AN ACT relating to heat injury prevention.
SB49 would create a new heat injury prevention framework in Kentucky law for employers in certain outdoor and physically demanding industries. It defines key terms such as heat illness, heat index, heat wave, acclimatization, shade, and the covered business categories, including agricultural business entities, construction business services, landscaping services, and transportation and delivery services.
The bill requires covered employers to maintain a written heat illness prevention plan at the worksite and make it available to employees and the labor commissioner. When the heat index exceeds 90 degrees Fahrenheit, the plan must provide shaded recovery areas, free potable cold water, close supervision during heat waves, and additional supervision for newly assigned workers in high-heat areas. When the heat index exceeds 100 degrees Fahrenheit, the bill adds requirements for communication, monitoring, emergency authorization, and preshift meetings focused on hydration and rest. The plan must also include emergency response procedures, multilingual written materials, and training for supervisors and employees on heat risks, acclimatization, reporting symptoms, and contacting emergency services.
SB49 would add a new set of employer duties to KRS Chapter 338 and authorize the commissioner to adopt implementing regulations. It would apply statewide to employers and worksites in the covered sectors and would make violations subject to penalties under KRS 338.991(2). The bill would therefore expand workplace safety obligations in Kentucky, especially for employers with workers exposed to high temperatures and outdoor heat conditions.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be a worker-safety and public-health proposal aimed at preventing heat-related injuries and deaths. Its detailed operational requirements suggest a regulatory approach rather than a symbolic one.
The likely points of contention are the compliance burden on employers, especially in agriculture, construction, landscaping, and delivery operations, versus the need for stronger protections for workers exposed to extreme heat. Employers may object to the costs of shade structures, water provision, supervision, training, multilingual plans, and monitoring systems, while worker advocates would likely support those requirements as necessary safeguards. Another possible issue is the bill’s broad application to multiple industries and the use of administrative regulations to fill in implementation details.