The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) moved to limit discretionary enforcement by district officials, citing legal and constitutional concerns. On July 1, MSHA released three proposed rules aimed to revise criteria for approving safety plans in underground coal mines.
The three proposals seek to amend approval processes for roof control plans, ventilation plans and related discretionary authority previously held by local MSHA officials, known as District Managers.
Current regulation allows District Mangers to impose additional requirements on mine safety plans that exceed the requirements outlined in federal regulations. The new proposals aim to eliminate that authority, citing legal concerns, such as exceeding MSHA’s authority, violating the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and conflict with the Administrative Procedure Act by sidestepping the formal rulemaking process.
The proposals also include revisions to the process by which roof control plans are approved. By removing the ability of District Managers to impose unregulated criteria, MSHA aims to standardize enforcement for mine operators, arguing the revision will bring the rule in line with statutory and constitutional mandates.
Similar revisions have been proposed for the approval of mine ventilation plans, aiming to prohibit District Mangers from requiring additional plan provisions not explicitly supported by the regulation. According to MSHA, all three proposals reflect the agency’s intent to reinforce adherence to the Administrative Procedure Act.
“We support any efforts that enhance health and safety protections for miners, but the proposed rule changes do not do that,” said Secretary-Treasurer Sanson. “MSHA is arguing that a ‘one size fits all’ approach to mine safety is workable. But it isn’t.
“Everyone who has ever been underground in more than two mines knows that no mines are alike with respect to their conditions, even if they are in the same seam,” Sanson said. “Roof conditions are different, methane liberation is different, mine management is different.
“For MSHA to assume mines are all the same like some auto assembly line or other manufacturing process just demonstrates that the people who are in charge at the agency today know absolutely nothing about mining,”
Sanson said. “That needs to change.”
“We believe the Agency would be better served by requiring participation from the miners’ representative when developing these plans, rather than removing the District Manager’s ability to require additional provisions to protect miners, which is the primary purpose of the Agency.”
