As another season of elevated temperatures is upon the roofing industry, workplace heat illness and injury prevention in the U.S. is entering a transitional phase. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has not yet finalized a comprehensive heat standard, a process that began in October 2021, but OSHA has reaffirmed its enforcement priority for heat by issuing a revised National Emphasis Program for outdoor and indoor heat-related hazards, which became effective April 10.
The revised directive continues targeted inspections, outreach and citation guidance across high-risk industries, underscoring the absence of a final rule does not mean there is no regulatory pressure. In practical terms, employers are operating in an environment where federal enforcement continues while a more detailed, durable regulatory framework is increasingly being built at the state level.
That state-level development is now the more consequential story. Some states, such as California, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon and Washington already have standards in place. And Colorado, New Mexico and Virginia illustrate three distinct models of heat governance in their proposed standards: incremental legislative structuring, aggressive rulemaking and delegated future regulation.
Considered together, these approaches reveal workplace heat policy is no longer developing along a single national track. Instead, it is emerging through a patchwork of state experiments that differ in timing, legal form and regulatory aim, all targeting the void left by the absence of a federal standard. This fragmentation is rapidly becoming the central challenge of heat-risk management.
Colorado
Colorado’s 2026 legislation demonstrates a comparatively phased approach. House Bill HB26-1272, “Extreme Temperatures Worker Protections,” directs the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment to begin collecting data regarding temperature-related injuries, illnesses and emergencies by Jan. 1, 2027; to develop a model temperature-related injury and illness prevention plan by Jan. 1, 2028; and to require covered employers to develop and submit their own plans by Sept. 1, 2028. The law also contemplates training standards related to temperature safety.
This is a significant development, and its structure is notable. Rather than imposing an immediate, highly prescriptive heat code, Colorado has chosen to build an administrative framework first—one that combines surveillance, model planning and employer preparation before broader implementation. The result is a regulatory design that favors institutional capacity-building and evidentiary support while signaling heat exposure has become a matter of formal labor regulation rather than discretionary safety practice. If the bill is passed in its current form, it could take effect Aug. 12.
Heat-illness prevention should be understood as a developing field of governance rather than a seasonal compliance issue
New Mexico
New Mexico, by contrast, is pursuing a far more immediate and prescriptiveroute. The New Mexico Environment Department, through its Occupational Health and Safety Bureau, has advanced a revised version of its proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention rule for indoor and outdoor workplaces.
The proposal reflects full operational standards. Employers would be required to:
- Maintain a written heat-illness prevention plan
- Conduct heat-exposure assessments when the heat index reaches 80 F
- Implement controls such as acclimatization measures, fluids, rest breaks, cooling areas, emergency medical procedures, training, record keeping and reporting obligations
Although the federal rulemaking process remains unresolved, New Mexico’s proposal demonstrates a willingness to move ahead with state-specific obligations that translate recognized heat hazards into concrete employer responsibilities.
Virginia
Virginia’s approach occupies middle ground, but it is no less consequential. “Protection of employees; standards for heat illness prevention; Safety and Health Codes Board” (HB 1092/SB 288) was signed by the governor April 13 and directs the Safety and Health Codes Board to adopt regulations designed to protect employees from heat illness in indoor and outdoor work by May 1, 2028. The legislation requires future regulations to address core prevention elements, including water, rest periods, acclimatization, training, emergency response procedures and, when practicable, access to shade or climate-controlled environments but leaves the precise thresholds and technical details to subsequent rulemaking.
Virginia has chosen not to codify a comprehensive heat standard immediately, but it also has not deferred the issue indefinitely. Instead, it has converted heat protection into a statutory mandate for future regulation backed by a legislative deadline and an advisory process. That choice is especially important because this legislation revives the adoption of a heat-illness rule that the commonwealth considered but did not complete in 2021.
What’s ahead
These three jurisdictions demonstrate the future of heat regulation may be shaped less by a single federal rule than by cumulative state action. The revised federal National Emphasis Program remains important because it preserves inspection pressure and keeps heat hazards within OSHA’s active enforcement framework. But an emphasis program, by design, is not the same as a binding federal standard. It directs agency attention and structures inspections, but it does not create the kind of uniform, detailed compliance code many employers have anticipated.
States, by contrast, are filling that space in different ways. Some are building reporting and planning systems; others are drafting standards with defined triggers and controls; and others are legislating toward enforceable rules in the future. The practical consequence is a compliance environment in which employers operating across multiple jurisdictions cannot rely on a single national baseline to organize heat-safety obligations.
For that reason, heat-illness prevention should be understood as a developing field of governance rather than a seasonal compliance issue. The legal and operational questions are expanding: what temperature triggers protections, what controls must be provided, how acclimatization should be documented and when a state should move from guidance to enforceable obligation. Those questions are increasingly being addressed in legislatures, state agencies and administrative hearings before they are settled by federal regulation.
NRCA remains engaged in heat rulemaking developments and continues to advocate for an effective federal standard that is reasonable, workable and brings consistency to the heat regulatory landscape.
CHERYL AMBROSE, CHST, OHST
A safety consultant from Reedville, Va.
NRCA
