$9.3 million independent contractor lesson for health care staffing agency

$9.3 million independent contractor lesson for health care staffing agency

2025-09-29T05:00:00Z

A staffing agency recently learned an expensive lesson about whether workers were employees or independent contractors. The related court case is a warning for all employers to ensure workers are properly classified.

Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers must pay nonexempt employees overtime at time and a half for any hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek. Employers don’t, however, have to pay overtime to independent contractors.

The case

A staffing agency supplied nurses to health care facilities. It had what it called a “registry” of its nurses, and it connected those nurses with work opportunities at its client health care facilities.

To be included in the registry, nurses had to complete an employment application that referred to the agency as the “employer,” and to the nurses as the “employee.” This application asked about applicants’ credentials, skills, and employment history. The agency also performed background checks, drug screenings, and tuberculosis tests on the applicants. Once hired, the agency then trained the nurses on topics such as patient confidentiality, substance abuse, and sexual harassment.

Once nurses were included in the registry, the agency notified them of available shifts at the agency’s client health care facilities. Nurses could accept or turn down such opportunities.

If a nurse was late for a shift, wanted time off, was ill, or otherwise unable to complete the shift, the nurse had to notify and get approval from the agency — not from the client facility.

At work, the nurses performed typical nursing tasks as directed by a supervising physician. The agency, however, controlled other aspects of the nurses’ workplace conduct. It required, for example, that its nurses wear agency identification. The agency also had written standards for its nurses’ workplace conduct, including attire, punctuality, and timekeeping. If nurses didn’t meet those standards, the agency would discipline them. If a client had problems with a nurse, they had to contact the agency.

The agency also unilaterally dictated its nurses’ hourly pay rates and negotiated fixed hourly rates for the work its nurses performed at the client health care facilities. In turn, the agency would keep a percentage of the hourly rate paid by the client facility. As such, the nurses couldn’t directly negotiate their hourly pay rates with the client facilities where they worked.

Believing the nurses to be independent contractors, the agency paid the nurses their regular rates for all hours worked and didn’t pay overtime.

Trouble begins

In 2017, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) launched an investigation into the agency’s FLSA compliance. It determined that the agency misclassified 1,100 nurses as “independent contractors,” didn’t pay them overtime, and didn’t keep proper records. The DOL told the agency to properly classify its nurses as “employees,” but it didn’t.

The problem ended with a court ruling that the nurses were employees of the agency, and not independent contractors, and the agency had to pay $9.3 million to cover the overtime it should have paid to the nurses.

Chavez-Deremer v. Med. Staffing of Am., LLC, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 23-2176, July 17, 2025.

What employers need to know

To avoid such a situation, employers should be aware of the six factors courts look at to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor:

The degree of control that the employer has over the manner in which the work is performed (the agency oversaw shifts, pay, discipline, etc.);
The worker’s opportunities for profit or loss depend on managerial skill (the nurses had none);
The worker’s investment in equipment or material, or employment of other workers (the nurses had little, if any);
The degree of skill required for the work (the nurses did need this, but the other factors outweighed this one);
The permanence of the working relationship (the nurses’ relationship with the agency was an ongoing one); and
The degree to which the workers’ services are an integral part of the employer’s business (the nurses’ services were integral to the agency’s business).

Key to remember: Employers must correctly classify workers as employees or independent contractors, or risk facing hefty costs.

The case

Once nurses were included in the registry, the agency notified them of available shifts at the agency’s client health care facilities. Nurses could accept or turn down such opportunities.

If a nurse was late for a shift, wanted time off, was ill, or otherwise unable to complete the shift, the nurse had to notify and get approval from the agency — not from the client facility.

Believing the nurses to be independent contractors, the agency paid the nurses their regular rates for all hours worked and didn’t pay overtime.

Trouble begins

Chavez-Deremer v. Med. Staffing of Am., LLC, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 23-2176, July 17, 2025.

What employers need to know

To avoid such a situation, employers should be aware of the six factors courts look at to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor:

The degree of control that the employer has over the manner in which the work is performed (the agency oversaw shifts, pay, discipline, etc.);
The worker’s opportunities for profit or loss depend on managerial skill (the nurses had none);
The worker’s investment in equipment or material, or employment of other workers (the nurses had little, if any);
The degree of skill required for the work (the nurses did need this, but the other factors outweighed this one);
The permanence of the working relationship (the nurses’ relationship with the agency was an ongoing one); and
The degree to which the workers’ services are an integral part of the employer’s business (the nurses’ services were integral to the agency’s business).

Key to remember: Employers must correctly classify workers as employees or independent contractors, or risk facing hefty costs.

RELATED NEWS

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most Recent Highlights In Environmental

2025-09-25T05:00:00Z

Pre-preconstruction permits: Can building begin without one?

Just like blueprints, hard hats, and scaffolding, permits are synonymous with construction. Most businesses have to get permits before breaking ground on a project. However, recent federal guidance on preconstruction permits for air emissions indicates that some construction activities may be able to start without a permit.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires businesses to obtain a preconstruction permit for a new facility or major modifications to an existing facility before starting construction. It ensures that new or modified facilities will be able to comply with air emissions requirements. In September 2025, the agency published guidance (in the form of a response letter), determining that a company may start construction activities on parts of a new facility unrelated to air emissions before obtaining a permit.

Let’s take a look at the preconstruction permit regulations, the facts of the case in the guidance, and EPA’s plans to clarify which construction activities can begin before obtaining a preconstruction permit.

What are the preconstruction permit requirements?

Under the New Source Review (NSR) regulations (40 CFR Part 51 Subpart I and Part 52 Subpart A), businesses that build a new facility or make major modifications to an existing one have to obtain a preconstruction permit to “begin actual construction.” EPA defines “begin actual construction” as “physical on-site construction activities on an emissions unit which are of a permanent nature.” It covers activities including (but not limited to) installing building supports and foundations, laying underground pipework, and constructing permanent storage structures.

There are three types of preconstruction permits: Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits, nonattainment NSR permits, and minor source permits. The permits define:

What construction is allowed,
Emissions limits, and
How the source must be operated (if applicable).

It’s important to note that most preconstruction permits are issued at the state or local levels. The requirements must be at least as stringent as EPA’s.

What’s the case?

A county air quality district in Arizona asked EPA to assess whether it may allow a company to start the first phase of construction on a semiconductor manufacturing facility before obtaining an NSR permit if no emissions units are involved.

EPA answered the request with TSMC Arizona Begin Actual Construction — EPA Response Letter (September 2, 2025) and published the letter as new guidance.

Facts of the case

The company builds its facilities in three phases and doesn’t install the semiconductor manufacturing equipment until all phases are complete.

The first phase of construction consists of building the core and shell of the facility, which includes the foundation, a steel superstructure, and external walls. The building will eventually house emissions units (semiconductor manufacturing equipment). However, the company stated that the first phase of construction doesn’t involve any air pollution control devices, emissions units, or foundations for emissions units.

The county air quality district agreed that if a structure contains no emissions unit, it’s not subject to NSR permitting because it doesn’t emit or have the potential to emit pollutants.

EPA response to the case

In the September 2025 response letter, EPA recognized that the definition of “begin actual construction” prohibits on-site construction of an emissions unit without a permit, but it doesn’t prohibit on-site construction of the parts of a facility that don’t qualify as an emissions unit.

The agency determined that the county air quality district may allow the company to start the first phase of construction (even if it’s of a permanent nature) before it obtains an NSR permit as long as it doesn’t involve construction on an emissions unit.

What are EPA’s regulatory plans?

The agency will conduct rulemaking to clarify what construction activities need an NSR permit and what construction activities can proceed without one. It plans to amend the NSR regulations in 2026 by:

Revising the definition of “begin actual construction," and
Establishing how permitting authorities may distinguish parts of a facility that are and aren’t emissions units or parts of emissions units.

Until then, EPA will address preconstruction permitting issues on a case-by-case basis.

How should facilities respond?

If you’re planning to build a new facility or make a major modification to one, consider these tips to help you comply with the NSR regulations:

Check whether the state and local requirements are the same as or stricter than federal rules. The state environmental department’s website is a good place to start.
Contact the permit-issuing agency (likely the state or local air pollution control agency) for direct help with your specific project.
Watch EPA news announcements for updates on rulemaking. You can also track the Federal Register, where the agency publishes proposed and final rules.

Key to remember: EPA plans to conduct rulemaking to help distinguish which construction activities need a preconstruction permit for air emissions and which activities don’t.

2025-09-23T05:00:00Z

CSB says inferno reveals gaping holes in OSHA/EPA regulations

A stunning 17-minute video from the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) animates the turn of events at a Texas terminal facility over six years ago. A broken pump led to a massive fire and significant environmental damage. Despite the process weaknesses at the facility, the video underscores a breach in OSHA and EPA regulations that CSB warns may lead to other incidents in the U.S.

The catastrophic incident

Picture an 80,000-barrel aboveground storage tank. On March 17, 2019, the circulation pump on the tank failed, allowing the release of a flammable butane-enriched naphtha blend. The release was undetected, as vapor accumulated in the area for 30 minutes. The vapor then ignited, resulting in a large-scale fire that spread to 14 other tanks. Fire crews were unable to extinguish it for three days. Black smoke cascaded into the community that was sheltering in place.

Then the petrochemicals, firefighting foams, and contaminated water broke past the secondary containment wall. An estimated 500,000 barrels of the materials then entered an adjacent bayou and reached a shipping channel contaminating a seven-mile stretch.

What did investigators find?

The CSB investigation found technical failures. The video identifies three important but missing things:

Procedures to maintain the mechanical integrity of the pump,
Flammable gas detection systems, and
Remotely operated tank valves.

Outdated tank farm design was also a factor. Tanks were spaced close together and did not have subdivided containment systems.

Despite the process issues, regulatory shortfalls played a prominent role in the board’s findings. CSB Chairperson Steve Owens remarks, “A serious gap in federal regulations also contributed to the severity of this event.”

OSHA regulatory gap

The CSB video, "Terminal Faiure," points out that 29 CFR 1910.119, the OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) standard, does not cover all flammable liquids. Those stored in atmospheric tanks and kept below their normal boiling point without chilling or refrigeration are not subject to the standard. This is referred to in industry as the “flammable liquid atmospheric storage tank exemption.” See 1910.119(a)(1)(ii)(B).

The terminal facility company took the position that the storage of the butane-enriched naphtha product in the tank was excluded from PSM coverage. It based this stance on the exemption. According to CSB, had the OSHA PSM standard applied to the tank and its equipment, the terminal facility would have been required to implement a formal PSM system.

That system would have given the company a better chance to identify and control hazards for the tank and its equipment. Had the terminal facility put a comprehensive PSM system in place that effectively identified and controlled the tank/equipment hazards, the company could have prevented this incident, argues CSB.

EPA regulatory gap

Unlike the PSM standard, the Risk Management Program (RMP) standard at 40 CFR 68 does not include an exemption for atmospheric storage of flammable liquids. However, CSB highlights that 68.115(b)(2)(i) has a significant loophole. It reads, “[I]f the concentration of the substance is one percent or greater by weight of the mixture, then, for purposes of determining whether a threshold quantity is present at the stationary source, the entire weight of the mixture shall be treated as the regulated substance unless the owner or operator can demonstrate that the mixture itself does not have a National Fire Protection Association [NFPA] flammability hazard rating of 4.”

The terminal facility determined that the butane-enriched naphtha product contained in the tank was not subject to RMP because it was an NFPA-3a rated material. While the CSB is not validating the terminal’s NFPA “3” finding, the board speculates that had the EPA RMP standard applied to the tank and its pump, this incident likely would not have occurred.

CSB recommends closing the regulatory loopholes

In the recently released video, CSB recommends that:

OSHA eliminate the atmospheric storage tank exemption from the PSM standard — The board insists that the atmospheric storage tank exemption in the OSHA standard continues to allow for catastrophic incidents to occur. Without PSM coverage, necessary safeguards are not being implemented for equipment that should otherwise be covered, CSB says.
EPA modify 68.115(b)(2)(i) to expand coverage of its RMP standard to include all flammable liquids, including mixtures, with a flammability rating of NFPA-3 or higher — NFPA-3 flammability rated materials have resulted in significant explosions and fires similar to those contemplated to occur from NFPA-4 rated materials, observes CSB.

Owens emphasizes, “We believe that our recommendations, particularly to OSHA and EPA, to expand regulatory oversight of these kinds of chemicals and facilities will help ensure that a similar incident does not occur in the future.”

Key to remember

A new CSB video recounts the events involved in a massive storage tank fire. At the same time, the video warns of blind spots in OSHA PSM and EPA RMP regulations that may lead to other incidents in the U.S.

2025-09-22T05:00:00Z

The new rules of waste: How 2025 legislation is reshaping corporate environmental compliance

In 2025, sweeping changes to waste laws across the U.S. are forcing companies to rethink packaging, disposal, and reporting practices. From statewide bans on single-use plastics to expanded Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs and chemical recycling reclassification, these updates carry significant compliance implications for corporate environmental health and safety (EHS) teams.

Single-use plastics: New bans and restrictions

Several states have enacted new bans on polystyrene foam containers, plastic straws, and produce bags:

California SB 1046, as of January 1, 2025, bans expanded polystyrene (EPS) food containers unless they meet a 25 percent recycling rate. Precheckout bags must be compostable or made of recycled paper.
Delaware SB 51 bans foam containers and plastic stirrers unless requested by the customer.
Oregon SB 543 bans EPS containers and food packaging with intentionally added PFAS.
Virginia bans food vendors from using EPS containers starting July 1, 2025.

Compliance tip: Audit your packaging inventory and supplier certifications. Ensure alternatives meet compostability or recyclability standards.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): Expanding nationwide

EPR laws now apply in several states. These laws require companies to help pay for recycling and report packaging data:

Maryland SB 901 allows multiple Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs) and mandates cost-sharing for recycling.
Washington SB 5284 targets consumer packaging with compliance deadlines starting in 2028.
Colorado bans unregistered producers from selling covered products as of July 1, 2025.
California SB 54 revised draft rules released in May 2025 to include new compliance dates and exemptions.

Compliance tip: Register with your state’s PRO, submit packaging data, and prepare for fee schedules. Track deadlines and exemptions closely.

Chemical recycling: Regulatory reclassification and impacts

States like Texas and Pennsylvania now classify chemical recycling as manufacturing, not waste management. This shift encourages investment but also changes permitting and emissions reporting obligations.

Compliance tip: If your facility uses or contracts chemical recycling, review air and water permits. Ensure alignment with manufacturing regulations.

Per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): Phaseouts and hazardous waste updates

More states are banning PFAS in packaging and cookware:

Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, and New Mexico have banned or phased out PFAS in consumer products.
Illinois SB 727 aligns PFAS limits with the Environmental Protection Agency standards.

Compliance tip: Update product Safety Data Sheets and conduct PFAS audits. Prepare for new reporting under TSCA Section 8(a)(7), including data on manufacture, use, and disposal.

Circular economy and composting: Recent mandates

States are setting zero-waste goals and requiring composting:

Hawaii HB 750 launches a statewide recycling needs assessment.
Maine LD 1065 requires large food waste generators to compost by 2030.

Compliance tip: Evaluate organics diversion programs and infrastructure. Consider partnerships with composting facilities.

EHS teams: What to do now

Map your regulatory exposure: Identify which state laws apply to your operations.
Engage with PROs: Register, report, and participate in rulemaking.
Train staff: Ensure procurement, operations, and legal teams understand new requirements.
Audit packaging and waste streams: Replace banned materials and optimize recycling.
Monitor emerging legislation: Stay ahead of new bills and compliance deadlines.

Key to remember: Staying compliant in 2025 means more than avoiding fines. EHS teams must lead efforts to meet new waste laws and support sustainability goals.

2025-09-19T05:00:00Z

EPA proposes to remove GHG reporting requirements for most facilities

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a significant proposed rule on September 16, 2025. The agency proposes to eliminate the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) requirements for nearly all regulated entities except for petroleum and natural gas systems. EPA also plans to suspend compliance requirements for covered facilities until reporting year (RY) 2034.

Further, the proposed rule notes that Congress amended the Clean Air Act in July 2025 to start the Waste Emissions Charge (WEC) program in 2034. The changes essentially reinstate the WEC program that was previously disapproved.

The GHGRP requires covered entities to submit annual reports of GHG emissions. The regulation applies to 47 source categories, including:

Large direct emitters of GHG emissions (25,000 or more metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year),
Fuel and industrial gas suppliers, and
Carbon dioxide injection sites.

What are the possible changes?

EPA proposes to:

Remove the requirements of 40 CFR Part 98 for all source categories under Part 98 except for the Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems source category (Part 98 Subpart W),
Remove the Natural Gas Distribution industry segment (98.230) from the Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems source category, and
Suspend the reporting requirements for the Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems source category until January 1, 2034.

How could this impact facilities?

If finalized, EPA’s proposed rule would have major effects:

Nearly all of the covered source categories (apart from petroleum and natural gas systems) would no longer be subject to the GHGRP regulations after RY 2024.
Natural gas distributors would be removed from Part 98 Subpart W and, therefore, no longer subject to the GHGRP regulations after RY 2024.
Facilities in the Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems source category (except for natural gas distributors) would be subject to the GHGRP regulations. However, requirements wouldn’t apply until RY 2034. The next report would be due by March 31, 2035, and annually thereafter.

About the WEC program

Amendments to Section 136 of the Clean Air Act in 2022 required EPA to start collecting a WEC from facilities in the Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems source category (except those in the natural gas distribution industry segment) that exceed waste emissions thresholds.

In March 2025, a joint congressional resolution disapproved the regulation implementing the WEC program, making the rule ineffective. Further, EPA issued a final rule in May 2025 that removed the WEC regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations.

However, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (signed into law in July 2025) amended Section 136(g) of the Clean Air Act to begin imposing and collecting a WEC from the Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems source category (except for natural gas distributors) for emissions reported for calendar year 2034 and later.

How can I participate in the rulemaking?

You can register for and attend EPA’s virtual public hearing for the proposed rule on October 1, 2025. Additionally, you may submit public comments on the proposed rule (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0186) through November 3, 2025.

Key to remember: EPA proposes to eliminate the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program requirements for all source categories except the petroleum and natural gas systems category and to suspend compliance obligations until 2034.

2025-09-19T05:00:00Z

Expert Insights: Lessons that lead

As we continue to navigate the evolving landscape of regulatory changes, one truth remains constant: environmental compliance isn’t just a regulatory requirement; it must be a priority for leadership. Every facility, regardless of size or sector, can lead by example, not only through innovation but also through the lessons learned from challenges.

One such lesson came from a chemical manufacturing facility we worked with in the Midwest. They experienced a near-miss incident involving a wastewater neutralization tank. During a routine transfer, an operator noticed a sudden pH spike in the effluent stream. Quick thinking and immediate shutdown procedures prevented a potential discharge violation. Upon investigation, they discovered that a mislabeled tote of caustic solution was mistakenly added to the neutralization system.

The root causes? There was a breakdown in labeling protocols and a lack of crosschecking during chemical transfers. The facility responded swiftly by:

Implementing a barcode-based chemical tracking system,
Retraining staff on hazard communication, and
Revising their standard operating procedures.

Since then, the facility has reported zero chemical handling errors and has shared the lessons across the corporate network.

This incident serves as a powerful reminder that environmental compliance isn’t just about systems and sensors. It’s about people, processes, and a culture of vigilance. Mistakes can happen, but how we respond defines our commitment to continuous improvement.

We encourage you to reflect on your own facility’s “teachable moments.” Share them. Learn from them. Every lesson learned is a step toward a safer and more compliant operation.

Most Recent Highlights In Transportation

2025-09-12T05:00:00Z

e-Manifest Third Rule compliance checklist: Countdown to December 1

The date of December 1 often evokes thoughts of colder weather, the start of the Christmas season, and … waste manifests?! That’s certainly the case this year for hazardous waste handlers. On December 1, 2025, the rest of the Third Rule’s compliance requirements for electronic manifests take effect.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) final Third Rule, established under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), amends the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System (e-Manifest system) standards. Many of the requirements began in January 2025. The Third Rule’s remaining regulatory changes start on December 1, 2025. Are you prepared to comply?

e-Manifest compliance check

Use this checklist to help you ensure that your business is set to comply with the rest of the Third Rule’s requirements that take effect in December.

Transition to the 4-copy forms

Under the Third Rule, EPA replaced the 5-copy paper manifests and continuation sheets with 4-copy paper manifests (EPA Form 8700-22) and continuation sheets (EPA Form 8700-22A). However, the agency allows hazardous waste handlers to continue using the 5-copy paper forms until further notice. EPA will provide a 90-day notice before it intends to stop accepting the 5-copy forms.

Note: At the time of the publication of this article, EPA has not yet given any authorized printer approval to print the new 4-copy manifest forms. As an authorized printer of the hazardous waste manifest forms, J. J. Keller & Associates, Inc. is working closely with EPA for approval to print the new 4-copy forms.

Users need Certifier permission on the e-Manifest module or Site Manager permission on the RCRA Information (RCRAInfo) Industry Application to submit manifests.

Compliance check:

☑ Begin to use the 4-copy manifests and continuation sheets as soon as they’re made available.

☑ Ensure that at least one user has Certifier or Site Manager permission.

Submit export manifests and related fees to e-Manifest

As of December 1, 2025, domestic hazardous waste exporters must submit all export manifests and continuation sheets (paper and electronic) to the e-Manifest system and pay the associated user fees.

An exporter is considered any entity that originates a manifest to export a hazardous waste shipment. This includes generators; transporters; treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; and recognized traders.

EPA will invoice exporters monthly for the manifest activities conducted during the previous month. The agency applies a fee per manifest, and the amount varies based on the type of submission (scanned image upload, data and image upload, or fully/hybrid electronic manifest).

Only individuals with Site Manager permission on RCRAInfo can pay manifest fees.

Compliance check:

☑ Prepare to use the e-Manifest system for export manifests and pay user fees.

☑ Verify that at least one person has Site Manager permission.

Submit manifest-related reports to e-Manifest

The Third Rule requires hazardous waste handlers to submit all Discrepancy, Exception, and Unmanifested Waste Reports to the e-Manifest system starting on December 1, 2025.

Generators submit Exception Reports, and receiving facilities submit Discrepancy and Unmanifested Waste Reports. No fees apply.

To submit the manifest-related reports to the e-Manifest system, users require Certifier permission for the module.

Compliance check:

☑ Be ready to submit manifest-related reports to the e-Manifest system.

☑ Confirm that at least one user has Certifier permission.

Send manifest copies to exporters

Beginning on December 1, 2025, entities that transport hazardous waste export shipments out of the U.S. (i.e., last transporters) have to send a signed copy of the manifest and continuation sheet to the exporter instead of the generator.

Further, the Third Rule clarifies that starting on December 1, 2025, transporters can use the e-Manifest system to export hazardous waste and send exporters copies of the signed manifest and continuation sheet. Transporters planning to do so need to set up a RCRAInfo account to use the e-Manifest system and assign Certifier permission to the user(s) who will submit the manifests.

Compliance check:

☑ Plan to send signed copies of the manifest and continuation sheet to the exporter.

☑ If applicable, register an account on RCRAInfo, and ensure at least one user has Certifier permission.

Use e-Manifest resources for additional help

EPA has multiple resources to help regulated hazardous waste handlers comply with e-Manifest regulations, including the upcoming Third Rule’s requirements that take effect on December 1, 2025. Consider using the resources the agency provides on “The Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest (e-Manifest) System” website, such as:

Webinars,
Demonstration videos,
General and user-specific FAQs about the e-Manifest program, and
The e-Manifest Helpdesk for industry users.

The compliance checklist and e-Manifest resources can help you ensure that your facility will be ready to comply with the rest of the Third Rule’s requirements by December.

Key to remember: The remaining e-Manifest Third Rule requirements take effect on December 1, 2025. Facilities should confirm that they’re prepared to comply.

2025-09-12T05:00:00Z

Hazardous waste handlers may continue use of 5-copy manifest forms

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it will accept 5-copy paper manifest forms from entities regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste manifest program until further notice.

What changed?

The final Third Rule (effective on January 22, 2025) made multiple changes to the hazardous waste manifest regulations, one of which requires regulated entities to use 4-copy manifests (EPA Form 8700-22) and continuation sheets (EPA Form 8700-22A) instead of the previous 5-copy forms.

Initially, EPA stated that it would no longer accept 5-copy forms starting on December 1, 2025. However, the agency has removed the limit and will accept the 5-copy forms until further notice. Additionally, EPA will give a 90-day notice before the agency plans to stop accepting the 5-copy forms.

As an authorized printer of the hazardous waste manifest forms, J. J. Keller & Associates, Inc. is working closely with EPA for approval to print the new 4-copy forms. At the time of publication of this news article, the federal agency hasn’t yet approved any authorized printer to print the new forms.

Exporter and importer requirements

Hazardous waste exporters and importers that use the 5-copy manifest forms are required to put the consent numbers for their wastes in the Special Handling Instructions and Additional Information Field (Item 14) of the 5-copy manifest. If applicable, exporters must also enter their EPA Identification (ID) numbers in Item 14. The agency recommends using this format: “Exporter EPA ID #AAANNNNNNNNN."

Please note that we will monitor any additional changes that result from EPA's decision to continue accepting 5-copy paper manifest forms and provide updates accordingly.

Key to remember: EPA will accept 5-copy manifests and continuation sheets beyond the initial deadline of December 1, 2025, until further notice.

2025-09-11T05:00:00Z

Countdown to compliance: EPA’s AIM Act and its impact on refrigerant users

Starting January 1, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will enforce sweeping changes under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act, targeting the use and management of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)—potent greenhouse gases used in refrigeration, air conditioning, and fire suppression.

These rules apply to all businesses with equipment containing 15 pounds or more of refrigerant with a Global Warming Potential (GWP) over 53, including but not limited to grocery stores, refrigerated transport fleets, repair shops, and small businesses.

Key requirements for end users

1. Leak detection and repair

Automatic leak detection systems (ALDs) are mandatory for systems with 1,500 pounds or more of refrigerant.
Leaks must be repaired within 30 days or a retirement/retrofit plan must be submitted
Leak rate thresholds:
- Industrial process refrigeration: 30%
- Commercial refrigeration: 20%
- Transport & comfort cooling: 10%

2. Refrigerant reclamation

Repairs must use reclaimed refrigerants in supermarket systems, refrigerated transport, and commercial ice makers
Reclaimed HFCs must contain no more than 15% virgin HFCs and be properly labeled

3. Recordkeeping and reporting

Businesses must maintain detailed logs of:
- Refrigerant purchases and usage
- Leak events and repairs
- Equipment servicing and disposal
Records must be available for EPA audits at any time.

4. Disposal and recycling

HFCs must be recovered from disposable cylinders before disposal
Fire suppression systems must be recycled prior to disposal, and technician training is required

Sector-specific impacts

Grocery retailers

Must retrofit or replace systems using restricted HFCs like R-404A or R-22
Natural refrigerants (CO₂, ammonia) are encouraged but require new equipment and trained technicians
Legacy systems may become costly to maintain due to refrigerant scarcity

Refrigerated transport

Subject to leak repair thresholds and reclamation rules
Must track refrigerant use across fleets and ensure timely repairs

Repair shops

Must use reclaimed refrigerants for servicing regulated systems
Required to follow EPA labeling and documentation standards

All end users: what you must do now

Inventory your equipment: Identify all systems with refrigerants over 15 lbs and GWP greater than 53
Install ALDs: For large systems, ensure real-time leak monitoring is in place
Train staff: Ensure technicians understand new servicing, reporting, and disposal rules
Upgrade Recordkeeping: Use digital tools to automate tracking and reporting

Looking ahead: state-level rules may be stricter

States like California, Washington, and New York are implementing stricter refrigerant rules that may exceed federal AIM Act standards. Businesses operating across state lines must monitor local regulations and prepare for additional reporting and inspections.

Key to remember: If your business uses refrigerants, the AIM Act likely applies to you. Start preparing now to avoid penalties and ensure compliance by 2026.

2025-09-09T05:00:00Z

EPA's Spring 2025 regulatory agenda focuses on PFAS, fossil fuels, and rule reconsiderations

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Spring 2025 Semiannual Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions on September 4, 2025. The agenda outlines the agency’s upcoming regulatory actions and their status in the rulemaking process.

EPA has major updates on the docket, such as:

Repealing all greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants and the 2024 amendments to the Mercury Air Toxics Standard for power plants (final rules expected December 2025);
Establishing risk management rules for multiple chemical substances, such as 1-bromopropane and n-methylpyrrolidone (final rules expected April 2026);
Adding hazardous waste solar panels to the federal universal waste program and setting universal waste standards specific to lithium batteries (proposed rule expected February 2026);
Setting the Renewable Fuel Standards for 2026 and 2027 and implementing regulatory program changes (final rule expected October 2025); and
Reconsidering current rules, like:
- The GHG Reporting Program (final rule expected November 2025),
- The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for iron and steel and the NESHAP for oil and natural gas (proposed rules expected November 2025 and December 2025, respectively), and
- The 2024 amendments to the procedures for conducting Toxic Substances Control Act chemical risk evaluations (final rule expected April 2026).

Additionally, the agency intends to address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) across multiple media. For example, EPA plans to:

Rescind the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for PFHxS, PFNA, GenX, and mixtures of these three as well as for PFBS (proposed rule expected September 2025);
Add certain PFAS to the Toxics Release Inventory (final rule expected February 2026); and
Address PFAS discharges from PFAS manufacturers (proposed rule expected January 2026).

This article highlights some of the major rules we’re monitoring closely. You can review the entire agenda to learn about all the rulemakings on EPA’s docket. Please note that the agenda dates are tentative, indicating when the agency seeks to publish the rulemakings in the Federal Register.

Final Rule Stage
Projected publication date	Title
December 2025	Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Reconsideration of Certain Regulatory Requirements Under the Technology Transitions Provisions of the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020
January 2026	Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act; Common Sense Approach to Chemical Accident Prevention
February 2026	Addition of Certain Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
February 2026	Initial Air Quality Designations for the 2024 Revised Primary Annual Fine Particle (PM_2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
April 2026	Listing of Specific PFAS as Hazardous Constituents
Proposed Rule Stage
Projected publication date of notice of proposed rulemaking	Title
October 2025	Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction Category (40 CFR 435 Subpart E)
October 2025	New Source Performance Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry
November 2025	Additional Reconsideration of Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review
November 2025	PFAS Requirements in NPDES Permit Applications
November 2025	Steam Electric Effluent Limitations Guideline Reconsideration Rule
December 2025	Updates to the RCRA Hazardous Waste Regulations and Related Technical Corrections — Permitting Updates Rule
January 2026	Paper Manifest Sunset Rule; Modification of the Hazardous Waste Manifest System
January 2026	Revision to “Begin Actual Construction” in the New Source Review Preconstruction Permitting Program
April 2026	Reconsideration of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Gasoline Distribution Technology Reviews and New Source Performance Standards Review for Bulk Gasoline Terminals
May 2026	Formaldehyde; Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Pre-Rule Stage
Projected publication date or other action	Title
September 2025 (advanced notice of proposed rulemaking)	Visibility Protection: Regional Haze State Plan Requirements Rule Revision
December 2025 (end review)	National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

Key to remember: EPA’s planned rulemakings may impact regulatory compliance with air, land, and water rules.

EHS Monthly Round Up - August 2025

In this August 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. Let’s take a look at what’s happened over the past month!

OSHA extended the comment period for multiple proposed rules it published on July 1. Stakeholders now have an extra 60 days, until November 1, to comment. Impacted rules include those for respiratory protection, construction illumination, COVID-19, and the General Duty Clause.

OSHA is expanding its Voluntary Protection Programs to help employers develop strong safety programs and lower injury rates. To participate, employers must submit an application to OSHA and undergo an onsite evaluation by a team of safety and health professionals.

Following a series of recent trench collapses, OSHA urges employers to take steps to protect workers. Trench collapses can be prevented by sloping or benching trench walls at an angle, shoring trench walls with supports, and shielding walls with trench boxes. More information can be found on OSHA’s website.

The Mine Safety and Health Administration launched a webpage for its new Compliance Assistance in Safety and Health, or CASH, program. The agency anticipates a surge in domestic mining productivity and seeks to proactively provide miners and mine operators with compliance assistance materials.

Turning to environmental news, EPA proposes challenges to California’s Clean Truck Check program. The program aims to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter for heavy-duty vehicles. EPA supports the regulation as it applies to California-registered vehicles but disapproves the regulation as it applies to out of state and out of country vehicles. Stakeholders have until September 25 to comment on the proposal.

On August 14, EPA released the July 2025 nonconfidential TSCA Inventory of chemical substances manufactured, processed, or imported in the U.S. The Inventory contains over 86 thousand chemicals, nearly half of which are in active use. The next inventory update is planned for late 2026.

And finally, EPA proposes to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repeal greenhouse gas emissions for new motor vehicles and vehicle engines. The agency will accept comments on the proposal through September 15.

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

Most Recent Highlights In Safety & Health

2025-09-05T05:00:00Z

Update: EPA withdraws direct rule, keeps proposed rule for alternative CCR reporting option

On September 4, 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew a direct final rule it issued on July 22, 2025, that offered active and inactive coal combustion residuals (CCR) facilities an alternative reporting option and delayed corresponding compliance obligations for CCR management units (CCRMUs). However, the parallel proposed rule that was published with the direct final rule remains in place, and EPA has extended the comment period through September 15, 2025.

Who does this affect?

The direct and proposed rules impact (a) active CCR facilities and (b) inactive CCR facilities with inactive surface impoundments (called legacy CCR surface impoundments) that are regulated by the 2024 Legacy Rule.

What does this mean?

Because the direct rule was withdrawn, the alternative reporting option for the Facility Evaluation Report (FER) Part 1 doesn’t apply, and the compliance deadlines for the related CCRMU requirements revert to the previous timelines.

The parallel proposed rule remains active and contains the same changes as the withdrawn direct final rule, including:

Adding an alternative option for active CCR facilities and legacy CCR surface impoundments to submit FER Parts 1 and 2 together by February 8, 2027; and
Extending the related compliance deadlines for facilities with CCRMUs.

Further, the proposed rule seeks public input on potentially delaying both FER reporting deadlines and adjusting the CCRMU compliance timelines accordingly. The proposed additional extension would give CCR facilities the option to:

Submit FER Part 1 by February 8, 2027, and FER Part 2 by February 8, 2028; or
Submit FER Parts 1 and 2 together by February 8, 2028.

You can submit comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2020-0107.

Please see the original Industry News article ("EPA offers CCR facilities delayed reporting option and extends compliance deadlines") for more information about the withdrawn direct rule and the active proposed rule.

Key to remember: EPA has withdrawn a direct final rule that offered active and inactive coal combustion facilities an alternative reporting option, but the agency has kept the corresponding proposed rule in place.

2025-09-03T05:00:00Z

OSHA renews alliance to improve worker safety in waste and recycling industry

In a renewed alliance, OSHA, the National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA), and the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) will continue to work together to improve the safety and health of workers in the solid waste and recycling industry.

The partnership will focus on safety issues such as:

Transportation hazards;
Slips, trips, and falls;
Needlestick and musculoskeletal injuries; and
Health issues associated with lithium battery hazards in waste/recycling collection and processing.

OSHA, NWRA, and SWANA will develop resources to help employers prevent and mitigate hazards, including:

Educational articles,
Fact sheets, and
Toolkits.

The group will share these resources and additional information at conferences, forums, and meetings, with much of their outreach aimed at reaching small- and medium-sized employers who may have limited access to safety information.

2025-08-29T05:00:00Z

New Mexico bans PFAS from oil and gas well completions and recompletions

Effective date: July 29, 2025

This applies to: Oil and gas operations

Description of change: The New Mexico Oil Conservation Commission adopted amendments to ban per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from being used in completions (bringing into production) or recompletions (restarting production) of oil wells. The amendments to 19.15 N.M.A.C.:

Require operators to provide certification that no PFAS chemicals were used;
Require applicants for a permit to drill, deepen, or plug back a well to certify that they won’t introduce PFAS-containing additives;
Adds completion operations to the factors that trigger notification and diligence action requirements when potential loss of containment or damage occurs; and
Adds FracFocus disclosure requirements.

2025-08-29T05:00:00Z

Colorado provides alternative window, door, skylight efficiency standards

Effective date: January 1, 2026

This applies to: Residential windows, doors, and skylights sold or leased for residential use in the state

Description of change: As of January 1, 2026, all residential windows, doors, and skylights sold or leased for residential use in Colorado must meet specific energy efficiency standards established by House Bill 23-1161. The Colorado Energy Office established an alternative energy standard for compliance. Manufacturers may choose between the standard at C.R.S. 6-7.5-105(5)(j)(l) and the alternative standard at 5 CCR 1004-2(1.1).

2025-08-29T05:00:00Z

Washington updates protocol for Cap-and-Invest Program

Effective date: August 21, 2025

This applies to: Businesses subject to the Climate Commitment Act Program rule

Description of change: The Department of Ecology updated the offset protocol for ozone-depleting substances (ODS) to expand the scope of offset projects available to Cap-and-Invest Program participants. The amendments to chapter 173-446 WAC:

Restrict project invalidation liability for ODS projects,
Adopt a new ODS protocol based on one used by the California Air Resources Board, and
Require all ODS offset projects that begin after the effective date of this rule to use the new protocol.

View related state info: Clean air operating permits — Washington

Most Recent Highlights In Human Resources

2025-08-29T05:00:00Z

Colorado revises water well construction rules

Effective date: January 1, 2026

This applies to: Entities subject to the Well Construction Rules

Description of change: The Board of Examiners of Water Construction and Pump Installation Contractors adopted amendments to:

Establish online, open-book assessments for well owners constructing wells or installing pumping equipment;
Change well construction requirements for Confined (Type 1) Aquifers by:
- Expanding minimum annular space for grout,
- Specifying sealing requirements,
- Allowing solid casing for all confined aquifer wells, and
- Allowing solid granular bentonite for minimum grouting requirements.
Change monitoring and observation requirements by:
- Establishing minimum grouting interval and grouting annular space requirements,
- Restricting filter packs to the monitored interval, and
- Improving abandonment requirements.

2025-08-29T05:00:00Z

California strengthens Low Carbon Fuel Standard

Effective date: July 1, 2025

This applies to: Any entity that sells or supplies transportation fuel in the state

Description of change: The California Air Resources Board (or CARB) amended the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to set more stringent LCFS carbon intensity (CI) benchmarks. The amendments require:

A 30 percent reduction in fuel CI by 2030, and
A 90 percent reduction in fuel CI by 2045.

The amendments also:

Adopt a near-term step down of CI benchmarks and automatic increases of CI benchmark stringency when triggered;
Streamline application and reporting requirements, quantification methods, and analysis tools; and
Updates third-party verification and validation requirements.

View related state info: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulation State Comparison

2025-08-29T05:00:00Z

Rhode Island adds monthly recordkeeping flexibility

Effective date: June 6, 2025

This applies to: Sources required to record monthly data for nitrogen oxide emissions and/or distributed/emergency generators with a general permit

Description of change: The Office of Air Resources removed monthly recordkeeping limits for:

Stationary sources that emit nitrogen oxides (NO_x), and
Stationary sources with general permits for emergency generators and distributed generators.

The office amended Part 27 to remove the requirement to record within the first 15 days of the month:

Fuel usage and the quantity of NO_x emitted, and/or
The hours of operation for each engine and/or combustion unit.

The office also amended Part 43 to remove the requirement to record within the first five days of the month:

Fuel usage for each distributed generator, and/or
Hours of operation for each emergency generator.

Sources may record the data at any time within the month.

View related state info: Clean air operating permits — Rhode Island

2025-08-28T05:00:00Z

ABCs of UST operator training

“Operator error” isn’t something anyone likes to see, especially when it applies to leaks from underground tanks of petroleum or hazardous materials. That’s why it’s essential to train individuals to manage underground storage tanks (USTs) correctly. Training obligations vary for each type of UST operator. Federal regulations establish three categories:

Class A operators,
Class B operators, and
Class C operators.

Properly trained operators are vital to managing USTs safely and in compliance. Use this guide to understand the different training requirements for Class A, B, and C operators.

An overview of roles

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires all owners and operators of UST systems to designate:

One Class A operator and one Class B operator for each UST or groups of USTs, and
Each qualifying person at the facility as a Class C operator.

Class A operators are responsible for operating and maintaining USTs in line with the regulations. A Class A operator generally manages the resources and personnel involved to ensure UST operations comply.

A successfully trained Class A operator:

Makes informed decisions about compliance; and
Determines whether the facility complies with operation, maintenance, and recordkeeping requirements.

Class B operators handle the day-to-day responsibilities for managing USTs (like conducting in-field operations).

A Class B operator with sufficient training implements applicable regulatory requirements in the field on typical UST system components or site-specific equipment.

Class C operators provide immediate responses to UST-related problems.

An adequately trained Class C operator takes the necessary response actions to emergencies or alarms caused by UST spills and releases.

Basic training requirements

EPA outlines the minimum training requirements for each operator type at 40 CFR Part 280 Subpart J. All classes of operators must be trained or pass a comparable examination. Class C operators have the additional option to receive training from a Class A or B operator at the facility.

A facility can designate an individual for multiple operator classes. Any person with multiple designations must complete the required training or comparable examination for all applicable classes.

Class A and Class B operators must be trained within 30 days of beginning UST duties. Class C operators have to be trained before starting their UST responsibilities.

Class A operators should understand the purpose, methods, and functions of:

Spill and overfill prevention;
Release detection;
Corrosion protection;
Emergency response;
Product and equipment compatibility and demonstration;
Financial responsibility;
Notification and storage tank registration;
Temporary and permanent closure;
Related reporting, recordkeeping, testing, and inspections;
Environmental and regulatory consequences of releases; and
Training requirements for Class B and Class C operators.

Class B operators may be trained in either:

General requirements for all compliance rules and the equipment commonly used at UST facilities, or
Site-specific requirements that only cover the regulations and equipment applicable to the facility.

Additionally, Class B operators need to know the purpose, methods, and functions of:

Operation and maintenance;
Spill and overfill prevention;
Release detection and related reporting;
Corrosion protection;
Emergency response;
Product and equipment compatibility and demonstration;
Reporting, recordkeeping, testing, and inspections;
Environmental and regulatory consequences of releases; and
Training requirements for Class C operators.

Class C operators must know how to respond with the correct actions to emergencies or alarms that are caused by spills or releases from UST operations, including notifying the authorities.

Common training questions

Consider these FAQs to help ensure your UST operator training programs comply.

How are operators evaluated?

Facilities must evaluate each operator via testing, a practical demonstration, or another approved approach.

When is retraining required?

If a UST system is found to be noncompliant, Class A and Class B operators at the facility must complete a training program or comparable examination that at least covers the areas out of compliance (unless exempt per 280.244).

Retraining should be completed within 30 days of the noncompliance determination. The training program or examination has to be developed or administered by a third party (i.e., an independent organization, the implementing agency, or a recognized authority).

How is training tracked?

Facilities are required to keep paper or electronic records that verify training and retraining for as long as the operators are designated. The records should contain at a minimum the information at 280.245(b).

What about state requirements?

It’s essential to check state UST regulations where your facilities operate. EPA has approved most states to implement the UST program. State requirements are at least as stringent as federal standards, and many state programs impose stricter rules.

Usually, operator training is obtained from third-party organizations that must be registered and approved by state environmental agencies to ensure the programs comply with federal and state requirements.

Key to remember: Training requirements for underground storage tank operators are based on their designated class: A, B, or C.

2025-08-25T05:00:00Z

Avoiding compliance pitfalls: Understanding the overlap between HAPs and VOCs

Understanding how hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are counted is key to accurate reporting and staying in compliance. These pollutants often overlap, but how they're treated depends on the situation — especially when comparing emission inventories to permitting rules. Misunderstanding the differences can lead to underreporting, permit mistakes, and other compliance problems. This article will also discuss how state rules can make things more complex.

Emission inventories: often counted together

Emission inventories help regulatory agencies track actual emissions from facilities over time. These records support air quality models, guide policy, and help protect public health.

In many cases, HAPs that are also VOCs (like toluene or xylene) are included in the total VOC count. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) includes HAP-VOCs in its National Emissions Inventory, which supports regional air quality models, like the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) system.

Frequently Asked Question: What's the National Emissions Inventory?

As an example, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality recommends using conservative “first-cut” estimates for both VOCs and HAPs. This makes early reporting easier and helps avoid underestimating emissions.

Potential to emit (PTE): counted separately

PTE calculations are used to determine a facility’s regulatory status, such as whether it qualifies as a major source under the New Source Review (NSR) or Title V programs or is subject to Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards.

In this context, HAPs and VOCs are counted separately because they're subject to different thresholds, including:

10 tons per year (TPY) for a single HAP or 25 TPY for total HAPs; and
Typically 100 TPY for major source classification under NSR, though this can vary by attainment status.

This separation is critical. A facility might exceed the HAP threshold and trigger MACT requirements, even if its VOC emissions are below NSR thresholds — or vice versa. As an example, if a paint booth has the potential to emit 500 pounds of toluene, this is counted as 500 pounds of HAP and 500 pounds of VOC. Even though that seems like double-counting for the same emission, it's important to include both totals separately.

State-by-state variability

While federal rules provide a baseline, states often have their own interpretations and requirements:

Ohio offers detailed guidance on calculating VOC and HAP emissions separately for permitting purposes. Facilities must demonstrate compliance with both sets of thresholds.
Texas uses a tiered approach. Facilities begin with conservative estimates and refine them only if emissions approach regulatory thresholds.
California maintains stricter standards and often requires separate reporting for toxic air contaminants (TACs), which include many HAPs. The state’s Air Toxics Hot Spots Program adds another layer of complexity.

Why the distinction matters

Failing to understand how HAPs and VOCs are counted can lead to serious compliance issues:

Permitting errors: Misclassification can result in incorrect permit applications or missed regulatory obligations.
Underreporting risks: Facilities may inadvertently underreport emissions if they assume HAPs are always included in VOC totals.
Modeling impacts: While combined inventories help with regional modeling, they may obscure the risks posed by individual pollutants.

Recommendations for facilities

To stay compliant and avoid costly mistakes, implement the following:

Check state guidance: Requirements vary widely. Always consult your state environmental agency.

Use Safety Data Sheet data: Identify both VOC and HAP content in raw materials.
Maintain separate records: Keep VOC and HAP data distinct, especially for PTE calculations.
Consult experts: When in doubt, seek help from J. J. Keller & Associates, Inc. subject matter experts using the Expert Help feature.

Key to Remember: The way HAPs and VOCs are counted depends heavily on context. Understanding these distinctions — and how they vary by state — is key to maintaining compliance and protecting air quality.

New Network Poll

No active poll

Please come back soon!

View Previous Polls & Results

Most Popular Highlights In Environmental

2025-09-22T05:00:00Z

The new rules of waste: How 2025 legislation is reshaping corporate environmental compliance

Single-use plastics: New bans and restrictions

Several states have enacted new bans on polystyrene foam containers, plastic straws, and produce bags:

California SB 1046, as of January 1, 2025, bans expanded polystyrene (EPS) food containers unless they meet a 25 percent recycling rate. Precheckout bags must be compostable or made of recycled paper.
Delaware SB 51 bans foam containers and plastic stirrers unless requested by the customer.
Oregon SB 543 bans EPS containers and food packaging with intentionally added PFAS.
Virginia bans food vendors from using EPS containers starting July 1, 2025.

Compliance tip: Audit your packaging inventory and supplier certifications. Ensure alternatives meet compostability or recyclability standards.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): Expanding nationwide

EPR laws now apply in several states. These laws require companies to help pay for recycling and report packaging data:

Maryland SB 901 allows multiple Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs) and mandates cost-sharing for recycling.
Washington SB 5284 targets consumer packaging with compliance deadlines starting in 2028.
Colorado bans unregistered producers from selling covered products as of July 1, 2025.
California SB 54 revised draft rules released in May 2025 to include new compliance dates and exemptions.

Compliance tip: Register with your state’s PRO, submit packaging data, and prepare for fee schedules. Track deadlines and exemptions closely.

Chemical recycling: Regulatory reclassification and impacts

Compliance tip: If your facility uses or contracts chemical recycling, review air and water permits. Ensure alignment with manufacturing regulations.

Per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): Phaseouts and hazardous waste updates

More states are banning PFAS in packaging and cookware:

Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, and New Mexico have banned or phased out PFAS in consumer products.
Illinois SB 727 aligns PFAS limits with the Environmental Protection Agency standards.

Compliance tip: Update product Safety Data Sheets and conduct PFAS audits. Prepare for new reporting under TSCA Section 8(a)(7), including data on manufacture, use, and disposal.

Circular economy and composting: Recent mandates

States are setting zero-waste goals and requiring composting:

Hawaii HB 750 launches a statewide recycling needs assessment.
Maine LD 1065 requires large food waste generators to compost by 2030.

Compliance tip: Evaluate organics diversion programs and infrastructure. Consider partnerships with composting facilities.

EHS teams: What to do now

Map your regulatory exposure: Identify which state laws apply to your operations.
Engage with PROs: Register, report, and participate in rulemaking.
Train staff: Ensure procurement, operations, and legal teams understand new requirements.
Audit packaging and waste streams: Replace banned materials and optimize recycling.
Monitor emerging legislation: Stay ahead of new bills and compliance deadlines.

Key to remember: Staying compliant in 2025 means more than avoiding fines. EHS teams must lead efforts to meet new waste laws and support sustainability goals.

2025-09-23T05:00:00Z

CSB says inferno reveals gaping holes in OSHA/EPA regulations

The catastrophic incident

What did investigators find?

The CSB investigation found technical failures. The video identifies three important but missing things:

Procedures to maintain the mechanical integrity of the pump,
Flammable gas detection systems, and
Remotely operated tank valves.

Outdated tank farm design was also a factor. Tanks were spaced close together and did not have subdivided containment systems.

OSHA regulatory gap

EPA regulatory gap

CSB recommends closing the regulatory loopholes

In the recently released video, CSB recommends that:

OSHA eliminate the atmospheric storage tank exemption from the PSM standard — The board insists that the atmospheric storage tank exemption in the OSHA standard continues to allow for catastrophic incidents to occur. Without PSM coverage, necessary safeguards are not being implemented for equipment that should otherwise be covered, CSB says.
EPA modify 68.115(b)(2)(i) to expand coverage of its RMP standard to include all flammable liquids, including mixtures, with a flammability rating of NFPA-3 or higher — NFPA-3 flammability rated materials have resulted in significant explosions and fires similar to those contemplated to occur from NFPA-4 rated materials, observes CSB.

Key to remember

2025-09-25T05:00:00Z

Pre-preconstruction permits: Can building begin without one?

What are the preconstruction permit requirements?

There are three types of preconstruction permits: Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits, nonattainment NSR permits, and minor source permits. The permits define:

What construction is allowed,
Emissions limits, and
How the source must be operated (if applicable).

It’s important to note that most preconstruction permits are issued at the state or local levels. The requirements must be at least as stringent as EPA’s.

What’s the case?

EPA answered the request with TSMC Arizona Begin Actual Construction — EPA Response Letter (September 2, 2025) and published the letter as new guidance.

Facts of the case

The company builds its facilities in three phases and doesn’t install the semiconductor manufacturing equipment until all phases are complete.

The county air quality district agreed that if a structure contains no emissions unit, it’s not subject to NSR permitting because it doesn’t emit or have the potential to emit pollutants.

EPA response to the case

What are EPA’s regulatory plans?

Revising the definition of “begin actual construction," and
Establishing how permitting authorities may distinguish parts of a facility that are and aren’t emissions units or parts of emissions units.

Until then, EPA will address preconstruction permitting issues on a case-by-case basis.

How should facilities respond?

If you’re planning to build a new facility or make a major modification to one, consider these tips to help you comply with the NSR regulations:

Check whether the state and local requirements are the same as or stricter than federal rules. The state environmental department’s website is a good place to start.
Contact the permit-issuing agency (likely the state or local air pollution control agency) for direct help with your specific project.
Watch EPA news announcements for updates on rulemaking. You can also track the Federal Register, where the agency publishes proposed and final rules.

Key to remember: EPA plans to conduct rulemaking to help distinguish which construction activities need a preconstruction permit for air emissions and which activities don’t.

2025-09-19T05:00:00Z

EPA proposes to remove GHG reporting requirements for most facilities

The GHGRP requires covered entities to submit annual reports of GHG emissions. The regulation applies to 47 source categories, including:

Large direct emitters of GHG emissions (25,000 or more metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year),
Fuel and industrial gas suppliers, and
Carbon dioxide injection sites.

What are the possible changes?

EPA proposes to:

Remove the requirements of 40 CFR Part 98 for all source categories under Part 98 except for the Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems source category (Part 98 Subpart W),
Remove the Natural Gas Distribution industry segment (98.230) from the Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems source category, and
Suspend the reporting requirements for the Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems source category until January 1, 2034.

How could this impact facilities?

If finalized, EPA’s proposed rule would have major effects:

Nearly all of the covered source categories (apart from petroleum and natural gas systems) would no longer be subject to the GHGRP regulations after RY 2024.
Natural gas distributors would be removed from Part 98 Subpart W and, therefore, no longer subject to the GHGRP regulations after RY 2024.
Facilities in the Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems source category (except for natural gas distributors) would be subject to the GHGRP regulations. However, requirements wouldn’t apply until RY 2034. The next report would be due by March 31, 2035, and annually thereafter.

About the WEC program

How can I participate in the rulemaking?

2025-09-09T05:00:00Z

EPA's Spring 2025 regulatory agenda focuses on PFAS, fossil fuels, and rule reconsiderations

EPA has major updates on the docket, such as:

Repealing all greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants and the 2024 amendments to the Mercury Air Toxics Standard for power plants (final rules expected December 2025);
Establishing risk management rules for multiple chemical substances, such as 1-bromopropane and n-methylpyrrolidone (final rules expected April 2026);
Adding hazardous waste solar panels to the federal universal waste program and setting universal waste standards specific to lithium batteries (proposed rule expected February 2026);
Setting the Renewable Fuel Standards for 2026 and 2027 and implementing regulatory program changes (final rule expected October 2025); and
Reconsidering current rules, like:
- The GHG Reporting Program (final rule expected November 2025),
- The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for iron and steel and the NESHAP for oil and natural gas (proposed rules expected November 2025 and December 2025, respectively), and
- The 2024 amendments to the procedures for conducting Toxic Substances Control Act chemical risk evaluations (final rule expected April 2026).

Additionally, the agency intends to address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) across multiple media. For example, EPA plans to:

Rescind the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for PFHxS, PFNA, GenX, and mixtures of these three as well as for PFBS (proposed rule expected September 2025);
Add certain PFAS to the Toxics Release Inventory (final rule expected February 2026); and
Address PFAS discharges from PFAS manufacturers (proposed rule expected January 2026).

Final Rule Stage
Projected publication date	Title
December 2025	Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Reconsideration of Certain Regulatory Requirements Under the Technology Transitions Provisions of the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020
January 2026	Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act; Common Sense Approach to Chemical Accident Prevention
February 2026	Addition of Certain Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
February 2026	Initial Air Quality Designations for the 2024 Revised Primary Annual Fine Particle (PM_2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
April 2026	Listing of Specific PFAS as Hazardous Constituents
Proposed Rule Stage
Projected publication date of notice of proposed rulemaking	Title
October 2025	Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction Category (40 CFR 435 Subpart E)
October 2025	New Source Performance Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry
November 2025	Additional Reconsideration of Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review
November 2025	PFAS Requirements in NPDES Permit Applications
November 2025	Steam Electric Effluent Limitations Guideline Reconsideration Rule
December 2025	Updates to the RCRA Hazardous Waste Regulations and Related Technical Corrections — Permitting Updates Rule
January 2026	Paper Manifest Sunset Rule; Modification of the Hazardous Waste Manifest System
January 2026	Revision to “Begin Actual Construction” in the New Source Review Preconstruction Permitting Program
April 2026	Reconsideration of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Gasoline Distribution Technology Reviews and New Source Performance Standards Review for Bulk Gasoline Terminals
May 2026	Formaldehyde; Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Pre-Rule Stage
Projected publication date or other action	Title
September 2025 (advanced notice of proposed rulemaking)	Visibility Protection: Regional Haze State Plan Requirements Rule Revision
December 2025 (end review)	National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

Key to remember: EPA’s planned rulemakings may impact regulatory compliance with air, land, and water rules.

2025-01-22T06:00:00Z

EPA updates TSCA Chemical Substances Inventory

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the biannual update of the nonconfidential Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory) on January 17, 2025. It includes all nonexempt chemical substances manufactured, processed, and imported in the U.S. that TSCA regulates.

Please note that the nonconfidential TSCA Inventory contains no chemical identities claimed as confidential business information, so it’s not a comprehensive list. The TSCA Master Inventory File is the only complete list.

How does this impact my facility?

The TSCA Inventory helps facilities determine TSCA’s regulatory requirements for the chemicals they use or plan to use. Chemicals on the list (i.e., “existing chemicals”) may be subject to rules such as reporting requirements and manufacturing limits. Chemicals not on the list (i.e., “new chemicals”) have specific notification and review requirements before they can be used.

About the updated TSCA Inventory

The TSCA Inventory has 86,847 chemicals, and 42,495 of these chemicals are active (i.e., in use). EPA also updated commercial activity data as well as regulatory flags that indicate:

A chemical is subject to a rule or order restricting manufacturing or use, and/or
A chemical has a partial or full exemption from TSCA reporting rules.

EPA plans to release the next updated TSCA Inventory by Summer 2025.

How to access the TSCA Inventory

You can download the nonconfidential TSCA Inventory from EPA’s website or view it online via the agency’s Substance Registry Services (search by list).

Key to remember: EPA updated the nonconfidential TSCA Inventory, including regulatory flags that indicate certain regulatory restrictions and/or reporting exemptions.

Most Popular Highlights In Transportation

2025-09-12T05:00:00Z

4 risky driver scenarios—and how to avoid disqualification

Commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers must meet strict qualification rules. A disqualified driver operating a CMV can lead to serious problems like:

Out-of-service violations along with fines and stranded assets,
Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) Driver Fitness score damage, and
Excessive judgments from litigation if a crash occurs.

4 scenarios and best practices

The four disqualification scenarios below are quite common, but the recommended best practices can help avoid them.

1. Expired medical certifications

Drivers holding a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL)Drivers must carry a valid medical certificate or have the certification on their motor vehicle record (MVR). If the certification expires, the driver cannot operate any CMV.

Examples of when medical certifications may expire include:

The medical exam wasn't scheduled early enough to allow for examiner-required tests or input from a specialist, which may impact a certification decision. An examiner cannot extend an expiration date for any reason.
CDL driver exam information may not transfer to their state licensing authority in a timely manner and the MVR will show “Not-certified” if the problems aren't resolved before the expiration date.

Best practices:

1.Track in a fleet management system, all driver medical certification expiration dates and verify that each medical exam is scheduled with sufficient time prior to expiration.

2.Use continuous MVR monitoring to receive alerts on driver licensing status changes.

2. Suspended or revoked CDLs

A licensing authority can suspend or revoke a CDL for reasons like driving under the influence (DUI) in a person vehicle or having unpaid child support obligations. If the carrier doesn’t monitor a driver’s MVR more than the minimum of once per year, the driver may lose CDL privileges or any ability to operate vehicles without their company being aware.

Best practices:

1.Use continuous MVR monitoring to receive alerts on driver licensing status changes.

2.Implement a company policy requiring drivers to immediately notify the company of any moving violation or warning, in addition to convictions.

3. Missed drug and alcohol tests

CDL-vehicle drivers must be part of a Department of Transportation (DOT) drug and alcohol testing program. This includes pre-employment, random, and post-accident testing. A top acute (most serious) DOT audit violation each year is issued to carriers not having a DOT testing program. The DOT requires a testing program for any carrier operating CDL vehicles in intrastate or interstate commerce.

Best practices:

1.Hire a third party to provide compliance guidance on the applicability of safety regulations, and

2.Outsource the management of any DOT drug and alcohol testing and Clearinghouse requirements.

4. Failed English Language Proficiency (ELP) assessments

At hire, carriers must verify that CMV drivers are able to read and speak the English language well enough to:

1.Interact with enforcement officers,

2.Complete forms, and

3.Understand road signs.

Since June 25, 2025, during a roadside inspection, enforcement can conduct a two-step assessment of ELP. Officers can place a driver out-of-service, disqualifying them, if the driver cannot answer basic questions or recognize road signs.

Best practice:

1.Assess all driver applicants by simulating a roadside inspection as the last step of the road test process.

Key to remember: Closely monitor driver qualifications with best practices that exceed regulatory minimums.

2025-09-26T05:00:00Z

FMCSA announces changes to non-domiciled CDL issuance

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has announced an emergency action, placing restrictions on who is eligible to obtain a non-domiciled commercial learner’s permit (CLP) and non-domiciled commercial driver’s license (CDL).

Details of the rule

Effective immediately, under the interim final rule (IFR), to obtain a non-domiciled CLP or CDL, non-citizens (except lawful permanent residents) must meet specific requirements, including possessing an unexpired foreign passport and a valid, non-expired employment-based visa.

State driver licensing agencies (SDLAs) will be required to query the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system to verify the non-domiciled CDL applicant’s immigration status.

The SAVE system, administered by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is used by government agencies to verify the immigration status and U.S. citizenship of applicants for public benefits and licenses.

The IFR shortens the term of a non-domiciled CDL to one year or the expiration date of the visa, whichever occurs first. Also, all renewals will need to be completed in person at an SDLA office (no mail or online renewal option).

Enforcement action against California

FMCSA has also announced that in addition to this emergency rule, FMCSA has initiated a direct enforcement action against California. The state must immediately:

Pause issuance of non-domiciled CDLs,
Identify all unexpired non-domiciled CDLs that fail to comply with FMCSA regulations, and
Revoke and reissue all noncompliant non-domiciled CDLs if they comply with the new federal requirements.

California has 30 days to come into compliance, or FMCSA will withhold federal highway funds — starting at nearly $160 million in the first year and doubling in year two.

FMCSA cited a recent audit that revealed that 25 percent of non-domiciled CDLs were issued improperly as the reason for the immediate action.

2025-09-25T05:00:00Z

Making sense of the shipper’s certification requirements

If you're preparing hazardous materials for transportation, or you're the one transporting them, you’ll want to be familiar with 49 CFR 172.204, which covers the shipper’s certification. It might sound technical, but once you break it down, it’s pretty straightforward. Let’s walk through what it means, when it’s required, and how to do it right.

The shipper’s certification is basically a statement that confirms the hazardous materials you're offering for transport are properly classified, described, packaged, marked, and labeled, and are in proper condition for transportation according to the regulations.

When is a certification required?

In most cases, you need to include the certification any time hazmat shipping papers are required. You can use any of the certification statements listed in 49 CFR 172.204. Keep in mind, the statement must appear on shipping paper as it is listed in the regulations. The most commonly use certification statement is:

“This is to certify that the above-named materials are properly classified, described, packaged, marked and labeled, and are in proper condition for transportation according to the applicable regulations of the Department of Transportation.”

However, there are a few exceptions where the certification statement isn’t needed, which include:

Shipments of hazmat in cargo tanks supplied by the carrier.
Private carriers transporting hazmat not intended for reshipment or transfer.
Empty tank (rail) cars being returned that haven’t been cleaned or purged.

So, if you're a shipper using your own vehicle and you're not handing the material off to another carrier, you might be off the hook.

Do you need to sign it?

Yes, a signature is required, but it doesn’t always have to be handwritten. The certification must be legibly signed by a principal, officer, partner, employee of the shipper, or their agent. You can sign it:

Manually (handwritten)
By typewriter
By other mechanical means (like a computer-generated signature)

For rail shipments, the certification can even be done verbally or electronically, as long as it meets specific documentation requirements.

Where does the certification go?

The certification needs to be located directly on the shipping paper that lists the required hazmat shipping description. That means it should be clearly visible and easy to find, not on a separate document or attachment.

Key to remember: If you're involved in hazmat shipping, the certification is your way of saying, “I’ve done everything by the book.” In most cases, it’s not just a formality, it’s a legal requirement.

2025-09-23T05:00:00Z

Shipping papers to face automatic rejection before reaching border

Starting this week, electronic manifest filings with insufficient cargo descriptions, consignee information, or shipper information will be automatically rejected before reaching the U.S. border.

On September 27, 2025, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will deploy the Automated Rejection of Manifest Filings with Insufficient Cargo Information enhancement to the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). This automates rejection of ACE manifest filings that have insufficient cargo descriptions, consignee information, and shipper information prior to border crossing. ACE is CBP’s primary system for processing trade-related data. The centralized, paperless platform allows importers, exporters, brokers, and carriers to electronically submit documentation and comply with U.S. trade laws and regulations.

The system change also deploys new disposition codes to enable CBP enforcement users to manually place and remove holds related to insufficient cargo descriptions, consignee information, or shipper information. This release includes electronic data interchange (EDI) impacts.

Why the change?

CBP requires filers to provide specific details for their shipment to ensure compliance with:

19 CFR 4.7a (Vessel),
19 CFR 122.48a (Air),
19 CFR 123.91 (Rail),
19 CFR 123.92 (Truck), and
19 CFR 128.21 (Express consignments).

The required information includes:

Cargo description: A clear, accurate, and specific cargo description sufficient for CBP to identify the commodity shipped.
Consignee information: The name and address of the consignee to whom the cargo will be delivered.
Shipper information: The full company name and address identifying the foreign party initiating the shipment.

This change to the system is intended to reinforce the trade community’s responsibility to ensure the accuracy of manifest data, and hold the appropriate parties accountable for the data they submit.

According to the CBP announcement for this action, automated rejection of filings before arrival:

Provides time for filers to remedy the error,
Streamlines the import process, and
Prevents an overload of held shipments at the ports.

Watch for a rejection message

Beginning September 27, 2025, when ACE manifest filings are submitted with insufficient cargo descriptions, consignee information, or shipper information, ACE will automatically reject the manifest submission and return a rejection message to the filer.

Shipments with insufficient information will be rejected and the corresponding error codes will be returned to the filer:

548 Invalid cargo description
549 Invalid shipper data
550 Invalid consignee data

Trade users are expected to process these notifications and work to correct the issue with the shipper and bill of lading issuer for compliance on the shipment.

For technical questions, contact the ACE Account Service Desk at 866-530-4172 or ace.support@cbp.dhs.gov.

Key to remember: Keep your loads moving at the border by ensuring accurate entries on your shipping documents.

2022-07-08T05:00:00Z

What does the alphabet soup following 392.2 on a roadside inspection report mean?

One question that comes up when reviewing roadside inspection reports is, “What is the meaning of the letters that follow a violation of 392.2 on a roadside inspection report?”

‘State and local laws’

A violation of 392.2 is a violation of a local or state law, regulation, or ordinance. These must be obeyed due to 392.2, which reads, “Every commercial motor vehicle must be operated in accordance with the laws, ordinances, and regulations of the jurisdiction in which it is being operated.”

The confusion is that there are no paragraphs in 392.2, so there technically should be no letters following that section. However, to inform the driver, carrier, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) what particular state or local law or regulation was involved, FMCSA has developed a system of suffix codes. The letters following “392.2” – the “suffix” — show which state or local law or regulation was involved.

When one of these codes is used, the officer should include a description of the specific violation in the “violation details” area on the actual inspection report. FYI: Summary roadside inspection reports (such as the ones visible in CSA’s SMS) do not show these details.

For more information, see our ezExplanation on Roadside Inspections.

Not all 392.2 violations are used in CSA

Not all of these state and local law or regulation violations are used by the FMCSA for scoring purposes. The Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) Safety Measurement System (SMS) does not use the 392.2 violations that cannot be tied to crash causation. Here are a couple of examples: 392.2UCR Failure to pay UCR fee and 392.2W Size and weight are not used.

Most common 392.2 violations

Below are the top 10 392.2 violations written during 2021. All of these violations are safety-related, and therefore used in the CSA SMS for scoring. The BASIC within the SMS the violation is scored in is shown following the violation description.

392.2SLLS2 Speeding 6-10 miles per hour over the speed limit (Unsafe Driving)
392.2C Failure to obey traffic control device (Unsafe Driving)
392.2LV Lane Restriction violation (Unsafe Driving)
392.2SLLS3 Speeding 11-14 miles per hour over the speed limit (Unsafe Driving)
392.2WC Wheel (Mud) flaps missing or defective (Vehicle Maintenance)
392.2SLLS4 Speeding 15 or more miles per hour over the speed limit (Unsafe Driving)
392.2ML Failure to maintain lane (Unsafe Driving)
392.2SLLSWZ Speeding work/construction zone (Unsafe Driving)
392.2PK Unlawfully parking and/or leaving vehicle in the roadway (Unsafe Driving)
392.2FC Following too close (Unsafe Driving)

Key to remember

In general, FMCSA does not write traffic codes. They rely on local and state agencies to do that. When state or local traffic codes are violated, it appears on a roadside inspection report as a violation of 392.2, with a suffix indicating which traffic code was involved.

2025-09-18T05:00:00Z

HOS might get a little more flexible

In support of National Truck Driver Appreciation Week, two new hours-of-service pilot programs were announced to improve the lives of truck drivers. These programs were created to increase flexibility and to make drivers’ jobs safer and easier to accomplish.

The programs include:

The Split Duty Period pilot program, and
The Flexible Sleeper Berth pilot program.

What you need to know about the new HOS programs

The Split Duty Period pilot program will allow drivers to pause the 14-hour driving window for no less than 30 minutes and no more than 3 hours. This allows drivers to choose to extend the 14-hour window by taking one off-duty, sleeper berth, or on-duty/non-driving period within that time limit.

Participation in this program is limited to around 256 commercial driver’s license holders who meet the eligibility criteria. Passenger-carrying vehicles aren’t eligible.

The Flexible Sleeper Berth pilot program will look to more sleeper berth split options beyond the current 8/2 and 7/3 options (e.g., splitting the 10-hour-off-duty requirement into 6/4 and 5/5/ splits). This would allow temporary regulatory relief from the regulation requiring one period of at least 7 consecutive hours in the sleeper berth.

Participation in this program is limited to around 256 commercial driver’s license holders who regularly use the sleeper berth. Participants’ data will be shared for 4 months, during which they will spend 1 month following the current regulations and 3 months under the new proposed flexibility.

FMCSA data collection

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) plans to study these two programs to see how they may increase flexibility in current hours-of-service (HOS) regulations.

For the first program, the FMCSA will collect data and determine whether the added flexibility has an impact on safety outcomes.

For the second program, the FMCSA will test the safety of splitting up off-duty time and explore how it may impact driver fatigue and other safety performance indicators.

Get your comments in

The FMCSA is requesting comments for these two new programs by November 17, 2025, through the Portal, by mail, by hand delivery, or via fax.

Most Popular Highlights In Human Resources

2025-09-16T05:00:00Z

3 tips for a smoother, less spicy, open enrollment

It’s that time of year again. No, not pumpkin spice season — well, it is, but that’s for a different article. For HR, it’s getting close to open enrollment season.

HR departments across the country are getting ready to kick off open enrollment in the coming weeks. While this task can be a huge undertaking, following three simple steps can help make the process go smoothly for HR and employees.

Prepare employees. Communicate about open enrollment early and often. Start in September and wrap up in November. Not only does HR need to prepare, but they also need to get employees ready. While open enrollment is a once-a-year activity, benefits communication should be a year-round priority. Benefit use ebbs and flows throughout the year, and the needs and questions surrounding it also change based on an employee’s time with the company and their personal life. That’s why ongoing benefits communication is needed.
Focus on messaging. Tailor open enrollment communication to your specific workforce and avoid a one-size-fits-all approach. Newer employees might need more details about the process. For them, an FAQ sheet with common benefits terms might come in handy. Long-time employees might have questions about making changes to their insurance once they become empty nesters. Offering short videos might appeal to that crowd. Use available resources to craft catchy messaging to grab employees’ attention and provide easy-to-follow instructions so they know what to do.
Create goals. Think back to what went well (or what didn’t) during last year’s open enrollment. Were the same questions coming up repeatedly? Were employees confused about how to sign up for insurance? It’s always good to evaluate the open enrollment process and keep notes on how to improve things next time around. By creating HR goals with process improvement in mind, it helps set HR up for success this year. Remember to make goals specific. Instead of saying, “improve open enrollment communication,” for example, set a goal such as, “improve response time to employee open enrollment questions by 25 percent.”

Key to remember: Open enrollment might not be HR’s favorite time of year, but like pumpkin spice season, it’ll pass. When frustrations ramp up, remember to prioritize the “human” in HR and follow three simple steps to make open enrollment better for everyone.

2025-09-23T05:00:00Z

Got employees in the National Guard? They might need time off to serve in U.S. cities

Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., have seen an increase in U.S. military personnel from the National Guard to support federal and local law enforcement. Other cities, such as Chicago and New York, could also see an increase in National Guard members being deployed.

Those National Guard members likely have civilian jobs. Their military duties, even within the U.S. borders, could result in them needing time off from work. That time off falls under the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).

What is USERRA?

The USERRA is a federal law that protects employees’ jobs when those employees need to take time off from work to perform military duties. It protects service members' reemployment rights when returning from a period of military service, including those called up from the reserves or National Guard. It also prohibits employer discrimination based on military service or obligation.

Employees don’t have to meet any eligibility criteria before they can take military leave. They must, however, meet five criteria to return to work:

They must have been absent from a civilian job because of military duty;
They must have given their employer advance notice that they were leaving the job for military duty, unless military necessity precluded notice or it was otherwise impossible or unreasonable;
The cumulative period of military service while with that employer must not have exceeded five years, with some exceptions;
They must not have been released from the military under dishonorable or other punitive conditions; and
They must have reported back to their civilian job promptly or submitted a timely application for reemployment unless the timely reporting back or application was impossible or unreasonable.

Employers must return these employees to the job that they would have attained had they not taken military leave; this is known as the escalator position. Specifically, the employees are given the same seniority, status, and pay, as well as other rights and benefits determined by seniority.

USERRA also requires employers to make reasonable efforts (such as training or retraining) to enable returning servicemembers to qualify for reemployment.

If an employee can’t qualify for their previous job, the employer must reemploy them, if qualified, in any other position that is the nearest approximation to the escalator position and then to the pre-service position.

While employees are performing military service, employers must deem them to be on a furlough or leave of absence. As such, they’re entitled to the non-seniority rights and benefits given to other similarly situated individuals on non-military leave.

Key to remember: Employers might see an uptick in employee military leave requests as those employees could need time off to serve in the military, even if that duty is within the U.S. borders.

2025-09-12T05:00:00Z

Shifting from the ‘Great Resignation’ to the ‘Big Stay’

From 2020 through roughly 2024, large numbers of workers left their jobs in what became known as the “Great Resignation.” Now the pendulum has swung the other way, and the term being used to describe what’s happening in the labor force is the “Big Stay.”

The Big Stay is a trend of employees hanging on to their current jobs, reducing turnover and helping employers maintain a stable workforce.

Reasons for the Big Stay

Several factors are contributing to the Big Stay. In some career fields, there are hiring freezes, so the mobility of workers is limited. In other cases, workers who switched jobs or even careers during the Great Resignation years are now content to stay put because they found jobs for which they’re better suited.

Their moves may have resulted in significant pay raises or favorable lifestyle upgrades like shorter (or no) commutes, greater flexibility in work hours, or better benefits.

How the Big Stay benefits employers

Reduced turnover means lower costs for an employer. Turnover costs typically consist of:

Costs to terminate (e.g., vacation payout, benefits administration, etc.),
Costs to hire (e.g., advertising, job board fees, recruiter fees, background checks, hiring manager time, etc.),
Vacancy costs (e.g., lost productivity, paying overtime to remaining employees, etc.), and
Learning curve costs (e.g., knowledge gap until a new employee is fully trained and up to speed).

The Conference Board, a nonprofit think tank and business membership organization, calculated the cost of employee turnover in 2025 at $229,073 per exiting employee.

That means the Big Stay is saving employers money that would have been spent on recruiting and onboarding, but that’s not the only benefit. The Big Stay also means the collective experience of a company’s workforce is greater, which can increase productivity and ingenuity.

How to keep the Big Stay going strong

Just because employees aren’t currently job hunting doesn’t mean employers can ignore them. One reason employees choose to stay with an employer is because they:

Believe they are valued and treated fairly,
Have the tools and knowledge to do the job,
Feel like they are contributing something meaningful,
Experience positive work relationships,
Are a part of a strong company culture, and
See development opportunities for themselves.

To strengthen these beliefs among workers, at least some of the recouped recruitment and onboarding costs must be invested in employee engagement and development.

Resources can be redirected into:

Training,
Teambuilding activities,
Internal mobility efforts,
Career coaching,
Mentoring programs, and
Well-being initiatives.

The goal is to turn what may be a worker’s temporary decision to stay into true engagement by limiting the employee’s sense that they’re at risk of missing opportunities elsewhere.

Employees who feel valued and see clear career paths within an organization won’t just stay longer but will also be enthusiastic, productive, and loyal.

Key to remember: The labor force has switched gears from the Great Resignation to the Big Stay. Employers can benefit from having employees sticking around longer, but the level of benefit realized depends on how much employers put back into developing the talent of employees and strengthening the company culture.

2025-09-24T05:00:00Z

Supervisor’s comments sway court in employee’s favor in pregnancy discrimination case

Handling accommodation and leave requests can be tough. Often, a supervisor's words and actions are the cause and at the crux of court cases when employees file discrimination claims, as one employer learned recently.

The story

In December 2019, Jackilyn, who worked for a hospital, told Tracy, her supervisor, that she was pregnant. Tracy took Jackilyn off tasks that involved X-rays.

Early the following year, Jackilyn asked that she not be exposed to patients with infectious diseases. Her doctor was especially concerned about her potentially contracting the flu because she had severe morning sickness. The doctor’s note, however, didn’t mention severe morning sickness. In response to the note, Tracy was very upset and said that Jackilyn “was a disappointment,” “was putting a strain on their department,” and “had an unwillingness to bend.”

Later that day, Tracy apologized to Jackilyn, acknowledging that her response had been insensitive. She also said that their department was being looked at heavily for its productivity.

The financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic prompted the hospital to lay off more than 2,000 employees. Jackilyn and another pregnant employee were among the four chosen from the department.

In choosing employees to lay off, Tracy looked at several metrics from 2019. Jackilyn and the other pregnant employee were at the bottom of the rankings for most of these metrics. Jackilyn’s layoff began about two weeks later.

Despite being on a layoff status, when Jackilyn had her baby, she was put on leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) through October 21, 2020.

On the day Jackilyn was released to return to work, Tracy learned of a job opening in another department, but she didn’t tell Jackilyn about it, despite being asked if Jackilyn, specifically, would be interested. Instead, Tracy told Jackilyn that the department’s patient volume was still too low for her to return to work, so she would be placed back on layoff status.

The case

Jackilyn was eventually terminated, and she sued, arguing that the employer violated the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) because Tracy chose her for layoff because of her pregnancy when she intentionally selected data to make Jackilyn appear unproductive.

Tracy’s comments in response to the doctor’s note also weighed heavily in the court, as they indicate that she was concerned about how Jackilyn’s pregnancy was affecting her department’s productivity.

She also argued that the employer violated the FMLA when Tracy didn’t tell her about the job opening in the other department. The court said that this looked like Tracy was penalizing Jackilyn for taking FMLA leave.

The court agreed with Jackilyn’s arguments, which means the case will go to a jury to decide.

Key to remember: This case serves as a good reminder for supervisors to be careful how they respond to requests for time off or accommodations. Supervisors should be trained in such matters.

2025-09-23T05:00:00Z

Should employers designate leave as FMLA without a certification?

Joe Employee called in one day, saying he’d been injured and was in the emergency room. He then called in every day for a few days. Joe’s employer might be wondering what their next step is.

Should employers, in such situations, designate the time off as leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) based on the limited information they have?

Initially, employers might not know when the employee will return to work, what treatment is involved, and so on. This is especially true in a case like Joe’s, where there’s a medical emergency. If employers designate the time off as FMLA leave, how much time do they allot?

When employees take leave for reasons that might qualify for FMLA protections, employers may ask that employees give them a certification supporting the need for leave. Employers use the information in the certification to determine whether or not the condition meets the criteria for FMLA leave.

In some situations, however, employers won’t have the requested certification when the leave begins. When an employee is in the emergency room (ER), for example, the ER doctor might not know how much total leave the employee might need, and might be reluctant to complete a certification.

Steps to take

Once employers have even a hint that an employee’s absence might qualify for FMLA leave, they should begin their FMLA steps, including giving the employee an eligibility/rights & responsibilities notice. If employees don’t initially give employers enough information, employers may ask for a complete and sufficient certification. Employers should apply the FMLA protections while waiting for a certification.

Employers need to tell employees about the potential risks of not providing a certification, and such information is included in the eligibility/rights & responsibilities notice. It is in section II of the notice and is in bold font. Employers may highlight the statement further if they wish.

Without the information in a certification, whether on a particular form or not, employers might not be able to determine whether the reason for the leave qualifies and whether to designate it as FMLA leave.

Employers aren’t required to ask for a certification, and they may not do so when leave is strictly for bonding with a healthy child. Otherwise, they’re free to ask for them.

Once employers ask employees to give them a certification, employees have 15 calendar days to provide one. If employees don’t provide one, after the 15 days expire, employers may delay or deny the FMLA protections until the employee gives them a certification.

The employee is responsible for getting a completed certification. If an ER doctor won’t complete one, for example, perhaps another treating health care provider, such as their primary care provider, will. Either way, employees must make a good-faith effort to get a certification if their employer requires one.

If an employee never gives the requested certification, and no extenuating circumstances are involved, the time off isn’t FMLA leave and shouldn’t be designated as such.

Key to remember: If employees don’t initially give enough information about an absence for employers to designate it as FMLA leave, employers may ask for a certification.

2025-09-16T05:00:00Z

Now is the time to prepare your workplace for virus outbreaks

Many companies are encouraging workers to return to the office, as bringing workers together provides more opportunities for them to chat and bounce ideas off each other. It also makes it easier for them to spread something other than their thoughts: Virus-borne illnesses.

Cases of colds, flu, and COVID-19 tend to increase in the fall as people spend more time indoors and are in closer contact with each other. Drier air is also a culprit; viruses spread more quickly when the air is dry as the droplets float in the air rather than falling to the floor.

People also have a tougher time warding off viruses when the air is cool and dry, as the upper respiratory tract doesn’t operate as efficiently in those conditions.

Now is the time to think about how to give your workers the best chance for staying healthy and what you will do if a virus outbreak occurs.

To protect your workers and keep viruses away:

Keep things clean. Germs can linger on surfaces for days or weeks. Devise a plan for cleaning commonly touched surfaces, including doorknobs, microwave handles, handrails, keyboards, light switches, dials, and control buttons.
Check building ventilation. Proper indoor ventilation can lower the concentration of viruses and allow people to breathe in air that’s less contaminated. In addition, good ventilation reduces surface contamination, as fewer virus particles are falling from the air onto a surface. Give your heating and cooling system a checkup to make sure it meets or exceeds requirements.
Encourage handwashing. Regular handwashing reduces the chance of infection by getting rid of germs, which can enter the body when a person touches their eyes, nose, or mouth. Put up posters and signs that encourage employees to regularly wash their hands by rinsing, lathering, and scrubbing for 20 seconds. Provide handwashing facilities with ample clean water and soap. If employees work in an environment where soap and water aren’t available, provide hand sanitizer made with at least 60 percent alcohol.
Remind workers about etiquette. Workers should cover their mouths when coughing or sneezing and properly dispose of used tissues. Remind them of these simple but important actions.
Encourage a vaccination conversation. Vaccinations for the flu and COVID-19 can help prevent severe illnesses and hospitalizations. Encourage workers to talk to their health care provider about which vaccinations are right for them.
Give workers space. Viruses often spread through the air. Make sure workers have the opportunity for adequate distancing.
Update and publicize your sick leave policy. One key to staying healthy is to avoid contact with people who are sick. To keep viruses from spreading, employees who are ill should stay home when they are contagious. Make sure employees understand your sick leave policy and know who to contact if they aren’t feeling well. Supervisors should have a plan in place to cover unplanned employee absences so workers don’t feel pressured to come into work when they’re ill.
Consider remote work as an option. If remote work is a possibility for those who don’t feel well enough to come into the office, publicize your policy. Make sure workers are aware of how to inform supervisors and teammates of their plans.

Key to remember: Cold and flu season hasn’t kicked in quite yet, so now is the time to prepare and take action to prevent outbreaks.

Most Popular Highlights In Safety & Health

2025-09-17T05:00:00Z

Court swings door open for OSHA ergonomics rule

In a landmark opinion, an appeals court offers a framework to revive federal rulemakings, such as OSHA’s Ergonomics Program rule, previously thought to be nullified by the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The latest court decision loosens the grip that the Act has had for almost a quarter century. This makes it feasible for agencies like OSHA, EPA, and others to give these long-gone rules a second chance.

CRA first cut its teeth on the Ergonomics rule

On November 14, 2000, OSHA published the Ergonomics Program final rule in the Federal Register. OSHA claimed that nearly 600,000 musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) with days away from work were reported each year by general industry employers. The agency warned that exposure to ergonomic risk factors leads to MSDs at work.

The rule was said to “address the significant risk of employee exposure to ergonomics risk factors … in general industry.” However, after OSHA issued the rule, it met with Congressional opposition. Four months later, the rule was invalidated under the CRA. A joint resolution disapproving the Ergonomics rule was enacted in March 2001.

In recent years OSHA told the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General that it has been limited in its ability to target MSDs due to the 2001 CRA denial.

Workings of the CRA

Under the CRA, if Congress enacts a joint resolution of disapproval within 60 days after a rule is submitted, the rule must not take effect (or shall not continue in effect). For a rule to be invalidated, the President must sign the joint resolution, or, if vetoed by the President, Congress must override that veto.

Importantly, the Act states, “A new rule that is substantially the same as such a rule may not be issued, unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution.”

Latest court case

Congress has since issued other CRA disapproval resolutions. The one tied to the recent court case impacts a 2016 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) final rule that amended data breach reporting obligations. This disapproval was signed into law in April 2017.

The trouble started when FCC published a rule in 2024 to again revise its data breach reporting requirements. Petitioners sought judicial review of that rule, contending, among other things, it violates the CRA because it is “substantially the same” as the 2016 amendments.

Court majority finding

Now, in a two-to-one decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denies the petitions for review in case numbers 24-3133, 24-3206, and 24-3252. The judges emphasize that Congress disapproved the entire 2016 rule submitted by the FCC. Therefore, the two rules must be wholly compared, not just their components, the court reasons. If Congress intended to prohibit FCC from issuing a new rule that was substantially the same as any part of a prior rule, it could have said so, argues the opinion.

The court used the Oxford English Dictionary to define “substantially” and declares that the two rules are not substantially the same. According to the Sixth Circuit, the 2024 rule:

Is a “mere subset of the broader compendium of privacy rules” from 2016,
Extends reporting requirements to telecommunications relay services providers,
Has materially less prescriptive language regarding what goes in a customer notice, and
Defines “breach” differently and includes an exception.

Therefore, the court concludes that FCC’s issuance of the 2024 rule did not violate the CRA. The petitions for review are denied by the court majority.

Court minority finding

The minority argues that:

The majority did not focus on the similarities of the two rules, and the differences were minor;
The two rules adopted “nearly identical regimes for reporting breaches”;
By disapproving the whole 2016 rule, Congress disapproved each of its parts; and
The two rules are substantially the same and, therefore, the CRA blocks the new rule.

Implications

The case gives OSHA a path to publish a narrow or different Ergonomics rule. For example, the agency could focus a rule on:

Ergonomics for a particular high-hazard industry(ies);
A particular MSD (like back injuries) or risk factor (like lifting); and/or
Certain ergonomics program elements, e.g., hazard assessment and control measures OR employee training and reporting.

Ultimately, a new rule could enable OSHA to tackle work-related MSDs, which the agency claims “are among the most frequently reported causes of lost or restricted work time.”

The petitioners may seek to have the "full" Sixth Circuit review the case, given the court split and the broad implications of the case. Instead of the three-judge panel, all active judges on the Sixth Circuit would hear the case, if a rare en banc review is granted. Later, the case could head for the Supreme Court. Yet, the high court could decide not to take it, and the appeals court decision stands. For now, the new interpretation marks a breakthrough, handing agencies a roadmap to maneuver through CRA barriers.

Key to remember

OSHA’s Ergonomics Program rule was struck down by the CRA in 2001, but a new court opinion clears the way for the rulemaking to return.

2025-09-18T05:00:00Z

When to enter estimated day counts on the OSHA 300 Log

If an injured employee will miss work or be on restrictions for an unknown number of days, OSHA requires entering an estimated day count on the 300 Log. When the final day count is known, employers must update the entry with that number. OSHA addresses that in 29 CFR 1904.7(b)(3).

Note that an incident could involve both days away and days of restriction. If that happens, the 300 Log would include day counts in both the days away column and the restriction/transfer column, but would be classified by the most serious outcome (days away).

Estimate for the Annual Summary

If the day count continues into the next calendar year, employers can use the estimate to prepare the 300A Annual Summary. OSHA addresses this at 1904.7(b)(3)(ix). Again, the employer must later update the 300 Log when the actual number of days becomes known. However, the employer does not need to update the 300A after it was certified and posted, even if the estimated day count was later corrected.

When a case carries over to another calendar year, do not re-enter the case in the next year’s 300 Log. The purpose of counting days is to compare the severity of an injury or illness (more days means more severe). For that purpose, it doesn’t matter if the day count crossed a calendar year.

For example, if an injury that occurred in December involved 97 days of restriction, the fact that those days continued into the next calendar year does not matter since the number simply indicates the severity of the condition.

Count all calendar days

Employers must count all calendar days that the employee would have been unable to work, or should have performed only restricted work, regardless of scheduled working days. That includes weekends, holidays, vacation days, and other non-working time. Employees work different schedules and some businesses remain open on weekends and holidays, so OSHA requires counting calendar days for consistency. The reason, as noted, is to accurately compare the severity of conditions.

Sometimes an employee gets injured on a Friday, or just before a holiday or planned vacation, but returns the next scheduled working day. Does the employer need to count days away or restriction? OSHA clarified that employers only need to count those days if they receive information that the employee should not have worked, or should have performed only restricted work, during those non-working days.

If a doctor tells an employee to “take it easy” until the next scheduled working day, the employer should request clarification. For example, if the employee would have been restricted from performing one or more routine job functions or from working a full shift, that would count as restricted work (even if the employee wasn’t scheduled to work). For related information, see our article, Restrictions must affect routine functions to count as restricted work.

OSHA’s regulation at 1904.7(b)(4)(vii) also states, “If you are unable to obtain this additional information from the physician or other licensed health care professional who recommended the restriction, record the injury or illness as a case involving restricted work.” Note that an incident can involve days away or restrictions even if the employee did not get medical treatment beyond first aid.

Key to remember: When an employee needs restrictions or time off, employers might not know how long the condition will last, but they must enter an estimated day count on the 300 Log until the exact day count is known.

2025-09-24T05:00:00Z

OSHA extends post-hearing comment deadline for heat rule

OSHA has once again extended the comment period on its proposed heat rule to allow stakeholders more time to respond to questions from the agency.

The proposed rule would require employers to:

Develop an injury and illness prevention plan to control heat hazards in both indoor and outdoor workplaces affected by excessive heat,
Develop a plan to protect new or returning workers unaccustomed to working in high heat conditions,
Provide employee training,
Establish and implement response procedures if a worker experiences signs and symptoms of a heat-related illness, and
Take immediate action to help a worker experiencing signs and symptoms of a heat emergency.

OSHA held an informal public hearing from June 16 through July 2, and only those individuals and organizations who submitted a Notice of Intent to Appear at the hearing are allowed to submit post-hearing comments. Interested parties can submit their comments electronically at regulations.gov using Docket No. OSHA-2021-0009 through October 30.

2024-04-10T05:00:00Z

Confined Space Rescue (Part 1): Understanding the OSHA requirements

Did you know that would-be rescuers account for more than 60% of all confined space deaths?

These deaths represent the number of workers who ran into a space during an emergency in an attempt to rescue a co-worker or friend.

But confined space hazards can quickly overwhelm the people inside. And the would-be rescuers often become victims themselves before they can even reach the original entrants.

That’s why it’s so important to have a rescue plan in place.

In a recent J. J. Keller & Associates, Inc. survey with 224 participants, 22% of employers felt that rescue preparedness was their biggest challenge regarding confined spaces.

So let’s review what federal OSHA requires for confined space rescue.

Key OSHA requirements

First, according to OSHA standard 1910.146(d)(9), employers must develop and implement procedures for the following:

Summoning rescue and emergency services.
Rescuing entrants from permit spaces.
Providing necessary emergency services to rescued employees.
Preventing unauthorized personnel from attempting a rescue.

This is where employers need to put on their critical thinking caps. Ask yourself: Do we have procedures for summoning rescue and emergency services? How do we rescue entrants from our permit spaces?

These conversations need to be had between the key players in your confined space operations. Supervisors, entrants, attendants, and safety personnel should develop and implement these procedures together.

Next, OSHA standard 1910.146(f) requires the entry permits to identify the following:

The rescue and emergency services that can be summoned and the means (such as the equipment to use and the numbers to call) for summoning those services.
The equipment, such as personal protective equipment, testing equipment, communications equipment, alarm systems, and rescue equipment, to be provided for entry and rescue.

To facilitate non-entry rescue, retrieval systems or methods shall be used whenever an authorized entrant enters a permit space unless the retrieval equipment would increase the overall risk of entry or would not contribute to the rescue of the entrant.

Next, OSHA standard 1910.146(i) lists the attendants' duties. And in terms of rescue, those duties include:

Summoning rescue and other emergency services as soon as the attendant determines that authorized entrants may need assistance to escape from permit space hazards.
When the employer's permit entry program allows attendant entry for rescue, attendants may enter a permit space to attempt a rescue if they have been trained and equipped for rescue operations as required by paragraph (k)(1) of this section and if they have been relieved by another attendant.
Performing non-entry rescues as specified by the employer's rescue procedure.

And finally, OSHA standard 1910.146(k) offers guidance on designating rescue and emergency services.

Essentially, employers must evaluate a prospective rescuer's ability to respond to a rescue summons in a timely manner. They must take the specific hazards involved into consideration when determining what a “timely” rescue means.

Selecting your rescue team

Employers have two options for designating rescue and emergency services:

Select an “in-house” team of employees to be designated for rescue operations.
Work with an outside contractor or emergency response team.

If the employer chooses to use an in-house team of employees, the employer must:

Train affected employees to perform assigned rescue duties.
Ensure that such employees successfully complete the training required to establish proficiency as an authorized entrant.
Train affected employees in basic first-aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The employer shall ensure that at least one member of the rescue team or service holding a current certification in first aid and CPR is available.
Ensure that affected employees practice making permit space rescues at least once every 12 months by means of simulated rescue operations in which they remove dummies, manikins, or actual persons from the actual permit spaces or from representative permit spaces.

Check out “Part 2” of this series, Confined Space Rescue (Part 2): Partnering with outside resources.

Key to remember: Employers must develop and implement rescue procedures for all permit-required confined space entry operations. Are you prepared?

2023-07-06T05:00:00Z

Commonly asked questions about forklift licensure and certification

Are your forklift operators certified? Do they need a state driver’s license? Are they physically able to operate forklifts? All are commonly asked questions — so, let’s make sure you're compliant.

The intent of the standard

OSHA’s powered industrial truck (PIT) standard (29 CFR 1910.178) is intended to ensure the safe use of fork trucks, tractors, platform lift trucks, motorized hand trucks, and other specialized industrial trucks powered by electric motors or internal combustion engines. The standard outlines requirements for operational permits and certification.

And, though not specified in the standard itself, PIT operators must be at least 18 years old per federal child labor regulations.

License and certification Q&A

The OSHA PIT standard clearly defines requirements for training and certification. However, some licensing and certification information isn’t as clear. Here are some clarifications:

Q: Who can train, evaluate, and certify PIT operators?

A: OSHA requires in 1910.178(l)(2)(iii) that, “All operator training and evaluation shall be conducted by persons who have the knowledge, training, and experience to train powered industrial truck operators and evaluate their competence.” The OSHA standard doesn’t further define this requirement or set any specific or additional certifications.

Q: Does OSHA require PIT operators to have a valid driver's license?

A: Federal OSHA has no requirement that a forklift operator has a valid motor vehicle driver's license. Some states are more stringent, so check your local and state requirements to confirm.

Q: Does OSHA have regulations that impact an employee’s ability to operate PITs if they’ve received a DUI or suspended license?

A: Because OSHA doesn't require a valid motor vehicle driver's license, the status of that license doesn’t impact PIT operator permitting. Individual states or the employer may have policies that dictate otherwise.

Q: Are PIT drivers required to have their license on them when they are working?

A: Federal OSHA doesn’t require PIT operators to have a license or permit. However, some states such as Michigan do require this. Typically, in states that require a permit or license, the license must be “readily available.” Companies have the option to require the permit or license be carried with the operator.

Q: Are operators required to be trained on each manufacture of PIT model?

A: A June 15, 1999, OSHA letter of interpretation (LOI) clarifies that operators are to be trained and evaluated in the safe operation for the type of truck they’ll be assigned. Operators wouldn’t need additional training for same truck types but would need additional training when truck- or workplace-related training topics are different.

Q: Do PIT operators need to be recertified if they move from one state to another with the same company?

A: In an LOI dated October 1, 1999, OSHA states, "As long as the employer has a reasonable basis to believe that the third-party trainer is qualified and has a program that meets the requirements of the standard, it can rely on that trainer to conduct the training and evaluation of employees and can certify that these employees have been trained. However, the employer may need to provide additional training on site-specific or truck-specific matters." This shouldn’t require retraining for the same type of forklift as already certified; however, workplace conditions or other factors of the new work location may require training for forklift operation in the other state(s).

Interested in information on how material handler training can help forklift operators? See our Compliance Network article "To improve forklift safety, train material handlers."

Operator Impairments

In addition to being properly trained and evaluated, OSHA expects employers to ensure physical capabilities. OSHA references the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard B56.1-1969. Section 6 clarifies that, “Operators of powered industrial trucks shall be physically qualified. An examination should be made on an annual basis and include such things as field of vision, hearing, depth perception, and reaction timing."

Employers should consider OSHA PIT regulations and the General Duty Clause, ANSI standards, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements when evaluating physical qualifications. In short, if a worker demonstrates the visual, auditory, and mental ability to safely operate PITs, he or she is permitted to operate them.

Keys to Remember

OSHA requires employers ensure the safe use of forklifts and other powered industrial vehicles. Employers must ensure operators have the knowledge, skills, and physical ability to safely operate PITs.

2023-07-25T05:00:00Z

Understanding anchor points for fall protection

Must an anchor point be able to support 5,000 pounds? Not necessarily. But how do you identify alternatives?

Anchor points must either be able to support 5,000 pounds for each worker, or must meet a safety factor of two. That safety factor depends on things like the weight of the employee, the potential falling distance, and the use of deceleration devices that reduce the arresting force.

If the anticipated force is 1,000 pounds, for example, then the safety factor requires an anchor capable of supporting 2,000 pounds. Working with a fall protection provider should help determine the arresting force.

Need more information? Check out our article Anchor your fall protection system properly.

The other challenge is getting an assessment by a qualified person. The regulation at 1910.140 allows an anchor “designed, installed, and used, under the supervision of qualified person” as part of a complete personal fall protection system.

This raises questions of how to evaluate the strength of a potential anchor. Anchor points may be:

Engineered or certified.
Non-engineered or non-certified.

Engineered or not?

An engineered point is designed as an anchor. Although employers probably don’t test them after installation, they should meet OSHA’s requirements when properly installed, like a ring that bolts in place or a portable system with weights. Engineers design these systems to meet the strength requirements.

More often, employers use non-engineered or field-expedient anchors. Determining whether a proposed anchor point is strong enough usually requires an estimation. For example, many employers use steel I-beams or H-beams as part of an anchor system. This can be acceptable using an appropriate clamp or attachment, but not when simply wrapping a strap around the beam. Other structures, however, many not be strong enough.

How strong is it?

Determining the strength of the potential anchor requires an estimation because you probably won’t test it by dropping a weight. The regulation requires that the system be designed and installed by a qualified person. But what does that mean? Employers can use structural beams, even if they weren’t “installed” as anchors. However, the qualified person would evaluate the beam and other components (including the means of attachment) to determine whether the complete system is satisfactory.

For non-certified points, the qualified person might look at the anchor attachment, and even look at engineering drawings for the facility to see the grade steel used. In addition, the person might evaluate any recommendations from the fall protection manufacturer regarding compatibility.

On the other hand, employees should never use things like ladders, scaffolds, or guardrails as fall protection anchors. For working on flat roofs, some employers want to use existing structures like a flagpole or air conditioner as an anchor. Those options might be conveniently located, but they’re unlikely to qualify as acceptable as anchor points.

The best advice is to work with a fall protection supplier who can suggest options and systems that should meet OSHA’s requirements. A good supplier may also have someone on staff who is qualified to oversee the system installation.

Finally, remember that if an employee falls, the anchor will undergo considerable stress, and the employer must inspect all system components to verify that they’re still safe to use. When using expedient structures, consider the potential effects on those structures if they arrest a falling worker. Building structures might be strong enough to arrest a falling worker, but that force could compromise structural integrity.

Key to remember: An anchor point may be suitable even if it cannot withstand 5,000 pounds of force, as long as it meets the safety factor requirements.

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