86 FR 62917 Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances (20-10.B)

Is my facility impacted?

The final rule’s rollback of GHG emission standards applies to fossil fuel-fired power plants, specifically:

• Fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units, and
• Stationary combustion turbine electric generating units (EGUs).

Which requirements were removed?

The agency’s final rule repeals:

• All 2024 CPS emission guidelines for existing coal-, oil-, and natural gas-fired steam generating units (40 CFR Part 60 Subpart UUUUb in its entirety);
• The 2024 CPS carbon capture and sequestration/storage (CCS)-based requirements for coal-fired steam generating units undertaking a large modification (Part 60 Subpart TTTTa); and
• The 2024 CPS CCS-based standards for new base load stationary combustion turbines (Part 60 Subpart TTTTa).

Affected facilities no longer have to comply with the repealed GHG mitigation measures set by the 2024 CPS.

Why did EPA repeal these GHG emission standards?

The final rule states that the agency based its decision on a reevaluation of the best systems of emission reduction (BSERs) established by the 2024 CPS. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to base performance standards on BSERs that are adequately demonstrated. Once BSERs are established, EPA then sets emission requirements based on the application of the BSERs.

The 2024 CPS required:

• Existing long-term fossil fuel-fired EGUs to comply with an emission limit based on implementing a BSER of 90 percent CCS of carbon dioxide by January 1, 2032;
• Existing medium-term EGUs (i.e., units committed to stop operations by 2039) to comply with an emission limit based on implementing a BSER of 40 percent natural gas co-firing by January 1, 2030;
• Natural gas- and oil-fired EGUs to implement certain BSERs (including routine methods of operation and maintenance for intermediate load units and uniform fuels for low load units); and
• New base load stationary combustion turbines to comply with phase 2 standards based on a BSER of 90 percent CCS of carbon dioxide by January 1, 2032.

90 percent CCS

EPA determined that 90 percent CCS isn’t the BSER for long-term coal-fired steam generating units because:

• The BSER hasn’t been adequately demonstrated;
• The BSER imposes unreasonable costs; and
• The infrastructure needed to comply with the BSER likely can’t be deployed by the January 1, 2032, compliance date (which means the degree of emission limitation wouldn’t be achievable).

Additionally, EPA determined that 90 percent CCS isn’t the BSER for coal-fired steam generating units undertaking a large modification because the BSER hasn’t been adequately demonstrated and imposes unreasonable costs.

40 percent natural gas co-firing

The agency determined that 40 percent co-firing with natural gas isn’t the BSER for existing medium-term coal-fired steam generating units because it constitutes generation shifting (which the Supreme Court ruled impermissible in West Virginia v. EPA (2022)). Generation shifting refers to a forced shift of nationwide electricity generation from one source to another. In this case, the natural gas co-firing standard would require coal-fired boilers to use natural gas, a completely different fuel source.

It also found that this BSER would have adverse impacts on the energy system. Further, the infrastructure needed to comply with the BSER likely can’t be deployed by the January 1, 2030, compliance date (which means the degree of emission limitation wouldn’t be achievable).

Natural gas- and oil-fired steam generating unit requirements

EPA also determined that the BSERs for natural gas- and oil-fired steam generating units are unnecessary.

It concluded that:

• Requiring states to develop, submit, and implement plans only for natural gas- and oil-fired steam generating units would be an inefficient use of state resources because these units account for a small part of the source category; and
• The BSERs would result in little or no emission reductions.

Phase 2 standards

Finally, the agency determined that 90 percent CCS isn’t the BSER for new base load stationary combustion turbines because:

• The BSER hasn’t been adequately demonstrated;
• The BSER imposes unreasonable costs; and
• The infrastructure needed to comply with the BSER likely can’t be deployed by the January 1, 2032, compliance date (which means the degree of emission limitation wouldn’t be achievable).

How should facilities respond?

Consider these tips to help your facility determine how it may be affected by EPA’s repeal of these federal GHG emission standards:

• Determine if your facility is subject to any regulations established by the 2024 CPS.
• If so, verify whether any of the repealed federal GHG emission standards applied to your facility.
• If any of the repealed federal GHG emission standards applied, evaluate the possible impacts on your facility’s operations.
• Adjust operations and processes as needed.
• Don’t forget to check state requirements! Most air emission permits are issued by state or local air agencies. State regulations must be at least as stringent as federal requirements, but they could also be stricter. Confirm GHG emission standards with your permitting authority.

Key to remember: EPA has repealed a majority of the GHG emission requirements established by the 2024 Carbon Pollution Standards rule.

More than just rules

The order covers not only final and proposed regulations but also “notices of inquiry,” any type of notice of proposed rulemaking, and guidance documents that interpret existing statutes or regulations.

The order will be overseen by the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), a position to which Trump has nominated Russ Vought.

OMB wastes no time

The OMB, which must approve most rulemaking activities, has already sent numerous pending rules back to the agencies for review. Among the rules withdrawn on January 21, 2025:

• A proposal to update the new-driver training regulations to address sexual harassment and the safety of women truck drivers and vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and bicyclists.
• A proposal to amend the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations to account for the use of trucks and buses equipped with automated driving systems.
• A proposal from the Department of Health and Human Services to implement hair testing for federal workers.
• Proposed railroad noise-emission enforcement rules from the Federal Railroad Administration.
• A proposed air-emissions reporting requirement from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as well as proposed EPA standards for emissions from PFAS manufacturing facilities.

In addition, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration withdrew a proposed rule on infectious diseases on January 14 and its COVID-19 healthcare rule on January 15, prior to the inauguration.

President Trump issued a similar regulation freeze upon his 2017 inauguration. Soon after, he announced a “two for one” order requiring agencies to eliminate two regulations for every new one issued.

What changed?

Under 49 CFR 390.23, certain emergency declarations trigger temporary relief from federal HOS requirements for drivers providing direct assistance during a declared emergency.

Importantly, those HOS requirements include the driving limits and rest requirements, but not the need to complete logs or use electronic logging devices and keep supporting documents.

In October 2023, the FMCSA reduced the automatic exemption period from 30 days to 14 days. Industry groups argued that many emergencies last longer than two weeks, forcing carriers and industry organizations to request extensions. The FMCSA agreed and has now reversed that change.

The new final rule simply replaces the number “14” with “30” in 390.23(b), restoring the pre-2023 timeframe.

The FMCSA emphasized that emergency exemptions remain limited to commercial motor vehicles providing direct assistance during a declared emergency. The exemption is not a blanket suspension of compliance requirements for all carriers operating in the affected region.

Don’t overlook the limits

Keep in mind that emergency exemptions are narrowly focused. The relief applies only when drivers are providing direct assistance related to the declared emergency, with “direct assistance” and “emergency” carrying specific definitions in 390.5T. Once a driver is no longer engaged in emergency-related operations, normal compliance obligations return.

Drivers claiming the exemption must comply with all HOS rules apart from those in 395.3 and 395.5, which contain the basic driving, on-duty, and rest requirements. Drivers are not exempt from the prohibition on fatigued driving in 392.3.

Note that drivers may claim the exemption in all states on their way to the region where the emergency was declared, even if those states may not be involved in the emergency or listed in the declaration of emergency.

There is no requirement to carry a copy of the declaration in the vehicle unless stated so in the declaration itself. The FMCSA recommends that drivers and carriers coordinate with state emergency officials before providing assistance. State regulations regarding size and weight, permits, taxes, etc. may not have been waived.

In addition, the exemption period is not always a guaranteed 30 days; emergency declarations may end or be rescinded sooner.

Key to remember: The FMCSA has restored a rule allowing drivers doing certain types of emergency-response work to be exempt from certain hours-of-service rules for up to 30 days rather than 14.

How do you know if you need to apply for authority?

Per the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), all interstate commercial motor vehicles (private, for-hire[TL1.1], and exempt) that meet the definition of commercial motor vehicle found in 390.5 must submit them online through Motus at https://motus.dot.gov and obtain a USDOT number before beginning operations.

The commercial motor vehicle definition includes a vehicle which operates in interstate commerce, and:

• Has a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) or gross combination weight rating (GCWR), or gross vehicle weight (GVW) or gross combination weight (GCW) of 10,001 pounds or more, whichever is greater;
• Is designed to transport more than 8 passengers (including the driver) for compensation;
• Is designed to transport 16 or more passengers including the driver, and isn’t used to transport passengers for compensation; or
• Is transporting hazardous materials in quantities requiring the vehicle to be placarded.

Not operating as an interstate carrier doesn’t mean you’re in the clear, as many states require USDOT numbers for intrastate carriers. If you fall into this category, it’s important to check your states' requirements.

How do you obtain operating authority?

If you don’t already have a USDOT number, you can obtain one by applying for authority through Motus. The registration process requires basic company demographics to be provided. This information isn’t directly used for safety scoring but does provide information that is helpful to the FMCSA for studies and investigations.

After being issued a new entrant registration, the carrier is subject to an 18-month safety-monitoring period. During this safety monitoring period, the carrier’s roadside safety performance will be closely monitored to ensure the carrier’s basic safety management controls are operating effectively. Also, during this safety-monitoring period, the motor carrier (MC) will receive a safety audit.

For those operating intrastate, the process may be different. Check with your state's department of transportation to learn more about what you need to do.

Why is this necessary?

Larger vehicles, as well as those carrying hazardous materials, pose a higher risk to both themselves and the motoring public. By regulating who may operate these vehicles, and for how long, the FMCSA prioritizes keeping the roadways safe for all who use them.

Key to remember: All companies who operate a commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce are expected to adhere to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations — even those who don’t operate as a “traditional trucking company.”

Fines

The minimum fines for non-compliance are:

• $50 for not carrying tire chains or alternate traction devices as required,
• $500 for not chaining up when signs along the roadway indicate when the chain law is in effect and that vehicles must be chained, and
• $1,000 for blocking the roadway as a result of not chaining up.

Key to remember: Drivers operating on Colorado highways need to be aware of the state’s tire chain laws, including the expanded “must carry” requirements.

Limitations

• Dangerous Goods Carried by Passengers or Crew (2.3)— Provisions for battery-powered mobility aids have been revised to include reference to the guidance on the end-to-end processes associated with the carriage of mobility aids.

Packing

The following packing instructions have been updated:

• 5.2.0.9 - Added a water capacity limit for non-refillable cylinders containing a flammable gas, limited to a water capacity not exceeding 1.25 L.
• PI 952 - Revised to include reference to "equipment."
• PI 954 - Clarified the rules for marking overpacks containing dry ice. The total net quantity of dry ice in the overpack must be marked on the outside of the overpack.

Packaging specifications and performance tests

• 6.0.3 - Clarified the requirements and formatting for UN specification marks on packages.

Documentation

• 8.1.6.9.2, Step 6 – Added a note to "reinforce that there is no requirement for the type, number and net quantity in inner packagings within the outer packaging of a combination packaging to be shown" on the shipping papers (Shippers Declaration for Dangerous Goods).

Radioactive materials

• 10.8.3.9.1—Added an additional example of the description for the first sequence of information on the Shipper's Declaration to address where a radioactive material has a subsidiary hazard, and the proper shipping name must be supplemented by the technical or chemical name.
• 10.8.6—Added two examples to show how radioactive materials with a subsidiary hazard should be described and how packages in an overpack should be shown.

Appendices

IATA has added a new appendix to the list of appendices in the DGR. Appendix H includes a list of changes IATA will make to the 2025 IATA DGR. IATA added Appendix H so that shippers and carriers have time to prepare for the substantial updates that are coming for 2025. Some of the changes include:

• Adding an exception for data loggers and cargo trackers with installed lithium batteries.
• Modifying the exception for COVID-19 vaccines to now apply to all pharmaceutical products.
• Adding a new classification for sodium ion batteries.
• Updating the list of dangerous goods and special provisions.
• Amending and adding several packing instructions.
• Revising the "lithium battery mark", which will be known as the "battery mark" in the future.

Making sure you are keeping up with these regulatory changes and preparing for future updates is extremely important if you want to avoid costly delays, fines, and lost revenue. Keep your hazmat employees up to speed and inform them of any changes they need to be aware of.

Key to Remember: IATA updates their DGR every year and changes to the 2024 IATA DGR become effective on January 1, 2024.

FMCSA: Clearly defined

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) clearly defines a safety-sensitive position.

It is one where the employee is expected to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) requiring a commercial driver’s license (CDL). Only these drivers can be placed in the motor carrier’s DOT drug and alcohol testing program under 49 CFR Part 382.

As a result, a carrier would not classify a forklift operator, driver helper, and other positions as safety sensitive for purposes of testing under Part

What about non-CDL CMV drivers?

A driver who operates an FMCSA-regulated vehicle that does not require a CDL fits within the scope of workplace safety-sensitive duties, but not FMCSA.

For property-carrying vehicles, a non-CDL CMV is one that is:

• 10,001-26,000 pounds inclusive of a towed trailer, and
• Not transporting placardable quantities of hazmat.

For passenger carriers, a non-CDL CMV is designed to transport 9-15 passengers, including the driver, for compensation.

Even though the above vehicles and drivers are subject to the bulk of FMCSA’s safety regulations, the vehicles (and subsequently the drivers) do not qualify for CDL licensing or FMCSA testing.

If the driver happens to hold CDL, it still does not qualify as a safety-sensitive position. Applicability is always based on whether the employee is assigned to operate a CDL CMV.

Are non-CDL CMV drivers subject to any drug and alcohol prohibitions?

Non-CDL CMV drivers are prohibited from operating while impaired under 49 CFR 392.4 and 392.5, but there is no testing mechanism under DOT authority. Testing would be best practice (non-DOT) and managed under the workplace drug program.

Vague definition under OSHA

If a motor carrier mistakenly uses the workplace criteria for its DOT testing, the number and types of positions placed in the random pool far exceed commercial drivers.

For the general workforce, the term “safety sensitive” has been tossed around, but never clearly defined by OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). Many safety professionals tie the term to OSHA’s General Duty Clause (GDC), which requires that employers provide all workers with a safe and healthful workplace.

Specifically, the GDC requires employers to recognize hazards that cause or likely will cause death or serious physical harm. Any job title that is likely to cause death or serious harm to someone — including the employee, coworkers, or the general public — is usually put on a list of safety-sensitive positions.

The employer must look at each job’s hazards and decide if the position is classified by its organization as safety sensitive. Examples may include:

• Forklift drivers,
• Heavy machinery operators, and
• Crane operators.

Even someone who works as a roofer may be considered a safety-sensitive position because the employee could trip and fall from a high elevation, causing serious personal harm.

Key to remember: When assembling the list of names for your DOT testing program, only include those individuals who are expected to operate a CDL CMV.

Employers can make a positive impact

Many cases of workplace violence are committed by people who have a personal relationship with the victim. When the perpetrator is an employee’s spouse or domestic partner, they could bring conflicts from home to the workplace. When a victim leaves an abusive situation, the one place the abuser knows the victim will be every day is at work. That’s why domestic violence presents a unique set of challenges for employers, supervisors, and company security staff.

When survivors of domestic violence don't know their workplace rights, and employers aren't familiar with the protections that exist, everyone can be left more vulnerable.

Research from Futures Without Violence shows that this knowledge gap is significant. In a 2025 survey, 53 percent of survivors said they chose not to disclose abuse to their employer because they feared discrimination, retaliation, or losing their job. Additionally, 71 percent said they didn’t know whether their local or state laws offered employment protections for workers experiencing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.

Time off

Federal law doesn’t currently require or regulate vacation pay, holiday pay, or other paid time off (PTO). Some states and cities, however, have adopted laws for paid sick leave or other PTO.

While there’s no current federal law that requires a company to provide paid vacation, it may be required to provide other types of leave, whether paid or unpaid, in certain situations. Several states require paid sick leave, and several others require unpaid but job-protected leave for victims of domestic violence.

Virginia, for example, has a new paid sick leave law that takes effect on July 1, 2027. This law specifies that employees may take paid time off related to domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking of the employee or family member, among other leave reasons.

What else can employers do?

Aside from complying with requirements under state or local laws, employers could consider implementing company training — similar to sexual harassment prevention training — to educate workers on what domestic violence is and how the company can support victims.

This could be done by:

• Promoting a company’s employee assistance program,
• Connecting employees with community resources, or
• Allowing employees flexibility with their schedules to attend court hearings or deal with other related issues.

Employers can also encourage victims to come forward to HR or their supervisors. That way those working at the front desk can keep an eye out for the perpetrator and/or prohibit them from entering the building. An employer could also have the perpetrator’s calls blocked, or reach out to local law enforcement for additional support if needed.

Shining a light on domestic violence and encouraging employees to share concerns with employers can help protect everyone.

Key to remember: October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Employers can support employees who are being victimized and create safer workplaces for all.

Pregnancy is a serious health condition

A pregnancy, even an uncomplicated one, is an FMLA-qualifying serious health condition. Pregnant employees may, therefore, take FMLA leave whenever they’re incapacitated by the pregnancy, such as from severe morning sickness. Employees are also considered incapacitated during routine prenatal visits.

The employee doesn’t need to be incapacitated for more than 3 days; any period of incapacity will do.

Employees who are married to a pregnant woman are also entitled to FMLA leave to care for their spouse when they’re incapacitated, including accompanying them on routine prenatal visits

Employees don’t get to choose

Employees might not officially request FMLA leave for their prenatal care, and they don’t have to. Once the employer knows the employee has an FMLA serious health condition (pregnancy) and needs time off because of it (including prenatal visits), the employer is on the hook for recognizing and designating it as FMLA leave.

Some employees would prefer that their routine prenatal care not be counted against their 12 weeks of FMLA leave, instead saving all 12 weeks for the delivery, recovery, and bonding. But employees don’t get to choose when the FMLA applies to an absence. The employer is responsible for making this determination and for designating and counting time off as FMLA leave when called for.

Employer policies

Employers might have policies requiring employees to get manager-approved time off for reasons such as prenatal visits, as they are seen as medical appointments. Employers can expect employees to follow company policy for requesting time off for planned medical treatment, even if it’s related to the FMLA. 

When an employee takes FMLA leave on an intermittent or reduced leave schedule basis, employers must account for the leave using an increment no greater than the shortest period of time that they use to account for use of other forms of leave, provided that it’s not greater than 1 hour and they don’t reduce the employee's FMLA leave entitlement by more than the amount of leave actually taken.

Employee pay

Even if the employee is receiving paid time off during the prenatal visits, the employer must still count the absence as FMLA leave. Employees have the right to use their accrued paid time off during otherwise unpaid FMLA leave, and employers may require that they do so. That way, employees get pay and FMLA job protection at the same time.

Key to remember: If an employee meets the eligibility criteria to take FMLA leave, the employer knows about the employee’s pregnancy, and the employee takes time off for routine prenatal visits, employers must count that time as FMLA leave.

Get it in writing

Under the FMLA, if an employee gives clear, unmistakable notice of the intent not to return to work after leave ends, the employer obligations under the FMLA cease. This means the employer doesn’t have to maintain health benefits (subject to COBRA requirements) or restore the employee to the job held before leave began.

Employees don’t have the right to continue to take FMLA leave or have other FMLA protections after they resign, but employers should wait to stop such protections until they accept and acknowledge such a decision.

These employer obligations continue, however, if the employee indicates they might be unable to return to work but expresses a continuing desire to do so.

Employers that receive information that an employee will not be returning to work should get written documentation confirming the employee’s intent and acknowledge whether the notice will be accepted.

Employees might not realize that such a decision could result in an end to their group health care coverage earlier than expected. They might think that the coverage would continue through the originally scheduled FMLA leave.

Periodic updates can help avoid surprises

Employers may require employees on FMLA leave to report periodically on their status and intent to return to work. The employer policy regarding such reports may not be discriminatory and must consider all relevant facts and circumstances related to an employee's leave situation.

Such updates, however, can help avoid surprises, like finding out that employees won’t be returning to work. Employees on FMLA leave after having a baby could, for example, provide such updates every couple of weeks. The updates can ask for information confirming when the employee is expected to return to work.

During such updates, employers can remind employees that they risk losing their group health care coverage instantaneously if they indicate they will not be returning to work.

Employers might not want to share such information to avoid risking an employee keeping secret their intent not to return to work until the end of the full FMLA leave period.

Employers may also require that employees give reasonable notice (i.e., within two business days) of the changed circumstances, where foreseeable.

Key to remember: If employees indicate that they will not return to work after FMLA leave, employers’ obligations to continue FMLA protections end, but employers should first accept and acknowledge such a decision in writing.

Ferreting out leave abuse

From the employer’s perspective, using FMLA leave solely to avoid working on or around holidays, weekends, vacations, and rest days constituted dishonesty in violation of company policy.

Jolanda from HR had an automated system that ferreted out FMLA misuse. Each week, the system looked back at every employee’s FMLA usage over the preceding 12 weeks. If an employee had 5 suspicious uses of FMLA leave within 12 weeks, the algorithm flagged that employee. A suspicious use was any FMLA use on a weekend and any FMLA use that was taken immediately before or after a day off.

If Jolanda believed that an employee’s actions amounted to FMLA “pattern use,” she would conduct an individualized review. This involved reviewing each employee’s:

• Medical information,
• Absences that were identified as pattern use, and
• Statuses of those absences.

To further investigate this FMLA usage, Jolanda used a modified version of the algorithm, which flagged any employee who had used FMLA leave on 4 of the 10 most recent holidays and other special occasions (such as Black Friday and Christmas Eve). Jolanda removed from the list anyone whose leave involved cancer, a terminal illness, or was about to give birth.

Court disagrees with employer

Despite dozens of employees being terminated for misusing their leave, only three of the employees continued their lawsuit. In court, the judge pointed out that the algorithm didn’t show their total FMLA leave, just their holiday use. It didn’t include non-holiday use, so it didn’t give the whole picture.

If an employee used FMLA leave for 10 days in 12 months, and 5 of those days were holidays, an employer might have reason to suspect misuse. If an employee used FMLA leave for 60 days in 12 months and 5 of those days were holidays, there would be much less reason for an investigation. The employer focused on employees’ use of FMLA leave on holidays without considering the context of each situation.

The employer argued in court that it acted on its honest belief that the employees were abusing FMLA leave.

The employees argued that the company’s stated reason for the discipline was untrue and that retaliation was the actual reason for the discipline. The employees were given an internal hearing, but the hearings were suspicious, as a company manager acted both as judge by conducting the hearing and ruling on objections, and as prosecutor by questioning witnesses. The company witness told the hearing manager which questions the prosecutor (the same manager) should ask.

Employees, on the other hand, weren’t allowed to have legal counsel present, nor were there formal rules of evidence that governed the hearings. They also didn’t know the questions in advance, as the employer did.

In denying the employer’s request to have the entire case dismissed, the court determined that the employer’s decision process wasn’t credible and its reliance on that process was, therefore, not honestly held. It sent the case to a jury.

Burgess, et al., v. CSX Transportation, Inc., District of Maryland, No. JKB-18-0744, July 6, 2026.

Court decisions are based on the specific facts presented and each court’s interpretation of the law. Because courts may reach different conclusions, similar situations can lead to different outcomes. Employers should avoid relying on a single case as definitive guidance and instead assess each situation carefully, considering applicable laws and seeking advice when needed.

Key to remember: Employers may use procedures and tools to discern FMLA leave abuse, but they have to use those procedures and tools through the lens of the big picture.

Build the relationship before it's needed

The best time for organizations to meet with local responders isn’t during an emergency. Facility tours, pre-incident planning meetings, and joint exercises allow both sides to learn from one another. Responders can become familiar with facility layouts, hazards, and access procedures. Facility personnel can better understand responder capabilities, equipment, and response expectations.

These conversations also help identify potential issues before they become problems. Questions about after-hours access, communication protocols, command structure, specialized hazards, or monitoring capabilities are much easier to answer during a planning meeting than during an active emergency.

Perhaps most importantly, these interactions build trust and familiarity, both of which can improve communication when pressure is high.

Why familiarity matters

When responders arrive, they often need information quickly to make critical decisions. The more they know beforehand, the more effectively they can respond. During an emergency, responders don't have time to learn the facility from scratch.

Consider some of the questions they may need answered:

• Are there gates, badge-controlled doors, or other security measures?
• Are there any areas with restricted access?
• What hazardous materials are onsite, and where are they located?
• Which utilities, fire department connections (FDCs), or processes may need to be shut down?
• Who has authority to make decisions during the incident?
• Which employees have specialized knowledge of equipment, chemicals, or operations?
• How can responders access the facility after normal business hours?

Without those answers, valuable time can be spent gathering information instead of managing the emergency.

The relationship goes both ways

Organizations sometimes assume responders have every resource they might need. In reality, responder capabilities can vary by jurisdiction, equipment availability, and specialized training.

For example, a local department may have standard atmospheric monitoring equipment but may not carry instruments designed to detect every chemical present at a facility. Certain incidents may require additional resources, technical expertise, or support from a regional hazmat team.

Understanding those capabilities and limitations before an emergency occurs helps both organizations and responders establish realistic expectations, identify resource gaps, and avoid surprises when an incident occurs.

Don't rely on paperwork alone

Many organizations already share hazard information through regulatory programs. Facilities subject to EPCRA requirements may provide chemical inventory information that helps emergency planners understand potential community hazards, but that information doesn't replace direct conversations and site familiarity.

Responders also benefit from information such as facility maps, building access points, utility shutoff locations, hazardous material storage areas, emergency contacts, and site-specific response considerations.

Responders don't need every document an organization has ever produced. What helps most is having key information organized, accessible, and available before an emergency occurs.

Strengthen the partnership

To strengthen relationships with local emergency responders:

• Arrange facility tours to familiarize responders with the site;
• Review emergency plans, major hazards, and available resources together;
• Confirm after-hours access procedures;
• Identify primary and backup emergency contacts;
• Provide updates when processes, layouts, or chemical inventories change; and
• Conduct joint drills or exercises.

Key to remember: First responders shouldn't be learning about a facility during an emergency. The best emergency responses are built on relationships, communication, and shared understanding long before 911 is called.

What went wrong?

In February 2026, one employee was seriously injured and another died after being struck by steam, hot liquid, and organic material when the lid of an industrial kettle unexpectedly opened after pressure built up in clogged vent line. Just one month later, another release of steam, hot liquid, and organic material resulted in two workers dying and another seriously injured.

What was the cost?

In just two months, three lives were lost, two lives were forever changed, and countless loved ones were negatively impacted by these incidents. Less permanent but equally damaging were the financial costs.

Workplace incidents like these often result in significant direct costs such as medical expenses, compensation, and legal expenses. Following investigations, the company received the following:

• Serious citations for exposing workers to thermal hazards without quick access to emergency water;
• A serious citation for the design and usage of kettles leading to pressure and thermal burn hazards;
• A repeat citation for exposing workers to falls to lower levels;
• Repeat citations for failure to develop, document, and utilize lockout/tagout procedures for the kettles and failure to train employees on lockout/tagout procedures;
• An other-than-serious citation for failing to notify employees working adjacent to permit-required confined spaces; and
• Citations for exposing workers to falls into the kettles and failure to assess personal protective equipment for thermal risks.

When coupled with often greater indirect costs, such as lost productivity, replacement training, and reputational damage, the financial impact on a company can be catastrophic.

How could it have been avoided?

Many of the factors that contributed to this incident could have been addressed through hazard assessments, effective procedures, and appropriate safeguards including:

• Assessing system pressure and fall hazards before work was permitted to start;
• Designing and maintaining kettles to control pressure and thermal hazards;
• Implementing safety relief systems to prevent over pressurization of systems;
• Providing emergency water and burn response equipment;
• Installing guardrails, covers, barriers, and fall protection systems;
• Developing and enforcing lockout/tagout procedures;
• Identifying, marking, and communicating confined space hazards;
• Restricting access to permit-required confined spaces;
• Providing PPE appropriate for thermal and fall hazards; and
• Training employees on hazardous energy control and near miss reporting.

Key to remember: Unaddressed hazards can lead to devastating consequences, including loss of life and company reputation. Proactively identifying and controlling risks helps prevent casualties and the significant costs that are sure to follow.

Top violations by frequency

Scanning the list of top citations, the Hazard Communication standard was the number one frequently cited OSHA standard in Part 1910 last fiscal year. The regulation at 1910.1200 requires covered employers to implement a written program to inform workers about the hazards of non-exempted chemicals they may be exposed to on the job. Workers have a “right to know and understand” the hazardous chemicals they work with or near.

The Lockout/Tagout standard took the number two spot on the preliminary OSHA list. Under 1910.147, workers servicing or maintaining machines or equipment may be seriously injured or killed if hazardous energy is not properly controlled. The standard requires covered employers to implement a program and procedures to disable machinery and equipment, thereby preventing the unexpected release of hazardous energy (like electricity), while workers perform these servicing and maintenance activities.

When effective engineering controls are not feasible, or while they are being instituted, appropriate respirators must be provided and used when necessary to protect the health of the worker. This requirement is per OSHA’s Respiratory Protection standard at 1910.134, which ranked number three on the list. Under this standard, covered employers must identify and evaluate the respiratory hazards in the workplace and develop and implement a written respiratory protection program with site-specific procedures and elements for respirator use. When respirators are not required but are worn voluntarily, 1910.134 generally imposes more limited obligations for the employer.

Top citations by penalty rate among the 20

The top 20 had an average overall penalty rate of $3,991. However, the highest penalty rate among these 20 most-cited standards went to the Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals standard. In FY 2026, the preliminary data show that the price tag on that regulation averaged $8,757 per citation. Catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemicals have resulted in toxic, fire, or explosion hazards. OSHA 1910.119 provides requirements for the management of hazards associated with processes using threshold quantities of highly hazardous chemicals.

The Machine Guarding standard at 1910.212 came in second, at $7,383 on average per citation. Moving machine parts have the potential to cause severe workplace injuries, such as crushed fingers or hands, amputations, burns, or blindness. The standard applies to employers when workers are exposed to dangerous moving parts. Covered employers must provide one or more methods of machine guarding to protect the operator and other workers in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips, and sparks.

The Lockout/Tagout standard took third place when ranking the 20 standards by penalty rate. The preliminary dollar amount was $6,836 per citation on average for 1910.147. Injuries resulting from the failure to control hazardous energy during servicing or maintenance activities can be serious or fatal. The standard is intended to address these risks.

Key to remember

New enforcement data for Part 1910 are now available for FY 2026. While the top 20 citations tend to line up almost identically every year, ranking these top 20 by penalty rate offers a different way to view the data. Both tables above give general industry employers insight when they evaluate and prioritize compliance at their own site.

How can HAZWOPER involve you?

OSHA requires specific training for those who will respond to clean-up operations. Workers must be trained according to the type of job they will be performing, their job description, and for the specific hazards at the site.

What should you do if a hazardous material is found?

If you are properly trained, act with care and speed. Ensure you don’t allow those who aren’t trained to respond to the emergency. Instead, remind them to follow the companies protocol for emergency action, including reporting the leak, spill, or discovery of a hazardous material or chemical.

What do I do in the event I’m cleaning up a hazardous material or spill, and feel hot, tired, or faint?

One of the potential hazards during a waste or chemical cleanup operation is exposure to heat, especially if air-conditioning isn’t in use. You need to understand safeguards against heat illness. Specifically, you need to:

• Recognize symptoms of heat illness;
• Know how to provide first-aid to other employees;
• Understand how to prevent difficulties from heat illness;
• Drink about 5-7 ounces of fluids every 15 to 20 minutes; and
• Use the buddy system (work in pairs) when working in hot conditions.

Key to remember: Know your role in your company's HAZWOPER plan, even if it means evacuating the area to report a chemical release.