Funding Deadline Approaches as CR Fails

House Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-LA) attempt to keep the federal government funded past September 30 failed on Wednesday by a vote of 220-202. The Continuing Resolution (CR) would have funded federal government operations through March 28 of next year and included a rider provision requiring proof of citizenship for those registering to vote in the U.S. The failed vote was not unexpected as nearly every Democrat and several Republicans were openly opposed to the measure prior to it being brought up for consideration.

So what’s next? The ultimate outcome will be a “clean” CR with a duration of about three months that will keep the lights on until the week of December 16. This measure, which will come together and be passed late next week, will allow for a post-election Lame Duck session of Congress when a more comprehensive Fiscal Year 2025 budget deal will be under consideration. What will not happen is a federal government shutdown. Swing district Republican from New York Rep. Mike Lawler had this to say after Wednesday’s vote–“We’re not shutting the government down.” Likewise, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX)—a far Right conservative who has long agitated for a government shutdown said “I’d be happy to do that (shut the government), but you have to have the votes. I’ve got a pretty good inkling of what’s going to happen and we’re going to end up with a spending bill into December.”

A Closer Look: OSHA’s Proposed Heat Rule and Its Impact on Employers

This week, ABMA staff did a bit of a deeper dive into the Occupational Health and Safety Administration’s (OSHA) proposed heat illness and injury prevention rulemaking. As we know, OSHA published the proposed rule in the Federal Register the Friday heading into Labor Day weekend. That kicks off a 120-day public comment period which ends on December 30.  

In short, OSHA’s proposed protections would apply to any worker who is reasonably expected to be exposed to a heat index above 80 degrees. Those who work in an indoor environment, who are sedentary, work where air conditioning consistently keeps the temperature below 80 degrees, or who are exposed to a heat index above 80 degrees for 15 minutes or less in any 60-minute period are not covered.

The proposed rule would require employers to implement a worksite heat injury and illness prevention plan or HIIPP, including developing procedures for responding to an employee experiencing a heat emergency or showing signs of heat illness. Employers would also have extensive record-keeping requirements, including monitoring indoor temperatures, tracking heat-related incidents and conduct regular audits.

Under the proposal, when the heat index reaches 80 degrees, an employer would be required to take numerous actions, including:

• Providing one quart of cool drinking water per hour
• Provide paid rest breaks if needed
• For outdoor worksites, create shaded spaces or an air-conditioned enclosure
• For indoor worksites, break areas with air conditioning or increased air movement and de-humidification.
• Implement acclimatization plan for workers for the first week. OSHA’s data show that most of the heat-related incidents occur within two weeks of an employee starting a job.

When the heat index reaches 90 degrees, employers must take additional actions, including:

• Provide paid rest breaks for a minimum of 15 minutes every 2 hours
• Set up observation systems to monitor employees for heat illness
• Contact workers every 2 hours who work alone at a worksite
• Provide a heat hazard alert communication with employees advising workers to drink water, take breaks and provide lifesaving emergency procedures

Industries that face higher heat risks–construction, landscaping, agriculture–and that employ “vulnerable” workers (seasonal, immigrant) may have heightened compliance and training requirements.

One quirk in the occupational safety and health regulatory regime is that there are several (22 states that cover private and public employers) that set and enforce their own occupational safety and health standards. In those states not covered by federal OSHA, the so-called State Plan states would have to implement a heat standard that is at least as stringent as the eventual federal standards.

ABMA intends to submit comments on this proposal. In terms of its future, finalization of this rule is dependent on the outcome of the November election. A Harris Administration would be expected to pursue final adoption, although the proposal would almost certainly face litigation. A Trump Administration would likely walk away from this action.

Stay Informed: ABMA is closely monitoring this proposed rule. Visit our Live Updates: Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Rule page for ongoing updates, key deadlines, and additional employer resources.

Timber Industry Eyes Impact of New Rule

This week, several national forestry and forest products groups are filing comments on a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that the U.S. Forest Service prepared to receive input on how to proceed with its Mature and Old Growth Forests initiative. This plan was released late last year and would require all 128 national forest land management plans to be revised to preserve current old growth and those mature trees that may become “old growth.”

The proposal has raised numerous, serious concerns among ABMA’s upstream supply chain partners. For instance, the proposal has no clear definition of a “mature tree” and yet would make any timber classified as “mature” off limits for any forest management plans. The measure also takes a “one size fits all” approach to mature and old growth stands, not recognizing regional differences in timber type and typical age class. It would also require special treatment for stands that are adjacent to mature or old growth trees. The bottom line is that consumers of wood off the national forest system are concerned that this action is going to result in considerable acreage of standing timber being taken out of production. The DEIS proposes 4 different options, the first of which is “no action,” meaning status quo. Option 1 is what most commenters in the forest product sector are recommending. Again, this is an upstream issue for the LBM sector and we will follow developments on the rulemaking closely.