Fast firing for marijuana use can cause trouble for employers

Fast firing for marijuana use can cause trouble for employers

2026-02-26T06:00:00Z

Marijuana use isn’t protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), but that doesn’t mean the law can’t trip up employers who use a positive marijuana test as a reason for termination.

A recent court case from Pennsylvania shows that inconsistent discipline and timing can lead to questions about an employer’s real motive for firing an employee.

Conflicting accounts of employee behavior

In this case, a long-time employee who suffered from a spinal condition causing severe lower back pain had been granted several accommodations over the years, including leaves of absence and a modified work schedule. His condition was worsening, and he needed to miss full days of work to attend physical therapy.

A staff meeting led by the employee started a chain of events that resulted in his termination. The employer said the employee appeared lethargic and overmedicated at the meeting, and that he mentioned eating a gummy and said it made him high.

According to the employer, the employee said he needed to take smaller doses in the future and drew a picture of the gummy to show how much he should eat.

The employee denied being lethargic or overmedicated at the meeting, however, and said he told a story about taking a CBD gummy that had made him sick. The over-the-counter CBD product had been recommended by his doctor to relieve pain, and the employer was aware of his CBD use. The employee denied being high or drawing a picture of the gummy.

A drug test and firing

A few days later, a supervisor and human resources representative met with the employee to discuss the staff meeting. The employee denied using marijuana, admitted to using CBD, and agreed to be drug tested.

The company had a policy requiring drug and alcohol testing if there was a reasonable suspicion that an employee was not fit for duty. The company also had a last chance agreement policy that allowed an employee to return to work after being found not fit for duty due to drug or alcohol use.

The employee’s test was positive for marijuana, and there was a dispute over whether CBD use could have led to the result. The employer fired the employee a few weeks later because of:

Conduct at the staff meeting,
A positive test for marijuana, and
Dishonesty about marijuana use.

Lawsuit claims retaliation for accommodation requests

The employee filed a lawsuit claiming that the employer violated the ADA by retaliating against him after he requested accommodations for his condition.

Evidence presented in court raised questions about the employer’s real reason for firing the employee:

The employee showed that other workers were not fired after drug and alcohol offenses but were allowed to return to work under a last chance agreement.
A witness from human resources could not recall other non-probationary employees being terminated for a first-time marijuana offense.
Case managers from a firm that administered the company’s fitness for duty program expressed disbelief and outrage that the employee had been let go without being offered a last chance agreement.
There were inconsistencies in the staff meeting account, with employees testifying that the employee had not been lethargic or overmedicated.
The employee was fired a month after requiring an accommodation to attend full-day physical therapy sessions.

The court’s decision

The court found enough evidence showing that the employee’s worsening disability could have been a factor in his termination to send the case to a jury.

Although the employer did provide nondiscriminatory reasons for firing the employee, the employee provided evidence showing that they might not have been the true motive for his termination.

The timing of the firing, uneven discipline, and contradictory accounts of the staff meeting allowed the employee’s retaliation claim to move forward. The court did not decide whether the employee was right, but determined that enough questions had been raised to let a jury hear the case.

Key to remember: A positive drug test can be a reason to take action against an employee, but treating an employee with a disability more harshly than other employees can lead to a lawsuit.

Marijuana use isn’t protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), but that doesn’t mean the law can’t trip up employers who use a positive marijuana test as a reason for termination.

A recent court case from Pennsylvania shows that inconsistent discipline and timing can lead to questions about an employer’s real motive for firing an employee.

Conflicting accounts of employee behavior

According to the employer, the employee said he needed to take smaller doses in the future and drew a picture of the gummy to show how much he should eat.

A drug test and firing

The employee’s test was positive for marijuana, and there was a dispute over whether CBD use could have led to the result. The employer fired the employee a few weeks later because of:

Conduct at the staff meeting,
A positive test for marijuana, and
Dishonesty about marijuana use.

Lawsuit claims retaliation for accommodation requests

The employee filed a lawsuit claiming that the employer violated the ADA by retaliating against him after he requested accommodations for his condition.

Evidence presented in court raised questions about the employer’s real reason for firing the employee:

The employee showed that other workers were not fired after drug and alcohol offenses but were allowed to return to work under a last chance agreement.
A witness from human resources could not recall other non-probationary employees being terminated for a first-time marijuana offense.
Case managers from a firm that administered the company’s fitness for duty program expressed disbelief and outrage that the employee had been let go without being offered a last chance agreement.
There were inconsistencies in the staff meeting account, with employees testifying that the employee had not been lethargic or overmedicated.
The employee was fired a month after requiring an accommodation to attend full-day physical therapy sessions.

The court’s decision

The court found enough evidence showing that the employee’s worsening disability could have been a factor in his termination to send the case to a jury.

Although the employer did provide nondiscriminatory reasons for firing the employee, the employee provided evidence showing that they might not have been the true motive for his termination.

Key to remember: A positive drug test can be a reason to take action against an employee, but treating an employee with a disability more harshly than other employees can lead to a lawsuit.

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

2026-02-25T06:00:00Z

EPA scraps Endangerment Finding, GHG emission standards: What you need to know

“Road Closed Ahead.” That’s the sign that now stands at the entrance of the regulatory road leading to the federal greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for vehicle and engine manufacturers.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule on February 18, 2026, to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repeal all GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines. The final rule applies to vehicles and engines of model years 2012 to 2027 and beyond.

This overview will help you navigate EPA’s final rule that puts GHG emission requirements for vehicles in the rearview mirror.

What does this mean?

Manufacturers (including importers) of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines will no longer have future obligations to measure, control, report, or comply with federal GHG emission standards.

Specifically, the final rule removes the requirements for controlling GHG emissions, which include:

Emission standards;
Test procedures;
Averaging, banking, and trading requirements;
Reporting requirements; and
Fleet-average emission requirements.

Additionally, the final rule eliminates off-cycle credits for manufacturers that added certain technologies to their vehicles and engines (like waste heat recovery) and EPA’s incentives for manufacturers to install a start-stop system (which automatically shuts off a vehicle’s engine when idling).

When do the changes apply?

The final rule takes effect on April 20, 2026. However, a legal challenge has already been brought against the rulemaking, and more litigation is likely.

It’s important to keep an eye on the status of the rule. Legal challenges could result in changes to the rule, such as delaying its effective date.

What regulations were removed?

The final rule repeals all GHG emission regulations in 40 CFR:

Parts 85, 86, and 600 (light- and medium-duty vehicles);
Part 1036 (heavy-duty vehicle engines); and
Part 1037 (heavy-duty vehicles).

Why did EPA remove the standards?

The road to reversal begins in 2009. That’s when EPA issued two findings: the Endangerment Finding and the Cause or Contribute Finding. Collectively, these findings are referred to as the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The agency used the 2009 Endangerment Finding as the legal basis under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines based on global climate change concerns.

However, upon reconsideration, EPA no longer believes that it has the statutory authority under Section 202(a) of the CAA to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines in response to global climate change concerns. The agency bases its determination on three factors:

EPA concludes that the best reading of Section 202(a) of the CAA authorizes the agency to regulate air pollution that threatens to endanger health and welfare through local and regional exposure. Therefore, the CAA doesn’t give EPA the authority to regulate GHG emissions based on global climate change concerns. The agency conducted the “best reading” by using standard interpretation principles and being informed by the Supreme Court’s overturning of “Chevron deference” in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024).
EPA lacks the congressional authorization required to regulate GHG emissions based on global climate change concerns. The agency determined that the major questions doctrine (i.e., federal agencies may not decide issues of major national significance without clear authorization granted by Congress) applies to the Endangerment Finding and that Congress doesn’t give EPA the authority under Section 202(a) of the CAA to decide a national policy response to global climate change concerns.
The GHG emission regulations don’t and can’t have a meaningful impact on the identified health and welfare dangers that the Endangerment Finding attributed to global climate change. EPA based this conclusion on the results of climate impact modeling that the public submitted in response to the proposed rule and on the agency’s modeling analysis used to evaluate the submissions.

By rescinding the Endangerment Finding, EPA has no legal basis to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines. Accordingly, the final rule also repeals all GHG emission standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines.

Key to remember: EPA’s final rule eliminates the 2009 Endangerment Finding and the related GHG emission requirements for on-highway vehicles and vehicle engines.

2026-02-24T06:00:00Z

EPA repeals stricter Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for coal-, oil-fired power plants

On February 24, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule repealing the 2024 amendments made to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (EGUs). It’s also referred to as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for power plants.

Effective April 27, 2026, this rule (2026 Final Rule) repeals stricter compliance requirements made to the MATS rule in May 2024 (2024 Final Rule) and reverts them to the less stringent standards established by the 2012 MATS Rule.

Who’s affected?

The rule applies to power plants with coal- and oil-fired EGUs subject to the NESHAP (40 CFR 63 Subpart UUUUU).

What are the changes?

The final rule repeals these 2024 amendments:

The revised filterable particulate matter (fPM) emission standard and corresponding total and individual non-metal hazardous air pollutant (HAP) metal standards for existing coal-fired EGUs (reverting to the 2012 MATS Rule requirements);
The revised compliance demonstration requirements for all EGUs to install particulate matter (PM) continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) for fPM emissions and the adjusted quality assurance (QA) criteria (reverting to the previous standard, allowing EGUs to choose from three compliance demonstration methods); and
The revised mercury (Hg) emission standard for lignite-fired EGUs (reverting to the 2012 MATS Rule limit).

The 2026 Final Rule also reinstates the low-emitting EGU (LEE) program for fPM and non-Hg HAP metals. The LEE program requires less frequent stack testing for sources with emissions below 50 percent of the corresponding limit for 3 consecutive years.

Further, EPA’s final rule updates the fPM sampling requirements for EGUs that demonstrate compliance with a PM CEMS. These units must collect either a minimum catch of 6.0 milligrams or a minimum sample volume of 4 dry standard cubic meters (dscm) per test run. EGUs demonstrating compliance using other methods must collect a lower minimum sample volume of 1 dscm per PM test run.

Compliance requirement	2024 Final Rule	2026 Final Rule
fPM emission limit for existing coal-fired EGUs	0.010 pounds per million British thermal units of heat input (lb/MMBtu)	0.030 lb/MMBTu
fPM emission compliance demonstration for all coal-and oil-fired EGUs	EGUs must use PM CEMS.	EGUs may use: Quarterly stack testing, PM continuous parametric monitoring systems, or PM CEMS.
Hg emission limit for existing lignite-fired EGUs	1.2 pounds per trillion British thermal units of heat input (lb/TBtu)	4.0 lb/TBtu

Key to remember: EPA’s final rule repeals the stricter emission limits set by the 2024 amendments to the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard for coal- and oil-fired power plants.

2026-02-20T06:00:00Z

PFAS, pretreatment, and biosolids: The growing challenge for water permitting

Per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) pose one of the most urgent and complex challenges for wastewater systems in the United States. As federal agencies reconsider their regulatory strategies and states impose their own standards, publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and the industries that discharge to them face increasing pressure to control PFAS at the source. These pressures affect pretreatment permits, industrial dischargers, and biosolids management, forming a rapidly evolving compliance landscape. Recent federal assessments and state actions show that PFAS in wastewater and biosolids is no longer a distant regulatory issue. It is a primary driver shaping future POTW permitting.

PFAS in POTW systems: A problem that starts upstream

PFAS enter POTWs through a mix of industrial wastewater, landfill leachate, household products, and consumer goods. Because PFAS are persistent and resistant to conventional treatment, they pass through biological processes largely unchanged. This means industrial contributors sending PFAS to a POTW can cause downstream compliance problems, even at low concentrations. EPA has emphasized that the best way to manage PFAS in wastewater is to prevent the chemicals from entering treatment systems in the first place, placing new attention on upstream industrial sources.

EPA’s 2025 trajectory indicates broader PFAS rulemaking is coming under several environmental statutes, including the Clean Water Act (CWA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act, although the federal landscape remains in flux. Still, agencies agree on one point: pretreatment programs will be an essential component of PFAS control.

Pretreatment permits: The first line of defense

Pretreatment permits regulate indirect dischargers, meaning industrial facilities that send wastewater to POTWs instead of directly to surface waters. These permits already manage pollutants that interfere with treatment or pass through into receiving waters. Now, PFAS has become a central focus.

States and POTWs are increasingly requiring:

PFAS monitoring in industrial wastewater,
Source identification surveys,
Product substitution or process changes,
Best management practices to reduce PFAS at the facility, and
Local limits or prohibitions on PFAS discharges

EPA’s PFAS strategy specifically encourages states and POTWs to deploy all available pretreatment authorities to control PFAS at the source. This approach aligns with statements from EPA representatives asserting that upstream controls are one of the most effective tools for preventing PFAS from entering wastewater systems.

Biosolids under scrutiny: The impact of PFAS

The PFAS problem does not end with liquid effluent. It extends into biosolids, the treated sewage sludge generated by POTWs. In 2025, EPA released a Draft Sewage Sludge Risk Assessment evaluating risks associated with PFOS and PFOA in biosolids applied to land. The assessment found potential human health risks under certain scenarios when biosolid concentrations exceeded 1 part per billion. Although EPA emphasized the assessment is not a regulatory standard, many states immediately treated the value as a de facto limit for biosolid land application.

This rapid adoption has created a challenging environment for POTWs. Unless PFAS inputs from industrial sources are reduced, biosolid PFAS levels remain high, limiting disposal options such as:

Agricultural land application,
Composting,
Surface disposal,
Landfilling, and
Incineration

Some states have already implemented bans or strict standards on biosolid land application due to PFAS concerns.

Regulatory uncertainty adds pressure

EPA’s PFAS regulatory posture has shifted several times. In 2025, EPA announced its intent to rescind certain PFAS drinking water designations while maintaining standards for PFOS and PFOA, signaling continued reassessment of its overall PFAS approach. These actions underscore the unsettled nature of federal rulemaking.

Meanwhile, the 2021 PFAS Strategic Roadmap and its subsequent progress updates outline multiple forthcoming actions under the CWA, including potential effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) for PFAS manufacturers and metal finishers. These ELGs, if finalized, would apply to industrial direct and indirect dischargers and shape pretreatment standards nationwide. Yet, as of early 2026, EPA has not finalized technology based effluent limits for PFAS nor established national PFAS biosolids requirements, leaving states to fill the regulatory void.

What POTWs and industrial users should do now

Despite uncertainty, actions today can reduce long term liability:

Conduct PFAS source identification at industrial users,
Require PFAS monitoring in pretreatment permits,
Develop local limits where state guidance is emerging,
Engage with industrial facilities early on substitution and pollution prevention,
Evaluate biosolids PFAS levels to assess disposal risks, and
Participate in state rulemaking to anticipate new limits

POTWs should also coordinate with state environmental agencies, which continue to implement PFAS restrictions independent of federal action.

Pretreatment programs and biosolids management are becoming central to U.S. PFAS compliance. POTWs sit at the intersection of regulatory expectations, industrial discharges, and community concerns. While federal PFAS rules remain in development, state actions and EPA’s strategic direction make one fact clear: controlling PFAS at the source is essential.

Key to remember: For both industrial users and POTWs, proactive PFAS management is no longer optional. It is a core element of future permitting, planning, and risk reduction.

2026-02-13T06:00:00Z

Expert Insights: States take the lead as federal environmental rules pull back

Recent changes in federal environmental policy have created uncertainty for regulated industries. When federal agencies slow rulemaking, reduce enforcement, or narrow requirements, states often step in. As a result, states are taking a stronger role in setting environmental rules, especially on climate change, air quality, and environmental justice.

This shift is changing how industrial facilities understand and manage regulatory risks.

States as environmental policy leaders

Several states have moved to the front of environmental policymaking. California is the most well-known example. Through the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the state enforces air and climate rules that go beyond federal standards. These include strict vehicle emissions limits and greenhouse gas controls for industrial sources. Because California’s economy is so large, its rules often shape compliance decisions across the country.

Other states are following similar paths. For example, New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act sets clear, enforceable emissions-reduction goals. It also requires agencies to consider climate and environmental justice impacts during permitting. Washington has adopted a cap-and-invest program that limits carbon emissions from major sources and fuel suppliers.

Growing impacts on industrial facilities

For industrial operators, state-led regulation adds complexity and risk. Companies with facilities in multiple states may face very different rules, timelines, and reporting requirements. Meeting federal standards alone may no longer be enough.

Facilities can still fall out of compliance with state rules covering air emissions, water discharges, waste management, or community impacts. These differences can affect permitting schedules, capital planning, and long-term site decisions.

State enforcement and local focus

State enforcement is often more focused and, in many cases, more stringent than federal enforcement. Many states are increasing inspections and placing greater emphasis on environmental justice.

Facilities located near overburdened or historically impacted communities may face closer review, even when federal enforcement activity is limited.

Practical strategies for compliance

To operate successfully in this environment, companies need a proactive approach. Tracking state regulatory changes is essential, since states often move faster than federal agencies. Building compliance programs around the most stringent applicable rules can reduce long-term risk.

Early engagement with state regulators and local communities can also make a difference. Open communication can improve relationships, reduce conflict, and support smoother permitting outcomes.

For industrial facilities, success now depends less on watching Washington and more on understanding the growing influence of state capitals.

2026-02-13T06:00:00Z

EPA reverses Endangerment Finding, scraps GHG emission standards for vehicles

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule on February 18, 2026, to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repeal all federal greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for:

On-highway light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles; and
On-highway heavy-duty vehicle engines.

The final rule takes effect on April 20, 2026, and applies to vehicles and engines of model years 2012 to 2027 and beyond.

What are the changes?

Manufacturers (including importers) of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines no longer have to measure, report, or comply with federal GHG emission standards. The final rule removes all GHG emission regulations in 40 CFR:

Parts 85, 86, and 600 (light- and medium-duty vehicles);
Part 1036 (heavy-duty vehicle engines); and
Part 1037 (heavy-duty vehicles).

The final rule also eliminates:

All off-cycle credits for the addition of certain technological features (e.g., high-efficiency exterior lighting, waste heat recovery, and active seat ventilation); and
EPA’s incentives for manufacturers to add a start-stop system (which automatically shuts off a vehicle’s engine during idling).

What doesn’t change?

EPA’s following regulations remain in effect for new motor vehicles and vehicle engines:

Criteria pollutant and air toxic measurement and standards,
Corporate Average Fuel Economy testing, and
Associated fuel economy labeling requirements.

About the 2009 Endangerment Finding

In 2009, EPA issued two findings: the Endangerment Finding and the Cause or Contribute Finding. Collectively, these findings are referred to as the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The agency used the 2009 Endangerment Finding as the legal basis to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.

EPA regulated GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines through:

Emission standards and related requirements, and
Engine and vehicle certification requirements.

However, upon reconsideration, EPA stated that it no longer believes it has the statutory authority under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines. Therefore, the agency has simultaneously rescinded the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repealed the related federal GHG emission regulations.

Key to remember: EPA's final rule eliminates the 2009 Endangerment Finding and the related GHG emission requirements for on-highway vehicles and vehicle engines.

Most Recent Highlights In Transportation

2026-02-13T06:00:00Z

EPA delays CCR management unit reporting, related requirements

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule that extends the deadlines for Facility Evaluation Reports (FERs) required for active and inactive coal combustion residuals (CCR) facilities. The final rule also delays compliance deadlines for related requirements that apply to CCR facilities with CCR management units (CCRMUs).

Who’s impacted?

The final rule applies to:

Active CCR facilities, and
Inactive CCR facilities with inactive surface impoundments (i.e., legacy CCR surface impoundments).

The 2024 Legacy Final Rule (40 CFR Part 257 Subpart D) requires active CCR facilities and legacy CCR surface impoundments to submit FER Part 1 and FER Part 2, identifying any CCRMUs of 1 ton or more on-site. CCRMUs include previously unregulated CCR surface impoundments and landfills that closed before October 19, 2015, as well as inactive CCR landfills.

Additionally, the 2024 Legacy Final Rule requires facilities with CCRMUs to:

Establish a website to publicize the facility’s CCR information;
Conduct groundwater monitoring activities (specifically, install a groundwater monitoring system, develop a sampling and analysis plan, collect independent samples, and perform detection and assessment monitoring);
Submit the initial annual groundwater monitoring and corrective action (GWMCA) report; and
Comply with closure and post-closure care obligations.

What are the changes?

EPA’s final rule extends compliance deadlines for the following standards:

Compliance requirement(s)	2024 Legacy Final Rule deadline	2026 final rule new deadline
Establish CCR website	February 9, 2026	February 9, 2027
Submit FER Part 1	February 9, 2026	February 9, 2027
Submit FER Part 2	February 8, 2027	February 8, 2028
Install groundwater monitoring system	May 8, 2028	February 10, 2031
Develop groundwater sampling and analysis program	May 8, 2028	February 10, 2031
Start detection and assessment monitoring Start evaluating groundwater monitoring data for statistically significant increases over background levels and statistically significant levels over groundwater protection standards	May 8, 2028	February 10, 2031
Submit initial GWMCA report	January 31, 2029	January 31, 2032
Submit closure plan	November 8, 2028	August 11, 2031
Submit post-closure care plan	November 8, 2028	August 11, 2031
Initiate closure	May 8, 2029	February 9, 2032

Key to remember: A final rule delays the deadlines for the Facility Evaluation Reports and related requirements for active and inactive coal combustion residuals (CCR) facilities with CCR management units.

2026-02-12T06:00:00Z

Expiring TSCA CBI claims: How to request an extension

How do businesses keep confidential information “off the record”? Companies that are required to report on federally regulated chemical substances may soon face this question, as the first round of confidential business information (CBI) claims starts expiring in June 2026.

Thankfully, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has answered how to keep CBI off the record. On January 6, 2026, the agency published in the Federal Register the process to request extensions of expiring CBI claims for information submitted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Here’s what you need to know.

CBI extension request process

Businesses that seek to extend a CBI claim beyond its expiration date must submit an extension request. The Federal Register notice describes the following general process:

1. EPA notifies the entity of an expiring CBI claim.

The agency will publish a list of TSCA submissions with expiring CBI claims on the Confidential Business Information Under TSCA (TSCA CBI) website at least 60 days before the claims expire.

EPA will also notify submitters directly through its online Central Data Exchange (CDX). Verify that your company’s contact information on CDX is updated!

Submitters with CBI claims for specific chemical identities should reference the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (column EXP) to confirm expiration dates.

2. The entity submits an extension request.

The extension request for an expiring CBI claim includes:

A certified supporting statement confirming the four assertions at 40 CFR 703.5(a), and
Answers to EPA’s substantiation questions.

EPA lists the general questions that apply to all CBI claims at 703.5(b)(3). Additional questions at 703.5(b)(4) apply to entities claiming CBI for specific chemical identities.

Businesses must submit the extension through EPA’s CDX at least 30 days before the CBI claim expires. The agency is currently developing a new application on CDX for submitting extension requests, which it plans to launch before CBI claims begin expiring in June 2026.

If there’s a delay, EPA will notify submitters on the TSCA CBI website. Additionally, the agency won’t publicize any information from expiring CBI claims until businesses have the opportunity to submit extension requests and the agency reviews them.

3. EPA reviews the extension request.

If the agency approves the extension request, the information in the CBI claim will remain protected for up to another 10 years.

If the agency denies the extension request, the information in the CBI claim can be publicized once the claim expires. EPA will notify submitters of denied claims through CDX at least 30 days before it plans to disclose the information.

Expiring CBI claims: What are the options?

Regulated entities have three ways to address expiring CBI claims:

If you choose to maintain the CBI claim, submit the extension request to EPA.
If you decide not to renew the CBI claim, you can either:
- Withdraw the CBI claim through CDX, or
- Allow the CBI claim to expire (i.e., take no action).

Keep in mind that if you withdraw a CBI claim or allow it to expire, EPA can publicize this information without notifying you beforehand.

Who’s impacted?

The CBI extension request process applies to companies that have made CBI claims under TSCA on or after June 22, 2016.

The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (signed into law on June 22, 2016) made amendments to TSCA, including adding a 10-year expiration date to CBI claims.

Key to remember: EPA established the process for entities to request extensions of expiring CBI claims for information submitted under TSCA.

2026-02-10T06:00:00Z

Common errors companies make when submitting air emissions inventories

Submitting accurate air emissions inventories (AEIs) is essential for regulatory compliance, public transparency, and long-term environmental planning. Yet companies routinely make mistakes that delay approvals, trigger enforcement, or compromise data quality. Many of these errors stem from misunderstanding the reporting rules, such as the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA’s) Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) and Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). Awareness of these pitfalls helps facilities avoid compliance failures and improve emission tracking systems.

Misunderstanding what must be reported

One of the most common errors is failing to understand which pollutants must be included. Under the AERR, states and delegated agencies must report annual emissions of criteria air pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, particulate matter (PM_2.5 and PM₁₀), and ammonia. These pollutants drive national air quality planning and modeling.

However, many companies overlook hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). While past AERR rules made HAP reporting voluntary, EPA’s proposed revisions would require annual HAP reporting for many sources starting in 2027, significantly expanding reporting duties. Failing to include HAP data or assuming it's still voluntary is a growing compliance risk.

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are another reporting blind spot. The GHGRP requires large emitters and certain suppliers to report carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane, nitrous oxide, and other GHGs each year. Companies often assume GHG reporting applies only to the largest industries, yet thousands of facilities fall within the rule’s thresholds.

Using incorrect or incomplete emission calculations

Facilities often make calculation errors when converting raw activity data into emissions. Many rely on outdated emission factors or incomplete process data. EPA urges states and regulated entities to use standardized estimation guidance from the Air Emissions Inventory Improvement Program whenever possible. But companies may choose default factors without confirming they apply to the specific process, control efficiency, fuel type, or measurement method.

Under EPA’s proposed AERR revisions, if approved, the agency will require more detailed stack information, such as release point coordinates, exhaust parameters, control device data, and stack test results. Failure to collect these details early can lead to rushed estimates or missing data.

Misreporting source categories

Another major issue is misidentifying emission sources. The AERR distinguishes between point, nonpoint, mobile, and portable sources. Mislabeling a source may cause a facility to submit incomplete inventories or fail to meet the required reporting frequency. For example, point sources often require annual reporting, while nonpoint sources may follow triennial schedules.

Similarly, GHGRP reporting is broken into numerous subparts that define equipment types, fuel suppliers, industrial processes, and CO₂ injection activities. Companies sometimes choose the wrong subpart or assume their process is exempt, leading to incomplete data submissions.

Incorrect use of thresholds and applicability

Both the AERR and GHGRP have emission-based thresholds. Companies frequently make errors when determining:

Whether they meet the AERR Type A point source criteria;
Whether they exceed GHGRP reporting thresholds (generally 25,000 metric tons CO₂ equivalent annually); and
Whether HAP emissions exceed thresholds when HAP reporting is required by a state.

These mistakes usually occur when internal data systems lack consistent tracking or when actual emissions deviate from "potential to emit" estimates used in permitting.

Missing documentation and recordkeeping

EPA requires extensive documentation for emission calculations, monitoring methods, stack tests, control equipment operation, and assumptions. GHGRP rules include detailed monitoring, Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC), missing data, and record retention requirements. Under proposed AERR rules, companies would also need to submit performance test and evaluation data. Missing or incomplete records often lead to rejected inventories.

Failing to track regulatory updates

Both the AERR and GHGRP are undergoing major revisions. EPA’s proposed AERR updates aim to convert some triennial reporting to annual schedules, add HAP reporting, expand mobile source requirements, and require more detailed facility-level data. Meanwhile, the GHGRP is facing proposed cuts that would eliminate reporting requirements for many source categories while delaying petroleum and natural gas reporting until 2034.

Companies that rely on outdated guidance or assume reporting rules remain static are at risk of major compliance failures.

Improving AEI quality and compliance

Avoiding common errors begins with three fundamentals:

Use current regulatory guidance, emission factors, and calculation tools;
Maintain complete process data, stack test records, and QA/QC documentation; and
Assign knowledgeable staff to track AERR, GHGRP, and state-level changes.

Key to Remember: Accurate air emissions inventories play a crucial role in protecting public health, supporting air quality regulation, and demonstrating corporate responsibility. By understanding the most common pitfalls, companies can improve compliance and reduce costly reporting errors.

EHS Monthly Round Up - January 2026

In this January 2026 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 happened over the past month.

Chemical manufacturers, importers, distributors, and employers will have an extra four months to comply with the provisions of OSHA’s revised Hazard Communication standard. When the rule was revised in 2024, it contained staggered compliance dates for those who classify or use chemical substances and mixtures. The first compliance date is now May 19 rather than January 19 of 2026.

On January 8, OSHA issued further technical corrections to its Hazard Communication final rule. An initial set of corrections was published in October 2024, and OSHA continued to review the standard for errors. The agency said these corrections should reduce confusion during the chemical classification process and prevent errors on labels and safety data sheets.

In 2024, private industry employers reported 2.5 million nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This is down 3.1 percent from 2023 and largely due to a decrease in respiratory illnesses. The greatest number of cases involving days away from work, job restriction, or transfer were caused by overexertion, repetitive motion, and bodily conditions, followed by contact incidents.

Registration is open for OSHA’s Safety Champions Program, which is designed to help employers develop and implement effective safety and health programs. Participants can work at their own pace through Introductory, Intermediate, and Advanced levels.

Turning to environmental news, on January 9, EPA withdrew its direct final rule on SDS/Tier II reporting tied to OSHA HazCom, before it had a chance to take effect. The direct final rule was published back on November 17, 2025, and was intended to relax the Tier II and safety data sheet reporting requirements and align with OSHA’s HazCom standard. EPA said it plans to write a new rule addressing all public comments.

And finally, EPA published a final rule that changes certain requirements for wastewater discharges from coal-fired steam electric power plants. It applies to the deadlines established by the preceding rule finalized in 2024.

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

2026-01-30T06:00:00Z

Erosion vs. sediment controls: Prevent stormwater pollution at the construction site

It’s wintertime, and many construction sites across the U.S. face unique challenges that the season brings, especially keeping workers warm! However, one challenge that construction sites face year-round is how to keep stormwater runoff (whether it’s generated by snowmelt or rain) from transporting pollutants off-site into nearby waterways.

Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater program (40 CFR Part 450), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires construction site operators to obtain a permit to discharge stormwater runoff into waters of the United States from any construction activity that disturbs:

1 acre or more of land, or
Less than 1 acre of land if it’s part of a plan of development or sale that will ultimately disturb 1 or more acres of land.

Construction sites must implement best management practices (BMPs), which are controls and activities used to prevent stormwater pollution. Erosion controls and sediment controls are the two leading types of BMPs that construction sites have to apply.

Understanding the differences between erosion controls and sediment controls (and how they function together) will help you choose the most effective BMPs to reduce stormwater pollution at your construction site.

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:

Erosion control BMPs	Sediment control BMPs
Composting blankets Dust control measures (e.g., irrigation) Mulching Riprap (i.e., a layer of large stones) Wind and sand fences	Compost filter socks Rock dams Sediment filters and pretreatment sediment chambers Silt fences Track-out controls (for construction entrances/exits)

Another popular option is vegetative cover, which can provide both erosion and sediment control. For example, a construction site can seed disturbed land to cover exposed soil (setting up temporary controls until vegetation grows). Once vegetation is established, it can stop stormwater from eroding the soil and act as a natural filter to remove sediment from the runoff.

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.

Most Recent Highlights In Safety & Health

2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

Dust collector to disposal: Understanding dust as a waste stream

When the topic of dust is brought up, the conversation usually starts and ends with worker exposure. How much is in the air? Is ventilation adequate? Are employees protected? Once that dust has been captured and removed from the process, the critical question shifts: how should this material be classified and disposed of? That’s where many facilities run into trouble. Collected dust may no longer be floating in the air, but it hasn’t stopped being regulated. In fact, once it’s captured, dust often enters a much more complicated regulatory world.

When captured dust becomes a regulated waste

Under the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, most collected dust qualifies as a solid waste once it’s removed from a dust collector, hopper, or filter. And despite the name, “solid waste” doesn’t mean solid, benign, or harmless. It simply means a discarded material.

At that point, facilities are expected to determine whether the dust is hazardous or non-hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This determination is based on what the dust contains, not how dusty it looks or how long it has been managed that way. Dust generated from metalworking, surface coatings, chemical processing, plastics, or specialty manufacturing can contain regulated constituents such as heavy metals or chemical residues. In these cases, facilities are required to make a waste determination using process knowledge, testing, or a combination of both.

This step is often overlooked. Many companies assume that if dust has not caused problems in the past, it must be non-hazardous. Unfortunately, regulators do not accept assumptions as documentation. If there’s no clear waste determination on file, that alone can be cited during an inspection. Misclassifying dust can also have ripple effects. If collected dust is later found to be hazardous, the facility may face issues related to improper disposal, incorrect generator status, or even cleanup liability at the disposal site. What began as a routine housekeeping task can suddenly become a significant compliance issue.

Storage, disposal, and the risks of getting it wrong

Even when dust is correctly identified as non-hazardous, it still needs to be managed properly. Open containers, poor labeling, and inconsistent handling practices are common findings during inspections. These issues are often viewed as minor, but they can quickly escalate if dust is released, mixed with other waste streams, or stored improperly.

Recycling adds another layer of complexity. Many facilities recycle metal dusts or other recoverable materials, which can be a smart environmental and economic decision. However, recyclable doesn't mean unregulated. Dust being recycled still needs to be stored safely, managed to prevent releases, and documented as legitimate recycling. Without proper controls, regulators may view the material as improperly managed waste.

Outdoor storage creates additional risk. Dust stored outside, transferred outdoors, or tracked out of the building can easily become a stormwater concern. Even non-hazardous dust can be considered a pollutant if it migrates off-site during rain events. This is a frequent source of violations under stormwater permits and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs), especially when dust management isn’t addressed in the SWPPP.

Another common issue is mixing dust with general trash or other waste streams. Once mixed, otherwise manageable dust can become more difficult or impossible to classify correctly. This can complicate disposal, increase costs, and raise questions during audits or inspections.

What makes dust especially challenging is that responsibility for it often falls into a gray area. The safety team may assume that the environmental team is managing disposal. The environmental team may assume that the safety team has already classified the material. When no one clearly owns the waste determination and disposal process, gaps are almost guaranteed.

The most effective facilities treat dust as a waste stream that deserves the same attention as any other regulated material. They document waste determinations, define storage and labeling requirements, train employees on proper handling, and periodically revisit those determinations as processes change.

Keys to remember: Captured dust doesn’t stop being regulated once it leaves the air. Understanding whether collected dust is hazardous or non-hazardous, how it must be stored, and where it can legally go is essential to staying compliant.

2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

Wisconsin raises, adds fees to NSR construction permit program

This applies to: Construction air permit applicants

Effective date: April 1, 2026

Description of change: The New Source Review (NSR) construction permit program requires applicants to obtain an NSR permit before constructing, reconstructing, replacing, relocating, or modifying stationary sources that emit air contaminants. The amendments:

Increase most construction permit fees by 20 percent,
Adjust certain fees to better align with actual workload, and
Add new fees for:
- Permit revisions,
- Public hearing requests from someone other than the applicant, and
- Incorporating consent decree requirements into permits.

Related state info: Clean air operating permits state comparison

2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

California codifies requirements for pesticide applications near schools

Effective date: January 1, 2026

This applies to: Pesticide applications made for agricultural commodity production within ¼ mile of a school

Description of change: Assembly Bill 1864 (effective January 1, 2025) regulates pesticide applications for the production of agricultural commodities within ¼ mile of a school.

The amendments to the rule require applicants to:

Obtain a separate site identification number for the part of an agricultural field within ¼ mile of a “schoolsite," and
List the anticipated method of application for notices of intent and pesticide use reports.

Further, the amendments change the definition of “schoolsite” to include private schools that serve six or more students (kindergarten through grade 12), which will become effective on December 31, 2026.

2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

Washington adopts regulations for battery collection program

Effective date: January 16, 2026

This applies to: Producers of batteries and battery-containing products

Description of change: The Washington Department of Ecology adopted a new rule for the Battery Stewardship Program, required by a law passed in 2023 to establish an extended producer responsibility program for battery collection. The regulations implement the law, requiring battery producers to fund a statewide recycling program with collection sites where people can drop off used or unwanted batteries.

Covered batteries include most rechargeable and single-use batteries that people use daily (e.g., AAs, AAAs, Cs, Ds, 9-Volts, and button batteries). The regulations also cover battery-containing products.

The new rule establishes program requirements (e.g., adding required information on batteries), applicable fees, and battery collection and handling standards. It requires battery producers to join and fully fund a nonprofit to serve as a Battery Stewardship Organization, which administers the program.

Most Recent Highlights In Human Resources

2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

New Jersey adopts REAL rule amendments

Effective date: January 20, 2026

This applies to: New development, redevelopment, and substantial improvements to buildings

Description of change: The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) adopted amendments to the Resilient Environments and Landscapes (REAL) regulation that add new rules, repeal some rules, and amend other rules for land-use regulations. It affects multiple regulations, such as the:

Coastal Zone Management Rules,
Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act Rules,
Stormwater Management rules, and
Flood Hazard Area Control Act Rules.

Examples of requirements include inundation risk assessments, on-site alternatives analyses, and risk acknowledgements.

The DEP allows certain applications to be reviewed under the previous regulations until July 20, 2026. The DEP website offers guidance to help regulated entities determine which rule version applies.

2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

California restricts 1,3-dichloropropene use

Effective date: January 1, 2026

This applies to: Uses of 1,3-dichloropropene for agricultural production

Description of change: The California Department of Pesticide Regulation restricts the use of 1,3-dichloropropene to minimize exposure for occupational bystanders. It establishes buffer zone distances (i.e., distances from the edge of a treated area where certain activities are restricted) and related requirements.

The rulemaking also updates the field fumigation requirements document (1,3-Dichloropropene Field Fumigation Requirements, Rev. January 1, 2026).

2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

New Hampshire amends asbestos rule

Effective date: January 1, 2026

This applies to: Any person who renovates or demolishes an asbestos-containing building and any person involved in asbestos abatement activities

Description of change: The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services adopted and readopted with amendments rules for asbestos management and control. Changes include:

Adding new categories of major asbestos abatement,
Reducing the timeframe to submit a demolition notification for residential projects if it’s submitted online with supporting documentation,
Raising current notification and application fees, and
Removing a question from nine application forms.

2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

District of Columbia extends tuning combustion process deadline

Effective date: January 16, 2026

This applies to: Fuel-burning equipment with a heat input capacity of 5,000,000 British thermal units per hour or more

Description of change: The Department of Energy and Environment extended the annual deadline for tuning the combustion process for fuel-burning equipment from November 1 to December 31. It gives regulated sources more flexibility to complete combustion adjustments. The requirements are contained in 20 DCMR 805.5.

Related state info: Clean air operating permits state comparison

2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

California adds nail product chemical to priority list

Effective date: April 1, 2026

This applies to: Domestic and foreign manufacturers of nail coatings and artificial nails with more than 1,000 parts per million (ppm) of methyl methacrylate (MMA) that sell their products in California

Description of change: The California Department of Toxic Substances Control added nail products with concentrations of 1,000 ppm or more of MMA to the Priority Product list, making the substance subject to regulation.

Covered manufacturers must submit a Priority Product Notification by June 1, 2026, that lists the covered products sold in California as either an intentionally added ingredient, a contaminant, or a residual.

Manufacturers will then have to submit by September 28, 2026, one of the following:

A Chemical Removal Intent/Confirmation Notification,
A Product Removal Intent/Confirmation Notification,
A Product-Chemical Replacement Intent/Confirmation Notification, or
A Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report or other alternate reporting options.

New Network Poll

No active poll

Please come back soon!

View Previous Polls & Results

Most Popular Highlights In Environmental

2026-02-13T06:00:00Z

EPA reverses Endangerment Finding, scraps GHG emission standards for vehicles

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule on February 18, 2026, to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repeal all federal greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for:

On-highway light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles; and
On-highway heavy-duty vehicle engines.

The final rule takes effect on April 20, 2026, and applies to vehicles and engines of model years 2012 to 2027 and beyond.

What are the changes?

Parts 85, 86, and 600 (light- and medium-duty vehicles);
Part 1036 (heavy-duty vehicle engines); and
Part 1037 (heavy-duty vehicles).

The final rule also eliminates:

All off-cycle credits for the addition of certain technological features (e.g., high-efficiency exterior lighting, waste heat recovery, and active seat ventilation); and
EPA’s incentives for manufacturers to add a start-stop system (which automatically shuts off a vehicle’s engine during idling).

What doesn’t change?

EPA’s following regulations remain in effect for new motor vehicles and vehicle engines:

Criteria pollutant and air toxic measurement and standards,
Corporate Average Fuel Economy testing, and
Associated fuel economy labeling requirements.

About the 2009 Endangerment Finding

EPA regulated GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines through:

Emission standards and related requirements, and
Engine and vehicle certification requirements.

Key to remember: EPA's final rule eliminates the 2009 Endangerment Finding and the related GHG emission requirements for on-highway vehicles and vehicle engines.

2026-01-26T06:00:00Z

Proposal expected: OSHA to step away from costly fixed-ladder deadline

OSHA is fast-tracking a proposed rule to remove a 2036 mandate to upgrade fall protection systems on fixed ladders that extend over 24 feet. The agency says the change, sparked by an industry petition, would allow employers to update their ladders at the end of their service lives, rather than by a hard compliance date. OSHA frames the move as deregulatory.

The affected regulation, 29 CFR 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D), currently reads: “(i) For fixed ladders that extend more than 24 feet (7.3 m) above a lower level, the employer must ensure: … (D) Final deadline. On and after November 18, 2036, all fixed ladders are equipped with a personal fall arrest system or a ladder safety system.”

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.

2026-02-24T06:00:00Z

EPA repeals stricter Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for coal-, oil-fired power plants

Who’s affected?

The rule applies to power plants with coal- and oil-fired EGUs subject to the NESHAP (40 CFR 63 Subpart UUUUU).

What are the changes?

The final rule repeals these 2024 amendments:

The revised filterable particulate matter (fPM) emission standard and corresponding total and individual non-metal hazardous air pollutant (HAP) metal standards for existing coal-fired EGUs (reverting to the 2012 MATS Rule requirements);
The revised compliance demonstration requirements for all EGUs to install particulate matter (PM) continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) for fPM emissions and the adjusted quality assurance (QA) criteria (reverting to the previous standard, allowing EGUs to choose from three compliance demonstration methods); and
The revised mercury (Hg) emission standard for lignite-fired EGUs (reverting to the 2012 MATS Rule limit).

Compliance requirement	2024 Final Rule	2026 Final Rule
fPM emission limit for existing coal-fired EGUs	0.010 pounds per million British thermal units of heat input (lb/MMBtu)	0.030 lb/MMBTu
fPM emission compliance demonstration for all coal-and oil-fired EGUs	EGUs must use PM CEMS.	EGUs may use: Quarterly stack testing, PM continuous parametric monitoring systems, or PM CEMS.
Hg emission limit for existing lignite-fired EGUs	1.2 pounds per trillion British thermal units of heat input (lb/TBtu)	4.0 lb/TBtu

Key to remember: EPA’s final rule repeals the stricter emission limits set by the 2024 amendments to the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard for coal- and oil-fired power plants.

EHS Monthly Round Up - January 2026

In this January 2026 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 happened over the past month.

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

2025-12-05T06:00:00Z

EPA’s 2026 regulatory shift: How environmental managers can stay ahead

The clock is ticking for environmental teams. By 2026, several new EPA regulations will reshape compliance obligations for U.S. companies. Organizations that act now will avoid costly penalties and operational disruptions.

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.

2025-12-02T06:00:00Z

Louisiana adds aerosol cans to universal waste program

Effective date: November 20, 2025

This applies to: Owners and operators of all facilities that generate, transport, treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste

Description of change: The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality added hazardous waste aerosol cans to the universal waste program. The program streamlines hazardous waste management requirements and is identical to the federal universal waste requirements for aerosol cans.

View related state info: Universal waste — Louisiana

Most Popular Highlights In Transportation

2026-02-19T06:00:00Z

FMCSA finalizes 12 deregulatory changes

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has finalized a broad array of deregulatory changes affecting vehicle standards, inspection requirements, emergency equipment, licensing rules, and more.

Published February 19, 2026, the rule changes have limited impact but they represent the FMCSA’s first salvo at providing regulatory relief under the Trump administration. More rule changes are expected in the near future.

What’s changing

Motor carriers should review the changes now to determine how they might impact their operations. Except as noted, the new rules take effect on March 23, 2026:

Bumper labels: Motor carriers will no longer need to ensure that their vehicles’ rear-impact guards have a permanent certification label from the manufacturer. These labels often fall off or become unreadable over time, resulting in citations even when guards meet the safety standard.
License-plate lamps: Tractors will no longer need a working rear license-plate lamp while pulling a trailer. If there’s no trailer, the light will need to be operational.
Spare fuses (effective April 20, 2026): Drivers will no longer be required to carry spare fuses for powering required equipment. The FMCSA says today’s vehicles don’t commonly suffer from blown fuses, making the requirement unnecessary.
eDVIRs: Though already allowed under 49 CFR 390.32, the vehicle inspection rules in Part 396 will explicitly allow drivers and motor carriers to use electronic drivers’ vehicle inspection reports (DVIRs).
Auxiliary fuel pumps: Motor carriers will be able to use gravity- or siphon-fed auxiliary fuel pumps with tanks up to 5 gallons, mounted on the trailer and used only when the vehicle is not in motion. The rule revises 393.65(d) to reflect modern small-capacity auxiliary systems used for trailer-mounted equipment. capacity auxiliary systems used for trailer-mounted equipment.
Fuel tank fill limit: It will no longer be a violation to use fuel tanks that can be filled beyond 95 percent of their capacity. Modern liquid-fuel tanks have vented caps that can safely accommodate a 100-percent fill, the FMCSA says.
Liquid-burning flares: The FMCSA has removed the option to use liquid-burning flares as emergency warning devices. Drivers must use reflective triangles or solid-fuel flares instead.
CDLs for military techs: Dual-status military technicians (as defined in 10 U.S.C. 10216) are now explicitly included in the commercial driver’s license (CDL) exemption for military vehicle operations. Previously, only National Guard technicians qualified; Air Force Reserve and Army Reserve technicians were excluded.
Portable conveyors: Portable conveyors used in the aggregate industry and manufactured before 2010 are now exempt from the “brakes on all wheels” requirement, provided certain weight and speed limits are met.
Tire markings: The FMCSA has clarified that its rules do not require tire load-rating markings on sidewalls. That requirement falls to manufacturers only, not motor carriers.
Vision waivers: An obsolete grandfathering provision related to an old vision waiver study program has been removed from the regulations (391.64) in favor of today’s alternative vision standard in 391.44.
Water carriers: The FMCSA has removed outdated references to “water carriers,” updating parts 365, 370, 379, 386, and 390 to reflect the agency’s lack of jurisdiction over maritime carriers.

More rules on the way?

Additional deregulatory actions proposed last May are still in process but are expected to be finalized soon. This includes rules to:

Remove the need to carry a user manual for electronic logging devices (ELDs).
Remove the requirement for drivers to self-report moving violations.
End the requirement that carriers return completed roadside inspection reports unless requested by the issuing agency.
Exempt certain buses and hazmat drivers from stopping at railroad crossings equipped with active warning devices (unless the devices are activated).
Record information about accidents where medical treatment consisted only of imaging or a prescription without actual treatment.
Delete the outdated requirement to retrofit older trailers with retroreflective tape.

Key to remember: The FMCSA has finalized 12 deregulatory actions among 18 proposed in May 2025. The changes could save time and money for both motor carriers and drivers.

2022-08-31T05:00:00Z

What are exempt for-hire carriers exempt from?

With carriers looking for additional revenue streams, many otherwise private and new carriers wonder whether they can become “exempt” for-hire carriers.

The “exempt for hire” designation is for property carriers that carry certain “exempt commodities,” but do so for compensation. The designation is a holdover from the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). Most of the commodities are minimally processed agriculture items, but there’s a fair number of surprises – both in what’s included and what’s not.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) provides a relatively short list of items that are not exempt in 49 CFR 372.115. The agency provides a much more robust list of both exempt and non-exempt commodities in Administrative Rule 119.

Exempt carriers are not required to have a motor carrier or MC number designating for-hire authority. However, exempt carriers are required to have a USDOT number. In order to maintain an exempt for-hire status, the carrier must never haul a commodity that is not exempt for compensation.

Do exempt carriers need to have proof of insurance?

Carriers that haul exempt commodities are required to have the minimum level of financial responsibility required by 49 CFR 387, and their insurance provider must provide the carrier with an MCS-90 endorsement. However, the insurance need not be on file with the FMCSA. Many states have insurance requirements both for the amount required and the need to carry proof of coverage in the vehicle. Federally exempt for-hire carriers are not exempted from any state requirement.

Are exempt for-hire carriers required to name process agents?

Currently, exempt-for hire carriers are not required to name process agents for each state of operation as other for-hire carriers are required to do so on the BOC-3 form. That may change when the FMCSA fully implements their Unified Registration System, or URS. The system was introduced with a final rule in the summer of 2013 and included a provision requiring exempt carriers to have process agents. Much of the rule was suspended at the beginning of 2017. At some point, the agency would like to get the URS ball rolling again.

Are exempt carriers exempt from IFTA, IRP, HVUT, and UCR?

Exempt for-hire carriers are not exempt from the alphabet soup of revenue generating programs of the International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) allowing for the sharing of fuel tax revenue, the International Registration Plan (IRP) allowing for the sharing of vehicle registration fees, the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) tax for heavy vehicles that weight 55,000 pounds or more, or for the Unified Carrier Registration (UCR) revenue generating program.

Are exempt carriers exempt from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs)?

Exempt carriers are not automatically exempt from the safety regulations such as driver qualifications, drug and alcohol testing, commercial driver licenses, vehicle inspections, or the hours-of-service rules. Although livestock and agriculture commodity carriers may qualify for the hours-of-service agriculture exemption.

Key to remember: “Exempt” commodity haulers are exempt from very little. Primarily they are exempt from needing for-hire authority and designating process agents.

2023-05-18T05:00:00Z

Confused about the hazmat endorsement? We’ve got you covered!

The hazmat endorsement is required only if the vehicle is transporting a type and quantity of a hazardous material that requires the display of placards. Sounds easy enough, right? This regulation is often misinterpreted and not used correctly.

Sometimes, simply having a commercial driver’s license (CDL) is not enough to operate certain types of commercial motor vehicles. Drivers hauling special commodities need extra endorsements on their licenses. Individual endorsements provide proof that a driver has received additional training or vetting to haul a commodity or type of vehicle.

Obtaining a hazmat endorsement

The process for obtaining a hazardous materials (hazmat) endorsement requires a little patience and time. The process requires a driver to undergo a hazmat endorsement background check. The driver’s name and fingerprints will be sent to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which will make sure that the driver does not pose a security risk. Also, the driver needs to meet immigration standards and have a clean criminal and mental-health record.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) entry level driver training (ELDT) rule took effect in February of 2022. An individual obtaining a hazmat endorsement for the first time must complete specific theory instruction prior to taking the required knowledge test. The training must be provided by a school or entity listed on the FMCSA’s Training Provider Registry (TPR).

These requirements are in place because drivers that are hauling hazmat are transporting some of the most dangerous cargo on the road. Before sending a driver through the hazmat endorsement process, you must ensure that the driver must obtain the hazmat endorsement in the first place. Did you know that hauling hazmat does not automatically mean a driver will require the hazmat endorsement?

What are the rules?

A CDL hazmat endorsement is required when a driver is hauling hazmat that must be placarded or when the driver is hauling a select agent or toxin. A CDL hazmat endorsement is not required if a hazmat load does not require placarding. The basic rule of thumb is that no placards mean no hazmat endorsement is required.

However, the hazardous materials regulations allow placarding even if it is not required, and it is called permissible placarding. In these situations, a placard would be voluntarily displayed, and no hazmat endorsement would be required.

Always plan ahead

Knowing whether a driver needs a hazmat endorsement will protect your drivers and ensure that they are compliant while transporting placarded hazmat loads.

If you’ve determined that your driver requires a hazmat endorsement, you may want to get started right away. The process for obtaining the hazmat endorsement can take several weeks. In the meantime, make sure drivers do not transport a load of placarded hazmat without the hazmat endorsement.

Key to remember: A hazmat endorsement is required when a driver is hauling hazmat that must be placarded.

2022-12-27T06:00:00Z

Placarding responsibility – Whose is it?

Many shippers are unaware of their responsibility to provide placards to drivers, but the responsibility shifts as soon as the driver hits the road.

Knowledge Check: What would you do in this placarding scenario?

Check the regulations

According to Section 172.506 of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR), a shipper offering a hazardous material for transportation by highway must provide the motor carrier with the required placards for the material being offered. The shipper must offer the placards to the carrier prior to, or at the same time as, the material is offered for transportation — unless the vehicle is already placarded for the hazmat.

Section 172.506 also states that no motor carrier may transport a hazardous material in a motor vehicle unless the required placards for the hazmat are affixed to the vehicle. Before transport, the driver is responsible for displaying the required placards for all the hazmat that is on the vehicle.

Avoid issues with shippers

Many trailers are equipped with flip placards that represent most classes of hazardous materials but without adequate training, shippers may not understand their responsibility to provide the driver with the required placards. If a driver arrives and the shipper fails to provide placards, the driver should contact dispatch for additional instructions or drive to a truck stop to secure the necessary placards. The driver becomes responsible for placards as soon as the trailer enters a public highway, so train your drivers to temporarily refuse the shipment until the proper placards can be obtained. If necessary, the driver must bobtail or leave empty before driving to pick up placards.

Another common placarding question with shippers involves combination loads. If a driver arrives at a shipper’s location and is already transporting a hazardous material below the placarding threshold, is the shipper required to provide placards for the combination load on the trailer? In this scenario, the driver already has 600 pounds of a Class 8 corrosive material on the trailer, and the shipper is offering an additional 500 pounds of the same commodity. The regulations state that the shipper is only required to provide placards for the commodity that is being offered, not for the aggregate weight of both shipments. In this scenario, the driver is responsible for providing placards since it involves a combination load.

The Hazardous Materials Regulations are complex, especially for newer employees. Drivers that can speak “hazmat” to shippers often secure additional business, so be sure to train your drivers and give them the confidence to have impactful conversations with shippers.

Key to remember: Carry extra placards in case a shipper is unable to supply the required placards or a combination of hazmat on the vehicle requires different placards.

2022-12-02T06:00:00Z

Understanding the National Safety Code (NSC): Part 1

These days, operating a commercial fleet involves many different compliance issues, regulations, standardized licensing, and permits involved with operating a commercial trucking vehicle are the norm. In Canada, provincial regulations governing commercial vehicles, drivers, and motor carriers are based on the National Safety Code (NSC) standards.

But what is the NSC and what are the standards? It’s a complicated answer because there are 16 standards involved. The NSC is designed to create a comprehensive code of minimum performance standards for the safe operation of passenger and commercial vehicles. The NSC provides guidance for legislative, regulatory, and administrative action by each jurisdiction and focuses on three components:

Drivers,
Vehicles, and
Motor carriers.

Over this three-part article series, we will look at each of these components and break down the NSC standards that fit within each of the three. You’ll learn what is key to know to ensure compliance, and more importantly, a safer operation.

What is the NSC?

In 1987, the federal, provincial, and territorial Ministers responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety recognized that due to the deregulation of transportation, there was a need for harmonization and reciprocity in the management of commercial vehicles across Canada. The ministers then signed a memorandum of understanding to develop and implement the NSC to encourage road safety, promote efficiency in the motor carrier industry, and achieve consistent safety standards. The National Safety Code standards remain important instruments of public policy in promoting public safety and the safe and efficient movement of people and goods on Canadian roads.

What are the 16 standards?

The NSC is a set of minimum performance standards, applying to all persons responsible for the safe operation of commercial vehicles. There are 16 NSC standards made up of the following:

Standard 1 Single Driver Licence Concept
Standard 2 Knowledge and Performance Tests (Drivers)
Standard 3 Driver Examiner Training Program
Standard 4 Driver Licencing Classification
Standard 5 Self-Certification Standards and Procedures
Standard 6 Determining Driver Fitness in Canada
Standard 7 Carrier and Driver Profiles
Standard 8 Short-Term Suspension
Standard 9 Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service
Standard 10 Cargo Securement
Standard 11 Maintenance and Periodic Inspection
Standard 12 CVSA On-Road Inspection
Standard 13 Trip Inspection
Standard 14 Safety Rating
Standard 15 Facility Audits
Standard 16 Entry Level Training (Class 1)

Now that we have a better understanding of what the NSC represents and what the 16 standards are, let’s take a deeper dive into the standards that apply, starting with Motor Carriers.

NSC Standard 14 — Safety Rating

You might be wondering why we are starting with Standard 14. All provinces in Canada are required to issue an NSC number to all commercial carriers in their governing jurisdiction. A Safety Fitness Certificate (SFC) contains the NSC number, which is the unique identifier for each commercial operator. Ontario calls this number a Commercial Vehicle Operator’s Registration or CVOR.

If you have registered a vehicle that is regulated under the National Safety Code program in Canada, you are required to apply for a SFC or CVOR (Ontario). The SFC or CVOR gives you permission to operate a commercial vehicle.

There have been many new changes recently to the process of not only applying for an SFC but also in maintaining the required certificate. For example, in Alberta, it includes completing an NSC knowledge test online or NSC in a registry office, completing an NSC audit within 12 months of obtaining your SFC, and renewing your certificate every three years.

A provincial authority may not issue a safety fitness certificate to an extra-provincial motor carrier undertaking unless the provincial authority has determined that the undertaking has a “satisfactory”, “satisfactory unaudited” or “conditional” safety rating, as set out in section 5 of Part C of NSC Standard #14.

Safety Rating Categories

Responsibility for motor carrier safety resides, first and foremost, with motor carrier management. The Safety Rating Standard (Standard 14) establishes the motor carrier safety rating framework by which each jurisdiction shall assess the safety performance of motor carriers. There are four safety rating categories as follows:

Rating	Details
Satisfactory-Unaudited	Assigned to all new commercial motor carriers. This rating does not change until a carrier has been audited.
Satisfactory-Audited	Assigned when a motor carrier has successfully passed a facility audit and all 3 thresholds - convictions, at-fault collisions and inspections - are below 85%.
Conditional	Assigned to a motor carrier who has failed a facility audit and/or 1 or more thresholds are at or above 85%.
Unsatisfactory	Assigned by Carrier and Vehicle Safety Services when a carrier is deemed unfit.

The safety rating standard establishes the motor carrier safety rating framework by which each jurisdiction assesses the safety performance of motor carriers. The safety rating is determined by:

Using the information in the motor carrier profile;
Assigning a value to each of the data listed in the motor carrier profile taking into account its severity and potential safety impact, in accordance with the National Safety Code Standard 7, Carrier Profile:
- For the 24 months preceding the determination; or
- In the case of a motor carrier whose motor carrier profile was established less than 24 months prior to the determination, for the period since its establishment;
Normalizing the weighted data using the motor carrier’s fleet size to reflect the motor carrier’s exposure to risk; and
Assigning a safety rating to the motor carrier in accordance with the safety rating categories.

The NSC’s safety fitness rests on three building blocks:

NSC Standard 7: Carrier and Driver Profiles
NSC Standard 14: Safety Rating
NSC Standard 15: Facility Audit

Together, these standards provide the safety rating and management framework by which each jurisdiction assesses the safety performance of motor carriers. In part 3, we’ll cover Standards 7 and 15 in greater detail.

Key to remember: We have just touched the surface of the NSC standards and covered likely one of the most important when it comes to maintaining a safe rating and compliance with Jurisdictional regulations.

2021-03-10T06:00:00Z

For-hire and private carriers: What’s the difference?

If you’re planning to start a motor carrier operation or add a different type of service to an existing business, you need to know what type of carrier you will be. Motor carriers are considered either a for-hire carrier or a private carrier. To be a private carrier, 100 percent of the company’s movements must be to support its own operation. If the carrier is engaged in any for-hire activities, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) considers them a for-hire carrier.

For-hire vs. private

For-hire carriers use vehicles to transport people or property and are paid for their service. The fee could be a direct fee like a fare or a rate but could also be other indirect forms of compensation. Examples of for-hire operations include a trucking company that hauls other people’s property for a fee (direct compensation) or a hotel that includes in its service the transportation to and from the airport to the hotel (indirect compensation).

Private carriers, on the other hand, transport only their own goods or people. Examples include a manufacturer that uses its own commercial vehicles to transport its product, a construction or landscaping company that uses commercial vehicles to transport equipment and employees to job sites, or a utility company that operates commercial vehicles in support of its operations.

For-hire operating authority

While private carriers are not required to obtain operating authority from the FMCSA, for-hire carriers are required to get authority to move property or people that belong to somebody else and get paid for their service. Having authority is often referred to as having an MC Number.

The most common types of authority are:

Property for-hire
Passenger for-hire
Household goods
Broker
Freight forwarder

If a company never operates a commercial motor vehicle (CMV), it is possible to have authority, but not have a USDOT number. For example, straight brokers or freight forwarders.

As part of obtaining for-hire authority, carriers must designate process agents and demonstrate financial responsibility (have proper insurance coverage).

One size does not fit all

Authorities are not all-inclusive. Separate authority is needed for each type of service offered. For instance, a for-hire, over-the-road carrier that also wants to be able to resell its extra demand will need both for-hire and brokerage authorities. A company is required to pay a $300 one-time fee for each type of authority needed.

Permanent authority required

There are no temporary permits available to substitute for authority. For-hire operations may not be performed until the proper authority has been granted. It’s not uncommon for otherwise private carriers to become for-hire carriers to generate revenue on back-hauls or help balance capacity and demand during slow periods or seasons.

Getting it right

Carriers need to get it right when it comes to authority. Carriers required to have authority — but don’t and operate anyway — can get themselves into trouble. Penalties for operating without proper authority can get expensive and can result in out-of-service orders.

Key to remember: Carriers are either for-hire or private, with for-hire carriers being paid for their services while private carriers transport only their own goods or people.

Related article: Process agents — what are they and do you need them?

Most Popular Highlights In Human Resources

2023-09-06T05:00:00Z

Appellate court sided with employee's (almost) 3-year-delayed FMLA claim

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.

2026-02-18T06:00:00Z

Employer jumped to an FMLA abuse conclusion (and lost)

Employers don’t have to let employees take Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave for reasons that don’t qualify, nor should they. They shouldn’t, however, jump to conclusions about FMLA leave abuse when assessing someone’s leave reasons. Employers should look at all the facts involved before proceeding. A recent court decision agrees.

Case in point

In April, Toby, an employee, applied for FMLA leave for his chronic kidney stones. The certification indicated that he would need intermittent leave up to 3 times per month for 1 day per episode.

Things went fine until August 23, when Toby asked for time off. The conversation went something like this:

Toby: Can I have a personal day tomorrow because my kids are starting a new school?
Employer: Let me see if one’s available. It’s not available for tomorrow.
Toby: Well, okay. I guess you’ll have to put me on FMLA leave then.
Employer: OK, so FMLA for your kids’ school event.
Toby: Thank you.

Toby ended up taking 4 days of medical leave.

Based on the phone conversation, the employer charged Toby with FMLA misuse and removed him from work pending an investigatory hearing.

At the hearing, Jolanda, the company’s FMLA manager, said it was clear, based on the conversation, that Toby “….marked off FMLA for an unapproved reason”—so clear that “[t]here wasn’t a need” for the company to “determine if the leave that [Toby] requested was actually used for FMLA protection or for purposes of the FMLA.”

Toby said that he needed to be off both because his kids were starting a new school and because his medical condition had started to flare up. He explained that he initially asked for a personal day, rather than FMLA leave, so he would be paid for the day and could avoid using up his FMLA time.

Toby said he saw a doctor for his flare-up and provided a doctor’s note dated August 24. The note said that Toby had been under a doctor’s care from August 24 to 27.

After the hearing (and despite the doctor’s note), the employer concluded that Toby had misused FMLA leave and fired him.

Toby sued, and the court sided with him, disagreeing with the employer’s argument that Toby had misused FMLA leave. Toby had enough evidence to establish that the employer’s decision to fire him wasn’t “reasonably informed and considered….”

The employer’s only basis for believing Toby misused FMLA leave was his phone call. The call didn’t conclusively establish that Toby engaged in misconduct, especially given his testimony that he needed to deal with both medical needs and family obligations. The doctor’s note also provided evidence that Toby’s request for leave was legitimate.

Pack v. CSX Transportation, Inc.; Southern District of West Virginia; No. 3:24-0688; January 14, 2026.

Key to remember: Employers should look at all the facts of a situation before concluding that an employee abused FMLA leave.

2026-02-17T06:00:00Z

‘What do you mean, I can’t ask employees about their medications?’

Antihistamines, antidepressants, opioids, and drugs to treat anxiety or blood pressure. All these medications (and more) could cause employees to be sleepy, even while at work. Tiredness in certain jobs can be a safety risk for employees and others, yet employers must maintain safe workplaces. So, asking employees about their medications might seem like a step in the right safety direction.

But doing so could risk a discrimination claim. That’s because employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees because of a disability under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

As part of this, employers may ask employees medical questions, such as asking about medications, only when they have a reasonable belief, based on objective evidence (such as witnessing a situation firsthand), that a particular employee is unable to perform the job’s essential functions because of a medical condition. Employers may also ask about medications if they think an employee will pose a direct threat because of a medical condition.

Balancing safety concerns and limits

When employers have safety concerns about an employee, they may ask the employee medical questions, but there are limits.

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces the employment provisions of the ADA:

Employers must limit the scope of the inquiry to what is necessary to determine the employee’s ability to perform essential job functions or to assess the need for a reasonable accommodation.
The employee must authorize any direct communication with their health care provider (think HIPAA).

What is a direct threat?

A direct threat is something that poses a significant risk of substantial harm that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation. To determine whether an employee poses a direct threat in the workplace, employers should consider the following factors:

The duration of the risk,
The nature and severity of the potential harm,
The likelihood that potential harm will occur, and
The imminence of the potential harm.

If, for example, an employee operating a forklift appears sleepy, the employer may tell the employee to get off the forklift and discuss the situation. The employer could discover that the employee is sleepy because:

They had a late night out with friends,
A colicky baby kept them up, or
A drug or medication (legal or not) made them sleepy.

Employers shouldn’t jump to conclusions, but rather, document all related discussions and actions taken.

No hiding under a blanket

Blanket policies that require all employees to disclose all the medications they’re taking risk violating the ADA, because policies like that don’t focus on a particular employee, as required.

Employers with blanket policies should review them to make sure they aren’t adding risk.

If another federal law, such as the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act and its regulations, requires such medical questions, the ADA doesn’t stand in the way. If the laws don’t require the questions, the ADA steps in.

Key to remember: Unless required by another federal law, asking all employees to disclose the medications they take would risk violating the ADA.

2026-02-23T06:00:00Z

Do rehired employees get FMLA leave?

Under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), only those employees who meet certain eligibility criteria are entitled to take the job-protected leave for a qualifying reason.

Employees must:

Have worked for the employer for at least 12 months (need not be consecutive),
Have performed at least 1,250 hours of work in the 12 months before leave is to begin, and
Work at a location with at least 50 company employees within 75 miles.

What happens, however, if an employee leaves the company and is rehired?

How to handle FMLA leave with rehired employees

How employers should handle a rehired employee’s FMLA leave depends on how long the employee was away.

For starters, employers must include all the time the employee worked for the company, and see if it amounts to at least 12 months in total. Again, those months don’t have to be consecutive.

Employers don’t have to include any time worked after an employee’s been gone from the company for more than 7 years, with some exceptions:

The break was because of the employee’s military leave under the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act; or
A written agreement, including a collective bargaining agreement, exists concerning the employer's intention to rehire the employee after the break in service (e.g., the employee goes back to school or takes time off to raise children).

Employers also must determine whether a rehired employee has done at least 1,250 hours of work in the 12 months before leave begins.

To illustrate

Because knowing the FMLA rules around a rehired employee can be challenging, here’s an example to help employers:

Joe Employee worked for “ABC Company” for 5 years before he left for a job at another company. After a year, that company went through some restructuring, and Joe was laid off. He reapplied at “ABC Company” and was rehired.

Seven months later, Joe found out he was going to be a father and asked for FMLA leave when the baby would be born in three months.

Since Joe worked for “ABC Company” for well over 12 total months (5 years originally; 10 months as a rehire when the baby is born and leave would begin), he would be eligible for FMLA leave when the baby is born (assuming he performed at least 1,250 hours of work by then).

State leave laws

Some state leave laws, particularly paid leave, have specific provisions entitling rehired employees to jump back on the leave train where they left off. Employers must be aware of such provisions if they have employees who work in those states.

Key to remember: Whether rehired employees are eligible to take FMLA leave depends on a number of factors, including how long they were gone and why.

2024-08-28T05:00:00Z

When to skip a PIP and move to terminate an employee

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.

Read more: ezExplanation on discharging employees

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.

2024-10-24T05:00:00Z

Yes, the FMLA has employer deadlines – 5 business days

The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) includes deadlines employers must meet. The challenge is knowing what triggers these deadlines and meeting them.

Eligibility/rights and responsibilities notice

The first deadline is activated when an employee notifies the employer (e.g., supervisor, HR manager, etc.) of the need for leave. The employer then has five business days to give the employee an eligibility/rights & responsibilities notice.

If the information in this notice changes, the employer has to tell the employee in writing within five business days after the employee first asks for leave again. The new notice should mention the old notice and explain what has changed. If, for example, the first part of leave was paid and the next part is unpaid, the employer needs to explain how to make premium payments.

Employers may include a certification along with the employee's eligibility/rights & responsibilities notice. Absent extenuating circumstances, the employee must complete and return the certification within 15 calendar days.

So, how soon after an employee requests leave do employers have to request a certification?

In most cases, employers should request a certification when an employee gives notice of the need for leave or within five business days. If the leave is unforeseen, such as a medical emergency, employers should request a certification within five days after the leave begins.

Designation notice

Once the employer has enough information (often from a certification) to determine if the employee’s leave qualifies for FMLA job protections, the employer has five business days to give the employee a designation notice (i.e., written approval or denial of the leave).

Similar to the eligibility/rights and responsibilities notice, if the information provided in the designation notice changes (e.g., the employee exhausts the FMLA leave entitlement), the employer must inform the employee of the change within five business days.

Key to remember: Failure to meet the FMLA’s five-day deadlines for giving employees notices can risk a claim that the employer violated the employee’s FMLA rights.

Most Popular Highlights In Safety & Health

2026-02-16T06:00:00Z

Watchdog warning: OSHA faces ‘significant challenges’ in protecting workers

A new report from an oversight agency concludes that OSHA struggles to meet its mission, particularly in high-risk industries like healthcare, meat packing, construction, and manufacturing. OSHA’s main mission is to assure the safe and healthful working conditions for about 144 million workers employed at over 11.6 million workplaces across the country.

In a “Top Management and Performance Challenges” report just issued by the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General (OIG), several pages point to OSHA’s difficulties in:

Effectively enforcing annual injury and illness reporting requirements at 29 CFR 1904.41,
Reaching the nation’s high-risk worksites for inspection, and
Addressing workplace violence by regulatory or other action.

Employer injury/illness reporting

OSHA has limited ability to focus inspection and compliance efforts where they’re most needed because it has not effectively enforced its mandatory injury and illness reporting requirements for employers, the report contends. In fact, a September 2023 OIG audit found that on average, between 2016 and 2020, nearly 60 percent of establishments in all industries failed to report their annual injury and illness data to OSHA.

The report went on to say that:

OSHA could not identify if an establishment met the reporting criteria. This meant the agency could not effectively cite employers for non-compliance or proactively remind specific establishments that they must report.
Employer under- and non-reporting produces an incomplete view of workplace injury and illness. This, in turn, makes it difficult for OSHA to identify high-risk establishments to target.

Since the 2023 report, OSHA’s Tracking rule took effect January 1, 2024, with an added reporting category — establishments with 100 or more employees in industries designated as very high-risk. These establishments must submit data from the Forms 300, 301, and 300A annually. OSHA explains that it has updated its data collection capabilities. This includes new applications to analyze individual case reports of establishment-specific data.

The Inspector General report urges OSHA to complete its initiatives to improve employer reporting of injuries and illnesses. Meanwhile, each year, OSHA publicly posts employer injury and illness data reported under 1904.41.

Fewer inspectors, fewer inspections

Reaching millions of worksites is an ongoing challenge because the number of federal inspectors is going down, not up, DOL OIG charges, citing 846 in February 2024 and 736 in June 2025. Along with its state partners, in 2026 OSHA will have approximately 1,720 inspectors, or about one inspector for every 84,000 employees. Inspector numbers may continue to decline due to retirements, resignations, and other reductions.

The Inspector General puts it bluntly, “A lack of available inspectors can lead to fewer inspections, diminished enforcement in high-risk industries and ultimately, greater risk of fatalities, injuries, or compromised health for workers.”

It should be stated that fiscal year (FY) 2026 appropriations were approved and signed into law on February 3, 2026. The latest funding is: $243,000,000 for federal enforcement and $120,000,000 for OSHA State-Plan states.

These numbers are unchanged from FY 2025 for federal OSHA enforcement, but slightly higher for state plans. While the funding is not lower than previous years, inflation limits how far OSHA can go with its dollars. Unchanged funding doesn’t necessarily translate to keeping the same number of inspectors.

Workplace violence

Although fatalities due to workplace violence plummeted about 13 percent from 2022 to 2023, workplace violence remains a top five leading cause of employee death, according to OIG. OSHA doesn’t have a standard addressing this issue but has relied instead on the General Duty Clause (GDC) for enforcement since 1993.

The agency must consider actions to address and prevent workplace violence, the Inspector General stresses. Such actions may include a rulemaking. OIG announced plans to perform an audit to determine the effectiveness of the GDC in OSHA’s enforcement efforts, including workplace violence.

Last summer, OSHA slid its Workplace Violence in Health Care and Social Assistance proposed rulemaking to the long-term regulatory agenda items without explanation. Any upcoming OIG results showing the GDC is ineffective for workplace violence may pressure OSHA to issue a regulation and/or fast forward its existing proposal.

The latest OIG report is not the first time the watchdog has recommended OSHA do something about workplace violence. It was noted in a November 2023 report, and an entire September 2001 report was devoted to the issue. Additionally, a 2016 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report outlined “additional efforts” OSHA should take to protect healthcare workers from workplace violence.

Two workplace violence bills currently in Congress would call on OSHA to take action on the issue. See 9 OSHA bills to mandate gap-closing rules, wider coverage, steeper fines.

Key to remember: A recent OIG report addresses what it calls OSHA’s most pressing challenges — annual injury/illness reporting, fewer inspectors, and workplace violence — and what the agency must do going forward to meet them.

2023-02-20T06:00:00Z

Why is lockout/tagout so important?

Many accidents occur when an employee is servicing equipment. Suddenly, the controls are bumped, the equipment starts, and the gears of the machine catch and pull the employee’s arm into them. Another example is a worker cleaning a process tank, someone opens the hot water valve to the tank, and the hot water scalds the worker. Can these injuries be avoided?

When servicing or performing maintenance on equipment or machinery, employers must be sure that the equipment cannot unexpectedly start up or release stored energy. How is this done? The procedure for isolating the energy sources is called lockout/tagout and OSHA regulates it at 29 CFR 1910.147.

Employee types

You may have employees who:

Service and perform maintenance on equipment in your facility (authorized),
Operate or use machines to which lockout/tagout devices are applied (affected), or
Work in an area where lockout/tagout is performed (other).

They all need to know how to avoid the dangers involved when hazardous energy sources are not locked out and/or tagged out.

Authorized employees need the most detailed training. Train them to recognize hazardous energy sources, the type and magnitude of the energy available in the workplace, and they must know how to isolate equipment from its energy sources.

Affected employees must be trained to recognize a machine malfunction and know how to report the problem to authorized employees.

Other employees are those whose work activities are in the area where lock/out tag/tagout is being used. Train them on lockout/tagout procedures, and about the prohibition relating to attempts to restart or re-energize machines or equipment which are locked or tagged out.

Know the requirements

OSHA establishes requirements that employers must follow when employees are exposed to hazardous energy while servicing and maintaining equipment and machinery. Some of the most critical requirements from the standard are outlined below:

Develop, implement, and enforce an energy control program.
Use lockout devices for equipment that can be locked out. Tagout devices may be used instead of lockout devices only if the tagout program provides employee protection equivalent to that provided through a lockout program.
Ensure that new or overhauled equipment is capable of being locked out.
Develop, implement, and enforce an effective tagout program if machines or equipment are not capable of being locked out.
Develop, document, implement, and enforce energy control procedures.
Use only lockout/tagout devices authorized for the particular equipment or machinery and ensure that they are durable, standardized, and substantial.
Ensure that lockout/tagout devices identify the employee who applied the devices.
Establish a policy that permits only the employee who applied a lockout/tagout device to remove it.
Inspect energy control procedures at least annually.
Provide effective training as required for all covered employees.
Comply with the additional energy control provisions in OSHA standards when machines or equipment must be tested or repositioned, when outside contractors work at the site, in group lockout situations, and during shift or personnel changes.

Key to remember

Implementing proper lockout/tagout procedures and training is necessary to protect your authorized, affected, and other employees from injury and death.

2026-02-19T06:00:00Z

Cal/OSHA proposes to adopt federal ‘worker walkaround’ rule

In April 2024, federal OSHA issued a final rule addressing the workplace inspection process at 29 CFR 1903.8. California proposes to adopt the federal rule and add further provisions. The proposal would:

Allow both a representative of the employer and a representative authorized by employees to accompany the Cal/OSHA inspector during the worksite inspection. The inspector is authorized to allow multiple representatives for employer and employee and to resolve any disputes as to who the representatives are.
Establish who may be designated as the representative authorized by employees for purposes of accompanying the inspection;
Establish the inspector’s authority to lead the inspection and ensure the conduct of the representatives who participate does not interfere with the effectiveness of the workplace inspection; and
Allow the employer to protect trade secrets by requiring that any employee representative in an area containing trade secrets be an employee of the company. If this requirement results in excluding the only available employee representative, then the inspector will be required to interview employees who work in the area as part of the inspection.

A public hearing is scheduled for April 1, 2026, via Zoom; this is also the deadline for submitting comments on the proposal.

2026-02-17T06:00:00Z

These forklift operator violations commonly cause accidents

Forklift accidents often cause serious injuries. Unsafe behaviors can include failing to wear the seatbelt and reaching an arm outside the truck’s running lines. While those violations put the operator at risk, many unsafe behaviors also threaten other employees.

The most common forklift accidents involve rollovers, collisions with pedestrians, and loads falling from the tines. These incidents often result from operator error or (even worse) the operator knowingly engaging in unsafe behaviors.

Inspection failure

If the operator skips or rushes through the pre-shift inspection, safety concerns could get overlooked. Problems with systems like hydraulics, brakes, or steering can obviously contribute to accidents. However, even things like a non-functioning horn or lights could increase the likelihood of collisions.

Also, operators must report any problems that arise during the shift. If a pre-shift inspection identifies failures, the problem likely occurred during the previous shift and perhaps could have been reported. Equipment failures more likely occur during operation, not during idle time between shifts. If something goes wrong mid-shift, the operator must remove the truck from service. Make sure operators know how to report problems, send the truck for service, and obtain an alternate vehicle for the remainder of the shift.

Carrying loads too high

Operators should carry loads as low as possible. During inspections, OSHA compliance officers commonly see loads carried too high. This limits both visibility and stability. When the load size restricts visibility and the truck cannot travel in reverse (like going up a ramp), the operator should use a spotter.

Similarly, operators must never raise or lower a load while moving or turning. Doing so increases the risk of accidents from falling loads. Also, driving while watching the load (not the road) can increase the risk of striking pedestrians or objects.

Driving too fast

Employers might communicate speed limits, but most forklifts don’t have speedometers. Therefore, operators should understand what constitutes safe (and unsafe) speeds under various conditions. In locations with pedestrians or limited visibility, this might mean at walking speed, which can seem painfully slow.

OSHA compliance officers can issue citations for excessive speed. Excessive speed increases the risk of spilling a load, striking a pedestrian, and rollover potential.

Not certified for truck type

Forklift operators must receive training that covers the types of vehicles used. An operator trained on a sit-down counterbalanced forklift needs additional training to operate a stand-up model or even a powered pallet jack. A supervisor might be able to explain the controls for a different vehicle type, but that does not constitute “training” and certainly not certification. OSHA commonly issues citations for lacking operator certification.

In addition, employers must evaluate each operator’s performance every three years. Typically, this involves questioning the operator on safety rules and observing the operator performing typical duties. If the evaluation identifies problems, the employer must provide refresher training. Skipping this evaluation could result in a failure to identify violations that contribute to accidents.

An operator who is not certified for the vehicle type may lack understanding of critical handling characteristics or safety precautions, which increases the risk of accidents.

Key to Remember: When forklift operators feel under time pressure, they might focus on speed over safety. Skipping the inspection, driving too fast, raising loads while moving, and other behaviors put the operator and other employees at risk.

2026-02-12T06:00:00Z

Work-relatedness focus of latest OSHA interpretive letter

A burn injury caused by a personal lithium ion battery fire is work related if it occurs in the workplace during assigned working hours, OSHA stated in a recently issued letter of interpretation (LOI).

The January 20 letter details an incident where an employee was burned when their rechargeable lithium-ion batteries for e-cigarettes sparked a fire after inadvertently coming into contact with a key used for work. OSHA said that even though the batteries are a personal item used for a non work purpose, the injury happened in the work environment, so the geographic presumption of work-relatedness applies. OSHA also clarified that the precipitating event is the fire, not the act of carrying the batteries.

Lee Anne Jennings, Director of OSHA’s Technical Support and Emergency Management Directorate, clarified that Section 1904.5(b)(3) of OSHA’s recordkeeping regulation doesn’t apply if the employee was at work during assigned hours and present as a condition of employment. She also noted that none of the exceptions in Section 1904.5(b)(2) are relevant in this scenario, so the injury’s cause — including whether the battery was mixed with employer-provided items — is irrelevant for determining work-relatedness.

LOIs clarify federal workplace safety standards and ensure consistent application for employers, workers, and safety professionals.

2023-12-28T06:00:00Z

Does my office need an exit sign?

One of the most common questions inspectors get when evaluating workplace emergency safeguards is, “Does my office need an exit sign?” Section 29 CFR 1910.37 requires employers to provide specific safeguards and operational features for exit routes. OSHA’s intent is to minimize danger to employees and requiring proper exit route marking is one way to do so.

In short, smaller rooms or offices with only one door don’t necessarily need an exit sign. OSHA standards for exit signage are based on NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, which OSHA incorporated by reference. OSHA 1910.37(b)(4) states, “If the direction of travel to the exit or exit discharge is not immediately apparent, signs must be posted along the exit access indicating the direction of travel to the nearest exit and exit discharge. Additionally, the line-of-sight to an exit sign must clearly be visible at all times.”

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.

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