
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).
How do businesses keep confidential information “off the record”? Companies that are required to report on federally regulated chemical substances may soon face this question, as the first round of confidential business information (CBI) claims starts expiring in June 2026.
Thankfully, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has answered how to keep CBI off the record. On January 6, 2026, the agency published in the Federal Register the process to request extensions of expiring CBI claims for information submitted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Here’s what you need to know.
Businesses that seek to extend a CBI claim beyond its expiration date must submit an extension request. The Federal Register notice describes the following general process:
1. EPA notifies the entity of an expiring CBI claim.
The agency will publish a list of TSCA submissions with expiring CBI claims on the Confidential Business Information Under TSCA (TSCA CBI) website at least 60 days before the claims expire.
EPA will also notify submitters directly through its online Central Data Exchange (CDX). Verify that your company’s contact information on CDX is updated!
Submitters with CBI claims for specific chemical identities should reference the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (column EXP) to confirm expiration dates.
2. The entity submits an extension request.
The extension request for an expiring CBI claim includes:
EPA lists the general questions that apply to all CBI claims at 703.5(b)(3). Additional questions at 703.5(b)(4) apply to entities claiming CBI for specific chemical identities.
Businesses must submit the extension through EPA’s CDX at least 30 days before the CBI claim expires. The agency is currently developing a new application on CDX for submitting extension requests, which it plans to launch before CBI claims begin expiring in June 2026.
If there’s a delay, EPA will notify submitters on the TSCA CBI website. Additionally, the agency won’t publicize any information from expiring CBI claims until businesses have the opportunity to submit extension requests and the agency reviews them.
3. EPA reviews the extension request.
If the agency approves the extension request, the information in the CBI claim will remain protected for up to another 10 years.
If the agency denies the extension request, the information in the CBI claim can be publicized once the claim expires. EPA will notify submitters of denied claims through CDX at least 30 days before it plans to disclose the information.
Regulated entities have three ways to address expiring CBI claims:
Keep in mind that if you withdraw a CBI claim or allow it to expire, EPA can publicize this information without notifying you beforehand.
The CBI extension request process applies to companies that have made CBI claims under TSCA on or after June 22, 2016.
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (signed into law on June 22, 2016) made amendments to TSCA, including adding a 10-year expiration date to CBI claims.
Key to remember: EPA established the process for entities to request extensions of expiring CBI claims for information submitted under TSCA.
Submitting accurate air emissions inventories (AEIs) is essential for regulatory compliance, public transparency, and long-term environmental planning. Yet companies routinely make mistakes that delay approvals, trigger enforcement, or compromise data quality. Many of these errors stem from misunderstanding the reporting rules, such as the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA’s) Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) and Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). Awareness of these pitfalls helps facilities avoid compliance failures and improve emission tracking systems.
One of the most common errors is failing to understand which pollutants must be included. Under the AERR, states and delegated agencies must report annual emissions of criteria air pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and ammonia. These pollutants drive national air quality planning and modeling.
However, many companies overlook hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). While past AERR rules made HAP reporting voluntary, EPA’s proposed revisions would require annual HAP reporting for many sources starting in 2027, significantly expanding reporting duties. Failing to include HAP data or assuming it's still voluntary is a growing compliance risk.
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are another reporting blind spot. The GHGRP requires large emitters and certain suppliers to report carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, and other GHGs each year. Companies often assume GHG reporting applies only to the largest industries, yet thousands of facilities fall within the rule’s thresholds.
Facilities often make calculation errors when converting raw activity data into emissions. Many rely on outdated emission factors or incomplete process data. EPA urges states and regulated entities to use standardized estimation guidance from the Air Emissions Inventory Improvement Program whenever possible. But companies may choose default factors without confirming they apply to the specific process, control efficiency, fuel type, or measurement method.
Under EPA’s proposed AERR revisions, if approved, the agency will require more detailed stack information, such as release point coordinates, exhaust parameters, control device data, and stack test results. Failure to collect these details early can lead to rushed estimates or missing data.
Another major issue is misidentifying emission sources. The AERR distinguishes between point, nonpoint, mobile, and portable sources. Mislabeling a source may cause a facility to submit incomplete inventories or fail to meet the required reporting frequency. For example, point sources often require annual reporting, while nonpoint sources may follow triennial schedules.
Similarly, GHGRP reporting is broken into numerous subparts that define equipment types, fuel suppliers, industrial processes, and CO2 injection activities. Companies sometimes choose the wrong subpart or assume their process is exempt, leading to incomplete data submissions.
Both the AERR and GHGRP have emission-based thresholds. Companies frequently make errors when determining:
These mistakes usually occur when internal data systems lack consistent tracking or when actual emissions deviate from "potential to emit" estimates used in permitting.
EPA requires extensive documentation for emission calculations, monitoring methods, stack tests, control equipment operation, and assumptions. GHGRP rules include detailed monitoring, Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC), missing data, and record retention requirements. Under proposed AERR rules, companies would also need to submit performance test and evaluation data. Missing or incomplete records often lead to rejected inventories.
Both the AERR and GHGRP are undergoing major revisions. EPA’s proposed AERR updates aim to convert some triennial reporting to annual schedules, add HAP reporting, expand mobile source requirements, and require more detailed facility-level data. Meanwhile, the GHGRP is facing proposed cuts that would eliminate reporting requirements for many source categories while delaying petroleum and natural gas reporting until 2034.
Companies that rely on outdated guidance or assume reporting rules remain static are at risk of major compliance failures.
Avoiding common errors begins with three fundamentals:
Key to Remember: Accurate air emissions inventories play a crucial role in protecting public health, supporting air quality regulation, and demonstrating corporate responsibility. By understanding the most common pitfalls, companies can improve compliance and reduce costly reporting errors.
Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news. Let’s take a look at what happened over the past month.
Chemical manufacturers, importers, distributors, and employers will have an extra four months to comply with the provisions of OSHA’s revised Hazard Communication standard. When the rule was revised in 2024, it contained staggered compliance dates for those who classify or use chemical substances and mixtures. The first compliance date is now May 19 rather than January 19 of 2026.
On January 8, OSHA issued further technical corrections to its Hazard Communication final rule. An initial set of corrections was published in October 2024, and OSHA continued to review the standard for errors. The agency said these corrections should reduce confusion during the chemical classification process and prevent errors on labels and safety data sheets.
In 2024, private industry employers reported 2.5 million nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This is down 3.1 percent from 2023 and largely due to a decrease in respiratory illnesses. The greatest number of cases involving days away from work, job restriction, or transfer were caused by overexertion, repetitive motion, and bodily conditions, followed by contact incidents.
Registration is open for OSHA’s Safety Champions Program, which is designed to help employers develop and implement effective safety and health programs. Participants can work at their own pace through Introductory, Intermediate, and Advanced levels.
Turning to environmental news, on January 9, EPA withdrew its direct final rule on SDS/Tier II reporting tied to OSHA HazCom, before it had a chance to take effect. The direct final rule was published back on November 17, 2025, and was intended to relax the Tier II and safety data sheet reporting requirements and align with OSHA’s HazCom standard. EPA said it plans to write a new rule addressing all public comments.
And finally, EPA published a final rule that changes certain requirements for wastewater discharges from coal-fired steam electric power plants. It applies to the deadlines established by the preceding rule finalized in 2024.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
It’s wintertime, and many construction sites across the U.S. face unique challenges that the season brings, especially keeping workers warm! However, one challenge that construction sites face year-round is how to keep stormwater runoff (whether it’s generated by snowmelt or rain) from transporting pollutants off-site into nearby waterways.
Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater program (40 CFR Part 450), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires construction site operators to obtain a permit to discharge stormwater runoff into waters of the United States from any construction activity that disturbs:
Construction sites must implement best management practices (BMPs), which are controls and activities used to prevent stormwater pollution. Erosion controls and sediment controls are the two leading types of BMPs that construction sites have to apply.
Understanding the differences between erosion controls and sediment controls (and how they function together) will help you choose the most effective BMPs to reduce stormwater pollution at your construction site.
Both types of controls are important, but their functions are distinct. Construction sites should use erosion controls as the primary method and sediment controls as the backup method to reduce stormwater pollution.
Erosion controls prevent the land from wearing away. These measures stop soil particles from being dislodged and transported by stormwater or wind. Erosion controls are the first line of defense against stormwater pollution.
Erosion control examples include:
Sediment controls capture soil particles that have been dislodged (i.e., eroded) before stormwater or wind moves them off the construction site. Sediment controls are the second line of defense, serving as backup BMPs.
Examples of sediment controls are:
Common BMP examples
EPA’s “National Menu of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Stormwater-Construction” webpage details erosion controls and sediment controls frequently used at construction sites, including (but not limited to) the following:
| Erosion control BMPs | Sediment control BMPs |
|---|---|
|
|
The most effective way to control stormwater pollution at construction sites is by applying a selection of erosion controls and sediment controls that are coordinated to work together. Consider these examples:
Most states issue NPDES construction stormwater permits. Check the permit to confirm erosion control and sediment control requirements, as they may be more stringent at the state level.
Additionally, some local governments may impose requirements on construction sites. However, unless the local program is designated as a qualifying local program, compliance with local regulations may not mean that your construction site is compliant with EPA’s rules (and vice versa). Confirm with the local government whether additional requirements apply.
Key to remember: Construction sites must implement erosion controls and sediment controls to prevent stormwater pollution.
When the topic of dust is brought up, the conversation usually starts and ends with worker exposure. How much is in the air? Is ventilation adequate? Are employees protected? Once that dust has been captured and removed from the process, the critical question shifts: how should this material be classified and disposed of? That’s where many facilities run into trouble. Collected dust may no longer be floating in the air, but it hasn’t stopped being regulated. In fact, once it’s captured, dust often enters a much more complicated regulatory world.
Under the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, most collected dust qualifies as a solid waste once it’s removed from a dust collector, hopper, or filter. And despite the name, “solid waste” doesn’t mean solid, benign, or harmless. It simply means a discarded material.
At that point, facilities are expected to determine whether the dust is hazardous or non-hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This determination is based on what the dust contains, not how dusty it looks or how long it has been managed that way. Dust generated from metalworking, surface coatings, chemical processing, plastics, or specialty manufacturing can contain regulated constituents such as heavy metals or chemical residues. In these cases, facilities are required to make a waste determination using process knowledge, testing, or a combination of both.
This step is often overlooked. Many companies assume that if dust has not caused problems in the past, it must be non-hazardous. Unfortunately, regulators do not accept assumptions as documentation. If there’s no clear waste determination on file, that alone can be cited during an inspection. Misclassifying dust can also have ripple effects. If collected dust is later found to be hazardous, the facility may face issues related to improper disposal, incorrect generator status, or even cleanup liability at the disposal site. What began as a routine housekeeping task can suddenly become a significant compliance issue.
Even when dust is correctly identified as non-hazardous, it still needs to be managed properly. Open containers, poor labeling, and inconsistent handling practices are common findings during inspections. These issues are often viewed as minor, but they can quickly escalate if dust is released, mixed with other waste streams, or stored improperly.
Recycling adds another layer of complexity. Many facilities recycle metal dusts or other recoverable materials, which can be a smart environmental and economic decision. However, recyclable doesn't mean unregulated. Dust being recycled still needs to be stored safely, managed to prevent releases, and documented as legitimate recycling. Without proper controls, regulators may view the material as improperly managed waste.
Outdoor storage creates additional risk. Dust stored outside, transferred outdoors, or tracked out of the building can easily become a stormwater concern. Even non-hazardous dust can be considered a pollutant if it migrates off-site during rain events. This is a frequent source of violations under stormwater permits and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs), especially when dust management isn’t addressed in the SWPPP.
Another common issue is mixing dust with general trash or other waste streams. Once mixed, otherwise manageable dust can become more difficult or impossible to classify correctly. This can complicate disposal, increase costs, and raise questions during audits or inspections.
What makes dust especially challenging is that responsibility for it often falls into a gray area. The safety team may assume that the environmental team is managing disposal. The environmental team may assume that the safety team has already classified the material. When no one clearly owns the waste determination and disposal process, gaps are almost guaranteed.
The most effective facilities treat dust as a waste stream that deserves the same attention as any other regulated material. They document waste determinations, define storage and labeling requirements, train employees on proper handling, and periodically revisit those determinations as processes change.
Keys to remember: Captured dust doesn’t stop being regulated once it leaves the air. Understanding whether collected dust is hazardous or non-hazardous, how it must be stored, and where it can legally go is essential to staying compliant.
This applies to: Construction air permit applicants
Effective date: April 1, 2026
Description of change: The New Source Review (NSR) construction permit program requires applicants to obtain an NSR permit before constructing, reconstructing, replacing, relocating, or modifying stationary sources that emit air contaminants. The amendments:
Related state info: Clean air operating permits state comparison
Effective date: January 1, 2026
This applies to: Pesticide applications made for agricultural commodity production within ¼ mile of a school
Description of change: Assembly Bill 1864 (effective January 1, 2025) regulates pesticide applications for the production of agricultural commodities within ¼ mile of a school.
The amendments to the rule require applicants to:
Further, the amendments change the definition of “schoolsite” to include private schools that serve six or more students (kindergarten through grade 12), which will become effective on December 31, 2026.
Effective date: January 16, 2026
This applies to: Producers of batteries and battery-containing products
Description of change: The Washington Department of Ecology adopted a new rule for the Battery Stewardship Program, required by a law passed in 2023 to establish an extended producer responsibility program for battery collection. The regulations implement the law, requiring battery producers to fund a statewide recycling program with collection sites where people can drop off used or unwanted batteries.
Covered batteries include most rechargeable and single-use batteries that people use daily (e.g., AAs, AAAs, Cs, Ds, 9-Volts, and button batteries). The regulations also cover battery-containing products.
The new rule establishes program requirements (e.g., adding required information on batteries), applicable fees, and battery collection and handling standards. It requires battery producers to join and fully fund a nonprofit to serve as a Battery Stewardship Organization, which administers the program.
Effective date: April 9, 2026
This applies to: Petroleum underground storage tank (UST) owners and operators
Description of change: The amendment extends the suspension of annual UST fees until June 30, 2031.
Related state info: Underground storage tanks (USTs) — Tennessee
Effective date: January 20, 2026
This applies to: New development, redevelopment, and substantial improvements to buildings
Description of change: The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) adopted amendments to the Resilient Environments and Landscapes (REAL) regulation that add new rules, repeal some rules, and amend other rules for land-use regulations. It affects multiple regulations, such as the:
Examples of requirements include inundation risk assessments, on-site alternatives analyses, and risk acknowledgements.
The DEP allows certain applications to be reviewed under the previous regulations until July 20, 2026. The DEP website offers guidance to help regulated entities determine which rule version applies.
Related state info: Construction water permitting state comparison — New Jersey
Effective date: January 1, 2026
This applies to: Uses of 1,3-dichloropropene for agricultural production
Description of change: The California Department of Pesticide Regulation restricts the use of 1,3-dichloropropene to minimize exposure for occupational bystanders. It establishes buffer zone distances (i.e., distances from the edge of a treated area where certain activities are restricted) and related requirements.
The rulemaking also updates the field fumigation requirements document (1,3-Dichloropropene Field Fumigation Requirements, Rev. January 1, 2026).
Effective date: January 1, 2026
This applies to: Any person who renovates or demolishes an asbestos-containing building and any person involved in asbestos abatement activities
Description of change: The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services adopted and readopted with amendments rules for asbestos management and control. Changes include:
Effective date: January 16, 2026
This applies to: Fuel-burning equipment with a heat input capacity of 5,000,000 British thermal units per hour or more
Description of change: The Department of Energy and Environment extended the annual deadline for tuning the combustion process for fuel-burning equipment from November 1 to December 31. It gives regulated sources more flexibility to complete combustion adjustments. The requirements are contained in 20 DCMR 805.5.
Related state info: Clean air operating permits state comparison
Effective date: April 1, 2026
This applies to: Domestic and foreign manufacturers of nail coatings and artificial nails with more than 1,000 parts per million (ppm) of methyl methacrylate (MMA) that sell their products in California
Description of change: The California Department of Toxic Substances Control added nail products with concentrations of 1,000 ppm or more of MMA to the Priority Product list, making the substance subject to regulation.
Covered manufacturers must submit a Priority Product Notification by June 1, 2026, that lists the covered products sold in California as either an intentionally added ingredient, a contaminant, or a residual.
Manufacturers will then have to submit by September 28, 2026, one of the following:
OSHA is fast-tracking a proposed rule to remove a 2036 mandate to upgrade fall protection systems on fixed ladders that extend over 24 feet. The agency says the change, sparked by an industry petition, would allow employers to update their ladders at the end of their service lives, rather than by a hard compliance date. OSHA frames the move as deregulatory.
The affected regulation, 29 CFR 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D), currently reads: “(i) For fixed ladders that extend more than 24 feet (7.3 m) above a lower level, the employer must ensure: … (D) Final deadline. On and after November 18, 2036, all fixed ladders are equipped with a personal fall arrest system or a ladder safety system.”
A quick look at the rule’s development shows:
The seven-page petition, written by legal counsel on behalf of the AFPM, API, and American Chemistry Council (ACC), requests that OSHA:
Petitioners argue that OSHA, in its 2010 proposed WWS rule, failed to:
The petition outlines the differences between the earlier proposed and final rules, noting that the 2010 proposal gave employers the choice to use any of four fall-protection types — cages, wells, ladder safety systems, or personal fall protection systems. However, the 2016 final rule gave a 2036 phase-out date for cages and wells.
The petition goes on to contend that:
The petition raises several points questioning the benefits of paragraph (b)(9)(i)(D), stating that:
Finally, the petition addresses significant compliance costs, estimating several billion dollars for tens of thousands of ladders at U.S. refineries alone. Petitioners also cited additional expenses for rerating pressure vessels and engineering any process equipment changes.
OSHA officially announced in a September 2025 memo that it is proposing to remove 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D). The agency calls it a deregulatory action in line with Executive Order 14192. The memo reasons, “OSHA anticipates this change will allow employers to update their ladders when the ladders reach the end of their service lives, accommodating the lengthy service life of fixed ladders, while significantly reducing costs and offering greater flexibility.”
The WWS - Fixed Ladders proposal reached OIRA on December 18. OIRA typically takes 90 to 120 days for review, but recently a maximum 28-day review period for deregulatory actions was implemented. That means we anticipate OIRA will rush this proposal, so that OSHA may publish it in the Federal Register.
An upcoming OSHA proposal would withdraw 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D). The rule was spurred by a petition.
Wildfires have become one of the largest drivers of elevated air pollution in the United States, and recent federal publications show that their impact is increasing in both scale and severity. EPA confirms that large and catastrophic wildfires now produce substantial increases in fine particulate matter (PM2.5) across broad regions of the country, including smoke transported from Canada and Mexico. These events are raising background PM2.5 levels and expanding the number of communities experiencing smoke each year. As these trends accelerate, industries face new challenges in compliance, permitting, and worker protection, especially as wildfire seasons grow longer and smoke events more frequent.
EPA’s most recent wildfire smoke analysis shows clear year to year increases in PM2.5 concentrations attributed to wildfire smoke across the United States. Data from 2006–2020 demonstrate that smoke driven PM2.5 spikes are occurring more often and across a wider geographic footprint. The agency reports that national public health impacts are significant, with thousands of annual emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and deaths linked to wildfire smoke exposure.
The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) 2025 federal wildfire smoke review supports these findings. Using space-based instrumentation GOES 19, TEMPO, and other satellite scientific tools, NOAA shows that thick smoke plumes from Canadian and U.S. fires degraded air quality across the Upper Midwest and other regions, even hundreds of miles from the fires. These satellite observations are paired with EPA ground monitors to identify high pollution zones and support air quality alerts.
Together, EPA and NOAA findings confirm that wildfire smoke is a major and rising contributor to PM2.5 levels, which is important for industries located in or downwind of wildfire prone areas.
A central compliance question for industry is whether wildfire related pollution counts toward National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) attainment. Under the Exceptional Events Rule, wildfire smoke can be excluded from NAAQS determinations if states demonstrate that exceedances were caused by an uncontrollable natural event. EPA’s wildfire smoke guidance highlights the increasing burden of documenting smoke impacts and shows how PM2.5 spikes related to fires have grown more common.
The agency acknowledges that wildfire smoke frequently pushes PM2.5 concentrations into unhealthy ranges. During the 2023 Canadian wildfire episode, for example, EPA referenced surveillance showed measurable increases in asthma related emergency room (ER) visits. Even when these pollution spikes qualify as exceptional events, they still influence public health, air quality planning, and operational decisions for industry.
At the same time, NOAA continues to refine federal smoke forecasting models used by the National Weather Service (NWS) and EPA. These models help states prepare exceptional event documentation and guide industrial contingency planning when wildfire smoke is anticipated.
Federal research shows that wildfire driven air pollution is increasing in both frequency and intensity, often raising PM2.5 concentrations across entire regions. EPA’s Exceptional Events Rule may exclude wildfire smoke from NAAQS compliance, but industries still face operational, health, and planning challenges as wildfire seasons intensify. NOAA’s satellite data confirms that smoke impacts will continue to widen under changing climate conditions.
Key to remember: For EHS professionals, wildfire smoke is no longer only a regional hazard. It is a strategic compliance and operational issue requiring enhanced monitoring, seasonal planning, and proactive communication.
What’s a solid waste? It may seem obvious at first, but understanding the correct definition is essential for facilities to comply with the federal waste management program. If the question is answered incorrectly, there can be serious consequences. Mismanaged waste (especially when it’s hazardous) can endanger the health of people and the environment.
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the entire lifecycle of waste, from creation to disposal. Only materials that qualify as “solid waste” — whether they’re nonhazardous or hazardous — are subject to RCRA requirements. That’s why all waste generators need to have an accurate understanding of how solid waste is defined.
Use this overview to help your facility determine if the waste it generates qualifies as solid waste.
The statutory definition (42 U.S.C. 6903(27)) and the regulatory definition (40 CFR 261.2) explain what’s considered a solid waste under RCRA.
Statutory definition
The act defines solid waste as:
It applies to physically solid, semisolid, liquid, and gaseous materials.
Regulatory definition
EPA (per 262.11) requires anyone who generates a solid waste to accurately determine whether the waste is hazardous. The first part of the hazardous waste identification process is to establish whether the material is a solid waste. EPA expanded the definition of solid waste for this purpose.
The regulation further defines solid waste as any material that’s discarded by being:
If a material doesn’t meet these criteria, it’s not considered a solid waste and isn’t subject to RCRA regulations. If the criteria do apply, the material qualifies as a RCRA solid waste, and your facility must comply with EPA’s standards for managing either nonhazardous or hazardous RCRA waste.
Many materials are excluded from the definition of solid waste. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that these wastes are unregulated; some are excluded because other regulations apply (for example, industrial wastewater point source discharges are subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System rules). Make sure to check if other requirements apply to excluded materials.
Statutory exclusions
RCRA’s definition of solid waste excludes:
Regulatory exclusions
EPA lists the wastes that are exempt from the definition of solid waste at 261.4. It excludes all of the wastes that the statutory definition does. The agency also exempts other wastes under certain conditions (such as spent sulfuric acid used to produce virgin sulfuric acid, reclaimed secondary materials reused in production, and recycled shredded circuit boards).
Knowing what’s considered solid waste is vital to compliance because it tells you if RCRA rules apply to your specific waste.
It’s also the first part of the hazardous waste identification process. Facilities use the process to determine how solid waste is regulated, either as nonhazardous waste subject to RCRA Subtitle D rules or as hazardous waste subject to RCRA Subtitle C standards.
Most states implement the RCRA waste management regulations. State rules must be at least as strict as federal, and some states may have more stringent requirements. Check with your facility’s state environmental agency to confirm what standards apply.
Key to remember: Defining solid waste is the first step in determining whether RCRA rules apply to a material.
After receiving an “adverse comment,” EPA withdrew its direct final rule to amend 40 CFR 370 before the rule had a chance to take effect. The direct final rule published back on November 17, 2025, was intended to relax the Tier II reporting and safety data sheet (SDS) reporting requirements and align with the OSHA Hazard Communication standard at 29 CFR 1910.1200.
In November, EPA said it considered the rule to be noncontroversial and anticipated no adverse comment. However, on January 9, 2026, EPA published its withdrawal of the direct final rule “because the EPA subsequently received adverse comment.” The agency did not disclose what the fatal comment was. However, docket EPA-HQ-OLEM-2025-0299 shows nine comments, many of which express serious concerns with this rule related to the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).
Examining the docket, we find several requests for withdrawal of the rule. Some of the concerns raised by commenters included:
Now, EPA is proceeding with writing a new final rule addressing all public comments. The agency published a parallel proposed rule on the same November date as the direct final rule. That proposal took comments (through December 24, 2025) on the substance of the direct final rule.
That means the agency has all it needs to work on a final rule. EPA made clear that no second round of comments will be collected, but the agency gave no hints as to when it might publish a new final rule.
Until then, the existing CFRs remain in place. In other words, the changes in the November 17, 2025, direct final rule will not take effect on January 16, 2026, as planned because they are now withdrawn.
Note that the direct final rule, had it taken effect, would not have impacted the Tier II forms due on or before March 1, 2026. Rest assured that it is “business as usual” for Tier II reporting due by March 1, 2026. Similarly, SDS reporting requirements continue as is.
For background information, check out our November 25th article, “EPA’s SDS/Tier II reporting now in lockstep with OSHA HazCom.”
On January 9th, EPA withdrew the November 17th direct final rule that would have amended Part 370. The withdrawal is prompted by an adverse comment. A new final rule is in the works.
Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) coverage is narrowing after the Supreme Court’s Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (Sackett) decision (2023) and a 2025 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) proposal to align waters of the United States (WOTUS) with that ruling. Expect fewer federally regulated wetlands, more state-by-state differences, and continued uncertainty through 2026.
Post-Sackett, WOTUS includes traditional navigable waters, territorial seas, certain interstate waters, impoundments, tributaries that are relatively permanent, and adjacent wetlands that directly abut those waters through a continuous surface connection. Non-jurisdictional ditches do not create adjacency.
Implementation is split:
Kentucky now follows the 2023 amended rule except for certain litigants. Always check EPA’s “Current Implementation of Waters of the United States” page to check state status before filing permits.
Key to Remember: WOTUS and “navigable waters” definitions are narrowing, reducing some federal burdens but increasing state variability. For industrial and commercial projects, early jurisdictional work and state-specific permitting plans are essential to protect schedules and budgets.
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 last month.
In fiscal year 2025, the top three violations for non-construction small employers, those with under 100 employees, were hazard communication, respiratory protection, and powered industrial trucks. Three industries dominated these violations: fabricated metal product manufacturing, repair and maintenance, and non-metallic mineral product manufacturing.
OSHA issued several new letters of interpretation on a variety of workplace topics, including permit required confined spaces, recordkeeping, and powered industrial trucks. Letters of interpretation help ensure the consistent application of federal workplace safety and health standards, and provide regulatory clarification to employers, workers, and safety professionals.
California’s STOP Act took effect January 1. The law targets the state’s fabricated stone industry. It prohibits dry cutting of stone countertops, mandates employee training, and classifies silicosis and silica-related lung cancer from artificial stone as a serious injury or illness.
As of January 1, Washington state requires tower crane permits for all construction work involving tower crane operation, assembly, disassembly, and reconfiguration. Before issuing permits, Washington Department of Labor and Industries will conduct safety conferences to ensure all parties understand the safety requirements and related responsibilities.
Turning to environmental news, EPA issued compliance deadline extensions for certain emissions standards. The delays affect the New Source Performance Standards for crude oil and natural gas facilities and the emissions guidelines for such facilities. Compliance timelines have been pushed into mid- to late-2026 and early 2027.
And finally, although EPA has been deregulating or loosening some environmental requirements, there are still some standards being tightened. These include renewable fuel standards, stormwater management, and PFAS disclosure. Changes to these requirements will reshape compliance obligations for U.S. companies in 2026, and reflect a trend toward increased transparency and environmental accountability.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!

ENTER THE INSTITUTE
Be your company’s leading compliance authority with a robust library of articles, videos, and practical exercises designed to grow your knowledge of 120+ regulatory subjects.
The clock is ticking for environmental teams. By 2026, several new EPA regulations will reshape compliance obligations for U.S. companies. Organizations that act now will avoid costly penalties and operational disruptions.
Although EPA has been deregulating or loosening some requirements, there are still some standards being tightened across multiple fronts in the coming year:
Failure to prepare could lead to fines, reputational damage, supply chain disruptions, and permit delays. Companies that weave compliance planning into their 2026 strategy will be positioned not just to meet legal deadlines but to sustain operations smoothly.
The EPA’s 2026 updates reflect a trend toward increased transparency and environmental accountability. Companies that treat compliance as strategic will not only avoid enforcement but also gain resilience and stakeholder trust.
Key to remember: Start planning now. Early action on EPA rule changes will save time, money, and headaches when enforcement begins.
OSHA is fast-tracking a proposed rule to remove a 2036 mandate to upgrade fall protection systems on fixed ladders that extend over 24 feet. The agency says the change, sparked by an industry petition, would allow employers to update their ladders at the end of their service lives, rather than by a hard compliance date. OSHA frames the move as deregulatory.
The affected regulation, 29 CFR 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D), currently reads: “(i) For fixed ladders that extend more than 24 feet (7.3 m) above a lower level, the employer must ensure: … (D) Final deadline. On and after November 18, 2036, all fixed ladders are equipped with a personal fall arrest system or a ladder safety system.”
A quick look at the rule’s development shows:
The seven-page petition, written by legal counsel on behalf of the AFPM, API, and American Chemistry Council (ACC), requests that OSHA:
Petitioners argue that OSHA, in its 2010 proposed WWS rule, failed to:
The petition outlines the differences between the earlier proposed and final rules, noting that the 2010 proposal gave employers the choice to use any of four fall-protection types — cages, wells, ladder safety systems, or personal fall protection systems. However, the 2016 final rule gave a 2036 phase-out date for cages and wells.
The petition goes on to contend that:
The petition raises several points questioning the benefits of paragraph (b)(9)(i)(D), stating that:
Finally, the petition addresses significant compliance costs, estimating several billion dollars for tens of thousands of ladders at U.S. refineries alone. Petitioners also cited additional expenses for rerating pressure vessels and engineering any process equipment changes.
OSHA officially announced in a September 2025 memo that it is proposing to remove 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D). The agency calls it a deregulatory action in line with Executive Order 14192. The memo reasons, “OSHA anticipates this change will allow employers to update their ladders when the ladders reach the end of their service lives, accommodating the lengthy service life of fixed ladders, while significantly reducing costs and offering greater flexibility.”
The WWS - Fixed Ladders proposal reached OIRA on December 18. OIRA typically takes 90 to 120 days for review, but recently a maximum 28-day review period for deregulatory actions was implemented. That means we anticipate OIRA will rush this proposal, so that OSHA may publish it in the Federal Register.
An upcoming OSHA proposal would withdraw 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D). The rule was spurred by a petition.
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!
The rapid growth of data centers creates new challenges for other regulated facilities. Expansion driven by artificial intelligence (AI) and cloud computing increases their impact on environmental compliance. Key areas include air permitting, attainment status, and regional power supply.
Data centers depend on backup power to stay online during outages. Most use natural gas or diesel generators. These units release pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. When many generators operate together, their potential emissions can push regions close to or beyond National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This shift can threaten local attainment status and make it harder for nearby facilities to get new permits.
On December 11, 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA’s) Office of Air and Radiation launched the “Clean Air Act Resources for Data Centers” webpage. It provides regulatory guidance, permitting tools, and technical letters. The goal is to make air permitting for data centers faster and more transparent while protecting air quality.
Large data centers add cumulative emissions from multiple generators. Even permitted emissions from nearby plants can combine and push an area into nonattainment. That change triggers stricter air permitting rules for everyone.
Data centers use large amounts of electricity. They often need on-site generators or new grid connections. This can strain local power supplies. In some cases, grid operators give data centers priority during peak demand, leaving other facilities with less reliable power.
Some states now require detailed modeling for backup generators. For example, Illinois reviewed 34 generators for one data center before granting a permit. If modeling shows high emissions, regulators may limit operating hours or require extra controls.
EPA recently updated its interpretation of New Source Review (NSR) rules. In September 2025, the agency said construction can start before full air permits are issued, as long as emission-related work waits for approval. This speeds up projects but makes it harder for neighboring facilities to predict cumulative emissions early.
Watch for new data center projects in your area. Their emissions could affect your permits.
Join public comment periods for data center permits. Push for full modeling of combined impacts.
Work with grid operators. Understand how demand-response programs and EPA’s “50-hour rule” for emergency generators affect your reliability.
Consider locating new projects in areas with robust infrastructure and cleaner attainment status. Data centers might compete for the same grid upgrades or site approvals.
Key to remember: Data centers are more than tech hubs. They influence air permitting and power allocation. Their growth can affect your ability to expand, or even operate, under current compliance rules.
Safety has the workforce brimming with color. In fact, 29 CFR 1910.144 and 1910.145 tell us precisely what OSHA expects for safety color coding to identify hazards in the workplace. Signs, warning labels, symbols, and other color coding in your facilities should have your employees seeing red. But what if they can’t?
Though rare, color blindness is the inability to distinguish between colors as most people do. This makes it difficult for workers to see colors intended to protect them from harm. Color blindness can vary, making it difficult to distinguish between red and green or blue and yellow hues - the very shades of safety.
Some individuals can’t see any colors, which is called monochromacy. Workers with this type of color blindness may have trouble seeing clearly and may be more sensitive to light. Employers must collaborate with these employees to ensure alternative measures are taken to protect their eyes and clearly communicate warnings and hazards.
The color identifiers below differentiate the various levels of risk and hazards for workplace safety. Employers must ensure workers with color blindness are able to understand hazards in the workplace and the meaning of signs and warning labels.
RED - identifies fire and fire protective apparatus, danger, and emergency stops. It marks areas near open flames or flammable materials, fire extinguishers, and where workers are directed to stop an action.
ORANGE - warns workers of hazardous parts of equipment that could physically harm people or the facility. Typically used as labels on machinery, orange may also be used on signs, hard hats, safety vests, and other objects.
YELLOW - designates caution and is used for marking physical hazards, such as falling, pinch points, contact hazards, and other similar hazards.
GREEN - identifies directional safety information. This includes pointing workers to emergency egresses, safety showers or eyewash stations, first aid stations, and other safety equipment.
BLUE - not always safety-related, provides information regarding a particular location, process, or item. Employers may use blue signs to convey workplace policies, instructions, or locations, such as “Employees Only.”
PURPLE - often combined with yellow, alerts workers to radiation hazards.
BLACK/WHITE - provides instructional and directional information. This includes speed limits, one-way traffic, and aisle markings.
Having a standardized color-coding system for safety is effective for alerting employees of workplace hazards - if they can see the colors properly. For those who can’t, employers must ensure these workers understand the hazards and warning signs throughout the workplace.
| Interested in learning more? See our ezExplanation on Color Coding. |
Not only are employers required to ensure workers understand warning signs and colors, but they must also protect workers from becoming color blind. That’s right - color blindness can be acquired. Exposure to lead or carbon disulfide can cause color blindness, even at low levels. Terminal illness and alcohol consumption can also contribute to color blindness, so employers should promote health as part of their safety and health programs.
Color blindness is considered a disability according to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Employers are required to reasonably accommodate employees with disabilities.
Employers must ensure employees with color blindness are able to understand hazards in the workplace and the meaning of signs and warning labels. The ADA requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for workers with disabilities, including color blindness.
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
Shipping papers, placards, and cargo securement dominated the list of reasons drivers received hazardous materials (hazmat or HM) violations during roadside inspections in 2025.
Out of 3.1 million roadside inspections last year, there were 35,700 hazmat violations, and 26 percent of those resulted in an out-of-service (OOS) order. Being familiar with the most common hazmat violations can help drivers and motor carriers take steps to avoid them.
The following table lists the top 20 hazmat violations cited during roadside inspections in 2025, including:
| Rank | Code | Description | Violations | OOS | CSA |
| 1 | 172.504, 177.823(a) | Placards or ID numbers missing or incorrect | 3,837 | 54% | 5 |
| 2 | 177.834(a) | Inadequate HM cargo securement | 3,561 | 99% | 10 |
| 3 | 172.201, 172.202 | HM shipping paper prepared improperly | 2,463 | 1% | 3 |
| 4 | 177.817(a) | No HM shipping paper | 2,439 | 68% | 3 |
| 5 | 172.516(c) | Placard damaged or improperly displayed | 2,348 | 0% | 5 |
| 6 | 177.817(e) | HM shipping papers inaccessible | 1,906 | 2% | 3 |
| 7 | 107.620(b) | No HM Registration Number in vehicle | 1,819 | 0% | 0 |
| 8 | 172.502(a) | Prohibited placarding | 1,352 | 12% | 5 |
| 9 | 177.801 | Failing to properly prepare an HM shipment, or transporting forbidden HM | 1,306 | 19% | 2-10 |
| 10 | 172.600(c) | No emergency response information immediately available | 1,153 | 0% | 3 |
| 11 | 172.328(d) | Manual remote shutoff device improperly marked | 923 | 0% | 5 |
| 12 | 172.602(c) | Improper maintenance/ accessibility of Emergency Response information | 916 | 0% | 3 |
| 13 | 173.24(b) | Leaking HM packaging | 786 | 91% | 10 |
| 14 | 172.602(a) | Incomplete or missing emergency response information | 748 | 0% | 3 |
| 15 | 172.200(a) | No/improper shipping paper from offeror | 713 | 18% | 3 |
| 16 | 180.415 | Improper cargo tank test information | 608 | 0% | 7 |
| 17 | 172.400(a) | Packaging not properly labeled | 443 | 0% | 5 |
| 18 | 172.332 | Failing to display ID numbers | 428 | 17% | 5 |
| 19 | 172.506(a) | Failure to affix placards | 345 | 10% | 5 |
| 20 | 107.608 | Failing to register with PHMSA | 302 | 0% | 0 |
Workplace safety regulations addressing slip, trip, and fall hazards may affect motor carriers more than they think.
Most employees — regardless of industry — walk or work on surfaces where slips, trips, and falls are common. This includes floors, aisles, stairs, ladders, platforms, roofs, etc.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) outlines employers’ obligations relating to walking-working surfaces in 29 CFR 1910 Subpart D. The regulations apply to general industry, including trucking enterprises.
OSHA’s regulations offer an employer flexibility, presenting multiple options as it decides which fall protection method or system works best for its operation.
Employers can utilize guardrails and handrails, covers, personal fall protection, designated areas, and safety net systems. The regulation also requires employers to:
When it comes to specific OSHA requirements, such as “Walking-Working Surfaces,” it often boils down to control. It goes almost without saying that Subpart D impacts a motor carrier’s on-site workers such as technicians, yard jockeys, dispatchers, managers, and the office staff. The company is responsible for the environments they work in and walk in.
The motor carrier’s responsibility under the walking-working surfaces requirements applies when drivers are at the carrier’s facility. This may include, for example, pretrip or post-trip vehicle inspections and the surfaces drivers encounter as they walk around the employer’s terminal.
However, the walking-working surfaces requirements don’t apply to time the drivers spend on the road or at locations outside of the motor carrier’s control, such as shippers, receivers, and truck stops. Providing safe walking-working surfaces is the responsibility of those establishments, not the carrier.
Any hazards at the shipper or receiver’s facility that the driver is exposed to would be the customer’s responsibility and potential OSHA citations.
Best practices for drivers In the case of remote workers such as commercial drivers, the motor carrier should consider risk management best practices. Examples include:
Key to remember: For motor carriers, responsibilities under OSHA’s walking-working surfaces may end when a driver pulls out of the lot. But slips, trips, and falls can happen anywhere your driver walks and works. Train and equip all employees to prevent incidents in work environments outside of the motor carrier’s control.
A recent Louisiana dash cam law might be the financial nudge needed for fleets to adopt video telematics.
Louisiana’s HB 549 (Act 19) is the first state law to require insurers to offer a liability-premium discount to commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) equipped with a forward-facing dash cam paired with a telematics system. The law applies to policies issued or renewed on/after January 1, 2026.
What qualifies? The statute defines a dashboard camera as a 1080p, forward-facing device capable of continuous loop recording and a telematics system as tech that collects and transmits real-time driving data (e.g., speed, braking, mileage). Discounts are mandatory for authorized insurers and apply to the liability portion of the premium.
For safety and risk management professionals, it’s a strategic opportunity to streamline operations and safety. Dash cam benefits include:
The dash cam and telematics system must work together to meet data verification requirements. Many fleets can leverage existing ELD or GPS platforms if they collect and transmit the required data. To ensure you qualify for the discount:
Louisiana’s move validates what safety-focused fleets already know: video plus telematics pays for itself in avoided losses, quicker claim resolutions, and now mandated premium relief.
Key to remember: If you operate in Louisiana and you’re running an ELD and telematics platform, reach out to your insurance provider so you’re ready on January 1, 2026.
Crossing a state or national border in a commercial vehicle just one time could make you subject to certain U.S. DOT regulations for months or even years to come.
That’s according to an announcement late last year from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) in which the agency quietly reasserted its authority over motor vehicles and drivers that get involved in interstate commerce — even for a single, short trip.
For many years, the FMCSA has enforced a policy that requires in-state truck and bus operators to follow federal hours-of-service rules for the week before and the week after any interstate movement. One week after returning to in-state-only (intrastate) operations, the driver may then return to following their state’s hours-of-service rules, which may be less strict than federal rules.
This policy, found in the FMCSA’s official guidance for 49 CFR 390.3, refers only to the hours-of-service rules and not other safety regulations like driver qualification or vehicle maintenance. How do those other rules apply to an in-state operation that needs to cross state lines?
| Read more about the two-week HOS rule in our ezExplanation: 14/15-day rule. |
According to the FMCSA’s November 2022 announcement, a motor carrier that gets involved in interstate commerce — even for a short period of time — must comply with all other Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for the duration of the trip plus another four months.
(The agency says it could also enforce the hours-of-service rules for four months, but that length of time “is not necessary to prevent fatigue.”)
Compliance doesn’t end there, however.
The FMCSA “has jurisdiction over motor carriers, vehicles, and drivers for a 4-month period after a trip in interstate commerce,” the agency wrote. “However, records must be retained for whatever period is required by the FMCSRs, even if that period exceeds 4 months.”
This means a motor carrier may need to produce records for a federal DOT audit for many years after an interstate trip, and failure to produce those records could result in big fines.
Suppose, for example, that a driver doing in-state-only work in a truck over 10,001 pounds is exempt from needing a driver qualification (DQ) file under state law, but now that driver needs to do a trip across state lines. This makes the driver and company subject to FMCSA compliance.
If the FMCSA decides to audit the carrier a few years after the interstate trip but the carrier cannot produce the driver’s file, it could mean a hefty fine.
If you’re normally engaged in intrastate operations but may have a need to cross state lines or otherwise get involved in interstate commerce, be sure you know which rules apply, when, and for how long.
Keep in mind that the FMCSRs apply to many types of vehicles that are not regulated when operating in intrastate commerce. The FMCSRs apply to all “commercial motor vehicles” as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, which includes vehicles operating in interstate commerce that weigh or are rated at 10,001 pounds or more (including all vehicles in a combination), even if a commercial driver’s license is not required.
Key to remember: The FMCSA has reasserted its authority to regulate in-state motor carriers for four months after they engage in interstate work, though recordkeeping requirements may continue to apply for years.
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.
A recent notice from the International Fuel Tax Association reminds motor carriers that the two-month grace period is for display of the new credentials, not to file the renewal application for those credentials.
To renew their license under the International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) for 2024, carriers must file with their base jurisdiction before the end of 2023.
Why the grace period? In some jurisdictions, your new decals will arrive within a few days of submitting your renewal application. In others, they may take up to a month. To avoid the stress and keep your trucks on the road, file your renewal well ahead of the deadline.
What the grace period covers
Carriers renewing their IFTA license and decals have a two-month grace period (January and February) to display the renewal IFTA license and decals. To operate in IFTA jurisdictions during the grace period, carriers must display either:
A note for early filers
Carriers renewing credentials may operate with the IFTA decals and license two months prior to the effective date shown on the credentials. For example, the renewed license and decals effective January 1, 2024, can be displayed beginning November 1, 2023.
Note that those carriers must still file a fourth quarter report for 2023.
Key to remember: For stress-free operation into the new calendar year, file your IFTA renewal application with your base jurisdiction well before December 31, 2023.
Back in October 2018, Laffon had a medical emergency and needed some time off under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
Her leave lasted until November 15. Ten days after she returned to work, on November 26, her employer terminated her.
She sued, arguing that the employer retaliated against her because of her FMLA leave.
The catch? She didn't bring the suit until almost three years later.
No link between leave and termination
In court, the employer argued that there was no causal link between Laffon taking FMLA leave and her termination. Although the court documents aren't robust, they do reveal that the employer indicated that Laffon's allegations didn't show that her taking FMLA leave was a factor in the decision to terminate her. The documents showed only that the termination chronologically followed her leave.
The court agreed with the employer. It also agreed that Laffon failed to allege a willful violation of the FMLA, which would allow her to benefit from the FMLA's three-year statute of limitations.
Laffon appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit.
Statute of limitations
Under the FMLA, employees have two years from the date of the last event constituting the alleged violation for which they can bring a claim.
Those two years are extended to three years if the employer's actions were "willful." This means that an employee must show that the employer either knew or showed reckless disregard for whether its conduct violated the FMLA.
Ruling overturned
Fast forward to August 2023, when the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision. It indicated that, based on Laffon's amended complaint and liberally construing the law, her allegations establish that her leave was causally connected to her termination and that the employer's action (her termination) was willful.
Glymph v. CT Corporation Systems, No. 22-35735, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, August 22, 2023.
Key to remember: Terminating an employee soon after returning from FMLA leave is risky, unless there is a clear, well-documented, non-leave-related reason. Case documents did not show such a clear reason, which can also increase the risk of a willful finding. Employees have time to file claims, even years.
A new year often begins a new round of employee performance reviews. Since the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows eligible employees to take up to 12 (or 26) weeks of leave, many events can occur during an employee’s leave, including the employee’s pre-scheduled performance review. Such reviews might take place on an annual or other scheduled basis. How you treat the timing of those reviews should include some thought.
If, for example, Jo Employee takes 12 weeks of FMLA leave, during which her annual performance review is scheduled, here are some questions to ponder:
Delaying a review
An annual performance review generally takes into consideration a full years’ worth of work. Some employers think it’s best to delay the performance review by the same amount of time an employee took FMLA leave to capture an entire years’ work. This practice, however, might risk running afoul of one of the cornerstones of the FMLA: Returning the employee to his or her position, including the equivalent pay, benefits, and working conditions.
The issues can be particularly concerning if the performance review affects wage increases or other compensation.
What the regulations say
The FMLA regulations indicate that an equivalent position includes equivalent pay, which includes any unconditional pay increases that may have occurred during the FMLA leave period. Equivalent pay also includes bonuses or payments, whether discretionary or non-discretionary. FMLA leave cannot undermine the employee’s right to such pay.
Furthermore, “… employers cannot use the taking of FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment actions, such as hiring, promotions, or disciplinary actions; nor can FMLA leave be counted under no fault attendance policies.” [29 CFR 825.220(c)]
Avoiding a negative factor
Therefore, you would need to look at whether delaying an employee’s performance review could be seen as having a negative factor for the employee.
If, for example, Jo Employee took 12 weeks of leave from April through June, during which she would otherwise have obtained a pay increase in May, but you delayed this increase until September (so you could use a full 12 months of work), you may have violated the equivalent pay provision. If delaying a review creates a new review schedule going forward, the negative impacts could continue.
If, however, a pay increase is conditioned upon seniority, length of service, or work performed, you would grant it in accordance with your policy or practice as applied to other employees on an equivalent leave status for a reason that does not qualify as FMLA leave.
In other words, don’t treat an employee on FMLA leave differently than you would an employee on other forms of leave.
Key to remember: It might be less risky to keep the performance review on schedule and prorate wage increases to account for FMLA leave.
Employees may take leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for several reasons, and one of those reasons is to care for their own or a family member’s medical condition. There’s no list of qualifying medical conditions, so employers have to gather all the facts to see if FMLA applies.
FMLA-related medical conditions can be short- or long-term. Some employers believe that their FMLA obligations aren’t triggered unless and until an employee misses three days of work. That’s just not true in many situations, and here’s why.
The FMLA defines a serious health condition as an illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that involves inpatient care or continuing treatment by a health care provider.
Inpatient care is an overnight stay in a health care facility. If the employee or family member had an overnight stay, it’s an FMLA serious health condition regardless of how many days of work the employee missed.
If the employee or family member did not have an overnight stay, employers move on to the continuing treatment part of the definition.
A serious health condition involving continuing treatment includes the following:
Not all parts of the definition above will apply to a particular situation. The only part of the continuing treatment segment that involves three days, for example, falls under the first bullet. For all the other parts, any period of incapacity would be FMLA leave. An employee doesn’t need to miss three days of work.
The period of more than three days applies to how long the individual is incapacitated, not how many days of work the employee missed. If, for example, an employee who normally works Monday through Friday suffers a serious health condition on Friday evening and is incapacitated until Wednesday, the period of incapacity is more than three days. The employee missed only two days of work, but those two days would be FMLA leave.
Failure to designate an absence as FMLA leave when it is called for risks a claim that the employer interfered with the employee’s FMLA rights.
Key to remember: Employees don’t have to miss three days of work to trigger an employer’s FMLA obligations.
The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) includes deadlines employers must meet. The challenge is knowing what triggers these deadlines and meeting them.
The first deadline is activated when an employee notifies the employer (e.g., supervisor, HR manager, etc.) of the need for leave. The employer then has five business days to give the employee an eligibility/rights & responsibilities notice.
If the information in this notice changes, the employer has to tell the employee in writing within five business days after the employee first asks for leave again. The new notice should mention the old notice and explain what has changed. If, for example, the first part of leave was paid and the next part is unpaid, the employer needs to explain how to make premium payments.
Employers may include a certification along with the employee's eligibility/rights & responsibilities notice. Absent extenuating circumstances, the employee must complete and return the certification within 15 calendar days.
So, how soon after an employee requests leave do employers have to request a certification?
In most cases, employers should request a certification when an employee gives notice of the need for leave or within five business days. If the leave is unforeseen, such as a medical emergency, employers should request a certification within five days after the leave begins.
Once the employer has enough information (often from a certification) to determine if the employee’s leave qualifies for FMLA job protections, the employer has five business days to give the employee a designation notice (i.e., written approval or denial of the leave).
Similar to the eligibility/rights and responsibilities notice, if the information provided in the designation notice changes (e.g., the employee exhausts the FMLA leave entitlement), the employer must inform the employee of the change within five business days.
Key to remember: Failure to meet the FMLA’s five-day deadlines for giving employees notices can risk a claim that the employer violated the employee’s FMLA rights.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics reported in July 2024 that there are 8.2 million job openings in the U.S., but only 7.2 million unemployed workers.
With that in mind, employers might choose to hang onto employees even if they’re under performing. But what about when complaints are rolling in from different angles? Take, for example, a lackluster supervisor who’s annoying employees and disappointing customers.
An employer could be hesitant to let the supervisor go, especially if there’s no documentation backing up claims of misconduct. The employer must weigh their options to decide if putting the supervisor on a performance improvement plan (PIP) or moving right to termination is the ideal choice.
At-will employment
For starters, in most states employers may terminate an employee at-will, meaning they can fire employees for pretty much any reason as long as it doesn’t discriminate against someone in a protected class based on sex, age, race, religion, etc. Employers also cannot terminate in retaliation for an employee making a claim of harassment, discrimination, or safety concerns.
Aside from these limits, employers can terminate employees for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all.
PIP or terminate
Deciding whether to put an employee on a PIP or terminate must be decided on a case-by-case basis.
A PIP is usually for job performance issues (hence, performance improvement plan). This could mean anything from not making enough sales to being inept at the job’s essential functions. If job performance doesn’t improve under the PIP, termination may be the end result depending on company policies and practices.
Even if an employee has job performance issues, the employer can terminate without going through the PIP process first, unless the usual process is to implement a PIP with employees who have had similar problems. In that case, not doing a PIP could be seen as discrimination against an employee, especially if the person falls into a protected class.
Workplace misconduct, however, is another situation altogether. This could be anything from a one-off poor joke to pervasive harassment. Snapping at customers or coworkers (or worse), for example, is a conduct issue. An employer could issue a warning or move right to termination if the behavior is clearly illegal or a serious threat to workplace safety.
| Read more: ezExplanation on discharging employees |
Termination tips
If an employer decides to terminate, they should treat the employee as respectfully as possible during the termination process. Also, an employer should carefully and clearly communicate the job-related reasons for the termination to avoid any hint of discrimination. Lastly, an employer should document the reasons and reiterate the steps taken leading up to the termination and keep those records handy in case the employee files a wrongful termination lawsuit.
Key to remember: Employers sometimes struggle when making termination decisions. Having a process in place and documenting steps along the way can help if a case lands in court.
Under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers may ask for reasonable documentation of employees’ limitations when conditions aren’t obvious or when they don’t already have enough documentation. This step occurs when employees ask for accommodations as part of an interactive process with employers. Once employers have enough information, they shouldn’t ask for updated documentation unless something has changed.
An employer learned that asking for updated documentation and pausing the accommodation process didn’t sit well with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or a court.
Megan, an employee, had a disability. She asked to work fewer hours as a reasonable accommodation and gave her employer medical documentation to support her request. The employer approved the accommodation.
Megan also took time off under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for which she supplied a certification.
Eventually, Megan asked to be reassigned to an open, part-time position as a reasonable accommodation. She applied for three vacant positions.
Before the employer proceeded with Megan’s reassignment request, it told her that she had to provide updated documentation. While waiting for the documentation, the employer paused the accommodation process. Several months later, Megan provided the documentation, but by then, the employer had filled the positions.
Megan went to the EEOC, and the agency sued the employer on her behalf.
The EEOC alleged that the employer violated the ADA by failing to reassign Megan to a vacant position as a reasonable accommodation.
The employer argued that Megan didn’t provide updated medical documentation before it filled all three positions. As a result, the employer claimed, it didn’t have to consider her accommodation request.
The court said it’s true that, generally speaking, employers have the right to ask for documentation on the medical necessity of an employee’s accommodation.
Case law doesn’t, however, say that employers may take no action on an employee’s request or pause the interactive process entirely when it’s already on notice of an employee’s disability.
Megan already gave the employer medical paperwork on two occasions:
The court found, therefore, that the employer’s requirement that Megan give it updated medical documentation before it took any action on Megan’s transfer request was done in bad faith. The employer already had sufficient information.
Thus, the court said, there was no general legal requirement that an employee who’s already provided medical documentation must provide more before triggering the employer’s obligation to continue the ADA interactive process.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. William Beaumont Hospital d/b/a Beaumont Health System, Eastern District of Michigan, No. 23-cv-11560, 19 November 2025.
Key to remember: Employers that already have paperwork supporting an employee’s accommodation request shouldn’t ask for updated documentation, and they shouldn’t hold off on providing an accommodation while waiting.
Not every employer has to submit injury and illness data electronically, but if you do, compliance depends on doing it correctly. Under OSHA’s electronic submission regulation at 29 CFR 1904.41, knowing who has to report, what must be submitted, and when it’s due helps avoid unwanted OSHA attention.
When it comes to figuring out who needs to submit OSHA injury and illness records, the first thing to understand is that these requirements apply to each establishment, not necessarily to the company as a whole. That raises the question, what exactly is considered an “establishment”?
OSHA defines an establishment as a single physical location where business is conducted or where services or industrial operations are performed. In plain language, if your company has multiple plants, offices, or warehouses, each one is usually considered its own establishment for reporting purposes.
But there’s a twist. Under 29 CFR 1904.46, the Agency makes an exception for situations where several buildings are close together and operate as one business unit. Think of a campus or a group of facilities under the same management and performing the same business activities, those are generally treated as a single establishment. On the other hand, if those buildings are spread out, run independently, or differ in the work they do, then each location counts as its own establishment.
Armed with a better understanding of what an establishment is, you can determine if you need to submit electronically and what must be submitted? The answer depends on establishment size, industry classification, and recordkeeping obligations under Part 1904 including the following categories:
Large establishments in any industry:
Medium-sized establishments in specific industries
Examples can include construction, manufacturing, and transportation.
Certain high-hazard industries
Examples can include hospitals, food manufacturing plants, and waste treatment facilities.
Keep in mind that unless your establishment falls into OSHA’s required categories, you usually don’t have to submit injury and illness data electronically through the Injury Tracking Application (ITA), unless OSHA specifically notifies you that electronic submission is required.
That said, being exempt from electronic submission does not eliminate your other OSHA recordkeeping responsibilities under 29 CFR Part 1904. If you are required to keep injury and illness records, you must still:
If you have determined you must electronically submit your records, then the last piece of the puzzle is knowing the submission deadline. The electronic submission window for the previous calendar year’s data runs January 2 through March 2 annually. For example, 2025 data must be submitted by March 2, 2026. Late submissions can still be made until December 31, but missing the March deadline may trigger compliance issues.
Key to remember: Electronic submission requirements are based on establishment size and industry classification. Keep in mind, even if you’re not required to submit data electronically, you may still be required to keep injury and illness records, retain them for five years, and post the OSHA 300A every year.
As OSHA leans into “deregulatory” actions, lawmakers are moving to pressure the agency to issue “regulatory” rulemaking to protect American workers. The House and Senate have nine bills on the table so far. The latest legislative wave 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. Federal OSHA does not have comprehensive standards for any of those hazards. Some existing standards are related — sanitation, first aid, personal protective equipment, and injury/illness recordkeeping and reporting.
Without comprehensive standards, OSHA may turn to enforce these hazards under the General Duty Clause (GDC), Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Yet, the GDC poses a high bar for inspectors. OSHA can only cite under Section 5(a)(1) if the alleged hazard: exists, is recognized, is serious, and has a feasible means to reduce that hazard.
If any one of the four criteria is missing, a GDC citation will not hold. On the other hand, putting a standard in place both mandates protections and makes it much easier for OSHA to cite employers for the hazards.
Worth noting, some of the bills specifically cover domestic workers, firefighters, warehouse workers, public sector workers, and healthcare and social service workers.
Below are the nine Congressional bills (and companions) currently under consideration:
Several bills in Congress would modernize the OSH Act and mandate OSHA rulemaking to strengthen or increase worker protections.
Conversations about worker mental health often gravitates toward conditions like depression or anxiety, which are issues that can negatively impact safety and performance. But mental health is much broader. It spans the entire spectrum of human emotions and behaviors: from stress and sadness to excitement and pride. Every point on that spectrum influences how employees engage in their work.
For example, an employee feeling overly confident might bypass safety protocols, while someone struggling with focus due to stress or depression could inadvertently put themselves in harm’s way. Mental health goes beyond avoiding illness; it involves understanding how emotional well-being shapes decision-making, safety, and productivity.
Unlike physical safety measures, such as machine guarding, which is objective and relatively easy to regulate, mental health is inherently subjective. This makes it far more challenging to address using clear-cut regulations. OSHA’s past attempts to regulate ergonomics and current efforts around heat illness illustrate this difficulty. Human variability, differences in physiology, acclimation, and personality, makes one-size-fits-all rules nearly impossible. Mental health is even more complex because it’s deeply tied to individual experiences and perceptions.
Currently, regulatory bodies like OSHA provide guidance for mental health in the workplace rather than enforceable standards. There is no definitive “doctrine” for mental health compliance, and much of what exists is based on expert opinion rather than codified law. This doesn’t mean organizations should ignore mental health. On the contrary, its impact on safety, productivity, and overall culture is undeniable.
The challenge for employers has two parts. First, they need to decide what mental health means in their organization. Second, they need to find ways to measure its impact.
In manufacturing, where I’ve spent much of my career, I use data to judge whether changes are working. If I were starting a mental health program, I would look at clear measures, like productivity, before and after the program begins. While these numbers don’t prove cause and effect, tracking them over time can help show whether the program is making a positive impact.
Of course, workplaces are ever changing. External factors like economic conditions or incentive programs promoting initiatives can skew results. That’s why mental health strategies should be progressive and proactive, implement, measure, adjust, and repeat. Even if the data isn’t perfect, maintaining programs that foster well-being is better than doing nothing. Over time, consistent efforts will help build a culture where mental health is valued as much as physical safety.
Key to remember: Mental health affects how people work, make decisions, and stay safe. When employers value mental well-being as much as physical safety, everyone benefits.
Ever since OSHA published its Trade Release on December 11, 2023, people have been scratching their heads about the “new” PPE requirement.
But here’s the thing. There isn’t a new requirement for “helmets” instead of hard hats.
So where’s the confusion? And what is actually required?
OSHA released a Safety and Health Bulletin (SHIB 11-22-2023) on November 22, 2023, detailing the key differences and benefits of using modern safety helmets over traditional hard hats.
And just a few weeks later, in the December 11, 2023 Trade Release, the Agency announced it would now require its inspectors to wear Type II head protection, which is also commonly referred to as safety helmets.
The November 22, 2023 SHIB discussed two main benefits of choosing modern safety helmets over traditional hard hats -- the construction of materials and the use of chinstraps.
| Construction of Materials: | The SHIB first explained that one of the benefits of safety helmets lies in their construction materials. While hard hats are made from hard plastics, safety helmets incorporate a combination of materials, including lightweight composites, fiberglass, and advanced thermoplastics. Such materials can help enhance the impact resistance of the helmets but also include the added benefit of reducing the overall weight of the helmet. This reduces neck strain and improves comfort during extended use. |
| Use of Chinstraps: | The SHIB also discussed the potential benefits of chinstraps used in conjunction with Type II safety helmets. The general idea here is that chinstraps can be helpful in maintaining the position of the safety helmet and protecting the worker’s head in the event of a slip, trip, or fall. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, head injuries accounted for nearly 6% of non-fatal occupational injuries involving days away from work. About 20% of those were caused by slips, trips, and falls. |
And while OSHA has recognized the benefits of Type II safety helmets, and is actively taking steps to protect its own employees, it’s important to understand that there is not a new requirement for employers to make the switch to safety helmets.
That being said, a growing number of employers have recognized the benefits of added head protection and are choosing to use Type II helmets for their workers. In addition, some clients are starting to contractually require their construction contractors to make the switch as well.
Hard hats will have a Type I or Type II rating on the manufacturer’s sticker. These markings are based on ANSI Z89.1’s impact ratings.
Type I hard hats protect from objects or impacts from the top center area of the hard hat and are often used in work areas with no lateral head impact hazards.
Type II hard hats, on the other hand, offers protection from both top and lateral impacts and objects and is often found on construction job sites or complex general industry settings where workers face multiple head contact exposures.
Hard hats are classified based on their level of voltage protection. See the chart below.
| Class G – (General) low voltage protection. Class E – (Electrical) high voltage protection. Class C – (Conductive) no voltage protection. |
Employers should conduct a job hazard analysis and/or a PPE assessment to determine which style hard hat is best for their workers. In general, OSHA recommends the use of Type II safety helmets at the following locations:
1. Construction Sites: For construction sites, especially those with high risks of falling objects and debris, impacts from equipment, or slips, trips, and falls, safety helmets have enhanced impact resistance and additional features that offer superior protection compared to the components and construction of traditional hard hats.
2. Oil and Gas Industry: In these sectors where workers face multiple hazards, including potential exposure to chemicals and severe impacts, safety helmets with additional features can provide comprehensive protection.
3. Working from Heights: For tasks or jobs that involve working from heights, safety helmets offer protection of the entire head and include features that prevent the safety helmet from falling off.
4. Electrical Work: For tasks involving electrical work or proximity to electrical hazards, safety helmets with non-conductive materials (Class G and Class E) provide protection to prevent electrical shocks. However, some traditional hard hats also offer electrical protection.
5. High-Temperature Environments: In high temperatures or where there is exposure to molten materials, safety helmets with advanced heat-resistant properties can provide additional protection to workers.
Key to remember: While there isn’t a new requirement for safety helmets, employers should review their workplace hazards to determine which style of hard hat will best protect their employees.
It is a common sight in many workplaces to see employees using compressed air to clean parts, equipment, and even clothing. What many workers and some employers do not realize is that compressed air can be deadly. That is why OSHA has a regulation prohibiting the use of compressed air for cleaning unless the dead-end pressure is reduced to below 30 psi, and then only with effective chip guarding and PPE.
The regulation Federal OSHA’s requirement for cleaning with compressed air is in 1910.242(b):
“Effective chip guarding” means any method or equipment which will prevent a chip or particle (of whatever size) from being blown into the eyes or unbroken skin of the operator or other workers.
Effective chip guarding may be separate from the air nozzle as in the case where screens or barriers are used. The use of protective cone air nozzles are acceptable in general for protection of the operator, but barriers, baffles or screens may be required to protect other workers if they are exposed to flying chips or particles.
The regulation requires the psi at the nozzle to be less than 30 when using compressed air for cleaning.
However, OSHA has said in interpretive guidance that the use of compressed air for cleaning purposes at pressures at or greater than 30 psi is permissible if the outlet or source is fitted with a relief device or air ports that drop the pressure to less than 30 psi if the flow is dead-ended.
While the regulation does not specifically address the issue, in a letter of interpretation OSHA said that employers should not allow employees to use compressed air for cleaning themselves or their clothing in general industry situations. The eyes and other body parts, such as the respiratory system, may be damaged as the result of inadequate personal protective equipment, lack of chip guards, and/or uncontrolled release of compressed air.
There are numerous dangers of improperly using compressed air:
Workers must be trained that even extremely low pressures, such as 5 or 10 psi, can still cause severe damage if pointed toward the body, particularly the mouth, eyes, ears, or open areas in the skin.
Employers should train employees on the dangers of compressed air, and ensure the equipment is equipped with the necessary safety features and is properly maintained.
Supervisors should watch for improper use, particularly horseplay, and initiate corrective action. In addition, for many applications, a broom or shop vacuum may be just as effective at cleaning, and much safer. Compressed air may seem harmless, but if strict safeguards and practices are not utilized it can be deadly.
One of the most common questions inspectors get when evaluating workplace emergency safeguards is, “Does my office need an exit sign?” Section 29 CFR 1910.37 requires employers to provide specific safeguards and operational features for exit routes. OSHA’s intent is to minimize danger to employees and requiring proper exit route marking is one way to do so.
In short, smaller rooms or offices with only one door don’t necessarily need an exit sign. OSHA standards for exit signage are based on NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, which OSHA incorporated by reference. OSHA 1910.37(b)(4) states, “If the direction of travel to the exit or exit discharge is not immediately apparent, signs must be posted along the exit access indicating the direction of travel to the nearest exit and exit discharge. Additionally, the line-of-sight to an exit sign must clearly be visible at all times.”
The International Fire Code (IFC) was not adopted by OSHA; however, it’s likely to be referenced by local fire marshals. The IFC states, “Exit signs are not required in rooms or areas that require only one exit or exit access.” Generally, a room or area that holds fewer than 50 people is permitted to have only one exit. These rooms are typically smaller with an exit that is close and obvious, so an exit sign shouldn’t be needed inside the room. For example, individual offices, small conference rooms, storage rooms, and bathrooms usually don’t have exit signs because the way out is obvious.
Additional requirements for office exits require they:
When considering exit signs for smaller offices, employers must determine the size of the room, path of travel to an exit, and how obvious the exit would be based on room size. Generally, a room intended to hold fewer than 50 people is permitted to have only one exit and would not require an exit sign.