Make the most of your mileage

What does this mean?

Manufacturers (including importers) of motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines no longer have future obligations to measure, control, report, or comply with federal GHG emission standards for any highway vehicle or engine, including for previously manufactured MYs.

Specifically, the final rule removes the requirements for controlling GHG emissions, which include:

• Emission standards;
• Test procedures;
• Averaging, banking, and trading requirements;
• Reporting requirements; and
• Fleet-average emission requirements.

Additionally, the final rule eliminates off-cycle credits for manufacturers that added certain technologies to their vehicles and engines (like waste heat recovery) and EPA’s incentives for manufacturers to install a start-stop system (which automatically shuts off a vehicle’s engine when idling).

When do the changes apply?

The final rule takes effect on April 20, 2026. However, a legal challenge has already been brought against the rulemaking, and more litigation is likely.

It’s important to keep an eye on the status of the rule. Legal challenges could result in changes to the rule, such as delaying its effective date.

What regulations were removed?

The final rule repeals all GHG emission regulations in 40 CFR:

• Parts 85, 86, and 600 (light- and medium-duty vehicles);
• Part 1036 (heavy-duty vehicle engines); and
• Part 1037 (heavy-duty vehicles).

Why did EPA remove the standards?

The road to reversal begins in 2009. That’s when EPA issued two findings: the Endangerment Finding and the Cause or Contribute Finding. Collectively, these findings are referred to as the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The agency used the 2009 Endangerment Finding as the legal basis under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines based on global climate change concerns.

However, upon reconsideration, EPA no longer believes that it has the statutory authority under Section 202(a) of the CAA to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines in response to global climate change concerns. The agency bases its determination on three factors:

• EPA concludes that the best reading of Section 202(a) of the CAA authorizes the agency to regulate air pollution that threatens to endanger health and welfare through local and regional exposure. Therefore, the CAA doesn’t give EPA the authority to regulate GHG emissions based on global climate change concerns. The agency conducted the “best reading” by using standard interpretation principles and being informed by the Supreme Court’s overturning of “Chevron deference” in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024).
• EPA lacks the congressional authorization required to regulate GHG emissions based on global climate change concerns. The agency determined that the major questions doctrine (i.e., federal agencies may not decide issues of major national significance without clear authorization granted by Congress) applies to the 2009 Endangerment Finding and that Congress doesn’t give EPA the authority under Section 202(a) of the CAA to decide a national policy response to global climate change concerns.
• The GHG emission regulations don’t and can’t have a meaningful impact on the identified health and welfare dangers that the 2009 Endangerment Finding attributed to global climate change. EPA based this conclusion on the results of climate impact modeling that the public submitted in response to the proposed rule and on the agency’s modeling analysis used to evaluate the submissions.

By rescinding the 2009 Endangerment Finding, EPA has no legal basis to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines. Accordingly, the final rule also repeals all GHG emission standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines.

Key to remember: EPA’s final rule eliminates the 2009 Endangerment Finding and the related GHG emission requirements for on-highway vehicles and vehicle engines.

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

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

Why has the proposed 2026 MSGP not taken effect?

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

What is a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)?

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

What are the requirements for authorized state stormwater permits?

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

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

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

Who needs coverage under the MSGP?

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

How does a facility obtain coverage?

To obtain coverage, a facility must:

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

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

What monitoring is required?

Under the 2021 MSGP, required monitoring may include:

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

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

What happens if benchmark thresholds are exceeded?

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

What about common real world compliance scenarios?

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

Employees’ vehicles leaking oil in parking lots

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

Nonroutine outdoor maintenance

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

Outdoor waste storage or scrap piles

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

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

What documentation must facilities keep?

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

What should facilities do while waiting for the 2026 MSGP?

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

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

What’s changing and why it matters

Although EPA has been deregulating or loosening some requirements, there are still some standards being tightened across multiple fronts in the coming year:

• Renewable fuel standards (RFS): The EPA proposed higher volume requirements for 2026, including 24.02 billion renewable identification numbers (RINs), up nearly 8% from 2025. This increase pushes stricter expectations on fuel producers and organizations purchasing renewable fuels.
• Stormwater multi-sector general permit (MSGP): A new MSGP set to take effect by February 2026 will require quarterly PFAS indicator monitoring, expanded benchmark sampling, and resiliency measures in stormwater control designs.
• PFAS Reporting under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): TSCA Section 8(a)(7) mandates PFAS manufacturing and import data collection beginning in April 2026, through October 2026, with extended deadlines for certain small manufacturers.

Failure to prepare could lead to fines, reputational damage, supply chain disruptions, and permit delays. Companies that weave compliance planning into their 2026 strategy will be positioned not just to meet legal deadlines but to sustain operations smoothly.

Key areas of impact

• Renewable fuel standards (RFS) and air emissions The proposed increase in 2026 Renewable Identification Numbers (RIN) volumes, from 24.02 billion to 24.46 billion for 2027, signals tightening air and fuels policy that affects fuel use and emissions accounting.
• Stormwater management The upcoming 2026 MSGP requires expanded quarterly PFAS monitoring, new benchmark triggers, corrective action plans, and integration of climate resilience in design standards.
• PFAS disclosure (TSCA Section 8(a)(7)) Manufacturers and importers of PFAS must submit electronic reporting of usage, volumes, disposal, and exposure data between April and October 2026, with extensions available for smaller operations.

Steps to take now

• Audit compliance programs: Cross-check operations against RIN inventory, stormwater permits, and TSCA reporting duties.
• Upgrade monitoring and recordkeeping: Implement robust electronic systems to track PFAS, stormwater quality, fuel volumes, and emissions.
• Staff training: Educate teams on PFAS obligations, new stormwater protocols, and RFS structures.
• Engage regulators early: Comment on proposed rules, consult during permit drafting, and flag issues during the notice-and-comment period.

Looking ahead

The EPA’s 2026 updates reflect a trend toward increased transparency and environmental accountability. Companies that treat compliance as strategic will not only avoid enforcement but also gain resilience and stakeholder trust.

Key to remember: Start planning now. Early action on EPA rule changes will save time, money, and headaches when enforcement begins.

Who’s covered by TRI reporting?

Generally, TRI reporting applies if the facility:

• Is in a covered industry sector (40 CFR 372.23);
• Employs 10 or more full-time-equivalent employees; and
• Manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses a covered chemical or chemical category (372.65) in quantities above the threshold levels (372.25, .27, and .28) in a given year.

TRI tip: The TRI reporting year (RY) reflects the calendar year covered by the report, not the year in which you submit the report. For example, TRI reports for RY 2025 are due by July 1, 2026.

What’s covered by TRI reporting?

Facilities must submit the TRI Form R (or the streamlined Form A Certification Statement if eligible) for each TRI-listed chemical manufactured, processed, or used during the previous calendar year. The data covers chemical waste management activities (including releases to the environment) and any actions taken to reduce or prevent chemical waste.

Facilities usually report for each chemical:

• The quantities of releases (routine and accidental),
• Any releases caused by catastrophic or other one-time events,
• The maximum amount on-site during the year, and
• The amount contained in wastes managed on-site or transferred off-site.

What’s new for RY 2025?

The TRI reports for RY 2025 contain three differences from previous years:

• The de minimis level for anthracene was lowered from 1.0 percent to 0.1 percent. Anthracene’s Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CASRN) is 120-12-7.
• More activity sub-use codes were added to the sub-use codes for “processing” and “otherwise use” activities.
• Nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) were added to the TRI chemical list:

How are TRI reports submitted?

Facilities must submit TRI reports electronically to the TRI-MEweb application on EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). Even if a facility uses its own software to prepare TRI forms, it must upload and submit the forms to TRI-MEweb.

TRI tip: To complete the submission process on TRI-MEweb, you need to assign one user the Preparer role and another user the Certifying Official role. Ensure both users have added TRI-MEweb to their CDX user accounts.

TRI reports must be submitted to both EPA and the state. If your facility’s state participates in the TRI Data Exchange (TDX), TRI-MEweb will automatically send your report to the state. If your facility’s state doesn’t participate, you must send a hard copy of the report to the TRI state contact.

TRI tip: Use EPA’s “TRI Data Exchange” webpage to determine whether your facility’s state participates in TDX. As of March 2026, all 50 states participate in TDX. The District of Columbia doesn’t participate.

More TRI tips

Keep these things in mind when preparing your TRI reports:

• You must submit a Form R (or Form A if eligible) for each TRI-listed chemical your facility manufactured, processed, or otherwise used above the threshold quantity.
• TRI data is publicized. If a chemical’s identity needs to be protected, you have to submit substantiation forms to claim the chemical identity as a trade secret. EPA must approve the claims. Further, for each chemical with a trade secret claim, you have to mail hard copies of the substantiation forms and the corresponding Form R (or Form A if eligible) to EPA and the state.
• EPA’s online GuideME platform offers comprehensive guidance for TRI reporting, including reporting forms and instructions, the TRI chemical list, and Q&As.
• Contact the state environmental agency directly to confirm the submission method. EPA’s “TRI State Contacts” webpage contains state contact information.
• Register your facility on CDX or ensure your facility’s CDX account is updated as soon as possible to avoid delays caused by technical issues.

Start preparing for TRI reporting now to give your facility plenty of time to gather data, complete the forms, and respond to unexpected issues that could arise. That way, your facility can breathe easily throughout the whole reporting season.

Key to remember: The submission deadline for TRI reporting is July 1, 2026. Make sure your facility is ready to report.

Current requirements

Motor carriers must request and review their regulated drivers’ MVRs at least once every 12 months. The MVR is requested from every driver licensing authority where the driver held a license during the previous year. Depending on the state, carriers may satisfy this annual review requirement by enrolling drivers in an Employer Notification System (ENS), also referred to as MVR monitoring.

Between MVRs, carriers should learn of MVR changes, especially if they impact safety and compliance. But drivers don’t always comply with regulations, such as:

• 383.31 – CDL drivers must report convictions;
• 383.33 – CDL drivers must report suspended license; and
• 391.15 – CMV drivers report loss of license and violations while in a CMV.

Storytime

A carrier employs 50 CMV drivers and completes all annual MVR reviews each April. In May, the carrier hires Joe, a CDL Class A driver. As required by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR), the carrier runs a new-hire MVR; however, Joe’s MVR shows two recent convictions, including a:

• Speeding violation for 10 mph over the limit at the end of 2025, and
• Failure-to-stop violation from mid-2025.

Under the carrier’s internal scoring system, Joe falls just below the company’s disqualification threshold. One additional traffic conviction would result in the loss of driving privileges per company policy.

With a large project approaching and an immediate need for drivers, the carrier moves forward with hiring Joe. During orientation, Joe’s manager reminds him that company policy and the FMCSR (383.31) require CDL drivers to report all traffic convictions. Joe is also told that another conviction within the next year will disqualify him from driving for the company.

Two months later, Joe receives a citation for driving 15 mph over the speed limit in his personal vehicle. Knowing that reporting the citation will cost him his diving position, he avoids telling his manager. Later that month, he’s convicted of the citation, and the state automatically suspends his license for 60 days under its driver point system.

If the carrier relies only on an annual MVR review, several serious issues could occur in the 10 months before Joe’s driving record is reviewed by management. Joe could be:

• Involved in a crash while operating a CMV with a suspended license, opening the door for a plaintiff’s attorney to allege negligent supervision against the carrier and place Joe in legal jeopardy.
• Stopped during a roadside inspection and placed out of service for driving with a suspended CDL, resulting in a 30-point hit to the carrier’s Driver Fitness CSA BASIC score – a critical impact that will follow the company for 2 years.

If the carrier had implemented MVR monitoring — or even quarterly MVR reviews — this situation would likely have been identified and addressed much sooner. While Joe made a serious error by not reporting the conviction and license suspension, the carrier is responsible for ensuring that only safe and qualified drivers operate its vehicles.

Key to remember: An annual MVR review is required by the FMCSRs. Safety-focused carriers consistently go beyond the minimum. Implementing more frequent MVR reviews, including continuous MVR monitoring, is a best-practice approach carriers should consider.

What are restricted plates?

The IRP defines a “restricted plate” as:

• A plate that has a time, geographic area, distance, or commodity restriction; or
• A mass transit or other special plate issued for a bus leased or owned by a municipal government, a state or provincial transportation authority, or a private party, and operated as part of an urban mass transit system.

Definitions and limitations vary by the jurisdiction that issues the plate. Common examples of restricted plates include:

• Farm,
• Transporter,
• Dealer,
• Manufacturer,
• Repair,
• Special mobile equipment, and
• Forestry.

Understanding how restricted plates are defined is only the first step. Whether those plates are recognized outside the base jurisdiction depends on reciprocity.

It’s all about reciprocity

Under IRP, a vehicle displaying restricted plates is not an apportionable vehicle. When a vehicle is non-apportionable, it’s up to each jurisdiction to determine how the jurisdiction’s laws apply.

A non-apportionable vehicle (one operating with restricted plates) may or may not be granted reciprocity outside of the base jurisdiction. This varies by state, and you need to verify whether the states where you operate have reciprocity agreements in place with your base state to recognize those restricted plates.

For example, under a reciprocal agreement between Wisconsin and Minnesota:

• Commercial vehicles that display intrastate vehicle registration (license plates) from Minnesota may operate interstate within a 30-air-mile range of the Minnesota-Wisconsin boundary line without carrying any additional registration credentials, and
• Vehicles that display Wisconsin intrastate vehicle registration (license plates) may operate interstate in Minnesota within a 30-air-mile range of the Wisconsin border.

In contrast, many jurisdictions treat farm, dealer, or transporter plates as valid only in the state of issue, requiring full IRP or other registration (regardless of a trip permit). When there’s no reciprocity agreement, vehicles not apportioned are subject to registration and fee payment according to each base jurisdiction’s general registration statutes.

Because reciprocity is inconsistent — and often misunderstood — many carriers look to trip permits as a workaround. Unfortunately, that approach usually doesn’t solve the problem.

What about trip permits?

In most cases, full IRP apportioned registration is required, and trip permits don’t override the limitations of restricted plates.

In other words, trip permits do not convert an ineligible or restricted plate into an unrestricted interstate plate.

As a result, a vehicle operating on restricted plates may still be considered improperly registered for interstate travel — even if a trip permit has been purchased.

Key to remember: Because restricted plate rules and reciprocity agreements vary by jurisdiction, carriers should verify registration requirements before operating interstate. When interstate travel is anticipated, full IRP apportioned registration is typically the safest and most compliant option.

Dust off your registrations

Verify that you are up to date with your registrations. Do you know when they are set to renew? Will you need to make any big changes this year? Some programs to verify include: UCR, IRP, and PHMSA Hazmat Registration.

Sweep up risks with mock audits

Conducting mock audits gives you the opportunity to identify and mitigate risks before they escalate. For example, audits can uncover gaps in recordkeeping, driver behavior, or vehicle maintenance that might otherwise go unnoticed. From there, you can modify your training, processes, and more in order to improve the areas which may be lacking, such as your compliance, safety culture, recordkeeping, and more.

Freshen up driver training materials

Take the time to review your training materials and question:

• Are they effective?
• Can they be improved?
• Is there anything my drivers are struggling with despite being trained?

If “yes” is the answer to any of these questions, you may want to consider implementing some changes to your training.

Declutter operations: consider consolidating DOT numbers

Consolidating DOT numbers involves merging several active Department of Transportation (DOT) registrations under one single number. This action helps to streamline operations. Rather than juggling multiple registrations, carriers can manage their entire fleet under one identifier. A single registration can help avoid regulatory red flags, streamline compliance and safety tracking, and reduce administrative overhead.

Key to remember: Checking in on your compliance gives you the opportunity to eliminate clutter, stay ahead of requirements, and streamline operations.

Periodic inspections

Cargo tanks aren’t something you hook up and forget about. They’re subject to periodic inspections and tests, and those dates matter every time the tank is used. Even if you aren’t the one performing the tests, you should know whether the tank is current and legal to haul.

Before heading out, take a moment to confirm the inspection status through the markings or the documentation your company uses. An out-of-date cargo tank isn’t just a paperwork issue; legally, it can’t be filled. If something doesn’t look right or you’re not sure what you’re looking at, it’s better to ask before you move.

Slosh and surge

Liquid loads move, and that movement changes how your truck handles in ways solid freight never will. Surge can push you forward when braking, and slosh can make curves and ramps feel unpredictable if you take them too fast. Even experienced drivers have to respect how quickly that load can start "talking back."

Smooth driving isn’t just "nice to have" with a cargo tank, it’s the whole game. Brake early, accelerate gradually, and slow down well before turns so the liquid has time to settle. Leave more following distance than you think you need, because it buys you reaction time without having to stab the brakes.

Know your product

You don’t need to be a chemist, but you do need to know the basics of what you’re hauling. Flammable, corrosive, toxic, and oxidizer loads don’t all get treated the same, especially when you’re thinking about stops, parking, and what you’d do if something went wrong. Knowing the general hazards helps you make better decisions without overthinking it.

It also helps to understand your tank’s design and key controls. Baffled and unbaffled tanks can feel very different, and emergency shutoffs and valve locations matter when seconds count. If you don’t know where something is or how it operates, that’s worth fixing before you’re in a stressful situation.

Be ready for inspections

Cargo tanks tend to get more attention during roadside inspections, and that’s not a surprise. Inspectors often look closely at placards, markings, closures, and any signs of leakage or product residue. Being prepared makes the stop quicker and a lot less stressful.

Keep your paperwork organized so you can produce it without digging through a mess. Know what you’re hauling, and be able to speak to the basics without sounding unsure. A calm, professional approach usually sets the tone and keeps the whole interaction smooth.

Habits and patience

Most cargo tank problems don’t come from one big mistake. They come from small things that were rushed, skipped, or assumed to be fine. Good cargo tank drivers build habits that don’t change, even on busy days.

Check the tank, drive smoothly, and think a few steps ahead, especially in traffic and bad weather. If something feels off, stop and look instead of hoping it’ll work itself out. Patience and consistency are what keep cargo tank trips boring, and boring is exactly what you want.

Key to remember: From understanding inspection requirements to handling slosh and surge, cargo tank driving requires a different mindset. Patience and attention to detail are what keep trips safe.

What’s changing

Motor carriers should review the changes now to determine how they might impact their operations. Except as noted, the new rules take effect on March 23, 2026:

• Bumper labels: Motor carriers will no longer need to ensure that their vehicles’ rear-impact guards have a permanent certification label from the manufacturer. These labels often fall off or become unreadable over time, resulting in citations even when guards meet the safety standard.
• License-plate lamps: Tractors will no longer need a working rear license-plate lamp while pulling a trailer. If there’s no trailer, the light will need to be operational.
• Spare fuses (effective April 20, 2026): Drivers will no longer be required to carry spare fuses for powering required equipment. The FMCSA says today’s vehicles don’t commonly suffer from blown fuses, making the requirement unnecessary.
• eDVIRs: Though already allowed under 49 CFR 390.32, the vehicle inspection rules in Part 396 will explicitly allow drivers and motor carriers to use electronic drivers’ vehicle inspection reports (DVIRs).
• Auxiliary fuel pumps: Motor carriers will be able to use gravity- or siphon-fed auxiliary fuel pumps with tanks up to 5 gallons, mounted on the trailer and used only when the vehicle is not in motion. The rule revises 393.65(d) to reflect modern small-capacity auxiliary systems used for trailer-mounted equipment. capacity auxiliary systems used for trailer-mounted equipment.
• Fuel tank fill limit: It will no longer be a violation to use fuel tanks that can be filled beyond 95 percent of their capacity. Modern liquid-fuel tanks have vented caps that can safely accommodate a 100-percent fill, the FMCSA says.
• Liquid-burning flares: The FMCSA has removed the option to use liquid-burning flares as emergency warning devices. Drivers must use reflective triangles or solid-fuel flares instead.
• CDLs for military techs: Dual-status military technicians (as defined in 10 U.S.C. 10216) are now explicitly included in the commercial driver’s license (CDL) exemption for military vehicle operations. Previously, only National Guard technicians qualified; Air Force Reserve and Army Reserve technicians were excluded.
• Portable conveyors: Portable conveyors used in the aggregate industry and manufactured before 2010 are now exempt from the “brakes on all wheels” requirement, provided certain weight and speed limits are met.
• Tire markings: The FMCSA has clarified that its rules do not require tire load-rating markings on sidewalls. That requirement falls to manufacturers only, not motor carriers.
• Vision waivers: An obsolete grandfathering provision related to an old vision waiver study program has been removed from the regulations (391.64) in favor of today’s alternative vision standard in 391.44.
• Water carriers: The FMCSA has removed outdated references to “water carriers,” updating parts 365, 370, 379, 386, and 390 to reflect the agency’s lack of jurisdiction over maritime carriers.

More rules on the way?

Additional deregulatory actions proposed last May are still in process but are expected to be finalized soon. This includes rules to:

• Remove the need to carry a user manual for electronic logging devices (ELDs).
• Remove the requirement for drivers to self-report moving violations.
• End the requirement that carriers return completed roadside inspection reports unless requested by the issuing agency.
• Exempt certain buses and hazmat drivers from stopping at railroad crossings equipped with active warning devices (unless the devices are activated).
• Record information about accidents where medical treatment consisted only of imaging or a prescription without actual treatment.
• Delete the outdated requirement to retrofit older trailers with retroreflective tape.

Key to remember: The FMCSA has finalized 12 deregulatory actions among 18 proposed in May 2025. The changes could save time and money for both motor carriers and drivers.

What’s a USDOT Number?

USDOT Numbers identify the motor carrier, freight forwarder, broker, or entity, just like a driver’s license identifies the driver. A USDOT Number will always belong to the same legal person and cannot be leased, sold, transferred, or rented to anyone else. If the FMCSA discovers that someone other than the assigned legal person is using a USDOT Number, the Number will be inactivated.

For sole proprietors, this means the owner will always have one USDOT Number and can never sell or transfer it, even if the owner sells their company. The new buyer would need their own USDOT Number.

For a corporation, the USDOT Number is attached to the company and can never be sold or transferred, so whoever buys the corporation will inherit the same USDOT Number under new ownership. If two companies merge or one gets dissolved, it’s likely that a new USDOT Number would be required.

What’s Operating Authority?

Operating Authority, also known as the MC Number, is needed for carriers to perform certain types of transportation along specific routes, which previously led to frequent transfers of the MC Number. Congress recently changed Operating Authority so that a carrier with Operating Authority may operate along any route across the U.S., removing the frequent need for MC Number transfers. 

A sole proprietor who sells their business would be required to get a separate MC Number, or record a transfer, and must file an out-of-business notification. If a sole proprietor fails to do this, the FMCSA will revoke the operating authority (MC Number).

For corporate transactions, the motor carrier may need to report ownership or corporate officer changes without a transfer if the same management and controls stay in place. If a new business entity is formed, however, the FMCSA may record the transfer or a new MC Number may be required.

Bottom line

Ultimately, failing to follow the rules and lease, purchase, or sell a USDOT or MC Number outside of a legitimate and valid corporate transaction will lead to inactivation of the Number and all related registrations. Make sure all your transactions are lawful and authorized to avoid consequences. 

Reassess the need for accommodation

After employers grant an accommodation, they may assess whether there continues to be a need for the accommodation based on individualized circumstances, including whether alternative accommodations might meet the employee’s needs.

Employers have the discretion to choose between effective accommodations. This means employees aren’t necessarily entitled to their preferred accommodation forever. Employers may, therefore, reevaluate a previously granted remote work accommodation and replace it with an effective, reasonable one. When there are several reasonable and effective options, employers may choose an accommodation other than remote work.

Don’t hide under a blanket

Employers shouldn’t take a blanket approach to rescind and deny all remote work accommodations. In some cases, employees will continue to need remote work as an accommodation. Employers need to look at each situation individually, based on its own merits.

When to reassess the type of accommodation

Employers should occasionally reevaluate accommodations in response to changes, such as changes to:

• An employee’s condition,
• Job requirements,
• Operational needs, and
• A related law.

Employers might also, for example, find it helpful to reevaluate a remote work accommodation once a year to confirm the accommodation remains effective and manageable.

After reassessment

If supported by an individualized assessment, employers may allow the employee to continue to work remotely if doing so is necessary to ensure continued compliance with the ADA.

If, however, reevaluation and individualized assessment demonstrate that an employee no longer needs remote work as an accommodation, employers may replace it with a reasonable and effective in-office option (or combination of options). This can include, but isn’t limited to, assistive devices, modified equipment, environmental modifications (sound, smell, light, etc.), job restructuring, modified or flexible work scheduling, etc. It can also include reducing remote work, combined with in-office accommodations, provided the result is still reasonable and effective.

Key to remember: Employers may review whether employees continue to need remote work accommodations. Employers may rescind remote work accommodations if they no longer suit employee or company needs, but they might have to provide an alternative solution.

The case

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

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

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

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

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

A lesson for employers

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

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

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

The story

As an agency manager, Jerry supervised a team of insurance agents. The employer classified all agency managers, including Jerry, as independent contractors. Jerry:

• Set his own schedule,
• Decided how many hours he worked every day, and
• Had no obligation to track his time, and
• Didn’t have to disclose to the company the hours he worked.

The employer didn’t supervise Jerry’s hours worked or his completion of daily tasks. The employer paid Jerry a commission for policies sold and renewed.

In November 2019, Jerry sued the employer, challenging his classification as an independent contractor. Claiming to be an employee of the company, he sought unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The court’s ruling

Bad news for the employer: The court ruled that it should have classified Jerry as an employee (not an independent contractor) and that he had worked at least 816 hours of overtime. The bigger issue, however, was whether or not the employer knew about Jerry’s extra hours worked.

Jerry argued that the employer owed him overtime pay because it “suffered” or “permitted” him to work as much as he wanted. Because the employer allowed him to work unlimited hours, Jerry argued that the employer’s knowledge of his overtime work was irrelevant.

The court disagreed. Allowing Jerry to work as much as he wanted can’t mean the employer automatically owed him for any time he happened to work overtime, regardless of the employer's knowledge of those overtime hours. Rather, employees claiming to be entitled to overtime pay must be able to prove that employers knew employees were working overtime.

Employers don’t need to be clairvoyant

Employees must notify employers when they’re working extra hours. If employers neither knew nor had reason to believe that overtime work was being performed, that time doesn’t constitute “hours worked” under the FLSA.

The employer in this case didn’t know, or should have known, about Jerry’s overtime.

Jerry then argued that the employer should have known because it made “no effort” to record his time despite an alleged legal requirement to do so. This lack of a timekeeping system, he claimed, showed the employer’s failure to exercise “reasonable diligence” to find out about his overtime. Jerry went on to say that he had no “common-law” duty to notify the employer of his overtime; his only duty was to comply with the company’s timekeeping system, which didn’t exist.

The court again disagreed with Jerry on these two points:

1. It was his burden to show the employer knew he was working overtime.
2. An employer’s failure to maintain a timekeeping system in itself doesn’t mean the employer should have known about an employee’s overtime work.

The employer didn’t require agency managers to track their time, nor did it pay them hourly. Consequently, it had no reason to think of Jerry’s work in terms of “regular time” versus “overtime” hours.

Meritt v. Texas Farm Bureau et al., Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-50127, February 6, 2026.

Key to remember: The FLSA doesn’t require employers to pay overtime if employees don’t tell them about it.

Form I-9 guidance

The decisions extend the validity of EADs issued with TPS for the six countries impacted by the court orders.

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and E-Verify have issued the following guidance for filling out the Form I-9 for individuals impacted by the court orders.

Section 1: Input “as per court order” in the Expiration Date field.

Section 2: For individuals with TPS from the countries below, input the following dates in the Expiration Date field and place a note in the Additional Information box:

• Burma: March 30, 2026
• Ethiopia: April 8, 2026
• Haiti: March 27, 2026
• Somalia: March 31, 2026
• South Sudan: April 10, 2026
• Syria: March 24, 2026

Employers may download the TPS webpage for Burma, Ethiopia, Haiti, Somalia, South Sudan, or Syria and attach it to the Form I-9.

Key to remember: Employers should follow federal government Form I-9 guidance for individuals whose temporary protected status has been extended.

E-Verify guidance

When completing a case in E-Verify, employers are to enter the expiration dates from Section 2 of the Form I-9.

Employers are encouraged to check the USCIS website regularly for updated information. Key to remember: Employers should follow federal government Form I-9 guidance for individuals whose temporary protected status has been extended.

The cost of non-compliance

Lack of time is often cited as rationale for bypassing safety protocols. However, while time pressures are a reality in every workplace, a proactive approach to safety helps prevent incidents and minimize potentially devastating long-term results.

The cost of workplace non-compliance with safety regulations can be staggering, including the human impact, operational disruption, financial penalties, and in some cases, damage to the company’s reputation. Non-compliance can lead to workplace accidents, injuries, or fatalities, which affect employee morale and productivity. Companies sometimes wait, however, to learn that failing to meet safety standards risks incurring hefty regulatory fines, lawsuits or potential criminal charges, and even increased insurance premiums.

There is no price tag attached to losing a loved one! However, there are monetary costs that are easy to see regardless of the industry. Here are just a few examples of the financial fallout of non-compliance in 2025:

• Construction - Workplace drowning
  • The safety cost: The estimated cost of one fall harness ($400-1000) and employee training.
  • The final cost: A Florida painting contractor was cited for 5 willful and 3 serious violations totaling over $877,000 for failing to ensure employees used fall protection and life jackets while working on a bridge resulting in a drowning death of one of their workers. An additional $26,480 was proposed for the controlling contractor of the site as well.

• Railroad - Suffocation
  • The safety cost: The estimated cost of proper atmospheric testing, ventilation, rescue planning, and employee training.
  • The final cost: OSHA proposed a fine of $602,938 to an environmental services contractor for failing to protect workers from lethal environments, one of which lost their life while working inside a railroad tanker car. The confined space had oxygen readings as low as 5% oxygen; however, permit-required confined space safety measures were not implemented. These included not only proper atmospheric testing, but also ventilation and a non-entry rescue plan.

• Entertainment - Crushing
  • The safety cost: The estimated cost of performing a structural risk assessment and engineering analysis followed by employee training, which can vary greatly.
  • The final cost: Two event production companies were cited by OSHA after a worker death for serious violations related to failing to maintain structural stability during the setup of staging for a concert. One company paid $19,860 in fines while the other is contesting additional fines.

These consequences, only 3 of many for 2025, underscore the importance of investing in proactive safety measures and fostering a culture of compliance to protect both people and the business.

A free tool for cost impact

Not sure how these stories apply to you in a fiscal way? OSHA has a tool to help! Their Safety Pays Program offers a way for employers to assess the impact workplace injuries and illness would have on their bottom line. Though not a detailed analysis tool, the estimator casts some light on the cost of injuries, illness based on your profit margin and an indirect cost multiplier showing how much your sales department would need to generate to cover those costs.

Once you’ve seen the costs of non-compliance for yourself, you can start working toward improving safety compliance. This can be done through fostering a proactive safety culture that benefits from:

• Leadership commitment through visibly supporting safety initiatives and allocating necessary resources to ensure compliance.
• Employee engagement where workers feel free to report hazards or safety concerns, participate in safety committees, and contribute ideas for improvement.
• Clear policies and procedures that are regularly reviewed and updated to ensure alignment with regulatory standards and easily accessible to all employees.
• Regular audits and inspections to identify hazards, verify compliance, and address gaps before they lead to incidents.
• Training and education so employees understand their roles, exposures, and risks while ensuring employees understand both the “how” and “why” of safe practices.
• Leveraging technology for assessing risks, tracking incidents, managing corrective actions, and analyzing safety data to guide decision-making.

Key to remember: Investing as much time, money, and resources into workplace safety not only protects employees, but it also reduces operational risks and helps organizations avoid costly regulatory citations.

Compliance is the starting line, not the finish

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

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

Predictability can hide risk

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

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

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

People don’t stay in one place

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

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

Behavior matters as much as results

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

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

Accountability isn’t always simple

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

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

Test the entire system

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

Having designated observers during drills allows organizations to verify:

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

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

The real value comes after the drill

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

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

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

Welding hazards

Employers must review the company welding safety program with their welders. Whenever welding or working around welding and other hot work, you should know the following:

• The name and job title of the person responsible for safety in welding operations.
• The job hazards associated with welding such as: hazards from fumes and gases, radiation hazards, fire hazards, noise hazards, and electrical hazards.
• Any special procedures for the equipment being used, such as: care of compressed gas cylinders, the use of ventilation, and fire prevention methods.
• The use of engineering controls, such as flash screens and fire blankets.
• Any necessary personal protective equipment is required for the work being done.

How can I protect myself and others?

Here are a few practices for working safely that apply in welding situations.

• When working above ground or floor level, use a platform with toeboards and standard railings or a safety belt and lifeline. Also, protect workers from stray sparks or slag in areas below an elevated surface where welding occurs.
• Aim the welding torch away from cement or stone surfaces. Moisture within these materials could cause them to explode when they reach a certain temperature.
• When finished welding or cutting, warn other workers of hot metal by marking or putting up a sign. Keep floors clean by putting electrodes or rod stubs in an appropriate container. Keep floors clear of tripping hazards; store tools safely.
• Never use bare conductors, damaged regulators, torches, electrode holders, or other defective equipment.
• Do not arc or resistance weld while standing on damp surfaces.

Safely working with compressed gas cylinders

If employees properly handle compressed gas cylinders (CGCs), they can safely perform many welding tasks. The following procedures will reduce the hazards of handling CGCs:

• Minimize banging and clanking of CGCs. When in storage, keep the steel protective cap screwed on. This step reduces the chance that a blow to the valve will allow gas to escape.
• Don’t let cylinders fall or have things fall on them.
• Keep CGCs secured and upright. (But never secure CGCs to conduit carrying electrical wiring.)
• When accepting an acetylene delivery, make sure it arrives upright. Don’t accept CGCs of acetylene that arrives in a horizontal position. Such CGCs may be unstable.
• Ensure valves, hoses, connectors, and regulators are in good condition. Don’t use cylinders without them or without them being in good working order.
• Check whether regulators, hoses, and gauges can be used with different gases. Assume they cannot.
• Never open valves until regulators are drained of gas, and pressure-adjusting devices are released. When opening CGCs, point outlets away from people and sources of ignition, such as sparks or flames. Open valves slowly. On valves without hand wheels, use only supplier-recommended wrenches. On valves with hand wheels, never use wrenches. Never hammer a hand wheel to open or close a valve.
• When empty, close and return CGCs. Empty CGCs must be marked “MT” or “Empty.” Empty acetylene CGCs must be so labeled.

Here are several things to ensure your employees remember when moving CGCs:

• Don’t drop or bang CGCs.
• Don’t roll, drag, or slide CGCs.
• You may roll CGCs along the bottom rim.
• Don’t lift CGCs by their cap unless using hand trucks so designed.
• Ropes and chains should only be used if a CGC has special lugs to accommodate this.
• Some CGCs may require special hand trucks.

Employees must identify gas and its dangers before they use it. They can find this information on labels, SDSs, and cylinder markings. Instruct employees not to use it if they don’t know what’s in a cylinder.

Key to remember

Whenever welding, cutting, or brazing occurs, everyone involved in the operations must take precautions to prevent fires, explosions, or personal injuries from welding hazards.

Background

In August 2015, OSHA announced a new “high-penalty map.” The agency remarked, “For the first time, this map shows high-penalty cases in states that operate under federal OSHA as well as in states that operate under OSHA-approved state plans.” An alternative “table view” was also available. It could be sorted by initial penalty amount, date, case number, employer name, state, and city.

Fast forward to today, an OSHA spokesperson tells J. J. Keller® Compliance Network, “The ‘Enforcement Cases with Initial Penalties of $40,000 or Above’ page was discontinued and removed (in December 2025) as it was no longer going to be updated … Data found on https://www.osha.gov/data is what is available.”

The spokesperson adds, “We do not have webpages on enforcement cases with specific dollars amounts, except the ‘Top Enforcement Cases in History Based on Total Issued Penalty’ webpage.” That historical page highlights only 25 cases since 1988. Each one amounts to $2.89 million to $81.3 million in initial penalties.

Data are not lost

While the data have disappeared from OSHA’s Data page, they’re archived here, here, here, and here. Frozen in time, the data reveals 15,797 cases spanning from January 1, 2015, to June 20, 2025.

The introduction to the $40,000 or Above page said the data “includes citations issued starting January 1, 2015.” The table view tallies 16,119 cases. However, 322 of them had an issuance date prior to 2015, and we do not analyze them here.

Some employers are listed more than once if they had more than one penalty case at or over $40,000.

Top high-penalty cases

Single inspections with the highest initial penalty figures include:

1. $4.13 million for an auto parts manufacturer in Nevada.
2. $2.89 million for an auto parts manufacturer in Ohio.
3. $2.81 million for a frozen food manufacturer in Illinois.
4. $2.51 million for an auto parts manufacturer in Alabama.
5. $2.47 million for a sawmill in Alabama.
6. $2.03 million for a fruit farm in Washington state.
7. $1.92 million for a meat processor in Ohio.
8. $1.92 million for a metal-product manufacturer in New Jersey.
9. $1.86 million for a utility construction company in North Dakota.
10. $1.84 million for a milk manufacturer in Washington state.
11. $1.84 million for a long-distance trucking company in Washington state.

Most inspections did not reach millions of dollars

The majority (about 79 percent) of inspections on the list have under $100,000 in initial penalties:

• 0.2 percent ranged from $1 million to over $4.13 million.
• 0.5 percent ranged from $500,000 to under $1 million.
• 5 percent ranged from $200,000 to under $500,000.
• Almost 16 percent ranged from $100,000 to under $200,000.
• Almost 14 percent ranged from $75,000 to under $100,000.
• Almost 65 percent ranged from $40,000 to under $75,000.

“Initial penalty” amounts are not necessarily the current penalty amounts. Some cases might have even ended up with a final total penalty under $40,000.

Number of high-penalty cases per month

Taking the number of high-penalty cases in a year and dividing by the number of months gives us a case rate per month. The case rate increased over the 10.5-year period. This may be associated with the maximum civil penalties at 29 CFR 1903.15 that were increased annually per 28 U.S.C. 2461 statutory notes. Yet, you’ll see the rate of high-penalty cases decreases during the pandemic and last year:

• 2015 — 82.9 cases per month.
• 2016 —101.5 cases per month.
• 2017 —122.25 cases per month.
• 2018 —126.9 cases per month.
• 2019 —131.4 cases per month.
• 2020 —97.3 cases per month.
• 2021 —108.8 cases per month.
• 2022 —128.4 cases per month.
• 2023 —170.2 cases per month.
• 2024 —180.5 cases per month.
• 2025 —140.1 cases per month.

States with the most high-penalty cases

Thirteen states had the greatest number of cases at or over $40,000 in initial penalties. They made up over 70 percent of all high-penalty cases on the list:

1. California with about 1,850 cases.
2. Ohio with about 1,530 cases.
3. Texas with about 1,280 cases.
4. New Jersey with about 1,190 cases.
5. Illinois with about 1,000 cases.
6. Florida with about 630 cases.
7. New York with about 620 cases.
8. Georgia with about 560 cases.
9. Wisconsin with about 560 cases.
10. Pennsylvania with about 550 cases.
11. Massachusetts with about 500 cases.
12. Washington state with about 500 cases.
13. Missouri with about 380 cases.

The remaining states and territories had under 300 high-penalty cases each.

Key to remember

Data for the over $40,000-plus penalty cases slid off the OSHA Data page. The agency says it discontinued and removed it in December. The data is frozen and archived elsewhere.

What causes electrical accidents?

Electrical accidents are caused by one or more of the following:

• Unsafe equipment and/or installation.
• Unsafe workplaces caused by environmental factors.
• Unsafe work practices.

An accident such as high-voltage shocks can cause serious injury or even death.

How can it hurt me?

The effects of an electrical shock on the body can range from a tingle to immediate cardiac arrest.

Electrical currents travel in closed circuits through conducting material. Workers can receive a shock when a part of their body comes into contact with the following:

• Both wires of an electrical circuit.
• One wire of an energized circuit and the ground.
• Part of a machine that is ’hot’ because it is contacting an energized wire and the ground.

Severe shock can cause more damage than can be seen by the naked eye.

Safety 101

Workers must:

• Always make sure equipment is de-energized.
• Maintain electrical equipment.
• Regularly inspect tools, cords, grounds, and accessories. Have damaged equipment taken out of service immediately.
• Always use safety features like three-pronged plugs, double-insulated tools, and safety switches.
• Make sure that all machine guards are in place.
• Keep electrical cables and cords clean and free from kinks. Never carry equipment by the cord.
• Avoid touching water, damp surfaces, ungrounded metal, or any bare wires if you are not protected. Wear approved rubber gloves when working with live wires or ungrounded surfaces. Rubber-soled shoes or boots should be worn when working on damp or wet surfaces.
• Avoid wearing jewelry or metal objects when working with electricity.
• Keep the required safe distance from energized parts.

If workers are working where there are electrical hazards, employers must provide them with the appropriate PPE. Ensure that the equipment remains de-energized during service and maintenance activities by using lockout/tagout procedures.

Key to remember

Ensure that workers are familiar with the safety procedures for the job they are assigned to do. They should always use good judgment and common sense when working around electricity.