HR Tip

CPL rewritten for the 2024 standard

On May 19, 2026, OSHA posted a revised CPL 02-02-079, “Inspection Procedures for the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS 2024),” replacing the July 9, 2015, version. The 132-page document reflects the reconfigured HazCom standard published May 20, 2024, effective on July 19, 2024, along with corrections issued through early 2026.

The agency designed this enforcement playbook to maintain uniform inspections during the transition period and after full implementation. Because of the extensive regulatory changes to definitions, hazard classification, labeling, safety data sheets, and trade secrets, the CPL is not a light refresh.

For those familiar with the rulemaking, the new CPL edits will not be surprising. Still, the directive should provide more clarity than the regulatory text.

Front matter and appendices

Updates to Sections I to IX are typical of a CPL, including:

• Cancellation of the 2015 CPL;
• A modified title and references to the 2024 final rule and corrections;
• Alignment with revisions 7 and 8 of the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS); and
• A new summary of changes, historical background, and compliance dates.

OSHA also modernized appendices for dates, hazard lists, pictogram hazards, SDS review guidance, chemical resources, and related directives.

Reworked inspection guidelines

Section X outlines inspector instructions for paragraphs (b) through (j) of the standard. The latest modifications impact most sections:

• Scope, applicability, and exemptions — The directive offers new examples and expanded explanations, such as:
  • A formaldehyde hazard example for hair smoothing products;
  • An overview of pesticide labeling requirements and exemptions;
  • Discussion of the EPA Agricultural Worker Protection standard preemption; and
  • Greater detail about biological hazards from plants.
• Definitions — The document introduces terms and explains bulk shipment, immediate outer package, physical hazard, released for shipment, and more. It also revisits the terms combustible dust and manufacturer. Lithium-ion batteries are now referenced in the distributor context.
• Hazard classification — The directive instructs OSHA officers to consider the classification of:
  • Hazards associated with a chemical’s intrinsic properties, including changes in physical form and reactions from known or reasonably anticipated uses; and
  • Impurities, additives, and individual constituents.
• Written plan — The directive clarifies:
  • Employers must revise programs by the compliance dates when new information is received from suppliers;
  • The use of computers and third-party administrators of safety data sheets (SDSs); and
  • The written program must describe how employees will be trained in a language and at a literacy level they understand.
• Labeling — The directive broadens the sections on Department of Transportation labeling, bulk shipments, and small container labeling. It incorporates final rule flexibility too:
  • Phased-in compliance dates for labeling;
  • Hazards not otherwise classified (HNOCs) and hazards identified and classified under 1910.1200(d)(1)(ii) don’t need to be addressed on the container;
  • The exclamation mark pictogram is permitted (but not required) for HNOCs, under certain conditions;
  • Minor textual variations for precautionary statements are allowed; and
  • OSHA offers alternatives for chemical containers released for shipment.
• Safety data sheets (SDSs) — Amended text focuses on U.S. jurisdiction and technical provisions, such as:
  • Phased-in compliance dates for SDSs;
  • Importer SDS responsibilities;
  • Using a U.S. address and phone number;
  • The hazard class and category reflecting intrinsic properties;
  • Required Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number or other unique identifiers; and
  • No need to obtain updated SDSs to replace already received SDSs.
• Employee information/training — The directive references a temporary workers bulletin. It also emphasizes:
  • Phased-in compliance dates for necessary training adjustments; and
  • Delivering training in a language employees understand.
• Trade secrets — The instruction aligns with the 2024 rule:
  • Allows the exact percentage, exact concentration range, or CAS number to be withheld if certain criteria are met; and
  • Addresses the use of confidentiality agreements.
• Dates — The directive overhauls compliance timelines and discusses documentation of due diligence and good faith efforts.

In addition, the directive softens citation language with phrases like “should normally cite” instead of “shall cite.” This shift suggests inspectors may have greater discretion based on case-specific circumstances.

Key to remember

While 1910.1200 remains the baseline for employers and chemical manufacturers, importers, and distributors, the revised CPL 02-02-079 provides an enforcement lens. With implementation underway, regulated entities can use the CPL to steer their efforts and conform with how OSHA will inspect them in the field.

What are the changes?

Hazardous waste export manifests

Export manifests track hazardous waste that’s shipped out of the country for treatment, storage, and disposal. The final rule integrates hazardous waste export manifests into the e-Manifest system and designates the exporter as the entity responsible for submitting the manifest and paying the requisite user fee.

EPA’s Third Rule also:

• Expands the international shipment data elements on the manifest form,
• Updates the requirements for the document that tracks hazardous waste movement to better connect the manifest information with the movement document information (assisting with the integration of EPA’s Waste Import Export Tracking System with RCRAInfo), and
• Requires the last transporter (which transports hazardous waste export shipments out of the U.S.) to send a signed copy of the manifest and continuation sheet to the exporter instead of the generator.

Manifest-related reports

The final rule integrates other reports into the e-Manifest system, including:

• Discrepancy Reports for mismatches in the amount of waste,
• Exception Reports for shipment problems, and
• Unmanifested Waste Reports for waste found without proper tracking documents.

Further, small and large quantity generators must register for e-Manifest access to obtain their final signed manifest copies from the system.

Other changes

The final rule aligns the manifest requirements for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act with the RCRA manifest regulations. It also removes outdated requirements, fixes typographical errors, provides clear definitions, and ensures better alignment with the e-Manifest program.

What are the compliance deadlines?

The final Third Rule takes effect on January 22, 2025. However, these requirements don’t take effect until December 1, 2025:

• Exporters must submit hazardous waste export manifests to the e-Manifest system and pay the user fee.
• Entities must submit Discrepancy, Exception, and Unmanifested Waste Reports to the e-Manifest system.
• The last transporters must provide the export manifests and continuation sheets to the exporters.

Meanwhile, organizations must comply with existing hazardous waste manifest requirements through November 30, 2025.

Key to remember: EPA’s final Third Rule combines hazardous waste export manifests and related reports into the e-Manifest system. All hazardous waste shipments (regardless of destination) and manifest-related reports will be managed electronically.

What must the markings contain?

Enforcement officers should be able to quickly and easily identify the motor carrier operating the vehicle. The marking must include:

• The legal name or one trade name of the motor carrier operating the vehicle, as listed with FMCSA.
• The carrier’s FMCSA-issued identification number, preceded by “USDOT.”
• If another company name appears on the vehicle, the operating carrier’s name and USDOT number must be shown after the words “operated by.”

If you wish to go above and beyond, you may add your operating location or additional contact information, but this is not required per the FMCSRs.

How should the markings be displayed?

The key to properly displaying your markings is to ensure they are easily legible. To ensure this, the FMCSA has implemented the following guidelines:

• The markings must appear on both sides of the self-propelled CMV;
• The lettering must contrast sharply with the background color;
• The markings must be readable from 50 feet during daylight hours while the vehicle is stationary; and
• The markings must be maintained so they remain legible.

While permanent markings are most common, FMCSA permits removable signs, as long as they meet the visibility, location, and durability requirements listed above.

What about leased vehicles?

Vehicles that are leased for a longer period of time must follow the same marking requirements as listed above. They will need to either change the existing markings to their own information, or add their information after the rental company’s information preceded by the words “operated by.”

In this scenario, the markings should look something like this:

Rental Company

Operated by Trucking Company A

USDOT 123456

However, a vehicle that is rented for a short period of time – (30 days or less) may be marked with the rental company’s name and USDOT number. To qualify for the exceptions:

• The vehicle is rented for 30 days or less;
• The vehicle is properly marked with the rental company’s legal name and USDOT number; and
• A rental agreement — containing all required information and entered into by the lessor and the renting motor carrier — is carried on the rental CMV during the full term of the rental agreement.

Key to remember: Ensure enforcement officials are able to quickly and easily identify your vehicles with clear markings on both sides of your vehicles.

Key benefits of internal inspection programs

One of the primary benefits of conducting annual inspections internally is scheduling flexibility. Instead of waiting for service appointments at outside facilities, carriers can inspect vehicles as they become due, reducing downtime and helping prevent expiration-related violations. In-house inspections can also reduce inspection expenses, improve maintenance oversight, and allow fleets to identify defects before they become costly roadside violations or out-of-service conditions.

How do I choose the right inspector?

We often get questions about what certifications a mechanic must have to perform annual inspections. The FMCSA does not outline or require any specific certifications. To perform annual inspections, carriers must ensure inspectors meet the qualification requirements outlined in 49 CFR 396.19. Qualified inspectors must:

• Understand the inspection criteria contained in Part 393 and Appendix A;
• Be knowledgeable in the methods, tools, procedures, and equipment used during inspections; and
• Qualify through either a federal or state-sponsored training program, a state-issued inspection certification, or a combination of training and experience totaling at least one year.

Recordkeeping

Inspector qualification documentation is often overlooked. FMCSA requires carriers to retain evidence of an inspector's qualifications for the period the individual performs annual inspections and for one additional year after they stop performing inspections. Training certificates, resumes, employment records, and experience documentation are commonly used to demonstrate compliance. This documentation can be stored separately from the mechanic’s employment file. During a compliance review, audit, or investigation, this documentation will likely be requested.

Tracking inspection due dates and records

Carriers should also establish a reliable process for tracking inspection due dates and inspector qualification records. Many fleets use maintenance management software or electronic compliance systems that automatically generate reminders before annual inspections expire. Others maintain spreadsheets that track inspection dates and inspector credentials. Regardless of the method used, proactive tracking helps prevent lapses that can result in violations during audits or roadside inspections.

Annual inspection reports must also be retained. Under 49 CFR 396.21, carriers must keep the inspection report for at least 14 months from the date of inspection. The report must be available upon request and maintained where the vehicle is housed or maintained.

Key to remember: With the proper foundation in place, in-house annual inspections can become an efficient and cost-effective component of a carrier's overall maintenance and compliance strategy.

Limitations

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

Packing

The following packing instructions have been updated:

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

Packaging specifications and performance tests

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

Documentation

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

Radioactive materials

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

Appendices

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

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

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

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

Licensing issues

Under the minimum Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) requirement, carriers must obtain a driver’s motor vehicle record (MVR) from each state the driver has held a license in prior 3 years within 30 days of hire and at least once every 12 months after that. For commercial driver’s license (CDL) drivers, the MVR must be obtained and used to verify DOT medical certification status before the driver operates a commercial motor vehicle (CMV).

Even though the regulations allow up to 30 days to complete the new-hire MVR inquiry, it’s a best practice to review an MVR before allowing any driver to operate a CMV. That review helps confirm the:

• License class,
• Endorsements,
• Restrictions,
• Expiration date, and
• Any disqualifying information.

Endorsements and restrictions deserve close attention. If a driver has a corrective lens restriction, for example, the driver must wear corrective lenses whenever operating.

Carrier policies should also set clear expectations for drivers to report license changes, convictions, suspensions, restrictions, medical-certification issues, or anything else that could affect their qualification.

Because the minimum MVR schedule leaves time for status changes to go unnoticed, MVR monitoring or more frequent reviews throughout the year can help prevent a carrier from being blindsided by a disqualified driver.

Medical qualification

Medical qualification violations often come from simple oversights, such as:

• Expired certificates,
• Missing documentation, or
• Errors in the transmission process from the medical examiner to state driver’s licensing agency.

Carriers should track expiration dates far enough in advance to allow for exams, follow-up, short-term certifications, and state processing time. Waiting until the last minute to schedule a driver for their exam, can easily leave a carrier with an unqualified driver.

With the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s exemption allowing CDL drivers to use a DOT medical card as proof of certification for 60 days expiring on October 11, it’s even more critical to schedule drivers for their DOT medical exams well in advance of expiration. After October 11, if a CDL driver is stopped and their medical information is expired on their record, a violation may be issued.

English language proficiency

English language proficiency isn’t new, but enforcement focus has made it an immediate concern. CDL drivers must be able to read and speak English well enough to:

• Converse with the public,
• Understand highway signs and signals,
• Respond to official inquiries, and
• Make required entries on reports and records.

When hiring new drivers, carriers should consider conducting interviews in English, even if the interviewer (or applicant) is fluent in another language.

The interviewer could ask a job candidate practical questions that the driver might face during a roadside inspection, such as:

• “Where are you coming from?”
• ”Where are you going?”
• “What are you hauling?”
• “Where are the required documents located?”

Carriers may also use a consistent pre-employment knowledge assessment, such as reviewing common highway signs and asking the applicant to explain their meaning.

Whatever process is used to help prevent noncompliance with some of the most common violations, carriers should document how each driver met (or didn’t meet) the requirements. Review processes should include all potential drivers, as well as current drivers to assess their ability to meet the standards and help pass roadside inspections.

Key to remember: Driver qualification violations are often preventable when carriers have clear, easy-to-follow policies and procedures in place. Making sure everyone involved understands their role and responsibilities – and taking action when deficiencies are found – can help ensure drivers are qualified before they’re placed behind the wheel.

WWYD scenario: When do I record an accident?

Scenario: In this scenario, a driver slid off an icy roadway and into a snowbank. There were no other vehicles involved, and the driver was not injured. A tow truck arrived and pulled the stranded tractor back onto the roadway. After the driver determined that there was only minimal damage to the front bumper, the driver continued and finished the dispatch. Is this accident recordable?

What would you do?

1. Record the accident since the driver was not able to return to the roadway.
2. Do not record the accident since there was not disabling damage.
3. I’m not sure, so I will record the accident to be safe.

A DOT-recordable accident involves a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) that results in either:

• a fatality,
• personal injury to any person that requires immediate medical attention away from the scene of the accident, or
• disabling damage to any vehicle that requires it to be towed from the scene.

If the tractor did not have to be towed due to “disabling damage” because of the accident, it would not be a DOT recordable accident. Disabling damage is defined as damage so severe that the vehicle cannot be driven away from the scene after “simple repairs.” The fact that the truck was able to drive away from the scene and proceed to the destination would serve as validation that it was not a DOT recordable accident.

Here is the definition of “disabling damage” from the regulations found in 390.5:

Disabling damage means damage which precludes departure of a motor vehicle from the scene of the accident in its usual manner in daylight after simple repairs.

1. Inclusions. Damage to motor vehicles that could have been driven, but would have been further damaged if so driven.

Exclusions

• (i) Damage which can be remedied temporarily at the scene of the accident without special tools or parts.
• (ii) Tire disablement without other damage even if no spare tire is available.
• (iii) Headlamp or taillight damage.
• (iv) Damage to turn signals, horn, or windshield wipers which makes them inoperative.

Here is an accompanying FMCSA interpretation that further clarifies this:

Question 12: A CMV becomes stuck in a median or on a shoulder, and has had no contact with another vehicle, a pedestrian, or a fixed object prior to becoming stuck. If a tow truck is used to pull the CMV back onto the traveled portion of the road, would this be considered an accident?

Guidance: No.

Key to remember: Train your safety team on the importance of identifying DOT-recordable accidents by conducting scenario based training.

Ferreting out leave abuse

From the employer’s perspective, using FMLA leave solely to avoid working on or around holidays, weekends, vacations, and rest days constituted dishonesty in violation of company policy.

Jolanda from HR had an automated system that ferreted out FMLA misuse. Each week, the system looked back at every employee’s FMLA usage over the preceding 12 weeks. If an employee had 5 suspicious uses of FMLA leave within 12 weeks, the algorithm flagged that employee. A suspicious use was any FMLA use on a weekend and any FMLA use that was taken immediately before or after a day off.

If Jolanda believed that an employee’s actions amounted to FMLA “pattern use,” she would conduct an individualized review. This involved reviewing each employee’s:

• Medical information,
• Absences that were identified as pattern use, and
• Statuses of those absences.

To further investigate this FMLA usage, Jolanda used a modified version of the algorithm, which flagged any employee who had used FMLA leave on 4 of the 10 most recent holidays and other special occasions (such as Black Friday and Christmas Eve). Jolanda removed from the list anyone whose leave involved cancer, a terminal illness, or was about to give birth.

Court disagrees with employer

Despite dozens of employees being terminated for misusing their leave, only three of the employees continued their lawsuit. In court, the judge pointed out that the algorithm didn’t show their total FMLA leave, just their holiday use. It didn’t include non-holiday use, so it didn’t give the whole picture.

If an employee used FMLA leave for 10 days in 12 months, and 5 of those days were holidays, an employer might have reason to suspect misuse. If an employee used FMLA leave for 60 days in 12 months and 5 of those days were holidays, there would be much less reason for an investigation. The employer focused on employees’ use of FMLA leave on holidays without considering the context of each situation.

The employer argued in court that it acted on its honest belief that the employees were abusing FMLA leave.

The employees argued that the company’s stated reason for the discipline was untrue and that retaliation was the actual reason for the discipline. The employees were given an internal hearing, but the hearings were suspicious, as a company manager acted both as judge by conducting the hearing and ruling on objections, and as prosecutor by questioning witnesses. The company witness told the hearing manager which questions the prosecutor (the same manager) should ask.

Employees, on the other hand, weren’t allowed to have legal counsel present, nor were there formal rules of evidence that governed the hearings. They also didn’t know the questions in advance, as the employer did.

In denying the employer’s request to have the entire case dismissed, the court determined that the employer’s decision process wasn’t credible and its reliance on that process was, therefore, not honestly held. It sent the case to a jury.

Burgess, et al., v. CSX Transportation, Inc., District of Maryland, No. JKB-18-0744, July 6, 2026.

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

Key to remember: Employers may use procedures and tools to discern FMLA leave abuse, but they have to use those procedures and tools through the lens of the big picture.

Eligibility and leave amount

Once the employee meets the eligibility criteria, she’s entitled to take FMLA leave for a qualifying reason.

Therefore, as of November 15, the employee would be taking FMLA leave, and the employer has to count it as such. As long as the leave reason is a qualifying one, such as pregnancy, delivery, recovery, or bonding, the employee gets the FMLA job protections.

Employers wouldn’t count the time taken off before the employee met the eligibility criteria as FMLA leave. This can result in the employee having more than the 12 weeks of FMLA leave, since the FMLA leave wouldn’t start until November 15.

If, for example, the employee has the baby on its due date of October 5, the employee’s time off from October 5 to November 15 wouldn’t be FMLA leave and couldn’t be counted as such. The employee might have leave benefits for that time under a company policy or a state leave law.

If the baby were to be born early on September 28, and the employee recovers in 6 weeks (by November 9), she would still be entitled to take FMLA leave starting November 15.

Key to remember: Once employees meet the FMLA eligibility criteria, they’re entitled to take protected leave for any qualifying reason. Leave taken before they meet the FMLA eligibility criteria isn’t FMLA leave.

The case 

In early September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) view of employer dress code policies adopted in 2022. 

In the case, a union representing workers in a New York City location of a national coffeehouse chain challenged these three parts of the company’s dress code policy: 

1. In addition to company-approved or issued pins, cafe employees may wear on their apron “one reasonably sized and placed button or pin that identifies a particular labor organization or a partner’s support for that organization, except if it interferes with safety or threatens to harm customer relations or otherwise unreasonably interferes with the company’s public image.” 
2. Employees are “not permitted to wear buttons or pins that advocate a political, religious or personal issue.” 
3. While employee shirts may have a small manufacturer logo, they may not have “other colors, designs, logos or writings” other than those pre-approved by the company. 

The Second Circuit refused to enforce the NLRB’s findings that these policies were unlawful, reasoning that the NLRB’s reliance on its decision in Tesla, Inc., 371 NLRB No. 131 (Aug. 29, 2022), misapplies precedent and rests on “erroneous legal foundations.”  

Finding the right balance 

In Tesla, the NLRB adopted the presumption that all employer dress code policies that limit an employee’s right to display union insignia are presumed to be unlawful. The Second Circuit now joins the Fifth Circuit in refusing to enforce Tesla. The Second Circuit said that Tesla was inconsistent with precedent.    

Referencing U.S. Supreme Court precedent from Republic Aviation, 324 U.S. 793 (1945), the Second Circuit urged a return to the balancing test between “the undisputed right of self-organization assured to employees  …  and the equally undisputed right of employers to maintain discipline in their establishments.” 

The court added that employees have the right to wear items that relate to unionization and other protected matters at work, but employers aren’t prevented from making and enforcing reasonable rules covering the conduct of employees on company time, because “working time is for work.”  

The Second Circuit sent the case back to the NLRB asking the board to “apply a more evenly measured balancing test” and suggested what to consider in its analysis, including:  

• How much the rule limits employees’ Section 7 rights (i.e., whether the employer enforces a full or partial ban on union insignia during working time);
• Whether the employer’s policy is neutral on its face, nondiscriminatory, and consistently enforced; and  
• The context, or legitimate business reasons underlying the rule.  

The Second Circuit also addressed how much weight courts must give NLRB decisions. Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, courts aren't required to defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of the law it administers. 

Takeaways for employers 

The decision gives employers in the Second and Fifth Circuits more leeway to draft neutral dress code policies that limit union insignia.  

Employers should also be aware that the legal standard may continue to change. In August, the NLRB’s General Counsel listed dress codes and a possible reversal of Tesla as future priorities. Employers should, therefore, review appearance policies carefully, document the reasons for restrictions, and consult counsel before limiting union-related clothing or insignia.  

Key to remember: A federal appeals court rejected the NLRB’s presumption that dress-code limits on union insignia are automatically unlawful. 

Starbucks Reserve Roastery v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 24-3168 (2nd Cir. September 2, 2026) 

A change in perspective

For decades, safety performance has been measured using metrics such as TRIR and LTIR. While those measures remain valuable, they primarily tell us what happened yesterday. They don't always reveal the hazards that could cause a serious injury or fatality (SIF) tomorrow.

That's the thinking behind ASTM International’s updates to ASTM-E2920-26, which encourages organizations to look beyond injury counts and focus on identifying, prioritizing, and controlling high-consequence risks before tragedy occurs. In other words, moving from looking at incidents in the rearview mirror to looking through the windshield at what’s headed their way.

A new way to look at safety

ASTM’s hope is to change the lens through which risk is evaluated from hindsight to foresight and from injury tracking to risk recognition and hazard prevention. In addition to broadening the scope of “what” is evaluated, they’ve expanded serious injuries and fatalities (SIF) to include operational risks and system conditions.

Prioritizing what matters most

A key change in ASTM E2920 26 encourages employers to prioritize incidents in levels:

• Level 1: Actual SIFs (aSIF) (life-ending, life-threatening, or life-altering injuries/illnesses),
• Level 2: Priority injuries/illnesses with significant impact that call for a closer look,
• Level 3: Regulatory recordables that don’t meet Level 1 or Level 2 criteria, and
• Level 4: Minor injuries and near misses such as first aid incidents or low-risk events.

Somewhere between Levels 2 and 4 lies the potential SIF (pSIF) where incidents could have had significant impact or severe consequences. It shifts the focus from "What happened?" to "What could have happened?" Consider a forklift backing out of an aisle with a raised load. As the operator turns, the load shifts and falls from the forks, landing a few feet from a nearby employee. No injuries occurred.

In many organizations, this would have been classified as a near miss triggering a safety refresher about safe forklift operation, then closed out. The ASTM E2920-26 challenges employers to new thinking by asking:

• What if the employee had been one step closer?
• What if the load had fallen directly onto them?
• Would the result have been life-altering or fatal?

If the answers to these questions is “yes,” the near miss shifts to a pSIF and changes the response. Rather than a simple safety reminder, an investigation would be launched to determine contributing factors or conditions allowing the event to occur (load stability, operator visibility, travel routes, and pedestrian controls). Afterward, stronger safeguards would be implemented, creating even more employee protection.

Organizations that focus on pSIFs learn from close calls before they become life-changing incidents, allowing them to direct resources where they can have the biggest impact: preventing serious injuries and saving lives.

Shifting focus to controls

ASTM E2920 26 also challenges employers to emphasize hazard controls, moving from reaction to proaction. Training, policies, procedures, and signage are important, but they rely on infallible human behavior and workers consistently making the right decisions. Higher levels of control, such as elimination, substitution, and engineering controls, remove or reduce exposure to hazards regardless of human behavior.

Here’s how to shift into gear:

• Reframing injury prevention to a focus on risk rather than just rates.
• Adding pertinent investigation questions when incidents have the potential to cause a fatal or life-altering outcome.
• Flagging incidents or near misses involves high energy or line-of-fire exposures.
• Escalating identified pSIF events for formal review and corrective action.
• Tracking incident trends involving energy sources, failed or missing safeguards, and potential worst-case outcomes.
• Evaluating controls realistically. Initially, you may see higher SIF numbers, which is expected and is a good thing!
• Ensuring adequate resources are available for incident investigations and training.
• Updating reporting tools that can track pSIF trends and tie them directly to effective controls.
• Communicating program goals with workers so employees understand the purpose of pSIF reporting is prevention, not blame.

Key to remember: ASTM E2920 26 reframes safety in a powerful way, encouraging employers to shift focus from reactive assessments to proactive controls. By looking not just at what happened, but what could have happened, employers move beyond measuring injuries and start identifying the events that could have resulted in serious injury or death.

Reclassification impacts downstream chemical users

According to 1910.1200(j), chemical manufacturers, importers, and distributors evaluating substances (see the definition in 1910.1200(c)) based on the new classifications had until May 19, 2026, to:

• Reclassify the substances under revised criteria,
• Update their safety data sheets (SDSs) and shipping labels for these substances, and
• Otherwise be in compliance with all the modified provisions of the standard for those substances.

Hazard classification is the process of identifying a chemical’s hazards and determining how severe those hazards are. Chemical manufacturers and importers use 1910.1200(d), along with Appendix A (for health hazards) and Appendix B (for physical hazards) to make these determinations. When OSHA aligned HazCom with Revision 7 of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) in 2024, the agency revised its classification categories for aerosols, desensitized explosives, and flammable gases.

Once a classification is determined, it dictates the warnings, pictograms, hazard statements, and other safety and health information that must appear on SDSs and shipping labels. OSHA explains that the classification should provide downstream users with sufficient information to perform a hazard assessment specific to their own workplace and to understand how employees must use the chemical product there.

How the November 20 deadline impacts employers

Employers who purchase substances that are aerosols, desensitized explosives, and flammable gases will receive (or may already have received) revised SDSs and see updated container labels with their shipments.

In addition, according to 1910.1200(j), all employers must, as necessary:

• Update any alternative workplace (in-house) labeling per 1910.1200(f)(6);
• Update their HazCom training program required by 1910.1200(h)(1); and
• Provide additional employee training in line with 1910.1200(h)(3) for newly identified physical, health, or other hazards covered by the standard.

Employers will also need to retain any new SDSs they receive. However, if they have not purchased new inventory, they’re not required to contact the manufacturer, importer, or distributor for a new SDS. Still, an employer may proactively request new ones from their suppliers anyway.

Further HazCom compliance dates in paragraph (j)

Chemical manufacturers, importers, and distributors evaluating mixtures (as defined in 1910.1200(c)) based on the new classifications have until November 19, 2027, to reclassify them based on the new criteria, update their SDSs and shipping labels, and otherwise be in compliance with all the modified provisions of the standard for those mixtures.

Also, for mixtures, employers have until May 19, 2028, to update any alternative workplace labeling, update their HazCom training program, and provide additional employee training for newly identified physical, health, or other hazards.

Key to remember: OSHA paragraph (j) to 1910.1200 has several compliance dates for chemical manufacturers, importers, distributors, and employers. One date has already passed, and the next one (November 20, 2026) applies to employers. Two more are slated for November 19, 2027, and May 19, 2028.

What is “chip guarding”?

“Effective chip guarding” means any method or equipment which will prevent a chip or particle (of whatever size) from being blown into the eyes or unbroken skin of the operator or other workers.

Effective chip guarding may be separate from the air nozzle as in the case where screens or barriers are used. The use of protective cone air nozzles are acceptable in general for protection of the operator, but barriers, baffles or screens may be required to protect other workers if they are exposed to flying chips or particles.

What about the psi requirement?

The regulation requires the psi at the nozzle to be less than 30 when using compressed air for cleaning.

However, OSHA has said in interpretive guidance that the use of compressed air for cleaning purposes at pressures at or greater than 30 psi is permissible if the outlet or source is fitted with a relief device or air ports that drop the pressure to less than 30 psi if the flow is dead-ended.

What about cleaning clothing/bodies?

While the regulation does not specifically address the issue, in a letter of interpretation OSHA said that employers should not allow employees to use compressed air for cleaning themselves or their clothing in general industry situations. The eyes and other body parts, such as the respiratory system, may be damaged as the result of inadequate personal protective equipment, lack of chip guards, and/or uncontrolled release of compressed air.

The dangers

There are numerous dangers of improperly using compressed air:

• Embolism: If compressed air enters the bloodstream through a body opening or skin break, it can create an embolism (air bubble) that can be life threatening.
• Eye damage: Particles that are being blown can “blow back” and strike the eyes. The air itself can also cause injury if it is pointed toward the eyes.
• Hearing loss: Some compressed air equipment can be loud enough to damage hearing. Always wear proper PPE.
• Combustible dust: If compressed air is used to blow certain dusts, it can create a suspension in the air that could ignite if there is an ignition source.
• Respiratory: Particles or air can enter the respiratory system, posing deadly hazards.
• Whips: If not properly secured, hoses can whip and cause severe injury.

Workers must be trained that even extremely low pressures, such as 5 or 10 psi, can still cause severe damage if pointed toward the body, particularly the mouth, eyes, ears, or open areas in the skin.

Employers should train employees on the dangers of compressed air, and ensure the equipment is equipped with the necessary safety features and is properly maintained.

Supervisors should watch for improper use, particularly horseplay, and initiate corrective action. In addition, for many applications, a broom or shop vacuum may be just as effective at cleaning, and much safer. Compressed air may seem harmless, but if strict safeguards and practices are not utilized it can be deadly.

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.

Topics and worker types covered

Topics addressed by these Congressional bills include musculoskeletal disorders, heat stress, infectious diseases, wildfire smoke, and workplace violence. Federal OSHA does not have comprehensive standards for any of those hazards. Some existing standards are related — sanitation, first aid, personal protective equipment, and injury/illness recordkeeping and reporting.

Without comprehensive standards, OSHA may turn to enforce these hazards under the General Duty Clause (GDC), Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Yet, the GDC poses a high bar for inspectors. OSHA can only cite under Section 5(a)(1) if the alleged hazard: exists, is recognized, is serious, and has a feasible means to reduce that hazard.

If any one of the four criteria is missing, a GDC citation will not hold. On the other hand, putting a standard in place both mandates protections and makes it much easier for OSHA to cite employers for the hazards.

Worth noting, some of the bills specifically cover domestic workers, firefighters, warehouse workers, public sector workers, and healthcare and social service workers.

Nine bills to watch

Below is a list of the nine pieces of legislation (and companion bills) currently under consideration in this 119th United States Congress:

• LET’S Protect Workers Act, H.R. 6597 — Introduced 12/10/2025. This bill would raise civil monetary penalties for employers that violate occupational safety and health requirements. Willful and repeat violations would jump to $800,000 each. The bill would also direct OSHA to close a loophole that prevents citations for failing to maintain required injury and illness records if the violation is not discovered within six months. Instead, every day an employer fails to make or maintain a record during the five-year record retention period would be a violation.
• Domestic Workers Bill of Rights Act, S. 3396 and H.R. 3971 — Introduced 12/9/2025 and 6/12/2025, respectively. This bill would require a board to make recommendations to OSHA for standards that affect the well-being of domestic employees, including infectious diseases protections.
• Healthy Lungs for Heroes Act, S. 3183 — Introduced 11/18/2025. This bill would require OSHA to develop an appropriate exposure limit for wildfire smoke for wildland firefighters and supporting staff where current PELs are not a good fit for wildfire situations. The bill would also require the incorporation by reference of a National Fire Protection Association standard on respirators for wildland fire-fighting operations.
• Warehouse Worker Protection Act, H.R. 4896 and S. 2613 — Introduced 8/5/2025 and 7/31/2025, respectively. This bill would require OSHA to publish a standard for ergonomic program management with elements including hazard identification, job evaluations, hazard control, training, and medical management. The bill also calls for OSHA to publish a standard on first aid and employer-provided occupational medicine consultation services. Finally, it would update the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) so a contest notice would not stay abatement of a violation.
• Asunción Valdivia Heat Illness, Injury, and Fatality Prevention Act, H.R. 4443 and S. 2298 — Both introduced 7/16/2025. These bills would require OSHA to promulgate a standard to protect workers from heat-related injuries and illnesses. Such a standard may have measures like engineering controls, administrative controls, personal protective equipment, medical and emergency protocols, training, and a written plan.
• Recognizing that climate change poses a growing threat to public health and necessitates coordinated action to mitigate its impacts and safeguard the health and well-being of all people in the United States, H.Res. 568 and S.Res. 318 — Both introduced 7/10/2025. These bills say that OSHA “should” promulgate a worker heat protection standard that, in accordance with the best available evidence, establishes the highest degree of health and safety protection feasible.
• Protecting America’s Workers Act, H.R. 3036 — Introduced 4/28/2025. This bill would require OSHA to update its incorporations by reference of national consensus standards, with some exceptions. The bill makes other changes to the OSH Act to expand coverage to public sector workers, increase protections, and raise penalties.
• Safe Workplaces Act, H.R. 2647 — Introduced 4/3/2025. This bill taps OSHA to issue nonmandatory guidance on activities and work practice controls that can be implemented at work to reduce workplace violence.
• Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers, H.R. 2531 and S. 1232 — Both introduced 4/1/2025. These bills mandate OSHA to issue a standard that requires covered employers within the healthcare and social service industries to develop and implement a comprehensive workplace violence prevention plan. The plan must include procedures and methods for risk assessment and identification of risks, hazard prevention and controls, reporting and investigation, emergency response, and training.

Key to remember

Several bills in the 119th Congress would modernize the OSH Act and mandate OSHA rulemaking to strengthen or increase worker protections.