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 PHMSA has officially withdrawn the proposal, citing a commitment to reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens and feedback from stakeholders worried about the economic impact.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- Removal of outdated “sunrise dates” from the regulations, since those deadlines had already passed.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
2025-11-18T06:00:00Z
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
2025-11-18T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsEnglishEnvironmental Management SystemsEnvironmentalIn-Depth ArticleUSAEnvironmental Management SystemsFocus AreaEnvironmental Management Systems
Navigating the complexities of multi-jurisdictional environmental compliance
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.
The compliance puzzle: Federal, state, and global layers
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:
- California requires Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions reporting for large companies starting in 2027.
- New York and Vermont have enacted climate superfund laws that hold fossil fuel companies financially liable for climate-related damages.
- Louisiana successfully challenged the EPA’s use of environmental justice criteria in permitting decisions, resulting in a federal court ruling that blocks Title VI enforcement in the state.
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.
Environmental Management Systems (EMS): A strategic solution
To manage this complexity, many companies adopt Environmental Management Systems such as ISO 14001. An EMS provides a structured framework to:
- Identify applicable regulations across jurisdictions,
- Set environmental goals and track performance,
- Conduct internal audits and drive continual improvement, and
- Ensure consistent documentation and training.
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.
Practical strategies for multi-jurisdictional success
- Centralize compliance oversight: Use a unified system to track permits, deadlines, and reporting across all sites.
- Leverage EMS tools: Automate alerts, audits, and documentation to stay ahead of changes.
- Train staff by location: Tailor training to reflect the specific rules and risks of each jurisdiction.
- Conduct routine audits: Internal reviews help catch issues before regulators do.
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.
Keep reading...Show less
2025-11-18T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsEnforcement and Audits - OSHAOSHA InspectionsEnforcement and Audits - OSHASafety & HealthConstruction SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyAgriculture SafetyMaritime SafetyFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleEnglishOSHA Violations and PenaltiesUSA
Enforcement wave hits OSHA state plans, FY 2024 report warns
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 inspection counts rose
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).
State violation figures were mixed
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.
Penalty amounts skyrocketed
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-plan states
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:
- State-plan states covering private and public employer sectors — Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.
- State-plan states covering public employer sectors only — Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Virgin Islands. (Federal OSHA has jurisdiction over private sector employers in these states.)
Key to remember
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.
Keep reading...Show less
2025-11-18T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsDrug and alcohol policy - Motor CarrierFleet SafetyRisk Management TransportationDrug and Alcohol Testing - DOTRisk Management - Motor CarrierDrug and alcohol training - Motor CarrierIn-Depth ArticleSupervisor alcohol and drug training - Motor CarrierFocus AreaEnglishTransportationUSA
Train front-line personnel on their DOT testing roles
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.
1. Removing drivers from SSFs
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:
- What instructions will the driver be provided on parking the truck once notified?
- How will the manager find the closest and most convenient spot to direct the driver to park? (Note: You can’t wait until the driver arrives at their destination.)
- How will another driver be dispatched to complete the run?
- How is the event handled discreetly and confidentially? A violation is confidential and can only be shared with others on a need-to-know basis.
- How will the truck and cargo be safeguarded until a relief driver arrives?
- How does the driver get home? Remember, riding along in a cab is still performing a SSF.
2. Arranging reasonable suspicion tests
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:
- Allowing the driver to drive to the collection site, and
- Calling a taxi and allowing the driver to go to the site alone.
A process manual should answer:
- Who at the carrier will accompany the driver to the collection site?
- How will the carrier get the driver back to the terminal after the test?
- How will the driver get home after the test or in the event the driver refuses to test?
- Is enforcement called if the driver drives a personal vehicle off the lot?
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:
- Suspension with or without pay,
- Backpay when the test is negative,
- Reassignment to a non-regulated position during the wait, and
- Union arbitration considerations.
3. Ordering post-accident tests
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:
- Are they working with a consortium/third-party administrator?
- Do they need to call a clinic network or local hospital to find a DOT facility?
- Is mobile testing an option?
- Do they have contact information for law enforcement who are investigating the crash to know if circumstances change requiring testing?
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.
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.