Compliance Just Got Easier: Stay ahead of regulatory changes with instant notifications on updates that matter.

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
2026-09-15T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsAssociate RelationsHR GeneralistFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)In-Depth ArticleFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)HR ManagementEnglishUSAFocus AreaHuman Resources
The interplay between FMLA leave amount and employee eligibility
Let’s say you have a pregnant employee who’s due October 5. She won’t have worked for your company for at least 12 months until November 15. If the employee recovers from the delivery on November 16, how much leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) would she get, and when would it start?
Here are some further questions to consider:
- Would the 12 weeks of FMLA leave begin November 15, even though it would be only for bonding with the baby?
- What about the time taken before November 15?
- If the baby is early, and the employee returns to work before becoming eligible for FMLA leave, would she be eligible once she meets the 12 months of employment threshold (November 15)? If so, when would the FMLA leave begin?
Eligibility and leave amount
Once the employee meets the eligibility criteria, she’s entitled to take FMLA leave for a qualifying reason.
Therefore, as of November 15, the employee would be taking FMLA leave, and the employer has to count it as such. As long as the leave reason is a qualifying one, such as pregnancy, delivery, recovery, or bonding, the employee gets the FMLA job protections.
Employers wouldn’t count the time taken off before the employee met the eligibility criteria as FMLA leave. This can result in the employee having more than the 12 weeks of FMLA leave, since the FMLA leave wouldn’t start until November 15.
If, for example, the employee has the baby on its due date of October 5, the employee’s time off from October 5 to November 15 wouldn’t be FMLA leave and couldn’t be counted as such. The employee might have leave benefits for that time under a company policy or a state leave law.
If the baby were to be born early on September 28, and the employee recovers in 6 weeks (by November 9), she would still be entitled to take FMLA leave starting November 15.
Key to remember: Once employees meet the FMLA eligibility criteria, they’re entitled to take protected leave for any qualifying reason. Leave taken before they meet the FMLA eligibility criteria isn’t FMLA leave.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-09-15T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsEnglishEmployee RelationsHR GeneralistIn-Depth ArticleWorkplace StressAssociate RelationsWellnessUSAHR ManagementFocus AreaHuman Resources
Stop punishing your best employees
It’s challenging to keep up with HR lingo. Just a few years ago, the phrase “quiet quitting” was popular. Now another term is trending: “performance punishment.”
This phenomenon supposedly occurs when high performers are continually given more responsibilities and heavier workloads without a promotion, title change, or pay increase.
But is greater job responsibility punishment? Managers naturally give critical tasks to employees they trust to get them done quickly and correctly. Many managers see this as giving high performers opportunities to stretch and grow.
Singling someone out for a special project can indeed help them develop, but if it’s always the same person on a team being singled out and “rewarded” with more work, problems can arise. For example, when high performers are asked to pick up the slack for underperforming team members, and the work gets done while managers avoid confronting lower performers, it can cause high performers to feel resentment.
Constant pressure to shoulder the load that others can’t handle also leads to burnout, especially if high performers are discouraged from taking time off because there’s no one to pick up the slack. The pressure may build up until the frustrated high achiever quits, believing they’d be more valued by another employer.
To reduce the risk of performance punishment, a manager must first recognize that it exists. The next step is to stop piling extra tasks and responsibilities on high performers when others are permitted to do less work.
Here are some ways to redistribute the workload fairly:
- Cross-train team members, so projects are in good hands when high performers take time off needed to prevent burnout.
- Acknowledge and reward exceptional performance.
- Coach lower performers so eventually the workload can be spread across the whole team.
Expecting high achievers to work longer hours than others or subjecting them to additional stress is counterproductive. Eventually, they’ll walk away. A better method is to remove low-value work from their list of duties. This approach lets your star workers focus on the important high-value tasks where they shine.
Performance punishment can lead to quiet quitting, a toxic workplace, or actual quitting. For better results, try adding "positive reinforcement" and “performance recognition" to your HR lingo. What a turnaround it would be to see these phrases trending.
Key to remember: Piling extra work onto high performers is sometimes referred to as “performance punishment.” Avoid the negative effects of this phenomenon by redistributing workload.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-09-15T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsEnglishEnvironmental Management SystemsEMS PlanningEnvironmentalIn-Depth ArticleEMS Roles and ResponsibilitiesEnvironmental Management SystemsFocus AreaUSA
Expert Insights: The hidden compliance risk of employee turnover
When environmental professionals think about compliance risks, they often focus on permits, inspections, regulatory changes, and reporting deadlines. Those are certainly important concerns. Yet one of the most significant compliance risks faced by many organizations today has little to do with regulations themselves. It is employee turnover.
Environmental compliance programs depend heavily on institutional knowledge. Over time, employees develop an understanding of permit requirements, reporting schedules, waste streams, inspection practices, agency expectations, and operational nuances that may never be fully captured in a written procedure. When those employees retire, resign, or move into different roles, valuable compliance knowledge can leave with them.
This challenge is becoming more common as organizations experience workforce transitions, retirements, organizational restructuring, and ongoing competition for skilled employees. In some cases, a facility may discover that a single individual has been managing key compliance responsibilities for years with little backup or documentation. Everything may appear to function smoothly until that person is no longer available.
The greatest risks are often not the obvious ones. A permit does not disappear when an employee leaves. A reporting deadline does not change. Hazardous waste, air emissions, and wastewater obligations continue regardless of who occupies a particular position. The risk arises when important information about those obligations exists primarily in someone's memory rather than within the organization's management system.
Consider a few common examples. An environmental manager may know that a particular production process must be included in annual emissions calculations. A maintenance supervisor may understand why certain inspection frequencies were established. An operations employee may know that a wastewater treatment unit requires additional monitoring during specific production conditions. In some cases, long-term employees have developed productive working relationships with regulatory inspectors and agency staff. They understand how the facility has historically addressed compliance challenges, what information regulators typically request, and the context behind prior inspections or permitting decisions. Experienced personnel often carry these insights with them, yet organizations frequently neglect to capture and document the information for their successors.
Organizations sometimes discover these gaps only after an audit, inspection, or missed deadline. By then, correcting the problem can be far more difficult than preventing it. Fortunately, reducing this risk does not necessarily require significant investment. It begins with recognizing that compliance knowledge is an organizational asset rather than an individual asset. Facilities can strengthen resiliency by documenting critical compliance activities, maintaining current procedures, developing training materials, and cross-training employees on key responsibilities. Succession planning should not be limited to leadership positions. It should also include the individuals who perform essential environmental compliance functions.
Environmental management systems can play an important role in this effort. Well-documented processes help ensure that compliance activities continue consistently regardless of changes in personnel. Recordkeeping systems, compliance calendars, written procedures, and periodic reviews all contribute to preserving institutional knowledge and reducing dependence on any single employee.
Every organization experiences personnel changes. The question is whether compliance programs are prepared for them. Facilities that proactively capture knowledge and distribute responsibilities are often better positioned to maintain compliance during periods of transition. In contrast, organizations that rely heavily on individual expertise may discover that employee turnover creates risks they never anticipated.
Environmental compliance is often viewed through the lens of regulations. Increasingly, however, it may be equally important to view compliance through the lens of knowledge management. After all, one of the most valuable environmental assets a facility possesses may be what its employees know and how effectively that knowledge is shared.
Keep reading...Show less
NewsIndustry NewsVehicle inspector requirementsAnnual inspections - Motor CarrierIn-Depth ArticleUSAEnglishFocus AreaCMV Inspections
September
Bringing annual inspections in-house: A smart option for motor carriers
Many motor carriers rely on outside repair facilities to perform their required annual vehicle inspections. However, federal regulations allow carriers to conduct these inspections in their own maintenance facilities, provided they use properly qualified inspectors and maintain the required documentation. For fleets with an established shop operation, bringing annual inspections in-house can improve compliance, reduce costs, and provide greater control over vehicle maintenance programs.[PC1.1] Under Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulations, most commercial motor vehicles must undergo a periodic inspection at least once every 12 months. These inspections must meet the requirements found in 49 CFR 396.17 and the inspection criteria established in Part 393 and Appendix A to Part 396. Carriers are not required to outsource this process. Qualified employees can perform annual inspections in the carrier's own shop.
Key benefits of internal inspection programs
One of the primary benefits of conducting annual inspections internally is scheduling flexibility. Instead of waiting for service appointments at outside facilities, carriers can inspect vehicles as they become due, reducing downtime and helping prevent expiration-related violations. In-house inspections can also reduce inspection expenses, improve maintenance oversight, and allow fleets to identify defects before they become costly roadside violations or out-of-service conditions.
How do I choose the right inspector?
We often get questions about what certifications a mechanic must have to perform annual inspections. The FMCSA does not outline or require any specific certifications. To perform annual inspections, carriers must ensure inspectors meet the qualification requirements outlined in 49 CFR 396.19. Qualified inspectors must:
- Understand the inspection criteria contained in Part 393 and Appendix A;
- Be knowledgeable in the methods, tools, procedures, and equipment used during inspections; and
- Qualify through either a federal or state-sponsored training program, a state-issued inspection certification, or a combination of training and experience totaling at least one year.
Recordkeeping
Inspector qualification documentation is often overlooked. FMCSA requires carriers to retain evidence of an inspector's qualifications for the period the individual performs annual inspections and for one additional year after they stop performing inspections. Training certificates, resumes, employment records, and experience documentation are commonly used to demonstrate compliance. This documentation can be stored separately from the mechanic’s employment file. During a compliance review, audit, or investigation, this documentation will likely be requested.
Tracking inspection due dates and records
Carriers should also establish a reliable process for tracking inspection due dates and inspector qualification records. Many fleets use maintenance management software or electronic compliance systems that automatically generate reminders before annual inspections expire. Others maintain spreadsheets that track inspection dates and inspector credentials. Regardless of the method used, proactive tracking helps prevent lapses that can result in violations during audits or roadside inspections.
Annual inspection reports must also be retained. Under 49 CFR 396.21, carriers must keep the inspection report for at least 14 months from the date of inspection. The report must be available upon request and maintained where the vehicle is housed or maintained.
Key to remember: With the proper foundation in place, in-house annual inspections can become an efficient and cost-effective component of a carrier's overall maintenance and compliance strategy.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-09-14T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsEnglishSafety and Health Programs and TrainingSafety & HealthConstruction SafetySafety and Health Programs and TrainingEmployee Mental HealthWellnessFocus AreaUSA
Construction Suicide Prevention Week takes place September 14-18
Each September, Construction Suicide Prevention Week raises awareness about the unique challenges that contribute to suicide among construction workers. This year’s event takes place September 14-18. Additionally, the industry will observe a national stand-down at 11:50 a.m. Pacific time on September 14 in remembrance of construction workers lost to suicide.
In 2019, a group of volunteers launched the initiative to address the higher-than-average number of suicides in the construction industry by providing resources to help prevent those deaths. Recent data shows a decline in suicide and drug-related deaths, but this year’s theme, Building on Progress, means “honoring what’s working while continuing to push forward.”
Participants can register for the event on the construction suicide prevention webpage, which also offers resources such as toolbox talks, crisis response guides, and workplace consultation services.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-09-14T05:00:00Z
NewsHazardous WasteIndustry NewsEnglishWaste ManifestsWaste HandlersWasteEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)EnvironmentalIn-Depth ArticleWaste/HazWasteFocus AreaUSA
Hazardous waste e-Manifest report card: Tips for improving your facility’s manifests
With the school year fully underway, report cards will soon start to appear. But these performance evaluations aren’t limited to students in the classroom. A recent assessment serves as a “report card” for the federal e-Manifest system, an electronic platform that tracks hazardous waste shipments. And just like a student’s report card, the report reveals areas for improvement.
On August 11, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) published Evaluation of the EPA’s e-Manifest System. The report identifies the leading errors made by hazardous waste handlers, including:
- Generators;
- Transporters; and
- Treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs).
The e-Manifest system’s “report card” offers hazardous waste handlers valuable lessons to help them deliver A+ manifests.
e-Manifest report card results
The OIG analyzed 2022–2024 e-Manifest system data and identified the most frequent errors:
- Incorrect EPA identification (ID) numbers, and
- Overstated shipping volumes of hazardous waste.
The report also found that more than 99 percent of manifest submissions between 2019 and 2024 were “data + image” submissions. With this submission type, all hazardous waste handlers use a paper manifest. The TSDF transcribes the data from the paper manifest into an electronic data file and then uploads a scanned image of the final paper manifest and the electronic data file to the e-Manifest system.
The OIG found that most of the errors occurred when TSDFs manually transcribed data from the final paper manifest into the electronic data file.
Incorrect EPA ID numbers
According to the report, about 40 percent of hazardous waste generator EPA ID number entries and 50 percent of TSDF EPA ID number entries were invalid. Many errors were due to entering EPA ID numbers incorrectly, but a notable number of them were connected to very small quantity generators (VSQGs) using paper manifests. VSQGs need an EPA ID number only to use electronic manifests, not paper ones. On paper manifests, VSQGs frequently leave the EPA ID number blank or enter different information to indicate that they don’t have an EPA ID number.
Overstated shipping volumes
Overall, the OIG concluded the most significant errors involved overstated shipping volumes caused by incorrect manifest entries or inaccurate transcriptions of paper manifest data into the e-Manifest system.
Common errors made when copying data from the paper manifests into electronic data files included:
- Entering incorrect units of measurement (such as using tons for volumes that were calculated in pounds on the paper manifest);
- Omitting or placing decimal points for volumes in the wrong place (e.g., 941,250 tons instead of 94.1250 tons);
- Entering data that’s incorrect on the paper manifest; and
- Duplicating data entries.
Lessons for hazardous waste handlers
Although the OIG’s report was developed for EPA, it offers valuable insights for hazardous waste handlers required to fill out manifests.
Here are some helpful tips gleaned from the report that all hazardous waste handlers can use:
- Verify that your EPA ID number is entered correctly.
- Verify that the stated volumes match the units of measurement.
- Double-check decimal places.
- If you’re filling out a paper manifest, ensure the information is legible. If you encounter illegible information on a paper manifest, confirm the data with the handler who filled it out.
- Look for unreasonable information. For example, if the volume on the manifest indicates that thousands of tons (instead of thousands of pounds) of hazardous waste are being shipped, an error likely occurred.
If you don’t have one already, consider developing a checklist for filling out hazardous waste manifests. You can add the tips above and any other parts of your organization’s manifest process to the checklist.
Benefits of electronic manifests
The OIG’s report also emphasizes that electronic manifests offer specific advantages over paper manifests, especially when all hazardous waste handlers use them.
Potential improvements include the following:
- Increased data accuracy: Because hazardous waste handlers don’t have to copy data from paper manifests into the e-Manifest system, there’s a much lower risk of entering data incorrectly. Plus, electronic manifests solve the issue of illegible entries.
- Streamlined process: Electronic manifests simplify the data-entry process by removing the need to reenter data from paper manifests into the e-Manifest system.
- Easier recordkeeping: The e-Manifest system retains all manifest records, so electronic manifest users don’t have to keep paper copies (except for generators that use hybrid manifests).
- Compliance with possible future regulations: EPA proposed a rule in March 2026 that would require the use of electronic manifests (hybrid or fully electronic) and phase out the use of paper manifests. By shifting to electronic manifests now, hazardous waste handlers would be better prepared to comply with the rule if it’s finalized.
Key to remember: A recent report evaluating EPA’s e-Manifest system offers hazardous waste handlers valuable insights into common manifest errors to avoid.
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.








