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
2026-07-16T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsHR GeneralistFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)In-Depth ArticleFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)HR ManagementEnglishUSAFocus AreaHuman Resources
When employers may (and may NOT) ask for an FMLA second opinion
Asking for someone’s opinion in most cases shows that their input is valued. But when it comes to leave laws, employers must play by the rules. Employers may ask for a second medical opinion under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in limited situations.
When an employee first notifies an employer of the need for FMLA leave, employers may require the employee to support the leave request with a medical certification. But what happens if employers have suspicions about a certification?
When second opinions are allowed
If employers have reason to doubt the validity of an initial medical certification, they may require the employee to obtain a second opinion. Employers may choose the health care provider, but must pay for the second opinion.
While waiting for the second (or third) medical opinion, employees have FMLA benefits and protections. In other words, employees have job protections during the 15 days they have to get a second opinion certification.
If the employer doesn’t act in good faith in the process, it’s bound by the initial certification; if the employee doesn’t act in good faith, they’re bound by the second opinion. If the initial certification and second opinion disagree, the employer may ask for a third opinion, which is binding.
Employers may also request a second opinion when a new leave year begins, and they ask for a new annual certification. The annual certification is treated like an initial certification.
When second opinions aren’t allowed
Employers may NOT request a second opinion in every FMLA situation. For example, they may not ask for one for:
- Recertifications;
- Leave related to a military qualifying exigency;
- Leave to care for a covered servicemember, except in limited circumstances; or
- Fitness-for-duty certifications.
For fitness-for-duty certifications, employers may require employees to provide the certification before returning to work.
ADA considerations after FMLA leave ends
Once an employee returns to work, the FMLA leave ends. At that point, assuming the leave was for the employee’s own condition, the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) likely applies if the employee needs a workplace accommodation. Unlike the FMLA, the ADA doesn’t use certification forms to support an accommodation need, and employers shouldn’t use FMLA certifications to collect medical information outside the FMLA process.
Under the ADA, employers may ask medical questions or require a medical exam only when the request is job-related and consistent with business necessity. This generally requires a reasonable belief, based on objective evidence, that the employee cannot perform essential job functions because of a medical condition or will pose a direct threat because of a medical condition.
Employers should avoid having blanket policies that require all employees returning from leave to undergo medical exams. Requests for exams should be individualized, handled on a case-by-case basis, and be based on the facts of the specific situation.
Key to remember: Employers may request a second medical opinion only when the FMLA allows it, such as when there is reason to doubt an initial medical certification. They may not request second opinions for all FMLA-related certifications.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-07-16T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsFood and Drug Administration (FDA), HHSFood SafetySpecialized IndustriesFood SafetyIn-Depth ArticleEnglishFocus AreaUSA
FSMA 204 food traceability: Upcoming FDA requirements explained
With foodborne illness making headlines, understanding the FDA’s food traceability requirements is especially timely. Traceability helps food companies and regulators track a product through the supply chain, allowing them to respond more effectively to food safety incidents.
Section 204 of the Food Safety and Modernization Act, commonly referred to as FSMA 204, calls for the FDA to designate certain high-risk foods that need extra traceability records. Companies that manufacture, process, pack, or hold foods on the agency’s Food Traceability List (FTL) must maintain and share specific traceability records as foods move through the supply chain.
The recent outbreak of cyclosporiasis infections illustrates the goal of FSMA 204. Although the source of the outbreak remains unclear as of this writing, if a batch of lettuce is linked to it, traceability records can help determine where the lettuce was grown, who handled it, where it was shipped, and which products may contain it. This allows affected products to be located and removed from stores more quickly, reducing risk to consumers.
FSMA 204’s original compliance date of January 20, 2026, was extended to July 20, 2028, giving affected parties additional time to implement necessary recordkeeping systems. (The full text of the rule can be found at 21 CFR 1 Subpart S, Additional Traceability Records for Certain Foods.)
What foods are on the FTL?
The FTL specifies foods subject to additional recordkeeping requirements. These apply to both the listed foods and foods that contain them as ingredients provided the ingredient remains in the same form as it appears on the list (for example, fresh peppers used in a product). Examples include:
- Soft cheeses
- Leafy greens
- Tomatoes
- Cucumbers
- Peppers
- Herbs
- Sprouts
- Fresh-cut fruits and vegetables
- Nut butters
- Shell eggs
- Certain seafood products
- Ready-to-eat deli salads
Recordkeeping requirements
Companies that manufacture, process, pack, or hold foods on the FTL must maintain and exchange traceability records during Critical Tracking Events (CTEs). CTEs include harvesting, cooling, initial packing, first land-based receiver, shipping, receiving, and transformation (when a food is changed into a new product). These records must contain Key Data Elements (KDEs) for each CTE. KDEs may vary depending on the CTE but typically include the traceability lot code (TLC), physical location, product description, and quantity. See the FDA’s guidance document for further information.
The TLC is a descriptor used to uniquely identify a traceability lot within the records of the company that assigned the code.
Traceability plan
Covered firms must develop and implement a traceability plan that explains:
- How traceability records are maintained,
- Procedures for identifying foods on the FTL,
- Assignment of traceability lot codes, and
- Points of contact responsible for the records.
Records can be kept as original paper records, electronic records, or true copies, and must be legible and stored to prevent deterioration or loss. Records and an electronic sortable spreadsheet containing relevant traceability information must be made available to the FDA within 24 hours after a request is made. (There are some exemptions to the spreadsheet requirement.)
Key to remember: FSMA 204 requires businesses handling certain high-risk foods to keep enhanced traceability records so products can be tracked quickly through the supply chain. The extended compliance deadline of July 20, 2028, gives impacted businesses extra time to implement necessary recordkeeping systems.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-07-16T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsBusiness planning - Motor CarrierFocus AreaFleet OperationsEnglishTransportationBusiness planning - Motor CarrierUSA
Cuts were made but still costs rise
The cost of operating a truck hit a record $2.34 per mile last year as rising expenses continued to outpace freight rates and squeeze carrier profitability, according to the latest analysis from the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI).
The findings are part of ATRI’s 2026 “Analysis of the Operational Costs of Trucking” report, detailing both accelerating costs and low profitability in the trucking industry.
According to ATRI, the average cost to operate a truck in 2025, including fuel, was $2.336 per mile, which is the highest reported per-mile cost to date and 3.4 percent higher than the cost in 2024.
An effort to cut
Carriers across the nation reduced truck counts by 2.4 percent and left 10 percent of trucks unseated to help cut operating costs during and after the freight recession in 2022, according to the report. Efforts to reduce costs also came in the form of reduced non-driver staff levels (cut by 7.8 percent) and a reliance on older trucks with higher annual mileage.
Even with these attempts to relieve costs, carrier profits were still low, with ATRI reporting that operating margins in the truckload and refrigerated sectors remained below 1.0 percent, tank carriers were averaging 4.0 percent, and large fleets with 1,000+ trucks maintained flat margins year over year.
Rising costs despite the cuts
ATRI reported that costs rose in all major line-items, most notably:
- Tolls (up 13.2 percent)
- Repair and maintenance (up 8.6 percent)
- Driver benefits (up 6.6 percent)
- Tires (up 6.4 percent)
The report also notes that fuel and driver pay both rose at sub-inflationary rates, and that first quarter 2026 data followed most of the same 2025 cost trends.
Final thoughts
The ultimate takeaways are that fleets should continue to stay ahead of costs by exercising discipline and that using ATRI’s benchmarking report can help inform ongoing cost management strategies.
The full report can be found at https://truckingresearch.org/2026/07/analysis-of-the-operational-costs-of-trucking-2026-update/
Keep reading...Show less
2026-07-15T05:00:00Z
NewsFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)LeaveTime offFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)HR ManagementEnglishLeaveAssociate Benefits & CompensationChange NoticesChange NoticeCaliforniaHR GeneralistAssociate RelationsFocus AreaHuman Resources
California adds paid maternity leave for community college district academic employees
Effective date: January 1, 2027
This applies to: Community college districts in California
Description of change: Academic employees or employees in the classified service of the community college district are entitled to up to 14 weeks of paid leave for pregnancy, miscarriage, childbirth, termination of pregnancy, or recovery from those conditions.
Employees don’t have any other eligibility requirements, including, but not limited to, minimum hours worked or length of service, before an employee disabled by pregnancy, childbirth, termination of pregnancy, or related medical conditions is eligible for the paid leave.
Employees may begin taking the paid leave before and continue after childbirth if the employee is actually disabled by pregnancy, childbirth, termination of pregnancy, or a related condition.
The leave wouldn’t run concurrently with other forms of leave.
Community college districts must maintain group health coverage during leave at the same level and under the same conditions that coverage would have been provided if the employee hadn’t taken the leave.
The employee would be paid during the leave, including retirement fund contributions required by the community college district. Employees earn full-service credit during the leave of absence and must pay member contributions to the retirement fund.
View related state info: FMLA - California
Keep reading...Show less
2026-07-15T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsAssociate Benefits & CompensationHR GeneralistFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Associate RelationsEnglishHR ManagementFocus AreaHuman ResourcesUSA
Employee didn’t follow company notice policy, loses FMLA claim
Employees must put employers on notice of the need for leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), but the law doesn’t protect employees from discipline for non-leave issues.
Employee misses work
Five years after he began working for the company, Dillon, an employee, transferred to a different department. During his interview for the transfer, he disclosed that he might need to take time off to care for his young son who had ongoing health problems.
As part of the transfer, Dillon had to complete three 80-hour training courses. During the first course, he missed a full day due to a stomach bug and fever. He told his instructor about his absence but didn’t tell Robert, his supervisor, as required by company policy. During the third course, he left class early to meet a roofer about storm damage to his house. Once again, he didn’t tell Robert.
Two days later, on March 10, he again missed a full day of class when he stayed home to take care of his son, who Dillon thought had COVID-19, but tested negative.
Investigation
After the trainer alerted Robert of Dillon’s absence, Robert started an investigation that revealed that Dillon had signed the attendance record for the March 10 class several days later. It also revealed that he had reported 1.5 hours of overtime for the day he left early and that his hours incorrectly reflected that he worked full days on the days of his absences.
Dillon admitted the hours were incorrect and that personal stressors related to his son’s poor health caused him to not let Robert know about his March 10 absence. The department, however, decided to fire Dillon for misreporting overtime, unbecoming conduct, and untruthfulness. Dillon resigned rather than being fired and sued under the FMLA and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
In court
The employer argued that Dillon didn’t let it know about the need for FMLA leave and that his son didn’t have a chronic FMLA serious health condition as Dillon claimed.
The court ruled Dillon didn’t tell Robert as soon as practicable of the March 10 leave when it arose, despite knowing of his need to take leave. He didn’t provide such notice until days after the fact, and he didn’t follow the company policy for requesting leave.
The court also found that Dillon’s son suffered bouts of short-term ailments, but they didn’t amount to an FMLA serious health condition.
Given all this, Dillon’s FMLA claims failed.
Thompson v. Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government, Western District of Kentucky, No. 3:24-cv-00243, June 16, 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 may hold employees to their usual and customary call-in procedures and may require employees or family members to have an FMLA serious health condition.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-07-15T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsSafety & HealthMiningSpecialized IndustriesEnglishMine SafetyFocus AreaUSA
MSHA finalizes several deregulatory actions
Effective July 27, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) will withdraw regulations that address outdated effective dates and requirements for various industry equipment and procedures.
On June 25, the agency published several final rules based on a series of July 1, 2025, proposals issued after President Trump’s Executive Order directing agencies to “alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens.” These rules address:
- Approval of conveyor belts in underground coal mines.
- Blacksmith shops at surface metal and nonmetal mines.
- Diesel emission limits for equipment in underground coal mines.
- Permissible flame safety lamps in underground coal mines.
The removal of outdated requirements will help MSHA streamline current requirements and improve the clarity of its standards.
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.