Compliance Just Got Easier: Stay ahead of regulatory changes with instant notifications on updates that matter.

FREE TRIAL UPGRADE!
Thank you for investing in EnvironmentalHazmatHuman ResourcesHuman Resources, Hazmat & Environmental related content. Click 'UPGRADE' to continue.
CANCEL
YOU'RE ALL SET!
Enjoy your limited-time access to the Compliance Network!
A confirmation welcome email has been sent to your email address from ComplianceNetwork@t.jjkellercompliancenetwork.com. Please check your spam/junk folder if you can't find it in your inbox.
YOU'RE ALL SET!
Thank you for your interest in EnvironmentalHazmatHuman ResourcesHuman Resources, Hazmat & Environmental related content.
WHOOPS!
You've reached your limit of free access, if you'd like more info, please contact us at 800-327-6868.
You'll also get exclusive access to:
Already have an account? .

If you operate in California, you need to be up to date on what the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is up to. This year, CARB is updating several programs and has a new requirement that applies to “large entities” operating vehicles based in California. The programs with an “*” in front of them throughout this article are applicable to all carriers operating in California, not just those based in California or with an operating facility in California.

Large entity report under the Advanced Clean Trucks program

CARB adopted a regulation in June 2020 that has a one-time reporting requirement for large entities that operate or dispatch vehicles with a manufacturer’s gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 8,500 lbs. in California. A large entity is defined as a business that operates a facility in California and:

  • Had more than $50 million in revenue in 2019 from all related subsidiaries, subdivisions, or branches, and has at least one qualifying vehicle;
  • Owns 50 or more vehicles;
  • Dispatches 50 or more vehicles into or throughout California; or
  • Is a government agency (federal, state, or local) that has at least one qualifying vehicle.

The reporting must be done by April 1, 2021. Details and the reporting system can be found on the California Air Resources Board website.

*Truck and bus regulation

This regulation requires the retrofitting of older diesel-powered vehicles with a diesel particulate filter (DPF) or an engine that meets the 2010 emissions standards. This applies to all vehicles operating in California, regardless of where the vehicle is based or registered. As of January 1, 2021:

  • 2004 model year and older heavy vehicles (rated at over 26,000 pounds) must be retrofitted with an engine meeting the 2010 emissions standards,
  • 2005 and 2006 model year heavy vehicles must have a DPF, and
  • 2006 model year and older light vehicles (14,001- to 26,000-pound weight ratings) must be retrofitted with an engine meeting the 2010 emissions standards.

If you want to use any of the exemptions to this program (such as the low mileage exemption), you need to log into the Truck Regulation Upload, Compliance, and Reporting System (TRUCRS) and register the vehicles involved by January 31, 2021. Details on this program are available on the California Air Resources Board website.

*Transportation Refrigeration Unit

To operate in California, a diesel-powered transportation refrigeration unit (TRU) must meet specific emission standards (regardless of where it is based). If the TRU cannot meet the standards as built, it must be retrofitted with emissions control technologies (contact your refrigeration unit vendor if you have questions on your particular units and possible retrofits). Currently, the only exception involves TRUs with an engine that is rated for less than 25 horsepower. However, once a TRU with an engine less than 25 horsepower reaches seven years old (based on model year), the engine must be retrofitted to meet the applicable emissions standards. Details on this program are available on the California Air Resources Board website.

Other programs

Here is a short list of some of the other programs that would be applicable to most carriers operating in California:

  • *Tractor-trailer greenhouse gas regulation: This regulation requires 53-foot box-type trailers and the tractors pulling them to meet specific aerodynamic and low rolling resistance requirements. This applies to all vehicles operating in California.
  • *Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection Program (HDVIP): Any heavy-duty vehicle operating in California, regardless of where it is based, may be inspected at roadside locations to verify the vehicle is meeting the appropriate emissions standards. To assist with this program, California also requires all engines to have the emissions label in place (a replacement label can be provided by the engine manufacturer).
  • Periodic Smoke Inspection Program (PSIP): This program requires fleet owners to conduct specific annual emissions inspections once the vehicle is four years old. The owner must also repair vehicles that do not pass. This program applies to any diesel-powered vehicle with a GVWR of 6,001 pounds or more. There is an exception that allows for every-other-year testing for certain vehicles with a GVWR of 6,001 to 14,000 pounds.

Key to remember: If you operate in California, you need to comply with the applicable CARB emissions regulations.

Specialized Industries

Go beyond the regulations! Visit the Institute for in-depth guidance on a wide range of compliance subjects in safety and health, transportation, environment, and human resources.

J. J. Keller® COMPLIANCE NETWORK is a premier online safety and compliance community, offering members exclusive access to timely regulatory content in workplace safety (OSHA), transportation (DOT), environment (EPA), and human resources (DOL).

Interact With Our Compliance Experts

Puzzled by a regulatory question or issue? Let our renowned experts provide the answers and get your business on track to full compliance!

Upcoming Events

Reference the Compliance Network Safety Calendar to keep track of upcoming safety and compliance events. Browse by industry or search by keyword to see relevant dates and observances, including national safety months, compliance deadlines, and more.

SAFETY & COMPLIANCE NEWS

Keep up with the latest regulatory developments from OSHA, DOT, EPA, DOL, and more.

REGSENSE® REGULATORY REFERENCE

Explore a comprehensive database of word-for-word regulations on a wide range of compliance topics, with simplified explanations and best practices advice from our experts.

THE J. J. KELLER INSTITUTE

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

ADD HAZMAT, ENVIRONMENTAL, & HR RESOURCES

Unlock exclusive content offering expert insights into hazmat, environmental, and human resources compliance with a COMPLIANCE NETWORK EDGE membership.

DIRECT ACCESS TO COMPLIANCE EXPERTS

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

EVENTS

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

Most Recent Highlights In Environmental

2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

North Dakota establishes AST regulations

Effective date: April 1, 2026

This applies to: Owners and operators of aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and liquid fuel storage tanks

Description of change: The Department of Environmental Quality adopted technical standards and corrective action requirements for ASTs. The department also approved amendments to the registration dates and fee categories of the Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Fund for liquid fuels storage tanks.

Related state info: Aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) state comparison — ASTs

2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

Ohio finalizes sewage sludge amendments

Effective date: March 1, 2026

This applies to: Facilities regulated by the sewage sludge program

Description of change: The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency finalized changes to the sewage sludge program through its 5-year review of the regulations. The approved amendments:

  • Add professional operator of record requirements for privately owned treatment works;
  • Increase and add isolation distances for facilities;
  • Prohibit beneficial use of biosolids within a vulnerable hydrogeological setting;
  • Remove dioxin monitoring requirements; and
  • Add requirements for beneficial user certification (including the application and examination process, recordkeeping requirements, and reasons for suspending or revoking a certification).
2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

New Mexico adopts Clean Transportation Fuel Program rules

Effective date: April 1, 2026

This applies to: Transportation fuel produced in, imported into, or dispensed for use in New Mexico

Description of change: The New Mexico Environment Department finalized regulations to implement the Clean Transportation Fuel Program (CTFP) to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuel (including gasoline and diesel). The program covers transportation fuel producers, importers, and dispensers.

The CTFP:

  • Establishes annual statewide carbon intensity standards that apply to transportation fuel (e.g., gasoline and diesel) produced, imported, and dispensed for use in New Mexico;
  • Allocates credits and calculates deficits for regulated entities based on the fuel’s carbon intensity; and
  • Sets up a marketplace for selling and purchasing credits to comply with the carbon intensity standards.

The first compliance period runs from April 1, 2026, to December 31, 2027. The first compliance period report is due by April 30, 2028. Annual compliance reports will be due by April 30 for the previous calendar year.

2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

Maine lists materials covered for packaging stewardship program

Effective date: March 3, 2026

This applies to: Entities subject to the Stewardship Program for Packaging Regulations

Description of change: The Maine Department of Environmental Protection’s amendments to the Stewardship Program for Packaging Regulations (06-096 C.M.R. Chapter 428) include:

  • Aligning the rules with changes made by An Act to Improve Recycling by Updating the Stewardship Program for Packaging (L.D. 1423), and
  • Adding Appendix A — The Packaging Material Types List to the Stewardship Program for Packaging Regulations.

L.D. 1423:

  • Excludes certain commercial, cosmetic, medical, environmental, dangerous, hazardous, and flammable product packaging from the program requirements;
  • Excludes packaging of products related to public health and water quality testing from the program requirements;
  • Requires the department to adopt a process for approving a producer payment system; and
  • Updates definitions for clarity.

Appendix A defines packaging material and designates the material types readily recyclable as applicable. It may also designate materials as compostable or reusable.

2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

California adopts permanent illegal disposal rules

Effective date: March 4, 2026

This applies to: Entities that handle, transfer, compost, transform, or dispose of solid waste

Description of change: CalRecycle made permanent the current illegal disposal emergency regulations, allowing enforcement agencies to take action against any person who illegally disposes of solid waste.

The rule also:

  • Adds the land application activities to the regulations, making the activities subject to the permitting tier structure and associated requirements (i.e., operator filing requirements, state minimum standards, recordkeeping, and enforcement agency inspection requirements); and
  • Amends sampling and recordkeeping for solid waste facilities, operations, and activities.
See More

Most Recent Highlights In Transportation

2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

West Virginia establishes fee schedule for UIC Program

Effective date: March 4, 2026

This applies to: Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program permittees

Description of change: This rule establishes the schedules of fees for carbon dioxide capture and sequestration authorized by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection’s (WVDEP’s) Division of Water and Waste Management.

EPA granted primacy to the WVDEP to implement the UIC Program for Class VI wells in February 2025.

2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

Colorado extends timeline to comply with GHG intensity targets

Effective date: April 14, 2026

This applies to: Small operators in the oil and gas sector

Description of change: The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission revised the intensity targets for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for small oil and gas operators (those with less than 45 thousand barrels of oil equivalent (kBOE) production in 2025). The commission extended the first deadline to 2030 for small operators to meet applicable intensity requirements.

However, small operators must still submit the intensity plan for the 2027 targets, which is due by June 30, 2026.

Related state info: Clean air operating permits state comparison — Clean air operating permits

2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

Colorado finalizes state dredge and fill permit regulations

Effective date: March 30, 2026

This applies to: Projects that require preconstruction notification or compensatory mitigation

Description of change: The Colorado Water Quality Control Division finalized rules for implementing a state dredge and fill discharge authorization program established by HB24-1379. The program covers state waters that aren’t subject to federal dredge and fill permitting requirements under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

The division will continue issuing Temporary Authorizations until August 31, 2026. After that, applicants must apply for coverage under General Authorizations. The division already accepts applications for Individual Authorizations.

Related state info: Construction water permitting — Colorado

2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

New York adds wastewater cybersecurity rules

Effective date: March 26, 2026

This applies to: Wastewater treatment facilities

Description of change: The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation added cybersecurity regulations for wastewater treatment facilities. The rules:

  • Require all State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permittees to report cybersecurity incidents,
  • Require publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) to establish, maintain, and implement an Emergency Response Plan and certify compliance with the provisions annually by March 28;
  • Establish baseline cybersecurity control requirements;
  • Add network monitoring and logging for certain POTWs with design flows of 10 million+ gallons per day; and
  • Require wastewater treatment plant operators to complete a minimum number of training hours within their existing required hours on cybersecurity to renew certification every 5 years.
2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

California permanently adopts EPA’s conditional exemption for airbag waste

Effective date: March 6, 2026

This applies to: Airbag waste handlers and transporters

Description of change: The California Department of Toxic Substances Control permanently adopted the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) interim final rule that allows airbag waste handlers and transporters to meet less stringent hazardous waste requirements (e.g., not manifesting the waste) if they meet certain conditions. Once the airbag waste is received at a collection facility or designated facility for proper disposal, it must be managed as hazardous waste.

The scope of the rule applies to all airbag waste, including recalled airbag inflators.

Related state info: Hazardous waste generators — California

See More

Most Recent Highlights In Safety & Health

2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

New Jersey extends polystyrene foam exemption

Effective date: March 12, 2026

This applies to: Certain polystyrene foam food service products

Description of change: The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection extended the exemption from the Single-Use Paper and Plastic Carryout Bags and Polystyrene Foam Food Service Products Rules for certain polystyrene foam products from May 4, 2026, to May 4, 2027. It applies to these polystyrene foam products:

  • Trays used for raw or butchered meat or fish that’s sold from a refrigerator or similar retail appliance;
  • Food products pre-packaged by the manufacturer in a polystyrene foam food service product;
  • Polystyrene foam food service products that are used for the health or safety of hospital, nursing home, or correctional facility patients or residents; and
  • Any other polystyrene foam food service product as determined needed by the department.
Effluent limitations: FAQs for direct dischargers of industrial wastewater
2026-04-16T05:00:00Z

Effluent limitations: FAQs for direct dischargers of industrial wastewater

Facilities across the country conduct industrial activities that generate wastewater containing pollutants and then release it directly into nearby surface waters, such as streams, rivers, or lakes. However, before any industrial wastewater can be discharged from a site, the facility must obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses effluent limitations as the primary method to regulate direct discharges of industrial wastewater into waters of the United States. These restrictions are incorporated into NPDES permits.

Meeting effluent limitations is the key to compliance with NPDES permits. But like other environmental regulations, these standards can get complex quickly without a solid foundation of understanding. We’ve compiled common FAQs to help you become fluent in effluent limitations.

What’s effluent?

There’s no specific statutory or regulatory definition of “effluent.” Thankfully, a 1997 document from EPA entitled Terms of Environment: Glossary, Abbreviations, and Acronyms, Revised December 1997 (EPA 175-B-97-001) provides clarity, defining effluent as “wastewater — treated or untreated — that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or industrial outfall.”

What’s the difference between effluent guidelines and limitations?

There are subtle but important distinctions between these two terms.

Effluent guidelines (also known as effluent limitations guidelines and standards or ELGs) are the national industrial wastewater discharge standards established by EPA for all facilities in an industrial category.

The federal agency develops effluent guidelines based on the performance of the best available technology that’s economically achievable for an industry. Notably, effluent guidelines are technology-based; they’re not based on risk or impacts to receiving waters (i.e., water quality-based).

Federal effluent guidelines (40 CFR Subchapter N) for direct dischargers of industrial wastewater are implemented through the NPDES permitting program.

Effluent limitations are any restrictions imposed “on quantities, discharge rates, and concentrations of pollutants” from industrial wastewater discharges (122.2). Simply put, effluent limitations are the specific numeric and non-numeric requirements developed for facilities to comply with the effluent guidelines. Unlike effluent guidelines, effluent limitations may be both technology- and water quality-based.

Most states issue NPDES permits, except for the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Mexico, where EPA serves as the permitting authority. The permit writer develops effluent limitations for NPDES permits and issues them to facilities. The permit may be general (covering multiple facilities with similar operations and discharges) or individual (customized with site-specific conditions).

What’s the bottom line? Effluent guidelines aren’t directly enforceable permit conditions, whereas effluent limitations are.

What are the types of effluent limitations?

Two categories of effluent limitations may appear in NPDES permits:

  • Technology-based effluent limitations (TBELs), and
  • Water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs).

TBELs are based on available treatment technologies and require facilities to meet a minimum level of treatment of pollutants in wastewater discharges.

WQBELs apply only when TBELs aren’t enough to achieve water quality standards. States develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). A TMDL is the maximum amount of a pollutant that can be discharged into a waterbody while still meeting the water quality standards. Specific portions of the TMDL are then allotted to permitted facilities (called wasteload allocation). Facilities can’t release more than their allocated amounts.

Any applicable wasteload allocations are incorporated into a facility’s NPDES permit.

Do facilities have to use specific control technologies?

Although EPA’s effluent guidelines are based on the use of a specific control technology, facilities aren’t required to install the same technology system. As long as they comply with the standards, facilities may implement other treatment technologies.

Key to remember: Understanding effluent limitations is key to complying with industrial wastewater discharge permits.

EPA proposes major changes to coal combustion residuals rules
2026-04-16T05:00:00Z

EPA proposes major changes to coal combustion residuals rules

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a proposed rule on April 13, 2026, to revise the existing regulations governing the disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCR) in landfills and surface impoundments as well as the beneficial use of CCR.

Who’s impacted?

The proposed rule affects coal-fired electric utilities and independent power producers subject to the CCR disposal and beneficial use regulations at 40 CFR Part 257.

What are the changes?

Significant changes the EPA proposes include:

  • Adding an option for facilities to certify the closure of legacy CCR surface impoundments by CCR removal that were closed before November 8, 2024, under regulatory oversight;
  • Expanding the eligibility criteria for facilities to defer CCR closure requirements until site-specific determinations are made for legacy surface impoundments that were closed before November 8, 2024, under regulatory oversight;
  • Exempting CCR dewatering structures (used to dewater CCR waste for the disposal of CCR elsewhere) from federal CCR regulations (Part 257);
  • Rescinding all CCR management unit (CCRMU) requirements or revising the existing CCRMU regulations;
  • Allowing permit authorities to make site-specific determinations regarding certain requirements during permitting for CCR units complying with federal CCR groundwater monitoring, corrective action, and closure requirements under a federal or an approved-state CCR permit; and
  • Revising the beneficial use requirements by:
    • Removing the environmental demonstration requirement for non-roadway use of more than 12,400 tons of unencapsulated CCR; and
    • Excluding these beneficial uses from federal CCR regulations (Part 257):
      • CCR used in cement manufacturing at cement kilns,
      • Flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum used in agriculture, and
      • FGD gypsum used in wallboard.

Key to remember: EPA plans to make significant amendments to the coal combustion residuals requirements.

What to know about EPA’s proposed manifest sunset rule
2026-04-14T05:00:00Z

What to know about EPA’s proposed manifest sunset rule

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking another major step toward modernizing hazardous waste tracking. The agency’s proposed “manifest sunset rule” would officially phase out paper hazardous waste manifests and require the exclusive use of the e-Manifest system. For employers, especially those generating or managing hazardous waste, it’s a fundamental shift in how waste shipments are documented, tracked, and audited.

Since 2018, EPA’s e-Manifest system has been available as a digital alternative to paper manifests. Over the years, the agency has added requirements pushing the industry toward adoption, including mandatory registration and electronic data submission. But despite those efforts, many companies have continued to rely on paper manifests, either out of habit, for convenience, or because parts of their waste chain weren’t ready to go digital. EPA even states in the proposed rule that fewer than 1 percent of all e-Manifest users have completely switched to digital manifests. The proposed sunset rule is designed to close that gap. Once finalized, it would set a firm deadline (24 months) after which paper manifests would no longer be allowed.

Why EPA wants to eliminate paper manifests

EPA’s reasoning is pretty straightforward. Paper manifests are slower, easier to lose, and more prone to errors. They rely on manual handling and delayed processing, which can create gaps in tracking and compliance. A fully electronic system, on the other hand, allows for real-time visibility, standardized data entry, and faster correction of mistakes. It also gives regulators a clearer, more immediate picture of what’s happening across the entire waste life cycle.

Addressing one of the biggest digital barriers: signatures

One overlooked part of the proposed rule is how EPA is trying to solve one of the biggest barriers to going fully digital, which is signatures in the field. Anyone who has dealt with manifests knows that the weak point is often the hand-off between the generator and the transporter, especially when drivers don’t have system access or reliable connectivity.

To address that, EPA is proposing new functionality that would allow users to sign manifests using quick response (QR) codes or even short message service (SMS). In practice, this could mean a driver scans a QR code or receives a text prompt and then completes the signature process directly on the phone. So, no login or full system access is needed. EPA is also exploring the ability to use SMS and QR-based tools to make updates to manifest data without needing full system permissions. That’s a big deal operationally because it removes one of the most common bottlenecks in needing a registered user at a specific site to make even minor corrections.

Operational challenges companies should expect

With that said, moving to a fully digital system still comes with potential issues. It requires coordination across your entire operation. Generators, transporters, and disposal facilities all have to be aligned and capable of using the system effectively. If one party in that chain struggles, it can create delays or compliance issues for everyone involved. There’s also an upfront investment to consider. Companies may need to upgrade internal systems, ensure reliable connectivity, and train employees in new work processes. For organizations with multiple sites or field operations, this can take some planning. But over time, many of those burdens are expected to decrease. Electronic signatures, reusable templates, and centralized recordkeeping can significantly reduce administrative work.

One of the biggest shifts employers will notice is the level of visibility. With paper manifests, there’s often a lag between shipment and final documentation. In a digital system, that lag disappears. Information becomes available almost immediately, and regulators have access to the same data. That means errors or discrepancies are easier to find and harder to ignore.

The good news is that companies don’t have to wait for the final rule to start preparing. Taking a close look at your current manifest process is a good first step. If paper is still a major part of your workflow, that’s a clear signal that changes are coming. Making sure your e-Manifest account is fully set up and that employees understand how to use it will go a long way in avoiding future disruptions.

Keys to remember: The EPA’s proposed Paper Manifest Sunset Rule would set a firm date to phase out paper hazardous waste manifests and require that all covered shipments be tracked through the agency’s electronic e‑Manifest system, through which the Agency says will improve hazardous waste tracking and transparency while reducing administrative burden and saving regulated entities roughly $28.5 million per year.

How incinerators are permitted: A look at the regulatory framework and EPA’s new streamlining proposal
2026-04-13T05:00:00Z

How incinerators are permitted: A look at the regulatory framework and EPA’s new streamlining proposal

Incinerators in the United States operate under a complex permitting framework designed to protect air quality, public health, and the environment. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), facilities that burn waste must meet strict emission standards, maintain operating controls, and follow extensive monitoring and reporting rules. These requirements ensure that incineration, while a valuable tool for waste management, wildfire mitigation, and disaster recovery, remains safe and consistent with federal air quality objectives. Against this backdrop, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed a rule to streamline permitting for specific types of incinerators used in wildfire prevention and disaster cleanup, a move that could reduce delays for state and local governments.

The regulatory basis for incinerator permitting

Most incinerators fall under Section 129 of the CAA, which mandates EPA to establish performance standards and emission guidelines for categories of solid waste combustion units. These standards govern pollutants such as particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, lead, cadmium, mercury, hydrogen chloride, and dioxins/furans. Operators must also conduct emissions testing, maintain continuous monitoring equipment, track operational parameters, and submit regular compliance reports.

Permitting generally occurs through Title V operating permits, which consolidate all applicable air quality requirements into a single enforceable document. A Title V permit typically requires annual certifications, detailed recordkeeping, periodic emissions tests, and reporting of deviations. While the Title V program doesn't impose new standards, it ensures that incinerators comply with all existing federal and state air quality rules.

Different categories of incinerators, such as large municipal waste combustors (LMWC), small municipal waste combustors (SMWC), commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators (CISWI), and other solid waste incinerators (OSWI), have distinct requirements. These subcategories reflect variations in unit size, waste composition, and operational design, and each has its own subpart under EPA’s air quality regulations.

Air curtain incinerators: A special case

Air curtain incinerators (ACIs), which burn wood waste, yard debris, and clean lumber, occupy a niche segment of the permitting landscape. They use a mechanized “curtain” of air to increase combustion efficiency and reduce particulate emissions compared to open burning. However, their regulatory treatment has historically been inconsistent.

Because ACIs fit partly within several existing subparts, operators often face confusion about which monitoring, opacity limits, and reporting duties apply. Overlap across four regulatory categories can create delays, particularly during emergencies when ACIs are deployed to remove vegetative fuels that increase wildfire risk or to process debris after storms.

EPA’s emergent focus on streamlining

In March 2026, EPA announced a proposal to consolidate the regulatory requirements for ACIs used solely to burn wood-derived materials into a single subpart under Section 129 of the CAA. The proposal would also allow these ACIs to operate without a Title V permit unless located at a facility that otherwise requires one.

EPA stated that the change would “cut red tape” and provide clarity for state, local, and Tribal governments, allowing them to respond more effectively to natural disasters and conduct wildfire mitigation activities without unnecessary administrative delays. The agency emphasized that unprocessed debris contributes to poor air and water quality and poses safety risks, particularly in post disaster environments.

Context: Broader federal actions on disaster-related incineration

The proposal follows earlier federal steps to ease the temporary use of incinerators during emergencies. In 2025, EPA issued an interim final rule permitting CISWI units to burn nonhazardous disaster debris for up to 8 weeks without prior EPA approval, a provision intended to accelerate cleanup after hurricanes, wildfires, and floods. These units must still operate their pollution control equipment, and extensions beyond 8 weeks require EPA authorization.

Such measures reflect the increasing volume of debris associated with severe weather events and the need for rapid, environmentally sound disposal mechanisms. The current proposal for ACIs builds on these efforts by targeting the specific regulatory bottlenecks associated with vegetative and wood waste disposal.

Looking ahead

EPA’s streamlined permitting proposal doesn't alter emission standards but rather clarifies and simplifies administrative pathways. If finalized, it may make ACIs more accessible during periods of heightened wildfire risk and in the critical early stages of disaster recovery.

Key to remember: At its core, the permitting system for incinerators aims to balance environmental protection with operational flexibility. The new proposal underscores EPA’s recognition that, in emergency contexts, speed matters but so does environmental stewardship.

See More

Most Recent Highlights In Human Resources

EPA delays TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting timeline again
2026-04-13T05:00:00Z

EPA delays TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting timeline again

On April 13, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule that further delays the submission period for the one-time report required of manufacturers on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) by the PFAS Reporting and Recordkeeping Rule (PFAS Reporting Rule).

This final rule pushes the starting submission period to either 60 days after the effective date of a future final rule updating the PFAS Reporting Rule or January 31, 2027, whichever is earlier.

Who’s impacted?

Established under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a)(7), the PFAS Reporting Rule (40 CFR Part 705) requires any business that manufactured (including imported) any PFAS or PFAS-containing article between 2011 and 2022 to report. Covered manufacturers and importers must submit information on:

  • Chemical identity, uses, and volumes made and processed;
  • Byproducts;
  • Environmental and health effects;
  • Worker exposure; and
  • Disposal.

What’s the new timeline?

The opening submission period was moved from April 13, 2026, to either 60 days after the effective date of a future final PFAS Reporting Rule or January 31, 2027, whichever is earlier.

Most manufacturers have 6 months to submit the report. Small manufacturers reporting only as importers of PFAS-containing articles have 1 year.

TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS Reporting Rule submission period
Start dateEnd date
Most manufacturers60 days from effective date of final PFAS Reporting Rule or January 31, 2027 (whichever is earlier)6 months from start date or July 31, 2027 (whichever is earlier)
Small manufacturers reporting solely as PFAS article importers60 days from effective date of final PFAS Reporting Rule or January 31, 2027 (whichever is earlier)1 year from start date or January 31, 2028 (whichever is earlier)

Why the delay?

In November 2025, the agency proposed updates to the PFAS Reporting Rule. EPA has delayed the reporting period to give the agency time to issue a final rule (expected later this year).

Key to remember: EPA has delayed the starting submission deadline for the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS Reporting Rule from April 2026 to no later than January 2027.

EPA amends specific oil and gas emission standards
2026-04-10T05:00:00Z

EPA amends specific oil and gas emission standards

On April 9, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule that makes technical changes to the emission standards established in March 2024 (2024 Final Rule) for crude oil and natural gas facilities. This rule (2026 Final Rule) amends the requirements for:

  • Temporary flaring of associated gas, and
  • Vent gas net heating value (NHV) monitoring provisions for flares and enclosed combustion devices (ECDs).

Who’s impacted?

The 2026 Final Rule affects new and existing oil and gas facilities. Specifically, it applies to the regulations for the Crude Oil and Natural Gas source category, including the:

  • New Source Performance Standards at 40 CFR 60 Subpart OOOOb, and
  • Emission guidelines at 60 Subpart OOOOc.

These emission standards are commonly referred to as OOOOb/c.

What are the changes?

The 2026 Final Rule implements technical changes to the temporary flaring and vent gas NHV monitoring requirements set by the 2024 Final Rule.

Temporary flaring

The rule extends the baseline time limit for temporary flaring of associated gas at well sites in certain situations (like conducting repairs or maintenance) from 24 to 72 hours. Owners and operators must stop temporary flaring as soon as the situation is resolved or the temporary flaring limit is reached (whichever happens first).

It also grants allowances beyond the 72-hour limit if exigent circumstances occur (such as severe weather that prevents safe access to a well site to address an emergency or maintenance issue) and there’s a need to extend duration for repairs, maintenance, or safety issues. Owners and operators must keep records of exigent circumstances and include the information in their annual reports.

NHV monitoring

For new and existing sources, the 2026 Final Rule exempts all flare types (unassisted and assisted) and ECDs from monitoring due to high NHV content, except when inert gases are added to the process streams or for other scenarios that decrease the NHV content of the inlet stream gas. In these cases, EPA requires NHV monitoring via continuous monitoring or the alternative performance test (sampling demonstration) option for all flares and ECDs.

Other significant changes include:

  • Replacing the general exemption from NHV monitoring for associated gas for any control device used at well site affected facilities with NHV monitoring requirements,
  • Granting operational pauses during weekends and holidays for the consecutive 14-day sampling demonstration requirements (limiting it to no more than 3 operating days from the previous sampling day), and
  • Permitting less than 1-hour sampling times for twice daily samples where low or intermittent flow makes it infeasible (as long as owners and operators report the sampling time used and the reason for the reduced time).

The 2026 Final Rule takes effect on June 8, 2026.

Key to remember: EPA’s technical changes to the emission standards for oil and gas facilities apply to temporary flaring provisions and vent gas NHV monitoring requirements.

EHS Monthly Round Up - March 2026

EHS Monthly Round Up - March 2026

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

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

OSHA released an updated Job Safety and Health poster. Employers can use either the revised version or the older one, but the poster must be displayed in a conspicuous place where workers can easily see it.

OSHA recently removed a link from its Data topic webpage that displayed a list of “high-penalty cases” at or over $40,000 since 2015. The agency says it discontinued and removed it in December. The data is frozen and archived elsewhere.

OSHA published two new resources as part of its newly launched Safety Champions Program. The fact sheet provides an overview of how the program works, eligibility criteria, and key benefits. The step-by-step guide helps businesses navigate the core elements of OSHA’s Recommended Practices for Safety and Health Programs.

Several forces are nudging OSHA to address a number of workplace hazards and high-hazard industries. This comes from other agencies, safety organizations, watchdogs, legislative proposals, and persistent injury/fatality data. Among the hazards are combustible dust; first aid; personal protective equipment; and workplace violence. How all this translates into new regulations, guidance, programmed inspections, or other initiatives remains to be seen.

Turning to environmental news, EPA issued a proposed rule to require waste handlers to use electronic manifests to track all RCRA hazardous waste shipments. Stakeholders have until May 4 to comment on the proposal.

On March 10, EPA finalized stronger emission limits for new and existing large municipal waste combustors and made other changes to related standards.

And finally, EPA temporarily extended coverage under the 2021 Multi-Sector General Permit for industrial stormwater discharges until the agency issues a new general permit. The permit expired February 28 and remains in effect for facilities previously covered. EPA won’t take enforcement action against new facilities for unpermitted stormwater discharges if the facilities meet specific conditions.

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

EPA releases draft list of drinking water contaminants for possible regulation
2026-04-07T05:00:00Z

EPA releases draft list of drinking water contaminants for possible regulation

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the draft Sixth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 6) for the next group of contaminants to be considered for regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The agency’s proposed list designates microplastics and pharmaceuticals as priority contaminant groups for the first time.

What’s on the list?

The proposed CCL 6 contains:

  • 4 chemical groups, including:
    • Microplastics,
    • Pharmaceuticals,
    • Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and
    • Disinfection byproducts.
  • 75 chemicals; and
  • 9 microbes.

EPA may regulate the listed contaminants in the future.

What does the CCL do?

The drinking water CCL is the first part of the process to regulate contaminants in public water systems. The list identifies unregulated contaminants known or anticipated to be present in drinking water that pose the greatest health risk. It helps EPA prioritize which contaminants to evaluate for potential regulation.

The SDWA requires EPA to make regulatory determinations (i.e., whether to develop rules for a contaminant) for at least five contaminants listed on the CCL every 5 years. When the agency determines a contaminant needs to be regulated, it begins the rulemaking process to develop a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for the contaminant. The NPDWRs apply to public water systems.

How can I participate?

EPA will receive public comments on the CCL 6 through June 5, 2026. You can send comments to EPA via regulations.gov or by mail. Make sure your submission includes the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0946.

Key to remember: The draft list of the next round of drinking water contaminants to be considered for regulation adds priority groups for microplastics and pharmaceuticals.

EPA delivers 2026–2027 renewable fuel volumes
2026-04-03T05:00:00Z

EPA delivers 2026–2027 renewable fuel volumes

On April 1, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the “Set 2” Rule, establishing the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program’s 2026 and 2027 renewable fuel volumes and associated percentage standards for:

  • Cellulosic biofuel,
  • Biomass-based diesel (BBD),
  • Advanced biofuel, and
  • Total renewable fuel.

The final rule also implements other significant changes.

Who’s impacted?

The “Set 2” Rule affects:

  • Transportation fuel (i.e., gasoline and diesel) refiners, blenders, marketers, distributors, importers, and exporters; and
  • Renewable fuel producers and importers.

The volume and percentage requirements apply to obligated parties, which include transportation fuel refiners and importers.

What are the changes?

The final rule sets the renewable fuel volume requirements and associated percentage standards for 2026 and 2027. Volume requirements are measured in billion Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs). One RIN represents 1 gallon of ethanol-equivalent renewable fuel.

Renewable fuel categoryVolume requirements (in billion RINs)Percentage standards
2026202720262027
Cellulosic biofuel1.361.430.79%0.84%
BBD9.079.205.24%5.37%
Advanced biofuel11.1011.326.42%6.61%
Total renewable fuel26.8127.0215.50%15.78%

The “Set 2” Rule also:

  • Reallocates 70 percent of the exempted Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) for 2023–2025 to 2026 and 2027 (which are reflected in the above table’s volume requirements),
  • Partially waives the 2025 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement from 1.38 billion RINs to 1.21 billion RINs and adjusts the related percentage standard from 0.81 percent to 0.71 percent, and
  • Removes renewable electricity as a qualifying renewable fuel under the RFS program.

RFS program refresher

The RFS program requires transportation fuel sold in the United States to contain a minimum volume of renewable fuels. EPA sets the renewable fuel volume targets for each of the four renewable fuel categories.

To comply, obligated parties must:

  • Calculate their RVOs for each renewable fuel category, and
  • Obtain and retire enough RINs to meet their RVOs.

Regulations also apply to fuel blenders, marketers, and exporters.

Small refiners may petition EPA for a small refinery exemption (SRE), which allows refineries to produce gasoline and diesel without having to meet the RVOs required by the RFS program. EPA grants SREs annually, and they cover one specific compliance year.

Key to remember: EPA’s final “Set 2” rule establishes the renewable fuel volumes and percentage standards for 2026 and 2027 and drives other changes to the RFS program.

See More
New Network Poll
Whistleblower protection

Whistleblower protection

Whistleblower protection laws prohibit discrimination against workers who complain about safety violations in certain industries (e.g., nuclear plants, water treatment plants, waste disposal plants, etc.). These laws protect workers who alert the proper authorities of dangers to the public safety.

Employees who believe they have been discriminated against in violation of these protective provisions may file a complaint within 30 days of the alleged violation with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) and other laws protect workers who complain to their employers, unions, OSHA or other government agencies about unsafe or unhealthful conditions or environmental problems in the workplace. The laws apply to general industry and construction employers. Employers may not punish or retaliate against workers for exercising their rights under the OSH Act.

Section 11(c) of the OSH Act authorizes OSHA to investigate employee complaints of employer discrimination against employees who are involved in safety and health activities protected under the Act. State and local government workers in the 29 OSHA state-plan states may file complaints of employer discrimination with the state plan as well.

Protection from workplace retaliation means that an employer cannot take adverse action against workers who file complaints, including actions like:

  • Firing or laying off;
  • Blacklisting (intentionally interfering with an employee's ability to obtain future employment);
  • Demoting;
  • Denying overtime or promotion;
  • Disciplining;
  • Denial of benefits;
  • Failure to hire or rehire;
  • Intimidation or harassment;
  • Making threats;
  • Reassignment to a less desirable position or affecting promotion prospects;
  • Reducing pay or hours;
  • More subtle actions, such as isolating, ostracizing, mocking, or falsely accusing the employee of poor performance;
  • Constructive discharge (quitting when an employer makes working conditions intolerable due to the employee’s protected activity);
  • Reporting the employee to the police or immigration authorities; and/or
  • Application of an employer policy which discourages reporting.

Whistleblower protection laws

  • In addition to the OSH Act, several other federal statutes protect a worker’s right to report workplace safety and health hazards free from retaliation.

The whistleblower protection provisions of various statutes prohibit employers from discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees in retaliation for their disclosure about hazards or violations of various workplace safety and health, aviation safety, commercial motor carrier, consumer product, environmental, food safety, and other laws. Employees who believe that they have experienced retaliation in violation of one of these laws may file a complaint with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Since the passage of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act in 1970, Congress has expanded the OSHA’s whistleblower protection authority to protect workers from retaliation under 25 federal statutes:

StatuteTitle
29 U.S.C. § 218CAffordable Care Act (ACA)
31 U.S.C. § 5323 (a)(5) & (g) & (j)Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA)
15 U.S.C. § 2651Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA)
42 U.S.C. § 7622Clean Air Act (CAA)
42 U.S.C. § 9610Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
12 U.S.C. § 5567Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA)
15 U.S.C. § 2087Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA)
15 U.S.C. § 7a-3Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act (CAARA)
42 U.S.C. § 5851Energy Reorganization Act (ERA)
21 U.S.C. § 399dFDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)
49 U.S.C. § 20109Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA)
33 U.S.C. § 1367Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA)
46 U.S.C. § 80507International Safe Container Act (ISCA)
49 U.S.C. § 30171Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)
6 U.S.C. § 1142National Transit Systems Security Act (NTSSA)
29 U.S.C. § 660(c)Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), Section 11(c)
49 U.S.C. § 60129Pipeline Safety Improvement Act (PSIA)
42 U.S.C. § 300j-9(i)Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
18 U.S.C. § 1514ASarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX)
46 U.S.C. § 2114Seaman's Protection Act (SPA)
42 U.S.C. § 6971 Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA)
49 U.S.C. § 31105Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA)
26 U.S.C. § 7623(d)Taxpayer First Act (TFA)

Whistleblower relation to state laws

The whistleblower programs do not preempt existing state statutes and common law claims. All provisions contained in the programs are in addition to protection provided by state laws.

Worker rights

  • Under federal law, employees have the right to a safe workplace, and have the right to report health and safety hazards without fear of retaliation by their employers.
  • Employees also have the right to receive proper training, receive proper safety equipment, review records of workplace illnesses and injuries, and more.

The Wage and Hour Division of the Employment Standards Administration (ESA) had the authority to investigate and resolve complaints of on-the-job discrimination against workers (called whistleblowers) who call attention to violations of seven federal laws that protect the nation’s air, water, environment and nuclear facilities. However, in February 1997 that responsibility was assumed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

The Occupational Safety and Health Act entitles employees to a safe workplace. Employers must keep the workplace free of recognized health and safety hazards that may cause death or serious physical harm. Employees have the right to speak up about hazards without fear of retaliation. They also have the right to:

  • Receive workplace safety and health training in a language they understand;
  • Work on machines that are safe;
  • Receive required safety equipment, such as gloves or a harness and lifeline for falls;
  • Be protected from toxic chemicals;
  • Request an OSHA inspection and speak to the compliance officer;
  • Report an injury or illness and get copies of medical records;
  • Review records of work-related injuries and illnesses; and
  • See results of tests taken to find workplace hazards.

Section 11(c) of the OSH Act specifically protects employees from retaliation for exercising their rights under the Act. Examples of protected actions include, but are not limited to:

  • Communicating about safety or health matters to management personnel;
  • Asking questions, expressing concerns, or requesting copies of safety data sheets;
  • Reporting a work-related injury or illness;
  • Requesting copies of OSHA standards or regulations;
  • Filing a safety or health complaint with OSHA;
  • Participating in an OSHA inspection; and
  • Refusing or complaining about requirements to reimburse an employer for OSHA penalties.

Of course, all 25 whisteblower statutes prohibit employers from discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees in retaliation for their disclosure about hazards or violations of the covered laws.

Training tips for employers

Employers should keep the following in mind when designing safety and health training programs for employees:

  • Training must be delivered in a language that trainees understand. If a trainee’s vocabulary is limited, employers must account for that limitation. Translators may be needed.
  • Training should review employee rights under the OSH Act.
  • Training should include information about how employees should report dangerous or hazardous conditions in the workplace.

Filing a complaint

  • Employees who believe they have been retaliated against by their employers for reporting hazards should file a complaint with OSHA as soon as possible.
  • Private-sector and USPS employees are covered under the OSH Act and in some cases, state law. Other federal employees are covered by their agencies’ procedures.

Employees who believe that their employers retaliated against them because they engaged in protected activity may contact the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Complaints can be filed verbally in any language by visiting the nearest OSHA office, calling 1-800-321-6742, mailing a written complaint to the closest OSHA office, or by filing a complaint online at www.osha.gov/whistleblower/WBComplaint. Learn more about how to file a complaint at www.whistleblowers.gov/complaint_page.

However, they must file any complaint within the legal time limits, and each statute may have a different time limit. The date of the postmark, fax, electronic communication, telephone call, hand delivery, delivery to a third-party commercial carrier, or in-person filing at an OSHA office is considered the date filed.

Note that whistleblower complaints under section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, for example, must be filed within 30 days after the alleged retaliation occurs (when the employee is notified of the retaliatory action). Complaints filed with OSHA after 30 days may be referred to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for possible further action. Complaints regarding retaliation for reporting an injury or illness to an employer may also be considered for OSHA safety and health enforcement action.

When OSHA receives a complaint, the agency will first review it to determine whether certain basic requirements are met, such as whether the complaint was filed on time. If so, the complaint will be investigated in order to determine whether the employer retaliated against the employee for engaging in activity protected under one of OSHA’s whistleblower laws. The agency may also attempt to assist the employer and employee in reaching a settlement of the case.

Publication OSHA 4487, "Elements of a Whistleblower Complaint," explains that OSHA investigates complaints sharing four elements:

  • Protected activity — Actions by an employee that are statutorily protected, such as reporting a potential violation, hazard, or work-related injury or illness; cooperating with a government agency; filing a complaint; or refusing to perform unsafe or illegal work.
  • Employer knowledge — This exists when a person involved in or influencing the adverse action decision knows or suspects the employee engaged in protected activity, and in some cases, this can be inferred.
  • Adverse action — An employer’s action that would discourage a reasonable employee from engaging in protected activity, including but not limited to: termination, lay off, demotion, overtime denial, discipline, reassignment, pay or hour reduction, and blacklisting.
  • Nexus — The connection between the protected activity and adverse action.

Publication OSHA 4488, "OSHA Explains: How We Investigate Whistleblower Complaints under the OSH Act," offers a flowchart for the investigative process.

Private-sector and USPS employees

Private-sector employees throughout the United States and its territories and employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS) who suffer retaliation because of occupational safety or health activity are covered by section 11(c) of the OSH Act. In addition, private-sector employees are covered by laws in states which operate their own comprehensive occupational safety and health programs approved by federal OSHA (“state plans”). For information on the whistleblower provisions of the 29 state-plan states that cover private-sector employees, employees should visit www.osha.gov/stateplans.

Public-sector employees

With the exception of employees of the USPS, public-sector employees (those employed as municipal, county, state, territorial, or federal workers) are not covered by the OSH Act. State and local government employees are covered by the whistleblower provisions of all the states with state plans, including seven states which cover only state and local government employees.

A federal employee who is not a USPS employee and who wishes to file a complaint alleging retaliation due to disclosure of a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety or involving a violation of an occupational safety or health standard or regulation should contact the Office of Special Counsel (www.osc.gov). Such federal employees are also covered by their own agency’s procedures for remedying such retaliation.

Public-sector employees who are unsure whether they are covered under a whistleblower law should call (800) 321-6742 for assistance, or visit www.whistleblowers.gov.

Results of the investigation

  • If OSHA determines an employer has retaliated against an employee in violation of the OSH Act, the Secretary of Labor may sue in federal court. If no retaliation has occurred, the complaint will be dismissed.
  • If evidence supports the employee’s complaint, the employers may be required to reinstate the employee, pay lost wages, or provide other forms of relief.

If OSHA determines that retaliation in violation of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act or certain other statutes has occurred, the Secretary of Labor may sue in federal district court to obtain relief. If OSHA determines that no retaliation has occurred, it will dismiss the complaint.

However, under certain other whistleblower laws, if the evidence supports an employee’s complaint of retaliation, OSHA will issue an order requiring the employer, as appropriate, to put the employee back to work, pay lost wages, and provide other possible relief. If the evidence does not support the employee’s complaint, OSHA will dismiss the complaint.

After OSHA issues a decision, the employer and/or the employee may request a full hearing before an administrative law judge of the Department of Labor (DOL).

Appeals

The administrative law judge’s decision may be appealed to the DOL’s Administrative Review Board (ARB); in significant cases the Secretary of Labor may review the ARB decision. Aggrieved parties may seek review of final DOL decisions by the courts of appeals.

Under some of the laws, an employee may file the retaliation complaint in federal district court if the DOL has not issued a final decision within a specified number of days (180, 210 or 365 depending on the law).

No active poll
Please come back soon!
See More
See More
See More
See More
Saved to my EVENT CALENDAR!
View your saved links by clicking the arrow next to your profile picture located in the header. Then, click “My Activity” to view the Event Calendar on your Activity page.