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

TSA again extended the compliance deadline for submitting security training programs to the agency under 49 CFR 1570.109(b) to June 21, 2021, for existing covered operations, and to Sept. 21, 2021, for operations that commence after June 21, 2021. The deadline for initial security training under §1570.111 is also extended for owners/operators that already submitted their security training programs by Mar. 22, 2021. TSA says these particular owners/operators have 15 months (not 12) after TSA approves the program to initially train security-sensitive employees.

SOURCE: Security Training for Surface Transportation Employees; Extension of Compliance Dates; Correcting Amendments; TSA final rule; Federal Register; Vol. 86, No. 84; Docket No. TSA–2015–0001 – 5/4/2021

Specialized Industries

Go beyond the regulations! Visit the Institute for in-depth guidance on a wide range of compliance subjects in safety and health, transportation, environment, and human resources.

J. J. Keller® COMPLIANCE NETWORK is a premier online safety and compliance community, offering members exclusive access to timely regulatory content in workplace safety (OSHA), transportation (DOT), environment (EPA), and human resources (DOL).

Interact With Our Compliance Experts

Puzzled by a regulatory question or issue? Let our renowned experts provide the answers and get your business on track to full compliance!

Upcoming Events

Reference the Compliance Network Safety Calendar to keep track of upcoming safety and compliance events. Browse by industry or search by keyword to see relevant dates and observances, including national safety months, compliance deadlines, and more.

SAFETY & COMPLIANCE NEWS

Keep up with the latest regulatory developments from OSHA, DOT, EPA, DOL, and more.

REGSENSE® REGULATORY REFERENCE

Explore a comprehensive database of word-for-word regulations on a wide range of compliance topics, with simplified explanations and best practices advice from our experts.

THE J. J. KELLER INSTITUTE

The Institute is your destination for in-depth content on 120+ compliance subjects. Discover articles, videos, and interactive exercises that will strengthen your understanding of regulatory concepts relevant to your business.

ADD HAZMAT, ENVIRONMENTAL, & HR RESOURCES

Unlock exclusive content offering expert insights into hazmat, environmental, and human resources compliance with a COMPLIANCE NETWORK EDGE membership.

DIRECT ACCESS TO COMPLIANCE EXPERTS

Struggling with a compliance challenge? Get the solution from our in-house team of experts! You can submit a question to our experts by email, set up a phone or video call, or request a detailed research report.

EVENTS

Register to attend live online events hosted by our experts. These webcasts and virtual conferences feature engaging discussions on important compliance topics in a casual, knowledge-sharing environment.

Most Recent Highlights In Environmental

EPA delivers 2026–2027 renewable fuel volumes
2026-04-03T05:00:00Z

EPA delivers 2026–2027 renewable fuel volumes

On April 1, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the “Set 2” Rule, establishing the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program’s 2026 and 2027 renewable fuel volumes and associated percentage standards for:

  • Cellulosic biofuel,
  • Biomass-based diesel (BBD),
  • Advanced biofuel, and
  • Total renewable fuel.

The final rule also implements other significant changes.

Who’s impacted?

The “Set 2” Rule affects:

  • Transportation fuel (i.e., gasoline and diesel) refiners, blenders, marketers, distributors, importers, and exporters; and
  • Renewable fuel producers and importers.

The volume and percentage requirements apply to obligated parties, which include transportation fuel refiners and importers.

What are the changes?

The final rule sets the renewable fuel volume requirements and associated percentage standards for 2026 and 2027. Volume requirements are measured in billion Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs). One RIN represents one gallon of ethanol-equivalent renewable fuel.

Renewable fuel categoryVolume requirements (in billion RINs)Percentage standards
2026202720262027
Cellulosic biofuel1.361.430.79%0.84%
BBD9.079.205.24%5.37%
Advanced biofuel11.1011.326.42%6.61%
Total renewable fuel26.8127.0215.50%15.78%

The “Set 2” Rule also:

  • Reallocates 70 percent of the exempted Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) for 2023–2025 to 2026 and 2027 (which are reflected in the above table’s volume requirements),
  • Partially waives the 2025 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement from 1.38 billion RINs to 1.21 billion RINs and adjusts the related percentage standard from 0.81 percent to 0.71 percent, and
  • Removes renewable electricity as a qualifying renewable fuel under the RFS program.

RFS program refresher

The RFS program requires transportation fuel sold in the United States to contain a minimum volume of renewable fuels. EPA sets the renewable fuel volume targets for each of the four renewable fuel categories.

To comply, obligated parties must:

  • Calculate their RVOs for each renewable fuel category, and
  • Obtain and retire enough RINs to meet their RVOs.

Regulations also apply to fuel blenders, marketers, and exporters.

Small refiners may petition EPA for a small refinery exemption (SRE), which allows refineries to produce gasoline and diesel without having to meet the RVOs required by the RFS program. EPA grants SREs annually, and they cover one specific compliance year.

Key to remember: EPA’s final “Set 2” rule establishes the renewable fuel volumes and percentage standards for 2026 and 2027 and drives other changes to the RFS program.

EPA releases final NESHAP for chemical manufacturing area sources
2026-04-02T05:00:00Z

EPA releases final NESHAP for chemical manufacturing area sources

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule on April 1, 2026, amending the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources (CMAS). The NESHAP controls hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from facilities that manufacture a range of chemicals and products, such as inorganic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic rubber.

Who’s impacted?

The final rule applies to nine area source categories in the chemical manufacturing sector that are regulated by the CMAS NESHAP (40 CFR 63 Subpart VVVVVV).

What are the changes?

EPA’s final rule:

  • Establishes leak detection and repair requirements for equipment leaks and heat exchange systems in organic HAP service,
  • Adds detectable emissions monitoring standards for pressure vessels in organic HAP service and emission management practice standards for pressure relief devices (PRDs) in organic HAP service,
  • Prohibits closed vent systems in organic HAP service from bypassing an air pollution control device (APCD), and
  • Requires recurring performance testing of non-flare APCDs to demonstrate compliance with process vent and storage tank provisions.

The final rule also mandates electronic reporting for notifications of compliance status (NOCs), performance test reports, and periodic reports. Facilities must submit these reports through the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) on EPA’s Central Data Exchange.

What didn’t change?

Significantly, the final rule doesn’t add previously proposed regulations for area sources that use ethylene oxide (EtO) to produce materials described by code 325 of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

EPA states that it intends to address the regulation of EtO from area sources and major sources in one final action.

What are the compliance timelines?

Existing facilities must comply with the amendments by April 1, 2029.

New facilities (those that begin construction or reconstruction after January 22, 2025) have to comply with the changes by April 1, 2026, or upon startup, whichever is later.

Additionally, facilities must start electronically submitting:

  • Performance tests by June 1, 2026;
  • NOCs by August 31, 2026; and
  • Periodic reports by April 1, 2029.

Key to remember: EPA’s final HAP emissions rule for chemical manufacturing area sources adds new requirements for certain processing equipment and systems.

EPCRA inventory reports: A case study in federal, state, and local collaboration
2026-03-31T05:00:00Z

EPCRA inventory reports: A case study in federal, state, and local collaboration

Environmental regulations require many facilities to report annual inventories of the hazardous chemicals they use or store. Have you ever considered the impact that this information has beyond regulatory compliance? Reporting facilities, whether they realize it or not, serve an essential role in local emergency response planning.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Hazardous Chemical Inventory Reporting program under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) offers a prime example of how collaboration among the federal, state, local, and facility levels supports safer communities.

What’s EPCRA's inventory reporting program?

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires facilities to keep Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) for any hazardous chemical used or stored in the workplace. Facilities that use or store the chemicals on-site at or above certain thresholds at any one time are subject to EPCRA’s Hazardous Chemical Inventory Reporting program. Regulated facilities must report information about the hazardous chemicals to the:

  • State Emergency Response Commission (SERC),
  • Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), and
  • Local fire department.

What’s reported?

EPA’s EPCRA inventory program consists of two reporting requirements under Sections 311 and 312 of EPCRA.

SDSs/lists

Section 311 of EPCRA requires facilities to submit the SDSs for or a list of the hazardous chemicals used or stored on-site at or above the reporting thresholds to the SERC, LEPC, and local fire department.

SDSs usually include comprehensive information, such as:

  • The composition of ingredients,
  • Physical and health hazard information, and
  • First aid and firefighting measures.

If a facility opts to list the chemicals, it must group them by hazard categories and include each chemical’s name and any hazardous components as identified by the SDS. This is generally a one-time submission for each hazardous chemical. However, if a facility submits an SDS for a hazardous chemical and later discovers significant new information about it, the facility has to send an updated SDS to the SERC, LEPC, and local fire department.

Annual inventories

Under Section 312 of EPCRA, facilities must also submit an annual inventory (known as the Tier II inventory report) of the hazardous chemicals used or stored on-site at or above the reporting thresholds to the SERC, LEPC, and local fire department by March 1.

Facilities should check state regulations to confirm Tier II reporting thresholds, as they may be more stringent.

The Tier II inventory report requires information on the covered hazardous chemicals used or stored at the facility during the previous calendar year, including:

  • The locations of the chemicals,
  • The amounts of the chemicals, and
  • The potential hazards of the chemicals.

How do inventories support emergency planning?

Inventory reports provide information that’s vital to effective emergency response planning. Specifically, the inventories tell state and local officials about where hazardous chemical releases may occur and the risks that such releases may pose. Equipped with an accurate view of these hazards, officials can build and maintain effective emergency response plans for their communities.

Each participant in the emergency planning effort plays a distinct role:

  • Reporting facilities provide the SERCs, LEPCs, and local fire departments with the information they need to build effective response plans, such as the types of chemicals on-site and their quantities, locations, and possible hazards.
  • SERCs designate local emergency planning districts and appoint and supervise LEPCs. They also establish the inventory reporting procedures, review local emergency response plans, and process information requests from the public.
  • LEPCs use inventory reports to develop and update emergency response plans that address each community’s unique risks.
  • Local fire departments use the inventory reports to understand the potential chemical-related risks they may encounter at specific facilities. By knowing where the chemicals are and the potential hazards they pose, fire departments can improve personnel training and identify the most appropriate ways to respond to chemical emergencies.

Ultimately, reporting facilities aren’t just meeting a compliance requirement; they’re also supporting safer communities.

Key point: EPCRA’s hazardous chemical inventory requirements provide an example of effective collaboration between EPA, state and local officials, and facilities to prepare communities for chemical emergencies.

2026-03-27T05:00:00Z

Expert Insights: Four commonly overlooked categories in TRI reporting

Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting can be tricky, even for seasoned EHS teams. Many facilities meet all the requirements but still miss chemicals that should be reported. Most oversights fall into four key categories. Here’s what they are and why they get missed, along with a few simple examples that show up in routine operations.

Newly added or updated TRI chemicals

The TRI list changes more often than many people realize. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regularly updates it and recently added new per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and even a full diisononyl phthalate (DINP) chemical category. When facilities don’t review these updates each year, they may keep using materials that now contain reportable chemicals without realizing it. For example, PFAS were expanded for Reporting Years 2024 and 2025, and the DINP category was added in 2023. These changes mean that everyday items like coatings, lubricants, and flexible plastics can suddenly trigger TRI thresholds.

“Otherwise used” chemicals

Not every reportable chemical is manufactured or processed. Many are simply “otherwise used,” including solvents, degreasers, cleaners, and maintenance chemicals. Facilities often overlook these because they aren’t part of the product mix, but they can add up fast. Even common shop chemicals, when used across a year, can exceed the 10,000-pound threshold and require reporting.

Coincidentally manufactured byproducts

Some chemicals are created unintentionally during normal operations. Ammonia may form during baking or heating steps, nitrates often appear in wastewater treatment, and metal compounds can be generated during welding, machining, or corrosion. These substances count as “manufactured” under TRI even if they weren’t intentionally manufactured. Examples like ammonia, nitrates, metal compounds, and diesel byproducts such as naphthalene and polycyclic aromatic compounds are regularly overlooked in TRI reporting because they’re easy to underestimate.

Impurities or additives in mixtures

Many reportable chemicals hide inside mixtures, oils, coatings, lubricants, and chemical blends. If a facility focuses only on the main ingredients, it may miss the smaller additive or impurity that’s actually subject to TRI reporting. These overlooked components can push a facility over a reporting threshold, even when the product is used in small amounts.

TRI oversights usually occur not because facilities ignore the rules but because chemicals show up in unexpected forms. Keeping an eye on updates, tracking cleaners and maintenance chemicals, monitoring byproducts, and checking mixtures closely can prevent the most common reporting mistakes.

The essential role of local governments in environmental regulation
2026-03-25T05:00:00Z

The essential role of local governments in environmental regulation

Counties and municipalities play a major role in protecting air, water, and land resources across the United States. Although federal and state agencies establish the overarching environmental framework, thousands of local agencies conduct the day to day permitting, inspections, and enforcement needed to make those rules work.

Local governments obtain regulatory authority largely through delegation. Federal environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) allow the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to authorize state agencies, which may then rely on local entities to administer components of these programs. In many states, local districts, counties, or municipalities operate significant environmental programs directly under state authority.

Common local level programs

A strong example of local involvement can be seen in air quality management. The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) reports that 117 local air agencies participate in implementing federal and state clean air programs, highlighting how implementation frequently happens at the local level.

EPA’s AirNow directory lists numerous local air quality agencies across the country; Examples include air pollution control districts in California (such as the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, the San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District) as well as local air programs in Maricopa County, Arizona; Jacksonville, Florida; and Omaha, Nebraska. These districts conduct inspections, issue permits, investigate complaints, and maintain air monitoring networks, all of which support state and federal clean air requirements.

Local authority is also central to solid waste management, where many states rely heavily on counties and municipalities to manage planning, facilities, and enforcement. For instance, Washington State requires local governments to develop comprehensive solid and hazardous waste management plans that guide all waste handling and recycling programs within each county or city. These plans determine facility needs, outline reduction and recycling strategies, and shape local ordinances designed to meet state goals.

Additional examples appear across the country. Maryland’s Montgomery County, California’s Alameda County, and the District of Columbia all implement ambitious local waste diversion plans that supplement or exceed state requirements, demonstrating how counties and cities directly shape waste reduction and recycling policy. Likewise, South Carolina places most solid waste management responsibility on county governments, which must develop local plans, designate recycling coordinators, and report progress toward statewide goals.

Why is local involvement critical?

Local environmental regulatory authority matters because conditions vary widely across the nation. Counties and municipalities better understand their own industries, land uses, and growth patterns, allowing them to respond quickly to complaints, target outreach effectively, and adopt ordinances that go beyond state or federal minimums when necessary. Their proximity to communities makes local agencies essential partners in achieving environmental compliance and advancing public health protections.

As federal and state programs evolve, the role of local agencies continues to expand. Air quality districts, solid waste authorities, and local environmental health departments all demonstrate how counties and municipalities contribute directly to national environmental objectives.

Key to remember: With thousands of local agencies responsible for on the ground regulatory tasks, the strength and responsiveness of the United States’ environmental protection system depend heavily on the active engagement of local governments.

See More

Most Recent Highlights In Transportation

Toxics Release Inventory: Are you ready to report?
2026-03-24T05:00:00Z

Toxics Release Inventory: Are you ready to report?

Every year at the beginning of July, industrial facilities across the nation can breathe a collective sigh of relief — their annual inventories of toxic chemicals are complete! To ensure that your facility can be part of that celebration (and avoid a chaotic rush to meet the deadline), now’s the perfect time to start preparing for the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) TRI program requires industrial facilities to report waste management data on certain toxic chemicals they manufacture, process, and use by July 1 each year. Is your facility ready to report? Here’s an overview of the TRI program to help you answer this question.

Who’s covered by TRI reporting?

Generally, TRI reporting applies if the facility:

  • Is in a covered industry sector (40 CFR 372.23);
  • Employs 10 or more full-time-equivalent employees; and
  • Manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses a covered chemical or chemical category (372.65) in quantities above the threshold levels (372.25, .27, and .28) in a given year.

TRI tip: The TRI reporting year (RY) reflects the calendar year covered by the report, not the year in which you submit the report. For example, TRI reports for RY 2025 are due by July 1, 2026.

What’s covered by TRI reporting?

Facilities must submit the TRI Form R (or the streamlined Form A Certification Statement if eligible) for each TRI-listed chemical manufactured, processed, or used during the previous calendar year. The data covers chemical waste management activities (including releases to the environment) and any actions taken to reduce or prevent chemical waste.

Facilities usually report for each chemical:

  • The quantities of releases (routine and accidental),
  • Any releases caused by catastrophic or other one-time events,
  • The maximum amount on-site during the year, and
  • The amount contained in wastes managed on-site or transferred off-site.

What’s new for RY 2025?

The TRI reports for RY 2025 contain three differences from previous years:

  • The de minimis level for anthracene was lowered from 1.0 percent to 0.1 percent. Anthracene’s Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CASRN) is 120-12-7.
  • More activity sub-use codes were added to the sub-use codes for “processing” and “otherwise use” activities.
  • Nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) were added to the TRI chemical list:
EPA registry nameCASRN
6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate acid27619-97-2
6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate ammonium salt59587-39-2
6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate anion425670-75-3
6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate potassium salt59587-38-1
6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate sodium salt27619-94-9
Acetic acid, [(.gamma.-.omega.-perfluoro-C8-10-alkyl)thio] derivs., Bu esters3030471-22-5
Ammonium perfluorodecanoate3108-42-7
Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid377-73-1
Sodium perfluorodecanoate3830-45-3

How are TRI reports submitted?

Facilities must submit TRI reports electronically to the TRI-MEweb application on EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). Even if a facility uses its own software to prepare TRI forms, it must upload and submit the forms to TRI-MEweb.

TRI tip: To complete the submission process on TRI-MEweb, you need to assign one user the Preparer role and another user the Certifying Official role. Ensure both users have added TRI-MEweb to their CDX user accounts.

TRI reports must be submitted to both EPA and the state. If your facility’s state participates in the TRI Data Exchange (TDX), TRI-MEweb will automatically send your report to the state. If your facility’s state doesn’t participate, you must send a hard copy of the report to the TRI state contact.

TRI tip: Use EPA’s “TRI Data Exchange” webpage to determine whether your facility’s state participates in TDX. As of March 2026, all 50 states participate in TDX. The District of Columbia doesn’t participate.

More TRI tips

Keep these things in mind when preparing your TRI reports:

  • You must submit a Form R (or Form A if eligible) for each TRI-listed chemical your facility manufactured, processed, or otherwise used above the threshold quantity.
  • TRI data is publicized. If a chemical’s identity needs to be protected, you have to submit substantiation forms to claim the chemical identity as a trade secret. EPA must approve the claims. Further, for each chemical with a trade secret claim, you have to mail hard copies of the substantiation forms and the corresponding Form Rs (or Form As if eligible) to EPA and the state.
  • EPA’s online GuideME platform offers comprehensive guidance for TRI reporting, including reporting forms and instructions, the TRI chemical list, and Q&As.
  • Contact the state environmental agency directly to confirm the submission method. EPA’s “TRI State Contacts” webpage contains state contact information.
  • Register your facility on CDX or ensure your facility’s CDX account is updated as soon as possible to avoid delays caused by technical issues.

Start preparing for TRI reporting now to give your facility plenty of time to gather data, complete the forms, and respond to unexpected issues that could arise. That way, your facility can breathe easily throughout the whole reporting season.

Key to remember: The submission deadline for TRI reporting is July 1, 2026. Make sure your facility is ready to report.

Final rule adds EtO emission limits to polyether polyol production
2026-03-19T05:00:00Z

Final rule adds EtO emission limits to polyether polyol production

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized major changes to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Polyether Polyols (PEPO) Production (PEPO NESHAP).

Who’s impacted?

The final rule applies to facilities that produce polyether polyols and are subject to the regulations at 40 CFR 63 Subpart PPP.

What are the changes?

EPA’s final rule establishes ethylene oxide (EtO) standards, updates maximum achievable control technology (MACT) requirements, and revises other provisions for the PEPO NESHAP.

EtO standards

The final rule adds EtO emission standards for:

  • Equipment leaks,
  • Heat exchange systems,
  • Process vents,
  • Storage vessels, and
  • Wastewater.

The standards set emission limits and add requirements for monitoring and leak repairs.

MACT standards

Further, the final rule:

  • Requires heat exchange systems to use the more sensitive Modified El Paso Method (also known as the Air Stripping Method) for quarterly monitoring and a leak definition of 6.2 parts per million by volume of total strippable hydrocarbon concentration (as methane) in the stripping gas,
  • Lowers the MACT control thresholds for batch process vents and storage vessels,
  • Updates the requirements for internal floating roof storage vessels,
  • Lowers the threshold for equipment leaks for valves in gas/vapor service or light liquid service, and
  • Requires transfer operations with loading operations that exceed a certain threshold to use a vapor balance system or reduce emissions.

Other standards

EPA’s final rule also:

  • Requires 5-year performance testing for process vent control devices;
  • Revises flare monitoring and operational requirements to ensure they meet the MACT standards at all times when controlling hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions;
  • Adds new monitoring requirements for pressure vessels to verify that no detectable emissions exist;
  • Clarifies that any bypass of a pollution control device for closed vent systems is a violation;
  • Aligns the requirements for surge control vessels and bottoms receivers with the process vent standards;
  • Adds butylene oxide to the definition of “epoxide” and the HAPs list;
  • Expands “affected source” to cover specific post-reaction processes; and
  • Finalizes work practice standards for maintenance vents and equipment openings, storage vessel degassing, and routine storage vessel maintenance.

However, EPA didn’t finalize the 2024 proposed rule’s addition of a fenceline monitoring program for EtO or its changes to the continuous process vent standard.

What’s the compliance timeline?

Facilities subject to the PEPO NESHAP must comply with the changes by March 18, 2029, or upon startup, whichever is later.

Key to remember: EPA’s final rule for polyether polyol emissions makes significant changes, such as establishing EtO limits and revising MACT standards.

Key questions in industrial stormwater compliance
2026-03-16T05:00:00Z

Key questions in industrial stormwater compliance

Industrial stormwater compliance can feel complex for facilities balancing operations, employees, and shifting permit requirements. Many questions center on the federal general permit, pollution prevention plan expectations, monitoring, and what to do in everyday situations where stormwater risks arise. The following sections summarize core topics and practical concerns.

What is the current status of the federal 2021 Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP)?

EPA issued the current MSGP in 2021, and it remains in effect beyond its February 28, 2026 expiration until EPA finalizes the proposed 2026 MSGP. Because the proposed 2026 permit is still under review, the 2021 MSGP continues to govern covered facilities.

Why has the proposed 2026 MSGP not taken effect?

EPA released the proposed 2026 MSGP in December 2024. Public comments, including an extended comment period ending May 19, 2025, must be reviewed before finalizing the permit. Since the existing MSGP remains valid until replaced, the 2021 permit stays in force while EPA completes its process.

What is a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)?

A SWPPP outlines how a facility prevents pollutants from reaching stormwater. It identifies pollutant sources, control measures, inspection routines, monitoring steps, and staff training. A SWPPP must be written before submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) for permit coverage and updated when operations or stormwater risks change.

What are the requirements for authorized state stormwater permits?

Most states issue their own industrial stormwater permits modeled on the federal MSGP. These permits typically require:

  • Preparation and maintenance of a SWPPP;
  • Inspections and monitoring (such as benchmark, effluent, or visual monitoring);
  • Corrective actions when control measures fail; and
  • Reporting through state online systems.

States may add requirements based on local conditions. When EPA updates the MSGP, states often revise their permits to align with new federal standards.

Who needs coverage under the MSGP?

Industrial facilities that discharge stormwater to waters of the United States generally need permit coverage unless they qualify for a no‑exposure exclusion. The federal MSGP applies in areas where EPA, not the state, holds National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) authority.

How does a facility obtain coverage?

To obtain coverage, a facility must:

  • Prepare and implement a SWPPP;
  • Put pollution controls in place, such as good housekeeping and spill prevention;
  • Identify sector specific requirements based on the permit; and
  • Submit a Notice of Intent through EPA’s online system.

The proposed 2026 MSGP includes updated forms and appendices, but current requirements remain based on the 2021 version until a new permit is published.

What monitoring is required?

Under the 2021 MSGP, required monitoring may include:

  • Quarterly visual assessments,
  • Benchmark monitoring in designated years, and
  • Effluent limitations monitoring for specific regulated discharges.

The proposed 2026 MSGP would expand per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) sampling, increase benchmark monitoring frequency, and add requirements for impaired waters. These changes remain pending.

What happens if benchmark thresholds are exceeded?

A benchmark exceedance requires the facility to investigate causes, improve control measures, and document actions in the SWPPP. The proposed 2026 MSGP would formalize additional implementation measures and reporting steps, but these wouldn’t apply until the new permit takes effect.

What about common real world compliance scenarios?

Industrial stormwater issues often arise from everyday activities. Consider these examples:

Employees’ vehicles leaking oil in parking lots

Leaks from employee vehicles can contaminate stormwater. While the MSGP does not regulate personal vehicles directly, the facility is responsible for any pollutants that enter stormwater from its property. Good housekeeping practices include absorbent stations, spill kits, drip pans, and designated parking areas with routine inspection.

Nonroutine outdoor maintenance

Temporary outdoor activities such as conducting maintenance, unloading equipment, or staging materials, can introduce pollutants. The SWPPP should address nonroutine tasks by requiring temporary controls like tarps, containment pads, or scheduling activities during dry weather. Documentation of these activities is also part of good recordkeeping.

Outdoor waste storage or scrap piles

These materials should be covered or sheltered, kept away from storm drains, and inspected frequently. If runoff contacts industrial materials, the discharge becomes regulated and must be managed under the permit.

These scenarios reinforce the need for strong housekeeping practices, staff training, and prompt corrective actions.

What documentation must facilities keep?

Facilities must maintain monitoring records, inspection logs, SWPPP updates, and corrective action reports. EPA may request these documents at any time. Appendices in the proposed 2026 MSGP preview updated forms, but the 2021 requirements remain in place for now.

What should facilities do while waiting for the 2026 MSGP?

Facilities should continue full compliance with the 2021 MSGP, track regulatory updates, and prepare for more frequent monitoring and PFAS sampling likely included in the 2026 permit. Reviewing proposed changes now helps facilities plan needed SWPPP updates in advance.

Key to remember: Industrial facilities covered under the 2021 MSGP or a state equivalent must continue following that permit until EPA issues a new federal MSGP. Staying informed, maintaining strong housekeeping, and keeping SWPPP documentation current remain the most effective strategies for compliance.

Toxics Release Inventory: Are you ready to report?
2026-03-13T05:00:00Z

Toxics Release Inventory: Are you ready to report?

Every year at the beginning of July, industrial facilities across the nation can breathe a collective sigh of relief — their annual inventories of toxic chemicals are complete! To ensure that your facility can be part of that celebration (and avoid a chaotic rush to meet the deadline), now’s the perfect time to start preparing for the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) TRI program requires industrial facilities to report waste management data on certain toxic chemicals they manufacture, process, and use by July 1 each year. Is your facility ready to report? Here’s an overview of the TRI program to help you answer this question.

Who’s covered by TRI reporting?

Generally, TRI reporting applies if the facility:

  • Is in a covered industry sector (40 CFR 372.23);
  • Employs 10 or more full-time-equivalent employees; and
  • Manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses a covered chemical or chemical category (372.65) in quantities above the threshold levels (372.25, .27, and .28) in a given year.

TRI tip: The TRI reporting year (RY) reflects the calendar year covered by the report, not the year in which you submit the report. For example, TRI reports for RY 2025 are due by July 1, 2026.

What’s covered by TRI reporting?

Facilities must submit the TRI Form R (or the streamlined Form A Certification Statement if eligible) for each TRI-listed chemical manufactured, processed, or used during the previous calendar year. The data covers chemical waste management activities (including releases to the environment) and any actions taken to reduce or prevent chemical waste.

Facilities usually report for each chemical:

  • The quantities of releases (routine and accidental),
  • Any releases caused by catastrophic or other one-time events,
  • The maximum amount on-site during the year, and
  • The amount contained in wastes managed on-site or transferred off-site.

What’s new for RY 2025?

The TRI reports for RY 2025 contain three differences from previous years:

  • The de minimis level for anthracene was lowered from 1.0 percent to 0.1 percent. Anthracene’s Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CASRN) is 120-12-7.
  • More activity sub-use codes were added to the sub-use codes for “processing” and “otherwise use” activities.
  • Nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) were added to the TRI chemical list:

EPA registry nameCASRN
6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate acid27619-97-2
6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate ammonium salt59587-39-2
6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate anion425670-75-3
6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate potassium salt59587-38-1
6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate sodium salt27619-94-9
Acetic acid, [(.gamma.-.omega.-perfluoro-C8-10-alkyl)thio] derivs., Bu esters3030471-22-5
Ammonium perfluorodecanoate3108-42-7
Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid377-73-1
Sodium perfluorodecanoate3830-45-3

How are TRI reports submitted?

Facilities must submit TRI reports electronically to the TRI-MEweb application on EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). Even if a facility uses its own software to prepare TRI forms, it must upload and submit the forms to TRI-MEweb.

TRI tip: To complete the submission process on TRI-MEweb, you need to assign one user the Preparer role and another user the Certifying Official role. Ensure both users have added TRI-MEweb to their CDX user accounts.

TRI reports must be submitted to both EPA and the state. If your facility’s state participates in the TRI Data Exchange (TDX), TRI-MEweb will automatically send your report to the state. If your facility’s state doesn’t participate, you must send a hard copy of the report to the TRI state contact.

TRI tip: Use EPA’s “TRI Data Exchange” webpage to determine whether your facility’s state participates in TDX. As of March 2026, all 50 states participate in TDX. The District of Columbia doesn’t participate.

More TRI tips

Keep these things in mind when preparing your TRI reports:

  • You must submit a Form R (or Form A if eligible) for each TRI-listed chemical your facility manufactured, processed, or otherwise used above the threshold quantity.
  • TRI data is publicized. If a chemical’s identity needs to be protected, you have to submit substantiation forms to claim the chemical identity as a trade secret. EPA must approve the claims. Further, for each chemical with a trade secret claim, you have to mail hard copies of the substantiation forms and the corresponding Form R (or Form A if eligible) to EPA and the state.
  • EPA’s online GuideME platform offers comprehensive guidance for TRI reporting, including reporting forms and instructions, the TRI chemical list, and Q&As.
  • Contact the state environmental agency directly to confirm the submission method. EPA’s “TRI State Contacts” webpage contains state contact information.
  • Register your facility on CDX or ensure your facility’s CDX account is updated as soon as possible to avoid delays caused by technical issues.

Start preparing for TRI reporting now to give your facility plenty of time to gather data, complete the forms, and respond to unexpected issues that could arise. That way, your facility can breathe easily throughout the whole reporting season.

Key to remember: The submission deadline for TRI reporting is July 1, 2026. Make sure your facility is ready to report.

EPA finalizes emission standards for large municipal waste combustors
2026-03-12T05:00:00Z

EPA finalizes emission standards for large municipal waste combustors

On March 10, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized emission regulations for large municipal waste combustors (LMWCs). The final rule revises nearly all emission limits for new and existing LMWCs.

Who’s impacted?

The final rule applies to LMWCs that combust more than 250 tons per day of municipal solid waste and are covered by the:

  • New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for new LMWCs, or
  • Emission Guidelines (EGs) for existing LMWCs.

EPA established new subparts for the amendments at 40 CFR Part 60, including:

  • Subpart VVVV for the NSPS, and
  • Subpart WWWW for the EGs.

What are the changes?

Generally, stricter emission limits apply. For all LMWCs (new and existing), the rule revises the emission limits for:

  • Cadmium,
  • Hydrogen chloride,
  • Lead,
  • Mercury,
  • Particulate matter,
  • Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans, and
  • Sulfur dioxide.

For all new LMWCs, the final rule revises the emission limits for carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). The final rule also amends the CO and NOx limits for all existing LMWCs, except for the CO limits for two subcategories of combustors and the NOx limits for two subcategories of combustors for new municipal solid waste incinerators.

Other major changes include:

  • Removing certain exclusions and exemptions for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions (requiring LMWCs to meet emission standards at all times);
  • Removing the NOx emissions averaging compliance alternative for existing LMWCs;
  • Amending recordkeeping and reporting requirements; and
  • Eliminating Title V operating air permit requirements for qualifying air curtain incinerators that burn only wood waste, yard waste, and clean lumber.

What’s the compliance timeline?

When EPA updates EGs, states must revise their State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to incorporate the changes. States have to submit revised SIPs by March 10, 2027. Once EPA approves the SIP, facilities with existing LMWCs must meet the new standards either within 3 years of the SIP’s approval date or by March 10, 2031, whichever is earlier.

New LMWCs must comply with the amended NSPS by September 10, 2026, or upon startup, whichever is later.

Key to remember: EPA finalized stronger emission limits for new and existing large municipal waste combustors and made other changes to the standards.

See More

Most Recent Highlights In Safety & Health

EHS Monthly Round Up - February 2026

EHS Monthly Round Up - February 2026

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

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

Fatal work injuries fell 4 percent in 2024, largely due to a decline in workplace drug- and alcohol-related overdoses. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, overdose fatalities fell from 512 in 2023 to 410 in 2024. Across all types of workplace incidents, there were 5,070 fatal work injuries in 2024, compared to 5,283 in 2023. Transportation incidents continue to be the most frequent type of fatal event, accounting for over 38 percent of all occupational fatalities in 2024.

OSHA is fast-tracking a proposal to remove the 2036 obligation to upgrade fall protection systems on fixed ladders that extend over 24 feet. This follows an industry petition from major chemical and petroleum industry groups, which argue the provision is unjustified, costly, and not supported by the rulemaking record. OSHA frames the upcoming proposed action as deregulatory, allowing employers to update fixed ladders at the end of their service lives. We’ll provide updates as more information becomes available.

As OSHA leans into “deregulatory” actions, lawmakers are moving to pressure the agency to issue “regulatory” rulemaking to protect American workers. The latest legislative wave of bills aims to fill regulatory gaps, tackle emerging hazards, expand OSHA authority, and raise penalties. Topics addressed by these bills include musculoskeletal disorders, heat stress, infectious diseases, wildfire smoke, and workplace violence.

In a recently issued letter of interpretation, OSHA states that a burn injury caused by a personal lithium-ion battery fire is work related if it occurs in the workplace during assigned working hours. The letter details an incident where an employee was burned when their rechargeable lithium-ion batteries for e-cigarettes sparked a fire after coming into contact with a key used for work.

A new report from the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General concludes that OSHA struggles to meet its mission, particularly in high-risk industries like healthcare, construction, and manufacturing. Several pages point to OSHA’s difficulties in effectively enforcing annual injury and illness reporting requirements, reaching the nation’s high-risk worksites for inspection, and addressing workplace violence by regulatory or other action.

Turning to environmental news, EPA extended the deadlines for Facility Evaluation Reports and related requirements for coal combustion residuals facilities. In most instances, the deadlines have been moved one or two years out.

And finally, EPA announced a final rule eliminating the 2009 Endangerment Finding and related greenhouse gas emission requirements for on-highway vehicles and vehicle engines. When the final rule takes effect, manufacturers and importers of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines will no longer have to measure, report, certify, or comply with federal greenhouse gas emission standards.

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

2026-03-06T06:00:00Z

Colorado adds landfill methane emission regulation

Effective date: February 14, 2026

This applies to: Open and closed municipal solid waste landfills

Description of change: The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission added Regulation 31, which establishes new emission control and monitoring requirements for municipal solid waste landfills. Applicability is based on the landfill’s amount of waste it holds and methane emissions.

Significant changes implemented by Regulation 31 include:

  • Establishing a stricter emission control threshold than federal standards so that more landfills must install gas collection and control systems,
  • Mandating closed landfills with emission combustion devices to install biofilters when the devices are removed,
  • Expanding the methane monitoring requirements (allowing additional monitoring tools for identifying large emission sources) and allowing alternative monitoring technologies for periodic monitoring, and
  • Phasing in a ban on open flares to replace them with enclosed flares.

Related state info: Clean air operating permits state comparison

2026-03-06T06:00:00Z

Louisiana amends Voluntary Environmental Self-Audit Program

Effective date: January 20, 2026

This applies to: Participating entities

Description of change: The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) revised the Voluntary Environmental Self-Audit Program rules in January 2026. Some of the changes include:

  • Adding definitions,
  • Changing the timeline to notify LDEQ of violations from 45 days within discovery to 30 days after the end of the audit, and
  • Requiring participants to submit monthly progress reports if corrective actions take longer than 90 days.
2026-03-06T06:00:00Z

Delaware revises 2026 NPDES general construction permit

Effective date: March 11, 2026

This applies to: Construction activities that discharge stormwater into Waters of the State

Description of change: The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) revised the Delaware National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit (CGP), which implements the DNREC Sediment and Stormwater Management Program.

It applies to construction activities that plan to disturb 1 or more acres (or activities that plan to disturb less than 1 acre but are part of a larger common plan of development or sale that will disturb more than 1 acre) that discharge stormwater to Waters of the State.

The DNREC made minimal changes to the NPDES CGP. The 2026 NPDES CGP will provide coverage for 5 years.

Related state info: Construction water permitting — Delaware

2026-03-06T06:00:00Z

California updates water diversion regulations

Effective date: February 1, 2026

This applies to: Water right holders who divert more than 10 acre-feet per year

Description of change: The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) updated the Water Measurement and Reporting Regulation (SB 88) with changes primarily affecting reporting requirements, such as:

  • Requiring diverters to submit data to the SWRCB using a template or the online reporting platform CalWATRS,
  • Requiring large diverters to submit data to CalWATRS instead of posting it to any public website,
  • Requiring diverters to identify and report measurement locations, and
  • Requiring diverters to submit their measurement methodologies.

Updated measuring and reporting requirements take effect on October 1, 2026.

See More

Most Recent Highlights In Human Resources

EPA proposes electronic-only hazardous waste manifests
2026-03-06T06:00:00Z

EPA proposes electronic-only hazardous waste manifests

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

What are the proposed changes?

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

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

Who would be impacted?

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

  • Generators,
  • Transporters, and
  • Receiving facilities.

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

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

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

Examples of these requirements include:

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

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

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

EPA temporarily extends 2021 MSGP coverage
2026-03-04T06:00:00Z

EPA temporarily extends 2021 MSGP coverage

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

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

Who’s affected?

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

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

What do existing facilities do?

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

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

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

What do new facilities do?

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

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

Applicability

EPA’s No Action Assurance applies to facilities that:

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

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

Conditions

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

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

What’s next?

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

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

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

EPA extends 2025 GHG reporting deadline
2026-02-27T06:00:00Z

EPA extends 2025 GHG reporting deadline

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

Who’s impacted?

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

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

What’s the change?

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

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

What does the GHG report cover?

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

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

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

EPA scraps Endangerment Finding, GHG emission standards: What you need to know
2026-02-25T06:00:00Z

EPA scraps Endangerment Finding, GHG emission standards: What you need to know

“Road Closed Ahead.” That’s the sign that now stands at the entrance of the regulatory road leading to the federal greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for vehicle and engine manufacturers.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule on February 18, 2026, to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repeal all GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines. The final rule applies to vehicles and engines of model years (MYs) 2012 to 2027 and beyond.

This overview will help you navigate EPA’s final rule that puts vehicle GHG emission requirements in the rearview mirror.

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:

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.

EPA repeals stricter Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for coal-, oil-fired power plants
2026-02-24T06:00:00Z

EPA repeals stricter Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for coal-, oil-fired power plants

On February 24, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule repealing the 2024 amendments made to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (EGUs). It’s also referred to as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for power plants.

Effective April 27, 2026, this rule (2026 Final Rule) repeals stricter compliance requirements made to the MATS rule in May 2024 (2024 Final Rule) and reverts them to the less stringent standards established by the 2012 MATS Rule.

Who’s affected?

The rule applies to power plants with coal- and oil-fired EGUs subject to the NESHAP (40 CFR 63 Subpart UUUUU).

What are the changes?

The final rule repeals these 2024 amendments:

  • The revised filterable particulate matter (fPM) emission standard and corresponding total and individual non-metal hazardous air pollutant (HAP) metal standards for existing coal-fired EGUs (reverting to the 2012 MATS Rule requirements);
  • The revised compliance demonstration requirements for all EGUs to install continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) for fPM emissions and the adjusted quality assurance criteria (reverting to the previous standard, allowing EGUs to choose from three compliance demonstration methods); and
  • The revised mercury (Hg) emission standard for lignite-fired EGUs (reverting to the 2012 MATS Rule limit).

The 2026 Final Rule also reinstates the low-emitting EGU (LEE) program for fPM and non-Hg HAP metals. The LEE program requires less frequent stack testing for sources with emissions below 50 percent of the corresponding limit for 3 consecutive years.

Further, EPA’s final rule updates the fPM sampling requirements for EGUs that demonstrate compliance with a PM CEMS. These units must collect either a minimum catch of 6.0 milligrams or a minimum sample volume of 4 dry standard cubic meters (dscm) per test run. EGUs demonstrating compliance using other methods must collect a lower minimum sample volume of 1 dscm per PM test run.

Compliance requirement2024 Final Rule2026 Final Rule
fPM emission limit for existing coal-fired EGUs0.010 pounds per million British thermal units of heat input (lb/MMBtu)0.030 lb/MMBTu
fPM emission compliance demonstration for all coal-and oil-fired EGUsEGUs must use PM CEMSEGUs may use:
  • Quarterly stack testing
  • PM continuous parametric monitoring systems
  • PM CEMS
Hg emission limit for existing lignite-fired EGUs1.2 pounds per trillion British thermal units of heat input (lb/TBtu)4.0 lb/TBtu
Key to remember: EPA’s final rule repeals the stricter emission limits set by the 2024 amendments to the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard for coal- and oil-fired power plants.
See More
New Network Poll

91 FR 17165 Walking-Working Surfaces

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. OSHA-2025-0072]

RIN 1218-AD73

Walking-Working Surfaces

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule removes a deadline in OSHA's Walking-Working Surfaces standard by which all fixed ladders that extend more than 24 feet above a lower level must be equipped with personal fall arrest systems or ladder safety systems. Additionally, OSHA is seeking comment on repealing or revising the requirement that employers use personal fall arrest systems on all fixed ladders over 24 feet tall and instead permitting employers to continue to use ladder cages or wells.

DATES: Comments and other information, including requests for a hearing, must be received on or before June 5, 2026.

Informal public hearing: OSHA will schedule an informal public hearing on the rule if requested during the comment period. If a hearing is requested, the location and date of the hearing, procedures for interested parties to notify the agency of their intention to participate, and procedures for particFederal Registeripants to submit their testimony and documentary evidence will be announced in the .

ADDRESSES:

Written comments: You may submit comments and attachments, identified by Docket No. OSHA-2025-0072, electronically at https://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for making electronic submissions.

Instructions: All submissions must include the agency's name and the docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2025-0072). When uploading multiple attachments to https://www.regulations.gov, please number all of your attachments because https://www.regulations.gov will not automatically number the attachments. This will be very useful in identifying all attachments. For example,

Attachment 1—title of your document,

Attachment 2—title of your document,

Attachment 3—title of your document.

For assistance with commenting and uploading documents, please see the Frequently Asked Questions on https://www.regulations.gov.

All comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket without change and may be made available online at https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting information they do not want made available to the public or submitting materials that contain personal information (either about themselves or others), such as Social Security Numbers and birthdates.

Docket: The docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2025-0072) is available at https://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Most exhibits are available at https://www.regulations.gov; some exhibits ( e.g., copyrighted material) are not available to download from that web page. However, all materials in the dockets are available for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For press inquiries: Contact Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of Communications, Occupational Safety and Health Administration; telephone: (202) 693-1999; email: meilinger.francis2@dol.gov.

General information and technical inquiries: Contact Andrew Levinson, Director, OSHA Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Occupational Safety and Health Administration; telephone: (202) 693-1950; email: osha.dsg@dol.gov.

Copies of this Federal Register notice: Electronic copies are available at https://www.regulations.gov. This Federal Register notice, as well as news releases and other relevant information, also are available at OSHA's web page at https://www.osha.gov. A “100-word summary” is also available on https://www.regulations.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary

II. Legal Authority and Preliminary Findings

III. Background

IV. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Requirements

V. Preliminary Economic Analysis

VI. Additional Requirements

VII. Authority and Signature

VIII. Regulatory Text

I. Executive Summary

This proposed rule is intended to provide greater compliance flexibility for employers subject to the requirements in OSHA's Walking-Working Surfaces standard (29 CFR, Subpart D). OSHA is proposing to remove a provision that sets a deadline (November 18, 2036) for the installation of personal fall arrest systems or ladder safety systems on all fixed ladders that extend more than 24 feet above a lower level. This change is based on the agency's reassessment of certain assumptions in the 2016 final rule (81 FR 82494) that established this deadline. The requirement to ensure that any new or replacement fixed ladders are equipped with a personal fall arrest system or ladder safety system would be maintained. Consistent with the agency's original intent for this provision, this change will allow employers to update their ladders when the ladders reach the end of their service lives, accommodating the lengthy service life of fixed ladders while significantly reducing costs and offering greater flexibility.

II. Legal Authority and Preliminary Findings

The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq. ) (“the Act” or “the OSH Act”) is “to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources” (29 U.S.C. 651(b)). To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor (“the Secretary”) to promulgate standards to protect workers, including the authority “to set mandatory occupational safety and health standards applicable to businesses affecting interstate commerce” (29 U.S.C. 651(b)(3); see also 29 U.S.C. 654(a)(2) (requiring employers to comply with OSHA standards), 29 U.S.C. 655(a) (authorizing summary adoption of existing consensus and established federal standards within two years of the Act's enactment), 29 U.S.C. 655(b) (authorizing promulgation, modification or revocation of standards pursuant to notice and comment)). An occupational safety and health standard is “. . . a standard which requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment” (29 U.S.C. 652(8)).

Before OSHA may promulgate a health or safety standard, it must find that a standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate within the meaning of section 652(8) of the OSH Act. As required by the OSH Act, OSHA determined when promulgating the Walking-Working Surfaces standard that the standard would substantially reduce a significant risk of material harm (see 81 FR 82494, 82497 (November 18, 2016)). When, as here, OSHA has previously determined that its standard substantially reduces a significant risk, it is unnecessary for the agency to make additional findings on risk for every provision of that standard ( see, e.g., Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. v. Tyson, 796 F.2d 1479, 1502 n.16 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (rejecting the argument that OSHA must “find that each and every aspect of its standard eliminates a significant risk”)). Rather, once OSHA makes a general significant risk finding in support of a standard, the next question is whether a particular requirement is reasonably related to the purpose of the standard as a whole ( see Asbestos Info. Ass'n/N. Am. v. Reich, 117 F.3d 891, 894 (5th Cir. 1997); Forging Indus. Ass'n v. Sec'y of Labor, 773 F.2d 1436, 1447 (4th Cir. 1985); United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO-CLC v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1237-38 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (“ Lead I ”)). The revision proposed here does not affect the agency's previous determination that the fixed ladder requirements in 29 CFR 1910.28(b)(9) are reasonably related to the purpose of the Walking-Working Surfaces standard.

A standard is technologically feasible if the protective measures it requires already exist, can be brought into existence with available technology, or can be created with technology that is reasonably expected to be developed (see Am. Iron and Steel Inst. v. OSHA, 939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1991)). Courts have also interpreted technological feasibility to mean that a typical firm in each affected industry or application group will reasonably be able to implement the requirements of the standard in most operations most of the time (see, e.g., Public Citizen v. OSHA, 557 F.3d 165, 170-71 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Lead I at 1272)).

In the 2016 final rule, OSHA determined that the fixed ladder requirements in 29 CFR 1910.28(b)(9) are technologically feasible (see 81 FR 82801). OSHA is not revisiting that finding. Because this proposed rule would merely remove a deadline for compliance with the existing requirement, OSHA preliminarily finds that this proposal would present no technological feasibility issues for employers.

In determining economic feasibility, OSHA must consider the cost of compliance in an industry rather than for individual employers. In its economic analyses, OSHA “must construct a reasonable estimate of compliance costs and demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that these costs will not threaten the existence or competitive structure of an industry, even if it does portend disaster for some marginal firms” ( Am. Iron and Steel Inst., 939 F.2d at 980, quoting Lead I 647 F.2d at 1272). OSHA has preliminarily determined that this proposal is economically feasible because this action is deregulatory and imposes no additional costs. OSHA's economic analysis is presented in Section V.

The Administrative Procedures Act directs agencies to include in each rule adopted “a concise general statement of [the rule's] basis and purpose” (5 U.S.C. 553(c)); cf. 29 U.S.C. 655(e) (requiring the Secretary to publish a “statement of reasons” for any standard promulgated). This notice satisfies this concise statement requirement.

III. Background

OSHA first promulgated the Walking-Working Surfaces standard in 1971 (36 FR 10466). OSHA finalized the current Walking-Working Surfaces standard in 2016 (81 FR 82494). The standard contains fall protection requirements for fixed ladders that extend more than 24 feet above a lower level, among other provisions. In the 2016 final rule, OSHA noted that the revised standard reflected advances in technology and made the standard consistent with more recent OSHA standards and national consensus standards (81 FR 82494).

On July 28, 2025, OSHA received a letter on behalf of member companies of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), American Chemistry Council (ACC), and American Petroleum Institute (API) (the “industry petition”), petitioning the agency to initiate rulemaking that would repeal the requirement to use personal fall arrest systems on all fixed ladders that extend more than 24 feet above a lower level and allow employers to continue to use cages and wells or, alternatively, that would allow the use of cages and wells on these ladders and require installation of personal fall arrest systems or ladder safety systems only on the ladders installed or modified after a new final rule (Ex. OSHA-2025-0072-0002). The letter states that retrofitting existing fixed ladders with personal fall arrest systems or ladder safety systems imposes extraordinary costs on the industry with “very little, if any, safety enhancement.” The member companies contend that these expenses are unjustified, as there have been very few incidents involving fixed ladders.

This rulemaking proposes removing the fixed deadline from 29 CFR 1910.28(b)(9)(i). For the reasons discussed below and consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14219, “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative,” E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” and the goal of significantly reducing the private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations to secure American's economic prosperity and national security and the highest possible quality of life for each citizen, OSHA preliminarily concludes that removing the fixed deadline from 29 CFR 1910.28(b)(9)(i) will reduce the compliance burden on the regulated community while effectuating OSHA's original intent for this provision. OSHA seeks comment on the proposed change and this preliminary conclusion.

IV. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Requirements

OSHA is proposing to revise paragraph (b)(9) of its general industry Walking-Working Surfaces fall protection standard (29 CFR 1910.28) by removing the deadline for employers to install a personal fall arrest system or ladder safety system on fixed ladders (that extend more than 24 feet above a lower level) by November 18, 2036 (29 CFR 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D)). Removing this deadline will allow fixed ladders with cages or wells to remain in use until the end of their service lives without an installed personal fall arrest or ladder safety system. Once these fixed ladders, cages, or wells are replaced, including due to reaching the end of their service lives, a personal fall arrest system or ladder safety system would need to be installed in at least that replaced section of the fixed ladder, cage, or well pursuant to existing paragraph (b)(9)(i)(C). Similarly, the requirement in existing paragraph (b)(9)(i)(B) that any new fixed ladders must be equipped with a personal fall arrest system or ladder safety system would remain unchanged.

In explaining its decision to adopt a 20-year compliance deadline, OSHA stated in the 2016 final rule that it “set the extended phase-out period to take into account normal replacement and average useful life of fixed ladders, cages, and wells” (81 FR 82494). The agency estimated that, within 20 years, “the large majority of fixed ladders will have been replaced or in need of replacement.” In selecting a compliance date subsequent to the replacement or service duration of the “vast majority” of fixed ladders, OSHA sought to avoid undue burdens for employers by providing them “ample time to plan and carry out this transition as part of their normal business and replacement cycles, instead of retrofitting fixed ladders” (81 FR 82603). Indeed, OSHA's assessment of the economic feasibility of the requirement relied on this assumption (81 FR 82611).

The concerns raised by the industry petition draw into question OSHA's assumption in the 2016 final rule that 20 years is sufficient to ensure that most employers can come into compliance with the fixed ladder fall protection requirements through their normal business and replacement cycles. By removing the fixed deadline in paragraph (b)(9)(i)(D) while maintaining the replacement requirements in existing paragraph (b)(9)(i)(C), this proposed revision would accomplish OSHA's original intent while reducing future economic burdens by avoiding costly retrofitting of currently compliant fixed ladders that have cages and wells, are in good repair, and that are not at the end of their service lives.

As an alternative to removing the compliance deadline as discussed above, the petitioners requested the repeal of the requirement that employers use personal fall arrest systems on all fixed ladders over 24 feet tall and that OSHA permit them to continue to use ladder cages or wells. OSHA therefore requests comment on whether it should remove the requirement that employers use personal fall arrest systems on all fixed ladders over 24 feet tall. OSHA welcomes additional evidence regarding the costs and benefits of cages, wells, and personal fall arrest systems, and ladder safety systems, and whether cages and wells provide equivalent safety outcomes compared to personal fall arrest systems or ladder safety systems across relevant industries and ladder configurations. Employers must continue to ensure fixed ladders meet all applicable ladder requirements in 29 CFR 1910.23, Ladders, and the general requirements for all walking-working surfaces in section 1910.22, which sets requirements for safe loads, safe access and egress, inspection, general maintenance, and good repair.

The agency preliminarily concludes that the proposed revision to 29 CFR 1910.28(b)(9)(i) would best effectuate the agency's intent in the 2016 final rule while also serving the goals of reducing undue burden and improving compliance with OSHA's fall protection requirements. OSHA does not have evidence to suggest that removal of the deadline in section 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D) will significantly impact the safety benefits identified in the 2016 final rule. In the final rule, OSHA estimated the rule would prevent 11.4 ladder-related fatalities and 2,161 ladder-related lost-workday injuries per year across all ladder types and all covered employers (81 FR at 82674). This includes fatalities and injuries prevented by all ladder-related provisions of the final rule, including the portable and fixed ladder design and use requirements in section 1910.23 and the fall protection requirements in section 1910.28. OSHA expects this proposed rule to only impact a small subset of affected ladders: fixed ladders between 24 and 30 feet in length  1 that do not currently have a ladder safety system or personal fall arrest system installed and that would not be replaced by November 2036.

1  In the 2016 final rule, OSHA determined that fixed ladders more than 30 feet in length already use a ladder safety system or personal fall arrest system and therefore employers would not need to retrofit those ladders to comply with section 1910.28(b)(9)(i) (81 FR at 82930).

OSHA is unable to determine whether any of the potential fatalities or injuries avoided due to the 2016 final rule would be associated with the limited scope of this proposal; that is, whether any of those fatalities or injuries would occur among this subset of ladders in the time between 2036 and the later date at which these ladders will now be replaced. However, OSHA expects the impact of this proposal to be small. One reason is that many if not most fixed ladders covered by the 2016 final rule are still likely to be replaced by 2036. Another is that this proposal merely extends the time provided for employers to come into compliance with the fall protection requirements of section 1910.28(b)(9), it does not eliminate the requirement. Finally, OSHA anticipates that most workplaces with affected ladders are likely to have at least some ladders with personal fall arrest systems or ladder safety systems installed and employees of those employers will therefore have been trained to recognize fall hazards related to these ladders. As explained in the 2016 final rule, OSHA expects that the increased level of worker training on personal fall arrest systems and ladder safety systems required by the final rule, and the heightened recognition of related fall hazards resulting from this training, will contribute to the prevention of injuries and fatalities from falls from ladders (81 FR at 82784-82785). Based on this, the agency preliminarily determines that this proposal is not likely to result in a meaningful increase in risk to workers and the standard as a whole would remain highly protective. OSHA requests comments regarding these changes including any relevant scientific studies or other evidence.

V. Preliminary Economic Analysis

A. Estimated Cost Savings

This proposed rule would allow employers more time to come into compliance with 29 CFR 1910.28(b)(9)(i), and therefore OSHA has preliminarily concluded that there would be no additional costs imposed by these proposed revisions. OSHA also anticipates that there would be significant cost savings associated with this rule, based on employers being able to avoid retrofitting or replacing current fixed ladders equipped with cages and wells while those fixed ladders are still within their useful service life. Because this rule would impose no new costs, OSHA has made a preliminary determination that the rule would be economically feasible.

In the industry petition cited earlier, the petitioners state that a survey of their member companies indicated these companies have “incurred significant costs before the physical work of retrofitting has begun”; that one company alone “has spent thousands of hours over the last two years conducting fixed ladder assessments in anticipation of the work . . . $1.2 million just to identify which ladders are affected”; and that another “company estimates that it will spend $5 million to do the same” (Ex. OSHA-2025-0072-0002).

The petitioners further state that their members, if made to comply with the ladder safety/personal fall arrest system requirements, would spend more than $1.2 billion to bring more than 22,000 ladders into compliance. They further noted that their member survey “represents just over one-third of the petroleum refineries in the country and a tiny fraction of other chemical manufacturing facilities.” Extrapolating from these results, petitioners suggest that this requirement could cost more than $3 billion across the U.S. refining industry (Ex. OSHA-2025-0072-0002). Based on the limited information provided by the petitioners, OSHA is unable to ascertain whether there are unique aspects of the industries represented by the petitioners that would drive costs higher than OSHA's 2016 estimate. The agency welcomes comment on whether the petitioner's estimates are representative of costs in other industries.

In the 2016 final economic analysis, OSHA estimated that annualized costs of the final rule would total $305 million (81 FR 82847). Of those total costs, OSHA estimated that retrofitting fixed ladders between 24 feet and 30 feet in height with ladder safety and personal fall arrest systems would total $8.5 million in multi-year aggregated costs, or $1.2 million in annualized costs, for the approximately 109,200 fixed ladders affected by the requirement (29 CFR 1910.28(b)(9)) mandating replacement of cages and wells after November 2036 (81 FR 82841). This estimate accounted for the costs of new equipment and time for installation (2 hours per ladder) and relied on the assumptions regarding the useful life of fixed ladders that the agency is now reconsidering. If OSHA underestimated the useful life of affected ladders, then a larger percentage of affected employers would need to retrofit existing ladders to comply with the November 2036 deadline, resulting in higher costs than originally estimated.

Based on petitioners' data, OSHA calculates a compliance cost of $55,000 per ladder ($1.2 billion divided by 22,000 ladders rounded to the nearest thousand); however, other entities in the petitioners' industry not surveyed could indicate different potential cost savings associated with the other two-thirds of this industry's ladders, thus the $55,000 estimate may not reflect the true average. By applying these per-ladder compliance costs to an estimated 66,000 ladders in this industry sector (extrapolating the petitioner's report of 22,000 ladders in one third of the industry to the whole industry), OSHA estimates cost savings over $3.6 billion could be achieved in this sector alone by eliminating the compliance deadline. OSHA seeks public comment on these estimates.

OSHA requests comments and data on whether and to what extent the agency underestimated the number of ladders in other covered industries that would need to be retrofitted or replaced to comply with the deadline in 29 CFR 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D). If OSHA also underestimated the number of affected ladders in other industries, the total cost savings of this proposal could be significantly higher.

Request for Comment

To assist OSHA in evaluating the potential costs or cost savings that would result from this proposed rule, the agency requests comments, data, and information on the following:

1. OSHA requests public comments on the service life of fixed ladders that extend more than 24 feet above a lower level. Additionally, OSHA requests details used to evaluate factors affecting remaining service of these ladders.

2. OSHA requests public comments on what other assumptions might be driving the difference between the 2016 cost estimates and the costs claimed in the industry petition, including assumptions regarding the extent to which ladder safety and personal fall arrest systems are already installed on fixed ladders above 24 feet.

3. OSHA requests public comments on the petitioners' compliance cost estimates noted above for identifying, assessing, and retrofitting fixed ladders affected by paragraph 1910.28(b)(9).

4. OSHA requests public comments on the agency's estimate of cost savings that would result from eliminating the need for employers to retrofit existing fixed ladders in the petitioners' industry sector to meet paragraph 1910.28(b)(9)'s November 18, 2036, deadline.

5. OSHA requests data and information on the installation costs of ladder safety systems and personal fall arrest systems on fixed ladders over 24 feet in height in other industries. The agency requests that the commenters elaborate on the resource inputs that contribute to the estimate of total costs, where possible, with specific details on facility type, the operational use (function) of the ladder, frequency of climbs, the type and components of the fall safety system currently installed, the cost of replacing a fixed ladder (on a per-foot or per-section basis if appropriate), the timing of a retrofit (proximity to 2036) if the 2016 rule were to remain in place without revision, and the type of fall safety system projected for retrofitting affected fixed ladders. The petitioners identified 22,000 ladders that would be affected by the 2016 final rule's deadline for replacement in portions of two industries. OSHA requests additional information on the number of fixed ladders in petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturing, and other industries that might be affected by this proposed rule.

6. OSHA requests data from all interested parties on current (baseline) practices for the provision of fall protection on fixed ladders, including survey data on the extent of existing practices among affected employers for assessing the performance and effectiveness of fall prevention systems on fixed ladders, as well as survey data on current, baseline administrative controls such as manager familiarization, training, and recordkeeping.

7. If employers have already incurred costs or cost savings as a result of implementing paragraph 1910.28(b)(9)(i), please describe in detail (for example, cost or cost savings per worker, per process unit, or per production operation) the size and scope of the costs or cost savings, and the size and scope of any benefits that have been achieved from the changes in the use of fall safety systems on fixed ladders.

8. OSHA invites all stakeholders to comment on any technological, economic, and safety-related impacts of the proposed removal of paragraph 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D).

9. OSHA requests comment on whether it should repeal or revise the requirement that employers use personal fall arrest systems on all fixed ladders over 24 feet. OSHA welcomes additional evidence regarding whether cages and wells provide equivalent safety outcomes compared to personal fall arrest systems or ladder safety systems across relevant industries and ladder configurations.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Act requires each IRFA to describe regulatory alternatives that would “minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603(c). Each FRFA must describe “steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities.” Id. §604(a)(6). The term “significant economic impact,” as used in the Act to trigger IRFA and FRFA requirements, thus refers to adverse economic impacts that should be minimized.

OSHA reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule would eliminate a regulatory requirement and reduce compliance burdens on both small and large employers. Therefore, OSHA certifies that the revision would not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,” and that the preparation of an IRFA is not warranted. OSHA will transmit this certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under Executive Order 12866

E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits; (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review. OIRA has determined that this proposed rule is a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria in section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this proposed rule was submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.

VI. Additional Requirements

A. Requirements for States With OSHA-Approved State Plans

Under section 18 of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq. ), Congress expressly provides that States may adopt, with Federal approval, a plan for the development and enforcement of occupational safety and health standards that are “at least as effective” as the Federal standards in providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment (29 U.S.C. 667). OSHA refers to these OSHA-approved, State-administered occupational safety and health programs as “State Plans.”  2

2  Of the 29 States and U.S. territories with OSHA-approved State Plans, 22 cover public and private-sector employees: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. The remaining six States and one U.S. territory cover only State and local government employees: Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and the Virgin Islands.

When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or a more stringent amendment to an existing standard, State Plans must either amend their standards to be identical to, or “at least as effective as,” the new Federal standard or amendment, or show that an existing State Plan standard covering this issue is “at least as effective” as the new Federal standard or amendment (29 CFR 1953.5(a)). However, when OSHA promulgates a new standard or amendment that does not impose additional or more stringent requirements than an existing standard, State Plans do not have to amend their standards, although they may opt to do so. OSHA has preliminarily determined this proposed rule does not impose additional or more stringent requirements than the existing standard, and therefore State Plans are not required to amend their standards. OSHA seeks comment on this assessment of its proposal.

B. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) defines “collection of information” to mean “the obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public, of facts or opinions by or for an agency, regardless of form or format” (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)). Under the PRA, a federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA and the agency displays a currently valid OMB control number (44 U.S.C. 3507). Also, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a currently valid OMB control number (44 U.S.C. 3512(a)(1)). The process for OMB approval is found in 5 CFR part 1320. This proposed rule would impose no new information collection requirements. Because the proposed revisions do not affect the currently approved information collections, OMB approval is not required for this proposed rule.

C. Environmental Impacts/National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

OSHA has reviewed this proposed rule according to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), as amended by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (Pub. L. 118-5, 321, 137 Stat. 10), and the Department of Labor's NEPA procedures (29 CFR part 11). Under the Department's regulations, the “[p]romulgation, modification or revocation of any [OSHA] safety standard” is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment absent extraordinary circumstances indicating the potential for significant environmental effects (29 CFR 11.10(a)(1)). OSHA has preliminarily determined that no such extraordinary circumstances exist, and that this proposal would have no impact on the quality of the human environment.

D. Other Statutory and Executive Order Considerations

OSHA has considered its obligations under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ) and the Executive Orders on Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (E.O. 13175, 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000)), Federalism (E.O. 13132, 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999)), and Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (E.O. 13045, 62 FR 19885 (Apr. 23, 1997)). Given that this is a proposed deregulatory action that involves the removal of requirements, does not result in any Federal mandates, and does not constitute a policy that has federalism or tribal implications, OSHA has determined that no further agency action or analysis is required to comply with these statutes and executive orders. Furthermore, OSHA has determined that this proposal is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation.” If finalized as proposed, this NPRM is expected to be an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910

Falls, Fall arrest, Fall protection, Fixed ladders, Ladders, Ladder cages, Ladder safety systems, Ladder wells, Occupational safety and health, Personal fall arrest systems, Walking-Working Surfaces.

VII. Authority and Signature

This document was prepared under the direction of David Keeling, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. It is issued under the authority of sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657), 5 U.S.C. 553, Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393), and 29 CFR part 1911.

David Keeling,

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

VIII. Regulatory Text

Proposed Amendments

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OSHA is amending 29 CFR part 1910 as follows:

PART 1910—OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS

Subpart D—Walking-Working Surfaces

1. The authority citation for subpart D is revised to read as follows:

Authority:

29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008); 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), 8-2020 (85 FR 58393), or 7-2025 (90 FR 27878); 29 CFR part 1911; and 5 U.S.C. 553, as applicable.

2. Amend §1910.28 by removing paragraph (b)(9)(i)(D) and revising paragraph (b)(9)(i) to read as follows:

§1910.28 Duty to have fall protection and falling object protection.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(9) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) Existing fixed ladders. Each fixed ladder installed before November 19, 2018 is equipped with a personal fall arrest system, ladder safety system, cage, or well;

(B) New fixed ladders. Each fixed ladder installed on and after November 19, 2018, is equipped with a personal fall arrest system or a ladder safety system; and

(C) Replacement. When a fixed ladder, cage, or well, or any portion of a section thereof, is replaced, a personal fall arrest system or ladder safety system is installed in at least that section of the fixed ladder, cage, or well where the replacement is located.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2026-06578 Filed 4-3-26; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

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