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
2026-06-24T05:00:00Z
NewsEnforcement and Audits - OSHASafety and Health Programs and TrainingLockout/TagoutLockout/TagoutErgonomicsSafety and Health Programs and TrainingIn-Depth ArticleEnglishHeat StressErgonomicsOSHA Violations and PenaltiesIndustry NewsHeat and Cold ExposureSafety & HealthConstruction SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyAgriculture SafetyMaritime SafetyFocus AreaUSA
Congress pushes OSHA and workplace safety in competing directions
A divided Capitol Hill is sending mixed signals on workplace safety policy. Some lawmakers are pressing for greater worker protection while others seek to block new rulemaking. Yet there is agreement that emerging safety challenges are on the rise. How these competing priorities will influence the OSHA landscape remains to be seen.
Pushback over Heat proposal
Dominating the pack of recent legislation affecting safety and health is the Heat Workforce Standards Act (S. 4427). The bill, introduced on April 29 by Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) seeks to stop OSHA from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing a Heat Injury and Illness Prevention standard based on or similar to the August 30, 2024, proposal. This legislation underscores how OSHA rulemakings can face resistance around feasibility and cost.
The Senator calls the OSHA proposed rule burdensome, overly prescriptive, one-size-fits-all, and nearly impossible for employers to comply with. The lawmaker also argues that the rule would raise costs for small businesses. He adds that the proposal, if promulgated, would cause confusion.
It should be noted that a companion bill in the House (H.R. 6213) was introduced last November. In addition, two bills (H.R. 4443 and S. 2298) introduced last July would require OSHA to issue a standard to protect workers from heat-related injuries and illnesses.
Efforts to expand worker protection
To commemorate Workers’ Memorial Day on April 28, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced the Protecting America’s Workers Act (S. 4413). The legislation would reform the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) to:
- Impose higher monetary penalties and criminal charges;
- Protect whistleblowers who report unsafe working conditions;
- Mandate that OSHA investigate all cases of workplace deaths or serious injuries;
- Require employers to inform workers of their right to a safe workplace; and
- Extend safety and health protections to federal, state, and local public employees.
This bill is a companion to last year’s House bill (H.R. 3036) by the same name. Both bills work to expand OSHA’s authority.
Emerging safety and health challenges
The House Workforce Protections Subcommittee held a hearing on May 14 to help shape the conversation about evolving workplace safety and health issues. Subcommittee Chairman Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA) explained that the idea was to “better prevent serious injuries and fatalities in the modern workplace.” Those who testified spoke about:
- Leading indicators,
- Safety and health management systems,
- Artificial intelligence,
- Advances in lockout/tagout systems,
- Worker wellbeing,
- Work violence,
- Opioid overdoses,
- Cannabis impairment,
- Silica dust exposure,
- New chemical exposures,
- Heat illness,
- Vehicle driving risks,
- Performance-based OSHA standards rather than prescriptive ones, and
- An accelerated OSHA variance program for new technologies.
Information from the hearing may shape future legislation or OSHA regulations.
Worker safety in meat plants
Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) and four other legislators sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on April 30. The letter opposes the department’s proposed rules that would increase line speeds for poultry and swine processing plants. The lawmakers also oppose the removal of requirements for these establishments to submit annual worker safety data called attestations.
The letter urges USDA not to move forward with the proposals. It points to the USDA’s research on musculoskeletal disorders among poultry and swine slaughter workers. The letter also spotlights amputations in poultry facilities and meatpacking.
When USDA issued its research in 2025, Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su stated, “The findings in USDA's report on worker safety in poultry and swine plants show that injuries, including chronic pain and musculoskeletal disorders are too common. These kinds of injuries often go unreported. The study found that the increased risk of injuries created by increasing line speeds could be mitigated with other controls, specifically having more workers on the line and having effective ergonomic plans.”
While OSHA does not set line speeds in food plants, the issue illustrates how workplace safety is related to policy decisions in other agencies.
Consensus standards targeted
Another piece of legislation introduced March 19 seeks to provide public access to incorporated by reference consensus standards without requiring payment. Some standards are made freely available online, but not all.
The Pro Codes Act (S. 4145), if passed, would ensure that a consensus standard does not lose its copyright protection simply because it is incorporated by reference into law or regulation. However, the catch is the standard must be available for free viewing on a publicly accessible website. That website would be searchable. Plus, the standards organization could not use any personally identifiable information of site visitors without their consent.
Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) said of his bill, “This bipartisan legislation … will make the public safer by ensuring non-profits know they can develop better standards without fear of losing them.”
A companion House bill (H.R. 4072) by the same name was introduced in June last year.
Key to remember
In recent months, lawmakers have turned their attention to five areas impacting safety — blocking OSHA’s Heat proposal, strengthening the OSH Act, exploring emerging workplace safety issues, opposing faster line speeds, and increasing access to consensus standards.
Keep reading...Show less
RECENT INDUSTRY HIGHLIGHTS
2026-06-24T05:00:00Z
NewsTier II Inventory ReportingIndustry NewsIndustry NewsCERCLA, SARA, EPCRAEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)Safety Data Sheet ReportingEnvironmentalEnglishSARA ComplianceFocus AreaUSA
EPA aligns EPCRA rules with OSHA’s HazCom amendments
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule on June 22, 2026, conforming the hazardous chemical inventory reporting regulations under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA’s) Hazardous Communication (HazCom) standard amendments of 2012 and 2024.
Who’s covered?
The final rule applies to facilities regulated under EPCRA Sections 311 and 312. These facilities are:
- Required by OSHA’s HazCom standard to maintain Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) for hazardous chemicals on-site at or above the reporting threshold, and
- Required by EPA’s EPCRA Section 312 rules (40 CFR Part 370) to submit annual hazardous chemical inventory reports (commonly known as Tier II reports) for the same chemicals by March 1.
Covered facilities submit SDSs and annual inventory reports to the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC), Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), and local fire department.
How does this impact facilities?
EPA’s final rule replaces the previous EPCRA hazard categories with OSHA’s GHS-aligned hazard classes and hazard categories (totaling 118), which are already used in SDSs. Facilities must use OSHA’s hazard classes with their categories for SDS submissions and hazardous chemical inventory reports required under EPCRA Sections 311 and 312.
Note: SDSs for substances already contain the updated hazard classes and hazard categories. SDSs for mixtures must incorporate them by November 2027.
What’s the compliance timeline?
Covered facilities must use the new hazard categories by January 1, 2028. EPA expects facilities to incorporate them into the reporting year 2027 Tier II report (due March 1, 2028).
Key to remember: EPA has aligned regulations under EPCRA Sections 311 and 312 with OSHA’s HazCom amendments for hazardous chemical reporting requirements.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-06-24T05:00:00Z
NewsTier II Inventory ReportingIndustry NewsIndustry NewsCERCLA, SARA, EPCRAEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)Safety Data Sheet ReportingEnvironmentalEnglishSARA ComplianceFocus AreaUSA
EPA aligns EPCRA rules with OSHA’s HazCom amendments
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule on June 22, 2026, conforming the hazardous chemical inventory reporting regulations under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA’s) Hazardous Communication (HazCom) standard amendments of 2012 and 2024.
Who’s covered?
The final rule applies to facilities regulated under EPCRA Sections 311 and 312. These facilities are:
- Required by OSHA’s HazCom standard to maintain Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) for hazardous chemicals on-site at or above the reporting threshold, and
- Required by EPA’s EPCRA Section 312 rules (40 CFR Part 370) to submit annual hazardous chemical inventory reports (commonly known as Tier II reports) for the same chemicals by March 1.
Covered facilities submit SDSs and annual inventory reports to the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC), Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), and local fire department.
How does this impact facilities?
EPA’s final rule replaces the previous EPCRA hazard categories with OSHA’s GHS-aligned hazard classes and hazard categories (totaling 118), which are already used in SDSs. Facilities must use OSHA’s hazard classes with their categories for SDS submissions and hazardous chemical inventory reports required under EPCRA Sections 311 and 312.
Note: SDSs for substances already contain the updated hazard classes and hazard categories. SDSs for mixtures must incorporate them by November 2027.
What’s the compliance timeline?
Covered facilities must use the new hazard categories by January 1, 2028. EPA expects facilities to incorporate them into the reporting year 2027 Tier II report (due March 1, 2028).
Key to remember: EPA has aligned regulations under EPCRA Sections 311 and 312 with OSHA’s HazCom amendments for hazardous chemical reporting requirements.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-06-23T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsSafety and Health Programs and TrainingSafety & HealthConstruction SafetyGeneral Industry SafetySafety and Health Programs and TrainingEnglishFocus AreaUSA
OSHA updates VPP policy
OSHA updated its Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP), which recognize workplaces with strong safety and health (S&H) programs and low injury rates, to align with the seven core elements in its Recommended Practices for Safety and Health Programs. The seven elements are:
- Management leadership,
- Worker participation,
- Hazard identification and assessment,
- Hazard prevention and control,
- Education and training,
- Program evaluation and improvement, and
- Communication and coordination for host employers, contractors, and staffing agencies.
OSHA Directive CSP 03-01-005 also adds two new chapters. Chapter 14, VPP Elite, recognizes employer sites that have maintained VPP Star status for 15 or more consecutive years and other criteria, and Chapter 15, VPP Emeritus, is a new distinction for sites that have achieved VPP Star status for 25+ consecutive years and meet other criteria.
Lastly, the directive revises Chapter 10 to modify language on how to request Medical Access Orders.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-06-23T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsCarrier profiles, safety ratings and facility auditsFleet SafetyCarrier safety ratingsCarrier profilesBusiness planning - Motor CarrierFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleFleet OperationsEnglishTransportationBusiness planning - Motor CarrierUSA
How carrier vetting is being redefined
Carrier vetting is no longer just a back-office function for brokers. It's quickly becoming one of the most scrutinized and defensible decisions in the entire transportation lifecycle.
In the past month, expectations around carrier selection have shifted in a meaningful way. Legal developments have clarified that brokers are not insulated from how they choose carriers, and those decisions can now be examined more closely in court. At the same time, rising accident severity, nuclear verdicts, and increased access to safety data have created a more aggressive litigation environment. Together, these factors are forcing brokers to move beyond transactional selection practices and toward a more structured, defensible approach to vetting.
The industry is moving away from speed and availability as primary decision drivers and toward documented due diligence, consistency, and risk awareness. Brokers that fail to adapt will find themselves exposed, not just in claims, but in their inability to demonstrate that reasonable care was applied.
The top three priorities
First, elevate carrier vetting to a defensible standard. The expectation is no longer that a broker simply verifies authority and insurance. The standard now centers on reasonable care, which requires a deeper look at safety data. Brokers should consistently evaluate safety ratings, inspection history, and patterns in violations such as driver qualification, hours of service, and maintenance. The shift is from basic qualification to documented due diligence. If a carrier has known safety issues and is still selected, that decision will be subject to scrutiny.
Second, document every carrier selection decision. The biggest change is not just increased liability exposure, but the need to prove the process behind the decision. The question is no longer whether a broker had protection under federal preemption, but whether the broker acted reasonably. That means having a consistent, repeatable vetting process with clear documentation of what was reviewed, what risks were identified, and why a carrier was ultimately approved. In a post-incident environment, the file matters just as much as the decision itself.
Third, standardize and enforce safety criteria across the network. Inconsistent thresholds create exposure. Brokers should define clear policies that outline what is acceptable, what requires escalation, and what results in disqualification. Just as important, those standards must be applied consistently. The market is already shifting toward carriers with stronger and more stable safety performance, and tighter networks will become the norm.
Ultimately, this is a defining moment for brokerage operations. Carrier selection is no longer just about keeping freight moving. It's about managing risk in a way that can withstand outside scrutiny. Brokers that invest now in stronger vetting practices, disciplined documentation, and consistent safety standards will not only reduce exposure, they’ll differentiate themselves in a market that is rapidly raising the bar. Those that do not will find that what once felt like a routine decision can quickly become a significant liability.
Key to remember: The new standard is clear: carrier selection is no longer about who is available, but about who is defensible.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-06-23T05:00:00Z
NewsProcess Safety ManagementRisk Management ProgramRisk Management ProgramCAA ComplianceIn-Depth ArticleEnglishSafety Data SheetsIndustry NewsSafety & HealthGeneral Industry SafetyGeneral Duty ClauseEnvironmentalFocus AreaHazardous Materials Safety - OSHAHazard CommunicationGeneral Duty ClauseAir ProgramsUSA
CSB mounts pressure on OSHA, EPA over deadly process safety gap
Sugar may seem pretty harmless. However, a deadly explosion at a Kentucky caramel coloring facility reveals how this assumption can lead to disaster. The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) is again urging OSHA and EPA to address a gap in their chemical safety regulations.
The board is calling for them to tackle “reactive hazards.” These are the hazards CSB says triggered the tragedy. The familiar message has been repeated since 2002, but the alarm bells grow louder and more urgent now. These warnings are not just for OSHA and EPA. They are also for chemical plants and food ingredient manufacturers. Despite not being covered in the process safety and risk management standards, reactive hazards can and have led to catastrophe.
Runaway reaction
CSB determined that the explosion happened when a 2,500-gallon reactor experienced a runaway decomposition reaction. The reaction involved an “invert sugar” ingredient used to make caramel coloring. It rapidly increased the temperature and pressure. Then it overwhelmed the reactor’s emergency pressure relief system.
The reactor ruptured violently. Two workers died when the blast damaged a control room 40 feet from the reactor. Debris from the incident traveled as far as 400 feet beyond the facility fence line. It also caused approximately $40 million in damage.
CSB found that the reactor’s emergency pressure relief system would have needed to be about four times larger. This would have allowed it to safely relieve pressure generated during the runaway reaction.
Failure to recognize the hazard
CSB’s investigation found that the company did not understand the severe reactive hazards associated with the sugar ingredient. According to the board, this failure contributed to an undersized pressure relief system. It also created confusion on the day of the incident about the increasing pressure.
The report further states that the company’s lack of knowledge stemmed from:
- An incomplete investigation of the ingredients’ reaction potential,
- A lack of industry guidance on the safe manufacture of caramel coloring, and
- No warning on the safety data sheet (SDS) of reaction hazards.
SDS lacked critical information
The board found that the SDS provided by the sugar manufacturer did not warn of its reactivity hazards. CSB concluded that safety information communicated in sugar ingredient SDSs can vary significantly among suppliers. The board noted that improved hazard information in SDSs can help prevent future sugar decomposition incidents. CSB is urging industry groups and suppliers who manufacture invert sugar or corn syrup to update their SDSs for decomposition hazards.
Known regulatory gap
The report emphasizes a gap in:
- OSHA 29 CFR 1910.119, Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals (PSM); and
- EPA 40 CFR 68, Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions, also known as the Risk Management Program (RMP).
That gap is a lack of coverage of facilities processing chemicals with reactive hazards that could have catastrophic consequences.
The Kentucky caramel coloring plant was not subject to PSM and RMP. Had the facility been required to implement either regulation, the reactor designers would have had a better opportunity to be aware of the sugar ingredients’ decomposition hazards, says CSB. The board argues that this may have resulted in a safer design of the emergency pressure relief system.
Repeated recommendations
Since 2002, CSB has reiterated its recommendations for OSHA and EPA to fill the regulatory gap. Neither agency has implemented those recommendations.
Over that same period, the board investigated 15 additional incidents involving reactive chemicals not covered by PSM and RMP. Those incidents resulted in 31 fatalities and hundreds of injuries.
CSB is not deterred
CSB again recommends that OSHA and EPA broaden the coverage of PSM and RMP, respectively, to achieve more comprehensive control of reactive hazards.
Both OSHA and EPA currently use chemical lists to identify the processes subject to coverage. However, CSB claims the two agencies did not adequately consider reactive chemical hazards when developing those chemical lists. As a result, many reactive chemicals are currently not covered.
Word for employers and safety professionals
The latest report highlights the need for:
- Facilities to review not just the SDS for their chemicals but also additional sources of information about their reactive hazards.
- Chemical plants and food manufacturers to address reactive hazards regardless of coverage under 1910.119 and Part 68. At a minimum, these facilities may already be required to meet OSHA’s General Duty Clause and EPA’s Clean Air Act General Duty Clause.
Key to remember
The latest CSB report taps OSHA and EPA to address reactivity hazards. It is also a wake-up call for facilities to understand their reactive chemical hazards. What’s more, the report calls on chemical and food ingredient manufacturers to revisit their SDSs regarding reactive hazards.
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.