintertime, and many construction sites across the U.S. face unique challenges that the season brings, especially keeping workers warm! However, one challenge that construction sites face year-round is how to keep stormwater runoff (whether it’s generated by snowmelt or rain) from transporting pollutants off-site into nearby waterways.
Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater program (40 CFR Part 450), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires construction site operators to obtain a permit to discharge stormwater runoff into waters of the United States from any construction activity that disturbs:
Construction sites must implement best management practices (BMPs), which are controls and activities used to prevent stormwater pollution. Erosion controls and sediment controls are the two leading types of BMPs that construction sites have to apply.
Understanding the differences between erosion controls and sediment controls (and how they function together) will help you choose the most effective BMPs to reduce stormwater pollution at your construction site.
Both types of controls are important, but their functions are distinct. Construction sites should use erosion controls as the primary method and sediment controls as the backup method to reduce stormwater pollution.
Erosion controls prevent the land from wearing away. These measures stop soil particles from being dislodged and transported by stormwater or wind. Erosion controls are the first line of defense against stormwater pollution.
Erosion control examples include:
Sediment controls capture soil particles that have been dislodged (i.e., eroded) before stormwater or wind moves them off the construction site. Sediment controls are the second line of defense, serving as backup BMPs.
Examples of sediment controls are:
Common BMP examples
EPA’s “National Menu of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Stormwater-Construction” webpage details erosion controls and sediment controls frequently used at construction sites, including (but not limited to) the following:
| Erosion control BMPs | Sediment control BMPs |
|---|---|
|
|
The most effective way to control stormwater pollution at construction sites is by applying a selection of erosion controls and sediment controls that are coordinated to work together. Consider these examples:
Most states issue NPDES construction stormwater permits. Check the permit to confirm erosion control and sediment control requirements, as they may be more stringent at the state level.
Additionally, some local governments may impose requirements on construction sites. However, unless the local program is designated as a qualifying local program, compliance with local regulations may not mean that your construction site is compliant with EPA’s rules (and vice versa). Confirm with the local government whether additional requirements apply.
Key to remember: Construction sites must implement erosion controls and sediment controls to prevent stormwater pollution.
When the topic of dust is brought up, the conversation usually starts and ends with worker exposure. How much is in the air? Is ventilation adequate? Are employees protected? Once that dust has been captured and removed from the process, the critical question shifts: how should this material be classified and disposed of? That’s where many facilities run into trouble. Collected dust may no longer be floating in the air, but it hasn’t stopped being regulated. In fact, once it’s captured, dust often enters a much more complicated regulatory world.
Under EPA regulations, most collected dust qualifies as a solid waste once it’s removed from a dust collector, hopper, or filter. And despite the name, “solid waste” doesn’t mean solid, benign, or harmless. It simply means a discarded material. At that point, facilities are expected to determine whether the dust is hazardous or non-hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This determination is based on what the dust contains, not how dusty it looks or how long it has been managed that way. Dust generated from metalworking, surface coatings, chemical processing, plastics, or specialty manufacturing can contain regulated constituents such as heavy metals or chemical residues. In these cases, facilities are required to make a waste determination using process knowledge, testing, or a combination of both. This step is often overlooked. Many companies assume that if dust has not caused problems in the past, it must be non-hazardous. Unfortunately, regulators do not accept assumptions as documentation. If there’s no clear waste determination on file, that alone can be cited during an inspection. Misclassifying dust can also have ripple effects. If collected dust is later found to be hazardous, the facility may face issues related to improper disposal, incorrect generator status, or even cleanup liability at the disposal site. What began as a routine housekeeping task can suddenly become a significant compliance issue.
Even when dust is correctly identified as non-hazardous, it still needs to be managed properly. Open containers, poor labeling, and inconsistent handling practices are common findings during inspections. These issues are often viewed as minor, but they can quickly escalate if dust is released, mixed with other waste streams, or stored improperly. Recycling adds another layer of complexity. Many facilities recycle metal dusts or other recoverable materials, which can be a smart environmental and economic decision. However, recyclable does not mean unregulated. Dust being recycled still needs to be stored safely, managed to prevent releases, and documented as legitimate recycling. Without proper controls, regulators may view the material as improperly managed waste. Outdoor storage creates additional risk. Dust stored outside, transferred outdoors, or tracked out of the building can easily become a stormwater concern. Even non-hazardous dust can be considered a pollutant if it migrates off-site during rain events. This is a frequent source of violations under stormwater permits and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP), especially when dust management isn’t addressed in the plan. Another common issue is mixing dust with general trash or other waste streams. Once mixed, otherwise manageable dust can become more difficult or impossible to classify correctly. This can complicate disposal, increase costs, and raise questions during audits or inspections. What makes dust especially challenging is that responsibility for it often falls into a gray area. Safety teams may assume environmental is managing disposal. Environmental teams may assume safety has already classified the material. When no one clearly owns the waste determination and disposal process, gaps are almost guaranteed. The most effective facilities treat dust as a waste stream that deserves the same attention as any other regulated material. They document waste determinations, define storage and labeling requirements, train employees on proper handling, and periodically revisit those determinations as processes change.
Keys to remember: Captured dust doesn’t stop being regulated once it leaves the air. Understanding whether collected dust is hazardous or non-hazardous, how it must be stored, and where it can legally go is essential to staying compliant.
This applies to: Construction air permit applicants
Effective date: April 1, 2026
Description of change: The New Source Review (NSR) construction permit program requires applicants to obtain an NSR permit before constructing, reconstructing, replacing, relocating, or modifying stationary sources that emit air contaminants. The amendments:
Related state info: Clean air operating permits state comparison

ENTER THE INSTITUTE
Be your company’s leading compliance authority with a robust library of articles, videos, and practical exercises designed to grow your knowledge of 120+ regulatory subjects.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule on February 27, 2026, extending the submission deadline for the 2025 annual greenhouse gas (GHG) report from March to October 2026.
Who’s impacted?
The final rule applies to facilities regulated by the GHG Reporting Program (GHGRP) at 40 CFR Part 98. Generally, the GHGRP’s annual reporting requirement applies to three types of reporters:
What’s the change?
The final rule extends the submission deadline for the reporting year (RY) 2025 annual GHG report from March 31, 2026, to October 30, 2026. The delay applies only to RY 2025.
EPA explains in the final rule that delaying the submission deadline for the RY 2025 GHG report gives the agency time to take final action on the proposed revisions to the GHGRP (published in September 2025).
What does the GHG report cover?
The GHGRP requires facilities to report GHG data and other related information covering the previous calendar year.
The subparts under Part 98 contain the reporting requirements, and regulated facilities must report emissions for all applicable source categories. Reporters must use specific methods to calculate GHG emissions, which are detailed in the regulations; they can usually choose from a collection of methods.
Key to remember: EPA’s final rule delays the submission deadline for the 2025 annual GHG report from March to October 2026.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued an administrative continuance of the 2021 Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) and a No Action Assurance memorandum for industrial stormwater discharges regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
The 2021 MSGP expired on February 28, 2026. However, because EPA hasn’t reissued a new permit to replace the expired permit, the 2021 MSGP remains in effect for facilities previously covered. Additionally, the No Action Assurance allows facilities without previous coverage to discharge industrial stormwater in compliance with the 2021 MSGP.
Who’s affected?
Facilities are required to obtain MSGPs for stormwater discharges from industrial activities in areas where EPA is the permitting authority, including:
What do existing facilities do?
The administrative continuance automatically applies to existing facilities that were actively covered by the 2021 MSGP before it expired. The facility’s coverage status should show “Admin. Continued” in the NPDES eReporting Tool (NeT-MSGP).
Facilities will remain covered by the 2021 MSGP until EPA issues a new MSGP and the facilities obtain coverage under the new MSGP. Until then, existing facilities should continue to comply with the 2021 MSGP requirements.
EPA will provide further guidance on renewing coverage when it issues the new MSGP.
What do new facilities do?
New facilities can’t obtain coverage under the MSGP until EPA issues a new permit. However, EPA issued a memorandum on February 27, 2026, establishing a No Action Assurance. The agency won’t take enforcement action against new facilities for unpermitted stormwater discharges if the facilities meet specific conditions.
The No Action Assurance extends from March 1, 2026, to the new MSGP’s effective date.
Applicability
EPA’s No Action Assurance applies to facilities that:
The assurance doesn’t apply to existing facilities that started stormwater discharges before February 28, 2026, without obtaining 2021 MSGP coverage.
Conditions
To be covered by the No Action Assurance, new facilities have to:
What’s next?
Once EPA issues the new MSGP, facilities planning to continue industrial stormwater discharges must submit a new NOI through Net-MSGP within 90 days of the new MSGP’s effective date to obtain coverage under the new MSGP.
EPA provides guidance for existing and new facilities on its “Administrative Continuance of EPA’s 2021 MSGP” webpage.
Key to remember: EPA has temporarily extended coverage under the 2021 MSGP for industrial stormwater discharges until the agency issues a new general permit.
Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news. Let’s take a look at what happened over the past month.
Fatal work injuries fell 4 percent in 2024, largely due to a decline in workplace drug- and alcohol-related overdoses. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, overdose fatalities fell from 512 in 2023 to 410 in 2024. Across all types of workplace incidents, there were 5,070 fatal work injuries in 2024, compared to 5,283 in 2023. Transportation incidents continue to be the most frequent type of fatal event, accounting for over 38 percent of all occupational fatalities in 2024.
OSHA is fast-tracking a proposal to remove the 2036 obligation to upgrade fall protection systems on fixed ladders that extend over 24 feet. This follows an industry petition from major chemical and petroleum industry groups, which argue the provision is unjustified, costly, and not supported by the rulemaking record. OSHA frames the upcoming proposed action as deregulatory, allowing employers to update fixed ladders at the end of their service lives. We’ll provide updates as more information becomes available.
As OSHA leans into “deregulatory” actions, lawmakers are moving to pressure the agency to issue “regulatory” rulemaking to protect American workers. The latest legislative wave of bills aims to fill regulatory gaps, tackle emerging hazards, expand OSHA authority, and raise penalties. Topics addressed by these bills include musculoskeletal disorders, heat stress, infectious diseases, wildfire smoke, and workplace violence.
In a recently issued letter of interpretation, OSHA states that a burn injury caused by a personal lithium-ion battery fire is work related if it occurs in the workplace during assigned working hours. The letter details an incident where an employee was burned when their rechargeable lithium-ion batteries for e-cigarettes sparked a fire after coming into contact with a key used for work.
A new report from the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General concludes that OSHA struggles to meet its mission, particularly in high-risk industries like healthcare, construction, and manufacturing. Several pages point to OSHA’s difficulties in effectively enforcing annual injury and illness reporting requirements, reaching the nation’s high-risk worksites for inspection, and addressing workplace violence by regulatory or other action.
Turning to environmental news, EPA extended the deadlines for Facility Evaluation Reports and related requirements for coal combustion residuals facilities. In most instances, the deadlines have been moved one or two years out.
And finally, EPA announced a final rule eliminating the 2009 Endangerment Finding and related greenhouse gas emission requirements for on-highway vehicles and vehicle engines. When the final rule takes effect, manufacturers and importers of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines will no longer have to measure, report, certify, or comply with federal greenhouse gas emission standards.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
On March 5, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed rule to end the use of paper hazardous waste manifests and require waste handlers to use electronic manifests on the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest (e-Manifest) System to track all shipments of hazardous waste regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
What are the proposed changes?
EPA proposes to “sunset” (i.e., phase out) the use of paper manifests and shift to using only electronic manifests (either fully electronic or hybrid) to track RCRA hazardous waste shipments.
The sunset compliance date would be 2 years from the publication date of a final rule. On and after the sunset compliance date, EPA would no longer accept paper hazardous waste manifests (image-only and data-plus-image submission types). In other words, regulated waste handlers would have to use fully electronic or hybrid manifests on the e-Manifest System for all hazardous waste shipments initiated on and after the sunset compliance date.
Who would be impacted?
The proposed rule would affect waste handlers involved in manifesting hazardous waste, including:
Many of the proposed changes would align RCRA regulations with the shift to electronic-only manifesting and with the 2024 e-Manifest Third Rule’s changes. The proposed rule also contains technical corrections to import and export regulations.
Additionally, EPA’s proposed rule would add requirements for:
Examples of these requirements include:
EPA will accept public comments on the proposed rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2025-3456) through May 4, 2026.
Key to remember: EPA proposes to end the use of paper manifests and require waste handlers to use electronic manifests to track all RCRA hazardous waste shipments.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule on February 18, 2026, to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repeal all federal greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for:
The final rule takes effect on April 20, 2026, and applies to vehicles and engines of model years 2012 to 2027 and beyond.
What are the changes?
Manufacturers (including importers) of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines no longer have to measure, report, or comply with federal GHG emission standards. The final rule removes all GHG emission regulations in 40 CFR:
The final rule also eliminates:
What doesn’t change?
EPA’s following regulations remain in effect for new motor vehicles and vehicle engines:
About the 2009 Endangerment Finding
In 2009, EPA issued two findings: the Endangerment Finding and the Cause or Contribute Finding. Collectively, these findings are referred to as the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The agency used the 2009 Endangerment Finding as the legal basis to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
EPA regulated GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines through:
However, upon reconsideration, EPA stated that it no longer believes it has the statutory authority under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines. Therefore, the agency has simultaneously rescinded the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repealed the related federal GHG emission regulations.
Key to remember: EPA's final rule eliminates the 2009 Endangerment Finding and the related GHG emission requirements for on-highway vehicles and vehicle engines.
Receiving facilities will experience higher charges for scanned images within the e-Manifest system during fiscal years 2024 and 2025. These updated rates aim to boost a complete transition to electronic submissions. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) creates these charges based on the method of manifest submission and the combined processing expenses for each manifest category. It is unsurprising that fully electronic and hybrid manifests come with notably lower costs.
The latest fees For fiscal years 2024 and 2025 (October 1, 2023, through September 30, 2025), the new user fees are as follows:
The application of user charges also aligns with the broader trend of digitization and modernization in regulatory procedures. By transitioning from paper-based manifest systems to digital platforms, the e-Manifest system trims administrative burdens, reduces the risk of errors, and expedites information flow. These user fees provide the resources to maintain and improve these digital capabilities. It benefits waste management stakeholders by streamlining reporting obligations and enhancing overall efficiency.
More on the user fees for the e-manifest system and amendments to manifest regulations
The Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act (e-Manifest Act) itself does not determine e-Manifest user fees; rather, it grants EPA the authority to establish user fees through regulations. The Final User Fee rule addresses the following key aspects:
| For more information see our EzExplanation on Hazardous waste manifests |
Key to remember: Receiving facilities will see increased user fees for scanned images in the e-Manifest system for fiscal years 2024 and 2025. Using fully electronic waste manifests will cost significantly less.
Nearly 2,000 truckers were removed from roadways this January in a brand-new inspection enforcement event called “Operation SafeDRIVE.”
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) partnered with state law enforcement to implement Operation SafeDRIVE, a high-visibility, 3-day event focused on reducing unsafe drivers and vehicles from the roads.
From January 13–15, 2026, Operation SafeDRIVE investigated routes across D.C. and 26 states. These targeted enforcement actions resulted in 8,215 inspections with:
The 26 states covered in addition to Washington D.C. in Operation SafeDRIVE’s scope included Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.
The goal of the operation was to make sure all drivers are properly qualified and that their vehicles meet all the regulations.
Great driver training doesn’t happen by accident. It requires clear preparation, professional presentation, energized delivery, and respect for your drivers’ time. By mastering these core practices, trainers can boost engagement, improve learning outcomes, and deliver sessions that truly stick.
Looking prepared goes well beyond having a solid lesson plan. It’s about presenting yourself in a way that builds confidence before the session begins.
Beginning your session at the scheduled time sends a clear message. It conveys that the training is important, and so are your drivers’ schedules. Starting late can frustrate those who arrived early or on time and can diminish your credibility before the session even begins. A timely start keeps the group focused and ready to learn.
Begin each session by helping drivers understand the purpose of the training and why it matters.
To craft an effective introduction, put yourself in your drivers’ place. If you were attending the session, what would you want to know about it before starting? Framing the session from the drivers’ perspective creates early engagement and helps participants see the session’s value.
A lack of enthusiasm can quickly drain energy from a training session, no matter how strong the content. Displaying confidence and passion for the topic demonstrates your belief in its importance. When drivers see that you care, they’re far more likely to stay engaged.
Running beyond the scheduled end time can make drivers restless and reduce the impact of your session. Plan to finish about 10 minutes early. This gives you flexibility for discussion, clarifications, or final questions, while still honoring everyone’s time. A timely wrap up helps ensure your session ends with clarity and confidence.
Key to remember: Applying these five core practices sets the foundation for efficient training sessions that keep drivers engaged and deliver lasting results.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has finalized a broad array of deregulatory changes affecting vehicle standards, inspection requirements, emergency equipment, licensing rules, and more.
Published February 19, 2026, the rule changes have limited impact but they represent the FMCSA’s first salvo at providing regulatory relief under the Trump administration. More rule changes are expected in the near future.
Motor carriers should review the changes now to determine how they might impact their operations. Except as noted, the new rules take effect on March 23, 2026:
Additional deregulatory actions proposed last May are still in process but are expected to be finalized soon. This includes rules to:
Key to remember: The FMCSA has finalized 12 deregulatory actions among 18 proposed in May 2025. The changes could save time and money for both motor carriers and drivers.
Most hazmat violations don’t start with bad paperwork or missing placards. They start with a simple question during a roadside inspection, followed by a pause. Inspectors aren’t always looking for a wrong answer. They’re trying to determine whether the driver understands why they made a certain decision. That expectation is tied to something DOT calls function-specific training, and it plays a bigger role in inspections than many drivers realize.
Function-specific training isn’t about memorizing regulations. It is about knowing how hazmat regulations apply to the work drivers perform on the road. When inspectors ask questions, they’re often evaluating whether the driver understands the hazmat functions tied to their role, not just whether the load looks compliant.
Hazmat general awareness training helps drivers recognize hazardous materials and understand basic requirements. Function-specific training goes a step further. For drivers, it focuses on tasks such as verifying shipping papers, maintaining placards, selecting safe parking locations, following routing restrictions, and responding appropriately when plans change.
Inspectors assume drivers understand these responsibilities because they are part of the driving job. When a driver cannot explain why a vehicle was parked in a certain location or why a specific route was chosen, the issue often becomes a training concern rather than a simple mistake.
Many training-related violations happen because drivers didn’t realize a rule applied to them. Parking and attendance are common examples. A driver may believe that locking the truck or parking in a familiar spot is sufficient. Inspectors expect drivers to know when attendance is required and how parking decisions affect public safety.
Routing decisions also reveal training gaps. Drivers who rely only on GPS may unknowingly travel through restricted areas. From an enforcement perspective, route selection is a driver function. Inspectors expect drivers to recognize when hazmat restrictions apply and when a route needs to be questioned.
In these situations, intent doesn’t matter. Inspectors focus on whether the driver was trained to perform the hazmat function correctly.
One of the most important points for drivers to understand is that hazmat training doesn’t end when the truck leaves the facility. Every decision made with a hazmat load is part of a regulated function. That includes where to stop, how long to stay parked, which route to take, and what to do when delays or breakdowns occur.
Drivers who understand this tend to pause and ask questions when something feels questionable. That pause often prevents violations. Drivers who treat hazmat loads like general freight are more likely to make decisions that inspectors challenge.
During roadside inspections, inspectors are not just checking for compliance. They are assessing whether the driver understands the hazmat responsibilities tied to their role. When a driver can clearly explain their decisions, inspections tend to go more smoothly. When they can’t, inspectors are more likely to dig deeper and conduct a more thorough inspection.
Key to remember: Drivers are expected to understand how hazmat regulations apply to the decisions they make every day on the road. When drivers see those decisions as part of their training responsibility, they are better prepared for inspections and less likely to be surprised by citations.
Motor carriers face two major pressures today: Keeping trucks staffed with qualified commercial drivers and reducing the risk of lawsuits after preventable crashes. As a result, driver screening is more important than ever.
After a crash, attorneys often review a carrier’s hiring and monitoring decisions and claim the company “should have known” a driver posed a safety risk. At the same time, ongoing driver shortages may tempt carriers to overlook warning signs found in motor vehicle records (MVRs) or pre-employment screening program (PSP) reports.
These challenges make it essential for carriers to build and consistently follow a clear, defensible scoring process for reviewing drivers.
Divers with prior driving-related license suspensions are six times more likely to be involved in later incidents, according to a recent government study. Because license suspensions often follow repeated violations or serious offenses, such as driving under the influence (DUI), they’re important indicators of risk. Still, they shouldn’t be the only factor considered.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration expects carriers to review all available records to determine if a driver has shown a lack of regard for public safety. Carriers, however, must define what’s acceptable or not.
MVRs provide official state records of traffic convictions and license actions, while PSP reports include federal inspection history, Department of Transportation (DOT) reportable crash involvement, and roadside violations — regardless of citation or conviction. PSP reports, while not required, are great supplemental tools to help carriers evaluate a potential driver.
Driver shortages can create operational challenges, but lowering qualification standards to fill staffing gaps often leads to more crashes and increased legal risks. In litigation, hiring decisions are often examined in detail. Missing serious violations or ignoring available information can support claims of negligent hiring or retention.
A structured scoring process helps carriers show that their decisions were reasonable, documented, and based on established criteria, not based on convenience.
A solid scoring model should be simple enough to be used consistently while still detailed enough to ensure only safe drivers are placed on the road. Important elements include:
Violation severity
Time weighted
Crash history
License suspensions or revocations
Treat any suspension as a major risk factor. Consider whether the suspension was for driving or administrative issues.
Make an active suspension or invalid license a disqualifier.
PSP report inspection patterns
The goal isn’t to reject more drivers but to create a fair, transparent system documenting why a driver was accepted, declined, or accepted with conditions.
Common scoring approaches
Many carriers use one of the following approaches:
Consistency is the key when it comes to hiring safe drivers. A scoring process that isn’t followed can be more damaging than having no process at all.
Don’t wait 12 months to review driving records. Many carriers use continuous MVR monitoring on active drivers to identify issues earlier and take timely action. In many states, monitoring may also meet the annual MVR requirement under 391.25.
A clear, consistent scoring system for evaluating MVR and PSP data helps carriers balance operational needs with the responsibility of putting safe drivers on the road.
The hazmat endorsement is required only if the vehicle is transporting a type and quantity of a hazardous material that requires the display of placards. Sounds easy enough, right? This regulation is often misinterpreted and not used correctly.
Sometimes, simply having a commercial driver’s license (CDL) is not enough to operate certain types of commercial motor vehicles. Drivers hauling special commodities need extra endorsements on their licenses. Individual endorsements provide proof that a driver has received additional training or vetting to haul a commodity or type of vehicle.
The process for obtaining a hazardous materials (hazmat) endorsement requires a little patience and time. The process requires a driver to undergo a hazmat endorsement background check. The driver’s name and fingerprints will be sent to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which will make sure that the driver does not pose a security risk. Also, the driver needs to meet immigration standards and have a clean criminal and mental-health record.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) entry level driver training (ELDT) rule took effect in February of 2022. An individual obtaining a hazmat endorsement for the first time must complete specific theory instruction prior to taking the required knowledge test. The training must be provided by a school or entity listed on the FMCSA’s Training Provider Registry (TPR).
These requirements are in place because drivers that are hauling hazmat are transporting some of the most dangerous cargo on the road. Before sending a driver through the hazmat endorsement process, you must ensure that the driver must obtain the hazmat endorsement in the first place. Did you know that hauling hazmat does not automatically mean a driver will require the hazmat endorsement?
A CDL hazmat endorsement is required when a driver is hauling hazmat that must be placarded or when the driver is hauling a select agent or toxin. A CDL hazmat endorsement is not required if a hazmat load does not require placarding. The basic rule of thumb is that no placards mean no hazmat endorsement is required.
However, the hazardous materials regulations allow placarding even if it is not required, and it is called permissible placarding. In these situations, a placard would be voluntarily displayed, and no hazmat endorsement would be required.
Knowing whether a driver needs a hazmat endorsement will protect your drivers and ensure that they are compliant while transporting placarded hazmat loads.
If you’ve determined that your driver requires a hazmat endorsement, you may want to get started right away. The process for obtaining the hazmat endorsement can take several weeks. In the meantime, make sure drivers do not transport a load of placarded hazmat without the hazmat endorsement.
Key to remember: A hazmat endorsement is required when a driver is hauling hazmat that must be placarded.
Back in October 2018, Laffon had a medical emergency and needed some time off under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
Her leave lasted until November 15. Ten days after she returned to work, on November 26, her employer terminated her.
She sued, arguing that the employer retaliated against her because of her FMLA leave.
The catch? She didn't bring the suit until almost three years later.
No link between leave and termination
In court, the employer argued that there was no causal link between Laffon taking FMLA leave and her termination. Although the court documents aren't robust, they do reveal that the employer indicated that Laffon's allegations didn't show that her taking FMLA leave was a factor in the decision to terminate her. The documents showed only that the termination chronologically followed her leave.
The court agreed with the employer. It also agreed that Laffon failed to allege a willful violation of the FMLA, which would allow her to benefit from the FMLA's three-year statute of limitations.
Laffon appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit.
Statute of limitations
Under the FMLA, employees have two years from the date of the last event constituting the alleged violation for which they can bring a claim.
Those two years are extended to three years if the employer's actions were "willful." This means that an employee must show that the employer either knew or showed reckless disregard for whether its conduct violated the FMLA.
Ruling overturned
Fast forward to August 2023, when the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision. It indicated that, based on Laffon's amended complaint and liberally construing the law, her allegations establish that her leave was causally connected to her termination and that the employer's action (her termination) was willful.
Glymph v. CT Corporation Systems, No. 22-35735, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, August 22, 2023.
Key to remember: Terminating an employee soon after returning from FMLA leave is risky, unless there is a clear, well-documented, non-leave-related reason. Case documents did not show such a clear reason, which can also increase the risk of a willful finding. Employees have time to file claims, even years.
A new year often begins a new round of employee performance reviews. Since the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows eligible employees to take up to 12 (or 26) weeks of leave, many events can occur during an employee’s leave, including the employee’s pre-scheduled performance review. Such reviews might take place on an annual or other scheduled basis. How you treat the timing of those reviews should include some thought.
If, for example, Jo Employee takes 12 weeks of FMLA leave, during which her annual performance review is scheduled, here are some questions to ponder:
Delaying a review
An annual performance review generally takes into consideration a full years’ worth of work. Some employers think it’s best to delay the performance review by the same amount of time an employee took FMLA leave to capture an entire years’ work. This practice, however, might risk running afoul of one of the cornerstones of the FMLA: Returning the employee to his or her position, including the equivalent pay, benefits, and working conditions.
The issues can be particularly concerning if the performance review affects wage increases or other compensation.
What the regulations say
The FMLA regulations indicate that an equivalent position includes equivalent pay, which includes any unconditional pay increases that may have occurred during the FMLA leave period. Equivalent pay also includes bonuses or payments, whether discretionary or non-discretionary. FMLA leave cannot undermine the employee’s right to such pay.
Furthermore, “… employers cannot use the taking of FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment actions, such as hiring, promotions, or disciplinary actions; nor can FMLA leave be counted under no fault attendance policies.” [29 CFR 825.220(c)]
Avoiding a negative factor
Therefore, you would need to look at whether delaying an employee’s performance review could be seen as having a negative factor for the employee.
If, for example, Jo Employee took 12 weeks of leave from April through June, during which she would otherwise have obtained a pay increase in May, but you delayed this increase until September (so you could use a full 12 months of work), you may have violated the equivalent pay provision. If delaying a review creates a new review schedule going forward, the negative impacts could continue.
If, however, a pay increase is conditioned upon seniority, length of service, or work performed, you would grant it in accordance with your policy or practice as applied to other employees on an equivalent leave status for a reason that does not qualify as FMLA leave.
In other words, don’t treat an employee on FMLA leave differently than you would an employee on other forms of leave.
Key to remember: It might be less risky to keep the performance review on schedule and prorate wage increases to account for FMLA leave.
One of the most common questions involving the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) that we see is: “Can ________ fill out the medical certification?”
This question stumps a lot of HR people and can be a little confusing.
It might be easier to start with who CAN’T fill out an FMLA certification. That includes your coworker, best friend, neighbor, or pet.
Jokes aside, often (but not always) a doctor fills out the FMLA certification, and since March 30 is “Doctors’ Day,” this is a great time to discuss this topic.
Employers aren’t required to use certifications, but if they do, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has five different certification forms to use for various FMLA leave situations.
The forms are as follows:
Let’s focus on the first two, as these are the most common ones HR administrators use.
The FMLA regulations describe the person who has the authority to fill out a certification as a “health care provider.” The good news is, the regulations include a lengthy list of medical professionals who fit this role.
Under the FMLA, a health care provider includes:
To be qualified to fill out FMLA forms, medical professionals must be authorized to practice in the state and perform within the scope of their practice. This means that the provider must be authorized to diagnose and treat physical or mental health conditions.
If an employee or an employee's family member is visiting another country, or a family member resides in another country, and a serious health condition develops, the employer must accept a medical certification from a health care provider who practices in that country. This includes second and third opinions.
If a medical certification from a foreign health care provider is not in English, the employee may be required to provide a written translation of the certification.
Key to remember: The FMLA regulations spell out which medical professionals can fill out certification forms.
Under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), employers must maintain coverage under any group health plan while employees are on FMLA leave. This coverage must be at the level and under the conditions that employers would have provided had employees not taken leave.
When employees take unpaid FMLA leave, employers must continue paying the same amount toward the employee’s health insurance premiums as they did before the leave started.
What about cafeteria plans, such as flexible spending accounts (FSAs)?
The IRS has its own regulations regarding cafeteria plans in relation to FMLA leave that provide some clarity. Under those regulations, employers must allow employees on unpaid FMLA leave to either:
If employees choose to continue payments, they have several options:
Employers may require employees to use the catch-up option if it is the only option offered to employees on unpaid non-FMLA leave. If the pay-as-you-go option is offered to employees on unpaid non-FMLA leave, the option must also be offered to employees on FMLA leave.
If employees are using paid leave during otherwise unpaid FMLA leave, employers may require employees to pay their share of the premiums by the method they normally use during any paid leave.
Key to remember: Employers must be aware of how to handle employee FSA contributions during FMLA leave.
Companies that focus on their people’s performance are 4.2 times more likely to outperform their competitors, according to studies by the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI). That means higher revenue growth and lower turnover rates.
In addition, MGI’s look at 50 companies’ performance management practices concluded that companies that focus on their people and organizational health also reap dividends in culture, collaboration, and innovation, as well as sustained competitive performance.
Performance evaluations are a valuable tool for managers to both assess and encourage employees, and to address any workplace issues. They should let employees know how they’re doing, what they can improve, and acknowledge superior job performance. They should also allow employees to share their struggles and have input into developing goals.
The process of conducting performance evaluations varies depending on a company's policy and culture. Some companies have formal performance review programs, while others have a policy of open communication. Both methods should cover any performance-related issues that arise.
Strong performance evaluations:
Evaluations should be conducted by individuals who are knowledgeable about the role and able to make informed assessments based on real work conditions, rather than assumptions or isolated incidents. That means supervisors should base evaluations on regular interaction and documented feedback gathered throughout the review period.
One common challenge with performance reviews is that they’re completed and then forgotten. To avoid this, evaluations should be positioned as a reference point for ongoing coaching; not the end of the conversation.
Evaluations may be used to decide whether training or corrective action has been effective and whether more support is needed. Similarly, managers should revisit performance goals during check-ins, tie them to development conversations, and use the evaluation as a living document that spells out? future expectations.
To make sure evaluations are constructive, it’s important to pair clear expectations with a support plan. This includes showing specific areas for improvement, explaining why those expectations matter, and outlining what resources, training, or coaching will be provided.
Evaluations should do more than find gaps; they should help determine what comes next and how the organization will support improvement. In practice, this means documenting next steps, timelines, and follow-up discussions, so employees understand both what’s expected and how they will be supported in meeting those expectations.
While the specifics depend on position and job duties, here are 10 questions that can be used to get the ball rolling in a performance evaluation:
Key to remember: Performance evaluations should clearly set expectations, use documented, observable feedback, and serve as a foundation for ongoing coaching, goal setting, and support. They should be more than a one-time conversation.
What if the U.S. had only one paid leave law? On February 24, the U.S. House Employee Protections subcommittee held a hearing titled “Balancing Careers and Care: Examining Innovative Approaches to Paid Leave.” The hearing was held to examine the issues and challenges of the U.S. paid leave landscape.
The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) gives eligible employees unpaid, job-protected leave. State paid leave laws, however, help fill in the wage gap to provide employees with paid leave, since only 27 percent of private sector workers in the U.S. currently have access to some form of paid time off. More than 20 states and the District of Columbia have enacted paid leave laws that allow employers to access private insurance and offer paid leave to their employees.
With the patchwork of state paid leave laws, House members at the hearing recognized the challenge private-sector benefits managers have in navigating them. State leave laws have different details, such as:
One plan to try to cover all applicable state leave laws is not usually effective, given all the differences. Members of the House Bipartisan Paid Leave Working Group have been working to produce a common-sense, bipartisan proposal at the federal level to improve paid leave. Last year, they came up with the More Paid Leave for More Americans Act (H.R. 3089), which rests on several pillars, including:
The I-PLAN would work toward having state laws have commonality with current distinctions, such as employer coverage and employee eligibility. Historically, however, employers haven’t taken advantage of optional private-public programs.
Members also asked witnesses about the need to address fraud in these paid leave programs, as they try to design a roadmap to a better employee paid leave solution.
Could a federal paid leave law be in the future? Employers shouldn’t hold their breath on this or whether H.R. 3089 will become law. They should, however, keep an eye on Congress’s interest in this issue.
Key to remember: Members of Congress continue to keep paid employee leave at a federal level in their sights, as indicated by a recent hearing on the subject.
Fatal injuries have a ripple effect throughout an organization – least of all the painstaking task of performing an investigation without placing blame on employees. What’s the true cause of an incident when a forklift strikes a worker wearing the wrong-colored vest? Worker behavior may play a role, but the issue usually lies much deeper.
A pattern of incidents at one battery construction site is a great example of how individual decisions and company safety systems intertwine to determine the outcome of daily events. OSHA’s report on the March 2025 death of a company CEO showed that while individual decisions played a role, the fatality occurred within a broader pattern of systemic safety failures at the construction site.
According to Agency findings, the employee chose to cross a roadway while wearing a black vest instead of the required high visibility vest, which drastically reduced the employee’s visibility. At the same time, a site forklift driver was reportedly talking on the phone while operating the vehicle which also contributed to the result of the incident.
OSHA’s conclusions made clear that organizational systems and controls, not just the individuals’ choices, were the primary shortcomings. Multiple companies on site failed to enforce safety rules, maintain traffic controls, or ensure proper operator behavior. For example, the forklift driver’s employer received the largest fine for exposing workers to struck-by hazards and failing to ensure operators followed basic safety practices such as speed limits, phone use, use of spotters, and horn use when visibility was obstructed.
The report reflected an even larger pattern, finding that the employee’s death was one of many safety incidents at the construction mega site, which had recorded dozens of previous traumatic injuries, multiple fatalities, and at least 15 OSHA investigations. Previous incidents included falls, other forklift injuries, a conveyor entrapment, a pipe explosion, and a fatal crushing incident earlier in 2025. This track record should have been an early warning that system-level safety gaps and inconsistent safety management were key contributors, far outweighing any single person’s decisions.
While individual decisions like walking into a traffic zone or operating equipment while distracted may influence an incident, they rarely tell the whole story. Root causes usually reflect deeper underlying weaknesses in the organization’s safety systems, such as:
These conditions can quickly create an environment where ordinary human mistakes are far more likely to lead to severe or fatal outcomes. Employers need to look beyond the individual employee decisions and investigate which systemic failures allowed the decision to become deadly. This is where OSHA regulations help.
You’ve likely heard the saying, “OSHA regulations have been written in blood” meaning someone (or many someones) have been seriously injured in the workplace which resulted in regulations aimed at protecting others from a repeat of similar situations.
Since OSHA was established nearly 55 years ago, its standards and enforcement efforts have helped save more than 712,000 workers’ lives. Even so, employers must continue to identify and strengthen gaps in their safety programs and systems to shield workers from the consequences of inevitable human decisions.
Employers shouldn’t just use OSHA regulations as a means for compliance but to actively protect workers by controlling hazards and setting clear expectations for safe work. Standards such as 1910.147 (Lockout/Tagout), 1910.1200 (Hazard Communication), 1926.501 (Fall Protection), and 1910.178 (Powered Industrial Trucks) give employers concrete requirements for preventing injuries and keeping employees safe on the job. Filling systemic safety gaps by using these standards can prevent thousands of serious injuries and fatalities every year. As demonstrated with this forklift struck-by fatality, most workplace deaths stem from hazards that OSHA rules are designed to control.
Key to remember: Serious incidents and fatalities are rarely caused by individual decisions but by broader system failures like insufficient safety oversight, inconsistent rule enforcement, and poor worksite communication. Employers can prevent these incidents by leveraging regulatory compliance to identify and correct weaknesses in their safety systems.
OSHA recently released an updated Job Safety and Health Poster, which informs workers of their rights under the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970. The revised poster is part of the agency’s “OSHA Cares” initiative. Employers can use either the revised version or the older one, but the poster must be displayed in a conspicuous place where workers can easily see it.
Under the OSH Act, employers must provide employees with a safe and healthful work environment. Employees also have a right to:
It is a common sight in many workplaces to see employees using compressed air to clean parts, equipment, and even clothing. What many workers and some employers do not realize is that compressed air can be deadly. That is why OSHA has a regulation prohibiting the use of compressed air for cleaning unless the dead-end pressure is reduced to below 30 psi, and then only with effective chip guarding and PPE.
The regulation Federal OSHA’s requirement for cleaning with compressed air is in 1910.242(b):
“Effective chip guarding” means any method or equipment which will prevent a chip or particle (of whatever size) from being blown into the eyes or unbroken skin of the operator or other workers.
Effective chip guarding may be separate from the air nozzle as in the case where screens or barriers are used. The use of protective cone air nozzles are acceptable in general for protection of the operator, but barriers, baffles or screens may be required to protect other workers if they are exposed to flying chips or particles.
The regulation requires the psi at the nozzle to be less than 30 when using compressed air for cleaning.
However, OSHA has said in interpretive guidance that the use of compressed air for cleaning purposes at pressures at or greater than 30 psi is permissible if the outlet or source is fitted with a relief device or air ports that drop the pressure to less than 30 psi if the flow is dead-ended.
While the regulation does not specifically address the issue, in a letter of interpretation OSHA said that employers should not allow employees to use compressed air for cleaning themselves or their clothing in general industry situations. The eyes and other body parts, such as the respiratory system, may be damaged as the result of inadequate personal protective equipment, lack of chip guards, and/or uncontrolled release of compressed air.
There are numerous dangers of improperly using compressed air:
Workers must be trained that even extremely low pressures, such as 5 or 10 psi, can still cause severe damage if pointed toward the body, particularly the mouth, eyes, ears, or open areas in the skin.
Employers should train employees on the dangers of compressed air, and ensure the equipment is equipped with the necessary safety features and is properly maintained.
Supervisors should watch for improper use, particularly horseplay, and initiate corrective action. In addition, for many applications, a broom or shop vacuum may be just as effective at cleaning, and much safer. Compressed air may seem harmless, but if strict safeguards and practices are not utilized it can be deadly.
Individuals choose to engage in certain behaviors based on both internal and external constraints. Internal constraints are values that people apply to themselves. External constraints include rules and consequences that are intended to shape behaviors. While rules should guide behaviors, some people ignore the rules. However, for people who voluntarily choose the right behaviors based on their personal values, the rules are merely guidelines.
For example, a desire to avoid injury may cause you to always wear a seatbelt and never use a cell phone while driving. Although external constraints (laws on seat belt and cell phone use) may impact your choices, the desire to stay safe is an internal constraint or self-imposed behavior. You’d follow those safe behaviors even if no law existed.
Workplace safety rules should communicate expectations and should be self-evidently good practices. Although objections ought to be nonexistent, non-compliance is far too common. Rules may be necessary, but they’re effective only if people follow them, and some employees might grudgingly comply under an attitude of “we HAVE to do it this way.”
Internal constraints are more effective because employees choose to follow safety rules. Employees make these choices when they see the benefits to themselves, not simply to avoid discipline for rule violations. They recognize that the safety rules are reasonable and designed to protect them, so they choose to stay safe. For related information, see our article, To improve safety culture, focus on employees' experiences.
In other words, rules tell employees what choices to make, but internal constraints tell them why they should make those choices. When internal constraints drive behaviors, the rules are (in a sense) unnecessary because people would make the right choices anyway.
When a company says that it values safety, the company strives to help everyone understand the value of safety. Employees should work safely because they recognize the benefits to the company as well as the benefits to themselves. The goal is to reach a point where rules serve as guidelines, and employees choose safe behaviors for the benefits, not to avoid consequences.
Helping employees develop internal constraints means helping them recognize the value of safety to themselves to the point that they adopt that value. This may require imposing consequences, but consequences can be negative (like discipline for making the wrong choice) or positive (like a bonus or recognition for doing the right thing). Even discipline can be delivered in a way that helps build internal constraints, such as issuing reminders along the lines of “because it keeps you from getting injured.” For related information, see our article, Giving positive feedback beyond 'good job'.
Accidents may still happen, but could provide an opportunity to evaluate whether an employee made the wrong choice and whether a different behavior could have changed the outcome. Although an accident usually means something went wrong, those failures are also learning opportunities that can help demonstrate the “why” for adopting safety as a value.
Key to remember: When safety becomes a value among the workforce, employees will choose to stay safe for their own benefit, not merely because the rules require it.
In today's growing digital work environment, our eyes are constantly engaged, often for eight hours or more a day, tethered to screens of various sizes. This digital exposure has given rise to a frequently underestimated condition: Digital Eye Strain (DES), also known as Computer Vision Syndrome. While visible workplace injuries like falls or cuts rightly receive immediate attention, cumulative impact of DES often goes overlooked, eroding employee well-being and productivity.
DES has a quantity of uncomfortable symptoms like dry or irritated eyes, blurred vision, headaches, neck pain, and even double vision. These symptoms can be signals of significant eye fatigue. The reason DES remains an "invisible epidemic" in many workplace safety discussions is due to a few factors:
A 2025 Workplace Vision Health Report from VSP Vision Care shows just how impactful Digital Eye Strain can be. According to the report, nearly six in ten employees say digital eye strain negatively affects their productivity and effectiveness on the job. About half report that it diminishes their overall well-being and leaves them too tired to enjoy time outside of work and makes them more irritable throughout the day. Even more concerning, 27 percent of employees have taken time off due to eye strain.
Luckily, there are prevention methods. Raising awareness and prevention of DES can be done by:
Keys to remember: By proactively addressing Digital Eye Strain, companies don't just reduce discomfort; they invest in a more focused, productive, and healthier workforce.
Employers that must electronically file their injury data with OSHA might engage in business activities that fall under more than one North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code. Fortunately, OSHA recognized that more than one NAICS code could apply to a single establishment.
OSHA’s Injury Tracking Application (ITA) website includes a frequently asked question regarding multiple NAICS codes. OSHA advises, “Choose the code that represents the activity that generates the most revenue for your establishment and/or has the most employees, whichever is more applicable to your business.” If more than one NAICS code could apply, employers can choose which code to use for ITA reporting.
OSHA does not assign NAICS codes. Employers know their operations best and must select the most applicable code. For example, suppose a company engages in both plastics manufacturing and chemical manufacturing. The plastics division has the most employees, but the chemical division generates the most revenue. Which NAICS code should the company use? The company could use either, but might consider the electronic filing obligations.
Plastics manufacturers must file the 300A, 300 Log, and 301 Forms if the establishment has 100 or more employees. However, chemical manufacturers file only the 300A regardless of employee count. This company might choose the NAICS code for chemical manufacturing since that generates the most revenue and would only have to file the 300A.
Normally, a single physical location counts as one “establishment” for injury recordkeeping. In rare cases, a single location with more than one business operation might be divided into more than one establishment. If this happens, each establishment (operation) would maintain a separate 300 Log and could even have different electronic reporting obligations.
The previous example of a chemical and plastics manufacturer probably doesn’t qualify as two separate establishments. OSHA offers an example where two separate business establishments operate from the same physical address. The agency noted, “if an employer operates a construction company at the same location as a lumber yard, the employer may consider each business to be a separate establishment.”
According to the regulation at 1904.46, an employer might consider two or more separate businesses that share a single location to be separate establishments only when:
If these criteria do not apply, the employer must choose one NAICS code for the entire operation.
When preparing for electronic submission of injury records, employers also need to include their Employer Identification Number, or EIN. This is a tax identification number for a company, similar to a Social Security Number, but for a business.
Some locations might have more than one EIN. That does not automatically mean the location constitutes two or more “establishments” for OSHA recordkeeping and reporting. However, if each operation meets the criteria for separate businesses, the employer might maintain separate 300 Logs (and potentially have different e-reporting obligations) for each business operation.
Key to remember: If more than one NAICS could apply, the employer chooses which code to use for electronic filing of injury data. Though unusual, a single location might be divided into separate business operations and treated as two establishments.