
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).
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, why they get missed, and a few simple examples that show up in routine operations.
The TRI list changes more often than many people realize. EPA regularly updates it and recently added new per- and poly-fluoroalkyl 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, they 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 |
Per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) pose one of the most urgent and complex challenges for wastewater systems in the United States. As federal agencies reconsider their regulatory strategies and states impose their own standards, publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and the industries that discharge to them face increasing pressure to control PFAS at the source. These pressures affect pretreatment permits, industrial dischargers, and biosolids management, forming a rapidly evolving compliance landscape. Recent federal assessments and state actions show that PFAS in wastewater and biosolids is no longer a distant regulatory issue. It is a primary driver shaping future POTW permitting.
PFAS enter POTWs through a mix of industrial wastewater, landfill leachate, household products, and consumer goods. Because PFAS are persistent and resistant to conventional treatment, they pass through biological processes largely unchanged. This means industrial contributors sending PFAS to a POTW can cause downstream compliance problems, even at low concentrations. EPA has emphasized that the best way to manage PFAS in wastewater is to prevent the chemicals from entering treatment systems in the first place, placing new attention on upstream industrial sources.
EPA’s 2025 trajectory indicates broader PFAS rulemaking is coming under several environmental statutes, including the Clean Water Act (CWA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act, although the federal landscape remains in flux. Still, agencies agree on one point: pretreatment programs will be an essential component of PFAS control.
Pretreatment permits regulate indirect dischargers, meaning industrial facilities that send wastewater to POTWs instead of directly to surface waters. These permits already manage pollutants that interfere with treatment or pass through into receiving waters. Now, PFAS has become a central focus.
States and POTWs are increasingly requiring:
EPA’s PFAS strategy specifically encourages states and POTWs to deploy all available pretreatment authorities to control PFAS at the source. This approach aligns with statements from EPA representatives asserting that upstream controls are one of the most effective tools for preventing PFAS from entering wastewater systems.
The PFAS problem does not end with liquid effluent. It extends into biosolids, the treated sewage sludge generated by POTWs. In 2025, EPA released a Draft Sewage Sludge Risk Assessment evaluating risks associated with PFOS and PFOA in biosolids applied to land. The assessment found potential human health risks under certain scenarios when biosolid concentrations exceeded 1 part per billion. Although EPA emphasized the assessment is not a regulatory standard, many states immediately treated the value as a de facto limit for biosolid land application.
This rapid adoption has created a challenging environment for POTWs. Unless PFAS inputs from industrial sources are reduced, biosolid PFAS levels remain high, limiting disposal options such as:
Some states have already implemented bans or strict standards on biosolid land application due to PFAS concerns.
EPA’s PFAS regulatory posture has shifted several times. In 2025, EPA announced its intent to rescind certain PFAS drinking water designations while maintaining standards for PFOS and PFOA, signaling continued reassessment of its overall PFAS approach. These actions underscore the unsettled nature of federal rulemaking.
Meanwhile, the 2021 PFAS Strategic Roadmap and its subsequent progress updates outline multiple forthcoming actions under the CWA, including potential effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) for PFAS manufacturers and metal finishers. These ELGs, if finalized, would apply to industrial direct and indirect dischargers and shape pretreatment standards nationwide. Yet, as of early 2026, EPA has not finalized technology based effluent limits for PFAS nor established national PFAS biosolids requirements, leaving states to fill the regulatory void.
Despite uncertainty, actions today can reduce long term liability:
POTWs should also coordinate with state environmental agencies, which continue to implement PFAS restrictions independent of federal action.
Pretreatment programs and biosolids management are becoming central to U.S. PFAS compliance. POTWs sit at the intersection of regulatory expectations, industrial discharges, and community concerns. While federal PFAS rules remain in development, state actions and EPA’s strategic direction make one fact clear: controlling PFAS at the source is essential.
Key to remember: For both industrial users and POTWs, proactive PFAS management is no longer optional. It is a core element of future permitting, planning, and risk reduction.
Recent changes in federal environmental policy have created uncertainty for regulated industries. When federal agencies slow rulemaking, reduce enforcement, or narrow requirements, states often step in. As a result, states are taking a stronger role in setting environmental rules, especially on climate change, air quality, and environmental justice.
This shift is changing how industrial facilities understand and manage regulatory risks.
Several states have moved to the front of environmental policymaking. California is the most well-known example. Through the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the state enforces air and climate rules that go beyond federal standards. These include strict vehicle emissions limits and greenhouse gas controls for industrial sources. Because California’s economy is so large, its rules often shape compliance decisions across the country.
Other states are following similar paths. For example, New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act sets clear, enforceable emissions-reduction goals. It also requires agencies to consider climate and environmental justice impacts during permitting. Washington has adopted a cap-and-invest program that limits carbon emissions from major sources and fuel suppliers.
For industrial operators, state-led regulation adds complexity and risk. Companies with facilities in multiple states may face very different rules, timelines, and reporting requirements. Meeting federal standards alone may no longer be enough.
Facilities can still fall out of compliance with state rules covering air emissions, water discharges, waste management, or community impacts. These differences can affect permitting schedules, capital planning, and long-term site decisions.
State enforcement is often more focused and, in many cases, more stringent than federal enforcement. Many states are increasing inspections and placing greater emphasis on environmental justice.
Facilities located near overburdened or historically impacted communities may face closer review, even when federal enforcement activity is limited.
To operate successfully in this environment, companies need a proactive approach. Tracking state regulatory changes is essential, since states often move faster than federal agencies. Building compliance programs around the most stringent applicable rules can reduce long-term risk.
Early engagement with state regulators and local communities can also make a difference. Open communication can improve relationships, reduce conflict, and support smoother permitting outcomes.
For industrial facilities, success now depends less on watching Washington and more on understanding the growing influence of state capitals.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule on February 18, 2026, to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repeal all federal greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for:
The final rule takes effect on April 20, 2026, and applies to vehicles and engines of model years 2012 to 2027 and beyond.
What are the changes?
Manufacturers (including importers) of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines no longer have to measure, report, or comply with federal GHG emission standards. The final rule removes all GHG emission regulations in 40 CFR:
The final rule also eliminates:
What doesn’t change?
EPA’s following regulations remain in effect for new motor vehicles and vehicle engines:
About the 2009 Endangerment Finding
In 2009, EPA issued two findings: the Endangerment Finding and the Cause or Contribute Finding. Collectively, these findings are referred to as the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The agency used the 2009 Endangerment Finding as the legal basis to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
EPA regulated GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines through:
However, upon reconsideration, EPA stated that it no longer believes it has the statutory authority under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines. Therefore, the agency has simultaneously rescinded the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repealed the related federal GHG emission regulations.
Key to remember: EPA's final rule eliminates the 2009 Endangerment Finding and the related GHG emission requirements for on-highway vehicles and vehicle engines.

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.
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.
OSHA is fast-tracking a proposed rule to remove a 2036 mandate to upgrade fall protection systems on fixed ladders that extend over 24 feet. The agency says the change, sparked by an industry petition, would allow employers to update their ladders at the end of their service lives, rather than by a hard compliance date. OSHA frames the move as deregulatory.
The affected regulation, 29 CFR 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D), currently reads: “(i) For fixed ladders that extend more than 24 feet (7.3 m) above a lower level, the employer must ensure: … (D) Final deadline. On and after November 18, 2036, all fixed ladders are equipped with a personal fall arrest system or a ladder safety system.”
A quick look at the rule’s development shows:
The seven-page petition, written by legal counsel on behalf of the AFPM, API, and American Chemistry Council (ACC), requests that OSHA:
Petitioners argue that OSHA, in its 2010 proposed WWS rule, failed to:
The petition outlines the differences between the earlier proposed and final rules, noting that the 2010 proposal gave employers the choice to use any of four fall-protection types — cages, wells, ladder safety systems, or personal fall protection systems. However, the 2016 final rule gave a 2036 phase-out date for cages and wells.
The petition goes on to contend that:
The petition raises several points questioning the benefits of paragraph (b)(9)(i)(D), stating that:
Finally, the petition addresses significant compliance costs, estimating several billion dollars for tens of thousands of ladders at U.S. refineries alone. Petitioners also cited additional expenses for rerating pressure vessels and engineering any process equipment changes.
OSHA officially announced in a September 2025 memo that it is proposing to remove 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D). The agency calls it a deregulatory action in line with Executive Order 14192. The memo reasons, “OSHA anticipates this change will allow employers to update their ladders when the ladders reach the end of their service lives, accommodating the lengthy service life of fixed ladders, while significantly reducing costs and offering greater flexibility.”
The WWS - Fixed Ladders proposal reached OIRA on December 18. OIRA typically takes 90 to 120 days for review, but recently a maximum 28-day review period for deregulatory actions was implemented. That means we anticipate OIRA will rush this proposal, so that OSHA may publish it in the Federal Register.
An upcoming OSHA proposal would withdraw 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D). The rule was spurred by a petition.
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.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule on February 18, 2026, to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repeal all federal greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for:
The final rule takes effect on April 20, 2026, and applies to vehicles and engines of model years 2012 to 2027 and beyond.
What are the changes?
Manufacturers (including importers) of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines no longer have to measure, report, or comply with federal GHG emission standards. The final rule removes all GHG emission regulations in 40 CFR:
The final rule also eliminates:
What doesn’t change?
EPA’s following regulations remain in effect for new motor vehicles and vehicle engines:
About the 2009 Endangerment Finding
In 2009, EPA issued two findings: the Endangerment Finding and the Cause or Contribute Finding. Collectively, these findings are referred to as the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The agency used the 2009 Endangerment Finding as the legal basis to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
EPA regulated GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines through:
However, upon reconsideration, EPA stated that it no longer believes it has the statutory authority under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines. Therefore, the agency has simultaneously rescinded the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repealed the related federal GHG emission regulations.
Key to remember: EPA's final rule eliminates the 2009 Endangerment Finding and the related GHG emission requirements for on-highway vehicles and vehicle engines.
On March 16, 2026, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) implemented a sweeping final rule aimed at fundamentally changing how non domiciled Commercial Driver’s Licenses (CDLs) are issued in the United States. Officially titled “Restoring Integrity to the Issuance of Non Domiciled Commercial Driver’s Licenses,” the rule amends 49 CFR Parts 383 and 384.
The rule establishes strict eligibility standards, imposes new verification requirements on states, and is backed by aggressive enforcement expectations that extend beyond licensing offices to roadside inspections and carrier audits.
The final rule sharply limits eligibility for non domiciled CDLs and Commercial Learner’s Permits (CLPs). Under the new regulation, only three immigration categories qualify:
No other immigration status, regardless of employment authorization, may be used to obtain, renew, transfer, or upgrade a non domiciled CDL or CLP.
A key requirement of the rule is mandatory immigration status verification. State Driver Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) must verify a driver’s lawful status through the federal SAVE system and may not rely on Employment Authorization Documents (EADs), or pending immigration applications as proof of eligibility. If a state cannot meet these verification standards, it is required to halt issuance of all non domiciled CDLs and CLPs until compliance is achieved.
The rule also restricts the validity period of non domiciled CDLs. Licenses may not exceed one year or extend beyond the expiration date of the driver’s lawful immigration status, whichever comes first. Each renewal requires fresh verification under the same standards.
The rule directly affects foreign domiciled drivers who operate commercial motor vehicles in the United States under non resident CDLs. FMCSA estimates that approximately 190,000–200,000 drivers could lose eligibility over time due to non renewals or license revocations. Drivers previously relying on broader categories are no longer eligible under the final rule. Motor carriers are also affected. FMCSA guidance makes clear that carriers employing drivers whose licenses later become invalid face increased exposure during driver qualification audits, investigations, and enforcement actions. The rule reinforces that responsibility for compliance extends beyond the driver to the employer. Importantly, the rule does not apply to U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, or drivers licensed in Canada or Mexico who operate under existing reciprocity agreements.
FMCSA found widespread state non compliance and systemic weaknesses in the verification of foreign driving histories as the primary reasons for the rule. According to the agency, a nationwide review found that more than 30 states had issued tens of thousands of non domiciled CDLs using standards that did not meet existing federal requirements.
Safety concerns were central to the decision. FMCSA documented 17 fatal crashes in 2025 resulting in 30 deaths involving non domiciled CDL holders who would not have been eligible under the new rule. While acknowledging that these crashes represent a small fraction of overall CMV fatalities, FMCSA stated they illustrate the potential risks created when driver history, status, and qualification cannot be reliably verified.
The agency framed the rule as necessary to restore integrity, uniformity, and accountability to the CDL system while closing gaps that allowed improperly issued licenses to remain in circulation.
Key to Remember: The Non Domiciled CDL Final Rule represents a decisive shift from flexibility to strict federal oversight. It narrows eligibility, mandates verification, shortens license duration, and places renewed emphasis on carrier responsibility.
As 2026 unfolds, it may not be a growth year but could be a positioning year. The carriers that maintain recruiting momentum, invest in retention, and resist short term safety compromises will be the ones best able to respond to a spike in rates and customer demand.
Economic uncertainty has only increased as this year has progressed. However, Carriers are expected to keep recruiting channels active, but largely to replace driver attrition rather than fuel meaningful growth. Incremental hiring may occur where equipment is available, but only modestly.
Equipment plays a vital role in shaping recruiting needs. A potential uptick in used truck pricing could lead some fleets to sell excess or higher mileage units rather than attempt to seat them. Aging equipment brings higher maintenance costs and is often less attractive to drivers, making divestment a rational alternative to expansion in a soft market.
Despite margin pressure and measured hiring plans, one strategy remains unchanged: abandoning recruiting altogether is rarely a smart move. Allowing recruiting channels to go dormant makes it significantly harder to regain visibility and trust among drivers when conditions improve. This risk is amplified if freight volumes rebound quickly. Maintaining a consistent presence—at least enough to capture driver interest and inquiries—helps preserve long term competitiveness.
Given current conditions, many carriers are prioritizing selective recruitment and driver retention over growing their fleet. Focusing on safe, productive drivers rather than expanding headcount is a prudent approach until economic strength proves sustainable.
Technology continues to play a key role here. Camera systems, paired with effective coaching programs, are valuable tools for proactively addressing unsafe behaviors, preventing crashes, and keeping experienced drivers productive and engaged.
As is typical during slower cycles, carriers also have an opportunity to improve overall driver quality. Retaining drivers who are unwilling or unable to meet safety expectations ultimately raises risk and costs. Where feasible, carriers are better served replacing those drivers with individuals who have stronger safety records and align with long term standards.
Increased use of AI in back office functions—such as routing, fuel optimization, and maintenance planning—may create efficiency gains or reduce overhead. However, investment in roles that directly support drivers remains essential. At its core, driver retention is still about relationships, trust, and consistent communication.
If the economy strengthens rapidly, driver recruiting will become intensely competitive. The impact of non domiciled commercial driver's license (CDL) revocations will be felt as carriers attempt to scale to meet surging demand. In that environment, driver pay would likely climb sharply—potentially echoing the increases seen during the COVID freight surge—unless carriers choose to lower hiring standards.
Relaxing safety standards, however, is not a sustainable solution and introduces long term risk. Carriers that hold firm on safety will face tighter labor markets but be better positioned over time.
Private fleets are likely to emerge as relative winners in a tight market. Many will feel pressure to expand to protect their supply chains rather than rely on brokered capacity. With pay premiums, superior schedules, and robust benefits already in place, private fleets are especially attractive to experienced and aging drivers planning their final years before retirement.
Key to remember: 2026 promises to be a dynamic year. To stay ready for a rebound, keep recruiting and performance management programs focused on driver quality and safety, not quantity.
The risk of using an impaired commercial driver is real if you’re not keeping on top of DOT testing requirements, including the Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse (DACH).
Many common employer errors associated with the DACH are more about safety than recordkeeping in nature, including the following examples.
The annual list of DOT audit violations consistently shows failure to register with the DACH as a top 10 citation.
Some violations result from misunderstanding who needs an account. Motor carriers subject to 49 CFR Part 382 must register. It’s not optional. Without this account, motor carriers are unable to access the portal to request and report data.
Each year, the DOT cites carriers that fail to request pre-employment and/or annual DACH queries. The two citations regularly appear in the top 10 audit violations.
Queries are vital to learn whether a driver is prohibited from operating your commercial motor vehicle (CMV) due to an unresolved DOT drug and/or alcohol violation. These same queries also provide details on completed return-to-duty and follow-up programs.
Without this information, you can’t be sure who is operating your CMV.
The DACH is only as accurate as the data provided. If responsible parties fail to report specific information, a driver’s record isn’t accurate when an employer or enforcement official looks it up.
The medical review officer (MRO) reports on failed drug tests and certain refusal-to-test scenarios.
Employers (or C/TPAs) report items that the MRO doesn’t, including:
Substance abuse professionals (SAPs) record completed evaluations and treatment on the driver’s record.
If the information isn’t provided or is provided late, unqualified drivers may be behind the wheel. Or those who have been rehabilitated may appear unqualified.
It’s important to notice all the details in the DACH driver report. When a limited query result shows a driver has a DOT testing violation, the carrier must request a full query. A limited query only shows whether the driver has a record of a previous violation. The full query shows details.
There are key data elements to check on a full query result. When examining a full query, the first step is to check the driver’s status: prohibited or not prohibited.
If prohibited, do you see:
These details let you know whether the SAP program was started.
If not prohibited, the query results show:
If the follow-up testing shows:
If this is a new hire with a not prohibited status and an incomplete follow-up testing program, the new employer must contact the former employer(s) for details on the follow-up testing.
If the driver is prohibited, their CDL has been or is about to be downgraded. This must be reinstated prior to operating CMVs again
A CDL or CLP holder who is in a prohibited status will have the DACH flagged on their driving record. Even though the state only downgrades the commercial class license, there’s another ramification.
The regulations (382.501(c)) prevent the driver from operating any CMV, including a CMV as defined in 390.5. This general definition includes both CDL and non-CDL CMV types. As a result, the driver is unable to operate a non-CDL CMV in interstate commerce until the DACH status changes to not prohibited or the driver voluntarily surrenders their CDL.
Key to remember: The DACH may seem more administrative than safety-related to some. But failure to follow through with the required recordkeeping could result in an impaired driver operating your vehicle.
Truck drivers face unique challenges on the road and understanding the utility exemption for hours of service can be a game changer. Learn how this exemption empowers drivers to optimize their schedules and enhance efficiency.
This exemption applies to drivers of vehicles that qualify as “utility service vehicles” as defined in 395.2.
Here is a critical point: The vehicle/driver must meet all three requirements listed in the definition of a utility service vehicle provided in 395.2 to be able to use this exemption. The three requirements are:
Drivers involved in building new utility structures in general are not eligible for this exception. However, if the driver is going back and forth from new construction to repairing, maintaining, or operating utility infrastructure, the driver will be covered by the exemption when involved in these activities, but not covered while involved in new construction.
When involved in new construction and covered by the hours-of service requirements, the driver would have to follow the limits in the hours-of-service regulations and maintain a log (or a time record if the 150 air-mile exemption applies). If the driver had to complete a log more than 8 days in the previous 30 days, the driver would have to use an electronic log on the days the driver is required to log.
| Click here to learn more about hours-of-service exemptions. |
One point to remember is that when the driver is using the utility service vehicle exemption, all other safety regulations, such as driver qualification and licensing, safe driving, parts and accessories, vehicle inspection and maintenance, and DOT drug and alcohol testing, still apply to the driver and company. The driver is only exempt from the hours-of-service regulations.
While not directly related to the utility service exception, “blanket” exceptions exist for drivers responding to a declared emergency, usually stemming from a natural disaster. Drivers/vehicles that qualify for these exceptions are exempted from all safety regulations when they are responding, with the exception of the CDL and drug and alcohol testing regulations.
Once the driver is done working in support of the declared emergency or the emergency condition is no longer an emergency, the driver and vehicle are once again covered by the regulations.
Key to remember: The utility exemption provides truck drivers with needed flexibility that harmonizes the demands of the job with the importance of maintaining safe and efficient operations on the road.
Lately we’re seeing a trend in questions about attendance requirements for hazmat loads on the road. Any marked or placarded motor vehicle containing hazmat that is on a public street, highway, or shoulder must always be attended by the driver. Carriers are trying to understand the limits of the requirement.
Defining “attended”
The regulations for this requirement are 397.5 and 397.7. A vehicle is “attended” when the person in charge is:
Exceptions
The vehicle need not be attended while its driver is performing duties that are incident and necessary to the driver’s duties as the operator of the vehicle.
Applying the rule in the real world
If a driver leaves the vehicle to go to the bathroom or get a soda in the truck stop and does not have the truck in sight, is that a violation?
No. Unless the placarded vehicle contains certain explosives (from divisions 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3), it does not need to be attended as long as it is not on or within 5 feet of a traveled portion of public street or highway.
Our drivers haul placarded amounts of hazmat. If they have to lay down in a motel for 10 hours off, are they allowed to leave the hazmat load unattended?
Yes. A marked or placarded motor vehicle containing hazmat must be attended by the driver when is on a public street, highway, or shoulder. This does not apply if hazmat from divisions 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3 are on the vehicle. Then the employer and the driver must comply with 397.5.
Is the driver allowed to record stops as off-duty time when the vehicle is laden with hazmat and the truck is parked in a truck stop parking lot?
Yes. Drivers may record meal and other routine stops made during a tour of duty as off-duty time. This does not apply when the vehicle is laden with explosives from hazard divisions 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3. When hazmat from divisions 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3 are on the vehicle, the employer and the driver must comply with 397.5.
Do video monitors satisfy the attendance requirements in 397.5?
Maybe. The attendance requirement is meant to ensure that:
The use of video monitors could satisfy the attendance requirements in 397.5 if:
Key to remember: Unsafe handling of hazmat can result in roadside inspection violations and crash reports citing unsafe hazmat handling as a cause or contributing factor. Stay safe, protect your cargo, and avoid citations by understanding the attendance requirements for hazmat loads.
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.
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.
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.
Spring brings the start of baseball season and is also a great time of year to make sure your labor law posters are covering all bases.
Many employers check their posters around the beginning of the year, as that’s when many posting updates take effect. Spring, however, is also a good time to step up to the plate and make sure that everything is set for the season.
Be a posting compliance most valuable player (MVP) by ensuring that:
All January 1 changes have been posted.
This year, January posting updates occurred in these states:
All changes listed were mandatory, and an updated posting is required, except for the minimum wage updates in Montana, South Dakota, and Washington. A new minimum wage took effect in these states, and a new poster was released, but posting isn’t needed under the law (although it is a good idea).
In addition, if you’re in Minnesota, you have a bonus change to be aware of. The Workers’ Compensation posting was updated in late January, and employers should have the January 2026 version on the wall
You’re watching for promised federal posting changes.
Two federal posting updates are on the way:
You’re ready for mid-year updates.
Some annual minimum wage changes take effect in July, and a few additional posting updates take effect at this time of the year as well. Be ready to update these posters in July:
All posters are properly displayed.
Posters must be displayed in a conspicuous location where they’re readily visible to employees. If you have a new location, or if your business has been remodeled recently, make sure that labor law posters are on display as needed.
If you have employees who work remotely, electronic posters are a great way to make them aware of their rights.
Key to remember: You can round the bases with a posting compliance grand slam this spring by making sure updated posters are properly displayed, and you’re ready for the next series of updates.
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.
Employers must make sure their employment applications and agreements are in agreement. That’s the take-away from a decision issued by the Michigan Court of Appeals in late February.
In Mayberry v. Acrisure Wallstreet Partners, LLC, the court looked at how a clause in an employment agreement overrode terms in earlier hiring documents.
In this case, an employee signed two documents on the day he was hired: a job application and an employment agreement. The job application said that if the employee wanted to sue the company, he had to do so within 6 months of the event that caused the problem. The employment agreement, which he signed later that same day, didn’t include any deadline for bringing legal claims.
The employment agreement:
After several years of employment, the employee who had signed both the application and the agreement filed a lawsuit against the employer alleging breach of contract. The employer claimed the employee missed the deadline to file the lawsuit under the 6-month time limit in the job application.
The trial court rejected this argument and ruled in favor of the employee. The court ruled that because the employment agreement said it was the final agreement, the employer couldn’t use the deadline found in the earlier job application.
The employer appealed, arguing that the application and employment agreement should be read together because they were both signed during the onboarding process. The employer also argued that the limitations provision in the application should apply because it didn’t conflict with the employment agreement. The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected both arguments.
The Court of Appeals explained that when an employment agreement includes a clear and unambiguous integration clause, prior documents can’t be read together with the agreement or used to supplement its terms. An integration clause is simply a statement in a contract that the agreement is final and complete. The court noted that the employment agreement’s silence on a shortened limitations period didn’t allow the employer to rely on the application.
Because the agreement specifically barred modification or supplementation, any additional terms needed to be included directly in the agreement itself.
While this was a Michigan case, the Mayberry decision serves as an important reminder to all employers about the need to draft employment documents carefully and make sure those documents are consistent.
If language in an employment agreement says the agreement is final and can only be changed in writing, it’s important to make sure everything an employer wants to include is included in that agreement. Employers shouldn’t count on language in job applications or other earlier documents being valid later.
Key to remember: Courts will hold employers to the exact wording of their employment agreements. If an important term is left out of the final agreement, a court may ignore it — even if it appeared in paperwork that the employee signed earlier, such as an application.
Many employers can confidently say they conduct an annual evacuation or fire drill. The alarm sounds , employees exit the building, headcounts are completed, and the drill is labeled “successful.” From a compliance standpoint, that box is checked.
However, a more important question deserves attention. Did the drill actually test our readiness, or did it simply confirm that we can follow a script?
Effective evacuation drills aren’t about perfection. They’re about finding the gaps. When drills are treated as learning opportunities instead of routine exercises, they reveal real world risks that don’t always show up on paper.
OSHA outlines the minimum expectations for workplace evacuation readiness under 29 CFR Subpart E (Exit Routes and Emergency Planning). These requirements include written emergency action plans, clear exit routes, functional alarms and emergency lighting, and a method for accounting for employees after evacuation. Meeting these requirements is necessary, but it is only the baseline.
True preparedness goes beyond documentation. It requires validating that people, processes, and systems work together under realistic conditions.
Many times, drills are announced well in advance. Employees are reminded to review evacuation routes, supervisors prepare for headcounts, and operations adjust accordingly. While this approach reduces disruption, it also reduces realism. When people know a drill is coming, their reactions are calm, deliberate, and rehearsed.
In an actual emergency, there is no warning. The alarm is unexpected, information is incomplete, and reactions are instinctive. People hesitate, look at others for cues, question whether the alarm is real, or try to finish what they’re doing before leaving. Stress and uncertainty change how decisions are made, often slowing response time in ways that a scheduled drill never reveals.
Combat this challenge by providing a time window for drills rather than a fixed date. This allows organizations to observe more authentic responses while still managing operational needs.
Traditional drills often assume employees are at their assigned workstations. In reality, people move throughout the day; they may be in restrooms, break areas, offices, and other departments. A strong evacuation program tests whether employees know how to respond from wherever they are, not just from where training materials or maps say they should be.
Do employees recognize the nearest exit in unfamiliar areas? Do they know alternate routes? These questions only get answered when drills reflect true movement patterns.
One of the most valuable aspects of a drill is observing behavior. Do employees evacuate immediately, or do they hesitate? Do they treat the alarm seriously or assume it’s “just a drill?” Small delays such as grabbing personal items, finishing a task, stopping at the restroom, or chatting with a friend, can have serious consequences in a real emergency.
Drills should reinforce instinctive action. The goal is to build muscle memory so that when an alarm sounds, the response is immediate and automatic.
Accounting for employees after an evacuation is critical, but drills should test more than ideal scenarios. What happens if someone can’t reach their designated assembly area? What if supervisors are absent or teams are split?
Effective drills challenge accountability processes and ensure they are flexible enough to handle real world fluctuations.
Evacuation drills are also one of the best opportunities to test emergency systems under live conditions. Alarms, emergency lighting, exit signage, and exit doors may appear functional during inspections but fail during use.
Having designated observers during drills allows organizations to verify:
Many organizations discover equipment failures during drills, issues that might otherwise go unnoticed until an actual emergency occurs.
The most important part of an evacuation drill happens afterward. Organizations that gain the most value collect observations from multiple perspectives, document findings, and identify specific improvement actions.
Common findings include evacuation delays, exit congestion, alarm audibility issues, and gaps in training or supervision. These insights should drive follow up and meaningful changes to continuously improve the organization’s overall emergency evacuation response.
Key to remember: When leaders shift their mindset from “running a drill” to testing actual readiness, evacuation exercises become powerful tools for protecting people, strengthening systems, and building a culture of safety that performs when it matters most.
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.
Welding, cutting, and brazing are common procedures in many industries. Whenever welding, cutting, or brazing occurs, everyone involved in the operations must take precautions to prevent fires, explosions, or personal injuries from welding hazards.
Employers must review the company welding safety program with their welders. Whenever welding or working around welding and other hot work, you should know the following:
Here are a few practices for working safely that apply in welding situations.
If employees properly handle compressed gas cylinders (CGCs), they can safely perform many welding tasks. The following procedures will reduce the hazards of handling CGCs:
Here are several things to ensure your employees remember when moving CGCs:
Employees must identify gas and its dangers before they use it. They can find this information on labels, SDSs, and cylinder markings. Instruct employees not to use it if they don’t know what’s in a cylinder.
Whenever welding, cutting, or brazing occurs, everyone involved in the operations must take precautions to prevent fires, explosions, or personal injuries from welding hazards.
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.
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.
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.