May 11, 2026ARA releases updated equipment, event economic forecasts for North AmericaBy Brock Huffstutler May 8, 2026 In its latest economic forecast, the American Rental Association (ARA) indicates that the combined U.S. construction and industrial equipment (CIE) and general tool rental industry is projected to increase by 3.6 percent in 2026, totaling $83.5 billion. This is an increase from last quarter’s projection of a 2.8 percent increase in 2026 totaling $82.9 billion. “Rental revenue continued to grow, particularly in areas where the large and megaproject work is,” said Tom Doyle, ARA vice president, program development. “The trend towards more rental versus ownership also continues. Rental tailwinds include project uncertainty, market volatility, sustainability, financial flexibility for the rental user and the high cost of owning. Rental companies are focused and delivering better solutions.” Beyond 2026, growth in combined U.S. CIE and general tool rental revenue is projected to grow at a pace of 3.8 percent in 2027 and 4.4 percent in 2028. In Canada, the combined CIE and general tool rental industry is forecast to grow 5 percent this year, totaling $6.3 billion. This is an increase from the previous quarter, when this segment was projected to reach $6 billion in 2026. Beyond 2026, growth in combined Canadian CIE and general tool rental revenue is projected at 5.8 percent in 2027 before dipping slightly to 5.4 percent in 2028. The softer growth projected for overall Canadian equipment rental revenue beyond 2027 is attributed to moderations in rental revenue as construction markets and industrial production cool.
May 8th, 2026Phoenix outlines water reliability strategy amid Colorado River concernsPhoenix maintains a diversified water portfolio and invests in infrastructure, conservation, and new sources to ensure reliable water supply despite ongoing drought and declining river flows, emphasizing regional cooperation and innovative projects like Pure Water Phoenix. May 5, 2026 The Phoenix City Council received an update on the city’s water supply, drought preparedness, and long-term planning efforts, emphasizing continued reliability despite ongoing pressure on the Colorado River system. City officials said Phoenix maintains a diversified water portfolio, drawing from the Salt and Verde rivers, the Colorado River, and groundwater supplies. That approach, combined with decades of infrastructure investment and conservation efforts, has helped the city maintain stable service even as regional drought conditions persist. “Phoenix is not running out of water. We have planned for drought for decades, and we continue to invest in the infrastructure, conservation programs and water supplies needed to serve our community today and into the future,” said Phoenix Water Services Director Brandy Kelso in a press release. “As conditions evolve, maintaining that reliability will continue to be a shared effort between the City and our customers.” Be Prepared with a Next-Generation Firewall Officials noted that while the city is well positioned, declining river flows and rising temperatures continue to challenge water availability across the basin, with new federal operating guidelines expected in the coming years. Lower Basin states advance Colorado River stabilization plan through 2028 Water authorities from Arizona, California, and Nevada propose a comprehensive plan to stabilize the Colorado River through 2028, addressing ongoing drought and declining reservoir… “The Colorado River is facing significant challenges, and the entire region must work together to adapt,” said Phoenix Water Resources Management Advisor Max Wilson in a press release. “Phoenix has taken proactive steps to prepare, but continued collaboration, both regionally and within our community, will be essential to maintaining water reliability for our residents and economy.” The city highlighted several strategies to strengthen long-term supply, including aquifer storage, expanded conveyance infrastructure, additional groundwater development, and investment in new surface water sources. Officials also pointed to progress on Pure Water Phoenix, which aims to create a drought-resilient local supply through advanced water purification. In addition, the council was introduced to the Secure Water Arizona Program, a proposed voluntary water-sharing framework designed to help users collaborate during shortages while maintaining local control. Phoenix is currently operating under Stage 1 of its drought management plan, focused on conservation and public awareness, with the potential for expanded measures if conditions worsen. City leaders said ongoing conservation efforts have already reduced per capita water use over the past several decades, even as population has grown. Officials emphasized that continued planning, investment, and regional cooperation will be key to maintaining water security as uncertainty around the Colorado River persists.
LAW360″BREAKING: Trump’s Temporary Global Tariffs Illegal, Trade Court RulesBy Dylan Moroses Law360 (May 7, 2026, 5:40 PM EDT) — President Donald Trump’s temporary global 10% tariffs are unlawful because the narrow set of economic conditions required for the measure to be imposed were not met, the U.S. Court of International Trade said Thursday in a divided opinion. The government’s imposition of the tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act reflected an interpretation of the law that was too expansive, according to the majority opinion by Chief CIT Judge Mark A. Barnett and Judge Claire R. Kelly. That statute was carefully crafted by Congress to address serious balance-of-payment deficits, the opinion said. To allow the government’s interpretation to stand would mean that the president could always rationalize enacting a temporary tariff under Section 122, and could run afoul of the non-delegation doctrine, which generally precludes Congress from delegating its core constitutional responsibilities, the opinion said. “Such an expansive reading of the statute would raise a non-delegation issue, which in turn would prompt a constitutional question,” the majority opinion said. Furthermore, Trump’s executive order, namely “the use of trade and current account deficits to stand in the place of balance-of-payment deficits within the meaning of the statute,” renders the action invalid, according to the opinion. “Nowhere does Proclamation No. 11012 identify balance-of-payments deficits within the meaning of Section 122 as it was enacted in 1974,” the majority opinion said. The majority found that the state of Washington and the pair of businesses challenging the temporary tariff had standing in the cases, while the several other states that joined as plaintiffs were not importers of record and lacked standing. The judges granted a permanent injunction to Burlap and Barrel Inc., Basic Fun Inc. and the state of Washington, exempting those parties from the tariffs, and did not consider a nationwide remedy in the case, according to the opinion. The law allows the president to impose a tariff of up to 15% for 150 days, unless Congress extends it, “to deal with large and serious” U.S. balance-of-payment deficits, respond to immediate risk of U.S. dollar depreciation in foreign exchange markets or correct “an international balance-of-payments disequilibrium,” in coordination with foreign countries. Trump authorized a temporary 10% global tariff under Section 122 in February, the day the U.S. Supreme Court deemed the tariffs he had imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act unlawful. The two dozen states filed suit in March challenging the Section 122 duties. The coalition argued that the tariffs have hurt the states, saying that “states will face $748 million in additional costs per year due to increases in direct purchasing costs related to the Section 122 tariffs,” according to the complaint. Burlap & Barrel Inc., an online retailer specializing in imported spices, and Florida toy-maker Basic Fun Inc. also challenged the Section 122 tariff in March. The companies said in their complaint that the circumstances required to justify the regime cannot exist. The U.S. dollar’s floating exchange rate makes it “economically impossible” for the country to have the large, serious balance-of-payments deficit required by the law Trump cited to authorize the tariffs, the companies argued. The judges heard oral arguments in the case in April. In a dissenting opinion, CIT Judge Timothy C. Stanceu said he would have denied both the business’ and states’ motions for summary judgment, noting that the situation presented lends itself to court procedures under Rule 56, Section F of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under that rule, a party opposed to summary judgment but not seeking a cross-motion for summary judgment, such as the government in the cases before the trade court, can be given notice and a reasonable time to respond before the court can “grant a motion on grounds not raised by a party.” Judge Stanceu said in the dissent that the majority opinion fails to follow the notice and time-to-respond requirement of Rule 56, Section F, when it ruled on the Section 122 tariff, offering an interpretation for grounds to grant summary judgment that neither the businesses, states, nor the government explicitly argued for. “Had the parties been given notice and a reasonable time to respond to the grounds upon which the majority ultimately decided these cases, the court might have had the benefit of their arguments as to whether confining the President’s discretion to the use of liquidity, official settlements, or basic balance as measures of the payments balance is the correct interpretation of Section 122(a)(1),” Judge Stanceu said. In a statement, Liberty Justice Center’s Jeffrey Schwab, representing the businesses, said the law was designed to address a specific “historical crisis” involving U.S. currency and gold reserves, and cannot be used for tariffs in the way Trump intends. “The United States has a trade deficit, not a balance-of-payments deficit, and does not have international payments problems,” Schwab said. “The President cannot impose these tariffs under Section 122.” The U.S. Department of Justice and White House didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. Chief CIT Judge Mark A. Barnett and CIT Judges Claire R. Kelly and Timothy C. Stanceu sat on the panel for the U.S. Court of International Trade. Kentucky and Pennsylvania are represented by their governors’ general counsel. The other states are represented by their attorneys general. The businesses are represented by Jeffrey M. Schwab and Reilly W. Stephens of the Liberty Justice Center. The U.S. government is represented by Brett Shumate, Sosun Bae, Claudia Burke, Mathias Rabinovitch and Justin Reinhart Miller of the U.S. Department of Justice. The cases are The state of Oregon et al. v. Trump et al. and Burlap & Barrel Inc. et al. v. Trump et al., case numbers 26-01472 and 26-01606 in the U.S. Court of International Trade. Editing by Michael Watanabe. All Content © 2003-2026, Portfolio Media, Inc. May 5, 2026RE: New York Update: NY S 1464/A 1749 Amendments ReleasedThe undersigned businesses and organizations are committed to working with the Hochul Administration, Senate, Assembly and other stakeholders to fashion an effective, workable and achievable “extended producer responsibility” law in New York State that improves the state’s current efforts to divert post-consumer materials from disposal and to instead separate, collect, process and remanufacture post-consumer packaging material into new products. However, we continue to strongly oppose the recently amended “Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act” (PRRIA), S.1464-A (Harckham)/A.1749-A (Glick). These latest amendments do little to address business’ key concerns. Major issues of concern regarding S.1464-A/A.1749-A include the following: – it has several provisions that would require producers to pay for disposal fees incurred by municipalities and private service providers – something that is not required in other states’ EPR statutes; In summary, these draft amendments make limited changes to two of our priority issues and make no material change to others, while adding to or expanding other mandates. As such, the amended bill falls well short of the goal of a workable, affordable, and achievable EPR program. While the amendments adopted some language from Minnesota, Washington and Maryland, stark differences remain between PRRIA and other states’ EPR statutes. Therefore, the amended bill raises the same significant concerns that we, and others, have raised about its likely impact on consumer prices and consumer choices, as well as the direct impact on the businesses that produce and use packaging. We continue to strongly oppose adoption of S.1464-A/A.1749-A. As always, we welcome the opportunity to meet with the Administration and members of the state legislature to discuss these concerns in detail, and to present our recommendations for a more effective, workable EPR program in New York State.Respectfully Submitted, on Behalf of the Following Organizations (as of 5/4/26 – we continue to add organizations and will issue updates): Ag Container Recycling Council New York State Chemistry Council For additional information, please feel free to contact:
May 1, 2026Recall Alerthttps://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/Pressure-Washers-Recalled-Due-to-Serious-Risk-of-Injury-or-Death-from-Shock-and-Electrocution-Hazards-Imported-by-DGIVOVO-USMay 1, 2026CETA Update on Zero emission equipment launched in the State of New York has started:While New York’s immediate 2027 legislation primarily targets lawn care devices, pressure washers are part of a second wave of zero-emission regulations. The push follows a two-phased approach similar to California’s Small Off-Road Engine (SORE) standards. The Regulatory Timeline:
Why the Delay for Pressure Washers? Pressure washers were given a longer lead time than leaf blowers for several reasons since Large commercial pressure washers require sustained high energy that batteries have struggled to provide at a reasonable cost and weight compared to intermittent use tools like trimmers. In addition, Infrastructure needs to be evaluated first since Commercial operators often lack the mobile charging infrastructure needed to support high draw cleaning equipment throughout a full workday.
April 30, 2026Tariffs continue to impact our Pressure Washer Industry manufacturing costs and have evolved from a procurement headache into a systemic risk that threatens supplier continuity, customs compliance, and operational stability across global manufacturing networks — and risk professionals can no longer afford a passive stanceKey insights:
Tariffs have presented significant challenges for manufacturers, increasing input costs and undermining the stability of global supply chains. During the Trump administration, tariffs have become a focal point in debates over the broader economic implications of trade policy. Since 2025, United States’ tariff policy has included a 10% minimum global tariff on a broad range of imports, additional measures targeting China, and various product- and country-specific actions — all developments that have reshaped corporate sourcing strategies and international trade planning. In February, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump marked a pivotal shift in trade authority. By a 6-3 vote, the Court held that the President lacked the constitutional authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, emphasizing that such measures constitute taxes and are therefore within exclusive legislative domain of the U.S. Congress. The ruling invalidated many tariffs implemented by President Trump in 2025, providing some legal clarity while also raising questions about the future of US trade policy. Although the decision limits executive power, uncertainty persists regarding how Congress will exercise its reasserted authority and what new legislative or trade measures may follow in such a dynamic and uncertain economic environment. This Supreme Court’s ruling does not eliminate tariffs but rather shifts their governance by curtailing unilateral executive authority under IEEPA and reasserting Congress’s constitutional role in setting tax and customs policy. That means, of course, that tariffs will not disappear but instead will become more politically negotiated and legislatively codified. For supply chain leaders, this introduces a different kind of uncertainty that will be rooted in legislative timelines, committee negotiations, and the potential for prolonged policy stalemates. Indeed, it’s unclear whether tariffs imposed through statute will prove more durable and harder to reverse than those enacted via executive order. Ultimately, this legal shift underscores the need for manufacturers to take a proactive adaptation and not one of complacency. For corporate risk professionals, particularly those within manufacturing companies, these developments carry substantial implications. Tariffs extend beyond increasing import prices and affect profitability, workforce planning, and long-term supply chain resilience. They introduce volatility into customs procedures, supplier qualification, cross-border logistics, and production network design. When trade rules change rapidly, as they have in recent months, the integrity of global supply chains is increasingly difficult to maintain. Why tariffs hit supply chain integrity so hard In a global supply chain, every cross-border movement is governed by import and export rules set by the countries involved. Tariffs change those economics immediately, and they also trigger a chain reaction that ripples through sourcing, logistics, compliance, and planning. For example, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has had to issue repeated implementation updates on new tariff actions, including guidance tied to imports from China, Canada, and Mexico, underscoring how quickly operating conditions can change for importers. That creates several clear risks to supply chain integrity. One of the first impacts is on supplier relationships. When tariffs make a sourcing region less viable, manufacturers are often forced to move away from long-established suppliers and instead quickly on-board alternatives in lower-tariff markets. That may reduce immediate cost pressure, but it can also weaken quality control, transparency, and reliability if the new suppliers prove to be less able. This is already showing up in manufacturer behavior. Manufacturers Alliance, a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting manufacturing leaders, reported that in January, more than half (57%) of manufacturers said that US tariff policies were having a moderate or significant negative effect on confident decision-making related to sourcing, pricing, and investment timing. The same research found that companies were increasingly shifting from passive monitoring their supply chains to making active changes in sourcing. Even after the Supreme Court’s legal invalidation, many impacts of previously imposed tariffs persist, as retroactive refunds are not guaranteed — indeed, the government has only now set up the process for such refunds. And these administrative delays in duty recovery can strain cash flow, while companies that already restructured their operations by relocating suppliers, renegotiating contracts, or investing in new logistics infrastructure cannot easily unwind those changes. Clearly, the economic and operational consequences of past tariffs have already altered global sourcing maps, and those manufacturers that had shifted production to Southeast Asia or Mexico during the 2025 tariff surge may maintain those footprints even if duties are lifted, due to sunk costs or new regional advantages. This illustrates how even temporary policy shifts can have permanent effects on supply chain integrity. Tariffs force structural changes and create bottlenecks Tariffs also create operational instability. When duty rates, exemptions, and country-specific rules change, manufacturers’ ability to forecast their trade strategy becomes more difficult, and inventory planning becomes less reliable. Customs processing can become more complicated as companies work through classification questions, preference claims, and changing documentation requirements. For manufacturers running lean networks, that unpredictability can be dangerous. Delays at ports, shipment holds, or reworks tied to customs compliance can ripple across production schedules and customer commitments. The CBP has specifically noted ongoing tariff implementation updates through its Cargo Systems Messaging Service, which only underscores how much administrative attention that manufacturers now need to dedicate to keeping updated on trade compliance. Tariffs can also break the logic of just-in-time supply chains. If landed costs become unstable or sourcing risk rises, companies often shift toward just-in-case strategies by holding more inventory, extending forecast horizons, or redesigning production footprints. That may improve resilience in the short term, but it also ties up working capital and reduces efficiency. Manufacturers Alliance research describes this as a move toward tactical adaptation rather than true resolution. In other words, many manufacturers are learning how best to operate in a tariff-heavy environment; however, as the system becomes more buffered, more complex, and often less efficient, it’s unclear when or whether things will return to a state resembling the previous stability. How supply chain professionals can mitigate tariff risk is key. For corporate risk and supply chain leaders, the most practical response starts with supplier diversification. Overconcentration in one tariff-exposed region creates avoidable vulnerability. Manufacturers also should use supplier information management technology to map sub-tier dependencies, because tariff exposure often sits deeper in the supply base than tier-one suppliers alone reveal. Other strong mitigation strategies include nearshoring to reduce long-distance logistics exposure and scenario planning to stress-test tariff shocks before they happen. Those manufacturers best positioned for continued disruption are not waiting for policy clarity; instead, they are building flexibility into sourcing, inventory, and trade compliance now. The bottom line The Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources marks a significant check on executive power around tariffs, but it does not signal a return to stable or predictable trade policy. Tariffs remain a potent and politically salient tool, now subject to legislative rather than unilateral control. For manufacturers and their corporate risk professionals, the imperative remains unchanged: Supply chains must be designed not just to survive today’s tariffs, but to adapt to the next wave of trade policy disruption. Indeed, resilience is no longer a function of cost minimization alone. It requires transparency, agility, and a deep understanding of how legal, political, and economic forces converge at the border. The most effective manufacturing companies will continue to be those that treat tariff exposure not as a compliance afterthought, but as a core dimension of supply chain integrity.
Importance of CETA CPC 100 Certification and Industry Role in Recent Safety RecallsDear CETA Members and Manufacturing Partners, I am writing to address an important development affecting our industry and to reaffirm the critical role that each of you plays in maintaining the highest standards of safety and compliance. As you are aware, recent recalls of certain electric pressure washers sold through online marketplaces have brought increased scrutiny to product safety particularly regarding compliance with established standards such as CETA CPC 100, UL 1776, and the National Electrical Code (NEC). These recalls were driven in large part by serious safety deficiencies, most notably the absence of required Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter (GFCI) protection, which is essential to prevent electrical shock hazards in wet-use environments. This situation underscores the importance of CETA CPC 100 certification as a benchmark for safety, performance, and regulatory compliance within our industry. CETA CPC 100 is not simply a guideline, it is a comprehensive framework developed to ensure that equipment meets rigorous operational and electrical safety requirements. Adherence to this certification helps protect end users, strengthens confidence in our products, and preserves the integrity of the professional cleaning equipment market. CETA has been actively engaged with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) throughout this process. By providing technical expertise, sharing industry data, and reinforcing the importance of recognized safety standards, CETA played a constructive role in helping to identify non-compliant products and support the actions that led to these recalls. Our collaboration with the CPSC reflects our ongoing commitment to consumer safety and to fair, standards-based competition in the marketplace. We want to be clear: products that do not meet CETA CPC 100, UL 1776, and NEC requirements not only pose safety risks, but also create significant liability exposure and reputational harm for manufacturers, distributors, and the industry as a whole. Accordingly, we strongly urge all members and manufacturing partners to ensure all applicable products are fully compliant with CETA CPC 100 and related standards. Review current product lines and supply chains for any potential compliance gaps. Work only with reputable suppliers and certification bodies that adhere to recognized testing and verification protocols. Support ongoing education and transparency regarding safety and compliance requirements. CETA remains committed to supporting our members through guidance, certification resources, and advocacy efforts. We will continue to work closely with regulatory authorities and industry stakeholders to uphold the standards that define our profession. Your diligence and leadership are essential to ensuring the safety of our customers and the continued success of our industry. If you have questions or need assistance regarding certification or compliance, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Gus Alexander CETA President Recalled Pressure washers linked below as follows: EPA Expands Toxic Chemical Reporting, Strengthening Transparency on PFAS PollutionWASHINGTON — U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule adding sodium perfluorohexanesulfonate (PFHxS-Na) to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). The TRI is a tool that tracks and shares information about chemical releases and pollution prevention activities by factories and other facilities. Under this rule, businesses in covered industries must begin tracking and reporting any use or release of PFHxS-Na, a well-studied PFAS chemical. The first reporting period began Jan. 1, 2026, and the first reports will be due to EPA by July 1, 2027. Because PFHxS-Na is classified as a chemical of special concern, it is subject to a lower reporting threshold, in this case, 100 pounds. “This addition ensures communities have the right to know what chemicals are being used and released in their neighborhoods,” said EPA Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Doug Troutman. “Transparency is a critical step toward protecting public health and the environment and holding polluters accountable.” PFHxS-Na is the latest PFAS chemical added to the TRI under a process established by Congress in the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which directs EPA to automatically include new PFAS chemicals in the inventory each year. With this action, the number of PFAS substances tracked by TRI rises to 206. PFAS are a group of man-made chemicals known for their persistence in the environment and the human body. Because they do not break down easily, PFAS can accumulate over time, prompting growing concern about their potential health and environmental impacts. The TRI program enables Americans to see how facilities in their area handle toxic chemicals, supporting informed local decision-making and advancing EPA’s commitment to environmental transparency. More information for businesses and the public is available on the Reporting for TRI Facilities webpage. |
Feb. 13, 2026
Kubota Engine America Extends Standard Engine Warranty
The extended warranty provides additional value and peace of mind for both original equipment manufacturers and end users who rely on Kubota-engines across demanding applications.
Kubota Engine America announced an extension of its standard engine warranty, increasing coverage from two years or 2,000 hours to three years or 3,000 hours. The extended warranty provides additional value and peace of mind for both original equipment manufacturers and end users who rely on Kubota-engines across demanding applications.
“Our engines are built to perform reliably over the long term, and this warranty extension reflects that confidence,” said Michael De Leonardis, director of service engineering at Kubota Engine America. “By offering more coverage, we are helping customers focus on productivity and uptime, knowing their engine is backed by Kubota for more time and more hours.”
Kubota’s standard engine warranty protects against defects in materials and workmanship during normal use and service. With access to Kubota’s extensive service network of more than 1,500 authorized dealers, customers can have peace of mind knowing support is readily available whenever they need it.
“For end users, extended warranty coverage means greater confidence in their equipment investment,” De Leonardis said. “Whether equipment is used seasonally or day after day, customers can count on Kubota engines to deliver dependable performance, supported by responsive service and support.”
The additional coverage helps equipment owners reduce concerns around unexpected repair costs while supporting long-term operation in demanding environments. OEM partners also benefit from the extended warranty, which enhances the value of Kubota-powered equipment and reinforces Kubota Engine America’s role as a long-term partner focused on quality, durability and customer satisfaction.
January 13, 2026
CETA Board Memo,
Date: 01/13/2026
Subject: No Tax on Overtime Bill Guidance
The no tax on overtime bill was included in the recently enacted legislation that President Trump signed into law in July 2025. This new law creates a tax exemption for certain overtime pay effective beginning in tax year 2025. That means you’ll first claim it when you file your tax return in early 2026. Under the current law, this new deduction is scheduled to remain in place through the end of 2028. It doesn’t make all overtime completely tax-free, but it reduces how much federal income tax you owe on qualified overtime pay.
Key Details for Employees
- It is a tax deduction, not an exemption at the time of payment. Employers must continue to withhold federal income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes from all overtime wages as usual. The tax relief comes in the form of a deduction when you file your federal tax return (Form 1040). You can potentially adjust your W-4 form to lower your tax withholding throughout the year if you expect to claim this deduction.
- Only the “premium” portion qualifies for the deduction. The deduction applies only to the “half” portion of “time-and-a-half” pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
- Example: If your regular rate is $20/hour and your overtime rate is $30/hour, only the $10/hour premium is eligible for the deduction, not the full $30 overtime pay.
- If you earn straight-time bonuses, tips, or hazard pay, those don’t qualify for the overtime deduction.
- Maximum Deduction Limits: You can deduct up to $12,500 annually (or $25,000 if married filing jointly) on qualified overtime compensation.
- Income Phase-Outs: The deduction begins to phase out for taxpayers with a modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) over $150,000 (or $300,000 for joint filers).
- Documentation: For the 2025 tax year, employers are not required to separately report the qualified overtime amount on Form W-2. You should use information from your pay stubs or earning statements to calculate your deduction. For the 2026 tax year, employers will likely use a new code on Form W-2 (Code TT in Box 12) to report this amount.
Who Is Eligible?
To qualify for the deduction:
- You must be an employee paid overtime under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (non-exempt workers).
- Independent contractors and most gig workers generally do not qualify.
- If overtime is paid because of a collective bargaining agreement or state law (e.g., California daily overtime), it might not count as “qualified overtime” for this deduction.
- Married taxpayers generally must file a joint return to claim the full married deduction.
How You Claim It
- You must claim the deduction on your federal tax return.
- Employers will now be required (with transitional relief) to report the amount of qualified overtime on Forms W-2 or other statements so you can calculate the deduction.
Summary
- What the law does:
- Let’s workers deduct part of their overtime pay from their federal taxable income (the extra premium portion under FLSA).
- Reduces federal income tax owed, potentially lowering your overall tax bill.
- What it doesn’t do:
- It doesn’t make all overtime totally tax-free.
- Social Security/Medicare taxes still apply.
- It’s temporary (expires end of 2028 unless extended)
For additional information see the IRS website. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/one-big-beautiful-bill-provision
Disclaimer: This document has been prepared by the Cleaning Equipment Trade Association (CETA) for general educational purposes only. It is not intended to provide, and should not be relied upon, such as, legal, tax, or accounting advice. Laws and regulations may change, and their application can vary based on individual facts and circumstances. CETA does not assume any responsibility or liability for actions taken based on this information and can vary based on individual facts and circumstances. CETA does not assume any responsibility or liability for actions taken based on the information contained herein. Employers and employees are strongly encouraged to consult with a qualified tax or legal adviser.
January 8, 2026
Practical Advice for Navigating Tariff Policy in 2026
Key Highlights
- A Supreme Court decision on the IEEPA tariffs is expected as early as January 9, 2026.
- U.S. tariff collections increased from $84.2 billion in Q3 2024 to $331.4 billion in Q3 2025.
- Look for changes in the USMCA’s joint renewal in July 2026. The Trump administration has particular concerns about China’s investments in Mexico, Canada’s digital services tax, automotive rules of origin and electric-vehicle and battery supply chains.
- Read on for expertise on better sourcing practices, refund reviews and approaches, Free Trade Zone and Bonded Warehouse options and more.
Since taking office in January 2025, President Donald Trump has issued numerous executive orders that increase duty costs for importers.
The president imposed an alphabet soup of new tariff types: International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) “Liberation Day” reciprocal tariffs, IEEPA fentanyl tariffs and extra IEEPA duties on imports from Brazil and India.
Section 232 commodity-based tariffs, focused on manufactured goods deemed essential to national security, were imposed on items made of aluminum, steel, copper, wood and on autos, auto parts and heavy-duty trucks.
Tariff rates themselves were increased. The de minimis duty-free exemption for low-value imports was eliminated. In total, the Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that tariff collections increased from $84.2 billion in Q3 2024 to $331.4 billion in Q3 2025, a whopping 280% increase.
What Should Manufacturers Watch for in 2026?
With the administration’s constant changes in trade policy, and its commitment to reducing imports, focus on these top three trade issues:
The U.S. Supreme Court’s expected tariff ruling (which could come as early as January 9) on the legality of the IEEPA reciprocal and fentanyl tariffs and the subsequent government reactions. If the duties are disallowed, Customs refunds may be possible—and new types of duties imposed. The Trump administration chose to use IEEPA because it requires no notice and no administrative process before it is imposed. Section 232 and 301 tariffs can be used to meet the goal of additional tariffs—they simply require a longer timeline and some administrative processes before they are imposed.
Refund requests can be submitted through the usual processes for requesting duty refunds: submitting post-summary corrections and/or protests to U.S. Customs. These applications are filed electronically and can be submitted by the importer, their customs broker, trade attorneys or trade consultants.
The USMCA trade agreement’s joint renewal in July. Canada and Mexico are the U.S.’s largest trading partners, and industry sectors including automotive and aviation have highly integrated North American supply chains. Does Trump see Canada and Mexico as partners in building more competitive manufacturing industries and in generating jobs? Or will Trump pursue a go-it-alone approach to international trade, no matter the costs?
There is major uncertainty about the administration’s desired course of action. Preliminary indications are that the administration has particular concerns about China’s investments in Mexico, Canada’s digital services tax, automotive rules of origin and electric-vehicle and battery supply chains. Trade discussions with Canada have been on again/off again, and there is the possibility that the U.S. may fall back to a bilateral trade agreement. July 2026 will be a defining moment.
Disputes over U.S. access to critical mineral imports and/or U.S. agricultural sales to China. Currently, most imports from China are subject to at least a 45% tariff cost (from a combination of today’s reciprocal and fentanyl duties, plus the Section 301 duties on China imposed during the first Trump administration). At times of tension, those costs have risen to as high as 165%. Will the trade war with China reignite? China supplies the majority of global demand for the rare-earth elements needed by the tech and defense industries. When trade tensions are high, China imposes export restrictions on rare-earth elements and the U.S. increases tariffs. Even if future tariff changes are short-term negotiating tactics, your imports could be impacted.
Success Despite the Challenges
Here are the top tariff-savings approaches that savvy manufacturers have been using:
Sourcing USMCA-qualifying items. If you buy imported goods from either Canada or Mexico, and the items meet the criteria for USMCA qualification, the items are duty-free from all the ordinary and IEEPA types of duty. About 90% of current imports from Canada are USMCA-qualifying, meaning that the remaining 10% of Canadian imports incur a 35% tariff. USMCA qualification analysis can help determine duty-free importation of all items that meet the criteria.
Preparing to file for IEEPA refunds. If the U.S. Supreme Court disallows the IEEPA tariffs, there is a significant opportunity for refunds of the duties which were paid. If you don’t have it already, seek qualified legal or customs experts to prepare . Gather customs entry information. Enroll in Customs’ electronic refund payment process through your company’s Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Portal.
Reviewing U.S. exports for potential import-duty refunds. Under a provision called Duty Drawback, up to 99% of duties paid on imported items that are subsequently exported is refundable. Duties paid on components used to manufacture exported items can also have their duties refunded. There is a five-year look-back period for drawback filings, making this provision an attractive way to bolster 2026’s bottom line.
Evaluating Free Trade Zone (FTZ) and Bonded Warehouse options to avoid or delay duty payment. Free Trade Zones allow imported items to be used in manufacturing before entry is made and before any duty paid. FTZs exist in every state, and your manufacturing facility can become a sub-zone. In a FTZ, duty is only due when the item leaves the facility for sale in the U.S. If the manufactured item is exported outside the U.S., no duty is ever due.
Bonded warehouses for long-term storage of high-value items. Duty is only due when the stored items are withdrawn for sale in the U.S. Goods can be stored for five years before customs entry and duty payment are required. The benefits are improved cash flow and the ability to pay duty rates applicable at the time of withdrawal rather than those applicable at time of entry.
FTZ and Bonded Warehouses are relatively easy and inexpensive to implement. With today’s high-duty costs, refresh your analysis to assess whether these provisions bring savings.
Reducing the cost and risk of any single potential government action by diversifying the manufacturing and sourcing base. Consider modifying sourcing strategy from “China Plus One” to “China Plus Many” or even to “Anywhere But China.” Compare nearshoring and reshoring costs to today’s import cost structures.
The trade winds will continue to shift in 2026. By focusing on the key issues, implementing a broad range of trade tactics and collaborating with important partners, 2026 will bring “fair winds and following seas” to your supply chain.
Date: December 12, 2025
The Cleaning Equipment Trade Association (CETA) announced today that it will file an amicus curiae brief supporting the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI) in its legal challenge to the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) new regulations restricting internal‑combustion small off‑road engines.
CETA represents manufacturers, distributors, contract cleaners, and service providers in the commercial and industrial cleaning equipment industry, sectors significantly affected by the new regulations. “These rules impact more than lawn and garden equipment,” said Gus Alexander, President of CETA. “Commercial cleaning equipment has unique power and runtime requirements that current zero‑emission technologies cannot yet meet. Our role is to ensure the Court understands the real‑world implications for the businesses that keep America’s industrial and commercial facilities safe, clean, and operational.” The amicus brief will provide factual information regarding feasibility, safety, economic impacts, and national supply‑chain considerations. CETA will coordinate with OPEI’s legal counsel in its filing.
For more information, contact:
Debbie Murray
Managing Director
April 1, 2025
Dear CETA Members,
As we reflect on the past 35 years, we are filled with immense gratitude and appreciation for the continued support of our members. This milestone is not just a reflection of time passed but a testament to the strength, growth, and success we have collectively achieved as an association. Over the years, CETA has remained committed to fostering innovation and creating opportunities for our members, and we take great pride in the collaborative spirit that has defined us.
We have always sought to bring the industry together, and one of the highlights of our journey has been our successful collaboration with Power Washers of North America (PWNA). Through our years of co-location, we were able to unite the industry in ways that facilitated growth and mutual benefit. Together, we celebrated our shared commitment to the success of the industry. However, as the landscape evolves, so too do the paths we must walk. While CETA was fully prepared to continue our collaboration with PWNA in the same capacity, PWNA has chosen a new direction, and we understand and respect their decision to move forward independently. We want to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank PWNA for the years of collaboration and wish them all the best in their future endeavors.
As we move forward, CETA remains unwavering in its commitment to our members and the
industry. We will continue to provide valuable resources, networking opportunities, and a platform for success, as we always have. Our focus is to ensure that every member has the tools, support, and community necessary to thrive.
Looking ahead, we are excited to announce several new initiatives and events that will propel CETA into its next chapter. Our mission to foster growth and collaboration remains steadfast, and we invite all of you to actively participate in the continued evolution of our association. Together, we will build an even stronger foundation for future success.
Lastly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for the leadership shown by those at the helm of CETA, especially during these times of change. Their dedication and ability to guide the membership through such challenges are nothing short of remarkable. The membership is truly fortunate to have such leadership as we move forward into the future.
Thank you for your ongoing support, and we look forward to what lies ahead.
Warm regards,
Karl Loeffelholz
CETA President
LAW360®
Portfolio Media. Inc. I 230 Park Avenue, 7th Floor I New York, NY 10169 I www.law360.com
Phone: +1 646 783 7100 I Fax: +1 646 783 7161 I customerservice@law360.com[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
ITC Says Chinese Pressure Washers Harmed US Cos.
By Alyssa Aquino
Law360 (January 25, 2024, 12:50 PM EST) — The U.S. International Trade Commission unanimously found that domestic manufacturers are being injured by subsidized Chinese gas-powered pressure washers that are being sold in the U.S. at unfairly low prices.
The commission’s vote clears the way for the U.S. Department of Commerce to enact high tariffs – some of which totaling more than quadruple the products’ value – on pressure washers from China.
“Commerce will issue antidumping duty and countervailing orders on imports of this product,” the commission said in a Wednesday statement announcing the affirmative vote.
The commission and Commerce’s International Trade Administration have both been investigating gas-powered pressure washers at the request of the Wisconsin-based FNA Group Inc.
FNA Group, which describes itself as the largest gas-powered pressure washer manufacturer in the U.S., claimed to be facing a “low-priced, high-volume assault” from Chinese and Vietnamese imports.
U.S. trade officials have largely corroborated FNA Group’s claims, with Commerce finding that Beijing unfairly subsidized its pressure washer industry and that imports from both countries were being sold in the U.S. at unfairly low prices.
To counteract those trade practices, Commerce finalized a 225.65% antidumping tariff on Vietnamese pressure washers, as well as antidumping duties between 189.52% and 274.37% on Chinese pressure washers. Pressure washers produced by sixteen Chinese companies were also hit with a 206.57% countervailing duty, with only one company receiving the more subdued 11.19% countervailing duty rate, according to a December fact sheet from Commerce.
The orders on the Chinese products are slated to go into effect on Feb. 8, according to the ITC’s Wednesday announcement.
Commerce and the ITC completed their investigations into the Vietnamese imports last fall. Those duties were issued on Oct. 13.
Counsel for FNA Group declined to comment on Thursday. A representative for the importers did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
FNA Group Inc. is represented by Matthew J. McConkey, Duane W. Layton and Fabian P. Rivelis of Mayer Brown LLP.
Sarah M. Wyss and Kristin H. Mowry of Mowry & Grimson PLLC represent the importers, Neil Ellis of the Law Office of Neil Ellis PLLC and Richard Mojica, Lara Hakki and Alexandra Prime of Miller & Chevalier Chartered.
The case is Gas Powered Pressure Washers from China, investigation numbers 701-TA-684 and 731- TA-1597, in the U.S. International Trade Commission.
–Editing by Nicole Bleier.
Search www.usitc.gov for…
Home / About the USITC / Offices / Office of External Relations (ER) / Press Room / GAS POWERED PRESSURE WASHERS FROM VIETNAM INJURE U.S. INDUSTRY, SAYS USITC
GAS POWERED PRESSURE WASHERS FROM VIETNAM INJURE U.S. INDUSTRY, SAYS USITC
CONTACT US
HELPFUL RESOURCES
September 25, 2023
News Release 23-085
Inv. No(s). 731-TA-1598
Contact: Lawrence Jones, 202-205-1819
GAS POWERED PRESSURE WASHERS FROM VIETNAM INJURE U.S. INDUSTRY, SAYS USITC
The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) today determined that a U.S. industry is materially injured by reason of certain imports of gas-powered pressure washers from Vietnam that the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) has determined are sold in the United States at less than fair value.
Chairman David S. Johanson and Commissioners Rhonda K. Schmidtlein, Jason E. Kearns, and Amy A. Karpel voted in the affirmative. Commissioner Randolph J. Stayin did not participate.
As a result of the Commission’s affirmative determination, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order on imports of this product from Vietnam.
The Commission also made a negative critical circumstance finding with respect to imports of this product from Vietnam. As a result, these imports will not be subject to retroactive antidumping duties.
The Commission’s public report, Gas Powered Pressure Washers from Vietnam (Inv. No. 731-TA-1598 (Final), USITC Publication 5465, October 2023) will contain the views of the Commission and information developed during the investigation.
The report will be available by November 6, 2023; when available, it may be accessed on the USITC website.
at: https://www.usitc.gov/commission_publications _library.
Gas Powered Pressure Washers from Vietnam
Investigation No: 731-TA-1598 (Final)
Product Description: The products covered by this investigation are cold water gas powered pressure washers (“GPPW”). These machines have three main components: an internal combustion engine, a power take-off shaft, and a positive displacement pump. Together, these components are known as the “power unit.” GPPW include both finished and unfinished gas-powered pressure washers, which include, at a minimum, the power unit, or components of the components of the power unit, packaged or imported together.” Additional components, including, but not limited to, spray guns, nozzles, and hoses, may accompany the power unit.
Status of Proceedings:
- Type of investigation: Final antidumping duty
- Petitioner: FNA Group, Inc.
- USITC Institution Date: Friday, December 30, 2023
- USITC Hearing Date: Thursday, August 24, 2023
- USITC Vote Date: Monday, September 25, 2023
- USITC Notification to Commerce Date: Friday, October 13, 2023
U.S. Industry in 2022:
- Number of U.S. producers: 4.
- Location of producers’ plants: Arkansas, Minnesota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin.
- Production and related workers: [1]
- S. producers’ U.S. shipments: [1]
- Apparent U.S. consumption: [1]
- Ratio of subject imports to apparent U.S. consumption: [1]
U.S. Imports in 2022:
[1] Withheld to avoid disclosure of business proprietary information.
https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2023/er0925_64352.htm