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
2026-04-28T05:00:00Z
NewsEmployee RelationsIn-Depth ArticlePrivacy and Data SecurityEnglishPrivacy and Data SecurityHR ManagementHuman ResourcesIndustry NewsEmployee BenefitsEmployee BenefitsEmployee RelationsHR GeneralistAssociate RelationsFocus AreaUSA
Your employees are not Fido. Don’t microchip them, at least in some states
People with pets are familiar with the practice of microchipping their fuzzy family members to help find them if they wander off. Microchips have information regarding the pet’s owner, whereby if found, the pet can be returned home.
What’s this got to do with employers? Apparently, some employers have been thinking about microchipping their employees. Employers tout them as a convenience, as these tiny devices serve as swipe keys, credit cards, and more.
While this might sound a bit far-fetched, some states didn’t think so and enacted laws prohibiting employers from microchipping employees.
On March 11, 2026, Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson signed HB2303 into law, adding the state to the list of other states that have related laws, such as Arkansas, California, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin, Indiana, Alabama, and Mississippi.
Washington law
Effective June 11, 2026, all employers in Washington may not request, require, or coerce any employee or job applicant to have a microchip implanted for any reason.
Applicants or employees who are subject to a violation of the law may bring a civil action in court. The court may award the employee:
- Injunctive relief,
- Actual damages,
- Punitive damages, or
- Money to cover attorneys' fees and related costs.
Under the Washington law, the term "microchip" doesn’t include implanted devices used to diagnose, monitor, treat, or prevent a health condition. Employers generally wouldn’t go down this road.
Pass the chips
According to the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, more than 50,000 people all over the world have chosen to have microchips implanted.
Nevada law goes beyond prohibiting employers from microchipping employees. Others who may not require microchipping include:
- Officers or employees of the state or any political subdivision thereof,
- A person licensed to sell or provide insurance, and
- A person licensed to participate in a business related to bail.
In 2017, a Wisconsin technology company offered voluntary microchipping to employees, and many took the employer up on the offer. Employees can use the chip to access the facilities, log into their computers, and even buy food from vending machines.
Key to remember: Employers who might be wondering if they might benefit from microchipping employees must tread carefully.
Keep reading...Show less
RECENT INDUSTRY HIGHLIGHTS
2026-04-28T05:00:00Z
NewsSafety & HealthChange NoticesChange NoticeMaritime SafetyOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), DOLSpecialized IndustriesMarine Terminal OperationsEnglishFocus AreaUSA
OSHA Final Rule: Open Fires in Marine Terminals
OSHA is finalizing the revocation of the agency's Open Fires in Marine Terminals Standard.
DATES:
The final rule is effective April 28, 2026. Published in the Federal Register Apr. 28, 2026, page 22723.
View final rule.
| PART 1917—Marine Terminals | ||
| Authority | Revised | View Text |
| §1917.21 Open Fires. | ||
| Entire section | Removed and reserved | View Text |
Previous Text
PART 1917—Marine Terminals
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 941; 29 U.S.C.
653, 655, 657; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
Section 1917.28 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
Section 1917.29 also issued under 49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5 U.S.C. 553.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-04-28T05:00:00Z
NewsHazardous WasteIndustry NewsWaste GeneratorsWaste ManifestsWaste/HazWasteWaste HandlersWasteEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)TSD FacilitiesEnvironmentalIn-Depth ArticleEnglishFocus AreaUSA
Hazardous waste manifests: Hybrid vs. fully electronic
More industries are embracing the exclusive use of electronic platforms. For example, digital payments are replacing cash, news sites are going fully online, and cloud storage is eclipsing external computer storage. And, based on recent proposed rulemaking, hazardous waste manifests may join the list.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the Paper Manifest Sunset Rule in March 2026, planning to shift to electronic-only manifests for tracking hazardous waste that’s regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
If the proposed rule is finalized, regulated entities will have to track all hazardous waste shipments electronically. Specifically, generators, transporters, and receiving facilities could only use hybrid or fully electronic manifests on the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System (e-Manifest).
So, what are the differences between hybrid and fully electronic manifests? Let’s compare the distinctions and explore some of the benefits that electronic manifests can offer.
What’s a hybrid manifest?
EPA initially established the hybrid manifest for generators that couldn’t fully participate in electronic manifests when the e-Manifest launched in 2018. The hybrid manifest combines paper and electronic manifests, allowing generators that aren’t registered in e-Manifest or don’t have an EPA identification (ID) number to sign printed copies of electronic manifests.
Here’s the general hybrid manifest process:
- The first transporter initiates an electronic manifest in e-Manifest. A hard copy of the electronic manifest is printed out, and the generator and initial transporter sign the paper copy.
- The generator keeps a signed paper copy on-site. The transporter keeps a signed paper copy with the shipment until it’s delivered to the receiving facility.
- From that point forward, the initial transporter and all subsequent waste handlers track the shipment in e-Manifest (using electronic signatures and electronic transmissions).
- The manifest is complete when the receiving facility or exporter electronically signs it on e-Manifest.
What’s a fully electronic manifest?
The fully electronic manifest is tracked completely online. All handlers — generators, transporters, and receiving facilities or exporters — must have an EPA ID number and be registered in e-Manifest to use the fully electronic manifest.
The entire process is conducted on e-Manifest:
- The manifest is created electronically in e-Manifest.
- All handlers electronically sign the manifest in e-Manifest.
- The manifest is complete when the receiving facility or exporter electronically signs it on e-Manifest.
What benefits do electronic manifests offer?
Regardless of whether EPA’s rule is finalized as is, electronic manifests offer hazardous waste handlers a range of benefits. Consider the following potential perks.
Compliance with existing regulations
Many handlers are already required to embrace electronic manifesting. In July 2024, EPA finalized the e-Manifest Third Rule, which requires:
- Large quantity generators and small quantity generators to register for e-Manifest,
- Exporters to submit manifests and continuation sheets to e-Manifest (and pay the associated fees), and
- Waste handlers to submit manifest-related reports and data corrections to e-Manifest.
Streamlined recordkeeping for generators
Hazardous waste handlers using e-Manifest automatically meet the recordkeeping requirements to maintain records of manifests (paper or electronic) since the manifests are retained electronically in the system.
This eliminates the need to keep hard copies. It also provides a centralized place where handlers can access these documents at any time.
However, the provision doesn’t apply to generators using hybrid manifests; they must keep the initial paper copies of the electronic manifest for 3 years.
Reduced costs
Embracing electronic manifesting removes the costs associated with printing paper manifests from EPA-approved sources.
Keep in mind, there’s an unavoidable cost for receiving facilities and exporters. These entities have to pay user fees for each manifest they submit to e-Manifest.
Proactive preparation
EPA’s proposed Paper Manifest Sunset Rule would prohibit the use of paper manifests 2 years after the publication of a final rule. Hazardous waste handlers who transition to using only electronic manifests now will be better prepared to comply with future regulations. It gives businesses time to coordinate resources and address any unexpected issues.
Key to remember: Do you know the differences between hybrid and fully electronic hazardous waste manifests? The distinctions could be the difference between compliance and noncompliance.
Keep reading...Show less
NewsIndustry NewsFleet SafetyRisk Management ProgramRisk Management ProgramFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleFleet OperationsEnglishTransportationUSA
April
Telematics in commercial vehicles: Separating fact from fiction
Telematics systems, such as GPS tracking, engine diagnostics, driver behavior monitoring, and vehicle camera technology, are no longer tools reserved for large fleets. Today, carriers of all sizes have access to these technologies. Yet hesitation remains, often driven not by evidence, but by lingering misconceptions about how telematics are used and what they accomplish.
When implemented correctly, telematics are not about surveillance or punishment. They are about visibility, fairness, and proactive risk management. Below are some of the most common myths surrounding telematics in commercial motor vehicles (CMVs), along with the realities that tell a very different story.
Myth #1: Telematics are intrusive and only used to micromanage drivers
One of the biggest concerns among drivers and managers alike is the belief that telematics exist to monitor every move and discipline drivers for minor or isolated mistakes. In reality, effective telematics programs are built on trend analysis, not single events.
Telematics provide objective data that helps carriers focus on patterns of behavior rather than one off occurrences. This shifts coaching conversations away from subjective opinions and toward measurable facts. Discussions become grounded in data, consistency, and shared expectations.
When used properly, telematics often reduce conflict. Drivers are treated more fairly, safe behaviors are reinforced, and coaching focuses on improvement rather than punishment. The result is a more transparent system where expectations are clear and accountability is consistent across the fleet.
Myth #2: Drivers will never accept telematics
Many carriers worry that telematics will damage morale or increase turnover. In practice, driver acceptance depends almost entirely on how the program is introduced and managed.
Successful fleets communicate early and clearly. They explain why telematics are being implemented, how the data will be used, and just as importantly, how it will not be used. When drivers understand that telematics exist to protect them, provide documentation, and support fair treatment, resistance often fades.
Transparency builds trust. When drivers feel included rather than monitored, telematics can improve morale. Drivers want clarity, consistency, and protection just as much as carriers do, and a well-run telematics program can deliver all three.
Myth #3: Cameras only exist to catch drivers doing something wrong
A common assumption among drivers is that camera systems are designed solely for discipline or termination. The primary purpose of cameras should always be safety, protection, and defense.
Forward facing cameras provide critical facts during crashes, protect drivers from false or exaggerated claims, and document safe driving behavior. They play a key role in supporting DataQs challenges and submissions under the FMCSA’s Crash Preventability Determination Program (CPDP).
When driver facing cameras are used ethically, they can also help identify fatigue, distraction trends, or training gaps before a crash occurs. Discipline should be the exception, not the rule. The most effective use of video footage is coaching, recognition of safe behavior, and legal protection.
For drivers, cameras can act as a digital witness that tells their side of the story when it matters most.
The reality of telematics in CMV operations
When implemented correctly, telematics are some of the most powerful safety and risk management tools available to CMV operations. Beyond the technology itself, telematics provide visibility that helps carriers protect drivers, prevent crashes, improve regulatory compliance, and manage costs.
Telematics enable proactive coaching, objective decision making, and continuous improvement. Most importantly, they shift the focus from punishment to prevention. This supports a culture of accountability, safety, and operational excellence that benefits drivers, carriers, and the motoring public alike.
Key to remember: Telematics are not about watching drivers, but about protecting them, coaching fairly, and preventing problems before they become accidents.
Are your drivers and spotters speaking the same language?
Maneuvering a commercial truck and trailer into a tight spot or through a busy area in a yard is no easy feat. A common best practice is to use spotters to help drivers safely navigate through these obstacles.
Even with this additional set of eyes and ears, drivers must remain alert and effectively communicate with the spotter.
Common, basic hand signals
To help avoid hazards, a spotter directs the commercial driver using hand signals to make a desired vehicle movement. To be effective and safe, the spotter and driver must speak the same language.
Unlike some industries such as construction, the hand signals used throughout the trucking industry are not standardized. Drivers and yard employees should be trained on common, basic hand signals.
When at a shipper or receiver’s facility, the driver obviously has less control over the situation. The company’s standardized hand signals may not be recognized. The driver needs to discuss agreed upon hand signals with the yard or warehouse employee who is directing the driver.
The more commonly used hand signals that should be standardized include:
- Pull forward to the left
- Pull forward to the right
- Back up
- Back up — driver’s side
- Back up — passenger’s side
- Distance to travel
- Stop
- Slow down
- Emergency stop
Above all, the stop signal needs to be clearly understood. It could make the difference between a safe docking and a crushed worker. Variations include both arms crossed with hands in fists, or hands straight up. In any event, the driver and spotter must agree on the stop signal, reinforced by yelling loudly to stop.
Driver’s safety measures
A driver should assess their surroundings before backing up and following a spotter’s directions:
- Walk around the commercial vehicle, making sure nothing is in the path of the tires;
- Observe people in the area;
- Check for obstructions in the cab that would block the line of sight of the mirrors; and
- Verify the position of the spotter (i.e., back of the trailer using the passenger-side mirror).
The driver must stop the vehicle immediately when:
- Unsure of the spotter’s signals. They must clarify the meaning before proceeding.
- Their attention is drawn away from the spotter (including looking away from the mirrors). They should continue only after confirming the last signal.
Spotter’s role
Spotters have their own safety concerns. They must be alert to:
- The position of the trucks, and
- Other hazards approaching or in the truck or trailer’s path.
To ensure their own personal safety, they should:
- Wear bright clothing or a vest,
- Be visible in the driver’s passenger mirror,
- Avoid walking backward while giving instructions to the driver,
- Assume a position that’s a safe distance from the truck,
- Make sure nothing will be in their walking path, and
- Keep eye contact with the driver at all times.
To make sure the driver knows where the spotter is at all times, they may need to change positions frequently so that they are visible in the driver’s passenger mirror.
Key to remember: A driver and spotter must effectively communicate to ensure the safety of the truck, spotter, and bystanders in busy yards and loading docks.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-04-27T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsToxic Substances Control Act - EPAToxic Subtances Control Act - EPATSCA ComplianceEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)EnvironmentalEnglishFocus AreaUSA
EPA publishes first round of expiring TSCA CBI claims
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the first list of expiring Confidential Business Information (CBI) claims for information submitted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The list covers CBI claims that expire from June 22, 2026, to July 31, 2026.
What are expiring CBI claims?
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (which became law in June 2016) set an automatic 10-year expiration for most CBI claims made under TSCA. The first round of expiring claims starts in June 2026.
EPA allows businesses to request extensions of CBI protection for up to another 10 years.
How do I know if my CBI claims are expiring?
EPA will notify businesses of expiring CBI claims directly through the Central Data Exchange (CDX).
The agency will also release public lists of upcoming expiring CBI claims monthly on the “CBI Claim Expiration” webpage. The agency encourages businesses to review the lists to verify whether any of their claims are included.
How do I request an extension of expiring CBI claims?
Businesses seeking to extend a CBI claim beyond its expiration date must submit an extension request at least 30 days before the claim expires using the newly launched TSCA Section 14(e) CBI Claim Extension Request application in EPA’s CDX.
Here’s the general process:
- EPA notifies the business of an expiring CBI claim directly through CDX and via the public lists on the “CBI Claim Expiration” webpage.
- The business submits a request for extension through EPA’s CDX at least 30 days before the CBI claim expires. Requests must comply with the substantiation requirements at 40 CFR 703.5(a) and (b).
- EPA reviews the submission and either grants or denies the request.
What are the possible results?
If EPA approves the extension request, the information in the CBI claim will remain protected for up to another 10 years.
If EPA denies the extension request, the agency can publicize the information in the claim 30 days after notifying the submitter in CDX. Further, if a business doesn’t submit an extension request at least 30 days before the expiration date, EPA may publicize the information without notifying the submitter.
Key to remember: EPA published the first round of expiring CBI claims for information submitted under TSCA. Businesses must submit extension requests to keep the information protected.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-04-27T05:00:00Z
NewsWage and Hour Division (WHD), DOLFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)HR ManagementEnglishHuman ResourcesEqual Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)DiscriminationIndustry NewsIndustry NewsDiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationHR GeneralistAssociate RelationsFocus AreaUSA
In vitro fertilization treatments and the FMLA
For an employee to take time off from work under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the reason for the absence must be a qualifying one. One qualifying reason is the employee’s own serious health condition. For this, the employee must have an illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that leaves them unable to work, attend school, or perform other regular daily activities due to the serious health condition, treatment thereof, or recovery therefrom. It must also require inpatient care or continuing treatment by a health care provider. For this, the FMLA defines a serious health condition.
Whether in vitro fertilization treatments fit these definitions will depend on all the facts involved, but usually, they don’t. The FMLA and its regulations make no mention of in vitro fertilization; they don’t include a comprehensive list of conditions that would meet the definition of a serious health condition and, therefore, qualify for FMLA leave.
When it comes to in vitro fertilization (as well as other conditions), employers need to apply the definition of an FMLA serious health condition against the information obtained in a certification (or other source).
Often, courts help provide insight, and a court addressed in vitro fertilization back in 2009. It indicated that an employee’s absences for IVF treatment were not protected by the FMLA because she was not incapacitated for more than three consecutive calendar days, as the condition fell under the “incapacity and treatment” part of the definition. The court did what employers are to do: It applied the serious health condition definition and compared it to the information from a certification.
PWFA
Even though in vitro fertilization treatments might not qualify for FMLA protection, currently, denial of leave for such treatments could risk a violation of the federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).
Under the PWFA, an employee who requests leave for in vitro fertilization treatment for the employee to get pregnant has a limitation, either related to potential or intended pregnancy or a medical condition related to pregnancy (difficulty in becoming pregnant or infertility), and is seeking health care related to, affected by, or arising out of it. Therefore, she would be entitled to the reasonable accommodation of time off for the treatment.
Employers don’t have to provide an accommodation that would pose an undue hardship, but proving that limited time off for treatment is a hardship might be a challenge. Employees might need time off for the actual procedure, as well as for various appointments, shots, and preparation leading up to the procedure.
Key to remember: Time off for in vitro fertilization treatments doesn’t generally qualify as FMLA leave, but it would be a reasonable accommodation under the PWFA.
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.