Occupational Safety and Health Administration has extended the deadline to file comments on the proposed rule to address heat hazards in both indoor and outdoor work environments. Published on August 30, 2024, the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) outlines the requirements for employers when the heat index reaches 80°F or higher. Originally due on December 30, 2024, OSHA will now accept comments through January 14, 2025.
The rule applies to all indoor workplaces where the heat index hits the “initial heat trigger” of 80°F, with an exception for workplaces where employee exposure at or above this threshold occurs for short durations, specifically 15 minutes or less per hour. The proposed standards mandate that all covered employers with more than 10 employees develop a heat injury and illness prevention plan (HIIPP). This plan should detail the policies and procedures necessary to comply with the standard at the worksite.
Employers are required to identify areas in the workplace where employees might be exposed to temperatures at or above the initial heat trigger and to monitor the heat index or wet bulb globe temperature as close as possible to those areas. Upon reaching the initial heat trigger, employers must implement control measures, including providing cool drinking water, break areas with air conditioning or increased air movement, acclimatization for new or returning employees after an absence of more than 14 days, and paid rest breaks if necessary. Additional controls must be implemented for each work area when the initial heat trigger is reached, such as increased air movement (e.g., fans), air conditioning, or other measures to reduce exposure to radiant heat sources.
The proposed standard also includes a “high heat trigger” of a heat index of 90°F or higher, under which additional control measures would be required. These measures include mandatory rest breaks, continual observation by supervisors or the use of a buddy system for symptoms of heat-related illness, and warning signs and an alert system to inform employees of the high heat danger. Sources in Washington, D.C. expect the incoming Trump administration to make reviewing the OSHA heat proposed rule one of their top OSHA regulatory priorities and could take action to slow or stop the final rulemaking.
Corporate Transparency Act Blocked Nationwide
A federal court in Texas has blocked the enforcement of the beneficial ownership reporting requirements under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). Judge Amos L. Mazzant III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a nationwide preliminary injunction on December 3, 2024, questioning its constitutionality and its impact on small businesses. The law, passed by Congress in 2020, requires companies with $5 million or less in revenue and twenty or fewer employees to file the reports with the Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).
In the court’s ruling, Judge Mazzant found that the required reporting of beneficial ownership information (BOI) with FinCEN was likely unconstitutional and that its implementation would irreparably harm reporting companies if they were forced to comply. “The fact that a company is a company does not knight Congress with some supreme power to regulate them in all aspects—especially though the CTA, which does not facially regulate commerce,” Judge Mazzant said in the opinion.
The CTA, effective since January 1, 2024, requires most domestic entities formed or registered to do business in the United States, including corporations and limited liability companies to submit ownership information to the government. Under the CTA the deadline to file these BOI reports for most entities is January 1, 2025. In the case, Texas Top Cop Shop v Garland et al., the court enjoined the CTA nationwide allowing for a nationwide injunction, finding that “[existing] reporting companies need not comply with the CTA’s January 1, 2025, BOI reporting deadline.”
DOL Appeals Overtime Ruling
The Department of Labor has officially appealed the decision by a federal court in Texas blocking the recently effective overtime rule. On November 15, 2025, U.S. District Judge Sean Jordan for the Eastern District of Texas vacated the rule nationwide, which increased the salary threshold for full-time white-collar exemptions to overtime requirements as well as increased the total annual compensation requirement for “highly compensated employees” (HCE). On November 26, 2024, DOL filed a notice of appeal with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the court which recently upheld the DOL’s salary basis test when determining overtime eligibility.
The rule, titled “Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales, and Computer Employees,” which became effective on July 1, 2024, increased the standard salary level threshold for white-collar exemptions to overtime requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to $43,888 per year while the annual compensation threshold for highly compensated employees (HCE) increased to $132,964. Starting January 1, 2025, the standard salary-level threshold was set to further increase to $58,656 per year, and the HCE threshold will rise to $151,164. The court’s decision to vacate the rule immediately returns the salary level threshold amount for EAP employees to $684 per week ($35,568 annually) and the annual compensation threshold for HCEs to $107,432 annually, first established by Trump in 2019.
SCOTUS to Hear NEPA Case
The United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on December 10, 2024, in a case that could impact significantly impact the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and limit the scope of environmental reviews. The challenge in the case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, asks SCOTUS whether NEPA “requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority.”
Under NEPA, federal agencies are required to prepare a “detailed statement” for major actions analyzing the “reasonably foreseeable environmental effects” of the proposed activity including direct effects; indirect effects that occur later in time or further away; and cumulative effects of the action when added to the effects of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions.
In Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, the Surface Transportation Board prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a proposed rail line in Utah. However, environmental organizations and officials in Eagle County, Colorado sued arguing that the EIS should have gone further to study the effects of extracting and producing the main cargo that the rail line would carry, crude oil, even though the Surface Transportation Board does not regulate oil production. The Seven County Infrastructure Coalition argues that NEPA does not require an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority. The D.C. Circuit Court agreed with the challengers holding that “[t]he Board … cannot avoid its responsibility under NEPA to identify and describe the environmental effects of increased oil drilling and refining on the ground that it lacks authority to prevent, control, or mitigate those developments.” While SCOTUS has not directly addressed NEPA since 2004, the environmental law has been under judicial review lately. Just recently, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling rejecting the White House’s power to issue NEPA rules holding that the White House Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) lacks the statuary authority to issue rules under NEPA. The D.C. Circuit opinion held that the “CEQ regulations, which purport to govern how all federal agencies must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, are ultra vires,” or beyond the agency’s legal authority, and unenforceable.