If time remains on their medical certification, can a driver be sent for a DOT exam?

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a proposed rule on April 13, 2026, to revise the existing regulations governing the disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCR) in landfills and surface impoundments as well as the beneficial use of CCR.

Who’s impacted?

The proposed rule affects coal-fired electric utilities and independent power producers subject to the CCR disposal and beneficial use regulations at 40 CFR Part 257.

What are the changes?

Significant changes the EPA proposes include:

• Adding an option for facilities to certify the closure of legacy CCR surface impoundments by CCR removal that were closed before November 8, 2024, under regulatory oversight;
• Expanding the eligibility criteria for facilities to defer CCR closure requirements until site-specific determinations are made for legacy surface impoundments that were closed before November 8, 2024, under regulatory oversight;
• Exempting CCR dewatering structures (used to dewater CCR waste for the disposal of CCR elsewhere) from federal CCR regulations (Part 257);
• Rescinding all CCR management unit (CCRMU) requirements or revising the existing CCRMU regulations;
• Allowing permit authorities to make site-specific determinations regarding certain requirements during permitting for CCR units complying with federal CCR groundwater monitoring, corrective action, and closure requirements under a federal or an approved-state CCR permit; and
• Revising the beneficial use requirements by:
  • Removing the environmental demonstration requirement for non-roadway use of more than 12,400 tons of unencapsulated CCR; and
  • Excluding these beneficial uses from federal CCR regulations (Part 257):
    • CCR used in cement manufacturing at cement kilns,
    • Flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum used in agriculture, and
    • FGD gypsum used in wallboard.

Key to remember: EPA plans to make significant amendments to the coal combustion residuals requirements.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking another major step toward modernizing hazardous waste tracking. The agency’s proposed “manifest sunset rule” would officially phase out paper hazardous waste manifests and require the exclusive use of the e-Manifest system. For employers, especially those generating or managing hazardous waste, it’s a fundamental shift in how waste shipments are documented, tracked, and audited.

Since 2018, EPA’s e-Manifest system has been available as a digital alternative to paper manifests. Over the years, the agency has added requirements pushing the industry toward adoption, including mandatory registration and electronic data submission. But despite those efforts, many companies have continued to rely on paper manifests, either out of habit, for convenience, or because parts of their waste chain weren’t ready to go digital. EPA even states in the proposed rule that fewer than 1 percent of all e-Manifest users have completely switched to digital manifests. The proposed sunset rule is designed to close that gap. Once finalized, it would set a firm deadline (24 months) after which paper manifests would no longer be allowed.

On April 9, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule that makes technical changes to the emission standards established in March 2024 (2024 Final Rule) for crude oil and natural gas facilities. This rule (2026 Final Rule) amends the requirements for:

• Temporary flaring of associated gas, and
• Vent gas net heating value (NHV) monitoring provisions for flares and enclosed combustion devices (ECDs).

Who’s impacted?

The 2026 Final Rule affects new and existing oil and gas facilities. Specifically, it applies to the regulations for the Crude Oil and Natural Gas source category, including the:

• New Source Performance Standards at 40 CFR 60 Subpart OOOOb, and
• Emission guidelines at 60 Subpart OOOOc.

These emission standards are commonly referred to as OOOOb/c.

What are the changes?

The 2026 Final Rule implements technical changes to the temporary flaring and vent gas NHV monitoring requirements set by the 2024 Final Rule.

Temporary flaring

The rule extends the baseline time limit for temporary flaring of associated gas at well sites in certain situations (like conducting repairs or maintenance) from 24 to 72 hours. Owners and operators must stop temporary flaring as soon as the situation is resolved or the temporary flaring limit is reached (whichever happens first).

It also grants allowances beyond the 72-hour limit if exigent circumstances occur (such as severe weather that prevents safe access to a well site to address an emergency or maintenance issue) and there’s a need to extend duration for repairs, maintenance, or safety issues. Owners and operators must keep records of exigent circumstances and include the information in their annual reports.

NHV monitoring

For new and existing sources, the 2026 Final Rule exempts all flare types (unassisted and assisted) and ECDs from monitoring due to high NHV content, except when inert gases are added to the process streams or for other scenarios that decrease the NHV content of the inlet stream gas. In these cases, EPA requires NHV monitoring via continuous monitoring or the alternative performance test (sampling demonstration) option for all flares and ECDs.

Other significant changes include:

• Replacing the general exemption from NHV monitoring for associated gas for any control device used at well site affected facilities with NHV monitoring requirements,
• Granting operational pauses during weekends and holidays for the consecutive 14-day sampling demonstration requirements (limiting it to no more than 3 operating days from the previous sampling day), and
• Permitting less than 1-hour sampling times for twice daily samples where low or intermittent flow makes it infeasible (as long as owners and operators report the sampling time used and the reason for the reduced time).

The 2026 Final Rule takes effect on June 8, 2026.

Key to remember: EPA’s technical changes to the emission standards for oil and gas facilities apply to temporary flaring provisions and vent gas NHV monitoring requirements.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule on April 1, 2026, amending the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources (CMAS). The NESHAP controls hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from facilities that manufacture a range of chemicals and products, such as inorganic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic rubber.

Who’s impacted?

The final rule applies to nine area source categories in the chemical manufacturing sector that are regulated by the CMAS NESHAP (40 CFR 63 Subpart VVVVVV).

What are the changes?

EPA’s final rule:

• Establishes leak detection and repair requirements for equipment leaks and heat exchange systems in organic HAP service,
• Adds detectable emissions monitoring standards for pressure vessels in organic HAP service and emission management practice standards for pressure relief devices (PRDs) in organic HAP service,
• Prohibits closed vent systems in organic HAP service from bypassing an air pollution control device (APCD), and
• Requires recurring performance testing of non-flare APCDs to demonstrate compliance with process vent and storage tank provisions.

The final rule also mandates electronic reporting for notifications of compliance status (NOCs), performance test reports, and periodic reports. Facilities must submit these reports through the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) on EPA’s Central Data Exchange.

What didn’t change?

Significantly, the final rule doesn’t add previously proposed regulations for area sources that use ethylene oxide (EtO) to produce materials described by code 325 of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

EPA states that it intends to address the regulation of EtO from area sources and major sources in one final action.

What are the compliance timelines?

Existing facilities must comply with the amendments by April 1, 2029.

New facilities (those that begin construction or reconstruction after January 22, 2025) have to comply with the changes by April 1, 2026, or upon startup, whichever is later.

Additionally, facilities must start electronically submitting:

• Performance tests by June 1, 2026;
• NOCs by August 31, 2026; and
• Periodic reports by April 1, 2029.

Key to remember: EPA’s final HAP emissions rule for chemical manufacturing area sources adds new requirements for certain processing equipment and systems.

On April 13, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule that further delays the submission period for the one-time report required of manufacturers on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) by the PFAS Reporting and Recordkeeping Rule (PFAS Reporting Rule).

This final rule pushes the starting submission period to either 60 days after the effective date of a future final rule updating the PFAS Reporting Rule or January 31, 2027, whichever is earlier.

Who’s impacted?

Established under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a)(7), the PFAS Reporting Rule (40 CFR Part 705) requires any business that manufactured (including imported) any PFAS or PFAS-containing article between 2011 and 2022 to report. Covered manufacturers and importers must submit information on:

• Chemical identity, uses, and volumes made and processed;
• Byproducts;
• Environmental and health effects;
• Worker exposure; and
• Disposal.

What’s the new timeline?

The opening submission period was moved from April 13, 2026, to either 60 days after the effective date of a future final PFAS Reporting Rule or January 31, 2027, whichever is earlier.

Most manufacturers have 6 months to submit the report. Small manufacturers reporting only as importers of PFAS-containing articles have 1 year.

Why the delay?

In November 2025, the agency proposed updates to the PFAS Reporting Rule. EPA has delayed the reporting period to give the agency time to issue a final rule (expected later this year).

Key to remember: EPA has delayed the starting submission deadline for the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS Reporting Rule from April 2026 to no later than January 2027.

Facilities across the country conduct industrial activities that generate wastewater containing pollutants and then release it directly into nearby surface waters, such as streams, rivers, or lakes. However, before any industrial wastewater can be discharged from a site, the facility must obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses effluent limitations as the primary method to regulate direct discharges of industrial wastewater into waters of the United States. These restrictions are incorporated into NPDES permits.

Meeting effluent limitations is the key to compliance with NPDES permits. But like other environmental regulations, these standards can get complex quickly without a solid foundation of understanding. We’ve compiled common FAQs to help you become fluent in effluent limitations.

Maneuvering a commercial truck and trailer into a tight spot or through a busy area in a yard is no easy feat. A common best practice is to use spotters to help drivers safely navigate through these obstacles.

Even with this additional set of eyes and ears, drivers must remain alert and effectively communicate with the spotter.

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

Check the regulations

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

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

Avoid issues with shippers

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

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

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

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

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has issued an exemption, effective until October 11, 2026, allowing commercial driver’s license (CDL) drivers to carry a paper copy of their Department of Transportation (DOT) medical examiner’s certificate for up to 60 days following their exam. This flexibility, however, shouldn’t be treated as a solution to underlying reporting issues. Instead, drivers and motor carriers must proactively confirm that medical certification information is properly reflected on the driver’s state motor vehicle record (MVR).

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has announced updates to its DataQs program to improve turnaround times for drivers and motor carriers awaiting corrections to their safety records.

States will need to meet strict deadlines and follow a three-step independent review process when handling requests to fix data on crashes, inspections, and violations.

Hazmat shipments rarely fail because of one big, dramatic mistake. They normally go wrong because of small details that slip through the cracks, like paperwork that isn’t quite right or labels that don’t match the shipment. These foundational issues continue to be the most common reasons shipments get delayed, rejected, or fined during inspections.

That’s what makes them so frustrating. These aren’t advanced compliance challenges. They’re the basics, and yet they still trip people up in real-world operations where speed, volume, and changing requirements all collide.

Truck drivers face unique challenges on the road and understanding the utility exemption for hours of service can be a game changer. Learn how this exemption empowers drivers to optimize their schedules and enhance efficiency.

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

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

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

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

No link between leave and termination

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

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

Laffon appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit.

Statute of limitations

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

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

Ruling overturned

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

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

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

With inflation on the upswing and the cost of everyday items rising, your workers are likely looking for ways to stretch their money. Smart spending can help them do that.

April is Financial Literacy month and is the perfect time to share these money-saving tips:

1. Track spending for a month so you understand where your money is going. Use information from credit card statements and your debit or checking account to see how much is spent on food, rent, clothing, transportation, and other items. Cash purchases can be tracked using receipts or a phone app.
2. Add up your spending and consider where to cut back. Optional expenses such as eating out, streaming services, alcohol, entertainment, and gifts can be good places to trim.
3. If you use a credit card, make payments on time to avoid late fees. Pay off the balance in full each month, or at least pay more than the minimum, to reduce finance charges.
4. Curb impulse buys by waiting 24 hours before making a purchase that isn’t a necessity. Remove shopping apps from your phone and unfollow brands on social media that are too tempting.
5. To cut back on your food bill, create a meal plan and a shopping list before going to the grocery store. Advanced planning will prevent you from buying more than you need. Look for recipes with common ingredients that can go a long way; plan to make extra so that you have leftovers and aren’t tempted to eat out as often. Inexpensive ingredients such as beans, rice, tortillas, pasta, potatoes, and lean meats can bolster numerous meals.
6. At the grocery store, look for sales on frozen and canned fruits and vegetables. These options last longer and can be purchased in bulk when they’re on sale. In addition, savings from store-brand items can add up.
7. Look for free fun. Take advantage of free concerts and museum days in your community. Visit the local library to see if passes for the zoo or other local attractions are available. Explore biking and hiking trails or stroll through the city.

Key to remember: Employers can help employees make the most of their pay with money-saving tips.

Last month, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) filed suit against a restaurant and its owner for back wages and liquidated damages for 26 employees.

An investigation by the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) found multiple violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), including making illegal deductions from servers’ pay for uniforms, aprons, name tags, and lost items such as crackers and utensils, resulting in employees not earning minimum wage.

The WHD alleged that the company owes $75,402 in back wages to the 26 workers.

Limits on employee wage deductions

While restaurant profit margins might be thin and overhead expenses high, that doesn’t mean the business may dock employees’ pay for these kinds of costs. Many companies in the service industry have business-related expenses like the ones listed above, as well as:

• Cash drawer shortages,
• Tools required for work,
• Broken equipment,
• Lost supplies, and
• Customers who don’t pay their bills.

The FLSA does not, however, allow employers to make deductions from employee pay for any items which:

• Are considered primarily for the employer’s benefit or convenience, and
• Would reduce employee earnings below the minimum wage.

Case in point

If, for example, Bob’s Business requires Jo Employee to wear a uniform because it’s required by:

• Law,
• The nature of the business, or
• The employer,

The cost is considered Bob’s Business’ expense and not Jo’s.

If Bob wants Jo to wear specific clothing not worn outside of work, Bob will likely need to cover the cost. If Bob wants Jo to wear a general uniform like regular khakis and a polo shirt that can also be worn outside of work, Bob may require Jo to pay for it without considering the cost as coming out of Jo’s wages.

Otherwise, Bob may not require Jo or any employee to pay for uniforms that would bring their pay below the federal minimum wage.

How much do employees pay?

If an employer requires employees to bear the cost of work-related expenses, it may not reduce the employee’s wage below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Nor may that cost cut into overtime compensation required by the FLSA.

If, for example, Jo was paid $7.75 per hour and worked 30 hours in the workweek, the maximum amount the employer could legally deduct from Jo’s wages would be $15 ($.50 X 30 hours).

Employers may spread out deductions for uniform or other costs over a period of paydays, as long as they’re compliant with the FLSA.

Key to remember: Improper wage deductions are on the WHD’s radar, especially in certain segments. The restaurant industry employs people who, in addition to being among the nation’s lowest paid workers, can also be vulnerable to wage theft because they might not know their rights and protections or be reluctant to exercise them. Therefore, the WHD takes these cases seriously.

A new year often begins a new round of employee performance reviews. Since the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows eligible employees to take up to 12 (or 26) weeks of leave, many events can occur during an employee’s leave, including the employee’s pre-scheduled performance review. Such reviews might take place on an annual or other scheduled basis. How you treat the timing of those reviews should include some thought.

If, for example, Jo Employee takes 12 weeks of FMLA leave, during which her annual performance review is scheduled, here are some questions to ponder:

• Do you look at all 12 months of Jo’s performance?
• What if she hasn’t worked a full 12 months because of leave?
• When can you actual do the review?
• Can you delay it so you can look at a full 12-months of work?

Delaying a review

An annual performance review generally takes into consideration a full years’ worth of work. Some employers think it’s best to delay the performance review by the same amount of time an employee took FMLA leave to capture an entire years’ work. This practice, however, might risk running afoul of one of the cornerstones of the FMLA: Returning the employee to his or her position, including the equivalent pay, benefits, and working conditions.

The issues can be particularly concerning if the performance review affects wage increases or other compensation.

What the regulations say

The FMLA regulations indicate that an equivalent position includes equivalent pay, which includes any unconditional pay increases that may have occurred during the FMLA leave period. Equivalent pay also includes bonuses or payments, whether discretionary or non-discretionary. FMLA leave cannot undermine the employee’s right to such pay.

Furthermore, “… employers cannot use the taking of FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment actions, such as hiring, promotions, or disciplinary actions; nor can FMLA leave be counted under no fault attendance policies.” [29 CFR 825.220(c)]

Avoiding a negative factor

Therefore, you would need to look at whether delaying an employee’s performance review could be seen as having a negative factor for the employee.

If, for example, Jo Employee took 12 weeks of leave from April through June, during which she would otherwise have obtained a pay increase in May, but you delayed this increase until September (so you could use a full 12 months of work), you may have violated the equivalent pay provision. If delaying a review creates a new review schedule going forward, the negative impacts could continue.

If, however, a pay increase is conditioned upon seniority, length of service, or work performed, you would grant it in accordance with your policy or practice as applied to other employees on an equivalent leave status for a reason that does not qualify as FMLA leave.

In other words, don’t treat an employee on FMLA leave differently than you would an employee on other forms of leave.

Key to remember: It might be less risky to keep the performance review on schedule and prorate wage increases to account for FMLA leave.

One of the most common questions involving the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) that we see is: “Can ________ fill out the medical certification?”

This question stumps a lot of HR people and can be a little confusing.

It might be easier to start with who CAN’T fill out an FMLA certification. That includes your coworker, best friend, neighbor, or pet.

Jokes aside, often (but not always) a doctor fills out the FMLA certification, and since March 30 is “Doctors’ Day,” this is a great time to discuss this topic.

Protecting workers’ heads takes more than a hard hat. A 2017 National Institute of Health (NIH) study looked at employees across four Kansas worksites and found a clear link between stress and productivity. The study revealed that higher stress scores were significantly associated with lower productivity and greater job dissatisfaction. The result of this study suggests that employers who actively work to reduce stress are not just improving mental health and morale, but they’re boosting productivity as well.

Following a series of trench collapses in the Midwest, OSHA is urging employers to take steps to protect workers from trenching and excavation hazards. These hazards are preventable when appropriate protections are used; employers must follow the regulations at 29 CFR 1926 Subpart P.

Workers should follow these safe work practices to protect themselves from hazards:

• Test the soil at every worksite before work begins;
• Never enter a trench unless it has been properly inspected by a competent person;
• Ensure there is a safe way to enter and exit a trench; and
• Keep materials away from the edge of a trench.

Additionally, trench collapses can be prevented by doing the following:

• SLOPE or bench trench walls at an angle;
• SHORE trench walls with supports, such as aluminum hydraulic, to prevent soil movement; and
• SHIELD trench walls with trench boxes.

Additional information about trenching and excavation hazards and solutions can be found on OSHA’s Trenching and Excavation webpage.

Employees who handle food, clean food processing areas, or work around food-contact surfaces must be trained to understand the practices and procedures used to ensure food is safe to consume. Equally important, however, is the OSHA-related side of training aimed at keeping workers safe.

Busy production lines, heavy equipment, and frequent cleaning tasks can expose employees to numerous hazards. OSHA recently cited a commercial bakery in Illinois for repeatedly exposing employees to safety hazards and failing to train them in electrical work, implement safety-related practices, and enforce the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) when performing electrical work. Proposed penalties totaled over $300,000!

The following table highlights the Top 10 most frequently cited violations for food manufacturing in fiscal year 2025.

Lockout/tagout. Employees who operate or perform service or maintenance on machines or equipment that must be locked out or tagged must be trained on the energy control procedures to be used. Training must be given prior to employees performing maintenance or service, as needed for employee proficiency, and when there are new or revised procedures. Energy control procedures must be reviewed annually to ensure they’re being followed and to correct any deficiencies.

Machine guarding. Exposed moving parts, frequent cleaning/changeovers, and close employee interaction with equipment make machine guarding critical. Although OSHA’s machine guarding regulations don’t specify training, the General Duty Clause requires that you provide a safe work environment. Employees should understand the purpose of machine guards, the types of guards used at your facility and the importance of not bypassing them, and who to contact if guards are missing or damaged.

Hazard communication (HazCom). Cleaning and sanitation of food production equipment is an integral component of food manufacturing. HazCom gives employees the right to know the hazards of the chemicals they’re exposed to. Paragraph (h) of 1910.1200 outlines the standard’s information and training requirements related to chemical hazards.

Powered industrial trucks (PITs). Congested production areas and warehouses, tight aisles, and limited visibility can pose hazards for both forklift drivers and nearby employees. PIT operators must be trained and evaluated according to the criteria at 1910.178(l)(1) and you must maintain certification that this was completed.

Electrical. In food manufacturing environments, electrical systems are often exposed to moisture, washdowns, chemicals, vibration, and temperature extremes, which increases the potential for hazards. Under 1910.332, training must be provided to employees who are exposed to electrical shock and those who work on or near exposed energized parts.

Personal protective equipment (PPE). In food manufacturing, PPE often serves the dual purpose of protecting workers from injury and protecting food from contamination. Employees must be trained to understand when PPE is necessary; what PPE is necessary; how to properly don, doff, remove, adjust, and wear PPE; its limitations; and its proper care, maintenance, useful life, and disposal.

Respiratory protection. Respirators may be needed during ingredient handling, sanitation, or maintenance processes. OSHA’s regulation at 1910.134 requires training for employees who wear respirators. Training must be conducted before employees use a respirator, repeated annually, and as often as necessary to ensure safe use.

Duty to have fall protection and falling object protection. Food manufacturing facilities often have fall-risk areas such as mezzanines or catwalks above production lines, elevated platforms for mixers and other equipment, and conveyor crossings. Employees who use fall protection or are otherwise exposed to fall hazards must be trained under the requirements at 1910.30. Training must be conducted by a qualified person, as defined at 1910.21(b).

Key to remember: Food manufacturing can expose employees to numerous hazards. Workplace safety training plays a key role in helping employees recognize hazards, work safely, and protect both themselves and the product.

OSHA revised its National Emphasis Program (NEP) on outdoor and indoor heat-related hazards on April 10. Using OSHA and Bureau of Labor Statistics data from 2022-2025, the agency will prioritize inspections in 55 “high-risk industries” in indoor and outdoor work settings.

The revised NEP introduces two reorganized appendices: one that includes information on how OSHA investigators will evaluate heat illnesses and prevention programs and another that provides citation guidance. The updated NEP also includes better guidance designed to strengthen tracking procedures and more effectively implement the program’s enforcement and outreach efforts.

Compliance officers will provide outreach and compliance assistance and broaden inspections if heat hazards are found on heat priority days. Additionally, random inspections will occur on days when the National Weather Service issues a heat advisory or warning.

The revised NEP remains in place for 5 years after the effective date.

Imagine a workplace where the real danger is something you can’t even see. Extreme temperatures don’t just make workers uncomfortable; they can silently push the human body past its limits, triggering a deadly chain reaction. When cooling mechanisms fail, organs shut down, and what starts as simple dehydration can spiral into heatstroke which kills more workers than many realize. Understanding how heat becomes lethal is the first step toward preventing tragedy.