mining
On September 19, 2025, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission redefined the Significant and Substantial (S&S) test to ask only whether a violation could contribute to a hazard and whether that contribution is significant. MSHA inspectors will have an easier path to sustain S&S.
mining
On Sept 19, 2025, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission redefined the significant and substantial (S&S) test under the Mine Act, adopting a two-element standard that it characterized as easier for the Secretary of Labor to meet. The key question for operators: Q: Can we contest
mining
On September 19, 2025, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission redefined the significant and substantial (S&S) test in the Consol Pennsylvania Coal decision, replacing the Mathies framework with a lower two-part threshold. The key question for operators: Q: Does this Commission ruling signal broader MSHA enforcement
mining
The Commission redefined the Significant and Substantial (S&S) test, focusing on whether a violation could contribute to a hazard and whether the contribution is significant. This change matters because S&S designations are now more likely and easier to uphold. The core uncertainty is how this redefinition
mining
The Commission adopted a two-element S&S test and described a lower threshold that makes S&S allegations easier to support. This shift directly affects litigation risk assessments for contested citations, with a key uncertainty being whether the decision governs pending, non-final cases. Executive Summary The Commission issued
mining
The Commission redefined the significant and substantial (S&S) test under Section 104(d), lowering the threshold and making it easier for MSHA to sustain S&S allegations. This matters because S&S designations drive enforcement exposure and penalty risk; the scale and timing of any increase
mining
On July 1, 2025, MSHA proposed 18 rules; three would curb District Managers' authority to add conditions in mine plan approvals, aiming for consistent, legally grounded processes across operations. The key question for operators: Q: Do these coal-specific plan approvals signal broader MSHA moves to standardize aggregate/industrial mineral
mining
MSHA cited Marfork Coal Company on June 17, 2025, for a February 2025 fatality at West Virginia's Black Eagle Mine after finding inadequate preshift examinations and failure to support or control a rib (coal sidewall). The key question for operators: Q: What specific pre-shift examination failures led to
mining
On July 1, 2025, MSHA proposed rules to standardize approval criteria for roof control, ventilation, and training plans, explicitly removing District Manager add-on authority after decades of site-by-site discretion. The key question for operators: Q: What compliance cost changes occur when District Managers lose discretion—fewer revisions or more rigid
mining
MSHA issued 18 proposed rules on July 1, 2025, including three that would limit District Managers' authority, and the proposals apply to both underground and surface mines. This raises planning questions for non-coal sites preparing ventilation and blasting plans. However, sources do not identify impacts on P25‑V‑01
mining
MSHA’s final report on a February 28, 2025 fatality at Marfork Coal Company’s Black Eagle Mine identified inadequate preshift examinations and failure to support or control the rib as causal factors. WV MetroNews This matters for aggregate operators evaluating whether coal-style preshift documentation could close similar gaps in
mining
MSHA issued proposals that would remove District Manager authority to add unregulated criteria in roof control and training plans, signaling a move toward standardized approvals. This matters for budgeting because plan-revision churn may decline while any uniform requirements could drive new costs. Key uncertainties include scope, timelines, and whether prescriptive