August ’24 at-a-glance … regulations

New rules re: prevention of heat-related illnesses and injuries online and under consideration 

Members are advised to review new California and proposed federal regulations aimed at reducing heat-related illnesses and injuries: 

• California’s Heat Illness Prevention in Indoor Places of Employment rule went into effect July 23. The law applies to indoor environments when the temperature reaches 82° F. California already has regulations addressing those working in outdoor heat that are summarized in the linked document above. 

• Comments on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings proposed rule will be accepted once the document appears in the Federal Register. The proposed rule includes mandatory work breaks, access to cold water and designated cool down stations when the indoor or outdoor heat index reaches 80° F.  

Minnesota joins list of states requiring pay transparency in job postings 

Effective Jan. 1, 2025, employers with 30 or more employees in Minnesota will be required to include a pay range or fixed pay rate in all job posting. The new requirement applies to postings by the employer and through third parties. Similar laws already exist in California, Colorado, Connecticut and New York, and are being considered in South Carolina and Massachusetts to reduce gender and racial wage gaps.  

NAFEM opposes changes to Boiler Pressure Vessel Code 

Following consultation with members, NAFEM joined the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) in opposing changes to the Boiler Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC) proposed by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). Proposed changes apply to a variety of HVAC and refrigeration products, including automatic commercial ice makers, large commercial refrigeration equipment systems and other types of equipment with a closed container – pressure vessel – used to hold liquids at pressures higher or lower than ambient pressure. During an August 15 public meeting, NAFEM and AHRI pointed to multiple concerns with ASME’s proposal, including no technical justification, no safety benefit, creation of regulatory confusion, enforcement issues and increased compliance costs.