
Welcome to J. J. Keller COMPLIANCE NETWORK
Make regulatory compliance easier than ever at your company with expert guidance and resources custom-tailored to your exact needs.
Welcome to J. J. Keller COMPLIANCE NETWORK
Make regulatory compliance easier than ever at your company with expert guidance and resources custom-tailored to your exact needs.
Workplace safety (OSHA).
Transportation (DOT).
Environment (EPA).
Human resources (DOL).
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on March 12, 2025, that it’s taking 31 actions to advance President Trump’s Day One executive orders and the recently announced “Powering the Great American Comeback” Initiative. The agency’s actions will likely impact environmental regulations across various industries.
Rules under review
EPA will reconsider an assortment of rulemakings, including:
The agency will also take other actions, such as:
About EPA’s new initiative
In February 2025, the agency announced the Powering the Great American Comeback Initiative, which outlines EPA’s priorities. The initiative consists of five pillars:
EPA’s 31 actions will primarily address the first three pillars.
Key to remember: EPA will reconsider major rulemakings that may impact a variety of industries.
Another riveting video is posted by the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB)! The animated video covers a massive explosion at a Texas machine shop. Two workers and a member of the public were killed. Over 450 neighboring homes/businesses were damaged.
The 14-minute video, “No Detection: Explosion …,” follows a June 2023 investigation report. When the 56-page report came out, CSB Chairperson Steve Owens said, “Our investigation found that [the company] did not have an effective program in place to assess potential hazards in its propylene process and did not have a mechanical integrity program or written operating procedures.”
The incident was compounded by emergency planning failures, says CSB. Owens argued, “This tragic incident was made even worse due to the lack of emergency response training for employees at the facility.”
CSB explains that a degraded and poorly crimped rubber welding hose disconnected from its fitting inside a coating booth. That prompted a release of propylene, a flammable vapor.
By the time workers arrived at the facility the early morning of January 24, 2020, an explosive concentration of propylene had formed inside the building. As workers entered and turned on the lights, the vapor ignited, triggering an explosion. It:
The board’s investigation later found that the company had:
OSHA cited the company 12 years earlier for failing to inspect gas system equipment for signs of deterioration or leaks. The 2008 OSHA visit was prompted by another explosion of propylene gas.
Following the later 2020 incident, OSHA issued citations for failing to:
CSB explains that the shop’s propylene amount was below the threshold for OSHA’s Process Safety Management (PSM) standard at 29 CFR 1910.119 or EPA’s Risk Management Plan (RMP) standard at 40 CFR 68. Still, the CSB investigation identified these safety issues:
Owens concludes that the deadly incident could have been mitigated if the company had implemented an effective PSM system for the hazards of its coating operation. Even if a leak occurred, Owens believes an emergency response plan could have prevented the tragic loss of life.
OSHA chemical emergency preparedness may include an emergency action plan and/or an emergency response plan.
To prevent chemical incidents, CSB urges you to:
Have questions about chemical safety or emergency planning? Pose them to our J. J. Keller® experts! Visit our Expert Help page today! |
The latest video comes after the board received a “Silver Play Button” award. The CSB’s video channel boasts 364K subscribers and nearly 100 safety videos. The channel has had over 65M combined views since 2007. What’s more, CSB claims that the chemical industry itself and engineering schools use the videos for chemical safety training.
A new CSB video covers the 2020 massive explosion at a Texas machine shop. The board urges you to implement PSM systems even if not required. CSB also presses you to ensure that workers are trained in emergency response plans.
During a recent discussion about the persistent challenges of maintaining air quality standards within heavy industrial operations, one colleague in the field shared about a large Midwestern industrial facility that faced allegations of significant Clean Air Act violations. Our casual lunch meeting turned into a case study on uncontrolled emissions of particulate matter (PM).
An investigation identified the facility’s clinker cooler and raw mill operations as primary sources of excess PM. Monitoring data revealed the facility consistently exceeded permitted emission limits, suggesting systemic deficiencies in pollution control systems. Further inspection pointed to potential inadequate maintenance and operation of existing baghouse filters, a critical technology for capturing airborne particles. The facility also appeared to struggle with fugitive dust emissions from material handling and storage areas, indicating a need for improved dust suppression measures.
The case clarifies the importance of rigorous, proactive environmental management within heavy industrial operations. To prevent similar violations, facilities should prioritize comprehensive monitoring and reporting. Continuous emission monitoring systems provide real-time data, enabling early detection of deviations from permitted limits. Regular inspections and preventative maintenance of pollution control equipment are essential. This includes ensuring baghouse filters operate within their design parameters and promptly replacing damaged or worn components.
Additionally, robust fugitive dust control plans are vital. They should address all potential sources of fugitive dust, encompassing material handling, storage, and transport. Implementing strategies such as water spraying, enclosure of conveyors, and optimized material stockpiling can significantly reduce emissions.
Beyond technology, a strong environmental compliance culture is crucial. It involves employee training on environmental regulations, operational procedures, and the importance of adhering to pollution control measures. Regular audits and internal assessments can help identify potential weaknesses and ensure ongoing compliance.
Industrial facilities can minimize their environmental impact and avoid costly enforcement actions by focusing on:
Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news. There’s a lot going on, so let’s get started!
Under a new Executive Order, federal agencies must eliminate 10 regulations for each new one they introduce. This applies to all new rules, regulations, or guidance issued by government agencies such as the Department of Labor, which includes OSHA, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
A new OSHA fact sheet outlines employee rights and protections when filing a whistleblower complaint. Employers may not retaliate against employees who exercise their rights under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
OSHA will not cite employers for COVID-19 recordkeeping violations under its Healthcare Emergency Temporary Standard. These regulations are specific to healthcare settings. The provisions remain in effect, but until further notice, OSHA will not enforce them.
New guidance from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommends that employers use individual, quantitative fit-testing for hearing protection. This helps evaluate how well workers’ hearing protection reduces noise levels and ensures a proper fit.
And finally, turning to environmental news, states across the country continue to consider and implement regulations related to PFAS. These “forever chemicals” are long-lasting chemicals that may pose risks to human and environmental health. A recent study anticipates that more than half of the states in the U.S. are likely to consider PFAS-related policies this year.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
A group of substances called “forever chemicals” lasts long in the environment, but the submission period for its one-time reporting requirement doesn’t. And it starts in just a few months. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires covered entities to report data about per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) they manufactured between 2011 and 2022.
Required by Section 8(a)(7) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the report covers PFAS production volumes, disposal, exposures, and hazards. The submission period opens on July 11, 2025. Here are answers to five common questions about the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) report.
The TSCA Section 8(a)(7) reporting requirements apply to any person who manufactured (including imported) a PFAS or PFAS-containing article between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2022, for commercial purposes.
EPA defines terms for this reporting requirement at 40 CFR 705.3.
One vital thing to note is that the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) reporting requirement allows for no exemptions. The rule even covers PFAS manufactured as a byproduct, impurity, or non-isolated intermediate. The only activity that doesn’t require reporting is importing municipal solid waste streams to dispose of or destroy the waste.
The information required depends on whether you use the standard or streamlined TSCA Section 8(a)(7) reporting form.
The standard form contains:
The streamlined form requires less information than the standard form. Two types of reporters qualify to use streamlined reporting:
Importers may choose to use the streamlined “PFAS in Imported Article” form. If you imported a PFAS-containing article and manufactured (including imported) the same PFAS (not in an article), you can either:
Manufacturers of qualifying R&D PFAS can use the “Research & Development PFAS” form. However, you cannot use the streamlined form if you manufactured a PFAS in small quantities for R&D and otherwise manufactured (including imported) the same PFAS.
For most manufacturers, the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) report submission period runs from July 11, 2025, to January 22, 2026. Small manufacturers who solely imported PFAS-containing articles have a longer submission period, from July 11, 2025, to July 11, 2026.
Reports must be submitted electronically through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). Go to the Chemical Information Submission System and choose the “TSCA Section 8(a)(7)” application.
Note that you must have a registered account on EPA’s CDX to submit the report, and the facility for which you’re submitting the report must also be registered on the platform.
TSCA Section 8(a)(7), as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, required EPA to develop a rule to gather data about PFAS from entities that manufacture or have manufactured PFAS and PFAS-containing articles. The agency finalized the rule in October 2023 for this one-time reporting requirement.
The TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS reports will give EPA a more complete picture of PFAS manufactured in the U.S. The agency will use the data to further its understanding of the forever chemicals and inform future regulatory actions.
Key to remember: The submission period for the one-time PFAS reporting requirement opens July 11, 2025. It applies to anyone who manufactured (including imported) PFAS or PFAS-containing articles between 2011 and 2022.
Used oil disposal is a critical issue for safety managers and shop supervisors in industrial settings. Whether your facility generates used oil from machinery, vehicles, or hydraulic systems, you must understand the regulatory requirements to ensure compliance and avoid hefty fines.
Used oil is not always considered hazardous waste, but improper handling, storage, or disposal can lead to regulatory violations and environmental hazards. Understanding how used oil is classified, when it is considered hazardous, and how to manage it in compliance with 40 CFR Part 279 is essential.
Let’s uncover the regulatory framework for used oil disposal, including storage requirements, transportation rules, and best practices to ensure compliance at both the federal and state levels.
The EPA defines used oil as any petroleum-based or synthetic oil that has been used and is contaminated by physical or chemical impurities. Common sources of used oil in industrial operations include:
According to EPA regulations (40 CFR Part 279), used oil is presumed to be managed under the less stringent used oil management standards unless it meets hazardous waste criteria.
Used oil becomes hazardous waste if:
If used oil is classified as hazardous waste, it must be managed in accordance with the applicable solid and hazardous waste requirements.
The EPA requirements for used oil consist of three different aspects, as outlined below.
1. Storage Requirements
Use leak-proof tanks and containers made of durable, non-earthen materials (e.g., steel, plastic, or concrete). Label all used oil containers with the words "Used Oil" to prevent misidentification. Prevent leaks and spills by using secondary containment systems and regularly inspecting tanks. Never mix used oil with hazardous waste unless authorized.
2. Transportation and Disposal
Used oil generators may transport up to 55 gallons of used oil to a registered collection center without an EPA ID number. If contracting a used oil transporter, ensure they have an EPA Identification Number.
Used oil must be:
3. Spill Prevention and Cleanup
Facilities storing large amounts of used oil must have a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. SPCC plans establish procedures, methods, and equipment requirements to prevent oil from reaching waterways, and to contain discharges of oil.
Any spills must be cleaned up immediately, and absorbent materials must be disposed of properly. Rags and shop towels contaminated with hazardous materials may be classified as hazardous waste.
While the EPA focuses on environmental compliance, OSHA (29 CFR Part 1910) regulates worker safety when handling used oil. Key OSHA requirements include:
1. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
Workers handling used oil must wear gloves and protective clothing to prevent skin exposure. Safety goggles or face shields are also important to avoid eye contact.
2. Hazard communication (HazCom) program
Employers must label all used oil containers with appropriate hazard information and train employees on safe handling procedures and emergency response.
3. Fire and Explosion Safety
Always store used oil away from ignition sources to prevent fire hazards. Ensure storage areas are ventilated to avoid vapor buildup.
Many states have stricter used oil regulations than federal laws. For example:
To ensure compliance, check with your state’s environmental agency for state-specific used oil disposal rules and whether used oil is considered hazardous. Additional permits for transporting or processing used oil may be necessary.
Ensuring compliance with EPA, OSHA, and state laws is essential for safety managers and shop supervisors handling used oil. By following proper storage, transportation, and disposal practices, businesses can reduce environmental risks, improve workplace safety, and avoid costly fines.
Key to remember: By staying informed and proactive, your facility can maintain safe, sustainable, and compliant used oil management practices.
You might argue that warehouses have always posed challenges to fire service crews. However, today’s warehouses are pushing the boundaries on what firefighters can handle. Modern warehouses have far more square feet, sky-high storage racks, and compacted arrangements making it tougher for crews to reach a fire quickly. Commodities with lithium-ion batteries add another danger layer in a fire. Plus, robots can get in the way.
To sort this out, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) released back-to-back reports and a podcast that give warehouse owners/operators and fire crews a lot to think about:
Over 1,500 warehouse fires happen annually on average, NFPA estimates. That means warehouse fires are not rare. The first time that fire crews lay eyes on your warehouse should not be when there’s a roaring fire there in the middle of the night.
Ideally, fire service members should be involved before a warehouse is built. That way, things like water supplies and crew access can be part of the drawing board. If your warehouse is already in operation, it’s still critical for fire services to check out your warehouse. They can get familiar with your warehouse configuration, its fire suppression systems, and its stored commodities.
While the two reports detail challenges and trends for warehouse fires, one overarching takeaway prevails — pre-planning between the warehouse owner/operator and the fire service is a must. The concept is covered in the podcast too. Pre-incident planning inevitably helps fire crews to efficiently control and suppress an actual fire. It also informs the owner/operator about fire crew capabilities for the site.
OSHA’s Emergency Action Plan standard calls for covered employers to implement a plan to protect employees during fire emergencies. This requirement is found at 29 CFR 1910.38, 1915.502, 1917.30, 1918.100, and 1926.35, depending on your industry. However, the pre-incident planning that NFPA is talking about is pre-planning WITH the fire department so that there are better outcomes for people and property, in the event of a fire.
The 125-page NFPA report, “Identifying Challenges to Fire Service Response in Storage Facilities,” emphasizes that warehouses are evolving to meet greater demand. The report:
One recommendation suggests that future study needs to focus on ways fire departments can improve communication with warehouse owners/operators about pre-planning. The idea is that more communication should happen not only for existing warehouses but before constructing them. It’s also vital when warehouses are about to experience a change. Similarly, fire departments and warehouse owners/operators need to work out how employees will be head counted during a fire incident.
Another NFPA report, “Warehouse Structure Fires,” chronicles thousands of warehouse fires that happened between 2018 to 2022. In some cases, the 8-page report reflects on fires going back to 1980. It offers 13 charts that cover the:
The report concludes that four components are essential to protecting warehouses from fire: proper sprinkler systems, automatic alarms, pre-fire inspections, and pre-planning.
Finally, NFPA sat down with two fire protection professionals for 42 minutes to talk about “Big Storage, Bigger Questions.” The podcast sunk its teeth into some of the deeper concepts found in the new “Identifying Challenges” report, including:
Again, pre-planning was reiterated. The pros explained that warehouses have many variables, so getting crews into these facilities before any fire happens is important for better outcomes if a fire were to occur.
NFPA released two reports and a podcast related to the challenges of combating warehouse fires and the history of fires in U.S. warehouses. Pre-planning is an overarching theme in all three.
When you think of workers getting stuck by a contaminated needlestick, you think of healthcare. Right? Well, a recent NIOSH fact sheet argues that you also need to picture law enforcement officers. That’s because they’re at risk of these incidents when they search people, property, vehicles, or homes!
Syringes and needles are not the only sharps to worry about, however. Other sharps include lancets, scalpels, and auto-injectors. The thing is, contaminated needlesticks/sharps injuries can infect officers with viruses. These include hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), HIV, and others.
Is it reasonably anticipated that your law enforcement officers will have contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials (OPIM) as part of their jobs? If so, they have what OSHA calls “occupational exposure.” That includes reasonably anticipated incidents involving contaminated needlesticks or other contaminated sharps as part of the duties of an officer, the subject of the latest fact sheet.
That's a trick question! The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) only covers the private sector. There’s a gap in coverage for the public sector workers like law enforcement officers employed by a municipality or state agency. That means federal OSHA does not regulate the Bloodborne Pathogens (BBP) standard at 29 CFR 1910.1030 for these officers.
However, many states have filled that gap in one of two ways:
If your state has bloodborne pathogens laws and regulations, it’s important to meet them if you have officers (or any workers) with occupational exposure. Note that occupational exposure is not the same thing as an exposure incident. An exposure incident is actual contact with blood or OPIM. Whereas occupational exposure is reasonably anticipated contact as part of the job duties.
Regardless whether your officers are protected by bloodborne pathogens laws and regulations, NIOSH’s fact sheet (DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2025-101) provides tips and best practices specific to the risks to law enforcement. For example, NIOSH suggests that officers complete training on:
Some ways officers can keep safe include, but are not limited to:
When handling sharps, NIOSH recommends:
If an officer suffers an exposure incident involving a contaminated needlestick/sharp, the fact sheet urges the officer to:
Treatment should be sought from a healthcare provider immediately. That provider may offer medication or a vaccine to prevent infection.
The latest fact sheet comes on the heels of an 8-page guidance document from NIOSH — DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2022-154. Learn more about that in our J. J. Keller® Compliance Network article, “NIOSH report points at sharps injuries in law enforcement,” from September 7, 2022.
A recent NIOSH fact sheet argues that law enforcement officers who do searches are at risk of needlestick/sharps incidents! The agency offers tips about how to stay safe and how to handle and dispose of sharps safely. It also explains what to do if there’s an exposure incident.
Over the past few years, federal environmental regulations have targeted a specific group of chemicals: per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) isn’t the only entity taking action to control PFAS; state agencies are too. A recent study anticipates that more than half of the states in the U.S. are likely to consider PFAS-related policies in 2025.
So, how should businesses respond? Stay alert to the PFAS regulations at the state level.
PFAS, called “forever chemicals,” are long-lasting manufactured chemicals that may pose risks to human and environmental health. With thousands of PFAS chemicals, however, controlling their use to reduce the risks is no easy task.
Additionally, PFAS appear in nearly every sector. They’re used in a wide range of products (like food packaging, cleaning products, and textiles) and for commercial and industrial applications.
Safer States, an alliance of environmental organizations that supports developing state regulatory policies for toxic chemicals, published the 2025 Analysis of State Policy Addressing Toxic Chemicals and Plastics. The evaluation covered states’ toxic chemical policies (a) introduced in 2025, (b) introduced in 2024 and considered through 2025, and (c) expected to be introduced in 2025. It also included related proposed regulations that would implement existing state laws.
The report projects that at least 29 states will likely consider policies to address PFAS in 2025, including:
|
|
|
Safer States expects these states to consider policies such as:
Multiple states already have PFAS rules on the books. Check out these examples:
Many states also have proposed PFAS rules under consideration, like Texas, Maine, Arizona, Illinois, and Virginia.
If your facility uses PFAS, it’s essential to know whether the state has regulations that apply to your operations. Plus, knowing the state’s potential future PFAS rules coming down the pipeline can help you better prepare to comply.
Consider these general tips to support your facility’s efforts to track state PFAS actions:
Staying alert to state PFAS regulations can help your organization maintain compliance.
Key to remember: States across the country continue to consider and implement regulations related to PFAS. Staying alert to state PFAS actions is key for businesses to stay compliant.
Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news. There’s a lot going on, so let’s get started!
As happens at the start of most incoming presidential administrations, a freeze has been placed on all regulatory activity at the federal level, giving the new administration time to review agencies’ plans. The Office of Management and Budget, which must approve most rulemaking activities, has sent numerous pending rules back to the agencies for review. In addition, OSHA withdrew its infectious diseases proposed rule and its COVID-19 in healthcare rule prior to the inauguration.
OSHA’s penalties increased on January 15. The maximum penalty amounts for serious and other-than-serious violations increased to $16,550. For willful or repeated violations, the maximum penalty increased to $165,514 per violation.
OSHA updated its directive on injury and illness recordkeeping policies and procedures. While it’s intended for OSHA compliance officers, employers can use the information to help with recordkeeping compliance.
Fewer workers died on the job in 2023, as fatal work injuries decreased 3.7 percent from 2022. Transportation incidents remained the most frequent type of fatal event, accounting for over 36 percent of all occupational fatalities.
California’s Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board voted to adopt a permanent silica standard. If approved, it would extend and strengthen the state’s emergency temporary standard, which was put in place in December 2023.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health updated its List of Hazardous Drugs in Healthcare Settings. This is a resource for employers and employees in identifying drugs that are hazardous to the health and safety of those who handle them.
Turning to environmental news, EPA released the biannual update of the nonconfidential TSCA inventory. The inventory helps facilities determine their regulatory requirements for the chemicals they use or plan to use.
And finally, EPA added new Management Method Codes to describe how hazardous waste will be managed after temporary storage and transfer. As of January 1st, hazardous waste handlers must use the codes on the Biennial Report Waste Generation and Management forms.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) controls the amount of pollutants that reach the waters of the United States through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. The NPDES program covers two types of discharges from industrial sources:
Although they’re under the same federal permitting program, stormwater and wastewater discharges are distinct, and their permits are too. Know the basic differences between these types of industrial discharges to ensure your facility complies.
Rain and snow that flow over land or impervious surfaces (like building rooftops and parking lots) and don’t soak into the ground generate stormwater runoff. The runoff can gather pollutants generated by industrial activities at a facility and transport them into nearby waterbodies. Your facility must have a permit to discharge stormwater associated with industrial activities to waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.26).
The NPDES program regulates stormwater discharges from 11 categories of industrial activities, listed at 122.26(b)(14). Examples of covered activities include:
Note, however, that construction sites that disturb 5 or more acres (the tenth category) are permitted individually.
The permit contains stormwater control measures (including “best management practices”) to limit pollutants that enter stormwater runoff. Containment systems, employee training, and infiltration devices are all ways to control runoff.
Most states issue industrial stormwater discharge permits. EPA issues individual permits and the Multi-Sector General Permits (MSGPs) to facilities where the agency is the permitting authority. The MSGP is EPA’s general permit for industrial stormwater discharges.
Many industrial processes use or generate water that contains pollutants, referred to as industrial wastewater. There are two types of wastewater:
Your facility must have a permit to discharge industrial wastewater to surface waters (122.21(a)).
The NPDES program regulates direct wastewater discharges from industrial sources through rules based on the type of facility and activity. The regulations also have industry-specific requirements for:
Effluent limitations are the primary control method for industrial wastewater discharges. EPA establishes Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELGs) for industrial categories and subcategories. These pollution-reduction performance standards are based on the best available technology that’s economically achievable by facilities in the industry. The ELGs are then incorporated into the permits through effluent limitations.
Additionally, industrial facilities must meet water quality-based effluent limitations when the technology-based standards don’t achieve the required water quality standards. Both industrial stormwater and wastewater discharge permits may include technology- and water quality-based effluent limitations.
As with stormwater permits, most states issue industrial wastewater permits. Facilities in areas where EPA is the permitting authority must obtain either a general or individual NPDES permit.
Because a majority of the states run stormwater and wastewater permitting programs, it’s crucial to check the state regulations. State permits must contain limits as stringent as EPA’s federal permits, and some states may impose stricter limits and/or additional requirements.
EPA’s website lists the states authorized to issue NPDES permits with links to the state agencies that run the NPDES program.
Key to remember: Industrial stormwater and wastewater discharges, and the permits that regulate them, are different.
A new executive order from the Trump administration takes aim at government regulations, vowing to remove 10 rules for every new one issued.
The new directive, signed January 31, 2025, will apply to all new “rules, regulations, or guidance” issued by government agencies such as the Department of Transportation, the Department of Labor, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The order says over-regulation has increased costs and inflation, killed jobs and businesses, reduced choice, discouraged innovation, and infringed on liberties.
The move aims to cut much more than a similar “two-for-one” order issued at the start of President Trump’s first stint in the White House in 2017. That order applied only to regulations that would cost $100 million or more.
The White House says the 2017 order was “the most aggressive and successful regulatory reduction effort in history” and eliminated five and one-half regulations for every new one issued.
The new order, according to a White House fact sheet, says that whenever an agency promulgates a new rule, regulation, or guidance, it must identify at least 10 existing rules, regulations, or guidance documents to be repealed.
It will be up to the head of the White House Office of Management and Budget to enforce the order and ensure agencies use a standard measuring stick to verify compliance.
The order also requires that for fiscal year 2025 (which ends September 30), “the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations, be significantly less than zero,” the fact sheet says. The order itself was not available on the White House website when this article was published.
The new executive order comes on the heels of another directive, issued January 20, 2025, that put a freeze on all pending regulations until the new administration has time to review them.
With a backlog of 17 chemical incident investigations in the rearview mirror, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) released three safety-related deliverables — an animated video, a hazard alert, and a compilation of incident summaries. The agency also updated its reporting form.
Expect even more videos and summaries “soon.” That’s the word from CSB Chairperson Steve Owens last week, during the board’s quarterly business meeting. The board also noted that it is forging ahead with nine new investigations. It means we’ll see investigative reports down the line.
The CSB’s new 17-minute safety video, "Fire from the Storm," includes a riveting animation of the events leading to a fire and toxic gas release. The incident occurred when Hurricane Laura damaged a chemical storage facility in Louisiana.
Rainwater then reached the chemical storage. The chemical decomposed, producing toxic chlorine gas and a fire. A large plume of chlorine traveled over the community.
The CSB video calls on OSHA and EPA to amend regulations on Process Safety and Risk Management, respectively. Five key safety issues contributing to the incident are covered:
The latest video follows two others issued in October and July. It also aligns with an alert shared last July on hurricane preparedness.
Cold weather can crack or break pipes. It can also lead to ruptured or damaged process equipment and/or failing instruments. In December, CSB rang alarm bells over an uptick in chemical incidents during cold weather. The CSB alert listed over a dozen safety steps and links to guidance on cold weather operations.
Process safety management programs are regulated at 29 CFR 1910.119. Per the alert, these programs should consider how low temperatures may affect piping, equipment, and instruments. Equipment susceptible to ice or hydrate formation should also be identified and properly winterized.
Extreme weather dangers are a recurring theme for CSB. Last July, during hurricane season, Owens said, “When it comes to extreme weather, chemical companies should expect the unexpected and must always be prepared for the worst-case scenario.”
In a move toward transparency, CSB compiled summaries for 26 of the chemical incident reports it has received. These events summarized in Incident Reports Volume 1 resulted in five fatalities, 17 serious injuries, and about $697M in property damage in 15 states since April 2020.
For over two years the board has posted “overall” data about incidents reported under 40 CFR 1604. That’s the Reporting of Accidental Releases standard. CSB now calls this standard the “Accidental Release Reporting Rule (ARRR).”
For the record, CSB has received 460 reports in the last five years. The reports reveal 68 fatalities and 249 serious injuries/illnesses. Over 200 of these incidents involved property damage of $1M or more.
The overall data reports provide:
However, the latest Volume 1 also reveals:
Owens argued, “The American people have a right to know about the kinds of dangerous chemical incidents that happen across this country every week.”
It’s worth noting that CSB updated its Accidental Release Reporting Form and Instructions last June. The changes:
CSB continues to deliver videos, weather-related alerts, and data. The agency has also updated its reporting form and launched an initiative to reveal more incident details on a regular basis. Expect more from the board in 2025, along with any number of investigative reports.
Effective date: January 1, 2025, to June 29, 2025
This applies to: Public and private fleets purchasing new model year 2025 medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, vehicle dealerships selling new medium- and heavy-duty vehicles with internal combustion or zero-emission engines, vehicle manufacturers selling medium- and heavy-duty vehicles with internal combustion or zero-emission engines, and engine manufacturers selling medium- and heavy-duty vehicle internal combustion engines
Description of change: The temporary rule incorporates additional compliance flexibilities for manufacturers to meet the requirements of the California Air Resource Board’s (CARB’s) Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) rule, which CARB recently amended. The temporary rule also delays implementation of the Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulation rules by a year, taking effect with engine model year 2026 and/or vehicle model year 2027 (based on the specific rule section). It also adds more certification options for complete medium-duty zero-emission vehicles.
Effective date: February 24, 2025
This applies to: Agricultural use notices of intent (NOIs), soil fumigation NOIs, and restricted material NOIs
Description of change: The rule requires all agricultural use notices of intent (NOIs) must be submitted electronically on CalAgPermits.org unless granted an exemption. It also requires that NOIs for soil fumigation and restricted materials that require a permit to produce an agricultural commodity be electronically submitted on the same website. Finally, the rule requires the Department of Pesticide Regulation to publicize and provide status updates on NOI information it receives.
Effective date: December 5, 2024
This applies to: Airbag waste handlers and collection facilities
Description of change: This emergency readoption adds definitions for “airbag waste,” “airbag waste collection facility,” and “airbag waste handler.” It also gives airbag waste handlers a conditional exemption for transporting airbag waste to the waste collection facility.
View related state info:Solid and hazardous waste - California
Effective date: November 28, 2024
This applies to: Operators of surface facilities of high-volume Class II Disposal and Class II Commercial Disposal Wells
Description of change: The rule gives full regulatory authority to the Oil and Gas Commission, from which operators must obtain a permit to drill and operate disposal wells. It removes the need for operators to obtain an additional permit from the Department of Environmental Quality to operate the surface facilities. The Oil and Gas Commission assumes all regulatory responsibility for Class II well operations.
Effective date: January 2025 (dates vary by amendment)
This applies to: Entities subject to certain nonroad vehicle and engine emissions regulations under the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Description of change: The Environmental Protection Agency granted four amendment authorizations to CARB, allowing the state to implement and enforce more stringent emission standards for certain off-road (nonroad) vehicles and engines.
Small Off-Road Engine (SORE) regulation
Nearly all new SOREs with Model Year (MY) 2024 or later must achieve zero emissions of hydrocarbons and NOx and zero evaporative emissions. Large pressure washers and portable generators must meet the same zero-emission standards starting with MY 2028.
Effective date: January 6, 2025
In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets regulation
The amendments require fleets to replace older vehicles with newer ones gradually through 2036. The phaseout timeline is based on fleet size and MY. The rule also restricts fleets from adding older vehicles (with a timeline also based on fleet size and MY through 2035) and requires all fleets to use specific renewable diesel.
Effective date: January 10, 2025
Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets regulation
CARB’s rule imposes refrigerant use requirements for certain TRUs, sets particulate matter standards for non-truck TRUs, requires fleets to transition a percentage of TRUs to zero-emission technology refrigeration units (ZETRUs), and contains registration and reporting requirements for facilities with TRUs. The authorization, however, excludes CARB’s requirement for TRU owners to turn over 15 percent or more of its TRU fleet to ZETRUs by December 31, 2023, and each subsequent year.
In January 2025, CARB withdrew its authorization request for the rule’s mandate that TRU owners turn over 15 percent or more of their TRU fleet to ZETRUs by December 31, 2023, and each subsequent year.
Effective date: January 10, 2025
Commercial Harbor Craft regulation
EPA’s authorization excludes decisions on the Zero-Emission and Advanced Technologies standards for in-use short-run ferries and the standards for specific in-use engines and vessels with expiring feasibility extensions.
In January 2025, CARB withdrew its authorization request for the rule’s Zero-Emission and Advanced Technologies standards for in-use short-run ferries as well as the standards for specific in-use engines and vessels with expiring feasibility extensions.
Effective date: January 10, 2025
Effective date: December 12, 2024
This applies to: Operators of closed-loop geothermal injection wells and Class V injection wells used for brine mining
Description of change: The amendment gives the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) jurisdiction over closed-loop geothermal injection wells and injection wells used for brine mining as established by Senate Bills 786 and 1186. Operators of closed-loop geothermal injection wells and Class V injection wells used for brine mining are subject to RRC regulation and authority.
Effective date: December 23, 2024
This applies to: Manufacturers that sell vehicles in Maryland with a gross vehicle weight rating above 8,500 pounds
Description of change: The rule adds a year to the time frame for manufacturers to earn, bank, and trade credits, giving them two years before the Advanced Clean Truck Program begins (in model year 2027).
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.
Used oil disposal is a critical issue for safety managers and shop supervisors in industrial settings. Whether your facility generates used oil from machinery, vehicles, or hydraulic systems, you must understand the regulatory requirements to ensure compliance and avoid hefty fines.
Used oil is not always considered hazardous waste, but improper handling, storage, or disposal can lead to regulatory violations and environmental hazards. Understanding how used oil is classified, when it is considered hazardous, and how to manage it in compliance with 40 CFR Part 279 is essential.
Let’s uncover the regulatory framework for used oil disposal, including storage requirements, transportation rules, and best practices to ensure compliance at both the federal and state levels.
The EPA defines used oil as any petroleum-based or synthetic oil that has been used and is contaminated by physical or chemical impurities. Common sources of used oil in industrial operations include:
According to EPA regulations (40 CFR Part 279), used oil is presumed to be managed under the less stringent used oil management standards unless it meets hazardous waste criteria.
Used oil becomes hazardous waste if:
If used oil is classified as hazardous waste, it must be managed in accordance with the applicable solid and hazardous waste requirements.
The EPA requirements for used oil consist of three different aspects, as outlined below.
1. Storage Requirements
Use leak-proof tanks and containers made of durable, non-earthen materials (e.g., steel, plastic, or concrete). Label all used oil containers with the words "Used Oil" to prevent misidentification. Prevent leaks and spills by using secondary containment systems and regularly inspecting tanks. Never mix used oil with hazardous waste unless authorized.
2. Transportation and Disposal
Used oil generators may transport up to 55 gallons of used oil to a registered collection center without an EPA ID number. If contracting a used oil transporter, ensure they have an EPA Identification Number.
Used oil must be:
3. Spill Prevention and Cleanup
Facilities storing large amounts of used oil must have a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. SPCC plans establish procedures, methods, and equipment requirements to prevent oil from reaching waterways, and to contain discharges of oil.
Any spills must be cleaned up immediately, and absorbent materials must be disposed of properly. Rags and shop towels contaminated with hazardous materials may be classified as hazardous waste.
While the EPA focuses on environmental compliance, OSHA (29 CFR Part 1910) regulates worker safety when handling used oil. Key OSHA requirements include:
1. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
Workers handling used oil must wear gloves and protective clothing to prevent skin exposure. Safety goggles or face shields are also important to avoid eye contact.
2. Hazard communication (HazCom) program
Employers must label all used oil containers with appropriate hazard information and train employees on safe handling procedures and emergency response.
3. Fire and Explosion Safety
Always store used oil away from ignition sources to prevent fire hazards. Ensure storage areas are ventilated to avoid vapor buildup.
Many states have stricter used oil regulations than federal laws. For example:
To ensure compliance, check with your state’s environmental agency for state-specific used oil disposal rules and whether used oil is considered hazardous. Additional permits for transporting or processing used oil may be necessary.
Ensuring compliance with EPA, OSHA, and state laws is essential for safety managers and shop supervisors handling used oil. By following proper storage, transportation, and disposal practices, businesses can reduce environmental risks, improve workplace safety, and avoid costly fines.
Key to remember: By staying informed and proactive, your facility can maintain safe, sustainable, and compliant used oil management practices.
Another riveting video is posted by the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB)! The animated video covers a massive explosion at a Texas machine shop. Two workers and a member of the public were killed. Over 450 neighboring homes/businesses were damaged.
The 14-minute video, “No Detection: Explosion …,” follows a June 2023 investigation report. When the 56-page report came out, CSB Chairperson Steve Owens said, “Our investigation found that [the company] did not have an effective program in place to assess potential hazards in its propylene process and did not have a mechanical integrity program or written operating procedures.”
The incident was compounded by emergency planning failures, says CSB. Owens argued, “This tragic incident was made even worse due to the lack of emergency response training for employees at the facility.”
CSB explains that a degraded and poorly crimped rubber welding hose disconnected from its fitting inside a coating booth. That prompted a release of propylene, a flammable vapor.
By the time workers arrived at the facility the early morning of January 24, 2020, an explosive concentration of propylene had formed inside the building. As workers entered and turned on the lights, the vapor ignited, triggering an explosion. It:
The board’s investigation later found that the company had:
OSHA cited the company 12 years earlier for failing to inspect gas system equipment for signs of deterioration or leaks. The 2008 OSHA visit was prompted by another explosion of propylene gas.
Following the later 2020 incident, OSHA issued citations for failing to:
CSB explains that the shop’s propylene amount was below the threshold for OSHA’s Process Safety Management (PSM) standard at 29 CFR 1910.119 or EPA’s Risk Management Plan (RMP) standard at 40 CFR 68. Still, the CSB investigation identified these safety issues:
Owens concludes that the deadly incident could have been mitigated if the company had implemented an effective PSM system for the hazards of its coating operation. Even if a leak occurred, Owens believes an emergency response plan could have prevented the tragic loss of life.
OSHA chemical emergency preparedness may include an emergency action plan and/or an emergency response plan.
To prevent chemical incidents, CSB urges you to:
Have questions about chemical safety or emergency planning? Pose them to our J. J. Keller® experts! Visit our Expert Help page today! |
The latest video comes after the board received a “Silver Play Button” award. The CSB’s video channel boasts 364K subscribers and nearly 100 safety videos. The channel has had over 65M combined views since 2007. What’s more, CSB claims that the chemical industry itself and engineering schools use the videos for chemical safety training.
A new CSB video covers the 2020 massive explosion at a Texas machine shop. The board urges you to implement PSM systems even if not required. CSB also presses you to ensure that workers are trained in emergency response plans.
OSHA requires employers to provide all workers with immediately available and sanitary restroom or toilet facilities. But does this include truckers and delivery drivers that stop at your facilities? The sanitation standards (1910.141, 1926.51, and 1928.110) are meant to protect all workers from adverse health effects from unsanitary toilets facilities, or the unavailability of facilities when needed.
Bipartisan legislation has recently been introduced in the House that would require businesses to provide restroom access to truckers who are loading or delivering cargo at their warehouses, manufacturers, distribution centers, retailers, and ports.
Supported by leading organizations in the trucking industry, the Trucker Bathroom Access Act (H.R. 9592) was introduced on Dec. 15, 2022. The bill requires retailers, warehouses, and other establishments with existing restrooms to provide access to drivers who are loading or delivering cargo. Additionally, operators of ports and marine terminals must provide access for drayage and parking while accessing such restrooms.
This amendment to Title 49 would exempt some employers from the bill including filling and service stations, and restaurants 800-square feet or smaller with restrooms intended for employee use only. The bill doesn’t require employers to construct new restrooms but to give truck drivers the same access as employees or customers.
Commercial truckers and delivery drivers are the lifeline of our supply chain of supplies, products, and consumables. Working tirelessly all hours, during holidays and weekends, and throughout the pandemic, they continue to deliver critical food and emergency supplies to companies everywhere. Employers have the privilege of demonstrating gratitude to truckers and delivery drivers with a positive work environment.
The benefits of allowing truckers and delivery drivers the convenience and safety of readily available, sanitary restroom facilities are plenty. They’re able to rest and reset when necessary, which keeps them and others safer on the roads. Equally important, restroom availability prevents drivers from having to search for available facilities elsewhere, allowing them to keep a timely delivery schedule, limit supply chain delays, and ultimately lower costs for employers and customers.
The proposed Trucker Bathroom Access Act will require retailers, warehouses, and other establishments with existing restrooms to provide access to truckers and delivery drivers who are loading or delivering cargo. Access to restrooms keeps them refreshed and ready to deliver essential supplies to companies across the country.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on March 12, 2025, that it’s taking 31 actions to advance President Trump’s Day One executive orders and the recently announced “Powering the Great American Comeback” Initiative. The agency’s actions will likely impact environmental regulations across various industries.
Rules under review
EPA will reconsider an assortment of rulemakings, including:
The agency will also take other actions, such as:
About EPA’s new initiative
In February 2025, the agency announced the Powering the Great American Comeback Initiative, which outlines EPA’s priorities. The initiative consists of five pillars:
EPA’s 31 actions will primarily address the first three pillars.
Key to remember: EPA will reconsider major rulemakings that may impact a variety of industries.
A group of substances called “forever chemicals” lasts long in the environment, but the submission period for its one-time reporting requirement doesn’t. And it starts in just a few months. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires covered entities to report data about per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) they manufactured between 2011 and 2022.
Required by Section 8(a)(7) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the report covers PFAS production volumes, disposal, exposures, and hazards. The submission period opens on July 11, 2025. Here are answers to five common questions about the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) report.
The TSCA Section 8(a)(7) reporting requirements apply to any person who manufactured (including imported) a PFAS or PFAS-containing article between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2022, for commercial purposes.
EPA defines terms for this reporting requirement at 40 CFR 705.3.
One vital thing to note is that the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) reporting requirement allows for no exemptions. The rule even covers PFAS manufactured as a byproduct, impurity, or non-isolated intermediate. The only activity that doesn’t require reporting is importing municipal solid waste streams to dispose of or destroy the waste.
The information required depends on whether you use the standard or streamlined TSCA Section 8(a)(7) reporting form.
The standard form contains:
The streamlined form requires less information than the standard form. Two types of reporters qualify to use streamlined reporting:
Importers may choose to use the streamlined “PFAS in Imported Article” form. If you imported a PFAS-containing article and manufactured (including imported) the same PFAS (not in an article), you can either:
Manufacturers of qualifying R&D PFAS can use the “Research & Development PFAS” form. However, you cannot use the streamlined form if you manufactured a PFAS in small quantities for R&D and otherwise manufactured (including imported) the same PFAS.
For most manufacturers, the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) report submission period runs from July 11, 2025, to January 22, 2026. Small manufacturers who solely imported PFAS-containing articles have a longer submission period, from July 11, 2025, to July 11, 2026.
Reports must be submitted electronically through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). Go to the Chemical Information Submission System and choose the “TSCA Section 8(a)(7)” application.
Note that you must have a registered account on EPA’s CDX to submit the report, and the facility for which you’re submitting the report must also be registered on the platform.
TSCA Section 8(a)(7), as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, required EPA to develop a rule to gather data about PFAS from entities that manufacture or have manufactured PFAS and PFAS-containing articles. The agency finalized the rule in October 2023 for this one-time reporting requirement.
The TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS reports will give EPA a more complete picture of PFAS manufactured in the U.S. The agency will use the data to further its understanding of the forever chemicals and inform future regulatory actions.
Key to remember: The submission period for the one-time PFAS reporting requirement opens July 11, 2025. It applies to anyone who manufactured (including imported) PFAS or PFAS-containing articles between 2011 and 2022.
During a recent discussion about the persistent challenges of maintaining air quality standards within heavy industrial operations, one colleague in the field shared about a large Midwestern industrial facility that faced allegations of significant Clean Air Act violations. Our casual lunch meeting turned into a case study on uncontrolled emissions of particulate matter (PM).
An investigation identified the facility’s clinker cooler and raw mill operations as primary sources of excess PM. Monitoring data revealed the facility consistently exceeded permitted emission limits, suggesting systemic deficiencies in pollution control systems. Further inspection pointed to potential inadequate maintenance and operation of existing baghouse filters, a critical technology for capturing airborne particles. The facility also appeared to struggle with fugitive dust emissions from material handling and storage areas, indicating a need for improved dust suppression measures.
The case clarifies the importance of rigorous, proactive environmental management within heavy industrial operations. To prevent similar violations, facilities should prioritize comprehensive monitoring and reporting. Continuous emission monitoring systems provide real-time data, enabling early detection of deviations from permitted limits. Regular inspections and preventative maintenance of pollution control equipment are essential. This includes ensuring baghouse filters operate within their design parameters and promptly replacing damaged or worn components.
Additionally, robust fugitive dust control plans are vital. They should address all potential sources of fugitive dust, encompassing material handling, storage, and transport. Implementing strategies such as water spraying, enclosure of conveyors, and optimized material stockpiling can significantly reduce emissions.
Beyond technology, a strong environmental compliance culture is crucial. It involves employee training on environmental regulations, operational procedures, and the importance of adhering to pollution control measures. Regular audits and internal assessments can help identify potential weaknesses and ensure ongoing compliance.
Industrial facilities can minimize their environmental impact and avoid costly enforcement actions by focusing on:
It can be tempting to register and plate your apportioned trucks in particular jurisdictions for various reasons. However, you must meet certain criteria for a state or province to qualify as your base jurisdiction.
With those criteria currently under scrutiny by administrators of the International Registration Plan (IRP), it’s important to understand and comply with the requirements to qualify in your chosen base.
When deciding where to base plate your apportioned vehicles, you may choose any jurisdiction that’s a member of IRP and where:
All three of those criteria must be met for a member jurisdiction to qualify as your base jurisdiction. A couple of important phrases are key to making your decision.
Member jurisdictions under IRP include:
Determining what constitutes an "established place of business" is currently subjective and can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This has led to confusion, noncompliance findings, and disputes in some cases.
Efforts are currently underway to clarify the meaning of “established place of business” in the Plan. Currently, that phrase means that you must:
The physical structure must be open for business and staffed during regular business hours. That staff must include one or more persons employed by your company on a permanent basis (i.e., not an independent contractor). This is where general management of your company business occurs.
Records concerning your IRP fleet must be maintained or made available at this physical structure in the event of an audit.
Each state or province may require proof to verify that you have an established place of business within its jurisdiction.
If more than one member jurisdiction could qualify as your base jurisdiction, you may choose which of them you will apply to for apportioned registration.
The second item in the list of requirements — accrual by a fleet of distance in the base jurisdiction — applies only to your apportioned fleet as a whole. Each individual vehicle of your fleet does not need to enter the base jurisdiction during the year.
Key to remember: Proposed revisions to the IRP will clarify confusion around the meaning of “established place of business” for applicants choosing a base jurisdiction. Understanding and complying with the current terms can help you avoid headaches.
Being prepared for roadside inspections is critical because roadside inspections are a daily occurrence in the industry. Even the safest driver will get chosen for a roadside inspection during their career. It isn’t something to be ashamed of or afraid of. Instead, it's simply a fact of life for anyone who drives a commercial vehicle.
If your drivers are not prepared, they risk being marked out of service. This has several negative effects. First, being out of service means that your driver can’t get back on the road until the problems are resolved. If the problems are with the driver, a replacement will have to come out and finish the delivery. Any way you look at it, being marked out of service is going to upset your schedule and make it more challenging to keep to your deadlines.
Finally, if not prepared for a roadside inspection, it could be argued that you’re not ready to be on the road at all. A truck that can’t pass a random inspection may not be safe to drive. The same goes for drivers who can’t pass their inspections.
What can you do to avoid issues? Here are a few tips to help your drivers navigate through the next roadside inspection.
If you invest the time to train your drivers on the importance and how to complete the pre-trip inspection before heading out, they will catch many of the things that can get you in trouble and reduce your chances of being pulled over, saving downtime or an out-of-service violation.
The circle check can also be performed by a person designated by the operator. In that case, the operator becomes accountable for the circle check and the driver may accept or refuse the report.
Remember drivers must always carry a documented pre-trip inspection for the vehicle they’re operating.
Ensuring your drivers have all their paperwork in order will make the inspection go smoothly. Drivers should keep all applicable documentation up to date, organized, and easily accessible in the cab. Required documents include:
Your drivers also need to know how to use whatever ELD equipment is installed in the truck. During a roadside inspection, they will likely be asked to transfer the ELD records to the inspector. Your drivers will also need to know how to certify their RODS as complete and how to annotate them as necessary.
Finally, make it a point that your drivers need to keep the truck clean. A clean truck makes it easier for the inspector to do their job. Keeping the truck clean simply makes it look good in the eyes of the inspector. A clean truck presents your driver as detail-oriented and meticulous, two traits that can help pass inspection.
Key to remember: Helping your drivers be prepared and having a positive, helpful attitude towards the inspector will make a roadside inspection a more pleasant experience, even if the official finds a few infractions.
The 150 air-mile exemptions, which are in the regulations at 395.1(e)(1) and (2), allow a driver to use a time record in place of a log, provided that certain conditions are met. While this is possibly the most widely used hours-of-service exemption, it may be the most commonly misused exemption, as well.
To be able to use this logging exemption in 395.1(e)(1), the driver must:
The company must retain the time record and have it available for inspection for six months.
Need more info? View our ezExplanation on the 150 air-mile exception. |
If the driver cannot meet the terms of the exemption (he or she goes too far or works too many hours), the driver must complete a regular driver’s log for the day as soon as the exemption no longer applies.
If the driver has had to complete a log 8 or fewer days out of the last 30 days, the driver can use a paper log for the day. If the driver had to complete a log more than 8 days out of the last 30 days, the driver needs to use an electronic log for the day (unless one of the ELD exemptions applies, such as operating a vehicle older than model year 2000).
When a property-carrying driver is operating under the 150 air-mile exemption, the driver is also exempt from having to take the required 30-minute break (see 395.3(a)(3)(ii)).
If the driver began the day as a 150 air-mile driver and has driven more than 8 consecutive hours without a break, and something unexpected happens and the driver can no longer use the 150 air-mile exemption, the driver must stop and immediately take the 30-minute break as well as start logging. If the driver went outside of the 150 air-mile area before the driver had 8 hours of driving without a break from driving, the driver would be expected to take the break at the appropriate time.
Here are some of the common myths and misunderstandings about the 150 air-mile exemption:
The 150 air-mile exemption at 395.1(e)(2) only applies to drivers that: Operate property-carrying vehicles that do not require a CDL to operate, and Stay within the 150 air-miles of their work reporting location.
If the driver stays within the 150 air-mile radius of the work reporting location, and returns to the work reporting location within 14 hours on 5 of the last 7 days, and 16 hours on 2 of the last seven days, the driver is allowed to use a time record in place of a log.
If the driver does not meet the terms of the exception, the driver will need to complete a log for the day. If the driver had to log more than 8 days out of the last 30 days, the driver will need to use an electronic log for the day. All of the other issues discussed above would apply to these drivers as well.
If you have drivers that use these exemptions, you will need to check time records to make sure they are complying with the appropriate time limits. You will also need to check movement records to verify that the drivers using these exemptions are staying within the mandated area (within 150 air-miles of the work reporting location for the day).
If a driver is over the hours limit, or has gone too far, you need to verify that the submitted a log for the day, either paper or electronic, depending on how many days the driver had to log out of the previous 30 days.
During an audit, if it is discovered that your drivers are using these exemptions incorrectly, you will be cited for not having drivers’ logs when required. Each day this occurred will be another violation, so the fine could be rather large if you are not managing the use of these exemptions!
Most motor carriers review their roadside inspection reports for the obvious reasons: fixing mechanical defects and identifying unsafe or noncompliant driver behavior.
Some violations are easy to decipher, such as a burned-out light bulb or exceeding the speed limit by a specific range. Others take a little more to figure out, such as doing the math to determine when and how a driver exceeded hours-of-service (HOS) limits. Then there are all those 392.2 violations with suffixes. Some count against a carrier’s Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) scores, while others do not, depending on whether they contribute to causing a crash.
One that often baffles motor carriers is 392.2C.
Section 392.2C is enforcement’s code for “failure to obey traffic control device.” The C stands for control.
The citation appears in the severity table for the Unsafe Driving BASIC (Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Category). The violation has been assigned a value of 5 out 10, with 10 being the most severe. The violation is used when calculating both the carrier’s and driver’s Unsafe Driving BASIC scores.
In most instances, the traffic control device is not a signal light or stop or yield sign. Rather, it is the sign that instructs the driver to pull into a weigh station.
View our Weigh Stations ezExplanation for additional information. |
The vehicles that must stop at scales and inspection locations vary from state to state and even from location to location within a state. The “weigh scale ahead” or similar sign should be the driver’s guide.
If the sign reads:
Often those who operate commercial vehicles not requiring a commercial driver’s license, such as a large pickup truck or small box truck, mistakenly believe weigh scale inspections are just for larger rigs.
If a driver goes past a weigh station without pulling in as directed by a traffic control device, enforcement will pursue and pull over the driver. The officer will then escort the driver back to the weigh station for a roadside inspection.
Even if the driver was honestly confused whether the sign applied to the vehicle, it is too late. And more than likely enforcement’s interest has been piqued. It is highly unlikely the driver will be waived through at this point, and 392.2C will be entered on the roadside inspection report.
CSA’s enforcement model suggests finding the root cause of roadside inspection violations to prevent future occurrences and ultimately improve BASIC scores.
A violation of 392.2C may have one of several root causes, such as:
Whatever the reason, it must be addressed with the driver. Corrective actions range from refresher training to termination. If the driver was trying to avoid enforcement for other reasons (drugs, alcohol, over HOS limits), these other violations need to be addressed accordingly.
Key to remember: Failing to obey a traffic control device will be used in calculation of the CSA Unsafe Driving BASIC scores. Motor carriers should address the root cause of the violation so it does not recur.
A new executive order from the Trump administration sets in motion a campaign pledge to weed out regulations deemed overly burdensome or constructed on potentially shaky legal grounds.
The order requires federal agencies to review their regulations and report back to the White House by April 20, 60 days after the order was issued. Under the order, agencies are tasked with identifying rules that, among others:
The priority is on “significant” rules, generally considered to be those with an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
Once the regulations have been identified, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) will work with agency leaders to:
Executive order 14219, titled “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Deregulatory Initiative,” was issued February 19, 2025.
The order exempts regulations related to the military, national security, foreign affairs, immigration, and the federal workforce.
It also directs agencies to consult with DOGE and OMB on any potential new regulations to ensure they comply with all of President Trump’s executive orders to date, including orders to:
The OMB is expected to issue guidance to help agencies determine how best to implement the executive orders.
One question that comes up when reviewing roadside inspection reports is, “What is the meaning of the letters that follow a violation of 392.2 on a roadside inspection report?”
A violation of 392.2 is a violation of a local or state law, regulation, or ordinance. These must be obeyed due to 392.2, which reads, “Every commercial motor vehicle must be operated in accordance with the laws, ordinances, and regulations of the jurisdiction in which it is being operated.”
The confusion is that there are no paragraphs in 392.2, so there technically should be no letters following that section. However, to inform the driver, carrier, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) what particular state or local law or regulation was involved, FMCSA has developed a system of suffix codes. The letters following “392.2” – the “suffix” — show which state or local law or regulation was involved.
When one of these codes is used, the officer should include a description of the specific violation in the “violation details” area on the actual inspection report. FYI: Summary roadside inspection reports (such as the ones visible in CSA’s SMS) do not show these details.
For more information, see our ezExplanation on Roadside Inspections. |
Not all of these state and local law or regulation violations are used by the FMCSA for scoring purposes. The Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) Safety Measurement System (SMS) does not use the 392.2 violations that cannot be tied to crash causation. Here are a couple of examples: 392.2UCR Failure to pay UCR fee and 392.2W Size and weight are not used.
Below are the top 10392.2violations written during 2021. All of these violations are safety-related, and therefore used in the CSA SMS for scoring. The BASIC within the SMS the violation is scored in is shown following the violation description.
In general, FMCSA does not write traffic codes. They rely on local and state agencies to do that. When state or local traffic codes are violated, it appears on a roadside inspection report as a violation of 392.2, with a suffix indicating which traffic code was involved.
To help employees get the most out of their benefits, it might be helpful to understand how much enrollees know about health plans and how satisfied they are with their coverage.
The good news is that 86 percent of enrollees understand that premiums are the amount paid for health insurance. Eighty-two percent know that the deductible is the amount paid out-of-pocket before a plan begins to pay for care.
Those statistics are from the 2024 Consumer Engagement in Health Care Survey (CEHCS) from the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) and Greenwald Research. This research, conducted from October 24 through November 25, 2024, found that there is, however, confusion when it comes to what is meant by prescription copayments and out-of-pocket maximums.
Here is a summary of what the survey of 2,011 insured adults revealed:
The survey results provide a national overview of what people know and don’t know about health benefits. To help your employees understand their health plans better, you should:
Key to remember: For employees to get the most from their health plan, they must understand the terminology. Likewise, employers need to know where there are gaps in employees’ understanding and satisfaction.
Workplace posters listing benefits and services available to veterans have been appearing on the walls of more workplaces in recent years, and in some cases state law requires them to be there.
A state law relating to a veteran benefits and services poster may require all employers to display the poster or may apply only to employers of a certain size. In some states, posting is optional.
When a state has a veteran services posting law, an employer’s responsibility will depend on the way the law is written.
Veteran benefits posters provide valuable information about employment assistance, educational resources, disability compensation, and other services available to veterans. They often include QR codes with links to websites offering more information.
These posters are typically developed after a state passes a law requiring a state to create a poster listing benefits and services available to veterans. The poster is usually designed by a state’s veterans services department or department of labor.
The law may include a posting requirement stating that employers of a certain size must display the poster. The poster is typically made available for download on a state’s veteran services or labor department website.
Illinois: Posting the Veterans Benefits and Services notice is optional.
Indiana: The Veteran Benefits and Services poster must be displayed by employers with more than 50 employees.
Louisiana: The Veterans Benefits poster must be displayed by employers with more than 50 employees.
Maine: The Veterans’ Benefits and Services poster must be displayed by employers with more than 50 employees.
Massachusetts: The Veteran Services posting must be displayed by employers with more than 50 full-time employees.
Michigan: As of April 2, 2025, all employers will be required to display a Veterans’ Benefits and Services poster.
Minnesota: The Veterans Benefits and Services poster must be displayed by employers with more than 50 full-time employees.
New Hampshire: The Notice of Veterans’ Benefits and Services must be displayed by all employers.
New York: The Veteran Benefits and Services poster must be displayed by employers with more than 50 full-time employees.
Rhode Island: The Veterans’ Benefits and Services poster must be displayed by employers with 50 or more employees.
Virginia: The Resources for Virginia Veterans poster is optional.
Key to remember: A state may offer a veteran benefits poster. The requirement to display it will depend on state law.
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.
Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers must keep records of nonexempt (hourly) employee hours worked and pay. The FLSA, however, eases recordkeeping requirements for exempt (salaried) employees.
Even though most nonexempt workers are paid an hourly rate, they can be paid a weekly salary as long as it’s above the required minimum hourly wage. Of course, this might make managing timekeeping records a little harder.
A court case helped serve as a valuable reminder for employers about the importance of diligent recordkeeping when it comes to keeping track of employees’ pay.
A remote employee, Tara, was free to design her schedule. The employer designated Tara’s position as salaried — though not necessarily exempt. Tara said the company wouldn’t allow her to log any hours worked outside of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. into the company’s timekeeping system. As a result, those records were inaccurate, given Tara’s flexible schedule.
Tara’s supervisors became increasingly dissatisfied with her job performance. According to one supervisor, Tara couldn’t explain what she worked on throughout the day, yet she complained about having too much to do. The company fired Tara on August 2, 2021, and she sued, claiming that the company didn’t pay her for overtime.
In court, Tara admitted that she didn’t keep track of any time she worked over 40 hours per week, but claimed she worked an average of 10 hours per day and 15 hours of overtime per workweek.
Because Tara didn’t keep good records of the hours she spent working, the court ruled in favor of the employer. The burden of proving liability remains with the employee. Had Tara kept good records, the case would likely have had a different and more costly conclusion for the employer.
In cases like Tara’s where an employee has established an FLSA violation but can’t point to the employer’s records to prove violations that warrant damages to be paid out, a relaxed burden of proof applies. Employees can prove damages by relying on their recollection and documentation. They can approximate the extent of overtime from the particulars of the jobs they did. They can rely on reasonable estimations and inferences to prove the amount of overtime worked.
If that were the case, the employer would have a tough time refuting Tara’s argument, as its records were inaccurate.
While this employer won in court, it was only because the employee failed to keep good records of her schedule. Had Tara kept better records of her work hours, the employer might have lost.
Employers that don’t keep good records create a higher risk of losing their argument and potentially facing costly damages.
Key to remember: Employers must keep track of hours worked for all nonexempt employees, even if they designate them as salaried.
Employees may take leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for several reasons, and one of those reasons is to care for their own or a family member’s medical condition. There’s no list of qualifying medical conditions, so employers have to gather all the facts to see if FMLA applies.
FMLA-related medical conditions can be short- or long-term. Some employers believe that their FMLA obligations aren’t triggered unless and until an employee misses three days of work. That’s just not true in many situations, and here’s why.
The FMLA defines a serious health condition as an illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that involves inpatient care or continuing treatment by a health care provider.
Inpatient care is an overnight stay in a health care facility. If the employee or family member had an overnight stay, it’s an FMLA serious health condition regardless of how many days of work the employee missed.
If the employee or family member did not have an overnight stay, employers move on to the continuing treatment part of the definition.
A serious health condition involving continuing treatment includes the following:
Not all parts of the definition above will apply to a particular situation. The only part of the continuing treatment segment that involves three days, for example, falls under the first bullet. For all the other parts, any period of incapacity would be FMLA leave. An employee doesn’t need to miss three days of work.
The period of more than three days applies to how long the individual is incapacitated, not how many days of work the employee missed. If, for example, an employee who normally works Monday through Friday suffers a serious health condition on Friday evening and is incapacitated until Wednesday, the period of incapacity is more than three days. The employee missed only two days of work, but those two days would be FMLA leave.
Failure to designate an absence as FMLA leave when it is called for risks a claim that the employer interfered with the employee’s FMLA rights.
Key to remember: Employees don’t have to miss three days of work to trigger an employer’s FMLA obligations.
Employers sometimes get tripped up on how to calculate the 1,250 hours worked eligibility criterion when employees need leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
Does working overtime count toward the 1,250?
Recently, someone asked if overtime hours counted toward the 1,250 hours worked requirement (it does).
All hours actually worked apply to the 1,250, whether overtime or regular time, even if the overtime is not mandatory.
The 1,250 hours is calculated in relation to when the leave will begin, not when the employee puts an employer on notice of the need for leave.
Whether an employee is allowed to work overtime, however, is generally up to company policy. As far as pay goes, remember, if the employee is nonexempt (“hourly”) and works any overtime (mandatory or voluntary) the employee must be paid time and one-half for all hours worked over 40 within the workweek.
More about FMLA leave requirements
To be eligible to take FMLA leave, employees must:
Whether an employee has worked the minimum 1,250 hours is calculated based on determining compensable hours or work under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Calculating the 1,250 hours worked
When it comes to figuring out if an employee has worked at least 1,250 hours, it can get tricky. As was mentioned above, all hours worked, regular and overtime, must be counted.
Hours not worked should not be counted. The “not worked hours” include such time off as vacation time, sick leave, paid or unpaid holidays, or any other time in which an employee isn’t actually working — which can include disability, bereavement, FMLA and other forms of leave.
Once an employee meets the three eligibility criteria, including the 1,250 hours worked, for a particular leave reason, the employee remains eligible for the duration of the 12-month leave year period.
If the employee needs leave for another, different reason, eligibility would be recalculated.
Key to remember: All hours worked must be included in the 1,250 hours criterion when determining whether an employee is eligible for FMLA leave. Hours that aren’t worked (like vacation) are not included.
When OSHA introduced the 300 Log in 2001, many employers still kept paper records, so OSHA’s packet of PDF forms includes instructions that aren’t in the regulations. Safety professionals who maintain electronic 300 Logs could be missing important information.
Programs that manage electronic 300 Logs will typically include questions to gather information such as the date of the injury and the body part affected. However, OSHA’s packet of forms provides clarification on a number of points.
If the status of a case changes or the employer learns the incident wasn’t work-related, OSHA explained that employers may “draw a line through the original entry or, if you wish, delete or white-out the original entry.” Employers using electronic records can delete entries that were erroneously added to the 300 Log.
Employers classify recordable incidents by the most serious outcome, which in descending order are death, days away, restriction/transfer, and other recordable. The packet explains that employers must “choose only one of these categories.” If the outcome changes, employers must revise the 300 Log.
For example, an injured worker might initially need days of restriction, but later requires surgery and incurs days away. If that happens, the employer would list day counts in both the “days away” and the “restriction/transfer” columns but would reclassify the incident as a days away case.
Employers can stop counting after 180 days, which can be a total from both columns. The instructions explain, “You may stop counting days of restricted work activity or days away from work once the total of either or the combination of both reaches 180 days.” For example, if an employee had 100 days away and 80 days of restriction, the employer can stop counting even if the employee has not yet returned to full duty.
Employers must also classify recordable incidents as either injuries or illnesses. Generally, an injury results from a single event (like a cut, fracture, bruise, or burn). In contrast, an illness develops over time, even just a few hours (such as carpel tunnel syndrome, heat stress, or frostbite).
The instructions further explain, “Sprain and strain injuries to muscles, joints, and connective tissues are classified as injuries when they result from a slip, trip, fall or other similar accidents.” Conversely, a strain that develops over time would be an illness. The instructions provide extensive examples of illnesses for each category such as poisoning or “all other illnesses.”
When preparing the 300A Annual Summary, employers must list the average annual number of employees and the total hours worked by all employees. This information helps determine incident rates. For related information, see our article When determining injury rates, beware of partial years.
Although OSHA provides a calculation to determine average annual employment, that formula is intended for workforces that fluctuate. Employers don’t need to perform the calculation if employee counts remain fairly consistent. The instructions explain:
If you pay about the same number of employees every pay period throughout the year (e.g., about 100), then you can use that number as your annual average employment. If the number of employees fluctuates from pay period to pay period (e.g., your business is seasonal or your establishment grew or shrunk during the year), then you should use the formula below to calculate employment average.
For hours worked, employers must include hours from temps or other contract workers if the employer provided day-to-day supervision (since the employer was responsible for recording injuries to those workers). However, do not count vacation, sick leave, holidays, or other non-work time even if employees were paid for it. Finally, if some employees are not paid by the hour (by the mile, commission, salary, etc.) the employer may estimate the hours worked.
Key to remember: OSHA provides many instructions on how to complete the 300 Log in a PDF packet of the forms, including information that does not appear in the regulations.
Although it’s always a good time to practice ladder safety, March is Ladder Safety Month, so there’s no better time to focus your compliance efforts on this common equipment. It’s easy to take ladders for granted — after all, we use them regularly at home and at work. However, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) claims that, from 2021 to 2022, ladders were the source of more than 42,250 days-away on-the-job injuries and took the lives of over 330 workers.
While ladders can cause struck-by and overexertion injuries, 85 percent of ladder-related injuries from 2021 to 2022 stemmed from falls, according to the BLS. Industries that experience higher ladder fall injury rates include:
Some of the major causes of ladder falls are:
Ladders come under OSHA’s walking-working surfaces regulations in 29 CFR 1910 Subpart D. The ladder regulation at 1910.23 applies to all general industry employers that use ladders, with two exceptions: ladders used for emergency operations (e.g., firefighting or rescue operations) and ladders that are an integral part of a machine’s design.
As an employer, you must ensure that:
Ladder safety training must be conducted by a “qualified person.” Per 1910.21, a qualified person describes someone who has successfully demonstrated the ability to solve or resolve problems relating to the subject matter, the work, or the project. That demonstrated ability must be shown by:
OSHA believes that many employers can draw upon the knowledge and experience of their staff to provide effective ladder safety training. Crew chiefs, supervisors, and other individuals at a facility can train workers. The catch is if they do not have a recognized degree, certification, or professional standing, then these trainers must have extensive knowledge, training, and experience. You may use outside personnel to train workers if, again, that trainer is a “qualified person.”
Workers must be trained on the proper use of ladders, correct climbing techniques, and how to use any safety systems that are in place. When making a climb, your workers must:
Other ladder safety precautions include:
Ladders must be inspected before initial use in each work shift, and more frequently as necessary. The idea is to identify any visible defects that could cause workplace injury. The phrase “as necessary” may include instances where a ladder falls over or potentially gets damaged during use.
Although inspection procedures aren’t outlined in the regulations, OSHA has said that it recognizes that an inspection done before the first use of the shift may be different from an “as necessary” inspection. For example, an inspection performed before the first use may include a check that the rungs are parallel and the footing is stable, while an inspection that’s conducted if a ladder is struck by a vehicle may look for structural cracks, missing rungs, or bent spreaders.
If you or your workers find a defect during use or inspection, immediately tag it, “Dangerous: Do Not Use,” or other similar language that meets the requirements of 1910.145. The ladder must be immediately removed from service until repaired or replaced.
Key to remember: Statistics show that workers have been seriously injured or killed due to falls from ladders. You, the employer, must ensure workers are trained on safe use and that ladder inspections are performed initially and as necessary.
In a devastating incident in July 2024, a 58-year-old supervisor tragically lost his life while working on a door molding machine in Alabama. The employee was servicing the equipment when he became entrapped, suffering fatal head injuries.
Unfortunately, this tragedy highlights the importance of the employer’s responsibility to not only have safety programs are in place, but also ensuring workers are effectively trained and properly follow the safety processes and procedures.
OSHA's investigation revealed that critical safety procedures were not followed for machine safety. The company was cited for one willful violation for not de-energizing a machine and two serious violations for allowing employees to bypass safety doors and failing to conduct annual inspections on energy control procedures. These violations have resulted in $193,585 in proposed penalties. Unfortunately, this isn't the first time the company has faced safety issues; there have been previous fatalities and a history of violations since 2016.
So, what can an employer do to ensure this does not happen to them? OSHA provides two comprehensive standards related to machine safety that employers need to establish in their safety programs. The first is machine guarding, found at 1910 Subpart O - Machinery and Machine Guarding. The second is 1910.147, The Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout).
The machine guarding standard requires that machines be equipped with guards to protect operators and other employees from hazards such as point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, and flying debris. These guards must be securely attached to the machine and designed to prevent any part of an employee's body from entering the danger zone during operation.
OSHA doesn't specifically require machine guarding training, but it does expect employers to make sure their workers are protected from machine hazards. This means employers need to train their employees on how to recognize these hazards and use machine guards correctly. As a best practice, training should occur prior to working on the equipment, and whenever changes in the equipment or processes occur that impact the guarding.
Lockout/Tagout (LOTO) requirements are designed to protect workers from hazardous energy during the servicing and maintenance of machines and equipment. The standard applies to the control of energy during these activities, where unexpected energization or the release of stored energy could cause injury.
As part of this regulation, employers must establish an energy control program that includes specific procedures for shutting down, isolating, blocking, and securing machines or equipment to control hazardous energy. The regulation also requires evaluating the procedures at least annually to ensure they are accurate and effective.
Employee training is dependent on the role of the employees including:
Key to remember: This tragic incident highlights the urgent need for employers to enforce safety when working with machines, including machine guarding and lockout/tagout procedures, and ensure employees are well-trained to recognize and mitigate hazards.
Siding with OSHA, an 11-page court opinion confirms that an agency interpretive letter is not a rulemaking. Therefore, the letter at issue in the case did not require notice and comment and was not arbitrary or capricious, argues the court.
The U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California dismissed case number 24-cv-04985-RS on February 3. The court found that the plaintiff could not show it was damaged by the letter.
OSHA frequently posts letters of interpretation (LOIs) online. These letters respond to stakeholders who ask regulatory questions. OSHA directive STD 08-00-001 defines interpretations as “explanations of standards and their workplace application.”
The STD goes on to say that interpretations address “scope and limitation, and any other questions which may arise regarding application to situations.” OSHA firmly states in the directive that “interpretations are not intended to change, modify, or cancel standards.”
In 1996, OSHA issued a final rule — Safety Standards for Scaffolds Used in the Construction Industry. It revised Subpart L of 29 CFR 1926.
Fast forward to December 6, 2013, OSHA sent an LOI to an engineer. Subsequently, OSHA posted it on the agency’s website. The letter focused on questions about how the weight of a scaffold is considered when determining whether the 4-to-1 factor is met under 1926.451(a)(1).
Then, in 2020, after the original letter “raised some confusion in the scaffold industry,” OSHA entered revisions to the 2013 letter posted online.
The court opinion explains that the plaintiff claimed:
Subsequently, the plaintiff sued OSHA in 2024. The case hinged on whether OSHA violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by issuing the 2020 LOI revisions without notice and comment. The plaintiff also asked the court to find the letter to be arbitrary and capricious (another violation of the APA).
The APA requires notice and comment for rulemakings. However, the judge wrote that, per 5 U.S.C. 553, these procedures don’t apply “to interpretative rules” in this case. The judge then referred to another court decision that explained that having no notice and comment makes issuing interpretive rules fast and easy. The tradeoff is that interpretive rules cannot be treated as laws or hold such weight. In fact, the judge calls the revised letter “informational.” In other words, LOIs are not requirements and cannot make employers do something, said the judge.
The opinion went on to project that even if the interpretation shifted from the 2013 to 2020 letters, the plaintiff did not show that OSHA changed its enforcement in any regard or that employers were likely to have changed their compliance approach in response to the revised letter. Plus, the plaintiff could have responded to the contractor dispute in ways other than those involving costs and project delays, contended the judge.
Finally, with regard to the claim of an arbitrary and capricious interpretation, the judge explains that while final rules are “reviewable,” LOIs are not.
Today, OSHA’s Standard Interpretations webpage provides a notice: “OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. [OSHA] interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. Each letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that [OSHA] enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time [the agency updates its] guidance in response to new information.”
Interestingly, that wording has changed over time. Back when the revised letter was issued in 2020, the webpage’s notice read: “Standard Interpretations are letters or memos written in response to public inquiries or field office inquiries regarding how some aspect of or terminology in an OSHA standard or regulation is to be interpreted and enforced by the Agency. These letters provide guidance to clarify the application of an established OSHA standard, policy, or procedure, but they may not, in themselves, establish or revise OSHA policy or procedure or interpret the OSH Act. They must specifically cite the source policy or procedure document they interpret.”
While both the old and new wording are similar, the new wording makes clear that LOIs do not set employer obligations. Rather, only the statute, standards, and regulations set requirements.
A court sided with OSHA over whether a revised LOI violated the APA. An opinion confirms that the OSHA interpretive letter is not a rulemaking, so it did not violate APA requirements.
Sometimes driving is part of the job. Like every other task, it must be done safely. However, transportation incidents have been the leading cause of workplace fatalities for several years. To combat this trend, experts say you should implement a 10-step program at your company.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data show that in 2023, transportation incidents accounted for 36.8 percent (1,942) of all work fatalities. That’s more than one third! Industries with the highest number of transportation-related deaths include:
Not all transportation incidents result in a fatality. The BLS also tells us that, from 2021 to 2022, 113,750 of the estimated 2.8M injuries with days away from work were caused by transportation incidents. Over 41 percent (46,830) of those involved employees that worked in transportation and materials moving jobs. This was followed by services occupations with over 22 percent (25,170).
Data from the Network of Employers for Traffic Safety (NETS) reveal that on-the-job highway crashes cost employers an estimated $26K per crash. They also amount to over $78K per injury!
There’s no OSHA regulation on company vehicle safety. Yet, the agency recommends that you have an effective workplace driver safety program in place if you provide company vehicles. The aim is to help reduce the risk of vehicle accidents. Ultimately, such a program can:
Wondering where to start? A 10-step program, Guidelines for Employers to Reduce Motor Vehicle Crashes, offers you some guidance. It was developed by NETS, OSHA, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). These best practices can help you create a robust company vehicle safety program. In this way you can promote safety and reduce the likelihood of accidents. Program steps include:
Key to remember: Transportation incidents are the leading cause of work fatalities. OSHA suggests that you have an effective workplace driver safety program in place if you provide company vehicles.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics reported in July 2024 that there are 8.2 million job openings in the U.S., but only 7.2 million unemployed workers.
With that in mind, employers might choose to hang onto employees even if they’re under performing. But what about when complaints are rolling in from different angles? Take, for example, a lackluster supervisor who’s annoying employees and disappointing customers.
An employer could be hesitant to let the supervisor go, especially if there’s no documentation backing up claims of misconduct. The employer must weigh their options to decide if putting the supervisor on a performance improvement plan (PIP) or moving right to termination is the ideal choice.
At-will employment
For starters, in most states employers may terminate an employee at-will, meaning they can fire employees for pretty much any reason as long as it doesn’t discriminate against someone in a protected class based on sex, age, race, religion, etc. Employers also cannot terminate in retaliation for an employee making a claim of harassment, discrimination, or safety concerns.
Aside from these limits, employers can terminate employees for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all.
PIP or terminate
Deciding whether to put an employee on a PIP or terminate must be decided on a case-by-case basis.
A PIP is usually for job performance issues (hence, performance improvement plan). This could mean anything from not making enough sales to being inept at the job’s essential functions. If job performance doesn’t improve under the PIP, termination may be the end result depending on company policies and practices.
Even if an employee has job performance issues, the employer can terminate without going through the PIP process first, unless the usual process is to implement a PIP with employees who have had similar problems. In that case, not doing a PIP could be seen as discrimination against an employee, especially if the person falls into a protected class.
Workplace misconduct, however, is another situation altogether. This could be anything from a one-off poor joke to pervasive harassment. Snapping at customers or coworkers (or worse), for example, is a conduct issue. An employer could issue a warning or move right to termination if the behavior is clearly illegal or a serious threat to workplace safety.
Read more: ezExplanation on discharging employees |
Termination tips
If an employer decides to terminate, they should treat the employee as respectfully as possible during the termination process. Also, an employer should carefully and clearly communicate the job-related reasons for the termination to avoid any hint of discrimination. Lastly, an employer should document the reasons and reiterate the steps taken leading up to the termination and keep those records handy in case the employee files a wrongful termination lawsuit.
Key to remember: Employers sometimes struggle when making termination decisions. Having a process in place and documenting steps along the way can help if a case lands in court.