![](https://jjkellercompliancenetwork.com/media-library/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8zMzc1MzE2MS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTcyMDMzOTgzN30.tPqfrI91I1icS35H7eVtkV8wSR-7SSwU-bORvjKtBCc/image.jpg?width=980)
Be Part of the Ultimate Safety & Compliance Community
Trending news, knowledge-building content, and more – all personalized to you!
[VIDEO REQUIRES LINKING]
[VIDEO REQUIRES LINKING]
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.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Spring 2024 Semiannual Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions on July 5, 2024. The agenda shows the agency’s upcoming regulatory actions and where they are in the rulemaking process.
The agenda includes major EPA updates, such as:
While you’ll want to review the entire agenda to learn about all the rulemakings on EPA’s docket, this article highlights some of the major rules we’re watching closely. Also, please note that the agenda dates are tentative, the times by which the agency hopes to publish the rulemakings in the Federal Register.
Final Rule Stage | |
Projected publication date | Title |
August 2024 | National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol Coatings Amendments |
September 2024 | Review of Final Rule Reclassification of Major Sources as Area Sources Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act |
October 2024 | Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities; Federal CCR Permit Program |
November 2024 | Clean Water Act Section 404 Tribal and State Program Regulation |
November 2024 | Federal Plan Requirements for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units |
December 2024 | Oil and Gas NESHAP; Part 63 Subparts HH and HHH; Removal of Affirmative Defense |
Proposed Rule Stage | |
Projected publication date of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking | Title |
September 2024 | Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Review and Renewal of Eligibility for Application-Specific Allowances |
September 2024 | Clean Water Act Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for PFAS Manufacturers Under the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers Point Source Category |
December 2024 | Emission Guidelines for GHG Emissions from Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Combustion Turbine EGUs |
June 2025 | Improving Recycling and Management of Renewable Energy Wates: Universal Waste Regulations for Solar Panels and Lithium Batteries |
June 2025 | PFAS Requirements in NPDES Permit Applications |
Pre-Rule Stage | |
Projected publication date or other action | Title |
November 2024 (End Review) | 610 Review of Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heathers, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces |
December 2024 (Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) | N-(1,3-Dimethylbutyl)-N'-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine ("6PPD") and its Transformation Product, 6PPD-Quinone ("6PPD-q"); Rulemaking Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) |
Long-Term Rule Stage | |
Projected publication date or other action | Title |
July 2025 (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) | Updates to the RCRA Hazardous Waste Regulations and Related Technical Corrections - Permitting Updates Rule |
I had a recent conversation with colleagues in the industry about the importance of investigating environmental incidents. We had a great exchange of tips and best practices that I couldn’t wait to share.
Let's talk about preparedness first. Before an incident occurs, make sure you're ready to respond. This means having a solid response plan and training your employees on what to do in different situations. On top of that, gather the supplies you might need. Ensure you have the supplies you may need in response to all the potential environmental incidents that could occur, including items like spill kits, overpack containers, and portable containments for releases and spills. You should also include all the tools you need for investigation and documentation.
Now, when it comes to the actual investigation, following a set process is key. An established method ensures the process is consistent from incident to incident. Need a handy tip? Create standardized forms and a list of common questions that always require answers.
Many of our customers have the responsibility of conducting both safety and environmental incident investigations. In the world of safety, incident notification and investigation often happen after an event occurs. For example, it can be after someone is injured or has a near miss. Environmental incidents can be similar, but there's a twist: the incidents, such as spills or leaks, are often still occurring when reported. This can have implications on what your early actions look like and how quickly you need to take action.
Finally, the records you keep of what happened are crucial. It’s recommended that the investigation and recordkeeping efforts match the severity of the incident. If you have a serious incident, such as a major release, you'll probably have a bigger team investigating, including people from different departments. There should be a high level of detail with respect to documentation, pictures, and data collected. For minor incidents, perhaps something that’s fully contained or doesn’t trigger regulatory reporting, the investigation can be a smaller effort with less comprehensive records.
When it comes to environmental incidents, hoping for the best just won’t do — you must also prepare for the worst.
Have a question for our Compliance Experts?
If you have safety or compliance questions, we encourage you to use Compliance Network’s Expert Help tool. Mishka Binns and our team of Compliance Experts will respond to your question within 24 business hours.
Heat waves disrupting factory production? Rising sea levels threatening coastal businesses? The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking concrete steps to combat climate change with the release of its 2024-2027 Climate Adaptation Plan. The plan outlines a series of actions the agency will take over the next four years to make sure it's prepared for the challenges of a changing climate.
The plan focuses on several key areas.
Building a climate-smart workforce
EPA is investing in ongoing education and training for its staff to equip them with knowledge about the future impacts of climate change, how EPA programs might be affected, and different strategies for adapting. One example is the agency-wide "Climate Conversations" webinar series, which fosters collaboration and knowledge sharing among staff.
Strengthening facility resilience
EPA is continuing to conduct facility resiliency assessments to identify areas vulnerable to climate change impacts. Based on these assessments, the agency will make recommendations for improvements to make facilities more resilient.
Building stronger supply chains
EPA is now considering climate hazards as part of its overall supply chain risk management plan. It will conduct assessments this year to identify potential disruptions and develop strategies to mitigate them.
Funding climate-ready communities
EPA is modernizing its financial assistance programs to encourage investments in communities and Tribal lands that are more resilient to climate change. The agency also launched the internal Climate-Resilient Investments Clearinghouse website to help staff integrate climate considerations into funding decisions.
Empowering informed decisions
EPA is providing communities and recipients of their financial resources with the tools, data, and technical support they need to assess their own climate risks. This empowers them to develop targeted solutions that work best for their specific situations.
Climate-proofing regulations
EPA is integrating climate change considerations into the rulemaking processes where appropriate to ensure its regulations remain effective even with a changing climate.
Industrial facilities aren’t immune to the effects of climate change. Extreme weather events can damage infrastructure, disrupt operations, and lead to costly shutdowns. By taking steps to adapt to climate change, industrial facilities can protect their businesses, their employees, and the communities where they operate.
Facilities should be on the lookout for potential new requirements as EPA plans to integrate climate adaptation into future rulemakings. New rules could require businesses to consider future weather extremes, like stronger storms or floods. This could lead to fortifying buildings or raising critical equipment, which upfront might be costly but could prevent far more expensive damage down the line.
An example of the agency’s new commitment to include climate adaptation requirements is reflected in the final amendments of the Risk Management Plan rule. Facilities that manage hazardous materials must now develop response plans to prepare for the largest foreseeable discharges in adverse weather conditions, including more extreme weather conditions expected as the climate changes.
Key to remember: EPA released the 2024-2027 Climate Adaptation Plan, which describes agency actions to address the impacts of climate change. It incorporates climate adaptation into the agency’s programs, policies, rules, enforcement activities, and operations.
“To be, or not to be.” That is not the question for facilities subject to the universal waste program. “Subpart B or Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 273?” That is the question.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) universal waste program simplifies management requirements for five types of federally designated hazardous wastes: batteries, pesticides, mercury-containing equipment, lamps, and non-empty aerosol cans. The program covers two categories of universal waste generators: small quantity handlers of universal waste (SQHUWs) and large quantity handlers of universal waste (LQHUWs).
Requirements differ based on the amount of universal waste a facility accumulates. Subpart B regulates SQHUWs, while Subpart C regulates LQHUWs. Determine which category applies to your facility to ensure you comply with the right universal waste requirements.
A universal waste handler either (a) generates a federally designated universal waste or (b) receives universal waste from other handlers, accumulates universal waste, and sends universal waste to:
It excludes transfer facilities that transport off-site universal waste by air, rail, highway, or water as well as destination facilities that treat, dispose of, or recycle universal waste. If your facility is considered a universal waste handler, you must then identify which handler category applies.
The universal waste program requirements for handlers differ based on the amount of universal waste accumulated:
If your facility qualifies as an LQHUW during the calendar year, it keeps this status through the end of the calendar year. You can reevaluate the status in the next calendar year.
Now that you know which category applies to your facility, let’s take a look at the requirements for each kind of universal waste handler.
Many of the same rules apply to all universal waste handlers. Both SQHUWs and LQHUWs must:
However, large handlers have requirements that extend beyond those of small handlers. The table below summarizes the differences.
SQHUWs | LQHUWs | |
Waste management | See 40 CFR 273.13 | See 40 CFR 273.33 |
Training | Issue basic waste-handling and emergency information to employees, ensuring workers know the proper procedures. | Ensure all employees are very familiar with waste-handling and emergency procedures related to their tasks during normal operations and emergencies. |
Recordkeeping | Not required, but recommended | Required (Keep records of all shipments received by and sent from the facility. Maintain the records for at least three years.) |
EPA Identification (ID) Number | Not required | Required |
EPA notification | Not required | Required (Before meeting the 5,000-kilogram threshold to become an LQHUW, send written notification of the facility’s universal waste management activities to the regional administrator, and receive an EPA ID Number.) |
Universal waste handlers may:
Universal waste handlers may not:
The most important tip for all universal waste handlers is to check the state regulations.
States don’t have to cover all federally designated universal wastes, and they can impose stricter management standards (except on batteries). Wisconsin’s universal waste management program, for example, doesn’t cover aerosol cans.
On the other hand, states can add materials covered by their universal waste management programs. Texas designates paint and paint-related waste as universal waste, and California includes solar panels in its universal waste program.
Key to remember: EPA’s universal waste program requirements differ for small and large quantity handlers. Facilities determine which rules apply based on the amount of universal waste they accumulate.
Have you ever wondered how many chemicals are used in everyday products in the United States? Section 8(b) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to compile, keep current, and publish a list of each chemical substance. The agency keeps track of them on a list called the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory, commonly referred to in the industry as “the Inventory.”
EPA recently updated the Inventory in May 2024. This regular update happens twice a year for the nonconfidential portion of the Inventory. Let's dive into what the update means and why it's important.
Imagine the Inventory as a giant catalog of chemicals. It includes all the existing chemicals manufactured, processed, or imported into the U.S. that don’t qualify for an exemption or exclusion under TSCA. This means chemicals used in things like cleaning products, clothing, toys, and medications are on this list. You can search the Inventory on EPA's website to learn more about a specific chemical.
Under TSCA regulations, if a chemical is on the Inventory, the substance is considered an "existing" chemical substance in U.S. commerce. Any chemical not on the Inventory is considered a “new” chemical substance.
In addition to defining whether a specific substance is new or existing, the Inventory also flags existing chemical substances that are subject to manufacturing or use restrictions.
Determining whether a chemical is on the Inventory is a critical step before beginning to manufacture (which includes importing) a chemical substance.
Through the update to the Inventory, EPA:
The TSCA Inventory is a valuable tool for several reasons:
EPA is constantly working to improve the Inventory. The agency is reviewing information about chemicals on the confidential portion of the list to determine whether they can be moved to the public list. This increases transparency and allows for more public oversight of chemicals used.
The next update to the Inventory is expected in early 2025. By keeping this list updated, EPA can better ensure the safety of chemicals and protect public health.
The update to the TSCA Inventory coincides with the start of the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) cycle. The CDR program requires companies that manufacture or import certain chemicals to report information about the chemicals to EPA. The Inventory helps these companies determine which chemicals they need to report.
Key to remember: EPA published the biannual update to the TSCA Inventory, which tracks all chemicals used in the U.S., ensures safety, and informs regulations.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the “Agency”) is proposing to address the unreasonable risk of injury to human health presented by n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) under its conditions of use as documented in EPA's risk evaluation and risk determination for NMP pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). NMP is a widely used solvent in a variety of industrial, commercial, and consumer applications including the manufacture and production of electronics such as semiconductors, polymers, petrochemical products, paints and coatings, and paint and coating removers. EPA determined that NMP presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health due to the significant adverse health effects associated with exposure to NMP, including developmental post-implantation fetal loss from short-term exposure and reduced fertility and fecundity from long-term exposure. Additional adverse effects associated with exposure to NMP include liver toxicity, kidney toxicity, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, skin irritation, and sensitization. To address the identified unreasonable risk, EPA is proposing to: prohibit the manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution in commerce and use of NMP in several occupational conditions of use; require worker protections through an NMP workplace chemical protection program (WCPP) or prescriptive controls (including concentration limits) for most of the occupational conditions of use; require concentration limits on a consumer product; regulate certain consumer products to prevent commercial use; and establish recordkeeping, labeling, and downstream notification requirements.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 29, 2024, published in the Federal Register Jun 14, 2024, page 51134.
View proposed rule.
Pursuant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Significant New Alternatives Policy program, this action lists several substitutes as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for retail food refrigeration, commercial ice machines, industrial process refrigeration, cold storage warehouses, and ice skating rinks. Through this action, EPA is incorporating by reference standards which establish requirements for commercial refrigerating appliances and commercial ice machines, safe use of flammable refrigerants, and safe design, construction, installation, and operation of refrigeration systems. This action also exempts propane, in the refrigerated food processing and dispensing end-use, from the prohibition under the Clean Air Act (CAA) on knowingly venting, releasing, or disposing of substitute refrigerants in the course of maintaining, servicing, repairing or disposing of an appliance or industrial process refrigeration, as the Administrator is determining, on the basis of existing evidence, that such venting, release, or disposal of this substance in this end-use does not pose a threat to the environment.
DATES: This rule is effective July 15, 2024, published in the Federal Register June 13, 2024, page 50410.
View final rule.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155; FRL-8391-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV44
National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities Technology Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for dry cleaning facilities using perchloroethylene (PCE) as the cleaning solvent (PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP). The proposed amendments address the results of the technology review for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP, in accordance with section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Based on the findings of the technology review, the EPA proposes to add provisions to the rule which will require all dry-to-dry machines at existing major and area sources to have both refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers as secondary controls.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 10, 2022.
Public hearing: If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing on or before January 11, 2022, we will hold a virtual public hearing. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting and registering for a public hearing.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155, by any of the following methods:
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are open to the public by appointment only to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff also continues to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. Hand deliveries and couriers may be received by scheduled appointment only. For further information on EPA Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For questions about this proposed action, contact Brian Storey, Sector Policies and Programs Division (Mail Code D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1103; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email address: brian.storey@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Participation in virtual public hearing. Please note that because of current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations, as well as state and local orders for social distancing to limit the spread of COVID-19, the EPA cannot hold in-person public meetings at this time.
To request a virtual public hearing, contact the public hearing team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov. If requested, the virtual hearing will be held on January 11, 2022. The hearing will convene at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) and will conclude at 3:00 p.m. ET. The EPA may close a session 15 minutes after the last pre-registered speaker has testified if there are no additional speakers. The EPA will announce further details at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/dry-cleaning-facilities-national-perchloroethylene-air-emission.
If a public hearing is requested, the EPA will begin pre-registering speakers for the hearing upon publication of this document in the Federal Register . To register to speak at the virtual hearing, please use the online registration form available at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/dry-cleaning-facilities-national-perchloroethylene-air-emission or contact the public hearing team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov. The last day to pre-register to speak at the hearing will be January 10, 2022. Prior to the hearing, the EPA will post a general agenda that will list pre-registered speakers in approximate order at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/dry-cleaning-facilities-national-perchloroethylene-air-emission.
The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
Each commenter will have 5 minutes to provide oral testimony. The EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy of their oral testimony electronically (via email) by emailing it to brian.storey@epa.gov. The EPA also recommends submitting the text of your oral testimony as written comments to the rulemaking docket.
The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral testimony and supporting information presented at the public hearing.
Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will be posted online at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/dry-cleaning-facilities-national-perchloroethylene-air-emission. While the EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set forth above, please monitor our website or contact the public hearing team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov to determine if there are any updates. The EPA does not intend to publish a document in the Federal Register announcing updates.
If you require the services of a translator or special accommodation such as audio description, please pre-register for the hearing with the public hearing team and describe your needs by January 3, 2022. The EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without advanced notice.
Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155. All documents in the docket are listed in https://www.regulations.gov/. Although listed, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. With the exception of such material, publicly available docket materials are available electronically in Regulations.gov .
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit electronically any information that you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. This type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below.
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission ( i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
Due to public health concerns related to COVID-19, the Docket Center and Reading Room are open to the public by appointment only. Our Docket Center staff also continues to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. Hand deliveries or couriers will be received by scheduled appointment only. For further information and updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information from the CDC, local area health departments, and our federal partners so that we can respond rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically within the digital storage media the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155. Note that written comments containing CBI and submitted by mail may be delayed and no hand deliveries will be accepted.
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDC Center for Disease Control
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EJ environmental justice
FR Federal Register
GACT generally available control technology
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
LDAR leak detection and repair
MACT maximum achievable control technology
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
ORCR Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery
PCE perchloroethylene
ppm parts per million
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
SBA Small Business Administration
SBEAP Small Business Environmental Assistance Program
tpy tons per year
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UMRA Unfunded Mandate Reform Act
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information?
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What are these source categories and how does the current NESHAP regulate their HAP emissions?
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this action?
D. What other relevant background information and data are available?
E. How does the EPA perform the technology review?
III. Proposed Rule Summary and Rationale
A. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology review, and what is the rationale for those decisions?
B. What compliance dates are we proposing, and what is the rationale for the proposed compliance dates?
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E What are the benefits?
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
V. Request for Comments
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
The standards in 40 CFR part 63, subpart M, apply to industrial and commercial dry cleaning facilities that use PCE. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes applicable to 40 CFR part 63, subpart M, are 812310 (coin-operated laundries and dry cleaners), 812320 (dry cleaning and laundry services other than coin-operated services), and 812332 (industrial launderers). This list of categories and NAICS codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action are likely to affect.
As defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List, Final Report ( see EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992), the PCE dry cleaning source categories include any facility engaged in cleaning soiled apparel, leather, and other fine goods. These are usually small independently operated neighborhood shops, franchise shops, and small specialty shops. The source categories only include facilities that use PCE as a cleaning agent.
Federal, state, local, and tribal government entities would not be affected by this proposed action.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at https://www.epa.gov/dry-cleaning-facilities-national-perchloroethylene-air-emission. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this same website.
A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the proposed changes is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155).
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 and 301 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. ). Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards for emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing technology-based standards and the second stage involves evaluating those standards that are based on maximum achievable control technology (MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed to address any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is commonly referred to as the “residual risk review.” In addition to the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review MACT and generally available control technology (GACT) standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years and revise the standards as necessary taking into account developments in practices, processes, or control technologies. This review is commonly referred to as the “technology review,” and is the subject of this proposal. The discussion that follows identifies the most relevant statutory sections and briefly explains the contours of the methodology used to implement these statutory requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears in the document titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority and Methodology, in the docket for this rulemaking.
In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process, the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d) for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different requirements for major source standards and area source standards. “Major sources” are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. All other sources are “area sources.” For major sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT “floor.” In certain instances, as provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards in lieu of numerical emission standards. The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly referred to as “beyond-the-floor” standards. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) allows the EPA to set standards based on GACT standards in lieu of MACT standards. For categories of major sources and any area source categories subject to MACT standards, the second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and addressing any remaining ( i.e., “residual”) risk pursuant to CAA section 112(f) and concurrently conducting a technology review pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). For categories of area sources subject to GACT standards, there is no requirement to address residual risk, but, similar to the major source categories, the technology review is required.
CAA section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA to review standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them “as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)” no less often than every 8 years. In conducting this review, which we call the “technology review,” the EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floors that were established in earlier rulemakings. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). The EPA is required to address regulatory gaps, such as missing standards for listed air toxics known to be emitted from the source category, and any new MACT standards must be established under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), or, in specific circumstances, CAA sections 112(d)(4) or (h). Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
B. What are these source categories and how does the current NESHAP regulate their HAP emissions?
The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP was originally promulgated September 22, 1993 (58 FR 49376) as 40 CFR part 63, subpart M. Significant amendments were promulgated on June 3, 1996 (61 FR 27788), December 14, 1999 (64 FR 69643), July 27, 2006 (71 FR 42743), and July 11, 2008 (73 FR 39871). The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP includes MACT standards which apply to major sources, and GACT standards which apply to area sources of dry cleaning that use the chemical PCE. The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP regulates PCE emitted from the dry cleaning process.
Dry cleaning is any cleaning process for clothing and other garments using a solvent other than water. PCE, also known as perc, tetrachloroethene, or tetrachloroethylene has been, historically, the most widely used liquid solvent in dry cleaning. Dry cleaning facilities may provide dry cleaning and laundering services at the location, or the facility may be a drop-off only location that transports the garments to a separate location where the cleaning is performed. Establishments may also offer specialty cleaning services for garments and textiles such as fur, leather, suede, wedding gowns, draperies, and pillows.
PCE dry cleaning machines are classified into two types: Transfer and dry-to-dry. Similar to residential washing machines and dryers, transfer machines include a unit for washing and another unit for drying. Following the wash cycle, PCE-containing articles are manually transferred from the washer to the dryer. The transfer of wet fabrics is the predominant source of PCE emissions in these systems. Transfer machines are prohibited at all existing and new major and area sources due to the NESHAP's requirement that dry cleaning systems eliminate any emissions of PCE while transferring articles between the washer and the dryer or reclaimer. Therefore, transfer machines are no longer sold, and none are known to still be in operation as these machines have reached the end of their useful lives and should have been replaced by dry-to-dry machines. Dry-to-dry machines wash, extract, and dry the articles in a single machine. The articles enter and exit the machine dry. Because the transfer step is eliminated, dry-to-dry machines have much lower emissions than transfer machines.
“Fourth generation” dry-to-dry machines were introduced in the early 1990s. A fourth generation dry-to-dry machine is a closed-loop system that uses a refrigerated condenser(s) to recycle PCE from the wash cycle, and a carbon adsorption unit(s) to filter PCE from the drum at the end of the dry cycle. The refrigerated condenser is a vapor recovery system into which an air-PCE gas-vapor stream is routed and the PCE is condensed by cooling the gas-vapor stream. The air remaining in the machine at the end of the dry cleaning cycle then passes through a carbon adsorber prior to opening the machine door. The carbon adsorber is a bed of activated carbon into which the air-PCE gas-vapor stream is routed and PCE is adsorbed on the carbon. The use of the carbon adsorber in combination with the refrigerated condenser offers greater emissions reductions over a dry-to-dry machine equipped with only a refrigerated condenser because it reduces the PCE concentration in the air remaining in the machine once the dry cleaning cycle is complete instead of allowing those vapors to be vented or released at the end of the dry cleaning cycle.
The latest generation machines, or “fifth generation” machines were introduced in the late 1990s. They have the same control technology as fourth generation machines, but they are also equipped with an inductive fan, internal solvent vapor monitoring devices (sensor), and interlock (lockout) devices that will not allow access to the machine until solvent vapor concentrations are below 300 ppm. The lockout feature ensures that the PCE set-point has been attained before the machine door can be opened, but it does not remove additional PCE.
Per 40 CFR 63.320, a dry cleaning facility is a major source if the facility emits or has the potential to emit more than 10 tons per year of PCE to the atmosphere. A dry cleaning facility is considered an area source if it does not meet the criteria for major sources, as specified in 40 CFR 63.320. However, in lieu of measuring or determining a facility's potential to emit PCE emissions, a dry cleaning facility is a major source if: (1) It includes only dry-to-dry machine(s) and has a total yearly PCE consumption greater than 2,100 gallons as determined according to 40 CFR 63.323(d); or (2) it includes only transfer machine system(s) or both dry-to-dry machine(s) and transfer machine system(s) and has a total yearly PCE consumption greater than 1,800 gallons as determined according to 40 CFR 63.323(d).
As defined by the initial list of source categories publish on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP applies to the following major and area sources of HAP emissions:
Major Source Categories
Area Source Categories
In general, the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP affects three types of dry cleaners that use PCE: Commercial, industrial, and co-residential. Commercial facilities clean household items such as suits, dresses, coats, pants, comforters, curtains, leather clothing, and formal wear. Industrial dry cleaners clean heavily stained articles such as work gloves, uniforms, mechanics' overalls, mops, and shop rags. Co-residential facilities are usually a subset of commercial operations and include dry cleaning operations located in buildings in which people reside. Co-residential facilities are generally found in urban areas where commercial and residential occupancy occur in a single building.
The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP identifies all major sources as “large” industrial and commercial dry cleaners. These dry cleaners are subject to MACT standards under this NESHAP. It is estimated that there are five or fewer of these major source dry cleaners remaining in the United States. 1 The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP requires new major source PCE dry cleaners operating dry-to-dry machines to:
1 Estimated quantity of major source PCE dry cleaners is based on details provided to EPA by state regulators, state small business environmental assistance providers' programs (SBEAP) personnel, and industry trade association representatives. Refer to the docket for this proposed rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155).
The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP requires existing major source PCE dry cleaners operating dry-to-dry machines to:
Dry cleaners that are commonly found in community settings ( e.g., shopping centers and strip malls) are typically “area sources,” meaning they emit less than 10 tons of PCE each year, and are smaller in size in comparison to major source industrial and commercial PCE dry cleaners. The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP standards for these area sources are GACT standards. The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP requires existing area source PCE dry cleaners operating dry-to-dry machines to:
New area source PCE dry cleaners operating dry-to-dry machines must:
The 2006 amendments to the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP eliminated the use of PCE by dry cleaners in co-residential buildings ( e.g., a dry cleaner found on the ground floor of an apartment building). EPA recognized that because co-residential dry cleaners are located very close to residences, residents' exposures and their cancer risks could be much higher than for typical area source dry cleaners. As such, the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP includes requirements to eliminate risks associated with PCE emissions from co-residential dry cleaners. Under 40 CFR 63.322(o)(5)(i), owners/operators were required to eliminate any PCE emissions from systems located in residential buildings by December 21, 2020. These dry cleaner owner/operators were allowed to replace PCE machines with newer available non-PCE technology. This sunset date allowed owners of existing co-residential sources to operate their machines for their maximum estimated useful life, 15 years, assuming they were first installed no later than December 21, 2005. Additionally, under 40 CFR 63.320(b)(2)(ii) and 63.322(o)(5)(ii), any PCE dry cleaning machines in co-residential buildings that began operating between December 21, 2005 and July 13, 2006, were required to install equipment to aggressively control PCE emissions ( i.e., refrigerated condensers, carbon adsorbers, and vapor barriers), and to conduct weekly inspections to detect PCE leaks, repair the leaks, and maintain records, before eliminating PCE emissions by July 27, 2009.
Petitions for judicial review of the 2006 amendments to the NESHAP were filed by the Sierra Club, Halogenated Solvents Industry, Neighborhood Cleaners Association, International Fabricare Institute, and Textile Care Allied Trades Association. Sierra Club et al. v. USEPA, No. 06-1330 (and consolidated cases) (D.C. Cir.). Petitioners questioned: Whether the EPA reasonably interpreted CAA section 112(d)(6) to allow consideration of risk and costs as factors in determining the extent to which it was necessary to revise standards regulating PCE; whether EPA reasonably determined under section 112(d)(6) that it was necessary to revise standards regulating PCE, and to require elimination of PCE emissions at co-residential systems but not at other systems; whether the EPA had complied with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA); and whether EPA had reasonably denied a petition for reconsideration of the rule submitted by the Sierra Club. Although the case was fully briefed, in 2009 before it could be argued at the D.C. Circuit, the parties agreed to EPA taking a voluntary remand of the rule in order for the then-new administration to consider whether further administrative action was warranted regarding the challenged issues, while leaving the rule in force. As discussed in section III.A of this preamble, we are proposing our response to the voluntary remand as part of this proposal.
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this action?
For this technology review, the EPA investigated developments in practices, processes, and control technologies through communications and direct discussions with state agencies (including regional, state, and local regulators), Small Business Environmental Assistance Program (SBEAP) personnel, industry stakeholders, and trade association representatives. Details of these conversations are included in the memorandum titled Technology Review for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP, December 2021, available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155).
We performed a search of the EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Clean Air Technology Center—RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC) database. The RBLC provides several options for searching the permit database on-line to locate applicable control technologies. We searched the RBLC database for specific dry cleaning process types (“49.002—Dry Cleaning, PERC/Chlorinated Solvents” and “49.003—Dry Cleaning, Petroleum Solvents”). In querying results dating back to January 1, 2000, no results were returned when searching for Process Type 49.002 and three results were returned for Process Type 49.003, however none of the information returned was more recent than 2005 or included any new or improved control technologies. In addition to searches conducted using the process type codes above, the RBLC was queried for any sources with “cleaning”, “cleaners”, or “dry cleaning” in their name. The NAICS and SIC codes for dry cleaners, 812320 and 7216, respectively, were also used to search the RBLC. None of these searches returned relevant information on new or improved control technologies used in dry cleaning facilities. Full details of the RBLC database search in support of this technology review are included in the memorandum titled Technology Review for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP, December 2021, available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155).
The EPA also reviewed information and details for facilities that are subject to the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP using the Agency's Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database. The ECHO database provides integrated compliance and enforcement information for approximately 800,000 regulated facilities nationwide. Using the features in the ECHO database, we searched for dry cleaning facilities by NAICS. The database identified approximately 7,900 facilities. However, these data are not likely to be comprehensive for the dry cleaning source category because not all states submit data on smaller sources to ECHO. Details of the ECHO database search in support of this technology review are included in the memorandum titled Technology Review for the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP, December 2021, available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155).
D. What other relevant background information and data are available?
To supplement the information collected from the ECHO search, the EPA collected information from the EPA's Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR) hazardous waste generator databases. ORCR is responsible for implementation and oversight of the hazardous waste program required by subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). As part of the hazardous waste program, hazardous waste generators must report hazardous waste quantities about a specified threshold, as required by RCRA, subtitle C. Active PCE dry cleaning facilities were identified in the ORCR hazardous waste generator databases, based on a search of reported PCE waste generation, and the NAICS for dry cleaning. Approximately 9,000 active hazardous waste generators were identified in the database. This list does not represent the full list of dry cleaning facilities or indicate the number of facilities subject to the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP. For many area sources in this source category the amount of PCE waste generated is below the threshold to notify or report under the RCRA regulations, therefore, there are potentially area source dry cleaning facilities that do not generate enough PCE waste to be included in the hazardous waste generator database. In this technology review, the EPA assumes that the total number of dry cleaning facilities is higher than the approximate 9,000 facilities we were able to identify by the RCRA hazardous waste generator database. A copy of the facility list developed for this technology review can be found in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155).
E. How does the EPA perform the technology review?
Our technology review primarily focuses on the identification and evaluation of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since the MACT and GACT standards were promulgated. Where we identify such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility, estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental impacts. We also consider the emission reductions associated with applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of whether it is “necessary” to revise the emissions standards. In addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we consider any of the following to be a “development”:
In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed (or last updated) the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to consider. We also review the NESHAP and the available data to determine if there are any unregulated emissions of HAP within the source category, and evaluate this data for use in developing new emission standards. See sections II.C and II.D of this preamble for information on the specific data sources that were reviewed as part of the technology review.
III. Proposed Rule Summary and Rationale
A. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology review, and what is the rationale for those decisions?
This section provides a brief discussion of our review of the various information sources listed sections II.C and II.D of this preamble, and our proposed decision pursuant to the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review to require that all PCE dry-to-dry machines at existing major and area sources have both refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers as secondary controls. None of the searches of the RBLC database returned relevant information on new or improved control technologies related to reducing HAP emissions from dry cleaning machines used by facilities in the PCE Dry Cleaning source category. To further identify any developments in practices, processes, and emission control technologies and strategies, the EPA held several meetings with state agencies (including state agency representatives and SBEAP personnel), industry stakeholders and trade association representatives. The EPA asked several questions pertaining to developments since the last technology review on July 26, 2006 (71 FR 42724). The responses to this inquiry did not identify any developments in new or improved control technologies that had not previously been identified and considered that would warrant revision to the existing emission standards for the PCE dry cleaning source category.
Additionally, web search queries for technical literature pertaining to dry cleaning emissions controls, process controls, and work practices did not identify any new or improved practices, processes, or control technologies that were not previously addressed since the technology review performed in 2006.
However, there have been developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that had been identified and considered at the time of adoption of the original NESHAP and/or of the last technology review in 2006. These developments reflect a widespread transition away from some practices that had been allowed to continue for existing sources but were not permitted for new or reconstructed sources. In this technology review, for example, the EPA confirmed with industry representatives that the useful life of a dry-to-dry machine is 15 years. In accordance with the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP, PCE dry cleaning machines installed after 1993 for major sources and 2005 for area sources would be equipped with refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to require all sources subject to the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP, whether new or existing, to be equipped with refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers in order to reflect this development.
Refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers have been standard secondary controls on all new machines for the last 15 years. The information gathered during the technology review, including details obtained from PCE dry cleaning industry and trade association representatives, revealed that dry-to-dry non-vented dry cleaning machines with refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers are the machines that are overwhelmingly used in PCE dry cleaning operations. These fourth generation and newer machines reuse PCE within the machine, which reduces the PCE emissions from the dry cleaning process. These machines are much more effective at recovering solvent vapors than machines equipped with a carbon adsorber or refrigerated condenser alone. 2
2 Further details on the evolution of dry cleaning machines and detailed descriptions of the generations of these machines can be found in the refer to the Technology Review for the Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Source Category memorandum in the docket as well as at the following websites: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/hazardcontrol/hc18.html ; https://www.enviroforensics.com/blog/the-history-of-dry-cleaning-solvents-and-the-evolution-of-the-dry-cleaning-machine/ .
It has been over 25 years since the initial NESHAP was promulgated in 1993 (58 FR 66287) and 15 years since the last major revisions (71 FR 42724), which required certain machines to be equipped with refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers. Even though we expect that almost all currently operating dry cleaning machines have both of these controls, the EPA has determined that we should preclude any possible future use of any machines that do not have both controls. This revision to the standards is necessary to ensure that current improved PCE emissions control achieved by the widespread use of fourth generation (or better) machines is maintained and not compromised by permissible continued operation of earlier generation machines that have exceeded their useful lives. As such, the EPA is proposing to require that all PCE dry-to-dry machines at existing major and area sources have both refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers as secondary controls. This revision to the standards will ensure that all dry cleaning systems, both new and existing, will be similarly controlled.
Additionally, the EPA re-examined the use of alternative solvents in use by the dry cleaning industry. This includes the use of non-PCE containing products such as silica-based solvents and high flash point hydrocarbon solvents. As part of this assessment, the EPA reviewed the list of alternative solvents identified in the 2006 PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP risk and technology review (RTR) (71 FR 42743), and found that, for the purposes of the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP MACT or GACT standards, the list of alternative solvents available to the dry cleaning industry remains essentially the same. Since our 2006 assessment, there have been some products that are no longer marketed, and a few products added to the list. In the 2006 PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP RTR, we looked at the use of alternative solvents as it relates to a potential ban of PCE use. In the 2006 RTR, we identified limitations with the alternative solvents available, when compared to PCE use. These limitations included a comparison of costs, cleaning ability, ease of use, applicability to certain fabrics, safety, and others. After reviewing our assessment made for the 2006 final rule, and the limitations of the alternative solvents available in 2021, we find no new information that would change our 2006 assessment for purposes of the MACT or GACT standards for this industry.
In response to the voluntary remand of the 2006 rule, we are not proposing any amendments addressing the objections raised by the litigants in Sierra Club et al. v. USEPA, No. 06-1330 and consolidated cases (D.C. Cir.). Since the voluntary remand, EPA has conducted numerous subsequent RTRs for other NESHAPs and source categories and has consistently implemented section 112(d)(6) to take into consideration costs of revising standards and the environmental value of requiring additional HAP reductions when determining whether it is necessary to revise standards taking into consideration developments in practices, processes, and control technologies. We also maintain that we have the discretion to qualitatively consider as a relevant factor the benefits of requiring additional HAP emission reductions and their consequential effect on public health risk under 112(d)(6), as we considered them in the 2006 RTR. Although we are not further considering such reductions and their impacts in this current proposed action because we have not received additional information indicating such are necessary for CAA purposes related to dry cleaning sources beyond the review that we conducted in 2006, we stand by the analyses we conducted and conclusions we reached in the 2006 RTR. Moreover, subsequent reviewing courts have affirmed EPA's now well-established approach of considering costs and cost effectiveness in CAA section 112(d)(6) reviews and making judgments about whether to it is necessary to require additional HAP emissions reductions under CAA section 112(d)(6). See, e.g., National Association for Surface Finishing v. EPA, 795 F.3d 11-12 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (finding that EPA permissibly considered costs in revising standards under section 112(d)(6)); see also, Association of Battery Recyclers, et al. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667, 673-74 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (approving EPA's consideration of cost as a factor in its section 112(d)(6) decision-making and EPA's reliance on cost effectiveness as a factor in its standard-setting). In addressing industry petitioners' challenge to EPA's CAA section 112(d)(6) determinations, the National Association for Surface Finishing court explained that “[r]eductions in emissions are, of course, relevant to the cost effectiveness of emissions-control technologies in controlling emissions.” See 795 F.3d at 12. The court then affirmed that EPA's conclusions “that more stringent technology-based standards were cost effective and otherwise appropriate” was not arbitrary and capricious. Id (emphasis added). The EPA thus maintains that our approach in the 2006 RTR to base our decisions to revise the standards as necessary for dry cleaners located in residential settings, based in part on the unique public health impacts that the additionally mandated HAP reductions would mitigate in that particular context, was warranted under CAA section 112(d)(6).
Consequently, what may have appeared novel in 2006 to the litigants in the earliest stages of the EPA's development of the RTR program (the EPA's consideration of costs and HAP reduction along with the enumerated factors in CAA section 112(d)(6)) has become settled and judicially endorsed practice, and it is not necessary for the EPA to fundamentally re-evaluate that well-established process in this follow-up technology review or in response to the voluntary remand. Moreover, since the 2006 RTR, the EPA has not received any information calling into question the risk-based information that supported our action requiring elimination of PCE emissions from systems located in buildings with a residence. Nor has the EPA received additional information addressing the specific risks presented by PCE emissions to ambient air from co-commercial PCE dry cleaning systems ( e.g., those located in strip malls with adjacently located other commercial entities) that suggest that our decision in 2006 to limit the required elimination of PCE emissions to co-residential settings was unwarranted. The EPA requests public comments on our response to the remand, particularly on our proposed determination that no specific revisions to the standards are necessary in light of the remand.
B. What compliance dates are we proposing, and what is the rationale for the proposed compliance dates?
The EPA is proposing that existing affected sources would comply with the proposed amendments in this rulemaking no later than 180 days after the effective date of the final rule. The affected existing facilities would have to continue to meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart M, until the applicable compliance date of the amended rule. As discussed in section III.B of this preamble, the EPA is proposing to require all dry-to-dry machines at both major and area sources to have both refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers as secondary controls. The final action is not expected to be a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Therefore, the effective date of the final rule would be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10). From our assessment of the timeframe needed for compliance with the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance period practicable. We base this proposed compliance period on several factors. First, from our discussions with state and local agencies, trade association representatives, and other stakeholders, the EPA found that fourth and fifth generation dry-to-dry machines are standard throughout the industry. Additionally, the EPA confirmed that the useful life of a dry-to-dry machine is 15 years, and that new dry cleaning machines sold in the last 20 years are only fourth and fifth generation machines. Based on these findings, we believe that almost all of the industry is already in compliance with the proposed amendments. The 180 days is provided as a courtesy to allow familiarity with the proposed changes. We solicit comment on this proposed compliance period, and we specifically request submission of information from the sources in the major and area source categories regarding specific actions that would need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in changes to the proposed compliance date.
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP prescribes a combination of equipment, work practices, and operational requirements. The NESHAP allows regulated sources to determine their major or area source status based on the annual PCE purchases for all machines at a facility. The consumption criterion (which affects the amount of PCE purchased) varies depending on multiple variables, including number of machines, size of business, etc. The affected source is each individual dry cleaning system that uses PCE. Consequently, a single dry cleaning facility could comprise multiple affected sources, if it has multiple dry cleaning systems onsite. As a result, some of a facility's systems could be subject to “new” source requirements under the NESHAP, and some could be “existing” sources, depending upon when they were placed into service.
The July 27, 2006, final rule amendments (71 FR 42743) indicate that at that time, there were approximately 34,000 dry cleaning facilities in the United States, approximately 28,000 of which used PCE. Those estimated counts of the number of overall dry cleaners and PCE dry cleaners are prior to business impacts from the 2008 financial crisis, the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic of 2020-2021, recent shifts in consumer demands, changes in garment technologies, fashion trends, dry cleaning machine conversions to alternative solvents, and other factors that have resulted in reductions in the number of PCE dry cleaning operations. Based on information provided by dry cleaning industry stakeholders, including trade organizations, the EPA estimates that the number of PCE dry cleaners decreased by 20 to 30 percent due to the 2008 financial crisis, the aforementioned demand trends in the industry, and increasing replacements of PCE operations with alternative solvent technologies. Additionally, the EPA estimates that another 10 to 15 percent of PCE dry cleaners have ceased operation due to financial impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic. As such, the EPA estimates that there are approximately 10,000 to 15,000 PCE dry cleaning facilities in the U.S.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
The EPA is proposing that all PCE dry-to-dry machines operate with both refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers as secondary controls ( i.e., be fourth or fifth generation machines). The PCE dry cleaning facilities that are in operation have most likely realized the reduction in emissions associated with operating both refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers. Additionally, any new machines have been required to have both refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers since the original promulgation of part 63, subpart M, in 1993 (for major sources) and the 2006 RTR (for area sources); any existing third generation or older machines at the time of those rules are now beyond their 15-year expected lifespan. For those facilities who may still be operating older machines, the proposed amendments of this rulemaking would reduce emissions by mandating the use of newer machines with the required controls.
Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would result from the increased electricity usage associated with the operation of control devices ( i.e., increased secondary emissions of criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other equipment that would be required under this proposed rule. The EPA expects minimal secondary air emissions impacts or energy impacts from this rulemaking.
C. What are the cost impacts?
Any new PCE dry-to-dry machines purchased in the last 20 years for this source category are closed-loop dry-to-dry machines with a refrigerated condenser and a carbon adsorber 3 and thus would not be impacted by these proposed amendments. The PCE dry cleaning operations that would be impacted by the proposed amendments would most likely already have incurred the costs of installing and operating these fourth-generation machines. Specifically, any older machines ( i.e., third generation or prior transfer machines or dry-to-dry machines without refrigerated condenser and a carbon adsorber) would now be beyond their projected useful life, and we expect that operators would have already replaced these machines with fourth- and fifth-generation machines, as part of continued PCE dry cleaning operations. However, we also recognize that there may be some facilities that are still operating older PCE machines. We expect that if there are any facilities operating older machines, they would be area sources. For reasons previously discussed in section II.C and II.D of this preamble, the number of older machines in use is unknown. The EPA is soliciting comment on the number of sources operating older machines and will reassess the cost and economic impacts if we receive additional data.
3 U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Phone Conference Communication with Dry Cleaning & Laundry Institute (DLI) and National Cleaners Association (NCA) representatives. March 2021.
Based on available information, the EPA concludes that most or all existing PCE dry cleaning facilities that are subject to the NESHAP would be able to comply with the proposed requirements without incurring additional capital or operational costs because they have purchased newer machines as part of normal business operations. There may be small number of facilities operating older machines, but we do not have information on these facilities to determine the full cost impacts to these entities. We have assessed the costs associated with reading and understanding the proposed amendments as a total one-time cost of $108 per facility, using a labor rate for 4 hours of review time, as described in section IV. D of this preamble. Based on an estimate of 10,000 to 15,000 facilities that are subject to the PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP, the total cost is estimated to be in a range of $1,080,000 to $1,620,000 nationwide.
D. What are the economic impacts?
Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and output levels. If changes in market prices and output, such as clothes to be cleaned in the primary markets served by dry cleaners, are significant enough, impacts on other markets may also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with a proposed rule and the distribution of these costs among affected facilities can have a role in determining how the market would change in response to a proposed rule. To estimate the economic impacts of this proposal, the EPA reviewed the mean hourly wage of $12.29 per hour indicated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for laundry and dry cleaning workers in 2021. We then applied a benefits and overhead factor of 1.1 to calculate a total compensation rate of $26.86 per hour. Additionally, we estimated 4 hours for a dry cleaning worker to familiarize themselves with the proposed amendments to the rule, and calculated a cost of $108 per facility ($23.86/hr × 4 hr/facility = $107.44, or $108/facility). This is a conservative estimate. We anticipate that some facilities may not require 4 hours to review the proposed amendments to the rule. These costs are not expected to result in a significant impact to primary markets served by dry cleaners.
We do not anticipate any significant economic impacts from these proposed amendments to require all dry-to-dry machines to have both refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers as secondary controls. This is consistent with our assumptions made in the original rule development that the useful life of a machine is 15 years. Machines installed after 1993 for major sources and 2005 for area sources are to be equipped with refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers, in accordance with the NESHAP. Thus, given the useful life of a typical dry-cleaning machine, the EPA expects that most or all sources in the regulated source categories would have discontinued use of third generation or older machines by 2021.
E. What are the benefits?
Although the EPA does not anticipate reductions in HAP emissions as a result of the proposed amendments, the Agency believes that the action, if finalized as proposed, would result in improved clarity to the rule. Specifically, the proposed amendments would revise the standards such that it is clear that only fourth (or newer) generation machines can be used in PCE solvent dry cleaning operations. This requirement is implied in the useful life determination at the inception of the original NESHAP; however, this proposed amendment would make this assumption clear and would work to eliminate any older machines (third generation and prior) that could still be operating. This action would further protect public health and the environment and would ultimately result in less potential confusion or misinterpretation by the regulated community.
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
Executive Order 12898 directs the EPA, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994.) Additionally, Executive Order 13985 was signed to advance racial equity and support underserved communities through Federal Government actions (86 FR 7009, January 20, 2021). The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies” ( https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice ). In recognizing that minority and low-income populations often bear an unequal burden of environmental harms and risks, the EPA continues to consider ways of protecting them from adverse public health and environmental effects of air pollution. To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated with the source categories, we performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 kilometers (km) and within 50 km of the facilities. The EPA then compared the data from this analysis to the national average for the demographic indicators.
In the analysis, we evaluated the percentage of minority and low-income groups within the populations that live near identified PCE dry cleaning facilities. The PCE Dry Cleaning NESHAP applies to sources often operating as small facilities, and limited location data for these small subject facilities were available, adding considerable uncertainty to the analysis. As described in the technology review memorandum, available in the docket for this action, and section II.C of this preamble, we did conduct searches for available information. The demographic results do not account for emission or risk impacts from sources and may not be fully representative of the full distribution of facilities across all locations and populations. This analysis provides an indication of the potential for disparities in human health or environmental effects.
Our analysis includes the general population of dry cleaners across the country and does not differentiate which facilities are PCE major and area source dry cleaners. As stated above, our analysis indicates that sources are likely to operate compliant technologies to meet the proposed standard. Based upon the number of facilities in this analysis (9,080 facilities), we find that approximately 48 percent of the U.S. population lives within 5 km of a facility, and approximately 87 percent live within 50 km of a facility. We find that dry cleaner facilities are generally located in areas where within the 5 km distance the category of minority demographics are higher than the national average, but demographics generally match the national average within 50 km. We also note that demographics analyses for individual urban facilities often show that the percentages of various minority and disadvantaged populations tend to exceed the national averages due to the urban locations. The results of the demographic analysis for populations within 5 km of the facilities within the source category indicate that the percentage of the minority population (the total population minus the white population) is higher when compared to the national percentage of people who are minority (an average of 48 percent versus 40 percent). These comparisons also hold true for other demographic groups (African American, Other and Multiracial Groups, and Hispanics), whose populations near dry cleaning facilities are approximately an average of 3 percent greater the national average. The demographic group composed of people living in linguistic isolation was an average of approximately 1 percent greater than the national average. The percentages of people in all the remaining demographic groups were below the national average for their respective demographic. The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented in a technical report, Technology Review— Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near the Dry-cleaners for Major and Area Sources, available in this docket for this action (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155).
Notes: | |||
• The population numbers and demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2015-2019 American Community Survey five-year averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages based on different averages may differ. | |||
• Minority population is the total population minus the white population. | |||
• To avoid double counting, the “Hispanic or Latino” category is treated as a distinct demographic category for these analyses. A person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White, African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may have also identified as in the Census. | |||
Nationwide | Source category | ||
Population within 50 km of 9,080 facilities | Population within 5 km of 9,080 facilities | ||
Total Population | 328,016,242 | 285,838,206 | 156,313,800 |
White and Minority by Percent | |||
White | 60 | 60 | 52 |
Minority | 40 | 40 | 48 |
Minority by Percent | |||
African American | 12 | 13 | 15 |
Native American | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.4 |
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite) | 19 | 18 | 22 |
Other and Multiracial | 8 | 8 | 11 |
Income by Percent | |||
Below Poverty Level | 13 | 13 | 14 |
Above Poverty Level | 87 | 87 | 86 |
Education by Percent | |||
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma | 12 | 12 | 12 |
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma | 88 | 88 | 88 |
Linguistically Isolated by Percent | |||
Linguistically Isolated | 5 | 5 | 7 |
This action is not likely to change levels of emissions near facilities. Based on our technology review, we did not identify, and are not requiring, any new add-on control technologies, process equipment, work practices or procedures that were not already in place when the NESHAP was promulgated in 1993 or considered when the NESHAP was last reviewed in 2006; and we did not identify other developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that would result in additional emission reductions for purposes of these MACT and GACT standards, beyond the transition to greater use of fourth and fifth generation machines. Given the useful life of a dry cleaning machine, and the fact that industry should already be operating the newer machines with both refrigerated condensers and carbon adsorbers as secondary controls, we do not anticipate reductions in HAP emissions as a result of the proposed amendments.
V. Request for Comments
We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional data that may improve the analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving any information regarding the number of third generation and earlier model dry cleaning machines that potentially could still be operating, and on other developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that reduce HAP emissions beyond the widespread shift to fourth generation (or better) machines.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. The action does not contain any information collection activities.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The small entities subject to the requirements of this action are industrial and commercial dry cleaning facilities that use PCE. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes applicable to 40 CFR part 63, subpart M, are 812310 (coin-operated laundries and dry cleaners), 812320 (dry cleaning and laundry services other than coin-operated services), and 812332 (industrial launderers). The small business size definitions for those industries are $8.0 million, $6.0 million, and $41.5 million respectively. The costs associated with reading and understanding the proposed amendments are a one-time cost of $108 per facility and are not significant. In addition, the useful life of a PCE dry-to-dry machine is assumed to be 15 years, and the industry has already purchased fourth or fifth generation dry-to-dry machines that are in compliance with these amendments as part of normal operational costs. We have therefore concluded that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. While this action creates an enforceable duty on the private sector, the cost does not exceed $100 million or more.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The action affects private industry and does not impose economic costs on state or local governments.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. The EPA consulted with tribal officials under the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian tribes early in the process of developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. A summary of that consultation is provided in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155).
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.B of this preamble and the technical report, Risk and Technology Review Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Facility Source Category Operations.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 63 as set forth below:
PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority:
42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart M—National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities
2. Section 63.322 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
b. Adding paragraph (a)(4); and
c. Revising paragraph (o)(2).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
§63.322 Standards.
(a) Before [date 180 days after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register ], the owner or operator of each existing dry cleaning system and of each new transfer machine system and its ancillary equipment installed between December 9, 1991, and September 22, 1993, shall comply with either paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section and shall comply with paragraph (a)(3) of this section if applicable. On and after [date 180 days after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register ], the owner or operator of any existing dry cleaning system shall comply with paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
* * * * *
(4) The owner or operator of each existing dry cleaning system shall route the air-perchloroethylene (PCE) gas-vapor stream contained within each dry cleaning machine through a refrigerated condenser and pass the air-PCE gas-vapor stream from inside the dry cleaning machine drum through a non-vented carbon adsorber or equivalent control device immediately before the door of the dry cleaning machine is opened. The carbon adsorber must be desorbed in accordance with manufacturer's instructions.
* * * * *
(o) * * *
(2) The owner or operator of each dry cleaning system at an area source shall route the air-PCE gas-vapor stream contained within each dry cleaning machine through a refrigerated condenser and pass the air-PCE gas-vapor stream from inside the dry cleaning machine drum through a non-vented carbon adsorber or equivalent control device immediately before the door of the dry cleaning machine is opened. The carbon adsorber must be desorbed in accordance with manufacturer's instructions.
* * * * *
3. Section 63.324 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(5) and (6) to read as follows:
§63.324 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(5) The date and monitoring results (temperature sensor or pressure gauge), as specified in §63.323, when a refrigerated condenser is used to comply with §63.322(a), (b), or (o); and
(6) The date and monitoring results, as specified in §63.323, when a carbon adsorber is used to comply with §63.322(a)(2) or (b)(3).
* * * * *
4. Section 63.325 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(7) to read as follows:
§63.325 Determination of equivalent emission control technology.
(a) * * *
(7) Information on the cross-media impacts (to water and solid waste) of the candidate emission control technology and demonstration that the cross-media impacts are less than or equal to the cross-media impacts of a refrigerated condenser and carbon adsorber.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-26469 Filed 12-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
EPA is proposing significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for chemical substances that were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs) and are also subject to a TSCA Order. A SNUR requires persons who intend to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) or process a particular chemical substance for an activity that is identified as a significant new use in the SNUR to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. The required notification initiates EPA's evaluation of the conditions of use identified in the notification to EPA. In addition, the manufacture or processing for the significant new use may not commence until EPA has conducted a review of the required notification, made an appropriate determination regarding that notification, and taken such actions as required by that determination.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 11, 2024, published in the Federal Register June 11, 2024, page 49700.
View proposed rule.
EPA is proposing significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for chemical substances that were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs) and are also subject to a TSCA Order. 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 proposed 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 conditions of use for that chemical substance. In addition, the manufacture or processing for the significant new use may not commence until EPA has conducted a review of the required notification, made an appropriate determination regarding that notification, and taken such actions as required by that determination.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 11, 2024, published in the Federal Register June 11, 2024, page 49121.
View proposed rule.
Methylene chloride, a volatile liquid chemical, poses severe health risks to individuals exposed to the substance. Despite the hazards, its use continues across consumer, commercial, and industrial applications. For example, it's used in automotive products, adhesives, and solvents to form other chemicals.
To address the health hazards posed, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a risk management rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that prohibits nearly all uses of methylene chloride.
Use this guide to help you determine whether the methylene chloride ban impacts your operations.
EPA made a final determination in November 2022 that methylene chloride as a whole chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health under its conditions of use. The chemical is known to cause neurotoxicity from short-term exposure and cancer and liver harm due to long-term exposure. There are even documented cases of sudden death caused by short-term contact with the chemical substance.
When EPA determines a chemical poses an unreasonable risk, TSCA requires the agency to develop regulations to reduce or eliminate the risk. That’s where this final rule comes in (40 CFR Part 751 Subpart B), banning all consumer uses and most commercial and industrial uses of methylene chloride.
Manufacturers (including importers), processors, and distributors must phase out methylene chloride (including methylene chloride-containing products) for all consumer uses within one year and most commercial and industrial uses within two years.
Here’s an overview of the phaseout schedule:
Methylene chloride phaseouts | ||
---|---|---|
Prohibited: | For: | After: |
Distribution to retailers | Any use | February 3, 2025 |
Distribution by retailers | Any use | May 5, 2025 |
Manufacturing (including importing) | Any use (apart from certain exempt commercial and industrial uses) | May 5, 2025 |
Processing | Any use (apart from certain exempt commercial and industrial uses) | August 1, 2025 |
Distribution in commerce | Any use (apart from certain exempt commercial and industrial uses) | January 28, 2026 |
Use for commercial or industrial purposes | Any use (apart from certain exempt commercial and industrial uses) | April 28, 2026 |
The regulations also require manufacturers, processors, and distributors that ship methylene chloride to notify the receiving companies of the prohibitions through Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) and to maintain records that document:
Remaining uses
The final rule allows very few time-limited exemptions for commercial and industrial uses of methylene chloride to:
Facilities involved in the remaining uses of methylene chloride must comply with EPA’s new Workplace Chemical Protection Program. It requires facilities to:
Facilities must keep these records for at least five years from the date they’re generated.
The final rule sets a de minimis exemption threshold of 0.1 percent by weight to account for impurities and the unintended presence of methylene chloride. In other words, products that contain less than 0.1 percent of methylene chloride aren’t subject to the final rule.
However, note that this provision doesn’t apply to 751.105, which bans the sale and distribution of methylene chloride-containing consumer paint and coating removal products.
If your facility is involved in manufacturing, processing, or distributing methylene chloride (including methylene chloride-containing products), consider these tips to help you comply with the new regulations:
Key to remember: EPA will phase in its ban on methylene chloride for all consumer uses and most commercial and industrial uses over the next two years.
Just in time for the 2024 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) submission period (beginning June 1), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched CDR GuideME. This online portal centralizes all CDR resources into one location.
The portal contains all CDR guidance documents and other training materials, including reporting instructions, fact sheets, and EPA responses to industry questions. It also enables users to search all CDR questions and answers for specific topics.
In addition to the new resource portal, EPA updated the Central Data Exchange system (through which the reports are submitted). The agency:
2024 report
The 2024 CDR submission period runs from June 1 to September 30, 2024, and covers activities during the calendar years 2020-2023.
Manufacturers (including importers) that meet certain production volume thresholds of chemicals on the Toxic Substances Control Act Chemical Substance Inventory must submit a report every four years. The report includes data on the manufacturing, processing, and use of the chemicals during the preceding four calendar years.
Key to remember: EPA’s new CDR GuideME portal centralizes all Chemical Data Reporting guidance documents and resources into one place to make the reporting process easier.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is revising the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) Rule in accordance with America's Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA) of 2018 (United States, 2018) and is requiring States, territories, and Tribes with primary enforcement responsibility to report compliance monitoring data (CMD) to the EPA. The revisions will improve the readability, clarity, and understandability of CCRs as well as the accuracy of the information presented, improve risk communication in CCRs, incorporate electronic delivery options, provide supplemental information regarding lead levels and control efforts, and require systems who serve 10,000 or more persons to provide CCRs to customers biannually (twice per year). The final rule requirements for States to submit to the EPA CMD for all National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) will improve the EPA's ability to fulfill oversight responsibilities under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
DATES: This final rule is effective on June 24, 2024, published in the Federal Register May 24, 2024, page 45980.
View final rule.
§141.151 Purpose and applicability of this subpart. | ||
(a), (c), and (f) | Revised | View text |
§141.152 Effective dates. | ||
(a) through (c), (d)(1), and (d)(2) | Revised | View text |
(d)(3) | Added | View text |
§141.153 Content of the reports. | ||
(a) and (b)(2) | Revised | View text |
(c)(1)(iii) and (c)(5) | Added | View text |
(d) | Revised | View text |
(e)(1) introductory text and (e)(3) introductory text | Revised | View text |
(f) introductory text, (f)(3), and (h) | Revised | View text |
§141.154 Required additional health information. | ||
(a), (b), (c)(1) and (2), and (d)(2) | Revised | View text |
(e) and (f) | Removed | View text |
§141.155 Report delivery, reporting, and recordkeeping. | ||
Section heading, (a) through (c), (e), (f), (g) introductory text, (g)(1)(i), and (g)(2) | Revised | View text |
(i) and (j) | Added | View text |
§141.156 Summary of report contents. | ||
Entire section | Added | View text |
Appendix A to Subpart O to Part 141—Regulated Contaminants | ||
entries for “Total Coliform Bacteria †” and “Total Coliform Bacteria ‡” | Removed | View text |
entry for “Total Coliform Bacteria” | Added | View text |
entry for “Fecal coliform and E. coli †” | Removed | View text |
entries for “ E. coli ‡”and “Arsenic (ppb)” | Revised | View text |
footnotes †, ‡, and 1 | Removed | View text |
§142.14 Records kept by States. | ||
(h) | Added | View text |
§142.15 Reports by States. | ||
(b) introductory text and (b)(2) | Revised | View text |
(b)(3) | Added | View text |
§142.16 Special primacy requirements. | ||
(f)(1) and (3) | Revised | View text |
(f)(5) | Added | View text |
Previous Text
§141.151 Purpose and applicability of this subpart.
(a) This subpart establishes the minimum requirements for the content of annual reports that community water systems must deliver to their customers. These reports must contain information on the quality of the water delivered by the systems and characterize the risks (if any) from exposure to contaminants detected in the drinking water in an accurate and understandable manner.
* * * * *
(c) For the purpose of this subpart, customers are defined as billing units or service connections to which water is delivered by a community water system.
* * * * *
(f) For purpose of §141.154 and 141.155 of this subpart, the term "primacy agency" refers to the State or tribal government entity that has jurisdiction over, and primary enforcement responsibility for, public water systems, even if that government does not have interim or final primary enforcement responsibility for this rule. Where the State or tribe does not have primary enforcement responsibility for public water systems, the term "primacy agency" refers to the appropriate EPA regional office.
§141.152 Effective dates.
(a) The regulations in this subpart shall take effect on September 18, 1998.
(b) Each existing community water system must deliver its first report by October 19, 1999, its second report by July 1, 2000, and subsequent reports by July 1 annually thereafter. The first report must contain data collected during, or prior to, calendar year 1998 as prescribed in §141.153(d)(3). Each report thereafter must contain data collected during, or prior to, the previous calendar year.
(c) A new community water system must deliver its first report by July 1 of the year after its first full calendar year in operation and annually thereafter.
(d) * * *
(1) No later than April 19, 1999, by April 1, 2000, and by April 1 annually thereafter or
(2) On a date mutually agreed upon by the seller and the purchaser, and specifically included in a contract between the parties.
* * * * *
§141.153 Content of the reports.
(a) Each community water system must provide to its customers an annual report that contains the information specified in this section and §141.154.
(b) * * *
(2) If a source water assessment has been completed, the report must notify consumers of the availability of this information and the means to obtain it. In addition, systems are encouraged to highlight in the report significant sources of contamination in the source water area if they have readily available information. Where a system has received a source water assessment from the primacy agency, the report must include a brief summary of the system's susceptibility to potential sources of contamination, using language provided by the primacy agency or written by the operator.
* * * * *
(d) Information on Detected Contaminants.
(1) This sub-section specifies the requirements for information to be included in each report for contaminants subject to mandatory monitoring (except Cryptosporidium). It applies to:
(i) Maximum Contaminant Level Goal or MCLG: The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety.
(ii) Maximum Contaminant Level or MCL: The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close to the MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment technology.
(2) The data relating to these contaminants must be displayed in one table or in several adjacent tables. Any additional monitoring results which a community water system chooses to include in its report must be displayed separately.
(3) The data must be derived from data collected to comply with EPA and State monitoring and analytical requirements during calendar year 1998 for the first report and subsequent calendar years thereafter except that:
(i) Where a system is allowed to monitor for regulated contaminants less often than once a year, the table(s) must include the date and results of the most recent sampling and the report must include a brief statement indicating that the data presented in the report are from the most recent testing done in accordance with the regulations. No data older than 5 years need be included.
(ii) Results of monitoring in compliance with §141.142 and 141.143 need only be included for 5 years from the date of last sample or until any of the detected contaminants becomes regulated and subject to routine monitoring requirements, whichever comes first.
(4) For detected regulated contaminants (listed in appendix A to this subpart), the table(s) must contain:
(i) The MCL for that contaminant expressed as a number equal to or greater than 1.0 (as provided in appendix A to this subpart);
(ii) The MCLG for that contaminant expressed in the same units as the MCL;
(iii) If there is no MCL for a detected contaminant, the table must indicate that there is a treatment technique, or specify the action level, applicable to that contaminant, and the report must include the definitions for treatment technique and/or action level, as appropriate, specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section;
(iv) For contaminants subject to an MCL, except turbidity, total coliform, fecal coliform and E. coli, the highest contaminant level used to determine compliance with an NPDWR and the range of detected levels, as follows:
(A) When compliance with the MCL is determined annually or less frequently: The highest detected level at any sampling point and the range of detected levels expressed in the same units as the MCL.
(B) When compliance with the MCL is determined by calculating a running annual average of all samples taken at a monitoring location: the highest average of any of the monitoring locations and the range of all monitoring locations expressed in the same units as the MCL. For the MCLs for TTHM and HAA5 in §141.64(b)(2), systems must include the highest locational running annual average for TTHM and HAA5 and the range of individual sample results for all monitoring locations expressed in the same units as the MCL. If more than one location exceeds the TTHM or HAA5 MCL, the system must include the locational running annual averages for all locations that exceed the MCL.
(C) When compliance with the MCL is determined on a system-wide basis by calculating a running annual average of all samples at all monitoring locations: the average and range of detection expressed in the same units as the MCL. The system is required to include individual sample results for the IDSE conducted under subpart U of this part when determining the range of TTHM and HAA5 results to be reported in the annual consumer confidence report for the calendar year that the IDSE samples were taken.
Note to paragraph (d)(4)(iv): When rounding of results to determine compliance with the MCL is allowed by the regulations, rounding should be done prior to multiplying the results by the factor listed in appendix A of this subpart;
(v) For turbidity.
(A) When it is reported pursuant to §141.13: The highest average monthly value.
(B) When it is reported pursuant to the requirements of §141.71: the highest monthly value. The report should include an explanation of the reasons for measuring turbidity.
(C) When it is reported pursuant to §141.73 or §141.173 or §141.551: the highest single measurement and the lowest monthly percentage of samples meeting the turbidity limits specified in §141.73 or §141.173, or §141.551 for the filtration technology being used.
(vi) For lead and copper: the 90th percentile concentration of the most recent round(s) of sampling, the number of sampling sites exceeding the action level, and the range of tap sampling results;
(vii) For total coliform analytical results until March 31, 2016:
(A) The highest monthly number of positive samples for systems collecting fewer than 40 samples per month; or
(B) The highest monthly percentage of positive samples for systems collecting at least 40 samples per month;
(viii) For fecal coliform and E. coli until March 31, 2016: The total number of positive samples;
(ix) The likely source(s) of detected contaminants to the best of the operator's knowledge. Specific information regarding contaminants may be available in sanitary surveys and source water assessments, and should be used when available to the operator. If the operator lacks specific information on the likely source, the report must include one or more of the typical sources for that contaminant listed in appendix A to this subpart that is most applicable to the system;
(x) For E. coli analytical results under subpart Y: The total number of positive samples;
(xi) The report shall include a statement that a service line inventory (including inventories consisting only of a statement that there are no lead service lines) has been prepared and include instructions to access the service line inventory; and
(xii) The report shall notify consumers that complete lead tap sampling data are available for review and shall include information on how to access the data.
(5) If a community water system distributes water to its customers from multiple hydraulically independent distribution systems that are fed by different raw water sources, the table should contain a separate column for each service area and the report should identify each separate distribution system. Alternatively, systems could produce separate reports tailored to include data for each service area.
(6) The table(s) must clearly identify any data indicating violations of MCLs, MRDLs, or treatment techniques, and the report must contain a clear and readily understandable explanation of the violation including: the length of the violation, the potential adverse health effects, and actions taken by the system to address the violation. To describe the potential health effects, the system must use the relevant language of appendix A to this subpart.
(7) For detected unregulated contaminants for which monitoring is required (except Cryptosporidium), the table(s) must contain the average and range at which the contaminant was detected. The report may include a brief explanation of the reasons for monitoring for unregulated contaminants.
(e) * * *
(1) If the system has performed any monitoring for Cryptosporidium, including monitoring performed to satisfy the requirements of §141.143, which indicates that Cryptosporidium may be present in the source water or the finished water, the report must include:
* * * * *
(3) If the system has performed additional monitoring which indicates the presence of other contaminants in the finished water, EPA strongly encourages systems to report any results which may indicate a health concern. To determine if results may indicate a health concern, EPA recommends that systems find out if EPA has proposed an NPDWR or issued a health advisory for that contaminant by calling the Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791). EPA considers detects above a proposed MCL or health advisory level to indicate possible health concerns. For such contaminants, EPA recommends that the report include:
* * * * *
(f) Compliance with NPDWR. In addition to the requirements of §141.153(d)(6), the report must note any violation that occurred during the year covered by the report of a requirement listed below, and include a clear and readily understandable explanation of the violation, any potential adverse health effects, and the steps the system has taken to correct the violation.
* * * * *
(3) Lead and copper control requirements prescribed by subpart I of this part. For systems that fail to take one or more actions prescribed by §141.80(d), 141.81, 141.82, 141.83 or 141.84, the report must include the applicable language of appendix A to this subpart for lead, copper, or both.
* * * * *
(h) Additional information:
(1) The report must contain a brief explanation regarding contaminants which may reasonably be expected to be found in drinking water including bottled water. This explanation may include the language of paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iii) or systems may use their own comparable language. The report also must include the language of paragraph (h)(1)(iv) of this section.
(i) The sources of drinking water (both tap water and bottled water) include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and wells. As water travels over the surface of the land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally-occurring minerals and, in some cases, radioactive material, and can pick up substances resulting from the presence of animals or from human activity.
(ii) Contaminants that may be present in source water include:
(A) Microbial contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria, which may come from sewage treatment plants, septic systems, agricultural livestock operations, and wildlife.
(B) Inorganic contaminants, such as salts and metals, which can be naturally-occurring or result from urban stormwater runoff, industrial or domestic wastewater discharges, oil and gas production, mining, or farming.
(C) Pesticides and herbicides, which may come from a variety of sources such as agriculture, urban stormwater runoff, and residential uses.
(D) Organic chemical contaminants, including synthetic and volatile organic chemicals, which are by-products of industrial processes and petroleum production, and can also come from gas stations, urban stormwater runoff, and septic systems.
(E) Radioactive contaminants, which can be naturally-occurring or be the result of oil and gas production and mining activities.
(iii) In order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, EPA prescribes regulations which limit the amount of certain contaminants in water provided by public water systems. FDA regulations establish limits for contaminants in bottled water which must provide the same protection for public health.
(iv) Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that water poses a health risk. More information about contaminants and potential health effects can be obtained by calling the Environmental Protection Agency's Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791).
(2) The report must include the telephone number of the owner, operator, or designee of the community water system as a source of additional information concerning the report.
(3) In communities with a large proportion of non-English speaking residents, as determined by the Primacy Agency, the report must contain information in the appropriate language(s) regarding the importance of the report or contain a telephone number or address where such residents may contact the system to obtain a translated copy of the report or assistance in the appropriate language.
(4) The report must include information (e.g., time and place of regularly scheduled board meetings) about opportunities for public participation in decisions that may affect the quality of the water.
(5) The systems may include such additional information as they deem necessary for public education consistent with, and not detracting from, the purpose of the report.
(6) Systems required to comply with subpart S.
(i) Any ground water system that receives notice from the State of a significant deficiency or notice from a laboratory of a fecal indicator-positive ground water source sample that is not invalidated by the State under §141.402(d) must inform its customers of any significant deficiency that is uncorrected at the time of the next report or of any fecal indicator-positive ground water source sample in the next report. The system must continue to inform the public annually until the State determines that particular significant deficiency is corrected or the fecal contamination in the ground water source is addressed under §141.403(a). Each report must include the following elements.
(A) The nature of the particular significant deficiency or the source of the fecal contamination (if the source is known) and the date the significant deficiency was identified by the State or the dates of the fecal indicator-positive ground water source samples;
(B) If the fecal contamination in the ground water source has been addressed under §141.403(a) and the date of such action;
(C) For each significant deficiency or fecal contamination in the ground water source that has not been addressed under §141.403(a), the State-approved plan and schedule for correction, including interim measures, progress to date, and any interim measures completed; and
(D) If the system receives notice of a fecal indicator-positive ground water source sample that is not invalidated by the State under §141.402(d), the potential health effects using the health effects language of Appendix A of subpart O.
(ii) If directed by the State, a system with significant deficiencies that have been corrected before the next report is issued must inform its customers of the significant deficiency, how the deficiency was corrected, and the date of correction under paragraph (h)(6)(i) of this section.
(7) Systems required to comply with subpart Y. (i) Any system required to comply with the Level 1 assessment requirement or a Level 2 assessment requirement that is not due to an E. coli MCL violation must include in the report the text found in paragraph (h)(7)(i)(A) and paragraphs (h)(7)(i)(B) and (C) of this section as appropriate, filling in the blanks accordingly and the text found in paragraphs (h)(7)(i)(D)(1) and (2) of this section if appropriate.
(A) Coliforms are bacteria that are naturally present in the environment and are used as an indicator that other, potentially harmful, waterborne pathogens may be present or that a potential pathway exists through which contamination may enter the drinking water distribution system. We found coliforms indicating the need to look for potential problems in water treatment or distribution. When this occurs, we are required to conduct assessment(s) to identify problems and to correct any problems that were found during these assessments.
(B) During the past year we were required to conduct [INSERT NUMBER OF LEVEL 1ASSESSMENTS] Level 1 assessment(s). [INSERT NUMBER OF LEVEL 1 ASSESSMENTS] Level 1 assessment(s) were completed. In addition, we were required to take [INSERT NUMBER OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS] corrective actions and we completed [INSERT NUMBER OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS] of these actions.
(C) During the past year [INSERT NUMBER OF LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS] Level 2 assessments were required to be completed for our water system. [INSERT NUMBER OF LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS] Level 2 assessments were completed. In addition, we were required to take [INSERT NUMBER OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS] corrective actions and we completed [INSERT NUMBER OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS] of these actions.
(D) Any system that has failed to complete all the required assessments or correct all identified sanitary defects, is in violation of the treatment technique requirement and must also include one or both of the following statements, as appropriate:
(1) During the past year we failed to conduct all of the required assessment(s).
(2) During the past year we failed to correct all identified defects that were found during the assessment.
(ii) Any system required to conduct a Level 2 assessment due to anE. coliMCL violation must include in the report the text found in paragraphs (h)(7)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section, filling in the blanks accordingly and the text found in paragraphs (h)(7)(ii)(C)(1) and (2) of this section, if appropriate.
(A) E. coli are bacteria whose presence indicates that the water may be contaminated with human or animal wastes. Human pathogens in these wastes can cause short-term effects, such as diarrhea, cramps, nausea, headaches, or other symptoms. They may pose a greater health risk for infants, young children, the elderly, and people with severely compromised immune systems. We found E. coli bacteria, indicating the need to look for potential problems in water treatment or distribution. When this occurs, we are required to conduct assessment(s) to identify problems and to correct any problems that were found during these assessments.
(B) We were required to complete a Level 2 assessment because we found E. coli in our water system. In addition, we were required to take [INSERT NUMBER OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS] corrective actions and we completed [INSERT NUMBER OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS] of these actions.
(C) Any system that has failed to complete the required assessment or correct all identified sanitary defects, is in violation of the treatment technique requirement and must also include one or both of the following statements, as appropriate:
(1) We failed to conduct the required assessment.
(2) We failed to correct all sanitary defects that were identified during the assessment that we conducted.
(iii) If a system detects E. coli and has violated the E. coli MCL, in addition to completing the table as required in paragraph (d)(4) of this section, the system must include one or more of the following statements to describe any noncompliance, as applicable:
(A) We had an E. coli-positive repeat sample following a total coliform-positive routine sample.
(B) We had a total coliform-positive repeat sample following an E. coli-positive routine sample.
(C) We failed to take all required repeat samples following an E. coli-positive routine sample.
(D) We failed to test for E. coli when any repeat sample tests positive for total coliform.
(iv) If a system detects E. coli and has not violated the E. coli MCL, in addition to completing the table as required in paragraph (d)(4) of this section, the system may include a statement that explains that although they have detected E. coli, they are not in violation of the E. coli MCL.
§141.154 Required additional health information.
(a) All reports must prominently display the following language: Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in drinking water than the general population. Immuno-compromised persons such as persons with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, persons who have undergone organ transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or other immune system disorders, some elderly, and infants can be particularly at risk from infections. These people should seek advice about drinking water from their health care providers. EPA/CDC guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the risk of infection by Cryptosporidium and other microbial contaminants are available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791).
(b) Ending in the report due by July 1, 2001, a system which detects arsenic at levels above 0.025 mg/L, but below the 0.05 mg/L, and beginning in the report due by July 1, 2002, a system that detects arsenic above 0.005 mg/L and up to and including 0.010 mg/L:
(1) Must include in its report a short informational statement about arsenic, using language such as: While your drinking water meets EPA's standard for arsenic, it does contain low levels of arsenic. EPA's standard balances the current understanding of arsenic's possible health effects against the costs of removing arsenic from drinking water. EPA continues to research the health effects of low levels of arsenic, which is a mineral known to cause cancer in humans at high concentrations and is linked to other health effects such as skin damage and circulatory problems.
(2) May write its own educational statement, but only in consultation with the Primacy Agency.
(c) * * *
(1) Must include a short informational statement about the impacts of nitrate on children using language such as: Nitrate in drinking water at levels above 10 ppm is a health risk for infants of less than six months of age. High nitrate levels in drinking water can cause blue baby syndrome. Nitrate levels may rise quickly for short periods of time because of rainfall or agricultural activity. If you are caring for an infant you should ask advice from your health care provider.
(2) May write its own educational statement, but only in consultation with the Primacy Agency.
(d) * * *
(2) A system may write its own educational statement, but only in consultation with the State.
* * * *
§141.155 Report delivery and recordkeeping.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, each community water system must mail or otherwise directly deliver one copy of the report to each customer.
(b) The system must make a good faith effort to reach consumers who do not get water bills, using means recommended by the primacy agency. EPA expects that an adequate good faith effort will be tailored to the consumers who are served by the system but are not bill-paying customers, such as renters or workers. A good faith effort to reach consumers would include a mix of methods appropriate to the particular system such as: Posting the reports on the Internet; mailing to postal patrons in metropolitan areas; advertising the availability of the report in the news media; publication in a local newspaper; posting in public places such as cafeterias or lunch rooms of public buildings; delivery of multiple copies for distribution by single-biller customers such as apartment buildings or large private employers; delivery to community organizations.
(c) No later than the date the system is required to distribute the report to its customers, each community water system must mail a copy of the report to the primacy agency, followed within 3 months by a certification that the report has been distributed to customers, and that the information is correct and consistent with the compliance monitoring data previously submitted to the primacy agency.
* * * * *
(e) Each community water system must make its reports available to the public upon request.
(f) Each community water system serving 100,000 or more persons must post its current year's report to a publicly-accessible site on the Internet.
(g) The Governor of a State or his designee, or the Tribal Leader where the tribe has met the eligibility requirements contained in §142.72 for the purposes of waiving the mailing requirement, can waive the requirement of paragraph (a) of this section for community water systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons. In consultation with the tribal government, the Regional Administrator may waive the requirement of §141.155(a) in areas in Indian country where no tribe has been deemed eligible.
(1) * * *
(i) Publish the reports in one or more local newspapers serving the area in which the system is located;
* * * * *
(2) Systems serving 500 or fewer persons may forego the requirements of paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section if they provide notice at least once per year to their customers by mail, door- to-door delivery or by posting in an appropriate location that the report is available upon request.
* * * * *
Appendix A to Subpart O to Part 141—Regulated Contaminants
Contaminant (units) | Traditional MCL in mg/L | To convert for CCR, multiply by | MCL in CCR units | MCLG | Major sources in drinking water | Health effects language |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
* * * * * | * * * * * | * * * * * | * * * * * | * * * * * | * * * * * | * * * * * |
E. coli ‡ | Routine and repeat samples are total coliform- positive and either is E. coli-positive or system fails to take repeat samples following E. coli-positive routine sample or system fails to analyze total coliformpositive repeat sample for E. coli. | Routine and repeat samples are total coliform- positive and either is E. coli-positive or system fails to take repeat samples following E. coli-positive routine sample or system fails to analyze total coliformpositive repeat sample for E. coli. | 0 | Human and animal fecal waste. | E. coli are bacteria whose presence indicates that the water may be contaminated with human or animal wastes. Human pathogens in these wastes can cause short-term effects, such as diarrhea, cramps, nausea, headaches, or other symptoms. They may pose a greater health risk for infants, young children, the elderly, and people with severely- compromised immune systems. | |
* * * * * | * * * * * | * * * * * | * * * * * | * * * * * | * * * * * | * * * * * |
Arsenic (ppb) | 10.010 | 1000 | 110. | 10 | Erosion of natural deposits; Runoff from orchards; Runoff from glass and electronics production wastes | Some people who drink water containing arsenic in excess of the MCL over many years could experience skin damage or problems with their circulatory system, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer. |
§142.15 Reports by States.
* * * * *
(b) Each State which has primary enforcement responsibility shall submit annual reports to the Administrator on a schedule and in a format prescribed by the Administrator, consisting of the following information:
* * * * *
(2) A summary of the status of each variance and exemption currently in effect.
* * * * *
§142.16 Special primacy requirements.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) Each State that has primary enforcement responsibility must adopt the requirements of 40 CFR part 141, subpart O no later than August 21, 2000. States must submit revised programs to EPA for approval using the procedures in §142.12(b) through (d).
* * * * *
(3) Each State that has primary enforcement responsibility must maintain a copy of the reports for a period of one year and the certifications obtained pursuant to 40 CFR 141.155(c) for a period of 5 years.
* * * * *
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES) the authority to implement and enforce the state's amended Asbestos Disposal Site Rule in place of the National Emission Standard for Asbestos provisions for inactive waste disposal sites. NH DES's amended rule applies to all inactive waste disposal sites that ceased operation on or before July 9, 1981. This approval makes the NH DES amended Asbestos Disposal Site Rule federally enforceable. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: This rule is effective on June 24, 2024, published in the Federal Register May 24, 2024, page 45770.
§61.04 Address. | ||
(c)(1)(i) | Revised | View text |
§61.18 Incorporations by reference. | ||
(e)(1) | Revised | View text |
§63.14 Incorporations by reference. | ||
(n)(6)(i) | Revised | View text |
§63.99 Delegated Federal authorities. | ||
(a)(30)(iii) | Revised | View text |
Previous Text
§61.04 Address.
* * * * *
(c) * * * (1) * * *
(i) Inactive waste disposal sites not operated after July 9, 1981 within the state of New Hampshire must comply with the New Hampshire Regulations at Env-Sw 2100: Management and Control of Asbestos Disposal Sites Not Operated after July 9, 1981, effective February 16, 2010 (incorporated by reference, see §61.18).
* * * * *
§61.18 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(e) * * * *
(1)(i) New Hampshire Regulations at Env-Sw 2100, Management and Control of Asbestos Disposal Sites Not Operated after July 9, 1981, effective February 16, 2010 (including a letter from Thomas S. Burack, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Services, State of New Hampshire, to Carol J. Holahan, Director, Office of Legislative Services, dated February 12, 2010, certifying that the enclosed rule, Env-Sw 2100, is the official version of this rule). Incorporation By Reference approved for §61.04(c).
* * * * *
§63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(6)(i) New Hampshire Regulations at Env-Sw 2100, Management and Control of Asbestos Disposal Sites Not Operated after July 9, 1981, effective February 16, 2010 (including a letter from Thomas S. Burack, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Services, State of New Hampshire, to Carol J. Holahan, Director, Office of Legislative Services, dated February 12, 2010, certifying that the enclosed rule, Env-Sw 2100, is the official version of this rule), IBR approved for §63.99(a).
* * * * *
§63.99 Delegated Federal authorities.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(30) * * *
(iii) Affected inactive waste disposal sites not operated after July 9, 1981 within New Hampshire must comply with New Hampshire Regulations Chapter Env-Sw 2100: Management and Control of Asbestos Disposal Sites Not Operated after July 9, 1981, effective February 16, 2010 (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) as described in paragraph (a)(30)(iii)(A) of this section:
(A) The material incorporated by reference from Chapter Env-Sw 2100, Management and Control of Asbestos Disposal Sites Not Operated after July 9, 1981, pertains to inactive waste disposal sites not operated after July 9, 1981 in the State of New Hampshire's jurisdiction, and has been approved under the procedures in §63.93 to be implemented and enforced in place of the Federal NESHAPs for Inactive Waste Disposal Sites (40 CFR 61.151).
(B) [Reserved]
* * * * *
It may not be worth crying over spilled milk, but spilled oil is a different story, especially if it reaches national waters. The Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule requires certain facilities with aboveground storage tanks that contain oil to prepare and implement spill prevention and control measures.
A facility with an aboveground storage tank (AST) that contains any oil in any form (such as petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, vegetable oils, and synthetic oils) may be subject to the SPCC regulations. Covered facilities must take certain preventive actions and develop and apply an SPCC Plan.
Is your AST covered by the SPCC rule? Let’s find out.
The regulations may apply to your ASTs, even if you don’t see the specific term. The SPCC regulations at 40 CFR Part 112 don’t always use “ASTs.” Under the rule, ASTs include:
To ensure you don’t miss relevant regulations, evaluate the rule’s definitions for each type of AST to determine whether they apply.
The SPCC rule covers facilities that:
If your facility meets the criteria and has a combined capacity of 1,320 gallons or more of oil in ASTs with capacities of 55 gallons or more, the SPCC rule applies.
Tips for determining applicability
Some facilities are eligible for streamlined requirements under the SPCC rule. These “qualified facilities” can prepare and self-certify their SPCC Plans instead of having them reviewed and certified by a professional engineer.
To qualify, your facility must:
Eligible facilities must determine the type of qualified facility that applies.
Key to remember: If your facility has an aboveground storage tank that holds any kind of oil, it may be subject to the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is updating the list of chemicals subject to toxic chemical release reporting under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA). Specifically, this action updates the regulations to identify seven per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that must be reported pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (FY2020 NDAA) enacted on December 20, 2019. As this action is being taken to conform the regulations to a Congressional legislative mandate, notice and comment rulemaking is unnecessary.
DATES: This final rule is effective June 17, 2024, published in the Federal Register May 17, 2024, page 43331.
View final rule.
§372.65 Chemicals and chemical categories to which this part applies. | ||
(d) Table 4: Entries for “Ammonium perfluorohexanoate”; “Betaines, dimethyl(γ-ω-perfluoro-γ-hydro-C8-18-alkyl)”; “Lithium bis[(trifluoromethyl)sulfonyl] azanide”; “Perfluorohexanoic acid”; “Perfluoropropanoic acid”; “Sodium perfluorohexanoate”; and “1,1,1-Trifluoro-N-[(trifluoromethyl)sulfonyl] methanesulfonamide”; and note to the end of the table | Added | View text |
(e) Table 5: Entries for “307-24-4”; “422-64-0”; “2923-26-4”; “21615-47-4”; “82113-65-3”; “90076-65-6”; and “2816091-53-7”; and | Revised | View text |
Previous Text
§372.65 Chemicals and chemical categories to which this part applies.
* * * *
(d)
* * * *
Table 4 to Paragraph (d)
* * * *
CAS No.
(e)
* * * *
Table 4 to Paragraph (d)
* * * *
CAS No.
Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA or Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the State of Missouri's Underground Storage Tank (UST) program submitted by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). This action also codifies EPA's approval of Missouri's State program and incorporates by reference those provisions of the State regulations that we have determined meet the requirements for approval. The provisions will be subject to EPA's inspection and enforcement authorities under RCRA and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.
DATES: This rule is effective July 16, 2024, unless EPA receives adverse comment by June 17, 2024, published in the Federal Register May 17, 2024, page 43322.
View final rule.
§282.75 Missouri State-Administered Program. | ||
Entire section | Added | View text |
Appendix A to Part 282—State Requirements Incorporated by Reference in Part 282 of the Code of Federal Regulations | ||
Entry for “Missouri” | Added | View text |
This action finalizes amendments to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) that apply to the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) and amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) that apply to the SOCMI (more commonly referred to as the Hazardous Organic NESHAP or HON) and Group I and II Polymers and Resins (P&R I and P&R II, respectively) Industries. The EPA is finalizing decisions resulting from the Agency’s technology review of the HON and the P&R I and P&R II NESHAP, and its review of the NSPS that apply to the SOCMI. The EPA is also finalizing amendments to the NSPS for equipment leaks of volatile organic compounds (VOC) in SOCMI based on its reconsideration of certain issues raised in an administrative petition for reconsideration. Furthermore, the EPA is finalizing emission standards for ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions and chloroprene emissions after considering the results of a risk assessment for the HON and for Neoprene Production processes subject to the P&R I NESHAP, and is finalizing a fenceline monitoring work practice standard for certain hazardous air pollutants (HAP). Lastly, the EPA is finalizing the removal of exemptions from standards for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), adding work practice standards for such periods where appropriate, finalizing standards for previously unregulated HAP, and adding provisions for electronic reporting of performance test reports and periodic reports.
DATES: This final rule is effective on July 15, 2024, published in the Federal Register May 16, 2024, page 42932.
View final rule.
As the common cold, flu, and even lingering cases of COVID rear their heads throughout the year, many may reach for a mask as a precaution. But are your masks going to offer the protection you need? Employers must understand the differences between the various masks workers depend on for their safety.
Although most mask mandates have been lifted, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) still recommends wearing quality masks over the nose and mouth in high traffic or congested areas, such as airplanes, at concerts, or in large groups. With many mask options floating around, it’s important to understand the differences between N95, KN95, cloth, and surgical masks.
According to the National Institute of Health (NIH), masks are intended to block respiratory droplets and aerosols that may contain viral particles. Overall, masks can be effective and are recommended during flu and cold season, but which mask is best is going to depend upon the circumstances.
Masks differ in the maximum internal leak proportion limit (the highest level of leak protection offered), so here’s the low-down:
The theory is that wearing some mask is better than wearing no mask at all. However, the use of some masks, such as N-95s can result in some not-so-pleasant physical responses such as anxiety, headaches, nausea, and vomiting. Additionally, wearing the wrong mask or incorrectly wearing a mask can create a false sense of security, placing the wearer at even greater risk. So, how can workers overcome the negatives of wearing a mask?
When wearing masks, workers can ease the “burden” by:
Keys to Remember: While surgical and cloth masks offer some protection from viruses, N95s and KN95s masks offer better protection in most cases. Employers must ensure workers are choosing masks that fit and filter properly to ensure safe use and appropriate level of protection.
The State of South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR) has applied to the EPA for final approval of the changes to its Underground Storage Tank (UST) program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA has reviewed South Dakota's application and determined that South Dakota's UST program revisions satisfy all requirements needed for program approval. This action also codifies the EPA's approval of South Dakota's State program and incorporates by reference those provisions of the State's regulations that we have determined meet the requirements for approval.
DATES: This rule is effective on July 15, 2024 unless EPA receives adverse written comment by June 14, 2024, published in the Federal Register May 15, 2024, page 42390.
View final rule.
§282.91 South Dakota 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 “South Dakota” | Revised | View text |
Previous Text
§282.91 South Dakota State-Administered Program.
(a) The State of South Dakota is approved to administer and enforce an underground storage tank 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 program, as administered by the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, was approved by EPA pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6991c and part 281 of this chapter. EPA approved the South Dakota program on March 16, 1995 and it was effective on May 15, 1995.
(b) South Dakota has primary responsibility for enforcing its underground storage tank program. However, EPA retains the authority to exercise its inspection and enforcement authorities under sections 9005 and 9006 of subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991d and 6991e, as well as under other statutory and regulatory provisions.
(c) To retain program approval, South Dakota must revise its approved 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 South Dakota obtains approval for the 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) South Dakota has final approval for the following elements submitted to EPA in South Dakota's program application for final approval and approved by EPA on [insert date of publication]. Copies may be obtained from the Underground Storage Tank Program, South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 523 East Capitol, Pierre, South Dakota 57501.
(1) State statutes and regulations. (i) The provisions cited in this paragraph are incorporated by reference as part of the underground storage tank program under subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq.
(A) South Dakota Statutory Requirements Applicable to the Underground Storage Tank Program, 1995.
(B) South Dakota Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the Underground Storage Tank Program, 1995.
(ii) The following statutes are part of the approved state program, although not incorporated by reference herein for enforcement purposes.
(A) The statutory provisions include: South Dakota Codified Law, Water Pollution Control, Chapter 34A-2, Sections 46 and 48, Sections 72 through 75, Chapters 34A-10 and 34A-12.
(iii) The following statutory provisions are broader in scope than the federal program, are not part of the approved program, and are not incorporated by reference herein for enforcement purposes.
(A) South Dakota statutes Annotated, Chapter 34A-2, Section 100, insofar as it applies to above ground stationary storage tanks, Section 102, insofar as it applies to installation of above ground stationary storage tanks, Section 101, insofar as it applies to corrective action for above ground stationary storage tanks.
(2) Statement of legal authority. (i) "Attorney General's Statement for Final Approval", signed by the Attorney General of South Dakota on June 17, 1992, 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.
(ii) Letter from the Attorney General of South Dakota to EPA, June 17, 1992, 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 Procedures for Adequate Enforcement" submitted as part of the complete application in October 1993, 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 and any other material submitted as part of the original application in June 1992, though not incorporated by reference, are 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 VIII and the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator on February 23, 1995, 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
* * * *
South Dakota
(a) The statutory provisions include South Dakota Statutes Annotated, Chapter 34A-2, Sections 98 and 99. Underground Storage Tanks:
Section 98 Underground storage tanks-Definitions. Section 99 Underground storage tanks-Adoption of Rules-Violation.
(b) The regulatory provisions include State of South Dakota Administrative Rules, Chapter 74:03:28, Underground Storage Tanks, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, June 24, 1992:
Section 74:03:28:01 Definitions.
Section 74:03:28:02 Performance standards for new UST systems-General requirements.
Section 74:03:28:03 Upgrading of existing UST systems-General requirements and deadlines.
Section 74:03:28:04 Notification requirements for UST systems.
Section 74:03:28:05 Spill and overfill control.
Section 74:03:28:06 Operation and maintenance of cathodic protection.
Section 74:03:28:07 Compatibility.
Section 74:03:28:08 Repairs allowed-general requirements.
Section 74:03:28:09 Maintenance and availability of records.
Section 74:03:28:10 Release detection for all UST systems-general requirements and deadlines.
Section 74:03:28:11 Release detection requirements for petroleum UST systems.
Section 74:03:28:12 Release detection requirements for pressure piping.
Section 74:03:28:13 Recordkeeping.
Section 74:03:28:14 Release notification plan.
Section 74:03:28:15 Reported of suspected releases.
Section 74:03:28:16 Release investigation and confirmation.
Section 74:03:28:17 Off-site impacts and source investigation.
Section 74:03:28:18 General requirements for corrective action for releases from UST systems.
Section 74:03:28:19 Initial abatement requirements and procedures for releases from UST systems.
Section 74:03:28:20 Free product removal.
Section 74:03:28:21 Additional site investigation for releases from UST systems.
Section 74:03:28:22 Soil and groundwater cleanup for releases from UST systems.
Section 74:03:28:23 Reporting of releases from UST systems.
Section 74:03:28:28 Reporting of hazardous substance releases from UST systems.
Section 74:03:28:29 Temporary removal from use.
Section 74:03:28:30 Temporary closure.
Section 74:03:28:31 Permanent closure.
Section 74:03:28:32 Postclosure requirements.
Section 74:03:29:01 Applicability.
Section 74:03:29:23 Definitions.
Section 74:03:29:24 Financial responsibility rules.
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.
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!
You’ve evaluated your workplace injury risks, estimated emergency medical services (EMS) response times, and have determined you need trained first aid providers according to OSHA. But what’s considered a first aid provider — someone that’s first aid trained, or someone considered a first aid responder?
The OSHA First Aid standard (29 CFR 1910.151) requires trained first aid providers at all workplaces of any size if there is no “infirmary, clinic, or hospital in near proximity to the workplace which is used for the treatment of all injured employees.”
In addition to first aid requirements, several OSHA standards also require training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) because sudden cardiac arrest from asphyxiation, electrocution, or exertion may occur. These standards include permit-required confined spaces; logging; diving; and electrical power generation, transmission, and distribution.
OSHA requires prompt first aid treatment for injured employees, either by providing for the availability of a trained first aid provider at the worksite, or by ensuring that emergency services are within reasonable proximity of the worksite. Whether the first aid provider is a first responder or is first aid trained is up to you and your risk assessment.
Employees considered first aid trained can provide initial treatment to an injured person until more qualified personnel arrive. First aid trained individuals can triage injuries, control the scene to keep others safe, and call for emergency services when needed. Not all first aid trained employees will feel comfortable performing CPR, using an automated external defibrillator (AED), or splinting a broken bone, however.
First responders, though similar in their role, typically have a higher degree of training than first aid trained individuals. Generally speaking, first responders are those that beat the ambulance to the scene such as firefighters or police officers. These responders can perform rescue services or escalate emergency care as needed, such as performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or controlling severe bleeding.
Who is more vital for handling an emergency at your facility? Both! First aid trained employees have process and facility training that first responders may not. For example, they may be more familiar with chemicals on site or process operations. Therefore, they can navigate facilities to reach injured employees quicker to begin initial treatment. First responders, on the other hand, will have a higher level of training for first aid treatment of more complicated injuries.
OSHA clarifies in a letter of interpretation (LOI) from March 23, 2007, that, “While the first aid standards do not prescribe a number of minutes, OSHA has long interpreted the term ’near proximity’ to mean that emergency care must be available within no more than 3-4 minutes from the workplace. Medical literature establishes that, for serious injuries such as those involving stopped breathing, cardiac arrest, or uncontrolled bleeding, first aid treatment must be provided within the first few minutes to avoid permanent medical impairment or death. Accordingly, in workplaces where serious accidents such as those involving falls, suffocation, electrocution, or amputation are possible, emergency medical services must be available within 3-4 minutes, if there is no employee on the site who is trained to render first aid.”
Regarding work areas, such as offices, where the possibility of such serious work-related injuries is less likely, a longer response time of up to 15 minutes may be reasonable. OSHA gives employers discretion in determining higher risk areas that may need sooner response times.
Employers choosing to rely on assistance from outside emergency responders as an alternative to providing trained responders must ascertain that emergency medical assistance will be promptly available when an injury occurs.
OSHA doesn’t offer first aid or CPR training, nor certify trainers. Training by a nationally recognized organization, such as the American Heart Association or the American Red Cross is recommended. Successful completion of any first aid training program should include instructor observation of acquired hands-on skills and written performance assessments.
OSHA 1910.151 requires employers to ensure prompt first aid treatment for injured employees, either by providing for the availability of a trained first aid provider at the worksite, or by ensuring that emergency services are within reasonable proximity of the worksite. Employers should consider the workplace, hazards, workforce, and location when determining whether to have first aid trained employees or first responders for medical aid.
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.
Here at J.J. Keller we often say it is not IF a spill will occur but WHEN. You might be compliant with all the relevant regulations and a spill may still occur. You need to be ready to respond safely and efficiently no matter your industry. Building a spill kit will ensure that you are prepared to contain the spill. This will limit the safety and environmental hazards you may encounter related to spill incidents.
Regulatory requirements
There are both OSHA and EPA requirements related to preventing and responding to spills, but it is important to note that the regulations do not require specific materials or quantities for a spill kit. OSHA provides guidance for worksites to have industry-standard programs in place for managing and disposing of hazardous waste including spills. And spills kits are a best practice under EPA’s Spill Prevention Countermeasures and Control rule. OSHA’s guidance requires training for employees who handle and control hazardous waste. They must also have the appropriate personal protective equipment and be trained to properly operate any equipment used in spill response and containment.
Types of spill kits
Spill kit materials are designed for certain materials. Some of the main types of spill kits include:
What to include in the spill kit?
When considering the contents of your spill kit you should think about the following:
Although spill kits are designed for certain spills, they should all contain a few fundamental pieces. These are your Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), sorbents, and clean-up items. PPE commonly used in spill response includes gloves, shoe covers, face, and eye protection. Chemical spill kits should also include a lab coat, respiratory protection, and a corrosive resistant apron. Absorbents are materials that absorb and contain a spill. This includes cloths, mops, sorbent socks, loose powders, etc. Clean-up equipment includes a dustpan or rubber shovel and containment bags for used PPE. Often the materials come in a container that is large enough to contain the potential spill.
A rule of thumb in the industry is that an appropriately sized spill kit is generally good for spills of approximately 100 gallons. For larger spills, you will likely need to consider alternative response methods such as a vacuum truck.
Sizing the spill kit
Now that you have selected the type of kit you need and the key elements, you need to assess the size of the spill kit you need. The size of your spill kit will be governed by the size of the spill you are likely to encounter, as well as other site conditions. For example, do you have multiple areas that might potentially have small spills? In this case, you might consider multiple bucket-sized spill kits in various locations close to the potential sources. Or do you have one area with the potential for a large spill? In that case, a large stationary spill kit might be more appropriate.
Benefits of using a spill kit
From a safety perspective, spill kits can help to reduce employee exposure to hazardous releases as well as reduce the potential for slips and falls. From an environmental standpoint spill containment prevents discharges to waterways and pervious surfaces. In general, it reduces risk and is easily incorporated as a part of a response plan.
Key to remember: You might be compliant with all the relevant regulations and a spill may still occur. You need to be ready to respond safely and efficiently no matter your industry. Building a spill kit will ensure that you are prepared to contain the spill.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Exempt employees are entitled to take intermittent leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), but must they continue to be paid their full salary? No, and here’s a story to help illustrate.
Kaylee was all set to get the payroll done by the end of the day when she ran across an issue. Dean, an employee, had indicated in his time reporting that he had taken a few hours of FMLA leave during the week. Dean was exempt from the overtime provisions under the Fair Labor Standards Act, so he was generally to receive his weekly salary no matter how many hours he worked.
Kaylee was aware that the FMLA included an exception to this provision; that she could make deductions from an exempt employee’s salary for any hours taken as intermittent or reduced schedule FMLA leave within a workweek, without affecting the employee’s exempt status. Her issue, however, was calculating how much time Dean should be docked. He generally worked 9-10 hours per day.
While not directly addressed in the current regulations, as an employer, you (and Kaylee) have some options when determining an exempt employee’s pay when taking FMLA leave on an intermittent or reduced schedule basis.
You may pay a proportionate part of the full salary for time actually worked. If, for example, an employee would normally work 40 hours per week and used four hours of unpaid leave under the FMLA, you may deduct 10 percent of the employee’s normal salary for that week. Basically, you would keep the employee as salaried and make appropriate adjustments to the salary on the basis of the employee’s regular workweek and hourly rate. Simply apply the hourly rate to the missed hours in the workweek.
You could otherwise convert the exempt employee to hourly during the period that the intermittent FMLA leave is being sought. This method, however, could create concerns regarding how to determine the hourly rate for the exempt employee. Perhaps the pay statement indicates an hourly rate attributable to the compensation for the employee.
Otherwise, you would need to discuss the situation with the employee about what hourly rate you plan to apply, the rationale behind it, and the employee’s schedule. Then you would need the employee’s written agreement in regard to the rate and his regular schedule/hours.
As another option, you could simply continue to pay the employee his or her full salary when he takes intermittent or reduced schedule FMLA leave.
Kaylee has a number of options to consider. If she chooses to make deductions from Dean’s salary, she should remember to have a written agreement with Dean regarding his normal schedule or average hours worked each week.
As of January 1, California and Washington have new marijuana laws that restrict testing for the drug.
Both states, which have legalized recreational and medical use, put limits on pre-employment testing for cannabis at the start of the year.
Washington’s rationale for the new law is that a pre-employment marijuana test limits job opportunities for those who use cannabis, because an applicant will test positive for up to 30 days after using it. The new law is designed to prevent the restriction of job opportunities based on an applicant’s past cannabis use.
California’s law notes that a test for marijuana detects past use of the drug, but does not prove whether or not an individual is impaired by it. Its protections are broader than Washington’s, and apply to employees as well as applicants. As a result, they also restrict reasonable suspicion, post-accident, and random marijuana tests.
Testing restrictions in California and Washington
The new state laws take aim at tests measuring nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolites. These metabolites are created by the body after cannabis is smoked or consumed in an edible.
Their presence indicates that cannabis has been used, but the fact that they are present does not prove at a person is impaired by the drug.
The laws do not allow employers to make employment decisions based on marijuana tests that show the presence of nonspychoactive cannabis metabolites. While tests that do not detect these metabolites are technically allowed, from a practical standpoint they are difficult to find.
Current drug tests that detect the presence of THC (the chemical in marijuana causing impairment) are likely to detect nonpsychactive metabolites as well. Other tests that rely on baseline performance to prove impairment would be difficult to use for applicants, as there would be no previous information to use for comparison.
Exceptions to state laws
Both states have exceptions that allow employers to conduct marijuana tests under certain circumstances.
Washington’s restrictions do not apply to:
California’s law allows marijuana tests for:
An employee in the building and construction trades.
Applicants or employees hired for positions that require a federal government background investigation or security clearance in accordance with regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Defense or equivalent regulations applying to other agencies.
Testing conducted under state or federal laws requiring applicants or employees to be tested for controlled substances.
3 steps for employers to take
To make sure workplace drug testing in California and Washington is conducted appropriately, employers should:
Update pre-employment drug testing policies in California and Washington so they comply with the new laws.
Identify positions that are exempt from testing restrictions. When a position qualifies for an exception, make applicants aware that that marijuana testing will be conducted.
Train hiring managers and supervisors about the new requirements. Make sure they understand when marijuana testing is not allowed.
Key to remember: California and Washington have new marijuana testing restrictions that are in place as of January 1. Workplace policies and practices need to be updated to comply with the new laws.
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.
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.
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.
Did you know that OSHA’s standard on permit-required confined spaces (PRCS) says entry occurs as soon as any part of the entrant’s body breaks the plane of the opening into the permit space?
Many workers and employers mistakenly think that placing part of the body or hands into a confined space isn’t entry. Knowing the difference between when entry occurs and not will help employers determine if a permit is required.
As clarified in an OSHA Letter of Interpretation (LOI) dated October 18, 1995, “When any part of the body of an entrant breaks the plane of the opening of a PRCS large enough to allow full entry, entry is considered to have occurred and a permit is required, regardless of whether there is an intent to fully enter the space.”
This definition of “entry” might seem to be too strict. Still, OSHA’s letter clarifies that there are situations where a partial entry would be hazardous: “Examples of situations where entry by only part of the body into a PRCS can expose an entrant to the possibility of injury or illness are as follows:
As another example, if the space contains a flammable or oxygen-enriched atmosphere, and if the activities during a partial entry could produce a spark or other ignition source, then a fire in the space could flash out of the opening and cause serious injuries to the employee.
This doesn’t necessarily mean you’d be fined if a permit wasn’t followed when someone reached a tank. OSHA’s guidance continues: “However, if entry by only part of the body does not expose the entrant to the possibility of injury or illness, then the violation may be considered a ‘de minimis’ violation.”
A de minimis violation is one in which a standard is violated, but the violation has no direct or immediate relationship to employee safety or health. These violations are documented but no citations are issued.
OSHA says examples of situations where entry by only part of the body into a PRCS would not expose an entrant to the possibility of injury or illness are as follows:
Also, consider a situation such as a worker reaching through a small grate to take a sample from a permitted space. The LOI further states, “If a part of the body were placed in an opening through which the worker could not pass into the permit-required confined space, no PRCS entry will have occurred.”
Keep in mind, however, that the employee would still need protection from any hazards involved in the task, but a permit would not be needed.
When any part of the body of an entrant breaks the plane of the opening of a PRCS large enough to allow full entry, entry is considered to have occurred, and a permit is required.