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

SAFETY & COMPLIANCE NEWS
Keep up to date on the latest developments affecting OSHA, DOT, EPA, and DOL regulatory compliance.
Shipping papers, placards, and cargo securement dominated the list of reasons drivers received hazardous materials (hazmat or HM) violations during roadside inspections in 2025.
Out of 3.1 million roadside inspections last year, there were 35,700 hazmat violations, and 26 percent of those resulted in an out-of-service (OOS) order. Being familiar with the most common hazmat violations can help drivers and motor carriers take steps to avoid them.
The following table lists the top 20 hazmat violations cited during roadside inspections in 2025, including:
| Rank | Code | Description | Violations | OOS | CSA |
| 1 | 172.504, 177.823(a) | Placards or ID numbers missing or incorrect | 3,837 | 54% | 5 |
| 2 | 177.834(a) | Inadequate HM cargo securement | 3,561 | 99% | 10 |
| 3 | 172.201, 172.202 | HM shipping paper prepared improperly | 2,463 | 1% | 3 |
| 4 | 177.817(a) | No HM shipping paper | 2,439 | 68% | 3 |
| 5 | 172.516(c) | Placard damaged or improperly displayed | 2,348 | 0% | 5 |
| 6 | 177.817(e) | HM shipping papers inaccessible | 1,906 | 2% | 3 |
| 7 | 107.620(b) | No HM Registration Number in vehicle | 1,819 | 0% | 0 |
| 8 | 172.502(a) | Prohibited placarding | 1,352 | 12% | 5 |
| 9 | 177.801 | Failing to properly prepare an HM shipment, or transporting forbidden HM | 1,306 | 19% | 2-10 |
| 10 | 172.600(c) | No emergency response information immediately available | 1,153 | 0% | 3 |
| 11 | 172.328(d) | Manual remote shutoff device improperly marked | 923 | 0% | 5 |
| 12 | 172.602(c) | Improper maintenance/ accessibility of Emergency Response information | 916 | 0% | 3 |
| 13 | 173.24(b) | Leaking HM packaging | 786 | 91% | 10 |
| 14 | 172.602(a) | Incomplete or missing emergency response information | 748 | 0% | 3 |
| 15 | 172.200(a) | No/improper shipping paper from offeror | 713 | 18% | 3 |
| 16 | 180.415 | Improper cargo tank test information | 608 | 0% | 7 |
| 17 | 172.400(a) | Packaging not properly labeled | 443 | 0% | 5 |
| 18 | 172.332 | Failing to display ID numbers | 428 | 17% | 5 |
| 19 | 172.506(a) | Failure to affix placards | 345 | 10% | 5 |
| 20 | 107.608 | Failing to register with PHMSA | 302 | 0% | 0 |
In certain situations, employers can claim “undue hardship” when it comes to workplace accommodations under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). An undue hardship occurs when providing the particular accommodation would result in significant difficulty or expense, based on a company’s resources and business operations. One employer learned how this defense can work to its benefit.
On November 15, 2022, Sara, an employee, was diagnosed with cancer. She told her supervisor, John, of her diagnosis and that surgery was scheduled for December 6. She requested leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) from December 6 to February 27, 2023, and the employer approved it.
On January 23, Sara requested more leave, and the company approved non-FMLA leave from February 28 to May 28.
Sara made a third request for leave on March 22, and the employer approved it and extended her non-FMLA leave until August 6.
On June 8, Sara made a fourth request for leave until September 10 — nearly 9 months of total leave.
Upon receiving this request, John met with other company executives, where they discussed:
The executives ultimately concluded that this fourth request would cause the company undue hardship. Consequently, on June 21, the employer denied Sara’s fourth request for leave.
After learning about the denial, Sara talked to the company leaders and assured them that she could return to work on September 10. Based on this, the company decided to grant the latest round of leave.
On August 29, however, the company’s in-house counsel contacted Sara’s attorney to ask whether she would be returning to work. She responded that she wouldn’t. Accordingly, the company terminated her on September 8.
Sara sued, claiming that the employer failed to accommodate her under the ADA when it denied her fourth leave extension.
Even though the employer changed its mind on the denial, the court found that the facts supported the employer’s undue hardship defense. The employer had reason to doubt that Sara would return on September 10, since she had given a return date with each extension. If Sara’s absence continued past August, the company wouldn’t be able to meet its end-of-year demands.
Sara argued that she needed only 33 days of leave and had a definite return date. Courts, however, look at the total amount of leave when considering whether a request for more leave is reasonable. If employers were to consider only the most recent request for additional leave, employees could simply keep requesting leave in one-week or one-month increments in the hopes that such requests, standing alone, would be reasonable. Sara’s leave spanned more than 9 months, which the court considered unreasonable.
Because the employer established an undue hardship defense, the court ruled in its favor.
Schmitt v. UMB Financial Corporation, District Court of Colorado, No. 1:24-cv-01900, January 7, 2026.
Key to remember: Courts can agree that repeated requests for leave extensions pose an undue hardship under the federal ADA, but employers have to be able to show it.
I recently bought a new car that has lots of bells and whistles. Its Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) are constantly alerting me to “perceived” risks. It’s a far cry from my first car, a 1976 Chevette that didn’t have AC or an FM radio.
Motor vehicles today have a lot of information coming at drivers all at once, and it’s easy to become distracted. I wonder whether, in some way, my simple compact car was less of a distraction. The only tasks that took my eyes off the road were adjusting the radio station or car temperature.
Just like my personal vehicle, modern commercial motor vehicles are equipped with ADAS. They also have telematics and dash cameras to capture and reduce unsafe driving behaviors. Drivers are subjected to (sometimes very loud) warnings over an 11-hour shift.
It should be no surprise that some commercial drivers suffer from alarm fatigue. They often turn down the volume, ignore alerts, or become so desensitized to monitoring alarms that they don’t even notice them anymore.
What can a carrier do to prevent drivers from tuning out, turning down, or turning off their vehicle warnings?
Even though ADAS can be irritating at times, company policy should restrict drivers from silencing alerts. The ding or beep might just keep them from being in a serious accident.
Heart disease and stroke are the leading causes of death and disability in the United States, costing the nation billions each year in health care services, medications, and lost productivity.
Simply heading to work can be tough on the heart, as exposure to certain social, organizational, and environmental conditions in the workplace play a role in heart disease risk.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) notes work is linked to 10-20 percent of cardiovascular disease deaths and indicates that these work-related factors increase heart disease risk:
In addition, a job can influence other heart disease risks:
The CDC points to these occupations as having a higher risk of heart disease:
February is American Heart Month and is a great time to consider the steps a business can take to help employees reduce their risk of heart disease.
This includes support for treatment and medical intervention, as well as workplace policies. To help support worker heart health:
Key to remember: During American Heart Month, look at changes your workplace can make to better support employee heart health
Workplace safety regulations addressing slip, trip, and fall hazards may affect motor carriers more than they think.
Most employees — regardless of industry — walk or work on surfaces where slips, trips, and falls are common. This includes floors, aisles, stairs, ladders, platforms, roofs, etc.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) outlines employers’ obligations relating to walking-working surfaces in 29 CFR 1910 Subpart D. The regulations apply to general industry, including trucking enterprises.
OSHA’s regulations offer an employer flexibility, presenting multiple options as it decides which fall protection method or system works best for its operation.
Employers can utilize guardrails and handrails, covers, personal fall protection, designated areas, and safety net systems. The regulation also requires employers to:
When it comes to specific OSHA requirements, such as “Walking-Working Surfaces,” it often boils down to control. It goes almost without saying that Subpart D impacts a motor carrier’s on-site workers such as technicians, yard jockeys, dispatchers, managers, and the office staff. The company is responsible for the environments they work in and walk in.
The motor carrier’s responsibility under the walking-working surfaces requirements applies when drivers are at the carrier’s facility. This may include, for example, pretrip or post-trip vehicle inspections and the surfaces drivers encounter as they walk around the employer’s terminal.
However, the walking-working surfaces requirements don’t apply to time the drivers spend on the road or at locations outside of the motor carrier’s control, such as shippers, receivers, and truck stops. Providing safe walking-working surfaces is the responsibility of those establishments, not the carrier.
Any hazards at the shipper or receiver’s facility that the driver is exposed to would be the customer’s responsibility and potential OSHA citations.
Best practices for drivers In the case of remote workers such as commercial drivers, the motor carrier should consider risk management best practices. Examples include:
Key to remember: For motor carriers, responsibilities under OSHA’s walking-working surfaces may end when a driver pulls out of the lot. But slips, trips, and falls can happen anywhere your driver walks and works. Train and equip all employees to prevent incidents in work environments outside of the motor carrier’s control.
Employees have the right to pump breastmilk at work and/or nurse their children at work without fear of losing their jobs or being punished (directly or indirectly) for doing so. Those workplace rights are protected by employment laws, whether local, state, or federal.
Two federal laws that protect working moms are the:
These two laws have similarities, but also a few differences.
Under the PUMP Act, employers must give employees who are nursing reasonable break times during their workday and a private space to pump at work for up to 1 year after their child’s birth.
The space must be:
Employees may take reasonable break times each time they need to express milk. Employers may not deny a covered employee a needed break to pump. Employers, however, don’t have to pay employees for the breaks unless the employees are not completely relieved from their job duties.
If employers provide paid breaks, they must pay nonexempt employees who use such breaks to pump breast milk in the same way they pay other employees for breaks.
The PUMP Act doesn’t, however, require employers to allow employees to take time off to nurse their children.
Employers with fewer than 50 employees don’t have to comply with the PUMP Act if they can prove that complying would impose an undue hardship on them by causing significant difficulty or expense. To make this determination, employers must consider their company size, financial resources, nature of work, or structure of the business.
Under the PWFA, employers must give a “reasonable accommodation” to a worker’s known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless the accommodation would cause the employer an “undue hardship” on the business. “Workers” include those who are nursing their children up to a year after the birth.
Accommodations include giving employees breaks and space for pumping at work, similar to the PUMP Act. The PWFA, however, also includes accommodations when the regular location of the employee's workplace makes nursing during work hours a possibility because the child is nearby. Therefore, employers might have to allow breaks for employees to nurse.
While the PUMP Act limits its timeline for pumping breaks to up to 1 year after the child’s birth, the PWFA doesn’t have that limitation. Employers might, therefore, have to allow employees breaks for pumping or nursing for more than a year.
Key to remember: Employers must give employees breaks for pumping breast milk or nursing a child under two similar (but different) federal laws. Employers must also consider applicable state or local laws.


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