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? .

Every now and then employers receive a certification for leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) that doesn’t quite look legit. They might ask for a second opinion, which ends up differing from the original. What next? May employers run with the second opinion?

No, and here’s why.

The FMLA indicates that if a second opinion differs from the first, employers may ask for a third opinion (i.e., a tie breaker). If employers do not ask for a third opinion, they must accept the original certification.

One employer thought differently, relying only on a differing second opinion, which did not support an employee’s taking of leave. The issue went to court.

Case law illustrates

In the case, an employee took intermittent FMLA leave for migraines. The employee provided a certification, but the employer had issues with it. As allowed, the employer requested a second opinion from a doctor of its own choosing. The second opinion found that the employee’s condition did not warrant FMLA leave.

Second opinion in hand, the employer denied the employee’s leave and told her that she would no longer be able to take FMLA leave for her migraines. Nonetheless, the employee took more leave and was fired. She sued.

In court, the employer argued that it was not required to obtain a third opinion (remember the word “may”?).

The court agreed that a third opinion was not required, pointing out, however, that “…it is downright wishful to think that the statute allows for anything but two options when a second opinion conflicts with the first: the employer may either accept the first or seek (and pay for) a binding third.”

Wert v. Pa. State Univ., Middle District of PA, No. 4:19-CV-00155, April 15, 2022.

Second opinions

Employers that doubt the validity of a medical certification may require employees to obtain a second opinion at the employer's expense. The employer also gets to choose the health care provider for the second opinion.

That, however, doesn’t mean that, if the second opinion differs from the first, it rules the day. Quite the opposite.

First or third opinion

If the first and second opinions differ, employers have two options:

  1. Accept the initial certification, or
  2. Proceed to a third opinion.

For a third opinion, the employer and employee must agree on the health care provider. The employer, however, must pay for it. Employers and employees must accept the third opinion as the tie breaker.

Additional opinions can be costly and take time – sometimes months. They can, however, help employers curb FMLA leave abuse, sending a strong message that they take these matters seriously.

Key to remember: If a first and second FMLA certification differ, employers may not take the second opinion as the final word on whether a serious health condition is involved. They must either accept the original or ask for a third opinion.

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 expiring claims starts 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 will also release public lists of upcoming expiring CBI claims monthly on the “CBI Claim Expiration” webpage. The agency 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 results?

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. Further, 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

Safety committees

The safety committee is an important tool for helping a company manage its operations. The purpose of a company safety committee is to establish communication and cooperation between workers and management to promote health and safety in the workplace. Almost all safety committees share the following basic objectives:

  • Reduce incidence of injuries and illness in the workplace;
  • Improve safety in the work environment; and
  • Communicate the “safety message” throughout the company.

Scope

While overall safety committee objectives are generally the same from one company to another, safety committee functions can vary greatly from one company to another. Some committees are given or allowed many more functions and tasks to fulfill, while other committees focus on a more limited scope of functions and tasks.

Regulatory citations

  • None at the federal OSHA level, but certain states require safety committees or have some requirements relative to workplace safety committees. Often the state requirements do not mandate committees for every type of company and workforce, but rather, have rules regarding committees that come into effect for certain industries, workforce size, or for a particular workforce characteristic. Check with your state or insurance company to see if requirements for safety committees apply to you.
  • The following states mandate safety committees for all or for certain employers:
    • Alabama (Must form committee if requested to do so by an employee.)
    • Connecticut (“Hazardous” employers with 25 or more employees.)
    • Minnesota (All employers with more than 25 employees. Employers with 25 or fewer employees must have a safety committee if they have either a lost-workday case incidence rate in the top 10% of all rates for employers in the same industry or with a workers’ compensation premium classification rate in the top 25% of premium rates for all classes.)
    • Montana (All employers with 5 or more employees.)
    • Nebraska (Public employers subject to the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Act.)
    • Nevada (Employers with more than 25 employees, or if an employer’s employees are engaged in the manufacture of explosives.)
    • New Hampshire (Employers of 15 or more employees must establish and administer a joint loss management committee.)
    • North Carolina (“Hazardous” employers)
    • Oregon (All employers unless you are the sole owner and the only employee of a corporation.)
    • Tennessee (“Hazardous” employers)
    • Vermont (“Hazardous” employers)
    • Washington (Larger employers must establish a safety committee. Smaller employers have the choice of either establishing a safety committee or holding safety meetings with a management representative present.)

Key definitions

  • General functions: The end goals for safety committees, without regard to how the committee is to accomplish these goals. For example, reducing accidents and injuries could be considered a general function of committees.
  • Specific tasks: The specific projects, procedures, and programs that safety committees carry out for their companies, and the means by which their objectives are reached or functions are performed. For example, the institution of a specific safety program is a specific task.

Summary of requirements

An active and effective safety committee whose membership and functions reflect the company’s size, complexity, and operating exposures can significantly improve safety by instituting programs and providing support that helps to reduce accidents, injuries, and illnesses at the company. Through general functions and specific tasks, a safety committee can:

  • Provide a forum for problem solving that can withstand changes in management and personnel assignments without losing overall focus and direction.
  • Provide supervisors and managers with a resource to turn to when they are faced with safety problems that they might not have the time or technical expertise to deal with effectively.
  • Involve more people in the overall safety and health management of the company.
  • Mobilize and get people working together who may not have had previous business reasons to work together, thereby helping to open up lines of communication that may not have existed before.
  • Provide people with a broader base of safety knowledge through rotation of assignments as subcommittee chairpersons to other subcommittees and as subcommittee members. This helps build the safety culture in the company.
  • Assign responsibility to more of the subcommittee members, rather than place those safety responsibilities on only one or two individuals. This helps prevent safety burnout” by increasing safety knowledge and responsibilities in small pieces at a time rather than in large chunks that may overwhelm a person.

General functions can include:

  • Identifying/investigating potential workplace hazards;
  • Finding ways to eliminate or reduce those hazards;
  • Reducing accident frequency and severity rates;
  • Ensuring that the facility is in compliance with OSHA standards;
  • Creating and maintaining active participation and awareness in safety;
  • Enforcing safety rules;
  • Measuring safety performance;
  • Increasing employee safety awareness and general morale;
  • Creating and administering incentive programs to promote safety;
  • Issuing periodic reports, bulletins, posters, and table tents to report on safety accomplishments;
  • Evaluating employee attitudes toward safety and safety programs;
  • Developing, administering, and monitoring the safety program;
  • Facilitating communication and cooperation between management and workers on safety and health;
  • Creating new safety policies and programs; and
  • Demonstrating results to management and employees.

Specific tasks may include:

  • Reviewing accident reports and analyses and employee reports of hazards;
  • Reviewing OSHA and/or self-inspection reports to monitor general safety compliance;
  • Establishing specific safety objectives and goals;
  • Keeping records of safety meetings, training, accident and inspection forms, etc. to monitor the progress of the safety program;
  • Implementing accident-prevention measures where appropriate;
  • Providing recommendations to management;
  • Reviewing, monitoring, and updating current safety programs and policies; and
  • Monitoring government regulations as they apply to facility equipment/design and work procedures.
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.