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
2026-08-12T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsHazmat SafetyHazmatIn-Depth ArticleFocus AreaUSAEnglishTransportationHazmat Rulemaking procedures
The final word on HM-268 part 2
In the last article, we covered the first half of PHMSA's HM-268 final rules, which focused largely on documentation, special permits, and several widely used hazmat exceptions. In this second and final installment, we'll look at the remaining HM-268 rules, including changes affecting agricultural operations, rail transportation, refrigerating machines, cylinders, residue IBCs, and fireworks approvals.
Unless otherwise noted, HM-268J through HM-268P become effective on September 3, 2026. HM-268M becomes effective on August 19, 2026, and HM-268Q becomes effective September 8, 2026.
HM-268J: Updated farmer training threshold
PHMSA increased the income threshold used for a specific farmer security training exception. The revision reflects economic changes since the threshold was originally established.
HM-268K: Rail reporting updates
Several outdated rail-related reporting requirements were removed, including references to obsolete industry publications and reporting practices. PHMSA also updated certain tank car unloading provisions to better reflect current operations and technology.
HM-268L: Unloading drums and IBCs while on a vehicle
PHMSA incorporated provisions from long-standing special permits into the HMR, allowing certain Class 3, 6.1, 8, and 9 liquids to be unloaded from drums and intermediate bulk containers (IBCs) while the packaging remains on the vehicle, subject to specified safety requirements.
HM-268M: Refrigerating machines using flammable refrigerants
As industries transition to refrigerants with lower global warming potential, PHMSA expanded options for shipping smaller refrigerating machines containing flammable refrigerant gases.
HM-268N: Larger refrigerating machines
PHMSA also addressed larger refrigerating machines containing low-flammability refrigerants by authorizing transportation under specified conditions.
HM-268O: Extended cylinder requalification intervals
Adopting provisions from DOT Special Permit 14175, PHMSA now allows certain DOT 3A and 3AA cylinders to be requalified at intervals of up to 10 years when approved examination methods are used.
HM-268P: Relief for empty residue IBCs
Certain empty residue IBCs may now move without some of the shipping paper, marking, and placarding requirements that would otherwise apply, provided specified conditions are met.
HM-268Q: Expanded fireworks certification authority
PHMSA expanded the authority of Fireworks Certification Agencies to approve certain display fireworks and entertainment-industry pyrotechnics that meet applicable APA standards. According to PHMSA, the change is intended to streamline the fireworks approval process.
Key to remember: Taken together, HM-268J through HM-268Q revise requirements affecting agricultural operations, rail transportation, drums and IBCs, refrigerating machines, cylinders, residue packagings, and fireworks approvals.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-08-12T05:00:00Z
NewsBefore and After Work ActivitiesTravel Time as Working TimeIn-Depth ArticleUSAHR ManagementEnglishAssociate Benefits & CompensationIndustry NewsWage and HourWage and HourPreparatory and Concluding Activities/Time CardsHours WorkedHR GeneralistFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Non-Exempt employees Focus AreaHuman Resources
How to avoid paying employees for commutes to and from work at any time of day
The U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) opinion letter from July 22 on whether employers must pay nonexempt (“hourly”) employees for time spent commuting in the middle of the workday gave employers a reason to be happy. Employers must, however, ensure that they meet certain requirements before they deny pay for such travel time.
Better if it's the employee’s choice
The commute must be “ordinary.” What makes a midday commute “ordinary” rather than compensable travel time between job sites can be that the employee, not the employer, decides to split the day with the commute in the middle. In some cases, the alternative schedule must be voluntary on the part of the employee; it must be for the benefit and convenience of the employee.
In other situations, an employer may mandate a midday commute and still keep it unpaid. For example, if an employee wants to work additional hours at home before their scheduled shift, then drive to the workplace to start their shift, that would be an unpaid commute.
The more employers prescribe and control midday travel, the more the risks increase toward the commute no longer being ordinary, and toward employers having to pay employees for that travel time.
Put it in writing
To help ensure (and prove) that the decision is voluntary, employers should document, in writing, any employee requests for a split schedule. Employers are free to gather this documentation however they see fit, but it should be a valid record showing who actually proposed the schedule flexibility.
No work during the commute
During a midday commute, employees must be free to spend the travel time however they like. If employers expect employees to perform work during the commute, the time becomes hours worked, and employers must pay employees for it.
That means no calls, no texts, no expectation of availability during the drive. Having a policy indicating that employees aren’t on duty during a midday commute is a good start. But the policy is hollow (and risky) if managers or supervisors contact employees about a work issue during the drive.
Managers and supervisors should be well aware of this detail, so employers don’t end up with an unwanted wage claim.
Key to remember: Employers can take advantage of the DOL’s guidance, but must ensure some details are met.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-08-12T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsEnforcement and Audits - OSHAOSHA InspectionsSafety & HealthConstruction SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleEnglishOSHA Violations and PenaltiesUSA
The word that can cost you $100,000
Two workers died on the job in separate incidents earlier this year. One employer walked away with a citation totaling roughly $60,000. The other faced more than $276,000 for a non-fatal injury. The difference had almost nothing to do with how badly anyone was hurt, but a single word OSHA chose to attach to the citation. Most employers think about OSHA penalties in terms of dollars. OSHA thinks about them in terms de minimis, other-than-serious, serious, willful, and repeat. Those terms determine the fine far more than the outcome does.
A death classified as "Serious"
Last July, a worker entered a fuel storage tank at a petroleum services worksite and was fatally exposed to benzene and toluene. Federal investigators found the company had:
- Failed to develop and implement a written permit-required confined space entry program.
- Failed to ensure workers understood the hazards and symptoms of exposure.
- Allowed entry without atmospheric evaluation or a permit.
- No written respiratory protection program.
- No hazard communication program covering the chemical exposure.
A worker died, but OSHA classified all twelve violations as "serious," proposing $60,242 in penalties. Not willful. Not repeat. Serious, which is the middle tier of OSHA's classification system. It’s reserved for violations where there was a substantial probability of death or serious harm and the employer knew or reasonably should have known about the hazard.
An injury classified as "Willful"
Compare that to a grain-handling company investigated the same season. A seasonal laborer suffered a serious but non-fatal foot injury after stepping through an unguarded sump hole onto a moving paddle-style unloading conveyor. Nobody died, but OSHA's response was significantly harsher with two willful violations, one serious violation, and three other-than-serious citations for:
- Failing to lock out and tag out machinery.
- Failing to protect workers from the sump hole hazard.
- Failing to provide grain-handling training.
The penalty totaled $276,407 in fines, more than four times the penalty for the fatal chemical exposure case.
Why does the gap exist
This is the part employers most often misunderstand. OSHA's classification system is not primarily a measure of how bad the outcome was. It's a measure of what the employer knew and chose to do about it. The five-tier system runs, roughly:
- De minimis — a technical violation with no direct relationship to safety, typically resulting in no penalty.
- Other-than-serious — a violation related to safety and health that probably wouldn't cause death or serious harm.
- Serious — a violation carrying substantial probability of death or serious physical harm, where the employer knew or should have known about the hazard but did not necessarily act with intent.
- Willful — a violation the employer committed intentionally and knowingly, or with plain indifference to the law. A classic example is knowingly exposing workers to hazardous chemicals without PPE after having already been warned.
- Repeat — a violation substantially similar to one the employer was already cited for within the past five years.
As tragic as the petroleum tank case was, it appears to reflect program failures OSHA could not establish as knowing or willful based on the evidence developed. The company lacked required programs, but investigators did not classify the violations as intentional disregard. The grain-handling case crossed that line because the specific failures such as bypassing lockout/tagout or leaving a known hazard unguarded read to investigators as choices rather than gaps.
What it could mean for your program
Severity of outcome and severity of classification are not the same axis. A near-miss with no injury at all can become a willful citation if an inspector believes you knew about the hazard and didn't act. A fatality can remain "serious" if the failures look more like systemic gaps than deliberate choices.
That means the conversation your safety team has after every incident should not just be "how bad was it?" It should be "what does our documented knowledge of this hazard look like and does our corrective action history support 'we didn't know' or contradict it?" Because once an inspector can show the second, the classification attached to your citation and the penalty attached changes dramatically.
Keys to remember: OSHA penalties are influenced not only by the severity of an incident, but also by what the employer knew about the hazard and the steps taken, or not taken, to correct it.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-08-12T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsSafety and Health Programs and TrainingSafety & HealthGeneral Industry SafetySafety and Health Programs and TrainingEnglishFocus AreaUSA
Safe + Sound week raises awareness of workplace S&H programs
Each year, OSHA’s Safe + Sound Week brings awareness to the importance of workplace safety and health (S&H) programs, which ensure workers are protected from workplace hazards. This year’s event takes place August 10-16.
During the event, OSHA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the National Safety Council (NSC), and other safety organizations collaborate to help businesses understand workplace S&H to keep workers safe. This year’s event will provide resources and activities on S&H recognition.
According to the Department of Labor, the nationwide event is a “great opportunity to celebrate your accomplishments, engage your team, and show your ongoing dedication to workplace safety and health.”
Interested parties can register on OSHA’s Safe + Sound webpage.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-08-12T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsAssociate Benefits & CompensationAssociate RelationsHR GeneralistFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)HR ManagementEnglishFocus AreaHuman ResourcesUSA
Employer’s FMLA documentation saved the day in court
An employer didn’t interfere with an employee’s rights under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by firing her shortly after approving intermittent leave, according to a federal court in Arizona.
Julie, the employee, began working for the company in December 2019. Michelle, Julie’s supervisor, issued a performance review in August 2020 that identified positive aspects of her work but also raised concerns. Michelle cited consistent feedback that Julie sometimes became argumentative or confrontational during disagreements.
The following month, Julie told Michelle that she needed surgery in October. Michelle immediately contacted HR, but Julie wasn’t eligible for FMLA leave. The company, however, approved 2 weeks of leave for the surgery and recovery, as well as additional pre-surgery leave.
Although Julie became eligible for FMLA leave in December, she didn’t say she needed ongoing job-protected leave — meaning she didn’t provide her employer with “notice” of the need for leave, which is a requirement under the law.
Julie’s job performance continued to decline. In May the following year, the employer put Julie on a performance improvement plan (PIP).
When she attributed her job performance problems to her health during the PIP meeting, HR sent Julie FMLA information the next day. The employer approved her request for intermittent leave on June 4. On June 17, however, Michelle reported that Julie laughed at and mocked her during a meeting about required compliance training. Michelle recommended termination, and the employer fired Julie the following day.
Julie sued, claiming that the employer should have notified her about FMLA leave before the PIP meeting because it already knew about her health problems. But the evidence didn’t show that the employer had notice of the need for more leave after her October 2020 surgery. Although she occasionally missed a few hours or a day for medical appointments, Julie didn’t connect those absences to a serious illness. Once she linked her performance problems to her health during the PIP meeting, the employer promptly provided FMLA information.
The employer gave Julie all the leave she asked for. It also had substantial evidence of Julie’s poor job performance — the reason for firing her — dating back to well before her leave request. The June meeting incident prompted the termination recommendation.
With all that, the court found in favor of the employer, allowing the case to be thrown out.
Thurston v. Western Alliance Bank, District of Arizona, No. CV-23-01097, July 15, 2026.
Key to remember: Employers that carefully document an employee’s poor job performance have a lower risk of violating the FMLA if firing the employee.
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.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-08-11T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsCrystalline SilicaToxic and Hazardous Substances - OSHAIn-Depth ArticleEnglishFocus AreaToxic and Hazardous Substances - OSHAUSA
Silica Safety from Dust to Dawn
Are you excited about that new building or home renovation? Warning: there may be a predator in your plan! Silica seems to be making a grand new appearance because of the popularity of artificial stone in flooring and countertops. It’s an extremely functional compound with many uses, but exposure to respirable crystalline silica dust can have significant health consequences, particularly for workers in certain industries.
The most common form of crystalline silica is quartz, which is found in sand, clay, gravel, and other rock forms. It especially likes to lurk in engineered materials that contain more crystalline silica by weight than natural stones like marble or granite.
Blasting, cutting, and grinding these engineered stone slabs is known to produce dust containing harmful silica that can enter the lungs and eventually be fatal. The silica particles are so small, they are unnoticeable so many workers may not realize they are at risk. This is why OSHA has established a National Emphasis Program (NEP) to reduce or eliminate worker exposure to silica. The NEP establishes a permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA).
How can silica be fatal?
Silica itself is not dangerous. However, when it’s disturbed and becomes airborne, it’s a force to be reckoned with. The crystalline silica particles are so small, they easily bypass the body’s natural defense mechanisms and make their way deep into the lungs. Eventually, exposed workers develop a chronic and progressive scarring of the lungs, known as silicosis.
Once the lungs are scarred enough, they lose elasticity and can no longer function. Those with silicosis may experience:
- Shortness of breath and persist coughing,
- Chest pain,
- Fatigue,
- Weight loss, and eventually
- Respiratory failure.
Silicosis also can worsen other health issues, such as lung cancer and kidney disease, making the situation even more deadly.
Who is most susceptible?
Construction workers lead the pack for industries most at risk for silica exposure. However, that doesn’t mean other industries shouldn’t be on alert. In fact, OSHA estimates that about 2.3 million U.S. workers are exposed to silica.
Anyone dealing with silica-containing materials are at risk. These materials include:
- Granite, marble, quartz;
- Concrete, brick, and ceramic tiles;
- Glass;
- Manufactured stone slabs;
- Roofing tiles;
- Grouts, mortar, and joint compounds;
- Talcum powder;
- Asphalt;
- Some food additives; and
- Abrasive blasting materials.
The increase of silicosis diagnosis among artificial stone countertop workers is staggering and is causing irreversible lung damage and early death. Sadly, lung transplantation may be the only life-saving option for those who can overcome delayed diagnosis and health insurance challenges.
This problem has been highlighted by just one state. An April 2025 report from California's Department of Public Health (CDPH) revealed:
- 15 deaths from silicosis
- 294 medically diagnosed cases
- 31 lung transplants
- 26 additional transplant referrals
What can be done about it?
Reducing or eliminating silica exposure requires:
- Performing risk and hazard assessments to determine where silica exposure may occur;
- Prioritizing engineering controls (e.g., wet methods, ventilation, etc.) to control airborne silica and silica dust;
- Implementing administrative controls to reduce exposure time and frequency;
- Issuing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE);
- Monitoring employee health with medical surveillance and screening;
- Complying with regulatory requirements; and in some cases,
- Banning artificial stone products with specified silica content percentages.
Key to remember: Silica is everywhere and it is wreaking havoc on our workers. Exposure, especially from engineered stone, poses severe health risks, making strict controls and OSHA compliance essential for protecting workers.
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.








