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
2025-07-02T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsHazmat SafetyHazmatIn-Depth ArticleFocus AreaUSAEnglishTransportationHazmat Rulemaking procedures
PHMSA's rulemaking roundup Part 1
Welcome to Part 1 of our three-part series exploring the July 2025 proposed rulemakings from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). In this first installment, we're diving into six proposals that are geared to simplify hazmat shipping, reduce paperwork, and give businesses, from farmers to freight carriers, more flexibility without compromising safety.
These changes are all about modernizing the regulations to reflect how people actually work today. Whether you’re shipping aerosols, hauling lithium batteries, or just trying to avoid unnecessary training requirements, there’s something here for you.
Let's take a look at what’s on the table.
1. HM-268A – Redefining aerosols for the real world
PHMSA is proposing to update the definition of "aerosol" to align with international standards, which currently allow aerosols to contain only gas. Under the existing Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR), aerosols must include a gas that expels a liquid, paste, or powder. PHMSA's proposed change would eliminate the need for special permits for gas-only aerosols, simplify international shipping, and reduce costs and confusion for manufacturers and shippers.
2. HM-268B – Smarter marking for limited quantities
If you're shipping small amounts of hazardous materials, you're likely using the "limited quantity" exception, but the marking size can be inconvenient, especially for small packages. To make things easier, PHMSA proposes allowing a reduced-size limited quantity marking (25 mm x 25 mm) and permitting shippers to include this mark directly on the shipping label.
3. HM-268C – Helping tradespeople haul more batteries
Trades such as landscaping, construction, and food service often depend on lithium battery-powered tools, but current materials of trade regulations restrict the number of batteries they can transport. To address this, PHMSA proposes allowing up to 30 kg per battery and 500 kg per vehicle, removing limits for batteries contained in equipment, and requiring basic safety precautions, such as measures to prevent short circuits.
4. HM-268D – Going digital with emergency response info
Currently, carriers transporting hazardous materials are required to carry printed emergency response information (ERI). However, PHMSA is proposing a change that would allow carriers to store and present ERI electronically, such as on a tablet or smartphone.
5. HM-268J – Updating training exceptions for farmers
Farmers who transport hazardous materials are currently required to complete in-depth security training unless their annual income is less than $500,000, a threshold that has remained unchanged since 2005. To reflect inflation, PHMSA is proposing to raise the exemption limit to $825,000.
6. HM-268E – Removing redundant hazardous substance lists
PHMSA currently maintains its own list of hazardous substances, even though the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) already has an established list. To streamline regulations and reduce redundancy, PHMSA proposes removing its own list, Appendix A to §172.101, and instead referring directly to the EPA’s list found at 40 CFR 302.4.
Key to remember: These six proposals will help make transporting hazmat more efficient, less confusing, and more aligned with how businesses operate today. Stay tuned for Part 2, where we’ll explore more proposed changes.
Keep reading...Show less
RECENT INDUSTRY HIGHLIGHTS
2025-07-02T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsHuman ResourcesAssociate Benefits & CompensationHR GeneralistFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Focus AreaFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Associate RelationsEnglishHR ManagementDisabilities and ADADisabilities and ADAUSA
Employee gave third party (not employer) RTW date – lost in court
In June 2021, Ibrahim asked for leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to undergo therapy and have surgery for a shoulder injury.
The employer used a third party to administer FMLA leave. The third party reviewed claims and relevant data, made determinations, and conducted ongoing evaluations regarding an employee’s return to work.
In addition to FMLA leave, the company also allowed employees to take an additional 90 days of unpaid time off each calendar year.
Ibrahim sent a doctor’s note to Nicolo, his supervisor, for his June 2021 leave. The note, however, did not state a start and end date for the leave. Nicolo requested an additional doctor’s note with those dates. A second note, sent on June 17, said that Ibrahim could return to work on December 21.
In October 2021, however, Ibrahim sent Nicolo a new doctor’s note with a projected return date of February 2022.
After the 12 weeks of FMLA leave expired, the company gave Ibrahim two 90-day periods of unprotected and unpaid leave until March 2022. Such additional time off can be seen as a reasonable accommodation under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.
In January 2022, Kristine, the HR Generalist, sent Ibrahim a letter asking when he would return to work. He responded that he intended to return to work and had already provided the doctor’s note with a return date.
In February 2022, however, Ibrahim was diagnosed with tinnitus. He informed Nicolo and Kristine that he was unable to return and didn’t give them an updated return date. Kristine again asked for information regarding his ability to return to work. She also requested medical documentation and inquired about alternative accommodations to help Ibrahim return to work.
After determining that Ibrahim had used up all available leave and still couldn’t return to work, the employer fired him, and he sued.
In court, the question was whether the employer failed to give Ibrahim ADA reasonable accommodations. The court ruled that the employer didn’t fail to do so. The employer gave Ibrahim:
- 12 weeks of FMLA leave,
- 2 additional unpaid leaves of absence, and
- An offer for job reassignment.
These exceeded the employer’s obligations.
Ibrahim, however, argued that he should have gotten more time off per his February 2022 message. The problem was that, as far as the employer knew, the request was for indefinite leave, which, per se, is not a reasonable accommodation.
While Ibrahim gave the third-party administrator a return date, he didn’t give one to the employer. The employer didn’t have access to the third-party administrator’s records, and never learned of the return date sent there. The employer, therefore, could not have unlawfully denied a request that they never received.
Mawari v. Constellis, LLC, et al, Northern District of California, No. 3:23-cv-06029, May 29, 2025
Key to remember: Unlimited leave is not a reasonable accommodation. If employers never receive a return date, they are not liable for not providing additional leave.
Keep reading...Show less
2025-07-01T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsEnforcement and Audits - OSHAEnforcement and Audits - OSHASafety & HealthConstruction SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyAgriculture SafetyMaritime SafetyOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), DOLEnglishFocus AreaUSA
Flurry of activity in the OSHA world: Agency publishes final rule, multiple proposed rules
In response to Executive Orders, OSHA published 25 proposed rules and one final rule in the Federal Register on July 1. Stakeholders have until September 2 to comment on the proposed rules, and in some instances, OSHA seeks input on specific questions pertaining to the rule.
The agency’s lone final rule, effective July 1, removes the requirement for the Assistant Secretary of OSHA to consult with the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) when formulating rules to promulgate, modify, or revoke standards applicable to construction work. It also revokes 1912.3, the general regulations governing ACCSH.
Additionally, OSHA is withdrawing its proposal to amend the OSHA 300 Log by adding a column that employers would use to record work-related musculoskeletal disorders. This does not change any employer’s obligation to complete and retain occupational injury and illness records under OSHA’s regulations.
| Proposed action | Affected regulation |
| Remove some medical evaluation requirements for the use of medical evaluations for filtering facepiece respirators and loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirators. | • Respiratory protection, 1910.134 |
| Revise some substance-specific respirator requirements to allow different types of respirators to be used. | • 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane, 1910.1044 • 1,3-Butadiene, 1910.1051 • Asbestos, 1910.1001, 1915.1001, 1926.1101 • Benzene, 1910.1028 • Cadmium, 1910.1027, 1926.1127 • Coke oven emissions, 1910.1029 • Cotton dust, 1910.1043 • Ethylene oxide, 1910.1047 • Inorganic arsenic, 1910.1018 • Lead, 1910.1025, 1926.62 • Methylene chloride, 1910.1052 • Methylenedianiline, 1910.1050, 1926.60 |
| Remove duplicative language related to respiratory protection. | • Acrylonitrile, 1910.1045 • Formaldehyde, 1910.1048 • Vinyl chloride, 1910.1017 |
| Revise respirator requirements; clarify policies and procedures for implementing a respiratory protection program. | • 13 Carcinogens, 1910.1003 |
| Remove entire regulation. | • Construction illumination, 1926.26, 1926.56 • House falls in marine terminals, 1917.41 • Occupational exposure to COVID-19 in healthcare settings, 1910 Subpart U • COVID-19, 1915.1501, 1917.31, 1918 Subpart K, 1926.58, 1928.21(a)(8) • Open fire in marine terminals, 1917.21 • Safety color code for marking physical hazards, 1910.144, 1910.262(c)(8), 1910.265(c)(11), 1915.90 • Recission of coordinated enforcement regulations, 29 CFR Part 42 |
| Add a regulatory section clarifying OSHA’s interpretation of the General Duty Clause to exclude from enforcement known hazards that are inherent and inseparable from the core nature of a professional activity or performance, such as animal handling, motor sports, and combat simulation training. | • 1975.7, Application of the General Duty Clause to inherently risky professional activities |
| Final action | Affected regulations |
| Revoke 1911.10, which requires the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health (Assistant Secretary), who heads OSHA, to consult with the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) in the formulation of rules to promulgate, modify, or revoke standards applicable to construction work, and 1912.3, the general regulations governing ACCSH. Revise corresponding sections in 1911 and 1912. | • 1911.10, Construction standards • 1911.15, Nature of hearing • 1912.3, Advisory committee on construction safety and health • 1912.8, Committee charters • 1912.9, Representation on section 7(b) committees |
Keep reading...Show less
2025-07-01T05:00:00Z
NewsTraining & DevelopmentEmployee RelationsIn-Depth ArticleHR ManagementEnglishHuman ResourcesTalent Management & RecruitingAssociate Benefits & CompensationIndustry NewsEmployee RelationsHR GeneralistAssociate RelationsCommunication ToolsFocus AreaUSA
Middle managers are rising to the top (or did they have the power all along?)
The middle manager role has often been the punchline of jokes or the buffoon character in sitcoms. It’s traditionally been a position that hasn’t received the respect it deserved. That tide is beginning to shift.
Fifty-one percent of the Chief Human Resource Officers (CHRO) said that their focus this year is on leadership and manager development, according to the SHRM 2025 CHRO Priorities and Perspectives report.
Companies are realizing that middle managers are uniquely positioned to have a read on the workforce and the ability to impact culture, while strategizing with executives on the broader company vision.
The ‘Glinda’ effect
Glinda the Good Witch in the classic movie “The Wizard of Oz” is the motivational speaker that all workplaces could learn from.
She famously boosted the lost and frightened Dorothy’s self-confidence by telling her that she had the “power all along.” Middle managers (like Dorothy), perhaps, have had the power all along, too. That power might include:
- The power to positively affect employees by providing supportive feedback,
- The power to create real-time change through clear and timely communication of information, and
- The power to make a difference by modeling positive behavior and working to resolve minor conflicts before they become serious problems.
As middle managers are coming into their own power, companies are responding.
Empowering middle managers
To get the ball rolling on maximizing your middle managers' capabilities, here are three focus areas to consider:
- Uplift and update the role. Get rid of old points of view about what being a middle manager means. Replace it with a modernized approach that focuses on the value they bring to an organization with their direct impact on people. They’re in the driver’s seat when it comes to culture and environment.
- Train middle managers. Some people skills might come naturally. Everything else that middle managers need to successfully do their jobs requires an investment in ongoing training.
- Increase communication. Make it a regular habit to listen to what middle managers are saying. Surveying them on a regular basis gives the company a sense of the challenges they face that could impact the company as a whole.
Key to remember: Middle managers play a crucial role in organizations. Employers should invest time and resources in empowering them.
Keep reading...Show less
2025-07-01T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsEnglishFleet SafetyFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleEnforcement - DOTRoadside InspectionsTransportationUSA
FMCSA unveils new DataQs procedures, seeks input
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) plans to make several important changes to its DataQs system and they’re asking the public for help.
DataQs is the online system that motor carriers, drivers, and others can use to request a review of crash or roadside inspection data that the requester believes is inaccurate or incomplete, called a “request for data review” (RDR).
In 2023, the FMCSA sought input on creating a formal appeals process for DataQs, something that today is not clearly defined. The agency recently announced changes to that proposed process and put out a call for more public input.
How it works today
If a driver or motor carrier files an RDR, it gets forwarded to the agency that generated the record, such as the State Patrol in the case of a crash or roadside inspection. The agency then reviews the RDR, does an investigation, and makes a decision to either change the data or reject the request.
If the RDR is rejected, the requester can submit an appeal, but the state agency may require new information before reviewing the matter or may let the same people who rejected the initial RDR also review the appeal, creating a conflict of interest.
Once the appeal is decided, the state agency and FMCSA consider the case closed.
Proposed changes
The FMCSA says it wants to “improve the impartiality, timeliness, transparency, and fundamental fairness of the RDR process.” Though in 2023 it had proposed injecting itself into the appeals process, the agency now wants the states to handle it. Among other changes being proposed:
- Good-faith reviews: States must conduct a good-faith review of RDRs that are submitted within three years from the date of an inspection or five years from the date of a crash, and must have established points of contact for RDRs.
- State plans: States must submit a “DataQs Implementation Plan” detailing how they will process RDRs and how they will address any existing or future backlog of RDRs. The plan would have to be made public and be reviewed and updated annually.
- Appeals: Requesters will be allowed two appeals. When a state receives an initial RDR, a first-level appeal (known as a “reconsideration review”), or a request for a “final review,” the state will be expected to open the request within seven days of submission and then respond within 21 days, or 30 days for a final review. If the state requests more information, the requester will be given 14 days to provide it, and the clock will stop while the requester gathers additional information. Requesters are expected to have a valid reason for any appeal.
- Rejections: When a state closes an RDR or appeal without correcting any data, the issuing officer/inspector cannot be the sole decisionmaker and the state must explain the facts and analysis supporting the decision.
- Expertise: Appeals must go before a person or panel with “appropriate subject matter expertise” and cannot be reviewed or decided by the issuing officer/inspector nor their direct supervisor. A “final review” must be done by someone outside the chain of command for the issuing officer/inspector, and a panel may be used to provide recommendations to that person.
The state’s decision would be considered final by the FMCSA after the state’s final review is complete.
States that fail to live up to their DataQs obligations would be at risk of losing highway funds.
Five questions
The FMCSA is asking for input on five key questions related to their proposal:
- What are the potential benefits and challenges of the proposed changes?
- What challenges will states face in adhering to the timelines for each stage of the RDR process? How should delays be handled?
- How should states be held accountable for compliance?
- If a requester doesn’t respond with additional or proper information when requested, how should the RDR be handled?
- To what extent should FMCSA define the criteria for a “valid reason” for an appeal?
Comments may be submitted online until September 2, 2025, at www.regulations.gov under docket number FMCSA-2023-0190.
Key to remember: The FMCSA is proposing improvements to the DataQs system, and now’s your chance to weigh in.
Keep reading...Show less
2025-06-30T05:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsFleet SafetyHours of ServiceHours of ServiceBusiness planning - Motor CarrierFocus AreaEnglishTransportationBusiness planning - Motor CarrierUSA
Pro-trucker package promises millions
The U.S. Department of Transportation has unveiled a package of new programs, updates, and initiatives to support truck drivers across the nation. The goal is to make life easier and safer for truck drivers, and to improve overall road safety for all travelers.
The package includes five key focus areas:
- Truck parking. The Department of Transportation (DOT) is planning to release over $275 million in funding to help expand truck parking, with $180 million going to Florida alone. The DOT says this will help reduce the time spent looking for parking and reduce the number of unsafe spots that drivers are currently forced to settle with.
- Speed limiters. The DOT is withdrawing a proposal to mandate speed limiters for heavy trucks. The agency says such a mandate would have created a safety hazard by forcing drivers to travel slower than the flow of traffic.
- Driver resources. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is updating the Consumer Complaint database and the DataQs system, along with other digital tools, to make the websites more transparent and easier to use.
- Regulation simplification. FMCSA has proposed to remove around 1,800 words from the federal regulations and claims the changes could save the motor carrier industry millions of dollars annually. The agency also says it’s committed to keeping an existing electronic logging device (ELD) mandate for pre-2000 model year trucks.
- Bad actors. The FMCSA is making a specific effort to target unlawful double-brokering laws and to hold bad actors accountable for their actions.
HOS pilot programs
The FMCSA also announced plans to launch two pilot programs to gather data on whether adding flexibility to the hours-of-service regulations would improve driver working conditions while enhancing safety. The agency says the programs will allow participating drivers to:
- Split their 10-hour off-duty period into more flexible combinations, including 6/4 and 5/5 splits; and
- Pause the 14-hour on-duty period for a period of no less than 30 minutes and no more than 3 hours.
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.