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
NewsSexual HarassmentSexual HarassmentMonthly Roundup VideoTerminationFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)USAFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)HR ManagementEnglishTerminationHuman ResourcesAssociate Benefits & CompensationIndustry NewsHR GeneralistAssociate RelationsFocus AreaVideo
HR Monthly Round Up - October 2026
In this October 2026 roundup video, we’ll review the most impactful HR news.
Welcome, everyone! In the next few minutes, we’ll review the latest HR news. Let’s get started.
My HR colleagues and I get a lot of questions about whether a company can fire someone who’s on job-protected leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act. While the short answer is, “it depends,” a recent federal court case out of Ohio shows how one employer terminated an employee who was on FMLA leave and won its case.
This gist of the story is, an employee was taking FMLA leave for medical treatments and occasionally came into work late. HR investigated their timekeeping records from the company’s mobile timekeeping app and discovered that the employee had clocked in 33 times from outside of work, even though company policy prohibited employees from doing so.
The employer fired the employee, who then sued. The court, however, agreed with the employer that the policy violation, not the employee’s FMLA leave, was the reason for the termination and ruled in the employer’s favor.
In other news, on October 13th, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced that it settled a $3 million sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit against a restaurant chain with 15 locations in California and Nevada. Both supervisors and employees at multiple locations repeatedly subjected female employees to sexual harassment, the suit alleged.
Female employees complained to their employer about the harassment, but the restaurant didn’t stop it and retaliated against many of them. As a result, several female employees resigned.
The alleged conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits a hostile workplace environment based on sex, including sexual harassment, as well as retaliation against individuals who complain about sexual harassment.
And, finally, on October 19th, the U.S. Department of Labor announced that it withdrew three opinion letters from decades ago that pertained to tipped employees performing dual jobs, otherwise known as the “80/20” rule.
The DOL issued a new field assistance bulletin addressing how employers should treat tipped employees with dual jobs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Some courts might disregard the agency’s interpretation and look to related case law. Employers should also note that state or local laws on tipped wages might come into play.
A notice of proposed rulemaking is in the works that would amend the FLSA regulations for tipped employees. A proposed rule was scheduled for August, but the DOL missed that time frame. Public comments will be welcome on the proposed rule once it’s published in the Federal Register.
That’s all the HR news we have time for today. Thanks for watching. See you next month!
Keep reading...Show less
NewsGreenhouse GasesAir QualityEnforcement and Audits - OSHAToxic Substances Control Act - EPAToxic Subtances Control Act - EPAAir EmissionsTSCA ComplianceWater ProgramsWater QualityLockout/TagoutMonthly Roundup VideoCAA ComplianceFire Protection and PreventionUSACWA ComplianceEnglishIndustry NewsLockout/TagoutOSHA InspectionsSafety & HealthGeneral Industry SafetyEnvironmentalFocus AreaFire Protection and PreventionAir ProgramsStationary Emission SourcesVideo
EHS Monthly Round Up - October 2026
In this October 2026 roundup video, we'll review the most impactful environmental, health, and safety news.
Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental, health, and safety news. Let’s take a look at what happened over the past month.
A Department of Labor Office of Inspector General investigation found that OSHA may have conducted certain small employer inspections in low-hazard industries that did not comply with its appropriations acts. The investigation stemmed from a September 2025 hotline complaint. OSHA disputes the findings, and its review of the cases and the Inspector General’s recommendations is ongoing.
OSHA issued guidance to help employers respond to opioid emergencies. The factsheet provides employers with practical information on recognizing the signs of an overdose and responding immediately.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health published toolbox talks addressing workplace fire hazards and lockout/tagout. The talks highlight the importance of fire prevention programs and following lockout/tagout procedures.
Turning to environmental news, EPA proposes to reallocate the excess 2025 small refinery exemption volumes to the 2026 and 2027 compliance years. The proposed rule would adjust the renewable volume and percentage standards for biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel. The deadline for public comments is December 4.
EPA further extended the submission deadline for the reporting year 2025 annual greenhouse gas report from October 30, 2026, to March 10, 2027. This applies to facilities subject to the greenhouse gas reporting program.
EPA proposes to extend additional compliance dates for the trichloroethylene risk management rule finalized in 2024. If finalized, the rule would delay compliance deadlines for certain chemical processors and refrigerant manufacturers.
And finally, EPA extended the compliance date to submit Facility Response Plans for worst-case discharges of Clean Water Act hazardous substances by 3 years, to June 1, 2030. Effective December 14, the final rule also removes provisions related to climate change and environmental justice.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
Keep reading...Show less
2026-11-06T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsClassification - HazmatTransportationHazmat SafetyHazmatIn-Depth ArticleFocus AreaEnglishHazmat License/Permit/RegistrationHazmat RecordkeepingUSA
Expert Insights: When hazmat knowledge walks out the door
When hazmat professionals think about compliance risks, they often focus on permits, inspections, regulatory changes, and reporting deadlines. Those concerns matter. Yet one of the most significant risks facing hazmat operations has little to do with a new rule: employee turnover.
When an experienced hazmat employee leaves, the organization may lose more than a trained worker. It can also lose the practical knowledge that keeps shipments moving safely and legally — how to classify a recurring material, where approval documents are stored, which carriers accept certain commodities, or who verifies shipping papers before release.
Gaps can emerge quickly. A newly assigned employee may rely on an outdated procedure, miss a required marking, use the wrong packaging, or assume someone else is responsible for a final check. Even when the employee has received required training, unfamiliarity with the company’s products and processes can increase the risk of errors, rejected shipments, delays, or enforcement.
The good news is that you can reduce that risk before a resignation occurs. Document hazmat responsibilities by role, maintain current written procedures, and identify backups for critical tasks. Cross-train employees on recurring shipments and unusual scenarios. Keep training records, special permits, approvals, carrier requirements, and emergency contacts in a location that authorized staff can readily access. Before an experienced employee departs, conduct a structured knowledge-transfer session and capture unresolved issues.
Finally, treat role changes as a compliance trigger. Review the incoming employee’s duties, confirm that required hazmat training is current and function-specific, and provide appropriate supervision until the employee can perform independently. Turnover may be unavoidable, but allowing essential compliance knowledge to leave with one person is not.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-11-05T06:00:00Z
NewsEmployee RelationsIn-Depth ArticleUSAHR ManagementEnglishAssociate Benefits & CompensationIndustry NewsWage and HourWage and HourBreaks and Meal PeriodsHours WorkedEmployee RelationsHR GeneralistFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Non-Exempt employees Associate RelationsFocus AreaHuman Resources
More employees are skipping lunch; must you pay them?
More than half of workers now skip lunch altogether at least once a week, according to a recent Workplace Lunch Trends survey from ezCater. Younger employees are 60 percent more likely to consider lunch their favorite part of the workday, but 117 percent express being more likely to feel pressure from managers to skip it.
The survey revealed the number of lunch skippers is on the rise as follows:
- 2023: 48 percent
- 2024: 49 percent
- 2025: 51 percent
- 2026: 54 percent
While the survey focused on the risks of missing lunch, such as the loss of connections and hunger’s effect on productivity, employers must also remember that if nonexempt employees work through what is thought to be their lunch break, they must be paid for that time.
What does the FLSA say?
Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), meal periods (typically lasting at least 30 minutes) aren’t work time, and employers don’t have to pay nonexempt employees for that time – as long as they’re completely relieved from duty for the purposes of eating regular meals. If they aren’t, employers must pay for the time spent working. On the other hand, exempt employees get paid the same weekly salary whether or not they take lunch breaks.
The FLSA indicates that nonexempt employees aren’t relieved from work if they’re required to perform any duties while eating. Office employees who are required to eat at their desk or factory workers who must remain at their machine, for example, are working while eating and must be paid accordingly.
Even if nonexempt employees are allowed to leave the premises, if they aren’t otherwise completely freed from duties during the meal period, employers must pay for that time. If an employer has a policy requiring employees to take a meal break, and employees work through the meal anyway, they must still pay the employee for the time worked. They may, however, discipline employees for violating company policy.
The FLSA doesn’t require meal or coffee breaks, but many state laws do.
State laws
Break laws in the U.S. vary widely by state. About 21 states and the District of Columbia have such laws for adult employees who are classified as nonexempt. Some require strict schedules for rest and meal periods, and others are more flexible.
California law, for example, requires a 30-minute unpaid meal break after 5 consecutive work hours. Arizona, on the other hand, doesn’t have a related state law.
If a state doesn’t have a meal break law, the federal FLSA applies, which means employers don’t have to provide one, and if they do, employees don’t have to be paid unless they work through the meal period.
Key to remember: If nonexempt employees work through the meal period, they must be paid for that time, even if doing so violates a company policy.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-11-05T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsHead ProtectionPersonal Protective EquipmentSafety & HealthElectrical SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyElectrical SafetyEnglishFocus AreaUSA
OSHA releases two new LOIs
In two newly released letters of interpretation (LOIs), OSHA addresses head protection and electrical work practices.
The head protection LOI asked how 29 CFR 1910.135 applies to Type II safety helmets and lateral or off-center impact hazards, as well as whether OSHA’s 2024 safety helmet bulletin affects enforcement. OSHA states, “Where a hazard assessment identifies blow to the top or side of the head hazards, head protection that provides only top-impact protection may not be adequate to protect employees from those hazards.” Employers will be required to “provide proper PPE that will protect the affected employee from the specific hazards identified in the hazard assessment.”
The other LOI asked whether a lock with a permanently affixed label prohibiting unauthorized operation or removal would satisfy the agency’s electrical work practice requirements. OSHA said the lock would comply as long as the label remained legible.
The full LOIs, both dated 8/17/2026, can be found on OSHA’s website.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-11-05T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsFleet SafetyAccident Investigation - OSHAAccident responseAccident investigation - Motor CarrierFocus AreaFleet OperationsEnglishTransportationUSA
Agency offering $7 million to advance crash data collection
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is awarding up to $7 million in funding to state and local enforcement agencies to help understand the factors contributing to large-truck crashes.
The money is being awarded as part of the agency’s Crash Casual Factors Program (CCFP), a multi-year effort to find and share key contributing factors in commercial vehicle crashes. The program’s current emphasis is a study focusing on fatal crashes involving heavy-duty (Class 7/8) trucks, collecting and analyzing data on driver, vehicle, motor carrier, and environmental factors.
With individual awards of up to $500,000, the new funding opportunity “will support activities that maximize effective data collection,” the FMCSA says. This includes:
- Post-crash inspections,
- Crash reconstructions,
- Post-crash investigations,
- Crash data reporting, and
- Equipment needed for data collection.
The latest study involves a target sampling across 30 states over 2 years. Data will be collected from about 2,000 fatal crashes involving heavy-duty trucks.
After collecting and analyzing the data, the FMCSA and DOT aim to provide information and resources to be used to develop useful strategies to reduce the number of fatal crashes among these vehicles. The FMCSA has pegged 2030 as the year by which it will release a database of anonymized crash data for public use and issue a Heavy-Duty Truck Study final report.
Research shows that of the trucks involved in fatal crashes, roughly 70% of them were heavy-duty trucks with a GVWR of 26,001 pounds or more, including vehicles like truck-tractor semi-trailers, garbage trucks, and cement trucks, making this statistic a top priority for the FMCSA.
The CCFP is also addressing the need for updated information on crash casual factors, expanding on the Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) which is 20 years old.
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.