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

DOL Final Rule: Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Annual Adjustments for 2025

2025-01-10T06:00:00Z

The U.S. Department of Labor (Department) is publishing this final rule to adjust for inflation the civil monetary penalties assessed or enforced by the Department, pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Inflation Adjustment Act). The Inflation Adjustment Act requires the Department to annually adjust its civil money penalty levels for inflation no later than January 15 of each year. The Inflation Adjustment Act provides that agencies shall adjust civil monetary penalties notwithstanding section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Additionally, the Inflation Adjustment Act provides a cost-of-living formula for adjustment of the civil penalties. Accordingly, this final rule sets forth the Department's 2025 annual adjustments for inflation to its civil monetary penalties.

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 15, 2025. As provided by the Inflation Adjustment Act, the increased penalty levels apply to any penalties assessed after January 15, 2025. Published in the Federal Register January 10, 2025, page 1854,

View final rule.

§655.620 Civil money penalties and other remedies.
(a) Revised View text
§655.801 What protection do employees have from retaliation?
(b) Revised View text
§655.810 What remedies may be ordered if violations are found?
(b), (g) Revised View text
§5.5 Contract provisions and related matters.
(b)(2) Revised View text
§5.8 Liquidated damages under the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act.
(a) Revised View text
§500.1 Purpose and scope.
(e) Revised View text
§530.302 Amounts of civil penalties.
(a), (b) Revised View text
§570.140 General.
(b)(1)-(2) Revised View text
§578.3 What types of violations may result in a penalty being assessed?
(a)(1)-(2) Revised View text
§579.1 Purpose and scope.
(a) Revised View text
[Editor’s Note: The following entry applies to Compliance Network only.]
§801.42 Civil money penalties—assessment.
(a) introductory text Revised View text
[Editor’s Note: The following entry applies to Compliance Network only.]
§825.300 Employer notice requirements.
(a) introductory text Revised View text
§1903.15 Proposed penalties.
(d) Revised View text
[Editor’s Note: The following entry applies to Compliance Network only.]
§50-201.3 Insertion of stipulations.
(e) Revised View text

Previous Text

§655.620 Civil money penalties and other remedies.

(a) The Administrator may assess a civil money penalty not to exceed $11,524 for each alien crewmember with respect to whom there has been a violation of the attestation or subpart F or G of this part. The Administrator may also impose appropriate remedy(ies).

§655.801 What protection do employees have from retaliation?

* * * *

(b) It shall be a violation of this section for any employer to engage in the conduct described in paragraph (a) of this section. Such conduct shall be subject to the penalties prescribed by sections 212(n)(2)(C)(ii) or (t)(3)(C)(ii) of the INA and §655.810(b)(2), i.e., a fine of up to $9,380, disqualification from filing petitions under section 204 or section 214(c) of the INA for at least two years, and such further administrative remedies as the Administrator considers appropriate.

§655.810 What remedies may be ordered if violations are found?

* * * *

(b) Civil money penalties. The Administrator may assess civil money penalties for violations as follows:

(1) An amount not to exceed $2,304 per violation for:

(b)(1)(i) A violation pertaining to strike/lockout (§655.733) or displacement of U.S. workers (§655.738);

(b)(1)(ii) A substantial violation pertaining to notification (§655.734), labor condition application specificity (§655.730), or recruitment of U.S. workers (§655.739);

(b)(1)(iii) A misrepresentation of material fact on the labor condition application;

(b)(1)(iv) An early-termination penalty paid by the employee (§655.731(c)(10)(i));

(b)(1)(v) Payment by the employee of the additional $500/$1,000 filing fee (§655.731(c)(10)(ii)); or

(b)(1)(vi) Violation of the requirements of the regulations in this subpart I and subpart H of this part or the provisions regarding public access (§655.760) where the violation impedes the ability of the Administrator to determine whether a violation of sections 212(n) or (t) of the INA has occurred or the ability of members of the public to have information needed to file a complaint or information regarding alleged violations of sections 212(n) or (t) of the INA;

(2) An amount not to exceed $9,380 per violation for:

(b)(2)(i) A willful failure pertaining to wages/working conditions (§§655.731, 655.732), strike/lockout, notification, labor condition application specificity, displacement (including placement of an H–1B nonimmigrant at a worksite where the other/secondary employer displaces a U.S. worker), or recruitment;

(b)(2)(ii) A willful misrepresentation of a material fact on the labor condition application; or

(b)(2)(iii)Discrimination against an employee (§655.801(a)); or

(3) An amount not to exceed $65,661 per violation where an employer (whether or not the employer is an H-1B-dependent employer or willful violator) displaced a U.S. worker employed by the employer in the period beginning 90 days before and ending 90 days after the filing of an H-1B petition in conjunction with any of the following violations:

(b)(3)(i) A willful violation of any of the provisions described in §655.805(a)(2) through (9) pertaining to wages/working condition, strike/lockout, notification, labor condition application specificity, displacement, or recruitment; or

(b)(3)(ii) A willful misrepresentation of a material fact on the labor condition application (§655.805(a)(1)).

* * * *

(g) The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended (28 U.S.C. 2461 note), requires that inflationary adjustments to civil money penalties in accordance with a specified cost-of-living formula be made, by regulation, at least every four years. The adjustments are to be based on changes in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI–U) for the U.S. City Average for All Items. The adjusted amounts will be published in the Federal Register. The amount of the penalty in a particular case will be based on the amount of the penalty in effect at the time the violation occurs.

§5.5 Contract provisions and related matters.

* * * *

(b)(2) Violation; liability for unpaid wages; liquidated damages. In the event of any violation of the clause set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section the contractor and any subcontractor responsible therefor shall be liable for the unpaid wages and interest from the date of the underpayment. In addition, such contractor and subcontractor shall be liable to the United States (in the case of work done under contract for the District of Columbia or a territory, to such District or to such territory), for liquidated damages. Such liquidated damages shall be computed with respect to each individual laborer or mechanic, including watchpersons and guards, employed in violation of the clause set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, in the sum of $32 for each calendar day on which such individual was required or permitted to work in excess of the standard workweek of forty hours without payment of the overtime wages required by the clause set forth in paragraph (b)(1).

§5.8 Liquidated damages under the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act.

* * * *

(a) The Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act requires that laborers or mechanics shall be paid wages at a rate not less than one and one-half times the basic rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in any workweek. In the event of violation of this provision, the contractor and any subcontractor shall be liable for the unpaid wages and in addition for liquidated damages, computed with respect to each laborer or mechanic employed in violation of the Act in the amount of $32 for each calendar day in the workweek on which such individual was required or permitted to work in excess of forty hours without payment of required overtime wages. Any contractor of subcontractor aggrieved by the withholding of liquidated damages shall have the right to appeal to the head of the agency of the United States (or the territory of District of Columbia, as appropriate) for which the contract work was performed or for which financial assistance was provided.

§500.1 Purpose and scope.

* * * *

(e) The Act empowers the Secretary of Labor to enforce the Act, conduct investigations, issue subpoenas and, in the case of designated violations of the Act, impose sanctions. As provided in the Act, the Secretary is empowered, among other things, to impose an assessment and to collect a civil money penalty of not more than $3,047for each violation, to seek a temporary or permanent restraining order in a U.S. District Court, and to seek the imposition of criminal penalties on persons who willfully and knowingly violate the Act or any regulation under the Act. In accordance with the Act and with these regulations, the Secretary may refuse to issue or to renew, or may suspend or revoke a certificate of registration issued to a farm labor contractor or to a person who engages in farm labor contracting as an employee of a farm labor contractor.

§530.302 Amounts of civil penalties.

(a) A civil money penalty, not to exceed $1,280 per affected homeworker for any one violation, may be assessed for any violation of the Act or of this part or of the assurances given in connection with the issuance of a certificate.

(b) The amount of civil money penalties shall be determined per affected homeworker within the limits set forth in the following schedule, except that no penalty shall be assessed in the case of violations which are deemed to be de minimis in nature:

Table 1 to Paragraph (b)
Nature of violation Penalty per affected homeworker
Minor Substantial Repeated intentional or knowing
Recordkeeping $25–257 $257–512 $512–1,280
Monetary violations 25–257 257–512
Employment of homeworkers without a certificate 257–512 512–1,280
Other violations of statutes, regulations or employer assurances 25–257 257–512 512–1,280

* * * *

§570.140 General.

* * * *

(1) $15,629 for each employee who was the subject of such a violation; or

(2) $71,031 with regard to each such violation that causes the death or serious injury of any employee under the age of 18 years, which penalty may be doubled where the violation is repeated or willful.

§578.3 What types of violations may result in a penalty being assessed?

* * * *

(a)(1) A penalty of up to $1,373 per violation may be assessed against any person who violates section 3(m)(2)(B) of the Act.

(2) A penalty of up to $2,45174 per violation may be assessed against any person who repeatedly or willfully violates section 6 (minimum wage) or section 7 (overtime) of the Act. The amount of the penalties stated in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section will be determined by applying the criteria in §578.4.

§579.1 Purpose and scope.

(a) Section 16(e), added to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, by the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1974, and as further amended by the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1989, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, the Compactor and Balers Safety Standards Modernization Act of 1996, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, provides for the imposition of civil money penalties in the following manner:

(1)(i) Any person who violates the provisions of sections 212 or 213(c) of theFLSA, relating to child labor, or any regulation issued pursuant to such sections, shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed:

(A) $15,629 for each employee who was the subject of such a violation; or

(B) $71,031 with regard to each such violation that causes the death or serious injury of any employee under the age of 18 years, which penalty may be doubled where the violation is a repeated or willful violation.

(ii) For purposes of paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B) of this section, the term "serious injury" means:

(A) Permanent loss or substantial impairment of one of the senses (sight, hearing, taste, smell, tactile sensation);

(B) Permanent loss or substantial impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty, including the loss of all or part of an arm, leg, foot, hand or other body part; or

(2)(i) Any person who repeatedly or willfully violates section 206 or 207 of the FLSA, relating to wages, shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $2,451 for each such violation.

(ii) Any person who violates section 203(m)(2)(B) of the FLSA, relating to the retention of tips, shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $1,373 for each such violation.

(3) In determining the amount of any penalty under section 216(e) of the FLSA, the appropriateness of such penalty to the size of the business of the person charged and the gravity of the violation shall be considered. The amount of any penalty under section 216(e) of the FLSA, when finally determined, may be:

(i) Deducted from any sums owing by the United States to the person charged;

(ii) Recovered in a civil action brought by the Secretary in any court of competent jurisdiction, in which litigation the Secretary shall be represented by the Solicitor of Labor; or

(iii) Ordered by the court, in an action brought for a violation of section 215(a)(4) or a repeated or willful violation of section 215(a)(2) of the FLSA, to be paid to the Secretary.

(4) Any administrative determination by the Secretary of the amount of any penalty under section 216(e) of the FLSA shall be final, unless within 15 days after receipt of notice thereof by certified mail the person charged with the violation takes exception to the determination that the violations for which the penalty is imposed occurred, in which event final determination of the penalty shall be made in an administrative proceeding after opportunity for hearing in accordance with section 554 of title 5, United States Code, and regulations to be promulgated by the Secretary.

(5) Except for civil penalties collected for violations of section 212 of the FLSA, sums collected as penalties pursuant to section 216(e) of the FLSA shall be applied toward reimbursement of the costs of determining the violations and assessing and collecting such penalties, in accordance with the provision of section 202 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to authorize the Department of Labor to make special statistical studies upon payment of the cost thereof and for other purposes’’ (29 U.S.C. 9a). Civil penalties collected for violations of section 212 shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury.

* * * *

§801.42 Civil money penalties—assessment.

(a) A civil money penalty in an amount not to exceed $25,597 for any violation may be assessed against any employer for:

§825.300 Employer notice requirements.

* * * *

(a)(1) Every employer covered by theFMLA is required to post and keep posted on its premises, in conspicuous places where employees are employed, a notice explaining the Act's provisions and providing information concerning the procedures for filing complaints of violations of the Act with the Wage and Hour Division. The notice must be posted prominently where it can be readily seen by employees and applicants for employment. The poster and the text must be large enough to be easily read and contain fully legible text. Electronic posting is sufficient to meet this posting requirement as long as it otherwise meets the requirements of this section. An employer that willfully violates the posting requirement may be assessed a civil money penalty by the Wage and Hour Division not to exceed $211 for each separate offense.

§1903.15 Proposed penalties.

* * * *

(d) Adjusted civil monetary penalties. The adjusted civil penalties for penalties proposed on or after January 15, 2024 are as follows:

(1) Willful violation. The penalty per willful violation under section 17(a) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 666(a), shall not be less than $11,524 and shall not exceed $161,323.

(2) Repeated violation. The penalty per repeated violation under section 17(a) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 666(a), shall not exceed $161,323.

(3) Serious violation. The penalty for a serious violation under section 17(b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 666(b), shall not exceed $16,131.

(4) Other-than-serious violation. The penalty for an other-than-serious violation under section 17(c) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 666(c), shall not exceed $16,131.

(5) Failure to correct violation. The penalty for a failure to correct a violation under section 17(d) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 666(d), shall not exceed $16,131 per day.

(6) Posting requirement violation. The penalty for a posting requirement violation under section 17(i) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 666(i), shall not exceed $16,131.

§50-201.3 Insertion of stipulations.

* * * *

(e) Any breach or violation of any of the foregoing representations and stipulations shall render the party responsible therefor liable to the United States of America for liquidated damages, in addition to damages for any other breach of the contract, in the sum of $32 per day for each person under 16 years of age, or each convict laborer knowingly employed in the performance of the contract, and a sum equal to the amount of any deductions, rebates, refunds, or underpayment of wages due to any employee engaged in the performance of the contract; and, in addition, the agency of the United States entering into the contract shall have the right to cancel same and to make open-market purchases or enter into other contracts for the completion of the original contract, charging any additional cost to the original contractor. Any sums of money due to the United States of America by reason of any violation of any of the representations and stipulations of the contract as set forth herein may be withheld from any amounts due on the contract or may be recovered in a suit brought in the name of the United States of America by the Attorney General thereof. All sums withheld or recovered as deductions, rebates, refunds, or underpayments of wages shall be held in a special deposit account and shall be paid, on order of the Secretary of Labor, directly to the employees who have been paid less than minimum rates of pay as set forth in such contracts and on whose account such sums were withheld or recovered: Provided, That no claims by employees for such payments shall be entertained unless made within 1 year from the date of actual notice to the contractor of the withholding or recovery of such sums by the United States of America.

Specialized Industries

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

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

Interact With Our Compliance Experts

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

Upcoming Events

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

SAFETY & COMPLIANCE NEWS

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

REGSENSE® REGULATORY REFERENCE

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

THE J. J. KELLER INSTITUTE

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

ADD HAZMAT, ENVIRONMENTAL, & HR RESOURCES

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

DIRECT ACCESS TO COMPLIANCE EXPERTS

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

EVENTS

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

Most Recent Highlights In Environmental

Understanding WOTUS and Navigable Waters in 2026
2026-01-12T06:00:00Z

Understanding WOTUS and Navigable Waters in 2026

Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) coverage is narrowing after the Supreme Court’s Sackett v. EPA decision (2023) and a 2025 EPA/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)proposal to align waters of the United States (WOTUS) with that ruling. Expect fewer federally regulated wetlands, more state-by-state differences, and continued uncertainty through 2026.

What counts as “navigable waters” today?

Post-Sackett, WOTUS includes traditional navigable waters, territorial seas, certain interstate waters, impoundments, tributaries that are relatively permanent, and adjacent wetlands that directly abut those waters through a continuous surface connection. Non-jurisdictional ditches do not create adjacency.

Recent changes

  • Supreme Court in Sackett (May 2023): The CWA covers only waters that are relatively permanent and wetlands with a continuous surface connection to those waters. The Court rejected the “significant nexus” test.
  • Conforming amendments (September 2023): EPA and the USACE removed the significant nexus standard, revised adjacency, and clarified that interstate wetlands are not automatically WOTUS.
  • Field guidance (March 2025): EPA and USACE directed that non-jurisdictional ditches, swales, pipes, and culverts do not create a continuous surface connection. Wetlands must directly abut the water.
  • Proposed rule (November 2025): Adds definitions for “relatively permanent,” “tributary,” and “continuous surface connection.” If finalized, federal coverage will narrow further.

Where each rule applies

Implementation is split:

  • 2023 amended rule: In effect in 24 states, DC, and territories.
  • Pre-2015 regime + Sackett: Applies in 26 states, including Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Kentucky now follows the 2023 rule except for certain litigants. Always check EPA’s “Current Implementation” page to check state status before filing permits.

Why it matters to industry and commerce

  • Permitting: WOTUS defines whether projects need Section 404 (dredge/fill) and Section 402 (NPDES) permits. Narrower federal scope can reduce federal permitting, but state and tribal programs may still apply.
  • Design: Wetlands separated by berms or uplands and connected only by ditches or culverts likely do not qualify as WOTUS. Early jurisdictional determinations (JDs) and hydrologic documentation are critical.
  • Risk: Multi-state portfolios face uneven rules due to individual states having their own regulatory framework. The 2025 proposal could further limit federal reach, shifting responsibility to states. Multi-state industry and commerce should prepare for state variability and litigation-driven changes.

The legal and regulatory arc: why definitions keep changing

  • Statute: The CWA regulates “navigable waters,” defined as “waters of the United States,” but does not define WOTUS.
  • Court history: Court decisions have repeatedly reshaped and narrowed the definition of WOTUS. U.S. v. Riverside Bayview (1985) upheld adjacent wetlands; the scope narrowed when SWANCC v. USACE (2001) limited isolated waters; Rapanos v. U.S. (2006) deepened uncertainty by introducing two competing tests, “relatively permanent” vs. “significant nexus,” leaving regulators and courts with ambiguity.
  • Rulemaking swings:
  1. 2015 Clean Water Rule broadened coverage.
  2. 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule narrowed it; later vacated.
  3. 2023 WOTUS Rule was reshaped by Sackett and amended in August 2023.
  • Current alignment: The 2023 amendments and 2025 proposal aim to match the Court’s standards.

Pending actions to watch in 2026

  • Final rule: The 2025 proposal’s comment period closed Jan. 5, 2026. A final rule could standardize terms and narrow jurisdiction further.
  • Litigation: Courts may lift or expand injunctions, changing which states apply which regime.
  • Funding: FY2025 operations rely on continuing resolutions; WOTUS changes will come through rulemaking, not budget riders.

Practical steps for EHS and project teams

  • Confirm your state’s regime before scoping.
  • Request or update JDs early; document permanence and direct abutment.
  • Track the 2025 proposal and submit comments where unclear.

Key to Remember: WOTUS and “navigable waters” definitions are narrowing, reducing some federal burdens but increasing state variability. For industrial and commercial projects, early jurisdictional work and state-specific permitting plans are essential to protect schedules and budgets.

EHS Monthly Round Up - December 2025

EHS Monthly Round Up - December 2025

In this December 2025 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 last month.

In fiscal year 2025, the top three violations for non-construction small employers, those with under 100 employees, were hazard communication, respiratory protection, and powered industrial trucks. Three industries dominated these violations: fabricated metal product manufacturing, repair and maintenance, and non-metallic mineral product manufacturing.

OSHA issued several new letters of interpretation on a variety of workplace topics, including permit required confined spaces, recordkeeping, and powered industrial trucks. Letters of interpretation help ensure the consistent application of federal workplace safety and health standards, and provide regulatory clarification to employers, workers, and safety professionals.

California’s STOP Act took effect January 1. The law targets the state’s fabricated stone industry. It prohibits dry cutting of stone countertops, mandates employee training, and classifies silicosis and silica-related lung cancer from artificial stone as a serious injury or illness.

As of January 1, Washington state requires tower crane permits for all construction work involving tower crane operation, assembly, disassembly, and reconfiguration. Before issuing permits, Washington Department of Labor and Industries will conduct safety conferences to ensure all parties understand the safety requirements and related responsibilities.

Turning to environmental news, EPA issued compliance deadline extensions for certain emissions standards. The delays affect the New Source Performance Standards for crude oil and natural gas facilities and the emissions guidelines for such facilities. Compliance timelines have been pushed into mid- to late-2026 and early 2027.

And finally, although EPA has been deregulating or loosening some environmental requirements, there are still some standards being tightened. These include renewable fuel standards, stormwater management, and PFAS disclosure. Changes to these requirements will reshape compliance obligations for U.S. companies in 2026, and reflect a trend toward increased transparency and environmental accountability.

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

EHS Monthly Round Up - January 2025

EHS Monthly Round Up - January 2025

In this January 2025 monthly 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. There’s a lot going on, so let’s get started!

As happens at the start of most incoming presidential administrations, a freeze has been placed on all regulatory activity at the federal level, giving the new administration time to review agencies’ plans. The Office of Management and Budget, which must approve most rulemaking activities, has sent numerous pending rules back to the agencies for review. In addition, OSHA withdrew its infectious diseases proposed rule and its COVID-19 in healthcare rule prior to the inauguration.

OSHA’s penalties increased on January 15. The maximum penalty amounts for serious and other-than-serious violations increased to $16,550. For willful or repeated violations, the maximum penalty increased to $165,514 per violation.

OSHA updated its directive on injury and illness recordkeeping policies and procedures. While it’s intended for OSHA compliance officers, employers can use the information to help with recordkeeping compliance.

Fewer workers died on the job in 2023, as fatal work injuries decreased 3.7 percent from 2022. Transportation incidents remained the most frequent type of fatal event, accounting for over 36 percent of all occupational fatalities.

California’s Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board voted to adopt a permanent silica standard. If approved, it would extend and strengthen the state’s emergency temporary standard, which was put in place in December 2023.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health updated its List of Hazardous Drugs in Healthcare Settings. This is a resource for employers and employees in identifying drugs that are hazardous to the health and safety of those who handle them.

Turning to environmental news, EPA released the biannual update of the nonconfidential TSCA inventory. The inventory helps facilities determine their regulatory requirements for the chemicals they use or plan to use.

And finally, EPA added new Management Method Codes to describe how hazardous waste will be managed after temporary storage and transfer. As of January 1st, hazardous waste handlers must use the codes on the Biennial Report Waste Generation and Management forms.

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

EPA extends wastewater compliance deadlines for coal-fired steam power plants
2026-01-05T06:00:00Z

EPA extends wastewater compliance deadlines for coal-fired steam power plants

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule on December 31, 2025, that changes certain requirements for wastewater discharges from coal-fired steam electric power plants. It applies to regulations established by the preceding rule finalized in 2024.

The 2025 final rule:

  • Extends the submission deadline for the notice of planned participation (NOPP) required for the subcategory of electric generating units (EGUs) seeking to permanently stop coal combustion by December 31, 2034;
  • Extends compliance deadlines for zero-discharge limitations that apply to dischargers of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater, bottom ash (BA) transport water, and combustion residual leachate (CRL);
  • Establishes tiered standards for indirect discharges of FGD wastewater, BA transport water, and CRL; and
  • Adds provisions that allow facilities to transfer into and out of the subcategory of regulated EGUs that will permanently cease coal combustion by 2034 until December 31, 2034.

Who’s affected?

The final rule impacts EGUs subject to the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the steam electric power generating point source category (40 CFR Part 423).

What are the new deadlines?

The 2025 final rule delays the NOPP compliance date. It also extends the deadlines for zero-discharge limitations on FGD wastewater, BA transport water, and CRL. The delays apply to the best available economically achievable (BAT) limitations for direct dischargers and the pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) for indirect dischargers.

Requirement(s)Previous deadlineNew deadline
  • NOPP for permanent cessation of coal combustion by 2034
December 31, 2025December 31, 2031
(Direct dischargers)
  • FGD wastewater BAT
  • BA transport water BAT
  • CRL BAT
No later than December 31, 2029No later than December 31, 2034
(Indirect dischargers)
  • FGD wastewater PSES
  • BA transport water PSES
  • CRL PSES
May 9, 2027January 1, 2029, or site-specific date for BAT

What are the other changes?

EPA’s 2025 final rule sets tiered standards for indirect dischargers of FGD wastewater, BA transport water, and CRL:

  • The first tier requires indirect dischargers to meet pre-2024 final rule standards by January 1, 2029.
  • The second tier:
    • Allows indirect dischargers to continue indirectly discharging up to December 31, 2024, if they certify that they’ll convert to become direct dischargers; or
    • Requires indirect dischargers to meet the zero-discharge requirements by January 1, 2029, if they choose not to become direct dischargers.

The final rule also adds provisions that enable facilities to transfer into and out of the subcategory of regulated EGUs that will permanently cease coal combustion by 2034 until December 31, 2034. It allows EGUs to switch between complying with the zero-discharge limitations and the requirements that apply to the subcategory.

Key to remember: EPA has delayed certain compliance requirements for coal-fired steam electric power plants that discharge three types of wastewaters.

2026-01-02T06:00:00Z

New York establishes Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

Effective date: December 10, 2025

This applies to: Certain GHG emission sources

Description of change: Entities subject to 6 NYCRR Part 253 must submit annual reports of greenhouse (GHG) emissions during the previous calendar year by June 1. Reporting facilities must keep records used for the reports, and larger sources have to obtain third-party verification of their reported emissions. The first report will cover 2026 GHG emissions data and will be due on June 1, 2027.

The regulation applies to emission sources that are in a listed category and operate in New York. The rule establishes three reporting threshold categories:

  • Suppliers of fuels, electricity, or fertilizer;
  • Facilities that emit more than 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent of GHGs annually; and
  • Sources with a specific operational activity.

Related state info: Clean air operating permit state comparison

See More

Most Recent Highlights In Transportation

2026-01-02T06:00:00Z

Washington restricts PFAS products

Effective date: December 21, 2025

This applies to: Manufacturers, sellers, and distributors of certain consumer products with intentionally added PFAS

Description of change: The Washington State Department of Ecology amended regulations to restrict the manufacture, sale, and distribution of consumer products with intentionally added per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in these categories:

  • Apparel and accessories,
  • Automotive washes, and
  • Cleaning products.

The department also added requirements for manufacturers to report intentional use of PFAS for nine other consumer product categories, including:

  • Apparel intended for extreme and extended use,
  • Footwear,
  • Gear for recreation and travel,
  • Automotive waxes,
  • Cookware and kitchen supplies,
  • Firefighting personal protective equipment,
  • Floor waxes and polishes,
  • Hard surface sealers, and
  • Ski waxes.

New restrictions take effect on January 1, 2027, and initial reports are due by January 31, 2027 (and by January 31 annually thereafter).

Related state info: Hazardous waste generators — Washington

2026-01-02T06:00:00Z

New Jersey amends rules for contaminated site remediation, redevelopment

Effective date: November 17, 2025

This applies to: Facilities subject to site remediation and redevelopment regulations

Description of change: The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection made amendments to:

  • The Industrial Site Recovery Act,
  • The Administrative Requirements for the Remediation of Contaminated Sites,
  • The Technical Requirements for Site Remediation, and
  • The Heating Oil Tank System Remediation Rules.

In addition to adding the Site Remediation Reform Act’s requirements to the regulations, the department adopted amendments to simplify the remedial action permit process and implementation of the licensed site remediation professional program.

2026-01-02T06:00:00Z

New Hampshire adds fines for contaminated site management obligations

Effective date: November 4, 2025

This applies to: Parties responsible for investigating and remediating regulated sites impacted by releases of regulated contaminants

Description of change: The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services readopted contaminated site management rules with changes. The amended rule:

  • Adds requirements for the responsible party’s obligation for managing contaminated groundwater and soil during construction and dewatering activities,
  • Adds requirements for the responsible party’s obligations for assessing and remediating discharges causing vapor intrusion to indoor air,
  • Adds requirements for the responsible party’s obligation for managing extracted contaminated groundwater for dewatering purposes, and
  • Adds fines to implement when a responsible party doesn’t meet obligations.
2026-01-02T06:00:00Z

Florida adds grease waste hauler requirements

Effective date: December 7, 2025

This applies to: Haulers of grease waste from food establishments

Description of change: The Florida Department of Environmental Protection established removal and disposal regulations for haulers of grease waste from originator food establishments. Haulers must dispose of grease waste at certified facilities and document removals and disposals using a service manifest.

2026-01-02T06:00:00Z

California codifies industrial ethyl alcohol exemption

Effective date: November 17, 2025

This applies to: Generators, transporters, and recycling facilities

Description of change: The California Department of Toxic Substances Control adopted a permanent rule that exempts spent, unused, and off-specification industrial ethyl alcohol from a majority of the hazardous waste regulations when it’s recycled at a facility permitted by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.

The exemption isn’t new; it was adopted multiple times via temporary emergency rulemaking. This rulemaking action permanently establishes the exemption in the California Code of Regulations.

Related state info: Hazardous waste generators — California

See More

Most Recent Highlights In Safety & Health

2026-01-02T06:00:00Z

District of Columbia adds nonwoven disposable product regulations

Effective date: November 14, 2025

This applies to: Manufacturers of nonwoven disposable products sold in D.C.

Description of change: The Washington, D.C. Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE) added regulations (21 DCMR Chapter 24) for nonwoven disposable products labeling to implement the Nonwoven Disposable Products Act of 2016.

The chapter sets the standards for determining whether a nonwoven disposable product may be labeled as flushable, including testing and labeling requirements for flushable and nonflushable products. It applies to all nonwoven products that may potentially be used in a bathroom and flushed (e.g., baby wipes, disinfecting wipes, makeup removal wipes, general purpose cleaning wipes, etc.).

Compliance requirements start in May 2027.

Related state info: Industrial water permitting — District of Columbia

2026-01-02T06:00:00Z

Maryland establishes fuel provider reporting program

Effective date: December 22, 2025

This applies to: Heating fuel providers delivering heating fuel in Maryland

Description of change: The Maryland Department of the Environment established the Maryland Heating Fuel Provider Reporting Program. It requires heating fuel providers to submit an annual report by April 1 that covers the monthly amount of fuel delivered in the state, organized by fuel type, sector, and county.

Heating fuel providers should begin gathering data in January 2026. The initial report for calendar year 2026 will be due by April 1, 2027. The department plans to publish the annual reporting template in Spring 2026.

Related state info: Clean air operating permit state comparison

2026-01-02T06:00:00Z

California updates UST regulations

Effective date: January 1, 2026

This applies to: UST owners and operators

Description of change: The California State Water Resources Control Board updated the underground storage tank (UST) construction, monitoring, and testing requirements. Significant changes include:

  • Replacing the classification of new and existing USTs with a three-category classification system based on the installation date;
  • Requiring testing notifications to be sent to Unified Program Agencies (UPAs);
  • Requiring USTs installed on or after January 1, 2027, to be anchored;
  • Requiring UPA approval before repairing UST systems;
  • Reducing the timeline to submit enhanced leak detection test results to 30 days; and
  • Changing closure requirements.

Related state info: Underground storage tanks (USTs) — California

2026-01-02T06:00:00Z

Minnesota establishes PFAS reporting, fees rule

Effective date: December 8, 2025

This applies to: Manufacturers of products with intentionally added PFAS

Description of change: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency added rules that require manufacturers that sell, offer for sale, or distribute products in the state that contain intentionally added per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to:

  • Submit annual reports, and
  • Pay a fee.

The initial report is due by July 1, 2026. Thereafter, annual reports will be due by February 1. Reports will be submitted electronically through the PFAS Reporting and Information System for Manufacturers (PRISM).

2026-01-02T06:00:00Z

Iowa adds fees for Title V, asbestos air programs

Effective date: January 14, 2026

This applies to: Entities required to obtain a Title V operating permit and owners or operators of sites subject to asbestos notifications

Description of change: The Iowa Environmental Protection Commission added a new annual base fee for Title V operating permit holders, due by July 1.

Additionally, the commission added a fee for revising asbestos notifications. It applies to sites required by the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants to submit asbestos demolition or renovation notifications.

Related state info: Clean air operating permits state comparison

See More

Most Recent Highlights In Human Resources

Aboveground storage tanks: SPCC integrity test FAQs
2025-12-30T06:00:00Z

Aboveground storage tanks: SPCC integrity test FAQs

Integrity matters, especially when it’s the one factor standing between your aboveground storage container and the accidental release of thousands of gallons of oil. Consistently checking the structural soundness of aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) is vital to preventing spills and the potential related consequences.

Facilities covered by the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule must inspect and test ASTs for integrity regularly. By comparing the test results, facilities can monitor changes in the condition of ASTs and determine whether it’s safe to keep using them.

Consider these FAQs about inspections and tests to help ensure your facility’s aboveground tanks are structurally sound.

What do industry standards have to do with integrity testing?

The answer in one word is everything. EPA’s SPCC rule requires facilities to regularly inspect and test ASTs in accordance with industry standards (40 CFR 112.8(c)(6)). The standards are technical guidelines that serve as the minimum practices accepted for inspections and tests.

The regulations require facilities to develop and implement an SPCC Plan to prevent, prepare for, and respond to oil spills. In the plan, facilities establish how they’ll conduct integrity inspections and tests for ASTs (referred to as bulk storage containers in the regulations). If your SPCC Plan states that the facility will use a specific industry standard for integrity inspections and tests, it must comply with all relevant parts of that standard.

In EPA’s Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) Program Bulk Storage Container Inspection Fact Sheet, the agency references two industry standards frequently used for integrity inspections and tests:

  • American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 653, Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction; and
  • Steel Tank Institute (STI) SP001, Standard for the Inspection of Aboveground Storage Tanks.

When should facilities conduct integrity tests?

EPA requires facilities to inspect or test ASTs for integrity:

  • On a regular schedule, and
  • Whenever you make material repairs.

Your facility must use industry standards to determine the types and frequency of inspections and tests needed. These considerations have to be based on the AST’s size, configuration, and design.

Who can conduct integrity tests?

Generally, industry standards mandate that certified individuals conduct integrity inspections and tests. The standards should describe the qualifications an individual must have to be considered certified. This may involve certifying individuals in your facility or hiring certified personnel.

What are the types of integrity inspections and testing?

The proper type of integrity inspection or test (which must be nondestructive) depends on the specific container and its configuration. Industry standards identify the type of inspection or test needed and may require using a combination of methods. Examples include:

  • Acoustic emissions testing,
  • Helium leak testing,
  • Hydrostatic testing,
  • Inert gas leak testing,
  • Liquid penetrant examinations,
  • Magnetic flux leakage scanning,
  • Magnetic particle examinations,
  • Radiographic testing,
  • Ultrasonic testing,
  • Ultrasonic thickness measurements,
  • Vacuum box testing,
  • Visual inspections, and
  • Weld inspections.

Industry standards may require your facility to establish baseline conditions for ASTs that haven’t undergone integrity testing or where such information isn’t available (e.g., when a business purchases a facility with ASTs). The baseline evaluation determines the container’s metal thickness, corrosion rates, and likely remaining service. Facilities then compare the results of subsequent integrity inspections and tests with the baseline data.

What are the recordkeeping requirements?

The SPCC rule requires facilities to maintain integrity inspection and test records (namely, comparison records) for at least 3 years. These records must be signed by the supervisor or inspector and kept with the SPCC Plan. Consider maintaining these records for the life of the AST, especially since many industry standards recommend it.

What’s a hybrid inspection program?

Sometimes, an alternative inspection program may be more appropriate than using an industry standard. If your facility and a certified Professional Engineer (PE) determine this to be the case, you can implement an environmentally equivalent inspection program. The SPCC rule also allows some facilities to replace certain parts of an industry standard with environmentally equivalent approaches.

However, these hybrid (site-specific) programs have additional regulatory requirements. A facility with a hybrid inspection program must include in the SPCC Plan:

  • A certification by the PE of the alternative program,
  • An explanation of why the facility isn’t using industry standards,
  • A comprehensive description of the alternative program, and
  • A description of how the alternative provides the same environmental protection as the relevant industry standard.

What about state requirements?

State and local AST regulations must be at least as stringent as EPA’s requirements. However, some may require additional or stricter compliance obligations. Verify AST rules with the state environmental agency.

Key to remember: Industry standards determine how a facility conducts integrity inspections and tests on aboveground storage tanks.

Lamps, batteries, and fines: Fixing the 5 biggest universal waste mistakes
2025-12-19T06:00:00Z

Lamps, batteries, and fines: Fixing the 5 biggest universal waste mistakes

Let’s be honest, managing compliance is tough. But when it comes to Universal Waste (UW), items like fluorescent bulbs, used batteries, aerosol cans, and old thermostats can expose employers to fines without them even realizing it. Why? Because Universal Waste is the ultimate regulatory paradox. These items are still classified as hazardous waste, but the EPA created a streamlined rule set (40 CFR Part 273) to make recycling easier. The problem is that many employers assume "streamlined" means "ignorable." Fixing these problems is incredibly straightforward. By tackling the most common UW mistakes, you don’t just avoid penalties; you build a predictable, efficient, and cost-effective waste program.

Top 5 universal waste violations and how to avoid them

  1. The container crime: Leaving it open - Leaving a Universal Waste container open is a common and costly mistake. When boxes or drums holding items like lamps and batteries are left unsealed or without a proper lid, the risk of contamination skyrockets. If a fluorescent tube breaks, mercury vapor escapes; if a battery leaks, corrosive material spills. An open container is considered a failure to prevent a release, which is a core hazardous waste violation. The fix is simple: close the container immediately. Train designated handlers to ensure containers remain sealed except when adding or removing waste, and use containers specifically designed for UW, such as fiber drums for lamps with secure, sealable lids. If it’s open, it’s a violation waiting to happen.
  2. The ticking clock: Missing the accumulation date - Missing the accumulation date is a violation that can cost you. Every Universal Waste container must clearly show the date when the first item was placed inside, and both Small and Large Quantity Handlers have only one year (365 days) to store UW before it must be shipped off-site. Without a visible start date, inspectors will assume you have exceeded that limit. The solution is simple: mark it and track it. Use a permanent marker to write the “Start Date” directly on the container, and do not wait until day 364 to act. A digital spreadsheet or calendar reminder can help you stay ahead, and scheduling vendor pickups between the 9- and 11-month mark creates a critical 30-day buffer against delays or conflicts.
  3. The DIY treatment disaster - Attempting to treat Universal Waste on-site is a recipe for violations. Crushing bulbs, mixing incompatible waste streams, or dismantling items to save space may seem efficient, but it is strictly prohibited under UW rules. These regulations are designed to simplify storage and not treatment. Breaking a fluorescent bulb outside of a permitted device not only risks mercury exposure but also constitutes hazardous waste mismanagement. The fix is simple is to train personnel that their role is to store and package waste correctly, not to alter or treat it. Keep fragile items in secure areas where they will not be crushed by forklifts or stacked boxes. Managing UW means preventing breakage, not creating it.
  4. The identity crisis: Improper labeling - Improper labeling is a common Universal Waste mistake that can lead to serious compliance issues. Containers marked vaguely such as “Recycling” or simply “Hazardous Waste” fail to meet regulatory requirements and create confusion for inspectors and emergency responders who need instant clarity. The term “Hazardous Waste” applies only to RCRA hazardous waste, not UW, and mixing these labels signals that your team has not properly identified the waste stream. Be specific and clear. Every UW container must include the words “Universal Waste” followed by the exact type of material, such as:
    • “Universal Waste – Spent Lamps”
    • “Universal Waste – Used Batteries”
    • “Universal Waste – Mercury-Containing Equipment”
  5. The knowledge gap: Training deficiencies - Training deficiencies are one of the most overlooked Universal Waste compliance gaps. Employees responsible for handling or managing UW must receive documented, recurring training on identification, accumulation limits, and handling protocols. Even the best-written program will fail if the staff placing items into containers do not understand the rules — especially dating and labeling requirements. Without proper training, an audit failure is almost guaranteed. The fix is straightforward — provide documented, annual training. Make sure every relevant staff member understands your facility’s specific UW streams key compliance practices. Maintain clear records of who was trained, when, and on what topics This paper trail is your strongest defense during an inspection.

Keys to remember: Universal waste compliance hinges on keeping containers closed, labeled, dated, and ensuring employees managing these materials are trained and documenting their actions. When your program is consistent, simple, and intentional, you eliminate preventable violations and turn UW management into a predictable, low-risk process.

Ripple effect: How data centers influence compliance strategies
2025-12-17T06:00:00Z

Ripple effect: How data centers influence compliance strategies

The rapid growth of data centers creates new challenges for other regulated facilities. Expansion driven by artificial intelligence (AI) and cloud computing increases their impact on environmental compliance. Key areas include air permitting, attainment status, and regional power supply.

Data centers and air permitting

Data centers depend on backup power to stay online during outages. Most use natural gas or diesel generators. These units release pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. When many generators operate together, their potential emissions can push regions close to or beyond National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This shift can threaten local attainment status and make it harder for nearby facilities to get new permits.

What EPA is doing

On December 11, 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA’s) Office of Air and Radiation launched the “Clean Air Act Resources for Data Centers” webpage. It provides regulatory guidance, permitting tools, and technical letters. The goal is to make air permitting for data centers faster and more transparent while protecting air quality.

Why this matters for other regulated facilities

  • Attainment status at risk

Large data centers add cumulative emissions from multiple generators. Even permitted emissions from nearby plants can combine and push an area into nonattainment. That change triggers stricter air permitting rules for everyone.

  • Power demand competition

Data centers use large amounts of electricity. They often need on-site generators or new grid connections. This can strain local power supplies. In some cases, grid operators give data centers priority during peak demand, leaving other facilities with less reliable power.

  • Stricter air quality modeling requirements

Some states now require detailed modeling for backup generators. For example, Illinois reviewed 34 generators for one data center before granting a permit. If modeling shows high emissions, regulators may limit operating hours or require extra controls.

Broader regulatory shifts

EPA recently updated its interpretation of New Source Review (NSR) rules. In September 2025, the agency said construction can start before full air permits are issued, as long as emission-related work waits for approval. This speeds up projects but makes it harder for neighboring facilities to predict cumulative emissions early.

What non-data center facilities should do

  • Stay informed

Watch for new data center projects in your area. Their emissions could affect your permits.

  • Engage early

Join public comment periods for data center permits. Push for full modeling of combined impacts.

  • Plan for power

Work with grid operators. Understand how demand-response programs and EPA’s “50-hour rule” for emergency generators affect your reliability.

  • Choose sites wisely

Consider locating new projects in areas with robust infrastructure and cleaner attainment status. Data centers might compete for the same grid upgrades or site approvals.

Key to remember: Data centers are more than tech hubs. They influence air permitting and power allocation. Their growth can affect your ability to expand, or even operate, under current compliance rules.

Acid Rain Program compliance: SO2 vs. NOx
2025-12-11T06:00:00Z

Acid Rain Program compliance: SO2 vs. NOx

Did you know that the federal government regulates the power sector’s impact on rain? The Acid Rain Program limits the amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) — the main causes of acid rain — that fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (EGUs) may emit. However, the SO2 and NOx reduction programs operate differently, and the ways that facilities can meet the SO2 and NOx limits are distinct.

It's essential to know the compliance options because facilities that don’t meet the SO2 and NOx standards must pay penalties for their excess emissions. And in November 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set higher penalties for the next two compliance years.

So, what are the differences?

Who’s affected?

The first thing to confirm is whether your facility is subject to the Acid Rain Program (40 CFR 72.6). The program regulates fossil fuel-fired power plants. It applies to:

  • EGUs that serve generators with an output capacity of more than 25 megawatts, and
  • All new EGUs.

Note that the NOx program applies to a specific subset of coal-fired boilers.

SO2 reduction program

EPA operates the SO2 reduction program through an allowance trading system (Part 73). The agency sets a cap on the total SO2 emissions for the year and then allocates SO2 allowances to regulated units. One allowance represents 1 ton of SO2 emissions.

For each compliance year, a facility must show that it has enough allowances to cover its emissions of SO2. It’s similar to EPA’s hydrofluorocarbon allowance program.

There are multiple compliance options. Facilities may:

  • Sell extra allowances if they have more allowances than needed,
  • Save extra allowances if they have more allowances than needed (and use them in the future), or
  • Buy extra allowances if they can’t keep emissions below their allocated level.

Facilities can purchase allowances from or sell allowances to individuals, companies, groups, or brokers. Additionally, facilities may bid on allowances at EPA’s annual Acid Rain Program SO2 Allowance Auction.

NOx reduction program

EPA sets annual emission limits for the NOx reduction program (Part 76), which applies to these types of boilers:

  • Dry bottom wall-fired boilers,
  • Tangentially fired boilers,
  • Cell burner boilers,
  • Cyclone boilers,
  • Vertically fired boilers, and
  • Wet bottom boilers.

Like the SO2 program, the NOx program offers multiple compliance options. Facilities can:

  • Meet the standard annual emission limitations,
  • Average the emissions rates of two or more boilers, or
  • Apply for an alternative emission limit (AEL) if they can’t meet the standard emission limit.

Additional requirements apply to facilities that use options other than complying with the limits:

  • Facilities that want to average emissions rates must submit an averaging plan that’s approved by the permitting authorities (76.11).
  • Facilities that apply for an AEL are required to use the NOx emission control technology used as the basis for the emission limit and must demonstrate that the unit can’t comply using the technology (76.10).

It pays (or, at least, costs less) to comply!

Excess emissions penalties can add up quickly. That’s why it’s vital to ensure your facility understands how to comply with the SO2 and NOx reduction programs properly.

The adjustment rates that EPA set for compliance years 2025 and 2026 (2.5265 and 2.6001, respectively) are used to calculate the total penalties a facility must pay if it exceeds SO2 or NOx limits during these compliance years.

Here are the formulas:

  • Penalty for excess SO2 emissions = $2,000/ton x annual adjustment factor x tons of excess SO2 emissions
  • Penalty for excess NOx emissions = $2,000/ton x annual adjustment factor x tons of excess NOx emissions

Let’s run through a couple of examples of what noncompliance could cost.

FactorsPenalty Per TonTotal Penalties
  • Tons of excess SO2 emissions: 10
  • Compliance year: 2025
  • Annual adjustment factor: 2.5265
$2,000 x 2.5265 = $5,053$5,053 x 10 = $50,530
  • Tons of excess NOx emissions: 5
  • Compliance year: 2026
  • Annual adjustment factor: 2.6001
$2,000 x 2.6001 = $5,200.20$5,200.20 x 5 = $26,001

As shown in the example above, excess emissions can cost facilities a lot in penalties. Just 1 ton of excess emissions will result in more than $5,000! Knowing your compliance options for the Acid Rain Program’s SO2 and NOx reduction programs can help your facility avoid steep fines.

Key to remember: The Acid Rain Program limits SO2 and NOx emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants, but the compliance options for each type of emission differ. Understanding the distinct options can help facilities avoid penalties for excess emissions.

EPA’s 2026 regulatory shift: How environmental managers can stay ahead
2025-12-05T06:00:00Z

EPA’s 2026 regulatory shift: How environmental managers can stay ahead

The clock is ticking for environmental teams. By 2026, several new EPA regulations will reshape compliance obligations for U.S. companies. Organizations that act now will avoid costly penalties and operational disruptions.

What’s changing and why it matters

Although EPA has been deregulating or loosening some requirements, there are still some standards being tightened across multiple fronts in the coming year:

  • Renewable fuel standards (RFS): The EPA proposed higher volume requirements for 2026, including 24.02 billion renewable identification numbers (RINs), up nearly 8% from 2025. This increase pushes stricter expectations on fuel producers and organizations purchasing renewable fuels.
  • Stormwater multi-sector general permit (MSGP): A new MSGP set to take effect by February 2026 will require quarterly PFAS indicator monitoring, expanded benchmark sampling, and resiliency measures in stormwater control designs.
  • PFAS Reporting under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): TSCA Section 8(a)(7) mandates PFAS manufacturing and import data collection beginning in April 2026, through October 2026, with extended deadlines for certain small manufacturers.

Failure to prepare could lead to fines, reputational damage, supply chain disruptions, and permit delays. Companies that weave compliance planning into their 2026 strategy will be positioned not just to meet legal deadlines but to sustain operations smoothly.

Key areas of impact

  • Renewable fuel standards (RFS) and air emissions The proposed increase in 2026 Renewable Identification Numbers (RIN) volumes, from 24.02 billion to 24.46 billion for 2027, signals tightening air and fuels policy that affects fuel use and emissions accounting.
  • Stormwater management The upcoming 2026 MSGP requires expanded quarterly PFAS monitoring, new benchmark triggers, corrective action plans, and integration of climate resilience in design standards.
  • PFAS disclosure (TSCA Section 8(a)(7)) Manufacturers and importers of PFAS must submit electronic reporting of usage, volumes, disposal, and exposure data between April and October 2026, with extensions available for smaller operations.

Steps to take now

  • Audit compliance programs: Cross-check operations against RIN inventory, stormwater permits, and TSCA reporting duties.
  • Upgrade monitoring and recordkeeping: Implement robust electronic systems to track PFAS, stormwater quality, fuel volumes, and emissions.
  • Staff training: Educate teams on PFAS obligations, new stormwater protocols, and RFS structures.
  • Engage regulators early: Comment on proposed rules, consult during permit drafting, and flag issues during the notice-and-comment period.

Looking ahead

The EPA’s 2026 updates reflect a trend toward increased transparency and environmental accountability. Companies that treat compliance as strategic will not only avoid enforcement but also gain resilience and stakeholder trust.

Key to remember: Start planning now. Early action on EPA rule changes will save time, money, and headaches when enforcement begins.

See More
New Network Poll
In what areas are you most concerned should you face a regulatory audit?

In what areas are you most concerned should you face a regulatory audit?

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