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
2026-07-30T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsFleet SafetyDefensive drivingCMV drivingFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleFleet OperationsEnglishTransportationUSA
Back-to-School Means Back-to-Safety
As schools across the country prepare to welcome students for a new academic year, now is the time to remind drivers about the hazards they may encounter around school buses and in school zones.
Drive defensively
Defensive driving is always essential, but it becomes even more critical during the school year. School buses make frequent stops, traffic volume increases around schools, and children may not always recognize hazards. Staying alert and anticipating hazards can help drivers avoid preventable crashes.
- Continually scan the road. Slow down and obey all traffic laws and speed limits in school zones and the area surrounding a school.
- Keep an eye out for children, especially younger children. They are smaller and more difficult to see. Younger children don’t understand the dangers posed by moving vehicles and can’t judge vehicle distance as well as adults.
- Always stop for a school patrol officer or crossing guard holding up a stop sign.
- Never pass a vehicle stopped for pedestrians.
- When flashers are blinking in a school zone, stop and yield to pedestrians crossing at the crosswalk or intersection.
Know the flashing light system
Each year, over 20 million children rely on school buses to get to and from school.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), between 2015 and 2024, there was an average of 107 fatalities each year as the result of school-transportation-related crashes.
The greatest risk to a child isn’t riding a school bus. It’s approaching or leaving the bus, with younger children being most at risk. Over half (55%) of the school-age pedestrians killed in school-transportation-related traffic crashes from 2015 to 2024 were 5 to 10 years old.
The flashing signal light system serves as an early warning system for motorists, alerting them to upcoming school bus movements and student loading or unloading activities. Knowing what the lights mean can help prevent accidents and save lives.
Yellow flashing lights indicate that the bus is preparing to stop to load or unload children. Drivers must slow down and prepare to stop their vehicles.
Red flashing lights and an extended stop arm indicate that the bus has stopped and that children are getting on or off the bus. Drivers must stop and wait until:
- The red lights stop flashing,
- The stop arm is withdrawn, and
- The bus begins to move.
All drivers need to learn and follow the school bus laws for the areas in which they travel. As well as being dangerous, violating these laws can result in citations and fines.
Key to remember: As students return to school, drivers will encounter more school buses, heavier traffic near schools, and increased pedestrian activity. A review of defensive driving practices and school bus flashing-light requirements can help drivers recognize hazards and prevent accidents.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-07-30T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsOperating AuthorityFocus AreaBrokers and brokering freight - Motor CarrierFleet OperationsEnglishTransportationUSA
2026 verdict sends shockwaves through the freight brokerage industry
Just months after the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision allowing negligent hiring claims against freight brokers to move forward, the industry has received its first major test case, and the result is a staggering $604 million verdict. The decision, handed down by a Dallas County, Texas jury on July 23, 2026, is already being viewed as a watershed moment for freight broker liability and risk management.
The case arose from a tragic 2021 crash on Interstate 20 in Mississippi involving motor carrier Lupus Superior and freight broker C.H. Robinson. According to court records, a tractor trailer operated by the carrier collided with stopped traffic, triggering a multi-vehicle pileup that claimed three lives and injured two others. Plaintiffs argued that C.H. Robinson negligently selected the carrier despite information indicating safety concerns and warning signs that should have prompted additional scrutiny. The jury ultimately found the carrier, its driver, and C.H. Robinson negligent, assigning significant responsibility to the broker.
Removing legal defenses
What makes this verdict particularly important is its timing. In May 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport that federal law doesn’t automatically shield freight brokers from state law negligent hiring claims. That decision removed a legal defense many brokers had relied upon for years and opened the door for courts to evaluate whether brokers exercised reasonable care when selecting motor carriers.
Until now, much of the trucking industry's discussion centered on what the Supreme Court ruling might mean in theory. The $604 million verdict demonstrates what those implications can look like in practice. A jury was given the opportunity to review a broker's carrier selection process and determine whether it met a reasonable standard of care. The outcome suggests that simply verifying operating authority and insurance coverage is no longer enough to satisfy that standard.
Brokers held to a higher standard
For brokers, the message is clear: Carrier vetting and documentation have become critical business functions. Safety ratings, inspection history, out-of-service percentages, crash history, and patterns of regulatory violations are likely to receive increased attention. Equally important will be maintaining records that demonstrate how carrier selection decisions were made. In a post-Montgomery environment, a broker's ability to prove due diligence may be just as important as the vetting process itself.
The verdict is expected to be appealed, and legal questions remain unresolved. However, regardless of the final outcome, the case serves as a powerful reminder that freight brokers now operate in a dramatically different liability landscape. The Supreme Court opened the door, and this verdict shows just how significant the consequences can be when a jury concludes that a broker failed to meet its duty of care.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-07-29T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsAssociate Benefits & CompensationAssociate RelationsHR GeneralistFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)HR ManagementEnglishFocus AreaHuman ResourcesUSA
Firing an employee 6 days after she requested FMLA leave proves risky
In late 2022, Rosa, an employee, told Richard, her boss, that her daughter was diagnosed with a brain tumor that required surgery and ongoing medical treatment. Rosa said she would need intermittent time off from work to care for her daughter during this period. This time would likely fall under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
On January 6, 2023, the employer’s third-party FMLA administrator notified Richard that Rosa had submitted an intermittent FMLA leave request to care for her daughter.
Before receiving this notice, the employer had been talking about potential revisions to Rosa’s job duties. But on January 12, 6 days after receiving notice of Rosa’s FMLA request, Richard decided to discontinue his efforts to revise Rosa’s duties and instead move forward with eliminating her position altogether.
On February 1, the employer formally approved Rosa’s request for intermittent FMLA leave. But on February 7, it told Rosa that it was terminating her employment, effective February 17.
Rosa sued.
In court, the employer argued that there was no evidence that Rosa had taken FMLA leave before her position was eliminated. But Rosa didn’t claim retaliation for leave already taken. She claimed the employer acted adversely because Rosa was likely to request additional leave in the near future. She also claimed that the employer fired her because she asked for leave.
Rosa was able to point out a couple of pieces of evidence:
- Timing. The short amount of time between her protected activity (asking for leave) and the decision to eliminate her position was suspicious. The timing was a major factor since the termination decision wasn’t finalized until after she invoked her FMLA rights.
- Reasoning. The employer’s shifting reasons for its termination decision were an issue. First, it said the decision to terminate Rosa was performance-based, and then that it was budgetary. Rosa pointed out, however, that Richard never counseled her regarding any alleged work performance deficiencies, and the budget was approved without eliminating her position.
All this gave the court enough evidence not to throw the case out, as the employer hoped. The case will proceed to trial unless settled beforehand.
Gallego-Feliciano v. City of Lancaster, et al, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 5:25-cv-04246, June 9, 2026.
Key to remember: Firing an employee soon after they ask for FMLA leave can be risky, particularly if the employer is unable to show that it had a different, valid reason for the decision.
Court decisions are based on the specific facts presented and each court’s interpretation of the law. Because courts may reach different conclusions, similar situations can lead to different outcomes. Employers should avoid relying on a single case as definitive guidance and instead assess each situation carefully, considering applicable laws, and seeking advice when needed.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-07-29T05:00:00Z
NewsWage and Hour Division (WHD), DOLIndustry NewsIndustry NewsAssociate RelationsHR GeneralistFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)USAHR ManagementEnglishFocus AreaHuman Resources
An employee missed the 15-day FMLA certification deadline. What now?
Most employers covered by the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) ask employees to support their need for leave with a certification – even though certifications aren’t required. Employers may not, however, ask that employees provide a certification when the leave is strictly for bonding with a healthy child.
Timeline
An employee must get a completed certification to their employer within 15 calendar days after the employer's request, unless circumstances don’t allow for it despite the employee's diligent, good faith efforts. The employer may give an employee more than 15 calendar days to return the requested certification.
The 15-day timeline doesn’t begin until the employee has received the certification request. That’s when the “clock” starts ticking.
When requesting a certification, employers must advise the employee of potential consequences if the employee fails to provide one. This information is in the eligibility/rights & responsibilities notice, and employers may highlight it.
No certification, no FMLA?
After the 15-day window closes, if the employee fails to provide a complete and sufficient certification, or fails to provide any certification with no justification, typically the employer may deny the FMLA leave.
The employee’s job is protected, however, during the 15-day window. If a certification is late, the employee loses FMLA protections after the 15 days are over and until they provide a certification.
If an employee never gives their employer the requested certification, the leave isn’t FMLA leave, and the employer may turn to their company policy and procedures to determine next steps.
Pause first
Before jumping to an FMLA leave denial, employers should talk to the employee to find out why they missed the 15-day deadline. There could be a valid reason they can’t meet the deadline. If so, employers must be flexible and give an employee more time.
Perhaps, for example, the health care provider is on vacation or isn’t available. The FMLA doesn’t list reasons employees might have for missing the deadline; employers have to consider the facts of each particular situation before denying leave
Incomplete or insufficient
Employees might give their employers a certification within 15 days, but not all the relevant entries are completed, or the information is vague. If that happens, employers must give the employees a written list of what’s needed to make the certification complete and sufficient. Employers must give employees at least 7 days to fix the certification.
Key to remember: If employees fail to give employers an FMLA certification within 15 days with no justification for the delay, employers may deny the FMLA leave.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-07-29T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsFleet SafetyRisk Management TransportationRisk Management - Motor CarrierBusiness policies and procedures - Motor CarrierBusiness planning - Motor CarrierFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleFleet OperationsEnglishTransportationBusiness planning - Motor CarrierUSA
$604 million wake-up call: The next chapter in broker liability has arrived
The trucking industry is still digesting the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's Montgomery decision, but a recent $604 million jury verdict against freight broker C.H. Robinson has transformed what was once a legal discussion into a business reality. The verdict, tied to a fatal 2021 crash in Mississippi, is being viewed by many industry observers as the first major test of the new liability landscape facing freight brokers.
While the case will likely move through the appeals process, the message sent by the jury is difficult to ignore. Carrier selection decisions are no longer operating quietly in the background of transportation transactions. Instead, they are becoming a central focus in litigation, risk management, and safety oversight.
From legal protection to legal exposure
For years, many brokers relied on federal preemption arguments to defend against negligent hiring claims. The Supreme Court's ruling significantly changed that dynamic by allowing state law negligence claims against brokers to proceed. The result is a shift in focus from whether a broker arranged transportation to whether the broker exercised reasonable care when selecting the carrier.
The recent verdict illustrates how that standard may be applied in court. Plaintiffs argued that warning signs existed regarding the carrier's safety performance and that those concerns should have influenced the broker's decision making. Jurors ultimately found the broker, carrier, and driver negligent, assigning a substantial share of responsibility to the brokerage.
Safety data is becoming a litigation target
One of the most important takeaways from this case is the growing importance of safety data during carrier selection. Historically, many brokers verified operating authority, insurance coverage, and basic qualifications before assigning freight. Increasingly, attorneys and juries now expect a deeper review of carrier performance indicators.
FMCSA safety ratings, inspection history, hours-of-service violations, driver qualification issues, crash history, and maintenance trends are all factors that may receive greater scrutiny. A carrier that appears qualified on paper may still present risk if patterns of safety concerns are visible within publicly available data. For brokers, this means that carrier selection is evolving from a capacity decision into a risk assessment process.
Documentation is the strongest defense
The post-Montgomery environment is creating a new expectation: brokers must be able to prove how and why a carrier was selected. Documentation is becoming just as important as the selection decision itself. Clear records showing what was reviewed, what concerns were identified, and why a carrier was approved can be critical if decisions are challenged later.
Consistency is equally important. Organizations that apply different standards depending on urgency, customer pressure, or freight availability may create unnecessary exposure. Standardized vetting criteria, documented escalation procedures, and uniform enforcement can help demonstrate a reasonable and defensible process.
Key to remember: In today's legal environment, accountability is becoming just as important as capacity, and brokers who adapt their vetting and documentation practices will be best positioned to navigate the road ahead.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-07-29T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsCriteria Air PollutantsEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)CAA ComplianceEnvironmentalIn-Depth ArticleFocus AreaEnglishAir PermittingAir ProgramsStationary Emission SourcesUSA
EPA updates preconstruction permitting guidance: What are the impacts on major sources?
Where there’s construction, there are permits, and where there are permits, there are usually delays. For major construction projects in areas with poor air quality, the delay could be due to emission credits. New federal guidance, however, may help reduce those delays.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently released guidance clarifying that Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) preconstruction permits may be issued to applicants before they obtain the required offsetting emission reduction credits (ERCs) if certain conditions are met.
The new guidance for permitting authorities (usually state or local air agencies) is a change in the agency’s recommended approach, designed to help prevent preconstruction permitting delays for applicants that haven’t yet formally secured ERCs. So, what does this mean for facilities? Let’s take a look!
Which construction projects could be affected?
EPA’s new guidance impacts construction projects in nonattainment areas. These are areas where emissions exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for any of the six regulated criteria air pollutants.
You need an NNSR permit to build a new major stationary source or make major modifications to an existing major stationary source if:
- The new or modified source is located in a nonattainment area, and
- The new or modified source emits or has the potential to emit a regulated pollutant in amounts that meet the applicable major source or major modification thresholds.
You must obtain an NNSR permit before construction begins. NNSR permits can be issued only if the applicant meets certain conditions, one of which is meeting emission offset requirements.
What are emission offsets?
Emission offsets are reductions in emissions from existing sources that can be used to compensate for emissions from a new or modified source. The Clean Air Act requires new and modified major sources to offset emissions by obtaining sufficient ERCs from existing sources located in the same nonattainment area.
In other words, a new or modified major source must get enough credits from existing nearby sources to cover the total amount of emissions that the facility will add to the area.
How does the guidance impact permitting?
EPA’s previous guidance recommended that NNSR permits generally shouldn’t be issued until ERCs are actually secured. As a result, permitting agencies require applicants to obtain ERCs before issuing an NNSR permit to start construction on a facility, even if the facility won’t immediately begin operations.
Guidance on Clean Air Act Nonattainment New Source Review Emissions Offsets (ERC guidance), issued by EPA on July 1, 2026, changes the agency’s recommended approach. It clarifies that permitting authorities may issue NNSR permits before applicants specifically secure the required ERCs if the permit contains:
- A federally enforceable commitment by the permit applicant to obtain the needed ERCs before starting operations, and
- An express ban on starting operations until the required ERCs are obtained with appropriate permit restrictions on the sources providing the ERCs.
What’s the possible impact on facilities?
Permitting authorities that apply ERC guidance to permitting decisions can issue NNSR permits to qualifying sources before they secure ERCs. This would allow applicants to start construction on or modifications to a major source without delay, provided the enforceable permit conditions are met.
Here's an example:
A business is ready to build a manufacturing plant in a nonattainment area, but operations at the new facility won’t begin until a year after construction is complete.
Under previous guidance, the business couldn’t begin construction on the manufacturing plant until it formally secured the required ERCs upfront for operations that won’t start until a year after the facility is complete.
EPA’s ERC guidance would allow the permitting authority to issue the business an NNSR permit before it obtains the ERCs. That means the business could build the manufacturing plant right away and then secure the ERCs later, closer to the time the facility starts operating.
Keep these points in mind!
Consider the following when determining how EPA’s updated NNSR policy may impact your construction project:
- The ERC guidance is nonbinding, meaning that permitting authorities aren’t required to implement the guidance. Permitting authorities can still require applicants to secure ERCs before issuing NNSR permits.
- Facilities may be able to start construction without first securing ERCs, but facilities can’t begin operating until they secure the required ERCs.
- Most NNSR permits are issued on a state or local level. Confirm the specific requirements that apply to your major source construction project with the relevant state or local permitting authority.
Key to remember: EPA’s guidance allows permitting authorities to issue preconstruction permits for new major sources and major modifications in nonattainment areas before the sources secure emission reduction credits.
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.