The Virginia Manufacturers Association (VMA) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Notice of Intended Regulatory Action (NOIRA) for the Heat Illness Prevention Standard, 16 VAC 25-210.

The VMA has served as Industry’s Advocate™ since 1922 and represents more than 5,000 manufacturers throughout the Commonwealth. Virginia’s manufacturing sector employs more than 230,000 Virginians across a diverse range of industries, facilities, processes, and working environments.

Virginia manufacturers share the Commonwealth’s goal of protecting workers from occupational heat-related injuries and illnesses and already take significant precautions to address occupational heat risks where they exist. Manufacturers routinely manage heat hazards associated with environmental conditions, industrial processes, machinery, personal protective equipment, and other workplace conditions.

As the Department of Labor and Industry (DOLI), the Safety and Health Codes Board (the Board), and the Regulatory Advisory Panel (RAP) develop the proposed regulation, the Commonwealth should pursue a risk-based, evidence-based, and flexible approach. Occupational heat risk cannot be accurately assessed by temperature alone. The nature and physical demands of the work, work environment, source of heat, duration and frequency of exposure, existing controls, and other workplace conditions materially affect an employee’s actual exposure and risk.

Coordinate Virginia's Rulemaking with Federal OSHA

The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is already well advanced in developing a comprehensive Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings standard. OSHA’s proposal addresses many of the same subjects Virginia is required to address, and its informal public hearing and post-hearing comment period concluded in 2025. The General Assembly expressly directed the Board to consider standards developed by OSHA, and the Board has until May 1, 2028, to adopt Virginia’s regulation. The Board should closely monitor the federal rulemaking before adopting substantially overlapping requirements. Virginia employers should not be required to develop compliance programs around one set of requirements only to modify those programs shortly thereafter in response to any final federal standard. Where Virginia considers requirements that exceed, materially differ from, or add to the eventual federal standard, those requirements should be supported by evidence demonstrating the need for a different approach in the Commonwealth.

Account for Differences in Workplace Conditions and Actual Heat Exposure

A statewide heat illness prevention standard must recognize that occupational heat exposure varies substantially among industries, facilities, occupations, job functions, and work environments. The Board should avoid a blanket approach that treats all workplaces or employees as though they experience heat exposure in the same manner.

The nature and physical demands of the work are particularly important. An employee performing sedentary monitoring work, an employee engaged in strenuous manual labor, and an employee working in close proximity to a high-temperature industrial process may experience materially different levels of heat stress even under similar general temperature conditions.

The regulation should account for actual workplace conditions rather than rely on broad classifications based on industry, occupation, or whether work is performed indoors or outdoors. Relevant factors include workload, duration and frequency of exposure, available controls, and other workplace conditions.

Exposure duration also warrants particular consideration. The General Assembly recognized its significance by requiring an exemption for heat exposure lasting no longer than 15 consecutive minutes. The regulation should likewise distinguish among short-duration, intermittent, and sustained exposures when determining how particular requirements apply. These differences should be reflected through appropriately tailored requirements, exceptions, or alternative compliance methods rather than a uniform approach across materially different exposure scenarios.

Establish Scientifically Supported Thresholds That Reflect Actual Exposure

The General Assembly directed the Board to establish heat and high-heat thresholds that trigger employer requirements. Those thresholds should be based on the best available scientific evidence and appropriately reflect actual occupational exposure.

Temperature alone does not accurately characterize occupational heat stress. Humidity, radiant heat, air movement, workload and metabolic demand, duration of exposure, clothing and personal protective equipment, engineering controls, and other factors can materially affect heat exposure. The same measured temperature can therefore present different occupational risks depending on the work being performed and the conditions under which it occurs.

The Board should carefully evaluate appropriate measurement methodologies and avoid treating a single temperature or measurement as a proxy for occupational risk in all workplaces and circumstances. Regulatory thresholds should identify conditions warranting appropriate protective measures while allowing consideration of actual exposure, working conditions, and existing controls.

Recognize Existing Employer Protections and Preserve Flexibility

Virginia manufacturers already take significant precautions to address occupational heat risks through engineering and administrative controls, cooling and ventilation systems, hydration programs, protective equipment, acclimatization and training, work-rest practices, and emergency response procedures. Depending on the workplace, these measures may include localized cooling or ventilation, thermal barriers or shielding, climate-controlled recovery areas, employee rotation, modified work schedules, or other controls appropriate to the particular process and exposure. The appropriate combination of measures varies based on the facility, process, work performed, and conditions of exposure.

The regulation should recognize and build upon effective employer practices rather than require employers to replace or duplicate programs solely to conform to standardized procedures. Employers should be permitted to incorporate required heat illness prevention plans into broader environmental, health, and safety programs rather than create duplicative standalone systems that accomplish the same protective purpose.

The regulation should also recognize that a control appropriate for one workplace may be ineffective, impracticable, or create unintended consequences in another. Increased airflow, for example, may reduce heat exposure in one environment but be inappropriate where it could affect airborne contaminants, sensitive materials, or manufacturing processes. Similarly, continuously operated processes may require employees to rotate among positions or take staggered breaks to maintain safe operations. Mandating adherence to a fixed break schedule without regard to those operating conditions could interfere with established safety procedures or create additional workplace hazards. The Board should carefully consider these potential unintended consequences and avoid rigid requirements where compliance may be impracticable, interfere with other safety controls, or otherwise undermine workplace safety, particularly where employers can achieve the same protective objective through alternative measures.

Acclimatization and work-rest requirements should account for actual workplace conditions, work schedules, employee experience, the nature of the work, and existing protective practices. Wherever permitted by statute, the regulation should establish clear protective requirements while allowing employers flexibility to select the controls and practices best suited to the actual hazards and operating conditions present in their workplaces.

The final standard should also provide clear, objective, and administrable requirements, so employers can readily determine what constitutes compliance and avoid enforcement based on subjective or retrospective judgments.

Clarify Employer Responsibilities in Multi-Employer Workplaces

Manufacturing facilities routinely include contractors, subcontractors, vendors, equipment technicians, maintenance personnel, and other workers who are employed by another entity but perform work at the facility. Because the Code of Virginia §40.1-44.2 defines “worker” to include an independent contractor or other laborer whose worksite conditions are controlled by an employer, the regulation should clearly define what constitutes control of worksite conditions and establish administrable standards for determining responsibility where multiple employers may exercise control over different aspects of the work or workplace.

Employer obligations should correspond to the conditions and work practices within an employer’s actual control. The regulation should avoid imposing duplicative or overlapping obligations on multiple employers or holding an employer responsible for conditions, work assignments, schedules, or practices outside its control.

Conclusion

Protecting workers from occupational heat illness is a shared priority. Virginia manufacturers already invest significant resources and attention to protecting employees from heat exposure, and the regulatory process should recognize and build upon those efforts.

As Virginia develops this standard, a particular temperature should not be presumed to represent the same occupational risk for every employee or workplace. The final standard should reflect differences in actual workplace conditions through risk-based, evidence-based, and flexible requirements that protect workers while allowing employers to select appropriate controls.

The VMA appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments and looks forward to continuing to participate in the regulatory process.