
Be Part of the Ultimate Safety & Compliance Community
Trending news, knowledge-building content, and more – all personalized to you!
Welcome, everyone! In the next few minutes, we’ll review the latest in HR news. Let’s get started.
On January 9, the U.S. Department of Labor released a final rule about independent contractors. The rule lists the criteria for employers to consider when classifying workers as either employees or independent contractors.
Although the final rule impacts businesses across the country, the transportation industry in particular will be affected by the changes since many carriers hire independent contractors to move freight.
The final rule is scheduled to take effect on March 11; however, challenges to the rule are underway. In the meantime, companies should review the new criteria to see how it impacts their workers.
Speaking of employment laws and trucking, a federal judge recently ordered a motor carrier to collect and submit driver job application data to the government for three years and pay more than $300,000 to a truck driver who is deaf. The driver had applied for a job at the carrier but wasn’t hired because of his hearing disability, despite being qualified.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a suit on the driver’s behalf under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. After a trial last year, the jury found the carrier guilty of violating the ADA and awarded the driver $36 million. The judge, however, reduced the damages.
Turning to poster news, this year penalties will top $42,000 for employers that fail to comply with federal labor law posting requirements. The higher fines, which were adjusted for inflation, apply to penalties assessed after January 15.
While posting fines are typically only levied if an employer willfully and repeatedly violates the law, the fact that the Department of Labor adjusts them each year shows that the agency takes posting compliance seriously.
And lastly, school budgets may be tight, but an Illinois district learned the hard way that limiting the pay of older, higher earning teachers to save money is not an acceptable way to control spending.
In an opinion issued this past November, a U.S. District Court judge found the Urbana school district violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act by capping the salaries of teachers over age 45 to avoid pension contribution surcharges. The complaint was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of teachers affected by the district’s action.
That’s all the HR news we have time for today. For more information on these topics, click the content links in the transcript below. Thanks for watching. See you next month!
Hello, the monthly round up video series will review the month’s most impactful regulatory proposals and changes, and we’ll discuss what you can do stay compliant. With that said, let’s get started!
Certified Medical Examiners (CMEs) receive new guidance as many may face removal from the National Registry. Interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers must be medically qualified through an exam administered by Certified Medical Examiners — a group not usually in the news.
However, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) published three significant notices in the past week regarding the following:
Under a new proposal, fees for 2025 Unified Carrier Registration (UCR) would increase by an average of 25 percent above fees paid for the 2024 registration year. This amounts to between $9 and $9,000 per entity, depending on the applicable fee bracket. UCR fees are based on the number of vehicles a company owns or operates.
Despite the proposed 25 percent increase, the proposed fees are still less than the fees paid for registration years 2019-2022.
With the unseasonably warm weather in many Northern states in the last two weeks, watch for states to begin spring weight restrictions. Spring weight restrictions are most prevalent in the northern half of the United States and into Canada, but any state can impose restrictions.
One of the highest line items in any state budget is for roadway infrastructure. Highway funds are tight, the states simply cannot afford additional expense to repair or replace roadways due to being overloaded in the spring.
The spring weight limit could be less than the posted weight limit of the road. It truly is a “traveler beware” situation. It pays to be informed. Most states maintain websites with the spring restrictions.
The Province of B.C. amended regulations to increase fines and penalties for overpass crashes, and the changes will take effect in June of 2024.
Commercial vehicle infrastructure crashes cause damage, stop the movement of people and goods, and increase safety risks for everyone on the road. The ministry is implementing measures to further deter these incidents and to respond with stronger enforcement when they occur.
A more robust enforcement framework for companies that are repeatedly involved in infrastructure crashes could include outright cancellation of their carrier safety certificate, which would effectively prevent the company from operating in B.C.
That’s it for this month’s roundup. Stay safe, and thanks for watching.
Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll go over the most impactful environmental, health, and safety news. Please view the content links in the transcript for more information about the topics I’ll be covering today. Let’s get started!
Effective January 15, OSHA penalties increased 3.2 percent for inflation. Most penalties increased to $16,131. Willful and serious violations, however, increased to $161,323.
Construction workers aged 45 and older suffer more severe injuries and higher associated costs than other age groups. Most injuries are due to slips, trips, and falls.
Washington State updated its process safety management rules to better protect workers in petroleum refineries from the hazards of volatile chemicals. The rules take effect December 27, 2024.
Bloodborne pathogens topped the list of OSHA violations for the healthcare industry in 2023. Hazard Communication was the second most cited standard, followed by respiratory protection.
OSHA Region 2 launched a regional emphasis program that targets tree trimming, tree removal, and land clearing operations. Region 2 includes New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
EPA continues to strengthen its regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl – or PFAS - substances. A new rule prevents facilities from using any of the 300+ inactive PFAS before EPA conducts a risk determination and, if necessary, regulates the activity.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
Welcome, everyone! In the next few minutes, we’ll review the latest in HR news. Let’s get started.
On January 9, the U.S. Department of Labor released a final rule about independent contractors. The rule lists the criteria for employers to consider when classifying workers as either employees or independent contractors.
Although the final rule impacts businesses across the country, the transportation industry in particular will be affected by the changes since many carriers hire independent contractors to move freight.
The final rule is scheduled to take effect on March 11; however, challenges to the rule are underway. In the meantime, companies should review the new criteria to see how it impacts their workers.
Speaking of employment laws and trucking, a federal judge recently ordered a motor carrier to collect and submit driver job application data to the government for three years and pay more than $300,000 to a truck driver who is deaf. The driver had applied for a job at the carrier but wasn’t hired because of his hearing disability, despite being qualified.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a suit on the driver’s behalf under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. After a trial last year, the jury found the carrier guilty of violating the ADA and awarded the driver $36 million. The judge, however, reduced the damages.
Turning to poster news, this year penalties will top $42,000 for employers that fail to comply with federal labor law posting requirements. The higher fines, which were adjusted for inflation, apply to penalties assessed after January 15.
While posting fines are typically only levied if an employer willfully and repeatedly violates the law, the fact that the Department of Labor adjusts them each year shows that the agency takes posting compliance seriously.
And lastly, school budgets may be tight, but an Illinois district learned the hard way that limiting the pay of older, higher earning teachers to save money is not an acceptable way to control spending.
In an opinion issued this past November, a U.S. District Court judge found the Urbana school district violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act by capping the salaries of teachers over age 45 to avoid pension contribution surcharges. The complaint was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of teachers affected by the district’s action.
That’s all the HR news we have time for today. For more information on these topics, click the content links in the transcript below. Thanks for watching. See you next month!
Hello, the monthly round up video series will review the month’s most impactful regulatory proposals and changes, and we’ll discuss what you can do stay compliant. With that said, let’s get started!
Certified Medical Examiners (CMEs) receive new guidance as many may face removal from the National Registry. Interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers must be medically qualified through an exam administered by Certified Medical Examiners — a group not usually in the news.
However, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) published three significant notices in the past week regarding the following:
Under a new proposal, fees for 2025 Unified Carrier Registration (UCR) would increase by an average of 25 percent above fees paid for the 2024 registration year. This amounts to between $9 and $9,000 per entity, depending on the applicable fee bracket. UCR fees are based on the number of vehicles a company owns or operates.
Despite the proposed 25 percent increase, the proposed fees are still less than the fees paid for registration years 2019-2022.
With the unseasonably warm weather in many Northern states in the last two weeks, watch for states to begin spring weight restrictions. Spring weight restrictions are most prevalent in the northern half of the United States and into Canada, but any state can impose restrictions.
One of the highest line items in any state budget is for roadway infrastructure. Highway funds are tight, the states simply cannot afford additional expense to repair or replace roadways due to being overloaded in the spring.
The spring weight limit could be less than the posted weight limit of the road. It truly is a “traveler beware” situation. It pays to be informed. Most states maintain websites with the spring restrictions.
The Province of B.C. amended regulations to increase fines and penalties for overpass crashes, and the changes will take effect in June of 2024.
Commercial vehicle infrastructure crashes cause damage, stop the movement of people and goods, and increase safety risks for everyone on the road. The ministry is implementing measures to further deter these incidents and to respond with stronger enforcement when they occur.
A more robust enforcement framework for companies that are repeatedly involved in infrastructure crashes could include outright cancellation of their carrier safety certificate, which would effectively prevent the company from operating in B.C.
That’s it for this month’s roundup. Stay safe, and thanks for watching.
Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll go over the most impactful environmental, health, and safety news. Please view the content links in the transcript for more information about the topics I’ll be covering today. Let’s get started!
Effective January 15, OSHA penalties increased 3.2 percent for inflation. Most penalties increased to $16,131. Willful and serious violations, however, increased to $161,323.
Construction workers aged 45 and older suffer more severe injuries and higher associated costs than other age groups. Most injuries are due to slips, trips, and falls.
Washington State updated its process safety management rules to better protect workers in petroleum refineries from the hazards of volatile chemicals. The rules take effect December 27, 2024.
Bloodborne pathogens topped the list of OSHA violations for the healthcare industry in 2023. Hazard Communication was the second most cited standard, followed by respiratory protection.
OSHA Region 2 launched a regional emphasis program that targets tree trimming, tree removal, and land clearing operations. Region 2 includes New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
EPA continues to strengthen its regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl – or PFAS - substances. A new rule prevents facilities from using any of the 300+ inactive PFAS before EPA conducts a risk determination and, if necessary, regulates the activity.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
Specialized Industries
Go beyond the regulations! Visit the Institute for in-depth guidance on a wide range of compliance subjects in safety and health, transportation, environment, and human resources.
J. J. Keller® COMPLIANCE NETWORK is a premier online safety and compliance community, offering members exclusive access to timely regulatory content in workplace safety (OSHA), transportation (DOT), environment (EPA), and human resources (DOL).
Interact With Our Compliance Experts
Puzzled by a regulatory question or issue? Let our renowned experts provide the answers and get your business on track to full compliance!
Upcoming Events
Reference the Compliance Network Safety Calendar to keep track of upcoming safety and compliance events. Browse by industry or search by keyword to see relevant dates and observances, including national safety months, compliance deadlines, and more.
Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll go over the most impactful environmental, health, and safety news. Please view the content links in the transcript for more information about the topics I’ll be covering today. Let’s get started!
Effective January 15, OSHA penalties increased 3.2 percent for inflation. Most penalties increased to $16,131. Willful and serious violations, however, increased to $161,323.
Construction workers aged 45 and older suffer more severe injuries and higher associated costs than other age groups. Most injuries are due to slips, trips, and falls.
Washington State updated its process safety management rules to better protect workers in petroleum refineries from the hazards of volatile chemicals. The rules take effect December 27, 2024.
Bloodborne pathogens topped the list of OSHA violations for the healthcare industry in 2023. Hazard Communication was the second most cited standard, followed by respiratory protection.
OSHA Region 2 launched a regional emphasis program that targets tree trimming, tree removal, and land clearing operations. Region 2 includes New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
EPA continues to strengthen its regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl — or PFAS — substances. A new rule prevents facilities from using any of the 300+ inactive PFAS before EPA conducts a risk determination and, if necessary, regulates the activity.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized its reconsideration of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (NAAQS PM), strengthening the annual primary emissions limit of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), also known as soot.
What changed?
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA sets primary and secondary NAAQS. Primary standards focus on protecting human health, while secondary standards concentrate on protecting public welfare (e.g., preventing environmental damage).
In the finalized NAAQS, EPA strengthened the primary annual PM2.5 standard from 12 micrograms per cubic meter to 9 micrograms per cubic meter. The agency also:
What didn’t change?
The agency maintained:
Does this affect my facility?
Upon the effective date of the final rule, all applicants for permits to construct a new major source or make a major modification to an existing stationary source must conduct an air quality analysis that considers the revised PM2.5 NAAQS. Facilities with a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit in progress must show the new or modified source won’t violate or cause a violation of the new annual primary PM2.5 NAAQS.
When EPA establishes a new NAAQS or revises an existing one, it begins a years-long process to implement the new standards in states:
Now is the time to proactively consider ways your facility can further limit PM2.5 emissions. Your organization will be better prepared to comply with any future PM emissions control regulations.
Key to remember: EPA strengthened the annual primary standards for fine particulate matter, also known as soot.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is proposing to amend its regulation under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by adding nine specific per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), their salts, and their structural isomers, to its list of hazardous constituents. These nine PFAS are perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS), hexafluoropropylene oxide-dimer acid (HFPO–DA or GenX), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA), perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), and perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA). EPA's criteria for listing substances as hazardous constituents under RCRA require that they have been shown in scientific studies to have toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic effects on humans or other life forms. EPA reviewed and evaluated key toxicity and epidemiological studies and assessments for the nine PFAS to determine whether the available data for these PFAS meet the Agency's criteria for listing substances as hazardous constituents under RCRA. Based on EPA's evaluation, the above nine PFAS, their salts, and their structural isomers meet the criteria for being listed as RCRA hazardous constituents. As a result of this proposed rule, if finalized, when corrective action requirements are imposed at a facility, these PFAS would be among the hazardous constituents expressly identified for consideration in RCRA facility assessments and, where necessary, further investigation and cleanup through the RCRA corrective action process at RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
DATES: This proposed rule is published in the Federal Register February 8, 2024, page 8606.
View proposed rule.
This proposed rule would amend the definition of hazardous waste applicable to corrective action to address releases from solid waste management units at RCRA-permitted treatment, storage, and disposal facilities and make related conforming amendments, thereby providing clear regulatory authority to fully implement the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) statutory requirement that permitted facilities conduct corrective action to address releases not only of substances listed or identified as hazardous waste in the regulations but of any substance that meets the statutory definition of hazardous waste. The proposed rule would also provide notice of EPA's interpretation that the statutory definition of hazardous waste applies to corrective action for releases from solid waste management units at permitted and interim status facilities.
DATES: This proposed rule is published in the Federal Register February 8, 2024, page 8598.
View proposed rule.
The State of South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization, and is authorizing the State's changes through this direct final action. The EPA uses the regulations entitled, “Approved State Hazardous Waste Management Programs” to provide notice of the authorization status of State programs and to incorporate by reference those provisions of State statutes and regulations that will be subject to the EPA's inspection and enforcement. This rule also codifies in the regulations the approval of South Dakota's hazardous waste management program and incorporates by reference authorized provisions of the State's regulations.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective on April 8, 2024 is published in the Federal Register February 8, 2024, page 8540.
§272.2101 South Dakota State-administered program: Final authorization. | ||
Entire section | Revised | View text |
Appendix A to Part 272—State Requirements | ||
Listing for “South Dakota” | Revised | View text |
New Text
§272.2101 South Dakota State-administered program: Final authorization.
(a) History of the State of South Dakota authorization. Pursuant to section 3006(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), South Dakota has final authorization for the following elements as submitted to EPA in South Dakota's base program application for final authorization which was approved by EPA effective on November 2, 1984. Subsequent program revision applications were approved effective on June 17, 1991, November 8, 1993, March 11, 1994, September 23, 1996, June 8, 2000, May 24, 2004, March 8, 2006, August 8, 2012, August 23, 2016, and April 8, 2024.
(b) Enforcement authority. The State of South Dakota has primary responsibility for enforcing its hazardous waste management program. However, EPA retains the authority to exercise its inspection and enforcement authorities in accordance with sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6927, 6928, 6934, and 6973, and any other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions, regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions, as well as in accordance with other statutory and regulatory provisions.
(c) State statutes and regulations —(1) Incorporation by reference. The South Dakota regulations cited in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section are incorporated by reference as part of the hazardous waste management program under Subtitle C of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq. The Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. This material is available for inspection at the EPA and at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). You may inspect a copy at EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, phone number (303) 312–6667. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email: fr.inspection@nara.gov, or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. You may obtain copies of the South Dakota regulations that are incorporated by reference in this paragraph from South Dakota Legislative Research Council, 3rd Floor, State Capitol, 500 East Capitol Avenue, Pierre, SD 57501, phone number 605–773–3251.
(i) EPA-Approved South Dakota Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the Hazardous Waste Management Program, dated June 2022.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) Legal basis. The following provisions provide the legal basis for the State's implementation of the hazardous waste program, but they are not being incorporated by reference and do not replace Federal authorities:
(i) South Dakota Codified Laws (SDCL), as amended, 2021 Revision, Title 1, State Affairs and Government: Chapter 1–26, Administrative Procedures and Rules, sections 1–26–1(1), 1–26–1(4), 1–26–1(8) introductory paragraph, 1–26–1(8)(a), 1–26–2, 1–26–6.6, 1–26–16 through 1–26–19, 1–26–19.1, 1–26–19.2, 1–26–21, 1–26–27, 1–26–29, 1–26–30, 1–26–30.1, 1–26–30.2, 1–26–30.4, 1–26–31, 1–26–31.1, 1–26–31.2, 1–26–31.4, 1–26–35 and 1–26–36; Chapter 1–27, Public Records and Files, sections 1–27–1, 1–27–3, 1–27–9(2) and 1–27–28, 1–27–31; Chapter 1–32, Executive Reorganization, section 1–32–1(1); Chapter 1–41, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, sections 1–41–3.4, 1–41–18, 1–41–24 and 1–41–25.1.
(ii) SDCL, as amended, 2021 Revision, Title 15, Civil Procedure: Chapter 15–6, Rules of Procedure in Circuit Courts, section 15–6–24(a)–(c).
(iii) SDCL, as amended, 2021 Revision, Title 19, Evidence: Chapter 19–13, Privileges, sections 19–19–502(1), 19–19–502(5), 19–19–502(b), 19–19–507 and 19–19–509.
(iv) SDCL, as amended, 2021 Revision, Title 21, Judicial Remedies: Chapter 21–8, Injunction, section 21–8–1.
(v) SDCL, as amended, 2021 Revision, Title 22, Crimes: Chapter 22–6, Authorized Punishments, sections 22–6–1 introductory paragraph and 22–6–1(7).
(vi) SDCL, as amended, 2021 Revision, Title 23, Law Enforcement: Chapter 23–5, Criminal Identification, sections 23–5–1, 23–5–10(1), 23–5–10(3), 23–5–10(4) and 23–5–11 first sentence; Chapter 23–6, Criminal Statistics, section 23–6–4.
(vii) SDCL, as amended, 2021 Revision, Title 34, Public Health and Safety: Chapter 34–21, Radiation and Uranium Resources Exposure Control, section 34–21–2(7).
(viii) SDCL, as amended, 2021 Revision, Title 34A, Environmental Protection: Chapter 34A–6, Solid Waste Disposal, section 34A–6–1.3(17); Chapter 34A–10, Remedies for Protection of Environment, sections 34A–10–1, 34A–10–2, 34A–10–2.5, 34A–10–5, 34A–10–11, 34A–10–14 and 34A–10–16, Chapter 34A–11, Hazardous Waste Management, sections 34A–11–1, 34A–11–2 through 34A–11–4, 34A–11–5, 34A–11–8 through 34A–11–12, 34A–11–13 through 34A–11–16, 34A–11–17 through 34A–11–19, 34A–11–21 and 34A–11–22; Chapter 34A–12, Regulated Substance Discharges, sections 34A–12–1(8), 34A–12–4, 34A–12–6, 34A–12–8 through 34A–12–13, 34A–12–13.1 and 34A–12–14.
(ix) SDCL, as amended, 2021 Revision, Title 37, Trade Regulation, Chapter 37–29, Uniform Trade Secrets Act, section 37–29–1(4).
(x) Administrative Rules of South Dakota (ARSD), Article 74:08, Administrative Fees, effective April 19, 2021: Chapter 74:08:01, Fees for Records Reproduction, sections 74:08:01:01, 74:08:01:03, 74:08:01:04, 74:08:01:05.
(3) Related legal provisions. The following statutory provisions are broader in scope than the Federal program, are not part of the authorized program, are not incorporated by reference, and are not federally enforceable:
(i) SDCL, as amended, 2021 Revision, Title 34A, Environmental Protection, Chapter 34A–11, Hazardous Waste Management, sections 34A–11–12.1, 34A–11–16.1, 34A–11–25 and 34A–11–26.
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) Unauthorized State amendments. South Dakota has adopted but is not authorized for the following Federal final rules:
(i) Hazardous Waste Management System; User Fees for the Electronic Waste Manifest System and Amendments to Manifest Regulations (Non-HSWA), published in the Federal Register of 1/3/18.
(ii) Management Standards for Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals and Amendment to the P075 Listing for Nicotine (HSWA/Non-HSWA), published in the Federal Register of 2/22/19.
(iii) Those Federal rules written under RCRA provisions that predate HSWA (non-HSWA) which the State has adopted, but for which it is not authorized, are not federally enforceable. In contrast, EPA will continue to enforce the Federal HSWA standards for which South Dakota is not authorized until the State receives specific authorization from EPA.
(5) Memorandum of Agreement. The Memorandum of Agreement between EPA Region 8 and the State of South Dakota, signed by the Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Secretary on March 20, 2023, and by the EPA Region 8 Regional Administrator on March 10, 2023, although not incorporated by reference, is referenced as part of the authorized hazardous waste management program under subtitle C of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.
(6) Statement of legal authority. “Attorney General's Statement for Final Authorization”, signed by the Attorney General of South Dakota on May 24, 1984, and revisions, supplements and addenda to that Statement dated January 14, 1991, September 11, 1992, September 25, 1992, April 1, 1993, September 24, 1993, December 29, 1994, September 5, 1995, October 23, 1997, October 27, 1997, October 28, 1997, November 5, 1999, June 26, 2000, June 18, 2002, October 19, 2004, May 11, 2009, May 5, 2015, and November 29, 2021, although not incorporated by reference, are referenced as part of the authorized hazardous waste management program under subtitle C of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.
(7) Program Description. The Program Description and any other materials submitted as supplements thereto, although not incorporated by reference, are referenced as part of the authorized hazardous waste management program under subtitle C of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.
Appendix A to Part 272—State Requirements
* * * * *
South Dakota
The regulatory provisions include:
Administrative Rules of South Dakota (ARSD), Article 74:28, Hazardous Waste, as amended effective April 19, 2021, adopting by reference the Federal regulations as of July 1, 2018, and 83 FR 61552 (November 30, 2018).
Sections 74:28:21:01 (except the reference to “260.4 and 260.5” at 74:28:21:01(3)(b)(xii), and (14)(f)), 74:28:21:02, 74:28:21:03, 74:28:22:01 (except the phrase “; and 84 FR 36, 5938–5950 (February 22, 2019)”), 74:28:23:01, 74:28:24:01, 74:28:25:01 (except the phrase “; and 84 FR 36, 5938–5950 (February 22, 2019)”), 74:28:25:02 through 74:28:25:05, 74:28:26:01 (except the phrase “; and 84 FR 36, 5938–5950 (February 22, 2019)” in the introductory paragraph), 74:28:27:01 (except the phrase “; 84 FR 36, 5938–5950 (February 22, 2019)” in the introductory paragraph), 74:28:28:01 (except the phrase “; and 84 FR 36, 5938–5950 (February 22, 2019)”), 74:28:28:02 through 74:28:28:05, 74:28:29:01, 74:28:30:01 (except the phrase “; and 84 FR 36, 5938–5950 (February 22, 2019)”) and 74:28:33:01 (except the phrase “; and 84 FR 36, 5938–5950 (February 22, 2019)”); Article 74:36, Air Pollution Control Program, section 74:36:11:01.
Copies of the South Dakota regulations that are incorporated by reference are available from South Dakota Legislative Research Council, 3rd Floor, State Capitol, 500 East Capitol Avenue, Pierre, SD 57501, (Phone: 605–773–3251).
* * * * *
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently completed its review of the proposed rule to expand the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for lime manufacturing plants. If the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalizes the rule, it will regulate four additional hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). The OMB also has many other proposed NESHAP-strengthening rules queued for review.
This news likely brings up some questions. What exactly is a NESHAP? Is your facility subject to NESHAP regulations? Let’s take a closer look.
EPA limits the amount of HAPs a facility can release into the air (or emit) through NESHAPs. The regulations apply to stationary sources, which are any buildings, structures, facilities, or installations that emit or may emit a HAP.
The agency puts stationary sources into industrial groups called source categories. Examples of the categories include asbestos, lead acid battery manufacturing, and petroleum refineries. EPA provides on its website a complete list of the source categories and where to find each category in the regulations.
The first potential mishap a facility faces is not knowing whether it’s covered by a NESHAP.
EPA controls HAP emissions in two ways. The rules under 40 CFR Part 61 regulate emissions by the type of HAPs released through specific activities, like removing asbestos when renovating a building. Part 63 regulates emissions based on the source categories, such as integrated iron and steel manufacturing.
To determine whether any NESHAPs apply to your facility, answer these questions.
1. Does your facility conduct any of the activities regulated under Part 61?
If your facility conducts any activities covered by Part 61, you must comply with the NESHAP for that specific activity and HAP. For example, a plant that produces vinyl chloride by any process is subject to the NESHAP for vinyl chloride (Part 61 Subpart F).
If your facility does not conduct any activities covered under Part 61, it’s not subject to the NESHAP regulations under Part 61.
2. Does a source category under Part 63 cover your facility?
If your facility does not fall under any source category identified in Part 63, it’s not subject to a NESHAP. However, if your facility is covered by a source category, you must then determine whether your facility is a major source or an area source.
Note that most source categories are regulated under Part 63, but a few are regulated under Part 61 in Subparts BB, C, D, E, F, FF, L, M, N, O, and P.
3. Does your facility qualify as a major source or an area source under Part 63?
A major source is any facility or group of facilities located on the same property under common control that emits or has the potential to emit either:
An area source is any facility or group of facilities that emit HAPs below the major source thresholds.
It’s important to distinguish between major and area sources because both types have applicable NESHAPs based on different standards. Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards apply to major sources and reflect the maximum degree of HAP emission reduction possible. Some area sources are subject to Generally Available Control Technologies standards, which are typically less stringent than MACT standards and require minimum management practices to reduce HAP emissions.
If your facility falls under a source category and is either a major source or an area source with an applicable NESHAP, it’s subject to the NESHAP regulations under Part 63.
Help keep your facility compliant with these tips:
Key to remember: The first step of compliance with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants is to determine whether your facility is covered by the regulations.
This action announces the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) approval of alternative testing methods for use in measuring the levels of contaminants in drinking water to determine compliance with national primary drinking water regulations. The Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes EPA to approve the use of alternative testing methods through publication in the Federal Register . EPA is using this streamlined authority to make 93 additional methods available for analyzing drinking water samples. This expedited approach provides public water systems, laboratories, and primacy agencies with more timely access to new measurement techniques and greater flexibility in the selection of analytical methods, thereby reducing monitoring costs while maintaining public health protection.
DATES: This action is effective January 30, 2024, published in the Federal Register January 30, 2024, page 5773.
View final rule.
Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 141—Alternative Testing Methods Approved for Analyses Under the Safe Drinking Water Act | ||
Table Alternative Testing Methods for Contaminants Listed at 40 CFR 141.23(k)(1) | Revised | View text |
Table Alternative Testing Methods for Contaminants Listed at 40 CFR 141.24(e)(1) | Revised | View text |
Table Alternative Testing Methods for Contaminants Listed at 40 CFR 141.25(a) | Revised | View text |
Table Alternative Testing Methods for Contaminants Listed at 40 CFR 141.74(a)(1) | Revised | View text |
Table Alternative Testing Methods for Disinfectant Residuals Listed at 40 CFR 141.74(a)(2) | Revised | View text |
Table Alternative Testing Methods for Contaminants Listed at 40 CFR 141.131(b)(1) | Revised | View text |
Table Alternative Testing Methods for Disinfectant Residuals Listed at 40 CFR 141.131(c)(1) | Revised | View text |
Table Alternative Testing Methods for Parameters Listed at 40 CFR 141.131(d) | Revised | View text |
Table Alternative Testing Methods for Contaminants Listed at 40 CFR 141.402(c)(2) | Revised | View text |
Table Alternative Testing Methods for Contaminants Listed at 40 CFR 141.852(a)(5) | Revised | View text |
Table Alternative Testing Methods for Contaminants Listed at 40 CFR 143.4(b) | Revised | View text |
Previous Text
Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 141—Alternative Testing Methods Approved for Analyses Under the Safe Drinking Water Act
* * * *
Contaminant | Methodology | EPA method | SM 21st edition 1 | SM 22nd edition 28 | SM 23rd edition 49 | SM Online 3 | ASTM 4 | Other |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Alkalinity | Titrimetric | 2320 B | 2320 B | 2320 B | D1067-06 B, 11 B, 16 B | |||
Antimony | Hydride—Atomic Absorption | D 3697-07, -12, -17 | ||||||
Atomic Absorption; Furnace | 3113 B | 3113 B | 3113 B | 3113 B-04, B-10 | ||||
Axially viewed inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (AVICP-AES) | 200.5, Revision 4.2 2 | |||||||
Arsenic | Atomic Absorption; Furnace | 3113 B | 3113 B | 3113 B | 3113 B-04, B-10 | D 2972-08 C, -15 C | ||
Hydride Atomic Absorption | 3114 B | 3114 B | 3114 B | 3114 B-09 | D 2972-08 B, -15 B | |||
Axially viewed inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (AVICP-AES) | 200.5, Revision 4.2 2 | |||||||
Barium | Inductively Coupled Plasma | 3120 B | 3120 B | 3120 B | ||||
Atomic Absorption; Direct | 3111 D | 3111 D | 3111 D | |||||
Atomic Absorption; Furnace | 3113 B | 3113 B | 3113 B | 3113 B-04, B-10 | ||||
Axially viewed inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (AVICP-AES) | 200.5, Revision 4.2 2 | |||||||
Beryllium | Inductively Coupled Plasma | 3120 B | 3120 B | 3120 B | ||||
Atomic Absorption; Furnace | 3113 B | 3113 B | 3113 B | 3113 B-04, B-10 | D 3645-08 B, -15 B | |||
Axially viewed inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (AVICP-AES) | 200.5, Revision 4.2 2 | |||||||
Cadmium | Atomic Absorption; Furnace | 3113 B | 3113 B | 3113 B | 3113 B-04, B-10 | |||
Axially viewed inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (AVICP-AES) | 200.5, Revision 4.2 2 | |||||||
Calcium | EDTA titrimetric | 3500-Ca B | 3500-Ca B | 3500-Ca B | D 511-09, -14 A | |||
Atomic Absorption; Direct Aspiration | 3111 B | 3111 B | 3111 B | D 511-09, -14 B | ||||
Inductively Coupled Plasma | 3120 B | 3120 B | 3120 B | |||||
Axially viewed inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (AVICP-AES) | 200.5, Revision 4.2 2 | |||||||
Ion Chromatography | D 6919-09, -17 | |||||||
Chromium | Inductively Coupled Plasma | 3120 B | 3120 B | 3120 B | ||||
Atomic Absorption; Furnace | 3113 B | 3113 B | 3113 B | 3113 B-04, B-10 | ||||
Axially viewed inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (AVICP-AES) | 200.5, Revision 4.2 2 | |||||||
Copper | Atomic Absorption; Furnace | 3113 B | 3113 B | 3113 B | 3113 B-04, B-10 | D 1688-07, -12 C, -17 C | ||
Atomic Absorption; Direct Aspiration | 3111 B | 3111 B | 3111 B | D 1688-07, -12 A, -17 A | ||||
Inductively Coupled Plasma | 3120 B | 3120 B | 3120 B | |||||
Axially viewed inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (AVICP-AES) | 200.5, Revision 4.2 2 | |||||||
Colorimetry | Hach Method 8026. 35 Hach Method 10272 36 | |||||||
Conductivity | Conductance | 2510 B | 2510 B | 2510 B | D 1125-14 A | |||
Cyanide | Manual Distillation with MgCl 2 followed by: | 4500-CN C | 4500-CN C | 4500-CN C | 4500-CN C-99 | D 2036-06 A | ||
Spectrophotometric, Amenable | 4500-CN G | 4500-CN G | 4500-CN G | D 2036-06 B | ||||
Spectrophotometric Manual | 4500-CN E | 4500-CN E | 4500-CN E | D2036-06 A | ||||
Selective Electrode | 4500-CN F | 4500-CN F | 4500-CN F | |||||
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry Headspace | ME355.01. 7 | |||||||
Fluoride | Ion Chromatography | 4110 B | 4110 B | 4110 B | D 4327-11, -17 | |||
Manual Distillation; Colorimetric SPADNS | 4500-F B, D | 4500-F B, D | 4500-F B, D | |||||
Manual Electrode | 4500-F C | 4500-F C | 4500-F C | D 1179-04, 10 B, 16 B | ||||
Automated Alizarin | 4500-F E | 4500-F E | 4500-F E | |||||
Arsenite-Free Colorimetric SPADNS | Hach SPADNS. 2 Method 10225. 22 | |||||||
Lead | Atomic Absorption; Furnace | 3113 B | 3113 B | 3113 B | 3113 B-04, B-10 | D 3559-08 D, -15 D | ||
Axially viewed inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (AVICP-AES) | 200.5, Revision 4.2 2 | |||||||
Differential Pulse Anodic Stripping Voltametry | Method 1001, Rev. 1.1 57 | |||||||
Magnesium | Atomic Absorption | 3111 B | 3111 B | 3111 B | D 511-09, -14 B | |||
Inductively Coupled Plasma | 3120 B | 3120 B | 3120 B | |||||
Complexation Titrimetric Methods | 3500-Mg B | 3500-Mg B | 3500-Mg B | D 511-09, -14 A | ||||
Axially viewed inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (AVICP-AES) | 200.5, Revision 4.2 2 | |||||||
Ion Chromatography | D 6919-09, -17 | |||||||
Mercury | Manual, Cold Vapor | 3112 B | 3112 B | 3112 B | 3112 B-09 | D 3223-12, -17 | ||
Nickel | Inductively Coupled Plasma | 3120 B | 3120 B | 3120 B | ||||
Atomic Absorption; Direct | 3111 B | 3111 B | 3111 B | |||||
Atomic Absorption; Furnace | 3113 B | 3113 B | 3113 B | 3113 B-04, B-10 | ||||
Axially viewed inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (AVICP-AES) | 200.5, Revision 4.2 2 | |||||||
Nitrate | Ion Chromatography | 4110 B | 4110 B | 4110 B | D 4327-11, -17 | |||
Automated Cadmium Reduction | 4500-NO 3 F | 4500-NO 3 F | 4500-NO 3 F | |||||
Manual Cadmium Reduction | 4500-NO 3 E | 4500-NO 3 E | 4500-NO 3 E | |||||
Ion Selective Electrode | 4500-NO 3 D | 4500-NO 3 D | 4500-NO 3 D | |||||
Reduction/Colorimetric | Systea Easy (1-Reagent). 8 NECi Nitrate-Reductase. 40 | |||||||
Colorimetric; Direct | Hach TNTplus TM 835/836 Method 10206. 23 | |||||||
Capillary Ion Electrophoresis | D 6508-15 | |||||||
Nitrite | Ion Chromatography | 4110 B | 4110 B | 4110 B | D 4327-11, -17 | |||
Automated Cadmium Reduction | 4500-NO 3 F | 4500-NO 3 F | 4500-NO 3 F | |||||
Manual Cadmium Reduction | 4500-NO 3 E | 4500-NO 3 E | 4500-NO 3 E | |||||
Spectrophotometric | 4500-NO 2 B | 4500-NO 2 B | 4500-NO 2 B | |||||
Reduction/Colorimetric | Systea Easy (1-Reagent). 8 NECi Nitrate-Reductase. 40 | |||||||
Capillary Ion Electrophoresis | D 6508-15 | |||||||
Ortho-phosphate | Ion Chromatography | 4110 B | 4110 B | 4110 B | D 4327-11, -17 | |||
Colorimetric, ascorbic acid, single reagent | 4500-P E | 4500-P E | 4500-P E | 4500-P E-99 | ||||
Colorimetric, Automated, Ascorbic Acid | 4500-P F | 4500-P F | 4500-P F | 4500-P F-99 | Thermo Fisher Discrete Analyzer. 41 | |||
Capillary Ion Electrophoresis | D 6508-15 | |||||||
pH | Electrometric | 150.3 48 | 4500-H + B | 4500-H + B | 4500-H + B | D 1293-12, -18 | ||
Selenium | Hydride-Atomic Absorption | 3114 B | 3114 B | 3114 B | 3114 B-09 | D 3859-08 A, -15 A | ||
Atomic Absorption; Furnace | 3113 B | 3113 B | 3113 B | 3113 B-04, B-10 | D 3859-08 B, -15 B | |||
Axially viewed inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (AVICP-AES) | 200.5, Revision 4.2 2 | |||||||
Silica | Colorimetric | D859-05, 10, 16 | ||||||
Molybdosilicate | 4500-SiO 2 C | 4500-SiO 2 C | 4500-SiO 2 C | |||||
Heteropoly blue | 4500-SiO 2 D | 4500-SiO 2 D | 4500-SiO 2 D | |||||
Automated for Molybdate-reactive Silica | 4500-SiO 2 E | 4500-SiO 2 E | 4500-SiO 2 E | |||||
Axially viewed inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (AVICP-AES) | 200.5, Revision 4.2 2 | |||||||
Inductively Coupled Plasma | 3120 B | 3120 B | 3120 B | |||||
Sodium | Atomic Absorption; Direct Aspiration | 3111 B | 3111 B | 3111 B | ||||
Axially viewed inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (AVICP-AES) | 200.5, Revision 4.2 2 | |||||||
Ion Chromatography | D 6919-09, -17 | |||||||
Temperature | Thermometric | 2550 | 2550 | 2550 | 2550-10 |
Contaminant | Methodology | EPA method | SM 21st edition 1 | SM 22nd edition, 28 SM 23rd edition 49 | SM Online 3 | ASTM 4 | Other |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Benzene | Purge &Trap/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry | 9 524.3, 29 524.4. | |||||
Carbon tetrachloride | Purge &Trap/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry | 9 524.3, 29 524.4. | |||||
Chlorobenzene | Purge &Trap/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry | 9 524.3, 29 524.4. | |||||
1,2-Dichlorobenzene | Purge &Trap/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry | 9 524.3, 29 524.4. | |||||
1,4-Dichlorobenzene | Purge &Trap/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry | 9 524.3, 29 524.4. | |||||
1,2-Dichloroethane | Purge &Trap/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry | 9 524.3, 29 524.4. | |||||
cis-Dichloroethylene | Purge &Trap/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry | 9 524.3, 29 524.4. | |||||
trans-Dichloroethylene | Purge &Trap/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry | 9 524.3, 29 524.4. | |||||
Dichloromethane | Purge &Trap/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry | 9 524.3, 29 524.4. | |||||
1,2-Dichloropropane | Purge &Trap/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry | 9 524.3, 29 524.4. | |||||
Ethylbenzene | Purge &Trap/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry | 9 524.3, 29 524.4. | |||||
Styrene | Purge &Trap/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry | 9 524.3, 29 524.4. | |||||
Tetrachloroethylene | Purge &Trap/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry | 9 524.3, 29 524.4. | |||||
1,1,1-Trichloroethane | Purge &Trap/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry | 9 524.3, 29 524.4. | |||||
Trichloroethylene | Purge &Trap/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry | 9 524.3, 29 524.4. | |||||
Toluene | Purge &Trap/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry | 9 524.3, 29 524.4. | |||||
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | Purge &Trap/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry | 9 524.3, 29 524.4. | |||||
1,1-Dichloroethylene | Purge &Trap/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry | 9 524.3, 29 524.4. | |||||
1,1,2-Trichlorethane | Purge &Trap/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry | 9 524.3, 29 524.4. | |||||
Vinyl chloride | Purge &Trap/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry | 9 524.3, 29 524.4. | |||||
Xylenes (total) | Purge &Trap/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry | 9 524.3, 29 524.4. | |||||
2,4-D | Gas Chromatography/Electron Capture Detection (GC/ECD) | 6640 B | 6640 B | 6640 B-01, B-06 | D 5317-20. | ||
2,4,5-TP (Silvex) | Gas Chromatography/Electron Capture Detection (GC/ECD) | 6640 B | 6640 B | 6640 B-01, B-06 | D 5317-20. | ||
Alachlor | Solid Phase Extraction/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) | 24 525.3. | |||||
Atrazine | Liquid Chromatography Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/ESI-MS/MS) | 25 536. | |||||
Solid Phase Extraction/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) | 24 525.3, 26 523. | ||||||
Benzo(a)pyrene | Solid Phase Extraction/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) | 24 525.3. | |||||
Carbofuran | High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with post-column derivatization and fluorescence detection | 6610 B | 6610 B | 6610 B-04. | |||
Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry | 58 ME 531 | ||||||
Chlordane | Solid Phase Extraction/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) | 24 525.3 | |||||
Dalapon | Ion Chromatography Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (IC-ESI-MS/MS) | 14 557. | |||||
Gas Chromatography/Electron Capture Detection (GC/ECD) | 6640 B | 6640 B | 6640 B-01, B-06. | ||||
Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate | Solid Phase Extraction/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) | 24 525.3. | |||||
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate | Solid Phase Extraction/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) | 24 525.3. | |||||
Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) | Purge &Trap/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry | 9 524.3. | |||||
Dinoseb | Gas Chromatography/Electron Capture Detection (GC/ECD) | 6640 B | 6640 B | 6640 B-01, B-06. | |||
Endrin | Solid Phase Extraction/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) | 24 525.3. | |||||
Ethyl dibromide (EDB) | Purge &Trap/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry | 9 524.3. | |||||
Glyphosate | High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) with Post-Column Derivatization and Fluorescence Detection | 6651 B | 6651 B | 6651 B-00, B-05. | |||
Heptachlor | Solid Phase Extraction/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) | 24 525.3. | |||||
Heptachlor Epoxide | Solid Phase Extraction/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) | 24 525.3. | |||||
Hexachlorobenzene | Solid Phase Extraction/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) | 24 525.3. | |||||
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene | Solid Phase Extraction/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) | 24 525.3. | |||||
Lindane | Solid Phase Extraction/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) | 24 525.3. | |||||
Methoxychlor | Solid Phase Extraction/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) | 24 525.3. | |||||
Oxamyl | High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with post-column derivatization and fluorescence detection | 6610 B | 6610 B | 6610 B-04. | |||
Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry | 58 ME 531. | ||||||
PCBs (as Aroclors) | Solid Phase Extraction/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) | 24 525.3. | |||||
Pentachlorophenol | Gas Chromatography/Electron Capture Detection (GC/ECD) | 6640 B | 6640 B | 6640 B-01, B-06 | D 5317-20. | ||
Solid Phase Extraction/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) | 24 525.3. | ||||||
Picloram | Gas Chromatography/Electron Capture Detection (GC/ECD) | 6640 B | 6640 B | 6640 B-01, B-06 | D 5317-20. | ||
Simazine | Liquid Chromatography Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/ESI-MS/MS) | 25 536. | |||||
Solid Phase Extraction/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) | 24 525.3, 26 523. | ||||||
Toxaphene | Solid Phase Extraction/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) | 24 525.3. | |||||
Total Trihalomethanes | Purge &Trap/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry | 9 524.3, 29 524.4. |
Contaminant | Methodology | EPA method | SM 21st edition 1 | SM 22nd edition, 28 SM 23rd edition 49 | ASTM 4 | SM Online 3 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Naturally Occurring: | ||||||
Gross alpha and beta | Evaporation | 900.0, Rev. 1.0 50 | 7110 B | 7110 B | ||
Liquid Scintillation | D 7283-17 | 7110 D-17. | ||||
Gross alpha | Coprecipitation | 7110 C | 7110 C | |||
Radium 226 | Radon emanation | 903.1, Rev. 1.0 53 | 7500-Ra C | 7500-Ra C | D 3454-05, -18 | |
Radiochemical | 903.0, Rev. 1.0 54 | 7500-Ra B | 7500-Ra B | D 2460-07 | ||
Gamma Spectrometry | 7500-Ra E | 7500-Ra E-07. | ||||
Radium 228 | Radiochemical | 904.0, Rev. 1.0 62 | 7500-Ra D | 7500-Ra D. | ||
Gamma Spectrometry | 7500-Ra E | 7500-Ra E-07. | ||||
Uranium | Radiochemical | 7500-U B | 7500-U B | |||
ICP-MS | 3125 | D 5673-05, 10, 16 | ||||
Alpha spectrometry | 7500-U C | 7500-U C | D 3972-09 | |||
Laser Phosphorimetry | D 5174-07 | |||||
Alpha Liquid Scintillation Spectrometry | D 6239-09 | |||||
Man-Made: | ||||||
Radioactive Cesium | Radiochemical | 7500-Cs B | 7500-Cs B | |||
Gamma Ray Spectrometry | 7120 | 7120 | D 3649-06 | |||
Radioactive Iodine | Radiochemical | 7500-I B, 7500-I C, 7500-I D | 7500-I B, 7500-I C, 7500-I D | D 3649-06. | ||
Gamma Ray Spectrometry | 7120 | 7120 | D 4785-08, -20. | |||
Radioactive Strontium 89, 90 | Radiochemical | 7500-Sr B | 7500-Sr B | |||
Tritium | Liquid Scintillation | 7500- 3 H B | 7500- 3 H B | D 4107-08, -20 | ||
Gamma Emitters | Gamma Ray Spectrometry | 7120, 7500-Cs B, 7500-I B | 7120, 7500-Cs B, 7500-I B | D 3649-06, D 4785-08, -20 |
Organism | Methodology | SM 21st edition 1 | SM 22nd edition 28 | SM 23rd edition 49 | SM Online 3 | Other |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total Coliform | Total Coliform Fermentation Technique | 9221 A, B, C | 9221 A, B, C | 9221 A, B, C | 9221 A,B,C-06 | |
Total Coliform Membrane Filter Technique | 9222 A, B, C | 9222 A, B, C. | ||||
ONPG-MUG Test | 9223 | 9223 B | 9223 B | 9223 B-04. | ||
Fecal Coliforms | Fecal Coliform Procedure | 9221 E | 9221 E | 9221 E | 9221 E-06. | |
Fecal Coliform Filter Procedure | 9222 D | 9222 D | 9222 D | 9222 D-06. | ||
Heterotrophic bacteria | Pour Plate Method | 9215 B | 9215 B | 9215 B | 9215 B-04. | |
Turbidity | Nephelometric Method | 2130 B | 2130 B | 2130 B | Hach Method 8195, Rev. 3.0. 52 | |
Laser Nephelometry (on-line) | Mitchell M5271, 10 Mitchell M5331, Rev. 1.2, 42 Lovibond PTV 6000. 46 | |||||
LED Nephelometry (on-line) | Mitchell M5331, 11 Mitchell M5331, Rev. 1.2 42 , Lovibond PTV 2000. 45 | |||||
LED Nephelometry (on-line) | AMI Turbiwell, 15 Lovibond PTV 1000. 44 | |||||
LED Nephelometry (portable) | Orion AQ4500, 12 Lovibond TB 3500, 64 Lovibond TB 5000. 65 | |||||
Laser Nephelometry (portable) | Lovibond TB 6000 63. | |||||
360° Nephelometry | Hach Method 10258, Rev. 1.0, 39 Hach Method 10258, Rev. 2.0. 51 |
Residual | Methodology | EPA methods | SM 21st edition 1 | SM 22nd edition 28 , SM 23rd edition 49 | ASTM 4 | Other |
Free Chlorine | Amperometric Titration | 4500-Cl D | 4500-Cl D | D 1253-08, -14 | ||
DPD Ferrous Titrimetric | 4500-Cl F | 4500-Cl F | ||||
DPD Colorimetric | 4500-Cl G | 4500-Cl G | Hach Method 10260. 31 | |||
Indophenol Colorimetric | Hach Method 10241. 34 | |||||
Syringaldazine (FACTS) | 4500-Cl H | 4500-Cl H | ||||
On-line Chlorine Analyzer | 334.0 16 | |||||
Amperometric Sensor | ChloroSense 17 , ChloroSense Rev. 1.1. 59 | |||||
Total Chlorine | Amperometric Titration | 4500-Cl D | 4500-Cl D | D 1253-08, -14 | ||
Amperometric Titration (Low level measurement) | 4500-Cl E | 4500-Cl E | ||||
DPD Ferrous Titrimetric | 4500-Cl F | 4500-Cl F | ||||
DPD Colorimetric | 4500-Cl G | 4500-Cl G | Hach Method 10260. 31 | |||
Iodometric Electrode | 4500-Cl I | 4500-Cl I | ||||
On-line Chlorine Analyzer | 334.0 16 | |||||
Amperometric Sensor | ChloroSense 17 , ChloroSense, Rev. 1.1. 59 | |||||
Indophenol Colorimetric | 127. 55 | |||||
Chlorine Dioxide | Amperometric Titration | 4500-ClO 2 C | 4500-ClO 2 C | |||
Amperometric Titration | 4500-ClO 2 E | 4500-ClO 2 E | ||||
Amperometric Sensor | ChlordioX Plus 32 , ChlordioX Plus, Rev. 1.1. 60 | |||||
Ozone | Indigo Method | 4500-O 3 B | 4500-O 3 B |
Contaminant | Methodology | EPA method | ASTM 4 | SM online 3 | SM 21st edition 1 | SM 22nd edition, 28 SM 23rd edition 49 | Other |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TTHM | P&T/GC/MS | 524.3, 9 524.4. 29 | |||||
HAA5 | LLE (diazomethane)/GC/ECD | 6251 B-07 | 6251 B | 6251 B. | |||
Ion Chromatography Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (IC-ESI-MS/MS) | 557. 14 | ||||||
Two-Dimensional Ion Chromatography (IC) with Suppressed Conductivity Detection | Thermo Fisher 557.1. 47 | ||||||
Bromate | Two-Dimensional Ion Chromatography (IC) | 302.0. 18 | |||||
Ion Chromatography Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (IC-ESI-MS/MS) | 557. 14 | ||||||
Chemically Suppressed Ion Chromatography | D 6581-08 A. | ||||||
Electrolytically Suppressed Ion Chromatography | D 6581-08 B. | ||||||
Chlorite | Chemically Suppressed Ion Chromatography | D 6581-08 A. | |||||
Electrolytically Suppressed Ion Chromatography | D 6581-08 B. | ||||||
Chlorite—daily monitoring as prescribed in 40 CFR 141.132(b)(2)(i)(A) | Amperometric Titration Amperometric Sensor | 4500-ClO 2 E | 4500-ClO 2 E | ChlordioX Plus 32 , ChlordioX Plus, Rev. 1.1. 60 |
Residual | Methodology | SM 21st edition 1 | SM 22nd edition, 28 SM 23rd edition 49 | ASTM 4 | Other |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Free Chlorine | Amperometric Titration | 4500-Cl D | 4500-Cl D | D 1253-08, -14 | |
DPD Ferrous Titrimetric | 4500-Cl F | 4500-Cl F | |||
DPD Colorimetric | 4500-Cl G | 4500-Cl G | Hach Method 10260. 31 | ||
Indophenol Colorimetric | Hach Method 10241. 34 | ||||
Syringaldazine (FACTS) | 4500-Cl H | 4500-Cl H | |||
Amperometric Sensor | ChloroSense 17 , ChloroSense, Rev. 1.1. 59 | ||||
On-line Chlorine Analyzer | EPA 334.0. 16 | ||||
Combined Chlorine | Amperometric Titration | 4500-Cl D | 4500-Cl D | D 1253-08, -14. | |
DPD Ferrous Titrimetric | 4500-Cl F | 4500-Cl F | |||
DPD Colorimetric | 4500-Cl G | 4500-Cl G | Hach Method 10260. 31 | ||
Total Chlorine | Amperometric Titration | 4500-Cl D | 4500-Cl D | D 1253-08, -14 | |
Low level Amperometric Titration | 4500-Cl E | 4500-Cl E | |||
DPD Ferrous Titrimetric | 4500-Cl F | 4500-Cl F | |||
DPD Colorimetric | 4500-Cl G | 4500-Cl G | Hach Method 10260. 31 | ||
Iodometric Electrode | 4500-Cl I | 4500-Cl I | |||
Amperometric Sensor | ChloroSense, 17 ChloroSense, Rev. 1.1. 59 | ||||
On-line Chlorine Analyzer | |||||
On-line Chlorine Analyzer | EPA 334.0. 16 | ||||
Chlorine Dioxide | Amperometric Method II | 4500-ClO 2 E | 4500-ClO 2 E | ||
Amperometric Sensor | ChlordioX Plus, 32 ChlordioX Plus, Rev. 1.1. 60 |
Parameter | Methodology | SM 21st edition 1 | SM 22nd edition 28 | SM 23rd edition 49 | SM online 3 | EPA | Other |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) | High Temperature Combustion | 5310 B | 5310 B | 5310 B | 415.3, Rev 1.2. 19 | ||
Persulfate-Ultraviolet or Heated Persulfate Oxidation | 5310 C | 5310 C | 5310 C | 415.3, Rev 1.2. 19 | Hach Method 10267. 38 | ||
Wet Oxidation | 5310 D | 5310 D | 415.3, Rev 1.2. 19 | ||||
Ozone Oxidation | Hach Method 10261. 37 | ||||||
Specific Ultraviolet Absorbance (SUVA) | Calculation using DOC and UV 254 data | 415.3, Rev 1.2. 19 | |||||
Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) | High Temperature Combustion | 5310 B | 5310 B | 5310 B | 415.3, Rev 1.2. 19 | ||
Persulfate-Ultraviolet or Heated Persulfate Oxidation | 5310 C | 5310 C | 5310 C | 415.3, Rev 1.2. 19 | |||
Wet Oxidation | 5310 D | 5310 D | 415.3, Rev 1.2. 19 | ||||
Ultraviolet absorption at 254 nm (UV 254) | Spectrophotometry | 5910 B | 5910 B | 5910 B | 5910 B-11 | 415.3, Rev 1.2. 19 |
Organism | Methodology | SM 20th edition 6 | SM 21st edition 1 | SM 22nd edition 28 | SM 23rd edition 49 | SM online 3 | Other |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
E. coli | Colilert | 9223 B | 9223 B | 9223 B | 9223 B-97, B-04 | ||
Colisure | 9223 B | 9223 B | 9223 B | 9223 B-97, B-04 | |||
Colilert-18 | 9223 B | 9223 B | 9223 B | 9223 B | 9223 B-97, B-04 | ||
Readycult® | Readycult®. 20 | ||||||
Colitag | Modified Colitag 13 , Modified Colitag, Version 2.0. 61 | ||||||
Chromocult® | Chromocult®. 21 | ||||||
EC-MUG | 9221 F | 9221 F | 9221 F-06 | ||||
NA-MUG | 9222 I | ||||||
m-ColiBlue24 Test | 9222 J | ||||||
Enterococci | Multiple-Tube Technique | 9230 B-04. | |||||
Membrane Filter Techniques | 9230 C. | ||||||
Fluorogenic Substrate Enterococcus Test (using Enterolert) | 9230 D. | ||||||
Coliphage | Two-Step Enrichment Presence-Absence Procedure | Fast Phage. 30 |
Organism | Methodology category | Method | SM 20th, 21st editions 1 6 | SM 22nd edition 28 | SM 23rd edition 49 | SM online 3 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total Coliforms | Lactose Fermentation Methods | Standard Total Coliform Fermentation Technique | 9221 B.1, B.2 | 9221 B.1, B.2, B.3, B.4 | 9221 B.1, B.2-06. | |
Presence-Absence (P-A) Coliform Test | 9221 D.1, D.2, D.3 | |||||
Membrane Filtration Methods | Standard Total Coliform Membrane Filter Procedure using Endo Media | 9222 B, C. | ||||
Simultaneous Detection of Total Coliforms and E. coli by Dual Chromogen Membrane Filter Procedure (using mColiBlue24 medium) | 9222 J. | |||||
Simultaneous Detection of Total Coliform Bacteria and Escherichia coli Using RAPID' E.coli (REC2) in Drinking Water. 56 | ||||||
Enzyme Substrate Methods | Colilert® | 9223 B | 9223 B | 9223 B-04 | ||
Colisure® | 9223 B | 9223 B | 9223 B-04. | |||
Colilert-18 | 9223 B | 9223 B | 9223 B | 9223 B-04. | ||
Tecta EC/TC. 33 43 | ||||||
Modified Colitag TM , Version 2.0. 61 | ||||||
Escherichia coli | Escherichia coli Procedure (following Lactose Fermentation Methods) | EC-MUG medium | 9221 F.1 | 9221 F.1 | 9221 F.1-06. | |
Escherichia coli Partitioning Methods (following Membrane Filtration Methods) | EC broth with MUG (EC-MUG) | 9222 H. | ||||
NA-MUG medium | 9222 I. | |||||
Simultaneous Detection of Total Coliforms and E. coli by Dual Chromogen Membrane Filter Procedure | mColiBlue24 medium | 9222 J. | ||||
Membrane Filtration Method | Simultaneous Detection of Total Coliform Bacteria and Escherichia coli Using RAPID' E.coli (REC2) in Drinking Water. 56 | |||||
Enzyme Substrate Methods | Colilert® | 9223 B | 9223 B | 9223 B-04. | ||
Colisure® | 9223 B | 9223 B | 9223 B-04. | |||
Colilert-18 | 9223 B | 9223 B | 9223 B | 9223 B-04. | ||
Tecta EC/TC. 33 43 | ||||||
Modified Colitag TM , Version 2.0. 61 |
Contaminant | Methodology | EPA method | ASTM 4 | SM 21st edition 1 | SM 22nd edition, 28 SM 23rd edition 49 | SM online 3 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aluminum | Axially viewed inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (AVICP-AES) | 200.5, Revision 4.2. 2 | ||||
Atomic Absorption; Direct | 3111 D | 3111 D. | ||||
Atomic Absorption; Furnace | 3113 B | 3113 B | 3113 B-04, B-10. | |||
Inductively Coupled Plasma | 3120 B | 3120 B. | ||||
Chloride | Silver Nitrate Titration | D 512-04 B, 12 B | 4500-Cl - B | 4500-Cl - B | ||
Ion Chromatography | D 4327-11, -17 | 4110 B | 4110 B | |||
Potentiometric Titration | 4500-Cl - D | 4500-Cl - D | ||||
Color | Visual Comparison | 2120 B | 2120 B. | |||
Foaming Agents | Methylene Blue Active Substances (MBAS) | 5540 C | 5540 C. | |||
Iron | Axially viewed inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (AVICP-AES) | 200.5, Revision 4.2. 2 | ||||
Atomic Absorption; Direct | 3111 B | 3111 B. | ||||
Atomic Absorption; Furnace | 3113 B | 3113 B | 3113 B-04, B-10. | |||
Inductively Coupled Plasma | 3120 B | 3120 B. | ||||
Manganese | Axially viewed inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (AVICP-AES) | 200.5, Revision 4.2. 2 | ||||
Atomic Absorption; Direct | 3111 B | 3111 B. | ||||
Atomic Absorption; Furnace | 3113 B | 3113 B | 3113 B-04, B-10. | |||
Inductively Coupled Plasma | 3120 B | 3120 B. | ||||
Odor | Threshold Odor Test | 2150 B | 2150 B. | |||
Silver | Axially viewed inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (AVICP-AES) | 200.5, Revision 4.2. 2 | ||||
Atomic Absorption; Direct | 3111 B | 3111 B. | ||||
Atomic Absorption; Furnace | 3113 B | 3113 B | 3113 B-04, B-10. | |||
Inductively Coupled Plasma | 3120 B | 3120 B. | ||||
Sulfate | Ion Chromatography | D 4327-11, -17 | 4110 B | 4110 B | ||
Gravimetric with ignition of residue | 4500-SO 4- C | 4500-SO 4- C | 4500-SO 4- C-97. | |||
Gravimetric with drying of residue | 4500-SO 4- D | 4500-SO 4- D | 4500-SO 4- D-97. | |||
Turbidimetric method | D 516-07, 11, 16 | 4500-SO 4- E | 4500-SO 4- E | 4500-SO 4- E-97. | ||
Automated methylthymol blue method | 4500-SO 4- F | 4500-SO 4- F | 4500-SO 4- F-97. | |||
Total Dissolved Solids | Total Dissolved Solids Dried at 180 deg C | 2540 C | 2540 C. | |||
Zinc | Axially viewed inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (AVICP-AES) | 200.5, Revision 4.2. 2 | ||||
Atomic Absorption; Direct Aspiration | 3111 B | 3111 B. | ||||
Inductively Coupled Plasma | 3120 B | 3120 B. |
In a recent settlement case, the EPA alleges that a construction company violated the Clean Water Act (CWA) and related state laws during the construction of solar farms in Alabama, Idaho, and Illinois between 2016 and 2022. In total the company will pay just over two million dollars to resolve the allegations. The states of Alabama and Illinois joined the EPA in the settlement. The amount to be paid will include civil penalties, mitigation, and restoration projects.
Case Study
Specifically, the company failed to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, designed to regulate construction site runoff. Solar farm construction involves clearing and grading large sections of land, which can lead to significant erosion and major runoff of sediment into waterways if stormwater controls at the site are inadequate. A complaint filed with the settlement alleges that during its construction of solar farms near American Falls, Idaho, Lafayette, Alabama, and Perry and White Counties, Illinois, the construction company failed to use proper stormwater controls, did not conduct regular site inspections by qualified personnel and did not accurately report and address stormwater issues. These are all requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit. These combined breaches put waterways at risk from sediment-laden runoff, potentially harming aquatic life and jeopardizing downstream drinking water quality.
Learn more about stormwater in our EzExplanation
What is an NPDES permit?
The CWA bans discharging any type of industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste through a point source into a water of the United States unless they have an NPDES permit. The permit contains limits on what you can discharge, monitoring and reporting requirements, and other provisions to ensure that the discharge does not impact water quality. The permit interprets general requirements of the CWA into specific provisions tailored to the operations related to discharging pollutants. NPDES permits make sure that a state's mandatory standards for clean water and the federal minimums are being met.
CGP requirements
When it rains, water washes over the soil and things stored outside on a construction site. This water can pick up dirt, trash, and chemicals from the soil and carry them to nearby sewers or bodies of water. The CGP ensures that site operators have measures in place to prevent this pollution and keep the water clean for the community and the environment. Typically, if your construction activities disturb one or more acres of land, or will disturb less than one acre of land but are part of a common plan of development you will need to file for coverage under the CGP. Before submitting your Notice of Intent (NOI), the form you file to obtain coverage under the CGP, you must develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) outlines how you plan to implement erosion and sediment controls and meet other requirements of the permit on your construction site.
Additional CGP requirements include:
Key to remember
Solar farms are important for helping to reduce the impact of climate change. However, the companies that build these solar farms need to follow certain rules to protect the environment, just like any other construction project.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a regulation to implement the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as specified in the Methane Emissions Reduction Program of the Inflation Reduction Act. This program requires the EPA to impose and collect an annual charge on methane emissions that exceed specified waste emissions thresholds from an owner or operator of an applicable facility that reports more than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gases emitted per year pursuant to the petroleum and natural gas systems source category requirements of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. The proposal would implement calculation procedures, flexibilities, and exemptions related to the waste emissions charge and proposes to establish confidentiality determinations for data elements included in waste emissions charge filings.
DATES: This proposed rule is published in the Federal Register January 26, 2024, page 5318.
View proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is proposing a regulation to revise the technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) for the meat and poultry products (MPP) point source category. The proposed rule would improve water quality and protect human health and the environment by reducing the discharge of nutrients and other pollutants to the nation's surface waters. EPA is proposing several regulatory options, including the preferred option discussed in this notice. The preferred option is estimated to cost $232 million annually and reduce pollutant discharges by approximately 100 million pounds per year.
DATES: This proposed rule is published in the Federal Register January 23, 2024, page 4474.
View proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to add regulations to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The new rule finalized in January 2024 prevents facilities from using inactive PFAS before EPA reviews the planned use and makes a risk determination.
This significant new use rule (SNUR) applies to the 329 PFAS designated as inactive on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory and aren’t yet subject to an existing SNUR. An inactive PFAS hasn’t been manufactured (including imported) or processed in the U.S. since June 21, 2006.
What are PFAS?
Also called “forever chemicals,” PFAS are a group of thousands of manufactured chemicals that are used widely in industry and consumer products. Many take a long time to break down and build up over time. They’re found nearly everywhere in water, air, soil, and consumer products, such as nonstick cookware, food packaging, clothing, and shampoo.
Some studies suggest that exposure to PFAS may lead to health issues. However, research continues since much remains unknown about the chemical substances. EPA regulates PFAS to prevent them from entering air, land, and water at levels that may harm human health and the environment.
What are the new SNUR requirements?
Under TSCA, EPA can determine that a certain use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use” and require anyone who wants to use the chemical substance for that purpose to first notify the agency. EPA will then conduct a review and risk determination. The new SNUR requires EPA to conduct reviews and risk determinations of the inactive PFAS before they can be used again.
If your facility wants to manufacture (including import) or process an inactive PFAS, notify EPA at least 90 days through a significant new use notice before beginning use. Once EPA receives the notification, the agency will:
If the new use doesn’t present an unreasonable risk and EPA makes an affirmative determination, your facility can use the PFAS. However, if the new use presents an unreasonable risk, the agency must first regulate the activity before you can use the PFAS.
What are other recent regulations of PFAS?
Over the past three years, EPA has implemented the 2021–2024 PFAS Strategic Roadmap, the agency's comprehensive strategy to address the risks of PFAS exposure and contamination through specific regulatory actions. The agency focuses on three directives: researching the forever chemicals, restricting the release of them into the environment, and cleaning up PFAS-contaminated sites.
This final rule joins EPA’s other actions taken via the PFAS Strategic Roadmap. These include:
How does this affect you?
If your facility manufactures (including imports) or processes PFAS, you’ll likely face more regulations and reporting requirements. So, how can you remain compliant? Stay informed of EPA’s latest regulatory actions regarding PFAS. Consider these best practices:
Also, consider the proactive approach to search for safer alternative chemicals you can substitute for PFAS. It’s vital to choose chemicals already reviewed by EPA to ensure the alternative option doesn’t also present an unreasonable risk to human health and the environment.
Key to remember: EPA continues to strengthen its regulation of PFAS. A new rule now prevents facilities from using any of the 300+ inactive PFAS before EPA conducts a risk determination and, if necessary, regulates the activity.
The State of Mississippi (Mississippi or State) has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for final approval of revisions to its Underground Storage Tank Program (UST Program) under subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Pursuant to RCRA, the EPA is taking direct final action, subject to public comment, to approve revisions to the UST Program. The EPA has reviewed Mississippi's revisions and has determined that these revisions satisfy all requirements needed for approval. In addition, this action also codifies the EPA's approval of Mississippi's revised UST Program and inCcorporates by reference those provisions of the State statutes and regulations that the EPA has determined meet the requirements for approval.
DATES:
This rule is effective March 18, 2024, published in the Federal Register January 18, 2024, page 3354.
View final rule.
§282.2 Incorporation by reference. | ||
(b)(4) | Revised | View text |
§282.74 Mississippi State-Administered Program. | ||
Entire section | Revised | View text |
Appendix A to Part 282 - State Requirements Incorporated by Reference in Part 282 of the Code of Federal Regulations | ||
Entry for Mississippi | Revised | View text |
New Text
§282.2 Incorporation by reference.
* * * *
(b)(4) Region 4 (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee): 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960; Phone Number: (404) 562-9900.
§282.74 Mississippi State-Administered Program.
(a) History of the approval of Mississippi's program. The State of Mississippi (Mississippi or State) is approved to administer and enforce an underground storage tank (UST) program in lieu of the Federal program under subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq. The State's Underground Storage Tank Program (UST Program), as administered by the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), was approved by EPA pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6991c and part 281 of this chapter. EPA approved the Mississippi UST Program on June 11, 1990, and it was effective on July 11, 1990. A subsequent program revision was approved by EPA and became effective March 18, 2024.
(b) Enforcement authority. Mississippi has primary responsibility for administering and enforcing its federally approved UST Program. However, EPA retains the authority to exercise its corrective action, inspection, and enforcement authorities under sections 9003(h), 9005, and 9006 of subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991b(h), 6991d, and 6991e, as well as under any other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.
(c) Retention of program approval. To retain program approval, Mississippi must revise its approved UST Program to adopt new changes to the Federal subtitle I program which make it more stringent, in accordance with section 9004 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991c, and 40 CFR part 281, subpart E. If Mississippi obtains approval for revised requirements pursuant to section 9004 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991c, the newly approved statutory and regulatory provisions will be added to this subpart and notice of any change will be published in the Federal Register .
(d) Final approval. Mississippi has final approval for the following elements of its UST Program submitted to EPA and approved effective June 11, 1990, and the program revisions approved by EPA effective on March 18, 2024:
(1) State statutes and regulations— (i) Incorporation by reference. The Mississippi materials cited in this paragraph (d)(1)(i), and listed in appendix A to this part, are incorporated by reference as part of the UST Program under subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq. (See §282.2 for incorporation by reference approval and inspection information.) You may obtain copies of the Mississippi statutes and regulations that are incorporated by reference in this paragraph (d)(1)(i) from the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 2261, Jackson, MS 29335; Phone number: (601) 961–5171; website: https://www.mdeq.ms.gov/water/groundwater-assessment-and-remediation/underground-storage-tanks/.
(A) “Mississippi Statutory Requirements Applicable to the Underground Storage Tank Program,” dated September 5, 2023.
(B) “Mississippi Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the Underground Storage Tank Program,” dated September 5, 2023.
(ii) Legal basis. EPA considered the following statutes and regulations which provide the legal basis for the State's implementation of the UST Program, but do not replace Federal authorities. Further, these provisions are not being incorporated by reference, unless the provisions place requirements on regulated entities.
(A) Mississippi Underground Storage Tank Act (the UST Act) of 1988, Miss. Code Ann. sections 49–17–401 to 49–17–435 (2022).
(1) Section 49–17–409, as to the first sentence, insofar as it provides for compliance monitoring and the promulgation of regulations for the reporting of releases.
(2) Section 49–17–413(1), insofar as it provides for compliance monitoring, and the promulgation of regulations for the implementation of the State UST Program.
(3) Section 49–17–415, insofar as it provides for compliance monitoring and establishes authority to conduct inspections, tests, and obtain information from owners.
(4) Section 49–17–419, insofar as it establishes authority over corrective action.
(5) Section 49–17–425, insofar as it provides for the sharing of information with EPA.
(6) Section 49–17–427, insofar as it provides for enforcement response, enforcement of orders, assessment of penalties under the UST Act, proceedings before the commission, and limitations on liability.
(7) Section 49–17–431, insofar as it provides for appeal of any decision by the commission or the director.
(B) Mississippi Air and Water Pollution Control Law, Miss. Code Ann. sections 49–17–27 and 49–17–31 to 49–17–41 (2020).
(1) Section 49–17–27, insofar as it provides for enforcement response and injunctive relief.
(2) Section 49–17–31, insofar as it provides for enforcement response, notice of violations, enforcement of regulations and orders, procedures for contested cases, and assessment of penalties.
(3) Section 49–17–33, insofar as it provides for hearing procedures, issuance of orders, and penalties.
(4) Section 49–17–35, insofar as it provides for enforcement response, public participation, and citizen intervention.
(5) Section 49–17–37, insofar as it provides for hearing procedures and transcripts.
(6) Section 49–17–39, insofar as it provides for the sharing of information with EPA.
(7) Section 49–17–41, insofar as it provides for appeal rights for aggrieved parties.
(C) Mississippi's Underground Storage Tank Regulations, 11 Miss. Admin. Code Pt. 5, Ch. 2 (2018).
(1) R. 2.3, 280.36, insofar as it provides for delivery prohibition and enforcement of the State UST Program.
(2) R. 2.6, 280.67, insofar as it provides for public participation in the corrective action process.
(D) Rule 24(a)(2) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure (1982), insofar as it provides for citizen intervention and public participation in the State enforcement process.
(iii) Other provisions not incorporated by reference. The following statutory and regulatory provisions applicable to the Mississippi UST Program are broader in scope than the Federal program, external to the State UST program approval requirements, or are being excluded for other reasons as noted below. Therefore, these provisions are not part of the approved UST Program and are not incorporated by reference in this section:
(A) Mississippi Underground Storage Tank Act (the UST Act) of 1988, Miss. Code Ann. sections 49–17–401 to 49–17–435 (2022).
(1) 49–17–403(b) is broader in scope as to the definition of “Bonded distributor,” insofar as it is associated with the regulation of entities other than owners and operators as these terms are defined in 40 CFR 280.12.
(2) Section 49–17–403(o) is broader in scope as to the definition of “Response action contractor,” insofar as it is associated with the regulation of entities other than owners and operators as these terms are defined in 40 CFR 280.12.
(3) Section 49–17–403(p) is broader in scope as to the definition of “Retailer,” insofar as it is associated with the regulation of entities other than owners and operators as these terms are defined in 40 CFR 280.12.
(4) Section 49–17–403(q) is broader in scope as to the definition of “Substantial compliance,” insofar as it relates to a State fund.
(5) Section 49–17–405 is broader in scope insofar as it provides for the creation of the Mississippi Groundwater Protection Trust Fund (State Fund), promulgation of regulations regarding the State Fund, criteria for qualified expenditure of funds, and liability of owners for fund expenditures.
(6) Section 49–17–407 is broader in scope insofar as it creates an environmental protection fee, provides limits on use of the State Fund, and addresses third party claims.
(7) Section 49–17–409 is broader in scope, all except for the first sentence, insofar as it provides for the eligibility requirements of the State Fund and reimbursement of costs from owners.
(8) Section 49–17–421 is broader in scope insofar as it establishes an annual tank regulatory fee.
(9) Section 49–17–422 is broader in scope insofar as it creates an Underground Storage Tank Advisory Council.
(10) Section 49–17–423 is broader in scope insofar as it pertains to the commission's administration of funds from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.
(11) Section 49–17–429 is broader in scope insofar as it requires the certification of individuals to install, alter, or remove underground storage tanks and provides for the promulgation of regulations setting forth certification requirements.
(12) Section 49–17–433 is external insofar as it pertains to the severability of the State UST Act.
(13) Section 49–17–435 is external insofar as it contains reporting obligations on the State agency, not a regulated entity.
(B) Mississippi Air and Water Pollution Control Law, Miss. Code Ann. sections 49–17–27 and 49–17–31 to 49–17–41 (2020).
(1) Section 49–17–32 is external insofar as it does not pertain to the State UST Program.
(2) Section 49–17–34 is external insofar as it does not pertain to the State UST Program.
(3) Section 49–17–36 is external insofar as it does not pertain to the State UST Program.
(C) Mississippi's Groundwater Protection Trust Fund Regulations, 11 Miss. Admin. Code Pt. 5, Ch. 1 (2009) is broader in scope insofar as these provisions regulate Immediate Response Action Contractors, Environmental Response Action Contractors, and the State Fund.
(D) Mississippi's Underground Storage Tank Regulations, 11 Miss. Admin. Code Pt. 5, Ch. 2 (2018).
(1) R. 2.1, 280.12 is broader in scope as to the definition of “Ancillary equipment,” insofar as it pertains to dispensers.
(2) R. 2.1, 280.12 is broader in scope as to the definition of “Certificate of Operation,” insofar as it requires UST systems to be permitted by MDEQ and the payment of tank regulatory fees.
(3) R. 2.1, 280.12 is broader in scope as to the definition of “Motor fuel,” insofar as it includes 100% biodiesel or ethanol.
(4) R. 2.1, 280.12 is broader in scope as to the definition of “New tank system,” insofar as it includes dispensers as part of the new tank system.
(5) R. 2.1, 280.12 is broader in scope as to the definition of “Register,” insofar as it requires notification for installation, replacement, and change in operational status of a dispenser.
(6) R. 2.1, 280.12 is broader in scope as to the definition of “Replace,” insofar as it considers replacement of a dispenser to constitute a new UST system.
(7) R. 2.2, 280.20(j) is broader in scope insofar as it regulates shear valves.
(8) R. 2.2, 280.22(a) and (b) are broader in scope insofar as these provisions regulate dispensers.
(9) R. 2.3, 280.34(g) through (i) are broader in scope insofar as these provisions regulate dispensers.
(10) R. 2.3, 280.35(a)(4) is broader in scope insofar as it regulates dispensers.
(11) R. 2.3, 280.35(b)(1) is broader in scope insofar as it regulates shear valves.
(12) R. 2.3, 280.38(b)(1)(iii) is broader in scope insofar as it regulates shear valves.
(13) R. 2.8, 280.91(e) and (f), are excluded for other reasons. Paragraph (e) is excluded only insofar as it includes Indian tribes as a “local government entity,” and paragraph (f) is excluded insofar as EPA retains responsibility for implementing the Federal UST program in Indian country.
Note 1 to paragraph (d)(1)(iii)(D)(13).
MDEQ does not regulate any USTs on Indian lands and EPA retains responsibility for implementing the Federal UST program in Indian country. In a subsequent rulemaking, MDEQ will revise these provisions to remove references to the State's regulation of USTs in Indian country.
(14) R. 2.8, 280.92, is excluded for other reasons only insofar as the definition of “Local government” includes Indian tribes.
Note 2 to paragraph (d)(1)(iii)(D)(14).
MDEQ does not regulate any USTs on Indian lands and the EPA retains responsibility for implementing the Federal UST program in Indian country. In a subsequent rulemaking, MDEQ will revise the definition of “Local government” to exclude Indian tribes.
(15) R. 2.8, 280.100 is external insofar as it is not applicable in a State with an approved UST program.
(E) Mississippi's Underground Storage Tank Regulations for the Certification of Persons Who Install, Alter, and Remove Underground Storage Tanks, 11 Miss. Admin. Code Pt. 5, Ch. 3 (2018) is broader in scope insofar as these provisions provide for the certification and regulation of persons who install, alter, test, and permanently close underground storage tanks.
(2) Statement of legal authority. The Attorney General's Statement, signed by the Mississippi Attorney General on July 27, 2023, though not incorporated by reference, is referenced as part of the approved underground storage tank program under subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq.
(3) Demonstration of procedures for adequate enforcement. The “Demonstration of Adequate Enforcement Procedures” submitted in the application dated July 31, 2023, as amended on August 17, 2023, though not incorporated by reference, is referenced as part of the approved underground storage tank program under subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq.
(4) Program description. The program description submitted in the application dated July 31, 2023, as amended on August 17, 2023, though not incorporated by reference, is referenced as part of the approved underground storage tank program under subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq.
(5) Memorandum of Agreement. The Memorandum of Agreement between EPA Region 4 and the MDEQ, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator on October 12, 2018, though not incorporated by reference, is referenced as part of the approved underground storage tank program under subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq.
Appendix A to Part 282 - State Requirements Incorporated by Reference in Part 282 of the Code of Federal Regulations
* * * *
Mississippi
(a) The statutory provisions include:
Mississippi Underground Storage Tank Act (the UST Act) of 1988, Miss. Code Ann. sections 49–17–401 to 49–17–435 (2022):
49–17–401 Short Title.
49–17–403 Definitions, except (b), (o), (p), and (q).
49–17–411 Compliance with regulations.
49–17–413 Rules and regulations, except for (1).
49–17–417 Repealed.
Note to paragraph (a) of Appendix A to Part 282.
Miss. Code Ann. section 49–17–413(2) is approved as part of the State UST Program to the extent that Mississippi will not grant a variance that makes its UST Program less stringent than the Federal regulations. In practice, Mississippi does not grant variances for the UST Program. Mississippi has agreed to execute a revised Memorandum of Agreement with EPA stating that Mississippi will limit the scope of its variance authority to only those situations where the Federal regulations allow the implementing agency to approve flexibilities.
(b) The regulatory provisions include:
Mississippi's Underground Storage Tank Regulations, 11 Miss. Admin. Code Pt. 5, Ch. 2 (2018):
Rule 2.1 Program Scope and Interim Prohibition
280.10 Applicability.
280.11 Installation requirements for partially excluded UST systems.
280.12 Definitions, except for “dispensers” in the definition of “Ancillary equipment;” the definition of “Certificate of Operation;” “including 100% biodiesel or ethanol” from the definition of “Motor fuel;” “dispensers” and (c) from the definition of “New tank system;” “dispensers” from the definition of “Register;” “dispensers” and (c) from the definition of “Replace.”
280.13 Industry codes and recommended practices.
Rule 2.2 UST Systems: Design, Construction, Installation and Notification
280.20 Performance Standards for new UST systems, except for (j).
280.21 Upgrading of existing UST systems.
280.22 Notification requirements, except as applied to “dispensers” in (a) and (b).
Rule 2.3 General Operating Requirements
280.30 Operation and maintenance of spill and overfill prevention.
280.31 Operation and maintenance of secondary containment.
280.32 Operation and maintenance of corrosion protection.
280.33 Compatibility.
280.34 Repairs and replacements, except as applied to “dispenser(s)” in (g), (h), and (i).
280.35 Reporting recordkeeping, except as applied to “dispensers” in (a)(4); and except as applied to “shear valves” in (b)(1).
280.37 Operator training.
280.38 Operation and maintenance walkthrough inspections, except for (b)(1)(iii).
Rule 2.4 Leak Detection
280.40 General requirements for all UST systems.
280.41 Requirements for petroleum UST systems.
280.42 Requirements for hazardous substance UST systems.
280.43 Methods of leak detection for tanks.
280.44 Methods of leak detection for piping.
280.45 Leak detection recordkeeping.
Rule 2.5 Leak Reporting, Release Reporting, Investigation, and Confirmation
280.50 Reporting of leaks and suspected releases.
280.51 Investigation due to off-site impacts.
280.52 Release investigation and confirmation steps.
280.53 Reporting and cleanup of spills and overfills.
Rule 2.6 Release Response and Corrective Action for UST Systems Containing Petroleum or Hazardous Substances
280.60 General.
280.61 Initial response.
280.62 Initial abatement measures and site check.
280.63 Initial site characterization.
280.64 Free product removal.
280.65 Investigations for soil and ground-water cleanup.
280.66 Corrective action plan.
Rule 2.7 Out-of-Service UST Systems and Closure
280.70 Temporary closure.
280.71 Permanent closure and changes-in-service.
280.72 Assessing the site at closure or change-in-service.
280.73 Applicability to previously closed UST systems.
280.74 Closure records.
Rule 2.8 Financial Responsibility
280.90 Applicability.
280.91 Compliance dates, except for “including Indian tribes” in (e), and (f).
280.92 Definition of terms, except for “and includes Indian tribes” from the definition of “Local government.”
280.93 Amount and scope of required financial responsibility.
280.94 Allowable mechanisms and combinations of mechanisms.
280.95 Financial test of self-insurance.
280.96 Guarantee.
280.97 Insurance and risk retention group coverage.
280.98 Surety bond.
280.99 Letter of credit.
280.101 State fund or other State assurance.
280.102 Trust fund.
280.103 Standby trust fund.
280.104 Local government bond rating test.
280.105 Local government financial test.
280.106 Local government guarantee.
280.107 Local government fund.
280.108 Substitution of financial assurance mechanisms by owner or operator.
280.109 Cancellation or nonrenewal by a provider of financial assurance.
280.110 Reporting by owner or operator.
280.111 Recordkeeping.
280.112 Drawing on financial assurance mechanisms.
280.113 Release from the requirements.
280.114 Bankruptcy or other incapacity of owner or operator or provider of financial assurance.
280.115 Replenishment of guarantees, letters of credit, or surety bonds.
280.116 Suspension of enforcement. [Reserved]
Rule 2.9 Lender Liability
280.120 Definitions.
280.121 Participation in management.
280.122 Ownership of an underground storage tank or underground storage tank system or facility or property on which an underground storage tank or underground storage tank system is located.
280.123 Operating an underground storage tank or underground storage tank system.
Rule 2.10 UST Systems with Field-Constructed Tanks and Airport Hydrant Fuel Distribution Systems.
280.130 Definitions.
280.131 General requirements.
280.132 Additions, exceptions, and alternatives for UST systems with field-constructed tanks and airport hydrant systems.
Note to paragraph (b) of Appendix A to Part 282.
11 Miss. Admin. Code Pt. 5, Ch. 2, 280.42(b)(5) is approved as part of the UST Program only to the extent that Mississippi will not allow alternate release detection methods for hazardous substance UST systems installed on or after October 13, 2015. Sections 40 CFR 281.33(e) and 280.42(e) of the Federal regulations only allow alternate release detection methods for hazardous substance UST systems installed prior to October 13, 2015. Mississippi's section 280.42(b)(5) does not contain an analogous limitation on the use of alternative release detection methods. In practice, MDEQ does not allow alternative release detection methods for hazardous substance tanks installed after October 1, 2008. In a subsequent rulemaking, MDEQ will revise 11 Miss. Admin. Code Pt. 5, Ch. 2, R. 2.4, section 280.42(b)(5) to clarify this point.
(C) Copies of the Mississippi statutes and regulations that are incorporated by reference are available from the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 2261, Jackson, MS 29335; Phone number: (601) 961–5171; website: https://www.mdeq.ms.gov/water/groundwater-assessment-and-remediation/underground-storage-tanks/.
The increase in unhealthy air pollution produced by wildfires has intensified the challenges associated with protecting workers from exposure to this health hazard. However, this exposure can be reduced with knowledge, safe work practices, and appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). It’s important for employers to have a plan in place to protect workers by preventing or minimizing exposure to hazardous air quality.
Wildfire smoke is composed of harmful chemicals and tiny particles of partially burned material less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, which present a significant health hazard for workers exposed to it. These particles can enter the lungs and even the bloodstream, and are linked to serious or even fatal health effects, such as:
There are currently three states with regulations that specifically address the air quality index (AQI) as it relates to wildfire smoke:
Absent any standard, all employers across the country have an obligation under the General Duty Clause to protect their workers from exposure to unhealthy levels of air pollutants due to wildfire smoke emissions.
Employers should take protective measures to reduce smoke exposure for outdoor workers including:
Air quality is a complex and evolving challenge. The EPA has established an AQI for five major air pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act. Each of these pollutants has a national air quality standard set by EPA to protect public health:
Employers must create protective measures to reduce employee exposure to these major air pollutants. When AQI values are above 100, as listed on the EPA’s AirNow.gov website, air quality is unhealthy: first for certain sensitive groups of people, then for everyone as AQI values increase.
Employers should have a plan to prevent employee exposure to dangerous air quality levels.
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA is finalizing a significant new use rule (SNUR) for 329 per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that are designated as inactive on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory. PFAS are a group of chemicals that have been used in industry and consumer products since the 1940s because of their useful properties, such as water and stain resistance. Many PFAS break down very slowly and can build up in people, animals, and the environment over time. Exposure at certain levels to specific PFAS can adversely impact human health and other living things. Persons subject to the final SNUR are required to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing any manufacture (including import) or processing of the chemical substance for a significant new use. Once EPA receives a notification, EPA must review and make an affirmative determination on the notification, and take such action as is required by any such determination before the manufacture (including import) or processing for the significant new use can commence. Such a review will assess whether the new use may present unreasonable risk to health or the environment and ensure that EPA takes appropriate action as required to protect health or the environment.
DATES: This final rule is effective March 11, 2024, published in the Federal Register January 11, 2024, page 1822.
View final rule.
§9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act. | ||
Entry for §721.11777 | Added | View text |
§721.11777 Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl chemical substances designated as inactive on the TSCA Inventory. | ||
Entire section | Added | View text |
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to update its title V operating permit program regulations to more clearly reflect the EPA's existing interpretations and policies concerning when and whether “applicable requirements” established in other Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) programs should be reviewed, modified, and/or implemented through the title V operating permits program. Specifically, this action clarifies the limited situations in which requirements under the New Source Review (NSR) preconstruction permitting program would be reviewed using the EPA's unique title V oversight authorities. Additionally, this action clarifies that requirements related to an owner or operator's general duty to prevent accidental releases of hazardous substances are not “applicable requirements” for title V purposes and are not implemented through title V.
DATES: This proposed rule is published in the Federal Register January 9, 2024, page 1150.
View proposed rule.
It’s a leap year in 2024, so facilities have an extra day to prepare the National Biennial Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Hazardous Waste Report, commonly known as the Biennial Report.
Due by March 1st of every even-numbered year, the Biennial Report covers the hazardous waste activities regulated under RCRA Subtitle C that occurred during the preceding odd-numbered year (or reporting year). It describes each generated hazardous waste, how it was generated, how much was generated, and how it was managed. The report itself contains four forms:
It can sometimes feel like taking a leap in the dark when trying to complete the report, especially if you’re unfamiliar with any of the forms. This article takes a closer look at each form to shed light on what you need to accurately complete the Biennial Report.
Facilities required to file a Biennial Report include those which, during any calendar month of a reporting year:
If your facility meets the definition of an LQG in any calendar month of a reporting year, you must complete a Biennial Report for the entire reporting year, not just the month(s) your facility was an LQG.
Check your facility’s state requirements! While very small quantity generators (VSQGs) and small quantity generators (SQGs) aren’t required to file the federal Biennial Report, states may have different reporting requirements and different generator categories. For example: California requires TSDFs to report annually, and Maine requires annual reporting and has different generator categories (SQG, SQG Plus, and LQG).
Once you confirm that your facility must complete a report, begin gathering the information to fill out the forms. Here’s a closer look at each form in the Biennial Report.
The Site ID Form (EPA Form 8700-12) is the same form used to obtain an EPA Identification Number (specific to each facility) and notify EPA of any changes to the information on the form, including generator status.
When using the Site ID Form for the Biennial Report:
A GM Form must be submitted for each hazardous waste used to determine your facility’s generator status. This includes hazardous waste:
Note that at the federal level, hazardous waste exported to a foreign country doesn’t require a GM Form; it requires the Annual Report (262.83(g)). However, your state may require you to submit the Annual Report with the Biennial Report.
If your facility received RCRA hazardous waste from off-site and managed the waste on-site (even with a subsequent transfer off-site) during the reporting year, you must submit a WR Form. It includes hazardous waste:
You must submit an OI form only if the state in which your facility operates requires it. The form includes the names and addresses of the sites identified in the Biennial Report (including generators, transporters, and receiving facilities).
EPA and states use the data from Biennial Reports to manage the nation’s RCRA-regulated hazardous waste. Unfiled, incomplete, and late reports result in inaccurate data that can ultimately affect federal and state regulations designed to protect human health and the environment.
Further, if you fail to submit a complete, accurate Biennial Report by the deadline, you can face enforcement actions such as compliance orders and civil and criminal lawsuits that may result in steep fines and even jail time.
By remaining compliant with the Biennial Reports, your facility:
Key to remember: RCRA’s Biennial Report, due by March 1st of this year, can contain up to four forms to complete based on a covered facility’s hazardous waste management activities and state requirements.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is amending a provision of the recently finalized Technology Transitions Program under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act (AIM Act). This action allows one additional year, until January 1, 2026, solely for the installation of new residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pump systems using components manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2025. The existing January 1, 2025, compliance date for the installation of certain residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pump systems may result in significant stranded inventory that was intended for new residential construction. EPA is promulgating this action to mitigate the potential for significant stranded inventory in this subsector. In addition, EPA is clarifying that residential ice makers are not included in the household refrigerator and freezer subsector under the Technology Transitions Rule and are not subject to the restrictions for that subsector. EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of this rule.
DATES: This interim final rule is effective on December 26, 2023, published in the Federal Register December 26, 2023, page 88825.
View final rule.
§84.54 Restrictions on the use of hydrofluorocarbons. | ||
(c)(1) | Revised | View text |
Previous Text
§84.54 Restrictions on the use of hydrofluorocarbons.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Effective January 1, 2025, residential or light commercial air-conditioning or heat pump systems using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with a global warming potential of 700 or greater, except for variable refrigerant flow air-conditioning and heat pump systems;
* * * * *
Despite a complex history of regulations, legal challenges, and congressional legislation, EPA stands firm when it says that animal waste can generate potentially harmful air emissions of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. Recently, however, EPA backpedaled a bit with its rulemaking to return reporting requirements to farms for their air emissions from animal waste.
Rather than issue a final rule in 2024, as planned, the agency withdrew the rule and is now soliciting comments through February 15.
Animal waste means feces, urine, or other excrement, digestive emission, urea, or similar substances. These are emitted by animals including any form of livestock, poultry, or fish. The term also covers animal waste that is mixed or commingled with bedding, compost, feed, soil, or any other material typically found with that waste.
The problem, EPA says, is ammonia and hydrogen sulfide can be emitted from animal waste. Those two chemicals are listed as:
On August 1, 2018, EPA published a final rule to incorporate changes to CERCLA reporting regulations at 40 CFR 302. Those changes were mandated law. Specifically, the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method (FARM) Act of 2018 exempted the reporting of air emissions from animal waste at farms under CERCLA.
Subsequently, on June 13, 2019, EPA issued a final rule to amend the emergency release notification regulations at 40 CFR 355 to implement similar exemptions for animal waste at farms. In addition, the agency added regulatory definitions of “animal waste” and “farm” for this new EPCRA reporting exemption.
However, in January 2021, EPA, under a new administration, reviewed the 2019 final rule and urged a district court to remand the rule. The court granted the remand on February 14, 2022, “without vacatur.” That meant the EPCRA exemption for farms remains in place while EPA reconsiders the rule.
The agency said in the Spring 2022 agenda, that it was working on a rulemaking to roll back the June 2019 rule. EPA tentatively set publication of a proposed rule for June 2023, but that proposal never happened. A final rule was also slated for May 2024.
However, on October 27, 2023, EPA reversed course. The agency withdrew its rulemaking to reconsider the 2019 rule. So, the current 40 CFR 355, which exempts reporting of farm animal waste air emissions, is still on the books. End of story, right? No.
A couple weeks later, on November 17, 2023, EPA published a pre-proposal entitled, “Potential Future Regulation for Emergency Release Notification Requirements for Animal Waste Air Emissions Under EPCRA.” Note that the pre-proposal only impacts 40 CFR 355, not 40 CFR 302.
The agency is looking for information by February 15, 2024, on five topics:
EPA explains that it seeks comments to help it decide:
What’s more, the agency is requesting information on any other topics relevant to conducting a future rulemaking on EPCRA reporting of air emissions from animal waste on farms.
Docket EPA-HQ-OLEM-2023-0142 offers a 149-page, technical background document with information about:
References to other data, literature, an emissions calculator, and emissions modeling are also provided in the background document.
EPA intends to carefully review all comments received. Then it will determine whether to pursue a proposed rule to reinstate air emission reporting from animal waste at farms under EPCRA.
EPA withdrew the rule to reinstate air emissions reporting of hazardous substances and EHSs in animal waste on farms. Instead, the agency is soliciting comments through February 15 under a new pre-proposal.
EPA is issuing significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for certain chemical substances that were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs) and are also subject to an Order issued by EPA pursuant to TSCA. The SNURs require persons who intend to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) or process any of these chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. The required notification initiates EPA's evaluation of the use, under the conditions of use for that chemical substance, within the applicable review period. Persons may not commence manufacture or processing for the significant new use until they have submitted a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN), and EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and has taken such actions as are required by that determination.
DATES: This rule is effective on February 16, 2024, published in the Federal Register December 18, 2023, page 87346.
View final rule.
§9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act. | ||
Table 1 | Entries added | View text |
Part 721 Subpart E—Significant New Uses for Specific Chemical Substances | ||
§721.11752 Quaternary ammonium salt of polyisobutene succinic acid (generic). | ||
Entire section | Added | View Text |
§721.11753 2-Propenoic acid, 2-alkyl-, 2- (dialkylamino)alkyl ester, polymer with .alpha.-(2-alkyl-1-oxo-2-alken-1-yl)- .omega.-methoxypoly(oxy-1,2- alkanediyl) (generic). | ||
Entire section | Added | View Text |
§721.11754 Alkanedioic acid, polymer with cycloalkyl dimethanol, alkyl and cycloalkyl diisocyanates, dimethylalkanediol, dihydroxyalkanoic acid methylenebis[isocyanatocyclohexane], hydroxyethyl acrylate- and polyalkyl glycol monoalkyl ether blocked (generic). | ||
Entire section | Added | View Text |
§721.11755 Poly(oxy-1,4-butanediyl), .alpha.-hydro-.omega.-hydroxy-, polymer with 1,1′-methylenebis[4- isocyanatobenzene], caprolactamblocked. | ||
Entire section | Added | View Text |
§721.11756 Tall-oil pitch, fraction, sterollow (generic). | ||
Entire section | Added | View Text |
§721.11757 Carboxylic acid, reaction products with metal hydroxide, inorganic dioxide and metal (generic). Carboxylic acid, reaction products with metal hydroxide, inorganic dioxide and metal (generic). | ||
Entire section | Added | View Text |
§721.11758 Multi-walled carbon nanotubes; closed; 4.4–12.8 nm diameter; bundle length 10.6–211.1 mm; Grade: Jenotube 6. | ||
Entire section | Added | View Text |
§721.11759 Multi-walled carbon nanotubes; closed; 5.1–11.6 nm diameter; bundle length 1.9–552.0 mm; Grade: Jenotube 8 | ||
Entire section | Added | View Text |
§721.11760 Multi-walled carbon nanotubes; closed; 7.9–14.2 nm diameter; bundle length 9.4–106.4 mm; Grade: Jenotube 10. | ||
Entire section | Added | View Text |
§721.11761 Multi-walled carbon nanotubes; closed; 17.0–34.7 nm diameter; globular shape; Grade: Jenotube 20. | ||
Entire section | Added | View Text |
§721.11762 Nonanamide, N,N-dimethyl-. | ||
Entire section | Added | View Text |
§721.11763 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl, 2- (dimethylamino)ethyl ester, polymers with 2-(C16–18-acylamino)ethyl acrylate and hydroxyalkyl acrylate, acetates (generic). | ||
Entire section | Added | View Text |
§721.11765 2H-Pyran, tetrahydro-4-methyl. | ||
Entire section | Added | View Text |
§721.11766 Organic acid ester, polymer with aliphatic diols and 1,1′-methylenebis[4- isocyanatobenzene] (generic). | ||
Entire section | Added | View Text |
§721.11767 4,4-Methylenebis (2,6-dimethyl phenol) polymer with 2- (chloromethyl)oxirane, 1,4-benzenediol, 2-methyl-2-propenoic acid, mixed alkyl substituted 2-methyl 2-propenoate, and ethyl 2-propenoate, reaction products with 2-(dimethylamino) ethanol (generic). | ||
Entire section | Added | View Text |
§721.11768 Phenol, methylethylidene, polymer chloromethyl epoxide and methylethylidene bis-oxy, bis-amine (generic). | ||
Entire section | Added | View Text |
§721.11769 Amine, methylethylidenebis(oxy) (generic). | ||
Entire section | Added | View Text |
§721.11770 Carbamic acid, N-[3- (trialkoxysilyl)propyl]-, C,C′-[2,2,4(or 2,4,4)-trimethyl-1,6-hexanediyl] ester (generic). | ||
Entire section | Added | View Text |
§721.11771 Arylfurandione, [bis(trihaloalkyl)alkylidene]bis-, polymer with alkanediamine (generic). | ||
Entire section | Added | View Text |
§721.11772 Phosphonic acid, dimethyl ester, reaction products with alkyl-alkylalkanediol and alkanediol (generic). | ||
Entire section | Added | View Text |
§721.11773 Silane, halogenated (generic). | ||
Entire section | Added | View Text |
§721.11774 Heteromonocycle, polymer, substituted aliphatic carbamate, [2-[(1- oxo-2-propen-1-yl)oxy]alkyl]ester (generic). | ||
Entire section | Added | View Text |
§721.11775 Alkanes, C4-8-branched and linear. | ||
Entire section | Added | View Text |
§721.11776 5H-1,2-Oxathiole, 2,2-dioxide. | ||
Entire section | Added | View Text |
Don’t let holiday cheer turn to January blues. Make sure you meet the California Air Resources Board (CARB) program deadlines.
Several CARB programs have a January 1, 2024, deadline. They affect carriers that operate in California, regardless of where they are based.
The programs are:
For more information CARB and related topics, check out these Compliance Network resources:
Other related content:
If you have additional questions on CARB or any other topic, please contact our subject matter experts using Expert Help.
Quick action using cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and automated external defibrillators(AEDs) can save the lives of the nearly 350,000 cardiac event victims each year outside of a hospital setting. But what does OSHA require for the workplace? What you didn’t know about OSHA regulations regarding AEDs may surprise you.
For every minute a patient is in cardiac arrest, their chances of survival decrease dramatically. When a patient doesn’t have a pulse and isn’t breathing, CPR should be performed until an AED is available. It’s important to note that CPR alone does not restart the heart. CPR is an oxygen circulation procedure. AEDs, on the other hand, are meant for lifesaving intervention.
CPR and early defibrillation are vital components of the emergency medical services (EMS) chain of survival that increases the odds of cardiac patient survival. However, according to the American Heart Association (AHA), even the best CPR can’t provide enough circulation of oxygen to the brain and heart for more than a few minutes. In fact, a patient whose brain is deprived of oxygen for 10 minutes or more seldom recovers.
Just like a reliable vehicle, the circulatory system is the human body’s blood transportation system, and the heart is the engine. Amazingly, the heart generates its own electrical impulses, pumping in a regular, rhythmic manner. As with any engine, the heart requires a certain amount of pressure to function and doesn’t work well when clogged with grease or debris. The most common causes of sudden cardiac arrest include a heart attack, electrocution, and asphyxiation — all of which could occur in the workplace. Common signs and symptoms include:
CPR provides the pressure for the body’s “engine” to oxygen circulating, while an AED provides the electrical impulses to keep the engine pumping.
OSHA 1910.151 requires first aid treatment be provided in the absence of an infirmary, clinic, or hospital in near proximity to the workplace used to treat injured employees. This may include assisting a victim of cardiac arrest using CPR or defibrillation.
OSHA requirements for CPR and defibrillation differ considerably. Standards requiring CPR include:
OSHA recommends basic adult CPR refresher training and retesting every year, and first aid training at least once every three years. CPR training include facilitated discussion along with ’hands-on’ skills training that uses mannequins and partner practice.
Though OSHA recognizes AEDs as important lifesaving technology that plays a role in treating cardiac arrest, the agency doesn’t currently require their use in the workplace. Instead, OSHA wants employers to assess their own requirements for AEDs as part of their first aid response.
AEDs are considered Class III medical devices which means the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has some oversight on their use. Almost all AEDs require the purchaser to obtain a prescription from a physician under FDA regulations. The prescription process is meant as a quality control mechanism to ensure AEDs are properly maintained, that all designated responders are properly trained, and assist employers with establishing an emergency response plan for their workplace AED program.
The AHA requires AED operators to also receive CPR training as an “integral part of providing lifesaving aid to people suffering sudden cardiac arrest.” Though easy to use, each AED is slightly different, so training helps users understand the unique traits and supplies for the individual units at their workplace. Additionally, AED users must be trained to understand the signs of a sudden cardiac arrest, when to activate the EMS system, and how to perform CPR.
AEDs are light, portable, easy to use, and inexpensive. They’re best placed near high-hazard areas such as confined spaces, near electrical energy, or in remote work areas. Response time to reach AEDs should be kept within 3–5-minutes.
Need more information on defibrillators in the workplace? See our ezExplanation on AEDs. |
Many states require or encourage CPR and AED training from nationally recognized organizations. Any AED training should include CPR training. OSHA doesn’t offer first aid or CPR training, nor certify trainers. Training by a nationally recognized organization, such as AHA, the American Red Cross, or National Safety Council is recommended.
While OSHA doesn’t currently require the use of AEDs in the workplace, they do expect employers to assess their own AED requirements as part of their first aid response. AED training is required by most states and should include CPR with a hands-on practical component.
OSHA requires employers to provide all workers with immediately available and sanitary restroom or toilet facilities. But does this include truckers and delivery drivers that stop at your facilities? The sanitation standards (1910.141, 1926.51, and 1928.110) are meant to protect all workers from adverse health effects from unsanitary toilets facilities, or the unavailability of facilities when needed.
Bipartisan legislation has recently been introduced in the House that would require businesses to provide restroom access to truckers who are loading or delivering cargo at their warehouses, manufacturers, distribution centers, retailers, and ports.
Supported by leading organizations in the trucking industry, the Trucker Bathroom Access Act (H.R. 9592) was introduced on Dec. 15, 2022. The bill requires retailers, warehouses, and other establishments with existing restrooms to provide access to drivers who are loading or delivering cargo. Additionally, operators of ports and marine terminals must provide access for drayage and parking while accessing such restrooms.
This amendment to Title 49 would exempt some employers from the bill including filling and service stations, and restaurants 800-square feet or smaller with restrooms intended for employee use only. The bill doesn’t require employers to construct new restrooms but to give truck drivers the same access as employees or customers.
Commercial truckers and delivery drivers are the lifeline of our supply chain of supplies, products, and consumables. Working tirelessly all hours, during holidays and weekends, and throughout the pandemic, they continue to deliver critical food and emergency supplies to companies everywhere. Employers have the privilege of demonstrating gratitude to truckers and delivery drivers with a positive work environment.
The benefits of allowing truckers and delivery drivers the convenience and safety of readily available, sanitary restroom facilities are plenty. They’re able to rest and reset when necessary, which keeps them and others safer on the roads. Equally important, restroom availability prevents drivers from having to search for available facilities elsewhere, allowing them to keep a timely delivery schedule, limit supply chain delays, and ultimately lower costs for employers and customers.
The proposed Trucker Bathroom Access Act will require retailers, warehouses, and other establishments with existing restrooms to provide access to truckers and delivery drivers who are loading or delivering cargo. Access to restrooms keeps them refreshed and ready to deliver essential supplies to companies across the country.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA) is soliciting information and requesting comments to assist in the potential development of non-regulatory and regulatory options that would ensure the proper management of used industrial containers that held hazardous chemicals or hazardous waste, up to and including the drum reconditioning process. Options could include revising the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations or other, non-regulatory options. This Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) does not propose any regulatory requirements or change any existing regulatory requirements.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 22, 2023, published in the Federal Register August 11, 2023, page 54537.
View proposed rule.
Safety has the workforce brimming with color. In fact, 29 CFR 1910.144 and 1910.145 tell us precisely what OSHA expects for safety color coding to identify hazards in the workplace. Signs, warning labels, symbols, and other color coding in your facilities should have your employees seeing red. But what if they can’t?
Though rare, color blindness is the inability to distinguish between colors as most people do. This makes it difficult for workers to see colors intended to protect them from harm. Color blindness can vary, making it difficult to distinguish between red and green or blue and yellow hues - the very shades of safety.
Some individuals can’t see any colors, which is called monochromacy. Workers with this type of color blindness may have trouble seeing clearly and may be more sensitive to light. Employers must collaborate with these employees to ensure alternative measures are taken to protect their eyes and clearly communicate warnings and hazards.
The color identifiers below differentiate the various levels of risk and hazards for workplace safety. Employers must ensure workers with color blindness are able to understand hazards in the workplace and the meaning of signs and warning labels.
RED - identifies fire and fire protective apparatus, danger, and emergency stops. It marks areas near open flames or flammable materials, fire extinguishers, and where workers are directed to stop an action.
ORANGE - warns workers of hazardous parts of equipment that could physically harm people or the facility. Typically used as labels on machinery, orange may also be used on signs, hard hats, safety vests, and other objects.
YELLOW - designates caution and is used for marking physical hazards, such as falling, pinch points, contact hazards, and other similar hazards.
GREEN - identifies directional safety information. This includes pointing workers to emergency egresses, safety showers or eyewash stations, first aid stations, and other safety equipment.
BLUE - not always safety-related, provides information regarding a particular location, process, or item. Employers may use blue signs to convey workplace policies, instructions, or locations, such as “Employees Only.”
PURPLE - often combined with yellow, alerts workers to radiation hazards.
BLACK/WHITE - provides instructional and directional information. This includes speed limits, one-way traffic, and aisle markings.
Having a standardized color-coding system for safety is effective for alerting employees of workplace hazards - if they can see the colors properly. For those who can’t, employers must ensure these workers understand the hazards and warning signs throughout the workplace.
Interested in learning more? See our ezExplanation on Color Coding. |
Not only are employers required to ensure workers understand warning signs and colors, but they must also protect workers from becoming color blind. That’s right - color blindness can be acquired. Exposure to lead or carbon disulfide can cause color blindness, even at low levels. Terminal illness and alcohol consumption can also contribute to color blindness, so employers should promote health as part of their safety and health programs.
Color blindness is considered a disability according to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Employers are required to reasonably accommodate employees with disabilities.
Employers must ensure employees with color blindness are able to understand hazards in the workplace and the meaning of signs and warning labels. The ADA requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for workers with disabilities, including color blindness.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a regulation to implement the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as specified in the Methane Emissions Reduction Program of the Inflation Reduction Act. This program requires the EPA to impose and collect an annual charge on methane emissions that exceed specified waste emissions thresholds from an owner or operator of an applicable facility that reports more than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gases emitted per year pursuant to the petroleum and natural gas systems source category requirements of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. The proposal would implement calculation procedures, flexibilities, and exemptions related to the waste emissions charge and proposes to establish confidentiality determinations for data elements included in waste emissions charge filings.
DATES: This proposed rule is published in the Federal Register January 26, 2024, page 5318.
View proposed rule.
Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll go over the most impactful environmental, health, and safety news. Please view the content links in the transcript for more information about the topics I’ll be covering today. Let’s get started!
Effective January 15, OSHA penalties increased 3.2 percent for inflation. Most penalties increased to $16,131. Willful and serious violations, however, increased to $161,323.
Construction workers aged 45 and older suffer more severe injuries and higher associated costs than other age groups. Most injuries are due to slips, trips, and falls.
Washington State updated its process safety management rules to better protect workers in petroleum refineries from the hazards of volatile chemicals. The rules take effect December 27, 2024.
Bloodborne pathogens topped the list of OSHA violations for the healthcare industry in 2023. Hazard Communication was the second most cited standard, followed by respiratory protection.
OSHA Region 2 launched a regional emphasis program that targets tree trimming, tree removal, and land clearing operations. Region 2 includes New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
EPA continues to strengthen its regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl — or PFAS — substances. A new rule prevents facilities from using any of the 300+ inactive PFAS before EPA conducts a risk determination and, if necessary, regulates the activity.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
The 150 air-mile exemptions, which are in the regulations at 395.1(e)(1) and (2), allow a driver to use a time record in place of a log, provided that certain conditions are met. While this is possibly the most widely used hours-of-service exemption, it may be the most commonly misused exemption, as well.
To be able to use this logging exemption in 395.1(e)(1), the driver must:
The company must retain the time record and have it available for inspection for six months.
Need more info? View our ezExplanation on the 150 air-mile exception. |
If the driver cannot meet the terms of the exemption (he or she goes too far or works too many hours), the driver must complete a regular driver’s log for the day as soon as the exemption no longer applies.
If the driver has had to complete a log 8 or fewer days out of the last 30 days, the driver can use a paper log for the day. If the driver had to complete a log more than 8 days out of the last 30 days, the driver needs to use an electronic log for the day (unless one of the ELD exemptions applies, such as operating a vehicle older than model year 2000).
When a property-carrying driver is operating under the 150 air-mile exemption, the driver is also exempt from having to take the required 30-minute break (see 395.3(a)(3)(ii)).
If the driver began the day as a 150 air-mile driver and has driven more than 8 consecutive hours without a break, and something unexpected happens and the driver can no longer use the 150 air-mile exemption, the driver must stop and immediately take the 30-minute break as well as start logging. If the driver went outside of the 150 air-mile area before the driver had 8 hours of driving without a break from driving, the driver would be expected to take the break at the appropriate time.
Here are some of the common myths and misunderstandings about the 150 air-mile exemption:
The 150 air-mile exemption at 395.1(e)(2) only applies to drivers that: Operate property-carrying vehicles that do not require a CDL to operate, and Stay within the 150 air-miles of their work reporting location.
If the driver stays within the 150 air-mile radius of the work reporting location, and returns to the work reporting location within 14 hours on 5 of the last 7 days, and 16 hours on 2 of the last seven days, the driver is allowed to use a time record in place of a log.
If the driver does not meet the terms of the exception, the driver will need to complete a log for the day. If the driver had to log more than 8 days out of the last 30 days, the driver will need to use an electronic log for the day. All of the other issues discussed above would apply to these drivers as well.
If you have drivers that use these exemptions, you will need to check time records to make sure they are complying with the appropriate time limits. You will also need to check movement records to verify that the drivers using these exemptions are staying within the mandated area (within 150 air-miles of the work reporting location for the day).
If a driver is over the hours limit, or has gone too far, you need to verify that the submitted a log for the day, either paper or electronic, depending on how many days the driver had to log out of the previous 30 days.
During an audit, if it is discovered that your drivers are using these exemptions incorrectly, you will be cited for not having drivers’ logs when required. Each day this occurred will be another violation, so the fine could be rather large if you are not managing the use of these exemptions!
When drivers fail a DOT test or engage in other prohibited drug or alcohol behavior, their commercial driving careers are stalled until specific steps in rehabilitation and treatment are completed.
Read our FAQ: What happens if a DOT return-to-duty or follow-up test is canceled? |
A commercial driver is required to go through the DOT return-to-duty process if:
Actual knowledge occurs when information is provided to the motor carrier indicating a DOT testing violation. This might be learned through:
When a motor carrier learns of a testing violation on a new hire, it must obtain proof that the driver has completed the return-to-duty process. Otherwise, the motor carrier would have to begin the return-to-duty process or pick up where it left off.
To resume a safety-sensitive function, the driver must complete the following return-to-duty steps in Subpart O of Part 40.
When drivers engage in prohibited drug or alcohol behavior, they must be immediately removed from performing all safety-sensitive functions. If on a dispatch, a driver must be told of the test result and instructed to park the vehicle. This notification often involves making arrangements to get the driver home and continue the run with different driver.
The employer must present the driver with a list of substance abuse professionals (SAPs) who have the appropriate credentials and DOT training to perform driver evaluations. The list must be given without a fee and made available to the driver (or driver applicant) whether or not the carrier retains the driver.
If the motor carrier does not have another face-to-face meeting with the driver, this list may be mailed or emailed to the driver.
For drug test results, the medical review officer (MRO) will report the violation to the Clearinghouse. This includes shy bladder scenarios without a valid medical explanation.
Failed alcohol tests (.04 or greater BAC), actual knowledge, and certain refusal to test scenarios are reported by the motor carrier to the Clearinghouse.
After the SAP list is given to a driver, the motor carrier cannot force a driver to begin the process. Nevertheless, to resume safety-sensitive functions, the driver must seek a face-to-face evaluation from a qualified SAP as a first step.
Payment of the evaluation is not required of the employer. Instead, it is based on labor-management agreements and healthcare benefits.
The SAP’s referral to an education and/or treatment program is based on a clinical evaluation of the driver during the face-to-face meeting. The SAP should have a working knowledge of what programs and counselors are available.
The SAP may take into consideration the driver’s ability to pay and insurance coverage. Once a SAP-approved provider has been agreed upon with the driver, the SAP will facilitate the referral and provide the program with the diagnostic determinations that led to the treatment plan. Programs range from outpatient treatment to partial or full in-patient resources.
Once the treatment plan has ended, the SAP will determine if it was a success. This decision is based on information provided by the education and/or treatment program and another face-to-face evaluation with the driver.
This second evaluation will result in one of three determinations:
If the SAP is satisfied with the driver’s ability to return to driving, the SAP will issue a report to the designated employer representative (DER). This report will list any continuing treatment and education, if required, and the number of DOT follow-up drug and/or alcohol tests required in a given time frame. The driver will be required to have a minimum of six unannounced follow-up tests in the first 12 months following the return to a safety-sensitive function. The SAP may require follow-up testing for up to five years.
For all Part 382 violations occurring since January 6, 2020, the SAP is required to report the successful completion of the evaluation and treatment to the Clearinghouse, provided the driver has designated the SAP in the driver’s personal Clearinghouse account.
The DER must wait for the go-ahead in the SAP report before sending the driver for the return-to-duty drug and/or alcohol test. All return-to-duty drug tests are performed under direct observation. The motor carrier must report a negative return-to-duty test to the Clearinghouse. In order for the “prohibited” status to be lifted from the driver’s record, both the SAP and motor carrier submission must be entered onto the driver’s record.
Once the Clearinghouse is no longer showing an unresolved testing violation, the driver can return to a safety-sensitive function.
Editor’s Note: Violations occurring prior to January 6, 2020, are not tracked in the Clearinghouse. Instead, the motor carrier would use the SAP report as a green light to perform the return-to-duty test, and once the negative test result is received, the driver can resume a safety-sensitive function.
After the driver returns to safety-sensitive functions, the motor carrier must carry out the unannounced follow-up tests under direct observation as prescribed in the SAP report. The DER must ensure that the tests do not have any discernible pattern.
The follow-up tests are in addition to any other DOT-required tests (e.g., random, post-accident). For instance, you cannot use a follow-up test as a substitute for a random test or vice versa.
If the driver leaves the motor carrier prior to the completion of the very last follow-up test, the next employer(s) must pick up where the process left off.
When the follow-up program is complete, the motor carrier under whose program the last test was performed must report this to the Clearinghouse. If the violation predates the Clearinghouse, the employer does not report the completed follow-up program to anyone.
If the motor carrier fails to begin or continue with a driver’s DOT return-to-duty process and follow-up testing, it is an acute violation that could cost the company up to $15,876. Allowing this driver to operate a CMV puts the carrier at risk of negligent entrustment claims if there is a crash.
The FMCSA is planning to test the effects of letting commercial truck drivers “pause” their 14-hour on-duty limit by up to 3 hours per day.
The agency is hoping to enlist up to 400 drivers to participate in its three-year “Split Duty Period Pilot Program.” Participants would be allowed to use one off-duty break of between 30 minutes and 3 hours to pause the 14-hour driving window, as long as they take 10 consecutive hours off duty at the end of the day. The pause should enable drivers to reduce fatigue, avoid congestion, reduce the pressure to speed, and be more productive, the FMCSA says.
Normally, short breaks taken during a driver’s day must be subtracted from the driver’s 14-consecutive-hour window during which driving is allowed.
For more information, see our ezExplanation on the 14-hour on-duty rule. |
Under new rules in effect on September 29, 2020, some truck drivers can pause their 14-hour limit with a break of 2 hours or more, but only if they also spend at least 7 hours in a sleeper berth (see below). Under the pilot program, drivers could pause the clock with off-duty time alone, without the need for a sleeper berth. This idea was proposed back in 2019 but didn’t find its way into the recent rule changes because the FMCSA didn’t have enough data to justify it.
As required by law, the FMCSA is gathering public input on the proposal until November 2nd. It will then decide whether to implement the program. After the program concludes, the agency will need to report to Congress on its findings before it could proceed with any changes to the hours-of-service regulations.
Participation in the pilot program would be limited to between 200 and 400 commercial driver’s license (CDL) holders from companies of all sizes, with each driver participating for up to one year. Motor carriers that want to enroll in the program will need to apply via an FMCSA website which could be available late this year. Comments on the proposal may be submitted online at www.regulations.gov under docket number FMCSA-2020-0098.
Truck drivers who fall under the federal hours-of-service rules can already pause their 14-hour clock with a short rest break, as of September 29, 2020 (see log image). This is known as the “split sleeper-berth” option, and it works like this:
Key to remember: The FMCSA plans to test the safety of allowing truck drivers to pause their 14-hour clock with a rest break of up to 3 hours, even if they don’t have a sleeper berth. The pilot program could open later this year.
As of January 1, 2023, heavy-duty trucks and buses with engines from model years 2007 to 2009 operating in California must be either:
This is the final step in the phase-in of the Truck and Bus regulation. Covered vehicles originally built with engines older than model year 2006 must have already been replaced or retrofitted.
Need more on CMV maintenance? See our ezExplanation Inspection and Maintenance. |
One issue that has come up is new vehicles are not available for delivery before January 1, 2023. This means fleets that operate in California that cannot get a replacement vehicle will be faced with the choice of either retiring their 2007 to 2009 engine vehicles without a replacement or operating in violation as of January 1, 2023.
However, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the agency that oversees the Truck and Bus program, is aware of the situation and has provided an exemption. If the company has a written contract to purchase a new vehicle to replace a vehicle with a 2007 to 2009 engine in place before September 1, 2023, the existing vehicle can be operated until the replacement is placed in service.
To use this exemption, the company must register in CARB’s Truck Regulation Upload, Compliance, and Reporting System (TRUCRS) and report the use of the exemption. This is especially important to California-based companies as vehicle registration is tied to compliance with the Truck and Bus regulations requirements.
As of January 1, 2023, California will be placing roadside emissions monitoring devices (REMD) at locations around the state. These devices check emissions on any vehicle that passes it. If the device determines a vehicle may be a high emitter, the owner will receive a Notice to Submit to Testing. This will require the vehicle to be brought in to a “referee” location where the emissions and emissions components can be inspected.
These Truck and Bus requirements go into effect on January 1, 2023, and only apply to vehicles operating in California.
Most motor carriers review their roadside inspection reports for the obvious reasons: fixing mechanical defects and identifying unsafe or noncompliant driver behavior.
Some violations are easy to decipher, such as a burned-out light bulb or exceeding the speed limit by a specific range. Others take a little more to figure out, such as doing the math to determine when and how a driver exceeded hours-of-service (HOS) limits. Then there are all those 392.2 violations with suffixes. Some count against a carrier’s Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) scores, while others do not, depending on whether they contribute to causing a crash.
One that often baffles motor carriers is 392.2C.
Section 392.2C is enforcement’s code for “failure to obey traffic control device.” The C stands for control.
The citation appears in the severity table for the Unsafe Driving BASIC (Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Category). The violation has been assigned a value of 5 out 10, with 10 being the most severe. The violation is used when calculating both the carrier’s and driver’s Unsafe Driving BASIC scores.
In most instances, the traffic control device is not a signal light or stop or yield sign. Rather, it is the sign that instructs the driver to pull into a weigh station.
View our Weigh Stations ezExplanation for additional information. |
The vehicles that must stop at scales and inspection locations vary from state to state and even from location to location within a state. The “weigh scale ahead” or similar sign should be the driver’s guide.
If the sign reads:
Often those who operate commercial vehicles not requiring a commercial driver’s license, such as a large pickup truck or small box truck, mistakenly believe weigh scale inspections are just for larger rigs.
If a driver goes past a weigh station without pulling in as directed by a traffic control device, enforcement will pursue and pull over the driver. The officer will then escort the driver back to the weigh station for a roadside inspection.
Even if the driver was honestly confused whether the sign applied to the vehicle, it is too late. And more than likely enforcement’s interest has been piqued. It is highly unlikely the driver will be waived through at this point, and 392.2C will be entered on the roadside inspection report.
CSA’s enforcement model suggests finding the root cause of roadside inspection violations to prevent future occurrences and ultimately improve BASIC scores.
A violation of 392.2C may have one of several root causes, such as:
Whatever the reason, it must be addressed with the driver. Corrective actions range from refresher training to termination. If the driver was trying to avoid enforcement for other reasons (drugs, alcohol, over HOS limits), these other violations need to be addressed accordingly.
Key to remember: Failing to obey a traffic control device will be used in calculation of the CSA Unsafe Driving BASIC scores. Motor carriers should address the root cause of the violation so it does not recur.
A workplace safety definition for “safety-sensitive position” may lead some motor carriers to mistakenly put employees who don’t qualify in their DOT drug and alcohol testing program.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) clearly defines a safety-sensitive position.
It is one where the employee is expected to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) requiring a commercial driver’s license (CDL). Only these drivers can be placed in the motor carrier’s DOT drug and alcohol testing program under 49 CFR Part 382.
As a result, a carrier would not classify a forklift operator, driver helper, and other positions as safety sensitive for purposes of testing under Part
A driver who operates an FMCSA-regulated vehicle that does not require a CDL fits within the scope of workplace safety-sensitive duties, but not FMCSA.
For property-carrying vehicles, a non-CDL CMV is one that is:
For passenger carriers, a non-CDL CMV is designed to transport 9-15 passengers, including the driver, for compensation.
Even though the above vehicles and drivers are subject to the bulk of FMCSA’s safety regulations, the vehicles (and subsequently the drivers) do not qualify for CDL licensing or FMCSA testing.
If the driver happens to hold CDL, it still does not qualify as a safety-sensitive position. Applicability is always based on whether the employee is assigned to operate a CDL CMV.
Non-CDL CMV drivers are prohibited from operating while impaired under 49 CFR 392.4 and 392.5, but there is no testing mechanism under DOT authority. Testing would be best practice (non-DOT) and managed under the workplace drug program.
If a motor carrier mistakenly uses the workplace criteria for its DOT testing, the number and types of positions placed in the random pool far exceed commercial drivers.
For the general workforce, the term “safety sensitive” has been tossed around, but never clearly defined by OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). Many safety professionals tie the term to OSHA’s General Duty Clause (GDC), which requires that employers provide all workers with a safe and healthful workplace.
Specifically, the GDC requires employers to recognize hazards that cause or likely will cause death or serious physical harm. Any job title that is likely to cause death or serious harm to someone — including the employee, coworkers, or the general public — is usually put on a list of safety-sensitive positions.
The employer must look at each job’s hazards and decide if the position is classified by its organization as safety sensitive. Examples may include:
Even someone who works as a roofer may be considered a safety-sensitive position because the employee could trip and fall from a high elevation, causing serious personal harm.
Key to remember: When assembling the list of names for your DOT testing program, only include those individuals who are expected to operate a CDL CMV.
Wage overpayment errors happen for many reasons — from clerical mistakes to payroll system snafus.
Regardless of the reason, employees are not necessarily entitled to keep the extra money, and employers need to know their obligations for recouping it.
Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers don’t need an employee’s permission to recoup wage overpayments. The extra money is seen as a loan or a wage advancement to the employee.
Because of this, employers are generally free to recoup the overpayment from the next paycheck — even if such a deduction cuts into the minimum wage or overtime pay due the employee under the FLSA.
State laws, however, may have greater restrictions. For example, New York employers may only make deductions from an employee’s wages for “an overpayment of wages where such overpayment is due to a mathematical or other clerical error by the employer.”
There are also limitations on the timing and duration, frequency, and method and amount of recovery.
The bottom line is, employers should try to avoid getting themselves into an overpayment situation in the first place. Supervisors should closely review their direct reports’ timesheets to catch errors before paychecks are issued
Also, employees should be encouraged to review their pay stubs for accuracy to help catch mistakes sooner rather than later.
If a mistake happens, employers should do their due diligence to communicate with the affected employees and make a reasonable plan to recoup the funds (provided it’s allowed under state law) so as not to cause any unnecessary financial harm to employees.
Wage overpayment errors can and will occur. Employers need to know their obligations under both federal and state laws before recouping money.
When an employee is on leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the employer must maintain benefits under the company’s group health plan.
Thus, employees generally must continue paying their share of the health insurance premiums.
But how do employees pay their share of the premiums when FMLA leave is unpaid? Employers may offer three payment options:
Employers may allow a combination of these options, such as pre-pay for part of the leave and catch-up for the remainder. Below is a breakdown of the three available payment options.
When unpaid FMLA leave is foreseeable, employers may allow employees to pre-pay their premiums. For example, if an employee is adopting a child and requests several weeks for bonding time but does not have enough vacation to cover the entire absence, an employer could allow the employee to pre-pay his or her premiums for the portion of the leave that would be unpaid.
Employers may not require an employee to pre-pay, so this cannot be the only option offered.
If an employee chooses this option, however, employers may collect premiums on a pre-tax basis – with one exception. If the absence will extend into the next tax year (such as leave from December through January), only the premiums for the current tax year may be pre-paid with pre-tax income. The IRS does not allow employees to defer untaxed income from one year to the next.
In this example, the premiums for January could either be pre-paid with after-tax income, or the employee could elect one of the other options (pay-as-you-go or catch-up).
Under the pay-as-you-go option, employees pay their share of the premiums based upon the agreed terms made between the employer and employee. These payments are usually made on an after-tax basis.
For example, the employee might mail in a personal check every two weeks. If the employee fails to send in the checks, or otherwise fails to make payments using the agreed-upon system, the FMLA does allow employers to drop coverage after giving specified notices of non-payment.
Dropping coverage would likely cause some administrative headaches, and some insurers may refuse to do this because the employee would have to be reinstated to the health plan upon return from FMLA leave.
Therefore, employers may prefer to continue coverage by paying the employee’s share of the premiums, then use the catch-up option once the employee returns to work. Some insurance carriers recommend this as an alternative to dropping coverage.
Under the catch-up option, the employer and employee agree that the employee will not pay premiums until he or she returns from leave.
This option might be used when the need for FMLA leave was not foreseeable, such as having to care for a parent who was unexpectedly hospitalized.
To use this option, the employer and employee must agree in advance that:
When the employee returns, the employer collects the current premiums plus any catch-up payments, perhaps taking double premiums, until caught up. Contributions under the catch-up option may be taken on a pre-tax basis.
The IRS regulations indicate that, if the employee chooses the pay-as-you-go option, but fails to make the required payments, you may change to the catch-up option even without the employee’s prior agreement.
Employees on unpaid FMLA leave must still pay their share of health insurance premiums by either pre-paying, paying as they go, or making catch-up contributions upon returning to work.
With the labor market still tight, employers might choose to hang onto employees even if they’re underperforming. But what about when complaints are rolling in from different angles? Take, for example, a lackluster supervisor who’s annoying employees and disappointing customers.
An employer could be hesitant to let the supervisor go, especially if there’s no documentation backing up claims of misconduct. The employer must weigh their options to decide if putting the supervisor on a performance improvement plan (PIP) or moving right to termination is the ideal choice.
At-will employment
For starters, in most states employers may terminate an employee at-will, meaning they can fire employees for pretty much any reason as long as it doesn’t discriminate against someone in a protected class based on sex, age, race, religion, etc. Employers also cannot terminate in retaliation for an employee making a claim of harassment, discrimination, or safety concerns.
Aside from these limits, employers can terminate employees for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all.
PIP or terminate
Deciding whether to put an employee on a PIP or terminate must be decided on a case-by-case basis.
A PIP is usually for job performance issues (hence, performance improvement plan). This could mean anything from not making enough sales to being inept at the job’s essential functions. If job performance doesn’t improve under the PIP, termination may be the end result depending on company policies and practices.
Even if an employee has job performance issues, the employer can terminate without going through the PIP process first, unless the usual process is to implement a PIP with employees who have had similar problems. In that case, not doing a PIP could be seen as discrimination against an employee, especially if the person falls into a protected class.
Workplace misconduct, however, is another situation altogether. This could be anything from a one-off poor joke to pervasive harassment. Snapping at customers or coworkers (or worse), for example, is a conduct issue. An employer could issue a warning or move right to termination if the behavior is clearly illegal or a serious threat to workplace safety.
Read more: ezExplanation on discharging employees |
Termination tips
If an employer decides to terminate, they should treat the employee as respectfully as possible during the termination process. Also, an employer should carefully and clearly communicate the job-related reasons for the termination to avoid any hint of discrimination. Lastly, an employer should document the reasons and reiterate the steps taken leading up to the termination and keep those records handy in case the employee files a wrongful termination lawsuit.
Key to remember: Employers sometimes struggle when making termination decisions. Having a process in place and documenting steps along the way can help if a case lands in court.
Employers sometimes get tripped up on how to calculate the 1,250 hours worked eligibility criterion when employees need leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
Does working overtime count toward the 1,250?
Recently, someone asked if overtime hours counted toward the 1,250 hours worked requirement (it does).
All hours actually worked apply to the 1,250, whether overtime or regular time, even if the overtime is not mandatory.
The 1,250 hours is calculated in relation to when the leave will begin, not when the employee puts an employer on notice of the need for leave.
Whether an employee is allowed to work overtime, however, is generally up to company policy. As far as pay goes, remember, if the employee is nonexempt (“hourly”) and works any overtime (mandatory or voluntary) the employee must be paid time and one-half for all hours worked over 40 within the workweek.
More about FMLA leave requirements
To be eligible to take FMLA leave, employees must:
Whether an employee has worked the minimum 1,250 hours is calculated based on determining compensable hours or work under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Calculating the 1,250 hours worked
When it comes to figuring out if an employee has worked at least 1,250 hours, it can get tricky. As was mentioned above, all hours worked, regular and overtime, must be counted.
Hours not worked should not be counted. The “not worked hours” include such time off as vacation time, sick leave, paid or unpaid holidays, or any other time in which an employee isn’t actually working — which can include disability, bereavement, FMLA and other forms of leave.
Once an employee meets the three eligibility criteria, including the 1,250 hours worked, for a particular leave reason, the employee remains eligible for the duration of the 12-month leave year period.
If the employee needs leave for another, different reason, eligibility would be recalculated.
Key to remember: All hours worked must be included in the 1,250 hours criterion when determining whether an employee is eligible for FMLA leave. Hours that aren’t worked (like vacation) are not included.
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:
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.
Recent news headlines say many employers are requiring employees to return to the physical office; some after employees have been working remotely for about three years.
Since the long arm of long COVID and other medical conditions (physical or mental) continue to haunt the workplace, employers could find employees asking to keep working remotely because of their condition.
To help with these requests, here are six steps to take when an employee asks to work remotely as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):
If this process looks familiar, it is because it’s pretty much the same process used for any accommodation request under the ADA. The goal is to find an effective solution for both employer and employee.
Key to remember: Having a process to follow can not only help comply with the ADA, but it can also help employees get their jobs done even while working remotely. Ensure employees are treated fairly, which can go a long way toward retention goals, as well as help avoid discrimination claims.
The COVID-19 outbreak created a shortage of latex and nitrile gloves in many workplaces.
Latex and nitrile gloves are used extensively in health care, and their disposable (single use) nature meant that large quantities were consumed during the peak of the pandemic. The shortage was also worsened because of hoarding by some consumers. In addition, certain businesses and government agencies began using these gloves to protect employees, even if their workers didn’t normally require gloves on the job.
If you have trouble obtaining your staff’s usual gloves, be prepared to identify feasible alternatives. You don’t want to endanger them by having them wear any old gloves they find lying around.
To identify alternatives for workers who rely on latex or nitrile gloves as PPE, you must know which chemicals workers handle or come in contact with. That’s because all glove materials are not suitable for all hazards.
Evaluate which materials offer appropriate protection from the specific chemicals that workers handle to select appropriate alternative gloves.
Here’s a summary of glove types and the protection given to help evaluate alternatives.
Butyl gloves protect against a variety of chemicals such as peroxide, highly corrosive acids, strong bases, alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, esters and nitrocompounds. Butyl gloves also resist oxidation, ozone corrosion and abrasion, and remain flexible at low temperatures. However, they do not perform well with aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons and halogenated solvents.
Natural (latex) rubber gloves have good elasticity and temperature resistance, and resist abrasions well. They protect against most water solutions of acids, alkalis, salts, and ketones. Latex gloves may cause allergic reactions and may not be appropriate for all employees. Hypoallergenic gloves, glove liners, and powderless gloves are possible alternatives for employees who are allergic.
Neoprene gloves protect against hydraulic fluids, gasoline, alcohols, organic acids, and alkalis. Their chemical and wear resistance are generally better than gloves of natural rubber.
Nitrile gloves are intended for jobs requiring dexterity, and they stand up even after prolonged exposure to substances that cause other gloves to deteriorate. They offer protection when working with greases, oils, acids, caustics, and alcohols but are not recommended for use with strong oxidizing agents, aromatic solvents, ketones, and acetates.
OSHA’s 1910.151(c) standard, Medical Services and First Aid, requires that employers provide emergency eyewashes when employees may be exposed to injurious corrosive materials during the course of their work. Employers have a wide range of eyewash types available to choose from on the market, including portable units (i.e., eyewash bottles). While many employers use bottles, OSHA says that they can’t be the only eyewash made available to employees, and their use should be limited.
The OSHA standard does not provide a great deal of detail on eyewashes for employers. However, where the regulation is silent, OSHA refers employers to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard Z358.1-2009, “Emergency Eyewash and Shower Equipment,” regarding installation, operation, and maintenance of emergency eyewashes. This includes capacity and flushing requirements. The ANSI standard states that an eyewash must deliver 0.4 gallons of flushing fluid per minute for at least 15 minutes.
As such, ANSI says that an eyewash bottle does not meet these criteria; therefore, it can only be used to support eyewashes that do (i.e., plumbed and self-contained units), but cannot replace them.
The reason for this limitation is that eyewash bottles simply cannot provide the required 15 minutes of flushing. Eyewash bottles typically hold less than a gallon of water, which would supply the user with flushing fluid for approximately 1 minute. Even larger self-contained units (those with bladders) that have a capacity of 5 to 10 gallons would only provide maximum use of about 5 minutes.
In other words, eyewash bottles don’t provide an adequate amount of flushing fluid and cannot be considered a primary means of protection.
For this reason, OSHA warns that the use of eyewash bottles should be limited. In a 1986 memorandum to Regional Administrators, the agency states, “In general, squeeze bottles should not be used except where the hazard severity or distance from plumbed eyewash equipment requires personal equipment at work stations for immediate flushing prior to prolonged flushing at a plumbed or self-contained unit.”
In other words, employers can provide eyewash bottles in instances where plumbed or self-contained units can’t reasonably be provided (e.g., an outside yard) in the immediate work area, but only until they can reach a unit which can provide the amount of flushing fluid necessary to flush the eyes for at least 15 minutes.
OSHA expects the employer to determine the level of the potential risk to employees and provide eyewash (and/or shower) protection accordingly. The severity of the hazard(s) involved is a critical consideration when making this determination. In the past, OSHA has said that 1910.151(c)is meant to cover strong acids and alkalis, and the requirement to provide suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing depends on the exposure and the strength of the hazardous chemical. Chemicals and materials such as household detergents or cleaners, sawdust, metal filings, etc. would not require emergency eyewash (or shower) under the standard.
If an employer determines that an eyewash is needed, then it must meet the provisions set forth in the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard Z358.1. The agency uses the ANSI standard as an enforcement tool. This is clarified in a November 1, 2002, Letter of Interpretation, which says, “If OSHA inspects a workplace and finds unsuitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body, a citation under 29 CFR 1910.151(c)would be issued. When determining whether the eyewash or shower facilities are suitable given the circumstances of a particular worksite, OSHA may refer to the most recent consensus standard regarding eyewash or shower equipment…”
Need information on eyewash inspections? See our Institute document on Inspections and Maintenance. |
Without the ANSI standard, employers would find it difficult to demonstrate to OSHA exactly how their eyewash and shower units were suitable exclusive to the regulatory language under 1910.151(c) since it’s limited and vague.
Eyewash bottles don’t meet the requirement under 1910.151(c) to provide “suitable” facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes. They cannot be the only eyewash provided in the workplace.
Each year, the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) reminds employers not to prop open fire doors for convenience. Propping open doors has become a common violation of fire codes after the pandemic because workers didn’t want to become exposed to germs on common touchpoints.
I know firsthand this is an issue at construction jobsites and remember telling workers not to prop open fire doors in our clients’ facilities. Workers were doing this out of convenience because they carried things into and out of the existing facility. Propping open a fire door, or wedging it open, are serious fire and safety hazards. Keep fire doors closed to prevent smoke and fire from spreading into the fire evacuation route, like a stairwell. OSHA and NFPA don’t prohibit propping open a fire exit door but caution employers against doing this for safety and security reasons.
Fire doors must remain closed, although some may be designed to automatically close when fire and smoke are sensed by jobsite fire detection equipment. To reduce the need to disinfect frequently touched points, workers can push open fire doors using their sleeves by pushing against the push bar instead of using their hands. You can also increase housekeeping efforts and the frequency that doorknobs, handles, and push bars are cleaned throughout the shift.
One way employers try to handle skyrocketing inflation is to manage first aid supplies. But do OSHA regulations allow employers to lock first aid supplies as a way to control costs?
Our experts are often asked whether OSHA permits locking first aid supplies. In a January 23, 2007, OSHA letter of interpretation (LOI), OSHA confirmed that first aid cabinets can be locked. The LOI stated, however, that first aid supplies must be readily accessible in the event of an emergency. Additionally, 29 CFR 1910.151(b) states: “In the absence of an infirmary, clinic, or hospital in near proximity to the workplace which is used for the treatment of all injured employees, a person or persons shall be adequately trained to render first aid. Adequate first aid supplies shall be readily available.”
OSHA defines “readily available” as accessible within three to five minutes and warns that locking first aid supplies, whether kits or cabinets, may limit employee accessibility per the standard. The agency advises that if an employer was relying on first aid services not provided by a clinic, infirmary, or hospital and adequate first aid supplies were not available when needed, then the employer would be in violation of 1910.151(b).
If you’re concerned with supplies being used in a manner not intended by the company, there are ways to manage supplies. For example, employers could use vending machines that allow employees to scan their badges and get basic supplies or personal protective equipment free of charge. This can help employers manage their supply chain and evaluate by whom and for what supplies are being used.
If opting to lock your first aid supplies, remember to make supplies readily accessible (within three to five minutes). This may require that additional keys for locks be made available to multiple personnel at all times when workers are present.
Although their recommendations are non-mandatory, OSHA suggests using the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for reference to determine what supplies you need to have. The contents for Class A kits listed in the ANSI standard should be adequate for small worksites. Class B kits are designed with a broader range and quantity of supplies to deal with injuries in more complex or high-risk environments (for example, larger operations or multiple operations conducted at the same location).
It’s important to note that although OSHA is still citing ANSI’s 1998 standard, an updated version of the standard, ANSI/International Safety Equipment Association (ISEA) Z308.1-2021, was approved on April 15, 2022, and went into effect on October 15, 2022. Major changes to the standard included:
Determining what first aid supplies should be accessible depends on the workplace hazards and potential injuries. A great place to begin is by assessing your Form 300 injury logs to see the types of injuries already reported. Most employers perform risk assessments, beginning with a review of the Form 300 logs, to drive their decisions. OSHA also provides guidance to employers in 1910.151 Appendix A.
Employers must understand the accessibility risks associated with locking first aid cabinets even though OSHA and ANSI do not prohibit this practice. First aid supplies must be readily accessible (within three to five minutes) in the event of an emergency.
Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental, health, and safety news. Please view the content links in the transcript for more information about the topics I’ll be covering today. With that said, let’s get started!
For the 13th year in a row, fall protection for construction topped OSHA’s list of violations. In fiscal year 2023, there were over 7,000 recorded violations, up from 5,250 in fiscal year 2022.
Workers who are exposed to lead in industries such as painting, battery manufacturing, and building renovation risk bringing lead home on their clothing and personal items. Take-home lead can contaminate a worker’s car and home, posing an exposure risk to family members. A new NIOSH publication outlines steps workers can take to minimize this risk.
Private industry employers reported 2.8 million nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses in 2022. This is a 7.5 percent increase over 2021. The increase is due to a rise in both illnesses, which were up 26.1 percent, and injuries, which were up 4.5 percent. Respiratory illness cases drove the spike in reported illnesses.
OSHA faces significant challenges in ensuring worker safety, particularly in high-risk industries. This is according to a report from the Office of Inspector General, or OIG. Among OSHA’s top challenges are verifying timely hazard abatement, employer reporting, completing inspections, workplace violence, and protecting workers from crystalline silica.
And finally, turning to environmental news, a recent EPA rule requires covered facilities to include all quantities of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, on their Toxics Release Inventory reports. The rule also mandates that suppliers notify product users of the presence of any chemicals of special concern contained in their mixtures and products.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
Many employers will need to electronically submit the 300A, 300 Log, and 301 Forms by March 2, 2024. OSHA sent the electronic reporting rule changes to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on April 7, 2023. The OMB review can take two to four months, so a final rule could appear any time from July to September. That would allow the rule to take effect before January 1, 2024, when employers can begin reporting.
Covered establishments must electronically submit injury data by March 2nd each year. Currently, covered locations include establishments with 250 or more employees that must keep a 300 Log, as well as establishments with 20-249 employees in specific industries that OSHA identified and listed in the regulation.
Based on the proposed rule, the coming changes would revise the reporting obligations as follows:
Note that an “establishment” is a single physical location, so the employee counts are based on each location. For example, furniture stores must report if a location has 20 or more employees. Suppose an employer operates 117 furniture stores around the country, but only two establishments have 20 or more employees. The other 115 establishments have fewer than 20 employees. The employer would only have to report for the two establishments that exceed 20 employees, and would not have to report on the other 115 establishments.
The revisions would also update from the 2012 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes to the 2017 codes. The most current version is 2022, but since the Bureau of Labor Statistics uses the 2017 version, OSHA wants the e-reporting rule to match.
Need more information on NAICS codes? See our news item “Which NAICS code should you use for OSHA?” |
Assuming the final rule mirrors the proposed rule, employers can prepare as follows:
For example, all manufacturing establishments with 20 or more employees must report the 300A, and many establishments with 100 or more employees will need to report the 300A, 300 Log, and 301s. However, if an establishment has 100 or more employees but is not listed in proposed Appendix B, the location will only file the 300A. A sampling of NAICS codes not listed in Appendix B include 322 (paper manufacturing), 323 (printing), 324 (petroleum and coal), and 325 (chemical manufacturing).
The proposed list of NAICS codes for establishments with 100 or more employees appears on the last two pages of the proposed rule at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-03-30/pdf/2022-06546.pdf.
Key to remember: OSHA’s final rule to revise electronic reporting obligations should come out this year and could impact 2024 reporting, though legal challenges or technical issues might delay the effective date.