Government Affairs Brief

On behalf of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (“AFPM”), American Petroleum Institute (“API”), American Chemistry Council (“ACC”), and International Liquid Terminals Association (“ILTA”), we are pleased to submit these comments on OSHA’s proposal to modify the fall protection requirements in the Walking-Working Surfaces standard that apply to fixed ladders that extend more than 24 feet above a lower level. 91 Fed. Reg. 17,165 (Apr. 6, 2026) (“the NPRM”).

The American Petroleum Institute (API), the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and the International Liquid Terminals Association (ILTA) (collectively, “the  Associations”) respectfully submit these comments in response to EPA’s Advance Notice of  Proposed Rulemaking seeking to reconsider key provisions of the 2024 CWA Hazardous  Substances Facility Response Plan (FRP) rule (40 CFR Part 118). The Associations represent  facilities across the petroleum, petrochemical, and liquid bulk terminal sectors that collectively  handle the majority of CWA hazardous substances subject to the rule.

Pursuant to the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, the International Liquid Terminals Association ("ILTA") and the Liquid Energy Pipeline Association ("LEPA"), appearing as Amici Curiae, respectfully submit the Amicus Brief in Support of Rosefield Fourchon Operating, LLC's Appeal.

California Air Resource Board:

The International Liquid Terminals Association (ILTA) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the California Air Resource Board’s (“CARB”) California Corporate Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, and writes specifically in response to CARB’s implementation question(1)(d):

Should entities that sell energy, or other goods and services, into California through a separate market, like the energy imbalance market or extended day ahead market, be covered?

We write to strongly discourage CARB from including such entities under the definition of entities that “do[] business in California” as including them raises serious constitutional concerns. Specifically, a definition that included these entities would create significant Due Process concerns, as well as violate the Commerce Clause and notions of federalism by attempting to subject out-of-state entities to this law based on actions that have no or at best only a theoretical nexus to the State of California. CARB must adopt a reasonable definition of “doing business” in California in order to provide a clear and workable definition to regulated entities and to ensure its climate disclosure implementation rules are on sound legal footing.

Attached below is a copy of the full comments.

Dear Assistant Secretary Parker:

On behalf of the Employers Heat Illness Prevention Coalition (the “Coalition”), I am pleased to submit these Comments addressing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (“OSHA” or “the agency”) August 30, 2024, proposed rule on Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings set forth at 29 CFR § 1910.148 (Docket No. OSHA-2021-0009) (hereinafter the “proposed rule”).

The Coalition is composed of a broad and diverse group of employers and trade associations representing many industries, including construction, manufacturing, energy, delivery and distribution, retail, warehousing, petroleum refining, liquid terminal operations, recycling, supermarkets and other grocers, automotive manufacturing, and many more, with millions of employees across hundreds of thousands of workplaces in every state in the Nation. In addition to representing a vast array of industries, Coalition members also represent essentially every kind of workplace affected by the proposed rule. For example, we have potential heat illness exposure hazards in outdoor-only, indoor-only, and outdoor/indoor work settings, and represent every size employer, from large international corporations to small businesses with brick-and-mortar locations. As our member organizations would be directly impacted by the proposed rule, the Coalition has a substantial interest in the outcome of this rulemaking.

The common thread among the Coalition’s diverse members is that they are responsible and conscientious employers that care deeply about their employees’ safety and health. Indeed, although no two are the same, each employer in the Coalition already has in place a heat illness prevention program. Our motivation here is to ensure that if OSHA promulgates a heat injury and illness prevention standard, that it is effective in its purpose–protecting workers from heat illness hazards–and reasonable in the burdens it places on employers.

Attached below is a copy of the full comments.