ASA Offers Comments on OSHA’s Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings Proposed Rule

ASA, along with the Construction Industry Safety Coalition (CISC), submitted comments following written post-hearing brief regarding the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA)’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning the Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings.

The CISC has played an active role throughout the rulemaking process for OSHA's proposed heat safety standards. It submitted thorough pre-hearing written comments outlining its perspectives and recommendations. The CISC has consistently stressed that any regulatory framework adopted needs to be flexible and performance-based. Additionally, if OSHA establishes a federal heat standard, the CISC has repeatedly urged for a separate rulemaking tailored specifically for the construction industry, as has been done with other major regulations.

In preparing its written comments, CISC members held multiple meetings and teleconferences, soliciting direct feedback from their association members regarding OSHA’s approach to managing hazardous heat in construction. The comments provided are based on this specific input from member organizations.

OSHA’s proposed rule aims to regulate hazardous heat in almost every workplace, both outdoors and indoors, without limiting requirements by industry. The proposed measures would apply equally across general industry, construction, maritime, and agriculture sectors under OSHA’s jurisdiction. Employers would need to develop written plans to evaluate and control heat hazards. Additional controls like easily accessible water, paid rest breaks, and acclimatization protocols for new or returning workers would be mandated when the heat index reaches either 80°F or 90°F, depending on severity. There are also proposed training and new recordkeeping requirements.

While CISC values OSHA’s effort to simplify compliance through a uniform standard, it feels the current proposal falls short. The one-size-fits-all approach lacks the necessary flexibility for construction work. Fixed temperature thresholds don’t account for regional climate differences, diverse job tasks, or individual responses to heat. The strict acclimatization procedures do not let employers tailor protocols to suit their particular workforce or site, potentially leading to significant financial and operational consequences. Some requirements may inadvertently increase risks for construction workers, given the specific challenges of working at heights or around heavy machinery. Furthermore, the mandate for written plans essentially means all employers, including small businesses with ten or fewer workers, must document compliance, which is impractical. A distinct regulation for construction is crucial, as the industry operates very differently from general industry, shipbuilding, or agriculture. Construction sites are hybrid environments that change significantly during the course of a project. The proposed rule’s rigid definitions of “indoor” and “outdoor” worksites do not fit the reality of construction work. Multi-employer settings are common in construction, and OSHA’s policy would unfairly burden general contractors, often small businesses, with ensuring subcontractors comply, though they may not have control or access to needed records.