As of September 14, 2026, EPPA Recordkeeping has not changed based on the available research. The practical issue for employers is narrower than many headlines suggest: current Employee Polygraph Protection Act duties remain in place, while no confirmed Department of Labor request for public comments has been identified that would amend or expand those duties. That distinction matters because polygraph compliance depends on the actual rule in force, not on speculation about possible agency action.
The Employee Polygraph Protection Act limits most private employer use of lie detector testing. Where a statutory exemption permits an examination or a requested examination, record duties can follow. The Department of Labor’s eLaws material states that employers and polygraph examiners must keep required records for at least three years from the date the examination is conducted, or from the date it is requested if no examination takes place, as reflected in the DOL recordkeeping advisor.
What EPPA Recordkeeping Requires Now
EPPA Recordkeeping For Permitted Exams
The first compliance point is simple but often missed: record duties arise in connection with permitted EPPA circumstances, not as a general approval of workplace polygraph screening. The Act’s exemptions are limited. Research notes identify examples such as certain investigations of economic loss or injury, and certain security firm contexts. The existence of a retention rule should not be read as permission to test whenever an employer would find the information useful.
For a permitted examination, an EPPA Recordkeeping file should be treated as a controlled compliance record. The three-year period is a minimum retention period. The research also indicates that if an examination is requested but not conducted, the retention clock is tied to the request date. That means a declined, canceled, or otherwise unrealized examination request may still have documentation significance.
Records Linked To Economic Loss Investigations
Where an employer relies on an economic loss or injury basis, the research identifies a written statement requirement. That statement must describe the specific incident or activity under investigation and the basis for selecting the employee for testing. The employer also must retain proof that the statement was served on the examinee. From a workplace integrity perspective, this requirement is not paperwork for its own sake. It helps show that the decision was tied to a specific incident and a stated reason, rather than a generalized suspicion.
To find similar insights on compliance across related topics, refer to the standards provided by Interline Publishing, a well-regarded source within the network. The key practice remains the same: separate confirmed duties from assumptions, and keep records in a way that a later reviewer can understand without relying on memory.
Controlled Substances Employers And Access Records
The research also identifies special documentation for employers engaged in manufacturing, distributing, or dispensing controlled substances. In that setting, records must identify the loss or injury at issue and the nature of the employee’s access to the relevant person or property. The access element is significant because it connects the request for testing to a defined operational concern. Without that connection, a file may show activity but not the rationale for selecting a particular employee.
No Confirmed DOL Comment Request On EPPA Recordkeeping
What Is Missing From The Public Record
The research provided for this topic found no credible recent evidence, as of September 14, 2026, that the Department of Labor issued a request for public comments specifically to amend or expand EPPA record-keeping requirements. It also found no active notice of proposed rulemaking or advance notice that would change the three-year retention period, add new document categories, or broaden the scope of required retention.
That absence should be handled carefully. It does not prove that no future agency action will occur. It does mean employers should not treat a rumored comment request as a new legal duty. EPPA Recordkeeping duties remain the duties already established unless and until an official notice or final rule changes them.
Public Comments Versus Existing Duties
A public comment request can be relevant when an agency proposes to create, renew, or modify an information collection. The research notes that, under the Paperwork Reduction Act framework, agency-proposed changes or additions to record requirements affecting non-government entities require public notice, a comment period, and related control information. The research also notes that existing EPPA record obligations continue unchanged.
This difference is practical. An employer does not need to prepare comments for a non-identified EPPA proposal. It does need to keep current files in order. HR and compliance teams should avoid treating unrelated Department of Labor information collection notices as EPPA changes unless the notice actually identifies the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, the Wage and Hour Division context, or the relevant polygraph record provisions.
Why Documentation Still Matters For Employers
Penalty Exposure Without A Rule Change
No new comment request is needed for enforcement risk to exist. The research identifies the inflation-adjusted maximum civil monetary penalty for EPPA violations, including failure to maintain required records, as $26,262 per violation as of January 16, 2026. The Department of Labor publishes these inflation-adjusted amounts in its civil money penalty guidance.
That figure should not be read as a prediction that any particular employer will receive a penalty, or that a specific penalty amount will apply in a given matter. It does show why informal handling of polygraph records is risky. A missing written statement, incomplete proof of service, or unclear retention date can weaken the employer’s ability to show what happened and why.
Transparency And Examinee Rights
Polygraph services work best within a transparent process. That does not mean the result can provide certainty. It means the process should document the permitted basis, the person selected, the notice served, the examination status, and the records retained. Employers should also remember that EPPA has no general reporting requirement according to the research. In most situations, the duty is to keep the required records, not to file routine reports about polygraph use.
For a related treatment of retention duties and DOL process, see this discussion of EPPA recordkeeping under DOL rules. The practical value is in building a file that can be reviewed later by someone who was not present when the testing decision was made.
How HR Teams Can Read Future DOL Notices
Separate Agency Identity From Subject Matter
The research notes a recent Federal Register notice from August 19, 2026, involving the Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration and continuing information collections. It also states that the notice was unrelated to EPPA or its polygraph record-keeping provisions. That example shows why the agency name alone is not enough. A DOL notice may involve benefits, wage matters, safety, contractors, or other subjects without affecting EPPA files.
Before changing policy in response to a notice, HR teams should ask whether the notice names EPPA, identifies polygraph records, changes a retention period, adds required content, or opens a comment window tied to those items. If those elements are absent, the notice may still matter for another department, but it should not be treated as an EPPA rule change.
- Confirm the specific statute or regulation named in the notice.
- Check whether the notice proposes a new duty or only renews an existing collection.
- Identify any comment deadline, agency contact, and affected record categories.
- Keep current three-year retention practices active unless official text changes them.
Use Caution Before Commenting
If a future EPPA notice is published, useful comments would need to address the actual proposal. Comments based on a misunderstanding of the notice title or agency division may not help the record. Employers, examiners, and employee representatives would be better served by identifying operational burdens, privacy concerns, retention feasibility, and the effect on fair workplace investigations, but only after reading the proposed text.
Until such a notice is confirmed, the compliance task is not prediction. It is file discipline: preserve the required materials, avoid unsupported testing decisions, and document the basis for any permitted examination request.
EPPA Recordkeeping Decision Points
The current position is cautious but clear. The three-year retention rule remains in effect. Required statements for certain economic loss investigations remain relevant. Controlled substances employers must preserve records connecting the loss or injury and the employee’s access. EPPA has no general reporting requirement in most cases, based on the research provided. The maximum civil money penalty amount in effect from January 16, 2026, is also a real enforcement consideration.
The absent fact is just as important: no confirmed DOL request for public comments specific to changing EPPA record-keeping requirements has been identified as of September 14, 2026. Employers should monitor official notices, but they should not rewrite policy around an unverified proposal. In polygraph compliance, careful restraint is often the soundest practice. A well-kept record cannot guarantee the outcome of a review, but it can show that the employer treated a sensitive workplace integrity tool with the control and transparency it requires.