Occupational Health and Safety Bureau Proposes Heat Exposure Rule
The New Mexico Environment Department NMED, Occupational Health and Safety Bureau (OHSB) initiated the rule making process to promulgate a New Mexico Heat Illness and Injury Prevention rule. OHSB drafted of the Heat Illness and Injury Prevention rule that is open for public comment and petitioned the Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) for a hearing on adoption of the rule. OHSB will open an online portal for public comment on April 1, 2025.
Physical exertion in high heat conditions is a known workplace hazard that can result in heat exhaustion and heat stroke as well as long term conditions such as heart and kidney damage, neurological dysfunction, and death. The hazards of work in high heat environments can often be abated by relatively simple practices such as increased rest periods, provision of shade, and having adequate drinking water available to workers. There is currently no rule or federal standard addressing heat exposure in the workplace.
The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has recognized heat in the workplace as a known hazard, and in 2022 issued a National Emphasis Program (NEP) to address and further study heat illnesses and injuries in the workplace. OHSB adopted the OSHA’s Heat NEP in April of 2023. Federal OSHA published a draft Heat Illness and Injury Standard, which is in the rule making process, but it is unclear when the new standard may be adopted.
The rule that NMED proposed to the EIB will provide the OHSB with the tools necessary to assist New Mexico employers in keeping their workforce safe from heat related illnesses and injuries. The rule will also provide regulatory framework to hold employers accountable if they fail to protect workers from known hazards such as heat, including the authority to prevent employers from exposing workers to conditions which pose an imminent danger.
Below are links to documents and resources on the rule making process for the proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention rule:
Rulemaking Documents
Rulemaking documents will be added to the table below as they are published.
| Document | Document Link | Author | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Rule | Download Proposed Rule | OHSB | 3/12/2025 |
| Petition and Hearing Request | Download Petition | OHSB | 3/13/2025 |
| Petition Press Release | NMED Press Release | NMED | 3/14/2025 |
| Public Involvement Plan | Download Heat PIP English Download PIP Spanish | NMED | 3/31/2025 |
| Limited English Proficiency Assessment | Download LEP | NMED | 3/31/2025 |
| Notice of Comment Period | Download Notice English Download Notice Spanish | NMED | 3/31/2025 |
| Notice of Rulemaking Hearing | English Notice of Rulemaking Hearing Spanish Notice of Rulemaking Hearing | NMED | 4/3/2025 |
Public Comments
Public Comments will be available from April 1, 2025 to May 30, 2025. Tutorial videos on how to use the Public Comment Portal are available in both English and Spanish
| Comment # | Comment | Author | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Comment I-1-1 | https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6910775/ the effect of extreme heat unborn babies | Rosalba Ruiz Reyes | 4/1/25 |
| Comment I-1-2 | My name is Rosalba I work with Community Health Workers and Farm workers. We need to protect them against the heat In the Colonias school have swamp coolers and it is insufficient against the heat. Please enforce this law | Rosalba Ruiz Reyes | 4/1/25 |
| 1-2-1 | I strongly support this proposed rule. Please protect our workers | Anonymous | 4/2/25 |
| Comment I-3-1 | Please implement this extremely important rule to protect workers from heat exhaustion and death. Given that we live in the southwest and have many agricultural, construction and road workers, including those that may not feel safe complaining about working conditions because of their need for a job and/or their immigration status, legal protection becomes even more essential. As the climate changes and we experience more droughts and high temperature episodes we must protect all workers that are exposed to the elements. This is not only humane and ethical, it is good business practice. | Judith Gabriele | 4/3/25 |
| Comment I-4-1 | Please implement this extremely important rule to protect workers from heat exhaustion and death. Given that we live in the southwest and have many agricultural, construction and road workers, including those that may not feel safe complaining about working conditions because of their need for a job and/or their immigration status, legal protection becomes even more essential. As the climate changes and we experience more droughts and high temperature episodes we must protect all workers that are exposed to the elements. This is not only humane and ethical, it is good business practice. | JD Scott | 4/4/25 |
| Comment I-6-1 | Heat exposure can cause a spectrum of heat-related illnesses, which can have many symptoms. Watch out for early signs of heat intolerance like weakness, disorientation, changes in skin color, or vague physical discomfort. HRI includes adverse health conditions ranging from heat rash and sunburn, to heat cramps, heat syncope (fainting), heat exhaustion, and heat stroke. If heat stroke is not treated immediately, it can lead to coma and death. Heat is the leading cause of weather-related deaths in the U.S. Excessive workplace heat can lead to heat stroke and even death. The southeast and southwest regions of New Mexico had experienced the highest rate of Emergency Department (ED) visits resulted from/due to heat-related illness (HRI) in 2023. In 2023, there were total 968 heat-related ED visits reported in New Mexico from April 1st to September 30th where roughly two-thirds of the visits were among males. Out of these 968 heat-related ED visits, 52 visits were also reported as work-related which means those heat-related illness (HRI) occurred during people at work. Data source: National Syndromic Surveillance Program (NSSP). These estimates do not include Indian Health Services or Veterans Health Administration. I strongly believe when this “EIB 25-11 (R) – New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention” will go into effect, this will protect New Mexico workers from exposure to high temperatures while at work and prevent them from heat-related illnesses at occupational settings. | Nayeem Hassan Khan | 4/6/25 |
| 1-7-1 | This proposed regulation requires too much specific activity triggered at relatively low temperatures (80F), which organizations will struggle to implement and govt bodies will struggle to old accountable. The end effect could be that some TV shows/movies or businesses will choose to take their work elsewhere. It micromanages interactions between employers and employees. It would be better to have clear accountability of results and allow them their own methods of helping employees with high heat situations. We say we need industry and jobs, then we need to work with them. | Rachelle Muschett | 4/7/25 |
| 1-8-1 | It is important to include a section that specifies additional protections for pregnant workers. They need additional rest periods and hydration opportunities that non-pregnant workers may not. | Anonymous | 4/8/25 |
| 1-8-2 | We do not need more burden on employers. This policy will also increase the cost of service companies have to charge NM consumers. NM should provide guidelines, not regulations. We can not and should not regulate all aspects of every person’s life. | Charles Otero | 4/8/25 |
| 1-9-1 | I write to urge the Environmental Improvement Board (“Board”) to adopt a Heat Illness and Injury Prevention rule in accordance with the New Mexico Occupational Health and Safety Act and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act. Under NMSA 1978, Section 50-9-7, the Board “shall promulgate regulations that are and will continue to be at least as effective as standards promulgated pursuant to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to prevent or abate detriment to the health and safety of employees.” With adoption of the proposed rule New Mexico will assure every employee safe and healthful working conditions. In New Mexico, we have seen a trend over the past several years of significant increases in high temperatures. Physical exertion in high heat conditions is debilitating and can even lead to death. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. | Charles Goodmacher | 4/9/25 |
| 1-9-2 | I believe this proposed regulation is burdensome to both businesses and employees. Good common sense about working in hot conditions, along with industry-specific knowledge and training, is sufficient to address this issue. I don’t believe a government regulation is needed to ensure proper safety for workers in hot conditions. | Chase Moss | 4/9/25 |
| 1-10-1 | I strongly support this proposal. Please protect our workers and hold employers accountable. | Michelle Humphrey | 4/10/25 |
| 1-11-1 | Heat stroke is no joke and once you have had it once, you are more likely to have it in the future. If you want State workers to be efficient long-term and to remain healthier longer, you need to take heat stroke seriously. Heat stroke is a medical emergency and if you aren’t doing everything you can to prevent it then you are creating an unsafe work environment. | Emily Hanawalt | 4/11/25 |
| 1-15-1 | This proposed Heat Illness rulemaking is onerous and unrealistic. The emergency room numbers used by NMED represent a broad spectrum of persons. Worker Comp numbers in New Mexico show a more realistic construction-related response to Heat with only single digit numbers. Contractors train their employees in First Aid/CPR every two years and Heat Illness is in the training. Contracting companies already have well-established protocols to combat working in heat. NMED is trying to implement a rule for a problem that does not exist. | Brian Legan | 4/15/25 |
| 1-15-2 | Subject: Formal Public Comment in Opposition to EIB 25-11 (R) – Proposed Rule 11.5.7 NMAC (Heat Illness and Injury Prevention) To: New Mexico Environmental Department From: Galina Kofchock, Founder & CFO, Osceola Inc. (OE Solar) Date: 04/15/2025 Dear Chair and Members of the Environmental Improvement Board, I respectfully submit this letter in opposition to EIB 25-11 (R), the proposed 11.5.7 NMAC rule concerning Heat Illness and Injury Prevention. While I support the goal of protecting workers from extreme heat, the regulation in its current form presents significant challenges—legal, logistical, and economic—for New Mexico’s employers, particularly those in the renewable energy, construction, and agricultural sectors. Core Concerns and Implications Regulatory Duplication and Compliance Ambiguity The proposed rule overlaps substantially with existing OSHA standards, such as the General Duty Clause and Heat Illness Prevention guidance. Mandating state-level compliance introduces a parallel regulatory track that could create uncertainty and conflicting interpretations, particularly for firms that already operate under federal oversight and best practices. Disproportionate Burden on Small and Medium Employers Complying with the rule’s broad mandates—including developing written procedures, creating acclimatization plans, administering training programs, and managing recordkeeping—will require the hiring of additional safety personnel or consultants for many small businesses. For companies already grappling with workforce shortages, rising insurance premiums, and inflation-driven project cost increases, these requirements may be untenable. Economic Impact: Costly Compliance and Project Delays From a macroeconomic standpoint, the regulation threatens to slow down the pace of outdoor development projects across multiple sectors. As a solar and storage EPC firm, we anticipate that implementing these mandates would cause significant delays in our project delivery timelines, which are often tightly bound to funding windows, tax credit qualification periods, and grid interconnection schedules. Delays of this nature create financial risk for developers, discourage private investment, and threaten the viability of time-sensitive public-private partnerships—especially in underserved and rural communities. Reduction in Working Hours and Workforce Income To avoid potential noncompliance, many employers will be forced to reduce working hours during peak heat periods. While well-intentioned, this unintended consequence will result in reduced weekly pay for hourly workers and may jeopardize their financial security. In many rural or marginalized communities, outdoor construction and agricultural jobs represent the primary pathway to livable wages. A policy that reduces hours without offsetting income support risks causing more harm than good to the very population it seeks to protect. Disincentivizing Workforce Participation in Key Industries The perception of added regulatory burden, reduced hours, and heightened risk of penalties may discourage individuals from seeking employment in outdoor industries already struggling to attract skilled labor. At a time when we are actively working to expand New Mexico’s clean energy workforce and meet ambitious climate and infrastructure goals, this rule threatens to create a chilling effect on job participation and project mobilization. Suggested Alternative Approach Rather than imposing a rigid regulatory framework with punitive consequences, I urge the Board to consider the following alternative strategies: Voluntary compliance guidance aligned with OSHA best practices, distributed through state agencies and trade associations. State-sponsored training modules and awareness campaigns tailored to employers and field staff. Heat resilience grant funding to help small businesses acquire hydration systems, mobile shade structures, and first-aid resources. Cross-agency coordination with OSHA and NM OSHA to streamline enforcement and avoid regulatory conflicts. Sector-specific flexibility that accounts for the diversity of work environments, schedules, and risk mitigation methods already in place. The health and safety of New Mexico’s outdoor workforce must remain a top priority. However, the proposed rule—11.5.7 NMAC—risks doing more harm than good if adopted in its current form. It places a disproportionate financial burden on small businesses, risks undermining job security for workers, and threatens to delay or derail critical development projects statewide. I respectfully urge the Environmental Improvement Board to delay adoption of this rule and instead initiate a more collaborative, stakeholder-driven process that includes industry, labor, and public health experts. Together, we can arrive at a balanced solution that safeguards worker health without compromising economic resilience or development progress. Sincerely, Galina Kofchock CFO, Osceola Inc. (OE Solar) Subject: Formal Public Comment in Opposition to EIB 25-11 (R) – Proposed Rule 11.5.7 NMAC (Heat Illness and Injury Prevention) To: New Mexico Environmental Department From: Galina Kofchock, Founder & CFO, Osceola Inc. (OE Solar) Date: 04/15/2025 Dear Chair and Members of the Environmental Improvement Board, I respectfully submit this letter in opposition to EIB 25-11 (R), the proposed 11.5.7 NMAC rule concerning Heat Illness and Injury Prevention. While I support the goal of protecting workers from extreme heat, the regulation in its current form presents significant challenges—legal, logistical, and economic—for New Mexico’s employers, particularly those in the renewable energy, construction, and agricultural sectors. Core Concerns and Implications Regulatory Duplication and Compliance Ambiguity The proposed rule overlaps substantially with existing OSHA standards, such as the General Duty Clause and Heat Illness Prevention guidance. Mandating state-level compliance introduces a parallel regulatory track that could create uncertainty and conflicting interpretations, particularly for firms that already operate under federal oversight and best practices. Disproportionate Burden on Small and Medium Employers Complying with the rule’s broad mandates—including developing written procedures, creating acclimatization plans, administering training programs, and managing recordkeeping—will require the hiring of additional safety personnel or consultants for many small businesses. For companies already grappling with workforce shortages, rising insurance premiums, and inflation-driven project cost increases, these requirements may be untenable. Economic Impact: Costly Compliance and Project Delays From a macroeconomic standpoint, the regulation threatens to slow down the pace of outdoor development projects across multiple sectors. As a solar and storage EPC firm, we anticipate that implementing these mandates would cause significant delays in our project delivery timelines, which are often tightly bound to funding windows, tax credit qualification periods, and grid interconnection schedules. Delays of this nature create financial risk for developers, discourage private investment, and threaten the viability of time-sensitive public-private partnerships—especially in underserved and rural communities. Reduction in Working Hours and Workforce Income To avoid potential noncompliance, many employers will be forced to reduce working hours during peak heat periods. While well-intentioned, this unintended consequence will result in reduced weekly pay for hourly workers and may jeopardize their financial security. In many rural or marginalized communities, outdoor construction and agricultural jobs represent the primary pathway to livable wages. A policy that reduces hours without offsetting income support risks causing more harm than good to the very population it seeks to protect. Disincentivizing Workforce Participation in Key Industries The perception of added regulatory burden, reduced hours, and heightened risk of penalties may discourage individuals from seeking employment in outdoor industries already struggling to attract skilled labor. At a time when we are actively working to expand New Mexico’s clean energy workforce and meet ambitious climate and infrastructure goals, this rule threatens to create a chilling effect on job participation and project mobilization. Suggested Alternative Approach Rather than imposing a rigid regulatory framework with punitive consequences, I urge the Board to consider the following alternative strategies: • Voluntary compliance guidance aligned with OSHA best practices, distributed through state agencies and trade associations. • State-sponsored training modules and awareness campaigns tailored to employers and field staff. • Heat resilience grant funding to help small businesses acquire hydration systems, mobile shade structures, and first-aid resources. • Cross-agency coordination with OSHA and NM OSHA to streamline enforcement and avoid regulatory conflicts. • Sector-specific flexibility that accounts for the diversity of work environments, schedules, and risk mitigation methods already in place. The health and safety of New Mexico’s outdoor workforce must remain a top priority. However, the proposed rule—11.5.7 NMAC—risks doing more harm than good if adopted in its current form. It places a disproportionate financial burden on small businesses, risks undermining job security for workers, and threatens to delay or derail critical development projects statewide. I respectfully urge the Environmental Improvement Board to delay adoption of this rule and instead initiate a more collaborative, stakeholder-driven process that includes industry, labor, and public health experts. Together, we can arrive at a balanced solution that safeguards worker health without compromising economic resilience or development progress. | 4/15/25 | |
| 1-15-3 | In response to the second stakeholder meeting today at Horizon, the following comments or suggestions are offered: As Kristi stated, “Kristi, Garth, and Jay are the messengers.” Have the actual decision-makers at the next meeting. We’re all wasting our time if the decision-makers don’t hear our comments and sense our frustration at this process. You stated five decisions-makers and yet none find the time to attend a meeting that impacts many industries and tens of thousands of workers. The push for the July hearing and rulemaking tells us that what ever industries are saying, nothing will change. When asked if the comments provided at these two stakeholder meetings will be incorporated in the rule before the May 12 meeting, Kristi didn’t think so. Carla with ABC stated very accurately that the companies and trade associations in these meetings are the “good” actors that keep their employees educated, informed, provided, and protected, and yet, this onerous rule will adversely impact all of us in the hopes to correct the “bad” actor companies and contractors. Don’t use a sledgehammer rule to correct a problem that needs a scalpel for a few. The current rule using a threshold of 80 degrees is ridiculous. Focus on a more realistic temperature threshold of 100 degrees impacting the handful of the hottest summer days that are truly dangerous. Establish a working committee across industries to develop a better more realistic rule, if one is actually necessary. NM Department of Transportation develops all of the standard specifications with a combined committee of NMDOT engineers and industry experts to come to a consensus on a workable realistic specification. It works for both sides. These specifications are then approved by Federal Highway Administration. As stated by NMED in today’s meeting, using your own NMED numbers from 2023, 968 emergency room heat illness cases with 52 persons that were WORK RELATED. Fifty-two WORKERS in two summer months is less than one worker developing a heat illness issue per day across tens of thousands of workers. Our companies and our workers DO NOT HAVE A HEAT ILLNESS issue. At the first stakeholder meeting last week, NMED hung their hat on the results of UNM’s Dr. Fabian Amorim, and touted him as one of your sources endorsing this rule. Yet, at today’s meeting, Fabian was there and stated he was “neutral.” Federal OSHA website https://www.osha.gov/heat-exposure/rulemaking indicates approximately 40 heat related fatalities per year across 36 million workers. This is an astronomically small percentage. Listen to the industries that are trying to tell you that this will adversely impact many and potentially cause greater peripheral harm and more deaths than heat does through working at night, mental health and suicide, drunk drivers, tired workers, etc. | Brian Legan | 4/15/25 |
| 1-15-4 | We believe that NM OSHA is on the right track to set a base line for companies to comply with a higher safety standard of care and to make a conscious effort to ensure that the proper PPE’s, Hydration, enhanced worker training and to have active plan to protect employees. The rule, as presented lacks significant application in the development and process to warrant the expedited timeline set forth in the two meetings that I have attended. The press release (3/14/2025-Jorge Estrada PR Coordinator) stated that there were over 800 heat related emergency room visits in 2024 but does not distinguish how many were occupational. Our simple research through NM OSHA logs showed 7, in the same timeline, so the information was conflated to support the storyline. When asked if there was an economic impact study, Ms. Peck, NM OSHA said that they did not have one. The heat rest part of the rule will be devastating to the entire Heavy Highway community and will completely shut down road work and maintenance operations in the state. If industry was asked for input, the building industry and Heavy Highway contractors were not asked to participate. Key Concerns Raised Include: Unworkable Rest Break Requirements: The proposed mandate for paid rest breaks when the heat index exceeds 103°F would trigger a 40-minute break every 20 minutes. Given New Mexico’s climate and solar exposure adjustments, this threshold would be reached frequently, making the requirement impractical on most jobsites. Operational Disruption: Time-sensitive activities such as concrete and asphalt pours cannot be paused without compromising structural integrity and safety. A rigid rest schedule would directly impact these critical operations. Exacerbation of Labor Shortages: With the construction industry still operating below its pre-recession workforce levels, the regulation would further strain limited labor resources and reduce overall productivity. Increased Costs and Logistical Challenges: The proposed rule introduces significant administrative burdens—such as mandatory heat exposure assessments, detailed recordkeeping, and provision of shaded rest areas—that are not feasible on large or multi-phase job sites. Safety Risks of Alternative Work Hours: Suggestions to shift work to night or early morning hours are unrealistic due to childcare obligations, apprenticeship training schedules, mental health concerns, and the elevated safety risks associated with low-light conditions. Existing Protections Are Already in Place: Contractors are already accountable for heat-related safety under the federal General Duty Clause, and many voluntarily follow OSHA’s Heat Illness Prevention Campaign guidelines. The proposed rule duplicates and overextends these existing requirements. One-Size-Fits-All Doesn’t Work: Applying the same standard across diverse industries and regions ignores the unique conditions and safety controls already in place on New Mexico’s construction sites. AGC NM and ACNM urge the Environmental Improvement Board to reject this sweeping mandate. A more effective approach would focus on flexible, industry-informed solutions and incentive-based compliance strategies that support both worker safety and project viability. NM OSHA is not considering the business and economic impact this rule will have on the workers, their families and taxpayers. We wholeheartedly endorse a tempered approach that brings industry and regulation to the table to discuss acceptable measures, processes for all industries. Safety is paramount in our approach, design and delivery- Jim A. Garcia Executive Director Associated Contractors of New Mexico. | Associated Contractors of New Mexico | 4/15/25 |
| 1-15-5 | Several suggestions that would make this bill easier to interpret: A heat index calculator that accurately reflects the climate of New Mexico should be included. New Mexico sees high summer heat, but it is also typically dry. Take the high temp on July 11, 2023 in ABQ – the high for the day was 100 and the relative humidity was 14%. The calculated Heat Index on this day is 95.6. Include a heat index chart that has humidity levels below 40% and into the teens, which is what is actually observed. Provide a definition of Light Work, Moderate Work, and Heavy Work if a rest schedule for said work types is to be included. Otherwise, interpretation of the rule is vague and the guidelines are not useful. In addition, 11.5.7.10 B.e, to “…encourage workers to drink 8 oounces of fluids every 15 minutes.” seems questionable. Hydration is important, but hyponatremia (overhydration) is also a risk. | Anonymous | 4/15/25 |
| 1-15-6 | New Mexico Environment Department Occupational Health and Safety Bureau Harold Ru nnels Building 1190 St. Francis Drive, Suite N4050 Santa Fe, NM 87505 RE: EIB 25-11 (R)- Proposed New Regulation 11.5.7 NMAC- Heat Illness and Injury Prevention To: Whom it May Concern: I appreciate the opportunity to provide input into the Proposed New Regulation – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention. I have worked in safety for 25 years that included various positions at the New Mexico Occupational Safety and Health Bureau, National Labs, oil and gas industry and construction. Most of my work has been in New Mexico. Recently, I attended 2 Stakeholder meetings in the Albuquerque area and left with a number of comments and more questions. First of all, I would like to be clear that I realize how important it is to protect our New Mexico workers from the hazards associated with heat. However, a Regulation as specific and aggressive as the one proposed may not be the solution. One size will not fit all. New Mexico is unique and any new regulations should be state specific, not a cut and paste from Federal OSHA and other states. The current proposed regulation does not consider the differences in temperatures, humidity, workforce, industries, etc. Why did NM OHSB decide to choose a specific-based standard rather than one that was performance-based? According to Attachment 1 of the Petition for Regulatory Change and Request for Hearing: The New Mexico Department of Health conducted a study of all reported heat related illnesses for the two-year period 2008 and 2010. Reported were 526 heat-stress emergency department (ED) visits among NM residents. One would have expected Work Comp claims data to be similar. How did the Environment Department decide how many were work related to justify the need for the Proposed Rule? Why doesn’t the number match up with Work Comp data? In the same attachment, the Bureau reported having received 232 heat-related complaints from workers since adopting the federal OSHA’s NEP, for heat related illness and injury in May of 2023. Were the complaints formal complaints, informal complaints, referrals, or what? How many resulted in phone/faxes, inspections or other type of follow-up? In the same attachment, in 2022, the Bureau adopted the NEP for Outdoor and Indoor Heat Related Standards to track heat as a hazard in the state, and a means by which heat related hazards in the state could be effectively evaluated. As a result, the Bureau conducted 20 Heat N EP related inspections since the inception. What are the case numbers of the 20 inspections? In the same document, it is stated that it is to establish standards related to the occupational health and safety of employees to prevent heat illness and related injuries. If the Prop osed Rule passes, using the data presented, what criteria will the NM Environment Department use to determine if heat illness and related injuries have been reduced? Simply, does the Department intend to collect follow-up data from hospitals again to compare? It was reported during the Stakeholders Meeting on April 15, 2025 that NM OHSB has decided to conduct an economic impact study. I am happy to hear about the change in plans. I believe you will find the economic impact on construction companies and the customers they serve will be great if not infeasible. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to provide input and get additional information. Respectfully submitted, Carol Walker, MS Safety Compliance Specialist | Carol Walker, MS Safety Compliance Specialist | 4/15/25 |
| 1-16-1 | This proposed Heat Illness rulemaking is onerous and unrealistic. The emergency room numbers used by NMED represent a broad spectrum of people. Worker Compensation numbers in New Mexico show a more realistic construction-related response to Heat with only single digit numbers. Contractors train their employees in First Aid/CPR every two years and Heat Illness is in the training. Contracting companies already have well-established protocols to combat working in heat. NMED is trying to implement a rule for a problem that does not exist. More consideration needs to go into the cost impacts to the state with this reduced production and hinderance of contract completion. Construction costs will significantly increase, projects will take much longer to complete, and this cost will be at the state and tax payers cost. | Kimo Constructors, Inc. | 4/16/25 |
| 1-17-1 | As a contractor in New Mexico, I am strongly opposed to this proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule. It’s a textbook example of government overreach: expensive to implement, impossible to apply evenly across industries, and completely out of touch with the realities of actual job sites. Let’s be real—a “20-minute paid break” turns into at least 30 minutes lost once you factor in getting off the site, finding shade or a cooling area, then getting back to work. Multiply that across crews and across job sites, and you’ve just crippled productivity. Time-sensitive work like concrete pours doesn’t pause nicely for bureaucratic checklists. This rule might sound good in theory, but it doesn’t solve a real problem. Your own numbers show that just 52 work-related heat illness cases occurred statewide over two months. That’s less than one per day across tens of thousands of workers. The idea that we need sweeping new regulations for this is absurd. What’s worse—this is the thin edge of the wedge. First, it’s excessive summer heat. What’s next? Restrictions on cold weather work? Dust? Wind? At some point, you just won’t be able to build anything in New Mexico. We already take heat seriously. We hydrate our crews, adjust schedules, and provide training—not because of a rule, but because it’s the right thing to do. The bad actors won’t follow this law anyway, and the good ones are already going above and beyond. This rule punishes responsible employers while doing nothing to stop the ones who cut corners. Please stop rushing this through. If you’re serious about worker safety, collaborate with industry leaders to build a performance-based, state-specific, and realistic solution—not this one-size-fits-none mandate. | Cash Properties LLC | 4/17/25 |
| 1-17-2 | I’ve been working construction in New Mexico most of my life, and I’m out in the heat every summer. This new rule doesn’t make sense and honestly just shows how out of touch whoever wrote it really is. You try telling a crew to work 40 minutes and then take a 20-minute paid break. By the time you stop, find shade, and then get back to the job, you’ve lost half the day. You can’t get anything done that way. Jobs like concrete and asphalt don’t wait around for you to cool off—they’ve got to be done right and on time or the whole thing is a mess. We already watch out for our guys. We bring water, we give breaks, and if someone’s looking rough, we deal with it. You don’t need a law to tell you to use common sense. Most contractors I know already do way more than the bad ones ever will—and those bad ones won’t follow this rule anyway. It feels like this whole thing was written by people sitting in air-conditioned offices who don’t know what it’s like to be out there. And if this passes, it’s going to cost a ton, slow everything down, and hurt the people it’s supposed to protect. New Mexico isn’t like other states. We don’t have the humidity or heat issues they do in the south. We don’t need a cookie-cutter rule that doesn’t fit here. Please scrap this thing and work with the people actually doing the work. We want to keep our crews safe—but this ain’t the way to do it. | North 80 Construction | 4/17/25 |
| 1-17-3 | I’ve been building homes in New Mexico year-round for over 20 years. We work in the heat every summer, and we know how to keep our guys safe. This rule is just more government overreach that makes no sense in the real world. Most of us already give breaks, water, and keep an eye on the crew. We don’t need the state telling us how to do what we’ve been doing forever. Forcing paid breaks and piling on paperwork just slows us down and drives up costs. Soft times make soft men, and soft men make a weak community. This rule is one more step toward making our state and our people depend on rules instead of responsibility. That’s not the New Mexico I want to live in. Give us something that fits our state, not some one-size-fits-all rule copied from somewhere else. | Cash Properties LLC | 4/17/25 |
| 1-17-4 | I’ve worked construction in New Mexico long enough to know when a rule is written by people who’ve never stepped foot on a job site. This proposed heat illness rule is a shining example of clueless policymaking—detached from reality and completely out of touch with how work actually gets done in our state. Let’s break this down. You want crews to take paid breaks every 20 minutes once it gets warm? Not even dangerously hot—just warm. You want job sites to provide shade and cooling stations and track hydration like we’re babysitting grown adults. And you want small businesses to shoulder the cost of all this? You’ve lost the plot. This rule assumes that contractors are too dumb or heartless to protect their own teams, when in fact, the responsible ones—like us—have been doing it for years. The real joke is that the bad actors you claim to be targeting won’t follow these rules anyway. So who ends up paying for this idiocy? The builders. The tradesmen. The people actually keeping the economy moving while you sit in air-conditioned conference rooms making up fantasy regulations. This rule isn’t about safety—it’s about control. And worse, it’s lazy. It’s a copy-paste job from humid states with completely different climates, completely different industries, and completely different needs. It’s the legislative version of checking the box and patting yourself on the back while everyone else deals with the fallout. If you actually want to help workers, stop treating them like fragile children. New Mexico needs strong communities, not government-made weakness. We need rules that make sense, not policies built on bad data, worse assumptions, and zero real-world input. Scrap the rule. Start over. And maybe this time, talk to someone who’s held a shovel in July. | North 80 Construction | 4/17/25 |
| 1-17-5 | I thoroughly agree that heat stroke or heat related issues are no joke. However, putting so many and such detailed regulations simply will not always work in the agricultural field. Common sense is the best way to insure that people are taken care of and that minimal heat-related issues will arise. We in the agricultural industry do not always get to choose when we go out to work or what conditions we go out in. Preparation of proper clothing (PPE) and the availability of fluids as well as knowing when to stop for a break (if possible) are centuries-old practices out on the farm/ranch. Also, limiting the outside work to cooler hours during hot periods has been widely adopted by many. Again, I understand the risks of heat related issues and the need for practical solutions to combat them but passing down a series of detailed and quite frankly, unattainable (in most cases) regulations is not the answer. Most employers would do all possible to take care of their employees or the employees will look for something better. I would think many already have guidelines or directives concerning working in potential dangerous heat conditions. I know there are lot more risks than just heat stroke when I step out to work on my farm/ranch. Too much regulation… | Eddie Behrends | 4/17/25 |
| 1-17-6 | This puts a large burden on employers to not only monitor but to maintain “accurate” records. There is minimal detail provided for what those records must contain. What is the penalty if records that do not meet an NM-OSHA employee’s opinion of what is accurate or adequate? Places unreasonable expectation on employers to know their worker’s physical fitness, level of rest, hydration level, etc. The example (Appendix I) is not atypical for much of the outdoor work season in the ABQ area. This example requires a 20-minute break for every 40 minutes worked, driving a 33% increase in time or labor addition to accomplish the same tasks, which passes that increase in cost to the local consumer. Take the same example, but increase the temp to 90F, now requires 35-minute break for every 25 minutes worked, driving a 58% increase in time or labor addition to accomplish the same tasks, which passes that increase in cost to the local consumer. These values of work/rest seem somewhat arbitrary and capricious. Supporting data are not presented. I have worked outdoors much of my life, applying common sense to hydration and breaks, with many other workers and never once experienced heat injury or witnessed anyone else experience heat injury. Why has changed that to make this regulation needed now? How does this compare to rules governing military personnel working/operating outdoors? It’s pretty clear that this regulation will dramatically increase the cost of doing business in NM and likely drive more companies to close their doors and/or move out of NM. | Joel Darnold | 4/17/25 |
| 1/18/1 | I’m a teacher in APS and teach in a portable. I have a swamp cooler. 3 years ago when we started school in August, my swamp cooler broke. It took almost 4 weeks to get fixed. During that time, with 5 fans running and all windows and doors open, it reached 100 degrees in my room. Empty with no students, it was 95. I ended up getting extremely dehydrated as I couldn’t keep up with the fluid loss from sweat and ended up in the Emergency Room. Total cost about 1500 dollars. This year as I wait for my swamp cooler to get turned on, I can’t open my door because of a wasp nest on the roof. Last Friday with 3 fans, all the lights off and 24 students in the room it was 95 degrees. My students were sweating, arguing and in general could not focus. I ended up having to abandon my lesson plan. We’ve had rooms at my school so hot that glue melts. Bottom line–heat is a safety issue for staff and students in schools. We need this rule. | James Macklin | 4/18/25 |
| 1-18-2 | The New Mexico Heat Stress regulation as proposed lacks sufficient data to justify its stringent measures and fails to assess the economic impacts it will have on workers in New Mexico. Construction costs will multiply exponentially: from housing to infrastructure the added labor costs and delays will cripple multiple industries. At the airport air travel and product shipment will face unbearable delays; from flights taking longer to depart or be guided to a gate, to passengers waiting for baggage to be unloaded. Restaurants will have longer waiting times for meals to be prepared. Teachers in classrooms exceeding the heat index will be forced to take breaks, leaving students unsupervised, and any teacher’s aides will be exposed to the same conditions, unless they are just waiting in another area to be ready to take over without being exposed to the same conditions. Police will have to break off investigations or stop pursuit to rest. The negative impacts are legion. This proposed rule seems to be intended to be a feather in someone’s cap, but it falls short of its goal and appears instead to be an extremely misguided solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. This does not put us on the map as having the most comprehensive set of heat stress guidelines in the nation but rather showcases a lack of comprehension about the economic impacts of ill-conceived regulations imposed on the working class of New Mexicans. As is the case with many such situations, more is not better. Please consider the input received and table the proposed rule pending further study and analysis. | BERNARDINO FRANCO JR | 4/18/25 |
| 1-18-3 | I have worked hard jobs outside and watched my coworkers become ill and exhausted far too often. With rising global heat, these measures are badly needed here in New Mexico. Approve new regulation and protect the next generation of workers. | William Tatman | 4/18/25 |
| 1-21-1 | This proposed Heat Illness rulemaking is onerous and unrealistic. The emergency room numbers used by NMED represent a broad spectrum of people and is truly biased. Worker Compensation numbers in New Mexico show a more realistic construction-related response to Heat with only single digit numbers. Contractors train their employees in First Aid/CPR every two years and Heat Illness is in the training. Contracting companies already have well-established protocols to combat working in heat. There are protocols related to time of day for work starts and stops, as well as known processes that have stood the test of time. NMED is trying to implement a rule for a problem that does not exist. | Michelle Newsom | 4/21/25 |
| E-01 | Hello, I am writing to express my opposition to the Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Rule. This is a broad and burdensome rule that does not have cost and industry considerations. New Mexico needs high quality jobs to survive, and this rule will hurt economic development across our already struggling state. Thank you, Sal | Sal Perdomo | 4/22/25 |
| E-02 | I believe this rule needs to cover all employees, public and private sectors. There are many employers that find loopholes and we need to close the loopholes. I have filed numerous OSHA complaints and a retaliation on whistleblower complaint all of which the City got away with or took 6+ months to fix. Our specific department management has zero concern for employee health or safety yet they talk a big game that they are all about safety. Dozens of employees have been injured, or become ill. I think the biggest thing in this rule is it gives all employees the right to water and rest on high heat. I also think the safety, health, and sanitary conditions needs to be addressed to all employees as well. Thank you | David Keller | 4/18/25 |
| E-03 | Arizona among other “Smart commonsense states” have this right. (Day Light Savings/StandardTime) N.M. – Just do it! I lived in AZ. and this is so simple – get to work early & avoid the mid-day heat! | Clarice Sanchez | 4/17/25 |
| E-04 | The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED)’s proposed rule does acknowledge that certain medical conditions and medications can increase a worker’s vulnerability to heat stress. However, enforcing workplace protections based on individual health risks could raise privacy concerns, as employers would need access to protected health information (PHI), which is regulated under HIPAA. Approaches that some states and agencies have taken to address this issue include: General workplace protections that apply to all workers, rather than requiring employers to assess individual (personal) medical risks. Education and self-reporting employees are encouraged to recognize their own risk factors and take preventative measures, such as hydration and rest breaks. Some programs have established self-reporting where employees are encouraged to disclose risks voluntarily without mandatory medical screenings. Training Requirements: Employers should educate workers on heat stress risks, including how medications and medical conditions can increase vulnerability using guidance from health Agencies like the CDC and NMDOH. These approaches ensure worker safety without requiring employers to collect personal health data, which could create HR and privacy concerns. | Ron Burick | 4/15/25 |
| E-05 | I encourage you to review the proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule (TITLE 11, CHAPTER 5, PART 7). Though safeguarding workers is vital, this regulation could have substantial unintended impacts on small enterprises and the restaurant sector in New Mexico. Instances of heat-related illnesses in New Mexico’s restaurants are infrequent, and numerous establishments already have measures to ensure staff safety. Enforcing expensive modifications, mandated breaks, and acclimation timelines might disrupt their operations, elevate costs, and further burden an industry currently dealing with workforce shortages. I propose that voluntary guidelines and available resources are a more suitable solution, promoting employee safety without endangering the livelihoods of many across our state. I appreciate your attention to these issues. | John Silva | 4/26/25 |
| I-22-2 | It is critical that employers in New Mexico are given strict regulations around heat, ensuring that our state’s workers are able to perform their duties in a safe and healthy way. Relying on employers to use common sense or to follow un-enforceable “guidelines” leaves workers without any recourse in situations where their lives or health are endangered. Providing simple resources like rest periods, shade structures, and adequate drinking water does not represent an undue burden on employers. Employers who are unable to provide these very basic protections to their employees should not be in operation. | Jessie Calero | 4/22/25 |
| I-22-3 | I believe there are already existing standards in place (general duty clause and the Heat Illness Prevention Campaign by OSHA) in NM without implementing an onerous Heat and Illness state standard. AS a former Safety Director in construction, I know we have always provided water and shade and acceptable rest periods as needed – if we didn’t, we wouldn’t have an effective workforce nor would we be in compliance with existing standards. The newly proposed standard would negatively impact our workforce (childcare arrangements, scheduling of apprenticeship classes, safety issues working in low light environments, etc.) and negatively impact contractors’ ability to complete work efficiently and in a timely manner (already impacted by the lack of skilled construction labor). The newly proposed standards are based on heat conditions in other parts of the country where humidity plays a role – this is not applicable to NM. I believe contractors should be allowed to devise their own written Heat Illness Prevention Plans that are applicable to the NM climate and type of work being performed. I urge you to NOT MOVE FORWARD with the proposed state Heat and Injury Illness Rule as it is currently proposed. Respectfully, Margaret Karler | Margaret Karler | 4/22/25 |
| I-23-5 | Heat illness injuries are serious threats. Working in the heat can cause immediate problems like heat stroke or accidents, and it can lead to serious, long-term health problems with the heart, lungs, and kidneys. Heat can even cause death. It doesn’t have to be over 100 degrees to be dangerous. Workers can get sick when it’s in the 80s, especially if they don’t have enough water, rest, or shade. Please adopt the most rigorous standards possible. | Jeff Sims | 4/23/25 |
| I-23-6 | New Mexico is seeing record breaking temperatures year after year. Protecting worker lives is a necessity and NM has to lead the way nationally in this effort. A state heat standard would set clear rules to protect workers, including breaks, water, shade, training and safety plans. Without a plan in place, workers have endured dangerous conditions that are not only inhumane, but strain the medical system, businesses, and can cost people their lives. The stakes are high, and the need for a heat protection rule is clear. As a nurse in our community, I urge you to support this initiative. Thank you. | Elizabeth Parsons | 4/23/25 |
| I-23-7 | I would like to express my opposition for the proposed regulation, Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Rule. Although I am sensitive to the needs and safety of our New Mexico workforce this one size fits all approach has unintended consequences to many, especially our construction industry. With the lack of labor force, the cost of compliance and the already existing laws in place, I ask that this proposed regulation be revisited or dropped. | Jennifer Greenwood | 4/23/25 |
| I-23-8 | I strongly support this proposed regulation to reduce heat illness and injury among workers in New Mexico. First, it is necessary for public health given the increase in extreme heat that’s expected for the state. Second, there is evidence that rest and retreat from the heat supports worker health while also increasing productivity (https://laislanetwork.org/). This means the proposed regulation is a win-win for New Mexico! Regards, Heidi Krapfl | Heidi Krapfl | 4/23/25 |
| I-23-9 | I’m writing in support of the proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule. There are over 247,000 New Mexican workers at risk of heat-related illness or injury every summer. A significant portion of our workforce are in vital industries: oil and gas, utilities, trades, transportation, construction, and farming: these are our people who are most at risk and are the ones responsible for maintaining societal infrastructure. A state heat standard would set clear rules to protect workers, including breaks, water, shade, training and safety plans. 7 other states have already adopted Occupational Heat Safety Standards, including Colorado to our north. Why is it that over 140 New Mexico workers filed complaints about dangerous heat on the job, in less than a year? These worksite issues should be addressed. Considering the concerns coming from other commentary on this rule, I think that feedback cycles and editing will be necessary to adapt the Rule to incorporate the specific needs of New Mexico. Heat related issues strain our workforce and healthcare systems and reduce productivity. When employees are kept safe in their work environment, there are less absences, use of sick leave, and employee turnover (which is expensive and counterproductive to businesses). There is evidence that more frequent rest and hydration periods during high heat supports worker health while also increasing productivity (https://laislanetwork.org/). I believe that investing in the safety and health of the workforce is the responsible and financially wise choice. | Karen Wennberg | 4/23/25 |
| I-24-1 | I comment in support of the proposed rules. Employees need protections that give them the power to get some shade, water, and frequent rest periods without feeling guilty and protection from retaliation. Direct opposition to these proposed rules is profit over safety. If even one person’s life is saved because there are protections against the rising heat index, it is worth it. Each year, we hit new highs, which means our workers will be at increased risk. There needs to be more urgency for work both outside and inside to provide working conditions that protect workers. | Sam Wood | 4/24/25 |
| I-25-1 | I have been working in cement construction for 40 years and I have never seen any cases of someone getting dehydrated to the point of being hospitalized. We are following Federal OSHA, and that is working well. Now, our company supplies water, ice, and hats that protect from the sun, as well as long sleeves, and that has worked well, including when pouring concrete in 100 degree weather. We had a class where they taught us to detect heat illness problems, and how to help people in trouble. That has also been working well in the last years. Therefore, it doesn’t make sense to pass new laws to protect against something that does not happen. People who have felt ill in the heat are those who drink heavily at night and show up to work already hungover, so they are already predisposed to being sick. We don’t need to change the working hours. | Saul Garcia | 4/25/25 |
| I-28-1 | Dear New Mexico Environmental Department On behalf of Local 12-9477, I am writing to express our strong support for the New Mexico Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Act. As the President of a Union that proudly represents hardworking men and women across industries where exposure to extreme heat is a daily reality, I recognize the urgent need for clear, enforceable protections for workers’ health and safety. New Mexico’s rising temperatures, exacerbated by climate change, place thousands of workers — especially those in agriculture, construction, oil and gas, and other outdoor industries — at serious risk of heat-related illnesses and fatalities. Without consistent safeguards in place, workers are too often left to fend for themselves against dangerously high temperatures, risking dehydration, heat exhaustion, heat stroke, and even death. The Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Act is a critical step forward. It establishes basic, commonsense measures such as access to drinking water, shade, rest breaks, and heat illness training — measures that will not only save lives but also promote stronger, healthier workplaces. Protecting workers from heat illness is not just a matter of public health; it is a moral imperative. Local 12-9477 stands firmly behind this legislation because we believe that no worker should have to sacrifice their health — or their life — simply for doing their job. We urge the Legislature to pass this act without delay and demonstrate New Mexico’s commitment to protecting the dignity, safety, and well-being of its workforce. Thank you for your leadership and attention to this vital issue. We stand ready to assist in any way to ensure the successful implementation of this important legislation. Sincerely, James Cobb President, Local 12-9477 | James Cobb | 4/28/25 |