Rock Products

MAR 2017

Rock Products is the aggregates industry's leading source for market analysis and technology solutions, delivering critical content focusing on aggregates-processing equipment; operational efficiencies; management best practices; comprehensive market

Issue link: http://rock.epubxp.com/i/791883

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 92 of 107

www.rockproducts.com ROCK products • March 2017 • 91 LAW Regal, Sealmaster and Time Saving are trademarks of Regal Beloit Corporation or one of its affi liated companies. ©2017 Regal Beloit Corporation, All Rights Reserved. MCAD17007E • 10124E Time is a valuable commodity in plant operation. When a bearing needs to be replaced, either planned or unexpectedly, every minute of downtime can cost thousands of dollars. Sealmaster ® Large Bore Performance Gold Line Mounted Ball Bearings now feature a patented TIME SAVING axial groove in the inner ring bore, available for shaft sizes 2 7/16" and up. The axial groove runs the entire length of the inner ring at the setscrew locations, to allow for easier bearing removal and ability to reuse the shafting with minimal clean up, saving more than just time! To learn more, visit www.RegalPTS.com/Sealmaster The Time Saving ™ performance mounted ball bearing allows for easier bearing removal. you could reduce time required for bearing changeout? VISIT US AT CON/AGG BOOTH# S-83806 Scan to view informational video It identified "two linking concepts" in the Mine's Act's defi- nition of "coal or other mine." • The first is related to mine related places, e.g. 'lands, exca- vations, underground passageways , shafts, slopes, tunnels and workings, [and] facilities . . . used in or to be used in . . . excavating . . . minerals." •  The second concept relates to "mine related thinks that serve a mine-related function in those places," i.e. "equip- ment, machinery, tools or other property . . . used in or to be used in" the process of extraction. For the Sixth Circuit, the key is that "[b]oth concepts are joined together by their connection to a working mine – places and things in and around the mine. Just as these words do not cover 'lands' disconnected from an active mine (even lands that might one day be purchased 'to be used' as a mine), they do not cover equipment that is not part of a working mine (even equipment that might one day be sold to someone 'to be used in a mine.' Whether it is a place or functional thing, it must be connected to a working mine." If it is not connected to a working mine, MSHA does not have jurisdiction over it. The Sixth Circuit also recognized that "[t]his is not a case in which the regulated entity seeks to hide from any regulation. It just thinks, quite reasonably, that the Secretary [of Labor's] authority applies to it through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, not [MSHA]." OSHA's regulations apply and address the types of hazards one might encounter in the Sidney shop. Of course, MSHA argued that the Sixth Circuit should defer to its interpretation of the Mine Act, just as the Commission deferred to MSHA's interpretation. When the meaning of a statute is ambiguous, the Supreme Court has held that courts must defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation. In most cases, it is easy for an agency to convince a court that its interpretation is reasonable. This was not most cases. Here, the Sixth Circuit held that MSHA's interpretation "is not a reasonable one—and not just because it overlooks all the textual and procedural clues . . . The Secretary's interpreta- tion also has no stopping point." Overall, this was a big win for Maxxim and for industry. The Sixth Circuit's decision conflicts with Commission case law. Arguably, the Commission is bound to follow the decision only in cases originating in the Sixth Circuit (Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee). Nevertheless, since at least 2000 MSHA has assumed that it could take jurisdiction over a site or facility even if it had no connection to a working mine. It has gobbled up all sorts of facilities in that time. The Sixth Circuit's decision may provide those facilities with the oppor- tunity to argue that they should be regulated by the agency best suited to address the safety and health hazards that they might encounter: OSHA.

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Rock Products - MAR 2017