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