Public comment on OSHA's heat injury and illness prevention rule

Public comments are read and counted. Three to four paragraphs is enough; legalese is not required. The most effective comments are grounded in specific knowledge — a workplace, a region, an industry, an experience. Anonymous comments are accepted but identified ones carry more weight. Submission instructions are at the federal regulations.gov page for the rule.

To OSHA Docket Officer:

I’m submitting this comment in support of OSHA’s proposed Heat Injury and Illness Prevention rule. I’m a [your role/job — worker in [industry], advocate, family member of a worker affected by heat exposure, etc.] in [city/state].

I support the proposed rule because [pick one or more of the following and personalize]:

• The cumulative scientific evidence on heat exposure and worker health is overwhelming. Heat-related injuries and deaths in workplaces — particularly in agriculture, construction, warehousing, food service, and outdoor labor — are documented at scale, and the trends are worsening as climate change extends and intensifies the heat seasons in most US regions.

• I work in [industry] and have direct experience with [heat-related conditions, near-misses, lost-time injuries]. The basic protections in the proposed rule — water access, rest breaks, shade or cooling areas, acclimatization protocols for new workers, and emergency response procedures — are not novel. They reflect what responsible employers already do; the rule would extend the same standard to workers whose employers do not.

• The proposed acclimatization requirement is particularly important. New workers and workers returning from extended absences face elevated risk during the first two weeks; the empirical evidence on this is consistent. Standardizing the acclimatization protocol prevents avoidable injuries.

• The thresholds in the proposed rule — initial heat-trigger at lower thresholds, high-heat-trigger at higher thresholds — are reasonable and reflect substantial scientific input. I support the rule’s tiered structure.

I would urge OSHA to maintain the rule’s protections in the final version against industry pressure to weaken them. Specifically:

1. The rule should apply to indoor and outdoor work alike. Indoor heat hazards in warehousing, kitchens, and laundries are documented at scale.
2. The rule should not exempt agricultural employers or small-employer categories, which include the workers at highest risk.
3. The rule’s enforcement should include meaningful penalties for repeat violators.
4. The rule should not exclude exposure thresholds based on lower-than-actual humidity assumptions.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

[Your name] [Your city, state] [Your industry/role, optional]