
Welcome to J. J. Keller COMPLIANCE NETWORK
Make regulatory compliance easier than ever at your company with expert guidance and resources custom-tailored to your exact needs.
Welcome to J. J. Keller COMPLIANCE NETWORK
Make regulatory compliance easier than ever at your company with expert guidance and resources custom-tailored to your exact needs.
Workplace safety (OSHA).
Transportation (DOT).
Environment (EPA).
Human resources (DOL).
Effective date: July 29, 2025
This applies to: Oil and gas operations
Description of change: The New Mexico Oil Conservation Commission adopted amendments to ban per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from being used in completions (bringing into production) or recompletions (restarting production) of oil wells. The amendments to 19.15 N.M.A.C.:
Effective date: January 1, 2026
This applies to: Residential windows, doors, and skylights sold or leased for residential use in the state
Description of change: As of January 1, 2026, all residential windows, doors, and skylights sold or leased for residential use in Colorado must meet specific energy efficiency standards established by House Bill 23-1161. The Colorado Energy Office established an alternative energy standard for compliance. Manufacturers may choose between the standard at C.R.S. 6-7.5-105(5)(j)(l) and the alternative standard at 5 CCR 1004-2(1.1).
Effective date: August 21, 2025
This applies to: Businesses subject to the Climate Commitment Act Program rule
Description of change: The Department of Ecology updated the offset protocol for ozone-depleting substances (ODS) to expand the scope of offset projects available to Cap-and-Invest Program participants. The amendments to chapter 173-446 WAC:
View related state info: Clean air operating permits — Washington
Effective date: January 1, 2026
This applies to: Entities subject to the Well Construction Rules
Description of change: The Board of Examiners of Water Construction and Pump Installation Contractors adopted amendments to:
Effective date: July 1, 2025
This applies to: Any entity that sells or supplies transportation fuel in the state
Description of change: The California Air Resources Board (or CARB) amended the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to set more stringent LCFS carbon intensity (CI) benchmarks. The amendments require:
The amendments also:
View related state info: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulation State Comparison
Effective date: June 6, 2025
This applies to: Sources required to record monthly data for nitrogen oxide emissions and/or distributed/emergency generators with a general permit
Description of change: The Office of Air Resources removed monthly recordkeeping limits for:
The office amended Part 27 to remove the requirement to record within the first 15 days of the month:
The office also amended Part 43 to remove the requirement to record within the first five days of the month:
Sources may record the data at any time within the month.
View related state info: Clean air operating permits — Rhode Island
“Operator error” isn’t something anyone likes to see, especially when it applies to leaks from underground tanks of petroleum or hazardous materials. That’s why it’s essential to train individuals to manage underground storage tanks (USTs) correctly. Training obligations vary for each type of UST operator. Federal regulations establish three categories:
Properly trained operators are vital to managing USTs safely and in compliance. Use this guide to understand the different training requirements for Class A, B, and C operators.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires all owners and operators of UST systems to designate:
Class A operators are responsible for operating and maintaining USTs in line with the regulations. A Class A operator generally manages the resources and personnel involved to ensure UST operations comply.
A successfully trained Class A operator:
Class B operators handle the day-to-day responsibilities for managing USTs (like conducting in-field operations).
A Class B operator with sufficient training implements applicable regulatory requirements in the field on typical UST system components or site-specific equipment.
Class C operators provide immediate responses to UST-related problems.
An adequately trained Class C operator takes the necessary response actions to emergencies or alarms caused by UST spills and releases.
EPA outlines the minimum training requirements for each operator type at 40 CFR Part 280 Subpart J. All classes of operators must be trained or pass a comparable examination. Class C operators have the additional option to receive training from a Class A or B operator at the facility.
A facility can designate an individual for multiple operator classes. Any person with multiple designations must complete the required training or comparable examination for all applicable classes.
Class A and Class B operators must be trained within 30 days of beginning UST duties. Class C operators have to be trained before starting their UST responsibilities.
Class A operators should understand the purpose, methods, and functions of:
Class B operators may be trained in either:
Additionally, Class B operators need to know the purpose, methods, and functions of:
Class C operators must know how to respond with the correct actions to emergencies or alarms that are caused by spills or releases from UST operations, including notifying the authorities.
Consider these FAQs to help ensure your UST operator training programs comply.
How are operators evaluated?
Facilities must evaluate each operator via testing, a practical demonstration, or another approved approach.
When is retraining required?
If a UST system is found to be noncompliant, Class A and Class B operators at the facility must complete a training program or comparable examination that at least covers the areas out of compliance (unless exempt per 280.244).
Retraining should be completed within 30 days of the noncompliance determination. The training program or examination has to be developed or administered by a third party (i.e., an independent organization, the implementing agency, or a recognized authority).
How is training tracked?
Facilities are required to keep paper or electronic records that verify training and retraining for as long as the operators are designated. The records should contain at a minimum the information at 280.245(b).
What about state requirements?
It’s essential to check state UST regulations where your facilities operate. EPA has approved most states to implement the UST program. State requirements are at least as stringent as federal standards, and many state programs impose stricter rules.
Usually, operator training is obtained from third-party organizations that must be registered and approved by state environmental agencies to ensure the programs comply with federal and state requirements.
Key to remember: Training requirements for underground storage tank operators are based on their designated class: A, B, or C.
Understanding how hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are counted is key to accurate reporting and staying in compliance. These pollutants often overlap, but how they are treated depends on the situation – especially when comparing emission inventories to permitting rules. Misunderstanding the differences can lead to underreporting, permit mistakes, and other compliance problems. This article will also discuss how state rules can make things more complex.
Emission inventories help regulatory agencies track actual emissions from facilities over time. These records support air quality models, guide policy, and help protect public health.
In many cases, HAPs that are also VOCs (like toluene or xylene) are included in the total VOC count. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) includes HAP-VOCs in its National Emissions Inventory (NEI), which supports regional air quality models like the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) system.
Frequently Asked Question: What is the National Emissions Inventory?
As an example, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) recommends using conservative “first cut” estimates for both VOCs and HAPs. This makes early reporting easier and helps avoid underestimating emissions.
PTE calculations are used to determine a facility’s regulatory status—such as whether it qualifies as a major source under New Source Review (NSR) or Title V or is subject to Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards.
In this context, HAPs and VOCs are counted separately because they are subject to different thresholds:
This separation is critical. A facility might exceed the HAP threshold and trigger MACT requirements, even if its VOC emissions are below NSR thresholds—or vice versa. As an example, if a paint booth has the potential to emit 500 pounds of toluene, this is counted as 500 pounds of HAP and 500 pounds of VOC. Even though that seems like double-counting for the same emission, it is important to include in both totals separately.
While federal rules provide a baseline, states often have their own interpretations and requirements:
Failing to understand how HAPs and VOCs are counted can lead to serious compliance issues:
To stay compliant and avoid costly mistakes:
Key to Remember: The way HAPs and VOCs are counted depends heavily on context. Understanding these distinctions – and how they vary by state – is key to maintaining compliance and protecting air quality.
A 2022 law requires that some sections of end-use pesticide product labeling be translated into Spanish. So, now the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a notice requesting comments on how it wants to track the adoption of bilingual labeling. The agency also updated its Bilingual Labeling Questions & Answers webpage.
The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) has been enacted and reauthorized five times. The latest version (PRIA 5) was signed on December 29, 2022. It amended the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to require Spanish language translation for sections of the end-use pesticide product labels. However, those translations are only required where translation is available in EPA's Spanish Translation Guide for Pesticide Labeling.
Those sections deal with the health and safety of the product. Specifically, the guide has Spanish translations of the:
When a registered pesticide product is released for shipment, PRIA 5 requires translations or a link to translations on the product container. Any link would be via scannable technology or other accessible methods. Antimicrobial pesticide products and non-agricultural/non-RUP products have yet another option. They may provide a link to the Spanish Safety Data Sheets instead of a link to label translations.
PRIA 5 establishes a rolling schedule for the implementation of bilingual labeling. The schedule runs from December 2025 to 2030, with the translations for the most hazardous and toxic pesticide products required first. In fact, EPA is starting with RUPs and agricultural pesticides classified as acute toxicity category I. All end-use pesticide labels must have translations by 2030.
The dates when bilingual labeling is due are based on pesticide product type:
Pesticide product type: | Bilingual labeling due: |
RUPs | December 29, 2025 |
Agricultural products (non-RUPs): | |
Acute toxicity category I | December 29, 2025 |
Acute toxicity category II | December 29, 2027 |
Antimicrobial and non-agricultural products: | |
Acute toxicity category I | December 29, 2026 |
Acute toxicity category II | December 29, 2028 |
All other pesticide products | December 29, 2030 |
PRIA 5 also requires EPA to develop, implement, and make publicly available a plan for keeping track of the adoption of bilingual labeling. The agency previously proposed and received comments on using the annual paper maintenance fee filing form to track adoption. It would have used a checkbox to indicate whether products included bilingual labeling.
However, EPA has scrapped that approach. It’s now proposing to track adoption through its electronic MyPeST app. In this case, registrants would electronically check a box next to each pesticide product indicating whether it includes the required bilingual labeling. MyPeST would display product information — such as product type and signal word — to help registrants determine their products’ compliance dates.
The agency also wants to add a checkbox to MyPeST to indicate that a pesticide product will not be released for shipment. This helps distinguish between noncompliance and nonapplicable circumstances.
For tracking purposes, registrants would not need to submit the labels to EPA.
Comments on the proposed tracking method must be received on or before September 19, 2025. Send comments to docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2025-0049 at www.regulations.gov. Any comments are welcome, but EPA is particularly looking for examples of how it could reduce this tracking paperwork burden for businesses employing fewer than 25 workers.
The proposed method is anticipated to take 24 hours and cost just over $3,000 per covered entity per year. Entities potentially affected by the notice and comment request include:
EPA says it has also updated its Bilingual Labeling Questions & Answers webpage. Additional questions and answers touch on topics relating to, but not limited to:
This living document now has over 50 Q&As. It will be updated as PRIA 5 requirements and deadlines are met and new information is available.
EPA issued a notice requesting comments by September 19 on how it wants to track the adoption of bilingual labeling. Spanish language translation for sections of the end-use pesticide product labels has a rolling schedule from 2025 to 2030. The agency also updated its Bilingual Labeling Questions & Answers webpage.
On August 14, 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the biannual update to the nonconfidential Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory). The inventory includes all TSCA-regulated chemical substances manufactured, processed, or imported in the U.S.
The July 2025 TSCA Inventory contains 86,862 chemicals, adding 15 chemical substances since the last update. Nearly half of the substances (42,578) are active (i.e., in use). EPA also updated:
Further, the agency updated the TSCA Master Inventory File. It includes chemical identity information claimed as confidential that’s excluded from the nonconfidential TSCA Inventory. The TSCA Master Inventory File is the only list with comprehensive, authoritative information about which chemical substances are on the inventory.
The agency plans to make the next inventory update in Winter 2026.
How do I access the inventory?
View the TSCA Inventory by:
How does this impact my business?
The TSCA Inventory helps facilities determine compliance requirements for chemicals they (a) manufacture or use or (b) plan to manufacture or use. Chemicals that are on the TSCA Inventory are likely subject to rules, like manufacturing limits and reporting requirements. Chemicals that aren’t on the list must meet notification and review requirements before they can be used.
Key to remember: EPA released the July 2025 nonconfidential TSCA Inventory of chemical substances manufactured, processed, or imported in the U.S.
Industrial wastewater pretreatment systems are evolving quickly. With tighter regulations, aging infrastructure, and rising costs, many facilities are turning to digital tools to modernize their operations. From real-time monitoring to predictive analytics, these technologies help permitted systems stay compliant, reduce risks, and improve performance.
One of the most important advancements is the use of real-time sensors and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems. These tools allow operators to monitor key factors like pH, flow rate, temperature, and contaminant levels around the clock. If something goes out of range, alerts are sent immediately – helping prevent violations and environmental damage.
Automated sampling and reporting also make it easier to meet regulatory requirements. By reducing manual work and improving accuracy, facilities can respond faster to changes in discharge conditions. This is especially helpful in industries where wastewater characteristics vary, such as food processing or chemical manufacturing.
Beyond monitoring, predictive analytics and artificial intelligence (AI) help facilities anticipate problems before they happen. By analyzing past data, these systems can predict equipment failures, detect changes in influent quality, and recommend better chemical dosing strategies.
Such a proactive approach reduces downtime, lowers maintenance costs, and improves treatment results. It also helps with long-term planning by identifying trends that may point to needed upgrades or process changes.
Some facilities are using digital twins – virtual models of their pretreatment systems. These models simulate real-world operations, allowing engineers to test changes in flow, chemical use, or equipment without affecting actual processes.
Digital twins are also useful for training. New staff can explore how the system works and practice emergency responses in a safe, controlled environment.
As more systems become connected, cybersecurity is a growing concern. Facilities must protect their digital systems from unauthorized access and data breaches. This includes using secure networks, encrypted communication, and regular system checks to ensure data is safe and reliable.
The future of smart pretreatment lies in system integration. Facilities are looking for platforms that combine data from sensors, lab tests, maintenance logs, and compliance reports. When digital tools work together, operators get a clearer view of system performance and can make better decisions.
Key to Remember: Digital tools are no longer optional—they’re essential for modern industrial wastewater pretreatment. By adopting smart technologies, facilities can improve compliance, reduce costs, and support environmental goals.
Wouldn’t it be helpful to know ahead of time if a chemical that your facility uses may soon face additional or stricter regulations? Such an alert system exists! It’s in the form of risk evaluations conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires EPA to evaluate existing chemicals in the U.S. marketplace for safety. If the agency determines that a chemical substance poses an unreasonable risk to human or environmental health, it immediately begins the risk management process. Through the process, EPA develops compliance rules to control the risk.
Consider EPA’s final risk evaluation for 1,1-dichloroethane published in June 2025. In it, the agency determined that three uses present an unreasonable risk of injury to workers. EPA will now develop and finalize regulations to address the risk.
If EPA issues a final risk evaluation on a chemical substance that your facility manufactures (including imports), processes, distributes, uses, and/or disposes of, take note! It answers multiple questions that can help your facility prepare for future compliance obligations.
EPA’s risk evaluation determines whether an existing chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk to health or the environment under specific conditions of use (COUs). Risk management regulations only apply to the COUs that present an unreasonable risk. If your facility engages in any covered COU, it will have to comply with the applicable future restrictions.
Let’s revisit the 1,1-dichloroethane risk evaluation. One of the three COUs that endanger the health of workers through inhalation exposure is the processing of the chemical substance for recycling. If a facility doesn’t process 1,1-dichloroethane for recycling, it won’t have to comply with future regulations for that COU.
The final risk evaluation defines the categories of human and environmental populations covered by the assessment (such as consumers, the general population, workers, and aquatic species), and it identifies the COUs that apply to them.
Knowing the types of populations that a covered COU affects can help facilities narrow down the kinds of compliance requirements that may apply. For instance, a final risk management rule may require facilities to:
TSCA grants EPA one year from the publication date of the final risk evaluation to propose a risk management rule and another year after that to finalize it. So, potentially covered facilities can expect regulations within two years of the final risk evaluation.
For example, EPA published the final risk evaluation for 1,1-dichloroethane in June 2025, so the agency should finalize a rule by June 2027.
Compliance obligations for a final rule likely won’t begin immediately; EPA usually gives facilities time to make any needed changes to things like operations, equipment, etc.
Keep these tips in mind:
Key to remember: EPA’s final chemical risk evaluations give facilities a heads-up that compliance changes are likely within the next couple of years.
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’s happened in the past month!
In response to Executive Orders calling for deregulation efforts, on July 1 OSHA issued one final rule and 25 proposed rules. The proposed rules cover a variety of topics, including respiratory protection, construction illumination, safety color codes for signs, and the General Duty Clause. Stakeholders have until September 2 to comment on them. The final rule took effect July 1 and makes changes to the rules of procedure for promulgating, modifying, and revoking standards applicable to construction work.
OSHA updated its penalty guidance for small employers, impacting businesses with 25 or fewer employees. This includes reduced penalties of up to 70 percent in certain circumstances. These changes took effect July 14.
Effective July 1, California OSHA extended its safety and health laws to protect domestic workers, such as house cleaners, caregivers, and gardeners. The laws apply to businesses that employ both temporary and permanent domestic service workers.
OSHA’s Safe + Sound Week is scheduled for August 11-17 and focuses on emergency preparedness and response. Businesses of all sizes are encouraged to participate by conducting safety stand-downs, evacuation drills, or other activities that help highlight the importance of safety and health programs. More information and resources can be found on OSHA’s website.
And finally, turning to environmental news, EPA issued a final rule that offers coal combustion facilities an alternative option to comply with the Facility Evaluation Report. It also adjusts the compliance timelines for regulations related to coal combustion residuals management units. In addition, EPA issued a proposed rule requesting public feedback on further delaying the Facility Evaluation Report.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a rule to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repeal all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for:
What’s the Endangerment Finding?
In 2009, EPA issued two findings: the Endangerment Finding and the Cause or Contribute Finding, generally referred to as the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The agency uses the findings as the foundation for statutory authority to regulate GHG emissions under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. In other words, the 2009 Endangerment Finding is the legal basis the agency uses to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines.
Under the 2009 Endangerment Finding, EPA regulates new motor vehicles and vehicle engines through:
How does this impact vehicle regulations?
If EPA rescinds the 2009 Endangerment Finding, it will no longer have the statutory authority to regulate emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines. As a result, EPA would remove all GHG emissions regulations that apply to new motor vehicle and vehicle engine manufacturers in 40 CFR:
Affected compliance requirements include:
Manufacturers would no longer have to measure, control, or report GHG emissions for any vehicle or vehicle engine, including previously manufactured model years.
What won’t change?
The proposed rule doesn’t affect:
What’s next?
EPA will accept public comments on the rule through September 15, 2025. Additionally, the agency will hold a virtual public hearing on August 19 and 20, 2025. EPA will use the feedback to inform how it will proceed in the rulemaking process.
Key to remember: EPA has proposed a rule to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repeal GHG emissions standards for new motor vehicles and vehicle engines.
In an effort to streamline hazardous waste regulations and encourage responsible practices, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized the Solvent-Contaminated Wipes Rule in 2013 (codified under 40 CFR 261.4(a)(26) for exclusions and 261.4(b)(18) for exemptions). The rule makes it easier for businesses to manage certain used rags and wipes. If your company uses rags or shop towels with cleaning solvents on them, this rule can help you reduce the regulatory burden of managing wipes as hazardous waste, but only if you follow EPA’s conditions closely.
EPA’s rule states that used wipes with certain cleaning solvents on them do not have to be treated as hazardous waste. The types of wipes or rags that apply are:
It is important to remember that this rule only applies to wipes that are used with specific types of solvents. So, if the rags are contaminated with oils, paints, or other types of chemicals, they would not qualify for the exemption. Also, the wipes cannot be dripping wet or, as EPA states, the wipes contain “no free liquids.” Common solvents allowed under the rule are:
While EPA's rule applies at the federal level, states with authorized Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) programs may have more stringent or different rules. For example, California does not adopt this exclusion and regulates solvent wipes as hazardous waste unless they are truly clean. Employers should always check with their state environmental agency to confirm alignment with or differences from the federal rule.
The Solvent-Contaminated Wipes Rule is a great opportunity for businesses to reduce waste costs and paperwork — but only if you follow the conditions. With good storage, labeling, and recordkeeping, most shops and facilities can stay in compliance without too much trouble. It is an easy way to stay legal and keep operations running smoothly.
Key to remember: EPA allows certain solvent-contaminated wipes to be excluded from hazardous waste if they’re managed and stored properly, contain no free liquids, are labeled correctly, and are sent to approved facilities within 180 days.
Compliance with the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program can seem just as intimidating as driving on a multi-level interchange in a major city that you’ve never been to before. Thankfully, helpful guidance (like a reliable GPS) can help gasoline and diesel refiners and importers route a path to success.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a partial waiver on July 7, 2025, that lowers the 2024 renewable fuel volume requirement for cellulosic biofuel. As a result, refiners and importers have a lower volume threshold to meet for this category of renewable fuel. EPA’s recent action highlights the key to the program: volume requirements.
Use this road map of the basics to understand how refiners and importers of gasoline and diesel comply with the RFS program.
The RFS program (see 40 CFR Part 80 Subpart M) requires gasoline and diesel fuel (called transportation fuel) that’s sold in the U.S. to contain a specific volume of renewable fuel. There are four renewable fuel categories:
The route to compliance for refiners and importers that produce, distribute, and sell transportation fuel consists of annual standards, volume requirements, and demonstration.
EPA sets national annual volume requirements for renewable fuel that must be blended into the U.S. market’s total amount of transportation fuel. The agency establishes volumes for each renewable fuel category in addition to corresponding percentage standards.
For example, EPA’s waiver for cellulosic biofuel lowered the 2024 annual volume requirement to 1.01 billion gallons and the percentage standard to 0.59 percent, due to lower-than-expected production volume.
Refiners and importers of transportation fuel (“obligated parties”) use the annual percentage standards to determine the number of gallons of gasoline or diesel fuel they must blend individually.
Obligated parties have to meet Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) for each type of renewable fuel. RVOs are based on the amount of fuel the parties produce or import (essentially, their share of total transportation fuel). They calculate individual RVOs using this formula:
Consider an example using the amended 2024 requirements for cellulosic biofuel with these factors:
In this example, the RVO for cellulosic biofuel in 2024 is 2,950 gallons.
Obligated parties must demonstrate compliance with their individualized RVOs annually. To do so, they need to obtain and retire enough Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) to meet the RVO for each renewable fuel category (80.1434(a)(1)).
Obligated parties can get RINs by:
Let’s look at a common path to obtaining RINs using a fuel blender:
Obligated parties report the retired RINs in their annual compliance report (80.1451(a)(1)).
Key to remember: The route to successful compliance with the Renewable Fuel Standard program for gasoline and diesel refiners and importers consists of annual standards, volume requirements, and demonstration.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a direct final rule that adds a reporting option for regulated coal combustion residuals (CCR) facilities and extends compliance deadlines for CCR facilities with CCR management units (CCRMUs). These units include (a) inactive CCR landfills and (b) closed CCR surface impoundments and landfills.
Who’s impacted?
The direct rule applies to facilities subject to EPA’s final rule published in 2024 (2024 Legacy Rule), including:
The 2024 Legacy Rule established regulations for:
What are the changes?
The 2024 regulations (40 CFR Part 257 Subpart D) require active CCR facilities and legacy CCR surface impoundments to submit the Facility Evaluation Report (FER) Part 1 and FER Part 2 that identify any CCRMUs of 1 ton or more on-site.
Facilities with CCRMUs must also:
EPA’s 2025 direct final rule gives regulated facilities the option to:
The rule also delays the compliance timelines for related CCRMU requirements.
Requirement | 2024 Legacy Rule deadline | 2025 direct final rule deadline |
FER Part 1 | February 9, 2026 | February 9, 2026, or February 8, 2027 |
FER Part 2 | February 8, 2027 | February 8, 2027 |
CCR website | February 9, 2026 | February 9, 2026, or February 8, 2027 |
Groundwater monitoring requirements | May 8, 2028 | August 8, 2029 |
Initial annual report | January 31, 2029 | January 31, 2030 |
Closure/post-closure care plan | November 8, 2028 | February 8, 2030 |
Initiate closure | May 8, 2029 | August 8, 2030 |
About the proposed rule
In conjunction with the direct final rule, EPA published a proposed rule to obtain public feedback on further delaying the FERs. The rule offers two compliance timeline options for the evaluation reports:
Additionally, the proposed rule adjusts the deadlines for the other compliance requirements to 12 months from the 2024 Legacy Rule deadlines. The only exception is the CCR website requirement, which corresponds to the FER Part 1 submission date; it could be delayed for up to 24 months.
If EPA receives adverse comments on the direct final rule, the agency will publish a withdrawal of the specific requirements that won’t take effect. The remaining regulations in the direct final rule will take effect. If the agency determines (based on public feedback) to extend the FER Part 2 deadline by 12 months, the agency will withdraw the 2025 direct final rule and conduct the standard rulemaking procedures to apply the extension.
Key to remember: EPA offers active and inactive coal combustion residuals (CCR) facilities an alternative option to comply with the Facility Evaluation Report and adjusts the compliance timelines for regulations related to CCR management units.
In the world of industrial operations, environmental compliance and workplace safety are often treated as parallel tracks. But in truth, they’re deeply intertwined and two sides of the same coin. Nowhere is this more evident than in the management of hazardous waste and chemical storage.
I recall a visit to a mid-sized manufacturing facility in the Midwest a few years ago. The team had recently undergone a rigorous inspection by the Environmental Protection Agency and proudly walked me through their updated hazardous materials storage area. Everything looked pristine with clearly labeled drums, secondary containment, and a digital tracking system for waste manifests. But as we rounded a corner, I noticed an unlabeled 55-gallon drum tucked behind a stack of pallets. It was leaking.
The safety manager’s face fell. “That’s from a maintenance crew swap last week,” the manager admitted. “It slipped through the cracks.”
That single oversight triggered a cascade of actions: an internal safety audit, retraining on labeling protocols, and a temporary halt to operations in that zone. Fortunately, no one was harmed, but it was a stark reminder that environmental compliance isn’t just about avoiding fines. It’s about protecting people.
When hazardous waste is mismanaged, the risks extend beyond environmental damage. Improper storage can lead to chemical reactions, fires, or toxic exposures. Compliance frameworks like the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (or RCRA) and OSHA’s Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (known as HAZWOPER) standard exist not just to satisfy regulators but also to safeguard the very people who keep our industries running.
As we continue to navigate evolving regulations and sustainability goals, let’s remember: every label, every log, and every inspection is a step toward a safer, healthier workplace. Compliance isn’t a checkbox; it’s a commitment.
Chemical substances appear in nearly every type of workplace, but what happens when a chemical substance is found to unreasonably endanger the health of workers and others who encounter it? The law mandates that environmental regulations be implemented to reduce or eliminate such risks. That’s where a workplace chemical protection program (WCPP) comes in. It’s designed to protect individuals who are or may be exposed to potentially harmful chemical substances.
Take, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) December 2024 final rule on trichloroethylene (TCE), which ultimately bans all uses of the chemical. But, the rule allows certain industrial and commercial uses to continue for a limited time if facilities comply with the rule’s WCPP.
It’s important to note that on June 23, 2025, EPA delayed the effective date for WCPP requirements that apply to the Toxic Substances Control Act’s (TSCA’s) Section 6(g) exemptions (40 CFR 751.325) to August 19, 2025. However, the delay doesn’t apply to nonexempt industrial and commercial uses with longer phaseout timelines (751.305), such as using TCE as a processing solvent in battery manufacturing.
Discover what to expect if your facility becomes subject to a WCPP.
When specific uses of chemical substances (i.e., conditions of use) in an occupational setting may pose unreasonable risks of injury to employees or the environment, Section 6 of TSCA requires EPA to develop regulations that reduce or mitigate those risks. The agency implements WCPPs to address the risks.
A WCPP requires covered entities to take certain actions in the workplace that shield individuals who engage with the conditions of use from inhalation and/or dermal risk.
The requirements of a WCPP may apply to entities that manufacture (including import), process, distribute in commerce, use, or dispose of a TSCA-regulated chemical substance.
The WCPP program extends beyond those who directly handle a regulated chemical substance to anyone in the workplace who’s exposed or who could be exposed to it (e.g., employees, independent contractors, volunteers, etc.).
A WCPP generally consists of multiple elements:
If your facility is subject to a WCPP, it’s essential to know the regulations that apply to the specific chemical substance. The chemical’s rule will define the conditions of use to which the WCPP applies and may contain different or additional requirements. Also, state or local regulations may have stricter rules that dictate how (and if) your facility can use the chemical substance.
Key to remember: Facilities that use TSCA-regulated chemical substances may have to comply with EPA’s workplace chemical protection program to protect workers and other exposed individuals from unreasonable health risks.
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’s happened over the last month!
Two never-before-mentioned rulemakings reached the Office of Management and Budget for review on June 18. The two actions (one on respiratory protection and the other on the General Duty Clause) are only at the proposed rule stage, so stakeholders will have a chance to comment. At this time, it’s unclear whether the proposals are regulatory or de-regulatory. We’ll provide an update in a future monthly roundup as more information becomes available.
OSHA updated its Site-Specific Targeting program to reflect the use of Form 300A data for calendar years 2021 through 2023. This is OSHA’s primary planned inspection program for general industry establishments with 20 or more employees with the highest injury and illness rates. OSHA uses the data to target establishments for inspection.
Each year, backover incidents lead to serious injuries and fatalities in construction zones and workplaces. These incidents happen when drivers lose sight of people, objects, or vehicles behind them. To help prevent these incidents, OSHA launched #MirrorCheck, an initiative to raise awareness of safe work practices that can prevent backovers.
Effective June 27, Kentucky’s occupational safety and health standards are limited to those enforced by federal OSHA. The state will no longer adopt, promulgate, or enforce rules that are more stringent than federal OSHA. Kentucky operates an OSHA-approved State Plan covering most private sector workers and all state and local government workers.
As part of its Heat Illness Prevention campaign, OSHA has added two new resources for employers. One is a customizable guide for creating a toolbox talk on handling heat emergencies. The other explains the risks of heat illness for young workers.
And finally, turning to environmental news, EPA has again delayed the deadline for submitting data on 16 chemical substances required by the Toxic Substances Control Act Health and Safety Data Reporting rule. Manufacturers now have until May 22, 2026, to report on all of the covered chemical substances.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
ENTER THE INSTITUTE
Be your company’s leading compliance authority with a robust library of articles, videos, and practical exercises designed to grow your knowledge of 120+ regulatory subjects.
A 2022 law requires that some sections of end-use pesticide product labeling be translated into Spanish. So, now the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a notice requesting comments on how it wants to track the adoption of bilingual labeling. The agency also updated its Bilingual Labeling Questions & Answers webpage.
The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) has been enacted and reauthorized five times. The latest version (PRIA 5) was signed on December 29, 2022. It amended the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to require Spanish language translation for sections of the end-use pesticide product labels. However, those translations are only required where translation is available in EPA's Spanish Translation Guide for Pesticide Labeling.
Those sections deal with the health and safety of the product. Specifically, the guide has Spanish translations of the:
When a registered pesticide product is released for shipment, PRIA 5 requires translations or a link to translations on the product container. Any link would be via scannable technology or other accessible methods. Antimicrobial pesticide products and non-agricultural/non-RUP products have yet another option. They may provide a link to the Spanish Safety Data Sheets instead of a link to label translations.
PRIA 5 establishes a rolling schedule for the implementation of bilingual labeling. The schedule runs from December 2025 to 2030, with the translations for the most hazardous and toxic pesticide products required first. In fact, EPA is starting with RUPs and agricultural pesticides classified as acute toxicity category I. All end-use pesticide labels must have translations by 2030.
The dates when bilingual labeling is due are based on pesticide product type:
Pesticide product type: | Bilingual labeling due: |
RUPs | December 29, 2025 |
Agricultural products (non-RUPs): | |
Acute toxicity category I | December 29, 2025 |
Acute toxicity category II | December 29, 2027 |
Antimicrobial and non-agricultural products: | |
Acute toxicity category I | December 29, 2026 |
Acute toxicity category II | December 29, 2028 |
All other pesticide products | December 29, 2030 |
PRIA 5 also requires EPA to develop, implement, and make publicly available a plan for keeping track of the adoption of bilingual labeling. The agency previously proposed and received comments on using the annual paper maintenance fee filing form to track adoption. It would have used a checkbox to indicate whether products included bilingual labeling.
However, EPA has scrapped that approach. It’s now proposing to track adoption through its electronic MyPeST app. In this case, registrants would electronically check a box next to each pesticide product indicating whether it includes the required bilingual labeling. MyPeST would display product information — such as product type and signal word — to help registrants determine their products’ compliance dates.
The agency also wants to add a checkbox to MyPeST to indicate that a pesticide product will not be released for shipment. This helps distinguish between noncompliance and nonapplicable circumstances.
For tracking purposes, registrants would not need to submit the labels to EPA.
Comments on the proposed tracking method must be received on or before September 19, 2025. Send comments to docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2025-0049 at www.regulations.gov. Any comments are welcome, but EPA is particularly looking for examples of how it could reduce this tracking paperwork burden for businesses employing fewer than 25 workers.
The proposed method is anticipated to take 24 hours and cost just over $3,000 per covered entity per year. Entities potentially affected by the notice and comment request include:
EPA says it has also updated its Bilingual Labeling Questions & Answers webpage. Additional questions and answers touch on topics relating to, but not limited to:
This living document now has over 50 Q&As. It will be updated as PRIA 5 requirements and deadlines are met and new information is available.
EPA issued a notice requesting comments by September 19 on how it wants to track the adoption of bilingual labeling. Spanish language translation for sections of the end-use pesticide product labels has a rolling schedule from 2025 to 2030. The agency also updated its Bilingual Labeling Questions & Answers webpage.
Understanding how hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are counted is key to accurate reporting and staying in compliance. These pollutants often overlap, but how they are treated depends on the situation – especially when comparing emission inventories to permitting rules. Misunderstanding the differences can lead to underreporting, permit mistakes, and other compliance problems. This article will also discuss how state rules can make things more complex.
Emission inventories help regulatory agencies track actual emissions from facilities over time. These records support air quality models, guide policy, and help protect public health.
In many cases, HAPs that are also VOCs (like toluene or xylene) are included in the total VOC count. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) includes HAP-VOCs in its National Emissions Inventory (NEI), which supports regional air quality models like the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) system.
Frequently Asked Question: What is the National Emissions Inventory?
As an example, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) recommends using conservative “first cut” estimates for both VOCs and HAPs. This makes early reporting easier and helps avoid underestimating emissions.
PTE calculations are used to determine a facility’s regulatory status—such as whether it qualifies as a major source under New Source Review (NSR) or Title V or is subject to Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards.
In this context, HAPs and VOCs are counted separately because they are subject to different thresholds:
This separation is critical. A facility might exceed the HAP threshold and trigger MACT requirements, even if its VOC emissions are below NSR thresholds—or vice versa. As an example, if a paint booth has the potential to emit 500 pounds of toluene, this is counted as 500 pounds of HAP and 500 pounds of VOC. Even though that seems like double-counting for the same emission, it is important to include in both totals separately.
While federal rules provide a baseline, states often have their own interpretations and requirements:
Failing to understand how HAPs and VOCs are counted can lead to serious compliance issues:
To stay compliant and avoid costly mistakes:
Key to Remember: The way HAPs and VOCs are counted depends heavily on context. Understanding these distinctions – and how they vary by state – is key to maintaining compliance and protecting air quality.
Over the past few years, federal environmental regulations have targeted a specific group of chemicals: per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) isn’t the only entity taking action to control PFAS; state agencies are too.
So, how should businesses respond? Stay alert to the PFAS regulations at the state level.
PFAS, called “forever chemicals,” are long-lasting manufactured chemicals that may pose risks to human and environmental health. With thousands of PFAS chemicals, however, controlling their use to reduce the risks is no easy task.
Additionally, PFAS appear in nearly every sector. They’re used in a wide range of products (like food packaging, cleaning products, and textiles) and for commercial and industrial applications.
Multiple states already have PFAS rules on the books. Check out these examples:
Many states also have proposed PFAS rules under consideration.
If your facility uses PFAS, it’s essential to know whether the state has regulations that apply to your operations. Plus, knowing the state’s potential future PFAS rules coming down the pipeline can help you better prepare to comply.
Consider these general tips to support your facility’s efforts to track state PFAS actions:
Staying alert to state PFAS regulations can help your organization maintain compliance.
Key to remember: States across the country continue to consider and implement regulations related to PFAS. Staying alert to state PFAS actions is key for businesses to stay compliant.
On August 14, 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the biannual update to the nonconfidential Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory). The inventory includes all TSCA-regulated chemical substances manufactured, processed, or imported in the U.S.
The July 2025 TSCA Inventory contains 86,862 chemicals, adding 15 chemical substances since the last update. Nearly half of the substances (42,578) are active (i.e., in use). EPA also updated:
Further, the agency updated the TSCA Master Inventory File. It includes chemical identity information claimed as confidential that’s excluded from the nonconfidential TSCA Inventory. The TSCA Master Inventory File is the only list with comprehensive, authoritative information about which chemical substances are on the inventory.
The agency plans to make the next inventory update in Winter 2026.
How do I access the inventory?
View the TSCA Inventory by:
How does this impact my business?
The TSCA Inventory helps facilities determine compliance requirements for chemicals they (a) manufacture or use or (b) plan to manufacture or use. Chemicals that are on the TSCA Inventory are likely subject to rules, like manufacturing limits and reporting requirements. Chemicals that aren’t on the list must meet notification and review requirements before they can be used.
Key to remember: EPA released the July 2025 nonconfidential TSCA Inventory of chemical substances manufactured, processed, or imported in the U.S.
“Operator error” isn’t something anyone likes to see, especially when it applies to leaks from underground tanks of petroleum or hazardous materials. That’s why it’s essential to train individuals to manage underground storage tanks (USTs) correctly. Training obligations vary for each type of UST operator. Federal regulations establish three categories:
Properly trained operators are vital to managing USTs safely and in compliance. Use this guide to understand the different training requirements for Class A, B, and C operators.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires all owners and operators of UST systems to designate:
Class A operators are responsible for operating and maintaining USTs in line with the regulations. A Class A operator generally manages the resources and personnel involved to ensure UST operations comply.
A successfully trained Class A operator:
Class B operators handle the day-to-day responsibilities for managing USTs (like conducting in-field operations).
A Class B operator with sufficient training implements applicable regulatory requirements in the field on typical UST system components or site-specific equipment.
Class C operators provide immediate responses to UST-related problems.
An adequately trained Class C operator takes the necessary response actions to emergencies or alarms caused by UST spills and releases.
EPA outlines the minimum training requirements for each operator type at 40 CFR Part 280 Subpart J. All classes of operators must be trained or pass a comparable examination. Class C operators have the additional option to receive training from a Class A or B operator at the facility.
A facility can designate an individual for multiple operator classes. Any person with multiple designations must complete the required training or comparable examination for all applicable classes.
Class A and Class B operators must be trained within 30 days of beginning UST duties. Class C operators have to be trained before starting their UST responsibilities.
Class A operators should understand the purpose, methods, and functions of:
Class B operators may be trained in either:
Additionally, Class B operators need to know the purpose, methods, and functions of:
Class C operators must know how to respond with the correct actions to emergencies or alarms that are caused by spills or releases from UST operations, including notifying the authorities.
Consider these FAQs to help ensure your UST operator training programs comply.
How are operators evaluated?
Facilities must evaluate each operator via testing, a practical demonstration, or another approved approach.
When is retraining required?
If a UST system is found to be noncompliant, Class A and Class B operators at the facility must complete a training program or comparable examination that at least covers the areas out of compliance (unless exempt per 280.244).
Retraining should be completed within 30 days of the noncompliance determination. The training program or examination has to be developed or administered by a third party (i.e., an independent organization, the implementing agency, or a recognized authority).
How is training tracked?
Facilities are required to keep paper or electronic records that verify training and retraining for as long as the operators are designated. The records should contain at a minimum the information at 280.245(b).
What about state requirements?
It’s essential to check state UST regulations where your facilities operate. EPA has approved most states to implement the UST program. State requirements are at least as stringent as federal standards, and many state programs impose stricter rules.
Usually, operator training is obtained from third-party organizations that must be registered and approved by state environmental agencies to ensure the programs comply with federal and state requirements.
Key to remember: Training requirements for underground storage tank operators are based on their designated class: A, B, or C.
At first glance, an empty container seems like a non-issue — no product, no problem. But in the eyes of regulators, “empty” is a carefully defined status that can determine whether a container is harmless or still subject to hazardous waste rules, labeling, and fire or environmental risk controls. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and OSHA have detailed definitions of what “empty” truly means. Misunderstanding these rules can lead to serious incidents, hefty fines, and unintentional noncompliance.
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), a container that once held hazardous waste is only legally “empty” if it meets particular criteria outlined in 40 CFR 261.7. The first standard that must be satisfied is that all material has been removed from the container using normal means such as pouring, pumping, or aspirating. Secondly, no more than 2.5 centimeters or 1 inch of residue remains on the container's bottom or inner lining. Alternatively, if the container holds 119 gallons or less, it is empty if no more than 3 percent of the total weight exists, or, if the container holds more than 119 gallons, it is empty if no more than 0.3 percent of the total weight exists.
Of course, sometimes special circumstances require further evaluation. For example, a gas cylinder is not empty until the pressure has reduced to atmospheric levels, and acute hazardous waste containers must be triple rinsed with an appropriate solvent or cleaned by another approved method. If these conditions are not met, the container is still legally considered to contain hazardous waste, even if it feels empty.
While EPA focuses on environmental disposal and waste management, OSHA’s concern with empty containers centers on worker safety, particularly the potential for exposure to hazardous residues or vapors. Under OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200), a container that previously held hazardous chemicals must retain its original hazard label until it is adequately cleaned or until the employer removes the label following proper decontamination procedures. For example, a drum labeled “Flammable” must keep this label even if it appears empty, as residual material or vapors may still pose a significant ignition or fire risk. Removing such labels prematurely could lead to workplace hazards and violations of OSHA regulations.
Employers must first clearly determine which rules apply to them: whether the container held hazardous materials governed by EPA regulations, hazardous chemicals subject to OSHA requirements, or both. Emptying procedures should be followed, including properly draining the container, performing triple-rinsing when required, and thoroughly documenting all decontamination activities. Original hazard labels must be maintained on containers until they are thoroughly cleaned or reconditioned, as removing labels prematurely violates OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard. Additionally, employers should provide employees with training on the proper handling, labeling, and disposal of containers and ensure they fully understand what constitutes an empty container under federal standards. Finally, a detailed record of all rinsing, draining, and cleaning processes should be maintained to demonstrate compliance during EPA or state inspections.
Keys to remember: Employers should educate their teams, enforce proper cleaning procedures, and maintain compliance records to ensure they are staying compliant with “empty” container standards.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is undertaking a crucial initiative to enhance truck safety and reduce crashes involving commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) – the Crash Causal Factors Program (CCFP). Drivers and carriers have a critical role to play in this study.
This program builds on the foundation of the original Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS), conducted between 2001 and 2003. The CCFP recognizes the need for an updated understanding of crash factors, due to:
Echoes of the past: The LTCCS and its revelations
The LTCCS, a landmark study involving 963 crashes across 17 states, delved into the complex environment surrounding large truck crashes. Researchers collected a wealth of information, encompassing over 1,000 data elements per crash, to identify the factors contributing to these incidents. Their analysis determined the "critical event" – the action or event leading to the crash,and the "critical reason" – the immediate cause for that event.
According to FMCSA, the LTCCS identified leaving the lane (32 percent), traveling too fast for conditions (29 percent), and colliding with the rear of another vehicle (22 percent) as the most common critical events in crashes involving large trucks. Driver critical reasons were categorized into four areas: non-performance, recognition, decision, or performance failures. The study found that large trucks were assigned the critical reason in 55 percent of all crashes and in 44 percent of two-vehicle crashes. Decision-making errors were the most common critical reasons attributed to drivers of large trucks.
The LTCCS highlighted key associated factors contributing to crashes, including:
CCFP: A sharpened focus for the future
The CCFP's first phase, the Heavy-Duty Truck (crash) Study, aims to collect even more detailed data, focusing specifically on fatal crashes involving Class 7 and 8 heavy-duty trucks (gross vehicle weight rating of 26,001 pounds or more). This two-year study, projected to begin data collection in early 2026, will involve approximately 2,000 crashes from 30 states.
Data will be collected from multiple sources, including police accident reports, post-crash inspections, post-crash investigations conducted by trained officers, and detailed interviews with the involved CMV drivers, motor carrier officials (dispatchers/supervisors, managers, maintenance personnel, etc.), passenger vehicle drivers, pedestrians, and witnesses. These interviews, conducted by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), will be strictly confidential and the records of the interviews will not be accessible to FMCSA or others (such as the officers investigating the crash and plaintiff’s attorneys). This meticulous approach seeks to uncover insights into factors like:
The data collection will begin in nine states in January 2026, with the remaining participating states following in April 2026. If you are involved in a crash that will be part of the study, the investigating officer will provide you with information related to the process. The final report is expected in 2029, with the possibility of interim findings being published beforehand.
Key to remember: By leveraging existing state and local data collection processes and supplementing them with confidential interviews, the CCFP aims to streamline the process and gather comprehensive, reliable data that can inform the development of effective strategies to reduce crashes and improve safety on our roads.
As we roll into the latter half of 2025, it’s a good time to take stock of how roadside inspections are shaping up for hazardous materials transportation. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s mid-year data gives us a clear snapshot of the most common hazmat violations, and where carriers and drivers might want to focus their attention.
Here’s a look at the top five hazmat violations so far this year, based on inspection counts and violation frequency.
When hazardous materials aren’t properly secured, it’s a major safety concern, and nearly every time this issue is found it results in an out-of-service order. It’s a clear sign that securement practices need more attention.
This is a paperwork issue, but it’s still the second most common violation. The registration certificate is a basic requirement and skipping it is an easy way to land on the violation list.
Placards are critical for identifying hazards, especially in emergencies. If they’re faded, torn, or hard to read, they need to be replaced.
Shipping papers are essential for emergency responders and regulatory compliance. Unless there’s an exception, hazmat loads should always have shipping papers.
These are violations where the driver accepted improperly prepared hazmat.
So far in 2025, there have been 97,578 hazmat inspections and 21,002 violations, with 5,238 resulting in OOS orders. These top five violations account for a significant chunk of that activity, and most are preventable with better training, attention to detail, and consistent compliance practices.
Key to remember: Whether it’s securing cargo properly or making sure paperwork is in order, these are areas where small improvements can make a big difference.
Trucking has a reputation of having a revolving door of drivers, dispatchers, and technicians. Many of these employees leave for greener pastures, only to return to their old employers asking for a job.
But are these “boomerang” employees a wise recruiting decision? Let’s examine the arguments for and against rehiring previous employees.
Acclimating a new hire to a corporate culture and learning a new job takes time. For some new employees, the company and/or position isn’t what they expected, so they eventually leave. Invaluable time is lost when a new person doesn’t work out.
But a former employee who is reapplying knows what to expect from the company and what the job entails. Unless the company and/or the job description has gone through major changes since the past employment period, there should be minimal surprises for the returning employee. The onboarding process should take less time, allowing the company to place the former employee into the position sooner than others, resulting in cost savings.
Former immediate supervisors should be able to recall the boomerang employee’s previous work history, and recruiters should have access to the employee’s performance reviews, exit interview, and so forth. This information will assist in knowing whether this individual is eligible for rehire.
Motor carriers should look at why the employee left the organization.
Was it due to:
If the reason for leaving still exists or resurfaces, you may see this employee exit once again.
The longer a former employee has been away from the company, the less likely you can apply past performance to present or future behavior.
Ask yourself:
Other considerations include a change in:
The individual may no longer be a fit — or might be a better fit than before — based on these new factors.
Recruiters should not assume that a former employee will pick up where they left off. Boomerang employees should be formally interviewed just like any other applicant. Motor carriers should:
If the employee is rehired, don’t assume they can skip refresher training, especially if the person has been gone a while.
Key to remember: Rehiring former employees can offer some benefits. But each candidate must be taken on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a return is right for both the carrier and employee.
In the trucking industry, load securement is more than a best practice. It’s a regulatory requirement that directly affects safety, liability, and operational efficiency.
Despite this, improper cargo securement remains one of the most frequently cited violations during roadside inspections. According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Association (FMCSA), cargo securement issues continue to rank among the top out-of-service violations.
One of the most common violations involves insufficient tie-downs. Drivers often misjudge the number or strength of tie-downs required for a particular load. Regulations require that cargo be secured to prevent movement in every direction — forward, backward, sideways, and vertically. Failure to meet these standards can result in citations and immediate out-of-service orders.
Another frequent issue is the use of damaged or worn securement equipment. Inspectors regularly flag:
These defects not only violate FMCSA regulations but also pose serious safety risks. A single failed strap on a flatbed hauling heavy machinery can lead to disastrous consequences.
Improper blocking and bracing is also a recurring problem, especially in enclosed trailers. Freight that is not adequately stabilized can shift during transit.
This can lead to:
To avoid these violations, fleets must prioritize driver training and thorough inspection protocols. Pretrip inspections should include a detailed check of all securement devices to ensure they meet regulatory standards and are free of defects. Drivers should be trained not only on how to secure loads but also on assessing risk based on cargo type, weight, and distribution.
Preventive measures go beyond routine checks. They require a proactive mindset and a system that catches issues before they become violations. Fleets should:
These tools help drivers verify that loads remain secure throughout the journey, especially during long hauls or in adverse weather conditions.
Key to remember: By staying informed, maintaining equipment, and fostering a safety-first culture, carriers can reduce violations, protect their Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) scores, and ensure every load arrives safely and securely.
This year’s Brake Safety Week is set for August 24-30, meaning it’s time to make sure your vehicles and drivers are inspection ready!
The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) hosts this week-long inspection and compliance enforcement event each year to offer brake-safety awareness and to collect important brake-related data.
This year, inspectors will focus on drums and rotors. Brake drum and rotor issues can have a serious negative impact on a vehicle’s brake efficiency. There’s the possibility that broken pieces of drums and rotors can become dislodged from the vehicle enroute and damage other vehicles or lead to injuries or fatalities to the public.
CVSA-certified inspectors will perform routine inspections on commercial vehicles from August 24-30 with a special focus on brake components and systems. Some jurisdictions will also use performance-based brake testers (PBBT) to help assess a vehicle’s braking performance.
If an inspector finds any commercial vehicle with brake-related out-of-service violations, that vehicle will be removed from roads until the violations are corrected.
Brake Safety Week helps remind drivers and motor carriers to keep up with proactive vehicle maintenance and safety procedures. Law enforcement use this opportunity to highlight the importance of brake safety and to offer some educational outreach.
To help prepare for this year’s Brake Safety Week event, the CVSA recommends:
A flyer with eight brake drum and rotor tips is also available at https://www.cvsa.org/programs/operation-airbrake/focus-area/.
A question we’ve been seeing a lot lately has to do with the split specimen process and the motor carrier’s responsibilities if one of their drivers requests that a split specimen be tested.
Drivers who are informed that they’ve failed a DOT drug test have the right to request that the secondary specimen be tested if they believe that the test result is inaccurate. Due process is an important aspect of our legal system, but waiting for a split specimen to be tested can cause some confusion for motor carriers. Here are some common questions we hear about the split specimen process.
When a driver gives a urine sample for the purposes of DOT drug testing, the collector will split the specimen into two separate containers. The container labeled as the primary specimen will be tested by the lab; the container labeled as the secondary specimen is only tested if the driver requests that it be tested after the primary specimen is verified as positive, adulterated, or substituted.
When the medical review officer (MRO) contacts the driver about a verified positive, adulterated, or substituted test, the MRO will inform the driver of the driver’s right to have the split specimen tested. The driver then has 72 hours from the time of notification to request via the MRO that the split specimen be tested.
Because the driver’s primary specimen was verified positive, adulterated, or substituted, the motor carrier should have already pulled the driver from performing safety-sensitive functions. The driver cannot resume driving while the split specimen is being tested. Whether the driver is reassigned to a non-driving position or is suspended depends on the motor carrier’s drug and alcohol policy.
The regulations specify that the carrier cannot delay lab testing in order to collect payment from the driver. The secondary specimen should be submitted for testing as soon as the driver requests it, and motor carrier will be billed through the carrier’s lab account. In some cases, the motor carrier can seek reimbursement from the driver for full or partial costs of the split-specimen test.
The MRO will report the positive, adulterated, or substituted drug test result to the Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse within two business days of verifying the result for the primary specimen. Once the MRO receives the lab results for the secondary sample, one of three things happens:
Key to remember: Dividing a urine specimen into two samples allows for a driver to request that the secondary sample be tested if the first specimen indicates drug use. This is an important part of the driver’s right to due process.
“What’s new?” HR professionals might hesitate to answer that question – not because there’s nothing happening, but because there’s so much going on it’s difficult to know where to begin.
Executive orders, court challenges, ICE enforcement, DEI scrutiny, and funding uncertainty have required HR to be on high alert this year, making sure policies, programs, and procedures are in keeping with current standards and their budget.
In addition, states are rolling out changes to paid leave, discrimination, and non-compete agreement laws that deserve attention. And there’s always the question of what will come next.
Emily Dickens, head of government affairs for the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), has had a front row seat to regulatory and legislative changes this year. She has some tips for HR pros and others with HR duties who want to be proactive rather than reactive when dealing with all the changes.
It starts with pausing and realizing that you can’t do it all, Dickens said.
“The first thing I want you to do is breathe!” she said. “You cannot handle all this alone.”
HR professionals should focus on their strengths and the changes they are best able to address. For other issues, they should leverage the expertise of those in their network.
“Don’t give yourself whiplash” by looking at all the changes taking place every day, she said.
Instead, focus on two or three things that fall into your wheelhouse.
“Anything outside that box, find someone else who is an expert,” she said.
Those experts might be inside or outside an organization. Within their own company, HR professionals can work with their company’s legal counsel, for example, to understand the impact of legislative and regulatory changes and steps that need to be taken.
“You can lead in saying what the strategy is and let people do the things that they are good at,” Dickens noted. “You don’t necessarily have to lead everything by doing the work and executing on the work.”
If a company does not have an outside counsel, she advises HR professionals to champion for one to be added to the budget. She also suggests that HR professionals get to know the people in their company who specialize in government affairs.
“Take them out to lunch, go walk, have some or coffee,” she said. “Start talking to them about what your concerns are so that gets on their radar.”
When hiring for HR roles, she suggests looking for individuals who have expertise in areas that are not current strengths for team members. “Every HR generalist has an area they are really, really good at,” she noted.
While these strategies can’t stem the tide of change, they can make it a little easier to manage. As Dickens said, “These are practical things that can help you make your way through this.”
Key to remember: HR professionals and others with HR duties shouldn’t work in isolation when dealing with change. They should pause, consider what they are best at, and tap into their network for support.
Walk into any HR department, and you might see filing cabinets. Those files are likely locked because they contain applicant and employee information. Even if there are no filing cabinets, there are probably electronic files. Some HR departments have a cordoned-off, protected area just for such files.
Regardless of the format of the information or where it’s stored, employers need to keep personal applicant and employee data private and secure.
A collection of laws governs employee and applicant information. Those laws include:
Don’t forget state laws, which can go well beyond federal law requirements. While state-level privacy laws focus on consumer, not employee, data, some do. The California Consumer Privacy Act and the California Privacy Rights Act, for example, give California employees the right to access, delete, and restrict the use of their personal information.
While perhaps not specifically protected by law, HR professionals should keep employee and applicant personal information, such as a Social Security number, private to help avoid identity theft risks.
Not only do HR professionals need to comply with laws governing employee and applicant personal information, but if they fail to protect the information, they risk losing one of their biggest assets: Trust.
Applicants and employees share a lot of their information with their employers, and should that information fall into the wrong hands, HR professionals would find themselves trying to rebuild a trust that employees might have taken for granted. Such a breach could put employees in a tough spot trying to remediate any damage done by a breach.
For transparency purposes, HR professionals should make employees aware of the reasons why the information is collected and processed, how it’s collected, used, maintained, and destroyed, as well as employees’ rights to access, correct, or delete their information.
Key to remember: HR professionals must keep employee and applicant information private and confidential.
Are your forklift operators certified? Do they need a state driver’s license? Are they physically able to operate forklifts? All are commonly asked questions — so, let’s make sure you're compliant.
OSHA’s powered industrial truck (PIT) standard (29 CFR 1910.178) is intended to ensure the safe use of fork trucks, tractors, platform lift trucks, motorized hand trucks, and other specialized industrial trucks powered by electric motors or internal combustion engines. The standard outlines requirements for operational permits and certification.
And, though not specified in the standard itself, PIT operators must be at least 18 years old per federal child labor regulations.
The OSHA PIT standard clearly defines requirements for training and certification. However, some licensing and certification information isn’t as clear. Here are some clarifications:
Q: Who can train, evaluate, and certify PIT operators?
A: OSHA requires in 1910.178(l)(2)(iii) that, “All operator training and evaluation shall be conducted by persons who have the knowledge, training, and experience to train powered industrial truck operators and evaluate their competence.” The OSHA standard doesn’t further define this requirement or set any specific or additional certifications.
Q: Does OSHA require PIT operators to have a valid driver's license?
A: Federal OSHA has no requirement that a forklift operator has a valid motor vehicle driver's license. Some states are more stringent, so check your local and state requirements to confirm.
Q: Does OSHA have regulations that impact an employee’s ability to operate PITs if they’ve received a DUI or suspended license?
A: Because OSHA doesn't require a valid motor vehicle driver's license, the status of that license doesn’t impact PIT operator permitting. Individual states or the employer may have policies that dictate otherwise.
Q: Are PIT drivers required to have their license on them when they are working?
A: Federal OSHA doesn’t require PIT operators to have a license or permit. However, some states such as Michigan do require this. Typically, in states that require a permit or license, the license must be “readily available.” Companies have the option to require the permit or license be carried with the operator.
Q: Are operators required to be trained on each manufacture of PIT model?
A: A June 15, 1999, OSHA letter of interpretation (LOI) clarifies that operators are to be trained and evaluated in the safe operation for the type of truck they’ll be assigned. Operators wouldn’t need additional training for same truck types but would need additional training when truck- or workplace-related training topics are different.
Q: Do PIT operators need to be recertified if they move from one state to another with the same company?
A: In an LOI dated October 1, 1999, OSHA states, "As long as the employer has a reasonable basis to believe that the third-party trainer is qualified and has a program that meets the requirements of the standard, it can rely on that trainer to conduct the training and evaluation of employees and can certify that these employees have been trained. However, the employer may need to provide additional training on site-specific or truck-specific matters." This shouldn’t require retraining for the same type of forklift as already certified; however, workplace conditions or other factors of the new work location may require training for forklift operation in the other state(s).
Interested in information on how material handler training can help forklift operators? See our Compliance Network article "To improve forklift safety, train material handlers." |
In addition to being properly trained and evaluated, OSHA expects employers to ensure physical capabilities. OSHA references the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard B56.1-1969. Section 6 clarifies that, “Operators of powered industrial trucks shall be physically qualified. An examination should be made on an annual basis and include such things as field of vision, hearing, depth perception, and reaction timing."
Employers should consider OSHA PIT regulations and the General Duty Clause, ANSI standards, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements when evaluating physical qualifications. In short, if a worker demonstrates the visual, auditory, and mental ability to safely operate PITs, he or she is permitted to operate them.
OSHA requires employers ensure the safe use of forklifts and other powered industrial vehicles. Employers must ensure operators have the knowledge, skills, and physical ability to safely operate PITs.
The trend of using prescription medications for weight loss started with celebrities and then spread like wildfire throughout the country.
These medications are glucagon-like peptide-1s (GLP-1s), with the most prescribed being semaglutide. They were first prescribed for managing type 2 diabetes but are now being used by a growing number of people to help them lose weight.
Nearly 12 percent of American adults have used GLP-1 drugs for weight loss, according to a report released in August by RAND, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization. That number is likely increasing.
Coverage of GLP-1 medications for weight loss may be a benefit employees want from employers. Covering them, however, could significantly increase an employers’ insurance costs.
In 2025, 36 percent of employers provide GLP-1 coverage for both diabetes and weight loss. This is up from 34 percent in 2024, according to the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). While slightly fewer employers (55 percent) provide coverage for diabetes only, SHRM says this is down from 57 percent in 2024.
When deciding whether to cover GLP-1s for weight loss, employers must consider the pros and cons.
Some of the possible benefits of covering the cost of GLP-1 medications for employees include:
The potential downsides of covering GLP-1 medications for employees include:
Key to remember: GLP-1s may help patients manage type 2 diabetes and obesity, which could improve long-term employee health and workplace productivity. However, these drugs are expensive, have side effects, and the long-term effects are still relatively unknown. Employers must consider these factors when deciding whether to provide coverage of these drugs.
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.
Eligible employees may take leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) on an intermittent or reduced schedule basis when medically needed and for military family qualifying exigencies. This can include time off for their own conditions or those of a spouse, child, or parent. They may also take leave intermittently when employers agree to allow it for bonding with a healthy child.
Sometimes, employees might need continuous FMLA leave, only to be followed by intermittent leave.
If, for example, “Jo Employee” has surgery for a torn rotator cuff. She will likely need a few weeks off to recover. Over time, Jo might be able to work partial days. This means that Jo would take intermittent FMLA leave going forward until she’s fully recovered and able to work her normal schedule.
If, after taking intermittent FMLA leave, Jo reinjured herself, she might need to revert to continuous leave for a while.
How can employers stay on top of such changes? First, they may ask for an initial certification supporting the need for leave. The certification should give employers enough information to determine whether the employee needs FMLA leave for a qualifying reason.
For medical certifications, it should indicate which part of the FMLA’s definition of a serious health condition is involved. It should also include information on how much leave the employee needs.
Because things can change, employers may ask for recertifications now and then. They may ask for them no more often than every 30 days unless the certification indicates that the minimum duration of the condition is more than 30 days. In that situation, employers must wait until that minimum duration expires before requesting a recertification.
In all cases, employers may request a recertification of a medical condition in six months in conjunction with an employee’s absence (i.e., not just a random request).
Employers don’t have to wait the 30 days, the minimum duration, or six months to ask for a recertification in limited situations. This happens if:
Taking Jo’s example, if the initial certification indicated that she needed four weeks of continuous leave, but after three weeks, Jo said she could do some work, employers could ask for a recertification, as something had changed. If, after taking intermittent leave, Jo reinjured herself and went back to needing continuous weeks of FMLA leave, the employer could ask for a recertification.
Key to remember: Life situations seldom work on a straight trajectory. Things change, and so can an employee’s FMLA leave needs. What can start as a continuous leave can change to an intermittent leave, and vice versa. Employers can keep up with such changes using recertifications.
Are you swimming in a sea of material handling compliance confusion? Fear not — where questions abound, we have answers! Let’s dive into the 5 most common material handling questions we receive. Whether you're a seasoned professional or new to the field, these answers will help you navigate your warehouse and storage with ease!
OSHA doesn’t have a specific regulation that sets a height for materials stacked on pallets or shelving. However, the Agency does require in 1910.176(b) that:
“Storage of material shall not create a hazard. Bags, containers, bundles, etc., stored in tiers shall be stacked, blocked, interlocked and limited in height so that they are stable and secure against sliding or collapse.”
Additionally, OSHA does have a requirement in 1910.159(c)(10) regarding sprinkler clearance. A minimum 18” vertical clearance must be maintained between the sprinkler heads and stored materials to ensure effective sprinkler operation.
It’s important to also remember there could be height limitations based on the type of materials and potential fire load (for example, empty pallets can pose a hazard from fast developing fire and intense heat released from pallet stacks. Due to this, there are height limitations based on type of material, sprinkler system, and whether storage is indoor/outdoor, etc. Employers should always check with their local fire authority for additional guidance.
Under 1910.178, OSHA doesn't set any specific retention periods for this material handling equipment's daily inspection. Technically, the regulation doesn’t even require documentation, but they do require the inspections to be completed.
As a best practice, employers should determine how long inspection records should be retained and document the retention period in the company policy/program. Additionally, some employers also keep inspection records that identify issues or maintenance needs for a longer period as a systematic process focused on keeping machinery and equipment in optimal working condition.
OSHA’s materials handling and storage standard at 1910.176(b) states that “storage of material shall not create a hazard.” From an OSHA standpoint, employers must assess how chemicals are stored and managed to minimize hazard potential to workers. Additionally, OSHA’s HazCom standard at 1910.1200 requires that containers of hazardous chemicals be specifically labeled.
The agency expects employers to:
OSHA regulations also don’t specifically specify that capacity ratings or load limits be placed on storage racks; however, the agency has used the General Duty Clause (GDC) to cite for this in cases where a rack collapsed from overloading. To justify a GDC citation, OSHA may refer to the rack manufacturer’s recommendations or to the American National Standards Institute consensus standard ANSI/MH 16.1.
Though the Material Handling and Storage standard at 1910.176(b) tells us, “Storage of material shall not create a hazard,” OSHA does not give exact details on HOW one would ensure their storage systems don’t create hazards. In these cases, the situation would likely fall under the General Duty Clause.
As an example, OSHA issued a citation in 2015 to a facility in which pallet racks were not anchored and bolted to the ground. As part of this citation, OSHA mentions that “one feasible and acceptable method to correct the hazards noted are to follow the manufacturer installation instructions and/or conform with installation and assembly instructions and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard MH16.1-2012 (a revision of MH16.1-2008): Specifications for the Design, Testing and Utilization of Industrial Steel Storage Racks...”
Key to remember: OSHA material handling and storage regulations require, “Storage of material shall not create a hazard” which includes securing materials and shelving, ensuring adequate clearances for sprinkler systems, and maintaining clear exit routes.
As a supervisor, you play a key role in protecting your team from workplace injuries. One area that often gets overlooked, but can have a big impact, is ergonomics. Poor ergonomic practices in the workplace can lead to musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), which are continuously one of the most common and costly workplace injuries. In fact, MSDs have consistently accounted for nearly 30 percent of all cases involving days away from work in the U.S. private sector.
Understanding how ergonomic hazards and OSHA’s General Duty Clause (GDC) intersect can help you create a safer, more productive work environment.
The GDC is part of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. It requires employers to provide a workplace free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm. This includes ergonomic hazards, even though OSHA doesn’t have a specific ergonomics standard.
In simple terms, if a hazard is known (like repetitive strain from poor workstation setup), and it can cause serious harm, and there’s a reasonable way to fix it, then you’re expected to take action.
OSHA recognizes several types of ergonomic hazards that can pose serious risks to workers' health and safety. These hazards often arise from the way tasks are designed and performed, especially when they involve repetitive or physically demanding activities including:
These kinds of hazards can lead to injuries like:
Before OSHA can issue a citation under the GDC, they need to check off four key boxes:
If all four of these are true and the employer hasn’t done anything to address the issue, OSHA can issue a citation, and possibly a fine.
Investing in ergonomic solutions based on hazards is one of the easiest ways to reduce risk. Here are a few examples:
As a supervisor, you play a key role in keeping your team safe, healthy, and comfortable on the job. You don’t need to be an ergonomics expert, but you do need to be aware, responsive, and proactive. Here’s what that looks like:
And most importantly, make sure your team knows what resources and tools are available and how to use them. A little awareness goes a long way in preventing injuries and keeping everyone productive.
Key to remember: If an ergonomic hazard is known and preventable, OSHA expects action. As a supervisor, your role is to assess risks, support your team in reporting issues, and help apply practical solutions like adjusting workstations or using ergonomic tools to keep everyone safe and productive.
Using fall protection is always a good idea, but OSHA recognizes that it’s not always feasible. When employees must climb on trailers or other rolling stock without fall protection, employers should take other measures to minimize the risk of falls.
The fall protection expectations differ slightly between construction and general industry. For construction, fall protection is not required on trailers or other rolling stock. The definition of a walking/working surface in 1926.500 says that the term does not include “ladders, vehicles, or trailers, on which employees must be located in order to perform their job duties.” Even so, using fall protection is a best practice whenever possible. At a minimum, train employees to perform their tasks safely with an emphasis on avoiding fall hazards.
For general industry, OSHA clarified that fall protection is not required unless providing it would be feasible; if so, employers must provide it. Note that “feasible” means it could be provided, even if the anchor points or other necessary components are not currently installed.
When OSHA updated the walking/working surface regulations in 2016, the Preamble noted that providing fall protection for workers on rolling stock would be technologically feasible. However, economic feasibility was not addressed. That final rule didn’t address fall protection on rolling stock because OSHA had not covered the issue in the proposed rule. OSHA could not add requirements that had not been proposed for public comment. The agency simply stated that its enforcement policy was not changing.
That policy comes from a memo dated October 18, 1996. It outlines a settlement with grain handling facilities, but OSHA applies the same concepts to all employers. The memo states that OSHA won’t cite fall hazards from rolling stock under Subpart D (the walking-working surface standards). However, it could cite under 1910.132 for personal protective equipment or under the General Duty Clause if using fall protection would be feasible. Specifically, the memo says that OSHA would not cite for fall hazards “unless employees are working atop stock that is positioned inside of or contiguous to a building or other structure where the installation of fall protection is feasible.”
At first glance, this sounds simple: if fall protection is available or could be implemented (like inside a building), then employers must provide it. A significant challenge, however, is that trailers are commonly loaded and unloaded outdoors. In addition, even if an employer installed outdoor fall protection systems at its facilities, a driver visiting customer locations may not have access to suitable anchor points. For related information, see our article Fall protection training for drivers is required, but it's not what you think.
Employers should evaluate all possible measures to help employees protect themselves from falls. Those measures might include training on proper techniques or procedures, warnings against particular hazards like working in snow, or using equipment such as ladders when possible.
Key to remember: When fall protection isn’t feasible for employees working on trailers, employers should evaluate other possible options to maximize employee protection.
Training forklift operators is an OSHA requirement per 1910.178(l). Do you want to do it in house? If you said yes, follow this step-by-step guide.
It all starts with a competent trainer. OSHA’s view is that all operator training and evaluation must be conducted by persons who have the “knowledge, training, and experience” to train operators and evaluate their competence. The standard doesn’t go into any more detail. It’s up to the employer to ensure trainers meet these general qualifications, but OSHA has no requirements for trainers to take certain classes, hold any sort of certifications, or be re-certified as trainers at specified intervals.
Need more information on OSHA’s Forklift Standard? See our ezExplanation on Powered Industrial Trucks. |
The only aspect that OSHA has clarified is that the trainer does need to have experience operating the equipment and attachments. However, the standard doesn’t require that the trainers operate a forklift regularly (that is, outside of their operator training duties) as part of their job function or responsibility.
First, OSHA requires that all operators must be trained prior to being allowed to operate forklifts. And the same thing goes for pallet trucks, order pickers, and stand-up units…. Any powered type of material handling equipment requires training.
But what does training entail? Well, the OSHA regulations are very specific. All operators must receive a combination of training. Training must consist of formal training, which is a lecture, discussion, interactive computer learning, video tape, written material, and so on.
They must also receive practical training, which means demonstrations performed by the trainer and practical exercises performed by the trainee.
And the third component is that operators must receive a performance evaluation. So, they must operate the equipment and be observed and evaluated before being considered trained per the OSHA standard.
Usually, you’ll introduce the concepts during the classroom portion of training, the more informational aspects, such as the OSHA requirements. Then you’ll use the practical part of training to familiarize trainees with controls, talk about load handling, and so on. With the practical part, it’s usually best to ramp up the training, meaning start with simple skills and then build on those.
Aside from requirements for how to do the training, OSHA gives us a detailed list of topics to cover during the training.
The main categories are truck-related and workplace-related topics. And remember that OSHA does require you to include information on OSHA’s forklift standard as part of the training program. This requirement can be easy to overlook, but a good way to approach it is in the classroom portion of the program.
Keep in mind that if a topic doesn’t apply to your trucks or workplace, you don’t have to train on it. For example, if you don’t have any ramps or hazardous (classified) locations in your facility, your forklift operators don’t need training on these topics.
Truck-related topics include the following:
Workplace-related topics are examples like these:
The trainees must successfully complete the formal and practical instruction, but how you determine success is up to you. For the classroom portion, you could give a written or oral test or otherwise evaluate the trainees’ knowledge. For the practical training, the trainee must be able to safely perform all the operations used on the job.
An evaluation of the operator’s performance in the workplace must be conducted at the time of initial training. And an evaluation is required to determine the effectiveness of any refresher training.
Also, you must conduct an evaluation at least every three years. This means that at least once every three years every operator must be observed while they operate in the workplace under actual workplace conditions. During the evaluation, the operator must also be able to answer pertinent questions to demonstrate they have the knowledge to operate the forklift safely.
A key point to note here, this evaluation must be more than just a written or verbal test. The employer must observe the operator in action performing all typical tasks related to running the forklift. And, going back to where we started, the evaluation must be conducted by someone who has the knowledge, training, and experience to evaluate the truck operator’s competence.
Document the evaluation — this means placing a record in your training file that includes the name of the operator, the date of the training, the date of the evaluation, and the identity of the person(s) performing the training or evaluation.
This may be a good time for you to review your options for training forklift operators to ensure they’re meeting these guidelines. And, it’s always a great idea to have all your training procedures in written format for consistency.
Training forklift operators is an OSHA requirement. Follow this step-by-step guide and you can do it in-house.
State drug testing laws are typically slow to change, but this summer three states made revisions. Iowa and Ohio made their laws more employer-friendly, while Minnesota added a new requirement.
Iowa employers who conduct drug tests may now use electronic communication to notify employees about positive results when employees agree to this method of communication. They can also use an in-person exchange of written materials if that is what an employee would like to do.
These methods of communication can also be used when an applicant or parent of a minor agrees to receive notices this way.
Employers used to be required to send notifications by certified mail, return receipt requested. This method can still be used when it’s preferred by an employee, prospective employee, or parent of a minor.
In addition, the state has:
Ohio has merged its Drug-Free Safety Program, Drug-Free Safety Program Grants, and Substance Use and Recovery and Workplace Safety Program into a new entity: The Substance Use and Prevention Recovery Program (SUPR).
The voluntary program is available to public employer taxing districts and private employers with state workers’ compensation insurance. Self-insured employers can enroll at the comparable level to be included on the list approved state construction contractors.
Under the new program:
Employers may enroll at a basic, advanced, or reimbursement-only level, or may enroll with a comparable program. The basic, advanced, and comparable levels require employers to train supervisors and employees, conduct drug and alcohol testing, and have a written policy.
Employers applying only for reimbursement must keep documentation to support the reimbursement request for three years.
The state is creating an online portal where employers will be able to report program completion and request reimbursement for eligible expenses.
Minnesota employers must now comply with a notice requirement when taking certain negative actions against medical marijuana patients.
State law prohibits employers from discriminating against patients because of medical marijuana use or because of a positive drug test for marijuana. There are exceptions for employees who are impaired by marijuana at work, and when failing to act would cause an employer to:
Employers who decide to take a negative action because not doing so would violate the law or result in the loss of benefits must now provide a written notice to employees at least 14 days before the action. The notice must:
A patient may bring legal action against an employer for violating the law, and an employer must not retaliate against a patient who asserts their rights.
Key to remember: Some states have detailed drug testing laws, and while they do not change often, employers need to stay on top of changes to remain in compliance.
Although tornadoes can occur at any time, the “tornado season” generally runs from March through June, with May typically having the most storms. Although OSHA’s regulations do not specifically mention tornadoes, OSHA does require an Emergency Action Plan under 1910.38. The plan must include procedures for reporting fires or other emergencies (such as severe weather).
Below are some questions our experts commonly get regarding tornadoes.
Does OSHA require an alarm? Generally, yes, unless the workplace has 10 or fewer employees per 1910.165. Employers must provide a way to communicate an emergency in a manner that notifies employees of the expected response. A fire alarm typically warns employees to evacuate to a headcount location. If the nature of the emergency requires a different response (such as proceeding to a tornado shelter), employees must recognize the alarm and understand the appropriate response.
Does OSHA require annual drills? OSHA does not require drills, but does require annual testing of alarms under 1910.165. In addition, 1910.38 requires that employees understand their responsibilities under the Emergency Action Plan. Conducting annual fire evacuation drills is common, and your insurance company may require them. However, many employers do not conduct annual tornado drills because employees would typically proceed to the nearest shelter, which may not allow for a headcount. Still, annual alarm testing can let employees know what it sounds like, and employers can deliver reminders on shelter locations at that time.
Does OSHA require tornado shelters? No, OSHA does not specifically require tornado shelters, but does list recommendations from other agencies regarding preferred shelter areas. If a building lacks an ideal location, employers should identify the best potential shelter areas. Employers might also check with their insurance company about building shelter areas. Typically, employees should:
What about remote or traveling employees? Many employees work remotely, travel for business, or even report to off-site locations (such as construction sites). These employees cannot rely on an alarm and should monitor the weather in their area. They should also know how to protect themselves, whether driving, working from home, or working outdoors.
Tornado safety involves three phases: Preparing in advance, Staying safe during the storm, and Staying safe after the storm.
Employees should prepare a plan and an emergency kit, monitor weather conditions during thunderstorms, and know the best places to shelter wherever they work.
Employers should prepare a business continuity plan for dealing with the aftermath, from cleaning up the site to resuming business operations.
During a tornado warning, employees should remain in a shelter until given an all-clear signal. At a fixed worksite, this may come from an employer announcement. At other locations, employees may need to monitor conditions on their phone or radio.
After the storm, employees may need a way to communicate if they are trapped or injured. They should also watch for hazards such as downed power lines, gas leaks, building damage, or debris.
Key to remember: Tornadoes can happen at any time, but Spring is most active, and employers should prepare to protect workers.