By Brent I. ClarkJames L. CurtisAdam R. Young, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: Last month at the 2018 National Safety Council (NSC) Congress the speakers noted that “safety programs shouldn’t end when employees walk out the door and get into a vehicle to drive.”  The session was presented by Karen Puckett, the Director for the Center for Environmental Excellence Division of Enterprise Development at the University of Texas at Arlington, and Lisa Robinson, Senior Program Manager for Employer Transportation Safety, for the NSC. 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration statistics provided that in 2017 transportation deaths from crashes were the leading cause of workplace deaths in the USA.  These statistics are often lost on safety professionals because OSHA has no jurisdiction over transportation incidents on public roads.  Additionally, 2016 Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that 40% of employment fatalities were due to transportation incidents.

Puckett noted that the goal for the NSC’s program was to have considered the best practices for employees who drive for work.  This employment-based driving included not just fleet trucks and other vehicles, which are normally considered in company employee driving policies and training programs, but also any personally-owned employee vehicles and rental cars, vans, and other trucks that employees may use while doing company business.  Puckett explained that vehicles outside of the regular company fleet are often overlooked.

Puckett’s key takeaway was that the company’s personnel policy on driving and accident prevention and the related training materials and systems need to incorporate a recognition of these powerful statistics.  Employers need to build a workplace that promotes responsible driver behaviors, maintenance procedures and records, and effective training programs.

Robinson noted that the employer may also face considerable liability for any fatalities that come from employees driving on company business, however that is demanded by state law in the many states and localities the company may operate in.  Perhaps common sense behaviors for employee drivers to know are company policies prohibiting driving impaired by drugs or alcohol, driving while using a cellphone such as checking email, texting, or using the phone.  Many company policies do not incorporate these kinds of prohibitions.

Robinson concluded by illustrating numerous multi-million dollar jury verdicts and settlement agreements where employers were held responsible — even some where the employee was involved in activities or behaviors that some might reasonably suggest were not in the line of their employment.

For your further information, we have previously blogged on these related issues, including Drive Much? NIOSH Focus on Workplace Safety for Employees Who Drive for Their Job, President Declares “National Impaired Driving Prevention Month”, Asleep at the Wheel: Trucking Company’s Sleep Apnea Policy and Procedures Reviewed by Federal Courts, Impact of Driver Compensation on Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety, Eleventh Circuit Finds Insurance Carrier Responsible In Georgia For Harm Done by Intoxicated Employee, Employees Driving In Illinois? What Employers Need to Know, and Distracted Driving Leads to Employee Accidents and Fatalities.

Employer Takaway

For employers the key points from this session are that employee behavior on public roadways could have a big impact on the workplace.  The employer should have appropriate policies and training systems in place as part of a comprehensive safety program, with an aim to “improve your workplace driving safety culture.”

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) or Workplace Policies and Handbooks Teams.

By Mark A. Lies, II,  Brent I. ClarkAdam R. Young, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis:  OSHA has just issued a Standard Interpretation clarifying the Obama-era guidance that prohibited incentive programs and circumscribed post-incident drug testing;  “Clarification of OSHA’s Position on Workplace Safety Incentive Programs and Post-Incident Drug Testing Under 29 C.F.R. §1904.35(b)(1)(iv).”

We previously blogged about OSHA’s 2016 retaliation regulation and associated guidance, which had explained examples of post-accident drug-testing and safety incentive as instances of unlawful retaliation.  OSHA’s 2016 retaliation rule left employers uncertain about what programs were permissible and whether they would face citations for long-standing safety programs aimed at encouraging safe behaviors and reducing injury rates.

  1. OSHA’s Revised Perspective is Apparent in the New Standard Interpretation

OSHA’s new Standard Interpretation intends to “to clarify the Department’s position that [the rule] does not prohibit workplace safety incentive programs or post-incident drug testing. The Department believes that many employers who implement safety incentive programs and/or conduct post-incident drug testing do so to promote workplace safety and health.”  The Interpretation explains that “evidence that the employer consistently enforces legitimate work rules (whether or not an injury or illness is reported) would demonstrate that the employer is serious about creating a culture of safety, not just the appearance of reducing rates.”

Post-incident drug testing policies and safety incentive programs will be considered retaliatory and unlawful only where they seek “to penalize an employee for reporting a work-related injury or illness rather than for the legitimate purpose of promoting workplace safety and health.”  Properly formulated and lawful post-incident drug testing policies and safety incentive programs will be permitted and will not result in OSHA citations.

  1. OSHA Permits Consistent Post-Incident Drug Testing Policies

For years, OSHA’s position on post-incident drug testing confounded employers, and employers faced complicated questions in the hours following workplace safety incidents.  The Standard Interpretation clarifies that “most instances of workplace drug testing are permissible,” including:

  • “Random drug testing”;
  • “Drug testing unrelated to the reporting of a work-related injury or illness”;
  • “Drug testing under a state workers’ compensation law”;
  • “Drug testing under other federal law, such as a U.S. Department of Transportation rule”; and
  • “Drug testing to evaluate the root cause of a workplace incident that harmed or could have harmed employees.  If the employer chooses to use drug testing to investigate the incident, the employer should test all employees whose conduct could have contributed to the incident, not just employees who reported injuries.”

Accordingly, employers may lawfully implement, random drug testing programs, DOT drug testing programs, drug testing programs under a Collective Bargaining Agreement, and post-incident (also “post-accident”) drug-testing programs.  Post-incident drug testing should be conducted consistently on any employee whose conduct may have contributed to the accident, and not merely the employee who was injured in an accident.  For example, if a forklift operator collides with a pedestrian and injures the pedestrian, both the operator and pedestrian should be drug tested.  OSHA reiterates that employers may not use a post-injury drug testing program, which the Agency views as retaliatory and also exposes employers to worker’s compensation retaliation tort claims.

  1. OSHA Permits Safety Incentive Programs

The Standard Interpretation reverses course on the 2016 retaliation regulation’s prohibition of safety programs.  With limited adjustments, OSHA now permits employers to bring back reporting-based safety programs, which the Standard Interpretation lauds as an “important tool to promote workplace safety and health.”  The Standard Interpretation permits a program which offers a prize or bonus at the end of an injury-free month.  OSHA’s new position thus permits employers to bring back cash bonuses or the much-maligned monthly pizza party.  The Standard Interpretation also permits programs that evaluate managers based on their work unit’s lack of injuries.

However, to lawfully implement such a safety program, the employer must implement “adequate precautions” to ensure that employees feel free to report an injury or illness and are not discouraged from reporting.  According to OSHA, a mere statement that employees are encouraged to report and will not face retaliation is insufficient.  Employers need to undertake their choice of additional “adequate precautions,” such as:

  • “An incentive program that rewards employees for identifying unsafe conditions in the workplace;”
  • “A training program for all employees to reinforce reporting rights and responsibilities and emphasizes the employer’s non-retaliation policy;” or
  • “A mechanism for accurately evaluating employees’ willingness to report injuries and illnesses.”

The Standard Interpretation thus permits and encourages safety incentive programs that reward employees for identifying unsafe conditions in the workplace.  A second precaution, a brief training on reporting illnesses and injuries, would be simple for employers to conduct and add to onboarding for new hires.  The “mechanism for accurately evaluating employees willingness to report” could be a regularly scheduled, random questionnaire on employee willingness to report injuries and illnesses.  Accordingly, if employers adopt these low-burden precautionary measures, they may bring back or now adopt safety programs that are popular and effective at reducing workplace injury rates.

For related information on drug testing requirements, we had blogged on the recent Department of Transportation (DOT) final rule amending its drug testing program for DOT-regulated employers.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the OSHA Compliance, Enforcement & Litigation TeamLabor & Employment, or the Workplace Policies and Handbooks Teams.

By Frederick T. Smith, Jennifer L. Mora, and Christopher W. Kelleher

Seyfarth Synopsis: On November 13, 2017, the Department of Transportation amended its drug testing program regulation which, among other things, adds certain semi-synthetic opioids to its drug testing panel.

The Department of Transportation (DOT) has published its long-awaited final rule amending its drug testing program for DOT-regulated employers. The new rule comes in the wake of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) revised “Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs” which became effective on October 1, 2017.

The new DOT rule makes the following significant changes:

  • Adding four semi-synthetic opioids (hydrocodone, oxycodone, hydromorphone, and oxymorphone) to the drug testing panel, which is “intended to help address the nation-wide epidemic of opioid abuse” and create safer conditions for transportation industries and the public;
  • Adding methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA) as an initial test analyte because, in addition to being considered a drug of abuse, it is a metabolite of methylenedioxyethylamphetaime (MDEA) and methylenedioxymethamphetamine (“MDMA”), and such testing potentially acts as a deterrent;
  • Removing testing for MDEA from the existing drug testing panel;
  • Removing the requirement for employers and consortium/third party administrators (C/TPAs) to submit blind specimens in order to relieve unnecessary burdens on employers, C/TPAs, and other parties; and
  • Adding three “fatal flaws” to the list of when a laboratory would reject a specimen and modifying the “shy bladder” process so that the collector will discard certain questionable specimens.

The new rule goes into effect on January 1, 2018. Employers who comply with DOT standards when drug testing should modify their drug testing policies accordingly. Employers that are not subject to DOT requirements, but comply with the HHS Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs also should consider whether to modify their drug testing policies to comply with the new rules and guidelines.

If you have questions about the new regulations or employee drug testing in general, please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the  Labor & Employment or Workplace Policies and Handbooks Teams.

By Brent I. Clark, Kay R. Bonza, and Craig B. Simonsen

iStock_000021314720_MediumSeyfarth Synopsis: Recently decided court case finds that motor vehicle carriers may lawfully require overweight drivers to submit to a medical examination testing for obstructive sleep apnea.

We had previously blogged about the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the “Evaluation of Safety Sensitive Personnel for Moderate-to-Severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea.” 47 Fed. Reg. 12642 (March 10, 2016).  The American Journal of Industrial Medicine, with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), had found that U.S. long-haul truck drivers were twice as likely to be obese compared to the adult working population, as well as more likely to smoke and suffer from other risk factors for chronic disease. “Obesity and Other Risk Factors: The National Survey of U.S. Long-Haul Truck Driver Health and Injury” (Jan. 2014).

An interesting Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals case, Parker v. Crete Carrier Corp., et al., No. 16-1371 (8th Cir. Oct. 12, 2016), delves into the underlying issues related to these previous blogs. Notably, the oral argument in front of the Court is available for listening.

Crete Carrier Corporation (Crete) required its truck drivers with a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 35 or greater to submit to medical examinations to determine whether they had obstructive sleep apnea. Drivers found to have obstructive sleep apnea were placed in a treatment regimen. One driver, Robert J. Parker, refused to submit to the examination. In response, Crete stopped giving Parker work. Parker then sued Crete, alleging it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by requiring the examination and discriminating on the basis of a perceived disability. The District Court granted summary judgment to Crete. Parker appealed.

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) requires commercial vehicle drivers to get medical examinations every two years to ensure they are physically qualified to operate commercial vehicles. The exam measures height and weight, assesses health history, tests vision, hearing, blood pressure and urine, and physically examines body systems.  Two advisory committees, the Medical Review Board and the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee, have recommended that FMCSA amend its certification standards to reduce the risks from drivers who have obstructive sleep apnea.

When analyzing Parker’s claim against Crete, the court noted that an employer requiring a particular class of employees to get a medical exam must show that the exam is job-related and that it is a “business necessity.” To constitute a “business necessity,” there must be a reasonable basis for concluding that the class of drivers required to be examined poses a genuine safety risk. Moreover, the employer’s exam requirement must enable the employer to reduce that risk.

The Eighth Circuit concluded that Crete’s suspension of Parker was not a violation of the ADA because Parker refused to submit to a lawful medical examination. Crete factually established that “untreated obstructive sleep apnea tends to impair driving skills, increasing the risk of motor vehicle accidents by 1.2- to 4.9-fold.”  Moreover, “a sleep study is the only way to confirm or rule out an obstructive sleep apnea diagnosis.”  Because obesity and BMIs above 33 are closely linked to obstructive sleep apnea and seeking treatment for sleep apnea decreases the risk of motor vehicle accidents, the Court found that the sleep study requirement for overweight drivers was a business necessity.

In light of the findings on sleep apnea, employers in the long-haul trucking industry should pay attention for changes in the law related to enhanced driver testing requirements, and ensure that any driver testing policies for a subset of drivers would constitute a business necessity in the eyes of the courts.

Employers with questions or concerns about any of these issues or topics are encouraged to reach out to the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the OSHA Compliance, Enforcement & Litigation Team, the Workplace Counseling & Solutions Team, or the ADA Title III Team.

By Erin Dougherty Foley, Brent I. Clark, Ilana R. Morady, and Craig B. Simonsen

iStock_000021314720_MediumThe U.S. Department of Transportation has published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on the Evaluation of Safety Sensitive Personnel for Moderate-to-Severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea, 47 Fed. Reg. 12642 (March 10, 2016).

The ANPR is directed at individuals occupying “safety sensitive positions” in highway and rail transportation, and on its potential consequences for the safety of rail and highway transportation. The DOT’s agencies, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), through this rulemaking, are requesting data and information from employers and the public concerning the prevalence of moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) among those employees in those positions.

The DOT is defining obstructive sleep apnea as a “respiratory disorder characterized by a reduction or cessation of breathing during sleep. OSA is characterized by repeated episodes of upper airway collapse in the region of the upper throat (pharynx) that results in intermittent periods of partial airflow obstruction (hypopneas), complete airflow obstruction (apneas), and respiratory effort-related arousals from sleep (RERAs) in which affected individuals awaken partially and may experience gasping and choking as they struggle to breathe.”

The ANPR states that risk factors for developing OSA include: obesity, male gender, advancing age, family history of OSA, large neck size, and an anatomically small oropharynx (throat). Additionally, OSA is associated with increased risk for other adverse health conditions such as: “hypertension (high blood pressure), diabetes, obesity, cardiac dysrhythmias (irregular heartbeat), myocardial infarction (heart attack), stroke, and sudden cardiac death.

Specifically, the agencies are requesting comment on the costs and benefits of requiring motor carrier and rail transportation workers in safety sensitive positions “who exhibit multiple risk factors for OSA to undergo evaluation and treatment by a healthcare professional with expertise in sleep disorders. For instance, the DOT points out that the Federal Aviation Administration:

Has always considered OSA a disqualifying condition, but has used its special issuance process to certificate airman if the hazard of OSA was satisfactorily treated or mitigated. In November 2013, FAA proposed guidance that would have required pilots with a body mass index (BMI) of 40 or more to be evaluated for OSA.

As this rulemaking presents perhaps considerable efforts and costs on impacted employers, review and comments on the ANPR may be worthwhile. Comments on the ANPR, under Docket numbers FMCSA–2015–0419 and FRA–2015–0111, are due by June 8, 2016.

By Brent I. ClarkErin Dougherty Foley, and Craig B. Simonsen

By Proclamation, President Obama has declared December 2015, to be “National Impaired Driving Prevention Month.” 80 Fed. Reg. 75781 (December 3, 2015).

The President declares that “no person should suffer the tragedy of losing someone as a result of drunk, drugged, or distracted driving….” He notes that drunk drivers kill more than 10,000 people annually, and “about one-third of traffic deaths in the United States involve a driver with a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit.” Additionally, “driving under the influence of drugs, an increasingly common occurrence, carries the same risks as drunk driving and is just as avoidable.” Driving distracted, including while using a cell phone, can lead to tragic outcomes that are also preventable. The Proclamation provides links to federal materials and resources, including www.Distraction.gov, www.NHTSA.gov/DriveSober, and www.WhiteHouse.gov/ONDCP/DruggedDriving.

There are real issues for employers related to impaired and distracted driving. For instance, we had previously blogged about a United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit case that addressed the issue of an employer’s liability for terminating a commercial truck driver who suffered from alcoholism, a condition that is often considered a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  The focus of the Court’s analysis was on the relevant Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations which provided that a person with a “current clinical diagnosis of alcoholism” was not qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle.  The regulations did not, however, instruct who would make the final determination of whether an employee had a current diagnosis of alcoholism—the employer or the DOT (or other) medical provider. In this case, following the plaintiff-employee’s leave of absence to receive treatment for alcoholism, he obtained clearance by a DOT medical examiner that he was fit to return to work.  However, the defendant-employer received contrary guidance from the plaintiff’s alcohol treatment counselor, who diagnosed him with “alcohol dependence or alcoholism.”

In another example, we previously blogged about employees using cellphones and other devices while driving. There we noted that the trend of banning all cellphones or other portable devices while driving even where permitted by local law was based on a number of factors. First, there have been a large number of  reported jury verdicts or settlements where companies have been found liable for accidents caused by their employees while driving and using their cellphones. There was also a growing effort by the federal and state governments advocating that no one should use a cellphone or other portable communication device while driving. Consider that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommended in December of 2011 that all states and the District of Columbia ban any cellphone use behind the wheel, becoming the first federal agency to call for an outright prohibition on telephone conversations while driving. Notably, NTSB findings and other research has shown that drivers using even hands-free cellphones aren’t much safer than using hands-on cellphones because just talking on the phone reduces the brain power focused on driving by 37 percent.

Employers are urged, at this time of year especially, when company parties and events are common-place, to review corporate policies to ensure that it has minimized its risks from drunk, drugged, or distracted driving. As noted in a recent Law360 Analysis, “How To Hold A Holiday Party Without Inviting Legal Hassles,” “the potential legal exposure doesn’t have to shut down the party entirely.” The authors provide these steps, summarized here, to keep the party going while mitigating the risks:

  • Make and Enforce Clear Social Gathering Policies;
  • Temper Alcohol Consumption;
  • Remind Leaders to be Leaders;
  • Make Sure Employees Get Home Safely;
  • Keep the Party Universal; and
  • Make it Voluntary

Employers with questions or concerns about any of these issues or topics are encouraged to reach out to the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Environmental, Safety & Toxic Torts Group or the Workplace Counseling & Solutions Team.

By Andrew H. Perellis, Ilana R. Morady, and Craig B. Simonsen

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has adopted, retroactively, amendments to the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs) to maintain alignment with international standards by incorporating changes to proper shipping names, hazard classes, packing groups, special provisions, packaging authorizations, air transport quantity limitations, and vessel stowage requirements. 80 Fed. Reg. 1076 (January 8, 2015).

PHMSA proposed the rule last summer (79 Fed. Reg. 50742) (August 25, 2014), indicating that the revisions were necessary to harmonize the HMRs with changes to the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG Code), the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air, and the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods—Model Regulations (UN Model Regulations).

The Agency indicates that “these changes ensure the domestic hazard classification, hazard communication and packaging requirements are consistent with those employed throughout the world.” To stress the importance of these amendments, PHMSA notes that “foreign trade of chemicals is a large segment of the United States economy. In 2000, U.S. foreign trade in chemicals totaled $154 billion and generated a $6 billion positive trade balance.”

The new rules were adopted effective January 1, 2015, with a “voluntary compliance date” beginning January 1, 2015, and a “delayed compliance date” of January 1, 2016. The “voluntary compliance date” provides the regulated community with the opportunity to use up old stock, such as shipping labels that refer to the wrong shipping names, prior to implementation of the required compliance in 2016.

.

By Ilana R. Morady

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), the Department of Transportation (DOT) agency that regulates commercial motor vehicles, is increasing its attention on passenger carriers. Earlier this year, FMCSA Administrator Anne Ferro announced a targeted safety crackdown on motorcoach companies. The agency will be using specially trained investigative teams and coordinating with state law enforcement to implement the national safety sweep. The investigators and auditors will be specially trained on key areas that are applicable to the motorcoach industry, such as operating schedules, equipment storage, and driver qualifications.

In light of this new initiative, it is increasingly important for motorcoach companies to comply with FMCSA regulations and ensure the safety of passengers and drivers. Non-compliance can result not only in injuries, but also hefty fines. Moreover, the FMCSA SaferBus application allows consumers to check bus company safety performance and file complaints. A poor FMCSA safety record can repel potential customers and harm the company’s bottom line.

By Ilana R. Morady

July 1, 2013 is the compliance date for two new provisions of the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) new Hours of Service (HOS) regulations.

What are the HOS regulations?

The HOS regulations are found at 49 CFR Part 395 and apply to drivers who operate commercial motor vehicles. The basics are:

  • 14-hour duty limit. You can be on duty 14 consecutive hours after being off duty for 10 or more consecutive hours.
  • 11-hour driving limit. You can only drive for up to 11 hours during the 14-consecutive-hour duty period.
  • 60/70-hour duty limit. You can’t drive after you’ve been on duty 60 hours during any 7 consecutive days OR you can’t drive after you’ve been on duty 70 hours during any 8 consecutive days.
  • 34-hour restart. You can “restart” your 60 or 70-hour calculations after having at least 34 consecutive hours off duty.

What do you need to do before July 13, 2013?

The DOT’s new HOS regulations, which became effective February 27, 2012, contain two primary changes.

  • Limits on use of 34-hour restart. The old HOS regulations did not contain limits on the use of the 34-restart provision. Now drivers can only use the restart once per week (i.e. once every 168 hours), and the 34-hour time frame must include two periods between 1 a.m. – 5 a.m.  
  • Rest breaks. Before the new HOS regulations, the DOT did not have any specific requirements for rest breaks. Now if more than 8 consecutive hours have passed since your last off-duty period of at least 30 minutes, you must take a break of at least 30 minutes.

The DOT implemented these new requirements with the hopes that they will reduce driver fatigue and, therefore, increase safety on the road.

By Ilana R. Morady and Eric E. Boyd

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) recently released a five-year Strategic Plan that sets targets to improve the safe handling and transportation of hazardous materials.  PHMSA is the principle arm of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) that promulgates and enforces regulations pertaining to the movement of hazmat by all modes of transportation, including pipelines. By 2016, the agency aims to reduce the number of pipeline incidents involving death or major injury to between 26-37 per year, and the number of other hazmat incidents involving death or major injury to between 21-32 per year.  The Strategic Plan notes that hazardous materials transportation (all modes, including pipelines) accounts for an average of 28 deaths per year.  Oddly, that number fits squarely within the agency’s new goals for 2012-2016.  The Strategic Plan also sets environmental goals for 2012-2016: to reduce the number of hazardous liquid pipeline spills with environmental consequences to between 65-81 per year, and to reduce the number of other hazmat incidents with environmental damage to between 44-64 per year.  The Strategic Plan does not, however, state the per-year number of environmental hazmat incidents in past years. 

Overall, the Strategic Plan is long on words but short on information and explanation.  For example, it also provides “key challenges” the agency expects to face, but addresses these challenges vaguely.  One key challenge is “advances in technology,” which PHMSA apparently intends to address by “systematically identify[ing] and evaluat[ing] trends” in technology development.  The agency does, however, offer a couple relatively specific challenges on which it will focus in 2012-2016: hazmat that presents a risk of fire aboard aircraft and bulk transportation of hazmat that is toxic by inhalation.  To address these challenges, the agency’s strategy includes developing standards for loading and unloading bulk hazardous materials, and publishing new safety rules for transporting flammable and combustible liquids aboard aircraft.  PHMSA also states its intention to strengthen current rules for transporting lithium batteries by air.

For more information about PHMSA’s hazmat program and agency enforcement, click here.