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
NewsEnforcement and Audits - OSHAVideoTransportationBusiness planning - Motor CarrierCompany growth - Motor CarrierUSAEnglishBusiness planning - Motor CarrierIndustry NewsFederal Motor Carrier Safety RegulationsFleet SafetyRisk Management TransportationBusiness policies and procedures - Motor CarrierFleet OperationsFocus AreaMonthly Roundup Video
Transportation Monthly Round Up - July 2026
In this July 2026 monthly round up video, we'll review the most impactful transportation and safety news.
In this July 2026 round up, we will discuss the FMCSA 2026 rulemaking agenda, the Heavy Vehicle Use Tax, and an update for freight brokers. Let's get started.
The latest 2026 DOT rulemaking agenda pushes many actions into mid- to late 2026 and adds several new priorities, including English-language proficiency, entry-level driver-training-provider standards, commercial driver’s license (CDL) security, and updates to federal drug-testing guidelines.
Among other long-expected changes are updates to the Drug & Alcohol Clearinghouse and electronic logging device (ELD) rules, changes to cargo securement provisions, annual penalty adjustments, and several proposals affecting CDL standards, medical qualification, drug testing, brokers, and more.
The public will have a chance to comment on proposed rules as they’re announced, so carriers should watch for proposed rules, review how the changes could affect operations, and comment when agencies ask for public input.
Every year, the Heavy Vehicle Use Tax (HVUT) season opens in July , and every year the same pattern plays out. It’s rarely the big stuff that gets carriers into trouble. Most fleets and owner-operators know they need to file Form 2290 and understand the August 31 deadline for vehicles in service in July.
The real problems show up in the details. Carriers must ensure the EIN and legal business name on the return match exactly what's on file to avoid a rejected Form 2290 from an identity mismatch. It's essential to meet the filing deadline and NOT use the purchase date instead of first dispatch.
The trucking industry is still assessing the impact of the Supreme Court's Montgomery decision, but a recent $604 million verdict against freight broker C.H. Robinson has made one thing clear: broker liability is no longer just a legal theory. The case stemmed from a fatal 2021 crash in Mississippi and highlights a significant shift in how courts view carrier selection. Rather than focusing solely on a broker's role in arranging transportation, juries are increasingly examining whether brokers exercised reasonable care when choosing carriers, particularly when safety concerns may have been evident.
The verdict underscores the growing importance of carrier vetting, safety performance reviews, and documentation. FMCSA safety data, crash history, violations, and maintenance records are becoming key pieces of evidence in litigation. In this evolving legal environment, brokers must be prepared to demonstrate not only that they selected a qualified carrier, but also how and why that decision was made. Consistent vetting standards and thorough documentation are becoming essential safeguards as accountability continues to carry as much weight as capacity.
That’s it for this month’s round up. Stay safe, and thanks for watching.
Keep reading...Show less
NewsMonthly Roundup VideoFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)LeaveFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)USAHuman ResourcesLeaveHR ManagementEnglishTalent Management & RecruitingAssociate Benefits & CompensationDiscriminationGender DiscriminationDiscriminationIndustry NewsAffirmative ActionRetaliationWage and HourWage and HourPregnancy DiscriminationHR GeneralistAssociate RelationsFocus AreaVideo
HR Monthly Round Up - July 2026
In this July 2026 roundup video, we’ll review the most impactful HR news.
Welcome, everyone! In the next few minutes, we’ll review the latest HR news. Let’s get started.
On June 30th, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced that it voted to rescind two documents relating to permissible affirmative action under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The rescission doesn’t reverse the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in two cases in which the Court recognized that Title VII may allow for certain voluntary affirmative action plans in limited circumstances.
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.
One other quick EEOC update, the agency published its 2026 regulatory agenda on July 6th, indicating that it plans to publish a proposed rule in November that would change the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act regulations. The EEOC wants to revise the interpretation of the words “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” Stay tuned for more on this in the coming months.
Also, on July 6th, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division published its 2026 regulatory agenda. The agency noted that a proposed rule on joint employer status was slated for July 2026, and a final rule on independent contractor status is expected in October 2026. However, these dates, like the EEOC one, are estimates and subject to change.
Our last HR update for this month is all about retaliation, specifically as it pertains to the Family and Medical Leave Act. Employers are prohibited from taking adverse employment actions because employees exercise their FMLA rights. For example, giving an employee who took FMLA leave a smaller pay increase or a lower bonus could be seen as retaliating against them.
That’s what the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in June against an employer that had given an employee a more than 40 percent reduction in bonus and salary increase compared to previous years. The employer ultimately fired the employee who then sued.
The court found the timing of the lower amounts was unusually suggestive, as they happened right after he took FMLA leave, which implied it was retaliatory.
That’s all the HR news we have time for today. Thanks for watching. See you next month!
Keep reading...Show less
NewsHazardous WasteSARA ComplianceCommunity Right to KnowPesticidesMine SafetyPesticide Registration and LabelingTSCA ComplianceWater ProgramsBenzeneWater QualitySafety Data Sheet ReportingMiningWaste/HazWasteTier II Inventory ReportingEnforcement and Audits - OSHASafety & HealthToxic and Hazardous Substances - OSHAEnvironmentalAir ProgramsToxic and Hazardous Substances - OSHAVideoAir QualityEnforcement and Audits - OSHACERCLA, SARA, EPCRAToxic Substances Control Act - EPAAir EmissionsMonthly Roundup VideoCAA ComplianceCWA ComplianceEnglishIndustry News
EHS Monthly Round Up - July 2026
In this July 2026 monthly roundup video, we'll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news.
Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news. Let’s take a look at what happened over the past month.
OSHA published its 2026 regulatory agenda on July 3. Of note, the agency projects an April 2027 date for the Emergency Response final rule, and the Heat Illness proposal is slated to be finalized in October 2027. In November 2026, OSHA also expects to publish a final rule addressing the use of subpoenas during investigations.
OSHA reopened the comment period for 14 chemical-specific proposals. This allows the public 30 days to comment on recommendations made by OSHA’s Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health.
OSHA updated its Voluntary Protection Programs, which recognize workplaces with strong safety and health programs and low injury rates. The changes align with the seven core elements in the agency’s Recommended Practices for Safety and Health Programs.
The Mine Safety and Health Administration withdrew 4 regulations that it says address outdated effective dates and requirements for various industry equipment and procedures. These relate to conveyor belts, blacksmith shops, diesel emission limits, and permissible flame safety lamps.
Turning to environmental news, EPA released detailed instructions and deadlines for pesticide registrants to begin compliance with the bilingual labeling requirements in the My PeST application. The first compliance deadline was July 31.
EPA aligned regulations under EPCRA Sections 311 and 312 with OSHA’s Hazard Communication amendments for hazardous chemical reporting requirements. Facilities must use OSHA’s hazard classes with their categories for safety data sheet submissions and hazardous chemical inventory reports required under EPCRA Sections 311 and 312.
And finally, EPA published its 2026 regulatory agenda on July 3. Many of the proposed and final rules support the agency’s continued deregulatory efforts and may impact regulatory compliance with air, land, and water rules.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
Keep reading...Show less
2026-08-07T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsPersonal Protective EquipmentSafety & HealthConstruction SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyHearing ProtectionIn-Depth ArticleEnglishFocus AreaUSA
The noise problem you may not hear coming
Noise-induced hearing loss can happen gradually, making it easy to overlook until the damage is permanent. Hearing conservation is often associated with earplugs, earmuffs, and annual hearing tests. But the strongest programs do more than provide hearing protection and check a box once a year. They take a closer look at where noise exposures occur, whether controls are working, and whether employees understand how to protect their hearing before damage occurs.
Where noise protection efforts fall short
Many hearing conservation programs lose effectiveness when noise exposure data, employee assignments, or work practices are not kept current. A machine may be relocated, production demand may increase, or employees may spend more time in noisy areas than they used to. If the program isn’t reviewed when these changes occur, the written plan may no longer reflect actual exposures. Common warning signs include:
- Outdated noise monitoring after equipment, layout, or process changes;
- Employees wearing hearing protection inconsistently or only when reminded;
- Hearing protectors selected without verifying they provide appropriate attenuation for the exposure;
- Annual training that covers requirements but does not address the workplace’s actual noise hazards; or
- Audiogram results without meaningful follow-up when a shift is identified.
What employers need to have in place
Under OSHA's occupational noise exposure standard (CFR 1910.95), employers must establish a hearing conservation program when employee exposure equals or exceeds an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) of 85 dBA. The standard includes several connected requirements, including:
- Monitoring noise exposure to identify employees who must be included in the program;
- Providing audiometric testing and follow-up when required;
- Making hearing protectors available and ensuring they are used when required;
- and Providing training on noise hazards and proper use of hearing protection.
The 85 dBA action level is often confused with OSHA's permissible exposure limit (PEL). The PEL for an 8-hour exposure is 90 dBA. When noise exposures exceed the PEL levels listed in OSHA's Table G-16, feasible administrative or engineering controls must be used. If those controls don’t reduce exposure to acceptable levels, hearing protection must be provided and used. This distinction matters because a facility may need a hearing conservation program even when exposures are below the PEL.
Turning requirements into daily habits
For the program to work, each part must connect back to the actual noise exposures employees encounter. That means confirming that the right employees are included, the right protection is selected, and training reflects the tasks and work areas where exposure occurs. Consider these practical steps:
Review exposure data: Confirm that noise monitoring reflects current equipment, tasks, schedules, and employee rotation patterns.
Evaluate hearing protection: Make sure protectors are appropriate for the exposure and that employees know how to wear, maintain, and replace them.
Watch actual work: Observe whether employees wear protection consistently in noisy areas and whether supervisors reinforce the requirement.
Connect training to the workplace: Use examples from the facility, so employees understand which tasks, areas, and tools create hazardous noise exposures.
Follow up on audiograms: Treat threshold shifts as an opportunity to review exposure, protection, training, and employee understanding, not just as a recordkeeping item.
Key to remember: A hearing conservation program only works when it stays connected to the noise exposures employees face. Monitoring, training, hearing protection, and follow-up all need to work together to help prevent permanent hearing loss.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-08-06T05:00:00Z
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
2026-08-06T05:00:00Z
NewsHuman Resource ManagementHuman Resource ManagementFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)In-Depth ArticleUSAHR ManagementEnglishDiscriminationIndustry NewsDiscriminationHR PoliciesRecruiting and hiringGenetic Information Nondiscrimination ActPolicies and ProceduresRecruiting and hiringHR GeneralistFocus AreaMedical ExaminationsAssociate RelationsDisabilities and ADAHuman Resources
Remember GINA? Don’t forget this genetic rule when making employment decisions
GINA is short for the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. The law generally prohibits employers from asking employees or job applicants about their family medical history.
The GINA doesn’t come up every day in the workplace, but employers should still be familiar with its requirements. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which enforces the workplace part of the law, recently sued an employer over a GINA violation. The case is a helpful reminder of what employers should avoid.
In the lawsuit, the EEOC said the employer asked job applicants for genetic information from at least January 2022 through October 2024. During a pre-employment physical, applicants had to say whether their parents, siblings, or grandparents ever had certain health conditions, including cancer, tuberculosis, diabetes, epilepsy, asthma, or mental illness.
Don’t ask
The basic GINA rule is simple: Employers may not generally ask for, require, or buy genetic information about an employee or job applicant.
That includes information about diseases or health conditions in an employee’s or applicant’s family members’ medical history.
Don't use
The GINA also says employers shouldn’t treat someone differently because of genetic information. That rule applies to every aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job duties, promotions, layoffs, training, benefits, and other work terms. In short, genetic information should never be used to make a job decision because it doesn’t show whether someone can currently perform the job.
Employers also need to watch for harassment based on genetic information. The harasser could be a supervisor, another manager, a coworker, or even someone outside the company, such as a client or customer.
6 exceptions
There are a few narrow exceptions when it comes to GINA rules. Employers may receive genetic information in these six situations:
- They receive it by accident. For example, a manager might overhear an employee talking about a family member’s illness.
- The information comes through health or genetic services, such as a voluntary wellness program, and they follow the required rules.
- The information is part of a certification supporting leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, a similar state or local leave law, or a company leave policy, when an employee asks for leave to care for a family member with a serious health condition.
- They find the information in a public source, such as social media, as long as they weren’t looking for genetic information or searching places where that information is likely to appear.
- They collect the information through a genetic monitoring program that checks the effects of toxic substances at work if the program is required by law or follows the rules for voluntary programs.
- They do DNA testing for law enforcement or to identify human remains. In that case, employee genetic information may be used only for quality control and to spot sample contamination.
EEOC v. Dana Sealing Manufacturing, LLC, U.S. Eastern District of Kentucky, No. 5:26-cv-00233.
Key to remember: Employers shouldn’t ask for family medical information when not allowed, and they shouldn’t use it when making employment decisions.
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.