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
2025-06-26T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsEnforcement and Audits - OSHAEnforcement and Audits - OSHASafety & HealthConstruction SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyIn-Depth ArticleEnglishFocus AreaUSA
Landscaping season is in full swing: Are your workers safe?
A 32-year-old worker was operating a riding lawnmower along the edge of a steep embankment with a 10-foot drop to a drainage ditch. The lawnmower overturned, pinning the worker at the bottom of the ditch for five minutes before coworkers managed to free the worker. The injured worker was transported to the hospital but died from the injuries three days later. This tragic incident shows the kind of hazards landscaping employees face. Heat and unsafe operation of lawn equipment are among the more obvious hazards. However, exposure to chemicals, excessive noise, heavy lifting, and repetitive motions also pose a risk. Still other hazard sources include power tools, electrical equipment, motor vehicles, rough terrain, and trenching/excavations.
As illustrated earlier, these hazards can be deadly. A Bureau of Labor Statistics report shows 1,242 work-related fatalities occurred in the landscaping and groundskeeping industry from 2011 to 2022. That’s over 100 per year!
Regulatory requirements depend on hazard exposures
You won’t find a comprehensive OSHA regulation for landscaping or lawncare. Instead, the agency relies on its general industry and construction standards, where applicable. OSHA highlights the following standards, but there may be others:
- Bloodborne pathogens — 1910.1030;
- Electrical safety — 1910.332, 1910.333, 1910.334, and 1926.403;
- Excavation — 1926.651;
- Fall protection — 1910.28 and 1926.501;
- Hazard communication (HazCom) — 1910.1200;
- Housekeeping — 1926.25;
- Lockout/tagout — 1910.147;
- Medical and first aid — 1910.151 and 1926.50;
- Personal protective equipment (PPE) — 1910.132, 1910.134, 1910.135, 1910.136, 1926.100, 1926.101, and 1926.102;
- Respirable crystalline silica — 1926.1153;
- Rollover protective structures — 1926 Subpart W;
- Sanitation — 1910.141 and 1926.51;
- Telecommunications — 1910.268;
- Tools— 1910.243 and 1926.307;
- Lift trucks and other vehicles — 1910.67, 1910.178, 1910.180, 1926.600, 1926.601, 1926.602, and 1926.604; and
- Walking-working surfaces — 1910.22, 1910.23, 1910.27, 1910.30, 1926.451, and 1926.1060.
If the work is considered a maintenance activity, it’s covered by general industry regulations in 29 CFR 1910. If it’s considered a construction activity, you must follow applicable construction regulations in 29 CFR 1926. OSHA defines construction work as “construction, alteration, and/or repair, including painting and decorating.”
As an employer, you must assess the hazards employees are exposed to, determine and meet applicable regulations, and provide required training.
Biggest OSHA violations for the industry
The landscape and horticultural services sector is identified as North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 561730. The top OSHA violations for that code tell you where the industry was cited in fiscal year 2024:
- 1926.1153 – Respirable crystalline silica. This regulation applies to occupational exposures to respirable crystalline silica in construction work and includes provisions for protection and training.
- Section 5(a) of OSH Act - General Duty Clause. Violations may include heat/cold exposure and ergonomics, and other serious, recognized hazards not found in Parts 1910 and 1926.
- 1910.67 – Vehicle-mounted elevating and rotating work platforms. Employees must be trained to use powered platforms, manlifts, and vehicle-mounted work platforms.
- 1910.132 – PPE – general. Employers must conduct a hazard assessment, select appropriate PPE for employee use, and train employees on its proper use and care.
- 1910.135 – Head protection. Employees must wear head protection when working in areas where there’s potential for injury from falling objects and when working near exposed electrical conductors.
- 1910.1200 – HazCom. Employers must have a written HazCom program, make safety data sheets available, ensure hazardous chemical container labeling, and train employees exposed to hazardous chemicals.
- 1910.28 – Duty to have fall protection and falling object protection. Employers must provide protection and training for each employee exposed to fall and falling object hazards.
- 1910.180 – Crawler locomotive and truck cranes. Only designated personnel may operate cranes covered by 1910.180. There also are requirements for load ratings, inspections, and operational tests of equipment.
- 1910.333 – Electrical - selection and use of work practices. Employees must use safe work practices to prevent electric shock or other injuries resulting from electrical contact. These practices must be consistent with the nature and extent of the electrical hazards present.
- 1910.30 – Walking-working surfaces – training requirements. Training must be provided to employees who use personal fall protection systems and certain other equipment such as ladders, ladder safety systems, portable guardrails, designated areas, scaffolds, safety net systems, and rope descent systems.
Beyond the regulations
Regulatory requirements set a foundation for landscape employee safety and health. However, it’s important to note that machinery and equipment manuals provide guidelines for safe operation and use. Some manufacturers and distributors also offer training on the equipment they sell. Finally, safety data sheets and chemical labels offer employees precautionary information about hazardous chemicals.
Key to remember: Landscaping presents a variety of hazards. If you are an employer in the industry, you must perform a hazard assessment, determine and meet applicable general industry and construction regulations, and train employees. In addition, consider the guidelines found in equipment manuals.
Keep reading...Show less
RECENT INDUSTRY HIGHLIGHTS
2025-06-25T05:00:00Z
NewsDisabilities and ADAIn-Depth ArticleUSAHR ManagementEnglishReasonable AccommodationsIndustry NewsDiscriminationDiscriminationHR GeneralistMedical ExaminationsAssociate RelationsFocus AreaDisabilities and ADAHuman Resources
Don’t delay ADA accommodations
When an employee asks for a workplace change because of a medical condition, the employer’s obligations to find a possible solution are triggered, and they must act promptly.
Since employees usually ask their supervisors for such changes, supervisors must be able to recognize these as requests for reasonable accommodations under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
During an interactive process with the employee, employers may ask for documentation about the need for an accommodation.
But what happens if an employer asks for reasonable documentation, then asks for more, and then more? This could delay the accommodation by months, hindering the employee from being able to do the job and putting the employer at risk of violating the ADA.
The next thing the employer knows, it’s in court defending its actions. Recently, this happened to an employer.
Service dog request
Alisha worked for a school district. Her military service left her with some disabilities, for which she had a service dog. On August 30, 2022, Alisha asked her employer to allow her service dog, Inde, to accompany her to work.
After meeting on September 16, the employer asked Alisha for additional information to determine what specific job functions were impacted by her disabilities and whether there were alternative accommodations. Alisha provided a letter signed by her Veterans Affairs (VA) treating provider, who confirmed that Inde was key to Alisha’s mental and physical health recovery.
The employer, however, said the letter wasn’t sufficient because the provider wasn’t a board-certified medical doctor. Alisha thus provided a letter from her treating psychiatrist, which again confirmed that Alisha needed Inde at work.
On November 11, the employer asked Alisha to undergo an independent medical exam, and she did. After that, the employer still balked, arguing whether a service dog was the only accommodation. Alisha then provided three letters, including correspondence from two other physicians, confirming limitations, and urging that the employer approve the request.
On January 6, a frustrated Alisha filed a claim that the employer failed to accommodate her disability.
Four days later, on January 10, Alisha underwent a VA-led examination that assessed her physical disabilities. Two doctors separately confirmed that Alisha needed Inde in all settings, including the workplace.
The employer said that the documents didn’t provide any information regarding potential alternative accommodations.
On February 1, Alisha filed a lawsuit against her employer. On February 17, the employer granted her accommodation request, but it was too late.
Delay was a failure to accommodate
The court agreed with Alisha that the employer’s six-month delay in granting her accommodation constituted a failure to accommodate her disability. It indicated that employer ADA obligations, including the interactive process, are triggered when an employee asks for an accommodation.
Employers that drag their feet could force employees to work under suboptimal conditions to endure an endless interactive process. They could simply document an employee’s failures and use the employee’s difficulties as an excuse to terminate them.
Don’t drag out the interactive process
Disability laws and applicable case laws don’t require employers to move with maximum speed to complete this process and preempt any possible concerns. But employers that delay in providing reasonable accommodation may show a lack of good faith in the interactive process.
The employer’s insistence that Alisha repeatedly give it information that confirmed her disabilities and need for accommodation could be seen as unreasonable.
Strife v. Aldine Independent School District, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-20269, May 16, 2025.
Key to remember: While employers don’t have to go through the ADA’s interactive process at light speed, if they drag their feet, they can risk a violation and court case.
Keep reading...Show less
2025-06-25T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsWaste/HazWasteEmpty ContainersWasteEnvironmentalIn-Depth ArticleEnglishFocus AreaUSA
The compliance trap of “empty” containers
At first glance, an empty container seems like a non-issue – no product, no problem. But in the eyes of regulators, “empty” is a carefully defined status that can determine whether a container is harmless or still subject to hazardous waste rules, labeling, and fire or environmental risk controls. The EPA and OSHA have detailed definitions of what “empty” truly means. Misunderstanding these rules can lead to serious incidents, hefty fines, and unintentional non-compliance.
The EPA definition: “RCRA empty” explained
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), a container that once held hazardous waste is only legally “empty” if it meets particular criteria outlined in 40 CFR 261.7. The first standard that must be satisfied is that all material has been removed from the container using normal means such as pouring, pumping, or aspirating. Secondly, no more than 2.5 centimeters or 1 inch of residue remains on the container's bottom or inner lining. Additionally, if the container holds less than 110 gallons, it is “empty” if no more than 3% of the total weight or volume exists. Of course, sometimes special circumstances require further evaluation. For example, a gas cylinder is not “empty” until the pressure has reduced to atmospheric levels, and acute hazardous waste containers must be triple rinsed with an appropriate solvent or cleaned by another approved method. If these conditions are not met, the container is still legally considered to contain hazardous waste, even if it feels empty.
The OSHA definition: “Empty” under the Hazard Communication Standard
While the EPA focuses on environmental disposal and waste management, OSHA’s concern with empty containers centers on worker safety—particularly the potential for exposure to hazardous residues or vapors. Under OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200), a container that previously contained hazardous chemicals must retain its original hazard label until it is adequately cleaned or until the employer removes the label following proper decontamination procedures. For example, a drum labeled “Flammable” must keep this label even if it appears empty, as residual material or vapors may still pose a significant ignition or fire risk. Removing such labels prematurely could lead to workplace hazards and violations of OSHA regulations.
How to stay compliant
Employers must first clearly determine which rules apply to them: whether the container held hazardous materials governed by EPA regulations, hazardous chemicals subject to OSHA requirements, or both. Emptying procedures should be followed, including properly draining the container, performing triple-rinsing when required, and thoroughly documenting all decontamination activities. Original hazard labels must be maintained on containers until they are thoroughly cleaned or reconditioned, as removing labels prematurely violates OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard. Additionally, employers should provide employees with training on the proper handling, labeling, and disposal of containers and ensure they fully understand what constitutes an ‘empty’ container under federal standards. Finally, a detailed record of all rinsing, draining, and cleaning processes should be maintained to demonstrate compliance during EPA or state inspections.
Keys to remember: Employers should educate their teams, enforce proper cleaning procedures, and maintain compliance records to ensure they are staying compliant with “empty” container standards.
Keep reading...Show less
2025-06-25T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsHeat and Cold ExposureSafety & HealthConstruction SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), DOLExtreme Temperature PreparationEnglishHeat StressFocus AreaUSA
Help employees beat the heat with two new OSHA resources
As part of its Heat Illness Prevention campaign, OSHA has added two new resources for employers. Safety in 5: Plan and Respond to a Heat Emergency provides a short guide for a five-minute toolbox talk or safety briefing that brings attention to heat emergencies. It can be customized with site-specific information and instructions.
Young Workers and Heat Illness is geared towards workers under 25. It explains why young workers are at risk for heat illness, common jobs where they may be exposed to hazardous heat, signs and symptoms of heat illness, what to do in an emergency, how to lower the risk of heat illness, and employer responsibilities.
Both resources can be found at osha.gov under Heat Illness Prevention.
Keep reading...Show less
2025-06-25T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsAssociate Benefits & CompensationHR GeneralistFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Associate RelationsEnglishHR ManagementFocus AreaHuman ResourcesUSA
Employee filled out an FMLA certification, but prevailed in court
A certification supporting the need for leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is an employer’s best friend when trying to determine if an employee’s leave is for a qualifying reason. If an employee admittedly completes the section that health care providers do, employers have some options. One of them should not be swift termination, as one employer learned.
A certification debate
Daniel was the city’s assistant attorney. He took FMLA leave in May 2020 to care for his mom, who had a medical condition. In November 2021, Daniel again requested FMLA leave for the same reason.
The city’s HR department asked Daniel for an FMLA certification. Daniel completed the certification form himself, including the section that doctors are supposed to fill out. He did so based on the certification information from the prior year and his knowledge of his mom’s condition.
When Daniel took his mom to a medical appointment, he gave the certification form to Scott, the RN, for his signature. They did not see or talk to the doctor that day.
Daniel told Scott that he needed an FMLA form completed for his employer and explained that he had filled out the entire form. Daniel said if any changes were needed, Scott should make them. Scott asked Daniel where he should sign.
Daniel faxed the form to his boss, Andrew, as well as to HR. Nancy, Andrew’s administrative assistant, told Andrew that it looked like Daniel filled out the doctor’s section of the form. Nancy contacted Scott to confirm Scott’s signature. Nancy also told Andrew that Scott said that, when he signed the form, Daniel had told him that he needed a work excuse signed; that Scott didn’t know that he was signing something regarding family medical leave.
Andrew asked Daniel about the form and whether he had deceived Scott into signing it. Daniel admitted to filling out the form, but denied tricking Scott. Daniel also offered to have another certification completed by the doctor. Despite this, Andrew fired Daniel, and Daniel sued.
The lawsuit
In court, Andrew argued that he was allowed to contact the doctor before giving Daniel a chance to cure the form, because he was authenticating — as opposed to clarifying — the form.
The court disagreed, ruling that Andrew should have allowed Daniel a chance to fix the certification. It noted that Andrew didn’t explain why Daniel couldn’t have provided a second certification. Andrew argued that the certification was “incurable” because Daniel improperly filled it out. Nope, said the court. The curing requirements apply even where the alleged deficiency is about who filled out the certification.
Andrew then argued that Daniel’s claim failed because the certification was fraudulent. Again, the court disagreed. A fraud investigation does not shield employers from the certification cure requirement. Daniel’s actions were fraudulent only if he intended to deceive his employer, and the facts didn’t support this. Whether Andrew’s belief in Daniel’s dishonesty was reasonable and whether those beliefs were the real reason for his decision to fire Daniel was ultimately a question for the jury.
Daniel v. City of Martinsville, VA and G. Andrew Hall, Western District of Virginia, No. 4:23-cv-00028, June 5, 2025.
Key to remember: Even if employees complete a certification, employers must give them a chance to cure deficiencies before contacting the doctor to verify that the information was completed and/or authorized by the doctor who signed the document.
Keep reading...Show less
2025-06-25T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsHazmat SafetyHazmatIn-Depth ArticleFocus AreaUSAEnglishTransportationHazmat Rulemaking procedures
Court decision forces withdrawal of LNG rail rule
In a regulatory shift, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has officially rescinded a 2020 rule that authorized the transport of liquefied natural gas (LNG) by rail. The move follows a January 2025 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which found that PHMSA failed to conduct a required environmental impact statement, which violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The court’s decision vacated the rule in its entirety and directed PHMSA to revise the regulations accordingly.
Effective June 23, 2025, PHMSA's conforming amendments remove all provisions related to LNG rail transport using DOT-113C120W9 tank cars from the Hazardous Materials Regulations. This rollback restores the regulatory framework to its pre-2020 state and highlights the importance of environmental due diligence in federal rulemaking. While LNG transport by highway, vessel, or in portable tanks remains permitted, the decision halts broader rail-based LNG shipments, a development with significant implications for energy infrastructure, public safety, and environmental oversight.
Quick recap
The original rule, finalized in July 2020, allowed LNG to be transported by rail in specially designed tank cars. It was part of a broader push to expand domestic energy transport options and reduce reliance on pipelines and trucks. The DOT-113C120W9 tank car was introduced with enhanced safety features, including a thicker outer shell, to address concerns about the volatility of LNG.
However, environmental groups quickly challenged the rule in court. They argued that PHMSA had bypassed critical environmental review steps and underestimated the risks of transporting a highly flammable substance through populated areas.
The court’s decision and its impact
In January 2025, the D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of the petitioners, stating that PHMSA had violated NEPA by failing to prepare an environmental impact statement. The court vacated the rule entirely and returned it to the agency for further proceedings. PHMSA responded by issuing conforming amendments to remove the rule from the regulations.
These amendments revert several sections of the Hazardous Materials Regulations to their pre-2020 versions and delete provisions that were created specifically for LNG rail transport. Notably, the DOT-113C120W9 tank car specification has been removed, and any existing cars built to that spec must now be relabeled to reflect current regulations.
What remains and what’s next?
The rollback does not affect the transportation of LNG by other means, such as highway, vessel, or in UN T75 portable tanks by rail. Nor does it prevent companies from applying for special permits to transport LNG by rail in specific cases.
PHMSA has also issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking public input on how to modernize hazardous materials regulations. This includes exploring whether there is still industry demand for LNG rail transport and how such transport might be safely authorized in the future.
Key to remember: PHMSA rescinded a 2020 rule allowing LNG to be transported by rail, following a federal court ruling. The rollback restores previous safety regulations, while leaving room for future proposals.
Keep reading...Show less
Search all news
Did You Know You Can Ask Unlimited Questions to Our Compliance Experts?
Get answers to your most puzzling compliance questions from the industry’s top experts!
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.