Compliance Just Got Easier: Stay ahead of regulatory changes with instant notifications on updates that matter.
['Drug and Alcohol Testing - DOT']
['Random alcohol and drug testing- Motor Carrier', 'Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse - Motor Carrier']
2022-10-06T05:00:00Z
JOIN TODAY TO CONTINUE READING THIS ARTICLE & OTHER INDUSTRY NEWS!
You'll also get exclusive access to:
A database of easy-to-understand regulationsAsk unlimited questions to our expertsPre-led discussions forumsAnd more
TRY IT FREE TODAY
Already have an account? Log in now.
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsFleet SafetyFederal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOTDrug and Alcohol Testing - DOTRandom alcohol and drug testing- Motor CarrierFocus AreaUSAEnglishTransportationDrug and Alcohol Clearinghouse - Motor Carrier
Drug and alcohol violations on track for new high
2022-10-06T05:00:00Z
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) just released its Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse monthly summary report for August 2022. What it reveals is a worrisome trend in the number of violations that have been reported to the Clearinghouse since January 6, 2020.
The Clearinghouse reports 55,283 total drug and alcohol violations for the first year of its existence. The following year, total violations jumped 9.5 percent, increasing to 60,544. By the end of August 2022, the Clearinghouse had already received 48,312 reports of drug and alcohol violations. If the rate of violations stays consistent for the rest of the year, 2022 is on track to see over 72,000 violations, which is an almost 20 percent increase over last year.
Marijuana remains the number one substance identified in positive drug tests, accounting for close to 60 percent of the substances found. This may indicate a need for stronger messaging to drivers that marijuana is a Schedule I drug that is always prohibited for CDL drivers. Medical and recreational marijuana use, although it may be legal depending on the state, is still a violation for CDL drivers per §382.213. Drivers should also be aware that CBD oil can cause a driver to test positive for THC. Even though CBD oils are often labeled with the percentage of THC they contain, the oils are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), so there’s no guarantee that the percentage indicated by the manufacturer is accurate.
CDL drivers who commit a drug or alcohol violation must be pulled from performing safety-sensitive functions, including driving any commercial motor vehicle (CMV) — including non-CDL CMVs — until they successfully complete the substance abuse professional (SAP) process, pass a return-to-duty test, and the “prohibited” status is removed from their Clearinghouse record.

NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsFleet SafetyFederal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOTDrug and Alcohol Testing - DOTRandom alcohol and drug testing- Motor CarrierFocus AreaUSAEnglishTransportationDrug and Alcohol Clearinghouse - Motor Carrier
Drug and alcohol violations on track for new high
2022-10-06T05:00:00Z
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) just released its Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse monthly summary report for August 2022. What it reveals is a worrisome trend in the number of violations that have been reported to the Clearinghouse since January 6, 2020.
The Clearinghouse reports 55,283 total drug and alcohol violations for the first year of its existence. The following year, total violations jumped 9.5 percent, increasing to 60,544. By the end of August 2022, the Clearinghouse had already received 48,312 reports of drug and alcohol violations. If the rate of violations stays consistent for the rest of the year, 2022 is on track to see over 72,000 violations, which is an almost 20 percent increase over last year.
Marijuana remains the number one substance identified in positive drug tests, accounting for close to 60 percent of the substances found. This may indicate a need for stronger messaging to drivers that marijuana is a Schedule I drug that is always prohibited for CDL drivers. Medical and recreational marijuana use, although it may be legal depending on the state, is still a violation for CDL drivers per §382.213. Drivers should also be aware that CBD oil can cause a driver to test positive for THC. Even though CBD oils are often labeled with the percentage of THC they contain, the oils are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), so there’s no guarantee that the percentage indicated by the manufacturer is accurate.
CDL drivers who commit a drug or alcohol violation must be pulled from performing safety-sensitive functions, including driving any commercial motor vehicle (CMV) — including non-CDL CMVs — until they successfully complete the substance abuse professional (SAP) process, pass a return-to-duty test, and the “prohibited” status is removed from their Clearinghouse record.
See More
RELATED NEWS
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsFleet SafetyEnglishFederal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOTDrug and Alcohol Testing - DOTDrug testing - Motor CarrierFocus AreaUSAAlcohol testing - Motor CarrierTransportationDrug and Alcohol Clearinghouse - Motor Carrier
01/29/2021
CDL Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse stats from 2020
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsFleet SafetyFederal Motor Carrier Safety RegulationsHours of ServiceDrug and Alcohol Testing - DOTDriver's record of duty statusFocus AreaUSAEnglishTransportationBusiness planning - Motor CarrierDrug and Alcohol Clearinghouse - Motor Carrier
03/17/2021
Clearinghouse statistics shed light on drug and alcohol use

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
NewsGreenhouse GasesEnforcement and Audits - OSHAMonthly Roundup VideoWalking Working SurfacesCAA ComplianceUSAInjury and Illness RecordkeepingLaddersEnglishIndustry NewsEnforcement and Audits - OSHAOSHA InspectionsSafety & HealthInjury and Illness Recording CriteriaGeneral Industry SafetyEnvironmentalFocus AreaAir ProgramsVideo
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!
NewsGreenhouse GasesToxic Substances Control Act - EPAToxic Subtances Control Act - EPATSCA ComplianceMonthly Roundup VideoCAA ComplianceUSAHazard CommunicationEnglishIndustry NewsSafety & HealthConstruction SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyMaritime SafetyEnvironmentalFocus AreaHazard CommunicationAir ProgramsVideo
EHS Monthly Round Up - May 2026
In this May 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.
The first compliance date for the revised HazCom standard took effect May 19. Employers who work with chemical substances that are aerosols, desensitized explosives, or flammable gases should start to see updated safety data sheets and labels. On a related note, OSHA revised its HazCom directive for inspectors. It instructs OSHA officers on how to conduct inspections and issue citations under the standard. However, it also provides chemical manufacturers, importers, distributors, and employers with insight into what officers will be assessing.
OSHA revoked a standard that prohibited open fires and fires in drums or similar containers in marine terminals. The agency stated that since this is no longer typical practice, removing the standard would lessen the compliance burden without compromising worker safety.
OSHA received the backing of an advisory committee as it advances a comprehensive Tree Care Operations proposal. During the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health meeting, the group unanimously voted in favor of moving ahead. This clears the path for OSHA to publish its long-awaited proposal.
Turning to environmental news, EPA extended the submission date for the TSCA Section 8(d) Health and Safety Data Reporting Rule one-time report from May 22, 2026, to May 21, 2027.
EPA published the first round of expiring confidential business information claims for information submitted under TSCA. The list covers claims that expire from June 22 to July 31, 2026. Businesses must submit extension requests to keep the information protected.
EPA postponed the effective compliance date for trichloroethylene users with TSCA Section 6(g) exemptions until pending judicial review is concluded. The agency has yet to establish a new compliance date.
And finally, EPA revised HFC use restrictions for certain subsectors. This applies to entities that are subject to the 2023 Technology Transition Rule requirements. The agency also proposed a rule that would exempt transportation refrigeration units from leak repair requirements regardless of charge size.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
NewsWaste ManifestsEnforcement and Audits - OSHAWater ProgramsMonthly Roundup VideoCAA ComplianceUSACWA ComplianceStormwaterWaste/HazWasteEnglishAir ProgramsIndustry NewsEnforcement and Audits - OSHAMunicipal WastewaterSafety & HealthGeneral Industry SafetyWasteEnvironmentalFocus AreaAir ProgramsVideo
EHS Monthly Round Up - March 2026
In this March 2026 roundup video, we'll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news.
Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news. Let’s take a look at what happened over the past month.
OSHA released an updated Job Safety and Health poster. Employers can use either the revised version or the older one, but the poster must be displayed in a conspicuous place where workers can easily see it.
OSHA recently removed a link from its Data topic webpage that displayed a list of “high-penalty cases” at or over $40,000 since 2015. The agency says it discontinued and removed it in December. The data is frozen and archived elsewhere.
OSHA published two new resources as part of its newly launched Safety Champions Program. The fact sheet provides an overview of how the program works, eligibility criteria, and key benefits. The step-by-step guide helps businesses navigate the core elements of OSHA’s Recommended Practices for Safety and Health Programs.
Several forces are nudging OSHA to address a number of workplace hazards and high-hazard industries. This comes from other agencies, safety organizations, watchdogs, legislative proposals, and persistent injury/fatality data. Among the hazards are combustible dust; first aid; personal protective equipment; and workplace violence. How all this translates into new regulations, guidance, programmed inspections, or other initiatives remains to be seen.
Turning to environmental news, EPA issued a proposed rule to require waste handlers to use electronic manifests to track all RCRA hazardous waste shipments. Stakeholders have until May 4 to comment on the proposal.
On March 10, EPA finalized stronger emission limits for new and existing large municipal waste combustors and made other changes to related standards.
And finally, EPA temporarily extended coverage under the 2021 Multi-Sector General Permit for industrial stormwater discharges until the agency issues a new general permit. The permit expired February 28 and remains in effect for facilities previously covered. EPA won’t take enforcement action against new facilities for unpermitted stormwater discharges if the facilities meet specific conditions.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
NewsGreenhouse GasesToxic Substances Control Act - EPASafe Drinking WaterWater AnalysisWater ProgramsWater QualityMaximum Contaminant LevelsWalking Working SurfacesMonthly Roundup VideoCAA ComplianceSolid WasteCWA ComplianceLaddersWaste/HazWasteEnglishHeat StressUSAIndustry NewsHeat and Cold ExposureSafety & HealthGeneral Industry SafetyWasteMaritime SafetyEnvironmentalFocus AreaWater MonitoringVolatile Organic CompoundsAir ProgramsStationary Emission SourcesVideo
EHS Monthly Round Up - April 2026
In this April 2026 roundup video, we’ll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news.
Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news. Let’s take a look at what happened over the past month.
OSHA revised its National Emphasis Program on heat-related hazards. Going forward, the agency will prioritize inspections in 55 high-risk industries in indoor and outdoor work settings. The program remains in effect for 5 years from its April 10 effective date.
An OSHA proposed rule seeks to eliminate the November 18, 2036, deadline in the Walking-Working Surfaces standard that would require all fixed ladders extending more than 24 feet above a lower level to be equipped with personal fall arrest systems or ladder safety systems. OSHA also seeks feedback on nine specific questions related to the proposal, with comments due on June 5.
On April 17, OSHA revoked its House Falls in Marine Terminals standard at 1917.41. The agency said that because most cargo has been containerized and is moved by cranes, the standard is no longer necessary to protect employees.
Turning to environmental news, an EPA final rule further delays the submission period for the one-time PFAS report required of manufacturers. It pushes the start of the submission period to either 60 days after the effective date of a future final rule updating the PFAS Reporting Rule or January 31, 2027, whichever comes first.
An EPA final rule makes technical changes to the emission standards established in March 2024 for crude oil and natural gas facilities. The changes take effect June 8.
EPA published the draft 6th Contaminant Candidate List for the next group of contaminants to be considered for regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The proposed list designates microplastics and pharmaceuticals as priority contaminant groups for the first time.
And finally, EPA plans to make significant changes to coal combustion residuals requirements. A proposed rule published April 13 would revise the regulations governing the disposal of coal combustion residuals in landfills and surface impoundments, as well as the beneficial use of coal combustion residuals.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
NewsAir QualityStationary Emission SourcesEnforcement and Audits - OSHAToxic Substances Control Act - EPAAir EmissionsSafe Drinking WaterTSCA ComplianceWater ProgramsWater QualityMonthly Roundup VideoCAA ComplianceAir PermittingHazard CommunicationUSAEnglishHeat StressOSHA Violations and PenaltiesIndustry NewsHeat and Cold ExposureSafety & HealthToxic Substances - EPAGeneral Industry SafetyEnvironmentalFocus AreaWater MonitoringHazard CommunicationAir ProgramsExtreme Temperature PreparationVideo
EHS Monthly Round Up - June 2026
In this June 2026 roundup video, we'll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news.
Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news. Let’s take a look at what happened over the past month.
OSHA won’t increase its penalty amounts in 2026. The agency is required to annually adjust its penalties for inflation, based specifically on the October Consumer Price Index data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Due to a lapse in funding, BLS did not release the October 2025 data. Because no alternative calculation is allowed, OSHA penalties will remain at the 2025 amounts.
OSHA updated its inspection guidance for the Hazard Communication standard. While the document is geared towards OSHA inspectors, it provides insights for chemical manufacturers, importers, distributors, and employers as to what the agency will look for during an inspection.
OSHA will hold a series of informal, virtual hearings on multiple proposed rules beginning August 19th. The majority relate to respiratory protection requirements for different chemical substances. All of the proposed rules were originally published in the Federal Register on July 1, 2025.
Nevada OSHA published a list of frequently asked questions related to its recently adopted heat illness rule. The state’s rule took effect April 29.
Turning to environmental news, EPA restored emergency-related affirmative defense provisions for Title V operating permits. This allows stationary sources to assert a regulatory affirmative defense for certain air emission violations caused by events beyond their control.
EPA released two proposed rules that would have major impacts on drinking water regulations for PFAS. The agency will accept comments on the proposals until July 20.
And finally, EPA now allows facilities to submit PCB annual reports electronically. Facilities can start with the upcoming report that’s due July 15.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
Most Recent Highlights In Transportation
NewsCERCLA, SARA, EPCRA CERCLA, SARA, EPCRASafety and Health Programs and TrainingElectronic Reporting of Injury and Illness RecordsWater ProgramsMonthly Roundup VideoSafety and Health Programs and TrainingUSAWater ProgramsHazard CommunicationInjury and Illness RecordkeepingEnglishTier II Inventory ReportingIndustry NewsSafety & HealthInjury and Illness RecordkeepingWater ReportingGeneral Industry SafetyEnvironmentalHazard CommunicationSARA ComplianceFocus AreaVideo
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!
NewsIndustry NewsEnglishEnvironmental Management SystemsEMS PlanningEnvironmentalIn-Depth ArticleLifecycle AnalysisUSAEnvironmental Management SystemsFocus AreaEnvironmental Management Systems
2026-08-05T05:00:00Z
Environmental compliance during capital projects: What gets missed most often
Capital projects often focus on budgets, schedules, engineering specifications, and operational goals. Project teams, however, is frequently treat environmental compliance as a secondary consideration until late in the project lifecycle. That approach can create costly delays, permit violations, unexpected expenses, and even enforcement actions.
The most commonly missed environmental compliance issue during capital projects is the failure to evaluate how seemingly routine changes affect regulatory obligations. Changes to equipment, raw materials, production capacity, fuel usage, waste generation, emissions, water discharges, or storage practices can trigger new environmental requirements. What appears to be a straightforward operational improvement may alter permit applicability, increase emissions, generate new waste streams, or require additional monitoring and recordkeeping. Organizations that wait until construction is underway to ask environmental compliance questions often discover that regulatory reviews should have occurred months earlier.
Operational changes can trigger new requirements
Many capital projects are initiated to improve efficiency, increase production, or expand capabilities. As a result, project teams often focus on engineering and operational objectives without fully evaluating how proposed changes will affect environmental compliance.
Even relatively modest modifications can create compliance obligations that were not considered during project planning. A project that increases throughput, changes operating patterns, or introduces new materials may trigger additional permitting, monitoring, or reporting requirements. Facilities that conduct environmental reviews during the early planning stages are generally better positioned to identify and address these issues before they affect project schedules.
Air and water impacts are often underestimated
Air permitting is one area where projects frequently encounter surprises. Process changes and production increases can affect emission calculations and permit thresholds. Facilities sometimes assume that replacing equipment with newer technology automatically improves compliance. In reality, changes in throughput, operating hours, fuels, or process materials can increase potential emissions or trigger new regulatory requirements even when newer equipment is more efficient.
Water-related requirements are also frequently overlooked. Site expansions may alter drainage patterns, increase impervious surfaces, or create new industrial stormwater exposure areas. Construction activities can trigger erosion and sediment control obligations, while process changes may affect wastewater characteristics, discharge volumes, or pretreatment requirements. These issues are often easier and less expensive to address during project design than after construction begins.
Chemical and waste management challenges
Hazardous waste and chemical management considerations are also frequently overlooked during capital projects. Introducing new raw materials, products, or process chemicals may create waste streams that require different handling, storage, transportation, or disposal practices.
Additional storage capacity may require updates to spill prevention measures, emergency response procedures, or chemical inventories. In some cases, project teams do not identify these impacts until after equipment is installed and operational.
Facilities may also discover that existing waste determinations no longer apply to modified operations. Failure to evaluate new or changed waste streams can result in improper waste management practices and increased regulatory risk.
Compliance doesn't end with the permit
Permitting is only one component of environmental compliance. Capital projects often require updates to a variety of compliance-related documents and programs that support day-to-day operations.
Facilities may need to revise Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs), Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans, inspection procedures, training materials, and recordkeeping systems. These updates are sometimes overlooked when project teams focus primarily on obtaining permits or completing construction milestones.
Failing to update supporting documentation can create compliance gaps even when all necessary permits have been obtained.
Communication and change management matter
Another common challenge is communication. Environmental compliance responsibilities often extend beyond environmental staff to engineering, operations, maintenance, purchasing personnel, and contractors. When environmental requirements are not communicated effectively, critical information may never reach those responsible for implementing controls, maintaining records, or conducting inspections.
Many of these issues can be traced to the absence of a formal management of change (MOC) process. Capital projects frequently evolve as designs are refined, equipment is substituted, or project scopes change. Without a structured review process, environmental impacts identified early in the project may no longer reflect the final design.
An effective MOC process helps ensure that environmental considerations are reevaluated throughout the life of a project rather than only during the initial planning phase.
Building compliance into the project lifecycle
Most capital project compliance problems are preventable. Organizations that involve environmental personnel early, integrate compliance reviews into project planning, maintain clear communication channels, and establish a structured change-management process are less likely to encounter regulatory surprises.
Environmental compliance should be incorporated throughout planning, design, construction, and startup activities. Doing so can help organizations identify potential issues sooner, avoid costly delays, and reduce the likelihood of noncompliance after a project becomes operational.
Key to remember: The most common compliance pitfalls in capital projects stem from failing to evaluate how operational changes affect existing environmental requirements.
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsWater PermittingWater ProgramsEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)EnvironmentalCWA ComplianceStormwaterEnglishFocus AreaUSA
2026-08-04T05:00:00Z
EPA proposes 2027 general stormwater permit for construction
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the proposed 2027 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit (CGP) for public comment on August 3, 2026. The CGP covers stormwater discharges from construction activities.
Who’s impacted?
The CGP applies to construction activities in areas where EPA is the NPDES permitting authority (including Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and the District of Columbia). Construction site operators must obtain a stormwater discharge permit for any construction activity that:
- Disturbs 1 acre or more of land, or
- Disturbs less than 1 acre of land but is part of a larger common plan of development or sale that will disturb 1 acre or more of land.
What are the proposed changes to the CGP?
EPA’s proposed 2027 CGP contains multiple modifications to the 2022 CGP. Significant changes include:
- Replacing the broad requirement for permittees to “meet applicable water quality standards” for receiving waters (i.e., the waters that permittees discharge into) with more specific limits that indicate water quality problems in the discharge and applying these indicator conditions to all permittees;
- Requiring CGP applicants to submit with the Notice of Intent (NOI) an electronic copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), a website address where the SWPPP can be viewed, or a copy of the SWPPP site map and the signed certification;
- Requiring construction sites that install a sediment basin to implement stabilization measures before directing stormwater to the basin; and
- Streamlining specific requirements, such as:
- Clarifying that perimeter sediment controls are only required for areas that may receive stormwater from disturbed areas;
- Clarifying the stabilization deadlines for sites in arid, semi-arid, and drought-stricken areas;
- Allowing sites that experience unforeseeable winter weather conditions to temporarily suspend the requirement to stabilize exposed portions of the site for 14 days or more of inactivity while the extreme weather conditions persist;
- Eliminating the requirement to submit pre-stabilization photos with a Notice of Termination;
- Reducing the frequency of turbidity monitoring from daily to weekly for sites discharging dewatering water continuously for longer periods of time;
- Relieving some operators of turbidity benchmark monitoring reporting requirements at sites where multiple operators coordinate monitoring efforts (if the operators submit an initial quarterly report to inform EPA that they’re relying on another permitted operator on-site to monitor and report); and
- Eliminating the reporting requirement when no dewatering discharges occur during a monitoring quarter.
Who needs to apply for 2027 CGP coverage?
Operators of both new sites (construction activities begin on or after the final 2027 CGP’s effective date) and existing sites must apply for coverage under the 2027 CGP.
If an existing site obtained permit coverage under the 2022 CGP before the permit’s expiration date (February 17, 2027), the site will automatically remain covered for a limited period of time, allowing operators to submit a new Notice of Intent for coverage under the 2027 CGP.
What’s next?
Public comments are due by September 2, 2026 (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0760).
EPA will host a webinar on August 18, 2026, to review the proposed 2027 CGP and answer questions. You may register for the webinar on EPA’s “Proposed 2027 Construction General Permit (CGP) and Related Documents” webpage. If the proposed 2027 CGP is finalized, it will replace the existing 2022 CGP, which expires on February 17, 2027.
Key to remember: EPA seeks public comment on the proposed 2027 Construction General Permit for stormwater discharges.
NewsIndustry NewsEnglishWater ProgramsWasteWaste ManagementEnvironmentalIn-Depth ArticleWater ProgramsFocus AreaWaste/HazWasteUSAAir ProgramsAir ProgramsCWA Compliance
2026-07-31T05:00:00Z
Expert Insights: Environmental compliance doesn't stop at the state level
Most industrial facilities have a good understanding of federal and state environmental requirements. However, many compliance issues arise because companies overlook county and municipal requirements.
Local governments often have their own environmental ordinances, permitting programs, and enforcement authorities that apply in addition to state and federal regulations. In some cases, local requirements are more restrictive than state rules and can lead to penalties even when a facility believes it’s operating in compliance.
Local governments play an important environmental role
Environmental compliance isn’t handled solely by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state environmental agencies. Counties, municipalities, sewer authorities, and local stormwater programs often regulate activities that directly affect water quality, public infrastructure, and community health.
For example, local governments commonly regulate:
- Stormwater discharges
- Erosion and sediment control
- Industrial wastewater discharges to sewer systems
- Hazardous material storage
- Spill prevention requirements
- Fire code and emergency planning requirements
- Local environmental permits and inspections
Many municipalities adopt ordinances that supplement state regulations and give local officials authority to inspect facilities, issue notices of violation, and assess penalties.
Industrial wastewater: Local sewer authorities have enforcement power
Industrial wastewater is one of the most common areas where facilities encounter local environmental requirements. Companies that discharge wastewater to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) are often regulated by a municipal sewer authority rather than directly through an NPDES permit.
Local sewer authorities may issue discharge permits, establish local limits, require monitoring and reporting, conduct inspections, and enforce violations through penalties or corrective actions. Facilities can face enforcement for unauthorized discharges, exceedances, or reporting failures even when no state inspection has occurred.
Stormwater compliance often includes local requirements
Stormwater compliance frequently extends beyond state permit requirements. Many counties and municipalities operate under Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permits and have adopted ordinances that regulate activities affecting stormwater quality.
Local rules commonly address outdoor material storage, drainage system maintenance, erosion controls, illicit discharges, stormwater infrastructure inspections, and construction activities. A facility may comply with its industrial stormwater permit but still violate local requirements if it fails to maintain drainage systems, creates unauthorized storm sewer connections, or performs regulated site work without local approval.
Hazardous waste compliance may involve local agencies
While hazardous waste requirements are primarily federal and state responsibilities, local agencies often regulate related operational activities. These requirements may include hazardous material storage permits, fire code compliance, spill prevention measures, emergency response planning, zoning approvals, and inspections by fire marshals or emergency management officials.
Local inspectors often identify storage, containment, labeling, or emergency planning deficiencies before state environmental agencies conduct inspections. Addressing these requirements helps reduce enforcement risk and improve overall compliance performance.
A multilevel compliance strategy is essential
A strong environmental compliance program considers federal, state, county, and municipal requirements. Before expanding operations, constructing facilities, modifying wastewater systems, or changing stormwater infrastructure, companies should evaluate applicable local ordinances and permit obligations.
Regular communication with sewer authorities, stormwater programs, fire departments, and planning agencies can help identify local requirements early, avoid costly project delays, and reduce the risk of enforcement actions. Ignoring local obligations can create compliance gaps even when a facility meets federal and state environmental requirements.
NewsIndustry NewsCriteria Air PollutantsEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)CAA ComplianceEnvironmentalIn-Depth ArticleFocus AreaEnglishAir PermittingAir ProgramsStationary Emission SourcesUSA
2026-07-29T05:00:00Z
EPA updates preconstruction permitting guidance: What are the impacts on major sources?
Where there’s construction, there are permits, and where there are permits, there are usually delays. For major construction projects in areas with poor air quality, the delay could be due to emission credits. New federal guidance, however, may help reduce those delays.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently released guidance clarifying that Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) preconstruction permits may be issued to applicants before they obtain the required offsetting emission reduction credits (ERCs) if certain conditions are met.
The new guidance for permitting authorities (usually state or local air agencies) is a change in the agency’s recommended approach, designed to help prevent preconstruction permitting delays for applicants that haven’t yet formally secured ERCs. So, what does this mean for facilities? Let’s take a look!
Which construction projects could be affected?
EPA’s new guidance impacts construction projects in nonattainment areas. These are areas where emissions exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for any of the six regulated criteria air pollutants.
You need an NNSR permit to build a new major stationary source or make major modifications to an existing major stationary source if:
- The new or modified source is located in a nonattainment area, and
- The new or modified source emits or has the potential to emit a regulated pollutant in amounts that meet the applicable major source or major modification thresholds.
You must obtain an NNSR permit before construction begins. NNSR permits can be issued only if the applicant meets certain conditions, one of which is meeting emission offset requirements.
What are emission offsets?
Emission offsets are reductions in emissions from existing sources that can be used to compensate for emissions from a new or modified source. The Clean Air Act requires new and modified major sources to offset emissions by obtaining sufficient ERCs from existing sources located in the same nonattainment area.
In other words, a new or modified major source must get enough credits from existing nearby sources to cover the total amount of emissions that the facility will add to the area.
How does the guidance impact permitting?
EPA’s previous guidance recommended that NNSR permits generally shouldn’t be issued until ERCs are actually secured. As a result, permitting agencies require applicants to obtain ERCs before issuing an NNSR permit to start construction on a facility, even if the facility won’t immediately begin operations.
Guidance on Clean Air Act Nonattainment New Source Review Emissions Offsets (ERC guidance), issued by EPA on July 1, 2026, changes the agency’s recommended approach. It clarifies that permitting authorities may issue NNSR permits before applicants specifically secure the required ERCs if the permit contains:
- A federally enforceable commitment by the permit applicant to obtain the needed ERCs before starting operations, and
- An express ban on starting operations until the required ERCs are obtained with appropriate permit restrictions on the sources providing the ERCs.
What’s the possible impact on facilities?
Permitting authorities that apply ERC guidance to permitting decisions can issue NNSR permits to qualifying sources before they secure ERCs. This would allow applicants to start construction on or modifications to a major source without delay, provided the enforceable permit conditions are met.
Here's an example:
A business is ready to build a manufacturing plant in a nonattainment area, but operations at the new facility won’t begin until a year after construction is complete.
Under previous guidance, the business couldn’t begin construction on the manufacturing plant until it formally secured the required ERCs upfront for operations that won’t start until a year after the facility is complete.
EPA’s ERC guidance would allow the permitting authority to issue the business an NNSR permit before it obtains the ERCs. That means the business could build the manufacturing plant right away and then secure the ERCs later, closer to the time the facility starts operating.
Keep these points in mind!
Consider the following when determining how EPA’s updated NNSR policy may impact your construction project:
- The ERC guidance is nonbinding, meaning that permitting authorities aren’t required to implement the guidance. Permitting authorities can still require applicants to secure ERCs before issuing NNSR permits.
- Facilities may be able to start construction without first securing ERCs, but facilities can’t begin operating until they secure the required ERCs.
- Most NNSR permits are issued on a state or local level. Confirm the specific requirements that apply to your major source construction project with the relevant state or local permitting authority.
Key to remember: EPA’s guidance allows permitting authorities to issue preconstruction permits for new major sources and major modifications in nonattainment areas before the sources secure emission reduction credits.
Most Recent Highlights In Safety & Health
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsToxic Substances Control Act - EPAToxic Subtances Control Act - EPATSCA ComplianceToxic Substances - EPAEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)EnvironmentalEnglishFocus AreaUSA
2026-07-28T05:00:00Z
EPA extends PCE and CTC compliance deadlines
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has extended the compliance dates of certain Workplace Chemical Protection Program (WCPP) requirements for perchloroethylene (PCE) and carbon tetrachloride (CTC) established under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Published on July 28, 2026, EPA’s final rule changes specific compliance dates but doesn’t alter the underlying WCPP requirements or the agency’s determination that PCE and CTC present unreasonable risks.
Who’s impacted?
The revised deadlines affect facilities subject to the TSCA PCE and CTC risk management rules finalized in 2024. These include entities that manufacture (including import), process, distribute in commerce, use, or dispose of:
- PCE,
- CTC, or
- Products containing PCE or CTC.
What are the new PCE and CTC compliance dates?
EPA’s final rule extends compliance deadlines for various WCPP requirements, including:
- Conducting initial monitoring,
- Meeting the existing chemical exposure limit (ECEL),
- Establishing a regulated area,
- Providing any required respiratory personal protective equipment (PPE) and establishing a respiratory PPE program,
- Implementing a workplace information and training program, and
- Establishing and implementing an exposure control plan (ECP).
Below is a summary of the new compliance deadlines.
| WCPP requirement(s) | New compliance deadline | PCE applicability | CTC applicability |
|---|---|---|---|
| June 21, 2027 | Non-federal facilities | Non-federal facilities |
| September 20, 2027 | Non-federal facilities | Non-federal facilities |
| September 20, 2027 | Federal and non-federal facilities | Non-federal facilities |
| December 20, 2027 | Non-federal facilities | — |
* EPA maintains the CTC rule’s WCPP compliance date of December 3, 2027, for federal and non-federal facilities to establish and implement an ECP.
Key to remember: EPA has extended compliance dates for certain PCE and CTC Workplace Chemical Protection Program requirements into 2027.
NewsHazardous WasteWaste GeneratorsWaste ManifestsWasteEnglishWaste/HazWasteNew MexicoNew Mexico Environment Department (NMED)Waste HandlersChange NoticesChange NoticeWasteWaste ManagementEnvironmentalWaste PermittingFocus AreaWaste Reporting
2026-07-24T05:00:00Z
New Mexico classifies AFFF as hazardous waste
Effective date: August 1, 2026
This applies to: Entities regulated by the New Mexico hazardous waste regulations
Description of change: The New Mexico Hazardous Waste Bureau adopted amendments and a new rule to regulate aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) containing intentionally added per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
Changes include:
- Classifying AFFF with intentionally added PFAS as a hazardous waste (subject to New Mexico’s hazardous waste regulations); and
- Establishing regulations for AFFF with intentionally added PFAS, including:
- A periodic inventory of the substance,
- Restricting the use of AFFF to emergency purposes only, and
- Requiring cleanup of discarded AFFF according to the New Mexico Hazardous Waste Act regulations.
Note that the operational restrictions (20.13.3 NMAC) take effect on August 1, 2026, and the disposal and cleanup rules (20.4.1) take effect on December 1, 2026.
Related state info: Hazardous waste generators — New Mexico
NewsGreenhouse GasesAir EmissionsChange NoticesChange NoticeColoradoCAA ComplianceEnvironmentalFocus AreaEnglishAir ProgramsAir Programs
2026-07-24T05:00:00Z
Colorado revises annual emissions reporting requirements
Effective date: July 15, 2026
This applies to: Sources subject to Regulations 3 and 7 annual reporting requirements
Description of change: The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission amended Regulation Numbers 3 and 7. The revisions:
- Remove the duplicate greenhouse gas (GHG) air pollutant emission notice (APEN) reporting requirement for sources required by Regulation Number 22 to report GHG emissions annually;
- Streamline reporting requirements for annual estimated emissions reports required by Regulation Numbers 3 and 7 (for certain non-oil and gas sector sources and for upstream and midstream oil and gas sector sources, respectively) by specifying that their Emissions Reporting Notices (ERNs) will satisfy the requirements to submit revised APENs due to a change in actual emissions or solely before expiration;
- Increase existing fees for APEN submissions, annual emissions, and application processing required by Regulation Number 3; and
- Add a fee for filing ERNs required by Regulation 7 on a per-emission-point basis (with plans to require fees from all annual reporters eventually).
Streamlined reporting begins in 2027 for Regulation Number 7 annual emissions reports for calendar year 2026 emissions. The ERN filing fee for Regulation Number 7 reporters starts with the ERN filed in 2027 for calendar year 2026 emissions.
Related state info: Clean air operating permits state comparison
NewsHazardous WasteWaste HandlersChange NoticesChange NoticeWasteWaste/HazWasteWaste ManagementEnvironmentalNevadaEnglishFocus Area
2026-07-24T05:00:00Z
Nevada revises hazardous waste recycling rules
Effective date: July 1, 2026
This applies to: Facilities and mobile units that manage recyclable materials classified as hazardous waste or hazardous secondary materials
Description of change: The Nevada State Environmental Commission adopted amendments to the hazardous waste recycling program regulations. Changes include:
- Establishing one regulatory regime for facilities managing recyclable materials classified as either hazardous waste or hazardous secondary materials;
- Exempting certain facilities or mobile units from the requirement to obtain a written determination from the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources before construction and providing that such facilities must comply with certain federal requirements, local zoning requirements if applicable, reporting and notification requirements, and other regulations;
- Exempting certain facilities (if they’re subject to local zoning requirements) from prohibitions on the locations where new or expanding stationary facilities that manage hazardous waste may be built; and
- Establishing an annual $5,000 fee for:
- A written determination issued to new facilities or mobile units that the facilities or units will operate for recycling hazardous waste; and
- Existing facilities that recycle certain hazardous waste and are subject to specific federal recycling requirements.
NewsPesticidesPesticidesChange NoticesChange NoticeEnvironmentalPesticide ManagementEnglishMichiganFocus AreaPesticides
2026-07-24T05:00:00Z
Michigan updates fertilizer bulk storage requirements
Effective date: July 2, 2026
This applies to: Commercial bulk fertilizer storage facilities
Description of change: The amendments increase requirements related to physical and structural redundancy, maintenance, and recordkeeping. The rules align with the standards of the Association of American Plant Food Control Officials (AAPFCO) and the regulations established by similarly situated states. Some of the changes include:
- Requiring every storage container to have a liquid level gauging device;
- Requiring storage containers and appurtenances to be fenced, locked, or otherwise secured to protect against vandalism or unauthorized access that could result in a discharge; and
- Allowing alternative diking for large storage tanks that use double steel wall systems.
Further, the rules require the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to preapprove the construction of new or the modification of existing containment systems and operational areas.
Most Recent Highlights In Human Resources
NewsIndustry NewsEnglishEnvironmental Management SystemsISO 14001EnvironmentalIn-Depth ArticleLifecycle AnalysisUSAEnvironmental Management SystemsFocus AreaEnvironmental Management Systems
2026-07-14T05:00:00Z
ISO 14001:2026 arrives: Key changes for environmental management systems
Environmental management has changed significantly since ISO 14001 was last revised in 2015. Climate-related risks, resource constraints, supply chain challenges, and stakeholder expectations have reshaped how organizations manage environmental issues. In response, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) released ISO 14001:2026, the first major update to the environmental management system (EMS) standard in over a decade.
The revised standard does not change the purpose of ISO 14001. Organizations will continue to use an EMS to identify environmental aspects, meet compliance obligations, manage environmental risks, and improve environmental performance. However, the new edition clarifies requirements and places greater emphasis on measurable environmental results. ISO says the revision is intended to better align EMS programs with today's environmental challenges. Organizations certified to ISO 14001 may need to update procedures, documentation, audits, and management reviews.
Why was the standard updated?
When ISO published 14001:2015, many organizations focused primarily on regulatory compliance. While compliance remains a core component of an EMS, environmental managers today face a broader range of issues. Climate impacts, resource availability, supply chain disruptions, and stakeholder expectations can all affect environmental planning and performance. Rather than creating an entirely new framework, the 2026 version largely builds on concepts that already existed in the 2015 edition while expanding and clarifying expectations.
Environmental context receives greater attention
A major theme of the revision is a stronger focus on organizational context. Organizations are expected to look beyond day-to-day compliance activities when identifying environmental risks and opportunities.
The revised standard emphasizes consideration of environmental conditions that may affect the EMS, including climate-related concerns, biodiversity, ecosystem impacts, and natural resource availability. Organizations are expected to evaluate how external issues and stakeholder expectations may influence environmental objectives and planning.
For environmental managers, this may mean expanding annual EMS reviews to evaluate emerging environmental issues that could affect operations, compliance obligations, permit conditions, or environmental objectives.
Change management moves into the spotlight
The revised standard also introduces a more structured approach to managing change. Many organizations already evaluate environmental impacts when making operational changes, but those reviews are often informal.
ISO 14001:2026 expects organizations to plan, manage, and evaluate changes that may affect environmental performance. Examples include:
- Installing new equipment,
- Expanding production capacity,
- Changing raw materials,
- Modifying waste management practices,
- Switching suppliers, or
- Adding new products or processes.
This requirement should sound familiar to many environmental professionals. Operational changes can affect air emissions, waste generation, wastewater discharges, stormwater exposure, and permit applicability. A structured review process can help identify environmental impacts before changes are implemented.
Lifecycle thinking and supply chains gain importance
Lifecycle thinking was already part of ISO 14001:2015, but the revised standard places greater emphasis on it. Organizations are expected to consider environmental impacts throughout the lifecycle of products and services, including activities involving suppliers, contractors, and externally provided products and services.
This requirement does not mean organizations are responsible for every environmental impact within their supply chain. Rather, it encourages organizations to understand how purchasing decisions, outsourced activities, and supplier relationships may affect environmental performance.
For some organizations, this could mean greater emphasis on supplier evaluations, procurement procedures, contractor oversight, or product stewardship initiatives.
Leadership involvement becomes more visible
ISO 14001:2026 also strengthens expectations related to leadership accountability. Environmental management is no longer viewed solely as the responsibility of the environmental department.
The revised standard emphasizes visible leadership involvement and broader organizational participation. Environmental responsibilities may extend beyond EHS personnel to departments such as operations, purchasing, engineering, and management. Organizations will need to demonstrate that leadership is actively engaged in environmental planning, resource allocation, and performance evaluation activities.
What should organizations do now?
Although organizations have time to prepare for the transition, environmental managers may want to begin evaluating their programs now. Early reviews can help identify gaps and reduce the likelihood of surprises during future audits.
Questions organizations may want to consider include:
- Does the EMS adequately address climate, resources, and other emerging environmental issues?
- Is there a documented process for evaluating environmental impacts before operational changes are made?
- Are lifecycle considerations incorporated into purchasing and contractor management activities?
- Can leadership involvement be demonstrated through documented actions and decisions?
- Do environmental objectives show measurable performance improvements?
While ISO 14001:2026 is an evolution of the existing standard rather than a complete overhaul, organizations should not assume existing EMS procedures will meet the revised expectations. Environmental managers may want to review how their systems address organizational context, change management, lifecycle considerations, and leadership involvement before their next audit.
Key to remember: For environmental professionals, the revised standard provides an opportunity to strengthen that connection and demonstrate the value that effective environmental management brings to the organization.
NewsWasteTSCA ComplianceWater ProgramsEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)CAA ComplianceWater ProgramsCWA ComplianceWaste/HazWasteEnglishAir ProgramsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsWasteEnvironmentalFocus AreaSARA ComplianceAir ProgramsUSA
2026-07-09T05:00:00Z
EPA releases 2026 regulatory agenda
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the 2026 Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions on July 3, 2026. The agenda outlines the agency’s upcoming regulatory actions and their status in the rulemaking process. Many of the proposed and final rules support EPA’s continued deregulatory efforts.
Significant rulemaking on EPA’s docket includes the following:
- Proposing risk management regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for various chemical substances, such as formaldehyde, diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP), and diisononyl phthalate (DINP);
- Aligning the definition of “waters of the United States” with the Supreme Court’s Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (2023) decision, which narrowed the definition under the Clean Water Act;
- Finalizing the part 2 risk management regulations for asbestos, including use and associated disposal requirements for legacy asbestos, asbestos-containing talc, and asbestos fibers other than chrysotile;
- Repealing the Carbon Pollution Standards (CPS) that limit greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel-fired plants (or repealing a narrower set of requirements under the CPS); and
- Establishing a federal permitting program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for the disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCR).
Additionally, EPA continues to conduct rulemaking related to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), such as:
- Revising existing effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) to address PFAS discharges from PFAS manufacturing facilities and chromium electroplating facilities;
- Extending the compliance deadlines for Maximum Contaminant Levels established by the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS); and
- Rescinding the NPDWRs for four PFAS.
This article highlights some of the major rules we’re monitoring closely. You can review the entire agenda to learn about all the rulemakings EPA plans to review, propose, and finalize. Please note that the agenda dates are tentative, indicating when the agency seeks to publish the rulemakings in the Federal Register.
| Final Rule Stage | |
| Projected publication date | Title |
| July 2026 | Reconsideration of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program |
| August 2026 | 1-Bromopropane (1-BP); Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) |
| October 2026 | Revisions to Standards for the Open Burning/Open Detonation of Waste Explosives |
| October 2026 | Secondary Lead Smelting: National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Technology Review and Reconsideration |
| January 2027 | Listing of Specific PFAS as Hazardous Constituents |
| Proposed Rule Stage | |
| Projected publication date of notice of proposed rulemaking | |
| August 2026 | Improving Recycling and Management of Renewable Energy Wastes: Universal Waste Regulations for Solar Panels and Lithium Batteries |
| September 2026 | Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction Category (40 CFR 435 Subpart E) |
| October 2026 | Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Category (40 CFR 437) |
| December 2026 | Clean Water Act Hazardous Substance Facility Response Plans; Amendment Reconsideration |
| December 2026 | National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Stationary Combustion Turbines; Amendments |
| Pre-Rule Stage | |
| Projected publication date or other action | Title |
| January 2027 (final rule) | Risk Management Program, CAA Section 112(r)(7) (Section 610 Review) |
| August 2026 (begin review) | Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources (Section 610 Review) |
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsPesticidesPesticide Registration and LabelingEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)EnvironmentalEnglishFocus AreaPesticidesUSA
2026-07-01T05:00:00Z
EPA sets MyPeST compliance reporting deadlines for bilingual pesticide labeling requirements
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published instructions and deadlines for pesticide registrants to report compliance with bilingual labeling requirements in the MyPeST application. The first compliance reporting deadline is July 31, 2026, for pesticide products with the highest toxicity.
Who’s impacted?
Compliance reporting applies to registrants of pesticide products subject to the bilingual labeling requirements established by the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2022 (PRIA 5) amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
PRIA 5 requires all end-use pesticide product labels to provide Spanish translations of the human health and safety sections by including the translated sections directly on the label or providing a link via scannable technology or other readily accessible electronic methods to the translated sections. EPA allows certain antimicrobial and non-agricultural pesticide products to comply by providing access to Spanish-language Safety Data Sheets instead of direct label translations.
Compliance timelines are based on the type of pesticide and its toxicity category.
What’s required?
Pesticide registrants must report compliance with the PRIA 5 bilingual labeling requirements using EPA’s MyPeST app. The agency recently published detailed reporting instructions in the MyPeST Application User Guide (accessible in the MyPeST app).
EPA also established the following deadlines for reporting compliance in MyPeST:
| Pesticide product type | Bilingual labeling deadline | Compliance reporting deadline |
|---|---|---|
| Restricted use pesticides (RUPs) | December 29, 2025 | July 31, 2026 |
| Non-RUP agricultural products | ||
| Acute Toxicity Category I | December 29, 2025 | July 31, 2026 |
| Acute Toxicity Category II | December 29, 2027 | January 28, 2028 |
| Antimicrobials and non-agricultural products | ||
| Acute Toxicity Category I | December 29, 2026 | January 28, 2027 |
| Acute Toxicity Category II | December 29, 2028 | January 28, 2029 |
| All other pesticide products | December 29, 2030 | January 28, 2031 |
NewsIndustry NewsEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)Oil Spill PreventionOil Spill PreventionEnvironmentalIn-Depth ArticleCWA ComplianceEnglishFocus AreaUSA
2026-06-30T05:00:00Z
Secondary containment alternative: Does your oil-filled operational equipment qualify?
Facilities that run like a well-oiled machine often rely on just that — operational equipment that stores and uses oil to function (like hydraulic systems). But wherever oil is stored, there’s always the possibility of a leak, and spilled oil can do serious harm, especially if it reaches water.
That’s where the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule comes in. Usually, regulated facilities must equip oil-filled operational equipment with general secondary containment, which is designed to temporarily hold discharged oil until it can be properly cleaned up. However, some facilities may have another compliance option available.
EPA offers an alternative to secondary containment for qualified oil-filled operational equipment. Let’s take a look at the eligibility criteria and what the other method of compliance requires.
What’s oil-filled operational equipment?
EPA defines “oil-filled operational equipment” at 40 CFR 112.2. Generally, it refers to equipment that has one or more oil storage containers with oil that’s used solely to operate the equipment. Common examples are lubrication systems for pumps and compressors, machining coolant systems, circuit breakers, and electrical switches.
Does your facility have qualified equipment?
Only qualified oil-filled operational equipment is eligible for the alternative requirements to general secondary containment.
The SPCC rule considers oil-filled operational equipment to be qualified if it hasn’t had one discharge of oil exceeding 1,000 gallons or two discharges of oil exceeding 42 gallons each over the following time periods:
- If the facility has operated for at least 3 years, within any 12-month period in the 3 years before the SPCC Plan’s certification date; or
- If the facility has operated for less than 3 years, since becoming subject to the SPCC regulations.
Take note! When determining whether your facility’s oil-filled operational equipment is eligible under federal standards:
- Don’t count oil discharges caused by natural disasters, acts of war, or terrorism; and
- Don’t count the total amount of oil spilled, only the amount that reaches navigable waters or adjoining shorelines.
What about oil-filled manufacturing equipment?
The SPCC rule distinguishes between oil-filled manufacturing equipment and oil-filled operational equipment. Oil-filled manufacturing equipment stores oil only as a supporting element for conducting a mechanical or chemical operation to create or modify a product. It typically involves a flow-through process in which oil continuously moves through the equipment. Examples of this type of equipment include reaction vessels, mixing tanks, and distillation columns.
Because it’s defined independently under the SPCC rule, oil-filled manufacturing equipment isn’t eligible for the alternative compliance option available to qualified oil-filled operational equipment.
What are the alternative measures?
Instead of providing secondary containment for qualified oil-filled operational equipment, facilities may choose to comply with the alternative requirements at 112.7(k), which include:
- Establishing and documenting an inspection or a monitoring program to detect equipment failures and discharges; and
- Adding to the SPCC Plan:
- An oil spill contingency plan according to the requirements of Part 109; and
- A written commitment of the resources (manpower, equipment, and materials) needed to quickly control and remove any potentially harmful quantities of discharged oil.
Take note! If your business must submit a facility response plan (FRP) under 112.20, the oil spill contingency plan and written commitment requirements don’t apply since your FRP already contains these elements.
Why should my facility consider the alternative compliance option?
The alternative requirements to general secondary containment don’t require facilities to prepare an impracticability determination for qualified oil-filled operational equipment.
The impracticability determination provisions at 112.7(d) impose more requirements for facilities that use alternative measures to secondary containment for unqualified equipment. In addition to meeting the same requirements for qualified oil-filled operational equipment, facilities must have the oil spill contingency plan certified by a Professional Engineer (unless self-certifying as a qualified facility). They also must:
- Describe in the SPCC Plan the reasons such measures aren’t practicable, and
- Conduct periodic integrity tests of bulk storage containers and periodic integrity and leak tests of valves and piping.
Key to remember: The SPCC rule offers an alternative to general secondary containment requirements for qualified oil-filled operational equipment.
NewsGreenhouse GasesAir QualityExcavationsToxic Substances Control Act - EPAToxic Subtances Control Act - EPAPersonal Protective EquipmentAir EmissionsTSCA ComplianceExcavationsMonthly Roundup VideoMiningCAA ComplianceUSAEnglishIndustry NewsSafety & HealthConstruction SafetyInfectious DiseasesCOVID-19General Industry SafetyGeneral Duty ClauseSpecialized IndustriesEnvironmentalFocus AreaRespiratory ProtectionMine SafetyGeneral Duty ClauseAir ProgramsVideo
EHS Monthly Round Up - August 2025
In this August 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’s happened over the past month!
OSHA extended the comment period for multiple proposed rules it published on July 1. Stakeholders now have an extra 60 days, until November 1, to comment. Impacted rules include those for respiratory protection, construction illumination, COVID-19, and the General Duty Clause.
OSHA is expanding its Voluntary Protection Programs to help employers develop strong safety programs and lower injury rates. To participate, employers must submit an application to OSHA and undergo an onsite evaluation by a team of safety and health professionals.
Following a series of recent trench collapses, OSHA urges employers to take steps to protect workers. Trench collapses can be prevented by sloping or benching trench walls at an angle, shoring trench walls with supports, and shielding walls with trench boxes. More information can be found on OSHA’s website.
The Mine Safety and Health Administration launched a webpage for its new Compliance Assistance in Safety and Health, or CASH, program. The agency anticipates a surge in domestic mining productivity and seeks to proactively provide miners and mine operators with compliance assistance materials.
Turning to environmental news, EPA proposes challenges to California’s Clean Truck Check program. The program aims to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter for heavy-duty vehicles. EPA supports the regulation as it applies to California-registered vehicles but disapproves the regulation as it applies to out of state and out of country vehicles. Stakeholders have until September 25 to comment on the proposal.
On August 14, EPA released the July 2025 nonconfidential TSCA Inventory of chemical substances manufactured, processed, or imported in the U.S. The Inventory contains over 86 thousand chemicals, nearly half of which are in active use. The next inventory update is planned for late 2026.
And finally, EPA proposes to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repeal greenhouse gas emissions for new motor vehicles and vehicle engines. The agency will accept comments on the proposal through September 15.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
New Network Poll
Most Popular Highlights In Environmental
NewsIndustry NewsWaste/HazWasteEmpty ContainersWasteEnvironmentalIn-Depth ArticleEnglishFocus AreaUSA
2025-06-25T05:00:00Z
The compliance trap of “empty” containers
At first glance, an empty container seems like a non-issue – no product, no problem. But in the eyes of regulators, “empty” is a carefully defined status that can determine whether a container is harmless or still subject to hazardous waste rules, labeling, and fire or environmental risk controls. The EPA and OSHA have detailed definitions of what “empty” truly means. Misunderstanding these rules can lead to serious incidents, hefty fines, and unintentional non-compliance.
The EPA definition: “RCRA empty” explained
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), a container that once held hazardous waste is only legally “empty” if it meets particular criteria outlined in 40 CFR 261.7. The first standard that must be satisfied is that all material has been removed from the container using normal means such as pouring, pumping, or aspirating. Secondly, no more than 2.5 centimeters or 1 inch of residue remains on the container's bottom or inner lining. Additionally, if the container holds less than 110 gallons, it is “empty” if no more than 3% of the total weight or volume exists. Of course, sometimes special circumstances require further evaluation. For example, a gas cylinder is not “empty” until the pressure has reduced to atmospheric levels, and acute hazardous waste containers must be triple rinsed with an appropriate solvent or cleaned by another approved method. If these conditions are not met, the container is still legally considered to contain hazardous waste, even if it feels empty.
The OSHA definition: “Empty” under the Hazard Communication Standard
While the EPA focuses on environmental disposal and waste management, OSHA’s concern with empty containers centers on worker safety—particularly the potential for exposure to hazardous residues or vapors. Under OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200), a container that previously contained hazardous chemicals must retain its original hazard label until it is adequately cleaned or until the employer removes the label following proper decontamination procedures. For example, a drum labeled “Flammable” must keep this label even if it appears empty, as residual material or vapors may still pose a significant ignition or fire risk. Removing such labels prematurely could lead to workplace hazards and violations of OSHA regulations.
How to stay compliant
Employers must first clearly determine which rules apply to them: whether the container held hazardous materials governed by EPA regulations, hazardous chemicals subject to OSHA requirements, or both. Emptying procedures should be followed, including properly draining the container, performing triple-rinsing when required, and thoroughly documenting all decontamination activities. Original hazard labels must be maintained on containers until they are thoroughly cleaned or reconditioned, as removing labels prematurely violates OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard. Additionally, employers should provide employees with training on the proper handling, labeling, and disposal of containers and ensure they fully understand what constitutes an ‘empty’ container under federal standards. Finally, a detailed record of all rinsing, draining, and cleaning processes should be maintained to demonstrate compliance during EPA or state inspections.
Keys to remember: Employers should educate their teams, enforce proper cleaning procedures, and maintain compliance records to ensure they are staying compliant with “empty” container standards.
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsToxic Substances Control Act - EPAToxic Subtances Control Act - EPATSCA ComplianceToxic Substances - EPAEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)EnvironmentalEnglishFocus AreaUSA
2026-07-28T05:00:00Z
EPA extends PCE and CTC compliance deadlines
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has extended the compliance dates of certain Workplace Chemical Protection Program (WCPP) requirements for perchloroethylene (PCE) and carbon tetrachloride (CTC) established under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Published on July 28, 2026, EPA’s final rule changes specific compliance dates but doesn’t alter the underlying WCPP requirements or the agency’s determination that PCE and CTC present unreasonable risks.
Who’s impacted?
The revised deadlines affect facilities subject to the TSCA PCE and CTC risk management rules finalized in 2024. These include entities that manufacture (including import), process, distribute in commerce, use, or dispose of:
- PCE,
- CTC, or
- Products containing PCE or CTC.
What are the new PCE and CTC compliance dates?
EPA’s final rule extends compliance deadlines for various WCPP requirements, including:
- Conducting initial monitoring,
- Meeting the existing chemical exposure limit (ECEL),
- Establishing a regulated area,
- Providing any required respiratory personal protective equipment (PPE) and establishing a respiratory PPE program,
- Implementing a workplace information and training program, and
- Establishing and implementing an exposure control plan (ECP).
Below is a summary of the new compliance deadlines.
| WCPP requirement(s) | New compliance deadline | PCE applicability | CTC applicability |
|---|---|---|---|
| June 21, 2027 | Non-federal facilities | Non-federal facilities |
| September 20, 2027 | Non-federal facilities | Non-federal facilities |
| September 20, 2027 | Federal and non-federal facilities | Non-federal facilities |
| December 20, 2027 | Non-federal facilities | — |
* EPA maintains the CTC rule’s WCPP compliance date of December 3, 2027, for federal and non-federal facilities to establish and implement an ECP.
Key to remember: EPA has extended compliance dates for certain PCE and CTC Workplace Chemical Protection Program requirements into 2027.
NewsIndianaSafe Drinking WaterChange NoticesChange NoticeWater ProgramsEnvironmentalCWA ComplianceEnglishUnderground Injection ControlFocus Area
2026-06-24T05:00:00Z
Indiana adds permanent underground carbon dioxide storage rules
Effective date: June 10, 2026
This applies to: Entities that seek to participate in carbon sequestration projects
Description of change: The Natural Resources Commission adopted rules for permanent underground carbon dioxide storage, establishing:
- The rules for entities seeking to petition the Indiana Department of Natural Resources to issue involuntary integration orders for pore spaces, and
- The rules for storage operators seeking to apply for certificates of project completion.
These regulations add options for entities; the requirements apply only if the options are utilized.
The rules impact entities seeking to participate in carbon sequestration projects. The regulations also affect pore space owners and surface owners.
NewsIndustry NewsEnglishWater ProgramsWasteWaste ManagementEnvironmentalIn-Depth ArticleWater ProgramsFocus AreaWaste/HazWasteUSAAir ProgramsAir ProgramsCWA Compliance
2026-07-31T05:00:00Z
Expert Insights: Environmental compliance doesn't stop at the state level
Most industrial facilities have a good understanding of federal and state environmental requirements. However, many compliance issues arise because companies overlook county and municipal requirements.
Local governments often have their own environmental ordinances, permitting programs, and enforcement authorities that apply in addition to state and federal regulations. In some cases, local requirements are more restrictive than state rules and can lead to penalties even when a facility believes it’s operating in compliance.
Local governments play an important environmental role
Environmental compliance isn’t handled solely by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state environmental agencies. Counties, municipalities, sewer authorities, and local stormwater programs often regulate activities that directly affect water quality, public infrastructure, and community health.
For example, local governments commonly regulate:
- Stormwater discharges
- Erosion and sediment control
- Industrial wastewater discharges to sewer systems
- Hazardous material storage
- Spill prevention requirements
- Fire code and emergency planning requirements
- Local environmental permits and inspections
Many municipalities adopt ordinances that supplement state regulations and give local officials authority to inspect facilities, issue notices of violation, and assess penalties.
Industrial wastewater: Local sewer authorities have enforcement power
Industrial wastewater is one of the most common areas where facilities encounter local environmental requirements. Companies that discharge wastewater to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) are often regulated by a municipal sewer authority rather than directly through an NPDES permit.
Local sewer authorities may issue discharge permits, establish local limits, require monitoring and reporting, conduct inspections, and enforce violations through penalties or corrective actions. Facilities can face enforcement for unauthorized discharges, exceedances, or reporting failures even when no state inspection has occurred.
Stormwater compliance often includes local requirements
Stormwater compliance frequently extends beyond state permit requirements. Many counties and municipalities operate under Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permits and have adopted ordinances that regulate activities affecting stormwater quality.
Local rules commonly address outdoor material storage, drainage system maintenance, erosion controls, illicit discharges, stormwater infrastructure inspections, and construction activities. A facility may comply with its industrial stormwater permit but still violate local requirements if it fails to maintain drainage systems, creates unauthorized storm sewer connections, or performs regulated site work without local approval.
Hazardous waste compliance may involve local agencies
While hazardous waste requirements are primarily federal and state responsibilities, local agencies often regulate related operational activities. These requirements may include hazardous material storage permits, fire code compliance, spill prevention measures, emergency response planning, zoning approvals, and inspections by fire marshals or emergency management officials.
Local inspectors often identify storage, containment, labeling, or emergency planning deficiencies before state environmental agencies conduct inspections. Addressing these requirements helps reduce enforcement risk and improve overall compliance performance.
A multilevel compliance strategy is essential
A strong environmental compliance program considers federal, state, county, and municipal requirements. Before expanding operations, constructing facilities, modifying wastewater systems, or changing stormwater infrastructure, companies should evaluate applicable local ordinances and permit obligations.
Regular communication with sewer authorities, stormwater programs, fire departments, and planning agencies can help identify local requirements early, avoid costly project delays, and reduce the risk of enforcement actions. Ignoring local obligations can create compliance gaps even when a facility meets federal and state environmental requirements.
NewsIndustry NewsEnglishEnvironmental Management SystemsISO 14001EnvironmentalIn-Depth ArticleLifecycle AnalysisUSAEnvironmental Management SystemsFocus AreaEnvironmental Management Systems
2026-07-14T05:00:00Z
ISO 14001:2026 arrives: Key changes for environmental management systems
Environmental management has changed significantly since ISO 14001 was last revised in 2015. Climate-related risks, resource constraints, supply chain challenges, and stakeholder expectations have reshaped how organizations manage environmental issues. In response, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) released ISO 14001:2026, the first major update to the environmental management system (EMS) standard in over a decade.
The revised standard does not change the purpose of ISO 14001. Organizations will continue to use an EMS to identify environmental aspects, meet compliance obligations, manage environmental risks, and improve environmental performance. However, the new edition clarifies requirements and places greater emphasis on measurable environmental results. ISO says the revision is intended to better align EMS programs with today's environmental challenges. Organizations certified to ISO 14001 may need to update procedures, documentation, audits, and management reviews.
Why was the standard updated?
When ISO published 14001:2015, many organizations focused primarily on regulatory compliance. While compliance remains a core component of an EMS, environmental managers today face a broader range of issues. Climate impacts, resource availability, supply chain disruptions, and stakeholder expectations can all affect environmental planning and performance. Rather than creating an entirely new framework, the 2026 version largely builds on concepts that already existed in the 2015 edition while expanding and clarifying expectations.
Environmental context receives greater attention
A major theme of the revision is a stronger focus on organizational context. Organizations are expected to look beyond day-to-day compliance activities when identifying environmental risks and opportunities.
The revised standard emphasizes consideration of environmental conditions that may affect the EMS, including climate-related concerns, biodiversity, ecosystem impacts, and natural resource availability. Organizations are expected to evaluate how external issues and stakeholder expectations may influence environmental objectives and planning.
For environmental managers, this may mean expanding annual EMS reviews to evaluate emerging environmental issues that could affect operations, compliance obligations, permit conditions, or environmental objectives.
Change management moves into the spotlight
The revised standard also introduces a more structured approach to managing change. Many organizations already evaluate environmental impacts when making operational changes, but those reviews are often informal.
ISO 14001:2026 expects organizations to plan, manage, and evaluate changes that may affect environmental performance. Examples include:
- Installing new equipment,
- Expanding production capacity,
- Changing raw materials,
- Modifying waste management practices,
- Switching suppliers, or
- Adding new products or processes.
This requirement should sound familiar to many environmental professionals. Operational changes can affect air emissions, waste generation, wastewater discharges, stormwater exposure, and permit applicability. A structured review process can help identify environmental impacts before changes are implemented.
Lifecycle thinking and supply chains gain importance
Lifecycle thinking was already part of ISO 14001:2015, but the revised standard places greater emphasis on it. Organizations are expected to consider environmental impacts throughout the lifecycle of products and services, including activities involving suppliers, contractors, and externally provided products and services.
This requirement does not mean organizations are responsible for every environmental impact within their supply chain. Rather, it encourages organizations to understand how purchasing decisions, outsourced activities, and supplier relationships may affect environmental performance.
For some organizations, this could mean greater emphasis on supplier evaluations, procurement procedures, contractor oversight, or product stewardship initiatives.
Leadership involvement becomes more visible
ISO 14001:2026 also strengthens expectations related to leadership accountability. Environmental management is no longer viewed solely as the responsibility of the environmental department.
The revised standard emphasizes visible leadership involvement and broader organizational participation. Environmental responsibilities may extend beyond EHS personnel to departments such as operations, purchasing, engineering, and management. Organizations will need to demonstrate that leadership is actively engaged in environmental planning, resource allocation, and performance evaluation activities.
What should organizations do now?
Although organizations have time to prepare for the transition, environmental managers may want to begin evaluating their programs now. Early reviews can help identify gaps and reduce the likelihood of surprises during future audits.
Questions organizations may want to consider include:
- Does the EMS adequately address climate, resources, and other emerging environmental issues?
- Is there a documented process for evaluating environmental impacts before operational changes are made?
- Are lifecycle considerations incorporated into purchasing and contractor management activities?
- Can leadership involvement be demonstrated through documented actions and decisions?
- Do environmental objectives show measurable performance improvements?
While ISO 14001:2026 is an evolution of the existing standard rather than a complete overhaul, organizations should not assume existing EMS procedures will meet the revised expectations. Environmental managers may want to review how their systems address organizational context, change management, lifecycle considerations, and leadership involvement before their next audit.
Key to remember: For environmental professionals, the revised standard provides an opportunity to strengthen that connection and demonstrate the value that effective environmental management brings to the organization.
NewsClosuresIndustry NewsIndustry NewsWaste/HazWasteWasteEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)Waste ManagementEnvironmentalSolid WasteEnglishFocus AreaUSA
2026-04-16T05:00:00Z
EPA proposes major changes to coal combustion residuals rules
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a proposed rule on April 13, 2026, to revise the existing regulations governing the disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCR) in landfills and surface impoundments as well as the beneficial use of CCR.
Who’s impacted?
The proposed rule affects coal-fired electric utilities and independent power producers subject to the CCR disposal and beneficial use regulations at 40 CFR Part 257.
What are the changes?
Significant changes the EPA proposes include:
- Adding an option for facilities to certify the closure of legacy CCR surface impoundments by CCR removal that were closed before November 8, 2024, under regulatory oversight;
- Expanding the eligibility criteria for facilities to defer CCR closure requirements until site-specific determinations are made for legacy surface impoundments that were closed before November 8, 2024, under regulatory oversight;
- Exempting CCR dewatering structures (used to dewater CCR waste for the disposal of CCR elsewhere) from federal CCR regulations (Part 257);
- Rescinding all CCR management unit (CCRMU) requirements or revising the existing CCRMU regulations;
- Allowing permit authorities to make site-specific determinations regarding certain requirements during permitting for CCR units complying with federal CCR groundwater monitoring, corrective action, and closure requirements under a federal or an approved-state CCR permit; and
- Revising the beneficial use requirements by:
- Removing the environmental demonstration requirement for non-roadway use of more than 12,400 tons of unencapsulated CCR; and
- Excluding these beneficial uses from federal CCR regulations (Part 257):
- CCR used in cement manufacturing at cement kilns,
- Flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum used in agriculture, and
- FGD gypsum used in wallboard.
Key to remember: EPA plans to make significant amendments to the coal combustion residuals requirements.
Most Popular Highlights In Transportation
NewsLoading and unloading - Motor CarrierHazmat SafetyCargo loading and securementIn-Depth ArticlePre-trip inspectionsEnglishCMV InspectionsIndustry NewsFleet SafetySafety & HealthGeneral Industry SafetyGeneral Duty ClauseFocus AreaGeneral Duty ClauseTransportationWheel chocks - Motor CarrierUSA
2026-07-27T05:00:00Z
Investigation uncovers pitfalls in deadly truck-unloading incident
A routine truck fuel-transfer operation that ended in an explosion, fire, and worker’s death is the subject of a preliminary report from Washington state. Investigators outline the sequence of events and factors that may have contributed to the incident. The findings also discuss related requirements and highlight important lessons for employers and motor carriers responsible for these operations.
What happened?
According to the Washington state Fatality Assessment & Control Evaluation (FACE) report number 71-275-2026, a technician was assigned in September 2023 to unload a liquefied natural gas (LNG) trailer parked at a transfer station. The semi-trailer was operated by a contract carrier, whose driver had made several deliveries prior to that day.
The technician hooked up the transfer hose and began the LNG offload from the trailer. While the transfer hose was still connected and the transfer was underway, the truck driver drove ahead several feet. This pulled the hose connection apart, releasing LNG that quickly created a vapor cloud.
Realizing what happened, the driver climbed down from the truck cab and headed for the emergency shutoff located at the back of the trailer. However, the vapor reached an ignition source, resulting in an explosion and fire.
The driver escaped to a neighboring field. The technician, on the other hand, suffered severe burns but managed to reach a muster point. Another worker at the station called 911. Then, first responders took control of the scene and transported the technician and driver to a hospital. The technician later died of his injuries, while the driver survived with minor burns.
Contributing factors
According to investigators, several factors may have contributed to the fatal event:
- Wheel chocks were not used to hold the trailer in place while the offloading occurred.
- The driver received paperwork from the technician and assumed that meant the transfer was done.
- Prior to moving the truck, the driver did not perform a pre-trip inspection.
- A variety of ignition sources were present in the area.
Related requirements
The Washington state administrative code WAC 296-800-11005 (or General Duty Clause) is referenced in the FACE report. However, at the federal level, employers would instead consider Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. That section specifies, “Each employer … shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.”
The investigation further points to portions of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 59A, Standard for the Production, Storage, and Handling of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). Specifically, the report references NFPA provisions for using parking brakes, chocking wheels, and keeping the truck engine off until the hose is disconnected and vapors are dispersed.
Further recommendations
State officials offered suggestions to prevent a repeat incident. These included:
- Verification steps — Before a transfer, verify that the parking brake is set, ignition is off, keys are removed from the ignition, and rear wheels are chocked.
- Interlock brake systems — These electronic systems keep the truck wheels locked when the doors of the trailer control cabinet are open. This prevents movement.
- Communication procedures — Workers should know when a transfer is starting, underway, or completed. Notification steps should be followed by everyone involved, including contractors, in order to prevent human error.
The report also directs employers and motor carriers to a loading/unloading guide from the DOT.
Key to remember
A Washington state FACE report warns employers and motor carriers about the dangers of truck movement during a fuel transfer. The findings also list related regulations and key recommendations.
NewsIndustry NewsOn-duty time - Motor CarrierFleet SafetyHours of ServiceRisk Management TransportationRisk Management - Motor CarrierFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleFleet OperationsEnglishTransportationUSA
2022-12-15T06:00:00Z
6 Yard Move FAQs – Need-to-know answers for carriers and drivers
A “yard move” (YM) is an electronic logging device (ELD) special driving category, which carriers have the option to authorize. Putting an ELD in the YM status can give a yard or road driver added flexibility or another avenue for falsification.
To avoid violations and increased risk, ensure that your drivers, dispatchers, and safety personnel know the answers to these frequently asked questions (FAQs).
1. What falls under the definition of a “yard”?
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) does not officially define a yard. Still, it is generally accepted an area that is not open to public travel due to being restricted by signs or gates.
A carrier’s terminal, a customer’s facility, or a rail yard can be a yard if the area cannot be defined as a highway per 390.5. A driver may also cross a public road to reach another part of private property under yard-move time if traffic controls (i.e., flagger) for the public are in place.
Malls, truck stops, and parking lots the public can access, however, are all examples of places that cannot be a yard for ELD and on-duty (not driving) purposes.
2. Is a yard driver subject to federal regulations?
Commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) are federally regulated at 10,001 pounds or greater — rated or actual, alone or in combination with a trailer. State definitions of a CMV vary.
Suppose a yard truck met the definition of a CMV and operates in an area open to public travel in interstate commerce. In that case, the yard driver must be qualified under Part 391 and is subject to all other applicable federal regulations. If the yard truck and trailer meet the definition of a CDL vehicle in 383.5 as most do, the driver is also subject to drug and alcohol testing and CDL requirements.
Yard drivers might not be required by their carrier to use an ELD to create a log. They are stillsubject to the hours-of-service limits in 395.3 and the same rules for on-duty (not driving) time in a yard or on-duty driving (Line-3) on a public roadway.
A carrier may allow the use of a time record instead of an ELD to track a yard driver’s time under the 150 air-mile exception in 395.1(e). If the yard driver uses an ELD, the carrier can designate the driver as “Exempt” (exempt from grid logs only) in the ELD back-office system.
3. How is a yard move recorded on an ELD?
YM time is visible in the ELD grid as driving time with a dashed or dotted line. Before using YM time, the driver must select the “YM” special driving category and annotate the ELD record describing the reason for the activity.
According to federal hours-of-service rules, a driver cannot use “Line-3” or on-duty driving time after 14 consecutive hours from the start of on-duty time for the day. However, yard moves are recorded as “Line-4 time” or on-duty not (driving) time. Therefore, YM time doesn’t stop the 14-hour clock, but can be appropriately used beyond the 14-hour or other driving limits.
4. Does a yard move count toward the 30-minute break from eight total hours of on-duty driving?
Yes. Because a YM is on-duty (not driving), it counts toward the 30-consecutive minute break from on-duty driving required after eight total hours of on-duty driving. (see 395.3(a)(3))However, if a driver is involved in a fatigue-related crash, driving in a yard to satisfy a break from driving requirement will not look prudent to a jury.
5. What if a driver forgets to change the driving status, and the ELD remains in YM-status after they leave the yard?
The time will be incorrectly captured as Yard Move (on-duty yard time rather than on-duty driving time) and could be considered a false log. To address this, the driver should attach a comment to the log explaining the error as soon as safely possible.
The driver’s log must be manually edited to the correct driving time if the ELD system allows the off-yard time to be changed to on-duty driving time. Otherwise, an annotation must be made noting the correct on-duty (not driving) and on-duty driving time.
6. How are yard moves audited?
Verify the location at the time of the YM with the location description or the longitude and latitude data from the ELD or vehicle tracking device. If the driver was not in a yard at the time of the YM, the driver falsified the record.
A driver using a public road in YM status to get fuel or take the truck in for maintenance is considered falsification. If the driver was over the 11-hour driving limit, 14-consecutive on-duty period, or the 60- or 70-hour limit, they now have an out-of-service violation and a false log.
Carriers can define a geo-fence or virtual boundary of the yard if the system allows that feature to indicate a departure from the yard.
Keys to remember:
Carriers must train their team to understand when the Yard Move status or on-duty (not driving) can and can’t be used when operating a CMV. Audit yard moves to ensure this ELD special driving category, or duty status for drivers on time records, is not used to falsify logs.
NewsIndustry NewsFleet SafetyIn-Depth ArticlePrivate carrier authorityFocus AreaOperating AuthorityEnglishFor-Hire Carrier AuthorityTransportationUSA
2021-03-10T06:00:00Z
For-hire and private carriers: What’s the difference?
If you’re planning to start a motor carrier operation or add a different type of service to an existing business, you need to know what type of carrier you will be. Motor carriers are considered either a for-hire carrier or a private carrier. To be a private carrier, 100 percent of the company’s movements must be to support its own operation. If the carrier is engaged in any for-hire activities, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) considers them a for-hire carrier.
For-hire vs. private
For-hire carriers use vehicles to transport people or property and are paid for their service. The fee could be a direct fee like a fare or a rate but could also be other indirect forms of compensation. Examples of for-hire operations include a trucking company that hauls other people’s property for a fee (direct compensation) or a hotel that includes in its service the transportation to and from the airport to the hotel (indirect compensation).
Private carriers, on the other hand, transport only their own goods or people. Examples include a manufacturer that uses its own commercial vehicles to transport its product, a construction or landscaping company that uses commercial vehicles to transport equipment and employees to job sites, or a utility company that operates commercial vehicles in support of its operations.
For-hire operating authority
While private carriers are not required to obtain operating authority from the FMCSA, for-hire carriers are required to get authority to move property or people that belong to somebody else and get paid for their service. Having authority is often referred to as having an MC Number.
The most common types of authority are:
- Property for-hire
- Passenger for-hire
- Household goods
- Broker
- Freight forwarder
If a company never operates a commercial motor vehicle (CMV), it is possible to have authority, but not have a USDOT number. For example, straight brokers or freight forwarders.
As part of obtaining for-hire authority, carriers must designate process agents and demonstrate financial responsibility (have proper insurance coverage).
One size does not fit all
Authorities are not all-inclusive. Separate authority is needed for each type of service offered. For instance, a for-hire, over-the-road carrier that also wants to be able to resell its extra demand will need both for-hire and brokerage authorities. A company is required to pay a $300 one-time fee for each type of authority needed.
Permanent authority required
There are no temporary permits available to substitute for authority. For-hire operations may not be performed until the proper authority has been granted. It’s not uncommon for otherwise private carriers to become for-hire carriers to generate revenue on back-hauls or help balance capacity and demand during slow periods or seasons.
Getting it right
Carriers need to get it right when it comes to authority. Carriers required to have authority — but don’t and operate anyway — can get themselves into trouble. Penalties for operating without proper authority can get expensive and can result in out-of-service orders.
Key to remember: Carriers are either for-hire or private, with for-hire carriers being paid for their services while private carriers transport only their own goods or people.
Related article: Process agents — what are they and do you need them?
NewsTiresCMV Parts and MaintenanceTransportationIn-Depth ArticleCommercial motor vehicle definitionEnglishCommercial motor vehicle definitionBusiness planning - Motor CarrierIndustry NewsFederal Motor Carrier Safety RegulationsFleet SafetyElectronic logging device (ELD)Electronic logging device (ELD)Maintenance and periodic inspectionsFocus AreaVehicle weight definitionsUSA
2026-07-24T05:00:00Z
5 important DOT rule changes just went into effect
Five important rule changes from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) just went into effect. While four of them removed recordkeeping obligations, a fifth serves as a reminder that commercial trucks can be regulated even if they weigh less than 10,001 pounds.
All five changes took effect July 21-22, 2026. The following is a summary of the changes and their impact on fleet operations, along with key precautions.
1. ELD user’s manuals
Drivers are no longer required to carry an electronic logging device (ELD) user’s manual in the vehicle.
The FMCSA says the requirement no longer provides a meaningful safety benefit because ELDs have been in widespread use since 2019 and many devices either contain electronic versions of the manual or provide easy access to it online.
Caution: Drivers must still carry ELD transfer and malfunction instructions, along with at least 8 blank logs. Carrying the user manual remains a good idea, since drivers must be able to transfer ELD data and demonstrate how the device works during an inspection.
2. Roadside inspection reports
For years, motor carriers were required to return completed roadside inspection reports to the issuing state agency after correcting any defects. That federal requirement has now been scaled back.
Under the rule change, motor carriers must return the report only if the issuing state requests it. The FMCSA acknowledged that many states either didn’t want, didn’t review, or simply discarded the returned reports, making the blanket federal requirement unnecessary.
Caution: Important compliance duties remain unchanged. Motor carriers must still correct cited defects, certify that repairs were made, and retain the report for 12 months.
3. CDL driver violation reports
Commercial driver’s license (CDL) holders no longer have to self-report traffic convictions to their home state. The FMCSA eliminated the requirement because states exchange conviction information electronically.
Caution: Drivers must still report traffic convictions to their employer within 30 days, and some states may continue to impose their own reporting requirements.
4. Tire size
Another little-known change removes the requirement for maintenance records to identify tire size.
The tire-size entry had been part of the vehicle maintenance file requirements for decades, with many motor carriers and auditors unsure of its purpose. The FMCSA determined the recordkeeping requirement had become obsolete and removed it from 49 CFR 396.3.
Caution: Motor carriers must still maintain maintenance records and vehicle identification information, including the company number (if marked on the vehicle), make, serial number, and year.
5. GVWR clarification
The fifth change is technically a clarification, but it may have the greatest practical impact.
The FMCSA revised the definition of “gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)” in 49 CFR 390.5 to make perfectly clear that a vehicle’s GVWR is the manufacturer’s maximum loaded weight rating and does not change based on the vehicle’s actual weight.
More importantly, the agency explained that a vehicle with a GVWR of 10,001 pounds or more, operating in interstate commerce, remains a commercial motor vehicle even when its scale weight is below 10,001 pounds.
This clarification targets a common misunderstanding among operators of cargo vans, pickup trucks, box trucks, and other smaller vehicles. Some carriers assume they are outside the FMCSA’s jurisdiction because the vehicle’s actual weight is under 10,001 pounds. The agency has now made it clear that enforcement officials rely on the weight or the rating – whichever is higher at the time of inspection.
Caution: The clarification doesn’t create a new requirement, but it may expose compliance gaps that some smaller operations never realized they had. Make sure you know the GVWR across your fleet and ensure compliance for all regulated vehicles, even when they’re empty.
Key to remember: Four DOT regulation changes, now in effect, reduce paperwork and reporting burdens. A fifth change does the opposite: It reinforces that a vehicle’s GVWR, not its actual weight on a given day, determines whether the vehicle falls under FMCSA safety regulations.
NewsIndustry NewsFederal Motor Carrier Safety RegulationsFleet SafetyFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleEnglishTransportationBusiness planning - Motor CarrierUSA
2023-06-12T05:00:00Z
Don’t cross the (state) line without U.S. DOT compliance
Crossing a state or national border in a commercial vehicle just one time could make you subject to certain U.S. DOT regulations for months or even years to come.
That’s according to an announcement late last year from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) in which the agency quietly reasserted its authority over motor vehicles and drivers that get involved in interstate commerce — even for a single, short trip.
The two-week HOS ‘rule’
For many years, the FMCSA has enforced a policy that requires in-state truck and bus operators to follow federal hours-of-service rules for the week before and the week after any interstate movement. One week after returning to in-state-only (intrastate) operations, the driver may then return to following their state’s hours-of-service rules, which may be less strict than federal rules.
This policy, found in the FMCSA’s official guidance for 49 CFR 390.3, refers only to the hours-of-service rules and not other safety regulations like driver qualification or vehicle maintenance. How do those other rules apply to an in-state operation that needs to cross state lines?
| Read more about the two-week HOS rule in our ezExplanation: 14/15-day rule. |
4 months can turn into years
According to the FMCSA’s November 2022 announcement, a motor carrier that gets involved in interstate commerce — even for a short period of time — must comply with all other Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for the duration of the trip plus another four months.
(The agency says it could also enforce the hours-of-service rules for four months, but that length of time “is not necessary to prevent fatigue.”)
Compliance doesn’t end there, however.
The FMCSA “has jurisdiction over motor carriers, vehicles, and drivers for a 4-month period after a trip in interstate commerce,” the agency wrote. “However, records must be retained for whatever period is required by the FMCSRs, even if that period exceeds 4 months.”
This means a motor carrier may need to produce records for a federal DOT audit for many years after an interstate trip, and failure to produce those records could result in big fines.
For example ...
Suppose, for example, that a driver doing in-state-only work in a truck over 10,001 pounds is exempt from needing a driver qualification (DQ) file under state law, but now that driver needs to do a trip across state lines. This makes the driver and company subject to FMCSA compliance.
- Prior to the trip, the company would need to create an FMCSA-compliant DQ file, complete with a medical card.
- For the duration of the interstate work, the driver and motor carrier would need to comply with all the FMCSRs, including all recordkeeping requirements.
- Once the driver returns to in-state-only work, the company must retain the DQ file (and other records) for as long as the FMCSRs require. For DQ files, this means the duration of the driver’s employment plus another three years.
If the FMCSA decides to audit the carrier a few years after the interstate trip but the carrier cannot produce the driver’s file, it could mean a hefty fine.
Know when the FMCSRs apply
If you’re normally engaged in intrastate operations but may have a need to cross state lines or otherwise get involved in interstate commerce, be sure you know which rules apply, when, and for how long.
Keep in mind that the FMCSRs apply to many types of vehicles that are not regulated when operating in intrastate commerce. The FMCSRs apply to all “commercial motor vehicles” as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, which includes vehicles operating in interstate commerce that weigh or are rated at 10,001 pounds or more (including all vehicles in a combination), even if a commercial driver’s license is not required.
Key to remember: The FMCSA has reasserted its authority to regulate in-state motor carriers for four months after they engage in interstate work, though recordkeeping requirements may continue to apply for years.
NewsIndustry NewsFleet SafetyFederal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOTDrug testing - Motor CarrierDrug and Alcohol Testing - DOTFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleEnglishSplit specimen - Motor CarrierTransportationUSA
2022-08-03T05:00:00Z
The importance of the split specimen in drug testing
A question we’ve been seeing a lot lately has to do with the split specimen process and the motor carrier’s responsibilities if one of their drivers requests that a split specimen be tested.
Drivers who are informed that they’ve failed a DOT drug test have the right to request that the secondary specimen be tested if they believe that the test result is inaccurate. Due process is an important aspect of our legal system, but waiting for a split specimen to be tested can cause some confusion for motor carriers. Here are some common questions we hear about the split specimen process.
What is a split specimen?
When a driver gives a urine sample for the purposes of DOT drug testing, the collector will split the specimen into two separate containers. The container labeled as the primary specimen will be tested by the lab; the container labeled as the secondary specimen is only tested if the driver requests that it be tested after the primary specimen is verified as positive, adulterated, or substituted.
How does a driver request that the split specimen be tested?
When the medical review officer (MRO) contacts the driver about a verified positive, adulterated, or substituted test, the MRO will inform the driver of the driver’s right to have the split specimen tested. The driver then has 72 hours from the time of notification to request via the MRO that the split specimen be tested.
What happens while the split specimen is being tested?
Because the driver’s primary specimen was verified positive, adulterated, or substituted, the motor carrier should have already pulled the driver from performing safety-sensitive functions. The driver cannot resume driving while the split specimen is being tested. Whether the driver is reassigned to a non-driving position or is suspended depends on the motor carrier’s drug and alcohol policy.
Who pays for the split specimen to be tested?
The regulations specify that the carrier cannot delay lab testing in order to collect payment from the driver. The secondary specimen should be submitted for testing as soon as the driver requests it, and motor carrier will be billed through the carrier’s lab account. In some cases, the motor carrier can seek reimbursement from the driver for full or partial costs of the split-specimen test.
Is the drug violation reported to the Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse right away, or does the MRO wait for the results of the test on the secondary sample?
The MRO will report the positive, adulterated, or substituted drug test result to the Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse within two business days of verifying the result for the primary specimen. Once the MRO receives the lab results for the secondary sample, one of three things happens:
- The secondary test result reconfirms the primary test result. The violation stands and remains in the Clearinghouse.
- The test of the secondary sample fails to reconfirm any of the original findings. The test will be canceled, and the MRO will change the result in the Clearinghouse within one business day of receiving the secondary test results.
- The test of the split specimen does not reconfirm the original result but identifies something suspicious in the secondary sample. The regulations in 40.187 spell out a variety of situations that require the driver to be tested again, such as if the secondary sample is invalid or if part of the original result is reconfirmed but the sample also tests as substituted or adulterated. If any of these complex scenarios applies, the MRO will direct the carrier’s designated employer representative (DER) to immediately send the driver for another collection under direct observation. If that test result is negative and is not adulterated or substituted, the MRO will change the result in the Clearinghouse within one business day of receiving the secondary test results. Otherwise, the violation will stand and remain in the Clearinghouse.
Key to remember: Dividing a urine specimen into two samples allows for a driver to request that the secondary sample be tested if the first specimen indicates drug use. This is an important part of the driver’s right to due process.
Most Popular Highlights In Human Resources
NewsDrug and Alcohol TestingDrug and Alcohol TestingDrug Free WorkplaceMarijuanaIn-Depth ArticleUSAHR ManagementEnglishIndustry NewsSafety & HealthGeneral Industry SafetyHR GeneralistAssociate RelationsFocus AreaHuman Resources
2026-07-28T05:00:00Z
Federal marijuana changes mean it’s time for a drug and alcohol policy review
If you haven’t looked at your drug and alcohol policy lately, it’s time to schedule a review. A change in the way the federal government views medical marijuana could mean it needs to be refreshed.
Federal medical marijuana change impacts accommodations
In April, medical marijuana was reclassified as a Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act, meaning that under federal law it’s considered to have a low potential for dependence. Products containing marijuana approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and marijuana products regulated by state medical marijuana laws are now in the lower drug category.
State medical marijuana laws still need to be followed, but the reclassification gives some federal protections to individuals who legally use medical marijuana under a state law or who use a federally approved drug containing marijuana.
To avoid the risk of a discrimination claim under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers in states where medical marijuana is legal should review their workplace policy to make sure it treats individuals using medical marijuana the same way it treats any individual using a prescription medication.
Employers with employees covered by federal drug and alcohol testing regulations for workers in safety-sensitive positions, such as Department of Transportation regulations, must continue to follow those federal laws and forbid marijuana use for covered employees. There are other considerations for employees who only fall under a workplace drug and alcohol policy, however.
A positive test for marijuana should not automatically lead to termination or a decision not to hire. Employers should consider additional factors before making a decision.
What does it mean to accommodate medical marijuana use?
When an employee tests positive for marijuana, an employer should check to see if the positive test is the result of legal off-duty use of medical marijuana. If that is the case, accommodation should be considered.
Accommodating medical marijuana use doesn’t mean an employee must be allowed to use it in the workplace or be impaired on work time. Instead, it means pausing to consider a workplace change because of the employee’s medical condition.
In general, this begins with a discussion with the employee about accommodations, including the legal off-duty use of medical marijuana. In states where medical marijuana isn’t legal, employers would only need to consider accommodations for use of marijuana products approved by the FDA. If an employee with a medical marijuana card asks that off-duty use be accommodated, the information-gathering phase could include documentation of the disability and the need for accommodation.
When deciding whether off-duty medical marijuana use is an appropriate accommodation, safety concerns may be considered. An employer can ask the employee to present their doctor with a list of their job duties and concerns to determine whether a genuine risk of substantial harm exists if the employee were to use cannabis while off duty.
If the off-duty use of medical marijuana presents a risk, other reasonable accommodations should be discussed. Perhaps the employee can work with their doctor to find another medication that will not present a safety risk. Other considerations could include moving the employee out of a safety-sensitive position, using alternative scheduling, or changing the way the work is done.
After the accommodation has been agreed upon, a trial period can be used to determine whether it is working.
Federal recreational marijuana changes under consideration
Additional changes to the way the federal government views marijuana could be coming soon. Recreational marijuana is still categorized as a Schedule I drug, but the federal government is considering moving it to a lower drug schedule.
The Drug Enforcement Administration held hearings on this proposal between June 29 and July 15, and those who spoke at the hearing can submit briefs through August 17. After the hearing process is completed, the federal government could issue a final rule rescheduling recreational marijuana.
More will be known about how this could influence workplace drug policies after a final rule is issued. It’s likely that state laws will continue to make an impact on how employers handle marijuana in the workplace, although rescheduling could also mean that the federal Food and Drug Administration plays a larger role in how marijuana is handled.
For now, employers should continue to follow state recreational marijuana laws and consider accommodations for medical marijuana as required.
Key to remember: Employers should review drug and alcohol policies to make sure medical marijuana is handled appropriately and watch for changes in the way the federal government classifies recreational marijuana.
NewsMonthly Roundup VideoFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)LeaveFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)USAHuman ResourcesLeaveHR ManagementEnglishTalent Management & RecruitingAssociate Benefits & CompensationDiscriminationGender DiscriminationDiscriminationIndustry NewsAffirmative ActionRetaliationWage and HourWage and HourPregnancy DiscriminationHR GeneralistAssociate RelationsFocus AreaVideo
HR Monthly Round Up - July 2026
In this July 2026 roundup video, we’ll review the most impactful HR news.
Welcome, everyone! In the next few minutes, we’ll review the latest HR news. Let’s get started.
On June 30th, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced that it voted to rescind two documents relating to permissible affirmative action under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The rescission doesn’t reverse the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in two cases in which the Court recognized that Title VII may allow for certain voluntary affirmative action plans in limited circumstances.
In lieu of the EEOC’s actions, employers may want to assess whether any existing policies or programs could be affected by changes in the federal government’s approach to affirmative action.
One other quick EEOC update, the agency published its 2026 regulatory agenda on July 6th, indicating that it plans to publish a proposed rule in November that would change the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act regulations. The EEOC wants to revise the interpretation of the words “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” Stay tuned for more on this in the coming months.
Also, on July 6th, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division published its 2026 regulatory agenda. The agency noted that a proposed rule on joint employer status was slated for July 2026, and a final rule on independent contractor status is expected in October 2026. However, these dates, like the EEOC one, are estimates and subject to change.
Our last HR update for this month is all about retaliation, specifically as it pertains to the Family and Medical Leave Act. Employers are prohibited from taking adverse employment actions because employees exercise their FMLA rights. For example, giving an employee who took FMLA leave a smaller pay increase or a lower bonus could be seen as retaliating against them.
That’s what the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in June against an employer that had given an employee a more than 40 percent reduction in bonus and salary increase compared to previous years. The employer ultimately fired the employee who then sued.
The court found the timing of the lower amounts was unusually suggestive, as they happened right after he took FMLA leave, which implied it was retaliatory.
That’s all the HR news we have time for today. Thanks for watching. See you next month!
NewsIndustry NewsRecordkeepingRecordkeepingHR GeneralistFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)In-Depth ArticleFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)HR ManagementEnglishUSAFocus AreaHuman Resources
2026-05-20T05:00:00Z
Do the FMLA notices and certifications expire in June?
The answer to that question for employers is, “No.” The answer to that question for the U.S. Government’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), however, is, “Yes.”
Employers might notice that the following federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) documents from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) have an expiration date listed as “6/30/26” in the upper right-hand corner:
- WH-381: Eligibility/Rights and Responsibilities Notice
- WH-382: Designation notice
- WH-380-E: Certification of an employee’s serious health condition
- WH-380-F: Certification of a family member’s serious health condition
- WH-384: Certification of a qualifying exigency
- WH-385: Certification for military caregiver of a current military member
- WH-385-V: Certification for military caregiver of a veteran
This, however, doesn’t mean that employers aren’t allowed to use these forms after that date. They may. Employers and employees are allowed to use the current forms beyond that date because the content remains applicable under FMLA law.
The June 30, 2026, date on the FMLA notices and certification forms, doesn’t represent a deadline for FMLA leave itself. It’s the OMB’s expiration date for the forms’ collection and recordkeeping requirements, not the end of the forms’ legal validity.
What the date means
These government documents are subject to certain checks and balances, such as the following:
- OMB control number 1235‑0003 governs the collection of information from employers and employees for DOL compliance purposes.
- The June 30, 2026, date is when the latest version of the forms will be replaced by a new OMB‑approved version.
The OMB has to review the FMLA notices and certification forms every 3 years. The last time it did so, it didn’t make any material changes.
The OMB is part of the U.S. Executive Office and helps the president meet policy and budget, manage details, oversee regulatory objectives, and helps fulfill the agency’s statutory responsibilities.
Model forms optional
Employers aren’t required to use the DOL’s model forms. Many do, however, because it’s easier than creating their own forms. Using the DOL’s forms also helps ensure the notices provide enough information and the certifications don’t ask employees for information beyond what the FMLA allows.
Key to remember: The June 30, 2026, expiration date of FMLA documents is just a form‑collection deadline, not a legal cutoff for FMLA leave or certification. Employers may still use the current forms until a new version is issued.
NewsDrug and Alcohol TestingMarijuanaSafety & HealthChange NoticesChange NoticeGeneral Industry SafetyAssociate Benefits & CompensationHR GeneralistNew JerseyAssociate RelationsEnglishHR ManagementFocus AreaHuman Resources
2026-07-28T05:00:00Z
New Jersey state court rules in cannabis law
Effective date: May 26, 2026
This applies to: Employers in New Jersey doing drug testing
Description of change: A New Jersey state court ruled in May 2026 that the state’s cannabis law allows individuals to bring a private lawsuit against an employer alleging discrimination because of marijuana use. This is contrary to federal court decision issued in 2024 which determined that the state’s Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Market Modernization Act (CREAMMA) didn’t create a private right of action.
While the state court acknowledges that it reached a different conclusion than the federal court, it noted in the decision that state courts aren’t bound to federal court decisions with respect to state law.
In light of the court’s decision, employers in New Jersey shouldn’t base employment decisions only on an individual’s use of cannabis.
View related state info: Marijuana – New Jersey
NewsFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)LeaveTime offFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)HR ManagementEnglishLeaveLouisianaAssociate Benefits & CompensationChange NoticesChange NoticeHR GeneralistAssociate RelationsFocus AreaHuman Resources
2026-07-27T05:00:00Z
Louisiana adds living donor leave
Effective date: August 1, 2026
This applies to: State agencies and private employers with one or more employees
Description of change: Effective August 1, 2026, Louisiana state employees may take paid, job-protected leave to donate organs. Employees of private employers in the state may take unpaid, job-protected leave to be donors.
To be eligible to take the paid leave, a full-time employee of a state agency must have been continuously employed by the same agency for at least 12 months.
The law doesn’t have eligibility criteria specifically for employees of private employers, but employees must request the leave in writing.
Employees may take up to 30 consecutive calendar days of leave to serve as human organ or bone marrow donors.
Employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees who request or take such leave.
The donor leave can run concurrently with leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
View related state info: FMLA - Louisiana
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsHR GeneralistFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)USAHR ManagementEnglishFocus AreaHuman 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.
Most Popular Highlights In Safety & Health
NewsIndustry NewsSafety & HealthConstruction SafetyLockout/TagoutGeneral Industry SafetyIn-Depth ArticleEnglishLockout/Tagout Periodic EvaluationFocus AreaUSA
2026-07-23T05:00:00Z
What your LOTO periodic inspection might be missing
The locks came off. The equipment started up. Everything seemed normal. Then someone got hurt. Too often, hazardous energy incidents happen because a lockout/tagout procedure no longer reflects how the work is being done. That’s where periodic inspections come in. Each year, workers are seriously injured or killed when hazardous energy is not properly controlled. OSHA also continues to rank lockout/tagout among its most frequently cited standards.
Where lockout/tagout programs start to drift
Most lockout/tagout programs gradually lose effectiveness when procedures are assumed to be correct rather than verified. A strong periodic inspection can identify small gaps and help keep procedures accurate before those gaps become serious hazards. Common warning signs include:
- Equipment modifications that never make it into the written procedure;
- Authorized employees following different steps for the same machine;
- Procedures that have not been reviewed since they were created;
- New employees learning from coworkers instead of the documented procedure; or
- Lockout/tagout practices that vary between shifts.
The compliance side of periodic evaluations
Under OSHA's lockout/tagout standard (29 CFR 1910.147), employers must conduct a periodic inspection of each energy control procedure at least annually. The inspection must be performed by an authorized employee other than the employee using the procedure being inspected. The inspection is intended to verify that:
- The procedure is being followed;
- Employees understand their responsibilities; and
- The procedure continues to provide effective protection from hazardous energy.
OSHA also requires employers to certify that the inspection was completed. At a minimum, the certification must identify the machine or equipment, the inspection date, the employees included in the inspection, and the person performing the inspection. If deficiencies or deviations are identified, employers must take corrective action. That may mean revising the procedure, providing retraining, or both.
Making periodic inspections more meaningful
Inspections help verify that energy control procedures remain accurate; employees are following them correctly, and small gaps are identified before they become serious hazards. The strongest periodic inspections look at what's happening on the floor as well as what's written in the procedure. Start with these checks:
Observe the procedure: Watch an authorized employee perform the lockout process. Compare what is happening in the field against what is written in the procedure.
Verify equipment accuracy: Confirm that energy sources, isolation points, disconnects, and verification steps still match the equipment configuration.
Discuss responsibilities: Use the inspection as an opportunity to review employee responsibilities and answer questions about the procedure.
Look for changes: Consider equipment modifications, process changes, new tooling, or updated operating practices that may require revisions to the procedure.
Document and follow up: Record findings, address deficiencies promptly, and retrain employees when needed.
Key to remember: A lockout/tagout procedure is only effective if it reflects current conditions. Periodic inspections can help keep hazardous energy programs working as intended.
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsEnforcement and Audits - OSHASafety & HealthGeneral Industry SafetyOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), DOLEnglishFocus AreaOSHA Emphasis ProgramsUSA
2026-07-31T05:00:00Z
OSHA revises, extends warehouse NEP
Effective July 31, OSHA revised its National Emphasis Program (NEP) on Warehousing and Distribution Center Operations (CPL 03-00-026) and extended the expiration date five years, to July 31, 2031. Inspections under the NEP will continue to focus on hazards common to warehousing and distribution centers such as powered industrial trucks, material handling/storage, walking-working surfaces, means of egress, heat, ergonomics, and fire protection.
Significant revisions include:
- Removed coverage for High Injury Rate Retail Establishments (Table 3 in 2023 NEP).
- Removed mandatory screening for ergonomic and heat hazards.
- Clarified Area Office discretion to expand inspections based upon fatalities/catastrophes, complaints, or referrals related to establishments in the NAICS codes covered under the NEP.
The revised NEP replaces the previous version, which took effect July 13, 2023.
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsSafety & HealthBenzeneGeneral Industry SafetyOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), DOLEnglishFocus AreaToxic and Hazardous Substances - OSHAUSA
2026-07-28T05:00:00Z
OSHA reopens benzene comment period
The public has an additional 30 days, until August 27, to comment on OSHA’s proposed changes to the benzene standard (1910.1028). The proposed rule was originally published in the Federal Register on July 1, 2025.
At that time, OSHA was in the process of appointing members to its Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH). The agency stated that it would present the proposed rule to ACCSH once that process was complete and would allow the public time to provide comments on ACCSH’s recommendations.
To submit comments on the proposed rule, see Docket No. OSHA-2025-0023 at www.regulations.gov.
NewsFormaldehydeMethylene ChlorideEnglishAsbestosCadmiumIndustry NewsIndustry NewsLeadSafety & HealthGeneral Industry SafetyToxic and Hazardous Substances - OSHAAcrylonitrileEthylene OxideFocus AreaToxic and Hazardous Substances - OSHAUSA
2026-07-22T05:00:00Z
OSHA reopens comment period for 13 proposed rules
OSHA has reopened the comment period for 13 chemical-specific proposed rules. The August 21 deadline provides the public 30 days to comment on recommendations made by OSHA’s Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH). The rules are:
- 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane
- 1, 3- Butadiene
- 13 Carcinogens (4- Nitrobiphenyl, etc.)
- Acrylonitrile
- Asbestos
- Cadmium
- Ethylene Oxide
- Formaldehyde
- Inorganic Arsenic
- Lead
- Methylene Chloride
- Methylenedianiline
- Vinyl Chloride
The proposed rules were originally published in the Federal Register on July 1, 2025. At that time, OSHA was in the process of appointing members to ACCSH. The agency stated that it would present the proposed rules to ACCSH once that process was complete and would allow the public time to provide comments on the recommendations.
To read or download the ACCSH recommendations, comments, and other materials submitted in the docket, visit www.regulations.gov.
NewsIndustry NewsSafety & HealthElectrical SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyElectrical SafetyIn-Depth ArticleEnglishFocus AreaUSA
2022-11-14T06:00:00Z
Don’t blast away arc flash safety
Despite the numerous safety standards and resources to protect employees from arc flash blasts, many employees continue to get seriously injured or killed by these lethal hazards. In early 2022, Congress met with OSHA and other stakeholders to discuss improvements to OSHA’s electrical personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements. During the meeting, stakeholders agree that between 500,000 and 800,000 workers regularly work without adequate PPE, including arc flash protection.
If you have two energized points which are not contacting each other solidly, the current can jump from one point to the other. This is called an electric arc or arc flash. Arc flashes occur by an electrical equipment failure (like a short circuit) or human error (such as holding a metal object too close to energized equipment).
One-second duration
Unlike a flash fire, an electric arc can begin and end in less than a second. Bystanders see a flash and hear a loud boom, and it is over.
Electric arc
A person can be severely injured or killed by this arc’s huge amount of heat. The temperature of the arc can range from 15,000 to 35,000 degrees Fahrenheit (F). (Heat above 122 degrees (F) can cause third-degree burns, which do not heal.) You can imagine what this heat can do to the human body.
Flying molten metal
The arc also immediately turns the electrical conductors into molten metal droplets that fly away from the source near the sound speed. These projectiles can travel quite a distance, starting clothing and other materials on fire.
Arc blast
Not only does the electric arc generate excessive heat, but this heat also causes an intense pressure wave that usually throws the employees working nearby away from the arc. This wave is so strong it can break eardrums and cause concussions and broken bones.
Explosions and/or fire
The heat from electric arcs can ignite combustible or flammable vapors in the air, causing an explosion. Materials stored nearby can also start on fire.
Personal protective equipment (PPE)
Whenever electrical workers have the chance of exposure to an electric arc, they must wear clothing and eye protection resistant to the flash. Make sure your employer provides you with the necessary PPE.
Cost of an electric arc accident
The monetary cost of an electric arc accident can run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. Damage to equipment and facility, lost production time, increased insurance expenses, medical bills, worker’s compensation, and legal costs can all result from one electric arc accident.
Key to remember
Electricity has long been recognized as a serious workplace hazard, exposing workers to electric shock, burns, fires, and arc-flash explosions. OSHA’s electrical standard minimizes these potential hazards by specifying safety requirements in the design and use of electrical equipment and systems.
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsSafety & HealthMiningSpecialized IndustriesEnglishMine SafetyFocus AreaUSA
2026-07-15T05:00:00Z
MSHA finalizes several deregulatory actions
Effective July 27, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) will withdraw regulations that address outdated effective dates and requirements for various industry equipment and procedures.
On June 25, the agency published several final rules based on a series of July 1, 2025, proposals issued after President Trump’s Executive Order directing agencies to “alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens.” These rules address:
- Approval of conveyor belts in underground coal mines.
- Blacksmith shops at surface metal and nonmetal mines.
- Diesel emission limits for equipment in underground coal mines.
- Permissible flame safety lamps in underground coal mines.
The removal of outdated requirements will help MSHA streamline current requirements and improve the clarity of its standards.
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.
OK
J. J. Keller is the trusted source for DOT / Transportation, OSHA / Workplace Safety, Human Resources, Construction Safety and Hazmat / Hazardous Materials regulation compliance products and services. J. J. Keller helps you increase safety awareness, reduce risk, follow best practices, improve safety training, and stay current with changing regulations.
Copyright 2026 J. J. Keller & Associate, Inc. For re-use options please contact copyright@jjkeller.com or call 800-558-5011.



















































