Post-hearing Brief to the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration Regarding Heat in the Workplace

The brief addresses the costs and benefits of heat prevention; access to rest areas and cool drinking water; heat safety training and translation; air conditioning for school bus drivers in Puerto Rico; evidence of heat exposure in Puerto Rico’s schools; and a proposed exemption for sedentary indoor work. It also includes an academic article on extreme heat in Puerto Rico’s schools and an investigative report on heat and school infrastructure. A teacher survey dataset is identified as Appendix A, but the brief states that its Excel file was uploaded separately. (pp. 2–12; Appendices A–C)

The authors argue that preventing heat illness would protect workers while reducing lost productivity, workplace injuries, and healthcare costs. They emphasize that heat exposure affects indoor as well as outdoor work. They also point to disproportionate risks for Latino workers in agriculture and construction, industries in which many employees work in hot conditions. (pp. 1–4)

The brief urges OSHA to require drinking water kept at 60°F or cooler and rest and hydration areas located within 0.25 miles of work zones. The authors argue that specific requirements would make these protections easier to use, implement, and enforce than terms such as “suitably cool.” The proposed water temperature concerns what employers must make available; it would not require employees to drink water at that temperature. (pp. 4–6)

The authors ask OSHA to give employers detailed guidance on recognizing heat illness and providing breaks. They also recommend making planning and training materials available in the predominant languages spoken by covered workers, so employees can understand the protections and act on them. (pp. 6–7)

The brief analyzes a 2023 self-reported survey of 2,862 teachers from approximately 580 schools. Its analysis found that at least one teacher at approximately 171 schools reported seeing a student or staff member taken to a hospital, while at least one teacher at approximately 168 schools reported classroom temperatures of 100°F or higher. The authors also discuss a separate assessment of school infrastructure that found widespread problems with air conditioning units. These sources inform the brief’s argument that teachers need workplace heat protections. (pp. 8–9)

The authors question an assumption in OSHA’s preliminary analysis that 50% of Puerto Rico’s school bus drivers work in sufficiently cooled vehicles. They state that they could not identify comprehensive data for Puerto Rico and instead examine school bus air conditioning figures from states with comparable heat. On that basis, they argue that OSHA should reconsider its assumption; the brief does not establish the actual percentage of air-conditioned school buses in Puerto Rico. (pp. 7–8)

The brief recommends limiting the proposed exemption for sedentary indoor work to activities performed below 86°F. It also asks OSHA to clarify that teaching does not qualify for that exemption. The authors cite occupational classifications that generally describe teaching as “light” work and argue that teachers’ activities and exposure to hot classrooms warrant protection under the rule. (pp. 10–12)

The brief may be useful to worker advocates, educators and teachers’ unions, occupational health researchers, policymakers, and attorneys examining protections against workplace heat. Its recommendations and supporting sources are particularly relevant to questions about indoor heat, multilingual training, and conditions in Puerto Rico’s schools.