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
2026-07-02T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsHR GeneralistFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)In-Depth ArticleFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)HR ManagementEnglishUSAFocus AreaHuman Resources
Must employers accept FMLA certifications from online services?
Under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), in-person treatment for a serious health condition can include an appointment with a health care provider via telemedicine (i.e., a virtual visit), as long as it involves video.
The law doesn’t specify where the health care provider must be. Employees may, therefore, obtain an FMLA certification from online health care providers through a service dedicated to completing FMLA certifications.
Some services boast that they have licensed health care providers on staff who review an individual’s “case” and complete an FMLA certification within 24 hours. Others work with independent doctors. The review includes a video visit, so it meets the FMLA’s “telemedicine” requirement.
Such providers charge for the service, from $49 to $149, depending on the service and speed. Some claim that, if the employer doesn’t accept the certification, the employee gets their money back.
Employees are responsible
When employers ask employees to obtain a certification to support the need for FMLA leave, employees are responsible for complying. Employees might, however, find it hard to get an appointment to see their own health care providers. If they don’t have a primary care physician, they might need to become an established patient before even being seen.
This can all take time. Employees have 15 calendar days to obtain a certification unless extenuating circumstances are involved. Getting an appointment with a new provider might take more than 15 days. Even if an employee or family member is an established patient, they might not be able to get an appointment within 15 days.
Therefore, online services might be a viable and less expensive option for employees, as they can get same-day appointments in certain situations.
Employers are responsible
Employers might not know where a health care provider is or what entity they work for. As long as the health care provider is authorized to practice medicine or surgery (as appropriate) by the state in which they practice, employers should accept a complete and sufficient certification. The health care provider doesn’t have to be in the same state as the employee (or family member).
Employers shouldn’t dictate the particular health care provider from whom an employee obtains a certification, but can guide employees to alternative options as needed.
Key to remember: Employers should accept FMLA certifications from online service providers, as long as the certifications are otherwise complete, sufficient, and signed by a licensed health care provider.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-07-02T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsFleet SafetyCMV Parts and MaintenanceVehicle TechnologyVehicle TechnologyFleet OperationsFocus AreaEnglishBrakesTransportationUSA
Commonsense update to AV brake pedal requirements
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently removed the mandate for manual brake pedals in autonomous vehicles (AVs) as part of its efforts toward “commonsense” measures. This applies to vehicles designed to be driven exclusively by automated driving systems with no human behind the wheel.
This action is the fifth update to the DOT’s Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), aligning with previous actions to remove the types of equipment vehicles won’t need if a human being is not present in the vehicle (e.g., windshield wipers, rearview mirrors, etc.).
NHTSA says it will continue enforcing all other brake-related requirements, such as stopping distance standards.
Along with removing brake pedals, NHTSA has also made the following FMVSS updates:
- Assured its further development of real-world safety performance for AVs,
- Removed requirements for hand- or foot-operated brake controls for vehicles that won’t be driven by a human,
- Declared that all subject vehicles must still meet the expected stopping distance performance criteria, and
- Stated its continued authority to oversee recalls investigate unsafe automated driving behaviors.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-07-01T05:00:00Z
NewsHR ManagementEnglishHuman ResourcesTalent Management & RecruitingAssociate Benefits & CompensationIndustry NewsIndustry NewsDiscriminationTitle VII (The Civil Rights Act of 1964)Affirmative ActionRecruiting and hiringRecruiting and hiringHR GeneralistEEO-1 ReportingAssociate RelationsFocus AreaUSA
EEOC rescinds guidance on voluntary affirmative action plans
On June 30, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that it had voted to rescind two documents relating to permissible affirmative action under Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act.
The two documents that were rescinded include the agency’s:
- 1979 regulatory guidelines on “appropriate” affirmative action under the statute; and
- Section 607 of its Compliance Manual, which addressed those guidelines and the agency’s enforcement positions with respect to permissible affirmative action and affirmative action plans.
Rescission of the EEOC’s guidance doesn’t, however, reverse the Supreme Court’s decisions in United Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 (1979) and Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 U.S. 616 (1987), in which the Court recognized that Title VII may allow for certain voluntary affirmative action plans in limited circumstances.
Part of broader changes
The EEOC’s proposal is in line with other previous and pending changes affecting affirmative action and workforce reporting requirements. For example, federal contractor obligations to maintain affirmative action plans under regulations administered by the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs were eliminated in 2025 after the president rescinded the executive order that established them.
The EEOC is also pursuing the rescission of EEO-1 data collection and reporting rules which require companies and public employers to report workforce demographic information, including data on race, sex, and national origin.
What should employers do now?
In lieu of the EEOC’s actions, employers may want to assess whether any existing policies or programs could be affected by changes in the federal government’s approach to affirmative action.
Key to remember: The EEOC has guidance for employers that voluntarily maintain affirmative action plans.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-07-01T05:00:00Z
NewsWage and Hour Division (WHD), DOLIndustry NewsIndustry NewsHR GeneralistFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)USAHR ManagementEnglishFocus AreaHuman Resources
The FMLA and treatment outside the U.S.
While hiking on vacation in the Andes, Veronica fell and injured her ankle. She saw a local doctor who prescribed her pain medication, and she was laid up for 5 days. When she returned to work the following week, she told Glen, her supervisor, about the incident. Glen wondered if he had to do anything in relation to the incident, and whether the situation could involve leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
Glen then thought about other related situations, such as:
- When employees need to care for a family member who lives outside the U.S.
- When employees visit family members in other countries, and a family member develops a medical condition.
- When employees decide to get treatment for their medical condition from a health care provider in another country.
Glen was right to be curious, as employees may take FMLA leave for their own condition or that of a family member, even if they receive medical treatment outside the U.S.
What the FMLA regulations say
The regulations cover situations involving treatment outside the U.S. They say:
In circumstances in which the employee or a family member is visiting in another country, or a family member resides in another country, and a serious health condition develops, the employer shall accept a medical certification as well as second and third opinions from a health care provider who practices in that country. Where a certification by a foreign health care provider is in a language other than English, the employee must provide the employer with a written translation of the certification upon request.
Reference: 29 CFR 825.307(f)
While this focuses on getting an FMLA certification from health care providers outside the U.S, employers have to count leave supported by a foreign certification as FMLA leave.
Employers also might wonder if employees may take FMLA leave to voluntarily obtain treatment outside the U.S, since the regulation doesn’t specifically address this. According to a representative from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD), yes, they may.
FMLA health care providers can be beyond the U.S. borders, whether they provide treatment to employees or their family members with serious health conditions. Employers should count such time off as FMLA leave.
Travel time
The WHD recently indicated that eligible employees may use FMLA leave to travel to or from a medical appointment, even if a certification doesn’t indicate the need for, time required, or other particulars of such travel time.
Key to remember: Employees may take FMLA leave to care for a family member in another country, or when they receive treatment for their own condition in another country.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-07-01T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsPesticidesPesticide Registration and LabelingEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)EnvironmentalEnglishFocus AreaPesticidesUSA
EPA sets MyPeST compliance reporting deadlines for bilingual pesticide labeling requirements
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published instructions and deadlines for pesticide registrants to report compliance with bilingual labeling requirements in the MyPeST application. The first compliance reporting deadline is July 31, 2026, for pesticide products with the highest toxicity.
Who’s impacted?
Compliance reporting applies to registrants of pesticide products subject to the bilingual labeling requirements established by the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2022 (PRIA 5) amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
PRIA 5 requires all end-use pesticide product labels to provide Spanish translations of the human health and safety sections by including the translated sections directly on the label or providing a link via scannable technology or other readily accessible electronic methods to the translated sections. EPA allows certain antimicrobial and non-agricultural pesticide products to comply by providing access to Spanish-language Safety Data Sheets instead of direct label translations.
Compliance timelines are based on the type of pesticide and its toxicity category.
What’s required?
Pesticide registrants must report compliance with the PRIA 5 bilingual labeling requirements using EPA’s MyPeST app. The agency recently published detailed reporting instructions in the MyPeST Application User Guide (accessible in the MyPeST app).
EPA also established the following deadlines for reporting compliance in MyPeST:
| Pesticide product type | Bilingual labeling deadline | Compliance reporting deadline |
|---|---|---|
| Restricted use pesticides (RUPs) | December 29, 2025 | July 31, 2026 |
| Non-RUP agricultural products | ||
| Acute Toxicity Category I | December 29, 2025 | July 31, 2026 |
| Acute Toxicity Category II | December 29, 2027 | January 28, 2028 |
| Antimicrobials and non-agricultural products | ||
| Acute Toxicity Category I | December 29, 2026 | January 28, 2027 |
| Acute Toxicity Category II | December 29, 2028 | January 28, 2029 |
| All other pesticide products | December 29, 2030 | January 28, 2031 |
Keep reading...Show less
2026-07-01T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsAssociate Benefits & CompensationHR GeneralistFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Associate RelationsEnglishHR ManagementFocus AreaHuman ResourcesUSA
‘Document, document, document!’ — Why this HR mantra exists
Stephen was hired by his employer in 2015 and advanced in his career while working there. He received “good” performance reviews from Barry, the plant’s manager, and the company didn’t take any disciplinary action against Stephen during that time.
On August 6, 2021, however, the company fired Stephen, but didn’t give him a reason for his termination.
Stephen received a termination letter that mentioned “poor performance or discipline,” but Debbie, the HR manager, told Stephen that his personnel file showed no disciplinary history.
Two weeks before he was fired, he had provided a certification supporting the need for leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for knee replacement surgery. It wasn’t his first FMLA case. At the time he was fired, Stephen was dealing with several medical conditions. He had undergone two hip replacement surgeries, a back surgery, and had received treatment for a heart condition, all for which he had taken FMLA leave.
Stephen sued, claiming that the employer violated his FMLA rights.
One month after his termination, Edgar, a former employee, told Stephen that, during a discussion with Barry, the company president, and the company CEO, either the president or the CEO said that the company “need[ed] to fire [Stephen] before he dies.”
In court, the employer argued that even if Stephen could show that he was entitled to FMLA leave, the company would have fired him based on performance, regardless of his alleged request for FMLA leave.
In denying the employer’s request to have the case dismissed, the court ruled that the company’s lack of documentation on Stephen’s job performance showed that the company’s decision wasn’t based on performance but instead was motivated by Stephen’s request for another period of FMLA leave. The court saw a connection between the 10 days between Stephen’s request for FMLA leave and his termination.
Dyson v. Matsu Alabama, Inc., Northern District of Alabama, No. 5:22-cv-01383, March 20, 2026.
Key to remember: Employers should have strong documentation of poor job performance if they’re going to fire an employee for that reason, especially if it’s soon after the employee asks for FMLA leave.
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
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.