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 material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm with more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries. Having built its reputation on providing premier workplace law representation to management, the firm has grown to include leading practices in the areas of government relations, healthcare and sports law. For more information, visit www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

January 23, 2019

U.S. House Committee to Focus on Workforce Protections

January 23, 2019

Signaling a renewed emphasis on workforce protections at the opening of the 116th Congress, the U.S. House of Representatives has changed the name of its committee with jurisdiction over labor matters back to the Committee on Education and Labor. It was called the Committee on Education and the Workforce when Republicans held the... Read More

January 7, 2019

2019: The Year Ahead for Employers

January 7, 2019

Over the past year, state and local governments responded in a variety of ways to national policy, and the midterm elections painted a picture of what’s in store for employers in 2019 and beyond. Jackson Lewis’ annual report outlines upcoming issues, trends, legislation and regulations employers need to be aware of in the coming year... Read More

January 2, 2019

Retail Industry Workplace Law Update – Winter 2019

January 2, 2019

Class Action Trends Report The latest issue of our quarterly report on developments in class action litigation focuses on “joint employers” and covers the following topics: Are you my employer? A patchwork of tests Only in California Prevention pointer Read the Report … OSHA: Certain Safety Incentive Programs, Post... Read More

Related Practices