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
2026-07-06T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsDiscriminationDiscriminationTitle VII (The Civil Rights Act of 1964)RetaliationHR GeneralistIn-Depth ArticleUSAHR ManagementEnglishFocus AreaHuman Resources
Federal priorities may shift, but employer obligations remain
On June 12, a federal court in Maryland dismissed a challenge to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) current enforcement approach to some gender identity discrimination claims.
The case, FreeState Justice v. EEOC, involved allegations that the EEOC had limited its investigations into some gender identity-related claims, including ones related to harassment and retaliation.
The court didn’t decide whether the EEOC’s approach was correct. Instead, it held that courts generally can’t force a federal agency to pursue specific enforcement actions.
A broader trend
The Maryland decision seems to be part of a broader trend when it comes to enforcing discrimination laws at the federal level. In another recent case, Cross v. EEOC, a federal court also dismissed a challenge seeking to require the EEOC to investigate disparate impact claims. In the past year, the EEOC has halted investigations into disparate impact discrimination claims which address employment practices that, while appearing neutral, disproportionately harm a protected group.
In Cross, as in FreeState Justice, the court reached the conclusion that the EEOC has discretion to decide which claims to investigate or pursue.
Together, these cases reinforce that courts generally won’t second-guess the EEOC’s enforcement priorities. However, whether courts step in or not, it doesn’t change the underlying law that governs discrimination matters or prevent employees from bringing claims against employers in court.
Employer takeaways
For employers, the key point is that the decision about whether or not a government agency will (or won’t) pursue an investigation doesn’t change the law. Gender identity discrimination claims remain viable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and any other applicable state laws. Employees may also continue to bring claims in court, even if the EEOC doesn’t pursue them administratively.
Employers shouldn’t assume that a shift in EEOC enforcement priorities reduces their compliance obligations. It doesn’t.
HR professionals should continue to:
- Apply equal employment opportunity policies consistently,
- Respond promptly to discrimination or harassment complaints, and
- Review workplace practices to ensure policies that appear fair on the surface don’t unintentionally disadvantage employees in a protected group.
Key to remember: EEOC enforcement priorities may change, but employer obligations under Title VII and state laws remain in place.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-07-06T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsEnforcement and Audits - OSHAEnforcement and Audits - OSHASafety & HealthConstruction SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyMaritime SafetyOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), DOLEnglishFocus AreaUSA
OSHA publishes long-awaited Regulatory Agenda
After failing to publish a Fall 2025 or Spring 2026 regulatory agenda, on July 3 OSHA published a 2026 Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. Of note, a Subpoenas interim final rule is up for November 2026, the Emergency Response final rule is set for April 2027, and the Heat proposal is slated to be finalized in October 2027.
Starting August 19, 2026, OSHA will hold public hearings on numerous proposed rules, most of which relate to respiratory protection requirements for different chemical substances. The others relate to construction illumination, safety color code for marking for physical hazards, limiting the General Duty Clause for inherently risky professional activities, and fixed ladders.
Four rules fell into the long-term action category from the proposed or final stages in 2025: Communication Tower Safety, Shipyard Fall Protection, Powered Industrial Trucks Design Standard Update, and Standards Improvement Project. Long-term actions are items the agency considers under development but does not expect to take regulatory action on within 12 months after publication of the most recent regulatory agenda.
| Final rule stage | |
| Projected publication date | Title |
| July 2026 |
|
| September 2026 |
|
| November 2026 |
|
| April 2027 |
|
| October 2027 |
|
| Proposed rule stage | |
| Projected publication date or other action | Title |
| July 2026 |
|
| August 2026 - public hearings |
|
| September 2026 |
|
| November 2026 |
|
| December 2026 - Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
|
| Long-term actions | |
| |
Keep reading...Show less
2026-07-02T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsFleet SafetyDriver qualificationsDrivers qualification (DQ file)Driving RecordsDriver abstractsAnnual MVR reviewFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleEnglishTransportationUSA
Common motor vehicle report (MVR) questions and misconceptions
Motor vehicle reports (MVRs) are one of the most valuable tools for evaluating driver qualification, identifying risky driving behaviors, and reducing liability exposure.
Whether you're managing commercial driver’s license (CDL) drivers, non-CDL drivers, or employees who occasionally operate company vehicles, understanding MVR requirements can help you make better hiring, qualification, and safety decisions.
Who needs an MVR?
Some employers may think MVR requirements only apply to CDL drivers, but that's not the case. Any employee operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) that meet the federal definition of a CMV is subject to driver qualification requirements regardless of whether they hold a CDL.
This can include non-CDL drivers, supervisors, mechanics, owners, or other employees who occasionally operate regulated vehicles. If a person drives a CMV in interstate commerce, they must meet the same qualification standards as a full-time driver.
When should the initial MVR be obtained?
For non-CDL drivers subject to the driver qualification regulations under 391.51, employers must obtain the MVR within 30 days of hire. As a best practice, however, many fleets review an MVR before allowing a driver behind the wheel.
For CDL drivers, the MVR serves an additional purpose. It’s also used to verify DOT medical certification status and must be obtained before allowing a driver to operate a CMV.
How often should MVRs be reviewed?
Regulations require motor carriers to obtain and review a driver’s MVR at least once every 12 months. The review should evaluate licensing status, convictions, restrictions, endorsements, and any other changes that could affect the driver's qualifications. Drivers should also be reviewed against your internal policies on established safe driving thresholds — or as it’s often referred to, your “points” or “scoring” system.
An annual MVR is the minimum requirement, and a lot can change on a driver’s record if you’re waiting a full year to run their MVR. Many fleets have moved beyond annual reviews and now use continuous MVR monitoring programs, or run more frequent MVRs, such as quarterly reviews. This practice is highly recommended and will help carriers avoid being blindsided by a disqualified driver.
3 MVR misconceptions
Misconception #1: A valid license means the driver is low risk.
A driver may still hold a valid license while accumulating speeding convictions, distracted driving violations, preventable crashes, or other indicators of elevated crash risk. Looking only at license status or disqualifications can cause carrirs to miss driving patterns that warrant coaching or corrective action.
Carriers should include an internal “scoring” system in their company policies to consistently evaluate drivers and set clear expectations.
Misconception #2: Drivers will tell us when something changes.
CDL drivers must report traffic convictions, and all CMV drivers are required to report certain losses of driving privileges. However, relying solely on self-reporting leaves carriers vulnerable to delays, misunderstandings, and missed notifications.
Misconception #3: MVRs are simply a compliance document.
The most successful carriers use MVRs to support safety management programs. A speeding conviction, failure-to-yield violation, or pattern of unsafe driving behaviors can become an opportunity for coaching and training before a crash occurs.
Make sure whoever reviews MVRs is trained and knows exactly what to look for, and ask questions when warranted. Missing something because it wasn’t clear on the MVR isn’t a valid excuse.
What should carriers do when an MVR reveals a problem?
The answer depends on the severity of the issue and company policy. In some situations, coaching or refresher training is appropriate. In others, progressive discipline or removal from driving duties may be necessary. This may also involve working with your HR department to ensure appropriate steps are taken.
The key is consistency. Carriers should establish written policies, communicate expectations to drivers, and apply corrective actions consistently when your standards aren’t met.
Key to remember: An MVR is more than a simple check-the-box compliance item. It provides key insight into driving habits, qualification status, and potential safety risks. Organizations that proactively review and act on MVR information are better positioned to prevent crashes, reduce liability, and demonstrate strong safety management practices.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-07-02T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsFleet SafetyCMV Parts and MaintenanceVehicle TechnologyVehicle TechnologyFleet OperationsFocus AreaEnglishBrakesTransportationUSA
Commonsense update to AV brake pedal requirements
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently removed the mandate for manual brake pedals in autonomous vehicles (AVs) as part of its efforts toward “commonsense” measures. This applies to vehicles designed to be driven exclusively by automated driving systems with no human behind the wheel.
This action is the fifth update to the DOT’s Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), aligning with previous actions to remove the types of equipment vehicles won’t need if a human being is not present in the vehicle (e.g., windshield wipers, rearview mirrors, etc.).
NHTSA says it will continue enforcing all other brake-related requirements, such as stopping distance standards.
Along with removing brake pedals, NHTSA has also made the following FMVSS updates:
- Assured its further development of real-world safety performance for AVs,
- Removed requirements for hand- or foot-operated brake controls for vehicles that won’t be driven by a human,
- Declared that all subject vehicles must still meet the expected stopping distance performance criteria, and
- Stated its continued authority to oversee recalls investigate unsafe automated driving behaviors.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-07-02T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsHR GeneralistFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)In-Depth ArticleFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)HR ManagementEnglishUSAFocus AreaHuman Resources
Must employers accept FMLA certifications from online services?
Under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), in-person treatment for a serious health condition can include an appointment with a health care provider via telemedicine (i.e., a virtual visit), as long as it involves video.
The law doesn’t specify where the health care provider must be. Employees may, therefore, obtain an FMLA certification from online health care providers through a service dedicated to completing FMLA certifications.
Some services boast that they have licensed health care providers on staff who review an individual’s “case” and complete an FMLA certification within 24 hours. Others work with independent doctors. The review includes a video visit, so it meets the FMLA’s “telemedicine” requirement.
Such providers charge for the service, from $49 to $149, depending on the service and speed. Some claim that, if the employer doesn’t accept the certification, the employee gets their money back.
Employees are responsible
When employers ask employees to obtain a certification to support the need for FMLA leave, employees are responsible for complying. Employees might, however, find it hard to get an appointment to see their own health care providers. If they don’t have a primary care physician, they might need to become an established patient before even being seen.
This can all take time. Employees have 15 calendar days to obtain a certification unless extenuating circumstances are involved. Getting an appointment with a new provider might take more than 15 days. Even if an employee or family member is an established patient, they might not be able to get an appointment within 15 days.
Therefore, online services might be a viable and less expensive option for employees, as they can get same-day appointments in certain situations.
Employers are responsible
Employers might not know where a health care provider is or what entity they work for. As long as the health care provider is authorized to practice medicine or surgery (as appropriate) by the state in which they practice, employers should accept a complete and sufficient certification. The health care provider doesn’t have to be in the same state as the employee (or family member).
Employers shouldn’t dictate the particular health care provider from whom an employee obtains a certification, but can guide employees to alternative options as needed.
Key to remember: Employers should accept FMLA certifications from online service providers, as long as the certifications are otherwise complete, sufficient, and signed by a licensed health care provider.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-07-01T05:00:00Z
NewsHR ManagementEnglishHuman ResourcesTalent Management & RecruitingAssociate Benefits & CompensationIndustry NewsIndustry NewsDiscriminationTitle VII (The Civil Rights Act of 1964)Affirmative ActionRecruiting and hiringRecruiting and hiringHR GeneralistEEO-1 ReportingAssociate RelationsFocus AreaUSA
EEOC rescinds guidance on voluntary affirmative action plans
On June 30, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that it had voted to rescind two documents relating to permissible affirmative action under Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act.
The two documents that were rescinded include the agency’s:
- 1979 regulatory guidelines on “appropriate” affirmative action under the statute; and
- Section 607 of its Compliance Manual, which addressed those guidelines and the agency’s enforcement positions with respect to permissible affirmative action and affirmative action plans.
Rescission of the EEOC’s guidance doesn’t, however, reverse the Supreme Court’s decisions in United Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 (1979) and Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 U.S. 616 (1987), in which the Court recognized that Title VII may allow for certain voluntary affirmative action plans in limited circumstances.
Part of broader changes
The EEOC’s proposal is in line with other previous and pending changes affecting affirmative action and workforce reporting requirements. For example, federal contractor obligations to maintain affirmative action plans under regulations administered by the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs were eliminated in 2025 after the president rescinded the executive order that established them.
The EEOC is also pursuing the rescission of EEO-1 data collection and reporting rules which require companies and public employers to report workforce demographic information, including data on race, sex, and national origin.
What should employers do now?
In lieu of the EEOC’s actions, employers may want to assess whether any existing policies or programs could be affected by changes in the federal government’s approach to affirmative action.
Key to remember: The EEOC has guidance for employers that voluntarily maintain affirmative action plans.
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.