From hard hats to headspace: Why mental health is critical for every worker

What is the current status of the federal 2021 Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP)?

EPA issued the current MSGP in 2021, and it remains in effect beyond its February 28, 2026 expiration until EPA finalizes the proposed 2026 MSGP. Because the proposed 2026 permit is still under review, the 2021 MSGP continues to govern covered facilities.

Why has the proposed 2026 MSGP not taken effect?

EPA released the proposed 2026 MSGP in December 2024. Public comments, including an extended comment period ending May 19, 2025, must be reviewed before finalizing the permit. Since the existing MSGP remains valid until replaced, the 2021 permit stays in force while EPA completes its process.

What is a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)?

A SWPPP outlines how a facility prevents pollutants from reaching stormwater. It identifies pollutant sources, control measures, inspection routines, monitoring steps, and staff training. A SWPPP must be written before submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) for permit coverage and updated when operations or stormwater risks change.

What are the requirements for authorized state stormwater permits?

Most states issue their own industrial stormwater permits modeled on the federal MSGP. These permits typically require:

• Preparation and maintenance of a SWPPP;
• Inspections and monitoring (such as benchmark, effluent, or visual monitoring);
• Corrective actions when control measures fail; and
• Reporting through state online systems.

States may add requirements based on local conditions. When EPA updates the MSGP, states often revise their permits to align with new federal standards.

Who needs coverage under the MSGP?

Industrial facilities that discharge stormwater to waters of the United States generally need permit coverage unless they qualify for a no‑exposure exclusion. The federal MSGP applies in areas where EPA, not the state, holds National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) authority.

How does a facility obtain coverage?

To obtain coverage, a facility must:

• Prepare and implement a SWPPP;
• Put pollution controls in place, such as good housekeeping and spill prevention;
• Identify sector specific requirements based on the permit; and
• Submit a Notice of Intent through EPA’s online system.

The proposed 2026 MSGP includes updated forms and appendices, but current requirements remain based on the 2021 version until a new permit is published.

What monitoring is required?

Under the 2021 MSGP, required monitoring may include:

• Quarterly visual assessments,
• Benchmark monitoring in designated years, and
• Effluent limitations monitoring for specific regulated discharges.

The proposed 2026 MSGP would expand per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) sampling, increase benchmark monitoring frequency, and add requirements for impaired waters. These changes remain pending.

What happens if benchmark thresholds are exceeded?

A benchmark exceedance requires the facility to investigate causes, improve control measures, and document actions in the SWPPP. The proposed 2026 MSGP would formalize additional implementation measures and reporting steps, but these wouldn’t apply until the new permit takes effect.

What about common real world compliance scenarios?

Industrial stormwater issues often arise from everyday activities. Consider these examples:

Employees’ vehicles leaking oil in parking lots

Leaks from employee vehicles can contaminate stormwater. While the MSGP does not regulate personal vehicles directly, the facility is responsible for any pollutants that enter stormwater from its property. Good housekeeping practices include absorbent stations, spill kits, drip pans, and designated parking areas with routine inspection.

Nonroutine outdoor maintenance

Temporary outdoor activities such as conducting maintenance, unloading equipment, or staging materials, can introduce pollutants. The SWPPP should address nonroutine tasks by requiring temporary controls like tarps, containment pads, or scheduling activities during dry weather. Documentation of these activities is also part of good recordkeeping.

Outdoor waste storage or scrap piles

These materials should be covered or sheltered, kept away from storm drains, and inspected frequently. If runoff contacts industrial materials, the discharge becomes regulated and must be managed under the permit.

These scenarios reinforce the need for strong housekeeping practices, staff training, and prompt corrective actions.

What documentation must facilities keep?

Facilities must maintain monitoring records, inspection logs, SWPPP updates, and corrective action reports. EPA may request these documents at any time. Appendices in the proposed 2026 MSGP preview updated forms, but the 2021 requirements remain in place for now.

What should facilities do while waiting for the 2026 MSGP?

Facilities should continue full compliance with the 2021 MSGP, track regulatory updates, and prepare for more frequent monitoring and PFAS sampling likely included in the 2026 permit. Reviewing proposed changes now helps facilities plan needed SWPPP updates in advance.

Key to remember: Industrial facilities covered under the 2021 MSGP or a state equivalent must continue following that permit until EPA issues a new federal MSGP. Staying informed, maintaining strong housekeeping, and keeping SWPPP documentation current remain the most effective strategies for compliance.

Common local level programs

A strong example of local involvement can be seen in air quality management. The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) reports that 117 local air agencies participate in implementing federal and state clean air programs, highlighting how implementation frequently happens at the local level.

EPA’s AirNow directory lists numerous local air quality agencies across the country; Examples include air pollution control districts in California (such as the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, the San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District) as well as local air programs in Maricopa County, Arizona; Jacksonville, Florida; and Omaha, Nebraska. These districts conduct inspections, issue permits, investigate complaints, and maintain air monitoring networks, all of which support state and federal clean air requirements.

Local authority is also central to solid waste management, where many states rely heavily on counties and municipalities to manage planning, facilities, and enforcement. For instance, Washington State requires local governments to develop comprehensive solid and hazardous waste management plans that guide all waste handling and recycling programs within each county or city. These plans determine facility needs, outline reduction and recycling strategies, and shape local ordinances designed to meet state goals.

Additional examples appear across the country. Maryland’s Montgomery County, California’s Alameda County, and the District of Columbia all implement ambitious local waste diversion plans that supplement or exceed state requirements, demonstrating how counties and cities directly shape waste reduction and recycling policy. Likewise, South Carolina places most solid waste management responsibility on county governments, which must develop local plans, designate recycling coordinators, and report progress toward statewide goals.

Why is local involvement critical?

Local environmental regulatory authority matters because conditions vary widely across the nation. Counties and municipalities better understand their own industries, land uses, and growth patterns, allowing them to respond quickly to complaints, target outreach effectively, and adopt ordinances that go beyond state or federal minimums when necessary. Their proximity to communities makes local agencies essential partners in achieving environmental compliance and advancing public health protections.

As federal and state programs evolve, the role of local agencies continues to expand. Air quality districts, solid waste authorities, and local environmental health departments all demonstrate how counties and municipalities contribute directly to national environmental objectives.

Key to remember: With thousands of local agencies responsible for on the ground regulatory tasks, the strength and responsiveness of the United States’ environmental protection system depend heavily on the active engagement of local governments.

Am I a universal waste handler?

A universal waste handler either (a) generates a federally designated universal waste or (b) receives universal waste from other handlers, accumulates universal waste, and sends universal waste to:

• Another universal waste handler,
• A destination facility, or
• A foreign destination.

It excludes transfer facilities that transport off-site universal waste by air, rail, highway, or water as well as destination facilities that treat, dispose of, or recycle universal waste. If your facility is considered a universal waste handler, you must then identify which handler category applies.

Am I a small or large universal waste handler?

The universal waste program requirements for handlers differ based on the amount of universal waste accumulated:

• SQHUWs accumulate less than 5,000 kilograms of all types of universal waste at any one time.
• LQHUWs accumulate 5,000 kilograms or more of all types of universal waste at any one time.

If your facility qualifies as an LQHUW during the calendar year, it keeps this status through the end of the calendar year. You can reevaluate the status in the next calendar year.

Now that you know which category applies to your facility, let’s take a look at the requirements for each kind of universal waste handler.

Small vs. large handler regulations

Many of the same rules apply to all universal waste handlers. Both SQHUWs and LQHUWs must:

• Label or mark properly each universal waste or its container,
• Manage universal waste in ways that prevent environmental releases of the waste or its components — though the requirements differ for small and large handlers (see table below),
• Accumulate universal waste for no more than one year (unless solely for accumulating quantities of universal waste as necessary to facilitate proper recovery, treatment, or disposal),
• Respond immediately to and correctly manage any environmental releases of universal waste,
• Comply with export requirements for foreign shipments, and
• Comply with any applicable U.S. Department of Transportation hazardous materials requirements.

However, large handlers have requirements that extend beyond those of small handlers. The table below summarizes the differences.

Dos and don’ts for universal waste handlers

Universal waste handlers may:

• Send or take universal waste to another universal waste handler, a destination facility, or a foreign destination;
• Ship universal waste off-site without manifests; and
• Omit counting universal waste toward a generator category (i.e., very small quantity, small quantity, or large quantity generator) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

Universal waste handlers may not:

• Dispose of universal waste, or
• Dilute or treat universal waste.

Check state requirements

The most important tip for all universal waste handlers is to check the state regulations.

States don’t have to cover all federally designated universal wastes, and they can impose stricter management standards (except on batteries). Wisconsin’s universal waste management program, for example, doesn’t cover aerosol cans.

On the other hand, states can add materials covered by their universal waste management programs. Texas designates paint and paint-related waste as universal waste, and California includes solar panels in its universal waste program.

Key to remember: EPA’s universal waste program requirements differ for small and large quantity handlers. Facilities determine which rules apply based on the amount of universal waste they accumulate.

Newly added or updated TRI chemicals

The TRI list changes more often than many people realize. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regularly updates it and recently added new per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and even a full diisononyl phthalate (DINP) chemical category. When facilities don’t review these updates each year, they may keep using materials that now contain reportable chemicals without realizing it. For example, PFAS were expanded for Reporting Years 2024 and 2025, and the DINP category was added in 2023. These changes mean that everyday items like coatings, lubricants, and flexible plastics can suddenly trigger TRI thresholds.

“Otherwise used” chemicals

Not every reportable chemical is manufactured or processed. Many are simply “otherwise used,” including solvents, degreasers, cleaners, and maintenance chemicals. Facilities often overlook these because they aren’t part of the product mix, but they can add up fast. Even common shop chemicals, when used across a year, can exceed the 10,000-pound threshold and require reporting.

Coincidentally manufactured byproducts

Some chemicals are created unintentionally during normal operations. Ammonia may form during baking or heating steps, nitrates often appear in wastewater treatment, and metal compounds can be generated during welding, machining, or corrosion. These substances count as “manufactured” under TRI even if they weren’t intentionally manufactured. Examples like ammonia, nitrates, metal compounds, and diesel byproducts such as naphthalene and polycyclic aromatic compounds are regularly overlooked in TRI reporting because they’re easy to underestimate.

Impurities or additives in mixtures

Many reportable chemicals hide inside mixtures, oils, coatings, lubricants, and chemical blends. If a facility focuses only on the main ingredients, it may miss the smaller additive or impurity that’s actually subject to TRI reporting. These overlooked components can push a facility over a reporting threshold, even when the product is used in small amounts.

TRI oversights usually occur not because facilities ignore the rules but because chemicals show up in unexpected forms. Keeping an eye on updates, tracking cleaners and maintenance chemicals, monitoring byproducts, and checking mixtures closely can prevent the most common reporting mistakes.

What’s happened?

A quick look at the rule’s development shows:

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

What did the petition request?

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

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

Unjustified provision?

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

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

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

The petition goes on to contend that:

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

Other arguments in the petition

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

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

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

What does OSHA say?

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

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

Key to remember

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

What the final rule requires

The final rule sharply limits eligibility for non domiciled CDLs and Commercial Learner’s Permits (CLPs). Under the new regulation, only three immigration categories qualify:

• H 2A – Temporary agricultural workers
• H 2B – Temporary non agricultural workers
• E 2 – Treaty investors and qualifying employees

No other immigration status, regardless of employment authorization, may be used to obtain, renew, transfer, or upgrade a non domiciled CDL or CLP.

A key requirement of the rule is mandatory immigration status verification. State Driver Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) must verify a driver’s lawful status through the federal SAVE system and may not rely on Employment Authorization Documents (EADs), or pending immigration applications as proof of eligibility. If a state cannot meet these verification standards, it is required to halt issuance of all non domiciled CDLs and CLPs until compliance is achieved.

The rule also restricts the validity period of non domiciled CDLs. Licenses may not exceed one year or extend beyond the expiration date of the driver’s lawful immigration status, whichever comes first. Each renewal requires fresh verification under the same standards.

Who the rule affects

The rule directly affects foreign domiciled drivers who operate commercial motor vehicles in the United States under non resident CDLs. FMCSA estimates that approximately 190,000–200,000 drivers could lose eligibility over time due to non renewals or license revocations. Drivers previously relying on broader categories are no longer eligible under the final rule. Motor carriers are also affected. FMCSA guidance makes clear that carriers employing drivers whose licenses later become invalid face increased exposure during driver qualification audits, investigations, and enforcement actions. The rule reinforces that responsibility for compliance extends beyond the driver to the employer. Importantly, the rule does not apply to U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, or drivers licensed in Canada or Mexico who operate under existing reciprocity agreements.

Why FMCSA Implemented the Rule

FMCSA found widespread state non compliance and systemic weaknesses in the verification of foreign driving histories as the primary reasons for the rule. According to the agency, a nationwide review found that more than 30 states had issued tens of thousands of non domiciled CDLs using standards that did not meet existing federal requirements.

Safety concerns were central to the decision. FMCSA documented 17 fatal crashes in 2025 resulting in 30 deaths involving non domiciled CDL holders who would not have been eligible under the new rule. While acknowledging that these crashes represent a small fraction of overall CMV fatalities, FMCSA stated they illustrate the potential risks created when driver history, status, and qualification cannot be reliably verified.

The agency framed the rule as necessary to restore integrity, uniformity, and accountability to the CDL system while closing gaps that allowed improperly issued licenses to remain in circulation.

Key to Remember: The Non Domiciled CDL Final Rule represents a decisive shift from flexibility to strict federal oversight. It narrows eligibility, mandates verification, shortens license duration, and places renewed emphasis on carrier responsibility.

Recruiting approach

Economic uncertainty has only increased as this year has progressed. However, carriers are expected to keep recruiting channels active, but largely to replace driver attrition rather than fuel meaningful growth. Incremental hiring may occur where equipment is available, but only modestly.

Equipment plays a vital role in shaping recruiting needs. A potential uptick in used truck pricing could lead some fleets to sell excess or higher mileage units rather than attempt to seat them. Aging equipment brings higher maintenance costs and is often less attractive to drivers, making divestment a rational alternative to expansion in a soft market.

Despite margin pressure and measured hiring plans, one strategy remains unchanged: abandoning recruiting altogether is rarely a smart move. Allowing recruiting channels to go dormant makes it significantly harder to regain visibility and trust among drivers when conditions improve. This risk is amplified if freight volumes rebound quickly. Maintaining a consistent presence—at least enough to capture driver interest and inquiries—helps preserve long term competitiveness.

Technology’s role in retention and efficiency

Given current conditions, many carriers are prioritizing selective recruitment and driver retention over growing their fleet. Focusing on safe, productive drivers rather than expanding headcount is a prudent approach until economic strength proves sustainable.

Technology continues to play a key role. Camera systems, paired with effective coaching programs, are valuable tools for proactively:

• Addressing unsafe behaviors,
• Preventing crashes, and
• Keeping experienced drivers productive and engaged.

Typically during slower cycles, carriers also have an opportunity to improve overall driver quality. Retaining drivers who are unwilling or unable to meet safety expectations ultimately raises risk and costs. Where feasible, carriers are better served by replacing those drivers with individuals who have stronger safety records and align with their values.

Increased use of AI in back office functions—such as routing, fuel optimization, and maintenance planning—may create efficiency gains or reduce overhead. However, investing in roles that directly support drivers remains essential. At its core, driver retention is still about relationships, trust, and consistent communication.

If the economy accelerates

If the economy strengthens rapidly, driver recruiting will become intensely competitive. The impact of non domiciled commercial driver's license (CDL) revocations will be felt as carriers attempt to scale to meet surging demand. In that environment, driver pay would likely climb sharply—potentially echoing the increases seen during the 2021 freight surge—unless carriers choose to lower hiring standards.

Relaxing safety standards and hiring criteria is not a sustainable solution and introduces long term risk. Carriers that hold firm on safety will face tighter labor markets but be better positioned over time.

Private fleets are likely to emerge as relative winners in a tight market. Many will feel pressure to expand to protect their supply chains rather than rely on brokered capacity. With pay premiums, superior schedules, and robust benefits already in place, private fleets are especially attractive to experienced and aging drivers planning their final years before retirement.

Key to remember: 2026 promises to be a dynamic year. To stay ready for a rebound, keep recruiting and performance management programs focused on driver quality and safety.

No DACH account

The annual list of DOT audit violations consistently shows failure to register with the DACH as a top 10 citation.

Some violations result from misunderstanding who needs an account. Motor carriers subject to 49 CFR Part 382 must register. It’s not optional. Without this account, motor carriers are unable to access the portal to request and report data.

Failing to request queries

Each year, the DOT cites carriers that fail to request pre-employment and/or annual DACH queries. The two citations regularly appear in the top 10 audit violations.

Queries are vital to learn whether a driver is prohibited from operating your commercial motor vehicle (CMV) due to an unresolved DOT drug and/or alcohol violation. These same queries also provide details on completed return-to-duty and follow-up programs.

Without this information, you can’t be sure who is operating your CMV.

Not reporting data

The DACH is only as accurate as the data provided. If responsible parties fail to report specific information, a driver’s record isn’t accurate when an employer or enforcement official looks it up.

The medical review officer (MRO) reports on failed drug tests and certain refusal-to-test scenarios.

Employers (or C/TPAs) report items that the MRO doesn’t, including:

• Alcohol tests .04 BAC or greater;
• Refusals to take a required drug or alcohol test where the company makes the determination;
• Negative return-to-duty tests; and
• Completed follow-up testing programs.

Substance abuse professionals (SAPs) record completed evaluations and treatment on the driver’s record.

If the information isn’t provided or is provided late, unqualified drivers may be behind the wheel. Or those who have been rehabilitated may appear unqualified.

Not understanding query results

It’s important to notice all the details in the DACH driver report. When a limited query result shows a driver has a DOT testing violation, the carrier must request a full query. A limited query only shows whether the driver has a record of a previous violation. The full query shows details.

There are key data elements to check on a full query result. When examining a full query, the first step is to check the driver’s status: prohibited or not prohibited.

If prohibited, do you see:

• An SAP initial evaluation?
• A second SAP evaluation indicating eligibility for a return-to-duty test?

These details let you know whether the SAP program was started.

If not prohibited, the query results show:

• The SAP evaluation entries,
• An employer’s entry of a negative return-to-duty test, and
• The follow-up testing program status.

If the follow-up testing shows:

• Completed, a former employer entered this milestone. No additional actions are required of current or future employers regarding this violation.
• Incomplete, the driver is still subject to remaining follow-up tests.

If this is a new hire with a not prohibited status and an incomplete follow-up testing program, the new employer must contact the former employer(s) for details on the follow-up testing.

If the driver is prohibited, their CDL has been or is about to be downgraded. This must be reinstated prior to operating CMVs again

Misunderstanding non-CDL CMV implications

A CDL or CLP holder who is in a prohibited status will have the DACH flagged on their driving record. Even though the state only downgrades the commercial class license, there’s another ramification.

The regulations (382.501(c)) prevent the driver from operating any CMV, including a CMV as defined in 390.5. This general definition includes both CDL and non-CDL CMV types. As a result, the driver is unable to operate a non-CDL CMV in interstate commerce until the DACH status changes to not prohibited or the driver voluntarily surrenders their CDL.

Key to remember: The DACH may seem more administrative than safety-related to some. But failure to follow through with the required recordkeeping could result in an impaired driver operating your vehicle.

The cost of compliance

Fees range greatly from state to state, permit to permit, and can even vary based on load and trip specific details: such as length of time the permit is needed for, or the size and weight of the load. Some permits will be a flat fee for a single day trip, while others may be calculated as an amount per mile or weight.

But what happens when you don’t obtain the permit and do it anyway? Let’s consider some of the often overlooked financial, operational, and safety risks of non-compliance.

The cost of noncompliance

There are many consequences carriers may face when they operate without proper permits, with some being more obvious than others.

• Immediate financial penalties. Operating without the proper authority can result in fines of up to thousands of dollars per violation. These penalties vary by state or jurisdiction, and by type of violation.
• Impoundment and delays. Law enforcement may not simply issue a fine and allow your driver to continue with their delivery. Instead, they may re-route your driver or impound equipment and/or freight in addition to issuing that fine. So now, you have a fine to pay and a delay in operations which will likely ripple on from this job to the next.
• Increased operational costs. With delays come increased operational costs. This can come in the form of additional fuel costs, lodging for your driver, and even potential equipment or freight damage from the extended drive time or impoundment.
• Damage to safety scores and compliance records. Failure to comply with the regulations can result in a higher Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) safety rating. This may lead to increased inspection rates, higher insurance premiums, an elevated risk of audit, and damaged reputation.
• Legal and liability exposure. In the event of an accident, you want to be in the most defensible position. If your driver was hauling an improperly permitted load, it shows the judge and jury that you don’t take the rules seriously, and if you aren’t compliant here, they may begin to wonder, “Where else are you slacking?”

The ROI of compliance

Operating without proper permits can lead to violations, ultimately meaning that the cost of non-compliance is far greater than that of the permit.

Additionally, the benefits of compliance go beyond the initial financial burden, as proper permitting improves efficiency, safety scores, and customer satisfaction – all of which help your business to grow and thrive over time.

Combustible dust

The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) released a new video examining a fatal combustible dust explosion/fire. Five employees at a Wisconsin corn mill were killed and 14 others were injured. Board Member Sylvia Johnson states, “The CSB has been calling for a comprehensive [OSHA] standard on combustible dust for many years to help prevent tragic, deadly incidents like [this] one … from continuing to occur. Robust regulation is absolutely essential to keep these incidents from happening in the future.”

First aid and eye, face, and head protection

Nine safety organizations petitioned OSHA urging the agency to adopt more modern consensus standards. Those standards include:

• ANSI/ISEA Z308.1-2026, -2019, and -2014 — American National Standard for Minimum Requirements for Workplace First Aid Kits and Supplies;
• ANSI/ISEA Z87.1-2025, -2020, and -2015 — American National Standard for Occupational and Educational Personal Eye and Face Protection Devices; and
• ANSI/ISEA Z89.1-2026, -2019, and -2014 — American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection.

The petition argues that the suggested updates to 29 CFR 1910 would not add compliance costs. Rather, the changes would offer employers greater choices in first aid kits and personal protective equipment, while improving safety, the organizations contend.

Workplace violence

A recent report from the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General states that OSHA could “enhance its efforts to address workplace violence, which may include taking regulatory action.” OSHA currently uses the General Duty Clause (not a regulation) for enforcement of work violence hazards.

The Inspector General says it will audit the effectiveness of the General Duty Clause in OSHA’s enforcement of workplace violence. The latest Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data show that 9.3 percent of all work fatalities in 2024 were attributed to homicide.

A Workplace Violence in Healthcare and Social Assistance proposed rule is on OSHA’s long-term agenda.

Musculoskeletal disorders, heat, and more

Federal lawmakers are moving to force OSHA to issue regulatory rulemaking to protect American workers. The House and Senate have ten bills on the table so far. Topics addressed by these Congressional bills include musculoskeletal disorders, heat stress, infectious diseases, wildfire smoke, and workplace violence. See our previous article, “9 OSHA bills to mandate gap-closing rules, wider coverage, steeper fines,” dated February 3, 2026. One bill was added after the issuance of that article.

Healthcare, transportation, warehousing, retail, and manufacturing injuries/illnesses

According to a new OSHA report, four industries, together, reported over 85 percent of all the injury and illness incidents tallied in data submitted under 29 CFR 1904.41 for 2024. Those included:

• Healthcare and social assistance,
• Transportation and warehousing,
• Retail trade, and
• Manufacturing.

The “2024 Annual Report: Work-related Injuries and Illnesses” also put a spotlight on three safety and health topics:

• Robotics in the manufacturing sector,
• Meat processing industry, and
• Young workers.

Transportation incidents

Transportation incidents continued to be the most frequent type of fatal event, per BLS data posted last month. These incidents accounted for 38.2 percent of all work fatalities in 2024. This is an uptick from the 36.8 percent reported in 2023. The good news is roadway incidents involving motorized land vehicles dropped 8.5 percent. The figure plummeted to 1,146 in 2024 from 1,252 in 2023. Roadway incidents still made up over one-in-five fatal work incidents in 2024.

In mid-January last year, OSHA said it wanted employers to “make safety a core principle by integrating safe driving and transportation practices into their businesses' safety and health management systems.” The idea was to foster a culture of safety and preventive practices to protect workers on the nation's roads. The statement was part of a joint initiative with the National Safety Council and the Road to Zero Coalition. The agency pointed to its Motor Vehicle Safety webpage.

While transportation incidents persist as the number one source of work fatalities, the 2025 BLS data, which should be issued in December 2026, may reveal whether OSHA’s joint-initiative efforts are making a dent.

Key to remember

Several forces are nudging OSHA to address a number of workplace hazards and high-hazard industries. Each points to a different safety and health concern, competing for OSHA’s bandwidth.

Concurrency

Many of the state laws allow the time off to run concurrently with FMLA leave, when:

• The employer is covered by both,
• The employee meets the eligibility criteria for both, and
• The reason qualifies for both.

When the leave runs concurrently, employers have to comply with both laws. A state law could have specific employer requirements, and employers have to meet them. That could involve giving employees certain information. The Colorado Family and Medical Leave Insurance (FAMLI), for example, requires employers to not only post the program notice in a prominent location, but it also requires employers to give employees written notice of the program upon hiring and when learning of an employee experiencing an event that triggers the employee’s eligibility.

Under the FMLA, when employees put the employer on notice of the need for leave, employers must give the employee an eligibility/rights & responsibilities notice within five business days. Once employers have enough information to determine if the absence qualifies for FMLA protections (such as from a certification), employers have five business days to give the employee a designation notice.

Employers can't overlook those FMLA steps, even if they seem redundant with state requirements.

Risks

If employers fail to designate an absence as FMLA leave, they may retroactively designate it only if doing so doesn’t cause harm or injury to the employee. If so, employers can’t retroactively designate it, which could result in the employee having more than the 12 weeks of FMLA leave.

Employers that don’t comply with the FMLA’s notice requirements can risk fines and penalties, even if the employers gave the employee the 12 workweeks of leave and the employee suffered no actual harm.

Therefore, overlooking the FMLA would not only risk violations but would also add another layer of unnecessary complexity.

Key to remember: Employers need to remember to comply with the federal FMLA’s requirements in addition to a state’s requirements.

Big hit poster checklist

Be a posting compliance most valuable player (MVP) by ensuring that:

All January 1 changes have been posted.

This year, January posting updates occurred in these states:

• Arizona: Minimum Wage
• California: Minimum Wage, Paid Sick Leave (Healthy Workplace)
• Colorado: Minimum Wage, FAMLI
• Connecticut: Minimum Wage, Paid Sick Leave
• District of Columbia: Paid Family Leave, Time Off to Vote
• Illinois: VESSA, Your Rights Under Illinois Employment Laws
• Maine: Minimum Wage
• Massachusetts: Paid Family and Medical Leave
• Minnesota: Minimum Wage
• Missouri: Minimum Wage
• Montana: Minimum Wage
• New Jersey: Minimum Wage
• New York: Minimum Wage
• Ohio: Minimum Wage
• Pennsylvania: Veteran Benefits and Services
• Rhode Island: Minimum Wage
• South Dakota: Minimum Wage
• Tennessee: Discrimination
• Vermont: Minimum Wage
• Virginia: Minimum Wage
• Washington: Minimum Wage, Paid Family Leave

All changes listed were mandatory, and an updated posting is required, except for the minimum wage updates in Montana, South Dakota, and Washington. A new minimum wage took effect in these states, and a new poster was released, but posting isn’t needed under the law (although it is a good idea).

In addition, if you’re in Minnesota, you have a bonus change to be aware of. The Workers’ Compensation posting was updated in late January, and employers should have the January 2026 version on the wall

You’re watching for promised federal posting changes.

Two federal posting updates are on the way:

• The Executive Order 13658 minimum wage will increase to $13.65 per hour on May 11, and covered federal contractors will need to display a new Employee Rights Under Executive Order 13658 poster after the Department of Labor makes it available. The new rate (and updated poster) apply to contractors with federal contracts entered into between January 1, 2015, and January 29, 2022.

• The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) indicates that the Know Your Rights: Workplace Discrimination is Illegal posting is being revised to bring its wording in line with an executive order released in January 2025. The agency has not provided a timeline for the update, but the posting website continues to indicate that it is on the way.

You’re ready for mid-year updates.

Some annual minimum wage changes take effect in July, and a few additional posting updates take effect at this time of the year as well. Be ready to update these posters in July:

• Alaska: Minimum Wage
• District of Columbia: Minimum Wage, Time Off to Vote
• Louisiana: EITC
• Nebraska: Minimum Wage
• Nevada: Minimum Wage
• Oregon: Minimum Wage

All posters are properly displayed.

Posters must be displayed in a conspicuous location where they’re readily visible to employees. If you have a new location, or if your business has been remodeled recently, make sure that labor law posters are on display as needed.

If you have employees who work remotely, electronic posters are a great way to make them aware of their rights.

Key to remember: You can round the bases with a posting compliance grand slam this spring by making sure updated posters are properly displayed, and you’re ready for the next series of updates.

The case

After several years of employment, the employee who had signed both the application and the agreement filed a lawsuit against the employer alleging breach of contract. The employer claimed the employee missed the deadline to file the lawsuit under the 6-month time limit in the job application.

The trial court rejected this argument and ruled in favor of the employee. The court ruled that because the employment agreement said it was the final agreement, the employer couldn’t use the deadline found in the earlier job application.

The employer appealed, arguing that the application and employment agreement should be read together because they were both signed during the onboarding process. The employer also argued that the limitations provision in the application should apply because it didn’t conflict with the employment agreement. The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected both arguments.

The Court of Appeals explained that when an employment agreement includes a clear and unambiguous integration clause, prior documents can’t be read together with the agreement or used to supplement its terms. An integration clause is simply a statement in a contract that the agreement is final and complete. The court noted that the employment agreement’s silence on a shortened limitations period didn’t allow the employer to rely on the application.

Because the agreement specifically barred modification or supplementation, any additional terms needed to be included directly in the agreement itself.

A lesson for employers

While this was a Michigan case, the Mayberry decision serves as an important reminder to all employers about the need to draft employment documents carefully and make sure those documents are consistent.

If language in an employment agreement says the agreement is final and can only be changed in writing, it’s important to make sure everything an employer wants to include is included in that agreement. Employers shouldn’t count on language in job applications or other earlier documents being valid later.

Key to remember: Courts will hold employers to the exact wording of their employment agreements. If an important term is left out of the final agreement, a court may ignore it — even if it appeared in paperwork that the employee signed earlier, such as an application.

Compliance is the starting line, not the finish

OSHA outlines the minimum expectations for workplace evacuation readiness under 29 CFR Subpart E (Exit Routes and Emergency Planning). These requirements include written emergency action plans, clear exit routes, functional alarms and emergency lighting, and a method for accounting for employees after evacuation. Meeting these requirements is necessary, but it is only the baseline.

True preparedness goes beyond documentation. It requires validating that people, processes, and systems work together under realistic conditions.

Predictability can hide risk

Many times, drills are announced well in advance. Employees are reminded to review evacuation routes, supervisors prepare for headcounts, and operations adjust accordingly. While this approach reduces disruption, it also reduces realism. When people know a drill is coming, their reactions are calm, deliberate, and rehearsed.

In an actual emergency, there is no warning. The alarm is unexpected, information is incomplete, and reactions are instinctive. People hesitate, look at others for cues, question whether the alarm is real, or try to finish what they’re doing before leaving. Stress and uncertainty change how decisions are made, often slowing response time in ways that a scheduled drill never reveals.

Combat this challenge by providing a time window for drills rather than a fixed date. This allows organizations to observe more authentic responses while still managing operational needs.

People don’t stay in one place

Traditional drills often assume employees are at their assigned workstations. In reality, people move throughout the day; they may be in restrooms, break areas, offices, and other departments. A strong evacuation program tests whether employees know how to respond from wherever they are, not just from where training materials or maps say they should be.

Do employees recognize the nearest exit in unfamiliar areas? Do they know alternate routes? These questions only get answered when drills reflect true movement patterns.

Behavior matters as much as results

One of the most valuable aspects of a drill is observing behavior. Do employees evacuate immediately, or do they hesitate? Do they treat the alarm seriously or assume it’s “just a drill?” Small delays such as grabbing personal items, finishing a task, stopping at the restroom, or chatting with a friend, can have serious consequences in a real emergency.

Drills should reinforce instinctive action. The goal is to build muscle memory so that when an alarm sounds, the response is immediate and automatic.

Accountability isn’t always simple

Accounting for employees after an evacuation is critical, but drills should test more than ideal scenarios. What happens if someone can’t reach their designated assembly area? What if supervisors are absent or teams are split?

Effective drills challenge accountability processes and ensure they are flexible enough to handle real world fluctuations.

Test the entire system

Evacuation drills are also one of the best opportunities to test emergency systems under live conditions. Alarms, emergency lighting, exit signage, and exit doors may appear functional during inspections but fail during use.

Having designated observers during drills allows organizations to verify:

• Alarms are audible over workplace noise,
• Emergency lighting activates properly,
• Exit routes are clear and free of bottlenecks, and
• Exit doors function as intended.

Many organizations discover equipment failures during drills, issues that might otherwise go unnoticed until an actual emergency occurs.

The real value comes after the drill

The most important part of an evacuation drill happens afterward. Organizations that gain the most value collect observations from multiple perspectives, document findings, and identify specific improvement actions.

Common findings include evacuation delays, exit congestion, alarm audibility issues, and gaps in training or supervision. These insights should drive follow up and meaningful changes to continuously improve the organization’s overall emergency evacuation response.

Key to remember: When leaders shift their mindset from “running a drill” to testing actual readiness, evacuation exercises become powerful tools for protecting people, strengthening systems, and building a culture of safety that performs when it matters most.

Electrical safety and control measures

Electrical hazards affect more than just electricians. In fact, 74 percent of workplace electrical fatalities occur in non-electrical occupations, including tree trimming, HVAC, roofing, and painting. Many employees may not be trained to perform electrical work. That means they may not recognize electrical hazards.

An OSHA toolbox talk (OSHA 4496) outlines how to prevent injury when using electrical equipment. Specifically, it suggests that you employ the hierarchy of controls: elimination/substitution, engineering controls, administrative controls, personal protective equipment, and work practices.

Extension cords: 5 things to know

OSHA’s requirements for flexible cords and cables, at 29 CFR 1910.305(g), were cited nearly 1,300 times last fiscal year, according to OSHA enforcement data. A new publication (OSHA 4495) explains the top five things you and your employees should know about using extension cords safely.

Grain safety poster

Suffocation and falls are the two leading causes of death at grain handling facilities. Other hazards include fire, explosions, electrocution, and injuries from improperly guarded machinery. Exposures to grain dust and associated airborne contaminants can also occur. Such contaminants might include molds, chemical fumigants, and gases from decaying and/or fermenting sileage.

Each year, OSHA partners with several organizations to sponsor Stand Up 4 Grain Safety Week. The event takes place March 30 to April 3 this year. A printable poster (OSHA 3967) highlights the event and lists seven steps to grain safety.

Silica hazards in countertop work

OSHA and NIOSH have identified exposure to silica as a serious health hazard to workers. These workers might be involved in manufacturing, finishing, and installing natural and engineered stone countertop products. However, the respirable crystalline silica hazard can be mitigated in most countertop operations with dust control methods. These are spelled out in OSHA’s silica standards for general industry (29 CFR 1910.1053) and construction (29 CFR 1926.1153).

An OSHA/NIOSH Hazard Alert (OSHA 3768) explains silica hazards in the stone countertop industry, why it’s a concern, how to protect workers and control exposure, and more.

Responding to OSHA inquiries on complaints and referrals

A call from OSHA asking about alleged hazards reported in a complaint or referral can be stressful. Knowing what’s involved can help you prepare. The agency says it will work with you to address the matter through a timely and adequate response. According to OSHA, if the issues are resolved through this process, an onsite inspection is generally not conducted.

A fact sheet (OSHA 4498) for small employers outlines the inquiry process from initial contact to resolution, tells you what happens at each step, and provides best practices for a safe and successful outcome.

Key to remember: Several new OSHA publications provide guidance and information on a variety of topics, from electrical safety to the OSHA inquiry process.

Letters of Interpretation

As clarified in an OSHA Letter of Interpretation (LOI) dated October 18, 1995, “When any part of the body of an entrant breaks the plane of the opening of a PRCS large enough to allow full entry, entry is considered to have occurred and a permit is required, regardless of whether there is an intent to fully enter the space.”

This definition of “entry” might seem to be too strict. Still, OSHA’s letter clarifies that there are situations where a partial entry would be hazardous: “Examples of situations where entry by only part of the body into a PRCS can expose an entrant to the possibility of injury or illness are as follows:

1. An entrant can possibly suffer a burn while reaching into a PRCS, which is so classified because it contains a thermal hazard.
2. An entrant can possibly fall into a below-grade PRCS while standing on a vertical ladder in the opening of the space, which is so classified because it contains an oxygen-deficient atmosphere.
3. An entrant can possibly become unconscious as result of his head accidentally entering a PRCS while they are reaching into a PRCS, which is so classified because it contains an oxygen deficient atmosphere.”

As another example, if the space contains a flammable or oxygen-enriched atmosphere, and if the activities during a partial entry could produce a spark or other ignition source, then a fire in the space could flash out of the opening and cause serious injuries to the employee.

OSHA’s guidance continues

This doesn’t necessarily mean you’d be fined if a permit wasn’t followed when someone reached a tank. OSHA’s guidance continues: “However, if entry by only part of the body does not expose the entrant to the possibility of injury or illness, then the violation may be considered a ‘de minimis’ violation.”

A de minimis violation is one in which a standard is violated, but the violation has no direct or immediate relationship to employee safety or health. These violations are documented but no citations are issued.

OSHA says examples of situations where entry by only part of the body into a PRCS would not expose an entrant to the possibility of injury or illness are as follows:

1. An entrant reaches through the opening of a horizontal PRCS, which is so classified only because it contains exposed live electrical parts ten feet from the opening.
2. An entrant puts his head through the opening of an overhead PRCS, which is so classified only because it contains unguarded rotating parts ten feet from the opening.

Also, consider a situation such as a worker reaching through a small grate to take a sample from a permitted space. The LOI further states, “If a part of the body were placed in an opening through which the worker could not pass into the permit-required confined space, no PRCS entry will have occurred.”

Keep in mind, however, that the employee would still need protection from any hazards involved in the task, but a permit would not be needed.

Key to remember

When any part of the body of an entrant breaks the plane of the opening of a PRCS large enough to allow full entry, entry is considered to have occurred, and a permit is required.

Other exit signage requirements to consider

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

Additional requirements for office exits require they:

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

Key to remember

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

Contemporaneous defined

OSHA does not define “contemporaneous” in the regulations, but offered clarification in a letter of interpretation (LOI) dated May 15, 2007. The evaluations must be conducted when the signs or symptoms are in the same stage of development, same degree of severity, and the condition is evaluated in similar context.

Opinions obtained on the same day would be contemporaneous. Acceptable time delays may differ depending on circumstances, including the type and severity of the condition. For instance, if the employee’s condition either improved or worsened between examinations, the condition would not be evaluated at the same stage.

An employer presented a scenario in an LOI dated September 24, 2010. An employee fell from a chair, went to the emergency room, and was given restrictions that did not affect his duties. Ten days later, the employee visited an occupational clinic and was released to full duty. Finally, after another four days (14 days after the initial ER visit), the employee visited a chiropractor who recommended days away. The employer wanted to consider the initial opinions as more “authoritative” to avoid recording days away. However, OSHA noted that the opinions were not contemporaneous so the question of authority was moot. The employer had to record the case. The employee’s injury might have worsened due to activities outside work, but since the condition started at work, OSHA considers it work-related.

In another LOI dated February 25, 2011, OSHA offered additional considerations regarding “contemporaneous” opinions to include:

• Whether the examination was in person (reviewing documents is not sufficient);
• Whether the examinations were done on the same day;
• Whether the employee was subjected to additional events or exposures between the examinations; and
• Whether medical treatment, restricted work activity, or days away occurred between the examinations.

Authoritative defined

The regulation at 1904.6(b)(3) defines “authoritative” as the “best documented, best reasoned, or most authoritative.” The 2010 LOI mentioned previously clarifies that the most authoritative opinion is “the best documented, the best reasoned, or the most persuasive.”

OSHA allows employers to make that determination. In fact, the preamble published in 2001 says, “the rule requires the employer to rely on the one judged by the employer to be most authoritative.” Also, a frequently asked question in OSHA’s Recordkeeping Policies and Procedures Manual (CPL 02-00-135) states, “the employer may determine which recommendation is the most authoritative and record on that basis.”

So, if an injured employee gets a recommendation for medical treatment, restrictions, or days away, but the employer obtains a contemporaneous opinion contradicting that recommendation and the second opinion is more authoritative, the employer may follow the second opinion. However, once medical treatment is provided, the employer must record the case. A subsequent recommendation cannot “undo” a recommendation that was already followed or implemented.

Key to remember: Employers can record cases based on second opinions if the evaluation was both contemporaneous and more authoritative.