SAFETY & COMPLIANCE NEWS
Keep up to date on the latest
developments affecting OSHA, DOT,
EPA, and DOL regulatory compliance.
Copyright 2026 J. J. Keller & Associate, Inc. For re-use options please contact copyright@jjkeller.com or call 800-558-5011.
FEATURED NEWS
2026-02-24T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsDiscriminationDiscriminationProtected classesPregnancy DiscriminationAssociate RelationsHR GeneralistIn-Depth ArticleUSAHR ManagementEnglishFocus AreaHuman Resources
Employees are filing pregnancy accommodation claims: PWFA lessons for employers
The federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) went into effect on June 27, 2023, with final regulations on June 18, 2024. Since then, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has been busy enforcing it. Recent cases from the last 5 months can serve as a learning opportunity for all employers covered by the law, which are those with 15 or more employees.
Cases settled through conciliation agreements
- The EEOC claimed that a technology solutions company fired a pregnant employee in November 2023 after she asked for 2.5 months of unpaid leave. As a result, the employer had to pay the former employee $100,000 and implement a new policy allowing employees to ask for leave as a reasonable accommodation under the PWFA, even if they don’t qualify for leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.
- The EEOC claimed that a behavioral health provider denied a pregnant employee an accommodation under the PWFA in March 2024. According to the employee, the employer refused to engage in the required interactive process and instead fired her on the same day she requested the accommodation. As a result, the employer had to pay the former employee $35,000, provide equal employment opportunity training to all employees, and report annually on discrimination complaints it receives.
Ongoing claims
- The EEOC claims that a multinational steel and iron mining company allegedly violated the PWFA when it failed to give an employee a reasonable accommodation for her pregnancy.
According to the lawsuit, the employee, an experienced mining equipment operator, needed to avoid working on the most physically jarring machinery as an accommodation during her high-risk pregnancy. Instead of temporarily allowing her to do other work within her job description, the employer placed her on an involuntary leave for several weeks. Although the company later let her come back to work, it first assigned her to work that was inconsistent with her medical restrictions and then removed her from her normal role altogether. She spent the rest of her pregnancy in a menial office job with reduced earning potential.
The lawsuit further alleged that the employer retaliated against her after her pregnancy by denying her higher-paying assignments and sending her to more difficult and less desirable jobs in remote areas of the mine.
- According to an EEOC suit, a nurse whose job involved visiting patients at their homes requested a temporary limit on her assignments to patients closer to her home and/or to virtual visits as an accommodation for her pregnancy symptoms. The employer allegedly refused to accommodate the employee, which ultimately resulted in her forced resignation.
- The EEOC charged two other companies for violating the PWFA:
- A freight shipping company discriminated against a truck driver when it forced her to take leave rather than let her continue to work during her pregnancy.
- An assisted living facility fired a pregnant employee after she disclosed her pregnancy and related lifting restrictions.
In both lawsuits, the EEOC claimed that the employees told their employers about their pregnancy and requested an accommodation for a 20-pound lifting restriction. Accommodating the restriction would have allowed the employees to continue to work, but their employers refused.
6 takeaways for employers
Employers can learn the following from these cases:
- When employees ask for a workplace change because of a limitation due to pregnancy or related conditions, employers covered by the PWFA should engage in an interactive process with them, with a focus on identifying an effective reasonable accommodation.
- Employers shouldn’t force employees to take leave if another accommodation enables them to continue working.
- Employers shouldn’t deny leave when it’s the only effective accommodation. 4. Lifting can be a limitation that requires accommodation, and employers should recognize that.
- Taking a negative employment action because employees ask for an accommodation can lead to PWFA violations.
- Employers should train managers, supervisors, and others who deal with accommodation requests about the PWFA.
Key to remember: Employers that aren’t familiar with the PWFA risk violating it and facing an EEOC claim.
Keep reading...Show less
RECENT INDUSTRY HIGHLIGHTS
2026-02-24T06:00:00Z
NewsAir QualityAir EmissionsEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)Hazardous Air PollutantsCAA ComplianceAir PermittingEnglishAir ProgramsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsAir ProgramsEnvironmentalFocus AreaStationary Emission SourcesUSA
EPA repeals stricter Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for coal-, oil-fired power plants
On February 24, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule repealing the 2024 amendments made to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (EGUs). It’s also referred to as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for power plants.
Effective April 27, 2026, this rule (2026 Final Rule) repeals stricter compliance requirements made to the MATS rule in May 2024 (2024 Final Rule) and reverts them to the less stringent standards established by the 2012 MATS Rule.
Who’s affected?
The rule applies to power plants with coal- and oil-fired EGUs subject to the NESHAP (40 CFR 63 Subpart UUUUU).
What are the changes?
The final rule repeals these 2024 amendments:
- The revised filterable particulate matter (fPM) emission standard and corresponding total and individual non-metal hazardous air pollutant (HAP) metal standards for existing coal-fired EGUs (reverting to the 2012 MATS Rule requirements);
- The revised compliance demonstration requirements for all EGUs to install continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) for fPM emissions and the adjusted quality assurance (QA) criteria (reverting to the previous standard, allowing EGUs to choose from three compliance demonstration methods); and
- The revised mercury (Hg) emission standard for lignite-fired EGUs (reverting to the 2012 MATS Rule limit).
The 2026 Final Rule also reinstates the low-emitting EGU (LEE) program for fPM and non-Hg HAP metals. The LEE program requires less frequent stack testing for sources with emissions below 50 percent of the corresponding limit for 3 consecutive years.
Further, EPA’s final rule updates the fPM sampling requirements for EGUs that demonstrate compliance with a PM CEMS. These units must collect either a minimum catch of 6.0 milligrams or a minimum sample volume of 4 dry standard cubic meters (dscm) per test run. EGUs demonstrating compliance using other methods must collect a lower minimum sample volume of 1 dscm per PM test run.
| Compliance requirement | 2024 Final Rule | 2026 Final Rule |
|---|---|---|
| fPM emission limit for existing coal-fired EGUs | 0.010 pounds per million British thermal units of heat input (lb/MMBtu) | 0.030 lb/MMBTu |
| fPM emission compliance demonstration for all coal-and oil-fired EGUs | EGUs must use PM CEMS. | EGUs may use:
|
| Hg emission limit for existing lignite-fired EGUs | 1.2 pounds per trillion British thermal units of heat input (lb/TBtu) | 4.0 lb/TBtu |
Keep reading...Show less
2026-02-24T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsRoad testFleet SafetyDriver qualificationsFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleEnglishTransportationUSA
10 road test best practices to reduce risk and improve retention
When hiring commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers, carriers have limited information to judge safety. A driver’s record shows past behavior, but a road test shows how the driver performs right now. Together, they help identify strengths and gaps before the driver hits the road.
Road test options
Carriers can take one of three approaches to road testing:
- Use one of the two federal exceptions allowed under §391.33 instead of giving a road test,
- Meet the minimum federal road test requirements under §391.31, or
- Go beyond the minimum standards by using road test best practices.
Caution: Using a road test exception can weaken a carrier’s defense in post-crash litigation. Courts often view exceptions as a shortcut or a missed opportunity to identify risk.
Why exceed the minimum testing requirements?
Evaluating driver skills at the time of hire and on an ongoing basis helps carriers:
- Lower crash risk and legal exposure; and
- Improve driver retention by building skill and confidence.
Today, juries and federal auditors expect carriers to meet — and often exceed — minimum standards, not just comply with them. Exceeding the minimum road test requirements strengthens both safety and defensibility.
10 road test best practices
If these ten steps aren’t already part of your policies, consider adding the following best practices to your driver testing program:
- Test drivers on a single road course that includes the required elements in §391.31(b) and matches the driver’s expected vehicle and operating environment.
- Use a standardized scoring sheet that allows evaluator comments.
- Do not use the §391.33 exceptions instead of giving a road test.
- Require evaluators of commercial driver’s license (CDL) drivers to hold a CDL, in case they need to operate the vehicle.
- Document why each evaluator is qualified, such as through an appointment letter.
- Review evaluators regularly to ensure consistent scoring and reduce bias.
- Explain the test process to the driver before starting, and limit instructions and comments during the test to avoid distractions.
- Provide and document remedial training to address any weaknesses found during the road test — even if the driver passes.
- Conduct road tests after a driver is hired and before key changes, such as:
- Returning from a long absence;
- Moving to a new vehicle or operation;
- Driving in winter or mountainous conditions; or
- Becoming a driver trainer.
- Never pass a driver just to meet operational needs. The risks of skipping key steps in the testing process can lead to violations, potential litigation, and safety issues.
Keys to remember: To reduce risk, do not settle for minimum standards. Strong road test practices improve safety, support drivers, and protect the company.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-02-24T06:00:00Z
NewsEnforcement and Audits - OSHAReporting Fatalities and Severe InjuriesIn-Depth ArticleInjury and Illness RecordkeepingEnglishOSHA Emphasis ProgramsIndustry NewsOSHA InspectionsSafety & HealthConstruction SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyAgriculture SafetyMaritime SafetyFocus AreaUSA
Is your site shielded from certain OSHA inspections in FY 2026?
OSHA quietly updated a table that indicates which industries are barred from not all inspections but programmed safety inspections under certain conditions. The agency revised its roster of “low-hazard industries” that are off-limits if a site has up to 10 employees. The new list is driven by fresh 2024 data showing the nearly 500 industry sectors with estimated days away, restricted, or transferred (DART) work injury/illness incidence rates below the 1.4 national private-sector average.
Find the table in a February 2, 2026, memo, “Low-Hazard Industries Table of NAICS under the Appropriations Act.” It carries weight because OSHA directive CPL 02-00-170 uses this industry list to determine which subsectors are free from programmed safety inspections in a given fiscal year (FY) if an establishment meets the size criteria. The directive offers a mechanism for OSHA to apply enforcement carve outs required by Congress.
Background
The FY 2026 OSHA budget bill was signed into law on February 3, 2026. It covers funding through September 30, 2026. As has been the case for decades, lawmakers slipped in a rider with OSHA enforcement exemptions and limitations. One of those is for employers with no more than 10 employees in a “low-hazard industry.”
OSHA is not allowed to use federal dollars to “administer or enforce” any regulation under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) for qualifying employers, except for assistance, training, studies, and actions related to:
- Imminent dangers,
- Health hazards,
- Fatalities,
- Incidents with two or more hospitalizations, and
- Worker complaints.
Unless there’s a complaint, imminent danger, fatality, or two or more hospitalizations, it means OSHA cannot conduct programmed inspections for “safety hazards” at qualifying sites. Programmed inspections are sometimes called targeted or planned inspections. They include national, regional, and local emphasis programs; inspection scheduling for construction; the site-specific targeting program; and the severe violator enforcement program.
Rider applicability criteria
According to CPL 02-00-170, the small employer/low-hazard industry rider applies only if both of the following criteria are met:
- An employer has 10 or fewer employees currently and has not had more than 10 employees at any time during the previous 12 months; and
- The DART rate for the employer's industry is currently below the national DART average, per the most recently published labor statistics.
OSHA sources say the number of employees is not for a company but for a single location. Even large companies with 10 or fewer employees at a site will discover that the location comes under this loophole if its sector is exempt.
Qualified employer locations must still comply with applicable OSHA regulations, however. For example, under 29 CFR 1904.39(a)(3), employers covered by the OSH Act must report to OSHA any work-related incident that results in a/an:
- Fatality,
- In-patient hospitalization,
- Amputation, or
- Loss of an eye.
Once one of these reports is received, the agency determines if an “unprogrammed” inspection or investigation will be conducted.
Low-hazard industries and OSHA EEL webpage
The new table itemizes 489 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes for industries that qualify for limited OSHA enforcement activities opened on and after January 22, 2026. The 489 figure is a slight increase from 485 industry codes identified back in November 2024.
The industries on the latest list had a DART rate below the national average of 1.4 per 100 full-time equivalent workers in 2024. That average comes from 2024 incidence rate data recently published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Because injury and illness rates shift annually, OSHA’s lineup of low-hazard industries changes with them. In fact, OSHA made more than 100 additions and over 100 deletions with the February 2nd memo. Your industry may or may not be shown in any given year.
If your industry tends to jump on and off the listing, you may wish to monitor the OSHA Enforcement Exemptions and Limitations Under the Appropriations Act webpage — call it the OSHA EEL webpage for short. It provides links to the current and historical memos, as well as the CPL.
OSHA inspector instructions
Complete instructions for OSHA officers on how to handle the rider are found in CPL 02-00-170. Yet, a few practical instructions are shared in the memo, and these relate to:
- Construction inspections and exempted and non-exempted contractors,
- Not proposing citations for an inspection that was conducted when the employer is later found to be immune from that inspection, and
- Rescinding erroneously issued citations.
Note that the CPL features not only inspector procedures and clarifications but also 18 frequently asked questions and a link to the OSHA EEL webpage.
Key to remember
OSHA posted its FY 2026 low-hazard industries table based on the average DART rate for 2024. It helps agency inspectors sort out which establishments with a workforce of 10 or fewer employees qualify for certain enforcement exemptions and limitations.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-02-24T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsEnglishFleet SafetyRisk Management TransportationRisk Management - Motor CarrierFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleFleet OperationsPrivacy and Data SecurityPrivacy and Data SecurityTransportationRegistration and Permits - Motor CarrierUSA
Phishing scammers target motor carriers in new wave of fraudulent DOT emails
A new and increasingly aggressive phishing campaign is sweeping through the motor carrier industry, with scammers impersonating officials from the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). These fraudulent emails, often polished, convincing, and designed to mimic official correspondence, are tricking motor carriers into surrendering sensitive information or making unauthorized payments.
A growing threat to motor carriers
Motor carriers nationwide are being urged to stay alert as FMCSA reports a surge in deceptive emails crafted to look like legitimate government communication. These messages frequently include professional looking documents, official appearing logos, and language that mirrors real FMCSA notices. While they may appear authentic, they are engineered to harvest personal data, financial information, or login credentials that can compromise a carrier’s operations.
FMCSA has emphasized that these emails do not originate from USDOT or the agency itself. One of the most reliable warning signs is the sender’s email domain. Official FMCSA correspondence almost always comes from an address ending in .gov. Although there are rare exceptions, such as customer satisfaction surveys sent after contacting the FMCSA Contact Center, those messages never request personal, financial, or account information.
How scammers create a false sense of urgency
Industry reports note that the sophistication of these phishing attempts has increased significantly. Many messages convey a sense of urgency, warning recipients that their USDOT number is at risk, that compliance updates are overdue, or that immediate payment is required to avoid penalties. These tactics are designed to pressure carriers into responding quickly without verifying the source.
FMCSA stresses that it never demands payment or sensitive information through unsolicited email. Any message requesting such information should be treated as a scam.
Key warning signs to watch for
Motor carriers can protect themselves by watching for several common red flags:
- Non-government email domains or sender addresses that appear slightly altered;
- Unexpected requests for payment, especially those tied to threats or deadlines;
- Embedded links directing users to unfamiliar login pages;
- Attachments that claim to be compliance documents or renewal notices; and
- Spelling or formatting inconsistencies, even in otherwise professional looking messages.
Protecting your business from phishing attempts
To reduce the risk of falling victim to these scams, FMCSA recommends that carriers:
- Verify the sender’s domain before responding to any message;
- Avoid clicking links in unsolicited emails, especially those requesting payment or personal data;
- Log in directly to official FMCSA or USDOT portals rather than using email links; and
- Report suspicious emails to the appropriate fraud reporting channels.
As phishing schemes continue to evolve, awareness remains the strongest defense. Carriers who stay informed, verify communications, and follow FMCSA’s recommended precautions can significantly reduce their risk.
Key to remember: In an industry where compliance and safety are paramount, protecting your business from fraud is just as critical as protecting your fleet or cargo.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-02-23T06:00:00Z
NewsWage and Hour Division (WHD), DOLIndustry NewsIndustry NewsHR GeneralistFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)USAHR ManagementEnglishFocus AreaHuman Resources
Do rehired employees get FMLA leave?
Under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), only those employees who meet certain eligibility criteria are entitled to take the job-protected leave for a qualifying reason.
Employees must:
- Have worked for the employer for at least 12 months (need not be consecutive),
- Have performed at least 1,250 hours of work in the 12 months before leave is to begin, and
- Work at a location with at least 50 company employees within 75 miles.
What happens, however, if an employee leaves the company and is rehired?
How to handle FMLA leave with rehired employees
How employers should handle a rehired employee’s FMLA leave depends on how long the employee was away.
For starters, employers must include all the time the employee worked for the company, and see if it amounts to at least 12 months in total. Again, those months don’t have to be consecutive.
Employers don’t have to include any time worked after an employee’s been gone from the company for more than 7 years, with some exceptions:
- The break was because of the employee’s military leave under the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act; or
- A written agreement, including a collective bargaining agreement, exists concerning the employer's intention to rehire the employee after the break in service (e.g., the employee goes back to school or takes time off to raise children).
Employers also must determine whether a rehired employee has done at least 1,250 hours of work in the 12 months before leave begins.
To illustrate
Because knowing the FMLA rules around a rehired employee can be challenging, here’s an example to help employers:
Joe Employee worked for “ABC Company” for 5 years before he left for a job at another company. After a year, that company went through some restructuring, and Joe was laid off. He reapplied at “ABC Company” and was rehired.
Seven months later, Joe found out he was going to be a father and asked for FMLA leave when the baby would be born in three months.
Since Joe worked for “ABC Company” for well over 12 total months (5 years originally; 10 months as a rehire when the baby is born and leave would begin), he would be eligible for FMLA leave when the baby is born (assuming he performed at least 1,250 hours of work by then).
State leave laws
Some state leave laws, particularly paid leave, have specific provisions entitling rehired employees to jump back on the leave train where they left off. Employers must be aware of such provisions if they have employees who work in those states.
Key to remember: Whether rehired employees are eligible to take FMLA leave depends on a number of factors, including how long they were gone and why.
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.