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
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
2026-09-11T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsSafety and Health Programs and TrainingSafety & HealthBehavior Based SafetyConstruction SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyIn-Depth ArticleEnglishFocus AreaUSA
Can safety risk change during a shift? Let's talk about that.
Safety rules don't change during work shifts. The conditions that affect employees, however, can. Attention, energy, reaction time, and decision-making can change as fatigue, repetition, stress, and production pressures build throughout the shift. Those changes can create safety pressure points throughout the workday. Recognizing them can help employers provide support at the right time.
Watch for pressure points
Certain parts of a work shift can create conditions that increase the likelihood of distraction, fatigue, or rushing:
- Start of shift: Employees may not immediately recognize what has changed since the previous shift, leading to missed updates, overlooked hazards, or incomplete inspections.
- Before breaks or lunch: The desire to finish "just one more thing" can lead to rushing, skipped procedural steps, or leaving work in an unsafe condition.
- Mid-to-late shift: Fatigue, heat, and repetitive work can accumulate throughout the shift, increasing physical and mental strain.
- End of shift: Cleanup, production goals, and shift handoffs can all compete for attention at the same time.
These pressure points won't look the same in every workplace. Hours worked, task demands, staffing levels, environmental conditions, and production pressures can all influence when employees are most likely to be distracted, fatigued, or rushed. Rather than offering another reminder to "be careful," employers should look for the factors creating the pressure and address them.
Why safety risk can change
OSHA and NIOSH both recognize that fatigue can affect safety. As work hours increase, attention, reaction time, and judgment can decline. Factors such as extended shifts, demanding work, heat, stress, and nontraditional schedules can make those effects more noticeable. and dangerous.
Fatigue and other pressures can make it harder to notice changing conditions, follow established procedures, or choose the safest response. A routine task can become riskier when something changes, and no one recognizes it in time.
Situational awareness plays a role as well. As tasks become repetitive, familiar safety checks can start to feel automatic. When that happens, it may lead to overlooking a changing condition, a new hazard, or something out of the ordinary.
For example, an employee who has safely moved materials dozens of times during a shift may be less likely to notice an obstacle in the travel path or a load that has shifted unexpectedly.
Let your own records tell the story
There's no universally dangerous time that applies to every workplace. Your own records may provide the best insight. Review incident investigations, near-miss reports, first-aid cases, and hazard observations. Look for patterns involving:
- The point in the shift when the event occurred;
- Hours worked;
- Time since the last break;
- Overtime;
- Staffing levels;
- Workload and production demands;
- Environmental conditions; and
- Whether a break, deadline, shift change, or quitting time was approaching.
Look for trends rather than focusing on individual incidents. The goal is to identify when employees face the greatest pressures and determine what factors may be contributing to the risk.
Act on what you find
Once employers identify where safety pressure points exist, they can take steps to reduce the risk before an incident occurs. Practical strategies may include:
- Empowering supervisors to pause or adjust work when conditions raise safety concerns;
- Holding brief hazard reviews at the start of a shift or when conditions change;
- Reviewing overtime, staffing, workload, and production demands;
- Rotating repetitive or demanding tasks when practical;
- Providing meaningful opportunities for rest, stretching, and hydration;
- Assessing environmental factors such as lighting and temperature;
- Planning safe stopping points before breaks and shift changes; and
- Using consistent shift handoffs to communicate hazards and operational changes.
Key to Remember: Safety expectations don't change with the clock, but the conditions affecting your people do. Find your pressure points, dig into what's driving them, and fix them before they cause an incident.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-09-11T05:00:00Z
NewsNational Labor Relations Board (NLRB)Employee RelationsIn-Depth ArticleDress codesUnions/Labor RelationsEnglishHR ManagementUSAIndustry NewsHR GeneralistUnions/Labor RelationsAssociate RelationsFocus AreaHuman Resources
Understanding dress code limits can be a tall order for employers
Between a more casual approach to work attire and the increase in remote work, dress code policies have been on HR’s back burner. A recent case, however, returns dress codes to the limelight.
The case
In early September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) view of employer dress code policies adopted in 2022.
In the case, a union representing workers in a New York City location of a national coffeehouse chain challenged these three parts of the company’s dress code policy:
- In addition to company-approved or issued pins, cafe employees may wear on their apron “one reasonably sized and placed button or pin that identifies a particular labor organization or a partner’s support for that organization, except if it interferes with safety or threatens to harm customer relations or otherwise unreasonably interferes with the company’s public image.”
- Employees are “not permitted to wear buttons or pins that advocate a political, religious or personal issue.”
- While employee shirts may have a small manufacturer logo, they may not have “other colors, designs, logos or writings” other than those pre-approved by the company.
The Second Circuit refused to enforce the NLRB’s findings that these policies were unlawful, reasoning that the NLRB’s reliance on its decision in Tesla, Inc., 371 NLRB No. 131 (Aug. 29, 2022), misapplies precedent and rests on “erroneous legal foundations.”
Finding the right balance
In Tesla, the NLRB adopted the presumption that all employer dress code policies that limit an employee’s right to display union insignia are presumed to be unlawful. The Second Circuit now joins the Fifth Circuit in refusing to enforce Tesla. The Second Circuit said that Tesla was inconsistent with precedent.
Referencing U.S. Supreme Court precedent from Republic Aviation, 324 U.S. 793 (1945), the Second Circuit urged a return to the balancing test between “the undisputed right of self-organization assured to employees … and the equally undisputed right of employers to maintain discipline in their establishments.”
The court added that employees have the right to wear items that relate to unionization and other protected matters at work, but employers aren’t prevented from making and enforcing reasonable rules covering the conduct of employees on company time, because “working time is for work.”
The Second Circuit sent the case back to the NLRB asking the board to “apply a more evenly measured balancing test” and suggested what to consider in its analysis, including:
- How much the rule limits employees’ Section 7 rights (i.e., whether the employer enforces a full or partial ban on union insignia during working time);
- Whether the employer’s policy is neutral on its face, nondiscriminatory, and consistently enforced; and
- The context, or legitimate business reasons underlying the rule.
The Second Circuit also addressed how much weight courts must give NLRB decisions. Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, courts aren't required to defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of the law it administers.
Takeaways for employers
The decision gives employers in the Second and Fifth Circuits more leeway to draft neutral dress code policies that limit union insignia.
Employers should also be aware that the legal standard may continue to change. In August, the NLRB’s General Counsel listed dress codes and a possible reversal of Tesla as future priorities. Employers should, therefore, review appearance policies carefully, document the reasons for restrictions, and consult counsel before limiting union-related clothing or insignia.
Key to remember: A federal appeals court rejected the NLRB’s presumption that dress-code limits on union insignia are automatically unlawful.
Starbucks Reserve Roastery v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 24-3168 (2nd Cir. September 2, 2026)
Keep reading...Show less
2026-09-11T05:00:00Z
NewsUSAHR ManagementEnglishAssociate Benefits & CompensationIndustry NewsIndustry NewsWage and HourWage and HourBreaks and Meal PeriodsHours WorkedTipsHR GeneralistFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Non-Exempt employees Associate RelationsFocus AreaHuman Resources
DOL publishes 3 new opinion letters — Agency insight helps with wage and hour compliance
On Labor Day, September 7, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued three new opinion letters that apply the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to these questions:
- Must employers pay employees for time spent walking to the lunch area?
- May employees perform additional duties as volunteers?
- May supervisors keep tips when bartending?
Opinion letters not only answer a detailed question on a particular employment scenario; they also provide wage and hour compliance guidance for other employers. Below is a snapshot of each letter.
1. Pay for time spent walking to lunch
An employer provided a 60-minute lunch break, during which employees spent between 6 and 14 minutes walking to and from the designated break area. An employee wondered if the employer had to pay for the time spent walking to the break area, and whether the lunch break was long enough to be considered “bona fide.”
The DOL said that the employer didn’t have to pay for the time spent walking to the break area, and that typically, 30 minutes or more is long enough for a bona fide meal period under the FLSA. The lunch period was long enough to use it to eat a meal, even accounting for the travel time required. It appeared that employees were relieved from any work responsibilities during that time. The 46 to 54 minutes available for employees after arriving at the break area was more than enough to eat a meal.
2. Employees volunteering
A nonprofit organization had both exempt and nonexempt employees performing some jobs and volunteers performing different tasks. Some employees wanted to do the volunteering tasks in addition to their regular jobs.
The DOL said that employees may freely and without coercion from the employer or its agents, volunteer to do work that’s neither the same nor of a similar type as the work that they’re employed to do. Put another way, an employee can’t be both a paid employee and a non-paid volunteer while performing the same type of work for the same employer.
3. Supervisors keeping tips
A restaurant had a tip pool for bartenders, hosts, and bussers. A supervisor primarily performed management duties, but also periodically bartended. When this employee bartended, they collected a “tip out” from the servers. This employee also often helped the hosts and bussers while also performing managerial tasks and collected a portion of the “tip out” intended for hosts or bussers, as well. The employer asked whether the employee may receive a portion of other employees’ tips through the employer’s “tip out” arrangement when bartending or helping hosts and bussers while also serving as a supervisor.
The DOL said that the FLSA prohibits supervisors from keeping any portion of other employees’ tips, regardless of whether the supervisors also work as bartenders or help other employees. Supervisors may, however, keep any tips they receive directly from customers based on the service the supervisors directly and solely provide.
Key to remember: The DOL provides FLSA insight into 3 detailed situations regarding lunch breaks, employee volunteers, and supervisors dipping into tip pools.
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.