FREE TRIAL UPGRADE!
Thank you for investing in EnvironmentalHazmatHuman ResourcesHuman Resources, Hazmat & Environmental related content. Click 'UPGRADE' to continue.
CANCEL
YOU'RE ALL SET!
Enjoy your limited-time access to the Compliance Network!
A confirmation welcome email has been sent to your email address from ComplianceNetwork@t.jjkellercompliancenetwork.com. Please check your spam/junk folder if you can't find it in your inbox.
YOU'RE ALL SET!
Thank you for your interest in EnvironmentalHazmatHuman ResourcesHuman Resources, Hazmat & Environmental related content.
WHOOPS!
You've reached your limit of free access, if you'd like more info, please contact us at 800-327-6868.
You'll also get exclusive access to:
Already have an account? .

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Part 40

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 199

[Docket DOT-OST-2022-0027]

RIN 2105-AF01

Electronic Signatures, Forms and Storage for Drug and Alcohol Testing Records

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation (DOT or Department) proposes to amend its regulations for conducting workplace drug and alcohol testing for the federally regulated transportation industry to allow, but not require, electronic signatures on documents required to be created and utilized under the regulations, the use of electronic versions of forms, and the electronic storage of forms and data. The regulatory changes would apply to DOT-regulated employers and their contractors (“service agents”) who administer their DOT-regulated drug and alcohol testing programs. Currently, employers and their service agents must use, sign and store paper documents exclusively, unless the employer is utilizing a laboratory's electronic Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form (electronic CCF) system that has been approved by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). DOT is required by statute to amend its regulations to authorize, to the extent practicable, the use of electronic signatures or digital signatures executed to electronic forms instead of traditional handwritten signatures executed on paper forms. This rulemaking also responds to an April 2, 2020, petition for rulemaking from DISA Global Solutions, Inc. (DISA), requesting that DOT regulations be amended to allow the use of an electronic version of the alcohol testing form (ATF) for DOT-authorized alcohol testing. The proposed regulatory amendments are expected to provide additional flexibility and reduced costs for the industry while maintaining the integrity and confidentiality requirements of the drug and alcohol testing regulations. In addition, DOT proposes to amend the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) regulation for conformity and to make other miscellaneous technical changes and corrections.

DATES: Comments on this NPRM must be received on or before December 16, 2024.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket Number DOT-OST-2022-0027 using any of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/DOT-OST-2022-0027/document. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

Fax: 202-493-2251.

To avoid duplication, please use only one of these methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments, including collection of information comments for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mike Huntley, Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone number 202-366-3784; ODAPCwebmail@dot.gov. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This NPRM is organized as follows:

I. Executive Summary

II. Public Participation and Request for Comments

A. Submitting Comments

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

C. Privacy Act

III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

IV. Background

V. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) Overview

VI. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) Rulemaking on Electronic Documents and Signatures

VII. Amending Part 40 To Permit Electronic Documents and Signatures

VIII. Electronic ATF

IX. Section-by-Section Analysis

X. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

I. Executive Summary

Purpose and Summary of the Major Provisions

This proposed rule would establish parity between paper and electronic documents and signatures and expand businesses' and individuals' ability to use electronic methods to comply with the Department's drug and alcohol testing regulation, 49 CFR part 40, “Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs” (part 40). Businesses and individuals subject to part 40 would continue to have the choice to use paper documents and traditional “wet” signatures. This proposed rule would also modify references to recordkeeping and reporting methods throughout part 40 to make them technologically neutral.

This proposed rulemaking responds to a statutory mandate set forth in section 8108 of the Fighting Opioid Abuse in Transportation Act, part of the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, Public Law 115-271 (see 49 U.S.C. 322 note). The proposed rulemaking would take action consistent with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) (division C, title XVII, secs. 1701-1710, Pub. L. 105-277) and the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-SIGN) (Pub. L. 106-229) with regard to DOT's part 40 regulations.

II. Public Participation and Request for Comments

A. Submitting Comments

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this NPRM (Docket No. DOT-OST-2022-0027), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. The Office of the Secretary (OST) recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in a cover letter or an email so that OST can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/DOT-OST-2022-0027/document, click on this NPRM, click “Comment,” and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.

OST will consider all comments and material received during the comment period in determining how to proceed with any final rule.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, DOT-OST-2022-0027, in the keyword box, and click “Search.” Next, click the “Open Docket Folder” button and choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting the Docket Management Facility.

C. Privacy Act

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices under the heading of “Department-Wide System of Records Notices”.

III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority enacted in the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 (OTETA) (Pub. L. 102-143, tit. V, 105 Stat. 952) and codified at 49 U.S.C. 45102 (aviation), 49 U.S.C. 20140 (rail), 49 U.S.C. 31306 (motor carrier), and 49 U.S.C. 5331 (public transportation), as well as the Department's authority in 49 U.S.C. 322 and the PHMSA authorities specified in the proposed regulatory text for this action.

According to Public Law 115-271, the Secretary of Transportation is required to “issue a final rule revising part 40 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to authorize, to the extent practicable, the use of electronic signatures or digital signatures executed to electronic forms instead of traditional handwritten signatures executed on paper forms.” (49 U.S.C. 322 note) The statute set the deadline for this action as not later than 18 months after HHS establishes a deadline for a certified laboratory to request approval for fully electronic CCFs ( Id. ) On April 7, 2022, HHS set that deadline as August 31, 2023 (87 FR 20528). HHS has extended the deadline to August 31, 2026, to enable sufficient time for all HHS-certified laboratories to identify and contract with an electronic CCF supplier or to develop an electronic CCF. The deadline for DOT's regulatory amendments would therefore be February 29, 2028.

There are two additional Federal statutes relevant to the implementation of electronic document and signature requirements.

The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), codified at 44 U.S.C. 3504 note, 1 was enacted to improve customer service and governmental efficiency through the use of information technology. The GPEA defines an electronic signature as a method of signing an electronic communication that: (a) identifies and authenticates a particular person as the source of the electronic communication; and (b) indicates such person's approval of the information contained in the electronic communication. Id. It also requires OMB to ensure Federal agencies provide for: (a) the option of maintaining, submitting; or disclosing information electronically, when practicable; and (b) the use and acceptance of electronic signatures when practicable. The GPEA states that electronic records submitted pursuant to procedures developed under title XVII for the submission of records to Federal agencies and electronic signatures used in accordance with those procedures shall not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability merely because they are in electronic form. Id.

1 Division C, title XVII (sec. 1701-1710) of Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681-749, enacted on October 21, 1998.

The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-SIGN), codified at 15 U.S.C. 7001-7031, 2 was designed to promote the use of electronic contract formation, signatures, and recordkeeping in private commerce by establishing legal equivalence between traditional paper-based methods and electronic methods. The E-SIGN Act allows the use of electronic records to satisfy any statute, regulation, or rule of law requiring that such information be provided in writing if the consumer has affirmatively consented to such use and has not withdrawn consent. Specifically, the statute establishes the legal equivalence of the following types of documents with respect to any transaction in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, whether in traditional paper or electronic form: (a) contracts, (b) signatures, and (c) other records (15 U.S.C. 7001(a)(1)).

2 Public Law 106-229, 114 Stat. 464, enacted on June 30, 2000.

IV. Background

The Department's drug and alcohol testing regulations were promulgated at a time when the ability to sign and retain official records electronically—now commonplace in many business segments—was not available. Over the course of several years, we have adopted measures that have reduced the paper documentation associated with the drug and alcohol testing program without compromising the integrity and confidentiality requirements of the program. In 2003, we standardized the form for employers to report their Management Information System (MIS) aggregate drug and alcohol testing data, as well as the specific data collected. 3 When creating a ONE-DOT MIS Form, we then authorized employers to submit a single standardized form via a web portal. In 2015, we issued a final rule to allow employers, collectors, laboratories, and medical review officers (MROs) to use the electronic version of the Federal Drug Testing CCF in the DOT-regulated drug testing program. 4 That final rule also incorporated into the regulations the requirement to establish adequate confidentiality and security measures to ensure that confidential employee records are not available to unauthorized persons when using the electronic CCF. We also included language protecting the physical security of records, access controls, and computer security measures to safeguard confidential data in electronic form when using the electronic CCF.

3 68 FR 43946 (July 25, 2003).

4 80 FR 19551 (Apr. 13, 2015).

Consistent with the statutory mandate in 49 U.S.C. 322 note, we propose amendments to part 40 to permit the use of electronic signatures, forms, and records storage for drug and alcohol testing records throughout the regulation, including the use of an electronic ATF for DOT-authorized alcohol testing. We emphasize that electronic signatures, forms, and records would not be required; we would continue to allow paper, or hard-copy use with traditional “wet signatures.”

These proposed amendments would establish parity between paper and electronic collection and submission of information required under our regulations (and remain compatible with applicable OMB guidance on implementing electronic signatures 5 ) by allowing further use of electronic means and methods to comply with part 40 requirements. Many employers and their service agents have already instituted the use of electronic signatures, forms, and records storage for the non-DOT regulated testing that they conduct. DOT supports this transition to a paperless system and is committed to ensuring that the movement to a partially or fully electronic part 40 is done to maximize program efficiencies and reduce costs, while maintaining the integrity and confidentiality requirements of the program.

5https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2000-M-00-15-OMB-Guidance-on-Implementing-the-Electronic-Signatures-in-Global-and-National-Commerce-Act.pdf.

Electronic documents would have a high degree of forensic defensibility as long as any changes made to the document are in the document's electronic footprint, which shows when the document or signature, as applicable, was created; when, and if, changes were made; who made the changes; and when, as applicable, a document was transmitted to and received by the receiving entity. The use of electronic forms and signatures in part 40 would help DOT-regulated employers and their service agents improve their workflow efficiency through faster turnaround times for required documents. Cost savings would result through reduced printing and delivery/shipping costs, and expedited transmission of information allowing for more timely decisions. We believe this proposed rule, if adopted, would also mitigate the longstanding problems ( e.g., delays in processing times of test results, cancelling of test results, etc.) associated with illegible and lost copies of paper documents.

V. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) Overview

On August 5, 2022, we published an ANPRM requesting public comment on how part 40 could be amended, as required by the statute, to allow electronic signatures, forms, and recordkeeping (87 FR 47951). We requested information from DOT-regulated employers and their service agents regarding if and how they are already handling electronic signatures, records transmission, and records storage in their non-DOT testing programs. In addition, we requested comments and information on appropriate performance standards, and on whether particular methods or performance standards have been successful or unsuccessful. We also asked a number of general questions on the potential advantages, risks, ramifications, and required safeguards associated with the use of electronic signatures, forms, and records in the DOT drug and alcohol testing program. We asked questions about specific sections of part 40 that we anticipated would be affected by prospective changes to implement electronic signatures, forms, and records. Finally, we asked a number of questions regarding the use of an electronic ATF for DOT-regulated alcohol tests.

We received 72 comments in response to the ANPRM, including comments from individuals, testing laboratories, MROs, and MRO organizations, substance abuse professionals (SAP) and SAP organizations, and various associations representing DOT-regulated transportation workers subject to mandatory drug and alcohol testing under part 40.

A few individuals expressed opposition to the adoption of electronic signatures, forms, and recordkeeping, citing concerns about the need for the rulemaking, risk to personal information from hackers or mismanaged electronic processes and procedures, and misuse of electronic forms and signatures. To meet our statutory mandate and in consideration of concerns about safeguarding personal information and appropriate use of the information in developing the NPRM, DOT proposes to require security measures for electronic forms and signatures used under part 40 that are the same as those currently in place for the electronic CCF specified in 49 CFR 40.40(c)(5).

Most commenters were supportive of changes to amend part 40 that would permit, but not require, the use of electronic signatures, forms, and recordkeeping. Commenters supporting revisions to part 40 noted that electronic signatures, forms, and recordkeeping are used in virtually every industry today—including but not limited to the banking, insurance, medical, and legal industries. Commenters supported the use of performance standards instead of technology-specific standards to ensure that, once established, standards do not become obsolete given the rapidly evolving nature of information technology standards and practices. Commenters stated that allowing electronic signatures, forms, and recordkeeping would make the drug testing process much more efficient and would result in cost savings. Commenters also stated that it would be safer to store records electronically since records could be backed-up, secured, and protected from tampering and unauthorized access and use.

VI. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) Rulemaking on Electronic Documents and Signatures

In developing this NPRM, we looked to a rule promulgated by DOT's FMCSA that permits the use of electronic methods to generate, certify, sign, maintain, or exchange records so long as the documents accurately reflect the required information and can be used for their intended purpose. (83 FR 16210, Apr. 16, 2018) The rule applies to documents that FMCSA requires entities or individuals to retain. FMCSA permits, but does not require, anyone to satisfy FMCSA requirements by using electronic methods to generate, maintain, or exchange documents. The substance of the document must otherwise comply with applicable Federal laws and FMCSA rules. FMCSA also permits, but does not require, anyone required to sign or certify a document to do so using electronic signatures, defined, as in the GPEA, as a method of signing an electronic communication that: (1) identifies and authenticates a particular person as the source of the electronic communication; and (2) indicates such person's approval of the information contained in the electronic communication. FMCSA allows for the use any available technology for electronic signatures, so long as the signature otherwise complies with FMCSA's requirements.

FMCSA adopted broad performance standards for electronic documents and signatures—as specified in GPEA and E-SIGN—rather than detailed, technology specific standards that would likely become obsolete with inevitable changes in information technology standards and practices. FMCSA's April 2018 rule has been in effect for more than five years, and the definitions and requirements established in that rule have stood the test of time despite the many changes that have occurred with respect to electronic documents and signatures. We are unaware of any FMCSA-regulated entities that have reported issues to FMCSA regarding the use of electronic documents or signatures to meet the requirements of the FMCSRs since the rule became effective in 2018.

VII. Amending Part 40 To Permit Electronic Documents and Signatures

In this NPRM, we propose to permit but not require electronic documents, signatures, and recordkeeping in part 40. Additionally, we propose a performance standard approach as opposed to establishing technology-specific standards. Where it is possible to do so, establishing the same or substantively similar regulatory requirements for common issues across DOT modal agencies—such as the use of electronic documents and signatures—helps the Department maintain a consistent regulatory approach for those common issues.

There are currently more than 60 references to the term “written” in part 40, and more than 20 additional references to the term “in writing.” We propose to add a definition of “written or in writing” in part 40, to eliminate any distinction between paper and electronic documentation and establish technological neutrality throughout the entirety of part 40.

FMCSA's rule does not apply to documents that individuals or entities are required to file directly with FMCSA. In its April 2018 final rule, FMCSA explained that while industry could use electronic signatures and submit information directly to the FMCSA in certain situations, 6 adapting all FMCSA systems to allow for use of electronic signatures and submissions would significantly delay the implementation of the rule for use by third parties as it would require FMCSA to develop and implement technology systems to allow for direct submission to FMCSA from regulated parties. FMCSA noted that development of such systems could take several years, and therefore saw no reason to make private parties' use of electronic signatures and records retention contingent upon FMCSA's ability to receive submissions electronically because doing so would delay potential benefits to be gained by third parties.

6 As an example, Certified Medical Examiners may use electronic signatures, if they choose to do so, to sign medical forms, certificates, and a new driver medication report. If FMCSA requests these forms, they are uploaded in portable document format (PDF) to the Medical Examiner's account associated with the National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners for FMCSA to access.

In contrast to FMCSA's regulations, part 40 does not require entities or individuals to submit documents directly to the Department except for MIS aggregate drug and alcohol testing data that employers subject to DOT or U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) drug and alcohol testing regulations must submit annually. Each of the various documents required and used as part of the DOT drug and alcohol testing program under part 40 ( e.g., employee drug and alcohol testing records, MRO reports and records, SAP reports and records) are documents that are created by, exchanged between, and maintained by a person or entity involved in the testing process—but are not required to be submitted directly to DOT.

As noted earlier, and specifically with respect to the required MIS data, we standardized the form for employers to report their aggregate drug and alcohol testing data, as well as the specific data collected, more than 20 years ago. At that time, we authorized employers to submit the ONE-DOT MIS form via a web portal. Today, the Federal Aviation Administration, FMCSA, Federal Railroad Administration, and Federal Transit Administration permit employers to submit that same drug and alcohol testing data via the internet, and PHMSA requires that the data be submitted electronically. If employers submit the data electronically via the internet, they are not required to submit a hard copy. DOT recommends that employers have a copy of their data available (either hard copy or in electronic format) in the event an auditor or inspector requests a copy.

From the above, and because the only documents that part 40 requires to be submitted directly to the Department are already permitted to be, and in some cases required to be, submitted electronically, there is no need for us to limit the applicability of our proposal as FMCSA did in its 2018 final rule.

Several commenters noted that they already use electronic signatures and documents for their non-DOT drug and alcohol testing program, and in some cases, have done so for many years. In doing so, these commenters have had to establish appropriate confidentiality and security measures to ensure that confidential employee records cannot be accessed by unauthorized persons, including protecting the physical security of records, access controls, and computer security measures to safeguard confidential data in electronic form. The same general requirements were added to the current §40.40(c)(5) when we approved the use of the electronic CCF for use in DOT drug testing in 2015, 7 and we propose the same requirements in this NPRM for the use of electronic signatures, documents, and recordkeeping throughout the entirety of part 40.

7 The 2015 revisions amended then §40.45(c)(5), which was redesignated as §40.40(c)(5) in the May 2023 final rule to include oral fluid testing in the DOT drug testing program (88 FR 27596, May 2, 2023).

Ensuring that confidential employee records are not available to unauthorized persons is an important element of part 40's protections for employees that are subject to DOT's drug and alcohol testing rules. We believe that the failure of a service agent to provide or maintain a secure/confidential electronic system should constitute the basis for the Department to start a public interest exclusion (PIE) proceeding, and propose to add this to the list of examples provided in §40.365(b).

Throughout part 40, information and documents are required to be transmitted and/or communicated between service agents ( e.g., collectors, screening test technicians (STTs) and breath alcohol technicians (BATs), laboratories, MROs, SAPs, and consortium/third party administrators (C/TPAs)), employers, and employees). Although part 40 does not currently require the party receiving these communications and/or documents to affirmatively confirm receipt of such from the sender, in some instances, regardless of whether the document is electronic or a hard copy, we believe that it may be important for the receiving party to verify that those required communications and/or documents were received.

For example, under §40.25, an employer intending to use an employee to perform safety-sensitive functions must, after obtaining an employee's written consent, request information about the employee's drug and alcohol testing record from previous DOT-regulated employers. After receiving a copy of the employee's written consent, the previous employer must immediately provide the requested information to the employer making the inquiry. If an employer is subsequently investigated/audited by the appropriate DOT mode, it may be beneficial for both the gaining employer and the previous employer to be able to affirmatively demonstrate that the employee's written consent and previous testing record were sent and received as required.

Sections 40.191(d) and 40.261(c)(1) require a collector or MRO (for drug tests) or a BAT, STT, or a physician evaluating a “shy lung” situation (for alcohol tests), respectively, to—when an employee refuses to participate in a part of the testing process—terminate the testing process, document the refusal, and immediately and directly notify the employer's designated employer representative (DER) by any means that ensures the refusal notification is immediately received. Because this notification of a refusal to an employer is of an urgent nature, it may be advisable to require the DER to affirmatively confirm receipt of the required notification from the collector, MRO, BAT, STT, or physician. For example, §§40.191(d) and 40.261(c)(1) could be amended to read “. . . immediately notify the DER by any means and ensure that the refusal notification is immediately received”.

While we are not proposing new requirements in this NPRM regarding confirmation of receipt in the sections discussed above (or in other part 40 requirements), we seek comment regarding whether it may be beneficial or advisable to do so, and if so, for which specific sections of part 40.

VIII. Electronic ATF

The ATF has been in use in the DOT alcohol testing program since 1994 (see 59 FR 7349, Feb. 15, 1994). The ATF must be used to document every DOT alcohol test. DOT regulations at 49 CFR 40.225 set forth the requirements for use of the form, and 49 CFR part 40, appendix G, contains a facsimile (reference copy) of the form. The ATF is a three-part carbonless manifold form used by DOT-regulated employers to document the testing event when testing employees subject to DOT alcohol testing. When the employee is tested, both the employee and the STT and/or the BAT will complete the ATF in various sections. The STT/BAT documents the result(s) by either writing in the screening result or attaching the screening and/or confirmation result printed by the evidential breath testing devices (EBT) onto the ATF, and then sends Copy 1 to the employer, provides Copy 2 to the employee, and retains Copy 3 for their records.

On April 2, 2020, DISA petitioned the Department to amend part 40 to allow for the use of an electronic version of the ATF for DOT mandated alcohol testing. In support of its petition, DISA stated that “The requested amendment to 49 CFR part 40 will enable a parallel process for the documentation of DOT-mandated alcohol tests aligned with the similarly situated amendment previously approved for drug testing.” DISA believes that allowing the use of an electronic ATF will result in several benefits to the industry, including “increased efficiency, security and accuracy in documentation of DOT alcohol tests; paperwork reduction; improved process for conducting a DOT alcohol test in conjunction with a DOT drug test when an electronic version of the federal CCF is used for the drug test; reduction of errors and omissions in the completion of the ATF; and improved efficiency and efficacy in the transmission and record retention of alcohol test results.”

DISA noted that non-DOT workplace breath alcohol testing has been conducted using electronic versions of an alcohol testing form that mirrors the DOT ATF for more than five years. Based on experience using those electronic forms for non-DOT testing, DISA cites improved efficiency and accuracy of documentation because: (1) employer and employee information is entered via computer and thus not dependent on reading and deciphering hand-written entries, (2) date time stamps of the testing are automated and not subject to fluctuation or error, (3) transmission of documentation on completed tests is more secure using databases accessed only via protected password and personal identification number (PIN) to authorized employers or their designated agents, and (4) transmission of test result information is faster and more secure than existing transmission options of scanning and emailing attachments or facsimile.

DISA also noted that permitting use of an electronic ATF for DOT-regulated alcohol testing “will substantially reduce cost, by eliminating the requirement for the printing and distribution of carbonless three-ply paper ATFs. The proposed electronic ATF option would still provide for printed paper images to be made available to the employee, the employer, and the alcohol technician, [but] eliminates the requirement for the more expensive carbonless 3 ply paper ATF.”

For the reasons described by DISA in its petition, and recognizing that significant benefits and cost reductions have resulted from use of the electronic CCF for drug testing, we believe that it is likewise appropriate to permit the use of electronic ATFs in part 40 for DOT-regulated testing. Permitting but not requiring the use of an electronic ATF would be consistent with our proposal to permit, but not require, the use of electronic documents and signatures throughout the entirety of part 40 as discussed above. As several commenters noted, the use of an electronic ATF has been used in non-DOT testing for 5-10 years, and the same developers of the electronic CCFs have developed the electronic ATFs. Any electronic ATF used under part 40 for DOT-regulated employees would have to be identical in form and content to the DOT ATF in appendix I to part 40. 8 Just as we imposed general confidentiality and security requirements when electronic CCFs were permitted to be used under part 40, we believe that it is necessary to include the same general requirements relating to the use of electronic ATFs to ensure that confidential employee records cannot be accessed by unauthorized persons.

8 The ATF form was redesignated from appendix G to appendix I as part of the rulemaking process culminating in the May 2023 final rule. During that process, the form was reviewed by the public and DOT received no comment on the form.

Manufacturers of EBTs and alcohol screening devices (ASD) used in DOT alcohol tests must obtain approval from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and then be listed on the Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance's (ODAPC) website before those devices may be used in DOT alcohol testing.

IX. PHMSA Proposed Changes

PHMSA is proposing to amend §§199.3, 199.117, and 199.227 and to add §199.4 to conform to the proposed changes in part 40 and to clarify that the proposed changes in part 40 apply to part 199. These changes will help the readers of part 199 find the applicable regulations in part 40 with regards to the definition of terms and record keeping requirements. We also propose to amend §§199.119 and 199.229 by changing the reference of “appendix H” to “appendix J” to conform to the amendment of part 40 published on May 2, 2023.

X. Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 40.3 What do the terms used in this regulation mean?

We propose to add a definition of “electronic signature.” The rule would define an electronic signature as a method of signing an electronic communication that identifies and authenticates a particular person as the source of the electronic communication and indicates such person's approval of the information contained in the electronic communication, in accordance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (Pub. L. 105-277, title XVII, secs. 1701-1710, 44 U.S.C. 3504 note, 112 Stat. 2681-749). Including the specific cross reference to GPEA would ensure that regulated entities know that we are using GPEA's performance standard for allowing use of electronic signatures.

We propose to add a definition of “written or in writing.” The rule would define written or in writing as printed, handwritten, or typewritten either on paper or other tangible medium, or by any method of electronic documentation that meets the requirements of 49 CFR 40.4. This definition would eliminate any distinction between paper and electronic methods of communication/documentation.

Section 40.4 May electronic documents and signatures be used?

We propose to add a new §40.4 that would prescribe the requirements pertaining to electronic documents and signatures throughout part 40.

Paragraph (a) would specify that §40.4 would apply to all documents required by part 40, except for the CCF, as an electronic CCF may only be used when approved by HHS and in compliance with §40.40(c)(5). As background, before an HHS-certified laboratory can use a Federal electronic CCF for regulated specimens, the test facility must submit a detailed plan and proposed standard operating procedures for the electronic CCF system for HHS review and approval through the National Laboratory Certification Program. At the current time, several HHS-certified laboratories have received approval to use a combination electronic/paper CCF, while four laboratories have received approval to use a fully electronic CCF. As noted earlier, and in a separate section of the SUPPORT Act, HHS was required to set a deadline for certified laboratories to request approval for use of fully electronic CCFs. That deadline is now August 31, 2026.

Paragraph (b) would permit, but not require, any person or entity to use electronic methods to comply with any provision in part 40 that requires a document to be signed, certified, generated, maintained, or transmitted between parties. It would apply to all forms of written documentation, including forms, records, notations, and other documents. The substance of the document would otherwise have to comply with part 40 requirements. This would establish parity between paper and electronic documents and signatures, greatly expanding interested parties' ability to use electronic methods to comply with the requirements of part 40.

Paragraph (c) would permit, but not require, any entity required to sign or certify a document to do so using electronic signatures as defined in §40.3. The rule specifies that a person may use any available technology so long as the signature otherwise complies with the requirements of part 40.

Paragraph (d) would establish the minimum requirements for electronic documents and signatures. Any electronic document or signature would be considered the legal equivalent of a paper document or signature if it is the functional equivalent with respect to integrity, accuracy, and accessibility. In other words, the electronic documents or signatures need to accurately and reliably reflect the information in the record. They must remain accessible in a form that could be accurately viewed or reproduced according to Agency rules. As with any documents, paper or electronic, documents that are not legible—for any reason—do not satisfy the Department's requirements.

Electronic documents are not to be considered the legal equivalent of traditional paper documents if they (1) are not capable of being retained, (2) are not used for the purpose for which they were created, or (3) cannot be accurately reproduced for reference by any entity entitled to access by law, for the period of time required by the Department's recordkeeping requirements.

Paragraph (d) would also require that any electronically signed documents must incorporate or otherwise include evidence that both parties to the document have consented to the use of electronic signatures, as required by the E-SIGN Act (15 U.S.C. 7001(c)).

Paragraph (e) would require that when using electronic documents and signatures, adequate confidentiality and security measures must be established to ensure that confidential employee records cannot be accessed by unauthorized persons. This includes protecting the physical security of records, access controls, and computer security measures to safeguard confidential data in electronic form. The proposed requirements are analogous to those established in the current §40.40(c)(5) when we approved use of the electronic CCF in part 40.

Section 40.25 Must an employer check on the drug and alcohol testing record of employees it is intending to use to perform safety-sensitive duties?

Currently, paragraph (g) makes it clear that the release of information under this section must be in any written form, and the parenthetical clarifies that this can be paper-based (written, fax) or electronic (email). Under the proposed definition of “written or in writing,” there is no distinction between paper-based and electronic communications. Because “written or in writing” would mean either paper or electronic communications, we propose to remove parenthetical reference to “fax, email, letter” to eliminate redundancy and confusion. All parties can conduct their business using either paper or electronic means of documentation and communication.

Section 40.79 How is the collection process completed?

Currently, paragraph (a)(9) of this section requires the collector to “fax or otherwise transmit” Copy 2 of the CCF to the MRO and Copy 4 to the DER within 24 hours or during the next business day. We propose to amend this section by removing reference to the methods of transmitting receipts, so parties can choose their own medium of communication.

Section 40.97 What do laboratories report and how do they report it?

For the same reasons explained in the discussion of §40.79, we propose to remove the references to the methods of transmitting Copy 1 of the CCF from the laboratory to the MRO in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.

Section 40.111 When and how must a laboratory disclose statistical summaries and other information it maintains?

For the same reasons explained in the discussion of §40.79, we propose to amend paragraph (b) of this section to remove the references to the methods of transmitting the summary or report required by this section. Because the summary or report can be transmitted via hard copy or electronically, there is no need to specify how it must be transmitted. As such, we propose to amend the title of this section accordingly.

Section 40.127 What are the MRO's functions in reviewing negative test results?

For the same reasons explained in the discussion of §40.25, we propose to delete the parenthetical references to “fax, photocopy, image” for Copy 1 of the CCF in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

Section 40.129 What are the MRO's functions in reviewing laboratory confirmed non-negative test results?

For the same reasons explained in the discussion of §40.25, we propose to delete the parenthetical references to “fax, photocopy, image” for Copy 1 of the CCF in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

Section 40.163 How does the MRO report drug test results?

For the same reasons explained in the discussion of §40.25, we propose to remove the reference to a “letter” in paragraph (c) of this section. In paragraph (e) of this section, we propose to replace the term “letter” with “written report” for consistency with paragraph (c).

Section 40.167 How are MRO reports of drug results transmitted to the employer?

For the same reasons explained in the discussion of §40.25, we propose to delete the references to “fax, courier, mail, or electronically” in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

Section 40.185 Through what methods and to whom must a laboratory report split specimen results?

For the same reasons explained in the discussion of §40.25, we propose to delete the references to “fax, courier, mail, or electronically” in paragraph (b) of this section. In addition, because Copy 1 of the CCF can be transmitted in writing or electronically, there is no need to specify the methods through which it must be transmitted. As such, we propose to amend the title of this section accordingly.

Section 40.187 What does the MRO do with split specimen laboratory results?

For the same reasons explained in the discussion of §40.79, we propose to remove the references to the methods of transmitting Copy 1 of the CCF from the laboratory to the MRO in paragraph (c)(2)(iv)(C) of this section.

Section 40.191 What is a refusal to take a DOT drug test, and what are the consequences?

For the same reasons explained in the discussion of §40.25, we propose to delete the parenthetical references to “telephone or secure fax machine” in paragraph (d) of this section as means of transmitting notification that an employee has refused to participate in part of the testing process from the collector or MRO to the DER.

Section 40.193 What happens when an employee does not provide a sufficient amount of urine for a drug test?

For the same reasons explained in the discussion of §40.25, we propose to delete the references to “send or fax” as the means for the collector to transmit copies of the CCF to the MRO and the DER in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.

Section 40.205 How are drug test problems corrected?

For the same reasons explained in the discussion of §40.25, we propose to delete the references to “by fax or courier” as the means for a collector, laboratory, MRO, employer, or other person to supply signed statements regarding correctable problems in a drug test in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.

Section 40.225 What form is used for an alcohol test?

We propose to amend this section to permit, but not require, the use of an electronic version of the DOT ATF that is identical in form and content to the form provided in appendix I to part 40. The electronic ATF must be capable of capturing the electronic signatures of the employee and the BAT and/or STT, and if an EBT provides a separate printout of confirmation test results pursuant to §40.253(g), the electronic ATF must include that separate printout. This section would also be amended to specify the same general confidentiality and security measures in §40.45 relating to electronic CCFs to ensure that confidential employee records cannot be accessed by unauthorized persons.

Section 40.255 What happens next after the alcohol confirmation test result?

For the same reasons explained in the discussion of §40.25, we propose to delete the parenthetical references to “telephone or secure fax machine” in paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this section as means of transmitting results of the alcohol confirmation test from the BAT to the DER. Similarly, there is no need to specify that Copy 1 of the ATF may be transmitted “in person, by telephone, or by electronic means.”

Section 40.261 What is a refusal to take an alcohol test, and what are the consequences?

For the same reasons explained in the discussion of §40.25, we propose to delete the parenthetical references to “telephone or secure fax machine” in paragraph (c) of this section as means of transmitting a refusal notification from a BAT, STT, or referral physician to the DER.

Section 40.271 How are alcohol testing problems corrected?

For the same reasons explained in the discussion of §40.25, we propose to delete the references to “by fax or courier” as the means for a STT, BAT, employer, or other service agent to supply a signed statement regarding correctable flaws in an alcohol test in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

Section 40.365 What is the Department's policy concerning starting a PIE proceeding?

We propose to amend this section by adding a new paragraph (b)(15) that would identify the failure of a service agent to provide or maintain a secure/confidential electronic system as appropriate grounds for starting a PIE proceeding.

X. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094 (Regulatory Planning and Review)

The Secretary has examined the impact of the proposed part 40 amendments under Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), as supplemented by Executive Order 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) and amended by Executive Order 14094 (“Modernizing Regulatory Review”), which directs Federal agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity).

According to these Executive orders, a regulatory action is “significant” if it meets any one of a number of specified conditions, including having an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more, as adjusted every three years by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA); adversely affecting in a material way a sector of the economy, competition, or jobs; or if it raises novel legal or policy issues. The proposed amendments, which would allow the use of electronic documents and signatures, do not meet the Executive order's criteria for being a significant rule. Consequently, OMB has determined that the rulemaking action is not significant under the Executive order.

The proposed rule responds to the statutory mandate set forth in Section 8108 of the Fighting Opioid Abuse in Transportation Act, part of the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, Public Law 115-271. The proposed rule would not impose new requirements on the industry; rather, it would simply permit—but not require—regulated entities to use electronic signatures, forms, and recordkeeping, and remove outdated and obsolete references in the regulatory text. The proposed rule would not impose new costs on the industry because regulated entities would be allowed to choose to continue to use paper-based documents as they had before. The benefits of the rule would stem from savings in paper and printing expense and other efficiency gains. Examples of documents affected by this rule include, but are not limited to, records of a prospective employee's drug and alcohol testing history that employers must obtain prior to permitting that employee to perform safety-sensitive duties, MRO records and reports, SAP records and reports, and ATFs. While there is no way to estimate how many entities or individuals would change their practices given the new options, or how many documents would be affected, several commenters to the ANPRM stated that they have been using electronic documents and signatures in their non-DOT drug and alcohol testing programs for many years. While neither the benefits nor the costs of this rule can be reliably estimated, we expect this proposed rule to provide flexibility to the industry. Under this proposed rule, regulated entities would have the flexibility to conduct business using either electronic or traditional paper-based methods. We also expect regulated entities to choose technologies that would maximize benefits in accordance with their individual needs and circumstances.

Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their regulatory actions on small businesses and other small entities and minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with a population of less than 50,000. For this rulemaking, potentially affected small entities include drug testing companies (U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Sector 54 (Professional, Scientific and Technical Services), Code 541380 (Testing Laboratories and Services)) as well as DOT-regulated entities (SBA NAICS Sectors 48-49 (Transportation and Warehousing)).

The Department does not expect that the proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule, if adopted, would increase flexibility for all small-entity transportation employers and their service agents by allowing them to use electronic documents, signatures, and recordkeeping to meet part 40 requirements. Use of electronic documents, electronic signatures, and electronic recordkeeping would be voluntary for affected small entities, which will provide added flexibility to these entities in meeting the part 40 requirements. For these reasons, and as explained in more detail in the preamble to this proposed rule, the Secretary certifies that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Consequently, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for this proposed rule.

Unfunded Mandates

The Secretary has examined the impact of the final rule under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This NPRM does not trigger the requirement for a written statement under sec. 202(a) of the UMRA because this rulemaking does not impose a mandate that results in an expenditure of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) or more by either State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate or by the private sector in any one year. In fact, by providing an alternative to traditional paper-based records, the proposed rule would be expected to reduce costs to regulated parties, including State and local entities ( e.g., public transit authorities, and public works departments) whose employees are subject to testing and that choose to use electronic documents as opposed to paper-based documents.

Environmental Impact

The DOT has analyzed the environmental impacts of this action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined that it is categorically excluded pursuant to DOT Order 5610.1C, “Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts” (44 FR 56420, October 1, 1979). Categorical exclusions are actions identified in an agency's NEPA implementing procedures that do not normally have a significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require either an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). This proposed rule would amend the transportation industry drug testing program procedures regulation to permit the use of electronic documents, signatures, and recordkeeping. This action is covered by the categorical exclusion listed at 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4), “[p]lanning and administrative activities that do not involve or lead directly to construction, such as: . . . promulgation of rules, regulations, directives . . .” The Department does not anticipate any environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

The Secretary has analyzed the final rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132: Federalism. Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to carefully examine actions to determine if they contain policies that have federalism implications or that preempt State law. As defined in the order, “policies that have federalism implications” refer to regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

Most of the regulated parties under the Department's drug testing program are private entities. Some regulated entities are public entities ( e.g., transit authorities and public works departments); however, as noted above, this proposal would reduce costs of the Department's drug testing program and provide additional flexibility for regulated parties. Accordingly, the Secretary has determined that the proposed rule, which would allow but not require use of electronic signatures and recordkeeping, does not contain policies that have federalism implications.

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) requires Federal agencies to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” as defined in the Executive order, include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.” This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. The proposed rule will also not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) (PRA) requires that DOT consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the PRA. Instead, there would likely be a significant reduction in the burden hours required for information collection 2105-0529, Procedures for Transportation Drug and Alcohol Testing Program, due to the ability to use electronic signatures and forms, and largely due to the ability to use an electronic ATF for DOT-regulated alcohol testing under part 40. We request comments on this issue. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

Privacy Act

Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received in any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.) For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit https://www.transportation.gov/privacy.

5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4)

As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this proposed rule can be found at the entry for RIN 2105-AF01 in the Department's Portion of the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Affairs, available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202404&RIN=2105-AF01 .

Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2023

In accordance with Compliance with Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2023 (Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, Pub. L. 118-5, div. B, title III) and OMB Memorandum (M-23-21) dated September 1, 2023, the Department has determined that this proposed rule is not subject to the Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2023 because it will not increase direct spending beyond specified thresholds.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 40

Administrative practice and procedures, Alcohol abuse, Alcohol testing, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Laboratories, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.

49 CFR Part 199

Alcohol testing, Drug testing, Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department proposes to amend 49 CFR parts 40 and 199 as follows:

PART 40—PROCEDURES FOR TRANSPORTATION WORKPLACE DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING PROGRAMS

1. The authority for part 40 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 102, 301, 322, 5331, 20140, 31306, and 54101 et seq.

2. In §40.3, add the definitions of “Electronic signature” and “Written or in writing” in alphabetical order to read as follows:

§40.3 What do the terms used in this part mean?

* * * * *

Electronic signature. A method of signing an electronic communication that identifies and authenticates a particular person as the source of the electronic communication and indicates such person's approval of the information contained in the electronic communication, in accordance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (Pub. L. 105-277, title XVII, secs. 1701-1710, 112 Stat. 2681-749, 44 U.S.C. 3504 note).

* * * * *

Written or in writing. Printed, handwritten, or typewritten either on paper or other tangible medium, or by any method of electronic documentation that meets the requirements of §40.4.

3. Add §40.4 to read as follows:

§40.4 May electronic documents and signatures be used?

(a) Applicability. This section applies to all documents required by this part, except for the CCF. An electronic CCF may be used only if it has been approved for use by the Department of Health and Human Services and is used in compliance with §40.40(c)(5).

(b) Electronic records or documents. Any person or entity required to generate, maintain, or exchange and/or transmit documents to satisfy requirements in this part may use electronic methods to satisfy those requirements.

(c) Electronic signatures. (1) Any person or entity required to sign or certify a document to satisfy the requirements of this part may use an electronic signature, as defined in §40.3.

(2) Any available technology may be used that satisfies the requirements of an electronic signature as defined in §40.3.

(d) Electronic document requirements. Any person or entity may use documents signed, certified, generated, maintained, or exchanged using electronic methods, as long as the documents accurately reflect the information otherwise required to be contained in them.

(1) Records, documents, or signatures generated, maintained, or exchanged using electronic methods satisfy the requirements of this section if they are capable of being retained, are used for the purpose for which they were created, and can be accurately reproduced within required timeframes for reference by any party entitled to access.

(2) Records or documents generated electronically satisfy the requirements of this section if they include proof of consent to use electronically generated records or documents, as required by 15 U.S.C. 7001(c).

(e) Confidentiality and security. When using electronic documents and signatures, adequate confidentiality and security measures must be established to ensure that confidential employee records are not available to unauthorized persons. This includes protecting the physical security of records, access controls, and computer security measures to safeguard confidential data in electronic form to include protecting against destruction, deterioration, and data corruption.

4. In §40.25, revise paragraph (g) to read as follows:

§40.25 Must an employer check on the drug and alcohol testing record of employees it is intending to use to perform safety-sensitive duties?

* * * * *

(g) The release of information under this section must be in any written form that ensures confidentiality. As the previous employer, you must maintain a written record of the information released, including the date, the party to whom it was released, and a summary of the information provided.

* * * * *

5. In §40.79, revise paragraph (a)(9) to read as follows:

§40.79 How is the collection process completed?

(a) * * *

(9) Send Copy 2 of the CCF to the MRO and Copy 4 to the DER. You must transmit these copies to the MRO and DER within 24 hours or during the next business day. Keep Copy 3 for at least 30 days, unless otherwise specified by applicable DOT agency regulations.

* * * * *

6. In §40.97, revise paragraphs (c) introductory text, (c)(1) introductory text, and (c)(2) to read as follows:

§40. 97 What do laboratories report and how do they report it?

* * * * *

(c) As a laboratory, you must report laboratory results directly, and only, to the MRO at his or her place of business. You must not report results to or through the DER or a service agent ( e.g., C/TPA).

(1) Negative results. You must transmit a legible image or copy of the fully-completed Copy 1 of the CCF which has been signed by the certifying scientist, or you may provide the laboratory results report electronically.

* * * * *

(2) Non-negative and rejected for testing results. You must transmit a legible image or copy of the fully-completed Copy 1 of the CCF that has been signed by the certifying scientist. In addition, you may provide the laboratory results report following the format and procedures set forth in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.

* * * * *

7. In §40.111, revise the section heading and paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§40.111 When must a laboratory disclose statistical summaries and other information it maintains?

* * * * *

(b) When the employer requests a summary in response to an inspection, audit, or review by a DOT agency, you must provide it unless the employer had fewer than five aggregate test results. In that case, you must send the employer a report indicating that not enough testing was conducted to warrant a summary.

* * * * *

8. In §40.127, revise paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:

§40.127 What are the MRO's functions in reviewing negative test results?

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) A legible copy of Copy 1 of the CCF or the electronic laboratory results report that conveys the negative laboratory test result.

* * * * *

9. In §40.129, revise paragraphs (b) introductory text and (b)(2) to read as follows:

§40.129 What are the MRO's functions in reviewing laboratory confirmed non-negative drug test results?

* * * * *

(b) Before you report a verified negative, positive, test cancelled, refusal to test because of adulteration or substitution, you must have in your possession the following documents:

* * * * *

(2) A legible copy of Copy 1 of the CCF, containing the certifying scientist's signature.

* * * * *

10. In §40.163, revise paragraphs (c) introductory text and (e) to read as follows:

§40.163 How does the MRO report drug test results?

* * * * *

(c) If you do not report test results using Copy 2 of the CCF for the purposes of this section, you must provide a written report for each test result. This report must, as a minimum, include the following information:

* * * * *

(e) You must retain a signed or stamped and dated copy of Copy 2 of the CCF in your records. If you do not use Copy 2 for reporting results, you must maintain a copy of the signed or stamped and dated written report in addition to the signed or stamped and dated Copy 2. If you use the electronic data file to report negatives, you must maintain a retrievable copy of that report in a format suitable for inspection and auditing by a DOT representative.

* * * * *

11. In §40.167, revise paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:

§40.167 How are MRO reports of drug test results transmitted to the employer?

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) You must transmit a legible image or copy of either the signed or stamped and dated Copy 2 or the written report (see §40.163(b) and (c)).

* * * * *

12. In §40.185, revise the section heading and paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§40.185 What and to whom must a laboratory report split specimen results?

* * * * *

(b) You must transmit a legible image or copy of the fully-completed Copy 1 of the CCF, which has been signed by the certifying scientist.

* * * * *

13. In §40.187, revise paragraph (c)(2)(iv)(C) to read as follows:

§40.187 What does the MRO do with split specimen laboratory results?

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) * * *

(iv) * * *

(C) As the laboratory that tests the primary specimen to reconfirm the presence of the adulterant found in the split specimen and/or to determine that the primary specimen meets appropriate substitution criteria, report your result to the MRO using a copy of Copy 1 of the CCF.

* * * * *

14. In §40.191, revise paragraph (d) introductory text to read as follows:

§40.191 What is a refusal to take a DOT drug test, and what are the consequences?

* * * * *

(d) As a collector or an MRO, when an employee refuses to participate in the part of the testing process in which you are involved, you must terminate the portion of the testing process in which you are involved, document the refusal on the CCF (including, in the case of the collector, printing the employee's name on Copy 2 of the CCF), immediately notify the DER by any means that ensures that the refusal notification is immediately received. As a referral physician ( e.g., physician evaluating a “shy bladder” condition or a claim of a legitimate medical explanation in a validity testing situation), you must notify the MRO, who in turn will notify the DER.

* * * * *

15. In §40.193, revise paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:

§40.193 What happens when an employee does not provide a sufficient amount of specimen for a drug test?

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) As the collector, you must send Copy 2 of the CCF to the MRO and Copy 4 to the DER. You must transmit these copies to the MRO and DER within 24 hours or the next business day.

* * * * *

16. In §40.205, revise paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) to read as follows:

§40.205 How are drug test problems corrected?

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) If the problem resulted from the omission of required information, you must, as the person responsible for providing that information, supply in writing the missing information and a statement that it is true and accurate. For example, suppose you are a collector, and you forgot to make a notation on the “Remarks” line of the CCF that the employee did not sign the certification. You would, when the problem is called to your attention, supply a signed statement that the employee failed or refused to sign the certification and that your statement is true and accurate. You must supply this information on the same business day on which you are notified of the problem.

(2) If the problem is the use of a non-Federal form or an expired Federal form, you must provide a signed statement ( i.e., a memorandum for the record). It must state that the incorrect form contains all the information needed for a valid DOT drug test, and that the incorrect form was used inadvertently or as the only means of conducting a test, in circumstances beyond your control. The statement must also list the steps you have taken to prevent future use of non-Federal forms or expired Federal forms for DOT tests. For this flaw to be corrected, the test of the specimen must have occurred at an HHS-certified laboratory where it was tested consistent with the requirements of this part. You must supply this information on the same business day on which you are notified of the problem.

* * * * *

17. In §40.225, revise paragraph (a) and add paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:

§40.225 What form is used for an alcohol test?

(a) The DOT Alcohol Testing Form (ATF) must be used for every DOT alcohol test. The ATF must be a three-part carbonless manifold form or an electronic ATF that meets the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section. The ATF is found in appendix G to this part. You may view this form on the ODAPC website ( https://www.transportation.gov/odapc ).

* * * * *

(d) As an employer, you may use an electronic ATF that meets the following requirements:

(1) The electronic ATF must be identical in form and content to the ATF found in appendix G to this part.

(2) The electronic ATF must meet the requirements of §40.4(d).

(3) The electronic ATF must be capable of capturing the electronic signatures of the employee and the BAT and/or STT.

(4) If an EBT provides a separate printout of confirmation test results (see §40.253(g)), the electronic ATF must include that separate printout.

(e) As an employer, BAT, or STT using an electronic ATF, you must establish adequate confidentiality and security measures to ensure that confidential employee records are not available to unauthorized persons. This includes protecting the physical security of records, access controls, and computer security measures to safeguard confidential data in electronic form.

18. In §40.255, revise paragraph (a)(5)(i) to read as follows:

§40.255 What happens next after the alcohol confirmation test result?

(a) * * *

(5) * * *

(i) You may transmit the results using Copy 1 of the ATF, in person, by telephone, or by electronic means. In any case, you must immediately notify the DER of any result of 0.02 or greater by any means that ensures the result is immediately received by the DER. You must not transmit these results through C/TPAs or other service agents.

* * * * *

19. In §40.261, revise paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:

§40.261 What is a refusal to take an alcohol test, and what are the consequences?

* * * * *

(c)(1) As a BAT or an STT, or as the physician evaluating a “shy lung” situation, when an employee refuses to test as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, you must terminate the portion of the testing process in which you are involved, document the refusal on the ATF (or in a separate document which you cause to be attached to the form), immediately notify the DER by any means that ensures the refusal notification is immediately received. You must make this notification directly to the DER (not using a C/TPA as an intermediary).

* * * * *

20. In §40.271, revise paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:

§40.271 How are alcohol testing problems corrected?

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) If the problem is the use of a non-DOT form, you must, as the person responsible for the use of the incorrect form, certify in writing that the incorrect form contains all the information needed for a valid DOT alcohol test. You must also provide a signed statement that the incorrect form was used inadvertently or as the only means of conducting a test, in circumstances beyond your control, and the steps you have taken to prevent future use of non-DOT forms for DOT tests. You must supply this information on the same business day on which you are notified of the problem.

* * * * *

21. In §40.365, revise paragraphs (b)(13) and (14) and add paragraph (b)(15) to read as follows:

§40.365 What is the Department's policy concerning starting a PIE proceeding?

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(13) For any service agent, directing or recommending that an employer fail or refuse to implement any provision of this part;

(14) With respect to noncompliance with a DOT agency regulation, conduct that affects important provisions of Department-wide concern ( e.g., failure to properly conduct the selection process for random testing); or

(15) For a service agent, failing to provide or maintain a secure/confidential electronic system. PART 199—DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING

22. The authority citation for part 199 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60117, and 60118; 49 CFR 1.53.

23. In §199.3:

a. Designate the introductory text as paragraph (b); and

b. Add paragraph (a).

The addition reads as follows:

§199.3 Definitions.

(a) Terms used in this part have the same meaning as in 49 CFR 40.3.

* * * * *

24. Add §199.4 to read as follows:

§199.4 Electronic documents, records, and signatures.

Electronic documents, records, and signatures may be used to comply with this part provided they meet the requirements specified in 49 CFR part 40.

25. In §199.117, revise paragraph (a) introductory text to read as follows:

§199.117 Recordkeeping.

(a) Each operator shall keep the records in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section for the periods specified by this section or for the periods specified by 49 CFR part 40, whichever is greater; and will permit access to the records as provided by §190.203.

* * * * *

26. In §199.119, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§199.119 Reporting of anti-drug testing results.

(a) Each large operator (having more than 50 covered employees) must submit an annual Management Information System (MIS) report to PHMSA of its anti-drug testing using the MIS form and instructions as required by 49 CFR part 40 (at §40.26 and appendix J to part 40), not later than March 15 of each year for the prior calendar year (January 1 through December 31). The Administrator may require by notice in the PHMSA Portal ( https://portal.phmsa.dot.gov/phmsaportallanding ) that small operators (50 or fewer covered employees), not otherwise required to submit annual MIS reports, to prepare and submit such reports to PHMSA.

* * * * *

27. In §199.227, revise paragraph (b) introductory text to read as follows:

§199.227 Retention of records.

* * * * *

(b) Period of retention. Each operator shall maintain the records in accordance with the following schedule or for the periods specified by 49 CFR part 40, whichever is greater:

* * * * *

28. In §199.229, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§199.229 Reporting of alcohol testing results.

(a) Each large operator (having more than 50 covered employees) must submit an annual MIS report to PHMSA of its alcohol testing results using the MIS form and instructions as required by 49 CFR part 40 (at §40.26 and appendix J to part 40), not later than March 15 of each year for the prior calendar year (January 1 through December 31). The Administrator may require by notice in the PHMSA Portal ( https://portal.phmsa.dot.gov/phmsaportallanding ) that small operators (50 or fewer covered employees), not otherwise required to submit annual MIS reports, to prepare and submit such reports to PHMSA.

* * * * *

Signed on: Thursday, October 3, 2024.

Pete Buttigieg,

Secretary of Transportation.

[FR Doc. 2024-23427 Filed 10-11-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P

Specialized Industries

Go beyond the regulations! Visit the Institute for in-depth guidance on a wide range of compliance subjects in safety and health, transportation, environment, and human resources.

J. J. Keller® COMPLIANCE NETWORK is a premier online safety and compliance community, offering members exclusive access to timely regulatory content in workplace safety (OSHA), transportation (DOT), environment (EPA), and human resources (DOL).

Interact With Our Compliance Experts

Puzzled by a regulatory question or issue? Let our renowned experts provide the answers and get your business on track to full compliance!

Upcoming Events

Reference the Compliance Network Safety Calendar to keep track of upcoming safety and compliance events. Browse by industry or search by keyword to see relevant dates and observances, including national safety months, compliance deadlines, and more.

SAFETY & COMPLIANCE NEWS

Keep up with the latest regulatory developments from OSHA, DOT, EPA, DOL, and more.

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.

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.

ADD HAZMAT, ENVIRONMENTAL, & HR RESOURCES

Unlock exclusive content offering expert insights into hazmat, environmental, and human resources compliance with a COMPLIANCE NETWORK EDGE membership.

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.

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.

Most Recent Highlights In Environmental

EPA announces major regulatory reviews, overhauls
2025-03-19T05:00:00Z

EPA announces major regulatory reviews, overhauls

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on March 12, 2025, that it’s taking 31 actions to advance President Trump’s Day One executive orders and the recently announced “Powering the Great American Comeback” Initiative. The agency’s actions will likely impact environmental regulations across various industries.

Rules under review

EPA will reconsider an assortment of rulemakings, including:

  • The Clean Power Plan 2.0 (which sets carbon dioxide emission limits on new gas-fired combustion turbines and emissions guidelines for existing coal, oil, and gas-fired steam generating units),
  • Oil and gas emission limits for new and existing sources (40 CFR Part 60 Subparts OOOOb and OOOOc),
  • The Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Program (GHGRP) for petroleum and natural gas systems (Part 98 Subpart W),
  • The GHGRP overall (Part 98),
  • Mercury Air Toxics Standards for coal- and oil-fired power plants (Part 63 Subpart UUUUU),
  • Effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) for the steam electric power generating industry (Part 423),
  • Treated wastewater use and discharge for coal-fired power plants (Part 435 Subpart E),
  • The Risk Management Program rule (Part 68),
  • Vehicle GHG rules (including the light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicle regulations),
  • The 2009 Endangerment Finding (relied on for seven federal vehicle rules) and related regulations and actions (Chapter I),
  • The Technology Transition Rule for refrigerant systems (Part 84 Subpart B),
  • The National Ambient Air Quality Standards for fine particulate matter, or PM2.5 (Parts 50, 53, and 58),
  • The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (Part 63) for:
    • Iron and steel manufacturing,
    • Rubber tire manufacturing,
    • Synthetic organic chemical manufacturing,
    • Commercial sterilizers for medical devices and spices,
    • Lime manufacturing,
    • Coke ovens,
    • Copper smelting, and
    • Taconite ore processing.
  • The Exceptional Events rulemaking related to allowing prescribed fires within State Implementation Plans, or SIPs (Parts 50–51),
  • The Regional Haze Program implementing regulations (51.308), and
  • The Good Neighbor Plan (Parts 52, 75, 78, and 97).

The agency will also take other actions, such as:

  • Working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to finalize the definition of “waters of the United States” related to Clean Water Act permits,
  • Updating enforcement discretion by revising the National Enforcement and Compliance Initiatives, and
  • Prioritizing the coal ash program to expedite state permit reviews and update the coal ash regulations (including amending the Legacy Coal Combustion Residuals Surface Impoundments and CCR Management Units rule).

About EPA’s new initiative

In February 2025, the agency announced the Powering the Great American Comeback Initiative, which outlines EPA’s priorities. The initiative consists of five pillars:

  • Clean air, land, and water;
  • Restore energy dominance;
  • Permitting reforms, cooperative federalism, and cross-agency partnership;
  • Make the U.S. the artificial intelligence capital of the world; and
  • Protect and bring back American auto jobs.

EPA’s 31 actions will primarily address the first three pillars.

Key to remember: EPA will reconsider major rulemakings that may impact a variety of industries.

Lessons from blast: CSB video explores gas detection and emergency plans
2025-03-17T05:00:00Z

Lessons from blast: CSB video explores gas detection and emergency plans

Another riveting video is posted by the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB)! The animated video covers a massive explosion at a Texas machine shop. Two workers and a member of the public were killed. Over 450 neighboring homes/businesses were damaged.

Video supports investigative report

The 14-minute video, “No Detection: Explosion …,” follows a June 2023 investigation report. When the 56-page report came out, CSB Chairperson Steve Owens said, “Our investigation found that [the company] did not have an effective program in place to assess potential hazards in its propylene process and did not have a mechanical integrity program or written operating procedures.”

The incident was compounded by emergency planning failures, says CSB. Owens argued, “This tragic incident was made even worse due to the lack of emergency response training for employees at the facility.”

Deadly incident

CSB explains that a degraded and poorly crimped rubber welding hose disconnected from its fitting inside a coating booth. That prompted a release of propylene, a flammable vapor.

By the time workers arrived at the facility the early morning of January 24, 2020, an explosive concentration of propylene had formed inside the building. As workers entered and turned on the lights, the vapor ignited, triggering an explosion. It:

  • Killed two workers,
  • Injured two other workers,
  • Fatally injured a nearby resident, and
  • Damaged hundreds of structures.

The board’s investigation later found that the company had:

  • Disconnected gas detectors from a computer control system. This meant the automatic gas detection shutoff system would not alert operators to a leak. It also would not start up exhaust fans or trigger two shutoff valves to stop the flow of propylene.
  • Replaced a copper tubing connection with a rubber welding hose. Rubber hose is not recommended for propylene. Oils in the gas can cause a rubber hose to form cracks and lose pliability.

OSHA citations before/after the incident

OSHA cited the company 12 years earlier for failing to inspect gas system equipment for signs of deterioration or leaks. The 2008 OSHA visit was prompted by another explosion of propylene gas.

Following the later 2020 incident, OSHA issued citations for failing to:

Safety issues found by CSB

CSB explains that the shop’s propylene amount was below the threshold for OSHA’s Process Safety Management (PSM) standard at 29 CFR 1910.119 or EPA’s Risk Management Plan (RMP) standard at 40 CFR 68. Still, the CSB investigation identified these safety issues:

  • PSM — Had the company had an effective PSM program to identify and control hazards, it could have prevented the incident. Suggested PSM program elements included process safety information, process hazard analysis, management of change, mechanical integrity, and operating procedures.
  • Emergency planning — The company’s emergency response plan did not address responding to a propylene gas leak. The company also failed to train its workers to recognize or respond to a propylene gas release. Hence, workers did not evacuate from the area after suspecting a propylene leak nor contact responders for help.

Owens concludes that the deadly incident could have been mitigated if the company had implemented an effective PSM system for the hazards of its coating operation. Even if a leak occurred, Owens believes an emergency response plan could have prevented the tragic loss of life.

OSHA chemical emergency preparedness may include an emergency action plan and/or an emergency response plan.

Lessons for industry

To prevent chemical incidents, CSB urges you to:

  • Ensure the safety of workers who handle hazardous chemicals (and protect surrounding communities). This is regardless of whether or not the chemicals meet the threshold under PSM and RMP standards.
  • Ensure gas detection, alarm, exhaust, and shutdown systems are adequately designed, maintained, inspected, and tested. The idea is to ensure reliability if your facility handles hazardous chemicals.
  • Ensure a written emergency response plan is implemented. Also, ensure that it adequately addresses all actions to be taken in a release. Workers too need to be trained in the plan and participate in periodic drills.

Have questions about chemical safety or emergency planning? Pose them to our J. J. Keller® experts! Visit our Expert Help page today!

CSB videos are recognized

The latest video comes after the board received a “Silver Play Button” award. The CSB’s video channel boasts 364K subscribers and nearly 100 safety videos. The channel has had over 65M combined views since 2007. What’s more, CSB claims that the chemical industry itself and engineering schools use the videos for chemical safety training.

Key to remember

A new CSB video covers the 2020 massive explosion at a Texas machine shop. The board urges you to implement PSM systems even if not required. CSB also presses you to ensure that workers are trained in emergency response plans.

Expert Insights: A case study in particulate matter control
2025-03-14T05:00:00Z

Expert Insights: A case study in particulate matter control

During a recent discussion about the persistent challenges of maintaining air quality standards within heavy industrial operations, one colleague in the field shared about a large Midwestern industrial facility that faced allegations of significant Clean Air Act violations. Our casual lunch meeting turned into a case study on uncontrolled emissions of particulate matter (PM).

Case details

An investigation identified the facility’s clinker cooler and raw mill operations as primary sources of excess PM. Monitoring data revealed the facility consistently exceeded permitted emission limits, suggesting systemic deficiencies in pollution control systems. Further inspection pointed to potential inadequate maintenance and operation of existing baghouse filters, a critical technology for capturing airborne particles. The facility also appeared to struggle with fugitive dust emissions from material handling and storage areas, indicating a need for improved dust suppression measures.

Proactive management

The case clarifies the importance of rigorous, proactive environmental management within heavy industrial operations. To prevent similar violations, facilities should prioritize comprehensive monitoring and reporting. Continuous emission monitoring systems provide real-time data, enabling early detection of deviations from permitted limits. Regular inspections and preventative maintenance of pollution control equipment are essential. This includes ensuring baghouse filters operate within their design parameters and promptly replacing damaged or worn components.

Additionally, robust fugitive dust control plans are vital. They should address all potential sources of fugitive dust, encompassing material handling, storage, and transport. Implementing strategies such as water spraying, enclosure of conveyors, and optimized material stockpiling can significantly reduce emissions.

Beyond technology

Beyond technology, a strong environmental compliance culture is crucial. It involves employee training on environmental regulations, operational procedures, and the importance of adhering to pollution control measures. Regular audits and internal assessments can help identify potential weaknesses and ensure ongoing compliance.

Industrial facilities can minimize their environmental impact and avoid costly enforcement actions by focusing on:

  • Proactive monitoring,
  • Rigorous maintenance, and
  • A strong compliance culture.
EHS Monthly Round Up - February 2025

EHS Monthly Round Up - February 2025

In this February 2025 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. There’s a lot going on, so let’s get started!

Under a new Executive Order, federal agencies must eliminate 10 regulations for each new one they introduce. This applies to all new rules, regulations, or guidance issued by government agencies such as the Department of Labor, which includes OSHA, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

A new OSHA fact sheet outlines employee rights and protections when filing a whistleblower complaint. Employers may not retaliate against employees who exercise their rights under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

OSHA will not cite employers for COVID-19 recordkeeping violations under its Healthcare Emergency Temporary Standard. These regulations are specific to healthcare settings. The provisions remain in effect, but until further notice, OSHA will not enforce them.

New guidance from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommends that employers use individual, quantitative fit-testing for hearing protection. This helps evaluate how well workers’ hearing protection reduces noise levels and ensures a proper fit.

And finally, turning to environmental news, states across the country continue to consider and implement regulations related to PFAS. These “forever chemicals” are long-lasting chemicals that may pose risks to human and environmental health. A recent study anticipates that more than half of the states in the U.S. are likely to consider PFAS-related policies this year.

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

Ready, set, report! Prepare for EPA’s one-time PFAS report
2025-03-03T06:00:00Z

Ready, set, report! Prepare for EPA’s one-time PFAS report

A group of substances called “forever chemicals” lasts long in the environment, but the submission period for its one-time reporting requirement doesn’t. And it starts in just a few months. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires covered entities to report data about per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) they manufactured between 2011 and 2022.

Required by Section 8(a)(7) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the report covers PFAS production volumes, disposal, exposures, and hazards. The submission period opens on July 11, 2025. Here are answers to five common questions about the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) report.

Who must report?

The TSCA Section 8(a)(7) reporting requirements apply to any person who manufactured (including imported) a PFAS or PFAS-containing article between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2022, for commercial purposes.

EPA defines terms for this reporting requirement at 40 CFR 705.3.

One vital thing to note is that the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) reporting requirement allows for no exemptions. The rule even covers PFAS manufactured as a byproduct, impurity, or non-isolated intermediate. The only activity that doesn’t require reporting is importing municipal solid waste streams to dispose of or destroy the waste.

What data does the report cover?

The information required depends on whether you use the standard or streamlined TSCA Section 8(a)(7) reporting form.

The standard form contains:

  • Company and plant site information;
  • Chemical-specific information (such as chemical identities);
  • Categories of use;
  • Total amounts manufactured in each year for each category of use;
  • Byproducts from PFAS manufacturing, processing, use, or disposal;
  • Existing environmental and health effect information;
  • Worker exposure data (including duration); and
  • Disposal methods or processes used (and any changes to them).

The streamlined form requires less information than the standard form. Two types of reporters qualify to use streamlined reporting:

  • Importers of PFAS-containing articles, and
  • Manufacturers of less than 10 kilograms of PFAS used solely for research and development (R&D).

Importers may choose to use the streamlined “PFAS in Imported Article” form. If you imported a PFAS-containing article and manufactured (including imported) the same PFAS (not in an article), you can either:

  • Report the imported article on the streamlined form and manufactured PFAS on the standard form, or
  • Report both the imported article and manufactured PFAS on the standard form.

Manufacturers of qualifying R&D PFAS can use the “Research & Development PFAS” form. However, you cannot use the streamlined form if you manufactured a PFAS in small quantities for R&D and otherwise manufactured (including imported) the same PFAS.

When is the report due?

For most manufacturers, the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) report submission period runs from July 11, 2025, to January 22, 2026. Small manufacturers who solely imported PFAS-containing articles have a longer submission period, from July 11, 2025, to July 11, 2026.

Where do I submit the report?

Reports must be submitted electronically through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). Go to the Chemical Information Submission System and choose the “TSCA Section 8(a)(7)” application.

Note that you must have a registered account on EPA’s CDX to submit the report, and the facility for which you’re submitting the report must also be registered on the platform.

Why is the Section 8(a)(7) report required?

TSCA Section 8(a)(7), as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, required EPA to develop a rule to gather data about PFAS from entities that manufacture or have manufactured PFAS and PFAS-containing articles. The agency finalized the rule in October 2023 for this one-time reporting requirement.

The TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS reports will give EPA a more complete picture of PFAS manufactured in the U.S. The agency will use the data to further its understanding of the forever chemicals and inform future regulatory actions.

Key to remember: The submission period for the one-time PFAS reporting requirement opens July 11, 2025. It applies to anyone who manufactured (including imported) PFAS or PFAS-containing articles between 2011 and 2022.

See More

Most Recent Highlights In Transportation

Used oil disposal: How to stay compliant with EPA, OSHA, and your state
2025-03-03T06:00:00Z

Used oil disposal: How to stay compliant with EPA, OSHA, and your state

Used oil disposal is a critical issue for safety managers and shop supervisors in industrial settings. Whether your facility generates used oil from machinery, vehicles, or hydraulic systems, you must understand the regulatory requirements to ensure compliance and avoid hefty fines.

Used oil is not always considered hazardous waste, but improper handling, storage, or disposal can lead to regulatory violations and environmental hazards. Understanding how used oil is classified, when it is considered hazardous, and how to manage it in compliance with 40 CFR Part 279 is essential.

Let’s uncover the regulatory framework for used oil disposal, including storage requirements, transportation rules, and best practices to ensure compliance at both the federal and state levels.

What is used oil?

The EPA defines used oil as any petroleum-based or synthetic oil that has been used and is contaminated by physical or chemical impurities. Common sources of used oil in industrial operations include:

  • Motor oil and lubricants from vehicle maintenance
  • Hydraulic fluids used in heavy machinery
  • Metalworking fluids and coolants
  • Compressor oils used in air compression systems

According to EPA regulations (40 CFR Part 279), used oil is presumed to be managed under the less stringent used oil management standards unless it meets hazardous waste criteria.

Used oil becomes hazardous waste if:

  • It is mixed with hazardous waste (e.g., solvents or heavy metals)
  • It contains more than 1,000 parts per million (ppm) of total halogens, unless proven otherwise, or
  • It is disposed of improperly, leading to environmental contamination.

If used oil is classified as hazardous waste, it must be managed in accordance with the applicable solid and hazardous waste requirements.

EPA requirements for used oil disposal

The EPA requirements for used oil consist of three different aspects, as outlined below.

1. Storage Requirements

Use leak-proof tanks and containers made of durable, non-earthen materials (e.g., steel, plastic, or concrete). Label all used oil containers with the words "Used Oil" to prevent misidentification. Prevent leaks and spills by using secondary containment systems and regularly inspecting tanks. Never mix used oil with hazardous waste unless authorized.

2. Transportation and Disposal

Used oil generators may transport up to 55 gallons of used oil to a registered collection center without an EPA ID number. If contracting a used oil transporter, ensure they have an EPA Identification Number.

Used oil must be:

  • Recycled or re-refined into new oil.
  • Burned for energy recovery in approved furnaces or boilers.
  • Disposed of at an authorized hazardous waste facility if deemed hazardous.

3. Spill Prevention and Cleanup

Facilities storing large amounts of used oil must have a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. SPCC plans establish procedures, methods, and equipment requirements to prevent oil from reaching waterways, and to contain discharges of oil.

Any spills must be cleaned up immediately, and absorbent materials must be disposed of properly. Rags and shop towels contaminated with hazardous materials may be classified as hazardous waste.

OSHA regulations for handling used oil

While the EPA focuses on environmental compliance, OSHA (29 CFR Part 1910) regulates worker safety when handling used oil. Key OSHA requirements include:

1. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

Workers handling used oil must wear gloves and protective clothing to prevent skin exposure. Safety goggles or face shields are also important to avoid eye contact.

2. Hazard communication (HazCom) program

Employers must label all used oil containers with appropriate hazard information and train employees on safe handling procedures and emergency response.

3. Fire and Explosion Safety

Always store used oil away from ignition sources to prevent fire hazards. Ensure storage areas are ventilated to avoid vapor buildup.

State-Specific used oil disposal regulations

Many states have stricter used oil regulations than federal laws. For example:

  • California classifies used oil as hazardous waste unless it meets specific recycling criteria.
  • Texas requires additional storage permits for large generators.
  • New York mandates annual reporting on used oil disposal activities.

To ensure compliance, check with your state’s environmental agency for state-specific used oil disposal rules and whether used oil is considered hazardous. Additional permits for transporting or processing used oil may be necessary.

Staying compliant with used oil disposal requirements

Ensuring compliance with EPA, OSHA, and state laws is essential for safety managers and shop supervisors handling used oil. By following proper storage, transportation, and disposal practices, businesses can reduce environmental risks, improve workplace safety, and avoid costly fines.

Key to remember: By staying informed and proactive, your facility can maintain safe, sustainable, and compliant used oil management practices.

NFPA sounds alarm: Warehouse firefighting challenges racking up
2025-02-26T06:00:00Z

NFPA sounds alarm: Warehouse firefighting challenges racking up

You might argue that warehouses have always posed challenges to fire service crews. However, today’s warehouses are pushing the boundaries on what firefighters can handle. Modern warehouses have far more square feet, sky-high storage racks, and compacted arrangements making it tougher for crews to reach a fire quickly. Commodities with lithium-ion batteries add another danger layer in a fire. Plus, robots can get in the way.

To sort this out, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) released back-to-back reports and a podcast that give warehouse owners/operators and fire crews a lot to think about:

  • The first report explores where the fire service is experiencing challenges when responding to warehouse fires,
  • The second report breaks down the data on warehouse fires in the last five years, and
  • The podcast shares an interview with veterans in the field of fire protection.

Big takeaway

Over 1,500 warehouse fires happen annually on average, NFPA estimates. That means warehouse fires are not rare. The first time that fire crews lay eyes on your warehouse should not be when there’s a roaring fire there in the middle of the night.

Ideally, fire service members should be involved before a warehouse is built. That way, things like water supplies and crew access can be part of the drawing board. If your warehouse is already in operation, it’s still critical for fire services to check out your warehouse. They can get familiar with your warehouse configuration, its fire suppression systems, and its stored commodities.

While the two reports detail challenges and trends for warehouse fires, one overarching takeaway prevails — pre-planning between the warehouse owner/operator and the fire service is a must. The concept is covered in the podcast too. Pre-incident planning inevitably helps fire crews to efficiently control and suppress an actual fire. It also informs the owner/operator about fire crew capabilities for the site.

OSHA’s Emergency Action Plan standard calls for covered employers to implement a plan to protect employees during fire emergencies. This requirement is found at 29 CFR 1910.38, 1915.502, 1917.30, 1918.100, and 1926.35, depending on your industry. However, the pre-incident planning that NFPA is talking about is pre-planning WITH the fire department so that there are better outcomes for people and property, in the event of a fire.

Identifying challenges

The 125-page NFPA report, “Identifying Challenges to Fire Service Response in Storage Facilities,” emphasizes that warehouses are evolving to meet greater demand. The report:

  • Flags 16 challenges that dog fire services in warehouse fires,
  • Lists almost 250 articles and publications on fighting warehouse fires,
  • Identifies over 20 gaps in knowledge related to warehouse firefighting,
  • Makes a nine-category research plan, and
  • Offers 12 recommendations.

One recommendation suggests that future study needs to focus on ways fire departments can improve communication with warehouse owners/operators about pre-planning. The idea is that more communication should happen not only for existing warehouses but before constructing them. It’s also vital when warehouses are about to experience a change. Similarly, fire departments and warehouse owners/operators need to work out how employees will be head counted during a fire incident.

Five years of warehouse fires

Another NFPA report, “Warehouse Structure Fires,” chronicles thousands of warehouse fires that happened between 2018 to 2022. In some cases, the 8-page report reflects on fires going back to 1980. It offers 13 charts that cover the:

  • Number of warehouse fires,
  • Property damage from warehouse fires,
  • Warehouse structure status,
  • Day of the week the fire occurred,
  • Month the fire occurred,
  • Time of day the fire occurred,
  • Equipment involved in the fire ignition,
  • Cause of ignition,
  • Contributing factor to ignition,
  • Heat source,
  • Origin of the fire,
  • First item to be ignited, and
  • First material to be ignited.

The report concludes that four components are essential to protecting warehouses from fire: proper sprinkler systems, automatic alarms, pre-fire inspections, and pre-planning.

Take it from the pros

Finally, NFPA sat down with two fire protection professionals for 42 minutes to talk about “Big Storage, Bigger Questions.” The podcast sunk its teeth into some of the deeper concepts found in the new “Identifying Challenges” report, including:

  • Automatic storage and retrieval systems,
  • Unlimited area buildings,
  • Tall racking systems,
  • Pre-incident planning,
  • Firefighting in rural areas,
  • Communications between fire departments and warehouse owners/operators,
  • Management of change and changing commodities,
  • In-rack sprinklers,
  • Standpipe systems,
  • Limited air supply for respirators, and
  • Adopting fire standards.

Again, pre-planning was reiterated. The pros explained that warehouses have many variables, so getting crews into these facilities before any fire happens is important for better outcomes if a fire were to occur.

Key to remember

NFPA released two reports and a podcast related to the challenges of combating warehouse fires and the history of fires in U.S. warehouses. Pre-planning is an overarching theme in all three.

Needlestick jabs: Law enforcement officers at risk too
2025-02-19T06:00:00Z

Needlestick jabs: Law enforcement officers at risk too

When you think of workers getting stuck by a contaminated needlestick, you think of healthcare. Right? Well, a recent NIOSH fact sheet argues that you also need to picture law enforcement officers. That’s because they’re at risk of these incidents when they search people, property, vehicles, or homes!

Syringes and needles are not the only sharps to worry about, however. Other sharps include lancets, scalpels, and auto-injectors. The thing is, contaminated needlesticks/sharps injuries can infect officers with viruses. These include hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), HIV, and others.

Is it reasonably anticipated that your law enforcement officers will have contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials (OPIM) as part of their jobs? If so, they have what OSHA calls “occupational exposure.” That includes reasonably anticipated incidents involving contaminated needlesticks or other contaminated sharps as part of the duties of an officer, the subject of the latest fact sheet.

Does OSHA’s BBP standard cover law enforcement?

That's a trick question! The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) only covers the private sector. There’s a gap in coverage for the public sector workers like law enforcement officers employed by a municipality or state agency. That means federal OSHA does not regulate the Bloodborne Pathogens (BBP) standard at 29 CFR 1910.1030 for these officers.

However, many states have filled that gap in one of two ways:

  • About half the states are considered OSHA “state-plan” states. That means they must be equivalent to or more stringent than federal OSHA for the public sector OR both the public and private sectors. These state-plan states have regulations identical to, similar to, or tougher than the federal Bloodborne Pathogens standard.
  • Some of the remaining non-state-plan states proactively filled the gap for the public sector. They adopted OSHA regulations like 1910.1030 under state laws and regulations, or otherwise created their own worker safety and health laws and regulations related to hazards like bloodborne pathogens.

If your state has bloodborne pathogens laws and regulations, it’s important to meet them if you have officers (or any workers) with occupational exposure. Note that occupational exposure is not the same thing as an exposure incident. An exposure incident is actual contact with blood or OPIM. Whereas occupational exposure is reasonably anticipated contact as part of the job duties.

NIOSH offers guidance for law enforcement

Regardless whether your officers are protected by bloodborne pathogens laws and regulations, NIOSH’s fact sheet (DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2025-101) provides tips and best practices specific to the risks to law enforcement. For example, NIOSH suggests that officers complete training on:

Some ways officers can keep safe include, but are not limited to:

  • Getting HBV vaccination,
  • Wearing gloves while performing searches, and considering gloves with puncture resistance (such as those that meet ASTM Standard F2878-19),
  • Asking a suspect if they have any sharp objects BEFORE making a search,
  • Using mirrors and flashlights to search under or in the crevices of furniture, and
  • Reporting sharps hazards and near misses.

When handling sharps, NIOSH recommends:

If an officer suffers an exposure incident involving a contaminated needlestick/sharp, the fact sheet urges the officer to:

  • Wash the injured area with soap and water, and
  • Follow your law enforcement department’s plan for what to do (e.g., report injuries according to plan) and where to seek treatment.

Treatment should be sought from a healthcare provider immediately. That provider may offer medication or a vaccine to prevent infection.

Earlier NIOSH guidance

The latest fact sheet comes on the heels of an 8-page guidance document from NIOSH — DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2022-154. Learn more about that in our J. J. Keller® Compliance Network article, “NIOSH report points at sharps injuries in law enforcement,” from September 7, 2022.

Key to remember

A recent NIOSH fact sheet argues that law enforcement officers who do searches are at risk of needlestick/sharps incidents! The agency offers tips about how to stay safe and how to handle and dispose of sharps safely. It also explains what to do if there’s an exposure incident.

The regulatory state of PFAS: Stay alert to state rules
2025-02-19T06:00:00Z

The regulatory state of PFAS: Stay alert to state rules

Over the past few years, federal environmental regulations have targeted a specific group of chemicals: per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) isn’t the only entity taking action to control PFAS; state agencies are too. A recent study anticipates that more than half of the states in the U.S. are likely to consider PFAS-related policies in 2025.

So, how should businesses respond? Stay alert to the PFAS regulations at the state level.

What are PFAS?

PFAS, called “forever chemicals,” are long-lasting manufactured chemicals that may pose risks to human and environmental health. With thousands of PFAS chemicals, however, controlling their use to reduce the risks is no easy task.

Additionally, PFAS appear in nearly every sector. They’re used in a wide range of products (like food packaging, cleaning products, and textiles) and for commercial and industrial applications.

Prepare for more state PFAS rules

Safer States, an alliance of environmental organizations that supports developing state regulatory policies for toxic chemicals, published the 2025 Analysis of State Policy Addressing Toxic Chemicals and Plastics. The evaluation covered states’ toxic chemical policies (a) introduced in 2025, (b) introduced in 2024 and considered through 2025, and (c) expected to be introduced in 2025. It also included related proposed regulations that would implement existing state laws.

The report projects that at least 29 states will likely consider policies to address PFAS in 2025, including:

  • Alaska,
  • Arizona,
  • California,
  • Connecticut,
  • Hawaii,
  • Illinois,
  • Indiana,
  • Kentucky,
  • Maine,
  • Maryland
  • Massachusetts,
  • Michigan,
  • Minnesota,
  • Mississippi,
  • Montana,
  • Nevada,
  • New Jersey,
  • New Mexico,
  • New York,
  • Oklahoma
  • Oregon,
  • Pennsylvania,
  • Rhode Island,
  • South Carolina,
  • South Dakota,
  • Texas,
  • Vermont,
  • Virginia, and
  • Washington.

Safer States expects these states to consider policies such as:

  • Phasing out PFAS uses;
  • Disclosing to consumers the presence of PFAS in products;
  • Testing and monitoring for PFAS in water, sludge, and waste;
  • Setting PFAS standards for drinking water, groundwater, and surface water; and
  • Providing resources to clean up PFAS-contaminated sites.

Current state PFAS actions

Multiple states already have PFAS rules on the books. Check out these examples:

  • California bans selling or distributing in commerce any new juvenile product that contains regulated PFAS chemicals (CA HSC Section 108946), such as changing pads, motor vehicle child restraint systems, playpens, and strollers.
  • New York forbids selling or offering for sale new apparel with intentionally added PFAS (N.Y. Consolidated Laws Section 37-0121).
  • Hawaii prohibits manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, and distributing for sale or use food packaging — wraps, liners, plates, food boats, and pizza boxes — with intentionally added PFAS (Act 152 Relating to environmental protection).
  • Maryland bans manufacturing, selling, and delivering cosmetic products that contain any of 13 specified PFAS (Md. Code, Health-Gen. Section 21-259.2).
  • Colorado requires manufacturers of cookware with intentionally added PFAS in the handle or any product surface that contacts food to, among other things, list the presence of PFAS on the product label (House Bill 22-1345).

Many states also have proposed PFAS rules under consideration, like Texas, Maine, Arizona, Illinois, and Virginia.

Stay alert to state PFAS actions

If your facility uses PFAS, it’s essential to know whether the state has regulations that apply to your operations. Plus, knowing the state’s potential future PFAS rules coming down the pipeline can help you better prepare to comply.

Consider these general tips to support your facility’s efforts to track state PFAS actions:

  • EPA provides an online list of the state environmental agencies with links to their websites. Check the state environmental agency’s online news and press releases for policy updates.
  • Search for a dedicated rulemaking webpage, as many states maintain a list of proposed and recently adopted regulations. Note that some state sites may be easier to navigate than others, and some state sites may not have a dedicated rulemaking webpage.
  • Establish a contact at the state environmental agency. Each agency should list contact information, so don’t hesitate to reach out. You may be able to find someone at the agency who can answer questions about the state’s current and future PFAS rules.

Staying alert to state PFAS regulations can help your organization maintain compliance.

Key to remember: States across the country continue to consider and implement regulations related to PFAS. Staying alert to state PFAS actions is key for businesses to stay compliant.

EHS Monthly Round Up - January 2025

EHS Monthly Round Up - January 2025

In this January 2025 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. There’s a lot going on, so let’s get started!

As happens at the start of most incoming presidential administrations, a freeze has been placed on all regulatory activity at the federal level, giving the new administration time to review agencies’ plans. The Office of Management and Budget, which must approve most rulemaking activities, has sent numerous pending rules back to the agencies for review. In addition, OSHA withdrew its infectious diseases proposed rule and its COVID-19 in healthcare rule prior to the inauguration.

OSHA’s penalties increased on January 15. The maximum penalty amounts for serious and other-than-serious violations increased to $16,550. For willful or repeated violations, the maximum penalty increased to $165,514 per violation.

OSHA updated its directive on injury and illness recordkeeping policies and procedures. While it’s intended for OSHA compliance officers, employers can use the information to help with recordkeeping compliance.

Fewer workers died on the job in 2023, as fatal work injuries decreased 3.7 percent from 2022. Transportation incidents remained the most frequent type of fatal event, accounting for over 36 percent of all occupational fatalities.

California’s Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board voted to adopt a permanent silica standard. If approved, it would extend and strengthen the state’s emergency temporary standard, which was put in place in December 2023.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health updated its List of Hazardous Drugs in Healthcare Settings. This is a resource for employers and employees in identifying drugs that are hazardous to the health and safety of those who handle them.

Turning to environmental news, EPA released the biannual update of the nonconfidential TSCA inventory. The inventory helps facilities determine their regulatory requirements for the chemicals they use or plan to use.

And finally, EPA added new Management Method Codes to describe how hazardous waste will be managed after temporary storage and transfer. As of January 1st, hazardous waste handlers must use the codes on the Biennial Report Waste Generation and Management forms.

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

See More

Most Recent Highlights In Safety & Health

Industrial stormwater vs. wastewater discharge permits
2025-02-04T06:00:00Z

Industrial stormwater vs. wastewater discharge permits

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) controls the amount of pollutants that reach the waters of the United States through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. The NPDES program covers two types of discharges from industrial sources:

  • Stormwater discharges, and
  • Wastewater discharges.

Although they’re under the same federal permitting program, stormwater and wastewater discharges are distinct, and their permits are too. Know the basic differences between these types of industrial discharges to ensure your facility complies.

Stormwater discharges

Rain and snow that flow over land or impervious surfaces (like building rooftops and parking lots) and don’t soak into the ground generate stormwater runoff. The runoff can gather pollutants generated by industrial activities at a facility and transport them into nearby waterbodies. Your facility must have a permit to discharge stormwater associated with industrial activities to waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.26).

The NPDES program regulates stormwater discharges from 11 categories of industrial activities, listed at 122.26(b)(14). Examples of covered activities include:

  • Heavy manufacturing at chemical plants;
  • Treating, storing, and disposing of hazardous waste; and
  • Processing industrial wastes at landfills.

Note, however, that construction sites that disturb 5 or more acres (the tenth category) are permitted individually.

The permit contains stormwater control measures (including “best management practices”) to limit pollutants that enter stormwater runoff. Containment systems, employee training, and infiltration devices are all ways to control runoff.

Most states issue industrial stormwater discharge permits. EPA issues individual permits and the Multi-Sector General Permits (MSGPs) to facilities where the agency is the permitting authority. The MSGP is EPA’s general permit for industrial stormwater discharges.

Wastewater discharges

Many industrial processes use or generate water that contains pollutants, referred to as industrial wastewater. There are two types of wastewater:

  • Process wastewater (defined at 122.2) refers to water used in manufacturing or processing activities.
  • Non-process wastewater refers to water used for activities other than processing products (e.g., sanitary wastewater).

Your facility must have a permit to discharge industrial wastewater to surface waters (122.21(a)).

The NPDES program regulates direct wastewater discharges from industrial sources through rules based on the type of facility and activity. The regulations also have industry-specific requirements for:

  • Animal Feeding Operations,
  • Mining,
  • Oil and Gas,
  • Pesticide Applications, and
  • Vessels Incidental Discharges.

Effluent limitations are the primary control method for industrial wastewater discharges. EPA establishes Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELGs) for industrial categories and subcategories. These pollution-reduction performance standards are based on the best available technology that’s economically achievable by facilities in the industry. The ELGs are then incorporated into the permits through effluent limitations.

Additionally, industrial facilities must meet water quality-based effluent limitations when the technology-based standards don’t achieve the required water quality standards. Both industrial stormwater and wastewater discharge permits may include technology- and water quality-based effluent limitations.

As with stormwater permits, most states issue industrial wastewater permits. Facilities in areas where EPA is the permitting authority must obtain either a general or individual NPDES permit.

Check your state requirements!

Because a majority of the states run stormwater and wastewater permitting programs, it’s crucial to check the state regulations. State permits must contain limits as stringent as EPA’s federal permits, and some states may impose stricter limits and/or additional requirements.

EPA’s website lists the states authorized to issue NPDES permits with links to the state agencies that run the NPDES program.

Key to remember: Industrial stormwater and wastewater discharges, and the permits that regulate them, are different.

Administration announces 10-for-1 deregulation order
2025-02-03T06:00:00Z

Administration announces 10-for-1 deregulation order

A new executive order from the Trump administration takes aim at government regulations, vowing to remove 10 rules for every new one issued.

The new directive, signed January 31, 2025, will apply to all new “rules, regulations, or guidance” issued by government agencies such as the Department of Transportation, the Department of Labor, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

The order says over-regulation has increased costs and inflation, killed jobs and businesses, reduced choice, discouraged innovation, and infringed on liberties.

Five-fold increase

The move aims to cut much more than a similar “two-for-one” order issued at the start of President Trump’s first stint in the White House in 2017. That order applied only to regulations that would cost $100 million or more.

The White House says the 2017 order was “the most aggressive and successful regulatory reduction effort in history” and eliminated five and one-half regulations for every new one issued.

The new order, according to a White House fact sheet, says that whenever an agency promulgates a new rule, regulation, or guidance, it must identify at least 10 existing rules, regulations, or guidance documents to be repealed.

It will be up to the head of the White House Office of Management and Budget to enforce the order and ensure agencies use a standard measuring stick to verify compliance.

The order also requires that for fiscal year 2025 (which ends September 30), “the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations, be significantly less than zero,” the fact sheet says. The order itself was not available on the White House website when this article was published.

The new executive order comes on the heels of another directive, issued January 20, 2025, that put a freeze on all pending regulations until the new administration has time to review them.

CSB unveils eye-opening video, alert, and insider data on chemical incidents
2025-01-31T06:00:00Z

CSB unveils eye-opening video, alert, and insider data on chemical incidents

With a backlog of 17 chemical incident investigations in the rearview mirror, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) released three safety-related deliverables — an animated video, a hazard alert, and a compilation of incident summaries. The agency also updated its reporting form.

Expect even more videos and summaries “soon.” That’s the word from CSB Chairperson Steve Owens last week, during the board’s quarterly business meeting. The board also noted that it is forging ahead with nine new investigations. It means we’ll see investigative reports down the line.

‘Fire from the Storm’ video

The CSB’s new 17-minute safety video, "Fire from the Storm," includes a riveting animation of the events leading to a fire and toxic gas release. The incident occurred when Hurricane Laura damaged a chemical storage facility in Louisiana.

Rainwater then reached the chemical storage. The chemical decomposed, producing toxic chlorine gas and a fire. A large plume of chlorine traveled over the community.

The CSB video calls on OSHA and EPA to amend regulations on Process Safety and Risk Management, respectively. Five key safety issues contributing to the incident are covered:

  • Extreme weather preparation,
  • Process hazard analyses,
  • Emergency preparedness and response,
  • Adherence to hazardous materials codes, and
  • Gaps in regulatory coverage of reactive chemical hazards.

The latest video follows two others issued in October and July. It also aligns with an alert shared last July on hurricane preparedness.

Cold weather alert

Cold weather can crack or break pipes. It can also lead to ruptured or damaged process equipment and/or failing instruments. In December, CSB rang alarm bells over an uptick in chemical incidents during cold weather. The CSB alert listed over a dozen safety steps and links to guidance on cold weather operations.

Process safety management programs are regulated at 29 CFR 1910.119. Per the alert, these programs should consider how low temperatures may affect piping, equipment, and instruments. Equipment susceptible to ice or hydrate formation should also be identified and properly winterized.

Extreme weather dangers are a recurring theme for CSB. Last July, during hurricane season, Owens said, “When it comes to extreme weather, chemical companies should expect the unexpected and must always be prepared for the worst-case scenario.”

Event summaries issued

In a move toward transparency, CSB compiled summaries for 26 of the chemical incident reports it has received. These events summarized in Incident Reports Volume 1 resulted in five fatalities, 17 serious injuries, and about $697M in property damage in 15 states since April 2020.

For over two years the board has posted “overall” data about incidents reported under 40 CFR 1604. That’s the Reporting of Accidental Releases standard. CSB now calls this standard the “Accidental Release Reporting Rule (ARRR).”

For the record, CSB has received 460 reports in the last five years. The reports reveal 68 fatalities and 249 serious injuries/illnesses. Over 200 of these incidents involved property damage of $1M or more.

The overall data reports provide:

  • The name and location of the chemical facility,
  • The date of the incident, and
  • Whether the incident involved a fatality, serious injury, or substantial property damage.

However, the latest Volume 1 also reveals:

  • A summary of the event,
  • Its probable cause, and
  • Images of the involved facility or incident scene.

Owens argued, “The American people have a right to know about the kinds of dangerous chemical incidents that happen across this country every week.”

Reporting form change

It’s worth noting that CSB updated its Accidental Release Reporting Form and Instructions last June. The changes:

  • Merge the form and instructions into a single document;
  • Make minor formatting and grammar corrections;
  • Indicate a fourth reporting method (to call CSB to relay the National Response Center ID number);
  • Clarify that only “substantial” property damage information is required; and
  • Add a confidential and disclosure statement.

Key to remember

CSB continues to deliver videos, weather-related alerts, and data. The agency has also updated its reporting form and launched an initiative to reveal more incident details on a regular basis. Expect more from the board in 2025, along with any number of investigative reports.

2025-01-30T06:00:00Z

Oregon incorporates CARB updates, delaying heavy-duty omnibus rule

Effective date: January 1, 2025, to June 29, 2025

This applies to: Public and private fleets purchasing new model year 2025 medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, vehicle dealerships selling new medium- and heavy-duty vehicles with internal combustion or zero-emission engines, vehicle manufacturers selling medium- and heavy-duty vehicles with internal combustion or zero-emission engines, and engine manufacturers selling medium- and heavy-duty vehicle internal combustion engines

Description of change: The temporary rule incorporates additional compliance flexibilities for manufacturers to meet the requirements of the California Air Resource Board’s (CARB’s) Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) rule, which CARB recently amended. The temporary rule also delays implementation of the Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulation rules by a year, taking effect with engine model year 2026 and/or vehicle model year 2027 (based on the specific rule section). It also adds more certification options for complete medium-duty zero-emission vehicles.

2025-01-30T06:00:00Z

California shifts pesticide NOIs to electronic submissions

Effective date: February 24, 2025

This applies to: Agricultural use notices of intent (NOIs), soil fumigation NOIs, and restricted material NOIs

Description of change: The rule requires all agricultural use notices of intent (NOIs) must be submitted electronically on CalAgPermits.org unless granted an exemption. It also requires that NOIs for soil fumigation and restricted materials that require a permit to produce an agricultural commodity be electronically submitted on the same website. Finally, the rule requires the Department of Pesticide Regulation to publicize and provide status updates on NOI information it receives.

See More

Most Recent Highlights In Human Resources

2025-01-30T06:00:00Z

California readopts conditional undeployed airbag waste exemption

Effective date: December 5, 2024

This applies to: Airbag waste handlers and collection facilities

Description of change: This emergency readoption adds definitions for “airbag waste,” “airbag waste collection facility,” and “airbag waste handler.” It also gives airbag waste handlers a conditional exemption for transporting airbag waste to the waste collection facility.

View related state info:Solid and hazardous waste - California

2025-01-30T06:00:00Z

Arkansas streamlines disposal well regulations

Effective date: November 28, 2024

This applies to: Operators of surface facilities of high-volume Class II Disposal and Class II Commercial Disposal Wells

Description of change: The rule gives full regulatory authority to the Oil and Gas Commission, from which operators must obtain a permit to drill and operate disposal wells. It removes the need for operators to obtain an additional permit from the Department of Environmental Quality to operate the surface facilities. The Oil and Gas Commission assumes all regulatory responsibility for Class II well operations.

2025-01-30T06:00:00Z

California receives 4 amendment authorizations

Effective date: January 2025 (dates vary by amendment)

This applies to: Entities subject to certain nonroad vehicle and engine emissions regulations under the California Air Resources Board (CARB)

Description of change: The Environmental Protection Agency granted four amendment authorizations to CARB, allowing the state to implement and enforce more stringent emission standards for certain off-road (nonroad) vehicles and engines.

Small Off-Road Engine (SORE) regulation

Nearly all new SOREs with Model Year (MY) 2024 or later must achieve zero emissions of hydrocarbons and NOx and zero evaporative emissions. Large pressure washers and portable generators must meet the same zero-emission standards starting with MY 2028.

Effective date: January 6, 2025

In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets regulation

The amendments require fleets to replace older vehicles with newer ones gradually through 2036. The phaseout timeline is based on fleet size and MY. The rule also restricts fleets from adding older vehicles (with a timeline also based on fleet size and MY through 2035) and requires all fleets to use specific renewable diesel.

Effective date: January 10, 2025

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets regulation

CARB’s rule imposes refrigerant use requirements for certain TRUs, sets particulate matter standards for non-truck TRUs, requires fleets to transition a percentage of TRUs to zero-emission technology refrigeration units (ZETRUs), and contains registration and reporting requirements for facilities with TRUs. The authorization, however, excludes CARB’s requirement for TRU owners to turn over 15 percent or more of its TRU fleet to ZETRUs by December 31, 2023, and each subsequent year.

In January 2025, CARB withdrew its authorization request for the rule’s mandate that TRU owners turn over 15 percent or more of their TRU fleet to ZETRUs by December 31, 2023, and each subsequent year.

Effective date: January 10, 2025

Commercial Harbor Craft regulation

EPA’s authorization excludes decisions on the Zero-Emission and Advanced Technologies standards for in-use short-run ferries and the standards for specific in-use engines and vessels with expiring feasibility extensions.

In January 2025, CARB withdrew its authorization request for the rule’s Zero-Emission and Advanced Technologies standards for in-use short-run ferries as well as the standards for specific in-use engines and vessels with expiring feasibility extensions.

Effective date: January 10, 2025

2025-01-30T06:00:00Z

Texas shifts injection well authority to RRC

Effective date: December 12, 2024

This applies to: Operators of closed-loop geothermal injection wells and Class V injection wells used for brine mining

Description of change: The amendment gives the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) jurisdiction over closed-loop geothermal injection wells and injection wells used for brine mining as established by Senate Bills 786 and 1186. Operators of closed-loop geothermal injection wells and Class V injection wells used for brine mining are subject to RRC regulation and authority.

2025-01-30T06:00:00Z

Maryland extends Advanced Clean Trucks Program credit banking

Effective date: December 23, 2024

This applies to: Manufacturers that sell vehicles in Maryland with a gross vehicle weight rating above 8,500 pounds

Description of change: The rule adds a year to the time frame for manufacturers to earn, bank, and trade credits, giving them two years before the Advanced Clean Truck Program begins (in model year 2027).

See More
New Network Poll
Remote work took off five years ago when the COVID-19 pandemic shut down schools and businesses. If your employees were sent home to work remotely at the time, have you:

Remote work took off five years ago when the COVID-19 pandemic shut down schools and businesses. If your employees were sent home to work remotely at the time, have you:


No active poll
Please come back soon!
See More
See More
See More
See More
Saved to my EVENT CALENDAR!
View your saved links by clicking the arrow next to your profile picture located in the header. Then, click “My Activity” to view the Event Calendar on your Activity page.