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
2026-08-26T05:00:00Z
NewsHuman Resource ManagementHuman Resource ManagementDisabilities and ADAIn-Depth ArticleJob SpecificationsUSAEnglishHR ManagementReasonable AccommodationsIndustry NewsJob DescriptionsHR GeneralistAssociate RelationsFocus AreaDisabilities and ADAHuman Resources
Why job descriptions are important (especially in court)
Employers use job descriptions for many things, such as letting employees know what’s expected of them in certain roles at a company. An unexpected way for employers to use job descriptions is when they’re defending themselves in court.
The story
Angela began working for the company in 2018. Part of her job included setting up and operating equipment The job description indicated that she had to stand for up to 12 hours, bend over, turn, pull, squat, walk, and lift at least 25 pounds overhead.
In late April 2021, Angela slipped at work. A few days later, she went to the emergency room for ongoing back pain and was diagnosed with muscle spasms and possible sciatica. At a follow-up appointment the next week, her doctor cleared her to return to work without restrictions.
In June, however, Angela came to work with a doctor’s note requesting that she be allowed to sit occasionally due to her sciatica flare-ups.
The employer provided this accommodation for several months. Despite this temporary accommodation, the employer viewed its standing requirement as particularly important for the position.
The employer then requested an updated doctor’s note and held a meeting with Angela. In mid-September, she provided a doctor’s note that stated she could work while sitting but couldn’t crawl under equipment; it didn’t indicate that she could work while standing.
Then, in early October, Angela met with HR to discuss the status of her restrictions and accommodations. Because of Angela’s inability to stand for an extended period, the employer placed her on medical leave following the meeting.
Later in October, while on leave, Angela submitted an updated doctor’s note that stated: “Angela needs to be able to sit down immediately after standing to change paper. She cannot crawl around on the floor.” This note indicated that these restrictions were permanent. The employer fired her in January, after Angela exhausted her 12 weeks of leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.
The claim and ruling
Angela sued, claiming the employer violated the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and that standing wasn’t really an essential job function.
The court said that determining the essential functions of a job is a fact-intensive issue. It considered factors such as the employer’s judgment, the written job description prepared before interviewing applicants, the consequence of not requiring the plaintiff to perform the functions, and the current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.
The job description showed that the position required standing during the entire 12-hour shift.
The court also said that employers don’t admit that a job function isn’t essential simply by voluntarily providing a temporary accommodation.
In ruling for the employer to have the case thrown out, the court held that the physical requirements identified in the job description were essential, and because Angela couldn’t perform them, she wasn’t qualified.
Kendall v. Zoltek Corporation, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 25-1411, May 18, 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 seeking advice when needed.
Key to remember: Employers get to determine a job’s essential functions, and having them clearly identified in a written job description can help defend them.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-08-26T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsWorkplace ViolenceWorkplace ViolenceSafety & HealthGeneral Industry SafetyCaliforniaEnglishFocus Area
California updates draft workplace violence prevention rule
California's Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board released a revised discussion draft of its proposed workplace violence prevention rule for general industry.
The updated draft better defines employer responsibilities under the state’s workplace violence prevention law, including:
- Written prevention plans,
- Employee involvement,
- Hazard assessments,
- Emergency response procedures,
- Training,
- Post-incident investigations, and
- Methods for correcting workplace violence hazards.
Since July 1, 2024, California employers have been required to create and maintain Workplace Violence Prevention Plans. This proposed regulation would establish a formal Cal/OSHA standard that builds on those requirements.
Following the close of the comment period on August 17, the Standards Board will begin the formal rulemaking process. State law requires adoption of the final rule by December 31, 2026.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-08-26T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsWater ProgramsWater QualityEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)Industrial WastewaterEnvironmentalIn-Depth ArticleCWA ComplianceEnglishFocus AreaUSA
National wastewater pretreatment program: What type of industrial user is your facility?
Before the wastewater can flow from your facility into a municipal treatment plant, there’s something you need to know: What type of industrial user is your facility? The answer to this question determines the federal environmental regulations your facility must meet.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates wastewater discharges from industrial and commercial facilities to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) through the National Pretreatment Program. These facilities, known as industrial users (IUs), must obtain a permit or other control mechanism to send wastewater to a POTW. However, IUs must comply with all applicable federal, state, and local pretreatment requirements, regardless of whether the facility has been issued a permit or other control mechanism.
The National Pretreatment Program applies to:
- Industrial users (IUs),
- Significant IUs (SIUs), and
- Categorical IUs (CIUs).
EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR Part 403 contain compliance requirements for all IUs as well as additional requirements for SIUs and CIUs. To know which regulations to comply with, you must identify the types of IUs that apply to your facility.
Is my facility an IU?
The first type of user is the easiest determination to make. If your industrial or commercial facility discharges wastewater to a POTW, it’s an IU.
Is my facility an SIU?
If your facility can answer “yes” to any of these four questions, it qualifies as an SIU:
- Is the facility subject to the categorical pretreatment standards under 403.6 and Subchapter N?
- Does the facility discharge an average of at least 25,000 gallons daily of process wastewater to the POTW (not including sanitary, noncontact cooling, and boiler blowdown wastewater)?
- Does the facility contribute a process waste stream that makes up at least 5 percent of the POTW’s average dry weather hydraulic or organic capacity?
- Is your facility designated as an SIU by the control authority (i.e., the POTW, state, or EPA)?
Even if the first three criteria don’t apply, the control authority may designate your facility as an SIU if it determines that there’s a reasonable potential for your facility’s wastewater discharges:
- To adversely affect the POTW’s operation, or
- To violate the pretreatment standards.
Limited exceptions allow the control authority to designate a facility as a non-significant CIU (if the facility meets specific conditions according to 403.3(v)(2)) or to determine that the facility has no reasonable potential to harm POTW operations or violate the standards (403.3(v)(3)).
Is my facility a CIU?
The National Pretreatment Program has rules that apply to specific industrial processes, known as categorical pretreatment standards. If your facility is subject to a categorical requirement in Parts 405–471, it’s considered a CIU. Examples of covered categories include:
- Metal finishing (Part 433);
- Organic chemical, plastic, and synthetic fiber manufacturing (Part 414); and
- Petroleum refining (Part 419).
Submit a category determination request
The control authority director determines whether any of the categorical standards apply to a facility through a process called “categorical determination.” IUs may submit a category determination request when a new categorical standard is established that could apply to their existing facility. Additionally, EPA requires IUs to request a determination when:
- An existing facility adds or changes an operation or process that may make it subject to an existing categorical pretreatment standard, and
- A facility becomes a new source of discharge to a POTW.
The director will issue a final decision as to whether any of the regulations in Parts 405–471 apply to the facility.
Which pretreatment regulations apply?
The control authority will include the applicable regulations in the facility’s permit or implement the requirements through other control mechanisms. These will be at least as stringent as the following federal standards.
Requirements for all IUs
General and specific prohibitions apply to all types of IUs, banning facilities from discharging pollutants and categories of pollutants that can cause pass through or interference at the POTW.
Additionally, all IUs must report specific discharges and changes to existing discharge practices to the control authority.
Requirements for SIUs
SIUs have additional compliance obligations, such as:
- Conducting self-monitoring and submitting periodic compliance reports every 6 months for SIUs not subject to categorical standards, and
- Developing and implementing a slug control plan if required.
Requirements for CIUs
CIUs also have more requirements, including (but not limited to):
- The applicable categorical pretreatment standards (Parts 405–471),
- The categorical standards at 403.6, and
- Additional reporting and notification requirements.
Understanding the types of IUs that characterize your facility can help clarify which federal wastewater rules apply.
Key to remember: The type of industrial user determines the National Pretreatment Program requirements applicable to facilities that discharge wastewater to publicly owned treatment plants.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-08-26T05:00:00Z
NewsFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)LeaveTime offFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)HR ManagementEnglishLeaveUSAAssociate Benefits & CompensationIndustry NewsIndustry NewsHR GeneralistAssociate RelationsFocus AreaHuman Resources
Is America ready for mandated paid leave? Two federal bills say, ‘Yes!’
For many years, some members of Congress have supported federal laws that would entitle employees to paid leave. That trend continues with two new bills introduced this summer.
Paid vacation
On August 6, several senators introduced a bill that would require employers to provide paid annual time off to employees. The measure would cover employers with one or more employees for each working day during each of 20 or more calendar workweeks in the current or preceding year.
Under the Guaranteed Paid Vacation Act, employees would accrue at least 1 hour of paid annual time off for every 25 hours worked, for up to 2 weeks of paid vacation. It wouldn’t, however, run concurrently with leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.
If the Act is passed into law, employees could use the paid time off for any reason (other than FMLA leave), while being paid at their standard rate of pay.
The law would also protect workers against discrimination for exercising their rights under the Act.
I-PLAN
Other members of Congress are also interested in paid leave, but under a different format.
On July 16, several senators introduced bipartisan legislation, the More Paid Leave for More Americans Act.
If passed into law, the measure would establish a competitive 3-year pilot grant program, administered by the Department of Labor, to states that enact a paid leave program meeting the following requirements:
- Provides a minimum of 6 weeks of leave for any qualifying reason (parental, medical, or caregiving);
- Is delivered by the state in partnership with a private entity, such as an insurance company or benefits administrator;
- Provides, depending on earnings, a minimum of 50–67 percent wage replacement, with benefits capped at 150 percent of the state’s average weekly wage; and
- Establish the Interstate Paid Leave Action Network (I-PLAN) to coordinate and harmonize paid leave benefits across participating states. This would benefit employers, states, and employees by facilitating streamlined benefit delivery and reducing administrative burdens.
States would receive a conforming grant between $1.5 and $8 million annually to participate in “good faith” in the I-PLAN.
States would also be eligible for implementation grants of between $1.5 and $8 million annually to help with costs associated with aligning their state paid leave program with the I-PLAN requirements, including administrative costs, technology, staffing and training, and outreach.
No need to worry yet
These bills have a slim chance of being enacted, but they illustrate a continuing effort on the part of Congressional members to change the way employers treat employee time off.
Key to remember: Members of Congress introduced two bills that would require employers to give employees paid time off.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-08-26T05:00:00Z
NewsCompliance reviews - Motor CarrierTransportationBusiness planning - Motor CarrierIn-Depth ArticleEnglishEnforcement - DOTBusiness planning - Motor CarrierCMV InspectionsIndustry NewsFederal Motor Carrier Safety RegulationsFleet SafetyRisk Management TransportationFleet OperationsFocus AreaUSA
The business case for regular mock audits
When motor carriers think about risk management, they often focus on insurance coverage, accident prevention, and driver training. While these are all important, one of the most effective tools for reducing regulatory risk and preventing costly enforcement actions is often overlooked: the mock audit.
A mock audit is a proactive review of a carrier's safety and compliance program. It’s conducted before an auditor, investigator, or enforcement official requests records. Simply put, it allows companies to identify and correct problems before they become violations.
Mock audits should be a routine part of a motor carrier’s compliance efforts considering that roadside inspections can expose issues that lead to warning letters, focused investigations, or comprehensive audits. A DOT investigation may reveal even more safety concerns that might have been addressed earlier had the motor carrier performed a mock audit.
Review the same areas regulators will examine
The first step in any mock audit is determining what areas to review. While every operation is different, carriers should evaluate the same areas regulators are likely to scrutinize during an investigation. This typically includes driver qualification files, hours-of-service records, vehicle maintenance documentation, drug-and-alcohol testing records, accident registers, and supporting safety policies.
Companies should also understand which documents auditors frequently request. Recent enforcement trends have shown auditors requesting broader sets of records, including documentation related to drivers, maintenance activities, and multiple areas of compliance. Carriers that can quickly produce organized and accurate records often experience a smoother review process than those scrambling to locate documents after receiving an auditor's request.
Let roadside inspection data guide your efforts
One of the most valuable resources available during a mock audit is a carrier's own roadside inspection history. Roadside inspections generate information that regulators use to evaluate both driver and carrier safety performance. Violations identified during inspections often reveal trends that deserve closer attention.
For example, recurring logbook violations may indicate training gaps, while repeated vehicle maintenance violations could suggest weaknesses in preventive maintenance programs. Driver qualification issues may point to inconsistent hiring or recordkeeping practices. By analyzing inspection results, carriers can focus their compliance efforts on the greatest risks and address concerns before they attract additional regulatory attention.
Take action of what you find
A mock audit is only effective if deficiencies are corrected and tracked to completion. Identifying a problem without implementing a solution provides little value and leaves the organization vulnerable to repeat violations.
Successful carriers establish a corrective action process that:
- Assigns responsibility,
- Sets deadlines,
- Verifies completion, and
- Documents the results.
These records not only help improve compliance but can also demonstrate a commitment to safety if regulators ever review the company's programs.
Key to remember: A structured mock audit program helps carriers identify risks early, strengthen compliance processes, and improve their overall safety posture.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-08-25T05:00:00Z
Accurate food labeling: A critical defense against undeclared allergens and recalls
“Undeclared allergens” are allergenic ingredients that are present in a food product but are not identified on the product label. Because they can pose serious health risks, undeclared allergens are a leading cause of food recalls. They can occur when an allergen is accidentally omitted from the ingredient statement or the wrong label is applied to a product. Another source is allergen cross-contact during production that results in the unintended presence of an allergen in the finished product.
According to a statistic shared at a 2026 Food Safety Summit food allergens workshop, labeling and packaging errors account for approximately 50 percent of allergen-related incidents. This statistic highlights the essential role that accurate labels play in protecting consumers with food allergies.
The 9 major food allergens
Food allergies can have serious health consequences. The Food Allergy Research & Education (FARE) organization explains that food-allergic reactions result in about 200,000 emergency department visits in the U.S. each year, underscoring the importance of accurate labeling and effective allergen control.
Under the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act (FALCPA), a major food allergen is defined as:
- Milk, eggs, fish, crustacean shellfish (e.g., crab, shrimp, and lobster), tree nuts (e.g., almonds, walnuts, and pecans), peanuts, wheat, soybeans, and sesame; or
- A food ingredient that contains protein derived from any of the major allergens.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enforces FALCPA for most packaged foods. However, meat, poultry, and certain processed egg products (liquid, frozen, and dried) fall under the jurisdiction of a different agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).
Labeling requirements under FDA and USDA/FSIS
Federal regulations generally require foods containing two or more ingredients to include a statement listing ingredients by their common or usual names in descending order of predominance by weight.
Labels on both FDA- and USDA/FSIS-regulated foods must provide key information about the product, including its identity, net quantity of contents, ingredients, the responsible firm’s name and address, and nutrition information unless an exemption applies.
In addition, labels on FSIS-regulated foods must contain:
- Official inspection legend and establishment/plant number, and
- Special handling instructions when required for the product.
Allergen labeling
Allergen labeling requirements hinge on which agency covers the product.
FDA-regulated products must identify, in plain language, the presence of any of the nine major food allergens when they’re used as ingredients. This can be done in one of three ways:
- In the ingredient list, using the allergen’s common name;
- In parentheses following the name of the ingredient, e.g., lecithin (soy) and flour (wheat);
- Immediately after or next to the list of ingredients in a “contains” statement, e.g., “Contains wheat, milk, and soy.”
USDA/FSIS, on the other hand, requires that all ingredients, including those consisting of or containing major allergens, be declared by their common or usual names in the USDA/FSIS-regulated product’s ingredient statement. FSIS also encourages the use of a “contains” statement and other clear allergen-identification practices to help consumers easily recognize the presence of allergens in meat, poultry, and liquid, dried, or frozen egg products.
Key to remember: Accurate allergen labeling supports a stronger culture of food safety and transparency and is essential for protecting consumers with food allergies.
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.