House subcommittee debates federal heat rule as critics call for flexibility

Witnesses at the House Education and Labor subcommittee on workforce protections on Thursday debated whether the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s proposed heat illness rule should be a strict nationwide prescription or a performance-based, flexible standard tailored to local conditions.

The dispute cut across party lines and witnesses’ backgrounds. Jake Parson, division president for the Northeast of CRH Americas Materials, representing the National Association of Manufacturers, told the panel that a one-size-fits-all rule would be unworkable. “A performance oriented approach would tie specific standards to specific areas and and help help industry craft a solution that makes sense for where they are,” Parson said during questioning by the committee chair.

The disagreement matters because supporters of a federal heat standard say the regulation could prevent worker deaths and illnesses, while opponents say overly prescriptive rules would impose heavy administrative burdens, particularly on small businesses and mobile worksites like construction and paving.

Why it matters: OSHA’s proposed heat rule would require employers to take multiple preventive steps at certain temperature triggers, including plans, training, recordkeeping and rest breaks. Proponents say a clear national floor would protect workers in states without protections; critics say it would lock in requirements ill-suited to widely varying climates and worksites.

Underreach vs. overreach. Jordan Barab, former deputy assistant secretary at OSHA, argued the agency’s greater problem has been underreach and capacity, not overreach, stressing manpower shortfalls: “If OSHA was to inspect every workplace in the country just once, it would take a hundred and 85 years, almost 2 centuries,” he said. Barab and other witnesses urged more funding and faster standard-setting to address heat, infectious disease and other hazards.

Industry concerns. Felicia Watson, senior counsel at Littler Mendelson, testified that regulatory compliance and paperwork requirements in the proposed rule would be especially burdensome for small residential builders and specialty contractors. She described how the requirement to demonstrate many elements of compliance could effectively force small employers to maintain written plans and extensive documentation even if the rule’s text allowed verbal plans for very small crews. “The burden on employers involving paperwork requirements has increased exponentially,” Watson said.

Bipartisan overlap on specific protections. Several members pressed witnesses on whether there is common ground for baseline protections. Representative Greg Casar (D) pressed industry witnesses on basic break and water protections in very hot conditions; both Parson and Watson said they would not oppose a baseline rule that, for example, prevented hours-long continuous work in temperatures above 90 degrees without breaks. Some Republicans said they favor flexibility that allows employers to tailor responses to local climate and operations.

Implementation questions. Committee members and witnesses discussed enforcement practicality for mobile and variable worksites such as freight drivers, paving crews and small homebuilding sites, where triggers based on fixed temperatures or fixed employee counts could be difficult to administer. Witnesses urged OSHA to use existing guidance — such as the agency’s national emphasis program priorities — and to consult industry consensus practices when finalizing any rule.

What’s next: OSHA is holding public hearings and the proposal remains subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking. Members urged the agency and Congress to weigh changes that would combine clear worker protections with operational flexibility and to consider increased funding for inspections and standard-setting.