
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).
On April 1, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the “Set 2” Rule, establishing the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program’s 2026 and 2027 renewable fuel volumes and associated percentage standards for:
The final rule also implements other significant changes.
Who’s impacted?
The “Set 2” Rule affects:
The volume and percentage requirements apply to obligated parties, which include transportation fuel refiners and importers.
What are the changes?
The final rule sets the renewable fuel volume requirements and associated percentage standards for 2026 and 2027. Volume requirements are measured in billion Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs). One RIN represents one gallon of ethanol-equivalent renewable fuel.
| Renewable fuel category | Volume requirements (in billion RINs) | Percentage standards | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | 2027 | 2026 | 2027 | |
| Cellulosic biofuel | 1.36 | 1.43 | 0.79% | 0.84% |
| BBD | 9.07 | 9.20 | 5.24% | 5.37% |
| Advanced biofuel | 11.10 | 11.32 | 6.42% | 6.61% |
| Total renewable fuel | 26.81 | 27.02 | 15.50% | 15.78% |
The “Set 2” Rule also:
RFS program refresher
The RFS program requires transportation fuel sold in the United States to contain a minimum volume of renewable fuels. EPA sets the renewable fuel volume targets for each of the four renewable fuel categories.
To comply, obligated parties must:
Regulations also apply to fuel blenders, marketers, and exporters.
Small refiners may petition EPA for a small refinery exemption (SRE), which allows refineries to produce gasoline and diesel without having to meet the RVOs required by the RFS program. EPA grants SREs annually, and they cover one specific compliance year.
Key to remember: EPA’s final “Set 2” rule establishes the renewable fuel volumes and percentage standards for 2026 and 2027 and drives other changes to the RFS program.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule on April 1, 2026, amending the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources (CMAS). The NESHAP controls hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from facilities that manufacture a range of chemicals and products, such as inorganic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic rubber.
Who’s impacted?
The final rule applies to nine area source categories in the chemical manufacturing sector that are regulated by the CMAS NESHAP (40 CFR 63 Subpart VVVVVV).
What are the changes?
EPA’s final rule:
The final rule also mandates electronic reporting for notifications of compliance status (NOCs), performance test reports, and periodic reports. Facilities must submit these reports through the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) on EPA’s Central Data Exchange.
What didn’t change?
Significantly, the final rule doesn’t add previously proposed regulations for area sources that use ethylene oxide (EtO) to produce materials described by code 325 of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
EPA states that it intends to address the regulation of EtO from area sources and major sources in one final action.
What are the compliance timelines?
Existing facilities must comply with the amendments by April 1, 2029.
New facilities (those that begin construction or reconstruction after January 22, 2025) have to comply with the changes by April 1, 2026, or upon startup, whichever is later.
Additionally, facilities must start electronically submitting:
Key to remember: EPA’s final HAP emissions rule for chemical manufacturing area sources adds new requirements for certain processing equipment and systems.
Environmental regulations require many facilities to report annual inventories of the hazardous chemicals they use or store. Have you ever considered the impact that this information has beyond regulatory compliance? Reporting facilities, whether they realize it or not, serve an essential role in local emergency response planning.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Hazardous Chemical Inventory Reporting program under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) offers a prime example of how collaboration among the federal, state, local, and facility levels supports safer communities.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires facilities to keep Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) for any hazardous chemical used or stored in the workplace. Facilities that use or store the chemicals on-site at or above certain thresholds at any one time are subject to EPCRA’s Hazardous Chemical Inventory Reporting program. Regulated facilities must report information about the hazardous chemicals to the:
EPA’s EPCRA inventory program consists of two reporting requirements under Sections 311 and 312 of EPCRA.
Section 311 of EPCRA requires facilities to submit the SDSs for or a list of the hazardous chemicals used or stored on-site at or above the reporting thresholds to the SERC, LEPC, and local fire department.
SDSs usually include comprehensive information, such as:
If a facility opts to list the chemicals, it must group them by hazard categories and include each chemical’s name and any hazardous components as identified by the SDS. This is generally a one-time submission for each hazardous chemical. However, if a facility submits an SDS for a hazardous chemical and later discovers significant new information about it, the facility has to send an updated SDS to the SERC, LEPC, and local fire department.
Under Section 312 of EPCRA, facilities must also submit an annual inventory (known as the Tier II inventory report) of the hazardous chemicals used or stored on-site at or above the reporting thresholds to the SERC, LEPC, and local fire department by March 1.
Facilities should check state regulations to confirm Tier II reporting thresholds, as they may be more stringent.
The Tier II inventory report requires information on the covered hazardous chemicals used or stored at the facility during the previous calendar year, including:
Inventory reports provide information that’s vital to effective emergency response planning. Specifically, the inventories tell state and local officials about where hazardous chemical releases may occur and the risks that such releases may pose. Equipped with an accurate view of these hazards, officials can build and maintain effective emergency response plans for their communities.
Each participant in the emergency planning effort plays a distinct role:
Ultimately, reporting facilities aren’t just meeting a compliance requirement; they’re also supporting safer communities.
Key point: EPCRA’s hazardous chemical inventory requirements provide an example of effective collaboration between EPA, state and local officials, and facilities to prepare communities for chemical emergencies.
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting can be tricky, even for seasoned EHS teams. Many facilities meet all the requirements but still miss chemicals that should be reported. Most oversights fall into four key categories. Here’s what they are and why they get missed, along with a few simple examples that show up in routine operations.
The TRI list changes more often than many people realize. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regularly updates it and recently added new per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and even a full diisononyl phthalate (DINP) chemical category. When facilities don’t review these updates each year, they may keep using materials that now contain reportable chemicals without realizing it. For example, PFAS were expanded for Reporting Years 2024 and 2025, and the DINP category was added in 2023. These changes mean that everyday items like coatings, lubricants, and flexible plastics can suddenly trigger TRI thresholds.
Not every reportable chemical is manufactured or processed. Many are simply “otherwise used,” including solvents, degreasers, cleaners, and maintenance chemicals. Facilities often overlook these because they aren’t part of the product mix, but they can add up fast. Even common shop chemicals, when used across a year, can exceed the 10,000-pound threshold and require reporting.
Some chemicals are created unintentionally during normal operations. Ammonia may form during baking or heating steps, nitrates often appear in wastewater treatment, and metal compounds can be generated during welding, machining, or corrosion. These substances count as “manufactured” under TRI even if they weren’t intentionally manufactured. Examples like ammonia, nitrates, metal compounds, and diesel byproducts such as naphthalene and polycyclic aromatic compounds are regularly overlooked in TRI reporting because they’re easy to underestimate.
Many reportable chemicals hide inside mixtures, oils, coatings, lubricants, and chemical blends. If a facility focuses only on the main ingredients, it may miss the smaller additive or impurity that’s actually subject to TRI reporting. These overlooked components can push a facility over a reporting threshold, even when the product is used in small amounts.
TRI oversights usually occur not because facilities ignore the rules but because chemicals show up in unexpected forms. Keeping an eye on updates, tracking cleaners and maintenance chemicals, monitoring byproducts, and checking mixtures closely can prevent the most common reporting mistakes.
Counties and municipalities play a major role in protecting air, water, and land resources across the United States. Although federal and state agencies establish the overarching environmental framework, thousands of local agencies conduct the day to day permitting, inspections, and enforcement needed to make those rules work.
Local governments obtain regulatory authority largely through delegation. Federal environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) allow the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to authorize state agencies, which may then rely on local entities to administer components of these programs. In many states, local districts, counties, or municipalities operate significant environmental programs directly under state authority.
A strong example of local involvement can be seen in air quality management. The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) reports that 117 local air agencies participate in implementing federal and state clean air programs, highlighting how implementation frequently happens at the local level.
EPA’s AirNow directory lists numerous local air quality agencies across the country; Examples include air pollution control districts in California (such as the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, the San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District) as well as local air programs in Maricopa County, Arizona; Jacksonville, Florida; and Omaha, Nebraska. These districts conduct inspections, issue permits, investigate complaints, and maintain air monitoring networks, all of which support state and federal clean air requirements.
Local authority is also central to solid waste management, where many states rely heavily on counties and municipalities to manage planning, facilities, and enforcement. For instance, Washington State requires local governments to develop comprehensive solid and hazardous waste management plans that guide all waste handling and recycling programs within each county or city. These plans determine facility needs, outline reduction and recycling strategies, and shape local ordinances designed to meet state goals.
Additional examples appear across the country. Maryland’s Montgomery County, California’s Alameda County, and the District of Columbia all implement ambitious local waste diversion plans that supplement or exceed state requirements, demonstrating how counties and cities directly shape waste reduction and recycling policy. Likewise, South Carolina places most solid waste management responsibility on county governments, which must develop local plans, designate recycling coordinators, and report progress toward statewide goals.
Local environmental regulatory authority matters because conditions vary widely across the nation. Counties and municipalities better understand their own industries, land uses, and growth patterns, allowing them to respond quickly to complaints, target outreach effectively, and adopt ordinances that go beyond state or federal minimums when necessary. Their proximity to communities makes local agencies essential partners in achieving environmental compliance and advancing public health protections.
As federal and state programs evolve, the role of local agencies continues to expand. Air quality districts, solid waste authorities, and local environmental health departments all demonstrate how counties and municipalities contribute directly to national environmental objectives.
Key to remember: With thousands of local agencies responsible for on the ground regulatory tasks, the strength and responsiveness of the United States’ environmental protection system depend heavily on the active engagement of local governments.
Every year at the beginning of July, industrial facilities across the nation can breathe a collective sigh of relief — their annual inventories of toxic chemicals are complete! To ensure that your facility can be part of that celebration (and avoid a chaotic rush to meet the deadline), now’s the perfect time to start preparing for the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) TRI program requires industrial facilities to report waste management data on certain toxic chemicals they manufacture, process, and use by July 1 each year. Is your facility ready to report? Here’s an overview of the TRI program to help you answer this question.
Generally, TRI reporting applies if the facility:
TRI tip: The TRI reporting year (RY) reflects the calendar year covered by the report, not the year in which you submit the report. For example, TRI reports for RY 2025 are due by July 1, 2026.
Facilities must submit the TRI Form R (or the streamlined Form A Certification Statement if eligible) for each TRI-listed chemical manufactured, processed, or used during the previous calendar year. The data covers chemical waste management activities (including releases to the environment) and any actions taken to reduce or prevent chemical waste.
Facilities usually report for each chemical:
The TRI reports for RY 2025 contain three differences from previous years:
| EPA registry name | CASRN |
|---|---|
| 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate acid | 27619-97-2 |
| 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate ammonium salt | 59587-39-2 |
| 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate anion | 425670-75-3 |
| 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate potassium salt | 59587-38-1 |
| 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate sodium salt | 27619-94-9 |
| Acetic acid, [(.gamma.-.omega.-perfluoro-C8-10-alkyl)thio] derivs., Bu esters | 3030471-22-5 |
| Ammonium perfluorodecanoate | 3108-42-7 |
| Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid | 377-73-1 |
| Sodium perfluorodecanoate | 3830-45-3 |
Facilities must submit TRI reports electronically to the TRI-MEweb application on EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). Even if a facility uses its own software to prepare TRI forms, it must upload and submit the forms to TRI-MEweb.
TRI tip: To complete the submission process on TRI-MEweb, you need to assign one user the Preparer role and another user the Certifying Official role. Ensure both users have added TRI-MEweb to their CDX user accounts.
TRI reports must be submitted to both EPA and the state. If your facility’s state participates in the TRI Data Exchange (TDX), TRI-MEweb will automatically send your report to the state. If your facility’s state doesn’t participate, you must send a hard copy of the report to the TRI state contact.
TRI tip: Use EPA’s “TRI Data Exchange” webpage to determine whether your facility’s state participates in TDX. As of March 2026, all 50 states participate in TDX. The District of Columbia doesn’t participate.
Keep these things in mind when preparing your TRI reports:
Start preparing for TRI reporting now to give your facility plenty of time to gather data, complete the forms, and respond to unexpected issues that could arise. That way, your facility can breathe easily throughout the whole reporting season.
Key to remember: The submission deadline for TRI reporting is July 1, 2026. Make sure your facility is ready to report.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized major changes to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Polyether Polyols (PEPO) Production (PEPO NESHAP).
Who’s impacted?
The final rule applies to facilities that produce polyether polyols and are subject to the regulations at 40 CFR 63 Subpart PPP.
What are the changes?
EPA’s final rule establishes ethylene oxide (EtO) standards, updates maximum achievable control technology (MACT) requirements, and revises other provisions for the PEPO NESHAP.
EtO standards
The final rule adds EtO emission standards for:
The standards set emission limits and add requirements for monitoring and leak repairs.
MACT standards
Further, the final rule:
Other standards
EPA’s final rule also:
However, EPA didn’t finalize the 2024 proposed rule’s addition of a fenceline monitoring program for EtO or its changes to the continuous process vent standard.
What’s the compliance timeline?
Facilities subject to the PEPO NESHAP must comply with the changes by March 18, 2029, or upon startup, whichever is later.
Key to remember: EPA’s final rule for polyether polyol emissions makes significant changes, such as establishing EtO limits and revising MACT standards.
Industrial stormwater compliance can feel complex for facilities balancing operations, employees, and shifting permit requirements. Many questions center on the federal general permit, pollution prevention plan expectations, monitoring, and what to do in everyday situations where stormwater risks arise. The following sections summarize core topics and practical concerns.
EPA issued the current MSGP in 2021, and it remains in effect beyond its February 28, 2026 expiration until EPA finalizes the proposed 2026 MSGP. Because the proposed 2026 permit is still under review, the 2021 MSGP continues to govern covered facilities.
EPA released the proposed 2026 MSGP in December 2024. Public comments, including an extended comment period ending May 19, 2025, must be reviewed before finalizing the permit. Since the existing MSGP remains valid until replaced, the 2021 permit stays in force while EPA completes its process.
A SWPPP outlines how a facility prevents pollutants from reaching stormwater. It identifies pollutant sources, control measures, inspection routines, monitoring steps, and staff training. A SWPPP must be written before submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) for permit coverage and updated when operations or stormwater risks change.
Most states issue their own industrial stormwater permits modeled on the federal MSGP. These permits typically require:
States may add requirements based on local conditions. When EPA updates the MSGP, states often revise their permits to align with new federal standards.
Industrial facilities that discharge stormwater to waters of the United States generally need permit coverage unless they qualify for a no‑exposure exclusion. The federal MSGP applies in areas where EPA, not the state, holds National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) authority.
To obtain coverage, a facility must:
The proposed 2026 MSGP includes updated forms and appendices, but current requirements remain based on the 2021 version until a new permit is published.
Under the 2021 MSGP, required monitoring may include:
The proposed 2026 MSGP would expand per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) sampling, increase benchmark monitoring frequency, and add requirements for impaired waters. These changes remain pending.
A benchmark exceedance requires the facility to investigate causes, improve control measures, and document actions in the SWPPP. The proposed 2026 MSGP would formalize additional implementation measures and reporting steps, but these wouldn’t apply until the new permit takes effect.
Industrial stormwater issues often arise from everyday activities. Consider these examples:
Employees’ vehicles leaking oil in parking lots
Leaks from employee vehicles can contaminate stormwater. While the MSGP does not regulate personal vehicles directly, the facility is responsible for any pollutants that enter stormwater from its property. Good housekeeping practices include absorbent stations, spill kits, drip pans, and designated parking areas with routine inspection.
Nonroutine outdoor maintenance
Temporary outdoor activities such as conducting maintenance, unloading equipment, or staging materials, can introduce pollutants. The SWPPP should address nonroutine tasks by requiring temporary controls like tarps, containment pads, or scheduling activities during dry weather. Documentation of these activities is also part of good recordkeeping.
Outdoor waste storage or scrap piles
These materials should be covered or sheltered, kept away from storm drains, and inspected frequently. If runoff contacts industrial materials, the discharge becomes regulated and must be managed under the permit.
These scenarios reinforce the need for strong housekeeping practices, staff training, and prompt corrective actions.
Facilities must maintain monitoring records, inspection logs, SWPPP updates, and corrective action reports. EPA may request these documents at any time. Appendices in the proposed 2026 MSGP preview updated forms, but the 2021 requirements remain in place for now.
Facilities should continue full compliance with the 2021 MSGP, track regulatory updates, and prepare for more frequent monitoring and PFAS sampling likely included in the 2026 permit. Reviewing proposed changes now helps facilities plan needed SWPPP updates in advance.
Key to remember: Industrial facilities covered under the 2021 MSGP or a state equivalent must continue following that permit until EPA issues a new federal MSGP. Staying informed, maintaining strong housekeeping, and keeping SWPPP documentation current remain the most effective strategies for compliance.
Every year at the beginning of July, industrial facilities across the nation can breathe a collective sigh of relief — their annual inventories of toxic chemicals are complete! To ensure that your facility can be part of that celebration (and avoid a chaotic rush to meet the deadline), now’s the perfect time to start preparing for the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) TRI program requires industrial facilities to report waste management data on certain toxic chemicals they manufacture, process, and use by July 1 each year. Is your facility ready to report? Here’s an overview of the TRI program to help you answer this question.
Generally, TRI reporting applies if the facility:
TRI tip: The TRI reporting year (RY) reflects the calendar year covered by the report, not the year in which you submit the report. For example, TRI reports for RY 2025 are due by July 1, 2026.
Facilities must submit the TRI Form R (or the streamlined Form A Certification Statement if eligible) for each TRI-listed chemical manufactured, processed, or used during the previous calendar year. The data covers chemical waste management activities (including releases to the environment) and any actions taken to reduce or prevent chemical waste.
Facilities usually report for each chemical:
The TRI reports for RY 2025 contain three differences from previous years:
| EPA registry name | CASRN |
|---|---|
| 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate acid | 27619-97-2 |
| 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate ammonium salt | 59587-39-2 |
| 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate anion | 425670-75-3 |
| 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate potassium salt | 59587-38-1 |
| 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate sodium salt | 27619-94-9 |
| Acetic acid, [(.gamma.-.omega.-perfluoro-C8-10-alkyl)thio] derivs., Bu esters | 3030471-22-5 |
| Ammonium perfluorodecanoate | 3108-42-7 |
| Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid | 377-73-1 |
| Sodium perfluorodecanoate | 3830-45-3 |
Facilities must submit TRI reports electronically to the TRI-MEweb application on EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). Even if a facility uses its own software to prepare TRI forms, it must upload and submit the forms to TRI-MEweb.
TRI tip: To complete the submission process on TRI-MEweb, you need to assign one user the Preparer role and another user the Certifying Official role. Ensure both users have added TRI-MEweb to their CDX user accounts.
TRI reports must be submitted to both EPA and the state. If your facility’s state participates in the TRI Data Exchange (TDX), TRI-MEweb will automatically send your report to the state. If your facility’s state doesn’t participate, you must send a hard copy of the report to the TRI state contact.
TRI tip: Use EPA’s “TRI Data Exchange” webpage to determine whether your facility’s state participates in TDX. As of March 2026, all 50 states participate in TDX. The District of Columbia doesn’t participate.
Keep these things in mind when preparing your TRI reports:
Start preparing for TRI reporting now to give your facility plenty of time to gather data, complete the forms, and respond to unexpected issues that could arise. That way, your facility can breathe easily throughout the whole reporting season.
Key to remember: The submission deadline for TRI reporting is July 1, 2026. Make sure your facility is ready to report.
On March 10, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized emission regulations for large municipal waste combustors (LMWCs). The final rule revises nearly all emission limits for new and existing LMWCs.
Who’s impacted?
The final rule applies to LMWCs that combust more than 250 tons per day of municipal solid waste and are covered by the:
EPA established new subparts for the amendments at 40 CFR Part 60, including:
What are the changes?
Generally, stricter emission limits apply. For all LMWCs (new and existing), the rule revises the emission limits for:
For all new LMWCs, the final rule revises the emission limits for carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). The final rule also amends the CO and NOx limits for all existing LMWCs, except for the CO limits for two subcategories of combustors and the NOx limits for two subcategories of combustors for new municipal solid waste incinerators.
Other major changes include:
What’s the compliance timeline?
When EPA updates EGs, states must revise their State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to incorporate the changes. States have to submit revised SIPs by March 10, 2027. Once EPA approves the SIP, facilities with existing LMWCs must meet the new standards either within 3 years of the SIP’s approval date or by March 10, 2031, whichever is earlier.
New LMWCs must comply with the amended NSPS by September 10, 2026, or upon startup, whichever is later.
Key to remember: EPA finalized stronger emission limits for new and existing large municipal waste combustors and made other changes to the standards.
Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news. Let’s take a look at what happened over the past month.
Fatal work injuries fell 4 percent in 2024, largely due to a decline in workplace drug- and alcohol-related overdoses. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, overdose fatalities fell from 512 in 2023 to 410 in 2024. Across all types of workplace incidents, there were 5,070 fatal work injuries in 2024, compared to 5,283 in 2023. Transportation incidents continue to be the most frequent type of fatal event, accounting for over 38 percent of all occupational fatalities in 2024.
OSHA is fast-tracking a proposal to remove the 2036 obligation to upgrade fall protection systems on fixed ladders that extend over 24 feet. This follows an industry petition from major chemical and petroleum industry groups, which argue the provision is unjustified, costly, and not supported by the rulemaking record. OSHA frames the upcoming proposed action as deregulatory, allowing employers to update fixed ladders at the end of their service lives. We’ll provide updates as more information becomes available.
As OSHA leans into “deregulatory” actions, lawmakers are moving to pressure the agency to issue “regulatory” rulemaking to protect American workers. The latest legislative wave of bills aims to fill regulatory gaps, tackle emerging hazards, expand OSHA authority, and raise penalties. Topics addressed by these bills include musculoskeletal disorders, heat stress, infectious diseases, wildfire smoke, and workplace violence.
In a recently issued letter of interpretation, OSHA states that a burn injury caused by a personal lithium-ion battery fire is work related if it occurs in the workplace during assigned working hours. The letter details an incident where an employee was burned when their rechargeable lithium-ion batteries for e-cigarettes sparked a fire after coming into contact with a key used for work.
A new report from the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General concludes that OSHA struggles to meet its mission, particularly in high-risk industries like healthcare, construction, and manufacturing. Several pages point to OSHA’s difficulties in effectively enforcing annual injury and illness reporting requirements, reaching the nation’s high-risk worksites for inspection, and addressing workplace violence by regulatory or other action.
Turning to environmental news, EPA extended the deadlines for Facility Evaluation Reports and related requirements for coal combustion residuals facilities. In most instances, the deadlines have been moved one or two years out.
And finally, EPA announced a final rule eliminating the 2009 Endangerment Finding and related greenhouse gas emission requirements for on-highway vehicles and vehicle engines. When the final rule takes effect, manufacturers and importers of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines will no longer have to measure, report, certify, or comply with federal greenhouse gas emission standards.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
Effective date: February 14, 2026
This applies to: Open and closed municipal solid waste landfills
Description of change: The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission added Regulation 31, which establishes new emission control and monitoring requirements for municipal solid waste landfills. Applicability is based on the landfill’s amount of waste it holds and methane emissions.
Significant changes implemented by Regulation 31 include:
Related state info: Clean air operating permits state comparison
Effective date: January 20, 2026
This applies to: Participating entities
Description of change: The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) revised the Voluntary Environmental Self-Audit Program rules in January 2026. Some of the changes include:
Effective date: March 11, 2026
This applies to: Construction activities that discharge stormwater into Waters of the State
Description of change: The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) revised the Delaware National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit (CGP), which implements the DNREC Sediment and Stormwater Management Program.
It applies to construction activities that plan to disturb 1 or more acres (or activities that plan to disturb less than 1 acre but are part of a larger common plan of development or sale that will disturb more than 1 acre) that discharge stormwater to Waters of the State.
The DNREC made minimal changes to the NPDES CGP. The 2026 NPDES CGP will provide coverage for 5 years.
Related state info: Construction water permitting — Delaware
Effective date: February 1, 2026
This applies to: Water right holders who divert more than 10 acre-feet per year
Description of change: The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) updated the Water Measurement and Reporting Regulation (SB 88) with changes primarily affecting reporting requirements, such as:
Updated measuring and reporting requirements take effect on October 1, 2026.
On March 5, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed rule to end the use of paper hazardous waste manifests and require waste handlers to use electronic manifests on the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest (e-Manifest) System to track all shipments of hazardous waste regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
What are the proposed changes?
EPA proposes to “sunset” (i.e., phase out) the use of paper manifests and shift to using only electronic manifests (either fully electronic or hybrid) to track RCRA hazardous waste shipments.
The sunset compliance date would be 2 years from the publication date of a final rule. On and after the sunset compliance date, EPA would no longer accept paper hazardous waste manifests (image-only and data-plus-image submission types). In other words, regulated waste handlers would have to use fully electronic or hybrid manifests on the e-Manifest System for all hazardous waste shipments initiated on and after the sunset compliance date.
Who would be impacted?
The proposed rule would affect waste handlers involved in manifesting hazardous waste, including:
Many of the proposed changes would align RCRA regulations with the shift to electronic-only manifesting and with the 2024 e-Manifest Third Rule’s changes. The proposed rule also contains technical corrections to import and export regulations.
Additionally, EPA’s proposed rule would add requirements for:
Examples of these requirements include:
EPA will accept public comments on the proposed rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2025-3456) through May 4, 2026.
Key to remember: EPA proposes to end the use of paper manifests and require waste handlers to use electronic manifests to track all RCRA hazardous waste shipments.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued an administrative continuance of the 2021 Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) and a No Action Assurance memorandum for industrial stormwater discharges regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
The 2021 MSGP expired on February 28, 2026. However, because EPA hasn’t reissued a new permit to replace the expired permit, the 2021 MSGP remains in effect for facilities previously covered. Additionally, the No Action Assurance allows facilities without previous coverage to discharge industrial stormwater in compliance with the 2021 MSGP.
Who’s affected?
Facilities are required to obtain MSGPs for stormwater discharges from industrial activities in areas where EPA is the permitting authority, including:
What do existing facilities do?
The administrative continuance automatically applies to existing facilities that were actively covered by the 2021 MSGP before it expired. The facility’s coverage status should show “Admin. Continued” in the NPDES eReporting Tool (NeT-MSGP).
Facilities will remain covered by the 2021 MSGP until EPA issues a new MSGP and the facilities obtain coverage under the new MSGP. Until then, existing facilities should continue to comply with the 2021 MSGP requirements.
EPA will provide further guidance on renewing coverage when it issues the new MSGP.
What do new facilities do?
New facilities can’t obtain coverage under the MSGP until EPA issues a new permit. However, EPA issued a memorandum on February 27, 2026, establishing a No Action Assurance. The agency won’t take enforcement action against new facilities for unpermitted stormwater discharges if the facilities meet specific conditions.
The No Action Assurance extends from March 1, 2026, to the new MSGP’s effective date.
Applicability
EPA’s No Action Assurance applies to facilities that:
The assurance doesn’t apply to existing facilities that started stormwater discharges before February 28, 2026, without obtaining 2021 MSGP coverage.
Conditions
To be covered by the No Action Assurance, new facilities have to:
What’s next?
Once EPA issues the new MSGP, facilities planning to continue industrial stormwater discharges must submit a new NOI through Net-MSGP within 90 days of the new MSGP’s effective date to obtain coverage under the new MSGP.
EPA provides guidance for existing and new facilities on its “Administrative Continuance of EPA’s 2021 MSGP” webpage.
Key to remember: EPA has temporarily extended coverage under the 2021 MSGP for industrial stormwater discharges until the agency issues a new general permit.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule on February 27, 2026, extending the submission deadline for the 2025 annual greenhouse gas (GHG) report from March to October 2026.
Who’s impacted?
The final rule applies to facilities regulated by the GHG Reporting Program (GHGRP) at 40 CFR Part 98. Generally, the GHGRP’s annual reporting requirement applies to three types of reporters:
What’s the change?
The final rule extends the submission deadline for the reporting year (RY) 2025 annual GHG report from March 31, 2026, to October 30, 2026. The delay applies only to RY 2025.
EPA explains in the final rule that delaying the submission deadline for the RY 2025 GHG report gives the agency time to take final action on the proposed revisions to the GHGRP (published in September 2025).
What does the GHG report cover?
The GHGRP requires facilities to report GHG data and other related information covering the previous calendar year.
The subparts under Part 98 contain the reporting requirements, and regulated facilities must report emissions for all applicable source categories. Reporters must use specific methods to calculate GHG emissions, which are detailed in the regulations; they can usually choose from a collection of methods.
Key to remember: EPA’s final rule delays the submission deadline for the 2025 annual GHG report from March to October 2026.
“Road Closed Ahead.” That’s the sign that now stands at the entrance of the regulatory road leading to the federal greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for vehicle and engine manufacturers.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule on February 18, 2026, to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repeal all GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines. The final rule applies to vehicles and engines of model years (MYs) 2012 to 2027 and beyond.
This overview will help you navigate EPA’s final rule that puts vehicle GHG emission requirements in the rearview mirror.
Manufacturers (including importers) of motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines no longer have future obligations to measure, control, report, or comply with federal GHG emission standards for any highway vehicle or engine, including for previously manufactured MYs.
Specifically, the final rule removes the requirements for controlling GHG emissions, which include:
Additionally, the final rule eliminates off-cycle credits for manufacturers that added certain technologies to their vehicles and engines (like waste heat recovery) and EPA’s incentives for manufacturers to install a start-stop system (which automatically shuts off a vehicle’s engine when idling).
The final rule takes effect on April 20, 2026. However, a legal challenge has already been brought against the rulemaking, and more litigation is likely.
It’s important to keep an eye on the status of the rule. Legal challenges could result in changes to the rule, such as delaying its effective date.
The final rule repeals all GHG emission regulations in 40 CFR:
The road to reversal begins in 2009. That’s when EPA issued two findings: the Endangerment Finding and the Cause or Contribute Finding. Collectively, these findings are referred to as the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The agency used the 2009 Endangerment Finding as the legal basis under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines based on global climate change concerns.
However, upon reconsideration, EPA no longer believes that it has the statutory authority under Section 202(a) of the CAA to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines in response to global climate change concerns. The agency bases its determination on three factors:
By rescinding the 2009 Endangerment Finding, EPA has no legal basis to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines. Accordingly, the final rule also repeals all GHG emission standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines.
Key to remember: EPA’s final rule eliminates the 2009 Endangerment Finding and the related GHG emission requirements for on-highway vehicles and vehicle engines.
On February 24, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule repealing the 2024 amendments made to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (EGUs). It’s also referred to as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for power plants.
Effective April 27, 2026, this rule (2026 Final Rule) repeals stricter compliance requirements made to the MATS rule in May 2024 (2024 Final Rule) and reverts them to the less stringent standards established by the 2012 MATS Rule.
Who’s affected?
The rule applies to power plants with coal- and oil-fired EGUs subject to the NESHAP (40 CFR 63 Subpart UUUUU).
What are the changes?
The final rule repeals these 2024 amendments:
The 2026 Final Rule also reinstates the low-emitting EGU (LEE) program for fPM and non-Hg HAP metals. The LEE program requires less frequent stack testing for sources with emissions below 50 percent of the corresponding limit for 3 consecutive years.
Further, EPA’s final rule updates the fPM sampling requirements for EGUs that demonstrate compliance with a PM CEMS. These units must collect either a minimum catch of 6.0 milligrams or a minimum sample volume of 4 dry standard cubic meters (dscm) per test run. EGUs demonstrating compliance using other methods must collect a lower minimum sample volume of 1 dscm per PM test run.
| Compliance requirement | 2024 Final Rule | 2026 Final Rule |
|---|---|---|
| fPM emission limit for existing coal-fired EGUs | 0.010 pounds per million British thermal units of heat input (lb/MMBtu) | 0.030 lb/MMBTu |
| fPM emission compliance demonstration for all coal-and oil-fired EGUs | EGUs must use PM CEMS | EGUs may use:
|
| Hg emission limit for existing lignite-fired EGUs | 1.2 pounds per trillion British thermal units of heat input (lb/TBtu) | 4.0 lb/TBtu |

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.
Counties and municipalities play a major role in protecting air, water, and land resources across the United States. Although federal and state agencies establish the overarching environmental framework, thousands of local agencies conduct the day to day permitting, inspections, and enforcement needed to make those rules work.
Local governments obtain regulatory authority largely through delegation. Federal environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) allow the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to authorize state agencies, which may then rely on local entities to administer components of these programs. In many states, local districts, counties, or municipalities operate significant environmental programs directly under state authority.
A strong example of local involvement can be seen in air quality management. The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) reports that 117 local air agencies participate in implementing federal and state clean air programs, highlighting how implementation frequently happens at the local level.
EPA’s AirNow directory lists numerous local air quality agencies across the country; Examples include air pollution control districts in California (such as the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, the San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District) as well as local air programs in Maricopa County, Arizona; Jacksonville, Florida; and Omaha, Nebraska. These districts conduct inspections, issue permits, investigate complaints, and maintain air monitoring networks, all of which support state and federal clean air requirements.
Local authority is also central to solid waste management, where many states rely heavily on counties and municipalities to manage planning, facilities, and enforcement. For instance, Washington State requires local governments to develop comprehensive solid and hazardous waste management plans that guide all waste handling and recycling programs within each county or city. These plans determine facility needs, outline reduction and recycling strategies, and shape local ordinances designed to meet state goals.
Additional examples appear across the country. Maryland’s Montgomery County, California’s Alameda County, and the District of Columbia all implement ambitious local waste diversion plans that supplement or exceed state requirements, demonstrating how counties and cities directly shape waste reduction and recycling policy. Likewise, South Carolina places most solid waste management responsibility on county governments, which must develop local plans, designate recycling coordinators, and report progress toward statewide goals.
Local environmental regulatory authority matters because conditions vary widely across the nation. Counties and municipalities better understand their own industries, land uses, and growth patterns, allowing them to respond quickly to complaints, target outreach effectively, and adopt ordinances that go beyond state or federal minimums when necessary. Their proximity to communities makes local agencies essential partners in achieving environmental compliance and advancing public health protections.
As federal and state programs evolve, the role of local agencies continues to expand. Air quality districts, solid waste authorities, and local environmental health departments all demonstrate how counties and municipalities contribute directly to national environmental objectives.
Key to remember: With thousands of local agencies responsible for on the ground regulatory tasks, the strength and responsiveness of the United States’ environmental protection system depend heavily on the active engagement of local governments.
“To be, or not to be.” That is not the question for facilities subject to the universal waste program. “Subpart B or Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 273?” That is the question.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) universal waste program simplifies management requirements for five types of federally designated hazardous wastes: batteries, pesticides, mercury-containing equipment, lamps, and non-empty aerosol cans. The program covers two categories of universal waste generators: small quantity handlers of universal waste (SQHUWs) and large quantity handlers of universal waste (LQHUWs).
Requirements differ based on the amount of universal waste a facility accumulates. Subpart B regulates SQHUWs, while Subpart C regulates LQHUWs. Determine which category applies to your facility to ensure you comply with the right universal waste requirements.
A universal waste handler either (a) generates a federally designated universal waste or (b) receives universal waste from other handlers, accumulates universal waste, and sends universal waste to:
It excludes transfer facilities that transport off-site universal waste by air, rail, highway, or water as well as destination facilities that treat, dispose of, or recycle universal waste. If your facility is considered a universal waste handler, you must then identify which handler category applies.
The universal waste program requirements for handlers differ based on the amount of universal waste accumulated:
If your facility qualifies as an LQHUW during the calendar year, it keeps this status through the end of the calendar year. You can reevaluate the status in the next calendar year.
Now that you know which category applies to your facility, let’s take a look at the requirements for each kind of universal waste handler.
Many of the same rules apply to all universal waste handlers. Both SQHUWs and LQHUWs must:
However, large handlers have requirements that extend beyond those of small handlers. The table below summarizes the differences.
| SQHUWs | LQHUWs | |
| Waste management | See 40 CFR 273.13 | See 40 CFR 273.33 |
| Training | Issue basic waste-handling and emergency information to employees, ensuring workers know the proper procedures. | Ensure all employees are very familiar with waste-handling and emergency procedures related to their tasks during normal operations and emergencies. |
| Recordkeeping | Not required, but recommended | Required (Keep records of all shipments received by and sent from the facility. Maintain the records for at least three years.) |
| EPA Identification (ID) Number | Not required | Required |
| EPA notification | Not required | Required (Before meeting the 5,000-kilogram threshold to become an LQHUW, send written notification of the facility’s universal waste management activities to the regional administrator, and receive an EPA ID Number.) |
Universal waste handlers may:
Universal waste handlers may not:
The most important tip for all universal waste handlers is to check the state regulations.
States don’t have to cover all federally designated universal wastes, and they can impose stricter management standards (except on batteries). Wisconsin’s universal waste management program, for example, doesn’t cover aerosol cans.
On the other hand, states can add materials covered by their universal waste management programs. Texas designates paint and paint-related waste as universal waste, and California includes solar panels in its universal waste program.
Key to remember: EPA’s universal waste program requirements differ for small and large quantity handlers. Facilities determine which rules apply based on the amount of universal waste they accumulate.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule on April 1, 2026, amending the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources (CMAS). The NESHAP controls hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from facilities that manufacture a range of chemicals and products, such as inorganic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic rubber.
Who’s impacted?
The final rule applies to nine area source categories in the chemical manufacturing sector that are regulated by the CMAS NESHAP (40 CFR 63 Subpart VVVVVV).
What are the changes?
EPA’s final rule:
The final rule also mandates electronic reporting for notifications of compliance status (NOCs), performance test reports, and periodic reports. Facilities must submit these reports through the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) on EPA’s Central Data Exchange.
What didn’t change?
Significantly, the final rule doesn’t add previously proposed regulations for area sources that use ethylene oxide (EtO) to produce materials described by code 325 of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
EPA states that it intends to address the regulation of EtO from area sources and major sources in one final action.
What are the compliance timelines?
Existing facilities must comply with the amendments by April 1, 2029.
New facilities (those that begin construction or reconstruction after January 22, 2025) have to comply with the changes by April 1, 2026, or upon startup, whichever is later.
Additionally, facilities must start electronically submitting:
Key to remember: EPA’s final HAP emissions rule for chemical manufacturing area sources adds new requirements for certain processing equipment and systems.
On March 10, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized emission regulations for large municipal waste combustors (LMWCs). The final rule revises nearly all emission limits for new and existing LMWCs.
Who’s impacted?
The final rule applies to LMWCs that combust more than 250 tons per day of municipal solid waste and are covered by the:
EPA established new subparts for the amendments at 40 CFR Part 60, including:
What are the changes?
Generally, stricter emission limits apply. For all LMWCs (new and existing), the rule revises the emission limits for:
For all new LMWCs, the final rule revises the emission limits for carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). The final rule also amends the CO and NOx limits for all existing LMWCs, except for the CO limits for two subcategories of combustors and the NOx limits for two subcategories of combustors for new municipal solid waste incinerators.
Other major changes include:
What’s the compliance timeline?
When EPA updates EGs, states must revise their State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to incorporate the changes. States have to submit revised SIPs by March 10, 2027. Once EPA approves the SIP, facilities with existing LMWCs must meet the new standards either within 3 years of the SIP’s approval date or by March 10, 2031, whichever is earlier.
New LMWCs must comply with the amended NSPS by September 10, 2026, or upon startup, whichever is later.
Key to remember: EPA finalized stronger emission limits for new and existing large municipal waste combustors and made other changes to the standards.
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting can be tricky, even for seasoned EHS teams. Many facilities meet all the requirements but still miss chemicals that should be reported. Most oversights fall into four key categories. Here’s what they are and why they get missed, along with a few simple examples that show up in routine operations.
The TRI list changes more often than many people realize. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regularly updates it and recently added new per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and even a full diisononyl phthalate (DINP) chemical category. When facilities don’t review these updates each year, they may keep using materials that now contain reportable chemicals without realizing it. For example, PFAS were expanded for Reporting Years 2024 and 2025, and the DINP category was added in 2023. These changes mean that everyday items like coatings, lubricants, and flexible plastics can suddenly trigger TRI thresholds.
Not every reportable chemical is manufactured or processed. Many are simply “otherwise used,” including solvents, degreasers, cleaners, and maintenance chemicals. Facilities often overlook these because they aren’t part of the product mix, but they can add up fast. Even common shop chemicals, when used across a year, can exceed the 10,000-pound threshold and require reporting.
Some chemicals are created unintentionally during normal operations. Ammonia may form during baking or heating steps, nitrates often appear in wastewater treatment, and metal compounds can be generated during welding, machining, or corrosion. These substances count as “manufactured” under TRI even if they weren’t intentionally manufactured. Examples like ammonia, nitrates, metal compounds, and diesel byproducts such as naphthalene and polycyclic aromatic compounds are regularly overlooked in TRI reporting because they’re easy to underestimate.
Many reportable chemicals hide inside mixtures, oils, coatings, lubricants, and chemical blends. If a facility focuses only on the main ingredients, it may miss the smaller additive or impurity that’s actually subject to TRI reporting. These overlooked components can push a facility over a reporting threshold, even when the product is used in small amounts.
TRI oversights usually occur not because facilities ignore the rules but because chemicals show up in unexpected forms. Keeping an eye on updates, tracking cleaners and maintenance chemicals, monitoring byproducts, and checking mixtures closely can prevent the most common reporting mistakes.
The clock is ticking for environmental teams. By 2026, several new EPA regulations will reshape compliance obligations for U.S. companies. Organizations that act now will avoid costly penalties and operational disruptions.
Although EPA has been deregulating or loosening some requirements, there are still some standards being tightened across multiple fronts in the coming year:
Failure to prepare could lead to fines, reputational damage, supply chain disruptions, and permit delays. Companies that weave compliance planning into their 2026 strategy will be positioned not just to meet legal deadlines but to sustain operations smoothly.
The EPA’s 2026 updates reflect a trend toward increased transparency and environmental accountability. Companies that treat compliance as strategic will not only avoid enforcement but also gain resilience and stakeholder trust.
Key to remember: Start planning now. Early action on EPA rule changes will save time, money, and headaches when enforcement begins.
Ongoing driver training is essential to maintaining a safe and compliant fleet, yet it often gets postponed or delayed by other business priorities. Mini-training sessions are a simple way to combat this issue without disrupting daily operations.
Much like toolbox talks in the construction industry, these brief sessions take about five to fifteen minutes and focus on a single issue or a portion of a larger topic, making it easy to integrate learning into even the busiest schedules.
For example, a specific aspect of the hours-of-service rule, such as the definition of on-duty time or how the 14-hour duty rule works, could be addressed during one of these short training sessions.
Other topics that work well in a mini-training session format include:
When preparing your mini-training session, consider incorporating a mix of instructional techniques to help convey your message. Use of multiple methods during the same training session aids in retention and reinforces key takeaways. Examples of techniques that can be used in this time-sensitive training format include:
Key to remember: Mini‑training sessions provide a quick, effective way to deliver ongoing driver education without disrupting daily operations.
The DOT is soon expected to issue a new rule that will affect how the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) writes new guidance and runs enforcement cases. Though it may sound like inside-baseball, for motor carriers it could change the outcome of audits, investigations, and even settlement talks.
According to the DOT, the new “rule on rules” is aimed at making the enforcement process more fair, well-documented, and based on clear legal authority, not a game of “gotcha.” The rule was proposed a year ago and recently got the White House’s stamp of approval, clearing the way for final publication.
As proposed, the rule directs the FMCSA and other DOT agencies to avoid “fishing expeditions” without enough evidence in hand to support an enforcement claim. It also spells out what an enforcement notice should include — what rule you allegedly violated, the key facts, and what rights you have to challenge it and “avoid unfair surprise.”
Transparency is another key component. The rule will require agencies to share potentially exculpatory evidence — basically, information in the government’s hands that could help you defend yourself or reduce the penalty. The proposed version of the rule states that “making affirmative disclosures of exculpatory evidence in all enforcement actions will contribute to the [DOT’s] goal of open and fair investigations and administrative enforcement proceedings.”
The rule is also expected to reinforce the fact that guidance documents — including interpretations issued by the FMCSA and often published along with FMCSA regulations — are not legally binding. In addition, agencies will need to take additional steps in the guidance development process, such as doing cost-benefit analyses and legal review, and getting public input.
Many of the changes in the proposed rule were in place prior to 2021 but were rescinded by the previous administration.
One of the most intriguing changes in the rule will allow motor carriers to petition the DOT to argue that their staff violated procedural requirements. If the carrier wins, the proposed remedies go beyond a scolding for the investigators. They could include:
FMCSA enforcement cases dropped dramatically last year even without the new rule; the future may hold even fewer once the proposed changes go into effect.
Key to remember: A new “rule on rules” from the DOT is expected soon, and it could change the FMCSA’s enforcement playbook.
Many shippers are unaware of their responsibility to provide placards to drivers, but the responsibility shifts as soon as the driver hits the road.
| Knowledge Check: What would you do in this placarding scenario? |
Check the regulations
According to Section 172.506 of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR), a shipper offering a hazardous material for transportation by highway must provide the motor carrier with the required placards for the material being offered. The shipper must offer the placards to the carrier prior to, or at the same time as, the material is offered for transportation — unless the vehicle is already placarded for the hazmat.
Section 172.506 also states that no motor carrier may transport a hazardous material in a motor vehicle unless the required placards for the hazmat are affixed to the vehicle. Before transport, the driver is responsible for displaying the required placards for all the hazmat that is on the vehicle.
Avoid issues with shippers
Many trailers are equipped with flip placards that represent most classes of hazardous materials but without adequate training, shippers may not understand their responsibility to provide the driver with the required placards. If a driver arrives and the shipper fails to provide placards, the driver should contact dispatch for additional instructions or drive to a truck stop to secure the necessary placards. The driver becomes responsible for placards as soon as the trailer enters a public highway, so train your drivers to temporarily refuse the shipment until the proper placards can be obtained. If necessary, the driver must bobtail or leave empty before driving to pick up placards.
Another common placarding question with shippers involves combination loads. If a driver arrives at a shipper’s location and is already transporting a hazardous material below the placarding threshold, is the shipper required to provide placards for the combination load on the trailer? In this scenario, the driver already has 600 pounds of a Class 8 corrosive material on the trailer, and the shipper is offering an additional 500 pounds of the same commodity. The regulations state that the shipper is only required to provide placards for the commodity that is being offered, not for the aggregate weight of both shipments. In this scenario, the driver is responsible for providing placards since it involves a combination load.
The Hazardous Materials Regulations are complex, especially for newer employees. Drivers that can speak “hazmat” to shippers often secure additional business, so be sure to train your drivers and give them the confidence to have impactful conversations with shippers.
Key to remember: Carry extra placards in case a shipper is unable to supply the required placards or a combination of hazmat on the vehicle requires different placards.
Distracted driving awareness month is an important opportunity for organizations to address one of the most overlooked workplace hazards. For employees who drive as part of their job, whether it is operating fleet vehicles, traveling between job sites, or running errands, distractions behind the wheel can lead to serious injuries, costly liability, and even fatalities. Unlike many other workplace hazards, distracted driving often occurs offsite, making it harder to monitor but no less critical to control.
Distracted driving is any activity that takes a driver’s attention away from the road. It typically falls into three categories: visual (eyes off the road), manual (hands off the wheel), and cognitive (mind off driving). In a workplace context, distractions often go beyond personal habits like texting or eating. Employees may feel pressure to respond to work calls, check GPS updates, review schedules, or communicate with supervisors while driving. This expectation, whether real or perceived, can significantly increase the risk of an accident. The actual consequences of distracted driving on the job can be severe. Motor vehicle incidents remain one of the leading causes of workplace fatalities. A momentary lapse of attention at highway speeds means traveling the length of a football field without looking at the road. When employees are involved in crashes, the impact extends beyond personal injury. Employers may face workers’ compensation claims, vehicle damage costs, regulatory scrutiny, and potential legal liability. Additionally, incidents can damage a company’s reputation and disrupt operations.
One of the biggest challenges any organization faces is changing the culture around communication and productivity. Employees may believe they are expected to stay constantly connected, even while driving. Without clear policies, they may take risks trying to meet deadlines or respond quickly to messages. This is where leadership plays a critical role. Establishing and enforcing a clear distracted driving policy is essential. Policies should explicitly prohibit texting, handheld phone use, and other high-risk behaviors while driving on company business. However, policies alone are not enough. Training and communication are key to making expectations clear and practical. Driver safety programs should include real-world examples, statistics, and interactive discussions that emphasize the risks. Employees should understand that no message, call, or task is urgent enough to justify unsafe driving. Encouraging simple habits such as pulling over safely before using a phone, setting up their GPS before starting a trip, and minimizing in-vehicle distractions can make a meaningful difference.
Technology can also support safer driving behaviors. Many organizations are implementing hands-free systems, telematics, and mobile device management tools that limit phone functionality while vehicles are in motion. While these tools are not a substitute for good judgment, they can reinforce safe habits and provide valuable data to identify risk trends. Reviewing telematics data can also help organizations spot patterns such as harsh braking, erratic driving, or frequent phone use, allowing for targeted coaching and intervention.
Supervisors and managers must lead by example. If leadership sends emails or expects immediate responses from employees who are driving, it undermines safety efforts. Setting realistic expectations such as delayed response times for employees on the road helps remove the pressure to multitask while driving. A strong safety culture makes it clear that safe driving is a priority, not a barrier to productivity.
April distracted driving awareness month gives companies the perfect opportunity to take proactive steps to reinforce their commitment to safe driving. This can include safety stand-downs, toolbox talks, policy refreshers, and awareness campaigns focused on distracted driving. Sharing real incident stories, near-misses, and lessons learned can make the risk more tangible for employees. Ultimately, preventing distracted driving in the workplace comes down to awareness, accountability, and culture. Every trip, no matter how routine, carries risk. By prioritizing attention behind the wheel and supporting employees with clear expectations and resources, organizations can protect their workforce, reduce incidents, and ensure that everyone makes it home safely at the end of the day.
Keys to remember: Staying focused behind the wheel protects not only you, but your coworkers and everyone else on the road.
Small shuttle bus vehicles often fly under the regulatory radar — until there’s a crash. Many vans designed for 9–15 passengers, for example, are regulated as commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). This exposes unsuspecting operators to citations, penalties, and litigation risk.
Motor carriers and operators who drive small vehicles should work through the five questions below to determine whether federal or state regulations apply — and whether it’s time to dig deeper or seek professional guidance.
1. Does the vehicle operate interstate or intrastate?
Interstate commerce includes transportation that’s part of a larger trip that begins or ends in another state. Prearranged transportation to or from an airport is one example, even if the vehicle itself never leaves the state.
Intrastate commerce, by contrast, stays entirely within one state and isn’t connected to an interstate journey. Intrastate shuttle operations, however, may still be regulated under state motor carrier safety rules that closely mirror federal requirements.
2. How many passengers is the vehicle designed to carry?
In interstate commerce, the FMCSRs apply to vehicles designed or used to transport 9–15 passengers, including the driver, when compensation is involved. Vehicles designed to carry more than 15 passengers, including the driver, are considered CMVs regardless of compensation.
Importantly, removing seats doesn’t change the vehicle’s original design rating.
3. What is the vehicle’s weight?
Weight can trigger regulation even when passenger count or compensation doesn’t. If a vehicle has a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) or actual weight of 10,001 pounds or more, it may be subject to the FMCSRs regardless of passenger capacity or whether anyone is paying for the ride.
States differ in how weight thresholds are used for intrastate regulation, so operators should confirm how state CMV definitions apply to their fleets.
4. Is it a ‘for-hire’ operation?
For‑hire passenger carriers transport passengers for direct or indirect compensation as follows:
Direct compensation: This includes fares, tickets, or payments made on the passenger’s behalf, including donations.
Indirect compensation: This occurs when transportation is bundled into a larger service or package, such as lodging, tours, or event admissions.
For interstate vehicles designed for 9–15 passengers, compliance obligations are as follows:
Operations involving direct compensation or vehicles weighing 10,001 pounds or more must:
Operations involving indirect compensation only using vehicles under 10,001 pounds must:
5. Is the shuttle operation private?
Private motor carriers of passengers (PMCPs) don’t charge fees, but are divided into two categories:
To confirm if the FMCSRs or state safety regulations apply to a shuttle operation, these steps can reduce risk:
Key to remember: Knowing when federal or state rules apply to a shuttle operation is essential to minimizing enforcement exposure, liability risk, and operational disruption.
Compliance isn’t just a regulatory requirement; it’s a strategic business decision. However, many still view trip, fuel, and oversize/overweight (OS/OW) permits as administrative hurdles, rather than essential safeguards. This mindset exposes carriers to risks that extend far beyond a simple citation at the roadside.
These permits are required any time you need to transport a load which:
Obtaining these permits allows you to operate within another jurisdiction, or haul an oversize/overweight load for a single trip or a period of time. This is a simple step to take to protect yourself from the hidden costs associated with non-compliance.
Fees range greatly from state to state, permit to permit, and can even vary based on load and trip specific details: such as length of time the permit is needed for, or the size and weight of the load. Some permits will be a flat fee for a single day trip, while others may be calculated as an amount per mile or weight.
But what happens when you don’t obtain the permit and do it anyway? Let’s consider some of the often overlooked financial, operational, and safety risks of non-compliance.
There are many consequences carriers may face when they operate without proper permits, with some being more obvious than others.
Operating without proper permits can lead to violations, ultimately meaning that the cost of non-compliance is far greater than that of the permit.
Additionally, the benefits of compliance go beyond the initial financial burden, as proper permitting improves efficiency, safety scores, and customer satisfaction – all of which help your business to grow and thrive over time.
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.
When a state enacts a new employee leave law, it generally makes headlines. Currently, the U.S. has at least 40 states with leave laws (paid or unpaid) that have been complicating leave administration for employers.
The tide of state laws continues to roll, with about five states poised to enact leave-related laws. All this state hoopla can appear to hide the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in the shadows.
Just because employers have to deal with state leave laws, however, doesn’t mean they can ignore their obligations under the FMLA.
Employers might think that, as long as they comply with their requirements under the various state leave laws, they don’t have to comply with the FMLA. Employers might think the state law is more important or even redundant with the FMLA. But employers must comply with each law as it applies.
Many of the state laws allow the time off to run concurrently with FMLA leave, when:
When the leave runs concurrently, employers have to comply with both laws. A state law could have specific employer requirements, and employers have to meet them. That could involve giving employees certain information. The Colorado Family and Medical Leave Insurance (FAMLI), for example, requires employers to not only post the program notice in a prominent location, but it also requires employers to give employees written notice of the program upon hiring and when learning of an employee experiencing an event that triggers the employee’s eligibility.
Under the FMLA, when employees put the employer on notice of the need for leave, employers must give the employee an eligibility/rights & responsibilities notice within five business days. Once employers have enough information to determine if the absence qualifies for FMLA protections (such as from a certification), employers have five business days to give the employee a designation notice.
Employers can't overlook those FMLA steps, even if they seem redundant with state requirements.
If employers fail to designate an absence as FMLA leave, they may retroactively designate it only if doing so doesn’t cause harm or injury to the employee. If so, employers can’t retroactively designate it, which could result in the employee having more than the 12 weeks of FMLA leave.
Employers that don’t comply with the FMLA’s notice requirements can risk fines and penalties, even if the employers gave the employee the 12 workweeks of leave and the employee suffered no actual harm.
Therefore, overlooking the FMLA would not only risk violations but would also add another layer of unnecessary complexity.
Key to remember: Employers need to remember to comply with the federal FMLA’s requirements in addition to a state’s requirements.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics reported in July 2024 that there are 8.2 million job openings in the U.S., but only 7.2 million unemployed workers.
With that in mind, employers might choose to hang onto employees even if they’re under performing. But what about when complaints are rolling in from different angles? Take, for example, a lackluster supervisor who’s annoying employees and disappointing customers.
An employer could be hesitant to let the supervisor go, especially if there’s no documentation backing up claims of misconduct. The employer must weigh their options to decide if putting the supervisor on a performance improvement plan (PIP) or moving right to termination is the ideal choice.
At-will employment
For starters, in most states employers may terminate an employee at-will, meaning they can fire employees for pretty much any reason as long as it doesn’t discriminate against someone in a protected class based on sex, age, race, religion, etc. Employers also cannot terminate in retaliation for an employee making a claim of harassment, discrimination, or safety concerns.
Aside from these limits, employers can terminate employees for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all.
PIP or terminate
Deciding whether to put an employee on a PIP or terminate must be decided on a case-by-case basis.
A PIP is usually for job performance issues (hence, performance improvement plan). This could mean anything from not making enough sales to being inept at the job’s essential functions. If job performance doesn’t improve under the PIP, termination may be the end result depending on company policies and practices.
Even if an employee has job performance issues, the employer can terminate without going through the PIP process first, unless the usual process is to implement a PIP with employees who have had similar problems. In that case, not doing a PIP could be seen as discrimination against an employee, especially if the person falls into a protected class.
Workplace misconduct, however, is another situation altogether. This could be anything from a one-off poor joke to pervasive harassment. Snapping at customers or coworkers (or worse), for example, is a conduct issue. An employer could issue a warning or move right to termination if the behavior is clearly illegal or a serious threat to workplace safety.
| Read more: ezExplanation on discharging employees |
Termination tips
If an employer decides to terminate, they should treat the employee as respectfully as possible during the termination process. Also, an employer should carefully and clearly communicate the job-related reasons for the termination to avoid any hint of discrimination. Lastly, an employer should document the reasons and reiterate the steps taken leading up to the termination and keep those records handy in case the employee files a wrongful termination lawsuit.
Key to remember: Employers sometimes struggle when making termination decisions. Having a process in place and documenting steps along the way can help if a case lands in court.
The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows eligible employees to take job-protected leave for certain qualifying reasons. Over the years, employees have gotten creative when scheduling such leave, including taking it on Mondays and/or Fridays to extend a weekend.
Employers trying to oversee schedules and meet other business needs might get frustrated when employees take leave. When employees take leave in suspicious patterns, the frustration swells.
It doesn’t help that the FMLA restricts when and how employers may obtain information on the reasons behind leave.
Employers, however, do have some resources available to them when determining whether a Monday/Friday absence pattern is valid, or if the employee is abusing leave.
Recertifying FMLA leave
Once employers have a certification supporting the need for a leave, they may not request recertification more often than every 30 days, or until the minimum duration of the condition listed on the certification has expired.
Employers may, however, request recertification more often if:
When employers suspect FMLA abuse, they should review the information contained in the certification to see if the absences match. If not, they may investigate the situation further.
Asking about absence patterns
To help with this investigation, when requesting a recertification, employers may include a record of the employee’s absences and ask the health care provider if the pattern is consistent with the serious health condition.
It’s true that employers may not generally contact the employee’s health care provider directly for this information, but they may add this type of question to the medical recertification form, and direct the employee to have it completed.
Tracking absences
In such situations, employers might want to review the absence patterns of employees in question and be on the lookout for suspicious absences in the future.
Effectively tracking all leave is a must to identify patterns that could indicate FMLA leave abuse. If employers learn that an absence is not for a valid FMLA-qualifying reason, the employee is not entitled to the protections of the law for such an absence.
Key to remember: If employees are suspiciously taking FMLA leave such as on Mondays and Fridays, employers may request a recertification supporting the leave pattern.
Forces are nudging OSHA to address a number of workplace hazards and high-hazard industries. Those signals are coming from other agencies, safety organizations, watchdogs, legislative proposals, and persistent injury/fatality data. Each points to a different safety and health concern, competing for OSHA’s bandwidth. Yet none dictates where OSHA will turn next.
How all this translates into new regulations, guidance, programmed inspections, or other initiatives remains to be seen. If OSHA adds a rule, it is bound by an executive order to remove 10 existing regulations. Any of these actions would also compete with items already on the agency agenda, which could be published at any time.
However, the absence of a particular rule or standard does not mean employers are off the hook. The General Duty Clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act requires employers to provide a place of employment that is free from recognized hazards that are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees.
The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) released a new video examining a fatal combustible dust explosion/fire. Five employees at a Wisconsin corn mill were killed and 14 others were injured. Board Member Sylvia Johnson states, “The CSB has been calling for a comprehensive [OSHA] standard on combustible dust for many years to help prevent tragic, deadly incidents like [this] one … from continuing to occur. Robust regulation is absolutely essential to keep these incidents from happening in the future.”
Nine safety organizations petitioned OSHA urging the agency to adopt more modern consensus standards. Those standards include:
The petition argues that the suggested updates to 29 CFR 1910 would not add compliance costs. Rather, the changes would offer employers greater choices in first aid kits and personal protective equipment, while improving safety, the organizations contend.
A recent report from the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General states that OSHA could “enhance its efforts to address workplace violence, which may include taking regulatory action.” OSHA currently uses the General Duty Clause (not a regulation) for enforcement of work violence hazards.
The Inspector General says it will audit the effectiveness of the General Duty Clause in OSHA’s enforcement of workplace violence. The latest Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data show that 9.3 percent of all work fatalities in 2024 were attributed to homicide.
A Workplace Violence in Healthcare and Social Assistance proposed rule is on OSHA’s long-term agenda.
Federal lawmakers are moving to force OSHA to issue regulatory rulemaking to protect American workers. The House and Senate have ten bills on the table so far. Topics addressed by these Congressional bills include musculoskeletal disorders, heat stress, infectious diseases, wildfire smoke, and workplace violence. See our previous article, “9 OSHA bills to mandate gap-closing rules, wider coverage, steeper fines,” dated February 3, 2026. One bill was added after the issuance of that article.
According to a new OSHA report, four industries, together, reported over 85 percent of all the injury and illness incidents tallied in data submitted under 29 CFR 1904.41 for 2024. Those included:
The “2024 Annual Report: Work-related Injuries and Illnesses” also put a spotlight on three safety and health topics:
Transportation incidents continued to be the most frequent type of fatal event, per BLS data posted last month. These incidents accounted for 38.2 percent of all work fatalities in 2024. This is an uptick from the 36.8 percent reported in 2023. The good news is roadway incidents involving motorized land vehicles dropped 8.5 percent. The figure plummeted to 1,146 in 2024 from 1,252 in 2023. Roadway incidents still made up over one-in-five fatal work incidents in 2024.
In mid-January last year, OSHA said it wanted employers to “make safety a core principle by integrating safe driving and transportation practices into their businesses' safety and health management systems.” The idea was to foster a culture of safety and preventive practices to protect workers on the nation's roads. The statement was part of a joint initiative with the National Safety Council and the Road to Zero Coalition. The agency pointed to its Motor Vehicle Safety webpage.
While transportation incidents persist as the number one source of work fatalities, the 2025 BLS data, which should be issued in December 2026, may reveal whether OSHA’s joint-initiative efforts are making a dent.
Several forces are nudging OSHA to address a number of workplace hazards and high-hazard industries. Each points to a different safety and health concern, competing for OSHA’s bandwidth.
One of the most common questions involving the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) that we see is: “Can ________ fill out the medical certification?”
This question stumps a lot of HR people and can be a little confusing.
It might be easier to start with who CAN’T fill out an FMLA certification. That includes your coworker, best friend, neighbor, or pet.
Jokes aside, often (but not always) a doctor fills out the FMLA certification, and since March 30 is “Doctors’ Day,” this is a great time to discuss this topic.
Employers aren’t required to use certifications, but if they do, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has five different certification forms to use for various FMLA leave situations.
The forms are as follows:
Let’s focus on the first two, as these are the most common ones HR administrators use.
The FMLA regulations describe the person who has the authority to fill out a certification as a “health care provider.” The good news is, the regulations include a lengthy list of medical professionals who fit this role.
Under the FMLA, a health care provider includes:
To be qualified to fill out FMLA forms, medical professionals must be authorized to practice in the state and perform within the scope of their practice. This means that the provider must be authorized to diagnose and treat physical or mental health conditions.
If an employee or an employee's family member is visiting another country, or a family member resides in another country, and a serious health condition develops, the employer must accept a medical certification from a health care provider who practices in that country. This includes second and third opinions.
If a medical certification from a foreign health care provider is not in English, the employee may be required to provide a written translation of the certification.
Key to remember: The FMLA regulations spell out which medical professionals can fill out certification forms.
OSHA issued five new publications, ranging from electrical safety to best practices when responding to OSHA calls. The publications don’t create new regulations or obligations. Instead, they provide guidance and information that may help you comply.
Electrical hazards affect more than just electricians. In fact, 74 percent of workplace electrical fatalities occur in non-electrical occupations, including tree trimming, HVAC, roofing, and painting. Many employees may not be trained to perform electrical work. That means they may not recognize electrical hazards.
An OSHA toolbox talk (OSHA 4496) outlines how to prevent injury when using electrical equipment. Specifically, it suggests that you employ the hierarchy of controls: elimination/substitution, engineering controls, administrative controls, personal protective equipment, and work practices.
OSHA’s requirements for flexible cords and cables, at 29 CFR 1910.305(g), were cited nearly 1,300 times last fiscal year, according to OSHA enforcement data. A new publication (OSHA 4495) explains the top five things you and your employees should know about using extension cords safely.
Suffocation and falls are the two leading causes of death at grain handling facilities. Other hazards include fire, explosions, electrocution, and injuries from improperly guarded machinery. Exposures to grain dust and associated airborne contaminants can also occur. Such contaminants might include molds, chemical fumigants, and gases from decaying and/or fermenting sileage.
Each year, OSHA partners with several organizations to sponsor Stand Up 4 Grain Safety Week. The event takes place March 30 to April 3 this year. A printable poster (OSHA 3967) highlights the event and lists seven steps to grain safety.
OSHA and NIOSH have identified exposure to silica as a serious health hazard to workers. These workers might be involved in manufacturing, finishing, and installing natural and engineered stone countertop products. However, the respirable crystalline silica hazard can be mitigated in most countertop operations with dust control methods. These are spelled out in OSHA’s silica standards for general industry (29 CFR 1910.1053) and construction (29 CFR 1926.1153).
An OSHA/NIOSH Hazard Alert (OSHA 3768) explains silica hazards in the stone countertop industry, why it’s a concern, how to protect workers and control exposure, and more.
A call from OSHA asking about alleged hazards reported in a complaint or referral can be stressful. Knowing what’s involved can help you prepare. The agency says it will work with you to address the matter through a timely and adequate response. According to OSHA, if the issues are resolved through this process, an onsite inspection is generally not conducted.
A fact sheet (OSHA 4498) for small employers outlines the inquiry process from initial contact to resolution, tells you what happens at each step, and provides best practices for a safe and successful outcome.
Key to remember: Several new OSHA publications provide guidance and information on a variety of topics, from electrical safety to the OSHA inquiry process.
Protecting workers’ heads takes more than a hard hat. A 2017 National Institute of Health (NIH) study looked at employees across four Kansas worksites and found a clear link between stress and productivity. The study revealed that higher stress scores were significantly associated with lower productivity and greater job dissatisfaction. The result of this study suggests that employers who actively work to reduce stress are not just improving mental health and morale, but they’re boosting productivity as well.
When Sebastian walked into the office each morning, no one could see the weight he carried. Deadlines were met, meetings attended, yet his smile never faltered. Inside, stress and anxiety were taking a toll, and his story isn’t unique.
One study showed a very interesting contrast: most employees (about 77%) stated they were comfortable supporting a coworker’s mental health. However, when it comes to their own stress or burnout, 42% worry that opening up about it or seeking help could hurt their career or make them a target. Even more striking, one in four have thought about quitting because of mental health challenges. And it’s not just long-term stress. A recent Gallup poll found that 41% of workers felt highly stressed just “yesterday.”
These statistics underscore a troubling theme that employees value and wish to nurture mental wellness; however, stigma, insufficient support, and overwhelming stress persist. Employers need to begin recognizing and proactively addressing workplace mental health in order to cultivate resilient, productive teams.
The state of Michigan is piloting a new initiative aimed at improving workplace mental health which is increasingly being recognized as an occupational safety and health issue. This expands the state’s historically stringent approach to reducing on-the-job risks.
Michigan’s LEADS program—short for Learn, Educate, Act, Deploy, Study—is a four-month initiative designed to give employers practical tools to tackle stress, burnout, and communication breakdowns that often lead to safety incidents. The idea is simple: when communication falters and stress goes unchecked, mistakes happen. Those mistakes can mean more human errors, higher injury rates, quiet quitting, and turnover.
One of the program’s key features is an evidence-based organizational assessment. Think of it like a safety audit that’s focused on mental health risks rather than physical hazards. Employers get a clear picture of issues such as heavy workloads, unclear roles, workplace conflict or bullying, and weak support systems that can quickly erode a strong safety culture.
The end goal of the LEADS program is not to replace existing safety programs but rather strengthen them. Consider joining Michigan in their effort to enhance communication, better define workers’ roles, support unfettered reporting, and more effectively engage employees.
Key to remember: Stress doesn’t just weigh people down; it can have significant safety and productivity consequences. Programs like Michigan’s LEADS pilot initiative are giving employers the ability to tackle stress and burnout before they lead to mistakes, injuries, or turnover.
If employees work with forklifts and their batteries, they must understand the hazards of the liquid in those batteries.
According to OSHA’s forklift standard at 1910.178(g)(7), “When charging batteries, acid shall be poured into water; water shall not be poured into acid.” This can be confusing because workers commonly add distilled water to battery cells.
What OSHA is referring to is the initial mixing of sulfuric acid with water to create an electrolyte solution. Electrolyte solution is added to battery cells when the acid level is so low that a charge cannot be maintained.
Pure water will not carry an electric current, but adding sulfuric acid creates an electrolyte solution that allows the electric current to pass. Employees may need to mix concentrated sulfuric acid with distilled (pure) water to make the electrolyte solution.
The chemical reaction of mixing sulfuric acid with water can generate heat, resulting in a violent reaction. Because of this reaction, when mixing an electrolyte solution for forklift batteries, always add acid to the water to avoid the hazard of smoking and splattering.
When transferring acid from a large container, it’s a good idea to use a siphon. It’s much easier to control, reducing the chance for spilling or splashing. Splashed acid will eat holes in cloth and skin, so wearing protective equipment during this task is essential, including gloves, long sleeves, and goggles.
Normal forklift operations cause water in the battery cells to evaporate. If the fluid level in the cells is low, add distilled water before charging. Never add water immediately after a charge.
When the electrolyte level is low, clean off the top of the battery. Remove the battery’s filter caps and add distilled water to the cells. Be sure that the filter caps are tightened securely after the cells are filled.
If workers are not fully trained and authorized to perform this function, they must not attempt to add fluids of any kind to batteries.
Did you know that OSHA’s standard on permit-required confined spaces (PRCS) says entry occurs as soon as any part of the entrant’s body breaks the plane of the opening into the permit space?
Many workers and employers mistakenly think that placing part of the body or hands into a confined space isn’t entry. Knowing the difference between when entry occurs and not will help employers determine if a permit is required.
As clarified in an OSHA Letter of Interpretation (LOI) dated October 18, 1995, “When any part of the body of an entrant breaks the plane of the opening of a PRCS large enough to allow full entry, entry is considered to have occurred and a permit is required, regardless of whether there is an intent to fully enter the space.”
This definition of “entry” might seem to be too strict. Still, OSHA’s letter clarifies that there are situations where a partial entry would be hazardous: “Examples of situations where entry by only part of the body into a PRCS can expose an entrant to the possibility of injury or illness are as follows:
As another example, if the space contains a flammable or oxygen-enriched atmosphere, and if the activities during a partial entry could produce a spark or other ignition source, then a fire in the space could flash out of the opening and cause serious injuries to the employee.
This doesn’t necessarily mean you’d be fined if a permit wasn’t followed when someone reached a tank. OSHA’s guidance continues: “However, if entry by only part of the body does not expose the entrant to the possibility of injury or illness, then the violation may be considered a ‘de minimis’ violation.”
A de minimis violation is one in which a standard is violated, but the violation has no direct or immediate relationship to employee safety or health. These violations are documented but no citations are issued.
OSHA says examples of situations where entry by only part of the body into a PRCS would not expose an entrant to the possibility of injury or illness are as follows:
Also, consider a situation such as a worker reaching through a small grate to take a sample from a permitted space. The LOI further states, “If a part of the body were placed in an opening through which the worker could not pass into the permit-required confined space, no PRCS entry will have occurred.”
Keep in mind, however, that the employee would still need protection from any hazards involved in the task, but a permit would not be needed.
When any part of the body of an entrant breaks the plane of the opening of a PRCS large enough to allow full entry, entry is considered to have occurred, and a permit is required.
One of the most common questions inspectors get when evaluating workplace emergency safeguards is, “Does my office need an exit sign?” Section 29 CFR 1910.37 requires employers to provide specific safeguards and operational features for exit routes. OSHA’s intent is to minimize danger to employees and requiring proper exit route marking is one way to do so.
In short, smaller rooms or offices with only one door don’t necessarily need an exit sign. OSHA standards for exit signage are based on NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, which OSHA incorporated by reference. OSHA 1910.37(b)(4) states, “If the direction of travel to the exit or exit discharge is not immediately apparent, signs must be posted along the exit access indicating the direction of travel to the nearest exit and exit discharge. Additionally, the line-of-sight to an exit sign must clearly be visible at all times.”
The International Fire Code (IFC) was not adopted by OSHA; however, it’s likely to be referenced by local fire marshals. The IFC states, “Exit signs are not required in rooms or areas that require only one exit or exit access.” Generally, a room or area that holds fewer than 50 people is permitted to have only one exit. These rooms are typically smaller with an exit that is close and obvious, so an exit sign shouldn’t be needed inside the room. For example, individual offices, small conference rooms, storage rooms, and bathrooms usually don’t have exit signs because the way out is obvious.
Additional requirements for office exits require they:
When considering exit signs for smaller offices, employers must determine the size of the room, path of travel to an exit, and how obvious the exit would be based on room size. Generally, a room intended to hold fewer than 50 people is permitted to have only one exit and would not require an exit sign.
Getting a second opinion regarding an injured employee’s need for medical treatment, restrictions, or days away might allow an employer to avoid recording the incident on the 300 Log, but OSHA does impose some limitations.
Normally, a mere recommendation for medical treatment, restrictions, or days away makes a case recordable, even if the employee does not to follow that recommendation. However, OSHA allows employers to avoid recording an incident based on a “contemporaneous” second opinion that is more “authoritative.” If the employee receives medical treatment, however, a second opinion cannot negate the obligation to record the case.
OSHA does not define “contemporaneous” in the regulations, but offered clarification in a letter of interpretation (LOI) dated May 15, 2007. The evaluations must be conducted when the signs or symptoms are in the same stage of development, same degree of severity, and the condition is evaluated in similar context.
Opinions obtained on the same day would be contemporaneous. Acceptable time delays may differ depending on circumstances, including the type and severity of the condition. For instance, if the employee’s condition either improved or worsened between examinations, the condition would not be evaluated at the same stage.
An employer presented a scenario in an LOI dated September 24, 2010. An employee fell from a chair, went to the emergency room, and was given restrictions that did not affect his duties. Ten days later, the employee visited an occupational clinic and was released to full duty. Finally, after another four days (14 days after the initial ER visit), the employee visited a chiropractor who recommended days away. The employer wanted to consider the initial opinions as more “authoritative” to avoid recording days away. However, OSHA noted that the opinions were not contemporaneous so the question of authority was moot. The employer had to record the case. The employee’s injury might have worsened due to activities outside work, but since the condition started at work, OSHA considers it work-related.
In another LOI dated February 25, 2011, OSHA offered additional considerations regarding “contemporaneous” opinions to include:
The regulation at 1904.6(b)(3) defines “authoritative” as the “best documented, best reasoned, or most authoritative.” The 2010 LOI mentioned previously clarifies that the most authoritative opinion is “the best documented, the best reasoned, or the most persuasive.”
OSHA allows employers to make that determination. In fact, the preamble published in 2001 says, “the rule requires the employer to rely on the one judged by the employer to be most authoritative.” Also, a frequently asked question in OSHA’s Recordkeeping Policies and Procedures Manual (CPL 02-00-135) states, “the employer may determine which recommendation is the most authoritative and record on that basis.”
So, if an injured employee gets a recommendation for medical treatment, restrictions, or days away, but the employer obtains a contemporaneous opinion contradicting that recommendation and the second opinion is more authoritative, the employer may follow the second opinion. However, once medical treatment is provided, the employer must record the case. A subsequent recommendation cannot “undo” a recommendation that was already followed or implemented.
Key to remember: Employers can record cases based on second opinions if the evaluation was both contemporaneous and more authoritative.