Supreme court ruling is a win for whistleblowers

Supreme court ruling is a win for whistleblowers

2021-07-06T05:00:00Z

What if Bill, an employee of XYZ Inc., had access to company data proving his employer was defrauding the government and he decided to be a whistleblower, reporting his employer to federal authorities?

In the past, some courts may have ruled that Bill was guilty of a felony

SCOTUS to the rescue

In June, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled in Van Buren v. United States, interpreting the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA), which makes it illegal to “exceed authorized access” of a computer. While not technically a whistleblower case, the ruling can be considered a win for whistleblowers.

In recent years, broad interpretations of the CFAA led to negative consequences for some whistleblowers. Specifically, some companies had used the CFAA to attack employee whistleblowers who took computer data from their employers and provided it to the government as evidence in fraud cases. For example, XYZ Inc. may have authorized Bill to access to files for purposes of his job, but XYZ Inc. could say turning over data to the government was unauthorized, and therefore in violation of the CFAA.

In such a situation, the only “unauthorized access” in question would be the whistleblower employee turning over computer data to the government as evidence of fraud against the United States. This act of attempting to recover taxpayer dollars from fraudsters opened the whistleblowers to costly CFAA actions. However, with the decision by the Court in Van Buren, such retaliatory tactics will no longer hold up.

Far reaching effects

The ruling was needed because circuit courts in recent years have been split on how they interpreted the CFAA which was originally enacted as an anti-hacking statute.

Ultimately the Supreme Court adopted a narrow view and held that “an individual ‘exceeds authorized access’ when he accesses a computer with authorization but then obtains information located in particular areas of the computer—such as files, folders, or databases—that are off-limits to him.” The court added, however, that the CFAA does not cover impermissible uses of properly accessible files.

While the Van Buren case dealt with criminal charges under the CFAA, the decision has far-reaching effects. As stated by the Court, a broad reading of the CFAA “would attach criminal penalties to a breathtaking amount of commonplace computer activity,” and would “criminalize every violation of a computer-use policy.” Thus, before this narrower interpretation, companies could have instituted “computer-use policies” that would have prevented employees from turning over files they were authorized to access to law enforcement in an effort to report criminal activity.

In the past, some courts may have ruled that Bill was guilty of a felony

SCOTUS to the rescue

Far reaching effects

The ruling was needed because circuit courts in recent years have been split on how they interpreted the CFAA which was originally enacted as an anti-hacking statute.

RELATED NEWS

        SAFETY & COMPLIANCE NEWS
    
Keep up with the latest regulatory developments from OSHA, DOT, EPA, DOL, and more.
GET FREE ARTICLES

        REGSENSE® REGULATORY REFERENCE
    
Explore a comprehensive database of word-for-word regulations on a wide range of compliance topics, with simplified explanations and best practices advice from our experts.
BROWSE BY TOPIC

        THE J. J. KELLER INSTITUTE
    
The Institute is your destination for in-depth content on 120+ compliance subjects. Discover articles, videos, and interactive exercises that will strengthen your understanding of regulatory concepts relevant to your business.  
BECOME AN EXPERT

        ADD HAZMAT, ENVIRONMENTAL, & HR RESOURCES
    
Unlock exclusive content offering expert insights into hazmat, environmental, and human resources compliance with a COMPLIANCE NETWORK EDGE membership.
ACCESS PREMIUM CONTENT

        DIRECT ACCESS TO COMPLIANCE EXPERTS
    
Struggling with a compliance challenge? Get the solution from our in-house team of experts! You can submit a question to our experts by email, set up a phone or video call, or request a detailed research report.
CONTACT AN EXPERT

        EVENTS
    
Register to attend live online events hosted by our experts. These webcasts and virtual conferences feature engaging discussions on important compliance topics in a casual, knowledge-sharing environment.
SEE UPCOMING EVENTS

Most Recent Highlights In Environmental

2026-02-13T06:00:00Z

Expert Insights: States take the lead as federal environmental rules pull back

Recent changes in federal environmental policy have created uncertainty for regulated industries. When federal agencies slow rulemaking, reduce enforcement, or narrow requirements, states often step in. As a result, states are taking a stronger role in setting environmental rules, especially on climate change, air quality, and environmental justice.

This shift is changing how industrial facilities understand and manage regulatory risks.

States as environmental policy leaders

Several states have moved to the front of environmental policymaking. California is the most well-known example. Through the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the state enforces air and climate rules that go beyond federal standards. These include strict vehicle emissions limits and greenhouse gas controls for industrial sources. Because California’s economy is so large, its rules often shape compliance decisions across the country.

Other states are following similar paths. For example, New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act sets clear, enforceable emissions-reduction goals. It also requires agencies to consider climate and environmental justice impacts during permitting. Washington has adopted a cap-and-invest program that limits carbon emissions from major sources and fuel suppliers.

Growing impacts on industrial facilities

For industrial operators, state-led regulation adds complexity and risk. Companies with facilities in multiple states may face very different rules, timelines, and reporting requirements. Meeting federal standards alone may no longer be enough.

Facilities can still fall out of compliance with state rules covering air emissions, water discharges, waste management, or community impacts. These differences can affect permitting schedules, capital planning, and long-term site decisions.

State enforcement and local focus

State enforcement is often more focused and, in many cases, more stringent than federal enforcement. Many states are increasing inspections and placing greater emphasis on environmental justice.

Facilities located near overburdened or historically impacted communities may face closer review, even when federal enforcement activity is limited.

Practical strategies for compliance

To operate successfully in this environment, companies need a proactive approach. Tracking state regulatory changes is essential, since states often move faster than federal agencies. Building compliance programs around the most stringent applicable rules can reduce long-term risk.

Early engagement with state regulators and local communities can also make a difference. Open communication can improve relationships, reduce conflict, and support smoother permitting outcomes.

For industrial facilities, success now depends less on watching Washington and more on understanding the growing influence of state capitals.

2026-02-13T06:00:00Z

EPA reverses Endangerment Finding, scraps GHG emission standards for vehicles

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule on February 18, 2026, to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repeal all federal greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for:

On-highway light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles; and
On-highway heavy-duty vehicle engines.

The final rule takes effect on April 20, 2026, and applies to vehicles and engines of model years 2012 to 2027 and beyond.

What are the changes?

Manufacturers (including importers) of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines will no longer have to measure, report, or comply with federal GHG emission standards. The final rule removes all GHG emission regulations in 40 CFR:

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

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

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

The final rule also eliminates:

All off-cycle credits for the addition of certain technological features (e.g., high-efficiency exterior lighting, waste heat recovery, and active seat ventilation); and
EPA’s incentives for manufacturers to add a start-stop system (which automatically shuts off a vehicle’s engine during idling).

What doesn’t change?

EPA’s following regulations remain in effect for new motor vehicles and vehicle engines:

Criteria pollutant and air toxic measurement and standards,
Corporate Average Fuel Economy testing, and
Associated fuel economy labeling requirements.

About the 2009 Endangerment Finding

In 2009, EPA issued two findings: the Endangerment Finding and the Cause or Contribute Finding. Collectively, these findings are referred to as the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The agency used the 2009 Endangerment Finding as the legal basis to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.

EPA has regulated GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines through:

Emission standards and related requirements, and
Engine and vehicle certification requirements.

However, upon reconsideration, EPA stated that it no longer believes it has the statutory authority under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines. Therefore, the agency has simultaneously rescinded the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repealed the related federal GHG emission regulations.

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

2026-02-13T06:00:00Z

EPA delays CCR management unit reporting, related requirements

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule that extends the deadlines for Facility Evaluation Reports (FERs) required for active and inactive coal combustion residuals (CCR) facilities. The final rule also delays compliance deadlines for related requirements that apply to CCR facilities with CCR management units (CCRMUs).

Who’s impacted?

The final rule applies to:

Active CCR facilities, and
Inactive CCR facilities with inactive surface impoundments (i.e., legacy CCR surface impoundments).

The 2024 Legacy Final Rule (40 CFR Part 257 Subpart D) requires active CCR facilities and legacy CCR surface impoundments to submit FER Part 1 and FER Part 2, identifying any CCRMUs of 1 ton or more on-site. CCRMUs include previously unregulated CCR surface impoundments and landfills that closed before October 19, 2015, as well as inactive CCR landfills.

Additionally, the 2024 Legacy Final Rule requires facilities with CCRMUs to:

Establish a website to publicize the facility’s CCR information;
Conduct groundwater monitoring activities (specifically, install a groundwater monitoring system, develop a sampling and analysis plan, collect independent samples, and perform detection and assessment monitoring);
Submit the initial annual groundwater monitoring and corrective action (GWMCA) report; and
Comply with closure and post-closure care obligations.

What are the changes?

EPA’s final rule extends compliance deadlines for the following standards:

Compliance requirement(s)	2024 Legacy Final Rule deadline	2026 final rule new deadline
Establish CCR website	February 9, 2026	February 9, 2027
Submit FER Part 1	February 9, 2026	February 9, 2027
Submit FER Part 2	February 8, 2027	February 8, 2028
Install groundwater monitoring system	May 8, 2028	February 10, 2031
Develop groundwater sampling and analysis program	May 8, 2028	February 10, 2031
Start detection and assessment monitoring Start evaluating groundwater monitoring data for statistically significant increases over background levels and statistically significant levels over groundwater protection standards	May 8, 2028	February 10, 2031
Submit initial GWMCA report	January 31, 2029	January 31, 2032
Submit closure plan	November 8, 2028	August 11, 2031
Submit post-closure care plan	November 8, 2028	August 11, 2031
Initiate closure	May 8, 2029	February 9, 2032

Key to remember: A final rule delays the deadlines for the Facility Evaluation Reports and related requirements for active and inactive coal combustion residuals (CCR) facilities with CCR management units.

2026-02-12T06:00:00Z

Expiring TSCA CBI claims: How to request an extension

How do businesses keep confidential information “off the record”? Companies that are required to report on federally regulated chemical substances may soon face this question, as the first round of confidential business information (CBI) claims starts expiring in June 2026.

Thankfully, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has answered how to keep CBI off the record. On January 6, 2026, the agency published in the Federal Register the process to request extensions of expiring CBI claims for information submitted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Here’s what you need to know.

CBI extension request process

Businesses that seek to extend a CBI claim beyond its expiration date must submit an extension request. The Federal Register notice describes the following general process:

1. EPA notifies the entity of an expiring CBI claim.

The agency will publish a list of TSCA submissions with expiring CBI claims on the Confidential Business Information Under TSCA (TSCA CBI) website at least 60 days before the claims expire.

EPA will also notify submitters directly through its online Central Data Exchange (CDX). Verify that your company’s contact information on CDX is updated!

Submitters with CBI claims for specific chemical identities should reference the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (column EXP) to confirm expiration dates.

2. The entity submits an extension request.

The extension request for an expiring CBI claim includes:

A certified supporting statement confirming the four assertions at 40 CFR 703.5(a), and
Answers to EPA’s substantiation questions.

EPA lists the general questions that apply to all CBI claims at 703.5(b)(3). Additional questions at 703.5(b)(4) apply to entities claiming CBI for specific chemical identities.

Businesses must submit the extension through EPA’s CDX at least 30 days before the CBI claim expires. The agency is currently developing a new application on CDX for submitting extension requests, which it plans to launch before CBI claims begin expiring in June 2026.

If there’s a delay, EPA will notify submitters on the TSCA CBI website. Additionally, the agency won’t publicize any information from expiring CBI claims until businesses have the opportunity to submit extension requests and the agency reviews them.

3. EPA reviews the extension request.

If the agency approves the extension request, the information in the CBI claim will remain protected for up to another 10 years.

If the agency denies the extension request, the information in the CBI claim can be publicized once the claim expires. EPA will notify submitters of denied claims through CDX at least 30 days before it plans to disclose the information.

Expiring CBI claims: What are the options?

Regulated entities have three ways to address expiring CBI claims:

If you choose to maintain the CBI claim, submit the extension request to EPA.
If you decide not to renew the CBI claim, you can either:
- Withdraw the CBI claim through CDX, or
- Allow the CBI claim to expire (i.e., take no action).

Keep in mind that if you withdraw a CBI claim or allow it to expire, EPA can publicize this information without notifying you beforehand.

Who’s impacted?

The CBI extension request process applies to companies that have made CBI claims under TSCA on or after June 22, 2016.

The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (signed into law on June 22, 2016) made amendments to TSCA, including adding a 10-year expiration date to CBI claims.

Key to remember: EPA established the process for entities to request extensions of expiring CBI claims for information submitted under TSCA.

2026-02-10T06:00:00Z

Common errors companies make when submitting air emissions inventories

Submitting accurate air emissions inventories (AEIs) is essential for regulatory compliance, public transparency, and long-term environmental planning. Yet companies routinely make mistakes that delay approvals, trigger enforcement, or compromise data quality. Many of these errors stem from misunderstanding the reporting rules, such as the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA’s) Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) and Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). Awareness of these pitfalls helps facilities avoid compliance failures and improve emission tracking systems.

Misunderstanding what must be reported

One of the most common errors is failing to understand which pollutants must be included. Under the AERR, states and delegated agencies must report annual emissions of criteria air pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, particulate matter (PM_2.5 and PM₁₀), and ammonia. These pollutants drive national air quality planning and modeling.

However, many companies overlook hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). While past AERR rules made HAP reporting voluntary, EPA’s proposed revisions would require annual HAP reporting for many sources starting in 2027, significantly expanding reporting duties. Failing to include HAP data or assuming it's still voluntary is a growing compliance risk.

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are another reporting blind spot. The GHGRP requires large emitters and certain suppliers to report carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane, nitrous oxide, and other GHGs each year. Companies often assume GHG reporting applies only to the largest industries, yet thousands of facilities fall within the rule’s thresholds.

Using incorrect or incomplete emission calculations

Facilities often make calculation errors when converting raw activity data into emissions. Many rely on outdated emission factors or incomplete process data. EPA urges states and regulated entities to use standardized estimation guidance from the Air Emissions Inventory Improvement Program whenever possible. But companies may choose default factors without confirming they apply to the specific process, control efficiency, fuel type, or measurement method.

Under EPA’s proposed AERR revisions, if approved, the agency will require more detailed stack information, such as release point coordinates, exhaust parameters, control device data, and stack test results. Failure to collect these details early can lead to rushed estimates or missing data.

Misreporting source categories

Another major issue is misidentifying emission sources. The AERR distinguishes between point, nonpoint, mobile, and portable sources. Mislabeling a source may cause a facility to submit incomplete inventories or fail to meet the required reporting frequency. For example, point sources often require annual reporting, while nonpoint sources may follow triennial schedules.

Similarly, GHGRP reporting is broken into numerous subparts that define equipment types, fuel suppliers, industrial processes, and CO₂ injection activities. Companies sometimes choose the wrong subpart or assume their process is exempt, leading to incomplete data submissions.

Incorrect use of thresholds and applicability

Both the AERR and GHGRP have emission-based thresholds. Companies frequently make errors when determining:

Whether they meet the AERR Type A point source criteria;
Whether they exceed GHGRP reporting thresholds (generally 25,000 metric tons CO₂ equivalent annually); and
Whether HAP emissions exceed thresholds when HAP reporting is required by a state.

These mistakes usually occur when internal data systems lack consistent tracking or when actual emissions deviate from "potential to emit" estimates used in permitting.

Missing documentation and recordkeeping

EPA requires extensive documentation for emission calculations, monitoring methods, stack tests, control equipment operation, and assumptions. GHGRP rules include detailed monitoring, Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC), missing data, and record retention requirements. Under proposed AERR rules, companies would also need to submit performance test and evaluation data. Missing or incomplete records often lead to rejected inventories.

Failing to track regulatory updates

Both the AERR and GHGRP are undergoing major revisions. EPA’s proposed AERR updates aim to convert some triennial reporting to annual schedules, add HAP reporting, expand mobile source requirements, and require more detailed facility-level data. Meanwhile, the GHGRP is facing proposed cuts that would eliminate reporting requirements for many source categories while delaying petroleum and natural gas reporting until 2034.

Companies that rely on outdated guidance or assume reporting rules remain static are at risk of major compliance failures.

Improving AEI quality and compliance

Avoiding common errors begins with three fundamentals:

Use current regulatory guidance, emission factors, and calculation tools;
Maintain complete process data, stack test records, and QA/QC documentation; and
Assign knowledgeable staff to track AERR, GHGRP, and state-level changes.

Key to Remember: Accurate air emissions inventories play a crucial role in protecting public health, supporting air quality regulation, and demonstrating corporate responsibility. By understanding the most common pitfalls, companies can improve compliance and reduce costly reporting errors.

Most Recent Highlights In Transportation

EHS Monthly Round Up - January 2026

In this January 2026 roundup video, we'll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news.

Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news. Let’s take a look at what happened over the past month.

Chemical manufacturers, importers, distributors, and employers will have an extra four months to comply with the provisions of OSHA’s revised Hazard Communication standard. When the rule was revised in 2024, it contained staggered compliance dates for those who classify or use chemical substances and mixtures. The first compliance date is now May 19 rather than January 19 of 2026.

On January 8, OSHA issued further technical corrections to its Hazard Communication final rule. An initial set of corrections was published in October 2024, and OSHA continued to review the standard for errors. The agency said these corrections should reduce confusion during the chemical classification process and prevent errors on labels and safety data sheets.

In 2024, private industry employers reported 2.5 million nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This is down 3.1 percent from 2023 and largely due to a decrease in respiratory illnesses. The greatest number of cases involving days away from work, job restriction, or transfer were caused by overexertion, repetitive motion, and bodily conditions, followed by contact incidents.

Registration is open for OSHA’s Safety Champions Program, which is designed to help employers develop and implement effective safety and health programs. Participants can work at their own pace through Introductory, Intermediate, and Advanced levels.

Turning to environmental news, on January 9, EPA withdrew its direct final rule on SDS/Tier II reporting tied to OSHA HazCom, before it had a chance to take effect. The direct final rule was published back on November 17, 2025, and was intended to relax the Tier II and safety data sheet reporting requirements and align with OSHA’s HazCom standard. EPA said it plans to write a new rule addressing all public comments.

And finally, EPA published a final rule that changes certain requirements for wastewater discharges from coal-fired steam electric power plants. It applies to the deadlines established by the preceding rule finalized in 2024.

Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!

2026-01-30T06:00:00Z

Erosion vs. sediment controls: Prevent stormwater pollution at the construction site

It’s wintertime, and many construction sites across the U.S. face unique challenges that the season brings, especially keeping workers warm! However, one challenge that construction sites face year-round is how to keep stormwater runoff (whether it’s generated by snowmelt or rain) from transporting pollutants off-site into nearby waterways.

Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater program (40 CFR Part 450), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires construction site operators to obtain a permit to discharge stormwater runoff into waters of the United States from any construction activity that disturbs:

1 acre or more of land, or
Less than 1 acre of land if it’s part of a plan of development or sale that will ultimately disturb 1 or more acres of land.

Construction sites must implement best management practices (BMPs), which are controls and activities used to prevent stormwater pollution. Erosion controls and sediment controls are the two leading types of BMPs that construction sites have to apply.

Understanding the differences between erosion controls and sediment controls (and how they function together) will help you choose the most effective BMPs to reduce stormwater pollution at your construction site.

Erosion controls vs. sediment controls

Both types of controls are important, but their functions are distinct. Construction sites should use erosion controls as the primary method and sediment controls as the backup method to reduce stormwater pollution.

Erosion controls prevent the land from wearing away. These measures stop soil particles from being dislodged and transported by stormwater or wind. Erosion controls are the first line of defense against stormwater pollution.

Erosion control examples include:

Shoring excavated areas with retaining walls,
Conducting construction work in concentrated areas at different times to minimize soil exposure, and
Installing erosion control blankets on steep slopes.

Sediment controls capture soil particles that have been dislodged (i.e., eroded) before stormwater or wind moves them off the construction site. Sediment controls are the second line of defense, serving as backup BMPs.

Examples of sediment controls are:

Protecting storm drain inlets with filtering materials (such as rock-filled bags),
Installing fiber rolls around the perimeter to retain soil dislodged by runoff from small areas, and
Adding a sedimentation basin to receive dewatering discharges.

Common BMP examples

EPA’s “National Menu of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Stormwater-Construction” webpage details erosion controls and sediment controls frequently used at construction sites, including (but not limited to) the following:

Erosion control BMPs	Sediment control BMPs
Composting blankets Dust control measures (e.g., irrigation) Mulching Riprap (i.e., a layer of large stones) Wind and sand fences	Compost filter socks Rock dams Sediment filters and pretreatment sediment chambers Silt fences Track-out controls (for construction entrances/exits)

Another popular option is vegetative cover, which can provide both erosion and sediment control. For example, a construction site can seed disturbed land to cover exposed soil (setting up temporary controls until vegetation grows). Once vegetation is established, it can stop stormwater from eroding the soil and act as a natural filter to remove sediment from the runoff.

Use both types of BMPs

The most effective way to control stormwater pollution at construction sites is by applying a selection of erosion controls and sediment controls that are coordinated to work together. Consider these examples:

After an area has been graded, the exposed soil must be stabilized. A site can lay sod over the exposed soil (erosion control) and install a silt fence to catch any contaminated soil moved out of the area by stormwater (sediment control) while the sod takes root.
Stormwater from upstream locations can flow through a construction site. To protect the disturbed land, a site can build a berm that diverts runoff away from the construction area (erosion control) to a basin where the sediment settles before the runoff is discharged (sediment control).
When grading an area with a slope, stormwater can transport contaminated soil down the disturbed slope. A site can install a temporary slope drain that directs the runoff at the top of the slope to a pipe that carries it down the side of the slope (erosion control). The site may also add a sediment trap at the slope drain outlet to remove sediment from the runoff before it’s released (sediment control).

Check state and local requirements

Most states issue NPDES construction stormwater permits. Check the permit to confirm erosion control and sediment control requirements, as they may be more stringent at the state level.

Additionally, some local governments may impose requirements on construction sites. However, unless the local program is designated as a qualifying local program, compliance with local regulations may not mean that your construction site is compliant with EPA’s rules (and vice versa). Confirm with the local government whether additional requirements apply.

Key to remember: Construction sites must implement erosion controls and sediment controls to prevent stormwater pollution.

2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

Dust collector to disposal: Understanding dust as a waste stream

When the topic of dust is brought up, the conversation usually starts and ends with worker exposure. How much is in the air? Is ventilation adequate? Are employees protected? Once that dust has been captured and removed from the process, the critical question shifts: how should this material be classified and disposed of? That’s where many facilities run into trouble. Collected dust may no longer be floating in the air, but it hasn’t stopped being regulated. In fact, once it’s captured, dust often enters a much more complicated regulatory world.

When captured dust becomes a regulated waste

Under the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, most collected dust qualifies as a solid waste once it’s removed from a dust collector, hopper, or filter. And despite the name, “solid waste” doesn’t mean solid, benign, or harmless. It simply means a discarded material.

At that point, facilities are expected to determine whether the dust is hazardous or non-hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This determination is based on what the dust contains, not how dusty it looks or how long it has been managed that way. Dust generated from metalworking, surface coatings, chemical processing, plastics, or specialty manufacturing can contain regulated constituents such as heavy metals or chemical residues. In these cases, facilities are required to make a waste determination using process knowledge, testing, or a combination of both.

This step is often overlooked. Many companies assume that if dust has not caused problems in the past, it must be non-hazardous. Unfortunately, regulators do not accept assumptions as documentation. If there’s no clear waste determination on file, that alone can be cited during an inspection. Misclassifying dust can also have ripple effects. If collected dust is later found to be hazardous, the facility may face issues related to improper disposal, incorrect generator status, or even cleanup liability at the disposal site. What began as a routine housekeeping task can suddenly become a significant compliance issue.

Storage, disposal, and the risks of getting it wrong

Even when dust is correctly identified as non-hazardous, it still needs to be managed properly. Open containers, poor labeling, and inconsistent handling practices are common findings during inspections. These issues are often viewed as minor, but they can quickly escalate if dust is released, mixed with other waste streams, or stored improperly.

Recycling adds another layer of complexity. Many facilities recycle metal dusts or other recoverable materials, which can be a smart environmental and economic decision. However, recyclable doesn't mean unregulated. Dust being recycled still needs to be stored safely, managed to prevent releases, and documented as legitimate recycling. Without proper controls, regulators may view the material as improperly managed waste.

Outdoor storage creates additional risk. Dust stored outside, transferred outdoors, or tracked out of the building can easily become a stormwater concern. Even non-hazardous dust can be considered a pollutant if it migrates off-site during rain events. This is a frequent source of violations under stormwater permits and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs), especially when dust management isn’t addressed in the SWPPP.

Another common issue is mixing dust with general trash or other waste streams. Once mixed, otherwise manageable dust can become more difficult or impossible to classify correctly. This can complicate disposal, increase costs, and raise questions during audits or inspections.

What makes dust especially challenging is that responsibility for it often falls into a gray area. The safety team may assume that the environmental team is managing disposal. The environmental team may assume that the safety team has already classified the material. When no one clearly owns the waste determination and disposal process, gaps are almost guaranteed.

The most effective facilities treat dust as a waste stream that deserves the same attention as any other regulated material. They document waste determinations, define storage and labeling requirements, train employees on proper handling, and periodically revisit those determinations as processes change.

Keys to remember: Captured dust doesn’t stop being regulated once it leaves the air. Understanding whether collected dust is hazardous or non-hazardous, how it must be stored, and where it can legally go is essential to staying compliant.

2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

Wisconsin raises, adds fees to NSR construction permit program

This applies to: Construction air permit applicants

Effective date: April 1, 2026

Description of change: The New Source Review (NSR) construction permit program requires applicants to obtain an NSR permit before constructing, reconstructing, replacing, relocating, or modifying stationary sources that emit air contaminants. The amendments:

Increase most construction permit fees by 20 percent,
Adjust certain fees to better align with actual workload, and
Add new fees for:
- Permit revisions,
- Public hearing requests from someone other than the applicant, and
- Incorporating consent decree requirements into permits.

Related state info: Clean air operating permits state comparison

2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

California codifies requirements for pesticide applications near schools

Effective date: January 1, 2026

This applies to: Pesticide applications made for agricultural commodity production within ¼ mile of a school

Description of change: Assembly Bill 1864 (effective January 1, 2025) regulates pesticide applications for the production of agricultural commodities within ¼ mile of a school.

The amendments to the rule require applicants to:

Obtain a separate site identification number for the part of an agricultural field within ¼ mile of a “schoolsite," and
List the anticipated method of application for notices of intent and pesticide use reports.

Further, the amendments change the definition of “schoolsite” to include private schools that serve six or more students (kindergarten through grade 12), which will become effective on December 31, 2026.

Most Recent Highlights In Safety & Health

2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

Washington adopts regulations for battery collection program

Effective date: January 16, 2026

This applies to: Producers of batteries and battery-containing products

Description of change: The Washington Department of Ecology adopted a new rule for the Battery Stewardship Program, required by a law passed in 2023 to establish an extended producer responsibility program for battery collection. The regulations implement the law, requiring battery producers to fund a statewide recycling program with collection sites where people can drop off used or unwanted batteries.

Covered batteries include most rechargeable and single-use batteries that people use daily (e.g., AAs, AAAs, Cs, Ds, 9-Volts, and button batteries). The regulations also cover battery-containing products.

The new rule establishes program requirements (e.g., adding required information on batteries), applicable fees, and battery collection and handling standards. It requires battery producers to join and fully fund a nonprofit to serve as a Battery Stewardship Organization, which administers the program.

2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

New Jersey adopts REAL rule amendments

Effective date: January 20, 2026

This applies to: New development, redevelopment, and substantial improvements to buildings

Description of change: The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) adopted amendments to the Resilient Environments and Landscapes (REAL) regulation that add new rules, repeal some rules, and amend other rules for land-use regulations. It affects multiple regulations, such as the:

Coastal Zone Management Rules,
Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act Rules,
Stormwater Management rules, and
Flood Hazard Area Control Act Rules.

Examples of requirements include inundation risk assessments, on-site alternatives analyses, and risk acknowledgements.

The DEP allows certain applications to be reviewed under the previous regulations until July 20, 2026. The DEP website offers guidance to help regulated entities determine which rule version applies.

2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

California restricts 1,3-dichloropropene use

Effective date: January 1, 2026

This applies to: Uses of 1,3-dichloropropene for agricultural production

Description of change: The California Department of Pesticide Regulation restricts the use of 1,3-dichloropropene to minimize exposure for occupational bystanders. It establishes buffer zone distances (i.e., distances from the edge of a treated area where certain activities are restricted) and related requirements.

The rulemaking also updates the field fumigation requirements document (1,3-Dichloropropene Field Fumigation Requirements, Rev. January 1, 2026).

2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

New Hampshire amends asbestos rule

Effective date: January 1, 2026

This applies to: Any person who renovates or demolishes an asbestos-containing building and any person involved in asbestos abatement activities

Description of change: The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services adopted and readopted with amendments rules for asbestos management and control. Changes include:

Adding new categories of major asbestos abatement,
Reducing the timeframe to submit a demolition notification for residential projects if it’s submitted online with supporting documentation,
Raising current notification and application fees, and
Removing a question from nine application forms.

Most Recent Highlights In Human Resources

2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

District of Columbia extends tuning combustion process deadline

Effective date: January 16, 2026

This applies to: Fuel-burning equipment with a heat input capacity of 5,000,000 British thermal units per hour or more

Description of change: The Department of Energy and Environment extended the annual deadline for tuning the combustion process for fuel-burning equipment from November 1 to December 31. It gives regulated sources more flexibility to complete combustion adjustments. The requirements are contained in 20 DCMR 805.5.

Related state info: Clean air operating permits state comparison

2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

California adds nail product chemical to priority list

Effective date: April 1, 2026

This applies to: Domestic and foreign manufacturers of nail coatings and artificial nails with more than 1,000 parts per million (ppm) of methyl methacrylate (MMA) that sell their products in California

Description of change: The California Department of Toxic Substances Control added nail products with concentrations of 1,000 ppm or more of MMA to the Priority Product list, making the substance subject to regulation.

Covered manufacturers must submit a Priority Product Notification by June 1, 2026, that lists the covered products sold in California as either an intentionally added ingredient, a contaminant, or a residual.

Manufacturers will then have to submit by September 28, 2026, one of the following:

A Chemical Removal Intent/Confirmation Notification,
A Product Removal Intent/Confirmation Notification,
A Product-Chemical Replacement Intent/Confirmation Notification, or
A Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report or other alternate reporting options.

2026-01-26T06:00:00Z

Proposal expected: OSHA to step away from costly fixed-ladder deadline

OSHA is fast-tracking a proposed rule to remove a 2036 mandate to upgrade fall protection systems on fixed ladders that extend over 24 feet. The agency says the change, sparked by an industry petition, would allow employers to update their ladders at the end of their service lives, rather than by a hard compliance date. OSHA frames the move as deregulatory.

The affected regulation, 29 CFR 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D), currently reads: “(i) For fixed ladders that extend more than 24 feet (7.3 m) above a lower level, the employer must ensure: … (D) Final deadline. On and after November 18, 2036, all fixed ladders are equipped with a personal fall arrest system or a ladder safety system.”

What’s happened?

A quick look at the rule’s development shows:

7/28/2025 — OSHA received a petition for rulemaking that covers obligations for ladder retrofits under 1910.28(b)(9).
9/15/2025 — OSHA posted a memo confirming it intends to eliminate 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D).
12/18/2025 — OSHA sent its Walking-Working Surfaces (WWS) - Fixed Ladders proposal to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).
1/13/2026 — OIRA and OSHA met with the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM).
1/21/2026 — OIRA and OSHA met with the Employers OSHA Modernization Coalition.
1/27/2026 — OIRA plans to meet with attorneys representing the American Petroleum Institute (API).

What did the petition request?

The seven-page petition, written by legal counsel on behalf of the AFPM, API, and American Chemistry Council (ACC), requests that OSHA:

Withdraw the provision under the WWS standard for fixed ladders that extend more than 24 feet to be equipped with personal fall arrest systems (allowing the continued use of ladder cages or wells); or
Grandfather fixed ladders installed before a particular date (authorizing the continued use of existing ladder cages or wells for those ladders).

Unjustified provision?

Petitioners argue that OSHA, in its 2010 proposed WWS rule, failed to:

Take comments on the effectiveness of cages in protecting workers from falls,
Disclose that the agency was evaluating whether to prohibit cages, and
Give stakeholders a chance to submit evidence regarding cages.

The petition outlines the differences between the earlier proposed and final rules, noting that the 2010 proposal gave employers the choice to use any of four fall-protection types — cages, wells, ladder safety systems, or personal fall protection systems. However, the 2016 final rule gave a 2036 phase-out date for cages and wells.

The petition goes on to contend that:

OSHA lacks sufficient evidence to justify prohibiting cages and wells;
Data collected during the rulemaking process leaned toward preserving employer choices for fall protection; and
Although the 2016 rulemaking preamble acknowledged the shift away from cages and wells, it did not fully discuss evidence in favor of cages and wells.

Other arguments in the petition

The petition raises several points questioning the benefits of paragraph (b)(9)(i)(D), stating that:

In the past decade, AFPM, API, and ACC facilities have suffered only a few injuries, with no fatalities involving cages and wells;
Cages offer passive protection, whereas ladder safety systems and personal fall arrest systems require workers to take action to comply;
Personal protective equipment (PPE) lies at the bottom of the hierarchy of controls;
Safety risks also exist for ladder safety systems and personal fall arrest systems; and
Installing new ladders or retrofitting existing ones introduces hazards to those performing that work.

Finally, the petition addresses significant compliance costs, estimating several billion dollars for tens of thousands of ladders at U.S. refineries alone. Petitioners also cited additional expenses for rerating pressure vessels and engineering any process equipment changes.

What does OSHA say?

OSHA officially announced in a September 2025 memo that it is proposing to remove 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D). The agency calls it a deregulatory action in line with Executive Order 14192. The memo reasons, “OSHA anticipates this change will allow employers to update their ladders when the ladders reach the end of their service lives, accommodating the lengthy service life of fixed ladders, while significantly reducing costs and offering greater flexibility.”

The WWS - Fixed Ladders proposal reached OIRA on December 18. OIRA typically takes 90 to 120 days for review, but recently a maximum 28-day review period for deregulatory actions was implemented. That means we anticipate OIRA will rush this proposal, so that OSHA may publish it in the Federal Register.

Key to remember

An upcoming OSHA proposal would withdraw 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D). The rule was spurred by a petition.

2026-01-22T06:00:00Z

Wildfire air pollution is rising: What federal findings mean for industry compliance

Wildfires have become one of the largest drivers of elevated air pollution in the United States, and recent federal publications show that their impact is increasing in both scale and severity. EPA confirms that large and catastrophic wildfires now produce substantial increases in fine particulate matter (PM2.5) across broad regions of the country, including smoke transported from Canada and Mexico. These events are raising background PM2.5 levels and expanding the number of communities experiencing smoke each year. As these trends accelerate, industries face new challenges in compliance, permitting, and worker protection, especially as wildfire seasons grow longer and smoke events more frequent.

Federal research shows PM2.5 from wildfires increasing nationwide

EPA’s most recent wildfire smoke analysis shows clear year to year increases in PM2.5 concentrations attributed to wildfire smoke across the United States. Data from 2006–2020 demonstrate that smoke driven PM2.5 spikes are occurring more often and across a wider geographic footprint. The agency reports that national public health impacts are significant, with thousands of annual emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and deaths linked to wildfire smoke exposure.

The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) 2025 federal wildfire smoke review supports these findings. Using space-based instrumentation GOES 19, TEMPO, and other satellite scientific tools, NOAA shows that thick smoke plumes from Canadian and U.S. fires degraded air quality across the Upper Midwest and other regions, even hundreds of miles from the fires. These satellite observations are paired with EPA ground monitors to identify high pollution zones and support air quality alerts.

Together, EPA and NOAA findings confirm that wildfire smoke is a major and rising contributor to PM2.5 levels, which is important for industries located in or downwind of wildfire prone areas.

Exceptional events

A central compliance question for industry is whether wildfire related pollution counts toward National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) attainment. Under the Exceptional Events Rule, wildfire smoke can be excluded from NAAQS determinations if states demonstrate that exceedances were caused by an uncontrollable natural event. EPA’s wildfire smoke guidance highlights the increasing burden of documenting smoke impacts and shows how PM2.5 spikes related to fires have grown more common.

The agency acknowledges that wildfire smoke frequently pushes PM2.5 concentrations into unhealthy ranges. During the 2023 Canadian wildfire episode, for example, EPA referenced surveillance showed measurable increases in asthma related emergency room (ER) visits. Even when these pollution spikes qualify as exceptional events, they still influence public health, air quality planning, and operational decisions for industry.

At the same time, NOAA continues to refine federal smoke forecasting models used by the National Weather Service (NWS) and EPA. These models help states prepare exceptional event documentation and guide industrial contingency planning when wildfire smoke is anticipated.

Why industry EHS professionals should pay close attention

Compliance and attainment risk: Wildfire smoke may be excluded as an exceptional event, but elevated PM2.5 levels can still push a region toward nonattainment before exclusion is approved. This creates uncertainty for industries during permit renewals, emissions modeling, and long-term facility planning. EPA’s data clearly indicate that wildfire driven PM2.5 exceedances are rising nationwide.
Worker exposure and health risk: EPA and NOAA findings confirm that wildfire smoke carries fine particulate matter capable of worsening respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. Industries with outdoor workers must consider revised exposure protocols, respirators, and schedule adjustments during smoke episodes.
Operational and supply chain stability: NOAA’s wildfire smoke analysis shows that smoke can travel long distances, disrupt visibility, affect logistics, and degrade regional air quality for days or weeks. Companies dependent on transportation corridors or sensitive equipment should plan for smoke related delays and monitoring.
Community and stakeholder expectations: Even when deemed an exceptional event, wildfire smoke contributes to local risk perceptions. Facilities may face increased scrutiny, especially if their emissions interact with elevated regional PM2.5.

Bottom line for industry

Federal research shows that wildfire driven air pollution is increasing in both frequency and intensity, often raising PM2.5 concentrations across entire regions. EPA’s Exceptional Events Rule may exclude wildfire smoke from NAAQS compliance, but industries still face operational, health, and planning challenges as wildfire seasons intensify. NOAA’s satellite data confirms that smoke impacts will continue to widen under changing climate conditions.

Key to remember: For EHS professionals, wildfire smoke is no longer only a regional hazard. It is a strategic compliance and operational issue requiring enhanced monitoring, seasonal planning, and proactive communication.

2026-01-15T06:00:00Z

Defining RCRA solid waste: Does your material qualify?

What’s a solid waste? It may seem obvious at first, but understanding the correct definition is essential for facilities to comply with the federal waste management program. If the question is answered incorrectly, there can be serious consequences. Mismanaged waste (especially when it’s hazardous) can endanger the health of people and the environment.

Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the entire lifecycle of waste, from creation to disposal. Only materials that qualify as “solid waste” — whether they’re nonhazardous or hazardous — are subject to RCRA requirements. That’s why all waste generators need to have an accurate understanding of how solid waste is defined.

Use this overview to help your facility determine if the waste it generates qualifies as solid waste.

What’s a RCRA solid waste?

The statutory definition (42 U.S.C. 6903(27)) and the regulatory definition (40 CFR 261.2) explain what’s considered a solid waste under RCRA.

Statutory definition

The act defines solid waste as:

Garbage;
Refuse;
Sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility; or
Any other discarded material from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations and from community activities.

It applies to physically solid, semisolid, liquid, and gaseous materials.

Regulatory definition

EPA (per 262.11) requires anyone who generates a solid waste to accurately determine whether the waste is hazardous. The first part of the hazardous waste identification process is to establish whether the material is a solid waste. EPA expanded the definition of solid waste for this purpose.

The regulation further defines solid waste as any material that’s discarded by being:

Abandoned (defined in 261.2(b)),
Recycled (defined in 261.2(c)),
Considered inherently waste-like (defined in 261.2(d)), or
A military munition (defined in 266.202).

If a material doesn’t meet these criteria, it’s not considered a solid waste and isn’t subject to RCRA regulations. If the criteria do apply, the material qualifies as a RCRA solid waste, and your facility must comply with EPA’s standards for managing either nonhazardous or hazardous RCRA waste.

What’s not a RCRA solid waste?

Many materials are excluded from the definition of solid waste. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that these wastes are unregulated; some are excluded because other regulations apply (for example, industrial wastewater point source discharges are subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System rules). Make sure to check if other requirements apply to excluded materials.

Statutory exclusions

RCRA’s definition of solid waste excludes:

Solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage;
Solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows;
Industrial wastewater discharges only at point sources (it doesn’t exclude industrial wastewaters collected, stored, or treated before discharge or sludges generated by industrial wastewater treatment); and
Source, special nuclear, or byproduct material defined by the Atomic Energy Act.

Regulatory exclusions

EPA lists the wastes that are exempt from the definition of solid waste at 261.4. It excludes all of the wastes that the statutory definition does. The agency also exempts other wastes under certain conditions (such as spent sulfuric acid used to produce virgin sulfuric acid, reclaimed secondary materials reused in production, and recycled shredded circuit boards).

Why does this matter?

Knowing what’s considered solid waste is vital to compliance because it tells you if RCRA rules apply to your specific waste.

It’s also the first part of the hazardous waste identification process. Facilities use the process to determine how solid waste is regulated, either as nonhazardous waste subject to RCRA Subtitle D rules or as hazardous waste subject to RCRA Subtitle C standards.

Check state requirements

Most states implement the RCRA waste management regulations. State rules must be at least as strict as federal, and some states may have more stringent requirements. Check with your facility’s state environmental agency to confirm what standards apply.

Key to remember: Defining solid waste is the first step in determining whether RCRA rules apply to a material.

New Network Poll

No active poll

Please come back soon!

View Previous Polls & Results

Most Popular Highlights In Environmental

2026-02-13T06:00:00Z

EPA reverses Endangerment Finding, scraps GHG emission standards for vehicles

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule on February 18, 2026, to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repeal all federal greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for:

On-highway light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles; and
On-highway heavy-duty vehicle engines.

The final rule takes effect on April 20, 2026, and applies to vehicles and engines of model years 2012 to 2027 and beyond.

What are the changes?

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

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

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

The final rule also eliminates:

All off-cycle credits for the addition of certain technological features (e.g., high-efficiency exterior lighting, waste heat recovery, and active seat ventilation); and
EPA’s incentives for manufacturers to add a start-stop system (which automatically shuts off a vehicle’s engine during idling).

What doesn’t change?

EPA’s following regulations remain in effect for new motor vehicles and vehicle engines:

Criteria pollutant and air toxic measurement and standards,
Corporate Average Fuel Economy testing, and
Associated fuel economy labeling requirements.

About the 2009 Endangerment Finding

EPA has regulated GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines through:

Emission standards and related requirements, and
Engine and vehicle certification requirements.

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

2026-01-26T06:00:00Z

Proposal expected: OSHA to step away from costly fixed-ladder deadline

What’s happened?

A quick look at the rule’s development shows:

7/28/2025 — OSHA received a petition for rulemaking that covers obligations for ladder retrofits under 1910.28(b)(9).
9/15/2025 — OSHA posted a memo confirming it intends to eliminate 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D).
12/18/2025 — OSHA sent its Walking-Working Surfaces (WWS) - Fixed Ladders proposal to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).
1/13/2026 — OIRA and OSHA met with the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM).
1/21/2026 — OIRA and OSHA met with the Employers OSHA Modernization Coalition.
1/27/2026 — OIRA plans to meet with attorneys representing the American Petroleum Institute (API).

What did the petition request?

The seven-page petition, written by legal counsel on behalf of the AFPM, API, and American Chemistry Council (ACC), requests that OSHA:

Withdraw the provision under the WWS standard for fixed ladders that extend more than 24 feet to be equipped with personal fall arrest systems (allowing the continued use of ladder cages or wells); or
Grandfather fixed ladders installed before a particular date (authorizing the continued use of existing ladder cages or wells for those ladders).

Unjustified provision?

Petitioners argue that OSHA, in its 2010 proposed WWS rule, failed to:

Take comments on the effectiveness of cages in protecting workers from falls,
Disclose that the agency was evaluating whether to prohibit cages, and
Give stakeholders a chance to submit evidence regarding cages.

The petition goes on to contend that:

OSHA lacks sufficient evidence to justify prohibiting cages and wells;
Data collected during the rulemaking process leaned toward preserving employer choices for fall protection; and
Although the 2016 rulemaking preamble acknowledged the shift away from cages and wells, it did not fully discuss evidence in favor of cages and wells.

Other arguments in the petition

The petition raises several points questioning the benefits of paragraph (b)(9)(i)(D), stating that:

In the past decade, AFPM, API, and ACC facilities have suffered only a few injuries, with no fatalities involving cages and wells;
Cages offer passive protection, whereas ladder safety systems and personal fall arrest systems require workers to take action to comply;
Personal protective equipment (PPE) lies at the bottom of the hierarchy of controls;
Safety risks also exist for ladder safety systems and personal fall arrest systems; and
Installing new ladders or retrofitting existing ones introduces hazards to those performing that work.

What does OSHA say?

Key to remember

An upcoming OSHA proposal would withdraw 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D). The rule was spurred by a petition.

2025-12-05T06:00:00Z

EPA’s 2026 regulatory shift: How environmental managers can stay ahead

The clock is ticking for environmental teams. By 2026, several new EPA regulations will reshape compliance obligations for U.S. companies. Organizations that act now will avoid costly penalties and operational disruptions.

What’s changing and why it matters

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

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

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

Key areas of impact

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

Steps to take now

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

Looking ahead

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

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

2025-09-05T05:00:00Z

Update: EPA withdraws direct rule, keeps proposed rule for alternative CCR reporting option

On September 4, 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew a direct final rule it issued on July 22, 2025, that offered active and inactive coal combustion residuals (CCR) facilities an alternative reporting option and delayed corresponding compliance obligations for CCR management units (CCRMUs). However, the parallel proposed rule that was published with the direct final rule remains in place, and EPA has extended the comment period through September 15, 2025.

Who does this affect?

The direct and proposed rules impact (a) active CCR facilities and (b) inactive CCR facilities with inactive surface impoundments (called legacy CCR surface impoundments) that are regulated by the 2024 Legacy Rule.

What does this mean?

Because the direct rule was withdrawn, the alternative reporting option for the Facility Evaluation Report (FER) Part 1 doesn’t apply, and the compliance deadlines for the related CCRMU requirements revert to the previous timelines.

The parallel proposed rule remains active and contains the same changes as the withdrawn direct final rule, including:

Adding an alternative option for active CCR facilities and legacy CCR surface impoundments to submit FER Parts 1 and 2 together by February 8, 2027; and
Extending the related compliance deadlines for facilities with CCRMUs.

Further, the proposed rule seeks public input on potentially delaying both FER reporting deadlines and adjusting the CCRMU compliance timelines accordingly. The proposed additional extension would give CCR facilities the option to:

Submit FER Part 1 by February 8, 2027, and FER Part 2 by February 8, 2028; or
Submit FER Parts 1 and 2 together by February 8, 2028.

You can submit comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2020-0107.

Please see the original Industry News article ("EPA offers CCR facilities delayed reporting option and extends compliance deadlines") for more information about the withdrawn direct rule and the active proposed rule.

Key to remember: EPA has withdrawn a direct final rule that offered active and inactive coal combustion facilities an alternative reporting option, but the agency has kept the corresponding proposed rule in place.

2023-06-22T05:00:00Z

Don’t let helping turn into hospitalization with unreported exposure to bloodborne pathogens

OSHA requires employers to implement a bloodborne pathogen exposure control plan for the workplace that details protective measures for employees as well as reporting requirements. But is enough being done to ensure exposures aren’t leading to more infections? It’s the employer’s responsibility to determine which job classifications or specific tasks and procedures involve occupational exposure and to encourage workers to report incidents.

Employees designated as first responders have a risk of exposure, but any worker electing to help an injured coworker could be exposed to blood and other potentially infectious materials (OPIMs). When employees fail to report exposure, or even potential exposure, to bloodborne pathogens at work, they don’t receive appropriate assessment and care. This can lead to extremely serious health consequences, including hospitalization.

As soon as safely possible after a potential exposure, employees should remove any potentially contaminated clothing and wash the affected area with soap and water. (NOTE: Application of antiseptics is not a substitute for washing.) If there is exposure to the eyes, nose, or mouth, flush them thoroughly with water, saline, or sterile irritants. If a sharps injury occurs, wash the exposed area with soap and water but don’t “milk” or squeeze the wound to avoid additional exposure. It’s important that employees understand there’s no medical evidence that using antiseptics like hydrogen peroxide will reduce the risk of transmission of any bloodborne pathogens.

Documenting exposures in a way that ensures confidentiality is vital. Without documentation, employers are unable to investigate and identify causes. Without understanding causes, remediations cannot be made to protect responders or prevent recurrence.

What prevents workers from reporting?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) completed a study that revealed several reasons employees are reluctant to report a bloodborne pathogen exposure. These include:

Being unsure of what constitutes a bloodborne pathogen, an exposure, or a potential exposure;
Worrying reporting may result in a negative performance review;
Knowing they weren’t wearing the proper personal protection equipment (PPE);
Fearing discipline, retaliation, or loss of their job;
Having concerns about confidentiality;
Feeling guilty that the exposure may have been their fault;
Believing that wiping blood or other body fluids off their clothes or skin prevents exposure; and
Wanting to avoid taking time away from work to report an exposure.

Protecting the workforce

Protecting workers is as simple as 1-2-3. Employers should ensure workers follow these guidelines:

Avoid close, skin-to-skin contact and contact with sharp objects when caring for an injured person.
Avoid contact with objects and materials that may contain blood or OPIMs.
Practice effective personal hygiene and workplace sanitation by cleaning and disinfecting immediately after treating an injured person.

Employers can ensure worker protection by:

Training workers on the hazards of bloodborne pathogen exposures, the health consequences if left untreated, proper hygiene and sanitation protocols, and how to report exposures;
Ensuring workers are familiar with existing emergency protocols and the locations of emergency eyewash stations or showers and first aid stations;
Instituting and communicating a post-exposure evaluation process;
Assuring employees that reports will not adversely affect their employment or performance evaluations and that reports are handled confidentially;
Establishing a mandatory policy to immediately report all exposures or potential exposures;
Providing appropriate protective equipment and supplies, such as gloves, masks, sharps containers, and disinfection and hazardous material disposal supplies;
Implementing a system for reporting that is efficient to use and maintains confidentiality;
Issuing regular reminders to workers to report all exposures to blood and other body fluids; and
Cultivating a positive safety culture that promotes trust, care, and protection for everyone.

Keys to Remember

Employers must protect workers from the risk of exposure to bloodborne pathogens. This includes protecting responders from illness or hospitalization resulting from unreported exposures. Protecting workers requires continual communication of hazards, proper training and supplies, assurance of accountability, and a positive safety culture.

2026-02-13T06:00:00Z

EPA delays CCR management unit reporting, related requirements

Who’s impacted?

The final rule applies to:

Active CCR facilities, and
Inactive CCR facilities with inactive surface impoundments (i.e., legacy CCR surface impoundments).

Additionally, the 2024 Legacy Final Rule requires facilities with CCRMUs to:

Establish a website to publicize the facility’s CCR information;
Conduct groundwater monitoring activities (specifically, install a groundwater monitoring system, develop a sampling and analysis plan, collect independent samples, and perform detection and assessment monitoring);
Submit the initial annual groundwater monitoring and corrective action (GWMCA) report; and
Comply with closure and post-closure care obligations.

What are the changes?

EPA’s final rule extends compliance deadlines for the following standards:

Compliance requirement(s)	2024 Legacy Final Rule deadline	2026 final rule new deadline
Establish CCR website	February 9, 2026	February 9, 2027
Submit FER Part 1	February 9, 2026	February 9, 2027
Submit FER Part 2	February 8, 2027	February 8, 2028
Install groundwater monitoring system	May 8, 2028	February 10, 2031
Develop groundwater sampling and analysis program	May 8, 2028	February 10, 2031
Start detection and assessment monitoring Start evaluating groundwater monitoring data for statistically significant increases over background levels and statistically significant levels over groundwater protection standards	May 8, 2028	February 10, 2031
Submit initial GWMCA report	January 31, 2029	January 31, 2032
Submit closure plan	November 8, 2028	August 11, 2031
Submit post-closure care plan	November 8, 2028	August 11, 2031
Initiate closure	May 8, 2029	February 9, 2032

Most Popular Highlights In Transportation

2026-02-12T06:00:00Z

Tired of CDL MVR medical certification drama? A guide to smoother updates

Ensuring that commercial driver’s license (CDL) Motor Vehicle Record (MVR) updates occur promptly after each Department of Transportation (DOT) medical exam has become more challenging since the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) National Registry Integration 2 (NRII) went live on June 23, 2025. The NRII was designed to streamline the process by automatically transferring exam results to state driver licensing agencies (SDLAs). However, delays remain common — often stretching beyond two weeks. Understanding the causes behind these delays and knowing how to prevent or resolve them is essential for maintaining compliance and reducing administrative headaches.

How the NRII process works (and why delays happen)

Under the NRII, medical examiners must enter a driver’s exam result into the National Registry no later than the end of the next calendar day. The FMCSA then sends these results to the appropriate SDLA so the information can be posted to the CDL MVR.

The most frequent source of delays is data-entry errors in the examiner’s electronic medical card (MCSA5850). Mistakes in key identifying information — such as name, date of birth, CDL number, or state of licensure — prevent the SDLA from validating the submission. When this happens, examiners receive an email alert but must correct the error before the SDLA can receive and post the record.

The FMCSA recognized early that MVR update delays were widespread, which led to several waivers. The current waiver, effective January 11 through April 10, 2026, allows carriers and drivers to rely on paper medical cards for up to 60 days after the exam.

Best practices for drivers and carriers

Proactive steps can significantly reduce both delays and compliance disruptions. Consider implementing the following:

1. Schedule exams early.

Encourage drivers to complete their exams at least two weeks before their certification expires. Maintain internal reminders to ensure drivers promptly report exam results and share a copy of their medical card.

2. Verify license information at the end of the exam.

Ask drivers to confirm that their personal information — name, date of birth, CDL number, and licensing state — matches what appears on the medical examination report (MCSA5876). Incorrect CDL formatting continues to be one of the most common causes of the NRII upload failures.

3. Request and retain a paper medical card.

Even though examiners aren’t required to issue a paper medical card, the FMCSA recommends that they do so during the NRII transition. Drivers should receive a paper card as these are legal proof of certification for up to 60 days under the current waiver and help prevent them from being placed out of service. A copy should go in the driver qualification file to be replaced by the updated MVR within 60 days.

4. Check MVRs within 2–5 days after each exam.

Early monitoring helps identify issues while examiners may be more receptive and able to quickly correct errors.

How to troubleshoot delayed MVR updates

The FMCSA recommends following a structured, three step troubleshooting process:

Step 1: Contact the medical examiner.

Confirm that they addressed any National Registry validation errors and resubmitted the MCSA5850. This is the most common issue that’s easily resolved.

Step 2: Reach out to the SDLA’s CDL help desk.

If issues pop up, carriers and drivers should contact the CDL help desk, not the general help line. Ideally, the call should include both a knowledgeable carrier representative and the driver. Begin by explaining that the examiner has already corrected any errors. Then request that the SDLA’s medicalcertification team “pull” the record directly from the National Registry.

Step 3: Contact the FMCSA Registry Support team if needed.

If steps 1 and 2 don’t resolve the issue, carriers and drivers should contact the FMCSA Registry Support team:

Phone: (617) 4943003

Email: fmctechsup@dot.gov

If the problem still isn’t resolved, carriers and drivers should document the steps taken to show good-faith efforts were made. If the driver’s MVR doesn’t update within the waiver period, to reduce the risk of having a disqualified driver citation, carriers should consider removing them from CMV driving until the MVR updates.

Key to remember: When carriers and drivers proactively manage medical exam timing and closely track MVR updates, they are less likely to face disqualification surprises or other compliance issues.

2026-02-19T06:00:00Z

FMCSA finalizes 12 deregulatory changes

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has finalized a broad array of deregulatory changes affecting vehicle standards, inspection requirements, emergency equipment, licensing rules, and more.

Published February 19, 2026, the rule changes have limited impact but they represent the FMCSA’s first salvo at providing regulatory relief under the Trump administration. More rule changes are expected in the near future.

What’s changing

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

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

More rules on the way?

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

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

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

2026-02-11T06:00:00Z

CARB Clean Truck Check remains enforceable

Don’t misunderstand the recent action from EPA — it does not shut down California’s Clean Truck Check (CTC) program. The state can still enforce the requirements, and trucks operating in the state must continue meeting inspection and emissions requirements.

In January, the U.S. EPA issued a “final partial disapproval” of California's Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (HD I/M) program (also known as Clean Truck Check, or CTC). The move defines which emission reduction credits California can count toward the State Implementation Plan (SIP).

The partial disapproval prevents California from factoring in all of the emission reductions from CTC. Only the emission reductions from California-registered vehicles will count toward the federally mandated attainment demonstration required by the SIP.

What this means for California/CARB

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) may continue state-level enforcement of CTC for all in-state, out-of-state, and foreign-registered vehicles. However, they cannot claim SIP credit for emissions reductions from vehicles not registered in California.

What this means for trucking companies

Trucks not registered in California may still be subject to California enforcement, but EPA will not enforce those requirements federally. California cannot use those inspections or emissions reductions for SIP compliance.

Compliance options for testing

To comply with CARB’s CTC requirements, trucking companies can choose from multiple emissions testing options. Those options include:

A telematics-based approach: The telematics option is a “set-it-and-forget-it” onboard diagnostics (OBD) test option. With this option, once the telematics device is set up on the vehicle, required data is automatically submitted to CARB.
Hiring a credentialed tester to perform compliance testing: There are more than 30,000 credentialed testers, 15,000 of which are for hire. The “Credentialed Tester List - CTC-VIS” website features real-time updates to the list.
Checking out a testing device from specified locations: Anyone can become a credentialed tester by taking the Tester Training Course and passing the exam in the Clean Truck Check-Vehicle Inspection System (CTC-VIS). Fleets can then perform the testing in-house without the need to hire third-party testers.
Permit option: Finally, for vehicles that rarely operate in California, the HD I/M Regulation includes a five-day pass provision that allows any vehicle in the fleet to be operated in California for up to five consecutive days once per year without meeting the requirements of the rule.

FAQ: Does this regulation apply to my truck or fleet?

CTC applies to almost all diesel, alternative fuel, and hybrid vehicles, with a gross vehicle weight rating over 14,000 pounds, operating on public roads and highways in California — even if they are not registered in California. This includes:

Government vehicles;
Motorcoaches;
Transit, shuttle, and school buses;
Hybrid vehicles;
Commercial and personal use vehicles;
California registered motorhomes; and
Single-vehicle fleets.

Freight contractors and brokers must:

Only contract with compliant vehicles or fleets, and
Comply with the record keeping requirements.

Ports and railyards also have requirements regarding CTC compliance status of vehicles and access to their facility.

Key to remember: EPA’s recent action does not end California’s CTC program. CARB enforcement continues, and trucks operating in the state are still required to comply with all program requirements.

2026-02-04T06:00:00Z

Top 20 hazmat violations of 2025

Shipping papers, placards, and cargo securement dominated the list of reasons drivers received hazardous materials (hazmat or HM) violations during roadside inspections in 2025.

Out of 3.1 million roadside inspections last year, there were 35,700 hazmat violations, and 26 percent of those resulted in an out-of-service (OOS) order. Being familiar with the most common hazmat violations can help drivers and motor carriers take steps to avoid them.

The following table lists the top 20 hazmat violations cited during roadside inspections in 2025, including:

The percentage of those violations that resulted in an OOS order; and
The severity points assigned to each violation in the Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) system.

Rank	Code	Description	Violations	OOS	CSA
1	172.504, 177.823(a)	Placards or ID numbers missing or incorrect	3,837	54%	5
2	177.834(a)	Inadequate HM cargo securement	3,561	99%	10
3	172.201, 172.202	HM shipping paper prepared improperly	2,463	1%	3
4	177.817(a)	No HM shipping paper	2,439	68%	3
5	172.516(c)	Placard damaged or improperly displayed	2,348	0%	5
6	177.817(e)	HM shipping papers inaccessible	1,906	2%	3
7	107.620(b)	No HM Registration Number in vehicle	1,819	0%	0
8	172.502(a)	Prohibited placarding	1,352	12%	5
9	177.801	Failing to properly prepare an HM shipment, or transporting forbidden HM	1,306	19%	2-10
10	172.600(c)	No emergency response information immediately available	1,153	0%	3
11	172.328(d)	Manual remote shutoff device improperly marked	923	0%	5
12	172.602(c)	Improper maintenance/ accessibility of Emergency Response information	916	0%	3
13	173.24(b)	Leaking HM packaging	786	91%	10
14	172.602(a)	Incomplete or missing emergency response information	748	0%	3
15	172.200(a)	No/improper shipping paper from offeror	713	18%	3
16	180.415	Improper cargo tank test information	608	0%	7
17	172.400(a)	Packaging not properly labeled	443	0%	5
18	172.332	Failing to display ID numbers	428	17%	5
19	172.506(a)	Failure to affix placards	345	10%	5
20	107.608	Failing to register with PHMSA	302	0%	0

Key to remember: Review the top roadside hazmat violations of 2025 and take steps to prevent them in 2026 and beyond.

2022-08-31T05:00:00Z

What are exempt for-hire carriers exempt from?

With carriers looking for additional revenue streams, many otherwise private and new carriers wonder whether they can become “exempt” for-hire carriers.

The “exempt for hire” designation is for property carriers that carry certain “exempt commodities,” but do so for compensation. The designation is a holdover from the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). Most of the commodities are minimally processed agriculture items, but there’s a fair number of surprises – both in what’s included and what’s not.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) provides a relatively short list of items that are not exempt in 49 CFR 372.115. The agency provides a much more robust list of both exempt and non-exempt commodities in Administrative Rule 119.

Exempt carriers are not required to have a motor carrier or MC number designating for-hire authority. However, exempt carriers are required to have a USDOT number. In order to maintain an exempt for-hire status, the carrier must never haul a commodity that is not exempt for compensation.

Do exempt carriers need to have proof of insurance?

Carriers that haul exempt commodities are required to have the minimum level of financial responsibility required by 49 CFR 387, and their insurance provider must provide the carrier with an MCS-90 endorsement. However, the insurance need not be on file with the FMCSA. Many states have insurance requirements both for the amount required and the need to carry proof of coverage in the vehicle. Federally exempt for-hire carriers are not exempted from any state requirement.

Are exempt for-hire carriers required to name process agents?

Currently, exempt-for hire carriers are not required to name process agents for each state of operation as other for-hire carriers are required to do so on the BOC-3 form. That may change when the FMCSA fully implements their Unified Registration System, or URS. The system was introduced with a final rule in the summer of 2013 and included a provision requiring exempt carriers to have process agents. Much of the rule was suspended at the beginning of 2017. At some point, the agency would like to get the URS ball rolling again.

Are exempt carriers exempt from IFTA, IRP, HVUT, and UCR?

Exempt for-hire carriers are not exempt from the alphabet soup of revenue generating programs of the International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) allowing for the sharing of fuel tax revenue, the International Registration Plan (IRP) allowing for the sharing of vehicle registration fees, the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) tax for heavy vehicles that weight 55,000 pounds or more, or for the Unified Carrier Registration (UCR) revenue generating program.

Are exempt carriers exempt from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs)?

Exempt carriers are not automatically exempt from the safety regulations such as driver qualifications, drug and alcohol testing, commercial driver licenses, vehicle inspections, or the hours-of-service rules. Although livestock and agriculture commodity carriers may qualify for the hours-of-service agriculture exemption.

Key to remember: “Exempt” commodity haulers are exempt from very little. Primarily they are exempt from needing for-hire authority and designating process agents.

2024-09-19T05:00:00Z

Your HUT decals are expiring: Registration open Oct. 1

For carriers operating in New York, registration and decals expire December 31, 2024, for the Highway Use Tax (HUT) and Automotive Fuel Carrier (AFC) programs. Take steps now to make sure you receive your new decals before the current ones expire. You need a new certificate of registration and decal for each vehicle. And you must place the new decals on your vehicles before January 1, 2025.

The period to renew your 24th series HUT and AFC certificates of registration begins October 1, 2024. Act now to avoid delays and keep your highway use tax credentials active.

To-do before October 1

Get ready for renewal by taking the following steps now:

File all your highway use tax returns that are due.
Pay your taxes. The state will not issue a new certificate of registration if you owe back taxes. Before you apply to renew, make sure that you’ve paid all taxes due under any of the programs administered by the New York State Tax Department, including:
- HUT,
- personal income tax,
- International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA),
- sales tax, and
- withholding tax.
Create an online account if you do not already have one and you want to renew your credentials and pay online (https://www.oscar.ny.gov/).
Make sure your vehicle registration information is correct and accurate. Review and update your information as soon as possible. Incorrect information will delay the processing of your certificates and decals.

Beginning October 1

Once the renewal period opens, renew your credentials and pay your renewal fees online with One Stop Credentialing and Registration (OSCAR).

Submit your renewal application by November 30, 2024, to make sure you receive your decals in time to place them on your vehicles before January 1, 2025.

If you are already enrolled in OSCAR, use your current OSCAR password to renew online.

If you are not enrolled, visit OSCAR, and select Enroll Now. You must have a United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) number and an employer identification number (EIN).

To renew your registration:

Visit the OSCAR website and select HUT Renewal from the Business Type drop-down.
Enter your information in the USDOT#, NYS Tax ID#, and Password fields, then select Log in.
If you have 300 or fewer vehicles, choose either:
1. Renew all HUT/AFC Certificates of Registration to renew all your active current series permits, or
2. Select HUT/AFC Certificates of Registration to renew specific permits.
If you have more than 300 vehicles, choose either:
1. Renew all to renew all your active current series permits, or
2. File renewal to renew select permits.

If you are unable to renew electronically, you may file Form TMT-1.2, Renewal Application for Highway Use Tax (HUT) and Automotive Fuel Carrier (AFC) Certificates of Registrations and Decals – 25th Series.

Key to remember: Take steps now to renew your NY HUT and ensure you receive your new decals before the current ones expire.

Most Popular Highlights In Human Resources

2026-02-18T06:00:00Z

Employer jumped to an FMLA abuse conclusion (and lost)

Employers don’t have to let employees take Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave for reasons that don’t qualify, nor should they. They shouldn’t, however, jump to conclusions about FMLA leave abuse when assessing someone’s leave reasons. Employers should look at all the facts involved before proceeding. A recent court decision agrees.

Case in point

In April, Toby, an employee, applied for FMLA leave for his chronic kidney stones. The certification indicated that he would need intermittent leave up to 3 times per month for 1 day per episode.

Things went fine until August 23, when Toby asked for time off. The conversation went something like this:

Toby: Can I have a personal day tomorrow because my kids are starting a new school?
Employer: Let me see if one’s available. It’s not available for tomorrow.
Toby: Well, okay. I guess you’ll have to put me on FMLA leave then.
Employer: OK, so FMLA for your kids’ school event.
Toby: Thank you.

Toby ended up taking 4 days of medical leave.

Based on the phone conversation, the employer charged Toby with FMLA misuse and removed him from work pending an investigatory hearing.

At the hearing, Jolanda, the company’s FMLA manager, said it was clear, based on the conversation, that Toby “….marked off FMLA for an unapproved reason”—so clear that “[t]here wasn’t a need” for the company to “determine if the leave that [Toby] requested was actually used for FMLA protection or for purposes of the FMLA.”

Toby said that he needed to be off both because his kids were starting a new school and because his medical condition had started to flare up. He explained that he initially asked for a personal day, rather than FMLA leave, so he would be paid for the day and could avoid using up his FMLA time.

Toby said he saw a doctor for his flare-up and provided a doctor’s note dated August 24. The note said that Toby had been under a doctor’s care from August 24 to 27.

After the hearing (and despite the doctor’s note), the employer concluded that Toby had misused FMLA leave and fired him.

Toby sued, and the court sided with him, disagreeing with the employer’s argument that Toby had misused FMLA leave. Toby had enough evidence to establish that the employer’s decision to fire him wasn’t “reasonably informed and considered….”

The employer’s only basis for believing Toby misused FMLA leave was his phone call. The call didn’t conclusively establish that Toby engaged in misconduct, especially given his testimony that he needed to deal with both medical needs and family obligations. The doctor’s note also provided evidence that Toby’s request for leave was legitimate.

Pack v. CSX Transportation, Inc.; Southern District of West Virginia; No. 3:24-0688; January 14, 2026.

Key to remember: Employers should look at all the facts of a situation before concluding that an employee abused FMLA leave.

2023-09-06T05:00:00Z

Appellate court sided with employee's (almost) 3-year-delayed FMLA claim

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

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

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

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

No link between leave and termination

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

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

Laffon appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit.

Statute of limitations

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

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

Ruling overturned

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

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

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

2026-02-10T06:00:00Z

Rejection of honest applicant drives trucking company to court

A Pennsylvania-based trucking company assumed they were saving time and money by dismissing a job applicant who was forthcoming about a past criminal record during an interview.

The company had informed the applicant they would run a criminal background check, prompting the applicant to tell them what that report would likely reveal; that 15 years earlier, he had been convicted of armed robbery and served 6 years in prison.

The company immediately rejected him, saying he wouldn’t be hired because of that conviction. Thanks to the wannabe driver’s honesty, they moved on without having to pay for a criminal background check. In the end, however, their decision cost them more time and money than ordering a background check would have.

The courts weigh in

After being dismissed from the hiring process, the applicant sued the trucking company, arguing that the rejection violated Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act. The Act is a state law that defines how employers can use a person’s criminal past when making hiring decisions. Under the law, employers must:

Show that a conviction relates to whether someone can do the job in question, and
Put it in writing if they turn down an applicant based on criminal history.

A district court threw out the case, saying that the law applies only when employers obtain criminal records from state agencies, not when applicants disclose information themselves.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit disagreed. In reversing the lower court’s decision, the judge explained that the statute focuses on what kind of information an employer receives, not where it comes from. The law protects information that is part of someone's criminal history record, regardless of the source.

The key distinction, the court found, is between the type of information and its origin. When the applicant disclosed his robbery conviction, the company received information that exists in his criminal history record file maintained by state agencies. That triggered the law's protections, even though the company learned about it directly from the applicant rather than through an official background check. 

No impact on ‘ban-the-box’ laws

The trucking company argued that interpreting the law this way would make legislation known as “ban-the-box” laws meaningless. Local ban-the-box ordinances prohibit employers from asking about criminal history on job applications. But the court rejected that reasoning. Pennsylvania's law doesn’t stop employers from asking about convictions; it just limits what they can do with the answers. Ban-the-box laws are another layer of protection cities can choose to require.

The company also tried to use an exception in the statute for information from certain public sources like court documents and police blotters. The court wasn’t persuaded by this argument because even if that exception applied to hiring discrimination claims, it doesn’t cover what an applicant voluntarily shares. The law lists specific exempted sources, and by omitting applicant disclosures from that list, the legislature signaled they shouldn’t be exempt. 

The decision sent the case back to the lower court, where the company will have to defend its actions. That means the trucking company must show why the applicant’s robbery conviction makes him unsuitable to drive their trucks, and whether the company provided proper written notice when it turned him down. 

Employers, especially those in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands – the states covered by the Third Circuit – should be aware that this ruling clarifies that criminal history laws apply uniformly. The protections don’t disappear if an applicant chooses to be honest during the hiring process. 

Key to remember: A federal circuit court ruled that learning about a criminal conviction from a job applicant triggered the same legal protections as learning about it through an official background check during the hiring process. 

2026-02-17T06:00:00Z

‘What do you mean, I can’t ask employees about their medications?’

Antihistamines, antidepressants, opioids, and drugs to treat anxiety or blood pressure. All these medications (and more) could cause employees to be sleepy, even while at work. Tiredness in certain jobs can be a safety risk for employees and others, yet employers must maintain safe workplaces. So, asking employees about their medications might seem like a step in the right safety direction.

But doing so could risk a discrimination claim. That’s because employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees because of a disability under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

As part of this, employers may ask employees medical questions, such as asking about medications, only when they have a reasonable belief, based on objective evidence (such as witnessing a situation firsthand), that a particular employee is unable to perform the job’s essential functions because of a medical condition. Employers may also ask about medications if they think an employee will pose a direct threat because of a medical condition.

Balancing safety concerns and limits

When employers have safety concerns about an employee, they may ask the employee medical questions, but there are limits.

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces the employment provisions of the ADA:

Employers must limit the scope of the inquiry to what is necessary to determine the employee’s ability to perform essential job functions or to assess the need for a reasonable accommodation.
The employee must authorize any direct communication with their health care provider (think HIPAA).

What is a direct threat?

A direct threat is something that poses a significant risk of substantial harm that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation. To determine whether an employee poses a direct threat in the workplace, employers should consider the following factors:

The duration of the risk,
The nature and severity of the potential harm,
The likelihood that potential harm will occur, and
The imminence of the potential harm.

If, for example, an employee operating a forklift appears sleepy, the employer may tell the employee to get off the forklift and discuss the situation. The employer could discover that the employee is sleepy because:

They had a late night out with friends,
A colicky baby kept them up, or
A drug or medication (legal or not) made them sleepy.

Employers shouldn’t jump to conclusions, but rather, document all related discussions and actions taken.

No hiding under a blanket

Blanket policies that require all employees to disclose all the medications they’re taking risk violating the ADA, because policies like that don’t focus on a particular employee, as required.

Employers with blanket policies should review them to make sure they aren’t adding risk.

If another federal law, such as the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act and its regulations, requires such medical questions, the ADA doesn’t stand in the way. If the laws don’t require the questions, the ADA steps in.

Key to remember: Unless required by another federal law, asking all employees to disclose the medications they take would risk violating the ADA.

2026-02-12T06:00:00Z

Federal contractor minimum wage increasing

Federal contractors covered by Executive Order (EO) 13658 will need to pay a minimum wage of $13.65 per hour as of May 11, 2026.

This is an increase of 35 cents per hour over the current rate, which took effect on January 1, 2025. The tipped employee rate will also go up, increasing from $9.30 to $9.55 per hour.

The Department of Labor announced the new rate in a notice published in the Federal Register on February 9.

The rate applies to federal contracts entered into between January 1, 2015, and January 29, 2022. The department notes that although the number of covered contracts has significantly decreased over the past several years, there are some existing contracts that remain subject to the EO 13658 minimum wage.

Contracts entered into on or after January 30, 2022, had been covered by the EO 14026 minimum wage, but this EO was revoked in 2025 and is no longer being enforced.

Contractors covered by EO 13658 will need to display a new poster once the rate increase takes effect.

Key to remember: Federal contractors covered by Executive Order 13658 will need to pay a higher minimum wage as of May 11. They will also need to update their posters.

2026-02-17T06:00:00Z

Remote work ends for federal employees — What this means for private employers

In response to a White House directive that instructs federal department heads to bring employees back to the office “as soon as practicable,” the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) have released a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) that addresses questions about remote work.

The FAQs assist federal agencies by helping them:

Identify when they must grant or continue remote work;
Know when they may rescind, modify, or deny remote work; and
Know how to more effectively structure their processes for remote work accommodations.

Why guidance is needed

On January 20, the White House announced that the heads of all departments and agencies in the executive branch of the federal government must “take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis,” with few exceptions.

In response, on February 12, the EEOC and the OPM released guidance for agencies to help them stay consistent with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the “Act”).

The Act, which mirrors the standards under the Americans with Disabilities Act, provides equal employment opportunities for covered federal employees with disabilities, including reasonable accommodations, such as remote work.

What about private employers?

Although this directive specifically applies to federal employees, the FAQs illustrate the steps private employers should take with their employees when it comes to remote work accommodations. For example, as with federal employers, private employers must assess requests for remote work due to a disability on a case-by-case basis. In other words, a blanket “no remote work” policy won’t work.

Also, for both federal and private employers, retaliating against an employee who seeks an accommodation — even a remote work one — risks a violation. This means employers should train their frontline leaders to avoid making disparaging remarks or straight-up denying someone who asks to work from home because of a disability. This doesn’t mean employers must always agree to a remote work accommodation; there might be other options that are just as effective.

Key to remember: Federal employees must return to in-person work. Although this doesn’t impact private employers, recent FAQs published by the EEOC help provide guidance on the use of remote work as a workplace accommodation.

Most Popular Highlights In Safety & Health

2026-02-03T06:00:00Z

9 OSHA bills to mandate gap-closing rules, wider coverage, steeper fines

As OSHA leans into “deregulatory” actions, lawmakers are moving to pressure the agency to issue “regulatory” rulemaking to protect American workers. The House and Senate have nine bills on the table so far. The latest legislative wave aims to fill regulatory gaps, tackle emerging hazards, expand OSHA authority, and raise penalties. (Note: Please see our news update near the end of this article announcing the 10th OSHA-related bill to mandate regulatory action.)

Topics and worker types covered

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

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

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

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

Nine bills to watch

Below are the nine Congressional bills (and companions) currently under consideration:

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

News update: On February 10, 2026, House and Senate members introduced the Workplace Overdose Reversal Kits (WORK) to Save Lives Act (H.R. 7479 and S. 3812). The companion bills, if passed, would require OSHA to issue regulations to require each federal government agency to acquire and maintain opioid overdose reversal medication and offer voluntary, annual worker training on usage of the medication. The bills also would require OSHA to issue nonmandatory guidance on the topic for all employers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics tallied 162 opioid-related deaths at private and public workplaces in 2023 (the latest data). OSHA statistics do not reveal the number of opioid fatality investigation cases but show the agency has investigated 172 “drug overdose” fatality cases since 1984, with 78 cases from calendar years 2021 to 2024 and none in 2025 and 2026.

Key to remember

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

2026-02-10T06:00:00Z

What does OSHA count as employee exposure records?

Employers must retain employee exposure records for 30 years. Since OSHA could issue citations for failing to keep these records, employers need to understand exactly what OSHA considers an “employee exposure record.”

The standard at 1910.1020 defines these records to include certain sampling for toxic or hazardous substances, as well as records of hazardous chemicals used. These are rather broad categories, however.

The regulation does not explicitly require keeping Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) for 30 years. Employers must, however, retain records of the identity (chemical name) of the substance or agent, where it was used, and when it was used for at least 30 years. Saving the SDSs can help fulfill that obligation.

Sampling results

Testing for a hazardous substance in Subpart Z would create an exposure record. Those regulations cover asbestos, lead, chromium, formaldehyde, and many other substances. In addition, the tables in 1910.1000 list hundreds of substances from carbon dioxide to vegetable oil mist. Testing for harmful substances that are not listed could also create an employee exposure record.

In addition, measuring noise, vibration, temperature extremes, or particulate matter will usually create an exposure record that must be retained for 30 years. However, measurements of conditions in a normal range (such as office temperature readings) are not exposure records under the OSHA standard.

Not every sample or measurement will create an exposure record. OSHA clarified that exposure records describe the identity of, and possibly the level of exposure to, a toxic substance or harmful physical agent. For example, if an indoor air quality evaluation sampled the HVAC system, the results might identify non-toxic bacteria typical in office or work environments. That result would not be an employee exposure record.

Known hazards

If employers test for a substance with known human health effects, OSHA considers the results to be an employee exposure record even if the levels are below a listed action level or permissible exposure limit (PEL). The term “employee exposure record” is not limited to records showing that exposure exceeds a particular level, but rather on the mere fact that occupational exposure exists. For example, testing for carbon dioxide levels would create an exposure record even if the results were well within safe parameters.

Of course, if exposures are below the action level, the employer can usually stop monitoring, unless a process or work practice changes in a way that could increase exposure. However, if exposures are above the action level but below the PEL, employers may need to conduct periodic monitoring, all of which become exposure records.

On the other hand, the standard does not cover situations where the employer can demonstrate that the toxic substance or harmful physical agent is not used, handled, stored, generated, or present in the workplace in any manner different from typical non-occupational situations.

Finally, OSHA notes that employee questionnaires are not exposure records because they don’t characterize exposures. For example, employers might survey the workforce about things like comfort, temperature, or similar conditions without actually measuring conditions.

However, if questionnaires address medical information, they can be “employee medical records” under 1910.1020. For instance, the questionnaire under the respiratory protection standard is a medical record, but not an exposure record. OSHA also requires maintaining certain medical records. For more information, see our article, Who retains employee medical records?

Key to remember: Employers must save employee exposure records of hazardous substances even if the measured amount was within acceptable levels.

2026-02-17T06:00:00Z

These forklift operator violations commonly cause accidents

Forklift accidents often cause serious injuries. Unsafe behaviors can include failing to wear the seatbelt and reaching an arm outside the truck’s running lines. While those violations put the operator at risk, many unsafe behaviors also threaten other employees.

The most common forklift accidents involve rollovers, collisions with pedestrians, and loads falling from the tines. These incidents often result from operator error or (even worse) the operator knowingly engaging in unsafe behaviors.

Inspection failure

If the operator skips or rushes through the pre-shift inspection, safety concerns could get overlooked. Problems with systems like hydraulics, brakes, or steering can obviously contribute to accidents. However, even things like a non-functioning horn or lights could increase the likelihood of collisions.

Also, operators must report any problems that arise during the shift. If a pre-shift inspection identifies failures, the problem likely occurred during the previous shift and perhaps could have been reported. Equipment failures more likely occur during operation, not during idle time between shifts. If something goes wrong mid-shift, the operator must remove the truck from service. Make sure operators know how to report problems, send the truck for service, and obtain an alternate vehicle for the remainder of the shift.

Carrying loads too high

Operators should carry loads as low as possible. During inspections, OSHA compliance officers commonly see loads carried too high. This limits both visibility and stability. When the load size restricts visibility and the truck cannot travel in reverse (like going up a ramp), the operator should use a spotter.

Similarly, operators must never raise or lower a load while moving or turning. Doing so increases the risk of accidents from falling loads. Also, driving while watching the load (not the road) can increase the risk of striking pedestrians or objects.

Driving too fast

Employers might communicate speed limits, but most forklifts don’t have speedometers. Therefore, operators should understand what constitutes safe (and unsafe) speeds under various conditions. In locations with pedestrians or limited visibility, this might mean at walking speed, which can seem painfully slow.

OSHA compliance officers can issue citations for excessive speed. Excessive speed increases the risk of spilling a load, striking a pedestrian, and rollover potential.

Not certified for truck type

Forklift operators must receive training that covers the types of vehicles used. An operator trained on a sit-down counterbalanced forklift needs additional training to operate a stand-up model or even a powered pallet jack. A supervisor might be able to explain the controls for a different vehicle type, but that does not constitute “training” and certainly not certification. OSHA commonly issues citations for lacking operator certification.

In addition, employers must evaluate each operator’s performance every three years. Typically, this involves questioning the operator on safety rules and observing the operator performing typical duties. If the evaluation identifies problems, the employer must provide refresher training. Skipping this evaluation could result in a failure to identify violations that contribute to accidents.

An operator who is not certified for the vehicle type may lack understanding of critical handling characteristics or safety precautions, which increases the risk of accidents.

Key to Remember: When forklift operators feel under time pressure, they might focus on speed over safety. Skipping the inspection, driving too fast, raising loads while moving, and other behaviors put the operator and other employees at risk.

2026-02-12T06:00:00Z

Work-relatedness focus of latest OSHA interpretive letter

A burn injury caused by a personal lithium ion battery fire is work related if it occurs in the workplace during assigned working hours, OSHA stated in a recently issued letter of interpretation (LOI).

The January 20 letter details an incident where an employee was burned when their rechargeable lithium-ion batteries for e-cigarettes sparked a fire after inadvertently coming into contact with a key used for work. OSHA said that even though the batteries are a personal item used for a non work purpose, the injury happened in the work environment, so the geographic presumption of work-relatedness applies. OSHA also clarified that the precipitating event is the fire, not the act of carrying the batteries.

Lee Anne Jennings, Director of OSHA’s Technical Support and Emergency Management Directorate, clarified that Section 1904.5(b)(3) of OSHA’s recordkeeping regulation doesn’t apply if the employee was at work during assigned hours and present as a condition of employment. She also noted that none of the exceptions in Section 1904.5(b)(2) are relevant in this scenario, so the injury’s cause — including whether the battery was mixed with employer-provided items — is irrelevant for determining work-relatedness.

LOIs clarify federal workplace safety standards and ensure consistent application for employers, workers, and safety professionals.

2023-12-19T06:00:00Z

Completing the 300A: Tips for the mathematically challenged

To create the 300A Annual Summary, you must calculate the average annual employees and total hours worked. Are you confident on doing the math?

Determining the annual average number of employees might not require any math. OSHA says that if you pay about the same number of employees every pay period, you can use that as your annual average. For example, if you had roughly 50 employees all year, you could simply use 50 as the annual average. Remember to include temps from a staffing agency if you supervise their daily activities.

Some locations might have significant staffing changes due to growth, layoffs, or seasonal workers. These locations may need to calculate the average workforce. OSHA provides a four-step process:

Add up the number of employees paid IN EACH PAY PERIOD during the year.
Determine the number of pay periods. For example, if you pay every two weeks, you have 26 pay periods.
Divide the number of employees by the number of pay periods.
Round the result up to the next highest whole number.

To illustrate, suppose a department store (NAICS 452210) has 17 employees for most of the year, but hires 6 part-time workers during the holiday shopping season, increasing to 23 employees. The location pays them every two weeks and has 26 pay periods.

For simplicity, assume that during each of the first 21 pay periods of the year, the store had exactly 17 employees. They get counted every pay period, so 17 employees times 21 pay periods equals 357 employees.

During the last five pay periods, the location had 23 employees. They also get counted during those five pay periods, so 23 employees times five pay periods equals 115 employees.

Adding them up (357 plus 115) gives a total of 472 employees. When divided by the 26 pay periods, the average number of employees for the year is 19 (actually 18.15 rounded up to 19).

Certain employers (including department stores) must electronically file the 300A by March 2nd if the establishment had 20 or more employees at any time during the year. This department store must therefore file through OSHA’s Injury Tracking Application website because it reached 20 or more employees for at least one pay period.

Total hours worked

Determining the total hours worked probably involves your Human Resources or payroll department. They key is to count only hours worked, not hours paid. Do not include vacation, sick leave, holidays, or other non-working time even if employees were paid for that time. If some employees are not paid the by the hour (such as salaried or commission employees) you can estimate their total hours.

The total hours are used to calculate the Total Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR), or incident rate, which is expressed as a ratio of injuries per 100 workers. For instance, a rate of 2.3 means that for every 100 employees, 2.3 employees had recordable injuries.

However, the incident rate is actually a ratio of injuries per 200,000 hours worked (representing 100 employees working 40 hours per week for 50 weeks). This allows OSHA to compare locations regardless of part-time staff, since the rate depends on hours worked, not on the number of people. This is also why employers don’t count vacation or holiday hours; employees cannot get work-related injuries during those hours.

Key to remember: Correctly calculating your workforce size and total hours worked ensures an accurate 300A summary and incident rate.

2026-02-16T06:00:00Z

Speed over safety could mean criminal charges

Criminal charges for safety violations may be more common than you think and can result from taking short cuts to save time and ultimately, money. When thinking about workplace safety violations, one might envision inspections, potential citations, and a list of corrective actions. The reality is more sobering, however. Willful negligence, fatalities, and falsified records can escalate into criminal charges against companies, employers, or other individuals for serious safety lapses.

These cases, especially surrounding incidents that resulted in fatalities, highlight the legal risks that go beyond regulatory penalties. Accountability drives true safety, and when it’s ignored, the consequences are often severe.

How do criminal charges happen?

OSHA has a formal process for referring criminal charges enabling the Agency to escalate serious violations to the Department of Justice (DOJ) or other law enforcement agencies when appropriate or warranted. Though limited, OSHA’s criminal enforcement powers can be swift, serious, and life changing.

Here's how the process flows:

OSHA identifies willful or fraudulent violations which typically include violations resulting in a fatality, providing false statements or fraudulent records, obstructing investigations, or having unlawful advance notice of an inspection.
An internal review is coordinated between OSHA’s legal team, the Department of Labor (DOL), and the DOL Inspector General.
A referral is made to the DOJ for criminal prosecution.
The DOJ evaluates whether the evidence meets the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence does meet the standard, the DOJ may pursue charges including willful violation causing death, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to commit fraud, etc.
Individuals (e.g., company owners, managers, safety directors) are criminally prosecuted for anywhere from fines to up to 5 years in prison.

But it doesn’t happen that often, right?

Unfortunately, criminal convictions from workplace incidents happen more than many people realize. Here are just a few examples of cases that not only resulted in financial penalties but also lead to jail time for the individuals responsible.

February 2025: A site supervisor at a New York residential construction project failed to take proper precautions during a 9-foot trench dig which resulted in a trench collapse and the death of a laborer. The supervisor pled guilty to one count of second-degree reckless endangerment which resulted in a sentence of 150 community service hours. The company was also cited by OSHA for willful and serious violations totaling $30,060.
July 2022: A Connecticut contractor failed to provide legally required safeguards and ensure they were in place to prevent trench collapses. The failure contributed to the death of an employee who was buried when the 8-foot-deep trench caved in. The company owner and an equipment operator both entered guilty pleas to a second-degree manslaughter, and each received a two-year suspended sentence with two years of probation. The company was cited with over $375,000 in penalties.
July 2021: A Colorado site manager was sentenced to 10 months in jail for negligent homicide and felony manslaughter after a trench collapsed at a construction site, resulting in a fatality. The site manager was found to have ignored safety warnings and failed to implement required trench protective systems while the employee was working on a water service line. The company was also cited over $90,000 in penalties.
May 2017: A Wisconsin corn milling facility exploded, killing 5 workers and injuring several others. Ultimately, OSHA cited the company for more than 20 serious and willful violations and imposed $1.8 million in penalties. Just a few years later, six employees were indicted for conspiracy, making false statements, and fraud. The result was a sentence of 5 years’ probation, $10.25 million in victim restitution, and an additional $1 million fine. Several employees also pleaded guilty to criminal charges with two being convicted and one being acquitted.
October 2016: Following the death of two workers in a flooded trench, a Massachusetts contractor owner was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment on each of two concurrent counts of manslaughter and three years of probation for witness intimidation (attempts to mislead OSHA during the investigation of the collapse). In addition to almost $1.5 million in OSHA citations, the court also fined the contractor $1,000 for each manslaughter count and $5,000 for witness intimidation, totaling $7,000.
March 2016 : A Pennsylvania roofing company owner plead guilty to four counts of making false statements, one count of obstruction of justice, and one count of willfully violating an OSHA regulation causing death to an employee. The owner was sentenced to 10 months in prison after failing to provide fall protection equipment to employees and attempting to cover up the failure by falsely claiming the equipment, including safety harnesses, was provided for employees. In addition to the prison term, the owner was sentenced to one year of supervised release and was required to pay a $510 special assessment, on top of thousands of dollars in OSHA citations.

Key to remember: Workplace safety violations can lead to criminal charges more often than expected, especially when negligence results in serious harm or death. The growing number of cases underscores the importance of maintaining a strong safety culture and adhering to regulatory standards to protect lives and avoid prosecution.

About Notice at Collection Terms of Use Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information Accessibility Support