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
2026-07-13T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsViolations - HazmatHazmat SafetyHazmat: HighwayFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleEnglishTransportationUSA
A midyear look at FMCSA's top hazmat violations
Roadside inspections are a fact of life for hazmat carriers. While inspectors encounter a wide range of compliance issues, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) data shows that a handful of violations account for a significant share of hazmat citations year after year. Understanding these trends can help carriers focus their compliance efforts where they're likely to have the biggest impact.
Here's a look at the five most frequently cited hazmat roadside inspection violations so far in 2026 and what you can do to stay off the list.
1. Cargo not properly secured
The most common hazmat violation so far this year involves hazardous materials that weren’t properly blocked, braced, or secured during transportation. Inspectors recorded more than 1,000 of these violations.
To avoid this issue, verify that hazmat packages are adequately secured before departure and periodically check cargo during transit. Drivers should never assume a load was secured properly without conducting their own inspection.
2. Failure to produce a current hazmat registration
More than 400 violations were issued for failing to produce a current Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) hazmat registration certificate or registration number during an inspection.
Usually, the company is registered but can’t provide proof of registration. Make sure registrations are renewed on time, current certificates are maintained, and employees know where the documentation is located.
3. No required shipping paper
FMCSA reported more than 360 violations involving vehicles operating without a required hazmat shipping paper.
Before a vehicle leaves the facility, confirm that the required shipping paper is present and complete. A simple shipping paper review as part of the pre-trip process can help prevent this violation.
4. Damaged or obscured placards
Nearly 350 violations involved placards that were damaged, faded, dirty, or otherwise difficult to read.
Include placards in routine vehicle inspections and replace them when necessary. Also ensure mud, snow, road grime, or other materials aren't obstructing their visibility.
5. Shipping paper accessibility
Rounding out the top five is shipping paper accessibility, with more than 340 violations reported so far this year.
Having a shipping paper isn't enough. It also has to be readily accessible. Drivers should be trained on accessibility requirements and consistently store shipping papers in the designated location. The best place for hazmat shipping papers in a vehicle is in a holder on the inside of the driver’s door.
A common theme
What's striking about the top violations so far this year is that most involve basic compliance fundamentals rather than complex regulatory requirements. Cargo securement, documentation, and placarding remain the areas where inspectors are finding the most problems.
Key to remember: Don't overlook the basics. Regular pre-trip inspections, refresher training, and periodic compliance reviews can go a long way toward preventing the violations that inspectors continue to find most often on the road.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-07-13T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsEmployee RelationsEmployee RelationsHR GeneralistIn-Depth ArticleUSAAssociate RelationsEnglishHR ManagementFocus AreaHuman Resources
Human factors will set companies apart in the age of AI
In the midst of the AI revolution, Brad Rencher and Simon Sinek contend that a company’s success will hinge on human factors.
“Some of the headlines make it sound like by Thursday we’re all going to be reporting to a chatbot named Ethan,” quipped Rencher, Bamboo HR CEO, as he spoke to nearly 20,000 HR professionals at the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) annual conference in mid-June.
He contends that AI alone won’t define a company’s success, however. The decisions leaders make that keep employees informed and allow workers to learn and grow will allow companies to set themselves apart.
“At the end of the day, we are human beings who work with human beings who sell to human beings,” noted Sinek, author of “Start with WHY” and host of the “A Bit of Optimism” podcast, who presented “The Future of Work is Still Human” with Rencher.
Workers need context
Leaders need to acknowledge the emotions generated by a company’s approach to AI, Sinek noted, and be open about the reasons for business decisions.
AI anxiety is due in part to layoffs blamed on the technology, but if layoffs are actually needed because of over-hiring, companies should be open about this to avoid heightening AI fears. “Be honest and transparent,” he said. “Give people context.”
Toxic positivity should be avoided when talking about AI, he added, as that will make employees think there is something their employer isn’t telling them, but it’s also wrong to take a doomsday approach.
Instead, leaders should project confidence and be transparent about what is not known. Workers are wondering how the technology will affect them, and leaders can let them know that no decisions will be made until the company understands how the use of AI will play out.
Soft skills make companies stand out
Great companies have both technology and the human element, Sinek pointed out.
Those that invest in soft skills training, such as empathy, conflict resolution, difficult conversations and implementing change, will outperform those that don’t.
Redesign needed
Rencher pointed out that while the majority of companies are using AI, more than half have not provided guidance to their employees. In addition, half of companies say AI has not proven its value, and half of workers say AI hasn’t improved their work.
This is like introducing forklifts into a warehouse where the aisles have not been widened to accommodate them, Rencher commented. New tools have been layered on top of old systems, and they are bound to get stuck rather than operate efficiently.
AI integration is a leadership issue, not a productivity issue, he pointed out. “Workers want candor and transparency around uncertainty,” he said. “The technology is here, the question is, what do leaders do next?”
Change without clarity around future improvements leads to “dignity debt,” Rencher noted, leaving workers wondering what happens after part of their work is automated.
Rather than simply asking how much cost AI can remove from the current system, employers should create a new system that addresses what parts of work will stay human and how people will grow as jobs change. “Redesign work so people become more capable alongside the technology,” he suggests.
Key to remember: SHRM26 conference keynote speakers Brad Rencher and Simon Sinek told the crowd that AI may change how work gets done, but success will hinge on human factors. Leaders need to give employees context, communicate with transparency, and redesign work so people can grow alongside the technology.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-07-10T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsElements of a General Duty Clause ViolationSafety & HealthConstruction SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyAgriculture SafetyMaritime SafetyGeneral Duty ClauseGeneral Duty Clause Enforcement AreasIn-Depth ArticleEnglishGeneral Duty ClauseFocus AreaUSA
Don’t forget the General Duty Clause when identifying workplace hazards
What do heat stress, ergonomics, and struck-by hazards have in common? When employees aren’t adequately protected from these and other serious, recognized hazards for which there’s no OSHA standard, the agency can use the General Duty Clause (GDC) to cite employers. However, the agency must prove four things:
- That a hazard exists,
- That it’s recognized,
- That it’s causing or likely to cause serious physical harm or death, and
- That feasible abatement is available.
As an example, a hazard exists when employees work in extreme heat. It’s recognized because the hazard is widely known by employers, safety professionals, and industry. Extreme heat can pose harm because employees are at risk of heat illness or even death. And, it can be feasibly abated by providing water, rest breaks, and shade. Without all four of these elements, OSHA can’t use the GDC. But when they’re present, it’s a strong enforcement tool.
Recognized hazards
OSHA determines whether a hazard is “recognized” by looking at several sources, including:
- Industry consensus standards like the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) or the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA);
- An employer’s own safety rules and training materials;
- Previous incidents involving the hazard; and
- Industry recognition of the hazard, such as statements by safety or health experts who are familiar with the relevant conditions, and evidence of implementation of abatement methods to deal with the particular hazard by other members of the employer's industry.
Examples of recognized hazards include:
- Employees operating forklifts without wearing available seat belts;
- Damaged warehouse racks that could collapse;
- Workplace violence risks in certain settings, such as healthcare or gas stations, where the hazard is well documented; and
- Employees riding on the exterior rear step of refuse-collection trucks while vehicles are in transit.
Struck-by hazards and combustible dust are also recognized hazards. Recent cases where OSHA cited the GDC include:
- Employees walking in poorly illuminated areas on a jobsite where heavy vehicle traffic was present, and
- Employees exposed to fire and explosions associated with combustible dust generated during the manufacturing of dietary supplements.
Ergonomic hazards include strain from activities such as lifting, pushing, or repetitive motion. Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) like tendonitis, carpal tunnel syndrome, and back injuries can result from these exposures.
Identifying and controlling recognized hazards
A proactive approach is the best defense against a GDC citation. Conducting a job hazard analysis (JHA) helps identify hazards that might otherwise be missed. Observe employees as they perform tasks and ask for their input. They may identify hazards that employers or safety professionals don’t recognize, especially with tasks that occur infrequently or only under specific conditions.
In addition to JHAs, reviewing injury and illness records, near-miss reports, incident investigations, equipment manuals, workers’ compensation claims, industry guidance, and consensus standards can also provide insights.
Once you identify hazards, determine which ones don’t have an OSHA standard, like heat or ergonomics, and prioritize those that could cause serious physical harm or death. Consider the hierarchy of controls and whether the hazard can be eliminated or reduced.
Put reasonable controls in place (such as water, rest breaks, and shade for heat, or lift-assist devices for repeated manual lifting) and keep records showing what’s been done. Documented JHAs, training records, inspection logs, and corrective action reports can all help show that you took the hazard seriously and acted to protect employees.
The GDC and “inherently risky professions”
On July 1, 2025, OSHA issued a proposed rule that would limit the scope of the GDC. If finalized, OSHA could no longer use the GDC to cite employers of “inherently risky professions,” which includes such activities as motor sports, animal handling and performance, and combat simulation training. (See our related article, “OSHA proposes giving employers with ‘inherently risky professions’ a free pass.”) The agency’s most recent regulatory and deregulatory agenda, published July 3, 2026, reveals OSHA intends to hold public hearings on the proposal starting mid-August.
Key to remember: OSHA uses the General Duty Clause to cite serious, recognized hazards for which there’s no OSHA standard. When you identify and control these hazards and document your actions, OSHA may find it more difficult to establish the four elements necessary for a GDC citation.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-07-09T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsWage and HourWage and HourAssociate Benefits & CompensationHR GeneralistFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Non-Exempt employees In-Depth ArticleOvertimeHR ManagementEnglishFocus AreaHuman ResourcesUSA
Exempt or not? We’ve got a checklist for that
Employers don’t have to pay overtime to employees who meet the criteria to be classified as “exempt” under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Employers may not, however, simply call an employee “exempt.” They must ensure that such employees meet certain criteria. Under the FLSA, employees must:
- Be paid at least $684 per week,
- Be paid the same amount every week they do any work, and
- Perform certain job duties.
The first two requirements are fairly straightforward, but the last one requires some careful consideration by employers. Many employees fall under what’s been dubbed the “white collar” exemption. This exemption includes executive, administrative, or professional employees.
Having a checklist of questions can help determine if employees perform the duties needed to be classified as exempt under these classifications.
Employers must remember that an employee’s job title doesn’t determine whether they’re exempt or not. An administrative assistant, for example, likely won’t meet the criteria to be classified as exempt, as they won’t perform the required duties.
Below is a quick breakdown of questions that employers can ask themselves to see if employees qualify to be exempt.
Executive exemption
- Is the employee’s primary duty managing the enterprise, or managing a recognized department or subdivision of the enterprise?
- Does the employee customarily and regularly direct the work of at least two or more other full-time employees or their equivalent?
- Does the employee have the authority to hire or fire other employees, or are the employee’s suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring, firing, advancement, promotion, or any other change of status of other employees given particular weight?
Administrative exemption
- Is the employee’s primary duty the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer’s customers?
- Does the employee’s primary duty include the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance?
Learned professional exemption
- Is the employee’s primary duty the performance of work requiring advanced knowledge, defined as work which is predominantly intellectual in character, and which includes work requiring the regular exercise of discretion and judgment?
- Does the employee have advanced knowledge in a science or learning field?
- Is the employee’s advanced knowledge customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction?
Creative professional exemption
- Is the employee’s primary duty the performance of work that requires invention, imagination, originality, or talent in a recognized field of artistic or creative endeavor?
- Does the job’s primary function require independence and creative contribution, not just skill?
These questions should give employers a start in determining whether an employee (or a position) meets the duties tests to be classified as exempt under the FLSA.
State laws, however, can have their own variations. In California, for example, as of January 1, 2026, the minimum salary threshold for exempt employees is $1,352 per week ($70,304 per year). Employers with employees in states with higher salary thresholds must comply with those requirements if they’re more beneficial to employees working there.
Key to remember: Answering some questions on this checklist can help employers determine whether an employee/position may be classified as exempt from overtime pay under the FLSA.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-07-09T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsInternational Registration Plan (IRP)Vehicle registration exemptionsMotorcoach vehicle license or registrationVehicle Registration PermitsFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleFleet OperationsEnglishTransportationRegistration and Permits - Motor CarrierUSA
Does your registration still match your operations?
A truck may have valid plates, current registration, and no obvious paperwork problem, yet still be improperly registered for the work it’s doing today.
As your fleet grows and operations change, it's easy for vehicle registration to lag behind reality. The result can be citations, permit issues, unexpected fees, operational delays, and compliance headaches. Here are three common situations where a registration may no longer match the operation.
Is your registered weight still accurate?
One of the most common registration issues involves registered weight. A vehicle may be legally capable of hauling heavier loads, but that doesn't necessarily mean it’s registered to do so.
As business grows, carriers often begin hauling larger loads, adding customers, or expanding routes. If your vehicle's registered weight isn't updated to reflect those changes, you could face penalties for operating above the weight authorized by its registration.
This issue often goes unnoticed because the truck itself hasn't changed. However, enforcement officials are concerned with how the vehicle is registered, not just what it’s capable of hauling.
Whenever freight volumes, routes, or operating weights change, review your registration records to ensure they still align with actual operations.
Is the vehicle operating under the right plate type?
Not all registrations are created equal. Many states offer specialty or reduced-fee registrations for certain operations, such as:
- Farm vehicles,
- Natural resource vehicles,
- Forestry operations, or
- Other restricted uses.
Specialty plates can save money, but they also come with strings attached. Carriers must comply with those limits for the registration to remain valid. Problems arise when a vehicle's operation changes but its registration does not.
For example, a vehicle may have been properly registered under a specialty plate when it was performing one type of work. If the vehicle later begins hauling different commodities, traveling outside permitted areas, or performing general commercial transportation, it may no longer qualify for that registration class.
A good practice is to review registration classifications whenever equipment is reassigned, new customers are added, or business activities expand beyond their original scope. The registration and the vehicle's use must continue to match.
Has interstate travel changed the rules?
Another common issue occurs when operations expand beyond your home state.
A vehicle that is properly registered for intrastate operations may require additional credentials or registrations once it begins operating across state lines. What starts as an occasional out-of-state trip can gradually evolve into a regular part of the business.
Because the change often happens incrementally, carriers may not realize that their registration and credentialing requirements have changed along with their operations.
Before crossing state lines, evaluate whether additional registration, apportioned registration, permits, or other interstate credentials are required. Waiting until a roadside inspection or audit to discover a registration issue can be a costly mistake.
Three questions to ask
New customers, new commodities, expanded routes, and heavier loads can all affect registration requirements. Before a vehicle goes back on the road after business changes, ask:
- Is this vehicle registered for the weight I'm operating at?
- Does the registration type still match how I'm using the vehicle?
- Has my operating area expanded beyond what the registration was intended to cover?
If the answer to any of those questions is "I'm not sure," it's time for a registration review.
Key to remember: Registration should never be treated as “set it and forget it.” If the operation changes, the registration may need to change with it.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-07-09T05:00:00Z
NewsWasteTSCA ComplianceWater ProgramsEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)CAA ComplianceWater ProgramsCWA ComplianceWaste/HazWasteEnglishAir ProgramsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsWasteEnvironmentalFocus AreaSARA ComplianceAir ProgramsUSA
EPA releases 2026 regulatory agenda
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the 2026 Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions on July 3, 2026. The agenda outlines the agency’s upcoming regulatory actions and their status in the rulemaking process. Many of the proposed and final rules support EPA’s continued deregulatory efforts.
Significant updates on EPA’s docket include the following:
- Proposing risk management regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for various chemical substances, such as formaldehyde, diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP), and diisononyl phthalate (DINP);
- Aligning the definition of “waters of the United States” with the Supreme Court’s Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (2023) decision, which narrowed the definition under the Clean Water Act;
- Finalizing the part 2 risk management regulations for asbestos, including use and associated disposal requirements for legacy asbestos, asbestos-containing talc, and asbestos fibers other than chrysotile;
- Repealing the Carbon Pollution Standards (CPS) that limit greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel-fired plants (or repealing a narrower set of requirements under the CPS); and
- Establishing a federal permitting program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for the disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCR).
Additionally, EPA continues to conduct rulemaking related to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), such as:
- Revising existing effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) to address PFAS discharges from PFAS manufacturing facilities and chromium electroplating facilities;
- Extending the compliance deadlines for Maximum Contaminant Levels established by the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS); and
- Rescinding the regulations for four PFAS established under the NPDWRs.
This article highlights some of the major rules we’re monitoring closely. You can review the entire agenda to learn about all the rulemakings EPA plans to review, propose, and finalize. Please note that the agenda dates are tentative, indicating when the agency seeks to publish the rulemakings in the Federal Register.
| Final Rule Stage | |
| Projected publication date | Title |
| July 2026 | Reconsideration of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program |
| August 2026 | 1-Bromopropane (1-BP); Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) |
| October 2026 | Revisions to Standards for the Open Burning/Open Detonation of Waste Explosives |
| October 2026 | Secondary Lead Smelting: National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Technology Review and Reconsideration |
| January 2027 | Listing of Specific PFAS as Hazardous Constituents |
| Proposed Rule Stage | |
| Projected publication date of notice of proposed rulemaking | Title |
| August 2026 | Improving Recycling and Management of Renewable Energy Wastes: Universal Waste Regulations for Solar Panels and Lithium Batteries |
| September 2026 | Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction Category (40 CFR 435 Subpart E) |
| October 2026 | Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Category (40 CFR 437) |
| December 2026 | Clean Water Act Hazardous Substance Facility Response Plans; Amendment Reconsideration |
| December 2026 | National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Stationary Combustion Turbines; Amendments |
| Pre-Rule Stage | |
| Projected publication date or other action | Title |
| January 2027 (final rule) | Risk Management Program, CAA Section 112(r)(7) (Section 610 Review) |
| August 2026 (begin review) | Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources (Section 610 Review) |
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.