A Proactive Response to OSHA's Proposed Rule on Heat
Several steps remain in the regulatory process until a final, enforceable rule, but employers should be proactive in reviewing it, understanding its requirements, and preparing (or shoring up) a workplace heat safety program. A proactive approach on heat should also have near-term benefits with respect to OSHA enforcement.
September 06, 2024 at 12:00 PM
7 minute read
On Aug. 30, 2024, OSHA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM or proposed rule) covering hazardous heat in the indoor and outdoor work environments. Several steps remain in the regulatory process until a final, enforceable rule, but employers should be proactive in reviewing it, understanding its requirements, and preparing (or shoring up) a workplace heat safety program. A proactive approach on heat should also have near-term benefits with respect to OSHA enforcement. Over the last several years, OSHA has been actively citing employers for heat-related issues—even without a specific regulation on hazardous heat—and those citations have relied upon key concepts from the proposed rule.
OSHA has historically used the general duty clause (GDC) to cite employers for heat-related issues. The GDC requires employers to provide a workplace "free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm." This approach has presented challenges to OSHA. Namely, whether a hazard was "recognized" is not always clear-cut (think 75-degree weather). The GDC also requires OSHA to suggest a means of actually reducing or eliminating the hazard, known as "abatement," which is also not always clear-cut (think delivery drivers who must step outside to deliver packages). Despite these challenges, OSHA has continued to issue heat-related GDC citations, and it has ramped up those efforts recently through its National Emphasis Program on Outdoor and Indoor Heat Related Hazards, Directive CPL 03-00-024.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNeighboring States Have Either Passed or Proposed Climate Superfund Laws—Is Pennsylvania Next?
7 minute readNo Pa. Case Has Ever Adjudicated a Claim to Enforce an Environmental Covenant Imposed Under 'Act 2'—Does That Matter?
7 minute readNJDEP Proposes Changes to Hazardous Substance Discharge Reporting Rules
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Legaltech Rundown: McDermott Will & Emery Invests $10 million in The LegalTech Fund, LexisNexis Releases Conversational Search for Nexis+ AI, and More
- 2The TikTokification of the Courtroom
- 3New Jersey’s Arbitration Appeal Deadline—A Call for Clarity
- 4Law Firms Look to Gen Z for AI Skills, as 'Data Becomes the Oil of Legal'
- 55th Circuit Strikes Down Law Barring Handgun Sales to Adults Under 21
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250