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
2026-08-05T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsHeat and Cold ExposureSafety & HealthConstruction SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyAgriculture SafetyEnglishHeat StressFocus AreaUSA
Cal/OSHA urges employers to protect workers from heat-related illnesses
Several Southern California counties have recently been under extended heat advisories as temperatures range between 90 to 105 degrees Fahrenheit. While temperatures remain high, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) urges employers to take steps to protect workers from heat-related illnesses.
Regulations require indoor facilities to protect employees against heat hazards by providing clean drinking water, breaks in designated cool-down areas, and mandatory training.
Outdoor workplaces must meet separate requirements, including:
- Supplying fresh water,
- Establishing shaded areas, and
- Allowing workers to request cool-down breaks at any time.
When temperatures reach 95 degrees, high-risk industries such as agriculture, construction, and oil and gas are subject to additional requirements, including:
- Observing workers on a regular basis, and
- Establishing emergency communication protocols.
All covered employers are required to establish a heat illness prevention plan.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-08-05T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsFleet SafetyDriver qualificationsDriver qualification and hiringFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleEnglishTransportationUSA
PSP updates aim to speed hiring, strengthen data protection
Motor carriers rely on accurate driver history information to make sound hiring decisions. Now, the Pre-employment Screening Program (PSP) has introduced two updates designed to improve both the efficiency of the hiring process and the protection of sensitive driver information.
The changes may seem minor on the surface, but they address real-world challenges that safety professionals frequently encounter.
Since 2010, motor carriers have had the option to obtain PSP reports on their driver-applicants, showing the driver’s five-year crash history and three-year roadside inspection history.
Name variations
The first enhancement adds greater transparency around first-name variations. PSP reports will now display different versions of a driver’s first name exactly as they appear in crash and roadside inspection records. According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), this allows employers to better distinguish between simple data-entry errors and discrepancies that warrant additional investigation.
For motor carriers, the change could mean less time spent chasing down documentation or questioning records that differ only because of a typo, nickname, or inconsistent data entry across systems.
PII protections
The second enhancement focuses on privacy. The PSP system now allows a company’s primary PSP user to mask personally identifiable information (PII) across all the organization’s PSP reports.
When enabled, dates of birth appear as MM/DD/XXXX, and commercial driver’s license (CDL) numbers display only the last four digits. Safety and compliance information remains accessible while sensitive personal information is better protected.
Why it matters
PSP data is drawn from the FMCSA’s Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS). The records often provide insights that may not be apparent through other pre-employment checks.
The new enhancements address two growing concerns:
- Hiring delays caused by inconsistent driver-identification information, and
- Data privacy and cybersecurity risks.
As fleets continue to digitize records and exchange sensitive information electronically, data accuracy and privacy protection are becoming increasingly important.
For fleets already using PSP, review whether the new PII masking option should be enabled and confirm who has access to PSP reports.
And, keep your eyes on Congress, which is considering legislation that would allow motor carriers to purchase PSP reports for current drivers, not just driver-applicants.
Key to remember: The PSP program has made two enhancements aimed at helping motor carriers obtain accurate driver-history information more efficiently and protecting sensitive driver data more effectively.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-08-05T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsAccident Investigation - OSHAAccident Investigation - OSHASafety & HealthConstruction SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyIn-Depth ArticleEnglishFocus AreaUSA
What near misses are trying to tell you
Nobody got hurt. Nothing was damaged. It's easy to shrug and move on. A near miss is still an incident. A hazard existed, someone was exposed to it, yet the exposure didn't result in injury, illness, or damage.
That doesn't mean the hazard is gone. If it's ignored, the risk remains, and the next incident could have a very different outcome. If you see a close call, say something. If you hear about one, act on it. That's what turns a near miss from a warning sign into an opportunity for prevention.
Same hazard, different outcome
The problem with ignoring a near miss is that the hazard is often still there. Consider this common workplace situation.
A ceiling pipe had been dripping in a lobby corridor for three weeks. A repair ticket sat in the backlog, and custodial staff mopped the puddle every morning before the building filled. Since the leak wasn’t viewed as urgent, nothing changed.
A week before anyone got hurt, a worker slipped on the wet floor but caught the handrail and walked away unharmed. The near miss went unreported, the leak continued, and conditions remained exactly the same. Then another worker slipped in the same location, fell, and injured an ankle.
The hazard, exposure, and circumstances were nearly identical. One incident ended as a near miss and the other resulted in an injury. The difference was the outcome, not the hazard.
Had that first near miss been reported and investigated, important questions would’ve surfaced immediately. How long had the leak existed? Why was the area not marked? Why was the repair request still sitting in the backlog? The real issue wasn’t the worker who slipped. It was a system that failed to recognize and prioritize a safety critical repair.
Turning near misses into prevention
Most near misses go unreported for a handful of predictable reasons. Employees may fail to report incidents because they don’t view them as significant, are concerned about potential repercussions, are unsure of the reporting process, or doubt that any action will be taken. That last reason can be the most damaging because it teaches people that speaking up is pointless.
The question is not whether near misses happen in your workplace. They do. The question is whether people report them and whether anything happens when they do.
Creating a strong reporting culture starts with action, not just encouragement.
- Make reporting easy. If reporting is difficult, people will not do it. Use simple tools such as a paper form, anonymous drop box, or QR code linked to a reporting form.
- Respond every time. Not every reported incident requires a full investigation, but every report deserves acknowledgment. Silence quickly kills reporting culture.
- Investigate for causes, not blame. Focus on what allowed the hazard to exist rather than who made a mistake.
- Assign owners and deadlines. Every corrective action should have a responsible person and a due date. Simply telling employees to "be careful" isn’t a corrective action.
- Fix it now and for good. Put interim controls in place immediately, such as signage, barriers, or containment measures, while working toward a permanent solution.
- Close the loop. Verify the fix worked and share what was learned. One incident may reveal a hazard that exists elsewhere in the organization.
Prevention starts here
While OSHA doesn’t require employers to report every near miss, the agency recognizes the value of identifying and correcting hazards before they cause an injury. Near miss investigations are included in OSHA's Recommended Practices for Safety and Health Programs and are a required element of OSHA's Voluntary Protection Program (VPP).
Some OSHA approved state plans go even further and specifically require employers to investigate workplace incidents and identify underlying causes as part of their injury and illness prevention efforts. These requirements reinforce the value of investigating near misses to identify hazards and take corrective action before someone gets hurt.
Key to Remember: A near miss is an incident without an injury, but it is not an incident without value. Investigate it, identify the root cause, and fix the hazard before the next incident has a different outcome.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-08-04T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsEnglishFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleFleet OperationsHeavy vehicle use tax HVUTFleet TaxesFleet taxesTransportationUSA
Form 2290 is due: Does your fleet need a VIN audit?
For many motor carriers, filing Form 2290 Heavy Vehicle Use Tax (HVUT) is a routine annual task. However, the process becomes more complicated when your fleet has dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of vehicles to report.
While adding multiple vehicle identification numbers (VINs) to a Form 2290 filing is common, it also increases the likelihood of mistakes that can lead to compliance issues, registration delays, and unnecessary administrative work. An internal VIN audit prior to filing HVUT can help you identify the most common pitfalls and file an accurate 2290 by the August 31 deadline.
Data-entry errors
One of the most common problems is simple data-entry error. A VIN contains 17 characters, and it only takes a single incorrect digit, transposed character, or missing letter to create a mismatch between the vehicle's registration records and the IRS Schedule 1.
Because Schedule 1 serves as proof that your HVUT has been paid, a VIN error can create obstacles when obtaining registration credentials or completing an IRP renewal. The IRS allows carriers to file VIN corrections, but that means additional time (and operational delays) and paperwork that could have been avoided.
Matching each vehicle to a weight category
Another challenge is ensuring that each VIN is assigned to the correct taxable gross weight category. In larger fleets, vehicle information may come from multiple departments, such as operations, maintenance, and registration.
If a vehicle is reported under the wrong weight category, you may underpay or overpay HVUT and later need to amend the filing. Weight increases during the tax period can also trigger additional tax obligations.
Duplicate reporting
Duplicate reporting is another issue carriers encounter. When fleet records are not carefully reconciled, the same VIN may be reported more than once, or a vehicle already included on another filing may inadvertently be entered again.
Duplicate VIN reporting can lead to rejected filings, confusion during audits, and time-consuming correction efforts.
Omitted vehicles
On the opposite end of the spectrum, carriers sometimes fail to report vehicles that should have been included. Newly acquired trucks, recently leased units, or vehicles added after a fleet inventory was prepared can be overlooked.
Missing a taxable vehicle may result in a late HVUT filing and potential penalties if the issue is discovered after the filing deadline.
New acquisitions
Vehicle acquisitions throughout the year create another layer of complexity. Unlike the annual July filing, newly purchased vehicles may require additional Form 2290 filings based on their month of first use.
Without a reliable tracking process, carriers can easily lose track of which vehicles have been reported and which still require filing.
Larger fleet = more risk
These challenges become even more significant for large fleets subject to the IRS electronic filing requirement for returns reporting tax on 25 or more vehicles. Managing large VIN lists electronically can save time, but it also means that a single spreadsheet error can affect dozens or hundreds of vehicles at once.
Best practices for avoiding VIN-related problems
Before filing Form 2290, perform a comprehensive review of your fleet inventory:
- Compare VINs against titles and registration records,
- Verify taxable gross weight classifications,
- Identify newly acquired vehicles, and
- Remove units that were sold or retired.
Many fleets also find value in having a second person review the vehicle list before submission.
Key to remember: A pre-filing VIN audit may seem like extra work, but it’s often far easier than dealing with registration delays, rejected filings, amended returns, or VIN corrections after the fact. When it comes to Form 2290, accuracy up front is one of the most effective ways to keep trucks moving and compliance headaches to a minimum.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-08-04T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsWater PermittingWater ProgramsEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)EnvironmentalCWA ComplianceStormwaterEnglishFocus AreaUSA
EPA proposes 2027 general stormwater permit for construction
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the proposed 2027 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit (CGP) for public comment on August 3, 2026. The CGP covers stormwater discharges from construction activities.
Who’s impacted?
The CGP applies to construction activities in areas where EPA is the NPDES permitting authority (including Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and the District of Columbia). Construction site operators must obtain a stormwater discharge permit for any construction activity that:
- Disturbs 1 acre or more of land, or
- Disturbs less than 1 acre of land but is part of a larger common plan of development or sale that will disturb 1 acre or more of land.
What are the proposed changes to the CGP?
EPA’s proposed 2027 CGP contains multiple modifications to the 2022 CGP. Significant changes include:
- Replacing the broad requirement for permittees to “meet applicable water quality standards” for receiving waters (i.e., the waters that permittees discharge into) with more specific limits that indicate water quality problems in the discharge and applying these indicator conditions to all permittees;
- Requiring CGP applicants to submit with the Notice of Intent (NOI) an electronic copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), a website address where the SWPPP can be viewed, or a copy of the SWPPP site map and the signed certification;
- Requiring construction sites that install a sediment basin to implement stabilization measures before directing stormwater to the basin; and
- Streamlining specific requirements, such as:
- Clarifying that perimeter sediment controls are only required for areas that may receive stormwater from disturbed areas;
- Clarifying the stabilization deadlines for sites in arid, semi-arid, and drought-stricken areas;
- Allowing sites that experience unforeseeable winter weather conditions to temporarily suspend the requirement to stabilize exposed portions of the site for 14 days or more of inactivity while the extreme weather conditions persist;
- Eliminating the requirement to submit pre-stabilization photos with a Notice of Termination;
- Reducing the frequency of turbidity monitoring from daily to weekly for sites discharging dewatering water continuously for longer periods of time;
- Relieving some operators of turbidity benchmark monitoring reporting requirements at sites where multiple operators coordinate monitoring efforts (if the operators submit an initial quarterly report to inform EPA that they’re relying on another permitted operator on-site to monitor and report); and
- Eliminating the reporting requirement when no dewatering discharges occur during a monitoring quarter.
Who needs to apply for 2027 CGP coverage?
Operators of both new sites (construction activities begin on or after the final 2027 CGP’s effective date) and existing sites must apply for coverage under the 2027 CGP.
If an existing site obtained permit coverage under the 2022 CGP before the permit’s expiration date (February 17, 2027), the site will automatically remain covered for a limited period of time, allowing operators to submit a new Notice of Intent for coverage under the 2027 CGP.
What’s next?
Public comments are due by September 2, 2026 (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0760).
EPA will host a webinar on August 18, 2026, to review the proposed 2027 CGP and answer questions. You may register for the webinar on EPA’s “Proposed 2027 Construction General Permit (CGP) and Related Documents” webpage. If the proposed 2027 CGP is finalized, it will replace the existing 2022 CGP, which expires on February 17, 2027.
Key to remember: EPA seeks public comment on the proposed 2027 Construction General Permit for stormwater discharges.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-08-04T05:00:00Z
NewsHuman Resource ManagementHuman Resource ManagementDisabilities and ADAIn-Depth ArticleUSAHR ManagementEnglishReasonable AccommodationsIndustry NewsHR PoliciesPolicies and ProceduresHR GeneralistAssociate RelationsFocus AreaDisabilities and ADAHuman Resources
Watch out for ‘100 percent healed’ policies
Employers want employees to do their jobs well and safely. But employers need to be careful not to go too far, particularly when employees return to work after recovering from their own health issue.
In 2025, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued an employer over its return-to-work policy. The case is a reminder of the risks of “full duty” or “100 percent healed” policies.
The story
Under the company’s policy, employees couldn’t return to work unless they had no medical restrictions, even if they could do the job with or without an accommodation for their restriction.
The EEOC said the policy violated the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities unless doing so would create an undue hardship. A rule that requires employees to have no restrictions can conflict with that requirement.
The ADA also requires employers to collaborate with employees to find a solution for employees who need a workplace change (i.e., an accommodation) because of a medical condition (a restriction). This solution-finding is called the interactive process. Policies that automatically fire employees without considering an accommodation can violate the ADA.
The company also had a policy of firing employees who couldn’t return after 12 weeks of Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave. This was a problem because some employees might have been able to return with a short leave extension or another accommodation.
The company also required employees to pass a lifting test. The test required employees to lift 50 pounds to shoulder height, even though the job only required lifting 25 pounds. The EEOC said this, too, violated the ADA.
The case settled, and the employer paid $919,000.
How to avoid issues
Employers should avoid policies that prohibit employees from returning to work with restrictions. These policies can bypass the ADA accommodation process, resulting in a violation. Employers should look for better ways to confirm employees can safely perform their jobs.
When an employee has medical restrictions or asks for a workplace change because of a medical condition, employers should start the interactive process. The goal is to find an effective, reasonable accommodation if one is available.
Supervisors should also know when an employee’s situation may involve ADA rights and what steps to take.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Western Distributing Company, No. 1:16-CV-01727, District of Colorado, July 15, 2025.
Key to remember: Policies that require employees to have no medical restrictions before returning to work after leave for their own condition may violate the ADA.
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
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.