Remote verification of I-9 documents ends July 31

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.

What does this mean?

Manufacturers (including importers) of motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines no longer have future obligations to measure, control, report, or comply with federal GHG emission standards for any highway vehicle or engine, including for previously manufactured MYs.

Specifically, the final rule removes the requirements for controlling GHG emissions, which include:

• Emission standards;
• Test procedures;
• Averaging, banking, and trading requirements;
• Reporting requirements; and
• Fleet-average emission requirements.

Additionally, the final rule eliminates off-cycle credits for manufacturers that added certain technologies to their vehicles and engines (like waste heat recovery) and EPA’s incentives for manufacturers to install a start-stop system (which automatically shuts off a vehicle’s engine when idling).

When do the changes apply?

The final rule takes effect on April 20, 2026. However, a legal challenge has already been brought against the rulemaking, and more litigation is likely.

It’s important to keep an eye on the status of the rule. Legal challenges could result in changes to the rule, such as delaying its effective date.

What regulations were removed?

The final rule repeals all GHG emission regulations in 40 CFR:

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

Why did EPA remove the standards?

The road to reversal begins in 2009. That’s when EPA issued two findings: the Endangerment Finding and the Cause or Contribute Finding. Collectively, these findings are referred to as the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The agency used the 2009 Endangerment Finding as the legal basis under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines based on global climate change concerns.

However, upon reconsideration, EPA no longer believes that it has the statutory authority under Section 202(a) of the CAA to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines in response to global climate change concerns. The agency bases its determination on three factors:

• EPA concludes that the best reading of Section 202(a) of the CAA authorizes the agency to regulate air pollution that threatens to endanger health and welfare through local and regional exposure. Therefore, the CAA doesn’t give EPA the authority to regulate GHG emissions based on global climate change concerns. The agency conducted the “best reading” by using standard interpretation principles and being informed by the Supreme Court’s overturning of “Chevron deference” in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024).
• EPA lacks the congressional authorization required to regulate GHG emissions based on global climate change concerns. The agency determined that the major questions doctrine (i.e., federal agencies may not decide issues of major national significance without clear authorization granted by Congress) applies to the 2009 Endangerment Finding and that Congress doesn’t give EPA the authority under Section 202(a) of the CAA to decide a national policy response to global climate change concerns.
• The GHG emission regulations don’t and can’t have a meaningful impact on the identified health and welfare dangers that the 2009 Endangerment Finding attributed to global climate change. EPA based this conclusion on the results of climate impact modeling that the public submitted in response to the proposed rule and on the agency’s modeling analysis used to evaluate the submissions.

By rescinding the 2009 Endangerment Finding, EPA has no legal basis to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines. Accordingly, the final rule also repeals all GHG emission standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines.

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

What is that little orange book for?

Many shippers and transporters of hazardous materials are familiar with the small orange Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG). Most associate the ERG with compliance with the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR), using it to provide emergency response information for a hazardous materials shipment. This may be surprising, but that is not why the ERG was created.

Original use for the ERG

The Emergency Response Guidebook was originally developed by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Transport Canada, and the Secretariat of Transport and Communications of Mexico for use by police, firefighters, and other emergency personnel who are the first to arrive at the scene of a transportation incident involving hazardous materials/dangerous goods. The ERG helps first responders quickly identify the hazard(s) of the materials and protect themselves and the general public during the initial response phase of an incident.

The “initial response phase” is that period following the first responders’ arrival at the scene of an incident, during which the presence and/or identification of hazardous materials is confirmed, protective actions and area securement are initiated, and assistance of qualified personnel is requested.

The DOT prints and distributes copies of the ERG to emergency responders throughout the United States. The goal is to have an ERG available to every emergency responder in the United States. Responders are familiar with the ERG because the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations require that they be trained on the use of the ERG.

Another use for the ERG

To increase the likelihood that emergency response information will be available to first responders at the scene of a hazardous materials incident, the Hazardous Materials Regulations require that emergency response information accompany most shipments of hazardous materials. Emergency response information is not required for hazardous materials that do not require shipping papers or are classified as an Limited Quantity.

The emergency response information can be provided in a variety of ways:

• It can be entered on the hazmat shipping papers; or
• It can be provided in another document, other than the shipping paper, that includes the basic description (and technical name if appropriate) of the hazardous material. A Safety Data Sheet is an example of this type of document; or
• It can be provided in a separate document, other than the shipping paper, that cross-references the description of the hazardous material on the shipping paper with the emergency response information contained in the document. The ERG is an example of this type of document.

Carriers that transport hazardous materials must maintain the emergency response information the same as they do shipping papers. The emergency response information must be readily available to, and recognizable by, authorities in the event of an incident or inspection.

Although not the original intended use for the ERG, keeping an ERG with the hazmat shipping papers is an easy way to comply with the emergency response information requirements in the Hazardous Materials Regulations. Many carriers play it safe and carry an ERG in their vehicles to cover any hazmat load/situation that they may encounter.

Key to remember

The ERG was originally created to help first responders protect themselves and the public during a hazardous materials incident. The ERG can also be used to provide emergency response information that is required for most hazardous materials shipments.

The utility exemption explained

This exemption applies to drivers of vehicles that qualify as “utility service vehicles” as defined in 395.2.

Here is a critical point: The vehicle/driver must meet all three requirements listed in the definition of a utility service vehicle provided in 395.2 to be able to use this exemption. The three requirements are:

• The driver/vehicle must be repairing, maintaining, or operating structures or other physical facilities necessary for the delivery of public utility services,
• The driver/vehicle must be involved in activities related to the ultimate delivery of utility services to the consumers, and
• Except for any occasional emergency use, the driver/vehicle must operate primarily within the service area of a utility’s subscribers or consumers.

Drivers involved in building new utility structures in general are not eligible for this exception. However, if the driver is going back and forth from new construction to repairing, maintaining, or operating utility infrastructure, the driver will be covered by the exemption when involved in these activities, but not covered while involved in new construction.

When involved in new construction and covered by the hours-of service requirements, the driver would have to follow the limits in the hours-of-service regulations and maintain a log (or a time record if the 150 air-mile exemption applies). If the driver had to complete a log more than 8 days in the previous 30 days, the driver would have to use an electronic log on the days the driver is required to log.

The death of a test: Fatal flaws

The medical review officer (MRO) is required to cancel a test if the lab reports a “fatal flaw” that was observed when processing an incoming specimen.

Fatal-flaw scenarios include:

• The specimen has no chain of custody form (CCF) accompanying it.
• No specimen was submitted with the CCF, in cases where a specimen has been collected.
• The CCF is missing the collector’s printed name and signature.
• Two separate collections were performed using one CCF.
• The specimen ID numbers on the specimen bottle and the CCF do not match.
• A split specimen cannot be redesignated when the primary specimen bottle:
  • Has a broken seal,
  • Shows evidence of tampering, or
  • Has an insufficient sample for analysis due to leakage.

Specific to oral-fluid collections, a fatal flaw occurs when the collector:

• Used an expired device at the time of collection.
• Failed to enter the expiration date on the CCF and the lab confirmed that the device was expired.

A chance to fix the error: Correctable flaws

When a lab discovers a “correctable flaw” when processing incoming specimens, it will attempt to fix the mistake.

The lab must attempt to correct the omission of the collector’s signature on the certification statement on the CCF.

If the MRO’s review of the MRO reveals one of the following, the test is canceled unless remedied:

• Omission of the employee’s signature from the certification statement (unless the employee’s failure or refusal to sign is noted on the “Remarks” line of the CCF).
• Omission of the certifying scientist’s signature on Copy 1 of the CCF for a positive, adulterated, substituted, or invalid test result.
• The collector’s use of a non-federal form or an expired CCF for the test.

In most instances, the problem can be corrected by a written statement by the party (employer, lab, collector, etc.) who is responsible for providing the omitted information.

If the problem is the use of a non-federal form or an expired federal form, the signed statement must:

• Confirm the form and testing complied with Part 40 procedures,
• Indicate the form was used inadvertently or as the only means of conducting the test, and
• Address steps so the error does not happen again.

The written statement for correctable flaws must be transmitted by fax or courier to the MRO on the same business day that the individual learns of the problem.

When the problem is the clinic

Since employers are responsible for the actions of the clinics, it is vital to follow up to ensure collector’s error correction training is performed when required.

If a canceled test was due to mistakes made by the collector, the collector must undergo the training within 30 days of the test. The training covers only the subject matter area that caused the canceled test.

Employers may ask to verify that training occurred. The clinic must provide this documentation according to 40.33(g).

If problems persist with a specific collection site, even if the errors are corrected and the test is saved, the carrier might consider finding another facility for its DOT testing.

Key to remember: A canceled test can cost a carrier money and leave an impaired driver on the road. If the error can be corrected, work with your MRO to correct the mistake. If the error was due to mistakes at the collection site, make sure concerns are communicated to the facility.

FMLA certification basics

Employers aren’t required to use certifications, but if they do, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has five different certification forms to use for various FMLA leave situations.

The forms are as follows:

1. Certification of Health Care Provider for Employee's Serious Health Condition,
2. Certification of Health Care Provider for Family Member's Serious Health Condition,
3. Certification of Qualifying Exigency for Military Family Leave,
4. Certification for Serious Injury or Illness of a Current Servicemember for Military Family Leave, and
5. Certification for Serious Injury or Illness of a Veteran for Military Family Leave.

Let’s focus on the first two, as these are the most common ones HR administrators use.

Who can fill out an FMLA certification?

The FMLA regulations describe the person who has the authority to fill out a certification as a “health care provider.” The good news is, the regulations include a lengthy list of medical professionals who fit this role.

Under the FMLA, a health care provider includes:

• A doctor of medicine or osteopathy,
• A podiatrist,
• A dentist,
• A clinical psychologist,
• An optometrist,
• A chiropractor (limited to manual manipulation of the spine as demonstrated by X-ray),
• A nurse practitioner,
• A nurse midwife,
• A clinical social worker,
• A physician assistant,
• A Christian Science practitioner, and
• Any health care provider from whom the employer or the employer's group health plan's benefits manager will accept a medical certification to substantiate a claim for benefits.

To be qualified to fill out FMLA forms, medical professionals must be authorized to practice in the state and perform within the scope of their practice. This means that the provider must be authorized to diagnose and treat physical or mental health conditions.

What about doctors in a foreign country?

If an employee or an employee's family member is visiting another country, or a family member resides in another country, and a serious health condition develops, the employer must accept a medical certification from a health care provider who practices in that country. This includes second and third opinions.

If a medical certification from a foreign health care provider is not in English, the employee may be required to provide a written translation of the certification.

Key to remember: The FMLA regulations spell out which medical professionals can fill out certification forms.

Payment options during unpaid FLMA leave

When an employee is on leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the employer must maintain benefits under the company’s group health plan.

Thus, employees generally must continue paying their share of the health insurance premiums.

But how do employees pay their share of the premiums when FMLA leave is unpaid? Employers may offer three payment options:

1. Pre-pay
2. Pay-as-you-go
3. Catch-up

Employers may allow a combination of these options, such as pre-pay for part of the leave and catch-up for the remainder. Below is a breakdown of the three available payment options.

Option #1: Pre-pay

When unpaid FMLA leave is foreseeable, employers may allow employees to pre-pay their premiums. For example, if an employee is adopting a child and requests several weeks for bonding time but does not have enough vacation to cover the entire absence, an employer could allow the employee to pre-pay his or her premiums for the portion of the leave that would be unpaid.

Employers may not require an employee to pre-pay, so this cannot be the only option offered.

If an employee chooses this option, however, employers may collect premiums on a pre-tax basis – with one exception. If the absence will extend into the next tax year (such as leave from December through January), only the premiums for the current tax year may be pre-paid with pre-tax income. The IRS does not allow employees to defer untaxed income from one year to the next.

In this example, the premiums for January could either be pre-paid with after-tax income, or the employee could elect one of the other options (pay-as-you-go or catch-up).

Option #2: Pay-as-you-go

Under the pay-as-you-go option, employees pay their share of the premiums based upon the agreed terms made between the employer and employee. These payments are usually made on an after-tax basis.

For example, the employee might mail in a personal check every two weeks. If the employee fails to send in the checks, or otherwise fails to make payments using the agreed-upon system, the FMLA does allow employers to drop coverage after giving specified notices of non-payment.

Dropping coverage would likely cause some administrative headaches, and some insurers may refuse to do this because the employee would have to be reinstated to the health plan upon return from FMLA leave.

Therefore, employers may prefer to continue coverage by paying the employee’s share of the premiums, then use the catch-up option once the employee returns to work. Some insurance carriers recommend this as an alternative to dropping coverage.

Option #3: Catch-up

Under the catch-up option, the employer and employee agree that the employee will not pay premiums until he or she returns from leave.

This option might be used when the need for FMLA leave was not foreseeable, such as having to care for a parent who was unexpectedly hospitalized.

To use this option, the employer and employee must agree in advance that:

• The employee elects to continue health coverage while on leave;
• The employer will pay the employee’s share of premiums during the leave; and
• The employee will repay those amounts when he or she returns.

When the employee returns, the employer collects the current premiums plus any catch-up payments, perhaps taking double premiums, until caught up. Contributions under the catch-up option may be taken on a pre-tax basis.

The IRS regulations indicate that, if the employee chooses the pay-as-you-go option, but fails to make the required payments, you may change to the catch-up option even without the employee’s prior agreement.

Key to remember

Employees on unpaid FMLA leave must still pay their share of health insurance premiums by either pre-paying, paying as they go, or making catch-up contributions upon returning to work.

Why does this matter?

Employers may require that employees support their need for FMLA leave with a certification from a health care provider, but employees bear the cost of the certification. The FMLA doesn’t govern whether or how much health care providers charge for a certification, and in some situations, health care providers charge over $100 to complete them.

Such high costs can deter employees from getting a certification completed. But without a certification, employers might not be able to determine if the reason for the leave qualifies for FMLA protections. Without it, they might risk losing their job.

In some cases, employees might be left trying to find a doctor who doesn’t charge any fees to complete an FMLA certification, or at least charges less.

FMLA certification deadline

Since employees have 15 calendar days to give the employer the requested certification, hunting for a new doctor who doesn’t charge a certification fee can be challenging. The current doctor shortage can make it even harder.

Employers can hold employees to the deadline unless extenuating circumstances are involved. The FMLA regulations don’t explain what does or doesn’t qualify as “extenuating circumstances.” Trying to find a doctor who will complete a certification for a reasonable fee might be an extenuating circumstance. As long as the employee is putting forth a good-faith effort to get a certification, the employer might need to be flexible.

Takeaways for all employers

Nevada isn’t usually a bellwether state, but it’s at the forefront of controlling FMLA certification costs. Now that one state has blazed the trail on curbing certification costs, perhaps others will follow suit.

It’s important to note that no employer — in Nevada or any other state — is required to use FMLA certifications to approve (or deny) an employee’s leave. Many employers use certifications to help verify that the leave qualifies and to obtain information about leave schedules. But it’s not a mandated part of the FMLA process.

Key to remember: Employers in Nevada might find that employees are more forthcoming with FMLA certifications, now that they cost no more than $30.

What information must the written program include?

Paragraph (e) of 1910.1200 outlines written program requirements. Although the program doesn’t need to be lengthy or complicated, it must include enough detail to explain how your organization is complying with the HazCom standard. There are specific elements OSHA will look for to ensure compliance:

• A list of the hazardous chemicals known to be present in the workplace that matches the identifier on the container label and the safety data sheet (SDS).
• The designation of person(s) responsible for ensuring labeling of in-house containers and the person(s) responsible for ensuring labeling of shipped containers (if any).
• A description of any in-house labeling system(s) and any labeling alternatives used in the facility (if applicable).
• A description of HazCom training provided to employees.
• Procedures to review and update label information when necessary.
• Methods used to inform employees of the hazards of non-routine tasks, such as cleaning reactor vessels, and the hazards of unlabeled pipes in their work areas.
• An explanation of how the employer will comply on multi-employer worksites. Employers on multi-employer worksites who do not use hazardous chemicals, but whose employees are exposed to the chemicals used by other employers on the worksite, are required to have a program and train their employees on the hazards of the chemicals in the work areas.

Key to remember: If you’re covered by the HazCom standard, you may need a written program. It must include specific elements listed in 1910.1200(e).

Ladders feel safe, until they’re not

Ladders don’t usually trigger a sense of risk because they’re seen as a part of everyday work. When tasks feel quick and familiar, people don’t always stop reassessing the setup. That’s how unsafe ladder habits with big consequences can develop, including:

• standing on the top step “just for a second;”
• reaching too far instead of climbing down;
• using whatever ladder is closest, not the right one; and
• skipping ladder inspections because “it worked last time.”

Ladder safety isn’t going away, and that’s not a bad thing

If ladder safety feels like a repeat conversation, that’s because the same risks keep showing up. New employees are hired; facilities and equipment changes, and old habits stick around longer than they should. Even experienced workers fall into this trap. Familiar tasks start to invite rushing. Rushing leads to shortcuts, and shortcuts are where ladder injuries happen.

Emphasis must be placed on recognizing the risk before the climb starts. This means knowing when a ladder is the wrong choice, repositioning is safer than reaching, and when a quick task deserves the same setup as a longer one.

Most incidents don’t start with bad intentions. They start with “just this once” decisions, one more rung, one quick reach, one skipped check. Effective ladder safety training is about breaking routines and refocusing attention on the decisions that make ladder work safer.

Routine work, repeat injuries

Ladder injuries follow a familiar pattern. They don’t usually come from unusual jobs or unexpected hazards, and they happen during everyday tasks that feel common. Injury reports often look the same, such as short tasks, quick setups, and decisions made under time pressure. The ladder didn’t fail. The setup and the decisions around it did.

Injury data from OSHA and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) consistently point to the same causes. That’s why the same types of ladder injuries keep occurring repeatedly, not because the hazards are unknown, but because routine work makes those hazards easier to overlook. These reasons include:

• people underestimate the risk because ladders feel familiar;
• jobs feel “too small” to stop and reset the ladder;
• time pressure encourages leaning, rushing, and overreaching; and
• experience leads to comfort, and comfort leads to shortcuts.

The rules are written in injuries

OSHA ladder requirements are built around real injury trends and are based on decades of injury data. Falls from ladders remain one of the leading causes of workplace injuries, which is why OSHA keeps ladders near the top of its enforcement priorities year after year:

OSHA 29 CFR 1910.23 defines how ladders are intended to be used, specifically prohibiting practices such as standing on the top step of a stepladder, using ladders for purposes they were not designed for, and climbing ladders that have not been inspected. These requirements exist because improper use, poor setup, and skipped inspections consistently show up in ladder fall investigations.

OSHA 29 CFR 1910.30 reinforces that preventing ladder injuries depends on training employees to recognize hazards before they climb, understand proper ladder selection and positioning, and know when a ladder is not the right tool for the task. Together, these standards emphasize that ladder injuries are not random events, they are predictable outcomes of routine decisions made during everyday work.

Small choices make a big difference

Ladder safety isn’t only about compliance. Incidents develop from a series of small, moment to moment decisions made during routine work. These choices made daily either reduce risk or quietly add to it. Ladder injuries can be avoided by taking the time to make simple improvements including:

• inspecting and securing the ladder,
• climbing down and repositioning,
• selecting the proper ladder for the task, and
• stopping when the ladder no longer feels stable or safe.

Key to remember: Take the time to choose safer setups, stay alert, and prevent routine decisions from turning into preventable injuries. When employees choose the correct ladder, reposition instead of reaching, and inspect before use, the risk of ladder injuries falls, not your employees.

Why EPA wants to eliminate paper manifests

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

Addressing one of the biggest digital barriers: signatures

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

Operational challenges companies should expect

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

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

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

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

Hidden in plain sight

When Sebastian walked into the office each morning, no one could see the weight he carried. Deadlines were met, meetings attended, yet his smile never faltered. Inside, stress and anxiety were taking a toll, and his story isn’t unique.

One study showed a very interesting contrast: most employees (about 77%) stated they were comfortable supporting a coworker’s mental health. However, when it comes to their own stress or burnout, 42% worry that opening up about it or seeking help could hurt their career or make them a target. Even more striking, one in four have thought about quitting because of mental health challenges. And it’s not just long-term stress. A recent Gallup poll found that 41% of workers felt highly stressed just “yesterday.”

These statistics underscore a troubling theme that employees value and wish to nurture mental wellness; however, stigma, insufficient support, and overwhelming stress persist. Employers need to begin recognizing and proactively addressing workplace mental health in order to cultivate resilient, productive teams.

What one state is doing

The state of Michigan is piloting a new initiative aimed at improving workplace mental health which is increasingly being recognized as an occupational safety and health issue. This expands the state’s historically stringent approach to reducing on-the-job risks.

Michigan’s LEADS program—short for Learn, Educate, Act, Deploy, Study—is a four-month initiative designed to give employers practical tools to tackle stress, burnout, and communication breakdowns that often lead to safety incidents. The idea is simple: when communication falters and stress goes unchecked, mistakes happen. Those mistakes can mean more human errors, higher injury rates, quiet quitting, and turnover.

One of the program’s key features is an evidence-based organizational assessment. Think of it like a safety audit that’s focused on mental health risks rather than physical hazards. Employers get a clear picture of issues such as heavy workloads, unclear roles, workplace conflict or bullying, and weak support systems that can quickly erode a strong safety culture.

The end goal of the LEADS program is not to replace existing safety programs but rather strengthen them. Consider joining Michigan in their effort to enhance communication, better define workers’ roles, support unfettered reporting, and more effectively engage employees.

Key to remember: Stress doesn’t just weigh people down; it can have significant safety and productivity consequences. Programs like Michigan’s LEADS pilot initiative are giving employers the ability to tackle stress and burnout before they lead to mistakes, injuries, or turnover.

Total hours worked

Determining the total hours worked probably involves your Human Resources or payroll department. They key is to count only hours worked, not hours paid. Do not include vacation, sick leave, holidays, or other non-working time even if employees were paid for that time. If some employees are not paid the by the hour (such as salaried or commission employees) you can estimate their total hours.

The total hours are used to calculate the Total Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR), or incident rate, which is expressed as a ratio of injuries per 100 workers. For instance, a rate of 2.3 means that for every 100 employees, 2.3 employees had recordable injuries.

However, the incident rate is actually a ratio of injuries per 200,000 hours worked (representing 100 employees working 40 hours per week for 50 weeks). This allows OSHA to compare locations regardless of part-time staff, since the rate depends on hours worked, not on the number of people. This is also why employers don’t count vacation or holiday hours; employees cannot get work-related injuries during those hours.

Key to remember: Correctly calculating your workforce size and total hours worked ensures an accurate 300A summary and incident rate.