
SAFETY & COMPLIANCE NEWS
Keep up to date on the latest developments affecting OSHA, DOT, EPA, and DOL regulatory compliance.

SAFETY & COMPLIANCE NEWS
Keep up to date on the latest developments affecting OSHA, DOT, EPA, and DOL regulatory compliance.
Imagine planning your budget for next year and suddenly learning your regulatory fees might increase by several hundreds of dollars. For many in the hazmat transportation industry, that possibility wasn’t just hypothetical, it was a looming reality. Back in May 2024 the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) submitted a proposal to raise annual registration fees for companies that transport or offer certain hazardous materials. The changes would have meant higher costs for both small businesses and large operators.
Fast forward to November 2025 and the story has taken a different turn. PHMSA has officially withdrawn the proposal, citing a commitment to reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens and feedback from stakeholders worried about the economic impact. The decision means fees will stay at current levels for now.
In May of 2024, PHMSA proposed a plan to change its hazmat registration program, which really hasn’t changed much in years. The biggest change was a fee increase:
However, that wasn’t all. The proposal also included:
PHMSA said these changes were intended to modernize processes and ensure adequate funding for its grants program, which supports emergency response training and the Emergency Response Guidebook.
PHMSA says the decision reflects a broader push to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens, in line with Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation.” Industry feedback also played a big role in the decision. Many stakeholders expressed concern about the timing and economic impact of higher fees, especially amid uncertainty in transportation markets. After reviewing its funding needs, PHMSA decided that current fees are enough to support critical programs, such as grants for emergency response training and the Emergency Response Guidebook, without adding extra costs.
For carriers, shippers, and anyone that’s required to register, this is welcome news. Registration fees remain unchanged, helping companies maintain predictable compliance costs. This decision shows that PHMSA isn’t just focused on safety, it’s also paying attention to the financial realities that matter to the industry.
While the fee increase is off the table, PHMSA isn’t standing still. Two related rulemakings are moving forward:
Both rulemakings are designed to make compliance easier without raising costs, and they’re already in the pipeline.
Key to remember: PHMSA is withdrawing its proposed rulemaking to increase hazmat registration fees. However, it’s still moving forward with electronic payment methods and recordkeeping requirements for hazmat registration.
FMCSA proposes amendments to its Hazardous Materials Safety Permits (HMSPs) regulations to incorporate by reference the updated Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) handbook containing inspection procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria (OOSC) for inspections of shipments of transuranic waste and highway route-controlled quantities (HRCQs) of radioactive material (RAM). The OOSC provide enforcement personnel nationwide, including FMCSA's State partners, with uniform enforcement tolerances for inspections. Currently, the regulations reference the April 1, 2024 edition of the handbook. Through this notice, FMCSA proposes to incorporate by reference the April 1, 2025 edition.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 19, 2025. Published in the Federal Register November 19, 2026, page 52030.
View proposed rule.
Suppose an employer owns a business that includes two entities: a restaurant and a members-only club. They’re both in the same building, but on different floors. The two share management, operations, and other resources. They both offer substantially the same food and beverages, and operate under similar trade names.
The restaurant has a host who’s paid $28 per hour. The employer offers the host some shifts at the club at the same rate of pay.
Sometimes, the host is clocked in at the restaurant while assigned to work in the club. The host usually works five dinner shifts per week at the restaurant, for 40 hours per week. One week, the employer asks the host to also work four lunch shifts at the club. As a nonexempt (hourly) employee, if these hours are combined, it would push the host into overtime.
The employer, however, thinks the two entities are separate and distinct because they have separate business structures. As such, the employer believes it doesn’t have to pay the host overtime when working 40 hours or more for both entities during the same week.
Is the employer correct?
In a recent opinion letter, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) addressed this situation, saying that separately incorporated entities might be considered a single employer with respect to employees, for purposes of compliance with the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA requires employers to pay hourly (nonexempt) employees overtime for any work performed beyond 40 hours in a workweek.
When an employee works for one employer for a set of hours and another employer for a separate set of hours in the same workweek, that scenario might cause a “horizontal” joint employment relationship. Horizontal joint employment typically occurs when businesses are sufficiently connected through employees.
If horizontal joint employment exists, employers must add all an employee's hours worked for both joint employers to determine whether the employee is entitled to overtime.
Therefore, the employer in the situation was incorrect; the host is entitled to overtime pay for the time worked for the club. This is true even if the restaurant and club are separate legal entities. Such formalities don’t override the FLSA’s application.
The DOL looked at the physical proximity of the two entities and what they shared. That the host could be clocked in at the restaurant and then told to work in the club also showed a connection for FLSA purposes. The host was also paid the same rate at each facility, and the shifts at the two entities didn’t conflict, suggesting schedule coordination.
Key to remember: Employers with multiple entities must be aware of whether the entities function as one employer for the FLSA’s overtime requirements.
Companies operating across multiple states, or internationally, face a growing challenge: staying compliant with a patchwork of environmental regulations. As federal agencies scale back certain environmental rules, states are stepping in to fill the gaps. But these state-level regulations aren’t always aligned. One state may impose strict air quality standards, while another may prioritize water discharge limits. This fragmented landscape creates a complex web of requirements that businesses must navigate to avoid fines, delays, or reputational harm.
In the U.S., environmental laws are enforced at both federal and state levels. While EPA sets national standards, states often go further. For example:
Internationally, U.S. companies face additional hurdles. The European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) requires companies to identify and mitigate environmental risks across their global supply chains. This means a U.S. firm with operations or suppliers in Europe must meet stricter standards, even if those standards differ from U.S. law.
To manage this complexity, many companies adopt Environmental Management Systems such as ISO 14001. An EMS provides a structured framework to:
EMS tools help companies centralize oversight, reduce compliance gaps, and respond quickly to regulatory changes. For example, a company using EMS software can assign location-specific tasks, monitor progress, and generate reports tailored to each jurisdiction’s requirements.
Key to Remember: Multi-jurisdictional compliance isn’t just about knowing the rules—it’s about building systems that adapt to them. An Environmental Management System, paired with proactive planning and location-specific training, helps companies stay compliant, reduce risk, and operate confidently across borders.
State-plan state enforcement counts for fiscal year (FY) 2024 are all up, up, and up. In a triple whammy for employers, penalty amounts and inspection and violation counts continue to climb. This was despite a 3.6 percent cut in federal funding for these 29 states. FY 2024 spanned from October 1, 2023, to September 30, 2024.
The latest data stem from the Occupational Safety and Health State Plan Association’s (OSHSPA) “Grassroots Worker Protection” report. The annual OSHSPA report covers the efforts and achievements of the state-plan states. Among other things, the report offers a two-page “Numbers at a Glance” table. The table goes over inspections, penalties, consultation, funding, and more.
State-plan officers conducted more than 36,800 inspections in FY 2024, an increase of 5.4 percent from the over 34,900 the previous year. Programmed and employee complaint inspections took the lion’s share of inspections in FY 2024 with 38.8 and 28.4 percent, respectively.
Most of the gains that year were also in those two inspection types. Both jumped nearly 10 percent (about 13,100 to 14,300 for programmed inspections and about 9,500 to 10,400 for complaint inspections). Although small in number (just over 1,100), follow-up inspections also trended upward 6.5 percent. Referrals, fatality/catastrophe, and other inspection types fell 0.9, 3.1, and 4.3 percent, respectively.
Analyzing the data further, state agencies focused most inspections on “employee safety” (with 74.4 percent), rather than “employee health.” However, both safety and health inspections experienced upticks (4.7 and 7.5 percent, respectively).
Of the over 72,200 violations in FY 2024, about half were considered serious, willful, or repeat (S/W/R), while the other half were tagged other-than-serious (OTS). In both cases, these violation types went up.
Yet, employers were only cited in 66.4 percent of inspections in FY 2024 versus 68.3 percent the year prior. On average, when an inspection had violations, state officers found one S/W/R violation and almost one OTS violation per inspection. The S/W/R and OTS data points dropped slightly from FY 2023.
Total penalties shot up almost 17 percent from $119.3 million to $139.5 million in FY 2024. This is surprising given that maximum penalties only go up at the rate of inflation. The 17 percent change was anywhere from two to five times the rate of inflation used to calculate penalties that year!
Where serious penalties were issued, penalty rates advanced 7.6 percent in FY 2024, to reach nearly $2,950 on average per violation. A serious violation relates to a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result, and the employer knew or should have known of the hazard.
Employers contested citations in almost 18 percent of inspections, but this figure was down three-quarters of a percentage point from FY 2023. A proper contest suspends the employer’s legal obligation to abate and pay a penalty until the item contested has been resolved.
State plans are OSHA-approved workplace safety and health programs. They are operated by individual states or U.S. territories. States with OSHA-approved programs must adopt standards that are at least as effective as federal OSHA's standards. They conduct their own enforcement. Also, they are subject to OSHA approval and monitoring. The state-plan states include the following:
The latest statistics on state-plan state enforcement are available. The data show that state inspection counts and penalty amounts surged in FY 2024. Violation figures also grew, but the number of inspections with one or more violations slipped a little.
Those with a commercial driver’s license (CDL) aren’t the only motor carrier employees who need a tailored DOT drug and alcohol policy and training.
The instructions you provide key players in your drug and alcohol program — managers, dispatchers, and Human Resources (HR) department — determine how well they respond to situations.
Since the DOT drug and alcohol policy (382.601(b)) is intended to educate drivers, you need additional resources (HR and operations policies, checklists, and/or a process manual) for these other roles.
Consider the following three scenarios that require documented internal processes and training for those who support your testing program.
Suppose your driver was dispatched when the company learned of a failed random DOT drug test. The information provided in the standard DOT drug and alcohol policy indicates the driver will be immediately removed from all safety-sensitive functions (SSFs) and provided a list of substance abuse professionals.
The manager, whose role is to contact and remove the driver from all SSFs, will need additional guidance on this process. Questions that need to be answered include:
Your driver exhibits signs of substance abuse, so your company’s trained supervisor requests a reasonable suspicion drug test. However, the rules don’t offer directions on how to get the driver to and from the site for the test.
Your internal processes should address the risks of:
A process manual should answer:
In addition, HR may have policies on what to do with the driver during the period you’re waiting for a drug test result. In some situations, it can take several days to get a test result.
Your HR policies should address:
Your driver calls dispatch to report a crash; there’s a lot of adrenaline on both ends of the line. The manager who takes the call needs to remain calm and know what to ask the driver. The driver’s responses help determine whether post-accident drug and alcohol testing is required.
The manager must be kept up to date in the event criteria for testing are met later —someone dies, or the driver receives a traffic citation during the testing timeframe.
Whether post-accident testing is coordinated by a single individual or team at the carrier, time is of the essence. Front-line managers need to know who to call:
Key to remember: Don’t limit drug and alcohol policies and training to drivers. Extend education and tools to those who play critical roles in your program. When motor carrier personnel are trained and comfortable with procedures, the testing process will go more smoothly and violations will be avoided.


Got a Compliance Question?
We’ve Got You Covered!
Get clear, reliable answers from experts with 500+ years of combined experience.