What is a driver salesperson and can I be one?

Five-fold increase

The move aims to cut much more than a similar “two-for-one” order issued at the start of President Trump’s first stint in the White House in 2017. That order applied only to regulations that would cost $100 million or more.

The White House says the 2017 order was “the most aggressive and successful regulatory reduction effort in history” and eliminated five and one-half regulations for every new one issued.

The new order, according to a White House fact sheet, says that whenever an agency promulgates a new rule, regulation, or guidance, it must identify at least 10 existing rules, regulations, or guidance documents to be repealed.

It will be up to the head of the White House Office of Management and Budget to enforce the order and ensure agencies use a standard measuring stick to verify compliance.

The order also requires that for fiscal year 2025 (which ends September 30), “the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations, be significantly less than zero,” the fact sheet says. The order itself was not available on the White House website when this article was published.

The new executive order comes on the heels of another directive, issued January 20, 2025, that put a freeze on all pending regulations until the new administration has time to review them.

‘Fire from the Storm’ video

The CSB’s new 17-minute safety video, "Fire from the Storm," includes a riveting animation of the events leading to a fire and toxic gas release. The incident occurred when Hurricane Laura damaged a chemical storage facility in Louisiana.

Rainwater then reached the chemical storage. The chemical decomposed, producing toxic chlorine gas and a fire. A large plume of chlorine traveled over the community.

The CSB video calls on OSHA and EPA to amend regulations on Process Safety and Risk Management, respectively. Five key safety issues contributing to the incident are covered:

• Extreme weather preparation,
• Process hazard analyses,
• Emergency preparedness and response,
• Adherence to hazardous materials codes, and
• Gaps in regulatory coverage of reactive chemical hazards.

The latest video follows two others issued in October and July. It also aligns with an alert shared last July on hurricane preparedness.

Cold weather alert

Cold weather can crack or break pipes. It can also lead to ruptured or damaged process equipment and/or failing instruments. In December, CSB rang alarm bells over an uptick in chemical incidents during cold weather. The CSB alert listed over a dozen safety steps and links to guidance on cold weather operations.

Process safety management programs are regulated at 29 CFR 1910.119. Per the alert, these programs should consider how low temperatures may affect piping, equipment, and instruments. Equipment susceptible to ice or hydrate formation should also be identified and properly winterized.

Extreme weather dangers are a recurring theme for CSB. Last July, during hurricane season, Owens said, “When it comes to extreme weather, chemical companies should expect the unexpected and must always be prepared for the worst-case scenario.”

Event summaries issued

In a move toward transparency, CSB compiled summaries for 26 of the chemical incident reports it has received. These events summarized in Incident Reports Volume 1 resulted in five fatalities, 17 serious injuries, and about $697M in property damage in 15 states since April 2020.

For over two years the board has posted “overall” data about incidents reported under 40 CFR 1604. That’s the Reporting of Accidental Releases standard. CSB now calls this standard the “Accidental Release Reporting Rule (ARRR).”

For the record, CSB has received 460 reports in the last five years. The reports reveal 68 fatalities and 249 serious injuries/illnesses. Over 200 of these incidents involved property damage of $1M or more.

The overall data reports provide:

• The name and location of the chemical facility,
• The date of the incident, and
• Whether the incident involved a fatality, serious injury, or substantial property damage.

However, the latest Volume 1 also reveals:

• A summary of the event,
• Its probable cause, and
• Images of the involved facility or incident scene.

Owens argued, “The American people have a right to know about the kinds of dangerous chemical incidents that happen across this country every week.”

Reporting form change

It’s worth noting that CSB updated its Accidental Release Reporting Form and Instructions last June. The changes:

• Merge the form and instructions into a single document;
• Make minor formatting and grammar corrections;
• Indicate a fourth reporting method (to call CSB to relay the National Response Center ID number);
• Clarify that only “substantial” property damage information is required; and
• Add a confidential and disclosure statement.

Key to remember

CSB continues to deliver videos, weather-related alerts, and data. The agency has also updated its reporting form and launched an initiative to reveal more incident details on a regular basis. Expect more from the board in 2025, along with any number of investigative reports.

Proposed legislation

Bipartisan legislation has recently been introduced in the House that would require businesses to provide restroom access to truckers who are loading or delivering cargo at their warehouses, manufacturers, distribution centers, retailers, and ports.

Supported by leading organizations in the trucking industry, the Trucker Bathroom Access Act (H.R. 9592) was introduced on Dec. 15, 2022. The bill requires retailers, warehouses, and other establishments with existing restrooms to provide access to drivers who are loading or delivering cargo. Additionally, operators of ports and marine terminals must provide access for drayage and parking while accessing such restrooms.

This amendment to Title 49 would exempt some employers from the bill including filling and service stations, and restaurants 800-square feet or smaller with restrooms intended for employee use only. The bill doesn’t require employers to construct new restrooms but to give truck drivers the same access as employees or customers.

Your restroom availability affects their health

Commercial truckers and delivery drivers are the lifeline of our supply chain of supplies, products, and consumables. Working tirelessly all hours, during holidays and weekends, and throughout the pandemic, they continue to deliver critical food and emergency supplies to companies everywhere. Employers have the privilege of demonstrating gratitude to truckers and delivery drivers with a positive work environment.

The benefits of allowing truckers and delivery drivers the convenience and safety of readily available, sanitary restroom facilities are plenty. They’re able to rest and reset when necessary, which keeps them and others safer on the roads. Equally important, restroom availability prevents drivers from having to search for available facilities elsewhere, allowing them to keep a timely delivery schedule, limit supply chain delays, and ultimately lower costs for employers and customers.

Keys to remember

The proposed Trucker Bathroom Access Act will require retailers, warehouses, and other establishments with existing restrooms to provide access to truckers and delivery drivers who are loading or delivering cargo. Access to restrooms keeps them refreshed and ready to deliver essential supplies to companies across the country.

What are TRI supplier notifications?

Supplier notification helps ensure that purchasers are informed that products they purchase have TRI-listed substances. Covered suppliers must send notifications for mixtures or trade name products with TRI chemicals to:

• Their customers if their customers own or operate TRI facilities, or
• Anyone who will later distribute that mixture or trade name product to others who own or operate TRI facilities.

Supplier notifications must include:

• A statement that the mixture or trade name product contains a TRI chemical,
• The chemical name and Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CASRN), and
• The percentage (by weight) of that chemical within the mixture or trade name product.

The supplier notification must be in writing. If you’re required to prepare and distribute a safety data sheet (SDS) for the mixture or trade name product under OSHA 29 CFR 1910.1200, then:

• Your supplier notification must be attached to the SDS, or
• The SDS must be modified to include the required supplier notification information.

Typically, the supplier notification is found in section 15 of the SDS.

Who’s required to send a supplier notification?

Notifications must be provided by a facility or establishment that:

• Has a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code that corresponds to Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20-39;
• Manufactures (including imports) or processes a TRI chemical; and
• Sells or otherwise distributes that chemical within a mixture or trade name product to TRI-covered facilities or others who may, in turn, distribute such a mixture or trade name product to TRI-covered facilities.

If a facility meets all three criteria, then a supplier notification is required with at least the first shipment of the calendar year containing that TRI chemical. For chemicals newly added to the TRI list, notifications must be provided starting with the effective year of the chemical on the TRI list.

What’s the problem?

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2020 automatically updates the list of toxic chemicals subject to TRI reporting. This update happens annually as of January 1 of the year following specific triggering events. (See the preamble to the proposed rule for a list of triggering events.)

EPA must also publish a final rule to update the TRI list in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs). However, the problem is these final rules and conforming CFR edits have trailed the January 1 effective date. Stakeholders have questioned whether the supplier notification requirements for such NDAA-added PFAS begin either:

• On January 1, when the PFAS is added to the statutory TRI chemical list; or
• Upon EPA completing a rule to include the added PFAS in the CFRs.

The answer is the supplier notification requirements begin on January 1, when the PFAS is added to the statutory TRI chemical list. Suppliers that wait until EPA issues a rule may run into noncompliance.

What’s proposed?

On January 17, EPA proposed to edit the definition of “toxic chemical.” Specifically, EPA includes in the definition the PFAS that are automatically added to the TRI chemical list pursuant to the NDAA. Such PFAS are effectively TRI-listed chemicals as of the applicable January 1st following specific triggering events.

Put another way, EPA proposes to amend the CFR to confirm that the TRI chemical list includes:

• All chemicals found at 40 CFR 372.65; AND

• Any PFAS that have been automatically added pursuant to NDAA section 7321(c), which is codified at 15 U.S.C. 8921(c)(1).

Because some covered PFAS will not be listed in the CFR right away, the regulated community can find information on the latest NDAA-added PFAS here.

How does it work?

Let’s say a PFAS or class of PFAS is listed as added automatically to TRI on January 1, 2024. That means it was added for reporting year 2024. Supplier notifications would start January 1, 2024. Then, TRI-covered facilities would report for that PFAS or class of PFAS by the July 1, 2025, reporting deadline (and in later years).

Similarly, a PFAS or class of PFAS listed as added on January 1, 2025, means it’s added this reporting year (2025). So, those supplier notifications started January 1, 2025, and TRI-covered facilities would report the PFAS or class of PFAS by the July 1, 2026, deadline (and in later years).

What’s the comment deadline?

According to the proposed rule, comments must be received on or before February 18, 2025.

Key to remember

EPA proposes to clarify the timeline for chemical suppliers. It specifies when to notify customers that a product contains a PFAS regulated under 40 CFR 372. Comments are due by February 18, 2025.

The importance of CPR and early defibrillation

For every minute a patient is in cardiac arrest, their chances of survival decrease dramatically. When a patient doesn’t have a pulse and isn’t breathing, CPR should be performed until an AED is available. It’s important to note that CPR alone does not restart the heart. CPR is an oxygen circulation procedure. AEDs, on the other hand, are meant for lifesaving intervention.

CPR and early defibrillation are vital components of the emergency medical services (EMS) chain of survival that increases the odds of cardiac patient survival. However, according to the American Heart Association (AHA), even the best CPR can’t provide enough circulation of oxygen to the brain and heart for more than a few minutes. In fact, a patient whose brain is deprived of oxygen for 10 minutes or more seldom recovers.

Signs and symptoms of cardiac compromise

Just like a reliable vehicle, the circulatory system is the human body’s blood transportation system, and the heart is the engine. Amazingly, the heart generates its own electrical impulses, pumping in a regular, rhythmic manner. As with any engine, the heart requires a certain amount of pressure to function and doesn’t work well when clogged with grease or debris. The most common causes of sudden cardiac arrest include a heart attack, electrocution, and asphyxiation — all of which could occur in the workplace. Common signs and symptoms include:

• Chest pain accompanied by a crushing or squeezing sensation,
• Pain that radiates to the jaw or arm,
• Irregular pulse and/or abnormal blood pressure,
• Shortness of breath,
• Cool and sweaty skin,
• Nausea and vomiting, and
• Anxiety or feeling of impending doom.

CPR provides the pressure for the body’s “engine” to oxygen circulating, while an AED provides the electrical impulses to keep the engine pumping.

OSHA requirements regarding CPR

OSHA 1910.151 requires first aid treatment be provided in the absence of an infirmary, clinic, or hospital in near proximity to the workplace used to treat injured employees. This may include assisting a victim of cardiac arrest using CPR or defibrillation.

OSHA requirements for CPR and defibrillation differ considerably. Standards requiring CPR include:

• 1910.146 Permit-required Confined Spaces
• 1910.266 Appendix B: Logging Operations – First Aid and CPR Training
• 1910.269 Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution
• 1910.410 Qualifications of Dive Team and
• 1926.950 Construction Subpart V, Power Transmission and Distribution

OSHA recommends basic adult CPR refresher training and retesting every year, and first aid training at least once every three years. CPR training include facilitated discussion along with ’hands-on’ skills training that uses mannequins and partner practice.

OSHA requirements regarding AEDs — you might need a prescription

Though OSHA recognizes AEDs as important lifesaving technology that plays a role in treating cardiac arrest, the agency doesn’t currently require their use in the workplace. Instead, OSHA wants employers to assess their own requirements for AEDs as part of their first aid response.

AEDs are considered Class III medical devices which means the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has some oversight on their use. Almost all AEDs require the purchaser to obtain a prescription from a physician under FDA regulations. The prescription process is meant as a quality control mechanism to ensure AEDs are properly maintained, that all designated responders are properly trained, and assist employers with establishing an emergency response plan for their workplace AED program.

The AHA requires AED operators to also receive CPR training as an “integral part of providing lifesaving aid to people suffering sudden cardiac arrest.” Though easy to use, each AED is slightly different, so training helps users understand the unique traits and supplies for the individual units at their workplace. Additionally, AED users must be trained to understand the signs of a sudden cardiac arrest, when to activate the EMS system, and how to perform CPR.

AEDs are light, portable, easy to use, and inexpensive. They’re best placed near high-hazard areas such as confined spaces, near electrical energy, or in remote work areas. Response time to reach AEDs should be kept within 3–5-minutes.

Training requirements

Many states require or encourage CPR and AED training from nationally recognized organizations. Any AED training should include CPR training. OSHA doesn’t offer first aid or CPR training, nor certify trainers. Training by a nationally recognized organization, such as AHA, the American Red Cross, or National Safety Council is recommended.

Keys to Remember

While OSHA doesn’t currently require the use of AEDs in the workplace, they do expect employers to assess their own AED requirements as part of their first aid response. AED training is required by most states and should include CPR with a hands-on practical component.

The ‘LICENSE Act’

The Licensing Individual Commercial Exam-takers Now Safely and Efficiently (LICENSE) Act, introduced on January 24, is garnering support as a way to help ease supply chain challenges by increasing the number of truck drivers in the U.S.

The bill builds on waivers the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. It helps truck drivers get their commercial driver’s license (CDL) faster to get them on the road delivering freight sooner.

If passed, the LICENSE Act will:

• Expand CDL testing: State and third-party examiners would be authorized to administer both the CDL skills and knowledge tests, speeding up the licensing process without compromising safety.
• Provide flexible supervision for CLP holders: Licensed drivers accompanying commercial learner’s permit (CLP) holders could move to the sleeper berth of the truck, recognizing that many CLP holders have already passed their road tests and are waiting on their official CDL.
• Streamline testing across states: States would be allowed to administer driving skills tests to applicants from other states, making it easier for future truckers to complete testing close to home.

“The LICENSE Act streamlines the CDL testing process by allowing states to test applicants regardless of their residency or training location,” Ryan Streblow, President and CEO of the National Tank Truck Carriers, said in a press release.

Streblow went on to say that this type of efficiency is a commonsense approach to addressing workforce shortages.

Only one step in the overall hiring process

While this bill, if passed, could signify a win for carriers, it’s only one step in the driver recruiting and retention process. It might speed things up on the front end, but from there the ball’s in the carrier’s court to retain a new driver.

Recruiting and retaining quality drivers is perhaps the biggest contributing factor to any motor carrier’s overall success. Industry studies support the fact that the longer a company retains a driver, the safer, more efficient, and profitable that driver becomes.

Effective recruitment and retention may include looking at both internal or external sources for drivers, ensuring that pay and benefit packages are attractive to both new and existing drivers, and closely examining the work environment.

Key to remember: A bill was recently introduced to speed up the CDL process. But that’s only one part of a solid driver hiring and retention program.

The basics of logging exemptions

To be able to use this logging exemption in 395.1(e)(1), the driver must:

• Stay within 150 air-miles of the work reporting location for the day (draw a 150 air-mile radius circle around the work reporting location for the day — the driver must stay within this circle),
• Be back to — and released from — the work reporting location for his/her 8- or 10-hour break within 14 hours, and
• Include the starting and ending times for the day and the total hours on duty on the time record for the day.

The company must retain the time record and have it available for inspection for six months.

What if the driver goes too far or works too many hours?

If the driver cannot meet the terms of the exemption (he or she goes too far or works too many hours), the driver must complete a regular driver’s log for the day as soon as the exemption no longer applies.

If the driver has had to complete a log 8 or fewer days out of the last 30 days, the driver can use a paper log for the day. If the driver had to complete a log more than 8 days out of the last 30 days, the driver needs to use an electronic log for the day (unless one of the ELD exemptions applies, such as operating a vehicle older than model year 2000).

30-minute break exemption

When a property-carrying driver is operating under the 150 air-mile exemption, the driver is also exempt from having to take the required 30-minute break (see 395.3(a)(3)(ii)).

If the driver began the day as a 150 air-mile driver and has driven more than 8 consecutive hours without a break, and something unexpected happens and the driver can no longer use the 150 air-mile exemption, the driver must stop and immediately take the 30-minute break as well as start logging. If the driver went outside of the 150 air-mile area before the driver had 8 hours of driving without a break from driving, the driver would be expected to take the break at the appropriate time.

Common myths

Here are some of the common myths and misunderstandings about the 150 air-mile exemption:

• The driver must have the time records in the vehicle. Myth. The driver simply needs to explain to an officer during a roadside inspection that he/she does not have logs due to operating under the 150 air-mile exemption and that the required time records are back at the carrier’s office (just telling the officer, “I don’t have any logs” will lead to a violation, so the driver needs to know to provide the full explanation).
• The driver must log the previous seven days if he/she had been using this exemption and suddenly can’t. Myth. If the driver cannot use the exemption on one particular day, that is the only day the driver must use a regular log (either paper or electronic).
• Passenger-carrying drivers and drivers hauling hazardous materials cannot use this exemption. Myth. There are no restrictions on the use of this exemption, so any commercial driver can use it.
• A driver that crosses state lines cannot use this exemption. Myth. As this exemption appears in the Federal Motor Carrier Administration (FMCSA) regulations, it can be used by interstate drivers.
• Only drivers that operate out of a “company terminal” can use the 150 air-mile exemption. Myth. As long as the driver makes it back to the work reporting location for the day within the appropriate number of hours, the driver can use the exemption.
• Drivers that move from one jobsite to another every few weeks cannot use this exemption. Myth. If a driver that normally uses this exemption switches work reporting locations, the day the driver switches work reporting locations is the only day the driver cannot use the exemption.
• Drivers covered by this exemption are also exempt from the driver qualification (licensing and medical cards), driving, and vehicle inspection requirements. Myth. The only rules the driver is exempt from are the logging requirement in 395.8 and the 30-minute break requirement in 395.3.
• The driver cannot drive more than 150 miles for the day. Myth. The driver can drive as many miles as he/she wants to or needs to, as long as the driver stays within the 150 air-mile radius circle and gets back to the work reporting location within the appropriate number of hours.
• If a 150 air-mile driver gets into a vehicle with an ELD, the driver must use it. Myth. The carrier can have the driver log in and have the driver entered into the system as an “exempt driver,” or the carrier can request that the driver not log into the device and then attach a comment to the unassigned driving time generated by the driver’s movements. The comment would need to explain that the driver using the vehicle was a 150 air-mile driver who submitted a time record. It is up to the carrier to decide which option to use. If stopped for a roadside inspection, the driver will need to be able to explain to the inspector that he/she is an exempt driver using the 150 air-mile exemption, so using the electronic log is not required.

What’s different with the ‘150 air-mile non-CDL property-carrying drivers’

The 150 air-mile exemption at 395.1(e)(2) only applies to drivers that: Operate property-carrying vehicles that do not require a CDL to operate, and Stay within the 150 air-miles of their work reporting location.

If the driver stays within the 150 air-mile radius of the work reporting location, and returns to the work reporting location within 14 hours on 5 of the last 7 days, and 16 hours on 2 of the last seven days, the driver is allowed to use a time record in place of a log.

If the driver does not meet the terms of the exception, the driver will need to complete a log for the day. If the driver had to log more than 8 days out of the last 30 days, the driver will need to use an electronic log for the day. All of the other issues discussed above would apply to these drivers as well.

Managing the use

If you have drivers that use these exemptions, you will need to check time records to make sure they are complying with the appropriate time limits. You will also need to check movement records to verify that the drivers using these exemptions are staying within the mandated area (within 150 air-miles of the work reporting location for the day).

If a driver is over the hours limit, or has gone too far, you need to verify that the submitted a log for the day, either paper or electronic, depending on how many days the driver had to log out of the previous 30 days.

Verifying compliance is important

During an audit, if it is discovered that your drivers are using these exemptions incorrectly, you will be cited for not having drivers’ logs when required. Each day this occurred will be another violation, so the fine could be rather large if you are not managing the use of these exemptions!

Current state: What’s required

An individual is required to successfully complete ELDT to:

• Obtain an initial Class A or Class B CDL;
• Upgrade from a Class B to Class A CDL; or
• Obtain an initial passenger, school bus, or hazardous materials endorsement.

Individuals must complete a course of theory and behind-the-wheel instruction, offered by an entity listed on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) Training Provider Registry (TPR). To be listed on the TPR, an entity must meet specific requirements related to everything from curriculum to facilities.

An individual must successfully complete this training and have proof of completion prior to taking the skills test for the new license or endorsement. In the case of the hazardous materials endorsement, which doesn’t require a skills test, proof of completion must be presented prior to taking the knowledge test.

Challenges faced: ELDT and the modified CDL skills test

One of the more confusing issues that has cropped up in the past year is the implementation of the modified CDL skills test by state driver licensing agencies. Many training providers incorrectly believe the modified CDL skills test has an impact on the ELDT requirements, when actually, the ELDT requirements and CDL skills testing are two separate issues.

The ELDT requirements are not changing, as they are intended to ensure an individual possesses the knowledge and skills needed to safely operate a commercial motor vehicle. They do not address, nor are they intended to directly address the CDL skills test.

What has changed is how state driver licensing agencies conduct the CDL skills test. All states are in the process of adopting a new “modernized CDL skills test.” The modernized test slims down the pre-trip inspection process and basic control portion of the skills test.

The ELDT requirements were never intended to "train for the test." Training that specifically addresses the test is something that may be done by a training provider, but this would be done in addition to ELDT.

Another challenge: The continued increase of providers on TPR

The number of schools and entities that have registered on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA’s) Training Provider Registry (TPR) continues to grow.

As of January 30, 2025, there are 39,484 training providers listed on the TPR. This includes:

• 35,703 in-person providers;
• 1,810 online providers; and
• 1,971 traveling providers.

Of these 39,484 training providers, 8,075 offer ELDT to the public. This is an increase of just over 15 percent (15.3 percent) from 2024 to 2025.

Over the past two years (2023 to 2025), the overall number of training providers has grown by 36 percent.

This continued growth has some training providers, motor carriers, and the general public expressing concern, as under the current TPR registration system, ELDT providers self-certify that they meet the criteria to provide ELDT. Until recently, almost all applications were approved, as there was little verification of the information listed on the application.

The road ahead: Addressing concerns and the future

Over the past year, FMCSA started taking steps to address concerns related to the TPR, including:

• A stricter review of TPR applications;
• Posting lists of providers under review and providers removed from the TPR on the TPR website; and
• Working with state partners to ensure training providers listed on the TPR are meeting any applicable state-specific requirements, including registering as a training provider with the state.

It is expected that FMCSA will continue moving forward with these measures. The goal — ensuring those listed on the TPR are meeting regulatory requirements.

Key to remember: With the continued growth of ELDT providers on the TPR, scrutiny by FMCSA is expected to become more prevalent. Providers need to make sure they are following all regulatory requirements.

For-hire vs. private

For-hire carriers use vehicles to transport people or property and are paid for their service. The fee could be a direct fee like a fare or a rate but could also be other indirect forms of compensation. Examples of for-hire operations include a trucking company that hauls other people’s property for a fee (direct compensation) or a hotel that includes in its service the transportation to and from the airport to the hotel (indirect compensation).

Private carriers, on the other hand, transport only their own goods or people. Examples include a manufacturer that uses its own commercial vehicles to transport its product, a construction or landscaping company that uses commercial vehicles to transport equipment and employees to job sites, or a utility company that operates commercial vehicles in support of its operations.

For-hire operating authority

While private carriers are not required to obtain operating authority from the FMCSA, for-hire carriers are required to get authority to move property or people that belong to somebody else and get paid for their service. Having authority is often referred to as having an MC Number.

The most common types of authority are:

• Property for-hire
• Passenger for-hire
• Household goods
• Broker
• Freight forwarder

If a company never operates a commercial motor vehicle (CMV), it is possible to have authority, but not have a USDOT number. For example, straight brokers or freight forwarders.

As part of obtaining for-hire authority, carriers must designate process agents and demonstrate financial responsibility (have proper insurance coverage).

One size does not fit all

Authorities are not all-inclusive. Separate authority is needed for each type of service offered. For instance, a for-hire, over-the-road carrier that also wants to be able to resell its extra demand will need both for-hire and brokerage authorities. A company is required to pay a $300 one-time fee for each type of authority needed.

Permanent authority required

There are no temporary permits available to substitute for authority. For-hire operations may not be performed until the proper authority has been granted. It’s not uncommon for otherwise private carriers to become for-hire carriers to generate revenue on back-hauls or help balance capacity and demand during slow periods or seasons.

Getting it right

Carriers need to get it right when it comes to authority. Carriers required to have authority — but don’t and operate anyway — can get themselves into trouble. Penalties for operating without proper authority can get expensive and can result in out-of-service orders.

DOT D & A quiz

1. Can we send our driver for DOT post-accident testing following a crash involving a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) requiring a commercial driver’s license (CDL) when the criteria in 382.303 are not met?
   1. Yes
   2. No
2. How can a driver return to safety-sensitive functions following a DOT testing violation?
   1. The driver must complete the return-to-duty process
   2. The Prohibited Status must be lifted from the driver’s Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse record
   3. The driver must reclaim their downgraded CDL
   4. All the above
3. What training is required of a designated employer representative (DER)?
   1. 1 hour on drugs
   2. 1 hour on alcohol
   3. Both a and b
   4. None
4. How should we handle a negative dilute specimen?
   1. It depends on the circumstances
   2. Send the driver for another test, but under direct observation
   3. Accept the test as negative
   4. Send the driver for another test, but not under direct observation
5. Are we required to request Clearinghouse queries on CDL holders operating non-CDL CMVs for our carrier?
   1. Yes
   2. No

Answer key

1. b. No. You can’t test under DOT authority unless the testing criteria are met at the time of notification. Any testing at this point must be under company policy using non-DOT forms. In the event circumstances change requiring DOT testing, you can’t use these non-DOT tests for DOT compliance. The driver must submit to testing again; this time using DOT forms.
2. d. All the above. There are many steps to reinstating a driver who has violated DOT testing under 49 CFR Part 382, including:
   • A substance abuse professional’s (SAP) evaluations and treatment/education. The driver must designate the SAP in the Clearinghouse, so the SAP can enter the completed steps.
   • A DOT negative return-to-duty drug and/or alcohol test reported to the Clearinghouse by either a motor carrier or consortium.
   • Reclaiming of the CDL by the driver following a downgrade by the state DMV due to the Prohibited Status. The driver will have to work with the state on getting the license back.
   Once back to performing safety-sensitive functions, the driver is subject to follow-up testing as prescribed by the SAP. 
3. d. None. The DER is not subject to training, although it’s beneficial. Everyone at the motor carrier involved with safety must know and comply with applicable regulations (see 390.3(e)). But this doesn’t require a specific training curriculum, since this could be achieved by way of job experience. The two-hour training only applies to those supervisors requesting reasonable suspicion tests, which may not be the DER.
4. a. It depends on the circumstances. If the creatinine level is too far outside of range, the MRO will instruct the DER to send the driver for a recollection under direct observation. If the MRO doesn’t require a new test, the motor carrier’s policy determines if a recollection (not under direct observation) will be performed. If there is no such policy, the carrier can accept the test as negative. 
5. b. No. However, if you’re subject to Part 382, which allows you access to Clearinghouse queries, you may have a policy of requesting queries on CDL holders in non-CDL positions. You need the driver’s consent. 

Key to remember: No matter how long you have been working with DOT drug and alcohol testing, there will always be those situations that might stump you. Using our Expert Help feature is a great place to work through those difficult scenarios.

The situation

An employer required employees to wear uniforms. When employees worked with lead and other hazards, they had to wear extra personal protective equipment (PPE) like:

• Safety glasses,
• Safety shoes,
• Hard hats, and
• Respirators.

Employees also had to shower after their shifts to remove any contaminants.

In 2003, the employer started giving employees five minutes at the start of each shift to put on their PPE and get to their workstations. They also got five minutes at the end of their shift to remove their PPE and shower. In 2016, the employer doubled the post-shift time to 10 minutes but didn’t record how much time workers actually spent changing and showering.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) got wind of this and sued the employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for not paying employees for all time spent changing and showering. The DOL hired an expert, who estimated that workers spent 15.6 minutes dressing pre-shift and 11 minutes post-shift undressing and showering — more time than the employer paid them.

In court, the employer had the burden of proving that any unpaid time was too small to be considered paid time or worth the effort to be taxed, measured, or counted. It did not meet their burden.

The argument

The employer argued that it did enough by paying the employees for the two grace periods, the time it believed was reasonable. Focusing on actual time, it claimed, would reward employees for dragging their feet or tending to personal matters — lollygagging.

The DOL argued that the FLSA focuses on actual time and that employers must pay employees for all hours worked. The wage-and-hour provisions track the hours that employees work; they say nothing about a reasonableness limit. Plus, the FLSA orders employers to track actual hours and keep records of them.

The ruling

The court ruled in favor of the employees, telling the employer that it had to pay employees for the time they actually spent on changing and showering, not just the time the employer thought employees reasonably needed to do so.

If “reasonable time” was enough, employers could instead estimate hours, but estimating violates the FLSA’s recordkeeping requirement.

If an employee lollygags, the employer’s recourse is to discipline or terminate the employee — not to withhold compensation.

Because the time spent before and after shifts was not de minimis, the employer owed 11,780 hourly uniformed workers roughly $22.25 million in back pay. The employer also had to keep records of that time.

U.S. Department of Labor v. East Penn Manufacturing Company, Inc., Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Nos. 24-1046, 24-1059, December 19, 2024.

Key to remember: Employers must pay hourly employees for all hours worked, even if employees spend some of that time lollygagging. Employers may, however, discipline employees for lollygagging.

New resource for employers

The Department of Defense (DoD) published an instruction, effective November 15, 2024, that can help employers verify military leave. The instruction, which does not apply to non-DoD uniformed services, requires the Reserve Components of the Military Departments and the US Coast Guard to designate an “office of responsibility” to answer employers’ questions related to the timing, frequency, and duration of employee military duty. Offices of responsibility may send documentation to employers to verify dates and length of service and whether the military service is exempt from USERRA’s five years of cumulative military leave.

Employers cannot, however, rely on the instruction for all USERRA-related issues. It exempts several categories of military personnel including FEMA reservists. The military also still has the discretion to delay, defer, cancel, or reschedule military service.

USERRA basics

The USERRA covers all employers. Employees don’t have to give employers documentation before taking leave, but many do. If the leave lasts 31 days or more, employers may require employees to provide documentation to show that:

• Their application for reemployment is timely;
• They have not exceeded the five-year service limitation; and
• Their separation from the military service wasn’t for a disqualifying reason.

After leave, employees have the right to return to the position they would have had if they hadn’t taken the leave.

Key to remember: Employers could see an increase in employee military leave requests, and should be prepared.

Federal contractors impacted most

The order, along with a separate EO issued on January 20, titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” also rescinds EO 11246, which required federal contractors and subcontractors with at least 50 employees and a federal contract or subcontract of at least $50,000 to:

• Develop affirmative action programs,
• Perform annual audits of placement and pay practices, and
• Assess their outreach and recruitment programs for underrepresented members of their workforce.

These requirements have been eliminated by the EO, which says:

“The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs within the Department of Labor shall immediately cease:

• (A) Promoting ‘diversity’;
• (B) Holding federal contractors and subcontractors responsible for taking ‘affirmative action’; and
• (C) Allowing or encouraging federal contractors and subcontractors to engage in workforce balancing based on race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin.”

As of January 31, federal contractors must still:

• Comply with affirmative action regulations for individuals with disabilities and protected veterans,
• File EEO-1 reports, and
• Comply with all existing state and local affirmative action and EEO reporting requirements.

Impact on private employers

The EO contains a section titled “Encouraging the Private Sector to End Illegal DEI Discrimination and Preferences.” In this section, the heads of all agencies, with the assistance of the U.S. Attorney General, are ordered enforce federal civil rights laws and combat illegal DEI practices in the private sector.

The EO states, “This enforcement includes identifying key sectors of concern, the most egregious DEI practitioners, and specific steps to deter DEI programs that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences. Agencies are also required to identify potential civil compliance investigations of large corporations, non-profits, foundations, bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education.”

Private employers with DEI programs may want to:

1. Review all DEI programs: Make sure policies and initiatives comply with federal civil rights laws by not prioritizing race or sex over individual merit and aptitude in hiring or other employment actions. Promoting tolerance and respect in a diverse workforce is not the target of this EO, as long as it doesn't result in preferential treatment based on membership in a protected class.
2. Be ready for a compliance check: Prepare for the possibility of being investigated by federal agencies, especially if your business is a large corporation, non-profit, or educational institution.

Key to remember: DEI programs are under the scrutiny of the new administration. Employers should review their policies and procedures to make sure they comply with federal civil rights laws. Employers must keep in mind that federal, state, and local discrimination laws still apply.

1. Use new steel blades instead of chop saws and fiber blades

Chop saws with fiber blades generate significant heat, friction, and sparks, which can easily ignite combustible materials nearby. New steel blades are designed to cut through metal more efficiently while producing fewer sparks and reducing the overall fire risk. 

2. Use sawzall blades instead of metal grinders

Metal grinders create high temperatures and flying sparks that can quickly lead to fires, especially in areas with flammable dust, liquids, or insulation. Reciprocating saw blades, or sawzall blades, offer a controlled cutting method that significantly minimizes heat and spark production. By reducing the likelihood of airborne embers, reciprocating saw blades can help reduce your risk of fire.

3. Use electric shears to cut metal decking instead of circular saws

Circular saws generate intense friction and can produce hot metal shavings that scatter and land on combustible surfaces. Electric shears, on the other hand, cut metal decking cleanly without generating sparks or excessive heat, making them a safer option for fire prevention. 

4. Use a band saw to cut pipe to eliminate sparks

Using a band saw instead of traditional cutting tools like torches or abrasive wheels eliminates the risk of hot metal fragments flying into surrounding materials. Band saws produce a smooth, controlled cut with minimal heat buildup, significantly reducing the risk of fire. This method can be used on pipe, rebar, or all thread and is especially beneficial in enclosed spaces where ventilation is limited and fire risks are higher.

5. Use pro-press fittings instead of solder pipe

Soldering pipes requires an open flame or high heat, creating a major fire hazard, especially in tight spaces with combustible materials. Pro-press fittings offer a flameless solution by using a mechanical press to create a secure, leak-proof seal without the need for heat. This method not only improves fire safety but also speeds up installation time and reduces the need for fire watches.

6. Use pro-fit connections instead of brazing HVAC lines

Brazing HVAC lines involves heating metal joints with a torch, which can ignite nearby materials and require extensive fire safety precautions. Pro-fit connections provide a flame-free alternative that uses mechanical compression, reducing both fire hazards and the need for additional permits or fire watches. 

7. Use shot fasteners instead of puddle-welding metal decking

Puddle welding generates extreme heat and molten metal, creating a significant fire risk, especially in areas with flammable debris or insulation. Shot fasteners provide a secure connection for metal decking without requiring welding, making them a safer and more efficient alternative. 

Additional considerations

While these hot work alternatives may not be an option for all job sites, they are worth considering. These alternatives can be safer, more efficient, and in some cases, more cost effective. But in some situations, they could add more time to the job and could introduce risk if workers are not familiar with the tools. Training is critical for any new tool.

However, over time, these hot work alternatives could be the best option for reducing your risk of fires from hot work activities.

Key to remember: You can reduce your risk of fires by implementing hot work alternatives with pre-job planning and prevention through design.

OSHA’s announcement on helmets vs. hard hats

OSHA released a Safety and Health Bulletin (SHIB 11-22-2023) on November 22, 2023, detailing the key differences and benefits of using modern safety helmets over traditional hard hats.

And just a few weeks later, in the December 11, 2023 Trade Release, the Agency announced it would now require its inspectors to wear Type II head protection, which is also commonly referred to as safety helmets.

The two main benefits of Type II safety helmets

The November 22, 2023 SHIB discussed two main benefits of choosing modern safety helmets over traditional hard hats -- the construction of materials and the use of chinstraps.

And while OSHA has recognized the benefits of Type II safety helmets, and is actively taking steps to protect its own employees, it’s important to understand that there is not a new requirement for employers to make the switch to safety helmets.

That being said, a growing number of employers have recognized the benefits of added head protection and are choosing to use Type II helmets for their workers. In addition, some clients are starting to contractually require their construction contractors to make the switch as well.

Understanding the different types of head protection

Hard hats will have a Type I or Type II rating on the manufacturer’s sticker. These markings are based on ANSI Z89.1’s impact ratings.

Type I hard hats protect from objects or impacts from the top center area of the hard hat and are often used in work areas with no lateral head impact hazards.

Type II hard hats, on the other hand, offers protection from both top and lateral impacts and objects and is often found on construction job sites or complex general industry settings where workers face multiple head contact exposures.

Hard hats are classified based on their level of voltage protection. See the chart below.

Choosing the right head protection for your employees

Employers should conduct a job hazard analysis and/or a PPE assessment to determine which style hard hat is best for their workers. In general, OSHA recommends the use of Type II safety helmets at the following locations:

1. Construction Sites: For construction sites, especially those with high risks of falling objects and debris, impacts from equipment, or slips, trips, and falls, safety helmets have enhanced impact resistance and additional features that offer superior protection compared to the components and construction of traditional hard hats.

2. Oil and Gas Industry: In these sectors where workers face multiple hazards, including potential exposure to chemicals and severe impacts, safety helmets with additional features can provide comprehensive protection.

3. Working from Heights: For tasks or jobs that involve working from heights, safety helmets offer protection of the entire head and include features that prevent the safety helmet from falling off.

4. Electrical Work: For tasks involving electrical work or proximity to electrical hazards, safety helmets with non-conductive materials (Class G and Class E) provide protection to prevent electrical shocks. However, some traditional hard hats also offer electrical protection.

5. High-Temperature Environments: In high temperatures or where there is exposure to molten materials, safety helmets with advanced heat-resistant properties can provide additional protection to workers.

Key to remember: While there isn’t a new requirement for safety helmets, employers should review their workplace hazards to determine which style of hard hat will best protect their employees.

Why incident investigation matters

Traditionally, the term "accident" was used to describe workplace incidents. However, this term implies randomness and suggests that incidents are unavoidable. By shifting our focus to "incident" investigations, we acknowledge that incidents are preventable and through a process of investigation can be avoided.

Incident investigations are essential for uncovering the root causes and, in turn, helping prevent future occurrences. By pinpointing hazards and identifying gaps in processes, equipment, safety programs, and training, both employers and workers can implement corrective actions to enhance safety initiatives. This systematic approach not only boosts workplace safety but also improves morale and productivity by addressing underlying issues that might otherwise go unnoticed.

Steps in workplace incident investigations

Uncovering the truth behind workplace incidents requires a strategic and thorough investigation process that includes:

1. Assembling a team with relevant expertise and training to conduct the investigation. Ideally this team includes representatives from different departments and levels within the organization to ensure a thorough analysis.
2. Securing the incident scene by isolating the area to prevent further incidents or tampering with evidence. It is important to ensure the safety of all individuals involved and preserve the scene as much as possible for an accurate investigation.
3. Collecting all relevant information and evidence related to the incident. This may include photographs, videos, witness statements, equipment records, and any other documentation that can help in understanding the sequence of events leading to the incident.
4. Analyzing the root causes by identifying the immediate causes, underlying causes, and contributing factors that led to the incident. To prevent similar incidents in the future, it is important to dig deep and not just focus on the surface-level factors.
5. Developing corrective actions based on the analysis of the root causes to address the identified issues. These actions should be aimed at preventing similar incidents from occurring in the future. It is important to involve all relevant stakeholders in the development of these actions to ensure their effectiveness and feasibility.
6. Implementing and monitoring corrective actions in a timely manner. It is important to monitor the effectiveness of these actions and make any necessary adjustments. Regular follow-up and evaluation are essential to ensure that the corrective actions are achieving the desired results.

Key to remember: In our complex and dynamic workplaces, injuries are bound to occur from time to time. The key is to ensure they don't happen again! By following a systematic process—assembling a team, securing the scene, collecting evidence, analyzing root causes, and implementing corrective actions—future incidents can be prevented.

Letters of Interpretation

As clarified in an OSHA Letter of Interpretation (LOI) dated October 18, 1995, “When any part of the body of an entrant breaks the plane of the opening of a PRCS large enough to allow full entry, entry is considered to have occurred and a permit is required, regardless of whether there is an intent to fully enter the space.”

This definition of “entry” might seem to be too strict. Still, OSHA’s letter clarifies that there are situations where a partial entry would be hazardous: “Examples of situations where entry by only part of the body into a PRCS can expose an entrant to the possibility of injury or illness are as follows:

1. An entrant can possibly suffer a burn while reaching into a PRCS, which is so classified because it contains a thermal hazard.
2. An entrant can possibly fall into a below-grade PRCS while standing on a vertical ladder in the opening of the space, which is so classified because it contains an oxygen-deficient atmosphere.
3. An entrant can possibly become unconscious as result of his head accidentally entering a PRCS while they are reaching into a PRCS, which is so classified because it contains an oxygen deficient atmosphere.”

As another example, if the space contains a flammable or oxygen-enriched atmosphere, and if the activities during a partial entry could produce a spark or other ignition source, then a fire in the space could flash out of the opening and cause serious injuries to the employee.

OSHA’s guidance continues

This doesn’t necessarily mean you’d be fined if a permit wasn’t followed when someone reached a tank. OSHA’s guidance continues: “However, if entry by only part of the body does not expose the entrant to the possibility of injury or illness, then the violation may be considered a ‘de minimis’ violation.”

A de minimis violation is one in which a standard is violated, but the violation has no direct or immediate relationship to employee safety or health. These violations are documented but no citations are issued.

OSHA says examples of situations where entry by only part of the body into a PRCS would not expose an entrant to the possibility of injury or illness are as follows:

1. An entrant reaches through the opening of a horizontal PRCS, which is so classified only because it contains exposed live electrical parts ten feet from the opening.
2. An entrant puts his head through the opening of an overhead PRCS, which is so classified only because it contains unguarded rotating parts ten feet from the opening.

Also, consider a situation such as a worker reaching through a small grate to take a sample from a permitted space. The LOI further states, “If a part of the body were placed in an opening through which the worker could not pass into the permit-required confined space, no PRCS entry will have occurred.”

Keep in mind, however, that the employee would still need protection from any hazards involved in the task, but a permit would not be needed.

Key to remember

When any part of the body of an entrant breaks the plane of the opening of a PRCS large enough to allow full entry, entry is considered to have occurred, and a permit is required.

Does the FMLA cover an employee who misses work because of a hangover?

No. The FMLA doesn’t cover absences that are a result of using alcohol or illegal drugs (except for qualified substance abuse treatment). An absence for a hangover, therefore, isn’t covered by the FMLA, and an employer’s regular attendance policy would apply.

Substance abuse treatment

FMLA leave for treating alcohol or drug use is a qualifying event (assuming an employee is eligible for leave). An eligible employee who seeks medical care to address their issues with substance abuse could benefit from the FMLA’s job protections as long as the condition meets the definition of a serious health condition.

If an eligible employee, for example, enters a treatment facility for a 30-day inpatient alcohol recovery program, that time would qualify for FMLA leave. Another example would be if an eligible employee is in an outpatient program during the workday, that, too, would qualify for FMLA leave. Employees may also take shorter amounts of time off to attend support meetings.

Employers don’t have to simply take employees at their word, though. Employers may request a certification supporting the need for such leave, and the certification should provide enough information to determine if the condition is a serious health condition.

What isn’t covered?

An absence because of an employee’s illegal or inappropriate use of a substance, rather than for treatment, isn’t protected. If an employee, for example, gets arrested for driving under the influence and spends time in jail, that isn’t an FMLA-qualifying event.

An employer may take disciplinary action against an employee based on a uniformly applied substance abuse policy, as long as the action isn’t being taken because the employee has exercised their FMLA rights.

Even if the employees say that they plan on obtaining treatment sometime in the future, that’s not enough to qualify for FMLA leave. It’s only for actually receiving treatment.

Key to remember: Employees don’t have the right to FMLA leave because they are hungover but could take leave for substance abuse treatment.

Submitting employees to drug tests

Can motor carriers drug test their drivers? The short answer is no. Canada does not have a federal regulation that requires drug testing for drivers. However, this does not mean that Canadian motor carriers cannot implement and enforce a drug and alcohol policy for their drivers. In fact, many carriers have developed successful policies that minimize the risk of getting in trouble with the law and ensure the safety of their drivers and the public.

For the most part, drug testing not only violates the Human Rights Code, but it is also a gross infringement on an individual’s reasonable right to protection of privacy. Motor carriers operating in Canada need to make sure they consider the human rights and privacy rights of their drivers when implementing any type of drug testing program and policy.

Motor carriers have the right to expect their drivers to arrive at work fit for duty and remain that way throughout the duration of their shift. Communicating this expectation to them is important and, at a minimum, should be communicated by implementing a ”fit-for-work” policy that makes your expectations around impairment of any kind clear.

When drug testing may be permissible

There are some circumstances in which drug testing is allowed, though they are rare and very specific.

1. Safety-sensitive positions: Universal random drug testing would be acceptable in workplaces that can be shown to be extremely dangerous and where a worker’s impairment would likely result in catastrophe. Based on this definition commercial truck drivers would be considered to be in a safety-sensitive position.

2. Reasonable suspicion of impairment: If an employee appears to be obviously impaired, drug testing may be permissible, especially if they’re involved in a collision and there is reasonable suspicion that they are under the influence of drugs.

3. As part of a rehabilitation/return-to-work program: A driver with substance abuse disorder may be subject to unannounced drug testing to be carried out as part of a rehabilitation program and return-to-work program.

Unlike in the United States, pre-employment drug testing is generally not permitted in Canada, except in limited circumstances. Each Canadian province has its own legislation regarding testing for drugs. In Alberta, the courts have been less protective of individual privacy rights and have allowed drug testing in the oil and gas sector. Most companies in Ontario and British Columbia opt not to test for drugs, adhering to human rights legislation and privacy concerns.

Policies must be clear

Motor carriers must inform their drivers about the drug and alcohol policy and unlike U.S. testing programs, are required to obtain their consent before conducting any test. By working together, motor carriers and drivers can create a safe and healthy work environment for everyone involved.

Carriers should update their policies addressing drug and alcohol use at least once per year. Carriers must pay close attention to:

• Permissible testing for the jurisdictions they operate in, including if they cross the border into the United States;
• Frequent reminders for drivers on their obligations under the policies; and
• Training for managers and supervisors on detecting impairment through physical symptoms.

Key to remember: Drug testing in Canada is legal but not regulated, so carriers must exercise caution when implementing a drug testing policy. There’s a fine line between allowable testing and human rights/employee privacy violations.