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
| 0Comment # | 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 |
| I-28-2 | AGC New Mexico RE: EIB 25-11 (R) – Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Associated General Contractors New Mexico (AGC NM) respectfully submits the following comments in response to the proposed Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Rule under Title 11, Chapter 5, Part 7. While AGC NM fully supports proactive measures to protect workers from heat-related illness and injury, we strongly oppose this proposal in its current form due to its overly prescriptive mandates, its lack of flexibility, and its failure to reflect the complex realities of construction in New Mexico. Key Concerns: Mandatory Rest Breaks at 90°F for Construction Workers: Construction is classified as “heavy labor.” With New Mexico’s regular summer temperatures exceeding 90°F—and the rule’s required 13°F adjustment for solar exposure, most job sites will routinely exceed the 103°F threshold. This would trigger a 40-minute paid rest break every 20 minutes of work, a schedule that is logistically unworkable. Operational Impacts: Critical work like concrete pours and utility tie-ins requires continuous, coordinated labor. Imposing prolonged and frequent rest breaks undermines jobsite productivity and, ironically, increases safety risks by disrupting planned workflows. Labor Force Shortages: The construction workforce in New Mexico remains approximately 11% below its 2006 peak. Contractors cannot rotate additional crews to compensate for forced downtime because there simply aren’t enough workers available. Mental Health and Workforce Wellbeing: Construction already faces a national mental health crisis. Our industry’s suicide rate is over 3.5 times the national average, and it surpasses the rate of all other OSHA-covered fatalities combined. The U.S. Department of Labor and OSHA themselves warn that irregular shifts, extended work hours, and fatigue disrupt the circadian rhythm and significantly increase mental health risks (see: OSHA – Long Work Hours, Extended or Irregular Shifts, and Worker Fatigue). By effectively forcing early morning or nighttime shifts to avoid temperature thresholds, this rule would intensify mental health stressors, diminish sleep quality, and create more risk. Financial Burdens: The combined cost of downtime, schedule delays, and compliance infrastructure will significantly increase the cost of construction for both public and private sector projects. These cost burdens will ultimately be passed down to taxpayers and project owners. Logistical and Safety Concerns with Shift Timing: Recommendations to perform work in early mornings or overnight hours fail to account for: Family and childcare obligations Apprenticeship or training classes typically held in the evenings Increased risk of injury due to reduced visibility and fatigue (see: OSHA – Extended/Unusual Work Shifts Guide) Diminished team cohesion Employer Responsibility Already Exists: Employers are already bound by OSHA’s General Duty Clause and can be cited for failure to address heat-related hazards. The national Heat Illness Prevention Campaign, active since 2011, provides training, resources, and enforcement mechanisms to improve awareness and accountability. One-Size-Fits-All Rule Is Not Practical: This rule attempts to apply uniform standards across vastly different industries and work environments. Such a rigid approach disregards practical, proven heat safety measures already implemented on New Mexico job sites. Responsible contractors should not be penalized for maintaining effective jobsite-specific safety protocols. Reasonable Provisions Contractors Can Support: Rather than imposing a rigid and unrealistic mandate, AGC NM recommends a revised framework that reflects field-tested, achievable safety practices. Hydration Provide suitably cool drinking water per employee. Already standard practice across jobsites during the summer months. Rest, Access to Shade & Cool-Down Areas Pop-up tents, shade trailers, or naturally shaded areas near the work zone. Allow access to cool-down rest as needed, not tied to a fixed schedule. Heat Acclimatization New workers assigned to hot environments will receive pre-work Heat Illness Awareness Training to recognize symptoms, understand prevention strategies, and know when to seek help. Supervisors and crew leads will conduct regular check-ins with new or returning workers to monitor for signs of heat stress and ensure early intervention if needed. High-Heat Administrative Controls (≥95°F) Use buddy systems, pre-shift safety briefings, and hydration reminders. Reinforces awareness without disrupting productivity. Training & First Aid Preparedness Provide Heat Illness Prevention training during new hire orientation and annual safety refreshers. Ensure team leads and supervisors are trained to identify symptoms and respond to heat-related emergencies. Written Heat Illness Prevention Plan (HIPP) Incorporate heat illness protocols into existing Injury & Illness Prevention Plans (IIPP). Avoid redundant documentation requirements. No Excessive Recordkeeping or Scheduling Mandates Eliminate burdensome hourly records or rigid break schedules that are incompatible with construction workflow. AGC New Mexico urges the Environmental Improvement Board to reject the current version of the rule and instead work collaboratively with the construction industry to craft a more flexible, outcome-based approach to heat safety. Let’s protect our workforce without undermining it. Support a rule that reflects the realities of construction, values mental health, and rewards responsible safety practices. | AGC New Mexico | 4/28/25 |
| I-28-3 | How often to they need to check the temperature Does somebody have to document that they are checking the temperature every hour and when they hit the trigger? 1 oversight person, right now we have one harvesting boss, will this make us train more people. This will add more costs for all the training Who will provide the training? How much will the training costs. What happens if someone is experiencing heat symptoms and the trained monitor has to take them to get care? Will you need to have another person ready and trained to watch the crew? will you have to have a backup because the ill person cant be left alone. Chile harvest we try to do as early in the morning as possible to do it before it gets to hot. However, chile harvest has to happen during time of the day so that they can see the chile plants. Mandatory breaks will prolong the work further into the heat of the day. will producers have to pay for the break time, or will it be a non-paid break? Where and what will be authorized temperature readings? How will this impact rural communities that may not have internet access to get an accurate onsite reading Will the airport temperature reading be sufficient? What happens to farms or ranches that are farther away. The new break requirement could essentially prolong the amount of time that they are exposed to the heat because of the mandated stops instead of letting the crew work fast to get it done and get out of the heat. Could the mandated breaks push producers to have to pay overtime? We don’t have overtime pay for our ag workers yet. Water requirement: Must provide, 1 quart per employee per hour We typically have 2-3 water jugs out there in the field on the harvest trailers(10 gallons) with ice in them and then we have disposable cups. However, there is no place to put the water jugs in shade. We do provide shade trailers at the ends of the fields for breaks which at typically at 9:30 am and noon. Acclimation New employees, we usually acclimate them over 2 days, but how do I know where they are coming from or what the temperature was like where they came from to understand how long to acclimate them? This rule is very cumbersome and totally unnecessary. In my 35 years of farming we have had one case of heat stress. We care about our employees because without them we cannot function. | Don Hartman | 4/28/25 |
| I-28-4 | I would like to express my support for 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention. As a consumer and homeowner, I want to be sure that those I hire for services are able to complete their work safely, especially in the summer, and this is the bare minimum. | Sarah Stephen | 4/29/25 |
| I-29-1 | I believe this is an extremely important rule that should pass, I myself am in production work at ABB and it gets extremely hot because they have machines burning at high temperatures all the time. I’ve been trying to push for more heat protection within the company and this might help a lot! | Kari Seeley | 4/29/25 |
| I-29-2 | Protect our workers or we will actively be killing them in the extreme heat and that is not New Mexico. | Chris Englert | 4/29/25 |
| I-29-3 | I disagree with this proposal, 80 degrees!! we would never get anything completed and will have a direct effect on my job. | Mark Ray | 4/29/25 |
| I-29-4 | Use common sense. Workers need water breaks and extreme heat work pauses to prevent serious injuries and death from severe dehydration. Did anyone consult a medical professional before suggesting such an insane bill? FFS, you wouldn’t walk a dog on pavement in excessive heat. Y’all really want to be sued after the first inevitable death from such an asinine bill? | Melanie Gunter | 4/29/25 |
| I-29-5 | Refusing to allow workers shade and water breaks in the intense heat our state often experiences is not just cruel, it is intentional endangerment. Heatstroke can occur very quickly and even kill if not treated. Recovery time averages a week. It is more humane and more cost effective to prevent these situations in the first place. Prove you actually care about other human beings and let them cool off and rehydrate. | Harper O’Connor | 4/29/25 |
| I-29-6 | It is my belief that EIB 25-11 regulation will bring this industry to a screeching halt. Heat stress is a concern for any field. This proposal would stretch an already taxed labor deadline to the point of absurdity. How do you give a prospective client a read on the duration of a project when now 35% of it will be committed to downtime? Heat stress is an important issue. Weighing the need for FR clothing and the need for appropriate attire in excessive heat weather is daunting to say the least. It is my opinion, that this measure proposed may cut down on heat related illness. It may also drive work to severely be hampered if not omitted completely in this region. | RAHMAN A RISING | 4/29/25 |
| I-29-7 | GIVE WORKERS WHAT THEY DESERVE THEY PROTECT US, THEY DESERVE PROTECTIONS TO DO THE JOB | John Brown | 4/29/25 |
| I-29-8 | This seems like a basic human right. | Pamela Frank | 4/29/25 |
| I-29-9 | It must be a better financially to provide breaks, shade and water than it is to have a worker in the hospital with heat illness and then miss work. Not only that it’s just having empathy for your workers. | Max DeHerrera | 4/29/25 |
| I-29-10 | This rule regulation states what is already a common sense necessity for anyone living in the desert: Stay hydrated when at altitude and when exposed to the sun and heat. The fact that it’s not already legally required for workers is, quite frankly, embarrassing. No one working outdoors in the heat of New Mexico should be without adequate water. Please pass this, take care of our workers! | Evan Bouchard | 4/29/25 |
| I-29-11 | Supporting a right to stay hydrated in the desert and work under fair conditions. | Anonymous Anonymous | 4/29/25 |
| I-29-12 | Did it | Joshua Green | 4/29/25 |
| I-29-13 | I support this Rule to provide relief for our farm workers. It’s human to work in such condition without relief. Marcos Paz | Marcos Paz | 4/29/25 |
| I-29-14 | This is a no-brainer, we must protect workers! | Erin McAllister | 4/29/25 |
| I-29-15 | Why aren’t protections against heat already in place?! | Thea Sunada | 4/29/25 |
| I-29-16 | It’s a sad state when companys don’t treat workers with basic common sense when working in such a extreme climate. | Mark Lansdon | 4/29/25 |
| I-29-17 | There are too many empty seats at family dinner tables across this state because employers didn’t voluntarily protect their workers from the dangers of heat. This is why we need a heat rule. The health and safety of our workers MUST take priority over the profits of employers. If your business can’t make profits while protecting its workers, then the business model is flawed and shouldn’t be allowed to operate. | Taylor Hulbert | 4/29/25 |
| I-29-18 | Forcing people to work in scorching heat and sun is cruel. Treat workers like people, simple as that. People who feel taken care of do better work anyways. | Eyona Bella | 4/29/25 |
| I-30-1 | I don’t have too much to say on the matter but i hope the importance of this matter is evident. | Tatum Comer | 4/30/25 |
| I-30-2 | According to the National Weather Service using CDC data, heat is the leading cause of weather-related fatalities in the United States, even more than winter conditions. Yet I’m pretty sure we would all agree that allowing outdoor workers to take breaks to warm up and not freeze to death out in the elements is just common sense…. Yet we don’t allow them to cool down and hydrate in the extreme summer heat? That makes no sense. This is not a frivolous or optional request, this is a basic requirement of the human body in order to not die. And with temperatures increasing every year, I don’t think you have any good excuses not to have regulations in place to protect workers from heat-related death or illness. Not enacting these protections is inhumane. And if you don’t care about that, then at least keep in mind that it’s not a good look to deny your employees their basic biological needs and treat them like cattle. People are increasingly willing to do their research and protest and/or take their dollars to businesses that treat their workers with care. Look at what’s happening with Target. And don’t pretend business owners can’t afford to give their workers water and breaks in the shade, that’s BS. Besides, if you can’t afford to treat your workers with dignity and the minimal amount of humanity, then perhaps you shouldn’t be running a business. Protect your workers already. | Danielle H | 4/30/25 |
| I-30-3 | PassEIB 25-11 (R) – Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention. It’s embarrassing and annoying I am having to babysit politicians who can’t just do their job. You work for the people now make the people’s lives better. | Brandon Gallenstein | 4/30/25 |
| I-30-4 | While I appreciate the intent of these suggested changes, it appears to me that they more appropriately apply to jobs/industries where environmental heat concerns go beyond the level of just being outside. We take safety very seriously and already do Heat Illness training and provide for our staff the items they need to be safe. But the 80° threshold and the ramp up to working full time is unrealistic. We live in a desert and our employees should be already acclimated to being outside just by living here. We run one person field crews and these requirements appear to necessitate a two person crew – thereby doubling our cost. We also provide tools for our field staff to check in regularly, but we would have to add another staff position just to check in regularly which is another cost to the system. Working in a mine or enclosed warehouse, etc – I get it. Outside will force an entire rework of our system from April to October – our system is not broken. Please do not legislate what should be common sense. | Alan Benham | 4/30/25 |
| I-30-5 | Pass it. It’s already hotter than it used to be, and climate change will only make it worse. And if you have ever worked manual labor you would understand why this is necessary. | Rafael Santillanes | 4/30/25 |
| I-30-6 | Adopting these standards will protect workers and improve quality of life. I’m sure many employers already have a work/rest policy for very hot and very cold days, but this regulation will bring everyone up to a more humane standard. I can personally attest to the importance of breaks during very hot weather, as these are very similar to the standards we use in the military. | Michael Merriman | 4/30/25 |
| I-30-7 | I’m greatly in favor of this rule. Preventing heat illness and injury is not only the humane and ethical thing to do, but it benefits worker productivity. | Mark Lagunez | 4/30/25 |
| I-30-8 | I think this is a good a positive proposal and I hope it becomes law here. | Augustino Della Pietra | 4/30/25 |
| I-30-9 | The Honorable Phoebe Suina Chair, Environmental Improvement Board Harold Runnels Building 1190 St. Francis Drive, Suite N 4050 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 Ms. Kristy Peck Acting Chief, Occupational Health and Safety Bureau New Mexico Environment Department 1190 St. Francis Drive, Suite N 4050 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 Dear Chair Suina and Bureau Chief Peck: Please accept this letter as my official opposition to the proposed Occupational Heat Illness and Injury Prevention rule currently under consideration. While safeguarding workers from extreme heat is important, this proposal would directly undermine one of New Mexico’s most pressing needs: lowering the cost of housing, construction, and capital investments in New Mexico’s infrastructure. As you are aware, New Mexico is already struggling with rising housing prices and construction costs, making it increasingly difficult for families, businesses, and builders to afford new homes and commercial projects. This proposed rule will worsen that crisis. It would impose extensive, one-size-fits-all mandates-regardless of regional climate differences or existing successful safety practices-which will inevitably drive up the cost of labor and construction projects statewide. These new regulatory requirements, such as frequent break schedules and mandatory cooled areas-even in remote, infrastructure-poor worksites-will impose high logistical and financial burdens on contractors, developers, and especially small businesses. By significantly increasing administrative compliance requirements and necessitating costly site modifications, this rule will make housing and development more expensive at precisely the time our state needs to remove barriers to building and investment. Worse, the rule duplicates existing federal OSHA guidelines, adding confusing, potentially contradictory rules for employers to follow, raising the risk of double enforcement and legal uncertainty. Rather than improving worker protection, this redundancy will only escalate employer costs and regulatory risks, further inflating the cost of doing business in New Mexico. If the state is truly committed to increasing housing affordability and economic opportunity, it must avoid unnecessary-and unproven-state mandates that deter investment, shrink capital supply, and slow housing delivery. The reality is that every new cost imposed on builders and employers is ultimately passed along to working families in the form of higher rent, mortgage payments, and consumer prices. Instead, I urge the Board and Bureau to work with industry and federal partners on voluntary, evidence-based strategies that promote workplace safety without additional costly mandates. We can and should both protect workers and make housing and investment more affordablebut this proposed rule will do the opposite. Thank you for considering my concerns. Serving New Mexico, | Rebecca Dow House Republican Caucus Chair House District 38 | 4/30/25 |
| I-30-10 | The Honorable Phoebe Suina Chair Environmental Improvement Board Harold Runnels Building 1190 St. Francis Drive, Suite N 4050 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 Ms. Kristy Peck Acting Bureau Chief Occupational Health and Safety Bureau New Mexico Environment Department 1190 St. Francis Drive, Suite N 4050 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 Dear Chair Suina and Bureau Chief Peck: It has come to our attention the Occupational Health and Safety Bureau has submitted a petition to the Environmental Improvement Board to adopt a proposed rule on occupational heat illness and injury prevention. While we appreciate the need to protect employees from excess heat illnesses and injuries, we oppose this proposed rule because we are concerned this rule’s one-size-fits-all approach fails to recognize existing workplace safety practices or the varying nature of various job sites and regional climates across our vast state. Our opposition to this proposed rule is due to our understanding it is an unworkable effort to supersede the current practical and common sense measures that have already been developed jointly by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and other industries to address heat-related illnesses and safety. Therefore, we are not convinced a new set of state regulations will have any positive impact on workers’ health, although it will have a significant negative impact on jobsite efficiency and increase employer costs. Further, since the OSHA and the other industries’ jointly developed health standards are being actively enforced, a new state regulatory scheme will only duplicate current enforcement efforts and potentially place employers in a situation of “double jeopardy” by having to fulfill both state and federally mandated workplace requirements. We are also concerned this proposed rule places additional administrative burdens, especially on small and medium sized employers, who are typically least able to pass these additional costs on to customers due to competitive pressures in the marketplace. It is also our understanding this proposed rule places the full responsibility on employers, even in cases where workers arrive at the workplace dehydrated due to alcohol use and other personal behaviors. The negative impact this proposed rule will have on outdoor recreation businesses and the agricultural/ranching industry is also troublesome. Both industries simply cannot fulfill the many mandates this proposed rule would impose, such as the requirement that breaks must be taken every 20 minutes for at least 40 minutes if worl<ers are in full sun and doing heavy labor when temperatures exceed 90 degrees Fas that would result in only 20 minutes of work for every hour. Equally concerning is the proposed requirement that employers must provide shade or mechanically cooled areas for employee breaks; while also ensuring they are sufficient to accommodate all workers and located close to work areas. This cooling area requirement may sound reasonable in theory for indoor jobs, but how can an outdoor recreation or agriculture/ranching operation guarantee shade or mechanical cooling in a remote area with no electricity or no shade located nearby? Again, we share the concerns regarding the need to protect workers from excessive heat exposure, but simply passing a new mandatory proposed rule that duplicates federal enforcement efforts and raises costs to employers without any assurance worker protections will improve is just another example of the over regulation of businesses that has been prevalent for the past six years. Rather than pursuing a new regulatory framework, we encourage the Occupational Health and Safety Bureau to work in a cooperative manner with all indoor and outdoor businesses to develop a voluntary program that will truly address worker heat illness and safety issues without the heavy hand of state government mandates. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and views. Respectfully you rs, | Gail Armstrong House Republican Leader House District 49 —- House Republican Whip House District 23 Rebecca Dow House Republican Caucus Chair House District 38 Randall T. Pettigrew State Representative House District 61 Jimmy G. Mason State Representative House District 66 Andrea Reeb State Representative House District 64 Luis M. Terrazas State Representative House District 39 Harlan Vincent State Representative House District 56 Joshua N. Hernandez State Representative House District 60 Rod Montoya State Representative House District 1 Jenifer Jones State Representative House District 32 Mark Duncan State Representative House District 2 Nicole Chavez State Representative House District 31 Cathryn Novich Brown State Representative House District 55 William A. Hall II State Representative House District 3 Jack Chatfield State Representative House District 67 John Block State Representative House District 51 Brain G. Baca State Representative House District 8 Mark B. Murphy State Representative House District 59 Tanya Mirabal Moya State Representative House District 7 Catherine J. Cullen State Representative House District 57 Martin Zamora State Representative House District 63 Angelita Meija State Representative House District 58 Stephanie Lord State Representative House District 22 Elaine Sena Cortez State Representative House District 62 Jonathan A. Henry State Representative House District 54 | 4/30/25 |
| I-30-11 | I strongly support EIB 25-11 (R) – Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention. Especially in these times when the federal government is eliminating protection after protection for ordinary people, it is important that New Mexico pick up the slack. Please approve this regulation protecting vulnerable workers. | Lynn Pickard | 4/30/25 |
| I-30-12 | I am a contractor and business owner. I have worked in Civil Construction for the past 35 years. I have work in the field on various job categories from Labor, Equipment Operators, Surveyor, & Project Manager. Our company works hard to ensure our employees have the tools and equipment necessary to work in a very hazardous and fluid environments. Our employees constantly communicate with management about safety and health related concerns and issues experienced in the field. Not once have we had an employee tell us the temperature is causing them harm. Since we have become aware of this proposed heat illness and prevention rule we have talked to our employees about the rule and the requirements it would impose should it be implemented. All of them have stated “What are they trying to solve, there is not a situation where heat is causing harm.” Many have expressed concern as to how are we supposed to get the job done if we’re required to break up to 2/3 of the workday. For your information our company spends approximately $3000 / month on pallets of water to provide to our employees. We also provide them with electrolytes drink packets as well as pickle juice shots. Should an employee feel dehydrated they can request and are granted a break to rehydrate. All our employees consume lots of water and take the supplements we provide them. During the workday breaks are taken in-between load deliveries and a typical lunch break. During one of the stakeholders meetings, you commented that those who showed up to discuss this proposed rule were the “good” actors and this rule is designed to correct the bad actors. I have worked with hundreds of contractors in my career, and never have I experienced or been made aware of employers not allowing their employee to take rest breaks or provide them with proper equipment that resulted in a heat related injury. Instead of forcing all industry in New Mexico to comply with a draconian rule that will all but shut down the productivity of our industry lets focus on enforcing the existing OSHA rules providing education to the industry about best practices to mitigate heat illness. I am encouraging you to take a step back from deciding on this rule and set up a working committee with Government, Private Sector, labor – business owner, employees, etc… who can take a much more measured approach to develop a realistic rule that is designed to actually solve something. There is not a Heat Illness Issue! The statistics prove this: of 36 million works nationally Federal OSHA listed 40 heat related fatalities, that is a percentage too small to calculate. NMED lists 52 heat related emergency room visits that were work related during summer months. 52 out of thousands of workers does not indicate there is a heat illness pandemic that needs draconian action to solve. The solution this rule proposes is basically to stop working. It is imperative that you listen to and take the comments of the community and industry seriously. We are the ones on the front line working every day. We know what is impacting the health of our employee and heat illness is not something even remotely being considered as a concern. I recognize the importance of protecting our NM workforce. Without NM works business and commerce in our state would cease to exist. I can also recognize that temperatures exceeding 100+ degrees can become dangerous if certain measures are not exercised to prevent dehydration and overheating, however our state has a handful of days that temperatures exceed 100+. Again, I urge you to listen to industry and work together to focus on a rule that addresses days where temperature is truly dangerous and not a specific-based standard to dictate what is dangerous on paper when it is definitely not. Finally at the state holders meeting you were asked if an economic impact study was conducted based on the potential effects of this rule implementation. The answer give is there was not an economic impact study performed because you are not required to perform one. How can you consider a rule that will fundamentally impact all industry in our state and not take into serious consideration the economic impacts it will have. This rule will shut down all construction in our state. Progress will minimize to the point that projects could take up to 300% more time to complete and triple or quadruple in cost. Something else to consider is that the NM workforce is finite. There are not enough viable employees to add to companies’ staff to make up for the loss in productions that would result due to this rule’s requirement. That means work will come to a stop! 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. I 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. | Brian Loughridge | 4/30/25 |
| I-30-13 | I am writing on behalf of my small business, Dodson Wholesale Lumber Co., to express our opposition to EIB 25-11 (R) – Proposed New Regulation. This regulation would negatively impact small businesses like ours, which lack the resources to hire a full-time team to assess heat indexes, monitor employees, and manage heat-related records for nine months each year. Additionally, we cannot accommodate the proposed reduction of work hours by ⅓ to ¾ during the summer months. Starting the monitoring process at 80°F effectively turns this into a year-round paperwork requirement for no benefit. Much of our work is done outdoors, and during summer, we already provide unlimited ice water and breaks as each employee deems necessary. We have never experienced a heat-related illness. We take pride in our safe work environment and value our workers. The OSHA draft remains a draft because it is both unpopular and unworkable for these very reasons. Please table this proposal. | Dodson Wholesale Lumber Co., Inc. | 4/30/25 |
| I-30-14 | In full support of passing! | Rachel Bosh | 4/30/25 |
| II-1-1 | We need to protect the individuals that make the work of our businesses possible and support this regulation. Money invested in keeping those who do the hard work is money well spent. | Sam Colombo | 5/1/25 |
| II-1-2 | Public Comment on Proposed 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule Submitted to: New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board Submitted by: Prescilliano Matthew Gonzales, Business Manager Heat & Frost Insulators Local No.76 Address: 422 Adams Street SE, Albuquerque, NM 87108 Phone: (505) 720-1374 Email: AWL76@INSULATORS.ORG Date: May 1, 2025 Dear Members of the Environmental Improvement Board, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule, 11.5.7 NMAC. I appreciate the Board’s effort to prioritize worker safety in New Mexico’s diverse environmental conditions. However, as a long-time worker and representative of desert-acclimated tradespeople, I offer the following comments and suggested amendments to improve the feasibility of the rule for outdoor industries in arid climates. Key Concerns Lower Thresholds May Not Reflect Regional Acclimatization The proposed 80°F threshold for heat exposure assessments and mandatory rest breaks does not adequately reflect the physiological acclimatization of New Mexico’s desert workforce. Decades of experience show that well-hydrated, acclimated workers can safely operate at higher thresholds without increased risk, especially in low humidity environments. Impacts on Productivity and Construction Costs Mandatory break schedules and fluid intake standards based on generalized national models may inadvertently reduce productivity, increase project timelines, and drive-up construction costs in sectors that are already operating with strong heat safety practices tailored to our environment. Flexibility Needed for Desert Work Conditions Employers and crews working in arid regions often already use a range of effective, site-specific safety strategies—such as shade structures, cooling gear, and rotation schedules—that achieve the same level of protection without disrupting work unnecessarily. Proposed Amendments 1. Revise Definition (11.5.7.7): Add a definition for “Acclimated Worker”: “Acclimated Worker” means an employee who has worked in outdoor desert conditions in New Mexico for at least 10 of the past 14 consecutive days for a minimum of two hours per day. 2. Adjust Heat Exposure Thresholds (11.5.7.9): Employers shall conduct a heat exposure assessment when the heat index reaches 90°F for acclimated workers, and 85°F for non-acclimated workers. In regions with relative humidity at or below 15%, a downward adjustment of up to 5°F may be applied to account for lower physiological heat stress. Modify Acclimatization Schedule (11.5.7.10.A): Acclimatization protocols shall apply only to workers newly assigned to heat-intensive tasks or returning from absences of seven days or more. Acclimated workers may follow regular schedules unless symptoms of heat illness are observed. 4. Allow Alternative Rest and Cooling Measures (11.5.7.10.C–D): Employers may implement task-based rest schedules and use alternative cooling measures (e.g., cooling vests, misting stations) that offer equivalent protection to the Table 3 schedule, as long as they are supported by monitoring and training. 5. Add Feasibility Clause (New 11.5.7.14): Employers operating in arid or semi-arid zones may develop alternative compliance plans that meet the intent of the rule using locally appropriate methods. These plans must be documented and available for review upon request. These amendments would preserve the intent of the rule—protecting workers from heat illness—while making it practical and sustainable for industries operating in New Mexico’s unique climate. I urge the Board to consider these changes to maintain both safety and economic viability. Thank you for your time and commitment to New Mexico’s workforce. Sincerely, Prescilliano Matthew Gonzales Business Manager Heat & Frost Insulators Local No.76 | Prescilliano Matthew Gonzales Business Manager Heat & Frost Insulators Local No.76 | 5/1/25 |
| II-1-3 | NM Environmental Improvement Board c/o NM Environment Department 1190 St. Francis Drive, Suite N4050 Santa Fe, NM 87505 Dear Environmental Improvement Board: While state law certainly grants your board the authority to promulgate regulations regarding the health and safety of employees, the clear legislative intent of this state statute is that such regulations be aligned “to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.” As you know, the federal government has already issued guidance on prevention of heatrelated illness or injury via its 2016 publication: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Publication No. 2016-106. In light of these existing federal standards, the issuance of new state standards at the state level appears redundant and unnecessary. Furthermore, the proposed state standards your board is considering far exceed the federal standards. This means that your contemplated action is likely out of alignment with the federal OSHA law, from which your board’s regulations must be derived pursuant to 50-9-7 (A) NMSA 1978. Even worse, these proposed state standards fail to take into account the occupational diversity across New Mexico’s various industries. It is unreasonable to mandate identical standards for construction, manufacturing, agriculture, and the extractive industries. These standards also fail to accommodate existing union contracts or workplace policies, many of which may have been negotiated in good faith and which may now need to be renegotiated to meet a significantly higher standard. Moreover, the administrative burden on each employer to maintain medical logs and heat acclimatization schedules for each individual employee represent an unfunded mandate that will significantly increase labor costs and slow productivity, despite seasonal deadlines over which these employers have no control. Finally, the proposed standards use far too subjective language, including “equally effective measures” and “as close as practical.” A determination that an employer has failed to comply with these loosely defined standards could subject that employer to penalties and other unforeseen consequences. Respectfully submitted, Senator William Sharer Minority Floor Leader | Senator William Sharer Minority Floor Leader | 5/1/25 |
| II-1-4 | I am writing in opposition to this proposed ruling. I cannot believe the amount of overreach in this proposed ruling. I understand the desire to make sure our workers are safe, but as a manager of a grain elevator for 10 years, there is already plenty of safety courses and safety meetings available to inform workers about the dangers of heat exhaustion or heat stroke and the essentials of keeping yourself hydrated. This is a typical government overreach and an unnescessary burden on businesses to comply with this type of beaurocracy. Common sense needs to prevail here and there is not an incling of it in this proposal. This is typical of trying to fix something that does not need fixed. Have we had a major change in the amount of heat related deaths, or serious injury? If so, please send me the documentation of it and change my opinion. Otherwise, once again, we will see businesses leaving this state in droves again, as with all other hindrances that this state has come up with! | Eldon Merrick | 5/1/25 |
| II-1-5 | I fully support the proposed new regulation 11.5.7 NMAC to safeguard our workers during these increasingly hotter summers. We can do something to prevent heat illness and heat-related illnesses by passing this legislation as soon as possible. Thank-you, Mary HL Hoffman | Mary Hoffman | 5/1/25 |
| II-1-6 | This proposed regulation may have been created with the best of intentions to protect workers but as usual (in NM) it puts extreme onerous on small, medium and large businesses to comply with insanely complicated paperwork and burocracy and makes absolutely no common sense! New Mexico is an unfriendly state towards businesses already and that’s why so many doctors leave the state and medium to large businesses don’t start-up or relocate to NM. Our tax laws and burocratic regulations strangle any possibility for a start-up or existing business to be located in NM and thrive. I just read an article about how the city is searching for developers to help give them ideas of how to develop the airport land just south of Gibson Blvd where the north/south runway used to exist. Are our “leaders” really perplexed why it’s so hard to spur development and business anywhere within NM?! Here’s the answer: NM’s tax and governing laws as well as government burocracy is so onerous and complicated that businesses go elsewhere. Every state that borders NM has a much more vibrant economy than ours; Texas, Arizona, Colorado, Utah and Oklahoma. Here in the City of Albuquerque trying to get a building permit of any kind requires a Masters Degree in patience! Lime scooters recently came back to Albuquerque and immediately the City penalizes them when someone illegally parks one of their scooters, to the point of impounding the scooter and making Lime pay $100 to get their scooter back plus $100/day storage fee. New Mexican “leaders” view is that businesses are evil and they can afford to pay for every wrong imaginable and the privelage of doing business in NM. It’s this type of thinking is why we are at or near dead last in economic development, education, health care and on and on. Getting back to this Heat Illness & Prevention Rule proposal, IT’S A HORRIBLE IDEA!! | Elmer Havey | 5/1/25 |
| II-1-7 | STOP.MAKING.DOING.BUSINESS.MORE.DIFFICULT.IN NM! Every rule that comes down, always has compassion for the employees… EVERY ONE! I get it! And every time, it puts undue burdens, often costly, on employers, and often unnecessary or otherwise over the top. Stop being everyone’s BIG BROTHER. I HATE DOING BUSINESS IN THIS STATE. I HAVE AN ACTIVE BUSINESS, right now, that I operate BY MYSELF. There is a demand for my service. I could grow my business…had 6 employees at one time. NEVER AGAIN WILL I HIRE ANOTHER EMPLOYEE, NOT EVER!!!! FOR REASONS JUST LIKE THIS! WHY SCALE UP? YOU, THE GOVT, ARE GREAT AT DISCOURAGING SMALL BUSINESS! RULES ARE ALWAYS ADDED, NEVER REMOVED. And THIS RULE, LIKE ALL THE OTHERS, SUCK! But, none of your bull crap on this rule, paid sick leave, minimum wage…ETC…NONE OF IT WILL EVER APPLY TO ME, EVER, as I will never hire another employee as long as I live! | Bill Stevens | 5/1/25 |
| II-1-8 | I became aware of this proposed regulation today. I believe more than anything it will severely hurt many businesses in New Mexico while potentially increasing prices to those who are paying for certain types of work. Generally people who have jobs where they work outside in the summer heat know how to take care of themselves. They know that they should be drinking a lot of water, they dress in a manner to keep the sun off their bodies, and they know to take breaks as they need to. I can’t imagine how this will affect construction companies or roofing companies when they have employees working outside in 100 degree heat, and their employees are allowed to actually work half or less of the time they are on a job. Instead of a roof taking 2 days, it will take 4 days, and the employer’s cost of labor has just doubled. Will they be able to double the price of a roof to their customer? All in all this is just total craziness and should not be approved. | Linda Morton | 5/1/25 |
| II-1-9 | This is a ridiculous proposed regulation. there is no way that any company with employees who work outside can possibly continue to do business. this would require companies to hire 3 x as many employees to do the job of 1 today. there aren’t enough people in this state. this would triple the cost of any job or drive the rate of work being completed to a fraction of what is being done today. Workers are adults and they know how to take care of themselves in the heat of the day. They don’t need an overreaching bureaucrat to tell them how to do their job or take care of themselves in the weather. | Jamie Cox | 5/1/25 |
| II-2-1 | I am opposed to heat injury regulations. Preventing heat injury is important but these are too burdensome. | Sandra Cannon | 5/2/25 |
| II-2-2 | Heat Illness Prevention Program Limitations in Variable Elevation and Temperature Environments The implementation of a standardized heat illness prevention program is not practical in regions where elevation and temperature fluctuate significantly. In such dynamic environments, a rigid approach not only fails to protect workers adequately but also imposes severe operational and economic burdens on construction and industrial projects. Environmental Challenges In certain project areas, such as mountainous or high-desert regions: Elevations may vary by several thousand feet within a single jobsite or project span. These variations drastically impact local temperature, humidity, and atmospheric pressure. Ambient temperatures can shift by 20 to 40 degrees Fahrenheit from early morning to afternoon, often in unpredictable patterns due to wind, sun exposure, and microclimates. Standard heat illness prevention programs, typically based on fixed temperature thresholds or WBGT readings, do not account for such rapid and localized changes. A static program under these conditions risks either overreacting (halting work unnecessarily) or under protecting workers (missing emerging heat hazards). Economic Impact To adapt a traditional heat program to such complex environments would require: Continuous environmental monitoring across multiple elevation zones, Multiple shaded rest areas tailored to changing conditions, Increased staffing for supervision, medical observation, and compliance, Frequent schedule adjustments and extended rest periods. These requirements would significantly disrupt project timelines and labor efficiency. The costs of compliance would rise by an estimated 20% to 30%, even at the low end. This increase will inevitably be transferred to clients and end users, leading to substantial inflation in the cost of construction, infrastructure development, and energy production. Employer Responsibility and Feasibility Employers are already required to manage heat-related risks under existing occupational health and safety standards. This includes applying the Hierarchy of Controls: Engineering Controls – Provision of shade, ventilation, and cooling stations. Administrative Controls – Staggered work/rest cycles, acclimatization protocols, and hydration schedules. Personal Protective Equipment – Use of cooling garments or hydration packs. These tools allow employers to tailor safety programs based on real-time risk assessments rather than adhering to inflexible mandates. A one-size-fits-all standard undermines this approach, removes accountability from employers, and creates unnecessary operational and financial strain. Conclusion Dynamic environments require dynamic solutions. While the protection of workers from heat-related illness is a top priority, flexibility, site-specific planning, and employer-led risk mitigation must remain the foundation of any heat illness prevention strategy. Imposing rigid standards without regard for environmental variability or economic feasibility will result in inefficient safety programs and unsustainable project costs | Ernest John Vigil | 5/2/25 |
| II-2-3 | Your proposed “heat index” regulations are a perfect example of extreme government over reach! Plus, a perfect example of why businesses cannot make it in this state. Adults are perfectly capable of drinking water as their body needs it, and they can file a complaint if their employer does not give them their breaks. And to expect a business owner to keep the log for 5 years, ridiculous! My final response to this ridiculous mandate is, whoever had the time to make up all these stupid rules, doesn’t have enough to do except waste time dreaming up worthless rules. | JANIS MOSS | 5/2/25 |
| II-2-4 | I like the training aspect including prevention and intervention. Concerns! 1)I have concerns about providing temp structures on construction sites they become dangerous in suden high wind situation. 2) a retuning from a 1 week or more absence should be able to self declare that they have maintained aclemication. 3) The temp requirements should have a forced recognition in all public contracts ” if heat indexes are exceeded and forces a work stoppage then addional days will be added to contract times.4) waver of noise ordences should be automatic in public contracts to encourage night work during periods of high heat 5) placement of many different materials such as concrete or asphalt require periods of intense activity followed by lower intensity and are not suitable for beaks during these activities 6) the introduction of enclosed aircondioned structures would normally be power by diesel or gas engines and result in air pollution . Note I’m 71 years old have been involver in outdoor construction since I was 18 and am very much awaire of difficulties of working in hot environment strongly encourage training and planning discourage forced stoppage of work | Burr Dickinson | 5/2/25 |
| II-2-5 | Please do not allow this overwhelming regulation to become policy. It will be the end for many businesses and is not necessary to begin with. Stop it now, this is wrong for New Mexico. | Laura Worley | 5/2/25 |
| II-2-6 | This will drive more business out of New Mexico. This is a horrible idea to implement these restrictions. It won’t allow people to get their work done. Projects will just cost a lot more and take a lot longer. We already need a lot of work done around the state, particularly with regards to roads, and this will make the problem worse. Do not pass this. | McKay Holt | 5/2/25 |
| II-2-7 | The passage of such a bill in New Mexico would cripple our business and hurt our employees’ ability to make a living. Hours are short in the winter. They need the long summer days to help offset that. New Mexico is always hot in the summer. Our company provides our employees with hats, water, ice, Gatorade, and electrolytes. They are educated about heat-related illnesses and what to do if they or a crewmember experiences adverse effects from the heat. In the 30 years I’ve been at Doyle it is extremely rare to have a heat-related issue. Please don’t pass this bill. Thank you! | Doyle Roof Masters | 5/2/25 |
| II-2-8 | on Table 3 what is the definition of Light, moderate and heavy work Also what does Caution imply on table 3, what are the standards, in the southern part of the state this heat index would be very common. Cannot enforce if don’t know standard. | Anonymous | 5/2/25 |
| II-2-9 | I mean, these are basic human rights that they deserve…AND they put their lives on the lines for our community! Give them breaks!!!!! | Lori Chambers | 5/2/25 |
| II-2-10 | Dear Occupational Health and Safety Bureau, I am Tana Lucero, the administrator for and representative of the Food Industry Self-Insurance Fund of NM Workers’ Comp program. I am writing to express share information regarding proposed Heat Exposure Rule as it relates to our industry. In the past five years, out of 4175 claims, only two were verified as heat exposure cases – one outside (a poolside waiter on 06/05/2020, diagnosed with hypovolemia and dehydration while wearing a COVID mask) and one inside (a worker over a fryer on 07/05/2021). According to the NM Workers’ Compensation Administration 2024 Annual Report, the top ten injury causes are: 1. Fall, Slip, or Trip, 2. Lifting 3. Strain or Injury 4. Fall or slip on the same level Fall or slip from a different level 6. Pushing or Pulling 7. Other Miscellaneous 8. Object being lifted or handled 9. Twisting 10. Struck or injured. Heat exposure is not among these top causes, indicating that it is not a prevalent issue in our workplace environment. Given the low number of heat-related claims and the fact that heat exposure is not a leading cause of injury, it appears that the current safety measures and work conditions in our industry are generally effective in preventing heat-related illnesses. Implementing a new rule would impose unnecessary administrative and financial burdens on businesses in the food industry. These resources could be better spent on addressing the more common causes of workplace injuries. I urge you to reconsider this proposed rule and focus on evidence-based regulations that target areas with a higher incidence of workplace hazards in the food industry. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, Tana Lucero Administrator, Food Industry Self-Insurance Fund of NM Work Comp Program | Tana Lucero | 5/2/25 |
| II-2-11 | STOP wasting tax-payer money developing horrible and unwarranted job-killing regulations like this! The last thing we need is regulations that further kill the remaining good blue collar jobs left in our struggling state. This Heat Illness & Injury Prevention regulation will drive a huge number of businesses out of state, and we don’t need more of that. This will greatly hurt all workers not afforded the luxury to work in optimal air-conditioned settings, such as construction workers, oil & gas, agricultural, mining, etc. which are super-important for the state’s budget. These are the industries that pay taxes & royalties that actually support the NMED, so please at least have some common sense to stop/kill this regulation. Let’s please instead do things that will enable NM to succeed and start getting off the bottom of all the good lists. Effete regulations like this will really hurt the poor and small businesses. It will put even more blue collar workers out of work, on welfare and increase already burgeoning homelessness. How will the state have budget for a larger welfare state that this will create with less industry tax revenue? The net effect for the businesses that do not leave the state is that there will be no outdoor summer work in NM perhaps from June through September. Employers and their clients, ultimately NM consumers, can’t afford to pay workers to rest 45 minutes for every 15 minutes worked when heat index conditions would so dictate by your disastrous proposed regulation. For instance, with the time-bomb that a concrete pour in the summer is, concrete workers can’t work only 15 minutes of the hour as the concrete sets up and doesn’t get properly placed and finished. It seems that this poorly thought regulation doesn’t consider such well-known realities. In NM’s very dry normally low humidity climate, the arbitrary selection of 80F is a woefully onerous threshold of applicability. A regulation like this more warranted for other much hotter desert regions around Phoenix, Tucson, Las Vegas, nearly all Texas & humid regions of the South would have industry ground to a halt all summer in those areas. I used to work construction in the summer in Phoenix in 110F-plus temperatures, and contractors practices & workers bodies can safely accommodate such without a government-knows-best mandate approach like this. It’s regulations like this that really hurt everyone, really help no one (except safety consultants and injury lawyer parasites), and make NM a laughing stock in the pro-business states around us whose economies continue to thrive while NM struggles. Please work on something more helpful to NM, like promoting non-parasitic industrial job creation and reducing crime and homelessness. Sincerely, Vernon Hershberger, CHMM Tijeras, NM | Vernon Hershberger | 5/2/25 |
| II-3-1 | Please put a standard for appropriate working temperatures into effect. Students and teachers regularly work in classrooms that are upwards of 80 degrees during the warmer months. We’re kidding ourselves if we think that’s fair to our students and teachers or in any way conducive to learning. Both kids and teachers deserve better and need protection. | Julie Shuler-Misra | 5/3/25 |
| II-3-2 | I taught in APS for four years and heat illness is a serious issue that requires serious action. My classroom would easily hit 85 degrees by 11 AM in the morning in September despite filling my classroom with fans I purchased from my own bank account. My students were lethargic and would get sick to their stomachs with the heat. If one is cooking, one is not learning. Personal safety is paramount. | Carol Trujillo-Fay | 5/3/25 |
| II-4-1 | Asinine and employer-hostile regulations like are the reason people like Trump get elected. This is way over-the-top government regulation. Stop it! | Bill Dunn | 5/4/25 |
| II-4-2 | As an elementary music teacher in Albuquerque Public Schools, I urge the NMED to pass this workplace heat standard. My curriculum includes frequent dancing, and student outcomes suffer when learners cannot participate actively in the music making process. Evaporative coolers simply cannot cool classrooms adequately, especially the portables in which many of us teach, when outside temperatures are in the high 90’s and 100’s. It is unacceptable for our students and educators to suffer through extreme heat, and be asked to learn and teach when their hierarchy of needs for safety are not met. | Tania Hopkins | 5/4/25 |
| II-4-3 | As a former APS classroom teacher, I experienced difficulties with managing room temperature for my students in portable classrooms. As climate fluctuations are now habit, it’s imperative that safeguards are put in place to help school professionals manage environments they provide safe and effective care in. | Cirrelda Snider-Bryan | 5/4/25 |
| II-4-4 | As a teacher in an elementary school that only has swamp coolers, I can attest to the fact that our rooms can only cool to 80 degrees on days it is 90 or over. Not only do the swamp coolers not sufficiently cool, but you must take into account the body heat radiating from 22+ students in the room. With our ability to now hold asynchronous learning days, I would propose a heat index limit if it is over 95 degrees outside (or some upper limit) , students should work from home in Comfortable where they will have the ability to focus. | Jill Broderick | 5/4/25 |
| II-4-5 | I can’t believe anyone who would really disagree with this, but just in case we need a reminder. We live in a dessert! People die every year from over heating. So children will be fine at schools during May and August without A/C. They are more likely to forget to drink enough water and take care of themselves during high heat waves. Please support this to help keep all NM safe during our only major weather issue. | Nicole Keeney | 5/4/25 |
| II-4-6 | This regulation is so important and overdue. I have a son in public school and every August school starts and he and his classmates and teachers have to deal with horrible, unsafe levels of heat that make teaching and learning nearly impossible. It’s ridiculous that everyone who works or attends public school has to deal with this. Not only would this regulation make schools safer, it would make them more effective. | Christina Yovovich | 5/4/25 |
| II-4-7 | Both of my children have suffered heat related illnesses at school. My high school student in Albuquerque had to do outdoor exercise in 97+ temperatures. It resulted in having to call an ambulance for several students. My other child got heat stroke from being in a school portable that had a swamp cooler that couldn’t cool “due to humidity”. It was 90-93 degrees all day for days. He wasn’t the only one in his class. | Sonja Kortsch | 5/4/25 |
| II-5-1 | Wow! What’s next? Are you going to dictate how we wipe after we defecate? I mean, get real!!!!! Let’s just add three times the expense to every construction project in the state, as well as indefinite time to completion! I support AGC NM’s suggestions. I support training. I do not support making a rule or law of any kind. Life is full of risks. If you don’t want any risk, perhaps you shouldn’t get out of bed. | C R Bob Callan | 5/5/25 |
| II-5-2 | This rule is not only detrimental to NM small businesses but it is a huge government overreach. There are already state and federal standards in place to protect the health and safety of NM workers, while there will always be bad actors, most employers genuinely care about the health and wellbeing of their employees, it makes sense morally and economically. To saddle NM businesses with regulations like this is akin to saying “take your business somewhere else “. | Cody Hudson | 5/5/25 |
| II-5-3 | Where is the common sense here. Employees have it. Employers have it. Obviously the government does not. This is not necessary and is blatant over reach by the government. Leave it to NM to make it harder to do business here. | Svott Lopez | 5/5/25 |
| II-5-4 | There is no reason for this rule and I oppose it. It will place unnecessary administrative burdens on both the State and the businesses who have to fill out paperwork instead of taking a no duh break to cool off. People have coped with working in hot & cold extremes forever. | Sarah Wood | 5/5/25 |
| II-5-5 | Under normal conditions, breaks for rest, temperature mitigation, and hydration are needed to keep workers healthy and alert. This redounds on other aspects of productivity, because impaired workers result in expensive injuries, equipment misuse and damage, and other kinds of delays. Even if workers appear to be in good health after working with insufficient rest and water, they may suffer from physiological injuries that will manifest at some later date, bringing loss to the worker pool and necessitating public assistance for income support and medical treatment. I support this regulation for the sake of worker health and dignity, as well as the practical benefits of continuous worker effectiveness. | Daniel Kim | 5/5/25 |
| II-6-1 | Opposing this regulation as it will be unduly burdensome on small businesses in SE New Mexico where many days of the year reach 80 degrees and compliance with regulations is already costly. Ultimately these businesses will hire fewer employees or pass the costs on to customers / clients. If individuals are concerned about working outdoors in heat, they must find work elsewhere. That’s an individual choice and citizens must not play victim but instead be proactive in seeking their own health and well-being. | Katie Roehlk | 5/6/25 |
| II-6-2 | I am writing on behalf of my small business customers, to express my opposition to EIB 25-11 (R) – Proposed New Regulation. This regulation would negatively impact small businesses, which lack the resources to hire a full-time team to assess heat indexes, monitor employees, and manage heat-related records for nine months each year. Additionally, we cannot accommodate the proposed reduction of work hours by ⅓ to ¾ during the summer months. Starting the monitoring process at 80°F effectively turns this into a year-round paperwork requirement for no benefit. The OSHA draft remains a draft because it is both unpopular and unworkable for these very reasons. NM struggles to bring in new buisnesses as it is – this will further exacerbate the problem. Please table this proposal. | Carolyn Hardwick | 5/6/25 |
| II-6-3 | We fully support the intent of the proposed regulation to protect workers from heat-related illness and injury. At our small business, we already provide unlimited access to cold drinking water and allow employees to take breaks as needed. Worker well-being and safety are core values of our operation. However, we are concerned that the proposed rule, in its current form, is overly complex and administratively burdensome, especially for small businesses with limited resources. The extensive documentation requirements, individualized acclimatization tracking, formalized assessments, and prescriptive break schedules create a level of regulatory overhead that is difficult for us to implement while maintaining day-to-day operations. We respectfully request that the Department consider more scalable compliance options or simplified requirements tailored to the size and nature of a business. A one-size-fits-all approach may unintentionally penalize responsible small employers who are already taking appropriate measures to protect their teams. | Smith Engineering Company | 5/6/25 |
| II-6-4 | I don’t think more regulations will help with this issue and the heat exposure. It would be great to have more people informed and educated about heat stroke and the signs and potential health hazards. Implementing this type of rule isn’t going to help workers in the end. Unemployment is high in our state, and finding skilled and motivated workers is hard. If this rule is introduced, these skilled workers could move to other states, increasing unemployment. This will adversely affect the prices in our state, because it will cost more, as the business will need to hire someone to monitor and supervise these regulations. Also, it will take longer to get projects accomplished. New Mexico is a poor state, and it shouldn’t be because we have a lot of revenue from other sources. This is because we have too many government regulations on issues that don’t need fixing or influencing. Usually, the government regulations cause more headaches for consumers and businesses. The weather is hot and extremely hot and dry from June through September, but it usually stays above 80 degrees from March through October. How can a person make a living only being able to work a few full months in the year? Adding extra breaks and a supervisor isn’t going to fix anything. Employees who work outside year-round already take precautions and work their schedules around so that they don’t work in the heat of the day. This is done without the government intervening. | Tracey Noriega | 5/6/25 |
| II-6-5 | This regulation would negatively impact small businesses like ours, which lack the resources to hire a full-time team to assess heat indexes, monitor employees, and manage heat-related records for nine months each year. Additionally, we cannot accommodate the proposed reduction of work hours by ⅓ to ¾ during the summer months. Starting the monitoring process at 80°F effectively turns this into a year-round paperwork requirement for no benefit. Much of our work is done outdoors, and during summer, we already provide unlimited ice water and breaks as each employee deems necessary. We take pride in our safe work environment and value our workers. | Fulkerson Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc. | 5/6/25 |
| II-6-6 | I am writing in opposition to EIB 25-11(R) proposed new regulation. We are an electrical contractor and have been in business since 1962. We have never had a single heat related incident in 62 years. I fully understand the need for employee heat-related safety precautions, and we provide ice water, cool wicking T-shirts, and hats as required. Southern New Mexico is hot at least 6 months of the year. Adding the additional burden of year-round paperwork will not change that. Limiting work hours will essentially bring construction to a halt for 6 months of the year. Maybe everyone could shift construction to all night work, but I think the number of accidents would actually increase due to the hazards of working in poorly illuminated areas. We all struggle to keep qualified labor as it is. Making construction workers change their lifestyles in the summer will most likely drive most of them to change trades. Please table this proposal. | Bruce Gwartney | 5/6/25 |
| II-6-7 | 1202 E. 19th Street ∙ Roswell, NM 88201 ∙ (575) 623-1488 ∙ FAX: (575) 623-0488 May 6, 2025 Environmental Improvement Board New Mexico Environment Department 1190 St. Francis Drive, Suite N4050 Santa Fe, NM 87505 Re: Formal Protest of EIB 25-11 (R) – Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Dear Members of the Environmental Improvement Board, I am writing on behalf of AK Sales and Consulting, Inc., a small business headquartered in Roswell, New Mexico, employing over 40 dedicated professionals. We specialize in building playgrounds and outdoor athletic facilities for school districts, municipalities, and public parks across the state. We respectfully submit this letter in protest of the proposed new regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention. While we understand and support the importance of worker safety and health, particularly in extreme conditions, this proposed regulation poses a severe operational and financial burden on small businesses like ours that work primarily in outdoor construction. Due to the nature of our projects and our primary clientele being public schools, we are limited to performing most of our work during the summer months when students are off campus or during regular school hours when staff are present to coordinate safety. As a result, we cannot avoid working in elevated temperatures — a reality of life and business in New Mexico where temperatures exceed 80 degrees for a majority of the year and often reach over 90 degrees during summer. Implementing the proposed heat-related protocols would require us to hire additional staff, extend project timelines, and restructure work schedules in ways that would drive up costs significantly. These increased expenses would inevitably be passed on to our clients — in this case, public schools and municipalities with already constrained budgets. The outcome would either be unsustainable price increases or the inability of public entities to afford necessary upgrades to their playgrounds and athletic facilities, directly impacting the quality and safety of spaces for children and communities. We urge the Board to reconsider the proposed regulation or to provide exemptions, allowances, or tiered requirements for small businesses and public-sector-focused contractors. A one-size-fits-all mandate could have unintended consequences that hinder rather than help New Mexico’s workers and communities. Thank you for considering our perspective, and we welcome the opportunity to participate in further dialogue or public hearings on this matter. Sincerely, Tawsha R. Jacobs CFO-Owner AK Sales and Consulting, Inc. | Tawsha R. Jacobs CFO-Owner AK Sales and Consulting, Inc. | 5/6/25 |
| II-6-8 | Dear Members of the Environmental Improvement Board: On behalf of NAIOP New Mexico, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association, and our 250 members representing 13,400+ jobs in New Mexico, we respectfully submit this letter in strong opposition to the proposed regulation 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention. We share the intent behind this proposal: protecting New Mexico’s workforce from harm. However, the proposed rule, as drafted, will have serious unintended consequences that will impede New Mexico’s ability to respond to critical economic needs—particularly in housing, infrastructure, and job creation. Our state is facing a housing crisis, labor shortages, inflation, property tax lighting increases, federal spending cuts, and rising material and construction costs. This regulation introduces rigid, one-size-fits-all mandates that will significantly disrupt construction timelines, inflate costs, and further constrain the already overburdened development industry. Key Concerns from the Commercial Real Estate Development Industry: Unworkable Compliance for Active Jobsites Commercial development sites are complex, ever-evolving environments. The requirement for designated cooling areas, paid rest breaks triggered by heat index thresholds, and constant heat exposure assessments is logistically infeasible on large or multi-phase projects. Interruptions—such as a 40-minute break for every 20 minutes of work over 103°F—would grind critical processes like concrete pours or utility trenching to a halt, creating safety and structural concerns, not to mention scheduling chaos. Economic Harm Across Multiple Sectors Our industry does not operate in a vacuum. Every stalled commercial project impacts architects, engineers, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, utilities, municipalities, and end users. At a time when public-private partnerships are being leveraged to build affordable housing, modern industrial facilities, and community-serving infrastructure, this rule risks slowing or stopping that progress altogether. Increased Costs and Decreased Productivity The rule’s hydration quotas, cooling infrastructure mandates, and recordkeeping requirements place costly burdens on developers and contractors—especially smaller firms without the administrative capacity or financial flexibility to absorb them. These burdens ultimately translate to reduced output and increased project costs, which are passed on to tenants, consumers, and taxpayers. Redundancy with Existing Federal Frameworks Federal OSHA already has mechanisms in place—such as the General Duty Clause and its Heat Illness Prevention Campaign—to address heat-related workplace safety. The contracting and development community has embraced these standards and continues to invest in training, site-specific safety planning, and appropriate heat mitigation measures. The proposed regulation overreaches by duplicating and exceeding those standards without clear evidence of necessity. Ignores the Realities of Diverse Job Sites This regulation imposes uniform standards regardless of geography, seasonality, job type, or current practices. The difference between a fully shaded tilt-up construction site in northern New Mexico and an open grading site in Las Cruces is significant, yet both would be subject to the same inflexible requirements. Rather than imposing an inflexible mandate, we urge the Board to collaborate with the industries impacted—development, construction, manufacturing, agriculture, and utilities—to identify practical, risk-based solutions. A more effective approach would build on OSHA’s existing standards, incentivize best practices, and allow flexibility for site-specific implementation. New Mexico is in a critical moment of growth. Our chapter and its members are working together to create jobs, provide affordable housing, and strengthen the economic backbone of our communities. This rule, while well-intentioned, will set us back and cause an unknown increase to costs that we will be forced to pass on to the citizens of our state. In turn this ordinance will increase the cost of housing, food, as well as goods and services in our State. We urge you to reject the proposed rule in its current form and instead craft practical, balanced policy that protects workers while allowing New Mexico’s economy to build and thrive. | Rhiannon Samuel | 5/6/25 |
| II-6-9 | New Mexico Restaurant Association 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: The New Mexico Restaurant Association Board of Directors, and Carol Wight, CEO Date: 05/06/2025 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. RE: Heat Illness and Injury Prevention The New Mexico Restaurant Association respectfully submits these comments in response to the Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule. We firmly oppose the Proposed Rule in its current form. It represents an ill-conceived, one-size-fits-all regulatory approach that will impose undue and onerous burdens on restaurant businesses, especially small ones. For the reasons elaborated below, we earnestly urge NMED to withdraw the Proposed Rule and instead engage in collaborative efforts with the industry. The goal should be to promote best practices for heat safety tailored to restaurants’ unique operational realities. We respectfully request that restaurants be explicitly removed from these Heat Regulations, as our employees can access shade, cooling systems, and hydration stations. The Rule is Unnecessary: Existing Tools Address Heat Hazard First, it is essential to note that heat-related illnesses in restaurants are not widespread. According to the Food Industry Self-Insurance Work Comp Fund, there have been only two verified claims related to heat exposure out of approximately 4,000 over the last five years—one incident occurred during COVID-19 when an employee was wearing a mask while working outside, and the other involved a worker over a fryer in the kitchen. This data suggests that serious heat-related incidents in our industry are rare. The Proposed Rule imposes a broad and overly burdensome mandate on multiple industries with very different business models, which is unnecessary. NMED can enforce heat safety through the General Duty Clause and National Emphasis Program (NEP). Instead of increasing the regulatory burden on businesses, NMED should partner with the restaurant industry to enhance its Heat Illness Prevention Campaign and customize existing efforts for greater efficacy in specific industries. The General Duty Clause and NEP on Outdoor and Indoor Heat-Related Hazards The General Duty Clause, as stipulated in Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, obligates employers to provide workplaces free from recognized hazards likely to cause serious harm or death [1]. This clause has been consistently interpreted to cover heat-related hazards, enabling OSHA to address heat risks on a case-by-case basis. This flexible enforcement mechanism ensures efficient resource allocation, avoiding blanket regulations that may be ineffective or unnecessary in all workplaces. According to OSHA data [2], between 1986 and 2023, OSHA issued at least 348 hazardous heat-related citations under the General Duty Clause. This demonstrates OSHA’s capacity to tackle severe heat-related risks without additional prescriptive regulations. In April 2022, OSHA launched the NEP on Outdoor and Indoor Heat-Related Hazards[3]. This initiative targets industries with the highest risk of heat-related illnesses and injuries. The NEP takes a proactive approach, including programmed inspections triggered by National Weather Service heat advisories. Since its inception, OSHA has conducted nearly 5,000 federal heat-related inspections, further validating its ability to effectively target high-risk industries and allocate resources to address pressing heat-related hazards without rigid mandates [4]. OSHA’s Heat Illness Prevention Campaign OSHA’s Heat Illness Prevention Campaign, initiated in 2011, offers robust resources for managing heat risks. It provides a flexible and practical alternative to additional prescriptive regulations [5]. The campaign equips employers and employees with tools and guidance to recognize and mitigate heat risks. Key components include awareness-building tools, training materials, and acclimatization guidance. These resources are accessible and adaptable, capable of addressing heat-related risks in the restaurant industry without adding regulatory burdens. The campaign’s smartphone app offers location-specific heat condition information and educational materials in multiple languages, enhancing its versatility. The National Restaurant Association has a history of collaborating with the Department of Labor (DOL) on workplace safety. For example, the Association recently co-hosted a webinar with the DOL on child labor laws, focusing on teen safety in the food service industry [6]. Similar partnerships can be leveraged to develop educational materials and outreach efforts tailored to the restaurant industry for heat illness mitigation. Expanding the Heat Illness Prevention Campaign’s scope and tailoring guidance to the unique challenges of restaurant operations would enhance its effectiveness. By partnering with the industry, NMED could integrate proven industry-led strategies, such as providing portable cooling devices, upgrading ventilation and cooling systems, and promoting heat-resistant uniforms. Many restaurants are already implementing such measures. For instance, some have improved ventilation with air conditioning and industrial fans, adopted personal cooling methods, or provided regular access to cold beverages. Leveraging the existing campaign to amplify these efforts would protect workers without onerous mandates. Onerous Administrative and Operational Disruptions The Proposed Rule imposes rigid and prescriptive requirements that fail to account for the restaurant industry’s operational diversity and realities. While the industry is committed to employee safety, this one-size-fits-all approach creates impractical challenges for employers. Flexibility, which the Proposed Rule lacks, is essential for restaurant operators to address heat hazards effectively. Mandated Breaks and Acclimatization Requirements The mandated breaks and acclimatization requirements in the Proposed Rule are overly prescriptive and appear to be rules for outdoor work. They disregard the unique operational challenges of the restaurant industry, where efficiency and coordination are crucial. Under the rule, employees must receive paid resting breaks every two hours when the heat index reaches a specific temperature. This rigid requirement based on outdoor temperatures is irrelevant to restaurants and other indoor environments. It would disrupt restaurant workflows, especially during peak service periods. In smaller establishments with limited staff, the absence of one worker can halt operations. For example, a missing line cook during a dinner rush can delay food preparation and service. Larger establishments are also affected due to the interdependence of roles. The restaurant industry is facing a severe labor shortage. According to the 2024 State of the Industry Report, 70% of operators struggle to fill job openings, and nearly half lack sufficient staff to meet customer demand [8]. Imposing mandatory breaks exacerbates the strain on existing staff. Hiring additional workers is not a viable solution for many operators due to the industry’s low profit margins of 3 – 5%. Acclimatization requirements further complicate matters. The rule mandates a gradual increase in heat exposure for new and returning employees, starting at 20% of a normal shift on the first day and increasing over a week [9]. These requirements are extremely expensive and incompatible with the restaurant industry’s low profit margin, high turnover, and seasonal hiring practices. New hires are often needed to meet peak demand, and delaying their full integration leaves restaurants understaffed. The rule’s lack of regional variability adds complexity. Restaurants in New Mexico routinely operate in high-heat conditions, and employees are often acclimated. Applying uniform acclimatization protocols and mandated breaks in these regions is unnecessary and burdensome. Administrative, Recordkeeping, and Training Burdens The Proposed Rule introduces significant administrative and compliance requirements for restaurant operators. These obligations are particularly challenging for an industry with tight margins and workforce challenges. By imposing rigid mandates for recordkeeping, training, and heat safety plans, the rule diverts resources from core operations. The rule mandates extensive recordkeeping. All employers under this standard must keep the following records for a minimum of five years: an accurate record of the heat acclimatization schedule and procedures for all new and returning employees. The employer must keep a record of Heat Illness training, including a list of attendees. A record of all heat illness or related injuries, including those that only require first aid. Heat index and working conditions at the time of illness or injury. The monetary and regulatory cost of this requirement alone, especially for small restaurants that do not have HR departments, is untenable. Training obligations further strain employers. The rule requires comprehensive heat safety training for all employees and managers, with annual refresher and supplemental training for changes in heat hazard exposure, policies, or incidents [10]. These recurring requirements are burdensome in an industry with high turnover. The combined demands of creating and maintaining plans, recordkeeping, training, and acclimatization protocols introduce significant administrative challenges that may overwhelm even well-resourced operators. Compliance Costs Are Significantly Underestimated The Proposed Rule significantly underestimates the compliance costs for restaurants. While OSHA projects annual expenses of $1,940 per establishment, the actual financial burden, including infrastructure upgrades, labor adjustments, and operational disruptions, is much higher [11]. These challenges are exacerbated by inflationary pressures, with food costs up 29%, labor costs up 31% since 2019, and rising utility, occupancy, and credit card processing fees [12]. Given the industry’s thin profit margins of 3 – 5%, the rules’ costs threaten the viability of many restaurants. Discrepancies Between OSHA’s Estimates and Real-World Costs OSHA’s projected compliance costs fail to consider the unique challenges restaurants face. The NMED has no estimated costs in its rule. The rule mandates measures such as temperature monitoring, creating break areas, and providing employee breaks during peak hours, which require significant investments in infrastructure, staffing, and operational adjustments. The rule requires employers in indoor work areas to implement heat mitigation measures, such as increasing air movement, providing air conditioning, or reducing radiant heat exposure. Installing or upgrading HVAC systems or ventilation controls can cost tens of thousands of dollars, far exceeding OSHA’s estimates. Larger or older establishments may face even higher expenses or feasibility issues. Though individually inexpensive, monitoring tools result in significant aggregate costs over time. Creating compliant break areas is challenging due to financial and spatial constraints, especially in older or densely built environments. Compliance with mandatory breaks and acclimatization protocols exacerbates staffing needs. Restaurants with low profit margins cannot afford to hire additional personnel to cover shifts during peak hours. For example, a small diner in New Mexico estimated a 20% annual increase in payroll costs, which would make the business unsustainable. The rule also introduces hidden costs, such as training requirements in high-turnover environments and administrative compliance costs, including temperature monitoring, log-keeping, and acclimatization tracking. These indirect costs far exceed OSHA’s estimations. Ripple Effects on Local Economies The financial impact of the Proposed Rule extends beyond individual restaurants to local economies. Higher operating costs threaten the sustainability of restaurants, especially small and independent ones, which are major employers in their communities. Restaurant closures can lead to job losses and affect local suppliers, farmers, distributors, and delivery services. Restaurants play a crucial role in regional economies by providing jobs and driving commerce in rural and urban areas. Closing even a few establishments can disproportionately harm rural and underserved areas. The Undue Impact on Small Businesses Small businesses are the backbone of the restaurant industry, with nine in ten restaurants employing fewer than 50 people and seven in ten operating as single-unit establishments [13]. However, they often lack the resources to navigate complex regulatory requirements like those in the Proposed Rule. Without exception, many small businesses face the risk of closure due to unsustainable compliance costs. The SBA Office of Advocacy agrees that the rule disproportionately burdens small businesses and fails to account for their unique challenges. They urged OSHA to reassess the rule and consider alternatives tailored to small businesses [14]. We echo these concerns and urge NMED to adopt more flexible, scalable measures. Small business owners lack the legal and regulatory expertise of large corporations. The administrative requirements of the rule, such as recordkeeping, acclimatization tracking, and maintaining HIIPPs, are beyond their capabilities. Hiring additional staff or consultants is unaffordable for already stretched-thin businesses. Many small businesses operate in older or compact facilities where creating compliant break areas or installing advanced cooling systems is impractical or impossible. The costs of retrofitting or relocating could exceed annual profits, forcing closures. Given these factors, if NMED proceeds with the Proposed Rule, small businesses with fewer than 250 employees must be exempt. Instead, OSHA should expand its Heat Illness Prevention Campaign with industry-specific guidance on heat risk mitigation. For the reasons elaborated operational realities. exposure out of approximately 4,000 serious heat-related incidents in our and National Emphasis Program in specific industries. death [1]. This clause has been regulations that may be ineffective or without additional prescriptive approach, including programmed industries and allocate resources to equips employers and employees condition information and educational laws, focusing on teen safety in the integrate proven industry-led strategies, beverages. Leveraging the all approach creates impractical where efficiency and irrelevant to restaurants and other affected due to the [8]. Imposing mandatory breaks week [9]. These requirements are leaves restaurants understaffed. mandated breaks in these regions is challenges. By imposing rigid mandates all new and returning employees. time of illness or injury. The policies, or incidents [10]. labor adjustments, and fees [12]. Given the industry’s areas, and providing employee systems or ventilation controls built environments. example, a small diner in New These indirect costs far exceed major employers in their resources to navigate complex small businesses [14]. We echo their capabilities. Hiring additional exceed annual profits, forcing closures. specific guidance on heat risk Conclusion Instead of imposing one-size-fits-all strict regulations, we urge the New Mexico Environment Department to consider promoting voluntary guidelines, best practices, and training for heat illness prevention. Providing resources and support for businesses to implement safety measures can achieve the desired outcomes without heavy-handed regulations that could hinder economic growth and compliance for small businesses. In conclusion, while the intent behind the Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule is commendable, the proposed requirements would negatively affect the restaurant industry and small businesses throughout New Mexico. We respectfully request that restaurants be explicitly removed from these Heat Regulations, as our employees can access shade, cooling systems, and hydration stations. The rules appear to be designed for businesses with workers exposed to outdoor heat, and we believe that restaurants should be explicitly carved out of this regulation. 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: The New Mexico Restaurant Association Board of Directors, and Carol Wight, CEO Date: 05/06/2025 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. RE: Heat Illness and Injury Prevention The New Mexico Restaurant Association respectfully submits these comments in response to the Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule. We firmly oppose the Proposed Rule in its current form. It represents an ill-conceived, one-size-fits-all regulatory approach that will impose undue and onerous burdens on restaurant businesses, especially small ones. For the reasons elaborated below, we earnestly urge NMED to withdraw the Proposed Rule and instead engage in collaborative efforts with the industry. The goal should be to promote best practices for heat safety tailored to restaurants’ unique operational realities. We respectfully request that restaurants be explicitly removed from these Heat Regulations, as our employees can access shade, cooling systems, and hydration stations. The Rule is Unnecessary: Existing Tools Address Heat Hazard First, it is essential to note that heat-related illnesses in restaurants are not widespread. According to the Food Industry Self-Insurance Work Comp Fund, there have been only two verified claims related to heat exposure out of approximately 4,000 over the last five years—one incident occurred during COVID-19 when an employee was wearing a mask while working outside, and the other involved a worker over a fryer in the kitchen. This data suggests that serious heat-related incidents in our industry are rare. The Proposed Rule imposes a broad and overly burdensome mandate on multiple industries with very different business models, which is unnecessary. NMED can enforce heat safety through the General Duty Clause and National Emphasis Program (NEP). Instead of increasing the regulatory burden on businesses, NMED should partner with the restaurant industry to enhance its Heat Illness Prevention Campaign and customize existing efforts for greater efficacy in specific industries. The General Duty Clause and NEP on Outdoor and Indoor Heat-Related Hazards The General Duty Clause, as stipulated in Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, obligates employers to provide workplaces free from recognized hazards likely to cause serious harm or death [1]. This clause has been consistently interpreted to cover heat-related hazards, enabling OSHA to address heat risks on a case-by-case basis. This flexible enforcement mechanism ensures efficient resource allocation, avoiding blanket regulations that may be ineffective or unnecessary in all workplaces. According to OSHA data [2], between 1986 and 2023, OSHA issued at least 348 hazardous heat-related citations under the General Duty Clause. This demonstrates OSHA’s capacity to tackle severe heat-related risks without additional prescriptive regulations. In April 2022, OSHA launched the NEP on Outdoor and Indoor Heat-Related Hazards[3]. This initiative targets industries with the highest risk of heat-related illnesses and injuries. The NEP takes a proactive approach, including programmed inspections triggered by National Weather Service heat advisories. Since its inception, OSHA has conducted nearly 5,000 federal heat-related inspections, further validating its ability to effectively target high-risk industries and allocate resources to address pressing heat-related hazards without rigid mandates [4]. OSHA’s Heat Illness Prevention Campaign OSHA’s Heat Illness Prevention Campaign, initiated in 2011, offers robust resources for managing heat risks. It provides a flexible and practical alternative to additional prescriptive regulations [5]. The campaign equips employers and employees with tools and guidance to recognize and mitigate heat risks. Key components include awareness-building tools, training materials, and acclimatization guidance. These resources are accessible and adaptable, capable of addressing heat-related risks in the restaurant industry without adding regulatory burdens. The campaign’s smartphone app offers location-specific heat condition information and educational materials in multiple languages, enhancing its versatility. The National Restaurant Association has a history of collaborating with the Department of Labor (DOL) on workplace safety. For example, the Association recently co-hosted a webinar with the DOL on child labor laws, focusing on teen safety in the food service industry [6]. Similar partnerships can be leveraged to develop educational materials and outreach efforts tailored to the restaurant industry for heat illness mitigation. Expanding the Heat Illness Prevention Campaign’s scope and tailoring guidance to the unique challenges of restaurant operations would enhance its effectiveness. By partnering with the industry, NMED could integrate proven industry-led strategies, such as providing portable cooling devices, upgrading ventilation and cooling systems, and promoting heat-resistant uniforms. Many restaurants are already implementing such measures. For instance, some have improved ventilation with air conditioning and industrial fans, adopted personal cooling methods, or provided regular access to cold beverages. Leveraging the existing campaign to amplify these efforts would protect workers without onerous mandates. Onerous Administrative and Operational Disruptions The Proposed Rule imposes rigid and prescriptive requirements that fail to account for the restaurant industry’s operational diversity and realities. While the industry is committed to employee safety, this one-size-fits-all approach creates impractical challenges for employers. Flexibility, which the Proposed Rule lacks, is essential for restaurant operators to address heat hazards effectively. Mandated Breaks and Acclimatization Requirements The mandated breaks and acclimatization requirements in the Proposed Rule are overly prescriptive and appear to be rules for outdoor work. They disregard the unique operational challenges of the restaurant industry, where efficiency and coordination are crucial. Under the rule, employees must receive paid resting breaks every two hours when the heat index reaches a specific temperature. This rigid requirement based on outdoor temperatures is irrelevant to restaurants and other indoor environments. It would disrupt restaurant workflows, especially during peak service periods. In smaller establishments with limited staff, the absence of one worker can halt operations. For example, a missing line cook during a dinner rush can delay food preparation and service. Larger establishments are also affected due to the interdependence of roles. The restaurant industry is facing a severe labor shortage. According to the 2024 State of the Industry Report, 70% of operators struggle to fill job openings, and nearly half lack sufficient staff to meet customer demand [8]. Imposing mandatory breaks exacerbates the strain on existing staff. Hiring additional workers is not a viable solution for many operators due to the industry’s low profit margins of 3 – 5%. Acclimatization requirements further complicate matters. The rule mandates a gradual increase in heat exposure for new and returning employees, starting at 20% of a normal shift on the first day and increasing over a week [9]. These requirements are extremely expensive and incompatible with the restaurant industry’s low profit margin, high turnover, and seasonal hiring practices. New hires are often needed to meet peak demand, and delaying their full integration leaves restaurants understaffed. The rule’s lack of regional variability adds complexity. Restaurants in New Mexico routinely operate in high-heat conditions, and employees are often acclimated. Applying uniform acclimatization protocols and mandated breaks in these regions is unnecessary and burdensome. Administrative, Recordkeeping, and Training Burdens The Proposed Rule introduces significant administrative and compliance requirements for restaurant operators. These obligations are particularly challenging for an industry with tight margins and workforce challenges. By imposing rigid mandates for recordkeeping, training, and heat safety plans, the rule diverts resources from core operations. The rule mandates extensive recordkeeping. All employers under this standard must keep the following records for a minimum of five years: an accurate record of the heat acclimatization schedule and procedures for all new and returning employees. The employer must keep a record of Heat Illness training, including a list of attendees. A record of all heat illness or related injuries, including those that only require first aid. Heat index and working conditions at the time of illness or injury. The monetary and regulatory cost of this requirement alone, especially for small restaurants that do not have HR departments, is untenable. Training obligations further strain employers. The rule requires comprehensive heat safety training for all employees and managers, with annual refresher and supplemental training for changes in heat hazard exposure, policies, or incidents [10]. These recurring requirements are burdensome in an industry with high turnover. The combined demands of creating and maintaining plans, recordkeeping, training, and acclimatization protocols introduce significant administrative challenges that may overwhelm even well-resourced operators. Compliance Costs Are Significantly Underestimated The Proposed Rule significantly underestimates the compliance costs for restaurants. While OSHA projects annual expenses of $1,940 per establishment, the actual financial burden, including infrastructure upgrades, labor adjustments, and operational disruptions, is much higher [11]. These challenges are exacerbated by inflationary pressures, with food costs up 29%, labor costs up 31% since 2019, and rising utility, occupancy, and credit card processing fees [12]. Given the industry’s thin profit margins of 3 – 5%, the rules’ costs threaten the viability of many restaurants. Discrepancies Between OSHA’s Estimates and Real-World Costs OSHA’s projected compliance costs fail to consider the unique challenges restaurants face. The NMED has no estimated costs in its rule. The rule mandates measures such as temperature monitoring, creating break areas, and providing employee breaks during peak hours, which require significant investments in infrastructure, staffing, and operational adjustments. The rule requires employers in indoor work areas to implement heat mitigation measures, such as increasing air movement, providing air conditioning, or reducing radiant heat exposure. Installing or upgrading HVAC systems or ventilation controls can cost tens of thousands of dollars, far exceeding OSHA’s estimates. Larger or older establishments may face even higher expenses or feasibility issues. Though individually inexpensive, monitoring tools result in significant aggregate costs over time. Creating compliant break areas is challenging due to financial and spatial constraints, especially in older or densely built environments. Compliance with mandatory breaks and acclimatization protocols exacerbates staffing needs. Restaurants with low profit margins cannot afford to hire additional personnel to cover shifts during peak hours. For example, a small diner in New Mexico estimated a 20% annual increase in payroll costs, which would make the business unsustainable. The rule also introduces hidden costs, such as training requirements in high-turnover environments and administrative compliance costs, including temperature monitoring, log-keeping, and acclimatization tracking. These indirect costs far exceed OSHA’s estimations. Ripple Effects on Local Economies The financial impact of the Proposed Rule extends beyond individual restaurants to local economies. Higher operating costs threaten the sustainability of restaurants, especially small and independent ones, which are major employers in their communities. Restaurant closures can lead to job losses and affect local suppliers, farmers, distributors, and delivery services. Restaurants play a crucial role in regional economies by providing jobs and driving commerce in rural and urban areas. Closing even a few establishments can disproportionately harm rural and underserved areas. The Undue Impact on Small Businesses Small businesses are the backbone of the restaurant industry, with nine in ten restaurants employing fewer than 50 people and seven in ten operating as single-unit establishments [13]. However, they often lack the resources to navigate complex regulatory requirements like those in the Proposed Rule. Without exception, many small businesses face the risk of closure due to unsustainable compliance costs. The SBA Office of Advocacy agrees that the rule disproportionately burdens small businesses and fails to account for their unique challenges. They urged OSHA to reassess the rule and consider alternatives tailored to small businesses [14]. We echo these concerns and urge NMED to adopt more flexible, scalable measures. Small business owners lack the legal and regulatory expertise of large corporations. The administrative requirements of the rule, such as recordkeeping, acclimatization tracking, and maintaining HIIPPs, are beyond their capabilities. Hiring additional staff or consultants is unaffordable for already stretched-thin businesses. Many small businesses operate in older or compact facilities where creating compliant break areas or installing advanced cooling systems is impractical or impossible. The costs of retrofitting or relocating could exceed annual profits, forcing closures. Given these factors, if NMED proceeds with the Proposed Rule, small businesses with fewer than 250 employees must be exempt. Instead, OSHA should expand its Heat Illness Prevention Campaign with industry-specific guidance on heat risk mitigation. Conclusion Instead of imposing one-size-fits-all strict regulations, we urge the New Mexico Environment Department to consider promoting voluntary guidelines, best practices, and training for heat illness prevention. Providing resources and support for businesses to implement safety measures can achieve the desired outcomes without heavy-handed regulations that could hinder economic growth and compliance for small businesses. In conclusion, while the intent behind the Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule is commendable, the proposed requirements would negatively affect the restaurant industry and small businesses throughout New Mexico. We respectfully request that restaurants be explicitly removed from these Heat Regulations, as our employees can access shade, cooling systems, and hydration stations. The rules appear to be designed for businesses with workers exposed to outdoor heat, and we believe that restaurants should be explicitly carved out of this regulation. | New Mexico Restaurant Association | 5/6/25 |
| II-6-10 | I carefully read the proposed rule and reviewed your tables. I am an employer in the construction industry in Santa Fe. Our company employs about 10 people, about 6 of those work outside on jobsites full time. I care deeply for my employees and their health and safety. While I agree with the overall concern, and I agree with some of the Control Measures, I think creating a plan and having employees who are tasked with managing that plan is inefficient, ineffective, and not likely to increase wellbeing for the employees. While I think there might be employees who set inhumane expectations for their employees, I think those are the exception, rather than the rule. Further, I think these sorts of top down mandates increase costs, increase overhead, and don’t effectively make things safer. This isn’t how OSHA, and this very similar approach are set up, but I think employees should be given rights, the employee should be given information about their rights as an employee, and they should be able to enforce those rights through a reasonable process. One such right that every human should have is the right to work in a humane environment, and not being overly burdened by heat should be part of that. I think minimum, or in some places, living wage laws work that way. In my company, we do have plans to deal with overexposure to heat, but they aren’t written, and they rely on common sense and decency. They aren’t written. | Gabriel Browne | 5/6/25 |
| II-6-11 | I am writing to express my opposition to EIB 25-11 (R) – Proposed New Regulation. This regulation would negatively impact small businesses in New Mexico, which lack the resources to hire a full-time team to assess heat indexes, monitor employees, and manage heat-related records for nine months each year. Additionally, we cannot accommodate the proposed reduction of work hours by ⅓ to ¾ during the summer months. Starting the monitoring process at 80°F effectively turns this into a year-round paperwork requirement for no benefit. My family owns several small businesses in New Mexico and we have outdoor employees that are acclimated to the temperatures in NM and are given water/beverage breaks as each employee deems necessary. We have never experienced a heat-related illness. We take pride in our safe work environment and value our employees. The OSHA draft remains a draft because it is both unpopular and unworkable for these very reasons. Please table this proposal. | Mary Featherstone | 5/6/25 |
| II-7-1 | Comments Submitted by John MacNeill National Safety Director, Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA) Re: Support for New Mexico OSHA Proposed Heat Illness Prevention Rule On behalf of the Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA), I express strong support for the New Mexico Occupational Health and Safety Bureau’s proposed heat illness prevention rule. As the National Safety Director for UWUA, I represent thousands of utility workers across the United States, including those who work in some of the most extreme and hazardous environments, often in high temperatures with direct exposure to the sun and radiant heat sources. The proposed rule is both necessary and urgent. As climate change continues to drive longer, more intense heat waves across the Southwest, frontline workers are increasingly at risk of heat-related illnesses, injuries, and fatalities. For utility workers, particularly those involved in electric, water, and gas infrastructure, outdoor exposure is unavoidable. They must respond to emergencies, conduct repairs, and maintain vital services regardless of weather conditions. This proposed rule provides critical protections that will save lives and improve the working conditions for thousands of essential workers in New Mexico. We commend the state for recognizing the need for employer accountability through written heat illness prevention plans, acclimatization protocols, access to cool drinking water and shade, and employee training. These measures align with the best practices recommended by occupational health experts and reinforce the foundational principle that no job is worth a life. Including specific provisions for emergency response workers is especially important to UWUA members, who are often deployed during natural disasters and extreme weather events, precisely the conditions where heat illness risks are most elevated. Codifying mandatory rest breaks, hydration intervals, and access to cooling is a vital step in protecting those who keep our infrastructure running under extreme stress. We also support the emphasis on worker participation, including the right to report symptoms without retaliation. Too often, workers are discouraged from speaking up due to production pressure or fear of reprisal. A strong standard must empower workers and ensure that health and safety concerns are addressed proactively. In closing, UWUA urges New Mexico OSHA to move forward with finalizing and implementing this rule without delay. We stand ready to work in partnership with employers, state officials, and fellow labor organizations to ensure effective implementation. This proposed rule represents a model for the rest of the country and sets a clear standard: protecting workers from the dangers of extreme heat is not optional—it is a matter of justice and human dignity. Sincerely, John MacNeill National Safety Director Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA Comments Submitted by John MacNeill National Safety Director, Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA) Re: Support for New Mexico OSHA Proposed Heat Illness Prevention Rule On behalf of the Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA), I am writing to express strong support for the New Mexico Occupational Health and Safety Bureau’s proposed heat illness prevention rule. As the National Safety Director for UWUA, I represent thousands of utility workers across the United States, including those who work in some of the most extreme and hazardous environments, often in high temperatures with direct exposure to the sun and radiant heat sources. The proposed rule is both necessary and urgent. As climate change continues to drive longer, more intense heat waves across the Southwest, frontline workers are increasingly at risk of heat-related illnesses, injuries, and fatalities. For utility workers—particularly those involved in electric, water, and gas infrastructure—outdoor exposure is unavoidable. They must respond to emergencies, conduct repairs, and maintain vital services regardless of weather conditions. This proposed rule provides critical protections that will save lives and improve the working conditions for thousands of essential workers in New Mexico. We commend the state for recognizing the need for employer accountability through written heat illness prevention plans, acclimatization protocols, access to cool drinking water and shade, and employee training. These measures align with the best practices recommended by occupational health experts and reinforce the foundational principle that no job is worth a life. The inclusion of specific provisions for emergency response workers is especially important to UWUA members, who are often deployed during natural disasters and extreme weather events—precisely the conditions where heat illness risks are most elevated. Codifying mandatory breaks, hydration intervals, and access to cooling is a vital step in protecting those who keep our infrastructure running under extreme stress. We also support the emphasis on worker participation, including the right to report symptoms without retaliation. Too often, workers are discouraged from speaking up due to production pressure or fear of reprisal. A strong standard must empower workers and ensure that health and safety concerns are addressed proactively. In closing, UWUA urges New Mexico OSHA to move forward with finalizing and implementing this rule without delay. We stand ready to work in partnership with employers, state officials, and fellow labor organizations to ensure effective implementation. This proposed rule represents a model for the rest of the country and sets a clear standard: protecting workers from the dangers of extreme heat is not optional, it is a matter of justice and human dignity. Sincerely, John MacNeill National Safety Director Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA | Utility Workers Union of America | 5/7/25 |
| II-7-2 | I cannot believe that EIB 25-11 (R) – Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention is even being considered! It’s common sense that New Mexico is already losing business and industry at an alarming rate. Enforce this rule and we’ll see less small business owners trying to start in our state and will take their business elsewhere. I think it would be far more intelligent to require businesses to make part of their orientation training an education on heat dangers and the need to stay hydrated. This is an overreach in great magnitude! | MaryAnne Reidy | 5/7/25 |
| II-7-3 | New Mexico Business Coalition POB 95735 Albuquerque, NM 87199 Re: EIB 25-11(R) – In the Matter of Proposed New Regulation 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention. Dear Environmental Improvement Board: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed regulation. The New Mexico Business Coalition (NMBC) represents the business community of New Mexico (NM). Historically, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulates workplace health and safety in the US. NM has had a general regulatory policy for decades of adopting federal regulations and guidelines without state-specific rules. As a relatively small state, this policy has served NM well. This proposed regulation is an unnecessary departure from past practice. So far, only a few states have issued local “heat stress” rules that vary from federal guidelines. Businesses in NM are aware of the risks inherent in working outdoors. These risks require careful work planning and execution by trained workers and supervisors. Industries such as agriculture, construction, energy, and others require outdoor work in NM’s warm, dry western climate. There are many business incentives to work smartly and safely. Most businesses strive to provide safe work practices for their employees and face substantial legal liability in the case of an accident or illness due to poor work practices. OSHA is currently revising its rules on heat stress (Ref. 1). NM should wait for the outcome of this federal process before considering its own regulations. Employers rely on industry “heat stress” standards developed by trade associations and others. In particular, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has published heat stress guidelines for the workplace (Ref. 2). Industry guidelines are based on this work. Based on the current availability of industry best practices, state-specific NM regulations are counterproductive and unnecessary at this time. A better approach is to work cooperatively with NM trade groups and employers to ensure good heat stress practices are followed. If NM insists on issuing its own regulation, it should be reasonable and take into account the existing work practices in our state and the prevailing climate. The administrative requirements of the proposed regulation (Ref. 3) should be exempt for small companies with 10 employees or fewer. Also, especially in construction or energy, there are many subcontractors at a work site. Provision should be made for subcontractors to be covered by the General Contractor’s administrative system. The draft regulation has unreasonable “rest periods” related to heat stress. Experienced workers and supervisors instinctively know that regular “rest breaks” in shady areas are necessary when working on a hot day. In particular, the values in Table 3 of the proposed regulation (Ref. 3) are not reasonable for many outdoor activities, and an overly zealous inspector could use this table to delay work unreasonably. In summary, this proposed regulation would be unnecessary and counterproductive for businesses in NM and should not be adopted. Respectfully, Carla J. Sonntag, President and CEO | New Mexico Business Coalition | 5/7/25 |
| II-7-4 | This is another example of unnecessary regulatory burden on hard working small business in NM. As you may have seen in recent headlines, NM is ranked among the least favorable state to do business in. Along with many other last or near last place ranking among all 50 states. The state is driving out small business. Especially oil and gas. You are trying to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. This will impact them, our great Agricultural economy and anyone trying to build and grow in NM. You might have noted the recent national headline from a top Energy executive that said it is easier to do business in the county of Turkey than it is in NM. The people who promulgate these rules have never met a payroll, produced a good or service or taken care of employees. they have always worked for the government with zero restraints, such as following a budget, returning a profit to the company so they can continue to prosper. They are totally unaccountable. And we the people that get up and go to work every day have to suffer through their “good ideas” that hamper free enterprize. You just cannot fix stupid, which NM government has a bad case of. | Greg Alpers | 5/7/25 |
| II-7-5 | On behalf of AFT New Mexico, representing public school educators and support staff across New Mexico, we strongly support the New Mexico Environment Department’s proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule. As climate change drives more extreme heat across our state, this rule is not only timely but essential to protect the health and safety of workers, including those in our public education system. Our members work in a wide range of school settings, many of which include classrooms, cafeterias, school buses, playgrounds, and maintenance areas that lack adequate cooling or shade. Summer learning programs, extended school years, and early fall heatwaves all contribute to prolonged heat exposure for teachers, educational assistants, custodians, cafeteria workers, and bus drivers. We have seen firsthand how extreme heat impairs judgment, causes fatigue, and places vulnerable employees and students at risk. The proposed rule addresses these concerns comprehensively, including critical provisions on hydration, cooling areas, monitoring procedures, rest breaks, and training. These are common-sense measures that can prevent serious illness and even save lives. We are particularly encouraged by the requirement that all training and written plans be made accessible in the languages understood by the majority of workers, this promotes true equity and access to safety. New Mexico’s education professionals, like all workers, deserve safe conditions — and this rule is a major step toward ensuring that no one has to choose between their health and their job. | American Federation of Teachers New Mexico | 5/7/25 |
| II-8-1 | The data are clear, worldwide, heat related illness has been, continues to be and increasingly presents serious threat to productivity, lively hood and wellbeing. Bravo to NM Environment Department for proposing sensible guidance, early thresholds statically marking the onset of heat related illnesses, 80 F, and thresholds wherein heat related illness rapidly increases the volume of people impacted, 90 F, not just to protect workers but to improve effectiveness on the job. Worldwide it is recognized serious heat related illness claim half of the victims by 94 F, where in alarms are invoked. I wholeheartedly support the proposed regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention. It is observed in Arizona that by protecting workers from heat efficiency increases and illnesses decrease — a win-win for everyone, especially as we experience ever increasing heat, be it extremes or means. | Brian Woods | 5/8/25 |
| II-8-2 | New Mexico Environment Department Occupational Health and Safety Bureau 1190 St. Francis Drive, Suite N4050 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 RE: Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule Greetings, My name is Darrell Brown and I am the president of the Otero County Cattleman’s Association (OCCA) in Otero County, New Mexico. I am writing on behalf of the members of OCCA in regards to the “Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule” by the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED), Occupational Health and Safety Bureau (OHSB). As our name depicts, most of our members are directly involved in agriculture in some form or fashion. Requiring so many and such detailed regulations on this industry is not workable, nor feasible. We in the agricultural industry do not always get to choose when we go out to work or what the conditions are when we have to attend to the animals and/or crops. Animals and crops don’t wait for the conditions to be optimal solely for human benefit. Farming and ranching are century-old practices that have endured the test of time…and heat. Most employers use common sense and will do all that is possible to take care of their employees without being forced by government to do so. If not, such employer most likely won’t have employees for any length of time. In reading New Mexico Statute Chapter 50, Article 9.2.1, Legislative Findings, it appears that the New Mexico legislature’s statutory intent was the assurance that every employee is safe and protected from the proliferation of hazardous chemicals and from hazardous substances in places of employment. NMED/OHSB’s proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule goes beyond the scope of hazardous chemicals and substances. Also, in the New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC), Title 11, Chapter 5, Part 4, Occupational Health and Safety—Agriculture deals with the occupational health and safety issues related to agriculture. Section 11.5.4.9(A) of the NMAC incorporates the federal standards of the provisions of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 29, Part 1928, Occupational Safety and Health Standards—Agriculture. 29 CFR, Part 1928, Subpart B, Section 1928.21(b) which exempts agriculture from the Occupational Safety and Health Standards except for what is listed in 29 CFR, Part 1928, Subpart A, Section 1928.21(a)(1-8). New Mexico specifically adopted those federal regulations. NMED/OHSB’s proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule does not fit within the confines of Subpart A, Section 1928.21(a)(1-8). Including “agriculture” in the proposed rule is in conflict with the exemption for agriculture as stated in 29 CFR 1928.21(b) adopted by Section 11.5.4.9(A) of the NMAC. The proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule is oppressive and unattainable in most cases. It lacks sufficient data to justify its stringent requirements and fails to properly address the economic impacts that it will have on the employers, workers, and the state of New Mexico as a whole. This proposed rule is a classic example of government overreach; impossible to apply evenly across the numerous industries, is burdensome to both businesses and employees, is out of touch with reality, is expensive to implement, and is impossible to enforce statewide. For all of the above stated reasons, OCCA respectfully requests that NMED/OHSB withdraw the Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule or in the very least remove agriculture from its proposal in order to adhere to current rules. Thank you. Sincerely, /s/Darrell Brown President of the Otero County Cattleman’s Association PO Box 595 Weed, New Mexico 88354 (575) 687-2650 Cc: Board of Otero County Commissioners Senator Jim Townsend Representative Harlan Vincent Representative Jonathan Henry New Mexico Cattle Grower’s Association New Mexico Federal Lands Council | Otero County Cattleman’s Association | 5/8/25 |
| II-9-1 | I want to express my opposition to EIB 25-11 (R) – Proposed New Regulation. Small business in this state is already suffering under excessive regulations. As a small business owner everyday I wonder what will be the final straw that drives me out of New Mexico to a more business-friendly state like CO, AZ and TX. | Jacob Roebuck | 5/9/25 |
| II-9-2 | May 9, 2025 New Mexico Environmental Department Environmental Improvement Board RE: EIB 25-11(R) – New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention To the Honorable Chair and the members of the Environmental Improvement Board, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed rule EIB 25-11 (R) – 11.5.7 NMAC, which aims to establish standards related to employees’ occupational health and safety to prevent heat illnesses and related injuries. While the intention behind this regulation is commendable, its implementation would be detrimental to the energy and construction sectors for several reasons. Logistical Challenges: The oil and gas industry operates in diverse and often remote locations where environmental conditions can be extreme. Implementing the proposed rule would require significant logistical adjustments, including the provision of additional cooling systems, shaded areas, and frequent breaks for workers. These changes would disrupt operational workflows and increase downtime, affecting productivity and efficiency. The industry already employs best practices to mitigate heat-related risks, such as scheduling work during cooler parts of the day and providing adequate hydration and rest periods. Legal Implications: The proposed rule introduces stringent requirements that may conflict with existing federal regulations and industry standards. Compliance with multiple overlapping regulations can create legal ambiguities and increase the risk of litigation. The oil and gas sector is already subject to comprehensive safety regulations under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which include measures to protect workers from heat-related illnesses. Adding another layer of regulation could lead to confusion and inconsistent enforcement, ultimately undermining the effectiveness of existing safety protocols. Economic Impact: The economic burden of implementing the proposed rule would be substantial. The oil and gas industry is critical to the state’s economy, providing jobs and generating revenue. The additional costs associated with compliance, such as purchasing new equipment, modifying infrastructure, and training personnel, would strain financial resources and potentially lead to higher operational costs. These expenses could result in reduced investment in other areas, such as technological innovation and environmental sustainability initiatives, which are essential for the industry’s long-term viability. Burden and Attainability: The proposed rule sets forth burdensome and, in some cases, almost unattainable requirements. For instance, maintaining specific temperature thresholds in outdoor work environments is impractical given the variability of weather conditions. The industry is already doing its best to accommodate best work practices under current standards, which include comprehensive heat illness prevention programs. These programs are designed to be flexible and adaptive to oil and gas operations’ unique challenges. In conclusion, while the goal of protecting workers from heat-related illnesses is important, the proposed rule EIB 25-11 (R) – 11.5.7 NMAC would impose significant logistical, legal, and economic challenges on the energy and construction sectors. I urge the Environmental Improvement Board to reconsider this regulation and work collaboratively with industry stakeholders to develop more practical and attainable solutions that enhance worker safety without compromising operational efficiency and economic stability. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I hope you will take these concerns into serious consideration. Respectfully, Pat G. Lucero Jr Gennesaret Group Bloomfield, NM | Gennesaret Group | 5/9/25 |
| II-9-3 | I firmly support this rule. I was a general contractor in California when they enacted a similar rule. It was not a problem for contractors to comply with. I hear contractors here screaming it will put them out of business. What the rule requires are things they should already be doing if they care about their employees. Contractors will adapt. Don’t back down. Working people need the protection of this rule. | J Schmoe | 5/9/25 |
| II-9-4 | I firmly support this rule. I was a general contractor in California when they enacted a similar rule. It was not a problem for contractors to comply with. I hear contractors here screaming it will put them out of business. What the rule requires are things they should already be doing if they care about their employees. Contractors will adapt. Don’t back down. Working people need the protection of this rule. | J Schmoe | 5/9/25 |
| II-9-5 | Walsh Engineering & Production Corp. May 9, 2025 New Mexico Environmental Department Environmental Improvement Board RE: EIB 25-11(R) – New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention To the Honorable Chair and the members of the Environmental Improvement Board, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed rule EIB 25-11 (R) – 11.5.7 NMAC, which aims to establish standards related to employees’ occupational health and safety to prevent heat illnesses and related injuries. While the intention behind this regulation is commendable, its implementation would be detrimental to the energy and construction sectors for several reasons. Logistical Challenges: The oil and gas industry operates in diverse and often remote locations where environmental conditions can be extreme. Implementing the proposed rule would require significant logistical adjustments, including the provision of additional cooling systems, shaded areas, and frequent breaks for workers. These changes would disrupt operational workflows and increase downtime, affecting productivity and efficiency. The industry already employs best practices to mitigate heat-related risks, such as scheduling work during cooler parts of the day and providing adequate hydration and rest periods. Legal Implications: The proposed rule introduces stringent requirements that may conflict with existing federal regulations and industry standards. Compliance with multiple overlapping regulations can create legal ambiguities and increase the risk of litigation. The oil and gas sector is already subject to comprehensive safety regulations under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which include measures to protect workers from heat-related illnesses. Adding another layer of regulation could lead to confusion and inconsistent enforcement, ultimately undermining the effectiveness of existing safety protocols. Economic Impact: The economic burden of implementing the proposed rule would be substantial. The oil and gas industry is critical to the state’s economy, providing jobs and generating revenue. The additional costs associated with compliance, such as purchasing new equipment, modifying infrastructure, and training personnel, would strain financial resources and potentially lead to higher operational costs. These expenses could result inreduced investment in other areas, such as technological innovation and environmental sustainability initiatives, which are essential for the industry’s long-term viability. Burden and Attainability: The proposed rule sets forth burdensome and, in some cases, almost unattainable requirements. For instance, maintaining specific temperature thresholds in outdoor work environments is impractical given the variability of weather conditions. The industry is already doing its best to accommodate best work practices under current standards, which include comprehensive heat illness prevention programs. These programs are designed to be flexible and adaptive to the unique challenges oil and gas operations face. In conclusion, while the goal of protecting workers from heat-related illnesses is important, the proposed rule EIB 25-11 (R) – 11.5.7 NMAC would impose significant logistical, legal, and economic challenges on the energy and construction sectors. I urge the Environmental Improvement Board to reconsider this regulation and work collaboratively with industry stakeholders to develop more practical and attainable solutions that enhance worker safety without compromising operational efficiency and economic stability. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I hope you will take these concerns into serious consideration. Respectfully, Shawna Martinez Walsh Engineering & Production Corp Aztec, NM | Walsh Engineering & Production Corp | 5/9/25 |
| II-9-6 | Dear New Mexico Environment Department and Environmental Improvement Board, I am asking you to protect the people who keep New Mexico running. Too many New Mexicans are getting sick – or worse – from doing their jobs in the heat. At least 250,000 workers in our state are at high risk for heat-related illness. As temperatures keep rising and heat waves become more common, so do emergency room visits and hospital stays for heat-related conditions. 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. We often think of outdoor workers in construction, oil and gas, and agriculture, but indoor workers are also at risk in hot kitchens, poorly ventilated buildings, and places with broken or inadequate cooling systems. New Mexico can’t wait for the federal government to act. We need our own rule to protect workers from extreme heat now – one that gives employers clear steps to follow and gives workers the training they need and the right to speak up if they aren’t safe. New Mexicans work hard for their families, for their communities, and for our state. Let’s give them the protection they deserve to stay safe at work. Please support a strong heat protection rule for New Mexico workers. Thank you, | Carol Sassaman | 5/9/25 |
| II-10-1 | Protect workers! | margo wyse | 5/10/25 |
| II-11-1 | Hello, I’m writing in opposition to EIB25-11 which seeks to protect employees from heat related illness. I’m not opposed to protecting workers from all manner of calamity. However,EIB25-11 is overreaching and meddelsome. Please let construction companies, landscapers, and others who are in outdoor endeavors protect their employees. They will do so because it’s costly for them to have injured people accompanied by workman’s comp claims. Thank You. | 5/11/25 | |
| II-12-1 | Dear Members of the Environmental Improvement Board: On behalf of Brycon Corporation, a large Commercial Construction Company here in Albuquerque, we respectfully submit this letter in strong opposition to the proposed regulation 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention. We share the intent behind this proposal: protecting New Mexico’s workforce from harm. However, the proposed rule, as drafted, will have serious unintended consequences that will impede New Mexico’s ability to respond to critical economic needs—particularly in housing, infrastructure, and job creation. Our state is facing a housing crisis, labor shortages, inflation, property tax lighting increases, federal spending cuts, and rising material and construction costs. This regulation introduces rigid, one-size-fits-all mandates that will significantly disrupt construction timelines, inflate costs, and further constrain the already overburdened development industry. Key Concerns from the Commercial Construction Industry: Unworkable Compliance for Active Jobsites Commercial development sites are complex, ever-evolving environments. The requirement for designated cooling areas, paid rest breaks triggered by heat index thresholds, and constant heat exposure assessments is logistically infeasible on large or multi-phase projects. Interruptions—such as a 40-minute break for every 20 minutes of work over 103°F—would grind critical processes like concrete pours or utility trenching to a halt, creating safety and structural concerns, not to mention scheduling chaos. Economic Harm Across Multiple Sectors Our industry does not operate in a vacuum. Every stalled commercial project impacts architects, engineers, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, utilities, municipalities, and end users. At a time when public-private partnerships are being leveraged to build affordable housing, modern industrial facilities, and community-serving infrastructure, this rule risks slowing or stopping that progress altogether. Increased Costs and Decreased Productivity The rule’s hydration quotas, cooling infrastructure mandates, and recordkeeping requirements place costly burdens on developers and contractors—especially smaller firms without the administrative capacity or financial flexibility to absorb them. These burdens ultimately translate to reduced output and increased project costs, which are passed on to tenants, consumers, and taxpayers. Redundancy with Existing Federal Frameworks Federal OSHA already has mechanisms in place—such as the General Duty Clause and its Heat Illness Prevention Campaign—to address heat-related workplace safety. The contracting and development community has embraced these standards and continues to invest in training, site-specific safety planning, and appropriate heat mitigation measures. The proposed regulation overreaches by duplicating and exceeding those standards without clear evidence of necessity. Ignores the Realities of Diverse Job Sites This regulation imposes uniform standards regardless of geography, seasonality, job type, or current practices. The difference between a fully shaded tilt-up construction site in northern New Mexico and an open grading site in Las Cruces is significant, yet both would be subject to the same inflexible requirements. Rather than imposing an inflexible mandate, we urge the Board to collaborate with the industries impacted—development, construction, manufacturing, agriculture, and utilities—to identify practical, risk-based solutions. A more effective approach would build on OSHA’s existing standards, incentivize best practices, and allow flexibility for site-specific implementation. New Mexico is in a critical moment of growth. Our chapter and its members are working together to create jobs, provide affordable housing, and strengthen the economic backbone of our communities. This rule, while well-intentioned, will set us back and cause an unknown increase to costs that we will be forced to pass on to the citizens of our state. In turn this ordinance will increase the cost of housing, food, as well as goods and services in our State. We urge you to reject the proposed rule in its current form and instead craft practical, balanced policy that protects workers while allowing New Mexico’s economy to build and thrive | Steven Garcia | 5/12/25 |
| II-12-2 | This rule is a very expensive solution to a non-existent problem in our organization. I am very against it. | HAMILTON MIKE | 5/12/25 |
| II-12-3 | Hello, I am writing to respectfully express my opposition to the new heat index rule currently being proposed by NMED. I am concerned that this rule poses a significant threat to future development in New Mexico. If implemented as written, I believe it could increase construction costs to the point where growth and investment in our state could slow or even come to a halt. As someone who cares deeply about New Mexico and its future, I want to see our state continue to grow and prosper. While I agree that protecting outdoor workers from extreme heat is critically important, I feel that the proposed rule lacks the necessary nuance and fails to account for the broader economic impacts it may have. I urge you to reconsider and reject the proposed heat index rule in its current form. I believe there is an opportunity to develop a more balanced approach that protects workers while also supporting the continued growth and development of our communities. Thank you for your consideration. | Dante Gonzalez | 5/12/25 |
| II-13-1 | Most oil and gas companies follow this proposed rule. We already have a process in place that accounts for 98% of the proposed rule. The EIB should avoid imposing burdensome regulatory processes that we all know will end in a fine. If we are truly concerned about worker health and safety, then we should provide broad expectations and require companies to meet the intent. For example, heat acclimatization has limited benefits in preventing heat illness, and the time required to acclimate varies for each person and situation. Therefore, it would be more beneficial to establish an exception for employers to allow time for employees to acclimate or reacclimate, rather than establishing a mandated schedule, which, once again, we know will only end in a fine. | Paul Thompson | 5/13/25 |
| II-13-2 | School working conditions such as students learning in classrooms close to 85 degrees are dangerous and put students at risk. Students become fatigued, have difficulty concentrating, and in turn, start acting out. It is extremely difficult for students to learn in these conditions and we put those with special needs at risk of heat exhaustion. Do you want your children in a classroom of nearly 30 students where the temperature is almost 90 degrees? How can anyone learn or perform to their capacity indoors? | Camellia Termini | 5/13/25 |
| II-14-1 | I experienced heat stroke while supervising students on a fire drill/evacuation training from having to stand out in the sun w/o protection – random drill scheduled. My doctor told me that I am now much more susceptible to getting heat stroke again. I retired from teaching. We must protect our workers’ health – with the increasing heat and drought conditions more of us are susceptible. Do not allow shallow minded, profit motivated individuals/groups block this important measure. These shallow minded individuals/groups do not realize the ultimate cost to themselves when workers suffer. I suffered and my students suffered when the administration did not respect my health requirements. Thank you | Laureen Pepersack | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-2 | This is the most absurd proposal I have ever seen. I am a surveyor and civil engineer I have one office employee and I do the field work by myself self. Very seldom do I have field work that lasts more than two non consecutive days and usually last about 4 to 6 hours. Your proposal would require me to make a 12 hour session to accomplish 4 hours of work. Roswell is almost always above the 90 degree threshold. I don’t usually work outside the rest of the time so I would have to spend several days working outside not doing any productive work getting acklamated to do my field work. Along with setting up a cooling station for a temporary work site that may be from a few hundred yards to several miles from the cooling station. This has no basis as I have been surveying in NM for over 40 years and have never have a heat related event. | Todd Wagener | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-3 | Strongly opposed to this rule. We have operated for 30 years in hot kitchens and golf course settings and have always made sure the safety of our employees was taken care of. This rule would require unmanagable work breaks and would cause more harm to public safety due to shift change requirements as well as fanicial diffculty. You are trying to fix a problem that does not exist! | G & L Golf, Inc. | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-4 | This will cost New Mexico businesses way too much money and time. | Audra Winters | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-5 | The draft regulation is unneccesary & unreasonable. Experienced workers and supervisors know that regular “rest breaks” in shady areas are necessary when working on a hot day. This regulation, like many unneccesary regulations, are taken advantage of. This one, in particular, will cause work delays & budget overruns. In summary, this proposed regulation would be unnecessary and counterproductive for businesses in NM and should not be adopted. | Laurence Cox | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-6 | This law would cause most business to lose money. Also fewer people will be employed. The law that is in place has worked so there is no need to change it. | Anne Martinez | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-7 | This is without a doubt even too absurd for New Mexico. Who is minding the shop? What happened to the idea of encouraging new business in our state? | Keith Cass | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-8 | Are you all out of your minds work 15 minutes of work and take 45 off? How are these people going to live off of 2 hours of work a day? Are you all drug addicts or alcoholics? Why would you even consider this? You are seriously trying to destroy our state & country aren’t you. We are last in everything in NM because people like you put yourself above the poor in NM by lying to the constituents that you’re trying to help them and you are not. Democrat party is the party of slavery, racism, segregation, hatred, lying, Jim Crow, lynchings. The democrats are the ones who put signs up that read no Mexicans or Blacks allowed but you still follow them blindly. Its time for all of you to be voted out forever, none of you should be able to hold any voted position ever again. You have no respect for any of your constituents. | Carlos G. Armendariz | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-9 | This is one of those situations where this sounds like a good idea but is better to wait until OSHA come out with a national policy as has been a practice of OSHA to have national standards rather that standards/policies that vary by state | keith myers | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-10 | My husband and I own a pest and weed control company where we have employees working outside throughout the summer days. Between jobs they cool off in their cars with AC while driving to the next job. They get paid based on jobs finished and THEY do not want this passing. They will make less money in the same amount of time. As adults, if a job is too hot, we have the ability to quit and find new work. Let’s let the free market be free and if the work is too hot with no breaks, employers will struggle to fill positions. This is crossing a boundary that doesn’t need the governments oversight. We live in a hot state. We’ve figured out how to work around it safely and comfortably. | B D | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-11 | Please reject this new regulation. This would be very harmful to business. The federal guidelines have been in force for years and have served New Mexico and many other states well. | Michael Finch | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-12 | This is got to be the first sign of insanity. Have you lost your mind? No business could operate effectively or profitably when they have to give their employees 45 minutes off every hour. That’s fine if they don’t expect to be paid, but otherwise stop this foolishness and leave it alone. | John Henderson | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-13 | As all work is under Federal OSHA regulations, that should be sufficient. Or work hours shifted as NMDOT does during the summer. | Chris Hilburn | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-14 | Suggesting that workers take a 45 minute break after 15 minutes of work in the sun will kill what is left of the NM economy. Small businesses are the backbone of NM and strangling them with yet another mandate that will be detrimental to businesses, their employees and their clients will create a slow death. Attracting labor is hard enough, finding qualified workers is challenging, and working a quarter of every hour will move the NM economy to a snails pace. Please kill this bill. | Janice Honeycutt Hering | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-15 | This law would close down our small construction business. How are small businesses supposed to pay employees for an hour when they’d only be working for 15 minutes. Do you know what this will do to the cost of construction? | Allyson Laing | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-16 | The EIB 25-11 rule couldn’t be more detrimental to business in New Mexico. This rule will quadruple labor costs for many industries, including the vital construction industry. The inflationary impact of this will hit every New Mexican very hard, best case scenario. Businesses will be forced to move manufacturing of construction materials to other states to compete, construction projects will grind to a halt, and our already taxed transportation system will be negatively impacted due to the extreme length of any road work. This rule doesn’t take into account the statistics of heat related injuries in New Mexico, which are non existent. | Duke City Redi-Mix | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-17 | How ridiculous can you get? You want me to pay somebody $20 per hour and only get 15 minutes of work? That means I get 2 actual hours of work for $160. That comes out to $80 per hour. Drop this idea! | Charles Wagner | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-18 | NM Environmental Improvement Board May 7, 2025 c/o NM Environment Department 1190 St. Francis Drive, Suite N4050 Santa Fe, NM 87505 Re: EIB 25-11(R) – In the Matter of Proposed New Regulation 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention. Dear Environmental Improvement Board: My family has farmed and ranched in south-central New Mexico since 1912. I currently am a partner in a Registered Hereford cattle breeding operation in rural southern-southeastern NM where the heat can be severe. However, as ranchers, we know how to deal with the heat, the extreme cold, and every other weather condition in between. I have also been a partner, or owned other businesses in the Las Cruces area that installed landscapes and irrigation systems to residences as well as businesses, plus operated car washes for over 20 years where employees were working in all kinds of heat situations. Historically, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulates workplace health and safety in the US. NM has had a general regulatory policy for decades of adopting federal regulations and guidelines without state-specific rules. As a relatively small state, this policy has served NM well. This proposed regulation is an unnecessary departure from past practice. So far, only a few states have issued local “heat stress” rules that vary from federal guidelines. Businesses in NM are aware of the risks inherent in working outdoors. These risks require careful work planning and execution by trained workers and supervisors. Industries such as agriculture, construction, energy, and others require outdoor work in NM’s warm, dry western climate. There are many business incentives to work smartly and safely. Most businesses strive to provide safe work practices for their employees and face substantial legal liability in the case of an accident or illness due to poor work practices. OSHA is currently revising its rules on heat stress (Ref. 1). NM should wait for the outcome of this federal process before considering its own regulations. Employers rely on industry “heat stress” standards developed by trade associations and others. In particular, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has published heat stress guidelines for the workplace (Ref. 2). Industry guidelines are based on this work. Based on the current availability of industry best practices, state-specific NM regulations are counterproductive and unnecessary at this time. A better approach is to work cooperatively with NM trade groups and employers to ensure good heat stress practices are followed. If NM insists on issuing its own regulation, it should be reasonable and take into account the existing work practices in our state and the prevailing climate. The administrative requirements of the proposed regulation (Ref. 3) should be exempt for small companies with 10 employees or fewer. Also, especially in construction or energy, there are many subcontractors at a work site. Provision should be made for subcontractors to be covered by the General Contractor’s administrative system. The draft regulation has unreasonable “rest periods” related to heat stress. Experienced workers and supervisors instinctively know that regular “rest breaks” in shady areas are necessary when working on a hot day. In particular, the values in Table 3 of the proposed regulation (Ref. 3) are not reasonable for many outdoor activities, and an overly zealous inspector could use this table to delay work unreasonably. In summary, this proposed regulation would be unnecessary and counterproductive for businesses in NM and should not be adopted. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. | E P Harvey Jr | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-19 | This is silly. You people need to mind you own business. | Richard Nebel | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-20 | I disagree with the 45 minutes rest period after 15 minutes of work. If anything, it should be reversed. A 15 minuter rest after 45 minutes of work. | Kathie Miller | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-21 | This regulation is ridiculous and unnecessary. You get a 15 min break every 4 hours and a 30 minute (lunch) for eight hours. Anything more will make the workday 3 hrs with an hour break or 5.5 Hrs for 8 hours worked. Productivity will drop dramatically. | JOHN BRENNA | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-22 | Please record this as a strong opposition to this over-burdening proposal for the workforce that deals with this situation. There are a plethora of guidelines and regulations already in place, coupled with a thing called “common sense” to navigate our everyday actions regarding heat/cold related scenarios. Can someone point me to the independent, peer reviewed study where 80deg F is considered to be of consequence? How about drinking when you are thirsty- too much water could lead to hyponatremia which is much more dangerous, 4 cups an hour seems way too much! And so on….. | Barry Phillips | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-23 | I once owned and worked 3 different businesses in New Mexico. Thankfully I sold them, before these idiots started “thinking” with there pea sized brains. | Robert Durbin | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-24 | I am writing in Strong Opposition of the EIB 25-11 (R) – Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC Heat Illness and Injury Prevention. I have worked in the Land Surveying Industry for 30 years. My first 10 years was 100% in the field on survey crews. Seven (5) of those years were in Southern Arizona. I have worked at several Survey/Engineering Firms, a Heavy Highway Construction Company and now for New Mexico Department of Transportation. I have been involved in either the field work, a supervisor on a Survey crew or managing the field crews. At all of those companies for all of those years there were company protocols and safety standards for staff including Safety Meetings, Toolbox/Tailgate talks and Job Hazard Safety forms. Heat Illness & Injury was and is always a primary focus of safety for field staff. The Federal/State Government does not need to create a Regulation to control employees. Companies are already taking safety measures to protect employees from heat illness. This Proposed Regulation will Cripple companies, make Projects go way over budget and take longer to complete projects. It will eventually work it’s way into bids on public projects costing Taxpayers even more money. This Regulation will do little if nothing to prevent Heat Illness for Land Surveying, Construction, Geotech and other Industries that involve working in the outside environments. Knowledge and Training is the key to preventing most if not all Job Hazards. | John Melton | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-25 | This rule will greatly harm New Mexico Business in more ways than one! | Four Corners ASSP | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-26 | I support the heat standard and hope you do too. | Paul Oostenbrug | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-27 | If passed, EIB 25-11 (R) – Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention, will hurt the very people it presumes to help because every single person will lose their job(s). No company can stay in business with regulations like this. This is a great way to KILL AN ECONOMY. | Robert Bogan | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-28 | I have worked in construction and agriculture all my adult life and comment from that standpoint. I am no longer amazed at the wrong-headed thinking coming from bureaucrats in New Mexico. It is no wonder to anyone why this state is last in nearly every category except crime. This regulation would wreck agriculture, construction, including the plumbing and electrical trades, not to mention business in general. What is next, a break for getting cold? How about too windy? This is nuts! | Charles D. Goetz | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-29 | I have worked outdoors in the southwest for approximately 30 out of 42 years since high school. Some of those off years were in college and I’m not stupid, nor are most outdoor workers. Most summer days we worked 10-13 hours a day, usually in full direct sunlight. These rules are ridiculous. Most of the people writing in favor and indeed the writers of this rule, although well meaning, have probably never worked a full day outdoors in their life. People have worked and survived outdoors for at least thousands of years. I believe in worker safety but this rule would stop most outdoor work in NM in the summer. There are some very basic problems with the rules as written. 1)There is no definitions of “hard, medium and light labor” which isn’t surprising as it’s very subjective. This is key to enforcing or implementing these rules. 2)The heat index table seems like it has limited use in NM. How many days are we above 40% humidity? Is there a negative factor if the humidity is BELOW 40%? (ie does the heat index go down for every 5% below 40%? 3) Where is the index to factor in wind speed? Wind Chill is determined by decreasing the perceived temp by increments of wind speed. It’s just as applicable in the summer, and it’s often windy in NM. 4) These standards are not realistic. If you add 13 degrees for being in direct sunlight, any 90 degree day puts you in a 30/30 or a 20/40 schedule for medium and heavy labor, respectively. Most workers would rebel against this kind of schedule. They would elect to just work 240 or 160 minutes/day consecutively, (for medium and heavy work respectively), and then go home for the rest of the day. Really! Most “good” workers won’t want to sit around for 40 minutes (or 30) of every hour. The real crux of this matter is that heat tolerance is as individual as every worker, and each worker has to know their limits, and be able to regulate themselves. The “Pace” you work is just as important as all these other factors and can’t be realistically regulated. Most workers will self regulate. The old workers have to lookout for and be examples to the young (as it has always been). Most people won’t work for an employer that tries to kill them. Most of us aren’t stupid. If you keep the illegals out, the American workers have options and will choose an employer that looks out for them. | KARL LIVERGOOD | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-30 | This proposal is ludicrous!! Let OSHA handle this one because it looks to be out of your scope of reasoning. | Denise Herrell | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-31 | No business can survive this regulation Employers and Employees should be aware of humidity and temperature levels and take appropriate protections but not at the expense of 75% work time reduction Hydration and acclimation are a much better option | Brad Christmas | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-32 | The New Mexico Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule proposed by the NM Occupational Health & Safety Bureau is government overreach of individuals’ personal liberty and bodily autonomy and would also be detrimental to citizens AND small businesses in New Mexico and would in turn reduce revenues to the state. We are a “mom and pop” small business in Chaves County and have been in business in Roswell for over 30 years, providing valuable services to the community in the essential transportation industry with three separate store locations, and employing over 100 individuals, supporting their families and generating revenue streams to the state, city, and county. Passage of this Rule would essentially bankrupt us and we would either be forced to close our doors, or to eliminate our workforce, usually providing between 8-15 jobs per year and supporting as many families in the community, as well as the +50,000 Roswell/Chaves residents with valuable services. We are already providing such protections as the rule proposes since our employees DO work outside, in the form of water, shade, rest breaks, as well as offering flexibility in their work schedules, especially during the extremely hot summer months. Ultimately, individuals are responsible for their own bodies. We cannot prevent them from smoking tobacco or cannabis, or from consuming alcohol or other substances that could be harmful, and the very air we breathe and the water we drink in Chaves County is a source of unknown exposure that each individual has the responsibility of protecting, in the interest of bodily autonomy. We do not abdicate our responsibility to protect our employees from known harms while they are on our premises and engaged in the employer/employee relationship, but employees always have the choice – their own free will – to NOT work in this environment if they choose not to. It’s that simple. They can refuse to show up or quit or do their best to protect their own health. But the State of New Mexico is far overreaching when it demands individuals protect others from exposure to the natural elements of existing on the Earth. The reality of life in the Southwestern United States, the State of New Mexico, the County of Chaves, and the City of Roswell, is that we have some hot summers and we may also have some harsh cold, windy, snowy, or rainy weather conditions as well. It is up to individuals to know this and to protect their own person from the elements. It is a basic function of survival. These are not children, they are adults. The State of New Mexico OHSB wants to control every aspect of life and that is government overreach in the purest sense. We reject the proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule in its entirety. | Denise Menagh | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-33 | Regarding EIB 25-11 (R) – Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention. I am NOT in favor of allowing employees up to 2 hours a day to NOT WORK on a hot day. Properly prepared employees can work outdoors with protection from heat without a 15-minute break every hour. This idea is unproductive and will cause costs to increase for all consumers. Prep employees for hot days with fluids and protective gear, but they should work full hours despite summer heat. Thank you. | Eric Hoessel | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-34 | This request is so asinine it almost hurts to think about it! It’s so stupid it’s a wonder that you can even get anybody to work here 15 minutes, let alone give him a 45 minute break for every 15 minutes. If you’re that sorry, that you can’t regulate your work to where you will be cooler, say for example, moving around into the shade when it’s 105 out, maybe you do need to have that break. If this was to pertain to government workers, they’ll never get anything done! Because they hardly work to begin with. It takes them so long to do anything, by the time they get to work they’ll have to be preparing to get ready to go home! By the same token, there’d be nothing ever done! I think it’s a stupid idea. I’ve worked out in the hot weather here, you just have to be mindful of what you’re doing! I think it’s just another way of bilking people who own businesses or the taxpayer for sheer laziness. Under the discise of safety or some misguided form of liberalism! | Daniel Bishop | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-35 | EIB 25-11 (R) – Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC (Heat Illness and Injury Prevention) The proposed regulation is duplicative and creates a hardship on small business. Businesses already comply through OSHA. New Mexico is trying to fix a problem that does not exist. Worker safety is of utmost importance and business understands that if an employee must work in excessive heat, precautions must be taken. To require written plans, acclimatization schedules, training, and recordkeeping places financial and administrative strain on small and medium-sized businesses. Requiring a 45 minute break for 15 minutes of work is untenable. Construction and agriculture related jobs require continuous, coordinated labor. The faster you can get the job done, the less chance of safety risks. Imposing a one-size fits all requirement is not common sense. | Marcia Jolley | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-36 | There is no reason for state bureaucrats to expand their reach and dismantle standard industry operations that have suited both employers and workers for decades. | Nels Muller | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-37 | This proposed regulation is insane! How many thousands of years have people worked without this? | David Woodward | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-38 | Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the New Mexico Environment Department’s proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule. As a private citizen and someone who cares deeply about both worker safety and the health of our local economy, I have serious concerns about the direction of this rule. While I absolutely support the goal of protecting workers from extreme heat, I worry that the approach outlined here may do more harm than good. This rule appears to impose broad, one-size-fits-all mandates on businesses—many of which are already doing their best to keep their employees safe. Small businesses in industries like agriculture, construction, and energy are already facing workforce shortages and economic strain. Adding costly compliance requirements could make it even harder for them to operate, grow, or hire. Additionally, it will make owning a home even less affordable. One other issue that has been overlooked is the impact on first responders. For example, mandatory rest periods and access to shade or cooling stations may not be practical in active emergency situations. Response times could be severely impacted should a crew have to wait the mandatory 45 minutes before responding to another call. Smaller departments may also struggle with the costs of implementing new equipment or tracking systems to meet compliance requirements. I believe we can address heat safety without expanding government regulations that might unintentionally create more problems than they solve. Instead of mandates, let’s look at voluntary programs, educational resources, and partnerships that help businesses implement practical, tailored heat safety practices. Please consider the economic impact of this rule, especially on small employers and rural communities. Also consider the fact that while heat-related deaths have risen in New Mexico, the majority of those come from migrants crossing into our state and are in no way job related. Let’s find a way to keep workers safe without adding unnecessary burdens that slow down job growth and innovation in our state. Thank you for listening. | Jeremy Armstrong | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-39 | Small business owners cannot afford to give 45 minutes of break for every 15 minutes worked. The cost of documenting that and having to defend against it will put most small businesses out of business. We have to get enough labor to make having an employee and paying their salary, medical and other mandatory taxes and social security bankrupt. Of course it would most likely increase the number of votes you get for writing that legislation and promoting it. | Rachel Donovan | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-40 | Too many UNM employees do that anyway. I used to work there and have really observed this. | Connie Volker | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-41 | What is being proposed is so ridiculous it is hard to believe those proposing it have ever done a day of work themselves let alone run a business. Whoever made this proposal should be removed from their position immediately and go find a real job that requires work and performance to remain employed. Maybe some education also. | Lynn Tyler | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-42 | A 45 minute break per hour is unreasonable. How about a 10 minute break under the worst conditions? If workers can only work for 15 minutes per hour it would be better for work to be called off for the day. Taxpayers should not have to fund such inefficiency. | Scott Goff | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-43 | If this passes, NM will be known for the most business killing, job killing, poverty creating state ever known – we are already almost there. And everyone who votes this in, will be known for doing it. How did mankind ever survive, and indeed thrive, without these rules. With this passed, every slacker who wants top pay for no work will come to NM … and New Mexicans suffer. DO NOT PASS THIS | Sharon Henderson | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-44 | This proposal is ridiculous. I’ve lived in Albuquerque for 35 years, and yes it can get pretty warm here. However, I was in the USAF in Las Vegas, NV for nearly 4 yrs prior to my assignment at Kirtland AFB; then I was reassigned to Edwards AFB, CA for more than 4 yrs. The temperatures at Nellis AFB in Las Vegas often hit 110°F up to 117°F and didn’t cool off to much below 100°F for many days. Edwards AFB was even hotter than Nellis AFB. I don’t recall Albuquerque ever being as hot as those two places. I personally had to perform tasks in searing heat, and sometimes there was no shade for respite. Men & women in New Mexico rarely have to work in conditions as hostile as they are in the Mojave Desert of Southern Nevada and Southeastern California. On those occasions or on the hotter days in New Mexico, workers absolutely need cool water, shaded break areas, electrolyte replacements, and immediate medical attention if needed. But breaks on a one part work to three parts break? You must be kidding. Employee supervisors must be trained to recognize extreme heat exhaustion or sunstroke that are possible and their symptoms. The work to break ratio, depending on the nature of the tasks they are performing, could on rare occasions devolve to the ratio you propose, but that would have to be factored into the conditions at hand. But setting such a low productivity standard is wasteful and totally uncalled for nearly 99% of the time. | Thomas Martin | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-45 | Who comes up with these crazy ideas. The deck is stacked against the small business owners in this state. This break period is totally unacceptable. Work more like 30-45 minutes, depending on the heat, and a 15 min. break. | NANCY TEAGUE | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-46 | With all due respect, I vigorously object to regulation 11.5.7 – heat illness and prevention. The additional burden on businesses is onerous. Businesses have failed as a result of the lock downs imposed during Covid. Is there a move afoot to destroy all small businesses in New Mexico? How much more does New Mexico need to put into place in order to be Californicated? I’ve lived in New Mexico since 1966. Temperatures of 80 degrees are not “life threatening”. I’m sorry but I just have to say rule for common sense instead of climate change fads. | Susan Noel | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-47 | This has to be one of the stupidest things I’ve seen ! Work 15 minutes then break for 45 minutes? Won’t take very long to break a lot of employers because their projects are so far behind ! There’s quite a number of things on the market now to help keep outdoor workers cooler! It’s obvious the brains behind this bill don’t do much if any manual labor outdoors it seems! This is definitely a bad idea. | Daryl Elrod | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-48 | What a joke this would be an encourage pure laziness and taking advantage of tax paying citizens that is such a joke and I am totally against it | Jessica Gonzales | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-49 | This regulation will break already damaged local businesses as well as any and all agriculture. New Mexican business owners can manage their own care of their employees. No government intrusion is asked for or necessary | Steve Allen | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-50 | Please leave existing guidelines in place. This new “standard” is not a sustainable measure. It’s also historically ridiculous. No New Mexico company could survive a 75% reduction in output during work hours. Come to your senses! Reject this ludicrous measure. Thank you. | Jim Benson | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-51 | This is a crazy idea which will result in 2 hours of work during an 8 hour work day. How will anything get done? May as well not do any work in the summer. Jobs will be lost. No one is paying a worker to take a break for 45 minutes every hour. | Cheryl Montoya | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-52 | This would kill all businesses and is ridiculous. Please vote this down! | Patricia Paiz | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-53 | I think this is ridiculous. Bureaucrats need to keep their nose to watch right for the community has a hole and not their brother-in-law or sister-in-law that’s working in some industry. Less bureaucrats in our pocket you’re gonna put us all out of business then what are you gonna do? | Robert Vick | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-54 | This regulation violates the rights of employers and imposed unconstitutional burdens which will hamstring industry and ultimately cost jobs, and revenue. | Kade Young | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-55 | Whom ever is writing these ridiculous rules has never worked in private industry. This is burdensome and over bearing for both small and large businesses. This is overreach by government. Government is supposed to be business friendly. NM is last in the nation in almost all categories. This kind of RULE, not law will further cement our reputation as a poor state to invest in. You just cannot fix Stupid. | Greg Alpers | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-56 | A 45 minute break for every 15 minutes of work is ridiculous!!! I can see that outdoor workers (who typically start very early in the morning during summer months and end by early afternoon when it’s getting the hottest) could use more than (2) 10 minute breaks + a lunch break (perhaps a little more), but not this!!! This is entirely overkill!!! | Karen Larre | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-57 | this is stupid. how can you get any work done like this. people have been working for thousands of years in these conditions. | marti simpson | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-58 | What business or government agency can function if their workers only work 25% of the time. The idea that workers will work 15 minutes and rest for 45 minutes is ludicrous! New Mexico is so far behind in every area this will cripple our state further! | Amy Stiers | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-59 | No, what jobs do we even have that require this. | Antonio Bieniek | 5/14/25 |
| II-14-60 | This is totally ridiculous. Very little will get done in the workplace | Debbie Stephens | 5/14/25 |
| II-15-1 | Why have employees if you have to pay them for 8 hours of work , if they are only working 2 hours. This is terrible, please don’t vote for this it will put every business in bankruptcy. | Martin Lujan | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-2 | Historically, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulates workplace health and safety in the US. NM has had a general regulatory policy for decades of adopting federal regulations and guidelines without state-specific rules. As a relatively small state, this policy has served NM well. This proposed regulation is an unnecessary departure from past practice. So far, only a few states have issued local “heat stress” rules that vary from federal guidelines. Businesses in NM are aware of the risks inherent in working outdoors. These risks require careful work planning and execution by trained workers and supervisors. Industries such as agriculture, construction, energy, and others require outdoor work in NM’s warm, dry western climate. There are many business incentives to work smartly and safely. Most businesses strive to provide safe work practices for their employees and face substantial legal liability in the case of an accident or illness due to poor work practices. I’m not sure why NM feels the need to vary from federal regulations, or even from most workplace practices. These guidelines are updated and to industry standards and this will once again negatively affect NM. I urge you to work with trade organizations and employees to insure safe practices. | PATRICIA ABBIN | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-3 | This bill will only encourage people to be lackadaisical in their work effort and cause harm to our small businesses. I am opposed to this lunacy | ERIK JOHNS | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-4 | I oppose this bill as it will strain the company’s who employee people in the state of New Mexico. This bill is an overreach of New Mexico’s governing body. Please stop this nonsense now or all of you will be replaced with competent representatives who actually care. Common sense practice is the best answer to give. | Eric Pena | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-5 | The government needs to stay out of small businesses. This rule would be detrimental to small businesses | Jannette Hale | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-6 | I am opposed to the proposed regulation 11.5.7 NMAC. It would be extremely burdensome on employers . | Hurt Cattle Co., Inc. | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-7 | I read the petition. Statistics for where and how the injuries happened are missing. “National Institute of Health recognizes that heat related injuries and illnesses are likely underreported (Morris and Patel 2019). As an example, of the more than 900 reports of ED visits due to heat, only about 44% contained contextual information indicating where and under what conditions the heat exposure occurred.” Where and when the injuries occurred is vital. In what part of the country did this happen? What was the humidity? Was there any provision in place for high temperature actions for the employees? Was there a plan in place? Were the foremen or employees trained on hydration and electrolytes? Likely no. I have been in this business 50 years. My employees are dear to me. I’ve lived here for 66 years. I know how to work in the heat. I know my abilities and limitations. So do my men. I would never put them in harms way. They know when to rest. Bottom line is this; it appears to be that the data for here specifically is incomplete. There really are not enough data points to factor in all the variables. 90 degrees here with 10% humidity is very different that 90 deg. in Phoenix or the midwest, coastal cities etc. This alone, calculating the heat index will define the actions. This table is not in the petition. You may be trying to implement stricter requirements where none are required. Educate the people first. It may take a spreadsheet to fill in all the blanks, but what is required would be the following: Where was the incident? Temperature? Humidity? Type of work? Previous injuries? Was the person at home, play or work? If at work, were they trained on heat related stresses, hydration and balancing elecrolytes so hypo Naturemia or hypo Kalemia does not happen? Was the foreman trained? Put all of these into the data base, tabulate the results. Without these numbers, which will be asked for later, there is no way to form a precedent for any drastic actions. Just as in any safety endevour training is the key. I’d be willing to wager that few to none of the people succumbing to heat related injuries were trained. Economics: As the current pettion stands ceasing to work for 45 minutes when the temperature reaches a certain level will cause an inflationary spiral. The costs for our type projects will skyrocket. This is on top of the already 10x cost over 20 years for a roof due to all the material price increases from petroleum products and unfunded mandates from the State. Have a plan in place. Educate. People all over the planet have been working in harsher enviornments than here. They just know how. | Doyle Roof Masters Inc | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-8 | Workers and employers know what they need to do while working in the heat (and cold also) in New Mexico. State beuracracy does not need to insert itself into these situations. Bad rule as proposed! | Michael Base | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-9 | This rule will have a detrimental effect on any business to which it is applied. A business cannot survive with a 15% productivity factor. Common sense must prevail. I am opposed to it. | Charles Work | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-10 | This proposal is insane. If an employee is only going to work 25% of the time they are not needed. It boggles the mind how the only solutions New Mexicans can suggest are either more pay or more time off. | Joseph Tunis | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-11 | Why is it that you’re constantly trying to ruin the ability to do business here in New Mexico? How can this possibly make sense to anyone? Even the employees themselves would not want this, maybe you should try asking some of them for input on what would make their jobs better when working in extreme heat. I’m sure even they wouldn’t come up with a 15 minute break every hour. | Lisa Hayes | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-12 | While I am a huge supporter of employees health and safety, this one has me wondering, why? 80 degrees seems very excessive. If that number was applied world wide and this rule implemented what effect would this have on food, lumber, production, and most importantly an employees ability to provide for himself and dependents. This potential rule goes above and beyond an employers call to protect employees, and it creates a hardship for businesses and employees. | Michael mcniel | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-13 | I support protecting employees but this provision will drive our economy further down. Please do something that is economical and practical. | Tom Kilpatrick | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-14 | Let’s be sensible. Over regulation of business will destroy it. Destroy business and you destroy the tax base and will then have to either raise taxes on individuals or tie your belt to the Feds, who are currently broke. Create a business environment here, do not destroy it. | Gary Hays | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-15 | I worked and ran construction business for over 50 years. This is so ludicrous as you could never control your business costs or the time to complete your work. Your personnel know when to take a break. They know when its to hot or cold. I’ve had to terminate my work when it’s to hot, windy or cold. Period. If you’ve never had to do or experience outdoor work for a real job you should not have any say whatsoever about the subject. | Kris Kittleson | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-16 | This regulation is overkill. We can’t legislate to the least common denominator and want to keep and grow solid businesses in NM. The reality is that businesses can’t perform basic duties to their constituents with workers only required to work 15 minutes out of every hour. When extrapolated out to an 8-hour work week, the employee would only be working 2 hours while being paid for 8 hours. Please do the right thing and bring this regulation into a proper scope that works for the employee and employer both. Thank you for your consideration. | Jay Rush | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-17 | I think this bill is ridiculous! Another example of our state government overstepping its authority and looking for ways to make the cost of doing business in New Mexico more difficult and more expensive. We live in the southwest! It is hot sometimes both inside and outside. I’ve worked in the field bucking bales of alfalfa, I’ve worked in greenhouses, I’ve done work on a farm, I’ve worked as a lifeguard at a swimming pool in Las Cruces… I survived them all by exercising common sense, hydrate, wear the correct clothing and headgear, take breaks if necessary, we don’t need “Big Brother, or Big Sister or Big whatever” dictating and trying to control everything businesses do, especially small businesses. This will just be another handful of gravel into the wheels of progress that will further damage our states ability to grow and will give employees a way to “play the system” and not work! I’ve seen window washers cleaning glass on high rise building in Phoenix, AZ when the temperature is over 110 degrees Fahrenheit! If anything, teach workers to look out for each others and have employers provide plenty of cold beverages, and appropriate PPE or in some cases a fan to cool employees off. Keep it simple! Don’t place additional roadblocks to progress and don’t give employees a way to get out of doing the work they were hired for and the job that they accepted. One last note… I have a relative in Arizona that does auto detailing for car dealerships. He more often than not is working on 100 degree or higher temperatures for many hours each day… he wears light breathable clothing, he sets up a portable shade structure, he keeps a cooler full of cold beverages such as water and Gatorade, he applies sunscreen, he has a portable fan, and if necessary, he sprays his hat and shirt with water to create an evaporative cooler effect. All common sense solutions… not someone running around with a thermometer telling him it’s time to take action. | CJ Fresquez | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-18 | I say NO to this rule. Tt will be very bad for this day and age young adults they already don’t have a work ethic, this will just make them even more lazy. Be very bad for businesses!! | SHAY LUSK | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-19 | As a musician old enough to remember tyrannical conductors who held musicians late into the night & provided scanty breaks, I really appreciate the NM law the way it is! It is already reasonable & adequate. Please leave this alone. Businesses (my husband operates a NM business) cannot afford this ridiculous proposal, nor can employees get anything done when they lose concentration & momentum so frequently. | Jayne Neal | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-20 | I have lived and worked in New Mexico for nearly all of my 76 years. Every summer I have worked full days at temperatures 100+ degrees. Yes I have worn proper head cover and sometimes wet down my upper body. But there was never a time that required a 45 minute break to after 15 minutes of work. I anticipate that this summer will not be any different. I will work all day taking short breaks to “hose” down. The proposal presented is not practical. | Howard Hutchinson | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-21 | This is outlandish and should not even be considered. | Carol Bouloy | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-22 | I have lived and worked in Southern New Mexico for many years. I worked outside in 100+ degree temperatures many times. The proposed rule of a 45 minute break for every 15 minutes of work is incredibly stupid! What you really need is a constant source of water. I have worked just fine in those temperatures as long as I could drink at least 32 ounces of water in 4 hours time. | RHODA WINTERS | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-23 | While it is important to consider heat-extremes and understand the optimal levels of work output during extreme high temps (over 110′), these continued resolutions to further restrict companies from business practices will only increase the number of companies leaving New Mexico. You will place an undue burden on employers to now monitor such things as heat index, a complex work/rest chart all while having to consider “with the assumption that workers are acclimated, physically fit, well-rested, fully hydrated, under age 40, and have adequate water intake.” Who is qualified to make these assessments based on physical fitness and hydration? How do we assess whether or not an individual is “well-rested”? People have lived in harsh and extreme conditions for generations – they have built railroads, paved highways and roads, constructed buildings and did so before modern A/C even existed. Let’s encourage people to use common sense (if I am feeling unwell due to heat illness, I should tell a superior and take a break or go home until I no longer feel unwell) and no continue to make New Mexico one of the most business-unfriendly states, all in the name of “prevention”. If New Mexico wants to address an actual issue that impacts nearly every resident of the state, look at the homeless crisis that infiltrates our streets. In Las Cruces, the number of panhandlers and homeless on every street corner and parking lot has led to increased crime, drug-use, garbage and drug paraphernalia being left all over. Spend the money to increase the budget of our police force instead of wasting time telling adults that they can work for 15 minutes and then take a 45 minute break. Can you imagine how long construction projects would take if this regulation were signed into law? | Lori Moog | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-24 | In looking at EIB 25-11R, the only thing I can figure out is that there must be a misprint. No one could seriously consider giving workers a 45 minute break and 15 minutes of work every hour. The only way this rule would make any sense would be if it required a 15 minute break for every 45 minutes of work. The rule is not needed in light of both federal and industry standards to protect workers from heat related stresses. There is no doubt that hard work in high heat is difficult and stressful. Conscientious employers take care of their workers. I have had cement work, roofing work, and stucco work done on my house in hot weather. I have always had to get my but out of bed and get my gate open so the crews could get in and get to work at daylight. These crews normally adjust their work days to account for hot weather. This rule is not only unnecessary but will be a devastating blow to business in New Mexico. It will be one more nail in boarding up New Mexico as an anti business state. | James Crawford | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-25 | I realize you have allowed marijuana to become legal in the state. Maybe less use of it would help you see the absolute stupidity of your proposal. | Shawna Johnson | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-26 | So it’s not enough that these legislators have run off all the good doctors in NM with their idiotic laws, now they want to crush the construction industry too, in addition to other businesses that have employees that work outside. I would say that it is unbelievable but, of course in NM nothing is unbelievable that comes out of Santa Fe. | Daniel Helton | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-27 | We are a small business in the New Mexico’s construction industry, writing to express my concerns about the proposed Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings rule. While I recognize the importance of safeguarding workers from heat-related hazards, I am concerned that the proposed requirements may inadvertently harm both employers and employees in our region. Specifically, the mandates for paid rest breaks, acclimatization protocols, and additional training could significantly reduce productive work hours. This reduction may lead to decreased earnings for workers who rely on hourly wages, potentially impacting their livelihoods. Moreover, many construction workers in New Mexico are already acclimated to our state’s climate and have developed effective strategies to manage heat exposure. Imposing a one-size-fits-all federal standard may not account for regional adaptations and could place undue burdens on small businesses like ours. I urge OSHA to consider flexible guidelines that acknowledge regional climates and the existing practices of local industries. Collaborating with small business owners to develop practical solutions will ensure worker safety without compromising economic stability. Thank you for considering my perspective. | General Hydronics Plumbing, LLC | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-28 | A description of work levels would be good, examples, such as reroofing, trenching, heavy lifting, fence installation, etc Also we have lower than 40% humidity on most hot days, we need some data for those instances. | Ellen EVANS | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-29 | Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Heat Related Rule. I would like to initially note that the following groups are not mentioned in the requirement to comply: Government workers, such as those who do outside work like landscaping, street repair, building maintenance, trash pick-up, etc Schools (6- post-secondary) that have athletic programs requiring students to practice in the heat of the day, often times in pads or full dress-out Other businesses/industries that require employees to work outside to do their jobs. Non-profits Secondly, the Rule, as I read it, will result in another burden on small businesses requiring a great deal of time doing paperwork, which must be kept for 5 years, loss of productivity, and expenses to implement. Small businesses care about our employees and are not going to place them in a situation where they will become ill. We also do not ask them to work in any environment that we ourselves won’t work in. Labor is too scarce a commodity in New Mexico, with only 47% of persons eligible to work, having employment. I ask that this Rule not be implemented, instead, the NMED OSHA department conduct educational outreach to all employers: government, non-profits, schools and businesses. If, after three years, there is no decrease in heat related workman’s comp cases in NEW MEXICO (not anywhere else) the Rule can then be reviewed, placed out for public comment and possibly implemented. Thank you for your attention to this matter. | Holly Woelber | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-30 | As a retired health care professional, I agree with the letter from New Mexico Business Coalition. It’s hard to imagine this kind of restriction on employers. As it is, we’ve traveled the roads of NM many times & often seen workers standing on the sidelines, or leaning on shovels or trees or car bumpers. It leaves one to wonder if any work gets done at all. From the looks of some of our roads, it would appear that workers take their own breaks when they want to & not because of regulations. I recall the story a son of a friend told of her son on a road work group. They told him to stop working so hard because it made them all look bad. Maybe you need to retrain workers about honesty, integrity, & proper work ethics before giving them a license to only work for 15 minutes. Is that your work ethic? | Nancy Pidutti | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-31 | In the matter of EIB 25-11 (R), Heat Illness and Injury Prevention (Heat Exposure Rule): “There is no reason for state bureaucrats to expand their reach and dismantle standard industry operations that have suited both employers and workers for decades.” This says it all. Leave it to the left-wing-operated NM Occupational Health and Safety Bureau to come up with this cockamamie idea of employees working for 15 minutes and then taking a 45 minute break every hour! These kinds of bleeding-heart liberal proposals are what is killing businesses in NM. Businesses are having a hard time in this state without locking down more rules and regulations. EIB, please do not adopt this ridiculous proposed rule. | Donna Crawford | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-32 | New Mexico’s Occupational Health and Safety Bureau proposed a new heat exposure rule. Under certain conditions, this rule would allow NM employees to work for 15 minutes and then take a 45-minute break, wreaking havoc on employer operations and costing taxpayers. There is no reason for state bureaucrats to expand their reach and dismantle standard industry operations that have suited both employers and workers for decades. | Carl Womack | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-33 | According to New Mexico Department of workforce solutions ( https://www.dws.state.nm.us/Portals/0/LMRApr24.pdf), 150,400 workers including construction, mining, and logging were employed in 2023. No information was provided on the number of agriculture or landscape workers The Heat Rule fact sheet indicates that 1,150 workers compensation claims were filed over the 3 year period from 2022 to 2024; which is an average of 383.3 workers/year. The fact sheet also indicates that NM had over 390 workers may have been affected by heat in 2023, but this value is an assumed number of workers, and is not related to actual data. Of the 150,400 workers that had heat related workers compensation claims, the percentage of affected workers was only 0.25 percent of the workforce. If the number of agriculture, landscaping, and other classes of outdoor workers were included, the percent of affected workers would be lower. It is unreasonable to force employers to implement new work requirements for heat stress given the extremely low percentage of workers adversely affected by working outside. These types of extreme rules do not protect workers in any meaningful way, and will certainly increase the costs for all projects and services; thereby making our already poor State more economically miserable than it already is. | ROGER PEERY | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-34 | This ruling entirely depends upon what circumstances are being referenced. Being in a burning building in full turnout gear for 15 minutes is a long time (plus, one’s air tends to run out…), and requires some recovery. Still, not everyone does what a structural firefighter does, and even then it is just one part of the job. So, weighing in one way or the other on this proposal is meaningless without some illustration of the specific circumstances which are under discussion. | Christopher Kelly | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-35 | This rule is just not workable for work outdoors or in. Restaurants, for example, have various temperatures in various areas of the kitchen. Employees routinely move from a higher temp area to a lower temp area. Monitoring and accurately reporting would be impossible. This rule is overbroad. | Jerry Harrell | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-36 | As a bridge engineer, I consider the proposed rule to be impractical for bridge construction. Many bridge construction activities require continuous work to be completed by the construction crew. An example construction activity includes concrete placement for bridge components. The crew needs to work continuously during concrete placement to place concrete before it sets up and begins to cure. Stopping work in the middle of concrete placement would cause the formation of cold joints which are detrimental to the bridge structure. I’ve always seen plenty of cold water on every bridge construction site that I’ve visited and workers utilize wide-brimmed shades on their hard hats as well as UV-protective clothing (PPE) to stay cool and safe from the sun. The proposed work/rest schedule is not realistic or practical, especially for continuous construction activities. | David Johnson | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-37 | This rule will not work for the businesses and employees of New Mexico. | Chad Getz | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-38 | This proposed rule is purely baseless and shows the lack of common sense. The reason there has never been a federal or state rule about working in the heat is because people had common sense. It’s hot, drink water. Construction Sites for years provided drinking water, until COVID when you all told us we couldn’t use the large Orange jugs of water b/c it’s not safe. We switched to water bottles. This is just a way for the State to hire more people that have nothing to do but chase paper. Employers do not have the resources to track and record keep this mindless common sense made up rule nor do they have enough employee’s to have a “buddy system” or a person watching over each employee to baby them to make sure they make good decisions, and drink all this water. Employee’s need to be adults and know when they need to take a break, when they need to drink water and when to get in the shade we do not need a government agency to tell them that. Not to mention, I see nothing about all the lost time an employer will face if having to FORCE employee’s to drink that much water a day, each employee will also have to use the restroom more, so effectively an 8 hour work day is now closer to 5. STOP THE MADNESS. | Cambro Construction Inc | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-39 | Why is the state legislature getting involved in safety regulations? There are already regulations in place that have served business and employees well. There is no need to change these policies. | Kathleen Niclas | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-40 | 5/15/2025 To: New Mexico Occupational Health and Safety Bureau Subject: Opposition to Proposed Heat Illness & Injury Prevention Rule – Potential Negative Impacts on Our Operations Dear NNM Occupational Health and Safety Bureau, I am writing on behalf of Chenault Consulting Inc. to express our strong concerns regarding the proposed Heat Illness & Injury Prevention rule currently under consideration. As a business that has operated in New Mexico for over 26 years, we have consistently prioritized the health and safety of our employees while maintaining efficient and effective operations in often challenging field conditions. In more than two decades of business, we have experienced only one heat-related illness incident. Upon thorough internal investigation, it was determined that the employee involved had been up late the night before, engaging in alcohol consumption and relying heavily on energy drinks the next day—factors which contributed significantly to the incident and were unrelated to our safety protocols or environmental conditions. Implementing this proposed rule would place a substantial burden on our company, both operationally and financially. The level of regulation proposed appears disproportionate to the actual risk we have encountered across hundreds of thousands of man-hours worked outdoors. It would require extensive changes in scheduling, staffing, and equipment usage that could significantly hinder our ability to meet client deadlines and maintain project timelines—ultimately threatening our viability in a highly competitive industry. P a g e 2 | 2 While we agree that employee safety should always be a priority, we believe that any additional regulation should be based on verifiable need and not on isolated or statistically rare events. In our experience, proper training, hydration, supervision, and common-sense measures have proven more than adequate in preventing heat-related injuries. We respectfully urge the Bureau to reconsider or revise the proposed rule to reflect a more balanced and evidence-based approach—one that protects workers without unnecessarily burdening small- to mid-sized companies like ours that have a long-standing record of safe operation. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Bob Chenault Vice President Chenault Consulting Inc. Office: (505)-325-7707 Cell: (505) 860-0188 | Bob Chenault Vice President Chenault Consulting Inc. | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-41 | I do agree the employer should implement safety precautions regarding high temperature work exposure for the employee. However, giving a 45-minute break every 15 minutes of work is unreasonable. I do not agree as it is written. | JUDY MONTANES | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-42 | After attending a community outreach event, It was very apparent that NMOSHA has missed a lot of necessary issues in this proposed ruling that needs to be looked and taken back to the drawing board. NMOSHA’s estimated cost to employers is tremendously under the true cost. Who pays for breaks? What qualifies as an emergency which will allow workers to continue working (EX: an oil spill, responding to emergency situations, traffic being backed up causing public safety hazards). It already takes months for the DOT to fix simple patches of roads- now it will take years. What about the oilfield? Let’s face it… the government will force employers to pay for the breaks in the heat which will correlate to prices of natural gas, gasoline, oil products, road repair costs, etc- this will affect EVERYONE in NM in a negative way. Who gives OSHA the authority to tell companies how, when, and why to pay employees for breaks. If employees aren’t paid for breaks then it will be even harder to find employees who actually want to work in the blue collar Industries. It is very apparent that OSHA took ZERO time to think of the cause and effect of this decision if it is passed. Why it is being attempted to be pushed on us so rapidly? NM is YEARS out of making this proposal realistic. Don’t get me wrong, employee safety is very important; however, companies are already doing a fantastic job at mitigating this issue without government involvement. There were only 52 CONFIRMED work related cases in 2023. That is not enough to force a law on everyone (in my opinion). This doesn’t need to be a law, NM OSHA needs to be doing community outreach and do trainings and maybe set out guidelines first before they force an under-thought-out law on companies. This ruling has the potential to cause devastating economic and social impact in an extremely negative way. | Felicity Smith | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-43 | I am confused by this rule for 2 reasons. Reason #1. This proposed rule to require employers to monitor their employees’ health when the heat index reaches 80F has me scratching my head with confusion. For example, if the outside ambient temperature is 73F and you add in the required +7F for partial sun exposure, the heat index is then at 80F and an employer would be required to log this situation. My goodness! Working at 73F is the perfect temperature! Why in the world would it harm anyone to be working at 73F ? And partly sunny . It is the perfect working environment to be in the sunshine at 73F. Another example is a 67F day working in full sunlight adds a require +13F and the heat index reaches 80F and again, employers are required to keep records on this day for this heat index. But the part that has me in a confused state is that the flip side of this requirement is where EnergyStar.gov recommends that we set our thermostats in our houses at 85-88F when not home (which means that for the first couple of hours when we get home, the temperature will definitely be above the 80F “dangerous” temperature) and EnergyStar.gov also recommends we sleep with our thermostats set at 82F! This other government agency obviously feels there are no long term health affects at these high temperatures. So, EnergyStar.gov says it is perfectly fine to live at these temperatures in our homes. So can we live at home in an environment that is presumably unsafe to work in? Who will monitor us in our homes? Reason #2. Another major flaw of this rule is hydration as it pertains to people with diabetes. If you Google, “how much water does a diabetic need to drink each day” you come up with a number of medical sites that say 2 Liters of water per day are suitable for a diabetic. If you search “Can diabetics drink too much water?” the result yields “YES. Too much drinking water causes dangerously low sodium levels in diabetics.” Yet the proposed rule encourages employers to push up to 8 Liters of water (4X the recommended levels) on diabetic employees with no regard for their medical condition. So, inadvertently, the employer could be pushing a profound medical emergency on a diabetic employee by following this EPA water ruling. Statistically, there are 217,400 people in New Mexico (or 13.1% of the population) that have diabetes and another 587,000 people have pre-diabetes. The fact that 1 in 8 New Mexicans having diabetes indicates that almost EVERY employer in the state will be unwittingly endangering their workforce by implementing a rule that is medically flawed. Please VOTE NO on the proposed rule for heat illness. 80F is not a dangerous temperature. My Mom might still be wearing a sweater at 80F. | NuMex Plastics, Inc. | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-44 | This proposed regulation is the epitome of ridiculous government. Our state is consistently number one in every bad statistic and number fifty in good, precisely because of this sort of mindset. I have worked my entire adult life outdoors in all sorts of adverse conditions. I never needed my boss to give me seventy five percent of the day off. It’s pretty easy to get acclimated to the heat if you don’t run to the nearest air conditioner. Taking long breaks to cool off doesn’t allow your body to deal with it. Proper hydration is essential along with some common sense. All that this sort of silly regulation will accomplish is to exacerbate this state’s lazy, welfare culture and drive out more opportunity for those of us stupid enough to think we ought to work for our daily bread. Keep in mind that not long ago, people in this state and hotter, lived and worked with no air conditioning. The true problem is a lack of common sense. | Seth Dolph | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-45 | American businesses do not need government telling them how to operate. American workers do not need government telling our employers how to manage their employees. Enough is enough stay out of our lives, adhere to the oaths you swore. | Jacob Archuleta | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-46 | I am writing to express my concerns regarding the Heat Illness & Injury Prevention rule that is being proposed. I moved to New Mexico 24 years ago, from Phoenix, Arizona. There is a stark difference in the climate and the weather temperatures experienced. I can see a need for workers there, on days the temperature reaches 115 to above 120 degrees, but New Mexico does not experience that – the weather is nice here. Requiring a 45 minute break after 15 minutes of work when the heat index reaches 80 degrees is excessive government overreach. I am currently working for a small contractor in New Mexico, under 20 employees. A ruling such as this would place a substantial burden on this company. The company I work for is very mindful of their employees, and most employees have been with this contractor for most of their careers. This employer takes every safety precaution to assure everyone can go home to their families safely at the end of each workday. Rulings such as this will cause a drastic reduction in productivity, and would prolong the completion of construction projects. It is far too costly a burden that may end up causing the closure of many businesses. I believe more thought needs to go into structuring this proposal, with more input from different business sectors that will be impacted. Let the experts guide you, and the experts are the people that have spent their careers working in the field, not the suits that are writing this proposal. | Rebecca Carsten | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-47 | Utterly ridiculous. This is proof of the devolution of mankind…our grandparents were hardworking and tough. Today, everyone is a delicate snowflake. This will destroy businesses and they will leave New Mexico to a state that has sanity…don’t do it. We have the worst roads in the nation and at the rate of progress they can’t even keep up with maintenance and repairs today. This will seal our fate and our state will crumble into obscurity. | Mark Peter | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-48 | Businesses don’t need government to tell them how to manage their employees. Business knows that when they treat employees well, they do their jobs well, and the business prospers. We just need to let them alone. | Tiffany Jones | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-49 | There is no need for this proposed regulation and it could be very damaging to the ability of our businesses to perform work or provide services. It certainly would drive up the costs of the work. Businesses in NM understand the risks inherent in working outdoors. There are many incentives to work smartly and safely. Most businesses want to provide safe work practices for their employees. When they don’t,they face substantial legal liability. Since OSHA is currently revising its rules on heat stress, NM should wait for the outcome of this federal process before considering its own regulations. Employers rely on industry “heat stress” standards developed by trade associations and others. In particular, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has published heat stress guidelines for the workplace. Industry guidelines are based on this work. Based on industry best practices, state-specific NM regulations are counterproductive and unnecessary. A better approach is to work with NM trade groups and employers to ensure good heat stress practices are followed. If NM insists on issuing its own regulation, it should first consider existing work practices in our state. Small companies with 10 employees or fewer should be exempt from this regulation. Construction or energy businesses typically have many subcontractors at a work site. Subcontractors should be covered by the General Contractor’s administrative system. This draft regulation has unreasonable “rest periods” related to heat stress. Experienced workers and supervisors instinctively know that regular “rest breaks” in shady areas are necessary when working on a hot day. The values in Table 3 of the proposed regulation are not reasonable for many outdoor activities. Government inspectors could use this table to delay projects. This regulation is counter-productive, unreasonable, and not needed. It should not be adopted. | Melanie Thomas | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-50 | May 15, 2025 RE: EIB 25-11(R) – Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention We write today as members of the Coalition of Agricultural Workers and Advocates (CAWA) to urge the Environmental Improvement Board to adopt strong protections to keep New Mexican workers safe while working in unsafe heat conditions. CAWA is a group of individuals and organizations primarily based in Southern New Mexico working together to support agricultural workers and to promote and advocate for their rights. Heat-related illness visits to New Mexico emergency departments nearly doubled between 2010 and 2022, with over 900 visits due to heat in 2023.1 This number includes only heat exhaustion and heat stroke, and does not include workers who experience chronic or other acute illness due to exposure to the heat such as kidney failure, respiratory disease, and cardiac events which are not usually coded as “heat-related” illnesses.2 Federal OSHA estimates nearly 250,000 New Mexicans work in industries at high risk of heat-related harms, including both outdoor workers and indoor workers with no or inadequate cooling.3 The time to act on heat safety is now! We support the petition filed by the NM Occupational Safety and Health Bureau to create new occupational safety standards which are crucial to keep workers safe from heat-related illness and injury, with modest modifications. These regulations are an important step forward to protect New Mexican workers and we are grateful for the leadership of the Environment Department and NMOSHA in bringing this matter before the board. I. The proposed regulations contain many effective provisions that are needed immediately to protect workers from heat-related injury and illness. The proposed regulations reflect a strong step toward safer working conditions for the thousands of individuals at risk of heat-related illness and injury at work. The following provisions are particularly important to ensure worker safety: 1) The proposed rule covers all workers with narrow and reasonable exemptions. It is important that the regulations proposed by NMED do not include extraneous exemptions that will leave many workers without protection. The few exemptions listed are reasonable because they reflect scenarios where other more applicable safety mechanisms are already in place, such as for emergency responders actively responding to emergencies, or where it would be practically impossible for employers to provide monitoring or other safety controls, such as in the case of remote employees working from home. It is vital that any exemption from an occupational safety standard for heat is narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessarily excluding workers without other safety protections in place. 2) Acclimatization is key to worker safety in the heat. Research has shown that allowing for a period of acclimatization is key to reducing heat related illness and injury. A report provided by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health found that 45% of heat related injuries and illnesses happened during either the first week on the job, or the first 7 days of a heat wave, with 15% occurring on the first day alone.4 This is especially important in the agricultural industry, as many workers are seasonal and migrant workers make up a significant proportion of the workforce.5 These workers may be coming to New Mexico from other parts of the country or other countries with vastly different climates, and arriving in New Mexico for the growing season, during the hottest, most brutal months of the year. Even workers who are already in New Mexico may need an acclimatization period if they are moving between parts of the state with different climates. Including requirements for workers to become acclimated to the heat is a vital safety feature in the regulation that will undoubtedly prevent many heat related illnesses and injuries. 3) Adding to the heat index to account for sun exposure is incredibly important for NM in light of the high UV indexes experienced here during the summer. One feature of New Mexico’s unique climate is that while the humidity is generally lower, the UV index is much, much higher in the summer than in other parts of the country due to our high elevation and frequent lack of cloud cover.6 According to the EPA, a UV index reading of 8-10 means a very high risk of harm from unprotected sun exposure, and a UV index over 11 means “extreme” risk, and warns that skin can burn in a matter of minutes in those conditions.7 In recent years, New Mexico’s UV index has been 11 or higher for 85-110 days per year, and can easily reach 13 during the summer, which places us as one of the states with the highest UV index in the country.8 The inclusion of sun exposure in the proposed regulations is an important feature that tailors this heat standard to meet the needs of New Mexico’s workers. 4) The proposed regulations provide a variety of effective options, allowing businesses to create their own plans that work for their employees. The proposed regulations call for employers to establish a Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Plan (HIIPP) which will provide detailed information to workers about the worksite-specific safety precautions that will be in place, called “control measures.” These control measures are all crucial to prevent injury and illness. We appreciate that the HIIPP regulations are detailed and include a comprehensive but flexible approach. One feature of the proposed regulations that seems particularly tailored to make it easy for businesses to comply is the inclusion of multiple options for different control measures. The control measure for employee monitoring includes many common sense tools that are likely to be in place in worksites already, such as radios and cell phones, and even includes a catch-all option, “Other equally effective means of observation and communication.” For agricultural workers who are widely dispersed throughout a large agricultural operation, maintaining contact is a crucial safety feature. Similarly, the guidance for cooling areas provides a wide variety of strategies that can be used, and also make it clear that even in a scenario where shade is not feasible or safe, employers still have to take other measures such as misters or active cooling garments to make sure that workers can cool down. These regulations provide a flexible | Members of the Coalition of Agricultural Workers and Advocates of New Mexico | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-51 | Reviewing the fact sheet I had some questions, in 2023 and 2024 did we have over 50 work-related heat stress events that are counted separate from the 900 heat-related emergency room visits between April and September. I have worked out doors for many years I have found that co-workers that spend a lot of time under cooling conditions need to go slower till they climatize to working out side, an other observation over the years is employees that may have dehydrated them selves on their days off are at high risk on first day or two back to work this is where encouraging them to drink water is of importance, which brings us to teach employees to not drink ice water cold drinks or eat frozen products before returning from break or lunch. We really don’t need rules put on businesses or industries, we need to watch out for each other, encourage safe practices, and listen to our wives and mothers since most Men I know with heat related illnesses were asked by one of the former to drink some water come set in the shade a minute or take a break and work on it after it cooled down. Rules are just going to cause raised cost of performing all jobs and not teach employees or employers how to perform safely and allow them to take some respectability for their action or inaction as the case may be. | Roxie Shreeves | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-52 | Workers’ health and safety is an important facet for any business. Attention to the specific health issues related to heat and environmental factors is very important as well. These details are provided for already within current regulations and, as pointed out exist to do just what is required. These are taken in consideration when bidding any job requiring attention to heat and other environmental factors by the contractors. So, what about cold factors, but I digress? However, the greater issue becomes the excessive, intrusive regulation by one more regulatory agency, accountable to NO One but a legislative collective and not for the economical delivery of services for which our taxes may be paying. If a worker doesn’t want to work in the heat OR cold don’t take the job. If a contractor doesn’t take care of their employees they will suffer those consequences which exist presently. Finally, those drafting these proposed regulations should go out and work within industries that are subject to this regulatory overreach. The subsequent experience might help them know the complete effect of their decision making processes. This shouldn’t be one more social experiment. Respectfully. | KEITH MILLER | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-53 | Are you sure you didn’t make a mistake and say, “Work 45 minutes and take a 15 minute break?” I can’t imagine any employer, if he has to comply with this insane rule, would even hire people under those conditions. He’d work by himself and then rehire when those rules don’t apply. Did you bother to check hospital statistics to see if there has been a flood of workers that must be treated for heat exhaustion? My guess is no, and that you’re, in essence, trying to ruin small business. There is no other logical conclusion to draw other than that. Why is it just now, in 2025, that workers need to be protected? Makes no sense. Most of those small business employers work right along side their employees and they’re plenty smart enough to know when a break is needed! | Pr Gary Piepkorn Piepkorn | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-54 | When I was in my 20’s I worked for the City of Phoenix Electric Dept. We worked on the streets in much hotter weather than you typically have in Northern NM. We took several breaks during the day, as needed to hydrate with water. You can wear a hat and apply a wetted down cloth under the hat. For young healthy people it was no problem. You will actually accomplish nothing working 15 min and sitting around for 45 minutes. You will not complete your work and do more harm than good to your body by just sitting around and not moving. Bodies need to be in motion, it is what the body likes for staying heathy. | John Kekar | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-55 | I think this is crazy! How can you not work in eighty degree temperatures in New Mexico. How do you expect businesses that provide outside services to survive. I think this needs to be reevaluated. | Don Taylor | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-56 | As and employer in an outside environment we find the proposed rule duplicative, vague, and an additional expense and hardship on employers. In addition it is largely unnecessary. The rule must have been written by someone not familiar with outside work in rural areas. There would be little cost benefit as this proposed rule is largely duplicative of the new Proposed rule by OSHA. On August 30, 2024, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published a Notice of Proposed Rule making (NPRM) for “Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings” in the Federal Register. The proposed OSHA rule would require employers to develop a written heat injury and illness prevention plan (HIIPP) for all employers with more than ten employees. The plan would include a comprehensive list of the types of work activities covered, a description of how the employer complies with the OSHA standard, the means for monitoring temperatures, emergency phone numbers and procedures, and a list of heat safety coordinators. New Mexico’s rule would require duplicative reporting to two separate agencies and, like other areas such as fire protection, conflicts of opinions will occur. The New Mexico rule does not allow for the 10 employee person criterion. The OSHA rule is not finalized so it will be a burden on the employer to determine differences between the two rules and determine which is more restrictive and the reporting requirements for each. The New Mexico Environment Department has no way to determine or justify why its rule is different on a scientific basis from the federal rule as the public hearing on the federal proposed rule is scheduled to be held virtually and begin on June 16, 2025. The proposed rule is not practical for many industries and will take on an exceptional burden to the state. For example There are 8,989 ranches in New Mexico with beef cattle ranching as their primary industry. The beef cattle industry directly contributes 11,218 jobs, $1.1 billion in output, and $274 million in labor income, generating additional economic impacts of 4,868 jobs, $615 million in output, and $174 million in labor income. It is not practical when rounding up and working cattle (which is usually done only twice a year) to comply with the localized weather monitoring equipment, shade equipment, and especially the use of misters or active cooling garments may be provided in lieu of shade. When gathering and pushing 200 head of cows and calves from the juniper/pinion foot hills across the plains of San Agustin for example, how will one provide the shade? What does one do with the cattle and horses while the cowboys take their shade break? The regulations are vague and raise many questions that could be impossible to scientifically answer. For example: Table 3 provides terms such as Light, Moderate, or Heavy work. There is no definition of light, moderate, or heavy. Which category does riding a horse fall into? What if the wrangler is turning the horse rapidly, walking, trotting or cantering? What about mounting and dismounting the horse frequently (to rid oneself of the 8 ounces of fluids drank every fifteen minutes). Frequent mounting and dismounting actually increases the effort involved in the work and increases the risk to cattle workers. What is the basis for 8 oz. of fluids every 15 minutes? The paper titled: Marathon Runners: Beware Of Drinking Too Much Water, Methodist Hospital, Houston, January 8, 2008 states “Many runners know it’s important to drink plenty of water during a marathon to keep their bodies hydrated. However, drinking too much water during the course of a 26-mile race can actually kill them. The abundance of water will cause the cells to swell. Most cells can adapt to change, however, the brain cannot. When this occurs in less than 48 hours, it can be fatal if not treated immediately.” That paper only recommends a MAXIMUM of 8 oz of water, every 20 minutes for people RUNNING A MARATHON! (Is that moderate or heavy work?) Will the state take responsibility for hyponatremia? There is no mention of salt in the proposed rule. Section 11.5.7.9 Heat Exposure Assessment, is so vague as to be borderline ridiculous. The proposed rule forces the employer to assess vague criteria that the authors of the rule could not assess, such as “Acclimatization of the employee,” or “Personal risk factors for heat illness.” We all know (or should know) that the highest risk factor for heat illness is being overweight. Yet the proposed rule provides no guidance or criterion for this fat assessment. What if the person is 20 lbs overweight?; 30 lbs?; Obese? (See: Relevance of individual characteristics for human heat stress response is dependent on exercise intensity and climate type; G Havenith, JML Coenen, L Kistemaker, WL Kenney; European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology, 1998). OSHA states factors such as lack of physical fitness, previous episodes of heat-related illness, alcohol consumption, drugs, and use of certain medication increases the risks. How is the employer supposed to assess this, and take action, especially with New Mexico’s privacy and discrimination rules? This vague language is too much to expect the employer to be able to assess and an huge burden upon the employer to even stay aware of non-specific assessment criteria. I propose that the comments and issues in my comments be resolved before the finalization of the rule. With the proposed OSHA rule, I see no reason to waste anymore taxpayer dollars for a duplicative, vague, rule, that may be contrary to current science and an additional expense and hardship on employers. Since heat illness is a condition of individual acceptability, It is my experience that education about the prevention, symptoms, and treatment of heat illness is appropriate and the best method of reducing its occurrence. Making additional regulations only increases the cost of labor and shifts responsibility of understanding the issue from the individual to the employer. I sincerely doubt if this rule will have any positive effect on reducing heat illness. I really appreciate the opportunity to comment about this rule and the negative impact it will have upon employers not in an office environment. and the negative impact it will have upon employers not in an office environment | Timothy Norris | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-57 | I can’t even believe this is something one would have to make a comment on. How absurd is it to ask an employer to only have an employee work 15 minutes of an hour time and get paid for the full hour of work. How can anything get done in that time frame and what kind of message does that send to an employee about work ethics? It is hard enough to find people who want to work these days yet alone do something crazy like this. How do you expect businesses to stay in business with this kind of craziness? Do you really care about businesses? I would say not. This has to be one of the worst ideas I have ever heard of and I hope this does not go through. I cant imagine anything good coming from this. | Paula Hill | 5/15/25 |
| II-15-58 | This rule is not workable for NM Employers | James Fletcher | 5/15/25 |
| II-16-1 | If our country implemented this rule since its founding we would still be stuck in the steam age! I worked in 90+ humid weather in construction and survived! | Scott Brooks | 5/16/25 |
| II-16-2 | As a business owner who has lived in southern NMN my whole life and worked outdoors for 40 years, this idea is so overboard, you should pay them to stay home, it would be less costly to the employer | john o’byrne | 5/16/25 |
| II-16-3 | Our company has always provided water, ice, electrolytes, shade, hats, cooling bandanas, and training on dealing with heat exposure. In the summer, hours start and end earlier depending on the temperatures. Implementing a 45-minute work to a 15-minute rest period will destroy production and profits. The worker’s paychecks will suffer as well. Sensible precautions and mandates are already in place. This bill is utterly unworkable. | Doyle Roof Masters | 5/16/25 |
| II-16-4 | Work 15 min and take a 45 min break? So you will get 2 hrs of actual work in an 8 hr day. That will drive up construction costs. I suggest work 6 am to 10 am, take a long break and return to work and continue work 4 pm to 8 pm. | Donald Engdahl | 5/16/25 |
| II-16-5 | The intent of protecting workers from high heat issues is very good, however there are likely to be several issues with the implementation. For smaller businesses the record keeping and retention requirement will add significant costs. Other than keeping lawyers happy and employed I can see no reason to record the heat index at every project and retain that record for 5 years. Six months is more than enough unless the personnel are always exposed to high heat index and it is not a seasonal issue. We have always provided our employees with available free hydration, however it is their responsibility to estimate how much they may need on an hourly or daily basis. We hire adults who are self responsible and as long as they have water available they should be able to manage their intake without management acting like a nanny. In the 8 years that I have run the company we have not had a single heat incident since the employees have hydration available and they manage their own level of fluid intake. Forcing management to make a heat exposure assessment at the beginning of a project does not add value for workers on construction projects (outdoor or indoor before the site is fully enclosed and has HVAC active) as exposure levels change with the weather. This needs to be a daily employee responsibility not an employer responsibility (FYI this is another reason record keeping is not particularly worthwhile except to lawyers). Employees know what they are wearing and how heat affects them individually. They need to be responsible for themselves. The employer needs to make hydration available and let them take rest as needed, but the employee needs to be able to decide if they drink or rest. The only time that the above comments are not applicable are in places like steel mills where there is always PPE and High heat, on high voltage electrical work where there is always PPE. | Ronald Sutton | 5/16/25 |
| II-16-6 | PO BOX 90847 Albuquerque, NM 87199 (505) 888-0752 May 12, 2025 RE: EIB 25-11 (R) – Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention New Mexico Utility Contractors Association (NMUCA) submits the following comments on the petition for the Heat Illness and Injury proposal. NMUCA and its members support protecting our workers from the threat of heat illness and injury. However, NMUCA opposes the proposed regulation because of its unreasonable mandates in relatively normal New Mexico weather conditions, and the absence of common-sense solutions for our unique industry challenges. The data referenced by the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) encompasses the general public and is not specified as workplace related. The data referenced is not verifiable. However, data has been provided by two of the largest worker’s compensation groups in the state, and operating businesses, with data that suggests that heat stress and illness is rare in the workplace thus resulting in the NMED attempting to provide solutions where there is not a problem. NMOSHB has been and is still able to inspect, assess, and fine companies that are putting their employees at risk of heat exposure under the General Duty Clause. 11.5.7.8 Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Plan NMUCA agrees that companies should have a heat illness and injury prevention plan to protect workers from heat hazards. An employer should establish a written safety program and prepare a written job hazard analysis to assess working conditions that may cause occupational exposure to heat illness. This plan should be unique to the company, the industry, and the working environment. A One-Size-Fits-All Doesn’t Work because 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. 11.5.7.9 Heat Exposure Assessment NMUCA is most concerned with this section of the proposal since mitigation measures would start with a mere eighty degrees Fahrenheit. Under this segment and calculating Index Table1 , Table 2 and Table 3, it would create 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. In 2023 OSHA recognized Dunn Construction Safety Training in their 2023 Beat the Heat Contest. Dunn’s work/rest cycles were as follows: Work/Rest cycles (or schedules) should be considered when heat index exceeds: 95 F regular rest periods for cool down 103 F heat index – Work/Rest cycle should be 50 min / 10 min every hour 115 F – Work/Rest cycles of 40 min / 20 min every hour (https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/2023BeatTheHeatWinners/Contest_Message_JEDUNNConstruction_TrainingExample_508c.pdf) 11.5.7.10 Control Measures Again, implementing some control measures starting at eight degrees Fahrenheit is not plausible for New Mexico’s environment. A. Acclimatization Methods – NMUCA agrees that acclimation measures should be part of the company’s Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Safety Program. However, the mandates in the petition are very rigid and do not take into consideration the employees’ history for previous heat exposure, i.e. coming from a similar job in the same area or coming from a hotter area of the country to work in NM. Acclimatization schedules should not prevent already acclimatized workers from working. Construction workers are far more likely to be naturally acclimated to their work environment before starting a job than other workers due to the transient nature of the construction industry workforce with workers who move from job to job seamlessly. B. Provision of Fluids – NMUCA agrees that provision of fluids should be part of the company’s Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Safety Program. NMUCA is concerned about 11.5.7.10 B which equates to two gallons of water in an eight-hour period. According to The Cleveland Clinic, this could lead to water intoxication and kidney damage. (https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/water-intoxication) C. Regular Rest Breaks – NMUCA agrees that regular rest breaks should be part of the company’s Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Safety Program. However, the rest schedule from Table 2 of the petition is not applicable with New Mexico’s climate. NMUCA is concerned that these tables and their results for rest mandates were calculated in hotter and/or humid areas of the country. D. Cooling Areas – NMUCA agrees that measures for cooling of employees should be part of the company’s Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Safety Program. This may be one of the most challenging aspects of the proposals but can be implemented with reasonable guidelines. E. Personnel Monitoring – NMUCA agrees that personnel monitoring should be part of the company’s Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Safety Program. This should be part of the company’s safety training program for all employees including labor crews and supervisors. 11.5.7.11 Emergency Medical Care – No objections for emergency medical care. Procedures should be part of the company’s Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Safety Program. 11.5.7.12 Training – NMUCA agrees that training should be part of the company’s Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Safety Program. 11.5.7.13 Record Keeping – NMUCA feels that this mandate is extremely burdensome and is not feasible as written in the petition. Companies should keep records of their Heat and Illness Injury Prevention Training for employees; however, the proposed recording of the daily heat index and working conditions for five years is an overburdensome administrative requirement. Other major concerns for NMUCA are as follows: Exacerbation of Labor Shortages: With the construction industry still operating below its pre-recession workforce levels, this 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. With the potential cost to taxpayers in New Mexico, it is concerning that there was no impact study before the introduction of this petition. 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. The data used to justify this sweeping regulation proposal does not accurately reflect workplace conditions in New Mexico. Many incidents that were mentioned in industry hearings were not specific and probably not work related when you compare actual recorded data provided by the workers’ compensation groups. This petition would exponentially increase the longevity of construction projects which would also prolong the exposure of other hazards to the public, and delay improvements to our communities. 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. Our recommendation for the EIB is to allow the construction industry to continue to use current methods for abating heat stress and illness hazards, and allow the construction industry to create their own written safety programs that include: Heat Exposure Assessments Acclimatization Methods Provision of Fluids Regular Rest Breaks Cooling of Employees Emergency Medical Care Training Record Keeping of injury and illness due to heat NMUCA and its members, like much of the construction industry, have effectively protected workers from heat hazards for many years. According to data, these efforts have proven successful. NMUCA urges the EIB to reevaluate the data referenced by NMOSHB, produce a cost analysis, consider a separate standard or exemption for the construction industry, and consider industry input. We urge the Environmental Improvement Board to reject this sweeping mandate in its current form. A more effective approach would focus on flexible, industry-informed solutions and strategies that support both worker safety and project viability. Respectfully Submitted, Jane Jernigan, Executive Director New Mexico Utility Contractors Association (505) 888-0752 Jane.NMUCA@Gmail.com | New Mexico Utility Contractors Association | 5/16/25 |
| II-16-7 | this would create an entirely unworkable condition. | cadm, inc | 5/16/25 |
| II-16-8 | Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to the New Mexico Environment Department Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule. Harvest Midstream strives to identify and mitigate all risks to our employees’ and contractors’ health and welfare, including heat exposure. Many of the requirements of the proposed rule are measures that Harvest is already taking. Acclimatization and Regular Rest Breaks With regards to acclimatization, it appears that NMED wishes to codify the CDC and NIOSH recommended practices. The proposed requirements are a “one size fits all” approach, and do not take into account individual responses to heat exposure, which can vary based on: Body composition, including muscle mass and body fat Age Medical conditions Existing hydration levels Hormonal differences For this reason, Harvest elects to educate employees and supervisors on heat exposure and implement case-by-case protective measures. Recordkeeping One proposed recordkeeping provision requires “An accurate record of the heat acclimatization schedule and procedures for all new and returning employees.” As previously stated, Harvest proposes implementation of case-by-case protective measures vs. implementing and recording standardized schedules and procedures. Clothing Adjustment Factors It appears that clothing adjustment factors are taken from NIOSH guidelines, including an adjustment factor for FR (double layer cloth) clothing. Because FR clothing is available in different thicknesses, weights, and fabric construction, it is not appropriate to assign one factor for all FR clothing. | Harvest Midstream Company | 5/16/25 |
| II-16-9 | If the heat is that bad have workers stay home using vacation time or if no vacation time is left on the books, then no pay for time taken. This is ridiculous it would slow things down even more in New Mexico than it already is. This should not be considered and shut down as soon as possible. | Marion Downey | 5/16/25 |
| II-16-10 | This ruling is CRAZY and will put most small businesses OUT OF BUSINESS. What happened to common sense? | Sharon Luna | 5/16/25 |
| II-16-11 | As a native New Mexican, who worked and played in some of the hottest summers on record, I would say: 1st this is complete an total nonsence. If you think they need to only work 15 minutes and hour then they don’t need to work at all. The cost to consumers, tax payers and businesses would ruin us all. Whom ever thinks this is a good idea is buying votes, and/or needs their head examined. | JAMES GUYNN | 5/16/25 |
| II-16-12 | RE: Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule On behalf of the membership of the New Mexico Federal Lands Council, representing federal lands allotment owners and State Trust Lands leases, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the “Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule” by the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED), Occupational Health and Safety Bureau (OHSB). We respectfully request that this proposed rule be withdrawn. It is a solution in search of a problem and government interference in private enterprise. Our members are part of the agricultural community that feeds the U.S. and some of the rest of the world. Many have worked on their family ranches for three or more generations with no significant impacts from the heat. However, common sense is something we are known for. Adaptability is another trait of ranchers and farms. We know how to get up before daylight and get our work finished before it gets hot. We are also acutely aware of water requirements for both man and beast during heat. New Mexico has a high rate of food insecurity, with 15.2 percent of residents experiencing it. This is above the national average of 13.5 percent. A significant portion of these food-insecure individuals are children, with 26 percent of children facing food insecurity in 2020, according to New Mexico Voices for Children. In 2023, New Mexico had the third-highest poverty rate in the US, at 17.8 percent. This translates to approximately 368,669 people living in poverty. The state’s poverty rate has been consistently high, with New Mexico frequently ranking among the poorest states in the country. Why would the State propose a rule that has a strong possibility of increasing these rates? Putting agriculture out of business will only increase food insecurity and poverty in New Mexico by increasing food prices and reducing supply. Where is there research and data to support such over-reach? Perhaps there is no federal rule on this subject because it is unsupportable. How prevalent is heat-stroke in New Mexico? For these reasons and many more, the NMFLC respectfully request that NMED withdraw the Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Should we be of further service, please let us know. Sincerely, Ty Bays President | New Mexico Federal Lands Council | 5/16/25 |
| II-16-13 | The proposed heat rule is unnecessary and harmful. The Department has provided no data to validate any contention that New Mexico employers are not providing adequate accommodations for their employees in terms of care during times of excessive heat. The temperature contemplated in this proposal do not even pose extreme heat. No employer can afford in terms of both dollars and output to have workers for 20 minutes out of every hour. Employers are already scheduling their crews for early morning work to avoid the heat of the day as part of routine practice. This rule will only serve to increase poverty and food insecurity in New Mexico. I respectfully request that the proposal be withdrawn. Thank you | Caren Cowan | 5/16/25 |
| II-16-14 | Greetings to the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, my name is Angie Smith, and I live in Portales. Here, in our community, farming and ranching are two of the biggest industries for us. So much of Roosevelt’s economy revolves around these vital economic pillars. And just like so many other communities, we have a great deal of construction going on, too. While this is not an exhaustive list of all the businesses and employers your proposed rule could affect, it does include the biggest ones in our area. I believe it is a very good idea to make sure employers educate their employees well about the risks involved and how to spot if someone is getting overheated. I read the Fact Sheet you put out. It has some helpful information; however, I also noticed you left out the requirement of employees only having to work 15 minutes and resting 45 minutes every hour?! You also left out that the employers would be expected to pay their employees for the full hour! That makes no sense. It almost seems as if you all are more interested in destroying businesses rather than helping keep employees healthy. Your Fact Sheet left out many variables in the overall statistics you listed. How many of those who had heat injuries were already sick when they went in that day? How many of the employees were encouraged to take a break and drink some water, but those employees chose to work anyway? Too many important variables were left out, and therefore, your Fact Sheet is not reliable. If you want to mount a campaign to educate employers and employees on how to avoid these heat injuries, I support you. However, you need not act like the Nanny of New Mexico and force people to do things. That is a dictatorship, not a free society. Please do not pass the part of the rule that requires employees to only work 15 minutes per hour. That could cause great delays in various industries. Worse, it could cause many businesses to have to close. We don’t need any more businesses to close in New Mexico. Thank you for your time and consideration. Angie Smith | Angie Smith | 5/16/25 |
| II-17-1 | If this bill is intended to discourage new businesses from forming, or businesses from opening branches in NM or hampering existing NM businesses; this proposal hits a grand slam! As an operator of a small business, about 15 employees, the task of ensuring compliance with a law of this nature is frightening! Imagine having 10 employees working at approximately 6 different sites throughout the community outdoors during the summer. The management of this scenario is daunting enough, let alone the downtime while employees presumably return to the office to cool down. No responsible employer wants to endanger his or her employees. It’s ethically and morally wrong and it’s just poor business practice. Common sense by both the employee and employer should dictate when employees need a break from the heat, not some rule made by a group of bureaucrats in Santa Fe. | Bruce Norman | 5/17/25 |
| II-18-1 | This request is ridiculous and causes more red tape and abuse to business owners. There are many safety regulations already in place to cover these issues. We don’t need more redundant paperwork or rules. | NAOMA FULGHAM-DIXON | 5/18/25 |
| II-18-2 | This regulation will make it necessary to hire 2 people or more for every 1 person now working. We already do training on heat related injuries, have breaks at regular intervals, post information on how to know you are having heat stress or another heat related injury or illness, and make water available for every employee as well as PEP. This will slow down the building of the community in New Mexico for anyone associated with the construction industry. The growth of our state will surely slow and our state’s current progress will be deeply affected. Please do not allow this regulation to become law. | Kristi Ingro | 5/18/25 |
| II-19-1 | I am writing to request that NMED urgently support protecting individuals from heat-related injury and illnesses. As a physician in New Mexico for almost 20 years, and having worked in Shiprock, Gallup, and Albuquerque, I have seen how heat-related illnesses affect individuals through physical illness, hospitalizations, and missed work. Although I could speak about many, many experiences here, the most prominent was one of a dad who was a construction worker who developed dehydration so severe on a hot day that he passed out/was unconscious and needed to be rushed to the hospital. In the hospital I treated him for such severe kidney injury due to heat related dehydration that he needed gallons of IV fluids and electrolytes to restore his kidney function over his multiple day admission. The scientific medical literature shows he is at risk for needing dialysis for the rest of his life. It is not just construction workers who could benefit from this rule. For example, as a neighbor, I have offered cold water and shade to mail carriers affected by heat. Foremost, let’s be great neighbors – and let’s also be good stewards of healthcare and healthcare dollars, and our workforce retention, by passing this. | Eileen Barrett | 5/19/25 |
| II-19-2 | We strongly oppose the currently proposed regulation. The proposed measures are not realistic for construction sites and will likely produce a work environment that is actually more dangerous to employees as work schedules will vary drastically and will likely involve night shifts. Please consider the negative impact such disruptions will have on a worker’s mental health which is a much more significant current health risk to New Mexico construction workers. We already take proactive measures to mitigate heat stress and have been for decades – we have had zero heat stress related incidents. Please consider engaging with industry members and tailoring new rules regarding heat stress to be more flexible and realistic so that we can protect our workforce in a responsible manner | Southwest Glass and Glazing | 5/19/25 |
| II-19-3 | Dear New Mexico Environment Department, On behalf of New Mexico IDEA, the statewide professional association representing economic developers and local economic development organizations across our state, we appreciate the opportunity to offer public comment on the proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule. While we support the overarching intent to safeguard workers’ health and safety, we are deeply concerned that the proposed rule in its current form may have significant unintended consequences that negatively affect New Mexico’s business climate, economic competitiveness, and long-term development goals. In particular, the rule poses barriers to business recruitment and retention efforts and risks undercutting many of the targeted industry growth strategies laid out in the state’s own 2025 Economic Development Strategic Plan. Business Climate and Recruitment Challenges A predictable, efficient, and balanced regulatory environment is among the most important factors site selectors and corporate decision-makers consider when evaluating prospective locations for expansion or relocation. The proposed rule, while well-intentioned, introduces a complex layer of requirements for all employers, regardless of scale or industry. These include acclimatization scheduling, hydration practices, mandated cooling areas, personnel monitoring systems, and recordkeeping protocols. Among the many problematic provisions in the proposed rule is the requirement that “employers shall encourage workers to drink 8 ounces of fluids every fifteen minutes” (Section 11.5.7.10(B)(e)). This phrasing lacks clarity and invites overenforcement. To demonstrate compliance, employers would likely need to maintain detailed logs documenting how and when each employee was encouraged to hydrate throughout the day. This is an unrealistic expectation and would result in an unmanageable recordkeeping burden that distracts from actual safety improvements. The potential liability associated with an inability to prove compliance with such a subjective standard is deeply concerning. Economic development professionals across the state work hard to showcase New Mexico as a pro-business, innovation-friendly destination. The perception that New Mexico is out of sync with peer states on occupational health and safety rules—especially those perceived as rigid or difficult to implement—can be enough to eliminate us from consideration in competitive site selection processes. In an already competitive national landscape, such regulatory uncertainty can be a disqualifying factor for capital-intensive industries. Impact on Targeted Industry Growth Sectors New Mexico’s 2025 State Economic Development Plan identifies advanced manufacturing, clean energy, outdoor recreation, and tourism among its high-potential growth sectors. Each of these industries will face substantial compliance hurdles under the proposed heat rule. Advanced Manufacturing & Clean Energy: The state has made significant investments in attracting semiconductor and clean energy manufacturers, including those in solar, wind, battery storage, and hydrogen sectors. These employers often operate in large, semi-enclosed facilities or open industrial yards. Adapting operations to include frequent rest breaks and cooling infrastructure per the rule’s specifications could impair productivity and elevate costs beyond what is sustainable in a low-margin, globally competitive environment. Outdoor Recreation and Tourism: These sectors collectively contribute billions to New Mexico’s economy. Yet seasonal guides, event staff, and hospitality teams operate in dispersed, often mobile environments that are ill-suited to fixed shade and hydration infrastructure. The rule, as written, does not provide flexibility for these unique working conditions, creating compliance burdens that may shrink opportunities for growth in these rural and Tribal-driven sectors. Retention of Existing Employers and Economic Developers Local economic development organizations frequently cite regulatory friction as a key obstacle to retention. Employers already operating in New Mexico may view this rule as an additional cost driver that makes expansion or continued investment less attractive. The rule’s uniformity also fails to account for existing infrastructure disparities between urban and rural communities. Without flexibility, the rule may drive a wedge between statewide economic development objectives and the lived realities of local employers. Recommendations We urge the Environmental Improvement Board to: Postpone the rulemaking process for 12 months to allow time for meaningful stakeholder engagement across the state, including comprehensive input from all impacted industries, and to conduct a full economic impact analysis of the proposed rule on target industries identified in the State Economic Development Plan. Provide scalable, tiered compliance pathways based on business size, industry type, and environmental conditions. Align the rule more closely with OSHA’s existing General Duty Clause and NEP to avoid duplicative or conflicting mandates. In lieu of regulatory mandates, launch a statewide heat illness prevention campaign, in collaboration with industry associations, chambers of commerce, and worker safety groups. This voluntary initiative could promote best practices, provide multilingual education resources, and encourage employer participation in proven heat safety protocols without imposing inflexible mandates. New Mexico IDEA and its members are committed to building a safer, more prosperous economy. We believe these goals can and must coexist. We respectfully request that the Board take time to collaborate with the economic development community to ensure that the final rule supports, rather than impairs, our shared mission of inclusive and sustainable economic growth. Sincerely, Cassie Arias-Ward Chair, Board of Director New Mexico IDEA Jason Espinoza Executive Director New Mexico IDEA | New Mexico IDEA | 5/19/25 |
| II-19-4 | Environmental Improvement Board c/o New Mexico Environment Department 1190 St. Francis Drive, Suite N4050 Santa Fe, NM 87505 RE: Public Comment on Proposed Rule 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Dear Members of the Environmental Improvement Board, On behalf of EndeavOR New Mexico, the Outdoor Recreation Business Alliance, we appreciate the opportunity to submit public comment regarding Proposed Rule 11.5.7 NMAC on Heat Illness and Injury Prevention. EndeavOR is a member-driven association of outdoor product developers, experience providers, and businesses working together to strengthen the outdoor recreation industry in New Mexico. We represent a diverse range of outdoor recreation businesses across the state—from guided rafting, biking, and hunting outfitters to trail stewards, and camp operators. Together, these businesses power a vital sector of New Mexico’s economy, supporting thousands of jobs, enhancing rural prosperity, and promoting health and environmental stewardship. We share your commitment to protecting workers from heat-related illness and injury. However, we respectfully submit that the rule as currently proposed, while well-intentioned, would have disproportionate and impractical impacts on our industry. We urge the Board to consider revisions that account for the unique realities of seasonal, mobile, and small-scale outdoor operations. Operational Realities in the Outdoor Recreation Sector Unlike fixed-site industries, many of our members operate in remote or backcountry settings with transient teams, seasonal staffing models, and minimal infrastructure. Requirements such as continuous heat index monitoring, documented acclimatization schedules, and the establishment of fixed cooling zones are often infeasible in field-based environments such as river expeditions, guided hikes, or dispersed campsite programs. These operations already emphasize hydration, safety briefings, shade planning, and rest pacing as a matter of business survival, guest experience, and employee wellbeing. Impacts on Small Businesses and Seasonal Employment Many EndeavOR members are small businesses with limited year-round staffing and lean margins. The administrative burden of documentation, record retention, and personnel monitoring—including five-year logs of acclimatization schedules for short-term staff—could divert already scarce resources from actual field safety investments. Moreover, the acclimatization protocols conflict with the short onboarding windows of seasonal employment, where staff must be ready to work safely but efficiently within limited timeframes. Geographic and Environmental Variability While the use of the heat index accounts for some environmental variation, the proposed rule still applies uniformly to all outdoor work environments without regard to operational context, topography, or terrain. For example, high alpine trail work in Taos versus a river outfitting operation near Truth or Consequences present distinct logistical challenges and safety strategies. A single, inflexible standard risks both overreach and underprotection. Existing Culture of Risk Management and Safety The outdoor recreation industry is deeply rooted in a proactive risk management ethos. Our guides, crew leaders, and outfitters are trained to manage dynamic environmental hazards, including heat exposure. Many employers already incorporate heat-related protocols, such as pre-trip safety talks, mandatory water breaks, and client/employee observation systems. Imposing blanket mandates without flexible, field-adaptable pathways may penalize effective existing practices. Recommendations We respectfully request the Environmental Improvement Board consider the following: Carve-outs or tailored compliance options for mobile, remote, and seasonal outdoor operations. Allowance for equivalent safety practices in lieu of prescriptive mandates, with emphasis on outcomes rather than methods. Reduced or alternate recordkeeping expectations for employers with fewer than 20 employees and/or seasonal-only operations. Postpone the rulemaking process for at least six months to allow time for the creation of a collaborative working group with representatives from outdoor recreation, agriculture, and other mobile industries to refine the rule’s applicability. We support the goal of ensuring all New Mexico workers are protected from heat-related risks. We believe this can be accomplished through a more flexible, targeted, and collaborative regulatory approach that uplifts rather than burdens the outdoor recreation economy. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Respectfully, Davin Lopez Chairman, Board of Directors EndeavOR New Mexico www.endeavornm.org | endeavOR New Mexico (Outdoor Recreation Business Alliance) | 5/19/25 |
| II-19-5 | As a licensed electrical contractor operating in New Mexico, I am writing to express my concerns and opposition to the proposed OSHA heat illness prevention rule currently under consideration. While the safety of workers is a priority I take seriously every day on the job, I believe this rule is impractical and unnecessarily burdensome for electrical contractors and other skilled trades. The proposed regulations appear to apply a one-size-fits-all standard without accounting for the dynamic nature of our work. For example, requiring fixed rest breaks at specific temperature thresholds does not reflect how electrical crews operate in the field, where scheduling is based on equipment availability, coordination with other trades, time-sensitive inspections, and in some cases emergency response or disaster recovery. Additionally, the rule does not account for the existing safety protocols already in place. Most contractors, including our business, already provide water, encourage breaks as needed, and educate our workers about heat stress. Mandating rigid schedules and conditions—regardless of the actual risk—adds compliance burdens without a clear gain in safety. This rule could also increase costs, delay project timelines, and make it harder for contractors to meet public and private infrastructure demands. The added red tape may hit small contractors hardest, while doing little to address the real issue: encouraging smart, situationally-aware practices tailored to the specific job site and task. If the state moves forward with this regulation, I urge NM OSHA to revise the proposal to better reflect the realities of skilled trades work. A flexible, education-based approach would do far more to keep workers safe than blanket mandates that are difficult to apply in the field. Sincerely, Brock Darnell U.S. Electrical Corporation | Brock Darnell | 5/19/25 |
| II-19-6 | National Federation of Independent Business Albuquerque, NM New Mexico Environment Department 1190 St. Francis Drive, Suite N4050 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 Dear Members of the Environmental Improvement Board: RE: Public Comment in Opposition to EIB 25-11 (R) – Proposed Rule 11.5.7 NMAC (Heat Illness and Injury Prevention) The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) submits this letter in opposition to the New Mexico Environmental Department proposed rules on Heat Illness and Injury Prevention and urges the Department to withdraw the rules. The proposed rules are excessive and burdensome, requiring all employers, regardless of size, to continuously monitor workplace temperature, conduct heat exposure assessments, designate cooling areas, as well as provide personnel monitoring, training and recordkeeping. Small businesses already suffer from overregulation and this rule is yet another regulation attempting to intervene on how small employers run their businesses. NFIB members consistently rank overregulation as one of the most significant obstacles to running their small businesses. If enacted, the rules would disproportionately impact small businesses as many are not equipped with the resources or the specialized staff necessary to navigate rules and regulations, putting them at risk of frivolous lawsuits, financial harm and closure. Among the many problematic provisions in the proposed rule is the requirement that “employers shall encourage workers to drink 8 ounces of fluids every fifteen minutes” (Section 11.5.7.10(B)(e)). This phrasing lacks clarity and invites overenforcement. To demonstrate compliance, employers would likely need to maintain detailed logs documenting how and when each employee was encouraged to hydrate throughout the day. This is an unrealistic expectation, especially in small or mobile workforces, and would result in an unmanageable recordkeeping burden that distracts from actual safety improvements. The potential liability associated with an inability to prove compliance with such a subjective standard is deeply concerning. The proposed rules, as drafted, are redundant and unnecessary. New Mexico’s 166,000+ small businesses are already subject to the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration Standards’ (OSHA) General Duty Clause as well as the state OSHA standards that provide worker temperature protections allowing them to regulate, punish, and fine employers who fail to keep their employees safe from any such hazards and harm. The rules also unfairly assume that businesses are not already taking preventative measures to keep their employees safe in hot and cold temperatures. The proposed rules are an overreach and a one-size-fits-all approach that would be regulatory burdensome, costly and hinder small business growth in New Mexico. For the reasons listed above, NFIB strongly opposes the proposed rules and urges the New Mexico Environmental Department to rescind them. Sincerely, Jason Espinoza NM State Director National Federation of Independent Business ( | National Federation of Independent Business | 5/19/25 |
| II-19-7 | I fully support this regulation. Our workers deserve water breaks and shade in the heat. It should be the bare minimum expectation. | Anonymous | 5/19/25 |
| II-19-8 | This proposed regulation is an un-needed burden on the construction industry. Our employees live here and are acclimated to our climate and don’t need a government agency tell them how to take care of themselves. Hydration is key and our employees are trained on the importance and already have discretion to take breaks as needed during the hottest months. Can you tell us how many heat related deaths were documented in New Mexico in the last 5 years? Are you creating a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist here? | Denise Mello | 5/19/25 |
| II-19-9 | Please vote ‘No’ to this very confined regulation. There are already regulations in place for workplace safety from the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) which regulates workplace health and safety in the US. NM has had a general regulatory policy for decades of adopting federal regulations and guidelines without state-specific rules. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has published heat stress guidelines for the workplace. Industry guidelines are based on this work. Businesses here in New Mexico should already be aware of these guidelines and following them. A better approach is to work cooperatively with NM trade groups and employers to ensure good heat stress practices are followed. In summary, this proposed regulation would be unnecessary and counterproductive for businesses in NM and should not be adopted. | Debbie Quintana | 5/19/25 |
| II-19-10 | RE: EIB25-11 (R) Proposed New Regulations 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Good morning, I am the Human Resources Manager at a local restaurant here in New Mexico. I have been informed of the proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule and have reviewed the fact sheet as well as other articles on the proposition. The fact sheet informs us that the industries that are mainly affected by heat illnesses and injuries are construction workers and agricultural workers. According to the Food Industry Self-Insurance Work Comp Fund there were only two verified heat exposure claims in the last five years in restaurants. One involved an incident during COVID-19 when an employee was working outside while wearing a mask, the other was a worker over a kitchen fryer. This information suggests that these kinds of illnesses and injuries are rare in our industry as most restaurants do have air conditioning, improved ventilation, provide regular access to cold beverages, as well as cooling methods. The proposed rules seem more suited for outdoor industries that do not currently provide what the proposed regulations would be mandating. The proposal paid resting breaks every two hours when the heat index reaches specific temperatures is a rigid requirement that also seems more relevant to outdoor work environments and not to restaurants that have cooling systems that generally remain at a constant temperature. Also, the rule concerning mandated breaks would cause an undue strain on existing employees, as they generally take time during their shifts for self-care, communicating with others when they are needing additional help for self-care. Restaurants also already contain limited staff so providing mandated and timed breaks would often require additional staff that poses an undue burden to obtain and compensate, since many in the restaurant industry have lower profit margins. Another imposed strain would be that resources from core operations would also be diverted by the mandates on recordkeeping, training, and heat safety plans. This rule would take a large toll on HR departments of small businesses in monetary and regulatory costs, especially when we currently comply with such standards in our commitment to the health and safety of our employees. I, therefore, implore you and respectfully request that you reconsider restaurants being a part of this rule as it would cause an undue and unnecessary burden on the restaurant industry and seems better suited for business industries that do not currently have access to cold drinks/hydration, shade, or cooling systems. Please exclude the restaurant industry from the proposed New Mexico Heat Injury and Illness Rule. Thank you, Sonya Raines | The St. James Tearoom | 5/19/25 |
| II-19-11 | RE: Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Dear New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, The New Mexico Council of Outfitters and Guides (NMCOG) is a 501(c)6 non-profit trade association that advocates the interests of professionals earning a livelihood as a NM hunting or fishing outfitter or guide. According to a 2023 economic impact study conducted on the NM outfitting industry, outfitters and guides contribute over $306 million to NM’s economy annually. The outfitted hunting/fishing industry is the highest grossing segment of outdoor recreation tourism in the state of New Mexico. In NM the term “outfitter” applies to a business owner who operates a tour business that sells hunting or fishing experiences to resident and non-resident clientele. While the term “guide” signifies the outfitter’s employees. Please accept the following comments as our official opposition to 11.5.7 NMAC, a newly proposed rule regarding Occupational Health and Safety. NMCOG agrees that long-term exposure to heat can be life-threatening and is a workplace condition that should be taken seriously. We agree that employers should take steps to abate the hazards associated with employees working in high heat environments. However, we feel that newly proposed rule 11.5.7 NMAC generalizes NM’s diverse professional industries by making incorrect assumptions regarding current workplace environments, would be overly burdensome to employers, and mandates unattainable requirements on outdoor recreation industries. We would also like it further noted that our organization is broadly disgruntled that the EIB seems to have arbitrarily singled out heat danger as a matter to be strictly regulated by rule while turning a blind eye to all the other weather-related dangers that apply to all businesses operating outdoors. There has been no consideration given to the fact that outdoor recreation businesses deal with various types of weather-related danger (the least of which is heat). Our operators routinely deal with the dangers related to all weather, which include extreme heat but also includes lightning, severe rain, snow, and extreme cold. Our business owners are already well prepared to deal with weather risks that could apply to their employees or clientele. The success of any outdoor recreation business depends on its weather preparedness. Additionally, NM hunting and fishing outfitters frequently deal with clientele who have traveled from sea level to high alpine areas over 10,000ft in elevation where altitude sickness is a very dangerous threat in addition to weather related risks. NM outdoor business owners are already aware of these risks and have incorporated precautions into their business plans. These precautions are required for outfitters and guides to operate in outdoor environments, and this rule completely ignores the fact that responsible business plans are already in place to prevent weather related injury to employees and clientele. We also have opposition to the newly proposed rule Sections 11.5.7.10 and 11.5.7.13. Our concerns are described in detail below. 11.5.7.10 Control Measures subsection A. (Acclimatization Methods): under this provision an employer “shall” closely observe new employees in a work area where the heat index exceeds 80 degrees Fahrenheit. This mandate completely ignores the fact that guides in the outfitting industry are characteristically unsupervised. Hunting/fishing outfitters hire guides so that they can provide services to multiple clients on any given day. Guides are routinely working many miles from their outfitter employer. Any requirement that a guide be “closely observed by a supervisor” is unachievable and simply is not consistent with existing workplace requirements for the outfitting industry. Additionally, under provision A., an outfitter would be mandated to implement a work schedule based on percentages of “usual duration of work in the heat”. This is an impossible task for outfitters given the subjectivity of the activity of hunting. For example, on any given day during hunting season a hunter and guide may begin the hunt before sunrise and complete the activity before mid-morning, or they might begin in the heat of the afternoon and continue until sunset, or they may hunt from sunrise to sunset. A hunting guide’s work schedule will differ every day depending on movement and location of game animals. 11.5.7.10 Control Measures subsection C. (Regular Rest Breaks): under this provision an employer “shall” provide paid work breaks according to the Environment Department’s predesigned Work/Rest Table. However, the predesigned table wrongly assumes that an employer always has access to the exact temperature and relative humidity. Outfitters and guides are often working in locations in the remote backcountry where there is no internet access or cell phone service. It will be extremely difficult for an outfitter to judge the exact air temperature and relative humidity required to calculate the heat index without access to the internet. The rest requirements of a heat index of 90° as opposed to 95°are significant and it will be nearly impossible for outfitters/guides to know exactly when to implement predesignated rest requirements. 11.5.7.10 Control Measures subsection D. (Cooling Areas): This provision takes for granted that all employees workplaces are located in close proximity to manmade cooling devices such as air conditioning, misters, shade structures, or cooling garments. Hunting/fishing outfitters and guides frequently work in remote backcountry areas where any available shade consists of nature provided elements. Much of the time outfitters, guides, and their clientele will have no problem finding adequate cover during heat however, there will be times when shade is not available during the timing intervales required under this new rule. This rule also makes no distinction between a business that takes place without shade but on a river as opposed to on land without shade and without a water source. 11.5.7.13 Record Keeping: NMCOG is completely opposed to this section of the new rule. Requiring that employers keep “accurate record of the heat acclimatization schedule” for all employees for 5 years isexceedingly overburdensome and entirely unenforceable. Keeping records of heat-related illness and injury is an acceptable requirement and would adequate. In conclusion, NMCOG agrees that heat exposure is a very real risk and an important element for outdoor recreation business owners to consider. However, NMCOG also feels that this new rule would be unnecessarily burdensome to the outdoor recreation industry. The requirements under the rule are arbitrary and unapplicable to the working conditions faced by most hunting/fishing outfitters and guides. This rule is premature and needs extensive revision before being forced upon the business owners of the state of New Mexico. Sincerely, Kerrie Cox Romero Executive Director – New Mexico Council of Outfitters and Guides | New Mexico Council of Outfitters and Guides | 5/19/25 |
| II-19-12 | Dear Chair Suina and Bureau Chief Peck: .We, the undersigned members of the New Mexico Senate, write to support the petition to the Environmental Improvement Board to adopt a proposed rule (EIB 25-11 [11 .5.7.1 NMAC- Nx/x/xxJ) on occupational heat illness and injury prevention, as proposed by the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED), Occupational Health and Safety Bureau (OHSB). The need to protect employees from more frequent and more intense excess heat illnesses and injuries grows with our changing weather, and we support th is proposed rule. The need to protect employees from more frequent and more intense excess heat illnesses and injuries grows with our changing weather. In addition, the proposed rule can benefit employers by mitigating the productivity losses seen when workers are exposed to occupational heat stress. As such, we support this proposed rule. The NMED proposed Rule incorporates best practices and science-based solutions to keep workers safe from exposure to heat at the workplace, including: coverage of both indoor and outdoor workers; calling for written Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Plans; providing for comprehensive worker training; implementing common sense preventive strategies including water, shade/cooling rooms, paid rest breaks, and acclimatization; and using trigger temperatures that are based on physiological science and years of experience from other states with heat standards. This standard will save lives. Public comments opposed to the Rule include a great deal of unscientific claims, compounded with echoes of the federal administration’s ideological bent to oppose all government action, and specifically to dismantle enforcement agencies and Rules that impose any requirement on the private sector. The evidence shows OSHA and voluntary employer action is not sufficiently protective, and the situation is rapidly deteriorating as Emergency Department visits due to heat stress in New Mexico doubled between early 201 Os and 2023. Deaths due to heat stress more than tripled between early 201 Os and 2023. The southeast and southwest regions experience the highest rate of heat stress ED visits and deaths. Heat waves are becoming more frequent, last longer and are more intense than in the past. It is quite likely current federal standards will soon be weakened as they continue to cut agencies and their missions. Even if the federal rule was sufficient, which it is not, the federal OSHA is being systematically dismantled and is now weakened to the point it cannot safeguard to protect workers. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements are insufficient to address heat-related illnesses and safety -and so too is a reliance solely on the good will of employers who are in business to maximize their profits by keeping labor costs low. •Federal OSHA did a literature review to determine its temperature triggers and concluded that a heat trigger of 80 degrees would capture 96-100 percent of heatrelated fatalities and virtually all non-fatal illnesses. (starting on page 70745). They cited studies that showed that even acclimatized workers exceeded the exposure limits for safety in heat at 90 degrees and needed preventive work breaks, and that unacclimated ones hit the exposure limits at 80 degrees. • A CalOSHA (state of California) investigation in 2006 (right after their outdoor rule went into effect) found that heat illnesses occurred in temperatures as low as 80 degrees. The Rule will not create duplicate standards for employers since following the new state rule would ensure they are in complete compliance with federal requirements too. The administrative requirements on employers will help employers understand how compliance with the Rule is sure to increase employee productivity, and retention, thereby lowering costs. The Rule will have a positive impact on all New Mexico employers, including outdoor recreation businesses and the agricultural/ranching industry. Both industries simply cannot continue with the status quo. Maintaining the status quo in the face of our increasing temperatures leads to a loss of productivity, and increased accidents. It is true some employers provide shade, cooling gear, and work rotation, but this is not the case across the entire state economy, so if all employers did so, costs would equalize among employers. Compliance with these rules will not only protect workers but will also level the playing field between businesses. Critics of the Rule who mistakenly believe the Rule will hurt businesses do not consider the productivity losses that businesses experience now due to workers suffering the effects of heat related illnesses. A systematic review of studies on work and heat published in the Lancet (The highly regarding medical profession publication) found that at the end of a work shift under heat stress 30 percent of workers reported lost productivity. A meta study of heat and productivity loss among construction workers found that 60 percent of those workers exposed to high heat lost productivity. Employers who adopt measures such as those in the proposed Rule benefit from such action with lower staff turnover; reduced absenteeism; reduced accidents; and reduced hospital care costs. A study of Washington State workers compensation claims found that the median number of lost working days for time loss claims was 6 days. In the U.S. as a whole, in 2021 agriculture, construction, manufacturing, and service sectors lost 2.5 billion hours of labor to worker exposure to heat, and in 2020 the costs to the economy may have been roughly $100 billion. It has wrongly been suggested employers should be able to substitute PPE like cooling vests or other controls like misters for preventive work breaks: this will leave workers unprotected from heat~related illnesses and does not adhere to the best practice of following the hierarchy of controls. PPE is the least effective tool for health and safety goals and places an undue burden on the worker to protect themselves, while isolation (or removing people from the hazard) ranks more highly. A study conducted by UT Houston found that cooling vests were initially effective in lowering worker temperature, but rapidly lost effectiveness as gel packs warmed. We, the undersigned members of the New Mexico Senate urge the Environmental Improvement Board to adopt the proposed Occupational Heat Illness and Injury Prevention rule currently under consideration. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and views. Respectfully yours, Senator Liz Stefanics District 39 Senator Angel M. Charley District 30 Senator Carrie Hamblen District 38 Senator Micaelita Debbie O’Malley District 13 Senator Antionette Sedillo Lopez District 16 Senator Peter Wirth District 25 Senator Heather Berghmans District 15 Senator Katy Duhigg District 1 O Senator Leo Jaramillo District 5 Senator Harold Pope District 23 Senator Mimi Stewart District 17 I | New Mexico Senate Democrats Senator Liz Stefanics District 39 Senator Angel M. Charley District 30 Senator Carrie Hamblen District 38 Senator Micaelita Debbie O’Malley District 13 Senator Antionette Sedillo Lopez District 16 Senator Peter Wirth District 25 Senator Heather Berghmans District 15 Senator Katy Duhigg District 1 O Senator Leo Jaramillo District 5 Senator Harold Pope District 23 Senator Mimi Stewart District 17 | 5/19/25 |
| II-19-13 | Yes these proposals to keep people safe is humane and necessary | Mari Longpre | 5/19/25 |
| II-19-14 | I’m trying to figure out why a state-level heat illness rule is needed. What is proposed largely mirrors OSHA guidelines. Workers are protected at the federal level through the General Duty Clause (Section 5(a)(1)) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Heat-related provisions are also addressed in OSHA’s Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Guidance and at least four other federal regulations(29 CFR 1910.132, 29 CFR 1910.151, 29 CFR 1926.50, 29 CFR 1910.141). This proposed rule is redundant. OSHA is developing its own Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Standard (initiated in 2021, with an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in October 2021). A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is expected to come soon. The state would be better served holding off on its own rule, allowing businesses to continue to operate under current guidance, and see how the federal rule plays out. It’s doubtful the state can enforce such a rule. | High Maintenance NM LLC | 5/19/25 |
| II-19-15 | When will this take affect for employers | Joseph Forget | 5/19/25 |
| II-20-1 | This proposal is bad for individuals, employers and New Mexico businesses. It is extreme and foolish and impossible to implement. Stop this ridiculous proposal before serious damage is done. | Laura Worley | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-2 | If we insist on living in extreme environments and want to have the luxuries of eating produce not native to this area, driving on pavement that requires construction and maintenance, residing in homes that have cooling systems and driving cars that have AC (all of which exacerbate rising temps.), then we should be more than willing to provide the respite and protection to those workers who make all these things possible for our cushy lives. Further, there is research that supports the business case for making this sound investment for safety and productivity. “Businesses may read this as increased costs but, in truth, it provides critical savings. Things that affect human health also have a direct impact on business performance, given that 84% of the value of S&P 500 companies is in human capital. Research shows worker productivity drops by as much as 2.5% per degree when temperatures rise above 80°F. This heat-induced decline in labor productivity is costing U.S. businesses $100 billion annually and is expected to double by 2030. There is compelling evidence that simple heat protection measures save lives and boost productivity. La Isla Network implemented a worker safety program at a sugar plantation in Nicaragua, where heat-related injuries and deaths were common. The program led to a 72% reduction in injuries, a 94% decrease in hospitalizations—and a 20% increase in productivity. These preventative measures were also more than four times more affordable than treatment, proving that the investment not only saved lives but also more than paid for itself.” https://www.fastcompany.com/91218539/a-business-case-for-protecting-workers-from-extreme-heat This is not only smart from a financial perspective but is a moral imperative as we demand a lifestyle that strains our workforce and their families’ wellbeing. Providing the basics of humane treatment for outdoor workers should not even be a question and there is no good reason for not passing this new rule. | Diana Good | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-3 | I was at the recent meeting in Abq on this matter and I believe that delaying the implementation is the best solution. Once NM OSHA and entities work together to diversify this across the board to work better for everyone, I believe then is when it should be enacted. Right now, there are too many requirements of the rule that will hurt and effect contractors, business and government if this was to be pushed forward. I don’t see the need for this rule to be forcefully put in place, due to the lack of statistical information or even claim information in relation to this. Also, many and most Employers are currently taking action to implement a safe environment in relation to Heat Illness. A reconsideration for when this is made law and to work with effected parties should be done. | Sandoval County | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-4 | Please do not do this; New Mexico cannot afford to make itself any more hostile to industrial and economic activities. Avoiding heat exhaustion comes from proper training and planning and this law will not help; only hinder the number of people who can find jobs in the region. These guidelines are not reasonable and will kill jobs en masse, casting hundreds of thousands of families into poverty in an already poverty-stricken state. The nation as a whole wants to reindustrialize and create economic prosperity in the US again; ridiculous laws like this are why every company that could employ people elsewhere did exactly that, which destroyed the manufacturing base of the US and greatly damaged our energy production as well. | James Estelle | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-5 | This should be handled by the employer and the employee – not “The State”. | Ken Starr | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-6 | On behalf of a coalition that includes Conservation Voters New Mexico, Conservation Voters New Mexico Education Fund, Healthy Climate New Mexico, National Employment Law Project, New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty, and New Mexico Interfaith Power and Light we appreciate the opportunity to submit the attached comment in strong support for EIB 25-11(R) Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Protection. We commend the NMED for for incorporating elements with a proven record of success in multiple states at preventing worker heat-related illnesses and injury, including: Application to both outdoor and indoor worksites (11.5.7.2). As the complaints to the NMED reveal, workers across all industries are suffering from workplace exposure to heat. It is important that this standard protects as many workers as possible. Establishing an initial heat trigger of a heat index of 80 degrees Fahrenheit (11.5.7.10) and a high heat trigger of a heat index of 95 degrees Fahrenheit (11.5.7.7(d)). These temperature triggers are in line with those of California, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Maryland and the proposed federal standard, and by using a heat index rather than only ambient temperature New Mexico has accounted for a relative lack of humidity. In its thorough literature review in preparation for the federal proposed standard, OSHA concluded that a heat index trigger of 80 degrees would capture more than 95 percent of fatalities and virtually all non-fatalities. We also appreciate calculations to account for the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and the impact those safety measures can have on exposure to heat. Calling for a written Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Plan (11.5.7.8). A written plan is a key part of building a workplace culture of injury and illness prevention allowing employers to identify workplace risks and for workers and managers to study and understand the strategy for mitigating and eliminating those hazards as well as their expected role in keeping the workplace safe. Calling for engineering controls like mechanical ventilation systems and cooling areas alongside administrative controls like rest breaks, providing water, monitoring, and acclimatization (11.5.7.10). Eliminating hazards and reducing worker exposure is recognized as being more effective than relying on worker behavior or PPE to mitigate hazards. Provisions that protections like water, training, and rest breaks should come at no cost to the worker, either in monetary charges or lost wages. (11.5.7.10) It is a fundamental tenant of OSHA law that employers are responsible for providing a workplace free of hazards, and therefore mandatory measures to ensure worker safety must be paid for by employers as part of meeting that duty of care. Mandatory annual worker training (11.5.7.12). As the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has recommended, workers and supervisors must be well-versed in HRI symptoms and prevention before temperatures start going up, and the information should be reinforced on hot days. Our full comment also contains suggestions on how the NMED may further strengthen and clarify the proposed heat illness and injury protection regulation, and we offer these suggestions in the spirit of improving an already strong standard that will save worker lives. We thank the NMED for its diligent process in drafting this important worker protection standard. New Mexico Environment Department, Occupational Health and Safety Bureau 1190 St. Francis Drive, Suite N4050 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 Submitted via NMED Online Public Comment Form Subject: EIB 25-11(R) – Proposed New Regulation 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention The undersigned groups appreciate the opportunity to share our thoughts on the proposed new heat illness and injury prevention regulation. We strongly support the NMED’s proposed rule to protect workers from exposure to dangerous heat in the workplace. This rule will save hundreds of lives and protect hundreds of thousands of workers from entirely preventable heat-related illness and injury on the job. New Mexico’s workers need these protections as workplace heat becomes an increasing problem. Since 2023, the NMED has received more than 140 complaints of heat-related workplace incidents from workers as part of implementing the National Emphasis Program on workplace heat established by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).1 These incidents are undoubtedly underreported; numerous studies have concluded that due to inconsistent reporting, a lack of knowledge about the symptoms of heat-related illness (HRI), and employer disincentives for reporting, we lack accurate data on the magnitude of this workplace hazard. OSHA has estimated that HRIs are underreported by a magnitude of 14,2 which would mean that New Mexico may have actually experienced nearly 2,000 incidents in the last decade. Data from these complaints show that workers in a wide range of New Mexico’s industries suffer from occupational heat-related illnesses, including construction workers, food service workers, teachers, agricultural workers, warehouse workers, and public works employees.3 Workers in a convenience store went without air conditioning for a month, including in temperatures of 98 degrees, leaving them dizzy, nauseous, and light-headed. Municipal waste workers on site without personal protective equipment or water were threatened with retaliation if employees reported issues to human resources. Agricultural workers were exposed to sun and heat while doing their work. Construction workers used excavating machines with broken air conditioners, while management failed to order parts to repair them. More than 80 high school workers were trying to do their jobs in the heat without drinking water available. NMED’s proposed standard includes many elements that have protected workers in other states. We commend the NMED for incorporating elements with a proven record of success at preventing worker HRI, including: Application to both outdoor and indoor worksites (11.5.7.2). As the complaints to the NMED reveal, workers across all industries are suffering from workplace exposure to heat. It is important that this standard protects as many workers as possible. Establishing an initial heat trigger of a heat index of 80 degrees Fahrenheit (11.5.7.10) and a high heat trigger of a heat index of 95 degrees Fahrenheit (11.5.7.7(d)). These temperature triggers are in line with those of California, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Maryland and the proposed federal standard, and by using a heat index rather than only ambient temperature New Mexico has accounted for a relative lack of humidity. In its thorough literature review in preparation for the federal proposed standard, OSHA concluded that a heat index trigger of 80 degrees would capture more than 95 percent of fatalities and virtually all non-fatalities.4 We also appreciate calculations to account for the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and the impact those safety measures can have on exposure to heat. Calling for a written Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Plan (11.5.7.8). A written plan is a key part of building a workplace culture of injury and illness prevention allowing employers to identify workplace risks and for workers and managers to study and understand the strategy for mitigating and eliminating those hazards as well as their expected role in keeping the workplace safe. Calling for engineering controls like mechanical ventilation systems and cooling areas alongside administrative controls like rest breaks, providing water, monitoring, and acclimatization (11.5.7.10). Eliminating hazards and reducing worker exposure is recognized as being more effective than relying on worker behavior or PPE to mitigate hazards. Provisions that protections like water, training, and rest breaks should come at no cost to the worker, either in monetary charges or lost wages. (11.5.7.10) It is a fundamental tenant of OSHA law that employers are responsible for providing a workplace free of hazards, and therefore mandatory measures to ensure worker safety must be paid for by employers as part of meeting that duty of care. Mandatory annual worker training (11.5.7.12). As the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has recommended, workers and supervisors must be well-versed in HRI symptoms and prevention before temperatures start going up, and the information should be reinforced on hot days.5 NMED could further improve its proposed standard with some additions and clarifications. While the current draft proposal is very strong, we do believe that it could benefit from some further drafting. We offer these suggestions in the spirit of applying still more best practices and lessons from existing standards to help NMED in protecting New Mexico’s workers. We have organized these suggestions into two sections, one that lists changes we feel are key to making this the strongest standard possible and one that lists changes that may simply serve to clarify the existing provisions of the standard. Key proposed changes to strengthen the proposed rule for workers Ensure that employers of exempted indoor workplaces comply when engineering controls fail. 11.5.7.2(1)(d) listing the exemption for buildings, structures, motor vehicles, and motorized equipment with mechanical ventilation systems that keep temperatures below 80 degrees Fahrenheit. The exemption should specify that it applies only when these systems are functional. According to NMED data, at least 19 workplace heat complaints between 2015 and 2025 were for worksites where air conditioning had been broken for days, months, or even a year. The standard should clearly state that when these engineering controls are not working, employers are expected to implement the provisions of the standard until such time as they are repaired. The standard should further specify that delivery trucks or vehicles are exempt only if workers would also qualify under the incidental heat exposures exemption. In other words, if time spent in areas of the vehicle without air conditioning (such as a cargo area) or physically leaving the truck to deliver packages or other items took workers out of the cooled area of the truck for more than 15 minutes in any 60-minute period, the exemption is not applied. Ensure that the Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Plan is a robust and iterative tool that helps managers and workers understand their role in preventing HRIs. 11.5.7.8 Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Plan We recommend adding an element H calling for the identification of a designated heat safety coordinator to implement and monitor the HIIPP. We recommend adding an element I requiring the employer to review nonretaliation rights under NM Stat § 50-9-25 (which states that no person or employer shall discharge or discriminate against any employee because the employee has filed a complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted a proceeding under or related to the Occupational Health and Safety Act or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding or because of the exercise by the employee on behalf of himself or others of any right afforded by the Occupational Health and Safety Act). Workers will be more likely to report heat hazards to the NMED or to speak up when they see possible violations to supervisors or managers if they have been reminded of their nonretaliation rights. We recommend that NMED add a provision stating, “To the extent possible, the employer should seek the input and involvement of non-managerial staff and their representatives in developing the HIIPP.” Frontline workers who perform work tasks daily are best placed to understand the specific dangers of the workplace, adding crucial knowledge to the HIIPP. Furthermore, engaging workers in the drafting of the plan will aid in ensuring worker comprehension with the finalized product. We further recommend that employers should be required to review and evaluate the effectiveness of the HIIPP if a serious HRI occurs at the workplace that results in citation, death, days away from work, or medical treatment beyond first aid, or if work processes significantly change, or at a minimum annually. By definition, if an employer is found in violation of provisions of the heat standard or the workplace suffers a serious injury or death, their HIIPP has not been fully effective. It is crucial that employers and employees alike learn from these events and refine workplace heat safety protocols to stop additional worker HRIs. Ensure that worker training fully prepares workers to protect themselves in hot workplaces, to recognize the early signs of HRIs, and to follow safety protocols. 11.5.7.12 Training. We commend NMED for specifying that training should be conducted in a language and vocabulary readily understood by the employees. We suggest that this section also specify that training should be done in person and with time for workers to ask questions and receive answers. The greatest goal of these trainings should be full comprehension and workers feeling that they have the ability to play their part in preventing HRIs. As noted above in the discussion of the HIIPP, we recommend that section I be rewritten to include a provision that training must be evaluated and re-delivered in the event of an OSHA heat citation, a serious injury on the site, or a fatality. Those events demonstrate that earlier training was either forgotten or insufficient to protect workers and therefore those continuing to work onsite should be reminded of symptoms, policies, and procedures. Ensure that all staff on site have full comprehension of the immediate actions necessary to save a worker from a severe life-threatening HRI. 11.5.7.11 Emergency Medical Care. Rapid treatment of heat stroke is critical for workers’ survival. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, without prompt treatment, mortality from heat stroke is close to 80 percent.6 As currently written, the proposed standard references OSHA standards that do not include adequate guidance for heat-related or heat-associated illnesses. We recommend that employers are instead directed to NIOSH’s classification, medical aspects, and first aid for heat-related illness materials available in its “Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Exposure to Heat and Hot Environments. Particularly, the recognition of an emergency and the ‘immediate response’ if an employee is experiencing signs and symptoms of a heat emergency. The employer shall be directed to take immediate actions within minutes to reduce the employee’s body temperature. Employers shall implement emergency response tools in their HIIPP that are as protective as, or more protective than, the ‘HASTE’ protocol,8 which is defined as follows: Heat exposure: Determine if the affected individual has been in a hot environment or participated in rigorous activity. Altered mental status: Assess for symptoms such as loss of consciousness, vertigo, nausea, headache, confusion, disorientation, or bizarre behavior Start cooling: Begin cooling the individual aggressively and immediately using copious amounts of cold or ice water. If the individual does not have a pulse, start CPR. Time: Recognize that if you observe any of these signs, it is time to call 9-1-1 because this is an emergency situation that requires immediate attention. Emergency: Act as quickly as possible to prevent further complications. Additionally, we recommend that the emergency medical training section includes language like that in the Oregon heat standard stipulating that employers must designate and equip one or more employees at each worksite as authorized to call for emergency medical services and allow others to call for emergency services when designated employees are not immediately available.9 Ensure that workers have access to breaks before HRIs set in and that there are no disincentives for taking them. 11.5.7.10 (C) Regular Rest Breaks. We suggest that these be referred to as “preventive rest breaks” throughout the standard to make clear that employers should be providing cooling breaks when hot conditions exist even if workers do not yet show symptoms of HRI. This section also instructs employers to follow the table provided in Index Table 3, which provides for breaks generally only once the temperature has exceeded the high heat trigger. We are concerned that supervisors and managers might thus deny a rest break if a worker states they need one. Even if the standard encourages employers to offer a break without requiring it, this could result in confusion for workers. As NMED noted in its comments to federal OSHA on its proposed heat standard, “encouragement can often be presented by employers along with conflicting priorities, such as productivity goals, so the employee would be forced to choose between their health and their employment performance.” The NMED correctly notes that workers may choose unsafe work due to limited knowledge of the physical dangers of heat, piecework incentives, peer pressure from fellow employees, and mixed messages from managers.10 We also recommend clarification that workers who are paid by the piece must also receive paid preventive rest breaks. Research has shown that workers who are paid on a piece rate basis may be particularly concerned about losing earnings or being replaced by another worker and will therefore not take the necessary preventive rest breaks.11 California’s labor code §226.2 has laid out a methodology for calculating comparable pay for piece -rate compensation and specifies that an employer cannot treat piece-rate compensation as including rest and recovery periods.12 Clarifying changes to improve clarity of the proposed standard. 11.5.7.2 SCOPE: As written, the industries that are expected to comply with the heat standard may be unclear to some employers and could be read by some as applying only to the industries with separate provisions in New Mexico code. We suggest small changes so that it reads: “All indoor and outdoor places of employment subject to the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, including those covered by the standards for General Industry, Construction Industry, and Convenience Stores.” 11.5.7.7 Definitions: B. “Drinking Water.” The definition should include a maximum distance or walking time for workers to access water. There have been numerous reports nationally of warehouse workers who cannot cross the entirety of the facility to reach water stations during allotted time and of agricultural workers whose tasks take them too far from water stations to reasonably refill bottles. We suggest language like that of the Colorado heat protection standard which states that water must be: “located as close to the worksite as practicable to the worksite, no further than 0.25 miles from the worksite for employees accessing the water source by foot, and not otherwise too far for employees to reasonably access.”13 D. “High Heat Conditions.” The inclusion of both Fahrenheit and Celsius in the definition of the heat trigger may be confusing for some employers. Using only the most common measurement—Fahrenheit—may support better compliance outcomes. (Note: this dual temperature measurement is also listed in 11.5.7.2. 1(a), 11.5.7.7 B and D, 11.5.7.10, and in Appendix 1.) E. “Heat Illnesses.” should also include rhabdomyolysis as its symptoms are ones that workers could recognize in themselves and the health outcomes if left untreated can include permanent organ damage. G. “Personal risk factors for heat illness.” We recommend adding pregnancy as a factor which may affect physiological responses to heat. H. “Shade.” The definition of shade should add that shaded areas should not expose workers to other well-known safety hazards such as chemical fumes or truck exhaust. We suggest language similar to that of Oregon (“Shade may be provided by any natural or artificial means that does not expose employees to unsafe or unhealthy conditions, and that not deter or discourage access or use”) or that of Colorado (“A shaded area is not adequate if any source, such as exhaust, running machinery, heat-radiating structures, or heat in a non-air-conditioned vehicle (including a bus), yields additional heat in the shaded area”).14 We further recommend adding definitions to 11.5.7.7 for “indoor” and “outdoor” to clarify expectations for compliance for employers. The proposed federal OSHA heat standard defined “indoor” as “an area under a ceiling or overhead covering that restricts airflow and has along its entire perimeter walls, doors, windows, dividers, or other physical barriers that restrict airflow, whether open or closed.” It defines “outdoors” as “an area that is not indoors.”15 We also recommend adding the following definition as described in OSHA’s proposed heat standard: Heat emergency. “Means the physiological manifestations of a heat-related illness that requires emergency response and includes loss of consciousness (i.e., fainting, collapse) with excessive body temperature, which may or may not be accompanied by vertigo, nausea, headache, confusion, disorientation, ataxia, or bizarre behavior. This could also include staggering, vomiting, acting irrationally or disoriented, having convulsions, and (even after resting) having an elevated heart rate.”16 11.5.7.10 Control Measures B. Provision of Fluids. As noted above, the language in (b) regarding proximity should specify that water is no more than 0.25 miles from work areas. D. Cooling Areas. NMED should include evaporative coolers as an example of mechanical systems. We suggest adding the word “misting” before fan as research has shown that in very hot temperatures a basic fan may not provide adequate cooling.17 11.5.7.12 Training Section F stating that workers should be trained on the “procedures for observing, reporting, and responding to symptoms of heat illness” should continue “including rapid cooling techniques while waiting for emergency services.” This language would ensure continuity with responsibilities under a buddy system under 11.5.7.10 E(b) and with our proposed refinements of 11.5.7.11. 11.5.7.13 Record Keeping We suggest that Section B should include not only a list of all attendees, but also of who gave the training. Section C should specify “A record of all work-related cases of heat illness, including heat exhaustion, heat stroke, and rhabdomyolysis that require medical treatment beyond first aid (e.g., IV fluids, hospitalization, physician-directed care, or time away from work) must be recorded in the OSHA 300, 301, and 300A logs. Cases should be presumed work-related when exposure to high temperatures occurred during work unless there is clear, documented evidence of a non-occupational cause.” The signatory organizations appreciate the work that NMED has put into crafting an already strong worker heat protection standard and we appreciate the opportunity to share our comments as part of the process. We believe that with these changes, particularly those we identified as being key changes, this could be a model standard that will protect hundreds of thousands of New Mexico’s workers and could serve to inspire other states to protect their workers as well. Sincerely, Conservation Voters New Mexico Conservation Voters New Mexico Education Fund Healthy Climate New Mexico National Employment Law Project New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty New Mexico Interfaith Power and Light | National Employment Law Project | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-7 | On behalf of ABC New Mexico and its members across the construction and skilled trades industries, I am writing to express our significant concerns and formal opposition to the proposed Heat Stress regulations under consideration by the New Mexico Occupational Health and Safety Bureau (NM OSHA). While we fully support measures to ensure the safety and well-being of workers in high-heat environments, we believe the proposed rules—as currently written—would result in severe unintended consequences for employers, employees, and the overall economy. These consequences include substantial economic burdens, unworkable operational constraints, exacerbation of existing labor shortages, and serious mental health impacts tied to night work. Economic and Operational Burden The proposed requirements for mandatory cool-down periods, shaded rest areas, acclimatization protocols and administrative protocols while well-intended, would dramatically increase operational costs, especially for small and mid-sized contractors. Construction schedules are often compressed due to seasonal weather, contractual deadlines, and site-specific constraints. Forcing regular work stoppages during peak heat hours will result in extended project timelines and missed contractual deadlines and increased costs due to idle equipment, lost productivity, and additional labor hours. Industries such as construction, agriculture, and oil & gas that operate outdoors year-round will be disproportionately affected, jeopardizing jobs and infrastructure development statewide. Labor Force Shortages The skilled labor shortage in New Mexico is already at crisis levels, with employers struggling to fill vacancies for essential roles. Mandating work-hour shifts to early mornings or evenings to avoid heat exposure will only intensify this problem. Many workers have family responsibilities, and transportation limitations and that prevent them from working non-traditional hours. The proposed rules could drive current workers out of the trades altogether due to unmanageable schedules and deter new entrants, especially women and caregivers, who rely on daytime hours to balance work and life. Mental Health Risks of Night Work Night work as a heat mitigation strategy introduces a new set of hazards, especially mental health concerns. Numerous studies have shown that prolonged night shifts contribute to higher risks of depression, anxiety, and sleep disorders. Increased fatigue leads to accidents, both on-site and while commuting. Social isolation and strain on family life, particularly for parents and caregivers. By pushing work into nighttime hours, NM OSHA may inadvertently create a broader public health issue while trying to solve a specific one. Recommendations We strongly urge NM OSHA to reconsider the proposed rule in its current form. Instead, we advocate for flexible guidelines that allow employers to implement heat-stress controls tailored to their work environments and collaboration to develop practical, data-driven policies with broad stakeholder input. Worker safety is a shared priority—but regulations must be achievable, balanced, and consider economic realities. We are eager to work with NM OSHA to develop standards that both protect workers and sustain the industries that employ them. Thank you for considering our perspective. | Associated Builders and Contractors New Mexico | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-8 | To Whom It May Concern: As a public health professional committed to advancing health equity and preventing illness and injury, I am writing to express my strong support for the New Mexico Environment Department’s proposed Occupational Heat Standard. Occupational exposure to extreme heat is a growing public health crisis—one that will only intensify as climate change accelerates. Workers exposed to high temperatures face increased risks of heat exhaustion, heat stroke, kidney injury, cardiovascular strain, and even death. These risks are preventable, and New Mexico has an opportunity to lead the nation in addressing this urgent threat. This proposed rule reflects a science-based, proactive public health approach by requiring employers to: (1) Develop and implement written Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Plans (HIIPPs), (2) Provide potable water, shade, and scheduled rest breaks, (3) Ensure acclimatization for new or returning workers, (4) Deliver effective, language-accessible training, and (5) Establish emergency response protocols for heat-related illness. These are evidence-backed interventions that can significantly reduce heat-related morbidity and mortality. As with seatbelts or smoke-free workplaces, preventive occupational health policies are proven tools for saving lives and reducing the burden on our healthcare system. Importantly, this rule also promotes health equity. The burden of extreme heat disproportionately impacts low-wage, BIPOC, immigrant, and rural workers—many of whom are already underserved by our healthcare infrastructure. By standardizing protections, New Mexico can close gaps in workplace safety and advance the wellbeing of all communities. As a public health professional, I also support improvements to the rule such as: (1) The standard should require employers to include references to existing New Mexico non-retaliation laws as part of employer HIIPP plans and worker training. Because the Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) system depends on workers coming forward when they perceive violations, this communication from their employers is critically important for good enforcement of the standard. (2) The standard needs more clarity on emergency procedures. In cases of heat stroke and other severe heat-related illnesses, every second counts. Employers and workers alike must be well versed on what actions to take as they wait for emergency medical staff to arrive. (3) The standard has only a few reasonable exemptions for specific workplaces, but it needs to clarify that buildings and vehicles with mechanical cooling controls are exempt only when those systems are functioning. Many of the complaints the NMED investigated between 2022-2025 found broken air conditioning for weeks, months, and in one case a whole year. Further, delivery workers should not be exempted if the cabs of their trucks have air conditioning, but they spend more than 15 minutes out of an hour either in the back of the truck or in the act of delivering packages to doorsteps. (4) The NMED should strengthen the HIIPP provisions by urging employers to seek input and involvement of non-managerial staff in drafting the plans. Frontline workers who perform work tasks daily are best placed to understand the specific dangers of the workplace, adding crucial knowledge to the HIIPP. (5) The standard should specify that training must be given in person with the opportunity to ask questions and employers should be required to re-deliver the training in the case of a serious heat-related illness or injury onsite, an OSHA citation, a fatality, or work processes changing significantly. I urge NMED to stand by this proposed draft rule and set a strong precedent for occupational heat protections nationally through the Environmental Improvement Board’s adoption of the rule this year without delay. The health and safety of New Mexico’s workforce—and the resilience of our communities—depend on it. Sincerely, Justin Garoutte, MPH, CPH Doctor of Public Health Candidate Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Santa Fe, NM | Justin Garoutte | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-9 | I support efforts to protect workers and promote health and safety. With 17 years of experience in the safety profession, I believe the proposed rule is overly prescriptive and may place unnecessary burdens on businesses. Creating a rigid, one-size-fits-all rule could disrupt operations and increase costs in several industries, including construction, agriculture, manufacturing, and services. New Mexico’s diverse climate makes a statewide mandate difficult to implement fairly. A more flexible rule—one that allows employers to develop and implement their own heat stress prevention plans tailored to their specific scopes of work—would be more effective in addressing heat-related illness without creating unnecessary compliance challenges. I respectfully urge decision-makers to reconsider the proposed rule and pursue a more effective and equitable heat exposure standard that takes into account the needs of all industries. | Cary Carter | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-10 | MCA-SMACNA of NM May 20, 2025 New Mexico Environment Department 1190 St. Francis Drive, Suite N4050 Santa Fe, NM 87505 RE: Public Comment on Proposed Rule 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Dear New Mexico Environment Department, On behalf of the Mechanical Contractors Association-Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors’ National Association (MCA-SMACNA) of New Mexico, we appreciate the opportunity to submit public comment on the proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule (11.5.7 NMAC). MCA-SMACNA of New Mexico represents mechanical and sheet metal contractors across New Mexico who provide vital heating, ventilation, air conditioning, plumbing, and sheet metal services across commercial, industrial, and public sector markets. Our members are signatory contractors who take pride in employing highly trained, safety-focused craft professionals and delivering complex building systems that keep New Mexico’s built environment functioning efficiently. We support practical, evidence-based efforts to reduce heat-related injuries on job sites. However, the proposed rule, as currently drafted, imposes rigid and unrealistic standards that pose serious compliance burdens on mechanical and sheet metal contractors, especially in fast-paced, high-skill construction environments. Conflicts with Real-World Construction Schedules Our industry operates under tightly sequenced schedules and productivity benchmarks coordinated across multiple trades. The rule’s rest break and hydration timing mandates—including the requirement that employers encourage workers to drink 8 ounces of fluid every fifteen minutes—fail to recognize how dynamic and fluid the construction environment is. These mandates, while medically well-intended, are not practically enforceable and introduce new liability risks for contractors. For example, it is unclear how an employer could demonstrate compliance with encouragement requirements without maintaining intrusive and burdensome logs. Jobsite Mobility and Cooling Area Requirements Sheet metal and mechanical workers frequently move across large, active construction zones and elevated work areas. Establishing “cooling areas” with shade or mechanical ventilation within close proximity to each active zone is often not feasible due to site logistics, crane activity, or interior mechanical system installation work. Contractors may not control overall site layout, and the rule places an unfair burden on subcontractors to comply with provisions beyond their scope of control. Duplication of Existing Protections and Union Safety Standards In consultation with our industry’s self-insured workers’ compensation group fund, we worked to compile data on heat-related illness incidents over the past five years. After a review there have been no such incidents reported, reinforcing our view that existing prevention protocols have been effective. Our signatory contractors already operate under rigorous safety protocols negotiated through collective bargaining agreements and supported by joint labor-management training centers. Mandating duplicative plans and recordkeeping diverts focus from actual on-site prevention and safety supervision. Recordkeeping and Enforcement Ambiguities The proposed rule requires extensive recordkeeping related to acclimatization, training, and potential symptoms, retained for five years. For contractors managing dozens of short-term workers across multiple concurrent jobsites, these documentation requirements introduce a new administrative burden that is disproportionate to the risk. Furthermore, vague standards, such as “encouragement to hydrate” or “equally effective” monitoring systems, create enforcement uncertainty and open contractors to citations based on subjective interpretations. Request for Withdrawal Given the substantial operational and compliance concerns raised above, MCA-SMACNA of New Mexico respectfully urges the New Mexico Environment Department to withdraw the proposed rule in its current form. We recommend that the Department first conduct a full economic and operational impact analysis and then re-engage with construction industry stakeholders to develop a revised approach that reflects real-world jobsite conditions, trade-specific dynamics, employer discretion, and the effectiveness of existing union-led safety practices. MCA-SMACNA of New Mexico are committed to worker safety, collaboration, and innovation. We welcome the opportunity to work with the Department to shape policies that are both effective and achievable. Sincerely, Ronda Gilliland Lopez Executive Director MCA-SMACNA of New Mexico | MCA-SMACNA of NM | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-111 | The Honorable James C. Kenney, Secretary New Mexico Environment Department 1190 St. Francis Drive, Suite N4050 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 Re: Heat Exposure Rule Dear Secretary Kenney: The New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association has reviewed the NMED’s proposed Heat Exposure Rule. We also submitted it to our membership and asked them for their experience with heat exposure incidents. Eighty of our members responded to the survey. Ninety-two percent of them are cow/calf operators. Ninety-five percent responded that they had not had a heat exposure incident in their operation during the past five years. Two respondents said they had. One incident occurred while working on a roof, not a typical activity for our producers. The other incident involved an 18-year old on a welding job. According to the respondent, the “[y]oung man [was] welding a fence and not taking breaks to get out of the heat. 18 years old and knew it all.” Our members say they deal with the prospect of a heat exposure incident by encouraging “hydration; [trying] to not do too much during the hot days or try to get done before it gets too hot; [p]lenty of water, work early mornings.” One said that “[w]hen it gets really hot outside, we use common sense on our ranch. Depending on conditions, we may start getting ready before daylight, work until late morning, knock off until 3 or 4 o’clock, and then hit it again until dark. We wear long-sleeved, light-colored clothing. We pack water in a cooler if we’ll be close to it or in saddle bags if not.” The response to the proposed rule (put politely) is that it is not workable. One respondent explained that, under the rule (section 11.5.7.10), “[w]hile my guys are out gathering cattle (often individually), they’ll have to be leading a pack animal loaded with water that stays chilled. They’ll have to hunt for a tree to cool off under for at least 15 minutes every hour. Because we don’t have cell coverage on parts of the ranch, they’ll also have to be packing a satellite phone on that pack animal to report regularly on their condition. And they’ll have to be doing this while gathering and moving cattle that may not want to stand by patiently waiting while they’re cooling off.” Others were more succinct. They responded that the proposed rule appears to be a solution in search of a problem, it is not necessary in our industry, would involve unnecessary bureaucratic paper shuffling and would impose additional costs on operations and consume their time (sections 11.5.7.8-.9, 11.5.7.13). Respectfully, Mr. Secretary, we urge you to abandon this rule as not necessary or, at the very least, give livestock agriculture an exemption from it. Sincerely, Tom Paterson, President-Elect New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association | New Mexico Cattle Growers Association | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-12 | The American Subcontractors Association of New Mexico opposes the proposed Heat Stress Ruling. A few things to consider regarding the proposed ruling: The requirements are unrealistic for our climate and will have a major impact on production in construction. The ruling is formulated as a one size fits all and this is not feasible, especially for construction. This ruling would affect every aspect of a project, from production in the warehouse to delivery to the field. The constant breaks and cooling/rest requirements would be counterproductive and delay projects. The cost and compliance are a burden that most companies are not prepared for. Cooling tents or shades as well as misters on jobsites is an additional component for companies to maintain, replace not to mention the administrative component of the ruling would cause another burden to any company. The ruling does not take into consideration that companies are not required to monitor their employees outside of work hours for hydration. If an employee comes to work dehydrated, then the company is liable. This is an unreasonable expectation for employers. Federal law already protects workers from extreme heat, most companies already have protocol in place for Heat Stress related issues. There is also an acclimation requirement in the ruling that would delay projects even further. Our companies take very good care of their employees especially when it comes to health and safety. The correct course of action would be to take factual data and research done within our state and not rely on data from another region of the country where the climate is not comparable to ours, then maybe this ruling could be something to work with but as it stands, its creating a solution to a problem we do not have. | American Subcontractors Association NM | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-13 | RE: Opposition to Proposed Heat Stress Regulations I am writing to express our concern and opposition to the proposed heat stress regulations under consideration by the New Mexico Occupational Health and Safety Bureau. We recognize and share your commitment to protecting the health and safety of workers, especially given the high temperatures our crews regularly face during summer months. However, as an employer on the front lines of construction jobsite operations, we believe the proposed regulations, while well-intentioned, impose significant operational and economic burdens that may ultimately hinder—not help—worker safety. The proposed rules appear to mandate specific rest break schedules, water provisions, shaded recovery areas, and administrative controls without flexibility to account for the varied nature of construction job sites. Each project varies in scope, location, and staffing. A one-size-fits-all mandate is difficult to apply safely and effectively across the range of real-world conditions. Additionally, rigid break schedules that don’t account for workflow and productivity patterns could result in extended project timelines, leading to financial strain for contractors, clients, and workers alike. Mandated downtime, shade structure installation, and compliance documentation represent significant costs, particularly for small to mid-size contractors. Many in our industry are already struggling with labor shortages, inflation, and supply chain disruptions. Adding over-regulation in this area could create legal liability confusion, increase insurance premiums, and result in enforcement actions that do not consider good-faith safety efforts. Our company actively promotes heat safety through training, provision of water and electrolyte replacement, heat acclimatization practices, and flexible break policies tailored to conditions on-site. We believe these voluntary, industry-driven best practices are more effective than prescriptive rules in keeping our workers safe and productive. We urge New Mexico OSHA to work in partnership with industry stakeholders to revise these proposed rules into a framework that sets achievable safety goals while allowing flexibility in implementation. Input from contractors, field supervisors, and trade associations will help create policy that is both effective and practical. We respectfully request that the current proposal be reconsidered or amended based on meaningful dialogue with the commercial construction community | Klinger Constructors LLC | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-14 | RE: Opposition to Proposed Heat Stress Regulations I am writing to express our concern and opposition to the proposed heat stress regulations under consideration by the New Mexico Occupational Health and Safety Bureau. We recognize and share your commitment to protecting the health and safety of workers, especially given the high temperatures our crews regularly face during summer months. However, as an employer on the front lines of construction jobsite operations, we believe the proposed regulations, while well-intentioned, impose significant operational and economic burdens that may ultimately hinder—not help—worker safety. The proposed rules appear to mandate specific rest break schedules, water provisions, shaded recovery areas, and administrative controls without flexibility to account for the varied nature of construction job sites. Each project varies in scope, location, and staffing. A one-size-fits-all mandate is difficult to apply safely and effectively across the range of real-world conditions. Additionally, rigid break schedules that don’t account for workflow and productivity patterns could result in extended project timelines, leading to financial strain for contractors, clients, and workers alike. Mandated downtime, shade structure installation, and compliance documentation represent significant costs, particularly for small to mid-size contractors. Many in our industry are already struggling with labor shortages, inflation, and supply chain disruptions. Adding over-regulation in this area could create legal liability confusion, increase insurance premiums, and result in enforcement actions that do not consider good-faith safety efforts. Our company actively promotes heat safety through training, provision of water and electrolyte replacement, heat acclimatization practices, and flexible break policies tailored to conditions on-site. We believe these voluntary, industry-driven best practices are more effective than prescriptive rules in keeping our workers safe and productive. We urge New Mexico OSHA to work in partnership with industry stakeholders to revise these proposed rules into a framework that sets achievable safety goals while allowing flexibility in implementation. Input from contractors, field supervisors, and trade associations will help create policy that is both effective and practical. We respectfully request that the current proposal be reconsidered or amended based on meaningful dialogue with the commercial construction community | Marcy Teague | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-15 | Dear industry partners. We truly appreciate all that OSHA does for the Trades in NM and nationally. Unfortunately this proposed item would shut down production in the SW and hurt an already very busy industry. We require and monitor heat exhaustion in our work environments throughout the summer months and have found thru proper hydration, awareness, and alternating exposure times controlled approaches work. This ruling limiting time of exposure to temperatures would not improve a working system, but hinder our ability to produce. We truly appreciate your time to review this response and ask that this ruling be removed from consideration. Thank you, Douglas Ahlgrim | Douglas Ahlgrim | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-16 | RE: Opposition to Proposed Heat Stress Regulations I am writing to express our concern and opposition to the proposed heat stress regulations under consideration by the New Mexico Occupational Health and Safety Bureau. We recognize and share your commitment to protecting the health and safety of workers, especially given the high temperatures our crews regularly face during summer months. However, as an employer on the front lines of construction jobsite operations, we believe the proposed regulations, while well-intentioned, impose significant operational and economic burdens that may ultimately hinder—not help—worker safety. The proposed rules appear to mandate specific rest break schedules, water provisions, shaded recovery areas, and administrative controls without flexibility to account for the varied nature of construction job sites. Each project varies in scope, location, and staffing. A one-size-fits-all mandate is difficult to apply safely and effectively across the range of real-world conditions. Additionally, rigid break schedules that don’t account for workflow and productivity patterns could result in extended project timelines, leading to financial strain for contractors, clients, and workers alike. Mandated downtime, shade structure installation, and compliance documentation represent significant costs, particularly for small to mid-size contractors. Many in our industry are already struggling with labor shortages, inflation, and supply chain disruptions. Adding over-regulation in this area could create legal liability confusion, increase insurance premiums, and result in enforcement actions that do not consider good-faith safety efforts. Our company actively promotes heat safety through training, provision of water and electrolyte replacement, heat acclimatization practices, and flexible break policies tailored to conditions on-site. We believe these voluntary, industry-driven best practices are more effective than prescriptive rules in keeping our workers safe and productive. We urge New Mexico OSHA to work in partnership with industry stakeholders to revise these proposed rules into a framework that sets achievable safety goals while allowing flexibility in implementation. Input from contractors, field supervisors, and trade associations will help create policy that is both effective and practical. We respectfully request that the current proposal be reconsidered or amended based on meaningful dialogue with the commercial construction community | Jeff Slopek | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-17 | San Juan Country Club is committed to the safety of its members and employees. While this rule effects only employees it could be expanded to anyone outdoors which makes no sense to me. Provision of water, work breaks, and indoor air conditioned areas, or outdoor areas with ventilation is readily available 12 months a year for all employees especially whose job time is mostly outdoors. Rest breaks are part of our everyday activity. Mandating a business to provide one quart of drinking water per hour, at no cost, encouraging workers to drink 8 ounces of water every 15 minutes, mandating cooling areas, creating personnel monitoring options, and other parameters in this bill is absurd and will inhibit a cohesive work environment. Again, San Juan Country Club takes the safety of its employees very seriously and supplies and supports the comfort and safety of our employees. It seems obvious to me this was developed by individuals that have never signed the front of a payroll check. This is the type of legislation that makes doing business in New Mexico extremely challenging. | San Juan Country Club | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-18 | I am writing to express opposition to your proposed heat stress regulations. While I appreciate any efforts to protect workers, the rule as currently constituted is unworkable and imposes severe penalties and operational obstacles on certain industries, including construction and oil and gas, in a state that already struggles to compete with its neighbors. The Environment Department should allow employers to continue to successfully implement heat stress procedures specific to their work environments and tasks, rather than implement a one-sized-fits-all approach. Use your power to investigate specific heat-related incidents and injuries, rather than penalizing all companies with impractical and onerous mandates. The prescribed rest periods based on heat index are unrealistic for any outdoor work in summer months in New Mexico. As written, these rules will lead to higher costs, less productivity, and delays for critical public projects, which are much-needed in our state. The proposed rules also go FAR beyond the rules that federal OSHA has proposed for rest breaks. Additionally, small businesses are simply not able to afford the staff to keep up with the prescribed observation, documentation, and record-keeping required by the acclimatization rules. These rules are expansive and difficult to interpret. Given these concerns, I urge the Environment Department to reconsider the scope and structure of this rule. Protecting workers is a shared priority, but it must be done in a way that reflects the realities of New Mexico’s industries, workforce, and climate. A more collaborative approach—one that incorporates industry-specific practices, allows for flexibility, and avoids excessive administrative burden—would be far more effective than a blanket regulation that penalizes responsible employers alongside negligent ones. | Heith Carver | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-19 | Re: Comments on Proposed Heat Illness Prevention Rule To Whom It May Concern, I am writing on behalf of myself and Dub-L-EE Construction to provide comments on the proposed heat illness prevention rule, as part of the outreach efforts conducted by the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED). As a Safety Professional responsible for ensuring compliance with OSHA standards and company policies, we appreciate the opportunity to share our concerns and suggestions regarding this proposed rule. While we acknowledge the importance of protecting workers from heat-related illnesses, we respectfully disagree with the blanket application of the proposed rule. Our company’s operations involve outdoor work, but approximately 80% of tasks do not require strenuous or heavy physical labor. We prioritize our employees’ safety and well-being, avoiding overexertion and providing regular needed breaks. We propose a modified approach, incorporating factors such as: Level of physical exertion Provision of shading, such as canopies or umbrellas Temperature thresholds This tailored strategy will more effectively mitigate heat-related illnesses, acknowledging the unique aspects of our work environment. We believe that this revised approach will better serve the safety and well-being of our employees, while also considering the practicalities of our operations. We appreciate the NMED’s efforts to engage stakeholders and gather feedback on this proposed rule. We look forward to continuing this dialogue and exploring ways to ensure a safe and healthy work environment for all employees in New Mexico. Please feel free to contact me if you require any additional information or clarification on my comments. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Mariana Tapia Safety Manager Dub-L-EE Construction | Mariana Tapia Dub-L-EE Construction | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-20 | The standard should require employers to include references to existing New Mexico non-retaliation laws as part of employer HIIPP plans and worker training. Because the Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) system depends on workers coming forward when they perceive violations, this communication from their employers is critically important for good enforcement of the standard. ● The standard needs more clarity on emergency procedures. In cases of heat stroke and other severe heat-related illnesses every second counts and so employers and workers alike must be well versed on what actions to take as they wait for emergency medical staff to arrive. ● The standard has only a few reasonable exemptions for specific workplaces, but it needs to clarify that buildings and vehicles with mechanical cooling controls are exempt only when those systems are functioning. Many of the complaints the NMED investigated between 2022-2025 found broken air conditioning for weeks, months, and in one case a year. Further, delivery workers should not be exempted if the cabs of their trucks have air conditioning, but they spend more than 15 minutes out of an hour either in the back of the truck or in the act of delivering packages to doorsteps. ● The NMED should strengthen the HIIPP provisions by urging employers to seek input and involvement of non-managerial staff in drafting the plans. Frontline workers who perform work tasks daily are best placed to understand the specific dangers of the workplace, adding crucial knowledge to the HIIPP. ● The standard should specify that training must be given in person with the opportunity to ask questions and employers should be required to re-deliver the training in the case of a serious heat-related illness or injury onsite, an OSHA citation, a fatality, or work processes changing significantly | Carol Sassaman | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-21 | Please protect workers from extreme temperatures and direct heat. Please expand and keep the NMED’s rule to protect all outdoor workers against extreme conditions. | Mary Walls | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-22 | Your office has published a strong draft heat protection rule that we strongly support. It incorporates best practices and science-based solutions to keep workers safe from exposure to heat at the workplace, including: coverage of both indoor and outdoor workers; calling for written Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Plans (HIIPPs); providing for comprehensive worker training implementing common sense preventive strategies including water, shade/cooling rooms, paid rest breaks, and acclimatization; and using trigger temperatures that are based on physiological science and years of experience from other states with heat standards. This standard will save lives. That being said, there are five key ways that the standard could be improved even more: ● The standard should require employers to include references to existing New Mexico non-retaliation laws as part of employer HIIPP plans and worker training. Because the Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) system depends on workers coming forward when they perceive violations, this communication from their employers is critically important for good enforcement of the standard. ● The standard needs more clarity on emergency procedures. In cases of heat stroke and other severe heat-related illnesses every second counts and so employers and workers alike must be well versed on what actions to take as they wait for emergency medical staff to arrive. ● The standard has only a few reasonable exemptions for specific workplaces, but it needs to clarify that buildings and vehicles with mechanical cooling controls are exempt only when those systems are functioning. Many of the complaints the NMED investigated between 2022-2025 found broken air conditioning for weeks, months, and in one case a year. Further, delivery workers should not be exempted if the cabs of their trucks have air conditioning, but they spend more than 15 minutes out of an hour either in the back of the truck or in the act of delivering packages to doorsteps. ● The NMED should strengthen the HIIPP provisions by urging employers to seek input and involvement of non-managerial staff in drafting the plans. Frontline workers who perform work tasks daily are best placed to understand the specific dangers of the workplace, adding crucial knowledge to the HIIPP. ● The standard should specify that training must be given in person with the opportunity to ask questions and employers should be required to re-deliver the training in the case of a serious heat-related illness or injury onsite, an OSHA citation, a fatality, or work processes changing significantly. | Mary Bissell | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-23 | Hello. Thanks for taking my comment. The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) has published a strong draft heat protection rule that we strongly support. It incorporates best practices and science-based solutions to keep workers safe from exposure to heat at the workplace, including: coverage of both indoor and outdoor workers; calling for written Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Plans (HIIPPs); providing for comprehensive worker training; implementing common sense preventive strategies including water, shade/cooling rooms, paid rest breaks, and acclimatization; and using trigger temperatures that are based on physiological science and years of experience from other states with heat standards. This standard will save lives. We believe there are five key ways that the standard could be improved even more. ● The standard should require employers to include references to existing New Mexico non-retaliation laws as part of employer HIIPP plans and worker training. Because the Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) system depends on workers coming forward when they perceive violations, this communication from their employers is critically important for good enforcement of the standard. ● The standard needs more clarity on emergency procedures. In cases of heat stroke and other severe heat-related illnesses every second counts and so employers and workers alike must be well versed on what actions to take as they wait for emergency medical staff to arrive. ● The standard has only a few reasonable exemptions for specific workplaces, but it needs to clarify that buildings and vehicles with mechanical cooling controls are exempt only when those systems are functioning. Many of the complaints the NMED investigated between 2022-2025 found broken air conditioning for weeks, months, and in one case a year. Further, delivery workers should not be exempted if the cabs of their trucks have air conditioning, but they spend more than 15 minutes out of an hour either in the back of the truck or in the act of delivering packages to doorsteps. ● The NMED should strengthen the HIIPP provisions by urging employers to seek input and involvement of non-managerial staff in drafting the plans. Frontline workers who perform work tasks daily are best placed to understand the specific dangers of the workplace, adding crucial knowledge to the HIIPP. ● The standard should specify that training must be given in person with the opportunity to ask questions and employers should be required to re-deliver the training in the case of a serious heat-related illness or injury onsite, an OSHA citation, a fatality, or work processes changing significantly. Sincerely, Bo Bergstrom. | Bo Bergstrom | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-24 | Please support protecting the people who keep New Mexico running—construction workers, restaurant workers, teachers, farmworkers, delivery drivers, warehouse employees, and others. The standard should require employers to include references to existing New Mexico non-retaliation laws as part of employer HIIPP plans and worker training. Because the Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) system depends on workers coming forward when they perceive violations, this communication from their employers is critically important for good enforcement of the standard. ● The standard needs more clarity on emergency procedures. In cases of heat stroke and other severe heat-related illnesses every second counts and so employers and workers alike must be well versed on what actions to take as they wait for emergency medical staff to arrive. ● The standard has only a few reasonable exemptions for specific workplaces, but it needs to clarify that buildings and vehicles with mechanical cooling controls are exempt only when those systems are functioning. Many of the complaints the NMED investigated between 2022-2025 found broken air conditioning for weeks, months, and in one case a year. Further, delivery workers should not be exempted if the cabs of their trucks have air conditioning, but they spend more than 15 minutes out of an hour either in the back of the truck or in the act of delivering packages to doorsteps. ● The NMED should strengthen the HIIPP provisions by urging employers to seek input and involvement of non-managerial staff in drafting the plans. Frontline workers who perform work tasks daily are best placed to understand the specific dangers of the workplace, adding crucial knowledge to the HIIPP. ● The standard should specify that training must be given in person with the opportunity to ask questions and employers should be required to re-deliver the training in the case of a serious heat-related illness or injury onsite, an OSHA citation, a fatality, or work processes changing significantly | Faith Hutson | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-25 | Overview and Talking Points The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) has published a strong draft heat protection rule that we strongly support. It incorporates best practices and science-based solutions to keep workers safe from exposure to heat at the workplace, including: coverage of both indoor and outdoor workers; calling for written Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Plans (HIIPPs); providing for comprehensive worker training; implementing common sense preventive strategies including water, shade/cooling rooms, paid rest breaks, and acclimatization; and using trigger temperatures that are based on physiological science and years of experience from other states with heat standards. This standard will save lives. We believe there are five key ways that the standard could be improved even more. ● The standard should require employers to include references to existing New Mexico non-retaliation laws as part of employer HIIPP plans and worker training. Because the Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) system depends on workers coming forward when they perceive violations, this communication from their employers is critically important for good enforcement of the standard. ● The standard needs more clarity on emergency procedures. In cases of heat stroke and other severe heat-related illnesses every second counts and so employers and workers alike must be well versed on what actions to take as they wait for emergency medical staff to arrive. ● The standard has only a few reasonable exemptions for specific workplaces, but it needs to clarify that buildings and vehicles with mechanical cooling controls are exempt only when those systems are functioning. Many of the complaints the NMED investigated between 2022-2025 found broken air conditioning for weeks, months, and in one case a year. Further, delivery workers should not be exempted if the cabs of their trucks have air conditioning, but they spend more than 15 minutes out of an hour either in the back of the truck or in the act of delivering packages to doorsteps. ● The NMED should strengthen the HIIPP provisions by urging employers to seek input and involvement of non-managerial staff in drafting the plans. Frontline workers who perform work tasks daily are best placed to understand the specific dangers of the workplace, adding crucial knowledge to the HIIPP. ● The standard should specify that training must be given in person with the opportunity to ask questions and employers should be required to re-deliver the training in the case of a serious heat-related illness or injury onsite, an OSHA citation, a fatality, or work processes changing significantly. Thank you for your attention to our comments | Sarah Stewart | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-26 | I am having a difficult time comprehending why anyone would want to compromise the safety and health of workers who work in high heat conditions. Perhaps those who think it is unnecessary should give those jobs a try!! Surely we can figure out how to protect and respect the conditions that workers endure, especially as the climate continues to heat up, especially in the Southwest. | Daisy Kates | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-27 | It is common sense that workers should be protected from excessive heat by shade, cooling, adequate water, breaks, and protective clothing. Monitoring should be routine and frequent. Unfortunately many businesses will put profit before the wellbeing of their employees. The fact that they are fighting any regulation is telling. Workers must be protected. Excessive heat is as dangerous as unprotected machinery and the other things that OSHA was charged with regulating. It is an undeniable fact that we must adjust working conditions to meet the high temperatures that we will continue to experience. Thank you for listening to my concerns. | Patricia Sheely | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-28 | This law will save lives and protect the health of the countless, many, workers who toil strongly in unrelenting heat to provide sustenance for loved ones and others, and at the same time renders an economic benefit to the commonwealth. | Juan Andres Vargas | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-29 | It’s vital to protect workers from dangerous heat conditions while working. I support all efforts to protect workers from heat issues while on the job, as well as keep them safe. Thank you. Jill Joseph | Jill Joseph | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-30 | Insuring that workers have access to clean drinking water, breaks in shaded/cooled spaces, early start times for outdoor workers whenever possible, training to recognize/prevent dehydration and heat related illness, and other best practices to protect workers seems a less expensive way to support business expenses long-term. | Judith Phillips | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-31 | No retaliation for workers who protest intolerable conditions. That should be in the law. | ANN ALEXANDER | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-32 | The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) has published a strong draft heat protection rule that we strongly support. It incorporates best practices and science-based solutions to keep workers safe from exposure to heat at the workplace, including: coverage of both indoor and outdoor workers; calling for written Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Plans (HIIPPs); providing for comprehensive worker training; implementing common sense preventive strategies including water, shade/cooling rooms, paid rest breaks, and acclimatization; and using trigger temperatures that are based on physiological science and years of experience from other states with heat standards. This standard will save lives. We believe there are five key ways that the standard could be improved even more. ● ● ● ● ● The standard should require employers to include references to existing New Mexico non-retaliation laws as part of employer HIIPP plans and worker training. Because the Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) system depends on workers coming forward when they perceive violations, this communication from their employers is critically important for good enforcement of the standard. The standard needs more clarity on emergency procedures. In cases of heat stroke and other severe heat-related illnesses every second counts and so employers and workers alike must be well versed on what actions to take as they wait for emergency medical staff to arrive. The standard has only a few reasonable exemptions for specific workplaces, but it needs to clarify that buildings and vehicles with mechanical cooling controls are exempt only when those systems are functioning. Many of the complaints the NMED investigated between 2022-2025 found broken air conditioning for weeks, months, and in one case a year. Further, delivery workers should not be exempted if the cabs of their trucks have air conditioning, but they spend more than 15 minutes out of an hour either in the back of the truck or in the act of delivering packages to doorsteps. The NMED should strengthen the HIIPP provisions by urging employers to seek input and involvement of non-managerial staff in drafting the plans. Frontline workers who perform work tasks daily are best placed to understand the specific dangers of the workplace, adding crucial knowledge to the HIIPP . The standard should specify that training must be given in person with the opportunity to ask questions and employers should be required to re-deliver the training in the case of a serious heat-related illness or injury onsite, an OSHA citation, a fatality, or work processes changing significantly | Ron Mittan | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-33 | Please make sure that the NMED proposed rule to protect workers’ health and safety is passed. It combines compassion and common sense. Let those who want to defeat it work out in the sun for hours to get some idea of what it’s like. | Glen Kappy | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-34 | I urge the EIB to adopt strong occupational heat standards to protect our workers as our summers become increasingly hot due to climate change. Working in high heat for long periods is unsafe and inhumane. My faith tradition teaches me to care for my neighbor as myself, and I ask that these standards do the same. The standards are written are very good, but can be improved in a few ways. Please add clarity to emergency procedures, so that everyone involved can take appropriate actions when someone suffers a heat-related illness and needs immediate help. Better language in this area could save lives! Please make it clear that an air-conditioned space is not exempt if the air conditioning is not working. I have personally experienced working as a teacher in classrooms with broken air conditioning, and it was misery for both me and my students—no one was learning. Delivery workers may have air-conditioned cabs, but when they are continually getting out to deliver packages or working in the back of the truck they need to be covered by these standards. Finally, make sure that employers provide their workers with complete information and training about the heat standards, including non-retaliation laws. The system depends on workers coming forward when they perceive a violation, so they must be sure that they are safe from pushback when they do so. Thank you for taking these points into consideration. | Ruth Striegel | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-35 | NO ONE deserves to suffer while doing their job. No ONE!!!!! | S. Kay | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-36 | All workers NEED protections from unsafe working conditions! | George Parrish | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-37 | I think this is a great idea. Please train supervisors as well as workers to watch for heat related illness. Please implement these guidelines. | Elizabeth Avila | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-38 | To the Environment Department of NM. I have been appalled over the years at the number of deaths and illness by workers who are forced in their jobs to work in extreme heat situations. This is outrageous, dangerous and unnecessary. I have spoken with delivery drivers without AC in their vehicles, not enough water to drink in the heat of the summer. There is no good reason for this to be happening at all. There is no good reason that workers should be in circumstances that are so difficult to endure while working. Please make this rule a reality and save lives and prevent injury. EIB 25-11 (R) – Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Sincerely, Catherine A Louisell | Catherine A Louisell | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-39 | Common sense is that you come in out of the cold and out of the HEAT! People die of heat exhaustion and, unfortunately, too many individuals when working do not stay hydrated. Businesses should value their employees and their welfare. Let’s all do better, and be smarter, when it comes to heat tolerance and what one can do. Make this new regulation happen! EIB 25-11 (R) – Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention | Elizabeth Windisch | 5/20/25 |
| II-20-40 | I support the inclusion of best practices and science-based solutions in the New Mexico Environment Department’s (NMED) draft heat protection rule to keep workers safe from heat exposure in the workplace, but the standard should also address these areas: ● The standard needs more clarity on emergency procedures. In cases of heat stroke and other severe heat-related illnesses every second counts and so employers and workers alike must be well versed on what actions to take as they wait for emergency medical staff to arrive. ● The standard has only a few reasonable exemptions for specific workplaces, but it needs to clarify that buildings and vehicles with mechanical cooling controls are exempt only when those systems are functioning. Many of the complaints the NMED investigated between 2022-2025 found broken air conditioning for weeks, months, and in one case a year. Further, delivery workers should not be exempted if the cabs of their trucks have air conditioning, but they spend more than 15 minutes out of an hour either in the back of the truck or in the act of delivering packages to doorsteps. ● The NMED should strengthen the HIIPP provisions by urging employers to seek input and involvement of non-managerial staff in drafting the plans. Frontline workers who perform work tasks daily are best placed to understand the specific dangers of the workplace, adding crucial knowledge to the HIIPP. ● The standard should specify that training must be given in person with the opportunity to ask questions and employers should be required to re-deliver the training in the case of a serious heat-related illness or injury onsite, an OSHA citation, a fatality, or following significant changes in work processes. ● The standard should require employers to include references to existing New Mexico non-retaliation laws in employer HIIPP plans and worker training. It is important to educate and encourage workers to report perceived HIIPP violations and to protect them from retaliation when they do so. | L. Watchempino | 5/20/25 |
| II-21-1 | We need a strong heat protection rule that incorporates best practices and science-based solutions to keep workers safe from exposure to heat at the workplace Along New Mexico’s highways large stretches of orange barrels guide drivers through construction. We regularly see crushed barrels, evidence of careless drivers. The workers in those stretches of highway are at risk of damage from careless job planning that leaves them victims of unsafe working conditions. This includes protection from heat. If we could see the workers in various situations outdoors or inside who have been injured because of unsafe working conditions that force them to endure brutal heat things might be different. Next time you see a crushed orange barrel think of the workers in intolerably hot working environments. | John Wilson | 5/21/25 |
| II-21-2 | 87144 is my postal code. I support NM taking care of all our workers who have to work in the heat. People die from heat exposure when we don’t give them the opportunity for adequate hydration and breaks. | Claudette Selph | 5/21/25 |
| II-21-3 | I am writing in support of EIB 25-11 (R) – Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention. With rising temperatures and prolonged heat events in New Mexico, it is critical that we take proactive steps to safeguard the health and safety of workers—especially those in construction and outdoor environments. This regulation reflects a growing recognition across the building industry that human health must be a central consideration. By incorporating elements found in frameworks like LEED—which emphasize comfort, safety, and resilience—this proposal helps ensure New Mexico is building smarter, safer, and more responsibly. | Huang Banh | 5/21/25 |
| II-21-4 | I own a highway construction company and we have never had a recordable incident where heat stress was involved in our over 35 years in business. We take safety very seriously and provide water, ice, cooling towels, hard hat shades, shade structures, etc. during the hot months. The rule as proposed will hinder our ability to perform our work, creating significant cost and time increases for us and our clients. 100% of our clients are government entities and this trickles down to tax payers. The projects will also be severely delayed and the traveling public will be severely impacted. The increase in project time would also increase the chances of accidents and fatalities on jobsites. Is that a trade off that NMOSHA is willing to stand by? The rule will also render some of our activities impossible to perform. There is not enough workforce to alternate workers during the mandated breaks during concrete placements and asphalt placements. This also makes no sense as we would only need this additional workforce for half of the year or less. You will not get anyone to work only a summer schedule. This rule has the ability to put us out of business and put hundreds of employees out of work. I’ve attached some points that I’m sure you have seen from numerous sources stating the issues I have with the rule. | AUI, Inc | 5/21/25 |
| II-21-5 | During the 55+ years I’ve lived and worked in New Mexico I have spent most summers working outdoors; drilling rocks and blasting to make roads and home sites around the state for ten years, building and restoring adobe’, frame and stone buildings for another ten, then performing biological surveys and research, in every county, for a quarter century, so I’m intimately familiar with climatic and weather conditions faced by everyone working out in the elements. We used to load up our trucks and leave for jobs in the predawn dark in order to escape the blistering heat for at least some of the day. Unlike politicos and chamber of commerce types who like to declare what is and is not from their air-conditioned offices, venturing out mostly to attend “photo ops” with gold painted shovels for a few minutes before retreating to cooler places, workers, many of them underpaid, are doing the heavy lifting to help make our state a better place to live–for everyone. A reminder: New Mexico ranks fourth in worker deaths in the U.S. Protecting workers health would seem to be a priority, but that isn’t reflected in the reactionary stance of the moneyed few. We, as caring New Mexicans, must do everything possible to protect workers’ health and well being during the increasingly hottest part of the year. Please just do it, and stop the whining. | Lawry Sager | 5/21/25 |
| II-21-6 | The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) has published a strong draft heat protection rule that I strongly support. It incorporates best practices and science-based solutions to keep workers safe from exposure to heat at the workplace, including: coverage of both indoor and outdoor workers; calling for written Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Plans (HIIPPs); providing for comprehensive worker training; implementing common sense preventive strategies including water, shade/cooling rooms, paid rest breaks, and acclimatization; and using trigger temperatures that are based on physiological science and years of experience from other states with heat standards. This standard will save lives. | John Thayer | 5/21/25 |
| II-21-7 | This bill is too broad and will NOT achieve its intent. The businesses, employees, the public, and all stakeholders in the state of NM will be negatively impacted by this bill. This is a net LOSS for NM. DO NOT PASS! Listen to your industry partners. Everyone wants to work smart and keep everyone safe and there are more productive and helpful ways to do that than economy-crippling policy. | Jeremiah Hayes | 5/21/25 |
| II-21-8 | Re: Regulations to protect workers from extreme heat. I am writing to express my support for such legislation. Just as OSHA protects workers from some dangers that can be encountered in their jobs, so should the State of New Mexico protect workers from extreme heat. No worker should die, be hospitalized or otherwise sickened due to heat-related illness. Thank you for your attention to this matter. | Michael Potvin-Frost | 5/21/25 |
| II-21-9 | RE: Opposition to Proposed Heat Stress Regulations I am writing to express our concern and opposition to the proposed heat stress regulations under consideration by the New Mexico Occupational Health and Safety Bureau. We recognize and share your commitment to protecting the health and safety of workers, especially given the high temperatures our crews regularly face during summer months. However, as an employer on the front lines of construction jobsite operations, we believe the proposed regulations, while well-intentioned, impose significant operational and economic burdens that may ultimately hinder—not help—worker safety. The proposed rules appear to mandate specific rest break schedules, water provisions, shaded recovery areas, and administrative controls without flexibility to account for the varied nature of construction job sites. Each project varies in scope, location, and staffing. A one-size-fits-all mandate is difficult to apply safely and effectively across the range of real-world conditions. Additionally, rigid break schedules that don’t account for workflow and productivity patterns could result in extended project timelines, leading to financial strain for contractors, clients, and workers alike. Mandated downtime, shade structure installation, and compliance documentation represent significant costs, particularly for small to mid-size contractors. Many in our industry are already struggling with labor shortages, inflation, and supply chain disruptions. Adding over-regulation in this area could create legal liability confusion, increase insurance premiums, and result in enforcement actions that do not consider good-faith safety efforts. Our company actively promotes heat safety through training, provision of water and electrolyte replacement, heat acclimatization practices, and flexible break policies tailored to conditions on-site. We believe these voluntary, industry-driven best practices are more effective than prescriptive rules in keeping our workers safe and productive. We urge New Mexico OSHA to work in partnership with industry stakeholders to revise these proposed rules into a framework that sets achievable safety goals while allowing flexibility in implementation. Input from contractors, field supervisors, and trade associations will help create policy that is both effective and practical. We respectfully request that the current proposal be reconsidered or amended based on meaningful dialogue with the commercial construction community | Scott’s Fencing Co. Inc. | 5/21/25 |
| II-21-10 | New Mexico Environment Department Occupational Health and Safety Bureau Harold Runnels 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 statespecific, 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 workrelated 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 Proposed 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 Consultant | 5/21/25 |
| II-21-11 | 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) 1300 First St NW, Albuquerque, NM 87102 galinak@oesolarnm.com | (505) 850-8863 ext. 116 | Galina Kofchock CFO, Osceola Inc. (OE Solar) | 5/21/25 |
| II-21-12 | Dear Chair Suina and Bureau Chief Peck: Please accept this letter as my official opposition to the proposed Occupational Heat Illness and Injury Prevention rule currently under consideration. While safeguarding workers from extreme heat is important, this proposal would directly undermine one of New Mexico’s most pressing needs: lowering the cost of housing, construction, and capital investments in New Mexico’s infrastructure. As you are aware, New Mexico is already struggling with rising housing prices and construction costs, making it increasingly difficult for families, businesses, and builders to afford new homes and commercial projects. This proposed rule will worsen that crisis. It would impose extensive, one-size-fits-all mandates- regardless of regional climate differences or existing successful safety practices-which will inevitably drive up the cost of labor and construction projects statewide. These new regulatory requirements, such as frequent break schedules and mandatory cooled areas-even in remote, infrastructure-poor worksites-will impose high logistical and financial burdens on contractors, developers, and especially small businesses. By significantly increasing administrative compliance requirements and necessitating costly site modifications, this rule will Page2 make housing and development more expensive at precisely the time our state needs to remove barriers to building and investment. Worse, the rule duplicates existing federal OSHA guidelines, adding confusing, potentially contradictory rules for employers to follow, raising the risk of double enforcement and legal uncertainty. Rather than improving worker protection, this redundancy will only escalate employer costs and regulatory risks, further inflating the cost of doing business in New Mexico. If the state is truly committed to increasing housing affordability and economic opportunity, it must avoid unnecessary-and unproven-state mandates that deter investment, shrink capital supply, and slow housing delivery. The reality is that every new cost imposed on builders and employers is ultimately passed along to working families in the form of higher rent, mortgage payments, and consumer prices. Instead, I urge the Board and Bureau to work with industry and federal partners on voluntary, evidence-based strategies that promote workplace safety without additional costly mandates. We can and should both protect workers and make housing and investment more affordablebut this proposed rule will do the opposite. Thank you for considering my concerns. Serving New Mexico, Rebecca Dow House Republican Caucus Chair House District 38 | Rebecca Dow Republican Caucus Chair District 38 | 5/21/25 |
| II-21-13 | 5/21/25 | ||
| II-21-14 | RE: EIB 25-11(R) – Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention We write today as members of the Coalition of Agricultural Workers and Advocates (CAWA) to urge the Environmental Improvement Board to adopt strong protections to keep New Mexican workers safe while working in unsafe heat conditions. CAWA is a group of individuals and organizations primarily based in Southern New Mexico working together to support agricultural workers and to promote and advocate for their rights. Heat-related illness visits to New Mexico emergency departments nearly doubled between 2010 and 2022, with over 900 visits due to heat in 2023.1 This number includes only heat exhaustion and heat stroke, and does not include workers who experience chronic or other acute illness due to exposure to the heat such as kidney failure, respiratory disease, and cardiac events which are not usually coded as “heat-related” illnesses.2 Federal OSHA estimates nearly 250,000 New Mexicans work in industries at high risk of heat-related harms, including both outdoor workers and indoor workers with no or inadequate cooling.3 The time to act on heat safety is now! We support the petition filed by the NM Occupational Safety and Health Bureau to create new occupational safety standards which are crucial to keep workers safe from heat-related illness and injury, with modest modifications. These regulations are an important step forward to protect New Mexican workers and we are grateful for the leadership of the Environment Department and NMOSHA in bringing this matter before the board. I. The proposed regulations contain many effective provisions that are needed immediately to protect workers from heat-related injury and illness. The proposed regulations reflect a strong step toward safer working conditions for the thousands of individuals at risk of heat-related illness and injury at work. The following provisions are particularly important to ensure worker safety: 1) The proposed rule covers all workers with narrow and reasonable exemptions. It is important that the regulations proposed by NMED do not include extraneous exemptions that will leave many workers without protection. The few exemptions listed are reasonable because they reflect scenarios where other more applicable safety mechanisms are already in place, such as for emergency responders actively responding to emergencies, or where it would be practically impossible for employers to provide monitoring or other safety controls, such as in the case of remote employees working from home. It is vital that any exemption from an occupational safety standard for heat is narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessarily excluding workers without other safety protections in place. 2) Acclimatization is key to worker safety in the heat. Research has shown that allowing for a period of acclimatization is key to reducing heat related illness and injury. A report provided by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health found that 45% of heat related injuries and illnesses happened during either the first week on the job, or the first 7 days of a heat wave, with 15% occurring on the first day alone.4 This is especially important in the agricultural industry, as many workers are seasonal and migrant workers make up a significant proportion of the workforce.5 These workers may be coming to New Mexico from other parts of the country or other countries with vastly different climates, and arriving in New Mexico for the growing season, during the hottest, most brutal months of the year. Even workers who are already in New Mexico may need an acclimatization period if they are moving between parts of the state with different climates. Including requirements for workers to become acclimated to the heat is a vital safety feature in the regulation that will undoubtedly prevent many heat related illnesses and injuries. 3) Adding to the heat index to account for sun exposure is incredibly important for NM in light of the high UV indexes experienced here during the summer. One feature of New Mexico’s unique climate is that while the humidity is generally lower, the UV index is much, much higher in the summer than in other parts of the country due to our high elevation and frequent lack of cloud cover.6 According to the EPA, a UV index reading of 8-10 means a very high risk of harm from unprotected sun exposure, and a UV index over 11 means “extreme” risk, and warns that skin can burn in a matter of minutes in those conditions.7 In recent years, New Mexico’s UV index has been 11 or higher for 85-110 days per year, and can easily reach 13 during the summer, which places us as one of the states with the highest UV index in the country.8 The inclusion of sun exposure in the proposed regulations is an important feature that tailors this heat standard to meet the needs of New Mexico’s workers. 4) The proposed regulations provide a variety of effective options, allowing businesses to create their own plans that work for their employees. The proposed regulations call for employers to establish a Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Plan (HIIPP) which will provide detailed information to workers about the worksite-specific safety precautions that will be in place, called “control measures.” These control measures are all crucial to prevent injury and illness. We appreciate that the HIIPP regulations are detailed and include a comprehensive but flexible approach. One feature of the proposed regulations that seems particularly tailored to make it easy for businesses to comply is the inclusion of multiple options for different control measures. The control measure for employee monitoring includes many common sense tools that are likely to be in place in worksites already, such as radios and cell phones, and even includes a catch-all option, “Other equally effective means of observation and communication.” For agricultural workers who are widely dispersed throughout a large agricultural operation, maintaining contact is a crucial safety feature. Similarly, the guidance for cooling areas provides a wide variety of strategies that can be used, and also make it clear that even in a scenario where shade is not feasible or safe, employers still have to take other measures such as misters or active cooling garments to make sure that workers can cool down. These regulations provide a flexible framework that employers can tailor to meet the needs of their employees and worksite, with both specific examples as well as effective workarounds when necessary. 5) Employee training needs to be relevant to the work site and in language that the workers understand. Workplace safety training is an important feature to make sure that workers know how to recognize, prevent and respond to heat-related illnesses. But training is only effective if it is relevant and accessible to all workers. The proposed rules specify that training must be in a language and vocabulary readily understood by all employees, and that the training must contain details about the specific practices in place at the workplace. These provisions will ensure that workers have the information they need to stay safe working in high heat conditions. In addition, training materials should be readily available for seasonal workers that change work sites. 6) The trigger temperatures used are tailored to prevent most heat-related fatalities and injuries. The temperatures that trigger temporary breaks in work are backed by scientific research and will be highly effective to prevent heat-related illnesses, injuries and deaths. A heat index of 80 degrees Fahrenheit captures 96-100% of fatalities and 99-100% of nonfatalities among workers. 9 Not only will the trigger temperatures listed in the regulation prevent the vast majority of heat-related deaths and illnesses, they are also unlikely to be unduly disruptive to work practices. OSHA conducted a state-by-state analysis determining the number of “shift hours” per year that would be impacted on average when these heat triggers are implemented for day, evening and night shifts.10 This analysis shows that the number of daytime shift hours for New Mexico is only 579 hours impacted by the initial heat trigger of 80 degrees Fahrenheit, and only 125 hours per year impacted by the high heat trigger of 90 degrees Fahrenheit. Compare this to states like Texas and Alabama, which have over 900 daytime shift hours impacted by the initial heat trigger, or Florida which has over 1,200. This is due to our lower humidity which allows heat to dissipate rapidly as the sun goes down – the difference between the daily high and low temperatures is often 25 to 35 degrees Fahrenheit in New Mexico.11 Workers will still have enough hours in the day to be able to complete their hard work, and without risking their lives. II. The following provisions, if amended or added to the proposed regulations, would ensure that the new heat standard is effective and responsive to the specific needs of workers in the agricultural industry. While we are supportive of the proposed regulations, we know from both lived experience and research that agricultural workers face unique workplace challenges that should be taken into consideration in the creation of an occupational safety standard for heat. Agricultural workers are some of the workers most expected to suffer from increasing temperatures – research has shown that agricultural workers are 35 times more likely to die from heat-related stress than workers in other industries.12 As workers who are most at risk of the harms that these regulations are meant to address, agricultural workers should be particularly centered in the development of occupational safety regulations on heat. As community organizations from agricultural communities and advocacy organizations that work with agricultural workers, we propose the following amendments to ensure that heat standard regulations will be effective to meet the needs of agricultural workers: 1) Who is responsible? The farm labor contracting system is prevalent in agriculture and often results in no one taking responsibility for worker safety. In the agricultural industry, disputes often arise between farm owners and farm labor contractors over who has employer obligations for agricultural workers. Growers often contract with other businesses that provide “farm labor” and handle compensation and other personnel matters for farm workers, known as “farm labor contractors.” According to the most recent National Agricultural Worker Study, 22% of agricultural workers were employed by farm labor contractors.13 Generally, when it comes to workplace safety, farm labor contractors are often poorly situated to provide required safety trainings or create safety plans for their workers, because they are not familiar with the operations of the farm, including the location of shade structures, who will be the responsible supervisor for monitoring and development of the heat safety plan, the location of fresh water for workers, and other important details that must be included in worker safety training. In our experience speaking with agricultural workers in New Mexico, we have found that even safety trainings that are already legally required, such as for workers who may be exposed to pesticides, farm labor contractors often refuse to provide required trainings or to compensate workers for training time. To make New Mexico’s regulations strong and effective, it should be made explicit which employing entity is responsible for providing safety training, and that training time should be paid. The responsible party for the workplace should provide workers with a tailored training session that explains the safety measures being used in that specific location, in addition to generally applicable information about preventing, identifying and treating heat-related illnesses and injuries. In Washington state, some workplace safety regulations have a definition of employ which could provide the needed clarity: Employ. To obtain, directly or through a labor contractor, the services of a person in exchange for any type of compensation including a salary, wages, or piece-rate wages, without regard to who may pay or who may receive the salary or wages. It includes obtaining the services of a self-employed person, an independent contractor, or a person compensated by a third party, except that it does not include an agricultural employer obtaining the services of a handler through a commercial pesticide handler employer or a commercial pesticide handling establishment.14 In addition to clarifying which employing entity is responsible for providing training, the proposed regulations could be made clearer to ensure that training is effective. While the proposed regulations currently specify that the training session should be conducted in the language of preference of the workers and must contain details specific to the workplace practices, this section should be amended to clarify that the training should be provided in person, onsite, and should include opportunities for workers to ask questions. 2) How will mandatory breaks be paid? Piece rate workers need a rule that will protect both their safety and their productivity. For many of New Mexico’s most important crops, including chile and onions, employers commonly pay workers by the piece instead of hourly. This creates unique challenges to ensure that these workers are fairly compensated for time spent on mandatory heat safety breaks. While the proposed regulation does state that heat safety breaks should be paid, agricultural employers are likely to benefit from additional guidance on compensation to ensure workers are not penalized for taking breaks. Piece rate work creates unique safety concerns. For some crops, large containers are stationed throughout the field and workers fill individual buckets that are dumped into the containers, which are later removed from the field. Field workers in this type of environment can often work at their own pace, and typically do take breaks when they need them, although of course required breaks for heat safety should be encouraged as per the proposed regulation. For other crops, however, workers must keep up with moving machines, which they fill as they work harvesting. This means that for many piece rate workers, taking a break not only results in losing income but also falling behind and potentially working even more rigorously to catch up, which creates an even greater danger of heat-related illness. We recommend strongly that the guidance for employers is clear when it comes to compensating workers for paid breaks, and for ensuring that breaks are practicable for workers. Research shows that not only are breaks vital for ensuring worker safety, they also have a demonstrable positive effect on worker productivity.15 For piece rate workers, this increase in productivity means an increase in income. California’s regulation provides a formula which employers can use to calculate the average hourly rate for piece rate workers on days without mandatory breaks, which can then be used to calculate compensation for safety breaks. This formula has been adopted in Washington state and was also included in the proposed federal regulations. California’s regulations state: The rate of compensation for rest and recovery periods shall be the higher of: o An average hourly rate determined by dividing the total compensation for the workweek, exclusive of compensation for rest and recovery periods and any premium compensation for overtime, by the total hours worked during the workweek, exclusive of rest and recovery periods. o The applicable minimum wage.16 Whatever method is used, it should ensure that piece rate workers will not lose out on income when they take their mandatory heat safety breaks. The employer guidance materials can and should also include specific instructions about pausing work, parking and shutting off harvest trucks, and communicating in detail to workers that their breaks will not result in a loss of income, to ensure that workers are appropriately incentivized to take mandatory safety breaks. 3) Is it safe in the shade? For outdoor workers, an effective rule needs to account for factors like distance and vehicle exhaust. For workers in large commercial fields, providing a place to rest in the shade is both a crucial safety measure. In some parts of the country, it’s a common practice to use a portable shade structure and water coolers on a trailer towed behind a truck or tractor. This is a practical approach especially in settings where workers cover a significant distance during a single shift and permanent structures are impractical. However, sitting under a portable shade structure towed behind a vehicle can create additional health risks when the shaded area is not well ventilated adding both heat and unsafe pollutants to the air in the rest area. Additionally, many agricultural workers take their rest breaks in the cab of a tractor, where they have shade but exhaust can create additional health risks, and the heat from running machinery can make it even hotter. Furthermore, workers may not want to take their rest under a shade structure if exhaust or fumes are present. The proposed regulation should specify that the shade structure should be free from pollutants or other well-known health hazards, and there should not be running machinery or heat-generating structures yielding additional heat in the shaded area. The heat standard regulations in Oregon specify: “Shade may be provided by any natural or artificial means that does not expose employees to unsafe or unhealthy conditions, and that does not deter or discourage access or use.”17 Colorado’s regulations state: “A shaded area is not adequate if any source, such as exhaust, running machinery, heat-radiating structures, or heat in a non-air-conditioned vehicle (including a bus), yields additional heat in the shaded area.” New Mexico’s standard should be amended to account both for air pollutants and heat-generating machinery which could undermine the safety and efficacy of shade provided. 4) What if the minimum isn’t enough? Taking care of workers with health conditions that are particularly exacerbated by high heat conditions. We know that not all workers face equal risks due to the heat. Workers who suffer from certain medical conditions, including pregnancy, as well as younger and older workers, and workers taking certain prescription medications, face elevated risks from working in high heat conditions.19 Employers may not be aware of these medical conditions in many situations due to the importance of confidentiality around personal health information. We recommend that the required worker training should include information about elevated health risks for individuals with pre-existing medical conditions, to ensure that workers receive information that can help them determine their own risk factors, without having to divulge their own personal health information to their employers. Additionally, since risks are not equal between workers, workers should be encouraged to request additional breaks or longer breaks, additional drinking water, or other accommodations as needed even at lower temperatures than indicated on the chart provided, without fear of retaliation. 5) How can workers get vital information to first responders? Farm maps and medical information cards can help first responders know where to go and how to treat workers in rural settings. For some agricultural workers, a call to 911 might become an exercise in futility due to the nature of the worksite. In New Mexico’s large commercial farming operations, workers may be transported miles between fields or farm locations once they arrive, and may not be familiar with the layout or locations where they are working. They may report to work in one central location and then spend their day miles away in a different part of the agricultural operation. The only address they may have for the farm might be the business office or the mailing address, which could be located miles away from where an agricultural worker actually experiences a heat related injury or illness. A farm map can be a lifesaving tool to make sure that workers can completely and accurately describe where they are located and how to get there, so that first responders don’t waste valuable time trying to locate workers onsite. The proposed regulations should be amended to ensure that workers can accurately describe their location to emergency responders, and that any logistical challenges that could potentially prevent an emergency responder from reaching a sick or injured worker are fully addressed in HIIPPs. This is especially true for workers located in cellular “dead zones.” Furthermore, first responders need access to crucial health information for workers in the event that the worker loses consciousness or becomes delirious due to the heat, or simply speaks a different language than the first responder who arrives on the scene – according to the National Agricultural Workers Survey, 57% of agricultural workers are most comfortable in Spanish, and only 37% described themselves as being able to speak English “well.”20 While it’s important to safeguard the privacy of workers’ health-related information, workers should be encouraged to have the information needed available in writing in the event of a heat-related illness or injury. Workers could be issued a “personal medical information card” that lists the worker’s age, relevant medical conditions and medications, primary care doctor, and emergency contact information, that they could keep on their person. This kind of card would communicate the most important information quickly and effectively to first responders. This is especially vital for workers who are at elevated risk of heat related illness and injury, such as workers who are older or younger, pregnant, who have certain existing health conditions or who take certain medications. Finally, the regulations and the required safety training should make it clear that any employee has authorization to call emergency services if the designated person is unavailable. 6) Can workers report violations without fear of repercussions? Retaliation information should be part of the required safety training and come directly from the employer. As with any occupational safety and health standard, the regulation is most helpful when workers can confidently report violations. New Mexico’s statutes already create a right to file complaints as well as freedom from retaliation for workers reporting occupational safety and health violations.21 However, many workers are not aware of the existence of whistleblower laws and may feel reluctance to report violations of safety standards due to fears about retaliation. To be as effective as possible, workers should be fully informed of their rights to file complaints without fear of retaliation. Information about whistleblower protections should be included in the mandatory safety training provided by the employer. New Mexico can take the lead in protecting our workers, their families and communities now. The proposed rule will ensure that New Mexicans are better protected from heat at work. As documented by the NM Department of Health, heat waves and higher temperatures are increasing, leading to more heat-related hospitalizations and deaths and related health problems such as long-term kidney, heart and lung diseases. By adopting a state standard, New Mexico will give employers a clear road map for reducing the dangers of heat. This standard will also provide workers with the training and procedures they need to safeguard themselves and their co-workers. While the federal government has proposed occupational safety regulations on this topic, the future of those proposed regulations is uncertain due to the recent change in federal administration. But regardless of the status of federal regulations on this issue, New Mexico workers deserve occupational safety regulations that are tailored to New Mexico’s unique climate, which features high summer temperatures and intense UV radiation. Regulations tailored to New Mexico’s unique needs should also account for the prevalence of traditional cooling systems like evaporative cooling, which can create a complicated safety scenario for indoor workers in our region due to their varying and often unreliable effectiveness in extreme temperatures.22 We need a New Mexico heat standard, and we need it as soon as possible to protect workers from preventable illness and injury. Agricultural workers are a critical part of the New Mexico economy and identity, providing essential labor that grows our local economy while addressing food insecurity and supporting our rich agricultural culture.23 As these workers face extreme risks of heat-related illness and injury compared to other workers, they should be at the center of the conversation about occupational safety standards about heat. For these reasons, the members of Coalition of Agricultural Workers and Advocates (CAWA) listed below support the adoption of the regulations proposed by the NM Occupational Safety and Health Bureau, with the modifications discussed above to ensure that it is effective for agricultural workers. Please contact Emma O’Sullivan at emma@nmpovertylaw.org if you have any questions. Sincerely, Stephanie Welch, Workers Rights Director, NM Center on Law and Poverty Emma O’Sullivan, Workers Rights Attorney, NM Center on Law and Poverty Yvonne Diaz, Farmworker Advocate and Founding Farmer at De Colores Farms & Foods Kenneth J. Ferrone, Executive Director, Catholic Charities of Southern New Mexico Rosalba Ruiz Reyes, Binational Breastfeeding Coalition Cynthia Bejarano, Ph.D., Farmworker Advocate Rose Garcia, Executive Director, Tierra del Sol Housing Corporation Loren Schoonover, Southern Coordinator, Health Action New Mexico Barbara Webber, Executive Director, Health Action New Mexico Sylvia Ulloa, Executive Director, NM Comunidades en Acción y de Fé (CAFé) Ismael Camacho, Farmworker Attorney, Las Cruces, NM | Coalition of Agricultural Workers and Advocates (CAWA) | 5/21/25 |
| II-21-15 | THE POWERS THAT BE, THOSE RUNNING THIS COUNTRY, CARE LITTLE TO NOTHING FOR THE COMMON PEOPLE. BEING THOSE COMMON PEOPLE WE ARE HURTING, OR SOON WILL BE HURTING, BY THE CRUEL AND GREEDY ACTIONS OF THOSE SELFISH BULLIES. WE MUST CONTINUE TO FIGHT AGAINST THE POWERS THAT BE BY TAKING EVERY ACTION POSSIBLE, VIA GATHERING IN THE STREETS TO CALLING ON THE LEGAL SYSTEM TO STAND WITH US. WE MUST KEEP OUR HEALTH CARE, OUR EARNED INCOME, OUR WORKERS. THOSE WORKERS MUST BE PROTECTED FROM HEAT AND HEAT CAUSED ILLNESSES, FOR WITHOUT OUR WORKERS WE ARE ALL IN PERIL. WE MUST TO THIS BY WORKING TOGETHER, IN SUPPORT OF EACH OTHER. TO LIVE!! | sarah brownrigg | 5/21/25 |
| II-21-16 | I think this rule is clearly needed for our state. Please pass this and enact it as fast as possible to ensure those who work hard to build our cities, roads, and amenities are provided with basic care for their lives and health. | Meric Kuhn | 5/21/25 |
| II-21-17 | Subject: Opposition to Proposed Regulation 11.5. 7 NMADA-Heat Illness and Injury Prevention (No. EIB 25-11) Dear Chair Suina, Respective EIB Board Members and Bureau Chief Peck, The New Mexico Automotive Dealers Association welcomes the opportunity to submit comments to the proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention rules that are currently under consideration. The New Mexico Auto Dealers Association represents over 100 franchised new car dealers in this state, directly employing over 14,000 New Mexicans. We respectfully submit this letter in strong opposition to the proposed regulation 11.5.7 NMAC- Heat Illness and Injury Prevention. While we appreciate the need and share the intent to protect our employees from excess heat illness and injuries, we oppose this rule as drafted. The proposed rule will have serious unintended consequences that will impede our ability to ensure safe and reliable transportation needs for all New Mexicans and for all industry sectors including emergency responders. In addition, we are concerned that this rule’s one-size-fits all approach fails to recognize existing workplace safety practices now in place across New Mexico. As you know, the federal government has already issued guidance on prevention of heat-related illness or injury. In 2016, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health issued Publication No. 2016-016, which already have mechanisms in pace to address heat related workplace safety. It appears that the proposed rules under consideration far exceed the federal standards, which mean that your contemplated action is most likely out of alignment with the federal OSHA law, from which your board’s regulations must be derived pursuant to Section 50-9-7 (A) NMSA. The automotive industry does not work in a vacuum, where every New Mexican and every business in New Mexico expects and deserves safe and reliable transportation to get to and from work and satisfy basic needs such as traveling to and from school, work, medical appointments, grocery shopping etc. Implementing the proposed heat-related protocols will re qui re additional staffing and restructuring of work schedules, which will ultimately increase transportation service and maintenance costs to all New Mexicans. Our trained and certified automotive technicians will be most affected by the proposed rules, which will ultimately drive up the costs for automotive service and repairs. The combined cost of downtime, schedule delays and the additional number of employees needed will significantly increase the cost of automotive service and repairs, which will ultimately be passed on to the consumer. The automotive technician workforce is a high-demand field, where auto dealers face a continuing challenge to find certified technicians in all corners of New Mexico to service and repair automobiles in a timely and cost-effective manner. Our dealerships understand this and take all the necessary steps and requirements to hire, train and ensure that all worksites meet or exceed federal safety standards. The mandated breaks and acclimatization requirements in the Proposed Rule are overly prescriptive and disregard the unique operational challenges of the automotive industry, where efficiency and coordination are crucial. Under the rule, employees must receive paid rest breaks every two hours when the heat index reaches a certain temperature. This rigid requirement would disrupt workflows and may impact consumer’s needs. We collectively share the concerns regarding the need to protect workers from excessive heat exposure, but simply passing a new mandate that duplicates federal enforcement efforts and raises costs to employers without any assurance worker protections will improve is just another example of the over regulation of businesses that has been prevalent in New Mexico over the past six years. Rather than imposing an inflexible mandate across most sectors, we urge the Board to reject the proposed rule and require the New Mexico Environment Department to collaborate with the industries impacted to identify practical solutions that protect employees while meeting the expectations that the public expects from our housing, construction and transportation sectors. We are ready to be at the table to discuss a more effective approach that would build on existing OSHA standards to incentivize best practices and allow flexibility for the multitude of different industry sectors across New Mexico. Respectfully, Ken Ortiz Executive Director | New Mexico Automotive Dealers Association | 5/21/25 |
| II-21-18 | Protecting workers from hot environments shouldn’t even be questioned, it should just be a given! New Mexico is stifling in the hot months and dangerous for workers! People who work in other businesses where it gets too hot, some restaurants, car repair shops and more deserve strong protections to safely do their jobs! Make these protections,law, so these workers health and lives aren’t endangered further! | L. Bagley | 5/21/25 |
| II-21-19 | The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) has proposed a nationally-leading occupational heat standard to protect workers’ health and safety. This is common-sense, and a life-saving rule that must be kept and used for those working outdoors and in non-air-conditioned indoor environments, who are at serious risk of heat-related illness and death of our many workers and others in New Mexico. I support keeping and increasing this life giving standard. | GILL SORG | 5/21/25 |
| II-21-20 | RE: Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule The Hidalgo Soil & Water Conservation District is writing regarding the “Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule” by the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED), Occupational Health and Safety Bureau (OHSB). As the board of Hidalgo Soil & Water Conservation District we serve Hidalgo, and parts of Grant County in New Mexico. It is our mission to protect, restore, enhance and promote the proper use of soil, water and other natural resources. This includes employers and employees in the agriculture community. The proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule is oppressive and unattainable in most cases. It lacks sufficient data to justify its stringent requirements and fails to properly address the economic impacts that it will have on the employers, workers, and the state of New Mexico as a whole. This proposed rule is a classic example of government overreach, it’s impossible to apply, is burdensome on both producers/employers and workers/employees, and impossible to implement and enforce without proper funding. The Hidalgo Soil & Water Conservation District Board respectfully requests that NMED withdraw the Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule. Sincerely, Hollis Vaughn, Chair | HIDALGO SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT | 5/21/25 |
| II-21-21 | I oppose this rule because it will put an unnecessary hardship on many sectors of our economy. Particularly on small businesses like landscapers, lawn care companies, outdoor recreation (guides, river rafting companies, etc), maintenance and service companies, and anyone who provides services that occur primarily outdoors. The cost of paying employees for an hour and only allowing them to work 1/3 of the time will ruin the financial viability of many small businesses. Do not pass or implement this rule. | Kara Wood | 5/21/25 |
| II-21-22 | The standard needs more clarity on emergency procedures. In cases of heat stroke and other severe heat-related illnesses every second counts and so employers and workers alike must be well versed on what actions to take as they wait for emergency medical staff to arrive. | Diana Zelnio | 5/21/25 |
| II-21-23 | I am writing in opposition to the proposed NMED Heat Injury & Illness Prevention Standard/Directive. I am the Safety Director for a construction company here in Albuquerque. I have 25 years working construction, maintaining equipment and managing materials deliveries, and for the last 6 years as a safety director. In those 25 years I have never seen an employee have a heat related injury. And now that I oversee the safety for over 200 employees, Workplace safety, Employee Education and Motivation which include protection from cold and hot working environments are part of my overall mission. I have an obligation to my employees to give them the Information, Training and Equipment needed to help them protect themselves from any hazardous work environments they may encounter while preforming their construction projects. This includes Confined Space Safety, Trenching & Excavating, Slip & Fall Safety and of course First Aid & CPR certifications. Protection from weather conditions is right up there with these other concerns and is reemphasized as the seasons change. OSHA has regulations and mandates for all sorts of working environments. Health Care workers and Restaurants have regulations that pertain to their environments but do not pertain to construction workers, and vise versa. The proposed Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Standard would set a mandate for all industries regardless of their particular working environments. As the proposed ruling reads, The heat index calculations and required work stoppage would greatly effect the construction industries the most. The stop and go work aspects of this ruling would in my opinion, Hurt workers more than prevent any injuries or related heat illnesses. If you are part of a crew or any team, you know that you start out slowly and build up momentum as the work progresses. The team or crew actually build up a rhythm with each member doing their part. And, If necessary they can even switch positions without missing a beat. The team can also speed up or slow down depending on the working environment. If there is a stoppage because of lack of material or mechanical breakdown, If short lived, The crew can back off until repairs are made or materials arrive and jump back into the work with the momentum they had. It is impressive what a good crew can accomplish when all are working together. Working men and Women take some pride in the work they accomplish and do so not trying to impress anybody but themselves. Being part of a crew working on a large construction project is a matter of pride. The proposed Heat Injury & Illness prevention standard as written would interfere with working crews efforts to accomplish their tasks. The mandated breaks required for heat induce environments would break any momentum the crews would have and distract from safety procedures. The effort to get something done would take priority. “Get er done” isn’t just a saying, It’s an attitude. Constant delays would frustrate that attitude and result in unsafe actions or a lackadaisical emphasis towards the project. Scheduling around such restrictions would not be impossible, But would require extended time allotments and/or additional crews driving up the costs for construction. Federal, State, County, City and Tribal governments want construction accomplish within a particular time period. Some projects that could be accomplished in one season, may take several to complete. Taxpayers would see a prolonged interruption of services and overrunning costs. Summertime construction schedules would have to be moved to nights which would put additional stress on workers along with additional safety concerns. Even then, The written Heat and Humidity index and required adjustments for protective clothing concerns would make night work subject to mandatory work stoppages as well. Materials such as concrete and asphalt are time sensitive and they both produce heat. Many state and local construction projects require that concrete must be poured no later than 90 minutes after batching. Large pours such as bridge pillar or warehouse floors may take anywhere from three to five hours of constant pouring. Asphalt is produced at 300 F degrees and must be placed at 200 F degrees. Is the heat coming off this material part of the environmental heat index. Has it been considered that you just cant let trucks sit there spinning time away or materials cooling down. In reading this proposed Heat & Illness Prevention Standard, I am left with the impression that the people who wrote it have never been part of a construction crew. The requirement to have such a mandate from OSHA driven by the Environmental Department demonstrated a lack of respect for the construction industry. To think that construction companies don’t take in mind the health and safety of their employees is insulting. And even further insulting is the ideal that construction workers are some kind of pack animals that would allow themselves to be worked to death. We don’t need Big Brother! I and other industry safety personnel have the responsibility to identify and inform both management and employees of any safety concerns related to their working environments. To provide education and equipment to mitigate any employee safety problems or concerns. Having never seen a heat related injury in my 25 years in construction, I question the need for a OSHA Heat Injury & Illness Prevention Standard. I think the reason I have never seen this type of injury is that, People are not stupid. Particularly construction workers who work in the open outside environment. They will slow down or stop if the heat or cold gets too be to much for them. So why would we train and educate our crew chiefs and employees of the dangers of heat exhaustion. Because sometimes workers who are not accustomed to working construction may cross the line of their ability to preform tasks assigned to them. They may not knowingly put themselves into a hazardous situation. That’s why we have crew chiefs and senior employees who work with and watch these employees. All employees received training on how to identify and prevent hazardous situation. And how to identify employees who are experiencing health problems and stop them before they become injured. The writers of this proposal may think and want to portray to the public that construction company owners and industries leaders are as Simon Legree. Whipping and beating their employees to produce more. It is clear that the writers of this proposed standard don’t have an understanding of the cooperation between construction workers and management. Yes there are some companies that will push their employees past the threshold of good or safe practices. And there already exists OSHA regulations to protect workers from such companies. And Unions are there where they are needed. But I don’t believe that the overall purpose of this proposed standard is to protect employees. Insted, I believe that the writers want to initiate a narrative. One that pits the industries against the workers. One that inserts global warming directives into the American Workforce. One that makes the writers and their supporters look as if they care more about the American working class than the capitalistic owners of American industries. The writers of this proposal are not elected officials. They don’t need state approval to implement this directive. The Governor may stop them, but I think it will take a judges order to stop this and I strongly suggest that be done. These government bureaucrats didn’t bother to consult industry leaders or any workplace supervisors. Most likely because they already knew what the responses would be. THIS CRAP WON’T WORK. There are already 26 NM State representatives, (At this time) who are opposing this proposal. Most of the commentary I have read supporting this proposal are feel good commentary and don’t address the drawbacks of the standards proposed. The statistics being used to justify the need for this proposal are not based in actual incidents but in accidents where as Heat Stress may have been a contributing factor. The assumption that the accident was caused because the individual was in a hot environment betrays the realistic evaluation of the incident. We have seen this before. During the Covid-19 pandemic. The Government Statisticians would portray that any death that occurred where as the subject had Covid would be listed as a Covid related death. If during an auto accident, a person who flew through the windshield and body slammed a telephone pole, If Covid was present, then it can be assumed that it was a Covid related death. Same thing is happening here. We do have heat stress working environment here in New Mexico. Most New Mexicans live in a Heat Stress environment. But they also know how to handle the heat. I have heard of children get burnt badly from hot metal in the play ground. And elderly people falling down from the heat dehydration. But I have never seen or heard of a construction worker dying or even being hospitalized from working to long in the New Mexico Sun. This proposal is a solution looking for a problem. And we don’t have a worker heat related problem. There may be good people who are trying to do good by the working class. But it’s more likely it’s politicians looking to put a feather in their hats. The cost of that feather is loss production, Higher prices and a waste of tax payer monies. We don’t need this directive and it should be stopped | Leonard Ross | 5/21/25 |
| II-21-24 | This is bad for New Mexico and bad for business. In almost 40 years in the industry, we have only had 1 heat related incident, and that was in Texas. | RANDOPLH LYDIC | 5/21/25 |
| II-21-25 | This is bad for New Mexico and bad for business. In almost 40 years in the industry, we have only had 1 heat related incident, and that was in Texas. | RANDOPLH LYDIC | 5/21/25 |
| II-21-26 | Thank you for allowing us to submit comments and we hope you will spend time listening to the industries this rule will affect. RE: EIS 25-11 (R) • Proposed New Regulation 11.5. 7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention To Whom it May Concern, The Home Builders Association of Central NM would like to offer our comments and objections to the proposed new regulation on Heat Illness and Injury Prevention. We support steps in protecting workers from heat-related illness and injury and our members currently comply with federal heat illness prevention requirements and have for many years. We feel this new rule is not necessary when you look at the data on heat-related illnesses while on the job. In the New Mexico Home Builders Association letter for public/industry comment, they referenced the NM OHSB logs showing only 7 heat-related work illnesses in New Mexico in We acknowledge there were other heat-related illnesses reported but are not tied to a construction job site. We do want workers to be treated fairly and kept healthy. Our members currently have safety mechanisms in place for hydration breaks and reminders, safety briefings, and other ways of keeping their jobsites safe without disrupting productivity. There are many issues with this new regulation, and we would like to show how, if approved, it will impact the timeline in building a home and these added restrictions/ requirements will add to the price of a home. We are all very aware of the fact that there is a housing shortage and our industry works very hard to make sure unnecessary requirements do not add to this problem. The easiest point for us to address is reducing the daily active work time for each trade. This will have a great impact on the price of a home. In order to follow the unrealistically low temperature threshold, work crews who are in the full sun at 88 degrees, would require 30 minutes of shade every hour. This means in the average summer temperatures in New Mexico, crews will only be able to actually “work” on building a home a portion of the day. This will increase cycle times and increase the final price on a home. Just this one small part of the new rule will cause a financial burden that will be passed down to the consumer. We will not go into detail on each requirement of the new rule but do ask that you reconsider this proposed rule on Heat Illness and Injury Prevention. It is unnecessary and will continue to drive up housing costs and make homes less attainable for those who need them the most. Sincerely, JP Rael HBA President Lana Smiddle Executive Vice President | Home Builders Association of Central NM | 5/21/25 |
| II-21-27 | To Whom It May Concern: At Equality New Mexico, we believe that every LGBTQ New Mexican deserves to live, work, and thrive in safe conditions — free from the threats of violence, discrimination, and harm, including from preventable dangers like extreme heat. We write today in strong support of the New Mexico Environment Department’s proposed Occupational Heat Standard. This rule is a critical step toward protecting New Mexico’s most vulnerable workers and aligns with our broader commitment to environmental, economic, and LGBTQ justice. Queer and trans New Mexicans — especially Black, Indigenous, and people of color; immigrants; youth; and gender-diverse community members — are disproportionately represented in frontline and low-wage industries like agriculture, landscaping, construction, and warehouse work. These workers also experience higher rates of homelessness and lack access to healthcare as a result of their Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity in the current society. This means these workers are less likely to have access to the resources needed to recover from heat-induced illness or injury. New Mexicans cannot rely upon an air-conditioned home and a visit to a PCP in order to overcome a lack of safety at their worksite. These workers often face daily exposure to extreme temperatures without The heat protection rule would help ensure: ● Clear, enforceable safeguards to reduce heat-related illness, injury, and death. ● Accessible training standards for all workers, regardless of language or literacy level. ● Required emergency plans that promote accountability. ● Reinforced protections for workers who speak up about unsafe conditions — something especially important for LGBTQ workers who may already experience job-related discrimination or retaliation. Industry opposition focused on cost or convenience cannot outweigh the value of human life. Worker safety is not optional. Protecting the lives and dignity of all workers — including LGBTQ workers — must be a priority. We urge the Environmental Improvement Board to adopt this rule and to stand strong in the face of pressure from business interests. Our state’s future depends on policies that value people over profit and recognize the full humanity of every worker. Thank you for your leadership and commitment to protecting our communities. Sincerely, Nathan Saavedra Director of Policy, Power, & People Equality New Mexico | Equality New Mexico (EQNM) | 5/21/25 |
| II-21-28 | Please strengthen existing regulations with the inclusion of training and periodic re-training on emergency treatment requirements, protection of employees from retaliation or harassment, air conditioning of buildings and vehicles where employees work, the inclusion of non-managerial and staff workers most familiar with the hazards in the drafting of plans, and the clear communication of management to workers of their right to report violations of the standards. New Mexico workers are particularly affected by heat issues in the summer, not just in the fields, but in all workplaces. | Mary Margaret Davidson | 5/21/25 |
| II-21-29 | The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) has published a strong draft heat protection rule that I strongly support. It incorporates best practices and science-based solutions to keep workers safe from exposure to heat at the workplace, including: coverage of both indoor and outdoor workers; calling for written Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Plans (HIIPPs); providing for comprehensive worker training; implementing common sense preventive strategies including water, shade/cooling rooms, paid rest breaks, and acclimatization; and using trigger temperatures that are based on physiological science and years of experience from other states with heat standards. This standard will save lives. | Anonymous | 5/21/25 |
| II-21-30 | Do you work outdoors for a living? Have you ever worked outdoors in any capacity? If you have, you know what it is like on a hot summer day and how taking a break is not only a pleasant thing to do, but physically necessary thing to do to continue a healthy life. Be a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, hell, be a human being and pass these necessary rules to protect workers from the people that do not know or appreciate what it is like to work outdoors for a living. | Vincent Leyendecker | 5/21/25 |
| II-21-31 | Man-made climate change is affecting the entire planet. We can expect to see extreme temperatures (both highs and lows), natural disasters, and an increase in climate migration. Outdoor workers are going to be especially vulnerable. I would like to see them be provided with the means to create hearing/cooling stations, or to be compensated for the days they have missed due to the heat or cold. | Thalia Papadakis | 5/21/25 |
| II-22-1 | The City of Aztec is committed to the safety of its employees. Exposure to heat is outlined in our safety policy by referencing the OSHA Safety Standard. Many of the parameters in this bill are absurd and will inhibit a cohesive work environment, and imply that individuals are not capable of being responsible for their own health and safety. These initiatives should be addressed by management and safety officers in house with input from the state not legislated by our state governing bodies Again, the City of Aztec takes the safety of its employees very seriously and trains supplies and supports the comfort and safety of our team. This is the type of legislation that adds to the already over regulated nature of New Mexico government. | Jeff Blackburn | 5/22/25 |
| II-22-2 | I as a citizen of the United States of America and a life long citizen of the State of New Mexico oppose the regulation 11.6.7 NMAC bill. | Diane Pound | 5/22/25 |
| II-22-3 | Dr. David Van Zandt Hesley, DNP, CRNA 05/22/2025 To Whom It May Concern: As a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist practicing in rural New Mexico, I am writing in strong support of the New Mexico Environment Department’s proposed Occupational Heat Standard. Every summer, healthcare providers witness firsthand the toll extreme heat takes on our communities, particularly among outdoor and low-wage workers who lack basic protections on the job. This rule is urgently needed to prevent entirely avoidable heat-related illnesses and deaths. In rural areas like mine, access to emergency medical care can be delayed due to geography and resource limitations. That means prevention is not just preferable—it is absolutely critical. The standard’s requirements for written Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Plans (HIIPPs), access to water and shade, acclimatization protocols, and worker training are sound, evidence-based measures that align with best practices in occupational and public health. These are common-sense protections that can and will save lives. As a healthcare professional, I also strongly support provisions that would: Require clear emergency response procedures for heat illness; Educate workers on their rights, including non-retaliation protections; Ensure training is interactive and meaningful—not just a formality. This rule is especially important for rural workers, who often have fewer resources, face language barriers, and work in sectors like agriculture, construction, and delivery where heat exposure is constant and severe. These workers are vital to our communities and our economy—they deserve to be protected. I urge the Department and Environmental Improvement Board to adopt this rule without delay and to resist pressure from industry groups who put profits ahead of worker health. Protecting our workforce is not only a moral obligation—it is essential to the well-being of New Mexico’s families, businesses, and healthcare systems. Thank you for your leadership and commitment to worker safety. Sincerely, Dr. David Van Zandt Hesley, DNP, CRNA Española, Rio Arriba County, NM | David Hesley | 5/22/25 |
| II-22-4 | HEAT ILLNESS AND INJURY; This is bill is poorly thought out and anti-business. If you want to protect workers than you should have a board consisting of business owners and safety personal NOT bureaucrats. Every industry has different environments one size will not fit all. The cost to business will be overbearing and not justifiable. | Elgie Harris | 5/22/25 |
| II-22-5 | You’re trying to make a rule that would hinder our workers. Every employer does have a responsibility to care for their workers, but the workers also have a responsibility for themselves. Most people know or should be educated by their employer about heat stroke or heat exhaustion. Common sense should come into play for the workers to know when to get out of the heat and take measures to hydrate and cool down. | Mary Armstrong | 5/22/25 |
| II-22-6 | I strongly support a rule to protect workers from extreme heat while on the job. Further workers must be protected if they report violations. It is easy for employers to avoid responsibility if workers are not free to report violations. Next any employer plan, to mitigate heat, must receive input from workers. Those in the field possess knowledge which management might ignore or miss. | Karl Kiser | 5/22/25 |
| II-22-7 | As a father of two New Mexico born children, I submit this personal comment so they can have a brighter future. The need to protect employees from more frequent and more intense excess heat illnesses and injuries grows with our changing weather. In addition, the proposed rule can benefit employers by mitigating the productivity losses seen when workers are exposed to occupational heat stress. As such, I support this proposed rule. The NMED for incorporating elements with a proven record of success in multiple states at preventing worker heat-related illnesses and injury, including: Application to both outdoor and indoor worksites (11.5.7.2). As the complaints to the NMED reveal, workers across all industries are suffering from workplace exposure to heat. It is important that this standard protects as many workers as possible. Establishing an initial heat trigger of a heat index of 80 degrees Fahrenheit (11.5.7.10) and a high heat trigger of a heat index of 95 degrees Fahrenheit (11.5.7.7(d)). These temperature triggers are in line with those of California, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Maryland and the proposed federal standard, and contrary to what some folks are saying, the business community has been able to adapt by adopting to the Rule without the great harms some are claiming will result if the Rule passes. Calling for a written Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Plan (11.5.7.8). A written plan is a key part of building a workplace culture of injury and illness prevention allowing employers to identify workplace risks and for workers and managers to study and understand the strategy for mitigating and eliminating those hazards as well as their expected role in keeping the workplace safe. Provisions that protections like water, training, and rest breaks should come at no cost to the worker, either in monetary charges or lost wages. (11.5.7.10) It is a fundamental tenant of OSHA law that employers are responsible for providing a workplace free of hazards, and therefore mandatory measures to ensure worker safety must be paid for by employers as part of meeting that duty of care. Evidence shows OSHA and voluntary employer action is not sufficiently protective, and the situation is rapidly deteriorating as Emergency Department visits due to heat stress in New Mexico doubled between early 2010s and 2023. Deaths due to heat stress more than tripled between early 2010s and 2023. The southeast and southwest regions experience the highest rate of heat stress ED visits and deaths. Heat waves are becoming more frequent, last longer and are more intense than in the past. The federal requirements are insufficient to address heat-related illnesses and safety –and so too is a reliance solely on the good will of employers who are in business to maximize their profits. I thank the NMED for its diligent process in drafting this important worker protection standard. I am hoping the EIB will adopt it, and incorporate many of the suggestions to ensure successful protection of New Mexico workers | Charles Goodmacher | 5/22/25 |
| II-22-8 | A part of my agency’s services includes daycare/afterschool services. With these regulations, daycare staff could not be outside in the summer more than 2 hours during a work day when temps are over 80 degrees; this means no Bisti Bay/outside swimming with the children, going to the park, picnics, nature walks, etc. Additionally, any outside maintenance on our campus such as mowing grass, weeds, etc. is supposed to be completed in less than two hours for the maintenance man. We live in a desert/arid area where the temperatures reach 80 degrees in May. How are employers expected to accommodate these restrictions on a daily basis during summer months? It is impossible to implement alternative work hours/schedules during the summer when running a business. | Navajo United Methodist Center/New Beginnings | 5/22/25 |
| II-22-9 | Until the business owners work under the same conditions as their employees, their opinions should carry no more weight than any other. Health and safety considerations should carry equal weight to economic and profit factors. Protect New Mexicans who do the hard, physical labor under extreme environmental conditions. | Cathy Intemann | 5/22/25 |
| II-22-10 | We don’t need further NM regulations. Stay with and enforce OSHA standards. Period. | William Rogers | 5/22/25 |
| II-22-11 | As a New Mexico resident, I strongly support NMED’s proposed occupational heat protection standard. This life-saving regulation is desperately needed to protect workers across our state—construction workers, restaurant staff, teachers, farm workers, delivery drivers, and warehouse employees who face serious risks of heat-related illness and death as our climate gets hotter. This proposed standard incorporates science-based solutions and best practices, including coverage for both indoor and outdoor workers, required Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Plans, comprehensive training, and common-sense preventive measures like water access, shade, paid rest breaks, and proper acclimatization. While I strongly support this rule, I encourage NMED to strengthen it by: Requiring anti-retaliation protections in HIIPP plans and training, referencing existing New Mexico laws Clarifying emergency procedures for heat stroke and severe heat illness Closing exemption loopholes to ensure mechanical cooling exemptions only apply when systems are actually functioning Including worker input in HIIPP development since frontline workers best understand workplace dangers Requiring in-person training with opportunities for questions and mandatory retraining after incidents New Mexico workers deserve protection from preventable heat-related injuries and deaths. Industry opposition should not prevent our state from leading on worker safety. Please adopt this standard without delay. | Jay Choate | 5/22/25 |
| II-23-1 | To Whom It May Concern: RE: Opposition to Proposed Heat Stress Regulations I am writing to express our concern and opposition to the proposed heat stress regulations under consideration by the New Mexico Occupational Health and Safety Bureau. We recognize and share your commitment to protecting the health and safety of workers, especially given the high temperatures our crews regularly face during summer months. However, as an employer on the front lines of construction jobsite operations, we believe the proposed regulations, while wellintentioned, impose significant operational and economic burdens that may ultimately hinder—not help—worker safety. The proposed rules appear to mandate specific rest break schedules, water provisions, shaded recovery areas, and administrative controls without flexibility to account for the varied nature of construction job sites. Each project varies in scope, location, and staffing. A one-size-fits-all mandate is difficult to apply safely and effectively across the range of real-world conditions. Additionally, rigid break schedules that don’t account for workflow and productivity patterns could result in extended project timelines, leading to financial strain for contractors, clients, and workers alike. Mandated downtime, shade structure installation, and compliance documentation represent significant costs, particularly for small to mid-size contractors. Many in our industry are already struggling with labor shortages, inflation, and supply chain disruptions. Adding over-regulation in this area could create legal liability confusion, increase insurance premiums, and result in enforcement actions that do not consider good-faith safety efforts. Our company actively promotes heat safety through training, provision of water and electrolyte replacement, heat acclimatization practices, and flexible break policies tailored to conditions on-site. We believe these voluntary, industry-driven best practices are more effective than prescriptive rules in keeping our workers safe and productive. We urge New Mexico OSHA to work in partnership with industry stakeholders to revise these proposed rules into a framework that sets achievable safety goals while allowing flexibility in implementation. Input from contractors, field supervisors, and trade associations will help create policy that is both effective and practical. We respectfully request that the current proposal be reconsidered or amended based on meaningful dialogue with the commercial construction community. Sincerely, George A Gina President G C Services Inc, | G C Services Inc | 5/23/25 |
| II-23-2 | RE: Public Comment on Proposed Rule 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Dear New Mexico Environment Department, On behalf of the New Mexico Retail Association (NMRA), thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments on the proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule (11.5.7 NMAC). NMRA represents national, regional, and local retailers operating across the state, employing thousands of New Mexicans in both customer-facing locations and critical warehousing and logistics functions. While we support the Bureau’s intent to protect worker safety, we are deeply concerned that the proposed rule imposes novel, complex, and operationally unworkable requirements that would undermine rather than promote the Bureau’s stated goal of “protecting the health of workers and safeguarding our rapidly growing economy.” The rule, as drafted, departs from national precedent and exceeds the compliance frameworks adopted in other jurisdictions with mature heat safety programs. It should be withdrawn in its current form, and the Department should conduct a comprehensive economic and operational impact analysis before proceeding. Heat Index Modifiers Are Without National Precedent and Unworkable The rule requires employers to adjust National Weather Service heat index values based on sun exposure to determine compliance with mandated work/rest schedules. Such a requirement is without precedent nationally, and for good reason. Sun exposure can change rapidly throughout a shift and may vary significantly within even a single work area. Retail employers, particularly those operating warehouses or loading docks, cannot reasonably be expected to constantly recalculate the heat index and modify worker schedules in real time in response to changing sun conditions. The Bureau’s stated goal of safeguarding workers and supporting economic growth is not advanced by a rule that demands continuous environmental recalculation in dynamic work environments. At a minimum, any adjustments for sun exposure should be optional, not required. Heat Exposure Assessments Impose Clinical and Legal Burdens The rule requires employers to conduct heat exposure assessments that take into account “personal risk factors” such as an individual’s age, acclimatization, health, hydration status, and use of prescription medications. Requiring employers to assess such individualized health factors imposes clinical decision-making responsibilities on retail managers that are beyond their training and legal authority. These assessments mirror the types of evaluations governed by OSHA’s Medical Examination Program and would require the involvement of licensed medical professionals. Furthermore, the rule offers no guidance for clinicians on how such assessments should be conducted or applied, which will lead to inconsistent outcomes and unnecessary operational complications. This provision must be removed or substantially rewritten. Additionally, the rule lacks clarity as to whether assessments must be conducted on a per-employee basis. To the extent the rule is interpreted to require individualized assessments for each employee, New Mexico would stand alone in imposing such a burden. No other jurisdiction—California, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, or Washington—requires individual employee-level heat assessments. Even if read as a site-specific requirement, the rule still fails to account for multi-site employers with standardized processes and engineering controls. Acclimatization Mandates Are Inflexible and Unprecedented The proposed acclimatization standard mandates a rigid phased-in work schedule (e.g., 20% of the normal workday on day one) that does not account for environmental factors, break access, job intensity, or prior worker experience. This “one-size-fits-all” approach would present serious obstacles for retailers, particularly during peak seasonal periods when temporary workers are frequently onboarded. It would be functionally impossible to implement these schedules for new hires across large or dispersed workforces. No other state imposes a codified acclimatization schedule in regulation. Instead, jurisdictions such as California, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington allow for employer discretion to implement appropriate acclimatization protocols tailored to their environment and industry. New Mexico should follow this example. Work/Rest Schedules Are Overly Complex and Impractical Table 3 of the rule mandates work/rest schedules that change based on minor differences in temperature and humidity—often varying by a single degree. For example, within a five-degree range, there may be five distinct work/rest schedules. The rule is also silent on how temperature changes within the hour affect break scheduling, further complicating compliance. These schedules are lifted from a 2016 NIOSH publication that explicitly described them as examples, not mandates. NIOSH recognized that employers should first consider engineering or administrative controls, with break schedules as a last resort option where other controls are not feasible. Mandating these schedules misuses the NIOSH guidance and disregards the flexibility that is foundational to their recommendations. In practical terms, implementing this table in retail and warehouse environments—especially where operations rely on continuous, timed throughput—would be unworkable. Recordkeeping Requirements Are Overbroad and Duplicative The rule would require employers to: Maintain individualized acclimatization records for all new or returning employees; Record every instance of heat illness or “heat-related injury,” even those requiring only first aid; Log the heat index at the time of every incident. These requirements are excessive. Federal OSHA already requires employers to maintain a log of all work-related injuries that require treatment beyond first aid. The new rule would duplicate and expand this obligation without providing meaningful safety benefits. In addition, the rule appears to require employers to determine whether heat contributed to any workplace injury that occurs during warm weather. This would necessitate medical causation analysis for every injury—an unreasonable and legally fraught demand. Finally, “heat-related injury” is defined so broadly that it could include any momentary fatigue or dizziness that resolves with hydration or shade. This would force employers to document numerous minor incidents that offer no actionable insight into overall workplace safety trends. Request for Withdrawal & Impact Analysis New Mexico Retail Association urges the Environmental Improvement Board to withdraw the rule in its current form and initiate a full stakeholder engagement process—one that includes detailed economic and operational impact analysis. If after an economic and operational impact analysis is performed, the Department wishes to move forward with rulemaking, the New Mexico Retail Association would recommend shifting toward a performance-based standard that gives employers the discretion to develop tailored, risk-based heat illness prevention programs. Such an approach would better align with national best practices and support both worker safety and operational sustainability. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. Sincerely, Jason Espinoza President & CEO New Mexico Retail Association | New Mexico Retail Association | 5/23/25 |
| II-23-3 | I am writing on behalf of my small business, Split Fire Protection LLC., to express our opposition to EIB 25-11 (R) – Proposed New Regulation. This regulation would negatively impact small businesses like ours, which lack the resources to hire a full-time team to assess heat indexes, monitor employees, and manage heat-related records for nine months each year. Additionally, we cannot accommodate the proposed reduction of work hours by ⅓ to ¾ during the summer months. Starting the monitoring process at 80°F effectively turns this into a year-round paperwork requirement for no benefit. Much of our work is done outdoors, and during summer, we already provide unlimited ice water and breaks as each employee deems necessary. We have never experienced a heat-related illness. We take pride in our safe work environment and value our workers. The OSHA draft remains a draft because it is both unpopular and unworkable for these very reasons. Please table this proposal. | Split Fire Protection | 5/23/25 |
| II-23-4 | There should be some regulation around protecting workers in heat related situations. Most employers want to do the right thing, but they have pressure from the profit motive. If some employers are bad actors, the good employers worry that the bad employers will be making more profit. There should be some standards which all employers have to follow in heat related situations, but make it as least burdensome as possible. | Albert Tyson | 5/23/25 |
| II-23-5 | Albuquerque Hispano Chamber of Commerce 1309 Fourth Street SW Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505) 842-9003 www.ahcnm.org May 23, 2025 New Mexico Environment Department Occupational Health and Safety Bureau 1190 St. Francis Drive, Suite N4050 Santa Fe, NM 87505 RE: Public Comment on Proposed Rule 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Dear Secretary Sandoval and Members of the Environmental Improvement Board, On behalf of the Albuquerque Hispano Chamber of Commerce (Hispano Chamber) and the more than 1,400 member businesses we represent, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on Proposed Rule 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention. As a matter of reference, the Hispano Chamber is organized to promote economic development, to enhance economic opportunities and to provide business and workforce education for the Hispanic and small business community in Albuquerque and New Mexico. We share your commitment to worker health and safety. Our members recognize that protecting employees—especially those working in high-heat environments, is both a moral responsibility and essential to long-term business success. However, we also believe that workplace regulations must be effective, practical, and balanced to achieve their intended goals in a manner that businesses can actually implement. Unfortunately, the current version of the proposed rule does not meet strike that balance. As drafted, the rule suggests an inflexible and burdensome compliance framework that goes well beyond federal OSHA requirements and exceeds what any other state currently mandates. If implemented, it would create legal uncertainties, operational difficulties, and significant costs—particularly for small and midsize employers. At the same time, many of its provisions are unlikely to deliver clear or measurable improvements in worker outcomes, which is significantly compounded by how burdensome the proposed rules would be if implemented. With that in mind, we urge the Department to withdraw the proposed rule and instead pursue a more collaborative and performance-based approach, one that reflects New Mexico’s diverse industries, geography, and workforce while maintaining a strong commitment to health and safety. I. We Support Protecting Workers—But This Rule Is Not the Right Solution The Hispano Chamber’s mission is rooted in supporting economic opportunity, entrepreneurship, and inclusive prosperity especially for small business and the communities they support, serve, and become a part of as they grow. While safe and healthy workplaces are an essential part of that vision, any regulation that seeks to impose requirements on how privater businesses operate should be clear, narrowly tailored to accomplish their stated goals, easily enforceable and practical from an implementation standpoint. Regulation must be designed in a way that businesses can implement in an effective and sustainable way. Unfortunately, the proposed heat rule is none of those things. Rather, it is overly complexity and prescriptive, lacks flexibility, legally ambiguous and creates challenges that will not only burden employers, but also limit job opportunities, suppress productivity, and divert resources away from safety investments that could have greater impact on worker safety. Here is a fully refined and slightly expanded version of Section II – Key Concerns with the Proposed Rule, integrating all significant legal and policy points from the attached 2025-05-18 legal analysis. The tone remains balanced and professional, while offering justifications and workable alternatives for each provision: II. Key Concerns with the Proposed Rule Sun-Based Heat Index Adjustments Are Unworkable and Unprecedented Section 11.5.7.10(C) requires employers to add degrees to the National Weather Service (NWS) heat index to account for sun exposure. While intended to improve accuracy, this approach is not used in any other state and introduces serious logistical challenges. Sun exposure can fluctuate rapidly throughout the day and vary even within the same job site, making real-time recalculation both infeasible and prone to error—especially for small businesses or mobile crews. This approach also creates compliance uncertainty, since even a small deviation in a reading could trigger a different work/rest cycle and fails properly account for relative humidity below 40%, which is common in New Mexico and acknowledged in California’s indoor heat rule (8 CCR 3396). Recommendation: Sun-based modifiers should be optional rather than mandatory, in line with NIOSH guidance. Any heat index tables should reflect regional climate norms, including low-humidity environments. Heat Exposure Assessments Improperly Require Medical Judgments Section 11.5.7.9(E) calls for individualized heat exposure assessments that account for “personal risk factors,” including hydration, age, health status, and medication use. This effectively requires employers to make ongoing clinical evaluations—an inappropriate expectation for non-medical personnel. This language goes significantly beyond what is required in any other state. For example, California, Oregon, and Maryland all require site-level evaluations but do not require employers to make personal medical determinations. Additionally, the rule provides no standards for how licensed clinicians—if used—should evaluate these factors, creating further ambiguity. Recommendation: Limit the scope of required assessments to site conditions and job-specific risk factors. Remove or clarify language that would compel employers to evaluate individual medical status unless done by a qualified healthcare provider. Acclimatization Mandates Are Overly Rigid and Economically Disruptive Section 11.5.7.10(A) imposes a strict acclimatization schedule limiting new or returning workers to 20% of their normal shift on the first day, followed by incremental increases. While acclimatization is critical to heat illness prevention, this prescriptive formula does not account for the range of conditions that influence risk, including job intensity, shade, elevation, or access to water. No other jurisdiction codifies such specific percentages in regulation as proposed by this rule. Instead, states like Nevada and Oregon offer flexibility by allowing employers to adopt acclimatization protocols based on operational context and varied practical situations, which are very common in an actual work setting. A fixed-schedule model would be particularly disruptive for industries that rely on seasonal or short-term labor, such as agriculture, construction, and hospitality. Recommendation: Replace rigid percentage-based schedules with a flexible, risk-based standard that allows employers to implement effective acclimatization protocols tailored to their environment. Work/Rest Schedules in Table 3 Are Overly Prescriptive and Difficult to Apply This table introduces mandatory rest break schedules based on heat index readings. While these schedules are drawn from a 2016 NIOSH document, in that document, they were presented as optional examples—not mandates as suggested by this rule. In fact, NIOSH recommended that employers first use engineering or administrative controls, turning to rest cycles only if those are not sufficient. The rule’s reliance on precise temperature thresholds—where a one-degree change can shift the required schedule—creates instability and invites enforcement confusion. For instance, within a five-degree band in the “moderate work” category, an employer could be required to switch between five different rest break cycles. This level of micromanagement is not found in any other state, including California, Minnesota, or Maryland. Recommendation: Make Table 3 non-binding guidance and allow employers to develop work/rest schedules that reflect job duties, environmental controls, and practical feasibility. Employers with appropriate engineering controls in place should be exempt from rigid rest mandates. Record-keeping Requirements Go Beyond Federal Standards Without Clear Benefit Section 11.5.7.13 would impose expansive record-keeping obligations on employers, including: Keeping acclimatization schedules for each new and returning employee; Logging every heat-related illness or injury, including those requiring only first aid; Recording the heat index at the time of each incident. This far exceeds OSHA’s record-keeping standards under 29 CFR 1904.7, which require logs only for incidents involving medical treatment beyond first aid. New Mexico already follows these federal rules under NMAC 11.5.1.16. Creating a parallel set of requirements would generate significant compliance burdens, especially for small businesses, without improving outcomes. Furthermore, the rule defines “heat-related injury” in overly broad terms, including slips or falls that may be indirectly linked to heat exposure. This could force employers to speculate on causation and make judgments that would normally require the diagnosis of a medical professional which is not only inappropriate but creates more liability for employers and managers. Recommendation: Align record-keeping provisions with federal OSHA standards and limit documentation to incidents that involve objective, reportable injuries. Employers should not be asked to determine medical causation or maintain individualized acclimatization records unless they already do so as part of a documented safety plan. III. Broader Economic Impacts Cannot Be Ignored Beyond the legal and operational issues, the proposed rule risks unintended economic harm. New Mexico’s small businesses—especially those in hospitality, agriculture, construction, and field services—will be disproportionately affected by requirements they lack the resources to implement. At the same time, larger companies evaluating where to expand or invest will see this regulation as a red flag, given its departure from national norms. Perhaps most concerning, the rule could limit workforce participation. Seasonal, entry-level, and returning workers may find their hours sharply restricted or delayed due to rigid acclimatization rules. That’s not a path to worker empowerment—it’s a barrier to opportunity. If New Mexico is serious about growing and diversifying its economy, we must avoid becoming an outlier in ways that deter investment and innovation. We believe safety and growth are not mutually exclusive—and this rule, unfortunately, does not reflect that balance. IV. A More Constructive Path Forward Given all the very practical and significant issues the current rule could cause for businesses of all sizes, we encourage the Department to: Withdraw the current proposal and start a revised rule making process that is more deliberative, intentional and fair; Engage a broader stakeholder coalition that includes small businesses, large employers, workers, and industry associations; Develop a performance-based framework that prioritizes outcomes and allows employers to design site-specific solutions; Align with federal OSHA standards and successful state programs to ensure clarity, consistency, and credibility; Consider examples and points of compromise from other states to develop a more balanced heat policy that consider New Mexico’s unique economic circumstance and environment. V. Conclusion The Hispano Chamber supports the goal of reducing heat-related illnesses in the workplace. However, the Department’s current draft of Rule 11.5.7 NMAC overreaches in ways that are legally questionable, practically unworkable, and economically risky—without delivering clear benefits to workers. We respectfully urge a pause, reconsideration, and renewed collaboration on a rule that protects people, supports business, and strengthens New Mexico’s future. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Ernie C’de Baca President & CEO Albuquerque Hispano Chamber of Commerce | Albuquerque Hispano Chamber of Commerce | 5/23/25 |
| II-23-6 | I oppose this bill. There are many occupations that required outdoor work and has since the beginning of time. Firefighters, farmers, ranchers, construction workers, equipment operators, oil and gas workers are essential to the success of our nation. Awarness and training is great we want people safe at work, but restricting them is an over reach of government. People can climatize to their environment and should. A emplyeer is can not control a employees actions off work. Alcohol and energy drinks dont help hydrate and prepare the employee for work the next day but will effect how they handle heat. When discussing kids and school implementation, there needs to be a discussion regarding the budget that comes along with this. School budgets are being cut but the state wants to implement more requirements without how to pay for and implement the requirements. I disagree with the state and this bill. | Tina Cason | 5/23/25 |
| II-23-7 | What is driving this? Has there been an increase in heat related injury or death? People have been working in the desert heat for years – I think they are smart enough to know how to dress, hydrate, and take breaks without the government overreach being proposed here. Enough already. | Deborah Kernan | 5/23/25 |
| II-23-8 | This bill, EIB 25-11 (R) – Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention is an attack on customers and consumers which would cause a huge increase in in costs and inefficiency. It would increase costs to employers, forcing many businesses to close. Reject this attack on employers and consumers. | Johnny Lanctot | 5/23/25 |
| II-23-9 | Thank you for putting this together and providing additional guidance to the contents of OSHA’s NEP. Some small considerations: NM is prone to relative humidity values less than 40%, can a different chart be selected for Table 2. Table 3 is wonderful, very clear and concise. My only concern is I didn’t see any language or examples defining what light/moderate/heavy work might constitute. Please consider writing a a brief description of those definitions. What is the role of the employer to provide appropriate clothing for the work environment or at least a credit to support the purchase of appropriate clothing? High quality outdoor clothing can be very expensive and the economic bracket of many NM employees exposed to heat in their jobs can be quite impoverished. In 11.5.7.10 D. h It describes how an employer can get out providing shade given certain circumstances, if the employer can demonstrate that their substitute methods of cooling are effective. There is currently no guidance or example or appendix that clarifies that process. My fear (because I have seen this happen multiple times already) is that without clarification this provision could be used as a loop hole for employers. Can clarification be added to 11.5.7.9 E regarding personal/individualized risks. There is language in OSHA’s NEP regarding examples of personal/individualized risks, my personal opinion is that this should either be cited or written into the text of 11.5.7.9 E to ensure that the individuals partaking in heat exposed work are considered in the Heat Exposure Assessment. | Shelby Jones | 5/23/25 |
| II-23-10 | To Whom It May Concern: The ACLU of New Mexico supports the New Mexico Environment Department’s proposed Occupational Heat Standard to protect workers from the growing dangers of extreme heat in the workplace. This is a civil rights and human dignity issue. Every worker has the fundamental right to a safe workplace. As climate change intensifies and extreme heat becomes more frequent and severe, we must ensure that no one is forced to choose between their health and their job. The proposed standard is a critical step toward ensuring that right is protected under New Mexico law. Across the state, the workers most likely to experience unsafe heat exposure are also those most vulnerable to systemic discrimination and economic precarity: farmworkers, construction laborers, warehouse staff, domestic and food service workers—many of whom are immigrants, people of color, LGBTQ individuals, or who have limited access to healthcare or legal recourse. This rule would: Guarantee life-saving protections such as access to water, shade, paid rest breaks, and acclimatization protocols; Require employers to develop heat illness prevention plans and emergency response procedures; Mandate language-accessible training, helping empower workers to recognize and respond to heat stress; Bolster the right to report unsafe conditions without fear of retaliation—a protection essential to upholding labor and civil rights. The state must not allow economic interests to override the human rights of working New Mexicans—especially those whose voices are too often excluded from policymaking processes. Nor can workers in New Mexico afford to wait. Denying or delaying the adoption of this rule will mean that some of the most vulnerable New Mexico workers will continue to be at risk of heat-related illness and death. The time to act is now. We urge the New Mexico Environment Department to stand strong in support of the proposed draft rule and the Environmental Improvement Board to adopt and fully implement this standard without delay. Protecting workers from heat-related harm is not only a public health necessity—it is a matter of racial, economic, and environmental justice. Sincerely, /s/ Daniel Williams Daniel Williams Policy Advocate ACLU of New Mexico PO Box 566 Albuquerque, NM 87103 (505) 933-4831 dwilliams@aclu-nm.org | American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico | 5/23/25 |
| II-23-11 | Subject: GACC opposition to NMAC 11.5.7 Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Regulation Dear Environmental Improvement Board Commissioners, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Regulations for Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Regulations that you will consider at your July 2025 meeting. The Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce opposes the regulations as written for the following reasons: It is unnecessary as employees are already protected from heat-related hazards via OSHA’s General Duty Clause. It will negatively affect virtually every economic sector and industry in our state, from construction, agriculture and oil and gas to bakeries and laundromats, delivering serious roadblocks to our state’s urgent need for good jobs, housing and infrastructure while raising prices exponentially. There are reasonable, common-sense provisions to ensure workplace safety that can be implemented, from hydration and shade stations to safety briefings and trainings, many of which are currently in practice by most businesses. We all know that New Mexico struggles to be competitive with other states, so we shouldn’t make the problem worse. Setting extreme, arbitrary, one-size-fits-all break requirements of 40 to 45 minutes of every hour simply makes everything from pouring concrete to baking a wedding cake impossible – or impossibly expensive. Mandating irregular shifts and extended hours to avoid temperature thresholds in fact negatively affects the mental health, child care and family responsibilities of the workforce this regulation is trying to protect. While no doubt well intended, NMAC 11.5.7 will in actuality hurt businesses, consumers and employees. A closer look reveals it violates an immutable law: the law of unintended consequences. We ask you to vote ”no” on this regulation as written. Thank you, Sincerely, Del Esparza Chairman of the Board Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce Terri Cole President and CEO Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce | Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce | 5/23/25 |
| II-23-12 | I am a retail nursery manager. I have operated this nursery 18years and we did not have any big issue with heat illness. Education, training, and more flexible breaks are the key for preventing heat illness. As we are a small retail business, it makes very difficult that employee work only 1 hour 40 minutes and gets paid 8 hours amount per day. If you are a business owner or manager, the regulation seems that you ask us to close our business during the summer. | Jason Seo | 5/23/25 |
| II-23-13 | This rule is sorely needed, but I believe there are five key ways that the standard could be improved even more. ● The standard should require employers to include references to existing New Mexico non-retaliation laws as part of employer HIIPP plans and worker training. Because the Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) system depends on workers coming forward when they perceive violations, this communication from their employers is critically important for good enforcement of the standard. ● The standard needs more clarity on emergency procedures. In cases of heat stroke and other severe heat-related illnesses every second counts and so employers and workers alike must be well versed on what actions to take as they wait for emergency medical staff to arrive. ● The standard has only a few reasonable exemptions for specific workplaces, but it needs to clarify that buildings and vehicles with mechanical cooling controls are exempt only when those systems are functioning. Many of the complaints the NMED investigated between 2022-2025 found broken air conditioning for weeks, months, and in one case a year. Further, delivery workers should not be exempted if the cabs of their trucks have air conditioning, but they spend more than 15 minutes out of an hour either in the back of the truck or in the act of delivering packages to doorsteps. ● The NMED should strengthen the HIIPP provisions by urging employers to seek input and involvement of non-managerial staff in drafting the plans. Frontline workers who perform work tasks daily are best placed to understand the specific dangers of the workplace, adding crucial knowledge to the HIIPP. ● The standard should specify that training must be given in person with the opportunity to ask questions and employers should be required to re-deliver the training in the case of a serious heat-related illness or injury onsite, an OSHA citation, a fatality, or work processes changing significantly | Karen Boehler | 5/23/25 |
| II-23-14 | I support common sense heat rules. We all deserve a safe working environment. | Alex Stavrides | 5/23/25 |
| II-23-15 | I support these proposed common-sense heat rules that help protect the people who do physical work outdoors in hot environments on our behalf. They help look after our safety, well being, and all aspects of daily life in our communities. They need a safe work environment, and we need them. Thank you for your attention and assistance. | Sylvia Ramos | 5/23/25 |
| II-23-16 | This is totally unnecessary rule. There are regulations in place for safety on jobs it’s. this would interfere with the employer/employee relationship not ot mention it is unworkable. My husband worked in the Arizona desert on heavy equipment and never had issues from the heat. He planned and kept plenty of water on hand. This is a personal responsibility issue, not a state issue. Do not pass this rule | Pattie Sheahan | 5/23/25 |
| II-23-17 | For our workforce to as productive as it must be, its members must not be impaired by dangerous heat working conditions and rules. Manual labor under extreme heat is torturous. It’s in all our favor not to torture our fellow citizens. | Willis Duff | 5/23/25 |
| II-24-1 | These proposed rules will add nothing to worker safety, but will significantly add to the cost of doing business. How about providing information and best practices information to employers and employees and letting the people doing the work determine what is best for them? | Richard Diver | 5/24/25 |
| II-24-1 | I endorse this new regulation. As climate change brings us hotter weather we have to protect workers who work in heat vulnerable situations. | Ann Dunlap | 5/24/25 |
| II-24-1 | I strongly support the New Mexico Environment Department’s (NMED) strong draft heat protection rule. New Mexico is getting hotter, and workers across our state, especially those working outdoors and in non-air-conditioned indoor environments, are at serious risk of heat-related illness and death. The proposed rule addresses this new climate reality with best practices and science-based solutions including calling for written Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Plans (HIIPPs); providing for comprehensive worker training; implementing common sense preventive strategies including water, shade/cooling rooms, paid rest breaks, and acclimatization; and using trigger temperatures that are based on physiological science and years of experience from other states with heat standards. This standard is essential for protecting our workers and saving lives. | Nicole Waltermire | 5/24/25 |
| II-24-1 | This regulation incorporates best practices and science-based solutions to keep workers safe from exposure to heat at the workplace, using trigger temperatures that are based on physiological science and years of experience from other states with heat standards. This standard will save lives. There are ways that the standard could be improved even more. ● The standard should require employers to include references to existing New Mexico non-retaliation laws as part of employer HIIPP plans and worker training. Because the Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) system depends on workers coming forward when they perceive violations, this communication from their employers is critically important for good enforcement of the standard. ● The standard needs more clarity on emergency procedures. In cases of heat stroke and other severe heat-related illnesses, every second counts, therefore employers and workers alike must be well versed on what actions to take as they wait for emergency medical staff to arrive. ● The standard needs to clarify that buildings and vehicles with mechanical cooling controls are exempt only when those systems are functioning. Many of the complaints the NMED investigated during 2022-2025 found broken air conditioning for weeks, months, and in one case a year. Further, delivery workers should not be exempted if the cabs of their trucks have air conditioning, but they spend more than 15 minutes out of an hour either in the back of the truck or in the act of delivering packages to doorsteps. ● The NMED should strengthen the HIIPP provisions by urging employers to seek input and involvement of non-managerial staff in drafting the plans. Frontline workers who perform work tasks daily are best placed to understand the specific dangers of the workplace, adding crucial knowledge to the HIIPP. ● The standard should specify that training must be given in person with the opportunity to ask questions, and employers should be required to re-deliver the training in the case of a serious heat-related illness or injury onsite, an OSHA citation, a fatality, or work processes changing significantly. Thank you for your work on this growing life-and-death issue | Ellen Ackerman | 5/24/25 |
| II-25-1 | This is an absurd regulation and burden being put on businesses. What COVID didn’t shut down, this regulation will. This is government overreach. I can appreciate the concern of the NMED for NM citizens. However this is unworkable for small employers. A better solution is education. Starting in middle and high schools. And perhaps an employer pamphlet for employees to read. I know about HRI. Water and electrolytes are important. Moreso is ones own education. I have worked in very hot outside temps in Arizona and New Mexico. I was a heavy equipment machinery mechanic. I worked on machinery AFTER the operators were done for the day. Hot machinery and as much at 120 degrees. Long sleeves and gloves were a must. Hard hat for ventilation. Lots of water and work at a moderate pace. In NM I was a well driller in the summers. Same situation but not as high of temps. Good common sense and that is the responsibility of the worker. Yes, the employer should take some actions to ensure worker safety. EDUCATION IS THE PROPER ANSWER FIRST. | Greg Sheahan | 5/25/25 |
| II26-1 | Working outdoors on very hot days is dangerous and can lead to heat strokes, and too often death. Yet, many laborers working outdoor in New Mexico’s hot summers must deal with such conditions, too often ending up in trips to an emergency room (if one is even nearby). Also, older folks are less able to handle hot temperatures, and too often succumb to heat. Accordingly, I strongly support EIDs proposed regulations re worker heat rules, which now is more important than ever as the current far right conservative US government is decimating the EPA and OSHA regs. | Leslie McFadden | 5/26/25 |
| II26-1 | NM Environmental Improvement Board c/o NM Environment Department 1190 St. Francis Drive, Suite N4050 Santa Fe, NM 87505 Dear Chair Suina and Bureau Chief Peck: I write to support the petition to the Environmental Improvement Board to adopt a proposed rule, NMAC 11.5.7 Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Regulation, on occupational heat illness and injury prevention, as proposed by the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED), Occupational Health and Safety Bureau (OHSB). The need to protect employees from more frequent and more intense excess heat illnesses and injuries grows with our changing weather. In addition, the proposed rule can benefit employers by mitigating the productivity losses seen when workers are exposed to occupational heat stress. I understand your process allows for the consideration of potential changes to the proposed Rule. As a Representative I acknowledge the many concerns expressed to date in public comment to the EIB, and urge the Board to seriously consider reasonable adjustments to the Rule. Public comments opposed to the Rule include a great deal of unscientific claims as well as important information which may lead you to consider amending the Rule prior to adoption The NMED proposed Rule does incorporate best practices and science-based solutions to keep workers safe from exposure to heat at the workplace, including: coverage of both indoor and outdoor workers; calling for written Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Plans; providing for comprehensive worker training; implementing common sense preventive strategies including water, shade/cooling rooms, paid rest breaks, and acclimatization; and using trigger temperatures that are based on physiological science and years of experience from other states with heat standards. This standard will save lives, so we support the proposal in general while not endorsing every provision per se. Evidence shows OSHA and voluntary employer action is not sufficiently protective, and the situation is rapidly deteriorating as Emergency Department visits due to heat stress in New Mexico doubled between early 2010s and 2023. Deaths due to heat stress more than tripled between early 2010s and 2023. The southeast and southwest regions experience the highest rate of heat stress ED visits and deaths. Heat waves are becoming more frequent, last longer and are more intense than in the past. The federal requirements are insufficient to address heat-related illnesses and safety –and so too is a reliance solely on the good will of employers who are in business to maximize their profits. Federal OSHA did a literature review to determine its temperature triggers and concluded that a heat trigger of 80 degrees would capture 96-100 percent of heat-related fatalities and virtually all non-fatal illnesses. (starting on page 70745). They cited studies that showed that even acclimatized workers exceeded the exposure limits for safety in heat at 90 degrees and needed preventive work breaks, and that unacclimated ones hit the exposure limits at 80 degrees. A CalOSHA (state of California) investigation in 2006 (right after their outdoor rule went into effect) found that heat illnesses occurred in temperatures as low as 80 degrees. https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/heatillnessinvestigations-2006.pdf Maintaining the status quo in the face of our increasing temperatures leads to a loss of productivity, and increased accidents. It is true some employers provide shade, cooling gear, and work rotation, but this is not the case across the entire state economy. If all employers provided preventative measures, costs would equalize among employers. Compliance with these rules will not only protect workers but will also level the playing field between businesses. Productivity losses that businesses experience now are due to workers suffering the effects of heat-related illnesses. A systematic review of studies on work and heat published in the Lancet (The highly regarding medical profession publication) found that at the end of a work shift under heat stress 30 percent of workers reported lost productivity. A meta study of heat and productivity loss among construction workers found that 60 percent of those workers exposed to high heat lost productivity. The Rule will lead to lower staff turnover; reduced absenteeism; reduced accidents; and reduced hospital care costs. A study of Washington State workers compensation claims found that the median number of lost working days for time loss claims was 6 days. In the U.S. as a whole, in 2021 agriculture, construction, manufacturing, and service sectors lost 2.5 billion hours of labor to worker exposure to heat, and in 2020 the costs to the economy may have been roughly $100 billion. It has wrongly been suggested employers should be able to substitute PPE like cooling vests or other controls like misters for preventive work breaks: this will leave workers unprotected from heat-related illnesses and does not adhere to the best practice of following the hierarchy of controls. PPE is the least effective tool for health and safety goals and places an undue burden on the worker to protect themselves, while isolation (or removing people from the hazard) ranks more highly. A study conducted by UT Houston found that cooling vests were initially effective in lowering worker temperature, but rapidly lost effectiveness as gel packs warmed. I urge the Environmental Improvement Board to adopt, perhaps with reasonable modifications, the proposed Occupational Heat Illness and Injury Prevention rule currently under consideration. Thank you for your consideration of my concern and perspective. Respectfully yours, Patricia Roybal Caballero pat.roybalcaballero@nmlegis.gov patriciafornm@gmail.com | Patricia Roybal Caballero State Representative District 13 | 5/26/25 |
| II26-1 | There can be no more question that our world is rapidly getting hotter. Persons without the benefit of working indoors or living with cooling opportunities can be severely injured by heatstroke or organ damage if forced to endure unsafe conditions. We must ensure that those subjected to work in hot environments are protected by having water, access to cooling environments and other options for limiting dangerous heat-related work illness. All workers deserve workplace protections from life-limiting heat. | Nancy Merritt | 5/26/25 |
| II-27-1 | Dear Environment Improvement Board, New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau (NMF&LB) appreciates the opportunity to provide comment on the Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule. New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau is New Mexico’s largest and oldest agriculture organization, representing members involved in all aspects of agriculture from dairy and livestock to fruits and vegetables. Our mission is to promote and protect agriculture in the great State of New Mexico. We are charged with the important task of representing our members interest when it comes to impending regulation. The culture of New Mexico agriculture keeps many producers actively involved in day-to-day operations, with many starting in the early hours of the morning, working into the late hours of the evening, providing shade, water, and breaks as needed. Current federal rule OSHA Standard for Agriculture (1928.110b), employers are required to provide drinking water to their employees. We appreciate the efforts that the department has taken to draft a plan, recognizing that the climate in which we live can have impacts on the health and well-being of labor workers. New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau is concerned with the one-size-fits-all approach to implementing such a rule. The proposed standard fails to account for the diverse industries in New Mexico, implementing identical standards are unreasonable and cause concern for increased inefficiencies and unnecessary costs to producers. New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau is opposed to the implementation of rules and regulations on agriculture within full disclosure of the impacts that will be incurred by producers. As an organization we are opposed to any rule or regulation that may restrict or limit the growing and/or processing of agricultural producers. As producers in New Mexico, we understand that protection of workers from heat-related illness is essential to their well-being and the success of agricultural operations. New Mexico producers are aware of the conditions in which their employees are working, understanding that dynamic environments require flexible, site and industry specific, employer led risk assessments to effectively and efficiently complete agricultural operation tasks. New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau encourages the development and implementation of funding for training producers and employees on recognizing heat related illness and injury in alternative to imposing regulations. Concerns on the economic feasibility of operations and inefficient work scheduled to produce the food that feeds the American population, would be unsustainable under the proposed rule. We ask that you consider the impacts such a regulation will have on current and future agricultural operations, taking into consideration the efforts that producers currently take to provide employees with shade, water, breaks, and adjusting hours to benefit the work conditions of those employees. Once again, New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau appreciates the opportunity to provide comment on the Proposed Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Rule. We look forward to further engaging in this process and appreciate your consideration of our members | New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau | 5/27/25 |
| II-27-2 | I support this life-saving regulation. Heat is a serious matter. We need to make sure we are not losing workers because of lack of guidance on this very serious, life and death matter. | June Anglin | 5/27/25 |
| II-27-3 | Jericho Nursery already provides year-round food, generous drinking water, shade, and cooling areas for every employee, especially for those who work out in the elements (heat or cold). It is, and always has been, our goal to make our workplace a safe, healthy, and pleasant environment for each of our employees. We value our employees and want to give them every tool they need to learn, grow, and succeed as individuals and in our industry. While we do encourage our employees to take short breaks to cool off, get a drink of water, or get a reprieve from the heat (or cold), the suggestion of mandating 40-minute paid breaks for every 20 minutes of outside work is simply not sustainable for our industry or, in our opinion, for any job that requires employees to be outside during most of their work day. Our employees are moving around within the nursery constantly as their duties vary throughout each day. The employees who work in our yard seek out this kind of position because they’re not interested in having a desk or an inside job. We also already have procedures in place for emergency medical care protocols for employees and customers. Yet, we believe maintaining records of every break for every employee would be a cumbersome burden for the employees and for us. It would certainly not be sustainable longterm. One additional note regarding the health context section, the statistics quoted here indicate that only 100 of the 900 heat-related emergency room visits were related to the workplace. Therefore, the percentage of work-related incidents does not seem to dictate such extreme legislation. Again, Jericho will continue to make every reasonable effort to protect our employees and strive to continue providing a safe, healthy, and happy work environment. However, we do not support the 40-minute paid rest period for every 20 minutes of work in direct sunlight. The heat index referenced was not defined. This definition would be imperative if this legislation or any variation of it passes. | Jericho Nursery | 5/27/25 |
| II-27-4 | Dear Members of the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, HB Construction supports the goal of protecting workers from heat-related illness. Alongside many industry peers and partners, we’ve spent many years working with state OSHA to improve jobsite safety in New Mexico, including through industry group partnerships like the ABC STEP program. It’s in that same spirit of collaboration that we raise serious concerns about the feasibility and unintended consequences of the proposed heat stress regulations. Unrealistic Rules & Interpretation The proposed one-size-fits-all rules do not account for the nature of the work, a worker’s experience or health status, or whether more appropriate heat mitigation measures are already in place. In addition to relatively low thresholds for mandatory rest, the work/rest schedule relies on heat index and includes modifiers for sun exposure, PPE, and loosely defined activity levels, making them extremely difficult to interpret or apply in a dynamic setting like a construction site. These factors add layers of calculation while micromanaging the workday down to the minute, moving us away from the proven, common-sense safety policies already in use. As demonstrated by the current confusion and questions around the rules, New Mexico will see maximum cost with minimal practical benefit. Unintended Consequences As a general contractor delivering construction projects across the state, we believe the rule in its current form would disrupt operations, inflate costs, and delay delivery of critical projects—from schools and housing to roads and utilities. Reputable companies who seek to comply will have cost increases. Less reputable companies will continue to ignore safety rules and will be unlikely to face any enforcement action. In a time when the industry is already working to contain rising costs, this type of sweeping regulatory change would ultimately hurt the taxpayers and communities relying on timely, cost-effective, and high quality projects. We urge the Environment Department to pursue a more flexible, common-sense approach. Rather than penalizing responsible employers already implementing heat safety programs, use your authority to investigate specific incidents. That’s how we can truly protect workers, without bringing our state’s progress to a halt. | Jason Harrington | 5/27/25 |
| II-27-5 | IF I WANTED TO BUILD A NEW HOUSE FOR MY WIFE AND I, THIS WILL KILL THE AFFORDABILITY OF A NEW HOUSE. NEW MEXICANS HAVE BEEN WORKING CONSTRUCTION IN THE SUMMER FOR A VERY LONG TIME. DOES THIS ALSO EXTEND TO AGRICULTURE, WHAT ABOUT OIL AND GAS? YOU CAN’T STOP DRILLING A WELL BECAUSE THE DRILLERS HAVE TO TAKE A 40 MINUTE BREAK. YOU ARE TRYING TO TOTALLY DESTROY THE ECONOMICS OF THE STATE. | Travis Engelage | 5/27/25 |
| II-27-6 | 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: The New Mexico Restaurant Association Board of Directors, and Carol Wight, CEO Date: 05/06/2025 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. RE: Heat Illness and Injury Prevention The New Mexico Restaurant Association respectfully submits these comments in response to the Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule. We firmly oppose the Proposed Rule in its current form. It represents an ill-conceived, one-size-fits-all regulatory approach that will impose undue and onerous burdens on restaurant businesses, especially small ones. For the reasons elaborated below, we earnestly urge NMED to withdraw the Proposed Rule and instead engage in collaborative efforts with the industry. The goal should be to promote best practices for heat safety tailored to restaurants’ unique operational realities. We respectfully request that restaurants be explicitly removed from these Heat Regulations, as our employees can access shade, cooling systems, and hydration stations. The Rule is Unnecessary: Existing Tools Address Heat Hazard First, it is essential to note that heat-related illnesses in restaurants are not widespread. According to the Food Industry Self-Insurance Work Comp Fund, there have been only two verified claims related to heat exposure out of approximately 4,000 over the last five years—one incident occurred during COVID-19 when an employee was wearing a mask while working outside, and the other involved a worker over a fryer in the kitchen. This data suggests that serious heat-related incidents in our industry are rare. The Proposed Rule imposes a broad and overly burdensome mandate on multiple industries with very different business models, which is unnecessary. NMED can enforce heat safety through the General Duty Clause and National Emphasis Program (NEP). Instead of increasing the regulatory burden on businesses, NMED should partner with the restaurant industry to enhance its Heat Illness Prevention Campaign and customize existing efforts for greater efficacy in specific industries. The General Duty Clause and NEP on Outdoor and Indoor Heat-Related Hazards The General Duty Clause, as stipulated in Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, obligates employers to provide workplaces free from recognized hazards likely to cause serious harm or death [1]. This clause has been consistently interpreted to cover heat-related hazards, enabling OSHA to address heat risks on a case-by-case basis. This flexible enforcement mechanism ensures efficient resource allocation, avoiding blanket regulations that may be ineffective or unnecessary in all workplaces. According to OSHA data [2], between 1986 and 2023, OSHA issued at least 348 hazardous heat-related citations under the General Duty Clause. This demonstrates OSHA’s capacity to tackle severe heat-related risks without additional prescriptive regulations. In April 2022, OSHA launched the NEP on Outdoor and Indoor Heat-Related Hazards[3]. This initiative targets industries with the highest risk of heat-related illnesses and injuries. The NEP takes a proactive approach, including programmed inspections triggered by National Weather Service heat advisories. Since its inception, OSHA has conducted nearly 5,000 federal heat-related inspections, further validating its ability to effectively target high-risk industries and allocate resources to address pressing heat-related hazards without rigid mandates [4]. OSHA’s Heat Illness Prevention Campaign OSHA’s Heat Illness Prevention Campaign, initiated in 2011, offers robust resources for managing heat risks. It provides a flexible and practical alternative to additional prescriptive regulations [5]. The campaign equips employers and employees with tools and guidance to recognize and mitigate heat risks. Key components include awareness-building tools, training materials, and acclimatization guidance. These resources are accessible and adaptable, capable of addressing heat-related risks in the restaurant industry without adding regulatory burdens. The campaign’s smartphone app offers location-specific heat condition information and educational materials in multiple languages, enhancing its versatility. The National Restaurant Association has a history of collaborating with the Department of Labor (DOL) on workplace safety. For example, the Association recently co-hosted a webinar with the DOL on child labor laws, focusing on teen safety in the food service industry [6]. Similar partnerships can be leveraged to develop educational materials and outreach efforts tailored to the restaurant industry for heat illness mitigation. Expanding the Heat Illness Prevention Campaign’s scope and tailoring guidance to the unique challenges of restaurant operations would enhance its effectiveness. By partnering with the industry, NMED could integrate proven industry-led strategies, such as providing portable cooling devices, upgrading ventilation and cooling systems, and promoting heat-resistant uniforms. Many restaurants are already implementing such measures. For instance, some have improved ventilation with air conditioning and industrial fans, adopted personal cooling methods, or provided regular access to cold beverages. Leveraging the existing campaign to amplify these efforts would protect workers without onerous mandates. Onerous Administrative and Operational Disruptions The Proposed Rule imposes rigid and prescriptive requirements that fail to account for the restaurant industry’s operational diversity and realities. While the industry is committed to employee safety, this one-size-fits-all approach creates impractical challenges for employers. Flexibility, which the Proposed Rule lacks, is essential for restaurant operators to address heat hazards effectively. Mandated Breaks and Acclimatization Requirements The mandated breaks and acclimatization requirements in the Proposed Rule are overly prescriptive and appear to be rules for outdoor work. They disregard the unique operational challenges of the restaurant industry, where efficiency and coordination are crucial. Under the rule, employees must receive paid resting breaks every two hours when the heat index reaches a specific temperature. This rigid requirement based on outdoor temperatures is irrelevant to restaurants and other indoor environments. It would disrupt restaurant workflows, especially during peak service periods. In smaller establishments with limited staff, the absence of one worker can halt operations. For example, a missing line cook during a dinner rush can delay food preparation and service. Larger establishments are also affected due to the interdependence of roles. The restaurant industry is facing a severe labor shortage. According to the 2024 State of the Industry Report, 70% of operators struggle to fill job openings, and nearly half lack sufficient staff to meet customer demand [8]. Imposing mandatory breaks exacerbates the strain on existing staff. Hiring additional workers is not a viable solution for many operators due to the industry’s low profit margins of 3 – 5%. Acclimatization requirements further complicate matters. The rule mandates a gradual increase in heat exposure for new and returning employees, starting at 20% of a normal shift on the first day and increasing over a week [9]. These requirements are extremely expensive and incompatible with the restaurant industry’s low profit margin, high turnover, and seasonal hiring practices. New hires are often needed to meet peak demand, and delaying their full integration leaves restaurants understaffed. The rule’s lack of regional variability adds complexity. Restaurants in New Mexico routinely operate in high-heat conditions, and employees are often acclimated. Applying uniform acclimatization protocols and mandated breaks in these regions is unnecessary and burdensome. Administrative, Recordkeeping, and Training Burdens The Proposed Rule introduces significant administrative and compliance requirements for restaurant operators. These obligations are particularly challenging for an industry with tight margins and workforce challenges. By imposing rigid mandates for recordkeeping, training, and heat safety plans, the rule diverts resources from core operations. The rule mandates extensive recordkeeping. All employers under this standard must keep the following records for a minimum of five years: an accurate record of the heat acclimatization schedule and procedures for all new and returning employees. The employer must keep a record of Heat Illness training, including a list of attendees. A record of all heat illness or related injuries, including those that only require first aid. Heat index and working conditions at the time of illness or injury. The monetary and regulatory cost of this requirement alone, especially for small restaurants that do not have HR departments, is untenable. Training obligations further strain employers. The rule requires comprehensive heat safety training for all employees and managers, with annual refresher and supplemental training for changes in heat hazard exposure, policies, or incidents [10]. These recurring requirements are burdensome in an industry with high turnover. The combined demands of creating and maintaining plans, recordkeeping, training, and acclimatization protocols introduce significant administrative challenges that may overwhelm even well-resourced operators. Compliance Costs Are Significantly Underestimated The Proposed Rule significantly underestimates the compliance costs for restaurants. While OSHA projects annual expenses of $1,940 per establishment, the actual financial burden, including infrastructure upgrades, labor adjustments, and operational disruptions, is much higher [11]. These challenges are exacerbated by inflationary pressures, with food costs up 29%, labor costs up 31% since 2019, and rising utility, occupancy, and credit card processing fees [12]. Given the industry’s thin profit margins of 3 – 5%, the rules’ costs threaten the viability of many restaurants. Discrepancies Between OSHA’s Estimates and Real-World Costs OSHA’s projected compliance costs fail to consider the unique challenges restaurants face. The NMED has no estimated costs in its rule. The rule mandates measures such as temperature monitoring, creating break areas, and providing employee breaks during peak hours, which require significant investments in infrastructure, staffing, and operational adjustments. The rule requires employers in indoor work areas to implement heat mitigation measures, such as increasing air movement, providing air conditioning, or reducing radiant heat exposure. Installing or upgrading HVAC systems or ventilation controls can cost tens of thousands of dollars, far exceeding OSHA’s estimates. Larger or older establishments may face even higher expenses or feasibility issues. Though individually inexpensive, monitoring tools result in significant aggregate costs over time. Creating compliant break areas is challenging due to financial and spatial constraints, especially in older or densely built environments. Compliance with mandatory breaks and acclimatization protocols exacerbates staffing needs. Restaurants with low profit margins cannot afford to hire additional personnel to cover shifts during peak hours. For example, a small diner in New Mexico estimated a 20% annual increase in payroll costs, which would make the business unsustainable. The rule also introduces hidden costs, such as training requirements in high-turnover environments and administrative compliance costs, including temperature monitoring, log-keeping, and acclimatization tracking. These indirect costs far exceed OSHA’s estimations. Ripple Effects on Local Economies The financial impact of the Proposed Rule extends beyond individual restaurants to local economies. Higher operating costs threaten the sustainability of restaurants, especially small and independent ones, which are major employers in their communities. Restaurant closures can lead to job losses and affect local suppliers, farmers, distributors, and delivery services. Restaurants play a crucial role in regional economies by providing jobs and driving commerce in rural and urban areas. Closing even a few establishments can disproportionately harm rural and underserved areas. The Undue Impact on Small Businesses Small businesses are the backbone of the restaurant industry, with nine in ten restaurants employing fewer than 50 people and seven in ten operating as single-unit establishments [13]. However, they often lack the resources to navigate complex regulatory requirements like those in the Proposed Rule. Without exception, many small businesses face the risk of closure due to unsustainable compliance costs. The SBA Office of Advocacy agrees that the rule disproportionately burdens small businesses and fails to account for their unique challenges. They urged OSHA to reassess the rule and consider alternatives tailored to small businesses [14]. We echo these concerns and urge NMED to adopt more flexible, scalable measures. Small business owners lack the legal and regulatory expertise of large corporations. The administrative requirements of the rule, such as recordkeeping, acclimatization tracking, and maintaining HIIPPs, are beyond their capabilities. Hiring additional staff or consultants is unaffordable for already stretched-thin businesses. Many small businesses operate in older or compact facilities where creating compliant break areas or installing advanced cooling systems is impractical or impossible. The costs of retrofitting or relocating could exceed annual profits, forcing closures. Given these factors, if NMED proceeds with the Proposed Rule, small businesses with fewer than 250 employees must be exempt. Instead, OSHA should expand its Heat Illness Prevention Campaign with industry-specific guidance on heat risk mitigation. Conclusion Instead of imposing one-size-fits-all strict regulations, we urge the New Mexico Environment Department to consider promoting voluntary guidelines, best practices, and training for heat illness prevention. Providing resources and support for businesses to implement safety measures can achieve the desired outcomes without heavy-handed regulations that could hinder economic growth and compliance for small businesses. In conclusion, while the intent behind the Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule is commendable, the proposed requirements would negatively affect the restaurant industry and small businesses throughout New Mexico. We respectfully request that restaurants be explicitly removed from these Heat Regulations, as our employees can access shade, cooling systems, and hydration stations. The rules appear to be designed for businesses with workers exposed to outdoor heat, and we believe that restaurants should be explicitly carved out of this regulation. | New Mexico Restaurant Association | 5/27/25 |
| II-27-7 | Paul, don’t quote me, but this looks insane. First, I doubt that many people have suffered from heat prostration or heat stroke even in the construction industry. People know how to accommodate high heat, and even the Simon Legrees of heavy work know that their workers are not going to get much done if they are laid out from the heat. Perhaps if the rule set the standard at triple digits, it might make some sense. Second, the amount of administrative work also seems excessive; people have jobs, not paperwork, to do to make a living. | Anonymous | 5/27/25 |
| II-27-8 | These rules are unrealistic and will drive up the cost of doing business in New Mexico. Reasonable safety measures in extreme heat are understandable, but the provisions of these rules go well beyond extreme heat and reasonable accomodations. The cost of doing construction projects in the state will increase and the time to complete projects will increase as well. These regulations are well beyond what is reasonable or necessary to insure worker safety. | Steve Edmondson | 5/27/25 |
| II-27-9 | There’s no faster way to put business to an end in New Mexico, then to pass this. You think this is good for the people that you’re trying to protect, but you’ve made it so restrictive that they’re not even going to have jobs because the employer is never going to be able to make this work. Please reconsider, as you are going to hurt the very people you intended to protect. Listen to your constituents! | Lisa Hayes | 5/27/25 |
| II-27-10 | This rule is absolutely insane. You will shut down many, many businesses in NM. Only a bureaucrat who works 20 minutes every hour already would make a rule requiring a 40 minute break every hour. | George Sharpe | 5/27/25 |
| II-27-11 | Most businesses are small and many service homes and businesses every day. So how would this new rule work for servicing or construction or repairs at home sites or other mobile locations? Don’t think so ! And it would cost the customer extreme amounts that would be prohibitive. This is just one point of view. I’ll let others tell you their side. By the way,do ever think about the ramifications of your actions, like how it will hurt more people than it will protect ? | byron makarwich | 5/27/25 |
| II-27-12 | People who live here since at last summer (and those of here for far longer) don’t need “rules” like this! Plus, we warn the newbies and know when to take breaks and drink water. A 40 minute break is completely ridiculous as well as unnecessary. Nobody is going to melt. Nobody needs their mommy at work so kindly leave well-enough alone. | Robin Greenwood | 5/27/25 |
| II-27-13 | Temperatures in NM are not going to get cooler. Climate change has already increased the number of days that have above average temperatures. This rule is necessary to be proactive instead of reactive to prevent heat related injuries. Protecting the workforce is simply a safety precaution, and it should be management and supervisor responsibility to make sure employees are aware of protections. | Larry Rucker | 5/27/25 |
| II-27-14 | This will prevent wildland fire fighters from working on forest fires. This is not a good idea. | gillian sutton | 5/27/25 |
| II-27-15 | You MUST not pass this rule!!! In a state that seems completely committed to destroying businesses and jobs, even this seems hard to believe. The employees who have jobs that you seem to want to destroy know full well the conditions that they work in. The proposal that an employee would work for only 20 minutes every hour if the “heat index” is above 90* is nothing less than STUPID. Is the employer going to be allowed to pay the employee 33.3% of his wage if he is only working 33.3% of the time. Of course you are not going to allow that. So an employer will be forced to raise their prices by a huge amount or go out of business. There is quite literally no other alternative when your rule would reduce productivity by 67%! If this state is ever going to thrive economically, the leaders must stop their war against private industry and help, not hurt, the economy of this state! | Lyle J Greenberg | 5/27/25 |
| II-27-16 | As a car salesman I know a little about this topic. Again as someone who likes choices, I chose this profession. As much as I appreciate the motherly love and care my employer already provides, I don’t want her to have to jump through hoops, using the power and force of government to protect someone who lacks the agency and knowledge of how their own body functions in the heat is what it seems like. Why don’t “collective we” use the power of government and its state media to educate the public…that’s right…52nd in education. But perhaps using this energy and directing it towards the government educating the people. For the love of the people of New Mexico. Feed the people, tend the people, feed the people. Help the poor and widows. Back to basics folks, what isn’t broke don’t fix. What’s not working is all this lawless lawmaking. So I make an appeal to you, to utilize the government as a useful resource and educational tool rather than a strong handed pimp. It’s not a good look. I appreciate you taking the time to read this, and I appreciate your consideration and support. Kind regards, Lucas | Lucas Gauthier | 5/27/25 |
| II-27-17 | This is completely absurd. Small businesses cannot survive this, especially after the horrific intrusions into their profits during COVID lockdowns. Businesses know how to protect their most important asset – workers. | Gary Hays | 5/27/25 |
| II-28-1 | Well, this would certainly drive up the costs of new construction/housing, by a lot. Wait till you get the price for reroofing your house. BOOM! Expecting an employer to know the acclimatization of the employee and personal risk factors for heat illness is merely creating an impossible situation for employers that will lead to lawsuits destroying the industry. Then, you won’t be able to hire a roofer to reroof your house for any amount of money. | Thom Wright | 5/28/25 |
| II-28-2 | NM Environmental Improvement Board c/o NM Environment Department 1190 St. Francis Drive, Suite N4050 Santa Fe, NM 87505 Dear Environmental Improvement Board: In the matter regarding a proposal to create regulations for “Heat Illness and Injury Prevention” I submit the following. As it is written this rule will be impossible to be and to stay in compliance. I’m a dairy producer not a climatologist and in reading this proposal it is detrimentally lacking in many specifics such as: •Creating a plan but no details as to how to create a plan. •It talks about acclimatization but doesn’t tell me how and doesn’t support it. with any research. •it talks about conducting a heat assessment without specifying on how to measure or conduct it. •No guidance of what constitutes light medium or heavy intensity work. •It doesn’t define what is considered “usual duration of work in my business”, •The duration after returning from absence is undefined and the possibility of having a worker on 45minute break is madness. These proposed rules demonstrates a lack of understanding of agriculture labor patterns. This rule is simply not attainable and would completely undermine my operational efficiency and expose me to legal liability. I ask you to oppose this proposal. Sincerely, Deborah PorterPorter Farms, LLC | Deborah PorterPorter Farms, LLC | 5/28/25 |
| II-28-3 | This is one of the craziest things I’ve seen coming out of Santa Fe, and I’ve seen some crazy. This proposed regulation assumes employees are slaves who can’t think for themselves, and that employers are tyrants. As an employee, I am insulted — I am perfectly capable of managing my own hydration and heat exposure, and if I’m asked to do otherwise I am a free citizen who can quit. I don’t know of a single employer who wants his or her employees keeling over from heat stroke — employers already have plans to adjust for heat and do not need “Big Brother” looking over their shoulders in a way that is not productive or in any way helpful. The record keeping alone for this regulation is going to drastically increase administrative costs for the things we need — like food — and those costs will get passed on to me. I am calling on you to apply common sense and not implement this regulation. Thank you for your consideration. | Cyndy Bohannon | 5/28/25 |
| II-28-4 | Las Cruces, NM – C.D. General Contractors, Inc. We agree to continue protecting the health and welfare of our employee’s. If there is to be a proposed mandate, the research must be conducted to achieve realistic work to rest ratio defined for specific construction workforce. For example, C.D. General Contractors, Inc. specializes in commercial and residential roofing which keeps our employees exposed to high heat throughout the day. Planning events from low to high exertional work progress has been the duty of our foreman. We live in a dry hot climate May to September while temperature drop from September to April every year. With the current proposed mandate, their will be heavy constraints on operations, labor shortages, increased cost, and logistical challenges as mentioned in the Construction Association forum dated April 14· 2025. Constraints by adhering to proposed mandate: Most task take longer than 15 minutes to complete (based on mandatory proposed mandate with heat index of 105°) To properly install and inspect safety equipment to meet OSHA Fall-protection standards To install standing seam metal roof (roofing metal is roll-formed on-site to meet various lengths) (Normally in excess of 20 feet) Spray or roll adhesive for membrane TPO/PVC must be done in a timely fashion. Welding membrane to ensure proper bond Attaching fascia metal work with no less than 50′ LF Attaching gutter system to roof eave Logistics will be back-ordered due to influx of orders to meet weather constraints Personnel movement for out-of-town jobsites will require more road time and separation from family Employee Protective Measures: Employees wear long sleeve clothing adhering to APPENDIX I: Tables (Work Clothes) (CAF, 0) Ice provided by employer for water coolers Water provided by employer at main office Ventilated shipping containers provided by employer for shelter Pop-up canopy provided by employer for shade Personal Protective Equipment available upon request (sunblock, headgear, arm sleeves, etc.) Acclimatation is closely monitored by foreman for a time frame of 2 weeks High heat category, especially several days in a row (measure wet-bulb globe temperature (WBGT) when ambient temperature is over 75° Fahrenheit (F)). ~~– Exertional level of work, especially several days in a row. Acclimatization (and other individual risk factors – see below). Time of exposure, to include nights and recovery time. Individual Risk Factors: The more factors, the higher the risk ot acclimatized to heat (need 10-14 days to get employees adequately acclimated). c– Exposure to cumulative days (2-3 days) of any of the following:» Increased heat exposure» Increased exertional levels » Lack of quality sleep Low fitness level. Higher percentage of body fat. Minor illness (cold symptoms, sore throat, low-grade fever, nausea, vomiting). Taking medications (prescribed or over-the-counter), supplements, or dietary aids such as cold remedies, stimulants, or performance-enhancing drugs. Use of alcohol in the last 24 hours. Prior history of heat illness (any heat stroke or > 2 episodes of heat exhaustion). Skin disorders such as heat rash and sunburn that prevent effective sweating. Warning Signs of Heat Illness and Overhydration With any of the below symptoms or signs, immediately call the foreman on site and move the employee to a shaded area. Indications of Possible Heat Casualty More Common Signs/Symptoms Dizziness Nausea Weakness or fatigue Headache Unsteady Walk Muscle cramps Immediate Actions Remove from training and loosen clothing. 575-647-1544 OFFICE c.d.gen.inc@gmail.com EMAIL • • • • Allow casualty to rest in shade; place flat on back with legs elevated 12-24 inches above the heart. Give sips of water or rehydration fluids if available (not to exceed 1 liter) Serious Signs/Symptoms Hot body, high temperature • Confusion, agitation Vomiting • Involuntary bowel movement • Convulsions Weak or rapid pulse • Unresponsiveness, coma Hyperventilating ~Immediately Company Safety Officer or ambulance for emergency transport while doing the following: Lay down in shade with feet elevated until Medevac or ambulance arrives. Undress as much as possible. Immediately begin cooling with ice sheets or ice packs. Assess and document fluid intake if possible; do not administer additional water. Mental Status Assessment • An important sign that the employee is in a serious life-threatening condition is mental confusion (with or without increased temperature). Anyone can do a mental status assessment asking some simple questions. Call for emergency ambulance if any of the following exist: What is your name? (Does not know his/her name.) What month is it? What year is it? (Does not know the month or year.) Where are we/you? (Is not aware of location or surroundings.) • What were you doing before you became ill? (Does not know the events that led to the present situation.) Water Intoxication or Exercise Associated Hyponatremia • Drinking more water than the body can excrete (through sweating and urination) can lead to water intoxication, which requires immediate medical attention. Signs and symptoms are similar to heat illness and often occurs during the heat illness season. These include confusion, weakness, and vomiting. Ask these questions to the employee or co-workers: Is the employee alert with appropriate behavior, and can he/she answer simple orientation questions as listed above? Ask the employee about fluid consumption (for the day before and for the day of during working hours). If they have been consuming over 1 liter per hour, they may have water intoxication. Has the employee been eating? (suspect water intoxication if the employee has not been eating). If the employee has collapsed during working and is found to have changes in mental status and is exhibiting inappropriate behaviors (i.e., confusion, being combative, vomiting), they should be directed to rest in the shade, with clothing loosened. Medical care should be sought immediately | C.D. General Contractors, Inc. | 5/28/25 |
| II-28-5 | May 28, 2025 (Submitted via Public Comment Portal) Kristy Peck, Occupational Health and Safety Bureau Chief New Mexico Environment Department Occupational Health and Bureau Attn: Heat Illness and Injury Prevention P. O. Box 5469 Santa Fe, NM 87502 Re: Opposition to Proposed Regulation 11.5.7 NMADA – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention (No. EIB 25-11) Dear Bureau Chief Peck: By way of introduction, we are NATE: The Communications Infrastructure Contractors Association. NATE represents over 1,000 member companies (mostly small businesses) that construct, service or maintain hundreds of thousands of communication towers, broadband infrastructure, and next generation networks throughout the United States. Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to present significant concerns from our members regarding the proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention regulation. Safety is NATE’s and our members’ highest priority. The Association recently conducted a survey with a select group of contractor company employers and employees to gather feedback on federal OSHA’s proposed “Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings” proposed rule. The results of the survey are also fully translatable regarding New Mexico’s proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention regulation (“NM proposed heat regulation” or “proposed heat regulation”). In the survey, our members provided tangible examples of the impractical nature of implementing some of the provisions based on our industry’s unique work environments and helped crystallize the concerns NATE has over certain parts of NM’s proposed heat regulation. For example, consider the following: • The recordkeeping provisions require far more than federal OSHA standards regarding OSHA 300 and 300A injury and illness logs and require far more recordkeeping than even federal OSHA’s proposed heat standard. For example, the NM proposed heat regulation requires recordkeeping for even heat illness cases that require only first aid. Not only does this exceed OSHA’s requirement that injuries and illness requiring only first aid do not need to be recorded, but NM’s proposed regulation also requires overly burdensome and onerous recordkeeping, such as also recording all heat index and working conditions at the time of any heat illness or injury. This would mean, for example, that records of all heat index and other conditions, along with recording an injury, would need to be created every time an employee merely requires ice or other cooling as a means of “first aid” to mitigate the effects of heat exposure. It is an understatement to call this requirement unduly burdensome for small businesses, leading to considerable compliance concerns from our members, while the recordkeeping provisions provide no additional benefit to employees beyond the requirements listed in the proposed regulation directly addressing heat exposure mitigation. • NATE is concerned that some of the proposed enhanced safety measures, which could include mandatory rest breaks in a cooling area away from the work area or work-breaks, will not be feasible for tower crews who are responsible for climbing and maintaining communications facilities at height. Communications towers do not have sheltered or shaded facilities built onto the towers, and added sheltered areas on towers may create additional safety risks for our tower crews when climbing the towers and working at heat. In addition, construction of shelter areas will require significant feasibility and structural analysis, creating substantial additional costs which may prevent our small business members from being able to competitively bid on projects. For these and the additional reasons discussed below, the requirement to provide shade on towers is infeasible, and creates greater and/or additional risks for our members’ tower crews. • Please also consider the feasibility and additional risks imposed by mandated work- breaks, which would require tower technicians to climb down a tower and into a cooling area. In these scenarios, safety would be compromised because the proposed rule would require more frequent climbing (every 2 hours) and contribute to fatigue and repetitive stress injuries. Applying the fall protection hierarchy of controls, the most effective measures are applied by eliminating hazards. When workers must descend and ascend a structure multiple times, this creates additional exposures to falls and increasing a hazard. o According to the NATE member survey, all respondents indicated that a typical workday involves one climb up the tower and one descent. On average, respondents reported that descending a 200-foot tower to reach a shaded break area, removing and then re-donning PPE, and re-ascending the tower would require approximately 65 minutes. • NATE respectfully suggests that establishing a mandatory Rest Break Schedule would be unreasonable in the broadcast and communication tower industry. Tower technicians work at elevation on towers ranging from 100 to 2,000 feet above ground. NMED-OHSB may determine that temperatures in the “High Heat Conditions” as described in tables 2 and 3 of the proposed heat regulation require additional safety mitigation measures; however, while working at elevation, temperatures can vary because of higher wind speeds, creating a lower heat index than the index on the ground. NATE believes that monitoring the heat index for all climbers in various locations on the structures cannot be completed with sufficient frequency and accuracy with current measuring equipment due to variation in elevation during the work schedule. • NATE believes that establishing a mandatory Rest Break Schedule would eliminate the ability for tower crews to complete tall tower maintenance inspections and the ability to “rig” a tall tower as both scopes of work typically exceeds two hours. On anticipated high-heat days, tower crews scheduled work expected to exceed two hours on structures, to begin in the early morning or later in the day to reduce exposure during peak heat conditions. Crews are mindful of the cooler temperatures at higher elevations, as shown in Appendix B. o Feedback from a NATE member contractor that works predominantly in the Tall Tower Industry: “If you put this in different terms, you might have a better appreciation for how this would impact the safety of our team members, especially in the tall tower industry. Imagine you need to do work at the top of a skyscraper. There is not an elevator, so you need to take the stairs. Before you can climb the stairs, you need to put on 20-30 pounds of safety gear. You climb 1,000 feet in the air which takes you a full 2 hours. At that point you have just got in a position to do the work that may take you an hour or longer to complete. If this new rule goes into place our guys would need to immediately descend the tower to get into a shaded or air-conditioned area. The next time they climbed the steps that day, it would take them even longer given the fatigue. This is not a perfect example, because our crews are not climbing stairs at an angle. They are climbing the equivalent of putting a ladder on the side of skyscraper and climbing straight up, which takes more energy. Furthermore, our crews would have to climb multiple times in 90-degree heat. On jobs that are over 1,000 feet (many of our towers are) we would not even be able to reach the location on the tower to begin work before needing to leave the tower with this proposed policy. Not only would we have significantly increased risk doing this work in the heat, but we could not meet this requirement for most jobs. In the broadcast space we are responsible for maintaining broadcast transmission for the national news and radio infrastructure. Much of which is mandated from an emergency response perspective by the FCC.” • NATE does not believe that a heat standard based on ground temperature heat index properly addresses the conditions encountered by tower technicians and fails to provide appropriate workplace safety benefits to tower crews who work at height. Rather, NATE believes that tower technicians should be vigilant about their personal health history, physical conditions, and their ability to acclimate to any new environments. Tower technicians should also follow the heat-related illness guidelines that the Association has developed, as shown in Appendix A, based on NATE members’ input. o Feedback from NATE member contractors: ▪ “More exhaustion and potential hazards from muscle fatigue and water loss from the additional climbing.” ▪ “Introduces undue risk to our workers.” ▪ “Additional hazards that will be created to mitigate another. It does not consider the different expectations each industry requires.” • NATE recognizes the importance of heat safety in our industry and developed the NATE Safety & Health Manual which includes a chapter on heat-related illnesses (see Appendix A). NATE provides this resource to member companies to aid in the development of in-house training programs that address excessive heat and heat illnesses. NATE’s members contributed to the development of heat-related illness safety material and most member companies actively train their workers to follow these safety protocols. o Feedback from NATE member contractors: ▪ “While well intentioned, implementation of the rule as it is currently written would likely increase the risk of injury in our industry. Repetitive stress injuries are likely to increase which will affect the well-being of workers and increase workers compensation claims.” ▪ “Foremost is the exposure to our climbers of greater hazards than they typically need. The actual task of climbing poses more risk than at the work area and this approach exposes them to it more often. When the repetitive motion and exertion level is factored in, I believe that this proposed rule will make our jobsites more dangerous.” • Factors that tower technicians must consider every day include one’s physical condition, the weather (including such heat-related variables as temperature, wind, and humidity), clothing worn, quickness of movement and how much physical demand is being placed on the body (lifting, heavy work), if there is air circulation over the body, whether the person is in direct sunlight and if they are taking any medication(s) that may contribute to a heat-related illness. Employees currently effectively manage their responsibilities by drinking adequate amounts of hydrating fluids, avoiding hot beverages during lunch and afternoon breaks, and notifying their employer of any medications or medical conditions that could affect their susceptibility to heat illness. o Feedback from NATE member contractors: ▪ There are better methods for our climbers to address heat stress than creating more work and stress for them in a high heat environment. ▪ There are several ways to combat the heat index while performing the work, not just for break time. Focus should be on hydration and other heat illness mitigation steps. • The NM proposed regulation will require employers to establish and maintain cooling areas for employees who work in heat. This requirement will be, in the worst case, impossible, and in the best case, unduly burdensome, to provide in the reality of our work environments involving tower crews. As discussed above, requiring tower crews to descend and then again climb towers to access shade areas is likely to expose our employees to greater risks from fall hazards, as well as placing greater demands on their bodies to descend towers to reach cooling areas. While we are not opposed to accessing our tower environments to determine where and whether other types of cooling measures may feasibly be placed, we ask you to consider the impracticability and infeasibility inherent in requiring tower crews to descend the tower to reach cooling areas. o Feedback from NATE member contractors is that the proposed regulation poses more of a threat than helping workers, exhaustion and heat stress will be more of a factor climbing up and down. We thank you in advance for considering the input of our members. We are also interested in providing testimony at a public hearing on the NM proposed regulation, if such opportunity is available. Sincerely, Todd Schlekeway NATE President & CEO | NATE: The Communications Infrastructure Contractors Association | 5/28/25 |
| II-28-6 | I strongly urge you to support protections for agricultural workers. The heat in southern New Mexico is extreme and not enough precautions have been in place to protect them. Your decision will have an impact nationally as, we hope, other states will emulate your noble efforts to find ways to provide safe working environments for workers. Thank you. | Dr. Diana Bustamante | 5/28/25 |
| II-28-7 | RE: Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule Dear Miss Pete, On behalf of the New Mexico Association of Conservation Districts (NMACD), which represents 45 of the 47 Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) across the state, we write to express serious concerns regarding the “Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule” issued by the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED), Occupational Health and Safety Bureau (OHSB). Many SWCDs have raised alarms about the increasing difficulty of preventing and recovering from natural disasters such as wildfires and floods. For example, the Hermits Peak/ Calf Canyon Fire occurred three years ago, and yet the affected areas still face ongoing recovery challenges. These realities highlight the importance of regulatory policies that are both effective and practical. Unfortunately, the proposed rule lacks the sufficient data necessary to justify its stringent requirements. As written, it imposes a set of mandates that are largely unworkable for agricultural and conservation-based employers and employees, particularly in rural New Mexico. The rule not only risks halting essential conservation work but also threatens to significantly increase operational costs. The proposed regulation appears to be an example of regulatory overreach—impractical to implement, difficult to enforce without significant resources, and burdensome to those it intends to protect. It does not adequately account for the unique conditions under which agricultural and field-based conservation work is performed. For these reasons, the New Mexico Association of Conservation Districts respectfully urges the New Mexico Environment Department to withdraw the Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule and instead engage with the agricultural and conservation communities to develop a more balanced, data-driven approach that ensures both worker safety and the continued protection and stewardship of New Mexico’s natural resources. Sincerely, Debbie Hughes, NMACD Executive Director | New Mexico Association of Conservation Districts | 5/28/25 |
| II-28-8 | I went into archaeology with my degree and field school under my belt at 19 years old in 2021. I was told I was one of the best surveyors the company had seen in a long time, and being from Albuquerque I could handle the SW climate better than most. Then the company refused to give us breaks, or listen to my concerns. I ended up having a heat stroke. I’m 23 now and still can’t return to archaeology survey, or enjoy my regular hiking like I used to in the summer. I’m significantly more sensitive to any heat, especially humid heat, and every summer since 2021 has been a battle. I had a bright future ahead of me that’s been extremely limited by a company’s carelessness surrounding the danger of high exertion in high heat. People die from this, people’s lives are effected by companies not caring about their health and safety. This regulation is needed NOW to hopefully prevent other people from losing their health or lives to intense heat. | Emerson McDaniel | 5/28/25 |
| II-28-9 | PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO’S COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE 11.7.3 NMAC – HEAT ILLNESS AND INJURY RULE Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) provides these comments on the Heat Illness and Injury Rule (Proposed Rule) proposed by the New Mexico Environment Department Occupational Health and Safety Bureau (NMED). PNM, a vertically integrated electric utility, is the state’s largest energy provider, powering more than 550,000 residential and business customers across New Mexico every single day. Safety is a core value at PNM because many employees, including linemen, work daily in hazardous environments to serve customers and maintain power. PNM’s Safety Management System (SMS) is built on four pillars: Policies & Procedures; Assurance & Compliance; Hazard Identification & Risk Management; and Communication & Training as framework to keep our employees safe. Safety Policies & Procedures This pillar assigns corporate leadership the responsibility to ensure safety rules are followed at all levels. It establishes procedures and risk controls to evaluate and enforce safety compliance, delegates authority to designated personnel, and allocates resources to monitor and improve safety practices. Safety Assurance & Compliance This pillar uses audits, analysis, and reviews to maintain effective risk control over time and adapt to changing conditions. It focuses on continuous improvement, performance feedback, and developing and monitoring preventive or corrective actions. Safety Hazard Identification & Risk Management This pillar involves identifying, analyzing, and evaluating risks to develop preventive controls. It examines interactions among people, facilities, technology, and the environment to implement risk controls such as equipment changes, training, or procedural updates to enhance safety. Safety Communication & Training This pillar emphasizes management’s role in fostering a safe workplace culture through clear communication and behavior modeling. It ensures employees are informed about current safety practices and reporting mechanisms, promoting openness so management can address safety hazards effectively. PNM Comment 1 – Expanded Exemption for Certain Employers: PNM is well aware of the dangers associated with exposure to heat, and already addresses the hazards associated with such exposure. PNM safety measures regarding working in hot conditions are incorporated in our Heat Stress Illness Prevention Plan (PNM Plan), which includes roles and responsibilities for the employer, employees, company leadership and management, and plan administrator. It explains risk factors about working in heat, and includes the most common heat illnesses, along with their associated symptoms and initial first aid steps. 2 The PNM Plan utilizes the NIOSH Heat Index and also notes protective measures, while including the link to the NIOSH-OSHA Heat Safety Tool, for proper job planning.1 It includes training and a compliance checklist as its compliance and controls. Training is completed by new employees upon hiring, and existing employees annually, with its delivery housed and monitored on PNM’s electronic learning tool via company intranet. The PNM Plan notes necessary definitions and includes an Appendix, consisting of the NIOSH Heat Index; Examples of best practices; and a compliance checklist (heat assessment). The PNM Plan is also supported with access to “Heat-Related Injury & Illness” resources, as well as access to “Summer Heat Watch Toolbox” resources, as hosted on the PNM Safety Department internal “iConnectSafety” webpage. PNM frontline employees receive approximately 30 hours of risk mitigation training on relative hazards they may face, which includes heat awareness training. As an operational example of PNM Plan implementation, on days where the temperature exceeds or is forecasted to exceed 80 degrees Fahrenheit, as part of its daily safety briefing or tail boarding (heat assessment) prior to the deployment of employees to outdoor work assignments, PNM provides each employee with sun protection gear and fluids appropriate to each employee’s worksite that day. Thus, the PNM Plan is formally supported by the PNM job briefing / tailboard procedure. Other operational examples of the PNM Plan include, but are not limited to: Modified work schedules: Adjusting start and end times to avoid the hottest parts of the day; Portable air conditioners: Utilizing mobile cooling units to provide relief in hotter work areas; Frequent breaks: Increasing the frequency of breaks to allow employees to rest and recover; Hydration and cooling: Providing ice, cold water, and drinks with electrolytes to keep everyone hydrated and cool; EZ COOL: Each employee is given an EZ COOL towel that is used around the neck; and Lightweight flame-retardant clothing: Provide option for lightweight and breathable flame retardant clothing. Additionally, the PNM Plan goes above and beyond Proposed Rule by requiring that the designated Plan Administrator shall be a Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH) and / or Certified Safety Professional (CSP). Such requirement illustrates that PNM deeply understands the significance of heat-related illness and injury prevention. It is also important to note that PNM employees had no reported or recordable heat-related illnesses or injuries since 2021, when heat illness and injury awareness was implemented. 1 See https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/heat-stress/communication-resources/app.html. 3 Therefore, due to its extensive existing safety program, specifically its written Heat Stress Illness Prevention Plan, PNM proposes that it, and perhaps other similarly situated employers, be fully exempt from the requirements of the Proposed Rule. PNM proposes a new paragraph 11.5.7.2(A)(3)2 be added to the Proposed Rule, with existing paragraphs (3) and (4) renamed (4) and (5) respectively: 11.5.7.2 SCOPE: All employment and places of employment, including indoor and outdoor places of employment covered by the standards for General Industry, Construction Industry, Agriculture, and Convenience Stores, subject to the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. A. The following situations are exempt from the requirements of this standard. Incidental heat exposures of fifteen minutes or less that require employee exposure to environments with a heat index exceeding 80 degrees Fahrenheit (27 degrees Celsius) and up to 90 degrees Fahrenheit within a one-hour period; and All emergency response operations that are directly involved in the protection of life or property, or the restoration of essential services, such as evacuation, rescue, medical, structural firefighting, law enforcement, public utilities, and communications when employees are engaged in those operations; and Any public utility which has implemented a written safety plan which includes, at a minimum: (a) How employers will conduct a heat assessment to identify required control measures; (b) The procedures for implementing required control measures; (c) The procedures for implementing control measures in high heat conditions; (d) Acclimatization methods and schedules; (e) The procedures for implementing indoor heat requirements, where applicable; (f) Emergency medical care identification and procedures; and (g) The methods and procedures for training supervisors and employees. Telework (i.e., work done from home or another remote location of the employee’s choosing); and Buildings, structures, motor vehicles, and motorized equipment that have a mechanical ventilation system that keeps the heat index below 80 degrees Fahrenheit for all working areas. In addition to the language providing an exemption, PNM also proposes adding a definition of “public utility” to Section 11.5.7.7 as follows: 11.5.7.7 DEFINITIONS: General: Unless otherwise specified, the following definitions, in addition to those contained in 11.5.1.7 NMAC and the state act, are applicable to this part. […] I. “Public Utility” has the meaning provided in Subsection G of Section 62-3-3 NMSA 1978. PNM notes that this term is already used in the Proposed Rule, therefore a definition is warranted. PNM also notes that its employees working outdoors are already exempt from the provisions of the Proposed Rule in many cases via the “restoration of essential services” clause in paragraph 11.5.7.2(A)(2), above. In other words, electricity is an essential service, PNM’s employees are often in the process of restoring service after an outage, and PNM would therefore be exempt. With the proposed revisions in these comments, PNM proposes to extend that exemption to other types of outdoor work that PNM employees regularly perform. PNM believes this exemption is warranted due to the extensive safety program it already has in place as described above. Although the exemption covers PNM employees when engaged in the restoration of essential services (i.e., power outages, storm restoration, and mutual aid assistance, etc.), it focuses on after-the-fact, reactionary services performed by its employees. As electricity is an essential service, PNM employees are continually performing services that help to maintain the consistent flow of electricity. Such services are not exclusive to power restoration, as PNM employees continually engage in the performance of other services regarding grid modernization, construction, and safety consultations (businesses and customers), which note a few examples of its proactive services. In other words, PNM and its employees are always engaged in providing essential services, not just restoring them. Essential service providers across New Mexico would all benefit from an expanded, non-restrictive exemption such as PNM has proposed. While PNM proposes an exemption for itself from the Proposed Rule, we also offer the remaining comments, below, in the interest of NMED drafting the best rule possible. PNM Comment 2 – Contributing Personal Risk Factors: PNM agrees with NMED that personal risk factors should be considered as contributing causes to heat illness and injury. PNM, however, suggests the definition of “Personal risk factors for heat illness” in Subsection 11.5.7.10(G) of the Proposed Rule include more factors than it currently does, such as metabolic rate, individual health issues, pigmentation and skin disorders, workplace climate preferences, and use of non-prescription medications or drugs, to name a few. At the very least, PNM suggests including language characterizing such factors as “including, but not limited to” in order to not inadvertently limit the personal risk factors which can contribute to heat illness and injury. PNM Comment 3 – Potential Vagueness, Inaccuracy or Confusion: PNM is concerned that certain of the provisions of the Proposed Rule may be overly vague or confusing. For example, in Subsection 11.5.7.10(B) is the requirement that “[e]mployers must provide sufficient pauses in continuous work to allow workers to drink fluids” (emphasis added). Although the Proposed Rule provides reference tables, it does not address situations wherein some employees are refreshed within minutes of rest, water and shade pauses (breaks), while others may require longer pauses, due to personal risk factors typically associated with one’s health. 5 The Proposed Rule could also create ambiguity and confusion when overlaid upon employers’ existing proactive heat illness and injury practices, programs, policies and procedures that have been successful in prevention of heat-related injury or illness. Likewise, Section 11.5.7.9 requires that “[e]mployers shall conduct a heat exposure assessment when a heat index threshold of 80°F is met or exceeded…. Due to the variable presence of heat in many work environments, the assessment of an employee’s exposure to heat as a hazard must take into account local conditions at the work site.” Such provision places a heavy burden on management, to not only plan the work schedule around weather forecasts, which are inaccurate many times, but to also take the current temperature at the work site. The majority of New Mexicans know just how quickly weather conditions can change, which can include “twilight zone” conditions, wherein half of a work site may experience rain, while the other half is inundated with sunlight. Thus, prescheduled, planned work would possibly have to continually be replanned at the work site. PNM also suggests it may be unrealistic to trigger such assessment requirement at such a low threshold (80°F), as the Proposed Rule should be focusing on the hottest days of Summer (90°F and above). PNM notes that Subsection 11.5.7.10(A) requires use of the NIOSH Criteria for a Recommended Standard, Occupational Exposure to Heat and Hot Environments.3 The Proposed Rule in its current form therefore includes the older 1993 version which should be replaced for accuracy. PNM recommends that the 2016 version be used as Table 3: Work Rest Schedule in the Proposed Rule. PNM Comment 4 – Lack of Supporting Documentation: Finally, PNM is unaware of any fiscal impact report or economic impact study having been performed that provides objective analysis of the potential economic impact of the Proposed Rule to New Mexico. If such a study or studies have been completed, PNM suggests they be made available to all stakeholders and the public, via publication on the NMED website, such that all impacts of the Proposed Rule may be considered. PNM has a similar suggestion regarding any technical or scientific publications which provide the bases for certain details of the Proposed Rule, such as the temperature standards (throughout) or the allowable percentages of regular work schedules in Section 11.5.7.10. Those should be made available on the NMED website as well. PNM appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments on NMED’s Proposed Rule. Please contact PNM’s Director of Safety, Chad Krukowski, at chad.krukowski@txnmenergy.com or (505) 241-2057 to discuss further, or if you would like to meet to better understand either PNM’s safety programs or our comments on the Proposed Rule. | Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) | 5/28/25 |
| II-28-10 | Proposing a rule for heat should conversely be accompanied by a rule for cold. | Shannon Pinto | 5/28/25 |
| II-28-11 | As a retired teacher from California, our students were not allowed outside for P.E. on days over 100 degrees. Las Vegas, NV has similar parameters, but the public time/temperature clocks were all turned off so it wasn’t easy to determine how hot it was, especially for construction workers, gardeners and other outside workers. Options to mitigate heat effects should include clothing, water bottles and hydration measures, adjusted work/school hours, access to shade, eye protection,etc. | Carolyn Day Jackson | 5/28/25 |
| II-28-12 | On behalf of the Gallup McKinley County Chamber of Commerce, I write to express our strong objection to the proposed rule on occupational heat illness and injury prevention submitted by the New Mexico Environment Department’s Occupational Health and Safety Bureau. While the Chamber fully supports the goal of protecting workers and promoting safe work environments, we are concerned that this proposed rule—as currently written—imposes sweeping, burdensome mandates that will disproportionately impact small and rural businesses, especially those in industries such as construction, manufacturing, logistics, and tourism that are vital to the economy of Northwest New Mexico. Key Concerns: Arbitrary and Broad Heat Index Thresholds (80°F): Requiring employers to initiate assessments and implement control measures at heat indices as low as 80°F is not reflective of the regional climate or common working conditions. In Gallup and many parts of the state, 80°F is a routine summer temperature. This threshold would classify normal operating conditions as high-risk, unnecessarily complicating day-to-day business operations. Overly Prescriptive Acclimatization Schedules: The phased work requirements and observation mandates for new or returning employees, although well-intentioned, place an unrealistic administrative burden on businesses with high turnover or seasonal staff. This could inadvertently limit hiring and workforce reintegration. Costly and Logistically Challenging Break and Cooling Area Mandates: Mandatory shaded or mechanically cooled rest areas that accommodate all employees may be logistically unfeasible, particularly for mobile work sites or small employers operating in rural or undeveloped locations. Additionally the 20 minutes of work and 40 minutes of rest rule, would more than double labor costs, creating significantly negative long-term economic impact on virtually every program or project across the state. For many, this will require major capital investment or cause work stoppages. Recordkeeping and Monitoring Requirements: The proposed rule includes extensive documentation, monitoring, and retention obligations (up to five years), which add significant compliance costs without clear evidence of improved safety outcomes. This level of regulation is particularly difficult for small businesses that lack HR departments or compliance officers. Potential for Disruption Without Flexibility: The rule lacks flexibility for job-specific, regional, or seasonal considerations, and does not account for differences in industry practices, voluntary safety programs, or technological solutions already in use. Call to Action: We respectfully urge the Environmental Improvement Board to reconsider or substantially revise the proposed rule to: Raise the threshold temperature to a level more reflective of actual health risk. Allow greater flexibility in implementation for small and rural businesses. Create exemptions or tiered requirements for mobile or low-risk environments. Consider aligning more closely with existing federal OSHA guidance rather than creating an overly broad state-level mandate. The Chamber is committed to collaborating on practical policies that safeguard worker health without jeopardizing economic viability or adding disproportionate burdens to our employers. As written, this proposal risks doing more harm than good to New Mexico’s working families and business community. | Gallup McKinley County Chamber | 5/28/25 |
| II-28-13 | RE: Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule Dear Miss Pete, On behalf of East Torrance Soil and Water Conservation District, we write to express serious concerns regarding the “Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule” issued by the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED), Occupational Health and Safety Bureau (OHSB). Many SWCDs have raised alarms about the increasing difficulty of preventing and recovering from natural disasters such as wildfires and floods. For example, the Hermits Peak/ Calf Canyon Fire occurred three years ago, and yet the affected areas still face ongoing recovery challenges. These realities highlight the importance of regulatory policies that are both effective and practical. Unfortunately, the proposed rule lacks the sufficient data necessary to justify its stringent requirements. As written, it imposes a set of mandates that are largely unworkable for agricultural and conservation-based employers and employees, particularly in rural New Mexico. The rule not only risks halting essential conservation work but also threatens to significantly increase operational costs. The proposed regulation appears to be an example of regulatory overreach—impractical to implement, difficult to enforce without significant resources, and burdensome to those it intends to protect. It does not adequately account for the unique conditions under which agricultural and field-based conservation work is performed. For these reasons, the New Mexico Association of Conservation Districts respectfully urges the New Mexico Environment Department to withdraw the Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule and instead engage with the agricultural and conservation communities to develop a more balanced, data-driven approach that ensures both worker safety and the continued protection and stewardship of New Mexico’s natural resources. Sincerely, Leonard Howell, District Manager. | East Torrance Soil & Water Conservation District | 5/28/25 |
| II-28-14 | I support this policy to protect people! It is getting too hot for some workers to safely endure. | Lindsey Gurganus | 5/28/25 |
| II-28-15 | To whom it may concern, I recognize the importance of occupational health and safety in protecting all employees. However, I believe that the proposed approach is not the most effective solution. There are alternative methods to support employees exposed to heat, such as allowing brief work periods combined with additional rest, rather than extended breaks of 45 minutes after 15 minutes of work. For outdoor workers, items like hats, neck fans, cooling towels, and shaded canopies can help mitigate heat exposure. For indoor heat, providing enhanced cooling systems or additional cooling towels could be beneficial. The key is to be proactive, aware, and prepared to ensure employee safety and comfort. | C Baca | 5/28/25 |
| II-28-16 | We disagree with these proposed rules. There is clearly a lack of evidence that we have a health and safety issue in the workplaces related to heat. The proposal will crush our workers ability to get jobs completed and to have them earn a living. This rule needs to be scuttled. | Chalmers Ford | 5/28/25 |
| II-28-17 | I would recommend all parties associated with authoring this legislation be terminated for cause; blatant wasting of tax payer dollars. | Franklin Schilling | 5/28/25 |
| II-28-18 | Via Email Bureau Chief Kristy Peck Occupational Health and Safety Bureau New Mexico’s Environment Department Santa Fe, NM 87505 RE: United Steelworkers District 12 supports the New Mexico Occupational Health and Safety Bureau’s proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention rule. Dear Chief Peck, On behalf of the United Steelworkers (USW) District 12 members in New Mexico, I write in support of the proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention rule. USW is the largest industrial union, representing 850,000 members across North America — including workers across the state of New Mexico. Here in the Land of Enchantment, our members work in a variety of industries, including mining, public sector, nuclear waste cleanup, and many more. All of our workers understand the unique challenges that a warming climate poses to their well-being on the job. Whether it’s the higher ambient temperatures for our potash miners in Carlsbad or the heat hazards faced by our municipal workers in Las Cruces, every worker is being impacted by increased heat stress on the job. As such, it is critical for the government to take action to protect workers from these new hazards. In the absence of federal intervention, we applaud state governments like New Mexico in accepting the responsibility to tackle this crisis. In our comment below, we wish to provide brief remarks on where we think the proposed rule makes progress, while also highlighting a few areas for improvement. Scope First and foremost, we applaud the proposed rule’s intention to cover all indoor and outdoor workers. Although high heat hazards are often thought to primarily impact outdoor workers, many indoor workplaces are affected as well. Our members work in a variety of settings — both outdoor and indoor — and workers can experience heat illness and injury in both settings. For example, USW Local 9424 includes employees in parks and recreation for the City of Las Cruces, NM who obviously spend a lot of time outside on hot days. Also, in that same local, we have municipal custodians who can be exposed to high heat even though they work indoors. Lastly, we have members at several facilities who wear heavy personal protective equipment (PPE) that can amplify the intense temperatures they already experience on the job. In that same vein, we encourage the state’s Occupational Health and Safety Bureau (OHSB) to reconsider some of the exempted categories in the proposed rule. In particular, we represent many emergency responders who put their lives on the line to keep communities safe (oftentimes exposing themselves to high heat environments in the process), and they deserve the same sort of protections afforded to other workers. We also have concerns about the exemption of workplaces that “have a mechanical ventilation system that keeps the heat index below 80 degrees Fahrenheit for all working areas.” While understandable, this exemption could potentially lead to a major loophole, namely workplaces that technically have air conditioning units, but those units are not operational. We have heard stories from our members where a workplace’s ventilation systems do not work, either because the employer never turns them on or because they’ve been broken and never repaired. Our concern is that employers could claim they meet this exemption, without actually protecting their workers. As such, we encourage the state to limit the types of exempted workers. Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Plan The first step in addressing any hazard is to have a plan. We commend New Mexico for requiring each employer (regardless of size) to have a Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Plan (HIIPP). One major concern we have with the proposed rule, though, is that as currently written, the employer is the sole party that gets to “establish, implement, and maintain” the HIIPP. Although the employer must play a role, we believe it is critical to give workers and their representatives a seat at the table as well. We encourage the state to amend the first sentence of this section to read: “The employer shall consult with workers and their representatives in all stages of establishment, implementation, and maintenance of an effective heat injury and illness plan.” Such language would ensure that workers have a voice in creating a plan that actually works. Additionally, we agree that the HIIPP should be provided in writing and in a language that employees understand. However, we suggest the state modify the language requirements to align with those outlined in the Training section of the proposed rule. Specifically, instead of providing the HIIPP in “the language understood by the majority of the employees,” the HIIPP must be provided in “a language and vocabulary readily understood by all employees”. USW had a tragic heat-related fatality occur in a steel mill due to a language barrier by one of our employees. It is essential that workplace health and safety documents, such as a HIIPP, can be understood by all workers, not just “the majority of workers.” Heat Exposure Assessment We strongly agree that a heat exposure assessment is key to identifying the specific heat-related risks workers experience at their job sites, and as such, it must be included in all HIIPPs. Like the HIIPP section though, we strongly urge the state to modify the first sentence of this section to read: “Employers, along with workers and their representatives, shall conduct a heat exposure assessment…” Doing so will ensure that employers are thorough in their assessments. Including workers in all stages of a heat exposure assessment will guarantee that they are as accurate as possible. Also, we agree that the heat exposure assessment must take into consideration “the intensity of the work being committed,” “the acclimatization of the employee,” and “the heat remaining impacts of required protective clothing and PPE.” As mentioned before, many workers — including workers at Local 188A in Mosaic’s potash mine and Local 12-09477 employees at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) nuclear cleanup site — must wear heavy PPE as part of their labor-intensive jobs. It is essential that any heat exposure assessment consider all of these factors when evaluating the level of heat a worker is being exposed to. Control Measures The most important part of this proposed rule, clearly, is the control measures. Having a plan to mitigate heat exposure and a system for evaluating when a worker has been exposed to dangerous heat levels are key, but they only matter if an employer implements effective control measures to deal with the exposure. We support the proposed rule’s inclusion of several key control measures, including acclimatization, fluid provision, rest breaks, cooling areas, and personnel monitoring. For acclimatization, we agree with the schedule for new workers, but suggest that the final rule apply that same five-day schedule for returning workers as well. When workers have been away from their job site for an extended period of time, it is key to give their bodies the proper time to readjust. Regarding water and rest breaks, we agree that both are essential components of an effective control measure system. Crucially, these break times must not include the time needed to take heavy clothing on or off (i.e., donning and doffing). For cooling areas, we commend the state for requiring employers to provide both shade and artificial cooling systems. We also agree that employers must be obligated to ensure those shade areas are large enough and that the artificial cooling systems are always operational. Making the cooling areas as close as practicable to where workers are stationed is also essential. Lastly, we support the personnel monitoring requirement, but instead of offering employers the ability to implement “one or more of the following,” we suggest you require them to implement “all of the following.” Radio communication for workers working alone, a buddy system, and self-monitoring are all effective control measures, and they work best in combination with each other, so an employer should be required to implement all three of them, not just one. Finally, we suggest that the state give some thought to outlining specific minimum control measures for the high heat conditions (i.e., above 90 degrees Fahrenheit). The federal proposed rule on heat from the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has two separate lists of control measure requirements: one at their initial heat trigger (i.e., 80 degrees) and a different list for exposures above their high heat trigger (i.e., 90 degrees). We think New Mexico should take a similar approach when finalizing their rule, rather than just leaving that responsibility to the individual employer, which is how it is currently written. Training and Recordkeeping We are also pleased to see that the proposed rule includes such strong language on training and recordkeeping. Our members know firsthand that a hazard mitigation plan is only effective when everyone is fully trained up on it. As such, we applaud the proposed rule for requiring training to be conducted “at the employer’s expense.” No worker should feel incentivized to skip the training in order to save money, nor should the cost of the training fall on the individual worker. Second, we appreciate the requirement for the training to be conducted in “a language and vocabulary readily understood by all employees.” Ensuring full comprehension of the company’s policies is critical. Lastly, we agree that this training must occur “at the beginning of employment for each employee and annually thereafter.” However, we would encourage the state to add a specific provision stating that training refreshers should also occur after any heat-related injuries or illnesses at the facility. Lessons learned are best internalized when the training happens soon after an incident. As for recordkeeping, we agree with the proposed rule that employers must keep track of acclimatization schedules, training attendance, and any heat-related incidents for a period of five years. Doing so will allow the employer, the workers and their representatives, and the state to monitor any concerning patterns, while also maximizing the chances that heat-related injuries and illnesses rarely (if ever) occur, and to the extent that they do, that they decrease over time. Conclusion In closing, the warming climate is presenting new challenges for workplace health and safety. Although the problem is most immediately clear for outdoor workers (e.g., those in the agriculture and construction sectors), the fact of the matter is that all workers are being impacted. As discussed here, USW members are among some of the most directly impacted workers, and as such, they would benefit enormously from a well-designed heat standard. Thank you for taking the time to propose this standard and to take our comments into consideration as you finalize the rule. We look forward to continuing to work together in establishing a comprehensive, effective Heat Illness and Injury Prevention final rule that protects all New Mexican workers. Sincerely, Gaylan Z. Prescott Director, USW District 12 | United Steel Workers (USW) District 12 | 5/28/25 |
| II-29-1 | On behalf of the New Mexico Chamber of Commerce and our diverse statewide membership, we respectfully submit the following industry concerns and clarification requests regarding the proposed heat illness prevention rules outlined in 11.5.7 NMAC. As a cross-sector coalition committed to workplace safety and economic growth, we fully support thoughtful regulation that safeguards workers while allowing for practical implementation across New Mexico’s unique industrial environments. Below, we detail concerns raised by multiple sectors each facing specific operational challenges in applying the proposed standards. Oil and Gas Operations Concerns & Questions: • 11.5.7.10(C): Required paid rest breaks based on the heat index (Table 3) will substantially reduce productive hours for field crews, especially in Southeast New Mexico during prolonged summer heat. • 11.5.7.10(D): Mandating shade or cooling areas on remote oilfield sites lacking permanent structures poses serious logistical and financial burdens. • 11.5.7.10(B): The fluid requirement of one quart per hour per employee is difficult to monitor and sustain in remote environments without dedicated staff. • 11.5.7.10(A)(a–c): The acclimatization schedule, limiting new employees to 20% of a normal workday on day one, delays operational readiness during drilling projects or peak periods. Requested Clarifications: How are exemptions under 11.5.7.2(B) (“restoration of essential services”) applied to routine oil and gas functions such as maintenance or inspections? Hotels and Restaurants Concerns & Questions: • 11.5.7.2(D) exempts indoor spaces with HVAC maintaining heat index below 80°F; however, older kitchens and laundries often exceed this threshold due to poor ventilation. This is a cost small business can’t absorb • 11.5.7.10(C) and 11.5.7.10(D): Rest break and cooling area requirements may be infeasible for small hospitality spaces with physical constraints. • 11.5.7.12: Annual training in a language “readily understood” adds administrative burden in high-turnover sectors already managing frequent onboarding. Requested Clarifications: • Are small kitchens explicitly defined as “indoor heat environments” under 11.5.7.8(E)? • Can cooling areas include existing staff rooms with fans, or must separate shaded or designated break spaces be created? Construction Concerns & Questions: • 11.5.7.10(A–E) outlines extensive mandates—rest breaks, acclimatization, water provision, and monitoring—which are difficult to enforce consistently across mobile or small residential construction sites. • 11.5.7.8: The required heat illness prevention plan must be accessible and bilingual, posing challenges on fast-moving worksites with multiple subcontractors. • Table 3 (Page 7): Work/rest cycles at high heat indexes (>95°F) could severely disrupt project timelines during New Mexico’s long summers. Requested Clarifications: Can general contractors submit a single master plan covering subcontractors under 11.5.7.8, or must each party submit individual plans? Linemen for Internet & Utility Companies Concerns & Questions: • 11.5.7.2(B): It’s unclear whether routine utility maintenance qualifies as exempt under “restoration of essential services,” or if only emergency repairs qualify. • 11.5.7.10(D): Shade/cooling areas “as close as practical” may not be feasible for rural roadside or pole-based operations. • 11.5.7.10(E): Monitoring (buddy systems, tech, or supervisor check-ins) is difficult with solo linemen in remote areas. Requested Clarifications: • Do air-conditioned vehicles qualify as “cooling areas” under 11.5.7.10(D)(b)? • Are rest and hydration provisions required during routine inspections, or only when heat index thresholds are met? Agriculture Concerns & Questions: • 11.5.7.10(B)(a–e): Requiring one quart/hour and frequent fluid breaks is difficult in large, low-density agricultural fields. • 11.5.7.10(C–D): Providing shaded cooling areas for mobile or mechanized crews would require expensive retrofitting of trailers or transport vehicles. • 11.5.7.8: The written plan requirement, in English and the majority language, creates challenges for small farms employing seasonal and migrant labor. • 11.5.7.13(A–C): Recordkeeping for acclimatization, illness reports, and training is burdensome given rotating, short-term crews. Requested Clarifications: • Can natural shade sources such as tree cover or irrigation pivots qualify under 11.5.7.10(D)(a)? • Is it acceptable to use shared water containers, or must each worker’s intake be individually tracked? Outdoor Recreation • Hunting Fishing, Outfitters and Guides, the areas severed do not have access to internet, how would record keeping work in that case? • Shade issues, at times there is no access to shade, are there plans to create exemptions? • This rule provides no guidance for other extreme weather situations such as severe thunderstorms, wind storms and snow. We urge regulators to reject this rule as there is not sufficient data to justify any of these rules. Good employers protect their employees, but mandating all industries to follow one blanket rule will not work. Thank you for your time and consideration. | New Mexico Chamber of Commerce | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-2 | RE: EIB 25-11 (R)- Proposed New Regulation 11.5.7 NMAC- Heat Illness and Injury Dear Occupational Health & Safety Bureau: On behalf of the Board of Directors of New Mexico Counties, a non-profit, non-partisan organization representing all 33 counties in our state, I write to express significant concerns regarding the proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule (11.5.7 NMAC) scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2025. While we recognize and share the goal of protecting workers from heat-related illnesses and injuries, we respectfully request that the Board postpone implementation of the rule to allow for further dialogue, clarification, and revision to address the unique operational challenges faced by county public works departments. Key Concerns from Counties Operational and Logistical Burden County public works departments operate in geographically dispersed and resource-constrained environments. Complying with the proposed requirements—such as developing site-specific written plans, conducting heat index-based assessments, monitoring employee acclimatization, and providing shaded cooling areas and hydration resources across multiple remote job sites—will require a substantial investment of time, training, and infrastructure that many counties are currently unprepared to meet. Budgetary Impact The rule’s mandates—particularly those regarding hydration equipment, cooling stations, and expanded rest break requirements—impose new costs that are not currently funded by state or federal sources. This places a disproportionate burden on rural and under-resourced counties already managing tight budgets and critical infrastructure needs. Ambiguity and Administrative Complexity The rule includes several technical and procedural requirements that are unclear in their application, such as how to verify and document “equally effective” cooling alternatives or determine “personal risk factors.” Without additional guidance, counties risk unintentional non-compliance and increased liability. Workforce Management Challenges Mandated acclimatization schedules, buddy systems, and new training programs will require counties to adjust work schedules and staffing models, which may reduce service delivery, particularly in smaller departments with limited personnel. Request for Postponement and Collaboration Given the scale and scope of these impacts, we strongly urge the Environmental Improvement Board to: Postpone the effective date of the proposed rule to allow additional time for county governments to prepare and plan for compliance. Engage directly with county risk managers and public works leaders through a stakeholder working group to address implementation challenges and identify workable, field-tested solutions. Provide model templates, training materials, and financial assistance guidance to assist counties with compliance once the rule is finalized. New Mexico Counties is committed to ensuring safe working conditions for all county employees, and we welcome the opportunity to collaborate with NMED and the Board to improve the proposed rule in ways that uphold its safety goals while recognizing the realities of local government operations. Thank you for your consideration, and we respectfully request your leadership in supporting a thoughtful and inclusive approach to implementing this important regulation. If you have questions regarding our submission, please contact Executive Director Joy Esparsen at (505) 660-9629. Sincerely, President Executive Director New Mexico Counties New Mexico Counties | New Mexico Association of Counties | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-3 | If you can work out there, they can. Be reasonable. A dog left in a car will die, so will your outdoor employees working in heat. If you can do it, they can. I know you can’t! | Marcy A Brandenburg | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-4 | Please pass this bill. | Sam Anderson | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-5 | we need to protect all workers who work outside. water, rest periods. | Roberta Richter | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-6 | The exploitation of anything , from people to natural resources , only leads to further and more complete destruction of society and our environment. Please consider this when voting . | Paul Carvalho | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-7 | Enact these heat prevention regulations and save NM workers from injury. No brainer | Wyatt Crouse | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-8 | This mandated overstep of governmental intervention as written will have detrimental effects on productivity, financial impacts on those wishing to conduct business and reside in New Mexico. Some components of the rule have beneficial effects for both employers and employees. These would include education on symptoms, signs of, and treatment of heat illness along with Protocols of “checking on people exposed to potential effects of heat illness. These can be implemented with minimal impacts on employers. The problems begin with excessive mandates within the rule. Limiting number of minutes an individual can work; mandatory consumption of so much fluid within a set time frame (no mention of other health concerns this practice may be contraindicated in); feasibility of cooling stations at nonstationary work sites will have negative impacts on both usability and productivity trickling down to excessive cost increase to the end consumer regardless of the industry affected by this rule. Solution is discussion of a viable, implemental rule with more practical solutions with the input from a bipartisan committee consisting of employers, employees, consumers based on provided data from reputable experts, studies, antidotal testimonies from workers, employers, and consumers. please vote no on this rule as it stands, it is bad for New Mexico. | Kenneth Hargues | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-9 | I view this step as absolutely necessary for 2 reasons:. 1. An obvious, logical and humane way to treat essential workers. 2. A signal to companies and employers re the impact of global warming to their bottom line, and thus an incentive for them to stop pretending it does not matter. a win win. | Vivek Dhawan | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-10 | SOCIETY CARES MORE FOR THE PRODUCTS IT MANUFACTURES THAT FOR THE IMMEMORIAL ABILITY TO AFFIRM THE CHARM OF EXISTENCE JANE ADDAMS NOBEL LAUREATE 1931 | troy jagger | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-11 | Regarding EIB 25-11 (R) – Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention My son works outside in the sun and heat with only 2-15 minute breaks during the day. It is already getting hot and he comes home overheated and feeling ill. There is a need for cooling rooms and more than 2 – 15 minute breaks especially in the hot sun. | Karen Holmes | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-12 | This comment is in regards to EIB 25-11 (R) – Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention. Given the temperatures, climate history and prognosis of New Mexico, this common-sense, life-saving rule should be implemented. Would any of those in opposition to this humane regulation put themselves in harms way as they are asking of others? Would they oppose such a regulation if they themselves were employed working outdoors or in non-air-conditioned indoor environments? Clearly the answer to both questions is no. Support EIB 25-11 (R) – Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention is plainJan Novak and simple common sense. Make it happen. Thank you for your consideration of my comment. | G STEWART MATHISON | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-13 | Re:E1B25 – 11(R) Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Please do whatever is possible to support our workers’ health regarding heat and injury prevention. We need them, and we need them to be healthy. | Judith Andreica | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-14 | This is only common decency. Besides, workers that are not under heat stress should be better, more productive workers, which is good for both the workers and their employers. | Jan Novak | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-15 | The workers who need to be protected most are the ones who need to work to support their families. They are the ones who are vulnerable to economic manipulation by employers because their jobs and livelihoods are on the line. Because they must work to provide for their families does not mean they should work under ANY circumstances when the heat endangers their health. Those more vulnerable need laws that require employers to do “the right thing” and provide heat relief in whatever manner is necessary to protect their workers. | Lisa Poulter | |
| II-29-16 | This legislation is needed to protect the lives and health of workers who work outside or indoors without cooling systems. Climate change is increasing the outdoor air temperatures in New Mexico and workers should have the right to be protected. | Michael McKittrick | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-17 | Please protect workers. | Janet Greenwald | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-18 | To briefly introduce myself and provide context as to my knowledge about the subject of this proposed regulation, I work for a small, Albuquerque-based contractor with 22 New Mexico employees representing approximately 38,000 covered employee hours annually. We have provided construction services on Public Works projects in New Mexico for 40 years. In four decades, we have never experienced a heat stress-related incident or injury. Based on my personal and professional experience, I implore NMED to fully understand the data inciting this policy action and determine if it is reliable and linked by causation (not correlation) to the New Mexico workforce. If the answer to the above is without question “yes,” my second comment is to ensure provisions are entered into the policy that provide definitions and directions to other jurisdictions and agencies with policies destructive to economic development in New Mexico when combined with the proposed NMED policy. Some examples: 1) The City of Albuquerque, Environmental Department Sound Ordinance for Construction: Without allowances for overnight construction operations (currently prohibited by the sound ordinance), construction/renovations/maintenance/landscaping/roadwork/utility work/repairs would be limited in the months of May, June, July, August, September, and October; and 2) Public Works procurement policy includes provisions for “reasonable” liquidated damages. Due to the unprecedented nature of this NMED policy, there are no industry case studies on production losses and therefore no data available to quantify what is “reasonable” for assignment of liquidated damages in Public Works contracts. Finally, if the answer to the presented data question is “yes,” I encourage NMED to consider compliance opt-ins with members of industry instead of a blanket, administrative requirement across all parties. New Mexico has been a proponent of “Government-Industry Relationships” or “Public-Private Partnerships” for over a decade now (reference HB534, NM Stat § 21-8-44, HB192, HB276, and so on). Please consider options for industry to work in partnership with NMED to meet the intent of this policy without requiring an undue administrative burden on the companies, agencies, and organizations employing New Mexico’s oil workers, ranchers, police officers, mailmen, landscapers, airmen, waste managers, biologists, school crossing guards, special events workers, movie industry set workers, and construction workers. Thank you for your consideration. | Allie Moore | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-19 | The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) has published a strong draft heat protection rule that we strongly support. It incorporates best practices and science-based solutions to keep workers safe from exposure to heat at the workplace, including: coverage of both indoor and outdoor workers; calling for written Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Plans (HIIPPs); providing for comprehensive worker training; implementing common sense preventive strategies including water, shade/cooling rooms, paid rest breaks, and acclimatization; and using trigger temperatures that are based on physiological science and years of experience from other states with heat standards. This standard will save lives. We believe there are five key ways that the standard could be improved even more. ● The standard should require employers to include references to existing New Mexico non-retaliation laws as part of employer HIIPP plans and worker training. Because the Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) system depends on workers coming forward when they perceive violations, this communication from their employers is critically important for good enforcement of the standard. ● The standard needs more clarity on emergency procedures. In cases of heat stroke and other severe heat-related illnesses every second counts and so employers and workers alike must be well versed on what actions to take as they wait for emergency medical staff to arrive. ● The standard has only a few reasonable exemptions for specific workplaces, but it needs to clarify that buildings and vehicles with mechanical cooling controls are exempt only when those systems are functioning. Many of the complaints the NMED investigated between 2022-2025 found broken air conditioning for weeks, months, and in one case a year. Further, delivery workers should not be exempted if the cabs of their trucks have air conditioning, but they spend more than 15 minutes out of an hour either in the back of the truck or in the act of delivering packages to doorsteps. ● The NMED should strengthen the HIIPP provisions by urging employers to seek input and involvement of non-managerial staff in drafting the plans. Frontline workers who perform work tasks daily are best placed to understand the specific dangers of the workplace, adding crucial knowledge to the HIIPP. ● The standard should specify that training must be given in person with the opportunity to ask questions and employers should be required to re-deliver the training in the case of a serious heat-related illness or injury onsite, an OSHA citation, a fatality, or work processes changing significantly | Safe Work For All | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-20 | The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) has published a strong draft heat protection rule that we strongly support. It incorporates best practices and science-based solutions to keep workers safe from exposure to heat at the workplace, including: coverage of both indoor and outdoor workers; calling for written Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Plans (HIIPPs); providing for comprehensive worker training; implementing common sense preventive strategies including water, shade/cooling rooms, paid rest breaks, and acclimatization; and using trigger temperatures that are based on physiological science and years of experience from other states with heat standards. This standard will save lives. | Sue Roujansky | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-21 | I recently moved to Santa Fe from Southern California, and I am a Human Resources Manager and EHS Specialist. We have laws in CA protecting all (inside and outside) workers from Heat Illness and Injuries, which is crucial, given the fact that we have been experiencing more extreme weather in recent years. Employers need to be accountable and employees need to understand what they should do to remain safe. Removing protections for the sake of profits is not only inhumane, but bad business. Productivity, attendance, loyalty, and etc. are sacrificed, and lead to lost profits vs. gains. | Athena Bressel-Garrett | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-22 | I support the NMED draft heat protection rule. As the climate gets hotter, it is essential to protect our outdoors workers in every way possible. Please make the heat protection rule as strong as possible consistent with practicalities of getting work done outdoors in a heating climate. | Walter Gerstle | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-23 | PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO’S COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE 11.7.3 NMAC – HEAT ILLNESS AND INJURY RULE Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) provides these comments on the Heat Illness and Injury Rule (Proposed Rule) proposed by the New Mexico Environment Department Occupational Health and Safety Bureau (NMED). PNM, a vertically integrated electric utility, is the state’s largest energy provider, powering more than 550,000 residential and business customers across New Mexico every single day. Safety is a core value at PNM because many employees, including linemen, work daily in hazardous environments to serve customers and maintain power. PNM’s Safety Management System (SMS) is built on four pillars: Policies & Procedures; Assurance & Compliance; Hazard Identification & Risk Management; and Communication & Training as framework to keep our employees safe. Safety Policies & Procedures This pillar assigns corporate leadership the responsibility to ensure safety rules are followed at all levels. It establishes procedures and risk controls to evaluate and enforce safety compliance, delegates authority to designated personnel, and allocates resources to monitor and improve safety practices. Safety Assurance & Compliance This pillar uses audits, analysis, and reviews to maintain effective risk control over time and adapt to changing conditions. It focuses on continuous improvement, performance feedback, and developing and monitoring preventive or corrective actions. Safety Hazard Identification & Risk Management This pillar involves identifying, analyzing, and evaluating risks to develop preventive controls. It examines interactions among people, facilities, technology, and the environment to implement risk controls such as equipment changes, training, or procedural updates to enhance safety. Safety Communication & Training This pillar emphasizes management’s role in fostering a safe workplace culture through clear communication and behavior modeling. It ensures employees are informed about current safety practices and reporting mechanisms, promoting openness so management can address safety hazards effectively. PNM Comment 1 – Expanded Exemption for Certain Employers: PNM is well aware of the dangers associated with exposure to heat, and already addresses the hazards associated with such exposure. PNM safety measures regarding working in hot conditions are incorporated in our Heat Stress Illness Prevention Plan (PNM Plan), which includes roles and responsibilities for the employer, employees, company leadership and management, and plan administrator. It explains risk factors about working in heat, and includes the most common heat illnesses, along with their associated symptoms and initial first aid steps. 2 The PNM Plan utilizes the NIOSH Heat Index and also notes protective measures, while including the link to the NIOSH-OSHA Heat Safety Tool, for proper job planning. 1 It includes training and a compliance checklist as its compliance and controls. Training is completed by new employees upon hiring, and existing employees annually, with its delivery housed and monitored on PNM’s electronic learning tool via company intranet. The PNM Plan notes necessary definitions and includes an Appendix, consisting of the NIOSH Heat Index; Examples of best practices; and a compliance checklist (heat assessment). The PNM Plan is also supported with access to “Heat-Related Injury & Illness” resources, as well as access to “Summer Heat Watch Toolbox” resources, as hosted on the PNM Safety Department internal “iConnectSafety” webpage. PNM frontline employees receive approximately 30 hours of risk mitigation training on relative hazards they may face, which includes heat awareness training. As an operational example of PNM Plan implementation, on days where the temperature exceeds or is forecasted to exceed 80 degrees Fahrenheit, as part of its daily safety briefing or tail boarding (heat assessment) prior to the deployment of employees to outdoor work assignments, PNM provides each employee with sun protection gear and fluids appropriate to each employee’s worksite that day. Thus, the PNM Plan is formally supported by the PNM job briefing / tailboard procedure. Other operational examples of the PNM Plan include, but are not limited to: Modified work schedules: Adjusting start and end times to avoid the hottest parts of the day; Portable air conditioners: Utilizing mobile cooling units to provide relief in hotter work areas; Frequent breaks: Increasing the frequency of breaks to allow employees to rest and recover; Hydration and cooling: Providing ice, cold water, and drinks with electrolytes to keep everyone hydrated and cool; EZ COOL: Each employee is given an EZ COOL towel that is used around the neck; and Lightweight flame-retardant clothing: Provide option for lightweight and breathable flame retardant clothing. Additionally, the PNM Plan goes above and beyond Proposed Rule by requiring that the designated Plan Administrator shall be a Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH) and / or Certified Safety Professional (CSP). Such requirement illustrates that PNM deeply understands the significance of heat-related illness and injury prevention. It is also important to note that PNM employees had no reported or recordable heat-related illnesses or injuries since 2021, when heat illness and injury awareness was implemented. | PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-24 | Public Comment: New Mexico Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule Submitted by the Phylmar Regulatory Roundtable (PRR) and EHS Forum The Phylmar Regulatory Roundtable (PRR) and EHS Forum appreciates the opportunity to submit the following comments on the proposed New Mexico Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule. PRR is a coalition of Environment, Health, and Safety (EHS) professionals representing more than 50 organizations across a broad range of industries. Many of these organizations operate facilities or have employees working in the state of New Mexico. We share a strong commitment to worker safety and offer the following perspectives aimed at improving the feasibility, clarity, and effectiveness of the proposed regulation. New Mexico Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule Comments: Acclimatization: We encourage the Environmental Improvement Board to consider an alternative to acclimatization. In other federal and state jurisdictions, legislative and regulatory heat protection proposals have included an alternative to acclimatization requirements, such as allowing employees to abide by high heat standard requirements during the time they would have had to acclimatize. Acclimatization requirements as written overlook many personal employee factors and would be burdensome for employers with shift workers. ➢ We would prefer acclimatization provisions to go into effect after a 14+ day absence from work rather than 7+ days Personal risk factors: We do not support the disclosure of personal risk factors for heat exposure assessments. Fluids: The requirement for employers to encourage workers to drink 8 oz of fluids every 15 minutes is overly burdensome and infeasible. Recommend striking.Work/rest chart: The work/rest chart as written is too prescriptive and should be removed to allow employers and employees to take rest breaks in a flexible manner on an as-needed basis. Work/rest chart: The Environmental Improvement Board needs to clearly define light, moderate, and heavy work. We encourage clear definitions for each. Effective date: July 1st effective date is a bit soon for compliance since the comment period ends May 30. Record keeping: Caution to avoid making record keeping requirements overly prescriptive. Thank you for considering these comments. We support efforts to protect workers from heat-related risks and encourage the Board to adopt a balanced approach that achieves health and safety goals without creating impractical implementation challenges. | Phylmar Regulatory Roundtable EHS Forum | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-25 | Dear Members of the Environmental Improvement Board, I write to respectfully urge the Board to consider exempting the construction & home-building industry from the proposed heat rule in its current form. While the intent to protect workers from the rising intensity of climate-change-driven heat-related worksite peril is necessary, the unique operational realities of our industries require a tailored approach to ensure worker safety and the continued vitality of New Mexico’s construction and home-building sector. Construction and home building are inherently dynamic, outdoor industries that face unpredictable schedules, tight project timelines, and varying site conditions. We need to be nimble. A one-size-fits-all heat rule will inadvertently halt projects, increase costs, and jeopardize jobs – ultimately impacting economic growth, the viability of running businesses in our sectors, and have negative impacts on housing availability and affordability across our State. These consequences will be severe for small businesses and rural contractors, who lack resources to adapt to sweeping regulatory changes. Rather than imposing a blanket regulation, we propose the Board convene a working group composed of construction and home-building professionals, and representatives from the New Mexico Environment Department, OSHA. This collaborative effort would allow industry experts and regulators to better understand real-world realities of the industry and jointly develop practical, effective policies that protect workers from heat hazards while also accommodating the operational needs of the construction sector. Such a working group could examine best practices, explore innovative solutions (many of which are already in practice), and ensure that new requirements are both feasible and enforceable. By engaging directly with those most affected, the Board can craft a policy that achieves shared goals for worker safety without causing deleterious harm to New Mexico’s construction and home-building sectors. We look forward to supporting this important dialogue. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Miles D. Conway, Executive Officer | Santa Fe Area HBA – Northern New Mexico Builders Association, NAHB Affiliate | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-26 | Workers deserve protection. Working in extreme heat is intolerable and unhealthy. Those who do not want to protect workers should take steps to reduce climate change and the burnoing of fossil fuels. | BEV SPEARS | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-27 | I’m surprised there is opposition to this common sense proposal to protect outdoor workers from the increasing heat of our state. Every year I read about farm workers or construction workers dying in the heat while at their workplace. There needs to be strong protections for our workers. We need them. The business community should have a long range view that healthy productive workers is better for their bottom line in the long run. | Robin Dunitz | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-28 | New Mexico must lead the way on heat safety. No one should risk their life just to earn a paycheck. To learn more about the detriment and negative financial impacts of ignoring this, visit safework4all.org. | ELIZABETH RODGERS | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-29 | I am very pleased that the NM legislature is addressing the issue of heat-related injury and death of our citizens. I believe there are five key ways that the standard could be improved even more. ● The standard should require employers to include references to existing New Mexico non-retaliation laws as part of employer HIIPP plans and worker training. Because the Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) system depends on workers coming forward when they perceive violations, this communication from their employers is critically important for good enforcement of the standard. ● The standard needs more clarity on emergency procedures. In cases of heat stroke and other severe heat-related illnesses every second counts and so employers and workers alike must be well versed on what actions to take as they wait for emergency medical staff to arrive. ● The standard has only a few reasonable exemptions for specific workplaces, but it needs to clarify that buildings and vehicles with mechanical cooling controls are exempt only when those systems are functioning. Many of the complaints the NMED investigated between 2022-2025 found broken air conditioning for weeks, months, and in one case a year. Further, delivery workers should not be exempted if the cabs of their trucks have air conditioning, but they spend more than 15 minutes out of an hour either in the back of the truck or in the act of delivering packages to doorsteps. ● The NMED should strengthen the HIIPP provisions by urging employers to seek input and involvement of non-managerial staff in drafting the plans. Frontline workers who perform work tasks daily are best placed to understand the specific dangers of the workplace, adding crucial knowledge to the HIIPP. ● The standard should specify that training must be given in person with the opportunity to ask questions and employers should be required to re-deliver the training in the case of a serious heat-related illness or injury onsite, an OSHA citation, a fatality, or work processes changing significantly. Thank you for your consideration of the above suggestions | Catharine Stringfellow | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-30 | It is just common sense that people need to protection from over exposure the high heat .Please help! | David Cooper | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-31 | As the Vice President of EHS for the Natural Gas Technologies Division of Flowco, Inc., an oilfield service company providing production optimization and emissions management products to E&P companies throughout the United States, I would like to offer my thoughts on the new Heat Injury and Illness Rule proposed by the State of New Mexico. Providing a safe work environment is the highest priority at Flowco, and my team and I work diligently every day to ensure our employees have the training and tools needed to work safely. I can appreciate the State of New Mexico’s concern for its residents and applaud any effort that provides realistic and common-sense safety policies. At Flowco, we are proud of our safety record and are confident our EHS policies protect our employees as they work in increasingly hot temperatures. However, I do have some concerns and questions regarding the proposed rule. The Work Rest Schedule contained in the rule requires mandatory breaks at certain temperature readings. Managing this schedule is unrealistic and not necessary. Our Heat Illness and Injury Policy includes hourly breaks when the temperature reaches a certain level, and our employees are educated on the signs and symptoms of heat-related illnesses and can manage the need for a break themselves based on our mandatory hydration breaks. In addition to specific information pertaining to heat-related illnesses, our employees are trained on other contributing factors such as clothing, medications, food, and alcohol and how these factors can affect a person working in heat, and how to plan their days to avoid being at risk by completing more complicated/strenuous jobs at the beginning of the workday when the outside temperature is cooler. At the Albuquerque meeting, it was stated that the mandatory break does not go into effect until an employee has been working for two hours. However, that stipulation does not appear in the proposed rule. So when does the mandatory break requirement kick in? The rule would require an additional 13 degrees be added to the Work Rest Schedule for those employees who work in direct sunlight making the reading equal to 95 degrees. This directive would only allow our employees to work 45 minutes before taking a 15-minute break. We have a unique situation in our employees who work outside are also traveling in an air-conditioned truck from one well site to another. What if the employee only has a one-hour job to do and arrives in the field from a cool working place such as his truck? Would he have to take a 15-minute break before finishing the last 15 minutes required for the job? It seems highly unlikely this employee will be affected by the heat after being exposed for only 45 minutes. This requirement would lengthen our employees’ workdays and keep them out in the field for additional time each day during the hot summer months. As we all know, driving is the most dangerous activity we do as oilfield workers and increasing the amount of time our field service techs are required to be in the field due to a break that is not necessary in our situation needlessly increases risk to our employees. The proposed rule would require drinking water to be located near areas where employees are working. We have a field service team that is out in the oilpatch every day installing and servicing our equipment. Many are not located close enough to one of our field offices to stop by daily to get water, so we either supply cases of bottled water/electrolyte type drinks or they acquire it on their own at the company’s expense. In addition, having an employee stop working every 15 minutes to drink 8 ounces of water is not realistic in our business. Our technicians could be involved in testing on our unit and unable to take a break every 15 minutes. This rule creates a patchwork of regulations for companies who are also working in nearby states such as Texas. On any given day, our field employees could be back and forth between the New Mexico and Texas border several times as they perform preventive maintenance on our units. Managing a regulation that is only required in New Mexico creates confusion and adds work onto an already busy field service staff. Requiring record keeping above and beyond what is required on the OSHA 300 Log creates an environment that is too subjective. An example given at the public meeting in Albuquerque was the recording of an ice bath. OSHA does not require documentation of this practice, but the state of New Mexico now wants that data collected? What is the expectation? What data would the employee be expected to note? Duration of the bath? Temperature of the water? And where would this data be housed? What are the implications if an employee accidentally forgets to note this treatment? How will compliance be managed? At the Albuquerque public meeting, it was stated that if a company documented an approved training program is in place and required for employees, the company would be in compliance. Will there be forms to fill out and send to the state documenting the training and who attended? Will the company policy need to be on file with NM OSHA? What about audits? Since New Mexico does not have a rest break requirement, it was stated at the Albuquerque public meeting that employers should follow their “normal” rest break schedule. Does that need to be in the policy? Does the state need to approve the company’s “normal” rest break schedule? For the re-acclimatization of a worker when returning to work after 7 days of being on PTO, does the exposure time of the heat make a difference? If say driving in an air-conditioned vehicle to a job site is 1 1/2 hours away, and then the technician performs 2 1/2 hours of physical work, then drives in the cool vehicle for 1 hour to the next work site and works another 2 1/2 hours, then drives 1 1/2 hours back home, does that still fall into the no more than 50% of working in the heat for the first day? With working 45-minutes and taking 15-minute breaks at 95 degrees by chart rule this equals 4 hours driving, 5 hours working. How would that schedule be altered to lessen the workload to 50%, 60%, and 80%. Is it necessary when the employee is spending half of his day in an air-conditioned truck? A return from PTO would require workers to gradually resume work if temperatures are hot. The first day would be 50% of the usual duration of work in the heat, day two would be 60%, and day three would be 80%, so the employee would not be back to 100% of work capacity until day four. This would have an impact on our ability to provide service to our customers and may require our company to add staff to fill the gap this restriction requires thus increasing costs. Most of our Technicians work alone, is this data going to be self-reported by the worker recording the required work and rest time? Do they need to log the temperature when they start work? How are these logs managed? Do we need a special software package to manage this data that is available to their manager? Will they be expected to submit the logs daily? Weekly? Along those lines, how would a company protect itself from a disgruntled employee who reports that he was required to work longer than required by the rule when in fact, he was provided the appropriate breaks? How does a company ensure the accuracy of logs completed by employees self-reporting? Is the wind being considered when looking at conditions? Will wind conditions affect the threshold of heat exposure limits? As you are aware, the Heat Index is calculated based on air temperature and relative humidity and does not take into account the effects of wind. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Michael Southard Vice President of Environmental, Safety and Health Natural Gas Technologies Division Flowco Inc. Mike.southard@flowco-inc.com | Flowco, Inc. | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-32 | With climate change threatening even higher spring/summer temps year by year, it’s imperative we protect workers via this proposed regulation! Decency and humanity demand it. | Rebecca Procter | |
| II-29-33 | New Mexico heat in the summer will cook your brain if you have to work at jobs on roadways, railroad, construction or landscaping. Protect your employee’s by providing heat protection of all types. Don’t become victims. | Gilbert Padilla | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-34 | Especially in a state with desert climate, workers should be protected from exposure to high temperatures. I have experienced heat stoke, and I can tell you it is not fun and dangerous. | Patricia Foschi | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-35 | I support efforts for a nationally-leading occupational heat standard to protect workers’ health and safety. It should include references to non-retaliation laws as part of New Mexico HIIPP plans. The standard needs more clarify on emergency procedures while waiting for emergency medical staff. There should be no exemptions for work locations which have A/C, but it is not functioning. Provisions for delivery drivers (UPS, FedEx, freight) should be covered explicitly. Employers should request input from workers in drafting plans for heat-related stress and provide training. | Robert Mackenzie | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-36 | Dear NMED: Definitely do everything you can to protect workers, outdoor and indoors, from the brutal summer heat that is about to come . It would be unethical and inhumane not to protect them. Sincerely, Hildegard Adams | Hildegard Adams | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-37 | I am happy to see the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) has developed heat standards to keep workers safe from exposure to heat at the workplace. This is important work that will lead to a safer, healthier New Mexico following best practices from the scientific literature, especially as rising temperatures from climate change continue to affect our state. Please consider adding whistleblower protections and nonretaliation clauses when workers come forward about unsafe work environments, clarifying emergency procedures when someone is suffering from heat stroke, add language that there is some way to prevent nonfunctional air conditioning units in buildings and vehicles (or ones that are never replaced/repaired) from harming workers, and that additional training should be required at sites where heat-related accidents occur. Thank you. | Lauren Teffeau | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-38 | The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) has published a strong draft heat protection rule that we strongly support. It incorporates best practices and science-based solutions to keep workers safe from exposure to heat at the workplace, including: coverage of both indoor and outdoor workers; calling for written Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Plans (HIIPPs); providing for comprehensive worker training; implementing common sense preventive strategies including water, shade/cooling rooms, paid rest breaks, and acclimatization; and using trigger temperatures that are based on physiological science and years of experience from other states with heat standards. This standard will save lives. We believe there are five key ways that the standard could be improved even more. ● ● ● ● ● The standard should require employers to include references to existing New Mexico non-retaliation laws as part of employer HIIPP plans and worker training. Because the Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) system depends on workers coming forward when they perceive violations, this communication from their employers is critically important for good enforcement of the standard. The standard needs more clarity on emergency procedures. In cases of heat stroke and other severe heat-related illnesses every second counts and so employers and workers alike must be well versed on what actions to take as they wait for emergency medical staff to arrive. The standard has only a few reasonable exemptions for specific workplaces, but it needs to clarify that buildings and vehicles with mechanical cooling controls are exempt only when those systems are functioning. Many of the complaints the NMED investigated between 2022-2025 found broken air conditioning for weeks, months, and in one case a year. Further, delivery workers should not be exempted if the cabs of their trucks have air conditioning, but they spend more than 15 minutes out of an hour either in the back of the truck or in the act of delivering packages to doorsteps. The NMED should strengthen the HIIPP provisions by urging employers to seek input and involvement of non-managerial staff in drafting the plans. Frontline workers who perform work tasks daily are best placed to understand the specific dangers of the workplace, adding crucial knowledge to the HIIPP . The standard should specify that training must be given in person with the opportunity to ask questions and employers should be required to re-deliver the training in the case of a serious heat-related illness or injury onsite, an OSHA citation, a fatality, or work processes changing significantly | Chemen Ochoa | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-39 | I thoroughly support the heat illness and injury prevention regulation but would like to encourage the inclusion of the requirement that cooling systems need to be fully functioning, that training for emergency heat related illnesses be provided to employees so they can know how to properly care for colleagues until emergency medical practitioners arrive. Thank you for putting this regulation in place in an increasingly warming planet. | Pamela McBride | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-40 | Why would anyone oppose this? Having access to shade and cooling spots in a work place not only makes for a safer work space but also shows the employees that they aren’t just a number but someone the companies care for. Seems like a basic employee right. Anyone who opposes this is just in for the money and greed and probably couldn’t work an hour in those fields | Jose Lopez | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-41 | To the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule (11.5.7 NMAC). While I appreciate the intent to protect employees working in heat, the proposed mandates introduce an excessive and impractical burden on small and mid-sized businesses across our state. As a business owner, I already take employee safety seriously and implement reasonable, job-specific measures to ensure their wellbeing in high-heat conditions. However, requiring employers to create and maintain written heat illness prevention plans, conduct exposure assessments, monitor acclimatization schedules, keep detailed records, and adhere to rigid rest break structures is not conducive to the realities of day-to-day operations—especially in industries like construction and roofing. Mandating a highly prescriptive, one-size-fits-all policy across diverse work environments fails to recognize the experience and safety practices already in place at many companies. It also risks reducing productivity, increasing administrative costs, and penalizing employers who are already acting in good faith. I respectfully urge the board to reconsider this approach. | Charlotte Ortiz | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-42 | On behalf of Butch’s Rathole & Anchor Service, Inc., I’d like to share our concerns regarding the proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule (11.5.7 NMAC). While we fully support protecting workers from heat-related illness and agree that heat safety is a serious issue, the rule as written poses some practical challenges for field operations in our line of work. We operate across New Mexico and West Texas, often in extreme heat, and already have solid programs in place—hydration plans, crew education, rest schedules, and acclimatization practices that fit the nature of oilfield work. That said, parts of the proposal feel too rigid to apply in remote job sites and constantly changing field conditions. A few specific concerns: The required work/rest schedules during high heat may not leave room for flexibility based on the type of work being done or the condition of the worker. The acclimatization timeline doesn’t account for experienced hands returning from short time off who are still heat-adapted. The expectation for shaded or mechanically cooled rest areas within a 2-minute walk of every work area just isn’t practical in many locations we work. We’re not against strengthening protections—we just think there needs to be more consideration for how different industries operate, especially those with mobile or remote crews. We’d appreciate a more flexible approach that allows employers to meet the intent of the rule without creating operational barriers. Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback. We’re committed to safety and would welcome the chance to stay involved in this discussion. | Butch’s Rathole & Anchor Service Inc. | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-43 | Heat stroke is a serious concern and with climate change breaking heat records every year, it is only getting more serious. OSHA exists to protect workers. Work life before OSHA was profit centered and workers were routinely injured or killed. Take steps to protect workers from heat related injuries. | Daniel Donahue | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-44 | Your attempt to impose excessive regulatory measures to constrain small businesses is remarkable!! What reasonable business owner would deliberately place their employees at risk through overexposure? This appears to be nothing more than an effort by bureaucrats in Santa Fe to justify their positions by implementing additional regulations under the guise of ‘safety.’ The regulatory authorities should be required to provide empirical evidence and comprehensive studies demonstrating that there have been significant documented issues with small business employers endangering their employees through overexposure. | Kyle Schueller | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-45 | I am against EIB 25-11 NMAC Heat illness and injury prevention. I used to own a roofing company and if this regulation was in effect back then my clients would not be able to afford a new roof. Once employees find out about this regulation, they would abuse it. It is hot on a roof and we would start work earlier in the morning, wear long sleeved uniforms and supply sun screen and hats, and also cold bottled water. | Sandra Harris | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-46 | Comments on EIB 25-11 (R) – Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention: This proposal is absolutely insane and unrealistic. How is an employer supposed to operate his business and make any kind of profit to stay in business under this criteria when it will take 3 times as long to finish any project when the employee only works 20 minutes of every hour. This proposal is NOT based in reality and MUST NOT be passed. Also, were is the personal responsibility of the individual to do what is necessary to stay hydrated. DO NOT PASS. | Pam Anonymous | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-47 | The proposed highly intrusive comical regulation means that in a standard day there is only 2-3 HOURS of productivity with 7-8 HOURS of leisure by the employee. Now I realize that this productivity measure is a HUGH AMOUNT for government employees and politicians, but in the real world EMPLOYERS take care of their employees BECAUSE IT IS IN THEIR BEST INTEREST. COMMON SENSE NEEDS TO RULE NOT OSHA, AND HAS WORKED MY WHOLE PRODUCTIVE LIFE, 60 + YEARS AT THIS POINT. OF COURSE HYDRATION IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT,THERE IS NO ONE IN THE ‘FIELD’ THAT DOES NOT ALREADY KNOW THIS. IF MAKING NM A LAUGHING STOCK IS YOUR GOAL, YOUR MAKING A HELLUVA STATEMENT WITH THIS. | Dale Schueller | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-48 | Let’s introduce common sense into the discussion. If the temperature is so high that a person cannot safely complete the job, why are they in that job? If the temperature is so high that it will kill, as is presented by the sponsors of this petition, then wouldn’t the logical step be to not have anyone on the site? It’s already been stated that companies who will be affected by this have already taken steps to mitigate the risks (i.e. Working early morning hours before the heat hits it pinnacle). If a road construction company has to reduce work time, they either have to hire more employees to switch out during work hours or they have to extend the contract for completion due to severely reduced actual hours worked. Either of those options increases the cost of a job…and that means more burden on tax-payers as EVERY job will increase in cost. That means higher taxes. Do right by New Mexicans and vote this tax increase down! | Jonathan Mathis | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-49 | I am a researcher (now retired) who has worked extensively with the issues around occupational heat exposure. The draft heat protection rule proposed by the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) addresses some of the key issues necessary to keep workers safe from excessive heat exposure in various workplaces, both indoors and out. Written plans such as the HIIPPs proposed in this document, are vital, and include emergency plans and common sense strategies to mitigate heat illness. Also vital are employee training and rules employers must follow will save workers from injury and even death as summers get hotter. I strongly support this attempt to protect many types of workers who are endangered during the hottest months in New Mexico. | Christine Mermier | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-50 | WE have been in business since 1972, we provide Gatorade, water and ice for all employees along with uniforms & PPE. We live in the desert and anyone with common sense knows when to take a break to cool off without the government telling us when we can and cannot work. Excessive Sick pay was already shoved down our throats, what’s next? | Anonymous | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-51 | New Mexico Environment Department Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule Energy Workforce & Technology Council (EWTC) represents over 200 energy services and technology companies operating across the United States. Many of our member companies have highly mobile operations, particularly in New Mexico’s oil and gas basins. Field teams and equipment are regularly deployed to multiple, temporary job sites—sometimes on short notice or in rapid succession. We are concerned that the requirement to maintain a site-specific heat illness prevention plan will be unworkable for our members. For mobile crews, developing and updating a site-specific plan for each new location—some of which may be used only briefly—creates an impractical compliance burden. We urge NM OSHA to allow a generalized mobile-site plan that outlines protocols applicable across multiple locations, especially for short-term operations. 11.5.7.9 – Heat Exposure Assessment The 80°F heat index threshold for required heat exposure assessment is overly conservative, especially for New Mexico, where summer heat often exceeds this level for prolonged periods. As written, this rule would trigger regulated conditions during a majority of workdays across large portions of the state. We recommend raising the threshold to 90–95°F, which is more consistent with medical research on heat-related illnesses and aligns with common best practices already in place across our industry. Additionally, this adjustment would better reflect actual risk without overwhelming the system with low-impact triggers. The use of Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WGBT) is more accurate than the proposed static 13°F for solar radiation. WBGT incorporates the angle of solar rays, ambient temperature, humidity, and wind speed, providing a more dynamic and precise measurement of heat stress. Many service companies utilize functional testing before working in heat. The direction at 11.5.7.9 (B) directs the employer to consider personal risk factors for heat illness. Many of the personal risk factors are associated with personal medical conditions that are private medical information and are not shared with the operational management of the company. This stipulation creates a conflict between this standard and standards addressing access to PHI (Personal Health Information). 11.5.7.10 – Heat Illness Prevention Measures • (A) Acclimatization: The prescribed acclimatization schedule appears designed for 8-hour shifts and does not reflect the 12-hour shifts that are standard across our industry. Applying the 20% progression model to longer shifts would delay full worker integration and impose operational delays. We recommend a shift-based acclimatization approach or an exemption for standby employees who routinely return to similar work environments. • Acclimatization is an important element in protecting our employees while working in heat, but the restrictions proposed are unnecessary if proper training and observation protocols are in place. • In the definition for acclimatization, it states that “acclimatization peaks in most people within four to 14 days”. It is reasonable to acclimatize new employees at the rate of 25% of the usual duration of work on day one and a 25% increase on additional days. For workers returning from an absence of 10 or more consecutive days the work schedule would be no more than 50% on day one, 75% on day two, and 100% thereafter. • (C) Cooling Areas & Breaks: In many remote field operations, workers rely on shaded areas, truck cabs, or semi-cooled environments like frack or wireline trucks to rest. These vehicles may not be fully air-conditioned but do allow for effective cool-down. Requiring designated break areas that can seat multiple employees in a traditional setting is impractical. Shaded areas and cooled vehicle interiors should qualify as compliant cooling zones. Additionally, sedentary workers (e.g., control trailer personnel) who are not exposed to outdoor heat stress should be exempt or subject to adjusted break requirements. (11.5.7.2 (1) (d) i • (D) Alternative Cooling Measures: The rule allows employers to provide alternative cooling options in place of shade if they can demonstrate equal effectiveness. However, many items—like cooling towels, wraps, or bandanas—are not regulated by ANSI or NIOSH. Without a minimum performance standard, it would be unreasonable to expect employers to prove efficacy. We recommend the state provide a non-exhaustive list of presumed-effective cooling products to ease compliance. • At mobile worksites, cooling towels, wraps, and bandanas are impacted by reuse to the point that they become soiled. Extended use in a soiled condition can lead to dermatitis and skin infections such as staph infections. 11.5.7.12 – Training We note that new worker training and acclimatization under this rule will be difficult to complete for full-day shift workers under the prescribed timeline. We recommend a modified training protocol for extended shift workers, or allowing remote or digital training to fulfill acclimatization documentation needs. 11.5.7.13 – Recordkeeping Many EWTC member companies operate in remote and rugged field conditions where communications and documentation are limited. Workers are often solo or in small groups without immediate administrative support. The recordkeeping burdens proposed in this section—particularly for documenting acclimatization, rest breaks, or cooling access—may not be feasible in such conditions. We urge NM OSHA to allow alternative methods of documentation, including retrospective reporting or verbal confirmation logs, especially for remote or mobile worksites | Energy Workforce and Technology Council (EWTC) | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-52 | The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) has published a strong draft heat protection rule that I strongly support. But I believe there are five key ways that the standard could be improved even more. 1) The standard should require employers to include references to existing New Mexico non-retaliation laws as part of employer HIIPP plans and worker training. 2) The standard needs more clarity on emergency procedures. In cases of heat stroke and other severe heat-related illnesses every second counts. 3) The standard has only a few reasonable exemptions for specific workplaces, but it needs to clarify that buildings and vehicles with mechanical cooling controls are exempt only when those systems are functioning. 4) The NMED should strengthen the HIIPP provisions by urging employers to seek input and involvement of non-managerial staff in drafting the plans. 5) The standard should specify that training must be given in person with the opportunity to ask questions. Thank you for your consideration. | Jennifer Oppenheim | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-53 | I am the owner of a farm as well as a produce packing facility and here are my thoughts on this rule. As it is written, it imposes a set of mandates that are unworkable for agricultural employers and employees. It is an overreach of authority and is impractical to enforce. The burden of this rule will probably lead to higher food cost and economic failure to many family farms. As I see it, the majority of employees who work outside know how to handle the climate conditions and are acclimated to them. We believe in protecting our worker’s well being, but you can’t legislate for the few that are ignorant by penalizing those that aren’t. Please reconsider and drop this ruling before it destroys the economy of our state. | William Johnson | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-54 | This is unreasonable, and frankly absurd. While safety measures should be in place regarding the heat and related illnesses (which already exist), trying to govern how many hours per day should be paid for no productivity is insane. Anybody working in the heat knows when to take a break and seek shade or hydration, they don’t need a law in place to force paid breaks. Individual organizations should be responsible for how they choose to combat heat, dehydration, and heat related illness. It makes no sense to have a blanket rule imposed for everyone by any organization or individual who has no clue what each individual even does on a day to day basis. Strike this crap down. | Layne Sanchez | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-55 | The Honorable James Kenney Cabinet Secretary of New Mexico Environment Department Occupational Health and Safety Bureau Harold L. Runnels Building 1190 St. Francis Drive, Suite N4050 Santa Fe, NM 87505 Re: In the Matter of Proposed New Regulation: 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention The National Safety Council (NSC) is aware of efforts in New Mexico to develop standards addressing the hazards of heat exposure for indoor and outdoor workers. While NSC does not have specific comments on the proposed new state regulation, we strongly support efforts to protect New Mexico workers – and workers nationwide – from the impact of heat exposure and related hazards in the workplace. Accordingly, I write to ensure you consider the points outlined below. The National Safety Council NSC is America’s leading nonprofit safety advocate and has been for over 110 years. As a mission-based organization, we work to eliminate the leading causes of preventable death and injury, focusing our efforts on the workplace and roadway. We create a culture of safety to keep people safer in the workplace and beyond so they can live their fullest lives. Our 13,000+ member companies represent employees at nearly 41,000 U.S. worksites. The Growing Problem of Heat Illness and Injury in the Workplace Heat-related fatalities and injuries are a growing issue across the United States. According to OSHA, heat exposure is responsible for the deaths of dozens of workers and thousands of illnesses every year, both of which are preventable.1 From 1992 to 2022, 986 U.S. workers died from heat exposure – an average of 34 deaths each year.2 Construction workers face the highest risk, accounting about one-third of all occupational heat deaths.3 Heat illness is an occupational safety and health hazard. According to NSC Injury Facts, exposure to environmental heat resulted in 5,770 Days Away from Work, Job Restriction or Transfer (DART) cases, including 4,910 Days Away from Work (DAFW) cases in 2021 and 2022.4 While environmental heat exposure affects all industries, reported data indicates both service and goods-producing industries, including transportation, construction, and manufacturing, face these hazards at a high rate.5 Additionally, time of day is a factor when workers experience heat-related health hazards, such as heat exhaustion and heat stroke. The hours between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. account for the times of day when workers experience the most cases of heat illness. Out of 242 U.S. locations looked at by Climate Central – 89% saw an increase in the number of annual heat warning days for workers (heat index of 80oF to 94oF).7 Further, data from the New Mexico Workers’ compensation system indicates a correlation between rising temperatures and workplace injuries. The report states “the number of claims attributable to heat rises progressively with temperature.”8 Outdoor workers in industries like agriculture and construction are exposed to significant amounts of “exertional and environmental heat stress that may lead to severe illness or death.” 9 Due to these types of risks, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends that employers have a plan in place to prevent heat-related injuries.10 NSC Support for a Proposed Federal Standard to Address Heat Illness and Injury NSC supports the enactment of a federal standard addressing these challenges. In January 2025, NSC submitted comments to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) on its Heat Injury Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket No. OSHA-2021-0009. NSC comments noted that as heat hazards become more commonplace throughout the United States, it is imperative that employers across all industries have a plan for the safety and health of their workforce. NSC supported OSHA’s efforts to apply the proposed standard to all employers, with few exceptions. Additionally, NSC supported efforts by OSHA to include indoor occupational settings in the proposed standard. Workers in indoor settings may face severe environmental heat hazards and should be offered protections similar to outdoor workers. NSC believes this proposed standard, when finalized, will ensure robust protections for workers throughout the country. NSC hereby incorporates by reference its formal comments to the federal proposal. NSC also recognizes the value and importance of state efforts to address this particularly critical issue and would like to emphasize the importance of the application of standards to all employers in all environments, both indoor and outdoor. Conclusion NSC appreciates the opportunity to submit its perspective on this important topic, and we invite any opportunity to work together to address hazards in the workplace. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Lorraine M. Martin, CEO National Safety Council | The National Safety Council (NSC) | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-56 | I urge you to reassess the proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Regulation (TITLE 11, CHAPTER 5, PART 7). While ensuring worker safety is crucial, this regulation might have substantial unintended impacts on small businesses and the restaurant sector in New Mexico. Instances of heat-related illnesses in restaurants are uncommon, and many businesses already implement measures to safeguard their employees. Requiring expensive upgrades, mandated breaks, and acclimatization periods would disrupt operations, increase costs, and further stress an industry already facing staffing issues. I suggest that offering voluntary guidelines and resources could be a more effective method, ensuring employee safety without risking the livelihoods of many across our state. Thank you for taking these matters into consideration. | John Silva | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-57 | RE: EIB 25-11 (R) – Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention To Whom It May Concern: Opening Enterprise Products Operating LLC respectfully submits the following comments regarding New Mexico’s proposed Heat Illness Prevention rule. Our company and industry place great value on worker safety and have invested significant effort to protect workers from numerous hazards, including those posed by extreme heat, for many years. While we applaud the New Mexico Environment Department’s concern for our industry’s workers, and share the proposal’s goals, as written the proposal presents several concerns around the rule’s necessity, practicality, effectiveness, and potential unintended consequences for businesses and workers alike. We ask for the reasons noted below that the NMED pivot from the proposal and instead focus on assuring that companies establish and implement procedures that follow the applicable OSHA directives. Potential for Confusion and Lack of Clear Guidance The proposal includes complex and ambiguous rules that could create confusion among both employers and employees. For example, the proposal includes confusing language that uses mandatory language (such as “shall”) to apply to ambiguous and non-encapsulating examples, and thereby challenges the most diligent operators in attempting to define compliance. Instead, we believe that a successful heat illness prevention strategy requires clear communication, practical guidelines, and employer-employee collaboration—elements better supported through existing OSHA initiatives rather than complex new regulations. Enforcing OSHA’s existing National Emphasis Program (NEP) and leveraging proven heat illness prevention strategies would provide clearer, more actionable guidance, especially when companies operating in multiple states already have established procedures that meet the OSHA directives. Established Guidance from OSHA OSHA’s Heat Illness Prevention Campaign, launched in 2011, delivers comprehensive resources for managing heat-related risks. It presents a practical, adaptable approach that reduces the need for additional state regulations. Through this initiative, employers and employees gain access to essential tools and guidance for identifying and mitigating heat hazards, including awareness programs, training materials, and acclimatization strategies. In April 2022, OSHA launched a National Emphasis Program (NEP) to strengthen its ongoing efforts in preventing heat-related illnesses. The NEP aligns with many of the concerns expressed by the state of New Mexico, and offers universal guidance, control measures, and established resources to help employers safeguard their workers from heat-related hazards and applies across national operating areas. Given OSHA’s already well-established NEP CPL 03-00-024 framework, which includes recommended protective measures on all the topics covered in the proposal, these state regulations are redundant and unnecessary and do not create meaningful improvements to existing guidelines. Acclimatization Requirements We are also especially concerned by the restrictive definition of acclimatization. This aspect of the proposal is unnecessary and discounts the effects of every other practice required by this proposal to support employees working in hot environments. The language for acclimatization also creates a work schedule measurement, 20%, with no denominator whether it applies to each hour, day, or some other period when a worker’s entire shift is not spent in heated conditions. Similarly, the proposal provides no methodology for tracking or verifying compliance. As a third example of the problem with the proposal’s construct, by mandating full acclimatization requirements at 80ºF, the proposal as written does not provide for additional process changes as temperatures rise, even though conditions above that level present greater risk and occur frequently. Instead, we request that NMED follow the approach of the OSHA NEP, which better protects employees by giving the employer the responsibility to define the structure of an acclimatization program. Regular Rest Breaks We are also concerned by Table 3 of the proposal, which outlines a mandated break schedule that is impractical, unnecessarily burdensome, and does not clearly define what constitutes light/moderate/heavy work. The Table 3 approach is both overly prescriptive, and also lacking in guidance and assumptions of worker health, wellness, age, hydration, and rest. Many of these factors cannot be reasonably known by the employee’s supervisor and rely on the employee’s providing accurate personal health information. Employees can define a schedule “at least as effective” as Table 3, but there is no way to understand by what measure the break schedule is effective. OSHA NEP guidance, along with NIOSH tiering guidance, do provide the necessary framework on both requirements and additional mitigations to help keep businesses operating and protecting workers. Defining this schedule as in proposed Table 3 does not provide an identifiable benefit. Conclusion OSHA requires members of industry to already have established Heat Illness programs with manageable requirements and levels of resources to support both employers and employees. Excessive heat is not just a worker risk in New Mexico. Several sections of the proposed regulations are overly restrictive, unclear, and lacking in actionable mitigation strategies. Leveraging OSHA’s existing programs, refining employer education, and enhancing adaptable mitigation strategies would be a more effective approach. By focusing on practical solutions rather than overly prescriptive regulations, we can ensure worker safety without imposing unnecessary burdens on businesses. Therefore, Enterprise requests that the NMED not go forward with the proposal as written. Respectfully, Dean Duplantis Manager, Safety Services Enterprise Products | Enterprise Products | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-58 | The best thing we can do for this or any issues in New Mexico, is to eliminated the Marxist government that is truly trying to destroy our state…! | Mark Hartman | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-59 | I write to offer comment on the proposed rule. I write on behalf of the Rio Grande Foundation, the Foundation is a public policy think tank based in Albuquerque, New Mexico. We work to analyze and educate policymakers and the public on a variety of economic issues. Unfortunately, the proposed rule in its current form is likely to be extremely onerous for businesses. One of the most significant costs involves simply monitoring. In this case, the burden of conducting heat exposure assessments when the heat index meets or exceeds just 80°F is the primary cost. An 80°F heat index is likely in place for half the year or more in many parts of New Mexico. Numerous factors in these assessments are subjective and open to interpretation and (obviously) potential litigation. We all want workers to be safe in any and all conditions. In a hot place and in direct sun there can be no doubt that water, cooling breaks, and proper skin protection (to name just a few) should be available, but this onerous regulatory tracking mechanism in particular is a problem and it is simply too much at an 80°F threshold. I encourage you to revise these regulations to reflect that reality. Paul J. Gessing President Rio Grande Foundation P.O. Box 40336 Albuquerque, N.M., 87196 505-264-6090 | Rio Grande Foundation | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-60 | Dear Occupation Health and Safety Bureau: The University of New Mexico submits this comment on the proposed Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Rule. UNM is committed to the health of all New Mexicans and appreciates the newly considered heat rule as a step to protecting New Mexicans at work. As a large employer with operations that require work in high heat conditions, I submit the following proposed changes and requests for clarification regarding OHSB’s proposed rule. Proposed Changes Heat Index and Wet-Bulb Globe Temperature The heat index chart in Appendix I, Table 2, from the National Weather Service (NWS), is not generally applicable to much of New Mexico. New Mexico is a generally arid and therefore has low relative humidities. The chart only includes relative humidities 40% or greater, however it is quite rare specifically in the Albuquerque metro for temperatures to reach over 100°F with relative humidities above 10% and this is generally true across the state. At these low relative humidities, the heat index temperature is below the measured dry bulb temperature, reflecting the cooling effects of low humidities. Furthermore, using the full heat index would match what is reported by the NWS and other weather providers, creating consistency in communication of hazards. Table 2 in Appendix I should include a table that incorporates low relative humidity. Additionally, the rule should allow employers to the use of the wet-bulb globe temperature (WBGT) as an alternative to the heat index with adjustments for direct sun. The WBGT is suggested by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in their Criteria for a Recommended Standard1 as the most accurate way to measure external heat load. By considering the temperature, humidity, sun, and wind speed, WBGT accurately reflects the external heat load on the body. Furthermore, New Mexico often has low humidity and high wind conditions that allow the human body to cool more effectively while working, naturally lowering body temperature and therefore the potential risk of heat illness. Lastly, measuring WBGT on site is relatively inexpensive with devices costing as little as $50 each. For these reasons the rule should allow for the use of WBGT in lieu of heat index. Work and Rest Schedules – Appendix I Table 3 This rule should use a simple work and rest schedule that does not depend on work rate. The proposed work and rest schedules are complex and difficult to implement. If implemented as proposed, determining the work rate of an individual would be either guess work or quite onerous due to the lack of definitions for work rate levels or normal work clothing. Furthermore, the table is taken from the NIOSH Criteria for a Recommended Standard1 which is based on the amount of energy a worker is expending during an activity in watts. Measuring work rate in watts is impossible to implement at scale and therefore an impractical basis for a work rest schedule. In contrast, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposed a federal rule2 which rejected the NIOSH table in favor of a much simpler work rest schedule, due largely to implementation concerns. Furthermore, other states have forgone a work rate-based rest schedule in favor of an implementable work rest schedule. Work/rest schedules used in California, Oregon, and Washington, require 10 minutes of rest every 2 hours of work when conditions exceed the high heat trigger. NMED should follow the lead of California, Oregon, Washington, and Federal OSHA in using a work rest schedule that is easy to understand and implement. Intermittent Schedules UNM field researchers, media production crews, and repeater tower repair teams intermittently work in the heat. For example, in any given hot season, they may spend one (1) full day a month in the field collecting data, producing media, or repairing towers. The current acclimatization schedule would require these workers to spend four days each month acclimatizing before they could spend a single full day in the field. Full days are required for researchers to ensure data validity when samples must all be collected in a single 24hr period or for time sensitive operations such as live animal studies. Media crews are often on a tight timeline to report a story or finish production for scheduled release. Tower repair crews must work quickly to repair towers and get them working when they malfunction regardless of acclimatization. Creating an allowance for intermittent workers in high heat conditions to bypass acclimatization or use an alternative method would allow these types of crews to maximize their limited field time without burden. Target industries with highest risk The revised rule could mirror those in California or Colorado, only focusing on high-risk industries such as agriculture while allowing low risk work to avoid acclimatization and work rest schedules that would impact productivity. The OSHB has access to OSHA 300 logs which would detail heat injuries at work. By analyzing this information, the rule could be targeted to industries that regularly have heat injuries without burdening lower risk operations. Clarifications Section 11.5.7.10(A)(b). “A work schedule must be no more than 20% of the usual duration of work in the heat on day one and a no more than 20% increase on each additional day.” The description of the acclimatization schedule is not clear. The 20% increase each day could refer to either 20% over the previous day or 20% of the usual duration of work in the heat. This creates drastically different timelines for an employee to begin a full day in the heat, either five (5) or twelve (12) days. Please clarify this section of the rule. We suggest using the work schedule wording in the proposed federal OSHA rule2: Gradual acclimatization to heat in which the employee’s exposure to heat is restricted to no more than: “20% of normal work shift exposure duration on the first day of work, 40% on the second day of work, 60% on the third day of work, and 80% on the fourth day of work” Acclimatization Frequency It is unclear when acclimatization methods are required by the controls section. Many of UNM’s employees that would be subject to this rule work outdoors during the spring when the temperature is gradually increasing. Please clarify if this type of de facto acclimatization schedule is allowable and if it needs to be recorded every year as part of the required record keeping. I would like to thank the Occupational Health and Safety Bureau for its work keeping New Mexicans safe and healthy. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Casey B. Hall Director of UNM Environmental Health & Safety References: United States, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, “Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Exposure to Heat and Hot Environments”. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication Number 2016-106. (Feb. 2016). United States, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. “Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings.” 89 Fed. Reg. 70,698 (Aug. 30, 2024). | University of New Mexico | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-61 | My name is Sofia Jenkins-Nieto, I am 24 years old and I am a resident of Albuquerque, New Mexico. I’m writing in support of the Environment Department’s Occupational Health & Safety Standard. This safety standard is extremely important for our workers in New Mexico to stay safe and healthy. We need regulations to keep people safe, especially as the climate crisis worsens and temperatures rise. Cities are especially vulnerable to the urban island heat effect, and Albuquerque regularly hits 100 degrees and higher in the hot months. Folks who work outside, as well as inside in hot environments such as kitchens, deserve protections for their health. I think that this rule can be strengthened, and I want the EIB to really consider that almost 250,000 NM workers are at risk of heat-related illness and injuries at work. That number is astronomical, we need to protect our people. It is the board’s responsibility to take this rule seriously, and to take people’s stories seriously. I also urge you to make this rule stronger-outline specific emergency procedures for if and when heat-related illness and injury happens. This will save lives. There also needs to be more outlined training requirements- if workers and managers are not prepared then the rule will mean nothing. I appreciate NMED for proposing this rule-it will help hundreds of thousands of people in New Mexico stay safe and cool as the summers get hotter. Thank you for your time. | Sofia Jenkins-Nieto | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-62 | Healthy Climate NM + 34 Other NM Groups Representing 10’s of 1,000’s of New Mexicans May 29, 2025 NM Environmental Improvement Board c/o NM Environment Department 1190 St. Francis Drive, Suite N4050 Santa Fe, NM 87505 Dear Chair Suina and Bureau Chief Peck: We, the undersigned 35 New Mexico non-profit and community-based organizations representing tens of thousands of New Mexicans, write to support the petition to the Environmental Improvement Board to adopt a proposed rule (EIB 25-11 [11.5.7.1]) on occupational heat illness and injury prevention, as proposed by the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED), Occupational Health and Safety Bureau (OHSB). The need to protect employees from more frequent and more intense excess heat illnesses and injuries grows with our changing weather. In addition, to protecting public health, the proposed rule can benefit employers by reducing their medical and worker compensation costs, improving work quality, and reducing productivity losses when workers are exposed to occupational heat stress. The NMED proposed Rule incorporates best practices and science-based solutions to keep workers safe from exposure to heat at the workplace, including: coverage of both indoor and outdoor workers; calling for written Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Plans; providing for comprehensive worker training; implementing common sense preventive strategies including water, shade/cooling rooms, paid rest breaks, and acclimatization; and using trigger temperatures that are based on physiological science and years of experience from other states with heat standards. This standard will save lives. While we support the Rule as proposed, we also believe there are five keyways that the standard could be improved even more. The standard should require employers to include references to existing New Mexico non-retaliation laws as part of employer HIIPP plans and worker training. Because the Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) system depends on workers coming forward when they perceive violations, this communication from their employers is critically important for good enforcement of the standard. The standard needs more clarity on emergency procedures. In cases of heat stroke and other severe heat-related illnesses every second counts and so employers and workers alike must be well versed on what actions to take as they wait for emergency medical staff to arrive. The standard has only a few reasonable exemptions for specific workplaces, but it needs to clarify that buildings and vehicles with mechanical cooling controls are exempt only when those systems are functioning. Many of the complaints the NMED investigated between 2022-2025 found broken air conditioning for weeks, NMED investigated between 2022-2025 found broken air conditioning for weeks, months, and in one case a year. Further, delivery workers should not be exempted if the cabs of their trucks have air conditioning, but they spend more than 15 minutes out of an hour either in the back of the truck or in the act of delivering packages to doorsteps. The NMED should strengthen the HIIPP provisions by urging employers to seek input and involvement of non-managerial staff in drafting the plans. Frontline workers who perform work tasks daily are best placed to understand the specific dangers of the workplace, adding crucial knowledge to the HIIPP. The standard should specify that training must be given in person with the opportunity to ask questions and employers should be required to re-deliver the training in the case of a serious heat-related illness or injury onsite, an OSHA Citation, fatality, or work processes changing significantly. Public comments opposed to the Rule include a great deal of unscientific claims, compounded with echoes of the federal administration’s ideological bent to oppose all government action, and specifically to dismantle enforcement agencies and Rules that impose any requirement on the private sector. The evidence shows OSHA and voluntary employer action is not sufficiently protective, and the situation is rapidly deteriorating as Emergency Department visits due to heat stress in New Mexico doubled between early 2010s and 2023. Deaths due to heat stress more than tripled between early 2010s and 2023. The southeast and southwest regions experience the highest rate of heat stress ED visits and deaths. Heat waves are becoming more frequent, last longer and are more intense than in the past. It is quite likely current federal standards will soon be weakened as they continue to cut agencies and their missions. Even if the federal rule was sufficient (it is not), the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is being systematically dismantled and is now weakened to the point where it cannot safeguard to protect workers. The federal requirements are insufficient to address heat-related illnesses and safety –and so too is a reliance solely on the good will of employers who are in business to maximize their profits. ● Federal OSHA did a literature review to determine its temperature triggers and concluded that a heat trigger of 80 degrees would capture 96-100 percent of heat-related fatalities and virtually all non-fatal illnesses. (starting on page 70745). They cited studies that showed that even acclimatized workers exceeded the exposure limits for safety in heat at 90 degrees and needed preventive work breaks, and that unacclimated ones hit the exposure limits at 80 degrees. ● A CalOSHA (State of California) investigation in 2006 (right after their outdoor rule went into effect) found that heat illnesses occurred in temperatures as low as 80 degrees. https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/heatillnessinvestigations-2006.pdf The Rule will not create duplicate standards for employers since following the new state rule would ensure they are in complete compliance with federal requirements too. The administrative requirements on employers will help employers understand how compliance with the Rule is sure to increase employee productivity, and retention, thereby lowering costs. The Rule will have a positive impact on all New Mexico employers, including outdoor recreation businesses and the agricultural/ranching industry. Both industries simply cannot continue with the status quo. Maintaining the status quo in the face of our increasing temperatures leads to a loss of productivity, and increased accidents. It is true some employers provide shade, cooling gear, and work rotation, but this is not the case across the entire state economy. If all employers did provide preventative measures, costs would equalize among employers. Compliance with these rules will not only protect workers but will also level the playing field between businesses. Critics of the Rule who mistakenly believe the Rule will hurt businesses do not consider the productivity losses that businesses experience now due to workers suffering the effects of heat-related illnesses. A systematic review of studies on work and heat published in the Lancet (The highly regarding medical profession publication) found that at the end of a work shift under heat stress 30 percent of workers reported lost productivity. A meta study of heat and productivity loss among construction workers found that 60 percent of those workers exposed to high heat lost productivity. Employers who adopt measures such as those in the proposed Rule benefit from such action with lower staff turnover; reduced absenteeism; reduced accidents; and reduced hospital care costs. A study of Washington State workers compensation claims found that the median number of lost working days for time loss claims was 6 days. In the U.S. as a whole, in 2021 agriculture, construction, manufacturing, and service sectors lost 2.5 billion hours of labor to worker exposure to heat, and in 2020 the costs to the economy may have been roughly $100 billion. It has wrongly been suggested employers should be able to substitute PPE like cooling vests or other controls like misters for preventive work breaks: this will leave workers unprotected from heat-related illnesses and does not adhere to the best practice of following the hierarchy of controls. PPE is the least effective tool for health and safety goals and places an undue burden on the worker to protect themselves, while isolation (or removing people from the hazard) ranks more highly. A study conducted by UT Houston found that cooling vests were initially effective in lowering worker temperature, but rapidly lost effectiveness as gel packs warmed. We, the undersigned thirty-five (35) community-based and non-profit New Mexico organizations representing tens of thousands of New Mexicans, urge the Environmental Improvement Board to adopt the proposed Occupational Heat Illness and Injury Prevention rule currently under consideration. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and views. Respectfully yours, 350 New Mexico American Federation of Teachers New Mexico (AFT-NM) American Lung Association in New Mexico Center for Biological Diversity Coalition of Sustainable Communitites New Mexico Conservation Voters New Mexico (CVNM) CVNM Education Fund Communications Workers of America (CWA Local 7076) Earthworks Environmental Defense Fund Green Latinos Healthy Climate New Mexico Indivisible Albuquerque Interfaith Power and Light (IPL-NM) Little Green Bucket NAEVA National Education Association- New Mexico (NEA-NM) National Employment Law Project Navajo Nation Climate Change Program New Energy Economy New Mexico Sustainable Business Santa Fe / Green Chamber of Commerce New Mexico Voices for Children New Mexico Alliance of Health Councils NM CAFE New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty (NMCLP) NMVC Action Fund Noble Renewables Group ProgressNowNM Prosperity Works Public Power NM Semilla Project Sierra Club, Rio Grande Chapter Southwest Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP) Western Environmental Law Center (WELC ) YUCCA | Healthy Climate NM | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-63 | RE: Opposition to Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention (HIIP) Rule – Conflict with Existing Child Care Regulations Dear Members of the Environmental Improvement Board, On behalf of licensed and registered early child care providers across New Mexico, we write to express strong concern regarding the proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention (HIIP) rule. While we share the goal of protecting workers from heat-related illness and injury, this proposed rule creates regulatory conflicts, imposes unworkable requirements, and places a disproportionate burden on an already strained sector. Regulatory Conflicts with New Mexico Early Childhood Education and Care Department (ECECD) Requirements Under 8.16.2.22 NMAC, child care providers are required to take children outside daily, weather permitting. This includes outdoor time even during summer months—often during hours when the heat index exceeds thresholds outlined in the proposed HIIP rule. Complying with both the HIIP provisions and ECECD regulations simultaneously would create an unavoidable conflict: either violate the HIIP rule to meet ECECD standards, or reduce outdoor activities and risk noncompliance with state licensing regulations for child development. High Job Demands, Staffing Ratio’s and Limitations The child care profession is already one of high responsibility and strict oversight from the NM ECECD Licensing and Regulatory Bureau. Licensed providers must adhere to strict staff-to-child ratios and group size limits as defined in 8.16.2.23 NMAC. These ratio requirements are mandated at all times including while outside on the playground. These regulations ensure children’s safety and developmental needs but make it operationally and financially impossible to add “qualified substitute workers” to accommodate HIIP requirements such as acclimatization periods, rest breaks, and job duty rotations. Our field continues to face an acute workforce shortage, leaving no flexibility to reassign staff without violating current licensure requirements. Extensive Training Already Required ECECD mandates a substantial set of training hours for all child care professionals, including CPR/First Aid, child growth and development, infectious disease control, and safety and health practices. New staff must complete 24–45 hours of approved training within 90 days for an entry level employee and up to 100+ hours when a Lead Educator in a NM PreK or Nationally Accredited Classroom within the first 6 months and/or first year of employment. All employees MUST continue annual professional development either through professional development of 25+ hours or a MANDATORY 6 credit hours every semester at a College or University. Adding another mandatory HIIP-specific training module with tracking and documentation requirements increases employee overload and administrative burden without added benefit—especially since heat awareness is already included in emergency preparedness planning. Incident Reporting is Already Voluntary and Monitored Licensed child care providers are required by NM ECECD Licensing and Regulatory Bureau to voluntarily report incidents and accidents—including those related to heat—within 24 hours to ECECD’s licensing division. We urge the Environmental Improvement Board to consult with ECECD to determine whether there is actual data showing a prevalence of heat-related illnesses among child care staff. To our knowledge, there is no data demonstrating that heat-related incidents among licensed child care professionals represent a significant concern warranting unnecessary and overburdensome, additional rulemaking. Recommendations and Request for Exemption At the very least, proposed rules must align with existing state regulations. We respectfully request the Environmental Improvement Board consider the following: 1. Exempt Licensed Child Care Providers: Recognize the comprehensive health and safety framework already enforced by ECECD and exempt licensed providers from the HIIP rule. 2. Develop Child Care-Specific Guidelines: Work in collaboration with ECECD to draft realistic, child care-specific heat safety guidance rather than impose one-size-fits-all mandates. 3. Assess Data Before Acting: Request ECECD data on heat-related incidents before concluding that this rule is necessary or appropriately scoped for early childhood environments. 4. Provide Financial Assistance: If modifications are considered, funding must be allocated to ensure centers can make infrastructure or staffing changes without sacrificing financial stability. We respectfully urge the Board to amend or reconsider this proposal in its current form. Child care providers are already committed to the safety and well-being of children and staff. Imposing redundant or conflicting regulations only undermines our ability to deliver high-quality care. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. Sincerely, Barbara Luna Tedrow Barbara Luna Tedrow Policy Chair, New Mexico Early Childhood Association btedrow@nmfamilyservices.org | New Mexico Early Childhood Association | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-64 | Dear Environmental Improvement Board, My name is Zoey Craft and I am a 23-year-old resident of Albuquerque, New Mexico writing to urge the Environment Department to adopt a strong heat protection rule for New Mexico workers. Across the state, extreme heat is continuing to worsen amidst continued climate disruption – and New Mexico is setting new record temperatures year after year. As the climate crisis worsens, an increasing number of workers across our state and the country are being impacted by extreme heat on the job – including at least 250,000 workers across New Mexico who are at high risk for heat-related illnesses. A strong occupational heat standard would help to protect the community members who are the backbone of New Mexico’s economy and future – I am writing in support of the Environment Department’s Occupational Health and Safety Standard, and would like to express my support for recommendations that would help to make the rule even stronger: establishing greater clarity on emergency procedures, requiring employers to include references to existing New Mexico non-retaliation laws as part of employer HIIPP plans and worker training, urging employers to seek input and involvement of non-managerial staff in drafting HIPP plans, and specifying that training must be given in person with the opportunity to ask questions and employers should be required to re-deliver the training in the case of a serious heat-related illness or injury onsite, an OSHA citation, a fatality, or work processes changing significantly. Workers across New Mexico shouldn’t be forced to choose between their health and their livelihoods. I urge you to adopt a strong heat standard that would establish New Mexico’s leadership on this issue by helping to ensure that a growing number of workers across the state don’t continue to suffer from dangerously hot, life-threatening conditions on the job. Thank you, Zoey Craft | Zoey Craft | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-65 | RE: EIB 25-11(R) – Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention We write today as members of the Coalition of Agricultural Workers and Advocates (CAWA) to urge the Environmental Improvement Board to adopt strong protections to keep New Mexican workers safe while working in unsafe heat conditions. CAWA is a group of individuals and organizations primarily based in Southern New Mexico working together to support agricultural workers and to promote and advocate for their rights. Heat-related illness visits to New Mexico emergency departments nearly doubled between 2010 and 2022, with over 900 visits due to heat in 2023.1 This number includes only heat exhaustion and heat stroke, and does not include workers who experience chronic or other acute illness due to exposure to the heat such as kidney failure, respiratory disease, and cardiac events which are not usually coded as “heat-related” illnesses.2 Federal OSHA estimates nearly 250,000 New Mexicans work in industries at high risk of heat-related harms, including both outdoor workers and indoor workers with no or inadequate cooling.3 The time to act on heat safety is now! We support the petition filed by the NM Occupational Safety and Health Bureau to create new occupational safety standards which are crucial to keep workers safe from heat-related illness and injury, with modest modifications. These regulations are an important step forward to protect New Mexican workers and we are grateful for the leadership of the Environment Department and NMOSHA in bringing this matter before the board. I. The proposed regulations contain many effective provisions that are needed immediately to protect workers from heat-related injury and illness. The proposed regulations reflect a strong step toward safer working conditions for the thousands of individuals at risk of heat-related illness and injury at work. The following provisions are particularly important to ensure worker safety: 1) The proposed rule covers all workers with narrow and reasonable exemptions. It is important that the regulations proposed by NMED do not include extraneous exemptions that will leave many workers without protection. The few exemptions listed are reasonable because they reflect scenarios where other more applicable safety mechanisms are already in place, such as for emergency responders actively responding to emergencies, or where it would be practically impossible for employers to provide monitoring or other safety controls, such as in the case of remote employees working from home. It is vital that any exemption from an occupational safety standard for heat is narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessarily excluding workers without other safety protections in place. 2) Acclimatization is key to worker safety in the heat. Research has shown that allowing for a period of acclimatization is key to reducing heat related illness and injury. A report provided by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health found that 45% of heat related injuries and illnesses happened during either the first week on the job, or the first 7 days of a heat wave, with 15% occurring on the first day alone.4 This is especially important in the agricultural industry, as many workers are seasonal and migrant workers make up a significant proportion of the workforce.5 These workers may be coming to New Mexico from other parts of the country or other countries with vastly different climates, and arriving in New Mexico for the growing season, during the hottest, most brutal months of the year. Even workers who are already in New Mexico may need an acclimatization period if they are moving between parts of the state with different climates. Including requirements for workers to become acclimated to the heat is a vital safety feature in the regulation that will undoubtedly prevent many heat related illnesses and injuries. 3) Adding to the heat index to account for sun exposure is incredibly important for NM in light of the high UV indexes experienced here during the summer. One feature of New Mexico’s unique climate is that while the humidity is generally lower, the UV index is much, much higher in the summer than in other parts of the country due to our high elevation and frequent lack of cloud cover.6 According to the EPA, a UV index reading of 8-10 means a very high risk of harm from unprotected sun exposure, and a UV index over 11 means “extreme” risk, and warns that skin can burn in a matter of minutes in those conditions.7 In recent years, New Mexico’s UV index has been 11 or higher for 85-110 days per year, and can easily reach 13 during the summer, which places us as one of the states with the highest UV index in the country.8 The inclusion of sun exposure in the proposed regulations is an important feature that tailors this heat standard to meet the needs of New Mexico’s workers. 4) The proposed regulations provide a variety of effective options, allowing businesses to create their own plans that work for their employees. The proposed regulations call for employers to establish a Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Plan (HIIPP) which will provide detailed information to workers about the worksite-specific safety precautions that will be in place, called “control measures.” These control measures are all crucial to prevent injury and illness. We appreciate that the HIIPP regulations are detailed and include a comprehensive but flexible approach. One feature of the proposed regulations that seems particularly tailored to make it easy for businesses to comply is the inclusion of multiple options for different control measures. The control measure for employee monitoring includes many common sense tools that are likely to be in place in worksites already, such as radios and cell phones, and even includes a catch-all option, “Other equally effective means of observation and communication.” For agricultural workers who are widely dispersed throughout a large agricultural operation, maintaining contact is a crucial safety feature. Similarly, the guidance for cooling areas provides a wide variety of strategies that can be used, and also make it clear that even in a scenario where shade is not feasible or safe, employers still have to take other measures such as misters or active cooling garments to make sure that workers can cool down. These regulations provide a flexible framework that employers can tailor to meet the needs of their employees and worksite, with both specific examples as well as effective workarounds when necessary. 5) Employee training needs to be relevant to the work site and in language that the workers understand. Workplace safety training is an important feature to make sure that workers know how to recognize, prevent and respond to heat-related illnesses. But training is only effective if it is relevant and accessible to all workers. The proposed rules specify that training must be in a language and vocabulary readily understood by all employees, and that the training must contain details about the specific practices in place at the workplace. These provisions will ensure that workers have the information they need to stay safe working in high heat conditions. In addition, training materials should be readily available for seasonal workers that change work sites. 6) The trigger temperatures used are tailored to prevent most heat-related fatalities and injuries. The temperatures that trigger temporary breaks in work are backed by scientific research and will be highly effective to prevent heat-related illnesses, injuries and deaths. A heat index of 80 degrees Fahrenheit captures 96-100% of fatalities and 99-100% of nonfatalities among workers. 9 Not only will the trigger temperatures listed in the regulation prevent the vast majority of heat-related deaths and illnesses, they are also unlikely to be unduly disruptive to work practices. OSHA conducted a state-by-state analysis determining the number of “shift hours” per year that would be impacted on average when these heat triggers are implemented for day, evening and night shifts.10 This analysis shows that the number of daytime shift hours for New Mexico is only 579 hours impacted by the initial heat trigger of 80 degrees Fahrenheit, and only 125 hours per year impacted by the high heat trigger of 90 degrees Fahrenheit. Compare this to states like Texas and Alabama, which have over 900 daytime shift hours impacted by the initial heat trigger, or Florida which has over 1,200. This is due to our lower humidity which allows heat to dissipate rapidly as the sun goes down – the difference between the daily high and low temperatures is often 25 to 35 degrees Fahrenheit in New Mexico.11 Workers will still have enough hours in the day to be able to complete their hard work, and without risking their lives. II. The following provisions, if amended or added to the proposed regulations, would ensure that the new heat standard is effective and responsive to the specific needs of workers in the agricultural industry. While we are supportive of the proposed regulations, we know from both lived experience and research that agricultural workers face unique workplace challenges that should be taken into consideration in the creation of an occupational safety standard for heat. Agricultural workers are some of the workers most expected to suffer from increasing temperatures – research has shown that agricultural workers are 35 times more likely to die from heat-related stress than workers in other industries.12 As workers who are most at risk of the harms that these regulations are meant to address, agricultural workers should be particularly centered in the development of occupational safety regulations on heat. As community organizations from agricultural communities and advocacy organizations that work with agricultural workers, we propose the following amendments to ensure that heat standard regulations will be effective to meet the needs of agricultural workers: 1) Who is responsible? The farm labor contracting system is prevalent in agriculture and often results in no one taking responsibility for worker safety. In the agricultural industry, disputes often arise between farm owners and farm labor contractors over who has employer obligations for agricultural workers. Growers often contract with other businesses that provide “farm labor” and handle compensation and other personnel matters for farm workers, known as “farm labor contractors.” According to the most recent National Agricultural Worker Study, 22% of agricultural workers were employed by farm labor contractors.13 Generally, when it comes to workplace safety, farm labor contractors are often poorly situated to provide required safety trainings or create safety plans for their workers, because they are not familiar with the operations of the farm, including the location of shade structures, who will be the responsible supervisor for monitoring and development of the heat safety plan, the location of fresh water for workers, and other important details that must be included in worker safety training. In our experience speaking with agricultural workers in New Mexico, we have found that even safety trainings that are already legally required, such as for workers who may be exposed to pesticides, farm labor contractors often refuse to provide required trainings or to compensate workers for training time. To make New Mexico’s regulations strong and effective, it should be made explicit which employing entity is responsible for providing safety training, and that training time should be paid. The responsible party for the workplace should provide workers with a tailored training session that explains the safety measures being used in that specific location, in addition to generally applicable information about preventing, identifying and treating heat-related illnesses and injuries. In Washington state, some workplace safety regulations have a definition of employ which could provide the needed clarity: Employ. To obtain, directly or through a labor contractor, the services of a person in exchange for any type of compensation including a salary, wages, or piece-rate wages, without regard to who may pay or who may receive the salary or wages. It includes obtaining the services of a self-employed person, an independent contractor, or a person compensated by a third party, except that it does not include an agricultural employer obtaining the services of a handler through a commercial pesticide handler employer or a commercial pesticide handling establishment.14 In addition to clarifying which employing entity is responsible for providing training, the proposed regulations could be made clearer to ensure that training is effective. While the proposed regulations currently specify that the training session should be conducted in the language of preference of the workers and must contain details specific to the workplace practices, this section should be amended to clarify that the training should be provided in person, onsite, and should include opportunities for workers to ask questions. 2) How will mandatory breaks be paid? Piece rate workers need a rule that will protect both their safety and their productivity. For many of New Mexico’s most important crops, including chile and onions, employers commonly pay workers by the piece instead of hourly. This creates unique challenges to ensure that these workers are fairly compensated for time spent on mandatory heat safety breaks. While the proposed regulation does state that heat safety breaks should be paid, agricultural employers are likely to benefit from additional guidance on compensation to ensure workers are not penalized for taking breaks. Piece rate work creates unique safety concerns. For some crops, large containers are stationed throughout the field and workers fill individual buckets that are dumped into the containers, which are later removed from the field. Field workers in this type of environment can often work at their own pace, and typically do take breaks when they need them, although of course required breaks for heat safety should be encouraged as per the proposed regulation. For other crops, however, workers must keep up with moving machines, which they fill as they work harvesting. This means that for many piece rate workers, taking a break not only results in losing income but also falling behind and potentially working even more rigorously to catch up, which creates an even greater danger of heat-related illness. We recommend strongly that the guidance for employers is clear when it comes to compensating workers for paid breaks, and for ensuring that breaks are practicable for workers. Research shows that not only are breaks vital for ensuring worker safety, they also have a demonstrable positive effect on worker productivity.15 For piece rate workers, this increase in productivity means an increase in income. California’s regulation provides a formula which employers can use to calculate the average hourly rate for piece rate workers on days without mandatory breaks, which can then be used to calculate compensation for safety breaks. This formula has been adopted in Washington state and was also included in the proposed federal regulations. California’s regulations state: The rate of compensation for rest and recovery periods shall be the higher of: o An average hourly rate determined by dividing the total compensation for the workweek, exclusive of compensation for rest and recovery periods and any premium compensation for overtime, by the total hours worked during the workweek, exclusive of rest and recovery periods. o The applicable minimum wage.16 Whatever method is used, it should ensure that piece rate workers will not lose out on income when they take their mandatory heat safety breaks. The employer guidance materials can and should also include specific instructions about pausing work, parking and shutting off harvest trucks, and communicating in detail to workers that their breaks will not result in a loss of income, to ensure that workers are appropriately incentivized to take mandatory safety breaks. 3) Is it safe in the shade? For outdoor workers, an effective rule needs to account for factors like distance and vehicle exhaust. For workers in large commercial fields, providing a place to rest in the shade is both a crucial safety measure. In some parts of the country, it’s a common practice to use a portable shade structure and water coolers on a trailer towed behind a truck or tractor. This is a practical approach especially in settings where workers cover a significant distance during a single shift and permanent structures are impractical. However, sitting under a portable shade structure towed behind a vehicle can create additional health risks when the shaded area is not well ventilated adding both heat and unsafe pollutants to the air in the rest area. Additionally, many agricultural workers take their rest breaks in the cab of a tractor, where they have shade but exhaust can create additional health risks, and the heat from running machinery can make it even hotter. Furthermore, workers may not want to take their rest under a shade structure if exhaust or fumes are present. The proposed regulation should specify that the shade structure should be free from pollutants or other well-known health hazards, and there should not be running machinery or heat-generating structures yielding additional heat in the shaded area. The heat standard regulations in Oregon specify: “Shade may be provided by any natural or artificial means that does not expose employees to unsafe or unhealthy conditions, and that does not deter or discourage access or use.”17 Colorado’s regulations state: “A shaded area is not adequate if any source, such as exhaust, running machinery, heat-radiating structures, or heat in a non-air-conditioned vehicle (including a bus), yields additional heat in the shaded area.” New Mexico’s standard should be amended to account both for air pollutants and heat-generating machinery which could undermine the safety and efficacy of shade provided. 4) What if the minimum isn’t enough? Taking care of workers with health conditions that are particularly exacerbated by high heat conditions. We know that not all workers face equal risks due to the heat. Workers who suffer from certain medical conditions, including pregnancy, as well as younger and older workers, and workers taking certain prescription medications, face elevated risks from working in high heat conditions.19 Employers may not be aware of these medical conditions in many situations due to the importance of confidentiality around personal health information. We recommend that the required worker training should include information about elevated health risks for individuals with pre-existing medical conditions, to ensure that workers receive information that can help them determine their own risk factors, without having to divulge their own personal health information to their employers. Additionally, since risks are not equal between workers, workers should be encouraged to request additional breaks or longer breaks, additional drinking water, or other accommodations as needed even at lower temperatures than indicated on the chart provided, without fear of retaliation. 5) How can workers get vital information to first responders? Farm maps and medical information cards can help first responders know where to go and how to treat workers in rural settings. For some agricultural workers, a call to 911 might become an exercise in futility due to the nature of the worksite. In New Mexico’s large commercial farming operations, workers may be transported miles between fields or farm locations once they arrive, and may not be familiar with the layout or locations where they are working. They may report to work in one central location and then spend their day miles away in a different part of the agricultural operation. The only address they may have for the farm might be the business office or the mailing address, which could be located miles away from where an agricultural worker actually experiences a heat related injury or illness. A farm map can be a lifesaving tool to make sure that workers can completely and accurately describe where they are located and how to get there, so that first responders don’t waste valuable time trying to locate workers onsite. The proposed regulations should be amended to ensure that workers can accurately describe their location to emergency responders, and that any logistical challenges that could potentially prevent an emergency responder from reaching a sick or injured worker are fully addressed in HIIPPs. This is especially true for workers located in cellular “dead zones.” Furthermore, first responders need access to crucial health information for workers in the event that the worker loses consciousness or becomes delirious due to the heat, or simply speaks a different language than the first responder who arrives on the scene – according to the National Agricultural Workers Survey, 57% of agricultural workers are most comfortable in Spanish, and only 37% described themselves as being able to speak English “well.”20 While it’s important to safeguard the privacy of workers’ health-related information, workers should be encouraged to have the information needed available in writing in the event of a heat-related illness or injury. Workers could be issued a “personal medical information card” that lists the worker’s age, relevant medical conditions and medications, primary care doctor, and emergency contact information, that they could keep on their person. This kind of card would communicate the most important information quickly and effectively to first responders. This is especially vital for workers who are at elevated risk of heat related illness and injury, such as workers who are older or younger, pregnant, who have certain existing health conditions or who take certain medications. Finally, the regulations and the required safety training should make it clear that any employee has authorization to call emergency services if the designated person is unavailable. 6) Can workers report violations without fear of repercussions? Retaliation information should be part of the required safety training and come directly from the employer. As with any occupational safety and health standard, the regulation is most helpful when workers can confidently report violations. New Mexico’s statutes already create a right to file complaints as well as freedom from retaliation for workers reporting occupational safety and health violations.21 However, many workers are not aware of the existence of whistleblower laws and may feel reluctance to report violations of safety standards due to fears about retaliation. To be as effective as possible, workers should be fully informed of their rights to file complaints without fear of retaliation. Information about whistleblower protections should be included in the mandatory safety training provided by the employer. New Mexico can take the lead in protecting our workers, their families and communities now. The proposed rule will ensure that New Mexicans are better protected from heat at work. As documented by the NM Department of Health, heat waves and higher temperatures are increasing, leading to more heat-related hospitalizations and deaths and related health problems such as long-term kidney, heart and lung diseases. By adopting a state standard, New Mexico will give employers a clear road map for reducing the dangers of heat. This standard will also provide workers with the training and procedures they need to safeguard themselves and their co-workers. While the federal government has proposed occupational safety regulations on this topic, the future of those proposed regulations is uncertain due to the recent change in federal administration. But regardless of the status of federal regulations on this issue, New Mexico workers deserve occupational safety regulations that are tailored to New Mexico’s unique climate, which features high summer temperatures and intense UV radiation. Regulations tailored to New Mexico’s unique needs should also account for the prevalence of traditional cooling systems like evaporative cooling, which can create a complicated safety scenario for indoor workers in our region due to their varying and often unreliable effectiveness in extreme temperatures.22 We need a New Mexico heat standard, and we need it as soon as possible to protect workers from preventable illness and injury. Agricultural workers are a critical part of the New Mexico economy and identity, providing essential labor that grows our local economy while addressing food insecurity and supporting our rich agricultural culture.23 As these workers face extreme risks of heat-related illness and injury compared to other workers, they should be at the center of the conversation about occupational safety standards about heat. For these reasons, the members of Coalition of Agricultural Workers and Advocates (CAWA) listed below support the adoption of the regulations proposed by the NM Occupational Safety and Health Bureau, with the modifications discussed above to ensure that it is effective for agricultural workers. Please contact Emma O’Sullivan at emma@nmpovertylaw.org if you have any questions. Sincerely, Stephanie Welch, Workers Rights Director, NM Center on Law and Poverty Emma O’Sullivan, Workers Rights Attorney, NM Center on Law and Poverty Yvonne Diaz, Farmworker Advocate and Founding Farmer at De Colores Farms & Foods Kenneth J. Ferrone, Executive Director, Catholic Charities of Southern New Mexico Rosalba Ruiz Reyes, Binational Breastfeeding Coalition Cynthia Bejarano, Ph.D., Farmworker Advocate Rose Garcia, Executive Director, Tierra del Sol Housing Corporation Loren Schoonover, Southern Coordinator, Health Action New Mexico Barbara Webber, Executive Director, Health Action New Mexico Sylvia Ulloa, Executive Director, NM Comunidades en Acción y de Fé (CAFé) Ismael Camacho, Farmworker Attorney, Las Cruces, NM | Coalition of Agricultural Workers and Advocates of New Mexico | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-66 | To Whom Tis May Concern: We at Keystone Homes vehemently oppose The Heat Exposure Rule. This bad for New Mexico Business and all employee. Scott Hauquitz Keystone Homes Ltd. Co. | Keystone Homes | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-67 | Hello folks , I wanted to express my astonishment and surprise that NMOSHA and the State of New Mexico would try to adopt and enforce such a rigorous and unrealistic Rule related to Heat Illness and Heat Injury. I fully support protecting our construction workers and also providing safe work environments for them. I was a concrete finisher, years ago. From 1971 to 1976, I worked for New Mexico Paving Company, Inc. which was a subsidiary of Kent Knowlin, as a concrete finisher. We would pave behind a CMI slip-form paver, up to a mile a day. ( I am one of a few remaining members still alive of the National Mile-A-Day Club, ie, concrete paving at least 1 mile in a 24 hour day, usually took 13-14 hours in one day). There were no lunch breaks, no breaks for anything. You had the water jugs on the CMI and other machines and you could drink throughout the day. You can’t stop once the concrete is being poured/laid down. I paved on I-10, I-40, I-25, also bridges/dams etc. throughout New Mexico. One summer, on I-10 we paved in Lordsburg, NM, where the average temperature for 3 weeks was 112 to 117, in the shade. We paved the concrete on top of an ATB, Asphalt Treated Base, so the actual temperature may have been in the 125-130 degree on the ATB base. Every morning around 5:30 am, when we batched our own concrete and began to dump the concrete in front of the CMI, we had already had our safety talk about heat…we took salt tablets, and the superintendent/or foreman made sure all the water jugs had water/ice and we were told about the hazards of being all day in this severe heat. No one ever expired , a few of the workers would say during the day, that they felt faint and needed to sit in one of the Pick-ups for about 15-20 minutes. Your rule would never have allowed us to ever pour 1 mile in a day, and with that heat, there is no time to let the concrete sit , or it would set up. I support your thoughts and efforts for all workers who face harsh environments and difficult work situations, but I know from 1st hand experience that the proposed Rule as it stands now, will not only hurt the construction companies, but the work product itself , especially highway/road/bridges/dams etc will not meet the final specs…there will be poor quality of the final product and this is not good for New Mexico. Also, if the workers had such breaks, they would most likely hurt themselves after these breaks, trying to get caught up and trying to save their work from not meeting the finished specifications. I remember some of those days. Please reconsider and open up more communication with all of the Construction trades like the AGC, Kelly Roepke; the ACNM, Jim Garcia; the ASA, Gia Espinoza; ABC, Carla Kugler and all other trades to work out a better Heat Illness and Heat Injury Rule, a rule that is good for the workers, the State of New Mexico and each and every Contractor. Thank you , | Mark Menicucci | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-68 | The Proposed Rule is overly complicated and will be burdensome to NM employers. It mandates when employees can and cannot work, how many breaks employees must take, how long the breaks must be, what employees can wear, how much employees should drink, and how employees must be observed. | Matilde Chavez | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-69 | I am a life-long hard-working New Mexican and a small business owner with 90 employees, an Albuquerque business that has won the NM Top Workplaces (employee voted upon!) more than 8 times. I honestly had to read and re-read the proposed Heat Rule guidelines probably 5 times just to make sure my eyes were seeing it truly. For heavy labor in full sun and temperatures exceeding 90°F, breaks must be taken every 20 minutes for at least 40 minutes. If this guideline were actually be put into practice, employees on a normal 6 hour shift would actually work a total of 2 hours, but get paid for 6, with 4 hours to… just sit and smoke? Recover because they are so frail and weak that they cannot stand for longer than 20 minutes? This is beyond ridiculous… and then I understood – this ruling isn’t really about any sort of Heat protection at all for New Mexicans, but just another way to add a large tax on already stressed small businesses, while reducing the actual work being done to ludicrously low levels. Truthfully, this bill WILL bankrupt more small businesses than Covid did, by making them pay for work not being done, and it tells me that the New Mexico legislature truly wants to remove any small businesses run by good New Mexicans, perhaps to replace them with large national corporate businesses? It also shows that there are legislators who don’t really respect the value of hard work and the inherent dignity that it gives to all people – the knowledge that you worked hard and were a true contribution to your organization, and you earned every dollar that you received. Perhaps those making this ruling are so removed from any semblance of real sustained work that they have forgotten this. It certainly projects that New Mexicans are physically weak in every way, and need to be protected from any sustained activity, perhaps because they cannot handle it. Well I know New Mexicans to be strong, capable, hearty people who don’t need to be coddled, who love to work with purpose, and who love to accomplish great things together, even if they are hard. Honestly, if the true underlying goal of our legislators is to give away money to needy people, at least be transparent about it and not underhanded, and just do a General Basic Income program for those that apply, funded by the massive Oil and Gas surplus that we have. Sincerely, Daniel C. Higbie | Daniel C. Higbie | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-70 | Re: Intrepid Potash – New Mexico, LLC’s Comments on the Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule To whom it may concern: Intrepid Potash – New Mexico, LLC (“Intrepid”), respectfully submits these comments for consideration to the proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule (“Heat Injury Rule”) Rulemaking. This comment letter is intended to assist the New Mexico Environment Department (“NMED”) in its final draft of the proposed Heat Injury Rule. Intrepid appreciates the opportunity to provide its comments for the NMED’s consideration. Scope Section (NMAC 11.5.7.2) Intrepid requests clarification on whether entities subject to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) are intended to be included or excluded from this rule set. Definition Section (NMAC 11.5.7.7) Intrepid recommends adding definitions to the proposed Heat Injury Rules to provide clarifications that will assist the agency in implementing and administering the rules. Absent the proposed clarifying definitions, the NMED may be required to litigate the definitions if and when the Heat Injury Rules are implicated in future administrative hearings, or before the District Court. Intrepid recommends adding definitions for the levels of work described in Table 3: light, moderate, and heavy work. An employers’ understanding of the levels of work contemplated in Table 3 is critical to the employers’ understanding of modifications that may be required during “high heat conditions,” in conducting “heat exposure assessments,” and in ensuring that employees are provided “regular rest breaks.” It appears that the schedule described in Table 3 is derived from CDC Guidance: “Heat Stress Work/Rest Schedules,” which includes examples of work at different intensity levels. See Heat Stress: Work/Rest Schedules (last visited Apr. 29, 2025). The inclusion Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Rule May 27, 2025 Page 2 of examples of different intensity activities is valuable information for employers to ensure that employees are adequately protected from the risks of heat injury and illness. Control Measures Section (NMAC 11.5.7.10) The section regarding acclimatization methods does not account for employees who, in the course of their typical schedule with a company, may have more than seven (7) days off in a row, due to the fluctuating schedule. In light of the changing schedule, Intrepid would recommend changing the language in 11.5.7.10(A)(c) to “[f]or workers returning from an absence of seven or more days, excluding days off that occurred in the normal course of the worker’s schedule . . .” in order to account for absences that occur naturally in a company’s schedule. The CDC states that acclimatization for heat tolerance begins to be lost at seven (7) days and returns to baseline, where acclimatization is completely lost, after thirty (30) days. See Exhibit Therefore, unless an employee was out for seven (7) or more days following a heat related issue, it would be reasonable for the acclimatization methods for an employee to not trigger for an employee until that employee was off from work for at least fourteen (14) days. The onus should still be on the employer to properly educate employees about heat related illness and injury risks, and providing hydration and cooling stations, but increasing the acclimatization method language to return to work after fourteen (14) days would benefit the employer without exposing the employee to undue risk. Once again, Intrepid appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed rule and appreciates your consideration of Intrepid’s comments. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Annie Brethour Deputy General Counsel | Intrepid Potash | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-71 | So where is the damage that’s caused this “Rule” to be proposed? Does this also apply to farmers and farm workers that have been tilling the fields for their entire lives? Tell us, the public, honestly, why you’re proposing this… then, perhaps, we might understand the dire need that your committee seems to be driven to address. Jess Holmes Homeowner New Mexico resident and citizen of the United States jess.t.holmes@gmail.com 575-736-8620 604 W. Chisum Ave. Artesia, NM 88210 | Jess Holmes | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-72 | I would like to express my opposition to the Heat Illness proposed rule. This rule lacks common sense. Especially the break time requirements. As an employer, you can’t give a person a 40 minute break and only receive 20 minutes of work in an hour. The employee has the right to leave employment if they don’t agree with the way the employer treats them. Employers try to make sure they take care of their employees, otherwise they won’t be in business. Thank you. | Malcolmn Ramsey | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-73 | Hello. Thanks for collecting public comments. NMED’s draft heat-protection rule that we strongly support. It incorporates best practices and science-based solutions to keep workers safe from exposure to heat at the workplace, including: coverage of both indoor and outdoor workers; calling for written Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Plans (HIIPPs); providing for comprehensive worker training; implementing common sense preventive strategies including water, shade/cooling rooms, paid rest breaks, and acclimatization; and using trigger temperatures that are based on physiological science and years of experience from other states with heat standards. This standard will save lives. I believe there are five key ways that the standard could be improved even more. ● The standard should require employers to include references to existing New Mexico non-retaliation laws as part of employer HIIPP plans and worker training. Because the Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) system depends on workers coming forward when they perceive violations, this communication from their employers is critically important for good enforcement of the standard. ● The standard needs more clarity on emergency procedures. In cases of heat stroke and other severe heat-related illnesses every second counts and so employers and workers alike must be well versed on what actions to take as they wait for emergency medical staff to arrive. ● The standard has only a few reasonable exemptions for specific workplaces, but it needs to clarify that buildings and vehicles with mechanical cooling controls are exempt only when those systems are functioning. Many of the complaints the NMED investigated between 2022-2025 found broken air conditioning for weeks, months, and in one case a year. Further, delivery workers should not be exempted if the cabs of their trucks have air conditioning, but they spend more than 15 minutes out of an hour either in the back of the truck or in the act of delivering packages to doorsteps. ● The NMED should strengthen the HIIPP provisions by urging employers to seek input and involvement of non-managerial staff in drafting the plans. Frontline workers who perform work tasks daily are best placed to understand the specific dangers of the workplace, adding crucial knowledge to the HIIPP. ● The standard should specify that training must be given in person with the opportunity to ask questions and employers should be required to re-deliver the training in the case of a serious heat-related illness or injury onsite, an OSHA citation, a fatality, or work processes changing significantly | Bo Bergstrom | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-74 | The restrictions in this documents will drive up costs on construction and led to addtional employees needed in times of extreme tempatures. Most employers will take care of the employees. We care and want to make sure that employees are cared for and safety is most important. I do believe however that this overreaches. | Rodney Paris | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-75 | As a safety professional in the industrial manufacturing sector, I am committed to ensuring the well-being of our workforce. However, I have significant concerns regarding the proposed New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule. While the intention to protect workers from heat-related illnesses is commendable, the proposed regulations will introduce challenges that will impact both safety and operational efficiency. 1. Lack of Flexibility for Diverse Work Environments The proposed rule mandates uniform requirements, such as specific rest breaks and acclimatization schedules, triggered at a heat index of 80°F. This one-size-fits-all approach does not account for the varied conditions present in different industrial settings. For instance, indoor manufacturing facilities often have controlled environments, and imposing the same standards as outdoor worksites may not be appropriate. Flexibility is crucial to tailor heat illness prevention measures effectively to specific workplace conditions. 2. Operational and Economic Impact on Manufacturers Implementing the proposed measures, such as providing shaded rest areas and conducting regular heat exposure assessments, will impose substantial costs on manufacturers. OSHA estimates that compliance with similar federal standards could cost companies $7.8 billion nationwide. For small to medium-sized manufacturers, these costs could be particularly burdensome, ultimately affecting their competitiveness and sustainability. 3. Redundancy with Existing Safety Protocols Many manufacturing facilities already have comprehensive heat illness prevention programs tailored to their specific operations. The proposed rule will duplicate existing efforts, leading to unnecessary administrative burdens without significantly enhancing worker safety. Moreover, the requirement to maintain detailed records for five years could divert resources from proactive safety initiatives. 4. Potential for Reduced Compliance Due to Overregulation Overly prescriptive regulations may lead to reduced compliance, as employers struggle to meet stringent requirements that may not align with their operational realities. A more flexible, performance-based approach could encourage broader adoption of effective heat illness prevention strategies, fostering a culture of safety without imposing undue constraints. Recommendation I strongly exhort the NMED to reconsider the proposed rule and engage with industry stakeholders to develop a more adaptable framework. By focusing on performance-based outcomes and allowing employers to implement context-specific measures, we can achieve the shared goal of protecting workers from heat-related illnesses while maintaining operational efficiency. | 5/29/25 | |
| II-29-76 | After review, would like to submit the following points to consider, but no edits to suggest: 11.5.7.2 SCOPE: In the scope section, there is mention the regulations would apply to both indoor and outdoor places of employment. Utility Tunnels, vaults, enclosed unventilated spaces therefore would be covered by the regulations as is. The exemption clauses for emergency work for public utilities and communications are reality, “the show must go on”. 11.5.7.9 Heat Exposure Assessment: likely the statement regarding employers need to conduct heat exposure assessment when heat index is 80 F or greater came for the attached OSHA document page-4. No need to propose higher Heat index to be threshold, likely would not be changed by NMED. 11.5.7.8 Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Plan: Attached another document that could potentially be used as starter template to meet this obligation with some editing of course. 11.5.7.10 Control Measures D. Cooling Areas: This does not translate to shade and ventilation required unconditionally. For work in enclosed spaces, EHSRM could strongly encourage use of fans for air movement. 11.5.7.13 Record Keeping -A: This requirement of record of acclimatization schedule is unrealistic, but likely will never be issue. Unlikely any employers will be able to be 100% compliant for section A. Table 3: Work Rest Schedule: Interesting to note this table starts at heat index 90F, yet employers must assess heat exposure at heat index 80F. Also, no modification to work/rest schedule until heat index is 95 F or greater. | NMSU- EHS&RM | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-77 | RE: Docket No. OSHA-2021-0009 – Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings To Whom It May Concern: As the President of the New Mexico Towing and Recovery Association (NMTRA), I am writing in strong opposition to the proposed rule on Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings (Docket No. OSHA-2021-0009), published on August 30, 2024. While we agree that heat stroke and heat-related illness are serious concerns and that safety measures must always be taken seriously, this proposed rule imposes unrealistic and unworkable mandates on industries such as ours, whose operations are inherently and unavoidably conducted outdoors. The towing and recovery industry is 100% outdoor-based, except for the limited time operators are driving between calls. Our teams respond to accidents, breakdowns, and emergencies in extreme conditions—often under intense heat, at night, or during inclement weather. In New Mexico, the summer months are the busiest time of year, due in part to the increased number of overheated vehicles and tire failures. Quick response is critical not just for the success of our businesses but for public safety. We do not have the luxury of delaying highway recoveries or emergency tows so that workers can wait out the heat. Doing so would endanger stranded motorists, worsen traffic conditions, and delay law enforcement or emergency medical services access to scenes. Further, NMTRA members already take the necessary steps to protect our workers. We provide unlimited access to water, encourage cool-down periods as needed, and support every employee’s right to stop if they feel unwell. These practices are common-sense and already in place—not because of a federal mandate, but because we care about our people. This proposed rule does not reflect the reality of our work and would render many small and medium-sized towing companies across New Mexico—and nationwide—unoperable. The towing industry cannot stop operations every time the temperature exceeds an arbitrary threshold. The economic and safety consequences of such a requirement would be devastating. We urge OSHA to reconsider and revise this rule to reflect the diversity of working environments across the country and to recognize that industries like ours cannot function under rigid, one-size-fits-all standards. Solutions must be flexible, adaptable, and based on realistic conditions—not blanket policies that ignore industry-specific needs. Respectfully submitted, Amy Barela President New Mexico Towing and Recovery Association (NMTRA) | NM Towing & Recovery Association | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-78 | The Honorable Phoebe Suina Chair Environmental Improvement Board Harold Runnels Building 1190 St. Francis Drive, Suite N 4050 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 Ms. Kristy Peck Acting Bureau Chief Occupational Health and Safety Bureau New Mexico Environmental Department 1190 St. Francis Drive, Suite N 4050 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 RE: Public Comment on Proposed Rule 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Dear Chair Suina and Bureau Chief Peck: While we share your commitment to protecting workers from heat-related illness and injury, we must respectfully oppose the proposed rule in its current form. As written, the rule may lead to unintended consequences that negatively affect businesses, local governments, and the people they serve, while creating significant compliance challenges for employers. Of particular concern is the requirement in Section 11.5.7.9 (Heat Exposure Assessment), which mandates that employers conduct a heat exposure assessment for each employee, including personal risk factors for heat illness. According to Section 11.5.7.7 (Definitions: G), these personal risk factors include an individual’s age, level of acclimatization, overall health, water and alcohol consumption, caffeine intake, and the use of prescription medications that affect hydration or heat tolerance. On top of being difficult to measure, this may require supervisors to collect potentially confidential medical information for every employee and to keep this information regularly updated. Such a requirement raises significant concerns about privacy, data management, and legal liability. Furthermore, the rule does not appear to adequately consider its impact on Police and Fire operations and training. Although emergency response operations are exempt, Police and Fire academies would be limited in their ability to prepare cadets for the intense physical and mental demands of real emergency scenes. The prescribed work/rest cycles may prevent essential simulations of the effort level, heat conditions, and duration of actual emergencies—ultimately putting cadets, and by extension the public, at greater risk. The rule is also likely to effect on-duty police officers working extended outdoor community events.Finally, the proposed rule will undoubtedly increase the time and costs associated with completing projects and performing routine maintenance. It may also require additional staffing to maintain current service levels for our citizens. The full extent of the rule’s potential negative impacts on local governments is difficult to quantify. For these reasons, we respectfully oppose the rule. | CITY OF FARMINGTON | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-79 | Subject: Opposition to Proposed Heat Illness Injury Prevention Regulation To whom it may concern, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed law concerning heat illness and injury prevention requirements for workplaces. While I fully support the importance of employee safety and well-being, I believe this regulation, as currently proposed, would impose significant burdens on businesses, particularly in industries where outdoor or high-heat work is unavoidable. The proposed measures could substantially slow down production by mandating extended rest periods, mandatory cooling-off breaks, and additional administrative oversight. These changes, though well-intentioned, would reduce the amount of productive work time available each day, especially during peak seasonal periods when efficiency is most critical. Additionally, the financial cost to businesses could be considerable. Employers would be required to invest in infrastructure like shaded rest areas, cooling equipment, and enhanced training programs, all of which add to operational expenses. Smaller companies may be disproportionately affected, as they often lack the resources to absorb these new costs without reducing staffing or raising prices. While I agree that workers should be protected from extreme heat, I urge lawmakers to consider more flexible, balanced approaches that allow employers to implement common-sense safety measures without undermining productivity or threatening business viability. Thank you for considering this perspective. Twister Smith Smithco Construction, Inc | Smithco Construction, Inc. | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-80 | The Sierra SWCD represents constituents from a variety of backgrounds, reaching across four county lines within our District boundaries. A large majority of whom make a living on agriculture operations or in natural resource careers. Work in a largely rural community in these fields means many hours outside on the landscape. For years, these operations and positions have been successful without unnecessary regulations inhibiting their efforts. After review of the proposed rule, the Board of Supervisors, of whom are duly elected public officials, recognize this proposal as burdensome and concerning at best. This will certainly have a negative effect on our ag producers and business owners who are already struggling to meet overwhelming government overreach with little to no support. Furthermore, we do not believe this rule will be enforceable and would not support further expansion of state government to make it so. For these reasons, we respectfully ask the that the proposed rule be withdrawn, and encourage the department to engage in meaningful and sincere conversations with local government, business owners, ag producers, and others being targeted with this proposed action. We fully believe that this type of collaboration will lead to stronger relationships and community focused solutions. Respectfully, Chairman Willard Hall Sierra Soil and Water Conservation District | Sierra Soil and Water Conservation District | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-81 | When a good worker dies, a new one must be hired and trained. Therefore, protecting every worker from heat related illness and death is a good business decision. It is the same spirit behind OSHA; protecting workers from hazards benefits everyone. | Stephen Yemm | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-82 | I am commenting in wholehearted support of the proposed regulation. As someone who works a very physical job here in NM, including multiple hours inside a metal trailer with no air circulation on a daily basis, heat illness is a serious risk for well over half the year. My coworkers and I try very hard to keep an eye on each other to the extent that management is willing to allow it, but our options are limited when there is an issue. The proposed prevention regulation would be an incredible boon. | Pej Lyles | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-83 | EIB 25-11 (R)- Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC- Heat Illness & Injury Prevention Dear Environmental Improvement Board, My name is Ennedith López, and I am submitting this comment on behalf of Youth United for Climate Crisis Action (YUCCA) as their Policy Campaign Manager. YUCCA is a statewide environmental and climate justice organization led by Black, Indigenous, and Youth of Color fighting for a just transition and a viable future for our communities. We are writing in support of the Occupational Health & Safety Standard with recommendations to better improve the petition to ensure the utmost protections for workers. This is a basic human and fundamental right that the state should implement to ensure the dignity and protection of workers across the state. As the climate crisis continues to intensify and worsen, marginalized communities and working-class people in New Mexico are on the frontlines of its debilitating impacts on our local ecosystems and environment, public health, and social/economic well-being. Heat illnesses should not be treated as a personal obligation but rather as the social responsibility of employers. Ensuring the protection of our health and heat exposure is a step to creating safe working conditions for our communities, who have endured this heat without life-saving protections. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), on average, regional temperatures across the Southwest are expected to rise by 2.5° to 5.5°F by 2041-2070, with a projection of summer heatwaves becoming longer and hotter. In New Mexico, our summer temperatures for this year are projected to be 4.1°F warmer than average. The increase in rising 1 temperatures is not a mistake; lawmakers make an active policy decision to further incentivize polluting industries like the fossil fuel industry responsible for 75 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and 90 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions. Figure 4.2 from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Climate Change & Social Vulnerability in the United States: A Focus on Six Impacts report displays the projected increased premature mortality rates due to rising temperatures. Air pollution, wildfires, and smoke will only further exacerbate heat illnesses and preventable deaths. According to the NM Health Department, since April 1, there have been at least 51 heat-related emergency room visits across New Mexico. In 2023, approximately 900 emergency room visits were related to heat. A just and Equitable Transition must address the mortality rates associated with rising temperatures. The heat standard provides an opportunity to act and begin saving lives now. The NMED’s proposed rules’ incorporation for best practices and science-based solutions with inclusion of indoor and outdoor workers, need to incorporate heat injury and illness prevention plans, providing comprehensive worker training, preventive strategies like water, shade/cooling rooms, paid rest breaks, acclimation, and the use of trigger temperatures. If not implemented, we can expect workers to face job insecurity and lost pay because of heat illnesses. To guarantee that we are actively preventing deaths and centering workers in our best interests, the rule can be improved by: ● Requiring a standard of protection from retaliation as a part of heat injury and illness prevention plans and worker training to ensure workers and employers alike are able to enforce the standard. ● More clarity on emergency procedures is required if severe heat-related emergencies occur, so employers and workers can respond quickly and adequately. ● Ensure that exemptions for specific workplaces, specifically buildings and vehicles, have functioning cooling controls and systems ● NMED should consult more intentionally with non-managerial workers regarding heat injury and illness prevention plans. ● Requiring training to be in person, with opportunities to ask questions and re-deliver the trainings. We cannot allow industries and private interests to undermine the devastating impacts of the climate crisis at the expense of worker safety and protection, public health, and our environment. If we continue to try to operate as usual, our communities will face serious life-threatening consequences. Inaction will further cement a cruel practice of environmental racism at the hands of the state of so-called New Mexico. We must center people over profit and act in the people’s interest. We stand in solidarity with young people and workers, and we urge the Environmental 2 Improvement Board to proceed with the rulemaking and adopt the recommendations from advocates and directly impacted communities. We must act immediately to ensure worker safety across New Mexico. Thank you, Ennedith López | she/her/ella Policy Campaign Manager, YUCCA ennedith@earthcarenm.org | Ennedith López Policy Campaign Manager, YUCCA | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-84 | There is not any data to support implementing this unrealistic standard on our workplace. The department is throwing numbers out that are unsubstantiated and without context. The department has no clue whether or not we have a work place problem with heat stress in our state. No research or evidence has been collected. Real research would show that we don’t have a problem with heat related workplace injuries. Workman’s compensation insurance companies have the numbers, and there aren’t any significant heat related injuries in the last decade. Further, this standard is a copy and paste implementation from similar standards in Oregon and Washington. New Mexico is a very different climate than Oregon and Washington. Nevada’s standard does NOT have a temperature trigger. They use best practices. Employers have procedures in place to mitigate heat stress and already utilize these practices. This standard will not work and will cause significant issues that will exacerbate the labor force shortages and will greatly increase the cost of projects and services. Again, no one from the department has done any financial impact studies nor thought about the impacts. They don’t even know what the problem is (if there is one) or what the cause is. How can they suggest a solution to something when they have no idea what the problem is? This is extremely impractical. Heads should roll with whoever is behind drafting this standard. | Mason Karnas | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-85 | Heat kills. Embrace empathy. Imagine your body reaching its limit, its inability to function, its internal processes shutting down. Standards allow a workman to work another day. | Michael Lawler | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-86 | RE: EIB 25-11 (R)- Proposed New Regulation 11.5.7 NMAC- Heat Illness and Injury Dear Occupational Health & Safety Bureau: On behalf of the Board of Directors of the New Mexico Chile Association, a non-profit organization representing chile farmers, processors, distributors, and manufacturers, I write to express significant concerns and our opposition to the proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule (11.5.7 NMAC). The Chile Association recognizes and appreciates the goal of protecting workers from heat illness however believe that current language is ambiguous and creates uncertainty for New Mexico businesses. We respectfully request that the Board postpone implementation to allow for additional industry dialogue and discussion on what is needed in the workplace to protect workers from heat illnesses. The New Mexico Chile Association submits the following concerns regarding the proposed rule: Operational Efficiency Hurdles Businesses within the chile industry operate in geographically dispersed and resource-constrained environments. Complying with the proposed requirements—such as developing site-specific written plans, conducting heat index-based assessments, monitoring employee acclimatization, and providing shaded cooling areas and hydration resources across multiple remote job sites—will require a substantial investment of time, training, and infrastructure that many businesses are currently unprepared to meet. Mandated acclimatization schedules, buddy systems, and new training programs will require businesses to adjust work schedules and staffing models, which may reduce service delivery, particularly in smaller departments with limited personnel. The required Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Plan requirements outlined in section 11.5.7.8 of the proposed rule will put a strong administrative burden on businesses in the chile industry who do not have the expertise and/or experience in developing such plans. The New Mexico Chile Association requests that trainings and/or templates for plans are developed by NMED if the proposed rule is implemented. Mandated rest times will reduce income potential of farm workers who are compensated on a piece mill compensation plan. The reduced work time will result in workers not receiving compensation and have the potential to pressure employees to stress their bodies while working to maximize output and earnings to make up for break time compensation loss. This additional stress during work periods may lead to fatigue, reduced productivity and increased injury risk (counter productive to the goal of the proposed rule). While section 11.5.7.10.C states Employers must provide paid rest breaks to employees when working in the heat. There is no guidance on how piece mill employees shall be compensated. Business Financial Burden While the proposed rule mandates hydration equipment, cooling stations, and expanded rest break requirements it is not currently funded by state or federal sources. This places a disproportionate burden on rural and under-resourced businesses that currently struggle financially. Specially, during the Town Hall Meeting for Industry scheduled on May 21, it was presented that a 10-employee business would incur an annual cost of approximately $17,000 for the implementation of this new rule. The presented example did not accurately reflect the impacts of the proposed rule on the New Mexico Chile Industry where trainings and all documents will have to be given in multiple languages, all work is completed in full sun exposure, and significant work breaks will be needed. The financial burden of this proposed rule will be significantly higher than that of the given example. The New Mexico Chile Association requests that the state provide funding sources to New Mexico Businesses to assist with the implementation of the rule if approved. Rule Ambiguity and Uncertainty The proposed rule includes several requirements for employers to minimize heat illness, however the language included is unclear in their implementation. This unclear and ambiguous language creates opportunities for litigation and increases liability for employers. Example of this includes: 11.5.7.10.A: Acclimatization Methods Chile Industry farm workers are used for several differing tasks in various locations. There is no guidance or language in the rule that clarifies whether an acclimatization period is needed for a worker who moves from one field location to the next if environmental conductions are different. 11.5.7.10.E.a: Regular communication with employees who are working alone by radio, cellular phone or other reliable means of communication. There is no definition or guidance on what constitutes “regular communication” with workers working alone. Without a clear understanding of “regular communication” an employer is vulnerable to potential litigation and fines by NMED if a heat illness event occurs. 11.5.7.10.E.c: Require self-monitoring and communication with supervisor….. No guidance is given on how frequent self-monitoring is required to take place. Will that frequency be determined in the required heat illness and injury prevention plan? If so, that creates potential for differing standards of safety based on work area location. 11.5.7.10.E.d: Other equally effective means of observation and communication. There is no additional guidance to clarify what qualifies as “equally effective”. This vague language will result in differing approaches by businesses and create unequal treatment of workers within the industry. Appendix I: Tables The heat exposure calculation is cumbersome and confusing to determine. At what intervals shall the heat experienced by workers be calculated? There is no guidance to the frequency of testing requirements nor who is responsible for the testing. Does the responsibility fall on the determined crew supervisor or employer. Table 3: Work Rest Schedule The proposed rule does not provide guidelines or clarification on how each level of work (light, moderate, and heavy) is defined. How are rest breaks calculated when employees are conducting various levels of work? Lack of Enforcement Information The proposed rule does not include any language on how NMED plans to enforce the rule and what businesses should expect during the implementation of the rule. Without clear guidance on the enforcement of the rule businesses have no understanding of what to expect when approached by NMED in the case of heat illness complaint. Additional Concerns/Questions How can “Personal risk factors for heat illness” be truly determined if confidential health information can not be requested by employer? Are pre-shift meetings required daily? Chile fields are in various counties/locations. Does each field require individual heat Illness and Injury Prevention Plans? | New Mexico Chile Association | 5/29/25 |
| II-29-87 | Workers need to be protected from unsafe working conditions. It is obvious to some that safety gear is important. Not so obvious that heat is as dangerous as a collapsing trench, a falling wrench, a bare electrical wire. Heat is a safety risk. We should have strong regulations to prevent heat related injuries | John Wilson | 5/29/25 |
| II-30-1 | Like combat you don’t understand unless you’ve been there. | Rey Deveaux | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-2 | Please continue this life saving protection to our New Mexico workers who are exposed to the high temperatures that they work in. Road crews, agriculture works and others need your help. Thank you. | Steve and Alicia Pruitt | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-3 | I believe this rule is an example of government overreach in an effort to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. New Mexico businesses do a good job protecting their employees and there are already mechanisms in place to punish them if they don’t. This rule will place additional burdens on employers and subsequently raise costs across New Mexico. Heat related deaths have risen in New Mexico but it isn’t due to the workplace. It is actually due to people doing something that is already against the law. If you really want to protect people, enforce the laws that already exist! | Ruth Rice | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-4 | Heat kills more people than cold. We live in a State where the sun shines 300 days a year. We are very dependent upon outdoor workers, workers in factories, construction and many other jobs that put them at the mercy of the heat and sun. We need to develop and pass the strongest possible safety conditions and responses to protect our workforce from unhealthy and unsafe working conditions. Work with them to develop humane and healthy working conditions. | Connie Adler | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-5 | Re: EIB 25-11 (R) – Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Submitted online at https://nmed.commentinput.com/?id=4PbpDC9rG. Dear Acting Bureau Chief Peck: I am pleased to offer the Natural Resources Defense Council’s support for the New Mexico Environment Department’s (NMED) Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule. The proposal is a strong initial commitment to ensuring that workers exposed to dangerous heat will make it home safely at the end of each shift. We particularly appreciate that NMED’s proposal includes requirements to: protect indoor workers; protect emergency workers when they are engaged in non-emergency activities; develop written Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Plans in multiple languages; treat most preventative cooldown periods as paid duty time; and provide robust training to workers and their supervisors. Now, NMED has an opportunity to further deepen its commitment to the lives and livelihoods of New Mexico’s working people by making some key improvements to the proposed standard. As discussed in greater detail below, the agency should consider sun exposure and work rate in its formulation of initial and high temperature triggers. NMED also should require employers to: comply with the heat standard when indoor workplaces exceed the initial heat trigger due to cooling equipment underperformance or failure; involve workers in heat safety planning and implementation; 2 incorporate current best practices for emergency treatment of exertional heat stroke; and provide additional training about anti-retaliation protections and after serious heat-related incidents occur. Recommendation 1: Consider sun exposure and work rate in the formulation of the initial and high temperature triggers. NMED’s choice of an initial trigger (a heat index of 80°F) is science-based1 and consistent with statewide heat standards in Oregon2 and Maryland.3 However, the agency should consider requiring a lower trigger for workers wearing non-breathable clothing, as Washington State has done in its outdoor heat standard.4 The agency also should consider sun exposure and work rate in its formulation of the initial trigger, rather than requiring employers to consider those factors after the 80 degree threshold has been met. An example of why this is important comes from research conducted in partnership with Turner Construction, one of the largest general contractors in the United States.5 Researchers used an observational study to examine the effect of environmental heat stress on workers at a commercial building site in Missouri. Employees in uncovered areas of the jobsite, who were exposed to direct sunlight and had a higher work rate, were more likely to experience unsafe increases in core body temperature than employees in covered areas. However, the peak heat index did not statistically differ between covered and uncovered areas. In other words, relying on the heat index alone as a trigger for protections would likely have been insufficient for those workers. 1 E.g., Zaw Maung and Aaron W. Tustin, “The Heat Death Line: Proposed Heat Index Alert Threshold for Preventing Heat-Related Fatalities in the Civilian Workforce,” NEW SOLUTIONS: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy 30, no. 2 (2020): 138-145, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1048291120933819. 2 Oregon OSHA, “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs): Heat Illness Prevention (OARs 437-002-0156 and 437-004-1131), June 2023, https://osha.oregon.gov/OSHAPubs/5866.pdf. 3 Maryland Department of Labor, Subtitle 12 Division of Labor and Industry, Chapter 32 Heat Stress Standards, effective as of September 30, 2024, https://www.labor.maryland.gov/labor/mosh/09.12.32.pdf. 4 Washington State Department of Labor & Industries, “Permanent Changes to Outdoor Heat Exposure Rules,” June 2023, https://lni.wa.gov/forms-publications/F417-300-000.pdf. 5 Fabiano Amorim and Zachary Schlader, Environmental Heat Stress and Physiological Heat Strain in Construction Workers During Work in the Summer, The Center for Construction Research and Training, May 2024, https://www.cpwr.com/wp-content/uploads/SS2024-Heat_Stress_During_Summer_Construction_Work.pdf. 3 Recommendation 2: Require indoor worksites to comply with the heat standard when mechanical cooling systems underperform or fail. Every summer, employees across the country report unsafe temperatures at their putatively air-conditioned worksites.6,7 This can occur when employers fail to set the thermostat appropriately or to keep cooling equipment in good working order, or during conditions that outstrip the capability of equipment originally designed for a less extreme climate.8 For instance, Baltimore’s Office of the Inspector General investigated the City’s Department of Public Works (DPW) after a worker died from heat-related causes in 2024. In the locker room at one DPW yard, neither the HVAC system nor a temporary indoor air conditioning unit were working, and hot water came out of the sink’s cold-water taps. The air conditioner in the main trailer—which was supposed to serve as a cooling station for employees—did not work either. Although a temporary air conditioner in the trailer was set for 65°F, air temperatures indoors reached 85°F by 7 am, before the main heat of the day had even started.9 Indoor workplaces that are normally kept below the initial temperature trigger should be required to comply with the proposed heat standard when their cooling systems underperform or fail. However, employers, workers, and NMED inspectors cannot be certain that an indoor workplace is truly exempt without appropriate data. Therefore, all indoor workplaces also should be required to monitor the temperature to ensure cooling equipment is working correctly, especially in buildings with extensive open floor space (e.g., warehouses) or with transitional areas between hot and cool zones (e.g., food staging areas in bars or restaurants). Recommendation 3: Involve workers in heat safety planning and implementation. NMED should require employers to actively involve employees or their representatives in the development, review, and implementation of heat exposure assessments and injury and illness prevention plans. For example, under California’s indoor heat standard, employers 6 E.g., Frida Garza, “Heat Waves Are Making Restaurant Kitchens Unsafe. Workers Are Fighting Back,” Grist, June 10, 2024, https://grist.org/labor/heat-waves-are-making-restaurant-kitchens-unsafe-workers-are-fighting-back/. 7 E.g., Ron Zeitlinger, “Relief Promised at Newport Centre Mall After Enduring Heat Wave Without Air-conditioning,” The Jersey Journal, updated June 25, 2024, https://www.nj.com/hudson/2024/06/relief-promised-at-newport-centre-mall-after-four-days-without-air-conditioning.html. 8 Tina Deines, “Swamp Coolers’ Ability to Beat the Heat is Evaporating in Record Southwestern Temperatures,” Inside Climate News, May 13, 2025, https://insideclimatenews.org/news/13052025/southwest-swamp-coolers-affected-by-high-temperatures/. 9 Office of the Inspector General, City of Baltimore, Investigative Report Synopsis, OIG Case #24-0784-C, July 10, 2024, https://inspector-general.baltimorecity.gov/sites/default/files/Public%20Synopsis%2024-0784-C%20F%20II.pdf. 4 must involve employees and their union representatives in monitoring indoor temperatures and “identifying and evaluating all other environmental risk factors for heat illness.”10 As the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration points out, workers “often know the most about potential hazards associated with their jobs,” meaning they will also have valuable knowledge about the best ways to address those hazards.11 Recommendation 4: Provide additional guidance on best practices for emergency treatment of exertional heat stroke. The likelihood of surviving exertional heat stroke (i.e., heat stroke associated with strenuous activity, regardless of temperature) depends heavily on the policies and protocols of local emergency medical services (EMS). For instance, a recent nationwide survey found that workers in states without “cool first, transport second” EMS guidelines were 3.7 times more likely to die from work-related exertional heat stroke than workers in states with such guidelines.12 Most employers have no control over state or local EMS protocols. Where feasible, however, NMED should encourage employers to adopt cold-water immersion and/or “cool first, transport second” procedures, and to be prepared to communicate to EMS providers whether potential victims of heat stroke have already received cooling treatment onsite. Recommendation 5: Strengthen the heat training requirements. As a recent review of decades of military research points out, heat stress training needs to be an “on-going mission.”13 Personnel changes, shifting organizational priorities, the seasonality of heat hazards, and other factors can contribute to a sense of complacency and, ultimately, to the occurrence of preventable tragedies. 10 California Department of Industrial Relations, §3396. Heat Illness Prevention in Indoor Places of Employment, effective July 23, 2024, https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/3396.html. 11 U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, “Recommended Practices for Safety and Health Programs, https://www.osha.gov/safety-management/worker-participation (accessed May 28, 2025). 12 Faton Tishukaj et al., “Exertional Heat Stroke Best Practices in U.S. Emergency Medical Services Guidelines,” The Journal of Emergency Medicine, 67, no. 4 (2024): E327-E337. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0736467924001367. 13 Yoram Epstein, “Exertional Heat Illness: International Military-oriented Lessons Learned and Best Practices for Prevention and Management,” Frontiers in Physiology 16 (2025): https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10.3389/fphys.2025.1456984/full. 5 At minimum, the agency should require employers to re-evaluate their training materials and methods and then retrain workers in the wake of heat-related incidents that result in death or serious injuries or illnesses. Fear of retaliation can also create or perpetuate unsafe conditions and behaviors. Therefore, instruction on the protections afforded by New Mexico’s existing anti-retaliation rules should be part of onboarding, annual, and post-incident heat training for supervisory and non-supervisory employees. Finally, heat training should be as interactive as possible to increase understanding and retention of key concepts. For example, an experimental heat training program for construction workers in the southern United States found that workers had the largest improvements in content areas that involved opportunities to interactively learn, and then immediately apply, new skills and knowledge.14 Thank you for your commitment to keeping New Mexico workers safe from the preventable harms of heat. These commonsense safeguards have been needed for a long time, but the need is ever more urgent as the federal government rolls back all manner of worker protections,15 New Mexico’s climate warms,16 and the number of heat-related visits to emergency rooms in the state increases.17 This summer is already expected to be hotter than average in New Mexico.18 NMED should move without delay to strengthen and finalize its proposed heat standard. 14 Raissa Marchiori, Siyuan Song, and Jewoong Moon, “Developing Heat Stress Training Assessments: A Training-Driven Methodology Approach to Enhance Safety in the Construction Industry,” Journal of Safety Research, 92 (2025): 262-271, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437524002081?via%3Dihub. 15 Economic Policy Institute, “Federal Policy Watch,” https://www.epi.org/policywatch/ (accessed May 28, 2025). 16 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Climate Change Indicators. A Closer Look: Temperature and Drought in the Southwest,” last updated May 9, 2025, https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/southwest (accessed May 28, 2025). 17 NMED, “Extreme Heat and Public Health,” Water and Natural Resources Committee, July 22, 2024, https://www.nmlegis.gov/handouts/WNR%20072224%20Item%205%20NMED%20Extreme%20Heat%20and%20Public%20Health.pdf. 18 National Weather Service, “Three-Month Outlooks, Official Forecasts, Jun-Jul-Aug 2025,” issued May 15, 2025, https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/long_range/seasonal.php?lead=1 (accessed May 22, 2025). 6 Please do not hesitate to contact NRDC if you have questions or desire further information about aspects of these comments. Respectfully, Juanita Constible Senior Advocate, Environmental Health NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL | Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-6 | Annual training on heat exposure is of no concern, but with the climate in our area the acclimatization requirement above 80 degrees Fahrenheit is burdensome and completely unnecessary. If an acclimatization requirement is to go into effect the temperature threshold needs to be increased. Again, a training requirement should be sufficient to remind staff of the dangers of heat exposure and they have the ability to make a determination based on the work they are performing if they need to implement a control measure. All injuries and illnesses are already recorded and handled appropriately. | Curry County | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-7 | I respectfully urge NMED to reconsider the OSHA proposed rule, “Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings.” While protecting workers from extreme heat is important, a federal mandate is not the appropriate solution for this issue. Key Concerns- Federal Overreach into State Authority: This rule imposes a one-size-fits-all solution on a country with vastly different climates and economic realities. What constitutes hazardous heat in New Mexico is not the same in Maine. States and localities are in the best position to craft standards that reflect their unique environmental, economic, and industry-specific conditions. Harmful to Small Businesses: The rule imposes significant burdens on small businesses, including: -Mandatory paid rest breaks and monitoring protocols. -Costly training and compliance plans. -Ongoing administrative overhead. These requirements may be manageable for large corporations but are disproportionately damaging to small businesses, especially in rural or seasonal economies. Each business that has laborers in the field knows that they need to take care of their employees, and the responsibility and decisions as to how to do this most efficiently and cost effectively, should be left to the business owner with minimal guidance (not mandate) from the state. We want small businesses to thrive in New Mexico, this is a fast way to destroy our growth. Redundant with State-Level Protections Several states already have effective heat-related safety regulations. Adding a federal layer creates duplication, confusion, and potential legal conflict. A national mandate undermines the principles of cooperative federalism that should guide workplace safety policy. I strongly recommend that NMED and OSHA defer to state and local governments to manage heat safety standards. This approach respects regional diversity, limits unnecessary regulatory burden, and allows for more effective, tailored protections for workers | Maggie McColley | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-8 | To whom it may concern, As a citizen and business operator in Otero County, I would like to request that the proposed rule and request NMED to postpone implementation and seek a more collaborative approach to include county input. Sincerely, Stan Richardson, Executive Director Southern New Mexico Outreach, INC | Stan Richardson, Executive Director Southern New Mexico Outreach, INC | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-9 | Re: EIB 25-1 l(R)- Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC -Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Dear Ms. Peck and Ms. Suina, The New Mexico Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NMRECA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on proposed new regulation 11 .5. 7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention (Proposed Regulation). While NMRECA fully supports the Occupational Health and Safety Bureau and the Environmental Improvement Board’s roles of assisting New Mexico employers in keeping their respective workforces safe, we oppose the Proposed Regulation as the current version presents drastic limitations and challenges that would make compliance impractical for our industry. Given the low incidents of heat-related illness and injury among electric cooperative employees, our view is that adequate protections are already in place. We believe OSHA’s existing efforts and New Mexico Electric Cooperative’s proactive measures are already suitable and effective in protecting rural electric cooperative workers from heat illness and injury. By way of background, there are nineteen rural electric distribution cooperatives in New Mexico. NMRECA represents the interests of fifteen of them, along with two electric generation and transmission cooperatives, and three electric distribution associate member cooperatives. These not-for-profit rural electric cooperatives are governed by the very people they serve. As their names signify, these cooperatives serve over 434,700 people/members in the state’s remote, rural communities, in 30 of the state’s 33 counties. These characteristics make it comparatively more expensive for them to operate. Cost-effective and lawful federaVstate regulations that minimize unnecessary burdens are critical to a rural electric cooperative’s ability to provide affordable, reliable, and safe electricity to each of their consumer-members. 1 Rural electric cooperatives are aware of and already respond effectively to potential heat-related illnesses and injuries. Rural electric cooperatives are a part of the communities they serve and, therefore, are particularly adept at tailoring heat illness and injury policies to meet the unique climate conditions within their service territories. A one-size-fits-all approach to regulation addressing heat-related illness and injuries limits the flexibility necessary to right-size these policies and may lead to unintended consequences. Heat illnesses and injuries are preventable with proper education and teamwork. However, the content of the education should be tailored to the task being performed, and each industry must develop its own methods for addressing heat illnesses and injuries in a manner that can coexist within that industry’s unique operational paradigms. I. Rural Electric Cooperatives’ Commitment to Safety NMRECA’s cooperatives participate in the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association’s Rural Electric Safety Achievement Program (“RESAP”). RESAP is a national safety initiative developed in partnership with statewide and cooperative safety leaders. RESAP promotes continuous improvement in safety performance and culture, requiring written executive commitments, regular third-party safety program audits, and the development of safety improvement plans. These plans incorporate accountability systems to ensure the completion of specific targets, which are communicated to all employees regularly. Rural Electric Cooperatives are also subject to stringent regulations from a host of other agencies and the National Electric Safety Code (NESC) which address many of the same concerns as the Proposed Regulation. The industry has already adopted its own consensus standards and best practices that are specifically designed for unique risks associated with electrical systems. Rural electric cooperatives are proactively addressing heat related issues and are keenly aware of the dangers of working in extreme temperatures and continue to take appropriate measures to reduce related risks. They adhere to several policies and programs that protect workers from heat injury or illness. These include rigorous and frequent training programs, detailed job briefings including information on weather and terrain, and the use of designated observers to determine whether workers are performing work properly and are not suffering from ill health. Specifically, rural cooperative employees receive education in, and have implemented policies covering: Mayday procedures, personal protective equipment (PPE), CPR certification, hours of service, acclimatization, first aid, AED usage, rescue procedures, heat-related illnesses, recognition and ways of overcoming heat stress, exhaustion and dehydration. Policies for both mandatory and employee elected breaks, stop-work, and adjustment of work schedules based on conditions on site are also followed. II. Data on Heat Injury and Illness The data from the New Mexico Department of Health provided by the Office of General Counsel in support of the Proposed Regulation is not industry specific. NMRECA’s members employee an average of just over 800 individuals per year in total. From 2009 to the present there has been only one minor heat related claim reported. One minor incident in sixteen years proves the heat policies and training programs provided by New Mexico’s rural electric cooperatives are already effectively mitigating heat injury and illness. It also evidences how serious our rural electric cooperatives take this issue and how successful their proactive measures have been in protecting their employees from heat illness and injury. III. The Proposed Regulation Would Be Detrimental to Emergency Response and to the Performance of Work in General Rural electric cooperatives have a robust mutual assistance network, and aid in response to and recovery from natural disasters, and in emergency situations. The Proposed Regulation would disrupt the operational efficiency needed during these situations, which is particularly concerning in rural areas where timely power restoration and response is critical. 2 Depending on the size and duration of the disaster, rural electric cooperatives may travel long distances to provide aid. It would be illogical for crews while up on a pole to come down during these periods where time is of the essence to take a prescribed break, while trying to restore power to life support systems or while providing assistance to first responders. In many cases, lineworkers for rural electric cooperatives work in hard-to-access locations. This could mean the crew carries everything on foot to locations that are remote. The Proposed Regulation would be a tremendous detriment for rural electric cooperatives in responding to and providing aid in these situations. The mandate to provide “cooling areas” in such situations could also prove to be impossible. If such situations arose, rural electric cooperatives would be asked to make the decision between maintaining and servicing its equipment, assisting first responders and restoring critical infrastructure, or violating the Proposed Regulation. To the extent cooling areas could be established and canopies setup, given the winds in New Mexico, the canopies could also be blown into energized lines posing a safety hazard. Climate and geography also varies greatly in New Mexico. In certain parts of the state, the Proposed Regulation would bring normal work in our industry almost to a stop for the better part of three months during the year. To the extent work could be performed, adding more work breaks would take away hours from the workday, reducing productivity and adding cost. These costs would have to be passed on to the consumers/members as rural electric cooperatives are non-profit. In addition, lineworkers are regularly tasked with performing “hot-line” work; working on electrical equipment while it is energized. This work requires specific standards and equipment including PPE. This work would be deemed impossible during large portions of the year as it would be senseless and life-threatening to perform such work if the Proposed Regulation was adopted. Iflineworkers are holding energized lines up in the air on a pole change, they cannot just stop and come down for a mandated break. Safety requirements would necessitate that the work continue until the job is completed. To the extent work is performed on de-energized lines, the Proposed Regulation will have negative consequences for both residential and commercial business members as additional breaks will ensure they will be without power much longer than normal. With respect to the heat retaining effects of required protective clothing and PPE, and the clothing adjustment factor included in the Proposed Regulation, OSHA already provides a standard that ensures utility workers have and utilize appropriate PPE while working. Many types of PPE are designed to protect against electrical hazards but do not allow for adequate ventilation. With respect to just PPE, the requirements for additional mandatory breaks will place unnecessary strain on a lineworker and will create a much larger hazard for our lineworkers, in responding to emergency situations and in their performance of work in general. Once lineworkers put on their gear and begin to climb poles, it becomes a challenge for them to remove their PPE for breaks, which would require them to climb back down from the poles. Multiple trips up and down in a hot and humid environment may actually lead to more heat injuries and illnesses, as most crews find it to be more strenuous and exhausting to climb down poles and remove their PPE. IV. The Proposed Regulation Does Not Account for Employee Behavior or Individual Health Conditions The Proposed Regulation would require employers to conduct ‘heat exposure assessments’ which mandate them to take into account an employee’s personal risk factor for heat illness. Heat affects individuals differently based on a variety of factors, including medical conditions and prescribed medications to treat these conditions that make some individuals more susceptible to heat injuries and illnesses. The agency seeks to place an unworkable burden on the employer to identify those personal factors such as medications, prior non-work activity, and medical conditions, when in most cases the employer is prohibited by law from making the necessary inquiries to do so, or from taking action upon any such information it may lawfully obtain. 3 Additionally, there are lifestyle choices and behaviors unrelated to medical conditions that also increase the potential for an individual to suffer adverse effects from heat exposure. Should OSHA finalize this regulation as proposed, rural electric cooperatives would be left without an understanding of how to comply as it relates to health susceptibilities if they have no knowledge of them, and an employee fails to provide them with the information needed to complete the mandated assessment. V. Proposed Regulation Would Place New Mexico in a Competitive Disadvantage A one-size-fits- all standard is not workable, and given the large variation and regional differences in temperatures in New Mexico, would vary per county. Rural electric cooperatives often operate on tight budgets and will struggle to absorb the additional expenses mandated by the Proposed Regulation. Rural electric cooperatives operate at cost and without a profit incentive and have an obligation to serve their consumer-members by providing affordable, reliable, and safe electric service. As addressed above, the work associated with the Proposed Regulation would represent significant new costs for cooperatives that must be passed along directly to their rural community consumer-members. Resources required to implement new standards could be better spent on improving existing technologies and systems, further enhancing the resilience and reliability of the electrical grid. In addition, a number of rural electric cooperatives in this state contract work out to be performed. This Proposed Regulation would put them at an extreme disadvantage in receiving reasonable bids for the work to be performed, and for attracting contractors from outside the state to bid on work inside New Mexico. As aforementioned, the higher bid prices and increased costs associated with the work would have to be absorbed by its rural community consumer-members, would ensure less competition, and would potentially prevent critical maintenance and installation of equipment from occurring. Finally, New Mexico’s Rural Electric Cooperatives are making generational investments in grid resiliency and wildfire mitigation strategies that come with a high cost and no increase in revenue. These are usually done through contracted work due to the scope of these projects and the other work the Cooperatives do to maintain reliable and affordable service to rural NM. As mentioned previously, this proposed rule will limit the competitive bidding process and increase the cost of these projects substantially and thus reduce the amount of investment the Cooperatives apply towards these very important projects as we balance these needs with affordability. VI. Other Concerns a. The acclimatization methods contained in the Proposed Regulation would place rural electric cooperative employees behind in training and place an exorbitant cost on almost all companies who conduct outside work. If an employee goes on vacation, the return-to-work requirements mandated under the Proposed Regulation would greatly reduce productivity and increase costs to the rural electrical cooperative, that would in tum be passed on to the consumer/members. The necessity for a supervisor or ‘leader’ to observe a new employee for the first week would compel adding another person on the job site. Being that rural electric cooperatives are generally small and run small crews, this places them in a potentially impossible situation of requiring the hiring of more employees in locations where those qualified are non-existent or taking another existing employee away from another task. b. As referenced above, the ‘cooling areas’ would increase costs, reduce productivity to the extent they could even be established, and would necessitate the purchase of larger hauling equipment, storage facilities and can pose a hazard. 4 c. The tables provided in the Proposed Regulation do not provide a PPE Clothing Adjustment Factor for a sizable portion of the PPE mandated to be used in our industry. d. The Proposed Regulation would increase longevity of work and service orders, which would also prolong exposure to employees and the public to hazards and delay improvements in rural communities. NMRECA appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Proposed Regulation and remains committed to working with both OSHA and the New Mexico Environmental Department to achieve our shared goal of enhancing safety in the electric utility workplace. Rural Electric Cooperatives are well aware of the potential for heat injury and illness and already take a number of proactive measures to mitigate heat-related illnesses and injuries in the workplace. One minor heat-related incident in sixteen years proves the heat policies and training programs provided by New Mexico’s rural electric cooperatives are already effectively mitigating heat injury and illness. NMRECA believe’s OSHA’s existing efforts and authorities are both adequate and effective in protecting electric utility workers from the hazards of heat. We encourage OSHA to use the tools currently available to address industries and areas where heat injury and illness are a problem, rather than adopting new regulations that may be overly broad, difficult to interpret, and subject to compliance problems. Respectfully submitted, S. Vincent Martinez CEO New Mexico Rural Electric Cooperative Association 614 Don Gaspar Ave. Santa Fe, NM 87505 | S. Vincent Martinez CEO New Mexico Rural Electric Cooperative Association | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-10 | These people are vital to our economy and must be protected from the elements and unfair work conditions. Please vote to make their work safer. | Kathleen Padilla | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-11 | 11.5.7.9 Heat Exposure Assessment: E. Personal risk factors for heat illness. How will this be handled by supervisors who are not are not aware of certain medical conditions that are only noted to Human Resources? Will HIPA need to be included in this assessment in the field? 11.5.7.10 Control Measures: C Regular Rest Breaks. How are other factors of heat sources being accounted for heat exposure to individuals? This includes activities such as, but not limited to, hot asphaltic paving, welding, torching, preventative burning? What guidance will be provided? Also, how will rest periods be addressed when some of these activities listed above cannot be halted to meet the rest periods as noted in Table 3? Table 3 – what is the definition for light, moderate, and heavy work? Are these established by each employer or will definitions be provided as guidance? Also in Table 3, the use of “caution” in this table will likely cause confusion on how “caution” is being used in Table 2, National Weather Service Heat Index for temperature ranges. Might want to consider a different term. Exhibit 1, page 8. The assumption this table is using for an individual will not be accurate to assess each individual with fitness, rest, and age. How will these assumptions be made based on varied circumstances to each individual? What are the legal implications by using these assumptions? | David Sedillo | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-12 | The Communications Workers of America (CWA) Local 7076 strongly supports the Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule proposed by the New Mexico Environment Department/NM OSHA to protect workers in the state from heat-related illnesses and death, with some modifications as noted in this letter. Heat-related illnesses and death are preventable. As the CWA Agency VP for SoNM-NMED, I am writing on behalf of our 300 members at that agency to express our support and the importance of this rule. As scientists and engineers, our members work throughout the state in both indoor and outdoor environments, collecting samples, performing safety inspections, and reviewing data and permits to keep the people of NM and the uniquely beautiful landscape of NM safe. Our members serve during fire and post fire recovery efforts and mobilize to provide aid following flooding, working long hours and in extreme and sometimes hazardous conditions. They are proud to do this work but our workers and all workers deserve to be protected from the preventable risks of heat-related illnesses and death. CWA strongly supports the indoor air rule requirements as we know that many office buildings have intermittently functional air conditioners exposing non-acclimated workers to temperatures in 90s or 100s F. I am writing in support of the heat standard rule since it incorporates best practices and science-based solutions to keep workers safe from exposure to heat at the workplace, including: coverage of both indoor and outdoor workers; calling for written Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Plans (HIIPPs); providing for comprehensive worker training; implementing common sense preventive strategies including water, shade/cooling rooms, paid rest breaks, and acclimatization; and using trigger temperatures that are based on physiological science and years of experience from other states with heat standards. This standard will save lives. We believe there are five key ways that the standard could be improved even more. ● The standard should require employers to include references to existing New Mexico non-retaliation laws as part of employer HIIPP plans and worker training. Because the Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) system depends on workers coming forward when they perceive violations, this communication from their employers is critically important for good enforcement of the standard. ● The standard needs more clarity on emergency procedures. In cases of heat stroke and other severe heat-related illnesses every second counts and so employers and workers alike must be well versed on what actions to take as they wait for emergency medical staff to arrive. ● The standard has only a few reasonable exemptions for specific workplaces, but it needs to clarify that buildings and vehicles with mechanical cooling controls are exempt only when those systems are functioning. Many of the complaints the NMED investigated between 2022-2025 found broken air conditioning for weeks, months, and in one case a year. Further, delivery workers should not be exempted if the cabs of their trucks have air conditioning, but they spend more than 15 minutes out of an hour either in the back of the truck or in the act of delivering packages to doorsteps. ● The NMED should strengthen the HIIPP provisions by urging employers to seek input and involvement of non-managerial staff in drafting the plans. Front-line workers who perform work tasks daily are best placed to understand the specific dangers of the workplace, adding crucial knowledge to the HIIPP. ● The standard should specify that training must be given with opportunity to ask questions and employers should be required to re-deliver the training in the case of a serious heat-related illness or injury onsite, an OSHA citation, a fatality, or work processes changing significantly. The training should also be provided to staff that make procurement decisions to ensure that they understand the importance of providing water and shade to employees. In closing, CWA Local 7076 strongly supports the adoption of the Heat Illness and Injury Prevention standard proposed by the New Mexico Environment Department/NM OSHA. With the requested modifications, this standard will provide essential, life-saving protections for workers across the state. We urge its swift adoption to prevent avoidable heat-related illnesses and loss of life, and to affirm New Mexico’s commitment to worker safety and health | Communication Workers of Americal 7076 | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-13 | I am a Farmer. My employees frequently work in temperature above 80 degrees. I have been farming 40 years and have never encountered an incident where an employee was affected by heat. This rule would make it impossible to grow your food. I am entirely against this regulation. | Chris Sichler | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-14 | Subject: EIB 25-11 (R) – Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention To Whom It May Concern: The Communications Workers of America (CWA) Local 7076 strongly supports the Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule proposed by the New Mexico Environment Department/NM OSHA to protect workers in the state from heat-related illnesses and death, with some modifications as noted in this letter. Heat-related illnesses and death are preventable. CWA Local 7076 represents approximately 3000 public sector employees across the state of New Mexico. Our members work at various State agencies as groundskeepers, maintenance workers, and other laborers who keep our state buildings, museums, and historic sites beautiful and open to the public. We work at agencies such as NMED, where we conduct field work and site visits across the state to ensure environmental compliance, including in the oil fields in southern NM. Our members at UNM and CNM are plumbers, maintenance workers, and bus drivers that work outside to keep the Universities running. Our members at Albuquerque Community Safety are first responders that work outside everyday assisting the citizens of Albuquerque. The following are modifications for selected sections of the proposed heat rule. SCOPE, 1(b): CWA represents telecommunications workers who may be deployed, on occasion, to engage in emergency response operations that are directly involved in the restoration of essential communications services. Telecommunications emergency operations almost always involve extended hours of work which can significantly increase the risk of heat-related illness and injury under high heat conditions. For this reason, there should only be a partial exemption from the requirements of this standard when engaged in emergency operations in high heat conditions. Telecommunications employers should be required to provide telecommunications workers with adequate hydration and cooling breaks, as well as monitoring of heat-related symptoms when involved in emergency response operations. To stay safe, workers may need some additional time to perform their work. This is necessary and feasible and can be accomplished without disruption of critical operations. Employers should be required to include emergency operations and procedures under high heat conditions in their heat training for telecommunications workers. Emergency procedures should be part of the employer’s written heat plan. Section 11.5.7.8 Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Plan: The Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Plan is what ensures that the methods and procedures developed to protect the workforce are tailored to the specific needs, work, and work environment of the workforce. Protections from high heat conditions have to be based on the type of work, the environmental conditions, and how the work is performed, including the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). The written “Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Plan” is what ensures this is not a ‘one size fits all’ plan. ‘one size fits all’ plan. There should be a requirement added to the standard for authorized worker representatives and workers to have input into the development of the Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Plan. Section 11.5.7.9 Heat Exposure Assessment, Sub-section E. Personal risk factors for heat illness: The employer does not have the ability or the expertise to assess an individual’s personal risk factors for heat illness. Workers should not have to disclose personal risk factors or health conditions to their employer. Personal risk factors are not under the control of the employer, nor should they be.Therefore, personal risk factors for heat illness should not be part of the employer’s heat exposure assessment. However, personal risk factors for heat illness should be a topic included in the training about heat illness and injury prevention and workers should be encouraged to seek an evaluation from a healthcare provider of their choosing if the worker has concerns about their personal risk for heat-related illness. A healthcare provider can make recommendations for a worker regarding any work restrictions, specific protections, and/or accommodations to be provided to the employer. 11.5.7.10 Control Measures, Sub-section D (h): Employers should be encouraged to provide enhanced methods for cooling which can be used in combination with cooling areas and/or mechanical ventilation (when available). This can include cooling garments such as cooling towels and bandanas, misting devices, etc., as long as the devices do not pose a safety risk based on the type of work performed. When an employer provides enhanced methods for cooling, the items should be made available to all employees covered by the Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Plan, at no cost to the employee, and without a requirement for a note from a healthcare provider or for a formal accommodation. In closing, CWA Local 7076 strongly supports the adoption of the Heat Illness and Injury Prevention standard proposed by the New Mexico Environment Department/NM OSHA. With the requested modifications, this standard will provide essential, life-saving protections for workers across the state. We urge its swift adoption to prevent avoidable heat-related illnesses and loss of life, and to affirm New Mexico’s commitment to worker safety and health. Sincerely, Megan Green President, CWA Local 7076 | Communications Workers of America Local 7076 | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-15 | Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule. At Plant World, Inc., we are a locally owned, long-standing small business in Bernalillo County, serving as both a retail and wholesale nursery supplying plant material across New Mexico. Our work is critical to the region’s landscaping industry, municipalities, and homeowners. We appreciate and share your goal of protecting the health and safety of workers, especially in the face of increasing heat risk in our region. Our team includes experienced nursery professionals, horticulturists, and seasonal staff, many of whom work outdoors among trees, shrubs, grasses, and perennials-living products that require daily care regardless of temperature extremes. We currently implement thoughtful procedures to promote heat safety, including: Providing free, cool drinking water throughout the nursery Encouraging hydration breaks and checking in with staff during peak heat hours Offering shaded rest areas and fans in both covered and indoor work zones Adjusting shift start times during the hottest months Training staff on signs of heat illness and when to report symptoms However, we are writing to express serious concerns about the overly rigid and highly prescriptive aspects of the proposed rule-particularly regarding mandated paid rest break schedules and uniform acclimatization protocols that are not easily adaptable to the dynamic, seasonal, and task-diverse nature of our industry. Key Concerns “One-Size-Fits-All” Break Mandates The rule as written applies break schedules uniformly across general industry, agriculture, construction, and convenience stores. While well-intentioned, this approach does not reflect the real-world diversity of job roles or the operational rhythms of different sectors. In a plant and tree nursery, tasks vary significantly-from light clerical duties indoors, to heavy unloading of trucks, to intermittent watering rounds or customer assistance. Applying the same break schedules to all of these roles, particularly when the heat index crosses a single threshold, is neither efficient nor necessary in all cases. Furthermore, our staff typically prefer to self-pace and rest naturally between tasks. Forcing all employees to follow set break intervals may actually interrupt productivity, reduce morale, and negatively impact plant health, as well as customer service. Impact on Perishable, Living Inventory Our products-trees, annuals, and perennials-are living organisms that must be watered, shaded, or moved during peak heat conditions. Missing even a single day of scheduled care can result in irreversible product loss, especially during July and August. The inability to temporarily shift schedules, or delay breaks for key crews during watering or transplanting operations, could result in thousands of dollars in inventory loss-an impact most small nurseries cannot absorb. Staffing Flexibility During Short-Term Heat Spikes Unlike large corporations, small businesses like ours cannot easily bring in additional workers or split teams to meet fluctuating break requirements based solely on a daily heat index. New Mexico weather can spike for short durations, making mandatory rest periods based on short windows of peak temperature infeasible without major business disruption. A Path Forward: Industry-Informed Flexibility We respectfully request that the Environmental Improvement Board re-evaluate portions of this rule and consider working with industry-specific groups-including nurseries, landscapers, agricultural businesses, and independent retailers-to tailor practical, effective solutions. We support the goals of the rule, but urge the Department to: Allow Alternative Break Schedules – Permit small businesses to implement custom break/rest programs that reflect job roles, employee feedback, and operational needs, so long as they are demonstrably effective in preventing heat illness. Include a Small Business Exemption or Modified Standard – Provide tiered compliance options for businesses under a certain size or headcount. Permit Operational Discretion During Perishable Care Tasks – Offer flexibility in break enforcement during time-sensitive, product-saving work, such as irrigation or plant relocation, unloading shipments, and customer service, during heat waves. Support Industry-Specific Guidance Development – Facilitate partnerships between NMED and industry associations to create sector-specific toolkits, rather than one rigid standard for all workplaces. We believe there is a way to achieve the shared objective of protecting worker health without endangering the survival of New Mexico’s small, plant-based businesses-businesses that, like ours, have provided employment and greenery to our community for decades. We thank you again for your attention and invite continued dialogue to ensure a rule that safeguards employees, honors New Mexico’s climate and culture, and respects the viability of local business. Sincerely, Mike Erickson President/Owner Plant World, Inc. Albuquerque, New Mexico | Plant World, Inc. | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-16 | Requesting postponement to better understand the changes proposed. | Anonymous | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-17 | Working with the NMDOT, we believe this rule will be harmful not only to the contracting community but also to the traveling public. Construction projects will take longer due to extended contract times, leading to frustration for travelers. Additionally, this will significantly increase the costs associated with roadway construction. Our employees understand the conditions they may face while working on highway or bridge construction. The NMDOT and the contracting community are actively involved in providing training to all employees to ensure they stay hydrated and reduce the risk of heat exhaustion. | Donna Gililland | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-18 | Re: Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Dear NMED, No doubt this new regulation is well-intentioned, but I oppose it because it seems like a very inefficient approach to achieve a laudable goal. Please engage business owners and business associations in writing any proposed such regulation. | Michael Dexter | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-19 | Louie Di Mattina with Southwest Abatement Inc The new proposed heat stress program is not manageable. Only 20 minutes of work time per hour is not feasible. I support AGC NM’s strategy which advocate for flexible, realistic heat safety measures We do asbestos removal in suits and the time frame for work would not even allow our guys time to suit and start working. We give our people water and electrolytes supplements, and work with the buddy system. Our guys already take regular brakes, drink plenty of water, and watch out for each other. It would almost be impossible to conduct business under the new regulations. | Louie Di Mattina | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-20 | While I agree that emphasis needs to be put on Heat illness and prevention, I don’t believe that this is a good remedy for the State of New Mexico. We have a very unique climate that can change drastically from day to day and trying to stay in line with the proposed changes would be very difficult to achieve for anyone. Not to mention the sizable impacts it will have on the cost of doing business and loss of production. I have been working in the EH&S field for the same company for 18 years and during that time we have not experienced a heat related illness. I attribute this to the strict company policies supported by the highest levels of management and proactive safety approaches taken on this very subject. I feel that this proposed rule would be devastating to some smaller companies who are already facing worker shortages and rising costs. I think that having a very strong, but not over the top, heat illness and prevention policy in place, to include training, routine site audits, and internal statistical data to support that it is working well, would be sufficient to keep our workers safe from hot indoor and outdoor climates. Speaking as a company in the construction industry, this proposed plan is only going to increase the cost of doing business and decease production to the point that future projects will be put on hold or cancelled completely because it will just be too expensive to complete and thus will put families in a bad place due to the lack of available work. Please reconsider what you are doing as there are other less impactful ways to achieve improvement. Thank you. Sincerely. James Chapman | James Chapman | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-21 | Dear Chair Suina and Bureau Chief Peck: We, the undersigned New Mexico Representatives write to support the petition to the Environmental Improvement Board to adopt a proposed rule (EIB 25-11 [11.5.7.1) on occupational heat illness and injury prevention. The need to protect employees from more frequent and more intense excess heat illnesses and injuries grows with our changing weather. In addition, the proposed rule can benefit employers by mitigating the productivity losses seen when workers are exposed to occupational heat stress. We understand the EIB may consider potential changes to the proposed Rule. As Representatives we acknowledge the many concerns expressed to date in public comment to the EIB, and we urge the Board to seriously consider reasonable adjustments to the Rule. Public comments opposed to the Rule include a great deal of unscientific claims as well as important information which may lead you to consider amending the Rule prior to adoption. The NMED proposed Rule appears to incorporate best practices and science-based solutions to keep workers safe from exposure to heat at the workplace, including: coverage of both indoor and outdoor workers; calling for written Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Plans; providing for comprehensive worker training; implementing common sense preventive strategies including water, shade/cooling rooms, paid rest breaks, and acclimatization; and using trigger temperatures that are based on physiological science and years of experience from other states with heat standards. This standard will save lives, so we support the proposal in general while not endorsing every provision per se. We, the undersigned New Mexico Representatives urge the Environmental Improvement Board to soon adopt, perhaps with reasonable modifications, the proposed Occupational Heat Illness and Injury Prevention rule currently under consideration. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and views. Respectfully yours, MEMBERS OF THE NEW MEXICO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Representative Marianna Anaya, District 18 Representative Janelle Anyanonu, District 19 Representative Janelle Anyanonu, District 19 Representative Eleanor Chavez, District 26 Representative Joanne Ferrary, District 37 Representative Yanira Gurrola, District 16 Representative Joseph Hernandez, District 4 Representative Pamelya Herndon, District 28 Representative Andrea Romero, District 46 Representative Sarah Silva, District 53 | GROUP OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESRepresentative Marianna Anaya, District 18 Representative Janelle Anyanonu, District 19 Representative Janelle Anyanonu, District 19 Representative Eleanor Chavez, District 26 Representative Joanne Ferrary, District 37 Representative Yanira Gurrola, District 16 Representative Joseph Hernandez, District 4 Representative Pamelya Herndon, District 28 Representative Andrea Romero, District 46 Representative Sarah Silva, District 53 | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-22 | 5/30/25 | ||
| II-30-23 | 5/30/25 | ||
| II-30-24 | 5/30/25 | ||
| II-30-25 | 5/30/25 | ||
| II-30-26 | 5/30/25 | ||
| II-30-27 | 5/30/25 | ||
| II-30-28 | 5/30/25 | ||
| II-30-29 | 5/30/25 | ||
| II-30-30 | 5/30/25 | ||
| II-30-31 | 5/30/25 | ||
| II-30-32 | 5/30/25 | ||
| II-30-33 | 5/30/25 | ||
| II-30-34 | 5/30/25 | ||
| II-30-35 | 5/30/25 | ||
| II-30-36 | 5/30/25 | ||
| II-30-37 | As a residential homebuilder in New Mexico, we strongly oppose the proposed heat rule due to its rigid structure and significant operational impacts. Mandating fixed 40-minute paid rest breaks every 20 minutes above a 103°F adjusted threshold is unworkable in our climate, where summer temperatures routinely exceed this level. Such requirements would severely disrupt critical tasks like concrete pours, create delays across all phases of construction, and strain an already limited labor force. Forcing shifts into nighttime or early morning hours raises safety concerns and places unsustainable pressure on our workers’ mental health and family life. We support heat safety and already implement field-tested measures including hydration, shade access, acclimatization protocols, and emergency training. This rule’s one-size-fits-all approach ignores practical realities and risks making our industry less safe, less efficient, and more costly for New Mexicans. | Abrazo Homes | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-38 | On behalf of our members from across the state, the New Mexico Hospitality Association submits the following comments in response to the Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule. NMHA members have serious and wide-reaching concerns regarding the Proposed Rule in its current form. 1. Employer responsibility already exists – Employers are already bound by OSHA’s General Duty Clause and can be cited for failure to address heat-related hazards. https://www.osha.gov/laws – regs/oshact/section5 – duties 2. This Proposed Rule attempts to apply uniform standards across vastly different industries, business models, geographies, and work environments, potentially creating undue hardship from over-reaching compliance and reporting requirements. 3. The Proposed Rule imposes rigid requirements that fail to account for hospitality businesses operational diversity and realities. For many small businesses with limited staffing, this one-size-fits-all approach creates impractical challenges. Specifically, the acclimation and break requirements could place overwhelming burdens on businesses with few employees or specialized environments that rely on a specific number of employees on duty at peak times. While many of our hospitality members operate under national hotel brand names, they are in fact small businesses with limited staffing and resources. https://www.ahla.com/about/our-industry 4. In addition to staffing challenges, the Proposed Rule introduces significant administrative and compliance requirements. The combined demands of creating and maintaining plans, recordkeeping, training, and acclimation protocols introduce significant administrative challenges that may overwhelm even well-resourced operators. 5. We have concerns that the Proposed Rule significantly underestimates the compliance costs for businesses and underestimates the actual financial burden on small business across the state (including potential infrastructure upgrades, labor adjustments, and possible operational disruptions). In addition to the items listed above, the hospitality and tourism industry shares the specific concerns shared and submitted by our state-wide partners – The New Mexico Chamber of Commerce and The New Mexico Restaurant Association. We also share their commitment to work with NMED on developing and implementing practices that benefit employees and employers across the state. Please contact me if you have questions or need additional information. Kathy Komoll CEO, New Mexico Hospitality Association 505-506-8624 ceo@newmexicohospitality.org *NMHA members include hotels (branded & independent), municipalities, marketing organizations, attractions, tour guide operators, restaurants, retail suppliers, and other support businesses for hospitality and tourism across New Mexico | Kathy Komoll CEO, New Mexico Hospitality Association | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-39 | Please specify water for refillable containers. Please do nothing to promote the ecological disaster of single use water bottles. | Nicole S Steffen | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-40 | To comply with the proposed requirements—such as developing site-specific written plans, conducting heat index-based assessments, monitoring employee acclimatization, and providing shaded cooling areas and hydration resources across multiple remote job sites—will require a substantial investment of time, training, and infrastructure that Sandoval County Public Works Departments would not be able to meet. This would also have be large financial burden on the county already tight budget. Sandoval County is already having trouble filling vacant positions and the rule would require the county to increase the number of employee’s to meet the requirements for several of the departments. This would seriously hampering being able to complete projects/operations and at the same time reducing the local funds available to carry them out. The rule is to ambiguous on several of the requirements that could make Sandoval County non-compliant and increase our liability. I encourage the postponement of this rule as suggested in the New Mexico Association of Counties letter . | Sandoval County | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-41 | Good afternoon. Regarding the proposed new heat safety regulation, I feel the guidelines given are FAR to aggressive. Looking at the mandatory rest breaks, here is NM we would be talking about workers taking required rest breaks that will outnumber the minutes worked 2:1. This is non sensical. The operation impacts in our industry would be devastating to the costs of building homes, and the drastically increased cycle time in building a home. While employee/worker safety is paramount, these proposed regulations will severely impact our industry, both residential and commercial. We must find some middle ground | Kevin Vautier | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-42 | I support the draft regulation on heat illness and injury prevention. However, I would also support the following improvements: ● The standard should require employers to include references to existing New Mexico non-retaliation laws as part of employer HIIPP plans and worker training. Because the Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) system depends on workers coming forward when they perceive violations, this communication from their employers is critically important for good enforcement of the standard. ● The standard needs more clarity on emergency procedures. In cases of heat stroke and other severe heat-related illnesses every second counts and so employers and workers alike must be well versed on what actions to take as they wait for emergency medical staff to arrive. ● The standard has only a few reasonable exemptions for specific workplaces, but it needs to clarify that buildings and vehicles with mechanical cooling controls are exempt only when those systems are functioning. Many of the complaints the NMED investigated between 2022-2025 found broken air conditioning for weeks, months, and in one case a year. Further, delivery workers should not be exempted if the cabs of their trucks have air conditioning, but they spend more than 15 minutes out of an hour either in the back of the truck or in the act of delivering packages to doorsteps. ● The NMED should strengthen the HIIPP provisions by urging employers to seek input and involvement of non-managerial staff in drafting the plans. Frontline workers who perform work tasks daily are best placed to understand the specific dangers of the workplace, adding crucial knowledge to the HIIPP. ● The standard should specify that training must be given in person with the opportunity to ask questions and employers should be required to re-deliver the training in the case of a serious heat-related illness or injury onsite, an OSHA citation, a fatality, or work processes changing significantly. Thank you. | Gregory Jones | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-43 | Dear Environment Improvement Board: I am writing regarding the proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule, and I appreciate the opportunity to comment, as I do not support this proposed rule. My family is a large agricultural family of small farmers in Southern New Mexico, who have worked the land for 95 plus years. We were raised and trained in the commonsense approach to safely working in the fields. This includes starting work early in the morning to finish tasks before the hottest part of the day; hydration; rest breaks as needed; access to shade (trees, sheds, etc.). We value and support our workers, and regularly pass this knowledge to them, as we try to protect them in their daily work. My concerns are in the broad industrial approach, knowing that there is a variety of work environments across industries. Agriculture should not be held to the same standards as other industries. t An additional concern is the broad requirements that the agricultural producer/farmer/rancher must follow, with little guidance or resources, and under the threat of penalties. Agricultural companies cannot absorb more “costs or penalties” due to overreaching rules and regulations. Farmers are struggling to stay in business due to inflated costs on products used in growing and producing crops, and we have a severe labor shortage. This rule will add undue burdens to the shrinking agriculture industry. In addition, I have concerns regarding the “statistics” and what research can be cited regarding the stated numbers of injured workers annually in New Mexico, which is the basis of need for this rule. There are other concerns farmers and ranchers have, including how this rule will impact our ability as an industry to continue to produce food to feed Americans. In addition, excessive workers’ breaks will impact the harvest of perishable field crops, resulting in potentially huge losses. Placing these additional costs and losses, including assessments, more training, additional structures, restructured breaks, with more required record-keeping is a costly burden resulting in even fewer small family farms and ranches in New Mexico. | Mark Anthony Farms | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-44 | INTRODUCTION WISPA – Broadband Without Boundaries is a national trade association that represents the interests of fixed Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs), including seven providers headquartered in New Mexico, and the innovative ecosystem that supports fixed broadband connectivity, including service providers, equipment manufacturers, and other industry stakeholders. WISPA members bring fast, reliable internet to millions of rural, urban, and Tribal communities across the country and in New Mexico. WISPA membership consists largely of small businesses that live and work in the communities they serve. These firms often deploy fixed wireless and fiber technologies to bring broadband to hard-to-serve areas, where large providers have not invested, and where access to education, healthcare, emergency response, and economic development is critical. WISPA understands the need to ensure that outdoor workers can be safe in hot conditions, but respectfully objects to certain aspects of the Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule (Title 11, Chapter 5, Part 7) (the “Proposed Rule”) in its current form, as it fails to appreciate or account for the unique working conditions broadband workers face, regardless of whether they are deploying fixed wireless or fiber optic facilities. WISPA members’ work crews Page 2 frequently must labor in varying outdoor conditions to install and maintain critical infrastructure. The Proposed Rule, as written, could inadvertently but significantly hamper necessary broadband deployment, reduce workers’ earning power, and add excessive and costly compliance burdens that are more restrictive than federal OSHA standards. DISCUSSION The Proposed Rule, while well-intentioned, would impose requirements that are operationally burdensome and impractical for small broadband providers, particularly those that rely on skilled technicians working in the field under variable heat conditions. WISPA members’ work includes outdoor infrastructure deployment, tower climbing, fiber installation, and multi-site service calls, often in rural and remote areas of New Mexico. The Proposed Rule’s lack of flexibility and ambiguous language, when combined with stringent control measures, threatens to severely disrupt these ongoing operations and reduce workers’ earning potential without proportionate improvements in safety. Acclimatization, Rest Break, and Cooling Area requirements do not sufficiently respond to Fixed Wireless Broadband industry conditions A. Acclimatization Methods (11.5.7.10(A)) Page 3 The proposed acclimatization requirements, particularly Sections A(3)(a)-(c),1 fail to reflect the realities of broadband deployment. The Proposed Rule sets an unreasonably low temperature threshold of 80 degrees Fahrenheit to trigger control measures. For indoor office workers, OSHA recommends temperatures “in the range of 68-76” degrees – close to the Proposed Rule’s threshold for activating control measures.2 A similar California law requires access to shade and water above 80 degrees Fahrenheit, but only implements more stringent measures “when the temperature equals or exceeds 95 degrees Fahrenheit.” 3 The California law does not require the burdensome acclimatization process envisioned by New Mexico – rather, it focuses on close monitoring of workers and training for workers and supervisors, with appropriate rest periods – however, even in “high heat” scenarios, work may continue all day. Here, the Proposed Rule should follow California in setting an appropriate threshold for control measures to be required. Further, WISPA members frequently conduct work across multiple “hot” job sites within a single day, moving from location to location, sometimes with a single worker or small 2-3 person crew performing various outdoor job duties. These workers are able to acclimatize to working in heat-intensive environments at the first work site, and this acclimatization carries over to subsequent sites. Imposing a mandatory phased work schedule for each new assignment 1 https://www.env.nm.gov/occupational_health_safety/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2025/03/NMED-Heat-Illness-and-Injury-Prevention-Rule.pdf 2 OSHA FAQ, https://www.osha.gov/node/57113 3 California statute §3395. Heat Illness Prevention in Outdoor Places of Employment, https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/3395.html Page 4 location (even when temperatures and conditions are consistent) would create unnecessary delays, reduce operational efficiency, and impose financial strain on employers. The Proposed Rule’s definition of “work area” should be amended to include multiple substantially similar job sites with a similar temperature in the same day or week. Under the current acclimatization schedule, workers’ safety could be jeopardized through a move toward working very early or very late in the day when temperatures are lower and the compliance burdens less onerous. For example, on an anticipated high-heat day, an ISP may choose to send a work crew to a site at sunrise, requiring the crew to wake up in the very early morning hours and drive an hour or more before dawn to arrive at the site on time, leading to workers being tired and less alert while conducing dangerous activities such as climbing a tower and raising equipment. Similar late-evening work, when it is typically cooler, could lead to workers operating in low-light conditions which would increase risk factors. B. Regular Rest Breaks and Index Table 3 (11.5.7.10(B)) WISPA supports the use of paid rest breaks but objects to the prescriptive rest schedule in Index Table 3,4 particularly for temperatures exceeding 105°F. Indeed, many WISPA members already use paid breaks as a heart-disease mitigation measure. However, tower climbers often ascend 500 to 1,000 feet, a process that can take up to two to five hours. Requiring these workers to descend mid-task or pause in the middle of a tower to satisfy a fixed rest schedule is 4 https://www.env.nm.gov/occupational_health_safety/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2025/03/NMED-Heat-Illness-and-Injury-Prevention-Rule.pdf Page 5 both unsafe and inefficient. The Proposed Rule must take into account the need for broadband workers to fully complete certain tasks, such as tower climbs, before breaks are mandated; the Proposed Rule must also account for workers to take a break after ascending a tower, such that they are able to continue working on the tower after the break. CONCLUSION WISPA opposes the Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule (Title 11, Chapter 5, Part 7) in its current form. The Proposed Rule’s acclimatization mandates, rigid rest break requirements, and ambiguous terms, such as “work area” and “workroom”, fail to account for the operational realities of small broadband providers. These provisions would impose significant burdens on field-based workers who travel long distances, work across multiple sites per day, and perform time-sensitive infrastructure tasks in variable heat conditions. WISPA urges the Department to reconsider and revise the Proposed Rule to reflect the unique structure and mobility of the fixed wireless broadband workforce, and to avoid adopting a framework that mirrors failed policies from other states | WISPA – Broadband Without Boundaries | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-45 | The following outlines IBEW’s concerns and suggestions for solutions regarding the proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule and offers an alternative approach to addressing worker safety. The draft rule introduces practical, operational, and compliance-related difficulties for employers and regulators. Oversight and Accountability Concerns There are significant concerns about whether the state can effectively enforce this rule. For instance, does the relevant agency have enough staff to review employersubmitted plans and monitor compliance? It is also unclear how the agency would investigate complaints or address violations. Questions: Bad actors. Are there any penalties for violators? If so, what might they be? Implementation Challenges Employers would be required to create detailed, location-specific Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Plans tailored to site conditions. This would demand expertise in temperature monitoring and weather forecasting—internal skills many employers may lack. Additionally, companies with changing job sites must regularly update these plans based on the new environmental context, creating added complexity and administrative burden. Thorough assessments of heat exposure must include factors like work effort levels, worker acclimatization, personal protective equipment usage, and environmental conditions. These assessments pose significant logistical challenges, particularly since many factors are unpredictable. Additional Implementation Questions/Considerations: o The rule refers to “light, moderate, heavy” work. However, there are no guidelines for who determines whether work is light, moderate, or heavy. o Pg. 8 – “With the assumption that workers are acclimated, physically fit, well-rested, fully hydrated, under age 40, and have adequate water intake.” This piece is subjective. Who makes these determinations? What if the employee is over 40? o Is a brimmed hard hat considered Shade? Some employers will argue, yes. o Is water alone sufficient? Shouldn’t electrolyte drinks be required also? Practical and Economic Limitations Many employees in sectors such as construction and agriculture are already aware of and accept the risks of working in high heat conditions. Moreover, implementing the required safety measures could impose substantial financial strain on employers, especially during busy periods. To address the concerns, IBEW recommends that the agency consider the following: Raise the threshold from 80* to 90* or a more reasonable number. 80* is a very low Raise the threshold from 80* to 90* or a more reasonable number. 80* is a very low threshold, especially with the language in Pg. 8: “The effect of direct sunlight, add 7˚F to the heat index for partial sun exposure and add 13˚F for full sun exposure.” Regarding this rulemaking process, IBEW also recommends extending the review process to incorporate more stakeholder input and feedback into the final draft proposal. This seems rushed. Industry, i.e., labor unions and contractors, have not had ample time to consider these and compare them to similar Rules implemented in other parts of the country. This additional time could also allow for a potential pilot program that could test the rules, its efficacy, and need within State of New Mexico Agencies. During the pilot project, regulators can identify ways to improve the rule, examining its impacts, feasibility, and pros/cons. This could impact its administration before making it a requirement of all employers, public and private | International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 611 | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-46 | Conservation Voters New Mexico Education Fund NMED has proposed a heat standard – the Heat Illness and Injury Prevention rule – to protect the approximately 250,000 New Mexico workers who are in industries with a high risk for heat-related injuries, illness and death. “Heat” – a combination of air temperature, humidity and workload – can cause injury, illness and death immediately, as well as contribute to long-term illness and premature death due to organ damage. Heat also causes lower productivity and loss of worker hours on the job, both of which affect a company’s bottom line and the overall economy. Most solutions to stop or mitigate heat-related problems are simple and cost-effective. There are readily available guidelines, tools, and apps to help businesses develop and implement heat plans with their workers. Below is a petition signed by nearly 300 Conservation Voters New Mexico Education Fund members. We cannot delay implementing the strongest possible worker heat-safety standard. We need to protect the people who keep New Mexico’s economy running. RE: EIB 25-11 (R) – New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Dear NMED Staff: I am asking you to propose the strongest possible “Heat Illness and Injury Prevention” rule to the Environmental Improvement Board. Heat is the leading cause of death among all hazardous weather conditions in the US. Almost 250,000 workers in New Mexico are in industries at the highest risk for heat-related illness, death, accident and reduced productivity. These work sectors include almost 80,000 construction workers, oil and gas field workers, almost 20,000 agricultural workers, educational workers, restaurant and fast food workers and others. Exposure to heat conditions can lead to acute kidney illness, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular, respiratory, or kidney failure; those with underlying conditions – including lung disease, cardiovascular disease or pregnancy – are especially vulnerable. Heat also increases accidents and reduces productivity, imposing costs on both workers and employers. In most circumstances, very simple and inexpensive solutions can prevent or mitigate the impacts of heat exposure for indoor and outdoor workers. These solutions include periodic rest intervals, shade or access to a cooler area, regular access to water, and easy access to sanitation. Research indicates that periodic pauses, shade and water can actually increase productivity beyond what it would have been without these measures, while helping prevent injury and illness. In 2021, the federal Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) began the rulemaking process for a heat standard. In 2023-24, NMED developed a proposed rule based on state and national data, scientific and other consultations, and OSHA’s proposal; the proposed standard – “Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings” – was released in 2024. On February 4th, 2025, the Trump administration paused work on the federal heat standard and on March 13th, 2025, in the absence of a federal rulemaking process, NMED petitioned the Environmental Improvement Board to hold a hearing on the Department’s proposed “Heat Illness And Injury Prevention Rule”. The proposed NMED “Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule” is a strong draft standard that incorporates many best practices. However, both employers and workers need clear and precise rules in order to make compliance easier and more effective and NMED needs clarity and precision to better educate workers and employers and enforce the rule. The NMED proposed rule would be better for workers, employers and the NMED with the following clarifications and additions: ● The standard should require employers to include references to existing New Mexico non-retaliation laws and training should include “know-your-rights” language about freedom from retaliation for reporting heat problems as part of employer Heat Injury & Illness Prevention (HIIP) plans and worker training. Because the Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) system depends on workers coming forward when they perceive violations, this communication from their employers is critically important for good enforcement of the standard ● The standard needs more clarity on emergency procedures. In cases of heat stroke and other severe heat-related illnesses, every second counts. Employers and workers alike must be well versed on what actions to take as they wait for emergency medical staff to arrive ● The standard has only a few reasonable exemptions for specific workplaces, but it needs to clarify that buildings and vehicles with mechanical cooling controls are exempt only when those systems are functioning. Many of the complaints the NMED investigated between 2022-2025 found broken air conditioning for weeks, months, and in one case a year. Further, delivery workers should not be exempted if the cabs of their trucks have air conditioning, but they still spend more than 15 minutes out of an hour either in the back of the truck or in the act of delivering packages to doorsteps ● The NMED should strengthen the HIIP provisions by urging employers to seek input and involvement of non-managerial staff in drafting the plans. Frontline workers who perform work tasks daily are best placed to understand the specific dangers of the workplace, adding crucial knowledge to the HIIP plans. ● The standard should specify that training must be given in person with the opportunity to ask questions, and employers should be required to re-deliver the training in the case of a serious heat-related illness or injury onsite, an OSHA citation, fatality, or work processes changing significantly I want to thank the New Mexico Environment Department for pushing forward New Mexico protections for workers in the absence of a federal process, and the EIB for giving these important protections the attention they deserve. Every worker in New Mexico deserves to be safe on the job. Sincerely, Kathy Pollard Amherst MA Laura Sandlin Cedar Crest NM Susan Barns Los Alamos NM Bo Bergstrom Silver City NM Elaine D Best Santa Fe NM Uphoria H Blackham Albuquerque NM Karen Boehler Roswell NM Bill D. Bright Gallup NM Judy L. Brown Los Ranchos NM Terry Carlin Santa Fe NM Liliana R Castillo Cedar Crest NM Athena Christodoulou Albuquerque NM Johanna Cooper Ramah NM Sharon K Cordova Albuquerque NM Diana Crowson Los Lunas NM Joan L Dickerson Santa Fe NM Bruce Donnell Santa Fe NM Patricia Duncan Los Lunas NM Candace Duran Gallup NM Tammy Fiebelkorn Albuquerque NM Sue Forster-Cox Albuquerque NM Walter H Gerstle Albuquerque NM Theresa Hadden Rio Rancho NM Jasper Hardesty Albuquerque NM Susan L L. Homer Albuquerque NM Lari Tiller Howell Albuquerque NM Rebecca Juterbock Algodones NM Elizabeth M Kaido Silver City NM Heather E. Karlson Santa Fe NM Gwenyth Lewis Albuquerque NM Jane Love Socorro NM Diane MacInnes Santa Fe NM Susan C. Martin Santa Fe NM Carmela Martinez Santa Fe NM Steve Miller Albuquerque NM Karen Milstein Santa Fe NM Mark Nolan Albuquerque NM Jerrold H Osborn Albuquerque NM Linda Popelish Jamestown NM Ona Porter Albuquerque NM Rebecca Prinster Albuquerque NM Christopher Ramirez Albuquerque NM Deborah W Reade Santa Fe NM Forest Replogle Albuquerque NM Ana Rios Albuquerque NM Mary Robert Albuquerque NM Jo Sanders Albuquerque NM Molly J Taylor Albuquerque NM Allyson E. Siwik Tyrone NM Stacie L Slay La Plata NM Thomas A Solomon Albuquerque NM Bianca Sopoci-Belknap Santa Fe NM Angela Speight Albuquerque NM Alex Stavrides Albuquerque NM Sarah B Streng Albuquerque NM Ruth S Striegel Albuquerque NM Judy Traeger Albuquerque NM Nicole Waltermire Las Cruces NM Cynthia Weber Cedar Crest NM Ann K Williams Albuquerque NM Blaine Wimberly Cedar Crest NM margo wyse Mimbres NM Laurie Zunner Albuquerque NM Idolia Hawkins Albuquerque NM Judith Phillips Albuquerque NM Ken Hughes Santa Fe NM Joanne J. Ferrary Las Cruces NM Marlene Perrotte Albuquerque NM Stephen A Schmidt Santa Fe NM Megan Bott Albuquerque NM Glenn and Sandra Griffin Silver City NM Charlie Love Santa Fe NM Alissa Keny-Guyer Santa Fe NM Trudy O’Toole Santa Fe NM Carol A. Sassaman Hanover NM Dana Loy Albuquerque NM L.L. Wilkinson Taos NM Arturo Castillo Albuquerque NM Christina Collins Santa Fe NM Nikoma Henkels Albuquerque NM L. Watchempino Pueblo of Acoma NM Y Lee Pinehill NM Steven Romero Albuquerque NM Cloe Dickson Santa Fe NM John Maddaus Albuquerque NM David Hesley Santa Fe NM Justin Garoutte Santa Fe NM Nahum Ward-lev Santa Fe NM Courtney Warren Las Cruces NM Pascual Hernandez Santa Fe NM Mary Ann DeBoer Chama NM Holly Lathrop Hobbs NM William Tatman Albuquerque NM Samantha Clemons Albuquerque NM KATHARINE Weber Gallup NM Stephanie Moraga-McHaley Chimayo NM Jeff Charles Albuquerque NM Catherine Day Albuquerque NM Winona Galindo Grants NM Loren Kelly Albuquerque NM Heidi Krapfl Los Alamos NM Elizabeth Parsons Albuquerque NM Sarah Blake Albuquerque NM Audi Santos Albuquerque NM Eliana Vehar Albuquerque NM Veronica Blount Albuquerque NM hally bert Albuquerque NM Mark Finley Albuquerque NM Karen Wennberg Santa Fe NM Kristin Graziano Arroyo Seco NM Christine Dobbin Anthony NM Carlos Matutes Sandia Park NM Javier Aceves El Prado NM Whitney Holland Albuquerque NM Cara Valente Albuquerque NM Alma Kassim Albuquerque NM Gregory Bennett Rio Rancho NM Denise Comstock Albuquerque NM Frank Smith Rio Rancho NM Jennifer St.Clair Santa Fe NM Alexis Jimenez Rio Rancho NM Rhonda Newby-Torres Los Lunas NM Rev. Erica Lea-Simka ALBUQUERQUE NM Tamar Ginossar Albuquerque NM Therese Ryley Albuquerque NM Margaret Leonard Albuquerque NM Paul Oostenbrug Albuquerque NM Stephanie Mladinich Albuquerque NM Andrea McNeely Albuquerque NM Kelcie Creel Albuquerque NM Ashley Wegele Albuquerque NM Alma Gross Las Cruces NM Diana Good Albuquerque NM Yitza Arcelay ALBUQUERQUE NM Tina Lujan Las Cruces NM Stephanie Lashway Albuquerque NM Holly Mata Las Cruces NM Sam Colombo Albuquerque NM Valari Taylor Rio Rancho NM Gail Evans Albuquerque NM Ellen Burgess Albuquerque NM Kristine Mather-McRae Peralta NM Lonni Fredman Albuquerque NM Karen Smith Rio Rancho NM Madeline Hart-Andersen Santa Fe NM Vernon Batty Mesilla Park NM Deborah Durio Aztec NM Martha Phillips Rio Rancho NM Alex Eubanks Albuquerque NM Margaret Wilson Albuquerque NM William Loewe Albuquerque NM Melissa Riley New Laguna NM Nathaniel Matthews-Trigg Albuquerque NM Mia Cotero Las Cruces NM Paul Charlton Gallup NM Erin Ashlock Albuquerque NM Chenoa Scippio Espanola NM Alexander Morgan Albuquerque NM Wendy Luck Rio Rancho NM Marina Quairoli Las Cruces NM J Phillip Rowe Santa Fe NM Sindy Sacoman Albuquerque NM Renee Cooka New Laguna NM Ryan Riley New Laguna NM Jacob Riley New Laguna NM Johnessa Charley Albuquerque NM Tamara Wilhelmi Pecos NM Curtis Wilhelmi Pecos NM KAREN FARRELL Santa Fe NM Ella Joan Fenoglio Albuquerque NM Mark Maynard Sandia Park NM Desiree Bernard Santa Fe NM Carolyn Winton Albuquerque NM Douglas Dobbin Anthony NM Maille Gray Santa Fe NM Peggyjoy Hodgen Santa Fe NM Robert Gomez Santa Fe NM Julie Hasty Santa Fe NM Tess Ngochi Santa Fe NM liam hasty Santa Fe NM Alaina Szostkowski Santa Fe NM Jeff Thompson Santa Fe NM Kate Browne Santa Fe NM Wendy Johnson Santa Fe NM Derek Roff Santa Fe NM Tom Ribe Santa Fe NM Barbara Arnoth Santa Fe NM sobia sayeda Los Alamos NM Matilda Rubin Santa Fe NM Amy Lin Santa Fe NM Bion Shelden Edgewood NM mildred langston Albuquerque NM Deborah Ray Albuquerque NM Veronica Nieto Albuquerque NM Charles Clements Las Cruces NM Derek Wallentinsen Albuquerque NM S Selbin Albuquerque NM catherine ralston Taos NM Myra Parmer Santa Fe NM Liz Bessin Santa Fe NM Adi S Santa Fe NM Beverly Ohline Santa Fe NM Mary Gallagher Albuquerque NM Pam Nosse Albuquerque NM Jennifer Beyss Albuquerque NM Paula Metzner Albuquerque NM Genie Stevens Santa Fe NM Richard Martin Santa Fe NM January Harper Placitas NM Vanessa Springer Albuquerque NM WK Barger Santa Fe NM Aidan Manning Albuquerque NM Brad Weikel Albuquerque NM Nancy Singham Albuquerque NM Brian Harman Albuquerque NM Ryan Ramaker Los Alamos NM Ruthbeth Finerman Santa Fe NM Sue Atkinson Albuquerque NM WENDY TANNER Albuquerque NM Laura Martinez Albuquerque NM Barbara Muller Albuquerque NM Nancy Singh Albuquerque NM Emily Piltch Los Alamos NM Ennedith Lopez Albuquerque NM Nomi Green Santa Fe NM Eileen Barrett Albuquerque NM Cynthia Hartling Santa Fe NM Gaile Herling Santa Fe NM Savanna Woods Albuquerque NM Patricia Belletto Albuquerque NM Daniel Williams Albuquerque NM ILEAN GALLOWAY Rio Rancho NM Ann Lyn Hall Albuquerque NM AnnaLinden Weller Santa Fe NM Diane Cox Albuquerque NM Bronwen Murray Santa Fe NM Kathleen Cates Rio Rancho NM Elma Samora Albuquerque NM Harry Gantz Espanola NM Kim Rodriguez Anthony NM Raymond Sweetland Albuquerque NM Thomas Johnson Cedar Crest NM Paul Rodriguez Cedar Crest NM Sara Attleson Albuquerque NM susan bortz-johnson Cedar Crest NM Elizabeth Morrill Santa Fe NM Andrea Chavez Silver City NM Carol Larroque Cedar Crest NM Anastasia Andersen Albuquerque NM Jennifer Edic Rio Rancho NM Ángela Sierra Santa Fe NM Hilda Sanchez Roswell NM Sandra Mendoza Roswell NM Louis Mestas Roswell NM Orlando Padilla Roswell NM Leslie McFadden Albuquerque NM Marilyn Watland-Wright Fruitland NM Lily Goodmacher Rio Rancho NM Yvonne Diaz Anthony NM Gracie Dobbin Anthony NM Nara Dobbin Anthony NM Robert Watson Tijeras NM Renee Beltran Mesilla NM Marlo Kraus Albuquerque NM Anita Adalja Albuquerque NM Sylvia Ulloa Las Cruces NM Virginia Schultz Albuquerque NM Dr. Diana Bustamante Las Cruces NM Lindsey Giesler Albuquerque NM Judith Baca Las Cruces NM Judith Gordon Bernalillo NM William Bumgarner Bernalillo NM Louisa Barkalow Albuquerque NM Mary Davis Silver City NM Karen Holmes Las Cruces NM Jose Lopez Albuquerque NM Sofia Jenkins-Nieto Albuquerque NM Analucia Lopez Albuquerque NM Carlos Trujillo Chimayo NM Brian Woods Santa Fe NM Rose Jones Lewisville TX Betty Keegan El Paso TX Misty Fergusson Tyler TX Rosalba Ruiz Reyes El Paso TX Graham Hamilton Clinton WA E Scantlebury Hereford AZ Arianna Standish Castro Valley CA Marc Futernick Pasadena CA Andrew Forkes-Gudmundson SAN FRANCISCO CA Sarah Chang Stanford CA Heather Hall Boise ID | Conservation Voters New Mexico Education Fund | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-47 | RE: Opposition to Proposed NM OSHA Heat Stress Standard On behalf of the National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) New Mexico Chapter and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local Union 611, representing electrical contractors and the skilled electricians who power New Mexico’s infrastructure, we respectfully submit this joint comment in strong opposition to the proposed Heat Stress Standard under consideration by the New Mexico Occupational Health and Safety Bureau (NM OSHA). Our members, contractors and union electricians alike are united in our commitment to worker safety. Protecting the health and wellbeing of our workforce is fundamental to our industry. However, the rule as drafted introduces overly prescriptive mandates that would have severe unintended consequences for worker schedules, employer operations, and overall jobsite safety. Unworkable Rest Break Requirements One of the most concerning provisions of the proposed rule is the mandated rest schedule once temperatures reach 90°F—with a required 13°F solar adjustment for construction work. During much of New Mexico’s long summer season, this would place most job sites above the 103°F threshold, triggering a requirement of 40 minutes of paid rest for every 20 minutes of labor. This rest-to-work ratio is simply unfeasible in real-world job site operations and would stall productivity to the point that many projects would no longer be viable. Excessive Administrative and Logistical Burdens The rule also introduces extensive administrative and logistical demands. Requirements such as heat exposure assessments, detailed recordkeeping, acclimatization tracking, and the installation of shaded rest areas are extraordinarily difficult to implement on dynamic, multi-phase, or large-scale job sites. These burdens disproportionately affect small and mid-sized contractors, adding costs and delays that ultimately hinder both public and private infrastructure development across the state. Regulations Already in Place We also question the necessity of this rule, given that protection against heat-related hazards already exists under federal law. Contractors are currently held accountable under the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s General Duty Clause and many already adhere to OSHA’s Heat Illness Prevention Campaign best practices. These existing frameworks allow employers to assess and mitigate risks based on site-specific conditions. The proposed NM OSHA rule not only duplicates these efforts but goes far beyond them imposing blanket mandates that remove flexibility and ignore the professional judgment of safety managers and crews on the ground. Negative Impact on the Workforce and Scheduling Shifting work hours to early mornings or nighttime to avoid heat exposure is not a practical or safe solution for most electricians. Many of our members have caregiving responsibilities or transportation limitations that make nontraditional shifts unworkable. These changes would exacerbate New Mexico’s skilled labor shortage, reduce workforce participation, and disincentivize new entrants to the trade especially those who rely on consistent, daytime schedules. Mental Health and Safety Risks of Night Work Pushing work into nighttime hours introduces its own set of safety hazards. Studies show that night work is associated with increased fatigue, sleep disruption, higher rates of depression and anxiety, and greater risk of on-the-job accidents. For electricians whose work often involves hazardous conditions, high voltages, and elevated platforms, these risks are not acceptable. Call for a Collaborative, Practical Approach We strongly urge NM OSHA to withdraw the proposed rule in its current form and initiate a collaborative stakeholder process to develop a more balanced, flexible approach. Heat safety standards must be practical, enforceable, and adaptable to the varying conditions across New Mexico job sites. NECA New Mexico and IBEW Local 611 remain committed to protecting workers and improving jobsite safety. We ask that NM OSHA work with us to develop effective standards that reflect real job-site conditions and the realities of the electrical trade. Thank you for the opportunity to comment | National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) New Mexico Chapter and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local Union 611 | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-48 | RE: EIB 25-11(R) – Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention To Whom It May Concern: Farmworker Justice submits these comments in response to the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board’s proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention regulation. Farmworker Justice (FJ) is a national organization that aims to empower farmworkers and their families to improve their living and working conditions, immigration status, health, occupational safety, and access to justice. We applaud New Mexico’s Environmental Improvement Board for moving forward on this critical regulation. Extreme heat poses both acute and long-term health risks for workers. Farmworkers, landscapers, construction workers and other outdoor and indoor workers are at significant risk for heat stress. Farmworkers are disproportionately affected by heat stress and 2 have a rate of heat-related death 35 times higher than the rate for all other industries.1 In New Mexico, heat-related illness visits to emergency departments nearly doubled between 2010 and 2022, with over 900 visits in 2023.2 It is important that a strong, enforceable standard be adopted to protect the lives and health of New Mexico’s estimated 10,000 farmworkers and other workers exposed to excessive heat. Many of the provisions in the proposed regulation are reasonable and necessary to protect New Mexico’s farmworkers from heat-related injury and illness. Our comments highlight important provisions and provide recommendations to ensure the regulation’s maximum impact. It reflects and supports the comments submitted by the Coalition of Agricultural Workers and Advocates. I. The proposed regulation covers all workers with narrow and reasonable exemptions Currently, the primary option for remedy in heat stress cases has been the General Duty Clause (GDC). The GDC requires that each employer provide a workplace “free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.”3 However, proving that an employer violated heat standards under the GDC is a resource-intensive task requiring an almost unobtainable burden of proof. The GDC alone is insufficient to preemptively protect workers from heat-related injury, and the high standard of proof often means no remedy even after disaster. Without an employer who is actively trying to prevent heat injuries, workers are more likely to suffer heat-related injuries on the job. Aligned with regulations enacted in other states, as well as the proposed federal heat regulations, the New Mexico proposed heat standard covers indoor and outdoor workers with narrow and reasonable exceptions. Importantly, the regulations do not exempt small employers, ensuring heat protections for workers who are not necessarily covered under federal regulations, including workers on small farms who are exempt from enforcement of workplace protections under OSHA’s small farm exemption. II. The proposed regulation includes important protections related to acclimatization and heat index Acclimatization is critical to prevent heat-related illness among new and returning workers. Workload increases metabolic heat that when added to environmental heat exposure, increases the total heat stress to workers. Especially for H-2A and migratory workers, who may be coming 1 Gubernot DM, Anderson GB, Hunting KL. Characterizing occupational heat-related mortality in the United States, 2000-2010: an analysis using the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries database. Am J Ind Med. 2015 Feb;58(2):203-11. doi: 10.1002/ajim.22381. PMID: 25603942; PMCID: PMC4657558. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4657558/pdf/nihms738528.pdf 2 NM Environment Department, “Extreme Heat and Public Health Water and Natural Resources Committee.” July 22, 2024. https://www.nmlegis.gov/handouts/WNR%20072224%20Item%205%20NMED%20Extreme%20Heat%20and%20Public%20Health.pdf. 3 29 U.S.C. 654(a)(1). 3 to New Mexico from other parts of the country or other countries with vastly different climates, an acclimatization schedule ensures that workers are able to work effectively and safely. We also support the inclusion of the heat index when assessing heat exposure. New Mexico has a unique climate, with low humidity but high UV index due to its high elevation. According to the EPA, a UV index reading of 8-10 means a very high risk of harm from unprotected sun exposure, and a UV index over 11 means “extreme” risk, and warns that skin can burn in a matter of minutes in those conditions.4 In recent years, New Mexico’s UV index has been 11 or higher for 85-110 days per year, and can easily reach 13 during the summer, which places it as one of the states with the highest UV index in the country.5 The inclusion of sun exposure in the proposed regulations is an important feature that tailors this heat standard to meet the needs of New Mexico’s workers. III. The training provided to workers needs to be linguistically and culturally relevant FJ commends that the proposed regulation includes language accessibility for the heat safety training. Comprehensive trainings are critically important to ensure that workers are knowledgeable about heat injury illness and prevention. To ensure that workers of all literacy levels are able to fully participate in the training and are able to understand the materials presented, we recommend adding more specific requirements that the trainings are in languages and formats that are culturally and linguistically accessible to all workers. IV. The regulation needs to create clear guidance on employer and FLC responsibility for implementation of the Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Plan A growing number of farmworkers, especially H-2A workers, are hired by Farm Labor Contractors (FLCs). In 2022, 22% of crop workers were employer by FLCs.6 Farm employers sometimes use FLCs to evade responsibility under employment laws. Farmworkers are often reluctant to assert their rights due to fear of retaliation, which can include firing and blacklisting. To make New Mexico’s regulations strong and effective, it should be made explicit which employing entity (the farm operator/owner or FLC) is responsible for providing safety training. The party who controls the conditions of the workplace should provide workers with a tailored training session that explains the safety measures being used in that specific location, in addition to generally applicable information about preventing, identifying and treating heat-related illnesses and injuries. 4 National Weather Service, “Ultraviolet (UV) Index Forecasts.” https://www.weather.gov/ilx/uv-index. Accessed April 30, 2025. 5 United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Sun Safety Monthly Average UV Index 2006-2023.” https://www.epa.gov/sunsafety/sun-safety-monthly-average-uv-index-2006-2023#tab-6. Accessed April 30, 2025. 6 Emp. & Training Admin., U.S. Dep’t Lab., Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 2021-2022, Research Report no. 17, Sept. 2023, https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/naws/pdfs/NAWS%20Research%20Report%2017.pdf. 4 V. Mandatory paid rest breaks must include guidance on compensation for piece-rate workers and workers wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) We commend the inclusion of paid rest breaks however, the work/rest schedule in the proposed regulation does not include calculations for piece-rate workers. Many of New Mexico’s farmworkers, including those working in chile and onions, are paid on a piece rate rather than hourly. Farmworkers paid on a piece rate are less likely to take a rest break because their compensation is directly tied to their productivity. This means that for many piece rate workers, taking a break not only results in losing income but also falling behind and potentially working even more rigorously to catch up, which creates an even greater danger of heat-related illness. We strongly recommend that the final regulation include guidance on compensation of rest breaks for piece-rate workers. New Mexico can look to the heat regulations promulgated in California and Washington for a compensation formula that can be used to calculate an average hourly rate for piece-rate workers for rest and recovery periods. For example, California’s regulations state: The rate of compensation for rest and recovery periods shall be the higher of: o An average hourly rate determined by dividing the total compensation for the workweek, exclusive of compensation for rest and recovery periods and any premium compensation for overtime, by the total hours worked during the workweek, exclusive of rest and recovery periods. o The applicable minimum wage.7 Further, the final regulations must clarify that the paid rest break does not include the time to don or doff Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). The proposed regulation includes guidance for clothing adjustment factors. Similarly, the final regulation should include clothing adjustment factors for paid rest breaks. The donning and doffing of PPE can take several minutes and its removal is necessary to ensure that workers are able to adequately cool down to prevent heat-related illness. VI. There should be enhanced protections for children (under 18), pregnant, and elderly workers Children, pregnant, and elderly individuals have enhanced vulnerabilities to heat-related illness and injury. In 2008, a 17-year-old pregnant farmworker woman died of a heat stroke while 7 CA Labor Code §226.2(a)(3). A detailed description of California’s approach, including employer guidance with formulas and examples, can be found on the California Department of Industrial Relations website: https://www.dir.ca.gov/pieceratebackpayelection/AB_1513_FAQs.htm#PieceRate 5 working in the fields in California.8 According to the National Agricultural Workers Survey, 7% of workers are 14 to 19 years old and 18% are 55 or older.9 There are approximately 300,000 child farmworkers in the U.S.10 The proposed regulation does not provide any enhanced protections for these populations of workers. We encourage the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board to specify protections for children, pregnant, and elderly workers in the final regulation. Some recommendations for these populations include a lower heat trigger, additional mandatory rest breaks, and other accommodations as appropriate. VII. The final regulation must include information about whistleblower and retaliation protections Retaliation in agriculture is well-documented. Legal services providers and other community partners regularly share incidents of workers who were fired or blacklisted because they asserted their workplace rights. Given the well-documented prevalence of health and safety related retaliation, we recommend that the inclusion of an enforceable provision that expressly prohibits employer retaliation for workers who assert their rights under this standard. These protections should also be a mandatory topic of the heat safety training outlined in section 11.5.7.12 of the proposed regulation. Workers are more likely to assert their rights if the employer tells them that they have these rights and that they will not retaliate against them if they report violations. Such provisions will provide an effective means for protecting affected workers when they seek to access these rights, over and above other protections that may be otherwise available to them under the law. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these proposed regulations to address the growing risk of excessive heat exposure. New Mexico’s farmworkers and other workers urgently need these protections. Heat-related illness is preventable, yet workers continue to die because in the absence of regulations, workers must rely on their employer to provide proper protections. We hope that these proposed regulations are adopted with the recommended modifications outlined in these comments and the comments of other worker advocates, including the Coalition of Agricultural Workers and Advocates. With these recommendations, we can ensure that New Mexico’s heat standard is strong and impactful for farmworkers and other workers. 8 Maricela De La Cruz, How farm workers’ rights have strengthened since the 2008 death of a pregnant 17-year old Maria Isavel Vazquez Jimenez, KCRA (Aug. 23, 2022), https://www.kcra.com/article/farm-workers-rights-pregnant-17-year-old-death-2008-maria-isavel-vasquez-jimenez/40950637. 9 NAWS, supra note 6. 10 Taylor J. Arnold et al., Understanding Latinx Child Farmworkers’ Reason for Working: A Mixed Methods Approach, 38(6) J. Adolescent Rsch. 1142 (2022), https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/07435584221144956. 6 Respectfully submitted, Alexis Guild Vice President of Strategy and Programs Farmworker Justice | Alexis Guild Vice President of Strategy and Programs Farmworker Justice | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-49 | While we agree that heat stroke and heat-related illness are serious concerns and that safety measures must always be taken seriously, this proposed rule imposes unrealistic and unworkable mandates on industries such as Towing services. Our operations are inherently and unavoidably conducted outdoors. The towing and recovery industry is 100% outdoor-based, except for the limited time operators are driving between calls. Our teams respond to accidents, breakdowns, and emergencies in extreme conditions—often under intense heat, at night, or during inclement weather. In New Mexico, the summer months are often the busiest time of year, due in part to the increased number of overheated vehicles and tire failures. Tourists are often stranded in out of the way locations, and do not have access to water, shade or assistance. Quick response is critical not just for the success of our businesses but for public safety. We do not have the luxury of delaying highway recoveries or emergency tows so that workers can wait out the heat. Doing so would endanger stranded motorists, worsen traffic conditions, and delay law enforcement or emergency medical services access to scenes. We urge OSHA to reconsider and revise this rule to reflect the diversity of working environments across the country and to recognize that industries like ours cannot function under rigid, one-size-fits-all standards. Thank you. Charlene Gowers Top Gun Tow Inc. | TOP GUN TOW INC. | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-50 | I am in support of the proposed regulation. There is a need for tiered trainings that address the different levels of responsibility throughout the workplace. Leadership and employer training will be essential in carrying out heat illness prevention plans. Best practices would be for employers to submit verification of having provided training, along with a list of trained employees. Employees should receive a certificate of training for their personal records that could be used across employers. | Yvonne Diaz | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-51 | As a safety professional, I will say that having a heat stress standard is a great idea IN THEORY. HOWEVER, companies should already have heat stress policies in place. Heat affects every individual differently, so this one-size-fits-all regulation is ABSOLUTELY UNWORKABLE for many trades in the construction industry. Companies already provide their workers with water, shade, rest breaks, training, and acclimatize them to the weather. Being penalized with a large citation for not FORCING an employee to take a paid rest break when he doesn’t require a rest break is ridiculous. If a worker needs a rest break, there is not one business owner, supervisor, superintendent, or foreman that would refuse them a rest break. FORCING workers to take paid rest breaks when they don’t require a rest break, WITH THE THREAT OF A PENALTY is nonsense. Let’s play out a situation. According to this proposed rule, companies have to take into account solar radiation. If a worker is fully exposed to the sun, 13 degrees must be added to the “heat index table”. According to the work/rest schedule, for heavy work, (most outdoor work is considered heavy work) workers must receive 15-minute breaks EVERY HOUR at 95 degrees. Taking into account the solar radiation, workers ACTUALLY would have to take 15-minute breaks every hour at only 82 degrees. At 87 degrees, they get paid rest breaks 30 minutes every hour. At 92 degrees, workers MUST only work 15 minutes every hour, or else the company will receive a citation. Not to mention, taking so many breaks and then coming back to work might take workers’ minds off of safety, and could easily lead to strains, muscle-pulls, and sprains. This is simply not going to work for any business in the construction industry, especially road crews, concrete contractors, and iron workers. This rule would seriously negatively impact small businesses all over the state. I urge everyone to look into the proposed rule before stating “look after NM workers”. There needs to be some major changes in this rule to make it doable for ALL sectors and industries. How it is worded right now would have a horrible outcome for everyone, INCLUDING workers. Is this proposed rule going to apply to cops, paramedics, and firefighters? If so, I hope we’re ready for even slower response times, among many other things. | Anonymous Citizen | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-52 | RE: EIB 25-11(R) – Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Dear Environmental Improvement Board: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed regulation. As a dairy producer in New Mexico, I am committed to protecting my family members and employees from occupational heat illness and injury; however, I oppose this proposed rule because it fails to recognize existing federal and additional safeguards that the dairy industry has developed and implemented to protect the wellbeing of our workforce. I am a second-generation dairy farmer, along with my wife, Megan, and in partnership with my parents. We farm and milk cows on three facilities in Clovis, N.M. I have been in the dairy business for more than 25 years and am a farmer-owner of Dairy Farmers of America (DFA), a leading global dairy cooperative, owned by 9,500 farmerowners on 5,000 farms across the United States. In New Mexico, DFA is owned by 53 families, producing over 428 million gallons of milk a year. Those family farmers are invested in 80 processing facilities that produce a wide range of dairy products including fluid milk, cheese, butter, ice cream, dairy ingredients and more. I serve on DFA’s Southwest Area Council and as a member of the DFA Board of Directors. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) ensures safe and healthy working conditions for all workers by setting and enforcing standards and providing training. All dairy operations are required to comply with these regulations and provide a safe working environment. OSHA, in partnership with other federal agencies, has issued guidance on the prevention of heat related illness and injury: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Publication No. 2016- 106. Going beyond what is required through OSHA standards, the U.S. dairy industry developed and implemented the Farmers Assuring Responsible Management (FARM) Program. FARM is a mandatory industry program which demonstrates U.S. dairy farmers’ commitment to producing high quality, safe milk with integrity. Launched in 2009, FARM was created by the dairy industry’s National Milk Producers Federation in partnership with Dairy Management, Inc. and focuses on five program areas – Animal Care, Antibiotic Stewardship, Biosecurity, Environmental Stewardship and Workforce Development. Resources such as science-based standards, verifications, metrics and other tools are provided for farms to improve best management practices in each respective pillar, further demonstrating the dairy industry’s commitment to continuous improvement. Resources provided under the Workforce Development pillar include key tools to enhance a safe and thriving work environment on the dairy, with a focus on human resources and safety management practices. Across the United States, dairy farm employees work in a wide variety of climactic conditions. Related to the New Mexico Environment Department’s Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule, certain components are addressed in the FARM Program that demonstrate how dairy farms can promote a safe and healthy work environment for their employees, such as: Procedures with timekeeping and break relief schedules Clean drinking water supply and suitable break or rest areas First aid kits Safety plans covering a variety of topics, which include extreme temperatures Employee process of reporting safety concerns and training on safety topics Considering the existing federal OSHA standards and guidance, and with the additional specific guidelines for dairy operations via the FARM program, I find New Mexico’s proposed regulations redundant and unattainable as it is not industry specific and adds a heavy, new administrative burden to employers with recordkeeping requirements. These proposed regulations will do nothing more to ensure worker safety beyond the safe working conditions and heat stress training resources that are already provided to dairy workers. Dairy farmers raise their cows and families on the same land. They share responsibilities and the same working conditions as their hired workforce. I encourage the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board to reconsider this proposal and align your efforts with current federal and industry specific standards and guidance already established today. Sincerely, Eric Palla New Mexico dairy farmer | Eric Palla New Mexico dairy farmer | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-53 | I am writing to express my strong concerns regarding the newly proposed rule to lower the heat index. In our region, both ourselves and our workers are accustomed to dealing with higher temperatures than most other areas. The proposed requirement for employees to drink 8 oz of water every 15 minutes seems excessively strict. Implementing this would likely lead to increased restroom breaks and a decrease in overall productivity. This Will not work and such frequent breaks would create significant operational challenges and inevitably drive project costs higher due to reduced work output. It’s important to remember that our work is performed outdoors, where the effectiveness of ducted air conditioning and fans is limited compared to controlled indoor environments. This aspect of the proposal appears to be an overreach. Furthermore, I believe that incorporating these standards will inadvertently encourage more unlicensed contractors to operate illegally and without adhering to proper codes. Our region already faces a considerable problem with substandard work performed by unlicensed individuals. This new rule could exacerbate the issue, as some homeowners and business owners, unable to afford compliant work at potentially higher prices, might opt for cheaper, unregulated services. Consequently, licensed contractors who invest in proper training, insurance, and adherence to regulations will face unfair competition and potential negative consequences. Ultimately, while I understand the intent behind the proposal, I believe this particular approach is misguided and will create more problems than it solves. Doing the right thing involves practical and realistic solutions, and I do not think this proposal achieves that goal. Sincerely, Greg | Whitlock Enterprises | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-54 | Sandoval County appreciates the intent of the proposed rule to protect employees from heat-related illness and injury. However, we must respectfully express our opposition to the rule in its current form. While we support the goal of worker safety, the administrative and operational demands placed on local governments, particularly rural counties with limited resources, would create significant strain on our ability to deliver essential public services efficiently. Specifically, the requirements for written plans, acclimatization schedules, detailed recordkeeping, and provision of cooling and hydration measures, while well-intentioned, are not easily scalable to departments such as Public Works, which often operate in remote or mobile settings and under staffing constraints. The cumulative effect of these mandates would divert time and resources away from critical infrastructure maintenance and emergency response, ultimately impacting public health and safety. We encourage the New Mexico Environment Department to consider a more flexible, tiered approach that accounts for the capacity and operational realities of small and rural public entities. We would welcome the opportunity to work collaboratively toward a rule that achieves its safety goals without unintentionally undermining essential services. | Sandoval County | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-55 | New Mexico Home Builders Association would like to take this opportunity to offer comments on the referenced Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Regulations. The construction industry has been complying with federal heat illness prevention requirements for many years, and finds this new rule is unworkable and unnecessary. The stakeholder meetings last year included the information from OHSB staff that “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 HRI occurred during people at work.” While this was promoted as the impetus for the new rule, it ignored the fact that NM OHSB logs showed only 7 heat-related work illnesses in New Mexico during all of 2024. No data has been presented that any worker had been severely affected nor that any employee had become disabled or worse. Specific issues with the new rule include: The new rule would impose rigid requirements for calculating temperature and humidity levels to arrive at a heat index hourly to determine if the rule applies at any point during the work shift. The NOAA chart in the rules are not applicable to the desert. The relative humidity is set at 40%, which is nowhere near the average for the state. Frequently the relative humidity is closer to 20%, which would lower the heat index on the chart considerably. Currently the adult workers on construction sites take frequent water breaks as they feel their own bodies require hydration. Construction employers commonly keep large amounts of water on job sites for the use of their employees, and the training on workplace safety includes instructions for employees to avail themselves of the provided water as needed. The threshold for applying the new rules to a worksite is set at an unrealistically low temperature. According to NOAA, the average June-September temperature for New Mexico in 2024 was 88 degrees. If a construction worker were in full sun, the rules would require 30 minutes of shade every hour. These are the average working conditions for contractors every summer in the state. Concrete pouring of monolithic structures requires the pour to continue for as long as it takes to fill the forms completely. Stopping during the pouring process will ruin the strength of the material. The only option for this work would be to somehow keep a duplicate team of workers in the shade to take over when the first team was required to take a break. This would more than double the labor costs for this function. It is well-documented that the construction industry is experiencing a shortage of workers. There simply are not enough trained workers to be able to keep two shifts on a job site at the same time. Changing the work shift to earlier hours so the work could be completed before the heat of the day would necessitate starting work around 5:00 a.m. This is impractical in residential areas where there are noise restrictions for construction activities before 7:00 a.m. The result of having to reduce productive work hours on a job site will necessarily delay the construction process. Time is money, and delays cost real money in terms of extended finance carrying costs. The added costs due a delay of two weeks could result in an $8,625.73 ( 2.1%) increase in the sales price of a new home. The National Association of Home Builders research reveals that for every $1,000 in the price of a home in New Mexico, 649 households can no longer qualify for the mortgage for a median home. At a time when New Mexico is experiencing historical shortage of housing, this situation of pricing over 5,500 potential homeowners out of the New Mexico market each year is economically infeasible. We 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. Employers are already bound by OSHA’s General Duty Clause and can be cited for failure to address heat-related hazards. Since 2011 OSHA’s Heat Illness Prevention Campaign provides training, resources, and enforcement mechanisms to improve awareness and accountability. Adding more logging and records retention would likely not improve worker outcomes. Current use of buddy systems, pre-shift safety briefings, and hydration reminders reinforce awareness without disrupting productivity, and providing Heat Illness Prevention instruction are common parts of training during new hire orientation and annual safety refreshers. For all of these reasons, and more, New Mexico Home Builders Association believes the proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention regulations are unnecessary, burdensome, and a threat to attainable housing urgently needed by the residents of New Mexico. Respectfully Submitted, Jenice Montoya-Eades, 2025 President New Mexico Home Builders Association | Jenice Montoya-Eades, President New Mexico Home Builders Association | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-56 | New Mexico is getting hotter and drier, and workers who are the backbone of our economy, who build our communities, deserve reasonable protections. I have done many kinds of work in my life, including landscaping & gardening, and over the last few years it has only gotten more dangerous and the risk of heat stroke and heat related illnesses is very real. I am in favor of establishing these common sense regulations that ensure peoples lives and livelihoods are not put at risk. | Joe Cardillo | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-57 | RE: Comment on Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Dear Bureau Chief Peck, On behalf of the New Mexico Mining Association, we would like to submit the following comments to the New Mexico Environment Department’s (the “Department”) Proposed New Regulation, 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule (the “Rule”). While the New Mexico Mining Association fully supports the objective of safeguarding employees from heat exposure, we believe that a tailored, flexible approach to ensuring worker safety will be more effective than a universal, one-size-fits-all solution. As written, the current draft of the Rule imposes rigid and ambiguous compliance obligations that would hinder practical implementation. Introduction The New Mexico Mining Association is a trade association and serves as the spokesman for the mining industry in NewMexico. Our members include companies and individuals that are engaged in various phases of the mineral industry, including exploration, production, manufacturing and distribution. Our primary objective is to advance the mineral resources and related industries in New Mexico. Although worker health and safety within the mining industry is largely regulated by MSHA, some workplaces are regulated under OSHA. Personal Risk Factors Section 11.5.7.9 requires employers to follow certain criteria when assessing an employee’s exposure to heat illness. The most concerning of these factors is the requirement to consider an employee’s personal risk factors for heat illness. Personal risk factors include alcohol consumption, caffeine consumption, and use of prescription medications. Not only does this introduce a level of ambiguity and risk that an employer will have to act as a medical professional, it also infringes upon an employee’s protected health information. This requirement goes beyond the bounds of the employer/employee relationship, and we recommend that this criterion be removed. 1 Acclimatization As the Rule is currently drafted, the acclimatization measures in Section 11.5.7.10 (A) impose a strict work-schedule formula for new and returning workers. This rigid schedule overlooks many personal employee factors and would be particularly burdensome for employers with shift workers. While other jurisdictions have adopted acclimatization protocols, these jurisdictions have incorporated flexibility into the protocols to allow employers the ability to customize the protocols based on work settings. We request a reconsideration of the proposed fixed-schedule acclimatization protocol to allow employers to tailor their protocols to specific operations. We further request a focus and differentiation of acclimatization for new employees or employees returning to work after long, extended absences, rather than temporary absences. Work/Rest Schedules The work/rest schedules in Table 3 introduce mandatory rest break schedules based on heat index and type of work performed. However, there would be a level of uncertainty in implementation of this measure, as there is no definition of “light” versus “moderate” versus “heavy” work. A difference in interpretation of “light” versus “moderate” work at the same heat index results in a different work/rest schedule. This will have the practical effect of unpredictability in the workplace as an employer could be required to switch a break schedule multiple times in an hour based on employee work effort. Additionally, the Table relies on the assumption that workers are physically fit, well-rested, fully hydrated, under the age of 40, and have adequate water intake. This introduces many factors that are highly variable and contradicts the heat exposure assessment in Section 11.5.7.9. We recommend allowing employers to develop work/rest schedules that properly reflect job-site variables. Record Keeping Section 11.5.7.13 introduces record keeping requirements that would be burdensome and expansive for an employer to complete. The requirement mandates that an employer record the heat acclimatization schedule and procedure for all new and returning employees, as well as a record of all heat illnesses or related injuries including those that only require first aid. This goes beyond the bounds of OSHA’s record-keeping requirements under 29 CFR 1904.7, which only requires records of incidents involving medical treatment beyond first aid. Creating an additional requirement beyond the federal OSHA standards will increase employer administrative time and require an employer to speculate what a “heat related injury” may be. We recommend all record-keeping provisions be aligned with federal OSHA standards. 2 Conclusion While we appreciate and support the goal of protecting employees from heat exposure, we believe that a measured, customized method for employee safety will have a better result than a one-sizefits all approach. As currently drafted, the Rule would result in inflexible and unclear compliance requirements. We request that the Department work with industry on a one-on-one basis to implement or refine existing heat protection measures, rather than enact a sweeping rule. Sincerely, The New Mexico Mining Association | New Mexico Mining Association | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-58 | Summit Construction is opposed to this regulation as it over steps its intended purpose. Our company has performed over 3 Million man hours without a single heat related injury. Heat stress is to be taken seriously and our industry is proactive in our approach and how we keep our employees safe and educated on heat related injuries. As written currently, working less then 3 hours a day due to the frequency and duration of breaks is unrealistic and does not factor in real conditions. | Summit Construction | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-59 | Many of our members work on the facilities grounds and maintenance crews for the general services department of New Mexico in which they maintain all of our campuses across the state of New Mexico and are subject to extreme heat from their work environment on top of roofs and an unshaded parking lots with asphalts and zeroscaping which can expose them to heat as high as 182° f during their work shifts. Because of this many GSD employees come in early to start their work days to avoid the heat and have to take frequent breaks to cool off during the summer. We’ve had workers die on top of rooftops after experiencing medical emergencies in which heat has played a factor. We support this proposed change especially as New Mexico continues to experience extreme heat events caused by climate change. | Jer | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-60 | Creating a rule which will hinder those working in the ag community will continue to bring our state on a rapid downhill slide. If a person is incapable of taking care of themselves and resting when needed, styaing hydrated etc, then they should not have an outside job. Our founding fathers built this country in hot miserable weather, we should be able to work in it. Stop trying to pamper the next generation to work hard. Trade labor will not survive. Ranching and farming and even highway departments will all be efected by this and out government should know better than to create something as outrageous as this. If you arent capable of working outside…. get an insiude job. | Jennifer Pierce | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-61 | RE: Public Comment on Proposed Rule 11.5.7 NMAC – Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Dear Chair Suina and Bureau Chief Peck: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention rule by the New Mexico Environment Department’s Occupational Health and Safety Bureau. On behalf of our member municipalities across the state, the New Mexico Municipal League has concerns regarding the proposed rule’s implications for public safety employees—law enforcement officers, firefighters, and other emergency service personnel—and the potential for broader unintended consequences on overall public safety. While the rule includes an exemption for certain “emergency response operations,” this exemption is too narrowly defined to capture the full scope of police, fire, and EMS responsibilities. Public safety employees do not merely respond to emergency situations; they engage in continuous protection and emergency readiness. Many of these non- emergency acts require a consistent and visible presence outdoors regardless of environmental conditions. For example, law enforcement officers may be required to provide security and protection for extended outdoor events or respond to rapidly evolving situations. These functions do not neatly fit within the current definition of “emergency response” and would thus be likely constrained by the rule’s mandates for rest breaks and heat index thresholds, potentially compromising both officer readiness and public safety. Additionally, fire and law enforcement academies must prepare cadets for the extreme physical and mental conditions they will encounter in real-world emergencies. These training regimens intentionally simulate high-stress, heat-intensive environments to build resilience and readiness. Under the proposed rule, these realistic training scenarios would be curtailed or rendered noncompliant due to regulated work/rest cycles or heat exposure thresholds. This would ultimately reduce the preparedness of public safety professionals, and by extension, place the public at greater risk. We share your goal of protecting employees from heat-related risks, but this rule, as currently proposed, does not adequately reflect the critical and unpredictable nature of public safety professions. Without revisions, it may diminish operational readiness, disrupt essential services, and expose communities to avoidable risks. We encourage NMED to reevaluate the rule’s applicability to police, fire, and EMS personnel and to pursue a more flexible, operationally grounded approach. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Alison Nichols Director of Policy, New Mexico Municipal League | Alison Nichols Director of Policy, New Mexico Municipal League | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-62 | To Whom It May Concern: The Communications Workers of America (CWA) Local 7076 strongly supports the Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule proposed by the New Mexico Environment Department/NM OSHA to protect workers in the state from heat-related illnesses and death, with some modifications as noted in this letter. Heat-related illnesses and death are preventable. As the CWA Agency VP for the Department of Cultural Affairs (DCA), I am writing on behalf of the nearly 250 Union-represented workers at DCA to express our support and the importance of this rule. DCA employees include archaeologists, interpretive rangers, farm workers, and facilities maintenance workers who regularly work outdoors, as well as others who work in historic buildings with old, malfunctioning, or non-existent HVAC systems. In closing, with the requested modifications, this standard will provide essential, life-saving protections for workers across the state. We urge its swift adoption to prevent avoidable heat-related illnesses and loss of life, and to affirm New Mexico’s commitment to worker safety and health. Sincerely, Monica Meehan CWA Local 7076 Steward and Agency VP for DCA | Monica Meehan CWA Local 7076 Steward and Agency VP for DCA | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-63 | Unrealistic Downtime Requirements -Affects sectors like construction, landscaping, agriculture, food service kitchens -Disrupts productivity and time schedules Cost of Compliance is High For a small business with 10 outdoor workers, compliance is estimated to cost around $16,800 per year. This includes expenses for shaded structures, additional staffing, hydration supplies, training, and documentation. Administrative Overload Requires temperature monitoring, detailed recordkeeping, and written heat illness prevention plans. -For small businesses without dedicated HR or compliance departments, this adds to an outsized administrative burden. One-Size-Fits-All Approach Doesn’t Work New Mexico’s geography and industries are diverse. Applying the same thresholds and rules across all regions and job types fails to account for local conditions and jobsite realities. Short Implementation Timeline Businesses won’t have adequate time to adapt operations, budget for new costs Hiring & Workforce Pressure -More downtime per worker equates hiring more staff to meet the same output. Acclimating Challenges for Employers -Slows Onboarding and Productivity New hires, especially those in outdoor roles, must undergo a gradual ramp-up in physical activity over 7–14 days. This delays their ability to contribute fully, which is especially difficult during busy seasons. -Increased Supervisory Demands Employers are expected to closely monitor new or returning workers for signs of heat illness. This diverts experienced staff or supervisors from other duties, straining already limited resources. Helping workers adjust to heat makes sense—but the state’s mandates go too far, the rule needs to be feasible for all businesses to manage responsibly. Acclimating employees works best when it’s flexible and based on job-specific needs, not imposed timelines and paperwork. We want safe workplaces, but we also need practical policies that allow us to onboard and train new employees without crippling our operations. | JANICE WILLIAMS | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-64 | These comments are being submitted on behalf of the City of Las Cruces – Las Cruces Utilities. Las Cruces Utilities (LCU) agrees that workers should be protected from heat illness and injury. However, we approve of guidelines and mandatory training for employers and their staff and disagree that a “Rule” is necessary for ALL places of employment as identified in the Scope of the Rule. Additionally, according to osha.gov: “Under the General Duty Clause, Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are required to provide their employees with a place of employment that “is free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious harm to employees.” The courts have interpreted OSHA’s general duty clause to mean that an employer has a legal obligation to provide a workplace free of conditions or activities that either the employer or industry recognizes as hazardous and that cause, or are likely to cause, death or serious physical harm to employees when there is a feasible method to abate the hazard. This includes heat-related hazards that are likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.” Therefore, as it exists, employers must ensure steps to protect workers from heat exposure by employing measures such as providing cool drinking water, rest breaks, shade or cool-down areas, etc. Conclusively, there is no need for a new state level Rule and the associated redundancies. If the state must implement the new rule please consider, if places of employment can demonstrate that they already have a safety program that includes training and measures for ensuring heat safety they should be exempt from the Rule. Please consider making the Rule applicable to businesses in which there is significant record of neglect, complaints, or accidents for employees in heat conditions, rather than imposing on ALL places of employment. This rule is being drafted with one-size fits all approach and all businesses are not equal. Businesses like LCU and other local governments already do a diligent job to ensure the health and safety of ALL employees as it applies to heat hazards without there being a Rule. LCU currently implements Heat Stress Annual Training for all Utilities staff, which includes most components of the Rule aside from some specific requirements of the heat exposure assessments, acclimatization control measures and having an official Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Plan. LCU does not contest the implementation of guidelines for a Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Plan. Las Cruces Utilities has identified some of the components of the rule that could burden our business operations. Some of these burdens would lead to increased costs/unfunded mandates, potential delays in projects, and disruptions to work schedules. Examples of potential burdens and additional comments include: Work Delays, for the sake of conducting a non-sensible Heat Exposure Assessment for each employee during a Job Hazard Review every time the temperature reaches 80 degrees or more. LCU does not agree that 80 degrees and temperatures in the 80–90-degree Fahrenheit range warrant implementation of heat assessments nor some of the listed control measures like acclimatization and rest breaks; especially for workers accustomed to working outside throughout the year. Workers accustomed to working outside often employ controls at their own discretion anyway, such as extra fluids and shade or sitting in an air-conditioned vehicle to cool off when needed and when temperatures are extreme. Control measures, specifically acclimatization can be subjective and specific to the individual, some people handle heat better than others, some take longer and shorter periods to acclimate. LCU does not concur with 11.5.7.10 Part A. – Acclimatization, subparts B. and C. These parts could be a burden for field operations that need to be completed according to specific schedules to ensure essential services to our customers (Water, Gas, Wastewater, and Solid Waste) are provided. Potential employees should not be applying for a job that includes outdoor work if they don’t think they can handle working in the heat and make judgements of when it’s time to cool their bodies and employ caution and control measures for the sake of their health. It’s not the employer’s fault if the employees don’t understand their own limitations, there needs to be some personal responsibility for judgement and common sense in these conditions. LCU works with our employees and not against them to ensure their health and safety. Continued from previous bullet – Shouldn’t we provide a commonsense approach, educate our employees of heat hazards and expect that our employees and managers are looking after themselves and each other? Assess the heat index, wear sunscreen, take breaks as needed, hydrate, get in a work vehicle and cool off if needed, have shade available on the jobsite if needed, etc. Regular rest breaks according to the rest schedule. Once again this is subjective and should be according to the individual employee’s needs aside from standard OSHA break and lunchtime requirements. The Rest schedule is a useful guideline to consider; however, if an individual feels they are ok to continue working that is a personal choice and can vary amongst individuals. Further, being required to adhere to the rest schedule to ensure compliance could delay essential services from being delivered to our customers, which include but are not limited to – hospitals, schools, daycares, businesses, people of all ages and conditions – homes and workplaces, etc. Record Keeping. LCU disagrees with the acclimatization requirements for 11.5.7.13. Part A. due to reasons previously mentioned regarding acclimatization control measures in general. However, LCU has no problem keeping records of Heat Illness training and heat illness and related injuries. To note, the City of Las Cruces – Risk Management and Las Cruces Utilities-Safety Officer, have indicated there have been zero heat related accidents or illnesses reported over the past 10 years. LCU requests that NMED extend the deadline for comments at least another 30-days to allow other City stakeholders and City Departments to review and comment. LCU also requests that NMED attempts to improve methods of advertisement of the Rule and comment period to reach stakeholders that have no idea that the rulemaking process for this is taking place. Contractors that work for the City of Las Cruces indicated they were unaware of the existence of the proposed Rule or comment period in general as of 5/30/2025. The City of Las Cruces – Risk Management Program was not aware of the proposed rule until the final week of the comment period when LCU provided notice. The Director of LCU had not received notice until 5/23/2025. The LCU Deputy Director Regulatory Compliance and Safety Officer, were unare until last Friday, 5/23/2025, when the LCU Director provided notice. It would be a good idea to send notice to organizations such as the NM Municipal League prior to the opening of ANY proposed Rule and associated comment period, to ensure municipalities with potential to be impacted are informed and can participate in the rulemaking and providing comments. It appears NMED is rushing this rule through with limited notice and opportunity for public participation in the rulemaking process. In response to 11.5.7.2 Scope – please provide a definition of “emergency response operations” and allow for public/stakeholder input. Does this include utility repairs and essential operations and maintenance to ensure continued service to our customers? If the Rule is going to require places of employment’s adherence to the acclimatization and rest schedule requirements, NMED should further consider this leading to unfunded mandate burdens on utility service providers which will lead to increased rates and further dissatisfaction of customers who are already dealing with exponential inflation increases. Utility companies are currently facing numerous existing and emerging regulations that are resulting in increased rates for New Mexico consumers. Please provide clarity on 11.5.7.10 Part D. “Cooling Areas include shade and artificial cooling such as mechanical ventilation system such as air conditioning or fans”; does this imply shade and artificial cooling are required in the same cooling area? It seems it should be corrected to read – “Cooling areas include shade and/or artificial cooling dependent on the work location (indoor or outdoor)”. Please provide clarity on 11.5.7.10 Part D. h., “…demonstrate that these measures are at least as effective” – How will the employer “demonstrate,” the measures are effective? Appendix I, Table 1: Please define “Double-layer Woven Clothing”. Appendix I, Table 3: Please define “Light Work”, “Moderate Work”, “Heavy Work”. | City of Las Cruces – Las Cruces Utilities | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-65 | Nursery, greenhouse and landscape businesses in New Mexico appreciate their employees, and take care of them. To work in New Mexico is to work in challenging temperatures, and most often, owners and managers are working alongside our workers in the same conditions. Many employees are attracted to our businesses because they enjoy working with plants, and working outdoors. The New Mexico Chapter of the Colorado Nursery and Greenhouse Association opposes this new rule as written. This rule is overly burdensome on business, creating new costs in an already difficult economy: The bill legislates the employer-employee relationship to the literal degree and does not consider New Mexico’s climate or how it will impact employers of all sizes and industries. Temperatures vary throughout the day depending on the location of an employer – landscapers move around frequently and are in and out of shade. This makes the rule nearly impossible to comply with. These costs will inherently be passed onto consumers and workers, only worsening New Mexico’s cost-of-living crisis. The rule is preemptive and duplicative of federal law. While NM is a “State Rule” state, the current state rules do not include heat protection. NM employers currently already follow OSHA heat rules which are protective of employees. The rule will halt infrastructure and other projects: The rule as written would halt much of road, infrastructure and building projects depending on the weather, which employers have no control over. If employers have to cease work or add processes, it will significantly impact how projects are completed. The rule is a solution in search of a problem: Employers are only as successful as their employees, and it is very much the priority of the business community to keep them safe and healthy. This rule creates an unnecessary framework and overly complex set of requirements that will set up both public and private employers to fail. If there is an issue at hand, allow employers to respond rather than create additional opportunities for lawsuits. | NM Chapter – CO Nursery and Greenhouse Assn | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-66 | Comments: New Mexico Environment Department Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule 11.5.7.7 A. “Acclimatization” means temporary adaptation of the body to work in the heat that occurs gradually when a person is exposed to it. Acclimatization peaks in most people within four to fourteen days of regular work for at least two hours per day in the heat. Comment: what is the research that demonstrates that? 11.5.7.8 A. How employers will conduct a heat assessment to identify control measures. Comment: the standard needs to specify how to measure and record this 11.5.7.9 A. Heat index of the work environment: Heat index can be calculated by measuring the temperature and relative humidity and applying those numbers to Index Table 2. Comment: heat index is easily available on various phone apps C. Intensity of the work performed (see Index Table 3). Comment: table 3 is not helpful…does not specify how to constitute light medium heavy intensity of work, is not guidance for workers 11.5.7.10 Ab. A work schedule must be no more than 20% of the usual duration of work in the heat on day one and a no more than 20% increase on each additional day. Comment: define usual duration of work for ag settings Ac. For workers returning from an absence of seven or more days, the work schedule must be no more than 50% of the usual duration of work in the heat on day one, 60% on day two, 80% on day three, and 100% thereafter. Comment: state needs to provide how an employer is supposed to do this Bd. Employers must provide sufficient pauses in continuous work to allow workers to drink fluids. Comment: policy should be for workers to self-monitor and take breaks as needed Comments: New Mexico Environment Department Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule 11.5.7.7 A. “Acclimatization” means temporary adaptation of the body to work in the heat that occurs gradually when a person is exposed to it. Acclimatization peaks in most people within four to fourteen days of regular work for at least two hours per day in the heat. Comment: what is the research that demonstrates that? 11.5.7.8 A. How employers will conduct a heat assessment to identify control measures. Comment: the standard needs to specify how to measure and record this 11.5.7.9 A. Heat index of the work environment: Heat index can be calculated by measuring the temperature and relative humidity and applying those numbers to Index Table 2. Comment: heat index is easily available on various phone apps C. Intensity of the work performed (see Index Table 3). Comment: table 3 is not helpful…does not specify how to constitute light medium heavy intensity of work, is not guidance for workers 11.5.7.10 Ab. A work schedule must be no more than 20% of the usual duration of work in the heat on day one and a no more than 20% increase on each additional day. Comment: define usual duration of work for ag settings Ac. For workers returning from an absence of seven or more days, the work schedule must be no more than 50% of the usual duration of work in the heat on day one, 60% on day two, 80% on day three, and 100% thereafter. Comment: state needs to provide how an employer is supposed to do this Bd. Employers must provide sufficient pauses in continuous work to allow workers to drink fluids. Comment: policy should be for workers to self-monitor and take breaks as needed | Dairy Producers of New Mexico | 5/30/25 |
| II-30-67 | Our family, friends and community members need protection from working in dangerous heat situations! Do what ever you can to keep them safe while working for us! Thank you for your consideration. Kelly McMahan | Kelly McMahan | 5/30/25 |
Additional Resources
- OSHA Heat Exposure Guidance
- National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: Heat Stress and Workers
- 2025 Heat Rule fact Sheet Employers
- ¿Cómo afectará esta norma a los empleados de Nuevo México?
- 2025 Heat Rule fact Sheet Employees
- ¿Cómo afectará esta norma a los empleadores que operan en Nuevo México?
Outreach Events
- NM Proposed Heat Rule Outreach Event: May 20
- Evento de divulgación para la regla propuesto de calor en Nuevo México: 20 de mayo
- NM Proposed Heat Rule Outreach Event: May 21
- Evento de divulgación para la regla propuesto de calor en Nuevo México: 21 de mayo
- NM Proposed Heat Rule Outreach Event: May 22
- Evento de divulgación para la regla propuesto de calor en Nuevo México: 22 de mayo