FMCSAs hours of service rules

What’s changing and why it matters

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

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

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

Key areas of impact

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

Steps to take now

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

Looking ahead

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

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

What’s happened?

A quick look at the rule’s development shows:

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

What did the petition request?

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

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

Unjustified provision?

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

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

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

The petition goes on to contend that:

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

Other arguments in the petition

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

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

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

What does OSHA say?

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

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

Key to remember

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

Erosion controls vs. sediment controls

Both types of controls are important, but their functions are distinct. Construction sites should use erosion controls as the primary method and sediment controls as the backup method to reduce stormwater pollution.

Erosion controls prevent the land from wearing away. These measures stop soil particles from being dislodged and transported by stormwater or wind. Erosion controls are the first line of defense against stormwater pollution.

Erosion control examples include:

• Shoring excavated areas with retaining walls,
• Conducting construction work in concentrated areas at different times to minimize soil exposure, and
• Installing erosion control blankets on steep slopes.

Sediment controls capture soil particles that have been dislodged (i.e., eroded) before stormwater or wind moves them off the construction site. Sediment controls are the second line of defense, serving as backup BMPs.

Examples of sediment controls are:

• Protecting storm drain inlets with filtering materials (such as rock-filled bags),
• Installing fiber rolls around the perimeter to retain soil dislodged by runoff from small areas, and
• Adding a sedimentation basin to receive dewatering discharges.

Common BMP examples

EPA’s “National Menu of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Stormwater-Construction” webpage details erosion controls and sediment controls frequently used at construction sites, including (but not limited to) the following:

Use both types of BMPs

The most effective way to control stormwater pollution at construction sites is by applying a selection of erosion controls and sediment controls that are coordinated to work together. Consider these examples:

• After an area has been graded, the exposed soil must be stabilized. A site can lay sod over the exposed soil (erosion control) and install a silt fence to catch any contaminated soil moved out of the area by stormwater (sediment control) while the sod takes root.
• Stormwater from upstream locations can flow through a construction site. To protect the disturbed land, a site can build a berm that diverts runoff away from the construction area (erosion control) to a basin where the sediment settles before the runoff is discharged (sediment control).
• When grading an area with a slope, stormwater can transport contaminated soil down the disturbed slope. A site can install a temporary slope drain that directs the runoff at the top of the slope to a pipe that carries it down the side of the slope (erosion control). The site may also add a sediment trap at the slope drain outlet to remove sediment from the runoff before it’s released (sediment control).

Check state and local requirements

Most states issue NPDES construction stormwater permits. Check the permit to confirm erosion control and sediment control requirements, as they may be more stringent at the state level.

Additionally, some local governments may impose requirements on construction sites. However, unless the local program is designated as a qualifying local program, compliance with local regulations may not mean that your construction site is compliant with EPA’s rules (and vice versa). Confirm with the local government whether additional requirements apply.

Key to remember: Construction sites must implement erosion controls and sediment controls to prevent stormwater pollution.

What were the objections?

Examining the docket, we find several requests for withdrawal of the rule. Some of the concerns raised by commenters included:

• Misalignment with OSHA compliance dates — Commenters remarked that the rule does not align with the phased-in compliance deadlines in the OSHA Hazard Communication (HazCom) standard at 29 CFR 1910.1200(j). In fact, EPA’s compliance date precedes OSHA’s dates, making it “impossible to implement the required changes … for the 2026 reporting cycle,” asserted one commenter. This will force facilities to engage in premature self-classification, argued the commenter. “This misalignment introduces a high risk of inconsistent hazard reporting, undermining both regulatory clarity and the reliability of emergency planning data,” warned another.
• Unrealistic timeline — Commenters pointed out the fast-track schedule. “This timeline compresses the window for implementing critical updates to chemical management software systems [and] procedures [and] reconfiguring data collection processes,” explained a commenter who predicted that facilities will be unable to ensure compatibility between internal chemical management software systems and the new reporting structure, without timely access to updated EPA-provided Tier2Submit^® software.
• Implementation challenges — Facilities would be mandated to re-map each reported chemical (often before SDSs have been updated), claimed one commenter. State agencies would also have to incorporate the new hazard categories into their electronic reporting systems and revise guidance/training materials, according to another.
• New burdens with little benefit — While EPA announced that the rule was deregulatory, one commenter contends that it would make reporting “MORE burdensome.” The commenter also stressed that the rule would “not improve emergency planning or response.” Others emphasized that it exceeds what is necessary for harmonization with the OSHA HazCom standard and that the expanded reporting system would offer “little value.” Yet another commenter noted that using 112 hazard categories instead of 24 would overwhelm the public who have a right to know about the hazards in their communities.
• Rule characterization flaws — One commenter declared that “the rule’s characterization as ‘technical’ does not withstand scrutiny” because it substantively changes what information must be submitted; imposes non-trivial, potentially large costs on both the private sector and state/local programs; and conflicts with OSHA’s phased compliance framework.
• EPA obligation failures — Commenters also observed that EPA failed to assess or recognize “potentially large aggregate costs to the private sector and to state/local [agencies].” They also suggest that the agency estimate paperwork costs, determine whether small entities are affected, and request the Office of Management and Budget to review the rule. Finally, EPA has not meaningfully looked at costs and least-cost alternatives, one commenter said. The commenter gave alternative examples — “phased implementation aligned to OSHA’s schedule, optional dual-category reporting for one cycle, or a later effective date.”

What’s next?

Now, EPA is proceeding with writing a new final rule addressing all public comments. The agency published a parallel proposed rule on the same November date as the direct final rule. That proposal took comments (through December 24, 2025) on the substance of the direct final rule.

That means the agency has all it needs to work on a final rule. EPA made clear that no second round of comments will be collected, but the agency gave no hints as to when it might publish a new final rule.

Until then, the existing CFRs remain in place. In other words, the changes in the November 17, 2025, direct final rule will not take effect on January 16, 2026, as planned because they are now withdrawn.

Note that the direct final rule, had it taken effect, would not have impacted the Tier II forms due on or before March 1, 2026. Rest assured that it is “business as usual” for Tier II reporting due by March 1, 2026. Similarly, SDS reporting requirements continue as is.

For background information, check out our November 25th article, “EPA’s SDS/Tier II reporting now in lockstep with OSHA HazCom.”

Key to remember

On January 9th, EPA withdrew the November 17th direct final rule that would have amended Part 370. The withdrawal is prompted by an adverse comment. A new final rule is in the works.

Data centers and air permitting

Data centers depend on backup power to stay online during outages. Most use natural gas or diesel generators. These units release pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. When many generators operate together, their potential emissions can push regions close to or beyond National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This shift can threaten local attainment status and make it harder for nearby facilities to get new permits.

What EPA is doing

On December 11, 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA’s) Office of Air and Radiation launched the “Clean Air Act Resources for Data Centers” webpage. It provides regulatory guidance, permitting tools, and technical letters. The goal is to make air permitting for data centers faster and more transparent while protecting air quality.

Why this matters for other regulated facilities

• Attainment status at risk

Large data centers add cumulative emissions from multiple generators. Even permitted emissions from nearby plants can combine and push an area into nonattainment. That change triggers stricter air permitting rules for everyone.

• Power demand competition

Data centers use large amounts of electricity. They often need on-site generators or new grid connections. This can strain local power supplies. In some cases, grid operators give data centers priority during peak demand, leaving other facilities with less reliable power.

• Stricter air quality modeling requirements

Some states now require detailed modeling for backup generators. For example, Illinois reviewed 34 generators for one data center before granting a permit. If modeling shows high emissions, regulators may limit operating hours or require extra controls.

Broader regulatory shifts

EPA recently updated its interpretation of New Source Review (NSR) rules. In September 2025, the agency said construction can start before full air permits are issued, as long as emission-related work waits for approval. This speeds up projects but makes it harder for neighboring facilities to predict cumulative emissions early.

What non-data center facilities should do

• Stay informed

Watch for new data center projects in your area. Their emissions could affect your permits.

• Engage early

Join public comment periods for data center permits. Push for full modeling of combined impacts.

• Plan for power

Work with grid operators. Understand how demand-response programs and EPA’s “50-hour rule” for emergency generators affect your reliability.

• Choose sites wisely

Consider locating new projects in areas with robust infrastructure and cleaner attainment status. Data centers might compete for the same grid upgrades or site approvals.

Key to remember: Data centers are more than tech hubs. They influence air permitting and power allocation. Their growth can affect your ability to expand, or even operate, under current compliance rules.

Overview of OSHA requirements

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) outlines employers’ obligations relating to walking-working surfaces in 29 CFR 1910 Subpart D. The regulations apply to general industry, including trucking enterprises.

OSHA’s regulations offer an employer flexibility, presenting multiple options as it decides which fall protection method or system works best for its operation.

Employers can utilize guardrails and handrails, covers, personal fall protection, designated areas, and safety net systems. The regulation also requires employers to:

• Identify and evaluate slip, trip, and fall hazards and provide appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) (i.e., personal fall protection) under requirements in 29 CFR 1910 Subpart I, “Personal Protective Equipment.”
• Conduct regular and periodic inspections and maintenance of all walking-working surfaces in their workplace.
• Determine the inspection frequency for all surfaces including ramps, stairs, etc., and document that inspections were performed on schedule.
• Provide training that enables employees to recognize the hazards of falling and the procedures to be followed to minimize these hazards, including the use of personal fall protection, proper ladder climbing techniques, etc.

How does this rule impact motor carriers?

When it comes to specific OSHA requirements, such as “Walking-Working Surfaces,” it often boils down to control. It goes almost without saying that Subpart D impacts a motor carrier’s on-site workers such as technicians, yard jockeys, dispatchers, managers, and the office staff. The company is responsible for the environments they work in and walk in.

But what about drivers?

The motor carrier’s responsibility under the walking-working surfaces requirements applies when drivers are at the carrier’s facility. This may include, for example, pretrip or post-trip vehicle inspections and the surfaces drivers encounter as they walk around the employer’s terminal.

However, the walking-working surfaces requirements don’t apply to time the drivers spend on the road or at locations outside of the motor carrier’s control, such as shippers, receivers, and truck stops. Providing safe walking-working surfaces is the responsibility of those establishments, not the carrier.

Any hazards at the shipper or receiver’s facility that the driver is exposed to would be the customer’s responsibility and potential OSHA citations.

Best practices for drivers

Best practices for drivers In the case of remote workers such as commercial drivers, the motor carrier should consider risk management best practices. Examples include:

• Developing policies and procedures and providing employee training on OSHA topics such as walking surfaces,
• Providing drivers with PPE,
• Addressing any safety concerns the driver has about customer sites, and
• Investigating and acting on claims that their drivers are behaving in an unsafe manner at a customer’s facility.

Key to remember: For motor carriers, responsibilities under OSHA’s walking-working surfaces may end when a driver pulls out of the lot. But slips, trips, and falls can happen anywhere your driver walks and works. Train and equip all employees to prevent incidents in work environments outside of the motor carrier’s control.

8 levels of inspection

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

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

What are adverse driving conditions?

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

What does the exception allow?

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

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

What is an Emergency Relief Order?

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

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

What does an ERO allow?

Each order is different, but they may allow:

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

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

Safety first, safety always

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

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

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

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

Spotting the scam

According to FMCSA, the emails aren’t coming from any legitimate government source, despite appearing official. Many messages include branding, signatures, or formatting similar to authentic USDOT or FMCSA correspondence. However, the agency stresses that official communication almost always comes from email addresses ending in .gov. The only exception is when FMCSA sends customer satisfaction surveys following interactions with its Contact Center, and those messages never request personal or financial information.

Investigators note that fraudulent emails often contain links directing users to suspicious, non government domains. One example cited by FMCSA includes a URL resembling an FMCSA service site but ending in an unfamiliar extension. These links are designed to harvest data or pressure carriers into paying bogus fees.

FMCSA emphasized that it never solicits sensitive information such as Social Security numbers, bank details, Unified Carrier Registration (UCR) payments, or PIN numbers through unsolicited emails or phone calls. Any legitimate request for such information must be initiated by the carrier through official FMCSA channels.

How to verify authenticity

Motor carriers are urged to remain vigilant. Officials recommend both hovering over links to verify the true destination before clicking and double checking that any website link ends in .gov. If there is any uncertainty, carriers should contact FMCSA directly through its official help portal or by calling the agency’s Call Center at 1-800-832-5660.

Those who receive suspicious emails are advised not to click links, open attachments, or reply to the sender. Instead, FMCSA encourages reporting the incident to the FMCSA Contact Center. Additional guidance on identifying phishing attempts is available through the Federal Trade Commission.

As cybercriminals continue to target the transportation sector, FMCSA urges carriers to stay alert and verify all unexpected communications to protect their businesses and industry partners.

The story

Megan, an employee, had a disability. She asked to work fewer hours as a reasonable accommodation and gave her employer medical documentation to support her request. The employer approved the accommodation.

Megan also took time off under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for which she supplied a certification.

Eventually, Megan asked to be reassigned to an open, part-time position as a reasonable accommodation. She applied for three vacant positions.

Before the employer proceeded with Megan’s reassignment request, it told her that she had to provide updated documentation. While waiting for the documentation, the employer paused the accommodation process. Several months later, Megan provided the documentation, but by then, the employer had filled the positions.

Megan went to the EEOC, and the agency sued the employer on her behalf.

The claim

The EEOC alleged that the employer violated the ADA by failing to reassign Megan to a vacant position as a reasonable accommodation.

The employer argued that Megan didn’t provide updated medical documentation before it filled all three positions. As a result, the employer claimed, it didn’t have to consider her accommodation request.

The decision

The court said it’s true that, generally speaking, employers have the right to ask for documentation on the medical necessity of an employee’s accommodation.

Case law doesn’t, however, say that employers may take no action on an employee’s request or pause the interactive process entirely when it’s already on notice of an employee’s disability.

Megan already gave the employer medical paperwork on two occasions:

1. When receiving an earlier reasonable accommodation, and
2. When taking FMLA leave.

The court found, therefore, that the employer’s requirement that Megan give it updated medical documentation before it took any action on Megan’s transfer request was done in bad faith. The employer already had sufficient information.

Thus, the court said, there was no general legal requirement that an employee who’s already provided medical documentation must provide more before triggering the employer’s obligation to continue the ADA interactive process.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. William Beaumont Hospital d/b/a Beaumont Health System, Eastern District of Michigan, No. 23-cv-11560, 19 November 2025.

Key to remember: Employers that already have paperwork supporting an employee’s accommodation request shouldn’t ask for updated documentation, and they shouldn’t hold off on providing an accommodation while waiting.

Inpatient care explained

Inpatient care is an overnight stay in a health care facility. If the employee or family member had an overnight stay, it’s an FMLA serious health condition regardless of how many days of work the employee missed.

If the employee or family member did not have an overnight stay, employers move on to the continuing treatment part of the definition.

Continuing treatment defined

A serious health condition involving continuing treatment includes the following:

• A period of incapacity of more than three, consecutive, full calendar days, and any subsequent treatment that also involves:
  • Treatment two or more times within 30 days of the first day of incapacity by a health care provider, or
  • Treatment at least once, resulting in a regimen of continuing treatment.
• Any period of incapacity due to pregnancy or for prenatal care.
• Any period of incapacity (or treatment for) a chronic serious health condition requiring treatments at least twice per year and continuing over an extended period of time. These may cause episodic rather than continuing periods of incapacity.
• A period of incapacity for a permanent or long-term condition in which treatment may not be effective.
• Any period of absence to receive multiple treatments (i.e., chemotherapy, radiation, physical therapy, dialysis), for restorative surgery, or for a condition that would likely result in a period of incapacity of more than three consecutive, full, calendar days if treatment isn’t received.

Not all parts of the definition above will apply to a particular situation. The only part of the continuing treatment segment that involves three days, for example, falls under the first bullet. For all the other parts, any period of incapacity would be FMLA leave. An employee doesn’t need to miss three days of work.

Focus on incapacity not absence when applying FMLA leave

The period of more than three days applies to how long the individual is incapacitated, not how many days of work the employee missed. If, for example, an employee who normally works Monday through Friday suffers a serious health condition on Friday evening and is incapacitated until Wednesday, the period of incapacity is more than three days. The employee missed only two days of work, but those two days would be FMLA leave.

Failure to designate an absence as FMLA leave when it is called for risks a claim that the employer interfered with the employee’s FMLA rights.

Key to remember: Employees don’t have to miss three days of work to trigger an employer’s FMLA obligations.

Workplace temptations

Most adults gamble responsibly. For those fighting the compulsion to place a bet, however, even seemingly benign workplace activities like a baby pool, group lottery ticket purchases, or a fantasy sports league purse can be dangerous and should be avoided.

Although gambling has financial consequences, problem gambling is more of an emotional issue than a financial one. Gambling brings a dopamine rush, which makes a person feel good.

This rush occurs whether a person wins or loses. That makes it tempting to keep gambling as losses pile up. While some people can stop gambling after a loss, others continue to gamble to win back what’s been lost. This is known as “chasing losses.”

'Chasing losses’ and other bad signs

According to the National Council on Problem Gambling, signs of gambling addiction include:

• Trying to win back what you’ve lost (“chasing losses”)
• Thinking about gambling all the time
• Feeling the need to bet more money and more often
• Feeling restless or irritable when trying to stop or cut down
• Feeling like you can’t control yourself
• Gambling despite negative consequences

Because of the emotional impact of gambling, problematic habits can persist even if all debts are paid off. Getting rid of a gambling addiction often requires treatment and social support, as well as abstinence from gambling.

Curbing workplace gambling

A few years ago, Matthew Missar of The Better Institute spoke on gambling and the workplace at the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) Annual Conference. He provided these tips to help curb problem gambling in the workplace:

• Have a workplace policy addressing internet and online gambling.
• Offer financial counseling.
• Don’t hold work events at a casino.
• Don’t endorse office pools.
• Offer gambling disorder therapy as part of workplace benefits.

Key to remember: Trying to guess which team will win the Super Bowl can make for interesting workplace conversation, but when it turns into a gambling opportunity, it’s best to say all bets are off.

What is an establishment?

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

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

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

Who must submit?

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

Large establishments in any industry:

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

Medium-sized establishments in specific industries

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

Examples can include construction, manufacturing, and transportation.

Certain high-hazard industries

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

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

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

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

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

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

When to submit?

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

Actionable steps for compliance

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

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

Topics and worker types covered

Topics addressed by these bills include musculoskeletal disorders, heat stress, infectious diseases, wildfire smoke, and workplace violence. Federal OSHA does not have comprehensive standards for any of those hazards. Some existing standards are related — sanitation, first aid, personal protective equipment, and injury/illness recordkeeping and reporting.

Without comprehensive standards, OSHA may turn to enforce these hazards under the General Duty Clause (GDC), Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Yet, the GDC poses a high bar for inspectors. OSHA can only cite under Section 5(a)(1) if the alleged hazard: exists, is recognized, is serious, and has a feasible means to reduce that hazard.

If any one of the four criteria is missing, a GDC citation will not hold. On the other hand, putting a standard in place both mandates protections and makes it much easier for OSHA to cite employers for the hazards.

Worth noting, some of the bills specifically cover domestic workers, firefighters, warehouse workers, public sector workers, and healthcare and social service workers.

Nine bills to watch

Below are the nine Congressional bills (and companions) currently under consideration:

• LET’S Protect Workers Act, H.R. 6597 — Introduced 12/10/2025. This bill would raise civil monetary penalties for employers that violate occupational safety and health requirements. Willful and repeat violations would jump to $800,000 each. The bill would also direct OSHA to close a loophole that prevents citations for failing to maintain required injury and illness records if the violation is not discovered within six months. Instead, every day an employer fails to make or maintain a record during the five-year record retention period would be a violation.
• Domestic Workers Bill of Rights Act, S. 3396 and H.R. 3971 — Introduced 12/9/2025 and 6/12/2025, respectively. This bill would require a board to make recommendations to OSHA for standards that affect the well-being of domestic employees, including infectious diseases protections.
• Healthy Lungs for Heroes Act, S. 3183 — Introduced 11/18/2025. This bill would require OSHA to develop an appropriate exposure limit for wildfire smoke for wildland firefighters and supporting staff where current PELs are not a good fit for wildfire situations. The bill would also require the incorporation by reference of a National Fire Protection Association standard on respirators for wildland fire-fighting operations.
• Warehouse Worker Protection Act, H.R. 4896 and S. 2613 — Introduced 8/5/2025 and 7/31/2025, respectively. This bill would require OSHA to publish a standard for ergonomic program management with elements including hazard identification, job evaluations, hazard control, training, and medical management. The bill also calls for OSHA to publish a standard on first aid and employer-provided occupational medicine consultation services. Finally, it would update the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) so a contest notice would not stay abatement of a violation.
• Asunción Valdivia Heat Illness, Injury, and Fatality Prevention Act, H.R. 4443 and S. 2298 — Both introduced 7/16/2025. These bills would require OSHA to promulgate a standard to protect workers from heat-related injuries and illnesses. Such a standard may have measures like engineering controls, administrative controls, personal protective equipment, medical and emergency protocols, training, and a written plan.
• Recognizing that climate change poses a growing threat to public health and necessitates coordinated action to mitigate its impacts and safeguard the health and well-being of all people in the United States, H.Res. 568 and S.Res. 318 — Both introduced 7/10/2025. These bills say that OSHA “should” promulgate a worker heat protection standard that, in accordance with the best available evidence, establishes the highest degree of health and safety protection feasible.
• Protecting America’s Workers Act, H.R. 3036 — Introduced 4/28/2025. This bill would require OSHA to update its incorporations by reference of national consensus standards, with some exceptions. The bill makes other changes to the OSH Act to expand coverage to public sector workers, increase protections, and raise penalties.
• Safe Workplaces Act, H.R. 2647 — Introduced 4/3/2025. This bill taps OSHA to issue nonmandatory guidance on activities and work practice controls that can be implemented at work to reduce workplace violence.
• Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers, H.R. 2531 and S. 1232 — Both introduced 4/1/2025. These bills mandate OSHA to issue a standard that requires covered employers within the healthcare and social service industries to develop and implement a comprehensive workplace violence prevention plan. The plan must include procedures and methods for risk assessment and identification of risks, hazard prevention and controls, reporting and investigation, emergency response, and training.

Key to remember

Several bills in Congress would modernize the OSH Act and mandate OSHA rulemaking to strengthen or increase worker protections.

Mental health vs. physical safety

Unlike physical safety measures, such as machine guarding, which is objective and relatively easy to regulate, mental health is inherently subjective. This makes it far more challenging to address using clear-cut regulations. OSHA’s past attempts to regulate ergonomics and current efforts around heat illness illustrate this difficulty. Human variability, differences in physiology, acclimation, and personality, makes one-size-fits-all rules nearly impossible. Mental health is even more complex because it’s deeply tied to individual experiences and perceptions.

Currently, regulatory bodies like OSHA provide guidance for mental health in the workplace rather than enforceable standards. There is no definitive “doctrine” for mental health compliance, and much of what exists is based on expert opinion rather than codified law. This doesn’t mean organizations should ignore mental health. On the contrary, its impact on safety, productivity, and overall culture is undeniable.

The employer’s challenge

The challenge for employers has two parts. First, they need to decide what mental health means in their organization. Second, they need to find ways to measure its impact.

In manufacturing, where I’ve spent much of my career, I use data to judge whether changes are working. If I were starting a mental health program, I would look at clear measures, like productivity, before and after the program begins. While these numbers don’t prove cause and effect, tracking them over time can help show whether the program is making a positive impact.

Of course, workplaces are ever changing. External factors like economic conditions or incentive programs promoting initiatives can skew results. That’s why mental health strategies should be progressive and proactive, implement, measure, adjust, and repeat. Even if the data isn’t perfect, maintaining programs that foster well-being is better than doing nothing. Over time, consistent efforts will help build a culture where mental health is valued as much as physical safety.

Actions leaders can take now

• Normalize mental health conversations by encouraging open and judgment-free discussions. Leaders should lead by example by sharing how they handle stress.
• Train managers to notice warning signs by giving them simple tools to spot changes in behavior, mood, or job performance that may point to mental health concerns.
• Offer flexible work options such as flexible hours, remote work, or mental health breaks. These options help employees manage stress and balance work and life.
• Give employees access to support by providing Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs), counseling, and wellness apps. Make sure these resources are easy to find and use.
• Include mental health in safety programs by treating it as part of overall workplace safety. Add stress management and coping skills alongside physical safety training.
• Track and improve mental health efforts by watching trends like attendance, engagement, and productivity. Use employee surveys to understand how people feel and improve programs.

Key to remember: Mental health affects how people work, make decisions, and stay safe. When employers value mental well-being as much as physical safety, everyone benefits.

The explosive truth in one month

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking back

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

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

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

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

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

Other exit signage requirements to consider

The International Fire Code (IFC) was not adopted by OSHA; however, it’s likely to be referenced by local fire marshals. The IFC states, “Exit signs are not required in rooms or areas that require only one exit or exit access.” Generally, a room or area that holds fewer than 50 people is permitted to have only one exit. These rooms are typically smaller with an exit that is close and obvious, so an exit sign shouldn’t be needed inside the room. For example, individual offices, small conference rooms, storage rooms, and bathrooms usually don’t have exit signs because the way out is obvious.

Additional requirements for office exits require they:

• Are free of obstructions. No materials or equipment may be placed, either permanently or temporarily, within the exit route.
• Are arranged so that employees aren’t required to travel toward a high hazard area unless the path of travel is effectively shielded from the high hazard area by suitable partitions or other physical barriers.
• Don’t pass through a room that can be locked, such as a bathroom, to reach an exit or exit discharge, or lead into a dead-end corridor.
• Are adequately lighted so that an employee with normal vision can see along the exit route.
• Have each exit route door be free of decorations or signs that obscure the visibility of the exit route door.

Key to remember

When considering exit signs for smaller offices, employers must determine the size of the room, path of travel to an exit, and how obvious the exit would be based on room size. Generally, a room intended to hold fewer than 50 people is permitted to have only one exit and would not require an exit sign.