SAFETY & COMPLIANCE NEWS
Keep up to date on the latest developments affecting OSHA, DOT, EPA, and DOL regulatory compliance.
Copyright 2026 J. J. Keller & Associate, Inc. For re-use options please contact copyright@jjkeller.com or call 800-558-5011.
FEATURED NEWS
2026-01-14T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsEnglishFleet SafetyDrug testing - Motor CarrierDrug and Alcohol Testing - DOTReturn-to-duty drug and alcohol testing - Motor CarrierFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleUSAAlcohol testing - Motor CarrierTransportationFollow-up alcohol and drug testing - Motor CarrierDrug and Alcohol Clearinghouse - Motor Carrier
A pre-employment query shows a violation. Now what?
The results of a pre-employment query of the Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse (DACH) might leave you with more questions than answers.
Suppose a query shows the driver has a previously entered DOT testing violation. You can’t ignore the results. This can potentially lead to using an unqualified driver and creating a compliance and risk management nightmare. What are your next steps?
Check the driver’s status
Your first step is to check the driver’s status on the full query report.
The record shows the driver’s status based on what has been reported to the DACH by the substance abuse professional (SAP) and motor carrier (or consortium/third-party administration on the carrier’s behalf). The driver will be classified as one of two statuses:
- Prohibited. The driver has a violation but shows no record of a completed SAP program and negative return-to-duty (RTD) test. Both pieces must be entered to change this status.
- Not prohibited. This status applies to drivers who:
- Never had a violation in the system, or
- Had a violation entered but have record of a completed return-to-duty process.
If the driver is in a prohibited status, you’re unable to use the driver in a safety-sensitive function. In fact, this status prevents a driver from operating any commercial motor vehicle (CMV), including a non-CDL CMV used in interstate commerce.
Carefully review the report
The query report will also indicate whether the RTD and follow-up programs have been completed. If there is no entry for a step, you must address it.
The query results offer details on violations, including:
- Violation information:
- Type of violation, such as failed alcohol test, positive drug test, refusal to test, or actual knowledge;
- Test date; and
- Reason for the test (e.g., post-accident, reasonable suspicion); and
- Completed steps:
- Date of a substance abuse professional’s (SAP’s) initial assessment;
- Date an SAP’s determination the driver is eligible for return-to-duty testing; and
- Date the follow-up testing plan was completed.
Using the report, you now know where the process needs to pick up. But in many cases, you need to seek information from parties outside of the DACH to get the full picture.
Verify and continue the process
Consider the following scenarios when using the information on the DACH report.
If the query doesn’t show an SAP program was started or completed, the driver must pursue the evaluation and treatment. Once the SAP enters the completed in the DACH, you need a copy of the SAP report/follow-up testing plan. Since you’re not the employer under which the violation occurred, you may need the driver to sign a specific written consent which permits the SAP to provide you with a copy of the report. Once received, you can send the driver for RTD test. If the test is negative, you must enter this in the DACH using your motor carrier’s account. The prohibited status is now removed. Using the SAP report, you must begin the follow-up testing plan. The completed follow-up testing plan is reported to the DACH by the employer who finishes the program.
If the query shows a completed SAP program and eligibility for a RTD test, you must request a copy of the SAP report to know if the driver is subject to drug and/or alcohol RTD testing. This requires that the driver sign a specific written consent form. The SAP or former employer needs to see this prior to releasing the record. Once a negative RTD test(s) is entered, you must begin the follow-up testing plan.
If the query shows a complete RTD program, but an incomplete follow-up program, you must contact former employers to learn of completed follow-up tests. The driver must sign a specific written consent form for the release of the information. Once received, along with a copy of the SAP report, you should know how many follow-up tests you must pursue with the driver.
What if you can’t verify what’s been completed?
There may be instances when the information you need is not available. For example, if a violation and any subsequent steps are older than five years, a former employer and SAP may not have the records since records can be purged.
If a former DOT employer fails or is unable to provide information (e.g., out of business), document your attempts. Contact the SAP for a copy of the follow-up testing plan and start the plan from scratch since you have no proof of any completed tests.
If you’re unable to get a copy of the SAP report, DOT doesn’t provide instructions on how to proceed. But one thing is evident in the regulations. The DOT doesn’t permit a new SAP for a re-evaluation. In fact, the DACH has no place for a new SAP to even enter a completed evaluation since one has already been entered by someone else for the violation.
To demonstrate due diligence, it’s recommended that you document your attempts to obtain a copy of the SAP report. Then, as a good faith effort, begin a follow-up testing program using the minimum number of tests (6 tests in the first 12 months after returning to duty). This is a far better compliance strategy than ignoring the problem.
Key to remember: A DACH query is the first step in learning whether a driver has a previous DOT drug or alcohol testing violation. If the driver’s record shows outstanding steps, motor carriers need to verify what’s been completed and resume the process, when necessary.
Keep reading...Show less
RECENT INDUSTRY HIGHLIGHTS
2026-01-14T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsAssociate RelationsHR GeneralistFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)In-Depth ArticleFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)HR ManagementEnglishUSAFocus AreaHuman Resources
How the end of USPS same-day postmark affects FMLA administration
Sometimes, small, seemingly unrelated changes can have an unforeseen impact. Last year, the United States Postal Service (USPS) proposed changes to the way it handles mail that could affect how employers process leave requests under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
The USPS said that, “while the presence of a postmark (also known as a “cancellation”) on a mailpiece confirms that the Postal Service was in possession of the mailpiece on the date of the postmark's inscription, the postmark date does not inherently or necessarily align with the date on which the Postal Service first accepted possession of a mailpiece.”
In other words, the agency won’t guarantee that mail deposited in drop boxes or in the mail slot inside a post office will receive a postmark on that same date. The USPS doesn’t say how long it might be between dropping off a mail piece and getting a postmark. Postmarks are often used as evidence when something is mailed.
The FMLA has a few pieces of mail that could be affected by this, including:
- The eligibility/rights & responsibilities notice,
- The designation notice, and
- Certifications.
How this affects FMLA administration
Under the FMLA, once an employee puts the employer on notice of the need for leave, the employer has 5 business days to get the employee an eligibility/rights & responsibilities notice. If an employer gets this notice in the mail on day one, it might not be seen as “received” by the USPS that day. If that delay causes the employee not to receive it within 5 business days, the employer has technically violated the FMLA.
The same is true for the designation notice. Once employers have enough information to determine that an absence qualifies for FMLA leave protections, they have 5 business days to get a designation notice to the employee. While most employers don’t worry too much about meeting these 5-day deadlines, missing them can be seen as part of other compliance issues.
The certification is where employers might also feel this change. Employees have at least 15 calendar days to return a completed certification, but those 15 days don’t start until the employee receives the request and form.
The same types of USPS delays could impact employees, too. Under the FMLA, if employees don’t get the certification back to employers within 15 days and no extenuating circumstances justify the delay, employers may apply their company policies to the absence after the 15-day window closes and before the employee provides the certification. They might get the certification in the mail on Tuesday, but the postmark might read Wednesday or Thursday. That doesn’t mean the employee didn’t send it on Tuesday.
Employers might need to be a little more flexible with this 15-day window for employees, while also staying on top of their own FMLA-related deadlines.
Key to remember: Due to changes in the way the USPS works, employers might have to adjust the timing of processing FMLA leave requests.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-01-14T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsAssociate Benefits & CompensationHR GeneralistFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Associate RelationsEnglishHR ManagementFocus AreaHuman ResourcesUSA
Do days when a company is closed for inclement weather count as FMLA leave?
The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) published an opinion letter in January on how an employer’s closure for inclement weather affects an employee on leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The letter was in response to an employer’s question on this issue.
The situation
An employer wondered how to calculate an employee’s FMLA leave use when the employer closed its business for less than a full week due to inclement weather. The FMLA regulations address similar situations involving holidays or when an employer closes for a full week (or more) for reasons such as inventory. But the regulations don’t specifically say what to do when employers close for less than a full week.
The leave type rules the day
The WHD turned to the regulations regarding holidays and other closures. Whether a snow day counts as FMLA leave depends on whether the employee is taking the leave in full or partial weeks.
If an employee is taking FMLA leave in less than full-week increments (intermittently or on a reduced schedule), and that employee isn’t expected to work during the time the employer is closed, the employer wouldn’t count the time the business is closed as FMLA leave.
For example, if Joe Employee takes intermittent FMLA leave on Thursday afternoon and a snowstorm causes the employer to close that day, the employer wouldn’t count Thursday afternoon as FMLA for Joe.
If, on the other hand, Joe Employee was taking FMLA in full weeks, if the employer closed for a day or two due to a snowstorm, it doesn’t matter. The employer would still count the entire week as FMLA leave.
Whether a closure is planned or unplanned has no impact on how much FMLA leave an employee uses. Nor does whether the employee makes up the time lost while an employer is closed because of inclement weather.
Key to remember: Whether an employer’s closure for inclement weather counts as FMLA leave depends on whether the employee takes leave in full or partial weeks.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-01-14T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsHazmat SafetyHazmatIn-Depth ArticleFocus AreaUSAEnglishTransportationHazmat Rulemaking procedures
HM-265 final rule sets new regulatory expectations
For anyone who ships, transports, or works around hazardous materials, this update is worth your attention. It targets unnecessary compliance burdens while maintaining established safety standards in hazmat transportation. These changes affect fuel haulers, packaging manufacturers, cargo tank facilities, and others across the hazardous materials industry. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) published its HM‑265 Final Rule, Hazardous Materials: Eliminating Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens on Fuel Transportation, to implement these adjustments.
PHMSA included staggered dates for compliance, with a voluntary compliance date of January 14, 2026, and a mandatory effective date of February 13, 2026. Companies can begin using the new rule immediately because of the voluntary date. However, they don’t need to be fully compliant until the mandatory effective date.
What changed
PHMSA adopted several targeted amendments to the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR). Here are the major updates:
- Identification numbers for petroleum distillate fuels:
PHMSA reinstated an older, previously removed exception where cargo tank motor vehicles (CTMVs) transporting more than one petroleum distillate fuel (like gasoline, diesel, kerosene, or fuel oil) on different trips during the same or previous business day may now display the UN/ID number of the fuel with the lowest flash point. For most, that means UN1203 (gasoline).
This eliminates the need for carriers to constantly swap placards as loads change, restoring a long standing practice and saving significant labor and cost.
PHMSA maintained an important limitation: this exception does NOT apply to gasoline/ethanol blends containing more than 10% ethanol, since those fuels require different emergency response procedures.
- Electronic submission for cargo tank facility registration:
Facilities that manufacture, assemble, repair, or inspect cargo tanks can now submit registration statements electronically through FMCSA’s online portal.
- Updated incorporation by reference (chlorine tank guidance):
PHMSA replaced older incorporated drawings with the complete Chlorine Institute Pamphlet 49 (2016). This change authorizes the use of the Midland PRD for chlorine cargo tanks, expanding options for compliant pressure relief devices.
- Training relief for packaging- only hazmat employees:
Employees who only manufacture, repair, test, or recondition packagings, and do not offer or transport hazmat, are now excepted from safety and security awareness training requirements under 172.704.
- Reflective design options for uninsulated cargo tanks:
Instead of requiring reflective paint, CTMVs may now use reflective vinyl wraps or other coverings if they meet reflectivity requirements.
- Allowing cameras for cargo tank inspections:
Inspectors may now use video cameras or fiber optic equipment to perform required visual inspections of cargo tanks, reducing risks associated with climbing inside tanks and enhancing efficiency.
Key to remember: The HM-265 Final Rule is focused on eliminating unnecessary burdens on fuel transportation. The mandatory compliance date starts on February 13, 2026, which is when you need to comply with the rule.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-01-14T06:00:00Z
NewsCERCLA, SARA, EPCRACommunity Right to KnowSafety Data Sheet ReportingIn-Depth ArticleHazard CommunicationEnglishSafety Data SheetsTier II Inventory ReportingIndustry NewsSafety & HealthConstruction SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyAgriculture SafetyMaritime SafetyEnvironmentalHazard CommunicationSARA ComplianceFocus AreaUSA
EPA scraps SDS/Tier II reporting rule tied to OSHA HazCom
After receiving an “adverse comment,” EPA withdrew its direct final rule to amend 40 CFR 370 before the rule had a chance to take effect. The direct final rule published back on November 17, 2025, was intended to relax the Tier II reporting and safety data sheet (SDS) reporting requirements and align with the OSHA Hazard Communication standard at 29 CFR 1910.1200.
In November, EPA said it considered the rule to be noncontroversial and anticipated no adverse comment. However, on January 9, 2026, EPA published its withdrawal of the direct final rule “because the EPA subsequently received adverse comment.” The agency did not disclose what the fatal comment was. However, docket EPA-HQ-OLEM-2025-0299 shows nine comments, many of which express serious concerns with this rule related to the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).
What were the objections?
Examining the docket, we find several requests for withdrawal of the rule. Some of the concerns raised by commenters included:
- Misalignment with OSHA compliance dates — Commenters remarked that the rule does not align with the phased-in compliance deadlines in the OSHA Hazard Communication (HazCom) standard at 29 CFR 1910.1200(j). In fact, EPA’s compliance date precedes OSHA’s dates, making it “impossible to implement the required changes … for the 2026 reporting cycle,” asserted one commenter. This will force facilities to engage in premature self-classification, argued the commenter. “This misalignment introduces a high risk of inconsistent hazard reporting, undermining both regulatory clarity and the reliability of emergency planning data,” warned another.
- Unrealistic timeline — Commenters pointed out the fast-track schedule. “This timeline compresses the window for implementing critical updates to chemical management software systems [and] procedures [and] reconfiguring data collection processes,” explained a commenter who predicted that facilities will be unable to ensure compatibility between internal chemical management software systems and the new reporting structure, without timely access to updated EPA-provided Tier2Submit® software.
- Implementation challenges — Facilities would be mandated to re-map each reported chemical (often before SDSs have been updated), claimed one commenter. State agencies would also have to incorporate the new hazard categories into their electronic reporting systems and revise guidance/training materials, according to another.
- New burdens with little benefit — While EPA announced that the rule was deregulatory, one commenter contends that it would make reporting “MORE burdensome.” The commenter also stressed that the rule would “not improve emergency planning or response.” Others emphasized that it exceeds what is necessary for harmonization with the OSHA HazCom standard and that the expanded reporting system would offer “little value.” Yet another commenter noted that using 112 hazard categories instead of 24 would overwhelm the public who have a right to know about the hazards in their communities.
- Rule characterization flaws — One commenter declared that “the rule’s characterization as ‘technical’ does not withstand scrutiny” because it substantively changes what information must be submitted; imposes non-trivial, potentially large costs on both the private sector and state/local programs; and conflicts with OSHA’s phased compliance framework.
- EPA obligation failures — Commenters also observed that EPA failed to assess or recognize “potentially large aggregate costs to the private sector and to state/local [agencies].” They also suggest that the agency estimate paperwork costs, determine whether small entities are affected, and request the Office of Management and Budget to review the rule. Finally, EPA has not meaningfully looked at costs and least-cost alternatives, one commenter said. The commenter gave alternative examples — “phased implementation aligned to OSHA’s schedule, optional dual-category reporting for one cycle, or a later effective date.”
What’s next?
Now, EPA will likely proceed with writing a new final rule addressing all public comments. The agency published a parallel proposed rule on the same November date as the direct final rule. That proposal took comments (through December 24, 2025) on the substance of the direct final rule.
That means the agency has all it needs to work on a final rule. EPA made clear that no second round of comments will be collected, but the agency gave no hints as to when it might publish a new final rule.
Until then, the existing CFRs remain in place. In other words, the changes in the November 17, 2025, direct final rule will not take effect on January 16, 2026, as planned because they are now withdrawn.
Note that the direct final rule, had it taken effect, would not have impacted the Tier II forms due on or before March 1, 2026. Rest assured that it is “business as usual” for Tier II reporting due by March 1, 2026. Similarly, SDS reporting requirements continue as is.
For background information, check out our November 25th article, “EPA’s SDS/Tier II reporting now in lockstep with OSHA HazCom.”
Key to remember
On January 9th, EPA withdrew the November 17th direct final rule that would have amended Part 370. The withdrawal is prompted by an adverse comment. A new final rule is anticipated.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-01-14T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsHazard ClassificationsSafety & HealthGeneral Industry SafetyOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), DOLHazard CommunicationHazard CommunicationEnglishFocus AreaUSA
OSHA to extend HazCom compliance deadlines by four months
Chemical manufacturers, importers, distributors, and employers will have an extra four months to comply with the provisions of OSHA’s revised Hazard Communication (HazCom) standard. According to a prepublication version of the Federal Register, as of January 15, the agency will extend its compliance deadlines. This allows OSHA time to finalize related guidance documents for those impacted by the HazCom changes and in turn gives those stakeholders time to review the guidance and come into compliance.
| Original compliance date | New compliance date | Requirement(s) | Who |
| January 19, 2026 | May 19, 2026 | For substances, comply with all modified provisions of 1910.1200 | Chemical manufacturers, importers, and distributors evaluating substances |
| July 20, 2026 | November 20, 2026 | For substances, as necessary: • Update any alternative workplace (in-house) labeling, • Update HazCom training program, and • Provide additional employee training for newly identified physical, health, or other hazards covered. | Employers |
| *Substance is defined at 1910.1200(c): “Substance means chemical elements and their compounds in the natural state or obtained by any production process, including any additive necessary to preserve the stability of the product and any impurities deriving from the process used, but excluding any solvent which may be separated without affecting the stability of the substance or changing its composition.” | |||
| July 19, 2027 | November 19, 2027 | For mixtures, comply with all modified provisions of 1910.1200 | Chemical manufacturers, importers, and distributors evaluating mixtures |
| January 19, 2028 | May 19, 2028 | For mixtures, as necessary: • Update any alternative workplace (in-house) labeling, • Update the HazCom training program, and • Provide additional employee training for newly identified physical, health, and other hazards covered. | Employers |
| *Mixture is defined at 1910.1200(c): “Mixture means a combination or a solution composed of two or more substances in which they do not react.” | |||
OSHA’s HazCom final rule is here! (5/20/2024)
OSHA issues HazCom corrections (10/09/2024)
OSHA issues further HazCom corrections (1/9/2026)
See also, What changes did OSHA make to the HazCom Standard in 2024?
Keep reading...Show less
Search all news
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.