Regulatory Compliance News & Updates
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.
Safety & Compliance News
FEATURED NEWS
2026-03-25T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsSafety and Health Programs and TrainingSafety & HealthConstruction SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyAgriculture SafetyMaritime SafetySafety and Health Programs and TrainingEnglishFocus AreaUSA
OSHA launches compliance initiative
OSHA has launched the “OSHA Cares” initiative to help businesses comply with federal workplace safety requirements while also building stronger, more successful safety and health (S&H) programs for both employers and workers.
The agency-wide effort will provide employers with guidance and support aimed at ensuring that all employees return home safely following each shift. The OSHA Cares webpage offers practical, real-time insights and resources to help employers — especially small and medium-sized businesses facing unique challenges — improve S&H. Highlights include:
- Worksite assistance,
- OSHA’s Safety Champions Program,
- Small-business resources,
- Cooperative programs,
- Safe + Sound (recommended practices for S&H programs),
- Worker rights,
- Training resources, and
- Employer resources.
For more information, visit osha.gov.
Keep reading...Show less
RECENT INDUSTRY HIGHLIGHTS
2026-03-25T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsAssociate Benefits & CompensationHR GeneralistFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Associate RelationsEnglishHR ManagementFocus AreaHuman ResourcesUSA
Employee’s notice of upcoming transplant was enough for FMLA claim to proceed
Tracey had a condition that required a kidney transplant. In early 2022, she told Virginia, her “coach,” who served in a quasi-supervisory role, about her condition. Later that year, Tracey told Virginia that she was a kidney transplant candidate.
On November 2, 2022, Tracey emailed the company’s benefits department to get information on long-term leave, including 3 months for recovery. She told them that the timing depended on when a viable kidney became available.
The following day, Erin, from HR, emailed Tracey information and instructions for requesting short-term disability and leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Erin told Tracey that she might want to wait to initiate a claim until she had expected leave dates and to work with their third-party leave administrator.
Because she was waiting for a kidney, Tracey didn’t request leave benefits and didn’t talk to HR until February 1, 2023, when she was terminated as part of a reduction-in-force (RIF). When Tracey said she had contacted HR about her pending transplant, she was promptly reinstated.
After that, while still waiting for the transplant, on March 7, the employer gave Tracey three options:
- Go on short-term disability,
- Take FMLA leave, or
- Resign with a severance package.
Tracey didn’t respond, as she felt the options were unrealistic because she wasn’t yet disabled. Her failure to apply for short-term disability benefits didn’t justify terminating her. Instead, Tracey hired attorneys.
On April 7, the employer fired Tracey, citing her lack of response to its questions about the timing of the surgery and her options. Tracey sued, claiming FMLA interference and retaliation. At issue was what and when the employer knew about Tracey’s kidney condition and imminent transplant.
In court
Tracey argued that the employer knew of her medical condition and her need to take leave when it selected her for termination as part of the RIF.
The employer argued that it wasn’t aware of Tracey’s condition when it selected her for termination, and that Tracey didn’t request leave. It also argued that the 3 months between her leave inquiry and her termination meant the termination wasn’t because of the leave request.
The court didn’t buy the employer’s argument.
It felt that a reasonable juror could infer that the RIF provided a mechanism to part with employees who would require future leave. The evidence suggested that the employer knew of Tracey’s atypical need for leave in the future, and they delayed termination to avoid the appearance of a connection.
Although it wasn’t certain when Tracey would need the leave, it was certain that she would need it eventually. The employer’s response was an acknowledgement of that need. Thus, Tracey’s inquiry was an invocation of FMLA rights and protected her under the FMLA.
Firing an employee after requesting FMLA leave but before the employee could take it can constitute both interference and retaliation, which is what the court said happened in this case.
An internal text didn’t help the employer’s case, as a jury could interpret it as a suggestion that the employer should delay Tracey’s termination to avoid litigation: “She is going to need 2-3 months off to recover. It’s going to be hard [to] staff that, but also I don’t want to intentionally not staff her and bring in a lawsuit.”
Pavlicin v. CapTech Ventures, Inc., Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 24-5415, December 18, 2025.
Key to remember: Employers whose employees put them on notice of the need for FMLA leave shouldn’t fire employees for that reason. Employers should be able to show that any negative employment decision had nothing to do with a leave request.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-03-25T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsWaste/HazWasteSustainabilityCAA ComplianceSustainabilityIn-Depth ArticleCWA ComplianceEnvironmentalEnglishSustainabilityESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance)Focus AreaUSA
The essential role of local governments in environmental regulation
Counties and municipalities play a major role in protecting air, water, and land resources across the United States. Although federal and state agencies establish the overarching environmental framework, thousands of local agencies conduct the day to day permitting, inspections, and enforcement needed to make those rules work.
Local governments obtain regulatory authority largely through delegation. Federal environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) allow the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to authorize state agencies, which may then rely on local entities to administer components of these programs. In many states, local districts, counties, or municipalities operate significant environmental programs directly under state authority.
Common local level programs
A strong example of local involvement can be seen in air quality management. The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) reports that 117 local air agencies participate in implementing federal and state clean air programs, highlighting how implementation frequently happens at the local level.
EPA’s AirNow directory lists numerous local air quality agencies across the country; Examples include air pollution control districts in California (such as the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, the San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District) as well as local air programs in Maricopa County, Arizona; Jacksonville, Florida; and Omaha, Nebraska. These districts conduct inspections, issue permits, investigate complaints, and maintain air monitoring networks, all of which support state and federal clean air requirements.
Local authority is also central to solid waste management, where many states rely heavily on counties and municipalities to manage planning, facilities, and enforcement. For instance, Washington State requires local governments to develop comprehensive solid and hazardous waste management plans that guide all waste handling and recycling programs within each county or city. These plans determine facility needs, outline reduction and recycling strategies, and shape local ordinances designed to meet state goals.
Additional examples appear across the country. Maryland’s Montgomery County, California’s Alameda County, and the District of Columbia all implement ambitious local waste diversion plans that supplement or exceed state requirements, demonstrating how counties and cities directly shape waste reduction and recycling policy. Likewise, South Carolina places most solid waste management responsibility on county governments, which must develop local plans, designate recycling coordinators, and report progress toward statewide goals.
Why is local involvement critical?
Local environmental regulatory authority matters because conditions vary widely across the nation. Counties and municipalities better understand their own industries, land uses, and growth patterns, allowing them to respond quickly to complaints, target outreach effectively, and adopt ordinances that go beyond state or federal minimums when necessary. Their proximity to communities makes local agencies essential partners in achieving environmental compliance and advancing public health protections.
As federal and state programs evolve, the role of local agencies continues to expand. Air quality districts, solid waste authorities, and local environmental health departments all demonstrate how counties and municipalities contribute directly to national environmental objectives.
Key to remember: With thousands of local agencies responsible for on the ground regulatory tasks, the strength and responsiveness of the United States’ environmental protection system depend heavily on the active engagement of local governments.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-03-25T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsFleet SafetyDriver qualificationsDrivers qualification (DQ file)Driver qualification and hiringEmployment application driverIn-Depth ArticleFleet OperationsFocus AreaEnglishTransportationUSA
The non-domiciled CDL final rule: A compliance reality check
On March 16, 2026, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) implemented a sweeping final rule aimed at fundamentally changing how non domiciled Commercial Driver’s Licenses (CDLs) are issued in the United States. Officially titled “Restoring Integrity to the Issuance of Non Domiciled Commercial Driver’s Licenses,” the rule amends 49 CFR Parts 383 and 384.
The rule establishes strict eligibility standards, imposes new verification requirements on states, and is backed by aggressive enforcement expectations that extend beyond licensing offices to roadside inspections and carrier audits.
What the final rule requires
The final rule sharply limits eligibility for non domiciled CDLs and Commercial Learner’s Permits (CLPs). Under the new regulation, only three immigration categories qualify:
- H 2A – Temporary agricultural workers
- H 2B – Temporary non agricultural workers
- E 2 – Treaty investors and qualifying employees
No other immigration status, regardless of employment authorization, may be used to obtain, renew, transfer, or upgrade a non domiciled CDL or CLP.
A key requirement of the rule is mandatory immigration status verification. State Driver Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) must verify a driver’s lawful status through the federal SAVE system and may not rely on Employment Authorization Documents (EADs), or pending immigration applications as proof of eligibility. If a state cannot meet these verification standards, it is required to halt issuance of all non domiciled CDLs and CLPs until compliance is achieved.
The rule also restricts the validity period of non domiciled CDLs. Licenses may not exceed one year or extend beyond the expiration date of the driver’s lawful immigration status, whichever comes first. Each renewal requires fresh verification under the same standards.
Who the rule affects
The rule directly affects foreign domiciled drivers who operate commercial motor vehicles in the United States under non resident CDLs. FMCSA estimates that approximately 190,000–200,000 drivers could lose eligibility over time due to non renewals or license revocations. Drivers previously relying on broader categories are no longer eligible under the final rule. Motor carriers are also affected. FMCSA guidance makes clear that carriers employing drivers whose licenses later become invalid face increased exposure during driver qualification audits, investigations, and enforcement actions. The rule reinforces that responsibility for compliance extends beyond the driver to the employer. Importantly, the rule does not apply to U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, or drivers licensed in Canada or Mexico who operate under existing reciprocity agreements.
Why FMCSA Implemented the Rule
FMCSA found widespread state non compliance and systemic weaknesses in the verification of foreign driving histories as the primary reasons for the rule. According to the agency, a nationwide review found that more than 30 states had issued tens of thousands of non domiciled CDLs using standards that did not meet existing federal requirements.
Safety concerns were central to the decision. FMCSA documented 17 fatal crashes in 2025 resulting in 30 deaths involving non domiciled CDL holders who would not have been eligible under the new rule. While acknowledging that these crashes represent a small fraction of overall CMV fatalities, FMCSA stated they illustrate the potential risks created when driver history, status, and qualification cannot be reliably verified.
The agency framed the rule as necessary to restore integrity, uniformity, and accountability to the CDL system while closing gaps that allowed improperly issued licenses to remain in circulation.
Key to Remember: The Non Domiciled CDL Final Rule represents a decisive shift from flexibility to strict federal oversight. It narrows eligibility, mandates verification, shortens license duration, and places renewed emphasis on carrier responsibility.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-03-24T05:00:00Z
NewsWage and Hour Division (WHD), DOLIndustry NewsIndustry NewsHR GeneralistFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)USAHR ManagementEnglishFocus AreaHuman Resources
Types of certifications and when to use them
The certification is often the crux of administering leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The law permits employers to request them at certain times, and the U.S. Department of Labor provides model forms for all but one type of certification.
Employers aren’t required to request any certification from employees, but may do so, except when leave is strictly for bonding with a healthy child.
Initial certification
When an employee first puts the employer on notice of the need for leave, the employer must give the employee an eligibility/rights and responsibilities notice. Along with this, the employer may include a certification form and require the employee to have it completed and returned.
Second (and third) opinions
If an employer has reason to doubt the validity of an initial certification for leave taken for a medical reason, it may ask for a second opinion. The employer may choose the health care provider, but must pay for it. If the second opinion differs from the initial certification, the employer may ask for a third opinion, which is binding. The employer and employee must agree on the health care provider, and the employer must pay for the third opinion.
Employers may not request second opinions when employees take leave for a military family member.
Recertification
During a leave year, employers may request recertifications, but no more than once every 30 days and only in connection with the employee's absence. If, however, the certification specifies a minimum duration for the condition, the employer must wait until that minimum has elapsed. Some conditions last for years or even a lifetime, which is why employers may ask for a recertification in six months, again in relation to an absence.
Employers don’t have to wait the 30 days, minimum duration, or six months in limited situations:
- The employee requests an extension of leave;
- Circumstances described by the previous certification have changed significantly (e.g., the duration or frequency of the absence, the nature or severity of the illness, complications). or
- The employer receives information that casts doubt upon the employee's stated reason for the absence or the continuing validity of the certification.
Employers may not request second opinions for recertifications.
Annual certification
When a medical condition persists for an extended period, employers may require employees to provide a new certification in the new leave year. The employer must wait until the employee provides notice of the need for leave for the first time in the new leave year. Basically, the employer treats it as a new leave request.
Fitness-for-duty certification
When employees take FMLA leave for their own condition, employers may require that they provide a certification before returning to work confirming they are able to return. The DOL doesn’t have a model form for this. Employers must indicate this requirement with the designation notice.
Key to remember: While employers may request certifications, they must be aware when they may do so.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-03-24T05:00:00Z
NewsProcess Safety ManagementPersonal Protective EquipmentElectronic Reporting of Injury and Illness RecordsGeneral Duty ClauseLockout/TagoutErgonomicsIn-Depth ArticleUSAHuman ResourcesHR ManagementEnglishErgonomicsPersonal Protective EquipmentIndustry NewsWorkplace ViolenceHeat and Cold ExposureWorkplace ViolenceSafety & HealthConstruction SafetyInfectious DiseasesFirst Aid and MedicalGeneral Industry SafetyAgriculture SafetyMaritime SafetyGeneral Duty ClauseHazardous Materials Safety - OSHAFirst Aid and MedicalFocus AreaInjury and Illness Recordkeeping
Mounting pressure on OSHA as hazards jostle for attention
Forces are nudging OSHA to address a number of workplace hazards and high-hazard industries. Those signals are coming from other agencies, safety organizations, watchdogs, legislative proposals, and persistent injury/fatality data. Each points to a different safety and health concern, competing for OSHA’s bandwidth. Yet none dictates where OSHA will turn next.
How all this translates into new regulations, guidance, programmed inspections, or other initiatives remains to be seen. If OSHA adds a rule, it is bound by an executive order to remove 10 existing regulations. Any of these actions would also compete with items already on the agency agenda, which could be published at any time.
However, the absence of a particular rule or standard does not mean employers are off the hook. The General Duty Clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act requires employers to provide a place of employment that is free from recognized hazards that are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees.
Combustible dust
The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) released a new video examining a fatal combustible dust explosion/fire. Five employees at a Wisconsin corn mill were killed and 14 others were injured. Board Member Sylvia Johnson states, “The CSB has been calling for a comprehensive [OSHA] standard on combustible dust for many years to help prevent tragic, deadly incidents like [this] one … from continuing to occur. Robust regulation is absolutely essential to keep these incidents from happening in the future.”
First aid and eye, face, and head protection
Nine safety organizations petitioned OSHA urging the agency to adopt more modern consensus standards. Those standards include:
- ANSI/ISEA Z308.1-2026, -2019, and -2014 — American National Standard for Minimum Requirements for Workplace First Aid Kits and Supplies;
- ANSI/ISEA Z87.1-2025, -2020, and -2015 — American National Standard for Occupational and Educational Personal Eye and Face Protection Devices; and
- ANSI/ISEA Z89.1-2026, -2019, and -2014 — American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection.
The petition argues that the suggested updates to 29 CFR 1910 would not add compliance costs. Rather, the changes would offer employers greater choices in first aid kits and personal protective equipment, while improving safety, the organizations contend.
Workplace violence
A recent report from the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General states that OSHA could “enhance its efforts to address workplace violence, which may include taking regulatory action.” OSHA currently uses the General Duty Clause (not a regulation) for enforcement of work violence hazards.
The Inspector General says it will audit the effectiveness of the General Duty Clause in OSHA’s enforcement of workplace violence. The latest Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data show that 9.3 percent of all work fatalities in 2024 were attributed to homicide.
A Workplace Violence in Healthcare and Social Assistance proposed rule is on OSHA’s long-term agenda.
Musculoskeletal disorders, heat, and more
Federal lawmakers are moving to force OSHA to issue regulatory rulemaking to protect American workers. The House and Senate have ten bills on the table so far. Topics addressed by these Congressional bills include musculoskeletal disorders, heat stress, infectious diseases, wildfire smoke, and workplace violence. See our previous article, “9 OSHA bills to mandate gap-closing rules, wider coverage, steeper fines,” dated February 3, 2026. One bill was added after the issuance of that article.
Healthcare, transportation, warehousing, retail, and manufacturing injuries/illnesses
According to a new OSHA report, four industries, together, reported over 85 percent of all the injury and illness incidents tallied in data submitted under 29 CFR 1904.41 for 2024. Those included:
- Healthcare and social assistance,
- Transportation and warehousing,
- Retail trade, and
- Manufacturing.
The “2024 Annual Report: Work-related Injuries and Illnesses” also put a spotlight on three safety and health topics:
- Robotics in the manufacturing sector,
- Meat processing industry, and
- Young workers.
Transportation incidents
Transportation incidents continued to be the most frequent type of fatal event, per BLS data posted last month. These incidents accounted for 38.2 percent of all work fatalities in 2024. This is an uptick from the 36.8 percent reported in 2023. The good news is roadway incidents involving motorized land vehicles dropped 8.5 percent. The figure plummeted to 1,146 in 2024 from 1,252 in 2023. Roadway incidents still made up over one-in-five fatal work incidents in 2024.
In mid-January last year, OSHA said it wanted employers to “make safety a core principle by integrating safe driving and transportation practices into their businesses' safety and health management systems.” The idea was to foster a culture of safety and preventive practices to protect workers on the nation's roads. The statement was part of a joint initiative with the National Safety Council and the Road to Zero Coalition. The agency pointed to its Motor Vehicle Safety webpage.
While transportation incidents persist as the number one source of work fatalities, the 2025 BLS data, which should be issued in December 2026, may reveal whether OSHA’s joint-initiative efforts are making a dent.
Key to remember
Several forces are nudging OSHA to address a number of workplace hazards and high-hazard industries. Each points to a different safety and health concern, competing for OSHA’s bandwidth.
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.