May employers require exempt employees to use PTO for half-day absences?

May employers require exempt employees to use PTO for half-day absences?

2025-12-03T06:00:00Z

‘Tis the season for time off. Complying with wage and hour laws can be tricky, but especially at this time of year, when many employees are coming and going, whether due to vacations, holidays, or illnesses.

Tracking nonexempt employees’ hours is pretty straightforward. However, employers should know that they may require exempt employees to use paid time off (PTO) for absences of less than a full day, but doing so depends on several factors.

Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers must pay exempt employees their full salary for each week they perform any work. If they don’t, employers risk an FLSA violation, and those employees could lose their exemption.

Employers may deduct from exempt employees’ accrued paid time off (PTO) leave bank for partial-day absences. This, essentially, requires exempt employees to use their PTO for absences of less than a day. Employers must, however, be careful.

Where employers have a benefits plan (e.g., vacation time, sick leave), they may reduce the accrued leave for the time an employee is absent from work, whether the absence is a partial day or a full day, without affecting the employee’s exemption, as long as the employee receives their guaranteed weekly salary.

This is true even if the employee has no accrued benefits in the leave plan and the account has a negative balance.

Full-day absences

If employees are absent for 1 or more full days for personal reasons (e.g., car repair), other than sickness or disability, employers may deduct from their salary, as opposed to their PTO bank.

If, for example, an exempt employee is absent for 2 full days to move to a new house, the employer may deduct from the employee’s weekly salary for the 2 days. If, however, the employee is absent for 1.5 days, the employer may deduct from the employee’s salary only for the 1 full-day absence. The employer may deduct from the employee’s PTO bank for the partial-day absence.

While employers don’t have to have a bona fide sick leave plan, they may make such deductions due to absences related to sickness or disability only if they have one. Employers must communicate the plan to eligible employees and follow the plan.

To be bona fide, employers must administer the plan impartially, and its design shouldn’t reflect an effort to evade the salary-basis requirement.

Whether a particular plan is bona fide would be based upon the actual design of and practices applicable under the plan. A PTO plan might qualify as bona fide even though it’s not exclusively for use during sickness or disability.

Assuming that a bona fide plan exists, employers may make deductions from an employee’s salary for absences of 1 or more full days because of sickness or disability before the employee has qualified under the plan and after the employee has exhausted their PTO/sick leave.

Key to remember: Employers may deduct from exempt employees’ PTO bank for partial-day absences.

This is true even if the employee has no accrued benefits in the leave plan and the account has a negative balance.

Full-day absences

If employees are absent for 1 or more full days for personal reasons (e.g., car repair), other than sickness or disability, employers may deduct from their salary, as opposed to their PTO bank.

To be bona fide, employers must administer the plan impartially, and its design shouldn’t reflect an effort to evade the salary-basis requirement.

Key to remember: Employers may deduct from exempt employees’ PTO bank for partial-day absences.

RELATED NEWS

        SAFETY & COMPLIANCE NEWS
    
Keep up with the latest regulatory developments from OSHA, DOT, EPA, DOL, and more.
GET FREE ARTICLES

        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.
BROWSE BY TOPIC

        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.  
BECOME AN EXPERT

        ADD HAZMAT, ENVIRONMENTAL, & HR RESOURCES
    
Unlock exclusive content offering expert insights into hazmat, environmental, and human resources compliance with a COMPLIANCE NETWORK EDGE membership.
ACCESS PREMIUM CONTENT

        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.
CONTACT AN EXPERT

        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.
SEE UPCOMING EVENTS

Most Recent Highlights In Environmental

2026-01-14T06:00:00Z

EPA scraps SDS/Tier II reporting rule tied to OSHA HazCom

After receiving an “adverse comment,” EPA withdrew its direct final rule to amend 40 CFR 370 before the rule had a chance to take effect. The direct final rule published back on November 17, 2025, was intended to relax the Tier II reporting and safety data sheet (SDS) reporting requirements and align with the OSHA Hazard Communication standard at 29 CFR 1910.1200.

In November, EPA said it considered the rule to be noncontroversial and anticipated no adverse comment. However, on January 9, 2026, EPA published its withdrawal of the direct final rule “because the EPA subsequently received adverse comment.” The agency did not disclose what the fatal comment was. However, docket EPA-HQ-OLEM-2025-0299 shows nine comments, many of which express serious concerns with this rule related to the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).

What were the objections?

Examining the docket, we find several requests for withdrawal of the rule. Some of the concerns raised by commenters included:

Misalignment with OSHA compliance dates — Commenters remarked that the rule does not align with the phased-in compliance deadlines in the OSHA Hazard Communication (HazCom) standard at 29 CFR 1910.1200(j). In fact, EPA’s compliance date precedes OSHA’s dates, making it “impossible to implement the required changes … for the 2026 reporting cycle,” asserted one commenter. This will force facilities to engage in premature self-classification, argued the commenter. “This misalignment introduces a high risk of inconsistent hazard reporting, undermining both regulatory clarity and the reliability of emergency planning data,” warned another.
Unrealistic timeline — Commenters pointed out the fast-track schedule. “This timeline compresses the window for implementing critical updates to chemical management software systems [and] procedures [and] reconfiguring data collection processes,” explained a commenter who predicted that facilities will be unable to ensure compatibility between internal chemical management software systems and the new reporting structure, without timely access to updated EPA-provided Tier2Submit^® software.
Implementation challenges — Facilities would be mandated to re-map each reported chemical (often before SDSs have been updated), claimed one commenter. State agencies would also have to incorporate the new hazard categories into their electronic reporting systems and revise guidance/training materials, according to another.
New burdens with little benefit — While EPA announced that the rule was deregulatory, one commenter contends that it would make reporting “MORE burdensome.” The commenter also stressed that the rule would “not improve emergency planning or response.” Others emphasized that it exceeds what is necessary for harmonization with the OSHA HazCom standard and that the expanded reporting system would offer “little value.” Yet another commenter noted that using 112 hazard categories instead of 24 would overwhelm the public who have a right to know about the hazards in their communities.
Rule characterization flaws — One commenter declared that “the rule’s characterization as ‘technical’ does not withstand scrutiny” because it substantively changes what information must be submitted; imposes non-trivial, potentially large costs on both the private sector and state/local programs; and conflicts with OSHA’s phased compliance framework.
EPA obligation failures — Commenters also observed that EPA failed to assess or recognize “potentially large aggregate costs to the private sector and to state/local [agencies].” They also suggest that the agency estimate paperwork costs, determine whether small entities are affected, and request the Office of Management and Budget to review the rule. Finally, EPA has not meaningfully looked at costs and least-cost alternatives, one commenter said. The commenter gave alternative examples — “phased implementation aligned to OSHA’s schedule, optional dual-category reporting for one cycle, or a later effective date.”

What’s next?

Now, EPA will likely proceed with writing a new final rule addressing all public comments. The agency published a parallel proposed rule on the same November date as the direct final rule. That proposal took comments (through December 24, 2025) on the substance of the direct final rule.

That means the agency has all it needs to work on a final rule. EPA made clear that no second round of comments will be collected, but the agency gave no hints as to when it might publish a new final rule.

Until then, the existing CFRs remain in place. In other words, the changes in the November 17, 2025, direct final rule will not take effect on January 16, 2026, as planned because they are now withdrawn.

Note that the direct final rule, had it taken effect, would not have impacted the Tier II forms due on or before March 1, 2026. Rest assured that it is “business as usual” for Tier II reporting due by March 1, 2026. Similarly, SDS reporting requirements continue as is.

For background information, check out our November 25th article, “EPA’s SDS/Tier II reporting now in lockstep with OSHA HazCom.”

Key to remember

On January 9th, EPA withdrew the November 17th direct final rule that would have amended Part 370. The withdrawal is prompted by an adverse comment. A new final rule is anticipated.

2026-01-12T06:00:00Z

Understanding WOTUS and Navigable Waters in 2026

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

What counts as “navigable waters” today?

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

Recent changes

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

Where each rule applies

Implementation is split:

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

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

Why it matters to industry and commerce

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

The legal and regulatory arc: why definitions keep changing

Statute: The CWA regulates “navigable waters,” defined as “waters of the United States,” but does not define WOTUS.
Court history: Court decisions have repeatedly reshaped and narrowed the definition of WOTUS. U.S. v. Riverside Bayview (1985) upheld adjacent wetlands; the scope narrowed when SWANCC v. USACE (2001) limited isolated waters; Rapanos v. U.S. (2006) deepened uncertainty by introducing two competing tests, “relatively permanent” vs. “significant nexus,” leaving regulators and courts with ambiguity.
Rulemaking swings:

2015 Clean Water Rule broadened coverage.
2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule narrowed it; later vacated.
2023 WOTUS Rule was reshaped by Sackett and amended in August 2023.

Current alignment: The 2023 amendments and 2025 proposal aim to match the Court’s standards.

Pending actions to watch in 2026

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

Practical steps for EHS and project teams

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

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

EHS Monthly Round Up - December 2025

In this December 2025 roundup video, we'll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EHS Monthly Round Up - January 2025

In this January 2025 monthly roundup video, we'll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news.

Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news. There’s a lot going on, so let’s get started!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2026-01-05T06:00:00Z

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

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

The 2025 final rule:

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

Who’s affected?

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

What are the new deadlines?

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

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

What are the other changes?

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

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

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

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

Most Recent Highlights In Transportation

2026-01-02T06:00:00Z

New York establishes Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

Effective date: December 10, 2025

This applies to: Certain GHG emission sources

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

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

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

Related state info: Clean air operating permit state comparison

2026-01-02T06:00:00Z

Washington restricts PFAS products

Effective date: December 21, 2025

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

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

Apparel and accessories,
Automotive washes, and
Cleaning products.

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

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

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

Related state info: Hazardous waste generators — Washington

2026-01-02T06:00:00Z

New Jersey amends rules for contaminated site remediation, redevelopment

Effective date: November 17, 2025

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

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

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

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

2026-01-02T06:00:00Z

New Hampshire adds fines for contaminated site management obligations

Effective date: November 4, 2025

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

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

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

2026-01-02T06:00:00Z

Florida adds grease waste hauler requirements

Effective date: December 7, 2025

This applies to: Haulers of grease waste from food establishments

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

Most Recent Highlights In Safety & Health

2026-01-02T06:00:00Z

California codifies industrial ethyl alcohol exemption

Effective date: November 17, 2025

This applies to: Generators, transporters, and recycling facilities

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

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

Related state info: Hazardous waste generators — California

2026-01-02T06:00:00Z

District of Columbia adds nonwoven disposable product regulations

Effective date: November 14, 2025

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

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

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

Compliance requirements start in May 2027.

Related state info: Industrial water permitting — District of Columbia

2026-01-02T06:00:00Z

Maryland establishes fuel provider reporting program

Effective date: December 22, 2025

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

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

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

Related state info: Clean air operating permit state comparison

2026-01-02T06:00:00Z

California updates UST regulations

Effective date: January 1, 2026

This applies to: UST owners and operators

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

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

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

2026-01-02T06:00:00Z

Minnesota establishes PFAS reporting, fees rule

Effective date: December 8, 2025

This applies to: Manufacturers of products with intentionally added PFAS

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

Submit annual reports, and
Pay a fee.

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

Most Recent Highlights In Human Resources

2026-01-02T06:00:00Z

Iowa adds fees for Title V, asbestos air programs

Effective date: January 14, 2026

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

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

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

Related state info: Clean air operating permits state comparison

2025-12-30T06:00:00Z

Aboveground storage tanks: SPCC integrity test FAQs

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

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

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

What do industry standards have to do with integrity testing?

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

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

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

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

When should facilities conduct integrity tests?

EPA requires facilities to inspect or test ASTs for integrity:

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

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

Who can conduct integrity tests?

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

What are the types of integrity inspections and testing?

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

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

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

What are the recordkeeping requirements?

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

What’s a hybrid inspection program?

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

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

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

What about state requirements?

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

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

2025-12-19T06:00:00Z

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

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

Top 5 universal waste violations and how to avoid them

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

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

2025-12-17T06:00:00Z

Ripple effect: How data centers influence compliance strategies

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

Data centers and air permitting

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

What EPA is doing

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

Why this matters for other regulated facilities

Attainment status at risk

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

Power demand competition

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

Stricter air quality modeling requirements

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

Broader regulatory shifts

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

What non-data center facilities should do

Stay informed

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

Engage early

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

Plan for power

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

Choose sites wisely

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

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

2025-12-11T06:00:00Z

Acid Rain Program compliance: SO2 vs. NOx

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

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

So, what are the differences?

Who’s affected?

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

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

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

SO2 reduction program

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

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

There are multiple compliance options. Facilities may:

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

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

NOx reduction program

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the formulas:

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

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

Factors	Penalty Per Ton	Total Penalties
Tons of excess SO₂ emissions: 10 Compliance year: 2025 Annual adjustment factor: 2.5265	$2,000 x 2.5265 = $5,053	$5,053 x 10 = $50,530
Tons of excess NO_x emissions: 5 Compliance year: 2026 Annual adjustment factor: 2.6001	$2,000 x 2.6001 = $5,200.20	$5,200.20 x 5 = $26,001

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

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

New Network Poll

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

No active poll

Please come back soon!

View Previous Polls & Results

Most Popular Highlights In Environmental

2026-01-05T06:00:00Z

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

The 2025 final rule:

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

Who’s affected?

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

What are the new deadlines?

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

What are the other changes?

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

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

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

2026-01-02T06:00:00Z

California updates UST regulations

Effective date: January 1, 2026

This applies to: UST owners and operators

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

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

2025-12-19T06:00:00Z

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

Top 5 universal waste violations and how to avoid them

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

EHS Monthly Round Up - December 2025

In this December 2025 roundup video, we'll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news.

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

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

2025-12-05T06:00:00Z

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

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

What’s changing and why it matters

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

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

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

Key areas of impact

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

Steps to take now

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

Looking ahead

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

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

2026-01-12T06:00:00Z

Understanding WOTUS and Navigable Waters in 2026

What counts as “navigable waters” today?

Recent changes

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

Where each rule applies

Implementation is split:

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

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

Why it matters to industry and commerce

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

The legal and regulatory arc: why definitions keep changing

Statute: The CWA regulates “navigable waters,” defined as “waters of the United States,” but does not define WOTUS.
Court history: Court decisions have repeatedly reshaped and narrowed the definition of WOTUS. U.S. v. Riverside Bayview (1985) upheld adjacent wetlands; the scope narrowed when SWANCC v. USACE (2001) limited isolated waters; Rapanos v. U.S. (2006) deepened uncertainty by introducing two competing tests, “relatively permanent” vs. “significant nexus,” leaving regulators and courts with ambiguity.
Rulemaking swings:

2015 Clean Water Rule broadened coverage.
2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule narrowed it; later vacated.
2023 WOTUS Rule was reshaped by Sackett and amended in August 2023.

Current alignment: The 2023 amendments and 2025 proposal aim to match the Court’s standards.

Pending actions to watch in 2026

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

Practical steps for EHS and project teams

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

Most Popular Highlights In Transportation

2026-01-09T06:00:00Z

FMCSA Final Rule: Transportation of Fuel for Agricultural Aircraft Operations

FMCSA amends the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations to allow States to waive the hazardous materials (HM) endorsement requirement for holders of Class A commercial driver's licenses (CDL) who transport no more than 1,000 gallons of aviation grade jet fuel in support of seasonal agricultural aircraft operations.

DATES: Effective March 10, 2026. Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must be submitted to the FMCSA Administrator no later than February 9, 2026. Published in the Federal Register January 9, 2026, page 918.

View final rule.

Part 383-Commercial driver's license standards; requirements and penalties
Authority	Revised	View text
§383.3 Applicability.
(i)	Revised	View text
§383.5 Definitions.
Definition for “Jet fuel”	Added	View text

Previous Text

Part 383-Commercial driver's license standards; requirements and penalties

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 521, 31136, 31301 et seq., and 31502; secs. 214 and 215 of Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1766, 1767; sec. 1012(b) of Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272, 297, sec. 4140 of Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1746; sec. 32934 of Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 830; sec. 23019 of Pub. L. 117-58, 135 Stat. 429, 777; and 49 CFR 1.87.

§383.3 Applicability.

(i) Hazardous materials endorsement exemption for certain drivers transporting diesel. A State may waive the requirement for a holder of a Class A commercial driver’s license to obtain a hazardous materials endorsement under this part, if the license holder is:

(1) Acting within the scope of the license holder’s employment, and within the State of domicile (or another State with a hazardous materials endorsement exemption) as an employee of a custom harvester operation, agrichemical business, farm retail outlet and supplier, or livestock feeder; and

(2) Operating a service vehicle that is:

(i) Transporting diesel in a quantity of 3,785 liters (1,000 gallons) or less; and

(ii) Clearly marked with a “flammable” or “combustible” placard, as appropriate.

2025-12-30T06:00:00Z

New year, new opportunity for your drivers to check in with their habits

Many people use the new year as an opportunity to start fresh. This looks different for everyone and can include setting new goals, changing habits, and more. These goals often include things like health and fitness goals, personal finance goals, and more. This year, consider asking your drivers to reflect on their habits and identify what they can improve upon. Here are a few common items for drivers to work on.

Trip Planning

Are your drivers planning their trips ahead of time? Do they check the route for potential adverse weather conditions, construction, and changes to traffic patterns? Do they look for truck stops along their route and plan their breaks out? If not, this is a great time to work some of those items into their daily routines.

Inspections

Do your drivers complete a thorough pretrip inspection before every shift? Are they continuing to inspect throughout the day, as well as upon finishing their days? Do they do the bare minimum to mark it as completed, or are they going above and beyond to ensure the vehicle is safe to drive?

Defensive Driving

Ask your drivers to reflect on their driving habits. Do they drive defensively? Are they maintaining a good following distance, eliminating distractions, and staying alert and ready to respond to the actions of other drivers?

Personal health and fitness

Health and wellness goals such as increased activity levels, prioritized sleep schedules, improved hygiene, and healthier diets can help drivers stay more alert while behind the wheel.

Start a new hobby

Oftentimes, being away from home and on the road can get lonely and boring. Encourage your drivers to find new ways to entertain themselves during their free time. Hobbies and leisure activities help relieve stress and allow drivers to start the next day of driving feeling fresh and alert.

Key to remember: The new year brings new opportunities for your drivers to check in on their existing habits, as well as form new ones.

2026-01-06T06:00:00Z

No delay: UCR enforcement starts January 1

Guidance issued this week urges states to begin enforcement January 1 for the Unified Carrier Registration (UCR) 2026 registration year.

Enforcement officials verify compliance with UCR during roadside inspections. A violation appears on the Driver/Vehicle Examination Report as “392.2 UCR - Failure to pay UCR fees.” Officials verify compliance via CVIEW, SAFER, or www.ucr.gov/enforcement. No UCR credential must be carried in the commercial motor vehicle.

You can still get checked for last year

During roadside inspections, enforcement officials may look for evidence of interstate or international operations during the past registration year. Proof may include:

Log entries,
Toll receipts,
Shipping papers,
Bills of lading,
Previous year’s apportioned receipt, and
Prior roadside inspection reports of interstate or international operations.

Who’s covered?

The program applies to all motor carriers that operate in interstate and international commerce. This includes:

For-hire, private, and exempt carriers;
Brokers;
Freight forwarders; and
Leasing companies.

Carriers based in Canada or Mexico that operate in the U.S. must also register under the program.

Who’s exempt?

Carriers not subject to UCR include:

Motor carriers that operate only in intrastate commerce. These carriers do not:
- Handle interstate or international freight, or
- Make interstate or international movements.
Private motor carriers of passengers. These private carriers transport passengers as part of a commercial enterprise. The transport service is not available to the public at large.

Key to remember: Carriers subject to UCR must register and pay by January 1. There is no grace period for compliance.

2026-01-08T06:00:00Z

Top 20 CMV driver violations of 2025

Unsafe driving, medical certification issues, and log violations dominated the list of reasons commercial drivers were cited during roadside inspections last year.

Over 3 million such inspections took place in 2025, about the same number as in each of the prior 2 years . Being familiar with the most common violations can help drivers and motor carriers take steps to avoid them.

The following table lists the top 20 driver safety violations cited during roadside inspections in 2025, including:

The (rounded) percentage of those violations that resulted in an out-of-service (OOS) order; and
The severity points assigned to each violation in the Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) system.

Rank	Code	Description	Violations	OOS	CSA
1	392.2	Speeding	133,465	0%	1-10
2	391.41(a)	Invalid/no medical certification	104,010	68%	1
3	395.8(e)	Log falsification	98,292	20%	7
4	395.8(a)	No/wrong type of log when required	82,616	59%	5
5	395.24	ELD form/manner violation	76,623	0%	1
6	392.2	Failure to obey traffic control device	74,560	0%	5
7	383.23(a), 383.51	No/improper/invalid/suspended license (CDL)	71,479	94%	8
8	395.30	Failure to review and certify logs	65,809	0%	1
9	395.3(a)	8-, 11-, or 14-hour violation	57,571	17%	1-7
10	392.16	Failure to use seat belt	54,273	0%	7
11	391.11(b)	English proficiency violation	48,176	26%*	4
12	392.2	Lane restriction violation	44,809	0%	3
13	395.22(h)	Failure to carry ELD instructions or blank logs	31,659	0%	1
14	392.80, .82	Using cell phone or texting	22,203	0%	10
15	395.22(g)	ELD mounting violation	16,125	0%	1
16	391.11(b)(5)	No/improper/invalid license (non-CDL)	14,252	92%	8
17	395.24	Failure to transfer ELD records	12,341	0%	3
18	392.2	Failure to maintain lane	10,756	0%	5
19	395.32	Failure to review/assign unassigned time	9,112	0%	5
20	395.8(k)	No logs for prior 7 days	8,266	86%	5

*Became an OOS violation on June 25, 2025.

Key to remember: Review the top driver violations of 2025 and take steps to prevent them in 2026 and beyond.

2024-09-19T05:00:00Z

Your HUT decals are expiring: Registration open Oct. 1

For carriers operating in New York, registration and decals expire December 31, 2024, for the Highway Use Tax (HUT) and Automotive Fuel Carrier (AFC) programs. Take steps now to make sure you receive your new decals before the current ones expire. You need a new certificate of registration and decal for each vehicle. And you must place the new decals on your vehicles before January 1, 2025.

The period to renew your 24th series HUT and AFC certificates of registration begins October 1, 2024. Act now to avoid delays and keep your highway use tax credentials active.

To-do before October 1

Get ready for renewal by taking the following steps now:

File all your highway use tax returns that are due.
Pay your taxes. The state will not issue a new certificate of registration if you owe back taxes. Before you apply to renew, make sure that you’ve paid all taxes due under any of the programs administered by the New York State Tax Department, including:
- HUT,
- personal income tax,
- International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA),
- sales tax, and
- withholding tax.
Create an online account if you do not already have one and you want to renew your credentials and pay online (https://www.oscar.ny.gov/).
Make sure your vehicle registration information is correct and accurate. Review and update your information as soon as possible. Incorrect information will delay the processing of your certificates and decals.

Beginning October 1

Once the renewal period opens, renew your credentials and pay your renewal fees online with One Stop Credentialing and Registration (OSCAR).

Submit your renewal application by November 30, 2024, to make sure you receive your decals in time to place them on your vehicles before January 1, 2025.

If you are already enrolled in OSCAR, use your current OSCAR password to renew online.

If you are not enrolled, visit OSCAR, and select Enroll Now. You must have a United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) number and an employer identification number (EIN).

To renew your registration:

Visit the OSCAR website and select HUT Renewal from the Business Type drop-down.
Enter your information in the USDOT#, NYS Tax ID#, and Password fields, then select Log in.
If you have 300 or fewer vehicles, choose either:
1. Renew all HUT/AFC Certificates of Registration to renew all your active current series permits, or
2. Select HUT/AFC Certificates of Registration to renew specific permits.
If you have more than 300 vehicles, choose either:
1. Renew all to renew all your active current series permits, or
2. File renewal to renew select permits.

If you are unable to renew electronically, you may file Form TMT-1.2, Renewal Application for Highway Use Tax (HUT) and Automotive Fuel Carrier (AFC) Certificates of Registrations and Decals – 25th Series.

Key to remember: Take steps now to renew your NY HUT and ensure you receive your new decals before the current ones expire.

2026-01-07T06:00:00Z

Annual Fleet Management survey is ready for your input

J. J. Keller® Center for Market Insights is currently working on its sixth annual study, 2026 State of Fleet Management Survey. The research covers a wide range of topics, including regulatory compliance, safety, driver knowledge and skill, and leadership buy-in.

The survey runs from January 7 through January 19, 2026, and results will be shared with the public through several platforms.

Share your experiences by accessing the survey.

Last year's survey results

The challenges that more motor carriers experienced in 2024 were reflected in the J.J. Keller Center for Market Insights’ fifth annual survey on the state of fleet management.

Conducted in early 2025, the survey gauged the industry’s top challenges and priorities around the operation of a commercial vehicle fleet, including:

Driver training, knowledge, and skill
DOT/FMCSA compliance
Safety Vehicle technology and maintenance
Company expenses

The survey results show that respondents continue to see a need for well-trained, high-quality drivers engaged in continuous learning, a robust safety and compliance program with strong backing from leadership, new vehicle technology that works, and a solid preventive maintenance program. Our research also shows, however, that fleet managers face some common hurdles in reaching these goals.

Click to view the results of the 2025 survey: Transportation Pain Points: Overcoming Top Fleet-Management Challenges.

Most Popular Highlights In Human Resources

2023-09-06T05:00:00Z

Appellate court sided with employee's (almost) 3-year-delayed FMLA claim

Back in October 2018, Laffon had a medical emergency and needed some time off under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

Her leave lasted until November 15. Ten days after she returned to work, on November 26, her employer terminated her.

She sued, arguing that the employer retaliated against her because of her FMLA leave.

The catch? She didn't bring the suit until almost three years later.

No link between leave and termination

In court, the employer argued that there was no causal link between Laffon taking FMLA leave and her termination. Although the court documents aren't robust, they do reveal that the employer indicated that Laffon's allegations didn't show that her taking FMLA leave was a factor in the decision to terminate her. The documents showed only that the termination chronologically followed her leave.

The court agreed with the employer. It also agreed that Laffon failed to allege a willful violation of the FMLA, which would allow her to benefit from the FMLA's three-year statute of limitations.

Laffon appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit.

Statute of limitations

Under the FMLA, employees have two years from the date of the last event constituting the alleged violation for which they can bring a claim.

Those two years are extended to three years if the employer's actions were "willful." This means that an employee must show that the employer either knew or showed reckless disregard for whether its conduct violated the FMLA.

Ruling overturned

Fast forward to August 2023, when the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision. It indicated that, based on Laffon's amended complaint and liberally construing the law, her allegations establish that her leave was causally connected to her termination and that the employer's action (her termination) was willful.

Glymph v. CT Corporation Systems, No. 22-35735, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, August 22, 2023.

Key to remember: Terminating an employee soon after returning from FMLA leave is risky, unless there is a clear, well-documented, non-leave-related reason. Case documents did not show such a clear reason, which can also increase the risk of a willful finding. Employees have time to file claims, even years.

2026-01-06T06:00:00Z

Employers must pay employees for travel time between job sites

On October 6, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decided not to take up a case involving an employer that didn’t pay an employee for time spent driving between job sites. The circuit court ruling, therefore, stands and serves as a good reminder that the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires employers to pay employees for travel time between job sites, even if those job sites are personal residences.

In this case, a home health care service provider didn’t pay its employees for time spent traveling between clients’ homes.

The SCOTUS points to the FLSA’s requirement that employers must pay for work-related travel time during the workday. Pay is required when:

• The employee is on duty and when entering or exiting a period of off-duty rest.

• The travel is necessary and constitutes “part of” the employee’s “principal activity.”

In other words, although employers don’t have to pay for off-duty time, the travel time necessary to go between job sites is integral to a principal work activity and must be paid.

What is “work”?

The FLSA doesn’t define “work.” The SCOTUS has explained that an employee “works” within the meaning of the FLSA when the employee is engaged in some kind of activity that is “controlled or required by the employer and pursued necessarily and primarily for the benefit of the employer and his business.”

In the case, the employer argued that the Portal-to-Portal Act (PPA) says that employers don’t have to pay employees for time spent “walking, riding, or traveling to and from the actual place of performance of the [employee’s] principal activity or activities” and doing “activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to said principal activity or activities.”

But the PPA covers only travel to the job site that occurs either before the time the work begins or after the principal work activities end. The PPA doesn’t apply to the time between the workday’s start and end

Start and end of the workday

Once the workday has begun, employees are entitled to be paid even if they’re not working at every moment of the day.

For example, a messenger who works on a crossword puzzle while awaiting assignments and a factory worker who talks to his fellow employees while waiting for machinery to be repaired are working during their periods of inactivity.

Employers must pay employees for travel time when employees lack the time to go off duty. Employers can’t claim that the travel period between job sites is part of an employee’s break. They must pay employees for time spent traveling before or after an off-duty period/break.

Employees go off duty when they’re completely relieved from duty long enough to enable them to use the time effectively for their own purposes.

Challenges

This employer said the situation was a challenge because off-duty employees could go wherever they wanted and begin their travel to a client’s home from wherever they wanted, so it was harder to say when they would return to on-duty status.

The employer argued that this theory of compensation was “unworkable” and “would require estimation of the compensable portion of travel” in a manner that would violate the FLSA.

The court said that the employer simply had to make a record so that it and employees had “the most probative facts concerning the nature and amount of work performed.”

The employer also tried to argue that travel wasn’t closely related to the productive work, such as feeding, bathing, providing medication, and dressing their clients. The court disagreed.

An activity doesn’t need to be predominant in some way over all other activities to qualify as principal. The employees were hired to travel and provide care to clients where they reside, rather than meeting them in hospitals or clinics. So, travel was part of their principal activities.

U.S. Department of Labor v. Nursing Home Care Management Inc., Third Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 23-2284, March 5, 2025.

Key to remember: As the SCOTUS makes clear, employers must pay employees for time spent travelling during the workday.

2026-01-07T06:00:00Z

Workplace sexual harassment linked to PTSD

An employee reported sexual harassment to HR. The accusation was investigated and found to have merit. The harasser was disciplined. The victim can move on.

Or can they?

Workplace sexual harassment isn’t just a violation of personal boundaries; it can have lasting psychological effects. Recent research, including a study by the Scandinavian Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, has found a connection between exposure to workplace sexual harassment and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

What is PTSD?

PTSD is a mental health condition that can develop after a traumatic event, such as being harassed, especially if the harassment was severe or ongoing. The Scandinavian study showed that frequent harassment increases the risk and severity of PTSD symptoms.

In addition, harassment from a colleague or leader was associated with slightly higher levels of PTSD symptoms than if the harassment was from a customer.

Symptoms of PTSD that a victim of harassment might experience include:

Flashbacks,
Intrusive memories,
Nightmares, and
Emotional distress triggered by reminders of the harassment.

The impact of sexual harassment may lead to profound anxiety, depression, diminished sense of self-worth, self-blame, and negative self-esteem. Additionally, the trauma of sexual harassment can cause panic attacks and poor sleep, further exacerbating the toll on a victim’s mental well-being.

Broader workplace impact

These mental health effects highlight the need for support and comprehensive care for individuals who have experienced workplace sexual harassment.

Chronic stress and anxiety resulting from the experience can lead to physical ailments, including high blood pressure and cardiovascular problems. These conditions may cause attendance problems and scheduling issues.

In addition, fear of retaliation and emotional turmoil often leads to decreased job satisfaction and reduced productivity.

Employer support strategies

Employers are responsible for creating safe, supportive environments and providing adequate mental health resources for their employees.

Someone who is suffering from PTSD should seek professional counseling as soon as it’s evident that the trauma is interfering with day-to-day life.

An Employee assistance program (EAP) can offer counseling, support groups, and resources for both employees and their families.

Share information about your workplace EAP with sexual harassment victims and explain how counselors can help. If you don’t have a workplace EAP, share information about support groups and other resources in the community.

It's also important to know that PTSD will easily be concluded to be a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) thus qualifying the employee for an accommodation. An accommodation might be as simple as a scheduling change that would allow the employee to attend counseling sessions.

By understanding an employee’s need for support, employers can help them cope during a painful time.

Key to remember: Studies have shown a link between sexual harassment and PTSD. Employers should be aware of this and provide support to victims.

2024-08-28T05:00:00Z

When to skip a PIP and move to terminate an employee

The U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics reported in July 2024 that there are 8.2 million job openings in the U.S., but only 7.2 million unemployed workers.

With that in mind, employers might choose to hang onto employees even if they’re under performing. But what about when complaints are rolling in from different angles? Take, for example, a lackluster supervisor who’s annoying employees and disappointing customers.

An employer could be hesitant to let the supervisor go, especially if there’s no documentation backing up claims of misconduct. The employer must weigh their options to decide if putting the supervisor on a performance improvement plan (PIP) or moving right to termination is the ideal choice.

At-will employment

For starters, in most states employers may terminate an employee at-will, meaning they can fire employees for pretty much any reason as long as it doesn’t discriminate against someone in a protected class based on sex, age, race, religion, etc. Employers also cannot terminate in retaliation for an employee making a claim of harassment, discrimination, or safety concerns.

Aside from these limits, employers can terminate employees for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all.

PIP or terminate

Deciding whether to put an employee on a PIP or terminate must be decided on a case-by-case basis.

A PIP is usually for job performance issues (hence, performance improvement plan). This could mean anything from not making enough sales to being inept at the job’s essential functions. If job performance doesn’t improve under the PIP, termination may be the end result depending on company policies and practices.

Even if an employee has job performance issues, the employer can terminate without going through the PIP process first, unless the usual process is to implement a PIP with employees who have had similar problems. In that case, not doing a PIP could be seen as discrimination against an employee, especially if the person falls into a protected class.

Workplace misconduct, however, is another situation altogether. This could be anything from a one-off poor joke to pervasive harassment. Snapping at customers or coworkers (or worse), for example, is a conduct issue. An employer could issue a warning or move right to termination if the behavior is clearly illegal or a serious threat to workplace safety.

Read more: ezExplanation on discharging employees

Termination tips

If an employer decides to terminate, they should treat the employee as respectfully as possible during the termination process. Also, an employer should carefully and clearly communicate the job-related reasons for the termination to avoid any hint of discrimination. Lastly, an employer should document the reasons and reiterate the steps taken leading up to the termination and keep those records handy in case the employee files a wrongful termination lawsuit.

Key to remember: Employers sometimes struggle when making termination decisions. Having a process in place and documenting steps along the way can help if a case lands in court.

HR Monthly Round Up - December 2025

In this December 2025 roundup video, we’ll review the most impactful HR news.

Welcome, everyone! In the next few minutes, we’ll review the latest HR news. Let’s get started.

Artificial intelligence, revenue growth, and attracting top talent are on business leaders’ minds for 2026, according to the CEO Priorities and Perspectives study released December 4 by the Society for Human Resource Management. The study, which was conducted in October 2025, was based on a survey of 116 CEOs.

While 87 percent of CEOs surveyed see AI-driven upskilling and reskilling to be prevalent in 2026, the cost of labor is a concern. The survey indicated that 81 percent of CEOs expect rising labor and total workforce costs, and 75 percent anticipate workforce reductions to be a trend in the new year.

In other news, on December 3, two senators introduced bipartisan legislation called the Fair Access for Individuals to Receive Leave Act. If enacted, the bill would eliminate the requirement that married couples who both work for the same employer share the 12 weeks of leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act in certain circumstances, such as when the leave is taken to bond with a healthy newborn child.

If this bill gets enacted, employers would have an easier time tracking FMLA leave and employees would have more leave flexibility. Although this bill might not pass, it indicates that revising legislation about employee leave is still on the minds of lawmakers.

One more quick update, the White House has directed the attorney general to speed up the process of reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug. An executive order signed December 18 brings new life to a process that began in 2024 when the federal government published a proposed rule that would move marijuana from schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act to schedule III, a lower-class drug category.

The rescheduling proposal would move marijuana to the same drug class as prescription drugs such as Tylenol with codeine, ketamine, and steroids. It would also make it possible for medical marijuana to be prescribed to patients.

While the executive order revives the marijuana rescheduling issue, it will likely be 6-12 months before a final rule is issued. Hearings will need to be scheduled and comments from the hearings will need to be considered before a final rule is published.

That’s all the HR news we have time for today. Thanks for watching. See you next month!

2026-01-09T06:00:00Z

DOL explains that employers don’t have to classify employees as exempt (“salaried”)

Employers are allowed to classify some employees as exempt from the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) if those employees meet certain criteria. Those employees must, however, meet all the criteria. Simply having a job that could fall under part of the criteria isn’t enough.

An employee learned this from the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division (WHD) early this year when the agency published an opinion letter.

The question

The employee, whose job fell under the learned professional exemption under the FLSA (Licensed Clinical Social Worker), asked the WHD if their employer could reclassify them from an exempt to a nonexempt status, despite their belief that they continue to satisfy the educational and job duties criteria of an exempt learned professional under the FLSA.

The WHD said “yes.” Here’s why.

For an employer to classify an employee as exempt, the employee must:

Be paid on a salary basis,
Be paid at least the minimum salary threshold, and
Meet certain duties tests.

The employer in question went through an internal restructuring and reclassified the employee as hourly (nonexempt) and removed her supervisory duties. It was the lack of supervisor responsibilities that caused the employer to reclassify the employee.

The employee felt that, because the job duties for a professional exemption were still intact, the employee should remain exempt.

The answer

The WHD said that the lack of supervisor duties wasn’t the issue. The employee was being paid by the hour, and that would cause the employee to no longer be exempt.

The WHD went on to say that even if all the criteria for an FLSA exemption are met, the employer—not the employee — determines the exemption. Employers don’t have to classify any employee as exempt. In fact, all employees (even high-level executives) can be classified as nonexempt. The nonexempt status is the baseline. Employers may only classify employees as exempt if the criteria are met and they want to assign that classification.

Key to remember: Employees must be paid on a salary basis to be considered exempt, along with meeting other criteria. Employers don’t have to classify employees as exempt, even if they meet the criteria.

Most Popular Highlights In Safety & Health

2026-01-08T06:00:00Z

OSHA Final Rule: Hazard Communication Standard; Corrections

OSHA is correcting several inadvertent errors in its Hazard Communication Standard (HCS). Most errors relate to the HCS final rule published in the Federal Register on May 20, 2024. On October 9, 2024, the agency issued a corrections notification and technical amendment to correct errors in that final rule which the agency believed could lead to confusion during the classification process or errors on labels and Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) if not expeditiously corrected. Following publication of the October 9, 2024 corrections notification and technical amendment, OSHA continued its review of the regulatory text and identified additional minor and typographical errors in the regulatory text and appendices to the HCS. OSHA is issuing this correction document to address these additional minor errors. OSHA is also making one technical amendment to an appendix of the HCS unrelated to the May 20, 2024 final rule.

DATES: The corrections in this document are effective January 8, 2026. Published in the Federal Register January 8, 2026, page 562.

View final rule.

2026-01-06T06:00:00Z

The invisible risks of indoor warmth

As the January frost settles in, the primary mission for any workplace becomes a simple one: stay warm. Whether it’s a drafty warehouse or a corner office with a chill, employees instinctively reach for tools to turn up the heat. However, in the pursuit of comfort, two silent and often overlooked hazards creep into the workplace, Carbon Monoxide (CO) poisoning and space heater fire hazards.

While these hazards appear different, they do share a dangerous commonality; they are often the result of small, well-intentioned adjustments to our environment that go unnoticed until it is too late. To protect your team this Winter Safety Month, it is essential to understand how these risks intersect and how to manage the "invisible" side of winter safety.

Carbon monoxide: The silent threat

The danger begins with the air we breathe. Carbon monoxide is frequently called the “silent killer” because it is colorless, odorless, and tasteless. In the winter, the risk spikes as buildings are sealed tight to keep the cold out, inadvertently trapping any gases produced by fuel-burning equipment.

In industrial settings, this might be a propane-powered forklift running in a closed loading dock. In an office setting, it could be a malfunctioning furnace or the improper use of a kerosene heater. Because CO mimics the symptoms of common winter ailments, it is easy to ignore. Employees might complain of a "dull headache," "winter fatigue," or "nausea," assuming they are just coming down with a cold. However, a key red flag for employers is this "cluster effect." If multiple people in the same area begin feeling lethargic or dizzy simultaneously, it is probably not a virus—more than likely it is an environmental emergency. Protecting your team starts with the installation of CO detectors, but it continues with a culture where employees feel empowered to speak up the moment the air feels off.

Air quality to fire safety

Where fuel-burning equipment creates a chemical hazard, electric heating creates a structural one. When the central HVAC system can’t keep up with a January cold snap, the "personal space heater" becomes the most popular tool in the building. While these devices provide immediate relief, they are responsible for a staggering percentage of workplace fires because they are often treated as "plug-and-play" appliances rather than high-powered industrial tools.

The transition from a cozy workstation to a fire hazard often happens through simple proximity. This is where the "Three-Foot Rule" becomes non-negotiable. Whether it is a stack of paper, a plastic trash can, or a winter coat draped over a chair, combustible materials must be kept at a distance. A heater doesn't need to touch an object to ignite it; the constant radiant heat can raise the temperature of nearby materials to their ignition point over several hours.

Beyond the physical placement of the heater lies the electrical strain. A common mistake in office environments is "daisy-chaining” or plugging a space heater into a power strip or an extension cord. Most power strips are designed for low-draw electronics like monitors and phone chargers. A space heater draws a large amount of electricity, which can cause the internal wiring of a power strip to melt or ignite long before a circuit breaker ever trips. To bridge this gap, employers should enforce a "Direct-to-Wall" policy. If a heater cannot reach a wall outlet, it should not be used. This ensures the building’s heavy-duty wiring handles the load, rather than a thin plastic extension cord hidden under a rug.

Strategies

Protecting employees during the winter months requires a much broader view of indoor safety. It isn’t just about checking the furnace or just banning heaters; it’s about managing how we modify our environment. A few winter safety strategies should include:

The "Last Man Out" Protocol: Assigning a team member to ensure all supplemental heaters are unplugged and not just turned off at the end of the day.
HVAC Audits: Treating the need for space heaters as a "symptom" that the main heating system needs a professional tune-up or vent cleaning.
Open Communication: Encouraging a "safety first" mindset where reporting a headache or a hot-to-the-touch power cord is rewarded, not dismissed.

Keys to remember: By addressing the air we breathe and the equipment we plug in as two parts of the same winter safety goal, employers can ensure that the workplace remains a sanctuary from the cold, rather than a source of danger.

2026-01-07T06:00:00Z

Don’t let winter slam the door on safety

Winter weather creates unique challenges for workplace safety, particularly when it comes to emergency preparedness. Snow, ice, and freezing temperatures can obstruct exits, create slip hazards, and complicate evacuation plans. Taking proactive steps is essential to maintain compliance with OSHA and NFPA standards and keep your workers safe.

Clear exit routes and egress paths

OSHA regulations (29 CFR 1910.37) require that all exit routes remain free and unobstructed at all times. NFPA 101 Life Safety Code reinforces this by emphasizing clear egress paths and proper door operation during emergencies. In winter, snow and ice can quickly compromise these requirements, making it critical to plan ahead.

Design requirements

OSHA’s minimum width requirement of 28 inches applies to the structural component of a permanent exit route. This means the physical design of the exit must meet that standard. However, OSHA also states that exit routes must be “free and unobstructed,” which is where snow and ice become a compliance issue. Even if the structure meets the 28-inch requirement, accumulated snow or ice that narrows the path or blocks access violates OSHA’s intent for safe egress.

NFPA often requires wider exit route dimensions than OSHA’s minimum, especially in facilities with higher occupancy or specific hazards. Because local building codes or municipal regulations may adopt NFPA standards or even stricter rules, it is recommended to verify with your Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) to ensure compliance with any additional requirements.

Performance requirements

Exit doors must open easily without special tools or excessive force, as required by OSHA and NFPA standards. Winter conditions can also compromise this requirement. Snow plowed against exterior doors, frozen gates or crash bars, narrowed sidewalks, and temporary storage of salt bags or heaters near exits can obstruct pathways and delay evacuation. Slippery outdoor stairways and walkways add further risk to safe workplace exiting.

Lighting is equally important. Emergency lights and exit signs must remain visible and functional, but snowbanks, ice buildup, or temporary coverings can block them, creating unsafe conditions and violating regulations. Recommended actions to minimize these hazards can include:

Inspecting all walkways and exits after snow and ice weather events.
Removing snow and ice promptly and applying de-icing agents.
Keeping snow removal supplies and equipment away from exits and walking paths.
Documenting inspections and corrective actions in a safety log.

Emergency action planning

OSHA requires in 29 CFR 1910.38 that workplaces with 10 or more employees maintain a written Emergency Action Plan (EAP). The EAP should clearly outline procedures for reporting emergencies, evacuation routes, and employee responsibilities including cold weather emergencies for organizations exposed to winter weather climates.

To prepare for winter weather emergencies, start by reviewing your existing plan and adding contingencies for snow and ice. Identify primary and secondary evacuation routes and ensure they remain accessible even during severe storms. Include procedures for clearing snow from exits and walkways and assign specific personnel to each task. Backup lighting should be addressed in case of power outages, and emergency communication systems should be tested regularly to ensure functionality in cold conditions.

Consider adding steps for shelter-in-place situations caused by blizzards or extreme cold. Provide guidance on maintaining indoor heat safely and ventilation for preventing carbon monoxide exposure from temporary heating devices.

OSHA also emphasizes the importance of training and communication as part of an effective emergency preparedness program. Employees must understand evacuation procedures, know their roles during an emergency, and be familiar with winter-specific hazards. This includes recognizing slip hazards, practicing safe walking techniques, and proper use of personal protective equipment.

Supervisors should go beyond basic instruction by conducting seasonal safety meetings that cover winter-specific risks. Training should explain the importance of maintaining clear exits, snow and ice removal priorities, and what steps employees should take if they notice blocked exit routes. Communication tools such as signage, email alerts, and mobile notifications can reinforce these messages during severe weather events. Effective communication ensures employees remain aware of changing conditions and know how to respond quickly and safely.

Key to remember: Winter weather can delay evacuations, so planning ahead is essential. Proactive inspections, updated emergency plans, and training are your best defense against winter hazards like blocked exits and frozen doors.

2026-01-05T06:00:00Z

Glow Big or Go Home: Why Vehicle Lights Matter

There’s nothing worse than driving at night through a work zone and having some glaring aqua headlights coming right at you, right? At times, we are left wondering if the lights are meant for work zone safety, emergency vehicles, or if they are even legal. So, let’s explore which vehicle lights are required according to regulators and why they matter.

Understanding which vehicle lights are required and why they are necessary is more than a regulatory checkbox; it's a cornerstone of safety. These lights aren't just for visibility but are intended to communicate intent, type of vehicle, guide traffic, and protect both workers and drivers. When properly used, they reduce confusion, prevent collisions, and reinforce the presence of a temporary but high-risk zone. The ultimate goal is to reduce traffic incidents and deaths by providing appropriate, noticeable vehicle lighting on public roads.

Simple colors, simple safety!

OSHA regulations for vehicle light colors are primarily governed by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) standard number 108. The standard establishes requirements for motor vehicle lighting equipment, including light colors and brightness.

The color in all lamps and reflective devices must follow Table I in FMVSS No. 108, which includes:

White: Lower and upper beam headlamps, backup lamp, license plate lamp, and parking lamps (can be white or amber).
Amber (yellow): Turn signal (flashing) lamps, side marker lamps, reflex reflectors, parking lamps (can be amber or white), clearance lamps, identification lamps.
Red: Tail lamps, stop lamps, reflex reflectors, identification lamps (non-truck tractor), signal warning (flashing) lamps.

Tracking down regulations for work vehicle lighting

FMVSS isn’t the only regulator having a say in work vehicle lighting. Additional regulations designed to keep work zones safe include:

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requires proper lighting for visibility and worker safety in federally funded projects.
Lights used for traffic control (e.g., arrow boards, beacons) must meet the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) state-specific rules for light color, placement, and usage (e.g., Wisconsin DOT may differ from Michigan DOT).
Work vehicle lighting is enforced by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).

While OSHA doesn’t regulate vehicle lights directly, it mandates safe working conditions, and proper visibility in work zones. That being said, there are some OSHA standards for work vehicle lighting. Construction motor vehicles that operate within an off-highway jobsite (not open to public traffic) are covered by 29 CFR 1926.601 and must:

Be equipped with at least two headlights and two taillights in operable condition any time visibility conditions warrant additional light; and
Have brake lights in operable condition regardless of light conditions.

Compliance with all of these regulations is vital to incident prevention and roadway safety.

Emergency vehicle lights: Different rules for different states

Each state sets its own color patterns for emergency and service vehicles to ensure visibility and safety. Here are just a few examples:

Michigan reserves flashing, oscillating, or rotating red and blue lights for police, fire, and EMS vehicles only. Amber lights are allowed for utility, road service, and construction vehicles. Warning lights must flash white/amber in front and amber/red in rear.
New York differs slightly by using red, white, blue, green or amber depending on the vehicle type. Police, sheriff, and state trooper vehicles department use red, white and/or blue police lights, while fire departments in the Big Apple can’t use blue. Volunteer ambulances may use green lights while construction vehicles will display amber lights. Emergency vehicle lights may be flashing or solid.
Florida limits blue lights to law enforcement only. Volunteer firefighters may use red or red/white combinations. Construction vehicles in high-speed zones (≥55 mph) may use green, amber, and red but only when workers are present; otherwise, vehicles use amber or white strobes.
Texas emergency vehicles may use red, white, or blue lights. Tow trucks, service, and construction vehicles must use flashing amber lights. In snow/ice or intermittent work zones, amber and blue may be used together.

Regardless of the state, the bottom line is that flashing lights in work zones mean slow down and stay alert—lives depend on it.

Key to remember: Vehicle lighting is essential for reducing the risk of accidents in high-risk or low-visibility environments. Specific lights communicate intent and are designed to protect both workers and the public in and around work zones.

2022-06-13T05:00:00Z

Cleaning with compressed air: Making sense of the OSHA regulation

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.

What is “chip guarding”?

“Effective chip guarding” means any method or equipment which will prevent a chip or particle (of whatever size) from being blown into the eyes or unbroken skin of the operator or other workers.

Effective chip guarding may be separate from the air nozzle as in the case where screens or barriers are used. The use of protective cone air nozzles are acceptable in general for protection of the operator, but barriers, baffles or screens may be required to protect other workers if they are exposed to flying chips or particles.

What about the psi requirement?

The regulation requires the psi at the nozzle to be less than 30 when using compressed air for cleaning.

However, OSHA has said in interpretive guidance that the use of compressed air for cleaning purposes at pressures at or greater than 30 psi is permissible if the outlet or source is fitted with a relief device or air ports that drop the pressure to less than 30 psi if the flow is dead-ended.

What about cleaning clothing/bodies?

While the regulation does not specifically address the issue, in a letter of interpretation OSHA said that employers should not allow employees to use compressed air for cleaning themselves or their clothing in general industry situations. The eyes and other body parts, such as the respiratory system, may be damaged as the result of inadequate personal protective equipment, lack of chip guards, and/or uncontrolled release of compressed air.

The dangers

There are numerous dangers of improperly using compressed air:

Embolism: If compressed air enters the bloodstream through a body opening or skin break, it can create an embolism (air bubble) that can be life threatening.
Eye damage: Particles that are being blown can “blow back” and strike the eyes. The air itself can also cause injury if it is pointed toward the eyes.
Hearing loss: Some compressed air equipment can be loud enough to damage hearing. Always wear proper PPE.
Combustible dust: If compressed air is used to blow certain dusts, it can create a suspension in the air that could ignite if there is an ignition source.
Respiratory: Particles or air can enter the respiratory system, posing deadly hazards.
Whips: If not properly secured, hoses can whip and cause severe injury.

Workers must be trained that even extremely low pressures, such as 5 or 10 psi, can still cause severe damage if pointed toward the body, particularly the mouth, eyes, ears, or open areas in the skin.

Employers should train employees on the dangers of compressed air, and ensure the equipment is equipped with the necessary safety features and is properly maintained.

Supervisors should watch for improper use, particularly horseplay, and initiate corrective action. In addition, for many applications, a broom or shop vacuum may be just as effective at cleaning, and much safer. Compressed air may seem harmless, but if strict safeguards and practices are not utilized it can be deadly.

2026-01-02T06:00:00Z

Choosing a NAICS code for OSHA 300 e-filing

Employers that must electronically file their injury data with OSHA might engage in business activities that fall under more than one North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code. Fortunately, OSHA recognized that more than one NAICS code could apply to a single establishment.

OSHA’s Injury Tracking Application (ITA) website includes a frequently asked question regarding multiple NAICS codes. OSHA advises, “Choose the code that represents the activity that generates the most revenue for your establishment and/or has the most employees, whichever is more applicable to your business.” If more than one NAICS code could apply, employers can choose which code to use for ITA reporting.

Choosing a NAICS code

OSHA does not assign NAICS codes. Employers know their operations best and must select the most applicable code. For example, suppose a company engages in both plastics manufacturing and chemical manufacturing. The plastics division has the most employees, but the chemical division generates the most revenue. Which NAICS code should the company use? The company could use either, but might consider the electronic filing obligations.

Plastics manufacturers must file the 300A, 300 Log, and 301 Forms if the establishment has 100 or more employees. However, chemical manufacturers file only the 300A regardless of employee count. This company might choose the NAICS code for chemical manufacturing since that generates the most revenue and would only have to file the 300A.

One location, two establishments?

Normally, a single physical location counts as one “establishment” for injury recordkeeping. In rare cases, a single location with more than one business operation might be divided into more than one establishment. If this happens, each establishment (operation) would maintain a separate 300 Log and could even have different electronic reporting obligations.

The previous example of a chemical and plastics manufacturer probably doesn’t qualify as two separate establishments. OSHA offers an example where two separate business establishments operate from the same physical address. The agency noted, “if an employer operates a construction company at the same location as a lumber yard, the employer may consider each business to be a separate establishment.”

According to the regulation at 1904.46, an employer might consider two or more separate businesses that share a single location to be separate establishments only when:

Each of the establishments represents a distinctly separate business;
Each business is engaged in a different economic activity;
No single NAICS code applies to the joint activities; and
Separate reports are routinely prepared for each establishment on the number of employees, their wages and salaries, sales or receipts, and other business information.

If these criteria do not apply, the employer must choose one NAICS code for the entire operation.

Employer Identification Number (EIN)

When preparing for electronic submission of injury records, employers also need to include their Employer Identification Number, or EIN. This is a tax identification number for a company, similar to a Social Security Number, but for a business.

Some locations might have more than one EIN. That does not automatically mean the location constitutes two or more “establishments” for OSHA recordkeeping and reporting. However, if each operation meets the criteria for separate businesses, the employer might maintain separate 300 Logs (and potentially have different e-reporting obligations) for each business operation.

Key to remember: If more than one NAICS could apply, the employer chooses which code to use for electronic filing of injury data. Though unusual, a single location might be divided into separate business operations and treated as two establishments.

About Notice at Collection Terms of Use Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information Accessibility Support