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
2026-06-26T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsEnvironmental Management SystemsWaste/HazWasteCAA ComplianceSustainabilityIn-Depth ArticleCWA ComplianceEnvironmentalEnglishSustainabilityESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance)Focus AreaUSA
Multi-media inspections are back: How to prepare for comprehensive EPA and state audits
Regulators have returned to routine, in-person inspections, and many are no longer limited to a single program. EPA and state agencies are again conducting multi-media inspections that review air, water, and hazardous waste compliance in one visit. For facilities, this shift raises the stakes. An issue in one program can quickly lead inspectors into others, especially when records or operations do not align.
Most inspectors now arrive with background data already reviewed. Electronic submissions, air reports, discharge monitoring reports, and hazardous waste filings are compared against what they see on site. When numbers, dates, or practices do not match, the scope of the inspection often expands.
What inspectors are really evaluating
While documents are important, inspectors focus on whether procedures match actual operations. They will often start with a walk-through of the facility, tracing how materials move through production and become emissions, discharges, or wastes.
For example:
- Air compliance may be checked by reviewing fuel use, hours of operation, or control device logs.
- Stormwater compliance often involves visual checks for exposed materials and condition of controls.
- Hazardous waste inspections typically focus on labeling, container condition, and accumulation practices.
The common thread is consistency. If a plan says one thing but operators do another, it is likely to result in a finding.
Common gaps seen during multi-media inspections
Across industries, several issues appear repeatedly:
- Records that do not match across programs (e.g., waste logs vs. manifests)
- Missing or incomplete inspection logs for air or stormwater systems
- Assumptions about exemptions without supporting documentation
- Satellite accumulation areas managed informally outside environmental oversight
- Housekeeping issues that create unintended stormwater exposure
Many of these are not complex violations. They are breakdowns in communication, training, or follow-through.
A practical way to prepare
Facilities can improve readiness by conducting an internal, cross-media review that mirrors an actual inspection. This is more effective than reviewing each program in isolation.
Start with a process-based walk-through:
- Identify where raw materials enter the facility
- Follow how they are used, stored, and handled
- Note where wastes, emissions, or discharges are generated
- Confirm how each is managed and documented
At each step, ask two questions:
- Is this activity reflected accurately in our records and plans?
- Would an operator explain it the same way it is written?
This approach often reveals gaps that are not obvious during a desk review.
A recent case: How one issue expands the scope
At a mid-sized manufacturing facility, inspectors began with a routine hazardous waste review. They noticed that waste logs showed periodic disposal of solvent residues, but there were no related air records for emissions tied to cleaning operations.
This led inspectors to review the facility’s air permit assumptions. They found that solvent use had increased over time, but the facility had not updated its potential-to-emit calculations. What started as a simple waste review expanded into an air applicability concern.
The facility ultimately faced findings in both programs, not because of a single major violation, but because information did not align across systems.
Strengthening compliance across programs
Preparation does not require building new systems. It requires making sure existing ones are aligned and consistently followed.
Focus on:
- Clear ownership of compliance tasks across departments
- Regular cross-checks between records (air, water, waste)
- Training staff on how their daily tasks affect compliance
- Maintaining documentation that supports assumptions, exemptions, and limits
Facilities that treat compliance as a connected system, not separate programs, are better positioned during inspections.
Key to remember: A multi-media inspection looks for consistency across air, water, and waste programs, not just isolated compliance. If your records and operations tell the same story, you are far less likely to face expanded scrutiny.
Keep reading...Show less
RECENT INDUSTRY HIGHLIGHTS
2026-06-26T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsEnvironmental Management SystemsWaste/HazWasteCAA ComplianceSustainabilityIn-Depth ArticleCWA ComplianceEnvironmentalEnglishSustainabilityESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance)Focus AreaUSA
Multi-media inspections are back: How to prepare for comprehensive EPA and state audits
Regulators have returned to routine, in-person inspections, and many are no longer limited to a single program. EPA and state agencies are again conducting multi-media inspections that review air, water, and hazardous waste compliance in one visit. For facilities, this shift raises the stakes. An issue in one program can quickly lead inspectors into others, especially when records or operations do not align.
Most inspectors now arrive with background data already reviewed. Electronic submissions, air reports, discharge monitoring reports, and hazardous waste filings are compared against what they see on site. When numbers, dates, or practices do not match, the scope of the inspection often expands.
What inspectors are really evaluating
While documents are important, inspectors focus on whether procedures match actual operations. They will often start with a walk-through of the facility, tracing how materials move through production and become emissions, discharges, or wastes.
For example:
- Air compliance may be checked by reviewing fuel use, hours of operation, or control device logs.
- Stormwater compliance often involves visual checks for exposed materials and condition of controls.
- Hazardous waste inspections typically focus on labeling, container condition, and accumulation practices.
The common thread is consistency. If a plan says one thing but operators do another, it is likely to result in a finding.
Common gaps seen during multi-media inspections
Across industries, several issues appear repeatedly:
- Records that do not match across programs (e.g., waste logs vs. manifests)
- Missing or incomplete inspection logs for air or stormwater systems
- Assumptions about exemptions without supporting documentation
- Satellite accumulation areas managed informally outside environmental oversight
- Housekeeping issues that create unintended stormwater exposure
Many of these are not complex violations. They are breakdowns in communication, training, or follow-through.
A practical way to prepare
Facilities can improve readiness by conducting an internal, cross-media review that mirrors an actual inspection. This is more effective than reviewing each program in isolation.
Start with a process-based walk-through:
- Identify where raw materials enter the facility
- Follow how they are used, stored, and handled
- Note where wastes, emissions, or discharges are generated
- Confirm how each is managed and documented
At each step, ask two questions:
- Is this activity reflected accurately in our records and plans?
- Would an operator explain it the same way it is written?
This approach often reveals gaps that are not obvious during a desk review.
A recent case: How one issue expands the scope
At a mid-sized manufacturing facility, inspectors began with a routine hazardous waste review. They noticed that waste logs showed periodic disposal of solvent residues, but there were no related air records for emissions tied to cleaning operations.
This led inspectors to review the facility’s air permit assumptions. They found that solvent use had increased over time, but the facility had not updated its potential-to-emit calculations. What started as a simple waste review expanded into an air applicability concern.
The facility ultimately faced findings in both programs, not because of a single major violation, but because information did not align across systems.
Strengthening compliance across programs
Preparation does not require building new systems. It requires making sure existing ones are aligned and consistently followed.
Focus on:
- Clear ownership of compliance tasks across departments
- Regular cross-checks between records (air, water, waste)
- Training staff on how their daily tasks affect compliance
- Maintaining documentation that supports assumptions, exemptions, and limits
Facilities that treat compliance as a connected system, not separate programs, are better positioned during inspections.
Key to remember: A multi-media inspection looks for consistency across air, water, and waste programs, not just isolated compliance. If your records and operations tell the same story, you are far less likely to face expanded scrutiny.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-06-26T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsEnvironmental Management SystemsWaste/HazWasteCAA ComplianceSustainabilityIn-Depth ArticleCWA ComplianceEnvironmentalEnglishSustainabilityESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance)Focus AreaUSA
Multi-media inspections are back: How to prepare for comprehensive EPA and state audits
Regulators have returned to routine, in-person inspections, and many are no longer limited to a single program. EPA and state agencies are again conducting multi-media inspections that review air, water, and hazardous waste compliance in one visit. For facilities, this shift raises the stakes. An issue in one program can quickly lead inspectors into others, especially when records or operations do not align.
Most inspectors now arrive with background data already reviewed. Electronic submissions, air reports, discharge monitoring reports, and hazardous waste filings are compared against what they see on site. When numbers, dates, or practices do not match, the scope of the inspection often expands.
What inspectors are really evaluating
While documents are important, inspectors focus on whether procedures match actual operations. They will often start with a walk-through of the facility, tracing how materials move through production and become emissions, discharges, or wastes.
For example:
- Air compliance may be checked by reviewing fuel use, hours of operation, or control device logs.
- Stormwater compliance often involves visual checks for exposed materials and condition of controls.
- Hazardous waste inspections typically focus on labeling, container condition, and accumulation practices.
The common thread is consistency. If a plan says one thing but operators do another, it is likely to result in a finding.
Common gaps seen during multi-media inspections
Across industries, several issues appear repeatedly:
- Records that do not match across programs (e.g., waste logs vs. manifests)
- Missing or incomplete inspection logs for air or stormwater systems
- Assumptions about exemptions without supporting documentation
- Satellite accumulation areas managed informally outside environmental oversight
- Housekeeping issues that create unintended stormwater exposure
Many of these are not complex violations. They are breakdowns in communication, training, or follow-through.
A practical way to prepare
Facilities can improve readiness by conducting an internal, cross-media review that mirrors an actual inspection. This is more effective than reviewing each program in isolation.
Start with a process-based walk-through:
- Identify where raw materials enter the facility
- Follow how they are used, stored, and handled
- Note where wastes, emissions, or discharges are generated
- Confirm how each is managed and documented
At each step, ask two questions:
- Is this activity reflected accurately in our records and plans?
- Would an operator explain it the same way it is written?
This approach often reveals gaps that are not obvious during a desk review.
A recent case: How one issue expands the scope
At a mid-sized manufacturing facility, inspectors began with a routine hazardous waste review. They noticed that waste logs showed periodic disposal of solvent residues, but there were no related air records for emissions tied to cleaning operations.
This led inspectors to review the facility’s air permit assumptions. They found that solvent use had increased over time, but the facility had not updated its potential-to-emit calculations. What started as a simple waste review expanded into an air applicability concern.
The facility ultimately faced findings in both programs, not because of a single major violation, but because information did not align across systems.
Strengthening compliance across programs
Preparation does not require building new systems. It requires making sure existing ones are aligned and consistently followed.
Focus on:
- Clear ownership of compliance tasks across departments
- Regular cross-checks between records (air, water, waste)
- Training staff on how their daily tasks affect compliance
- Maintaining documentation that supports assumptions, exemptions, and limits
Facilities that treat compliance as a connected system, not separate programs, are better positioned during inspections.
Key to remember: A multi-media inspection looks for consistency across air, water, and waste programs, not just isolated compliance. If your records and operations tell the same story, you are far less likely to face expanded scrutiny.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-06-25T05:00:00Z
NewsTransportationEnglishCommercial drivers license CDLBusiness planning - Motor CarrierCMV InspectionsCommercial drivers license CDLIndustry NewsIndustry NewsFederal Motor Carrier Safety RegulationsElectronic logging device (ELD)Electronic logging device (ELD)Daily vehicle inspectionsFleet OperationsFocus AreaUSA
3 new DOT rules target paperwork requirements
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has finalized three rule changes to remove what it calls “unnecessary” mandates.
The changes, all effective July 22, 2026, eliminate or scale back paperwork-related obligations for drivers and motor carriers.
ELD user manuals
One rule change removes the requirement that an electronic logging device (ELD) operator’s manual be kept inside the vehicle. The FMCSA says carrying the manual no longer provides a meaningful safety benefit, particularly given that most manuals are accessible online or are built into the devices themselves.
The rule doesn’t change any core ELD obligations, including the need to carry ELD malfunction instructions, data-transfer instructions, and at least eight blank logs.
Roadside inspection reports
Another rule revises how completed roadside inspection reports are handled. Previously, motor carriers were required to return all such reports to the issuing state agency. Under the new rule, carriers only need to return these reports if the issuing state agency specifically requests or requires it.
Most states don’t require roadside inspection reports to be returned, making the federal rule unnecessary.
Motor carriers are still required to fix any defects identified on the report, sign it, and retain it for at least 12 months, even if the state doesn’t want a copy.
CDL self-reporting
Finally, the FMCSA is removing the long-standing requirement that commercial driver’s license (CDL) holders self-report out-of-state traffic convictions to their state of domicile.
The agency concluded that this requirement is now redundant, and has been unnecessary in most cases since 2013. In addition, since 2024, states have exchanged conviction data electronically, ensuring violations are automatically transmitted between licensing agencies. Under 49 CFR 383.31, drivers must continue to report traffic convictions to their employers within 30 days.
Two of the three rule changes were proposed in May 2025 as part of a slate of deregulatory actions by the new Trump administration, most of which have been finalized. The change to roadside inspection reporting was in response to a petition from the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-06-25T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsEnglishFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleFleet OperationsHeavy vehicle use tax HVUTFleet TaxesFleet taxesTransportationUSA
How the IRS can park your truck
Every year, the Heavy Vehicle Use Tax (HVUT) season opens July 1, 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. They understand the August 31 deadline for vehicles in service in July. The real problems show up in the details.
A single wrong date. A mismatched name. One digit off in a vehicle identification number (VIN). These small errors can trigger IRS rejections, delay your stamped Schedule 1, and create a ripple effect that ends with delayed registrations or parked trucks. Before the season begins, it’s worth taking a closer look at some of the mistakes that cause the most headaches and how to avoid them.
EIN and legal business name
One of the fastest ways to get a Form 2290 rejected is a simple identity mismatch.
The IRS requires the Employer Identification Number (EIN) and legal business name on the return to match exactly what’s on file. Even small discrepancies — extra spaces, punctuation, or using a “doing business as” name — can cause a rejection.
A rejected filing means no Schedule 1 and no proof of HVUT payment when you need it to register the vehicle(s).
Using the wrong “month of first use”
This is one of the most common and costly errors. The filing deadline is based on when the vehicle is first used on public highways, not when it’s purchased or when the registration renews.
For vehicles in service in July, the deadline is August 31. For vehicles added later, the deadline shifts to the last day of the following month.
Here’s where many carriers go wrong:
- Using the purchase date instead of first dispatch,
- Defaulting everything to July, or
- Forgetting that mid-year additions have different deadlines.
Using the wrong date can lead to incorrect tax calculations or late filing penalties.
VIN errors that delay everything
A single incorrect character in a VIN can make your Schedule 1 unusable.
That means even if you paid the tax, you may not be able to use the document for registration until the error is corrected.
This is one of the most common causes of vehicle registration delays at the DMV or IRP office.
Reporting the wrong taxable gross weight
HVUT is based on taxable gross weight and misreporting it can lead to overpaying or underpaying. Some carriers:
- Estimate instead of verifying,
- Use empty weight instead of taxable gross weight, or
- Select the wrong category altogether.
Incorrect weight classification can trigger amendments, penalties, or unnecessary costs.
Assuming “no tax due” means “no filing required”
Even if a vehicle is expected to stay under the mileage threshold (generally 5,000 miles, or 7,500 for agricultural use), a return still needs to be filed to report the tax on that truck as suspended.
Skipping the filing altogether can create compliance gaps later in the year, especially if mileage limits are exceeded.
A simple way to stay ahead
The most effective way to avoid these issues is also the simplest: prepare before July 1 and double-check everything before you file.
A quick pre-season check should include:
- Verify EIN and legal business name.
- Confirm VINs against titles or equipment.
- Document the true first-use month.
- Review taxable gross weight classifications.
Key to remember: Form 2290 problems rarely come from not knowing the rules. They come from small, preventable mistakes that slip through during a busy season.
Getting it right the first time means fewer delays, fewer corrections—and fewer surprises when it’s time to register your vehicles. Because when HVUT season opens, it’s not just about filing a form. It’s about keeping your trucks on the road.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-06-25T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsFleet SafetyRisk Management TransportationRisk Management - Motor CarrierTransportationIn-Depth ArticleEnglishFocus AreaUSA
Can a freight broker defend contracting with your carrier?
Freight brokers may be less likely to use your trucking services if you have a questionable safety record.
A U.S. Supreme Court decision now permits liability claims against brokers for the actions of the trucking companies they use. Consequently, motor carriers, even those with exemplary records, may experience more scrutiny when seeking brokered loads. Brokers will want assurance that you are a safe business using qualified personnel and well-maintained vehicles.
A quick glance at your Safer profile
Brokers and shippers often start the vetting process by checking out the carrier’s Safer website profile.
A cursory glance of the site will show the following about a carrier:
- Active or inactive USDOT number,
- Start date of authority, and
- Nature of the carrier, including:
- Property/passenger carrier
- For-hire/private carrier,
- Broker authority,
- Household good authority,
- Hazmat operation,
- Interstate and/or intrastate designation,
- Number of power units and drivers, and
- Vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Brokers will use the carrier’s start date to help identify a chameleon carrier. A chameleon carrier is one that creates a new DOT number under the same ownership to hide a poor safety record. This is not permitted under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulations.
Motor carrier insurance is also a priority for the broker. Often, they ask the carrier for proof of insurance through a copy of the MCS-90A.
In addition, the Safer site will show information on the number of CMV crashes and roadside inspections, along with the out-of-service rate. The carrier’s safety rating will also appear on Safer
What does your safety rating say about you?
A motor carrier’s safety reputation hinges on its safety rating. A rating is the result of a compliance review (audit) that looks at the carrier’s whole motor carrier safety program in comparison to FMCSA regulations. The auditor exams the carrier’s compliance records within five regulatory categories. Violations within each are scored to arrive at one of three ratings (conclusions about your company):
- Satisfactory: The motor carrier is considered low risk by having effective safety management controls in place to meet FMCSA’s safety fitness standard.
- Conditional: The motor carrier is considered a higher-risk carrier, even though the carrier has some safety management controls. The safety management controls, however, aren’t adequate to ensure compliance with safety standards. A conditional rating may result in increased scrutiny and higher insurance premiums.
- Unsatisfactory: A motor carrier's safety management controls are severely lacking. Significant safety violations found during the audit may require the carrier to cease operations until they are corrected.
Some carriers may not have a safety rating if they have only experienced a new entrant audit, which doesn’t result in a rating. Most carriers are unrated.
To enhance your brand image, if you have a conditional rating, you always have the option of making the necessary corrective actions and ask FMCSA to consider changing the rating to Satisfactory. Many large brokers don’t use conditional carriers.
CSA: A deeper dive into your safety record
A safety rating doesn’t always tell the whole story. A carrier can appear safe on paper, but actions on the road may show otherwise.
A carrier’s Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) data originates from roadside inspection and commercial motor vehicle (CMV) crash reports. The CSA site’s public view of the Safety Measurement System (SMS) provides a starting point to see the frequency of specific roadside inspection violations and details of crashes. The information far exceeds the Safer carrier overview. Only motor carriers, when logged into the SMS, can see details such as the carrier’s CSA BASIC scores (percentile ranking against peers) and the identity of a driver associated with a specific report.
Even though CSA BASIC scores for property-carrying motor carrier are not publicly available, there is nothing keeping a broker or other customer from asking to see the scores as a term of doing business.
Since SMS damaging information can be a deal-breaker, a motor carrier should review its data routinely to ensure that it’s accurate. Motor carriers should work to get any misinformation corrected. This requires submitting a request to correct the data using the federal DataQs portal. If successful in the challenge, it will aid in lowering your CSA scores for brokers and others to see.
Key to remember: Brokers are now responsible for the actions of the motor carriers they utilize, so they may implement more stringent vetting procedures for those they provide loads.
Keep reading...Show less
Search all news
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.