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
2026-06-17T05:00:00Z
NewsMilitary LeaveHawaiiChange NoticesChange NoticeAssociate Benefits & CompensationAssociate RelationsHR GeneralistFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)LeaveHR ManagementEnglishFocus AreaHuman Resources
Hawaii added qualifying exigency as a family leave reason
Effective date: July 1, 2026
This applies to: Employers with 100 or more employees
Description of change: Effective July 1, 2026, eligible employees may also take leave under the Hawaii Family Leave Law for any qualifying exigency related to active-duty service by an employee’s child, spouse, reciprocal beneficiary, sibling, grandchild, or parent in the U.S. armed forces.
A “qualifying exigency” is defined by the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) as an urgent need or demand arising out of the fact that the employee's spouse, son, daughter, or parent is a military member on covered active duty (or has been notified of an impending call or order to covered active-duty status).
View related state info: FMLA – Hawaii
Keep reading...Show less
RECENT INDUSTRY HIGHLIGHTS
2026-06-17T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsAssociate Benefits & CompensationAssociate RelationsHR GeneralistFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)HR ManagementEnglishFocus AreaHuman ResourcesUSA
FMLA protections begin when employees ask for leave
Daniel had worked for the company since 2014, but not without job performance issues. He had a history of disciplinary incidents and negative performance reviews. His attendance was also less than spectacular.
In 2017, the employer told Daniel that further issues could result in termination. The issues continued, and on October 31, 2018, the employer allowed Daniel to sign a “last-chance” agreement, serving as his “final warning,” or he’d face termination.
In December, after a trying encounter with a supervisor, Daniel emailed HR, saying that he needed time off because of an anxiety attack. He asked which FMLA forms he needed. HR sent Daniel an FMLA request form and asked that he return it.
Daniel never responded to HR’s email or returned the FMLA request form.
Soon thereafter, after reviewing all of Daniel’s documented infractions, the employer fired him. He sued.
The ruling
The court found in favor of the employer, but only because the employer had well-documented evidence of Daniel’s poor job performance as the reason for the termination.
The ruling, however, reminds employers that simply asking for or about FMLA leave is a protected activity. If employers take a negative employment action because an employee engages in a protected activity, they risk a retaliation claim. Employees are protected when they first attempt to exercise their FMLA rights, like simply putting their employer on notice of the need for leave.
Daniel asked about FMLA leave, so his FMLA protections began at that time, not when he provided an FMLA certification or other documentation supporting the need for leave, or when leave began. Firing an employee for asking, said the court, “would frustrate the aims of the FMLA,” even if the inquiring employee turns out to be ineligible.
In court, Daniel tried to argue that the employer’s real reason for firing him was his FMLA leave request, since he was fired around the same time. The employer, however, was able to demonstrate to the court that they had a completely separate reason for his termination.
The court therefore found that the employer had a legitimate reason for the firing and ruled in its favor.
Paris v. MacAllister Machinery Co., Inc., et al; Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals; No. 25-1726, May 14, 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 seek advice when needed.
Key to remember: Employees are protected by the FMLA when they first put employers on notice of the need for leave. Employers should have well-documented evidence if they fire employees.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-06-17T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsHeat and Cold ExposureSafety & HealthConstruction SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyAgriculture SafetyEnglishHeat StressFocus AreaUSA
Nevada OSHA publishes FAQs on heat rule
Nevada OSHA, which operates under OSHA’s State Plan program, has published a new guidance document that provides a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) on its recently adopted heat illness prevention rule.
The rule requires employers with 10 or more employees to conduct a job hazard analysis (JHA) to identify conditions that could lead to heat-related illnesses. It also applies when the employer’s workers are exposed to excessive heat for at least 30 minutes in any 60-minute period. Some of the FAQs include:
- If my business isn’t required to establish a written safety program, am I still required to protect my workers from occupational exposure to heat illness?
- What requirements are included in the heat illness regulation?
- How often is a JHA required to be performed?
The guidance document also lists links to additional resources, such as the OSHA-NIOSH Heat Safety Tool app.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-06-17T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsCompliance reviews - Motor CarrierFleet SafetyEnglishFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleEnforcement - DOTTransportationUSA
How FMCSA’s audit playbook revisions may help you
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has quietly made a significant change to how enforcement cases are handled, and it has real implications for motor carriers and drivers.
The agency’s latest update to its audit playbook — known as the Field Operations Training Manual (FOTM) — shifts audits closer to a legal, evidence-based process. The change is in response to a 2025 policy shift at FMCSA and new U.S. DOT regulations that took effect in May, affecting all transportation agencies.
It’s no longer just about building a case
Under the old FOTM, investigators focused on building cases to support violations. There was detailed guidance on gathering and presenting evidence, but no requirement to disclose information that might favor the motor carrier or drivers.
The updated manual changes that. Investigators must now proactively disclose “exculpatory evidence,” which includes any information suggesting that:
- A violation may not have occurred or shouldn’t be charged, or
- A penalty should be reduced.
Importantly, carriers and drivers don’t have to ask for it. The updated FOTM says investigators should disclose exculpatory evidence “as a matter of course.”
Reinforced by DOT policy — and the Constitution
This isn’t just an FMCSA internal update. New DOT regulations that went into effect May 27, 2026, require all transportation agencies to enact the change in their civil enforcement actions.
The DOT cites a 1963 Supreme Court decision, Brady v. Maryland, which held that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires the government to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defendant in criminal cases. The DOT decided to extend this to all enforcement actions, including those where motor carriers or drivers are fined for violations. The new policy is codified in 49 CFR 5.85, Duty to disclose exculpatory evidence.
“Making affirmative disclosures of exculpatory evidence in all enforcement actions will contribute to the Department’s goal of open and fair investigations and administrative enforcement proceedings,” the agency wrote.
No more ‘gotcha’
For fleet safety managers, this matters because the FMCSA is expected to avoid “gotcha” enforcement tactics and instead clearly communicate its findings and concerns. Enforcement actions will need to be conducted in a more fair, impartial, and well-documented manner.
Conversely, when FMCSA does pursue enforcement, it will do so using more disciplined, legally defensible practices, potentially making appeals more difficult.
What counts as “exculpatory”?
The new FOTM gives practical examples of what investigators may have to disclose, including:
- Conflicting inspection data,
- A carrier’s or service provider’s notes showing attempts to contact drivers or resolve issues,
- Vendor input (such as ELD malfunction reports), and
- Evidence of corrective action during the audit.
Even if this information doesn’t eliminate a violation, it must still be shared if it could help your position.
If you’ve ever been involved in the discovery process during civil litigation, this shift should sound familiar. FMCSA enforcement is moving closer to a model where decisions are based on a complete evidentiary record where relevant information must be shared with opposing parties during discovery, not withheld.
The updated FOTM and DOT regulations both emphasize that enforcement actions must be legally and factually sound before they move forward. The FMCSA playbook now requires that evidence support each violation before enforcement proceeds, and cases lacking support must be corrected, modified, investigated further, or dropped.
What this means for your next audit
1. Expect more transparency. Audit results should reflect the full picture, not just violations but also facts that may explain or mitigate them.
2. Your documentation matters more than ever. Emails, corrective action records, vendor communications, and internal notes may now become part of the official evidentiary record and could help your case.
3. Be prepared to tell your side of the story. Be prepared to identify and present favorable information early in the audit process; it could help you later.
4. Enforcement is more formal and open, but not softer. Violations still need to be addressed, even if corrected. But corrective actions and mitigating facts are now more likely to influence the outcome of an audit or other investigation.
Key to remember: The FMCSA has updated its audit playbook to require investigators to share exculpatory evidence with motor carriers and drivers, potentially helping them to defend themselves.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-06-16T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsAssociate RelationsHR GeneralistIn-Depth ArticleLabor Law PostersHR ManagementEnglishLabor Law PostersUSAFocus AreaHuman Resources
Posting fines won’t be going up in 2026
For the past decade, labor law posting penalties have increased annually. They won’t be going up in 2026, however, because of last year’s government shutdown.
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 requires federal agencies to adjust penalty levels for inflation each year no later than January 15. These adjustments are based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
Because the bureau didn’t publish its October 2025 data due to a funding lapse, there’s no data on which to base a penalty increase. Because of this, the Department of Labor (DOL) has cancelled its 2026 penalty adjustments.
The DOL made the announcement in the Federal Register on May 27.
Penalties remain at 2025 levels
The lack of a 2026 penalty adjustment means that the DOL’s potential labor law posting fines will remain at 2025 levels through January 14, 2027. The potential maximum posting fines are:
- $216 for each separate offense for failure to display the Family and Medical Leave Act posting
- $16,550 for each separate offense for failure to display the Occupational Safety and Health Act posting
- $26,262 for any violation of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, including the posting requirement
Employers also face a fine of $698 for failing to display the Know Your Rights: Workplace Discrimination is Illegal posting. This posting requirement is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
While the EEOC has not yet made an announcement in the Federal Register about its 2026 penalty adjustment, it’s likely that this fine will not increase this year due to the lack of data about the inflation rate.
Several posting updates delayed
The lack of a posting penalty increase will make an impact on required posting updates in several states this year. These states update their workplace posters annually with information about increases to penalties levied under state Occupational Safety and Health Administration programs:
- Alaska
- Maryland
- Nevada
- Virginia
Because the state penalties typically mirror federal fines, and the federal penalties will not be increasing this year, it’s unlikely that these posters will be updated in 2026 with revised penalty information.
An update could occur for another reason, however. Alaska, for example, revised its Safety and Health Protection on the Job posting in February to update information about how to file a discrimination complaint.
The BLS is again tracking the inflation rate, and the annual increase as of April is 3.8 percent. If the bureau publishes annual inflation data in October 2026, it’s likely that penalties will go up in 2027.
Key to remember: Federal posting fines won’t be increasing in 2026, but they haven’t been eliminated altogether. Employers who willfully refuse to display labor law posters could still receive fines from the DOL up to the maximum levels set in 2025.
Increase likely in 2027
Keep reading...Show less
2026-06-16T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsAccident Investigation - OSHAAccident Investigation - OSHASafety & HealthConstruction SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyIn-Depth ArticleEnglishFocus AreaUSA
Tank implosion tragedy highlights pressure hazards
A May 2026 incident at a paper mill in Washington put a spotlight on a hazard that doesn’t always get the same attention as over-pressure, vacuum induced tank collapse. The event involved a large chemical storage vessel and led to multiple fatalities and serious injuries. The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) has opened an investigation to figure out what went wrong and how to keep it from happening again.
While that investigation plays out, there’s a clear takeaway, tank failures aren’t just an over-pressure problem. Vacuum conditions, or under pressure, can be just as destructive. We design for it, we talk about it, but it doesn’t always get the same focus in day‑to‑day operations, maintenance, or hazard reviews, and that’s where things can break down.
Understanding what happened
An implosion happens when the pressure inside a tank drops below the pressure outside it. When that happens, the outside air pushes in and the tank can collapse. Most people think about explosions. Fewer think about implosions. But the damage can be just as severe.
The tricky part is how this can develop during normal work. It doesn’t take a rare event and can happen during everyday tasks like:
- Draining a tank too fast without letting air flow back in;
- Cooling vapors or condensing material inside the tank;
- Steam cleaning and then cooling things down too quickly; and
- Vents that are blocked, closed, or just not sized right.
In industries like pulp and paper, chemical processing, and wastewater treatment, these situations aren’t unusual. In many cases, they’re part of day-to-day operations. That’s what makes vacuum-induced failure a real risk and a preventable one.
What OSHA expects for tank safety
While this incident puts a spotlight on an implosion hazard, OSHA’s expectations go beyond just one type of failure. The focus is on overall tank and pressure vessel safety, which includes both over-pressure and vacuum conditions.
Under the General Duty Clause, employers are required to protect workers from recognized hazards. Tank failure, whether it’s caused by pressure or vacuum, is a known risk, so OSHA expects it to be addressed. In practice, that means employers need to:
- Design for how the system actually operates, including pressure going in both directions;
- Control pressure risks with properly sized relief devices and venting systems that work when needed;
- Follow recognized engineering practices like ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) and API (American Petroleum Institute) standards; and
- Keep equipment in good shape through inspection, testing, and maintenance.
Additionally, if Process Safety Management (29 CFR 1910.119) applies, expectations get more specific. Employers need to have:
- A mechanical integrity program that covers tanks and relief systems;
- Process hazard analyses that look at normal operations, abnormal conditions, and maintenance work; and
- Clear procedures and training so people know how to manage the risks.
Even if PSM doesn’t apply, the expectation doesn’t change. You still need to understand how the system can fail and make sure the right protections are in place.
Strengthening tank safety where it counts
This incident is a good reminder to take a step back and look at your organization’s overall tank and pressure vessel safety, not just one specific hazard. Strong programs come down to solid controls and making sure they hold up in day-to-day operations. Here’s where to focus your attention:
- Evaluate all pressure scenarios: Consider both over-pressure and vacuum conditions during normal, shutdown, and when things don’t go as planned;
- Verify relief and venting systems: Ensure devices are properly sized, installed, and not isolated or obstructed;
- Confirm design limits: Validate that tanks are rated for the full range of expected conditions;
- Strengthen inspection and maintenance: Regularly check vents, valves, and vessel integrity as part of a structured program; and
- Train employees on system behavior: Help operators understand how everyday actions, like emptying a tank, rinsing it out, or closing vents, can affect pressure conditions.
Key to remember: Expectation is clear, tanks must be safe under all operating conditions, not just ideal ones. That only happens when design, controls, and maintenance all line up with how the system really runs.
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.