Court: Employer didn’t owe overtime it didn’t know about

Court: Employer didn’t owe overtime it didn’t know about

2026-03-17T05:00:00Z

Ignorance is bliss, even when it comes to keeping an accurate payroll.

Employers must pay nonexempt (“hourly”) employees overtime — time and one-half their regular rate of pay — for any hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek. Employers don’t have to pay overtime, however, if they don’t know that employees are working any extra hours. In this case below, ignorance saved the employer in court.

The story

As an agency manager, Jerry supervised a team of insurance agents. The employer classified all agency managers, including Jerry, as independent contractors. Jerry:

Set his own schedule,
Decided how many hours he worked every day, and
Had no obligation to track his time, and
Didn’t have to disclose to the company the hours he worked.

The employer didn’t supervise Jerry’s hours worked or his completion of daily tasks. The employer paid Jerry a commission for policies sold and renewed.

In November 2019, Jerry sued the employer, challenging his classification as an independent contractor. Claiming to be an employee of the company, he sought unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The court’s ruling

Bad news for the employer: The court ruled that it should have classified Jerry as an employee (not an independent contractor) and that he had worked at least 816 hours of overtime. The bigger issue, however, was whether or not the employer knew about Jerry’s extra hours worked.

Jerry argued that the employer owed him overtime pay because it “suffered” or “permitted” him to work as much as he wanted. Because the employer allowed him to work unlimited hours, Jerry argued that the employer’s knowledge of his overtime work was irrelevant.

The court disagreed. Allowing Jerry to work as much as he wanted can’t mean the employer automatically owed him for any time he happened to work overtime, regardless of the employer's knowledge of those overtime hours. Rather, employees claiming to be entitled to overtime pay must be able to prove that employers knew employees were working overtime.

Employers don’t need to be clairvoyant

Employees must notify employers when they’re working extra hours. If employers neither knew nor had reason to believe that overtime work was being performed, that time doesn’t constitute “hours worked” under the FLSA.

The employer in this case didn’t know, or should have known, about Jerry’s overtime.

Jerry then argued that the employer should have known because it made “no effort” to record his time despite an alleged legal requirement to do so. This lack of a timekeeping system, he claimed, showed the employer’s failure to exercise “reasonable diligence” to find out about his overtime. Jerry went on to say that he had no “common-law” duty to notify the employer of his overtime; his only duty was to comply with the company’s timekeeping system, which didn’t exist.

The court again disagreed with Jerry on these two points:

It was his burden to show the employer knew he was working overtime.
An employer’s failure to maintain a timekeeping system in itself doesn’t mean the employer should have known about an employee’s overtime work.

The employer didn’t require agency managers to track their time, nor did it pay them hourly. Consequently, it had no reason to think of Jerry’s work in terms of “regular time” versus “overtime” hours.

Meritt v. Texas Farm Bureau et al., Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-50127, February 6, 2026.

Key to remember: The FLSA doesn’t require employers to pay overtime if employees don’t tell them about it.

Ignorance is bliss, even when it comes to keeping an accurate payroll.

The story

As an agency manager, Jerry supervised a team of insurance agents. The employer classified all agency managers, including Jerry, as independent contractors. Jerry:

Set his own schedule,
Decided how many hours he worked every day, and
Had no obligation to track his time, and
Didn’t have to disclose to the company the hours he worked.

The employer didn’t supervise Jerry’s hours worked or his completion of daily tasks. The employer paid Jerry a commission for policies sold and renewed.

The court’s ruling

Employers don’t need to be clairvoyant

The employer in this case didn’t know, or should have known, about Jerry’s overtime.

The court again disagreed with Jerry on these two points:

It was his burden to show the employer knew he was working overtime.
An employer’s failure to maintain a timekeeping system in itself doesn’t mean the employer should have known about an employee’s overtime work.

Meritt v. Texas Farm Bureau et al., Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-50127, February 6, 2026.

Key to remember: The FLSA doesn’t require employers to pay overtime if employees don’t tell them about it.

RELATED NEWS

        SAFETY & COMPLIANCE NEWS
    
Keep up with the latest regulatory developments from OSHA, DOT, EPA, DOL, and more.
GET FREE ARTICLES

        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.
BROWSE BY TOPIC

        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.  
BECOME AN EXPERT

        ADD HAZMAT, ENVIRONMENTAL, & HR RESOURCES
    
Unlock exclusive content offering expert insights into hazmat, environmental, and human resources compliance with a COMPLIANCE NETWORK EDGE membership.
ACCESS PREMIUM CONTENT

        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.
CONTACT AN EXPERT

        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.
SEE UPCOMING EVENTS

Most Recent Highlights In Environmental

2026-03-16T05:00:00Z

Key questions in industrial stormwater compliance

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.

What is the current status of the federal 2021 Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP)?

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.

Why has the proposed 2026 MSGP not taken effect?

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.

What is a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)?

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.

What are the requirements for authorized state stormwater permits?

Most states issue their own industrial stormwater permits modeled on the federal MSGP. These permits typically require:

Preparation and maintenance of a SWPPP;
Inspections and monitoring (such as benchmark, effluent, or visual monitoring);
Corrective actions when control measures fail; and
Reporting through state online systems.

States may add requirements based on local conditions. When EPA updates the MSGP, states often revise their permits to align with new federal standards.

Who needs coverage under the MSGP?

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.

How does a facility obtain coverage?

To obtain coverage, a facility must:

Prepare and implement a SWPPP;
Put pollution controls in place, such as good housekeeping and spill prevention;
Identify sector specific requirements based on the permit; and
Submit a Notice of Intent through EPA’s online system.

The proposed 2026 MSGP includes updated forms and appendices, but current requirements remain based on the 2021 version until a new permit is published.

What monitoring is required?

Under the 2021 MSGP, required monitoring may include:

Quarterly visual assessments,
Benchmark monitoring in designated years, and
Effluent limitations monitoring for specific regulated discharges.

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.

What happens if benchmark thresholds are exceeded?

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.

What about common real world compliance scenarios?

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.

What documentation must facilities keep?

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.

What should facilities do while waiting for the 2026 MSGP?

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.

2026-03-13T05:00:00Z

Toxics Release Inventory: Are you ready to report?

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.

Who’s covered by TRI reporting?

Generally, TRI reporting applies if the facility:

Is in a covered industry sector (40 CFR 372.23);
Employs 10 or more full-time-equivalent employees; and
Manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses a covered chemical or chemical category (372.65) in quantities above the threshold levels (372.25, .27, and .28) in a given year.

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.

What’s covered by TRI reporting?

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 quantities of releases (routine and accidental),
Any releases caused by catastrophic or other one-time events,
The maximum amount on-site during the year, and
The amount contained in wastes managed on-site or transferred off-site.

What’s new for RY 2025?

The TRI reports for RY 2025 contain three differences from previous years:

The de minimis level for anthracene was lowered from 1.0 percent to 0.1 percent. Anthracene’s Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CASRN) is 120-12-7.
More activity sub-use codes were added to the sub-use codes for “processing” and “otherwise use” activities.
Nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) were added to the TRI chemical list:

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

How are TRI reports submitted?

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.

More TRI tips

Keep these things in mind when preparing your TRI reports:

You must submit a Form R (or Form A if eligible) for each TRI-listed chemical your facility manufactured, processed, or otherwise used above the threshold quantity.
TRI data is publicized. If a chemical’s identity needs to be protected, you have to submit substantiation forms to claim the chemical identity as a trade secret. EPA must approve the claims. Further, for each chemical with a trade secret claim, you have to mail hard copies of the substantiation forms and the corresponding Form R (or Form A if eligible) to EPA and the state.
EPA’s online GuideME platform offers comprehensive guidance for TRI reporting, including reporting forms and instructions, the TRI chemical list, and Q&As.
Contact the state environmental agency directly to confirm the submission method. EPA’s “TRI State Contacts” webpage contains state contact information.
Register your facility on CDX or ensure your facility’s CDX account is updated as soon as possible to avoid delays caused by technical issues.

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.

2026-03-12T05:00:00Z

EPA finalizes emission standards for large municipal waste combustors

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:

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for new LMWCs, or
Emission Guidelines (EGs) for existing LMWCs.

EPA established new subparts for the amendments at 40 CFR Part 60, including:

Subpart VVVV for the NSPS, and
Subpart WWWW for the EGs.

What are the changes?

Generally, stricter emission limits apply. For all LMWCs (new and existing), the rule revises the emission limits for:

Cadmium,
Hydrogen chloride,
Lead,
Mercury,
Particulate matter,
Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans, and
Sulfur dioxide.

For all new LMWCs, the final rule revises the emission limits for carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (NO_x). The final rule also amends the CO and NO_x limits for all existing LMWCs, except for the CO limits for two subcategories of combustors and the NO_x limits for two subcategories of combustors for new municipal solid waste incinerators.

Other major changes include:

Removing certain exclusions and exemptions for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions (requiring LMWCs to meet emission standards at all times);
Removing the NOx emissions averaging compliance alternative for existing LMWCs;
Amending recordkeeping and reporting requirements; and
Eliminating Title V operating air permit requirements for qualifying air curtain incinerators that burn only wood waste, yard waste, and clean lumber.

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.

EHS Monthly Round Up - February 2026

In this Februrary 2026 roundup video, we'll discuss 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.

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!

2026-03-06T06:00:00Z

Colorado adds landfill methane emission regulation

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:

Establishing a stricter emission control threshold than federal standards so that more landfills must install gas collection and control systems,
Mandating closed landfills with emission combustion devices to install biofilters when the devices are removed,
Expanding the methane monitoring requirements (allowing additional monitoring tools for identifying large emission sources) and allowing alternative monitoring technologies for periodic monitoring, and
Phasing in a ban on open flares to replace them with enclosed flares.

Related state info: Clean air operating permits state comparison

Most Recent Highlights In Transportation

2026-03-06T06:00:00Z

Louisiana amends Voluntary Environmental Self-Audit Program

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:

Adding definitions,
Changing the timeline to notify LDEQ of violations from 45 days within discovery to 30 days after the end of the audit, and
Requiring participants to submit monthly progress reports if corrective actions take longer than 90 days.

2026-03-06T06:00:00Z

Delaware revises 2026 NPDES general construction permit

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

2026-03-06T06:00:00Z

California updates water diversion regulations

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:

Requiring diverters to submit data to the SWRCB using a template or the online reporting platform CalWATRS,
Requiring large diverters to submit data to CalWATRS instead of posting it to any public website,
Requiring diverters to identify and report measurement locations, and
Requiring diverters to submit their measurement methodologies.

Updated measuring and reporting requirements take effect on October 1, 2026.

2026-03-06T06:00:00Z

EPA proposes electronic-only hazardous waste manifests

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:

Generators,
Transporters, and
Receiving facilities.

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:

Very small quantity generators (VSQGs) managing episodic events,
RCRA hazardous waste transporters,
Healthcare facilities and reverse distributors subject to RCRA’s hazardous waste pharmaceutical requirements,
Certain polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) waste generators,
PCB waste transporters, and
Hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities with standardized RCRA permits.

Examples of these requirements include:

Mandating specific waste handlers to register with the e-Manifest System;
Requiring VSQGs, healthcare facilities, and reverse distributors to submit data corrections to the e-Manifest System within 30 days of a request from EPA or an authorized state; and
Requiring hazardous waste generators and PCB waste generators to identify brokers on the manifest.

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.

2026-03-04T06:00:00Z

EPA temporarily extends 2021 MSGP coverage

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:

Existing facilities (those that had active coverage under the 2021 MSGP), and
New facilities (those that didn’t obtain coverage under the 2021 MSGP before it expired).

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:

Discharge stormwater on or after March 1, 2026 (but before the new MSGP’s effective date); and
Didn’t submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) for coverage under the 2021 MSGP before its expiration on February 28, 2026.

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:

Meet the 2021 MSGP eligibility criteria,
Submit an NOI form (Appendix G of the MSGP) via msgp@epa.gov to notify EPA of their intention to operate according to all applicable 2021 MSGP requirements before discharging industrial stormwater, and
Comply with all applicable 2021 MSGP regulations, such as:
- Developing and implementing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan,
- Installing and maintaining stormwater controls, and
- Conducting site inspections and monitoring.

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.

Most Recent Highlights In Safety & Health

2026-02-27T06:00:00Z

EPA extends 2025 GHG reporting deadline

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:

Large industrial sources of GHG emissions (that directly emit 25,000 or more metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) per year);
Fuel and industrial gas suppliers (whose products would result in 25,000 or more metric tons of CO₂e of GHG emissions per year if released, combusted, or oxidized); and
CO₂ injection facilities (that receive 25,000 or more metric tons of CO₂ for injection).

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.

2026-02-25T06:00:00Z

EPA scraps Endangerment Finding, GHG emission standards: What you need to know

“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.

What does this mean?

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:

Emission standards;
Test procedures;
Averaging, banking, and trading requirements;
Reporting requirements; and
Fleet-average emission requirements.

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).

When do the changes apply?

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.

What regulations were removed?

The final rule repeals all GHG emission regulations in 40 CFR:

Parts 85, 86, and 600 (light- and medium-duty vehicles);
Part 1036 (heavy-duty vehicle engines); and
Part 1037 (heavy-duty vehicles).

Why did EPA remove the standards?

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:

EPA concludes that the best reading of Section 202(a) of the CAA authorizes the agency to regulate air pollution that threatens to endanger health and welfare through local and regional exposure. Therefore, the CAA doesn’t give EPA the authority to regulate GHG emissions based on global climate change concerns. The agency conducted the “best reading” by using standard interpretation principles and being informed by the Supreme Court’s overturning of “Chevron deference” in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024).
EPA lacks the congressional authorization required to regulate GHG emissions based on global climate change concerns. The agency determined that the major questions doctrine (i.e., federal agencies may not decide issues of major national significance without clear authorization granted by Congress) applies to the Endangerment Finding and that Congress doesn’t give EPA the authority under Section 202(a) of the CAA to decide a national policy response to global climate change concerns.
The GHG emission regulations don’t and can’t have a meaningful impact on the identified health and welfare dangers that the Endangerment Finding attributed to global climate change. EPA based this conclusion on the results of climate impact modeling that the public submitted in response to the proposed rule and on the agency’s modeling analysis used to evaluate the submissions.

By rescinding the 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.

2026-02-24T06:00:00Z

EPA repeals stricter Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for coal-, oil-fired power plants

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 revised filterable particulate matter (fPM) emission standard and corresponding total and individual non-metal hazardous air pollutant (HAP) metal standards for existing coal-fired EGUs (reverting to the 2012 MATS Rule requirements);
The revised compliance demonstration requirements for all EGUs to install continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) for fPM emissions and the adjusted quality assurance criteria (reverting to the previous standard, allowing EGUs to choose from three compliance demonstration methods); and
The revised mercury (Hg) emission standard for lignite-fired EGUs (reverting to the 2012 MATS Rule limit).

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: Quarterly stack testing PM continuous parametric monitoring systems PM CEMS
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

Key to remember: EPA’s final rule repeals the stricter emission limits set by the 2024 amendments to the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard for coal- and oil-fired power plants.

2026-02-20T06:00:00Z

PFAS, pretreatment, and biosolids: The growing challenge for water permitting

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 in POTW systems: A problem that starts upstream

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: The first line of defense

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:

PFAS monitoring in industrial wastewater,
Source identification surveys,
Product substitution or process changes,
Best management practices to reduce PFAS at the facility, and
Local limits or prohibitions on PFAS discharges

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.

Biosolids under scrutiny: The impact of PFAS

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:

Agricultural land application,
Composting,
Surface disposal,
Landfilling, and
Incineration

Some states have already implemented bans or strict standards on biosolid land application due to PFAS concerns.

Regulatory uncertainty adds pressure

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.

What POTWs and industrial users should do now

Despite uncertainty, actions today can reduce long term liability:

Conduct PFAS source identification at industrial users,
Require PFAS monitoring in pretreatment permits,
Develop local limits where state guidance is emerging,
Engage with industrial facilities early on substitution and pollution prevention,
Evaluate biosolids PFAS levels to assess disposal risks, and
Participate in state rulemaking to anticipate new limits

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.

2026-02-13T06:00:00Z

Expert Insights: States take the lead as federal environmental rules pull back

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.

States as environmental policy leaders

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.

Growing impacts on industrial facilities

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 and local focus

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.

Practical strategies for compliance

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.

Most Recent Highlights In Human Resources

2026-02-13T06:00:00Z

EPA reverses Endangerment Finding, scraps GHG emission standards for vehicles

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:

On-highway light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles; and
On-highway heavy-duty vehicle engines.

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:

Parts 85, 86, and 600 (light- and medium-duty vehicles);
Part 1036 (heavy-duty vehicle engines); and
Part 1037 (heavy-duty vehicles).

The final rule also eliminates:

All off-cycle credits for the addition of certain technological features (e.g., high-efficiency exterior lighting, waste heat recovery, and active seat ventilation); and
EPA’s incentives for manufacturers to add a start-stop system (which automatically shuts off a vehicle’s engine during idling).

What doesn’t change?

EPA’s following regulations remain in effect for new motor vehicles and vehicle engines:

Criteria pollutant and air toxic measurement and standards,
Corporate Average Fuel Economy testing, and
Associated fuel economy labeling requirements.

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:

Emission standards and related requirements, and
Engine and vehicle certification requirements.

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.

2026-02-13T06:00:00Z

EPA delays CCR management unit reporting, related requirements

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule that extends the deadlines for Facility Evaluation Reports (FERs) required for active and inactive coal combustion residuals (CCR) facilities. The final rule also delays compliance deadlines for related requirements that apply to CCR facilities with CCR management units (CCRMUs).

Who’s impacted?

The final rule applies to:

Active CCR facilities, and
Inactive CCR facilities with inactive surface impoundments (i.e., legacy CCR surface impoundments).

The 2024 Legacy Final Rule (40 CFR Part 257 Subpart D) requires active CCR facilities and legacy CCR surface impoundments to submit FER Part 1 and FER Part 2, identifying any CCRMUs of 1 ton or more on-site. CCRMUs include previously unregulated CCR surface impoundments and landfills that closed before October 19, 2015, as well as inactive CCR landfills.

Additionally, the 2024 Legacy Final Rule requires facilities with CCRMUs to:

Establish a website to publicize the facility’s CCR information;
Conduct groundwater monitoring activities (specifically, install a groundwater monitoring system, develop a sampling and analysis plan, collect independent samples, and perform detection and assessment monitoring);
Submit the initial annual groundwater monitoring and corrective action (GWMCA) report; and
Comply with closure and post-closure care obligations.

What are the changes?

EPA’s final rule extends compliance deadlines for the following standards:

Compliance requirement(s)	2024 Legacy Final Rule deadline	2026 final rule new deadline
Establish CCR website	February 9, 2026	February 9, 2027
Submit FER Part 1	February 9, 2026	February 9, 2027
Submit FER Part 2	February 8, 2027	February 8, 2028
Install groundwater monitoring system	May 8, 2028	February 10, 2031
Develop groundwater sampling and analysis program	May 8, 2028	February 10, 2031
Start detection and assessment monitoring Start evaluating groundwater monitoring data for statistically significant increases over background levels and statistically significant levels over groundwater protection standards	May 8, 2028	February 10, 2031
Submit initial GWMCA report	January 31, 2029	January 31, 2032
Submit closure plan	November 8, 2028	August 11, 2031
Submit post-closure care plan	November 8, 2028	August 11, 2031
Initiate closure	May 8, 2029	February 9, 2032

Key to remember: A final rule delays the deadlines for the Facility Evaluation Reports and related requirements for active and inactive coal combustion residuals (CCR) facilities with CCR management units.

2026-02-12T06:00:00Z

Expiring TSCA CBI claims: How to request an extension

How do businesses keep confidential information “off the record”? Companies that are required to report on federally regulated chemical substances may soon face this question, as the first round of confidential business information (CBI) claims starts expiring in June 2026.

Thankfully, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has answered how to keep CBI off the record. On January 6, 2026, the agency published in the Federal Register the process to request extensions of expiring CBI claims for information submitted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Here’s what you need to know.

CBI extension request process

Businesses that seek to extend a CBI claim beyond its expiration date must submit an extension request. The Federal Register notice describes the following general process:

1. EPA notifies the entity of an expiring CBI claim.

The agency will publish a list of TSCA submissions with expiring CBI claims on the Confidential Business Information Under TSCA (TSCA CBI) website at least 60 days before the claims expire.

EPA will also notify submitters directly through its online Central Data Exchange (CDX). Verify that your company’s contact information on CDX is updated!

Submitters with CBI claims for specific chemical identities should reference the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (column EXP) to confirm expiration dates.

2. The entity submits an extension request.

The extension request for an expiring CBI claim includes:

A certified supporting statement confirming the four assertions at 40 CFR 703.5(a), and
Answers to EPA’s substantiation questions.

EPA lists the general questions that apply to all CBI claims at 703.5(b)(3). Additional questions at 703.5(b)(4) apply to entities claiming CBI for specific chemical identities.

Businesses must submit the extension through EPA’s CDX at least 30 days before the CBI claim expires. The agency is currently developing a new application on CDX for submitting extension requests, which it plans to launch before CBI claims begin expiring in June 2026.

If there’s a delay, EPA will notify submitters on the TSCA CBI website. Additionally, the agency won’t publicize any information from expiring CBI claims until businesses have the opportunity to submit extension requests and the agency reviews them.

3. EPA reviews the extension request.

If the agency approves the extension request, the information in the CBI claim will remain protected for up to another 10 years.

If the agency denies the extension request, the information in the CBI claim can be publicized once the claim expires. EPA will notify submitters of denied claims through CDX at least 30 days before it plans to disclose the information.

Expiring CBI claims: What are the options?

Regulated entities have three ways to address expiring CBI claims:

If you choose to maintain the CBI claim, submit the extension request to EPA.
If you decide not to renew the CBI claim, you can either:
- Withdraw the CBI claim through CDX, or
- Allow the CBI claim to expire (i.e., take no action).

Keep in mind that if you withdraw a CBI claim or allow it to expire, EPA can publicize this information without notifying you beforehand.

Who’s impacted?

The CBI extension request process applies to companies that have made CBI claims under TSCA on or after June 22, 2016.

The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (signed into law on June 22, 2016) made amendments to TSCA, including adding a 10-year expiration date to CBI claims.

Key to remember: EPA established the process for entities to request extensions of expiring CBI claims for information submitted under TSCA.

2026-02-10T06:00:00Z

Common errors companies make when submitting air emissions inventories

Submitting accurate air emissions inventories (AEIs) is essential for regulatory compliance, public transparency, and long-term environmental planning. Yet companies routinely make mistakes that delay approvals, trigger enforcement, or compromise data quality. Many of these errors stem from misunderstanding the reporting rules, such as the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA’s) Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) and Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). Awareness of these pitfalls helps facilities avoid compliance failures and improve emission tracking systems.

Misunderstanding what must be reported

One of the most common errors is failing to understand which pollutants must be included. Under the AERR, states and delegated agencies must report annual emissions of criteria air pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, particulate matter (PM_2.5 and PM₁₀), and ammonia. These pollutants drive national air quality planning and modeling.

However, many companies overlook hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). While past AERR rules made HAP reporting voluntary, EPA’s proposed revisions would require annual HAP reporting for many sources starting in 2027, significantly expanding reporting duties. Failing to include HAP data or assuming it's still voluntary is a growing compliance risk.

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are another reporting blind spot. The GHGRP requires large emitters and certain suppliers to report carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane, nitrous oxide, and other GHGs each year. Companies often assume GHG reporting applies only to the largest industries, yet thousands of facilities fall within the rule’s thresholds.

Using incorrect or incomplete emission calculations

Facilities often make calculation errors when converting raw activity data into emissions. Many rely on outdated emission factors or incomplete process data. EPA urges states and regulated entities to use standardized estimation guidance from the Air Emissions Inventory Improvement Program whenever possible. But companies may choose default factors without confirming they apply to the specific process, control efficiency, fuel type, or measurement method.

Under EPA’s proposed AERR revisions, if approved, the agency will require more detailed stack information, such as release point coordinates, exhaust parameters, control device data, and stack test results. Failure to collect these details early can lead to rushed estimates or missing data.

Misreporting source categories

Another major issue is misidentifying emission sources. The AERR distinguishes between point, nonpoint, mobile, and portable sources. Mislabeling a source may cause a facility to submit incomplete inventories or fail to meet the required reporting frequency. For example, point sources often require annual reporting, while nonpoint sources may follow triennial schedules.

Similarly, GHGRP reporting is broken into numerous subparts that define equipment types, fuel suppliers, industrial processes, and CO₂ injection activities. Companies sometimes choose the wrong subpart or assume their process is exempt, leading to incomplete data submissions.

Incorrect use of thresholds and applicability

Both the AERR and GHGRP have emission-based thresholds. Companies frequently make errors when determining:

Whether they meet the AERR Type A point source criteria;
Whether they exceed GHGRP reporting thresholds (generally 25,000 metric tons CO₂ equivalent annually); and
Whether HAP emissions exceed thresholds when HAP reporting is required by a state.

These mistakes usually occur when internal data systems lack consistent tracking or when actual emissions deviate from "potential to emit" estimates used in permitting.

Missing documentation and recordkeeping

EPA requires extensive documentation for emission calculations, monitoring methods, stack tests, control equipment operation, and assumptions. GHGRP rules include detailed monitoring, Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC), missing data, and record retention requirements. Under proposed AERR rules, companies would also need to submit performance test and evaluation data. Missing or incomplete records often lead to rejected inventories.

Failing to track regulatory updates

Both the AERR and GHGRP are undergoing major revisions. EPA’s proposed AERR updates aim to convert some triennial reporting to annual schedules, add HAP reporting, expand mobile source requirements, and require more detailed facility-level data. Meanwhile, the GHGRP is facing proposed cuts that would eliminate reporting requirements for many source categories while delaying petroleum and natural gas reporting until 2034.

Companies that rely on outdated guidance or assume reporting rules remain static are at risk of major compliance failures.

Improving AEI quality and compliance

Avoiding common errors begins with three fundamentals:

Use current regulatory guidance, emission factors, and calculation tools;
Maintain complete process data, stack test records, and QA/QC documentation; and
Assign knowledgeable staff to track AERR, GHGRP, and state-level changes.

Key to Remember: Accurate air emissions inventories play a crucial role in protecting public health, supporting air quality regulation, and demonstrating corporate responsibility. By understanding the most common pitfalls, companies can improve compliance and reduce costly reporting errors.

EHS Monthly Round Up - January 2026

In this January 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.

Chemical manufacturers, importers, distributors, and employers will have an extra four months to comply with the provisions of OSHA’s revised Hazard Communication standard. When the rule was revised in 2024, it contained staggered compliance dates for those who classify or use chemical substances and mixtures. The first compliance date is now May 19 rather than January 19 of 2026.

On January 8, OSHA issued further technical corrections to its Hazard Communication final rule. An initial set of corrections was published in October 2024, and OSHA continued to review the standard for errors. The agency said these corrections should reduce confusion during the chemical classification process and prevent errors on labels and safety data sheets.

In 2024, private industry employers reported 2.5 million nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This is down 3.1 percent from 2023 and largely due to a decrease in respiratory illnesses. The greatest number of cases involving days away from work, job restriction, or transfer were caused by overexertion, repetitive motion, and bodily conditions, followed by contact incidents.

Registration is open for OSHA’s Safety Champions Program, which is designed to help employers develop and implement effective safety and health programs. Participants can work at their own pace through Introductory, Intermediate, and Advanced levels.

Turning to environmental news, on January 9, EPA withdrew its direct final rule on SDS/Tier II reporting tied to OSHA HazCom, before it had a chance to take effect. The direct final rule was published back on November 17, 2025, and was intended to relax the Tier II and safety data sheet reporting requirements and align with OSHA’s HazCom standard. EPA said it plans to write a new rule addressing all public comments.

And finally, EPA published a final rule that changes certain requirements for wastewater discharges from coal-fired steam electric power plants. It applies to the deadlines established by the preceding rule finalized in 2024.

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

New Network Poll

Have you reassessed, or will you reassess, remote work accommodations you provided during the pandemic?

No active poll

Please come back soon!

View Previous Polls & Results

Most Popular Highlights In Environmental

2026-02-13T06:00:00Z

Expert Insights: States take the lead as federal environmental rules pull back

This shift is changing how industrial facilities understand and manage regulatory risks.

States as environmental policy leaders

Growing impacts on industrial facilities

State enforcement and local focus

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.

Practical strategies for compliance

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.

2026-03-12T05:00:00Z

EPA finalizes emission standards for large municipal waste combustors

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:

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for new LMWCs, or
Emission Guidelines (EGs) for existing LMWCs.

EPA established new subparts for the amendments at 40 CFR Part 60, including:

Subpart VVVV for the NSPS, and
Subpart WWWW for the EGs.

What are the changes?

Generally, stricter emission limits apply. For all LMWCs (new and existing), the rule revises the emission limits for:

Cadmium,
Hydrogen chloride,
Lead,
Mercury,
Particulate matter,
Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans, and
Sulfur dioxide.

Other major changes include:

Removing certain exclusions and exemptions for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions (requiring LMWCs to meet emission standards at all times);
Removing the NOx emissions averaging compliance alternative for existing LMWCs;
Amending recordkeeping and reporting requirements; and
Eliminating Title V operating air permit requirements for qualifying air curtain incinerators that burn only wood waste, yard waste, and clean lumber.

What’s the compliance timeline?

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.

EHS Monthly Round Up - February 2026

In this Februrary 2026 roundup video, we'll discuss 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.

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

2025-05-21T05:00:00Z

Compliance guide: Air regulations for emergency generator installation

In today's rapidly evolving energy landscape, businesses are turning to back-up emergency generators to keep operations running smoothly. Several key factors are driving this growing trend:

Extreme heat and weather events

Climate change has led to more intense weather like hurricanes, wildfires, and heatwaves. These events put pressure on power grids, causing outages that disrupt business operations. Generators help by providing backup power during unexpected failures.

Power demand from AI and data centers

Artificial intelligence (AI) and data centers need a lot of electricity. As these technologies grow, power grids struggle to keep up. Companies use generators to prevent power shortages and keep essential systems running.

Grid reliability concerns

Aging infrastructure and unsteady energy supply from renewable sources can make electrical supply unstable. Industries like manufacturing, healthcare, and finance need steady power to avoid costly interruptions. Generators act as a safety net when the grid fails.

Compliance considerations

Backup generators help keep businesses running, but they also impact the environment. Companies must follow air quality regulations to reduce pollution and operate safely.

Air permits

State agencies usually oversee air permits, but The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has granted many county and city agencies the authority to issue them. For major permits such as New Source Review (NSR) and Title V, federal regulations apply, but state or local governments may still manage the process.
In some areas, businesses can apply for a general permit or permit-by-rule for emergency generators. These permits are often easier to obtain and take less time to process. Checking air permitting regulations will help determine if this option is available.
Businesses should find out if they need a pre-construction or construction air permit before setting up an emergency generator. These permits are based on the proposed equipment’s potential to emit (PTE) of criteria pollutants such as NOx, SO2, CO, and CO2 and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) such as formaldehyde and acrolein, which are emitted during the combustion of fuel. The type(s) of fuel used in the generator, such as diesel, natural gas, gasoline, or propane, will affect the calculated PTE. Read more about construction permits in this ezExplanation: New Source Review (NSR).

(Note: many state and local permitting agencies allow for the use of 500 hours for calculating PTE from an emergency engine, as per EPA’s 2011 Fox Memo, but some agencies still require using 8,760 hours and only accept 500 hours as an enforceable limit defined in a permit.)

Federal law sets a limit on emergency generators, allowing less than 100 hours of non-emergency use per year. This includes maintenance and testing. Some permits may also restrict the times of day when the generator can be used for non-emergency purposes.
The permit may require businesses to use the generator according to the manufacturer’s specifications. This is especially important if the business used manufacturer guarantees to calculate PTE.
Businesses must track fuel use and operating hours to stay within the limits used in emissions calculations. They can do this using fuel records, fuel measuring devices, and hour meters that log the generator’s usage time.
After getting a construction permit, a facility may need to apply for an operating permit within a year of the generator beginning operation. Some state and local agencies have stricter rules and deadlines. Check out J. J. Keller’s ezExplanation for Operating Permits: Clean Air Act: Operating Permits

EPA emission standards

The EPA enforces strict emissions regulations for stationary engines. Businesses must ensure their generators meet the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for compression ignition (40 CFR 60 Subpart IIII) and spark ignition internal combustion engines (ICE) (40 CFR 60 Subpart JJJJ), which can be found here. Additionally, the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) apply to reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE). 40 CFR 63 Subpart ZZZZ can be found here.

These rules, depending on the specific type of generator engine, will be required even if a permit is not necessary.

Other regulations

Keep in mind that using an emergency generator may also involve other factors depending on the type and amount of fuel stored:

Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) Requirements
Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans
EPCRA Tier II Reporting

Key to remember: When installing an emergency generator, companies must navigate complex air quality regulations to ensure compliance. By selecting the right fuel type and securing necessary permits, businesses can maintain reliable power while minimizing environmental impact.

2025-12-02T06:00:00Z

Louisiana adds aerosol cans to universal waste program

Effective date: November 20, 2025

This applies to: Owners and operators of all facilities that generate, transport, treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste

Description of change: The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality added hazardous waste aerosol cans to the universal waste program. The program streamlines hazardous waste management requirements and is identical to the federal universal waste requirements for aerosol cans.

View related state info: Universal waste — Louisiana

2026-03-06T06:00:00Z

EPA proposes electronic-only hazardous waste manifests

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.

Who would be impacted?

The proposed rule would affect waste handlers involved in manifesting hazardous waste, including:

Generators,
Transporters, and
Receiving facilities.

Additionally, EPA’s proposed rule would add requirements for:

Very small quantity generators (VSQGs) managing episodic events,
RCRA hazardous waste transporters,
Healthcare facilities and reverse distributors subject to RCRA’s hazardous waste pharmaceutical requirements,
Certain polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) waste generators,
PCB waste transporters, and
Hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities with standardized RCRA permits.

Examples of these requirements include:

Mandating specific waste handlers to register with the e-Manifest System;
Requiring VSQGs, healthcare facilities, and reverse distributors to submit data corrections to the e-Manifest System within 30 days of a request from EPA or an authorized state; and
Requiring hazardous waste generators and PCB waste generators to identify brokers on the manifest.

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.

Most Popular Highlights In Transportation

2026-03-12T05:00:00Z

3 key trucking rule changes coming soon

Drivers and motor carriers should face fewer citations starting later this month, once some important rule changes go into effect.

Vehicle-related requirements that have long frustrated fleets and enforcement officials alike are being revised or eliminated as of March 23 and April 20, 2026. While their impact is relatively narrow, carriers should understand what’s changing and how to protect themselves if roadside enforcement isn’t up to speed.

1. Rear-impact guard labels

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is removing the requirement that rear-impact guards be permanently labeled. Under current rules, trailers are required to have a label certifying that the rear underride guard met federal manufacturing standards at the time it was built.

Though the label is applied by the manufacturer, motor carriers and drivers were expected to ensure it remained in place, a sometimes-frustrating task stretching over the lifetime of the vehicle.

Why the change? The bumper label requirement has been controversial for years. Enforcement agencies and industry groups repeatedly pointed out that the labels frequently fade, wear off, or are removed during repairs, even though the guard itself remains structurally compliant.

Compounding the problem, most manufacturers will not issue replacement certification labels or “re-certify” guards once they leave the factory. As a result, carriers were often cited for a condition they had no practical way to correct.

Although FMCSA previously issued guidance instructing inspectors not to cite missing or illegible labels, confusion persisted at the roadside. Eliminating the requirement altogether resolves that enforcement disconnect without altering the underlying safety standards for rear-impact guards.

What should carriers do?

Continue inspecting rear-impact guards for structural integrity, mounting, height, and width as required under 49 CFR 393.86 and the annual inspection standards in Appendix A to Part 396.
Don’t remove existing labels, but understand that their presence (or absence) will no longer determine compliance.
Update inspection checklists and training materials to remove label verification as a compliance item.

2. Tractor license-plate lamps

Truck tractors will no longer be required to have a functioning rear license-plate lamp while towing a trailer. The lamp will still be required when the tractor is operating without a trailer, however.

Why the change? When a tractor is coupled to a trailer, the rear license plate and its lamp are typically obscured and serve no practical enforcement or safety purpose. The FMCSA concluded that requiring carriers to maintain a lamp that isn’t visible or relevant during normal operations added unnecessary maintenance costs without a safety benefit.

What should carriers do?

Review maintenance policies to ensure tractors still have operational license-plate lamps when operated bobtail.
Ensure drivers and maintenance personnel understand when a functioning license-plate lamp is required.

3. Emergency equipment

Drivers will no longer be required to carry spare fuses starting April 20, and they will no longer have the option to use liquid-burning flares as warning devices after March 23. Reflective triangles and/or solid-fuel flares will still be required, as will fire extinguishers.

The rule change for fuses is significant because over 10,000 drivers were cited in 2025 for failing to have them.

Why the change? The spare‑fuse requirement has remained in the regulations for decades, even as vehicle electrical systems have improved. The FMCSA concluded that:

Blown fuses rarely occur during normal operation and, when they do, the repair is typically handled by maintenance personnel rather than drivers. Nevertheless, spare fuses are widely available at truck stops.
Other regulations already prohibit operation of a vehicle when required electrical equipment isn’t functioning properly, regardless of whether spare parts are carried.

Similarly, liquid-burning flares are widely considered obsolete and are rarely used in modern fleet operations. Their continued presence in the regulations caused confusion.

What should carriers do?

Verify that emergency-equipment kits contain at least three compliant reflective triangles or six flares, as appropriate.
Update driver inspection checklists to remove spare fuses as required items and liquid-burning flares as an option. Motor carriers are free to continue having their drivers carry spare fuses, however.
Remind drivers that vehicles may not be operated if required electrical systems are inoperative, regardless of whether a spare fuse is available.

What if you’re cited?

Roadside enforcement practices don’t always change overnight. In addition, states that enforce the FMCSA regulations may adopt different effective dates for rule changes. Motor carriers and drivers should be vigilant about reviewing roadside inspection reports and challenging any citations that were issued improperly.

Bearing in mind that state requirements may vary, motor carriers should use the online DataQs system to challenge any erroneous bumper label or license-plate lamp violations cited after March 20, and any spare-fuse violations cited after April 20.

Key to remember: On March 23 and April 20, 2026, three important rule changes go into effect. Be sure your drivers, maintenance personnel, and others know the impact.

2026-03-09T05:00:00Z

Out-of-Service Criteria changes land April 1st

The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance’s Out-of-Service (OOS) Criteria will soon undergo a wide-ranging update affecting roadside inspections for both drivers and their commercial motor vehicles.

From license restrictions and English‑language proficiency (ELP) to log falsification, brake systems, cargo securement, and wheel defects, the revisions clarify long‑standing enforcement questions, add new OOS conditions in emerging problem areas, and refine existing criteria to better align with federal regulations and real‑world inspection practices.

The following is a summary of key changes that go into effect April 1, 2026. Review the changes to ensure your drivers and vehicles will still pass a roadside test.

Driver OOS Criteria

ELD tampering: With electronic logging device (ELD) tampering becoming a growing concern, the criteria for placing drivers OOS for log falsification have been clarified to address situations where a record is falsified so much that the officer cannot determine when the driver was driving and/or resting. Drivers will continue to be placed OOS “until such time as eligibility to drive is re-established” if a required log is false due to inaccurate entries and the officer is able to determine when driving and rest breaks occurred. A new criterion was added to place drivers OOS for 10 hours (or 8 hours for passenger carriers) for ELD tampering that makes the entire record suspect and the inspector is unable to verify when driving and resting occurred. Officers will cite 49 CFR 395.8(e)(2) for ELD tampering where the truth cannot be ascertained, and paragraph (e)(1) for false logs when the officer can determine rest periods and drive time.
ELP violations: A new violation was added to place drivers OOS if the driver cannot satisfy the ELP requirements of 391.11(b)(2), per enforcement guidance issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) in May 2025.
License-restriction violations: Officers will begin using new citation codes for license-restriction violations, to distinguish them from endorsement-related violations. Drivers without a commercial driver’s license (CDL) will be cited for “392.2NCDLR” (instead of 391.11(b)(5)) if violating a restriction, while CDL holders will be cited for “392.2LCDLR” (instead of 383.23).
In-state-restricted drivers: The CVSA has clarified the standard for enforcing the “K” (in-state only) restriction, which is intended to keep the driver in their home state. Such drivers will only be placed OOS if they are actually operating in another state at the time of the inspection.
Alcohol content threshold: The OOS Criteria will now specify the alcohol concentration at which drivers will be placed OOS when in possession of wine or beer, making it easier for officers to apply the existing standard. Drivers will be placed OOS if they possess wine or beer that contains 0.5% or more alcohol by volume or distilled spirits in any dilution.

Vehicle OOS Criteria

Air connections: The criteria for air-brake hose/tubing were revised to change the term “gladhands” to the more inclusive “service air connections.” In addition, the criteria were changed to clarify the conditions for placing vehicles OOS when the air system is disconnected but still functional.
Brake pad thickness: The standard for front-axle hydraulic brake pad thickness was updated to say “less than 1/16 inch” instead of “1/16 inch or less” to reflect a thinner measurement than found in 49 CFR 393.47(d)(1).
Parking brakes: “Parking Brake” was changed to “Parking/Emergency Brake” in the section on parking brake systems due to confusion about whether an automatic transmission placed into Park was considered to have a parking brake control.
Log securement: New criteria were added to address the use of the “ExTe Com90” hydraulic load securement system for logs.
Wire rope: A new wire-rope damage chart was added to help inspectors determine when a wire rope is damaged to the point that it’s OOS.
Upper couplers: A new OOS criterion was added for broken or loose countersunk screws in an upper coupler. Previously, the criteria only addressed bolts, not countersunk screws.
Rims: A new OOS criterion was added for a broken wheel/rim that has “any missing piece exceeding 3 inches (76.2 mm) in length.”
Wheel hub lubricant: The criterion for placing vehicles OOS when there is “no visible or measurable amount of lubricant showing in hub” was removed. The CVSA concluded that there is no good way for inspectors to know if there is oil in a hub that requires oil, or grease in hubs requiring grease, due to the many varieties of hubs and hub caps/covers in the marketplace.
Emergency exit markings: A new criterion was added for emergency exits that are “not properly marked with operating instructions.” The instructions are needed whether the exit is a required exit or a marked exit.
Placarding: The prior criteria placed vehicles OOS if “50% or more of the required placards for a hazard class are missing.” This was clarified to read “50% or more of the required placards for a category of material (hazard class or division) are missing.”

Key to remember: A variety of changes to the North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria take effect on April 1, 2026. Reviewing the changes can help avoid being placed out of service.

2026-03-06T06:00:00Z

USDOT reinforces expectations placed on SAPs

In response to several substance abuse professional (SAP) and return-to-duty (RTD) process issues, the USDOT published reminders to SAP and DOT-regulated employers.

The reminders appeared in a Federal Register notification on March 4, 2026, “The Do's and Don'ts for the Substance Abuse Professional and the Return-to-Duty Process in the U.S. Department of Transportation Drug and Alcohol Testing Program.”

In the notice, SAPs are instructed to follow all RTD procedures when evaluating DOT-covered employees, and DOT employers are reminded of SAP responsibilities and the RTD process. USDOT may initiate a Public Interest Exclusion (PIE) proceeding for any SAP found to be in serious noncompliance. When placed on the PIE list, the SAP is prevented from performing services related to DOT drug and alcohol testing.

Why a list of reminders for SAPs?

The USDOT has previously provided reminders to SAPs as issues came to light, so this recent action isn’t unique. This newest March 2026 notification is the result of the USDOT learning of recent issues related to SAPs’ roles and responsibilities, including:

Employers having trouble in getting the follow-up testing plans from SAPs;
SAPs referring employees solely to online programs as opposed to in-person programs, as appropriate;
SAPs prescribing the minimum number of follow-up tests in response to pressure from consortium/third-party administrators (C/TPA) or risk being removed from the C/TPA's list of recommended SAPs;
SAPs administering follow-up tests;
SAPs not holding an appropriate credential to act as a DOT-qualified SAP;
SAPs performing the RTD process in a very short timeframe to get the employee back to work quicker;
SAPs going outside their credential's geographical limit to perform remote evaluations; and
SAPs performing remote evaluations without real time two-way audio and visual communication with the employee.

Key points for SAPs

The USDOT provided several key points for SAPs to take action on in the Federal Register notice, including the following:

SAPs must hold and maintain required qualification requirements, including ongoing professional development credits.
SAP evaluations must:
- Be done face-to-face (whether in-person or remote);
- Delve into the employee's emotional and mental health and history of drug and alcohol use;
- Provide a diagnosis, treatment recommendations, and a treatment plan that the employee must complete before becoming eligible for the required follow-up evaluation and subsequent return to safety-sensitive functions;
- Result in a recommended course of education or treatment unique to each employee;
- Never result in promises to “fast track” the process; and
- Never provide employees with an estimated RTD timeline before conducting an initial SAP evaluation and assessment.
SAP reports:
- Must include all required elements;
- Must be securely retained for at least 5 years from the date of the second report;
- Must be provided to the employer or subsequent employer when requested; and
- Can be provided to the employee upon request if the follow-up testing plan is redacted.

When are the RTD steps required?

The RTD process applies to employees who test positive, refuse a test, or violate other DOT agency testing rules. The covered employee is removed from safety-sensitive functions (SSFs) and must successfully complete the program prior to resuming SSFs.

SAPs play an important role as “gatekeepers” for DOT's RTD process, taking on the roles of evaluation, referral, and treatment of employees. The SAP’s decisions determine whether an employee returns to operating a commercial motor vehicle, plane, oil tanker, train, subway, or controls the valves of a natural gas pipeline. The SAP also decides on the number of follow-up drug and/or alcohol tests over what duration of time after returning to duty.

2026-03-11T05:00:00Z

Smart driving in severe conditions

Spring marks the start of severe weather season. For the professional driver, maintaining a high level of awareness and being prepared can go a long way in ensuring safety while on the road.

Thunderstorms

Severe thunderstorms can develop quickly. The following actions can help ensure safety if approaching or already in a storm.

Turn on the vehicle’s headlights, slow down, and allow extra braking distance.
Pull off the road and find a safe area to park, avoiding trees, poles, or any other items that could fall on the vehicle.
Stay in the vehicle as it provides better protection against lightning than being in the open.
If able to safely park before the storm strikes, seek shelter in a sturdy building, staying away from windows.

Once the storm has let up and travel has continued, watch for downed power lines, trees, and other debris that may have blown onto the road.

Tornados

Tornados are considered nature’s most violent storms. A tornado’s winds can reach 300 miles per hour and can create a path of damage in excess of one mile wide and 50 miles long.

If in an area where a tornado warning is issued, safely park and seek shelter immediately, preferably a basement or the interior of the lowest floor of a sturdy building or storm shelter.

If outside with no shelter, lie flat in a nearby ditch or depression and cover your head with your hands. Also be aware of the potential for flooding, as heavy rain can cause low spots to quickly flood. Do not seek shelter under a highway overpass. Winds blow stronger under an overpass due to the wind-tunnel effect.

Watch for flying debris. Most tornado-related deaths and injuries are caused by flying debris. And never try to outrun a tornado.

Watches and warnings

The National Weather Service issues severe weather watches and warnings. Understanding the following terms can assist in identifying weather hazards.

Watch. A watch is issued when the risk of hazardous weather has increased significantly, but its occurrence, location, and/or timing is uncertain. Watches are normally issued well in advance of the occurrence of severe weather to provide lead time so the public can be prepared.

A severe thunderstorm watch is issued when conditions are favorable for the development of severe thunderstorms in and close to the watch area.

A tornado watch is issued when conditions are favorable for the development of tornados in and close to the watch area.

Warning. A warning is issued when hazardous weather is occurring, imminent, or has a high probability of occurring. Warnings are used for conditions posing a threat to life or property.

A severe thunderstorm warning is issued when a severe thunderstorm is indicated by radar or spotter reports. A severe thunderstorm includes hail that is one inch in diameter or larger and/or winds of at least 58 miles per hour.

A tornado warning is issued when a tornado is indicated by radar or sighted by spotters. The warning will include where the tornado is located and what communities are in its path.

Key to remember: Spring weather can be unpredictable, but informed drivers who remain alert and take appropriate precautions are far better equipped to handle what Mother Nature delivers.

2022-12-02T06:00:00Z

Understanding the National Safety Code (NSC): Part 1

These days, operating a commercial fleet involves many different compliance issues, regulations, standardized licensing, and permits involved with operating a commercial trucking vehicle are the norm. In Canada, provincial regulations governing commercial vehicles, drivers, and motor carriers are based on the National Safety Code (NSC) standards.

But what is the NSC and what are the standards? It’s a complicated answer because there are 16 standards involved. The NSC is designed to create a comprehensive code of minimum performance standards for the safe operation of passenger and commercial vehicles. The NSC provides guidance for legislative, regulatory, and administrative action by each jurisdiction and focuses on three components:

Drivers,
Vehicles, and
Motor carriers.

Over this three-part article series, we will look at each of these components and break down the NSC standards that fit within each of the three. You’ll learn what is key to know to ensure compliance, and more importantly, a safer operation.

What is the NSC?

In 1987, the federal, provincial, and territorial Ministers responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety recognized that due to the deregulation of transportation, there was a need for harmonization and reciprocity in the management of commercial vehicles across Canada. The ministers then signed a memorandum of understanding to develop and implement the NSC to encourage road safety, promote efficiency in the motor carrier industry, and achieve consistent safety standards. The National Safety Code standards remain important instruments of public policy in promoting public safety and the safe and efficient movement of people and goods on Canadian roads.

What are the 16 standards?

The NSC is a set of minimum performance standards, applying to all persons responsible for the safe operation of commercial vehicles. There are 16 NSC standards made up of the following:

Standard 1 Single Driver Licence Concept
Standard 2 Knowledge and Performance Tests (Drivers)
Standard 3 Driver Examiner Training Program
Standard 4 Driver Licencing Classification
Standard 5 Self-Certification Standards and Procedures
Standard 6 Determining Driver Fitness in Canada
Standard 7 Carrier and Driver Profiles
Standard 8 Short-Term Suspension
Standard 9 Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service
Standard 10 Cargo Securement
Standard 11 Maintenance and Periodic Inspection
Standard 12 CVSA On-Road Inspection
Standard 13 Trip Inspection
Standard 14 Safety Rating
Standard 15 Facility Audits
Standard 16 Entry Level Training (Class 1)

Now that we have a better understanding of what the NSC represents and what the 16 standards are, let’s take a deeper dive into the standards that apply, starting with Motor Carriers.

NSC Standard 14 — Safety Rating

You might be wondering why we are starting with Standard 14. All provinces in Canada are required to issue an NSC number to all commercial carriers in their governing jurisdiction. A Safety Fitness Certificate (SFC) contains the NSC number, which is the unique identifier for each commercial operator. Ontario calls this number a Commercial Vehicle Operator’s Registration or CVOR.

If you have registered a vehicle that is regulated under the National Safety Code program in Canada, you are required to apply for a SFC or CVOR (Ontario). The SFC or CVOR gives you permission to operate a commercial vehicle.

There have been many new changes recently to the process of not only applying for an SFC but also in maintaining the required certificate. For example, in Alberta, it includes completing an NSC knowledge test online or NSC in a registry office, completing an NSC audit within 12 months of obtaining your SFC, and renewing your certificate every three years.

A provincial authority may not issue a safety fitness certificate to an extra-provincial motor carrier undertaking unless the provincial authority has determined that the undertaking has a “satisfactory”, “satisfactory unaudited” or “conditional” safety rating, as set out in section 5 of Part C of NSC Standard #14.

Safety Rating Categories

Responsibility for motor carrier safety resides, first and foremost, with motor carrier management. The Safety Rating Standard (Standard 14) establishes the motor carrier safety rating framework by which each jurisdiction shall assess the safety performance of motor carriers. There are four safety rating categories as follows:

Rating	Details
Satisfactory-Unaudited	Assigned to all new commercial motor carriers. This rating does not change until a carrier has been audited.
Satisfactory-Audited	Assigned when a motor carrier has successfully passed a facility audit and all 3 thresholds - convictions, at-fault collisions and inspections - are below 85%.
Conditional	Assigned to a motor carrier who has failed a facility audit and/or 1 or more thresholds are at or above 85%.
Unsatisfactory	Assigned by Carrier and Vehicle Safety Services when a carrier is deemed unfit.

The safety rating standard establishes the motor carrier safety rating framework by which each jurisdiction assesses the safety performance of motor carriers. The safety rating is determined by:

Using the information in the motor carrier profile;
Assigning a value to each of the data listed in the motor carrier profile taking into account its severity and potential safety impact, in accordance with the National Safety Code Standard 7, Carrier Profile:
- For the 24 months preceding the determination; or
- In the case of a motor carrier whose motor carrier profile was established less than 24 months prior to the determination, for the period since its establishment;
Normalizing the weighted data using the motor carrier’s fleet size to reflect the motor carrier’s exposure to risk; and
Assigning a safety rating to the motor carrier in accordance with the safety rating categories.

The NSC’s safety fitness rests on three building blocks:

NSC Standard 7: Carrier and Driver Profiles
NSC Standard 14: Safety Rating
NSC Standard 15: Facility Audit

Together, these standards provide the safety rating and management framework by which each jurisdiction assesses the safety performance of motor carriers. In part 3, we’ll cover Standards 7 and 15 in greater detail.

Key to remember: We have just touched the surface of the NSC standards and covered likely one of the most important when it comes to maintaining a safe rating and compliance with Jurisdictional regulations.

2024-02-15T06:00:00Z

Don’t get caught in the dark: What you need to know about Canada’s truck lighting regulations.

Simply put, driving any vehicle in the dark without lights poses a serious risk. This situation is exacerbated by drivers who mistakenly assume that a lit-up dashboard means that their lights are powered on. Such a situation may or may not be true unless appropriately checked. Using proper lights on commercial vehicles, and ensuring they’re mounted in the proper places, is critical, especially during bad weather.

Fortunately, standards in lighting require all types of new vehicles to adhere to the Canadian Vehicle Lighting Regulation.

Shed some light.

Adhering to Canada’s truck lighting requirements assures your drivers of road safety and security. Making sure you are aware of the specific lighting regulations for regular commercial tractors and trailers and oversized tractor/trailer units drastically decreases the risk of injury, death, or damage to life, and property.

Commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) need to be equipped with a specific number of reflective devices, lamps, and associated equipment specially designed to adhere to regulations that might be slightly different from standard passenger vehicles and may differ depending on the jurisdiction of operation.

Truck lighting requirements.

Here are the key lighting equipment requirements for trucks, buses, and multipurpose vehicles (MPVs):

Headlights	Lower Beam	Minimum of 2 white headlamps on the front, symmetrically placed as far apart as practicable (or outboard or above upper beams in a 4-lamp system). Height from the ground: 560-1370 mm (22-54 inches).
	Upper Beam	Minimum of 2 white headlamps on the front, symmetrically placed (or inboard or below lower beams in a 4-lamp system). Height from the ground: 560-1370 mm (22-54 inches).
Parking Lights	Required only on vehicles less than 2032 mm (80 inches) wide. Minimum of 2 white or yellow parking lamps on the front, symmetrically placed. Height from the ground: 380-1530 mm (15-60 inches).
Daytime Running Lights (DRL)	Required in Canada, optional in the US. Minimum of 2 white or yellow DRLs on the front, symmetrically placed. Height: 380 mm (15 inches) minimum (maximum depends on DRL type).
Front turn signal / Hazard Warning Lights	Minimum of 2 yellow lamps on the front, symmetrically placed. Height from the ground: 380-2110 mm (15-83 inches).
Front Clearance Lights	Required on vehicles 9.1 meters (30 feet) long or longer.

Some of the more important lighting rules for truck tractors and trailers in Canada are:

Truck tractors are not required to have turn signal lamps situated in the vehicle’s rear as long as the turn signal lamps located near or at the vehicle’s front meet the standards for double-faced turn signals;
Truck tractors are not required to have rear-side marker devices, rear identification lamps, rear side marker devices as well as rear identification lamps;
Side marker intermediate devices are not needed on vehicles that measure less than 30 feet or 9.1 metres in total length;
Reflective materials are allowed to be utilized as side reflex reflectors as long as these meet the standards;
Trucks that measure less than 80 inches or 2.05 metres in total width are required to have self-canceling signal lights via steering wheel rotation. It must also be cancellable using manual operation; and
Trailers that measure less than 6 feet or 1.8 metres in total length, with the trailer tongue included, may not need to have front-side marker lamps as well as front-side reflectors.

Jurisdictional spotlights.

Alberta	Two taillights and two brake lights are required. Plus, a license plate light, clearance lights, right and left turn signals, as well as side markers are needed
British Columbia	Mandatory lighting includes brake lights, taillights, turn signals, reflectors, license plate lights. Also, reflectors and clearance lights are needed if the overall width of a trailer is anywhere from 2.05 metres or more. The same lighting requirements apply if a trailer has a gross weight of more than 1,400 kilograms
Northwest Territories	Trailers are required to have at least one red taillight as well as a red stoplight located at the vehicle’s rear
Prince Edward Islands	The required truck lighting includes license plate lights, brake lights, tail lights, clearance and side lamp markers, reflectors, turn signals, fenders, mudguards
Saskatchewan	Truck lighting requirements include tail lights, signal lights, and brake lights.

Safety and visibility.

Drivers should be trained to recognize and report lighting issues and receive education on proper light usage to minimize glare for other drivers.

In the world of commercial trucking, lighting isn’t just about aesthetics; it’s a matter of safety and compliance. Meeting and surpassing lighting requirements ensures your drivers navigate the night safely while minimizing risks for all road users.

Key to remember: Adherence to regulations must also include going above and beyond to prioritize safety and visibility. Regular maintenance and inspection of lighting systems ensure vehicles have the appropriate number of and types of required lights.

Most Popular Highlights In Human Resources

2023-09-06T05:00:00Z

Appellate court sided with employee's (almost) 3-year-delayed FMLA claim

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.

2026-03-09T05:00:00Z

Employers have option to display updated OSHA poster

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has revised its workplace posting with a new design, and employers have the option of using the new poster or previous versions to comply with agency requirements.

Sometimes, employers have a choice

While only the new version of the poster is available on the OSHA website, employers don’t need to rush to display it. The Department of Labor notes that it’s fine for employers to have an older version of the poster on the wall.

In general, a new poster is required when it’s updated due to a change in a law. In this case, there has been no regulatory update to require a mandatory posting change and the rights on the listed on the poster remain consistent with the current law.

What’s different?

The updated version of the OSHA poster, released in late February, uses a new heading: “OSHA Cares.” The words “That You Go Home Safe” appear on the bottom of the poster after a bulleted list of employee rights, including the right to:

A safe workplace
Speak up about safety and health concerns without retaliation
Report an injury or illness
Training in a manner you understand

The list of employer requirements has been removed from the poster, but it includes a QR code that goes to OSHA’s website. It also has a more streamlined look that includes crescent-shaped accents rather than graphics.

The agency still refers to the poster as the “Job Safety and Health Workplace Poster,” but those words no longer appear on the poster.

Requirements still apply

Employers in a state with an OSHA-approved state plan may use the state version of the poster to meet the OSHA posting requirement.

To be compliant, the OSHA poster must be at least 8.5 x 14 inches and needs to have 10-point type. The posting regulation at 1903.2 in the Code of Federal Regulations also stipulates that the heading needs to be in large type, generally not less than 36-point type.

Key to remember: OSHA has released an updated workplace poster with a new design. Employers can either display the new version or continue to display previous versions to comply with the agency’s posting requirement.

2026-03-12T05:00:00Z

Yes, employers may reevaluate remote work accommodations

During the COVID-19 pandemic, employers sent many employees home to work. This strategy was effective for several years. As the disease risks faded, though, employers began requiring employees to return to the physical workplace. As a result, employees began — and continue — to ask to work from home as an accommodation under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Employers might wonder if they must keep providing such accommodations.

Not necessarily, but employers must tread carefully.

Reassess the need for accommodation

After employers grant an accommodation, they may assess whether there continues to be a need for the accommodation based on individualized circumstances, including whether alternative accommodations might meet the employee’s needs.

Employers have the discretion to choose between effective accommodations. This means employees aren’t necessarily entitled to their preferred accommodation forever. Employers may, therefore, reevaluate a previously granted remote work accommodation and replace it with an effective, reasonable one. When there are several reasonable and effective options, employers may choose an accommodation other than remote work.

Don’t hide under a blanket

Employers shouldn’t take a blanket approach to rescind and deny all remote work accommodations. In some cases, employees will continue to need remote work as an accommodation. Employers need to look at each situation individually, based on its own merits.

When to reassess the type of accommodation

Employers should occasionally reevaluate accommodations in response to changes, such as changes to:

An employee’s condition,
Job requirements,
Operational needs, and
A related law.

Employers might also, for example, find it helpful to reevaluate a remote work accommodation once a year to confirm the accommodation remains effective and manageable.

After reassessment

If supported by an individualized assessment, employers may allow the employee to continue to work remotely if doing so is necessary to ensure continued compliance with the ADA.

If, however, reevaluation and individualized assessment demonstrate that an employee no longer needs remote work as an accommodation, employers may replace it with a reasonable and effective in-office option (or combination of options). This can include, but isn’t limited to, assistive devices, modified equipment, environmental modifications (sound, smell, light, etc.), job restructuring, modified or flexible work scheduling, etc. It can also include reducing remote work, combined with in-office accommodations, provided the result is still reasonable and effective.

Key to remember: Employers may review whether employees continue to need remote work accommodations. Employers may rescind remote work accommodations if they no longer suit employee or company needs, but they might have to provide an alternative solution.

2023-07-25T05:00:00Z

How to minimize FMLA leave abuse: 6 tips for supervisors

Try as they might, HR professionals who administer leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) can’t be everywhere at once. Therefore, they need to depend upon supervisors to ensure the company does not violate the FMLA and to help minimize leave abuse.

Supervisors are often the first ones to learn of an employee’s need for leave. That leave might qualify for FMLA protections, so supervisors are often a key link in the FMLA leave administration chain. Too often, though, they are a weak link and put the employer at risk of a claim.

Depending upon their level of FMLA involvement, supervisors can take steps to help minimize FMLA abuse. Some basic FMLA information is worth sharing with supervisors, including what they can and can’t ask the employee.

6 tips for supervisors:

Recognize when an employee puts you on notice of the need for leave. Employees need not mention the FMLA the first time around, but might ask for general time off. If any situation involves an employee needing time off for a potential FMLA-qualifying reason, alert the leave administrator.
Know the qualifying reasons for leave. They are:
1. For the birth of a child, and to care for/bond with the child;
2. For placement with the employee of a child for adoption or foster care for/bond with the child;
3. To care for the employee’s spouse, son, daughter, or parent with a serious health condition;
4. Because a serious health condition makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the job;
5. Due to an urgent demand caused by a family member’s military duty; and
6. To care for a family member with a military-related serious injury or illness.
Do not ask an employee for medical information. Details about health, such as a diagnosis, whether it’s about the employee’s or the family member’s condition, is off limits. Instead, ask questions such as the following:
1. How long will you be out?
2. What is the reason for the absence?
3. When did the reason for the absence begin? If the leave is for the employee’s own condition: Are you unable to perform the functions of the job?
4. Is the absence related to a pregnancy (the employee’s or the employee’s wife)?
5. Were you (or the family member) hospitalized overnight?
6. Are you (or a family member) under the continuing care of a health care provider?
7. Is the reason because of a family member’s military exigency?
8. Is the absence related to a military member on covered active duty or call to covered active duty?
9. If the absence is for a family member, does the condition render the family member unable to perform daily activities?
Inform the leave administrator. When a supervisor learns of the need for leave, remind them to send that information up the chain of command to ensure FMLA compliance. The employer has five business days to give the employee an eligibility/rights & responsibilities notice.
Be aware of personal liability. Under the FMLA, “employer” includes any person acting, directly or indirectly, in the interest of a covered employer to any of the employees. This means that a court can hold a supervisor personally liable if they took an action against an employee in violation of the FMLA. Supervisors could risk their own personal finances.
Hold employees to the company’s usual and customary call-in procedures, absent unusual circumstances. Where an employee does not comply with the usual procedures, and no unusual circumstances justify the failure to comply, the employer may delay or deny FMLA-protected leave.

Look for more supervisor tips in an upcoming article!

Key to remember: Company leave administrators benefit from enlisting the help of all supervisors when it comes to minimizing leave abuse.

2026-03-10T05:00:00Z

Court: Employers may ask employees about their vaccinations

The federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) restricts when employers may ask employees medical questions or require medical exams. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this came to light as employers often wanted to know if their employees were vaccinated to help protect others in the workplace. In the midst of one of the worst influenza (flu) outbreaks this season, employers might wonder about their employees’ current flu vaccination status.

An employer recently learned that they may ask employees about their vaccination status.

The story

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, an employer implemented a company-wide vaccine mandate. It notified employees that they could seek a religious or medical exemption, but that it would terminate those who didn’t comply.

Jennifer and Katherine, two remote employees, requested religious exemptions.

The employer denied both requests and eventually fired them.

Both employees sued, bringing disability discrimination claims under the ADA. They argued that their employer:

Made unlawful medical examinations or inquiries, and
Regarded them as having a disability.

The employees stated that their employer had no valid business reason to inquire into their vaccination status, especially because they were remote employees.

The employees also argued that the employer regarded them as disabled because they were unvaccinated and then fired them for that reason.

The ruling

The ADA defines a disability as a “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the individual’s major life activities.” The court said that whether a person is vaccinated or not has no bearing on their ability to engage in major life activities.

The court also said that the employees’ medical exam or inquiry argument was also fatally flawed because an employer’s inquiry into an employee’s vaccination status isn’t disability related.

Finally, a person is “regarded as” having a disability if they’re “subjected to an action prohibited under [the ADA] because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment, whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.”

Once again, being unvaccinated isn’t a physical or mental impairment. Being unvaccinated, therefore, doesn’t support a “regarded as” claim.

The court ruled that the employer didn’t violate the ADA when it asked about the employees’ vaccination status or when it fired them for being unvaccinated.

Finn v. Humane Society of the United States, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 4-1416, November 20, 2025.

Key to remember: According to at least one court, employers don’t violate the ADA if they ask employees about their vaccination status.

2025-03-18T05:00:00Z

FMLA leave triggered? Employees don’t have to miss three days of work

Employees may take leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for several reasons, and one of those reasons is to care for their own or a family member’s medical condition. There’s no list of qualifying medical conditions, so employers have to gather all the facts to see if FMLA applies.

FMLA-related medical conditions can be short- or long-term. Some employers believe that their FMLA obligations aren’t triggered unless and until an employee misses three days of work. That’s just not true in many situations, and here’s why.

The FMLA defines a serious health condition as an illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that involves inpatient care or continuing treatment by a health care provider.

Inpatient care explained

Inpatient care is an overnight stay in a health care facility. If the employee or family member had an overnight stay, it’s an FMLA serious health condition regardless of how many days of work the employee missed.

If the employee or family member did not have an overnight stay, employers move on to the continuing treatment part of the definition.

Continuing treatment defined

A serious health condition involving continuing treatment includes the following:

A period of incapacity of more than three, consecutive, full calendar days, and any subsequent treatment that also involves:
- Treatment two or more times within 30 days of the first day of incapacity by a health care provider, or
- Treatment at least once, resulting in a regimen of continuing treatment.
Any period of incapacity due to pregnancy or for prenatal care.
Any period of incapacity (or treatment for) a chronic serious health condition requiring treatments at least twice per year and continuing over an extended period of time. These may cause episodic rather than continuing periods of incapacity.
A period of incapacity for a permanent or long-term condition in which treatment may not be effective.
Any period of absence to receive multiple treatments (i.e., chemotherapy, radiation, physical therapy, dialysis), for restorative surgery, or for a condition that would likely result in a period of incapacity of more than three consecutive, full, calendar days if treatment isn’t received.

Not all parts of the definition above will apply to a particular situation. The only part of the continuing treatment segment that involves three days, for example, falls under the first bullet. For all the other parts, any period of incapacity would be FMLA leave. An employee doesn’t need to miss three days of work.

Focus on incapacity not absence when applying FMLA leave

The period of more than three days applies to how long the individual is incapacitated, not how many days of work the employee missed. If, for example, an employee who normally works Monday through Friday suffers a serious health condition on Friday evening and is incapacitated until Wednesday, the period of incapacity is more than three days. The employee missed only two days of work, but those two days would be FMLA leave.

Failure to designate an absence as FMLA leave when it is called for risks a claim that the employer interfered with the employee’s FMLA rights.

Key to remember: Employees don’t have to miss three days of work to trigger an employer’s FMLA obligations.

Most Popular Highlights In Safety & Health

2026-03-05T06:00:00Z

Killed by a forklift or a high vis vest?

Fatal injuries have a ripple effect throughout an organization – least of all the painstaking task of performing an investigation without placing blame on employees. What’s the true cause of an incident when a forklift strikes a worker wearing the wrong-colored vest? Worker behavior may play a role, but the issue usually lies much deeper.

Look for systemic patterns

A pattern of incidents at one battery construction site is a great example of how individual decisions and company safety systems intertwine to determine the outcome of daily events. OSHA’s report on the March 2025 death of a company CEO showed that while individual decisions played a role, the fatality occurred within a broader pattern of systemic safety failures at the construction site.

According to Agency findings, the employee chose to cross a roadway while wearing a black vest instead of the required high visibility vest, which drastically reduced the employee’s visibility. At the same time, a site forklift driver was reportedly talking on the phone while operating the vehicle which also contributed to the result of the incident.

OSHA’s conclusions made clear that organizational systems and controls, not just the individuals’ choices, were the primary shortcomings. Multiple companies on site failed to enforce safety rules, maintain traffic controls, or ensure proper operator behavior. For example, the forklift driver’s employer received the largest fine for exposing workers to struck-by hazards and failing to ensure operators followed basic safety practices such as speed limits, phone use, use of spotters, and horn use when visibility was obstructed.

The report reflected an even larger pattern, finding that the employee’s death was one of many safety incidents at the construction mega site, which had recorded dozens of previous traumatic injuries, multiple fatalities, and at least 15 OSHA investigations. Previous incidents included falls, other forklift injuries, a conveyor entrapment, a pipe explosion, and a fatal crushing incident earlier in 2025. This track record should have been an early warning that system-level safety gaps and inconsistent safety management were key contributors, far outweighing any single person’s decisions.

Stomp out systemic failures

While individual decisions like walking into a traffic zone or operating equipment while distracted may influence an incident, they rarely tell the whole story. Root causes usually reflect deeper underlying weaknesses in the organization’s safety systems, such as:

Fragmented safety oversight that leads to inconsistent enforcement of safety rules, policies, PPE requirements, and behavioral expectations;
Inadequate traffic and equipment controls that invite a mingling of vehicles with pedestrians or dangerous forklift operational habits;
Breakdowns in communication between workers including unreported injuries, language barriers, or inadequate signage that results in workers missing warnings or misunderstanding proper procedures; and
Normalized incidents or near misses, which eventually become serious incidents and fatalities and result in a reactive rather than proactive safety culture.

These conditions can quickly create an environment where ordinary human mistakes are far more likely to lead to severe or fatal outcomes. Employers need to look beyond the individual employee decisions and investigate which systemic failures allowed the decision to become deadly. This is where OSHA regulations help.

Leverage OSHA regulations

You’ve likely heard the saying, “OSHA regulations have been written in blood” meaning someone (or many someones) have been seriously injured in the workplace which resulted in regulations aimed at protecting others from a repeat of similar situations.

Since OSHA was established nearly 55 years ago, its standards and enforcement efforts have helped save more than 712,000 workers’ lives. Even so, employers must continue to identify and strengthen gaps in their safety programs and systems to shield workers from the consequences of inevitable human decisions.

Employers shouldn’t just use OSHA regulations as a means for compliance but to actively protect workers by controlling hazards and setting clear expectations for safe work. Standards such as 1910.147 (Lockout/Tagout), 1910.1200 (Hazard Communication), 1926.501 (Fall Protection), and 1910.178 (Powered Industrial Trucks) give employers concrete requirements for preventing injuries and keeping employees safe on the job. Filling systemic safety gaps by using these standards can prevent thousands of serious injuries and fatalities every year. As demonstrated with this forklift struck-by fatality, most workplace deaths stem from hazards that OSHA rules are designed to control.

Key to remember: Serious incidents and fatalities are rarely caused by individual decisions but by broader system failures like insufficient safety oversight, inconsistent rule enforcement, and poor worksite communication. Employers can prevent these incidents by leveraging regulatory compliance to identify and correct weaknesses in their safety systems.

2026-03-10T05:00:00Z

Preparing to interview accident witnesses

Since witness interviews are critical to any incident investigation, employers should obtain witness statements as soon as possible. Conduct interviews before witnesses talk with each other and while the details are still fresh in their minds. If they talk to one another about the event, that could inadvertently affect each person’s recall, or even create new versions.

Interviews should focus on the facts, including what happened before and after the incident, and should avoid opinions and assumptions. Ultimately, the investigator needs to know who was involved, what they were doing, what was happening at the time, and when and where the incident occurred.

Choose interviewers

Conduct interviews privately with no more than two interviewers present. By keeping the interviews small and away from others, you have a much better chance of having a factual and productive conversation. The person conducting the interview should be neutral and trusted by employees.

It may be tempting to let management sit in, but a supervisor’s presence may cause an employee to clam up. Keeping this conversation informal can help employees relax and talk more freely. Simply ask what happened and let the witnesses tell the story in their own words. Remind them that the goal of this conversation is to identify hazards, not to get anyone in trouble.

Asking questions

Ask open-ended questions like “describe what happened leading up to the incident” and “what happened next?” Avoid leading questions that might cause someone to make things up in an attempt to answer. Along the same lines, avoid questions that suggest an accusation, such as “do you think he wasn't paying attention?”

Witnesses might give their opinions, and you can make notes, but distinguish between the facts and their opinions. Repeat their conclusions back to them to confirm your understanding.

Keep in mind that memories or viewpoints might differ. Statements from multiple witnesses might be contradictory such that both statements cannot possibly be factual. This doesn't mean either worker is lying. It could just be how they remember the events, or they saw things from a different angle. Of course, some witnesses might describe an incident with the goal of avoiding blame.

As necessary, go back to previously interviewed witnesses for additional information or clarification.

Example situation

Suppose a near-miss incident involved a forklift operator who stopped suddenly, causing the load he was carrying to slide off the tines, nearly striking a pedestrian. You might hear statements like, “I didn't see the forklift” or “the pedestrian came out of nowhere.” Now, that may be how witnesses remember things. But there's probably something else going on.

Follow-up questions might be along the lines of, “what were you focused on at the time of the accident?” Maybe the pedestrian was reading a document or computer pad and didn't see or hear the forklift approaching. Or perhaps the forklift operator was going too fast or failed to stop and sound the horn at an intersection. There could be several contributing factors, and you'll want to identify all of them.

Witness interviews provide valuable information in determining what happened before, during, and after an incident. As an interviewer, your goal is to gather key information while keeping the witnesses comfortable. Remind them the goal of investigating is to help prevent future incidents and injuries, not to blame employees.

Key to remember: Conducting effective interviews requires skill and consideration that goes beyond simply asking, “Tell me what happened.”

2026-03-04T06:00:00Z

OSHA releases updated “Job Safety and Health Workplace Poster”

OSHA recently released an updated Job Safety and Health Poster, which informs workers of their rights under the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970. The revised poster is part of the agency’s “OSHA Cares” initiative. 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.

Under the OSH Act, employers must provide employees with a safe and healthful work environment. Employees also have a right to:

Speak up about safety and health concerns without retaliation;
Report an injury or illness;
Have training in a manner they understand;
Be provided with required safety equipment;
Request an OSHA inspection and speak with the inspector;
File a complaint with OSHA about workplace hazards; and
Ask for free safety and compliance assistance from OSHA at any time.

2024-03-12T05:00:00Z

Buyer beware! Scammers provide OSHA 10- and 30-hour cards, no training

If a company or trainer offers to issue OSHA 10- or 30-hour training cards “overnight” or “within a few hours” – beware! As the names imply, OSHA 10 requires 10 hours of training and OSHA 30 requires 30 hours of training before cards can be issued. While not required by federal OSHA, some states, municipalities, and companies require this type of training prior to working on a project, especially construction sites.

A New York company, including six of its executives and employees, was recently indicted for operating a sham safety training school, providing OSHA 10- and 30-hour cards to approximately 20,000 “students” over a 3½-year period. Cards were issued for a fee (anywhere between $300 to $600) certifying the required 40 hours of safety training required for individuals working on New York City construction sites, without providing training.

An additional 19 individuals were charged with acting as brokers by connecting individuals seeking safety certification to the company. And finally, four individuals and the company were charged with recklessly endangering the life of a 36-year-old worker who died after falling from the 15th floor of a construction site in 2022, by failing to provide him necessary training.

How to find legitimate OSHA Outreach trainers and classes

There’s been an increase in fraudulent activity related to these courses over the past several years. The following points can help workers and employers avoid fraudulent trainers and courses.

Only OSHA-authorized trainers may teach 10- and 30-hour safety courses and issue OSHA student course completion cards. OSHA-authorized Outreach trainers – that is, trainers that deliver OSHA 10- and 30-hour training - are not OSHA personnel. Trainers are authorized (not certified) through the Outreach program to deliver OSHA 10- and 30-hour classes. All authorized trainers must possess a trainer card which includes an expiration date along with the name of the authorizing OSHA Training Institute (OTI) Education Center.
Trainers are independent service providers, and their schedules and fees may vary. OSHA recommends contacting multiple trainers to find one that best meets the student’s needs. Students may verify the status of an authorized Outreach trainer.
Qualified individuals can become authorized OSHA Outreach trainers through OTI Education Centers. Individuals must meet industry safety experience requirements and complete a training course in the applicable OSHA standards and a trainer course to become authorized. Trainers must attend an update course, available through OTI Education Centers, every four years.
On its website, OSHA provides a list of authorized trainers to find instructors for the 10- and 30-hour safety courses. The list provides trainer names and contact information and denotes which course each trainer is authorized to teach (i.e., construction, general industry, maritime, disaster site worker). Courses are also available in Spanish and online from the appropriate authorized trainer.
A trainer “watch list” contains a list of individuals whose status as authorized OSHA Outreach trainers has been suspended or revoked as a result of failing to comply with the Outreach training program requirements.
OSHA’s website also contains a program overview, FAQs, and resources for finding an OTI center, replacing a card, avoiding card fraud, and searching for classes.
Taking a 10- or 30-hour course does not guarantee employment. While OSHA believes this training is an important first step towards workplace safety, beware of advertisements “guaranteeing” jobs after taking the course.

Key to Remember: If a trainer’s offer sounds too good to be true, it probably is. To find a legitimate OSHA Outreach trainer and classes, start at osha.gov and look for Outreach Training Program under Help and Resources.

2023-03-30T05:00:00Z

How to allow your workers to face their hard hat bills backward

Did you know workers don’t always need to face their hard hat bills forward? OSHA even says it’s okay but guides employers in a Letter of Interpretation (LOI) dated May 9, 2011. Employers should read this article to learn how to comply with OSHA’s head protection requirements while allowing workers to face their bills to the rear.

While I was a field safety manager, there were two main reasons my workers asked me to wear hard hats backward. The first was because it looked better, and the other reason was that they couldn’t see suspended material loads picked from the main hook of a crane. As the load boomed over to them, the bill blocked their visibility of the load. This caused them to lean backward to see it properly. Leaning back while working at elevated heights increased their risk of having a fall event.

Guidance from OSHA

In the LOI above, OSHA states head protection must meet testing requirements in American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z89.1-1969. But it only provides testing requirements for facing the bill forward.

The bill helps to deflect small falling objects from overhead. Without the bill, a worker’s face could get struck by a falling object. When I worked in the electrical transmission industry, small bolts, grit, and other things would fall from above during steel erection activities. In the LOI, OSHA states that employers can allow workers to face their bill to the rear if the manufacturer certifies that this practice meets ANSI Z89.1-1969 requirements.

In later versions, ANSI includes testing guidance to manufacturers for facing the bill to the rear. ANSI now provides manufacturers with a reverse-donning test to certify hard hats are safe for reverse wear. If the hard hat is safe to face backward, the manufacturer will place a symbol (two arrows curving to form a circle) on the hard hat.

Best practice tips

I’ve been a safety professional for almost two decades now. I’m telling you from experience that your workers will come up with unique reasons why they should face their bills to the rear. Some explanations will be completely legitimate. But OSHA’s personal protective equipment (PPE) standard requires employers to assess their workplace for hazards and determine when PPE is necessary to protect workers.

A competent person must decide when it’s safe to allow workers to face their bills backward. Manufacturers may certify their hard hat is safe to reverse wear, but employers must figure out if it’s safe to do in the workplace based on the hazards workers are exposed to.

Have a consistent policy in place for how you’ll handle requests. If you have many workers, it’ll be difficult managing individual approvals on a case-by-case basis. I recommend using work activities and work areas to determine whether workers can wear their bills to the rear. For instance, I’d allow workers to reverse-wear their hard hats if they were rigging and material handling loads from a crane’s hook or working in laydown yards without overhead falling object hazards.

In summary, you can allow your workers to turn their hard hats backward, but you’ll need to follow the guidance above to ensure it’s safe.

Key to remember

Workers can reverse-wear hard hats if the hard hat is certified by the manufacturer for reverse donning. The hard hat will have two arrows curving to form a circle if it is.

2023-07-25T05:00:00Z

Understanding anchor points for fall protection

Must an anchor point be able to support 5,000 pounds? Not necessarily. But how do you identify alternatives?

Anchor points must either be able to support 5,000 pounds for each worker, or must meet a safety factor of two. That safety factor depends on things like the weight of the employee, the potential falling distance, and the use of deceleration devices that reduce the arresting force.

If the anticipated force is 1,000 pounds, for example, then the safety factor requires an anchor capable of supporting 2,000 pounds. Working with a fall protection provider should help determine the arresting force.

Need more information? Check out our article Anchor your fall protection system properly.

The other challenge is getting an assessment by a qualified person. The regulation at 1910.140 allows an anchor “designed, installed, and used, under the supervision of qualified person” as part of a complete personal fall protection system.

This raises questions of how to evaluate the strength of a potential anchor. Anchor points may be:

Engineered or certified.
Non-engineered or non-certified.

Engineered or not?

An engineered point is designed as an anchor. Although employers probably don’t test them after installation, they should meet OSHA’s requirements when properly installed, like a ring that bolts in place or a portable system with weights. Engineers design these systems to meet the strength requirements.

More often, employers use non-engineered or field-expedient anchors. Determining whether a proposed anchor point is strong enough usually requires an estimation. For example, many employers use steel I-beams or H-beams as part of an anchor system. This can be acceptable using an appropriate clamp or attachment, but not when simply wrapping a strap around the beam. Other structures, however, many not be strong enough.

How strong is it?

Determining the strength of the potential anchor requires an estimation because you probably won’t test it by dropping a weight. The regulation requires that the system be designed and installed by a qualified person. But what does that mean? Employers can use structural beams, even if they weren’t “installed” as anchors. However, the qualified person would evaluate the beam and other components (including the means of attachment) to determine whether the complete system is satisfactory.

For non-certified points, the qualified person might look at the anchor attachment, and even look at engineering drawings for the facility to see the grade steel used. In addition, the person might evaluate any recommendations from the fall protection manufacturer regarding compatibility.

On the other hand, employees should never use things like ladders, scaffolds, or guardrails as fall protection anchors. For working on flat roofs, some employers want to use existing structures like a flagpole or air conditioner as an anchor. Those options might be conveniently located, but they’re unlikely to qualify as acceptable as anchor points.

The best advice is to work with a fall protection supplier who can suggest options and systems that should meet OSHA’s requirements. A good supplier may also have someone on staff who is qualified to oversee the system installation.

Finally, remember that if an employee falls, the anchor will undergo considerable stress, and the employer must inspect all system components to verify that they’re still safe to use. When using expedient structures, consider the potential effects on those structures if they arrest a falling worker. Building structures might be strong enough to arrest a falling worker, but that force could compromise structural integrity.

Key to remember: An anchor point may be suitable even if it cannot withstand 5,000 pounds of force, as long as it meets the safety factor requirements.

About Notice at Collection Terms of Use Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information Accessibility Support