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 - OSHACERCLA, SARA, EPCRAToxics Release Inventory ReportingVideoMonthly Roundup VideoCAA ComplianceInjury and Illness RecordkeepingEnglishOSHA Violations and PenaltiesAir ProgramsIndustry NewsSafety & HealthGeneral Industry Safety300-A Annual SummaryEnvironmentalFocus AreaAir ProgramsUSA
EHS Monthly Round Up - January 2023
In this monthly roundup video, we’ll review the most impactful environmental, safety, and health news.
Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental, safety, and health news. First, let’s take a look at what’s happening in safety and health.
If you haven’t already done so, now is the time to post your OSHA 300A Summary. Employers are required to post the Summary in a conspicuous place from February 1st through April 30th.
As required by law, OSHA increased its penalties for inflation in mid-January. Penalties went up 7.7 percent, effective January 17th.
Also in January, OSHA released its long-awaited Fall 2022 regulatory agenda. Along with numerous proposed rules in the works, three major final rules are slated for 2023 – COVID-19 in healthcare, Injury and Illness tracking, and an update to the hazard communication standard.
OSHA recently released two new letters of interpretation, which address exit signs and lockout/tagout. Specifically, OSHA states that the International Standards Organization emergency exit symbol can be located beside the mandatory EXIT text on an existing sign.
The second letter addresses the applicability of lockout/tagout and the maintenance and operations of cathodic protection rectifiers when working on pipelines.
New York’s Warehouse Worker Protection Act was signed into law in December and takes effect in late February. It protects warehouse distribution workers from undisclosed or unlawful work speed quotas and includes protections for workers who fail to meet these quotas.
In 2021, a worker died every 101 minutes from a work-related injury, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A total of 5,190 fatal work injuries was recorded in the U.S. in 2021, an 8.9 percent increase over 2020.
Turning to environmental news, EPA automatically added nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, to the Toxics Release Inventory, or TRI, list. Four PFAS were added since they are no longer claimed as confidential business information.
EPA released its Fall 2022 regulatory agenda in early January. Included are major regulations impacting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, waters of the United States, and modifications to the Risk Management Program under the Clean Air Act.
There are also a number of rules related to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants in various rule stages.
And finally, beginning with model year 2027, heavy-duty trucks will be required to meet clean air standards that are 80 percent more stringent than current requirements.
EPA says this final rule is aimed at reducing smog- and soot-forming emissions, increasing the life of governed vehicles by up to 250 percent, and increasing emissions warranty periods up to 450 percent.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup!
Keep reading...Show less
NewsIndustry NewsEnforcement and Audits - OSHAOSHA InspectionsSafety & HealthGeneral Industry SafetyMonthly Roundup VideoFocus AreaUSAHazard CommunicationHazard CommunicationEnglishOSHA Violations and PenaltiesVideo
EHS Monthly Round Up - October 2023
In this monthly 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. Please view the content links in the transcript to take a deeper dive into the topics I’ll be covering today. With that said, let’s get started!
OSHA’s hazard communication final rule is under review at the Office of Management and Budget. This process typically takes 90 to 120 days, which means we’ll likely see the final rule in early 2024.
A performance audit found that OSHA did not adequately address the high number of injuries and illnesses at warehouses before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the high rate of injury and illness, OSHA only conducted a small number of inspections.
An OSHA investigation found a fulfillment center was exposing employees to ergonomic hazards which could lead to musculoskeletal disorders. The company also failed to provide adequate medical care for workers who had sustained head injuries, some of which were traumatic.
Workplace overdose deaths have increased 536 percent since 2011. A National Safety Council survey found that 75 percent of employers reported opioid use has impacted their workplace, but only 17 percent said they felt prepared to deal with the problem.
And finally, turning to environmental news, EPA finalized its PFAS reporting and recordkeeping rule. It expands the definition to include 41 additional PFAS of concern, among other changes.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
Keep reading...Show less
2026-10-30T05:00:00Z
NewsEnforcement and Audits - OSHAPersonal Protective EquipmentFall ProtectionFalling Object ProtectionIn-Depth ArticleEnglishOSHA Violations and PenaltiesPersonal Protective EquipmentIndustry NewsHead ProtectionSafety & HealthGeneral Industry SafetyGeneral Duty ClauseMaritime SafetyGeneral Duty ClauseFocus AreaUSA
Heads up on Type II helmets: New OSHA letter points beyond 1910.135
New interpretation from OSHA’s enforcement office clarifies the general industry head protection requirements when workers could face lateral or off-center head impact hazards. The letter, posted on the agency’s website in recent weeks, also expands on the 2024 OSHA Safety and Health Information Bulletin (SHIB) on safety helmets.
A look at 29 CFR 1910.135 may lead you to think protective helmets are required only when working in areas where there is potential for injury to the head from falling objects or electrical shock from conductors that could contact the head. There is no mention of lateral or off-center impact hazards to the head, but don’t let that fool you.
Helmet compliance
OSHA 1910.135(b) states that head protection in general industry must comply with one of three ANSI Z89.1 standards (1997, 2003, or 2009) or demonstrate that the provided head protection is as effective as one constructed in accordance with one of the three ANSI standards.
OSHA’s letter of interpretation dated August 17, 2026, which was just posted in October, confirms that 1910.135(b) does not require you to use a particular ANSI helmet type, such as Type II. However, the agency explains that ANSI Z89.1 distinguishes between helmet types based on the impact protection they’re designed to provide:
- Type I helmets are designed to reduce force of impact resulting from a blow to the top of the head.
- Type II helmets are designed to reduce the force of impact resulting from a blow to the top or side of the head.
In addition, the ANSI standard uses three classes (G, E, and C) based on whether the helmet is designed or not designed for electrical hazards.
Hazard assessment drives selection
The interpretive letter then directs you to a different regulation. Subparagraph 1910.132(d)(1) says, “The employer shall assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or are likely to be present, which necessitate the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). If such hazards are present, or likely to be present, the employer shall: (i) Select, and have each affected employee use, the types of PPE that will protect the affected employee from the hazards identified in the hazard assessment …”
Therefore, OSHA indicates that where a hazard assessment conducted per 1910.132(d)(1) identifies hazards involving blows to the top or side of the head, then head protection that provides only top-impact protection may not be adequate to protect employees from those hazards. In those situations, the agency will require you to provide proper PPE (for example, Type II) that will protect the affected employee from the specific hazards identified in the hazard assessment.
That does not necessarily mean Type II helmets are required in these cases. Type II helmets may be an appropriate means of protection, but they are not the only acceptable option. You can use any head protection that provides equal or greater protection.
Citations issued by OSHA depend on the hazards assessed at the time of the inspection and the specific facts of each inspection. For enforcement purposes, during an inspection, OSHA would generally evaluate whether you assessed the workplace under 1910.132(d)(1) for hazards that are present, or are likely to be present, requiring PPE. According to the letter, if the agency determines that lateral (side) impact hazards are present and you issued only Type I helmets, OSHA may cite you under 1910.132(d)(1)(i) for failure to provide PPE appropriate to the hazards.
What about the 2024 bulletin?
The interpretive letter also brings up its March 6, 2024, SHIB. The five-page bulletin, “Head Protection: Safety Helmets in the Workplace,” SHIB 3-6-2024, does not create legal requirements, says OSHA. While it may be referenced as guidance describing common hazard scenarios and injury mechanisms, the agency’s enforcement determinations are not based on the SHIB. Rather, citations are based on the facts of the workplace and applicable standards, states the letter.
More questions answered in the letter
OSHA’s letter goes on to answer questions about:
- Scenarios in which Type II helmets may be appropriate;
- Whether OSHA can use the General Duty Clause to cite employers where lateral hazards are present, but the employer only provides Type I helmets; and
- The documentation required to demonstrate that the selected helmets are adequate and compliant where lateral impact hazards may be present.
Meanwhile, a new ANSI standard
The letter was written just before the International Safety Equipment Association (ISEA) announced the release of ANSI/ISEA Z89.1-2026, American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection, in September. The voluntary consensus standard introduces the “+” designation for helmets associated with optional, added performance criteria.
The new Type I+ and Type II+ designations both address testing criteria for retention on the head along with chin strap securement. Type I+ also provides specifications for impact testing at the front, rear, and sides.
OSHA 1910.135 does not currently incorporate by reference the 2026 edition of ANSI/ISEA Z89.1, but rather the 1997, 2003, and 2009 editions of Z89.1.
Key to remember
The latest OSHA letter of interpretation emphasizes that while 1910.135 does not require the use of a particular ANSI helmet type, helmet selection starts with the hazard assessment at 1910.132.
Where an assessment identifies lateral or off-center head impact hazards, head protection that provides only top-impact protection may not be adequate to protect employees from those hazards. In such a case, OSHA may cite the employer under 1910.132(d)(1)(i) for failure to provide PPE appropriate to the hazards.
OSHA adds that the 2024 SHIB is advisory. Enforcement determinations would be based on the facts of the workplace and applicable standards, not on the SHIB itself.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-10-30T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsDiscriminationDiscriminationRecruiting and hiringHR GeneralistBackground ChecksIn-Depth ArticleUSAEnglishEqual Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)Focus AreaHuman Resources
EEOC votes to rescind guidance on criminal background checks: Federal, state, and local laws still apply
On October 29, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced it had voted to rescind its 2012 “Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions.”
Under the 14-year-old guidance, an employer’s use of criminal records could violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act if it disproportionately excluded applicants of a particular race or national origin and wasn't job-related and consistent with business necessity. It urged employers to weigh the nature of the offense, the time elapsed, and the nature of the job; to give applicants a chance to explain their records; and to treat an arrest alone as insufficient evidence of wrongdoing.
The EEOC’s vote follows an April 2025 executive order directing federal agencies to deprioritize enforcement of disparate-impact liability, which allows discrimination claims over neutral policies that disproportionately harm protected groups, even without discriminatory intent.
The rescission is effective immediately. According to the EEOC, employers don’t need to abandon lawful practices they adopted in response to the 2012 guidance.
What this means for employers
The rescission doesn’t change the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) or state and local fair-chance and ban-the-box laws.
In the EEOC’s press release, Chair Andrea Lucas was quoted as saying: “Rescinding this guidance does not give employers license to engage in unlawful discrimination — Title VII continues to prohibit discrimination based on race or national origin, including employment requirements that are proxies for intentional discrimination.”
Applicants can also still sue. Because disparate-impact liability is written into Title VII, private lawsuits remain possible even if the EEOC stops pursuing these claims.
Tips for employers:
- Don't drop job-related screening practices just because the federal guidance is gone.
- Avoid blanket bans on hiring anyone with a record.
- Keep handling arrests differently from convictions.
- Keep following the FCRA's disclosure, authorization, and adverse action steps.
Key to remember: Although the EEOC has withdrawn its guidance, Title VII, the FCRA, and state and local laws still apply. Employers should keep their screening practices job-related and be especially mindful of state and local requirements.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-10-29T05:00:00Z
NewsChange NoticesChange NoticeWater ProgramsWater QualityWyomingEnvironmentalCWA ComplianceEnglishFocus Area
Wyoming updates noncoal surface mining regulations
Effective date: August 21, 2026
This applies to: Noncoal surface mining operations
Description of change: The Wyoming Land Quality Division (LQD) adopted a new chapter and amended three related chapters governing noncoal surface mining operation regulations.
The LQD added Noncoal Chapter 14 to set blasting requirements for noncoal surface mining operations, including requirements for blasting plans for operations that anticipate using explosives.
It also revised Noncoal Chapters 2, 9, and 10 to establish that other types of operations are subject to some or all of the blasting regulations established by Noncoal Chapter 14. For example, the following types of operations must develop blasting plans if the operations are expected to use blasting as part of the mining:
- Regular noncoal mine permit applicants,
- Small mining operations, and
- Limited mining operations on 15 acres or less of affected land.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-10-29T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsFleet SafetyDrug testing - Motor CarrierDrug and Alcohol Testing - DOTFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleEnglishTransportationUSA
FDA clears a key hurdle for DOT oral-fluid drug testing
Motor carriers have been watching the DOT oral-fluid drug testing program inch forward for years. A recent action by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) brings the finish line into sight.
On October 6, 2026, the FDA published a final rule exempting certain clinical toxicology test systems — including oral-fluid drug collection devices — from the agency’s premarket notification (510(k)) requirement.
In plain terms: device manufacturers no longer need FDA clearance before bringing qualifying oral-fluid collection products to market. That removes one of the last regulatory barriers standing between the program’s legal authorization and its real-world launch.
How we got here
DOT regulations allowing oral-fluid testing for commercial drivers have been on the books for years. The agency’s 2023 final rule amended 49 CFR Part 40 to permit oral fluid as an alternative to urine collection.
Before motor carriers can use oral-fluid testing under Part 382, however:
- At least two laboratories need government approval for testing oral-fluid specimens, and
- FDA-cleared collection devices need to be made available to collectors.
The FDA’s premarket notification requirement had been an obstacle for device manufacturers seeking to sell oral-fluid collection products for DOT-regulated testing. Without FDA clearance or an exemption, those products could not be used in the program. The October 6 action changes that for qualifying devices. Manufacturers can now bring products to market without first obtaining individual 510(k) clearance, provided they comply with applicable controls.
Importantly, FDA did not deregulate the devices altogether. They remain subject to a variety of FDA requirements.
For DOT testing, the practical effect is significant: it reduces the regulatory burden on device manufacturers, which should accelerate the availability of DOT-compliant oral-fluid collection devices.
What still needs to happen
The FDA’s action is meaningful, but it does not mean oral-fluid DOT testing is available today. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) still needs to approve at least two labs for oral-fluid testing. Lab certification is a separate process from FDA device approval.
In addition, HHS needs to certify oral-fluid collection devices. Even with FDA’s 510(k) exemption, devices used in DOT-regulated collections must appear on the HHS conforming products list.
Regulation reminders
If you haven’t read the oral-fluid testing rules in a while, it may be time to revisit them and consider how oral-fluid testing will fit into your overall DOT testing program.
It is important to note that oral fluid is intended as an alternative to — not a replacement for — urine testing. Carriers will be able to choose which method to use, and both will remain valid for DOT compliance once oral-fluid testing becomes operational.
With FDA’s recent action, the option for oral-fluid testing should be closer at hand. Watch for updates and be prepared to:
- Coordinate with your third-party administrator (if applicable) to understand what policy and contract changes will be needed when the program goes live.
- Review your written drug and alcohol policy to identify language that may need to be updated to reference oral-fluid collections.
- Plan for supervisor and driver training on oral-fluid collection procedures, which differ from urine collection in important ways.
Key to remember: The FDA has removed an important roadblock to implementation of oral-fluid drug testing among commercial vehicle drivers.
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.