Airlines for America (“A4A”) submits these comments in response to the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry’s request for comment on the Notice of Intended Regulatory Action. The Department has expressly invited input on alternative approaches to the regulatory proposal, and these comments are directed principally to that request. 

A4A is the trade association for the leading U.S. airlines. We advocate on behalf of our members to shape crucial policies and measures that promote safety, security, and a healthy U.S. airline industry.

A4A and its member carriers strongly support efforts to protect workers from heat-related illness and injury and recognize the importance of effective heat mitigation programs. Airlines already operate comprehensive heat illness prevention programs that include employee training, hydration and recovery practices, weather monitoring, emergency response procedures, and risk-based operational controls specifically tailored to the unique airport environment. These programs are implemented within a highly regulated and comprehensive framework overseen by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), OSHA, airport authorities, and airline safety management systems (SMS), which should not be obstructed by requirements that are one-size-fits-all and do not consider the unique aviation environment and create a patchwork of requirements that detract from aviation safety. As the Department and Virginia Safety and Health Codes Board consider the development of heat illness regulations and alternative approaches that would achieve the General Assembly’s protective objectives, A4A asks for the adoption of an alternative compliance provision. Under such a provision, an employer with a documented written heat illness prevention program that provides protection equal to or greater than the standard could comply through that program. The Department would retain full inspection and enforcement authority. This approach preserves proven, industry-specific programs without reducing employee protection.

Heat exposure varies significantly across industries and work environments. In aviation and many other transportation sectors, employee exposure is often intermittent rather than continuous, with workers routinely transitioning between indoor and outdoor environments during a shift. As a result, heat risk cannot be accurately assessed using a single temperature threshold alone. Any regulatory framework should incorporate a risk-based approach that considers factors such as humidity, workload, duration of exposure, acclimatization, access to recovery opportunities, and actual worksite conditions. Performance-based standards that focus on outcomes rather than prescriptive requirements will allow employers to tailor protections to operational realities while maintaining safe, efficient, and reliable operations.

Section 40.1-44.2 requires that the regulations include an exemption for heat exposure lasting no longer than 15 consecutive minutes. This exemption is particularly consequential for aviation, where ground operations involve short, repeated periods of outdoor work interspersed with time in jet bridges, baggage handling areas, vehicles, and other enclosed or conditioned spaces. A4A respectfully suggests that the regulations address how the 15-minute period is to be measured in such environments, considering factors such as whether the period is measured continuously or cumulatively across a shift, whether a return to a conditioned space restarts the measurement, and how partially enclosed spaces are classified.

The statute reaches both indoor and outdoor work, and aviation’s indoor exposures occur largely in leased space where airlines do not control ventilation or cooling. Because climate-controlled environments are required only where practicable, A4A asks that the Department account for those constraints.

Finally, A4A encourages the Department and Board to ensure that any final standard accounts for the requirements of safety-sensitive and time-critical operations, where mandated work interruptions could conflict with operational safety obligations.

A4A appreciates the opportunity to provide the airline industry’s perspective at this early stage of the rulemaking process. We welcome further collaboration with the Board and the Department as the proposed standards are developed.