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

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

EPA Final Rule: Mississippi: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program Revisions

2024-01-18T06:00:00Z

The State of Mississippi (Mississippi or State) has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for final approval of revisions to its Underground Storage Tank Program (UST Program) under subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Pursuant to RCRA, the EPA is taking direct final action, subject to public comment, to approve revisions to the UST Program. The EPA has reviewed Mississippi's revisions and has determined that these revisions satisfy all requirements needed for approval. In addition, this action also codifies the EPA's approval of Mississippi's revised UST Program and inCcorporates by reference those provisions of the State statutes and regulations that the EPA has determined meet the requirements for approval.

DATES:

This rule is effective March 18, 2024, published in the Federal Register January 18, 2024, page 3354.

View final rule.

§282.2 Incorporation by reference.
(b)(4)RevisedView text
§282.74 Mississippi State-Administered Program.
Entire sectionRevisedView text
Appendix A to Part 282 - State Requirements Incorporated by Reference in Part 282 of the Code of Federal Regulations
Entry for MississippiRevisedView text

New Text

§282.2 Incorporation by reference.

* * * *

(b)(4) Region 4 (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee): 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960; Phone Number: (404) 562-9900.

§282.74 Mississippi State-Administered Program.

(a) History of the approval of Mississippi's program. The State of Mississippi (Mississippi or State) is approved to administer and enforce an underground storage tank (UST) program in lieu of the Federal program under subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq. The State's Underground Storage Tank Program (UST Program), as administered by the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), was approved by EPA pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6991c and part 281 of this chapter. EPA approved the Mississippi UST Program on June 11, 1990, and it was effective on July 11, 1990. A subsequent program revision was approved by EPA and became effective March 18, 2024.

(b) Enforcement authority. Mississippi has primary responsibility for administering and enforcing its federally approved UST Program. However, EPA retains the authority to exercise its corrective action, inspection, and enforcement authorities under sections 9003(h), 9005, and 9006 of subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991b(h), 6991d, and 6991e, as well as under any other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.

(c) Retention of program approval. To retain program approval, Mississippi must revise its approved UST Program to adopt new changes to the Federal subtitle I program which make it more stringent, in accordance with section 9004 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991c, and 40 CFR part 281, subpart E. If Mississippi obtains approval for revised requirements pursuant to section 9004 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991c, the newly approved statutory and regulatory provisions will be added to this subpart and notice of any change will be published in the Federal Register .

(d) Final approval. Mississippi has final approval for the following elements of its UST Program submitted to EPA and approved effective June 11, 1990, and the program revisions approved by EPA effective on March 18, 2024:

(1) State statutes and regulations— (i) Incorporation by reference. The Mississippi materials cited in this paragraph (d)(1)(i), and listed in appendix A to this part, are incorporated by reference as part of the UST Program under subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq. (See §282.2 for incorporation by reference approval and inspection information.) You may obtain copies of the Mississippi statutes and regulations that are incorporated by reference in this paragraph (d)(1)(i) from the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 2261, Jackson, MS 29335; Phone number: (601) 961–5171; website: https://www.mdeq.ms.gov/water/groundwater-assessment-and-remediation/underground-storage-tanks/.

(A) “Mississippi Statutory Requirements Applicable to the Underground Storage Tank Program,” dated September 5, 2023.

(B) “Mississippi Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the Underground Storage Tank Program,” dated September 5, 2023.

(ii) Legal basis. EPA considered the following statutes and regulations which provide the legal basis for the State's implementation of the UST Program, but do not replace Federal authorities. Further, these provisions are not being incorporated by reference, unless the provisions place requirements on regulated entities.

(A) Mississippi Underground Storage Tank Act (the UST Act) of 1988, Miss. Code Ann. sections 49–17–401 to 49–17–435 (2022).

(1) Section 49–17–409, as to the first sentence, insofar as it provides for compliance monitoring and the promulgation of regulations for the reporting of releases.

(2) Section 49–17–413(1), insofar as it provides for compliance monitoring, and the promulgation of regulations for the implementation of the State UST Program.

(3) Section 49–17–415, insofar as it provides for compliance monitoring and establishes authority to conduct inspections, tests, and obtain information from owners.

(4) Section 49–17–419, insofar as it establishes authority over corrective action.

(5) Section 49–17–425, insofar as it provides for the sharing of information with EPA.

(6) Section 49–17–427, insofar as it provides for enforcement response, enforcement of orders, assessment of penalties under the UST Act, proceedings before the commission, and limitations on liability.

(7) Section 49–17–431, insofar as it provides for appeal of any decision by the commission or the director.

(B) Mississippi Air and Water Pollution Control Law, Miss. Code Ann. sections 49–17–27 and 49–17–31 to 49–17–41 (2020).

(1) Section 49–17–27, insofar as it provides for enforcement response and injunctive relief.

(2) Section 49–17–31, insofar as it provides for enforcement response, notice of violations, enforcement of regulations and orders, procedures for contested cases, and assessment of penalties.

(3) Section 49–17–33, insofar as it provides for hearing procedures, issuance of orders, and penalties.

(4) Section 49–17–35, insofar as it provides for enforcement response, public participation, and citizen intervention.

(5) Section 49–17–37, insofar as it provides for hearing procedures and transcripts.

(6) Section 49–17–39, insofar as it provides for the sharing of information with EPA.

(7) Section 49–17–41, insofar as it provides for appeal rights for aggrieved parties.

(C) Mississippi's Underground Storage Tank Regulations, 11 Miss. Admin. Code Pt. 5, Ch. 2 (2018).

(1) R. 2.3, 280.36, insofar as it provides for delivery prohibition and enforcement of the State UST Program.

(2) R. 2.6, 280.67, insofar as it provides for public participation in the corrective action process.

(D) Rule 24(a)(2) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure (1982), insofar as it provides for citizen intervention and public participation in the State enforcement process.

(iii) Other provisions not incorporated by reference. The following statutory and regulatory provisions applicable to the Mississippi UST Program are broader in scope than the Federal program, external to the State UST program approval requirements, or are being excluded for other reasons as noted below. Therefore, these provisions are not part of the approved UST Program and are not incorporated by reference in this section:

(A) Mississippi Underground Storage Tank Act (the UST Act) of 1988, Miss. Code Ann. sections 49–17–401 to 49–17–435 (2022).

(1) 49–17–403(b) is broader in scope as to the definition of “Bonded distributor,” insofar as it is associated with the regulation of entities other than owners and operators as these terms are defined in 40 CFR 280.12.

(2) Section 49–17–403(o) is broader in scope as to the definition of “Response action contractor,” insofar as it is associated with the regulation of entities other than owners and operators as these terms are defined in 40 CFR 280.12.

(3) Section 49–17–403(p) is broader in scope as to the definition of “Retailer,” insofar as it is associated with the regulation of entities other than owners and operators as these terms are defined in 40 CFR 280.12.

(4) Section 49–17–403(q) is broader in scope as to the definition of “Substantial compliance,” insofar as it relates to a State fund.

(5) Section 49–17–405 is broader in scope insofar as it provides for the creation of the Mississippi Groundwater Protection Trust Fund (State Fund), promulgation of regulations regarding the State Fund, criteria for qualified expenditure of funds, and liability of owners for fund expenditures.

(6) Section 49–17–407 is broader in scope insofar as it creates an environmental protection fee, provides limits on use of the State Fund, and addresses third party claims.

(7) Section 49–17–409 is broader in scope, all except for the first sentence, insofar as it provides for the eligibility requirements of the State Fund and reimbursement of costs from owners.

(8) Section 49–17–421 is broader in scope insofar as it establishes an annual tank regulatory fee.

(9) Section 49–17–422 is broader in scope insofar as it creates an Underground Storage Tank Advisory Council.

(10) Section 49–17–423 is broader in scope insofar as it pertains to the commission's administration of funds from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.

(11) Section 49–17–429 is broader in scope insofar as it requires the certification of individuals to install, alter, or remove underground storage tanks and provides for the promulgation of regulations setting forth certification requirements.

(12) Section 49–17–433 is external insofar as it pertains to the severability of the State UST Act.

(13) Section 49–17–435 is external insofar as it contains reporting obligations on the State agency, not a regulated entity.

(B) Mississippi Air and Water Pollution Control Law, Miss. Code Ann. sections 49–17–27 and 49–17–31 to 49–17–41 (2020).

(1) Section 49–17–32 is external insofar as it does not pertain to the State UST Program.

(2) Section 49–17–34 is external insofar as it does not pertain to the State UST Program.

(3) Section 49–17–36 is external insofar as it does not pertain to the State UST Program.

(C) Mississippi's Groundwater Protection Trust Fund Regulations, 11 Miss. Admin. Code Pt. 5, Ch. 1 (2009) is broader in scope insofar as these provisions regulate Immediate Response Action Contractors, Environmental Response Action Contractors, and the State Fund.

(D) Mississippi's Underground Storage Tank Regulations, 11 Miss. Admin. Code Pt. 5, Ch. 2 (2018).

(1) R. 2.1, 280.12 is broader in scope as to the definition of “Ancillary equipment,” insofar as it pertains to dispensers.

(2) R. 2.1, 280.12 is broader in scope as to the definition of “Certificate of Operation,” insofar as it requires UST systems to be permitted by MDEQ and the payment of tank regulatory fees.

(3) R. 2.1, 280.12 is broader in scope as to the definition of “Motor fuel,” insofar as it includes 100% biodiesel or ethanol.

(4) R. 2.1, 280.12 is broader in scope as to the definition of “New tank system,” insofar as it includes dispensers as part of the new tank system.

(5) R. 2.1, 280.12 is broader in scope as to the definition of “Register,” insofar as it requires notification for installation, replacement, and change in operational status of a dispenser.

(6) R. 2.1, 280.12 is broader in scope as to the definition of “Replace,” insofar as it considers replacement of a dispenser to constitute a new UST system.

(7) R. 2.2, 280.20(j) is broader in scope insofar as it regulates shear valves.

(8) R. 2.2, 280.22(a) and (b) are broader in scope insofar as these provisions regulate dispensers.

(9) R. 2.3, 280.34(g) through (i) are broader in scope insofar as these provisions regulate dispensers.

(10) R. 2.3, 280.35(a)(4) is broader in scope insofar as it regulates dispensers.

(11) R. 2.3, 280.35(b)(1) is broader in scope insofar as it regulates shear valves.

(12) R. 2.3, 280.38(b)(1)(iii) is broader in scope insofar as it regulates shear valves.

(13) R. 2.8, 280.91(e) and (f), are excluded for other reasons. Paragraph (e) is excluded only insofar as it includes Indian tribes as a “local government entity,” and paragraph (f) is excluded insofar as EPA retains responsibility for implementing the Federal UST program in Indian country.

Note 1 to paragraph (d)(1)(iii)(D)(13).

MDEQ does not regulate any USTs on Indian lands and EPA retains responsibility for implementing the Federal UST program in Indian country. In a subsequent rulemaking, MDEQ will revise these provisions to remove references to the State's regulation of USTs in Indian country.

(14) R. 2.8, 280.92, is excluded for other reasons only insofar as the definition of “Local government” includes Indian tribes.

Note 2 to paragraph (d)(1)(iii)(D)(14).

MDEQ does not regulate any USTs on Indian lands and the EPA retains responsibility for implementing the Federal UST program in Indian country. In a subsequent rulemaking, MDEQ will revise the definition of “Local government” to exclude Indian tribes.

(15) R. 2.8, 280.100 is external insofar as it is not applicable in a State with an approved UST program.

(E) Mississippi's Underground Storage Tank Regulations for the Certification of Persons Who Install, Alter, and Remove Underground Storage Tanks, 11 Miss. Admin. Code Pt. 5, Ch. 3 (2018) is broader in scope insofar as these provisions provide for the certification and regulation of persons who install, alter, test, and permanently close underground storage tanks.

(2) Statement of legal authority. The Attorney General's Statement, signed by the Mississippi Attorney General on July 27, 2023, though not incorporated by reference, is referenced as part of the approved underground storage tank program under subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq.

(3) Demonstration of procedures for adequate enforcement. The “Demonstration of Adequate Enforcement Procedures” submitted in the application dated July 31, 2023, as amended on August 17, 2023, though not incorporated by reference, is referenced as part of the approved underground storage tank program under subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq.

(4) Program description. The program description submitted in the application dated July 31, 2023, as amended on August 17, 2023, though not incorporated by reference, is referenced as part of the approved underground storage tank program under subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq.

(5) Memorandum of Agreement. The Memorandum of Agreement between EPA Region 4 and the MDEQ, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator on October 12, 2018, though not incorporated by reference, is referenced as part of the approved underground storage tank program under subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq.

Appendix A to Part 282 - State Requirements Incorporated by Reference in Part 282 of the Code of Federal Regulations

* * * *

Mississippi

(a) The statutory provisions include:

Mississippi Underground Storage Tank Act (the UST Act) of 1988, Miss. Code Ann. sections 49–17–401 to 49–17–435 (2022):

49–17–401 Short Title.

49–17–403 Definitions, except (b), (o), (p), and (q).

49–17–411 Compliance with regulations.

49–17–413 Rules and regulations, except for (1).

49–17–417 Repealed.

Note to paragraph (a) of Appendix A to Part 282.

Miss. Code Ann. section 49–17–413(2) is approved as part of the State UST Program to the extent that Mississippi will not grant a variance that makes its UST Program less stringent than the Federal regulations. In practice, Mississippi does not grant variances for the UST Program. Mississippi has agreed to execute a revised Memorandum of Agreement with EPA stating that Mississippi will limit the scope of its variance authority to only those situations where the Federal regulations allow the implementing agency to approve flexibilities.

(b) The regulatory provisions include:

Mississippi's Underground Storage Tank Regulations, 11 Miss. Admin. Code Pt. 5, Ch. 2 (2018):

Rule 2.1 Program Scope and Interim Prohibition

280.10 Applicability.

280.11 Installation requirements for partially excluded UST systems.

280.12 Definitions, except for “dispensers” in the definition of “Ancillary equipment;” the definition of “Certificate of Operation;” “including 100% biodiesel or ethanol” from the definition of “Motor fuel;” “dispensers” and (c) from the definition of “New tank system;” “dispensers” from the definition of “Register;” “dispensers” and (c) from the definition of “Replace.”

280.13 Industry codes and recommended practices.

Rule 2.2 UST Systems: Design, Construction, Installation and Notification

280.20 Performance Standards for new UST systems, except for (j).

280.21 Upgrading of existing UST systems.

280.22 Notification requirements, except as applied to “dispensers” in (a) and (b).

Rule 2.3 General Operating Requirements

280.30 Operation and maintenance of spill and overfill prevention.

280.31 Operation and maintenance of secondary containment.

280.32 Operation and maintenance of corrosion protection.

280.33 Compatibility.

280.34 Repairs and replacements, except as applied to “dispenser(s)” in (g), (h), and (i).

280.35 Reporting recordkeeping, except as applied to “dispensers” in (a)(4); and except as applied to “shear valves” in (b)(1).

280.37 Operator training.

280.38 Operation and maintenance walkthrough inspections, except for (b)(1)(iii).

Rule 2.4 Leak Detection

280.40 General requirements for all UST systems.

280.41 Requirements for petroleum UST systems.

280.42 Requirements for hazardous substance UST systems.

280.43 Methods of leak detection for tanks.

280.44 Methods of leak detection for piping.

280.45 Leak detection recordkeeping.

Rule 2.5 Leak Reporting, Release Reporting, Investigation, and Confirmation

280.50 Reporting of leaks and suspected releases.

280.51 Investigation due to off-site impacts.

280.52 Release investigation and confirmation steps.

280.53 Reporting and cleanup of spills and overfills.

Rule 2.6 Release Response and Corrective Action for UST Systems Containing Petroleum or Hazardous Substances

280.60 General.

280.61 Initial response.

280.62 Initial abatement measures and site check.

280.63 Initial site characterization.

280.64 Free product removal.

280.65 Investigations for soil and ground-water cleanup.

280.66 Corrective action plan.

Rule 2.7 Out-of-Service UST Systems and Closure

280.70 Temporary closure.

280.71 Permanent closure and changes-in-service.

280.72 Assessing the site at closure or change-in-service.

280.73 Applicability to previously closed UST systems.

280.74 Closure records.

Rule 2.8 Financial Responsibility

280.90 Applicability.

280.91 Compliance dates, except for “including Indian tribes” in (e), and (f).

280.92 Definition of terms, except for “and includes Indian tribes” from the definition of “Local government.”

280.93 Amount and scope of required financial responsibility.

280.94 Allowable mechanisms and combinations of mechanisms.

280.95 Financial test of self-insurance.

280.96 Guarantee.

280.97 Insurance and risk retention group coverage.

280.98 Surety bond.

280.99 Letter of credit.

280.101 State fund or other State assurance.

280.102 Trust fund.

280.103 Standby trust fund.

280.104 Local government bond rating test.

280.105 Local government financial test.

280.106 Local government guarantee.

280.107 Local government fund.

280.108 Substitution of financial assurance mechanisms by owner or operator.

280.109 Cancellation or nonrenewal by a provider of financial assurance.

280.110 Reporting by owner or operator.

280.111 Recordkeeping.

280.112 Drawing on financial assurance mechanisms.

280.113 Release from the requirements.

280.114 Bankruptcy or other incapacity of owner or operator or provider of financial assurance.

280.115 Replenishment of guarantees, letters of credit, or surety bonds.

280.116 Suspension of enforcement. [Reserved]

Rule 2.9 Lender Liability

280.120 Definitions.

280.121 Participation in management.

280.122 Ownership of an underground storage tank or underground storage tank system or facility or property on which an underground storage tank or underground storage tank system is located.

280.123 Operating an underground storage tank or underground storage tank system.

Rule 2.10 UST Systems with Field-Constructed Tanks and Airport Hydrant Fuel Distribution Systems.

280.130 Definitions.

280.131 General requirements.

280.132 Additions, exceptions, and alternatives for UST systems with field-constructed tanks and airport hydrant systems.

Note to paragraph (b) of Appendix A to Part 282.

11 Miss. Admin. Code Pt. 5, Ch. 2, 280.42(b)(5) is approved as part of the UST Program only to the extent that Mississippi will not allow alternate release detection methods for hazardous substance UST systems installed on or after October 13, 2015. Sections 40 CFR 281.33(e) and 280.42(e) of the Federal regulations only allow alternate release detection methods for hazardous substance UST systems installed prior to October 13, 2015. Mississippi's section 280.42(b)(5) does not contain an analogous limitation on the use of alternative release detection methods. In practice, MDEQ does not allow alternative release detection methods for hazardous substance tanks installed after October 1, 2008. In a subsequent rulemaking, MDEQ will revise 11 Miss. Admin. Code Pt. 5, Ch. 2, R. 2.4, section 280.42(b)(5) to clarify this point.

(C) Copies of the Mississippi statutes and regulations that are incorporated by reference are available from the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 2261, Jackson, MS 29335; Phone number: (601) 961–5171; website: https://www.mdeq.ms.gov/water/groundwater-assessment-and-remediation/underground-storage-tanks/.

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

Hazardous waste manifests: Hybrid vs. fully electronic
2026-04-28T05:00:00Z

Hazardous waste manifests: Hybrid vs. fully electronic

More industries are embracing the exclusive use of electronic platforms. For example, digital payments are replacing cash, news sites are going fully online, and cloud storage is eclipsing external computer storage. And, based on recent proposed rulemaking, hazardous waste manifests may join the list.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the Paper Manifest Sunset Rule in March 2026, planning to shift to electronic-only manifests for tracking hazardous waste that’s regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

If the proposed rule is finalized, regulated entities will have to track all hazardous waste shipments electronically. Specifically, generators, transporters, and receiving facilities could only use hybrid or fully electronic manifests on the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System (e-Manifest).

So, what are the differences between hybrid and fully electronic manifests? Let’s compare the distinctions and explore some of the benefits that electronic manifests can offer.

What’s a hybrid manifest?

EPA initially established the hybrid manifest for generators that couldn’t fully participate in electronic manifests when the e-Manifest launched in 2018. The hybrid manifest combines paper and electronic manifests, allowing generators that aren’t registered in e-Manifest or don’t have an EPA identification (ID) number to sign printed copies of electronic manifests.

Here’s the general hybrid manifest process:

  • The first transporter initiates an electronic manifest in e-Manifest. A hard copy of the electronic manifest is printed out, and the generator and initial transporter sign the paper copy.
  • The generator keeps a signed paper copy on-site. The transporter keeps a signed paper copy with the shipment until it’s delivered to the receiving facility.
  • From that point forward, the initial transporter and all subsequent waste handlers track the shipment in e-Manifest (using electronic signatures and electronic transmissions).
  • The manifest is complete when the receiving facility or exporter electronically signs it on e-Manifest.

What’s a fully electronic manifest?

The fully electronic manifest is tracked completely online. All handlers — generators, transporters, and receiving facilities or exporters — must have an EPA ID number and be registered in e-Manifest to use the fully electronic manifest.

The entire process is conducted on e-Manifest:

  • The manifest is created electronically in e-Manifest.
  • All handlers electronically sign the manifest in e-Manifest.
  • The manifest is complete when the receiving facility or exporter electronically signs it on e-Manifest.

What benefits do electronic manifests offer?

Regardless of whether EPA’s rule is finalized as is, electronic manifests offer hazardous waste handlers a range of benefits. Consider the following potential perks.

Compliance with existing regulations

Many handlers are already required to embrace electronic manifesting. In July 2024, EPA finalized the e-Manifest Third Rule, which requires:

  • Large quantity generators and small quantity generators to register for e-Manifest,
  • Exporters to submit manifests and continuation sheets to e-Manifest (and pay the associated fees), and
  • Waste handlers to submit manifest-related reports and data corrections to e-Manifest.

Streamlined recordkeeping for generators

Hazardous waste handlers using e-Manifest automatically meet the recordkeeping requirements to maintain records of manifests (paper or electronic) since the manifests are retained electronically in the system.

This eliminates the need to keep hard copies. It also provides a centralized place where handlers can access these documents at any time.

However, the provision doesn’t apply to generators using hybrid manifests; they must keep the initial paper copies of the electronic manifest for 3 years.

Reduced costs

Embracing electronic manifesting removes the costs associated with printing paper manifests from EPA-approved sources.

Keep in mind, there’s an unavoidable cost for receiving facilities and exporters. These entities have to pay user fees for each manifest they submit to e-Manifest.

Proactive preparation

EPA’s proposed Paper Manifest Sunset Rule would prohibit the use of paper manifests 2 years after the publication of a final rule. Hazardous waste handlers who transition to using only electronic manifests now will be better prepared to comply with future regulations. It gives businesses time to coordinate resources and address any unexpected issues.

Key to remember: Do you know the differences between hybrid and fully electronic hazardous waste manifests? The distinctions could be the difference between compliance and noncompliance.

EPA publishes first round of expiring TSCA CBI claims
2026-04-27T05:00:00Z

EPA publishes first round of expiring TSCA CBI claims

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the first list of expiring Confidential Business Information (CBI) claims for information submitted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The list covers CBI claims that expire from June 22, 2026, to July 31, 2026.

What are expiring CBI claims?

The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (which became law in June 2016) set an automatic 10-year expiration for most CBI claims made under TSCA. The first round of claims submitted since the act took effect will expire in June 2026.

EPA allows businesses to request extensions of CBI protection for up to another 10 years.

How do I know if my CBI claims are expiring?

EPA will notify businesses of expiring CBI claims directly through the Central Data Exchange (CDX), the agency's electronic reporting platform.

The agency will also release public lists of upcoming expiring CBI claims monthly on the “CBI Claim Expiration” webpage. EPA encourages businesses to review the lists to verify whether any of their claims are included.

How do I request an extension of expiring CBI claims?

Businesses seeking to extend a CBI claim beyond its expiration date must submit an extension request at least 30 days before the claim expires using the newly launched TSCA Section 14(e) CBI Claim Extension Request application in EPA’s CDX.

Here’s the general process:

  • EPA notifies the business of an expiring CBI claim directly through CDX and via the public lists on the “CBI Claim Expiration” webpage.
  • The business submits a request for extension through EPA’s CDX at least 30 days before the CBI claim expires. Requests must comply with the substantiation requirements at 40 CFR 703.5(a) and (b).
  • EPA reviews the submission and either grants or denies the request.

What are the possible outcomes?

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

If EPA denies the extension request, the agency can publicize the information in the claim 30 days after notifying the submitter in CDX. Additionally, if a business doesn’t submit an extension request at least 30 days before the expiration date, EPA may publicize the information without notifying the submitter.

Key to remember: EPA published the first round of expiring CBI claims for information submitted under TSCA. Businesses must submit extension requests to keep the information protected.

2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

North Dakota establishes AST regulations

Effective date: April 1, 2026

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

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

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

2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

Ohio finalizes sewage sludge amendments

Effective date: March 1, 2026

This applies to: Facilities regulated by the sewage sludge program

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

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

New Mexico adopts Clean Transportation Fuel Program rules

Effective date: April 1, 2026

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

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

The CTFP:

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

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

See More

Most Recent Highlights In Transportation

2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

Maine lists materials covered for packaging stewardship program

Effective date: March 3, 2026

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

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

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

L.D. 1423:

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

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

2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

California adopts permanent illegal disposal rules

Effective date: March 4, 2026

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

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

The rule also:

  • Adds the land application activities to the regulations, making the activities subject to the permitting tier structure and associated requirements (i.e., operator filing requirements, state minimum standards, recordkeeping, and enforcement agency inspection requirements); and
  • Amends sampling and recordkeeping for solid waste facilities, operations, and activities.
2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

West Virginia establishes fee schedule for UIC Program

Effective date: March 4, 2026

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

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

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

2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

Colorado extends timeline to comply with GHG intensity targets

Effective date: April 14, 2026

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

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

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

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

2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

Colorado finalizes state dredge and fill permit regulations

Effective date: March 30, 2026

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

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

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

Related state info: Construction water permitting — Colorado

See More

Most Recent Highlights In Safety & Health

2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

New York adds wastewater cybersecurity rules

Effective date: March 26, 2026

This applies to: Wastewater treatment facilities

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

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

California permanently adopts EPA’s conditional exemption for airbag waste

Effective date: March 6, 2026

This applies to: Airbag waste handlers and transporters

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

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

Related state info: Hazardous waste generators — California

2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

New Jersey extends polystyrene foam exemption

Effective date: March 12, 2026

This applies to: Certain polystyrene foam food service products

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

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

Effluent limitations: FAQs for direct dischargers of industrial wastewater

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

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

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

What’s effluent?

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

What’s the difference between effluent guidelines and limitations?

There are subtle but important distinctions between these two terms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the types of effluent limitations?

Two categories of effluent limitations may appear in NPDES permits:

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

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

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

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

Do facilities have to use specific control technologies?

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

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

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

EPA proposes major changes to coal combustion residuals rules

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

Who’s impacted?

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

What are the changes?

Significant changes the EPA proposes include:

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

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

See More

Most Recent Highlights In Human Resources

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

What to know about the EPA’s proposed manifest sunset rule

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

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

Why EPA wants to eliminate paper manifests

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

Addressing one of the biggest digital barriers: signatures

One overlooked part of the proposed rule is how EPA is trying to solve one of the biggest barriers to going fully digital, which is signatures in the field. Anyone who has dealt with manifests knows that the weak point is often the hand-off between the generator and the transporter, especially when drivers don’t have system access or reliable connectivity. To address that, EPA is proposing new functionality that would allow users to sign manifests using quick response (QR) codes or even short message service (SMS). In practice, this could mean a driver scans a QR code or receives a text prompt, then completes the signature process directly from their phone. So, no login or full system access needed. EPA is also exploring the ability to use SMS and QR-based tools to make updates to manifest data without needing full system permissions. That’s a big deal operationally, because it removes one of the most common bottlenecks in needing a registered user at a specific site to make even minor corrections.

Operational challenges companies should expect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The regulatory basis for incinerator permitting

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

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

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

Air curtain incinerators: A special case

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

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

EPA’s emergent focus on streamlining

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

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

Context: Broader federal actions on disaster-related incineration

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

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

Looking ahead

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who’s impacted?

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

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

What’s the new timeline?

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

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

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

Why the delay?

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

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

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

EPA amends specific oil and gas emission standards

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

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

Who’s impacted?

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

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

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

What are the changes?

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

Temporary flaring

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

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

NHV monitoring

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

Other significant changes include:

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

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

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

EHS Monthly Round Up - March 2026

EHS Monthly Round Up - March 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See More
New Network Poll
Records inspection

Records inspection

OSHA places special importance on posting and recordkeeping. The compliance officer will inspect required records of deaths, injuries, and illnesses. The officer will also check to see that a copy of the OSHA 300A Summary has been posted and that the OSHA poster is prominently displayed in a conspicuous place where employees can see it. The latest OSHA poster is OSHA 3165-02R 2026, but earlier years or earlier versions like OSHA 2203 are compliant. OSHA requires that reproductions or facsimiles of the federal OSHA poster be at least 8.5 by 14 inches with at least 10 point type. The caption or heading on the poster must be in large type, generally not less than 36 point. Be aware that state-plan states may require a state version of the OSHA poster.

An OSHA letter of interpretation dated June 15, 2023, explains that OSHA posters and other labor law posters may not be hung “on top of one another” on a wall-mounted hanger. Covering required OSHA notices with other documents, regardless of the nature of those documents, and requiring workers to manually locate OSHA notices does not meet the requirement nor the intent of 29 CFR 1903.2.

Where records of employee exposure to toxic substances and harmful physical agents have been required, they are also examined for compliance with the recordkeeping requirements. The officer may also ask to look at required inspection and training records and written programs, as well as the PPE hazard assessment.

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