The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposed a Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings rule in July 2024, which was formally published in the Federal Register on August 30, 2024.

This marked the first federal standard aimed at protecting approximately 36 million workers across general industry, construction, maritime, and agriculture sectors from heat-related hazards, with requirements triggering at a heat index of 80°F (initial controls like water, rest, and shade) and escalating at 90°F (additional measures like acclimatization and emergency response plans).

The proposal builds on OSHA’s National Emphasis Program on heat hazards, launched in 2022, which has already led to over 5,000 inspections.

Informal public hearings took place from June 16 to July 2, 2025 on the proposed rule. The hearings were virtual, allowing broad participation. A post-hearing comment period remains open until September 30, 2025, for those who participated to submit additional evidence or briefs. The hearings drew over 50,000 written comments prior, reflecting high interest amid record heat waves.

Representatives from the National Employment Law Project (NELP) and unions like the AFL-CIO argued the rule is essential for vulnerable workers, such as farmworkers, construction laborers, and warehouse employees, who face disproportionate risks from climate change-exacerbated heat. NELP’s Anastasia Christman, who attended multiple sessions, noted OSHA staff appeared “engaged and asked substantive questions,” praising the agency’s focus on real-world implementation.

Farmworker advocates and groups like the United Farm Workers highlighted how the rule could prevent thousands of heat-related illnesses annually (OSHA estimates up to 2,000 preventable deaths and 50,000 injuries yearly without it). They pushed for stronger enforcement in high-risk sectors like H-2A temporary agricultural labor, where language barriers and lack of acclimatization increase dangers.

Public health witnesses cited data showing only 24% of employers currently have heat policies, with 41% of workers unaware of any protections, often leaving rest and cooling decisions to employees – potentially forcing health vs. productivity trade-offs.

The U.S. Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy testified on the first day (June 15 or 16), arguing the 80°F trigger is too low for many operations and could impose undue costs on small employers without flexibility. They advocated for a more “performance-based” approach, allowing employers to tailor plans rather than follow rigid requirements.

Construction industry representatives, such as from the Associated General Contractors, warned of compliance challenges in varying climates, suggesting geographic variations or higher triggers in cooler regions. They noted 16 states already have or are proposing heat rules, creating a patchwork that a federal standard might complicate.

Broader business coalitions criticized the rule’s scope, estimating high implementation costs (e.g., monitoring, training, and plan development) and potential litigation risks under recent Supreme Court decisions limiting agency authority (e.g., challenges via the Chevron doctrine’s overturn). Some expressed surprise the hearings proceeded under the Trump administration, given its deregulation focus, but speculated the rule might be “toned down” to a less detailed version.