SAFETY & COMPLIANCE NEWS
Keep up to date on the latest developments affecting OSHA, DOT, EPA, and DOL regulatory compliance.
Copyright 2025 J. J. Keller & Associate, Inc. For re-use options please contact copyright@jjkeller.com or call 800-558-5011.
FEATURED NEWS
2025-11-19T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsHazmat SafetyHazmatIn-Depth ArticleFocus AreaUSAEnglishTransportationHazmat Rulemaking procedures
PHMSA withdrawal keeps registration fees steady for now
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 PHMSA has officially withdrawn the proposal, citing a commitment to reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens and feedback from stakeholders worried about the economic impact.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.
What was proposed?
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:
- Small businesses and nonprofits would have seen their annual registration fee jump from $250 to $375, a $125 increase.
- Larger companies would have paid $3,000, up from $2,575, a $425 increase.
However, that wasn’t all. The proposal also included:
- Electronic-only payments for registration fees, eliminating paper checks.
- Clarified recordkeeping rules, allowing certificates of registration to be carried in either electronic or paper form and ensuring consistent language for presenting these certificates to enforcement personnel.
- Removal of outdated “sunrise dates” from the regulations, since those deadlines had already passed.
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.
Why the reversal?
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.
What does this mean for you?
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.
What's still changing?
While the fee increase is off the table, PHMSA isn’t standing still. Two related rulemakings are moving forward:
- Modernizing Payments (HM-268H): Updates to streamline electronic transactions.
- Reducing Recordkeeping (HM-268I): Simplified requirements for domestic carriers.
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.
Keep reading...Show less
RECENT INDUSTRY HIGHLIGHTS
2025-11-19T06:00:00Z
NewsFleet SafetyFederal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOTHazardous materials safety permit (FMCSA)Change NoticesChange NoticeFocus AreaEnglishTransportationRegistration and Permits - Motor CarrierUSA
FMCSA Proposed Rule: Incorporation by Reference; North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria; Hazardous Materials Safety Permits (2025)
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.
Keep reading...Show less
2025-11-19T06:00:00Z
NewsFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)LeaveFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Time offHuman ResourcesLeaveHR ManagementEnglishUSAAssociate Benefits & CompensationIndustry NewsIndustry NewsHR GeneralistFocus AreaAssociate RelationsDisabilities and ADADisabilities and ADAReasonable Accommodations
Employer offered ADA accommodation, wins court case
In 2022, Brandon, a law enforcement officer, began experiencing severe back pain, which he believed was from an earlier car accident. X-rays indicated trauma to his spine. Brandon submitted a work status report to his employer. In it, his doctor said that he could return to work on June 15, but that he was restricted from performing his job’s essential functions.
Because Brandon couldn’t perform his job’s essential functions, the employer placed him on leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). His doctor later physically cleared him to return to work on July 14.
Brandon’s condition, however, worsened. In October 2022, his doctor recommended surgery. Brandon told his supervisors of his surgery, and they approved a leave of absence from December 1, 2022, until January 28, 2023, at which point he would have exhausted his FMLA leave.
After the surgery, Brandon’s pain was much better, but the doctor thought he wasn’t ready to perform the employer’s physical abilities test, which he would have to complete upon returning to duty.
The doctor gave Brandon a tentative return to work date of March 14, which he relayed to his supervisors. That same day, one of Brandon’s supervisors asked him whether he was interested in an opportunity to take a position as a dispatcher while he awaited medical clearance. The employer supported the idea. Brandon didn’t give the supervisor an answer one way or the other.
On February 8, the employer asked Brandon for an updated work status report and told him that he had exhausted his FMLA leave. Brandon forwarded an updated report from his doctor that reiterated that he would be able to work with no restriction on March 14. Brandon asked to have his leave extended. Eight days later, Brandon’s supervisor told him he needed to decide by February 20 whether to resign and apply for the other position or face termination. Brandon again asked to have his leave extended.
Brandon didn’t respond by February 20. Two days later, he received a letter informing him that his employer had terminated him.
Brandon sued, alleging that the employer denied him an accommodation when it didn’t extend his leave.
In court, the employer pointed out that it offered Brandon an alternative position.
The court ruled in favor of the employer. It said the employer didn’t have to give Brandon his choice of accommodations. It complied with its ADA obligations to offer a reasonable accommodation, even if the alternative position was one Brandon didn’t necessarily prefer.
Mundt vs Sheriff, Okaloosa County, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-14130, October 23, 2025.
Key to remember: If employers offer a reasonable accommodation, and an employee turns it down, the employee risks losing their ADA protections.
Keep reading...Show less
2025-11-19T06:00:00Z
NewsEnforcement and Audits - OSHASafety and Health Programs and TrainingSafety and Health Programs and TrainingEnglishHeat StressIndustry NewsIndustry NewsHeat and Cold ExposureEnforcement and Audits - OSHAOSHA InspectionsSafety & HealthConstruction SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyAgriculture SafetyFocus AreaUSA
Nevada OSHA updates heat illness dashboard
Nevada’s recently updated heat illness dashboard now includes enforcement data on the state’s heat illness prevention rule. The rule took effect April 29 and as of October 15, there have been 183 compliance-related inspections. Accommodation and food services, construction, and retail are the top three inspected industries.
Nevada OSHA received 400 complaints, down 20 percent since last year, and 13 noncompliance citations have been issued. The state’s heat illness regulation requires employers with at least 10 employees to:
- Conduct a one-time job hazard analysis to identify hazardous work conditions,
- Adopt a written Heat Illness Prevention Plan,
- Implement emergency responses procedures,
- Monitor affected employees, and
- Train workers to recognize and minimize heat hazards.
The dashboard includes data on complaints, inspections, citations, penalties, and workers' compensation.
Keep reading...Show less
2025-11-19T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsEnforcement and Audits - OSHAEnforcement and Audits - OSHASafety & HealthConstruction SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyIn-Depth ArticleEnglishFocus AreaUSA
The lasting effects of the government shutdown on construction companies
The federal government shutdown officially ended on November 12, 2025 after 43 days—making it the longest in U.S. history. With appropriations restored through January 30, 2026, federal workers have returned.
However, it might not be “smooth sailing” from here on out, especially for construction companies.
The impact on construction companies
While the government shutdown impacted employers of all workplaces, construction companies faced additional challenges.
During the shutdown, many contractors faced payment freezes for completed work, forcing tough decisions—either pause operations or risk defaults. These disruptions led to increased costs, remobilization challenges, and credit strain.
When budgets tighten and schedules slip, safety programs often suffer. Training gets delayed, PPE purchases are postponed, and crews feel pressured to work faster under riskier conditions. These factors can increase the likelihood of injuries and OSHA violations.
Now that the government is back in operation, construction companies should prepare for lasting effects.
First, there may be delays in permits, funding, and scheduling. Federal staff are remobilizing, which means cost-reimbursement projects may be postponed. Contracting reviews and approvals could take three to four months longer than usual, similar to what happened during the 2018–19 shutdown. Industry experts recommend building resilience by including contingency provisions in contracts and diversifying project portfolios to reduce risk.
OSHA enforcement returns
During the shutdown, OSHA scaled back its activities, limiting inspections to cases involving imminent danger, fatalities, and severe incidents. Now that the government has reopened, enforcement is returning in full force. Employers should expect a surge in inspections as OSHA works through its backlog.
Keep in mind, compliance obligations never stopped. Injury and illness logs, abatement deadlines, and reporting requirements remained in effect throughout the shutdown. Companies that fell behind must act quickly to correct any gaps and prepare for renewed scrutiny.
Key to remember: Employers should act now to catch up on compliance and prepare for additional inspections.
Keep reading...Show less
2025-11-18T06:00:00Z
NewsIn-Depth ArticleUSAHR ManagementEnglishAssociate Benefits & CompensationIndustry NewsWage and HourWage and HourHours WorkedHR GeneralistFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Non-Exempt employees OvertimeFocus AreaHuman Resources
Two entities, one employer, and overtime
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?
What the DOL says
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.
How the DOL got its answer
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.
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 2025 J. J. Keller & Associate, Inc. For re-use options please contact copyright@jjkeller.com or call 800-558-5011.