Regulatory Compliance News & Updates
Keep up to date on the latest
developments affecting OSHA, DOT,
EPA, and DOL regulatory compliance.
Copyright 2026 J. J. Keller & Associate, Inc. For re-use options please contact copyright@jjkeller.com or call 800-558-5011.
Safety & Compliance News
FEATURED NEWS
2026-04-13T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsHazmat SafetyHazmat TrainingHazmat trainingIn-Depth ArticleFocus AreaEnglishTransportationUSA
Training is happening, so why are mistakes still occurring?
Late last year, we conducted a hazmat survey to better understand the state of safety when transporting hazmat. What we found was encouraging on the surface, but more revealing once we looked closer at how training actually shows up in daily operations. While most organizations are clearly investing time and resources into training, mistakes are still happening.
Most companies are training regularly, and nearly everyone surveyed uses a mix of classroom, online, and hands-on formats. Despite that, compliance issues still show up in everyday work, including paperwork errors, labeling mistakes, rejected shipments, and near misses that shouldn’t happen. These issues don’t suggest training is missing, but they do suggest something is being lost between the training room and the work environment.
Only about one-third of respondents say hazmat safety is truly “second nature” for employees. Most say training is applied well overall, but with occasional lapses that still create risk. Those lapses are exactly where mistakes tend to occur, even in organizations that take safety seriously.
Where training and reality don't line up
Training usually happens in a controlled setting, with time to explain rules and walk through scenarios. The actual job environment looks very different. Employees are often working under time pressure, switching between transport modes, dealing with changing regulations, and relying on systems that don’t always align as well as they should.
That gap shows up clearly in the survey results. Respondents consistently pointed to documentation errors, marking and labeling issues, and packaging problems as the most common compliance failures. These aren’t careless mistakes; they’re usually judgment calls made in complex situations where employees believe they’re following the rules.
Human error is still the biggest risk
The survey comments made one thing clear: human error remains one of the biggest risks in hazmat operations. Respondents frequently mentioned distraction, fatigue, high turnover, and employees who don’t handle hazmat often enough to build confidence. Others pointed to drivers or third-party carriers arriving without proper paperwork, or undeclared hazmat showing up in inbound shipments.
Even organizations that consider themselves well prepared acknowledged that complacency can creep in over time. When someone has completed the same task dozens or hundreds of times, it’s easy to assume nothing will go wrong on the next one. That assumption is often where small but serious mistakes begin.
This doesn’t mean employees don’t care about safety. It means expecting perfect recall for detailed, high-risk tasks isn’t realistic without consistent reinforcement and support.
Making training stick without adding burden
The good news is that improving execution doesn’t automatically require more training hours or larger budgets. Many of the strongest survey responses pointed to simple, practical reinforcement methods that keep training top of mind, such as daily checklists, short safety conversations, and reminders about common errors.
Technology is helping bridge this gap as well. Shipping software, digital documentation, and compliance tools are increasingly used to catch errors before shipments move. When systems support decisions at the moment they’re made, they reduce reliance on memory and lower the likelihood of mistakes.
Training is the start, not the finish
The survey makes one thing clear: companies care deeply about hazmat safety. Safety emerged as the top concern across nearly every question, outweighing cost pressures, paperwork, and efficiency challenges.
But safety isn’t built on training alone. It’s built on reinforcement and practical support that aligns with the real conditions employees face every day. When that support is in place, hazmat safety becomes less about remembering what was taught and more about consistently doing the right thing.
Key to remember: Training is clearly happening, but the survey shows that mistakes persist when training isn’t reinforced in day-to-day work. Real improvement comes from bridging the gap between knowing the rules and consistently applying them under real-world conditions.
Keep reading...Show less
RECENT INDUSTRY HIGHLIGHTS
2026-04-13T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsToxic Substances Control Act - EPAToxic Subtances Control Act - EPATSCA ComplianceToxic Substances - EPAEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)EnvironmentalEnglishFocus AreaUSA
EPA delays TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting timeline again
On April 13, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule that further delays the submission period for the one-time report required of manufacturers on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) by the PFAS Reporting and Recordkeeping Rule (PFAS Reporting Rule).
This final rule pushes the starting submission period to either 60 days after the effective date of a future final rule updating the PFAS Reporting Rule or January 31, 2027, whichever is earlier.
Who’s impacted?
Established under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a)(7), the PFAS Reporting Rule (40 CFR Part 705) requires any business that manufactured (including imported) any PFAS or PFAS-containing article between 2011 and 2022 to report. Covered manufacturers and importers must submit information on:
- Chemical identity, uses, and volumes made and processed;
- Byproducts;
- Environmental and health effects;
- Worker exposure; and
- Disposal.
What’s the new timeline?
The opening submission period was moved from April 13, 2026, to either 60 days after the effective date of a future final PFAS Reporting Rule or January 31, 2027, whichever is earlier.
Most manufacturers have 6 months to submit the report. Small manufacturers reporting only as importers of PFAS-containing articles have 1 year.
| TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS Reporting Rule submission period | ||
|---|---|---|
| Start date | End date | |
| Most manufacturers | 60 days from effective date of final PFAS Reporting Rule or January 31, 2027 (whichever is earlier) | 6 months from start date or July 31, 2027 (whichever is earlier) |
| Small manufacturers reporting solely as PFAS article importers | 60 days from effective date of final PFAS Reporting Rule or January 31, 2027 (whichever is earlier) | 1 year from start date or January 31, 2028 (whichever is earlier) |
Why the delay?
In November 2025, the agency proposed updates to the PFAS Reporting Rule. EPA has delayed the reporting period to give the agency time to issue a final rule (expected later this year).
Key to remember: EPA has delayed the starting submission deadline for the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS Reporting Rule from April 2026 to no later than January 2027.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-04-13T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsCAA ComplianceEnvironmentalIn-Depth ArticleFocus AreaEnglishAir PermittingAir ProgramsUSA
How incinerators are permitted: A look at the regulatory framework and EPA’s new streamlining proposal
Incinerators in the United States operate under a complex permitting framework designed to protect air quality, public health, and the environment. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), facilities that burn waste must meet strict emission standards, maintain operating controls, and follow extensive monitoring and reporting rules. These requirements ensure that incineration, while a valuable tool for waste management, wildfire mitigation, and disaster recovery, remains safe and consistent with federal air quality objectives. Against this backdrop, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed a rule to streamline permitting for specific types of incinerators used in wildfire prevention and disaster cleanup, a move that could reduce delays for state and local governments.
The regulatory basis for incinerator permitting
Most incinerators fall under Section 129 of the Clean Air Act, which mandates EPA to establish performance standards and emission guidelines for categories of solid waste combustion units. These standards govern pollutants such as particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, lead, cadmium, mercury, hydrogen chloride, and dioxins/furans. Operators must also conduct emissions testing, maintain continuous monitoring equipment, track operational parameters, and submit regular compliance reports.
Permitting generally occurs through Title V operating permits, which consolidate all applicable air quality requirements into a single enforceable document. A Title V permit typically requires annual certifications, detailed recordkeeping, periodic emissions tests, and reporting of deviations. While the Title V program does not impose new standards, it ensures that incinerators comply with all existing federal and state air quality rules.
Different categories of incinerators such as Large Municipal Waste Combustors (LMWC), Small Municipal Waste Combustors (SMWC), Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators (CISWI), and Other Solid Waste Incinerators (OSWI) have distinct requirements. These subcategories reflect variations in unit size, waste composition, and operational design, and each has its own subpart under EPA’s air quality regulations.
Air curtain incinerators: A special case
Air Curtain Incinerators (ACIs), which burn wood waste, yard debris, and clean lumber, occupy a niche segment of the permitting landscape. They use a mechanized “curtain” of air to increase combustion efficiency and reduce particulate emissions compared to open burning. However, their regulatory treatment has historically been inconsistent.
Because ACIs fit partly within several existing subparts, operators often face confusion about which monitoring, opacity limits, and reporting duties apply. Overlap across four regulatory categories can create delays, particularly during emergencies when ACIs are deployed to remove vegetative fuels that increase wildfire risk or to process debris after storms.
EPA’s emergent focus on streamlining
In March 2026, EPA announced a proposal to consolidate the regulatory requirements for ACIs used solely to burn wood derived materials into a single subpart under Section 129. The proposal would also allow these ACIs to operate without a Title V permit unless located at a facility that otherwise requires one.
EPA stated that the change would “cut red tape” and provide clarity for state, local, and Tribal governments, allowing them to respond more effectively to natural disasters and conduct wildfire mitigation activities without unnecessary administrative delays. The agency emphasized that unprocessed debris contributes to poor air and water quality and poses safety risks, particularly in post disaster environments.
Context: Broader federal actions on disaster related incineration
The proposal follows earlier federal steps to ease temporary use of incinerators during emergencies. In 2025, EPA issued an interim final rule permitting CISWI units to burn nonhazardous disaster debris for up to eight weeks without prior EPA approval, a provision intended to accelerate cleanup after hurricanes, wildfires, and floods. These units must still operate their pollution control equipment, and extensions beyond eight weeks require EPA authorization.
Such measures reflect the increasing volume of debris associated with severe weather events and the need for rapid, environmentally sound disposal mechanisms. The current proposal for ACIs builds on these efforts by targeting the specific regulatory bottlenecks associated with vegetative and wood waste disposal.
Looking ahead
EPA’s streamlined permitting proposal does not alter emissions standards but rather clarifies and simplifies administrative pathways. If finalized, it may make ACIs more accessible during periods of heightened wildfire risk and in the critical early stages of disaster recovery.
Key to remember: At its core, the permitting system for incinerators aims to balance environmental protection with operational flexibility. The new proposal underscores EPA’s recognition that, in emergency contexts, speed matters but so does environmental stewardship.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-04-10T05:00:00Z
NewsGreenhouse GasesIndustry NewsIndustry NewsStationary Emission SourcesEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)CAA ComplianceEnvironmentalFocus AreaEnglishVolatile Organic CompoundsAir ProgramsAir ProgramsUSA
EPA amends specific oil and gas emission standards
On April 9, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule that makes technical changes to the emission standards established in March 2024 (2024 Final Rule) for crude oil and natural gas facilities. This rule (2026 Final Rule) amends the requirements for:
- Temporary flaring of associated gas, and
- Vent gas net heating value (NHV) monitoring provisions for flares and enclosed combustion devices (ECDs).
Who’s impacted?
The 2026 Final Rule affects new and existing oil and gas facilities. Specifically, it applies to the regulations for the Crude Oil and Natural Gas source category, including the:
- New Source Performance Standards at 40 CFR 60 Subpart OOOOb, and
- Emission guidelines at 60 Subpart OOOOc.
These emission standards are commonly referred to as OOOOb/c.
What are the changes?
The 2026 Final Rule implements technical changes to the temporary flaring and vent gas NHV monitoring requirements set by the 2024 Final Rule.
Temporary flaring
The rule extends the baseline time limit for temporary flaring of associated gas at well sites in certain situations (like conducting repairs or maintenance) from 24 to 72 hours. Owners and operators must stop temporary flaring as soon as the situation is resolved or the temporary flaring limit is reached (whichever happens first).
It also grants allowances beyond the 72-hour limit if exigent circumstances occur (such as severe weather that prevents safe access to a well site to address an emergency or maintenance issue) and there’s a need to extend duration for repairs, maintenance, or safety issues. Owners and operators must keep records of exigent circumstances and include the information in their annual reports.
NHV monitoring
For new and existing sources, the 2026 Final Rule exempts all flare types (unassisted and assisted) and ECDs from monitoring due to high NHV content, except when inert gases are added to the process streams or for other scenarios that decrease the NHV content of the inlet stream gas. In these cases, EPA requires NHV monitoring via continuous monitoring or the alternative performance test (sampling demonstration) option for all flares and ECDs.
Other significant changes include:
- Replacing the general exemption from NHV monitoring for associated gas for any control device used at well site affected facilities with NHV monitoring requirements,
- Granting operational pauses during weekends and holidays for the consecutive 14-day sampling demonstration requirements (limiting it to no more than 3 operating days from the previous sampling day), and
- Permitting less than 1-hour sampling times for twice daily samples where low or intermittent flow makes it infeasible (as long as owners and operators report the sampling time used and the reason for the reduced time).
The 2026 Final Rule takes effect on June 8, 2026.
Key to remember: EPA’s technical changes to the emission standards for oil and gas facilities apply to temporary flaring provisions and vent gas NHV monitoring requirements.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-04-10T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsPhysical exam - Motor CarrierFleet SafetyFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleUSAEnglishTransportationPhysical exam - Motor Carrier
CDL medical certification 6-month exemption - The essential information
Effective April 11, 2026, through October 11, 2026, the FMCSA exemption allows a paper copy of the medical examiner’s certificate (MEC) to be carried by commercial driver's license/commercial learner's permit (CDL/CLP) drivers and carriers to use the medical card in the driver qualification (DQ) file for up to 60 days after issue, but must be replaced by an updated motor vehicle record (MVR) in that timeframe. The previous waiver, effective from January 11, 2026, through April 10, 2026, allowed the paper copy to be carried by drivers for 60 days as well.
Details of the paper med card exemption
This exemption applies to both CDL and CLP holders. Non-CDL drivers aren't affected by this since they're already required to be issued and to carry a paper medical card, which must be in the non-CDL driver's DQ file after each exam.
As a reminder, the two key impacts of this exemption include:
- CDL drivers can use paper medical cards as proof of medical certification for up to 60 days after the certificate has been issued (following the DOT exam) while operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV).
- Carriers can use the medical card in the DQ file to be replaced by the CDL motor vehicle record (MVR) with the latest medical certification within 60 days.
The exemption's terms and conditions The exemption does not apply to:
- A driver who doesn’t have a copy of their current, valid MEC that was issued by a certified examiner 60 days prior; or
- A motor carrier that doesn’t have a copy of its driver’s current, valid MEC that was issued 60 days prior.
Additionally, the FMCSA reserves the right to revoke the exemption if safety conditions are negatively impacted in terms of the goals and objectives of the original order.
Other important information
The FMCSA continues to give carriers and drivers support while medical examiners and states transition to the secure electronic transmission to medical certification data update. The FMCSA decided drivers should not be punished for delays that may occur while medical examiners and State Driver’s Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) transition to the new system.
The agency strongly recommends, but does not require, that certified medical examiners (CMEs) continue to issue paper MECs (Form MCSA-5876) along with the required submission of examination results electronically, until further notice.
The FMCSA does not expect to grant additional, nationwide waivers or exemptions after the six-month duration of this exemption.
CDL drivers licensed in the following states must still submit their medical cards to their state of licensing until the state transitions to direct updates from the National Registry:
- Alaska
- California
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- New Hampshire
This exemption does not affect non-CDL drivers who continue to receive medical cards that must be carried in their commercial motor vehicle and must be in the DQ file.
Key to remember: The use of the exemption does not relieve carriers of the requirement to replace the medical card in a CDL/CLP driver’s DQ file with an updated MVR within 60 days of the day of the medical exam.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-04-10T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsSafety & HealthConstruction SafetyErgonomicsGeneral Industry SafetyFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleEnglishErgonomicsUSA
Beyond the cubicle, remote work, real ergonomic risk
While remote work offers flexibility and convenience, they also introduce ergonomic challenges. Without proper setups and regular movement, daily work habits can lead to discomfort, fatigue, and long term injuries.
The home office did not arrive with a grand opening, it just happened. Kitchen tables turned into desks, couches replaced office chairs, and workdays quietly stretched longer than expected. Paying attention to ergonomics outside the traditional office is essential for keeping today’s workforce healthy, comfortable, and productive.
Remote work isn’t risk free — and neither is employer responsibility
Working remotely doesn’t eliminate the risks of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). Without proper workstation setups, regular movement, and timely adjustments, daily remote work habits can quietly lead to pain, fatigue, and injury over time.
Although OSHA has no specific ergonomics standard, employers remain responsible under the General Duty Clause, for addressing recognized ergonomic hazards wherever work is performed. In remote and hybrid settings, OSHA may look at whether reasonable steps were taken to identify and manage ergonomic risks.
To meet these responsibilities, employers should prioritize prevention, awareness, and early intervention. Practical steps include:
- providing ergonomic guidance and expectations for home and hybrid workstations,
- training employees to recognize early signs of ergonomic strain and report concerns,
- encouraging regular movement and posture changes throughout the workday,
- conducting workstation evaluations, including virtual reviews or self assessments, and
- documenting ergonomic efforts, including training, assessments, and corrective actions.
Hidden ergonomic exposure in remote work
Remote work can make it easy to fall into ergonomic habits that seem harmless at first but gradually take a toll on the body. Since these issues build over time, they’re easy to miss. Common risk factors include:
- extended laptop use,
- screens that sit too low or too high,
- chairs without adequate support,
- repeated mouse or keyboard movements, and
- staying in the same position for long stretches.
Addressing these risks means applying the same ergonomic principles used in the office to home workspaces by checking posture, monitor height, seating support, task duration, and opportunities for movement. Workstation reviews, employee self check tools, and supervisor guidance can help identify concerns early. Consider using an ergonomic checklist as a simple way to review workstation setups and fix common issues.
Get up and move
Even with a well arranged workstation, sitting still for long periods can cause stiffness, fatigue, and discomfort. Encourage employees to stand, stretch, or change positions every 30 to 60 minutes during the workday.
Simple actions, such as stretching between meetings or switching between sitting and standing, can reduce muscle strain and improve comfort. Regular movement and quick workstation check ins, such as adjusting screen height or chair support, can help prevent small issues from turning into injuries.
Ergonomics pays off
Supporting remote ergonomics benefits both employees and organizations. Proactive ergonomics programs can help reduce injury rates, lower workers’ compensation costs, decrease lost workdays. Employees who feel physically supported are more likely to stay engaged and focused.
Promoting ergonomics shows that an organization values employee health and well being, no matter where work takes place.
Key to remember: Remote work doesn’t eliminate ergonomic risk, it shifts it. A little awareness, early action, and regular movement can go a long way in preventing injuries and supporting healthier, more sustainable work habits.
Keep reading...Show less
Search all news
Got a Compliance Question?
We’ve Got You Covered!
Get clear, reliable answers from experts with 500+ years of combined experience.
J. J. Keller is the trusted source for DOT / Transportation, OSHA / Workplace Safety, Human Resources, Construction Safety and Hazmat / Hazardous Materials regulation compliance products and services. J. J. Keller helps you increase safety awareness, reduce risk, follow best practices, improve safety training, and stay current with changing regulations.
Copyright 2026 J. J. Keller & Associate, Inc. For re-use options please contact copyright@jjkeller.com or call 800-558-5011.