MSHA Jurisdiction Just Got Broader

Defining a “mine” enters a new era. After a tortuous procedural journey, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that a truck maintenance facility operated by KC Transport — located near but not on an active coal mine — qualified as a mine under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act (Mine Act), thereby giving the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) jurisdiction to inspect and cite the facility for safety violations.

KC Transport was an independent trucking company that provided hauling services to various businesses for different materials and operated a truck maintenance and storage facility located in Emmett, West Virginia, about 1,000 feet from a permitted mine haul road. KC Transport operated about 35 trucks from the site, with about 60% of its services supporting the mine operator that owned the land where the facility was located and the remaining 40% of services aiding a utility company and other coal operators.

MSHA visited the service facility to abate citations issued when the trucks were on mine property and issued two citations based on conditions observed. The administrative law judge upheld MSHA’s jurisdiction and sustained the citations. A divided Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission reversed, holding the facility was not a mine because it was not located on or appurtenant to an extraction site. The first D.C. Circuit opinion in 2023, found that statute ambiguous and considered Chevron deference and remanded for further agency interpretation. After Loper Bright overruled Chevron, the Supreme Court vacated the D.C. Circuit’s prior opinion and remanded for fresh review without deference.

The second time, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the MSHA citations using congressional intent to assert an expansive view of mine safety coverage resolving doubts in favor of inclusion. The Court adopted a practical standard to determine that a facility qualifies as a mine when it is “necessarily connected with the use and operation of extracting, milling, or processing coal and other minerals.” Applying that test, the facility’s proximity, operational integration, dedicated mining function, and regular servicing of mining haul trucks made it a mine under the Mine Act, which expanded the definition of mine from the previous Coal Act definition. On the other hand, KC Transport runs head-on into the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit case in Maxxim Rebuild Co. v. Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission, where the Court’s ruling maintained a location restriction finding a similar type of maintenance shop was not a mine. Thus, these cases set up a distinct dispute of the competing sides of defining a mine.

The fact is that KC Transport broadens MSHA’s definition of what is a mine and mine operators don’t know the outer limits of that definition. The Court notes that the specific facts of each case will be determinative. Having said that, it would be prudent to assess any exposure your maintenance or repair shop or OEM facility may have to MSHA jurisdiction and to be prepared with a response if MSHA does show up.

If you have any questions about this matter or how it might affect you, please contact the author of this alert.