As millions around the country swelter through the first big heat wave of summer, business groups are urging the Trump administration to rescind a Biden-era worker heat protection law that they argue is too broad.

The Small Business Administration and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are among the critics of the proposed rule, arguing that the measure introduced by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration last year is burdensome to entrepreneurs because of its “one-size-fits-all approach.”

Their arguments arrived this past week as OSHA enters the second week of its two-week public hearing to determine the standard for federal heat protections, or if there should be any such rule. After all, the Trump administration does not have to implement the Biden-era rule, which has faced criticism from many Republican lawmakers, even as 2024 went into the books as the hottest year on record.

The proposed rule would require employers to offer paid breaks, as needed, once the mercury reaches 80 degrees Fahrenheit. When the temperature exceeds 90 degrees Fahrenheit, employers must offer a 15-minute paid break to workers every two hours. The rule would also require companies to offer breaks in either air conditioned settings or, when outdoors, in shaded areas, directing companies to create structures that offer shade.

But business groups argue that the proposed rule fails to account for industry needs, individual workers’ heat tolerance, as well as regional and geographic temperature variations. The Chamber of Commerce earlier this year said that the proposed rule “would result in OSHA micromanaging workplaces.”

“Consider airline baggage handlers and the impact mandatory 15-minute breaks would have on moving passenger luggage in terminals or loading bags onto connecting flights or loading cargo onto planes with tight schedules,” Marc Freedman, vice president of workplace policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said in his testimony. “Furthermore, employees who are not experiencing symptoms may want to continue with their work to complete their tasks, rather than stop for an arbitrary, required break.”

Yes, there is a difference between working outside in Arizona’s dry heat compared to working in Florida humidity. But anyone who has had the misfortune of experiencing a heat-related illness, like heat exhaustion or heat stroke, may be familiar with how quickly symptoms can sneak up, often unexpectedly.

The SBA, meanwhile, says that the heat trigger thresholds for breaks are too low, arguing that some companies are located in parts of the country that see temperatures above 80 degrees for weeks on end. Rather than basing its rules solely on outdoor temperatures, the SBA suggests that OSHA should instead create a new standard that factors in employee health.

While OSHA estimates that compliance with the rule would cost about $8.2 billion per year, the SBA claims the costs would be even higher.

The SBA’s Office of Advocacy “is concerned that the proposed rule is inflexible, overly prescriptive, and fails to account for sector-specific and regional differences,” the SBA’s deputy chief counsel, Chip Bishop III and assistant chief counsel, Bruce Lundegren, wrote in their testimony. “Advocacy recommends that OSHA withdraw the proposed rule.”