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
2026-02-27T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsClassification - HazmatHazmat SafetyExpert InsightsHazmatFocus AreaEnglishTransportationUSA
Expert Insights: The problem with saying "not regulated"
One of the most common and most dangerous phrases I hear in hazmat conversations is, "That's not regulated." Sometimes it's said confidently, sometimes with relief, and sometimes to shut the discussion down. The problem is that "not regulated" rarely means what people think it means.
In the DOT hazmat world, very few materials fall completely outside the regulations. More often, a material is excepted from specific requirements or qualifies for relief from certain sections of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR). That distinction may seem minor, but it has real compliance and safety implications.
Exceptions aren't exemptions from responsibility
The HMR includes many exceptions, such as limited quantities, excepted quantities, and materials of trade. These provisions are intentional. They reduce regulatory burden where risk is lower and make transportation more practical.
However, problems arise when those exceptions are misunderstood. Someone sees that a material is excepted from placarding, labeling, or shipping papers and assumes the hazmat rules no longer apply. Training gets overlooked, procedures loosen, and documentation disappears. In reality, most exceptions are narrow by design. They remove some requirements, not responsibility.
A familiar example
Limited quantities illustrate this well. Limited quantity shipments are often excepted from placarding and, in many cases, from labeling and shipping paper requirements. What’s often missed is that limited quantity materials are still hazardous materials under the HMR.
Classification still matters. Quantity limits still apply, as do general packaging requirements and employee training. Anyone who prepares, offers, or transports limited quantity hazmat as part of their job is still a hazmat employee, even if the shipment doesn't look like "hazmat" on the truck. Calling it "not regulated" skips that nuance and creates unnecessary risk.
The danger of stopping too early
Many compliance mistakes happen because someone stops reading after the first favorable sentence. They see phrases like excepted, not subject to, or does not require and move on. What they miss are the conditions and limitations that follow.
That relief comes with strings attached. Failing to read the full provision can mean using the wrong packaging, exceeding quantity limits, skipping required training, or misunderstanding when an exception no longer applies. Those gaps usually surface during an inspection, an incident, or a shipment that goes wrong.
Enforcement doesn't care about intent
"I thought it wasn’t regulated" carries no regulatory weight. From an enforcement standpoint, the question is whether the shipment met the conditions of the exception. If it didn’t, the full requirements apply, and violations can add up quickly.
This is especially true when exceptions are applied informally or without documentation. Without evidence that the material was evaluated and the remaining obligations were understood, it becomes difficult to defend the decision later.
"No paperwork" doesn't mean "no system"
Another common misconception is that if shipping papers aren’t required, internal controls aren't needed. Even when documentation doesn’t travel with the shipment, companies still need a way to show the material was properly classified, the correct exception was applied, and employees were trained for their functions.
Those results don't happen by accident. They require procedures, training records, and oversight, even when the shipment itself appears simple.
Where compliance really begins
In hazmat transportation, "not regulated" is almost never the right conclusion. A better question is which requirements apply and which don’t. Exceptions are useful tools, but they are not shortcuts around responsibility.
Understanding where regulatory relief ends is the difference between smart compliance and accidental noncompliance. When someone says a shipment is "not regulated," that shouldn’t end the conversation. More often than not, it's where the real work begins.
Keep reading...Show less
RECENT INDUSTRY HIGHLIGHTS
2026-02-26T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsSafety & HealthErgonomicsGeneral Industry SafetyIn-Depth ArticleEnglishErgonomicsFocus AreaUSA
Why digital eye strain deserves a central role in workplace wellness
In today's growing digital work environment, our eyes are constantly engaged, often for eight hours or more a day, tethered to screens of various sizes. This digital exposure has given rise to a frequently underestimated condition: Digital Eye Strain (DES), also known as Computer Vision Syndrome. While visible workplace injuries like falls or cuts rightly receive immediate attention, cumulative impact of DES often goes overlooked, eroding employee well-being and productivity.
Why DES slips under the radar
DES has a quantity of uncomfortable symptoms like dry or irritated eyes, blurred vision, headaches, neck pain, and even double vision. These symptoms can be signals of significant eye fatigue. The reason DES remains an "invisible epidemic" in many workplace safety discussions is due to a few factors:
- Non-Acute nature: Unlike a sudden injury, DES symptoms develop gradually. Employees might attribute discomfort to lack of sleep, allergies, or general stress rather than prolonged screen time.
- Lack of formal reporting: There isn't a standardized protocol for reporting "tired eyes" or "mild headaches" as a workplace injury, leading to under-reported statistics.
- Perceived normalcy: Many assume eye discomfort is an inevitable part of office work, normalizing symptoms that should be addressed.
- Focus on physical hazards: Traditional workplace safety prioritizes tangible physical risks, often overlooking ergonomic and visual health factors associated with digital work.
A 2025 Workplace Vision Health Report from VSP Vision Care shows just how impactful Digital Eye Strain can be. According to the report, nearly six in ten employees say digital eye strain negatively affects their productivity and effectiveness on the job. About half report that it diminishes their overall well-being and leaves them too tired to enjoy time outside of work and makes them more irritable throughout the day. Even more concerning, 27 percent of employees have taken time off due to eye strain.
How companies can integrate DES awareness
Luckily, there are prevention methods. Raising awareness and prevention of DES can be done by:
- Promoting the "20-20-20 Rule": This simple yet powerful rule is a cornerstone of DES prevention. Every 20 minutes, employees should look at something 20 feet away for at least 20 seconds. This helps relax the focusing muscles of the eyes and reduces dryness. Companies can implement gentle reminders through desktop pop-ups or shared calendar events.
- Self-Assessment Checklists: Provide employees with simple checklists to evaluate their own workstation ergonomics (screen distance, lighting, chair height).
- Invest in Eye-Friendly Tech: Encourage the use of anti-glare screen filters, adjustable monitor arms, and high-resolution displays. Offer or subsidize computer glasses designed to filter blue light and enhance contrast.
- Optimal Lighting: Educate employees on the importance of ambient lighting that minimizes glare on screens and avoids harsh overhead lights.
- Encouraging Regular Eye Exams: Promote the value of annual eye exams. Many DES symptoms can mimic or worsen underlying vision problems that only a professional can diagnose. Emphasize that these exams are not just for vision correction but for overall eye health monitoring.
Keys to remember: By proactively addressing Digital Eye Strain, companies don't just reduce discomfort; they invest in a more focused, productive, and healthier workforce.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-02-26T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsFleet SafetyEnglishAnnual inspections - Motor CarrierFines and penalties - Motor CarrierFocus AreaDaily vehicle inspectionsUSAEnforcement - DOTRoadside InspectionsTransportationCMV Inspections
New enforcement event slams the brakes on unsafe drivers
Nearly 2,000 truckers were removed from roadways this January in a brand-new inspection enforcement event called “Operation SafeDRIVE.”
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) partnered with state law enforcement to implement Operation SafeDRIVE, a high-visibility, 3-day event focused on reducing unsafe drivers and vehicles from the roads.
The results
From January 13–15, 2026, Operation SafeDRIVE investigated routes across D.C. and 26 states. These targeted enforcement actions resulted in 8,215 inspections with:
- 1,231 vehicles placed out of service;
- 704 drivers placed out of service; and
- 56 arrests.
The scope
The 26 states covered in addition to Washington D.C. in Operation SafeDRIVE’s scope included Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.
The goal of the operation was to make sure all drivers are properly qualified and that their vehicles meet all the regulations.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-02-26T06:00:00Z
NewsEmployment ContractsIndependent ContractorsContingent WorkforceHiring standards - Motor CarrierUSAHR ManagementEnglishDriver recruiting and retentionDriver recruiting and retentionTalent Management & RecruitingAssociate Benefits & CompensationIndustry NewsIndustry NewsRecruiting and hiringWage and HourContingent WorkforceWage and HourOwner-operatorRecruiting and hiringMinimum WageFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Non-Exempt employees HR GeneralistOvertimeFleet OperationsAssociate RelationsFocus AreaTransportationHuman Resources
U.S. DOL proposes to rescind Biden-era 2024 independent contractor rule
On February 26, the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division (WHD) announced a proposed rule that would rescind the Biden-era 2024 independent contractor rule and replace it with a rule that’s similar to the one the DOL adopted in 2021 during President Trump’s first term.
The public may submit comments on the proposed rule when it’s posted on the Federal Register on February 27. There will be a 60-day comment period that closes at 11:59 p.m. ET on April 28, 2026.
Why the proposed change?
The DOL states that the proposed rule is “consistent with Supreme Court and federal circuit court precedent.”
“The rule we are proposing today is not only based on long-standing legal principles used in federal courts across the country but also is aimed at ensuring that workers and employers know how to apply those principles predictably,” said WHD Administrator Andrew Rogers in a press release. “The department believes that streamlined regulations in line with Congress’s intent when it passed the Fair Labor Standards Act would improve compliance, reduce misclassification, and reduce costly litigation in an economic environment that needs flexibility and innovation.”
The proposed rule would also apply the DOL’s streamlined analysis to the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, both of which use the Fair Labor Standard’s Act’s (FLSA) statutory definition of “employ.”
How do the new standards differ from the Biden-era standards?
If passed into law, the 2026 proposed rule would:
- Apply an “economic reality” test to determine whether a worker is in business for himself or herself as an independent contractor or is an employee economically dependent on an employer for work.
- Identify and explain two “core factors” to help determine if a worker is economically dependent on an employer for work or in business for him- or herself:
- The nature and degree of control over the work.
- The worker’s opportunity for profit or loss based on initiative and/or investment.
- Identify other factors to help determine a worker’s status as an employee or independent contractor, including the amount of skill required for the work, degree of permanence of the working relationship, and whether the work is part of an integrated unit of production.
- Advise that the actual practice of the worker and the potential employer is more relevant than what may be contractually or theoretically possible.
- Provide eight fact-specific examples applying the factors to real-life circumstances.
The 2026 proposed rule is similar to the 2021 version which was finalized (but never took effect) at the end of President Trump’s first term, in that it leans heavily into the concept of an “economic reality” test, which analyzes if a person is financially dependent on an employer. If they are, then they’re an employee. The 2021 version also zeroed in on “core factors,” and a person’s opportunity for profit or loss, and the degree of control they have over their work.
The 2024 version under President Biden (which is currently still in effect today) focuses more on the “totality of the circumstances” when classifying workers. It looks at the whole picture and allows all factors to be weighed equally, with no predetermined weight assigned to a particular factor or set of factors. Instead, it uses a 6-part multifactor approach to classifying workers. These six factors include:
- Opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill.
- Investments by the worker and the potential employer.
- Degree of permanence of the work relationship.
- Nature and degree of control.
- Extent to which the work performed is an integral part of the potential employer’s business.
- Worker’s skill and initiative.
Don’t these rules seem similar?
While the details of these rules might seem similar on the surface, the current 2024 rule makes it harder for employers to classify workers as independent contractors, which means companies must hire workers as employees, making them eligible for minimum wage, overtime pay, and other benefits that come with regular employment.
The crux of the 2021 and 2026 rules is that they allow a little more wiggle room for companies to classify workers as independent contractors, and, therefore, avoid having to comply with certain employment laws, like paying minimum wage.
Didn’t the DOL already rescind this rule?
Not officially, but in May 2025, the DOL issued a Field Assistance Bulletin to provide guidance to WHD field staff, and indirectly employers, about how to determine if someone should be classified as an employee or an independent contractor for purposes of FLSA compliance.
In a press release from May, the DOL said they were reviewing the 2024 independent contractor rule that went into effect during President Biden’s term.
Field staff were instructed not to apply the 2024 rule when investigating and enforcing FLSA employment matters. Instead, staff was to look back to the 2008 independent contractor rule, focusing on “economic realities” similar to the 2021 and 2026 versions.
What should businesses be doing in light of this new guidance?
For now, businesses should still follow the guidance from the 2024 Biden-era independent contractor rule, because that’s still in effect.
Employers should ensure they’re complying with all federal, state, and local employment laws, especially when it comes to properly classifying workers as either employees or independent contractors. Also, workers may not voluntarily waive their employee status and choose to be classified as independent contractors.
Even if the WHD field staff isn’t using the 2024 version, it’s still technically the law of the land. Nothing’s changed with the existing regulations relating to employee classification (or misclassification) but has more to do with how the WHD is allocating enforcement resources during the review of the 2024 rule. The 2024 rule will still be the basis of any private litigation.
No posting change expected
This rule isn’t expected to bring a mandatory change to the Employee Rights Under the Fair Labor Standards Act posting. The posting does mention independent contractors, but doesn’t include a detailed definition. Previous changes to the independent contractor rule haven’t brought about a mandatory FLSA posting change.
In addition, the proposed rule doesn’t mention a posting change and doesn’t include the cost of a posting change in the rule’s cost analysis.
Key to remember: The U.S. DOL announced plans to rescind the Biden-era federal independent contractor rule from 2024 through a formal rulemaking process.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-02-26T06:00:00Z
NewsDrug and Alcohol TestingIndustry NewsDrug and Alcohol TestingMarijuanaReturn to Work ProgramsHR GeneralistIn-Depth ArticleUSAAssociate RelationsEnglishHR ManagementFocus AreaHuman Resources
Fast firing for marijuana use can cause trouble for employers
Marijuana use isn’t protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), but that doesn’t mean the law can’t trip up employers who use a positive marijuana test as a reason for termination.
A recent court case from Pennsylvania shows that inconsistent discipline and timing can lead to questions about an employer’s real motive for firing an employee.
Conflicting accounts of employee behavior
In this case, a long-time employee who suffered from a spinal condition causing severe lower back pain had been granted several accommodations over the years, including leaves of absence and a modified work schedule. His condition was worsening, and he needed to miss full days of work to attend physical therapy.
A staff meeting led by the employee started a chain of events that resulted in his termination. The employer said the employee appeared lethargic and overmedicated at the meeting, and that he mentioned eating a gummy and said it made him high.
According to the employer, the employee said he needed to take smaller doses in the future and drew a picture of the gummy to show how much he should eat.
The employee denied being lethargic or overmedicated at the meeting, however, and said he told a story about taking a CBD gummy that had made him sick. The over-the-counter CBD product had been recommended by his doctor to relieve pain, and the employer was aware of his CBD use. The employee denied being high or drawing a picture of the gummy.
A drug test and firing
A few days later, a supervisor and human resources representative met with the employee to discuss the staff meeting. The employee denied using marijuana, admitted to using CBD, and agreed to be drug tested.
The company had a policy requiring drug and alcohol testing if there was a reasonable suspicion that an employee was not fit for duty. The company also had a last chance agreement policy that allowed an employee to return to work after being found not fit for duty due to drug or alcohol use.
The employee’s test was positive for marijuana, and there was a dispute over whether CBD use could have led to the result. The employer fired the employee a few weeks later because of:
- Conduct at the staff meeting,
- A positive test for marijuana, and
- Dishonesty about marijuana use.
Lawsuit claims retaliation for accommodation requests
The employee filed a lawsuit claiming that the employer violated the ADA by retaliating against him after he requested accommodations for his condition.
Evidence presented in court raised questions about the employer’s real reason for firing the employee:
- The employee showed that other workers were not fired after drug and alcohol offenses but were allowed to return to work under a last chance agreement.
- A witness from human resources could not recall other non-probationary employees being terminated for a first-time marijuana offense.
- Case managers from a firm that administered the company’s fitness for duty program expressed disbelief and outrage that the employee had been let go without being offered a last chance agreement.
- There were inconsistencies in the staff meeting account, with employees testifying that the employee had not been lethargic or overmedicated.
- The employee was fired a month after requiring an accommodation to attend full-day physical therapy sessions.
The court’s decision
The court found enough evidence showing that the employee’s worsening disability could have been a factor in his termination to send the case to a jury.
Although the employer did provide nondiscriminatory reasons for firing the employee, the employee provided evidence showing that they might not have been the true motive for his termination.
The timing of the firing, uneven discipline, and contradictory accounts of the staff meeting allowed the employee’s retaliation claim to move forward. The court did not decide whether the employee was right, but determined that enough questions had been raised to let a jury hear the case.
Key to remember: A positive drug test can be a reason to take action against an employee, but treating an employee with a disability more harshly than other employees can lead to a lawsuit.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-02-26T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsWage and HourWage and HourAssociate Benefits & CompensationHR GeneralistFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)OvertimeIn-Depth ArticleNon-Exempt employees HR ManagementEnglishFocus AreaHuman ResourcesUSA
4 FAQs about the new overtime federal tax deductions
Tax season has begun. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) included provisions that allow employees to claim a tax deduction for qualified overtime (OT) pay for tax year 2025. Employees might have questions about the deduction, and employers should be able to answer them. Below are four common questions that might pop up, along with the answers.
Q: What is qualified OT pay for purposes of the deduction?
A: Qualified OT pay is only the amount of money that employers must pay employees under section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). That’s the part that qualifies for the deduction.
Pay to employees who are exempt from the FLSA’s OT requirement isn’t included.
If an employer pays more than the required time-and-one-half of an employee’s regular rate of pay, such as double time, only the one- half portion that’s required under the FLSA is qualified OT pay. The deduction also doesn’t include OT paid under state law.
If employers pay an employee at one and one-half times their regular rate for an hour of OT work as required by the FLSA, only the “half” portion of the “one and one-half times” paid for an hour of OT work is qualified OT pay.
Q. What is the deduction amount, and are there limits to the deduction?
A. The deduction amount only goes up to $12,500 of qualified OT pay earned for the year per return ($25,000 in the case of a joint return). The deduction is reduced if the employee’s modified adjusted gross income for the tax year exceeds $150,000 ($300,000 for joint filers).
Employees may take the deduction only for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024, and before January 1, 2029.
Q. Besides having to be paid qualified OT, are there other criteria employees must meet?
A. Yes. The other criteria include the following:
- The employee who received the qualified OT must have a Social Security number (SSN) valid for employment and must include the SSN on the tax return claiming the deduction.
- If the employee is married, the employee and their spouse must file a joint return to claim the deduction. If both spouses were paid qualified OT, both spouses must have an SSN valid for employment and must include both SSNs on the tax return claiming the deduction.
Q: Will employers have to report qualified OT separately on Forms W-2, 1099-NEC, or 1099-MISC?
A. It depends on the tax year.
- For the 2025 tax year, employers don’t have to report qualified OT separately on Forms W-2, 1099-NEC, and 1099-MISC. For 2025, some employers may choose to separately report the amount of qualified OT pay to employees using box 14 of Forms W-2 or to employees or payees through an online portal or on a separate statement. If employees don’t receive their Forms W-2 or other statement for tax year 2025 that separately reports the amount of qualified OT pay, they may use any of the methods described in the “Instructions to Schedule 1-A” that are included in the “Instructions for Form 1040” PDF to calculate the amount of qualified OT.
- For tax years 2026 and later years, employers must separately report qualified OT. The IRS will update Forms W-2, 1099-NEC, and 1099-MISC to allow employers to provide separate reporting of an individual’s qualified OT.
Key to remember: Since it’s tax season, employees and employers might have questions about the temporary OT federal tax deduction provision of the newly enacted OBBBA.
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.