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).
Every year at the beginning of July, industrial facilities across the nation can breathe a collective sigh of relief — their annual inventories of toxic chemicals are complete! To ensure that your facility can be part of that celebration (and avoid a chaotic rush to meet the deadline), now’s the perfect time to start preparing for the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) TRI program requires industrial facilities to report waste management data on certain toxic chemicals they manufacture, process, and use by July 1 each year. Is your facility ready to report? Here’s an overview of the TRI program to help you answer this question.
Generally, TRI reporting applies if the facility:
TRI tip: The TRI reporting year (RY) reflects the calendar year covered by the report, not the year in which you submit the report. For example, TRI reports for RY 2025 are due by July 1, 2026.
Facilities must submit the TRI Form R (or the streamlined Form A Certification Statement if eligible) for each TRI-listed chemical manufactured, processed, or used during the previous calendar year. The data covers chemical waste management activities (including releases to the environment) and any actions taken to reduce or prevent chemical waste.
Facilities usually report for each chemical:
The TRI reports for RY 2025 contain three differences from previous years:
| EPA registry name | CASRN |
|---|---|
| 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate acid | 27619-97-2 |
| 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate ammonium salt | 59587-39-2 |
| 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate anion | 425670-75-3 |
| 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate potassium salt | 59587-38-1 |
| 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate sodium salt | 27619-94-9 |
| Acetic acid, [(.gamma.-.omega.-perfluoro-C8-10-alkyl)thio] derivs., Bu esters | 3030471-22-5 |
| Ammonium perfluorodecanoate | 3108-42-7 |
| Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid | 377-73-1 |
| Sodium perfluorodecanoate | 3830-45-3 |
Facilities must submit TRI reports electronically to the TRI-MEweb application on EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). Even if a facility uses its own software to prepare TRI forms, it must upload and submit the forms to TRI-MEweb.
TRI tip: To complete the submission process on TRI-MEweb, you need to assign one user the Preparer role and another user the Certifying Official role. Ensure both users have added TRI-MEweb to their CDX user accounts.
TRI reports must be submitted to both EPA and the state. If your facility’s state participates in the TRI Data Exchange (TDX), TRI-MEweb will automatically send your report to the state. If your facility’s state doesn’t participate, you must send a hard copy of the report to the TRI state contact.
TRI tip: Use EPA’s “TRI Data Exchange” webpage to determine whether your facility’s state participates in TDX. As of March 2026, all 50 states participate in TDX. The District of Columbia doesn’t participate.
Keep these things in mind when preparing your TRI reports:
Start preparing for TRI reporting now to give your facility plenty of time to gather data, complete the forms, and respond to unexpected issues that could arise. That way, your facility can breathe easily throughout the whole reporting season.
Key to remember: The submission deadline for TRI reporting is July 1, 2026. Make sure your facility is ready to report.
On March 10, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized emission regulations for large municipal waste combustors (LMWCs). The final rule revises nearly all emission limits for new and existing LMWCs.
Who’s impacted?
The final rule applies to LMWCs that combust more than 250 tons per day of municipal solid waste and are covered by the:
EPA established new subparts for the amendments at 40 CFR Part 60, including:
What are the changes?
Generally, stricter emission limits apply. For all LMWCs (new and existing), the rule revises the emission limits for:
For all new LMWCs, the final rule revises the emission limits for carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). The final rule also amends the CO and NOx limits for all existing LMWCs, except for the CO limits for two subcategories of combustors and the NOx limits for two subcategories of combustors for new municipal solid waste incinerators.
Other major changes include:
What’s the compliance timeline?
When EPA updates EGs, states must revise their State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to incorporate the changes. States have to submit revised SIPs by March 10, 2027. Once EPA approves the SIP, facilities with existing LMWCs must meet the new standards either within 3 years of the SIP’s approval date or by March 10, 2031, whichever is earlier.
New LMWCs must comply with the amended NSPS by September 10, 2026, or upon startup, whichever is later.
Key to remember: EPA finalized stronger emission limits for new and existing large municipal waste combustors and made other changes to the standards.
Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news. Let’s take a look at what happened over the past month.
Fatal work injuries fell 4 percent in 2024, largely due to a decline in workplace drug- and alcohol-related overdoses. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, overdose fatalities fell from 512 in 2023 to 410 in 2024. Across all types of workplace incidents, there were 5,070 fatal work injuries in 2024, compared to 5,283 in 2023. Transportation incidents continue to be the most frequent type of fatal event, accounting for over 38 percent of all occupational fatalities in 2024.
OSHA is fast-tracking a proposal to remove the 2036 obligation to upgrade fall protection systems on fixed ladders that extend over 24 feet. This follows an industry petition from major chemical and petroleum industry groups, which argue the provision is unjustified, costly, and not supported by the rulemaking record. OSHA frames the upcoming proposed action as deregulatory, allowing employers to update fixed ladders at the end of their service lives. We’ll provide updates as more information becomes available.
As OSHA leans into “deregulatory” actions, lawmakers are moving to pressure the agency to issue “regulatory” rulemaking to protect American workers. The latest legislative wave of bills aims to fill regulatory gaps, tackle emerging hazards, expand OSHA authority, and raise penalties. Topics addressed by these bills include musculoskeletal disorders, heat stress, infectious diseases, wildfire smoke, and workplace violence.
In a recently issued letter of interpretation, OSHA states that a burn injury caused by a personal lithium-ion battery fire is work related if it occurs in the workplace during assigned working hours. The letter details an incident where an employee was burned when their rechargeable lithium-ion batteries for e-cigarettes sparked a fire after coming into contact with a key used for work.
A new report from the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General concludes that OSHA struggles to meet its mission, particularly in high-risk industries like healthcare, construction, and manufacturing. Several pages point to OSHA’s difficulties in effectively enforcing annual injury and illness reporting requirements, reaching the nation’s high-risk worksites for inspection, and addressing workplace violence by regulatory or other action.
Turning to environmental news, EPA extended the deadlines for Facility Evaluation Reports and related requirements for coal combustion residuals facilities. In most instances, the deadlines have been moved one or two years out.
And finally, EPA announced a final rule eliminating the 2009 Endangerment Finding and related greenhouse gas emission requirements for on-highway vehicles and vehicle engines. When the final rule takes effect, manufacturers and importers of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines will no longer have to measure, report, certify, or comply with federal greenhouse gas emission standards.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
Effective date: February 14, 2026
This applies to: Open and closed municipal solid waste landfills
Description of change: The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission added Regulation 31, which establishes new emission control and monitoring requirements for municipal solid waste landfills. Applicability is based on the landfill’s amount of waste it holds and methane emissions.
Significant changes implemented by Regulation 31 include:
Related state info: Clean air operating permits state comparison
Effective date: January 20, 2026
This applies to: Participating entities
Description of change: The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) revised the Voluntary Environmental Self-Audit Program rules in January 2026. Some of the changes include:
Effective date: March 11, 2026
This applies to: Construction activities that discharge stormwater into Waters of the State
Description of change: The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) revised the Delaware National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit (CGP), which implements the DNREC Sediment and Stormwater Management Program.
It applies to construction activities that plan to disturb 1 or more acres (or activities that plan to disturb less than 1 acre but are part of a larger common plan of development or sale that will disturb more than 1 acre) that discharge stormwater to Waters of the State.
The DNREC made minimal changes to the NPDES CGP. The 2026 NPDES CGP will provide coverage for 5 years.
Related state info: Construction water permitting — Delaware
Effective date: February 1, 2026
This applies to: Water right holders who divert more than 10 acre-feet per year
Description of change: The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) updated the Water Measurement and Reporting Regulation (SB 88) with changes primarily affecting reporting requirements, such as:
Updated measuring and reporting requirements take effect on October 1, 2026.
On March 5, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed rule to end the use of paper hazardous waste manifests and require waste handlers to use electronic manifests on the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest (e-Manifest) System to track all shipments of hazardous waste regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
What are the proposed changes?
EPA proposes to “sunset” (i.e., phase out) the use of paper manifests and shift to using only electronic manifests (either fully electronic or hybrid) to track RCRA hazardous waste shipments.
The sunset compliance date would be 2 years from the publication date of a final rule. On and after the sunset compliance date, EPA would no longer accept paper hazardous waste manifests (image-only and data-plus-image submission types). In other words, regulated waste handlers would have to use fully electronic or hybrid manifests on the e-Manifest System for all hazardous waste shipments initiated on and after the sunset compliance date.
Who would be impacted?
The proposed rule would affect waste handlers involved in manifesting hazardous waste, including:
Many of the proposed changes would align RCRA regulations with the shift to electronic-only manifesting and with the 2024 e-Manifest Third Rule’s changes. The proposed rule also contains technical corrections to import and export regulations.
Additionally, EPA’s proposed rule would add requirements for:
Examples of these requirements include:
EPA will accept public comments on the proposed rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2025-3456) through May 4, 2026.
Key to remember: EPA proposes to end the use of paper manifests and require waste handlers to use electronic manifests to track all RCRA hazardous waste shipments.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued an administrative continuance of the 2021 Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) and a No Action Assurance memorandum for industrial stormwater discharges regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
The 2021 MSGP expired on February 28, 2026. However, because EPA hasn’t reissued a new permit to replace the expired permit, the 2021 MSGP remains in effect for facilities previously covered. Additionally, the No Action Assurance allows facilities without previous coverage to discharge industrial stormwater in compliance with the 2021 MSGP.
Who’s affected?
Facilities are required to obtain MSGPs for stormwater discharges from industrial activities in areas where EPA is the permitting authority, including:
What do existing facilities do?
The administrative continuance automatically applies to existing facilities that were actively covered by the 2021 MSGP before it expired. The facility’s coverage status should show “Admin. Continued” in the NPDES eReporting Tool (NeT-MSGP).
Facilities will remain covered by the 2021 MSGP until EPA issues a new MSGP and the facilities obtain coverage under the new MSGP. Until then, existing facilities should continue to comply with the 2021 MSGP requirements.
EPA will provide further guidance on renewing coverage when it issues the new MSGP.
What do new facilities do?
New facilities can’t obtain coverage under the MSGP until EPA issues a new permit. However, EPA issued a memorandum on February 27, 2026, establishing a No Action Assurance. The agency won’t take enforcement action against new facilities for unpermitted stormwater discharges if the facilities meet specific conditions.
The No Action Assurance extends from March 1, 2026, to the new MSGP’s effective date.
Applicability
EPA’s No Action Assurance applies to facilities that:
The assurance doesn’t apply to existing facilities that started stormwater discharges before February 28, 2026, without obtaining 2021 MSGP coverage.
Conditions
To be covered by the No Action Assurance, new facilities have to:
What’s next?
Once EPA issues the new MSGP, facilities planning to continue industrial stormwater discharges must submit a new NOI through Net-MSGP within 90 days of the new MSGP’s effective date to obtain coverage under the new MSGP.
EPA provides guidance for existing and new facilities on its “Administrative Continuance of EPA’s 2021 MSGP” webpage.
Key to remember: EPA has temporarily extended coverage under the 2021 MSGP for industrial stormwater discharges until the agency issues a new general permit.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule on February 27, 2026, extending the submission deadline for the 2025 annual greenhouse gas (GHG) report from March to October 2026.
Who’s impacted?
The final rule applies to facilities regulated by the GHG Reporting Program (GHGRP) at 40 CFR Part 98. Generally, the GHGRP’s annual reporting requirement applies to three types of reporters:
What’s the change?
The final rule extends the submission deadline for the reporting year (RY) 2025 annual GHG report from March 31, 2026, to October 30, 2026. The delay applies only to RY 2025.
EPA explains in the final rule that delaying the submission deadline for the RY 2025 GHG report gives the agency time to take final action on the proposed revisions to the GHGRP (published in September 2025).
What does the GHG report cover?
The GHGRP requires facilities to report GHG data and other related information covering the previous calendar year.
The subparts under Part 98 contain the reporting requirements, and regulated facilities must report emissions for all applicable source categories. Reporters must use specific methods to calculate GHG emissions, which are detailed in the regulations; they can usually choose from a collection of methods.
Key to remember: EPA’s final rule delays the submission deadline for the 2025 annual GHG report from March to October 2026.
“Road Closed Ahead.” That’s the sign that now stands at the entrance of the regulatory road leading to the federal greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for vehicle and engine manufacturers.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule on February 18, 2026, to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repeal all GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines. The final rule applies to vehicles and engines of model years (MYs) 2012 to 2027 and beyond.
This overview will help you navigate EPA’s final rule that puts vehicle GHG emission requirements in the rearview mirror.
Manufacturers (including importers) of motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines no longer have future obligations to measure, control, report, or comply with federal GHG emission standards for any highway vehicle or engine, including for previously manufactured MYs.
Specifically, the final rule removes the requirements for controlling GHG emissions, which include:
Additionally, the final rule eliminates off-cycle credits for manufacturers that added certain technologies to their vehicles and engines (like waste heat recovery) and EPA’s incentives for manufacturers to install a start-stop system (which automatically shuts off a vehicle’s engine when idling).
The final rule takes effect on April 20, 2026. However, a legal challenge has already been brought against the rulemaking, and more litigation is likely.
It’s important to keep an eye on the status of the rule. Legal challenges could result in changes to the rule, such as delaying its effective date.
The final rule repeals all GHG emission regulations in 40 CFR:
The road to reversal begins in 2009. That’s when EPA issued two findings: the Endangerment Finding and the Cause or Contribute Finding. Collectively, these findings are referred to as the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The agency used the 2009 Endangerment Finding as the legal basis under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines based on global climate change concerns.
However, upon reconsideration, EPA no longer believes that it has the statutory authority under Section 202(a) of the CAA to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines in response to global climate change concerns. The agency bases its determination on three factors:
By rescinding the Endangerment Finding, EPA has no legal basis to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines. Accordingly, the final rule also repeals all GHG emission standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines.
Key to remember: EPA’s final rule eliminates the 2009 Endangerment Finding and the related GHG emission requirements for on-highway vehicles and vehicle engines.
On February 24, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule repealing the 2024 amendments made to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (EGUs). It’s also referred to as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for power plants.
Effective April 27, 2026, this rule (2026 Final Rule) repeals stricter compliance requirements made to the MATS rule in May 2024 (2024 Final Rule) and reverts them to the less stringent standards established by the 2012 MATS Rule.
Who’s affected?
The rule applies to power plants with coal- and oil-fired EGUs subject to the NESHAP (40 CFR 63 Subpart UUUUU).
What are the changes?
The final rule repeals these 2024 amendments:
The 2026 Final Rule also reinstates the low-emitting EGU (LEE) program for fPM and non-Hg HAP metals. The LEE program requires less frequent stack testing for sources with emissions below 50 percent of the corresponding limit for 3 consecutive years.
Further, EPA’s final rule updates the fPM sampling requirements for EGUs that demonstrate compliance with a PM CEMS. These units must collect either a minimum catch of 6.0 milligrams or a minimum sample volume of 4 dry standard cubic meters (dscm) per test run. EGUs demonstrating compliance using other methods must collect a lower minimum sample volume of 1 dscm per PM test run.
| Compliance requirement | 2024 Final Rule | 2026 Final Rule |
|---|---|---|
| fPM emission limit for existing coal-fired EGUs | 0.010 pounds per million British thermal units of heat input (lb/MMBtu) | 0.030 lb/MMBTu |
| fPM emission compliance demonstration for all coal-and oil-fired EGUs | EGUs must use PM CEMS | EGUs may use:
|
| Hg emission limit for existing lignite-fired EGUs | 1.2 pounds per trillion British thermal units of heat input (lb/TBtu) | 4.0 lb/TBtu |
Per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) pose one of the most urgent and complex challenges for wastewater systems in the United States. As federal agencies reconsider their regulatory strategies and states impose their own standards, publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and the industries that discharge to them face increasing pressure to control PFAS at the source. These pressures affect pretreatment permits, industrial dischargers, and biosolids management, forming a rapidly evolving compliance landscape. Recent federal assessments and state actions show that PFAS in wastewater and biosolids is no longer a distant regulatory issue. It is a primary driver shaping future POTW permitting.
PFAS enter POTWs through a mix of industrial wastewater, landfill leachate, household products, and consumer goods. Because PFAS are persistent and resistant to conventional treatment, they pass through biological processes largely unchanged. This means industrial contributors sending PFAS to a POTW can cause downstream compliance problems, even at low concentrations. EPA has emphasized that the best way to manage PFAS in wastewater is to prevent the chemicals from entering treatment systems in the first place, placing new attention on upstream industrial sources.
EPA’s 2025 trajectory indicates broader PFAS rulemaking is coming under several environmental statutes, including the Clean Water Act (CWA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act, although the federal landscape remains in flux. Still, agencies agree on one point: pretreatment programs will be an essential component of PFAS control.
Pretreatment permits regulate indirect dischargers, meaning industrial facilities that send wastewater to POTWs instead of directly to surface waters. These permits already manage pollutants that interfere with treatment or pass through into receiving waters. Now, PFAS has become a central focus.
States and POTWs are increasingly requiring:
EPA’s PFAS strategy specifically encourages states and POTWs to deploy all available pretreatment authorities to control PFAS at the source. This approach aligns with statements from EPA representatives asserting that upstream controls are one of the most effective tools for preventing PFAS from entering wastewater systems.
The PFAS problem does not end with liquid effluent. It extends into biosolids, the treated sewage sludge generated by POTWs. In 2025, EPA released a Draft Sewage Sludge Risk Assessment evaluating risks associated with PFOS and PFOA in biosolids applied to land. The assessment found potential human health risks under certain scenarios when biosolid concentrations exceeded 1 part per billion. Although EPA emphasized the assessment is not a regulatory standard, many states immediately treated the value as a de facto limit for biosolid land application.
This rapid adoption has created a challenging environment for POTWs. Unless PFAS inputs from industrial sources are reduced, biosolid PFAS levels remain high, limiting disposal options such as:
Some states have already implemented bans or strict standards on biosolid land application due to PFAS concerns.
EPA’s PFAS regulatory posture has shifted several times. In 2025, EPA announced its intent to rescind certain PFAS drinking water designations while maintaining standards for PFOS and PFOA, signaling continued reassessment of its overall PFAS approach. These actions underscore the unsettled nature of federal rulemaking.
Meanwhile, the 2021 PFAS Strategic Roadmap and its subsequent progress updates outline multiple forthcoming actions under the CWA, including potential effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) for PFAS manufacturers and metal finishers. These ELGs, if finalized, would apply to industrial direct and indirect dischargers and shape pretreatment standards nationwide. Yet, as of early 2026, EPA has not finalized technology based effluent limits for PFAS nor established national PFAS biosolids requirements, leaving states to fill the regulatory void.
Despite uncertainty, actions today can reduce long term liability:
POTWs should also coordinate with state environmental agencies, which continue to implement PFAS restrictions independent of federal action.
Pretreatment programs and biosolids management are becoming central to U.S. PFAS compliance. POTWs sit at the intersection of regulatory expectations, industrial discharges, and community concerns. While federal PFAS rules remain in development, state actions and EPA’s strategic direction make one fact clear: controlling PFAS at the source is essential.
Key to remember: For both industrial users and POTWs, proactive PFAS management is no longer optional. It is a core element of future permitting, planning, and risk reduction.
Recent changes in federal environmental policy have created uncertainty for regulated industries. When federal agencies slow rulemaking, reduce enforcement, or narrow requirements, states often step in. As a result, states are taking a stronger role in setting environmental rules, especially on climate change, air quality, and environmental justice.
This shift is changing how industrial facilities understand and manage regulatory risks.
Several states have moved to the front of environmental policymaking. California is the most well-known example. Through the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the state enforces air and climate rules that go beyond federal standards. These include strict vehicle emissions limits and greenhouse gas controls for industrial sources. Because California’s economy is so large, its rules often shape compliance decisions across the country.
Other states are following similar paths. For example, New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act sets clear, enforceable emissions-reduction goals. It also requires agencies to consider climate and environmental justice impacts during permitting. Washington has adopted a cap-and-invest program that limits carbon emissions from major sources and fuel suppliers.
For industrial operators, state-led regulation adds complexity and risk. Companies with facilities in multiple states may face very different rules, timelines, and reporting requirements. Meeting federal standards alone may no longer be enough.
Facilities can still fall out of compliance with state rules covering air emissions, water discharges, waste management, or community impacts. These differences can affect permitting schedules, capital planning, and long-term site decisions.
State enforcement is often more focused and, in many cases, more stringent than federal enforcement. Many states are increasing inspections and placing greater emphasis on environmental justice.
Facilities located near overburdened or historically impacted communities may face closer review, even when federal enforcement activity is limited.
To operate successfully in this environment, companies need a proactive approach. Tracking state regulatory changes is essential, since states often move faster than federal agencies. Building compliance programs around the most stringent applicable rules can reduce long-term risk.
Early engagement with state regulators and local communities can also make a difference. Open communication can improve relationships, reduce conflict, and support smoother permitting outcomes.
For industrial facilities, success now depends less on watching Washington and more on understanding the growing influence of state capitals.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule on February 18, 2026, to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repeal all federal greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for:
The final rule takes effect on April 20, 2026, and applies to vehicles and engines of model years 2012 to 2027 and beyond.
What are the changes?
Manufacturers (including importers) of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines no longer have to measure, report, or comply with federal GHG emission standards. The final rule removes all GHG emission regulations in 40 CFR:
The final rule also eliminates:
What doesn’t change?
EPA’s following regulations remain in effect for new motor vehicles and vehicle engines:
About the 2009 Endangerment Finding
In 2009, EPA issued two findings: the Endangerment Finding and the Cause or Contribute Finding. Collectively, these findings are referred to as the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The agency used the 2009 Endangerment Finding as the legal basis to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
EPA regulated GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines through:
However, upon reconsideration, EPA stated that it no longer believes it has the statutory authority under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines. Therefore, the agency has simultaneously rescinded the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repealed the related federal GHG emission regulations.
Key to remember: EPA's final rule eliminates the 2009 Endangerment Finding and the related GHG emission requirements for on-highway vehicles and vehicle engines.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule that extends the deadlines for Facility Evaluation Reports (FERs) required for active and inactive coal combustion residuals (CCR) facilities. The final rule also delays compliance deadlines for related requirements that apply to CCR facilities with CCR management units (CCRMUs).
Who’s impacted?
The final rule applies to:
The 2024 Legacy Final Rule (40 CFR Part 257 Subpart D) requires active CCR facilities and legacy CCR surface impoundments to submit FER Part 1 and FER Part 2, identifying any CCRMUs of 1 ton or more on-site. CCRMUs include previously unregulated CCR surface impoundments and landfills that closed before October 19, 2015, as well as inactive CCR landfills.
Additionally, the 2024 Legacy Final Rule requires facilities with CCRMUs to:
What are the changes?
EPA’s final rule extends compliance deadlines for the following standards:
| Compliance requirement(s) | 2024 Legacy Final Rule deadline | 2026 final rule new deadline |
|---|---|---|
| Establish CCR website | February 9, 2026 | February 9, 2027 |
| Submit FER Part 1 | February 9, 2026 | February 9, 2027 |
| Submit FER Part 2 | February 8, 2027 | February 8, 2028 |
| Install groundwater monitoring system | May 8, 2028 | February 10, 2031 |
| Develop groundwater sampling and analysis program | May 8, 2028 | February 10, 2031 |
| May 8, 2028 | February 10, 2031 |
| Submit initial GWMCA report | January 31, 2029 | January 31, 2032 |
| Submit closure plan | November 8, 2028 | August 11, 2031 |
| Submit post-closure care plan | November 8, 2028 | August 11, 2031 |
| Initiate closure | May 8, 2029 | February 9, 2032 |
How do businesses keep confidential information “off the record”? Companies that are required to report on federally regulated chemical substances may soon face this question, as the first round of confidential business information (CBI) claims starts expiring in June 2026.
Thankfully, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has answered how to keep CBI off the record. On January 6, 2026, the agency published in the Federal Register the process to request extensions of expiring CBI claims for information submitted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Here’s what you need to know.
Businesses that seek to extend a CBI claim beyond its expiration date must submit an extension request. The Federal Register notice describes the following general process:
1. EPA notifies the entity of an expiring CBI claim.
The agency will publish a list of TSCA submissions with expiring CBI claims on the Confidential Business Information Under TSCA (TSCA CBI) website at least 60 days before the claims expire.
EPA will also notify submitters directly through its online Central Data Exchange (CDX). Verify that your company’s contact information on CDX is updated!
Submitters with CBI claims for specific chemical identities should reference the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (column EXP) to confirm expiration dates.
2. The entity submits an extension request.
The extension request for an expiring CBI claim includes:
EPA lists the general questions that apply to all CBI claims at 703.5(b)(3). Additional questions at 703.5(b)(4) apply to entities claiming CBI for specific chemical identities.
Businesses must submit the extension through EPA’s CDX at least 30 days before the CBI claim expires. The agency is currently developing a new application on CDX for submitting extension requests, which it plans to launch before CBI claims begin expiring in June 2026.
If there’s a delay, EPA will notify submitters on the TSCA CBI website. Additionally, the agency won’t publicize any information from expiring CBI claims until businesses have the opportunity to submit extension requests and the agency reviews them.
3. EPA reviews the extension request.
If the agency approves the extension request, the information in the CBI claim will remain protected for up to another 10 years.
If the agency denies the extension request, the information in the CBI claim can be publicized once the claim expires. EPA will notify submitters of denied claims through CDX at least 30 days before it plans to disclose the information.
Regulated entities have three ways to address expiring CBI claims:
Keep in mind that if you withdraw a CBI claim or allow it to expire, EPA can publicize this information without notifying you beforehand.
The CBI extension request process applies to companies that have made CBI claims under TSCA on or after June 22, 2016.
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (signed into law on June 22, 2016) made amendments to TSCA, including adding a 10-year expiration date to CBI claims.
Key to remember: EPA established the process for entities to request extensions of expiring CBI claims for information submitted under TSCA.
Submitting accurate air emissions inventories (AEIs) is essential for regulatory compliance, public transparency, and long-term environmental planning. Yet companies routinely make mistakes that delay approvals, trigger enforcement, or compromise data quality. Many of these errors stem from misunderstanding the reporting rules, such as the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA’s) Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) and Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). Awareness of these pitfalls helps facilities avoid compliance failures and improve emission tracking systems.
One of the most common errors is failing to understand which pollutants must be included. Under the AERR, states and delegated agencies must report annual emissions of criteria air pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and ammonia. These pollutants drive national air quality planning and modeling.
However, many companies overlook hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). While past AERR rules made HAP reporting voluntary, EPA’s proposed revisions would require annual HAP reporting for many sources starting in 2027, significantly expanding reporting duties. Failing to include HAP data or assuming it's still voluntary is a growing compliance risk.
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are another reporting blind spot. The GHGRP requires large emitters and certain suppliers to report carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, and other GHGs each year. Companies often assume GHG reporting applies only to the largest industries, yet thousands of facilities fall within the rule’s thresholds.
Facilities often make calculation errors when converting raw activity data into emissions. Many rely on outdated emission factors or incomplete process data. EPA urges states and regulated entities to use standardized estimation guidance from the Air Emissions Inventory Improvement Program whenever possible. But companies may choose default factors without confirming they apply to the specific process, control efficiency, fuel type, or measurement method.
Under EPA’s proposed AERR revisions, if approved, the agency will require more detailed stack information, such as release point coordinates, exhaust parameters, control device data, and stack test results. Failure to collect these details early can lead to rushed estimates or missing data.
Another major issue is misidentifying emission sources. The AERR distinguishes between point, nonpoint, mobile, and portable sources. Mislabeling a source may cause a facility to submit incomplete inventories or fail to meet the required reporting frequency. For example, point sources often require annual reporting, while nonpoint sources may follow triennial schedules.
Similarly, GHGRP reporting is broken into numerous subparts that define equipment types, fuel suppliers, industrial processes, and CO2 injection activities. Companies sometimes choose the wrong subpart or assume their process is exempt, leading to incomplete data submissions.
Both the AERR and GHGRP have emission-based thresholds. Companies frequently make errors when determining:
These mistakes usually occur when internal data systems lack consistent tracking or when actual emissions deviate from "potential to emit" estimates used in permitting.
EPA requires extensive documentation for emission calculations, monitoring methods, stack tests, control equipment operation, and assumptions. GHGRP rules include detailed monitoring, Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC), missing data, and record retention requirements. Under proposed AERR rules, companies would also need to submit performance test and evaluation data. Missing or incomplete records often lead to rejected inventories.
Both the AERR and GHGRP are undergoing major revisions. EPA’s proposed AERR updates aim to convert some triennial reporting to annual schedules, add HAP reporting, expand mobile source requirements, and require more detailed facility-level data. Meanwhile, the GHGRP is facing proposed cuts that would eliminate reporting requirements for many source categories while delaying petroleum and natural gas reporting until 2034.
Companies that rely on outdated guidance or assume reporting rules remain static are at risk of major compliance failures.
Avoiding common errors begins with three fundamentals:
Key to Remember: Accurate air emissions inventories play a crucial role in protecting public health, supporting air quality regulation, and demonstrating corporate responsibility. By understanding the most common pitfalls, companies can improve compliance and reduce costly reporting errors.
Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news. Let’s take a look at what happened over the past month.
Chemical manufacturers, importers, distributors, and employers will have an extra four months to comply with the provisions of OSHA’s revised Hazard Communication standard. When the rule was revised in 2024, it contained staggered compliance dates for those who classify or use chemical substances and mixtures. The first compliance date is now May 19 rather than January 19 of 2026.
On January 8, OSHA issued further technical corrections to its Hazard Communication final rule. An initial set of corrections was published in October 2024, and OSHA continued to review the standard for errors. The agency said these corrections should reduce confusion during the chemical classification process and prevent errors on labels and safety data sheets.
In 2024, private industry employers reported 2.5 million nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This is down 3.1 percent from 2023 and largely due to a decrease in respiratory illnesses. The greatest number of cases involving days away from work, job restriction, or transfer were caused by overexertion, repetitive motion, and bodily conditions, followed by contact incidents.
Registration is open for OSHA’s Safety Champions Program, which is designed to help employers develop and implement effective safety and health programs. Participants can work at their own pace through Introductory, Intermediate, and Advanced levels.
Turning to environmental news, on January 9, EPA withdrew its direct final rule on SDS/Tier II reporting tied to OSHA HazCom, before it had a chance to take effect. The direct final rule was published back on November 17, 2025, and was intended to relax the Tier II and safety data sheet reporting requirements and align with OSHA’s HazCom standard. EPA said it plans to write a new rule addressing all public comments.
And finally, EPA published a final rule that changes certain requirements for wastewater discharges from coal-fired steam electric power plants. It applies to the deadlines established by the preceding rule finalized in 2024.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
It’s wintertime, and many construction sites across the U.S. face unique challenges that the season brings, especially keeping workers warm! However, one challenge that construction sites face year-round is how to keep stormwater runoff (whether it’s generated by snowmelt or rain) from transporting pollutants off-site into nearby waterways.
Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater program (40 CFR Part 450), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires construction site operators to obtain a permit to discharge stormwater runoff into waters of the United States from any construction activity that disturbs:
Construction sites must implement best management practices (BMPs), which are controls and activities used to prevent stormwater pollution. Erosion controls and sediment controls are the two leading types of BMPs that construction sites have to apply.
Understanding the differences between erosion controls and sediment controls (and how they function together) will help you choose the most effective BMPs to reduce stormwater pollution at your construction site.
Both types of controls are important, but their functions are distinct. Construction sites should use erosion controls as the primary method and sediment controls as the backup method to reduce stormwater pollution.
Erosion controls prevent the land from wearing away. These measures stop soil particles from being dislodged and transported by stormwater or wind. Erosion controls are the first line of defense against stormwater pollution.
Erosion control examples include:
Sediment controls capture soil particles that have been dislodged (i.e., eroded) before stormwater or wind moves them off the construction site. Sediment controls are the second line of defense, serving as backup BMPs.
Examples of sediment controls are:
Common BMP examples
EPA’s “National Menu of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Stormwater-Construction” webpage details erosion controls and sediment controls frequently used at construction sites, including (but not limited to) the following:
| Erosion control BMPs | Sediment control BMPs |
|---|---|
|
|
The most effective way to control stormwater pollution at construction sites is by applying a selection of erosion controls and sediment controls that are coordinated to work together. Consider these examples:
Most states issue NPDES construction stormwater permits. Check the permit to confirm erosion control and sediment control requirements, as they may be more stringent at the state level.
Additionally, some local governments may impose requirements on construction sites. However, unless the local program is designated as a qualifying local program, compliance with local regulations may not mean that your construction site is compliant with EPA’s rules (and vice versa). Confirm with the local government whether additional requirements apply.
Key to remember: Construction sites must implement erosion controls and sediment controls to prevent stormwater pollution.
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.
Recent changes in federal environmental policy have created uncertainty for regulated industries. When federal agencies slow rulemaking, reduce enforcement, or narrow requirements, states often step in. As a result, states are taking a stronger role in setting environmental rules, especially on climate change, air quality, and environmental justice.
This shift is changing how industrial facilities understand and manage regulatory risks.
Several states have moved to the front of environmental policymaking. California is the most well-known example. Through the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the state enforces air and climate rules that go beyond federal standards. These include strict vehicle emissions limits and greenhouse gas controls for industrial sources. Because California’s economy is so large, its rules often shape compliance decisions across the country.
Other states are following similar paths. For example, New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act sets clear, enforceable emissions-reduction goals. It also requires agencies to consider climate and environmental justice impacts during permitting. Washington has adopted a cap-and-invest program that limits carbon emissions from major sources and fuel suppliers.
For industrial operators, state-led regulation adds complexity and risk. Companies with facilities in multiple states may face very different rules, timelines, and reporting requirements. Meeting federal standards alone may no longer be enough.
Facilities can still fall out of compliance with state rules covering air emissions, water discharges, waste management, or community impacts. These differences can affect permitting schedules, capital planning, and long-term site decisions.
State enforcement is often more focused and, in many cases, more stringent than federal enforcement. Many states are increasing inspections and placing greater emphasis on environmental justice.
Facilities located near overburdened or historically impacted communities may face closer review, even when federal enforcement activity is limited.
To operate successfully in this environment, companies need a proactive approach. Tracking state regulatory changes is essential, since states often move faster than federal agencies. Building compliance programs around the most stringent applicable rules can reduce long-term risk.
Early engagement with state regulators and local communities can also make a difference. Open communication can improve relationships, reduce conflict, and support smoother permitting outcomes.
For industrial facilities, success now depends less on watching Washington and more on understanding the growing influence of state capitals.
Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news. Let’s take a look at what happened over the past month.
Fatal work injuries fell 4 percent in 2024, largely due to a decline in workplace drug- and alcohol-related overdoses. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, overdose fatalities fell from 512 in 2023 to 410 in 2024. Across all types of workplace incidents, there were 5,070 fatal work injuries in 2024, compared to 5,283 in 2023. Transportation incidents continue to be the most frequent type of fatal event, accounting for over 38 percent of all occupational fatalities in 2024.
OSHA is fast-tracking a proposal to remove the 2036 obligation to upgrade fall protection systems on fixed ladders that extend over 24 feet. This follows an industry petition from major chemical and petroleum industry groups, which argue the provision is unjustified, costly, and not supported by the rulemaking record. OSHA frames the upcoming proposed action as deregulatory, allowing employers to update fixed ladders at the end of their service lives. We’ll provide updates as more information becomes available.
As OSHA leans into “deregulatory” actions, lawmakers are moving to pressure the agency to issue “regulatory” rulemaking to protect American workers. The latest legislative wave of bills aims to fill regulatory gaps, tackle emerging hazards, expand OSHA authority, and raise penalties. Topics addressed by these bills include musculoskeletal disorders, heat stress, infectious diseases, wildfire smoke, and workplace violence.
In a recently issued letter of interpretation, OSHA states that a burn injury caused by a personal lithium-ion battery fire is work related if it occurs in the workplace during assigned working hours. The letter details an incident where an employee was burned when their rechargeable lithium-ion batteries for e-cigarettes sparked a fire after coming into contact with a key used for work.
A new report from the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General concludes that OSHA struggles to meet its mission, particularly in high-risk industries like healthcare, construction, and manufacturing. Several pages point to OSHA’s difficulties in effectively enforcing annual injury and illness reporting requirements, reaching the nation’s high-risk worksites for inspection, and addressing workplace violence by regulatory or other action.
Turning to environmental news, EPA extended the deadlines for Facility Evaluation Reports and related requirements for coal combustion residuals facilities. In most instances, the deadlines have been moved one or two years out.
And finally, EPA announced a final rule eliminating the 2009 Endangerment Finding and related greenhouse gas emission requirements for on-highway vehicles and vehicle engines. When the final rule takes effect, manufacturers and importers of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines will no longer have to measure, report, certify, or comply with federal greenhouse gas emission standards.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
On March 5, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed rule to end the use of paper hazardous waste manifests and require waste handlers to use electronic manifests on the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest (e-Manifest) System to track all shipments of hazardous waste regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
What are the proposed changes?
EPA proposes to “sunset” (i.e., phase out) the use of paper manifests and shift to using only electronic manifests (either fully electronic or hybrid) to track RCRA hazardous waste shipments.
The sunset compliance date would be 2 years from the publication date of a final rule. On and after the sunset compliance date, EPA would no longer accept paper hazardous waste manifests (image-only and data-plus-image submission types). In other words, regulated waste handlers would have to use fully electronic or hybrid manifests on the e-Manifest System for all hazardous waste shipments initiated on and after the sunset compliance date.
Who would be impacted?
The proposed rule would affect waste handlers involved in manifesting hazardous waste, including:
Many of the proposed changes would align RCRA regulations with the shift to electronic-only manifesting and with the 2024 e-Manifest Third Rule’s changes. The proposed rule also contains technical corrections to import and export regulations.
Additionally, EPA’s proposed rule would add requirements for:
Examples of these requirements include:
EPA will accept public comments on the proposed rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2025-3456) through May 4, 2026.
Key to remember: EPA proposes to end the use of paper manifests and require waste handlers to use electronic manifests to track all RCRA hazardous waste shipments.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued an administrative continuance of the 2021 Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) and a No Action Assurance memorandum for industrial stormwater discharges regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
The 2021 MSGP expired on February 28, 2026. However, because EPA hasn’t reissued a new permit to replace the expired permit, the 2021 MSGP remains in effect for facilities previously covered. Additionally, the No Action Assurance allows facilities without previous coverage to discharge industrial stormwater in compliance with the 2021 MSGP.
Who’s affected?
Facilities are required to obtain MSGPs for stormwater discharges from industrial activities in areas where EPA is the permitting authority, including:
What do existing facilities do?
The administrative continuance automatically applies to existing facilities that were actively covered by the 2021 MSGP before it expired. The facility’s coverage status should show “Admin. Continued” in the NPDES eReporting Tool (NeT-MSGP).
Facilities will remain covered by the 2021 MSGP until EPA issues a new MSGP and the facilities obtain coverage under the new MSGP. Until then, existing facilities should continue to comply with the 2021 MSGP requirements.
EPA will provide further guidance on renewing coverage when it issues the new MSGP.
What do new facilities do?
New facilities can’t obtain coverage under the MSGP until EPA issues a new permit. However, EPA issued a memorandum on February 27, 2026, establishing a No Action Assurance. The agency won’t take enforcement action against new facilities for unpermitted stormwater discharges if the facilities meet specific conditions.
The No Action Assurance extends from March 1, 2026, to the new MSGP’s effective date.
Applicability
EPA’s No Action Assurance applies to facilities that:
The assurance doesn’t apply to existing facilities that started stormwater discharges before February 28, 2026, without obtaining 2021 MSGP coverage.
Conditions
To be covered by the No Action Assurance, new facilities have to:
What’s next?
Once EPA issues the new MSGP, facilities planning to continue industrial stormwater discharges must submit a new NOI through Net-MSGP within 90 days of the new MSGP’s effective date to obtain coverage under the new MSGP.
EPA provides guidance for existing and new facilities on its “Administrative Continuance of EPA’s 2021 MSGP” webpage.
Key to remember: EPA has temporarily extended coverage under the 2021 MSGP for industrial stormwater discharges until the agency issues a new general permit.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule on February 27, 2026, extending the submission deadline for the 2025 annual greenhouse gas (GHG) report from March to October 2026.
Who’s impacted?
The final rule applies to facilities regulated by the GHG Reporting Program (GHGRP) at 40 CFR Part 98. Generally, the GHGRP’s annual reporting requirement applies to three types of reporters:
What’s the change?
The final rule extends the submission deadline for the reporting year (RY) 2025 annual GHG report from March 31, 2026, to October 30, 2026. The delay applies only to RY 2025.
EPA explains in the final rule that delaying the submission deadline for the RY 2025 GHG report gives the agency time to take final action on the proposed revisions to the GHGRP (published in September 2025).
What does the GHG report cover?
The GHGRP requires facilities to report GHG data and other related information covering the previous calendar year.
The subparts under Part 98 contain the reporting requirements, and regulated facilities must report emissions for all applicable source categories. Reporters must use specific methods to calculate GHG emissions, which are detailed in the regulations; they can usually choose from a collection of methods.
Key to remember: EPA’s final rule delays the submission deadline for the 2025 annual GHG report from March to October 2026.
Effective date: November 20, 2025
This applies to: Owners and operators of all facilities that generate, transport, treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste
Description of change: The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality added hazardous waste aerosol cans to the universal waste program. The program streamlines hazardous waste management requirements and is identical to the federal universal waste requirements for aerosol cans.
View related state info: Universal waste — Louisiana
Nearly 2,000 truckers were removed from roadways this January in a brand-new inspection enforcement event called “Operation SafeDRIVE.”
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) partnered with state law enforcement to implement Operation SafeDRIVE, a high-visibility, 3-day event focused on reducing unsafe drivers and vehicles from the roads.
From January 13–15, 2026, Operation SafeDRIVE investigated routes across D.C. and 26 states. These targeted enforcement actions resulted in 8,215 inspections with:
The 26 states covered in addition to Washington D.C. in Operation SafeDRIVE’s scope included Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.
The goal of the operation was to make sure all drivers are properly qualified and that their vehicles meet all the regulations.
Drivers and motor carriers should face fewer citations starting later this month, once some important rule changes go into effect.
Vehicle-related requirements that have long frustrated fleets and enforcement officials alike are being revised or eliminated as of March 23 and April 20, 2026. While their impact is relatively narrow, carriers should understand what’s changing and how to protect themselves if roadside enforcement isn’t up to speed.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is removing the requirement that rear-impact guards be permanently labeled. Under current rules, trailers are required to have a label certifying that the rear underride guard met federal manufacturing standards at the time it was built.
Though the label is applied by the manufacturer, motor carriers and drivers were expected to ensure it remained in place, a sometimes-frustrating task stretching over the lifetime of the vehicle.
Why the change? The bumper label requirement has been controversial for years. Enforcement agencies and industry groups repeatedly pointed out that the labels frequently fade, wear off, or are removed during repairs, even though the guard itself remains structurally compliant.
Compounding the problem, most manufacturers will not issue replacement certification labels or “re-certify” guards once they leave the factory. As a result, carriers were often cited for a condition they had no practical way to correct.
Although FMCSA previously issued guidance instructing inspectors not to cite missing or illegible labels, confusion persisted at the roadside. Eliminating the requirement altogether resolves that enforcement disconnect without altering the underlying safety standards for rear-impact guards.
What should carriers do?
Truck tractors will no longer be required to have a functioning rear license-plate lamp while towing a trailer. The lamp will still be required when the tractor is operating without a trailer, however.
Why the change? When a tractor is coupled to a trailer, the rear license plate and its lamp are typically obscured and serve no practical enforcement or safety purpose. The FMCSA concluded that requiring carriers to maintain a lamp that isn’t visible or relevant during normal operations added unnecessary maintenance costs without a safety benefit.
What should carriers do?
Drivers will no longer be required to carry spare fuses starting April 20, and they will no longer have the option to use liquid-burning flares as warning devices after March 23. Reflective triangles and/or solid-fuel flares will still be required, as will fire extinguishers.
The rule change for fuses is significant because over 10,000 drivers were cited in 2025 for failing to have them.
Why the change? The spare‑fuse requirement has remained in the regulations for decades, even as vehicle electrical systems have improved. The FMCSA concluded that:
Similarly, liquid-burning flares are widely considered obsolete and are rarely used in modern fleet operations. Their continued presence in the regulations caused confusion.
What should carriers do?
Roadside enforcement practices don’t always change overnight. In addition, states that enforce the FMCSA regulations may adopt different effective dates for rule changes. Motor carriers and drivers should be vigilant about reviewing roadside inspection reports and challenging any citations that were issued improperly.
Bearing in mind that state requirements may vary, motor carriers should use the online DataQs system to challenge any erroneous bumper label or license-plate lamp violations cited after March 20, and any spare-fuse violations cited after April 20.
Key to remember: On March 23 and April 20, 2026, three important rule changes go into effect. Be sure your drivers, maintenance personnel, and others know the impact.
The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance’s Out-of-Service (OOS) Criteria will soon undergo a wide-ranging update affecting roadside inspections for both drivers and their commercial motor vehicles.
From license restrictions and English‑language proficiency (ELP) to log falsification, brake systems, cargo securement, and wheel defects, the revisions clarify long‑standing enforcement questions, add new OOS conditions in emerging problem areas, and refine existing criteria to better align with federal regulations and real‑world inspection practices.
The following is a summary of key changes that go into effect April 1, 2026. Review the changes to ensure your drivers and vehicles will still pass a roadside test.
Key to remember: A variety of changes to the North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria take effect on April 1, 2026. Reviewing the changes can help avoid being placed out of service.
Great driver training doesn’t happen by accident. It requires clear preparation, professional presentation, energized delivery, and respect for your drivers’ time. By mastering these core practices, trainers can boost engagement, improve learning outcomes, and deliver sessions that truly stick.
Looking prepared goes well beyond having a solid lesson plan. It’s about presenting yourself in a way that builds confidence before the session begins.
Beginning your session at the scheduled time sends a clear message. It conveys that the training is important, and so are your drivers’ schedules. Starting late can frustrate those who arrived early or on time and can diminish your credibility before the session even begins. A timely start keeps the group focused and ready to learn.
Begin each session by helping drivers understand the purpose of the training and why it matters.
To craft an effective introduction, put yourself in your drivers’ place. If you were attending the session, what would you want to know about it before starting? Framing the session from the drivers’ perspective creates early engagement and helps participants see the session’s value.
A lack of enthusiasm can quickly drain energy from a training session, no matter how strong the content. Displaying confidence and passion for the topic demonstrates your belief in its importance. When drivers see that you care, they’re far more likely to stay engaged.
Running beyond the scheduled end time can make drivers restless and reduce the impact of your session. Plan to finish about 10 minutes early. This gives you flexibility for discussion, clarifications, or final questions, while still honoring everyone’s time. A timely wrap up helps ensure your session ends with clarity and confidence.
Key to remember: Applying these five core practices sets the foundation for efficient training sessions that keep drivers engaged and deliver lasting results.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has finalized a broad array of deregulatory changes affecting vehicle standards, inspection requirements, emergency equipment, licensing rules, and more.
Published February 19, 2026, the rule changes have limited impact but they represent the FMCSA’s first salvo at providing regulatory relief under the Trump administration. More rule changes are expected in the near future.
Motor carriers should review the changes now to determine how they might impact their operations. Except as noted, the new rules take effect on March 23, 2026:
Additional deregulatory actions proposed last May are still in process but are expected to be finalized soon. This includes rules to:
Key to remember: The FMCSA has finalized 12 deregulatory actions among 18 proposed in May 2025. The changes could save time and money for both motor carriers and drivers.
For carriers operating in New York, registration and decals expire December 31, 2024, for the Highway Use Tax (HUT) and Automotive Fuel Carrier (AFC) programs. Take steps now to make sure you receive your new decals before the current ones expire. You need a new certificate of registration and decal for each vehicle. And you must place the new decals on your vehicles before January 1, 2025.
The period to renew your 24th series HUT and AFC certificates of registration begins October 1, 2024. Act now to avoid delays and keep your highway use tax credentials active.
Get ready for renewal by taking the following steps now:
Once the renewal period opens, renew your credentials and pay your renewal fees online with One Stop Credentialing and Registration (OSCAR).
Submit your renewal application by November 30, 2024, to make sure you receive your decals in time to place them on your vehicles before January 1, 2025.
If you are already enrolled in OSCAR, use your current OSCAR password to renew online.
If you are not enrolled, visit OSCAR, and select Enroll Now. You must have a United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) number and an employer identification number (EIN).
To renew your registration:
If you are unable to renew electronically, you may file Form TMT-1.2, Renewal Application for Highway Use Tax (HUT) and Automotive Fuel Carrier (AFC) Certificates of Registrations and Decals – 25th Series.
Key to remember: Take steps now to renew your NY HUT and ensure you receive your new decals before the current ones expire.
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.
The federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) restricts when employers may ask employees medical questions or require medical exams. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this came to light as employers often wanted to know if their employees were vaccinated to help protect others in the workplace. In the midst of one of the worst influenza (flu) outbreaks this season, employers might wonder about their employees’ current flu vaccination status.
An employer recently learned that they may ask employees about their vaccination status.
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, an employer implemented a company-wide vaccine mandate. It notified employees that they could seek a religious or medical exemption, but that it would terminate those who didn’t comply.
Jennifer and Katherine, two remote employees, requested religious exemptions.
The employer denied both requests and eventually fired them.
Both employees sued, bringing disability discrimination claims under the ADA. They argued that their employer:
The employees stated that their employer had no valid business reason to inquire into their vaccination status, especially because they were remote employees.
The employees also argued that the employer regarded them as disabled because they were unvaccinated and then fired them for that reason.
The ADA defines a disability as a “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the individual’s major life activities.” The court said that whether a person is vaccinated or not has no bearing on their ability to engage in major life activities.
The court also said that the employees’ medical exam or inquiry argument was also fatally flawed because an employer’s inquiry into an employee’s vaccination status isn’t disability related.
Finally, a person is “regarded as” having a disability if they’re “subjected to an action prohibited under [the ADA] because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment, whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.”
Once again, being unvaccinated isn’t a physical or mental impairment. Being unvaccinated, therefore, doesn’t support a “regarded as” claim.
The court ruled that the employer didn’t violate the ADA when it asked about the employees’ vaccination status or when it fired them for being unvaccinated.
Finn v. Humane Society of the United States, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 4-1416, November 20, 2025.
Key to remember: According to at least one court, employers don’t violate the ADA if they ask employees about their vaccination status.
A new year often begins a new round of employee performance reviews. Since the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows eligible employees to take up to 12 (or 26) weeks of leave, many events can occur during an employee’s leave, including the employee’s pre-scheduled performance review. Such reviews might take place on an annual or other scheduled basis. How you treat the timing of those reviews should include some thought.
If, for example, Jo Employee takes 12 weeks of FMLA leave, during which her annual performance review is scheduled, here are some questions to ponder:
Delaying a review
An annual performance review generally takes into consideration a full years’ worth of work. Some employers think it’s best to delay the performance review by the same amount of time an employee took FMLA leave to capture an entire years’ work. This practice, however, might risk running afoul of one of the cornerstones of the FMLA: Returning the employee to his or her position, including the equivalent pay, benefits, and working conditions.
The issues can be particularly concerning if the performance review affects wage increases or other compensation.
What the regulations say
The FMLA regulations indicate that an equivalent position includes equivalent pay, which includes any unconditional pay increases that may have occurred during the FMLA leave period. Equivalent pay also includes bonuses or payments, whether discretionary or non-discretionary. FMLA leave cannot undermine the employee’s right to such pay.
Furthermore, “… employers cannot use the taking of FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment actions, such as hiring, promotions, or disciplinary actions; nor can FMLA leave be counted under no fault attendance policies.” [29 CFR 825.220(c)]
Avoiding a negative factor
Therefore, you would need to look at whether delaying an employee’s performance review could be seen as having a negative factor for the employee.
If, for example, Jo Employee took 12 weeks of leave from April through June, during which she would otherwise have obtained a pay increase in May, but you delayed this increase until September (so you could use a full 12 months of work), you may have violated the equivalent pay provision. If delaying a review creates a new review schedule going forward, the negative impacts could continue.
If, however, a pay increase is conditioned upon seniority, length of service, or work performed, you would grant it in accordance with your policy or practice as applied to other employees on an equivalent leave status for a reason that does not qualify as FMLA leave.
In other words, don’t treat an employee on FMLA leave differently than you would an employee on other forms of leave.
Key to remember: It might be less risky to keep the performance review on schedule and prorate wage increases to account for FMLA leave.
Companies that focus on their people’s performance are 4.2 times more likely to outperform their competitors, according to studies by the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI). That means higher revenue growth and lower turnover rates.
In addition, MGI’s look at 50 companies’ performance management practices concluded that companies that focus on their people and organizational health also reap dividends in culture, collaboration, and innovation, as well as sustained competitive performance.
Performance evaluations are a valuable tool for managers to both assess and encourage employees, and to address any workplace issues. They should let employees know how they’re doing, what they can improve, and acknowledge superior job performance. They should also allow employees to share their struggles and have input into developing goals.
The process of conducting performance evaluations varies depending on a company's policy and culture. Some companies have formal performance review programs, while others have a policy of open communication. Both methods should cover any performance-related issues that arise.
Strong performance evaluations:
Evaluations should be conducted by individuals who are knowledgeable about the role and able to make informed assessments based on real work conditions, rather than assumptions or isolated incidents. That means supervisors should base evaluations on regular interaction and documented feedback gathered throughout the review period.
One common challenge with performance reviews is that they’re completed and then forgotten. To avoid this, evaluations should be positioned as a reference point for ongoing coaching; not the end of the conversation.
Evaluations may be used to decide whether training or corrective action has been effective and whether more support is needed. Similarly, managers should revisit performance goals during check-ins, tie them to development conversations, and use the evaluation as a living document that spells out? future expectations.
To make sure evaluations are constructive, it’s important to pair clear expectations with a support plan. This includes showing specific areas for improvement, explaining why those expectations matter, and outlining what resources, training, or coaching will be provided.
Evaluations should do more than find gaps; they should help determine what comes next and how the organization will support improvement. In practice, this means documenting next steps, timelines, and follow-up discussions, so employees understand both what’s expected and how they will be supported in meeting those expectations.
While the specifics depend on position and job duties, here are 10 questions that can be used to get the ball rolling in a performance evaluation:
Key to remember: Performance evaluations should clearly set expectations, use documented, observable feedback, and serve as a foundation for ongoing coaching, goal setting, and support. They should be more than a one-time conversation.
The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows eligible employees to take job-protected leave for certain qualifying reasons. Over the years, employees have gotten creative when scheduling such leave, including taking it on Mondays and/or Fridays to extend a weekend.
Employers trying to oversee schedules and meet other business needs might get frustrated when employees take leave. When employees take leave in suspicious patterns, the frustration swells.
It doesn’t help that the FMLA restricts when and how employers may obtain information on the reasons behind leave.
Employers, however, do have some resources available to them when determining whether a Monday/Friday absence pattern is valid, or if the employee is abusing leave.
Recertifying FMLA leave
Once employers have a certification supporting the need for a leave, they may not request recertification more often than every 30 days, or until the minimum duration of the condition listed on the certification has expired.
Employers may, however, request recertification more often if:
When employers suspect FMLA abuse, they should review the information contained in the certification to see if the absences match. If not, they may investigate the situation further.
Asking about absence patterns
To help with this investigation, when requesting a recertification, employers may include a record of the employee’s absences and ask the health care provider if the pattern is consistent with the serious health condition.
It’s true that employers may not generally contact the employee’s health care provider directly for this information, but they may add this type of question to the medical recertification form, and direct the employee to have it completed.
Tracking absences
In such situations, employers might want to review the absence patterns of employees in question and be on the lookout for suspicious absences in the future.
Effectively tracking all leave is a must to identify patterns that could indicate FMLA leave abuse. If employers learn that an absence is not for a valid FMLA-qualifying reason, the employee is not entitled to the protections of the law for such an absence.
Key to remember: If employees are suspiciously taking FMLA leave such as on Mondays and Fridays, employers may request a recertification supporting the leave pattern.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, employers sent many employees home to work. This strategy was effective for several years. As the disease risks faded, though, employers began requiring employees to return to the physical workplace. As a result, employees began — and continue — to ask to work from home as an accommodation under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Employers might wonder if they must keep providing such accommodations.
Not necessarily, but employers must tread carefully.
After employers grant an accommodation, they may assess whether there continues to be a need for the accommodation based on individualized circumstances, including whether alternative accommodations might meet the employee’s needs.
Employers have the discretion to choose between effective accommodations. This means employees aren’t necessarily entitled to their preferred accommodation forever. Employers may, therefore, reevaluate a previously granted remote work accommodation and replace it with an effective, reasonable one. When there are several reasonable and effective options, employers may choose an accommodation other than remote work.
Employers shouldn’t take a blanket approach to rescind and deny all remote work accommodations. In some cases, employees will continue to need remote work as an accommodation. Employers need to look at each situation individually, based on its own merits.
Employers should occasionally reevaluate accommodations in response to changes, such as changes to:
Employers might also, for example, find it helpful to reevaluate a remote work accommodation once a year to confirm the accommodation remains effective and manageable.
If supported by an individualized assessment, employers may allow the employee to continue to work remotely if doing so is necessary to ensure continued compliance with the ADA.
If, however, reevaluation and individualized assessment demonstrate that an employee no longer needs remote work as an accommodation, employers may replace it with a reasonable and effective in-office option (or combination of options). This can include, but isn’t limited to, assistive devices, modified equipment, environmental modifications (sound, smell, light, etc.), job restructuring, modified or flexible work scheduling, etc. It can also include reducing remote work, combined with in-office accommodations, provided the result is still reasonable and effective.
Key to remember: Employers may review whether employees continue to need remote work accommodations. Employers may rescind remote work accommodations if they no longer suit employee or company needs, but they might have to provide an alternative solution.
Fatal injuries have a ripple effect throughout an organization – least of all the painstaking task of performing an investigation without placing blame on employees. What’s the true cause of an incident when a forklift strikes a worker wearing the wrong-colored vest? Worker behavior may play a role, but the issue usually lies much deeper.
A pattern of incidents at one battery construction site is a great example of how individual decisions and company safety systems intertwine to determine the outcome of daily events. OSHA’s report on the March 2025 death of a company CEO showed that while individual decisions played a role, the fatality occurred within a broader pattern of systemic safety failures at the construction site.
According to Agency findings, the employee chose to cross a roadway while wearing a black vest instead of the required high visibility vest, which drastically reduced the employee’s visibility. At the same time, a site forklift driver was reportedly talking on the phone while operating the vehicle which also contributed to the result of the incident.
OSHA’s conclusions made clear that organizational systems and controls, not just the individuals’ choices, were the primary shortcomings. Multiple companies on site failed to enforce safety rules, maintain traffic controls, or ensure proper operator behavior. For example, the forklift driver’s employer received the largest fine for exposing workers to struck-by hazards and failing to ensure operators followed basic safety practices such as speed limits, phone use, use of spotters, and horn use when visibility was obstructed.
The report reflected an even larger pattern, finding that the employee’s death was one of many safety incidents at the construction mega site, which had recorded dozens of previous traumatic injuries, multiple fatalities, and at least 15 OSHA investigations. Previous incidents included falls, other forklift injuries, a conveyor entrapment, a pipe explosion, and a fatal crushing incident earlier in 2025. This track record should have been an early warning that system-level safety gaps and inconsistent safety management were key contributors, far outweighing any single person’s decisions.
While individual decisions like walking into a traffic zone or operating equipment while distracted may influence an incident, they rarely tell the whole story. Root causes usually reflect deeper underlying weaknesses in the organization’s safety systems, such as:
These conditions can quickly create an environment where ordinary human mistakes are far more likely to lead to severe or fatal outcomes. Employers need to look beyond the individual employee decisions and investigate which systemic failures allowed the decision to become deadly. This is where OSHA regulations help.
You’ve likely heard the saying, “OSHA regulations have been written in blood” meaning someone (or many someones) have been seriously injured in the workplace which resulted in regulations aimed at protecting others from a repeat of similar situations.
Since OSHA was established nearly 55 years ago, its standards and enforcement efforts have helped save more than 712,000 workers’ lives. Even so, employers must continue to identify and strengthen gaps in their safety programs and systems to shield workers from the consequences of inevitable human decisions.
Employers shouldn’t just use OSHA regulations as a means for compliance but to actively protect workers by controlling hazards and setting clear expectations for safe work. Standards such as 1910.147 (Lockout/Tagout), 1910.1200 (Hazard Communication), 1926.501 (Fall Protection), and 1910.178 (Powered Industrial Trucks) give employers concrete requirements for preventing injuries and keeping employees safe on the job. Filling systemic safety gaps by using these standards can prevent thousands of serious injuries and fatalities every year. As demonstrated with this forklift struck-by fatality, most workplace deaths stem from hazards that OSHA rules are designed to control.
Key to remember: Serious incidents and fatalities are rarely caused by individual decisions but by broader system failures like insufficient safety oversight, inconsistent rule enforcement, and poor worksite communication. Employers can prevent these incidents by leveraging regulatory compliance to identify and correct weaknesses in their safety systems.
Since witness interviews are critical to any incident investigation, employers should obtain witness statements as soon as possible. Conduct interviews before witnesses talk with each other and while the details are still fresh in their minds. If they talk to one another about the event, that could inadvertently affect each person’s recall, or even create new versions.
Interviews should focus on the facts, including what happened before and after the incident, and should avoid opinions and assumptions. Ultimately, the investigator needs to know who was involved, what they were doing, what was happening at the time, and when and where the incident occurred.
Conduct interviews privately with no more than two interviewers present. By keeping the interviews small and away from others, you have a much better chance of having a factual and productive conversation. The person conducting the interview should be neutral and trusted by employees.
It may be tempting to let management sit in, but a supervisor’s presence may cause an employee to clam up. Keeping this conversation informal can help employees relax and talk more freely. Simply ask what happened and let the witnesses tell the story in their own words. Remind them that the goal of this conversation is to identify hazards, not to get anyone in trouble.
Ask open-ended questions like “describe what happened leading up to the incident” and “what happened next?” Avoid leading questions that might cause someone to make things up in an attempt to answer. Along the same lines, avoid questions that suggest an accusation, such as “do you think he wasn't paying attention?”
Witnesses might give their opinions, and you can make notes, but distinguish between the facts and their opinions. Repeat their conclusions back to them to confirm your understanding.
Keep in mind that memories or viewpoints might differ. Statements from multiple witnesses might be contradictory such that both statements cannot possibly be factual. This doesn't mean either worker is lying. It could just be how they remember the events, or they saw things from a different angle. Of course, some witnesses might describe an incident with the goal of avoiding blame.
As necessary, go back to previously interviewed witnesses for additional information or clarification.
Suppose a near-miss incident involved a forklift operator who stopped suddenly, causing the load he was carrying to slide off the tines, nearly striking a pedestrian. You might hear statements like, “I didn't see the forklift” or “the pedestrian came out of nowhere.” Now, that may be how witnesses remember things. But there's probably something else going on.
Follow-up questions might be along the lines of, “what were you focused on at the time of the accident?” Maybe the pedestrian was reading a document or computer pad and didn't see or hear the forklift approaching. Or perhaps the forklift operator was going too fast or failed to stop and sound the horn at an intersection. There could be several contributing factors, and you'll want to identify all of them.
Witness interviews provide valuable information in determining what happened before, during, and after an incident. As an interviewer, your goal is to gather key information while keeping the witnesses comfortable. Remind them the goal of investigating is to help prevent future incidents and injuries, not to blame employees.
Key to remember: Conducting effective interviews requires skill and consideration that goes beyond simply asking, “Tell me what happened.”
OSHA recently released an updated Job Safety and Health Poster, which informs workers of their rights under the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970. The revised poster is part of the agency’s “OSHA Cares” initiative. Employers can use either the revised version or the older one, but the poster must be displayed in a conspicuous place where workers can easily see it.
Under the OSH Act, employers must provide employees with a safe and healthful work environment. Employees also have a right to:
HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point) is crucial to keeping your food products safe. It’s a system that focuses on identifying and addressing hazards before they contaminate a food product. HACCP is implemented from the time raw materials are received to when product is shipped to consumers.
Think of a critical control point (CCP) as a step in your food process where problems are most likely to occur. Examples include cooking, cooling, or preventing cross-contamination. You’ll need to examine each CCP to identify any possible biological, chemical, or physical food safety hazards. The analysis zeroes in on the hazards that are “reasonably likely” to contaminate a food product and cause illness or injury to a consumer.
Before a new food product can be made, it must undergo this rigorous examination. You’ll then put food safety measures into place to eliminate or control these hazards.
Certain types of food processors and establishments must have a HACCP plan. They're required by the:
HACCP plans can only be developed by individuals who have completed standardized HACCP training. Before developing and implementing a written HACCP plan, you must:
FSIS-covered operations (meat, poultry, and processed egg products) also must create a flow chart that shows each step in how your product moves through the facility, from raw materials to the finished item. This helps everyone see the full process in order. Be sure to describe in the flow chart how the final product will be used and who the intended consumers are.
You could say the HACCP plan, itself, is the “meat and potatoes” of your food safety efforts. Certain plan elements must be included though. At a minimum, your HACCP plan must:
Your written HACCP plan is not complete unless it’s signed and dated. For FSIS-covered facilities this must be done by a “responsible establishment official.” This is defined under 9 CFR 417 as “the individual with overall authority on-site or a higher level official of the establishment.” The signature indicates that your establishment accepts and will implement the HACCP plan. The plan must be dated and signed:
HACCP plans for seafood and juice processors must be signed and dated by "the most responsible individual onsite at the processing facility or by a higher level official of the processor." The plan must be dated and signed:
Key to remember: HACCP plans are required for certain food processors. By identifying food safety hazards, controlling them at the right points, and maintaining clear monitoring, corrective action, and verification practices, your food establishment can consistently protect consumers and meet regulatory expectations.
Employers that must electronically file their injury data with OSHA might engage in business activities that fall under more than one North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code. Fortunately, OSHA recognized that more than one NAICS code could apply to a single establishment.
OSHA’s Injury Tracking Application (ITA) website includes a frequently asked question regarding multiple NAICS codes. OSHA advises, “Choose the code that represents the activity that generates the most revenue for your establishment and/or has the most employees, whichever is more applicable to your business.” If more than one NAICS code could apply, employers can choose which code to use for ITA reporting.
OSHA does not assign NAICS codes. Employers know their operations best and must select the most applicable code. For example, suppose a company engages in both plastics manufacturing and chemical manufacturing. The plastics division has the most employees, but the chemical division generates the most revenue. Which NAICS code should the company use? The company could use either, but might consider the electronic filing obligations.
Plastics manufacturers must file the 300A, 300 Log, and 301 Forms if the establishment has 100 or more employees. However, chemical manufacturers file only the 300A regardless of employee count. This company might choose the NAICS code for chemical manufacturing since that generates the most revenue and would only have to file the 300A.
Normally, a single physical location counts as one “establishment” for injury recordkeeping. In rare cases, a single location with more than one business operation might be divided into more than one establishment. If this happens, each establishment (operation) would maintain a separate 300 Log and could even have different electronic reporting obligations.
The previous example of a chemical and plastics manufacturer probably doesn’t qualify as two separate establishments. OSHA offers an example where two separate business establishments operate from the same physical address. The agency noted, “if an employer operates a construction company at the same location as a lumber yard, the employer may consider each business to be a separate establishment.”
According to the regulation at 1904.46, an employer might consider two or more separate businesses that share a single location to be separate establishments only when:
If these criteria do not apply, the employer must choose one NAICS code for the entire operation.
When preparing for electronic submission of injury records, employers also need to include their Employer Identification Number, or EIN. This is a tax identification number for a company, similar to a Social Security Number, but for a business.
Some locations might have more than one EIN. That does not automatically mean the location constitutes two or more “establishments” for OSHA recordkeeping and reporting. However, if each operation meets the criteria for separate businesses, the employer might maintain separate 300 Logs (and potentially have different e-reporting obligations) for each business operation.
Key to remember: If more than one NAICS could apply, the employer chooses which code to use for electronic filing of injury data. Though unusual, a single location might be divided into separate business operations and treated as two establishments.
Did you know that OSHA’s standard on permit-required confined spaces (PRCS) says entry occurs as soon as any part of the entrant’s body breaks the plane of the opening into the permit space?
Many workers and employers mistakenly think that placing part of the body or hands into a confined space isn’t entry. Knowing the difference between when entry occurs and not will help employers determine if a permit is required.
As clarified in an OSHA Letter of Interpretation (LOI) dated October 18, 1995, “When any part of the body of an entrant breaks the plane of the opening of a PRCS large enough to allow full entry, entry is considered to have occurred and a permit is required, regardless of whether there is an intent to fully enter the space.”
This definition of “entry” might seem to be too strict. Still, OSHA’s letter clarifies that there are situations where a partial entry would be hazardous: “Examples of situations where entry by only part of the body into a PRCS can expose an entrant to the possibility of injury or illness are as follows:
As another example, if the space contains a flammable or oxygen-enriched atmosphere, and if the activities during a partial entry could produce a spark or other ignition source, then a fire in the space could flash out of the opening and cause serious injuries to the employee.
This doesn’t necessarily mean you’d be fined if a permit wasn’t followed when someone reached a tank. OSHA’s guidance continues: “However, if entry by only part of the body does not expose the entrant to the possibility of injury or illness, then the violation may be considered a ‘de minimis’ violation.”
A de minimis violation is one in which a standard is violated, but the violation has no direct or immediate relationship to employee safety or health. These violations are documented but no citations are issued.
OSHA says examples of situations where entry by only part of the body into a PRCS would not expose an entrant to the possibility of injury or illness are as follows:
Also, consider a situation such as a worker reaching through a small grate to take a sample from a permitted space. The LOI further states, “If a part of the body were placed in an opening through which the worker could not pass into the permit-required confined space, no PRCS entry will have occurred.”
Keep in mind, however, that the employee would still need protection from any hazards involved in the task, but a permit would not be needed.
When any part of the body of an entrant breaks the plane of the opening of a PRCS large enough to allow full entry, entry is considered to have occurred, and a permit is required.