Be Part of the Ultimate Safety & Compliance Community
Trending news, knowledge-building content, and more – all personalized to you!
SAFETY & COMPLIANCE NEWS
Keep up to date on the latest developments affecting OSHA, DOT, EPA, and DOL regulatory compliance.
OSHA cited a Georgia chemical manufacturer for lack of training under the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) Standard after inspectors found that workers had cleaned up approximately 6,000 gallons of caustic soda without receiving training on hazardous substance response.
The company also was cited for lack of training under the Hazard Communication (HazCom) Standard, as employees were exposed to hazardous chemicals while batching them without training on the hazards and how to protect themselves. It may be easier to understand when HazCom training requirements kick in, but how do you know when HAZWOPER applies?
HAZWOPER applies to emergency response activities where there’s an uncontrolled release of a hazardous substance, or where an uncontrolled release is likely. This includes things like:
Under HAZWOPER, “emergency response” refers to a response effort by designated personnel to an occurrence that results in, or is likely to result in, an uncontrolled release of a hazardous substance. This includes, but is not limited to, the following situations:
Responses to “incidental releases” of hazardous substances where the substance can be absorbed, neutralized, or otherwise controlled at the time of release by employees in the immediate release area, or by maintenance personnel, are not considered to be emergency responses within the scope of HAZWOPER. Responses to releases of hazardous substances where there’s no potential safety or health hazard (i.e., fire, explosion, or chemical exposure) are not considered to be emergency responses.
Employees who are designated to respond to emergency releases must be trained based on the duties and function to be performed. Roles and training requirements are outlined at 1910.120(q)(6) and include first responder awareness level, first responder operations level, hazardous materials technician, hazardous materials specialist, and on-scene incident commander. Training must be conducted annually.
OSHA requires that trainers “be qualified to instruct employees about the subject matter that is being presented in training.” These qualifications may be shown by academic degrees, completed training courses, and/or work experience. The subjects that trainers should be able to convey to employees at hazardous waste operations who need training are summarized in paragraphs (e), (p), and (q) of the standard.
Key to Remember: Employees who are designated to respond to emergency releases of hazardous substances are covered by HAZWOPER and must be trained based on the duties and function to be performed.
In the dynamic world of transportation regulations, carriers may find themselves at a crossroads — at the intersection of Canada’s electronic logging device (ELD) mandate and the U.S. ELD requirements. While both intersect to enhance safety and streamline recordkeeping, their divergent paths reveal nuances in regulations, technical specifications, and enforcement. Carriers must choose wisely, ensuring compliance with the rules of their operating territories. As the digital era reshapes the road ahead, understanding these differences becomes paramount for a seamless journey toward safer roads and efficient operations.
In this article, we delve into the key distinctions between the Canada ELD mandate and the US ELD requirements, shedding light on how carriers can traverse these regulatory crossroads.
Both the Canada ELD mandate and the U.S. ELD requirements share the common goal of promoting safety, reducing fatigue-related accidents, and ensuring accurate hours-of-service (HOS) records. Carriers operating in either country must stay informed about the specific regulations and choose ELDs that meet the respective standards. Compliance not only avoids penalties but also contributes to safer roads and a more efficient transportation industry. But this is where the commonalities largely end. This comparison between the two ELD mandates clearly shows where:
Canada | United States | |
Applicability | This applies to federally regulated drivers and carriers operating within Canada. Enforced by provinces and territories. Technical standard created by the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA). | Applicable to interstate commercial motor drivers and carriers Enforced by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) |
Implementation | Implementation June 2021, no grandfathering provisions | Mandate adopted Dec. 2015; mandate effective Dec. 2017; grandfathering for carriers using AOBRDs ended Dec. 2019 |
Certification | ELD 3rd party certification | ELD provider self-certification |
Exemptions | Limited exemptions for: drivers operating under a permit or statutory exemption; drivers operating a rental CMV for 30 days or less; drivers operating CMVs manufactured before the year 2000 Exemptions by industry may be requested through Transport Canada | Drivers operating a rental CMV for 8 days or less; pre-2000 exemption is the same as Canada; also, multiple industry/situational exemptions |
Notifications | Compliance with the limits must be tracked and driver must be warned 30 minutes before reaching a limit | U.S. devices must only record, no warning required |
Malfunctions | 14 days to replace or, if the trip is longer than 14 days, upon return to the terminal; carrier must keep records of malfunctions | Up to 8 days allowed, no recordkeeping requirement |
Roadside Inspection Enforcement | Display or print the record of duty status; email records upon request by enforcement. Bluetooth/USB transfer is an option, not mandatory Carry 14 days’ worth of blank logs | Display or printout or Bluetooth/USB/web/email is required (must transfer using one of 4 methods.) Email direct to officer is not an option. Carry 8 days’ worth of blank logs |
North of 60N | Device must have the ability to change when crossing 60N ruleset (to Yukon and Northwest Territories) | Not applicable |
Carriers must navigate these nuances, understanding exemptions, data transfer methods, and enforcement practices specific to where their drivers are operating. Failing to do so can result in fines, penalties, and negative events on the carrier’s safety record. As the road ahead unfolds, compliance remains the compass, guiding carriers toward safer highways and efficient operations.
Key to remember: While the overarching goal remains the same—to enhance safety and improve compliance with hours-of-service regulations—the specific ELD requirements differ significantly between the two countries.
Emergency room visits for heat-related illness increased significantly across the United States last year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports. And when employees labor in the heat, there is a greater risk of such an emergency disrupting the workday.
That’s why, as the hottest time of the year approaches, it’s smart to remind employees of ways to stay cool at work and home.
The CDC promotes a proactive approach, stressing these actions that can be taken to prevent heat-related illness:
Staying cool and hydrated
Employees should be reminded to take these steps on hot days:
This information can be provided in an intranet article, email, or employee newsletter article. Posters can also offer tips for staying cool on hot days.
Illness awareness
Workers should be aware that exposure to high temperatures can result in:
New tools from the CDC
To raise awareness of when and where the risk is greatest for heat-related illness, the CDC has released two tools:
The HeatRisk Forecast Tool offers a seven-day heat forecast that indicates when temperatures may reach dangerous levels. The tool was created by the CDC and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and uses a five-level scale to show the heat level risk in a specific area.
The HeatRisk Dashboard allows individuals to pull in data from the HeatRisk Forecast Tool based on their zip code. The mobile-friendly interface shows the level of risk and information about protective actions to take. Air quality information is also provided, as higher temperatures can make air quality worse.
Key to remember: As we enter the hottest months of the year, employees should be reminded of steps that can be taken to prevent heat-related illness at work and at home.
OSHA just pulled back the curtain to reveal a list of the key provisions that will appear in its upcoming Infectious Diseases proposed rule in the coming months! The sneak peek is thanks to a presentation at an OSHA advisory committee meeting. Compliance Network was there to bring you the scoop!
The rulemaking would not replace but supplement the existing Bloodborne Pathogens Standard in healthcare, healthcare support, and biomedical lab settings. Instead of bloodborne diseases, the new rule would provide protections from infectious agents transmitted by contact, droplet, and airborne routes. Examples include methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), norovirus, influenza, and tuberculosis.
According to OSHA, the rulemaking is intended to protect workers who perform tasks that routinely expose them to infectious diseases. This means it would be applicable to biomedical labs and settings where any worker provides healthcare services or handles contaminated materials or human remains. Settings potentially include:
Protections would be provided for workers that perform certain job tasks. These involve exposure to patients, clients, residents, contaminated materials, human remains, or infectious agents.
The proposal would provide several major regulatory provisions:
The “policies/procedures” provision would cover:
When an employer is engaged in construction inside covered settings, OSHA says:
The proposed rule could be published in calendar year 2024. The latest semiannual agenda has the proposed rule slated for June 2024. Yet, that may be a little ambitious. Another official document that came out after the agenda — the “FY 2025 Congressional Budget Justification” for OSHA — has this one down for publication in fiscal year 2025. Technically, that’s still right around the corner because fiscal year 2025 starts on October 1, 2024.
Before it can publish a proposal, OSHA needs the green light from two of its advisory committees:
On April 24, 2024, OSHA presented a summary and shared a background document for the Infectious Diseases proposal. A lengthy discussion followed. The committee talked about everything from small construction projects and exposure on rooftops to information sharing and the quality of training. ACCSH then gave OSHA a unanimous recommendation to publish the proposed rule.
However, the committee did so on the condition that OSHA make clear in the rule what information host employers must share with contractors that work at the site. That information would relate to infectious disease hazards and controls associated with the contractor’s work area.
NACOSH is scheduled to meet with OSHA on May 7, 2024. That committee is expected to also give the agency the proper endorsement to move ahead with publication of the proposal. Register for the virtual meeting if you’d like to attend.
The Infectious Diseases rulemaking has been on OSHA’s to-do list since the year 2010. A small business panel met in 2014 to review the agency’s 38-page draft regulatory text. However, at the time, the panel issued a report voicing concerns. In fact, the report resulted in a general recommendation that OSHA not issue a proposed rule on infectious diseases until the agency assessed information on the risk to each potentially covered task and workplace. That was long before the COVID-19 pandemic. Ever since, there’s been pressure on the agency to issue a rule.
We now have a clearer picture about what scope and regulatory elements will be in the soon-to-come Infectious Diseases proposal. Check out OSHA's presentation and supporting document.
The DOT will not look the other way during an audit if you misunderstand or neglect your obligations to drug and alcohol test commercial drivers.
In 2023, five of the top ten acute violations found during motor carrier audits involved noncompliance with drug and alcohol requirements. And drug and alcohol violations held two spots in the top ten critical violations for the same year.
Setting up a compliant DOT drug and alcohol program requires appointing knowledgeable employees to carry out the duties. The responsibilities may be farmed out to multiple individuals and departments, or you can contract with a consortium/third-party administrator to assume some of the roles.
Employee drug and alcohol training is required, sort of.
Part 382 only requires training in two situations:
However, a general rule, 390.3(e), requires that motor carrier employees know and comply with the safety regulations. The rule, unfortunately, doesn’t spell out how to accomplish this. That’s when you look to the term “safety management controls” contained in the definition of Review in 385.3. It is referenced during DOT audits.
This definition is very high level and encompasses “…the systems, policies, programs, practices, and procedures used by a motor carrier to ensure compliance…” This is taken to mean training, policies and procedures, monitoring and tracking of compliance, and the like. The safety management cycle used in the Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) enforcement model expands on this concept.
If you are looking for resources to learn more about DOT testing, Compliance Institute contains several articles on the topic. The following resources can help get you started:
If you have a question on DOT drug and alcohol testing or any other regulatory topic, we encourage you to reach out to our compliance experts using Expert Help. Our team of experts is always happy to assist.
Roadside truck and bus inspectors are ramping up enforcement against drivers who abuse the “personal conveyance” (PC) provision. Are your drivers using it properly?
The PC provision allows drivers to log commercial vehicle driving time as “off duty” rather than “driving.” Such off-duty driving is allowed only to “convey” or transport the driver for personal reasons, such as to commute to or from work or to get to a restaurant or grocery store.
The provision is subject to widespread abuse, however, because it can be used to mask time that should otherwise be logged as normal “driving.”
Though PC violations have occurred for decades, officers only had a way to single them out on inspection reports beginning in August 2021, by citing “395.8E1PC” as a distinct type of log falsification. Over 2,500 PC citations were issued in the last five months of that year.
Citations for PC abuse have only grown since then.
In 2022, the first complete year for which PC violations were cited, officers wrote up 11,026 occurrences. Last year, that figure rose to 14,562, a 32-percent increase (despite a less-than-one-percent increase in the number of roadside inspections). It was the 24th most-cited driver regulation in 2023.
Officers are not required to use the distinct PC citation, so some may still lump PC violations under 395.8(e), the catch-all rule for log falsification and the third most common driver violation of 2023.
In the Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) scoring system, the violation carries seven points, the same as any other violation for falsifying a log.
PC violations are not categorized separately from log falsification during audits, but log falsification was the number one violation cited during audits in 2023, with the average fine being over $7,000.
The hours-of-service regulations themselves do not mention personal conveyance. Instead, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) describes how to use PC in its official guidance for 49 CFR 395.8, Question 26.
To use a vehicle for personal conveyance, the driver:
Typically, acceptable PC usage will be a round trip, where the “personal use” starts and ends at the same location and the “business use” picks up where it left off.
Acceptable as PC | Not Acceptable as PC |
Driving from an en-route lodging (e.g., motel or truck stop) to and from restaurants, entertainment facilities, stores, etc., for personal reasons. Commuting between home and a terminal or a trailer drop lot. Driving to the first reasonably available and safe location to get required rest after running out of hours while loading or unloading and ordered to move the vehicle. Moving a vehicle at the request of a safety official during the driver’s off-duty time. Transporting personal property while off duty. Driving home from a remote jobsite or “base camp” where the driver was stationed for a period of time (such as when working for a construction or utility company). | Driving to a company terminal, the normal work-reporting location, or home after loading or unloading at a shipper or receiver. Driving that “enhances the operational readiness” of the company, such as by skipping an available rest area to get closer to the next work destination. Driving to or from a facility for maintenance or to get fuel. Continuing a trip to fulfill a business purpose, such as bobtailing or pulling an empty trailer to retrieve another load or repositioning a tractor or trailer at the company’s direction. After delivering a trailer, returning to the point of origin under the direction of the company to pick up another trailer. Driving to get rest after being placed out of service for exceeding the hours-of-service limits |
Did You Know You Can Ask Unlimited Questions to Our Compliance Experts?
Get answers to your most puzzling compliance questions from the industry’s top experts!