The U.S. National Mining Association (NMA) partnered with five allied trade associations to file an opening brief challenging MSHA’s silica rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
The association said MSHA unlawfully imposed significant restrictions on how to achieve the new Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air. The NMA argues that MSHA’s PEL is arbitrary and capricious given MSHA’s restrictions on exposure controls, including the prohibition on job rotation and respirators to reduce silica exposure.
The UMWA filed an amicus brief, a legal document filed with the court providing additional information in the case. In the brief, the UMWA provided the following information:
“These consolidated cases involve two petitions for review of the Silica Rule filed by trade groups representing various segments of the metal and nonmetal (“MNM”) mining industry, as well as certain mine operators allegedly subject to the Silica Rule. These petitioners, along with two further trade groups participating as amici curiae in support of the petitioners, challenge the Silica Rule on various grounds largely related to the rational basis, or alleged lack thereof, for the Silica Rule or for one or more aspects of the Silica Rule.
The United Mine Workers of America International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC (“United Mine Workers”) and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC (“United Steelworkers”) (collectively “Unions”), support the Respondents.
The Silica Rule, a crucial regulatory intervention in an industry with lately rising rates of pneumoconiosis (colloquially known as “black lung”) and silicosis largely attributable to increased exposure to respirable silica dust, was [affirmative articulation of APA standard]. The Unions write to address two issues: first, whether MSHA is required to make a threshold finding of a “significant risk” before issuing a regulation; and second, whether MSHA’s determination that it is not so required potentially violates the constitution. These issues were raised in the opening brief filed by Petitioners Sorptive Minerals Institute and Blue Mountain Production Company (“Petitioners”).
For the reasons set forth, the Unions submit that the Court should answer both questions in the negative. The pertinent provisions of the Mine Act differ from those in the OSH Act relied upon by the Benzene Court to find the “significant risk” requirement. Additionally, the scope and role of OSH Act in regulating the national economy present constitutional issues not found in the Mine Act.”
“Miners with black lung disease have been fighting for protections from deadly silica dust for decades,” said President Roberts. “MSHA’s silica standard was put into place to reduce the amount of deadly silica dust in mine atmospheres, which is crucial for combating the worsening epidemic of black lung disease.
“We have fought for far too long for the health and safety of our nation’s coal miners to allow anyone to try and take away the basic rights that miners deserve. We remain in full support of MSHA’s silica rule. Our focus remains to holding mining companies accountable,” Roberts said.
