
Welcome to J. J. Keller COMPLIANCE NETWORK
Make regulatory compliance easier than ever at your company with expert guidance and resources custom-tailored to your exact needs.

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

ENTER THE INSTITUTE
Be your company’s leading compliance authority with a robust library of articles, videos, and practical exercises designed to grow your knowledge of 120+ regulatory subjects.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule on February 27, 2026, extending the submission deadline for the 2025 annual greenhouse gas (GHG) report from March to October 2026.
Who’s impacted?
The final rule applies to facilities regulated by the GHG Reporting Program (GHGRP) at 40 CFR Part 98. Generally, the GHGRP’s annual reporting requirement applies to three types of reporters:
What’s the change?
The final rule extends the submission deadline for the reporting year (RY) 2025 annual GHG report from March 31, 2026, to October 30, 2026. The delay applies only to RY 2025.
EPA explains in the final rule that delaying the submission deadline for the RY 2025 GHG report gives the agency time to take final action on the proposed revisions to the GHGRP (published in September 2025).
What does the GHG report cover?
The GHGRP requires facilities to report GHG data and other related information covering the previous calendar year.
The subparts under Part 98 contain the reporting requirements, and regulated facilities must report emissions for all applicable source categories. Reporters must use specific methods to calculate GHG emissions, which are detailed in the regulations; they can usually choose from a collection of methods.
Key to remember: EPA’s final rule delays the submission deadline for the 2025 annual GHG report from March to October 2026.
Used oil disposal is a critical issue for safety managers and shop supervisors in industrial settings. Whether your facility generates used oil from machinery, vehicles, or hydraulic systems, you must understand the regulatory requirements to ensure compliance and avoid hefty fines.
Used oil is not always considered hazardous waste, but improper handling, storage, or disposal can lead to regulatory violations and environmental hazards. Understanding how used oil is classified, when it is considered hazardous, and how to manage it in compliance with 40 CFR Part 279 is essential.
Let’s uncover the regulatory framework for used oil disposal, including storage requirements, transportation rules, and best practices to ensure compliance at both the federal and state levels.
The EPA defines used oil as any petroleum-based or synthetic oil that has been used and is contaminated by physical or chemical impurities. Common sources of used oil in industrial operations include:
According to EPA regulations (40 CFR Part 279), used oil is presumed to be managed under the less stringent used oil management standards unless it meets hazardous waste criteria.
Used oil becomes hazardous waste if:
If used oil is classified as hazardous waste, it must be managed in accordance with the applicable solid and hazardous waste requirements.
The EPA requirements for used oil consist of three different aspects, as outlined below.
1. Storage Requirements
Use leak-proof tanks and containers made of durable, non-earthen materials (e.g., steel, plastic, or concrete). Label all used oil containers with the words "Used Oil" to prevent misidentification. Prevent leaks and spills by using secondary containment systems and regularly inspecting tanks. Never mix used oil with hazardous waste unless authorized.
2. Transportation and Disposal
Used oil generators may transport up to 55 gallons of used oil to a registered collection center without an EPA ID number. If contracting a used oil transporter, ensure they have an EPA Identification Number.
Used oil must be:
3. Spill Prevention and Cleanup
Facilities storing large amounts of used oil must have a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. SPCC plans establish procedures, methods, and equipment requirements to prevent oil from reaching waterways, and to contain discharges of oil.
Any spills must be cleaned up immediately, and absorbent materials must be disposed of properly. Rags and shop towels contaminated with hazardous materials may be classified as hazardous waste.
While the EPA focuses on environmental compliance, OSHA (29 CFR Part 1910) regulates worker safety when handling used oil. Key OSHA requirements include:
1. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
Workers handling used oil must wear gloves and protective clothing to prevent skin exposure. Safety goggles or face shields are also important to avoid eye contact.
2. Hazard communication (HazCom) program
Employers must label all used oil containers with appropriate hazard information and train employees on safe handling procedures and emergency response.
3. Fire and Explosion Safety
Always store used oil away from ignition sources to prevent fire hazards. Ensure storage areas are ventilated to avoid vapor buildup.
Many states have stricter used oil regulations than federal laws. For example:
To ensure compliance, check with your state’s environmental agency for state-specific used oil disposal rules and whether used oil is considered hazardous. Additional permits for transporting or processing used oil may be necessary.
Ensuring compliance with EPA, OSHA, and state laws is essential for safety managers and shop supervisors handling used oil. By following proper storage, transportation, and disposal practices, businesses can reduce environmental risks, improve workplace safety, and avoid costly fines.
Key to remember: By staying informed and proactive, your facility can maintain safe, sustainable, and compliant used oil management practices.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued an administrative continuance of the 2021 Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) and a No Action Assurance memorandum for industrial stormwater discharges regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
The 2021 MSGP expired on February 28, 2026. However, because EPA hasn’t reissued a new permit to replace the expired permit, the 2021 MSGP remains in effect for facilities previously covered. Additionally, the No Action Assurance allows facilities without previous coverage to discharge industrial stormwater in compliance with the 2021 MSGP.
Who’s affected?
Facilities are required to obtain MSGPs for stormwater discharges from industrial activities in areas where EPA is the permitting authority, including:
What do existing facilities do?
The administrative continuance automatically applies to existing facilities that were actively covered by the 2021 MSGP before it expired. The facility’s coverage status should show “Admin. Continued” in the NPDES eReporting Tool (NeT-MSGP).
Facilities will remain covered by the 2021 MSGP until EPA issues a new MSGP and the facilities obtain coverage under the new MSGP. Until then, existing facilities should continue to comply with the 2021 MSGP requirements.
EPA will provide further guidance on renewing coverage when it issues the new MSGP.
What do new facilities do?
New facilities can’t obtain coverage under the MSGP until EPA issues a new permit. However, EPA issued a memorandum on February 27, 2026, establishing a No Action Assurance. The agency won’t take enforcement action against new facilities for unpermitted stormwater discharges if the facilities meet specific conditions.
The No Action Assurance extends from March 1, 2026, to the new MSGP’s effective date.
Applicability
EPA’s No Action Assurance applies to facilities that:
The assurance doesn’t apply to existing facilities that started stormwater discharges before February 28, 2026, without obtaining 2021 MSGP coverage.
Conditions
To be covered by the No Action Assurance, new facilities have to:
What’s next?
Once EPA issues the new MSGP, facilities planning to continue industrial stormwater discharges must submit a new NOI through Net-MSGP within 90 days of the new MSGP’s effective date to obtain coverage under the new MSGP.
EPA provides guidance for existing and new facilities on its “Administrative Continuance of EPA’s 2021 MSGP” webpage.
Key to remember: EPA has temporarily extended coverage under the 2021 MSGP for industrial stormwater discharges until the agency issues a new general permit.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule that extends the deadlines for Facility Evaluation Reports (FERs) required for active and inactive coal combustion residuals (CCR) facilities. The final rule also delays compliance deadlines for related requirements that apply to CCR facilities with CCR management units (CCRMUs).
Who’s impacted?
The final rule applies to:
The 2024 Legacy Final Rule (40 CFR Part 257 Subpart D) requires active CCR facilities and legacy CCR surface impoundments to submit FER Part 1 and FER Part 2, identifying any CCRMUs of 1 ton or more on-site. CCRMUs include previously unregulated CCR surface impoundments and landfills that closed before October 19, 2015, as well as inactive CCR landfills.
Additionally, the 2024 Legacy Final Rule requires facilities with CCRMUs to:
What are the changes?
EPA’s final rule extends compliance deadlines for the following standards:
| Compliance requirement(s) | 2024 Legacy Final Rule deadline | 2026 final rule new deadline |
|---|---|---|
| Establish CCR website | February 9, 2026 | February 9, 2027 |
| Submit FER Part 1 | February 9, 2026 | February 9, 2027 |
| Submit FER Part 2 | February 8, 2027 | February 8, 2028 |
| Install groundwater monitoring system | May 8, 2028 | February 10, 2031 |
| Develop groundwater sampling and analysis program | May 8, 2028 | February 10, 2031 |
| May 8, 2028 | February 10, 2031 |
| Submit initial GWMCA report | January 31, 2029 | January 31, 2032 |
| Submit closure plan | November 8, 2028 | August 11, 2031 |
| Submit post-closure care plan | November 8, 2028 | August 11, 2031 |
| Initiate closure | May 8, 2029 | February 9, 2032 |
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule on February 18, 2026, to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repeal all federal greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for:
The final rule takes effect on April 20, 2026, and applies to vehicles and engines of model years 2012 to 2027 and beyond.
What are the changes?
Manufacturers (including importers) of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines no longer have to measure, report, or comply with federal GHG emission standards. The final rule removes all GHG emission regulations in 40 CFR:
The final rule also eliminates:
What doesn’t change?
EPA’s following regulations remain in effect for new motor vehicles and vehicle engines:
About the 2009 Endangerment Finding
In 2009, EPA issued two findings: the Endangerment Finding and the Cause or Contribute Finding. Collectively, these findings are referred to as the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The agency used the 2009 Endangerment Finding as the legal basis to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
EPA regulated GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines through:
However, upon reconsideration, EPA stated that it no longer believes it has the statutory authority under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines. Therefore, the agency has simultaneously rescinded the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repealed the related federal GHG emission regulations.
Key to remember: EPA's final rule eliminates the 2009 Endangerment Finding and the related GHG emission requirements for on-highway vehicles and vehicle engines.
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.
Nearly 2,000 truckers were removed from roadways this January in a brand-new inspection enforcement event called “Operation SafeDRIVE.”
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) partnered with state law enforcement to implement Operation SafeDRIVE, a high-visibility, 3-day event focused on reducing unsafe drivers and vehicles from the roads.
From January 13–15, 2026, Operation SafeDRIVE investigated routes across D.C. and 26 states. These targeted enforcement actions resulted in 8,215 inspections with:
The 26 states covered in addition to Washington D.C. in Operation SafeDRIVE’s scope included Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.
The goal of the operation was to make sure all drivers are properly qualified and that their vehicles meet all the regulations.
The hazmat endorsement is required only if the vehicle is transporting a type and quantity of a hazardous material that requires the display of placards. Sounds easy enough, right? This regulation is often misinterpreted and not used correctly.
Sometimes, simply having a commercial driver’s license (CDL) is not enough to operate certain types of commercial motor vehicles. Drivers hauling special commodities need extra endorsements on their licenses. Individual endorsements provide proof that a driver has received additional training or vetting to haul a commodity or type of vehicle.
The process for obtaining a hazardous materials (hazmat) endorsement requires a little patience and time. The process requires a driver to undergo a hazmat endorsement background check. The driver’s name and fingerprints will be sent to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which will make sure that the driver does not pose a security risk. Also, the driver needs to meet immigration standards and have a clean criminal and mental-health record.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) entry level driver training (ELDT) rule took effect in February of 2022. An individual obtaining a hazmat endorsement for the first time must complete specific theory instruction prior to taking the required knowledge test. The training must be provided by a school or entity listed on the FMCSA’s Training Provider Registry (TPR).
These requirements are in place because drivers that are hauling hazmat are transporting some of the most dangerous cargo on the road. Before sending a driver through the hazmat endorsement process, you must ensure that the driver must obtain the hazmat endorsement in the first place. Did you know that hauling hazmat does not automatically mean a driver will require the hazmat endorsement?
A CDL hazmat endorsement is required when a driver is hauling hazmat that must be placarded or when the driver is hauling a select agent or toxin. A CDL hazmat endorsement is not required if a hazmat load does not require placarding. The basic rule of thumb is that no placards mean no hazmat endorsement is required.
However, the hazardous materials regulations allow placarding even if it is not required, and it is called permissible placarding. In these situations, a placard would be voluntarily displayed, and no hazmat endorsement would be required.
Knowing whether a driver needs a hazmat endorsement will protect your drivers and ensure that they are compliant while transporting placarded hazmat loads.
If you’ve determined that your driver requires a hazmat endorsement, you may want to get started right away. The process for obtaining the hazmat endorsement can take several weeks. In the meantime, make sure drivers do not transport a load of placarded hazmat without the hazmat endorsement.
Key to remember: A hazmat endorsement is required when a driver is hauling hazmat that must be placarded.
These days, operating a commercial fleet involves many different compliance issues, regulations, standardized licensing, and permits involved with operating a commercial trucking vehicle are the norm. In Canada, provincial regulations governing commercial vehicles, drivers, and motor carriers are based on the National Safety Code (NSC) standards.
But what is the NSC and what are the standards? It’s a complicated answer because there are 16 standards involved. The NSC is designed to create a comprehensive code of minimum performance standards for the safe operation of passenger and commercial vehicles. The NSC provides guidance for legislative, regulatory, and administrative action by each jurisdiction and focuses on three components:
Over this three-part article series, we will look at each of these components and break down the NSC standards that fit within each of the three. You’ll learn what is key to know to ensure compliance, and more importantly, a safer operation.
In 1987, the federal, provincial, and territorial Ministers responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety recognized that due to the deregulation of transportation, there was a need for harmonization and reciprocity in the management of commercial vehicles across Canada. The ministers then signed a memorandum of understanding to develop and implement the NSC to encourage road safety, promote efficiency in the motor carrier industry, and achieve consistent safety standards. The National Safety Code standards remain important instruments of public policy in promoting public safety and the safe and efficient movement of people and goods on Canadian roads.
The NSC is a set of minimum performance standards, applying to all persons responsible for the safe operation of commercial vehicles. There are 16 NSC standards made up of the following:
Now that we have a better understanding of what the NSC represents and what the 16 standards are, let’s take a deeper dive into the standards that apply, starting with Motor Carriers.
You might be wondering why we are starting with Standard 14. All provinces in Canada are required to issue an NSC number to all commercial carriers in their governing jurisdiction. A Safety Fitness Certificate (SFC) contains the NSC number, which is the unique identifier for each commercial operator. Ontario calls this number a Commercial Vehicle Operator’s Registration or CVOR.
If you have registered a vehicle that is regulated under the National Safety Code program in Canada, you are required to apply for a SFC or CVOR (Ontario). The SFC or CVOR gives you permission to operate a commercial vehicle.
There have been many new changes recently to the process of not only applying for an SFC but also in maintaining the required certificate. For example, in Alberta, it includes completing an NSC knowledge test online or NSC in a registry office, completing an NSC audit within 12 months of obtaining your SFC, and renewing your certificate every three years.
A provincial authority may not issue a safety fitness certificate to an extra-provincial motor carrier undertaking unless the provincial authority has determined that the undertaking has a “satisfactory”, “satisfactory unaudited” or “conditional” safety rating, as set out in section 5 of Part C of NSC Standard #14.
Responsibility for motor carrier safety resides, first and foremost, with motor carrier management. The Safety Rating Standard (Standard 14) establishes the motor carrier safety rating framework by which each jurisdiction shall assess the safety performance of motor carriers. There are four safety rating categories as follows:
| Rating | Details |
| Satisfactory-Unaudited | Assigned to all new commercial motor carriers. This rating does not change until a carrier has been audited. |
| Satisfactory-Audited | Assigned when a motor carrier has successfully passed a facility audit and all 3 thresholds - convictions, at-fault collisions and inspections - are below 85%. |
| Conditional | Assigned to a motor carrier who has failed a facility audit and/or 1 or more thresholds are at or above 85%. |
| Unsatisfactory | Assigned by Carrier and Vehicle Safety Services when a carrier is deemed unfit. |
The NSC’s safety fitness rests on three building blocks:
Together, these standards provide the safety rating and management framework by which each jurisdiction assesses the safety performance of motor carriers. In part 3, we’ll cover Standards 7 and 15 in greater detail.
Key to remember: We have just touched the surface of the NSC standards and covered likely one of the most important when it comes to maintaining a safe rating and compliance with Jurisdictional regulations.
When the rubber meets the road, a truck driver's expertise extends far beyond driving skills. Delve into the world of trucking and decode the Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG).
Many shippers and motor carriers are familiar with the ERG, and most associate the ERG with compliance with the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR). The ERG is one of the best ways to provide emergency response information for a hazardous materials shipment. Let’s take a deeper dive into the compliance aspect of the ERG.
The Emergency Response Guidebook was created to provide essential guidance to first responders, emergency personnel, and individuals dealing with hazardous materials incidents. Originating from a need to coordinate response efforts across various agencies, it offers critical information on identifying, assessing, and responding to hazardous materials incidents, ensuring effective and coordinated actions to protect lives, property, and the environment.
The initial response phase is that period following the first responders’ arrival at the scene of an incident, during which the presence and identification of hazardous materials is confirmed, protective actions and area securement are initiated, and assistance of qualified personnel is requested. The DOT distributes copies of the ERG to emergency responders throughout the United States. First responders rely on truck drivers to know and provide information on the contents of the cargo.
Click here to learn more about PHMSA.
The Hazardous Materials Regulations require that emergency response information accompany most hazardous materials shipments. Emergency response information is not required for hazmat shipments that do not require shipping papers or are classified as a limited quantity. Even though the shipper typically provides emergency response information, it is sometimes missing or incomplete. If the driver has a copy of the ERG on hand, they can avoid a violation.
The emergency response information may be provided in the following ways:
Carriers that transport hazardous materials must maintain the emergency response information the same as they do for shipping papers. The emergency response information must be readily available to, and recognizable by, authorities in the event of an incident or inspection. Keeping an ERG with the hazmat shipping papers is the easiest way for drivers to comply with the emergency response information requirements in the HMR.
Key to remember: Train your drivers on the importance of providing emergency response information to ensure they stay compliant and do their part to keep first responders safe during a significant incident.
Great driver training doesn’t happen by accident. It requires clear preparation, professional presentation, energized delivery, and respect for your drivers’ time. By mastering these core practices, trainers can boost engagement, improve learning outcomes, and deliver sessions that truly stick.
Looking prepared goes well beyond having a solid lesson plan. It’s about presenting yourself in a way that builds confidence before the session begins.
Beginning your session at the scheduled time sends a clear message. It conveys that the training is important, and so are your drivers’ schedules. Starting late can frustrate those who arrived early or on time and can diminish your credibility before the session even begins. A timely start keeps the group focused and ready to learn.
Begin each session by helping drivers understand the purpose of the training and why it matters.
To craft an effective introduction, put yourself in your drivers’ place. If you were attending the session, what would you want to know about it before starting? Framing the session from the drivers’ perspective creates early engagement and helps participants see the session’s value.
A lack of enthusiasm can quickly drain energy from a training session, no matter how strong the content. Displaying confidence and passion for the topic demonstrates your belief in its importance. When drivers see that you care, they’re far more likely to stay engaged.
Running beyond the scheduled end time can make drivers restless and reduce the impact of your session. Plan to finish about 10 minutes early. This gives you flexibility for discussion, clarifications, or final questions, while still honoring everyone’s time. A timely wrap up helps ensure your session ends with clarity and confidence.
Key to remember: Applying these five core practices sets the foundation for efficient training sessions that keep drivers engaged and deliver lasting results.
With carriers looking for additional revenue streams, many otherwise private and new carriers wonder whether they can become “exempt” for-hire carriers.
The “exempt for hire” designation is for property carriers that carry certain “exempt commodities,” but do so for compensation. The designation is a holdover from the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). Most of the commodities are minimally processed agriculture items, but there’s a fair number of surprises – both in what’s included and what’s not.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) provides a relatively short list of items that are not exempt in 49 CFR 372.115. The agency provides a much more robust list of both exempt and non-exempt commodities in Administrative Rule 119.
Exempt carriers are not required to have a motor carrier or MC number designating for-hire authority. However, exempt carriers are required to have a USDOT number. In order to maintain an exempt for-hire status, the carrier must never haul a commodity that is not exempt for compensation.
Carriers that haul exempt commodities are required to have the minimum level of financial responsibility required by 49 CFR 387, and their insurance provider must provide the carrier with an MCS-90 endorsement. However, the insurance need not be on file with the FMCSA. Many states have insurance requirements both for the amount required and the need to carry proof of coverage in the vehicle. Federally exempt for-hire carriers are not exempted from any state requirement.
Currently, exempt-for hire carriers are not required to name process agents for each state of operation as other for-hire carriers are required to do so on the BOC-3 form. That may change when the FMCSA fully implements their Unified Registration System, or URS. The system was introduced with a final rule in the summer of 2013 and included a provision requiring exempt carriers to have process agents. Much of the rule was suspended at the beginning of 2017. At some point, the agency would like to get the URS ball rolling again.
Exempt for-hire carriers are not exempt from the alphabet soup of revenue generating programs of the International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) allowing for the sharing of fuel tax revenue, the International Registration Plan (IRP) allowing for the sharing of vehicle registration fees, the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) tax for heavy vehicles that weight 55,000 pounds or more, or for the Unified Carrier Registration (UCR) revenue generating program.
Exempt carriers are not automatically exempt from the safety regulations such as driver qualifications, drug and alcohol testing, commercial driver licenses, vehicle inspections, or the hours-of-service rules. Although livestock and agriculture commodity carriers may qualify for the hours-of-service agriculture exemption.
Key to remember: “Exempt” commodity haulers are exempt from very little. Primarily they are exempt from needing for-hire authority and designating process agents.
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.
Marijuana use isn’t protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), but that doesn’t mean the law can’t trip up employers who use a positive marijuana test as a reason for termination.
A recent court case from Pennsylvania shows that inconsistent discipline and timing can lead to questions about an employer’s real motive for firing an employee.
In this case, a long-time employee who suffered from a spinal condition causing severe lower back pain had been granted several accommodations over the years, including leaves of absence and a modified work schedule. His condition was worsening, and he needed to miss full days of work to attend physical therapy.
A staff meeting led by the employee started a chain of events that resulted in his termination. The employer said the employee appeared lethargic and overmedicated at the meeting, and that he mentioned eating a gummy and said it made him high.
According to the employer, the employee said he needed to take smaller doses in the future and drew a picture of the gummy to show how much he should eat.
The employee denied being lethargic or overmedicated at the meeting, however, and said he told a story about taking a CBD gummy that had made him sick. The over-the-counter CBD product had been recommended by his doctor to relieve pain, and the employer was aware of his CBD use. The employee denied being high or drawing a picture of the gummy.
A few days later, a supervisor and human resources representative met with the employee to discuss the staff meeting. The employee denied using marijuana, admitted to using CBD, and agreed to be drug tested.
The company had a policy requiring drug and alcohol testing if there was a reasonable suspicion that an employee was not fit for duty. The company also had a last chance agreement policy that allowed an employee to return to work after being found not fit for duty due to drug or alcohol use.
The employee’s test was positive for marijuana, and there was a dispute over whether CBD use could have led to the result. The employer fired the employee a few weeks later because of:
The employee filed a lawsuit claiming that the employer violated the ADA by retaliating against him after he requested accommodations for his condition.
Evidence presented in court raised questions about the employer’s real reason for firing the employee:
The court found enough evidence showing that the employee’s worsening disability could have been a factor in his termination to send the case to a jury.
Although the employer did provide nondiscriminatory reasons for firing the employee, the employee provided evidence showing that they might not have been the true motive for his termination.
The timing of the firing, uneven discipline, and contradictory accounts of the staff meeting allowed the employee’s retaliation claim to move forward. The court did not decide whether the employee was right, but determined that enough questions had been raised to let a jury hear the case.
Key to remember: A positive drug test can be a reason to take action against an employee, but treating an employee with a disability more harshly than other employees can lead to a lawsuit.
A new year often begins a new round of employee performance reviews. Since the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows eligible employees to take up to 12 (or 26) weeks of leave, many events can occur during an employee’s leave, including the employee’s pre-scheduled performance review. Such reviews might take place on an annual or other scheduled basis. How you treat the timing of those reviews should include some thought.
If, for example, Jo Employee takes 12 weeks of FMLA leave, during which her annual performance review is scheduled, here are some questions to ponder:
Delaying a review
An annual performance review generally takes into consideration a full years’ worth of work. Some employers think it’s best to delay the performance review by the same amount of time an employee took FMLA leave to capture an entire years’ work. This practice, however, might risk running afoul of one of the cornerstones of the FMLA: Returning the employee to his or her position, including the equivalent pay, benefits, and working conditions.
The issues can be particularly concerning if the performance review affects wage increases or other compensation.
What the regulations say
The FMLA regulations indicate that an equivalent position includes equivalent pay, which includes any unconditional pay increases that may have occurred during the FMLA leave period. Equivalent pay also includes bonuses or payments, whether discretionary or non-discretionary. FMLA leave cannot undermine the employee’s right to such pay.
Furthermore, “… employers cannot use the taking of FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment actions, such as hiring, promotions, or disciplinary actions; nor can FMLA leave be counted under no fault attendance policies.” [29 CFR 825.220(c)]
Avoiding a negative factor
Therefore, you would need to look at whether delaying an employee’s performance review could be seen as having a negative factor for the employee.
If, for example, Jo Employee took 12 weeks of leave from April through June, during which she would otherwise have obtained a pay increase in May, but you delayed this increase until September (so you could use a full 12 months of work), you may have violated the equivalent pay provision. If delaying a review creates a new review schedule going forward, the negative impacts could continue.
If, however, a pay increase is conditioned upon seniority, length of service, or work performed, you would grant it in accordance with your policy or practice as applied to other employees on an equivalent leave status for a reason that does not qualify as FMLA leave.
In other words, don’t treat an employee on FMLA leave differently than you would an employee on other forms of leave.
Key to remember: It might be less risky to keep the performance review on schedule and prorate wage increases to account for FMLA leave.
One of the most common questions involving the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) that we see is: “Can ________ fill out the medical certification?”
This question stumps a lot of HR people and can be a little confusing.
It might be easier to start with who CAN’T fill out an FMLA certification. That includes your coworker, best friend, neighbor, or pet.
Jokes aside, often (but not always) a doctor fills out the FMLA certification, and since March 30 is “Doctors’ Day,” this is a great time to discuss this topic.
Employers aren’t required to use certifications, but if they do, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has five different certification forms to use for various FMLA leave situations.
The forms are as follows:
Let’s focus on the first two, as these are the most common ones HR administrators use.
The FMLA regulations describe the person who has the authority to fill out a certification as a “health care provider.” The good news is, the regulations include a lengthy list of medical professionals who fit this role.
Under the FMLA, a health care provider includes:
To be qualified to fill out FMLA forms, medical professionals must be authorized to practice in the state and perform within the scope of their practice. This means that the provider must be authorized to diagnose and treat physical or mental health conditions.
If an employee or an employee's family member is visiting another country, or a family member resides in another country, and a serious health condition develops, the employer must accept a medical certification from a health care provider who practices in that country. This includes second and third opinions.
If a medical certification from a foreign health care provider is not in English, the employee may be required to provide a written translation of the certification.
Key to remember: The FMLA regulations spell out which medical professionals can fill out certification forms.
Yes, employees may take leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to care for family members who are outside U.S. borders.
If the employee meets the eligibility criteria of the FMLA, the family member has an FMLA serious health condition, and the employee is needed to care for the family member, the employee’s time off would be protected. It doesn’t really matter where the family member is.
To figure out whether the family member’s condition meets the criteria under the FMLA, employers may require that the employee provide a certification supporting the leave.
Certifications in other languages
If an employee or a family member is visiting in another country, or a family member lives in another country, and a serious health condition develops, employers must accept a medical certification from a health care provider who practices in that country. This rule applies to an original certification, a recertification, and when requesting a second or third opinion from a provider.
If a certification by a health care provider from another country is in a language other than English, employers may require that the employee provide a written translation of the certification.
Traveling to care for family member
If family members are outside the U.S., employees will need to spend some time traveling. The employee’s travel time would likely be seen as part of the FMLA leave if:
Handling intermittent leave
Employees may also take intermittent FMLA leave to care for far-away family members. Employers would manage such leave the same way they do for intermittent leave inside the U.S. Employers should:
Whenever employees are away from the physical worksite, tracking how much intermittent FMLA leave they are taking has its own challenges. Employers may use a simple honor system of self-reporting or technology to keep track of when the employee is taking FMLA leave and when the employee is working.
Key to remember: Eligible employees may take FMLA leave to care for family members who are outside the U.S.
On February 26, the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division (WHD) announced a proposed rule that would rescind the Biden-era 2024 independent contractor rule and replace it with a rule that’s similar to the one the DOL adopted in 2021 during President Trump’s first term.
The public may submit comments on the proposed rule when it’s posted on the Federal Register on February 27. There will be a 60-day comment period that closes at 11:59 p.m. ET on April 28, 2026.
The DOL states that the proposed rule is “consistent with Supreme Court and federal circuit court precedent.”
“The rule we are proposing today is not only based on long-standing legal principles used in federal courts across the country but also is aimed at ensuring that workers and employers know how to apply those principles predictably,” said WHD Administrator Andrew Rogers in a press release. “The department believes that streamlined regulations in line with Congress’s intent when it passed the Fair Labor Standards Act would improve compliance, reduce misclassification, and reduce costly litigation in an economic environment that needs flexibility and innovation.”
The proposed rule would also apply the DOL’s streamlined analysis to the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, both of which use the Fair Labor Standard’s Act’s (FLSA) statutory definition of “employ.”
If passed into law, the 2026 proposed rule would:
The 2026 proposed rule is similar to the 2021 version which was finalized (but never took effect) at the end of President Trump’s first term, in that it leans heavily into the concept of an “economic reality” test, which analyzes if a person is financially dependent on an employer. If they are, then they’re an employee. The 2021 version also zeroed in on “core factors,” and a person’s opportunity for profit or loss, and the degree of control they have over their work.
The 2024 version under President Biden (which is currently still in effect today) focuses more on the “totality of the circumstances” when classifying workers. It looks at the whole picture and allows all factors to be weighed equally, with no predetermined weight assigned to a particular factor or set of factors. Instead, it uses a 6-part multifactor approach to classifying workers. These six factors include:
While the details of these rules might seem similar on the surface, the current 2024 rule makes it harder for employers to classify workers as independent contractors, which means companies must hire workers as employees, making them eligible for minimum wage, overtime pay, and other benefits that come with regular employment.
The crux of the 2021 and 2026 rules is that they allow a little more wiggle room for companies to classify workers as independent contractors, and, therefore, avoid having to comply with certain employment laws, like paying minimum wage.
Not officially, but in May 2025, the DOL issued a Field Assistance Bulletin to provide guidance to WHD field staff, and indirectly employers, about how to determine if someone should be classified as an employee or an independent contractor for purposes of FLSA compliance.
In a press release from May, the DOL said they were reviewing the 2024 independent contractor rule that went into effect during President Biden’s term.
Field staff were instructed not to apply the 2024 rule when investigating and enforcing FLSA employment matters. Instead, staff was to look back to the 2008 independent contractor rule, focusing on “economic realities” similar to the 2021 and 2026 versions.
For now, businesses should still follow the guidance from the 2024 Biden-era independent contractor rule, because that’s still in effect.
Employers should ensure they’re complying with all federal, state, and local employment laws, especially when it comes to properly classifying workers as either employees or independent contractors. Also, workers may not voluntarily waive their employee status and choose to be classified as independent contractors.
Even if the WHD field staff isn’t using the 2024 version, it’s still technically the law of the land. Nothing’s changed with the existing regulations relating to employee classification (or misclassification) but has more to do with how the WHD is allocating enforcement resources during the review of the 2024 rule. The 2024 rule will still be the basis of any private litigation.
This rule isn’t expected to bring a mandatory change to the Employee Rights Under the Fair Labor Standards Act posting. The posting does mention independent contractors, but doesn’t include a detailed definition. Previous changes to the independent contractor rule haven’t brought about a mandatory FLSA posting change.
In addition, the proposed rule doesn’t mention a posting change and doesn’t include the cost of a posting change in the rule’s cost analysis.
Key to remember: The U.S. DOL announced plans to rescind the Biden-era federal independent contractor rule from 2024 through a formal rulemaking process.
In today's growing digital work environment, our eyes are constantly engaged, often for eight hours or more a day, tethered to screens of various sizes. This digital exposure has given rise to a frequently underestimated condition: Digital Eye Strain (DES), also known as Computer Vision Syndrome. While visible workplace injuries like falls or cuts rightly receive immediate attention, cumulative impact of DES often goes overlooked, eroding employee well-being and productivity.
DES has a quantity of uncomfortable symptoms like dry or irritated eyes, blurred vision, headaches, neck pain, and even double vision. These symptoms can be signals of significant eye fatigue. The reason DES remains an "invisible epidemic" in many workplace safety discussions is due to a few factors:
A 2025 Workplace Vision Health Report from VSP Vision Care shows just how impactful Digital Eye Strain can be. According to the report, nearly six in ten employees say digital eye strain negatively affects their productivity and effectiveness on the job. About half report that it diminishes their overall well-being and leaves them too tired to enjoy time outside of work and makes them more irritable throughout the day. Even more concerning, 27 percent of employees have taken time off due to eye strain.
Luckily, there are prevention methods. Raising awareness and prevention of DES can be done by:
Keys to remember: By proactively addressing Digital Eye Strain, companies don't just reduce discomfort; they invest in a more focused, productive, and healthier workforce.
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.
OSHA recently released an updated Job Safety and Health Poster, which informs workers of their rights under the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970. The revised poster is part of the agency’s “OSHA Cares” initiative. Employers can use either the revised version or the older one, but the poster must be displayed in a conspicuous place where workers can easily see it.
Under the OSH Act, employers must provide employees with a safe and healthful work environment. Employees also have a right to:
In January 2023, OSHA issued a revised Combustible Dust National Emphasis Program (NEP), CPL 03-00-008, which replaces its March 2008 directive. Like its predecessor, the revised NEP contains policies and procedures for inspecting workplaces that generate or handle combustible dusts, and for determining whether such workplaces have addressed fire, flash fire, deflagration, and explosion hazards associated with combustible dusts. Examples include:
OSHA revised and reissued the NEP based on enforcement history and combustible dust incident reports. The agency conducted more than 2,500 combustible dust inspections in fiscal years 2013 to 2017 and found 3,389 combustible dust violations during this period. The top five industries with combustible dust hazards were:
The highest numbers of combustible dust-related fatalities and catastrophes during this period were:
Several industries with a higher likelihood of having combustible dust hazards (e.g., more than five inspections and greater than 50 percent of the inspections with combustible dust hazards) or experienced combustible dust-related fatalities/catastrophes were added to the NEP:
Industries with a lower likelihood of having combustible dust hazards and a lower number of potential workers exposed were removed from the NEP:
Combustible dusts are fine particles that present an explosion hazard when suspended in air under certain conditions. Almost any material that will burn in air in a solid form has the ability to catch fire and explode as a dust. Under certain conditions, even materials that don’t burn when in larger form, such as aluminum or iron, can explode or catch fire as a dust. The force from such an explosion can cause employee deaths, injuries, and destruction of entire buildings. Such incidents have killed scores of employees and injured hundreds over the past few decades.
Although OSHA doesn’t have a standard specific to combustible dust, several general industry regulations, such as Ventilation (1910.94), Sawmills (1910.265), and Grain handling facilities (1910.272), address certain aspects of combustible dust hazards. Regardless of industry:
During an inspection, compliance officers will make observations and verifications concerning the above list and will review the following to determine whether fire, flash fire, deflagration, or explosion hazards exist:
Employers should investigate any activity that creates dust to determine if there’s a risk of combustion. By following the recommendations above, you can keep workers and your facility safe and be prepared in the event of an inspection.
Fatal injuries have a ripple effect throughout an organization – least of all the painstaking task of performing an investigation without placing blame on employees. What’s the true cause of an incident when a forklift strikes a worker wearing the wrong-colored vest? Worker behavior may play a role, but the issue usually lies much deeper.
A pattern of incidents at one battery construction site is a great example of how individual decisions and company safety systems intertwine to determine the outcome of daily events. OSHA’s report on the March 2025 death of a company CEO showed that while individual decisions played a role, the fatality occurred within a broader pattern of systemic safety failures at the construction site.
According to Agency findings, the employee chose to cross a roadway while wearing a black vest instead of the required high visibility vest, which drastically reduced the employee’s visibility. At the same time, a site forklift driver was reportedly talking on the phone while operating the vehicle which also contributed to the result of the incident.
OSHA’s conclusions made clear that organizational systems and controls, not just the individuals’ choices, were the primary shortcomings. Multiple companies on site failed to enforce safety rules, maintain traffic controls, or ensure proper operator behavior. For example, the forklift driver’s employer received the largest fine for exposing workers to struck-by hazards and failing to ensure operators followed basic safety practices such as speed limits, phone use, use of spotters, and horn use when visibility was obstructed.
The report reflected an even larger pattern, finding that the employee’s death was one of many safety incidents at the construction mega site, which had recorded dozens of previous traumatic injuries, multiple fatalities, and at least 15 OSHA investigations. Previous incidents included falls, other forklift injuries, a conveyor entrapment, a pipe explosion, and a fatal crushing incident earlier in 2025. This track record should have been an early warning that system-level safety gaps and inconsistent safety management were key contributors, far outweighing any single person’s decisions.
While individual decisions like walking into a traffic zone or operating equipment while distracted may influence an incident, they rarely tell the whole story. Root causes usually reflect deeper underlying weaknesses in the organization’s safety systems, such as:
These conditions can quickly create an environment where ordinary human mistakes are far more likely to lead to severe or fatal outcomes. Employers need to look beyond the individual employee decisions and investigate which systemic failures allowed the decision to become deadly. This is where OSHA regulations help.
You’ve likely heard the saying, “OSHA regulations have been written in blood” meaning someone (or many someones) have been seriously injured in the workplace which resulted in regulations aimed at protecting others from a repeat of similar situations.
Since OSHA was established nearly 55 years ago, its standards and enforcement efforts have helped save more than 712,000 workers’ lives. Even so, employers must continue to identify and strengthen gaps in their safety programs and systems to shield workers from the consequences of inevitable human decisions.
Employers shouldn’t just use OSHA regulations as a means for compliance but to actively protect workers by controlling hazards and setting clear expectations for safe work. Standards such as 1910.147 (Lockout/Tagout), 1910.1200 (Hazard Communication), 1926.501 (Fall Protection), and 1910.178 (Powered Industrial Trucks) give employers concrete requirements for preventing injuries and keeping employees safe on the job. Filling systemic safety gaps by using these standards can prevent thousands of serious injuries and fatalities every year. As demonstrated with this forklift struck-by fatality, most workplace deaths stem from hazards that OSHA rules are designed to control.
Key to remember: Serious incidents and fatalities are rarely caused by individual decisions but by broader system failures like insufficient safety oversight, inconsistent rule enforcement, and poor worksite communication. Employers can prevent these incidents by leveraging regulatory compliance to identify and correct weaknesses in their safety systems.
OSHA quietly updated a table that indicates which industries are barred from not all inspections but programmed safety inspections under certain conditions. The agency revised its roster of “low-hazard industries” that are off-limits if a site has up to 10 employees. The new list is driven by fresh 2024 data showing the nearly 500 industry sectors with estimated days away, restricted, or transferred (DART) work injury/illness incidence rates below the 1.4 national private-sector average.
Find the table in a February 2, 2026, memo, “Low-Hazard Industries Table of NAICS under the Appropriations Act.” It carries weight because OSHA directive CPL 02-00-170 uses this industry list to determine which subsectors are free from programmed safety inspections in a given fiscal year (FY) if an establishment meets the size criteria. The directive offers a mechanism for OSHA to apply enforcement carve outs required by Congress.
The FY 2026 OSHA budget bill was signed into law on February 3, 2026. It covers funding through September 30, 2026. As has been the case for decades, lawmakers slipped in a rider with OSHA enforcement exemptions and limitations. One of those is for employers with no more than 10 employees in a “low-hazard industry.”
OSHA is not allowed to use federal dollars to “administer or enforce” any regulation under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) for qualifying employers, except for assistance, training, studies, and actions related to:
Unless there’s a complaint, imminent danger, fatality, or two or more hospitalizations, it means OSHA cannot conduct programmed inspections for “safety hazards” at qualifying sites. Programmed inspections are sometimes called targeted or planned inspections. They include national, regional, and local emphasis programs; inspection scheduling for construction; the site-specific targeting program; and the severe violator enforcement program.
According to CPL 02-00-170, the small employer/low-hazard industry rider applies only if both of the following criteria are met:
OSHA sources say the number of employees is not for a company but for a single location. Even large companies with 10 or fewer employees at a site will discover that the location comes under this loophole if its sector is exempt.
Qualified employer locations must still comply with applicable OSHA regulations, however. For example, under 29 CFR 1904.39(a)(3), employers covered by the OSH Act must report to OSHA any work-related incident that results in a/an:
Once one of these reports is received, the agency determines if an “unprogrammed” inspection or investigation will be conducted.
The new table itemizes 489 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes for industries that qualify for limited OSHA enforcement activities opened on and after January 22, 2026. The 489 figure is a slight increase from 485 industry codes identified back in November 2024.
The industries on the latest list had a DART rate below the national average of 1.4 per 100 full-time equivalent workers in 2024. That average comes from 2024 incidence rate data recently published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Because injury and illness rates shift annually, OSHA’s lineup of low-hazard industries changes with them. In fact, OSHA made more than 100 additions and over 100 deletions with the February 2nd memo. Your industry may or may not be shown in any given year.
If your industry tends to jump on and off the listing, you may wish to monitor the OSHA Enforcement Exemptions and Limitations Under the Appropriations Act webpage — call it the OSHA EEL webpage for short. It provides links to the current and historical memos, as well as the CPL.
Complete instructions for OSHA officers on how to handle the rider are found in CPL 02-00-170. Yet, a few practical instructions are shared in the memo, and these relate to:
Note that the CPL features not only inspector procedures and clarifications but also 18 frequently asked questions and a link to the OSHA EEL webpage.
OSHA posted its FY 2026 low-hazard industries table based on the average DART rate for 2024. It helps agency inspectors sort out which establishments with a workforce of 10 or fewer employees qualify for certain enforcement exemptions and limitations.