HR Monthly Round Up - July 2026

The EPA definition: “RCRA empty” explained

Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), a container that once held hazardous waste is only legally “empty” if it meets particular criteria outlined in 40 CFR 261.7. The first standard that must be satisfied is that all material has been removed from the container using normal means such as pouring, pumping, or aspirating. Secondly, no more than 2.5 centimeters or 1 inch of residue remains on the container's bottom or inner lining. Additionally, if the container holds less than 110 gallons, it is “empty” if no more than 3% of the total weight or volume exists. Of course, sometimes special circumstances require further evaluation. For example, a gas cylinder is not “empty” until the pressure has reduced to atmospheric levels, and acute hazardous waste containers must be triple rinsed with an appropriate solvent or cleaned by another approved method. If these conditions are not met, the container is still legally considered to contain hazardous waste, even if it feels empty.

The OSHA definition: “Empty” under the Hazard Communication Standard

While the EPA focuses on environmental disposal and waste management, OSHA’s concern with empty containers centers on worker safety—particularly the potential for exposure to hazardous residues or vapors. Under OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200), a container that previously contained hazardous chemicals must retain its original hazard label until it is adequately cleaned or until the employer removes the label following proper decontamination procedures. For example, a drum labeled “Flammable” must keep this label even if it appears empty, as residual material or vapors may still pose a significant ignition or fire risk. Removing such labels prematurely could lead to workplace hazards and violations of OSHA regulations.

How to stay compliant

Employers must first clearly determine which rules apply to them: whether the container held hazardous materials governed by EPA regulations, hazardous chemicals subject to OSHA requirements, or both. Emptying procedures should be followed, including properly draining the container, performing triple-rinsing when required, and thoroughly documenting all decontamination activities.  Original hazard labels must be maintained on containers until they are thoroughly cleaned or reconditioned, as removing labels prematurely violates OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard. Additionally, employers should provide employees with training on the proper handling, labeling, and disposal of containers and ensure they fully understand what constitutes an ‘empty’ container under federal standards. Finally, a detailed record of all rinsing, draining, and cleaning processes should be maintained to demonstrate compliance during EPA or state inspections.

Keys to remember: Employers should educate their teams, enforce proper cleaning procedures, and maintain compliance records to ensure they are staying compliant with “empty” container standards.

Local governments play an important environmental role

Environmental compliance isn’t handled solely by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state environmental agencies. Counties, municipalities, sewer authorities, and local stormwater programs often regulate activities that directly affect water quality, public infrastructure, and community health.

For example, local governments commonly regulate:

• Stormwater discharges
• Erosion and sediment control
• Industrial wastewater discharges to sewer systems
• Hazardous material storage
• Spill prevention requirements
• Fire code and emergency planning requirements
• Local environmental permits and inspections

Many municipalities adopt ordinances that supplement state regulations and give local officials authority to inspect facilities, issue notices of violation, and assess penalties.

Industrial wastewater: Local sewer authorities have enforcement power

Industrial wastewater is one of the most common areas where facilities encounter local environmental requirements. Companies that discharge wastewater to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) are often regulated by a municipal sewer authority rather than directly through an NPDES permit.

Local sewer authorities may issue discharge permits, establish local limits, require monitoring and reporting, conduct inspections, and enforce violations through penalties or corrective actions. Facilities can face enforcement for unauthorized discharges, exceedances, or reporting failures even when no state inspection has occurred.

Stormwater compliance often includes local requirements

Stormwater compliance frequently extends beyond state permit requirements. Many counties and municipalities operate under Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permits and have adopted ordinances that regulate activities affecting stormwater quality.

Local rules commonly address outdoor material storage, drainage system maintenance, erosion controls, illicit discharges, stormwater infrastructure inspections, and construction activities. A facility may comply with its industrial stormwater permit but still violate local requirements if it fails to maintain drainage systems, creates unauthorized storm sewer connections, or performs regulated site work without local approval.

Hazardous waste compliance may involve local agencies

While hazardous waste requirements are primarily federal and state responsibilities, local agencies often regulate related operational activities. These requirements may include hazardous material storage permits, fire code compliance, spill prevention measures, emergency response planning, zoning approvals, and inspections by fire marshals or emergency management officials.

Local inspectors often identify storage, containment, labeling, or emergency planning deficiencies before state environmental agencies conduct inspections. Addressing these requirements helps reduce enforcement risk and improve overall compliance performance.

A multilevel compliance strategy is essential

A strong environmental compliance program considers federal, state, county, and municipal requirements. Before expanding operations, constructing facilities, modifying wastewater systems, or changing stormwater infrastructure, companies should evaluate applicable local ordinances and permit obligations.

Regular communication with sewer authorities, stormwater programs, fire departments, and planning agencies can help identify local requirements early, avoid costly project delays, and reduce the risk of enforcement actions. Ignoring local obligations can create compliance gaps even when a facility meets federal and state environmental requirements.

Why was the standard updated?

When ISO published 14001:2015, many organizations focused primarily on regulatory compliance. While compliance remains a core component of an EMS, environmental managers today face a broader range of issues. Climate impacts, resource availability, supply chain disruptions, and stakeholder expectations can all affect environmental planning and performance. Rather than creating an entirely new framework, the 2026 version largely builds on concepts that already existed in the 2015 edition while expanding and clarifying expectations.

Environmental context receives greater attention

A major theme of the revision is a stronger focus on organizational context. Organizations are expected to look beyond day-to-day compliance activities when identifying environmental risks and opportunities.

The revised standard emphasizes consideration of environmental conditions that may affect the EMS, including climate-related concerns, biodiversity, ecosystem impacts, and natural resource availability. Organizations are expected to evaluate how external issues and stakeholder expectations may influence environmental objectives and planning.

For environmental managers, this may mean expanding annual EMS reviews to evaluate emerging environmental issues that could affect operations, compliance obligations, permit conditions, or environmental objectives.

Change management moves into the spotlight

The revised standard also introduces a more structured approach to managing change. Many organizations already evaluate environmental impacts when making operational changes, but those reviews are often informal.

ISO 14001:2026 expects organizations to plan, manage, and evaluate changes that may affect environmental performance. Examples include:

• Installing new equipment,
• Expanding production capacity,
• Changing raw materials,
• Modifying waste management practices,
• Switching suppliers, or
• Adding new products or processes.

This requirement should sound familiar to many environmental professionals. Operational changes can affect air emissions, waste generation, wastewater discharges, stormwater exposure, and permit applicability. A structured review process can help identify environmental impacts before changes are implemented.

Lifecycle thinking and supply chains gain importance

Lifecycle thinking was already part of ISO 14001:2015, but the revised standard places greater emphasis on it. Organizations are expected to consider environmental impacts throughout the lifecycle of products and services, including activities involving suppliers, contractors, and externally provided products and services.

This requirement does not mean organizations are responsible for every environmental impact within their supply chain. Rather, it encourages organizations to understand how purchasing decisions, outsourced activities, and supplier relationships may affect environmental performance.

For some organizations, this could mean greater emphasis on supplier evaluations, procurement procedures, contractor oversight, or product stewardship initiatives.

Leadership involvement becomes more visible

ISO 14001:2026 also strengthens expectations related to leadership accountability. Environmental management is no longer viewed solely as the responsibility of the environmental department.

The revised standard emphasizes visible leadership involvement and broader organizational participation. Environmental responsibilities may extend beyond EHS personnel to departments such as operations, purchasing, engineering, and management. Organizations will need to demonstrate that leadership is actively engaged in environmental planning, resource allocation, and performance evaluation activities.

What should organizations do now?

Although organizations have time to prepare for the transition, environmental managers may want to begin evaluating their programs now. Early reviews can help identify gaps and reduce the likelihood of surprises during future audits.

Questions organizations may want to consider include:

• Does the EMS adequately address climate, resources, and other emerging environmental issues?
• Is there a documented process for evaluating environmental impacts before operational changes are made?
• Are lifecycle considerations incorporated into purchasing and contractor management activities?
• Can leadership involvement be demonstrated through documented actions and decisions?
• Do environmental objectives show measurable performance improvements?

While ISO 14001:2026 is an evolution of the existing standard rather than a complete overhaul, organizations should not assume existing EMS procedures will meet the revised expectations. Environmental managers may want to review how their systems address organizational context, change management, lifecycle considerations, and leadership involvement before their next audit.

Key to remember: For environmental professionals, the revised standard provides an opportunity to strengthen that connection and demonstrate the value that effective environmental management brings to the organization.

What happened?

According to the Washington state Fatality Assessment & Control Evaluation (FACE) report number 71-275-2026, a technician was assigned in September 2023 to unload a liquefied natural gas (LNG) trailer parked at a transfer station. The semi-trailer was operated by a contract carrier, whose driver had made several deliveries prior to that day.

The technician hooked up the transfer hose and began the LNG offload from the trailer. While the transfer hose was still connected and the transfer was underway, the truck driver drove ahead several feet. This pulled the hose connection apart, releasing LNG that quickly created a vapor cloud.

Realizing what happened, the driver climbed down from the truck cab and headed for the emergency shutoff located at the back of the trailer. However, the vapor reached an ignition source, resulting in an explosion and fire.

The driver escaped to a neighboring field. The technician, on the other hand, suffered severe burns but managed to reach a muster point. Another worker at the station called 911. Then, first responders took control of the scene and transported the technician and driver to a hospital. The technician later died of his injuries, while the driver survived with minor burns.

Contributing factors

According to investigators, several factors may have contributed to the fatal event:

• Wheel chocks were not used to hold the trailer in place while the offloading occurred.
• The driver received paperwork from the technician and assumed that meant the transfer was done.
• Prior to moving the truck, the driver did not perform a pre-trip inspection.
• A variety of ignition sources were present in the area.

Related requirements

The Washington state administrative code WAC 296-800-11005 (or General Duty Clause) is referenced in the FACE report. However, at the federal level, employers would instead consider Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. That section specifies, “Each employer … shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.”

The investigation further points to portions of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 59A, Standard for the Production, Storage, and Handling of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). Specifically, the report references NFPA provisions for using parking brakes, chocking wheels, and keeping the truck engine off until the hose is disconnected and vapors are dispersed.

Further recommendations

State officials offered suggestions to prevent a repeat incident. These included:

• Verification steps — Before a transfer, verify that the parking brake is set, ignition is off, keys are removed from the ignition, and rear wheels are chocked.
• Interlock brake systems — These electronic systems keep the truck wheels locked when the doors of the trailer control cabinet are open. This prevents movement.
• Communication procedures — Workers should know when a transfer is starting, underway, or completed. Notification steps should be followed by everyone involved, including contractors, in order to prevent human error.

The report also directs employers and motor carriers to a loading/unloading guide from the DOT.

Key to remember

A Washington state FACE report warns employers and motor carriers about the dangers of truck movement during a fuel transfer. The findings also list related regulations and key recommendations.

1. ELD user’s manuals

Drivers are no longer required to carry an electronic logging device (ELD) user’s manual in the vehicle.

The FMCSA says the requirement no longer provides a meaningful safety benefit because ELDs have been in widespread use since 2019 and many devices either contain electronic versions of the manual or provide easy access to it online.

Caution: Drivers must still carry ELD transfer and malfunction instructions, along with at least 8 blank logs. Carrying the user manual remains a good idea, since drivers must be able to transfer ELD data and demonstrate how the device works during an inspection.

2. Roadside inspection reports

For years, motor carriers were required to return completed roadside inspection reports to the issuing state agency after correcting any defects. That federal requirement has now been scaled back.

Under the rule change, motor carriers must return the report only if the issuing state requests it. The FMCSA acknowledged that many states either didn’t want, didn’t review, or simply discarded the returned reports, making the blanket federal requirement unnecessary.

Caution: Important compliance duties remain unchanged. Motor carriers must still correct cited defects, certify that repairs were made, and retain the report for 12 months.

3. CDL driver violation reports

Commercial driver’s license (CDL) holders no longer have to self-report traffic convictions to their home state. The FMCSA eliminated the requirement because states exchange conviction information electronically.

Caution: Drivers must still report traffic convictions to their employer within 30 days, and some states may continue to impose their own reporting requirements.

4. Tire size

Another little-known change removes the requirement for maintenance records to identify tire size.

The tire-size entry had been part of the vehicle maintenance file requirements for decades, with many motor carriers and auditors unsure of its purpose. The FMCSA determined the recordkeeping requirement had become obsolete and removed it from 49 CFR 396.3.

Caution: Motor carriers must still maintain maintenance records and vehicle identification information, including the company number (if marked on the vehicle), make, serial number, and year.

5. GVWR clarification

The fifth change is technically a clarification, but it may have the greatest practical impact.

The FMCSA revised the definition of “gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)” in 49 CFR 390.5 to make perfectly clear that a vehicle’s GVWR is the manufacturer’s maximum loaded weight rating and does not change based on the vehicle’s actual weight.

More importantly, the agency explained that a vehicle with a GVWR of 10,001 pounds or more, operating in interstate commerce, remains a commercial motor vehicle even when its scale weight is below 10,001 pounds.

This clarification targets a common misunderstanding among operators of cargo vans, pickup trucks, box trucks, and other smaller vehicles. Some carriers assume they are outside the FMCSA’s jurisdiction because the vehicle’s actual weight is under 10,001 pounds. The agency has now made it clear that enforcement officials rely on the weight or the rating – whichever is higher at the time of inspection.

Caution: The clarification doesn’t create a new requirement, but it may expose compliance gaps that some smaller operations never realized they had. Make sure you know the GVWR across your fleet and ensure compliance for all regulated vehicles, even when they’re empty.

Key to remember: Four DOT regulation changes, now in effect, reduce paperwork and reporting burdens. A fifth change does the opposite: It reinforces that a vehicle’s GVWR, not its actual weight on a given day, determines whether the vehicle falls under FMCSA safety regulations.

For-hire vs. private

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

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

For-hire operating authority

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

The most common types of authority are:

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

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

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

One size does not fit all

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

Permanent authority required

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

Getting it right

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

The two-week HOS ‘rule’

For many years, the FMCSA has enforced a policy that requires in-state truck and bus operators to follow federal hours-of-service rules for the week before and the week after any interstate movement. One week after returning to in-state-only (intrastate) operations, the driver may then return to following their state’s hours-of-service rules, which may be less strict than federal rules.

This policy, found in the FMCSA’s official guidance for 49 CFR 390.3, refers only to the hours-of-service rules and not other safety regulations like driver qualification or vehicle maintenance. How do those other rules apply to an in-state operation that needs to cross state lines?

4 months can turn into years

According to the FMCSA’s November 2022 announcement, a motor carrier that gets involved in interstate commerce — even for a short period of time — must comply with all other Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for the duration of the trip plus another four months.

(The agency says it could also enforce the hours-of-service rules for four months, but that length of time “is not necessary to prevent fatigue.”)

Compliance doesn’t end there, however.

The FMCSA “has jurisdiction over motor carriers, vehicles, and drivers for a 4-month period after a trip in interstate commerce,” the agency wrote. “However, records must be retained for whatever period is required by the FMCSRs, even if that period exceeds 4 months.”

This means a motor carrier may need to produce records for a federal DOT audit for many years after an interstate trip, and failure to produce those records could result in big fines.

For example ...

Suppose, for example, that a driver doing in-state-only work in a truck over 10,001 pounds is exempt from needing a driver qualification (DQ) file under state law, but now that driver needs to do a trip across state lines. This makes the driver and company subject to FMCSA compliance.

• Prior to the trip, the company would need to create an FMCSA-compliant DQ file, complete with a medical card.
• For the duration of the interstate work, the driver and motor carrier would need to comply with all the FMCSRs, including all recordkeeping requirements.
• Once the driver returns to in-state-only work, the company must retain the DQ file (and other records) for as long as the FMCSRs require. For DQ files, this means the duration of the driver’s employment plus another three years.

If the FMCSA decides to audit the carrier a few years after the interstate trip but the carrier cannot produce the driver’s file, it could mean a hefty fine.

Know when the FMCSRs apply

If you’re normally engaged in intrastate operations but may have a need to cross state lines or otherwise get involved in interstate commerce, be sure you know which rules apply, when, and for how long.

Keep in mind that the FMCSRs apply to many types of vehicles that are not regulated when operating in intrastate commerce. The FMCSRs apply to all “commercial motor vehicles” as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, which includes vehicles operating in interstate commerce that weigh or are rated at 10,001 pounds or more (including all vehicles in a combination), even if a commercial driver’s license is not required.

Key to remember: The FMCSA has reasserted its authority to regulate in-state motor carriers for four months after they engage in interstate work, though recordkeeping requirements may continue to apply for years.

Federal medical marijuana change impacts accommodations

In April, medical marijuana was reclassified as a Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act, meaning that under federal law it’s considered to have a low potential for dependence. Products containing marijuana approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and marijuana products regulated by state medical marijuana laws are now in the lower drug category.

State medical marijuana laws still need to be followed, but the reclassification gives some federal protections to individuals who legally use medical marijuana under a state law or who use a federally approved drug containing marijuana.

To avoid the risk of a discrimination claim under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers in states where medical marijuana is legal should review their workplace policy to make sure it treats individuals using medical marijuana the same way it treats any individual using a prescription medication.

Employers with employees covered by federal drug and alcohol testing regulations for workers in safety-sensitive positions, such as Department of Transportation regulations, must continue to follow those federal laws and forbid marijuana use for covered employees. There are other considerations for employees who only fall under a workplace drug and alcohol policy, however.

A positive test for marijuana should not automatically lead to termination or a decision not to hire. Employers should consider additional factors before making a decision.

What does it mean to accommodate medical marijuana use?

When an employee tests positive for marijuana, an employer should check to see if the positive test is the result of legal off-duty use of medical marijuana. If that is the case, accommodation should be considered.

Accommodating medical marijuana use doesn’t mean an employee must be allowed to use it in the workplace or be impaired on work time. Instead, it means pausing to consider a workplace change because of the employee’s medical condition.

In general, this begins with a discussion with the employee about accommodations, including the legal off-duty use of medical marijuana. In states where medical marijuana isn’t legal, employers would only need to consider accommodations for use of marijuana products approved by the FDA. If an employee with a medical marijuana card asks that off-duty use be accommodated, the information-gathering phase could include documentation of the disability and the need for accommodation.

When deciding whether off-duty medical marijuana use is an appropriate accommodation, safety concerns may be considered. An employer can ask the employee to present their doctor with a list of their job duties and concerns to determine whether a genuine risk of substantial harm exists if the employee were to use cannabis while off duty.

If the off-duty use of medical marijuana presents a risk, other reasonable accommodations should be discussed. Perhaps the employee can work with their doctor to find another medication that will not present a safety risk. Other considerations could include moving the employee out of a safety-sensitive position, using alternative scheduling, or changing the way the work is done.

After the accommodation has been agreed upon, a trial period can be used to determine whether it is working.

Federal recreational marijuana changes under consideration

Additional changes to the way the federal government views marijuana could be coming soon. Recreational marijuana is still categorized as a Schedule I drug, but the federal government is considering moving it to a lower drug schedule.

The Drug Enforcement Administration held hearings on this proposal between June 29 and July 15, and those who spoke at the hearing can submit briefs through August 17. After the hearing process is completed, the federal government could issue a final rule rescheduling recreational marijuana.

More will be known about how this could influence workplace drug policies after a final rule is issued. It’s likely that state laws will continue to make an impact on how employers handle marijuana in the workplace, although rescheduling could also mean that the federal Food and Drug Administration plays a larger role in how marijuana is handled.

For now, employers should continue to follow state recreational marijuana laws and consider accommodations for medical marijuana as required.

Key to remember: Employers should review drug and alcohol policies to make sure medical marijuana is handled appropriately and watch for changes in the way the federal government classifies recreational marijuana.

What the date means

These government documents are subject to certain checks and balances, such as the following:

• OMB control number 1235‑0003 governs the collection of information from employers and employees for DOL compliance purposes.
• The June 30, 2026, date is when the latest version of the forms will be replaced by a new OMB‑approved version.

The OMB has to review the FMLA notices and certification forms every 3 years. The last time it did so, it didn’t make any material changes.

The OMB is part of the U.S. Executive Office and helps the president meet policy and budget, manage details, oversee regulatory objectives, and helps fulfill the agency’s statutory responsibilities.

Model forms optional

Employers aren’t required to use the DOL’s model forms. Many do, however, because it’s easier than creating their own forms. Using the DOL’s forms also helps ensure the notices provide enough information and the certifications don’t ask employees for information beyond what the FMLA allows.

Key to remember: The June 30, 2026, expiration date of FMLA documents is just a form‑collection deadline, not a legal cutoff for FMLA leave or certification. Employers may still use the current forms until a new version is issued.

Timeline

An employee must get a completed certification to their employer within 15 calendar days after the employer's request, unless circumstances don’t allow for it despite the employee's diligent, good faith efforts. The employer may give an employee more than 15 calendar days to return the requested certification.

The 15-day timeline doesn’t begin until the employee has received the certification request. That’s when the “clock” starts ticking.

When requesting a certification, employers must advise the employee of potential consequences if the employee fails to provide one. This information is in the eligibility/rights & responsibilities notice, and employers may highlight it.

No certification, no FMLA?

After the 15-day window closes, if the employee fails to provide a complete and sufficient certification, or fails to provide any certification with no justification, typically the employer may deny the FMLA leave.

The employee’s job is protected, however, during the 15-day window. If a certification is late, the employee loses FMLA protections after the 15 days are over and until they provide a certification.

If an employee never gives their employer the requested certification, the leave isn’t FMLA leave, and the employer may turn to their company policy and procedures to determine next steps.

Pause first

Before jumping to an FMLA leave denial, employers should talk to the employee to find out why they missed the 15-day deadline. There could be a valid reason they can’t meet the deadline. If so, employers must be flexible and give an employee more time.

Perhaps, for example, the health care provider is on vacation or isn’t available. The FMLA doesn’t list reasons employees might have for missing the deadline; employers have to consider the facts of each particular situation before denying leave

Incomplete or insufficient

Employees might give their employers a certification within 15 days, but not all the relevant entries are completed, or the information is vague. If that happens, employers must give the employees a written list of what’s needed to make the certification complete and sufficient. Employers must give employees at least 7 days to fix the certification.

Key to remember: If employees fail to give employers an FMLA certification within 15 days with no justification for the delay, employers may deny the FMLA leave.

Where lockout/tagout programs start to drift

Most lockout/tagout programs gradually lose effectiveness when procedures are assumed to be correct rather than verified. A strong periodic inspection can identify small gaps and help keep procedures accurate before those gaps become serious hazards. Common warning signs include:

• Equipment modifications that never make it into the written procedure;
• Authorized employees following different steps for the same machine;
• Procedures that have not been reviewed since they were created;
• New employees learning from coworkers instead of the documented procedure; or
• Lockout/tagout practices that vary between shifts.

The compliance side of periodic evaluations

Under OSHA's lockout/tagout standard (29 CFR 1910.147), employers must conduct a periodic inspection of each energy control procedure at least annually. The inspection must be performed by an authorized employee other than the employee using the procedure being inspected. The inspection is intended to verify that:

• The procedure is being followed;
• Employees understand their responsibilities; and
• The procedure continues to provide effective protection from hazardous energy.

OSHA also requires employers to certify that the inspection was completed. At a minimum, the certification must identify the machine or equipment, the inspection date, the employees included in the inspection, and the person performing the inspection. If deficiencies or deviations are identified, employers must take corrective action. That may mean revising the procedure, providing retraining, or both.

Making periodic inspections more meaningful

Inspections help verify that energy control procedures remain accurate; employees are following them correctly, and small gaps are identified before they become serious hazards. The strongest periodic inspections look at what's happening on the floor as well as what's written in the procedure. Start with these checks:

Observe the procedure: Watch an authorized employee perform the lockout process. Compare what is happening in the field against what is written in the procedure.

Verify equipment accuracy: Confirm that energy sources, isolation points, disconnects, and verification steps still match the equipment configuration.

Discuss responsibilities: Use the inspection as an opportunity to review employee responsibilities and answer questions about the procedure.

Look for changes: Consider equipment modifications, process changes, new tooling, or updated operating practices that may require revisions to the procedure.

Document and follow up: Record findings, address deficiencies promptly, and retrain employees when needed.

Key to remember: A lockout/tagout procedure is only effective if it reflects current conditions. Periodic inspections can help keep hazardous energy programs working as intended.

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.

Subcontracting the work doesn't subcontract the liability

After the spill, the host facility that owned the ruptured tank brought in an environmental remediation company to handle the hazardous cleanup. The remediation contractor, in turn, hired a subcontracted staffing firm to supply laborers for the physical remediation work. It’s an entirely ordinary practice to have a host site, general contractor, and subcontractors. It’s the same structure found on construction sites, refineries, manufacturing plants, and emergency response jobs across the country. OSHA’s investigation didn’t stop at the bottom of the chain with just the subcontractors. Federal inspectors opened three separate inspections and cited all three companies:

• The subcontractor that supplied cleanup laborers received 18 willful egregious violations and 5 serious violations, with proposed penalties of $3,045,452. This was after investigators found workers were sent into the spill area without adequate training, respirator fit testing, or basic safety measures.
• The remediation contractor was cited for 2 willful and 5 serious violations, carrying proposed penalties of $392,501, tied to gaps in training, an emergency response plan for hazardous waste operations, and respirator program deficiencies.
• The host facility that owned the tank that ruptured received 6 serious violations and $82,750 in proposed penalties for exposing workers to chemical burns and hazmat and respirator training failures.

Combined, the proposed penalties across the three employers total $3,520,703.

The regulatory principle at work

This is a textbook application of OSHA's Multi-Employer Citation Policy (CPL 02-00-124), which allows the agency to cite more than one employer on a single worksite for the same hazardous condition. Under that framework, OSHA evaluates who created a hazard, who was exposed to it, who had the power to correct it, and who controlled the site. Any employer who fits one of those four descriptions can be held liable regardless of whose name is on the paycheck.

OSHA's Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health described the failures by saying the three employers had full knowledge of the severe hazards and bypassed federal requirements anyway and called the failure to protect workers a choice rather than an oversight lapse.

What this means for your operation

If your company hires subcontractors, staffing agencies, or if you are one of those subcontractors working someone else's site, this case is a reminder that:

• Contractual boundaries do not equal regulatory boundaries. OSHA does not care who is named in the service agreement. Their focus is on who created, controlled, or was exposed to the hazard.
• “We hired someone qualified" is not a defense. Controlling and host employers have a duty to verify that contractors and subcontractors have adequate training, PPE, respiratory protection programs, and emergency response plans in place.
• Emergency response and cleanup work carries its own regulatory obligations that are distinct from the incident that triggered it and are under standards covering hazardous waste operations and emergency response (HAZWOPER), respiratory protection, and general PPE.
• Willful and egregious classifications multiply exposure fast. The largest penalty in this case came not from the party that owned the facility, but from the staffing firm several links down the contracting chain, proving that penalty exposure follows the hazard, not the organizational chart.

Keys to remember: Whatever the ultimate outcome may be for an incident; the enforcement pattern proves that for multi-employer worksites, safety responsibilities aren’t something you can subcontract away.