CDL medical certification 6-month exemption - The essential information

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 happened over the past month.

OSHA released an updated Job Safety and Health poster. Employers can use either the revised version or the older one, but the poster must be displayed in a conspicuous place where workers can easily see it.

OSHA recently removed a link from its Data topic webpage that displayed a list of “high-penalty cases” at or over $40,000 since 2015. The agency says it discontinued and removed it in December. The data is frozen and archived elsewhere.

OSHA published two new resources as part of its newly launched Safety Champions Program. The fact sheet provides an overview of how the program works, eligibility criteria, and key benefits. The step-by-step guide helps businesses navigate the core elements of OSHA’s Recommended Practices for Safety and Health Programs.

Several forces are nudging OSHA to address a number of workplace hazards and high-hazard industries. This comes from other agencies, safety organizations, watchdogs, legislative proposals, and persistent injury/fatality data. Among the hazards are combustible dust; first aid; personal protective equipment; and workplace violence. How all this translates into new regulations, guidance, programmed inspections, or other initiatives remains to be seen.

Turning to environmental news, EPA issued a proposed rule to require waste handlers to use electronic manifests to track all RCRA hazardous waste shipments. Stakeholders have until May 4 to comment on the proposal.

On March 10, EPA finalized stronger emission limits for new and existing large municipal waste combustors and made other changes to related standards.

And finally, EPA temporarily extended coverage under the 2021 Multi-Sector General Permit for industrial stormwater discharges until the agency issues a new general permit. The permit expired February 28 and remains in effect for facilities previously covered. EPA won’t take enforcement action against new facilities for unpermitted stormwater discharges if the facilities meet specific conditions.

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

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule on April 1, 2026, amending the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources (CMAS). The NESHAP controls hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from facilities that manufacture a range of chemicals and products, such as inorganic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic rubber.

Who’s impacted?

The final rule applies to nine area source categories in the chemical manufacturing sector that are regulated by the CMAS NESHAP (40 CFR 63 Subpart VVVVVV).

What are the changes?

EPA’s final rule:

• Establishes leak detection and repair requirements for equipment leaks and heat exchange systems in organic HAP service,
• Adds detectable emissions monitoring standards for pressure vessels in organic HAP service and emission management practice standards for pressure relief devices (PRDs) in organic HAP service,
• Prohibits closed vent systems in organic HAP service from bypassing an air pollution control device (APCD), and
• Requires recurring performance testing of non-flare APCDs to demonstrate compliance with process vent and storage tank provisions.

The final rule also mandates electronic reporting for notifications of compliance status (NOCs), performance test reports, and periodic reports. Facilities must submit these reports through the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) on EPA’s Central Data Exchange.

What didn’t change?

Significantly, the final rule doesn’t add previously proposed regulations for area sources that use ethylene oxide (EtO) to produce materials described by code 325 of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

EPA states that it intends to address the regulation of EtO from area sources and major sources in one final action.

What are the compliance timelines?

Existing facilities must comply with the amendments by April 1, 2029.

New facilities (those that begin construction or reconstruction after January 22, 2025) have to comply with the changes by April 1, 2026, or upon startup, whichever is later.

Additionally, facilities must start electronically submitting:

• Performance tests by June 1, 2026;
• NOCs by August 31, 2026; and
• Periodic reports by April 1, 2029.

Key to remember: EPA’s final HAP emissions rule for chemical manufacturing area sources adds new requirements for certain processing equipment and systems.

On March 5, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed rule to end the use of paper hazardous waste manifests and require waste handlers to use electronic manifests on the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest (e-Manifest) System to track all shipments of hazardous waste regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

What are the proposed changes?

EPA proposes to “sunset” (i.e., phase out) the use of paper manifests and shift to using only electronic manifests (either fully electronic or hybrid) to track RCRA hazardous waste shipments.

The sunset compliance date would be 2 years from the publication date of a final rule. On and after the sunset compliance date, EPA would no longer accept paper hazardous waste manifests (image-only and data-plus-image submission types). In other words, regulated waste handlers would have to use fully electronic or hybrid manifests on the e-Manifest System for all hazardous waste shipments initiated on and after the sunset compliance date.

Who would be impacted?

The proposed rule would affect waste handlers involved in manifesting hazardous waste, including:

• Generators,
• Transporters, and
• Receiving facilities.

Many of the proposed changes would align RCRA regulations with the shift to electronic-only manifesting and with the 2024 e-Manifest Third Rule’s changes. The proposed rule also contains technical corrections to import and export regulations.

Additionally, EPA’s proposed rule would add requirements for:

• Very small quantity generators (VSQGs) managing episodic events,
• RCRA hazardous waste transporters,
• Healthcare facilities and reverse distributors subject to RCRA’s hazardous waste pharmaceutical requirements,
• Certain polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) waste generators,
• PCB waste transporters, and
• Hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities with standardized RCRA permits.

Examples of these requirements include:

• Mandating specific waste handlers to register with the e-Manifest System;
• Requiring VSQGs, healthcare facilities, and reverse distributors to submit data corrections to the e-Manifest System within 30 days of a request from EPA or an authorized state; and
• Requiring hazardous waste generators and PCB waste generators to identify brokers on the manifest.

EPA will accept public comments on the proposed rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2025-3456) through May 4, 2026.

Key to remember: EPA proposes to end the use of paper manifests and require waste handlers to use electronic manifests to track all RCRA hazardous waste shipments.

On March 10, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized emission regulations for large municipal waste combustors (LMWCs). The final rule revises nearly all emission limits for new and existing LMWCs.

Who’s impacted?

The final rule applies to LMWCs that combust more than 250 tons per day of municipal solid waste and are covered by the:

• New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for new LMWCs, or
• Emission Guidelines (EGs) for existing LMWCs.

EPA established new subparts for the amendments at 40 CFR Part 60, including:

• Subpart VVVV for the NSPS, and
• Subpart WWWW for the EGs.

What are the changes?

Generally, stricter emission limits apply. For all LMWCs (new and existing), the rule revises the emission limits for:

• Cadmium,
• Hydrogen chloride,
• Lead,
• Mercury,
• Particulate matter,
• Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans, and
• Sulfur dioxide.

For all new LMWCs, the final rule revises the emission limits for carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (NO_x). The final rule also amends the CO and NO_x limits for all existing LMWCs, except for the CO limits for two subcategories of combustors and the NO_x limits for two subcategories of combustors for new municipal solid waste incinerators.

Other major changes include:

• Removing certain exclusions and exemptions for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions (requiring LMWCs to meet emission standards at all times);
• Removing the NOx emissions averaging compliance alternative for existing LMWCs;
• Amending recordkeeping and reporting requirements; and
• Eliminating Title V operating air permit requirements for qualifying air curtain incinerators that burn only wood waste, yard waste, and clean lumber.

What’s the compliance timeline?

When EPA updates EGs, states must revise their State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to incorporate the changes. States have to submit revised SIPs by March 10, 2027. Once EPA approves the SIP, facilities with existing LMWCs must meet the new standards either within 3 years of the SIP’s approval date or by March 10, 2031, whichever is earlier.

New LMWCs must comply with the amended NSPS by September 10, 2026, or upon startup, whichever is later.

Key to remember: EPA finalized stronger emission limits for new and existing large municipal waste combustors and made other changes to the standards.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued an administrative continuance of the 2021 Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) and a No Action Assurance memorandum for industrial stormwater discharges regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.

The 2021 MSGP expired on February 28, 2026. However, because EPA hasn’t reissued a new permit to replace the expired permit, the 2021 MSGP remains in effect for facilities previously covered. Additionally, the No Action Assurance allows facilities without previous coverage to discharge industrial stormwater in compliance with the 2021 MSGP.

Who’s affected?

Facilities are required to obtain MSGPs for stormwater discharges from industrial activities in areas where EPA is the permitting authority, including:

• Existing facilities (those that had active coverage under the 2021 MSGP), and
• New facilities (those that didn’t obtain coverage under the 2021 MSGP before it expired).

What do existing facilities do?

The administrative continuance automatically applies to existing facilities that were actively covered by the 2021 MSGP before it expired. The facility’s coverage status should show “Admin. Continued” in the NPDES eReporting Tool (NeT-MSGP).

Facilities will remain covered by the 2021 MSGP until EPA issues a new MSGP and the facilities obtain coverage under the new MSGP. Until then, existing facilities should continue to comply with the 2021 MSGP requirements.

EPA will provide further guidance on renewing coverage when it issues the new MSGP.

What do new facilities do?

New facilities can’t obtain coverage under the MSGP until EPA issues a new permit. However, EPA issued a memorandum on February 27, 2026, establishing a No Action Assurance. The agency won’t take enforcement action against new facilities for unpermitted stormwater discharges if the facilities meet specific conditions.

The No Action Assurance extends from March 1, 2026, to the new MSGP’s effective date.

Applicability

EPA’s No Action Assurance applies to facilities that:

• Discharge stormwater on or after March 1, 2026 (but before the new MSGP’s effective date); and
• Didn’t submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) for coverage under the 2021 MSGP before its expiration on February 28, 2026.

The assurance doesn’t apply to existing facilities that started stormwater discharges before February 28, 2026, without obtaining 2021 MSGP coverage.

Conditions

To be covered by the No Action Assurance, new facilities have to:

• Meet the 2021 MSGP eligibility criteria,
• Submit an NOI form (Appendix G of the MSGP) via msgp@epa.gov to notify EPA of their intention to operate according to all applicable 2021 MSGP requirements before discharging industrial stormwater, and
• Comply with all applicable 2021 MSGP regulations, such as:
  • Developing and implementing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan,
  • Installing and maintaining stormwater controls, and
  • Conducting site inspections and monitoring.

What’s next?

Once EPA issues the new MSGP, facilities planning to continue industrial stormwater discharges must submit a new NOI through Net-MSGP within 90 days of the new MSGP’s effective date to obtain coverage under the new MSGP.

EPA provides guidance for existing and new facilities on its “Administrative Continuance of EPA’s 2021 MSGP” webpage.

Key to remember: EPA has temporarily extended coverage under the 2021 MSGP for industrial stormwater discharges until the agency issues a new general permit.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the draft Sixth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 6) for the next group of contaminants to be considered for regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The agency’s proposed list designates microplastics and pharmaceuticals as priority contaminant groups for the first time.

What’s on the list?

The proposed CCL 6 contains:

• 4 chemical groups, including:
  • Microplastics,
  • Pharmaceuticals,
  • Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and
  • Disinfection byproducts.
• 75 chemicals; and
• 9 microbes.

EPA may regulate the listed contaminants in the future.

What does the CCL do?

The drinking water CCL is the first part of the process to regulate contaminants in public water systems. The list identifies unregulated contaminants known or anticipated to be present in drinking water that pose the greatest health risk. It helps EPA prioritize which contaminants to evaluate for potential regulation.

The SDWA requires EPA to make regulatory determinations (i.e., whether to develop rules for a contaminant) for at least five contaminants listed on the CCL every 5 years. When the agency determines a contaminant needs to be regulated, it begins the rulemaking process to develop a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for the contaminant. The NPDWRs apply to public water systems.

How can I participate?

EPA will receive public comments on the CCL 6 through June 5, 2026. You can send comments to EPA via regulations.gov or by mail. Make sure your submission includes the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0946.

Key to remember: The draft list of the next round of drinking water contaminants to be considered for regulation adds priority groups for microplastics and pharmaceuticals.

With the Roadcheck inspection event approaching, now’s the time to check your knowledge about the various types of “tickets” commercial truck and bus drivers may receive out on the road.

Some carry more consequences than others, including how they impact your company’s Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) scores and drivers’ records.

The following should help clarify the difference between warnings, convictions, citations, and other enforcement actions and their effects under CSA.

Violation: A violation is an infringement of a law or rule. If an officer catches it, then it could lead to one of the following items.

Warning: A warning is notice that you are in violation of a law or regulation. A warning can be verbal or written. If the violation is documented on a roadside inspection report (i.e., a Driver/Vehicle Examination Report), it will affect your company’s CSA results and may appear on the driver’s record, even if it was “just a warning.” A verbal warning will generally not be recorded.

Citation: A citation (often called a “ticket” or “summons”) is a formal notice of an alleged violation, typically carrying a fine and/or a requirement to respond to (or appear in) court. A driver who receives a citation generally has the option to settle the matter out of court by paying a fine (which may result in a conviction). A citation may be issued with or without a roadside inspection report. Either way, it will appear on the driver’s record, but only those violations appearing on roadside inspection reports will affect your CSA scores. If a local officer who is not qualified to inspect commercial vehicles issues a citation, it should not appear on a roadside inspection report and will therefore not affect your CSA scores.

Conviction: A conviction is a court outcome (or equivalent) finding someone responsible for a violation. Paying a fine, pleading “no contest,” or forfeiting bail are often treated as convictions under state law. Convictions can appear on driving records and can trigger state “license points” and other consequences, including disqualification and loss of driving privileges. Convictions themselves do not affect CSA scores, but the citations that lead to them do.

If a citation associated with roadside inspection violations is dismissed (with no fine) or reduced to a lesser charge, or the driver is found not guilty, the driver or company can use the online DataQs system to request that their safety record — in both CSA and the Pre-employment Screening Program — reflect the results.

Violations noted: These are violations documented on a roadside inspection report that do affect CSA scores but do not rise to the level of a written warning or citation and do not appear on the driver’s record (unless a citation was also issued). The violations must be corrected and the form returned to the state or it could lead to a violation of 49 CFR 396.9, Inspection of motor vehicles and intermodal equipment in operation.

“Fix-it ticket”: This is a common term for a state-issued document requiring a driver/carrier to repair a defect and provide proof of correction by a certain deadline. How it is issued varies by jurisdiction, but it does not affect CSA scores unless documented on a roadside inspection report. If the defect is not corrected, it could lead to a citation and appear on the driver’s record.

OOS order: An out-of-service order places the driver or vehicle out of service until a violation is corrected. This may or may not be accompanied by a citation. The criteria used by enforcement officials to determine if a driver or vehicle should be placed out of service are published by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance. Out-of-service violations carry more “weight” than other roadside violations in the CSA scoring system.

Points: The “points” system is a state-administered program that is not tied to CSA. A state licensing agency may assign “points” to your driver’s license if you are convicted for moving violations, and if you collect enough points within a prescribed amount of time your driving privileges may be suspended or revoked. However, getting points on your license has no effect on your CSA scores. The “severities” assigned to violations in the CSA scoring system are sometimes referred to as “points,” but they are not the same as license points.

Missing or delayed Heavy Vehicle Use Tax (HVUT) filings can do more than create paperwork headaches. They can sideline trucks, delay registrations, and disrupt operations.

E-filing your Form 2290 takes the anxiety out of the process by providing near-instant confirmation, built-in error checks, and reliable documentation, so you can file with confidence, avoid unnecessary delays, and keep your business moving.

The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance’s (CVSA’s) latest North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria are now in effect, including 17 changes that took effect April 1.

Motor carrier enforcement personal and industry professionals use these criteria to determine if drivers or vehicles are posing a serious enough hazard to be placed out of service (OOS) during an inspection. Drivers and motor carriers should review the criteria so they’re aware of the safety violations that will put an immediate stop to a vehicle’s operation.

The risk of using an impaired commercial driver is real if you’re not keeping on top of DOT testing requirements, including the Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse (DACH).

Many common employer errors associated with the DACH are more about safety than recordkeeping in nature, including the following examples.

Maneuvering a commercial truck and trailer into a tight spot or through a busy area in a yard is no easy feat. A common best practice is to use spotters to help drivers safely navigate through these obstacles.

Even with this additional set of eyes and ears, drivers must remain alert and effectively communicate with the spotter.

Back in October 2018, Laffon had a medical emergency and needed some time off under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

Her leave lasted until November 15. Ten days after she returned to work, on November 26, her employer terminated her.

She sued, arguing that the employer retaliated against her because of her FMLA leave.

The catch? She didn't bring the suit until almost three years later.

No link between leave and termination

In court, the employer argued that there was no causal link between Laffon taking FMLA leave and her termination. Although the court documents aren't robust, they do reveal that the employer indicated that Laffon's allegations didn't show that her taking FMLA leave was a factor in the decision to terminate her. The documents showed only that the termination chronologically followed her leave.

The court agreed with the employer. It also agreed that Laffon failed to allege a willful violation of the FMLA, which would allow her to benefit from the FMLA's three-year statute of limitations.

Laffon appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit.

Statute of limitations

Under the FMLA, employees have two years from the date of the last event constituting the alleged violation for which they can bring a claim.

Those two years are extended to three years if the employer's actions were "willful." This means that an employee must show that the employer either knew or showed reckless disregard for whether its conduct violated the FMLA.

Ruling overturned

Fast forward to August 2023, when the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision. It indicated that, based on Laffon's amended complaint and liberally construing the law, her allegations establish that her leave was causally connected to her termination and that the employer's action (her termination) was willful.

Glymph v. CT Corporation Systems, No. 22-35735, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, August 22, 2023.

Key to remember: Terminating an employee soon after returning from FMLA leave is risky, unless there is a clear, well-documented, non-leave-related reason. Case documents did not show such a clear reason, which can also increase the risk of a willful finding. Employees have time to file claims, even years.

The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) entitles eligible employees of covered employers to take up to 12 weeks of job-protected, unpaid leave in a 12-month leave year period for qualifying reasons.

Employers generally get to decide how to calculate the 12-month leave year. They may choose from four options:

• The calendar year,
• Any fixed 12-month leave year, such as a fiscal year,
• The 12-month period measured forward from the date an employee's first FMLA leave begins, or
• A “rolling” 12-month period measured backward from the date an employee uses FMLA leave.

• An employee gives the supervisor a doctor’s note excusing an absence for migraines.
• A worried employee tells the manager that a parent was in a car accident and taken to the hospital.
• An employee calls in with morning sickness.
• An employee is injured in a forklift accident at work and needs time off to recover.
• An employee’s spouse calls in to tell the manager that the employee is sick and needs a week off.
• An employee tells the manager about plans to donate a kidney to a sibling.

All these scenarios have one thing in common: They’re all situations in which employees put their employers on notice of the need for leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

The employees didn’t first fill out any leave request forms. They didn’t have to at this stage. The information they provided was enough to trigger employers’ FMLA obligations.

The FMLA or its regulations say nothing about employees having to apply for or specifically request initial FMLA leave. Employers may require employees to complete an application or request form, but that requirement must be flexible depending on each situation, and should not be the initial step.

Employers must, however, get any additional required information through informal means. This means that employees must respond to related questions designed to determine whether an absence is potentially FMLA-qualifying.

Employers, therefore, shouldn’t wait until employees mention the FMLA or apply for it before starting the FMLA process. If employers, including supervisors or managers, have an inkling that employees might need FMLA leave, they should start down the FMLA path.

Ignorance is bliss, even when it comes to keeping an accurate payroll.

Employers must pay nonexempt (“hourly”) employees overtime — time and one-half their regular rate of pay — for any hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek. Employers don’t have to pay overtime, however, if they don’t know that employees are working any extra hours. In this case below, ignorance saved the employer in court.

Forces are nudging OSHA to address a number of workplace hazards and high-hazard industries. Those signals are coming from other agencies, safety organizations, watchdogs, legislative proposals, and persistent injury/fatality data. Each points to a different safety and health concern, competing for OSHA’s bandwidth. Yet none dictates where OSHA will turn next.

How all this translates into new regulations, guidance, programmed inspections, or other initiatives remains to be seen. If OSHA adds a rule, it is bound by an executive order to remove 10 existing regulations. Any of these actions would also compete with items already on the agency agenda, which could be published at any time.

However, the absence of a particular rule or standard does not mean employers are off the hook. The General Duty Clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act requires employers to provide a place of employment that is free from recognized hazards that are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees.

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

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

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

At-will employment

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

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

PIP or terminate

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

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

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

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

Termination tips

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

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

OSHA issued five new publications, ranging from electrical safety to best practices when responding to OSHA calls. The publications don’t create new regulations or obligations. Instead, they provide guidance and information that may help you comply.

Protecting workers’ heads takes more than a hard hat. A 2017 National Institute of Health (NIH) study looked at employees across four Kansas worksites and found a clear link between stress and productivity. The study revealed that higher stress scores were significantly associated with lower productivity and greater job dissatisfaction. The result of this study suggests that employers who actively work to reduce stress are not just improving mental health and morale, but they’re boosting productivity as well.

OSHA recently released an updated Job Safety and Health Poster, which informs workers of their rights under the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970. The revised poster is part of the agency’s “OSHA Cares” initiative. Employers can use either the revised version or the older one, but the poster must be displayed in a conspicuous place where workers can easily see it.

Under the OSH Act, employers must provide employees with a safe and healthful work environment. Employees also have a right to:

• Speak up about safety and health concerns without retaliation;
• Report an injury or illness;
• Have training in a manner they understand;
• Be provided with required safety equipment;
• Request an OSHA inspection and speak with the inspector;
• File a complaint with OSHA about workplace hazards; and
• Ask for free safety and compliance assistance from OSHA at any time.

As part of its newly launched Safety Champions Program, OSHA has published two new resources: a step-by-step guide and a fact sheet. The voluntary, self-guided program is aimed at helping employers develop and implement effective safety and health (S&H) programs to prevent workplace injuries, illnesses, and deaths.

The step-by-step guide helps businesses navigate the seven core elements of OSHA’s Recommended Practices for Safety and Health Programs:

• Management leadership.
• Worker participation.
• Hazard identification and assessment.
• Hazard prevention and control.
• Education and training.
• Program evaluation and improvement.
• Communication and coordination for host employers, contractors, and staffing agencies.

The fact sheet provides an overview of how the program works, eligibility criteria, and key benefits for business participation.

Employers can work at their own pace or collaborate with a Special Government Employee who can evaluate their programs and progress.

The program is open to all private- and public-sector worksites covered by OSHA.