Heat rules in Texas: federal OSHA jurisdiction and the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act
What OSHA's pages say about who enforces workplace safety in Texas, and what House Bill 2127 (2023), the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act, says about city and county rules on employment terms such as breaks.
Checked against the sources at the bottom of this page on October 9, 2026. Rules, fees and pay change: the source has the last word.
This page reports what the official source says. It is not legal advice: ask the office named here. It restates the enrolled text of House Bill 2127 of the 88th Legislature, the Texas Legislature Online history of that bill and two OSHA pages, as read on October 9, 2026. The Act does not use the word heat, and no source read for this page says it removes any specific local heat rule. Court decisions about the Act are not covered here. The comparison of every place is on the heat rules overview.
Who sets workplace safety rules in Texas
OSHA's State Plans page says Texas is not an OSHA-approved State Plan and is under federal OSHA jurisdiction, which covers most private sector workers in the state. State and local government workers are not covered by federal OSHA. OSHA's page on heat standards in specific states lists California, Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington, and does not list Texas. The federal proposal is on the United States page.
What House Bill 2127 says
The bill's caption describes state preemption and the effect of certain state or federal law on municipal and county regulation. Section 1 names it the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act. Section 2 gives the legislature's findings: that the state has historically been the exclusive regulator of many aspects of commerce and trade, and that differing local regulations led to a patchwork. The history page shows the bill signed by the Governor on June 14, 2023 and effective on September 1, 2023.
| Part of the Act | What it says |
|---|---|
| New Labor Code section 1.005(a) | Unless expressly authorized by another statute, a municipality or county may not adopt, enforce or maintain an ordinance, order or rule regulating conduct in a field of regulation occupied by a provision of the Labor Code. A rule that violates this is void, unenforceable and inconsistent with the code |
| Labor Code section 1.005(b) | A field occupied by the code includes employment leave, hiring practices, breaks, employment benefits, scheduling practices, and any other terms of employment that exceed or conflict with federal or state law for employers other than a municipality or county |
| Civil Practice and Remedies Code chapter 102A | A person injured by a local rule adopted in violation of the listed sections, or a trade association representing that person, has standing to sue the municipality or county, with declaratory and injunctive relief and costs and reasonable attorney's fees |
| Other codes | Similar preemption sections are added for the Agriculture, Business and Commerce, Finance, Insurance, Natural Resources, Occupations and Property Codes, and for the Local Government Code |
What the Act text leaves open
Section 4 of the Act lists things it does not affect or may not be construed to prohibit, including a county or municipality adopting a policy related to its employees. The Act does not list water, shade, cooling or rest for heat by name. The only break-related word in section 1.005(b) is "breaks" within the list of fields. Whether a particular local rule falls inside the listed fields is a question the pages read do not answer.