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

EHS Monthly Round Up - January 2023

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

Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental, safety, and health news. First, let’s take a look at what’s happening in safety and health.

If you haven’t already done so, now is the time to post your OSHA 300A Summary. Employers are required to post the Summary in a conspicuous place from February 1st through April 30th.

As required by law, OSHA increased its penalties for inflation in mid-January. Penalties went up 7.7 percent, effective January 17th.

Also in January, OSHA released its long-awaited Fall 2022 regulatory agenda. Along with numerous proposed rules in the works, three major final rules are slated for 2023 – COVID-19 in healthcare, Injury and Illness tracking, and an update to the hazard communication standard.

OSHA recently released two new letters of interpretation, which address exit signs and lockout/tagout. Specifically, OSHA states that the International Standards Organization emergency exit symbol can be located beside the mandatory EXIT text on an existing sign.

The second letter addresses the applicability of lockout/tagout and the maintenance and operations of cathodic protection rectifiers when working on pipelines.

New York’s Warehouse Worker Protection Act was signed into law in December and takes effect in late February. It protects warehouse distribution workers from undisclosed or unlawful work speed quotas and includes protections for workers who fail to meet these quotas.

In 2021, a worker died every 101 minutes from a work-related injury, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A total of 5,190 fatal work injuries was recorded in the U.S. in 2021, an 8.9 percent increase over 2020.

Turning to environmental news, EPA automatically added nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, to the Toxics Release Inventory, or TRI, list. Four PFAS were added since they are no longer claimed as confidential business information.

EPA released its Fall 2022 regulatory agenda in early January. Included are major regulations impacting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, waters of the United States, and modifications to the Risk Management Program under the Clean Air Act.

There are also a number of rules related to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants in various rule stages.

And finally, beginning with model year 2027, heavy-duty trucks will be required to meet clean air standards that are 80 percent more stringent than current requirements.

EPA says this final rule is aimed at reducing smog- and soot-forming emissions, increasing the life of governed vehicles by up to 250 percent, and increasing emissions warranty periods up to 450 percent.

Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup!

2026-11-02T06:00:00Z

Tennessee establishes waste tire hauler registration program

Effective date: January 18, 2027

This applies to: Waste tire generators, commercial waste tire haulers, and permitted waste tire management facilities

Description of change: The Tennessee Underground Storage Tanks and Solid Waste Disposal Control Board approved regulations establishing a waste tire hauler registration program that tracks and regulates the transportation of waste tires from the point of generation to the delivery for permitted storage, processing, or disposal.

The regulations include:

Administrative requirements for registration;
Decal requirements for vehicles that commercially haul waste tires;
An annual registration fee for registered waste tire hauler vehicles;
Terms and conditions for registered waste tire haulers;
Manifest requirements for all waste tire generators, transporters, and permitted waste tire management facilities; and
Financial assurance requirements for registered waste tire haulers.

2026-11-02T06:00:00Z

California adopts regulations for initial corporate GHG report

Effective date: October 12, 2026

This applies to: U.S.-based companies that do business in California with total annual revenues above $1 billion (reporting entities) and with total annual revenues above $500 million (covered entities)

Description of change: The California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved the California Corporate Greenhouse Gas Reporting and Climate-Related Financial Risk Disclosure Initial Regulation, which was approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in February 2026.

The adopted regulations help implement the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act and the Climate-Related Financial Risk Reporting Act, which require U.S.-based companies operating in California to report greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate-related financial risks.

The regulation:

Establishes annual fee calculations and procedures,
Specifies definitions to help entities determine applicability (whether the rule applies and if they must comply with both emissions reporting and fee requirements), and
Sets the first-year reporting deadline of November 10, 2026, for reporting Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions.

Annual report

CARB has sent a reminder letter to organizations potentially required to sumbit the inital report by November 10, 2026.

Entities that weren’t collecting data or weren’t planning to collect data when CARB issued its December 2024 Enforcement Notice aren’t expected to submit Scope 1 and 2 reporting data for this first reporting cycle in 2026 only.

Starting in 2027, reporting entities must annually disclose Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 GHG emissions for the previous fiscal year. CARB is developing reporting regulations for 2027 and later.

Annual fee

Reporting entities and covered entities must pay the applicable annual implementation fee within 60 calendar days of receiving a fee determination notice from CARB.

2026-11-02T06:00:00Z

Federal environmental reporting: 5 annual reports due in 2027

With the new year quickly approaching, many businesses take time to reflect on the previous year to evaluate their performance. For numerous facilities subject to federal environmental regulations, this isn’t just a good practice; it’s mandated through annual reporting requirements.

Mark your compliance calendars for these common federal environmental annual reports due in 2027.

Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) annual report

Due: January 30, 2027

EPA issues industrial stormwater MSGPs in areas where it serves as the permitting authority. Examples include Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and the District of Columbia.

Facilities with MSGPs must submit the Annual Report for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity Under the NPDES MSGP (NPDES Form 6100-28) electronically via the NPDES Electronic Reporting Tool (NeT). The report covers information from calendar year 2026.

Take note! EPA has administratively continued the 2021 MSGP for facilities covered under the permit before it expired in February 2026.

New facilities must comply with the requirements in EPA’s No Action Assurance for New Industrial Facilities Needing Stormwater Permit Coverage under EPA’s Multi-Sector General Permit memorandum (issued February 27, 2026) until the agency issues a new MSGP. The memorandum mandates facilities to provide the electronically reported information required by the 2021 MSGP (including the annual report) if EPA requests it.

Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory (Tier II Inventory Report)

Due: March 1, 2027

Section 312 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) requires covered facilities to submit the Tier II Inventory Report (or a state-equivalent form) to the State Emergency Response Commission, Local Emergency Planning Committee, and local fire department. Reporting applies to facilities:

That are required by OSHA’s Hazard Communication standard (29 CFR 1910.1200) to prepare or have available Safety Data Sheets (SDSs), and
That have on-site at any one time hazardous substances (EHSs) or non-EHS hazardous chemicals at or above certain thresholds (40 CFR Part 370 Subpart B).

The report provides information on the covered hazardous chemicals used or stored at the facility in 2026, including locations, amounts, and potential hazards.

Take note! Facilities should check state regulations to:

Confirm Tier II reporting thresholds, as they may be more stringent;
Determine whether any additional chemicals are covered; and
Verify how the report must be submitted, including whether states accept Tier2 Submit files.

Hazardous Waste Export Annual Report

Due: March 1, 2027

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requires exporters of regulated hazardous waste to submit an annual report electronically through the RCRA Information (RCRAInfo) Waste Import and Export Tracking System (WIETS). The report lists the types, quantities, shipment frequency, and ultimate destination of all hazardous waste exported in 2026.

Take note! If an exporter doesn’t ship any hazardous waste after obtaining consent to export certain hazardous wastes, the exporter must still submit an annual report that lists the quantity shipped under the issued consent as 0.

2025 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Annual Report

Due: March 10, 2027

The GHG Reporting Program (GHGRP) requires large industrial sources of GHG emissions, fuel and industrial gas suppliers, and carbon dioxide injection facilities to report GHG emissions from 2025 for all applicable source categories. Facilities submit reports through EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (e-GGRT).

Take note! Annual GHG reports for the previous calendar year are usually due by March 31 of the next calendar year. However, EPA issued an interim final rule (effective October 14, 2026) extending the submission deadline for Reporting Year 2025 GHG reports to March 10, 2027.

Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Report

Due: July 1, 2027

Section 313 of EPCRA requires facilities in specific industry sectors to submit a TRI Form R for each TRI-listed chemical (372.65) manufactured, processed, or otherwise used above threshold levels (listed at 372.25, 372.27, and 372.28) in the previous calendar year. The report, submitted through TRI-MEweb, covers waste management activities and any actions taken to reduce or prevent chemical waste during 2026.

Take note! TRI reports must be submitted to both EPA and the state. If your facility’s state participates in the TRI Data Exchange (TDX), TRI-MEweb will automatically send your report to the state. If your facility’s state doesn’t participate in TRI TDX, check the state’s TRI submission requirements to determine how to submit the required state copy.

Key to remember: The new year is quickly approaching, and the annual reporting compliance deadlines for many federal environmental programs are following closely behind.

2026-10-29T05:00:00Z

EPA proposes major changes to oil, gas emission rules

On October 29, 2026, EPA published a proposed rule to amend certain emission standards that were established by a rule finalized in 2024 (2024 Final Rule) for new and existing crude oil and natural gas facilities

Who’s impacted?

The proposed rule primarily applies to:

New, modified, and reconstructed crude oil and natural gas facilities subject to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) at 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart OOOOb; and
Existing crude oil and natural gas facilities subject to the emissions guidelines (EGs) at Part 60 Subpart OOOOc.

Collectively, these standards are known as the OOOOb/c rule.

What are the proposed changes?

EPA’s rule proposes revisions to a range of regulations established by the 2024 Final Rule.

Well site categories

The agency co-proposes two options for creating distinct categories of well sites, either:

By production level as marginal or non-marginal (with reduced requirements for marginal wells), or
By resource type as conventional or unconventional (with reduced requirements for conventional wells).

EPA also proposes an alternative approach to the marginal or non-marginal option, adding further sub-categories of marginal wells based on production levels.

Covers and closed vent systems (CVSs)

EPA proposes to divide the No Identifiable Emissions (NIE) standard into:

Design requirements, and
Operational requirements.

Additionally, the operational requirements would allow for repairs so that emissions that are fixed within a limited timeframe wouldn’t be a deviation.

Associated gas

EPA proposes to modify the best system of emission reduction (BSER) for associated gas from oil wells, including an approach that would allow routing associated gas to a control device or flare meeting specific emission-reduction requirements.

Control devices

The agency proposes to change control device requirements related to:

Continuous burning pilot flames,
Flame monitoring data deviations,
Control device alerts,
Visible emissions test conditions for fugitive emissions,
Temporary or backup control devices,
Temporary process controllers, and
Control device categories.

Other requirements

EPA addresses other aspects of the 2024 Final Rule, proposing to revise requirements for:

Liquids unloading,
Process controllers,
Pumps,
Fugitive emissions,
Storage vessels,
Covers and CVSs, and
Equipment leaks at gas plants.

Further, the proposed rule would allow gas processing facilities subject to the NSPS at Part 60 Subparts OOOO, OOOOa, and KKK to conduct optical gas imaging surveys according to Appendix K.

Super Emitter Program

EPA plans to rescind the Super Emitter Program that requires regulated sources to be monitored for methane leaks and releases above a specific threshold by certified third parties using remote-sensing technology. If the threshold is exceeded, it’s known as a “super-emitter event.” The third party notifies EPA, which then notifies a source that a super-emitter event has occurred at its facility. The source must find the leak or release, report its investigation results to EPA, and take corrective action if needed.

Note that the Super Emitter Program isn’t in effect. EPA’s July 2025 interim final rule delayed the program start date to January 22, 2027.

Key to remember: EPA proposes significant changes to emission standards for new and existing oil and natural gas facilities.

Most Recent Highlights In Transportation

2026-10-29T05:00:00Z

Virginia establishes emission limits for data center generators

Effective date: November 4, 2026

This applies to: Data centers that apply for an air permit on or after July 1, 2026

Description of change: The Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board established new emission regulations for engine-generator sets (gen-sets) at data centers. A gen-set refers to an electrical generator and engine mounted together that form one piece of equipment.

The new regulation requires each gen-set covered in the air permit to emit no more than the emissions achieved by a Tier 4 equivalent gen-set. It also grants the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality the authority to require stricter emission limits.

Related state info: Clean air operating permits state comparison

2026-10-29T05:00:00Z

Kansas adds TSDF permit application review fees

Effective date: October 16, 2026

This applies to: Hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs)

Description of change: The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) approved a new regulation establishing review fees for new and renewal permit applications from TSDFs. Facility permits must be renewed every 10 years.

The review fee is $20,000 for a permit renewal or an application from a TSDF that has a permit, order, agreement, post-closure plan, or other regulatory mechanism issued or approved by EPA or the KDHE.

The review fee is $50,000 for an application from a TSDF that doesn’t have a permit, order, agreement, post-closure plan, or other regulatory mechanism issued or approved by EPA or the KDHE.

2026-10-29T05:00:00Z

Kansas extends duration of state non-discharging water pollution permit

Effective date: October 30, 2026

This applies to: State-issued non-discharging water pollution control permit holders

Description of change: The Kansas Department of Health and Environment adopted amendments to extend the maximum duration of state-issued non-discharging water pollution control permits from 5 to 10 years.

Related state info: Industrial water permitting state comparison

2026-10-29T05:00:00Z

Wyoming updates noncoal surface mining regulations

Effective date: August 21, 2026

This applies to: Noncoal surface mining operations

Description of change: The Wyoming Land Quality Division (LQD) adopted a new chapter and amended three related chapters governing noncoal surface mining operation regulations.

The LQD added Noncoal Chapter 14 to set blasting requirements for noncoal surface mining operations, including requirements for blasting plans for operations that anticipate using explosives.

It also revised Noncoal Chapters 2, 9, and 10 to establish that other types of operations are subject to some or all of the blasting regulations established by Noncoal Chapter 14. For example, the following types of operations must develop blasting plans if the operations are expected to use blasting as part of the mining:

Regular noncoal mine permit applicants,
Small mining operations, and
Limited mining operations on 15 acres or less of affected land.

2026-10-29T05:00:00Z

EPA updates formaldehyde testing standards for composite wood products

EPA published a final rule on October 28, 2026, updating the formaldehyde emission standards for composite wood products under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The rule provides a new quality control test method option and updates specific voluntary consensus standards incorporated by reference.

Who’s impacted?

The formaldehyde emission standards apply to entities that manufacture (including import), sell, supply, offer for sale, or certify certain composite wood products that use formaldehyde, including:

Hardwood plywood,
Medium-density fiberboard,
Particleboard, and
Products containing these composite wood materials.

It may also apply to entities that test these materials or work with certification firms that certify them.

Regulated entities use approved voluntary consensus standards to comply with the formaldehyde emission standards (40 CFR Part 770).

What are the changes?

EPA’s final rule updates six voluntary consensus standards incorporated by reference to the most current standards issued by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Regulated entities must comply with the updated versions of these standards.

The final rule also adds an allowable quality control testing method. ISO 12460-2:2024(en), “Wood-based panels — Determination of Formaldehyde Release — Part 2: Small-scale Chamber Method,” is a small-scale chamber test method for measuring formaldehyde emissions from wood products. The new standard contains a wider range of analytical methods that entities can use (e.g., laser absorption spectroscopy).

Finally, the rule removes the British Standards Institute BS EN ISO 12460-3:2020 standard from the allowable quality control methods since ISO 12460-3:2023(E), one of the existing standards that’s being updated by the final rule, is identical.

The final rule takes effect November 27, 2026.

Key to remember: EPA updated the formaldehyde testing standards for composite wood products, adding a quality control test method and updating multiple voluntary consensus standards.

Most Recent Highlights In Safety & Health

2026-10-23T05:00:00Z

Looking beyond PFAS: Emerging contaminants draw EPA's attention

For years, conversations about emerging contaminants have focused on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). While PFAS remain a major regulatory and public concern, they represent only one part of a much larger picture. Regulators and researchers are increasingly evaluating a broader range of chemicals that may be present in drinking water and the environment.

A recent EPA research initiative highlights this shift. In September 2026, EPA announced a scientific study that will use non-targeted analysis (NTA) to improve the agency's understanding of emerging contaminants in drinking water. Unlike traditional analytical methods that look for a limited list of chemicals, NTA allows researchers to screen for thousands of potential contaminants and identify previously unknown substances.

Emerging contaminants continue to evolve

There's no single regulatory definition of "emerging contaminant." Generally, the term refers to chemicals that have been detected in the environment and may present risks to human health or ecosystems but aren't yet fully understood, routinely monitored, or regulated.

Many emerging contaminants are not new chemicals. In many cases, they've been used for decades. What's changed is the ability to detect them at very low concentrations and to better understand where they occur, how they move through the environment, and what impacts they may have.

PFAS are a prime example. Once largely unknown outside technical circles, they're now the subject of drinking water standards, reporting requirements, cleanup efforts, and litigation. Other contaminant groups may follow a similar path as research continues.

EPA is expanding its view beyond PFAS

As part of its study, EPA developed a screening library containing more than 1,400 emerging contaminants. According to EPA, the library includes more than 1,000 pesticides and pesticide metabolites, more than 250 pharmaceuticals and personal care products, more than 70 PFAS, and other emerging contaminants.

While PFAS remain the most recognized emerging contaminant family, EPA's screening efforts extend far beyond fluorinated chemicals. The pharmaceutical and personal care product category includes compounds such as antibiotics, hormones, and other medicinal ingredients that can enter the environment through wastewater systems and other pathways. The pesticide category encompasses herbicide, insecticide, fungicide, and pesticide degradation products that may persist in soil, groundwater, or surface water.

EPA states that the study will help identify contaminants that may warrant additional investigation in the future.

Why this matters now

Most facilities aren't currently required to monitor for hundreds or thousands of emerging contaminants. However, today's research efforts often become tomorrow's regulatory priorities.

Historically, contaminants often attract scientific attention long before regulatory requirements follow. As occurrence data grows and analytical methods improve, regulators gain a better understanding of where contaminants are found and whether additional action is needed.

Facilities that manufacture, process, use, discharge, or dispose of chemicals should understand which substances are present in their operations and waste streams. This includes evaluating raw materials, wastewater discharges, byproducts, and residual wastes. Facilities may also want to monitor supplier communications and regulatory developments related to chemicals used in their operations.

Organizations with strong chemical inventory management and environmental review processes are often better positioned to adapt when new contaminants attract regulatory attention.

Preparing for what comes next

Organizations don't need to become experts on every emerging contaminant. However, focusing solely on PFAS could cause them to overlook broader trends developing across the environmental landscape.

EPA's latest drinking water study demonstrates that regulators are increasingly using advanced analytical tools to evaluate a much wider universe of chemicals. Whether the next major concern involves pharmaceuticals, pesticide metabolites, or another group of contaminants, facilities that stay informed about emerging issues will be better positioned to anticipate and respond to future compliance challenges.

Key to remember: PFAS may be the most visible emerging contaminant today, but they're unlikely to be the last. EPA's recent drinking water study shows that regulators are evaluating a much broader range of contaminants, making it important for facilities to stay informed about emerging chemical concerns before they become regulatory requirements.

2026-10-20T05:00:00Z

Hawaii overhauls solid waste landfill regulations

Effective date: September 25, 2026

This applies to: Facilities that manage solid waste

Description of change: The State of Hawaii Department of Health made the first major update to the solid waste management control regulations in decades. The amended regulations:

Increase flexibility for small municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs),
Revise siting restrictions for MSWLFs,
Add requirements for construction and demolition landfills and special waste landfills,
Add leachate control and closure requirements for all solid waste management facilities,
Require auto processing and salvaging on an impervious surface, and
Update the solid waste permitting program.

Examples of significant changes include:

Adding requirements for facilities that manage solid waste (except landfills), such as leachate control for all facilities and use of impervious working surfaces for solid waste salvage facilities;
Updating MSWLF requirements (such as requiring compliance with the federal maximum contaminant level or state level (whichever is lower) for groundwater contaminants); and
Adding new requirements for construction and demolition landfills.

2026-10-20T05:00:00Z

North Dakota adopts permanent septic system rules

Effective date: October 1, 2026

This applies to: The licensing, permitting, and installation of on-site wastewater treatment systems (septic systems)

Description of change: The North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) finalized permanent rules for on-site wastewater treatment systems (septic systems). The final rule establishes statewide licensing requirements, a common technical code, and a process for variances from the code.

Senate Bill 2267 shifted responsibility for regulating septic systems to the DEQ. The department issued an emergency rule in 2025 to continue existing licenses. This rulemaking finalizes:

Licensing requirements for septic system installers,
Training requirements for licensed septic system installers,
Permit requirements (permits will continue to be issued by the local permitting authority), and
Technical requirements (which closely align with the existing voluntary common code previously developed).

2026-10-20T05:00:00Z

Ohio establishes CCR regulations

Effective date: October 1, 2026

This applies to: Owners and operators of coal combustion residuals (CCR) landfills and surface impoundments

Description of change: The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted regulations for CCR generated by electric utilities and disposed of in dedicated landfills and surface impoundments. The new rules partially implement the federal CCR regulations (40 CFR Part 257 Subpart D). They also contain state-specific provisions (OAC Chapter 3745-525) for requirements related to CCR permits to install and financial assurance for landfills previously regulated by OAC Chapter 3745-30.

The Ohio EPA plans to apply for partial approval to implement the CCR program in place of EPA.

2026-10-20T05:00:00Z

Texas adopts financial assurance rules for recycling facilities

Effective date: October 1, 2026

This applies to: Recycling facilities that accept, process, and repurpose renewable energy components

Description of change: The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)’s final rule adds 30 TAC Chapter 376 (and amends Chapter 328 accordingly) to establish new requirements for recycling facilities that accept, process, and repurpose renewable energy components for recovering valuable materials from:

Wind turbine generators,
Solar energy devices, and
Battery energy storage systems.

The new rule adds reporting, financial assurance, and penalty requirements. For example, the regulation requires recycling facilities to submit annual reports by January 15 that include:

An inventory of unrecycled renewable energy components,
An estimated timeline to recycle them,
A cost estimate for recycling or disposing of the materials prepared by a third-party Texas-licensed professional engineer, and
Evidence of financial assurance for the cost estimate.

Most Recent Highlights In Human Resources

2026-10-20T05:00:00Z

California amends vehicle regulations

Effective date: September 10, 2026

This applies to: Public agency utilities, high-priority fleets, and drayer trucks subject to the Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) regulation and hydrogen refueling stations subject to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) regulation

Description of change: The California Air Resources Board (CARB) amended the ACF’s state and local government requirements. CARB’s final rule:

Extends the 50 percent zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) purchase requirement to January 1, 2030;
Modifies the Daily Usage Exemption and the ZEV Purchase Exemption to allow all vehicles of all model years to be eligible for consideration;
Adds an exemption under the ZEV Milestones Option for captive waste and wastewater fleets that produce biomethane on-site;
Expands the ZEV Purchase Exemption availability criteria to ensure minimum ZEV warranty requirements and manufacturer experience or reliability and streamlines the exemption process;
Modifies the Fleet Resiliency Exemption by lowering the ZEV penetration threshold from 25 to 5 percent of the fleet where it stays and expands eligibility to all vehicle types; and
Repeals sections of the ACF regulation for high-priority fleets and drayer trucks (these regulations were never implemented because CARB didn’t have a federal preemption waiver to enforce them).

CARB also amended the LCFS regulation, modifying the derating factors for light- and medium-duty hydrogen refueling infrastructure (LMD-HRI) crediting. CARB reduced the derating factor so that LMD-HRI stations may receive HRI credits for the full nameplate capacity for public stations and 50 percent of the nameplate capacity for private stations.

2026-10-20T05:00:00Z

EPA proposes reallocating excess 2025 SREs to 2026, 2027

On October 16, 2026, EPA published a rule proposing to revise the Small Refinery Exemption (SRE) reallocation volumes for compliance years 2026 and 2027 under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program.

Who’s impacted?

The RFS program applies to obligated parties, including:

Refiners of gasoline or diesel fuel (i.e., transportation fuel); and
Importers of transportation fuel.

EPA sets annual renewable fuel volume and percentage standards for each compliance year. Obligated parties must calculate their individual renewable volume obligations (RVOs), measured in Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs), and obtain and retire enough RINs to meet their RVOs for each compliance year.

What’s the issue?

In April 2026, EPA established the annual volume and percentage standards for the 2026 and 2027 compliance years (Set 2 Rule), including reallocating part of the SREs granted and expected to be granted for the 2023–2025 compliance years.

However, EPA granted a higher volume of SREs for the 2025 compliance year than expected, exempting 770 million more RINs than the Set 2 Rule projected for the 2026 and 2027 compliance years. The agency plans to revise the Set 2 Rule to account for the additional SRE reallocation volume.

What’s the proposed solution?

EPA proposes reallocating 100 percent of the additional 770 million RINs by reallocating the additional 2025 exempted RVO either:

Equally between the 2026 and 2027 compliance years, or
Fully to the 2027 compliance year.

The proposed rule would adjust the renewable volume and percentage standards for biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel. The Set 2 Rule didn’t establish SRE reallocation volumes for cellulosic biofuel.

Additionally, the proposed rule may extend the current 2026 compliance reporting deadline of March 31, 2027.

EPA will host a virtual public hearing for the proposed rule on November 4, 2026. Public comments on the rule are due by December 4, 2026 (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0505).

Key to remember: EPA proposes to reallocate the excess 2025 small refinery exemption volumes to the 2026 and 2027 compliance years.

2026-10-16T05:00:00Z

When one activity triggers multiple environmental obligations

Environmental compliance programs are often managed separately. Air permitting, hazardous waste, stormwater, emergency planning, and chemical reporting frequently involve different personnel, regulations, and procedures.

The challenge is that facilities don't operate that way. They operate processes, and those processes rarely fit neatly within a single regulatory category.

A company rarely decides to implement an "air program change" or a "hazardous waste change." Instead, it purchases a new solvent, installs a fuel tank, modifies a manufacturing process, or adds new equipment. A single operational decision can affect multiple environmental compliance programs at the same time. When organizations evaluate changes through only one regulatory lens, they risk overlooking obligations that arise elsewhere.

The following examples illustrate how one product, process, or activity can trigger requirements across several environmental programs.

Switching to a new paint or solvent

A facility may decide to replace an existing paint, coating, or solvent to improve product quality, address supply chain challenges, or reduce costs. Before making the switch, environmental professionals should consider how the change could affect multiple compliance obligations.

A new paint or solvent may contain a different concentration of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), affecting air emission calculations, permit applicability, or recordkeeping requirements. Spent materials, contaminated wipes, absorbents, and cleanup residues may require a new hazardous waste determination. Depending on the chemical composition and quantities involved, the material could also affect Tier II inventory reporting or Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting obligations.

What appears to be a straightforward purchasing decision can ultimately affect air compliance, waste management, and chemical reporting programs.

Installing a diesel fuel storage tank

Organizations often add fuel storage to support emergency generators, fleet operations, or business continuity initiatives. While the project may be viewed primarily as an operational improvement, it can create environmental obligations in several areas.

The tank may count toward Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) applicability thresholds. Fuel storage can also increase stormwater pollution risks, requiring updates to inspection procedures, pollution prevention controls, or employee training. Secondary containment requirements, spill response procedures, and release reporting obligations may also need review.

A project initially viewed as a facilities improvement may affect spill prevention, stormwater management, and emergency preparedness responsibilities.

Managing aerosol cans

Aerosol cans are commonly used throughout facilities for maintenance, cleaning, lubrication, painting, and other routine activities. Their widespread use can cause organizations to overlook their broader compliance implications.

Depending on how they're managed, discarded aerosol cans may qualify for the federal universal waste regulations. If cans are punctured and processed for recycling, facilities must also consider hazardous waste management requirements, employee training, and potential air emission concerns associated with puncturing operations. Likewise, storage practices, container management, and recordkeeping procedures should be evaluated.

Because aerosol cans intersect with waste management, recycling, and air concerns, they demonstrate how a routine maintenance activity can involve multiple regulatory programs.

Adding a refrigeration process

Expanding refrigerated storage capacity or installing a new industrial refrigeration process may seem like a project driven by production needs. However, depending on the refrigerant used and the quantity stored on-site, the environmental and safety implications can extend well beyond equipment installation.

Certain refrigerants may be subject to leak management and repair, servicing, recovery, and recordkeeping requirements. Depending on the substance and quantity stored on-site, facilities may also trigger Tier II or TRI reporting obligations.

For facilities using substances such as anhydrous ammonia, increasing refrigerant inventories may have even broader consequences. Exceeding regulatory thresholds could trigger EPA's Risk Management Program (RMP) requirements and OSHA's Process Safety Management (PSM) obligations, adding responsibilities related to process hazard analyses, operating procedures, employee training, emergency planning, mechanical integrity, and management of change.

The project may also require updates to emergency response procedures, hazard communication programs, and chemical inventory management processes. As a result, a decision driven by production or storage needs may affect environmental reporting, accident prevention, emergency preparedness, and process safety requirements across the facility.

Looking beyond program boundaries

Environmental regulations are often organized by media, program, or statute. Facilities, however, operate through products, equipment, and processes. Because of this difference in perspective, a single operational change can have consequences that reach far beyond its original purpose.

Organizations that routinely evaluate projects through multiple compliance lenses are often better positioned to identify environmental obligations before they become compliance issues. Asking how a new product, process, equipment installation, or operational change might affect air, waste, water, chemical reporting, spill prevention, emergency planning, or process safety requirements can help reduce surprises and support more effective compliance management.

Key to remember: Environmental compliance obligations rarely exist in isolation. Before implementing a new product, process, or operational change, consider how it may affect multiple environmental programs, not just the one most directly associated with the project.

2026-10-16T05:00:00Z

Court vacates EPA’s methylene chloride rule: How should facilities respond?

When a court overturns an environmental regulation, it can be tempting to adopt an “all bets are off” approach and stop efforts to comply with the rule. However, facilities that continue to operate as if the rule still applies are better prepared to meet any future rulemaking that’s likely to occur. On September 15, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated EPA’s methylene chloride risk management rule established under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and remanded it back to the federal agency for further proceedings. EPA must restart the rulemaking process for methylene chloride.

Here’s what you need to know about the ruling and how your facility can respond to “hedge its bets” against future environmental regulations of methylene chloride.

What regulations and facilities are impacted?

The court’s decision in East Fork Enterprises, Inc. v. EPA (Case No. 24-60227) impacts EPA’s methylene chloride risk management rule finalized in May 2024 (2024 final rule). The rule applied to entities that manufacture (including import), process, distribute in commerce, use, or dispose of methylene chloride or methylene chloride-containing products.

Reasons for overturning the methylene chloride rule

The court listed a range of reasons for vacating the 2024 final rule, including the following significant findings.

Whole-chemical approach

EPA used a “whole chemical” approach in its revised 2022 risk determination for methylene chloride (on which the 2024 final rule is based) instead of making individual risk determinations for each condition of use (COU). As a result, EPA recharacterized six COUs (previously found not to present unreasonable risk) as posing unreasonable risk.

Court’s conclusion: TSCA doesn’t permit EPA to issue a whole-chemical risk determination; it requires EPA to evaluate and issue risk determinations for each COU.

Personal protective equipment (PPE) assumption

In its 2022 risk determination, EPA didn’t assume that exposed employees use PPE. However, TSCA requires the agency to account for PPE use if evidence suggests that it’s commonly used.

Court’s conclusion: There was sufficient evidence for EPA to assume PPE use, especially given that OSHA’s methylene chloride standard generally requires the use of PPE when employee exposure warrants it.

Risk analysis methods

EPA’s approach to “unreasonable risk” went beyond the statutory limits, appearing to attempt to eliminate nearly all risks. Further, EPA’s risk analysis didn’t comply with TSCA’s “best available science” standard (producing exposure limits unsupported by substantial evidence), and the agency overlooked relevant evidence.

Court’s conclusion: TSCA requires EPA to identify only unreasonable risk, which allows for some risk; the act isn’t designed to eliminate all risk. Also, TSCA mandates the agency to base its risk evaluations on all acceptable scientific information, including data contrary to its presuppositions.

Regulating to the extent necessary

EPA exceeded its authority by imposing regulations beyond “the extent necessary.” The court ruled that EPA’s basis for requiring a near-complete ban on methylene chloride use was unauthorized because it was based on the agency’s uncertainty as to whether a risk deemed reasonable will stay reasonable.

Court’s conclusion: TSCA permits EPA to eliminate actual, identified unreasonable risk. The agency can’t ban chemicals based on a reasonable risk that may become unreasonable in the future.

What’s next?

The court vacated with remand EPA’s methylene chloride rule and associated risk determination. As a result, EPA’s risk determination for methylene chloride is invalid, and the methylene chloride risk management rule is no longer in effect. Additionally, EPA must develop a new risk management rule that resolves the issues identified in the court’s opinion.

How should regulated entities respond?

EPA’s methylene chloride risk management rule is legally unenforceable, including its bans on uses and the regulatory requirements (such as the Workplace Chemical Protection Program). However, due to the uncertainty of EPA’s response and future rulemaking, companies should respond thoughtfully. Consider these tips:

Watch closely for EPA’s response to this litigation.
Consider maintaining protective measures and compliance programs that were implemented in response to the 2024 final rule, where possible. Continuing these efforts may ease compliance burdens if EPA issues a revised rule in the future. For example:
- Continue conducting exposure monitoring and recording the results,
- Keep searching for possible substitutes, and
- Maintain workplace protections that are already implemented.
Ensure compliance with existing methylene chloride regulations, including:
- EPA’s March 2019 final rule banning methylene chloride for consumer paint and coating removal, and
- OSHA’s occupational exposure control requirements for methylene chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052).

Key to remember: A U.S. court vacated EPA’s 2024 methylene chloride risk management rule, but facilities that maintain protections and compliance programs developed under the rule may be better prepared for any future regulations of the chemical.

2026-10-14T05:00:00Z

EPA proposes additional TCE compliance delays

On October 14, 2026, EPA published a proposed rule to extend additional compliance dates for the trichloroethylene (TCE) risk management rule finalized in 2024 (2024 TCE final rule) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). If finalized, the rule would delay compliance deadlines for certain chemical processors and refrigerant manufacturers.

Who’s impacted?

The 2024 TCE final rule applies to entities that manufacture (including import), process, distribute in commerce, use, or dispose of TCE or TCE-containing products.

The proposed rule specifically affects:

Chemical processors;
Manufacturers, processors, and distributors subject to downstream notification requirements; and
Refrigerant manufacturers that process TCE to make HFC-134a.

What are the proposed changes?

For chemical processors, EPA proposes to move the prohibition compliance dates from December 18, 2026, to December 31, 2027, for:

Processing TCE as a reactant/intermediate;
Processing TCE for the industrial and commercial use of TCE as a processing aid in as well as the industrial and commercial use of TCE as a processing aid in:
- Process solvent used in battery manufacturing;
- Process solvent used in polymer fiber spinning, fluoroelastomer manufacturing, and Alcantara manufacturing;
- Extraction solvent used in caprolactam manufacturing; and
- Precipitant used in beta-cyclodextrin manufacturing.
Disposing of TCE through wastewater from such processing and uses to industrial pretreatment, industrial treatment, or publicly owned treatment works.

For manufacturers, processors, and distributors in commerce, the proposed rule amends the compliance date for downstream notifications and the text required to be in the Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) to reflect the new prohibition compliance dates. EPA would require affected manufacturers, processors, and distributors to update the SDSs with the new text 30 days after the publication date of a final rule.

For refrigerant manufacturers, EPA proposes extending the first phaseout reduction of processing TCE as an intermediate to manufacture HFC-134a. The 2024 TCE final rule requires manufacturers to reduce the annual amount of TCE feedstock they use to no greater than 75 percent of their baseline by June 7, 2027. This proposed rule would push the compliance date to December 31, 2027.

Key to remember: EPA proposes extending the TCE prohibition compliance deadline for certain chemical processors and the TCE feedstock phasedown date for specific refrigerant manufacturers.

New Network Poll

What stumps you most about OSHA's Occupational Noise Exposure standard?

No active poll

Please come back soon!

View Previous Polls & Results

Most Popular Highlights In Environmental

2026-10-29T05:00:00Z

Virginia establishes emission limits for data center generators

Effective date: November 4, 2026

This applies to: Data centers that apply for an air permit on or after July 1, 2026

Related state info: Clean air operating permits state comparison

2026-10-29T05:00:00Z

Kansas extends duration of state non-discharging water pollution permit

Effective date: October 30, 2026

This applies to: State-issued non-discharging water pollution control permit holders

Related state info: Industrial water permitting state comparison

2025-09-05T05:00:00Z

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

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

Who does this affect?

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

What does this mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2026-10-29T05:00:00Z

Kansas adds TSDF permit application review fees

Effective date: October 16, 2026

This applies to: Hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs)

The review fee is $50,000 for an application from a TSDF that doesn’t have a permit, order, agreement, post-closure plan, or other regulatory mechanism issued or approved by EPA or the KDHE.

2026-10-29T05:00:00Z

EPA proposes major changes to oil, gas emission rules

Who’s impacted?

The proposed rule primarily applies to:

New, modified, and reconstructed crude oil and natural gas facilities subject to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) at 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart OOOOb; and
Existing crude oil and natural gas facilities subject to the emissions guidelines (EGs) at Part 60 Subpart OOOOc.

Collectively, these standards are known as the OOOOb/c rule.

What are the proposed changes?

EPA’s rule proposes revisions to a range of regulations established by the 2024 Final Rule.

Well site categories

The agency co-proposes two options for creating distinct categories of well sites, either:

By production level as marginal or non-marginal (with reduced requirements for marginal wells), or
By resource type as conventional or unconventional (with reduced requirements for conventional wells).

EPA also proposes an alternative approach to the marginal or non-marginal option, adding further sub-categories of marginal wells based on production levels.

Covers and closed vent systems (CVSs)

EPA proposes to divide the No Identifiable Emissions (NIE) standard into:

Design requirements, and
Operational requirements.

Additionally, the operational requirements would allow for repairs so that emissions that are fixed within a limited timeframe wouldn’t be a deviation.

Associated gas

Control devices

The agency proposes to change control device requirements related to:

Continuous burning pilot flames,
Flame monitoring data deviations,
Control device alerts,
Visible emissions test conditions for fugitive emissions,
Temporary or backup control devices,
Temporary process controllers, and
Control device categories.

Other requirements

EPA addresses other aspects of the 2024 Final Rule, proposing to revise requirements for:

Liquids unloading,
Process controllers,
Pumps,
Fugitive emissions,
Storage vessels,
Covers and CVSs, and
Equipment leaks at gas plants.

Further, the proposed rule would allow gas processing facilities subject to the NSPS at Part 60 Subparts OOOO, OOOOa, and KKK to conduct optical gas imaging surveys according to Appendix K.

Super Emitter Program

Note that the Super Emitter Program isn’t in effect. EPA’s July 2025 interim final rule delayed the program start date to January 22, 2027.

Key to remember: EPA proposes significant changes to emission standards for new and existing oil and natural gas facilities.

2026-05-27T05:00:00Z

Final rule revises HFC use restrictions and compliance timelines for specific subsectors

On May 26, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule (2026 Final Rule) revising regulations on the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in certain subsectors. The final rule specifically amends requirements established by the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020 (AIM Act).

EPA also published a proposed rule to exempt road and intermodal container transport refrigeration units (TRUs) from leak repair requirements set by the 2024 Emissions Reduction and Reclamation (ER&R) Rule.

Who’s impacted?

The 2026 Final Rule applies to entities that are subject to the 2023 Technology Transition Rule requirements (40 CFR 84.54) for these subsectors:

Refrigerated transport — intermodal containers,
Industrial process refrigeration (IPR) and chillers for IPR used in semiconductor manufacturing,
Retail food — supermarket systems,
Retail food — remote condensing units,
Cold storage warehouses,
Residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps (RACHP), and
IPR (not using chillers) — refrigerated laboratory centrifuges and refrigerated laboratory shakers.

The 2026 proposed rule applies to refrigerant-containing road and intermodal container transport refrigeration units (TRUs) regulated by the 2024 ER&R Rule.

What are the changes?

The 2026 Final Rule:

Adjusts the lower bound temperature and measurement location for refrigerated transport intermodal containers from -50°C to -35°C;
Extends the compliance dates to January 1, 2030, for restrictions on uses of HFCs and HFC blends by IPR and chillers for IPR in semiconductor manufacturing process equipment (limited to equipment with a charge size of 100 pounds or less);
Allows retail food supermarket systems to increase the cooling capacity of existing systems by up to 15 percent without triggering new installation requirements;
Establishes temporary, relaxed interim global warming potential (GWP) limits (implementing stricter GWP limits starting on January 1, 2032) for:
- Retail food supermarket systems,
- Retail food remote condensing unit systems, and
- Cold storage warehouses.

Allows RACHP equipment using specific components that were domestically manufactured or imported before January 1, 2025, to continue to be installed; and
Delays the compliance dates to January 1, 2028, for restrictions on uses of HFCs and HFC blends by refrigerated laboratory centrifuges and refrigerated laboratory shakers.

Please note that the final rule states that EPA maintains existing requirements for new condensing units used as replacements in the RACHP subsector.

What’s the proposed rule?

The 2024 ER&R Rule added leak repair requirements (84.106) for refrigerant-containing appliances with a charge size of 15 pounds or more containing an HFC or a specific HFC substitute, which took effect on January 1, 2026. Examples of the requirements include leak inspections, appliance repairs, and reporting.

EPA proposes to exempt all refrigerant-containing road and intermodal container TRUs from the leak repair provisions (regardless of charge size).

Key to remember: EPA has issued a final rule revising HFC use restrictions for certain subsectors and has proposed a rule exempting transportation refrigeration units from leak repair requirements.

Most Popular Highlights In Transportation

2026-10-26T05:00:00Z

Road test requirements: 3 common questions

When hiring commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers, motor carriers have limited information to judge how safely an applicant will perform behind the wheel. A driver’s record shows past behavior, but a road test lets the carrier evaluate the driver’s skills firsthand.

Below are three common road test questions, along with the basic requirements and some best practices to help you go beyond the minimum.

1. Does every driver have to take a road test?

Not necessarily. A motor carrier generally cannot allow a driver to operate a CMV until the driver successfully completes a road test and receives a certificate of the driver's road test.

However, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) allow a carrier to accept certain documents as the equivalent of a road test. The most common document is a valid commercial driver’s license (CDL). Keep in mind, if the driver will operate a vehicle that requires a double/triple or tank endorsement, a road test must be performed in that type of vehicle.

Just because the FMCSRs allow an exception doesn’t mean carriers must use it. A road test is your opportunity to verify that a driver can safely operate the assigned vehicle. Skipping the road test can also weaken your defense in post-accident litigation if you could have identified a risk but chose not to. As a best practice, many carriers road test all drivers, regardless of exceptions.

2. Who can administer the road test?

The road test must be given by the motor carrier or a person the carrier designates. That person must be competent enough to evaluate whether the driver can safely operate the type of CMV the driver will be assigned.

Don’t assume anyone with CMV-driving experience is automatically qualified to administer the test. The carrier is responsible for selecting the right person to evaluate the driver’s performance. You should be able to explain why that person is a competent examiner.

Training examiners and setting clear expectations are just as important. A consistent testing process across all examiners is key to a successful road test program, and examiners should be evaluated periodically to make sure they remain effective.

3. What must the road test cover?

Section 391.31 of the FMCSRs identifies specific areas that must be evaluated. Depending on the vehicle, these include:

Performing a pre-trip inspection required by 392.7;
Coupling and uncoupling combination units, when applicable;
Placing the vehicle in operation;
Using the vehicle's controls and emergency equipment;
Operating safely in traffic;
Turning and other vehicle movements;
Braking and slowing the vehicle; and
Backing and parking.

As a best practice, your evaluation criteria should expand on each required area and include common scenarios drivers face during a typical day. You must also have a system to rate the driver’s performance in each operation tested.

Document any areas that need improvement, along with any additional training or corrective action taken after the test. This shows effective safety management controls are in place. If a road test shows a driver needed improvement in an area and no action was taken, that might be tough to explain in post-accident litigation.

Key to remember: Don’t treat the road test as just another document for the driver qualifications file. It’s one of the few chances you’ll have to verify that a driver can safely operate the assigned vehicle.

2022-12-27T06:00:00Z

Placarding responsibility – Whose is it?

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

Check the regulations

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

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

Avoid issues with shippers

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

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

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

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

2023-12-22T06:00:00Z

Navigating change: Key updates to 2024 IATA DGR take effect

Every year the International Air Transport Association (IATA) updates its Dangerous Goods Regulations (DGR) to ensure the safe and secure handling of dangerous goods that are shipped or transported by air. While changes to the 2024 IATA DGR (65th edition) are not as plentiful as they were in previous years, they are no less important.

Mandatory compliance with the 2024 IATA DGR begins on January 1, 2024, and will be valid until the 2025 IATA DGR comes into effect. Let’s look at the key updates, listed by Section, for the 65th edition of the IATA DGR:

Need additional information for IATA? Check out this ezExplanation.

Limitations

Dangerous Goods Carried by Passengers or Crew (2.3)— Provisions for battery-powered mobility aids have been revised to include reference to the guidance on the end-to-end processes associated with the carriage of mobility aids.

Packing

The following packing instructions have been updated:

5.2.0.9 - Added a water capacity limit for non-refillable cylinders containing a flammable gas, limited to a water capacity not exceeding 1.25 L.
PI 952 - Revised to include reference to "equipment."
PI 954 - Clarified the rules for marking overpacks containing dry ice. The total net quantity of dry ice in the overpack must be marked on the outside of the overpack.

Packaging specifications and performance tests

6.0.3 - Clarified the requirements and formatting for UN specification marks on packages.

Documentation

8.1.6.9.2, Step 6 – Added a note to "reinforce that there is no requirement for the type, number and net quantity in inner packagings within the outer packaging of a combination packaging to be shown" on the shipping papers (Shippers Declaration for Dangerous Goods).

Radioactive materials

10.8.3.9.1—Added an additional example of the description for the first sequence of information on the Shipper's Declaration to address where a radioactive material has a subsidiary hazard, and the proper shipping name must be supplemented by the technical or chemical name.
10.8.6—Added two examples to show how radioactive materials with a subsidiary hazard should be described and how packages in an overpack should be shown.

Appendices

IATA has added a new appendix to the list of appendices in the DGR. Appendix H includes a list of changes IATA will make to the 2025 IATA DGR. IATA added Appendix H so that shippers and carriers have time to prepare for the substantial updates that are coming for 2025. Some of the changes include:

Adding an exception for data loggers and cargo trackers with installed lithium batteries.
Modifying the exception for COVID-19 vaccines to now apply to all pharmaceutical products.
Adding a new classification for sodium ion batteries.
Updating the list of dangerous goods and special provisions.
Amending and adding several packing instructions.
Revising the "lithium battery mark", which will be known as the "battery mark" in the future.

Making sure you are keeping up with these regulatory changes and preparing for future updates is extremely important if you want to avoid costly delays, fines, and lost revenue. Keep your hazmat employees up to speed and inform them of any changes they need to be aware of.

Key to Remember: IATA updates their DGR every year and changes to the 2024 IATA DGR become effective on January 1, 2024.

2022-08-31T05:00:00Z

What are exempt for-hire carriers exempt from?

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

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

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

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

Do exempt carriers need to have proof of insurance?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2024-01-12T06:00:00Z

Answers to 3 key questions to keep commercial drivers compliant after vision surgery

Options for corrective vision surgery have significantly increased over the past 25 years. Commercial drivers who meet vision standards post-surgery must update their licensing and medical certifications. They must also understand the consequences of inaction.

During a roadside inspection after vision surgery, if the driver's license or medical card states that corrective lenses are required, the driver must prove they are wearing them. If the driver is not wearing glasses or contacts, but the driver's license or medical card still lists them as required, the driver will be cited and placed out of service.

Three key questions

Below are three questions and the answers to which can help avoid citations and out-of-service orders relating to vision requirements.

1. What must a driver do after vision surgery if they no longer require corrective lenses?

Answer: The driver must:

Take a vision test at the motor vehicle department to have the corrective lenses restriction removed from their license, and
Contact a certified medical examiner (CME) from the National Registry for an exam to remove the corrective lenses requirement from their medical certification.

The driver may also need to undergo an eye exam from an optometrist or ophthalmologist if requested by the CME.

2. If a medical certification says corrective lenses are required, but the license does not, or vice versa, is this a violation in a roadside inspection?

Answer: Yes. If the driver is not wearing corrective lenses, it is a medical qualification violation per Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Regulations (FMCSRs) §391.11(b)(4), and the driver must be placed out of service.

Alternatively, if the license says corrective lenses are required, and the driver is not wearing them, then the citation is written as a licensing violation (§391.11(b)(5) or §383.21(a)(2)), and the driver must also be placed out of service.

3. Is the discrepancy a violation if the driver wears corrective lenses as specified by their medical certification but not on their license?

Answer: No. The violation only exists if the license or the medical certification requires corrective lenses and the driver is not wearing them.

Some states do not use the same criteria for requiring corrective lenses as are specified in the FMCSRs vision standard in §391.41(b)(10), so there's a difference it's not a violation. In many states, it is possible to have a license without the corrective lens restriction and not be able to pass the federal vision standard.

Drivers are usually licensed for more than five years. Vision can change during periods far longer than the maximum two-year medical certification.

Keep in mind, a medical qualification violation cannot be challenged in the FMCSA's DataQs system because "the driver didn't need corrective lenses anymore." Post-surgery, the medical certification, and license must reflect that no corrective lenses are needed, or the driver will face consequences.

Key to remember: Educate drivers on the requirement to update their license and medical certification after corrective vision surgery to keep them compliant.

2026-10-15T05:00:00Z

Safe driving habits are on cruise control: Tickets/warnings issued to over half of drivers

Of the 8,083 commercial motor vehicle and passenger vehicle drivers tested across North American roadways during the 2026 Operation Safe Driver Week initiative, 3,968 warnings and 2,604 tickets were issued for unsafe driving behaviors.

Speeding, distracted driving, and aggressive driving were among the leading causes of roadway crashes cited, according to the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance’s (CVSA’s) 2026 North America safety event findings from July 12–18. 

The top unsafe behaviors of 2026 include:

Reckless, careless, and dangerous driving, which was the focus of this year’s Operation Safe Driver Week: 83 warnings and 33 citations were issued. Broken down by driver type, 50 warnings and 22 citations were issued to commercial motor vehicle drivers, and 33 warnings and 11 citations were issued to passenger vehicle drivers.
Speeding, which was the most cited behavior: 1,003 warnings and 691 citations were issued. Broken down by driver type, 772 warnings and 342 citations were issued to commercial motor vehicle drivers, and 231 warnings and 349 citations were issued to passenger vehicle drivers.
Failure to wear a seat belt: 292 warnings and 311 citations were issued. Broken down by driver type, 267 warnings and 270 citations were issued to commercial motor vehicle drivers, and 25 warnings and 41 citations were issued to passenger vehicle drivers.
Possession, use or impairment of drugs or alcohol: 17 warnings and 26 citations were issued. Broken down by type, 12 warnings and 22 citations were issued to commercial motor vehicle drivers, and 5 warnings and 4 citations were issued to passenger vehicle drivers.

Other Top Warnings, Citations, and Tickets Issued to CMV Drivers
Offense	Total # Warnings	Total # Citations
Failure to obey traffic control device	652	319
Improper lane change	76	23
Following too closely	48	23
Improper passing	29	10
Improper turn	12	3

The goal of Operation Safe Driver Week strives to improve driver safety and lessen the number of accidents on North American roadways. The event was held from July 12–18. Law enforcement agencies from 36 U.S. states, 7 Canadian provinces, and Mexico participated in this year’s initiative.

Most Popular Highlights In Human Resources

2026-10-26T05:00:00Z

Delaware passes pay transparency law

Effective date: September 26, 2027

This applies to: Delaware employers with more than 25 employees

Description of change: House Bill (HB) 105, signed by Gov. Matt Meyer last year, requires employers to include the hourly or salary compensation range and a general description of the benefits and other compensation in both internal and external job postings.

The law’s posting requirements don’t apply to interim or temporary jobs that need to be filled immediately. Further, the law will not apply to job opportunities covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) until after the CBA is amended, giving parties an opportunity to contemplate the pay transparency requirements during negotiations.

The Delaware Department of Labor handles enforcement via administrative proceedings. First-time violations result in a written warning, and subsequent violations carry civil penalties of between $500 and $10,000.

View related state info: Pay transparency and salary history bans - Delaware

2023-09-06T05:00:00Z

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

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

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

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

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

No link between leave and termination

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

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

Laffon appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit.

Statute of limitations

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

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

Ruling overturned

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

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

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

2026-10-27T05:00:00Z

Whistleblower complaint figures for FY 2026 eclipse pandemic-era peak

The COVID-19 pandemic once marked the high for OSH Act whistleblower complaints. That is, until now! Fiscal year (FY) 2026, which ran from October 1, 2025, to September 30, 2026, brought record numbers for both total whistleblower complaints and complaints of retaliation filed under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act). At the same time, OSHA has continued to streamline its whistleblower investigation procedures.

While this article uses the word “whistleblower,” OSHA’s technical term is “complainant.” A complainant is any person who believes that they have suffered an adverse action in violation of an OSHA whistleblower statute and who has filed, with or without a representative, a whistleblower complaint with OSHA.

Whistleblower cases overall

Since FY 2006, OSHA has received 61,171 whistleblower complaints for alleged retaliation for raising or reporting hazards or violations under 25 federal laws. Those laws cover worker safety, transportation safety, food safety, environmental protection, consumer products, taxes, and more.

Workers who believe they have experienced retaliation in violation of one of these laws may file a complaint with OSHA. Retaliation is an adverse action against a worker because of activity protected by one of the whistleblower laws. Retaliation could include, but is not limited to, firing, demoting, denying overtime, disciplining, harassing, isolating, and mocking.

The agency received 4,429 complaints of retaliation in FY 2026, or 1,058 (31 percent) more than the previous fiscal year! Also, the number of complaints in FY 2026 is the highest number in any given year since FY 2006. The second-highest tally came in FY 2020, with 3,448 complaints. That makes the FY 2026 figure 28 percent more than the previous record.

OSH Act whistleblower cases

Notably, over 64 percent of whistleblower complaints since FY 2006 relate to just one statute! Section 11(c) of the OSH Act (also found at 29 U.S.C. 660(c)) prohibits employers from retaliating against workers for exercising rights under the law. Almost 39,250 reports of retaliation were made under the OSH Act since FY 2006. In FY 2026 alone, nearly 61 percent of complaints corresponded to the OSH Act.

Received OSH Act whistleblower cases climbed 24 percent, from 2,176 cases in FY 2025 to 2,701 in FY 2026. This count, too, is the highest for received OSH Act cases on record! FY 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, was the second highest with 2,539 cases.

It takes several months for complaint investigators to close cases. Investigators made a total of 1,684 case determinations in FY 2026. Of these, 1,307 were dismissed or withdrawn. That left 377 (22 percent) with a merit or settlement determination. This figure is much like the almost 24 percent merit/settlement cases in FY 2025.

Results of an investigation

According to OSHA, if the agency determines that retaliation in violation of the OSH Act, Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, or the International Safe Container Act has occurred, the Secretary of Labor may sue in federal district court to obtain relief. If OSHA determines that no retaliation has occurred, it will dismiss the complaint.

Under the other whistleblower statutes, if evidence supports a worker’s complaint of retaliation, OSHA will issue an order requiring the employer, as appropriate, to:

Put the worker back to work,
Pay lost wages, and
Provide other possible relief.

If the evidence does not support the worker’s complaint, OSHA will dismiss it. After OSHA issues a decision, the employer and/or the worker may request a full hearing before an administrative law judge of the Department of Labor (DOL). The judge’s decision may be appealed to the DOL Administrative Review Board. In significant cases, the Secretary of Labor may review the board’s decision. Finally, aggrieved parties may seek review of final DOL decisions by the courts of appeals.

Whistleblower investigator procedures have changed

In August 2026, OSHA launched a year-long, nationwide Whistleblower Protection Programs pilot (under OSHA Directive CPL 09-00-002) in which holding a closing conference will be optional. The purpose of this pilot is to test the efficiency of removing the closing conference from the investigation process.

In March 2026, OSHA made permanent a change to its whistleblower complaint screening process (in OSHA Directive CPL 09-00-001) to allow complaints to be closed upon intake without a screening interview if the complaint, on its face:

Is not covered by an OSHA-administered whistleblower statute;
Is untimely filed, and there is no indication equitable tolling may apply; or
Alleges safety or compliance concerns but not retaliation.

OSHA last updated its Whistleblower Investigations Manual (OSHA Directive CPL 02-03-011) in April 2022. The manual outlines procedures relative to handling retaliation complaints under the whistleblower laws. The agency then issued a September 2023 memo with procedures for “significant” whistleblower cases. These include meritorious cases with high damages or novel issues, for example. OSHA may post a shaming news release for a significant case.

Key to remember

In FY 2026, almost 61 percent of whistleblower complaints corresponded to the OSH Act. In fact, both overall and OSH Act whistleblower complaint counts that year surpassed even the record levels seen during the pandemic in FY 2020.

2026-10-28T05:00:00Z

Chicago requires bystander training. Should you?

If you’re an employer whose company is in Chicago or New York City, you’re required to provide bystander intervention training in addition to sexual harassment prevention training. In other locations, bystander training isn’t legally required, but it’s still considered a best practice.

One reason bystander training makes sense for all workplaces is that it can help show that an employer took reasonable steps to prevent harassment, which might be relevant in a legal defense, should an incident ever become a court case.

What is bystander training?

Bystander intervention training is being used in organizations to prevent violence and sexual harassment. As the name implies, bystander intervention training encourages people who witness potentially harassing situations to step in to diffuse them.

Bystander training is effective because without it, employees who see inappropriate workplace behavior may want to help but hesitate because they don’t know what to say or do. This type of training gives employees practical options for responding to a situation without expecting them to confront someone or put themselves at risk.

The goal isn’t to turn employees into investigators or ask them to decide whether conduct violates the law. It’s to help them recognize concerning behavior, support coworkers, and know when and how to raise concerns. Employers can reinforce that message by explaining how reports are handled and assure employees that they won’t face retaliation for speaking up.

What to include in bystander training

Give employees realistic examples so they can practice choosing how to respond. Training should cover:

Recognizing concerning conduct. Use scenarios involving inappropriate jokes, repeated put-downs, bullying, or other behavior that conflicts with workplace policies.
Choosing a safe response. Options could include briefly speaking up, interrupting or redirecting a conversation, or seeking help from a supervisor or HR. Emphasize that direct confrontation isn’t always appropriate.
Supporting the person affected. Show employees how to check in privately and offer support without pressuring the person to share details. Explain what the available reporting options are and where to go for help.
Reporting concerns. Identify reporting channels, explain what information is helpful, and distinguish employees’ options from supervisors’ responsibilities under company policy.
Avoiding retaliation. Explain the company’s prohibition against retaliation and how employees can report concerns about it without fear of losing their job.

Keep examples relevant to your workplace, including remote meetings, group chats, customer interactions, and situations involving someone in a position of authority.

End ‘normalizing’

One goal of bystander training is to put an end to “normalizing” bad workplace behaviors. Normalizing occurs when a person dismisses or overlooks misconduct for so long that it begins to feel acceptable or expected. Typically, this occurs because an employee or supervisor believes the behavior is unavoidable or easier to ignore than to address.

There’s no environment where people should continue to dismiss acts of harassment because “that’s just the way it is here.” Sexual harassment is pervasive in some workplaces, but that doesn’t mean it’s acceptable or something to tolerate.

Key to remember: Bystander training should give employees safe options, clear reporting channels, and opportunities to practice ways to respond. Reinforce the training with consistent follow-through, so employees know they’ll be supported if they speak up.

2026-10-14T05:00:00Z

HR manager didn’t follow company policy for his own FMLA leave, and got terminated for it

In early 2023, Frank, an HR manager, suffered from severe right shoulder arthritis. Starting on February 21, he decided to take leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to manage his health issues, eventually opting for surgery.

The employer’s policy indicated that requests for FMLA leave be made through the HR Department on the forms provided. The forms required employees to provide a medical certification to support the absence.

When Frank first asked for leave, he didn’t submit a medical certification. He argued that delayed submission of such paperwork was, nonetheless, consistent with the employer’s customary practice. During his tenure as HR manager, he would also retroactively approve FMLA leave for employees who began their leave before filling out the required paperwork.

On March 9, Debra, a company director, sent Frank a letter reminding him to submit the medical certification by March 17. When Frank failed to do so, Debra sent him a second, third, and fourth reminder, extending the deadline each time. In the last two letters, she warned Frank that failure to comply with the company leave policies could result in his termination.

Frank didn’t submit a certification until May 4. It excused his absence beginning May 2, but didn’t address his absences from February 21 to May 1. He never provided documentation covering the prior absences or a reason for them.

On July 7, before he could return to work, the employer informed Frank that his employment was terminated. The termination letter cited his “failure to provide the healthcare certifications required” by company policies, which resulted in his incurring “multiple unexcused absences in violation of the” company’s personnel code.

Frank sued, but the court sided with the employer, despite the suspicious timing of the termination. It first noted that when an employee takes leave without complying with the employer’s internal leave policies, they haven’t “engaged in any activity protected by the FMLA.” Also, since Frank failed to provide a certification supporting his leave from February 21 to May 1, the FMLA didn’t cover his time off, and he didn’t engage in FMLA-protected activity.

Bergman v. St. Clair County, Southern District of Illinois, No. 3:24-CV-02374, September 23, 2026.

Key to remember: If an employee fails to provide a requested FMLA certification without justification, employers may deny FMLA protections.

Court decisions are based on the specific facts presented and each court’s interpretation of the law. Because courts may reach different conclusions, similar situations can lead to different outcomes. Employers should avoid relying on a single case as definitive guidance and instead assess each situation carefully, considering applicable laws, and seeking advice when needed.

2026-10-23T05:00:00Z

A healthier workday, one small choice at a time

Each workday offers an opportunity to support good health. Making healthier choices doesn’t mean you have to revamp your whole day.

Start with small actions that fit your job, schedule, and needs. This might look like planning a meal break or creating a clear stopping point at the end of your shift. The goal isn’t a perfect routine. It’s making room to care for yourself during the day.

There are simple changes that when added to the day don’t detract from getting work done but add to your overall well-being. For example, build healthier choices into the workday by creating an environment that supports: 

Opportunities to move 
Access to drinking water 
Breaks that help you refocus 
Stress reduction when needed

Normalize taking care of your health before there’s a problem. This form of self-care is good for individuals and sets a good example for others.

Create a work environment that supports routine healthy behaviors

By focusing on small, repeatable routines anchored to things you already do, you can build sustainable habits that improve energy, focus, and health without feeling like preventative health measures are a second job. Here are ideas for small but powerful changes:

Start the day

Take 5 or 10 minutes and do the same routine tasks every day to signal to your brain that it’s time to work.
Plan when your first movement break will be. If necessary, add it to your to-do list or calendar for the day.

Throughout the workday

Take focus breaks. Pause between tasks, look away from the screen, or spend a quiet moment without checking another device.
Take movement breaks such as a brief walk, a change of position, or comfortable seated movement, as abilities and duties allow. For active jobs, a restful break may be more appropriate than extra movement.
Plan workday snacks and meals. Before your shift, think about when and where you’ll eat. Include bringing a meal or having a backup option for a busy day.
Make hydration a routine by pairing a water refill with an existing transition, such as arriving at work or taking a meal break, where workplace rules allow.
Reset when stress builds. Offer a brief pause to identify the next manageable step or ask for clarification about competing priorities.

Not every health-related task belongs on your daily checklist, however. Keep a separate reminder to make appointments for routine preventative care and note questions you want to discuss with your health care provider.

To end the workday

Have a shutdown ritual. Note where you stopped, write down tomorrow’s first task, and put away work materials when your shift ends, as your role allows.
Take some deep breaths and focus on the positive healthy choices that you made today, even if they’re small. Something is better than nothing.

Make the healthier choice easier for others

If you’re in a leadership position, support a healthy workplace for your team as much as possible.

Workplace support might include providing accessible drinking water, giving workers opportunities to take breaks, and offering them clear information about available wellness resources.

Employees shouldn’t have to treat wellness as another task to squeeze into an already full workload.

Key to remember: Prioritizing wellness in the workplace doesn’t have to feel like adding more work to your plate.

Most Popular Highlights In Safety & Health

2026-10-29T05:00:00Z

Fatigue doesn't always look like fatigue

When people think about fatigue, they may picture someone struggling to stay awake. However, the signs of fatigue can be much less obvious. An employee may appear alert, continue working normally, and still experience subtle changes in focus, awareness, reaction time, and decision-making.

This time of year can create additional challenges. As we approach the holiday season, employees may face increased production demands, year-end projects, inventory activities, or other operational pressures. Combined with seasonal weather conditions, these factors can make fatigue more likely to affect workplace performance.

Workplace demands

Physical demands, sustained concentration, environmental conditions, and the length or pace of the workday add up over time. An employee may handle one of these demands without difficulty, but several occurring together can make it harder to maintain focus and respond safely as the day goes on. Contributing factors can include:

Repetitive tasks,
Physically demanding work,
Extended periods of concentration,
Environmental conditions such as heat or cold,
Long or consecutive workdays, and
High-production periods.

When hazards become easier to miss

Fatigue doesn't introduce a new physical hazard. Instead, it can affect how employees recognize and respond to hazards already present in the workplace. A condition that would normally catch an employee’s attention may be overlooked when concentration, judgment, or reaction time declines.

These can become more of a concern during longer workdays, demanding production periods, or work performed in cold conditions. Employees may miss details during inspections, overlook a procedural step, or react more slowly when equipment, traffic, or job conditions change.

The effects can show up across the workplace

Any task that requires sustained attention, sound judgment, or physical coordination may become more difficult to perform safely as alertness declines.

For example, an employee operating a forklift may be slower to recognize a pedestrian entering the travel path. A maintenance employee may overlook a step in a procedure. An inspector may have missed a condition that would have been noticed earlier in the shift. Small mistakes don't always lead to incidents, but they can increase the likelihood that something goes wrong.

Warning signs often appear before an injury occurs

Fatigue-related concerns may be present long before an injury or property damage event. The first signs may be subtle and may not immediately raise a safety concern. Potential warning signs include:

Increased errors,
Missed procedural steps,
Reduced attention to detail,
Frequent near misses,
Slower response times, and
Difficulty maintaining concentration.

Recognizing these warning signs can help make fatigue part of the broader conversation about workplace hazards. Employers can help by encouraging employees to speak up when alertness declines and by considering fatigue when workplace conditions or job demands change.

Key to remember: Fatigue can affect performance long before an employee appears tired. Understanding how fatigue influences workplace safety can help employers identify risks before they contribute to an incident.

2026-10-29T05:00:00Z

OSHA 10- and 30-hour training: Common questions answered

Is an OSHA 10 or 30 card a certification? Who’s required to take the training? Does completing a course mean an employee is qualified to perform specific tasks? Can employers use the training as proof they’ve met all OSHA training requirements? Let’s dive into these and other common questions surrounding OSHA 10- and 30-hour courses.

Is an OSHA 10 or 30 card a certification?

No, the card isn’t a certification and completing a course doesn’t mean an employee is qualified to perform specific tasks. The courses are a foundation for hazard awareness and emphasize hazard identification, avoidance, control, and prevention, rather than OSHA standards. Employers must ensure employees receive job-specific training on the hazards they may encounter in the workplace.

Who’s required to take the training?

OSHA’s 10- and 30-hour Outreach Training Program is a voluntary program for workers in general industry, construction, maritime, and disaster site work. No OSHA standard requires employees to take the 10- or 30-hour outreach courses. Some states and municipalities, however, have enacted laws mandating the training, particularly for certain construction projects. It’s also not uncommon for private construction or service contracts to include requirements that only workers who have completed a 10- or 30-hour OSHA outreach course be allowed to work on the site.

10 vs. 30: What’s the difference?

Both courses provide basic awareness training on the recognition, avoidance, abatement, and prevention of workplace hazards. They also provide information regarding workers’ rights, employer responsibilities, and filing a complaint with OSHA.

The 10-hour training program is primarily intended for entry level workers while the 30-hour training program is more appropriate for supervisors or workers with some safety responsibility. It provides a greater depth and variety of training on an expanded list of topics associated with workplace hazards in each industry.

When the 10- or 30-hour courses are taught by OSHA authorized trainers, trainees will receive course completion cards from OSHA. As mentioned, these cards are not certifications, but they do acknowledge that the person has taken either a 10-hour or 30-hour OSHA outreach training course that was taught by an authorized trainer.

At the federal level, student course completion cards don’t have an expiration date. However, some states and municipalities do have further training requirements, such as refresher training every five years, so it’s important to be aware of such requirements.

How do you become an authorized trainer?

To become an authorized trainer to conduct 10- and 30-hour general industry outreach courses, you must complete OSHA’s Course #501, Trainer Course in Occupational Safety and Health Standards for General Industry. For construction courses, you must complete OSHA’s Course #500, Trainer Course in Occupational Safety and Health Standards for the Construction Industry. The trainer course is mandatory for those trainers who conduct 10- and 30-hour courses and issue OSHA course completion cards to the students.

Only the OSHA Training Institute (OTI) and OTI Education Centers can offer OSHA courses. The #500 and #501 courses are offered at OTI Education Centers around the country.

Trainers are independent service providers and their schedules and fees may vary. All trainers should possess a trainer card which includes an expiration date along with the name of the authorizing OTI Education Center.

Key to remember: No OSHA standard requires employees to take 10- or 30-hour outreach courses. However, some states, municipalities, and private employers may have such requirements. Even if employees take OSHA 10 or 30 courses, employers must ensure they receive job-specific training on the hazards they may encounter in the workplace.

2026-10-21T05:00:00Z

November 20 Is Coming: Is Your HazCom Program Ready?

Every October, OSHA hands employers its cheat sheet. The preliminary fiscal year 2026 numbers came out this month, and Hazard Communication (29 CFR 1910.1200) ranked second overall and first in general industry, with 1,961 citations.

That's down 23% from the year before, and it would probably be pretty easy to just assume the sharp decline as progress. However, it's more likely a lull. For all of FY2026, employers were operating inside a transition window that allowed compliance with the 2012 standard, the 2024 standard, or both. That window closes for employers on November 20, 2026. Every HazCom citation written in FY2027 will be measured against the new rule.

How we got to this point

OSHA published its updated HazCom final rule on May 20, 2024 (89 FR 44144), aligning the standard with Revision 7 of the UN's Globally Harmonized System plus selected Revision 8 elements. In January 2026, with the first deadline days away and its own guidance documents unfinished, OSHA pushed every compliance date back four months (91 FR 1695). The schedule under 1910.1200(j) now reads:

May 19, 2026: Manufacturers, importers and distributors: substances (passed)
November 20, 2026: Employers: substances
November 19, 2027: Manufacturers, importers and distributors: mixtures
May 19, 2028: Employers: mixtures

The upcoming November date requires employers to update alternative workplace labeling, revise their written hazard communication programs, and train workers on newly identified hazards for substances whose classifications changed.

The manufacturer deadline for substances passed in May, which means reclassified safety data sheets have been arriving. Some products picked up new hazard classes, such as the new Category 3 for non-flammable aerosols or the subdivided flammable gas categories. Others shifted or changed hazard statements or precautionary language.

Each of those revised SDSs will need to be studied by employers because they could contain triggers. Under 1910.1200(h)(1), employers must train workers whenever a new chemical hazard is introduced into the work area. That includes a reclassified product. If your workplace labels, inventory and training still reflect the old SDS, you are out of step with the first document an inspector will ask for.

The cost of falling behind

Federal OSHA's maximum penalty is $16,550 per serious violation and $165,514 per willful or repeat violation. Those figures didn't rise this year and OSHA skipped the 2026 inflation adjustment because the fall 2025 government shutdown delayed the CPI data it relies on. Expect an adjustment in 2027.

Individual HazCom citations rarely make headlines. The real exposure is cumulative. HazCom violations often pop up alongside respiratory protection and PPE citations, and a HazCom citation today becomes the possibility for a repeat classification tomorrow, at ten times the price.

A 30-day action plan

With about a month left to prepare, focus on what an inspector will actually ask for.

Audit your SDS library: Request current SDSs from every supplier and compare Section 2 against the versions on file. Flag every changed classification.
True up the chemical inventory: The list required by 1910.1200(e)(1)(i) must use product identifiers that match the current SDS.
Audit workplace labels: Secondary containers and alternative systems such as HMIS or NFPA must convey hazard information consistent with the updated SDS. Reclassified products need relabeling.
Revise the written program: Document how you receive, review and distribute updated SDSs, and reference the 2024 standard. Inspectors usually start here.
Retrain, and document it: Target training to the products that changed rather than running a generic refresher. Record dates, attendees and content.
Prepare for 2028: The mixtures deadline is a pretty big wave, because most workplace chemicals are mixtures. The SDS review process you build this month is the one you'll lean on through May 2028.

Keys to remember: November 20, 2026, is the employer HazCom deadline for substances. Employers must be ready to address updated hazard classifications flowing downstream from manufacturers and importers.

2026-05-28T05:00:00Z

OSHA penalty amounts won’t increase in 2026

OSHA won’t increase its penalty amounts in 2026. The agency is required to annually adjust its penalties for inflation, based specifically on the October Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Due to a lapse in funding, BLS did not release the October 2025 data. Because no alternative calculation is allowed, OSHA penalties will remain at the 2025 amounts.

Type of violation	Penalty
Serious Other-than-serious Posting requirements	$16,550 per violation
Failure to abate	$16,550 per day beyond the abatement date
Willful or repeated	$165,514 per violation

2026-10-15T05:00:00Z

Expert Insights: Trench Safety by the Numbers

When I started working in construction safety, my colleague and I loved to challenge each other with safety questions to keep on top of our game amidst a dynamic construction world. Remembering safety rules is critical, but can be overwhelming, when it comes to excavation and trenches for example. Things such as when a protection system is required, when an egress method is necessary, or at what point a professional engineer needs to get involved come to mind. So, we came up with a little quiz called Excavation Safety by the Numbers to help refresh the what, where, and when of excavations. Here are some common numbers by the foot: 2, 4, 5, 6, 20, and 25.

2 Feet

There are two circumstances where the number 2 comes into play.

Spoil piles must be at least 2 feet from the edge of an excavation or trench provided the surface is able to support such a load.
If using a trench box or other engineered protection system, the bottom of the protection system cannot be more than 2 feet above the bottom of the trench or excavation.

4 Feet with 25 feet

Four feet is the trench or excavation depth that triggers the requirement to have a means of egress such as a ladder. Depending on the length of the trench/excavation, the maximum travel distance to or between egress points is 25 feet.

5 Feet

A protective system is required for trenches and excavations 5 feet deep or deeper unless a competent person determines the excavation is entirely in stable rock.

6 Feet

If employees are working near the edge of a trench/excavation with a depth of 6 feet or more, then fall protection/prevention is required.

20 Feet

If the depth of a trench/excavation is greater than 20 feet, then the protective system must be designed and approved by a professional engineer. While this number quiz does not encompass every aspect of trench/excavation safety, it may help reinforce key concepts before the first scoop of soil is moved. Remember to follow specific jobsite requirements for each trench and excavation.

2026-02-23T06:00:00Z

New York expands workplace violence prevention programs in health care

Effective date: September 2026

This applies to: Employers that are health care facilities, meaning a “general hospital” or a “nursing home” as defined in Section 2801 of the New York Public Health Law.

Description of change: Gov. Kathy Hochul signed Senate Bill 5294B into law on December 12, 2025. This bill amends the New York public health law by requiring health care facilities to develop a violence prevention program. The law applies to general hospitals and nursing homes in the state and becomes effective in September 2026 (280 days from the day it was signed into law). A few key details are as follows:

Within 12 months of the effective date, every facility must establish a workplace violence prevention program. The purpose is to protect health care workers, patients, facility residents, and visitors.
Beginning January 1, 2027, all general hospitals must conduct, not less than annually, a workplace safety and security assessment and develop a safety and security plan that addresses identified workplace violence threats or hazards.
The safety and security assessment must be tailored to the size, complexity, and local geographical factors affecting the general hospital and must identify and consider relevant threats and hazards.
Emergency department security:
- Large population areas: A general hospital located in a city or county in New York with a population of one million or more will be required to have at least one off-duty law enforcement officer or trained security personnel be present at all times in the emergency department, subject to emergent circumstance in any hospital that requires an adjustment in personnel.
- Smaller population areas: A general hospital located in a city or county in New York with a population less than one million will be required to have at least one off-duty law enforcement officer or trained security personnel on premises at all times in a manner that prioritizes physical presence near, or within close proximity to, the emergency department of such hospital with direct responsibility to the emergency department. This doesn’t apply to hospitals designated as critical access hospitals, sole community hospitals, or rural emergency hospitals.

View related state info: Workplace violence prevention – New York

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