Compliance Just Got Easier: Stay ahead of regulatory changes with instant notifications on updates that matter.
Copyright 2026 J. J. Keller & Associate, Inc. For re-use options please contact copyright@jjkeller.com or call 800-558-5011.
Regulatory Compliance News & Updates
Keep up to date on the latest
developments affecting OSHA, DOT,
EPA, and DOL regulatory compliance.
Safety & Compliance News
FEATURED NEWS
2026-08-19T05:00:00Z
NewsHazardous WasteIndustry NewsSafety & HealthGeneral Industry SafetyWasteIn-Depth ArticleEnglishFocus AreaUSA
The drum no one dated
Somewhere in your facility, there is probably a drum of hazardous waste with a date written on its label. That date is doing more legal work than you realize. Under RCRA, that date is more like a countdown. When it runs out, your storage area doesn't just become "out of compliance," it transforms into something else entirely: an unpermitted hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility. This designation carries its own permitting requirements, inspection standards, and penalty exposure.
The clock
Under federal regulation, the 90-day accumulation clock for a large quantity generator starts the moment the first drop of hazardous waste enters a container in a Central Accumulation Area, not when the container is full, not when it's staged for pickup, and not when someone gets around to labeling it. Large quantity generators have 90 days to ship waste off-site; small quantity generators get 180 days, or 270 days if the disposal facility is more than 200 miles away. If that dated is missed, your storage area becomes an unpermitted treatment, storage, and disposal facility, with penalties reaching into the tens of thousands of dollars per day.
In one recent case, EPA inspectors reviewing a facility’s weekly inspection logs found containers that had exceeded the accumulation exemption period without the required extension. The violation was sitting in the facility's own paperwork. In another, a single container was found marked with an accumulation date indicating it had been stored 232 days, well past the time limit with no permit, interim status, or approved extension in place. Both cases were resolved through EPA expedited settlement agreements, but both started the same way: a documented date, overdue, then discovered during a routine inspection rather than caught internally.
Why "episodic" automatically mean excused
Sometimes employers can assume that an unusual event such as a tank clean out or spill response buys them some flexibility on the time limits. It can, but only if you follow a specific and narrow procedure. Under the Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule, a facility can ship waste from an episodic event off-site without triggering a change to its normal generator category, but only if the generator notifies EPA or the state at least 30 days before a planned event, or within 72 hours after an unplanned one, and concludes the episodic event within 60 days, including transporting the waste off-site.
A small quantity generator is limited to one episodic event per calendar year, though a second event may be approved if a petition is granted. If the hazardous waste from the event isn't off-site within that 60-day window, it gets counted toward the generator's regular monthly generation levels, which can bump a facility into a more heavily regulated generator category it never intended to occupy. In other words, episodic status is a documented exception you apply for, not a category you default into because the circumstances felt unusual. Treating it as the latter is exactly how a facility ends up discovering, mid-inspection, that its "one-time" waste has been sitting well past both the episodic window and the standard accumulation limit.
The cost of losing track
Civil penalties under RCRA Subtitle C now reach $93,058 per day, per violation, and separate analysis puts the current statutory ceiling for the most common RCRA civil penalties at $124,426 per day per violation. A drum without a date, a missed weekly inspection entry, an expired training record, or an untracked manifest can each become a standalone liability and exceeding accumulation time limits remains the single most costly and most preventable category EPA inspector’s encounter.
What this means for your program
The accumulation clock is unforgiving specifically because it's invisible until someone checks. EPA requires weekly inspections of Central Accumulation Areas, and a walk-through without a corresponding documented log is difficult to defend later, even if the walk-through actually happened. The practical fix is really easy. Just make sure to: • Date every container the moment waste first enters it.
- Track that date against your generator category's specific limit
- Document weekly inspections in writing
- Treat any episodic event as a formal notification process, not an informal grace period.
The waste itself rarely causes the violation. The forgotten date on the drum does.
Keys to remember: Most RCRA violations aren't caused by the waste itself, but by failing to date, track, inspect, and ship waste before accumulation time limits expire.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-08-19T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsFleet SafetyDrug and Alcohol Testing - DOTDrug and alcohol training - Motor CarrierIn-Depth ArticlePre-employment drug testing - Motor CarrierFocus AreaEnglishTransportationUSA
Don’t assume driver applicants know drug testing procedures
Most employers don’t give pre-employment testing problems a second thought until something happens.
Just like any other DOT test type, pre-employment drug tests can involve issues, such as a shy bladder or an invalid or negative dilute result. Unlike existing employees, applicants may be unaware of requirements, but they can’t plead ignorance if their actions violate testing rules.
This raises important questions: How will an applicant know what is expected of them short of providing some sort of information prior to testing? What are the employer’s obligations?
382.601: No clear-cut answer
Section 382.601 requires employers to distribute a copy of their policy and educational materials to each driver prior to the start of alcohol and controlled substances testing under Part 382.
A literal reading of this rule “might” suggest that sending a driver applicant for a DOT pre-employment drug test under the employer’s Part 382 program qualifies as the start of testing, and that the applicant should be provided with the information prior to testing.
However, others may argue that a driver applicant is not yet a “driver” (one who operates a CDL CMV for the carrier) since the applicant has not been hired, so the distribution of materials is not necessary.
Yet others might point out that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) won’t ask to see a signed policy receipt from someone who wasn’t hired and on the driver roster.
Regardless of how employers interpret 382.601, many opt to provide some basic information prior to collections to help applicants navigate testing procedures and unexpected situations.
Points to provide applicants
With no black-and-white answers on policy distribution, much is left to the discretion of the potential employer.
Providing the whole document offers applicants the big picture and may mitigate claims that the employer failed to instruct the applicant on what is expected during a DOT test. For those who feel their policy is too much information, a condensed document highlighting common points of confusion might be more useful. Items to stress include:
- Retesting cautions: Applicants can’t ignore a request for a recollection. In each of the following scenarios, testing is still in process, and applicants must comply with the request:
- A collector asks for a second specimen under direct observation when the temperature of the initial specimen is out of range.
- A collector asks for a second specimen under direct observation when there are signs of tampering with the initial specimen.
- A potential employer as directed by the medical review officer (MRO) requests a recollection under direct observation due to an invalid or negative dilute test result.
- A potential employer requests a recollection (not under direct observation) under its independent authority (policy) due to a negative dilute result that didn’t qualify for retesting under DOT’s authority.
- Refusals to tests: The policy provisions in 382.601(b)(8) on what constitutes a refusal to test should be shared with applicants. Applicants can’t argue that they didn’t know better.
- Shy bladder procedures: Applicants need to know that they can’t leave the testing site during the 3-hour window following a shy bladder episode, unless they provide an adequate specimen. To do otherwise is a refusal to test.
A recruiting tool
Putting together educational material for pre-employment testing might feel like an administrative burden. However, by providing at least some basic information to the applicant, motor carriers might avoid misunderstandings and keep the hiring process moving forward.
They can prevent the loss of a qualified applicant due to confusion over DOT testing rules by assembling handouts or providing excerpts from their longer DOT testing policy.
Key to remember: Applicants who are sent for pre-employment tests run into many of the same testing dilemmas as those who are on the payroll. However, without instructions prior to testing, some may not know how to respond, which could inadvertently result in a refusal to test and loss of a job candidate.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-08-19T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsSafety & HealthMiningSpecialized IndustriesEnglishMine SafetyFocus AreaUSA
MSHA seeks additional feedback on mine roof control, ventilation proposals
The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) has reopened the comment period for proposed changes to the approval criteria for its mine roof control and ventilation plans. The proposed rules were originally published in the Federal Register on July 1, 2025.
Under the proposed rules, MSHA district managers would no longer have the authority to modify or require additions to these plans. The proposals state that current standards “may violate statutory authority; the Appointments Clause [of the U.S. Constitution], by vesting significant regulatory authority in district managers; and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), by skipping notice and comment.”
The public can comment on the proposed rules until September 30 by searching Docket No. MSHA-2025-0072 (roof control) and Docket No. MSHA-2025-0084 (ventilation) at www.regulations.gov.
MSHA will hold virtual hearings on the proposals: roof control on September 15 and ventilation on September 16.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-08-18T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsDiscriminationDiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationHR GeneralistIn-Depth ArticleUSAHR ManagementEnglishFocus AreaHuman Resources
Why employers shouldn’t use ADA forms for PWFA situations
The federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) is an anti-discrimination law that requires employers to give employees reasonable accommodations. Unlike the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), where employees must have a disability, under the PWFA employees only have to have a limitation related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. This is a much lower threshold and can include minor limitations and time off for things like prenatal care. Under both the PWFA and the ADA, employers must provide an accommodation, unless doing so causes the employer undue hardship (i.e., disrupts the business, is too costly, etc.).
Limits on medical documentation
When employees ask for workplace changes because of a PWFA limitation, the law limits when employers may ask for medical documentation and require medical exams. It also limits how much medical information employers may ask for.
Under the ADA, employers may ask for medical information if the condition or need for accommodation isn’t obvious and the employer doesn’t already have enough information.
Employers might have forms to help get key information. ADA forms, however, usually ask for extensive medical information, and using them for PWFA cases could risk violating the law.
Under the PWFA, for example, employers may not require documentation if pregnant employees ask for the option to:
- Carry or keep water near their workstation and drink it as needed,
- Take additional restroom breaks,
- Sit if the work requires standing and stand if the work requires sitting, and
- Take breaks to eat and drink.
Timing could vary
Employees might also need an accommodation before they even have a medical appointment, so a documentation request must be reasonable under the circumstances. When it comes to the PWFA, employers may ask for information limited to:
- Confirming the condition;
- Confirming that the condition is related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and
- Describing the adjustment or change at work that is needed due to the limitation.
Using ADA forms could, therefore, inadvertently raise the bar for employees and their accommodations. This could make them less likely to ask for an accommodation and risk failure to accommodate claims under the PWFA.
Avoiding litigation
Employers that use ADA forms for PWFA requests might, therefore, fail to meet other PWFA requirements, such as:
- Prompt response times,
- Broader accommodation types, and
- Reduced documentation demands.
This can risk employee claims of discrimination and costly litigation.
Key to remember: Because the PWFA’s documentation rules are more restrictive, employers should develop separate PWFA-specific accommodation forms rather than relying on ADA forms.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-08-18T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsGender DiscriminationIndustry NewsDiscriminationDiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationAssociate Benefits & CompensationAssociate RelationsHR GeneralistHR ManagementEnglishFocus AreaHuman ResourcesUSA
EEOC sues employer for violating Pregnant Workers Fairness Act
Pregnant and nursing employees faced discrimination by their employer — an automotive lighting manufacturer — when it failed to accommodate them under the federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).
Charges stem from the employer’s alleged misconduct dating back to July 2023, according to a press release on August 5 from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that enforces the PWFA.
Accommodation missteps
The EEOC charged the company for refusing to accommodate pregnancy-related lifting restrictions of employees throughout its Illinois facilities. One employee was allegedly sent home and fired after company officials told her that her doctor’s note was “not good enough” and that “we don’t want to be responsible if you miscarry.”
The complaint alleges that another pregnant employee was placed on unpaid leave rather than being accommodated. She was then fired when her leave expired.
The lawsuit also claims the company failed to accommodate nursing mothers who needed breaks and a private space to pump breast milk. Instead, allegedly the company required women to:
- Pump in their cars or in rooms without locks,
- Denied them adequate time to pump, and
- Refused one employee’s request to continue taking a single pumping break during her lunch beyond 1 year after childbirth.
The company accommodated employees with lifting restrictions arising from on-the-job injuries by assigning them to light duty but refused to do the same for its pregnant employees, the suit alleges.
Some of the women were forced to quit as a result of the lack of accommodations.
“The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, including lifting restrictions and the need to pump breast milk at work,” said Catherine Eschbach, acting EEOC general counsel. “Employers cannot force pregnant workers onto leave, or push nursing mothers out of their jobs, when a reasonable accommodation would allow them to keep working.”
The EEOC seeks monetary damages, including back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief against the employer to prevent similar unlawful conduct in the future.
Will changes be coming to the PWFA?
There are potential changes coming to the PWFA that may (or may not) impact cases like this in the future.
When the EEOC published its 2026 regulatory agenda on July 6, the agency indicated that it plans to publish a proposed rule in November that would revise the PWFA regulations. The EEOC seeks to change the interpretation of the words “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”
After the public has a chance to review the proposed rule and add comments, the EEOC will review the comments and the rule will proceed to the next steps in the regulatory process.
A final rule addresses the public comments submitted in response to a proposed rule to help determine the final regulatory language. When an agency publishes a final rule, generally the rule is effective no less than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register.
Key to remember: Covered employers must provide reasonable accommodations for pregnancy-related restrictions, unless it would cause an undue hardship for the business.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-08-18T05:00:00Z
NewsWage and HourChange NoticesChange NoticeWage and HourColoradoAssociate RelationsAssociate Benefits & CompensationHR GeneralistMinimum WageHR ManagementEnglishFocus AreaHuman Resources
Colorado minimum wage to increase
Effective date: January 1, 2027
This applies to: Employers with employees in Colorado
Description of change: Effective January 1, 2027, Colorado’s minimum wage will increase from $15.16 to $15.71 per hour and from $12.14 to $12.69 per hour for tipped employees.
View related state info: Minimum wage - Colorado
Keep reading...Show less
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.