FMCSA Final Rule: Applicability to the Exception for Certain Military Personnel

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued an administrative continuance of the 2021 Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) and a No Action Assurance memorandum for industrial stormwater discharges regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.

The 2021 MSGP expired on February 28, 2026. However, because EPA hasn’t reissued a new permit to replace the expired permit, the 2021 MSGP remains in effect for facilities previously covered. Additionally, the No Action Assurance allows facilities without previous coverage to discharge industrial stormwater in compliance with the 2021 MSGP.

Who’s affected?

Facilities are required to obtain MSGPs for stormwater discharges from industrial activities in areas where EPA is the permitting authority, including:

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

What do existing facilities do?

The administrative continuance automatically applies to existing facilities that were actively covered by the 2021 MSGP before it expired. The facility’s coverage status should show “Admin. Continued” in the NPDES eReporting Tool (NeT-MSGP).

Facilities will remain covered by the 2021 MSGP until EPA issues a new MSGP and the facilities obtain coverage under the new MSGP. Until then, existing facilities should continue to comply with the 2021 MSGP requirements.

EPA will provide further guidance on renewing coverage when it issues the new MSGP.

What do new facilities do?

New facilities can’t obtain coverage under the MSGP until EPA issues a new permit. However, EPA issued a memorandum on February 27, 2026, establishing a No Action Assurance. The agency won’t take enforcement action against new facilities for unpermitted stormwater discharges if the facilities meet specific conditions.

The No Action Assurance extends from March 1, 2026, to the new MSGP’s effective date.

Applicability

EPA’s No Action Assurance applies to facilities that:

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

The assurance doesn’t apply to existing facilities that started stormwater discharges before February 28, 2026, without obtaining 2021 MSGP coverage.

Conditions

To be covered by the No Action Assurance, new facilities have to:

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

What’s next?

Once EPA issues the new MSGP, facilities planning to continue industrial stormwater discharges must submit a new NOI through Net-MSGP within 90 days of the new MSGP’s effective date to obtain coverage under the new MSGP.

EPA provides guidance for existing and new facilities on its “Administrative Continuance of EPA’s 2021 MSGP” webpage.

Key to remember: EPA has temporarily extended coverage under the 2021 MSGP for industrial stormwater discharges until the agency issues a new general permit.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule on February 27, 2026, extending the submission deadline for the 2025 annual greenhouse gas (GHG) report from March to October 2026.

Who’s impacted?

The final rule applies to facilities regulated by the GHG Reporting Program (GHGRP) at 40 CFR Part 98. Generally, the GHGRP’s annual reporting requirement applies to three types of reporters:

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

What’s the change?

The final rule extends the submission deadline for the reporting year (RY) 2025 annual GHG report from March 31, 2026, to October 30, 2026. The delay applies only to RY 2025.

EPA explains in the final rule that delaying the submission deadline for the RY 2025 GHG report gives the agency time to take final action on the proposed revisions to the GHGRP (published in September 2025).

What does the GHG report cover?

The GHGRP requires facilities to report GHG data and other related information covering the previous calendar year.

The subparts under Part 98 contain the reporting requirements, and regulated facilities must report emissions for all applicable source categories. Reporters must use specific methods to calculate GHG emissions, which are detailed in the regulations; they can usually choose from a collection of methods.

Key to remember: EPA’s final rule delays the submission deadline for the 2025 annual GHG report from March to October 2026.

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!

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a rule on December 3, 2025, that finalizes compliance deadline extensions for certain emissions standards applicable to crude oil and natural gas facilities. The final rule also further delays compliance timelines for two requirements.

EPA’s delays affect:

• The New Source Performance Standards for crude oil and natural gas facilities (40 CFR 60 Subpart OOOOb), and
• The emissions guidelines (EGs) for crude oil and natural gas facilities (60 Subpart OOOOc).

EPA’s December 2025 final rule is a direct response to the interim final rule (IFR) it issued in July 2025.

The July 2025 IFR extended the compliance deadline for net heating value (NHV) monitoring of flares and enclosed combustion devices (ECDs) to November 28, 2025. The IFR moved the rest of the compliance deadlines to January 22, 2027, for:

• ECD performance tests;
• Cover and closed vent system requirements for no identifiable emissions (NIEs), including:
  • Design and operation standards,
  • Test methods and procedures, and
  • Inspections.
• Equipment leak repair requirements;
• Phase two of zero-emission standards for process controllers;
• Storage vessel requirements, including:
  • Using potential emissions limits that qualify as legally and practicably enforceable,
  • Triggering throughput-based modifications, and
  • Using a 30-day period of production to calculate potential emissions.
• Flare and ECD pilot flame rules, including:
  • Ensuring the devices operate with a continuous pilot flame, and
  • Installing and operating a system to send an alarm to the nearest control room when a pilot flame is unlit.
• Implementation of the Super Emitter Program, and
• Submission of state plans for implementing the updated EGs.

What’s the same?

EPA’s December 2025 final rule maintains the same compliance deadlines for all requirements delayed to January 22, 2027.

What’s different?

The agency’s December 2025 final rule sets a new compliance date of June 1, 2026, for the NHV monitoring requirements. This includes an alternative performance test (sampling demonstration) option for flares and ECDs.

Additionally, the rule moves the compliance date for annual reporting, establishing that no annual report is due before November 30, 2026. It gives owners and operators until November 30, 2026, to submit any reports that were originally due before this date. Note that the final rule specifies that annual reports due after November 30, 2026, must be submitted within 90 days of the end of each annual compliance period.

Key to remember: EPA’s final rule confirms deadline extensions for certain emissions standards that apply to crude oil and natural gas facilities. It also further delays a couple of the requirements.

On March 5, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed rule to end the use of paper hazardous waste manifests and require waste handlers to use electronic manifests on the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest (e-Manifest) System to track all shipments of hazardous waste regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

What are the proposed changes?

EPA proposes to “sunset” (i.e., phase out) the use of paper manifests and shift to using only electronic manifests (either fully electronic or hybrid) to track RCRA hazardous waste shipments.

The sunset compliance date would be 2 years from the publication date of a final rule. On and after the sunset compliance date, EPA would no longer accept paper hazardous waste manifests (image-only and data-plus-image submission types). In other words, regulated waste handlers would have to use fully electronic or hybrid manifests on the e-Manifest System for all hazardous waste shipments initiated on and after the sunset compliance date.

Who would be impacted?

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

• Generators,
• Transporters, and
• Receiving facilities.

Many of the proposed changes would align RCRA regulations with the shift to electronic-only manifesting and with the 2024 e-Manifest Third Rule’s changes. The proposed rule also contains technical corrections to import and export regulations.

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

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

Examples of these requirements include:

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

EPA will accept public comments on the proposed rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2025-3456) through May 4, 2026.

Key to remember: EPA proposes to end the use of paper manifests and require waste handlers to use electronic manifests to track all RCRA hazardous waste shipments.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule on February 18, 2026, to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repeal all federal greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for:

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

The final rule takes effect on April 20, 2026, and applies to vehicles and engines of model years 2012 to 2027 and beyond.

What are the changes?

Manufacturers (including importers) of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines no longer have to measure, report, or comply with federal GHG emission standards. The final rule removes all GHG emission regulations in 40 CFR:

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

The final rule also eliminates:

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

What doesn’t change?

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

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

About the 2009 Endangerment Finding

In 2009, EPA issued two findings: the Endangerment Finding and the Cause or Contribute Finding. Collectively, these findings are referred to as the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The agency used the 2009 Endangerment Finding as the legal basis to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.

EPA regulated GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines through:

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

However, upon reconsideration, EPA stated that it no longer believes it has the statutory authority under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and vehicle engines. Therefore, the agency has simultaneously rescinded the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repealed the related federal GHG emission regulations.

Key to remember: EPA's final rule eliminates the 2009 Endangerment Finding and the related GHG emission requirements for on-highway vehicles and vehicle engines.

Nearly 2,000 truckers were removed from roadways this January in a brand-new inspection enforcement event called “Operation SafeDRIVE.”

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) partnered with state law enforcement to implement Operation SafeDRIVE, a high-visibility, 3-day event focused on reducing unsafe drivers and vehicles from the roads.

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

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

• Drivers,
• Vehicles, and
• Motor carriers.

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

The hazmat endorsement is required only if the vehicle is transporting a type and quantity of a hazardous material that requires the display of placards. Sounds easy enough, right? This regulation is often misinterpreted and not used correctly.

Sometimes, simply having a commercial driver’s license (CDL) is not enough to operate certain types of commercial motor vehicles. Drivers hauling special commodities need extra endorsements on their licenses. Individual endorsements provide proof that a driver has received additional training or vetting to haul a commodity or type of vehicle.

When the rubber meets the road, a truck driver's expertise extends far beyond driving skills. Delve into the world of trucking and decode the Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG).

Many shippers and motor carriers are familiar with the ERG, and most associate the ERG with compliance with the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR). The ERG is one of the best ways to provide emergency response information for a hazardous materials shipment. Let’s take a deeper dive into the compliance aspect of the ERG.

Most hazmat violations don’t start with bad paperwork or missing placards. They start with a simple question during a roadside inspection, followed by a pause. Inspectors aren’t always looking for a wrong answer. They’re trying to determine whether the driver understands why they made a certain decision. That expectation is tied to something DOT calls function-specific training, and it plays a bigger role in inspections than many drivers realize.

Function-specific training isn’t about memorizing regulations. It is about knowing how hazmat regulations apply to the work drivers perform on the road. When inspectors ask questions, they’re often evaluating whether the driver understands the hazmat functions tied to their role, not just whether the load looks compliant.

Motor carriers face two major pressures today: Keeping trucks staffed with qualified commercial drivers and reducing the risk of lawsuits after preventable crashes. As a result, driver screening is more important than ever.

After a crash, attorneys often review a carrier’s hiring and monitoring decisions and claim the company “should have known” a driver posed a safety risk. At the same time, ongoing driver shortages may tempt carriers to overlook warning signs found in motor vehicle records (MVRs) or pre-employment screening program (PSP) reports.

These challenges make it essential for carriers to build and consistently follow a clear, defensible scoring process for reviewing drivers.

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.

A new year often begins a new round of employee performance reviews. Since the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows eligible employees to take up to 12 (or 26) weeks of leave, many events can occur during an employee’s leave, including the employee’s pre-scheduled performance review. Such reviews might take place on an annual or other scheduled basis. How you treat the timing of those reviews should include some thought.

If, for example, Jo Employee takes 12 weeks of FMLA leave, during which her annual performance review is scheduled, here are some questions to ponder:

• Do you look at all 12 months of Jo’s performance?
• What if she hasn’t worked a full 12 months because of leave?
• When can you actual do the review?
• Can you delay it so you can look at a full 12-months of work?

Delaying a review

An annual performance review generally takes into consideration a full years’ worth of work. Some employers think it’s best to delay the performance review by the same amount of time an employee took FMLA leave to capture an entire years’ work. This practice, however, might risk running afoul of one of the cornerstones of the FMLA: Returning the employee to his or her position, including the equivalent pay, benefits, and working conditions.

The issues can be particularly concerning if the performance review affects wage increases or other compensation.

What the regulations say

The FMLA regulations indicate that an equivalent position includes equivalent pay, which includes any unconditional pay increases that may have occurred during the FMLA leave period. Equivalent pay also includes bonuses or payments, whether discretionary or non-discretionary. FMLA leave cannot undermine the employee’s right to such pay.

Furthermore, “… employers cannot use the taking of FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment actions, such as hiring, promotions, or disciplinary actions; nor can FMLA leave be counted under no fault attendance policies.” [29 CFR 825.220(c)]

Avoiding a negative factor

Therefore, you would need to look at whether delaying an employee’s performance review could be seen as having a negative factor for the employee.

If, for example, Jo Employee took 12 weeks of leave from April through June, during which she would otherwise have obtained a pay increase in May, but you delayed this increase until September (so you could use a full 12 months of work), you may have violated the equivalent pay provision. If delaying a review creates a new review schedule going forward, the negative impacts could continue.

If, however, a pay increase is conditioned upon seniority, length of service, or work performed, you would grant it in accordance with your policy or practice as applied to other employees on an equivalent leave status for a reason that does not qualify as FMLA leave.

In other words, don’t treat an employee on FMLA leave differently than you would an employee on other forms of leave.

Key to remember: It might be less risky to keep the performance review on schedule and prorate wage increases to account for FMLA leave.

Yes, employees may take leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to care for family members who are outside U.S. borders.

If the employee meets the eligibility criteria of the FMLA, the family member has an FMLA serious health condition, and the employee is needed to care for the family member, the employee’s time off would be protected. It doesn’t really matter where the family member is.

To figure out whether the family member’s condition meets the criteria under the FMLA, employers may require that the employee provide a certification supporting the leave.

Certifications in other languages

If an employee or a family member is visiting in another country, or a family member lives in another country, and a serious health condition develops, employers must accept a medical certification from a health care provider who practices in that country. This rule applies to an original certification, a recertification, and when requesting a second or third opinion from a provider.

If a certification by a health care provider from another country is in a language other than English, employers may require that the employee provide a written translation of the certification.

Traveling to care for family member

If family members are outside the U.S., employees will need to spend some time traveling. The employee’s travel time would likely be seen as part of the FMLA leave if:

• The travel is so intertwined with the care, or
• If it is needed to obtain the care.

Handling intermittent leave

Employees may also take intermittent FMLA leave to care for far-away family members. Employers would manage such leave the same way they do for intermittent leave inside the U.S. Employers should:

• Give the employee an eligibility/rights & responsibilities notice within five days of being put on notice,
• Ask for a certification if desired (including a translation),
• Give the employee a designation notice within five days of getting enough information, and
• Track the employee’s leave time.

Whenever employees are away from the physical worksite, tracking how much intermittent FMLA leave they are taking has its own challenges. Employers may use a simple honor system of self-reporting or technology to keep track of when the employee is taking FMLA leave and when the employee is working.

Key to remember: Eligible employees may take FMLA leave to care for family members who are outside the U.S.

One of the most common questions involving the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) that we see is: “Can ________ fill out the medical certification?”

This question stumps a lot of HR people and can be a little confusing.

It might be easier to start with who CAN’T fill out an FMLA certification. That includes your coworker, best friend, neighbor, or pet.

Jokes aside, often (but not always) a doctor fills out the FMLA certification, and since March 30 is “Doctors’ Day,” this is a great time to discuss this topic.

Employers often grapple with the question of whether they must pay employees for time spent in meetings or trainings. Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers must pay employees for time spent in meetings and trainings unless these four factors are met:

1. Employees perform no work;
2. Participation is truly voluntary;
3. It must not be job-related; and
4. It occurs outside of regular working hours.

In other words, every one of these criteria must occur for employers to deny pay. If any one of these isn’t true, then employees must be paid for their time.

A closer look at what “voluntary” means

The toughest factor for employers is often the second; that the meeting or training time is voluntary. If employers require employees to attend, employers must count the time as hours worked and pay employees.

A recent court case filed in February 2024 helps illustrate what “voluntary” means.

In the case, Samuel, an employee, worked for seven years as a salaried, but nonexempt (“hourly”) employee. He and others worked eight-hour shifts but had to come in early and, before punching in, spend 30 minutes for shift meetings to learn about events and incidents that occurred on the previous shift. If the meeting lasted less than 30 minutes, they were to start working.

At the end of the shift, Samuel claimed that he and other employees had to attend another 30-minute debrief meeting, where they told members of the incoming shift about problems that had come up and any recommended changes.

The company didn’t use time clocks (which the FLSA doesn’t require). Instead, employees entered their hours worked on timecards, which is acceptable under the FLSA.

The employees claimed, however, that the employer required them to attend the pre- and post-shift sessions and to not include the time spent at those meetings on their timecards. Therefore, they were not paid for that time.

The case

In filing a claim, Samuel seeks a collective class of current and former employees in his job category, claiming they worked more than 40 hours per week and should be paid overtime. If the evidence shows that the employees were required to attend the meetings, which benefitted the company more than the employees, the employer could be on the hook for owing them backpay, missed overtime pay, and other damages for wage violations.

This case is in the early stages and the employer could have a legitimate rebuttal to the claims. No matter how the case proceeds, it serves as a reminder for all employers that if attendance at company meetings or trainings is required, it is not voluntary and must, therefore, be paid.

The case is Hood v. Ford Motor Co. and was filed in federal court in the Northern District of Ohio, No. 1:24-cv-00244.

Key to remember: Attendance at meetings and trainings must be totally voluntary if employers want to avoid having to pay employees for the time spent there.

Under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), employers must maintain coverage under any group health plan while employees are on FMLA leave. This coverage must be at the level and under the conditions that employers would have provided had employees not taken leave.

When employees take unpaid FMLA leave, employers must continue paying the same amount toward the employee’s health insurance premiums as they did before the leave started.

What about cafeteria plans, such as flexible spending accounts (FSAs)?

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

It is a common sight in many workplaces to see employees using compressed air to clean parts, equipment, and even clothing. What many workers and some employers do not realize is that compressed air can be deadly. That is why OSHA has a regulation prohibiting the use of compressed air for cleaning unless the dead-end pressure is reduced to below 30 psi, and then only with effective chip guarding and PPE.

The regulation Federal OSHA’s requirement for cleaning with compressed air is in 1910.242(b):

• “Compressed air used for cleaning. Compressed air shall not be used for cleaning purposes except where reduced to less than 30 psi and then only with effective chip guarding and personal protective equipment.” Because the regulation is short and somewhat vague, OSHA has clarified the issue in a compliance directive and letters of interpretation.

OSHA recently released an updated Job Safety and Health Poster, which informs workers of their rights under the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970. The revised poster is part of the agency’s “OSHA Cares” initiative. Employers can use either the revised version or the older one, but the poster must be displayed in a conspicuous place where workers can easily see it.

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

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

Individuals choose to engage in certain behaviors based on both internal and external constraints. Internal constraints are values that people apply to themselves. External constraints include rules and consequences that are intended to shape behaviors. While rules should guide behaviors, some people ignore the rules. However, for people who voluntarily choose the right behaviors based on their personal values, the rules are merely guidelines.

For example, a desire to avoid injury may cause you to always wear a seatbelt and never use a cell phone while driving. Although external constraints (laws on seat belt and cell phone use) may impact your choices, the desire to stay safe is an internal constraint or self-imposed behavior. You’d follow those safe behaviors even if no law existed.

In today's growing digital work environment, our eyes are constantly engaged, often for eight hours or more a day, tethered to screens of various sizes. This digital exposure has given rise to a frequently underestimated condition: Digital Eye Strain (DES), also known as Computer Vision Syndrome. While visible workplace injuries like falls or cuts rightly receive immediate attention, cumulative impact of DES often goes overlooked, eroding employee well-being and productivity.

Federal contractors covered by Executive Order (EO) 13658 will need to pay a minimum wage of $13.65 per hour as of May 11, 2026.

This is an increase of 35 cents per hour over the current rate, which took effect on January 1, 2025. The tipped employee rate will also go up, increasing from $9.30 to $9.55 per hour.

The Department of Labor announced the new rate in a notice published in the Federal Register on February 9.

The rate applies to federal contracts entered into between January 1, 2015, and January 29, 2022. The department notes that although the number of covered contracts has significantly decreased over the past several years, there are some existing contracts that remain subject to the EO 13658 minimum wage.

Contracts entered into on or after January 30, 2022, had been covered by the EO 14026 minimum wage, but this EO was revoked in 2025 and is no longer being enforced.

Contractors covered by EO 13658 will need to display a new poster once the rate increase takes effect.

Key to remember: Federal contractors covered by Executive Order 13658 will need to pay a higher minimum wage as of May 11. They will also need to update their posters.