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
2026-09-16T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsHazmat SafetyHazmat: HighwayFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleHazmat EnforcementEnglishTransportationUSA
What 5,000 hazmat inspections revealed
Every year, enforcement initiatives provide a reality check on how well the hazmat industry is complying with transportation requirements. This summer, inspectors across the United States and Canada conducted more than 5,000 inspections of vehicles transporting hazardous materials and dangerous goods as part of a five-day enforcement effort coordinated by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA). The results offer several reminders about where compliance problems continue to occur.
During the initiative, inspectors conducted 5,046 inspections and placed 683 vehicles out of service, resulting in an overall out-of-service (OOS) rate of 13.5 percent. While most inspections were completed without major issues, the violations showed several areas that hazmat employers should review within their own operations.
Shipping papers continue to be a problem
One of the most common issues identified during the initiative involved shipping papers. Inspectors found 265 shipping paper violations, and more than 20 percent of those violations resulted in vehicles being placed OOS.
Shipping papers communicate critical information to carriers, inspectors, and emergency responders. Missing emergency response information, incomplete basic descriptions, incorrect quantities, or accessibility issues can quickly become significant compliance and safety concerns. Many shipping paper violations are preventable through routine reviews of shipping documentation and periodic employee refresher training.
Hazard communication still gets attention
Inspectors also documented numerous violations involving labels, markings, and placards. During the five-day initiative, they identified 197 placard violations, 64 marking violations, and 32 label violations. Most of these issues resulted in vehicles being placed OOS.
Hazard communication requirements help ensure everyone involved in transportation can quickly recognize the hazards present. Whether it's a driver, dock worker, inspector, or emergency responder, they rely on markings, labels, and placards to accurately communicate the risks associated with a shipment. Regular audits can help identify missing, damaged, or incorrect hazard communication before an inspector finds the problem.
Compliance doesn't end once the package is prepared
Another area receiving attention involved cargo securement and package integrity. Inspectors identified 128 OOS cargo securement violations and 29 leaking package violations during the initiative.
These results serve as a reminder that compliance doesn't end once a package is properly classified, packaged, marked, and labeled. Packages must also be loaded, secured, and protected from damage throughout transportation. Shifting cargo can damage packages, increase the likelihood of leaks, and create significant safety risks.
Inspectors also found violations involving emergency response information, hazmat registration, safety permits, and hazmat endorsements. While these requirements may seem administrative in nature, they are frequently reviewed during inspections and can lead to enforcement action when overlooked.
Key to remember: The biggest takeaway from the CVSA results is that many of the violations involved long-standing requirements that hazmat employers deal with every day. Taking the time to verify shipping papers, inspect hazard communication, review employee qualifications, and evaluate loading practices can help prevent violations, OOS orders, and incidents.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-09-16T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsFleet SafetyAnnual inspections - Motor CarrierViolations - HazmatHazmat: HighwayHazmat Driving and parkingFocus AreaUSAHazmat EnforcementEnglishTransportationCMV Inspections
Over 600 placed OOS in 5-day hazmat inspection blitz
Inspectors conducted over 5,000 vehicle inspections across the U.S. and Canada this June to identify violations and improve roadway safety.
This annual unannounced 5-day Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) inspection event involves having specially trained officers inspect commercial motor vehicles transporting hazardous materials/dangerous goods (HM/DG) for regulatory compliance and placing decals on vehicles without any critical vehicle/cargo tank violations. The 2026 enforcement blitz took place from June 8–12, resulting in 5,046 total inspections.
During the inspection, 1,187 CVSA decals were placed on vehicles, indicating no critical violations. Conversely, inspectors placed a total of 683 vehicles out of service (OOS), resulting in a 13.5 percent international OOS rate.
Road Blitz results
During the 5-day inspection event, inspectors discovered:
- 5 undeclared packages in the U.S. and 24 in Canada,
- 5 equivalency certification violations in Canada and issued 70 violations related to DG training certificate violations,
- 265 shipping paper violations (57 were OOS violations),
- 47 HM registration violations,
- 8 safety permit violations,
- 16 HM endorsement violations,
- 73 emergency response information violations in the U.S.,
- 2 emergency response assistance plan (ERAP) violations in Canada,
- 128 OOS cargo securement violations,
- 29 OOS HM/DG package integrity violations,
- 197 placard violations (55 were OOS violations),
- 64 marking violations (20 were OOS violations), and
- 32 label violations.
What makes HM/DG different
Transporting HM/DG requires drivers to undergo serious training thanks to heightened compliance requirements that keep carriers, drivers, the environment, and the public safe. Inspectors look for leaking materials or unsecured cargo, as well as verify shipping paper, packing and loading, labeling, placarding, and marking compliance.
In the U.S., HM refers to any “substance or material that poses an unreasonable risk to health, safety, and property when transported in commerce.” HM is also designated as hazardous under Section 5103 of Federal Hazardous Material Transportation Law. In the U.S., carriers and drivers involved with transporting HM comply with the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR), while those in Canada follow the Transportation of Dangerous Good (TDG) Regulations.
There are nine classes of recognized HM/DG, each placed into categories based on the chemical and physical properties of the material, along with the associated risks. There were 5,707 Class 1-9 packages inspected during the event.
Find the full report with more detailed information at https://cvsa.org/news/2026-hm-dg-road-blitz-results/
Keep reading...Show less
2026-09-16T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsAssociate Benefits & CompensationHR GeneralistFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Associate RelationsEnglishHR ManagementFocus AreaHuman ResourcesUSA
Employer used an algorithm to detect FMLA fraud
In 2018, an employer suspended or fired 81 employees after they used Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave over the holidays in December 2017 and January 2018. That amounted to about 10 percent of the employees in one area of the company suspected of abusing FMLA leave.
Some of those 80 employees felt that they took FMLA leave that had previously been approved and that, by disciplining them for taking the leave, the employer interfered with their FMLA rights and retaliated against them for taking pre-approved leave. As a result, they sued.
Ferreting out leave abuse
From the employer’s perspective, using FMLA leave solely to avoid working on or around holidays, weekends, vacations, and rest days constituted dishonesty in violation of company policy.
Jolanda from HR had an automated system that ferreted out FMLA misuse. Each week, the system looked back at every employee’s FMLA usage over the preceding 12 weeks. If an employee had 5 suspicious uses of FMLA leave within 12 weeks, the algorithm flagged that employee. A suspicious use was any FMLA use on a weekend and any FMLA use that was taken immediately before or after a day off.
If Jolanda believed that an employee’s actions amounted to FMLA “pattern use,” she would conduct an individualized review. This involved reviewing each employee’s:
- Medical information,
- Absences that were identified as pattern use, and
- Statuses of those absences.
To further investigate this FMLA usage, Jolanda used a modified version of the algorithm, which flagged any employee who had used FMLA leave on 4 of the 10 most recent holidays and other special occasions (such as Black Friday and Christmas Eve). Jolanda removed from the list anyone whose leave involved cancer, a terminal illness, or was about to give birth.
Court disagrees with employer
Despite dozens of employees being terminated for misusing their leave, only three of the employees continued their lawsuit. In court, the judge pointed out that the algorithm didn’t show their total FMLA leave, just their holiday use. It didn’t include non-holiday use, so it didn’t give the whole picture.
If an employee used FMLA leave for 10 days in 12 months, and 5 of those days were holidays, an employer might have reason to suspect misuse. If an employee used FMLA leave for 60 days in 12 months and 5 of those days were holidays, there would be much less reason for an investigation. The employer focused on employees’ use of FMLA leave on holidays without considering the context of each situation.
The employer argued in court that it acted on its honest belief that the employees were abusing FMLA leave.
The employees argued that the company’s stated reason for the discipline was untrue and that retaliation was the actual reason for the discipline. The employees were given an internal hearing, but the hearings were suspicious, as a company manager acted both as judge by conducting the hearing and ruling on objections, and as prosecutor by questioning witnesses. The company witness told the hearing manager which questions the prosecutor (the same manager) should ask.
Employees, on the other hand, weren’t allowed to have legal counsel present, nor were there formal rules of evidence that governed the hearings. They also didn’t know the questions in advance, as the employer did.
In denying the employer’s request to have the entire case dismissed, the court determined that the employer’s decision process wasn’t credible and its reliance on that process was, therefore, not honestly held. It sent the case to a jury.
Burgess, et al., v. CSX Transportation, Inc., District of Maryland, No. JKB-18-0744, July 6, 2026.
Court decisions are based on the specific facts presented and each court’s interpretation of the law. Because courts may reach different conclusions, similar situations can lead to different outcomes. Employers should avoid relying on a single case as definitive guidance and instead assess each situation carefully, considering applicable laws and seeking advice when needed.
Key to remember: Employers may use procedures and tools to discern FMLA leave abuse, but they have to use those procedures and tools through the lens of the big picture.
Keep reading...Show less
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
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.