FMCSA Final Rule: Updates to Medical Advisory Critera

FMCSA Final Rule: Updates to Medical Advisory Critera

2024-01-19T06:00:00Z

FMCSA updates the Medical Advisory Criteria published as an appendix in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The appendix provides guidance for medical examiners listed on FMCSA's National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners (National Registry) on the applicability and interpretation of the physical qualification standards for operators of commercial motor vehicles. The advisory criteria in the appendix are also intended to provide recommendations and information to assist medical examiners in applying the standards, basic information related to testing, and matters to consider when making a qualification determination. The updated Medical Advisory Criteria replace all previous versions of the criteria.

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 19, 2024, published in the Federal Register January 19, 2024, page 3577.

View final rule.

Appendix A to Part 391—Medical Advisory Criteria
Entire appendix	Revised	View text

Previous Text

Appendix A to Part 391—Medical Advisory Criteria

I. Introduction

This appendix contains the Agency’s guidelines in the form of Medical Advisory Criteria to help medical examiners assess a driver’s physical qualification. These guidelines are strictly advisory and were established after consultation with physicians, States, and industry representatives, and, in some areas, after consideration of recommendations from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Medical Review Board and Medical Expert Panels.

II. Interpretation of Medical Standards

Since the issuance of the regulations for physical qualifications of commercial motor vehicle drivers, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has published recommendations called Advisory Criteria to help medical examiners in determining whether a driver meets the physical qualifications for commercial driving. These recommendations have been condensed to provide information to medical examiners that is directly relevant to the physical examination and is not already included in the Medical Examination Report Form.

A. Loss of Limb: §391.41(b)(1)

A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person: Has no loss of a foot, leg, hand or an arm, or has been granted a Skills Performance Evaluation certificate pursuant to §391.49.

B. Limb Impairment: §391.41(b)(2)

1. A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person: Has no impairment of:

(i) A hand or finger which interferes with prehension or power grasping; or

(ii) An arm, foot, or leg which interferes with the ability to perform normal tasks associated with operating a commercial motor vehicle; or

(iii) Any other significant limb defect or limitation which interferes with the ability to perform normal tasks associated with operating a commercial motor vehicle; or

(iv) Has been granted a Skills Performance Evaluation certificate pursuant to §391.49.

2. A person who suffers loss of a foot, leg, hand or arm or whose limb impairment in any way interferes with the safe performance of normal tasks associated with operating a commercial motor vehicle is subject to the Skills Performance Evaluation Certificate Program pursuant to §391.49, assuming the person is otherwise qualified.

3. With the advancement of technology, medical aids and equipment modifications have been developed to compensate for certain disabilities. The Skills Performance Evaluation Certificate Program (formerly the Limb Waiver Program) was designed to allow persons with the loss of a foot or limb or with functional impairment to qualify under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations by use of prosthetic devices or equipment modifications which enable them to safely operate a commercial motor vehicle. Since there are no medical aids equivalent to the original body or limb, certain risks are still present, and thus restrictions may be included on individual Skills Performance Evaluation certificates when a State Director for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration determines they are necessary to be consistent with safety and public interest.

4. If the driver is found otherwise medically qualified (§391.41(b)(3) through (13)), the medical examiner must check on the Medical Examiner’s Certificate that the driver is qualified only if accompanied by a Skills Performance Evaluation certificate. The driver and the employing motor carrier are subject to appropriate penalty if the driver operates a motor vehicle in interstate or foreign commerce without a current Skill Performance Evaluation certificate for his/her physical disability.

C. [Reserved]

D. Cardiovascular Condition: §391.41(b)(4)

1. A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person: Has no current clinical diagnosis of myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, coronary insufficiency, thrombosis or any other cardiovascular disease of a variety known to be accompanied by syncope, dyspnea, collapse or congestive cardiac failure.

2. The term “has no current clinical diagnosis of” is specifically designed to encompass: “a clinical diagnosis of” a current cardiovascular condition, or a cardiovascular condition which has not fully stabilized regardless of the time limit. The term “known to be accompanied by” is designed to include a clinical diagnosis of a cardiovascular disease which is accompanied by symptoms of syncope, dyspnea, collapse or congestive cardiac failure; and/or which is s likely to cause syncope, dyspnea, collapse or congestive cardiac failure.

3. It is the intent of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations to render unqualified, a driver who has a current cardiovascular disease which is accompanied by and/or likely to cause symptoms of syncope, dyspnea, collapse, or congestive cardiac failure. However, the subjective decision of whether the nature and severity of an individual’s condition will likely cause symptoms of cardiovascular insufficiency is on an individual basis and qualification rests with the medical examiner and the motor carrier. In those cases where there is an occurrence of cardiovascular insufficiency (myocardial infarction, thrombosis, etc.), it is suggested before a driver is certified that he or she have a normal resting and stress electrocardiogram, no residual complications and no physical limitations, and is taking no medication likely to interfere with safe driving.

4. Coronary artery bypass surgery and pacemaker implantation are remedial procedures and thus, not medically disqualifying. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators are disqualifying due to risk of syncope. Coumadin is a medical treatment which can improve the health and safety of the driver and should not, by its use, medically disqualify the commercial motor vehicle driver. The emphasis should be on the underlying medical condition(s) which require treatment and the general health of the driver. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration should be contacted at (202) 366-4001 for additional recommendations regarding the physical qualification of drivers on coumadin.

E. Respiratory Dysfunction: §391.41(b)(5)

1. A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person: Has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of a respiratory dysfunction likely to interfere with ability to control and drive a commercial motor vehicle safely.

2. Since a driver must be alert at all times, any change in his or her mental state is in direct conflict with highway safety. Even the slightest impairment in respiratory function under emergency conditions (when greater oxygen supply is necessary for performance) may be detrimental to safe driving.

3. There are many conditions that interfere with oxygen exchange and may result in incapacitation, including emphysema, chronic asthma, carcinoma, tuberculosis, chronic bronchitis and sleep apnea. If the medical examiner detects a respiratory dysfunction, that in any way is likely to interfere with the driver’s ability to safely control and drive a commercial motor vehicle, the driver must be referred to a specialist for further evaluation and therapy. Anticoagulation therapy for deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary thromboembolism is not medically disqualifying once optimum dose is achieved, provided lower extremity venous examinations remain normal and the treating physician gives a favorable recommendation.

F. Hypertension: §391.41(b)(6)

1. A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person: Has no current clinical diagnosis of high blood pressure likely to interfere with ability to operate a commercial motor vehicle safely.

2. Hypertension alone is unlikely to cause sudden collapse; however, the likelihood increases when target organ damage, particularly cerebral vascular disease, is present. This regulatory criteria is based on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Cardiovascular Advisory Guidelines for the Examination of commercial motor vehicle Drivers, which used the Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (1997).

3. Stage 1 hypertension corresponds to a systolic blood pressure of 140-159 mmHg and/or a diastolic blood pressure of 90-99 mmHg. The driver with a blood pressure in this range is at low risk for hypertension-related acute incapacitation and may be medically certified to drive for a one-year period. Certification examinations should be done annually thereafter and should be at or less than 140/90. If less than 160/100, certification may be extended one time for 3 months.

4. A blood pressure of 160-179 systolic and/or 100-109 diastolic is considered Stage 2 hypertension, and the driver is not necessarily unqualified during evaluation and institution of treatment. The driver is given a one-time certification of three months to reduce his or her blood pressure to less than or equal to 140/90. A blood pressure in this range is an absolute indication for anti-hypertensive drug therapy. Provided treatment is well tolerated and the driver demonstrates a blood pressure value of 140/90 or less, he or she may be certified for one year from date of the initial exam. The driver is certified annually thereafter.

5. A blood pressure at or greater than 180 (systolic) and 110 (diastolic) is considered Stage 3, high risk for an acute blood pressure-related event. The driver may not be qualified, even temporarily, until reduced to 140/90 or less and treatment is well tolerated. The driver may be certified for 6 months and biannually (every 6 months) thereafter if at recheck blood pressure is 140/90 or less.

6. Annual recertification is recommended if the medical examiner does not know the severity of hypertension prior to treatment. An elevated blood pressure finding should be confirmed by at least two subsequent measurements on different days.

7. Treatment includes nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic modalities as well as counseling to reduce other risk factors. Most antihypertensive medications also have side effects, the importance of which must be judged on an individual basis. Individuals must be alerted to the hazards of these medications while driving. Side effects of somnolence or syncope are particularly undesirable in commercial motor vehicle drivers.

8. Secondary hypertension is based on the above stages. Evaluation is warranted if patient is persistently hypertensive on maximal or near-maximal doses of 2-3 pharmacologic agents. Some causes of secondary hypertension may be amenable to surgical intervention or specific pharmacologic disease.

G. Rheumatic, Arthritic, Orthopedic, Muscular, Neuromuscular or Vascular Disease: §391.41(b)(7)

1. A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person: Has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of rheumatic, arthritic, orthopedic, muscular, neuromuscular or vascular disease which interferes with the ability to control and operate a commercial motor vehicle safely.

2. Certain diseases are known to have acute episodes of transient muscle weakness, poor muscular coordination (ataxia), abnormal sensations (paresthesia), decreased muscular tone (hypotonia), visual disturbances and pain which may be suddenly incapacitating. With each recurring episode, these symptoms may become more pronounced and remain for longer periods of time. Other diseases have more insidious onsets and display symptoms of muscle wasting (atrophy), swelling and paresthesia which may not suddenly incapacitate a person but may restrict his/her movements and eventually interfere with the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. In many instances these diseases are degenerative in nature or may result in deterioration of the involved area.

3. Once the individual has been diagnosed as having a rheumatic, arthritic, orthopedic, muscular, neuromuscular or vascular disease, then he/she has an established history of that disease. The physician, when examining an individual, should consider the following: The nature and severity of the individual’s condition (such as sensory loss or loss of strength); the degree of limitation present (such as range of motion); the likelihood of progressive limitation (not always present initially but may manifest itself over time); and the likelihood of sudden incapacitation. If severe functional impairment exists, the driver does not qualify. In cases where more frequent monitoring is required, a certificate for a shorter period of time may be issued.

H. Epilepsy: §391.41(b)(8)

1. A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person: Has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a motor vehicle.

2. Epilepsy is a chronic functional disease characterized by seizures or episodes that occur without warning, resulting in loss of voluntary control which may lead to loss of consciousness and/or seizures. Therefore, the following drivers cannot be qualified:

(i) A driver who has a medical history of epilepsy;

(ii) A driver who has a current clinical diagnosis of epilepsy; or

(ii) A driver who is taking antiseizure medication.

3. If an individual has had a sudden episode of a nonepileptic seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown cause which did not require antiseizure medication, the decision as to whether that person’s condition will likely cause loss of consciousness or loss of ability to control a motor vehicle is made on an individual basis by the medical examiner in consultation with the treating physician. Before certification is considered, it is suggested that a 6 month waiting period elapse from the time of the episode. Following the waiting period, it is suggested that the individual have a complete neurological examination. If the results of the examination are negative and antiseizure medication is not required, then the driver may be qualified.

4. In those individual cases where a driver has a seizure or an episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical condition (e.g., drug reaction, high temperature, acute infectious disease, dehydration or acute metabolic disturbance), certification should be deferred until the driver has fully recovered from that condition and has no existing residual complications, and not taking antiseizure medication.

5. Drivers with a history of epilepsy/seizures off antiseizure medication and seizure-free for 10 years may be qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce. Interstate drivers with a history of a single unprovoked seizure may be qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce if seizure-free and off antiseizure medication for a 5-year period or more.

I. Mental Disorders: §391.41(b)(9)

1. A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person: Has no mental, nervous, organic or functional disease or psychiatric disorder likely to interfere with ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

2. Emotional or adjustment problems contribute directly to an individual’s level of memory, reasoning, attention, and judgment. These problems often underlie physical disorders. A variety of functional disorders can cause drowsiness, dizziness, confusion, weakness or paralysis that may lead to incoordination, inattention, loss of functional control and susceptibility to accidents while driving. Physical fatigue, headache, impaired coordination, recurring physical ailments and chronic “nagging” pain may be present to such a degree that certification for commercial driving is inadvisable. Somatic and psychosomatic complaints should be thoroughly examined when determining an individual’s overall fitness to drive. Disorders of a periodically incapacitating nature, even in the early stages of development, may warrant disqualification.

3. Many bus and truck drivers have documented that “nervous trouble” related to neurotic, personality, or emotional or adjustment problems is responsible for a significant fraction of their preventable accidents. The degree to which an individual is able to appreciate, evaluate and adequately respond to environmental strain and emotional stress is critical when assessing an individual’s mental alertness and flexibility to cope with the stresses of commercial motor vehicle driving.

4. When examining the driver, it should be kept in mind that individuals who live under chronic emotional upsets may have deeply ingrained maladaptive or erratic behavior patterns. Excessively antagonistic, instinctive, impulsive, openly aggressive, paranoid or severely depressed behavior greatly interfere with the driver’s ability to drive safely. Those individuals who are highly susceptible to frequent states of emotional instability (schizophrenia, affective psychoses, paranoia, anxiety or depressive neuroses) may warrant disqualification. Careful consideration should be given to the side effects and interactions of medications in the overall qualification determination.

J. [Reserved]

K. Hearing: §391.41(b)(11)

1. A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person: First perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid, or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ADA Standard) Z24.5-1951.

2. Since the prescribed standard under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations is from the American National Standards Institute, formerly the American Standards Association, it may be necessary to convert the audiometric results from the International Organization for Standardization standard to the American National Standards Institute standard. Instructions are included on the Medical Examination Report Form.

3. If an individual meets the criteria by using a hearing aid, the driver must wear that hearing aid and have it in operation at all times while driving. Also, the driver must be in possession of a spare power source for the hearing aid.

4. For the whispered voice test, the individual should be stationed at least 5 feet from the medical examiner with the ear being tested turned toward the medical examiner. The other ear is covered. Using the breath which remains after a normal expiration, the medical examiner whispers words or random numbers such as 66, 18, 3, etc. The medical examiner should not use only sibilants (s sounding materials). The opposite ear should be tested in the same manner.

5. If the individual fails the whispered voice test, the audiometric test should be administered. If an individual meets the criteria by the use of a hearing aid, the following statement must appear on the Medical Examiner’s Certificate “Qualified only when wearing a hearing aid.”

L. Drug Use: §391.41(b)(12)

1. A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person does not use any drug or substance identified in 21 CFR 1308.11, an amphetamine, a narcotic, or other habit-forming drug. A driver may use a non-Schedule I drug or substance that is identified in the other Schedules in 21 CFR part 1308 if the substance or drug is prescribed by a licensed medical practitioner who:

(i) Is familiar with the driver’s medical history, and assigned duties; and

(ii) Has advised the driver that the prescribed substance or drug will not adversely affect the driver’s ability to safely operate a commercial motor vehicle.

2. This exception does not apply to methadone. The intent of the medical certification process is to medically evaluate a driver to ensure that the driver has no medical condition which interferes with the safe performance of driving tasks on a public road. If a driver uses an amphetamine, a narcotic or any other habit-forming drug, it may be cause for the driver to be found medically unqualified. If a driver uses a Schedule I drug or substance, it will be cause for the driver to be found medically unqualified. Motor carriers are encouraged to obtain a practitioner’s written statement about the effects on transportation safety of the use of a particular drug.

3. A test for controlled substances is not required as part of this biennial certification process. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration or the driver’s employer should be contacted directly for information on controlled substances and alcohol testing under Part 382 of the FMCSRs.

4. The term “uses” is designed to encompass instances of prohibited drug use determined by a physician through established medical means. This may or may not involve body fluid testing. If body fluid testing takes place, positive test results should be confirmed by a second test of greater specificity. The term “habit-forming” is intended to include any drug or medication generally recognized as capable of becoming habitual, and which may impair the user’s ability to operate a commercial motor vehicle safely.

5. The driver is medically unqualified for the duration of the prohibited drug(s) use and until a second examination shows the driver is free from the prohibited drug(s) use. Recertification may involve a substance abuse evaluation, the successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program, and a negative drug test result. Additionally, given that the certification period is normally two years, the medical examiner has the option to certify for a period of less than 2 years if this medical examiner determines more frequent monitoring is required.

M. Alcoholism: §391.41(b)(13)

1. A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person: Has no current clinical diagnosis of alcoholism.

2. The term “current clinical diagnosis of” is specifically designed to encompass a current alcoholic illness or those instances where the individual’s physical condition has not fully stabilized, regardless of the time element. If an individual shows signs of having an alcohol-use problem, he or she should be referred to a specialist. After counseling and/or treatment, he or she may be considered for certification.

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 19, 2024, published in the Federal Register January 19, 2024, page 3577.

View final rule.

Appendix A to Part 391—Medical Advisory Criteria
Entire appendix	Revised	View text

Previous Text

Appendix A to Part 391—Medical Advisory Criteria

I. Introduction

II. Interpretation of Medical Standards

A. Loss of Limb: §391.41(b)(1)

B. Limb Impairment: §391.41(b)(2)

1. A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person: Has no impairment of:

(i) A hand or finger which interferes with prehension or power grasping; or

(ii) An arm, foot, or leg which interferes with the ability to perform normal tasks associated with operating a commercial motor vehicle; or

(iii) Any other significant limb defect or limitation which interferes with the ability to perform normal tasks associated with operating a commercial motor vehicle; or

(iv) Has been granted a Skills Performance Evaluation certificate pursuant to §391.49.

C. [Reserved]

D. Cardiovascular Condition: §391.41(b)(4)

E. Respiratory Dysfunction: §391.41(b)(5)

F. Hypertension: §391.41(b)(6)

G. Rheumatic, Arthritic, Orthopedic, Muscular, Neuromuscular or Vascular Disease: §391.41(b)(7)

H. Epilepsy: §391.41(b)(8)

(i) A driver who has a medical history of epilepsy;

(ii) A driver who has a current clinical diagnosis of epilepsy; or

(ii) A driver who is taking antiseizure medication.

I. Mental Disorders: §391.41(b)(9)

J. [Reserved]

K. Hearing: §391.41(b)(11)

L. Drug Use: §391.41(b)(12)

(i) Is familiar with the driver’s medical history, and assigned duties; and

(ii) Has advised the driver that the prescribed substance or drug will not adversely affect the driver’s ability to safely operate a commercial motor vehicle.

M. Alcoholism: §391.41(b)(13)

1. A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person: Has no current clinical diagnosis of alcoholism.

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

2026-01-30T06:00:00Z

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 fences 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. 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).

Check the permit to confirm erosion control and sediment control requirements, as they may be more stringent at the state or local level.

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

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 Transportation

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

Most Recent Highlights In Safety & Health

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.

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.

2026-01-22T06:00:00Z

Wildfire air pollution is rising: What federal findings mean for industry compliance

Wildfires have become one of the largest drivers of elevated air pollution in the United States, and recent federal publications show that their impact is increasing in both scale and severity. EPA confirms that large and catastrophic wildfires now produce substantial increases in fine particulate matter (PM2.5) across broad regions of the country, including smoke transported from Canada and Mexico. These events are raising background PM2.5 levels and expanding the number of communities experiencing smoke each year. As these trends accelerate, industries face new challenges in compliance, permitting, and worker protection, especially as wildfire seasons grow longer and smoke events more frequent.

Federal research shows PM2.5 from wildfires increasing nationwide

EPA’s most recent wildfire smoke analysis shows clear year to year increases in PM2.5 concentrations attributed to wildfire smoke across the United States. Data from 2006–2020 demonstrate that smoke driven PM2.5 spikes are occurring more often and across a wider geographic footprint. The agency reports that national public health impacts are significant, with thousands of annual emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and deaths linked to wildfire smoke exposure.

The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) 2025 federal wildfire smoke review supports these findings. Using space-based instrumentation GOES 19, TEMPO, and other satellite scientific tools, NOAA shows that thick smoke plumes from Canadian and U.S. fires degraded air quality across the Upper Midwest and other regions, even hundreds of miles from the fires. These satellite observations are paired with EPA ground monitors to identify high pollution zones and support air quality alerts.

Together, EPA and NOAA findings confirm that wildfire smoke is a major and rising contributor to PM2.5 levels, which is important for industries located in or downwind of wildfire prone areas.

Exceptional events

A central compliance question for industry is whether wildfire related pollution counts toward National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) attainment. Under the Exceptional Events Rule, wildfire smoke can be excluded from NAAQS determinations if states demonstrate that exceedances were caused by an uncontrollable natural event. EPA’s wildfire smoke guidance highlights the increasing burden of documenting smoke impacts and shows how PM2.5 spikes related to fires have grown more common.

The agency acknowledges that wildfire smoke frequently pushes PM2.5 concentrations into unhealthy ranges. During the 2023 Canadian wildfire episode, for example, EPA referenced surveillance showed measurable increases in asthma related emergency room (ER) visits. Even when these pollution spikes qualify as exceptional events, they still influence public health, air quality planning, and operational decisions for industry.

At the same time, NOAA continues to refine federal smoke forecasting models used by the National Weather Service (NWS) and EPA. These models help states prepare exceptional event documentation and guide industrial contingency planning when wildfire smoke is anticipated.

Why industry EHS professionals should pay close attention

Compliance and attainment risk: Wildfire smoke may be excluded as an exceptional event, but elevated PM2.5 levels can still push a region toward nonattainment before exclusion is approved. This creates uncertainty for industries during permit renewals, emissions modeling, and long-term facility planning. EPA’s data clearly indicate that wildfire driven PM2.5 exceedances are rising nationwide.
Worker exposure and health risk: EPA and NOAA findings confirm that wildfire smoke carries fine particulate matter capable of worsening respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. Industries with outdoor workers must consider revised exposure protocols, respirators, and schedule adjustments during smoke episodes.
Operational and supply chain stability: NOAA’s wildfire smoke analysis shows that smoke can travel long distances, disrupt visibility, affect logistics, and degrade regional air quality for days or weeks. Companies dependent on transportation corridors or sensitive equipment should plan for smoke related delays and monitoring.
Community and stakeholder expectations: Even when deemed an exceptional event, wildfire smoke contributes to local risk perceptions. Facilities may face increased scrutiny, especially if their emissions interact with elevated regional PM2.5.

Bottom line for industry

Federal research shows that wildfire driven air pollution is increasing in both frequency and intensity, often raising PM2.5 concentrations across entire regions. EPA’s Exceptional Events Rule may exclude wildfire smoke from NAAQS compliance, but industries still face operational, health, and planning challenges as wildfire seasons intensify. NOAA’s satellite data confirms that smoke impacts will continue to widen under changing climate conditions.

Key to remember: For EHS professionals, wildfire smoke is no longer only a regional hazard. It is a strategic compliance and operational issue requiring enhanced monitoring, seasonal planning, and proactive communication.

2026-01-15T06:00:00Z

Defining RCRA solid waste: Does your material qualify?

What’s a solid waste? It may seem obvious at first, but understanding the correct definition is essential for facilities to comply with the federal waste management program. If the question is answered incorrectly, there can be serious consequences. Mismanaged waste (especially when it’s hazardous) can endanger the health of people and the environment.

Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the entire lifecycle of waste, from creation to disposal. Only materials that qualify as “solid waste” — whether they’re nonhazardous or hazardous — are subject to RCRA requirements. That’s why all waste generators need to have an accurate understanding of how solid waste is defined.

Use this overview to help your facility determine if the waste it generates qualifies as solid waste.

What’s a RCRA solid waste?

The statutory definition (42 U.S.C. 6903(27)) and the regulatory definition (40 CFR 261.2) explain what’s considered a solid waste under RCRA.

Statutory definition

The act defines solid waste as:

Garbage;
Refuse;
Sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility; or
Any other discarded material from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations and from community activities.

It applies to physically solid, semisolid, liquid, and gaseous materials.

Regulatory definition

EPA (per 262.11) requires anyone who generates a solid waste to accurately determine whether the waste is hazardous. The first part of the hazardous waste identification process is to establish whether the material is a solid waste. EPA expanded the definition of solid waste for this purpose.

The regulation further defines solid waste as any material that’s discarded by being:

Abandoned (defined in 261.2(b)),
Recycled (defined in 261.2(c)),
Considered inherently waste-like (defined in 261.2(d)), or
A military munition (defined in 266.202).

If a material doesn’t meet these criteria, it’s not considered a solid waste and isn’t subject to RCRA regulations. If the criteria do apply, the material qualifies as a RCRA solid waste, and your facility must comply with EPA’s standards for managing either nonhazardous or hazardous RCRA waste.

What’s not a RCRA solid waste?

Many materials are excluded from the definition of solid waste. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that these wastes are unregulated; some are excluded because other regulations apply (for example, industrial wastewater point source discharges are subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System rules). Make sure to check if other requirements apply to excluded materials.

Statutory exclusions

RCRA’s definition of solid waste excludes:

Solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage;
Solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows;
Industrial wastewater discharges only at point sources (it doesn’t exclude industrial wastewaters collected, stored, or treated before discharge or sludges generated by industrial wastewater treatment); and
Source, special nuclear, or byproduct material defined by the Atomic Energy Act.

Regulatory exclusions

EPA lists the wastes that are exempt from the definition of solid waste at 261.4. It excludes all of the wastes that the statutory definition does. The agency also exempts other wastes under certain conditions (such as spent sulfuric acid used to produce virgin sulfuric acid, reclaimed secondary materials reused in production, and recycled shredded circuit boards).

Why does this matter?

Knowing what’s considered solid waste is vital to compliance because it tells you if RCRA rules apply to your specific waste.

It’s also the first part of the hazardous waste identification process. Facilities use the process to determine how solid waste is regulated, either as nonhazardous waste subject to RCRA Subtitle D rules or as hazardous waste subject to RCRA Subtitle C standards.

Check state requirements

Most states implement the RCRA waste management regulations. State rules must be at least as strict as federal, and some states may have more stringent requirements. Check with your facility’s state environmental agency to confirm what standards apply.

Key to remember: Defining solid waste is the first step in determining whether RCRA rules apply to a material.

2026-01-14T06:00:00Z

EPA scraps SDS/Tier II reporting rule tied to OSHA HazCom

After receiving an “adverse comment,” EPA withdrew its direct final rule to amend 40 CFR 370 before the rule had a chance to take effect. The direct final rule published back on November 17, 2025, was intended to relax the Tier II reporting and safety data sheet (SDS) reporting requirements and align with the OSHA Hazard Communication standard at 29 CFR 1910.1200.

In November, EPA said it considered the rule to be noncontroversial and anticipated no adverse comment. However, on January 9, 2026, EPA published its withdrawal of the direct final rule “because the EPA subsequently received adverse comment.” The agency did not disclose what the fatal comment was. However, docket EPA-HQ-OLEM-2025-0299 shows nine comments, many of which express serious concerns with this rule related to the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).

What were the objections?

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

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

What’s next?

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

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

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

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

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

Key to remember

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

Most Recent Highlights In Human Resources

2026-01-12T06:00:00Z

Understanding WOTUS and Navigable Waters in 2026

Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) coverage is narrowing after the Supreme Court’s Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (Sackett) decision (2023) and a 2025 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) proposal to align waters of the United States (WOTUS) with that ruling. Expect fewer federally regulated wetlands, more state-by-state differences, and continued uncertainty through 2026.

What counts as “navigable waters” today?

Post-Sackett, WOTUS includes traditional navigable waters, territorial seas, certain interstate waters, impoundments, tributaries that are relatively permanent, and adjacent wetlands that directly abut those waters through a continuous surface connection. Non-jurisdictional ditches do not create adjacency.

Recent changes

Supreme Court decision in Sackett (May 2023): The CWA covers only waters that are relatively permanent and wetlands with a continuous surface connection to those waters. The Supreme Court rejected the “significant nexus” test.
Conforming amendments (September 2023): EPA and the USACE removed the significant nexus standard, revised the definition of "adjacent," and clarified that interstate wetlands aren't automatically WOTUS.
Field guidance (March 2025): EPA and the USACE directed that non-jurisdictional ditches, swales, pipes, and culverts don't create a continuous surface connection. Wetlands must directly abut the water.
Proposed rule (November 2025): EPA and the USACE proposed definitions for “relatively permanent,” “tributary,” and “continuous surface connection.” If finalized, federal coverage will narrow further.

Where each rule applies

Implementation is split:

The 2023 amended rule is in effect in 24 states, D.C., and territories.
The pre-2015 regime and Sackett apply in 26 states, including Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Kentucky now follows the 2023 amended rule except for certain litigants. Always check EPA’s “Current Implementation of Waters of the United States” page to check state status before filing permits.

Why it matters to industry and commerce

Permitting: WOTUS defines whether projects need Section 404 (dredge/fill) and Section 402 (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permits. A narrower federal scope can reduce federal permitting, but state and tribal programs may still apply.
Design: Wetlands separated by berms or uplands and connected only by ditches or culverts likely do not qualify as WOTUS. Early jurisdictional determinations (JDs) and hydrologic documentation are critical.
Risk: Multistate portfolios face uneven rules due to individual states having their own regulatory framework. The 2025 proposal could further limit federal reach, shifting responsibility to states. Multistate industry and commerce should prepare for state variability and litigation-driven changes.

The legal and regulatory arc: Why definitions keep changing

Statute: The CWA regulates “navigable waters,” defined as “waters of the United States,” but doesn't define WOTUS.
Court history: Court decisions have repeatedly reshaped and narrowed the definition of WOTUS. United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. (1985) upheld adjacent wetlands; the scope narrowed when Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2001) limited isolated waters. Rapanos v. United States (2006) deepened uncertainty by introducing two competing tests, “relatively permanent” vs. “significant nexus,” leaving regulators and courts with ambiguity.
Rulemaking swings:
- The 2015 Clean Water Rule broadened coverage.
- The 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule narrowed it, but the rule was later vacated.
- The 2023 WOTUS Rule was reshaped by Sackett and amended in August 2023.

Current alignment: The 2023 amendments and 2025 proposal aim to match the Supreme Court’s standards.

Pending actions to watch in 2026

Final rule: The 2025 proposal’s comment period closed on January 5, 2026. A final rule could standardize terms and further narrow jurisdiction.
Litigation: Courts may lift or expand injunctions, changing which states apply which regime.
Funding: Fiscal Year 2025 operations rely on continuing resolutions; WOTUS changes will come through rulemaking, not budget riders.

Practical steps for EHS and project teams

Confirm your state’s regime before scoping.
Request or update JDs early; document permanence and direct abutment.
Track the 2025 proposal and submit comments where unclear.

Key to Remember: WOTUS and “navigable waters” definitions are narrowing, reducing some federal burdens but increasing state variability. For industrial and commercial projects, early jurisdictional work and state-specific permitting plans are essential to protect schedules and budgets.

EHS Monthly Round Up - December 2025

In this December 2025 roundup video, we'll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news.

Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news. Let’s take a look at what happened over the last month.

In fiscal year 2025, the top three violations for non-construction small employers, those with under 100 employees, were hazard communication, respiratory protection, and powered industrial trucks. Three industries dominated these violations: fabricated metal product manufacturing, repair and maintenance, and non-metallic mineral product manufacturing.

OSHA issued several new letters of interpretation on a variety of workplace topics, including permit required confined spaces, recordkeeping, and powered industrial trucks. Letters of interpretation help ensure the consistent application of federal workplace safety and health standards, and provide regulatory clarification to employers, workers, and safety professionals.

California’s STOP Act took effect January 1. The law targets the state’s fabricated stone industry. It prohibits dry cutting of stone countertops, mandates employee training, and classifies silicosis and silica-related lung cancer from artificial stone as a serious injury or illness.

As of January 1, Washington state requires tower crane permits for all construction work involving tower crane operation, assembly, disassembly, and reconfiguration. Before issuing permits, Washington Department of Labor and Industries will conduct safety conferences to ensure all parties understand the safety requirements and related responsibilities.

Turning to environmental news, EPA issued compliance deadline extensions for certain emissions standards. The delays affect the New Source Performance Standards for crude oil and natural gas facilities and the emissions guidelines for such facilities. Compliance timelines have been pushed into mid- to late-2026 and early 2027.

And finally, although EPA has been deregulating or loosening some environmental requirements, there are still some standards being tightened. These include renewable fuel standards, stormwater management, and PFAS disclosure. Changes to these requirements will reshape compliance obligations for U.S. companies in 2026, and reflect a trend toward increased transparency and environmental accountability.

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

EHS Monthly Round Up - January 2025

In this January 2025 monthly roundup video, we'll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news.

Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news. There’s a lot going on, so let’s get started!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2026-01-05T06:00:00Z

EPA extends wastewater compliance deadlines for coal-fired steam power plants

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule on December 31, 2025, that changes certain requirements for wastewater discharges from coal-fired steam electric power plants. It applies to regulations established by the preceding rule finalized in 2024.

The 2025 final rule:

Extends the submission deadline for the notice of planned participation (NOPP) required for the subcategory of electric generating units (EGUs) seeking to permanently stop coal combustion by December 31, 2034;
Extends compliance deadlines for zero-discharge limitations that apply to dischargers of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater, bottom ash (BA) transport water, and combustion residual leachate (CRL);
Establishes tiered standards for indirect discharges of FGD wastewater, BA transport water, and CRL; and
Adds provisions that allow facilities to transfer into and out of the subcategory of regulated EGUs that will permanently cease coal combustion by 2034 until December 31, 2034.

Who’s affected?

The final rule impacts EGUs subject to the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the steam electric power generating point source category (40 CFR Part 423).

What are the new deadlines?

The 2025 final rule delays the NOPP compliance date. It also extends the deadlines for zero-discharge limitations on FGD wastewater, BA transport water, and CRL. The delays apply to the best available economically achievable (BAT) limitations for direct dischargers and the pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) for indirect dischargers.

Requirement(s)	Previous deadline	New deadline
NOPP for permanent cessation of coal combustion by 2034	December 31, 2025	December 31, 2031
(Direct dischargers) FGD wastewater BAT BA transport water BAT CRL BAT	No later than December 31, 2029	No later than December 31, 2034
(Indirect dischargers) FGD wastewater PSES BA transport water PSES CRL PSES	May 9, 2027	January 1, 2029, or site-specific date for BAT

What are the other changes?

EPA’s 2025 final rule sets tiered standards for indirect dischargers of FGD wastewater, BA transport water, and CRL:

The first tier requires indirect dischargers to meet pre-2024 final rule standards by January 1, 2029.
The second tier:
- Allows indirect dischargers to continue indirectly discharging up to December 31, 2024, if they certify that they’ll convert to become direct dischargers; or
- Requires indirect dischargers to meet the zero-discharge requirements by January 1, 2029, if they choose not to become direct dischargers.

The final rule also adds provisions that enable facilities to transfer into and out of the subcategory of regulated EGUs that will permanently cease coal combustion by 2034 until December 31, 2034. It allows EGUs to switch between complying with the zero-discharge limitations and the requirements that apply to the subcategory.

Key to remember: EPA has delayed certain compliance requirements for coal-fired steam electric power plants that discharge three types of wastewaters.

2026-01-02T06:00:00Z

New York establishes Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

Effective date: December 10, 2025

This applies to: Certain GHG emission sources

Description of change: Entities subject to 6 NYCRR Part 253 must submit annual reports of greenhouse (GHG) emissions during the previous calendar year by June 1. Reporting facilities must keep records used for the reports, and larger sources have to obtain third-party verification of their reported emissions. The first report will cover 2026 GHG emissions data and will be due on June 1, 2027.

The regulation applies to emission sources that are in a listed category and operate in New York. The rule establishes three reporting threshold categories:

Suppliers of fuels, electricity, or fertilizer;
Facilities that emit more than 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent of GHGs annually; and
Sources with a specific operational activity.

Related state info: Clean air operating permit state comparison

New Network Poll

In what areas are you most concerned should you face a regulatory audit?

No active poll

Please come back soon!

View Previous Polls & Results

Most Popular Highlights In Environmental

2026-01-26T06:00:00Z

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

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 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.

What does OSHA say?

Key to remember

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

2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

Dust collector to disposal: Understanding dust as a waste stream

When captured dust becomes a regulated waste

Storage, disposal, and the risks of getting it wrong

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

California adds nail product chemical to priority list

Effective date: April 1, 2026

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.

2025-11-25T06:00:00Z

EPA’s SDS/Tier II reporting now in lockstep with OSHA HazCom

EPA issued a direct final rule to update its safety data sheet (SDS) reporting and Tier II inventory reporting requirements. The changes align EPA 40 CFR 370 with OSHA’s Hazard Communication (HazCom) standard at 29 CFR 1910.1200.

January 2026 news update: In the January 9, 2026, Federal Register, EPA withdrew the November 17, 2025, direct final rule that would have amended 40 CFR 370 to conform to the 2024 OSHA HazCom standard. The withdrawal is prompted after the agency received adverse comment on the rule. The agency had published a parallel proposed rule on the same day as the direct final rule. Therefore, EPA intends to address the comments in any subsequent final rule. The comment period closed on December 24, 2025, and the agency does not intend to institute a second comment period. Note that the docket offers 23 supporting and related materials, including a draft updated Tier II form and draft updated Tier II instructions.

The biggest change is that facilities will be able to copy the hazard categories directly from section 2 of the SDSs to their Tier II report forms. This eliminates the guesswork. However, facilities may face added strain with their first Tier II submission under the rule. Instead of relying on the grouped hazard categories selected in the previous year’s forms, it looks like facilities will need to spend extra time retrieving specific categories from their SDSs.

Who’s impacted by the rule?

EPA 40 CFR 370 applies to a facility owner or operator if:

The OSHA HazCom standard requires the facility to prepare or have available an SDS or material safety data sheet (MSDS) for a hazardous chemical;
The hazardous chemical is not exempted at 370.13 or 1910.1200(b)(6); and
The hazardous chemical is present at or above certain threshold levels.

If the applicability criteria are met, the facility owner/operator must submit to the state emergency response commission (SERC), local emergency planning committee (LEPC), and local fire departments:

An SDS or MSDS for each covered hazardous chemical or a list of all covered hazardous chemicals; and
A Tier II hazardous chemical inventory form by March 1 annually for all covered hazardous chemicals.

A state may make its own laws and regulations in addition to or more stringent than federal Part 370.

What’s changing in Part 370?

Last year, OSHA amended its HazCom standard to conform to the seventh edition of the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). Changes to the chemical hazard classifications and categories were part of the amendments to 1910.1200. This is important because EPA Part 370 relies on the OSHA HazCom standard for the definition of “hazardous chemical” and the hazard categories that must be reported.

In the latest rule published November 17, 2025, EPA takes several actions to harmonize its regulations with OSHA’s. The preamble offers a complete list of amendments to Part 370. Here’s a summary:

Change:	Details:	Sections affected:
Adopts all 112 OSHA hazard categories	The hazard categories are amended to include the full list of OSHA hazard classes with their categories for health and physical hazards. (Previously, EPA used an abbreviated list of hazard classes. The change impacts both SDS reporting and Tier II reporting.)	370.3, 370.30, 370.41, and 370.42
Updates terminology	The definitions are moved from 370.66 to 370.3. The definition for the term “hazard category” now means the classification of a chemical’s hazard(s) into classes with their categories as are reported in section 2 of SDSs in accordance with 1910.1200. The terms “health hazards” and “physical hazards” are updated to align with OSHA. However, “simple asphyxiants” will remain a health hazard, “combustible dust” will remain a physical hazard, and “hazard not otherwise classified” will remain both a physical hazard and a health hazard. The definition of “material safety data sheet (MSDS)” is removed. Minor changes to other terms are made for plain language, clarity, and consistency purposes.	370.3 and 370.66
Removes the term MSDS	The terms MSDS and material safety data sheet are removed to conform to the OSHA HazCom standard.	370.3, 370.10, 370.12, 370.13, 370.14, 370.20, 370.30, 370.31, 370.32, 370.33, 370.60, 370.62, 370.63, and 370.64
Makes minor plain language, clarifying, and consistency corrections	Historic dates and clarifications for electronic reporting are removed. Each initial letter of the term “Extremely Hazardous Substance” is capitalized. Other minor corrections are made.	370.1, 370.2, 370.3, 370.10, 370.14, 370.30, 370.32, 370.33, 370.40, 370.41, 370.42, 370.43, 370.44, 370.45, 370.60, 370.61, 370.62, 370.64, 370.65, and 370.66

When will the changes take effect?

The direct final rule is effective January 16, 2026, unless EPA receives an adverse comment during its 30-day comment period. [However, see the "news update," earlier in this article.] If that happens, the agency will publish a timely withdrawal. Then, it will move along with the proposed rule (also published in the November 17, 2025, Federal Register) and address public comments in a subsequent final rule.

Assuming no adverse comment is received on the original direct final rule, EPA gives covered facilities time to prepare. The rule offers a compliance date of December 1, 2026, for both SDS reporting and Tier II reporting. Note that for Tier II reporting, the updates kick in for the 2026 inventory reporting year, which impacts forms due by March 1, 2027, and thereafter. (Forms due on or before March 1, 2026, are unchanged.)

Key to remember: EPA took action to harmonize Part 370 with the changes OSHA made to 1910.1200 last year. The latest amendments to Part 370 have a compliance date of December 1, 2026. For Tier II reporting, the updates start with forms due on or before March 1, 2027.

2025-05-21T05:00:00Z

Compliance guide: Air regulations for emergency generator installation

In today's rapidly evolving energy landscape, businesses are turning to back-up emergency generators to keep operations running smoothly. Several key factors are driving this growing trend:

Extreme heat and weather events

Climate change has led to more intense weather like hurricanes, wildfires, and heatwaves. These events put pressure on power grids, causing outages that disrupt business operations. Generators help by providing backup power during unexpected failures.

Power demand from AI and data centers

Artificial intelligence (AI) and data centers need a lot of electricity. As these technologies grow, power grids struggle to keep up. Companies use generators to prevent power shortages and keep essential systems running.

Grid reliability concerns

Aging infrastructure and unsteady energy supply from renewable sources can make electrical supply unstable. Industries like manufacturing, healthcare, and finance need steady power to avoid costly interruptions. Generators act as a safety net when the grid fails.

Compliance considerations

Backup generators help keep businesses running, but they also impact the environment. Companies must follow air quality regulations to reduce pollution and operate safely.

Air permits

• State agencies usually oversee air permits, but The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has granted many county and city agencies the authority to issue them. For major permits such as New Source Review (NSR) and Title V, federal regulations apply, but state or local governments may still manage the process.

• In some areas, businesses can apply for a general permit or permit-by-rule for emergency generators. These permits are often easier to obtain and take less time to process. Checking air permitting regulations will help determine if this option is available.

• Businesses should find out if they need a pre-construction or construction air permit before setting up an emergency generator. These permits are based on the proposed equipment’s potential to emit (PTE) of criteria pollutants such as NOx, SO2, CO, and CO2 and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) such as formaldehyde and acrolein, which are emitted during the combustion of fuel. The type(s) of fuel used in the generator, such as diesel, natural gas, gasoline, or propane, will affect the calculated PTE. Read more about construction permits in this ezExplanation: NSR Permits.

(Note: many state and local permitting agencies allow for the use of 500 hours for calculating PTE from an emergency engine, as per EPA’s 2011 Fox Memo, but some agencies still require using 8,760 hours and only accept 500 hours as an enforceable limit defined in a permit.)

• Federal law sets a limit on emergency generators, allowing less than 100 hours of non-emergency use per year. This includes maintenance and testing. Some permits may also restrict the times of day when the generator can be used for non-emergency purposes.

• The permit may require businesses to use the generator according to the manufacturer’s specifications. This is especially important if the business used manufacturer guarantees to calculate PTE.

• Businesses must track fuel use and operating hours to stay within the limits used in emissions calculations. They can do this using fuel records, fuel measuring devices, and hour meters that log the generator’s usage time.

• After getting a construction permit, a facility may need to apply for an operating permit within a year of the generator beginning operation. Some state and local agencies have stricter rules and deadlines. Check out J. J. Keller’s ezExplanation for Operating Permits: Clean Air Act: Operating Permits

EPA emission standards

The EPA enforces strict emissions regulations for stationary engines. Businesses must ensure their generators meet the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for compression ignition (40 CFR 60 Subpart IIII) and spark ignition internal combustion engines (ICE) (40 CFR 60 Subpart JJJJ), which can be found here. Additionally, the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) apply to reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE). 40 CFR 63 Subpart ZZZZ can be found here.

These rules, depending on the specific type of generator engine, will be required even if a permit is not necessary.

Other Regulations

Keep in mind that using an emergency generator may also involve other factors depending on the type and amount of fuel stored:

• Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) Requirements

• Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans

• EPCRA Tier II Reporting

Key to remember: When installing an emergency generator, companies must navigate complex air quality regulations to ensure compliance. By selecting the right fuel type and securing necessary permits, businesses can maintain reliable power while minimizing environmental impact.

Most Popular Highlights In Transportation

2026-01-26T06:00:00Z

Can commercial drivers obtain a second opinion on a DOT medical exam?

Motor carriers — whether they employ a handful of commercial drivers or thousands — often face an important question: If a driver is disqualified during a Department of Transportation (DOT) medical exam, is the driver allowed to seek a second opinion? For motor carriers, this situation can create uncertainty and raise concerns about compliance, safety, and legal risk.

FMCSA’s guidance on second opinions

According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) guidance, a driver who receives a disqualified status may seek a second opinion from another National Registry Certified Medical Examiner.

However, the process has important requirements:

Drivers should obtain permission from their motor carrier before scheduling a second exam. Carrier that allow drivers to seek a second opinion may choose which Certified Medical Examiner drivers visit.
Carriers should maintain a list of approved medical vendors to ensure consistent and reliable examinations. Understanding these rules helps carriers manage risk and maintain compliance.
Carriers, however, should also watch out for these four areas of compliance that, if not followed, could steer them off course when it comes to driver medical exams.

Four watch-outs for motor carriers

1. Drivers must provide the same health information to every examiner

Drivers are required to give complete and truthful medical information at each exam. If a driver withholds or changes information to obtain a medical certificate from a second examiner, it can create serious problems:

Drivers can face civil penalties.
Motor carriers may also be liable if the driver is involved in a crash and was certified based on incomplete or inaccurate information.
Motor carriers could inadvertently place a medically unfit driver behind the wheel of a commercial motor vehicle .
Let’s say a driver previously reported severe fatigue that raised concerns about possible sleep apnea. That information must be shared with any second examiner. Withholding it in hopes of receiving a 2-year medical card creates significant compliance, legal, and safety risks to both the driver and motor carrier.

2. Carriers aren’t required to review the 'long form' medical report

Motor carriers aren’t required to obtain or review the driver’s DOT Medical Examination Report Form MCSA-5875 (long form). Without this information, it may be difficult for carriers to determine whether the driver disclosed accurate medical history during a second exam.

Carriers that choose to collect or review long form medical information must:

Obtain written consent from the driver.
Work closely with HR to ensure a consistent and compliant policy.
Use clear procedures for authorizing and storing medical information.

3. The FMCSA receives all exam results

All DOT medical exam results are submitted to the FMCSA National Registry. This means:

A disqualified exam will appear in the driver’s National Registry record.
If the driver quickly receives a second exam that results in a valid certification, the FMCSA may choose to review the situation more closely.

4. Carriers should watch for ‘doctor shopping’

Motor carriers should be alert for patterns that may indicate drivers are "doctor shopping.” Drivers who repeatedly seek new examiners that will overlook medical concerns pose risks for carriers. The FMCSA frowns upon “doctor shopping” because it undermines the integrity of the medical certification process. Carriers that allow drivers to do this will certainly raise red flags with the FMCSA if multiple exams occur within a short time frame.

Key to remember: Allowing a second opinion can be appropriate when handled correctly, but it must be managed carefully. Carriers should communicate clear guidelines to drivers, understand the FMCSA requirements, and maintain strong internal policies to protect both the company and the public.

2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

Motus on the move: FMCSA’s new registration portal

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is preparing to roll out Motus, a modernized, mobile friendly registration portal. It’s designed to streamline how carriers, brokers, and other regulated entities manage their safety and compliance records.

Launching to all users in 2026, Motus will replace fragmented workflows with a single, secure dashboard that marks one of FMCSAs most significant digital upgrades in years.

To make the transition smooth, the agency is urging companies to take a few essential steps now. Being proactive will prevent delays later, especially when it comes time to claim your existing USDOT Number and establish your new Motus account.

A Smarter Start

Motus is only as effective as the data that feeds into it, which is why FMCSA is emphasizing the importance of maintaining an active FMCSA Portal account. Carriers should log in today to confirm their account status or create one if they have never used the Portal before. Many carriers who have held authority for years may not realize they even have a Portal account, making this step especially important.

Once your account is active, you will be able to claim your USDOT Number in Motus and start managing your information there. Without this, users will not be able to complete registration updates or manage authority once the new system goes live. The FMCSA Portal login page allows users to sign in with existing credentials or start fresh through the online registration option, ensuring every company has a verified and secure entry point into Motus.

What to do now

One of the most important preparation steps is verifying the Portal user access list. Under the Account Management tab, companies should confirm which individuals have Portal access and identify their Company Official.

FMCSA is clear about who this person should be:

The company owner, or
An internal employee responsible for safety and compliance tasks

It should not be a consultant, third-party service provider, or transportation broker. The Company Official should use the same Login dot.gov email in both the FMCSA Portal and Motus. Using one consistent email ensures the systems can recognize the correct user and properly connect the company’s existing USDOT information to its new Motus account.

This one-to-one match is the only way FMCSA can securely link a company’s historical USDOT data with its new Motus account. Taking time now to verify the correct individual is listed can prevent access issues and delays during the transition.

Update your MCS-150

Motus aims to create a centralized, accurate registration environment. To support that goal, FMCSA recommends carriers complete an online Biennial Update (MCS 150) in the Portal before Motus launches.

Submitting an update, or confirming no changes are needed, ensures the most current company information transfers into the new system. This includes:

Operating status
Fleet size and vehicle types
Hazmat activity
Mileage and safety data

Accurate information today means fewer issues when Motus goes live.

Key to remember: By getting ahead of these updates, you set your company up for a seamless shift into Motus when it launches.

2026-01-29T06:00:00Z

New dates for Roadcheck 2026

International Roadcheck 2026 is right around the corner, taking place in early May this year. This annual 3-day vehicle inspection event is designed to educate and spread awareness about motor vehicle safety.

Inspections will take place at weigh/inspection stations, mobile patrols, and temporary sites during the 72-hour inspection. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) says that it’s conducted over 1.8 million inspections since this event began in 1988.

Roadcheck is scheduled for May 12-14, 2026, so make sure your team and operations are ready. Remember, every roadside inspection has an impact on Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) scores.

During the inspection blitz, CVSA-certified law enforcement personnel across Mexico, the U.S., and Canada will examine motor vehicles to verify state, federal, provincial, and territorial regulatory compliance.

Inspectors will perform as many Level I inspections as possible. This is a complete inspection of the driver and vehicle. Unsuccessful inspections could result in a vehicle or driver being placed out of service until the violation is resolved.

8 levels of inspection

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

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

2025-12-19T06:00:00Z

Federal government revives medical marijuana proposal

The White House has directed the attorney general to speed up the process of reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug.

An executive order signed December 18 brings new life to a process that began in 2024 when the federal government published a proposed rule that would move marijuana from schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act to schedule III, a lower-class drug category.

Hearings on the proposal were scheduled to begin in December 2024, but the process has been stalled in procedural limbo.

A restart

The rescheduling proposal would move marijuana to the same drug class as prescription drugs such as Tylenol with codeine, ketamine, and steroids. It would also make it possible for medical marijuana to be prescribed to patients.

While the executive order revives the marijuana rescheduling issue, it will likely be 6-12 months before a final rule is issued.

Hearings will need to be scheduled, and comments from the hearings will need to be considered before a final rule is published.

DOT drug testing

A lot must happen before any changes will occur under the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) drug testing regulations. The DOT is required to follow U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) guidelines for DOT drug testing, including the drug testing panel.

Until the federal Drug Enforcement Administration acts on rescheduling marijuana, neither the HHS nor DOT can move forward. Changes to the DOT drug testing panel can’t occur until:

The HHS provides new guidelines, and
Regulation 49 CFR Part 40 is revised through the rulemaking process.

At this time, it’s unknown whether there will be any stipulations built into the rescheduling allowing the HHS and DOT to continue testing for marijuana.

Stay the course for now

As the process plays out, employers not covered by federal drug and alcohol testing regulations should continue to follow state medical marijuana laws and watch for updates on workplace drug policy implications.

More will be known about how this executive order will influence workplace drug policies after hearings are completed and a final rule is issued. It’s likely that state laws will continue to make an impact on how employers handle marijuana in the workplace, however.

Key to remember: The federal government is once again looking at moving marijuana to a lower classification of drug. Until a final rule is issued, employers should continue to follow their current workplace drug policies. DOT testing panel may see changes, unless stipulations are built into rulemaking. The transportation industry anxiously waits to see how Executive Order will (or will not) impact DOT testing.

2026-01-29T06:00:00Z

Extra hours, extra confusion: Making sense of adverse condition and emergency relief rules

Winter weather brings more than snow and ice, it brings confusion about what rules apply when conditions change. Two of the most misunderstood Hours of Service (HOS) provisions are the Adverse Driving Conditions (ADC) exception and Emergency Relief Orders (EROs). While both can impact how long a driver may operate, they apply in very different situations.

What are adverse driving conditions?

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

What does the exception allow?

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

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

What is an Emergency Relief Order?

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

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

What does an ERO allow?

Each order is different, but they may allow:

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

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

Safety first, safety always

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

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

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

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

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.

2024-04-16T05:00:00Z

Do I need to pay you? When meetings and trainings are “hours worked”

Employers often grapple with the question of whether they must pay employees for time spent in meetings or trainings. Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers must pay employees for time spent in meetings and trainings unless these four factors are met:

Employees perform no work;
Participation is truly voluntary;
It must not be job-related; and
It occurs outside of regular working hours.

In other words, every one of these criteria must occur for employers to deny pay. If any one of these isn’t true, then employees must be paid for their time.

A closer look at what “voluntary” means

The toughest factor for employers is often the second; that the meeting or training time is voluntary. If employers require employees to attend, employers must count the time as hours worked and pay employees.

A recent court case filed in February 2024 helps illustrate what “voluntary” means.

In the case, Samuel, an employee, worked for seven years as a salaried, but nonexempt (“hourly”) employee. He and others worked eight-hour shifts but had to come in early and, before punching in, spend 30 minutes for shift meetings to learn about events and incidents that occurred on the previous shift. If the meeting lasted less than 30 minutes, they were to start working.

At the end of the shift, Samuel claimed that he and other employees had to attend another 30-minute debrief meeting, where they told members of the incoming shift about problems that had come up and any recommended changes.

The company didn’t use time clocks (which the FLSA doesn’t require). Instead, employees entered their hours worked on timecards, which is acceptable under the FLSA.

The employees claimed, however, that the employer required them to attend the pre- and post-shift sessions and to not include the time spent at those meetings on their timecards. Therefore, they were not paid for that time.

The case

In filing a claim, Samuel seeks a collective class of current and former employees in his job category, claiming they worked more than 40 hours per week and should be paid overtime. If the evidence shows that the employees were required to attend the meetings, which benefitted the company more than the employees, the employer could be on the hook for owing them backpay, missed overtime pay, and other damages for wage violations.

This case is in the early stages and the employer could have a legitimate rebuttal to the claims. No matter how the case proceeds, it serves as a reminder for all employers that if attendance at company meetings or trainings is required, it is not voluntary and must, therefore, be paid.

The case is Hood v. Ford Motor Co. and was filed in federal court in the Northern District of Ohio, No. 1:24-cv-00244.

Key to remember: Attendance at meetings and trainings must be totally voluntary if employers want to avoid having to pay employees for the time spent there.

2026-01-29T06:00:00Z

Three keys to confidently navigate an ELDT audit

As the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) ramps up audits of entry-level driver training (ELDT) providers, knowing what to expect and how to prepare is essential. The following three keys will help you stay organized, compliant, and audit-ready.

1. Maintain required records

Section 380.725 of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) lists the specific records that must be maintained by all ELDT providers on FMCSA’s Training Provider Registry (TPR). During an ELDT audit the investigator will ask for and review the following ELDT-specific records:

Self-certifications by all behind-the-wheel driver-trainees stating that they will comply with:
- The regulations in Parts 40, 382, 383, and 391; and
- State and/or local laws related to alcohol and controlled substances testing, age, medical certification, licensing, and driver records;
A copy of the driver-trainee’s commercial learner’s permit (CLP) or commercial driver’s license (CDL);
Instructor qualification documentation:
- Listing each instructor’s driving and/or training experience, and
- A copy of each instructor’s current and valid CDL and applicable endorsements;
Lesson plans for theory and behind-the-wheel (range and public road) training curricula; and
Records of each driver-trainee’s ELDT assessments.

2. Ensure TPR data is current

Another issue being addressed is the activity or inactivity within the ELDT provider’s TPR profile. To remain on the TPR, an ELDT provider needs to periodically update its data on the TPR. This includes:

Updating the Entry-Level Driver Training Provider Registration Form at least once every two years (biennially); and
Reporting changes to key information to FMCSA within 30 days of the change. This includes changes to the:
- Training provider’s name, address, or phone number;
- Type(s) of training offered; and
- Training provider’s status, and, if applicable, any change in state licensure, certification, or accreditation status.

3. Meet any applicable state requirements

In addition to the ELDT requirements, many states have requirements that must be met by schools and entities providing CDL instruction. In many cases these requirements apply to schools or entities that offer instruction for tuition or a fee.

As part of the process to be listed on the TPR, a school or entity certifies that they are licensed, certified, registered, or authorized to provide training as required by the laws and regulations of the state where in-person training is conducted.

During an audit, the investigator will ask for documentation of state licensure, registration, or certification to verify that the provider is authorized to provide training in the state. This also confirms that the school or entity correctly certified that they are meeting state requirements on their TPR application.

Key to remember: Ensuring that all records are complete and up to date is key when it comes to having a successful ELDT audit.

2026-01-21T06:00:00Z

IRS: No tax and reporting for state paid family, medical leave benefits in 2026

On December 19, 2025, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced that it extended the grace period for employers and states to report tax information about state paid family and medical leave (PFML) benefits. Like last year, 2026 is included in the transition period to give states and employers time to configure their reporting and other systems and to help an orderly transition to compliance with state PFML rules.

Therefore, for 2026, employers and states won’t have to comply with tax and income reporting obligations related to those benefits.

Under IRS Revenue Ruling 2025-4, employers are to include, in an employee’s gross income, amounts paid to an employee under a state’s PFML program. These are seen as wages for federal employment tax purposes. For 2025, however, states and employers didn’t have to comply with the employment tax reporting requirements.

The IRS has now said, “States may need additional time to make the necessary changes to their systems and state budgets to comply with their federal income tax and employment tax obligations, as well as related information reporting responsibilities…. For this reason, calendar year 2026 will be regarded as an additional transition period for purposes of IRS enforcement and administration.”

This grace period doesn’t apply if employers voluntarily pay an employee’s required PFML contribution. Employers must still consider those amounts as wages and report them on Forms W-2.

This IRS announcement applies to state leave laws where employers and employees must make contributions to the state’s PFML fund operated and administered by the state. Employers with employees in these states must withhold and remit contributions from each applicable employee’s wages to the state. The state collects these contributions from employers and deposits them into the PFML fund to give PFML benefits to individuals covered by the related state law.

Employers may have a private plan for the payment of PFML benefits. Employers with private plans must submit the plans for state approval. The plans must provide employee benefits that are comparable to those required under the PFML law. Employers must provide the benefits at a cost to employees that doesn’t exceed what the PFML law requires.

Key to remember: Employers with employees in states with paid family and medical leave laws won’t have to comply with federal tax and income reporting obligations in 2026 when it’s related to these leave benefits.

2025-12-04T06:00:00Z

AI to loom large in 2026, CEO survey finds

Artificial intelligence (AI), revenue growth, and attracting top talent are on the minds of business leaders heading into 2026, according to results from the CEO Priorities and Perspectives study released December 4 by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM).

The study, based on a survey of 116 CEOs conducted in October 2025, found that:

40 percent are prioritizing the adoption of AI
31 percent are prioritizing revenue growth
27 percent are prioritizing top talent

“You have to have strong leaders and managers in place to help guide your teams through the massive (AI) transformation happening right now,” noted James Atkinson, vice president of thought leadership at SHRM. “If don’t have the right leadership in place this technological transformation can consume your company.”

While 87 percent of CEOs surveyed see AI-driven upskilling and reskilling to be prevalent next year, and also anticipate a growing emphasis on digital collaboration tools, the cost of labor is a concern. The CEOs indicated in the survey that:

81 percent expect rising labor and total workforce costs
75 percent anticipate workforce reductions to be a trend
74 percent expect more companies to use restructuring efforts to improve agility and efficiency

Economic uncertainty, driven in part by tariffs and immigration policies, makes it difficult for organizations to plan and contributes to slower hiring, Atkinson noted.

While the labor market has been softening, there are still a number of jobs that cannot be filled because of a skills mismatch.

“There is pressure to cut costs, pressure to bring in AI, and at the same time certain occupations and industries still have to find that top talent,” he said.

Key to remember: CEOs see AI as a top priority next year and need to find the right talent while remaining conscious of labor costs.

2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

Employment laws by the number (of employees)

Employers that don’t know which laws apply to them are at greater risk of noncompliance. Which federal employment laws apply to a company depends on how many employees the company has. Some laws apply to employers with only one employee, while others don’t apply unless the employer has 100 or more employees.

Here’s a breakdown of which federal employment laws employers must follow based on the number of employees they have on staff: federal employment laws:

Employers with 1 or more employees must comply with:

The Employee Polygraph Protection Act
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act
The Equal Pay Act
The Fair Labor Standards Act
The National Labor Relations Act
The Occupational Safety and Health Act
The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
The Family and Medical Leave Act (all public employers)

Employers with 15 or more employees must also comply with:

The Americans with Disabilities Act
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Employers with 20 or more employees must also comply with:

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act

Private employers with 50 or more employees must also comply with:

The Family and Medical Leave Act

Employers with 100 or more employees must also comply with:

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining and Notification Act

State laws

Those listed are only the federal laws. Each state law has its own definition of which employers are covered.

Key to remember: Employers must be aware of which laws apply to them, and that depends on how many employees they have. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for violations.

Most Popular Highlights In Safety & Health

2022-03-31T05:00:00Z

Identifying exit routes in your Emergency Action Plan

Almost every business is required to have an Emergency Action Plan (EAP). If fire extinguishers are required or provided in your workplace, and if anyone will be evacuating during a fire or other emergency, then OSHA requires you to have an EAP.

According to 29 CFR 1910.38(c), your EAP must contain the following:

☑ Procedures for reporting a fire or other emergency;

☑ Procedures for emergency evacuation, including type of evacuation and exit route assignments;

☑ Procedures to be followed by employees who remain to operate critical plant operations before they evacuate;

☑ Procedures to account for all employees after evacuation;

☑ Procedures to be followed by employees performing rescue or medical duties; and

☑ The name or job title of every employee who may be contacted by employees who need more information about the plan or an explanation of their duties under the plan.

Of the six minimum requirements, 1910.38(c)(2) does not provide much clarity. This requirement mentions that the EAP must include procedures for emergency evacuation, including type of evacuation and exit route assignments, but leaves the interpretation to the safety professional’s discretion.

While OSHA does not specifically state that the employer creates evacuation maps or facility diagrams, including them has become a popular tool to help meet this requirement. Smaller buildings where exits are obvious may not need to create these maps, but maps can be valuable in larger and more complex buildings.

It should be noted that OSHA has mentioned in the 1910 Subpart E Appendix that the use of floor plans or workplace maps which clearly show the emergency escape routes should be included in the EAP. Color coding as an employee aid in determining route assignments is also mentioned.

Most employers create maps from floor diagrams with arrows that designate the exit route assignments. If you have identified primary and secondary exit routes, you’ll want to distinguish between the two with contrasting colors. These maps should also include locations of exits, assembly points, and equipment (such as fire extinguishers, first aid kits, spill kits, etc.) that may be needed in an emergency.

During the development and implementation of your EAP evacuation maps and exit routes, think about all the possible emergency situations, and evaluate your workplace. Different events will require different responses, such as evacuating during a fire but sheltering in place during severe weather. Once you have these items identified on paper, remember to walk your facility to ensure that everything makes sense and complies with OSHA’s requirements.

Key to remember: Your local fire department, building code authority, or insurance carrier may have additional requirements for your EAP and evacuation maps beyond that of OSHA.

2025-05-28T05:00:00Z

Five forklift facts that are not in the OSHA regulations

Many common areas of confusion regarding forklift operation do not appear in the OSHA regulations. Perhaps the lack of regulatory information adds to the confusion. Below are the answers to some frequently asked questions.

No driver’s license but must be 18 years old

Since forklifts are not operated on public roads, the operator does not need a driver’s license. In fact, OSHA requires training on the differences between a forklift and a car. Someone with a driver's license might assume that forklifts handle like cars, but they do not!

A forklift operator must, however, be at least 18 years old. That’s not in the OSHA regulations, but appears in the child labor regulations. Minors under 18 years of age cannot operate (or even ride on) equipment like forklifts or scissor lifts.

Seatbelts required

Everyone knows that forklift operators must use the seatbelt if the forklift has one. That does not appear in the OSHA standard, but it’s usually a safety warning in the forklift operator manual. Since failing to wear a seat belt is a recognized hazard that could cause serious injury, OSHA uses the General Duty Clause to cite employers that don’t enforce seatbelt use.

Hearing or vision impairments

Employers occasionally hire trainees with hearing loss, vision impairment, or other physical limitations. Alternatively, an experienced forklift operator could get injured or experience similar impairments. OSHA does not establish specific requirements for vision, hearing, or other qualifications, and physical limitations are not necessarily disqualifying.

Instead, employers must evaluate the individual and determine if the person can operate safely. Trainers should work with their Human Resources team to evaluate possible accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Do not assume that a physical limitation would prevent someone from becoming a safe forklift operator. If an evaluation finds that the person cannot meet acceptable safety standards, the employer may refuse to certify the operator.

Trainers might need training

The employer determines who is qualified to deliver powered industrial truck training. The trainer must have the “knowledge, training, and experience” to train and evaluate operators. Attending a “train the trainer” class and getting a certification isn’t a bad idea, but OSHA doesn’t require any particular course or certification to be a trainer.

OSHA does, however, require that the trainer have experience using the type of equipment that trainees will operate. Since experience is required, the trainer likely received training on using that equipment. Further, if the employer purchases a new type of truck or attachment that the trainer has never used, the trainer will need experience using that equipment before training others.

For related information, see our articles on Debunking the mysteries of forklift training (Part 1) and Debunking the mysteries of forklift training (Part 2).

Even minor modifications require approval

Modifications that affect “safe operation” require the manufacturer’s written approval per 1910.178(a)(4). In OSHA’s view, that covers nearly any change, even adding a warning light or backup alarm. A Letter of Interpretation dated April 11, 1997, clarified that if the manufacturer does not respond or refuses to approve a modification, employers may instead get approval from a Qualified Registered Professional Engineer. Employers should ensure that forklift operators don’t modify equipment, like adding plywood or tarps to the cage as a sun shade. Those changes could affect safe operation and would require approval.

Key to remember: The powered industrial truck standard does not address every issue that employers might face, but employers can find answers in other regulations or guidance.

2026-01-29T06:00:00Z

Hot off the press! OSHA updates/uploads publications to website

OSHA recently revamped two of its guidance publications related to enforcement and nail salon safety. The agency also revised and returned the redline-strikeout version of the Hazard Communication (HazCom) rule to its website. All three documents are intended to be informational and don’t create new regulations or obligations.

Employer rights/responsibilities after an OSHA inspection

OSHA inspections can be an overwhelming experience. Understanding the regulatory terms and what’s required of you afterwards can be confusing. OSHA says its Employer Rights and Responsibilities Following a Federal OSHA Inspection booklet can and should be used as a discussion guide during your closing conference with the compliance officer.

The booklet explains that:

After an inspection, the officer reports the findings to the OSHA area director who evaluates them.
If a violation was found, OSHA will issue you a Citation and Notification of Penalty detailing the exact nature of the violation(s) and any associated penalties. A citation informs you of the alleged violation. It also sets a proposes an abatement date and penalty amounts.

Also explained in OSHA’s guidance are types of violations, employer options, how to comply, how to contest citations, and more. The booklet is available as a pdf or ebook in English and Spanish.

Nail salon hazards and prevention strategies

Nail technicians are exposed to hazardous chemicals found in glues, polishes, removers, and other salon products. The trouble is these exposures can lead to asthma and other respiratory illnesses, skin disorders, liver disease, reproductive loss, and cancer. Additionally, awkward positions and repetitive motions may lead to muscle strains, and workers face potential infections from contact with client skin, nails, or blood.

Stay Healthy and Safe While Giving Manicures and Pedicures: A Guide for Nail Salon Workers highlights common issues in nail salons — such as chemical and biological exposures, ventilation problems, inadequate personal protective equipment (PPE), and ergonomic risks. Importantly, the guide provides practical steps for correcting those issues. It also explains worker rights and offers a list of applicable OSHA standards and resources. The publication is available in five languages.

Redline-strikeout version of 2024 HazCom rule

Finally, OSHA returned the redline-strikeout version of its 2024 HazCom rule to its Hazard Communication topic page. The latest document includes the corrections issued in the Federal Register (on May 20, 2024, October 9, 2024, January 8, 2026, and January 15, 2026). The redline-strikeout version is the full text of 29 CFR 1910.1200 with all revisions from 2024 and 2026 marked in red so you can spot what was added, revised, or removed.

We anticipate more HazCom guidance and enforcement information will be coming to OSHA’s HazCom topic page, either behind the HCS final rule link or the other links on the page.

Key to remember: OSHA continues to update its guidance publications. The latest ones cover OSHA inspections, nail salon safety, and hazard communication.

2026-01-27T06:00:00Z

Every safety warning ignored is a tragedy looming!

Tragedies are just waiting for the opportunity to strike in your workplace. When safety is ignored, even minor hazards can turn into serious incidents with devastating consequences. Whether it's an overlooked inspection, a neglected repair, or a dismissed concern, the cost of inaction is often far greater than the effort to address risks early.

The explosive truth in one month

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking back

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

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

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

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

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

2026-01-06T06:00:00Z

The invisible risks of indoor warmth

As the January frost settles in, the primary mission for any workplace becomes a simple one: stay warm. Whether it’s a drafty warehouse or a corner office with a chill, employees instinctively reach for tools to turn up the heat. However, in the pursuit of comfort, two silent and often overlooked hazards creep into the workplace, Carbon Monoxide (CO) poisoning and space heater fire hazards.

While these hazards appear different, they do share a dangerous commonality; they are often the result of small, well-intentioned adjustments to our environment that go unnoticed until it is too late. To protect your team this Winter Safety Month, it is essential to understand how these risks intersect and how to manage the "invisible" side of winter safety.

Carbon monoxide: The silent threat

The danger begins with the air we breathe. Carbon monoxide is frequently called the “silent killer” because it is colorless, odorless, and tasteless. In the winter, the risk spikes as buildings are sealed tight to keep the cold out, inadvertently trapping any gases produced by fuel-burning equipment.

In industrial settings, this might be a propane-powered forklift running in a closed loading dock. In an office setting, it could be a malfunctioning furnace or the improper use of a kerosene heater. Because CO mimics the symptoms of common winter ailments, it is easy to ignore. Employees might complain of a "dull headache," "winter fatigue," or "nausea," assuming they are just coming down with a cold. However, a key red flag for employers is this "cluster effect." If multiple people in the same area begin feeling lethargic or dizzy simultaneously, it is probably not a virus—more than likely it is an environmental emergency. Protecting your team starts with the installation of CO detectors, but it continues with a culture where employees feel empowered to speak up the moment the air feels off.

Air quality to fire safety

Where fuel-burning equipment creates a chemical hazard, electric heating creates a structural one. When the central HVAC system can’t keep up with a January cold snap, the "personal space heater" becomes the most popular tool in the building. While these devices provide immediate relief, they are responsible for a staggering percentage of workplace fires because they are often treated as "plug-and-play" appliances rather than high-powered industrial tools.

The transition from a cozy workstation to a fire hazard often happens through simple proximity. This is where the "Three-Foot Rule" becomes non-negotiable. Whether it is a stack of paper, a plastic trash can, or a winter coat draped over a chair, combustible materials must be kept at a distance. A heater doesn't need to touch an object to ignite it; the constant radiant heat can raise the temperature of nearby materials to their ignition point over several hours.

Beyond the physical placement of the heater lies the electrical strain. A common mistake in office environments is "daisy-chaining” or plugging a space heater into a power strip or an extension cord. Most power strips are designed for low-draw electronics like monitors and phone chargers. A space heater draws a large amount of electricity, which can cause the internal wiring of a power strip to melt or ignite long before a circuit breaker ever trips. To bridge this gap, employers should enforce a "Direct-to-Wall" policy. If a heater cannot reach a wall outlet, it should not be used. This ensures the building’s heavy-duty wiring handles the load, rather than a thin plastic extension cord hidden under a rug.

Strategies

Protecting employees during the winter months requires a much broader view of indoor safety. It isn’t just about checking the furnace or just banning heaters; it’s about managing how we modify our environment. A few winter safety strategies should include:

The "Last Man Out" Protocol: Assigning a team member to ensure all supplemental heaters are unplugged and not just turned off at the end of the day.
HVAC Audits: Treating the need for space heaters as a "symptom" that the main heating system needs a professional tune-up or vent cleaning.
Open Communication: Encouraging a "safety first" mindset where reporting a headache or a hot-to-the-touch power cord is rewarded, not dismissed.

Keys to remember: By addressing the air we breathe and the equipment we plug in as two parts of the same winter safety goal, employers can ensure that the workplace remains a sanctuary from the cold, rather than a source of danger.

2024-09-11T05:00:00Z

Challenges with OSHA 300 Logs for multiple locations and remote workers

Understanding how OSHA defines an establishment and how to manage records for multiple establishments with different industry codes is critical to staying in compliance.

Employers covered by OSHA’s injury and illness recordkeeping regulations must maintain a 300 Log for each establishment, defined as a single physical location. OSHA provides two exemptions from keeping a 300 Log, one for company size and another for industry classification.

Applying exemptions

Employers with 10 or fewer employees do not need to maintain a 300 Log, but this exemption counts all employees at all locations. If an employer has three locations, each with four employees, it has more than 10 employees and the size exemption will not apply.

The other exemption is based on each establishment’s North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code. Employers might have some establishments that must keep a 300 Log and others that do not, like a manufacturing facility that maintains a 300 Log and an administrative office that is exempt.

In some cases, an establishment’s activities fit under more than one NAICS code, like a manufacturing plant with a distribution warehouse. OSHA advises using the code that either generates the most revenue or has the most employees, whichever the employer deems most applicable. Employers should check their workers’ compensation coverage to see which code they use.

For more information, see our article Which NAICS code should you use for OSHA?

Traveling and remote workers

If an employee has a recordable incident while visiting another establishment, the employer must record the case on the 300 Log for the establishment where the incident occurred, even if the employee normally works elsewhere.

However, if an employee has a recordable incident and is not at an establishment (such as traveling), the employer must record the case on the 300 Log for the establishment where the employee normally works.

Remote workers must be linked to a fixed establishment, typically the location from which they are supervised or receive job assignments. Recordable incidents to remote workers must be recorded on the 300 Log of the establishment to which they are linked. Employers also count remote workers as employees of the linked location, even if they work in another state.

Annual summaries

On February 1, each establishment that maintains a 300 Log must post a 300A annual summary for the previous calendar year. This is required even if the location has 10 or fewer employees, and even if the establishment had zero recordable incidents. Employers cannot combine multiple establishments on a 300A (although short-term establishments can be combined).

If some employees split their work time between locations, employers may distribute their hours worked between locations. However, if someone spends only a small amount of time visiting various locations, the employer may count all hours worked at the primary or linked location. Usually, this would not significantly impact the total hours worked for an establishment.

For more information, see our article Completing the 300A: Tips for the mathematically challenged.

OSHA requires a posting a physical copy of the 300A in the workplace until April 30, but employers may also post the summary on a company intranet for remote workers. OSHA does not require sending the 300A to remote workers who never visit the site, although California does require that.

Key to remember: Employers with multiple locations should confirm that the NAICS code for each location is correct, verify that incidents to traveling or remote workers are properly recorded, and ensure that each covered establishment posts a 300A as required.

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