Why do ESG factors matter to investors?

Switching to a new paint or solvent

A facility may decide to replace an existing paint, coating, or solvent to improve product quality, address supply chain challenges, or reduce costs. Before making the switch, environmental professionals should consider how the change could affect multiple compliance obligations.

A new paint or solvent may contain a different concentration of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), affecting air emission calculations, permit applicability, or recordkeeping requirements. Spent materials, contaminated wipes, absorbents, and cleanup residues may require a new hazardous waste determination. Depending on the chemical composition and quantities involved, the material could also affect Tier II inventory reporting or Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting obligations.

What appears to be a straightforward purchasing decision can ultimately affect air compliance, waste management, and chemical reporting programs.

Installing a diesel fuel storage tank

Organizations often add fuel storage to support emergency generators, fleet operations, or business continuity initiatives. While the project may be viewed primarily as an operational improvement, it can create environmental obligations in several areas.

The tank may count toward Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) applicability thresholds. Fuel storage can also increase stormwater pollution risks, requiring updates to inspection procedures, pollution prevention controls, or employee training. Secondary containment requirements, spill response procedures, and release reporting obligations may also need review.

A project initially viewed as a facilities improvement may affect spill prevention, stormwater management, and emergency preparedness responsibilities.

Managing aerosol cans

Aerosol cans are commonly used throughout facilities for maintenance, cleaning, lubrication, painting, and other routine activities. Their widespread use can cause organizations to overlook their broader compliance implications.

Depending on how they're managed, discarded aerosol cans may qualify for the federal universal waste regulations. If cans are punctured and processed for recycling, facilities must also consider hazardous waste management requirements, employee training, and potential air emission concerns associated with puncturing operations. Likewise, storage practices, container management, and recordkeeping procedures should be evaluated.

Because aerosol cans intersect with waste management, recycling, and air concerns, they demonstrate how a routine maintenance activity can involve multiple regulatory programs.

Adding a refrigeration process

Expanding refrigerated storage capacity or installing a new industrial refrigeration process may seem like a project driven by production needs. However, depending on the refrigerant used and the quantity stored on-site, the environmental and safety implications can extend well beyond equipment installation.

Certain refrigerants may be subject to leak management and repair, servicing, recovery, and recordkeeping requirements. Depending on the substance and quantity stored on-site, facilities may also trigger Tier II or TRI reporting obligations.

For facilities using substances such as anhydrous ammonia, increasing refrigerant inventories may have even broader consequences. Exceeding regulatory thresholds could trigger EPA's Risk Management Program (RMP) requirements and OSHA's Process Safety Management (PSM) obligations, adding responsibilities related to process hazard analyses, operating procedures, employee training, emergency planning, mechanical integrity, and management of change.

The project may also require updates to emergency response procedures, hazard communication programs, and chemical inventory management processes. As a result, a decision driven by production or storage needs may affect environmental reporting, accident prevention, emergency preparedness, and process safety requirements across the facility.

Looking beyond program boundaries

Environmental regulations are often organized by media, program, or statute. Facilities, however, operate through products, equipment, and processes. Because of this difference in perspective, a single operational change can have consequences that reach far beyond its original purpose.

Organizations that routinely evaluate projects through multiple compliance lenses are often better positioned to identify environmental obligations before they become compliance issues. Asking how a new product, process, equipment installation, or operational change might affect air, waste, water, chemical reporting, spill prevention, emergency planning, or process safety requirements can help reduce surprises and support more effective compliance management.

Key to remember: Environmental compliance obligations rarely exist in isolation. Before implementing a new product, process, or operational change, consider how it may affect multiple environmental programs, not just the one most directly associated with the project.

Limitations

• Dangerous Goods Carried by Passengers or Crew (2.3)— Provisions for battery-powered mobility aids have been revised to include reference to the guidance on the end-to-end processes associated with the carriage of mobility aids.

Packing

The following packing instructions have been updated:

• 5.2.0.9 - Added a water capacity limit for non-refillable cylinders containing a flammable gas, limited to a water capacity not exceeding 1.25 L.
• PI 952 - Revised to include reference to "equipment."
• PI 954 - Clarified the rules for marking overpacks containing dry ice. The total net quantity of dry ice in the overpack must be marked on the outside of the overpack.

Packaging specifications and performance tests

• 6.0.3 - Clarified the requirements and formatting for UN specification marks on packages.

Documentation

• 8.1.6.9.2, Step 6 – Added a note to "reinforce that there is no requirement for the type, number and net quantity in inner packagings within the outer packaging of a combination packaging to be shown" on the shipping papers (Shippers Declaration for Dangerous Goods).

Radioactive materials

• 10.8.3.9.1—Added an additional example of the description for the first sequence of information on the Shipper's Declaration to address where a radioactive material has a subsidiary hazard, and the proper shipping name must be supplemented by the technical or chemical name.
• 10.8.6—Added two examples to show how radioactive materials with a subsidiary hazard should be described and how packages in an overpack should be shown.

Appendices

IATA has added a new appendix to the list of appendices in the DGR. Appendix H includes a list of changes IATA will make to the 2025 IATA DGR. IATA added Appendix H so that shippers and carriers have time to prepare for the substantial updates that are coming for 2025. Some of the changes include:

• Adding an exception for data loggers and cargo trackers with installed lithium batteries.
• Modifying the exception for COVID-19 vaccines to now apply to all pharmaceutical products.
• Adding a new classification for sodium ion batteries.
• Updating the list of dangerous goods and special provisions.
• Amending and adding several packing instructions.
• Revising the "lithium battery mark", which will be known as the "battery mark" in the future.

Making sure you are keeping up with these regulatory changes and preparing for future updates is extremely important if you want to avoid costly delays, fines, and lost revenue. Keep your hazmat employees up to speed and inform them of any changes they need to be aware of.

Key to Remember: IATA updates their DGR every year and changes to the 2024 IATA DGR become effective on January 1, 2024.

Interstate authority vs. Texas intrastate authority

Understanding the difference between interstate authority and Texas intrastate authority is integral to understanding what a carrier needs before operating in Texas. The USDOT number and the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles (TxDMV) number serve different purposes:

• USDOT numbers are the carrier’s federal safety identifier and are used to track information such as inspections, crashes, and compliance history; and
• TxDMV numbers and the related Texas registration certificate demonstrate that the carrier is registered with the state to make intrastate movements.

Because the two credentials aren’t interchangeable, a carrier with a USDOT number and federal operating authority may still need to register with the TxDMV. The key question is: Does the carrier perform any regulated movements that both originate and terminate within Texas?

When do you need to register with the TxDMV?

Texas generally requires the following intrastate vehicles and operations to have and display a USDOT number and to register with TxDMV for intrastate authority:

• Private and for-hire vehicles, or combinations of vehicles, with a gross weight or gross weight rating exceeding 26,000 pounds when used to transport cargo in furtherance of a commercial enterprise;
• For-hire vehicles used to transport household goods, regardless of gross weight rating;
• Vehicles, including buses, designed or used to transport more than 15 passengers, including the driver;
• Commercial school buses;
• Vehicles used to transport hazardous materials in a quantity requiring placarding; Vehicles operated by a foreign carrier;
• Foreign-domiciled buses; and/or
• Vehicles owned or controlled by a person who isn’t a U.S. citizen or doesn’t reside in the United States.

Applying for Texas intrastate authority

Application for authority can be completed online. Call (800) 299-1700 to begin the registration process over the phone and obtain a Unique Identifier Number (UIN). Once a UIN has been assigned, use the online Motor Carrier Credentialing System (MCCS) at https://apps.txdmv.gov/apps/mccs/motorcarrier/.

Registration isn’t a one-time administrative task

Once a carrier receives its certificate of registration, it must maintain that status by doing the following:

• Review its principal business address, mailing address, and email address in the department’s online system every 6 months;
• Maintain required insurance filings;
• Keep its vehicle listing current; and
• Retain the insurance cab card at its principal place of business, and make sure the correct copy is carried in each covered vehicle.

Just like at the federal level, changes in vehicle size, passenger capacity, cargo, routes, ownership, or operating status could trigger a fresh review of the carrier’s registration obligations.

Positive dilute

If a test result is positive but dilute, you’ll need to treat it the same as a positive test result. You must:

• Not order another test;
• Notify the driver;
• Remove the driver from safety-sensitive functions;
• Give the driver a list of substance abuse professionals (SAPs) from whom the driver can seek treatment;
• Not use the driver again until the driver completes treatment and passes a return-to-duty test; and
• Retain the test results for five years.

The MRO will report the test result to the Drug & Alcohol Clearinghouse, the same as any other positive test.

Negative dilute

For results that are negative but dilute, your actions will depend on the creatinine level (creatinine is a waste product found in urine), as follows:

2 to 5 mg/dL — The MRO will contact you to request an immediate re-collection under direct observation.

• If the driver refuses this test, it’s treated the same as any refusal (which means following the steps above for a positive test, including reporting to the Clearinghouse).
• If the driver goes for this follow-up test, the result becomes the official result of record.
• If the result comes back as negative dilute again, the test is declared negative.

Over 5 mg/dL — No retest required. However, you can have a company policy requiring a retest, as long as you communicate it to drivers and enforce it uniformly. If you do retests in this situation, be aware that:

• The test cannot be under direct observation;
• A refusal of the test is treated the same as any other refusal;
• If the result is once again negative dilute with a creatinine level over 5 mg/dL, you cannot retest the driver (i.e., no third test) and it’s deemed a negative result.
• If the result is negative dilute with a creatinine level of 2 to 5 mg/dL, the MRO will demand yet another test immediately under direct observation.

A positive, adulterated, or substituted test result on any retest becomes the result of record, and all the consequences of a drug testing violation apply.

Key to Remember: If a driver’s drug test result comes back as dilute, be sure you know what to do next.

Is there an exception?

There’s a limited exception for certain intermittent or reduced schedule leaves. If the need for leave is foreseeable because of planned medical treatment, or if the employer agrees to intermittent or reduced schedule leave for bonding with a healthy child, the employer may temporarily transfer the employee to an available alternative position. The employee must be qualified for the position, however, and the position must better accommodate the recurring leave than the employee’s regular job.

This exception doesn’t apply when the leave is unforeseeable, such as during episodic flare-ups related to a chronic condition.

When the employee requests a different arrangement

The FMLA doesn’t prohibit employers from agreeing to an employee’s request for a different shift, schedule, or position when the employee returns from leave. However, employers may not pressure or require the employee to accept a different position against the employee’s wishes.

Applies to any accommodation

This rule applies to any workplace accommodation. For example, in lieu of leave, an employer may not require an employee to:

• Work from home,
• Use modified equipment, or
• Accept changes to a workstation.

No undue hardship defense under the FMLA

Unlike the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, the FMLA doesn’t include an undue hardship defense. This means that employers may not deny FMLA leave because the employee’s absence creates staffing challenges, affects productivity, or burdens a department.

Key to remember: If an employee is entitled to FMLA leave, the employer may not require the employee to accept an accommodation instead of taking that leave.

Potential future increases

The bill, The Restoring Overtime Pay Act of 2026 (HR 8868), would increase the federal minimum salary level as follows:

• 2026 — $45,000
• 2027 — $55,000
• 2028 — $65,000
• 2029 — $75,000
• 2030 — 55th percentile of full-time salaried workers nationally*, updated annually

*The current 55th percentile of full-time salaried workers nationally is $89,440 and could increase to $98,000 by 2030.

The measure would allow the Secretary of Labor to establish a higher salary threshold through notice and comment rulemaking, as long as it can be updated annually.

The bill would also require the following:

• The Secretary of Labor would need to provide annual, automatic updates to the overtime threshold of at least the 55th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time salaried workers.
• If the Secretary doesn’t establish an increased salary threshold, the 55th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time salaried workers nationally would take effect, based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) from the second quarter of the preceding calendar year.
• The Secretary would need to publish a notice announcing the revised salary threshold no later than 60 days before the revised threshold takes effect.
• The BLS would need to publicly publish data on its website for each week of each quarter and data on weekly earnings by census region.

The bill is in the first stage of the legislative process. It was referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. While it has a small chance of being enacted at this time, it does show that some members of Congress are interested in this topic.

Key to remember: Congress members introduced a bill increasing the federal salary threshold level. But for now, employers can use the 2019 federal salary threshold to determine whether they may classify an employee as exempt.

2 Feet

There are two circumstances where the number 2 comes into play.

• Spoil piles must be at least 2 feet from the edge of an excavation or trench provided the surface is able to support such a load.
• If using a trench box or other engineered protection system, the bottom of the protection system cannot be more than 2 feet above the bottom of the trench or excavation.

4 Feet with 25 feet

Four feet is the trench or excavation depth that triggers the requirement to have a means of egress such as a ladder. Depending on the length of the trench/excavation, the maximum travel distance to or between egress points is 25 feet.

5 Feet

A protective system is required for trenches and excavations 5 feet deep or deeper unless a competent person determines the excavation is entirely in stable rock.

6 Feet

If employees are working near the edge of a trench/excavation with a depth of 6 feet or more, then fall protection/prevention is required.

20 Feet

If the depth of a trench/excavation is greater than 20 feet, then the protective system must be designed and approved by a professional engineer. While this number quiz does not encompass every aspect of trench/excavation safety, it may help reinforce key concepts before the first scoop of soil is moved. Remember to follow specific jobsite requirements for each trench and excavation.

Build the relationship before it's needed

The best time for organizations to meet with local responders isn’t during an emergency. Facility tours, pre-incident planning meetings, and joint exercises allow both sides to learn from one another. Responders can become familiar with facility layouts, hazards, and access procedures. Facility personnel can better understand responder capabilities, equipment, and response expectations.

These conversations also help identify potential issues before they become problems. Questions about after-hours access, communication protocols, command structure, specialized hazards, or monitoring capabilities are much easier to answer during a planning meeting than during an active emergency.

Perhaps most importantly, these interactions build trust and familiarity, both of which can improve communication when pressure is high.

Why familiarity matters

When responders arrive, they often need information quickly to make critical decisions. The more they know beforehand, the more effectively they can respond. During an emergency, responders don't have time to learn the facility from scratch.

Consider some of the questions they may need answered:

• Are there gates, badge-controlled doors, or other security measures?
• Are there any areas with restricted access?
• What hazardous materials are onsite, and where are they located?
• Which utilities, fire department connections (FDCs), or processes may need to be shut down?
• Who has authority to make decisions during the incident?
• Which employees have specialized knowledge of equipment, chemicals, or operations?
• How can responders access the facility after normal business hours?

Without those answers, valuable time can be spent gathering information instead of managing the emergency.

The relationship goes both ways

Organizations sometimes assume responders have every resource they might need. In reality, responder capabilities can vary by jurisdiction, equipment availability, and specialized training.

For example, a local department may have standard atmospheric monitoring equipment but may not carry instruments designed to detect every chemical present at a facility. Certain incidents may require additional resources, technical expertise, or support from a regional hazmat team.

Understanding those capabilities and limitations before an emergency occurs helps both organizations and responders establish realistic expectations, identify resource gaps, and avoid surprises when an incident occurs.

Don't rely on paperwork alone

Many organizations already share hazard information through regulatory programs. Facilities subject to EPCRA requirements may provide chemical inventory information that helps emergency planners understand potential community hazards, but that information doesn't replace direct conversations and site familiarity.

Responders also benefit from information such as facility maps, building access points, utility shutoff locations, hazardous material storage areas, emergency contacts, and site-specific response considerations.

Responders don't need every document an organization has ever produced. What helps most is having key information organized, accessible, and available before an emergency occurs.

Strengthen the partnership

To strengthen relationships with local emergency responders:

• Arrange facility tours to familiarize responders with the site;
• Review emergency plans, major hazards, and available resources together;
• Confirm after-hours access procedures;
• Identify primary and backup emergency contacts;
• Provide updates when processes, layouts, or chemical inventories change; and
• Conduct joint drills or exercises.

Key to remember: First responders shouldn't be learning about a facility during an emergency. The best emergency responses are built on relationships, communication, and shared understanding long before 911 is called.

The five principles behind HOP

HOP is built around five core principles. The wording may vary, but the underlying ideas remain the same.

1. Error is normal

People make mistakes. That's part of being human. No amount of training, experience, or motivation will completely eliminate human error. Employees will occasionally forget a step, misread information, become distracted, or make a decision that doesn't work out as intended.

Instead of expecting perfect performance, HOP encourages employers to ask:

• What happens if someone makes a mistake?
• Will the error be detected?
• Is there a safeguard in place?
• Could the mistake lead directly to an injury or serious event?

Employers shouldn't rely on employees getting it right every single time. Processes and safeguards help catch mistakes before they lead to an injury or serious event.

2. Blame fixes nothing

Blame may identify who was involved, but it rarely explains why the event happened.

When an investigation stops at "employee error," valuable learning opportunities are often missed. Maybe the procedure wasn't practical or outdated. Maybe production demands influenced the decision. Maybe communication, training, staffing, equipment, or supervision played a role.

Accountability is important, but effective investigations dive deeper to examine the pressures, workplace factors, and system weaknesses that contributed to the event.

3. Context drives behavior

People generally do what makes sense to them at the time. That's why understanding the work environment matters. Factors that can influence decisions include:

• Production pressure,
• Staffing levels,
• Fatigue,
• Time constraints,
• Equipment design,
• Resource availability,
• Workload, and
• Conflicting priorities.

Looking back after an incident, it can be easy to wonder why someone made a particular decision. In the moment, however, the employee was responding to the circumstances in front of them from their perspective. Understanding those circumstances often helps explain why the decision seemed reasonable at the time and where improvements may be needed.

4. Leader response matters

How leaders respond after an incident can have a lasting impact. If employees expect blame and punishment, they're less likely to report concerns, admit mistakes, or speak up when something isn't right.

When leaders focus on understanding what happened and learning from it, employees are more likely to share information that can help prevent future incidents.

Employees are generally more willing to report concerns, share lessons learned, and discuss mistakes when they believe the goal is to improve the workplace rather than assign blame.

5. Learning is vital

Every near miss, hazard report, equipment problem, employee concern, and incident creates an opportunity to learn.

Organizations don't have to wait for someone to get hurt before making improvements. Most warning signs show up long before an injury occurs.

Paying attention to those warning signs can help employers address problems before they contribute to an injury or serious incident.

Why the system matters

One of the biggest lessons from HOP is that workplace outcomes are rarely driven by one person alone. Procedures, equipment, staffing, schedules, training, maintenance practices, production expectations, and leadership decisions all influence how work gets done.

Looking beyond the employees’ actions often reveals controllable risks that contributed to the event. By identifying and controlling what shapes the decision-making environment, organizations can move beyond blame and toward effective and lasting incident prevention.

Putting HOP into practice

Organizations don't need to create a new safety program to begin using HOP principles. In many cases, it starts by changing how incidents, near misses, and operational problems are discussed and investigated.

The next time an incident, near miss, equipment problem, or operational issue occurs, consider asking:

• What made this action seem reasonable at the time?
• What factors influenced the decision?
• What pressures or obstacles were present?
• What safeguards were missing, weak, or ineffective?
• What can we improve so the next person doesn't face the same situation?

Open conversations like this often identify issues that wouldn't have been found by simply concluding that the employee made a mistake.

Key to remember: Human error may explain what happened, but it rarely explains why it happened. Looking at the factors surrounding the work often provides a clearer picture of what contributed to the event and what can be done to help prevent it from happening again.

Hotline complaint leads to investigation, report

The OIG’s investigation stemmed from a September 2025 hotline complaint alleging OSHA had performed a planned program inspection on the complainant earlier that year even though the complainant’s business was allegedly exempted by OSHA’s appropriations rider. A recurring congressional appropriations rider generally prohibits OSHA from using appropriated funds for enforcement activities involving employers that have 10 or fewer employees and operate in designated low-hazard industries. However, the agency can still inspect an otherwise-exempt employer in certain circumstances, including:

• Health hazards;
• Fatalities, or hospitalizations of two or more employees;
• Imminent danger; and
• Complaints from current employees.

In response to the complaint, the Inspector General reviewed OSHA Information System (OIS) inspection data from November 8, 2024, through January 21, 2026. (The review did not include supporting case files.) The analysis found OSHA initiated and closed 621 inspections that met the exemption criteria. Of those, the report says 140 clearly involved a permissible exception, while:

• 201 had insufficient OIS data demonstrating an exception applied, and
• 280 had no permissible exceptions supported by OIS data.

These issues, the OIG states, may have stemmed from control weaknesses in OSHA guidance and issues with data reliability: “Therefore, OSHA may have conducted 481 impermissible inspections that did not comply with its appropriations acts.”

Following a preliminary review of 27 case files, OSHA found four that did not meet any exceptions allowed under its appropriations acts. The agency also found coding errors with the other 23 inspections. OSHA officials indicated the overall issue was likely due to coding errors rather than impermissible inspections and stated it would need to perform an in-depth review of case files to confirm. The Inspector General noted that this raises concerns about overall data reliability and that both issues (i.e., coding errors, impermissible inspections) warrant immediate attention from agency management.

OSHA pushes back on findings

In response to a draft of the September 24 memo, OSHA officials disagreed with the findings, citing the Inspector General’s lack of familiarity with the OIS and its data fields and its limited review of the inspection information for each inspector or investigation as the reason for its “unsupported conclusions.” The agency also argued that the OIG did not adequately account for OSHA’s procedures, management reviews, or the fact that inspectors sometimes need to begin an investigation to determine whether the exemption or an exception applies.

OIG recommendations to OSHA and DOL

The Inspector General stated that, ultimately, OSHA’s response did not change the OIG’s conclusion, and four recommendations were made to OSHA:

1. Review all 481 identified inspections to determine whether they complied with the appropriations acts and take appropriate action based on the results.
2. Establish adequate controls to prevent impermissible inspections and to document permissible exceptions in both the OIS and case files.
3. Update guidance to specify which employee-related field to use when determining if enforcement exemptions and limitations apply under OSHA’s appropriations acts.
4. Improve OIS data accuracy through data-entry controls and validation against case-file documentation.

The Inspector General also recommended that the Secretary of Labor conduct an investigation to determine whether OSHA failed to comply with the Antideficiency Act. The OIG noted that if the DOL ultimately determines that a violation occurred, federal law requires reporting to the President and Congress, with a copy provided to the Comptroller General.

OSHA’s consideration of the recommendations is ongoing, and the OIG says it looks forward to continuing its work with OSHA “to ensure planned corrective actions meet the intent of our proposed recommendations.” It should be noted that the Inspector General did not audit supporting case file documentation and therefore drew no conclusions on whether OSHA complied with its appropriations acts.

Key to remember: A DOL OIG investigation found that OSHA may have conducted certain small employer inspections that did not comply with its appropriations acts. OSHA disputes the findings, and its review of the cases and the OIG’s recommendations is ongoing. For employers, the Inspector General’s report is a reminder that some small employers in low-hazard industries may be subject to special limits on OSHA enforcement.

Why this matters

Electrical equipment labels provide vital information when a worker must inspect or service energized equipment. This information helps workers choose the proper personal protective equipment (PPE) the worker needs to wear when performing work on that piece of equipment.

Of course, the safest plan is to work on the system in a deenergized state. However, qualified workers may still need to wear appropriate PPE to verify that no electrical current is flowing in the system and to take voltage, amperage, or other electrical measurements during initial energization of circuits and equipment.

Information on the label comes from an Incident Energy Analysis Method which is typically performed by an electrical engineer using calculations found in NFPA 70E Annex D. The label provides information workers need to stay safe.

Required label information

NFPA 70E 130.5(H) requires arc flash labels to include information that helps workers understand the electrical hazards and choose the proper PPE for the task. This information includes:

• Nominal System Voltage (such as120/240 volts, 480/277 volts, or 600 volts);
• Arc flash boundary, which identifies the distance at which incident energy reaches 1.2 cal/cm² (5 J/cm²). This is when serious burn injuries can happen; and
• At least one of the following:
  • Available incident energy and the corresponding working distance,
  • Minimum arc rating of clothing to be worn as PPE, or
  • Site-specific level of PPE.

Other valuable information on a label

While NFPA 70E requires certain minimum information on an arc flash label, employers may choose to include additional details that help workers identify electrical hazards. Two examples are the Limited Approach Boundary and Restricted Approach Boundary.

These boundaries address shock hazards, which NFPA 70E defines as the risk of injury from electric current passing through the body. Depending on the amount of current, the path it takes through the body, and the duration of exposure, an electric shock can result in anything from a mild sensation to significant injury or even death.

• Limited Approach Boundary: Marks the distance where a shock hazard exists. Unqualified workers must remain outside this boundary unless escorted by a qualified person and properly advised of the hazards.
• Restricted Approach Boundary: Establishes the shock protection boundary for qualified workers. Crossing this boundary requires additional protective measures to prevent contact with exposed energized parts.

Always read the fine print on the label.

Key to remember: Arc flash labels provide critical information to workers before they perform tasks on electrical equipment. Understanding this information is an essential part of assessing risk, determining proper protective measures, and most importantly ensuring the safety of the workers.