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: https://rock.epubxp.com/i/43707
to submit all their evidence on the matter to an Admin‐ istrative Law Judge, who must resolve the dispute 15 days later. Start to finish, the process takes a month, and it's over long before the next round of plan review and approval starts again. Showing Promise The six ERP cases decided since the Commission rule took effect in March 2007 show promise. All have been resolved in a neat 30 days. Although an operator pre‐ vailed in only one case, that decision shows the willing‐ ness of the Commission to question MSHA's "one size fits all" approach to plan approvals. (Peabody West Min- ing, LLC, Docket No. LAKE 2010-769, 770-E (July 6, 2010); ALJ decision vacating citations for failure to im‐ plement electronic tracking devices capable of tracking miners within 200 ft.). Moreover, the number of ERP cases brought to the Com‐ mission far exceeds the number of cases challenging MSHA's refusal to approve mine ventilation and roof control plans in the same time period. This suggests that the expedited procedures are giving operators a chance at meaningful review. External oversight from the Commission may be making mines safer in the process. Can this expedited procedure ever be brought to the larger issues of ventilation and roof control plans? That remains to be seen. The court in the Elk Run Coal case recently affirmed the right of operators to sue MSHA for its "pattern and practice" of disapproving or refusing approval of mine plans unless operators implement MSHA's demands. MSHA may now be forced to turn over documents and information in the litigation that show its efforts to strong arm operators into infeasible and ill‐advised plans. If the operators can prove that MSHA denies them due process by simply refusing to issue a citation over disputed mine plans, MSHA could be forced to adopt a more transparent process for resolving these issues. If all goes well, in the end, operators may have a chance at a more cooperative dialogue with MSHA – and an op‐ portunity to challenge the agency when it's wrong. That's a plan we can all support. E Passage of the MINER Act in 2006 brought reforms to everything from accident notifica- tion to penalty cal- culations to the implementation of emergency re- sponse plans at all underground mines. But the biggest change felt at some mines isn't the result of any new law or regula- tion – it's the pro- cedure for approving mine plans. www.rockproducts.com ROCKproducts • OCTOBER 2011 41