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
2026-05-22T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsHazmat PlacardingHazmat SafetyExpert InsightsFocus AreaHazmat markings, Placards, and LabelsEnglishTransportationUSA
Expert Insights: Common hazmat placarding mistakes
Placards are one of the most visible parts of hazmat compliance. Anyone on the road can see them, including drivers, enforcement officials, and emergency responders. Because of that visibility, most people I talk to assume that placarding is simple. In reality, it’s one of the areas where small oversights show up fast and can create major compliance issues.
In my experience, most violations don’t come from a lack of effort. They usually come from assumptions, habits, or misunderstandings about how the rules apply in real-world operations. When I take a closer look at placarding issues, the same patterns tend to show up. Once you start recognizing those patterns, it becomes a lot easier to catch issues early and avoid problems during inspections or incidents.
Using the wrong placard or using it at the wrong time
One of the most common mistakes I see is using a placard that doesn’t match the material being transported. This usually happens when someone relies on memory instead of verifying the hazard class, or when subsidiary risks get overlooked. Even experienced employees fall into this habit when things start moving too fast.
I also see situations where the placard is technically correct but used at the wrong time. A placard might be left on from a previous load or put on in anticipation of a future shipment. Placards aren’t general warnings. They need to reflect exactly what’s in the vehicle at that moment.
Failing to remove placards
Another issue I run into a lot is failing to remove placards when the hazard is no longer present. This tends to happen when equipment is reused frequently or when operations are trying to keep things moving. It may seem like a small detail, but it creates real risk.
If a placard is displayed, responders are going to assume the hazard is there. That can impact how they respond in an emergency and lead to unnecessary precautions. From a compliance perspective, displaying a placard that doesn’t match the contents of the vehicle is a violation and usually draws unwanted attention during inspections.
Misunderstanding when placards are required
Placarding decisions aren’t always straightforward, especially when packaging types and quantities vary. I usually see teams assume that placards are always required any time hazmat is present. That approach can lead to over-placarding and send the wrong message.
On the other side, I also see required placards get missed because quantities aren’t evaluated correctly. Smaller packages can still trigger placarding when they’re combined. Taking a few extra minutes to verify packaging type and total quantity can make all the difference.
Placement and visibility issues
Even when the right placards are selected, they’re not always displayed properly. Placards need to be clearly visible and in good condition, but this is something I see get overlooked in day-to-day operations. Dirt, damage, and equipment can all block or reduce visibility.
If a placard can’t be easily seen, it’s not doing its job. I always recommend building placement and condition checks into routine inspections, not just focusing on whether the correct placard was chosen. This becomes even more important in environments where equipment sees heavy use.
What this means in the real world
When I look at placarding overall, I don’t see it as just a basic requirement. It’s a real-time communication tool that people rely on to make decisions. Every incorrect, missing, or unnecessary placard sends the wrong message and increases risk.
The good news is that most of these mistakes are preventable. Clear procedures, consistent training, and routine checks go a long way. When teams start treating placarding as an active part of hazard communication instead of just another requirement, I see better decisions and fewer mistakes.
Keep reading...Show less
RECENT INDUSTRY HIGHLIGHTS
2026-05-22T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsToxic Substances Control Act - EPAToxic Subtances Control Act - EPATSCA ComplianceEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)EnvironmentalEnglishFocus AreaUSA
Final rule extends TSCA Section 8(d) health and safety reporting deadline
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule on May 22, 2026, extending the reporting deadline for the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(d) Health and Safety Data Reporting Rule from May 22, 2026, to May 21, 2027.
Who’s impacted?
The TSCA Section 8(d) Health and Safety Data Reporting Rule applies to manufacturers (including importers) of any of the 16 chemical substances listed at 40 CFR 716.120(d), including:
- Entities that currently manufacture (including import) any of the chemicals; and
- Entities that have manufactured (including imported) or have proposed to manufacture (including import) any of the chemicals since January 13, 2015.
What’s required?
The rule requires covered manufacturers (including importers) to submit a one-time report of data on the chemicals from unpublished studies on:
- Health and safety;
- Environmental effects; and
- Occupational, general population, and consumer exposure.
Which chemicals are covered?
The TSCA Section 8(d) Health and Safety Data Reporting Rule applies to:
|
|
Why the delay?
EPA has extended the deadline to allow additional time to reconsider the rule’s scope and possibly propose revisions to the regulations. Once any major changes are finalized, EPA will communicate the updated reporting requirements and timelines accordingly.
Key to remember: EPA has extended the submission date for the TSCA Section 8(d) Health and Safety Data Reporting Rule’s one-time report to May 2027.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-05-22T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsSafety & HealthGeneral Industry SafetyIndoor Air QualityIndustrial HygieneCAA ComplianceEnvironmentalIn-Depth ArticleEnglishFocus AreaUSA
Where workplace exposure meets air permitting: Bridging OSHA industrial hygiene and EPA air programs
Air quality inside a facility and emissions leaving a stack are closely linked. The same chemicals that drive occupational exposure limits under OSHA often form the basis of regulated air pollutants under EPA programs. When industrial hygiene (IH) and environmental compliance teams work together, they can spot risks sooner, strengthen controls, and avoid surprises in permits or inspections. The overlap is practical. Worker exposure data can inform stack testing, and permit conditions can signal where IH monitoring should focus.
Shared chemistry, different lenses
Both programs start with the same substances such as solvents, metals, acids, and combustion byproducts. IH focuses on what workers breathe in the workplace. It uses exposure limits such as OSHA permissible exposure limits or more protective guidelines from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). Environmental air programs focus on what leaves the property. They regulate criteria pollutants, hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), and toxics using emission limits, control requirements, and reporting rules.
The data tools look similar. IH uses personal and area sampling, direct-reading instruments, and task-based assessments. Environmental programs use emission factors, mass balance, continuous monitoring, and periodic stack testing. Both require documentation, quality control, and records.
Key differences that matter
The point of exposure is the biggest difference. IH evaluates the breathing zone of a worker during a task or shift. Environmental programs measure emissions at a release point, such as a stack, or estimate them across the site.
The time frame also differs. IH often looks at short-term peaks and full-shift averages to protect health during work. Air permits may set hourly, daily, or annual limits, and they may cap total emissions per year. Control strategies follow these goals. IH may rely on local exhaust ventilation, enclosure, or work practice changes. Air permits may require add-on controls such as thermal oxidizers, scrubbers, or filters.
Practical crossover: Using IH to inform permitting
IH data can reveal which tasks generate the highest concentrations and which compounds dominate exposure. That insight can refine emission estimates. For example, if wipe cleaning with a solvent produces the highest worker exposure, the same solvent may drive facility-wide volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. The environmental team can use that knowledge to prioritize accurate emission factors, refine mass balance, or plan stack testing during peak operations.
IH data also helps define realistic operating scenarios for compliance testing. Stack tests that occur only at typical loads may miss worst case conditions. Pairing test timing with identified peak tasks can provide a more representative test and reduce the risk of later noncompliance.
Practical crossover: Using permits to inform IH
Air permits define regulated compounds, control devices, and operating limits. These details can guide IH planning. If a permit lists specific HAPs or requires a control device for a process, there is a clear signal that exposure to those compounds is possible near the source. IH can target those areas for baseline sampling, validate control performance, and confirm that capture systems are effective where workers are present.
Permit conditions also flag upset and startup modes. These periods can increase emissions. IH can align monitoring during these windows to assess short term exposures and ensure that work practices and protective measures are adequate.
Aligning controls for dual benefit
Engineering controls can serve both goals when designed as a system. Capture at the source reduces worker exposure and lowers emissions to the stack. Good enclosure and balanced ventilation improve control efficiency and reduce fugitive releases. Preventive maintenance on control devices supports permit limits and keeps workplace air clean.
Administrative controls can align as well. Standard operating procedures can link production rates, control device settings, and ventilation checks. Change management should include both IH review and an air permitting check to see if a modification triggers a permit update.
Communication and workflows
Successful crossover depends on routine communication. Regular meetings between safety and environmental staff help share results, plan sampling, and coordinate testing windows. Shared inventories of chemicals and processes reduce duplication and errors. A common data platform, or at least a consistent file structure, makes it easier to compare IH results with emission estimates and permit limits.
Clear triggers help teams act. Examples include a new chemical introduction, a process change, a spike in IH results, or a deviation in control device performance. Each trigger should prompt both an IH review and an environmental compliance check.
Key to remember: When teams connect their data and plans, they gain a clearer picture of risk. The result is stronger compliance, better worker protection, and more efficient operations.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-05-21T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsClassification - HazmatHazmat SafetyHazmatIn-Depth ArticleFocus AreaEnglishTransportationUSA
Inbound hazmat risks you can’t ignore
Most hazmat programs are built around outbound shipments, which makes complete sense. You control what you ship, how it’s packaged, and how it’s described. However, one thing that normally gets overlooked is where undeclared hazmat shows up the most, and that’s with inbound shipments. Even if you didn’t create the problem, your team is the one handling it when it arrives.
The main reason this happens comes down to control. When you ship something out, you know exactly what’s in the package. On inbound shipments, you’re relying on suppliers to classify, package, and communicate hazards correctly. Not all of them have the same level of awareness or compliance discipline.
Some don’t realize their product is regulated, like when you have common items such as aerosols, lithium batteries, or flammable liquids. Others simplify descriptions and treat materials as general goods, or they may skip requirements altogether to save time or cost. By the time the shipment reaches your dock, there’s usually no clear indication that anything is hazardous.
Why it matters to your operation
That creates real risk for your operation. Your employees are the ones unloading trailers, opening packages, and placing materials into storage. If a hazardous product is undeclared, it can easily end up stored with incompatible materials or handled without the right precautions.
If something goes wrong, your team doesn’t have the information they need to respond quickly or safely. Even if responsibility sits with the shipper on paper, the exposure sits with you.
Spotting red flags
The good news is that most undeclared hazmat can be caught with some basic awareness. Receiving teams don’t need to be hazmat experts, but they should be comfortable recognizing when something doesn’t look right.
That might be a package with no labels that feels heavier than expected, has a strong odor, or looks unusual for what it’s supposed to contain. Damaged or leaking containers are another clear warning sign. Vague descriptions like “parts” or “supplies” can also raise concern, especially when paired with products that commonly fall under hazmat regulations, like batteries, liquids, or aerosols. If the paperwork doesn’t match what’s actually in the shipment, that’s another sign something may have been missed.
Practical ways to reduce risk
Reducing this risk doesn’t require a complicated process. It starts with setting clear expectations, so suppliers understand that regulated materials must be fully compliant before they ship.
From there, it helps to build simple screening into your receiving process. If something doesn’t match expectations, pause and take a closer look. Training should stay focused on awareness, so employees know what to watch for and what to do when something seems off. Just as important, your team should feel comfortable speaking up and escalating concerns without hesitation.
Key to remember: Inbound freight is where undeclared hazmat shows up the most, and it’s where your team has the least control. A little added awareness and a few practical checks can go a long way toward closing that gap and making sure your employees aren’t caught off guard by something they were never told was hazardous.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-05-21T05:00:00Z
NewsCranes, Lifts, and ScaffoldingElectrical SafetyFall ProtectionFall ProtectionFalling Object ProtectionIn-Depth ArticleEnglishMachine GuardingWork ZonesMobile CranesIndustry NewsSafety & HealthConstruction SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyElectrical SafetyWork ZonesFocus AreaGeneral Duty ClauseMachine GuardingUSA
OSHA advisory panel clears way for tree care rulemaking
OSHA received the backing of an advisory committee as it advances a comprehensive Tree Care Operations proposal. During this week’s Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) meeting, the group unanimously voted 8-0 in favor of moving ahead.
ACCSH recommended that “OSHA proceed with the new Tree Care Operations standard under general industry and make necessary changes with applicable parts of [the construction standards at] 29 CFR 1926.” The nod clears a path for OSHA to publish its long-awaited proposal.
The action came after OSHA presented a slideshow entitled, “OSHA’s Tree Care Operations Proposed Regulation.” Together, the presentation and vote signal that the agency is closing in on publication.
Background
A Tree Care Operations proposal has been two decades in the making. On May 10, 2006, the Tree Care Industry Association (TCIA) petitioned OSHA to promulgate a standard specific to the industry. TCIA called tree care work one of the most hazardous occupations. The organization also contended that existing OSHA regulations did not adequately manage the hazards.
TCIA urged OSHA to consider using the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z133.1, American National Standard for Arboricultural Operations—Safety Requirements. ANSI Z133.1 has since evolved into today’s ANSI Z133.
The historical record shows that OSHA:
- Issued a preproposal in 2008,
- Held a stakeholder meeting in 2016, and
- Convened a small business panel in 2020.
Despite slating the proposed rule for April 2026 in the last agenda, OSHA has yet to publish it.
A construction connection
The 2008 preproposal notice pegged the Tree Care Operations rulemaking squarely under the general industry regulations at 29 CFR 1910. However, OSHA’s slideshow reveals that the agency is exploring whether its construction safety standards should come into play. Examples include crane operator certification and limited site clearance. Multi-employer worksites are also at issue.
The 2020 small business panel pressed OSHA to evaluate how and whether 29 CFR 1926 Subpart CC should apply to tree care operations. One approach may be to allow the Tree Care standard to reference Part 1926 where appropriate.
What’s driving the rulemaking?
Injury rates in landscaping services exceed most industries. The Bureau of Labor Statistics finds 124 injury and illness cases with days away from work per 10,000 workers from 2023 to 2024. (Compare this rate to just 94.5 per 10,000 for construction and 86.4 per 10,000 for manufacturing.) What’s more, the landscaping services industry records about 240 fatalities on average each year. That represents 4.6 percent of all work-related deaths in the U.S.
According to OSHA, tree trimming and tree removal can expose workers to serious hazards:
- Falling from trees,
- Being struck by falling trees/branches and flying objects,
- Vehicular traffic incidents,
- Cuts from high-speed saws,
- Being pulled into chippers, and
- Contact with energized power lines.
A pieced-together regulatory framework currently speaks to these hazards. This patchwork of standards covers ladders, lifts, cranes, slings, machine guarding, lockout/tagout, and hand and power tools. Other provisions govern noise, personal protective equipment, first aid, telecommunications, electrical safety, and hazardous chemicals. Likewise, the agency cites the General Duty Clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
OSHA believes a comprehensive standard would:
- Help reduce injuries and fatalities,
- Provide clear and consistent guidance to employers,
- Be specific to hazards faced in these operations, and
- Address hazards not currently covered by OSHA standards.
An OSHA official adds that many day laborers, immigrants, and workers who don’t speak English are employed in the sector. OSHA calls these workers “disenfranchised,” making the rule a priority.
Anticipated proposed changes
OSHA is pursuing a regulatory (not deregulatory) proposed rule that would apply to “arboricultural operations and tree and ornamental palm maintenance and removal.” This includes protections for workers that:
- Prune, repair, maintain, or remove trees (not shrubs, hedges, bushes, or lawns);
- Provide any onsite support; or
- Use certain hazardous equipment related to tree care.
Provisions of the proposal would focus on:
- Pre-job preparation to identify hazards,
- Effective hazard controls, and
- Worker training.
The new standard may also set requirements for:
- Worker preparation, such as job hazard analyses, briefings, and communication;
- Worksite controls like traffic control;
- Fall protection; and
- Tools and equipment.
The scope of coverage will consider:
- General industry tree care activities (29 CFR 1910), and
- Construction activities like crane operation and site clearance (29 CFR 1926).
OSHA reports that the standard would be largely consistent with ANSI Z133 and OSHA state-plan state regulations on tree care. At the same time, the agency acknowledges the rulemaking remains a challenge to develop. Foundational questions like how to define tree versus multi-stemmed shrub are “deceptively complex.”
Key takeaway
After two decades, OSHA appears poised to issue a proposed rule for tree care operations. The agency presented a rulemaking summary and received unanimous support from ACCSH. The rule may impact Parts 1910 and 1926.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-05-21T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsWage and HourWage and HourAssociate Benefits & CompensationHR GeneralistFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)OvertimeAssociate RelationsEnglishHR ManagementFocus AreaHuman ResourcesUSA
Federal overtime threshold rule gone, for now
On May 15, members of Congress introduced a bill that would gradually increase the overtime salary threshold for determining whether employees may be classified as exempt under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
This news came on the heels of the U.S. Department of Labor's official rescission of the 2024 rule that increased the threshold. That rule was challenged in federal court, and employers didn’t have to comply with it since it was vacated in November 2024.
Employers may now comfortably continue to follow the 2019 rule, where the minimum salary threshold is $684 per week ($35,568 per year) for executive, administrative, and professional employees, and $107,432 for highly compensated employees.
Potential future increases
The bill, The Restoring Overtime Pay Act of 2026 (HR 8868), would increase the federal minimum salary level as follows:
- 2026 — $45,000
- 2027 — $55,000
- 2028 — $65,000
- 2029 — $75,000
- 2030 — 55th percentile of full-time salaried workers nationally*, updated annually
*The current 55th percentile of full-time salaried workers nationally is $89,440 and could increase to $98,000 by 2030.
The measure would allow the Secretary of Labor to establish a higher salary threshold through notice and comment rulemaking, as long as it can be updated annually.
The bill would also require the following:
- The Secretary of Labor would need to provide annual, automatic updates to the overtime threshold of at least the 55th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time salaried workers.
- If the Secretary doesn’t establish an increased salary threshold, the 55th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time salaried workers nationally would take effect, based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) from the second quarter of the preceding calendar year.
- The Secretary would need to publish a notice announcing the revised salary threshold no later than 60 days before the revised threshold takes effect.
- The BLS would need to publicly publish data on its website for each week of each quarter and data on weekly earnings by census region.
The bill is in the first stage of the legislative process. It was referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. While it has a small chance of being enacted at this time, it does show that some members of Congress are interested in this topic.
Key to remember: Congress members introduced a bill increasing the federal salary threshold level. But for now, employers can use the 2019 federal salary threshold to determine whether they may classify an employee as exempt.
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.