MSHA Jurisdiction Could Include Off-Site Businesses

In brief

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently determined that the Federal Mine Safety and Health Amendments Act (“Mine Act”) is unclear as to the breadth of U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) jurisdiction to regulate off-site mining facilities, equipment, and businesses. The D.C. Circuit remanded the case back to the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (“Commission”) for further review and a clear framework from MSHA to determine its off-site jurisdiction.

In detail

The D.C. Circuit vacated the 2022 Commission decision in Secretary of Labor v. KC Transport, Inc. and remanded the case for further review and clarification from MSHA.

The Mine Act jurisdiction includes mines, which are defined as: the extraction site(s), the roads appurtenant to the extraction sites, and, important here, “items” that are “used in, or to be used in, or resulting from” mining-related activity.  Secretary of Labor v. KC Transport, Inc. involved a small independent trucking company that occasionally used its trucks to haul material for nearby mines. When those trucks needed repair, the trucking company would repair them at its repair shop more than a mile away from the nearest mine. MSHA issued Mine Act citations to the trucking company for safety violations relating to actions conducted exclusively at the repair shop. The Commission vacated the citations, finding that the trucks and facilities were not at the mine site or appurtenant roads and were therefore outside MSHA jurisdiction. The Commission appealed arguing that the “mine” covered all of KC Transport’s vehicles and operations because they are “items” used in mining activities.

However, U.S. Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins, writing for the D.C. Circuit majority in a 2-1 ruling, stated that because the Mine Act is ambiguous as to MSHA jurisdiction beyond a mine site, specifically the interpretation of “items” that are “used in, or to be used in, or resulting from” mining-related activity, reasonable MSHA interpretation of its jurisdiction under the Mine Act could be afforded deference by the courts. Still, the D.C. Circuit determined that MSHA had not provided a workable interpretation of the unclear law and the breadth of MSHA’s authority and therefore remanded the case for MSHA to clarify when its regulatory jurisdiction extends to businesses or equipment not permanently located at a mine site.

Everview will continue to monitor this issue and report MSHA developments.