J. J. Keller® Compliance Network

What’s happened?

A quick look at the rule’s development shows:

• 7/28/2025 — OSHA received a petition for rulemaking that covers obligations for ladder retrofits under 1910.28(b)(9).
• 9/15/2025 — OSHA posted a memo confirming it intends to eliminate 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D).
• 12/18/2025 — OSHA sent its Walking-Working Surfaces (WWS) - Fixed Ladders proposal to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).
• 1/13/2026 — OIRA and OSHA met with the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM).
• 1/21/2026 — OIRA and OSHA met with the Employers OSHA Modernization Coalition.
• 1/27/2026 — OIRA plans to meet with attorneys representing the American Petroleum Institute (API).

What did the petition request?

The seven-page petition, written by legal counsel on behalf of the AFPM, API, and American Chemistry Council (ACC), requests that OSHA:

• Withdraw the provision under the WWS standard for fixed ladders that extend more than 24 feet to be equipped with personal fall arrest systems (allowing the continued use of ladder cages or wells); or
• Grandfather fixed ladders installed before a particular date (authorizing the continued use of existing ladder cages or wells for those ladders).

Unjustified provision?

Petitioners argue that OSHA, in its 2010 proposed WWS rule, failed to:

• Take comments on the effectiveness of cages in protecting workers from falls,
• Disclose that the agency was evaluating whether to prohibit cages, and
• Give stakeholders a chance to submit evidence regarding cages.

The petition outlines the differences between the earlier proposed and final rules, noting that the 2010 proposal gave employers the choice to use any of four fall-protection types — cages, wells, ladder safety systems, or personal fall protection systems. However, the 2016 final rule gave a 2036 phase-out date for cages and wells.

The petition goes on to contend that:

• OSHA lacks sufficient evidence to justify prohibiting cages and wells;
• Data collected during the rulemaking process leaned toward preserving employer choices for fall protection; and
• Although the 2016 rulemaking preamble acknowledged the shift away from cages and wells, it did not fully discuss evidence in favor of cages and wells.

Other arguments in the petition

The petition raises several points questioning the benefits of paragraph (b)(9)(i)(D), stating that:

• In the past decade, AFPM, API, and ACC facilities have suffered only a few injuries, with no fatalities involving cages and wells;
• Cages offer passive protection, whereas ladder safety systems and personal fall arrest systems require workers to take action to comply;
• Personal protective equipment (PPE) lies at the bottom of the hierarchy of controls;
• Safety risks also exist for ladder safety systems and personal fall arrest systems; and
• Installing new ladders or retrofitting existing ones introduces hazards to those performing that work.

Finally, the petition addresses significant compliance costs, estimating several billion dollars for tens of thousands of ladders at U.S. refineries alone. Petitioners also cited additional expenses for rerating pressure vessels and engineering any process equipment changes.

What does OSHA say?

OSHA officially announced in a September 2025 memo that it is proposing to remove 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D). The agency calls it a deregulatory action in line with Executive Order 14192. The memo reasons, “OSHA anticipates this change will allow employers to update their ladders when the ladders reach the end of their service lives, accommodating the lengthy service life of fixed ladders, while significantly reducing costs and offering greater flexibility.”

The WWS - Fixed Ladders proposal reached OIRA on December 18. OIRA typically takes 90 to 120 days for review, but recently a maximum 28-day review period for deregulatory actions was implemented. That means we anticipate OIRA will rush this proposal, so that OSHA may publish it in the Federal Register.

Key to remember

An upcoming OSHA proposal would withdraw 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D). The rule was spurred by a petition.

When captured dust becomes a regulated waste

Under the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, most collected dust qualifies as a solid waste once it’s removed from a dust collector, hopper, or filter. And despite the name, “solid waste” doesn’t mean solid, benign, or harmless. It simply means a discarded material.

At that point, facilities are expected to determine whether the dust is hazardous or non-hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This determination is based on what the dust contains, not how dusty it looks or how long it has been managed that way. Dust generated from metalworking, surface coatings, chemical processing, plastics, or specialty manufacturing can contain regulated constituents such as heavy metals or chemical residues. In these cases, facilities are required to make a waste determination using process knowledge, testing, or a combination of both.

This step is often overlooked. Many companies assume that if dust has not caused problems in the past, it must be non-hazardous. Unfortunately, regulators do not accept assumptions as documentation. If there’s no clear waste determination on file, that alone can be cited during an inspection. Misclassifying dust can also have ripple effects. If collected dust is later found to be hazardous, the facility may face issues related to improper disposal, incorrect generator status, or even cleanup liability at the disposal site. What began as a routine housekeeping task can suddenly become a significant compliance issue.

Storage, disposal, and the risks of getting it wrong

Even when dust is correctly identified as non-hazardous, it still needs to be managed properly. Open containers, poor labeling, and inconsistent handling practices are common findings during inspections. These issues are often viewed as minor, but they can quickly escalate if dust is released, mixed with other waste streams, or stored improperly.

Recycling adds another layer of complexity. Many facilities recycle metal dusts or other recoverable materials, which can be a smart environmental and economic decision. However, recyclable doesn't mean unregulated. Dust being recycled still needs to be stored safely, managed to prevent releases, and documented as legitimate recycling. Without proper controls, regulators may view the material as improperly managed waste.

Outdoor storage creates additional risk. Dust stored outside, transferred outdoors, or tracked out of the building can easily become a stormwater concern. Even non-hazardous dust can be considered a pollutant if it migrates off-site during rain events. This is a frequent source of violations under stormwater permits and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs), especially when dust management isn’t addressed in the SWPPP.

Another common issue is mixing dust with general trash or other waste streams. Once mixed, otherwise manageable dust can become more difficult or impossible to classify correctly. This can complicate disposal, increase costs, and raise questions during audits or inspections.

What makes dust especially challenging is that responsibility for it often falls into a gray area. The safety team may assume that the environmental team is managing disposal. The environmental team may assume that the safety team has already classified the material. When no one clearly owns the waste determination and disposal process, gaps are almost guaranteed.

The most effective facilities treat dust as a waste stream that deserves the same attention as any other regulated material. They document waste determinations, define storage and labeling requirements, train employees on proper handling, and periodically revisit those determinations as processes change.

Keys to remember: Captured dust doesn’t stop being regulated once it leaves the air. Understanding whether collected dust is hazardous or non-hazardous, how it must be stored, and where it can legally go is essential to staying compliant.

Who’s impacted by the rule?

EPA 40 CFR 370 applies to a facility owner or operator if:

• The OSHA HazCom standard requires the facility to prepare or have available an SDS or material safety data sheet (MSDS) for a hazardous chemical;
• The hazardous chemical is not exempted at 370.13 or 1910.1200(b)(6); and
• The hazardous chemical is present at or above certain threshold levels.

If the applicability criteria are met, the facility owner/operator must submit to the state emergency response commission (SERC), local emergency planning committee (LEPC), and local fire departments:

• An SDS or MSDS for each covered hazardous chemical or a list of all covered hazardous chemicals; and
• A Tier II hazardous chemical inventory form by March 1 annually for all covered hazardous chemicals.

A state may make its own laws and regulations in addition to or more stringent than federal Part 370.

What’s changing in Part 370?

Last year, OSHA amended its HazCom standard to conform to the seventh edition of the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). Changes to the chemical hazard classifications and categories were part of the amendments to 1910.1200. This is important because EPA Part 370 relies on the OSHA HazCom standard for the definition of “hazardous chemical” and the hazard categories that must be reported.

In the latest rule published November 17, 2025, EPA takes several actions to harmonize its regulations with OSHA’s. The preamble offers a complete list of amendments to Part 370. Here’s a summary:

When will the changes take effect?

The direct final rule is effective January 16, 2026, unless EPA receives an adverse comment during its 30-day comment period. [However, see the "news update," earlier in this article.] If that happens, the agency will publish a timely withdrawal. Then, it will move along with the proposed rule (also published in the November 17, 2025, Federal Register) and address public comments in a subsequent final rule.

Assuming no adverse comment is received on the original direct final rule, EPA gives covered facilities time to prepare. The rule offers a compliance date of December 1, 2026, for both SDS reporting and Tier II reporting. Note that for Tier II reporting, the updates kick in for the 2026 inventory reporting year, which impacts forms due by March 1, 2027, and thereafter. (Forms due on or before March 1, 2026, are unchanged.)

Key to remember: EPA took action to harmonize Part 370 with the changes OSHA made to 1910.1200 last year. The latest amendments to Part 370 have a compliance date of December 1, 2026. For Tier II reporting, the updates start with forms due on or before March 1, 2027.

What’s changing and why it matters

Although EPA has been deregulating or loosening some requirements, there are still some standards being tightened across multiple fronts in the coming year:

• Renewable fuel standards (RFS): The EPA proposed higher volume requirements for 2026, including 24.02 billion renewable identification numbers (RINs), up nearly 8% from 2025. This increase pushes stricter expectations on fuel producers and organizations purchasing renewable fuels.
• Stormwater multi-sector general permit (MSGP): A new MSGP set to take effect by February 2026 will require quarterly PFAS indicator monitoring, expanded benchmark sampling, and resiliency measures in stormwater control designs.
• PFAS Reporting under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): TSCA Section 8(a)(7) mandates PFAS manufacturing and import data collection beginning in April 2026, through October 2026, with extended deadlines for certain small manufacturers.

Failure to prepare could lead to fines, reputational damage, supply chain disruptions, and permit delays. Companies that weave compliance planning into their 2026 strategy will be positioned not just to meet legal deadlines but to sustain operations smoothly.

Key areas of impact

• Renewable fuel standards (RFS) and air emissions The proposed increase in 2026 Renewable Identification Numbers (RIN) volumes, from 24.02 billion to 24.46 billion for 2027, signals tightening air and fuels policy that affects fuel use and emissions accounting.
• Stormwater management The upcoming 2026 MSGP requires expanded quarterly PFAS monitoring, new benchmark triggers, corrective action plans, and integration of climate resilience in design standards.
• PFAS disclosure (TSCA Section 8(a)(7)) Manufacturers and importers of PFAS must submit electronic reporting of usage, volumes, disposal, and exposure data between April and October 2026, with extensions available for smaller operations.

Steps to take now

• Audit compliance programs: Cross-check operations against RIN inventory, stormwater permits, and TSCA reporting duties.
• Upgrade monitoring and recordkeeping: Implement robust electronic systems to track PFAS, stormwater quality, fuel volumes, and emissions.
• Staff training: Educate teams on PFAS obligations, new stormwater protocols, and RFS structures.
• Engage regulators early: Comment on proposed rules, consult during permit drafting, and flag issues during the notice-and-comment period.

Looking ahead

The EPA’s 2026 updates reflect a trend toward increased transparency and environmental accountability. Companies that treat compliance as strategic will not only avoid enforcement but also gain resilience and stakeholder trust.

Key to remember: Start planning now. Early action on EPA rule changes will save time, money, and headaches when enforcement begins.

Proposed legislation

Bipartisan legislation has recently been introduced in the House that would require businesses to provide restroom access to truckers who are loading or delivering cargo at their warehouses, manufacturers, distribution centers, retailers, and ports.

Supported by leading organizations in the trucking industry, the Trucker Bathroom Access Act (H.R. 9592) was introduced on Dec. 15, 2022. The bill requires retailers, warehouses, and other establishments with existing restrooms to provide access to drivers who are loading or delivering cargo. Additionally, operators of ports and marine terminals must provide access for drayage and parking while accessing such restrooms.

This amendment to Title 49 would exempt some employers from the bill including filling and service stations, and restaurants 800-square feet or smaller with restrooms intended for employee use only. The bill doesn’t require employers to construct new restrooms but to give truck drivers the same access as employees or customers.

Your restroom availability affects their health

Commercial truckers and delivery drivers are the lifeline of our supply chain of supplies, products, and consumables. Working tirelessly all hours, during holidays and weekends, and throughout the pandemic, they continue to deliver critical food and emergency supplies to companies everywhere. Employers have the privilege of demonstrating gratitude to truckers and delivery drivers with a positive work environment.

The benefits of allowing truckers and delivery drivers the convenience and safety of readily available, sanitary restroom facilities are plenty. They’re able to rest and reset when necessary, which keeps them and others safer on the roads. Equally important, restroom availability prevents drivers from having to search for available facilities elsewhere, allowing them to keep a timely delivery schedule, limit supply chain delays, and ultimately lower costs for employers and customers.

Keys to remember

The proposed Trucker Bathroom Access Act will require retailers, warehouses, and other establishments with existing restrooms to provide access to truckers and delivery drivers who are loading or delivering cargo. Access to restrooms keeps them refreshed and ready to deliver essential supplies to companies across the country.

FMCSA’s guidance on second opinions

According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) guidance, a driver who receives a disqualified status may seek a second opinion from another National Registry Certified Medical Examiner.

However, the process has important requirements:

• Drivers should obtain permission from their motor carrier before scheduling a second exam. Carrier that allow drivers to seek a second opinion may choose which Certified Medical Examiner drivers visit.
• Carriers should maintain a list of approved medical vendors to ensure consistent and reliable examinations. Understanding these rules helps carriers manage risk and maintain compliance.
• Carriers, however, should also watch out for these four areas of compliance that, if not followed, could steer them off course when it comes to driver medical exams.

Four watch-outs for motor carriers

1. Drivers must provide the same health information to every examiner

Drivers are required to give complete and truthful medical information at each exam. If a driver withholds or changes information to obtain a medical certificate from a second examiner, it can create serious problems:

• Drivers can face civil penalties.
• Motor carriers may also be liable if the driver is involved in a crash and was certified based on incomplete or inaccurate information.
• Motor carriers could inadvertently place a medically unfit driver behind the wheel of a commercial motor vehicle .
• Let’s say a driver previously reported severe fatigue that raised concerns about possible sleep apnea. That information must be shared with any second examiner. Withholding it in hopes of receiving a 2-year medical card creates significant compliance, legal, and safety risks to both the driver and motor carrier.

2. Carriers aren’t required to review the 'long form' medical report

Motor carriers aren’t required to obtain or review the driver’s DOT Medical Examination Report Form MCSA-5875 (long form). Without this information, it may be difficult for carriers to determine whether the driver disclosed accurate medical history during a second exam.

Carriers that choose to collect or review long form medical information must:

• Obtain written consent from the driver.
• Work closely with HR to ensure a consistent and compliant policy.
• Use clear procedures for authorizing and storing medical information.

3. The FMCSA receives all exam results

All DOT medical exam results are submitted to the FMCSA National Registry. This means:

• A disqualified exam will appear in the driver’s National Registry record.
• If the driver quickly receives a second exam that results in a valid certification, the FMCSA may choose to review the situation more closely.

4. Carriers should watch for ‘doctor shopping’

Motor carriers should be alert for patterns that may indicate drivers are "doctor shopping.” Drivers who repeatedly seek new examiners that will overlook medical concerns pose risks for carriers. The FMCSA frowns upon “doctor shopping” because it undermines the integrity of the medical certification process. Carriers that allow drivers to do this will certainly raise red flags with the FMCSA if multiple exams occur within a short time frame.

Key to remember: Allowing a second opinion can be appropriate when handled correctly, but it must be managed carefully. Carriers should communicate clear guidelines to drivers, understand the FMCSA requirements, and maintain strong internal policies to protect both the company and the public.

8 levels of inspection

The CVSA has eight levels of roadside inspections. Each level has a varying degree of emphasis and detail. Although Roadcheck 2026 will involve mostly Level I comprehensive driver/vehicle inspections, drivers (and their vehicles) should be prepared for all inspection types every day of the year.

• Level I: Comprehensive driver/vehicle: Examination of driver documents, plus a detailed inspection of the vehicle.
• Level II: Cursory driver/vehicle: Examination of driver documents, plus a simple inspection of the vehicle.
• Level III: Driver: Examination of documents and items related to the driver.
• Level IV: Targeted: A one-time examination of a specific item, such as a driver’s record of duty status or a vehicle component.
• Level V: Vehicle: Detailed inspection of the vehicle only.
• Level VI: Radioactive cargo: Inspection of certain types of radioactive cargo.
• Level VII: Jurisdictional: An inspection mandated by a jurisdiction that doesn’t meet the requirements of any other level of inspection.
• Level VIII: Electronic: Conducted wirelessly or remotely, not necessarily requiring interaction with an inspector.

A Smarter Start

Motus is only as effective as the data that feeds into it, which is why FMCSA is emphasizing the importance of maintaining an active FMCSA Portal account. Carriers should log in today to confirm their account status or create one if they have never used the Portal before. Many carriers who have held authority for years may not realize they even have a Portal account, making this step especially important.

Once your account is active, you will be able to claim your USDOT Number in Motus and start managing your information there. Without this, users will not be able to complete registration updates or manage authority once the new system goes live. The FMCSA Portal login page allows users to sign in with existing credentials or start fresh through the online registration option, ensuring every company has a verified and secure entry point into Motus.

What to do now

One of the most important preparation steps is verifying the Portal user access list. Under the Account Management tab, companies should confirm which individuals have Portal access and identify their Company Official.

FMCSA is clear about who this person should be:

• The company owner, or
• An internal employee responsible for safety and compliance tasks

It should not be a consultant, third-party service provider, or transportation broker. The Company Official should use the same Login dot.gov email in both the FMCSA Portal and Motus. Using one consistent email ensures the systems can recognize the correct user and properly connect the company’s existing USDOT information to its new Motus account.

This one-to-one match is the only way FMCSA can securely link a company’s historical USDOT data with its new Motus account. Taking time now to verify the correct individual is listed can prevent access issues and delays during the transition.

Update your MCS-150 

Motus aims to create a centralized, accurate registration environment. To support that goal, FMCSA recommends carriers complete an online Biennial Update (MCS 150) in the Portal before Motus launches.

Submitting an update, or confirming no changes are needed, ensures the most current company information transfers into the new system. This includes:

• Operating status
• Fleet size and vehicle types
• Hazmat activity
• Mileage and safety data

Accurate information today means fewer issues when Motus goes live.

Key to remember: By getting ahead of these updates, you set your company up for a seamless shift into Motus when it launches.

What are adverse driving conditions?

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) defines adverse driving conditions as weather or road conditions that could not have been known at the time of dispatch. This exception is meant to cover unexpected events, things a driver could not reasonably plan around. If conditions were forecasted, the ADC exception does not apply.

What does the exception allow?

When adverse conditions arise unexpectedly, a driver can drive up to 2 additional hours after the limits have been reached. Extending the driving time does not decrease the rest requirements. The exception cannot be used if the driver would not have been able to arrive on time, under normal conditions.

If a driver begins a trip and several hours into a trip, an unpredicted storm drops visibility, ADC may be used to complete the trip. A blizzard that was in the forecast for several days, would not qualify for this exception because the conditions were predicted in advance.

What is an Emergency Relief Order?

EROs are issued by state or federal authorities during significant events affecting public safety or essential supply chains. These orders temporarily modify HOS rules for drivers providing direct emergency assistance. Common examples of when these orders would be issued in the summer are:

• Widespread freezing temperatures that cause energy shortages,
• Major storms that disrupt supply chains and,
• Emergency transport of essential items like fuel, food and, medical supplies.

What does an ERO allow?

Each order is different, but they may allow:

• Temporary suspension of some or all HOS limits,
• More flexibility for drivers hauling emergency-related freight and,
• Apply across and entire state or region.

EROs should only be used when an official declaration is in place. Time limits are placed on these orders, so it is important to stay informed. The driver must be carrying emergency-related freight and, the carrier should notify the driver when they can and cannot use the exception.

Safety first, safety always

Neither of these exceptions override safety. Even with extra driving time, drivers should make good choices.

• Slow down in snow and ice,
• Increase following distance,
• Stop if conditions become unsafe and,
• Never drive fatigued.

The law gives flexibility in special circumstances, but it never removes the driver’s responsibility to operate safely.

Key to remember: Winter brings unique challenges for commercial drivers, but knowing the difference between Adverse Driving Conditions and Emergency Relief Orders helps ensure you stay safe, legal, and prepared.

1. Maintain required records

Section 380.725 of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) lists the specific records that must be maintained by all ELDT providers on FMCSA’s Training Provider Registry (TPR). During an ELDT audit the investigator will ask for and review the following ELDT-specific records:

• Self-certifications by all behind-the-wheel driver-trainees stating that they will comply with:
  • The regulations in Parts 40, 382, 383, and 391; and
  • State and/or local laws related to alcohol and controlled substances testing, age, medical certification, licensing, and driver records;
• A copy of the driver-trainee’s commercial learner’s permit (CLP) or commercial driver’s license (CDL);
• Instructor qualification documentation:
  • Listing each instructor’s driving and/or training experience, and
  • A copy of each instructor’s current and valid CDL and applicable endorsements;
• Lesson plans for theory and behind-the-wheel (range and public road) training curricula; and
• Records of each driver-trainee’s ELDT assessments.

2. Ensure TPR data is current

Another issue being addressed is the activity or inactivity within the ELDT provider’s TPR profile. To remain on the TPR, an ELDT provider needs to periodically update its data on the TPR. This includes:

• Updating the Entry-Level Driver Training Provider Registration Form at least once every two years (biennially); and
• Reporting changes to key information to FMCSA within 30 days of the change. This includes changes to the:
  • Training provider’s name, address, or phone number;
  • Type(s) of training offered; and
  • Training provider’s status, and, if applicable, any change in state licensure, certification, or accreditation status.

3. Meet any applicable state requirements

In addition to the ELDT requirements, many states have requirements that must be met by schools and entities providing CDL instruction. In many cases these requirements apply to schools or entities that offer instruction for tuition or a fee.

As part of the process to be listed on the TPR, a school or entity certifies that they are licensed, certified, registered, or authorized to provide training as required by the laws and regulations of the state where in-person training is conducted.

During an audit, the investigator will ask for documentation of state licensure, registration, or certification to verify that the provider is authorized to provide training in the state. This also confirms that the school or entity correctly certified that they are meeting state requirements on their TPR application.

Key to remember: Ensuring that all records are complete and up to date is key when it comes to having a successful ELDT audit.

Submitting employees to drug tests

Can motor carriers drug test their drivers? The short answer is no. Canada does not have a federal regulation that requires drug testing for drivers. However, this does not mean that Canadian motor carriers cannot implement and enforce a drug and alcohol policy for their drivers. In fact, many carriers have developed successful policies that minimize the risk of getting in trouble with the law and ensure the safety of their drivers and the public.

For the most part, drug testing not only violates the Human Rights Code, but it is also a gross infringement on an individual’s reasonable right to protection of privacy. Motor carriers operating in Canada need to make sure they consider the human rights and privacy rights of their drivers when implementing any type of drug testing program and policy.

Motor carriers have the right to expect their drivers to arrive at work fit for duty and remain that way throughout the duration of their shift. Communicating this expectation to them is important and, at a minimum, should be communicated by implementing a ”fit-for-work” policy that makes your expectations around impairment of any kind clear.

When drug testing may be permissible

There are some circumstances in which drug testing is allowed, though they are rare and very specific.

1. Safety-sensitive positions: Universal random drug testing would be acceptable in workplaces that can be shown to be extremely dangerous and where a worker’s impairment would likely result in catastrophe. Based on this definition commercial truck drivers would be considered to be in a safety-sensitive position.

2. Reasonable suspicion of impairment: If an employee appears to be obviously impaired, drug testing may be permissible, especially if they’re involved in a collision and there is reasonable suspicion that they are under the influence of drugs.

3. As part of a rehabilitation/return-to-work program: A driver with substance abuse disorder may be subject to unannounced drug testing to be carried out as part of a rehabilitation program and return-to-work program.

Unlike in the United States, pre-employment drug testing is generally not permitted in Canada, except in limited circumstances. Each Canadian province has its own legislation regarding testing for drugs. In Alberta, the courts have been less protective of individual privacy rights and have allowed drug testing in the oil and gas sector. Most companies in Ontario and British Columbia opt not to test for drugs, adhering to human rights legislation and privacy concerns.

Policies must be clear

Motor carriers must inform their drivers about the drug and alcohol policy and unlike U.S. testing programs, are required to obtain their consent before conducting any test. By working together, motor carriers and drivers can create a safe and healthy work environment for everyone involved.

Carriers should update their policies addressing drug and alcohol use at least once per year. Carriers must pay close attention to:

• Permissible testing for the jurisdictions they operate in, including if they cross the border into the United States;
• Frequent reminders for drivers on their obligations under the policies; and
• Training for managers and supervisors on detecting impairment through physical symptoms.

Key to remember: Drug testing in Canada is legal but not regulated, so carriers must exercise caution when implementing a drug testing policy. There’s a fine line between allowable testing and human rights/employee privacy violations.

The explosive truth in one month

Two southern factories are great examples of how safety “hints” can turn deadly when not enough attention is given to workplace warnings. A Tennessee factory and a Kentucky plant both could have possibly averted October 2025 catastrophes, by looking a little further into signs and symptoms of existing dangers.

Tennessee OSHA (TOSHA) had cited a munitions factory with safety violations six years prior to its October 10th explosion after investigating why multiple employees were having seizures and other symptoms of dangerous chemical exposures.

Air monitoring confirmed that employees likely weren’t exposed to explosive cyclonite powder through inhalation. However, the inspection revealed that employees were not adequately protected from exposure through ingestion or skin absorption. Inspections found that employees were being exposed to surface contamination and ingestion risks from being allowed to consume food and beverages without proper hygiene practices being enforced.

The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), working closely with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), are still investigating the fatal explosion. The ATF believes the blast originated where mixed explosive materials were heated in production kettles followed by additional explosions occurring on the same floor of the facility after the original blast.

Just north and a few days earlier, an explosion occurred at a Kentucky chemical plant thought to be caused by an overflow of calcium carbide from a furnace. Though OSHA and local law enforcement continue to investigate, a preliminary review revealed that the calcium carbine actually landed on the ground, contributing to the explosion.

Though the explosion didn’t result in any fatalities, the same factory had experienced an explosion in March 2011 that did claim the lives of two workers while injuring two others. The CSB concluded the explosion was due to an electric arc furnace that over-pressurized, ejecting solid and powdered debris, flammable gases, and molten calcium carbide toward the workers. Accumulations of hazardous carbide and water were also thought to have contributed to the incident.

Looking back

In retrospect, if each employer had identified the potential for an explosive environment, based on prior incidents and employee exposures, and taken appropriate protective measures, the events of October 2025 could have been avoided.

By performing thorough investigations into how explosive materials were accumulating, and by implementing necessary changes to eliminate exposure risks, almost 20 lives might have been saved, and numerous serious injuries as well as extensive damage to both facilities could have been prevented.

Employers can reduce the risk of workplace explosions and fatalities by adopting a proactive approach that includes comprehensive safety protocols through:

• Performing workplace risk assessments and process hazard analysis;
• Conducting regular inspections to ensure proper ventilation and housekeeping;
• Managing ignition sources and flammable materials by using appropriate storage and handling procedures;
• Implementing explosion prevention systems that detect, isolate, and suppress explosive conditions;
• Maintaining infrastructure and equipment by addressing sparking concerns, faulty wiring, leaks, and instrumentation malfunctions;
• Training employees in recognizing explosion risks and safe work practices;
• Promoting a safe work culture through preparedness training, committees, and other employee engagement; and
• Complying with OSHA and other related standards.

Key to remember: Ignoring safety warnings not only endangers lives but also leads to preventable tragedies that impact employees and their families, operations and the community, and often, organizational reputation.

What is an establishment?

When it comes to figuring out who needs to submit OSHA injury and illness records, the first thing to understand is that these requirements apply to each establishment, not necessarily to the company as a whole. That raises the question, what exactly is considered an “establishment”?

OSHA defines an establishment as a single physical location where business is conducted or where services or industrial operations are performed. In plain language, if your company has multiple plants, offices, or warehouses, each one is usually considered its own establishment for reporting purposes.

But there’s a twist. Under 29 CFR 1904.46, the Agency makes an exception for situations where several buildings are close together and operate as one business unit. Think of a campus or a group of facilities under the same management and performing the same business activities, those are generally treated as a single establishment. On the other hand, if those buildings are spread out, run independently, or differ in the work they do, then each location counts as its own establishment.

Who must submit?

Armed with a better understanding of what an establishment is, you can determine if you need to submit electronically and what must be submitted? The answer depends on establishment size, industry classification, and recordkeeping obligations under Part 1904 including the following categories:

Large establishments in any industry:

• Companies with 250 or more employees at any time during the previous calendar year, and
• Required to keep OSHA injury and illness records.
• Submit OSHA Form 300A

Medium-sized establishments in specific industries

• Companies with 20–249 employees at any time during the previous calendar year, and
• Industry is listed in Appendix A to Subpart E (designated industries).
• Submit OSHA Form 300A

Examples can include construction, manufacturing, and transportation.

Certain high-hazard industries

• Companies with 100 or more employees at any time during the previous calendar year, and
• Industry is listed in Appendix B to Subpart E (high hazard industries).
• Submit OSHA Forms 300A, 300, and 301

Examples can include hospitals, food manufacturing plants, and waste treatment facilities.

What if my organization doesn’t fit in with the listed categories?

Keep in mind that unless your establishment falls into OSHA’s required categories, you usually don’t have to submit injury and illness data electronically through the Injury Tracking Application (ITA), unless OSHA specifically notifies you that electronic submission is required.

That said, being exempt from electronic submission does not eliminate your other OSHA recordkeeping responsibilities under 29 CFR Part 1904. If you are required to keep injury and illness records, you must still:

• Maintain OSHA Forms 300, 300A, and 301 for five years following the end of the calendar year they cover, and
• Post the OSHA 300A Annual Summary in a visible location each year from February 1 through April 30, even if no recordable injuries or illnesses occurred.

When to submit?

If you have determined you must electronically submit your records, then the last piece of the puzzle is knowing the submission deadline. The electronic submission window for the previous calendar year’s data runs January 2 through March 2 annually. For example, 2025 data must be submitted by March 2, 2026. Late submissions can still be made until December 31, but missing the March deadline may trigger compliance issues.

Actionable steps for compliance

• Confirm coverage: Determine whether your establishment is required to submit electronically by using OSHA’s ITA Coverage Tool, based on employee count and industry classification.
• Prepare required records: Ensure OSHA Forms 300 and 301 are complete and accurate for the reporting year, and complete and certify Form 300A by January 31 as required.
• Review for accuracy: Verify employee counts, NAICS codes, and consistency across all forms to minimize submission errors or rejections.
• Protect employee privacy: Ensure personally identifiable information (PII), such as employee names, addresses, and healthcare details, is not included in electronic submissions.
• Submit through OSHA’s ITA: Submit the required data to OSHA’s ITA using manual entry, csv file upload, or API integration, depending on the number of establishments and internal systems.

Key to remember: Electronic submission requirements are based on establishment size and industry classification. Keep in mind, even if you’re not required to submit data electronically, you may still be required to keep injury and illness records, retain them for five years, and post the OSHA 300A every year.

Employer rights/responsibilities after an OSHA inspection

OSHA inspections can be an overwhelming experience. Understanding the regulatory terms and what’s required of you afterwards can be confusing. OSHA says its Employer Rights and Responsibilities Following a Federal OSHA Inspection booklet can and should be used as a discussion guide during your closing conference with the compliance officer.

The booklet explains that:

• After an inspection, the officer reports the findings to the OSHA area director who evaluates them.
• If a violation was found, OSHA will issue you a Citation and Notification of Penalty detailing the exact nature of the violation(s) and any associated penalties. A citation informs you of the alleged violation. It also sets a proposes an abatement date and penalty amounts.

Also explained in OSHA’s guidance are types of violations, employer options, how to comply, how to contest citations, and more. The booklet is available as a pdf or ebook in English and Spanish.

Nail salon hazards and prevention strategies

Nail technicians are exposed to hazardous chemicals found in glues, polishes, removers, and other salon products. The trouble is these exposures can lead to asthma and other respiratory illnesses, skin disorders, liver disease, reproductive loss, and cancer. Additionally, awkward positions and repetitive motions may lead to muscle strains, and workers face potential infections from contact with client skin, nails, or blood.

Stay Healthy and Safe While Giving Manicures and Pedicures: A Guide for Nail Salon Workers highlights common issues in nail salons — such as chemical and biological exposures, ventilation problems, inadequate personal protective equipment (PPE), and ergonomic risks. Importantly, the guide provides practical steps for correcting those issues. It also explains worker rights and offers a list of applicable OSHA standards and resources. The publication is available in five languages.

Redline-strikeout version of 2024 HazCom rule

Finally, OSHA returned the redline-strikeout version of its 2024 HazCom rule to its Hazard Communication topic page. The latest document includes the corrections issued in the Federal Register (on May 20, 2024, October 9, 2024, January 8, 2026, and January 15, 2026). The redline-strikeout version is the full text of 29 CFR 1910.1200 with all revisions from 2024 and 2026 marked in red so you can spot what was added, revised, or removed.

We anticipate more HazCom guidance and enforcement information will be coming to OSHA’s HazCom topic page, either behind the HCS final rule link or the other links on the page.

Key to remember: OSHA continues to update its guidance publications. The latest ones cover OSHA inspections, nail salon safety, and hazard communication.

OSHA’s announcement on helmets vs. hard hats

OSHA released a Safety and Health Bulletin (SHIB 11-22-2023) on November 22, 2023, detailing the key differences and benefits of using modern safety helmets over traditional hard hats.

And just a few weeks later, in the December 11, 2023 Trade Release, the Agency announced it would now require its inspectors to wear Type II head protection, which is also commonly referred to as safety helmets.

The two main benefits of Type II safety helmets

The November 22, 2023 SHIB discussed two main benefits of choosing modern safety helmets over traditional hard hats -- the construction of materials and the use of chinstraps.

And while OSHA has recognized the benefits of Type II safety helmets, and is actively taking steps to protect its own employees, it’s important to understand that there is not a new requirement for employers to make the switch to safety helmets.

That being said, a growing number of employers have recognized the benefits of added head protection and are choosing to use Type II helmets for their workers. In addition, some clients are starting to contractually require their construction contractors to make the switch as well.

Understanding the different types of head protection

Hard hats will have a Type I or Type II rating on the manufacturer’s sticker. These markings are based on ANSI Z89.1’s impact ratings.

Type I hard hats protect from objects or impacts from the top center area of the hard hat and are often used in work areas with no lateral head impact hazards.

Type II hard hats, on the other hand, offers protection from both top and lateral impacts and objects and is often found on construction job sites or complex general industry settings where workers face multiple head contact exposures.

Hard hats are classified based on their level of voltage protection. See the chart below.

Choosing the right head protection for your employees

Employers should conduct a job hazard analysis and/or a PPE assessment to determine which style hard hat is best for their workers. In general, OSHA recommends the use of Type II safety helmets at the following locations:

1. Construction Sites: For construction sites, especially those with high risks of falling objects and debris, impacts from equipment, or slips, trips, and falls, safety helmets have enhanced impact resistance and additional features that offer superior protection compared to the components and construction of traditional hard hats.

2. Oil and Gas Industry: In these sectors where workers face multiple hazards, including potential exposure to chemicals and severe impacts, safety helmets with additional features can provide comprehensive protection.

3. Working from Heights: For tasks or jobs that involve working from heights, safety helmets offer protection of the entire head and include features that prevent the safety helmet from falling off.

4. Electrical Work: For tasks involving electrical work or proximity to electrical hazards, safety helmets with non-conductive materials (Class G and Class E) provide protection to prevent electrical shocks. However, some traditional hard hats also offer electrical protection.

5. High-Temperature Environments: In high temperatures or where there is exposure to molten materials, safety helmets with advanced heat-resistant properties can provide additional protection to workers.

Key to remember: While there isn’t a new requirement for safety helmets, employers should review their workplace hazards to determine which style of hard hat will best protect their employees.