Regulatory Compliance News & Updates
Keep up to date on the latest
developments affecting OSHA, DOT,
EPA, and DOL regulatory compliance.
Copyright 2026 J. J. Keller & Associate, Inc. For re-use options please contact copyright@jjkeller.com or call 800-558-5011.
FEATURED NEWS
2026-03-10T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsAccident Investigation - OSHAAccident Root Cause DeterminationSafety & HealthConstruction SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyIn-Depth ArticleEnglishFocus AreaUSA
Preparing to interview accident witnesses
Since witness interviews are critical to any incident investigation, employers should obtain witness statements as soon as possible. Conduct interviews before witnesses talk with each other and while the details are still fresh in their minds. If they talk to one another about the event, that could inadvertently affect each person’s recall, or even create new versions.
Interviews should focus on the facts, including what happened before and after the incident, and should avoid opinions and assumptions. Ultimately, the investigator needs to know who was involved, what they were doing, what was happening at the time, and when and where the incident occurred.
Choose interviewers
Conduct interviews privately with no more than two interviewers present. By keeping the interviews small and away from others, you have a much better chance of having a factual and productive conversation. The person conducting the interview should be neutral and trusted by employees.
It may be tempting to let management sit in, but a supervisor’s presence may cause an employee to clam up. Keeping this conversation informal can help employees relax and talk more freely. Simply ask what happened and let the witnesses tell the story in their own words. Remind them that the goal of this conversation is to identify hazards, not to get anyone in trouble.
Asking questions
Ask open-ended questions like “describe what happened leading up to the incident” and “what happened next?” Avoid leading questions that might cause someone to make things up in an attempt to answer. Along the same lines, avoid questions that suggest an accusation, such as “do you think he wasn't paying attention?”
Witnesses might give their opinions, and you can make notes, but distinguish between the facts and their opinions. Repeat their conclusions back to them to confirm your understanding.
Keep in mind that memories or viewpoints might differ. Statements from multiple witnesses might be contradictory such that both statements cannot possibly be factual. This doesn't mean either worker is lying. It could just be how they remember the events, or they saw things from a different angle. Of course, some witnesses might describe an incident with the goal of avoiding blame.
As necessary, go back to previously interviewed witnesses for additional information or clarification.
Example situation
Suppose a near-miss incident involved a forklift operator who stopped suddenly, causing the load he was carrying to slide off the tines, nearly striking a pedestrian. You might hear statements like, “I didn't see the forklift” or “the pedestrian came out of nowhere.” Now, that may be how witnesses remember things. But there's probably something else going on.
Follow-up questions might be along the lines of, “what were you focused on at the time of the accident?” Maybe the pedestrian was reading a document or computer pad and didn't see or hear the forklift approaching. Or perhaps the forklift operator was going too fast or failed to stop and sound the horn at an intersection. There could be several contributing factors, and you'll want to identify all of them.
Witness interviews provide valuable information in determining what happened before, during, and after an incident. As an interviewer, your goal is to gather key information while keeping the witnesses comfortable. Remind them the goal of investigating is to help prevent future incidents and injuries, not to blame employees.
Key to remember: Conducting effective interviews requires skill and consideration that goes beyond simply asking, “Tell me what happened.”
Keep reading...Show less
RECENT INDUSTRY HIGHLIGHTS
2026-03-10T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsDiseases and illnessesHR GeneralistFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleMedical ExaminationsAssociate RelationsEnglishUSAHR ManagementDisabilities and ADADisabilities and ADAHuman Resources
Court: Employers may ask employees about their vaccinations
The federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) restricts when employers may ask employees medical questions or require medical exams. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this came to light as employers often wanted to know if their employees were vaccinated to help protect others in the workplace. In the midst of one of the worst influenza (flu) outbreaks this season, employers might wonder about their employees’ current flu vaccination status.
An employer recently learned that they may ask employees about their vaccination status.
The story
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, an employer implemented a company-wide vaccine mandate. It notified employees that they could seek a religious or medical exemption, but that it would terminate those who didn’t comply.
Jennifer and Katherine, two remote employees, requested religious exemptions.
The employer denied both requests and eventually fired them.
Both employees sued, bringing disability discrimination claims under the ADA. They argued that their employer made:
- Unlawful medical examinations or inquiries, and
- Regarded them as having a disability.
The employees stated that their employer had no valid business reason to inquire into their vaccination status, especially because they were remote employees.
The employees also argued that the employer regarded them as disabled because they were unvaccinated and then fired them for that reason.
The ruling
The ADA defines a disability as a “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the individual’s major life activities.” The court said that whether a person is vaccinated or not has no bearing on their ability to engage in major life activities.
The court also said that the employees’ medical exam or inquiry argument was also fatally flawed because an employer’s inquiry into an employee’s vaccination status isn’t disability related.
Finally, a person is “regarded as” having a disability if they’re “subjected to an action prohibited under [the ADA] because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment, whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.”
Once again, being unvaccinated isn’t a physical or mental impairment. Being unvaccinated, therefore, doesn’t support a “regarded as” claim.
The court ruled that the employer didn’t violate the ADA when it asked about the employees’ vaccination status or when it fired them for being unvaccinated.
Finn v. Humane Society of the United States, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 4-1416, November 20, 2025.
Key to remember: According to at least one court, employers don’t violate the ADA if they ask employees about their vaccination status.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-03-10T05:00:00Z
NewsIndependent ContractorsContingent WorkforceUSAHR ManagementEnglishDriver recruiting and retentionDriver recruiting and retentionTalent Management & RecruitingAssociate Benefits & CompensationIndustry NewsIndustry NewsRecruiting and hiringWage and HourContingent WorkforceWage and HourRecruiting and hiringTipsHR GeneralistFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction (FACT Act)Temporary EmployeesApplications/ApplicantsAssociate RelationsOnboardingFocus AreaHuman Resources
Pay deception costs employer $100 million in gig drivers settlement
A nationwide employer agreed to a $100 million judgment to settle allegations from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and 11 states claiming that the company caused delivery drivers to lose tens of millions of dollars’ worth of earnings by deceiving them about the base pay, incentive pay, and tips they could earn.
The employer uses a driver service, where gig workers use an app to decide whether to accept “offers” to deliver goods to customers. They base their decisions on the employer’s statements about the base pay and tips that drivers could expect if they complete the work.
Employer’s deceptive practices
The complaint alleged that the employer engaged in several deceptive practices:
- Tips not guaranteed: The employer allegedly deceived drivers about the amount of tips they would receive from an order. The company failed to notify drivers that, unlike the payment for the goods being delivered, the payment for the advertised tip amount hadn’t been preauthorized, and therefore drivers wouldn’t receive that amount if the customer was unable to cover the cost of the tip or if the charge otherwise failed. The company also failed to tell drivers that it would split tips when a customer’s delivery was split across multiple drivers.
- Base pay varied: The employer wasn’t forthcoming to drivers about the amount of base pay and tips they would receive when the employer modified “batched” offers (delivering goods to multiple customers during one trip). The company failed to tell drivers that it would reduce their base pay and/or tips when it removed orders from batched orders. In many instances, the employer either failed to notify drivers at all about the change in base pay (and tips) or only notified them of the change in their earnings after they completed the delivery.
- Incentive pay falsified: The employer misrepresented the incentive pay drivers could earn in exchange for completing certain tasks. The company failed to disclose all the conditions drivers had to meet to earn it and denied the promised earnings on the basis that drivers failed to meet all the conditions. For example, the employer offered to give drivers a referral incentive when they referred new drivers, yet failed to adequately disclose that it would pay the incentive only if the newly recruited driver performed deliveries in a particular zone or for a particular store. Even when drivers met the incentive conditions, the employer sometimes failed to provide the promised pay.
- Customers deceived: The employer allegedly deceived its customers by claiming that “100 percent of tips go to the driver.” Despite this promise, the employer, on multiple occasions, failed to give the tips to drivers and didn’t refund the tips to customers.
The FTC alleged that these deceptive business practices violated the FTC Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act by obtaining drivers’ bank and other financial information while deceiving them about the amount of base pay and tips they would earn from deliveries.
As part of the proposed order, the employer is:
- Required to implement an earnings verification program to ensure it pays drivers promised earnings and tips;
- Prohibited from modifying an offer for base and incentive pay or tips after the initial offer except under limited circumstances, such as when the driver fails to provide the required service or the customer cancels an order; and
- Banned from misrepresenting the earnings and other information included in the delivery offers it makes to drivers.
Key to remember: Employers must not only comply with the federal Fair Labor Standards Act in relation to employee pay; they must also comply with the FTC.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-03-09T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsEnglishFleet SafetyFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleEnforcement - DOTRoadside InspectionsTransportationUSA
Out-of-Service Criteria changes land April 1st
The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance’s Out-of-Service (OOS) Criteria will soon undergo a wide-ranging update affecting roadside inspections for both drivers and their commercial motor vehicles.
From license restrictions and English‑language proficiency (ELP) to log falsification, brake systems, cargo securement, and wheel defects, the revisions clarify long‑standing enforcement questions, add new OOS conditions in emerging problem areas, and refine existing criteria to better align with federal regulations and real‑world inspection practices.
The following is a summary of key changes that go into effect April 1, 2026. Review the changes to ensure your drivers and vehicles will still pass a roadside test.
Driver OOS Criteria
- ELD tampering: With electronic logging device (ELD) tampering becoming a growing concern, the criteria for placing drivers OOS for log falsification have been clarified to address situations where a record is falsified so much that the officer cannot determine when the driver was driving and/or resting. Drivers will continue to be placed OOS “until such time as eligibility to drive is re-established” if a required log is false due to inaccurate entries and the officer is able to determine when driving and rest breaks occurred. A new criterion was added to place drivers OOS for 10 hours (or 8 hours for passenger carriers) for ELD tampering that makes the entire record suspect and the inspector is unable to verify when driving and resting occurred. Officers will cite 49 CFR 395.8(e)(2) for ELD tampering where the truth cannot be ascertained, and paragraph (e)(1) for false logs when the officer can determine rest periods and drive time.
- ELP violations: A new violation was added to place drivers OOS if the driver cannot satisfy the ELP requirements of 391.11(b)(2), per enforcement guidance issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) in May 2025.
- License-restriction violations: Officers will begin using new citation codes for license-restriction violations, to distinguish them from endorsement-related violations. Drivers without a commercial driver’s license (CDL) will be cited for “392.2NCDLR” (instead of 391.11(b)(5)) if violating a restriction, while CDL holders will be cited for “392.2LCDLR” (instead of 383.23).
- In-state-restricted drivers: The CVSA has clarified the standard for enforcing the “K” (in-state only) restriction, which is intended to keep the driver in their home state. Such drivers will only be placed OOS if they are actually operating in another state at the time of the inspection.
- Alcohol content threshold: The OOS Criteria will now specify the alcohol concentration at which drivers will be placed OOS when in possession of wine or beer, making it easier for officers to apply the existing standard. Drivers will be placed OOS if they possess wine or beer that contains 0.5% or more alcohol by volume or distilled spirits in any dilution.
Vehicle OOS Criteria
- Air connections: The criteria for air-brake hose/tubing were revised to change the term “gladhands” to the more inclusive “service air connections.” In addition, the criteria were changed to clarify the conditions for placing vehicles OOS when the air system is disconnected but still functional.
- Brake pad thickness: The standard for front-axle hydraulic brake pad thickness was updated to say “less than 1/16 inch” instead of “1/16 inch or less” to reflect a thinner measurement than found in 49 CFR 393.47(d)(1).
- Parking brakes: “Parking Brake” was changed to “Parking/Emergency Brake” in the section on parking brake systems due to confusion about whether an automatic transmission placed into Park was considered to have a parking brake control.
- Log securement: New criteria were added to address the use of the “ExTe Com90” hydraulic load securement system for logs.
- Wire rope: A new wire-rope damage chart was added to help inspectors determine when a wire rope is damaged to the point that it’s OOS.
- Upper couplers: A new OOS criterion was added for broken or loose countersunk screws in an upper coupler. Previously, the criteria only addressed bolts, not countersunk screws.
- Rims: A new OOS criterion was added for a broken wheel/rim that has “any missing piece exceeding 3 inches (76.2 mm) in length.”
- Wheel hub lubricant: The criterion for placing vehicles OOS when there is “no visible or measurable amount of lubricant showing in hub” was removed. The CVSA concluded that there is no good way for inspectors to know if there is oil in a hub that requires oil, or grease in hubs requiring grease, due to the many varieties of hubs and hub caps/covers in the marketplace.
- Emergency exit markings: A new criterion was added for emergency exits that are “not properly marked with operating instructions.” The instructions are needed whether the exit is a required exit or a marked exit.
- Placarding: The prior criteria placed vehicles OOS if “50% or more of the required placards for a hazard class are missing.” This was clarified to read “50% or more of the required placards for a category of material (hazard class or division) are missing.”
Key to remember: A variety of changes to the North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria take effect on April 1, 2026. Reviewing the changes can help avoid being placed out of service.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-03-09T05:00:00Z
NewsHR ManagementEnglishAssociate Benefits & CompensationIndianaWage and HourChange NoticesChange NoticeWage and HourTipsHR GeneralistMinimum WageNon-Exempt employees Associate RelationsFocus AreaHuman Resources
Indiana updates tip pooling rules
Effective date: Retroactive to June 28, 2024
This applies to: Employers with tipped employees in Indiana
Description of change: On February 24, 2026, Gov. Mike Braun signed legislation authorizing the use of tip pooling arrangements under certain circumstances. The law, however, is effective retroactively to June 28, 2024.
Employers may require a tipped employee to participate in a tip pooling arrangement if the tips are shared only with other tipped employees and not with nontipped employees.
If, however, employers pay their employees at least the minimum wage, they may require tipped employees to participate in a tip pooling arrangement where the tips are shared with other tipped and nontipped employees.
Employers that implement a tip pooling arrangement must notify tipped employees of any required tip pool contribution amount, may only take a tip credit for tips each employee ultimately receives, and may not retain any of the employees' tips for any other purpose.
Employers and managers may not receive tips from a tip pooling arrangement.
View related state info: Tips - Indiana
Keep reading...Show less
2026-03-09T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsSafety & HealthGeneral Industry SafetyFood SafetySpecialized IndustriesIn-Depth ArticleEnglishFocus AreaUSA
Food processes: HACCP carves a place for safety in each step
HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point) is crucial to keeping your food products safe. It’s a system that focuses on identifying and addressing hazards before they contaminate a food product. HACCP is implemented from the time raw materials are received to when product is shipped to consumers.
Think of a critical control point (CCP) as a step in your food process where problems are most likely to occur. Examples include cooking, cooling, or preventing cross-contamination. You’ll need to examine each CCP to identify any possible biological, chemical, or physical food safety hazards. The analysis zeroes in on the hazards that are “reasonably likely” to contaminate a food product and cause illness or injury to a consumer.
Before a new food product can be made, it must undergo this rigorous examination. You’ll then put food safety measures into place to eliminate or control these hazards.
Covered establishments
Certain types of food processors and establishments must have a HACCP plan. They're required by the:
- Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for seafood (21 CFR 123) and juice processors (21 CFR 120), and
- U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) for meat, poultry, and processed egg product establishments (9 CFR 417).
Getting started
HACCP plans can only be developed by individuals who have completed standardized HACCP training. Before developing and implementing a written HACCP plan, you must:
- Conduct a hazard analysis to identify and evaluate all of the potential biological, chemical, and physical food safety hazards associated with each step in your production process for each product made. Steps include receiving, storage, mixing, cooking, cooling, etc.
- Determine which hazards are likely to cause illness or injury if they’re not properly controlled.
FSIS-covered operations (meat, poultry, and processed egg products) also must create a flow chart that shows each step in how your product moves through the facility, from raw materials to the finished item. This helps everyone see the full process in order. Be sure to describe in the flow chart how the final product will be used and who the intended consumers are.
Drafting the HACCP plan
You could say the HACCP plan, itself, is the “meat and potatoes” of your food safety efforts. Certain plan elements must be included though. At a minimum, your HACCP plan must:
- List the food safety hazards (identified in the hazard analysis) that must be controlled for each process;
- List the CCPs for each of the identified food safety hazards, including, as appropriate, CCPs designed to control food safety hazards that:
- Could be introduced inside your establishment; and
- Are introduced outside your establishment, including those that occur before, during, and after entry into your establishment;
- List the critical limits that must be met at each of the CCPs. At the very least, critical limits must be designed to ensure that applicable targets or performance standards are met;
- List the procedures that will be used to monitor each of the CCPs to ensure compliance with the critical limits, and include the frequency you will perform those procedures;
- Include all corrective actions you’ll follow in response to any deviation from a critical limit at a CCP;
- Provide for a recordkeeping system that documents actual values and observations found during CCP monitoring; and
- List the verification procedures that your establishment will use and the frequency you will perform those procedures.
Your written HACCP plan is not complete unless it’s signed and dated. For FSIS-covered facilities this must be done by a “responsible establishment official.” This is defined under 9 CFR 417 as “the individual with overall authority on-site or a higher level official of the establishment.” The signature indicates that your establishment accepts and will implement the HACCP plan. The plan must be dated and signed:
- Upon initial acceptance,
- Upon any modification, and
- At least annually upon reassessment.
HACCP plans for seafood and juice processors must be signed and dated by "the most responsible individual onsite at the processing facility or by a higher level official of the processor." The plan must be dated and signed:
- Upon initial acceptance,
- Upon any modification, and
- Upon verification and validation in accordance with 21 CFR 120.11.21 (juice processors) and 21 CFR 123.8(a)(1) (seafood processors).
Key to remember: HACCP plans are required for certain food processors. By identifying food safety hazards, controlling them at the right points, and maintaining clear monitoring, corrective action, and verification practices, your food establishment can consistently protect consumers and meet regulatory expectations.
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.