| Action | NOIRA for Heat Illness Prevention Standard |
| Stage | NOIRA |
| Comment Period | Ends 9/23/2026 (today!) |
 |
10 comments
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the NOIRA for the Heat Illness Prevention Standard.
As the COO and Co-Founder of ProTect Athletics, and a former Athletic Equipment Manager with decades of experience on the sidelines, I strongly support DOLI’s work on this standard. Our organization is a 501(c)(3) non-profit built by professionals who have spent their careers protecting athletes at every level, from youth sports to the professional ranks.
When we talk about occupational heat hazards, it is critical that we do not overlook the athletic sector. Athletes, coaches, athletic trainers, and support staff spend hours operating in high-heat environments, often wearing heavy protective equipment. They are workers who need to be protected from exertional heat illnesses just like anyone else.
As your team drafts this standard, I urge you to include:
At ProTect Athletics, our core belief is that safety has to come first. We would welcome the opportunity to collaborate with DOLI and share our expertise in athletic safety, risk analysis, and operations management as you develop these regulations.
Thank you for everything you are doing to protect Virginians.
As a longtime operator of full-service restaurants in Virginia, I am opposed to any type of regulations or government oversight on managing the heat in restaurant environments.
It has long been known in our industry that it is hot in the kitchens at certain times. While we go to great expense to provide AC and make up air in our kitchens, there is no hiding the fact that it gets very hot at times. I believe this is a commonsense issue. If any employee gets overheated, they take a break. They either go to the front of the house for a few minutes to cool down or go in one of the many walk-in coolers they have full access to in order to cool down quickly. We don't need the govt to regulate this....it's a matter of practicality in our industry and we have been self-managing this for many years.
I have been running restaurants in VA for 47 years and don't recall ONE incident where someone complained it was too hot in the kitchen. It is a known fact that it gets hot in the kitchen of all restaurants and employees and managers find ways to cool down if it ever gets uncomfortable.
Workplace safety is of paramount importance, we all agree, but regulating this is unnecessary govt overreach in my opinion. Employees are smart enough to understand this and never has a truer statement been said: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!"
Please exempt restaurants from these regulations
Extreme heat is the leading cause of weather-related mortality worldwide and has been projected to intensify as climate change increases both mean temperature and humidity while amplifying the frequency and severity of heat waves across the United States.
Assessing heat risk requires a metric that reflects the full physiological burden of heat stress. Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT) integrates air temperature, humidity, wind speed, and solar radiation into a single index. WBGT has established flag categories for risk quantification and has been adopted by numerous state high school athletic associations, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), the American Academy of Pediatrics, and many athletic event organizers. WBGT better predicts heat-illness risk in athletes and laborers than air temperature or heat index alone.
I strongly urge the state of Virginia to adopt WBGT as the key metric to evaluate heat stress on workers and provide guidelines for work/rest periods for indoor and outdoor laborers. Adopting evidence-based WBGT guidelines will ultimately lead to better public health outcomes and allow for proper heat stress mitigation techniques to be used. This will ultimately increase worker productivity and lead to fewer lost labor hours and event cancelations due to taking an evidence-based and structured approach to preventing heat-related illness.
Virginia has an opportunity to close a significant gap in worker protection by requiring the use of Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT) as the official metric for evaluating the impacts of heat in the workplace. I urge the Commonwealth to adopt WBGT-based thresholds as the basis for setting work/rest schedules
This is by no means a novel or untested approach. Employers, regulators, and safety organizations across the country already rely on it. OSHA references it in guidance materials, the American Industrial Hygiene Association adopts it in creating their professional standards, and the American Academy of Pediatrics endorses it for protecting children involved in athletics. High school athletic associations in many states have built their own heat safety guidelines around WBGT’s flag-based alert system, giving Virginia’s employers an already proven, straightforward framework for workplace decision making.
The principal justification for this adopting WBGT comes down to accuracy. Unlike air temperature readings or conventional heat index calculations, which use a limited set of inputs, WBGT incorporates four separate environmental factors at once: temperature, humidity, wind speed, and solar radiation. Because heat-related illness in the human body is a product of all of these variables taken together, as opposed to any one variable alone, WBGT outperforms these simpler metrics in analyzing actual physiological risk for people working outdoors, in a climate that continues to produce hotter and hotter weather patterns.
It’s incredibly important to get this right. No other weather hazard kills more people in the U.S. than extreme heat, and warming temperatures, higher humidity levels, and more frequent and severe heat waves are all expected to make conditions more dangerous for Virginia’s workers in the coming years
Aside from the direct health benefits, there’s also a strong economic justification for this metric. A uniform, evidence-based system for monitoring and limiting heat exposure helps prevent sudden workplace absences, expensive work stoppages, and reduces the chances that outdoor activities or job sites need to cease operations entirely due to unsafe heat conditions. Protecting our workers and maintaining workplace productivity are not mutually exclusive.
For all these reasons, I strongly urge that Virginia move forward with WBGT-based heat safety standards.
The Virginia Chamber of Commerce is pleased to submit comments in response to the Department of Labor and Industry and Safety and Health Codes Board’s Notice of Intended Regulatory Action regarding the development of regulations as required by Chapters 731 and 732 of the 2026 Acts of Assembly. As the largest business advocacy organization in the Commonwealth, representing thousands of employers of all sizes and in all industries, the Virginia Chamber has a direct interest in ensuring the rulemaking process results in regulations that are workable, clearly understood, and implemented in a manner that ensures employers are able to comply.
The Virginia business community understands well the importance of heat illness prevention and heat safety. No employer wants an employee to collapse on the job, and a workforce that is hydrated, rested, and appropriately trained is a more productive one. As the Board and Department proceed with this rulemaking, we respectfully urge the development of standards that target truly dangerous conditions rather than standards which would impose new and burdensome mandates on employers generally. Standards which do not recognize the difference between a mild summer afternoon and a legitimate heat emergency do not serve the interests of employers nor employees.
§ 40.1-44.2(A) defines “worker” to mean an “employee, independent contractor, or other laborer whose worksite conditions are controlled by an employer.” Worksite condition control is an essential limiting principle, however what constitutes that control is undefined in statute. That principle effectively determines whether the standards to be developed applies to traditional employment relationships or extends into arrangements where the employer, as defined, has no practical control.
Heat is unlike other workplace hazards that a standard or regulation may require an employer to control. A commercial construction firm cannot control the ambient temperature on a roof in July, an agricultural employer cannot control conditions in a field, a transportation contractor cannot control heat radiating off asphalt, etc. In these cases, the employer can control some mitigating factors, such as water, shade, and training, but not the heat itself. Likewise, for contractor-based arrangements, a company cannot affect the conditions within a contractor’s personal vehicle, determine the availability of water on a delivery route, etc.
The concept of “worksite control” is significant within the context of the statute, but the statute itself provides no guidance or indication as to how these issues should be resolved. If left undefined, the term will be constructed on an ad hoc basis, and as such will provide no certainty or predictability for employers responsible for complying with the standards nor for the workers the standards are intended to serve. As such, we respectfully urge the Board and the Department to define “control” in the regulatory process with as much specificity as possible and to recognize that, especially for industries involving outdoor work, heat itself is not a factor an employer can control.
§ 40.1-44.2(B)(ii) contemplates a two-tier system for heat illness standards: a general threshold (“heat”) and a separate “high-heat” threshold which are to be set by the Board. These thresholds are among the most consequential aspects of the rulemaking, and we respectfully urge the Board and Department to consider thresholds with appropriate rigor.
Earlier drafts of the legislation that became Chapters 731 and 732 made specific reference to an 80-degree Fahrenheit threshold. This language was appropriately dropped from the enacted legislation, and we respectfully urge the Board and Department to not resurrect the idea through regulation. In the Commonwealth, 80 degrees Fahrenheit is not an unusual nor elevated condition, but rather a typical afternoon temperature across most of the Commonwealth for many months of the year. Establishing a threshold at that temperature would therefore effectively establish a continuous obligation for any employer with outdoor or non-climate-controlled indoor operations for nearly half the year, an outcome which would be at odds with the contemplated two-tier structure. Moreover, while Chapters 731 and 732 require standards for both indoor and outdoor work, the conditions are materially different and we respectfully urge the Board and Department to recognize those differences in the regulations to be developed.
Regarding outdoor work, we respectfully urge the Board and Department to tie the “high-heat” threshold to existing, recognized standards. The National Weather Service (NWS) issues Heat Advisories and Extreme Heat Watches and Warnings calibrated to regional conditions based on a combination of temperature, humidity, and duration. Anchoring outdoor heat procedures to an official NWS determination serves numerous benefits, including ensuring consistency in application across the Commonwealth’s regions and employers.
Indoor work is necessarily different in kind from outdoor work, whether the work occurs in a climate-controlled environment or otherwise. We respectfully urge the Department to establish distinct standards for indoor work, focusing particularly on functional climate control (where feasible), break access, and appropriate training, developed by the Department or another independent source and provided at no cost to the employer, to recognize symptoms.
Additionally, we respectfully urge the Board and Department to recognize many employers already use tools such as wet-bulb globe temperature on their own initiative to provide more precise, real-time data on worksite conditions. These employers undertake such initiatives because it better enables them to protect their workforce and more efficiently manage their operations. Such efforts should be recognized and encouraged by the regulations to be developed.
§ 40.1-44.2(B)(i) lists categories of required protections, including water, shade, climate-controlled access when practicable, rest periods, acclimatization, and training, but does not prescribe how an employer must satisfy those requirements. We respectfully urge the Board and Department to preserve and reinforce that flexibility in the regulations, as a prescriptive, one-size-fits-all approach fails to recognize immutable and practical differences across industries.
For example, “shade” has a materially different meaning for a warehouse with a loading dock, a highway work crew, a farm, or a restaurant kitchen. A prescriptive checklist, for shade, water, rest, acclimatization, or training, may fit some employers or industries reasonably well and others not at all. Under such a regulatory framework, employers seeking to protect their workforce may incur substantial costs to satisfy a specific requirement that does not reflect the material conditions, rather than direct limited resources toward efforts that would meaningfully reduce risk for their workforce. Such an outcome serves neither the employer nor the workforce the regulations are intended to protect.
Heat illness risk also varies significantly across individuals, independent of industry, job type, or other factors. Individual personal factors, including acclimatization, age, medication use, hydration, and underlying health conditions, can all affect an individual’s physiological response to heat. In any given scenario, indoor or outdoor, two workers performing the same task in identical conditions may experience meaningfully different levels of risk. A standard that is constructed around uniform or fixed requirements necessarily cannot account for such variations. A performance-based approach focused on identifying signs and symptoms of heat illness will better protect individual workers whose actual risk cannot be predicted by any independent factor such as temperature, job type, or industry.
Across industries, employers are best able to determine what protective measures are needed for their own operations because they have a better understanding of their day-to-day operations than any statewide regulation can anticipate. A performance-based standard which specifies required outcomes while affording employers discretion in achieving those outcomes allows employers to apply their knowledge productively rather than force a one-size-fits-all mechanism onto meaningfully disparate working conditions.
Such an approach would also be consistent with the second enactment clause of Chapters 731 and 732, which directs the Board, in consultation with the Department, to consider a range of existing and proposed standards. Just as these standards differ meaningfully in their mechanics while supporting a common goal, so too should the Commonwealth’s standards give employers the flexibility to adapt in pursuit of a shared outcome.
Finally, the statute appropriately conditions the shade or climate-controlled-environment requirement on practicability, a standard which recognizes individual employers have varying degrees of environmental control. That term must not be left undefined in regulation, however, as failure to define the term will result in inconsistent application of the standard. As above, such inconsistency benefits neither employer nor employee.
We respectfully urge the Board and the Department to define practicability with reference to employer size and industry. Factors within the definition should include, at minimum, consideration of cost relative to an employer’s resources, the operational feasibility given the nature and location of the work undertaken, and the availability of alternatives which achieve the same purpose. A clear and workable definition is essential to ensure employers can comply with the regulations in good faith.
In conclusion, we respectfully urge the Board and the Department to make full and genuine use of the regulatory advisory panel required by Chapters 731 and 732. As the application for that panel explicitly references practical knowledge and experience, we encourage the Department to include employer representatives with practical knowledge across the full spectrum of industry and to make use of that expertise. Virginia employers already take meaningful steps, on their own initiative, to protect their employees from heat-related illness because it is good practice and because a healthy workforce is a more productive workforce. Standards developed with robust input from the business community, and with meaningful consideration of business concerns, will best enable Virginia’s employers to comply with the requirements in good faith and will be the outcome that best protects Virginia’s workers.
The Virginia Chamber of Commerce thanks the Board and the Department for its thoughtful consideration of this comment, and we look forward to continued engagement and active participation as regulations are developed.
To the Members of the Virginia Safety and Health Codes Board,
On behalf of the more than 359,000 union members across the Commonwealth in industries such as construction, manufacturing, healthcare, transportation, airports, warehouse, retail, healthcare, education, utilities, mining, public works and infrastructure, we write in strong support of the Department of Labor and Industry (DOLI)’s promulgation of a comprehensive Heat Illness Prevention Standard for both indoor and outdoor workers.
Requiring employers to prevent and mitigate injuries and illnesses associated with heat exposure is urgent and critically needed. Heat has been recognized as a significant hazard for workers for decades, and as heat exposures have intensified, many already dangerous jobs have become unbearable. The summer of 2026 was the hottest ever measured, surpassing the previous record set in 2023, continuing to exacerbate extreme heat conditions across indoor and outdoor workplaces. The Commonwealth now has the opportunity to protect millions of our own constituents.
Heat has long been recognized as a significant hazard and will only intensify with climate change
Extreme heat in outdoor and indoor work environments has been established as a workplace hazard for decades, with well-documented risks to workers across industries. In 1972, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) first published criteria for OSHA to promulgate a federal standard. Despite decades of scientific and workplace research demonstrating the harm of occupational heat exposure, regulatory gaps still leave more than 50 million workers in America unprotected as global temperatures continue to rise with climate change.
Indoor and outdoor workers in Virginia are at significant risk of heat-related disease, such as heat stroke, heat syncope, heat exhaustion, heat cramps, hyponatremia, heat rash, rhabdomyolysis and permanent organ damage. These illnesses often develop without obvious warning signs; symptoms can include rapid heart rate, lightheadedness, headache, dizziness, nausea, weakness, irritability, thirst, excessive sweating and decreased urine output. Ongoing exposure to hot conditions can exacerbate pre-existing health issues, diminish cognitive abilities and impair decision-making—making work environments much more dangerous for workers, their coworkers and the public. Hot working conditions also contribute to additional injuries from slippery sweat, the use of hot tools/equipment and issues with personal protective equipment and safety equipment. From 2023 to 2024, Virginia had 140 heat-related illnesses that led to days away from work, and in 2025, Virginia had more than 4,000 visits to emergency rooms due to heat-related illnesses. With 2026 being the hottest on record, the number of emergency visits could well exceed the 4,000 from 2025.
Virginia’s heat standard must emphasize prevention and be comprehensive.
A heat illness prevention standard should be proactive, not reactive. It must establish clear, preventative requirements that stop workers from dangerous heat exposure in the first place. DOLI has the opportunity to set a strong model that requires employers to use evidence-based methods for evaluating heat exposure, implement effective control measures to address heat hazards, provide workers the protections and information they need to stay safe on the job and collect important information from employers through the agency’s recordkeeping authority to improve documentation of heat-related illness and awareness and target interventions.
An effective standard that protects workers and addresses significant risk includes requirements for a written, comprehensive heat illness and prevention program with meaningful involvement of workers and their representatives; temperature thresholds that trigger employer actions; exposure monitoring (using WBGT to reflect actual risk from heat, humidity and air movement); the hierarchy of controls to implement feasible engineering and administrative measures; mandatory paid rest breaks; cool, clean and accessible water and shade; acclimatization; emergency response and planning; training; anti-retaliation protections; and strong recordkeeping requirements for immediate reporting of heat-related illness, a heat incident log and definition of heat-related illness for OSHA 300 logs.
These requirements would ensure that control measures meant to reduce risk are actually effective, which requires some level of specificity for employers to follow, but still allow plenty of flexibility and adaptability for individual worksites. They also make it easier for DOLI to enforce. Virginia can look to and improve on other states with heat standard models such as Maryland, California, or Oregon.
No worker should ever face serious illness or death by going to work. Heat illness is preventable, and Virginia now has the opportunity to establish a strong and comprehensive Heat Illness Prevention Standard.
Thank you for your efforts to protect Virginian workers and their families.
Sincerely,
Doris Crouse-Mays
President, Virginia AFL-CIO
The Tree Care Industry Association is a national trade association comprised of employer members in the tree care and landscape trades. We have approximately 65 to 70 member companies that reside or conduct operations in Virginia. Obviously, their production employees work outside, subject to the elements. Many of these employees perform electrical line clearance tree trimming or right-of-way maintenance, activities vital to keeping a safe utility infrastructure and road system, respectively. Employees in residential/commercial arboriculture work to keep public areas safe from potential tree hazards.
Given the essential nature of these employees’ work, it is in the public’s best interest to insure that Virginia’s proposed heat illness prevention rule protects them without imposing an undue regulatory burden on their employers.
We support DOLI’s effort to provide better protections for workers exposed to heat, and to the approach they took of emulating language that appears in other State Plan OSHA’s heat rules in its draft 16VAC25-210. While we are supportive of DOLI’s overall concept for that rule as represented by that draft standard, we take issue with specific passages, as follows:
16VAC25-210-50(E) appears non-sensical, and contradictory to 16VAC25-210-50(A). We believe it should be deleted. Instead, 16VAC25-210-50(A) could be re-written (added text is underlined):
16VAC25-210-70(B)(4) (high heat procedures) mandates a 10-minute break in the shade at least every two hours, regardless of the overall length of the shift. We feel this is too rigid a requirement. What if the employee was 70 feet up in the canopy of a tree, and taking that 10-minute break entailed descending to the ground and re-ascending the tree at the end of the break? This is just one example where flexibility in the break interval, or in how the employee cools off, is absolutely necessary.
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.
I strongly support Virginia DOLI’s proposed heat illness prevention standard.
As a Safety Coordinator in the construction industry, I have witnessed firsthand how quickly extreme heat can become a serious threat to workers. On one occasion, I watched two workers become overcome by heat exhaustion and reach a point where they were on the verge of heat stroke. What was especially concerning to me was that, at the time, I did not recognize what was happening quickly enough.
That experience reinforced for me that heat illness is not something we can simply expect workers and supervisors to recognize on their own. The signs can be overlooked, and by the time it becomes obvious that someone is in serious trouble, the situation can already be life-threatening.
That is why I believe Virginia needs a strong and consistent heat illness prevention standard. Employers should be required to provide annual heat illness awareness and prevention training so that workers, supervisors, and safety personnel understand the risks, recognize the warning signs, and know what actions to take when someone begins showing symptoms.
I also support workplace heat monitoring programs when employees are working in high-temperature conditions. These programs should include adequate access to drinking water, appropriate work and rest schedules, and regular breaks in shaded or cooled areas where workers can recover from the heat. Employers should also have clear procedures for responding to suspected heat illness and getting medical assistance when necessary.
In construction, workers are often exposed to heat for long periods while performing physically demanding work. We should not wait until someone collapses before taking action. Prevention needs to be built into the way we plan and manage work in extreme heat.
My own experience has shown me that even people who are responsible for workplace safety can fail to recognize the seriousness of heat illness in the moment. That is why education, monitoring, and clear preventive requirements are so important.
I respectfully urge Virginia DOLI to implement a strong heat illness prevention standard that provides meaningful protections for workers across Virginia. Proper training, monitoring, hydration, rest, shade, and cooling are practical measures that can help prevent serious injuries and save lives.
Every worker deserves to go home safely at the end of the workday.
The Virginia Association of Roofing Professionals (VARP) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Intended Regulatory Action for 16VAC25-210, Heat Illness Prevention Standard. VARP represents roofing contractors and other roofing industry professionals across the Commonwealth.
Protecting roofing workers from heat-related illness is an important safety priority for our industry. Roofing is physically demanding outdoor work, often performed in direct sunlight and under changing weather and jobsite conditions. Effective prevention includes hydration, rest, training, acclimatization, and recognizing and responding to the signs and symptoms of heat illness.
VARP supports the Commonwealth's goal of protecting workers from heat illness. As the Safety and Health Codes Board and the Department of Labor and Industry (DOLI) develop the proposed standard, we encourage a regulation that is effective, understandable, practical, and flexible enough to work on real roofing and construction jobsites.
1. Use a Flexible, Performance-Based Approach
VARP encourages the Board to make the standard as flexible and performance-based as Virginia law allows, rather than prescribing a single method employers must follow in every situation.
Roofing contractors work on different types of buildings, roof systems, and jobsites under constantly changing conditions. Heat, humidity, direct sunlight, roof-surface conditions, wind, storms, and the physical demands of particular tasks can all affect how work is performed safely. Effective heat-safety programs therefore may not look identical from one contractor or jobsite to another.
A performance-based approach would hold employers accountable for protecting workers while allowing them to select the methods best suited to their employees, worksites, and conditions. Flexibility should not mean less protection; it should allow employers to use the safest and most effective approach for the circumstances.
2. Make Heat Thresholds Practical and Understandable
Virginia law requires the Board to establish temperature thresholds that trigger heat and high-heat procedures. As those thresholds are developed, VARP encourages the Board to consider the range of environmental and jobsite conditions that affect heat exposure and to avoid an overly simplistic approach based on a single measurement without appropriate context.
Whatever measurement system Virginia adopts should be clear, practical, readily available, and easy for employers and supervisors to understand and apply in the field. Contractors should be able to determine when additional protections are required without complicated or excessively burdensome monitoring.
3. Preserve Flexibility for Rest Periods and Other Jobsite Hazards
Rest is an important part of preventing heat illness. VARP encourages the Board, however, to provide employers with reasonable flexibility in determining the timing and frequency of rest periods based on actual conditions and employee needs rather than imposing unnecessarily rigid schedules.
This is particularly important in roofing. Roofing workers face significant fall hazards, including while accessing and leaving rooftops. Requirements that result in unnecessary additional trips up and down a roof could introduce additional risk. Contractors also must respond quickly to changing weather. An approaching thunderstorm, high winds, or rain may require a crew to secure a roof or complete a particular task before conditions become unsafe.
A heat standard should improve overall worker safety, not inadvertently create conflicts with fall protection, severe-weather response, or other critical safety practices. Employers need enough flexibility to coordinate heat protections with the full range of hazards present on a roofing jobsite.
4. Develop Workable Acclimatization Requirements
VARP supports acclimatization, particularly for workers who are new to roofing, returning to work after an absence, or otherwise unaccustomed to working in hot conditions. Gradually increasing exposure to strenuous work in the heat can be an important part of preventing heat illness.
At the same time, acclimatization can vary based on the individual, work history, job demands, and environmental conditions. Rigid schedules can create significant administrative and operational challenges and may not be the best approach for every worker or jobsite.
VARP encourages the Board to establish requirements that recognize acclimatization as an important safety practice while allowing employers reasonable flexibility to manage it based on actual working conditions and employee needs.
5. Recognize Effective Existing Heat-Safety Programs
Many roofing contractors already have heat-illness prevention practices and safety programs in place. VARP encourages the Board to allow employers with effective existing programs to adapt those programs to meet Virginia's requirements rather than requiring them to discard proven practices and create entirely new programs solely for regulatory compliance.
The focus should remain on effective worker protection. Recognizing compliant existing programs would allow employers to devote resources to training, supervision, hydration, rest, and other practical safety measures rather than duplicative paperwork.
6. Keep Monitoring and Recordkeeping Practical
The eventual regulation should provide employers with clear expectations without creating monitoring or recordkeeping requirements that are disproportionate to the safety benefit. Roofing and construction employers frequently manage multiple mobile jobsites, changing crews, and rapidly changing weather conditions.
VARP encourages the Board to develop practical compliance tools that supervisors can use in the field and to avoid requirements that effectively turn routine heat-safety management into a continuous administrative exercise. The standard should also recognize employers' good-faith efforts to implement and maintain effective heat-safety programs.
7. Include Roofing and Construction Expertise Throughout Rulemaking
The General Assembly directed the Board to convene an advisory panel to assist in developing the regulations. VARP strongly encourages DOLI and the Board to continue seeking direct input from employers and safety professionals with construction and roofing experience as specific regulatory language is developed.
VARP has taken steps to support roofing industry representation in the advisory process and remains hopeful that the industry will be represented as the regulations are developed.
Roofing contractors can provide firsthand information about how proposed requirements would operate on actual jobsites and can help identify unintended consequences before regulations are finalized. VARP welcomes the opportunity to participate in this process and to serve as a resource to the Board, DOLI, and the advisory panel.
Conclusion
VARP supports the Commonwealth's goal of preventing heat illness and protecting workers. We encourage the Board to establish clear expectations for worker protection while allowing employers to respond to actual jobsite conditions and coordinate heat-safety measures with other critical workplace safety requirements.
A practical, performance-oriented approach can advance worker safety while giving Virginia roofing contractors the flexibility needed to implement effective protections across diverse and changing worksites. VARP appreciates the opportunity to provide input at this early stage and looks forward to continued participation as the proposed regulation is developed.
Respectfully submitted,
Virginia Association of Roofing Professionals