10-9-2024 OSHA Correction to Final Rule: Hazard Communication Standard

HOME NEWS REGSENSE INSTITUTE EDGE EXPERT HELP EVENTS FORUMS

10-9-2024 OSHA Correction to Final Rule: Hazard Communication Standard

2024-10-09T05:00:00Z

OSHA is correcting several inadvertent errors in its Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) which were published in the Federal Register on May 20, 2024. The agency has identified several errors in the regulatory text and appendices to the HCS which pertain to the classification of hazardous chemicals and information presented on labels and Safety Data Sheets (SDSs). The agency believes these errors, although minor and primarily typographical in nature, should be addressed expeditiously to avoid confusion or unnecessary costs in the regulated community due to incorporation of errors on labels and SDSs. OSHA is continuing its review of the regulatory text and will issue another correction document to address additional minor errors at a later date.

DATES: October 9, 2024, published in the Federal Register October 9, 2024, page 81829.

View final rule.

Part 1910 - Occupational Safety and Health Standards
Authority:	Added	View text
§1910.1200 Hazard communication.
(d)(1)	Revised and republished	View text
(f)(11)(i)		View text
Appendix A table A.1.1, paragraph A.1.3.6.2.4, table A.2.2, table A.2.3 and table A.7.1	Revised and republished	View text
Appendix B table B.3.1 and table B.12.1	Revised and republished	View text
Appendix C table C.4.16	Revised and republished	View text

Previous Text

§1910.1200 Hazard communication.

* * * *

(d) Hazard classification. (1) Chemical manufacturers and importers shall evaluate chemicals produced in their workplaces or imported by them to classify the chemicals in accordance with this section. Employers are not required to classify chemicals unless they choose not to rely on the classification performed by the chemical manufacturer or importer for the chemical to satisfy this paragraph (d)(1). For each chemical, the chemical manufacturer or importer shall determine the hazard classes, and where appropriate, the category of each class that apply to the chemical being classified. The hazard classification shall include any hazards associated with the chemical's intrinsic properties including:

* * * *

(11) Label Updates. (i) Chemical manufacturers, importers, distributors, or employers who become newly aware of any significant information regarding the hazards of a chemical shall revise the labels for the chemical within six months of becoming aware of the new information and shall ensure that labels on containers of hazardous chemicals shipped after that time contain the new information. For chemicals that have been released for shipment and are awaiting future distribution, chemical manufacturers, importers, distributors, or employers have the option not to relabel those containers; however, if they do not relabel the containers, they must provide the updated label for each individual container with each shipment.

Appendix A to 1910.1200-Health Hazard Criteria (Mandatory)

* * * *

Table A.1.1—Acute Toxicity Estimate (ATE) Values and Criteria for Acute Toxicity Hazard Categories
Exposure route	Category 1	Category 2	Category 3	Category 4
Oral (mg/kg bodyweight) see: Note (a) Note (b)	ATE ≤ 5	>5 ATE ≤ 50	>50 ATE ≤ 300	>300 ATE ≤ 2000.
Dermal (mg/kg bodyweight) see: Note (a) Note (b)	ATE ≤ 5	>50 ATE ≤ 200	>200 ATE ≤ 1000	>1000 ATE ≤ 2000.
Inhalation—Gases (ppmV) see: Note (a) Note (b) Note (c)	ATE ≤ 100	>100 ATE ≤ 500	>500 ATE ≤ 2500	>2500 ATE ≤ 20000.
Inhalation—Vapors (mg/l) see: Note (a) Note (b) Note (c) Note (d)	ATE ≤ 0.5	>0.5 ATE ≤ 2.0	>2.0 ATE ≤ 10.0	>10.0 ATE ≤ 20.0.
Inhalation—Dusts and Mists (mg/l) see: Note (a) Note (b) Note (c)	ATE ≤ 0.05	>0.05 ATE ≤ 0.5	>0.5 ATE ≤ 1.0	>1.0 ATE ≤ 5.0.
Note: Gas concentrations are expressed in parts per million per volume (ppmV). Notes to Table A.1.1: (a) The acute toxicity estimate (ATE) for the classification of a substance is derived using the LD ₅₀ /LC ₅₀ where available. (b) The acute toxicity estimate (ATE) for the classification of a substance or ingredient in a mixture is derived using: (i) the LD ₅₀ /LC ₅₀ where available. Otherwise, (ii) the appropriate conversion value from Table 1.2 that relates to the results of a range test, or (iii) the appropriate conversion value from Table 1.2 that relates to a classification category; (c) Inhalation cut-off values in the table are based on 4 hour testing exposures. Conversion of existing inhalation toxicity data which has been generated according to 1 hour exposure is achieved by dividing by a factor of 2 for gases and vapors and 4 for dusts and mists; (d) For some substances the test atmosphere will be a vapor which consists of a combination of liquid and gaseous phases. For other substances the test atmosphere may consist of a vapor which is nearly all the gaseous phase. In these latter cases, classification is based on ppmV as follows: Category 1 (100 ppmV), Category 2 (500 ppmV), Category 3 (2500 ppmV), Category 4 (20000 ppmV). The terms “dust”, “mist” and “vapor” are defined as follows: (i) Dust: solid particles of a substance or mixture suspended in a gas (usually air); (ii) Mist: liquid droplets of a substance or mixture suspended in a gas (usually air); (iii) Vapor: the gaseous form of a substance or mixture released from its liquid or solid state.

A.1.3.6.2.4 If the total concentration of the relevant ingredient(s) with unknown acute toxicity is ≤10% then the formula presented in A.1.3.6.1 must be used. If the total concentration of the relevant ingredient(s) with unknown acute toxicity is ≤10%, the formula presented in A.1.3.6.1 is corrected to adjust for the percentage of the unknown ingredient(s) as follows:

Table A.2.2—Skin Irritation Category ^a
	Criteria
^a Grading criteria are understood as described in OECD Test Guideline 404.
Irritant (Category 2)	(1) Mean score of ≥2.3 ≤4.0 for erythema/eschar or for edema in at least 2 of 3 testedanimals from gradings at 24, 48, 72 hours after patch removal or, if reactions are delayed, from grades on 3 consecutive days after the onset of skin reactions; or
	(2) Inflammation that persists to the end of the observation period normally 14 days in at hyperplasia, and scaling; or
	(3) In some cases where there is pronounced variability of response among animals, with very definite positive effects related to chemical exposure in a single animal but less than the criteria above.

Table A.2.3—Concentration of Ingredients of a Mixture Classified as Skin Category 1 or 2 That Would Trigger Classification of the Mixture as Hazardous to Skin
Sum of ingredients classified as:	Concentration triggering classification of a mixture as:
	Skin corrosive	Skin irritant
	Category 1	Category 2
Skin Category 1	≥5%	≥1% but <5%
Skin Category 2		≥10%
(10 × Skin Category 1) + Skin Category 2		≥10%
Note: Where the sub-categories of skin Category 1 (corrosive) are used, the sum of all ingredients of a mixture classified as sub-category 1A, 1B or 1C respectively, must each be ≥5% in order to classify the mixture as either skin sub-category 1A, 1B or 1C. Where the sum of 1A ingredients is <5% but the sum of 1A + 1B ingredients is ≥5%, the mixture must be classified as sub-category 1B. Similarly, where the sum of 1A + 1B ingredients is <5% but the sum of 1A + 1B + 1C ingredients is ≥5% the mixture must be classified as sub-category 1C. Where at least one relevant ingredient in a mixture is classified as a Category 1 categorization, the mixture must be classified as Category 1 without sub-categorization if the sum of all ingredients corrosive to skin is ≥5%.

Table A.7.1—Cut-Off Values/Concentration Limits of Ingredients of a Mixture Classified as Reproductive Toxicants or for Effects on or Via Lactation That Trigger Classification of the Mixture
Ingredient classified as	Cut-off values/concentration limits triggering classification of a mixture as
Ingredient classified as	Category 1 reproductive toxicant	Category 2 reproductive toxicant	Additional category for effects on or via lactation
Category 1 reproductive toxicant	≥0.01%
Category 2 reproductive toxicant		≥0.01%
Additional category for effects on or via lactation			≥0.01%

Appendix B to 1910.1200-Physical criteria (Mandatory)

* * * *

Table B.3.1—Criteria for Aerosols
Category	Criteria
1	Contains ≥85% flammable components and the chemical heat of combustion is ≥30 kJ/g; or For foam aerosols, in the aerosol foam flammability test. The flame height is ≥20 cm (7.87 in) and the flame duration ≥2 s; or The flame height is ≥4 cm (1.57 in) and the flame duration ≥7 s.
2	Contains >1% flammable components, or the heat of combustion is ≥20 kJ/g; and for spray aerosols, in the ignition distance test, ignition occurs at a distance ≥15 cm (5.9 in), or in the enclosed space ignition test, the Time equivalent is ≤300 s/m ³; or Deflagration density is ≤300 g/m ³ For foam aerosols, in the aerosol foam flammability test, the flame height is ≥4 cm and the flame duration is ≥2 s and it does not meet the criteria for Category 1.
3	The chemical does not meet the criteria for Categories 1 and 2; The chemical contains ≤1% flammable components (by mass) and has a heat of combustion <20 kJ/g.

Table B.12.1— Criteria for Chemicals Which, in Contact With Water, Emit Flammable Gases
Category	Criteria
Note: Classification of solid chemicals shall be based on tests performed on the chemical as presented. If, for example, for the purposes of supply or transport, the same chemical is to be presented in a physical form different from that which was tested and which is considered likely to materially alter its performance in a classification test, classification must be based on testing of the chemical in the new form.
1	Any chemical which, in the 1:1 mixture, by mass, of chemical and cellulose tested, spontaneously ignites; or the mean pressure rise time of a 1:1 mixture, by mass, of chemical and cellulose is less than that of a 1:1 mixture, by mass, of 50% perchloric acid and cellulose;
2	Any chemical which, in the 1:1 mixture, by mass, of chemical and cellulose tested, exhibits a mean pressure rise time less than or equal to the mean pressure rise time of a 1:1 mixture, by mass, of 40% aqueous sodium chlorate solution and cellulose; and the criteria for Category 1 are not met;
3	Any chemical which, in the 1:1 mixture, by mass, or chemical and cellulose tested, exhibits a mean pressure rise time less than or equal to the mean pressure rise time of a 1:1 mixture, by mass, of 65% aqueous nitric acid and cellulose; and the criteria for Categories 1 and 2 are not met.

Appendix C to 1910.1200-Allocation of label elements (Mandatory)

* * * *

DATES: October 9, 2024, published in the Federal Register October 9, 2024, page 81829.

View final rule.

Part 1910 - Occupational Safety and Health Standards
Authority:	Added	View text
§1910.1200 Hazard communication.
(d)(1)	Revised and republished	View text
(f)(11)(i)		View text
Appendix A table A.1.1, paragraph A.1.3.6.2.4, table A.2.2, table A.2.3 and table A.7.1	Revised and republished	View text
Appendix B table B.3.1 and table B.12.1	Revised and republished	View text
Appendix C table C.4.16	Revised and republished	View text

Previous Text

§1910.1200 Hazard communication.

* * * *

Appendix A to 1910.1200-Health Hazard Criteria (Mandatory)

* * * *

Table A.1.1—Acute Toxicity Estimate (ATE) Values and Criteria for Acute Toxicity Hazard Categories
Exposure route	Category 1	Category 2	Category 3	Category 4
Oral (mg/kg bodyweight) see: Note (a) Note (b)	ATE ≤ 5	>5 ATE ≤ 50	>50 ATE ≤ 300	>300 ATE ≤ 2000.
Dermal (mg/kg bodyweight) see: Note (a) Note (b)	ATE ≤ 5	>50 ATE ≤ 200	>200 ATE ≤ 1000	>1000 ATE ≤ 2000.
Inhalation—Gases (ppmV) see: Note (a) Note (b) Note (c)	ATE ≤ 100	>100 ATE ≤ 500	>500 ATE ≤ 2500	>2500 ATE ≤ 20000.
Inhalation—Vapors (mg/l) see: Note (a) Note (b) Note (c) Note (d)	ATE ≤ 0.5	>0.5 ATE ≤ 2.0	>2.0 ATE ≤ 10.0	>10.0 ATE ≤ 20.0.
Inhalation—Dusts and Mists (mg/l) see: Note (a) Note (b) Note (c)	ATE ≤ 0.05	>0.05 ATE ≤ 0.5	>0.5 ATE ≤ 1.0	>1.0 ATE ≤ 5.0.
Note: Gas concentrations are expressed in parts per million per volume (ppmV). Notes to Table A.1.1: (a) The acute toxicity estimate (ATE) for the classification of a substance is derived using the LD ₅₀ /LC ₅₀ where available. (b) The acute toxicity estimate (ATE) for the classification of a substance or ingredient in a mixture is derived using: (i) the LD ₅₀ /LC ₅₀ where available. Otherwise, (ii) the appropriate conversion value from Table 1.2 that relates to the results of a range test, or (iii) the appropriate conversion value from Table 1.2 that relates to a classification category; (c) Inhalation cut-off values in the table are based on 4 hour testing exposures. Conversion of existing inhalation toxicity data which has been generated according to 1 hour exposure is achieved by dividing by a factor of 2 for gases and vapors and 4 for dusts and mists; (d) For some substances the test atmosphere will be a vapor which consists of a combination of liquid and gaseous phases. For other substances the test atmosphere may consist of a vapor which is nearly all the gaseous phase. In these latter cases, classification is based on ppmV as follows: Category 1 (100 ppmV), Category 2 (500 ppmV), Category 3 (2500 ppmV), Category 4 (20000 ppmV). The terms “dust”, “mist” and “vapor” are defined as follows: (i) Dust: solid particles of a substance or mixture suspended in a gas (usually air); (ii) Mist: liquid droplets of a substance or mixture suspended in a gas (usually air); (iii) Vapor: the gaseous form of a substance or mixture released from its liquid or solid state.

Table A.2.2—Skin Irritation Category ^a
	Criteria
^a Grading criteria are understood as described in OECD Test Guideline 404.
Irritant (Category 2)	(1) Mean score of ≥2.3 ≤4.0 for erythema/eschar or for edema in at least 2 of 3 testedanimals from gradings at 24, 48, 72 hours after patch removal or, if reactions are delayed, from grades on 3 consecutive days after the onset of skin reactions; or
	(2) Inflammation that persists to the end of the observation period normally 14 days in at hyperplasia, and scaling; or
	(3) In some cases where there is pronounced variability of response among animals, with very definite positive effects related to chemical exposure in a single animal but less than the criteria above.

Table A.2.3—Concentration of Ingredients of a Mixture Classified as Skin Category 1 or 2 That Would Trigger Classification of the Mixture as Hazardous to Skin
Sum of ingredients classified as:	Concentration triggering classification of a mixture as:
	Skin corrosive	Skin irritant
	Category 1	Category 2
Skin Category 1	≥5%	≥1% but <5%
Skin Category 2		≥10%
(10 × Skin Category 1) + Skin Category 2		≥10%
Note: Where the sub-categories of skin Category 1 (corrosive) are used, the sum of all ingredients of a mixture classified as sub-category 1A, 1B or 1C respectively, must each be ≥5% in order to classify the mixture as either skin sub-category 1A, 1B or 1C. Where the sum of 1A ingredients is <5% but the sum of 1A + 1B ingredients is ≥5%, the mixture must be classified as sub-category 1B. Similarly, where the sum of 1A + 1B ingredients is <5% but the sum of 1A + 1B + 1C ingredients is ≥5% the mixture must be classified as sub-category 1C. Where at least one relevant ingredient in a mixture is classified as a Category 1 categorization, the mixture must be classified as Category 1 without sub-categorization if the sum of all ingredients corrosive to skin is ≥5%.

Table A.7.1—Cut-Off Values/Concentration Limits of Ingredients of a Mixture Classified as Reproductive Toxicants or for Effects on or Via Lactation That Trigger Classification of the Mixture
Ingredient classified as	Cut-off values/concentration limits triggering classification of a mixture as
Ingredient classified as	Category 1 reproductive toxicant	Category 2 reproductive toxicant	Additional category for effects on or via lactation
Category 1 reproductive toxicant	≥0.01%
Category 2 reproductive toxicant		≥0.01%
Additional category for effects on or via lactation			≥0.01%

Appendix B to 1910.1200-Physical criteria (Mandatory)

* * * *

Table B.3.1—Criteria for Aerosols
Category	Criteria
1	Contains ≥85% flammable components and the chemical heat of combustion is ≥30 kJ/g; or For foam aerosols, in the aerosol foam flammability test. The flame height is ≥20 cm (7.87 in) and the flame duration ≥2 s; or The flame height is ≥4 cm (1.57 in) and the flame duration ≥7 s.
2	Contains >1% flammable components, or the heat of combustion is ≥20 kJ/g; and for spray aerosols, in the ignition distance test, ignition occurs at a distance ≥15 cm (5.9 in), or in the enclosed space ignition test, the Time equivalent is ≤300 s/m ³; or Deflagration density is ≤300 g/m ³ For foam aerosols, in the aerosol foam flammability test, the flame height is ≥4 cm and the flame duration is ≥2 s and it does not meet the criteria for Category 1.
3	The chemical does not meet the criteria for Categories 1 and 2; The chemical contains ≤1% flammable components (by mass) and has a heat of combustion <20 kJ/g.

Table B.12.1— Criteria for Chemicals Which, in Contact With Water, Emit Flammable Gases
Category	Criteria
Note: Classification of solid chemicals shall be based on tests performed on the chemical as presented. If, for example, for the purposes of supply or transport, the same chemical is to be presented in a physical form different from that which was tested and which is considered likely to materially alter its performance in a classification test, classification must be based on testing of the chemical in the new form.
1	Any chemical which, in the 1:1 mixture, by mass, of chemical and cellulose tested, spontaneously ignites; or the mean pressure rise time of a 1:1 mixture, by mass, of chemical and cellulose is less than that of a 1:1 mixture, by mass, of 50% perchloric acid and cellulose;
2	Any chemical which, in the 1:1 mixture, by mass, of chemical and cellulose tested, exhibits a mean pressure rise time less than or equal to the mean pressure rise time of a 1:1 mixture, by mass, of 40% aqueous sodium chlorate solution and cellulose; and the criteria for Category 1 are not met;
3	Any chemical which, in the 1:1 mixture, by mass, or chemical and cellulose tested, exhibits a mean pressure rise time less than or equal to the mean pressure rise time of a 1:1 mixture, by mass, of 65% aqueous nitric acid and cellulose; and the criteria for Categories 1 and 2 are not met.

Appendix C to 1910.1200-Allocation of label elements (Mandatory)

* * * *

OSHA Final Rule: Hazard Communication Standard

10-9-2024 Correction to Final Rule: Hazard Communication Standard

        SAFETY & COMPLIANCE NEWS
    
Keep up with the latest regulatory developments from OSHA, DOT, EPA, DOL, and more.
GET FREE ARTICLES

        REGSENSE® REGULATORY REFERENCE
    
Explore a comprehensive database of word-for-word regulations on a wide range of compliance topics, with simplified explanations and best practices advice from our experts.
BROWSE BY TOPIC

        THE J. J. KELLER INSTITUTE
    
The Institute is your destination for in-depth content on 120+ compliance subjects. Discover articles, videos, and interactive exercises that will strengthen your understanding of regulatory concepts relevant to your business.  
BECOME AN EXPERT

        ADD HAZMAT, ENVIRONMENTAL, & HR RESOURCES
    
Unlock exclusive content offering expert insights into hazmat, environmental, and human resources compliance with a COMPLIANCE NETWORK EDGE membership.
ACCESS PREMIUM CONTENT

        DIRECT ACCESS TO COMPLIANCE EXPERTS
    
Struggling with a compliance challenge? Get the solution from our in-house team of experts! You can submit a question to our experts by email, set up a phone or video call, or request a detailed research report.
CONTACT AN EXPERT

        EVENTS
    
Register to attend live online events hosted by our experts. These webcasts and virtual conferences feature engaging discussions on important compliance topics in a casual, knowledge-sharing environment.
SEE UPCOMING EVENTS

Most Recent Highlights In Environmental

EHS Monthly Round Up - December 2024

In this December 2024 roundup video, we’ll review the most impactful environmental, health, and safety news.

Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental, health, and safety news. Please view the content links in the transcript for more information about the topics I’ll be covering today. Let’s get started!

OSHA’s personal protective equipment in construction final rule takes effect January 13. Employers must ensure PPE is of safe design and construction for the work to be performed and properly fits employees.

OSHA extended the comment deadline to January 14 for its proposed heat illness prevention rule. This gives stakeholders two more weeks to review the proposal and comment on it. An informal public hearing on the rule is scheduled for June 16.

OSHA released its Fall 2024 regulatory agenda on December 13. Many final and proposed rulemakings have been pushed into the first half of 2025, and a few have been bumped into the third quarter of the year.

OSHA updated its arc flash guidance for employees working on energized electrical equipment. Arc flash incidents can ignite clothing, cause structural fires, and cause severe or fatal burns. The guidance covers protecting employees from arc flash hazards, common electrical work myths, establishing boundaries around arc flash hazards, and being aware of arc flash hazards.

Warehouse, delivery, and retail workers are at increased risk for injuries and illnesses during the holidays due to higher volumes of work to meet consumer demand. OSHA reminds employers to protect workers by ensuring they’re trained to recognize and prevent hazards.

And finally, turning to environmental news, EPA released its Fall 2024 regulatory agenda on December 13. It includes projected publication dates for several final and proposed rules that may impact industry compliance with air, land, and water regulations.

Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!

EHS Monthly Round Up - October 2024

In this October 2024 roundup video, we'll review the most impactful environmental, health, and safety news.

A Government Accountability Office report says OSHA can do more to protect warehouse and delivery workers from ergonomic injuries. The report recommends several steps for OSHA to consider, including ensuring compliance officers can easily obtain data on when musculoskeletal disorders occurred.

OSHA updated its inspection guidance for animal slaughtering and processing industries. Inspections will focus on several hazards, including sanitation, ergonomics, and machine guarding. Among other changes, compliance officers will conduct inspections during off-shift times and identify workplace activities that impact employees most at risk such as temporary employees.

OSHA urges workers involved in hurricane cleanup and recovery efforts to be mindful of hazards, especially those associated with restoring electricity, removing debris, and trimming trees. Proper training, experience, and familiarity with related equipment helps ensure worker safety.

And finally, turning to environmental news, EPA extended the 2024 Chemical Data Reporting deadline to November 22 due to technical difficulties with its electronic reporting tool. The 2024 report covers activities that occurred between calendar years 2020 and 2023.

Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!

EHS Monthly Round Up - May 2023

In this monthly roundup video, we'll review the most impactful environmental, safety, and health news.

Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental, health, and safety news. Please view the content links in the transcript to take a deeper dive into the topics I’ll be covering today. With that said, let’s get started!

First, let’s take a look at what’s happening in safety and health. The week of May 1 marked the 10th annual Stand-Down to Prevent Falls in Construction. Employers were encouraged to have safety talks or demonstrations on the use of fall protection.

A new National Emphasis Program on fall prevention covers all industries, with a focus on construction and specific general industry activities. It took effect May 1; however, programmed inspections will begin after a 90-day outreach period.

With the start of lawn-care season, a recent OSHA case highlights some of the risks involved. The Agency found a lawn service contractor operating in Kentucky ignored safety requirements to save time.

A forklift operator suffered fatal injuries after falling into a recycling baler while trying to remove a jam. Investigators found a lack of training and communication were contributing factors.

In response to larger, more frequent wildfires, the state of Washington has proposed permanent wildfire smoke rules. They include year-round requirements for employers that will be in effect whenever there’s a risk that workers will be exposed to wildfire smoke.

And finally, turning to environmental news, EPA finalized changes to the new source performance standards for Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations. The rule adds more emissions requirements for such operations.

Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!

EHS Monthly Round Up - January 2023

In this monthly roundup video, we’ll review the most impactful environmental, safety, and health news.

Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental, safety, and health news. First, let’s take a look at what’s happening in safety and health.

If you haven’t already done so, now is the time to post your OSHA 300A Summary. Employers are required to post the Summary in a conspicuous place from February 1st through April 30th.

As required by law, OSHA increased its penalties for inflation in mid-January. Penalties went up 7.7 percent, effective January 17th.

Also in January, OSHA released its long-awaited Fall 2022 regulatory agenda. Along with numerous proposed rules in the works, three major final rules are slated for 2023 – COVID-19 in healthcare, Injury and Illness tracking, and an update to the hazard communication standard.

OSHA recently released two new letters of interpretation, which address exit signs and lockout/tagout. Specifically, OSHA states that the International Standards Organization emergency exit symbol can be located beside the mandatory EXIT text on an existing sign.

The second letter addresses the applicability of lockout/tagout and the maintenance and operations of cathodic protection rectifiers when working on pipelines.

New York’s Warehouse Worker Protection Act was signed into law in December and takes effect in late February. It protects warehouse distribution workers from undisclosed or unlawful work speed quotas and includes protections for workers who fail to meet these quotas.

In 2021, a worker died every 101 minutes from a work-related injury, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A total of 5,190 fatal work injuries was recorded in the U.S. in 2021, an 8.9 percent increase over 2020.

Turning to environmental news, EPA automatically added nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, to the Toxics Release Inventory, or TRI, list. Four PFAS were added since they are no longer claimed as confidential business information.

EPA released its Fall 2022 regulatory agenda in early January. Included are major regulations impacting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, waters of the United States, and modifications to the Risk Management Program under the Clean Air Act.

There are also a number of rules related to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants in various rule stages.

And finally, beginning with model year 2027, heavy-duty trucks will be required to meet clean air standards that are 80 percent more stringent than current requirements.

EPA says this final rule is aimed at reducing smog- and soot-forming emissions, increasing the life of governed vehicles by up to 250 percent, and increasing emissions warranty periods up to 450 percent.

Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup!

EHS Monthly Round Up - January 2024

In this monthly video, we'll review the most impactful environmental, health, and safety news.

Effective January 15, OSHA penalties increased 3.2 percent for inflation. Most penalties increased to $16,131. Willful and serious violations, however, increased to $161,323.

Construction workers aged 45 and older suffer more severe injuries and higher associated costs than other age groups. Most injuries are due to slips, trips, and falls.

Washington State updated its process safety management rules to better protect workers in petroleum refineries from the hazards of volatile chemicals. The rules take effect December 27, 2024.

Bloodborne pathogens topped the list of OSHA violations for the healthcare industry in 2023. Hazard Communication was the second most cited standard, followed by respiratory protection.

OSHA Region 2 launched a regional emphasis program that targets tree trimming, tree removal, and land clearing operations. Region 2 includes New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

EPA continues to strengthen its regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl — or PFAS — substances. A new rule prevents facilities from using any of the 300+ inactive PFAS before EPA conducts a risk determination and, if necessary, regulates the activity.

Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!

Most Recent Highlights In Transportation

EHS Monthly Round Up - August 2023

In this monthly roundup video, we'll review the most impactful environmental, health, and safety news.

Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we'll review the most impactful environmental, health, and safety news. Please view the content links in the transcript to take a deeper dive into the topics I'll be covering today. With that said, let's get started!

In response to soaring temperatures across the country, OSHA issued a heat hazard alert reminding employers of their obligation to protect workers against heat illness. OSHA also ramped up enforcement activities in high-risk industries like construction and agriculture.

OSHA's annual Safe and Sound Week was held the week of August 7. It highlighted the importance of workplace safety and health programs. This year's focus was on mental health and well-being.

OSHA wants to know how you use your safety and health program to ensure a positive workplace safety culture. The agency has drawn up questions related to work safety values, safety messaging, and more, and will use your feedback to develop educational materials. November 30 is the deadline for comments.

Though the current hurricane season has been relatively quiet, it's important to be prepared as the height of the season approaches. Both OSHA and NIOSH have provided resources to help emergency responders, recovery workers, and employers prepare in advance for anticipated weather disasters.

Workplace deaths due to unintentional overdoses of fentanyl and methamphetamine continue to rise. In 2021, there were 464 such fatalities, a 19.6 percent increase over 2020.

And finally, turning to environmental news, receiving facilities will see increased user fees for the e-Manifest system in fiscal years 2024 and 2025. EPA sets these user fees based on how the manifest is submitted and processing costs for each manifest type. Using fully electronic waste manifests will cost significantly less.

Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We'll see you next month!

EHS Monthly Roundup - March 2023

This monthly video spotlights EHS news highlights from March 2023.

Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental, health, and safety news. Please view the content links in the transcript to take a deeper dive into the topics I’ll be covering today. With that said, let’s get started!

First, let’s take a look at what’s happening in safety and health. OSHA revised its combustible dust national emphasis program. It adds several industries with a higher likelihood of having combustible dust hazards.

California’s Safety and Health Appeals Board says drinking water must be “as close as practicable” to outdoor employees.

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration says that some forklift operators may be considered hazmat employees. If operators handle hazmat cargo, such as moving it from the truck to an aircraft, they need hazmat training.

OSHA posted a letter of interpretation that answers hazard communication questions related to lithium batteries. The agency says workers may be exposed to hazards during storage, handling, and maintenance activities.

Stand Up 4 Grain Safety Week was held the week of March 27. Employers were encouraged to hold toolbox talks or safety demonstrations related to grain handling and storage.

Turning to environmental news, EPA issued significant new use rules for chemical substances that were the subject of premanufacture notices. This change brings added reporting and recordkeeping.

Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!

EHS Monthly Round Up - September 2024

In this September 2024 video, we'll review the most impactful environmental, health, and safety news.

OSHA published its proposed heat illness rule on August 30. It applies to both indoor and outdoor work in general industry, construction, agriculture, and maritime. Comments on the proposal will be accepted until December 30. OSHA encourages both employers and workers to submit comments.

Fall protection for construction remained number one on OSHA’s list of Top 10 violations for the 14th year in a row. There was little movement among the other Top 10 entries, with Hazard Communication at number 2 and ladders at number 3.

OSHA may exclude volunteer emergency response organizations from its proposed emergency response rule. During the rule’s public comment period, the agency received numerous comments that raised serious economic feasibility concerns.

During its silica enforcement inspections, OSHA also found violations of the hazard communication, respiratory protection, and noise standards. Over 200 companies were targeted as part of the agency’s respirable crystalline silica emphasis program.

Employers can view workplace injury and illness trends using OSHA’s Severe Injury Report dashboard. This new online tool allows users to search the agency’s severe injury report database. Severe injuries and illnesses are those that result in inpatient hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye.

And finally, turning to environmental news, an EPA final rule impacts facilities that reclassify from major to area source status under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants program. These facilities must continue to meet the major source emission standards for seven hazardous air pollutants.

Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!

EHS Monthly Round Up - April 2024

In this monthly roundup video, we’ll review the most impactful environmental, safety, and health news.

OSHA’s worker walkaround rule takes effect May 31st. It expands the criteria for who employees can authorize to act as their representative during an inspection.

Between 2015 and 2022, there were about 1,500 worker injuries involving food processing machinery. A new OSHA alert raises awareness of these hazards. It addresses hazard recognition, corrective measures, and workers’ rights.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) seeks stakeholder input on protecting outdoor workers from wildfire smoke. The agency intends to develop a hazard review document that provides recommendations to protect workers.

The Mine Safety and Health Administration published a final rule that lowers miners’ exposure to silica dust. It also revises the standard to reflect the latest advances in respiratory protection and practices.

OSHA released 2023 injury and illness data. The agency provides public access to this information in an effort to identify unsafe conditions and workplace hazards that may lead to injuries and illnesses.

And turning to environmental news, EPA finalized a rule to designate two widely used PFAS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA. The rule requires immediate release notifications for the two PFAS. It also gives EPA the authority to hold polluters responsible for contamination.

Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!

EHS Monthly Roundup - February 2023

This monthly video spotlights EHS news highlights from February 2023.

Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental, safety, and health news.

First, let’s take a look at what’s happening in safety and health. Machine guarding and hazard communication topped OSHA’s list of most frequently cited serious violations in fiscal year 2022. Over 1,300 citations were issued for machine guarding and over 1,800 were issued for HazCom.

Effective March 26, OSHA will cite certain types of violations as “instance-by-instance” citations, when inspectors identify high-gravity, serious violations specific to the following: falls, trenching, machine guarding, respiratory protection, permit required confined space, and lockout/tagout, as well as other-than-serious violations specific to recordkeeping.

California’s COVID-19 prevention non-emergency regulations, which require employers to protect workers from the hazards related to COVID-19, took effect February 3, and will remain in effect for two years.

A new OSHA fact sheet outlines measures to protect shipyard employees from the physical hazards of confined spaces. In the maritime sector, physical hazards in confined spaces can increase a worker’s risk of injury.

OSHA says it will withdraw its proposal to revoke Arizona’s State Plan. The state has taken measures to remain compliant with federal OSHA. However, OSHA continues to work closely with Arizona to address other state-plan concerns that weren’t part of its original withdrawal proposal.

And turning to environmental news, EPA issued a rule that finalizes first-time standards for inorganic hazardous air pollutants in miscellaneous coating manufacturing that will limit emissions and require effective controls. Final amendments include provisions for inorganic hazardous air pollutant standards for process vessels. The rule took effect February 22.

Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We'll see you next month!

Most Recent Highlights In Safety & Health

EHS Monthly Round Up - March 2024

In this monthly roundup video, we’ll review the most impactful environmental, safety, and health news.

Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll go over the most impactful environmental, health, and safety news. Please view the content links in the transcript for more information about the topics I’ll be covering today. Let’s get started! The Office of Management and Budget completed its review of OSHA’s worker walkaround final rule on March 20. The next step is publication in the Federal Register. The rule expands the criteria for who employees can authorize to act as their representative during an OSHA inspection.

Stand Up 4 Grain Safety Week was held the week of March 25. This annual event brings attention to hazards in the grain handling and storage industry and encourages employers to focus on safe work practices.

Over 100 people die in ladder-related deaths each year, and thousands more suffer disabling injuries. During Ladder Safety Month, which is held each March, the American Ladder Institute promotes ladder safety to decrease the number of injuries and fatalities.

Between 2010 and 2023, 11 miners drowned in incidents involving submerged mobile equipment. In response, the Mine Safety and Health Administration issued a safety alert. It recommends measures miners should take when operating equipment near water.

And finally, turning to environmental news, EPA finalized amendments to its Risk Management Program in an effort to improve safety at facilities that use and distribute hazardous chemicals. The rule seeks to improve chemical process safety; assist in planning for, preparing for, and responding to accidents; and increase public awareness of chemical hazards at regulated sites.

Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!

EHS Monthly Round-Up - August 2024

In this August 2024 roundup, we'll review the most impactful environmental, health, and safety news.

Two State Plan agencies allegedly provided advance notice of workplace inspections to employers, a practice that’s prohibited under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Now, lawmakers have requested that the Department of Labor’s acting secretary address the allegations and explain what challenges OSHA faces when monitoring and enforcing State Plan compliance.

A recent study shows jobs in agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting are among California’s most dangerous, accounting for the highest number of fatalities among full-time workers. Transportation and utilities jobs ranked second and construction was third.

Remote isolation of process equipment can quickly stop the release of hazardous materials, which can help prevent fatalities and injuries, limit facility damage, and better protect communities and the environment. A U.S. Chemical Safety Board study explores their use and makes recommendations for their utilization in chemical facilities.

A National Safety Council report explores the role of diversity, equity, and inclusion on work-related musculoskeletal disorders, or MSDs. MSDs are the most common workplace injury and often lead to worker disability, early retirement, and employment limitations.

And finally, turning to environmental news, EPA published a final rule that revises its hazardous waste export manifest regulations. All hazardous waste shipments and manifest-related reports will be managed electronically through the agency’s e-Manifest program.

Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!

2025-01-03T06:00:00Z

Section 404 permits: Does your project need a permit to fill?

Some commercial and industrial projects place materials (called fill) in a body of water for various reasons, such as building a facility, adding a road to a facility site, or installing intake and outfall pipes at a power plant. If the project affects any of the waters of the United States (WOTUS), you must first obtain a permit.

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires a permit to discharge dredged or fill material into any WOTUS (including wetlands). Before conducting any activities at your facility’s site, it’s crucial to find out whether your project requires a permit to fill.

What’s considered fill material?

The regulations at 40 CFR 232.2 define fill material as any material placed in WOTUS that:

Replaces any part of WOTUS with dry land, or
Changes the bottom elevation of WOTUS.

Fill material excludes trash and garbage. Common examples of fill material are:

Construction debris,
Materials used to create a structure/infrastructure,
Rock,
Sand, and
Soil.

Whenever fill material is dumped, placed, or deposited in WOTUS, a “discharge of fill material” occurs. Examples (according to 232.2) range from road fills to commercial and industrial site development fills.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jointly administer the Section 404 permit program. The USACE typically issues the permits unless a state or tribal program is authorized to issue them.

Does your project require a permit to fill?

To answer this question, you’ll need to address a few more questions:

1. Will fill materials enter WOTUS?

The first step is to determine whether Section 404 regulations cover any on-site waterbodies.

The Aquatic Resource Delineation Report is a required part of the permitting process. It identifies any on-site aquatic resources (i.e., waterbodies or wetlands) subject to permitting rules. Businesses typically hire consultants to develop the report.

If you need help figuring out the status of your aquatic resources, you can request the USACE to make a written jurisdictional determination of whether Section 404 rules apply to any on-site waterbodies or wetlands.

2. Is the planned discharge of fill exempt?

Not all fill discharges require a Section 404 permit. Examples include:

Conducting ongoing farming and ranching activities (such as minor drainage and harvesting);
Maintaining drainage ditches, dams, and levees; and
Building and maintaining irrigation ditches, farm and stock ponds, and farm and forest roads.

See 232.3 for the comprehensive list of discharge activities that don’t require a permit.

3. What impact will the fill discharge have?

The potential impact that your project will have on WOTUS determines the type of permit you need: general or individual.

General permits are issued for discharges that have only minimal adverse effects on WOTUS. They’re based on specific activities and typically require much less processing time, allowing projects to begin sooner. The types of general permits include:

Nationwide permits (authorize activities across the U.S.),
Regional general permits (authorize activities in a specific area), and
Programmatic general permits (authorize activities already regulated by existing state, local, or federal programs).

Individual permits are issued for discharges that may have significant impacts on WOTUS. They require case-by-case evaluations of each project.

When starting the Section 404 permitting process, keep these things in mind:

The permit requirements apply both to permanent and temporary projects, like using fills to access a work area for a limited time.
You can request to meet with the USACE before applying for a permit. It’s an informal meeting during which the USACE offers guidance and insights that could help reduce your application’s processing time.
Check with the state to identify any state-level permitting requirements.

Key to remember: If a project’s discharges of fill material could impact the waters of the United States, it may require a Section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act.

2024-12-31T06:00:00Z

The next 5: EPA's latest step in chemical risk evaluations

Are the chemicals in your home and workplace safe? The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is working to answer this question with the recent launch of risk evaluations for five chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA):

Acetaldehyde,
Acrylonitrile,
Benzenamine,
4,4’-methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) (or MBOCA), and
Vinyl chloride.

EPA selected the chemicals through a rigorous process (under TSCA section 6(b)(1)(A)) that considers potential hazards, exposure levels, and other relevant factors. A critical component of this process is the prioritization of chemicals for risk evaluation.

The prioritization process is the cornerstone of EPA's TSCA implementation. It ensures that the agency's resources are directed toward chemicals with the greatest potential to cause harm. This systematic approach allows the agency to efficiently evaluate a vast number of existing chemicals and make informed decisions about their safety.

Prioritizing existing chemicals under TSCA can include up to seven stages:

Approach to prioritization: EPA selects a prioritization approach that’s appropriate for the purposes of the evaluation.
Candidate selection: In this stage, EPA identifies potential candidates for prioritization using a variety of sources, including industry reports, scientific studies, and public input.
Initiation: Once the agency selects a candidate chemical, it initiates the prioritization process by gathering relevant information on the chemical's hazards, exposures, and potential risks.
Screening review: During this stage, EPA conducts a screening-level risk assessment to evaluate the potential risks of the chemical.
Proposed designation: Based on the screening review, the agency proposes a designation for the chemical as either high- or low-priority for further evaluation. Chemicals designated as High-Priority Substances enter the TSCA risk evaluation process.
Final designation: After considering public comments, EPA finalizes the chemical’s designation.
Revision of designation: EPA may revise the designation of a low-priority substance to high-priority if new information suggests that the chemical may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.

Risk evaluation: Assessing unreasonable risks

Following prioritization, EPA immediately starts risk evaluations for chemicals designated as High-Priority Substances. The evaluations involve a comprehensive assessment of potential hazards, exposure pathways, and potential risks to human health and the environment. The goal is to determine whether a chemical presents an "unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment."

If a risk evaluation identifies an unreasonable risk, EPA can take various regulatory actions under TSCA. These actions may include restrictions on the use, manufacture, or distribution of the chemical. The agency tailors the regulatory approach to the unique characteristics and risks of each chemical.

Key to remember: EPA recently announced the initiation of risk evaluations for five chemicals under TSCA. The chemicals were selected through a rigorous prioritization process that considers potential hazards, exposure levels, and other relevant factors.

2024-12-30T06:00:00Z

Agency adds new temporary hazardous waste storage, transfer codes

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has added new Management Method Codes to describe how hazardous waste will be managed after temporary storage and transfer. The codes are used for Biennial Hazardous Waste Reports and e-Manifests required by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

What are the changes?

The new “S Codes” are effective as of January 1, 2025. The S Codes will ultimately replace code H141 for Storage and Transfer for the RCRA Biennial Reports and e-Manifests. EPA will remove Code H141 from the Biennial Report and e-Manifest on January 1, 2027.

Hazardous waste handlers will use the S Codes on the Biennial Report Waste Generation and Management (GM) forms. The S Codes indicate that (a) hazardous waste was received to be stored or transferred and (b) the hazardous waste will later be managed by a final receiving facility using a specific method.

What are the new codes?

The new Management Method Codes include the following:

S Code	Description
S010	Stored and transferred for metals recovery
S011	Stored and transferred for mercury recovery
S015	Stored and transferred for deployment/deactivation of airbag waste
S020	Stored and transferred for solvents recovery
S039	Stored and transferred for other recovery or reclamation for reuse
S040	Stored and transferred for incineration
S041	Stored and transferred for open burning/open detonation
S042	Stored and transferred for thermal desorption
S070	Stored and transferred for chemical treatment
S081	Stored and transferred for biological treatment
S090	Stored and transferred for polymerization
S100	Stored and transferred for physical treatment only
S110	Stored and transferred for stabilization
S113	Stored and transferred for stabilization to remove HW characteristics or to achieve delisting levels
S120	Stored and transferred for comb. of chemical, biological, and/or physical TRT
S121	Stored and transferred for neutralization only
S122	Stored and transferred for evaporation
S129	Stored and transferred for other treatment
S130	Stored and transferred for surface impoundment that will be closed as landfill
S131	Stored and transferred for land treatment or application
S132	Stored and transferred for landfill (with prior treatment and/or stabilization)
S134	Stored and transferred for deepwell or underground injection

When do the new codes apply?

Handlers may use the new S Codes on the 2025 Biennial Report GM form, on the 2026 Annual Report in some states, and for e-Manifests. While handlers may continue using code H141, EPA recommends shifting to S Codes before January 1, 2027, when code H141 will be removed.

Key to remember: EPA’s new S Codes for Biennial Reports and e-Manifests indicate how the final receiving facility will manage temporarily stored and transferred hazardous waste.

Most Recent Highlights In Human Resources

2024-12-16T06:00:00Z

EPA's Fall 2024 regulatory agenda impacts air, land, water rules

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Fall 2024 Semiannual Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions on December 13, 2024. The agenda reveals the agency’s upcoming regulatory actions and where each action is in the rulemaking process.

The agenda includes major EPA updates, such as:

Finalizing a rule to add 16 individual per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and 15 PFAS categories to the Toxics Release Inventory as chemicals of special concern, making them subject to reporting (final rule expected August 2025);
Establishing greenhouse gas emission guidelines for existing fossil fuel-fired combustion turbine electric generating units (proposed rule expected February 2025);
Lowering the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume and associated percentage standard requirements under the Renewable Fuel Standard program (final rule expected in March 2025);
Issuing renewal decisions for each of the six applications of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) prioritized under the HFC allowance allocation program starting in calendar year 2026 (final rule expected in July 2025); and
Proposing and finalizing regulations to control unreasonable risks from multiple chemical substances regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act, like:
- C. I. Pigment Violet 29 (proposed rule expected in April 2025),
- N-methylpyrrolidone (final rule expected in August 2025), and
- 1,4-dioxane (proposed rule expected in October 2025).

This article highlights some of the major rules we’re watching closely. You’ll want to review the entire agenda to learn about all the rulemakings on EPA’s docket. Please note that the agenda dates are tentative; they're when the agency seeks to publish the rulemakings in the Federal Register.

Final Rule Stage
Project Publication Date	Title
December 2024	New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Emission Guidelines (EG) for Large Municipal Waste Combustors (MWCs)
December 2024	Removal of Affirmative Defense Provisions From Specified New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
January 2025	Water System Restructuring Assessment Rule
March 2025	Regulatory Requirements for New HAP Additions to Part 63
July 2025	Listing of Specific PFAS as Hazardous Constituents
August 2025	Clean Water Act Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category
October 2025	Revisions to Standards for the Open Burning/Open Detonation of Waste Explosives
November 2025	Stationary Combustion Turbines New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Technology Review
Proposed Rule Stage
Projected publication date of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking	Title
December 2024	Reconsideration of Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review
January 2025	National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Polyether Polyols Production Industry
March 2025	Clean Water Act Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for PFAS Manufacturers Under the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers Point Source Category
April 2025	Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Reconsideration of Technology Transitions Final Rule Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020
May 2025	National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Stationary Combustion Turbines; Amendments
June 2025	Improving Recycling and Management of Renewable Energy Wastes: Universal Waste Regulations for Solar Panels and Lithium Batteries
June 2025	PFAS Requirements in NPDES Permit Applications
June 2025	Tiered Data Reporting to Inform Prioritization, Risk Evaluation and Risk Management Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
November 2025	Revisions to Establish the Sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 6) for Public Water Systems
November 2025	Revise/Update the Standards of Performance and Emission Guidelines for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
Pre-Rule Stage
Projected publication date or other action	Title
December 2024 (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking)	Lead Wheel Weights; Regulatory Investigation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
January 2025 (End Review)	610 Review of Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heathers, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces
January 2025 (Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Comment Period End)	Regulatory Investigation of N-(1,3-Dimethylbutyl)-N′-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine ("6PPD") and its Transformation Product, 6PPD-quinone Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

Key to remember: EPA’s Fall 2024 regulatory agenda includes upcoming actions with possible impacts on industry compliance with air, land, and water rules.

2024-12-11T06:00:00Z

New chemical review: What are the 5 possible results?

Before a new chemical substance can enter the marketplace, it first travels through the New Chemicals Review Program. Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review new chemicals for any unreasonable risk of injury they may pose to human or environmental health. The agency determines (a) whether the substances can enter the marketplace and (b) if they require restrictions to manage any unreasonable risk.

To manufacture (including import) a chemical for commercial purposes that’s not on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (i.e., a new chemical), you have to submit a premanufacture notice (PMN) to EPA. In December 2024, EPA finalized the new chemicals review rule. It clarifies that when you submit a PMN, you may not manufacture the new chemical substance until the agency issues a safety determination and completes any associated actions (like developing rules to limit its use).

Start the PMN process by conducting your own review! Evaluate and prepare for the possible determinations EPA will make for your new chemical substance.

Safety determinations

Submitting a PMN sparks the beginning of the new chemicals review process. EPA completes the review process by making one of five possible safety determinations for the new chemical.

It’s important to note that three types of determinations fall under the scope of Section 5(e) actions. If EPA makes any determination under Section 5(e), it must issue a Section 5(e) order with requirements that limit or ban the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of the new chemical. Examples include toxicity testing, personal protective equipment for exposed workers, and environmental release restrictions.

Let’s take a look at each one.

Section 5(a)(3)(C): Not likely to present an unreasonable risk

In the most straightforward scenario, EPA can find that the new chemical isn’t likely to pose an unreasonable risk.

In this case, the agency will notify you and publish its findings in the Federal Register. Once you receive the Section 5(a)(3)(C) notice from EPA, you may begin manufacturing the new chemical substance, even if the applicable review period isn’t over.

Section 5(f): Presents an unreasonable risk

The agency may find that a new chemical presents an unreasonable risk of injury.

It will use Section 5(f) to limit or ban the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of the new chemical through either:

A proposed rule that takes immediate effect, or
An issued order.

Section 5(e): Insufficient information

The agency may determine that it doesn’t have enough information to make a “reasoned evaluation” of the new chemical’s impact on health and the environment.

EPA will issue a Section 5(e) order with restrictions to mitigate or eliminate the unreasonable risk.

Section 5(e): May present an unreasonable risk

If EPA doesn’t have enough information, it can alternatively determine that the new chemical poses an unreasonable risk due to insufficient information.

The agency will issue a Section 5(e) order with restrictions to mitigate or eliminate the unreasonable risk.

Section 5(e): Presents unreasonable risk due to quantity

On the other hand, EPA may determine that the new chemical will be produced in substantial quantities that could (a) be released in large amounts to the environment or (b) result in significant human exposure.

EPA will issue a Section 5(e) order with restrictions to mitigate or eliminate the unreasonable risk.

Regulatory action

In December 2024, EPA finalized changes to the rule for new chemical reviews. It clarifies that the agency must make one of five statutory determinations for each PMN, significant new use notice, and microbial commercial activity notice it receives.

The final rule also:

Eliminates full review exemptions for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (or PFAS) as well as for persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals if environmental releases of or potentially unreasonable exposures to PBT chemicals are expected;
Clarifies the information required in new chemical notices;
Changes EPA’s procedures for reviewing notices with incomplete information or errors;
Updates the application form on the EPA Central Data Exchange; and
Streamlines the suspension request process for submitters.

Key to remember: EPA reviews each new chemical and makes one of five possible safety determinations that dictate both if and how the substance can enter the marketplace.

2024-12-10T06:00:00Z

Chemical management: Minimizing risks, maximizing compliance

In 2022, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) reported a staggering 658,000 workers were exposed to harmful chemicals, resulting in 839 fatalities. These statistics highlight the significant health and safety risks that an unexpected exposure to a hazardous chemical, or a substantial threat of a hazardous substance release, can pose to workers, organizations, and communities. A thorough understanding of chemical management regulations is crucial to ensure potential hazardous exposures are minimized.

Hazard communication (HazCom)

OSHA’s HazCom standard (29 CFR 1910.1200) is designed to inform workers about chemical hazards and how to protect themselves.

Key definitions: A "hazardous chemical" is any chemical which is classified as a physical hazard or a health hazard, a simple asphyxiant, combustible dust, or other hazards not that may not be classified but still pose a serious danger.

Indicators: Any workplace where hazardous chemicals are used, stored, or processed needs a hazard communication program. Labels, safety data sheets (SDSs), and employee training are essential components.

Training requirements: Training must cover how to read and understand labels, the purpose and location of SDSs, and specific protective measures when handling hazardous chemicals. Training must be provided upon initial assignment and updated whenever new chemical hazards are introduced.

Hazardous materials (Hazmat)

The DOT’s hazmat regulations (DOT 49 CFR Parts 171-180) include substances that, if transported improperly, can harm people, property, or the environment. By correctly handling and moving these materials, organizations can avoid accidents and safeguard both public health and the environment.

Key definitions: A "hazardous material" is any substance or material capable of posing an unreasonable risk when transported in commerce. This can include flammable, toxic, and reactive substances.

Indicators: Activities involving the loading, unloading, and handling of hazardous materials require adherence to hazmat regulations. This requirement also applies to organizations that make or maintain packaging, or a part of packaging, that's marked or sold as suitable for transporting hazardous materials commercially.

Training requirements: Workers handling hazmat must undergo specific training on material classification, safe handling, emergency response, and transportation. Training must be provided within 90 days of initial assignment and a refresher at least once every three years. Training must also be documented and retained for a minimum of three years.

Hazardous waste (Hazwaste)

The EPA’s hazwaste regulations (40 CFR Parts 260-299) refer to any waste material that could potentially harm the environment or human health if not managed correctly. Additionally, many states have hazardous waste requirements beyond EPA regulations.

Key Definitions: Hazardous waste includes materials classified as toxic, ignitable, corrosive, or reactive, based on specific criteria.

Indicators: Managing hazardous waste follows the material’s entire lifecycle including the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal, known as "cradle-to-grave." Requirements are based on the quantity of waste generated.

Training requirements: Employees involved in hazardous waste management must receive training on waste handling, storage, labeling, and disposal procedures. Annual training requirements are based on generator quantity status.

Hazardous waste operations and emergency response (HAZWOPER)

OSHA’s HAZWOPER standard (29 CFR 1910.120) protects workers involved in hazardous waste management and emergency response. HAZWOPER covers a wide range of activities, including cleanup operations and responses to hazardous substance releases.

Key definitions: A hazardous substance is any material that can harm health and safety if released into the environment. In the context of HAZWOPER, this includes materials that pose risks in emergencies, such as spills, leaks, or other uncontrolled releases.

Indicators: Workers and organizations tasked with hazardous waste cleanup, spill response, and emergency operations require specialized training, equipment, and procedures.

Training requirements: HAZWOPER training is intensive and includes specific requirements depending on job roles. Training levels include 24-hour, 40-hour, and 8-hour refresher courses for different exposure risks. Employees learn about hazardous substance properties, emergency response procedures, PPE use, and decontamination processes.

Process Safety Management (PSM)

OSHA’s PSM standard (29 CFR 1910.119) aims to prevent accidental chemical releases that could seriously harm employees or the environment by including safety measures, risk assessments, and employee training to ensure safe operations. It is especially important in industries handling highly hazardous chemicals including facilities with high-risk chemical processes.

Key definitions: OSHA defines a "highly hazardous chemical" as any substance that poses a significant risk of causing serious harm to people, property, or the environment due to its toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive properties.

Indicators: Any workplace handling large volumes of hazardous chemicals or using complex chemical processes including chemicals that are specifically listed by OSHA in appendix A of the standard, are present in quantities above specified thresholds, or exhibit properties that make them likely to cause a major incident.

Training requirements: PSM training covers safe operating procedures, hazard analysis, and incident investigation for employees involved in high-risk processes. Training must be provided at initial assignment and a refresher at least once every three years.

Key to remember: Chemical management is a complex task. Understanding what regulatory requirements apply will ensure compliance as well as minimize the chance for dangerous incidents.

2024-12-03T06:00:00Z

Deadliest chemical disaster still haunts, decades later

December 2024 marks the 40th anniversary of one of history’s worst industrial incidents — the release of a deadly gas at a chemical plant in Bhopal, India. This incident, along with another in West Virginia in 1985, spurred U.S. legislative and regulatory action. However, some might say that work is not finished.

Think of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986, the EPA Risk Management Program (RMP) standard, and the OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) standard, for example. You’ll find roots to the Bhopal disaster.

What happened in Bhopal?

It was late on December 2, 1984, at a chemical facility. A faulty valve leaked water into a tank of methyl isocyanate (or MIC). This prompted a violent reaction inside the tank. History tells us that at about 1:00 a.m. on that fateful December 3, the failure of a safety valve triggered a massive release. A dense, lethal cloud of MIC and other chemicals drifted over the city of Bhopal.

By dawn, thousands of residents were dead, along with birds, dogs, cows, and other animals. The injured flocked to hospitals in overwhelming numbers. A lack of information about just what the chemicals were, however, compounded the catastrophe.

India officials reported half a million or more chemical exposures. Estimates vary, but as many as 10,000 people perished in the initial few days. Tens of thousands died prematurely in the decades to follow, according to sources.

What happened in West Virginia?

In August 1985, a chemical release in Institute, West Virginia, showed Americans that a “Bhopal-like” incident could happen here. Aldicarb oxime and other chemicals released from the facility, and over 125 residents landed in the hospital. Again, a lack of available chemical information was noteworthy. Many U.S. citizens began to fear they faced catastrophic risks.

What happened next?

In the wake of the incidents, Congress enacted laws:

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, including the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA); and
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

Together, they required EPA and OSHA to issue regulations to:

Increase community chemical emergency preparedness,
Require companies to report worst-case release scenarios,
Require companies to develop RMPs and PSM programs to protect communities and workers, respectively.

Congress also established the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) to investigate chemical incidents and recommend measures to prevent them. Despite these actions, the U.S. continues to experience serious chemical incidents. A visit to the CSB or National Response Center (NRC) websites reveals countless incident reports since 1990. A look at the 2024 data finds:

92 incidents reported to the CSB per 40 CFR 1604, and
21,125 reports made to the NRC per 40 CFR 302 and 355.

CSB video

Ten years ago, on the 30th anniversary of the Bhopal disaster, CSB posted a six-minute video explaining how the tragedy occurred. The video also examines more recent U.S. incidents. It emphasizes what more could be done to prevent similar incidents.

CSB investigations around the time of the video found deficiencies in design and PSM, similar to those uncovered in Bhopal! CSB Chairperson Rafael Moure-Eraso argued: “Process safety management regulations are in need of reform. There must be more emphasis on preventing the occurrence of major chemical accidents through safer design. Responding to emergencies and punishing people after the fact are not enough.”

Push for regulatory reform

Another headline-making incident in April 2013 involved a massive explosion of ammonium nitrate at a fertilizer storage/distribution facility in West, Texas. It fatally injured 12 volunteer firefighters and two members of the public and caused hundreds of injuries. The incident prompted the Executive Order on Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security (EO 13650) on August 1, 2013. The order directed the federal government to:

Improve operational coordination with state and local partners;
Enhance federal agency coordination and information sharing;
Modernize policies, regulations, and standards; and
Work with stakeholders to identify best practices.

The feds held listening sessions and issued a flurry of fact sheets, alerts, and enforcement policy changes (See here and here.). Note that the RMP regulation at 40 CFR 68 was eventually amended this year on March 11, 2024. The PSM standard remains unchanged, despite a request for information on December 9, 2013. In an about-face, Congress allowed the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program (at 6 CFR 27) to expire on July 28, 2023, but many in Congress and industry would like to see its return.

Key to remember

This month marks the 40th anniversary of the Bhopal chemical disaster. It sparked the U.S. Congress to take steps back then to prevent such a disaster from occurring here. Those actions did not spell the end to all chemical disasters in the U.S. In response, a renewed push for regulatory reforms popped up in the last decade.

2024-11-26T06:00:00Z

5 key release detection requirements for underground storage tanks

Leak detection on an underground tank storing petroleum or other hazardous materials can be the factor that prevents a release from turning into a contamination catastrophe. A leak (or release) detection system alerts tank operators and owners of potential releases, allowing them to respond and limit contamination quickly.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires regulated underground storage tanks (USTs) to have release detection systems. Here are five things you should know about complying with UST leak detection requirements.

1. The rules cover the entire UST system.

EPA’s release detection requirements (40 CFR Part 280 Subpart D) apply to USTs and any underground piping connected to the tanks.

Owners and operators must equip each regulated UST and piping with leak detection that:

Detects a release from any part of the tank or its piping that routinely contains petroleum or hazardous waste;
Meets the manufacturer’s instructions for proper installation and calibration;
Follows the operation, maintenance, and testing requirements of the manufacturer’s instructions, a nationally recognized code of practice, or the implementing agency; and
Complies with federal performance standards.

2. Tank release detection methods depend on the installation or replacement date.

The UST’s date of installation or replacement determines the release detection methods that owners and operators can use for the tank. There are three categories of release detection methods:

Interstitial (e.g., secondary containment with interstitial monitoring),
Internal (e.g., automatic tank gauging systems), and
External (e.g., groundwater monitoring).

Owners and operators of USTs installed on or before April 11, 2016, choose at least one leak detection method from the range of interstitial, internal, and external options (or another method approved by the implementing agency). However, owners and operators of USTs installed or replaced after April 11, 2016, must use secondary containment with interstitial monitoring.

3. Piping release detection methods depend on two factors.

The release detection methods for piping that UST owners and operators can use are based on (a) the date of installation or replacement and (b) the type of piping.

Pressurized piping installed on or before April 11, 2016, must:

Have an automatic line leak detector that shuts off or restricts product flow or triggers an alarm, and
Receive annual line testing or monthly monitoring.

Pressurized piping installed or replaced after April 11, 2016, must also have an automatic line leak detector and use secondary containment with interstitial monitoring.

Suction piping installed on or before April 11, 2016, must use monthly monitoring or line testing every three years (unless the piping is exempt from requirements). Suction piping installed or replaced after April 11, 2016, must use secondary containment with interstitial monitoring (unless the piping is exempt from requirements).

4. Secondary containment with interstitial monitoring is the standard.

EPA revised the UST regulations in 2015, requiring all new and replaced tanks and piping to use secondary containment with interstitial monitoring for release detection. For example, say you have a UST installed before April 11, 2016, but you have to replace its piping. You must use secondary containment with interstitial monitoring for the replaced piping.

Secondary containment refers to a physical barrier between the UST and the environment, such as a double-walled tank or internally fitted liner. If the UST leaks, the barrier holds the leak between the tank and the barrier so it can be detected.

The interstitial monitor detects leaks between the tank and the barrier and alerts owners and operators of a potential leak. Monitoring devices range from physical dipsticks to high-tech pressure and liquid-detecting sensors.

5. State requirements may differ.

Many states implement the UST regulatory program. State requirements must be at least equal to EPA’s, and in some cases, they may be more stringent.

Whether you have one UST at a facility or several at facilities across the country, it’s vital to check state requirements to ensure you comply with all applicable standards.

UST release detection systems can help your facility prevent potential leaks from turning into environmental — and compliance — disasters.

Key to remember: EPA requires underground storage tanks to have release detection systems that alert owners and operators quickly to potential leaks.

New Network Poll

No active poll

Please come back soon!

VIEW POLL ARCHIVE

Most Popular Highlights In Environmental

2024-12-11T06:00:00Z

New chemical review: What are the 5 possible results?

Start the PMN process by conducting your own review! Evaluate and prepare for the possible determinations EPA will make for your new chemical substance.

Safety determinations

Submitting a PMN sparks the beginning of the new chemicals review process. EPA completes the review process by making one of five possible safety determinations for the new chemical.

Let’s take a look at each one.

Section 5(a)(3)(C): Not likely to present an unreasonable risk

In the most straightforward scenario, EPA can find that the new chemical isn’t likely to pose an unreasonable risk.

Section 5(f): Presents an unreasonable risk

The agency may find that a new chemical presents an unreasonable risk of injury.

It will use Section 5(f) to limit or ban the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of the new chemical through either:

A proposed rule that takes immediate effect, or
An issued order.

Section 5(e): Insufficient information

The agency may determine that it doesn’t have enough information to make a “reasoned evaluation” of the new chemical’s impact on health and the environment.

EPA will issue a Section 5(e) order with restrictions to mitigate or eliminate the unreasonable risk.

Section 5(e): May present an unreasonable risk

If EPA doesn’t have enough information, it can alternatively determine that the new chemical poses an unreasonable risk due to insufficient information.

The agency will issue a Section 5(e) order with restrictions to mitigate or eliminate the unreasonable risk.

Section 5(e): Presents unreasonable risk due to quantity

EPA will issue a Section 5(e) order with restrictions to mitigate or eliminate the unreasonable risk.

Regulatory action

The final rule also:

Eliminates full review exemptions for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (or PFAS) as well as for persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals if environmental releases of or potentially unreasonable exposures to PBT chemicals are expected;
Clarifies the information required in new chemical notices;
Changes EPA’s procedures for reviewing notices with incomplete information or errors;
Updates the application form on the EPA Central Data Exchange; and
Streamlines the suspension request process for submitters.

Key to remember: EPA reviews each new chemical and makes one of five possible safety determinations that dictate both if and how the substance can enter the marketplace.

EHS Monthly Round Up - December 2024

In this December 2024 roundup video, we’ll review the most impactful environmental, health, and safety news.

Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!

2023-04-06T05:00:00Z

Giving truck drivers rights to your restrooms

OSHA requires employers to provide all workers with immediately available and sanitary restroom or toilet facilities. But does this include truckers and delivery drivers that stop at your facilities? The sanitation standards (1910.141, 1926.51, and 1928.110) are meant to protect all workers from adverse health effects from unsanitary toilets facilities, or the unavailability of facilities when needed.

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.

2023-06-16T05:00:00Z

Are you meeting OSHA’s requirements for CPR and AEDs in the workplace?

Quick action using cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and automated external defibrillators(AEDs) can save the lives of the nearly 350,000 cardiac event victims each year outside of a hospital setting. But what does OSHA require for the workplace? What you didn’t know about OSHA regulations regarding AEDs may surprise you.

The importance of CPR and early defibrillation

For every minute a patient is in cardiac arrest, their chances of survival decrease dramatically. When a patient doesn’t have a pulse and isn’t breathing, CPR should be performed until an AED is available. It’s important to note that CPR alone does not restart the heart. CPR is an oxygen circulation procedure. AEDs, on the other hand, are meant for lifesaving intervention.

CPR and early defibrillation are vital components of the emergency medical services (EMS) chain of survival that increases the odds of cardiac patient survival. However, according to the American Heart Association (AHA), even the best CPR can’t provide enough circulation of oxygen to the brain and heart for more than a few minutes. In fact, a patient whose brain is deprived of oxygen for 10 minutes or more seldom recovers.

Signs and symptoms of cardiac compromise

Just like a reliable vehicle, the circulatory system is the human body’s blood transportation system, and the heart is the engine. Amazingly, the heart generates its own electrical impulses, pumping in a regular, rhythmic manner. As with any engine, the heart requires a certain amount of pressure to function and doesn’t work well when clogged with grease or debris. The most common causes of sudden cardiac arrest include a heart attack, electrocution, and asphyxiation — all of which could occur in the workplace. Common signs and symptoms include:

Chest pain accompanied by a crushing or squeezing sensation,
Pain that radiates to the jaw or arm,
Irregular pulse and/or abnormal blood pressure,
Shortness of breath,
Cool and sweaty skin,
Nausea and vomiting, and
Anxiety or feeling of impending doom.

CPR provides the pressure for the body’s “engine” to oxygen circulating, while an AED provides the electrical impulses to keep the engine pumping.

OSHA requirements regarding CPR

OSHA 1910.151 requires first aid treatment be provided in the absence of an infirmary, clinic, or hospital in near proximity to the workplace used to treat injured employees. This may include assisting a victim of cardiac arrest using CPR or defibrillation.

OSHA requirements for CPR and defibrillation differ considerably. Standards requiring CPR include:

1910.146 Permit-required Confined Spaces
1910.266 Appendix B: Logging Operations – First Aid and CPR Training
1910.269 Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution
1910.410 Qualifications of Dive Team and
1926.950 Construction Subpart V, Power Transmission and Distribution

OSHA recommends basic adult CPR refresher training and retesting every year, and first aid training at least once every three years. CPR training include facilitated discussion along with ’hands-on’ skills training that uses mannequins and partner practice.

OSHA requirements regarding AEDs — you might need a prescription

Though OSHA recognizes AEDs as important lifesaving technology that plays a role in treating cardiac arrest, the agency doesn’t currently require their use in the workplace. Instead, OSHA wants employers to assess their own requirements for AEDs as part of their first aid response.

AEDs are considered Class III medical devices which means the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has some oversight on their use. Almost all AEDs require the purchaser to obtain a prescription from a physician under FDA regulations. The prescription process is meant as a quality control mechanism to ensure AEDs are properly maintained, that all designated responders are properly trained, and assist employers with establishing an emergency response plan for their workplace AED program.

The AHA requires AED operators to also receive CPR training as an “integral part of providing lifesaving aid to people suffering sudden cardiac arrest.” Though easy to use, each AED is slightly different, so training helps users understand the unique traits and supplies for the individual units at their workplace. Additionally, AED users must be trained to understand the signs of a sudden cardiac arrest, when to activate the EMS system, and how to perform CPR.

AEDs are light, portable, easy to use, and inexpensive. They’re best placed near high-hazard areas such as confined spaces, near electrical energy, or in remote work areas. Response time to reach AEDs should be kept within 3–5-minutes.

Need more information on defibrillators in the workplace? See our ezExplanation on AEDs.

Training requirements

Many states require or encourage CPR and AED training from nationally recognized organizations. Any AED training should include CPR training. OSHA doesn’t offer first aid or CPR training, nor certify trainers. Training by a nationally recognized organization, such as AHA, the American Red Cross, or National Safety Council is recommended.

Keys to Remember

While OSHA doesn’t currently require the use of AEDs in the workplace, they do expect employers to assess their own AED requirements as part of their first aid response. AED training is required by most states and should include CPR with a hands-on practical component.

Mining Transportation Utilities Manufacturing (32/Non-Durable)Wholesale Distribution Commercial Services Public Administration Real Estate Waste Management Healthcare Food Services Communications Financial/Insurance Hospitality Retail Repair Services Construction Warehousing General Services Manufacturing (31/Food/Textiles)Company Management Professional Services Personal Services Postal/Courier Services Manufacturing (33/Durable)Education Agriculture Entertainment Stroke Anaphylaxis Trauma Stop Bleeding Burns Injuries Unconscious Abdominal Thrusts Heart Attack Seizures Muscle Strain Diabetes Emergency Responders Fractures Second-Degree Burn Broken Bones Third-Degree Burn Cardiac Arrest Joint Strain Insulin Sprains Emergency Kit Glucose Monitors Ambulance Bandages Diabetic Emergencies Tourniquet Stress Fracture EpiPen ERT Splint Unconsciousness Emergency Response Team Bacteria Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Blood Sugar Monitor Emergency Medical Services Infection 911 Compression Bandage/Wrap EMS Allergies Shock Auto-Injector First Response Head Injury First Responder Muscle Sprain Joint Sprain Cold Compress/Pack Heimlich Maneuver Non-Responsive Strains Choking Emergency Supplies Bone Fracture Medical Services Virus CPR Warm Compress/Pack Medicine Autoinjector Chest Compressions Concussion Epi-Pen

2024-12-31T06:00:00Z

The next 5: EPA's latest step in chemical risk evaluations

Acetaldehyde,
Acrylonitrile,
Benzenamine,
4,4’-methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) (or MBOCA), and
Vinyl chloride.

Prioritizing existing chemicals under TSCA can include up to seven stages:

Approach to prioritization: EPA selects a prioritization approach that’s appropriate for the purposes of the evaluation.
Candidate selection: In this stage, EPA identifies potential candidates for prioritization using a variety of sources, including industry reports, scientific studies, and public input.
Initiation: Once the agency selects a candidate chemical, it initiates the prioritization process by gathering relevant information on the chemical's hazards, exposures, and potential risks.
Screening review: During this stage, EPA conducts a screening-level risk assessment to evaluate the potential risks of the chemical.
Proposed designation: Based on the screening review, the agency proposes a designation for the chemical as either high- or low-priority for further evaluation. Chemicals designated as High-Priority Substances enter the TSCA risk evaluation process.
Final designation: After considering public comments, EPA finalizes the chemical’s designation.
Revision of designation: EPA may revise the designation of a low-priority substance to high-priority if new information suggests that the chemical may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.

Risk evaluation: Assessing unreasonable risks

EHS Monthly Round Up - October 2024

In this October 2024 roundup video, we'll review the most impactful environmental, health, and safety news.

Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!

Most Popular Highlights In Transportation

2025-01-02T06:00:00Z

Revolutionizing driver training: ELDT meets modern skills testing

As the transportation industry evolves, so does the way new commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers are trained and tested. The most notable of these changes — the implementation of entry-level driver training (ELDT) and the modernization of commercial driver’s license (CDL) testing.

Entry-level driver training (ELDT)

The ELDT rule, which came into effect in February 2022, was designed to ensure that all new CMV drivers receive a consistent, standardized level of CDL training.

ELDT mandates are uniform across the country, however, the specific training curricula can vary depending on the type of vehicle or the specific endorsement the driver seeks (e.g., Class A or B CDL or passenger, school bus, or hazardous materials endorsement).

ELDT must be administered and presented by a school or entity listed on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) Training Provider Registry (TPR). The training consists of two main components: theory (classroom-based instruction) and behind-the-wheel (range and public road) training.

Theory training

The theoretical portion of the ELDT includes topics such as vehicle inspection, basic control, safe operation, and the handling of hazardous materials. Driver understanding is demonstrated by achieving a test score of at least 80 percent on theory assessments.

Behind-the-wheel training

The practical component of the ELDT requires entry-level drivers to gain real-world experience by driving under the supervision of a qualified trainer.

Under the ELDT regulations, all entry-level drivers must demonstrate proficiency in vehicle inspections, backing skills and on-the-road driving before being allowed to take the CDL skills test. While proficiency is left to the discretion of the instructor, the FMCSA believes that demonstrated proficiency requires some level of successful repetition of each of the required skills.

Modernized CDL testing

In contrast to the ELDT's focus on training, the modernization of CDL testing places an emphasis on evaluating the skills and knowledge of drivers. The modernization of testing aims to make CDL assessments more reflective of real-world driving conditions and incorporate new technology into the process.

Computerized knowledge testing

Written tests for CDL applicants were previously administered on paper, they are now largely conducted via computer-based testing (CBT). This allows for quicker testing, more accurate assessments, and the ability to include multimedia elements like video simulations.

Skills test improvements

While the core elements remain the same, modernized tests now include more comprehensive evaluations. Vehicle inspection tests now require the driver to be tested on fewer items.The primary focus is on safety-critical items. Drivers are required to describe items they are inspecting, what they are looking for and why they are inspecting each part. The basic control skills test is conducted in a smaller area. Skills drivers are tested on include forward stop, straight-line backing, forward offset tracking and revers offset backing.

Primary differences

It is important to understand that modernized skills testing does not negate any of the requirements in the ELDT mandate, they are two stand-alone requirements.

The primary difference between ELDT and modernized CDL testing lies in the focus. ELDT is aimed at equipping drivers with the knowledge and practical skills required to operate a CMV safely before taking the CDL exam. Modernized CDL testing is designed to evaluate how well drivers apply their knowledge and skills in real-world situations.

These two elements—training and testing create a more skilled and prepared commercial driving workforce. A focus on both foundational training and modernized evaluation, aims to meet the growing challenges of the transportation sector in the 21st century.

Key to remember: Better prepared drivers result in safer highways.

2022-08-29T05:00:00Z

The 150 air-mile short-haul exemptions: Widely used and widely misused

The 150 air-mile exemptions, which are in the regulations at 395.1(e)(1) and (2), allow a driver to use a time record in place of a log, provided that certain conditions are met. While this is possibly the most widely used hours-of-service exemption, it may be the most commonly misused exemption, as well.

The basics of logging exemptions

To be able to use this logging exemption in 395.1(e)(1), the driver must:

Stay within 150 air-miles of the work reporting location for the day (draw a 150 air-mile radius circle around the work reporting location for the day — the driver must stay within this circle),
Be back to — and released from — the work reporting location for his/her 8- or 10-hour break within 14 hours, and
Include the starting and ending times for the day and the total hours on duty on the time record for the day.

The company must retain the time record and have it available for inspection for six months.

Need more info? View our ezExplanation on the 150 air-mile exception.

What if the driver goes too far or works too many hours?

If the driver cannot meet the terms of the exemption (he or she goes too far or works too many hours), the driver must complete a regular driver’s log for the day as soon as the exemption no longer applies.

If the driver has had to complete a log 8 or fewer days out of the last 30 days, the driver can use a paper log for the day. If the driver had to complete a log more than 8 days out of the last 30 days, the driver needs to use an electronic log for the day (unless one of the ELD exemptions applies, such as operating a vehicle older than model year 2000).

30-minute break exemption

When a property-carrying driver is operating under the 150 air-mile exemption, the driver is also exempt from having to take the required 30-minute break (see 395.3(a)(3)(ii)).

If the driver began the day as a 150 air-mile driver and has driven more than 8 consecutive hours without a break, and something unexpected happens and the driver can no longer use the 150 air-mile exemption, the driver must stop and immediately take the 30-minute break as well as start logging. If the driver went outside of the 150 air-mile area before the driver had 8 hours of driving without a break from driving, the driver would be expected to take the break at the appropriate time.

Common myths

Here are some of the common myths and misunderstandings about the 150 air-mile exemption:

The driver must have the time records in the vehicle. Myth. The driver simply needs to explain to an officer during a roadside inspection that he/she does not have logs due to operating under the 150 air-mile exemption and that the required time records are back at the carrier’s office (just telling the officer, “I don’t have any logs” will lead to a violation, so the driver needs to know to provide the full explanation).
The driver must log the previous seven days if he/she had been using this exemption and suddenly can’t. Myth. If the driver cannot use the exemption on one particular day, that is the only day the driver must use a regular log (either paper or electronic).
Passenger-carrying drivers and drivers hauling hazardous materials cannot use this exemption. Myth. There are no restrictions on the use of this exemption, so any commercial driver can use it.
A driver that crosses state lines cannot use this exemption. Myth. As this exemption appears in the Federal Motor Carrier Administration (FMCSA) regulations, it can be used by interstate drivers.
Only drivers that operate out of a “company terminal” can use the 150 air-mile exemption. Myth. As long as the driver makes it back to the work reporting location for the day within the appropriate number of hours, the driver can use the exemption.
Drivers that move from one jobsite to another every few weeks cannot use this exemption. Myth. If a driver that normally uses this exemption switches work reporting locations, the day the driver switches work reporting locations is the only day the driver cannot use the exemption.
Drivers covered by this exemption are also exempt from the driver qualification (licensing and medical cards), driving, and vehicle inspection requirements. Myth. The only rules the driver is exempt from are the logging requirement in 395.8 and the 30-minute break requirement in 395.3.
The driver cannot drive more than 150 miles for the day. Myth. The driver can drive as many miles as he/she wants to or needs to, as long as the driver stays within the 150 air-mile radius circle and gets back to the work reporting location within the appropriate number of hours.
If a 150 air-mile driver gets into a vehicle with an ELD, the driver must use it. Myth. The carrier can have the driver log in and have the driver entered into the system as an “exempt driver,” or the carrier can request that the driver not log into the device and then attach a comment to the unassigned driving time generated by the driver’s movements. The comment would need to explain that the driver using the vehicle was a 150 air-mile driver who submitted a time record. It is up to the carrier to decide which option to use. If stopped for a roadside inspection, the driver will need to be able to explain to the inspector that he/she is an exempt driver using the 150 air-mile exemption, so using the electronic log is not required.

What’s different with the ‘150 air-mile non-CDL property-carrying drivers’

The 150 air-mile exemption at 395.1(e)(2) only applies to drivers that: Operate property-carrying vehicles that do not require a CDL to operate, and Stay within the 150 air-miles of their work reporting location.

If the driver stays within the 150 air-mile radius of the work reporting location, and returns to the work reporting location within 14 hours on 5 of the last 7 days, and 16 hours on 2 of the last seven days, the driver is allowed to use a time record in place of a log.

If the driver does not meet the terms of the exception, the driver will need to complete a log for the day. If the driver had to log more than 8 days out of the last 30 days, the driver will need to use an electronic log for the day. All of the other issues discussed above would apply to these drivers as well.

Managing the use

If you have drivers that use these exemptions, you will need to check time records to make sure they are complying with the appropriate time limits. You will also need to check movement records to verify that the drivers using these exemptions are staying within the mandated area (within 150 air-miles of the work reporting location for the day).

If a driver is over the hours limit, or has gone too far, you need to verify that the submitted a log for the day, either paper or electronic, depending on how many days the driver had to log out of the previous 30 days.

Verifying compliance is important

During an audit, if it is discovered that your drivers are using these exemptions incorrectly, you will be cited for not having drivers’ logs when required. Each day this occurred will be another violation, so the fine could be rather large if you are not managing the use of these exemptions!

2022-12-29T06:00:00Z

What does 392.2C mean on a roadside inspection report?

Most motor carriers review their roadside inspection reports for the obvious reasons: fixing mechanical defects and identifying unsafe or noncompliant driver behavior.

Some violations are easy to decipher, such as a burned-out light bulb or exceeding the speed limit by a specific range. Others take a little more to figure out, such as doing the math to determine when and how a driver exceeded hours-of-service (HOS) limits. Then there are all those 392.2 violations with suffixes. Some count against a carrier’s Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) scores, while others do not, depending on whether they contribute to causing a crash.

One that often baffles motor carriers is 392.2C.

What is 392.2C?

Section 392.2C is enforcement’s code for “failure to obey traffic control device.” The C stands for control.

The citation appears in the severity table for the Unsafe Driving BASIC (Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Category). The violation has been assigned a value of 5 out 10, with 10 being the most severe. The violation is used when calculating both the carrier’s and driver’s Unsafe Driving BASIC scores.

In most instances, the traffic control device is not a signal light or stop or yield sign. Rather, it is the sign that instructs the driver to pull into a weigh station.

View our Weigh Stations ezExplanation for additional information.

Who must pull into a weigh station?

The vehicles that must stop at scales and inspection locations vary from state to state and even from location to location within a state. The “weigh scale ahead” or similar sign should be the driver’s guide.

If the sign reads:

All vehicles over 16,000 pounds, the driver can safely bypass the scale if under the weight threshold.
All commercial motor vehicles, the driver should pull in. It is far better to be waived or green lighted through than to be chased down.

Often those who operate commercial vehicles not requiring a commercial driver’s license, such as a large pickup truck or small box truck, mistakenly believe weigh scale inspections are just for larger rigs.

What happens when a driver ignores signage?

If a driver goes past a weigh station without pulling in as directed by a traffic control device, enforcement will pursue and pull over the driver. The officer will then escort the driver back to the weigh station for a roadside inspection.

Even if the driver was honestly confused whether the sign applied to the vehicle, it is too late. And more than likely enforcement’s interest has been piqued. It is highly unlikely the driver will be waived through at this point, and 392.2C will be entered on the roadside inspection report.

Handling violations

CSA’s enforcement model suggests finding the root cause of roadside inspection violations to prevent future occurrences and ultimately improve BASIC scores.

A violation of 392.2C may have one of several root causes, such as:

Confusion over applicability
Inattentiveness (missing the sign)
Running late
Risky behavior (taking the chance that no one will pursue)
Concern over other violations discovered once stopped

Whatever the reason, it must be addressed with the driver. Corrective actions range from refresher training to termination. If the driver was trying to avoid enforcement for other reasons (drugs, alcohol, over HOS limits), these other violations need to be addressed accordingly.

Key to remember: Failing to obey a traffic control device will be used in calculation of the CSA Unsafe Driving BASIC scores. Motor carriers should address the root cause of the violation so it does not recur.

2021-03-10T06:00:00Z

For-hire and private carriers: What’s the difference?

If you’re planning to start a motor carrier operation or add a different type of service to an existing business, you need to know what type of carrier you will be. Motor carriers are considered either a for-hire carrier or a private carrier. To be a private carrier, 100 percent of the company’s movements must be to support its own operation. If the carrier is engaged in any for-hire activities, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) considers them a for-hire carrier.

For-hire vs. private

For-hire carriers use vehicles to transport people or property and are paid for their service. The fee could be a direct fee like a fare or a rate but could also be other indirect forms of compensation. Examples of for-hire operations include a trucking company that hauls other people’s property for a fee (direct compensation) or a hotel that includes in its service the transportation to and from the airport to the hotel (indirect compensation).

Private carriers, on the other hand, transport only their own goods or people. Examples include a manufacturer that uses its own commercial vehicles to transport its product, a construction or landscaping company that uses commercial vehicles to transport equipment and employees to job sites, or a utility company that operates commercial vehicles in support of its operations.

For-hire operating authority

While private carriers are not required to obtain operating authority from the FMCSA, for-hire carriers are required to get authority to move property or people that belong to somebody else and get paid for their service. Having authority is often referred to as having an MC Number.

The most common types of authority are:

Property for-hire
Passenger for-hire
Household goods
Broker
Freight forwarder

If a company never operates a commercial motor vehicle (CMV), it is possible to have authority, but not have a USDOT number. For example, straight brokers or freight forwarders.

As part of obtaining for-hire authority, carriers must designate process agents and demonstrate financial responsibility (have proper insurance coverage).

One size does not fit all

Authorities are not all-inclusive. Separate authority is needed for each type of service offered. For instance, a for-hire, over-the-road carrier that also wants to be able to resell its extra demand will need both for-hire and brokerage authorities. A company is required to pay a $300 one-time fee for each type of authority needed.

Permanent authority required

There are no temporary permits available to substitute for authority. For-hire operations may not be performed until the proper authority has been granted. It’s not uncommon for otherwise private carriers to become for-hire carriers to generate revenue on back-hauls or help balance capacity and demand during slow periods or seasons.

Getting it right

Carriers need to get it right when it comes to authority. Carriers required to have authority — but don’t and operate anyway — can get themselves into trouble. Penalties for operating without proper authority can get expensive and can result in out-of-service orders.

Key to remember: Carriers are either for-hire or private, with for-hire carriers being paid for their services while private carriers transport only their own goods or people.

Related article: Process agents — what are they and do you need them?

2025-01-10T06:00:00Z

Survey helps fleet managers gain traction rather than spin wheels

Fleet management is no easy job. But you may not be the only one struggling with a specific set of challenges. Sharing your insights with others could help those with similar experiences.

J. J. Keller® Center for Market Insights is currently working on its fifth annual study, 2025 State of Fleet Management Survey. The research covers a wide range of topics, including regulatory compliance, safety, driver knowledge and skill, and leadership buy-in.

The survey runs from January 6 through January 19, 2025, and results will be shared with the public through several platforms, including a webcast.

Share your experiences by accessing the survey.

Last year’s survey results

The annual survey provides invaluable information, including industry hurdles and how they’ve changed over the past few years.

The information shared in the 2024 study helped stakeholders address the challenges of fleet management, including:

Compliance
Driver training
Driver knowledge and skills
Job stress
Leadership buy-in
Overall safety
Vehicle maintenance

Click to view The State of Fleet Management: Insights on Priorities for Today's Fleet Managers — 2024 Study.

2024-09-19T05:00:00Z

Your HUT decals are expiring: Registration open Oct. 1

For carriers operating in New York, registration and decals expire December 31, 2024, for the Highway Use Tax (HUT) and Automotive Fuel Carrier (AFC) programs. Take steps now to make sure you receive your new decals before the current ones expire. You need a new certificate of registration and decal for each vehicle. And you must place the new decals on your vehicles before January 1, 2025.

The period to renew your 24th series HUT and AFC certificates of registration begins October 1, 2024. Act now to avoid delays and keep your highway use tax credentials active.

To-do before October 1

Get ready for renewal by taking the following steps now:

File all your highway use tax returns that are due.
Pay your taxes. The state will not issue a new certificate of registration if you owe back taxes. Before you apply to renew, make sure that you’ve paid all taxes due under any of the programs administered by the New York State Tax Department, including:
- HUT,
- personal income tax,
- International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA),
- sales tax, and
- withholding tax.
Create an online account if you do not already have one and you want to renew your credentials and pay online (https://www.oscar.ny.gov/).
Make sure your vehicle registration information is correct and accurate. Review and update your information as soon as possible. Incorrect information will delay the processing of your certificates and decals.

Beginning October 1

Once the renewal period opens, renew your credentials and pay your renewal fees online with One Stop Credentialing and Registration (OSCAR).

Submit your renewal application by November 30, 2024, to make sure you receive your decals in time to place them on your vehicles before January 1, 2025.

If you are already enrolled in OSCAR, use your current OSCAR password to renew online.

If you are not enrolled, visit OSCAR, and select Enroll Now. You must have a United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) number and an employer identification number (EIN).

To renew your registration:

Visit the OSCAR website and select HUT Renewal from the Business Type drop-down.
Enter your information in the USDOT#, NYS Tax ID#, and Password fields, then select Log in.
If you have 300 or fewer vehicles, choose either:
1. Renew all HUT/AFC Certificates of Registration to renew all your active current series permits, or
2. Select HUT/AFC Certificates of Registration to renew specific permits.
If you have more than 300 vehicles, choose either:
1. Renew all to renew all your active current series permits, or
2. File renewal to renew select permits.

If you are unable to renew electronically, you may file Form TMT-1.2, Renewal Application for Highway Use Tax (HUT) and Automotive Fuel Carrier (AFC) Certificates of Registrations and Decals – 25th Series.

Key to remember: Take steps now to renew your NY HUT and ensure you receive your new decals before the current ones expire.

Most Popular Highlights In Human Resources

2025-01-06T06:00:00Z

There’s no time like the present for an HR audit

The last few years have been a flurry of legislative activity, especially on the state level with the approval of paid leave laws, pay transparency rules, and other employer mandates.

Combining that with ongoing remote and hybrid work arrangements, previously single-state companies have transformed into multi-state employers. This means it might be time for an HR audit to make sure all your “Ts” are crossed and your “Is” dotted.

Yes, an HR audit is a lot of work, but if you are unaware of new or changing employment laws and regulations, or if you don’t follow them, your business may have to pay fines, damages, or risk being sued and face a costly court case.

8 steps involved in an HR audit

If you decide an audit would be beneficial for your organization, here are the basic steps to share with leadership to make sure everyone is on board.

Define the scope and goals of the audit. Will the focus be on compliance with labor laws, efficiency of HR practices, or both?
Review HR policies, employee handbooks, and contracts. This step ensures that the policies are up to date and in line with current laws and regulations. Make sure policies protect staff from workplace harassment, for example.
Analyze recruiting and hiring practices. This includes job descriptions, notices, applications, and onboarding practices. Ensure that these processes are fair, non-discriminatory, and in compliance with labor laws.
Review compensation structure and payroll. Evaluate whether employees are being paid fairly and in compliance with all relevant federal, state, and local laws. This includes making sure all employees are paid at least the applicable minimum wage or minimum salary level, and that you are calculating overtime correctly when needed. Make sure employees and independent contractors are classified correctly.
Look at benefits and leave policies. Confirm that leave policies align with federal and state laws. Verify that health insurance, retirement plans, and other benefits meet the legal requirements and are communicated effectively to employees.
Evaluate performance management systems. Assess whether performance reviews are fair, unbiased, and aligned with company goals. Make sure that systems are in place to provide constructive feedback for employees. Consider whether disciplinary notes or performance evaluations have been inconsistent or vague and implement ways to improve this so that in the future written documentation can help prove, for example, that proper steps were taken. 
Ensure that the company adheres to all other applicable labor laws. This includes posting requirements, working conditions, workplace safety, and other statutory requirements.
Review employee files. Make sure you are adhering to recordkeeping laws. For example, an employee’s personal health information must be kept separate from their general personnel file.

Key to remember: With the flurry of employment law changes in the past several years, 2025 may be a good year to do an HR audit.

2024-08-28T05:00:00Z

When to skip a PIP and move to terminate an employee

The U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics reported in July 2024 that there are 8.2 million job openings in the U.S., but only 7.2 million unemployed workers.

With that in mind, employers might choose to hang onto employees even if they’re under performing. But what about when complaints are rolling in from different angles? Take, for example, a lackluster supervisor who’s annoying employees and disappointing customers.

An employer could be hesitant to let the supervisor go, especially if there’s no documentation backing up claims of misconduct. The employer must weigh their options to decide if putting the supervisor on a performance improvement plan (PIP) or moving right to termination is the ideal choice.

At-will employment

For starters, in most states employers may terminate an employee at-will, meaning they can fire employees for pretty much any reason as long as it doesn’t discriminate against someone in a protected class based on sex, age, race, religion, etc. Employers also cannot terminate in retaliation for an employee making a claim of harassment, discrimination, or safety concerns.

Aside from these limits, employers can terminate employees for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all.

PIP or terminate

Deciding whether to put an employee on a PIP or terminate must be decided on a case-by-case basis.

A PIP is usually for job performance issues (hence, performance improvement plan). This could mean anything from not making enough sales to being inept at the job’s essential functions. If job performance doesn’t improve under the PIP, termination may be the end result depending on company policies and practices.

Even if an employee has job performance issues, the employer can terminate without going through the PIP process first, unless the usual process is to implement a PIP with employees who have had similar problems. In that case, not doing a PIP could be seen as discrimination against an employee, especially if the person falls into a protected class.

Workplace misconduct, however, is another situation altogether. This could be anything from a one-off poor joke to pervasive harassment. Snapping at customers or coworkers (or worse), for example, is a conduct issue. An employer could issue a warning or move right to termination if the behavior is clearly illegal or a serious threat to workplace safety.

Read more: ezExplanation on discharging employees

Termination tips

If an employer decides to terminate, they should treat the employee as respectfully as possible during the termination process. Also, an employer should carefully and clearly communicate the job-related reasons for the termination to avoid any hint of discrimination. Lastly, an employer should document the reasons and reiterate the steps taken leading up to the termination and keep those records handy in case the employee files a wrongful termination lawsuit.

Key to remember: Employers sometimes struggle when making termination decisions. Having a process in place and documenting steps along the way can help if a case lands in court.

Firing

2023-09-06T05:00:00Z

Appellate court sided with employee's (almost) 3-year-delayed FMLA claim

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.

2022-11-18T06:00:00Z

FMLA — What does (and doesn’t) count toward 1,250 hours worked?

Employers sometimes get tripped up on how to calculate the 1,250 hours worked eligibility criterion when employees need leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

Does working overtime count toward the 1,250?

Recently, someone asked if overtime hours counted toward the 1,250 hours worked requirement (it does).

All hours actually worked apply to the 1,250, whether overtime or regular time, even if the overtime is not mandatory.

The 1,250 hours is calculated in relation to when the leave will begin, not when the employee puts an employer on notice of the need for leave.

Whether an employee is allowed to work overtime, however, is generally up to company policy. As far as pay goes, remember, if the employee is nonexempt (“hourly”) and works any overtime (mandatory or voluntary) the employee must be paid time and one-half for all hours worked over 40 within the workweek.

More about FMLA leave requirements

To be eligible to take FMLA leave, employees must:

Have worked at least 1,250 hours in the 12 months before leave is to begin,
Have worked for their employer at least 12 months, and
Work at a location with at least 50 company employees within 75 miles.

Whether an employee has worked the minimum 1,250 hours is calculated based on determining compensable hours or work under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Calculating the 1,250 hours worked

When it comes to figuring out if an employee has worked at least 1,250 hours, it can get tricky. As was mentioned above, all hours worked, regular and overtime, must be counted.

Hours not worked should not be counted. The “not worked hours” include such time off as vacation time, sick leave, paid or unpaid holidays, or any other time in which an employee isn’t actually working — which can include disability, bereavement, FMLA and other forms of leave.

Once an employee meets the three eligibility criteria, including the 1,250 hours worked, for a particular leave reason, the employee remains eligible for the duration of the 12-month leave year period.

If the employee needs leave for another, different reason, eligibility would be recalculated.

Key to remember: All hours worked must be included in the 1,250 hours criterion when determining whether an employee is eligible for FMLA leave. Hours that aren’t worked (like vacation) are not included.

HIPPA Wage and Hour HIPAA FLSA

2023-01-12T06:00:00Z

Performance review timing and FMLA leave

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:

Do you look at all 12 months of Jo’s performance?
What if she hasn’t worked a full 12 months because of leave?
When can you actual do the review?
Can you delay it so you can look at a full 12-months of work?

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.

2025-01-09T06:00:00Z

Determining which state employment law applies can be tricky

With many employees working remotely, employers need to understand which state laws apply to a given situation. Usually, the employment laws of the state in which the employee works govern. While this is often true, sometimes, the law of the state where the employment is based applies.

New Jersey or Pennsylvania?

Take the case of Inna, who worked from her home in New Jersey for a company located in Pennsylvania. Inna had worked remotely for years, but the company began requiring employees to work from the office.

In January 2023, Inna had surgery. She used about two sick days per week during her recovery. Sangeeta, Inna’s supervisor, told her that she had to use leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) after her surgery.

Despite having prior approval to work from home until June 2023, Inna submitted a physician’s note, and the employer approved her remote work only through May 13, 2023. The employer shortened the approval again when Sangeeta told Inna on April 14, 2023, that as of May 1, 2023, she had to be on-site three days per week because of her position.

Employee fired, sued

On June 21, 2023, the company fired Inna. Inna sued claiming that the employer violated the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) and New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) when it fired her for invoking her disability leave rights. She also objected to the unlawful and discriminatory activity of her supervisors.

Court ruled in employer’s favor

The employer asked the court to dismiss the case because New Jersey was not Inna’s state of employment, rather, it was Pennsylvania where the company was based. The court agreed with the employer’s argument, even though typically courts look to the state in which an employee is performing work, which in this case was New Jersey.

The court held that, regardless of where an employee lives, CEPA and NJLAD are only applicable to situations in which New Jersey is the state of employment or where the employee “has significant employment responsibilities in New Jersey.”

While New Jersey courts have consistently applied the law of the state of employment to claims of workplace discrimination, an exception might apply when an out-of-state employer has involved non-trivial employment responsibilities in New Jersey. Inna’s company did not conduct any business in New Jersey or target New Jersey in any purposeful way.

The court found that Inna could not file a claim under New Jersey law because she:

Was hired to work exclusively in Pennsylvania,
Had no responsibilities outside of the company’s Pennsylvania offices, and
Worked only with and reported to individuals in the Pennsylvania office.

Takeaways for all employers

Not all claims are the same. Discrimination claims might have a different focus than other types of claims. Similarly, not all courts rule the same way. This is a unique case.

Generally, employers should still apply the employment laws that are relevant to the state in which an employee works — even if they’re working remotely in a different state.

If, for example, a remote employee works in a state with a paid leave law and qualifies for leave, the employer would grant the employee the related leave, even if the state in which the employer is headquartered doesn’t have paid leave.

Khartchenko v. The American Oncologic Hospital, Inc., et al., District of New Jersey, No. 23-cv-23043, November 20, 2024.

Key to remember: Employment law jurisdiction can be complex. In certain situations, the employment laws of the state in which the employee is physically working might not apply.

Most Popular Highlights In Safety & Health

2025-01-02T06:00:00Z

OSHA vs. MSHA: Revealing the key recordkeeping differences you need to know

Navigating the complexities of workplace safety regulations can often be daunting, especially when different agencies have overlapping jurisdictions. For employers in the mining industry, understanding the distinct recordkeeping requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is crucial for compliance and worker safety.

OSHA recordkeeping requirements

OSHA's recordkeeping requirements found under 29 CFR 1904 are designed to ensure that employers maintain accurate records of work-related injuries and illnesses. Additionally, the data helps OSHA, and the employer, identify and correct workplace hazards, preventing future incidents.

Recording: Employers with more than 10 employees, except those in partially exempt industries, are required to record work-related injuries and illnesses using OSHA forms, including the following:

Form 300: Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses.
Form 300A: Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses, which must be posted annually from February 1 to April 30.
Form 301: Injury and Illness Incident Report, detailing each incident.

Additionally, employers must retain these records for a minimum of five years and make them available to employees, former employees, and their representatives upon request.

Reporting: Certain severe injuries and illnesses must be reported directly to OSHA within specific time frames: fatalities within 8 hours, and in-patient hospitalizations, amputations, or losses of an eye within 24 hours.

Electronic submission: Some employers are also required to electronically submit their forms annually to OSHA based on establishment size:

250+ employees must electronically submit their OSHA 300A annual summary data.
20-249 employees in certain industries must electronically submit OSHA 300A annual summary data.
100+ employees in certain industries must electronically submit data from their OSHA 300 log, 301 incident report forms, and 300A annual summary.

MSHA recordkeeping requirements

Similar to OSHA, MSHA's requirements, found under 30 CFR Part 50, are intended to assist employers in maintaining accurate records of workplace injuries and illnesses, as well as identifying and addressing hazards.

However, requirements are tailored to the unique risks and operational characteristics of the mining industry and include the following:

Reporting: All accidents, injuries, and illnesses must be reported using MSHA Form 7000-1 within 10 working days of the incident.
Record retention: Reports must be kept at the mine or nearest mine office for at least five years.
Multiple injuries: Separate forms must be completed for each miner injured in the same incident.
Quarterly reports: Mine operators must submit MSHA Form 7000-2 quarterly, detailing employment, coal production, and injuries/illnesses. Deadlines are April 15, July 15, October 15, and January 15.

Clarifying the relationship

Both OSHA and MSHA are under the Department of Labor and provide safety and health regulations for workers. However, OSHA's jurisdiction spans most private sector employers and employees, as well as some public sector workers, covering a wide array of industries. In contrast, MSHA specifically regulates surface and underground mining operations.

This division of responsibilities can sometimes create confusion, but an interagency agreement established when MSHA was created in the 1970s clarifies the authority and coordination between OSHA and MSHA, which includes:

Jurisdiction: MSHA's authority oversees all aspects of mining operations. This includes the lands, structures, facilities, equipment, and other properties used in mining and covers both surface and underground mines.
Regulatory gaps: If MSHA does not have specific regulations for a particular safety hazard, OSHA regulations can be applied ensuring no gaps in protecting workers. For example, if a mining operation involves activities like construction or maintenance that are not explicitly covered by MSHA, OSHA standards may be enforced to address those hazards.
Collaboration: OSHA and MSHA collaborate on rulemaking, policy development, and training programs to ensure consistent safety standards across industries. They share information, conduct joint inspections, and address emerging safety and health issues, ensuring regulations keep pace with technological advancements and industry changes. This unified approach helps avoid conflicting regulations and promotes worker safety.

Key to remember: OSHA covers a broad range of workplaces and MSHA focuses specifically on mining operations. While both agencies strive to work together seamlessly, they do have differing recordkeeping requirements that must be followed to ensure compliance and safety in their respective workplaces.

2025-01-06T06:00:00Z

Can a case of the flu “bug” land on my OSHA log?

We know that healthcare workers are more susceptible to OSHA recordable infectious diseases from close contact with sick people and viruses because of their work activities with sick patients. But what about the average worker who gets the winter flu bug? Is that recordable?

Clarifying recordability

Seasonal influenza (flu) is extremely common, especially during the winter season. With almost 30 million cases each year, this contagious respiratory illness can easily infiltrate the workplace. Flu can be spread from direct contact with others, sneezing, coughing, or simply talking to an infected person. Symptoms can range from a mild runny nose to hospitalization due to complications from the virus. So, when does the flu become recordable on the OSHA log?

OSHA's recordkeeping regulation at 1904.5(a) requires employers to consider an illness to be work-related if an event or exposure in the work environment either caused, contributed to, or significantly aggravated a pre-existing illness. Work-relatedness is presumed for illnesses resulting from events or workplace exposures unless they fall within one of the exceptions listed in the standard. The common cold and flu is one of those exceptions.

Section 1904.5(b)(2)(viii) states that employers are not required to record injuries and illnesses if, ". . . the illness is the common cold or flu. The exception for cold or flu cases applies even if the illness was contracted at work or outside of work. However, contagious diseases such as tuberculosis, brucellosis, hepatitis A, or plague are considered work-related if the employee is infected at work.

While OSHA's regulations don’t require the employers to record flu cases, employers should never assume the recordability exception without a careful look at each instance. Employers should make every effort to investigate cases of illnesses to rule out any underlying issues that may be work-related, such as the exposure to hazardous substances that could be creating chemical sensitization which may mimic flu-like symptoms.

Additionally, employers should seek an opinion from a medical professional to confirm an illness is seasonal influenza. The illness may meet recording criteria if it is determined as significant following a diagnosis by a physician or other licensed health care professional, even if it does not result in medical treatment beyond first aid or other recordable criteria.

Not sure if an incident is a recordable versus a reportable? Check out our article, "Recordable and reportable are the same, right?"

Understanding the regulations

OSHA’s Bloodborne Pathogens standard at 1910.1030 has been effective for worker protection from exposures to blood or other potentially infectious material (OPIM) like saliva, tears, or other bodily fluids. However, the standard doesn’t address the flu “bug.”

A standard has been considered for consistent management of workplace transmission-based infection control. OSHA has published an Infectious Disease Request for Information (RFI), Stakeholder Summary Report, and Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel Final Report that demonstrate a focus on worker protection from infectious diseases. These reports and information on the Agency’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) are available at www.osha.gov/infectious-diseases/rulemaking. In the meantime, employers have a duty to protect workers from recognized hazards under the General Duty Clause.

Key to remember: Employers are not required to record on the OSHA 300 Log when an employee has the flu or common cold, regardless of whether the illness resulted from a workplace exposure.

2025-01-07T06:00:00Z

Year-end injury recordkeeping: 300A and e-reporting

In January, employers that maintain an OSHA 300 Log must prepare a 300A Annual Summary and many will need to electronically report injury data to OSHA. This raises many questions like how to handle open cases from the previous year. Here are a few basics to get started.

Every establishment required to maintain a 300 Log must have its own Log. OSHA defines an establishment as a single physical location. Organizations with multiple locations might have different obligations for each one based on the number of employees or the industry code.

Verify the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for each establishment. The code determines whether the establishment must keep a 300 Log and whether it must electronically report data (not all employers have to report). For related information, see our article Which NAICS code should you use for OSHA?

Finally, if an employee got injured last year but is still on restrictions or days away in the new year, estimate the day count on the 300 Log. Use that estimate to prepare the Annual Summary, then update the 300 Log when the actual number of days is known. The regulation covers this at 1904.7(b)(3)(ix).

Prepare the 300A

Employers that maintain a 300 Log must prepare a 300A Annual Summary and post it from February 1 though April 30. Even if the establishment had zero recordable incidents, the employer must post the summary. OSHA requires posting physical copies, but employers can post on a company intranet in addition to the physical poster.

Before creating the 300A, review the 300 Log for accuracy. Employers don’t have to examine every entry but should spot check a number of cases. Typical problems include:

In Column (E), listing a vague location such as “warehouse” rather than a more accurate description such as “loading dock north end.”
Column (F) requires describing the injury, the body part, and the cause. A description like “burned forearm” does not specify left or right and does not describe how the incident occurred. OSHA gives the example, “Second degree burns on right forearm from acetylene torch.”

To complete the 300A, employers need to calculate the average number of employees and the total hours worked. For more information, see our article Completing the 300A: Tips for the mathematically challenged.

Once completed, a company executive must certify the summary before posting. The regulation defines an executive to include the owner, an officer, or the highest ranking official at the establishment.

E-report if required

Many employers must submit injury data through OSHA’s Injury Tracking Application (ITA) by March 2nd each year. Reporting obligations are based on two variables:

The number of employees at each establishment (not the number in the entire company), and
The NAICS code for each establishment.

The employee count is based on peak employment, not the annual average. If the location reached 20 or more employees during any pay period, it may have to report. This includes part-time and temporary workers, if the location was responsible for recording those workers’ injuries.

To illustrate, suppose a furniture store has 17 retail locations, plus a distribution center, for 18 establishments. Each retail store had fewer than 20 employees all year, but the distribution center had 35 employees. None of the retail locations would need to e-report. Only the distribution center must electronically file.

As noted, not every employer is covered, but even furniture stores and grocery stores must report if an establishment had 20 or more employees. In brief:

If an establishment had 20 or more employees and the NAICS code appears in 1904.41 Appendix A, the location must report.
If an establishment had 100 or more employees and the NAICS code appears in 1904.41 Appendix B, the location must report.
If an establishment had 250 or more employees and is required to maintain a 300 Log, the location must report regardless of NAICS code.

Since 2025 is only the second year for e-reporting under the revised regulation, check out the requirements in our article Are you ready for OSHA's new injury e-reporting rule on January 1, 2024?

Key to remember: If your company must maintain an OSHA 300 Log, you must prepare and post a 300A Annual Summary by February 1st and you might need to electronically report injury data to OSHA’s ITA by March 2nd.

2024-04-03T05:00:00Z

Does OSHA suddenly require “helmets” now instead of hard hats?

Ever since OSHA published its Trade Release on December 11, 2023, people have been scratching their heads about the “new” PPE requirement.

But here’s the thing. There isn’t a new requirement for “helmets” instead of hard hats.

So where’s the confusion? And what is actually required?

OSHA’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.

Construction of Materials:

The SHIB first explained that one of the benefits of safety helmets lies in their construction materials.
While hard hats are made from hard plastics, safety helmets incorporate a combination of materials, including lightweight composites, fiberglass, and advanced thermoplastics.
Such materials can help enhance the impact resistance of the helmets but also include the added benefit of reducing the overall weight of the helmet. This reduces neck strain and improves comfort during extended use.

Use of Chinstraps:

The SHIB also discussed the potential benefits of chinstraps used in conjunction with Type II safety helmets.
The general idea here is that chinstraps can be helpful in maintaining the position of the safety helmet and protecting the worker’s head in the event of a slip, trip, or fall.
According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, head injuries accounted for nearly 6% of non-fatal occupational injuries involving days away from work. About 20% of those were caused by slips, trips, and falls.

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

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

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.

Class G – (General) low voltage protection.
Class E – (Electrical) high voltage protection.
Class C – (Conductive) no voltage protection.

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.

2022-09-06T05:00:00Z

What are some alternatives to nitrile gloves?

The COVID-19 outbreak created a shortage of latex and nitrile gloves in many workplaces.

Latex and nitrile gloves are used extensively in health care, and their disposable (single use) nature meant that large quantities were consumed during the peak of the pandemic. The shortage was also worsened because of hoarding by some consumers. In addition, certain businesses and government agencies began using these gloves to protect employees, even if their workers didn’t normally require gloves on the job.

If you have trouble obtaining your staff’s usual gloves, be prepared to identify feasible alternatives. You don’t want to endanger them by having them wear any old gloves they find lying around.

To identify alternatives for workers who rely on latex or nitrile gloves as PPE, you must know which chemicals workers handle or come in contact with. That’s because all glove materials are not suitable for all hazards.

Evaluate which materials offer appropriate protection from the specific chemicals that workers handle to select appropriate alternative gloves.

Alternative glove selection for COVID-19

Here’s a summary of glove types and the protection given to help evaluate alternatives.

Butyl gloves protect against a variety of chemicals such as peroxide, highly corrosive acids, strong bases, alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, esters and nitrocompounds. Butyl gloves also resist oxidation, ozone corrosion and abrasion, and remain flexible at low temperatures. However, they do not perform well with aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons and halogenated solvents.

Natural (latex) rubber gloves have good elasticity and temperature resistance, and resist abrasions well. They protect against most water solutions of acids, alkalis, salts, and ketones. Latex gloves may cause allergic reactions and may not be appropriate for all employees. Hypoallergenic gloves, glove liners, and powderless gloves are possible alternatives for employees who are allergic.

Neoprene gloves protect against hydraulic fluids, gasoline, alcohols, organic acids, and alkalis. Their chemical and wear resistance are generally better than gloves of natural rubber.

Nitrile gloves are intended for jobs requiring dexterity, and they stand up even after prolonged exposure to substances that cause other gloves to deteriorate. They offer protection when working with greases, oils, acids, caustics, and alcohols but are not recommended for use with strong oxidizing agents, aromatic solvents, ketones, and acetates.

2024-09-11T05:00:00Z

Challenges with OSHA 300 Logs for multiple locations and remote workers

Understanding how OSHA defines an establishment and how to manage records for multiple establishments with different industry codes is critical to staying in compliance.

Employers covered by OSHA’s injury and illness recordkeeping regulations must maintain a 300 Log for each establishment, defined as a single physical location. OSHA provides two exemptions from keeping a 300 Log, one for company size and another for industry classification.

Applying exemptions

Employers with 10 or fewer employees do not need to maintain a 300 Log, but this exemption counts all employees at all locations. If an employer has three locations, each with four employees, it has more than 10 employees and the size exemption will not apply.

The other exemption is based on each establishment’s North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code. Employers might have some establishments that must keep a 300 Log and others that do not, like a manufacturing facility that maintains a 300 Log and an administrative office that is exempt.

In some cases, an establishment’s activities fit under more than one NAICS code, like a manufacturing plant with a distribution warehouse. OSHA advises using the code that either generates the most revenue or has the most employees, whichever the employer deems most applicable. Employers should check their workers’ compensation coverage to see which code they use.

For more information, see our article Which NAICS code should you use for OSHA?

Traveling and remote workers

If an employee has a recordable incident while visiting another establishment, the employer must record the case on the 300 Log for the establishment where the incident occurred, even if the employee normally works elsewhere.

However, if an employee has a recordable incident and is not at an establishment (such as traveling), the employer must record the case on the 300 Log for the establishment where the employee normally works.

Remote workers must be linked to a fixed establishment, typically the location from which they are supervised or receive job assignments. Recordable incidents to remote workers must be recorded on the 300 Log of the establishment to which they are linked. Employers also count remote workers as employees of the linked location, even if they work in another state.

Annual summaries

On February 1, each establishment that maintains a 300 Log must post a 300A annual summary for the previous calendar year. This is required even if the location has 10 or fewer employees, and even if the establishment had zero recordable incidents. Employers cannot combine multiple establishments on a 300A (although short-term establishments can be combined).

If some employees split their work time between locations, employers may distribute their hours worked between locations. However, if someone spends only a small amount of time visiting various locations, the employer may count all hours worked at the primary or linked location. Usually, this would not significantly impact the total hours worked for an establishment.

For more information, see our article Completing the 300A: Tips for the mathematically challenged.

OSHA requires a posting a physical copy of the 300A in the workplace until April 30, but employers may also post the summary on a company intranet for remote workers. OSHA does not require sending the 300A to remote workers who never visit the site, although California does require that.

Key to remember: Employers with multiple locations should confirm that the NAICS code for each location is correct, verify that incidents to traveling or remote workers are properly recorded, and ensure that each covered establishment posts a 300A as required.

About Notice at Collection Terms of Use Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information Accessibility Support

10-9-2024 OSHA Correction to Final Rule: Hazard Communication Standard

10-9-2024 OSHA Correction to Final Rule: Hazard Communication Standard

RELATED NEWS

SAFETY & COMPLIANCE NEWS

REGSENSE® REGULATORY REFERENCE

THE J. J. KELLER INSTITUTE

ADD HAZMAT, ENVIRONMENTAL, & HR RESOURCES

DIRECT ACCESS TO COMPLIANCE EXPERTS

EVENTS

Most Recent Highlights In Environmental

Most Recent Highlights In Transportation

Most Recent Highlights In Safety & Health

What’s considered fill material?

Does your project require a permit to fill?

1. Will fill materials enter WOTUS?

2. Is the planned discharge of fill exempt?

3. What impact will the fill discharge have?

Risk evaluation: Assessing unreasonable risks

Most Recent Highlights In Human Resources

Safety determinations

Section 5(a)(3)(C): Not likely to present an unreasonable risk

Section 5(f): Presents an unreasonable risk

Section 5(e): Insufficient information

Section 5(e): May present an unreasonable risk

Section 5(e): Presents unreasonable risk due to quantity

Regulatory action

Hazard communication (HazCom)

Hazardous materials (Hazmat)

Hazardous waste (Hazwaste)

Hazardous waste operations and emergency response (HAZWOPER)

Process Safety Management (PSM)

What happened in Bhopal?

What happened in West Virginia?

What happened next?

CSB video

Push for regulatory reform

Key to remember

1. The rules cover the entire UST system.

2. Tank release detection methods depend on the installation or replacement date.

3. Piping release detection methods depend on two factors.

4. Secondary containment with interstitial monitoring is the standard.

5. State requirements may differ.

Most Popular Highlights In Environmental

Safety determinations

Section 5(a)(3)(C): Not likely to present an unreasonable risk

Section 5(f): Presents an unreasonable risk

Section 5(e): Insufficient information

Section 5(e): May present an unreasonable risk

Section 5(e): Presents unreasonable risk due to quantity

Regulatory action

Proposed legislation

Your restroom availability affects their health

Keys to remember

The importance of CPR and early defibrillation

Signs and symptoms of cardiac compromise

OSHA requirements regarding CPR

OSHA requirements regarding AEDs — you might need a prescription

Training requirements

Keys to Remember

Risk evaluation: Assessing unreasonable risks

Most Popular Highlights In Transportation

Entry-level driver training (ELDT)

Theory training

Behind-the-wheel training

Modernized CDL testing

Computerized knowledge testing

Skills test improvements

Primary differences

The basics of logging exemptions

What if the driver goes too far or works too many hours?

30-minute break exemption

Common myths

What’s different with the ‘150 air-mile non-CDL property-carrying drivers’

Managing the use

Verifying compliance is important

What is 392.2C?

Who must pull into a weigh station?

What happens when a driver ignores signage?

Handling violations

For-hire vs. private