Search form

Challenge to Mine Safety POV Rule Stayed for Settlement Talks

By Raymond Perez, II
  • May 17, 2017

An Ohio court case on the validity of the Mine Safety and Health Administration’s 2013 rule on “pattern of violation,” or “POV,” may be near an end.

At the joint request of the plaintiffs and MSHA, a judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio issued a 120-day stay in the lawsuit in which mine operators and mining groups sued MSHA to stop the agency from implementing a rule that the plaintiffs allege was unfairly put in place. See Ohio Coal Assoc. et al. and Murray Energy Corp. et al. v. Sec’y of Labor, Nos. 2:14-CV-2646, 2:15-CV448 (S.D. Ohio June 16, 2016).

They said, “Rather than concurrently litigating and negotiating a possible settlement of the dispute, the parties are open to negotiating a mutually agreeable resolution that could avoid further litigation.”

They noted, “Following a May 1, 2017 meeting of counsel and representatives of the plaintiffs in both related cases, the Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, and MSHA, all parties agreed that such settlement negotiations were sufficiently promising to warrant seeking a stay of this litigation. The parties have since discussed their commitment to a structured series of conferences to consider a negotiated resolution.”

In issuing the rule, published in January 2013 (78 Fed. Reg. 5056), MSHA said the final rule “simplifies the existing POV criteria, improves consistency in applying the POV criteria, and more effectively achieves the Mine Act’s statutory intent.” MSHA said it also “encourages chronic safety violators to comply with the Mine Act and MSHA’s health and safety standards.” The initial 1990 POV rule was put in place to allow the agency to commence a process that could lead to a citation against a mine for a “pattern of violation,” or “POV.” The citation can be a precursor to shutting down a mine. MSHA calls the rule its “harshest enforcement mechanism.”

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege that MSHA and the Secretary of Labor violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to consider the economic implications of its January 2013 rule and the rate at which significant and substantial violations are overturned. They allege the POV rule exceeds the statutory authority granted to MSHA by the Mine Act because the new rule uses non-final citations. The plaintiffs argue the Mine Act requires the use of finalized violations in a pattern of violations determination. The plaintiffs also argue that MSHA failed to subject the POV and Corrective Action Plan criteria to notice-and-comment rulemaking and that the POV rule was arbitrary and capricious.

They also allege that MSHA did not explain why the rule replaced the potential pattern of violation notice, which they said yielded miner-safety improvements. The court previously dismissed their due process claims.
 
Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to answer inquiries regarding this and other workplace developments.

©2017 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

July 19, 2017

Claim of Massachusetts Employee Fired for Medical Marijuana Use May Proceed, State High Court Rules

July 19, 2017

An employee fired after she tested positive for marijuana on a test administered in the hiring process should be able to proceed with her “handicap discrimination” claim under Massachusetts’ anti-discrimination statute, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled. Barbuto v. Advantage Sales & Marketing, LLC, SJC -12226 (July... Read More

July 18, 2017

Mine Safety Agency Enhances Enforcement of ‘Rules to Live By’ to Prevent Mining Fatalities

July 18, 2017

The Mine Safety and Health Administration said it has begun “enhanced” enforcement of its “Rules to Live By” initiative, regulating standards commonly linked to mine deaths, as well as nine underground coal mine exam standards, targeting the greatest risks to miners in underground coal mines. The agency announced in 2016 that these... Read More

July 18, 2017

OSHA Exempts Monorail Hoists from Cranes and Derricks Regulations

July 18, 2017

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has issued a new enforcement policy that excludes monorail hoists from regulations on cranes and derricks in constructions. Stakeholders had argued that monorail hoists are not the same as cranes and derricks in construction, pointing out that these hoists are attached to fixed... Read More

Related Practices