[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REDUCING THE GROWING BACKLOG OF CONTESTED MINE SAFETY CASES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 23, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-45
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
54-828 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice John Kline, Minnesota,
Chairman Senior Republican Member
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia California
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Carolyn McCarthy, New York Mark E. Souder, Indiana
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Judy Biggert, Illinois
David Wu, Oregon Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Susan A. Davis, California Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Tom Price, Georgia
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Rob Bishop, Utah
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
David Loebsack, Iowa Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii Tom McClintock, California
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania Duncan Hunter, California
Phil Hare, Illinois David P. Roe, Tennessee
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania
Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Jared Polis, Colorado
Paul Tonko, New York
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Northern Mariana Islands
Dina Titus, Nevada
Judy Chu, California
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Barrett Karr, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 23, 2010................................ 1
Statement of Members:
Kline, Hon. John, Senior Republican Member, Committee on
Education and Labor:
Letter, dated March 8, 2010, from the Industrial Minerals
Association-North America.............................. 105
McMorris Rodgers, Hon. Cathy, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington, prepared statement of........ 54
Miller, Hon. George, Chairman, Committee on Education and
Labor...................................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Questions submitted for the record....................... 54
Additional submissions:
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission:
Table: ``Performance Measurement Matrix, Office
of Administrative Law Judges''................. 95
Table: ``Appropriations History''................ 96
Table: ``Selected Workload Data''................ 97
Followup on MSHA ERP Stats....................... 98
PowerPoint slides................................ 99
Table: ``Mine Operators Notified by MSHA of a
Potential Pattern of Violations (POV)''........ 100
Letter, dated June 3, 2008, from the National Mining
Association........................................ 102
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania...................................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Additional submissions:
Statement of the National Stone, Sand & Gravel
Association........................................ 108
Paper, dated January 25, 2010, ``What About That Case
Backlog?''......................................... 109
Statement of Witnesses:
Jordan, Hon. Mary Lu, Chairman, Federal Mine Safety and
Health Review Commission................................... 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Responses to questions for the record.................... 55
Main, Joseph A., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety
and Health, U.S. Department of Labor....................... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Responses to questions for the record.................... 57
Additional materials submitted:
Chart: ``Proposed Civil Penalties v. Penalty Contest
Rate''............................................. 59
Tables: FY2006-2009 assessment data.................. 59
Tables: FY2008-2010 contested penalty data........... 60
Table: ``Number of Violations Assessed and Contested
by Operator FY2009''............................... 61
Table: ``Companies Contesting Largest Number of
Citations''........................................ 63
Table: ``Detail Summary by Mine''.................... 64
Roberts, Cecil E., president, United Mine Workers of America. 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
Watzman, Bruce, senior vice president, regulatory affairs, on
behalf of the National Mining Association.................. 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 26
Responses to questions for the record.................... 94
REDUCING THE GROWING BACKLOG
OF CONTESTED MINE SAFETY CASES
----------
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, DC
----------
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George Miller
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Payne, Scott, Woolsey,
Tierney, Kucinich, Holt, Bishop of New York, Loebsack, Altmire,
Hare, Shea-Porter, Fudge, Polis, Sablan, Titus, Platts, and
Thompson.
Staff present: Aaron Albright, Press Secretary; Tylease
Alli, Hearing Clerk; Andra Belknap, Press Assistant; Jody
Calemine, General Counsel; Lynn Dondis, Labor Counsel,
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections; Patrick Findlay,
Investigative Counsel; David Hartzler, Systems Administrator;
Broderick Johnson, Staff Assistant; Gordon Lafer, Senior Labor
Policy Advisor; Sadie Marshall, Chief Clerk; Richard Miller,
Senior Labor Policy Advisor; Revae Moran, Detailee, Labor; Alex
Nock, Deputy Staff Director; Meredith Regine, Junior
Legislative Associate, Labor; James Schroll, Junior Legislative
Associate, Labor; Michele Varnhagen, Labor Policy Director;
Michael Zola, Chief Investigative Counsel, Oversight; Mark
Zuckerman, Staff Director; Kirk Boyle, Minority General
Counsel; Ed Gilroy, Minority Director of Workforce Policy;
Richard Hoar, Minority Professional Staff Member; Ryan Murphy,
Minority Press Secretary; Jim Paretti, Minority Workforce
Policy Counsel; Molly McLaughlin Salmi, Minority Deputy
Director of Workforce Policy; Linda Stevens, Minority Chief
Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel; and Loren Sweatt,
Minority Professional Staff Member.
Chairman Miller [presiding]. A quorum being present, the
committee will come to order.
The Education and Labor Committee meets this morning to
examine how a growing backlog of contested mine safety cases at
a small federal agency is putting our nation's miners at risk.
For years, this committee has worked to protect our miners
while on the job. We have met many family members who have
suffered the tragic loss of a loved one. On behalf of the
committee, I promised that we would do everything we can to
keep miners safe. I intend to keep that promise.
Since the tragedies like Sago, Darby, Crandall Canyon, both
the Congress and the Mine Safety and Health Administration have
worked to prevent similar disasters, in part by increasing
enforcement. Inspections are up, as are citations and fines.
This stronger emphasis on safety is saving lives and
reducing injuries. In 2006, 76 miners died on the job. In 2009,
that figure was reduced to 35 fatalities--still 35 deaths too
many, but we must recognize that it is a record low.
Despite the progress, some of the largest mining operations
have responded by challenging these tougher sanctions at a
staggering rate.
When MSHA, the Mine Safety Health Administration, cites the
mine operator for a safety violation, the owners can appeal the
violation to the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review
Commission.
But with increased penalties for unsafe conditions, there
are significant incentives for mine operators to abuse the
appeals process.
The mining industry trots out a litany of excuses as to why
their members are contesting nearly every health and safety
violation. One excuse is that MSHA has ended an informal
practice that allowed mines to chip away at their sanctions
behind closed doors.
But as the industry's own testimony shows, the dramatic
rise in mine operator appeals began the year before MSHA
changed this policy. So the dramatic rise in appeals seem to be
the result of something else.
What we do know is that delays from growing appeals are
undermining MSHA's ability to impose tougher sanctions on the
repeat violators.
Adjudication of appeals must be fair and timely. If cases
are stuck for months or years in the Review Commission, MSHA
cannot impose stronger penalties on the worst mine operators.
As a result, miners' lives are in the cross hairs.
MSHA tells us that 48 mines with more than 6,000 miners
would likely face tougher sanctions if not for the holdup of
the Review Commission.
Mine operators can be subject to progressively steeper
fines or even shut down if cited for multiple serious health
and safety violations. And that is the way it should be. Mine
operators who callously put their workers in harm's way must be
held accountable.
Mines that have faced these steeper penalties in the past
have responded by cleaning up their act. Future serious
violations were cut by 72 percent when MSHA notified mines that
they faced a potential closures for future additional
violations.
However, blanket and indiscriminate appeals to the Review
Commission allow irresponsible mine operators to avoid stiffer
penalties. This may boost the owner's bottom line, but it
delays--it delays and puts lives of miners at risk.
The facts indicate that certain mine operators are abusing
their right to challenge a violation. In 2005, before increased
penalties took effect, mine operators appealed one in three
fines. Today, mine operators contest two-thirds of all fines.
And some of the largest mine operators are challenging nearly
every citation. These appeals are clogging the system.
In 2006, the Review Commission had a backlog of 2,100
cases. Today, the backlog has skyrocketed to 16,000 cases.
These 16,000 cases--and that is what it looks like here--these
16,000 cases are awaiting adjudication.
They are also allowing mine operators--in some cases, the
worst operators--to escape the liability for which they are--
they are, in fact, liable and continue to put the miners in
harm's way. And they represent $195 million in contested fines.
And it is only growing.
Based upon estimates provided by the Review Commission, if
current trends and funding of the agency remain the same, the
backlog would spiral out of control to 47,000 cases by 2020. I
think we can see that on the chart up here, what the status quo
portends if you have the status quo both in challenges and in
resources available to the agency.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
This staggering case load would render the federal efforts
to hold mine operators accountable meaningless. The Obama
administration and Congress have already increased funding for
the Review Commission to hire four additional administrative
law judges, in addition to the 10 already seated.
In this year's budget request, it has asked for four
additional judges. This is a good start. However, more will
have to be done to reduce the backlog in cases.
Today we will hear from the mining industry, the Chair of
the Review Commission, MSHA and United Mine Workers about the
causes and the consequences of the growing number of appeals
for possible solutions.
It is unacceptable to let a backlog of mine safety cases
threaten the real progress being made to protect the lives of
those who go to work every day in our nation's mines.
With that, I would like to recognize the senior Republican
on the committee this morning, Mr. Thompson.
[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Chairman, Committee on
Education and Labor
The Education and Labor Committee meets this morning to examine how
a growing backlog of contested mine safety cases at a small federal
agency is putting our nation's miners at risk.
For years, this committee has worked to protect our miners while on
the job. We have met many family members who have suffered the tragic
loss of a loved one. On behalf of the committee, I promised that we
would do everything we can to keep miners safe.
I intend to keep this promise. Since tragedies like Sago, Darby and
Crandall Canyon, both Congress and the Mine Safety and Health
Administration have worked to prevent similar disasters, in part by
increasing enforcement. Inspections are up, as are citations and fines.
This stronger emphasis on safety is saving lives and reducing injuries.
In 2006, 76 miners died on the job. In 2009 that figure was reduced to
35 fatalities--still 35 deaths too many, but a record low.
Despite the progress, some of the largest mining operations have
responded by challenging these tougher sanctions at a staggering rate.
When MSHA cites a mine operator for a safety violation, the owners can
appeal the violation to the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review
Commission.
But, with increased penalties for unsafe conditions, there are
significant incentives for mine operators to abuse this appeals
process.
The mining industry trots out a litany of excuses on why their
members are contesting nearly every health and safety violation. One
excuse is that MSHA ended an informal practice that allowed mines to
chip away at their sanctions behind closed doors.
But, as the industry's own testimony shows, the dramatic rise is
mine operators' appeals began a year before MSHA changed this policy.
So, the dramatic rise in appeals seems to be the result of
something else. What we do know is that delays from growing appeals are
undermining MSHA's ability to impose tougher penalties on repeat
violators.
Adjudication of appeals must be fair and timely.
If cases are stuck for months or years at the Review Commission,
MSHA cannot impose stronger penalties for the worst mine operators. As
a result, miners' lives are in the crosshairs. MSHA tells us that 48
mines with more than 6,000 miners would likely face tougher sanctions
if not for the holdup at the Review Commission.
Mine operators can be subject to progressively steeper fines or
even shut down if cited multiple serious health and safety violations.
And that's the way it should be. Mine operators who callously put their
workers in harm's way must be held accountable. Mines that have faced
these steeper penalties in the past have responded by cleaning up their
act. Future serious violations were cut by 72 percent when MSHA
notified mines that they faced potential closures for additional
violations.
However, blanket and indiscriminate appeals to the Review
Commission allow irresponsible mine operators to avoid these stiffer
penalties. This may boost the owner's bottom line, but delays put the
lives of miners at risk. The facts indicate that certain mine operators
are abusing their right to challenge a violation.
In 2005, before increased penalties took effect, mine operators
appealed one in three fines.
Today, mine operators contest two-thirds of all fines. And some of
the largest mine owners are challenging nearly every citation. These
appeals are clogging the system. In 2006, the Review Commission had a
backlog of 2,100 cases. Today, the backlog has skyrocketed to 16,000
cases. [PICK UP STACK OF CASES] The index of the 16,000 backlogged
cases is 616 pages long and contains at least $195 million in contested
fines. And it is only growing. Based on estimates provided by Review
Commission, if current trends and funding for the agency remain the
same, the backlog would spiral out of control to 47,000 cases by 2020
as this chart shows. This staggering caseload will render federal
efforts to hold bad mine operators accountable meaningless.
The Obama administration and Congress have already increased
funding for the Review Commission to hire four new administrative law
judges, in addition to the ten already seated. And in this year's
budget request, the administration asked for four more.
This is a good start. However, more will have to be done to reduce
the backlog of cases. Today, we will hear from the mining industry, the
chair of the Review Commission, MSHA and United Mine Workers about the
causes and consequences of the growing number of appeals, and possible
solutions.
It is unacceptable to let a backlog of mine safety cases threaten
the real progress being made to protect the lives of those who go to
work in our nation's mines.
______
Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you, Chairman Miller.
Thank you to the panel for coming in to be a part of this
important hearing, and good morning to everyone.
As lawmakers, we try and solve problems, and there is a
tendency to believe that whatever challenges we face, the
answer lies with more federal funding or additional rules and
regulations. Yet we know it is a mistake to legislate a
solution without fully understanding the challenge.
And so before we talk about reducing the backlog of
contested mine safety cases, I would like to spend time this
morning examining why we are seeing an increase in contested
citations. I would also like to understand what it means for
the mine owner and, most importantly, for the safety of the
miners when a citation is contested.
For example, it is worth noting that even when a citation
is contested, any identified safety hazards must be corrected.
And while there may be disputes about the category in which
a citation falls, or the financial penalties levied as a
result, there is--these reasonable disputes should not--and
indeed, they do not--put the safety and health of the miners at
risk.
Knowing that contested citations are not putting miners at
risk, it is still reasonable for us to ask why we have seen an
increase in the number of contested cases. One logical place to
look is the legislative and regulatory changes that have taken
place over the last several years.
Of course, we know Congress acted in a bipartisan fashion
in 2006 to increase penalties for safety violations, especially
for those of a repeated or egregious nature. The regulations
implementing the civil penalties of the MINER Act were
finalized in 2007.
Then in 2008, and again in 2009, the Mine Safety and Health
Administration announced a series of policy changes that limit
opportunities for mine operators to discuss citations without
first initiating a full legal dispute of MSHA's findings.
In other words, legislative and regulatory changes are
forcing mine operators to formally contest citations in order
to provide more information to MSHA. It is no wonder we have
seen an uptick in the number of citations that are challenged.
Is this a case of mine operators acting in bad faith? Some
may try to make that claim today, but I would offer a different
view. Rather, it appears mine operators are simply adapting to
a punitive new regulatory environment that favors litigation
and conflict over collaboration.
Now, I hope today's hearing examines both the causes and
the consequences of the increases in contested MSHA citations,
and I hope this committee proceeds with caution before we
attempt to legislate in an area where legislation and
regulation may actually be the cause rather than the solution
to the problem.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Pennsylvania
Thank you Chairman Miller, and good morning.
As lawmakers, we like to try and solve problems. There's a tendency
to believe that whatever challenges we face, the answer lies with more
federal funding or additional rules and regulations.
Yet we know it is a mistake to legislate a solution without fully
understanding the challenge. And so, before we talk about reducing the
backlog of contested mine safety cases, I'd like to spend time this
morning examining why we're seeing an increase in contested citations.
I'd also like to understand what it means for the mine owner and--most
importantly--for the safety of miners when a citation is contested.
For example, it's worth noting that even when a citation is
contested, any identified safety hazards must be corrected. While there
may be disputes about the category in which a citation falls or the
financial penalties levied as a result, these reasonable disputes
should not--and indeed, they do not--put the safety and health of
miners at risk.
Knowing that contested citations are not putting miners at risk, it
is still reasonable for us to ask why we've seen an increase in the
number of contested cases.
One logical place to look is the legislative and regulatory changes
that have taken place over the last several years. Of course, we know
Congress acted in a bipartisan fashion in 2006 to increase penalties
for safety violations, especially for those of a repeated or egregious
nature.
The regulations implementing the civil penalties of the MINER Act
were finalized in 2007. Then, in 2008 and again in 2009, the Mine
Safety and Health Administration announced a series of policy changes
that limit opportunities for mine operators to discuss citations
without first initiating a full legal dispute of MSHA's findings.
In other words, legislative and regulatory changes are forcing mine
operators to formally contest citations in order to provide more
information to MSHA. It's no wonder we've seen an uptick in the number
of citations that are challenged.
Is this a case of mine operators acting in bad faith? Some may try
to make that claim today, but I would offer a different view. Rather it
appears mine operators are simply adapting to a punitive new regulatory
environment that favors litigation and conflict over collaboration.
I hope today's hearing examines both the causes and the
consequences of the increase in contested MSHA citations--and I hope
this committee proceeds with caution before we attempt to legislate in
an area where legislation and regulation may actually be the cause--
rather than the solution--to the problem. Thank you and I yield back.
______
Chairman Miller. I thank the gentleman for his statement.
And pursuant to committee rule 7(c), all members may submit
an opening statement in writing which will be made part of the
permanent record.
And I would like to now welcome our witnesses to this
committee hearing. Thank you for accepting our invitation to
come and testify. I think the panel provides us the right
parties to investigate this matter.
I know that suggestions have been made about this system
from both the operators and from MSHA about items that are
under consideration for changing. We look forward to hearing
that from you.
Before we begin, I will say I am going to introduce you,
and then we--in our lighting system, there will be a green
light. You will get 5 minutes to tell us what you think are the
most important parts of your testimony. Your written statement
will be placed in the record in its entirety and any supporting
documents that you have for your testimony.
When you have 1 minute remaining, an orange light will come
on, and we would like you to start wrapping up your testimony.
But we want to make sure that you feel that you get to complete
it in a coherent fashion, so that you don't think you just have
to stop when the red light comes on when your time is up. We
want you to present your testimony in its best light.
Our first witness this morning will be Mr. Joe Main--who is
the Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Mine Safety and Health
Administration. He was confirmed by the Senate on October 21st,
2009. He began working in coal mines in 1967 and has more than
40 years of experience in mine health and safety.
In 1982 he was appointed administrator of the Occupational
Health and Safety Department of the United Mine Workers of
America, a position he held for 22 years.
Ms. Mary Lucille Jordan is the Chairman of the Federal Mine
Safety and Health Review Commission, which provides
administrative trial and appellate review for legal disputes
arising under the Mine Act. She served as chair of the
Commission from 1994 until 2001, and most recently as a
Commissioner from 2001 until 2009.
Prior to joining the Commission, Ms. Jordan served as the
senior staff attorney for the United Mine Workers of America
from 1977 to 1994.
Mr. Cecil Roberts is the president of the United Mine
Workers of America and has served in that capacity since 1995.
After college, he worked for 6 years at the Carbon Fuels'
Number 31 mine in Winifred, West Virginia.
In August of 2009, Mr. Roberts was reelected to his fourth
term as president of the union.
Mr. Bruce Watzman is the senior vice president of
regulatory affairs at the National Mining Association. He
oversees public policy issues in Congress and relevant
regulatory agencies that advance the health and safety
performance of the U.S. mine industry and manufacturers that
provide equipment to the industry.
Welcome to all of you.
And, Mr. Secretary, we are going to begin with you.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH MAIN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, MINE SAFETY AND
HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mr. Main. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is it on? Okay, thank
you.
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member, members of the committee,
I appreciate the opportunity to appear here on behalf of the
U.S. Department of Labor Mine Safety and Health Administration
to discuss the backlog of contested cases pending before the
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.
I share your concern and have made this a top priority
since my confirmation as the Assistant Secretary.
To successfully tackle the backlog, it is important to
understand why it has developed. As you know well, tragedy
struck in 2006 at the Sago Mine, Alma #1 mine in West Virginia
and Darby Mine in Kentucky, claiming the lives of 19 miners.
In response, Congress enacted the MINER Act and increased
funding of MSHA to ensure required miners' protections at all
mines. MSHA also revised its penalty regulations in an effort
to strengthen enforcement. As a result of these reforms,
penalties increased, especially for serious and repeat
violations, as did the number of violations that MSHA cited.
Since those changes, the percentage of violations that
operators contest before the Commission has grown dramatically,
from 7.4 percent in 2006 to more than 25 percent today, causing
a backlog of about 82,000 pending violations and $210 million
in contested penalties.
MSHA does not believe that litigating our way out of this
backlog is the only long-term solution. And we are pursuing
some changes within MSHA guided by several principles.
Reform should, one, improve the implementation of the Mine
Act and mine safety and health, simplify the system, improve
consistency in enforcement, and reduce the contest rate. And
those are the four principal issues that we look at.
As we consider the backlog, we must note the tremendous
improvement in mine safety since MSHA began--stepped up
inspections and increased penalties. Mining deaths dropped to a
record low in 2008 and again in--to an all-time low of 35 in
2009.
The number of deaths in underground coal mines last year
fell to a record low of seven. And for an 8-month period in
this country, we had not one single coal miner die on the job
in underground coal mines. And I think that is historic.
No doubt, we must find solutions to the backlog, but we
must never sacrifice our serious commitment to enforcement and
mine safety and health. In terms of solutions, the industry's
responsibility for mine safety is essential.
In most contested cases, there is no dispute a violation
occurred. At issue is the severity of the violation. The best
way to resolve the backlog is improved industry health and
safety management programs. Mines with an effective compliance
plan under rigorous inspections will receive fewer violations.
Next, I am looking at the role of conferences for MSHA and
mine operators to review citations. The option to hold
conferences prior to the operators contesting the penalty seems
to be the best approach to resolve disputes over violations
early in the process and keep those citations out of the
backlog.
Opportunities also exist to resolve disputes over citations
and orders at the time of the mine inspection, and we will
encourage that.
Also, we must diminish the incentives for operators who
appear to be developing a pattern of significant and
substantial safety violations to contest simply to delay
enforcement.
MSHA is announcing today its intention to review pending
cases of operators with significant S&S citations and, where
warranted, seek to expedite those cases so that the pattern of
violations enforcement of the Mine Act is having the intended
effect.
Consistency of enforcement is another critical factor
reducing contest rates. Consistency requires concentrating on
review and evaluation which we are undertaking in several
areas.
MSHA's also considering how to implement operator or
corporate-wide holistic settlements to reduce the backlog. A
program of corporate-wide engagement would change the landscape
of the contested case backlog.
Another possible reform would incentivize operators not to
contest. Operators currently receive a 10 percent reduction in
proposed penalties for prompt good faith abatement of
citations. We are reviewing whether or not additional financial
incentives would be of value or not.
The Commission is obviously an important partner in
tackling the backlog. We endorse reforms under consideration to
simplify the settlement process, expand formal settlement
conferences by judges and simplify Commission proceedings.
We believe the ideas presented here can reduce the current
backlog issues and assist in preventing further backlog--cases
in the backlog.
I look forward to working with the committee on this, and I
am happy to answer any questions you have.
[The statement of Mr. Main follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joseph A. Main, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Mine Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee: I
appreciate the opportunity to appear here today on behalf of the U.S.
Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) to
discuss a matter of serious concern--the growing backlog of contested
citations for violations of health and safety standards awaiting
resolution by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
(Commission). Upon my confirmation in October of last year, I knew that
I was facing a significant and growing backlog. Since my first day on
the job, I have been examining the causes of the existing backlog and,
in conjunction with the Office of the Solicitor of Labor, exploring
solutions.
When Congress passed the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977
(Mine Act), it declared that ``the first priority and concern of all in
the coal or other mining industry must be the health and safety of its
most precious resource--the miner.'' The Mine Act recognized that
mining in all its forms presents unique hazards for miners. The Act
establishes health and safety standards for all mine operators to
follow. It also mandates active oversight by MSHA through regular mine
inspections. The Mine Act requires MSHA to inspect underground mines
four times per year and surface mines two times per year. Congress also
included in the Mine Act strong enforcement tools to ensure compliance
with the safety and health standards mandated by the statute and the
standards and regulations promulgated under it. At the same time, the
law gives mine operators the right to contest MSHA's use of those
strong enforcement tools, including proposed civil penalties.
For the Mine Act to be effectively implemented the way Congress
intended, contested penalty cases must be resolved in a timely way.
Even though the case backlog has not affected MSHA's ability to require
operators to abate hazardous conditions, it has severely reduced the
deterrent value that penalties were meant to have.
Current Backlog
To understand the backlog, it is important to look at how it has
developed. From 2005 to 2009, the number of violations and penalties
certainly rose, but the percentage of cases contested by the mining
industry and the percentage of total penalties reflected in those
contested cases rose even faster:
In CY 2005, MSHA cited 128,000 violations and proposed
$24.9 million in penalties. That year, mine operators contested 6% of
the violations, accounting for 29% of the proposed penalties proposed.
In CY 2006, MSHA cited 140,000 violations and proposed
$35.1 million in penalties. That year operators contested 7% of
violations representing 35% of the proposed penalties.
In CY 2007, MSHA cited 145,000 violations and proposed
$74.5 million penalties. Operators contested 15% of violations that
year, which represented 54% of the penalties proposed.
In CY 2008, 174,000 violations were cited and MSHA
proposed $194.2 million in penalties. That year 24% of violations were
contested by mine operators representing 69% of penalties proposed.
In CY 2009 MSHA cited 175,000 violations and proposed
$141.2 million in penalties. Mine operators contested 27% of violations
representing 66% of proposed penalties.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There is a time lag between the time a citation is issued and
the time a penalty is proposed. If one adjusts for that lag time,
violations cited in CY 2005 represented $28.1 million in penalties, CY
2006 citations represented $42.8 million in penalties, CY 2007
citations represented $129.4 million in penalties, CY 2008 citations
represented $143.2 million in penalties, and CY 2009 citations
represent $129.8 million in penalties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the number of contested citations grew, MSHA and the Commission
worked to increase the number of contested citations that became final,
but did not keep pace with the growing number of citations that were
contested:
In 2005, 7,200 citations were contested and 7,182
citations became final.
In 2006, 10,036 citations were contested and 6,071
citations became final.
In 2007, 19,546 citations were contested and 7,574
citations became final.
In 2008, 46,792 citations were contested and 13,456
citations became final.
In 2009, 46,526 citations were contested and 20,393
citations became final.
As these numbers demonstrate, the number of cases that are
contested has significantly outpaced the rate at which cases are being
resolved. One factor in this increase is clearly an increase in the
number of citations MSHA has issued and the amount of penalties
proposed. With the passage of the MINER Act and MSHA's commitment to
conduct all statutorily mandated inspections, there has been about a
30% increase in the number of citations issued. Strikingly, while the
increase in citations rose 30%, the dollar value of associated
penalties proposed in those years increased almost five-fold, from $35
million in 2006 to an average of $167.5 million per year in 2008 and
2009.
The backlog cannot be explained solely by the increase in the
number of violations MSHA has cited. The increase in the percentage of
contested citations has grown much faster than the rate of increase in
citations. The percentage of citations that operators contested rose
dramatically, from 7.4% in 2006, or about 10,000 citations, to an
average of just over 25% per year in 2008 and 2009, more than 46,000
contested citations each year.
The system's inability to keep pace with the rate of contested
cases has caused a backlog of some 82,000 violations and $210 million
in contested penalties pending before the Commission.\2\ The backlog
includes cases where MSHA and the operator have submitted a proposed
settlement but are awaiting Commission approval, cases yet to be
assigned a hearing date, cases scheduled for hearing or at hearing
before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), and cases before the
Commission on review. While most mine operators do not file notices of
contest, a few operators are contesting a large percentage of their
violations and proposed penalties, with some operators contesting up to
100% of the citations and proposed penalties they receive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ MSHA tracks contested matters before the Commission by
citations. For each violation cited by a mine inspector an operator
receives a citation. Multiple citations against a mine operator can be
docketed in a single case, also called a ``docket.'' While the
Commission typically describes the contested case backlog and MSHA the
contested violation backlog, they are the same disputed matters. MSHA
does not dispute the Commission's 16,000 figure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This increase in the number of contested citations has greatly
increased the time it takes for a contested case to make its way
through the process. For example, contested cases that became final in
CY 2006 took an average of 374 days from the time the citation was
issued until the time the case was resolved. In CY 2009, it took 587
days.
To successfully tackle the backlog, we must not only understand how
it has developed over the past few years, it is also important to
understand why it has developed. An examination of recent history
provides the answers. As this Committee knows, tragedies struck the
mining industry in 2006, starting with the mine explosion and disaster
at the Sago Mine in West Virginia on January 2, 2006, where twelve
miners lost their lives. It was followed by a deadly fire on January
19, 2006 at the Alma #1 mine in West Virginia that claimed two lives. A
few months later on May 20, 2006 a disastrous explosion occurred at the
Darby Mine in Eastern Kentucky, claiming the lives of five more miners.
In response, Congress enacted new legislation to improve mine
safety and health. That legislation, the MINER Act, established a
number of new safety requirements, including the use of enhanced mine
communications and tracking technology, establishment of refuge areas,
greater training of mine rescue teams, and other actions. Most relevant
to our discussion today, the legislation also added minimum penalties
of $2,000 for unwarrantable failure citations or orders issued under
section 104(d)(1) and $4,000 for subsequent orders issued under
104(d)(2) of the Mine Act. It established penalties of up to $220,000
for newly created ``flagrant'' violations--those involving ``a reckless
or repeated failure to make reasonable efforts to eliminate a known
violation of a mandatory health or safety standard that substantially
and proximately caused, or reasonably could have been expected to
cause, death or serious bodily injury.'' The MINER Act also established
penalties between $5,000 and $60,000 for a mine operator who fails to
notify MSHA in a timely manner of a death or an injury or entrapment
with a reasonable potential for causing death.
MSHA also exercised its regulatory authority to increase penalties
for violations of other health and safety standards. Following the
tragedies at Sago, Alma and Darby, MSHA's penalty structure came under
increased scrutiny. The Agency received criticism that its penalty
assessments were insufficient as a deterrent for mine operators to
prevent safety and health hazards. In March of 2007, MSHA completed
rulemaking to revise its penalty assessment tables. These regulatory
changes increased penalty amounts for most violations, and increased
penalties substantially for serious hazards and for repeat violators.
Also in the wake of the Sago and Alma tragedies, Congress directed
MSHA to enhance its inspection program. Congress increased MSHA funding
for the specific purpose of ensuring the full compliance with the Mine
Act's requirement that all mines receive regular annual inspections--
four complete inspections per year for all underground mines and two
complete inspections per year for surface mines. Congress took this
action because MSHA was not achieving these mandated responsibilities.
MSHA used the funding to increase the number of mine inspectors.
The result was both an increase in the number of inspections--up to
mandated levels--and in the quality of those inspections. As a result,
the number of inspections rose from 21,705 in CY 2007 to 23,882 in
2008, a 10% increase, and 21,999 in CY 2009, a 1% increase from CY 2007
levels. With the increase in inspections, the number of cited
violations increased as well, up 20% in CY 2008 and CY 2009 from CY
2007 levels.
The increased funding was used to recruit additional mine
inspectors, and pay overtime necessary to meet the 100% inspection
mandate. It is important to note that during this period of 100%
enforcement in 2008 and 2009, the mining industry achieved record
improvements in mine safety. In 2008, mining deaths reached an all-time
low of 52. That record was again broken in 2009.
Preliminary reports show that in 2009 a record low of 35 miners
died as a result of mine accidents. The year 2009 also marked an
important record in coal mining. The number of deaths in underground
coal mines fell to a record low of 7--half the number of any previous
year on record. For the first time, the number of mining deaths at
underground coal mines was much lower than at surface coal mines. Just
as historic is the fact that the underground coal mining industry
experienced a period of 8 months--from October 2008 through June of
2009--in which no underground coal miner was killed in a mining
accident.
Similarly, in metal and non-metal mining, the number of deaths at
aggregates mines--stone, sand, gravel and limestone--fell to a record
low of 8 in 2009. Given that the majority of mining deaths in the metal
and nonmetal mining sectors have occurred in recent years at aggregates
facilities, this reduction is also a remarkable achievement.
Measures Moving Forward
As we consider solutions to the backlog, we must be mindful of
these improvements and MSHA's increased enforcement presence over the
past few years when the industry achieved these safety records.
However, while these safety records represent great strides forward in
mine safety, we cannot lose sight of the fact that we continue to
strive to prevent all miner deaths. Nor can we forget the grief and
suffering of the families, friends and coworkers of the miners who
died.
It is in the best interest of all affected--miners, mine operators,
MSHA, the Solicitor of Labor, and the Federal Mine Safety and Health
Review Commission--to effectively reduce the current backlog of cases
and implement measures that will improve the process for contesting
cases going forward.
Toward that end, MSHA and the Office of the Solicitor of Labor,
which represents MSHA before the Commission, have given serious
consideration to the backlog's causes and potential remedies. As a
result, we have identified a number of structural changes that could
help improve the contested case process. The goal of the changes under
consideration must be both to reduce the current backlog and to reduce
the rate of contested cases in order to prevent future backlogs.
The changes that we implement to address these goals will be guided
by several principles: (1) improved implementation of the Mine Act and
mine health and safety, (2) simplification of the contested case
process, (3) improved consistency by MSHA inspectors and supervisors,
and (4) creation of an environment where fewer cases enter the contest
process.
The following is a review of the issues contributing to the backlog
and solutions under consideration:
Industry Responsibility for Mine Safety
The Mine Act obligates MSHA inspectors to cite violations observed.
A review of the disposition of violations cited to mine operators
indicates that a relatively minimal number of citations and orders are
found completely without merit and vacated by either MSHA or the
Commission. The percentages of assessed citations and orders vacated or
withdrawn was 0.4% in 2006, 0.5% in 2007, 0.5% in 2008 and 0.5% in
2009. In most of the contested cases before the Commission, the issue
is not whether a violation of a mandatory health or safety standard
occurred. Instead the dispute is over the gravity of the violation and
the operator's negligence.
Given that fact, the starting point for any analysis of the backlog
is the obligation of mine operators to eliminate the conditions that
lead to so many violations. With so many citations and orders issued,
it is imperative that mine operators improve compliance. To do that,
the mining industry must expand its health and safety management
programs and more thoroughly and regularly identify problem areas,
inspect mines and abate hazards in advance of MSHA inspections. If MSHA
inspectors can inspect workplaces and find these conditions, mine
management should be finding them as well. If mine operators would take
greater ownership of mine safety and health, it would be beneficial for
all involved. Workers will be safer, the number of violations will be
reduced, and penalties will go down. Instead of paying fines to the
government, companies can invest that money back into ensuring the
optimum health and safety at their mining operations.
With much lower fines in the past, some mine operators may have
considered MSHA fines to be a cost of doing business, and abdicated
their obligation to identify and correct hazards at their mines and
ensure a healthy and safe workplace prior to inspections by MSHA. The
responsibility for identifying and remedying mine hazards needs to be
shifted from MSHA inspectors back to the mine operators.
To encourage mine operators to take more responsibility for the
safety and health of their workers, MSHA will evaluate ways to improve
the use of effective mine safety and health management programs by mine
operators, particularly those that may be subject to the application of
the pattern of violations criteria pursuant to section 104(e) of the
Mine Act. I firmly believe the best way to resolve the backlog problem
is to take measures to ensure safer and healthier mines that, under
rigorous and complete inspections, receive fewer citations and orders
from MSHA because there are fewer violations to cite. This will require
a collaborative approach with the mining industry.
MSHA will also work with the mining industry to develop training
programs and materials to aid compliance by mine operators. Some of
those are underway. For example, I am working with the National Stone,
Sand and Gravel Association to expand such an initiative. My goal as
Assistant Secretary is to change the paradigm in the mining industry so
that mine operators are more proactively preventing hazards in their
workplaces and fixing conditions that would be cited before a mine
inspector even enters the property.
Simplification of Citations
In most of the contested cases before the Commission, the issue is
not whether a violation occurred. Instead the dispute is over the
gravity of the violation, the degree of mine operator negligence, and
other factors. Currently, when writing a citation, a mine inspector
determines the likelihood of injury from the violation, the severity of
an injury if one occurred, and the number of persons affected by the
hazardous condition, and decides whether the violation is significant
and substantial. In addition, the inspector determines the operator's
degree of negligence. These determinations are then used under the
regulations to propose penalties based on statutory criteria. We are
considering how to make the evaluation and writing of citations by
inspectors simpler and ultimately more objective, clear and consistent.
Any simplification would consider the effect on the number of issues
that mine operators most often contest.
Mine Operator Conference Requests with MSHA
Under MSHA regulations a mine operator may request a safety and
health conference for any citation, although MSHA may exercise
discretion whether it grants such requests. Historically, MSHA has held
safety and health conferences when requested by the mine operator to
discuss and resolve disputes over violations. MSHA generally grants
these requests and determines the nature of the conference. MSHA
considers all relevant information presented with respect to each
citation that is conferenced. Conferences generally consist of a
discussion of the specific findings by the inspector regarding the
seriousness of the violation, including the degree of negligence,
likelihood of occurrence, severity of injury or illness if injury
occurred, and the number of miners potentially affected by the cited
hazard. For each of these issues there are categories that have points
assigned for each category. For example there are five degrees of
negligence ranging from no negligence to reckless disregard, with
progressively higher points assigned to higher degrees of negligence.
Those points are used in a formula to propose a civil penalty amount
for the violation. Until February 2008, MSHA held these conferences
prior to the assessment of the civil penalty.\3\ Once the MSHA health
and safety conferences were concluded, MSHA's Office of Assessments
would assign a penalty, taking into consideration any revisions MSHA
enforcement personnel made to the evaluation of the violation. This
conferencing process resulted in the mine operator filing no penalty
contest if they were satisfied with the results of the conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In February 2008 MSHA suspended most health and safety
conferences, effectively deferring discussions until after the proposed
penalty. In March 2009 MSHA formally created an ``Enhanced Health and
Safety Conference'' that deferred all conference requests until after a
penalty was proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disputes resolved during health and safety conferences do not
require approval by the Commission. In addition, uncontested citations
and orders automatically become final orders of the Commission. Some
mine operators, however, filed contests even after participating in an
MSHA conference. Possible reasons for this behavior include
disagreement with MSHA's position at the conference, or a desire to
further reduce the seriousness of the violation to lower its impact on
the operator's violation history, which can both increase future fines
and cause MSHA to target the operator for scrutiny as an operator with
a potential ``pattern of violations.'' Another possible reason is that,
with changes in penalties, operators still wished to contest penalties
after discovering the dollar amount of the proposed assessment.
In March 2009 MSHA implemented the Enhanced Safety and Health
Conference, which was designed to reinstate early conferences to settle
cases but still delayed conferencing until after a civil penalty was
proposed and formally contested by the mine operator. This
significantly added to the Commission's caseload because proposed
penalties that are formally contested, even if settled, must proceed
through the Commission process and be reviewed and approved by an ALJ.
After a review of the conferencing process it appears that the best
approach is to hold the MSHA health and safety conference, if requested
by the mine operator, prior to MSHA issuing a proposed penalty
assessment, and provide the mine operator with an estimated penalty
amount based on the standard assessment formula. The MSHA field
conferencing and litigation representatives (CLRs) and potentially
other personnel would review the facts of the violation and the
inspector's determination of negligence, likeliness of occurrence,
etc., as before. The resolution of these cases does not require
Commission approval unless they are later contested. MSHA will
implement this change through policy.
In addition to these changes, opportunities exist in the current
system for operator and miner communication with MSHA to resolve
disputes over citations. MSHA holds a ``closeout'' inspection meeting
at the completion of each mine inspection to discuss the cited
violations with the operator and any miners' representatives. This
provides the mine operator and miners' representatives an opportunity
to discuss the violations directly with the MSHA inspector.
Additionally, mine management and miners' representatives are
permitted--and encouraged--to travel on the inspections at the mine.
MSHA is examining how to maximize the use of these processes as a tool
to resolve factual disputes about citations that later arise in the
litigation process.
Review of the Pattern-of-Violations Process
We are also reviewing the current pattern of violation criteria
contained in 30 C.F.R. Part 104. The criteria used for determining that
an operator has a potential pattern of violations include a mine's
history of significant and substantial (S&S) violations of a particular
standard, history of S&S violations related to a particular hazard, and
history of S&S violations caused by an unwarrantable failure to comply
with health and safety standards. Once a potential pattern is found, an
operator has a notice period to reduce the number of S&S violations at
its mine. If the operator fails to reduce the number of violations,
under Section 104(e) of the Mine Act, MSHA is required to first issue a
notice that a pattern exists, and then require the withdrawal of all
miners from any area of the mine where a significant and substantial
violation has been cited.
Currently, when applying the criteria for finding a potential
pattern of violations, MSHA only considers violations that have become
final orders of the Commission. Citations and orders that are under
contest, no matter how egregious, are not considered when enforcing the
pattern of violation section of the Mine Act. We believe some operators
contesting S&S violations may be doing so because it delays the finding
of a pattern, adding to the backlog and delaying MSHA from using this
enhanced enforcement tool at their mines. As a result, there are
operations that might be on a potential pattern of violations, but the
backlog has prevented their cases from becoming final orders.
It is important that we remove the incentive for operators with
repeated S&S safety violations at their mine to contest violations
simply to delay enforcement. Delay in addressing S&S hazardous
conditions puts miners at risk, is at odds with the purpose of the Mine
Act and mission of MSHA, and is unacceptable. MSHA is considering a
review of the pattern of violation process to determine whether our
current approach is the best one for providing timely protection for
miners working at mines with high levels of S&S violations.
MSHA will also consider whether the implementation and use of
health and safety management programs for operators with these kinds of
serious violations might also play a role in improving the pattern of
violations process. Mine operators with a pattern of violations
obviously do not maintain effective mine safety and health management
programs; otherwise they would not have accumulated the violations that
result in their placement on a potential pattern of violations. MSHA
will study the use of such programs and their potential to both reduce
the number of violations entering the system and improve mine safety
and health.
Even without any changes to the pattern of violation criteria, we
believe that under the current system we can take action to reduce the
incentive for operators with S&S violations to file contests simply to
delay fixing a systematic pattern of serious safety and health hazards.
MSHA is announcing today its intention to review pending cases of those
operators with significant numbers of S&S citations, and where
warranted, seek to expedite those cases so that the pattern of
violations enforcement scheme of the Mine Act is given its intended
effect and miners are not left at continued risk from delays caused by
the backlog.
While this backlog will not be fixed overnight, we will take these
steps to make sure operators that should be under scrutiny for having a
potential pattern of serious health and safety violations get that
scrutiny. We also believe that this strategy will remove the incentive
of operators who may choose to contest cases simply for the purpose of
delaying a pattern of violations finding.
Consistency
Some operators complain MSHA has not been consistent in its
application of enforcement decisions involving health and safety
standards, and that enforcement of the standards and evaluation of
cited conditions varies from inspector to inspector. Consistency of
enforcement is critical and requires constant training and review.
Consistency in the application of the laws, rules and regulations
enforced and administered by MSHA is an issue I have been studying
closely. MSHA's workforce has changed significantly over the past few
years. A substantial number of highly experienced mine inspectors have
retired and been replaced by new inspectors. For example, about 55% of
the current coal mine inspectors have been hired since July 2006. In
Metal and Nonmetal, about 37% of inspectors were hired during that same
period. Although new hires go through extensive training of up to two
years and apprentice with a journeyman inspector before they can begin
unsupervised inspection duties, even the most experienced of these new
inspectors have only been conducting federal mine inspections for a
couple of years.
The significant turnover in MSHA's inspectorate coincided with the
significant changes in the law brought about by the 2006 enactment of
the MINER Act. The MINER Act required MSHA's inspectors to quickly get
up to speed on new standards regarding mine communications and tracking
devices, emergency response plans, sealing abandoned areas in
underground coal mines, use of belt air to ventilate coal mines, and
mine rescue teams and emergency refuge chambers and alternatives. As I
mentioned earlier, MSHA also revised its penalty tables in this period,
substantially increasing fines. These changes can create a potential
for inconsistent application of the Mine Act--and we are evaluating how
to maintain and improve our consistency where necessary.
Consistency requires ongoing training and review. To help with
consistency, MSHA is developing training programs for its supervisors
with the goal that inspectors will be held accountable for writing
citations based on solid facts and evidence, and based on sustainable
legal determinations. We want to ensure that inspectors are issuing
citations for workplace hazards that can be supported before the
Commission. To that end, we are collaborating with the Office of the
Solicitor in developing these training programs and course material. We
want to ensure that inspectors are writing ``good paper,'' and are not
issuing citations for conditions where there is no violation or where
there is a lack of evidence to support the inspector's findings.
Consistency also requires training of Conference Litigation
Representatives (CLRs), the MSHA personnel who handle most of the
contested cases in the litigation process. It is vital that CLRs
evaluate citations under the same training and criteria as the
inspectors who write the citations.
Finally, we must also provide appropriate training and guidelines
to all MSHA field supervisors, including District Managers and
Assistant District Managers, who have significant oversight
responsibility for MSHA's enforcement program. Once trained for
consistency, we must ensure that MSHA personnel are also managed for
consistency.
With consistent training of inspectors and CLRs, and supervisory
responsibility established in this effort as well, we hope to ensure
inspectors write meritorious citations and develop an evidentiary
record to support their prosecution. This improved consistency will
give MSHA and the Office of the Solicitor stronger cases to litigate,
which over time should help reduce the number of contested cases.
Fewer Cases in the System
Any system of reforms will have to result in fewer cases entering
the contest system. MSHA does not believe that litigating our way out
of this backlog is the best long-term solution. Instead, an approach
that includes incentives to reduce the number of contested cases while
reducing the exposure of miners to safety and health hazards is the
best solution, and the solution that best implements the Mine Act.
Among the most important reforms, MSHA is considering how we might
implement operator or corporate-wide holistic settlements to reduce the
backlog. A review of cases currently pending before the Commission
shows that 10 corporations and the companies within their control
account for 39% of all contested violations currently in the backlog. A
program of corporate-wide engagement with these companies to reduce
contested cases while improving mine safety and health could completely
change the landscape of the contested case backlog.
Over the years the mining industry's approach to safety and health
has shifted. Mining operators have switched over time to a reactive
approach, relying on MSHA inspectors to identify safety and health
hazards, and treating citations as a cost of doing business instead of
having comprehensive safety and health programs of their own. MSHA is
currently considering how the implementation of comprehensive safety
programs approved by MSHA could serve as an incentive to reduce
contested citations, and more importantly, as a means to improve safety
by requiring operators to focus resources on improving safety rather
than litigating citations.
Additionally, we could consider providing incentives for operators
that do not contest. Operators currently receive a 10 percent reduction
in proposed civil penalties for prompt, good faith abatement of the
violations cited. Prior to 2007, MSHA applied a 30% reduction for
prompt, good faith abatement. We are reviewing whether some type of
additional financial incentive could be implemented to reduce the
number of contested cases. MSHA will carefully review the potential
benefits of any such approach. A critical component of any such review
would be an analysis of the appropriate level of reduction or discount,
whether and how such a discount would actually reduce the number of
contested cases, the residual effects on uncontested cases of such a
discount, and whether certain serious violations should be excluded
from any incentive program.
Outreach
To complement the enforcement provisions of the Mine Act, MSHA is
working to improve stakeholder outreach and education. MSHA recently
launched two major initiatives to curb mining deaths and solicited the
support and cooperation of the mining industry stakeholders. One is the
``End Black Lung--Act Now'' campaign which is aimed at ending the black
lung disease in coal mining. The second is the fatality prevention
program called ``Rules to Live By,'' which targets the most common
causes of mining deaths. These initiatives have been rolled out with
the support of the mining industry, labor organizations and other
stakeholders. Since my confirmation, I have met with several
stakeholders in coal and metal--non metal industries including company
CEO's and other executives as well as a number of industry associations
and organizations to discuss ways to improve mine safety and health and
compliance with the Mine Act. While these indirectly impact the
backlog, this component of communication and education with the
industry and other stakeholders is essential to our success as an
agency.
Possible Commission Reforms
In addition to what I have outlined, there are several critical
reforms that are within the purview of the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Review Commission (Commission). For example, we endorse reforms
that will increase the speed with which settlements are approved. Once
a case is contested, any settlement must be approved by the Commission.
A part of the backlog consists of cases that MSHA and the operator have
agreed to settle, but the settlement agreement is pending before the
Commission awaiting approval. We endorse efforts by the Commission to
focus on settlement approvals and simplifying the process for getting a
settlement approved. We also think consideration should be given to
expanding the use of settlement conferences over which a judge
presides.
Additionally, MSHA believes the Commission should consider the use
of simplified trial proceedings. Currently MSHA and SOL devote
considerable resources to the pre-trial discovery process and other
case preparation for matters which usually settle. A simplified trial
process for certain categories of cases would have a significant impact
on the time and resources it takes for cases to proceed to trial. The
Department of Labor fully endorses consideration of reforms, and is
prepared to provide technical support to the Commission in order to
implement these reforms as quickly as possible.
Finally, we think it would be appropriate for the Commission to
consider whether there are procedural reforms applicable to all types
of cases that could streamline the process and reduce the number of
contested cases. For example, uniform disclosures by MSHA of its
evidence in support of a citation and by an operator of its grounds and
supporting evidence for contesting a citation could create an incentive
for the parties to evaluate their positions early in the process.
Conclusion
We believe that the ideas presented here can help reduce the
current backlog issues and assist in preventing further case backlogs
going forward. We are hopeful that our work will allow MSHA to meet its
statutory mandates and continue an effective enforcement program that
provides an appropriate deterrent to mine operators while assuring that
MSHA enforcement cases are aggressively litigated. We are committed to
taking all necessary steps to address the backlog because it is an
obstacle to ensuring the highest level of safety for our nation's
miners. I look forward to working with the Committee to tackle this
critical problem and I am happy to answer your questions.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Ms. Jordan?
STATEMENT OF MARY LU JORDAN, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND
HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member and members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the case
backlog currently facing the Commission.
My name is Mary Lu Jordan, and I am Chairman of the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.
The Commission is an independent adjudicatory agency that
provides trial and appellate review of the legal disputes that
arise under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.
The Commission's administrative law judges decide the cases
at the trial level, and the five-member Commission provides the
appellate review.
When I became Chairman last August, I was confronted with a
growing case load that was a dramatic departure from the trend
that had previously existed. For example, during the 4 years
from fiscal 2002 through 2005, the case load ranged from
approximately 1,300 to 1,500 cases.
In comparison, during the subsequent 4 years, from fiscal
year 2006 through 2009, the case load climbed from
approximately 2,700 to over 14,000 cases. Currently, there is a
backlog of approximately 16,000.
Comparing the new case filings during these same two
periods is also instructive. From fiscal year 2002 to 2005, the
annual number of new cases filed increased from about 2,100 to
2,400.
The figures after that paint a different picture. Case
filings went from 3,300 new cases in fiscal year 2006 up to
approximately 9,200 new cases in fiscal year 2009.
The influx of new cases has led to a slower disposition.
The vast majority of the Commission cases result in
settlements. The settlement motions are reviewed by a judge who
issues an order approving or disapproving the proposed
resolution.
The average number of days it took to dispose of these
settlement cases increased from 178 days in fiscal 2006 to 401
days in fiscal year 2009.
When I became Chairman, I learned that the increase in new
cases had created a bottleneck in case assignments. By the time
the cases could be assigned by the chief judge, they were
already a year old.
With the assistance of some contract clerical help, we have
made progress in reducing the number of cases waiting to be
assigned. However, unclogging the assignment process meant that
the bulge of backlogged cases would now move to the judges'
desks.
Judges' dockets have increased dramatically. From fiscal
year 2004 to 2008, each judge's docket averaged 176 cases.
Today in fiscal year 2010, the number of cases assigned to each
judge has risen to an average of 746.
Under our budget for fiscal year 2010, the Commission plans
to add four new judges to our current roster of 10. We also
plan to add four law clerks and additional clerical assistants.
These measures will allow us to slow the rate of the growth of
our backlog.
The President's 2011 budget request of $13.1 million will
allow the Commission to stop the backlog from increasing. We
will be able to bring our total judges to 18 and plan to hire
enough law clerks so that each judge can have the assistance of
a clerk and share an administrative assistant.
In addition to increased staffing, we are looking at all of
our processes to see what we can streamline. Within the next
few days, the Commission will publish an amendment to the
procedural rules.
We will require the parties to submit a draft settlement
order when they file their motions to settle with our judges,
and these will be required to be filed electronically.
We are also contemplating things like a calendar call where
judges take a bundle of cases with a particular operator, meet
with the parties and try and resolve as many as they can.
We are looking at whether we can simplify or even eliminate
some of the pleadings that the parties currently file with us.
And we are enthusiastic about looking at the possibility of
initiating a simplified procedures process, similar to that
used by OSHRC, wherein things like discovery and post-trial
briefs are severely limited.
We are keenly aware of Congress' concern that the penalty
provisions of the Mine Act cannot operate as an effective
deterrent if there is an unduly long period between the
violation and the payment of the penalty.
Indeed, the legislative history of the Mine Act that
created the Commission emphasized that, ``to be effective and
to induce compliance, civil penalties once proposed must be
assessed and collected with reasonable promptness and
efficiency.''
Moreover, unless the case processing mechanisms operate
efficiently, operators who dispute MSHA's interpretation of a
standard may not know in a timely manner whether their
practices comply with the standard or not.
We recognize that several important enforcement provisions
of the Mine Act depend upon a determination of an operator's
history, and these provisions are not applicable until the
violation becomes final, which occurs only at the completion of
the Commission's review process. Thus, if case decisions are
delayed, the ability of MSHA to effectively enforce the act may
be inhibited.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Jordan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman,
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the case backlog currently
facing the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. My name is
Mary Lu Jordan, and I am Chairman of the Commission. On behalf of the
Commission, I am very grateful to this Committee for its recognition of
the increased case backlog facing our agency, and for its interest in
identifying solutions to ensure the speedy adjudication of mine safety
cases.
The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission is an
independent adjudicatory agency that provides administrative trial and
appellate review of legal disputes arising under the Federal Mine
Safety and Health Act of 1977 (the ``Mine Act''). The majority of cases
that come before the Commission involve civil penalties proposed by the
Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration (``MSHA'')
to be assessed against mine operators. The Commission is responsible
for deciding whether the alleged violations of the Mine Act or a
mandatory safety regulation issued by MSHA occurred, as well as the
appropriateness of the proposed penalties. Other types of cases heard
by the Commission include contests of MSHA orders to close a mine for
health or safety reasons, miners' charges of discrimination based on
their complaints regarding health or safety, and miners' requests for
compensation after being idled by a mine closure order.
The Commission's administrative law judges decide cases at the
trial level. The five-member Commission provides administrative
appellate review. Currently, we have four Commissioners. A fifth
Commissioner has been nominated to serve by the President, and his
nomination is pending before the Senate.
When I became Chairman last August, I was confronted with a growing
caseload--a dramatic departure from the steady caseload trend that
existed during my first term as Chairman (from 1994 until 2001), and
for the several years following when I served as a Commissioner.
For example, during the four years from FY 2002 through FY 2005,
the caseload ranged from approximately 1300 to 1500 cases. In
comparison, during the subsequent four years, from FY 2006 through FY
2009, the caseload climbed from approximately 2,700 to over 14,000
cases. Currently, there is a backlog of approximately 16,000 cases.
A comparison of new case filings during these same two time periods
is also instructive. From FY 2002 to FY 2005, the annual number of
cases filed showed only a minimal increase, going from about 2,100 to
2,400 new cases per year. The figures after that paint a completely
different picture, with case filings going from 3,300 new cases in FY
2006 up to approximately 9,200 new cases in FY 2009.
What prompted this unprecedented number of new cases? While we
cannot answer that question with complete certainty, we believe that
certain statutory and regulatory changes that occurred within the last
four years have played a role in this influx of new cases.
First, as a result of the Sago, Aracoma and Darby mine disasters in
2006, Congress enacted the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response
Act of 2006 (the ``MINER Act''), which was signed into law on June 15,
2006. The MINER Act established new and stronger civil sanctions for
violations of the Mine Act, including minimum penalties for an
operator's unwarrantable failure to comply with the statute or
mandatory safety and health standards, and a new penalty for ``flagrant
conduct'' by a mine operator.
Second, in response to the MINER Act, MSHA in March 2007 revised
its civil penalty regulations, which resulted in significant increases
in the amounts of money assessed in civil penalties proposed by the
agency. In addition, in June 2007, MSHA announced an initiative to more
vigorously enforce the provision of the Mine Act that permits mine
closure orders to be issued when an operator has a pattern of recurrent
significant and substantial (``S&S'') violations at a mine. These types
of violations generally involve more dangerous situations than other
citations.
While it is difficult to know with complete certainty the
implications of these individual events on the Commission's caseload,
we do know that the result of this influx of new cases has led to a
slower disposition for most of our cases. The vast majority of our
cases result in settlements. These settlements must be reviewed by a
judge who must then issue an order approving or disapproving the
proposed resolution. The average number of days it took to dispose of
these cases increased from 178 days in FY 2006 to 401 days in FY 2009.
When I became Chairman, I learned that the tremendous increase in
new cases had created a bottleneck in the case assignment phase of our
process. By the time cases could be assigned by the Chief Judge, they
were already a year old. The Chief Judge and I discussed ways that the
process could be streamlined. We realized that, as we unclogged the
assignment process, we would need some additional clerical help to get
the assignment orders out to the parties and to create the case files.
We brought in temporary contractors to help the docket office
accomplish this. Due in large part to the assistance of contract
clerical help, we have made progress in reducing the number of cases
waiting to be assigned to a judge.
Unclogging the assignment phase meant that the bulge of backlogged
cases would now move down the pipeline to the judges' desks. Judges'
dockets have increased dramatically. From FY 2004 to FY 2008, each
judge's docket averaged 176 cases. That number jumped to 366 cases in
FY 2009. To date in FY 2010, the number of cases assigned to each judge
has risen to an average of 746.
The Commission's judges are hardworking and conscientious, and they
are understandably concerned about the delays this increased caseload
may cause. However, because of the number of incoming cases, some
judges have felt the need to issue a prehearing order advising the
parties that their case would not be set for hearing for at least a
year.
Under the Commission's budget for FY 2010, the Commission plans to
add four new administrative law judges to our current roster of 10
judges. We also plan to add four law clerks to our current staff of
five clerks (these are law school graduates who assist the judges). We
will also be hiring four additional clerical assistants. The Commission
has started the competitive procurement process with GSA for additional
space to accommodate the anticipated increase in staff for FY 2010.
These measures will allow us to slow the rate of growth of our backlog,
although the backlog will continue to grow throughout FY 2010. We will
also be adopting a number of procedures that would allow the new judges
to tackle the case backlog without significant impacting DOL or its
Solicitor's Office, such as having current judges concentrate on
writing decisions for hearings which have already been held and also
having new judges focus on the backlog of settlements.
The President's 2011 budget request of $13.105 million,
representing a 27 percent increase, will allow the Commission to stop
the backlog from increasing. We will be able to add four more judges,
which will bring our total to 18. We also plan to hire nine additional
law clerks so that each judge will have the assistance of a law clerk,
and each judge would share an administrative assistant with another
judge.
But more resources are only part of the answer. In addition to
increased staffing, we have, over the last several years, reviewed and
are continuing to examine our entire case adjudication system to
determine how we can streamline procedures via administrative and
rulemaking changes. We are identifying specific points where
unnecessary delays occur, and formulating solutions to address each of
these problems.
We examined our caseload and determined that approximately 20% of
our cases involved a challenge to the underlying MSHA enforcement
action--the issuance of a citation or order. These are commonly called
``contest cases.'' Since an operator almost always subsequently files a
case challenging the penalty related to that enforcement action, the
contest case is usually subsumed into the penalty case. Consequently,
we announced a policy in August 2007 under which the Chief
Administrative Law Judge automatically stays each of these contest
cases until its accompanying civil penalty is proposed by the
Secretary. At that point, the contest case and the civil penalty case
are consolidated and assigned to a judge. (If the operator needs an
expedited hearing on the contest case, it can file a motion with the
Chief Administrative Law Judge to lift the automatic stay). Because of
our policy of staying cases, we no longer have to issue orders in the
contest cases, which are duplicative to those filed in the parallel
penalty proceeding.
Because over 90% of Commission cases are ultimately settled and the
statute requires that settlements be reviewed and approved by a judge,
much of the Commission's resources is used to process settlement
motions and issue orders approving settlement. Within the next few
days, the Commission will publish an amendment to its procedural rules
requiring the parties to submit a draft settlement order when they file
a motion to approve settlement in most cases. The rule will require
most of these submissions to be filed electronically. The
implementation of this rule will reduce the amount of time that it
takes for the Commission to dispose of settlement motions and provide
the Commission with valuable experience in its move towards an
electronic filing system.
We are also contemplating a ``calendar call'' system, wherein one
judge is assigned numerous cases from the same operator, and meets with
the parties with a goal of settling as many cases as possible, if
appropriate. This system was used successfully by a former Commission
Chief Judge many years ago, and we believe the time may be ripe to
reinstate this program.
Revisions to our procedural rules have also been discussed with an
eye towards streamlining the adjudication process and eliminating
unnecessary filings. We are investigating whether we should eliminate
the requirement that an operator file an answer to the formal penalty
petition, which the Secretary files with the Commission. We will need
to weigh the potential for streamlining the processing of cases against
the potential for encouraging more cases to enter the system. We are
also exploring ways to simplify or even eliminate the penalty petition
that the Secretary files with the Commission.
We are enthusiastic about initiating a ``simplified procedures''
process similar to the one in effect at the Occupational Safety and
Health Review Commission. In cases placed on this track, which would be
the simpler cases the Commission receives, discovery and post-trial
briefs could be severely limited, and interlocutory review might be
abolished. We have begun the research and discussion necessary to
embark on a rulemaking regarding such a system.
Additionally, we are considering changes to our procedures for
those cases which will not be placed on the ``simplified procedures''
track. These changes would be partially based on the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. They could include such things as utilizing uniform
Pre-Hearing Orders, requiring parties to make initial disclosures of
basic information early in the litigation process, and standardizing
pre-trial conferences with the judge. We are also focusing on
procedural changes that would not require DOL or mine operators to
expend significant additional resources.
In FY 2008, the Commission upgraded to a new electronic case
tracking system, which provides the Commission the ability to track the
various stages of each case that it receives. Another potential project
involves the electronic filing of cases and case documents. The
Commission is currently reviewing requirements for the electronic
filing process to determine the best approach for implementing such a
system.
We will continue to explore modifications to our procedural rules
and case management procedures that might enable cases to move more
quickly through the Commission. We are committed to examining any and
all ideas that can assist in adjudicating cases more quickly.
We are keenly aware of Congress' concern that the penalty
provisions of the Mine Act cannot operate as an effective deterrent if
there is an unduly long period of time between the violation and the
payment of a penalty. Indeed, the legislative history of the Mine Act
emphasizes that ``[t]o be effective and to induce compliance, civil
penalties, once proposed, must be assessed and collected with
reasonable promptness and efficiency.'' S. Rep. No. 95-181, at 43
(1977), reprinted in Senate Subcomm. on Labor, Comm. on Human Res.,
Legislative History of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977,
at 631 (1978).
Moreover, Congress intended that the case processing mechanism
operate efficiently so that operators who dispute MSHA's interpretation
of a standard may obtain a speedy resolution. With a large and growing
backlog of cases at the Commission, operators often do not know in a
timely manner whether their practices comply with mandatory safety
standards or violate them.
We recognize that several important enforcement provisions of the
Mine Act depend upon a determination of an operator's history of
violations. These include the amount of the penalty, and possible
withdrawal orders for a pattern of violations that could significantly
and substantially contribute to a safety or health hazard. These
provisions are not applicable until a violation becomes ``final,''
which occurs only at the completion of the Commission's review process.
Thus, if case decisions are delayed, the ability of MSHA to effectively
enforce the Act may be inhibited.
Over the years this Committee has played a key role in ensuring
miner safety. I look forward to working with you to remedy this
problem, and thank you once again for this opportunity to testify on
this issue.
______
Chairman Miller. President Roberts, welcome.
STATEMENT OF CECIL ROBERTS, PRESIDENT,
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA
Mr. Roberts. Well, thank you very much, once again, for
having the opportunity to appear before this committee.
Obviously, you know, it is a much better atmosphere today
than it was in 2006, and I wanted to commend this committee for
the actions that were taken in 2006 in the face of those
terrible disasters at Sago and Aracoma, at Darby, and in the
face of many widows and orphans coming here to testify in a
very volatile situation.
UMWA argued at that time that good laws, enforcement of
those laws, fines for violating the laws, and more inspectors
would drop the number of fatalities in the nation's coal mines.
I want to point out a couple of things, if I may.
In 2006, when we were all here trying to determine what to
do about the tragedies that were occurring, $35 million in
penalties were assessed, and we had 47 coal miners die in the
nation's coal mines that year.
In 2009, we had $141 million in penalties assessed, four
times higher, and we had the lowest number of fatalities in
2009 in the history of coal mining in the United States of
America.
That is not something that just happened. It was because of
the actions that Congress took, looking at these fatalities and
making a determination that the government should be a full
partner in mine health and safety.
That is not the first time that has happened. If you go
back to the original 1969 Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, the
25 years preceding that act, 12,000 coal miners died in the
nation's coal mines--in the 25 years after the passage of that
act, fewer than 3,000.
So I report to the committee that I don't think there is
any doubt that strong laws and enforcement of those laws
protect the coal miners of the United States, which was the
goal of this committee when we came together in 2006 in a very
bipartisan way, and also in 1969 when Congress initially acted
and then followed up in 1977.
So we have higher fines, and we have enforcement, and let
me take a moment, if I might, to commend Undersecretary Main
for the job that he has done and Chairman Jordan for the job
that she has done in their capacity of trying to protect the
coal miners in the United States.
And let's, first of all, understand that is our first
obligation, from my perspective here. When we look at the
number of cases and we talk about well, how do we deal with all
these cases, which is something very appropriate, also our goal
should be well, how do we protect the coal miners first. That
is who we should put out front.
And it is true that when penalties are assessed whenever
violations are found, the operator is required to abate those
violations. But understand, Congress' intent here when you
wrote the 2006 law was to make sure those operators who
continued to violate the law were dealt with.
And if you have an operator at a particular mine or a
series of mines who continues to violate the law, Congress
wrote into the act a way to deal with that, and that is you
look at the history of that particular operator, and then that
operator may face a more serious challenge here when there is a
pattern of violations imposed on that particular operator.
And you can take any particular situation where--that has
led to tragedy in the United States of America--any of those
tragedies in 2006 that we talked about at length, perhaps the
Crandall Canyon situation we talked about here at length in
2007--and there were a series of violations that should have
been dealt with or could have been dealt with.
What has happened here is the system has been clogged to a
certain degree here, where the pattern of violations is not
really in the law when the system doesn't work.
The pattern of violations was placed in here so that if a
particular operator, a particular mine, was continually
violating the law, there was a process for MSHA to identify
that and MSHA to act to make sure that operator complied with
the law. And it works.
Whenever any operator has been--as certain operators have
been placed on a pattern of violations, we have seen those
operators correct the situation.
There is a way to remedy all of this: not have any
violations. And I know that is probably impossible, but there
are some operators in the United States of America--let me
commend the industry, too, while I am at it, and that probably
is a little unusual for me in my capacity, but the industry has
spent enormous sums of money to comply with the 2006 act.
But we still have certain mines and we still have certain
operators who need a more stringent enforcement mechanism
applied, and that is why when you clog up the system with all
of these violations and appealing all of these cases--let's
understand something. There are some operators appealing 91
percent of every penalty assessed them.
Does anyone in this room today, whether sitting on this
panel or up on the front here, or behind me, believe that all
91 percent of those are legitimate? Of course they are not.
So why are they doing this? Because they do not want to
eventually have a history or a pattern here established so that
MSHA will come down more harshly with them and make them comply
with the laws.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Roberts follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cecil E. Roberts, President,
United Mine Workers of America
Thank you for this opportunity to appear before your Committee. As
President of the United Mine Workers of America (``UMWA''), I represent
the union that has been an unwavering advocate for miners' health and
safety for 120 years.
This Committee has played a significant role in advancing miners'
health and safety. I would like to express my appreciation to the
leadership of this Committee for your efforts to protect and enhance
the health and safety of all miners. Your continued oversight is
critical to ensuring miners will go home safely at the end of their
shift each and every day.
Today we are focusing on the difficulties confronting the Federal
Mine Health and Safety Review Commission and the serious backlog of
cases before the Commission. Neither the increased caseload, nor the
Commission's growing backlog, shows any signs of abating. In fact,
unless immediate and significant remedial action is taken to address
this problem, the Commission's backlog will render meaningless many of
the reforms Congress clearly intended to address with its passage of
the MINER Act. This is because the higher penalty structure was
intended to make penalties more meaningful, not just a cost of doing
business.
So what do we do to correct this problem? If Congress wants to
realize the full benefits that it intended with the enhanced penalty
structure in the 2006 MINER Act, then the system must be re-aligned so
that operators are not rewarded for routinely contesting citations and
penalties, and the Commission must be adequately funded so that it can
handle its caseload on a timely basis.
Since passage of the 2006 MINER Act, and the modified penalty
structure it imposed for violations of Mine Health and Safety laws, the
penalties MSHA assesses has increased significantly. Indeed, for 2006,
MSHA assessed about $35 million in penalties, while for 2009 assessed
penalties rose to about $141 million.
At the same time that the amount of assessed penalties increased,
so did both the number and the rate of contested cases. Most of the
increase is attributable to the coal industry, as opposed to metal/non-
metal: for each of the five years immediately before the MINER Act
(2000-2005), only 5-7% of coal mine civil penalties lead to cases being
contested before the Commission, whereas for the last three years
(2007-2009), the rate has dramatically increased to 18%, 30% and 31%,
respectively. While an increase in contested cases was anticipated
based on the MSHA's improved enforcement and the higher penalty
structure the MINER Act required, the scale of that increase exceeded
those expectations.
The Union and coal miners hailed the passage of the MINER Act as
the dawn of a new day to improving coal mine health and safety.
However, those increased protections are being subverted by the huge
contested rate that has overwhelmed the government's ability to deal
with its caseload, and MSHA's practice of reducing assessments when
operators contest them. While operators are entitled to their due
process, we cannot accept the status quo whereby some operators
continue to abuse the system such that the government is not able to
effectively carry out the directives of the MINER Act. As it stands,
miners' health and safety is adversely affected by the operators' high
contested rates and the related backlog of cases at the Commission.
The existing system rewards operators that file contests. While
this is not a new development, with the new and higher penalty
structure, operators have increasingly availed themselves of the
contest procedure as a means of reducing the costs attributable to
their mine health and safety violations. This happens in many ways. One
example is that when contested citations are tied up in the Commission
backlog, there is delay to the enhanced penalties that are supposed to
apply for repeat violations. While the intent was to motivate operators
to NOT have repeat violations, instead they are able to avoid the
higher penalties by delaying a final order that would show the repeat
violation. Likewise, this Administration's willingness to utilize--for
the first time--MSHA's powerful ``pattern of violations'' enforcement
tool becomes frustrated when citations are caught up in the
Commission's backlog. MSHA's determination that a mine has a ``pattern
of violations'' carries much more serious consequences, and a mine must
have an inspection free of S & S (significant and substantial)
violations in order to get off of the ``pattern.'' Again, having delay
in the resolution of alleged violations diminishes MSHA's ability to
use the full panoply of its enforcement tools. You must also recognize
that many of these violations are quite serious--the kind of violations
that have contributed to mine fires, explosions and the deaths of coal
miners.
If MSHA would identify mines that might be subjected to higher
penalties for repeat violations or for a ``pattern,'' and the
Commission would move these cases more quickly through a priority
system, some of these incentives would be reduced. This, we would
encourage.
Another problem is that when operators challenge MSHA citations and
proposed penalty assessments, they routinely get their penalties
reduced. This can occur at the MSHA ``conference,'' as well as once a
case is referred to litigation. And it's not because the citations were
not valid in the first place, as some operators claim. Instead, the
reductions generally occur because the mine inspector who issued the
citation rarely can attend the conference to explain the reason for the
citations, leaving the conferencing officer with no first-hand
knowledge of the conditions cited. The operators, on the other hand,
regularly send their representatives to conferences to dispute the
validity and gravity of the citations that were issued. As a result,
conferencing officers frequently reduce or abate citations. That the
underlying citations are generally valid is supported by trial results:
for penalties related to S & S and unwarrantable failure citations--the
two most common categories--that were litigated before a Commission ALJ
in FY 2009, only 4-11% were dismissed or withdrawn.
If MSHA will re-instate the conference system it previously
utilized, as we understand it is considering, we would encourage it to
provide a better means for the inspectors to be able to support their
citations, preferably with the inspector participating, too. We think
it would also be helpful if an attorney from the Solicitor's Office
would be assigned to work with conferencing officers to help them
identify the litigation strengths and weaknesses before any adjustments
would be made. Finally, to the extent there are agreements made at the
conference level, it would be essential that any matters resolved at
conference then be deemed fully and finally resolved. Settlement
motions should be jointly submitted to the ALJs, instead of just by the
Solicitor's office.
For cases not resolved at conference, penalties have often been
further reduced: not only will the Solicitor's office offer to reduce
the penalties in order to settle, but the Commission ALJs frequently
reduce the proposed penalties. It is extraordinarily rare for an MSHA
attorney to seek, or a Commission Judge to impose, penalties higher
than MSHA's Office of Assessments initially recommend. Yet there is no
reason why this shouldn't also occur when the facts support a higher
assessment. This should happen when, for example, it turns out that
more miners were actually exposed to the hazard, or the gravity was
higher than the inspector initially indicated on the citation.
We have previously expressed concerns about the ability of mine
operators to abuse the conference system, and our concerns about
operator abuse have been validated insofar as the data shows that many
operators request a conference for virtually every citation MSHA
issues. And why shouldn't they? There is nothing to defer or penalize
operators for doing so. In fact, internal company documents the Senate
HELP Committee obtained during its investigation into the Crandall
Canyon disaster established that Murray Energy purposely pursued such a
strategy. From the contested rates of other operators, we believe that
other companies are employing this same tactic, too. Accordingly, we
supported MSHA's decision in early 2008 to stop routinely conferencing
citations until after it assesses the penalty. Even without regular
pre-penalty conferences, just some operators' action of routinely
contesting citations and penalties constitutes the largest portion of
the Commission's backlog.
As of August 2009, there were 688 penalty contests that have been
pending for at least three (3) years, 877 penalty contests pending for
between two (2) and three (3) years, 19,864 penalty contests pending
for one (1) to two (2) years, and 42,122 that were filed within one
year.
The Commission backlog has increased rapidly over the last few
years. As the Commission's 2007-2012 Strategic Plan noted: the
legislative and regulatory changes of the MINER Act were expected to
increase the Commission's caseload. When that Strategic Plan was
prepared, the Commission had already experienced a ``dramatic rise in
the number of contest cases, * * * and expect[ed] that its workload
will increase significantly from prior years, thus making it more
challenging to attain the Commission's goal of timely adjudication.''
Regrettably, although the increased caseload was both expected and
realized, until this year the Commission did not attempt to increase
its cadre of ALJs to handle its growing workload. While the Commission
has had certain time-lines for processing its cases, those no longer
bear any relationship to reality. However, getting timely resolution of
these disputes is critical to miners' health and safety. One possible
tool would be to adopt procedures like the OSHA Review Commission's
``Simplified Proceedings;'' we support having the Commission determine
whether using such procedures would be appropriate for mine safety
cases.
To address the immediate problem, many more Administrative Law
Judges will be needed, along with support staff to maximize their
efficiency. We are pleased that the FY10 budget included funding for 4
more ALJs, and that the President's FY 11 budget seeks funding for 18
ALJs. However, we firmly believe that still more will be needed to
arrest and reverse the problem. Thus, we would recommend that the
additional ALJs (and staff) be brought on as soon as possible B through
a supplemental authorization B so the problem doesn't get much worse
and completely out of hand.
Finally, with the increased rate of contested cases, MSHA also
faces new challenges: it will need additional staff to prepare and
defend its cases, both at conferences and at administrative hearings.
We applaud the significantly reduced rate of fatal accidents in the
mining industry that distinguished 2009 from other recent years, as
well as our more distant mining history. We also support the Obama
administration's MSHA that is focusing on enhancing enforcement to
reduce the accident rate even further. We now urge you to work with us
to ensure that the enhanced penalty structure Congress provided in the
MINER Act of 2006 is not frustrated, but utilized to further improve
miners' health and safety.
Thank you for allowing us to address this important issue, and for
your continued commitment to miners' health and safety.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Watzman?
STATEMENT OF BRUCE WATZMAN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR
REGULATORY AFFAIRS, NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION
Mr. Watzman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, for the opportunity to appear today.
Before turning to the specific topic of the hearing, we
thought it would be appropriate to discuss the progress the
industry continues to make to achieve the goal that all of us
share, and that is eliminating accidents and injuries in this
industry and what gave rise to the MINER Act that we all
supported.
In the last 4 years the industry has embarked on an
aggressive, multifaceted program to foster continued
improvement and excellence in mine safety and health
performance. We continue to see the benefits of those efforts
with 2009 being the safest year in the history of mining.
Additionally and importantly, 85 percent of U.S. mines
operated the entire year without a single lost-time accident.
We continue to make progress, but more must be done and we
recognize that.
We are working with companies to foster the implementation
of risk management processes, and we have launched a risk-based
safety awareness campaign targeting known hazards.
We initially focused attention on selected areas of
mining--operations with the highest accident rates--and then
built voluntary awareness programs around them.
The effort began last year with three separate safety
awareness programs highlighting the importance of staying
alert, the dangers of moving machinery and the hazards of
unsafe driving on mine property. The program featured a variety
of tools that were shared and disseminated throughout the
entire mining industry.
Going forward, we envision a larger effort to ensure that
best practices and procedures and information on promising
technologies and techniques for reducing accidents on the job
are disseminated throughout the industry.
Mr. Chairman, as reflected in the scheduling of this
hearing, the rate at which operators have been formally
contesting enforcement actions continues to garner increased
attention and scrutiny.
Some believe this reflects an attempt by operators to
backlog the system and delay the payment of civil penalties.
Still others maintain that this is an expected outcome of the
changes that MSHA has implemented since 2006, changes that
dramatically altered the enforcement landscape.
While honest people can disagree as to what gave rise to
this, there is one fact that is not in dispute. These actions
do not jeopardize miner safety and health.
Upon issuance of a citation, the Mine Act requires the
operator to abate the violation that gave rise to--abate the
condition that gave rise to the violation. This requirement is
separate and distinct from the operator's decision to challenge
the validity of the citation.
Importantly, from the perspective of miners' safety and
health, the conditions that gave rise to the issuance of the
citation have been corrected long before the operator is given
his day in court and in spite of the outcome of the litigation.
We believe the clear policy decisions made by the previous
Assistant Secretary for MSHA are the major contributors to the
dramatic increase in the Commission's case load.
These administrative actions created an irrational process
which increased the number of citations at the same time it
eliminated the informal process for conferencing them, forcing
operators into a time-consuming, expensive adjudicatory process
that does nothing to increase miner safety.
Appended to our testimony is a time line that documents the
increase in safety contests and overlays MSHA's policy actions,
and we think that there is a clear relationship between the
two.
Our written submittal details the actions that MSHA took
and how these have impacted operator rights in the decision-
making process. We all recognize that there are steps that can
be taken to improve the conditions that gave rise to the
backlog and these can be administered and implemented
administratively without the need for legislation.
Many mirror the steps that were outlined in the Assistant
Secretary's testimony this morning, and we should move
expeditiously to see that they are implemented to address this
situation as quickly as possible.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Watzman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bruce Watzman, Senior Vice President,
Regulatory Affairs, on Behalf of the National Mining Association
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am Bruce Watzman, Sr.
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs for the National Mining Association
(NMA). Thank you for providing us this opportunity to share our
thoughts regarding the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission) citation
and assessment process. Before turning to the specific topic for this
hearing, we thought it would be appropriate to discuss the progress the
industry continues to make to achieve the goal that all of us share--
eliminating accidents and illness in the industry.
In the last four years the industry has embarked on an aggressive,
multi-faceted program to foster continued improvement and excellence in
mine safety and health performance. We continue to see the benefit of
these efforts as American mines operated all of 2009 with fewer
fatalities than ever before. Perhaps significantly, 2009 was the second
consecutive year of record mine safety performance, besting the
previous record set in 2008. Additionally, 86 percent of U.S. mines
operated the entire year without a single lost-time accident. This is
an important indicator as fewer serious injuries typically lead to
fewer fatalities. We continue to make progress, but recognize that
continuous improvement is the only acceptable goal for an industry
dedicated to excellence and to the health and safety of every worker it
employs.
Some are already asking what brought about this improvement, and
how do we continue this trend. Some point to the agency's more rigorous
enforcement, but most agree that citations alone cannot instill a
safety culture that makes accident prevention a top priority throughout
mining. Others point to enactment of the MINER Act but that action,
while important, dealt largely with post-accident requirements, not
with measures to prevent accidents.
We believe the more convincing explanation for improved mine safety
lies closer to home. It began with the mining community's thoughtful
review and response to the very visible tragedies in 2006 that resulted
in multiple fatalities. No longer did industry leaders believe that
business-as-usual safety practices would bring every miner home safely
after every day. Rather, they concluded that we needed to add to our
previous safety and accident prevention process with new thinking about
safety, as well as an even stronger commitment to safety. This began
early in 2006 with the creation of the independent Mine Safety
Technology and Training Commission, which was designed to study mine
safety practices both here and abroad. The Commission concluded that a
new safety paradigm was necessary--one based on better risk management.
The model was simple: identify the high-risk areas of each mine, and
then allocate safety resources and training based on those risks.
Building on the Commission's recommendations, we've worked with
companies to foster the implementation of risk management processes,
and we've launched a risk-based safety awareness campaign targeting
known hazards. We initially focused attention on selected areas of
mining operations with the highest accident rates, and then built
voluntary awareness programs around each one. The effort began last
year with three separate safety awareness programs highlighting the
importance of staying alert, the dangers of moving machinery and the
hazards of unsafe driving. The program features a variety of tools to
build awareness of each high-risk area. Interestingly, these match some
of Assistant Secretary Main's concerns in his recently announced
``Rules to Live By'' initiative.
Going forward we envision a larger effort to ensure that best
practices and procedures and information on promising techniques and
technologies for reducing accidents on the job are shared throughout
mining. For example, we're exploring how to catalogue and share the
programs and procedures employed by the winners of the annual Sentinels
of Safety awards--the oldest known occupational safety award
competition, jointly sponsored by MSHA and NMA.
Enforcement Policies and Assessments
Mr. Chairman, as reflected in the scheduling of this hearing, the
rate at which mine operators have been formally contesting enforcement
actions, including citations and withdrawal orders issued by MSHA has
and continues to garner increased scrutiny. Some believe this higher
rate reflects an attempt by some operators to backlog the adjudicatory
system and delay the payment of civil penalties. Still, others maintain
this is an expected outcome of the changes MSHA has implemented since
2006--changes that have dramatically altered the enforcement landscape.
While honest and reasonable people can disagree as to the underlying
cause for this, one fact that is not in dispute is that these actions
in no way jeopardize miner safety and health.
Section 104(a) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977
requires the Secretary to issue a citation to an operator when he or
his authorized representative ``believes that an operator * * * has
violated this Act, or any mandatory health or safety standard * * *''
More importantly, the section requires the inspector to ``fix a
reasonable time for the abatement of the violation,'' and Section
104(b) requires the inspector to issue a closure order if the operator
fails to abate an alleged violation within the time set by the
inspector. This requirement is distinct from an operator's decision to
challenge the validity of the citation, and any challenge in no way
relieves the operator's obligation to abate the condition that gave
rise to the citation. Importantly, from the perspective of miner safety
and health, the conditions that gave rise to issuance of the citation
have been corrected long before the operator is given his day in court
and in spite of the outcome from the litigation. A mine operator's duty
to abate alleged violation, before legal review of the validity of the
citation, stands in stark contrast with the suspension of that duty for
all other employers who are covered by the Occupational Safety and
Health Act and given a day-in-court before contested violations are
abated.
As you are well aware, the number of enforcement actions issued to
mine operators by MSHA has risen significantly, and the penalties for
violations have as well. The regulations upon which inspectors base
enforcement actions are predominately comprised of performance based
standards. These standards are interpreted using ``a reasonably prudent
person standard.'' As a result, the interpretation of the standards is
based on individual circumstances and can vary from inspector to
inspector. The interpretation may also vary the between inspector and
operator based on the facts peculiar to the alleged infraction. The
penalty amounts assessed are not only based on the exercise of the
inspector's enforcement discretion in alleging a violation of a
standard, but also on the inspector's conclusions with respect to a
number of other factors (all of which are discretionary based his or
her interpretation of the circumstances surrounding an alleged
violation). These factors can have a profound impact on penalty
amounts, and include likelihood of occurrence, severity of injury,
degree of negligence, and the, number of persons affected by the
allegations, to mention only a few of the penalty calculation factors.
(See Items 10 and 11 on the Mine Citation/Order form, Attachment 1).
Beyond the interpretive differences that may exist between and
operator and inspector, we believe that clear policy choices made by
the previous Assistant Secretary for MSHA are the major contributors to
the dramatic increase in the Commission's caseload. These
administrative actions created an irrational process which increased
the number of citations at the same time it eliminated an informal
procedure for contesting them, forcing operators into a time-consuming,
expensive adjudicatory process that does nothing to increase mine
safety. The actions leading to this are detailed on the timeline
attached to this statement (Attachment 2). In sum these are:
The new Part 100 civil penalty rules (See attachments 3&4
which illustrate the magnitude of these changes);
Failure to maintain an effective ``close-out'' conference
at the end of each inspection day;
The loss of an effective safety and health conference
process;
The loss of an independent conference decision process;
Timing and grouping of proposed assessments; and
MSHA's heightened Pattern of Violation criteria and focus.
I. History of Enforcement Actions (The Initial System)
Mine Safety and Health Administration regulations in 30 C.F.R. Part
100.6 provide for an informal resolution of questions regarding
enforcement actions. This history timeline begins with the adoption of
the Alternative Case Resolution Initiative (ACRI).
In 1994, during the Clinton Administration, ACRI was developed with
MHSA and the Office of the Solicitor joining together and designating
Conference/Litigation Representatives (CLR). The CLR was an inspector
trained by the Solicitor to handle the informal conferences that the
District Manager was required to conduct. (As a practical matter, the
previous conferences were usually conducted by a field supervisor, who
represented the District Manager.) By 2001, the CLRs were handling all
the safety and health conferences and about 35 percent of the total
number of cases that operators contested (the Solicitor placed limits
on what type of cases the CLRs could handle). An MSHA Fact Sheet (95-9)
has the following quote:
Mine operators may also seek informal conferences following the
issuance of the citation or order under 30 C.F.R. Part 100.6. The CLRs
in Coal Districts and Supervisory Mine Inspectors in Metal/Nonmetal
Districts primarily serve on behalf of the District Manager and meet
with the operator to attempt an informal resolution of the dispute
before a civil penalty is assessed.
This widely recognized and highly commended program is one of the
few times that non-lawyers have represented a Cabinet-level official in
a legal proceeding. As of Aug. 30, 2001, MSHA has trained over 100
enforcement personnel to act as CLRs for the ACRI program and there are
CLRs designated in each MSHA district office. The CLRs are currently
responsible for processing approximately 35 percent of the total number
of cases contested by mine operators.
MSHA and the mining community are reaping the benefits of the ACRI
program. The CLRs efforts have reduced formal litigation, improved
relations between MSHA and the mining community, improved
communications between MSHA's inspectors and the legal community, and
has permitted the dedication of legal resources to more complex and
serious cases. (Emphasis added)
As noted, this system worked reasonably well. Some key points as to
why the conferences seemed to work include:
1. The request for a safety and health conference had to be made
within a 10-day period.
2. Most CLRs did not require the operator to list in writing the
arguments to be presented at the conference.
3. Non-Significant & Substantial (non-serious) violations were
assessed at a set dollar value regardless of the inspector evaluation.
Few non-S & S violations ever went to conference and very few ever were
entered in the ALJ system.
4. In many instances the CLRs were used by the District Managers as
``instructors of the law'' so that changes in evaluations were passed
through the MSHA system as a teaching tool to reduce improper
enforcement. Conversely, the same applied to operators who learned why
a violation was appropriately evaluated in a certain manner and how its
impact on safety could be used to train employees on preventative
actions * * *
5. The CLR made decisions based on the facts of the case presented
at the safety and health conference.
Unfortunately, despite these positive attributes, this system was
abandoned in favor of one that has fostered the outcomes that gave rise
to this hearing.
II. The Interim System
Beginning early in the last decade, MSHA embarked on a ``new
hiring'' process to replace retiring inspectors. This, combined with
decisions made in response to criticism of the agency's failure to meet
its statutory obligations, resulted in the issuance of countless
enforcement actions of questionable validity. In sum the agency
initiated several actions that, when viewed in total, wrecked the
previous safety and health conference system and gave rise to the
situation we find ourselves in today. The following timeline of
administrative actions shows the evolution of today's flawed system:
Oct. 26, 2006
MSHA publishes the standard that is intended to be used
for determining flagrant violations. (PIL I06-III-04 now released as
PIL I08-III-02) Repeat history is defined as the third allegation of
unwarrantable failure of the same standard in 15 months.
April 27, 2007
The new Part 100 civil penalty regulations are released.
Assessments for violation are dramatically increased. In addition the
single price penalty for non-serious, non-S&S violations is dropped.
(Attachments 2 and 3 document the significance of these changes for
hypothetical, but routinely issued violations, under the old and new
penalty formulas).
June 14, 2007
MSHA issues its first list of Pattern of Violation (POV)
mines. Two of the many selection requirements are: two elevated
enforcement actions and 10 (surface) or 20 (underground) S &S
violations in a 24-month period.
Note that on Dec. 7, 2007; June 17, 2008; March 16 2009;
and Oct. 7, 2009, additional lists of mines that were categorized as
potential POV mines were released.
Oct. 4, 2007
MSHA announces the ``100 percent'' plan for meeting
mandatory inspection requirements. CLRs, who were already postponing
citation conferences, were now assigned to inspections.
Feb. 4, 2008
MSHA issues PIL I08-III-1. This PIL essentially formalizes
the end to manager's conferences. Informally, prior to this date, and
for most of 2007, conferences were not being scheduled. After this
date, all the previously requested but unscheduled conferences were
placed in the administrative system.
III. Other Informational Dates
During the time the system for conferencing violation was
being abandoned by MSHA the following actions were occurring in the
field:
2005-2008
Enforcement Actions 69,072 174,473
Assessed penalties $15.4 $194.3m
Elevated enforcement actions 1905 6081
In sum, the amount of enforcement time at the mines increased,
resulting in more violations at the same time MSHA dropped its
conferencing system.
So, at the same time that the agency increased enforcement it
initiated and published its ``Pattern of Violation'' evaluations,
essentially terminated the informal conferencing system, transferring
all outstanding conference requests to the Commission and forcing
operators to follow one new path forward--a formal hearing with the
Commission for all newly written enforcement actions.
Essentially, the agency abandoned its 30-year history of seeking
early, informal discussion and resolution of enforcement actions at a
time when penalties and enforcement severity was increasing.
IV. Present System
On March 27, 2009, MSHA published a new model for conferences.
Rather than conducting an informal conference prior to receiving an
assessment and filing with the Commission, the new system requires the
operator to wait until an assessment is received and file after the
enforcement action in question is docketed. Now all conferences will
take place only after civil penalties are proposed and timely
contested. This means that an operator eager to avoid litigation
through the conference process must contest the citation, file a
written request for a conference within 10 days, wait for a period of
at least four to six weeks, receive the proposed penalty assessment,
contest the penalty within 30 days of receipt and then have a
conference within 90-days, unless an extension is requested (usually by
MSHA).
In short, all of the enforcement actions that in the previous
conference system would not have reached the Commission are now
included as part of the total number of docketed enforcement actions
and each such case will remain on the list of contested cases until
resolved. The delay created by MSHA's changes to the contest system
increases the number of cases that are being challenged through the ALJ
system, and it's likely that this number will continue to increase.
The system also creates other bottlenecks that need to be
addressed:
The new system requires the operator to wait for the
assessment and to formally contest those violations with which he
disagrees. The Solicitor is then required to respond, and the operator
may then be required to formally respond (generally through attorneys).
In some districts, the CLR routinely asks for a 90-day stay so that an
attempt to settle the case can be made, as is contemplated in the new
conference system.
All of the enhanced conferences require some type of legal
paperwork to the Commission to finalize whatever agreement is reached.
Again, the more informal pre-assessment system did not include this
requirement. Clearly the informal system allowed for a more nimble
system where the operator and CLR could resolve a larger amount of
cases without burdening the Commission.
The requirement to contest a citation(s) within 30 days of
receipt of the penalty often results in operators' challenging all of
the enforcement actions issued by an inspector within a docket due to
the sheer volume and the limited time available to examine the
allegations underlying each enforcement action and the components that
affect penalty assessments.
Conclusion
The conditions that gave rise to the ``back-log'' necessitating
this hearing can be fixed administratively without legislation.
However, doing so requires all parties to recognize that:
All conditions affecting mine safety are abated by the
operator within the time set by the inspector and prior to adjudication
of the dispute.
The convergence of increased enforcement actions, coupled
with the unofficial and then official cessation of safety and health
manager's conferences, set in motion a significant increase in
litigated cases. Unfortunately, operators today have no option but the
Commission for contesting enforcement actions. That was the unfortunate
but inevitable result of a policy decision made by MSHA to enable CLRs
to assist in fulfilling the prior Assistant Secretary's ``100 percent''
inspection plan.
During the time conferences were unavailable (February
2008 to March 2009) MSHA issued a policy on flagrant violation
standards, four patterns of violation cycle letters and a new penalty
system under Part 100. Also, we believe an evaluation of violation in
many districts would show a pattern of increased gravity that
subsequently increased the penalties to a point where a challenge was
necessary. Filing for a formal hearing using attorneys and cluttering
the ``Commission'' system is the only avenue available for an operator.
Changes Should be Made in the System
The following are suggested changes that would help unlock the
logjam at the ``Commission'':
MSHA should improve the training of inspectors and
enforcement authorities for recognizing and evaluating a violation. The
number of enforcement actions being modified is a clear indication that
inspectors are not being properly trained or supervised on how to
evaluate a citation.
While we have not seen 2009 end-of-year data, we are aware that
information provided to the Committee illustrates that through June
2009 a significant percent of enforcement actions and their
accompanying assessments were being reduced via the settlement process.
This indicates to us the need for better training and supervision of
the inspectorate.
Putting this into perspective, if police in your Congressional
districts were writing traffic citations that were incorrectly
evaluated at a fairly significant rate you would likely be question the
training for these officers and stress the need to correct the system.
You would not be questioning why your constituents were requesting
hearings in traffic court. The industry situation is much the same.
MSHA is not using the changes in evaluations as a teaching tool for
inspectors. Frustratingly, operators are forced to re-contest many of
the same factual situations that were originally cited or evaluated
incorrectly and after challenge by the operator at great time and
expense. Unfortunately, operators often endure a costly and time-
consuming adjudication process only to be re-cited or misevaluated
again.
Revert to the informal conference (pre-assessment). This
conference was timelier and, because it was informal generated minimal
paperwork compared to the more time-consuming, formal system in place
today. Unfortunately, many current cases are now handed to counsel due
to the requirement for a timely response to a ``Commission'' deadline.
Provide the CLRs autonomy from the managers in their
district. We have long advocated a different reporting scheme for the
CLRs. Having them report, as is currently the case, to the District
Manager introduces unnecessary conflict. MSHA should create a separate
office where the CLR could report to a more independent review.
Provide more realistic timeframes for operator's to
respond to agency notices. The current 30-day response time is
insufficient, necessitating operators to initiate enforcement action
challenges merely to protect themselves from responding to individual
actions because time has expired. Concurrent with this MSHA should
reform the manner in which it bundles dockets to ensure they include
only the enforcement actions and related proposed civil penalties from
the same inspection.
Mandate that the CLR and ALJ decisions be used as training
tools for inspectors so that better evaluations are completed by
inspectors. Having to ``re-litigate'' settled issues because
information is not shared on a timely basis across the agency
unnecessarily adds to the Commission backlog and drains scarce
resources.
Mr. Chairman thank you again for providing us the opportunity to
appear.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you. Thank you very much for all of
your testimony.
Mr. Watzman, you stated, I think, this morning and
previously that you believe that the change in the conference
policy in 2008 is the--is really the genesis for the change in
the contesting.
Mr. Watzman. I think that it is the combination of all the
factors, Mr. Chairman. It was the change in the Part 100
regulations. It was the elimination or the termination of the
informal conference process.
Let me give you one example to explain that. One of our
operators had 200 conference requests pending with a conference
officer at the time the agency decided to terminate the
informal conference process.
Those 200 pending requests were immediately transferred to
the Review Commission and became part of the backlog. So I
don't think we can point at one single factor and say that, in
and of itself, is what caused what we confront--what we are
experiencing today.
Chairman Miller. Ms. Jordan, you have been on the
Commission for some time now. When you look at the impact of
that decision, and you look at the increased enforcement, do
you partition this in a different fashion, or do you have a
different comment on this?
Ms. Jordan. The impact of the decision that Mr. Watzman
referenced of transferring the 200 cases to the Commission?
Chairman Miller. Well, the change in the conference policy.
So you would have had a preliminary conference. Those now had
to go into the formal process. You didn't get to take your
first bite at the apple and then later go----
Ms. Jordan. Right. Well, of course, the Commission and
myself personally--I am not that familiar with the details of
how the conferencing has worked. The parties engage in that
before the matter comes to the Commission.
I would say that to the extent there is a process out there
that allows the parties to resolve the disputes and would
eliminate some matters coming to our door, that would be
helpful.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Main? Secretary Main?
Mr. Main. Yes, I think with the conferencing--in one of my
old jobs----
Chairman Miller. The mic. You have to speak--or just pull
it closer to you, if you will, please.
Mr. Main. Can you hear me? Yes, there is a lot of history
with the conferencing process. I dealt with it many years ago
and with regard to the current set of circumstances, I don't
think there is any question that if an issue is resolved
through the conference before it gets to the contesting stage,
those will not be part of the backlog.
And one of the things we recommend is to go back and look
at that, but under a more careful process than was in place
before.
Chairman Miller. With all due respect, the process that was
in place before looked a little bit like an old boys' club.
Mr. Main. Well----
Chairman Miller. You kind of had a set pattern here of
penalties and a set pattern of violations, and you could deal
them out, and then you--some moved on and some didn't. Or if
you didn't like the--how that was dealt, you sort of got a
second bite at the apple.
And it seems to me that the--that was the pattern of
enforcement that the Congress expressed concern about.
Mr. Main. I think if you look--and I don't disagree with
that. But I think if you look at the current process, when we
look at the high rate of reductions in penalties, I think we
could make the same issue with the current process.
And I think what I have looked at is that we need a better
system here that, at the end of the day, that we look at good
paper coming out that never goes into the contest side from the
MSHA side, and that we look at a system that doesn't favor a
mine operator looking at the settlement rate and say, ``Gee,
for 40-some cents I can send a letter into MSHA, wait 2 years,
and get about a 47 percent rate.''
And I think putting all those things in context, we still
have some of that same problem with the current system. So
looking at taking the best pieces out, creating a conferencing
process that at the end of the day is not a Monty Hall process,
is not a wheeler-dealer, is actually just clarifying the facts,
and we would not look at those same set of facts in the second
round.
And I think that is what was going on before. There was a
conferencing process to look at those set of facts, the quality
of that paper, it goes back in an offer, you conference it,
then review it again, looking at those same set of facts--to
me, that is a little bit crazy.
So I think that needs to get fixed, and you only have that
one opportunity to look at that one set of facts. And if you
don't get them resolved then, you go to the litigation process.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Let me, in my remaining time, just raise one question. The
allegation is made here that people are--or the challenges are
made--the contesting is made because some mine operators are
concerned that they will end up in a pattern of violations as
described in the law and in the regulations, so if they can
keep the adjudication from taking place, they don't face that
sanction.
The experience is with operators that have faced that
sanction that afterwards violations were cut by about 72
percent. I mean, the sanction obviously had a huge impact on
how they operated the mines after that event took place.
Mr. Watzman has said that this backlog doesn't place miners
in jeopardy. It doesn't have any impact on their health. And
yet if you have what some--one of our reviews suggested there
may be 40--in excess of 40 companies, with maybe 6,000 miners,
who if the adjudications became final they could end up in a
pattern of violations.
So we are suggesting that perhaps this process is
protecting those with the worst mine records and those with the
most serious violations. That sounds like a real bad deal for
the miners who are working in those particular mines, and they
sort of become part of the mosaic of the total contested
violations.
And I am worried that we are losing our focus here, because
we now have thousands and thousands of contests that have sort
of created a camouflage and prohibited the worst mine operators
from being brought to justice, if you will, and to protect the
lives of those miners who are going--those 6,000 miners who are
going into those mines every day.
Mr. Main. Mr. Chairman, I don't disagree with what you say.
I think that if you would say that the system, the way that it
is, is not having any adverse impact on enforcement, that is
just not true.
To say that, you have to take Section 104 out of the Mine
Act, which is the pattern of violations section. And it was
designed for the purpose of getting to those operators that had
consistently violated--serious violations in the--you know, of
the mine--or in the mine.
And the backlog is preventing MSHA from utilizing that tool
of the Mining Act. And I think the consequence there is that
mines have the ability to continue that pattern unabated unless
we can go in and figure out a way to use the pattern.
We believe that we need to put those cases at the head of
the pack, to go in--regardless of what is going on with the
backlog, and regardless of how many cases there are, we need to
start pulling those cases out fairly quickly and moving those
to the Commission and getting them resolved, so we can
effectively implement Section 104 of the Mine Act.
Chairman Miller. Because the two things can't be true. You
can't have this dramatic reduction in violations of the worst
operators when they are confronted with a pattern of
violations, and the continuation of operators who quite
possibly would qualify for that sanction continuing to just do
business----
Mr. Main. Yes.
Chairman Miller [continuing]. In the usual--in the usual
manner. Thank you.
Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Once again, thanks, panel, for your testimony. As a
grandson of a surface coal miner, I appreciate the work that
you do.
And, Assistant Secretary, you--your statistics--you know,
we are here talking about the effectiveness of the MINER Act
and all the, you know, changes since then.
And, Mr. Roberts, I appreciate your work in terms of the
individual safety of coal miners and, you know, it really comes
down, in fact, on this.
I would have to say, based on your testimony--I have heard
that--I was very pleased to hear, Assistant Secretary, in terms
of--you know, you laid out in terms of the decline in--the all-
time low, where we are at.
And I think that is--obviously, I think that has to be an
important indicator in terms of the effectiveness of what we
have seen, and that being--and just--I appreciate that
information that you shared.
Mr. Watzman, one of the concerns that mine operators are
highlighting is the need for consistency. You know, it would
appear that everyone wants to operate by the rules, but the
rules appear to keep changing without any explanation.
Now, a recent article from the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl
outlines a problem with the change in the interpretation of
reportable roof falls. Now, how do you believe MSHA can improve
their communications with mine operators about changing
interpretations?
Mr. Watzman. Well, unfortunately, I think from the
industry's perspective a lack of consistency has been one of
the hallmarks of MSHA's regulatory and enforcement over time. I
think it is recognized by everyone--and in fact, the comments
of the Assistant Secretary this morning when he talked about
writing good paper and not issuing bad paper is a reflection of
that.
We need to have better processes, better open
communication, better dialogue and better training for all the
parties to have an understanding of what gives rise to these
conditions.
MSHA over the last few years has hired hundreds of new
inspectors. They come into the job with not the experience that
the previous inspectorate did. They approach it differently.
Unfortunately, we work in an area where things are not
black and white all the time. They are often times gray. And
there is a great amount of subjectivity introduced into this
process.
I think many of the steps that the Assistant Secretary
talked about this morning will eliminate the inconsistency that
exists across the industry and hopefully over time will lessen
the disputes that have resulted from that.
Mr. Thompson. Your testimony suggested that the closing
inspection meetings have become less productive over time.
However, MSHA points to this as one of the better ways to
communicate disputes with citations issued.
How can the industry and the agency work together to ensure
that these are productive meetings that improve worker safety
and health in the long run?
Mr. Watzman. Well, this, again, has to do with
communication and training, how the MSHA inspector is
conducting his job when he is at the mine site and, quite
honestly, how the mine operator representatives are interacting
with the MSHA inspector.
It doesn't advance safety and health at all if there is no
dialogue between the parties. When an inspector completes his
inspection, goes out to his vehicle, fills out citation forms,
walks into the mine office and hands them to the mine
operator's representative, that is doing nothing to advance
miner safety and health, and that is creating a confrontational
environment between the two.
We need to overcome those hurdles, and I think that, you
know, we are moving in the direction of doing just that.
Mr. Thompson. Okay, thank you.
Chairwoman Jordan, with the money from fiscal year 2010
appropriations, the Commission will hire, as you mentioned in
your testimony, four more administrative law judges, and you
have requested additional funds for five judges in the fiscal
2011 budget request.
Now, at this time, the Commission has offices in Washington
and Denver, Colorado. Do you know where the individuals that
you are hiring will be working, and will there be equal
placement in the west to handle the cases there?
Ms. Jordan. Well, at this point, we would be able to place
some in our D.C. office as we start to hire, and we will be
adding some to the--our Denver office, which is the one you
referred to.
And then we will be looking at opening up an additional
office which will probably be in the metropolitan area here.
There are some benefits to be obtained with that decision, we
found.
Mr. Thompson. I mean, what criterion are you using to
determine where the proper placement is to make sure that, you
know, the personnel are on the ground strategically to be able
to address this work backlog?
Ms. Jordan. Well, we are looking at all of our procedures
to see what we can simplify. As I indicated, we are going to
have--and we are going to have parties file a draft order when
they file their motions to settle, whereas now the judges--the
Commission has to create the order when it issues the approval
or disapproval of the settlement.
And we are going to have these filed electronically, which
will also allow us to start to monitor how we can expand and
improve electronic filing processes.
In regard to your mention about judges--you know, access by
the west, we are looking at--we always want to provide access,
and no matter where the judges are located, I mean, they travel
to the parties to hold their hearings.
Also, in the past, some judges have set up--I don't know
what you would call it. I mean, it is kind of referred to as a
calendar call. A couple of judges that are now retired--and we
have been talking to them to see how they did that, and how
effective it was--the former chief judge--to gather a lot of
cases and go out to a location, wherever the parties were, and
sit down.
People were told to be ready to talk about 30, 40 cases at
once, sat down and, you know, they really had to focus on them
and really--we would try and resolve as many of them as they
could. And if they didn't resolve, the judge would usually--
those they didn't resolve they would usually pass off to
another judge so that it would be fair.
The parties, you know, having maybe disclosed some
information in the course of trying to settle them, wouldn't be
going before the same decision-maker.
And you know, on the other hand, if the judge, as he put it
to us, you know, gave his eye roll, that kind of gave the
attorneys there the ability to go back to their parties and
say, ``Well, this case, you know, isn't a good one, I think we
better resolve this.''
And so we are--you know, we are looking at exploring that
and, really, whatever procedures we can think of to help
expedite matters.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Jordan, you have a 16,000-case backlog. I think a more
significant focus would be on how long it takes to actually
resolve a case with the backlog from the time it comes in till
the time it is settled.
What is a reasonable time to take to resolve a case?
Ms. Jordan. Well, you know, that really depends on the
complexity of the case. I mean, we have some cases that,
frankly--they are resolved before they are even assigned to a
judge, and the parties have filed a motion to settle, and it
gets assigned to a judge, and the judge can review those
motions.
On the other hand, you have cases that have many challenges
to the underlying violation, the seriousness, the negligence,
whether there were accidents involved, disasters, so those--you
know, those would take a longer time.
Mr. Scott. Well, how long are these cases taking, just a
routine case going through--because of the backlog, how much
time is added to the--to that because of the backlog?
Ms. Jordan. Well, we have seen--the category of cases that
does make up our largest category, the cases that are disposed
of ultimately through settlement--we have seen an increase in
time go from about 170-some-odd days 4 years ago, on average,
to almost 400 days on average now to dispose of them.
Mr. Scott. Okay. Now, if you had--if you wanted to hire
more judges, that costs money, but of course you are processing
claims, picking up funds. Would the funds collected more than
pay for the judges?
Ms. Jordan. Well, for instance, I mean, I guess that is one
aspect of thinking about it. The current cases that are ready
to be settled, where the parties have already agreed to settle
and motions to settle are pending--the proposed penalty amounts
in those cases, I think, is--comes to a little over $7 million.
However, that is the amount that MSHA initially proposed.
And usually by the time the case gets resolved and settled, it
is a portion of that. I mean, if you applied the figure that is
the average that MSHA settled a case in 2009, which I think is
about 55 percent of what they originally proposed, you would be
looking at about $4.2 million.
Mr. Scott. Does the lack of--several people mentioned the
lack of pre-judgment interest. What do other regulatory
agencies like OSHA--do they have pre-judgment interest?
Ms. Jordan. I don't know.
Mr. Scott. Secretary Main, you indicated that you are going
to be reinstituting the pretrial conferences. Is there any
administrative or legislative barrier to reinstituting that?
Mr. Main. No, there is not, and do you want me to explain a
little bit about that one?
Mr. Scott. Well, I think with a pretrial conference you can
settle a lot of them without a trial, and you are not doing
that, so they are just--apparently just going to trial. And you
need--you are talking about reinstating the process?
Mr. Main. Well, actually, there is a process that is in
place that was moved to occur after the contest was filed. We
are looking at taking that process and moving it back to a
point prior to the contest----
Mr. Scott. Okay. Is there any----
Mr. Main [continuing]. Of the----
Mr. Scott [continuing]. Legislative or regulatory barrier
to doing that?
Mr. Main. This was done by policy before. We expect policy
to do it.
Mr. Scott. Okay.
And, Mr. Roberts, can you just talk generally about the
safety implications of this huge backlog?
Mr. Roberts. Yes. Thank you very much, Congressman. I
appreciate that. I think it was touched on by Chairman Miller
and responded to by Undersecretary Main to a degree. But let me
just do it by example, if I could.
Let's assume that we were all in here prior to the Sago
explosion talking about the Sago mine and all the violations
that had been issued there. That was a topic of this committee.
And they had been placed, perhaps, under this more
stringent inspection regimen--regime. There is a possibility
that--we don't know--that Sago would not have occurred.
Today, as we look around the country, there is a number of
these mines that have been issued incidents, violations and
unwarrantable failures, citations. It is true, as Mr. Watzman
say, they have to correct those.
But the idea of this is that you have got a repeat offender
over and over and over again. And something needs to be done
more stringent than every other coal mine in the United States
faces.
That calls into action MSHA to go in and say, ``Look, you
are facing--understand what happens here when you are placed
under this order. You are facing closure here if you do not
correct this violation--these violations.''
Seventy-two percent reduction in violations at those
operations where that has been imposed. What is happening--that
is not part of the law right now because all of this is tied
up. All these incidents, violations, all these citations are
tied up in this 16,000-case backlog. So a tool that Congress
gave to MSHA is non-existent.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that we
are talking about 500 cases per judge per year. And I
understand that the new judges that we are going to get will
keep up with the cases coming in but do nothing about the
backlog, and the backlog, at 500 per judge, is 32 years with--
--
Chairman Miller. Yes, we are sort of at a--we sort of ended
up at a steady state with the backlog.
Mr. Scott. Well, we need to chip away at that.
Chairman Miller. Yes.
Mr. Scott. So I think some temporary assistance may be
appropriate. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Hare?
Mr. Hare. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for coming.
And you know, Mr. President, let me just--you know, you
will have to pardon my crude artwork, because I couldn't find
the chart. I had some folks from the industry come in. I don't
know if you can see this, but the top is injuries going down,
and the complaint was too many citations or visits and things.
And when they left my office, I got to thinking, ``Well,
wait a minute here. Less deaths and injuries, more stringent,
you know, overviews and citations.'' So I think in--I think the
industry was trying to make the case for me, and I should--you
know, I thank them for that.
But I have to tell you that it just seems to me that given
the hearings--and you know, I was here, Mr. President, when you
talked about the things that have happened with miners. And I
have miners in the southern part of my district.
And you know, I don't think any of us--any of us believe
that it is acceptable to send miners in when it is not safe.
But would you agree that because of the citations,
inspections--those kinds of things have made it safer for your
members to be able to go in and--and go to work and come home
and be safe with their families?
Mr. Roberts. I don't think there is any question. As I said
in my opening statement, I think any time that Congress has
acted, the proof is always there. You can look at the 1969 Coal
Mine Health and Safety Act.
You can look at what Congress did. And Congress should take
a great deal of pride in the actions that they took in 2006.
Injuries are down. Fatalities are down. That was what we all
wanted when we came here in 2006.
Mr. Hare. Mr. Watzman, when a large mining company has
contested 88 percent, I am told, of nearly 2,600 violations in
2009, they have advised this committee that due to the
progressive penalty policy and the size of future penalties, it
can ``no longer justify just taking whatever MSHA dishes out
regardless of its legitimacy.''
Now, let me, again, repeat that. I want to underscore
that--regardless of the legitimacy of the claim. So in the view
of the NMA, it--the penalties should be contested by mine
operators regardless of legitimacy?
Mr. Watzman. No, and I----
Mr. Hare. Would you concur with that?
Mr. Watzman. No, I don't, Congressman, and I--and I don't
know the specifics of the case you are talking about, and I
can't speak to it. But I think you have to look at the
multitude of factors that go into play here.
Let me give you an example. When an operator receives a--an
assessment notice from MSHA, they have 30 days to make a
decision as to whether or not they are going to contest that.
They may receive 20, 30, 50 assessment notices in the form of
one docket.
They have 30 days to go back to the mine, to meet with
their people, to decide on each and every one of those, ``Do we
pay it? Do we contest it?'' Unfortunately, we are operating in
a system today where contesting has, to some degree, become the
default setting.
They contest the citations. They meet that 30-day
requirement. And then they logically go through each one of
those and make a determination, ``Do I continue to contest that
individual citation, or do I pay that citation?''
So I think there is a filtering process, if you will, that
occurs after they file the notice to contest.
Mr. Hare. Your testimony also states--and I agree with
you--that many mine operators do work hard to protect the
safety of the workers that they have.
But there have been some major mining companies that don't
seem to be on the same page with you. Nine of 56 mine operators
who were notified by MSHA that they would face withdrawal
orders under a pattern of violations have been notified more
than once, and one was notified on three separate occasions.
So in your view, is a repeated notice of a pattern of
violations consistent with the proactive approach of mine
operators to protect safety of the people in these mines?
Mr. Watzman. I think we all recognize the pattern of
violations is in the--in the law for a very valid reason. It is
the most severe enforcement tool that the agency has in its
arsenal.
But there are steps that can be taken to, and in fact,
force action on the part of the operators even before they
reach a point of a pattern. When an order is issued under the
act, that requires that miners be removed from that portion of
the mine until the condition that gave rise to the concern is
addressed.
So I don't want you to have the impression that because of
this backlog no enforcement actions are taking place, nor are
operators addressing and improving the conditions underground.
That is just not the case.
There are tools available to the agency. They utilize them
routinely. And operators respond accordingly.
Mr. Hare. Just going back, Mr. President--I don't want to
belabor you here too much, but it says--I just want to know, on
mine safety--has mine safety been impacted by the backlog of
over 16,000 cases, in your opinion--of the Review Commission?
Because I mean, what I am trying to--what I am trying to
find out--maybe the panel can answer this. What is the absolute
single best thing we can do if the--to protect miners being
safe in--because this is a very difficult job, at best, to do.
And I certainly wouldn't want to do it, to be honest with
you. It is dangerous work.
Mr. Roberts. Well, thank you very much for your concern for
miners of this nation. The safety is impacted. It is impacted
by the fact that some of these companies and some of their
mines would be under a pattern of violations as we speak had
they not appealed every single one of these citations, or at
least 91 percent of them in some cases.
If they were under a pattern of violations, they would be
getting enhanced inspections by MSHA. They would be under an
order that if they did not comply with the law their mine would
be shut down.
Because of the backlog here, that is a tool that has been
taken out of the hands of the undersecretary here. So those
miners who are working in those particular mines where a
pattern of violations would have been issued otherwise are at
greater risk than they would be had we not had this backlog of
cases that has taken place since 2006.
Mr. Hare. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Loebsack?
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having
this hearing today.
I will be, I think, pretty brief. But I do have in front of
me--I am from Iowa, and we used to have a lot of active coal
mines in south central Iowa. John L. Lewis has a long history,
actually, connected to Iowa.
I have in front of me a map that is registered mineral
production sites, and we have a lot of clay pits. We have a lot
of gypsum quarries, limestone, and sand and gravel pits--not
coal mines as such.
I want to broaden this out just a little bit, if I may,
since I am from Iowa, and I have heard from a number of folks
who operate quarries, limestone and other kinds of quarries.
I want to ask Mr. Secretary--maybe you have some
information on this. And obviously, if you can't get this to me
today, I would like to get it from you in writing. But in
general, can you speak at all about the rates of contest,
notice of violations, for mines such as rock quarry, limestone,
sand and gravel or aggregate, as opposed to coal mines?
I understand coal mines are the focus today, but can you
speak to those other kinds of pits and limestone and other
kinds of pits and quarries?
Mr. Main. Thank you. Yes, I actually met with some of your
representatives, I think, this last week when I was out in the
Midwest meeting with the--some of the quarry aggregate folks,
and had some discussions about the--you know, the Mine Act and
about the implementation of the Mine Act regulations and
penalties.
And you know, one of the things that I talked to them
about, as I talk to everybody about, in the country, on how we
fix this problem, how we move forward, is that if you look at
the data, what it tells you is less than one-half of 1 percent
of the violations issued by MSHA inspectors are vacated or
thrown out.
That means almost every violation that they issue is a
violation, so--but I say let's start the conversation from that
point and talk through what we really need to do to fix this
problem. And it gets to some other discussions that have been
here today about having improvement and compliance.
We believe, and we are going to be moving forward in part
of our initiatives--is to press for improved health and safety
programs to be in place in mines, because I can tell you from
what I see as Assistant Secretary, we are not getting the job
done in terms of the industry obligation.
MSHA is there as an auditor to see what the agency--or the
operator does. It is not there to fireboss or inspect your
mine.
So our first mission here is to get the--a change of
culture here in this--in this mining industry where we have the
mining industry understanding their responsibility is to do
examinations, to identify violations that exist, correct those
to protect the miners.
And that was some of the same discussions I have had with
some of the aggregate operators throughout the country.
And in terms of the clean paper, I think that, you know,
one of the things that I look at is the conferencing process
and how we can resolve this--is that there needs to be a clear
understanding of what this paper is.
We are going to work toward that effort, and I think we are
pretty close to it with what we do. But I think the industry--
and that is one of the things here I want to do, is give a good
education about what good paper is, so we can take some of this
mystery out as we have the conferences and settle some of these
cases before they ever get to Commission Chairman Jordan and at
the Commission.
We are also interested in talking about how we can improve
mine safety programs with regard to training outreach, and we
are doing some of those. As a matter of fact, the aggregates
industry joined us with the Rules to Live By program that we
just launched. And we have had discussions that--where we go.
So I think if you look at--the first step in solving this
problem is who has--what is the problem and who has ownership
of that problem. The problem is we have got far too many
citations being issued. They are being pretty well accepted as
a citation or order by the process, with less than one-half of
1 percent being tossed out.
And the ownership has to start with the mining industry to
say, ``We are going to start cleaning this up.'' And we need to
look at ways to help facilitate that.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you.
Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Chairman Miller. Congresswoman Woolsey?
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a two-part question, and it is pretty much on the
same subject, and it is--Chairwoman Jordan and any of you that
know the answer to this, to expand on it, what are going--what
will our challenges be in finding the appropriate number of
judges that are talented and experienced and willing to come to
work for the agency to handle 500 to 700 cases a year?
Is this going to be easy as pie, or is it going to take a
long time, or next year at this time are we going to be sitting
here with not having accomplished very much because, guess
what, we only hired two judges or--and prosecutors as well?
So what major challenges will you come up against?
Ms. Jordan. Well, speaking for the Commission, we have
started down the road of hiring. We are interviewing. We have
hired one judge.
It will be challenging, but we think that we provide, I
guess, an attractive place to have judges come work. The work
is interesting. It is collegial. And we will, you know, just
make all the efforts we can to get the judges on board.
It will be challenging, but I think not impossible.
Ms. Woolsey. Where will you find these judges? Are they all
over the country? Are they at the universities?
Ms. Jordan. Oh, they are all over the country. Typically,
we hire a judge who has often been a judge for the Social
Security Administration.
The Social Security Administration really hires many judges
each year off a list of people who are qualified to be hired as
an ALJ, and that provides, I guess, so to speak, almost a
training ground for a lot of judges. They go to work for Social
Security as a judge, and then they go to work for other
agencies from that position.
And so we generally look--you know, look to the sitting
judges there for our hiring.
Ms. Woolsey. How long does it take to recruit this one
judge that you have----
Ms. Jordan. Well----
Ms. Woolsey. Have you made an offer?
Ms. Jordan. Yes, we have.
Ms. Woolsey. Okay.
Ms. Jordan. This didn't take very long. I mean, this
individual was actually familiar with the Commission and had
worked in a different capacity as a counsel previously and was
currently working at another federal agency as an
administrative law judge.
Ms. Woolsey. So how many judges do we have to hire now and
with the new budget?
Ms. Jordan. Well, in 2010 we are looking at hiring four
additional--four judges, so we are looking at three more, and
we----
Ms. Woolsey. And then----
Ms. Jordan [continuing]. Are engaged in interviewing and
our--the chief judge is very actively involved in that process.
Ms. Woolsey. And the President's budget allows for how many
more?
Ms. Jordan. In 2010 it would be four, and in 2011 an
additional four.
Ms. Woolsey. Four?
Ms. Jordan. Yes.
Ms. Woolsey. I thought it went into the teens.
Well, Secretary Main, if Congress were to provide more
resources so that we could start working on that backlog, how
many judges will we need and prosecutors in order to eliminate
the backlog in, let's say, 3 years?
Mr. Main. Yes, I think that the--Chairman Jordan probably--
in terms of the judge and staffing that is needed on the
Commission side, probably has a better handle on that.
What we look at is the resources that we have to have to
get the job done. And you know, currently, you know, some of
the discussions have been raised here today about the processes
that may be put into place, the simplification of the hearing
process, the OSHA-style quick trial processes, and the
reduction of discovery of case development.
Those things, I think, are as important as some of the
numbers we are talking about, because depending on how the
Commission moves forward, I think it will have an impact on how
we have to move forward with our resources, if we get into some
of those more limited discussions.
We have made some adjustments in the 2011 budget for some
increases of resources to do that both in--excuse me, the
Solicitor of Labor and at MSHA. But it is sort of trying to
figure out what the Commission has planned to do with the
judges they put on, in light of these other discussions with
trying to simplify a lot of this process.
Ms. Woolsey. So does anybody have any idea of what it would
cost us to eliminate the backlog, how many more judges we would
need, 3 years, 5 years? Has anybody worked that out?
Ms. Jordan. Well, Congresswoman, we were asked to work that
out and provide that information. If we assume that we operated
under the 2010 budget as granted and then the 2011 budget
request as proposed by the President, going from there we would
need--if we went up to 26 judges, for instance, in fiscal year
2012, we could get the backlog down by September of 2014.
Alternatively, looking at a more immediate intensive
intervention, you could be considering--it would take
additional money in 2010, for instance, to go up to 18 judges
to hold the backlog constant, to stop from rising. That would
require going up to 18 judges.
And then going up to 26 judges would allow the backlog to
go down and be eliminated in January of 2013, which would be 3
years.
Ms. Woolsey. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Watzman had something.
Mr. Watzman. Ms. Woolsey, if I might very quickly--and I
can't, you know, talk--tell you how many judges it would take,
but I think we should be looking beyond just the mere hiring of
judges.
I think, as I--as reflected in my testimony, we believe
that because of the elimination of the pre-assessment
conference process, because that was eliminated, many of these
matters moved up to the Commission that would not have
otherwise.
As the Assistant Secretary reinstates the conference
process, the informal conference process, I don't know if there
is a procedure in place to have these taken from--these cases
removed from the Commission and placed back into the informal
conference process.
But we need to be exploring options in addition to the
hiring of more judges. We need to be exploring other options,
other creative options, if you will, that will allow this
backlog to be worked out. I think we are making a mistake if we
focus singularly on just hiring more judges.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, like possibly settling cases at 50
percent of the original assessed amount, just to make it
happen? That is not the way we should be doing this.
I yield, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
And you know, this issue of mine safety has been with us as
long as I can remember. As a young paper boy delivering a
newspaper, I used to read about, you know, mine accidents.
And John L. Lewis was the first person, other than the
President of the United States, that I heard about because this
issue--and of course, I don't know how many canaries died but,
you know, we used to always see that being what happens in a
mine. It seems kind of primitive that you had to have a canary
to make sure that everything was all right or not all right.
But perhaps on that issue that Ms. Woolsey raised, Mr.
Roberts, what do you think about the response we heard from Mr.
Watzman?
Mr. Roberts. I think I need to make a couple points, if I
might. I think there is a--perhaps the committee might believe
that there is--these cases go from the mine straight up to a
judge, and that is just not the case.
In 2008 when the informal process was eliminated, there was
what was known in the industry now as an enhanced conference.
What that means is throughout the United States there are
various MSHA districts that fall under the guidance of
Secretary Main.
And for instance, there is an office in Mount Hope, West
Virginia. If an operator is issued a citation, the only
distinction to be made right now between the informal process
that used to be an opportunity to go down to MSHA as soon as
the inspector cited you for something.
Understand at the time the citation is issued, no one knows
what the dollar and cent amount of that citation will be. That
is determined by another branch of MSHA.
Now the only distinction to be made is you can go now, once
you know what the fine will be. There will be a number of
citations issued by that MSHA inspector upon an inspection. At
the time that you know what that dollar and cent amount is,
kind of like getting a speeding ticket and someone tells you it
is $100, you know and you can go down and argue you weren't
speeding if you want to.
You can go down to the various district offices and say,
``I would like to have an enhanced conference.'' The time
limits that were talked about here before can be changed to
give you more time so this process can take place. There are
meetings in the MSHA district offices to discuss those fines.
In many instances, those fines are reduced. And sometimes
those cases are settled, and sometimes they are not. The real
problem here--and this is my view of this--is there is nothing
to lose here. There is nothing to lose here.
It is like you having an electric bill, a gas bill, that
you have to pay and the utility company said, ``Take that money
and go to Las Vegas and see how you do, and if you don't--and
if you lose, you don't have to worry about anything other than
the amount of money that you owed us to start with.''
So as you go down the process, why wouldn't you appeal
this? You have been issued a significant fine, perhaps. You can
go through this process. And the only thing that can happen is
that it will be reduced.
And if you look at the statistics and try to put them
together and understand those statistics, it works. You are
going to get your fine reduced somewhere along the process
here.
So there is absolutely no reason for every coal operator
who would choose to do so--and some don't, and they should be
commended--to appeal this through the process and send it up to
the Review Commission.
The only thing that is going to happen here is you are
going to pay less money or the same amount of money.
Mr. Payne. You are absolutely right and, as a matter of
fact, it seems like in law in general, in bargaining, whether
it is plea bargaining or whatever, you know, the prosecutors
tend to downgrade the charges in order to get a plea.
And so you have got nothing to lose, as you mention, by
going through--a matter of fact, in most instances, the
reverse. You have got a lot to gain.
I just wonder also, Mr. Roberts, the--you mention about
repeat offenders. You know, in anything, three strikes, you are
out. You stay in jail for life. What kind of process is there
currently for the current repeat offenders? Do they just get
another fine, or are they--and keep going on about their
business?
I mean, we find that in the meat industry. You know, if
they send food to a school that is no good, they say, ``Oh, it
is no good. That is bad. You shouldn't do it.'' And they keep
getting a contract from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
What is it here?
Mr. Roberts. There is a very serious process here that has
been stymied. That process is called a pattern of violations,
and it is a very serious situation for any co-operator at any
mine to have a pattern of violations issued, as Mr.--I almost
called him Joe; I better not do that--as the Undersecretary
pointed out.
However, you cannot be under a pattern of violations until
you have had all of your days in court. And we currently see
16,000 cases sitting here.
And until those cases are determined one way or the--
another, there are mine operators right today who would be
under a pattern of violations, more serious inspection regime,
and they would have to go a quarter without any S&S violations,
which are the most serious ones, to get out from under that.
Because of this process and 16,000 cases sitting there,
that has been taken out of the law, something Congress placed
in the law.
Mr. Payne. Well, my time has expired. But I really
appreciate that, and I recall a terrific potential mine tragedy
in South Africa where hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of
miners were trapped, all of whom were able to be rescued, I
think, other than one or two, by virtue of mine safety
procedures that they had in South Africa.
And then in 2005 and 2006 here in our country we saw the
same kind of--on a smaller scale, with tremendous losses. And
so to me, progress is not keeping up with where it ought to be.
Thank you.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Polis?
Mr. Polis. Thank you.
My district goes right up against Lake County and Leadville
where in 2007 they announced they were going to reopen the
molybdenum mine. Then of course, with the global recession and
prices decreasing in 2009 they changed that, and we hope that
it will open at some point.
But my question is--it was referenced in the testimony that
the primary issue here is the backlog and that the increase in
judges should be able to deal with the case work going forward.
But my question is, assuming that we have a significant
recovery in this country--and of course, that recovery will
affect the basic prices of commodities, and our Congress has
been very instrumental in promoting a recovery through the
American Reinvestment Act, stimulating demand for consumer
products, many of which have origins in the earth--what would
be the impact in a resurgence in the mining industry and
therefore claims on the going-forward piece, as opposed to the
backlog piece, if we return to levels of employment in the
industry that we have seen historically during boom times?
Ms. Jordan. Well, we have done our calculations assuming
that we would have 9,200 cases incoming. We have sort of looked
at that.
We have leveled off a bit for the last year or so, but
under the scenario that you have described I guess it could be
foreseeable that there would be additional mining, additional
enforcement and additional cases coming in even higher than
that amount.
Mr. Polis. So is the 9,200 based on sort of the trend of
the last few years, or are there also--do you also look at what
could happen during kind of robust economic recoveries, you
know, and an increase in commodity prices and growth of the
industry?
Ms. Jordan. We looked at it based on just the last couple
years----
Mr. Polis. Okay.
Ms. Jordan [continuing]. That is what we have had coming
in.
Mr. Polis. So how would we be situated going forward if, in
fact, we have a robust recovery and the numbers are, you know,
above that? How would we be situated on the going forward
piece?
Ms. Jordan. Well, I think the backlog would just continue
to grow.
Mr. Polis. Including some of the new claims that would then
become part of the backlog?
Ms. Jordan. Pardon me?
Mr. Polis. Some of the new claims would then become part of
the backlog under that scenario?
Ms. Jordan. Yes. Yes, they would.
Mr. Polis. Okay.
I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Ms. Titus?
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I represent Nevada. And of course, Nevada is built on
mining. We call ourselves the Silver State, but we actually
produce 77 percent of the gold, and we are--only employ over
12,000 people directly in mining--that is--the average job pays
about $77,000; that is a good job--and then about 52,000 more
people in related industries that serve mining.
So this is a very important issue for us. And I think the
backlog like we have does a disservice to everybody involved,
especially for the people who actually work in the mines.
The Nevada Association of Mining feels that the backlog can
be attributed to several things. And one of the things you
mentioned a little before I got here--and I would like for you
to elaborate on it, if you don't mind--is the elimination of
the pre-contest informal conferences.
And they also cite the ability that they used to have which
was to be able to discuss some of the problems with field
office supervisors before they turned into cases.
I understand the problem of two bites of the apple, but
could you address a little bit what your plans are, if you are
going to put these back in place and how you deal with that
issue?
Mr. Main. Yes, and let me explain what the plan is here so
everybody would get a better appreciation for what we would
like to do.
As I take a look at the current process, we have cases that
may otherwise be resolved if a conference was held to clean up
a set of facts and be resolved without impacting the backlog--
that are now part of the backlog, because under the current
process those cannot be reviewed until after the contest has
been filed.
In looking at how we fix two problems here--one is getting
those out of the backlog, and really straightening out this 47
percent issue that bothers me I think as much as it does about
anybody else--is to have some firmness in about how we do that.
I view those conferences to be nothing more than sorting
out the facts to makes sure that the paper that the inspector
wrote is a valid piece of paper. And if we have erroneously
issued that paper, then we should deal with it there. And that
conference would clean up the mystery here about the good and
bad paper.
I don't think there is a lot of bad paper in the process,
but at the end of the day that is how that would work. So there
would be a quicker opportunity for the mine operators to sit
down. It is not to negotiate settlements. It is to look at sets
of facts.
And once those sets of facts are finalized, for that
conferencing process that is over. And I think the two bites of
the apple issue that we have been dealing with in the past was
that process in some form would take place, and then we would
have the conference or discussion over the same set of facts
after that conference closed, and basically sometimes with the
same people looking at the same set of facts.
I think that is a little crazy myself. So if we do this as
a one-shot deal, we clean up the errors in the paper. And if
there is a decision by the mine operator to contest, then they
would go into the litigation pile. We would clean up, you know,
hopefully, both of those at the same time.
But that is the process that we are looking at doing. And
at the end of the day, fixing this expectation bit, as Mr.
Roberts--or President Roberts pointed out, that you just file
a--a matter of contest and your expectation is you are going to
get, you know, 40-some percent cut in your fine. We got to fix
that. We got to fix that expectation.
The expectation is whenever we have a case that doesn't get
resolved at those conferences that there is going to be a stiff
response by those representing this agency and the litigation
process and to reduce that expectation of a big discount,
because I think that is--you know, that is something that we
have to deal with here in fixing this.
Ms. Titus. Could I just also ask you, when the--when these
go for appeal and for consideration to the court, are all the
different kinds of mines just lumped together, or you have gold
mine cases with uranium cases, and silver, and coal and all--
does it make any sense to look at some kind of better
organization there--that would feed cases along in the
different areas if they didn't all have to follow the same
patterns?
Mr. Main. Let me tell you a conversation I have had with
the industry. If you want to slow down that process, contest
everything, because basically what you are going to do is you
are going to tie up all the folks who sit down and resolve
these.
And I think we have got to get to a point that the number
of contested cases we see in the ranges of 80, 90 percent--I
think there is something else that drives that. That is bogging
down the process to even have conferences.
So what happens is if you bog down that process, then you
may force the folks who are reviewing this to do a lot more
than they would normally do at the time.
I think there is--when I looked at the records, there was
something like 40-plus mining companies that had contested over
80 percent of the--of the violations that they received. And
that does clog up more than just the backlog with the
Commission. It clogs up MSHA's ability to actually have a--you
know, a review of the facts that the mine operator wants to
submit in the conferences.
Ms. Titus. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
If I might, on a second round here, there is no question
that this is a difficult needle to thread. I wouldn't want
anybody to walk away from the witness table or from this
hearing and believe that somehow the suggestion is we go back
to the old system.
That system was clearly found wanting by the Congress on a
bipartisan basis, and this bill was hammered out over a
considerable period of time with the involvement of the
industry, with the involvement of MSHA, and the mine workers
and other interested parties, in a conscious decision--I didn't
actually agree with the final bill because I was worried about
the time lines--but a conscious decision to change the previous
system that was leading--which, you know, we had an accident
rate and we had a system that was unacceptable, certainly to
the miners, but also to the Congress.
And I think that part of the burden here is shared by the
Congress. We said we wanted a tougher system. We wanted a more
exacting system. We wanted to make sure that violations did not
go unreported, that there would be enough inspectors, that the
inspection--that the undergrounds would be inspected four
times. And that is now being complied with.
An amazing number of citations are being issued--I mean, I
don't know, about 15 per inspection, it looks like, per mine. I
think the mining industry has some obligation here in terms of
what are they doing to change the number of citations in terms
of the operation of those mines.
But Congress, if we want this backlog addressed, and we
want to adhere to the policy, we are also going to have to put
some additional resources into the Commission to make sure
that, in fact, this can be done on a fair and timely basis.
And I am concerned--and I think you heard from members of
Congress--the idea that you can just sort of settle out here at
some point at 47 percent--you know, it is sort of a better
return on your money than junk bonds but probably safer than
Treasuries in terms of your ability to collect it. That is not
a situation that you want to have happen.
And I also would want to impress upon you that--I know it
is denied, but I think you have a conscious decision,
collectively or independently, by those who run the risk of
being cited for a pattern of violations here clogging up the
system and trying to postpone that day when they have to meet
that judgment.
That judgment has turned out to work to the benefit in
terms of reducing the violations of where those miners, as I
pointed out before, work in those particular mines.
This question of bad paper--I appreciate we have new--you
know, we have--we are not the first agency that has turnover
because of people retiring and all the rest of that.
But you are talking about--in S&S penalty decisions, about
4 percent have been withdrawn or vacated, so it can't be that
much bad paper on the--and by the time you get to the
Commission, it is 1 percent of the remainders that are left.
And on the unwarrantable failures, it is about 10 percent.
So you know, and that is pretty consistent over the last 5 or 6
years. And so I think the idea that somehow that is driving
this process is interesting, but I don't think it is terribly
accurate.
I think there is another decision-making process among the
operators about challenging this for other reasons that I have
made out that may have more impact on this decision.
And again, the MINER Act anticipated increased inspections
on a regular basis and increased enforcement and tougher
penalties. So you know, I appreciate people don't want the
tougher penalties. They don't want to pay more. That is the
law, and that was well argued about the increase in those
penalties during the development of that law.
My having said all that doesn't make your task any easier,
but I want to make sure that we don't start to suggest that
somehow we want to go back--we would like to get the accident
rate even lower this year and next year. I mean, that is the
goal.
And I think you are right that you have got to start to
develop programs with the industry beyond what we have now, but
the industry has got to take some burden.
If you are continuing to get these kinds of citations, I
think you have got to ask how is it that you are doing business
where this continues. After four inspections, if you are
continuing to get that level of citations, I think you have got
a problem.
Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you for
this hearing.
And thank you to the panel. You know, with the safeguards
that were put in place, we have--and I know the focus of this
hearing was to talk about the backlog of cases.
But frankly, when you look at the all-time records in
subsequent years in terms of safety, I think that speaks to a
level of effectiveness of what was put in place, and so as I
hope going forward we see increased use of our natural
resources and more employment, actually, and jobs in this area.
And one time my congressional district had not just surface
but subsurface mines. Unfortunately, that industry is almost
extinct in much of Pennsylvania today for many reasons, and so
I certainly hope as we look forward going forward that we could
look at, you know, ways of doing things more efficiently and
with keeping that--safety as our number one issue.
So I want to just thank the panel for your testimony today
and for joining us.
And with that, I will yield back.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
I just want to--one clarification. I think when Chairwoman
Jordan answered the question--I think her answer was--on this
question of pre-judgment interest, have you considered that, or
what----
Mr. Main. Yes.
Chairman Miller [continuing]. What is allowed or not
allowed?
Mr. Main. That is something that would have to be created,
as I understand it. And it would probably have to be created
through legislation.
Chairman Miller. Legislation----
Mr. Main. Yes.
Chairman Miller [continuing]. Would be the response to
that.
Mr. Main. Yes.
Chairman Miller. Okay.
Secondly, Chairwoman Jordan, when you responded on the
budget request that will--for 2011, you will be at eight--will
be up at 18 judges with that request, is that correct?
Ms. Jordan. Yes, that is correct.
Chairman Miller. And that sort of comes close to sort of a
steady state in the backlog, so that is not acceptable, and
this is--this speaks to the Congress and the administration
putting resources into this.
It looks to me like you have to get to somewhere around 26
judges before you can start to make a serious dent absent these
other--if you just take the current situation, absent the
changes that Mr. Main has talked about, absent the changes that
some of the industry have suggested.
Hopefully, those can be worked out within the underlying
law and the intent of the underlying law, but I would hope that
also--not to be redundant of my previous remarks, but the
industry has got to accept some of the responsibility for the
reduction in the issuing of citations.
Again, it is not like we have this massive rejection rate.
And I think the Congress has got to accept the--some of the
additional burden for the reduction of that backlog. I mean,
you are just not going to be able to work judges to such a
level that you can do that if you don't have the proper
resources.
So we all have our work to do here, and thank you very much
for your contributions to this hearing. This is, again, a
matter that I certainly take very seriously. We made our
commitment as Chair of this committee and as members of this
committee, and we expect to follow through on it, and we look
forward to continuing to work with you.
Thank you.
Without objection, members will have 14 days to submit
additional materials or questions for the hearing record.
And without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
[The statement of Mrs. McMorris Rodgers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Washington
Over the last year--and in particular over the last few months--
we've witnessed first hand the impact that regulatory burdens are
having on the private sector. From a lack of job creation to a lack of
credit to stagnant growth, many industries have been smothered by this
onslaught of regulation. The mining industry is no exception.
Increased regulations imposed on mine operators--from bureaucratic
requirements for publication in the Federal Register to the
requirements imposed in contested mine safety cases--are stifling an
industry already plagued by negative publicity.
What many forget is that the mining industry plays a critical role
in providing greater energy security as well as economic security to
our nation. We should be encouraging its expansion not limiting it.
To that end, I am interested in how the 2009 Procedure Instruction
Letter (PIL) requiring mine operators to contest a citation before
reconciling disrupted the existing system creating the back log seen
today at the Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (MSHRC). Further,
I will be interested in how the Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA) intends to resolve the problems created by the PIL.
As all the parties involved in this problem seek solutions, a first
step should be trying to obtain additional information in a non-
adversarial setting in order to dispense with as many citations as
possible prior to bring these before MSHRC. Reducing the backlog is a
worth goal, but maintaining high standards for the safety and health of
miners should be the priority and we should not lose sight of that
priority.
______
[Questions submitted for the record and their responses
follow:]
[Via Email],
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, February 26, 2010.
Hon. Mary Lucille Jordan, Chairman,
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, 601 New Jersey
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Jordan: Thank you for testifying at the Committee's
hearing, ``Reducing the Growing Backlog of Contested Mine Safety
Cases'' held on Tuesday, February 23, 2010.
I have a few additional questions to which I would like you to
provide written responses for the hearing record:
1. What is the total value of the penalties currently being
contested by mine operators (i.e., the total dollar value of all
penalties included in the Review Commission's backlog of approximately
16,000 cases)?
2. How does the current amount under contest compare to the
aggregate amount of the Review Commission's budget since the date of
the Review Commission was created in 1977?
3. By what amount would the Review Commission's budget have to be
increased annually, including the costs of additional support staff
(such as law clerks and administrative overhead), if additional
Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) were added to its staff as follows:
a. If four (4) ALJs were added?
b. If six (6) ALJs were added?
c. If eight (8) ALJs are added?
d. If twelve (12) ALJs are added?
4. Has the Mine Act's objective of deterring safety violations been
weakened because the Review Commission's backlog has delayed the
collection of penalties and the resolution of contested cases in a
reasonable period of time?
Please send your written response to the Committee by COB on
Tuesday, March 9th--the date on which the hearing record will close. If
you have any questions, please contact the Committee at 202-225-3725.
Once again, we greatly appreciate your testimony at this hearing.
Sincerely,
George Miller, Chairman.
______
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission,
601 New Jersey Ave., NW, Suite 9500,
Washington, DC, March 4, 2010.
Hon. George Miller, Chairman,
Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, 2181
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I very much appreciated the opportunity to
testify at the Committee's hearing ``Reducing the Growing Backlog of
Contested Mine Safety Cases,'' which was held on February 23, 2010. I
am now providing responses for the hearing record to the questions
posed in your letter to me dated February 26, 2010.
1. What is the total value of the penalties currently being
contested by mine operators (i.e., the total dollar value of all
penalties included in the Review Commission's backlog of approximately
16,000 cases)?
The total value of the penalties currently being contested by mine
operators is approximately $195 million. That figure represents the
amount proposed by the Secretary.
2. How does the current amount under contest compare to the
aggregate amount of the Review Commission's budget since the date the
Review Commission was created in 1977?
The aggregate amount of the Review Commission's budget since 1978
(the first date for which figures are available) through 2010 is $186
million.
3. By what amount would the Review Commission's budget have to be
increased annually, including the costs of additional support staff
(such as law clerks and administrative overhead), if additional
Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) were added to its staff [assumed to be
currently 14 judges] as follows:
a. If four (4) ALJs were added? [for a total of 18 judges]: $ 2.747
million
b. If six (6) ALJs were added? [for a total of 20 judges]: $ 3.547
million
c. If eight (8) ALJs are added? [for a total of 22 judges]: $ 4.347
million
d. If twelve (12) ALJs are added? [for a total of 26 judges]: $
5.947 million
4. Has the Mine Act's objective of deterring safety violations been
weakened because the Review Commission's backlog has delayed the
collection of penalties and the resolution of contested cases in a
reasonable period of time?
One of Congress' basic premises in enacting the Mine Act was that
penalties should be collected as close in time to the violation as
possible. To the extent this is delayed, it undermines the deterrent
value of the penalty. Also, we recognize that several important
enforcement provisions of the Mine Act, such as pattern of violations,
depend upon a determination of an operator's history, and these
provisions are not applicable until the violation becomes final, which
occurs only at the completion of the Commission's review process. Thus,
if case decisions are delayed, the ability of MSHA to effectively
enforce the Act may be inhibited.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide supplemental information
to the hearing record.
Sincerely,
Mary Lu Jordan,
Chairman.
______
[Via Email and Fax],
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, February 26, 2010.
Hon. Joe Main, Assistant Secretary,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.
Dear Assistant Secretary Main: Thank you for testifying at the
Committee's hearing, ``Reducing the Growing Backlog of Contested Mine
Safety Cases'' held on Tuesday, February 23, 2010.
I have a few additional questions to which I would like you to
provide written responses for the hearing record:
1. What was the Mine Safety and Health Administration's (MSHA)
actual costs and staffing in FY 09 to support the disposition of
contested cases before the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review
Commission (Review Commission)? What are the expected FY 10 costs and
staffing to support the disposition of contested cases before the
Review Commission?
2. What was the Department of Labor's actual costs and staffing for
the Office of the Solicitor to work on contested MSHA cases for FY 09?
What are the expected costs for FY 10?
3. During the hearing, you noted that 40 companies are responsible
for 80 percent of the citations contested. Please provide a list of
these companies, including the name of the parent companies, the states
in which they are located, their subsidiaries, the number of contested
citations, and the names and types of their mines.
4. Would MSHA support the idea of a legislative change to allow the
agency to assess and collect pre-judgment interest from mine operators
on penalties?
5. In the increase provided to DOL in its FY 2010 budget for the
Office of the Solicitor, how much of the additional funds provided will
be used to hire new staff for the Office of the Solicitor to work on
MSHA cases? Will this be sufficient to support the addition of 4 ALJs
at the Review Commission as proposed in the President's budget request?
6. In your testimony, you stated that MSHA plans to reinstate the
pre-contest conferences with mine operators. Do you expect a reduction
in the number of contested cases from the reinstatement of these pre-
penalty conferences over a 1 year period? What percent reduction do you
anticipate?
7. What kinds of contests will be reduced from pre-penalty
contests?
Please send your written response to the Committee by COB on
Tuesday, March 9th--the date on which the hearing record will close. If
you have any questions, please contact the Committee at 202-225-3725.
Once again, we greatly appreciate your testimony at this hearing.
Sincerely,
George Miller, Chairman.
______
[Via Email and Fax],
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, March 5, 2010.
Hon. Joe Main, Assistant Secretary,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.
Dear Assistant Secretary Main: Thank you for testifying at the
Committee's hearing, ``Reducing the Growing Backlog of Contested Mine
Safety Cases'' held on Tuesday, February 23, 2010.
Committee Members had additional questions for which they would
like written responses from you for the hearing record.
Congressman Kline asks the following questions:
1. How many citations are in the system awaiting an enhanced safety
and health conference?
2. Can you provide this information by MSHA district and in date
order with the oldest citation in the district conference backlog?
3. When do you anticipate the backlogged cases entering the
conference process?
4. Has MSHA Headquarters established a benchmark time period for a
conference to be held from a date certain once it is placed into the
system until the conference is held?
Please send your written response to the Committee by COB on
Tuesday, March 9th--the date on which the hearing record will close. If
you have any questions, please contact the Committee at 202-225-3725.
Once again, we greatly appreciate your testimony at this hearing.
Sincerely,
George Miller, Chairman.
______
Responses From Mr. Main to Questions Submitted for the Record
1. What was the Mine Safety and Health Administration's (MSHA)
actual costs and staffing in FY 09 to support the disposition of
contested cases before the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review
Commission (Review Commission)? What are the expected FY 10 costs and
staffing to support the disposition of contested cases before the
Review Commission?
Answer: In FY 2009, MSHA spent approximately $7 million and 53 FTE
in support of adjudicating contested cases before the Federal Mine
Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission). With the current
process unchanged, MSHA estimates the cost of this support to increase
to $7.9 million and 61 FTE in FY 2010. This cost estimate is based upon
wide array of support functions and vastly different compensation
rates. For instance, a Conference Litigation Officer (CLR) has an
annual cost of roughly $150,000 while the cost of an administrative
support staffer is approximately $75,000.
2. What was the Department of Labor's actual costs and staffing for
the Office of the Solicitor to work on contested MSHA cases for FY 09?
What are the expected costs for FY 10?
Answer: The cost for the Office of the Solicitor (SOL) to handle
work on contested MSHA cases for FY 2009 was approximately $9,600,000.
In FY 2009, SOL utilized a total of approximately 58 FTE to handle
contested MSHA cases. In FY 2010, based on actual data from the first
quarter of the fiscal year, SOL estimates that it will devote
approximately $12,100,000 to handling contested MSHA cases, using
approximately 72 FTE.
3. During the hearing, you noted that 40 companies are responsible
for 80 percent of the citations contested. Please provide a list of
these companies, including the name of the parent companies, the states
in which they are located, their subsidiaries, the number of contested
citations, and the names and types of their mines.
Answer: I believe you are referring to my testimony in response to
a question where I stated that over 40 companies have contested 80% or
more of the violations issued to them. That data is attached. As I also
noted in my written testimony, 10 companies are responsible for almost
40% of all contested cases pending before the Commission. I have also
attached a report with the requested information for the 40 companies
with the largest number of contested citations in CY 2009, which
includes the 10 companies I referred to in my testimony. As you can
see, these 40 companies accounted for 57.8% of violations contested in
CY 2009 and have contested 65.5% of proposed penalty amounts.
4. Would MSHA support the idea of a legislative change to allow the
agency to assess and collect pre-judgment interest from mine operators
on penalties?
Answer: MSHA has considered this idea but would need additional
information about the framework and scope of contemplated legislation.
For instance, because the vast majority of cases currently settle prior
to trial, legislation that awarded prejudgment interest if the
government prevails on the merits of a contested citation would only
apply to the less than 5% of citations in which MSHA prevails at trial
or obtains a default judgment that has not been pre-paid. Under the
current system and with the current number of cases that proceed to
trial, this type of legislative change would not have a significant
impact.
Prejudgment interest could, however, affect settlement decision-
making in that it would remove the financial incentive for an operator
who contests a large number of meritorious citations simply to delay
payment. It is difficult to determine the extent to which the time-
value of money is a motivating factor in an operator's behavior, or how
prejudgment interest would affect that behavior. Currently MSHA settles
contested cases for an average reduction greater than the amount that
an operator would be required to pay in pre-penalty interest.
Consequently, while prejudgment interest could reduce the financial
incentive to contest, it would not tip the balance in favor of not
contesting for operators who believe they can negotiate a penalty
reduction under the current system.
5. In the increase provided to DOL in its FY 2010 budget for the
Office of the Solicitor, how much of the additional funds provided will
be used to hire new staff for the Office of the Solicitor to work on
MSHA cases? Will this be sufficient to support the additional of 4 ALJs
at the Review Commission as proposed in the President's budget request?
Answer: SOL estimates that approximately $2,500,000 in additional
resources and approximately 14 additional FTE will be used to handle
Commission cases in FY 2010. Last year, SOL provided to the Committee
estimates of the number of FTE that would be necessitated by additional
Commission ALJ's. However, it is important to note that those estimates
were based on the current case handling system, which does not take
into account any of the significant case handling and processing
reforms and other management changes at the Commission that are being
actively considered. Furthermore, those estimates were for all of FY
2010. SOL cannot at this point estimate the impending increase in
workload that will be generated in the remainder of FY 2010 by 4
additional Commission ALJ's because of a number of variables: 1) when
will each judge arrive, 2) whether the work pattern of the Commission
will be redistributed so that there is more work done that does not
require SOL involvement, 3) whether other case-processing reforms will
be put into practice during FY 10, and 4) case processing reforms and
other management changes that the Commission is actively considering.
SOL will distribute its FY10 appropriated resources to handle the
Commission-related cases.
6. In your testimony, you stated that MSHA plans to reinstate the
pre-contest conferences with mine operators. Do you expect a reduction
in the number of contested cases from the reinstatement of these pre-
penalty conferences over a 1 year period? What percent reduction do you
anticipate?
Answer: It was not my intent to suggest that MSHA will return the
conferencing processes of the past. MSHA does not intend to reinstate
the pre-contest system in its previous form. At its core, the
conferencing will have one thing in common with the previous system--it
will occur prior to an operator being required to contest proposed
penalties, so that resolvable cases do not needlessly enter the
contested case backlog where settlements need to be approved by the
Commission and take considerable time to resolve. Beyond that, the
specific procedures are still under development based on a review of
what has worked previously and what has not. Any new procedure will be
subject to ongoing review and evaluation, and will be amended to
reflect experience and maximize the effectiveness of the process.
While we expect a reduction in the number of contested cases from
the use of pre-penalty conferencing, it is difficult to predict a
percentage reduction given all the possible variables introduced by the
various reforms under consideration by both MSHA and the Commission.
7. What kind of contests will be reduced from pre-penalty
conferences?
Answer: We anticipate that cases resolved in the pre-penalty
conferencing MSHA is developing would be those in which the operator
presents a legal position or evidence demonstrating that, in light of
the record as a whole, the citation in question is not justified or is
not adequately supported by evidence. Other types of pre-contest
resolutions would be subject to guidelines MSHA plans to develop.
______
[Additional materials submitted from Mr. Main follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
COMPANIES CONTESTING LARGEST NUMBER OF CITATIONS
[Calendar Year 2009]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company
Company Penalty
Violations Dollars
Number of Proposed Contested Contested
Controlling Company Violations Penalty as as
Contested Amounts Percentage Percentage
Contested of All of All
Violations Dollars
Contested Contested
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Mining....................................... 46,822 $93,306,588 .......... ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C02508 Massey Energy Company............................ 3,741 $10,486,334 8.0% 11.2%
C00692 CONSOL Energy Inc................................ 2,173 $7,324,052 4.6% 7.8%
C13408 Robert E Murray.................................. 1,963 $2,349,683 4.2% 2.5%
0071611 Patriot Coal Corporation......................... 1,509 $3,530,080 3.2% 3.8%
C15833 Peabody Energy................................... 1,322 $8,639,575 2.8% 9.3%
C07082 Richard Gilliam.................................. 1,243 $1,492,963 2.7% 1.6%
C13562 James River Coal Company......................... 1,199 $1,603,334 2.6% 1.7%
0041211 Alpha Natural Resources LLC...................... 1,197 $1,394,723 2.6% 1.5%
C15455 Alliance Resource Partners LP.................... 1,116 $2,099,117 2.4% 2.2%
C00015 Ben Bennett...................................... 890 $450,855 1.9% 0.5%
C04355 James C Justice II............................... 808 $951,236 1.7% 1.0%
M00106 Cleveland-Cliffs Inc............................. 802 $1,365,155 1.7% 1.5%
C11194 James H Booth.................................... 616 $919,458 1.3% 1.0%
0085759 Mechel Oao....................................... 524 $545,498 1.1% 0.6%
C07485 J Clifford Forrest III........................... 506 $726,866 1.1% 0.8%
0045307 International Coal Group Inc (ICG)............... 432 $1,994,416 0.9% 2.1%
0069031 International Resources LLC...................... 387 $836,211 0.8% 0.9%
0059869 Coalfield Transport Inc.......................... 377 $1,532,049 0.8% 1.6%
M02063 Lafarge S A...................................... 375 $797,654 0.8% 0.9%
0041669 Wexford Capital LLC.............................. 366 $1,013,846 0.8% 1.1%
M09149 Cemex S A........................................ 365 $591,368 0.8% 0.6%
C15843 Citicorp Venture Capital Ltd..................... 362 $443,365 0.8% 0.5%
0059129 Brody Trust...................................... 358 $941,087 0.8% 1.0%
M00004 Heidelberg Cement AG............................. 352 $690,650 0.8% 0.7%
0066691 Armstrong Energy Corporation LLC................. 345 $529,971 0.7% 0.6%
C15194 Douglas M Epling................................. 344 $489,002 0.7% 0.5%
0044281 Foundation Coal Corporation...................... 337 $1,250,425 0.7% 1.3%
M06246 Barrick Gold Corp................................ 287 $440,929 0.6% 0.5%
M00165 Newmont Mining Corp.............................. 278 $802,317 0.6% 0.9%
M00452 Rogers Group Inc................................. 258 $202,248 0.6% 0.2%
C00992 Walter Energy Incorporated....................... 250 $945,616 0.5% 1.0%
M06982 Buzzi Unicem S P A............................... 247 $295,758 0.5% 0.3%
M11763 Imerys S A....................................... 242 $477,250 0.5% 0.5%
C14311 Donald Blankenberger............................. 240 $1,176,146 0.5% 1.3%
M13214 Cementos Portland Valderrivas S A................ 216 $397,432 0.5% 0.4%
0071891 Vulcan Materials Company......................... 215 $101,309 0.5% 0.1%
M00199 Italcementi Spa.................................. 213 $200,797 0.5% 0.2%
C00286 TECO Energy Inc.................................. 211 $371,078 0.5% 0.4%
0041055 James H Booth.................................... 203 $123,742 0.4% 0.1%
0085453 Metinvest B V.................................... 203 $288,185 0.4% 0.3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total for 40 Companies Contesting the Most 27,072 $60,811,780 57.8% 65.2%
Citations.......................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DETAIL SUMMARY BY MINE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of Penalty No. of Penalty
Company/Mine Operator/Mine Name/Mine Type/State Violations Dollars Violations Dollars
Assessed Assessed Contested Contested
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Resource Partners LP........................... 3,616 $2,820,486 1,116 $2,099,117
Excel Mining Llc........................................ 962 $618,506 228 $438,463
Mine No 2; Underground Coal; State--KY.................. 35 $34,119 18 $30,205
Mine No 3; Underground Coal; State--KY.................. 524 $290,689 114 $197,433
Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--KY............. 31 $9,343 3 $1,830
Van Lear Mine; Underground Coal; State--KY.............. 372 $284,355 93 $208,995
Gibson County Coal LLC.................................. 447 $676,180 157 $585,858
Gibson Mine; Underground Coal; State--IN................ 447 $676,180 157 $585,858
Hopkins County Coal Llc................................. 438 $185,995 187 $135,431
East Volunteer; Facility Coal; State--KY................ 15 $1,804 3 $452
Elk Creek Mine; Underground Coal; State--KY............. 405 $181,761 176 $133,625
Smith Mine; Surface Coal; State--KY..................... 16 $2,230 8 $1,354
West Volunteer; Surface Coal; State--KY................. 2 $200
MC Mining LLC........................................... 21 $2,892
Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--KY............. 21 $2,892
Mettiki Coal LLC........................................ 20 $2,377
Mettiki General; Facility Coal; State--MD............... 20 $2,377
Mettiki Coal WV, LLC.................................... 218 $87,390 13 $13,839
Mountain View Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV......... 218 $87,390 13 $13,839
River View Coal LLC..................................... 15 $1,981 6 $1,005
River View Facilities; Facility Coal; State--KY......... 5 $576 1 $176
River View Mine; Underground Coal; State--KY............ 10 $1,405 5 $829
Tunnel Ridge, LLC....................................... 6 $839 1 $176
Tunnel Ridge Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV.......... 6 $839 1 $176
Warrior Coal LLC........................................ 402 $231,715 107 $144,646
Cardinal; Underground Coal; State--KY................... 386 $218,075 102 $132,269
Warrior Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--KY..... 16 $13,640 5 $12,377
Webster County Coal Llc................................. 675 $712,592 265 $577,746
Dotiki Mine; Underground Coal; State--KY................ 675 $712,592 265 $577,746
White County Coal, LLC.................................. 412 $300,019 152 $201,953
Pattiki; Underground Coal; State--IL.................... 412 $300,019 152 $201,953
Alpha Natural Resources LLC............................. 3,207 $1,968,873 1,197 $1,394,723
AMFIRE Mining Company LLC............................... 323 $235,164 181 $207,405
Armstrong Co Surface; Surface Coal; State--PA........... 2 $1,126 1 $1,026
Brockway Tipple; Facility Coal; State--PA............... 1 $100
Cambria Pitt 001; Surface Coal; State--PA............... 1 $176
Clearfield Co. Strips; Surface Coal; State--PA.......... 3 $1,504 1 $1,304
Clymer Prep Plant; Facility Coal; State--PA............. 2 $276
Dora 8; Underground Coal; State--PA..................... 57 $49,738 23 $43,210
Gillhouser Run Mine; Underground Coal; State--PA........ 41 $20,939 21 $18,323
Madison Mine; Underground Coal; State--PA............... 98 $74,292 62 $68,448
Nolo; Underground Coal; State--PA....................... 76 $60,712 48 $51,867
Ondo Extension Mine; Underground Coal; State--PA........ 41 $26,038 24 $22,964
Portage Plant; Facility Coal; State--PA................. 1 $263 1 $263
Black Dog Coal Corporation.............................. 46 $13,671 8 $7,589
No 2; Underground Coal; State--VA....................... 46 $13,671 8 $7,589
Brooks Run Mining Company LLC........................... 536 $332,987 342 $307,042
Bens Creek No 1 Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV....... 59 $8,188 27 $4,124
Brooks Run Processing Plant No 1; Facility Coal; State-- 5 $728 1 $176
WV.....................................................
Cucumber Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV.............. 164 $216,929 150 $214,161
Mine No 5; Underground Coal; State--WV.................. 23 $4,928 4 $1,507
Poplar Ridge No 1 Deep Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV 60 $17,773 28 $14,158
Saylor Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV................ 31 $3,417 6 $841
Seven Pines; Surface Coal; State--WV.................... 7 $762 1 $100
War Branch No 1 Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV....... 61 $34,477 58 $33,906
Wyoming No 1; Underground Coal; State--WV............... 36 $9,777 12 $6,338
Wyoming No 2; Underground Coal; State--WV............... 90 $36,008 55 $31,731
Cobra Natural Resources LLC............................. 240 $152,091 101 $112,835
Black Bear Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--WV.. 38 $6,509
Mountaineer Alma A Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV.... 197 $143,765 98 $111,218
Plant #1; Facility Coal; State--WV...................... 5 $1,817 3 $1,617
Coral Energy Services LLC............................... 1 $585 1 $585
Coral Energy; Facility Coal; State--PA.................. 1 $585 1 $585
Cumberland Coal Resources, LP........................... 77 $54,902 20 $34,104
Cumberland Mine; Underground Coal; State--PA............ 77 $54,902 20 $34,104
Dickenson-Russell Coal Company, LLC..................... 640 $368,023 181 $211,654
Cherokee Mine; Underground Coal; State--VA.............. 238 $190,306 97 $125,198
Laurel Mountain; Underground Coal; State--VA............ 230 $101,190 31 $39,833
Mc Clure River Plant; Facility Coal; State--VA.......... 20 $3,751 4 $1,449
Moss #3 Plant; Facility Coal; State--VA................. 14 $2,014
Roaring Fork No 4; Underground Coal; State--VA.......... 138 $70,762 49 $45,174
Emerald Coal Resources LP............................... 98 $90,629 49 $81,062
Emerald Mine No 1; Underground Coal; State--PA.......... 98 $90,629 49 $81,062
Enterprise Mining Company LLC........................... 313 $158,763 43 $67,121
Big Branch West Surface Mine; Surface Coal; State--KY... 12 $2,175
Big Branch; Surface Coal; State--KY..................... 9 $1,537
Mine #8; Underground Coal; State--KY.................... 158 $99,592 40 $65,566
Mine #9A; Underground Coal; State--KY................... 119 $53,113 1 $1,203
Pioneer Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--KY..... 12 $2,046 2 $352
Roxana Prep Plant; Facility Coal; State--KY............. 3 $300
Gallatin Materials LLC.................................. 1 $100
Mississippi Lime Company--Verona Plant; Facility Stone; 1 $100
State--KY..............................................
Herndon Processing Company LLC.......................... 1 $100
Keystone No 2 Plant; Facility Coal; State--WV........... 1 $100
Kepler Processing Company LLC........................... 15 $1,748
Kepler No. 1 Prep Plant; Facility Coal; State--WV....... 15 $1,748
Kingston Mining Inc..................................... 52 $24,517 17 $18,414
Kingston No 1; Underground Coal; State--WV.............. 21 $6,633 3 $3,314
Kingston No. 2; Underground Coal; State--WV............. 31 $17,884 14 $15,100
Kingston Processing Inc................................. 11 $6,197 6 $2,877
Kingston Plant; Facility Coal; State--WV................ 11 $6,197 6 $2,877
Kingwood Mining Company LLC............................. 71 $50,132 29 $41,162
Whitetail Kittanning Mine; Surface Coal; State--WV...... 67 $49,247 28 $40,577
Whitetail Preparation Facility; Facility Coal; State--WV 4 $885 1 $585
Litwar Processing Company, LLC.......................... 4 $563 2 $363
Lick Branch Impoundment; Surface Coal; State--WV........ 2 $363 2 $363
Litwar Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--WV...... 2 $200
Paramont Coal Company Virginia, LLC..................... 429 $139,428 89 $62,920
88 Strip; Surface Coal; State--VA....................... 9 $1,753 2 $685
Deep Mine #25; Underground Coal; State--VA.............. 82 $45,348 7 $14,145
Deep Mine #26; Underground Coal; State--VA.............. 221 $69,445 58 $39,814
Deep Mine #35; Underground Coal; State--VA.............. 69 $11,955 15 $4,809
Deep Mine 37; Underground Coal; State--VA............... 16 $3,072 6 $2,055
Deep Mine 41; Underground Coal; State--VA............... 6 $600
Lovers Gap #3; Surface Coal; State--VA.................. 9 $3,112 1 $1,412
Red Onion Surface Mine; Surface Coal; State--VA......... 4 $2,475
South Fork; Surface Coal; State--VA..................... 1 $100
Toms Creek Complex; Facility Coal; State--VA............ 12 $1,568
Premium Energy LLC...................................... 48 $56,201 45 $55,794
Mine No 1; Surface Coal; State--WV...................... 48 $56,201 45 $55,794
RAG COAL WEST INCORPORATED.............................. 20 $6,283 1 $1,530
Belle Ayr Mine; Surface Coal; State--WY................. 18 $5,869 1 $1,530
Eagle Butte Mine; Surface Coal; State--WY............... 2 $414
Rivereagle Corporation.................................. 1 $100
Rivereagle Corporation; Facility Coal; State--KY........ 1 $100
Riverside Energy Company, LLC........................... 1 $100
Bens Creek No 1 Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV....... 1 $100
Rockspring Development Inc.............................. 210 $238,623 71 $158,991
Camp Creek Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV............ 201 $233,694 67 $155,158
Camp Creek Processing; Facility Coal; State--WV......... 9 $4,929 4 $3,833
Simmons Fork Mining Inc................................. 3 $452
Paynter Branch Surface Mine; Surface Coal; State--WV.... 3 $452
Twin Star Mining Inc.................................... 45 $7,813
No 1 Loading Dock; Facility Coal; State--VA............. 26 $4,023
No 2 Surface; Surface Coal; State--VA................... 19 $3,790
White Flame Energy, Inc................................. 21 $29,701 11 $23,275
No 9 Surface; Surface Coal; State--WV................... 21 $29,701 11 $23,275
Armstrong Energy Corporation LLC........................ 538 $575,131 345 $529,971
Armstrong Coal Company, Inc............................. 538 $575,131 345 $529,971
Armstrong Prep and Dock Facility; Facility Coal; State-- 10 $1,984 4 $1,384
KY.....................................................
Big Run Mine; Underground Coal; State--KY............... 411 $549,776 305 $515,978
Eastfork Surface Mine; Surface Coal; State--KY.......... 4 $1,712 1 $1,412
Midway Coal Handling Facility; Facility Coal; State--KY. 16 $1,788 4 $538
Midway Mine; Surface Coal; State--KY.................... 15 $3,168 2 $568
Parkway Mine Surface Facilities; Facility Coal; State-- 5 $624 3 $424
KY.....................................................
Parkway Mine; Underground Coal; State--KY............... 77 $16,079 26 $9,667
Barrick Gold Corp....................................... 499 $608,022 287 $440,929
Barrick Gold U S Inc.................................... 33 $34,420 4 $6,913
Bald Mountain Mine; Surface Metal; State--NV............ 33 $34,420 4 $6,913
Barrick Goldstrike Mines Inc............................ 194 $272,916 173 $240,550
Goldstrike Mine; Surface Metal; State--NV............... 72 $46,213 72 $46,213
Meikle Mine; Underground Metal; State--NV............... 84 $218,300 64 $186,034
Mill/Autoclave Operations; Facility Metal; State--NV.... 34 $6,103 33 $6,003
Roaster Operations; Facility Metal; State--NV........... 4 $2,300 4 $2,300
Barrick Turquoise Ridge Incorporated.................... 151 $219,035 57 $137,811
GETCHELL MINE; Underground Metal; State--NV............. 3 $300
Turquoise Ridge Mine; Underground Metal; State--NV...... 148 $218,735 57 $137,811
CORTEZ JOINT VENTURE.................................... 84 $67,723 42 $53,790
BARRICK CORTEZ UNDERGROUND; Underground Metal; State--NV 23 $3,891 9 $2,126
Barrick Cortez; Surface Metal; State--NV................ 61 $63,832 33 $51,664
Golden Sunlight Mines Inc............................... 23 $8,704 11 $1,865
Golden Sunlight Mine Inc; Surface Metal; State--MT...... 23 $8,704 11 $1,865
Homestake Mining Company of California.................. 13 $5,124
Ruby Hill Mine; Surface Metal; State--NV................ 13 $5,124
Pinson Mining Company................................... 1 $100
Pinson Underground; Underground Metal; State--NV........ 1 $100
Ben Bennett............................................. 1,169 $483,894 890 $450,855
Left Fork Mining Co..................................... 538 $214,218 340 $190,035
Prep Plant; Facility Coal; State--KY.................... 50 $14,540 41 $13,640
Straight Creek #1 Mine; Underground Coal; State--KY..... 488 $199,678 299 $176,395
Manalapan Mining........................................ 631 $269,676 550 $260,820
Cm&E #3; Surface Coal; State--KY........................ 31 $10,454 21 $9,454
P-1; Underground Coal; State--KY........................ 190 $57,757 173 $56,040
Prep Plant; Facility Coal; State--KY.................... 26 $4,008 24 $3,808
RB #10; Underground Coal; State--KY..................... 46 $13,650 40 $13,050
RB #11; Underground Coal; State--KY..................... 6 $897 6 $897
RB #12; Underground Coal; State--KY..................... 157 $69,320 140 $66,932
RB #4; Underground Coal; State--KY...................... 17 $4,770 14 $4,470
RB #5; Underground Coal; State--KY...................... 158 $108,820 132 $106,169
Brody Trust............................................. 533 $975,194 358 $941,087
Brody Mining LLC........................................ 533 $975,194 358 $941,087
Brody Mine No 1; Underground Coal; State--WV............ 533 $975,194 358 $941,087
Buzzi Unicem S P A...................................... 375 $336,420 247 $295,758
Alamo Cement Company Ltd................................ 13 $1,350 11 $1,150
1604 QUARRY & PLANT; Facility Stone; State--TX.......... 13 $1,350 11 $1,150
Alamo Concrete Products Ltd............................. 20 $3,365 13 $2,638
Barrett Base Plt; Surface Stone; State--TX.............. 4 $427
SOUTH-TEX QUARRY; Surface SandAndGravel; State--TX...... 6 $1,668 6 $1,668
VARMICON QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--TX............... 5 $590 2 $290
WEIR PLANT; Surface Stone; State--TX.................... 5 $680 5 $680
Buzzi Unicem USA........................................ 175 $168,073 163 $164,591
Bennett's Lake Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TN......... 2 $1,080
INDEPENDENCE QUARRY & MILL; Facility Stone; State--KS... 1 $308
Selma Plant Quarry & Mill; Facility Stone; State--MO.... 154 $161,063 154 $161,063
Signal Mountain Cement Co; Facility Stone; State--TN.... 18 $5,622 9 $3,528
Buzzi Unicem USA (Mid-Atlantic) Inc..................... 13 $3,444
Hercules Cement LP; Facility Stone; State--PA........... 13 $3,444
Lone Star Industries Inc................................ 150 $159,107 56 $126,298
Lone Star Industries; Facility Stone; State--IN......... 42 $41,333 16 $30,680
LONE STAR PRYOR PLT MILL & QY; Surface Stone; State--OK. 35 $13,531 23 $4,947
Lone Star Quarry & Mill; Facility Stone; State--MO...... 6 $70,517 1 $70,000
MARYNEAL QUARRY AND MILL; Facility Stone; State--TX..... 64 $23,688 15 $10,871
Oglesby Cement Plant; Facility Stone; State--IL......... 3 $10,038 1 $9,800
VARMICON PARTNERSHIP, Ltd............................... 4 $1,081 4 $1,081
VARMICON QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--TX............... 4 $1,081 4 $1,081
Cementos Portland Valderrivas S A....................... 303 $477,163 216 $397,432
Dragon Products Company, LLC............................ 90 $63,992 54 $46,744
MADAWASKA PLANT; Surface SandAndGravel; State--ME....... 16 $3,102 16 $3,102
THOMASTON CEMENT PLANT; Facility Stone; State--ME....... 74 $60,890 38 $43,642
Giant Cement Holding Co................................. 160 $342,132 153 $332,974
Giant Cement Company; Facility Stone; State--SC......... 160 $342,132 153 $332,974
Keystone Cement Company................................. 53 $71,039 9 $17,714
KEYSTONE CEMENT COMPANY; Facility Stone; State--PA...... 53 $71,039 9 $17,714
Cemex S A............................................... 1,419 $1,465,826 365 $591,368
Cemex................................................... 6 $648
West Salem Aggregate; Surface SandAndGravel; State--OR.. 6 $648
Cemex Puerto Rico....................................... 49 $134,993
CANTERA CANAS; Surface Stone; State--PR................. 6 $1,958
Florida Lime; Facility Stone; State--PR................. 18 $43,876
Ponce Cement Plant; Facility Stone; State--PR........... 25 $89,159
Cemex California Cement LLC............................. 130 $276,878 44 $200,084
Black Mountain Quarry; Facility Stone; State--CA........ 91 $250,340 40 $194,747
Victorville Cement Plant; Facility Stone; State--CA..... 39 $26,538 4 $5,337
Cemex Construction Materials Atlantic LLC............... 30 $5,818
Bardstown Quarry; Surface Stone; State--KY.............. 3 $716
Bowling Green South Quarry; Surface Stone; State--KY.... 3 $338
Cumberland Quarry; Surface Stone; State--KY............. 8 $1,482
HARLAN QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--KY................. 8 $2,482
Hartford Quarry; Surface Stone; State--KY............... 2 $200
Pineville Quarry; Surface Stone; State--KY.............. 6 $600
CEMEX CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS LP......................... 155 $99,816 22 $37,321
Red Hill; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA............. 9 $3,285
Azusa Quarry; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA.......... 6 $824
CEMEX--Paiute Pit; Surface SandAndGravel; State--NV..... 36 $35,532 9 $14,539
CEMEX--Sierra Stone Quarry; Surface SandAndGravel; 22 $25,862 8 $19,884
State--NV..............................................
Clayton Plant; Surface Stone; State--CA................. 2 $307
Eliot Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA........... 21 $10,558
Lapis Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA........... 3 $1,771
Lemoncove Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA....... 4 $1,401
Moorpark Quarry; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA....... 6 $627
Norman Sand Mine; Surface SandAndGravel; State--NC...... 13 $4,017
Patterson Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA....... 15 $6,197 5 $2,898
Redlands Quarry; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA....... 3 $376
Rockfield Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA....... 5 $5,067
Sunol Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA........... 10 $3,992
CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific LLC................ 15 $1,909
Canby Pit; Surface Stone; State--OR..................... 3 $485
CEMEX--Sierra Stone Quarry; Surface SandAndGravel; 6 $824
State--NV..............................................
Everett Pit & Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--WA... 5 $500
Mayhew Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA.......... 1 $100
CEMEX Construction Materials South LLC.................. 217 $60,236 13 $18,288
CEMEX-- MCCORMICK; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ..... 3 $350
CEMEX--19TH AVE; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ....... 9 $1,719
CEMEX--59TH AVENUE; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ.... 2 $200
CEMEX--BEELINE; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ........ 1 $634
CEMEX--BUCKEYE; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ........ 5 $527
CEMEX--CAMP VERDE; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ..... 3 $861
CEMEX--CASA GRANDE; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ.... 14 $3,574
CEMEX--COOLIDGE; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ....... 7 $1,099
CEMEX--CORTARO WET; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ.... 7 $1,961
CEMEX--GLENDALE; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ....... 4 $1,279
CEMEX--GLOBE/BIXBY; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ.... 5 $517
CEMEX--GRAY MOUNTAIN; Surface Stone; State--AZ.......... 2 $200
CEMEX--HWY 95; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ......... 8 $1,425
CEMEX--JOMAX; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ.......... 1 $100
CEMEX--MAGUIREVILLE; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ... 2 $655
CEMEX--MARICOPA; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ....... 1 $100
CEMEX--MESA; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ........... 6 $688
CEMEX--NOGALES; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ........ 3 $300
CEMEX--PIMA; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ........... 2 $290
CEMEX--PRESCOTT/FAIN; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ.. 13 $3,035
CEMEX--QUEEN CREEK; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ.... 3 $300
CEMEX--SACATON; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ........ 3 $443
CEMEX--SHEEPHILL PLANT; Surface Stone; State--AZ........ 3 $300
CEMEX--SIERRA VISTA; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ... 3 $327
CEMEX--SUN CITY; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ....... 12 $1,729
CEMEX--WEST PLANT #72; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ. 7 $1,008
CEMEX--WEST VALLEY; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ.... 4 $400
CEMEX--WINKLEMAN; Surface Nonmetal; State--AZ........... 3 $362
EAST LOOP 375 SAND PLT; Surface SandAndGravel; State--TX 9 $1,916
Fort Calhoun Stone East Quarry; Surface Stone; State--NE 10 $1,396
LA LUZ PIT; Surface SandAndGravel; State--NM............ 4 $490
MC KELLIGON CANYON; Surface Stone; State--TX............ 35 $28,729 13 $18,288
McCombs Quarry; Surface SandAndGravel; State--TX........ 9 $1,340
Rinker Materials Bullhead; Surface SandAndGravel; State-- 5 $534
AZ.....................................................
TORO QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--TX................... 5 $1,048
VADO QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--NM................... 4 $400
CEMEX INC............................................... 711 $709,027 260 $309,115
474 Sand Mine; Surface SandAndGravel; State--FL......... 13 $4,821 6 $1,853
ALICO ROAD QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--FL............. 1 $100
Balcones Plant; Facility Stone; State--TX............... 3 $424 1 $224
Balcones Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TX............... 9 $2,386
Brooksville Quarry; Surface Stone; State--FL............ 2 $276
CARD SOUND QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--FL............. 4 $4,373 4 $4,373
Cemex Const Materials Atlantic, LLC; Facility Stone; 6 $2,413
State--OH..............................................
Center Hill Mine; Surface Stone; State--FL.............. 11 $1,370 4 $670
City Point Terminal; Facility Stone; State--FL.......... 2 $290
Clinchfield Plant Cemex Incorporated; Facility Stone; 80 $64,512 10 $33,371
State--GA..............................................
Davenport Sand Mine; Surface SandAndGravel; State--FL... 11 $2,202 10 $2,102
DEERFIELD SAND; Surface SandAndGravel; State--SC........ 2 $216
Demopolis Plant Cemex Inc; Facility Stone; State--AL.... 19 $10,894
FEC QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--FL.................... 19 $4,714 7 $939
Gator Sand Mine; Surface SandAndGravel; State--FL....... 1 $100 1 $100
Inglis Quarry; Surface Stone; State--FL................. 1 $100
Jim Houk Mine #1; Underground Stone; State--PA.......... 80 $60,145 25 $22,430
Knoxville Cement Plant Cemex Inc; Facility Stone; State-- 84 $259,712 1 $31,988
TN.....................................................
Kosmos Cement Battletown Quarry; Surface Stone; State-- 5 $538
KY.....................................................
KOSMOS CEMENT CO.; Facility Stone; State--KY............ 12 $3,619 1 $745
Krome Quarry; Surface Stone; State--FL.................. 8 $1,690 1 $334
Lake Wales Sand Mine; Surface SandAndGravel; State--FL.. 1 $100 1 $100
Lyons Cement Plant Cemex Inc; Facility Stone; State--CO. 23 $2,930 3 $463
Miami Cement Plant; Facility Stone; State--FL........... 171 $99,598 157 $98,170
Odessa Cement Plant Cemex Incorporated; Facility Stone; 39 $84,040 13 $58,455
State--TX..............................................
PALMDALE SAND MINE; Surface SandAndGravel; State--FL.... 11 $1,397
Rio Colorado Materials; Surface SandAndGravel; State--TX 5 $680
S C L Quarry; Surface Stone; State--FL.................. 1 $100
Tulley Mine; Surface SandAndGravel; State--FL........... 1 $100
Wampum Plant Cemex Inc.; Facility Stone; State--PA...... 86 $95,187 15 $52,798
Desarrollos Multiples Insulares......................... 19 $125,928
Gravero Lirios; Surface SandAndGravel; State--PR........ 19 $125,928
Florida Crushed Stone Co................................ 19 $15,947 6 $5,867
Brooksville South Cement Plant; Facility Stone; State-- 19 $15,947 6 $5,867
FL.....................................................
Pacific Rock Products, LLC.............................. 28 $16,681 13 $12,413
Canby Pit; Surface Stone; State--OR..................... 2 $200
English Pit; Surface SandAndGravel; State--WA........... 8 $3,428 4 $2,229
Fisher Quarry; Surface Stone; State--WA................. 14 $12,653 9 $10,184
Lewisville Pit; Surface SandAndGravel; State--WA........ 3 $300
Portable Screening Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State-- 1 $100
WA.....................................................
Rinker Materials Corp................................... 6 $2,284
Everett Pit & Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--WA... 2 $710
Granite Falls Quarry; Surface SandAndGravel; State--WA.. 4 $1,574
Rinker Materials Of Florida Inc......................... 3 $300
474 Sand Mine; Surface SandAndGravel; State--FL......... 1 $100
Baymeadows Terminal; Surface Stone; State--FL........... 2 $200
RINKER MATERIALS WESTERN INC............................ 6 $1,373
Red Hill; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA............. 1 $873
Cache Creek Quarry; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA.... 4 $400
Guernsey Quarry; Surface Stone; State--WY............... 1 $100
RMC Pacific Materials................................... 25 $13,988 7 $8,280
Bonny Doon Quarry; Surface Stone; State--CA............. 5 $1,938
Davenport Cement Plant; Facility Stone; State--CA....... 18 $11,850 7 $8,280
Davenport Sand Mine; Surface SandAndGravel; State--FL... 1 $100
Tulley Mine; Surface SandAndGravel; State--FL........... 1 $100
Citicorp Venture Capital Ltd............................ 623 $489,000 362 $443,365
Elk Lick Energy Inc..................................... 25 $23,395 18 $22,605
Roytown Deep Mine; Underground Coal; State--PA.......... 25 $23,395 18 $22,605
Pbs Coals Inc........................................... 40 $21,857 17 $16,425
Cambria Fuel Plant; Facility Coal; State--PA............ 5 $674
Mine No 1; Surface Coal; State--PA...................... 7 $14,599 3 $11,489
Shade Creek Plant; Facility Coal; State--PA............. 28 $6,584 14 $4,936
Quecreek Mining Inc..................................... 33 $35,904 17 $33,621
Quecreek #1 Mine; Underground Coal; State--PA........... 33 $35,904 17 $33,621
Rox Coal Inc............................................ 525 $407,844 310 $370,714
Agustus; Underground Coal; State--PA.................... 160 $151,245 102 $141,631
Geronimo; Underground Coal; State--PA................... 24 $19,132 11 $17,586
Horning Deep Mine; Underground Coal; State--PA.......... 3 $699 1 $499
Kimberly Run; Underground Coal; State--PA............... 149 $92,178 88 $81,659
Miller Mine; Underground Coal; State--PA................ 70 $57,409 34 $48,696
Quecreek #1 Mine; Underground Coal; State--PA........... 72 $45,369 47 $41,355
Roytown Deep Mine; Underground Coal; State--PA.......... 47 $41,812 27 $39,288
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.................................... 1,199 $1,822,425 802 $1,365,155
Northshore Mining Company............................... 164 $26,313 3 $648
Northshore Mine; Surface Metal; State--MN............... 25 $2,922
Northshore Mining Company; Facility Metal; State--MN.... 139 $23,391 3 $648
Oak Grove Resources, LLC................................ 621 $1,528,735 527 $1,122,407
Concord Mine; Facility Coal; State--AL.................. 34 $18,597 32 $18,397
Oak Grove Mine; Underground Coal; State--AL............. 587 $1,510,138 495 $1,104,010
Pinnacle Mining Company, LLC............................ 414 $267,377 272 $242,100
Green Ridge #1 Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV........ 76 $50,659 56 $47,247
Green Ridge #2; Underground Coal; State--WV............. 2 $200 2 $200
Pinnacle Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV.............. 301 $211,194 201 $192,648
Pinnacle Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--WV.... 35 $5,324 13 $2,005
Coalfield Transport Inc................................. 1,075 $1,756,684 377 $1,532,049
Big River Mining LLC.................................... 676 $1,373,209 270 $1,285,385
Broad Run Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV............. 676 $1,373,209 270 $1,285,385
Clearwater Processing LLC............................... 10 $1,796 4 $1,188
Broad Run Prep Plant; Facility Coal; State--WV.......... 10 $1,796 4 $1,188
Mach Mining, LLC........................................ 348 $372,107 101 $244,173
Mach #1 Mine; Underground Coal; State--IL............... 348 $372,107 101 $244,173
MaRyan Mining LLC....................................... 36 $7,907
Shay #1 Mine; Underground Coal; State--IL............... 36 $7,907
M-Class Mining LLC...................................... 4 $1,565 2 $1,303
MC#1 Mine; Underground Coal; State--IL.................. 4 $1,565 2 $1,303
Meigs Processing LLC.................................... 1 $100
Buckeye Plant; Facility Coal; State--OH................. 1 $100
CONSOL Energy Inc....................................... 6,274 $9,034,640 2,173 $7,324,052
Central Ohio Coal Company............................... 4 $400
Muskingum Mine; Surface Coal; State--OH................. 4 $400
Consol of Kentucky Inc.................................. 347 $156,513 63 $76,098
Big Branch No 1 Belt Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV.. 12 $2,341
Bronzite III; Underground Coal; State--WV............... 22 $4,337 1 $807
Bronzite; Underground Coal; State--WV................... 47 $25,620 5 $5,964
Jones Fork E-3; Underground Coal; State--KY............. 174 $78,851 37 $36,774
Jones Fork Prep Plant; Facility Coal; State--KY......... 14 $2,218
Miller Creek Preparation Plant #1; Facility Coal; State-- 19 $13,966 10 $11,488
WV.....................................................
Minway Surface; Surface Coal; State--WV................. 6 $1,648
MT-13/500; Surface Coal; State--WV...................... 15 $21,925 9 $20,965
MT-34; Surface Coal; State--WV.......................... 5 $1,109
MT-41; Underground Coal; State--WV...................... 33 $4,498 1 $100
Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company........................ 829 $1,113,804 278 $824,921
Bailey Mine; Underground Coal; State--PA................ 528 $465,518 108 $221,531
Enlow Fork Mine; Underground Coal; State--PA............ 301 $648,286 170 $603,390
Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company LLC.................... 27 $9,667 5 $3,861
Bailey Mine; Underground Coal; State--PA................ 22 $9,034 4 $3,753
Enlow Fork Mine; Underground Coal; State--PA............ 5 $633 1 $108
Consolidation Coal Company.............................. 3,649 $4,386,311 1,097 $3,321,062
Big Fork Mine; Underground Coal; State--VA.............. 6 $600
Blacksville #1; Facility Coal; State--WV................ 1 $100
Blacksville No 2; Underground Coal; State--WV........... 687 $535,381 216 $418,420
Buchanan Mine #1; Underground Coal; State--VA........... 843 $1,253,000 250 $879,535
Central Repair Shop; Facility Coal; State--WV........... 3 $300
Emery Mine; Underground Coal; State--UT................. 164 $238,713 72 $219,739
Ireland River Loading Facility; Facility Coal; State--WV 5 $652 2 $276
Laurel Fork Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV........... 1 $100
Loveridge No 22; Underground Coal; State--WV............ 636 $1,118,904 167 $892,175
Reclamation No 061; Surface Coal; State--OH............. 1 $100
Rend Lake; Facility Coal; State--IL..................... 5 $1,213 1 $585
Robinson Run No 95; Underground Coal; State--WV......... 662 $791,370 197 $571,863
Shoemaker Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV............. 635 $445,878 192 $338,469
Eighty Four Mining Company.............................. 125 $103,720 30 $61,493
Mine 84; Underground Coal; State--PA.................... 125 $103,720 30 $61,493
Fola Coal Company LLC................................... 115 $101,756 27 $63,270
Bridge Fork Surface Mine No 1; Surface Coal; State--WV.. 7 $2,266
Peach Orchard Prep Plant & Ld Fac; Facility Coal; State-- 12 $1,734
WV.....................................................
Surface Mine No 2; Surface Coal; State--WV.............. 94 $97,556 27 $63,270
Winoc Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--WV....... 2 $200
Greenon Coal Company.................................... 1 $100
Greenon Coal Company; Facility Coal; State--WV.......... 1 $100
Island Creek Coal Company............................... 1 $100
Elk Creek Plant; Facility Coal; State--WV............... 1 $100
Keystone Coal Mining Company............................ 7 $1,661
Keystone Cleaning Plant; Facility Coal; State--PA....... 7 $1,661
Little Eagle Coal Company,L.L.C......................... 107 $33,892 13 $11,168
Lick Branch Mine No 2; Underground Coal; State--WV...... 11 $4,486
Little Eagle Mine No 1; Underground Coal; State--WV..... 5 $500
Rocklick Coalburg Deep Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV 91 $28,906 13 $11,168
Mc Elroy Coal Company................................... 1,021 $3,113,980 650 $2,953,800
McElroy Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV............... 1,021 $3,113,980 650 $2,953,800
Southern Ohio Coal Company.............................. 1 $100
Meigs #31 Mine; Facility Coal; State--OH................ 1 $100
Southern West Virginia Resources LLC.................... 37 $12,336 10 $8,379
Big Branch No 1 Belt Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV.. 21 $9,603 10 $8,379
Miller Creek Preparation Plant #1; Facility Coal; State-- 10 $1,000
WV.....................................................
Minway Surface; Surface Coal; State--WV................. 6 $1,733
Terry Eagle Coal Company Llc............................ 3 $300
Preparation Plant No 1; Facility Coal; State--WV........ 3 $300
Donald Blankenberger.................................... 835 $1,711,861 240 $1,176,146
Black Panther Mining LLC................................ 45 $13,541 8 $6,211
Oaktown Fuels Mine No 1; Underground Coal; State--IN.... 40 $12,100 7 $5,577
Oaktown Fuels Mine No 2; Underground Coal; State--IN.... 5 $1,441 1 $634
Five Star Mining Inc.................................... 790 $1,698,320 232 $1,169,935
Prosperity Mine; Underground Coal; State--IN............ 790 $1,698,320 232 $1,169,935
Douglas M Epling........................................ 639 $619,424 344 $489,002
Legacy Resources, LLC................................... 28 $71,125 14 $56,391
Synergy Surface Mine No 1; Surface Coal; State--WV...... 28 $71,125 14 $56,391
MOUNTAIN EDGE MINING, INC............................... 611 $548,299 330 $432,611
Cheylan Dock; Facility Coal; State--WV.................. 1 $150
Coalburg No. 1 Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV........ 222 $204,966 133 $170,562
Dorothy No 3 Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV.......... 250 $241,395 159 $207,126
Sugar Maple Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV........... 73 $23,331 24 $9,253
Sweet Birch; Underground Coal; State--WV................ 65 $78,457 14 $45,670
Foundation Coal Corporation............................. 1,025 $1,476,004 337 $1,250,425
Cumberland Coal Resources, LP........................... 162 $184,185 42 $151,481
Cumberland Mine; Underground Coal; State--PA............ 162 $184,185 42 $151,481
Emerald Coal Resources LP............................... 232 $644,625 117 $617,855
Emerald Mine No 1; Underground Coal; State--PA.......... 232 $644,625 117 $617,855
Freeport Mining, LLC.................................... 1 $100
Freeport Mine; Underground Coal; State--PA.............. 1 $100
Kingston Mining Inc..................................... 112 $70,902 28 $46,779
Kingston No 1; Underground Coal; State--WV.............. 45 $17,452 5 $6,126
Kingston No. 2; Underground Coal; State--WV............. 67 $53,450 23 $40,653
Kingston Processing Inc................................. 19 $5,482 2 $2,335
Kingston Plant; Facility Coal; State--WV................ 19 $5,482 2 $2,335
Laurel Creek Company, Inc............................... 64 $63,689
Mine No 8; Underground Coal; State--WV.................. 2 $2,369
No 1; Underground Coal; State--WV....................... 31 $29,756
No 5; Underground Coal; State--WV....................... 7 $8,969
No 6; Underground Coal; State--WV....................... 24 $22,595
Odell Processing Inc.................................... 4 $1,173
Dingess Processing Complex; Facility Coal; State--WV.... 1 $873
Odell Processing Laurel Loadout; Facility Coal; State-- 3 $300
WV.....................................................
RAG COAL WEST INCORPORATED.............................. 44 $28,267 3 $10,903
Belle Ayr Mine; Surface Coal; State--WY................. 9 $2,004
Eagle Butte Mine; Surface Coal; State--WY............... 35 $26,263 3 $10,903
Rivereagle Corporation.................................. 2 $200
Rivereagle Corporation; Facility Coal; State--KY........ 2 $200
Rockspring Development Inc.............................. 384 $477,281 145 $421,072
Camp Creek Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV............ 355 $471,354 145 $421,072
Camp Creek Processing; Facility Coal; State--WV......... 29 $5,927
Simmons Fork Mining Inc................................. 1 $100
Ewing Fork No. 1 Surface Mine; Surface Coal; State--WV.. 1 $100
Heidelberg Cement AG.................................... 1,429 $1,187,466 352 $690,650
Cadman (Black Diamond) Inc.............................. 4 $1,048
Cadman Black Diamond; Surface SandAndGravel; State--WA.. 4 $1,048
Cadman (Rock) Inc....................................... 9 $5,115
Cadman High Rock Quarry; Surface Stone; State--WA....... 5 $3,680
SKY RIVER PIT; Surface SandAndGravel; State--WA......... 4 $1,435
Cadman Inc.............................................. 9 $3,884
Cadman (Redmond); Surface SandAndGravel; State--WA...... 4 $599
Cadman Longview (Gold Bar) Pit; Surface SandAndGravel; 1 $100
State--WA..............................................
North Bend; Surface Stone; State--WA.................... 4 $3,185
Calaveras Materials Inc................................. 17 $4,348
Hughson Pit & Mill; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA.... 4 $978
River Rock Pit & Mill; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA. 7 $2,669
San Andreas Plant; Surface Stone; State--CA............. 6 $701
Hanson Aggregates BMC Inc............................... 149 $54,393 52 $31,104
Berlin Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--NJ.......... 8 $2,264 5 $1,750
Cedar Lake Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--NJ...... 5 $1,388 2 $1,080
Dredge Thaddus Carr; Facility SandAndGravel; State--PA.. 4 $400 2 $200
Lower Burrell Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--PA... 8 $1,299 1 $150
Newport Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--NJ......... 32 $7,657 20 $5,457
Ottsville Quarry; Surface Stone; State--PA.............. 2 $462 1 $362
Penns Park Quarry; Surface Stone; State--PA............. 7 $3,866 5 $3,566
Rich Hill Underground Mine & Plant; Underground Stone; 16 $9,558 4 $7,448
State--PA..............................................
Springfield Pike Mine & Plant; Underground Stone; State-- 27 $13,294 2 $7,189
PA.....................................................
Torrance Mine (UG); Underground Stone; State--PA........ 11 $2,929 2 $668
Upper Township Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--NJ.. 9 $1,440 6 $1,140
Whitney Plant (UG); Underground Stone; State--PA........ 20 $9,836 2 $2,094
Hanson Aggregates Davon, LLC............................ 28 $4,946 8 $2,158
AA Limestone; Surface Stone; State--KY.................. 5 $1,817 1 $687
EAGLE CRUSHED STONE; Surface Stone; State--OH........... 3 $300 1 $100
HIGHLAND STONE; Surface Stone; State--OH................ 8 $800 1 $100
PIKETON SAND & GRAVEL; Surface SandAndGravel; State--OH. 4 $408 1 $100
PLUM RUN STONE; Surface Stone; State--OH................ 8 $1,621 4 $1,171
Hanson Aggregates Mid-Pacific, Inc...................... 27 $3,988
Clayton; Surface Stone; State--CA....................... 4 $427
Marina Vista Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA.... 4 $450
Oakland Marine Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA.. 1 $100
Santa Margarita Quarry; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA 5 $1,531
Sisquoc Rock Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA.... 13 $1,480
Hanson Aggregates Midwest, Inc.......................... 101 $18,080 22 $6,698
Angola Sand & Gravel; Surface SandAndGravel; State--IN.. 3 $300
Ardmore Stone Quarry; Surface Stone; State--IN.......... 4 $400
Atkins Mine; Surface Stone; State--IN................... 2 $200
Bloomville Stone Quarry; Surface Stone; State--OH....... 3 $300
Coopers Lane Mine; Surface Stone; State--IN............. 2 $200
FLEMINGSBURG QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--KY........... 8 $1,197 3 $670
Franklin Quarry & Mill; Surface Stone; State--KY........ 1 $100
Harding Street Quarry--Surface; Surface Stone; State--IN 7 $1,548 5 $1,348
Harding Street Quarry-Sand & Gravel; Surface Stone; 1 $100
State--IN..............................................
Laurel Quarry; Surface Stone; State--KY................. 9 $1,253 2 $446
Limedale Quarry; Surface Stone; State--IN............... 1 $100
Lower Huntington Quarry; Surface Stone; State--IN....... 2 $200
Milner Quarry; Surface Stone; State--IN................. 3 $300
MT. VERNON MINE & MILL; Underground Stone; State--KY.... 7 $2,155
Putnamville Quarry; Surface Stone; State--IN............ 3 $300
Russellville Quarry & Mill; Surface Stone; State--KY.... 2 $2,229 1 $1,944
SANDUSKY QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--OH............... 11 $1,862 2 $845
Scott County Quarry; Surface Stone; State--IN........... 1 $100
SYLVANIA STONE QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--OH......... 1 $100
Tyrone Mine & Mill; Underground Stone; State--KY........ 5 $1,464
Upton Quarry; Surface Stone; State--KY.................. 4 $563 3 $463
Versailles Quarry; Surface Stone; State--IN............. 2 $227
Wagner Quarries; Surface Stone; State--OH............... 6 $707 4 $507
WATERVILLE STONE QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--OH....... 8 $1,675 2 $475
WOODBURN II; Surface Stone; State--IN................... 5 $500
Hanson Aggregates New York, Inc......................... 75 $9,676 12 $2,932
Clarendon; Surface SandAndGravel; State--NY............. 9 $916 2 $200
GENEVA PLANT; Surface Stone; State--NY.................. 7 $754 5 $554
Honeoye Falls Plant; Surface Stone; State--NY........... 4 $400
Jamesville Plant; Surface Stone; State--NY.............. 7 $700
JORDANVILLE PLANT; Surface Stone; State--NY............. 8 $1,361 2 $761
OGDENSBURG PLANT; Surface Stone; State--NY.............. 4 $417
Oriskany Falls Plant; Surface Stone; State--NY.......... 10 $1,534 1 $634
Phelps Mine; Surface SandAndGravel; State--NY........... 6 $1,074 1 $540
Poland Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--NY.......... 5 $659 1 $243
Skaneateles Plant; Surface Stone; State--NY............. 6 $759
St Johnsville Plant; Surface Stone; State--NY........... 2 $217
Stafford Quarry; Surface Stone; State--NY............... 2 $385
VICTOR (P444); Surface SandAndGravel; State--NY......... 2 $200
Watertown Plant; Surface Stone; State--NY............... 3 $300
Hanson Aggregates Of Arizona, Inc....................... 39 $10,362 9 $4,100
AGUA FRIA PIT-RIVER RANCH; Surface SandAndGravel; State-- 4 $400
AZ.....................................................
Clarkdale Plant #24; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ... 2 $227 1 $100
Plant #35 51st Ave-Pit; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ 8 $4,886 3 $2,080
Yavapai Plant #22; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ..... 25 $4,849 5 $1,920
Hanson Aggregates Pacific Southwest Inc................. 49 $8,580 2 $351
CARROLL CANYON ROCK PLANT; Surface SandAndGravel; State-- 12 $1,484
CA.....................................................
EAGLE VALLEY QUARRY; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA... 4 $400
EL CAJON QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--CA............... 1 $100
INLAND ROCK PLANT; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA..... 12 $2,931
IRWINDALE ROCK PLANT; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA.. 14 $2,857 2 $351
LAKESIDE AGGREGATE PLANT; Surface SandAndGravel; State-- 1 $100
CA.....................................................
Santee Rock Plant; Surface Stone; State--CA............. 5 $708
Hanson Aggregates Pennsylvania LLC...................... 34 $9,353 2 $734
Bloomsburg Quarry; Surface Stone; State--PA............. 2 $217
Curtain Gap Quarry; Surface Stone; State--PA............ 1 $100
Downingtown Quarry; Surface Stone; State--PA............ 4 $1,045
Glen Mills; Surface Stone; State--PA.................... 5 $1,195
Lake Ariel Quarry; Surface SandAndGravel; State--PA..... 3 $1,287
Milton Plant; Surface Stone; State--PA.................. 3 $300
Montoursville Sand & Gravel; Surface SandAndGravel; 1 $100
State--PA..............................................
Oak Hall Quarry; Surface Stone; State--PA............... 2 $2,636
Pine Creek Quarry; Surface Stone; State--PA............. 8 $1,866 2 $734
SALONA PLANT; Surface Stone; State--PA.................. 1 $100
Stroudsburg Quarry; Surface Stone; State--PA............ 4 $507
Hanson Aggregates PMA Inc............................... 4 $799
Dredge Thaddus Carr; Facility SandAndGravel; State--PA.. 1 $100
Torrance Mine (UG); Underground Stone; State--PA........ 3 $699
Hanson Aggregates, LLC.................................. 109 $29,376 17 $4,794
Arena Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--TX........... 6 $924
Brazos Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--TX.......... 4 $400
Bridgeport Plant; Surface Stone; State--TX.............. 3 $300
Bristol Sand & Gravel; Surface SandAndGravel; State--TX. 4 $400
Burnet Plant; Surface Stone; State--TX.................. 1 $138
Davis Plant; Surface Stone; State--OK................... 10 $1,258 1 $100
EAGLE LAKE PLANT; Surface SandAndGravel; State--TX...... 3 $317
Eagle Mills Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AR..... 13 $2,411 5 $617
Honest Ridge Plant; Surface Stone; State--TX............ 5 $554
LAKE BRIDGEPORT QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--TX........ 11 $1,852
LITTLE RIVER PLANT; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AR.... 12 $2,654 6 $1,820
Newberry Springs Plant; Surface Stone; State--CA........ 3 $1,494
SERVTEX PLANT; Surface Stone; State--TX................. 7 $1,148
Spring Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--TX.......... 1 $100
Stafford Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--TX........ 6 $13,007 2 $1,614
WHITNEY; Surface SandAndGravel; State--TX............... 17 $1,939 1 $263
Woodlands Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--TX....... 3 $480 2 $380
Hanson Aggregates, Southeast............................ 115 $33,614 41 $17,767
ANDERSON QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--SC............... 6 $676
Athens Quarry; Surface Stone; State--GA................. 4 $427
BREWER SAND; Surface SandAndGravel; State--SC........... 5 $734 3 $534
Crabtree Quarry; Surface Stone; State--NC............... 6 $1,187 6 $1,187
Elliott Sand & Gravel; Surface SandAndGravel; State--NC. 7 $1,116 3 $716
Fayette County Quarry; Surface Stone; State--GA......... 4 $545 1 $207
Gainesville Quarry; Surface Stone; State--GA............ 6 $1,022
Gardner Quarry; Surface Stone; State--NC................ 13 $3,703 13 $3,703
Habersham Quarry; Surface Stone; State--GA.............. 1 $100
HOLLY SPRINGS QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--NC.......... 8 $1,414 8 $1,414
JEFFERSON QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--SC.............. 1 $828
Lithonia/Pine Mountain Quarry; Surface Stone; State--GA. 7 $1,196
Lowrys Quarry; Surface Stone; State--SC................. 1 $100
Marlboro Sand & Gravel; Surface SandAndGravel; State--SC 5 $645
Monroe County Quarry; Surface Stone; State--GA.......... 4 $490
NEVERSON QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--NC............... 4 $1,094 2 $894
Pelham Quarry; Surface Stone; State--SC................. 4 $510 1 $176
ROCKY MOUNT QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--NC............ 11 $7,783 1 $6,600
Rougemont Quarry; Surface Stone; State--NC.............. 1 $100
Sandy Flat Quarry; Surface Stone; State--SC............. 4 $1,025 1 $138
Sparta Quarry; Surface Stone; State--GA................. 5 $1,478
Toccoa Quarry; Surface Stone; State--GA................. 5 $4,840
Walton Co. Quarry; Surface Stone; State--GA............. 3 $2,601 2 $2,198
Hanson Material Service................................. 71 $12,910 10 $2,330
Algonquin Sand & Gravel; Surface SandAndGravel; State-- 7 $874
IL.....................................................
Babcock Quarry; Surface Stone; State--IN................ 1 $117
Fairmount Quarry; Surface Stone; State--IL.............. 1 $100
Federal Quarry; Surface Stone; State--IL................ 8 $2,705
Lincoln Quarry; Surface Stone; State--IL................ 4 $708
Monon Quarry; Surface Stone; State--IN.................. 5 $652
Morris Sand & Gravel; Surface Stone; State--IL.......... 1 $100
Nokomis Quarry; Surface Stone; State--IL................ 11 $1,455
Romeo Quarry; Surface Stone; State--IL.................. 3 $1,069
Thornton Quarry; Surface Stone; State--IL............... 25 $4,537 9 $2,213
Ward Stone; Surface Stone; State--IN.................... 5 $593 1 $117
Hanson Permanente Cement Inc............................ 1 $108
Lehigh Permanente Quarry; Surface Stone; State--CA...... 1 $108
Lehigh Cement Company................................... 370 $809,996 111 $525,795
EVANSVILLE PLANT; Facility Stone; State--PA............. 39 $68,792 23 $35,103
Leeds Plant; Facility Stone; State--AL.................. 134 $335,365 81 $301,066
Lehigh Cement Co.; Facility Stone; State--PA............ 25 $13,026
Lehigh Cement Company Mitchell; Facility Stone; State-- 35 $19,654
IN.....................................................
Mason City Plant; Facility Stone; State--IA............. 112 $360,841 5 $182,057
UNION BRIDGE MD; Facility Stone; State--MD.............. 23 $12,118 2 $7,569
Waco Plant; Facility Stone; State--TX................... 2 $200
Lehigh Northeast Cement Company......................... 50 $49,433 1 $3,405
Cementon Plant & Quarry; Facility Stone; State--NY...... 20 $15,044 1 $3,405
Glens Falls Plant; Facility Stone; State--NY............ 28 $34,189
Glens Falls Quarry; Surface Stone; State--NY............ 2 $200
Lehigh Northwest Cement Company......................... 3 $390
Lehigh Northwest Cement Company; Facility Stone; State-- 3 $390
WA.....................................................
Lehigh Southwest Cement................................. 142 $111,996 64 $88,382
Lehigh Permanente Cement Co.; Facility Stone; State--CA. 46 $47,819 24 $45,395
Lehigh Permanente Quarry; Surface Stone; State--CA...... 21 $2,398 3 $424
Redding Plant; Surface Stone; State--CA................. 31 $10,154 23 $8,943
Tehachapi Plant; Facility Stone; State--CA.............. 44 $51,625 14 $33,620
Mays Landing Sand & Gravel.............................. 1 $190
DORCHESTER PLANT; Surface SandAndGravel; State--NJ...... 1 $190
Mission Valley Rock Company............................. 9 $3,581
Sunol Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA........... 9 $3,581
U S Brick............................................... 13 $1,300 1 $100
Anson Mine; Surface Nonmetal; State--NC................. 1 $100
Caddo Plant & Pits; Surface Nonmetal; State--LA......... 1 $100 1 $100
CORUNNA PLANT; Surface Nonmetal; State--MI.............. 4 $400
Gulf Mine; Surface Nonmetal; State--NC.................. 1 $100
Richland County Mines; Surface Nonmetal; State--SC...... 4 $400
SAMPSON MINE II; Surface Nonmetal; State--NC............ 1 $100
Union Cty; Surface Nonmetal; State--NC.................. 1 $100
Imerys S A.............................................. 587 $603,050 242 $477,250
Celite Corp............................................. 58 $88,205 36 $73,426
Fernley Plant; Surface Nonmetal; State--NV.............. 4 $476 2 $276
Kenite Plants 1 & 2; Surface Nonmetal; State--WA........ 5 $3,685
Kenite Quarry; Surface Nonmetal; State--WA.............. 6 $2,059
Lompoc Plant; Surface Nonmetal; State--CA............... 43 $81,985 34 $73,150
Ecca Calcium Products Inc............................... 4 $1,596
CALCIUM CARBONATE PLANT/MILL; Facility Stone; State--MD. 4 $1,596
Harborlite Corp......................................... 19 $3,038
Antonito Plant; Surface Nonmetal; State--CO............. 6 $894
No Agua Mine & Mill; Surface Nonmetal; State--NM........ 5 $826
Superior Pit & Mill; Surface Nonmetal; State--AZ........ 8 $1,318
Imerys Carbonates LLC................................... 124 $105,591 17 $42,004
Imerys Sylacauga Operations; Surface Stone; State--AL... 124 $105,591 17 $42,004
Imerys Clays Inc........................................ 69 $25,206 21 $13,142
Deepstep Land and Mines; Surface Nonmetal; State--GA.... 2 $200
Deepstep Road Plant; Surface Nonmetal; State--GA........ 39 $17,972 20 $12,808
Sandersville Calcine Plant; Facility Nonmetal; State--GA 28 $7,034 1 $334
Imerys Kaolin Inc....................................... 10 $2,732
Dry Branch Plant; Facility Nonmetal; State--GA.......... 10 $2,732
Imerys Marble Incorporated.............................. 48 $12,689 8 $2,378
Imerys Marble Inc Mine #4; Underground Stone; State--GA. 5 $792 2 $492
Imerys Marble Inc; Surface Stone; State--AZ............. 1 $100
Imerys Marble Inc; Surface Stone; State--NY............. 3 $300
Marble Hill Plants; Facility Stone; State--GA........... 19 $7,342
New York Mine; Underground Stone; State--GA............. 11 $2,107 4 $992
Whitestone Plants; Facility Stone; State--GA............ 9 $2,048 2 $894
Kentucky-Tennessee Clay Company......................... 39 $9,491 13 $6,019
Crenshaw Mine and Plant; Surface Nonmetal; State--MS.... 2 $200
Gleason Mills and Mines; Facility Nonmetal; State--TN... 3 $300 1 $100
Graves County Mines; Surface Nonmetal; State--KY........ 2 $200
Kentucky-Tennessee Clay Company; Surface Nonmetal; 31 $8,691 12 $5,919
State--GA..............................................
K-T Clay Company; Surface Nonmetal; State--SC........... 1 $100
Kings Mountain Minerals, Inc............................ 9 $976
Battleground Mill; Surface Nonmetal; State--NC.......... 1 $100
Moss Mine & Mill; Surface Nonmetal; State--NC........... 8 $876
K-T Feldspar Corporation................................ 10 $71,524 6 $71,124
K-T Feldspar Corporation; Facility Nonmetal; State--NC.. 10 $71,524 6 $71,124
Mullite Company Of America.............................. 81 $173,507 47 $167,404
Barbour County Mines; Surface Nonmetal; State--AL....... 1 $100
MACON COUNTY MINES; Surface Nonmetal; State--GA......... 1 $100 1 $100
MULCOA PLANT #1; Facility Nonmetal; State--GA........... 20 $61,624 15 $60,938
MULCOA PLANT NO 2; Facility Nonmetal; State--GA......... 52 $106,630 29 $103,267
PLANT 5; Surface Nonmetal; State--GA.................... 7 $5,053 2 $3,099
The Feldspar Corporation................................ 116 $108,495 94 $101,753
Feldspar Corp-Siloam Washing Plant; Surface Nonmetal; 1 $100
State--GA..............................................
Plant #1; Facility Nonmetal; State--NC.................. 81 $64,490 70 $62,872
The Feldspar Corporation-Main Plant; Facility Nonmetal; 32 $43,705 24 $38,881
State--GA..............................................
Wiseman Sullins/Chalk; Surface Nonmetal; State--NC...... 2 $200
International Coal Group Inc (ICG)...................... 3,293 $3,478,055 432 $1,994,416
Anker WV Mining Co Inc.................................. 780 $1,096,513 190 $805,314
Imperial Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV.............. 146 $124,792 28 $78,140
Sago Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV.................. 62 $19,289 4 $4,249
Sawmill Run Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--WV. 34 $6,433
Sentinel Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV.............. 514 $942,506 158 $722,925
Sentinel Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--WV.... 24 $3,493
I.C.G.HAZARD,LLC........................................ 708 $969,927 58 $567,478
County Line Mine; Surface Coal; State--KY............... 1 $392
East Mac & Nellie; Surface Coal; State--KY.............. 40 $14,786 3 $4,714
FIRST CREEK MINE #1; Underground Coal; State--KY........ 38 $60,144 3 $54,700
Flint Ridge Mine #2; Underground Coal; State--KY........ 375 $731,746 43 $442,060
Flint Ridge Mine; Underground Coal; State--KY........... 49 $79,046 3 $54,553
Flint Ridge Prep Plant; Facility Coal; State--KY........ 33 $4,587
Kentucky River Loading; Facility Coal; State--KY........ 29 $8,591
Middle Fork Surface; Surface Coal; State--KY............ 38 $33,660 2 $8,223
Rowdy Gap Mine; Surface Coal; State--KY................. 27 $11,182 4 $3,228
Thunder Ridge Mine; Surface Coal; State--KY............. 28 $13,053
Tip Top Mine; Surface Coal; State--KY................... 29 $6,567
Vicco Mine; Surface Coal; State--KY..................... 21 $6,173
ICG ADDCAR Systems, LLC................................. 35 $11,722 16 $7,455
ADDCAR System 11 HWM Serial No 23011; Surface Coal; 11 $3,096 6 $1,527
State--VA..............................................
ADDCAR System 16 HWM Serial No. 23016; Surface Coal; 5 $796
State--TN..............................................
ADDCAR System 18 HWM Serial No 23018; Surface Coal; 11 $5,562 4 $4,040
State--WY..............................................
ADDCAR Systems 13 HWM Serial No 23013; Surface Coal; 4 $1,230 2 $850
State--KY..............................................
ADDCAR Systems 20 HWM Serial No. 23020; Surface Coal; 4 $1,038 4 $1,038
State--IN..............................................
ICG Beckley, LLC........................................ 267 $341,710 67 $198,738
Beckley Pocahontas Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV.... 260 $341,010 67 $198,738
Beckley Pocahontas Plant; Facility Coal; State--WV...... 7 $700
ICG East Kentucky, LLC.................................. 55 $25,807
Blackberry Creek Mine; Surface Coal; State--KY.......... 12 $2,832
Mount Sterling Branch; Surface Coal; State--KY.......... 22 $20,169
Phelps Coal Tipple (T-2); Facility Coal; State--KY...... 1 $100
Sandlick Loadout; Facility Coal; State--KY.............. 18 $2,494
Taylor Deep Mine; Underground Coal; State--KY........... 2 $212
ICG Eastern LLC......................................... 20 $4,365
Birch River Mine; Surface Coal; State--WV............... 13 $3,558
Birch River Plant; Facility Coal; State--WV............. 7 $807
ICG Illinois LLC Viper Mine............................. 365 $413,792 42 $137,183
Viper Mine; Underground Coal; State--IL................. 365 $413,792 42 $137,183
ICG Knott County, LLC................................... 725 $397,189 18 $140,941
Apollo Mine; Underground Coal; State--KY................ 2 $200
Calvary Mine; Underground Coal; State--KY............... 125 $56,540
Classic Mine; Underground Coal; State--KY............... 157 $64,660
Clean Energy Mine; Underground Coal; State--KY.......... 19 $81,422 2 $72,090
Raven Mine #1; Underground Coal; State--KY.............. 205 $133,521 15 $62,393
Raven Mine #2; Underground Coal; State--KY.............. 111 $47,783 1 $6,458
Raven Prep Plant; Facility Coal; State--KY.............. 11 $1,331
Slone Branch; Underground Coal; State--KY............... 76 $9,562
Supreme Energy Prep Plant; Facility Coal; State--KY..... 19 $2,170
Patriot Mining Company Inc.............................. 5 $1,163
Patriot Mining Company Inc; Surface Coal; State--WV..... 2 $787
Patriot Rail & River Terminal; Facility Coal; State--WV. 3 $376
Powell Mountain Energy LLC.............................. 293 $205,537 36 $132,730
Mayflower Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--VA... 23 $2,497
Middlesplint Mine; Underground Coal; State--VA.......... 1 $100
Mine #1; Underground Coal; State--KY.................... 269 $202,940 36 $132,730
Upshur Property Inc..................................... 9 $1,232
Upshur Complex; Facility Coal; State--WV................ 9 $1,232
Vindex Energy Corporation............................... 31 $9,098 5 $4,577
Carlos Surface; Surface Coal; State--MD................. 2 $434
Frostburg Blend Yard; Facility Coal; State--MD.......... 2 $276
Jackson Mountain; Surface Coal; State--MD............... 6 $2,829 1 $1,530
Vindex Douglas; Surface Coal; State--MD................. 9 $3,968 3 $2,784
Vindex Energy; Facility Coal; State--WV................. 8 $1,191 1 $263
Vindex Loadout; Facility Coal; State--WV................ 4 $400
International Resources LLC............................. 668 $876,689 387 $836,211
Chafin Branch Coal Co LLC............................... 61 $34,152 32 $30,100
Lower Pete Branch Alma Mine; Surface Coal; State--WV.... 5 $612
Snap Creek No 1 Surface; Surface Coal; State--WV........ 56 $33,540 32 $30,100
Rockhouse Creek Development Corp........................ 603 $841,614 353 $805,388
No 3; Underground Coal; State--WV....................... 106 $106,667 48 $96,067
No. 2; Underground Coal; State--WV...................... 88 $26,850 42 $20,819
No. 3-A Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV............... 39 $7,348 20 $5,381
No. 6; Underground Coal; State--WV...................... 91 $371,103 62 $367,602
No. 8; Underground Coal; State--WV...................... 270 $326,286 180 $313,237
No. 9; Underground Coal; State--WV...................... 9 $3,360 1 $2,282
Snap Creek Mining LLC................................... 4 $923 2 $723
No 1 Load-Out; Facility Coal; State--WV................. 4 $923 2 $723
Italcementi Spa......................................... 367 $261,359 213 $200,797
Essroc Cement Corp...................................... 294 $226,373 180 $188,678
Essroc Cement; Facility Stone; State--IN................ 118 $139,680 106 $128,983
Essroc Cement Corp--Bessemer PA; Facility Stone; State-- 56 $17,410
PA.....................................................
Essroc Cement Corp Plant #3; Facility Stone; State--PA.. 7 $2,290 6 $1,264
Essroc Cement Corp; Facility Stone; State--IN........... 30 $18,107 20 $16,223
Essroc Cement Corp; Facility Stone; State--MI........... 17 $5,911 1 $1,657
Nazareth Plant 2; Facility Stone; State--PA............. 2 $227 2 $227
Nazareth Plant I; Facility Stone; State--PA............. 64 $42,748 45 $40,324
Essroc San Juan Inc..................................... 22 $15,612
Cantera Espinosa; Facility Stone; State--PR............. 22 $15,612
Riverton Investment Corp................................ 51 $19,374 33 $12,119
Essroc Cement Corp.; Facility Stone; State--WV.......... 47 $18,440 32 $11,485
Essroc Cement Corp.; Surface Stone; State--VA........... 4 $934 1 $634
J Clifford Forrest III.................................. 909 $796,720 506 $726,866
Rosebud Mining Company.................................. 908 $796,620 506 $726,866
Beaver Valley; Underground Coal; State--PA.............. 19 $21,060 15 $20,001
Bigler Prep Plant; Facility Coal; State--PA............. 9 $1,148 1 $162
Clementine Mine; Underground Coal; State--PA............ 85 $103,173 61 $98,773
Darmac No. 2 Mine; Underground Coal; State--PA.......... 26 $18,456 18 $17,459
Dutch Run; Underground Coal; State--PA.................. 49 $20,758 31 $18,159
Harmony Mine; Underground Coal; State--PA............... 9 $1,867 2 $1,080
Heilwood; Underground Coal; State--PA................... 60 $22,665 17 $17,457
Lady Jane Plant; Facility Coal; State--PA............... 2 $768 1 $308
Little Toby Mine; Underground Coal; State--PA........... 27 $118,748 16 $116,681
Logansport Mine; Underground Coal; State--PA............ 74 $117,650 63 $114,971
Logansport Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--PA.. 12 $2,741 4 $1,423
Lowry Mine; Underground Coal; State--PA................. 73 $40,061 37 $34,852
Maintenance Shop; Facility Coal; State--PA.............. 11 $2,749 7 $2,349
Mc Ville Prep Plant; Facility Coal; State--PA........... 20 $21,762 14 $20,389
Mine 78 Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--PA..... 5 $945
Mine 78; Underground Coal; State--PA.................... 87 $74,904 50 $69,427
Penfield Mine; Underground Coal; State--PA.............. 51 $58,097 29 $54,981
Tom's Run Mine; Underground Coal; State--PA............. 81 $47,690 44 $42,396
Tracy Lynne; Underground Coal; State--PA................ 39 $51,799 27 $39,005
Tusky Prep; Facility Coal; State--OH.................... 9 $900
Tusky; Underground Coal; State--OH...................... 98 $23,108 29 $14,568
Twin Rocks Mine; Underground Coal; State--PA............ 62 $45,571 40 $42,425
Western Allegheney Energy, LLC.......................... 1 $100
Knob Creek; Underground Coal; State--PA................. 1 $100
James C Justice II...................................... 1,463 $1,249,416 808 $951,236
A & G Coal Corp......................................... 85 $19,526
Job #15 Surface; Surface Coal; State--VA................ 1 $634
Kellyview Loadout Facility; Facility Coal; State--VA.... 16 $2,367
Preacher Creek Strip; Surface Coal; State--VA........... 24 $9,016
Prep Plant #1; Facility Coal; State--VA................. 17 $2,324
Sigmon Strip #23; Surface Coal; State--VA............... 1 $100
Strip #11; Surface Coal; State--VA...................... 1 $334
Strip #12; Surface Coal; State--VA...................... 11 $2,499
Strip #13; Surface Coal; State--VA...................... 2 $307
Strip #14; Surface Coal; State--VA...................... 8 $1,545
Strip #24; Surface Coal; State--VA...................... 3 $300
Strip #8; Facility Coal; State--VA...................... 1 $100
Bluestone Coal Corp..................................... 27 $121,623 27 $121,623
No 6 Strip; Surface Coal; State--WV..................... 4 $2,353 4 $2,353
Pinnacle Creek Strip; Surface Coal; State--WV........... 21 $59,170 21 $59,170
Pinnacle Ridge Surface Mine; Surface Coal; State--WV.... 1 $100 1 $100
Red Fox Surface Mine; Surface Coal; State--WV........... 1 $60,000 1 $60,000
Bluestone Industries Inc................................ 4 $400 4 $400
Central Shop; Facility Coal; State--WV.................. 4 $400 4 $400
Double Bonus Coal Company............................... 93 $46,539 43 $24,747
No 65; Underground Coal; State--WV...................... 93 $46,539 43 $24,747
Dynamic Energy Inc...................................... 22 $42,249 21 $42,149
Coal Mountain No 1 Surface; Surface Coal; State--WV..... 21 $42,149 21 $42,149
McDonald Fork Impoundment; Surface Coal; State--WV...... 1 $100
Four Star Resources LLC................................. 16 $2,296 6 $1,296
Harlan Strip #1; Surface Coal; State--KY................ 16 $2,296 6 $1,296
Frontier Coal Company................................... 85 $26,806 84 $26,706
Double Camp No. 1; Underground Coal; State--WV.......... 85 $26,806 84 $26,706
Infinity Energy Incorporated............................ 208 $105,452 142 $96,400
Infinity #1; Surface Coal; State--KY.................... 28 $6,000 27 $5,415
Infinity #2; Surface Coal; State--KY.................... 2 $619 2 $619
Infinity #3; Surface Coal; State--KY.................... 41 $64,675 33 $63,173
Infinity #4; Underground Coal; State--KY................ 76 $24,639 62 $22,873
Pine Mountain Prep Plant; Facility Coal; State--KY...... 61 $9,519 18 $4,320
Justice Energy Inc...................................... 23 $43,815 23 $43,815
Red Fox Surface Mine; Surface Coal; State--WV........... 23 $43,815 23 $43,815
Justice Highwall Mining, Inc............................ 1 $392 1 $392
No 3 Miner; Surface Coal; State--WV..................... 1 $392 1 $392
Kentucky Fuel Corporation............................... 10 $1,062
Hazard Star Loadout; Facility Coal; State--KY........... 10 $1,062
Keystone Service Industries Inc......................... 38 $226,834 34 $226,434
Keystone No 1 Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State-- 38 $226,834 34 $226,434
WV.....................................................
Liggett Mining LLC...................................... 438 $343,544 245 $213,446
Liggett #1; Surface Coal; State--KY..................... 30 $7,889 15 $6,025
Liggett #3; Underground Coal; State--KY................. 121 $80,379 53 $70,270
Liggett #5; Underground Coal; State--KY................. 250 $227,897 157 $118,119
Liggett #6; Underground Coal; State--KY................. 37 $27,379 20 $19,032
M & P Services, Inc..................................... 4 $3,810 1 $3,224
Red Fox Load-Out; Facility Coal; State--WV.............. 4 $3,810 1 $3,224
NuFac Mining Company, Inc............................... 26 $38,083 6 $31,389
Buckeye Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV............... 25 $37,983 6 $31,389
Nu Fac Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV................ 1 $100
Pay Car Mining Inc...................................... 68 $85,972 68 $85,972
No 58; Underground Coal; State--WV...................... 68 $85,972 68 $85,972
Premium Coal Company Inc................................ 52 $12,457 8 $2,474
#1 Surface-002 Section; Surface Coal; State--TN......... 5 $786
No 1 Surface-003 Section; Surface Coal; State--TN....... 11 $1,987 3 $672
No 1 Tipple; Facility Coal; State--TN................... 36 $9,684 5 $1,802
S & H Mining, Inc....................................... 164 $108,348 35 $15,179
S & H Mining; Underground Coal; State--TN............... 164 $108,348 35 $15,179
Sequoia Energy LLC...................................... 99 $20,208 60 $15,590
Prep Plant; Facility Coal; State--KY.................... 99 $20,208 60 $15,590
James H Booth........................................... 1,216 $1,175,530 819 $1,043,200
Apex Energy, Inc........................................ 121 $42,015 43 $20,190
Apex No 1; Facility Coal; State--KY..................... 13 $1,632 8 $1,070
Apex No 2; Facility Coal; State--KY..................... 6 $662 4 $462
No 1; Surface Coal; State--KY........................... 5 $708
No 2; Surface Coal; State--KY........................... 26 $12,185 9 $5,076
No 3; Surface Coal; State--KY........................... 19 $6,232
No 7; Surface Coal; State--KY........................... 6 $2,435 3 $1,775
No 8; Surface Coal; State--KY........................... 18 $6,255 1 $1,304
No. 6; Surface Coal; State--KY.......................... 28 $11,906 18 $10,503
Argus Energy WV LLC..................................... 542 $912,443 446 $831,693
Copley Trace Surface Mine; Surface Coal; State--WV...... 69 $177,910 69 $177,910
Deep Mine No 7; Underground Coal; State--WV............. 191 $85,599 152 $71,728
Deep Mine No 8; Underground Coal; State--WV............. 231 $621,893 211 $575,794
Kiah Creek Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--WV.. 30 $16,943 14 $6,261
Wayne County River Terminal; Facility Coal; State--WV... 21 $10,098
Beech Fork Processing Inc............................... 21 $3,918 12 $3,018
Prep Plant # 1; Facility Coal; State--KY................ 20 $3,818 12 $3,018
Prep Plant #2; Facility Coal; State--KY................. 1 $100
C W Augering Inc........................................ 25 $5,100
No 009; Surface Coal; State--KY......................... 12 $2,654
No 2; Surface Coal; State--KY........................... 13 $2,446
Coalburg Enterprises, Inc............................... 78 $18,131 35 $13,823
No 6; Underground Coal; State--KY....................... 78 $18,131 35 $13,823
Eagle Coal Company Inc.................................. 62 $18,451 34 $15,445
No 20; Underground Coal; State--KY...................... 36 $14,291 25 $13,123
No 24; Underground Coal; State--KY...................... 17 $3,122 9 $2,322
No. 22; Underground Coal; State--KY..................... 9 $1,038
Matrix Energy LLC....................................... 286 $136,667 203 $123,742
No. 1; Underground Coal; State--KY...................... 286 $136,667 203 $123,742
Mayo Resources Inc...................................... 22 $20,777 19 $20,469
#5; Surface Coal; State--KY............................. 17 $15,727 15 $15,527
No 4; Surface Coal; State--KY........................... 5 $5,050 4 $4,942
Pinnacle Processing Inc................................. 59 $18,028 27 $14,820
Pevler Plant; Facility Coal; State--KY.................. 59 $18,028 27 $14,820
James River Coal Company................................ 3,419 $2,316,289 1,199 $1,603,334
Bell County Coal Corporation............................ 314 $64,285 213 $52,377
Cabin Hollow; Underground Coal; State--TN............... 82 $18,938 44 $14,421
Coal Creek; Underground Coal; State--KY................. 19 $2,128 6 $676
Garmeda #2; Underground Coal; State--KY................. 49 $6,380 22 $3,312
Jellico #1; Underground Coal; State--KY................. 25 $7,530 24 $7,267
Moseley Spur; Underground Coal; State--KY............... 96 $23,309 91 $22,809
Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--KY............. 43 $6,000 26 $3,892
Bledsoe Coal Corporation................................ 470 $173,159 177 $76,687
#1; Facility Coal; State--KY............................ 44 $23,491 21 $12,473
Abner Branch Rider; Underground Coal; State--KY......... 59 $28,310 33 $19,144
Beechfork Mine; Underground Coal; State--KY............. 218 $80,689 82 $32,267
Clover Loadout; Facility Coal; State--KY................ 7 $1,178
Dollar Branch Mine; Underground Coal; State--KY......... 81 $23,756 41 $12,803
Marion Branch; Underground Coal; State--KY.............. 7 $717
No 61; Facility Coal; State--KY......................... 10 $1,391
Tantrough; Underground Coal; State--KY.................. 44 $13,627
Blue Diamond Coal Company............................... 1,165 $956,721 284 $634,612
#75; Underground Coal; State--KY........................ 406 $249,101 86 $136,738
#77; Underground Coal; State--KY........................ 349 $423,161 113 $325,475
76 Plant; Facility Coal; State--KY...................... 27 $4,604 2 $1,707
Calvary No 81; Underground Coal; State--KY.............. 383 $279,855 83 $170,692
James River Coal Service Company........................ 62 $19,040 8 $5,468
Bear Branch Surface; Surface Coal; State--KY............ 1 $100
Buckeye Highwall Miner; Surface Coal; State--KY......... 4 $662
Buckeye Strip #1; Surface Coal; State--KY............... 18 $3,815
Hog Trough; Surface Coal; State--KY..................... 18 $8,173 8 $5,468
Lewis Creek; Surface Coal; State--KY.................... 9 $4,154
Lick Branch Strip; Surface Coal; State--KY.............. 4 $896
Montgomery Creek; Surface Coal; State--KY............... 8 $1,240
Leeco Inc............................................... 383 $312,856 118 $243,993
#64; Facility Coal; State--KY........................... 6 $839
#68; Underground Coal; State--KY........................ 369 $310,378 118 $243,993
Jeff Tipple; Facility Coal; State--KY................... 8 $1,639
McCoy Elkhorn Coal Corporation.......................... 610 $478,229 230 $384,150
Bevins Branch Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State-- 28 $7,986
KY.....................................................
Longfork Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--KY.... 3 $376
Mine #12; Underground Coal; State--KY................... 62 $17,643 12 $6,195
Mine #15; Underground Coal; State--KY................... 313 $334,393 159 $288,600
Mine #16; Underground Coal; State--KY................... 80 $21,946 16 $10,593
Mine #23; Underground Coal; State--KY................... 122 $57,312 41 $40,189
Mine #25; Underground Coal; State--KY................... 2 $38,573 2 $38,573
Shamrock Coal Company Incorporated...................... 248 $129,796 157 $98,073
Beech Fork Coal Prep Facility; Facility Coal; State--KY. 49 $8,682
Shamrock #18 Series; Underground Coal; State--KY........ 199 $121,114 157 $98,073
Triad Mining Inc........................................ 72 $60,250 2 $29,629
Augusta Mine; Surface Coal; State--IN................... 12 $10,410
Flat Creek; Surface Coal; State--IN..................... 2 $1,933
Freelandville East Mine; Surface Coal; State--IN........ 14 $7,380
Freelandville Mine; Surface Coal; State--IN............. 13 $35,183 1 $29,529
Hurricane Creek; Surface Coal; State--IN................ 10 $2,701
Log Creek Surface; Surface Coal; State--IN.............. 10 $1,093 1 $100
Patoka River; Facility Coal; State--IN.................. 1 $176
South Augusta; Surface Coal; State--IN.................. 7 $962
Switz City; Facility Coal; State--IN.................... 3 $412
Triad Underground Mining, L.L.C......................... 95 $121,953 10 $78,345
Freelandville Underground; Underground Coal; State--IN.. 95 $121,953 10 $78,345
Lafarge S A............................................. 1,153 $1,059,198 375 $797,654
Conco Western Stone Co.................................. 12 $2,739
Conco Mine; Underground Stone; State--IL................ 12 $2,739
Lafarge Aggregates Southeast, Inc....................... 101 $26,350 13 $5,696
BALLGROUND MINE SITE; Surface Stone; State--GA.......... 6 $1,248
Calera Aggregates; Facility Stone; State--AL............ 6 $873
CAVE IN ROCK QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--IL........... 11 $2,236
Citadel Quarry; Surface Stone; State--AL................ 2 $227
CLAYTON COUNTY MINE SITE; Surface Stone; State--GA...... 3 $445
Columbus Mine Site; Surface Stone; State--GA............ 10 $5,089 4 $3,818
Cumming Mine Site; Surface Stone; State--GA............. 11 $2,043
DOUGLASVILLE MINE SITE; Surface Stone; State--GA........ 8 $2,301 3 $994
FRIENDSHIP MINE SITE; Surface Stone; State--GA.......... 6 $884 5 $784
Hickory Bend; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AL.......... 2 $200
Honey Island Operations; Surface SandAndGravel; State-- 2 $787
LA.....................................................
Isabel Operations; Surface SandAndGravel; State--LA..... 8 $1,248
Jackson County Mine Site; Surface Stone; State--GA...... 3 $300
Lakeshore Quarry; Surface Stone; State--AL.............. 3 $338
LITHONA MINE SITE; Surface Stone; State--GA............. 3 $2,254
MORGAN COUNTY MINE SITE; Surface Stone; State--GA....... 6 $839
Newton County Mine Site; Surface Stone; State--GA....... 4 $1,094 1 $100
No 1 Plt & Dr Clemons; Surface SandAndGravel; State--LA. 7 $3,944
Lafarge Aux Sable, LLC.................................. 16 $3,514
Aux Sable Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--IL....... 16 $3,514
LaFarge Building Materials Incorporated................. 360 $461,151 195 $405,945
Atlanta Plant; Facility Stone; State--GA................ 10 $10,992
HARLEYVILLE MINE & PLANT; Facility Stone; State--SC..... 275 $421,663 182 $400,730
Lafarge Building Materials Incorporated; Facility Stone; 32 $14,248
State--NY..............................................
LAFARGE ROBERTA PLANT; Facility Stone; State--AL........ 42 $14,140 13 $5,215
Tulsa Plant; Facility Stone; State--OK.................. 1 $108
Lafarge Fox River, Inc.................................. 28 $10,180
The R S & D Mine; Underground Stone; State--IL.......... 28 $10,180
Lafarge Joliet Inc...................................... 11 $1,400
JS & G Underground Mine # 1 Joliet; Underground Stone; 11 $1,400
State--IL..............................................
Lafarge Mid Atlantic, LLC............................... 11 $3,712
Chase Sand Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--MD...... 3 $1,553
Churchville Quarry; Surface Stone; State--MD............ 7 $2,059
Warfordsburg Quarry; Surface Stone; State--PA........... 1 $100
Lafarge Midwest......................................... 191 $256,381 85 $191,613
Joppa Plant; Facility Stone; State--IL.................. 47 $20,386 2 $3,013
Lafarge Midwest Incorporated; Facility Stone; State--KS. 144 $235,995 83 $188,600
Lafarge North America Inc............................... 321 $264,569 62 $185,638
Alpena Plant; Facility Stone; State--MI................. 16 $2,099
Colgate Pit Yard 1; Surface SandAndGravel; State--WI.... 15 $3,027
COURTNEY RIDGE PLANT; Underground Stone; State--MO...... 11 $4,173
Davenport Plant; Facility Stone; State--IA.............. 44 $26,151 18 $19,111
DEFIANCE PLANT; Surface Stone; State--MO................ 5 $985
Elburn Sand & Gravel; Surface SandAndGravel; State--IL.. 13 $1,552
Freedom Pit; Surface SandAndGravel; State--NY........... 2 $217
Jack Rabbit; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ........... 8 $2,649
Kentucky Road Quarry; Underground Stone; State--MO...... 11 $2,688
Lafarge Bridgeton; Surface SandAndGravel; State--MO..... 1 $100
Lafarge North America; Facility Stone; State--OH........ 8 $3,940
LAFARGE SUGAR CREEK PLANT; Facility Stone; State--MO.... 24 $7,554
Lafarge Whitehall Plant; Facility Stone; State--PA...... 19 $13,470
Marblehead Quarry; Surface Stone; State--OH............. 12 $1,880
Petersburg; Surface Stone; State--OH.................... 2 $200
PETTIS QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--MO................. 1 $100
Seattle Plant; Facility Stone; State--WA................ 51 $166,091 30 $156,472
Shalersville North Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State-- 1 $100 1 $100
OH.....................................................
ST CHARLES PLANT; Surface Stone; State--MO.............. 4 $563
Sugar Creek Ug Mine; Underground Stone; State--MO....... 32 $7,805 10 $1,567
Sun City Pit; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ.......... 6 $9,768 3 $8,388
Tulsa Plant; Facility Stone; State--OK.................. 32 $7,280
Wichita Sand and Gravel; Surface SandAndGravel; State-- 3 $2,177
KS.....................................................
Lafarge Southwest....................................... 5 $527
PLACITAS; Surface SandAndGravel; State--NM.............. 5 $527
Lafarge West Incorporated............................... 24 $3,139
Cottonwood Pit; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CO........ 4 $608
Northern Portable Plant #10; Surface SandAndGravel; 1 $100
State--CO..............................................
Northern Portable Plant #11; Surface SandAndGravel; 1 $100
State--CO..............................................
NORTHERN PORTABLE PLANT #14; Surface SandAndGravel; 2 $200
State--CO..............................................
Northern Portable Plant #17; Surface SandAndGravel; 4 $524
State--CO..............................................
Northern Portable Plant #19; Surface SandAndGravel; 1 $100
State--CO..............................................
Northern Portable Plant #20; Surface SandAndGravel; 2 $200
State--CO..............................................
Northern Portable Plant #21; Surface SandAndGravel; 1 $100
State--CO..............................................
NORTHERN PORTABLE PLANT #3; Surface SandAndGravel; 2 $599
State--CO..............................................
Northern Portable Plant #4; Surface SandAndGravel; 1 $100
State--CO..............................................
Northern Portable Plant #6; Surface SandAndGravel; 2 $208
State--CO..............................................
Riverbend Pit; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CO......... 2 $200
SPECIFICATION AGGREGATES; Surface Stone; State--CO...... 1 $100
Lafarge Western of Illinois, Inc........................ 20 $5,828 1 $2,000
Sheridan Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--IL........ 20 $5,828 1 $2,000
Presque Isle Corp....................................... 19 $4,657 15 $3,965
Stoneport; Surface Stone; State--MI..................... 19 $4,657 15 $3,965
Redland Genstar Inc..................................... 22 $10,879 3 $797
Beaver Creek Quarry; Surface Stone; State--MD........... 1 $100
Churchville Quarry; Surface Stone; State--MD............ 2 $200
Frederick Quarry; Surface Stone; State--MD.............. 13 $9,481 3 $797
Rockdale Quarry; Surface Stone; State--MD............... 2 $200
Texas Quarry; Surface Stone; State--MD.................. 2 $250
Warfordsburg Quarry; Surface Stone; State--PA........... 2 $648
Redland Quarries Ny Inc................................. 5 $1,087
LOCKPORT QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--NY............... 5 $1,087
Utica Stone Company..................................... 7 $3,085 1 $2,000
Utica Stone Plant; Surface Stone; State--IL............. 7 $3,085 1 $2,000
Massey Energy Company................................... 10,793 $13,516,382 3,741 $10,486,334
Alex Energy, Inc........................................ 241 $434,961 54 $281,321
Alex Energy Loadout; Facility Coal; State--WV........... 5 $840
Blackberry Coalburg; Underground Coal; State--WV........ 3 $377
Edwight Surface Mine; Surface Coal; State--WV........... 37 $196,534 16 $110,654
Jerry Fork Eagle; Underground Coal; State--WV........... 118 $53,352 20 $15,302
No 1 Surface; Surface Coal; State--WV................... 37 $150,521 8 $139,899
North Surface Mine; Surface Coal; State--WV............. 13 $11,080
Superior Surface Mine; Surface Coal; State--WV.......... 19 $16,889 10 $15,466
Trace Fork Surface Mine; Surface Coal; State--WV........ 9 $5,368
Aracoma Coal Company, Inc............................... 387 $616,224 169 $577,950
Aracoma Alma Mine #1; Underground Coal; State--WV....... 308 $585,686 144 $555,495
Cedar Grove #1 Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV........ 32 $5,008 10 $1,946
Dingess Processing Complex; Facility Coal; State--WV.... 1 $100
Hernshaw Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV.............. 43 $24,645 15 $20,509
Mine No 8; Underground Coal; State--WV.................. 2 $685
No 6; Underground Coal; State--WV....................... 1 $100
Bandmill Coal Corp...................................... 108 $252,490 55 $236,172
Rum Creek Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--WV... 89 $245,456 47 $230,626
Tower Mountain; Surface Coal; State--WV................. 19 $7,034 8 $5,546
Bent Branch Energy Co................................... 1,363 $936,515 408 $649,208
#1 Prep Plant; Facility Coal; State--KY................. 47 $22,194 6 $15,304
Bent Branch Energy Co Mine No 1; Underground Coal; 1 $5,000 1 $5,000
State--KY..............................................
Bent Branch Plant; Facility Coal; State--KY............. 1 $100
Fraley Branch Surface Mine; Surface Coal; State--KY..... 30 $38,963 8 $31,223
Mine #1; Underground Coal; State--KY.................... 459 $393,133 154 $312,270
N0. 1; Underground Coal; State--KY...................... 181 $75,961 32 $29,668
New Ridge Mining Company; Facility Coal; State--KY...... 7 $10,246 1 $9,300
No 1; Underground Coal; State--KY....................... 289 $180,064 90 $107,720
Taylor Fork Energy; Underground Coal; State--KY......... 335 $208,736 116 $138,723
Transport Mine; Underground Coal; State--KY............. 13 $2,118
Coalgood Energy Company................................. 171 $219,196 16 $187,329
Coalgood Crusher/Loadout; Facility Coal; State--KY...... 3 $300
Moore Processing; Facility Coal; State--KY.............. 8 $800
Right Fork Splint; Surface Coal; State--KY.............. 11 $1,339
Triumph Mine; Underground Coal; State--KY............... 149 $216,757 16 $187,329
Delbarton Mining Company................................ 20 $5,690 3 $768
Delbarton Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--WV... 20 $5,690 3 $768
Elk Run Coal Co., Inc................................... 982 $1,486,208 421 $1,098,630
Black Castle Mining Co; Surface Coal; State--WV......... 96 $106,264 35 $60,758
Black King I North Portal; Underground Coal; State--WV.. 176 $456,737 110 $439,743
Black Knight II; Underground Coal; State--WV............ 109 $49,690 45 $40,586
Blue Pennant Transfer; Facility Coal; State--WV......... 5 $815 3 $615
Castle East Portal; Underground Coal; State--WV......... 1 $1,412
Castle Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV................ 169 $224,857 48 $100,343
Chess Processing; Facility Coal; State--WV.............. 20 $7,466 5 $4,438
Homer III Processing; Facility Coal; State--WV.......... 11 $2,484 6 $1,865
Hunter Peerless Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV....... 35 $22,384 30 $21,884
Republic Energy; Surface Coal; State--WV................ 59 $88,471 15 $36,578
Roundbottom Powellton Deep Mine; Underground Coal; 255 $510,390 106 $380,656
State--WV..............................................
Seng Creek Powellton; Underground Coal; State--WV....... 46 $15,238 18 $11,164
Freedom Energy Mining Company........................... 725 $826,164 262 $663,439
Mine #1; Underground Coal; State--KY.................... 725 $826,164 262 $663,439
Goals Coal Company...................................... 28 $10,321 1 $946
Goals Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--WV....... 28 $10,321 1 $946
Green Valley Coal Company............................... 7 $1,091
No 1 Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--WV........ 7 $1,091
Highland Mining Company................................. 61 $271,528 21 $235,817
Freeze Fork Surface Mine; Surface Coal; State--WV....... 44 $265,688 19 $234,647
Highland Coal Handling Facility; Underground Coal; 17 $5,840 2 $1,170
State--WV..............................................
Independence Coal Company dba Endurance Mining.......... 96 $199,729 35 $178,270
Plant No 1; Facility Coal; State--WV.................... 11 $1,714 1 $100
Red Cedar Surface Mine; Surface Coal; State--WV......... 49 $169,374 26 $162,539
West Cazy Surface Mine; Surface Coal; State--WV......... 36 $28,641 8 $15,631
Independence Coal Company Inc........................... 709 $1,134,694 391 $996,391
Allegiance Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV............ 263 $492,733 142 $421,863
Homer III Processing; Facility Coal; State--WV.......... 10 $1,957 3 $948
Justice #1; Underground Coal; State--WV................. 306 $526,889 160 $471,887
Liberty Processing; Facility Coal; State--WV............ 129 $113,015 86 $101,693
Tunnel Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV................ 1 $100
Inman Energy............................................ 345 $194,887 194 $167,852
Randolph Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV.............. 345 $194,887 194 $167,852
Knox Creek Coal Corp.................................... 752 $928,094 197 $520,094
Coal Creek Prep Plant; Facility Coal; State--VA......... 47 $9,135
Hess Creek Surface Mine; Surface Coal; State--VA........ 25 $7,903
Hurricane Branch Strip #1; Surface Coal; State--VA...... 4 $934
Tiller No 1; Underground Coal; State--VA................ 676 $910,122 197 $520,094
Long Fork Coal Company.................................. 58 $23,970 11 $16,985
Long Fork Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--KY... 58 $23,970 11 $16,985
Marfork Coal Company, Inc............................... 896 $1,356,283 364 $1,172,550
Allen Powellton Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV....... 98 $90,809 36 $65,610
Brushy Eagle; Underground Coal; State--WV............... 98 $145,989 37 $118,738
Coon Cedar Grove Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV...... 34 $15,309 14 $13,183
Horse Creek Eagle; Underground Coal; State--WV.......... 134 $219,017 60 $194,159
Marfork Processing; Facility Coal; State--WV............ 23 $8,959 10 $7,016
Marsh Fork Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV............ 150 $511,463 74 $474,380
Parker Peerless Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV....... 155 $174,992 64 $148,263
Slip Ridge Cedar Grove Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV 178 $176,381 64 $142,175
White Queen; Underground Coal; State--WV................ 26 $13,364 5 $9,026
Martin Co. Coal Corp.................................... 359 $111,850 50 $61,072
Emily Creek Energy; Underground Coal; State--KY......... 63 $38,156 12 $27,404
MTR Surface Mine; Surface Coal; State--KY............... 19 $8,462 4 $4,759
MTR Wolf Creek Mine; Surface Coal; State--KY............ 17 $2,077 4 $777
Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--KY............. 31 $5,323 4 $1,394
Voyager #7; Underground Coal; State--KY................. 165 $49,765 21 $25,099
White Cabin #7; Underground Coal; State--KY............. 64 $8,067 5 $1,639
Omar Mining Company..................................... 26 $27,895 11 $25,760
Chesterfield Prep Plant; Facility Coal; State--WV....... 26 $27,895 11 $25,760
Peerless Eagle Coal Company............................. 6 $2,419
Lilly Fork Surface Mine; Surface Coal; State--WV........ 2 $2,019
Rockcamp Impoundments 1 & 2; Facility Coal; State--WV... 4 $400
Performance Coal Company................................ 502 $913,021 182 $628,873
Lower Big Branch Impoundment; Facility Coal; State--WV.. 4 $434
Upper Big Branch Mine-South; Underground Coal; State--WV 495 $911,802 181 $628,288
Upper Big Branch Raw Coal Facil; Facility Coal; State-- 3 $785 1 $585
WV.....................................................
Power Mountain Coal Company............................. 40 $39,986 1 $100
Power Mountain Processing; Facility Coal; State--WV..... 40 $39,986 1 $100
Progress Coal........................................... 48 $118,351 14 $90,890
Twilight Mtr Surface Mine; Surface Coal; State--WV...... 48 $118,351 14 $90,890
Rawl Sales and Processing Company Inc................... 3 $300 1 $100
Sprouse Creek Processing Company Inc; Facility Coal; 3 $300 1 $100
State--WV..............................................
Road Fork Development Company., Inc..................... 203 $119,103 45 $81,300
Long Pole Energy; Surface Coal; State--KY............... 1 $5,000 1 $5,000
Love Branch Mine; Underground Coal; State--KY........... 13 $24,084 1 $20,700
Love Branch South; Underground Coal; State--KY.......... 189 $90,019 43 $55,600
Rockhouse Energy Mining Company......................... 432 $536,456 92 $369,593
Mine #1; Underground Coal; State--KY.................... 432 $536,456 92 $369,593
Rum Creek Coal Sales.................................... 15 $4,775 6 $3,571
Camp Branch Mine; Surface Coal; State--WV............... 15 $4,775 6 $3,571
Spartan Mining Company, Inc............................. 1,874 $2,549,982 649 $2,122,220
Alloy Powellton; Underground Coal; State--WV............ 6 $1,317 1 $499
Coalburg Extension; Underground Coal; State--WV......... 4 $1,186
Diamond Energy; Underground Coal; State--WV............. 126 $106,823 69 $97,238
Hatfield Energy Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV....... 92 $35,607 38 $28,267
Laurel Coalburg Tunnel Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV 190 $123,499 47 $85,417
Laurel Creek/Spirit Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV... 2 $276
Mammoth #2 Gas; Underground Coal; State--WV............. 134 $230,615 44 $211,619
Mammoth Coal Processing Pl & Riv Tipple; Facility Coal; 46 $19,424 7 $10,611
State--WV..............................................
Mammoth Coal Co. Surface Mine; Surface Coal; State--WV.. 9 $976
No 130 Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV................ 84 $66,567 13 $37,995
Road Fork #51 Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV......... 251 $315,521 81 $247,500
Ruby Energy; Underground Coal; State--WV................ 562 $1,399,193 274 $1,245,047
Shadrick 5 Block; Underground Coal; State--WV........... 60 $22,960 17 $17,499
Slabcamp; Underground Coal; State--WV................... 269 $211,617 50 $135,477
Stockton Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV.............. 39 $14,401 8 $5,051
Stirrat Coal Company.................................... 59 $41,130 7 $7,941
Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--WV............. 59 $41,130 7 $7,941
Talon Loadout Company................................... 5 $1,240 1 $392
Talon Loadout; Facility Coal; State--WV................. 5 $1,240 1 $392
Tennessee Consolidated Coal Company..................... 1 $100
Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--TN............. 1 $100
White Buck Coal Company................................. 271 $151,729 80 $110,800
Grassy Creek No 1; Underground Coal; State--WV.......... 144 $97,414 51 $73,614
Hominy Creek Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV.......... 45 $16,823 14 $11,267
Pocahontas Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV............ 56 $13,574 9 $4,589
White Buck No 2; Underground Coal; State--WV............ 26 $23,918 6 $21,330
Mechel Oao.............................................. 545 $547,614 524 $545,498
Bluestone Coal Corp..................................... 27 $16,820 17 $15,820
Central Shop; Facility Coal; State--WV.................. 6 $600
No 2 Plant; Facility Coal; State--WV.................... 1 $100
No 6 Strip; Surface Coal; State--WV..................... 5 $686 4 $586
Pinnacle Creek Strip; Surface Coal; State--WV........... 1 $100
Pinnacle Ridge Surface Mine; Surface Coal; State--WV.... 2 $200 1 $100
Red Fox Load-Out; Facility Coal; State--WV.............. 12 $15,134 12 $15,134
Double Bonus Coal Company............................... 162 $78,953 162 $78,953
No 65; Underground Coal; State--WV...................... 162 $78,953 162 $78,953
Dynamic Energy Inc...................................... 31 $28,175 31 $28,175
Coal Mountain No 1 Surface; Surface Coal; State--WV..... 25 $26,908 25 $26,908
McDonald Fork Impoundment; Surface Coal; State--WV...... 6 $1,267 6 $1,267
Frontier Coal Company................................... 76 $38,831 75 $38,731
Double Camp No. 1; Underground Coal; State--WV.......... 76 $38,831 75 $38,731
Justice Energy Inc...................................... 14 $79,008 14 $79,008
Red Fox Surface Mine; Surface Coal; State--WV........... 14 $79,008 14 $79,008
Justice Highwall Mining, Inc............................ 16 $9,046 13 $8,746
No 1 Miner; Surface Coal; State--WV..................... 3 $362 3 $362
No 3 Miner; Surface Coal; State--WV..................... 3 $300
Red Fox Surface Mine; Surface Coal; State--WV........... 10 $8,384 10 $8,384
Keystone Service Industries Inc......................... 7 $1,525 7 $1,525
Keystone No 1 Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State-- 7 $1,525 7 $1,525
WV.....................................................
M & P Services, Inc..................................... 3 $3,109 3 $3,109
Red Fox Load-Out; Facility Coal; State--WV.............. 3 $3,109 3 $3,109
NuFac Mining Company, Inc............................... 24 $6,476 24 $6,476
Buckeye Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV............... 24 $6,476 24 $6,476
Pay Car Mining Inc...................................... 153 $280,086 153 $280,086
No 58; Underground Coal; State--WV...................... 153 $280,086 153 $280,086
Second Sterling Corp.................................... 32 $5,585 25 $4,869
Keystone No 1 Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State-- 32 $5,585 25 $4,869
WV.....................................................
Metinvest B V........................................... 883 $505,254 203 $288,185
Banner Blue Coal Company................................ 285 $192,104 87 $109,118
Apple Jacks No. 7; Underground Coal; State--VA.......... 62 $30,631 18 $17,499
Locust Thicket; Underground Coal; State--VA............. 116 $60,328 27 $26,337
Paw Paw Mine; Underground Coal; State--VA............... 107 $101,145 42 $65,282
Black Diamond Company................................... 21 $6,511 ..........
Wellmore #8 Prep Plant; Facility Coal; State--VA........ 21 $6,511
Carter Roag Coal Company................................ 111 $92,462 35 $76,150
Pleasant Hill Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV......... 110 $92,362 35 $76,150
Star Bridge Preparation Plant-Rail Load; Facility Coal; 1 $100
State--WV..............................................
North Star One LLC...................................... 5 $1,601 4 $1,501
Tommy Creek Mine No 1; Surface Coal; State--WV.......... 5 $1,601 4 $1,501
Pocahontas Coal Company, LLC............................ 100 $71,448 42 $53,544
Beckley No. 1 Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV......... 2 $1,265
East Gulf Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--WV... 6 $5,624 4 $5,374
Josephine No 2 Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV........ 33 $35,712 13 $29,497
Josephine No 3 Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV........ 59 $28,847 25 $18,673
Sapphire Coal Company................................... 319 $126,675 32 $41,256
Advantage No 1; Underground Coal; State--KY............. 115 $68,264 14 $26,831
Buck Creek No 1; Surface Coal; State--KY................ 13 $1,799
Sandlick II; Underground Coal; State--KY................ 69 $37,263 11 $13,011
Sapphire Prep Plant; Facility Coal; State--KY........... 21 $3,955
UZ No 2; Underground Coal; State--KY.................... 101 $15,394 7 $1,414
Surface Minerals Company................................ 25 $12,610 3 $6,616
3 Pole; Surface Coal; State--VA......................... 11 $1,325
Convict Hollow; Surface Coal; State--VA................. 3 $3,408
Huffman Fk.; Surface Coal; State--VA.................... 3 $300
Jones Fork; Surface Coal; State--VA..................... 6 $6,978 3 $6,616
Mule Hollow Surface Mine; Surface Coal; State--VA....... 2 $599
Wellmore Coal Company, LLC.............................. 17 $1,843
#7 Prep Plant; Facility Coal; State--VA................. 8 $800
Nora Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--VA........ 9 $1,043
Newmont Mining Corp..................................... 601 $1,355,470 278 $802,317
Newmont Mining Corp..................................... 601 $1,355,470 278 $802,317
Deep Post; Underground Metal; State--NV................. 77 $181,511 45 $159,868
GENESIS; Surface Metal; State--NV....................... 74 $251,687 44 $245,600
Leeville; Underground Metal; State--NV.................. 107 $157,749 52 $138,300
Lone Tree Mine; Surface Metal; State--NV................ 37 $7,535 12 $3,961
Midas Mine; Underground Metal; State--NV................ 134 $497,469 50 $103,498
Phoenix Mine; Surface Metal; State--NV.................. 9 $8,929 4 $3,418
SOUTH AREA; Surface Metal; State--NV.................... 103 $200,069 55 $123,181
TWIN CREEKS MINE; Surface Metal; State--NV.............. 60 $50,521 16 $24,491
Patriot Coal Corporation................................ 3,851 $4,475,766 1,509 $3,530,080
Apogee Coal Company LLC................................. 59 $98,828 22 $75,236
Fanco; Facility Coal; State--WV......................... 7 $700
Guyan; Surface Coal; State--WV.......................... 51 $98,028 22 $75,236
Little White Oak; Facility Coal; State--WV.............. 1 $100
Catenary Coal Company LLC............................... 33 $7,547 1 $540
Samples Mine Highwall Miner; Surface Coal; State--WV.... 1 $100
Samples Mine; Surface Coal; State--WV................... 29 $7,130 1 $540
Toms Fork Loadout; Facility Coal; State--WV............. 3 $317
Coal Clean LLC.......................................... 20 $2,163
Coal Clean LLC; Facility Coal; State--WV................ 20 $2,163
Coyote Coal Company LLC................................. 1 $100 1 $100
Buffalo No. 2 Gas Deep Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV 1 $100 1 $100
Dodge Hill Mining Company LLC........................... 178 $111,283 50 $65,287
Dodge Hill Mine #1; Underground Coal; State--KY......... 178 $111,283 50 $65,287
Eastern Associated Coal Corp............................ 786 $415,477 231 $265,744
Black Oak Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV............. 60 $20,283 9 $8,517
Cow Creek Coal Blending Facility; Facility Coal; State-- 1 $100
WV.....................................................
Federal No 2; Underground Coal; State--WV............... 379 $173,177 105 $115,344
Harris No 1; Underground Coal; State--WV................ 298 $215,909 116 $141,620
Harris Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--WV...... 4 $400
Matewan Tunnel; Underground Coal; State--WV............. 7 $880 1 $263
Powellton Tunnel; Underground Coal; State--WV........... 2 $212
Rocklick Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--WV.... 21 $3,040
Wells Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--WV....... 6 $600
Wharton No 1 Tunnel; Underground Coal; State--WV........ 8 $876
Grand Eagle Mining, Inc................................. 34 $9,197 6 $1,484
Grand Eagle Prep Plant; Facility Coal; State--KY........ 23 $6,143 1 $100
Patriot Surface; Surface Coal; State--KY................ 11 $3,054 5 $1,384
Highland Mining Company................................. 672 $999,350 353 $876,774
Highland 9 Mine; Underground Coal; State--KY............ 672 $999,350 353 $876,774
Highwall Mining LLC..................................... 21 $8,685
Wildcat Surface Mine; Surface Coal; State--WV........... 21 $8,685
Hobet Mining LLC........................................ 58 $16,135
Beth Station No 79 Prep Plant; Facility Coal; State--WV. 16 $2,264
Hill Fork Surface Mine; Surface Coal; State--WV......... 17 $3,228
Hobet 21 Surface Mine; Surface Coal; State--WV.......... 25 $10,643
I O Coal Company, LLC................................... 73 $45,728 9 $17,860
Europa Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV................ 73 $45,728 9 $17,860
Little Creek LLC........................................ 1 $100
Little Creek Dock; Facility Coal; State--WV............. 1 $100
Midland Trail Energy LLC................................ 160 $83,210 32 $22,111
BC No. 2 Deep Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV......... 10 $2,209 3 $300
Campbells Creek No 7 Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV.. 136 $79,525 27 $21,535
Campbells Creek Surface Facilities; Facility Coal; 14 $1,476 2 $276
State--WV..............................................
Ohio County Coal Company LLC............................ 271 $326,261 140 $287,489
Freedom; Underground Coal; State--KY.................... 271 $326,261 140 $287,489
Peabody Coal Company.................................... 81 $16,442 11 $5,079
Camp 9 Prep Plant; Facility Coal; State--KY............. 81 $16,442 11 $5,079
Pine Ridge Coal Company LLC............................. 373 $644,001 136 $468,164
Big Mountain No 16; Underground Coal; State--WV......... 354 $640,859 135 $468,064
Big Mountain Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--WV 19 $3,142 1 $100
Pond Fork Processing Corporation........................ 4 $552 ..........
Pond Fork Processing; Facility Coal; State--WV.......... 4 $552 ..........
Remington, LLC.......................................... 191 $213,741 60 $163,755
Deskins Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV............... 30 $28,016 12 $18,876
Stockburg No 2; Underground Coal; State--WV............. 17 $25,675 6 $21,040
Winchester Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV............ 144 $160,050 42 $123,839
Rivers Edge Mining Inc.................................. 98 $51,063 28 $28,547
Rivers Edge Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV........... 98 $51,063 28 $28,547
Speed Mining Inc........................................ 733 $1,424,612 429 $1,251,910
American Eagle Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV........ 728 $1,422,908 429 $1,251,910
Coon Hollow Tunnel Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV.... 5 $1,704
Weatherby Processing Corp............................... 4 $1,291
Remington Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--WV... 4 $1,291
Peabody Energy.......................................... 4,394 $10,900,611 1,322 $8,639,575
Big Ridge Inc........................................... 928 $2,798,215 367 $2,468,308
Willow Lake Central Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; 3 $716
State--IL..............................................
Willow Lake Portal; Underground Coal; State--IL......... 925 $2,797,499 367 $2,468,308
Caballo Coal Company.................................... 33 $7,355 1 $634
Caballo Mine; Surface Coal; State--WY................... 24 $4,531 1 $634
Rawhide Mine; Surface Coal; State--WY................... 9 $2,824
Highland Mining Company................................. 2 $6,856 2 $6,856
Highland 9 Mine; Underground Coal; State--KY............ 2 $6,856 2 $6,856
Lee Ranch Coal Co Div/Peabody Nat Resources Co.......... 44 $96,676 3 $72,727
El Segundo; Surface Coal; State--NM..................... 28 $23,421 2 $13,200
Lee Ranch Coal Company; Surface Coal; State--NM......... 16 $73,255 1 $59,527
Peabody Midwest Mining, LLC............................. 2,608 $6,747,716 737 $5,290,728
Air Quality #1 Mine; Underground Coal; State--IN........ 1,339 $4,630,954 555 $3,960,588
Air Quality South Wash Plant; Facility Coal; State--IN.. 17 $3,683 10 $2,348
Farmersburg Mine; Surface Coal; State--IN............... 41 $31,294
Francisco Mine--Underground Pit; Underground Coal; 320 $377,076 52 $212,362
State--IN..............................................
Francisco Mine; Surface Coal; State--IN................. 20 $28,703 3 $11,559
Gateway Mine; Underground Coal; State--IL............... 555 $1,129,068 72 $727,657
Mine No.17; Underground Coal; State--KY................. 2 $998
Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--IL............. 15 $5,262
Riola Complex Vermilion Grove Portal; Underground Coal; 79 $377,129 16 $304,321
State--IL..............................................
Somerville Central Mine; Surface Coal; State--IN........ 55 $39,990 2 $1,660
Viking Mine--Corning Pit; Surface Coal; State--IN....... 28 $15,053 8 $11,624
Viking Mine--Knox Pit; Surface Coal; State--IN.......... 48 $61,016 7 $36,545
Wildcat Hills Mine--Cottage Grove Pit; Surface Coal; 7 $7,724 4 $6,204
State--IL..............................................
Wildcat Hills Mine--Underground; Underground Coal; 82 $39,766 8 $15,860
State--IL..............................................
Peabody Western Coal Company............................ 80 $185,684
Kayenta Mine; Surface Coal; State--AZ................... 80 $185,684
Powder River Coal, LLC.................................. 82 $100,100 20 $87,926
North Antelope Rochelle Mine; Surface Coal; State--WY... 82 $100,100 20 $87,926
Twentymile Coal Company................................. 617 $958,009 192 $712,396
Foidel Creek Mine; Underground Coal; State--CO.......... 617 $958,009 192 $712,396
Richard Gilliam......................................... 2,425 $1,648,057 1,243 $1,492,963
Big Laurel Mining Corporation........................... 177 $284,546 111 $277,587
Mine No 2; Underground Coal; State--VA.................. 177 $284,546 111 $277,587
Bluff Spur Coal Corporation............................. 226 $61,183 119 $49,732
Marker Portal Mine; Underground Coal; State--VA......... 139 $27,219 63 $19,432
Mine No 1; Underground Coal; State--VA.................. 86 $33,864 56 $30,300
Mine No 2; Underground Coal; State--VA.................. 1 $100
Cave Spur Coal LLC...................................... 105 $157,721 53 $149,136
Mine #1; Underground Coal; State--KY.................... 105 $157,721 53 $149,136
Cloverlick Coal Company LLC............................. 104 $55,034 61 $48,407
Mine #1; Underground Coal; State--KY.................... 99 $53,454 58 $47,027
Mine #3; Underground Coal; State--KY.................... 5 $1,580 3 $1,380
Dorchester Enterprises, Inc............................. 185 $76,023 139 $71,396
Mine No. 4; Underground Coal; State--VA................. 185 $76,023 139 $71,396
Guest Mountain Mining Corporation....................... 211 $64,637 98 $52,998
Mine No 3; Underground Coal; State--VA.................. 13 $4,864 8 $4,347
Mine No 4; Underground Coal; State--VA.................. 92 $23,024 47 $18,353
Mine No 5; Underground Coal; State--VA.................. 105 $36,649 43 $30,298
Mine No. 6; Underground Coal; State--VA................. 1 $100
Mill Branch Coal Corporation............................ 266 $88,574 113 $72,842
Looney Creek Taggart Mine; Underground Coal; State--VA.. 116 $54,962 60 $49,259
Low Splint A Mine; Underground Coal; State--VA.......... 68 $16,472 29 $12,548
Mine No. 3; Underground Coal; State--VA................. 82 $17,140 24 $11,035
Nine Mile Spur LLC...................................... 2 $363 2 $363
Nine Mine Spur No 7 Strip; Surface Coal; State--VA...... 2 $363 2 $363
North Fork Coal Corporation............................. 395 $558,186 167 $521,938
Mine No 4; Underground Coal; State--KY.................. 281 $512,486 138 $489,224
Mine No 5; Underground Coal; State--KY.................. 114 $45,700 29 $32,714
Osaka Mining Corporation................................ 242 $71,360 141 $60,118
Mine No. 1; Underground Coal; State--VA................. 242 $71,360 141 $60,118
Panther Mining, LLC..................................... 209 $101,253 100 $83,379
Mine #1; Underground Coal; State--KY.................... 137 $68,287 71 $57,521
Panther Mine #4a; Underground Coal; State--KY........... 72 $32,966 29 $25,858
Pigeon Creek Processing Corporation..................... 30 $4,819 13 $3,012
Plant No 1; Facility Coal; State--VA.................... 30 $4,819 13 $3,012
Stillhouse Mining LLC................................... 273 $124,358 126 $102,055
Mine #1; Underground Coal; State--KY.................... 154 $66,690 71 $54,883
Mine #2; Underground Coal; State--KY.................... 119 $57,668 55 $47,172
Robert E Murray......................................... 2,559 $2,467,043 1,963 $2,349,683
American Energy Corp.................................... 313 $115,702 244 $107,221
Century Mine; Underground Coal; State--OH............... 313 $115,702 244 $107,221
Andalex Resources Inc................................... 3 $403 1 $100
Pinnacle; Underground Coal; State--UT................... 2 $227 1 $100
Wildcat Loadout; Facility Coal; State--UT............... 1 $176
Canterbury Coal Company................................. 2 $200
Cleaning Plant; Facility Coal; State--PA................ 2 $200
Genwal Resources Inc.................................... 4 $552
Crandall Canyon Mine; Underground Coal; State--UT....... 1 $176
South Crandall Canyon Mine; Underground Coal; State--UT. 3 $376
Kenamerican Resources Inc............................... 559 $846,080 448 $826,366
Paradise #9; Underground Coal; State--KY................ 559 $846,080 448 $826,366
Ohio American Energy Incorporated....................... 17 $7,768 6 $6,668
Salt Run Mine #1; Surface Coal; State--OH............... 13 $7,368 5 $6,568
StarRidge Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--OH... 4 $400 1 $100
Ohio Valley Transloading Company........................ 4 $760
Powhatan Transportation Center; Facility Coal; State--OH 4 $760
The American Coal Company............................... 959 $1,057,480 779 $1,011,509
Galatia Mine; Underground Coal; State--IL............... 959 $1,057,480 779 $1,011,509
The Ohio Valley Coal Company............................ 372 $249,309 297 $238,130
Powhatan No. 6 Mine; Underground Coal; State--OH........ 372 $249,309 297 $238,130
Utah American Energy, Inc............................... 17 $2,832 2 $352
Lila Canyon; Underground Coal; State--UT................ 17 $2,832 2 $352
West Ridge Resources Inc................................ 307 $185,757 186 $159,337
West Ridge Mine; Underground Coal; State--UT............ 307 $185,757 186 $159,337
West Virginia Resources Inc............................. 2 $200
Cheshire Dock; Facility Coal; State--OH................. 2 $200
Rogers Group Inc........................................ 582 $281,962 258 $202,248
Mid-South Stone Inc..................................... 7 $1,115 7 $1,115
Gordonsville Plant; Facility Stone; State--TN........... 7 $1,115 7 $1,115
Reostone Llc............................................ 24 $4,805 20 $4,405
Gallatin Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TN............... 2 $200
Reostone LLC; Surface Stone; State--TN.................. 22 $4,605 20 $4,405
Rogers Group, Inc....................................... 551 $276,042 231 $196,728
ALGOOD QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--TN................. 7 $700
Bloomington Quarry; Surface Stone; State--IN............ 24 $12,041 1 $334
Bloomington Underground Mine; Underground Stone; State-- 2 $667 1 $460
IN.....................................................
Bullitt County Stone Company; Surface Stone; State--KY.. 2 $200
Cabot Quarry; Surface Stone; State--AR.................. 11 $1,398
Canton Quarry; Surface Stone; State--KY................. 7 $4,693 2 $4,039
Caryville Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TN.............. 7 $738
Columbia Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TN............... 20 $7,649 18 $7,449
Cowan Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TN.................. 1 $190
Cross Plains Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TN........... 7 $2,520 4 $2,220
Deason Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TN................. 2 $200
Farmington Quarry; Surface Stone; State--AR............. 2 $200
FAYETTEVILLE QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--TN........... 3 $4,013
Fentress Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TN............... 2 $200
Greenbrier Quarry; Surface Stone; State--AR............. 11 $1,691 11 $1,691
Hickman County Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TN......... 8 $1,483
Hillsboro Quarry and Mill; Surface Stone; State--TN..... 8 $1,400
Hopkinsville Aggregate Quarry; Surface Stone; State--KY. 1 $100
Interstate Sand & Gravel Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; 1 $100
State--IN..............................................
Jefferson County Stone; Underground Stone; State--KY.... 12 $2,265 3 $1,073
Knox County Sand & Gravel Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; 2 $200
State--IN..............................................
Lacey's Spring; Surface Stone; State--AL................ 3 $699
LaFollette Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TN............. 7 $1,149
Lawrenceburg Quarry & Mill; Surface Stone; State--TN.... 47 $12,207 11 $4,886
Lewisburg Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TN.............. 10 $1,767
LIBERTY QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--TN................ 8 $2,313 4 $1,621
Limestone County Quarry; Surface Stone; State--AL....... 4 $450
Lowell Quarry; Surface Stone; State--AR................. 2 $307
Lynchburg Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TN.............. 5 $1,150
MARION MINE & MILL; Underground Stone; State--KY........ 93 $60,429 56 $53,750
MCMINNVILLE QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--TN............ 5 $1,225
Mitchell Quarry; Surface Stone; State--IN............... 9 $6,361 9 $6,361
MONROE COUNTY STONE; Surface Stone; State--TN........... 4 $760
MORGAN COUNTY SAND & GRAVEL PLANT; Surface 1 $100
SandAndGravel; State--IN...............................
Newton County Quarry; Surface Stone; State--IN.......... 12 $1,504 7 $1,004
Oak Ridge Quarry & Mill; Surface Stone; State--TN....... 4 $756
Oldham County Stone; Underground Stone; State--KY....... 7 $2,385 2 $1,445
Owen Valley Quarry; Surface Stone; State--IN............ 5 $500
Portable Plant #1; Surface Stone; State--AR............. 5 $1,023 2 $599
Pottsville Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TN............. 1 $100
Princeton Mine; Underground Stone; State--KY............ 58 $32,094 42 $16,382
Princeton Quarry And Mill; Surface Stone; State--KY..... 3 $300
Pulaski Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TN................ 67 $94,620 54 $92,392
RGI Cumberland Mountain Sand; Surface SandAndGravel; 13 $2,272
State--TN..............................................
Rhea County Stone; Surface Stone; State--TN............. 10 $2,225
Roane County Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TN........... 3 $508
Rutherford Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TN............. 2 $200
Shelbyville Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TN............ 9 $3,968
Sieboldt Quarry; Surface Stone; State--IN............... 1 $100
Sparta Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TN................. 4 $400
Tuscumbia Quarry; Surface Stone; State--AL.............. 3 $300
Wabash Gravel; Surface SandAndGravel; State--IN......... 2 $200
Whites Creek Plant & Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TN... 4 $1,022 4 $1,022
TECO Energy Inc......................................... 1,392 $763,207 211 $371,078
Clintwood Elkhorn Mining................................ 154 $82,135 2 $200
Bearwallow Surface; Surface Coal; State--VA............. 4 $400
Cedar Branch No 1; Surface Coal; State--VA.............. 45 $57,305
Clintwood Elkhorn II; Facility Coal; State--KY.......... 22 $2,707
Clintwood Elkhorn III; Facility Coal; State--VA......... 39 $4,943 1 $100
Laurel Branch Surface; Surface Coal; State--VA.......... 36 $13,703 1 $100
Millers Creek Surface; Surface Coal; State--KY.......... 7 $2,977
Turkey Pen Refuse; Surface Coal; State--KY.............. 1 $100
Gatliff Coal Co., Inc................................... 2 $1,404
Gatliff Surface #3; Surface Coal; State--KY............. 2 $1,404
Perry County Coal Corp.................................. 1,000 $542,526 190 $303,653
E3-1; Underground Coal; State--KY....................... 213 $151,536 6 $80,264
E4-1; Underground Coal; State--KY....................... 291 $142,314 54 $70,813
E4-2; Underground Coal; State--KY....................... 465 $244,627 129 $152,476
Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--KY............. 27 $3,573
Upper Second Creek Portals; Surface Coal; State--KY..... 4 $476 1 $100
Premier Elkhorn Coal Co................................. 236 $137,142 19 $67,225
#14; Underground Coal; State--KY........................ 75 $47,321 6 $13,488
Burke Branch Tipple; Facility Coal; State--KY........... 44 $6,634 2 $200
Job #42; Surface Coal; State--KY........................ 23 $7,884
Job #45; Surface Coal; State--KY........................ 20 $4,776 3 $652
Job #49; Surface Coal; State--KY........................ 16 $56,050 6 $52,685
Job 54; Surface Coal; State--KY......................... 4 $400
PE 5 Underground; Underground Coal; State--KY........... 50 $13,677 2 $200
Pe Letcher County; Surface Coal; State--KY.............. 1 $100
Pe Southern Pike Co; Surface Coal; State--KY............ 3 $300
Vulcan Materials Company................................ 809 $235,178 215 $101,309
Cal Mat Co.............................................. 90 $24,754 9 $10,883
AVONDALE PLANT; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ........ 1 $100
Azusa Rock; Surface Stone; State--CA.................... 7 $1,278
Big Rock Creek; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA........ 4 $462
Carroll Canyon Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA.. 1 $100
Durbin Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA.......... 5 $643
LITCHFIELD PLANT; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ...... 2 $200
MARANA PLANT; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ.......... 5 $5,547 3 $5,347
Mission Valley Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA.. 2 $200
Palmdale Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA........ 3 $300
Pleasanton Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA...... 10 $2,028
Reliance Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA........ 6 $743 1 $100
River Rock Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA...... 5 $500
San Bernardino Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA.. 3 $1,131
San Emidio Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA...... 6 $2,338 1 $807
Sanger Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA.......... 11 $1,629
SANTO DOMINGO PUEBLO MINE; Surface SandAndGravel; State-- 4 $4,683 1 $4,329
NM.....................................................
Shakespeare Pit; Surface SandAndGravel; State--NM....... 2 $200 1 $100
Sun Valley Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA...... 7 $2,072
Upland Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA.......... 2 $200
VAL VISTA--CITRUS GROVE 150; Surface SandAndGravel; 2 $200 2 $200
State--AZ..............................................
West Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--AZ............ 1 $100
Wheeler Ridge Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA... 1 $100
Florida Rock Industries................................. 103 $22,231 64 $16,716
Astatula Sand Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--FL... 6 $600 2 $200
BAINBRIDGE SAND PLANT; Surface SandAndGravel; State--GA. 2 $200
Calcium Plant; Surface Stone; State--FL................. 4 $987 3 $887
Diamond Sand Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--FL.... 2 $734
Fort Myers Mine; Surface Stone; State--FL............... 2 $352
Fort Pierce Mine; Surface Stone; State--FL.............. 1 $100
Grandin Sand Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--FL.... 2 $380 2 $380
Keuka Sand Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--FL...... 2 $238 1 $138
Miami Quarry; Surface Stone; State--FL.................. 6 $929 2 $324
POLK SAND PLANT; Surface SandAndGravel; State--FL....... 4 $1,123 3 $985
Tampa Cement Grinding Plant; Facility Stone; State--FL.. 36 $8,334 32 $7,934
TAMPA SALES YARD; Facility Stone; State--FL............. 11 $2,594 4 $1,775
TSB CEMENT PLANT; Facility Stone; State--FL............. 17 $4,251 11 $3,146
Turnpike Sand; Surface SandAndGravel; State--FL......... 4 $902 3 $740
Witherspoon Sand Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--FL 4 $507 1 $207
TCS Materials Inc....................................... 1 $308 1 $308
Elkton Plant; Surface Stone; State--VA.................. 1 $308 1 $308
Tidewater Quarries, Inc................................. 1 $100 1 $100
Augusta Plant; Surface Stone; State--VA................. 1 $100 1 $100
Triangle Rock Products Inc.............................. 10 $1,759
TRP-Los Banos Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA... 6 $1,245
TRP-Sacramento Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--CA.. 4 $514
VULCAN CONSTR. MATERIALS, L.P........................... 604 $186,026 140 $73,302
115 QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--NC.................... 1 $100 1 $100
Abilene Black Lease Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TX.... 5 $500
Adairsville Quarry; Surface Stone; State--GA............ 3 $548 3 $548
ANDERSON QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--SC............... 2 $200
ATHENS QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--TN................. 1 $100 1 $100
Barin Quarry; Surface Stone; State--GA.................. 10 $2,937 4 $1,325
Bartlett Underground Mine; Underground Stone; State--IL. 5 $858 2 $324
BARTOW QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--GA................. 5 $1,194 5 $1,194
Benton County Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TN.......... 21 $5,541
BESSEMER QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--AL............... 3 $300 2 $200
BLACKSBURG QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--SC............. 5 $815
BLAIR QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--SC.................. 2 $227
BLAIRSVILLE QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--GA............ 2 $9,938 2 $9,938
Bolingbrook Underground; Underground Stone; State--IL... 2 $200
BOONE QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--NC.................. 1 $100 1 $100
BRISTOL QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--TN................ 4 $427
Brownwood Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TX.............. 7 $1,086 3 $686
Cabarrus Quarry; Surface Stone; State--NC............... 1 $100 1 $100
CALERA QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--AL................. 3 $390
CENTRAL SERVICE; Facility Stone; State--NC.............. 1 $100
Central; Underground Stone; State--KY................... 9 $4,514
CHATTANOOGA QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--TN............ 3 $443
Cherokee Quarry; Surface Stone; State--AL............... 2 $250
CHILDERSBURG QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--AL........... 2 $288
CLARKSVILLE QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--TN............ 2 $200
CLEVELAND QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--TN.............. 1 $100 1 $100
COLUMBIA QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--SC............... 4 $524
Columbia Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TN............... 1 $634
Columbia Quarry; Underground Stone; State--TN........... 7 $4,854 7 $4,854
COOKEVILLE QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--TN............. 3 $300
Dahlonega Quarry; Surface Stone; State--GA.............. 2 $200
DALTON QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--GA................. 2 $200
DANLEY; Surface Stone; State--TN........................ 4 $400
Daugherty Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--IN....... 2 $234
De Kalb Quarry; Surface Stone; State--IL................ 1 $100
Dickson Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TN................ 1 $100
Dolcito Quarry; Surface Stone; State--AL................ 4 $667
Dousman Pit; Surface SandAndGravel; State--WI........... 3 $300
DREYFUS QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--SC................ 2 $2,484
East Forsyth; Surface Stone; State--NC.................. 1 $138
ELKIN; Surface Stone; State--NC......................... 1 $634
Enka; Surface Stone; State--NC.......................... 1 $100 1 $100
Ensley Central Services; Facility Stone; State--AL...... 1 $100 1 $100
Forest Park Quarry; Surface Stone; State--GA............ 4 $624 1 $100
Fort Knox Quarry; Surface Stone; State--KY.............. 4 $400
Fort Payne Quarry; Surface Stone; State--AL............. 8 $876 1 $100
Francesville Quarry; Surface Stone; State--IN........... 2 $200
Franklin Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TN............... 10 $2,112
Franklin Quarry; Surface Stone; State--WI............... 20 $11,048 16 $10,598
Frederick Quarry; Surface Stone; State--MD.............. 2 $200
Geronimo Creek Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TX......... 1 $100
GLENCOE QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--AL................ 1 $150
GOLD HILL; Surface Stone; State--NC..................... 2 $200 2 $200
GRAHAM-VIRGINIA; Surface Stone; State--VA............... 5 $1,207 2 $702
Grand Rivers Quarry; Surface Stone; State--KY........... 17 $2,608 5 $1,087
GRAY COURT QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--SC............. 1 $150
Grayson Quarry; Surface Stone; State--GA................ 6 $900
GREENWOOD QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--SC.............. 1 $5,503
GRIFFIN QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--GA................ 2 $200
Groesbeck Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TX.............. 3 $548 2 $324
HANOVER QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--PA................ 3 $300
Hardin County Quarry; Surface Stone; State--KY.......... 5 $1,050
Harrison County Quarry; Surface Stone; State--IN........ 2 $234
HAVRE DE GRACE QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--MD......... 2 $352
HELENA QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--AL................. 3 $300
Helotes Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TX................ 5 $929 5 $929
HENDERSONVILLE; Surface Stone; State--NC................ 4 $1,025 4 $1,025
Hermitage Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TN.............. 3 $300
HOUSTON SALES YARD; Facility Stone; State--TX........... 1 $100
Huebner Road Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TX........... 7 $1,224
HUNTSVILLE NORTH QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--AL....... 8 $1,110 1 $100
JACK PLANT; Surface Stone; State--VA.................... 6 $929
Kankakee Quarry & Mill; Surface Stone; State--IL........ 2 $200
KENNESAW QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--GA............... 1 $176
KINGSPORT QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--TN.............. 3 $354
Knippa Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TX................. 5 $3,607
KODAK QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--TN.................. 5 $2,561 1 $2,161
La Grange Quarry; Surface Stone; State--GA.............. 1 $100
LACON QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--AL.................. 2 $200 1 $100
Lakeside Quarry; Surface Stone; State--SC............... 16 $3,968 1 $100
Laraway Quarry; Surface Stone; State--IL................ 2 $845
LAWRENCEVILLE; Surface Stone; State--VA................. 3 $362
Lemont Underground Limestone; Underground Stone; State-- 10 $2,552 4 $1,512
IL.....................................................
Lenoir; Surface Stone; State--NC........................ 1 $100 1 $100
LIBERTY QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--SC................ 1 $100
LITHIA SPRINGS QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--GA......... 6 $12,205 3 $11,843
LOWELL QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--IN................. 3 $300
LYMAN QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--SC.................. 7 $1,074 1 $224
MACON QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--GA.................. 6 $676
Macon; Surface SandAndGravel; State--IL................. 1 $100
Madras Quarry; Surface Stone; State--GA................. 6 $1,512
MANASSAS; Surface Stone; State--VA...................... 5 $3,700 1 $3,224
MARYVILLE QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--TN.............. 1 $100
MAYNARDVILLE QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--TN........... 14 $6,144 3 $1,204
McCook Quarry; Surface Stone; State--IL................. 19 $5,728 8 $4,303
Midsouth Machine Service; Facility Stone; State--TN..... 1 $100
Monon Quarry; Surface Stone; State--IN.................. 3 $300
MORGANTON; Surface Stone; State--NC..................... 2 $200 1 $100
MORRISTOWN QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--TN............. 2 $200
Norcross Quarry; Surface Stone; State--GA............... 3 $463
Norcross Shop; Surface Stone; State--GA................. 2 $217
NORTH QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--NC.................. 1 $100
Norton Quarry; Surface Stone; State--VA................. 4 $434 1 $100
Notasulga Quarry; Surface Stone; State--AL.............. 2 $200
OHATCHEE QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--AL............... 1 $138
Oshkosh Quarry; Surface Stone; State--WI................ 4 $544
PACOLET QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--SC................ 4 $1,374
Parsons Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TN................ 13 $24,772 2 $3,881
Pineville; Surface Stone; State--NC..................... 3 $443 1 $243
PLEASANT VIEW QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--TN.......... 2 $324
Pocomoke City Sand & Gravel; Surface SandAndGravel; 7 $1,002 4 $702
State--MD..............................................
Polk County Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TN............ 1 $100
PRIDE QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--AL.................. 10 $1,594
Puddledock Sand & Gravel; Surface SandAndGravel; State-- 2 $957
VA.....................................................
RABUN QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--GA.................. 5 $500
Racine Quarry; Surface Stone; State--WI................. 3 $534
Richard City Underground/Surface; Underground Stone; 3 $376
State--TN..............................................
Richmond Quarry; Surface Stone; State--VA............... 6 $759 2 $216
Richmond Road; Underground Stone; State--KY............. 9 $1,974
River Road Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TN............. 1 $100
Rochester Sand & Gravel; Surface SandAndGravel; State-- 3 $785 1 $585
IL.....................................................
ROCKINGHAM; Surface Stone; State--NC.................... 4 $1,173
ROCKMART QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--GA............... 2 $845 2 $845
SANDERS; Surface Stone; State--VA....................... 2 $343 1 $100
Savannah Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TN............... 8 $3,121 3 $1,851
SCOTTSBORO QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--AL............. 5 $617 1 $190
Searcy Quarry; Surface Stone; State--AR................. 4 $758 1 $334
SEVIERVILLE QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--TN............ 4 $450
Shelbyville Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TN............ 11 $1,805 3 $861
Shelton; Surface Stone; State--NC....................... 1 $100
Simonton Sand Plant; Surface SandAndGravel; State--TX... 3 $924 2 $824
SKIPPERS; Surface Stone; State--VA...................... 1 $100
Spicewood Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TX.............. 1 $100 1 $100
SPRINGFIELD QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--TN............ 7 $1,395 7 $1,395
Stockbridge Quarry; Surface Stone; State--GA............ 1 $162
Sussex Quarry; Surface Stone; State--WI................. 2 $200
SWISHER; Surface SandAndGravel; State--IN............... 1 $263
SYCAMORE QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--IL............... 7 $3,818
TAZEWELL QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--TN............... 7 $1,816 3 $670
Tehuacana Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TX.............. 6 $650 1 $100
TRINITY QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--AL................ 2 $212 1 $100
TUSCALOOSA QUARRY; Surface Stone; State--AL............. 3 $534
Tuscumbia Quarry; Surface Stone; State--AL.............. 3 $300
Uvalde Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TX................. 5 $1,228
VULCAN FAB SHOP; Facility Stone; State--SC.............. 2 $227
Weatherford Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TX............ 5 $500 2 $200
Wilson County Quarry; Surface Stone; State--TN.......... 5 $527
York Plant; Surface Stone; State--PA.................... 4 $400 2 $200
Walter Energy Incorporated.............................. 862 $1,205,776 250 $945,616
Jim Walter Resources, Inc............................... 833 $1,197,689 250 $945,616
Central Shop; Facility Coal; State--AL.................. 5 $562
Central Supply; Facility Coal; State--AL................ 4 $400
No 4 Mine; Underground Coal; State--AL.................. 428 $620,857 136 $466,766
No 7 Mine; Underground Coal; State--AL.................. 395 $575,770 114 $478,850
No. 3 Mine; Facility Coal; State--AL.................... 1 $100
Taft Coal Sales & Associates Inc........................ 13 $3,216
Choctaw Mine; Surface Coal; State--AL................... 13 $3,216
Tuscaloosa Resources, Inc............................... 16 $4,871
East Brookwood Mine; Surface Coal; State--AL............ 11 $4,137
Highway 59 Mine No. 1; Surface Coal; State--AL.......... 1 $100
Howton Mine; Surface Coal; State--AL.................... 4 $634
Wexford Capital LLC..................................... 1,296 $1,308,115 366 $1,013,846
Cam Ohio, L.L.C......................................... 143 $119,992 25 $57,227
Hopedale Mine; Underground Coal; State--OH.............. 132 $118,420 25 $57,227
Nelms Prep; Facility Coal; State--OH.................... 11 $1,572
Central Appalachia Mining, LLC.......................... 655 $965,793 252 $861,933
Bevins Branch #1; Surface Coal; State--KY............... 15 $21,413 3 $19,503
Calloway North; Surface Coal; State--KY................. 18 $4,057
Dorton E 3; Underground Coal; State--KY................. 24 $3,821
Grapevine South Surface Mine; Surface Coal; State--WV... 28 $11,192 14 $9,352
Jamboree Loadout; Facility Coal; State--KY.............. 3 $335
Marion Branch; Surface Coal; State--KY.................. 13 $6,136 1 $1,530
Mine #23; Underground Coal; State--KY................... 11 $1,977
Mine #25A; Underground Coal; State--KY.................. 4 $3,632
Mine #28; Underground Coal; State--KY................... 430 $859,586 215 $820,244
Mine #30; Underground Coal; State--KY................... 5 $2,454
Mine #32; Underground Coal; State--KY................... 17 $5,251
Remining No 1; Surface Coal; State--WV.................. 1 $540
Rob Fork Contour; Surface Coal; State--KY............... 14 $3,729
Rob Fork Processing; Facility Coal; State--KY........... 55 $17,514 19 $11,304
S-1 Hunts Br.; Surface Coal; State--KY.................. 3 $20,700
Slate Branch; Surface Coal; State--KY................... 2 $200
Thacker Preparation Plant; Facility Coal; State--WV..... 5 $940
Three Mile Mine #1; Surface Coal; State--KY............. 7 $2,316
Clinton Stone LLC....................................... 4 $400
Clinton Stone; Facility Stone; State--OH................ 4 $400
Deane Mining LLC........................................ 278 $113,443 67 $66,511
Deane #1; Underground Coal; State--KY................... 129 $41,900 18 $11,067
Love Branch; Underground Coal; State--KY................ 104 $59,664 40 $47,846
Mill Creek Prep Plant; Facility Coal; State--KY......... 45 $11,879 9 $7,598
McClane Canyon Mining, LLC.............................. 70 $42,191
Mc Clane Canyon Mine; Underground Coal; State--CO....... 70 $42,191
Rhino Eastern LLC....................................... 134 $64,039 22 $28,175
Eagle #1; Underground Coal; State--WV................... 114 $60,536 22 $28,175
Eagle #2 Mine; Underground Coal; State--WV.............. 19 $3,403
Sewell Mine No. 1; Underground Coal; State--WV.......... 1 $100
Rhino Services LLC...................................... 8 $1,355
Calloway South; Surface Coal; State--KY................. 8 $1,355
Sands Hill Mining LLC................................... 4 $902
Sands Hill Dock; Facility Coal; State--OH............... 1 $100
Sands Hill Strip; Surface Coal; State--OH............... 3 $802 ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total....................................... 68,825 $78,835,254 27,072 $60,811,780
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
[Via Email],
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, February 26, 2010.
Mr. Bruce Watzman, Senior Vice President for Regulatory Affairs,
National Mining Association, 101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Suite 500
East, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Watzman: Thank you for testifying at the Committee's
hearing, ``Reducing the Growing Backlog of Contested Mine Safety
Cases'' held on Tuesday, February 23, 2010.
I have three additional questions to which I would like you to
provide a written response for the hearing record:
1. Is it in the interest of the members of the National Mining
Association to have a backlog of 16,000 cases at the Review Commission?
2. In addition to the administrative reforms discussed by MSHA at
the hearing on February 23, does the National Mining Association
support the President's FY 11 budget request for the Review Commission
which will add 4 more Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) for a total of
18?
3. Would the National Mining Association support adding funds for
the Review Commission to hire additional ALJs above and beyond the
President's budget request to begin the work of eliminating the backlog
over a 3 year period?
Please send your written response to the Committee by COB on
Tuesday, March 9th--the date on which the hearing record will close. If
you have any questions, please contact the Committee at 202-225-3725.
Once again, we greatly appreciate your testimony at this hearing.
Sincerely,
George Miller, Chairman.
______
Washington, DC, March 4, 2010.
Hon. George Miller, Chairman,
Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, 2181
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I want to thank you again for providing the
National Mining Association (NMA) the opportunity to testify at the
Committee's hearing, ``Reducing the Growing Backlog of Contested Mine
Safety Cases,'' On Feb. 26, I received your letter that contained three
additional questions. The following are our responses.
Question 1--Is it in the interest of members of the National Mining
Association to have a backlog of 16,000 cases at the Review Commission?
Response: No. Swift adjudication is better for everyone. Workers
and certified people need to know the proper interpretation of the law.
Two year delays result in unnecessary confusion. The industry gains
when citation issues are postponed. Any perceived gain in penalty
payments, involvement with a Pattern of Violation (POV) or repeat
history is really just a postponement--not a gain. Cases that become a
final order are used in POV and repeat violation calculations. On the
minus side, mass docket settlements are frequent, and the mine's
history is skewed as the violations in the final order are from a
number of quarterly inspections, including some from the distant past,
rather than the mine's most recent inspection history.
Furthermore, any controversial interpretation of a regulation by an
inspector in today's backlogged system does not get clarified in a
timely manner. Since the industry is obligated to abate a violation--
whether the operator believes it is issued in error or not--certified
persons and workers are left confused. By the time the issue is heard
by an administrative law judge, the mine has most likely changed its
practices to meet an improper interpretation, causing confusion in
training/ retraining to suit that false interpretation.
We believe most industry representatives would like to see the
backlog eliminated as quickly as possible so that discussions between
agency and industry personnel--and, where necessary, representatives of
the Commission--deal with issues that are current and not muddied by
historic recollection.
Question 2--In addition to the administrative reforms discussed by
MSHA at the hearing on February 23, does the National Mining
Association support the President's FY 11 budget request for the Review
Commission which will add 4 more Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) for a
total of 18?
Response: The National Mining Association has not taken a position
on the President's budget request for the Review Commission. While we
understand the basis for this request, we think solving this problem
will require consideration of actions beyond hiring additional ALJs.
During the course of the hearing, the Assistant Secretary for Mine
Safety and Health identified several actions the agency is considering
to address this situation. We look forward to discussing these with him
and offering our ideas to address the backlog. The hiring of more ALJs
should be considered as part of a more comprehensive strategy as we do
not believe that it, in and of itself, will be sufficient to address
the concerns that we collectively share regarding the current backlog.
Question 3--Would the National Mining Association support adding
funds for the Review Commission to hire additional ALJs above and
beyond the President's budget request to begin the work of eliminating
the backlog over a 3 year period?
Response: See response to question 2. We do not believe that
focusing solely on the hiring of more ALJs is sufficient to eliminate
the backlog in a timely manner. We recommend expanding the Commission's
settlement counsel process that was established by former Commission
Chairman Duffy and exploring mechanisms to use processes short of
formal ALJs hearing to expedite this process.
Thank you again for providing us the opportunity to share our
thoughts on this important matter. We look forward to having the
opportunity to further discuss this with you.
Sincerely,
Bruce Watzman,
Sr. Vice President, Regulatory Affairs.
______
[Additional submissions of Mr. Miller follow:]
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Justification of Appropriation Estimates for Committee on
Appropriations
Fiscal Year 2011
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT MATRIX OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual Actual Actual Actual Goal Actual Goal Goal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OBJECTIVE 1: ISSUE OPINIONS IN A TIMELY MANNER
Average time (days) for 73 78 89 135 81 266 95 75
assignment of penalty cases.
Average time (days) for 27 24 29 82 35 87 40 30
assignment of review cases.
Average time (days) for 61 53 65 123 70 214 80 60
assignment of all cases.
Percentage of decisions issued 96% 88% 69% 60% 90% 86% 65% 85%
within 180 days of post-
hearing brief.
Percentage of settlement 90% 96% 80% 73% 90% 61% 65% 85%
approvals issued within 60
days of settlement motion.
Average time (months), case 62 days 62 days 63 days 164 days 15 3.5 21 16
assignment to disposition.
Average time (months), case 121 days N/A 128 days 291 days 12 10.5 24 18
receipt to disposition.
Percentage of cases decided 97% 98% 97% 79% 90% 92% 70% 90%
within 365 days of assignment.
Undecided cases over 365 days 18 5 71 687 0 3,738 11,500 13,000
of age.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information on performance measurement is currently not available.
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION APPROPRIATIONS HISTORY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Estimate Senate
Fiscal House to ------------------------------------ Appropriation
Congress Allowance Allowance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1986.................................... 3,709,000 3,815,000 3,815,000 \(1)\ 3,651,000
1987.................................... 3,919,000 3,651,000 3,919,000 3,785,000
1988.................................... 4,139,000 4,080,000 4,080,000 \(2)\ 3,892,000
1989.................................... 4,079,000 4,079,000 4,079,000 \(3)\ 4,030,000
1990.................................... 4,005,000 4,030,000 4,030,000 4,030,000
1991.................................... 4,292,000 4,292,000 4,292,000 \(4)\ 4,188,509
1992.................................... 4,719,000 4,357,000 4,357,000 5,143,000
1993.................................... 5,830,000 5,772,000 5,772,000 \(5)\ 5,726,000
1994.................................... 5,842,000 5,842,000 5,842,000 5,842,000
1995.................................... 6,237,000 6,200,000 6,200,000 \(6)\ 6,189,000
1996.................................... 6,467,000 6,467,000 6,200,000 \(7)\ 6,184,000
1997.................................... 6,332,000 6,060,000 6,060,000 \(8)\ 6,049,000
1998.................................... 6,060,000 6,060,000 6,060,000 6,060,000
1999.................................... 6,060,000 6,060,000 6,060,000 6,060,000
2000.................................... 6,159,000 6,060,000 6,159,000 \(9)\ 6,136,000
2001.................................... 6,320,000 6,200,000 6,320,000 6,320,000
2002.................................... 6,939,000 6,939,000 6,939,000 \(10)\ 6,934,000
2003.................................... 7,127,000 ................ ................ \(11)\ 7,131,343
2004.................................... 7,774,000 7,774,000 7,774,000 \(12)\ 7,728,133
2005.................................... 7,813,000 7,813,000 7,813,000 \(13)\ 7,809,024
2006.................................... 7,809,000 7,809,000 7,809,000 \(14)\ 7,730,910
2007.................................... 7,576,000 7,731,000 7,731,000 \(15)\ 7,777,652
2008.................................... 8,096,000 8,096,000 7,954,563 7,954,563
2009.................................... 8,653,000 8,653,000 8,653,000 8,653,000
2010.................................... 9,857,567 9,857,567 10,358,000 \(16)\ 10,358,00
0
2011.................................... 13,105,000 ................ ................ ................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects reduction of $164,000 pursuant to P.L. 99-177.
\2\ Reflects reduction of $14,000 pursuant to Sec. 512 of P.L. 100-202.
\3\ Reflects reduction of $49,000 pursuant to Sec. 517 of P.L. 100-436.
\4\ Reflects reduction of $103,437 pursuant to Sec. 514(b) of P.L. 101-517 and $54 pursuant to P.L. 99-177.
\5\ Reflects reduction of $46,000 pursuant to Sec. 511 of P.L. 102-394.
\6\ Reflects reduction of $11,000 pursuant to Sec. 2007 of P.L. 104-19.
\7\ Reflects reduction of $9,000 pursuant to Sec. 513 and $7,000 pursuant to Sec. 31002 of P.L. 104-134.
\8\ Reflects reduction of $11,000 pursuant to Sec. 519 of P.L. 104-208.
\9\ Reflects reduction of $23,000 pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2000, P.L. 106-113.
\10\ Reflects reduction of $5,000 pursuant to Sectiom1403 of P.L. 107-206.
\11\ Reflects adjustments pursuant to the Omnibus Appropriations Act, P.L. 108-7.
\12\ Reflects reduction of $45,867 pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 108-199.
\13\ Reflects a congressional add-on of $59,000 and a reduction of $62,976 pursuant to section 122(a) of P.L.108-
447.
\14\ Reflects reduction of $78,090 pursuant to Title III, Chapter 8, of the Department of Defense Appropriations
Act, P.L. 109-148.
\15\ Reflects reduction of $144,437 pursuant to Sec. 528(a) of P.L.
\16\ Reflects Senate Approved Mark-up of $500,000 pursuant of P.L.
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION SELECTED WORKLOAD DATA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 Actual 2010 est. 2011 est.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Review Activities:
Cases pending beginning of 103 95 105
year........................
New cases received........... 184 200 205
Total case workload.......... 287 295 310
Cases decided................ 192 190 195
Cases pending end of year.... 95 105 115
Administrative Law Judges
Activities:
Cases pending beginning of 9,737 14,213 18,247
year........................
New cases received........... 9,239 9,200 9,200
Total case workload.......... 18,976 23,413 27,447
Cases decided................ 4,766 5,166 7,750
Cases pending end of year.... 14,213 18,247 19,697
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
FOLLOWUP ON MSHA ERP STATS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dist 01 Dist 02 Dist 03 Dist 04 Dist 05 Dist 06 Dist 07 Dist 08 Dist 09 Dist 10 Dist 11 National
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many mines require a plan?................................... 9 36 29 146 58 79 68 20 23 12 7 487
How many plans submitted?........................................ 9 36 29 146 58 79 68 20 23 12 7 487
How many plans approved?......................................... 3 35 27 118 40 78 59 6 8 12 6 392
How many plans pending?.......................................... 6 1 2 28 18 1 9 14 15 0 1 95
How many mines with tracking and communications equipment 0 0 3 20 0 2 10 1 0 10 0 46
installed and operational?......................................
How many mines in your district have a system completely 0 0 3 20 0 2 8 1 0 0 0 34
installed and operational?......................................
How many mines in your district have the areas installed and 0 0 2 66 3 1 10 4 0 6 0 92
operational outby the tailpiece?................................
How many mines in your district are in the process of installing 0 14 16 46 11 9 13 2 5 10 2 128
a system?.......................................................
In your district, what percentage of refuge chambers is installed 100.0% 94.0% 96.6% 100.0% 93.0% 81.0% 86.1% 95.0% 100.0% 92.0% (*)5.0% ..........
and ready for operation underground?............................
Have all of the initial back orders of SCSRs needed to comply Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ..........
with the Miner Act been filled?.................................
How many of the underground coal mines have installed Refuge 2 32 28 122 46 41 46 18 19 11 3 368
Alternatives?...................................................
If so, how many prefabricated units have been installed?......... 0 94 95 276 87 83 92 98 83 46 12 966
If so, how many units consisting of 15-psi stoppings have been 0 1 1 28 0 0 0 1 8 0 0 39
installed?......................................................
How many mines are using pre-positioned materials (barricades)?.. 0 0 2 4 12 22 29 3 3 4 6 85
If so, how many pre-positioned (barricade) units have been 0 0 2 6 20 37 62 13 6 16 25 187
installed?......................................................
Are any mines currently out of compliance with the requirements No No No No Yes No No No No Yes No ..........
for a refuge in coal mines?.....................................
If so, are there enforcement actions pending? At which mines?**.. No No No No Yes No No No No No No ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Note: See Details/Comments for D11 in attachment.
**If your district has mines out of compliance, provide a list of those mines to headquarters via e-mail. Also specify which of those has enforcement actions pending.Note: As new mines are advancing and older mines are retreating, the numbers in this table can change weekly.Updated as of 02/19/2010.
------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
------
MINE OPERATORS NOTIFIED BY MSHA OF A POTENTIAL PATTERN OF VIOLATIONS (POV)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Operator Date(s) Notified Type of Mine Location
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Blue Diamond Coal Co................ June 2007, June 2008 & Coal KY
March 2009
2 Elk Run Coal Co..................... June 2007 & March 2009 Coal WV
3 Tilden Mining Co.................... June 2007 & June 2008 Iron MI
4 Argus Energy WV, LLC................ Dec 2007 & June 2008 Coal WV
5 Double Bonus Coal Co................ Dec 2007 & June 2008 Coal WV
6 Independence Coal Co., Inc.......... Dec 2007 & March 2009 Coal WV
7 D&C Mining Corp..................... Dec 2007 & June 2008 Coal KY
8 Excel Mining Co..................... Dec 2007 & June 2008 Coal KY
9 Rockhouse Energy Mining Co.......... June 2008 & March 2009 Coal KY
10 Peachtree Ridge Mining Co........... June 2007 Coal WV
11 Oak Grove Resources................. June 2007 Coal AL
12 Marfork Coal Co. Inc................ Dec 2007 Coal WV
13 Performance Coal Co................. Dec 2007 Coal WV
14 Bledsoe Coal Corp................... Dec 2007 Coal KY
15 Bardo Mining, LLC................... Dec 2007 Coal KY
16 Riverside Cement Co................. June 2007 Non-metal CA
17 National Coal Corp.................. Dec 2007 Coal TN
18 RB #10 Mine......................... Dec 2007 Coal KY
19 Shamrock Coal Co.................... Dec 2007 Coal KY
20 Kosmos Cement Co.................... Dec 2007 Non-metal KY
21 Left Fork Mining Co., Inc........... June 2007 Coal KY
22 Sidney Coal......................... Dec 2007 Coal KY
23 Black Dog Coal Corp................. Dec 2007 Coal VA
24 Commonweath Mining, LLC............. Dec 2007 Coal VA
25 Regent Allied Carbon Energy, Inc.... Dec 2007 Coal VA
26 Progress Coal....................... Dec 2007 Coal WV
27 Rivers Edge Mining, Inc............. Dec 2007 Coal MO
28 Carter Roag Coal Co................. June 2008 Coal WV
29 NFC Mining, Inc..................... June 2008 Coal KY
30 McElroy Coal Co..................... Dec 2007 Coal PA
31 Carmeuse Lime and Stone, Inc........ June 2008 Non-metal GA
32 Newtown Energy, Inc................. June 2008 Coal WV
33 Conshor Mining, LLC................. June 2008 Coal KY
34 GCC Energy, LLC..................... June 2008 Coal CO
35 Stillhouse Mining, LLC.............. June 2008 Coal KY
36 Patriot Mining, LLC................. June 2008 Coal VA
37 Big River Mining, LLC............... March 2009 Coal WV
38 Stollings Trucking Co., Inc......... March 2009 Coal WV
39 Keokee Mining, LLC.................. March 2009 Coal VA
40 Snapco, Inc......................... March 2009 Coal VA
41 Banner Blue Coal Co................. March 2009 Coal VA
42 Double A Mining, Inc................ March 2009 Coal KY
43 North Star Mining, Inc.............. March 2009 Coal KY
44 Century Operations, LLC............. March 2009 Coal KY
45 Hidden Splendor Resources, Inc...... March 2009 Coal UT
46 Celite Corp......................... March 2009 Diatomaceous Earth CA
47 Newmont USA Limited................. March 2009 Gold NV
48 Black Beauty Coal Co................ Oct 2009 Coal IN
49 McCoy Elkhorn Coal Corp............. Oct 2009 Coal KY
50 Pleasant View Mining Co., Inc....... Oct 2009 Coal KY
51 Doe Run Co.......................... Oct 2009 Lead zinc MO
52 Knox Creek Coal Corp................ Oct 2009 Coal VA
53 Mountain Reclamation & Construction. Oct 2009 Coal WV
54 Spartan Mining Co., Inc............. Oct 2009 Coal WV
55 Laurel Coal Corp.................... Oct 2009 Coal WV
56 Mammoth Coal Co..................... Oct. 2009 Coal WV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Patriot Coal Corporation, Pine Ridge Coal Company LLC, Big Mountain No. 16 Mine, was also notifed in Oct
2009 but MSHA noted in its press release that the operator did not actually meet one of the published criteria
for identifying a potential pattern and should not have been listed in the memorandum. (The company contested
four unwarrantable failure orders that were subsequently modified to 104(a) citations as part of a settlement
agreement. MSHA's Office of Assessments did not record these modifications in the system and the company,
during its review of the data MSHA provided, identified the error. These violations have now been updated in
the system to reflect the modifications per MSHA.)
------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
------
[Additional submission of Mr. Kline follows:]
March 8, 2010.
Hon. George Miller, Chairman; Hon. John Kline, Ranking Minority Member,
Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Re: Statement of the Industrial Minerals Association-North America
(IMA-NA) on the February 23, 2010 Oversight Hearing Before the
Committee on Education and Labor Entitled ``Reducing the Growing
Backlog of Contested Mine Safety Cases''
Dear Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Kline: On behalf of the
Industrial Minerals Association-North America (``IMA-NA''), we
respectfully request that this letter, expressing the views of the IMA-
NA, be included in the record of the February 23, 2010 hearing before
the Committee on Education and Labor, entitled ``Reducing the Growing
Backlog of Contested Mine Safety Cases''. IMA-NA is the principal trade
association representing the industrial minerals industry in North
America (see www.ima-na.org). Industrial minerals are not coal or
metals, but are the mineral feedstocks used by manufacturing and
agricultural industries. The safety and health of miners employed by
IMA-NA's member companies is their first priority and concern. The
mining methods used to extract industrial minerals are significantly
different than for coal or metals. IMA-NA member companies strive not
only to comply fully with the requirements of the Federal Mine Safety
and Health Act of 1977, but also to continuously promote, benchmark,
and develop programs to achieve best practices in mine safety and
health.
IMA-NA member companies paid close attention to the February 23
hearing, and we appreciate the Committee's focus on the important
problem of how to go about reducing the backlog of contested mine
safety cases pending, and continuing to grow, at the Federal Mine
Safety and Health Review Commission (``Commission''). IMA-NA wants to
let you and the Committee know, therefore, that we generally endorse
the remedies to reduce the Commission's backlog proposed by Assistant
Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health, Joseph A. Main, and
Commission Chairman Mary Lu Jordan. In the context of this general
endorsement, IMA-NA wishes to emphasize some of those recommendations
and augment them as follows.
MSHA Recommendations
With regard to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA),
IMA-NA recommends that the Agency should--
Restore an effective ``Close-Out Conference'' system by
requiring that MSHA inspectors meet with the mine operator at the end
of each inspection to make sure that they explain the enforcement
actions they have taken during that inspection and to engage in a
dialog about those enforcement actions with the mine operator;
Restore the MSHA conference process as it existed prior to
the February 4, 2008 issuance of Program Instruction Letter (``PIL'')
No. I08-III-I and the March 27, 2009 issuance of Program Information
Bulletin (``PIB'') No. P09-05; and then hire and train additional
Conference Litigation Representatives (``CLRs'');
While the CLRs should continue to be housed in their
existing space in MSHA mine safety and health district offices in order
for them to be conveniently available to operators, representatives of
miners, and MSHA field enforcement personnel, supervision of CLRs
should be changed so that they report directly, and independently of
district manager control and influence, to the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health at MSHA's Headquarters in
Arlington, Virginia;
Increase from 30 to 60 days the time an operator has to
contest a citation or order, thereby allowing operators more time to
analyze the underlying enforcement action, collect information and
conduct an informal conference with the MSHA District Manager before a
formal contest is required;
Increase from 30 to 60 days the time an operator has to
contest a proposed assessment of civil penalty, thereby allowing
operators more time to analyze the underlying enforcement action and
the proposed penalty; and
Reform the manner in which MSHA bundles dockets to ensure
they include only the citations/orders and related proposed civil
penalties from the same inspection.
Commission Recommendations
In connection with the Commission, IMA-NA recommends the following:
Set up an expedited procedure at the Commission that would
encourage mediation and settlement of suitable contests under the
supervision of Commission Administrative Law Judges (``ALJs''). This
could be accomplished by temporarily hiring lawyers skilled in
mediation, non-lawyer mediators, retired MSHA CLRs, or other similar
personnel; and
Bring the Commission's reforms to localities in the mining
regions around the country to make it convenient and cost-effective for
the parties to settle cases. This could be implemented by having
Commission ALJs and other involved personnel ``ride the circuit'' and/
or through the leasing of office space in central localities in mining
regions.
IMA-NA believes that implementation of the reforms recommended by
Assistant Secretary Main and Chairman Jordan, along with those
specifically identified above, will go a long way toward reducing the
current backlog of contested cases at the Commission and the pace at
which new contests are filed. However, there is much more to this
backlog that can be alleviated simply by instituting the procedural
remedies discussed above.\1\ Indeed, in his written statement,
Assistant Secretary Main identified some of these problems including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In this regard, IMA-NA endorses and supports the written
statement of Bruce Watzman, Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs,
National Mining Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The unprecedented increase in the number of citations and
orders issued by MSHA in recent years, and the even larger dollar value
of associated proposed penalties;
The significant turnover in MSHA's inspectorate coinciding
with the significant changes in the law brought about by the 2006
enactment of the MINER Act; and
Inconsistency in application of MSHA enforcement decisions
involving health and safety standards.
In particular regard to the consistency of MSHA enforcement
actions, IMA-NA wants you and the Committee to clearly hear that our
member companies regard this problem as one that must be remedied as
quickly as possible. Failure to do so detracts from every feature of
the safety and health programs in place at our member companies' mines,
wastes not only our resources, but MSHA's scarce resources as well,
and, most importantly, does a true disservice to all of our efforts to
protect the safety and health of miners.
IMA-NA wishes to call your particular attention to the following
portion of Assistant Secretary Main's written statement in which he
said:
``Consistency requires training and review. To help with
consistency, MSHA is developing training programs for its supervisors
with the goal that inspectors will be held accountable for writing
citations based on solid facts and evidence, and based on sustainable
legal determinations. * * *
Consistency also requires training of * * * CLRs * * * . It is
vital that CLRs evaluate citations under the same training and criteria
as the inspectors who write the citations.
Finally, we must also provide appropriate training and guidelines
to all MSHA field supervisors, including District Managers and
Assistant District Managers, who have significant oversight
responsibility for MSHA's enforcement program. Once trained for
consistency, we must ensure that MSHA personnel are also managed for
consistency.''
Statement of Assistant Secretary Main at 16 & 17.
We could not agree more. IMA-NA also wishes to remind the Committee
that there is much more to protecting the safety and health of miners
than the enforcement of MSHA's regulations. Indeed, we believe that the
best solutions to protect the lives of miners emerge from joint
industry-MSHA efforts, as opposed to over-reliance on ``command-and-
control'' regulatory schemes. Without detracting for one moment from
the need for mine operators to comply with federal mine safety and
health requirements, collaborative programs designed to ``get-things-
right'' from the outset bring enormous value to protecting the safety
and health of miners.
In this regard, IMA-NA has vigorously embraced public-private
partnerships. For instance, we have formed an Alliance with MSHA that
has been very successful in achieving substantive results, thereby
improving the already outstanding safety programs of our member
companies. We also have formed partnerships with NIOSH to address
ergonomics and dust control within the mining industry. Ergonomics has
been identified, proactively, by our members as the number one cause of
injury, and dust control and silicosis prevention always have been
major priorities for IMA-NA's membership.
We also want you and the Committee to know that IMA-NA and its
affiliate organization, the National Industrial Sand Association
(``NISA'') have engaged in extensive efforts to prevent the occurrence
of silicosis in our industry. In fact, NISA has developed a silicosis
occupational health program that we believe is the most progressive
silicosis prevention program in the world. This program goes far beyond
regulatory requirements, represents thousands of hours of work from
dedicated professionals, and, no doubt, is the primary cause for the
virtual disappearance of silicosis from the work force of participating
member companies. In fact, at the very hour of the February 23 hearing,
NISA was announcing the release of the latest version of this world-
class health and safety program at our annual workshop in St. Louis.
Finally, and in light of the above positive contributions industry
has made to the reduction in miner deaths and injuries, we find that we
cannot allow certain statements made by the Assistant Secretary to go
unchallenged. In particular, we reject the following:
``If mine operators would take greater ownership of mine safety and
health, it would be beneficial for all involved.
``The responsibility for identifying and remedying mine hazards
needs to be shifted from MSHA inspectors back to mine operators.
``Over the years the mining industry's approach to safety and
health has shifted. Mining operators have switched over time to a
reactive approach, relying on MSHA inspectors to identify safety and
health hazards, and treating citations as a cost of doing business
instead of having comprehensive safety and health programs of their
own.''
Statement of Assistant Secretary Main at 9 & 18.
We note that the Assistant Secretary did not emphasize these points
in his verbal comments before Congress, but that he did make the
decision to include them in his written testimony. These statements
simply are inaccurate, and it is wholly inappropriate to label all, or
even most, of the mining industry in such a negative fashion. The
statements portray an industry that is unrecognizable to the members of
IMA-NA. We simply refuse to accept these statements as fact, and we
regret that the leadership of the government organization tasked with
protecting miners, and working collaboratively with industry, have seen
fit to make these statements before Congress and the American people.
Such statements are not accurate, instill conflict, foster wholesale
cynicism in the entire industry, and nullify the fine work of thousands
of safety and health professionals who rise each day with no other goal
than promoting the welfare of their fellow miners. We strongly urge the
Assistant Secretary to refrain from statements such as these in the
future, and we welcome the opportunity to introduce the Assistant
Secretary to the safety and health professionals and corporate
leadership of many proud American companies that simply cannot be
classified as disengaged from miner safety.
Again, IMA-NA stands ready to work with the Committee at any time
on mine safety and health matters.
Sincerely,
Mark G. Ellis,
President.
______
[Additional submissions of Mr. Thompson follow:]
Prepared Statement of the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: On behalf of the
National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association (NSSGA), we offer this
testimony for the hearing on ``Reducing the Growing Backlog of
Contested Mine Safety Cases.'' NSSGA and its member companies go to
great lengths to comply with regulations tied to worker safety and
health. NSSGA is concerned about the delay in producers' ability to
obtain from the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
(FMSHRC) a timely hearing on alleged violations.
By way of background, the U.S. Geological Survey reports that NSSGA
is the largest mining association by product volume in the world and
represents the crushed stone, sand and gravel--or construction
aggregates--industries that constitute by far the largest segment of
the mining industry in the United States. Our member companies produce
more than 90 percent of the crushed stone and 75 percent of the sand
and gravel consumed annually in the United States. There are more than
10,000 construction aggregates operations nationwide. Almost every
congressional district is home to a crushed stone, sand or gravel
operation. Proximity to market is critical due to high transportation
costs, so 70 percent of our nation's counties include an aggregates
operation. Of particular relevance to this hearing is the fact that 70
percent of NSSGA members are considered small businesses.
We offer a number of suggestions for alleviating the case backlog
at the Commission.
We applaud Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety & Health
Joseph Main for his goal of improving training for inspectors on behalf
of enforcement consistency. We understand that a number of contests
from aggregates companies are due to strong disagreement on the basis
of the severity finding on a citation. Inspectors need to do a proper
job of evaluating and clearly identifying what is ``Significant and
Substantial'' (S&S). NSSGA hears repeated expressions of concern that
S&S is being over-written.
Also, we would like to see the agency communicate more proactively
with stakeholders about agency changes in enforcement interpretations.
Citations should not serve as first notice to stakeholders that there
has been a change in the agency's interpretation of what is needed for
compliance. Rather, the agency should notify all stakeholders of such
interpretation changes before enforcement begins so that companies and
their workforces are afforded adequate information needed for
compliance. For example, suppose the agency changes its opinion about
an aspect of guarding design. The agency should so inform stakeholders
before sending out the inspectors with their new ``rulebook,'' so the
change, the purpose of the change, and the ability to tackle and
correct for such change can be fully understood and implemented for
compliance in a timely manner. We urge MSHA to find ways to go beyond
what is required and warn or advise stakeholder communities on
particular emphasis and interpretation changes. In fact, we would urge
that MSHA inspectors be authorized to issue warnings on infractions
that are more or less in relation to administrative or housekeeping
issues, not risking imminent injury. That said, we realize this may not
be possible without statutory change.
Additionally, we recommend that MSHA reinstitute the process of
conferencing citations before assessment of penalties. Before it was
changed, pre-penalty conferencing enabled operators to close out on
inspections satisfactorily without having to add to the Commission's
docket.
Further, we encourage the agency to consider changes in civil
penalty procedures hastily put in place contemporaneously with
enactment of the MINER Act. A major concern, for example, is the
regulatory provision specifying how an operator's history should be
brought into calculation of civil penalties. While we understand the
importance of a review of every company's history in reviewing
violations for assessment, the present procedure of assigning maximum
penalty points for a fifteen- month average of 2.1 violations per
inspection day is having a disparate and unfair impact on many
companies. Take a small company, for example, that in its last two
inspections, of one day each in the previous 15 months, has a total of
five violations for a total of two days of inspections. This will cause
25 points to be added to this small company's civil penalty
calculation, which can translate into very big fines. Twenty-five
points will convert a $555 penalty to $4,099 and it will convert a
$4,099 penalty to $30,288. There are small companies that have been
assessed penalties as high as $200,000 in a single inspection.
It is understandable that companies will not want a single
underserved violation in their history and that they will do everything
in their power to contest questionable citations. We are committed to
the notion that operators have every right and need to contest
citations with which they do not agree. We hasten to add that history
is by no means the sole issue. Every undeserved subjective finding by
an inspector will add underserved points to the company's penalty
calculations. These are unaudited findings and they represent big money
liability. Only by seeking review before the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Review Commission--the agency with exclusive authority to assess
penalties--can an operator have a voice in the process. Indeed, even
MSHA now is telling operators that if they want a conference regarding
a citation, they will have to contest the citation formally before the
Commission. We have mentioned only some of the concerns of operators
that are prompting contests, but the system as a whole is deemed unfair
and the only avenue that operators have to bring issues to light is
through the contest process. NSSGA would be pleased to work with MSHA
to address this and possible solutions.
Finally, we offer the attached article, which was published in Mine
Safety and Health News on Jan. 25, 2010. It was authored by an NSSGA
Manufacturers and Services Division member and discusses the background
of the backlog, relevant legal issues and includes suggestions for
addressing the backlog. For your information, the author is scheduled
to participate in an Energy and Mineral Law Foundation Special
Institute (March 23 and 24) in Washington, D.C., with attorneys from
the Solicitor of Labor's office and Judges from the Federal Mine Safety
and Health Review Commission. The goal of the panel is to
constructively address civil penalty case backlog issues and how they
might be resolved for everyone's benefit.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement for the record
of this hearing. Further, we ask that the attached article be included
in the record.
______
What About That Case Backlog?*
By Michael T. Heenan
MSHA civil penalties have risen rapidly since enactment of the
MINER Act in 2006. Total penalties in 2005 were around $25,000,000 and
by 2008, they were almost $200,000,000. Each mine's ``history of
violations'' can contribute enormously to accumulation of high
penalties and also can bring about other grave enforcement in the form
of mine closure orders. MSHA has undertaken enforcement as never before
of ``pattern of violations'' provisions, also founded on mine history.
If mine operators are to be fairly regulated and not unfairly
penalized, the record on which enforcement is based better be right.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*This paper previously appeared in essentially the same form as a
``Perspectives'' column in Mine Safety and Health News, Vol. 17, No. 2,
January 25, 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The way the system works, it is up to the individual operators of
mines to employ available procedures to make sure they are not
improperly faulted or penalized. Enforcement actions that will not
withstand legal scrutiny should be vacated. This will not happen unless
the miner operator takes advantage of guaranteed rights of review by
the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, the independent
adjudicatory agency which has exclusive authority to assess penalties
under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act.
Mine operators conduct their businesses under intense scrutiny with
respect to even the most insignificant of safety considerations. They
have developed a strong culture of safety. They take pride in their
safety programs and want their MSHA record to reflect the success of
their efforts. They do not want to be unfairly charged. Historically,
many operators have taken issue with enforcement actions when the
associated penalty was of virtually no consequence, but rightness and
fairness were at issue. Today, operators have many more reasons to want
to make sure that enforcement is fair in all respects.
Today, it is not just whether there was a violation that operators
need to be concerned about; virtually every one of the multiple
findings in every citation has significance far beyond anything
previously. For one thing, each written finding by an inspector
directly affects calculation of proposed civil penalties against the
company. It is not surprising, therefore, that with the rapid
escalation in enforcement, there has been a substantial rise in
requests for hearings, and there is a backlog of cases.
A former head of the Assessment Office once commented to me: ``If
operators are not contesting, penalties are not high enough.'' If there
is merit to this, then penalties are apparently now ``high enough.''
But I think there is much more to the case backlog. And I think there
may be more that can be done to reduce the backlog, even without
expansion of government resources. Before discussing backlog solutions,
I feel it is important to consider in greater depth the multitude of
considerations pertinent to contest proceedings
Importance of Review of Inspector Discretion
In the Mine Safety Act, Congress has developed an effective
enforcement system and an effective review system. The combined
approach, when properly implemented, allows operators to feel they are
being treated as they deserve. It allows them to respect the system. An
operator is much more motivated to comply with a respected system than
one that is viewed as arbitrary and unfair. This is true even if
achieving fairness proves to be an expensive proposition for the
operator. And it is expensive. The time, effort and costs of seeking
review of enforcement actions typically involve a greater burden
overall on companies than MSHA penalties, but the review process has
the desired effect all around. The government may presently feel
burdened by the level of contests, but the government should appreciate
that the system is working just as it should and everyone benefits.
Under the Mine Safety Act, MSHA inspectors have a surprising level
of discretion, which they can exercise for better or worse. Since MSHA
enforcement is in every case rooted in actions of inspectors in the
field, it is worth remembering that no group of people is equally
capable, and as individuals, we are all far from perfect. Some
inspectors have excellent judgment; others do not. Some inspectors are
by nature perceptive and fair. Others are more interested in their own
self-importance and sense of power when they sense their intimidating
effect on mine personnel. Some inspectors have years of experience and
have learned well how to apply MSHA's regulations and others have not.
Regardless, even well intentioned inspectors make mistakes. Operators
care about avoiding the consequences of such mistakes.
Demise of the Informal Conference Procedure
MSHA regulations provide an ``opportunity to review with MSHA each
citation and order issued during and inspection.'' However, the
regulations also state: ``It is within the sole discretion of MSHA to
grant a request for a conference and to determine the nature of the
conference.'' For most of MSHA's existence, an operator needed only to
alert the MSHA district office of a desire for such an informal
conference and it was granted to review any or all citations and
orders. It was not a hearing, but rather a request that the agency
review its own actions. It was a thoroughly welcome and successful
procedure. For many companies, this was all the review they felt they
needed.
Fairness and appropriateness of inspector enforcement actions are
important issues, and effective review is dependent on complete
information. Inspector citations and orders are theoretically subject
to ongoing supervisory review, but as in all organizations, supervisors
are naturally inclined to encourage and support inspector discretion
unless it is exercised in a clearly inappropriate manner. More
importantly, without operator input, supervisors have only the
inspector's report on which to base their review and there is little
likelihood that very many actions will be called into question
internally. Moreover, with the current emphasis on enforcement,
supervisors have reason to be concerned about criticism against
themselves if they second guess harsh enforcement by an inspector.
Consequently, there is very little self correction by the agency.
Today, conference requests are regularly met with responses that
say, for example: ``A conference will be scheduled after * * *
penalties * * * have been assessed. * * * Failure to timely contest the
proposed penalties will result in your conference request being
cancelled.'' In other words, current MSHA policy today is to discuss
inspector enforcement actions only in the context of formal civil
penalty contests initiated before the Federal Mine Safety and Health
Review Commission.
Right to Commission Determination of Propriety of Enforcement
Although civil penalty contests were already on the rise,
elimination of informal conference opportunities by MSHA has made
formal contests the only reliable avenue for dialogue. The loss of an
opportunity to speak with MSHA promptly and informally on a pre-penalty
basis immediately after an inspection, without regard to any specific
penalty and without the filing of formal penalty contests, is
unfortunate. MSHA would say that the informal conference procedure was
a casualty of the backlog due to increased contests generally. I do not
think much thought has been given to the impetus for contests created
precisely as a result of the unavailability of conferences. Operators
have more reasons to talk to MSHA than just civil penalties.
In talking about rights of review, it is important that I stress
that MSHA has the power to propose penalties, but the power to actually
assess penalties lies exclusively with the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Review Commission. Congress created the Commission to decide
enforcement cases arising under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act
of 1977. The Commission is authorized to review citations and orders
separate and apart or together with proposed civil penalties. The MINER
Act amendments of 2006 did not change the longstanding procedures of
the 1977 Act. Commission review is available as a matter of right. With
respect to penalty determinations, all proposed penalties are set out
by MSHA on a form that provides space for the operator to indicate
whether a hearing is desired on all or specific penalties.
Mine operators may forfeit their right to have the Commission
determine their penalties. Consistent with law, MSHA regulations state:
``If the proposed penalty is not paid or contested within 30 days of
receipt, the proposed penalty becomes a final order of the Commission
and not subject to review by any court or agency.'' In other words, if
an operator does nothing to preserve rights to Commission
determination, or if the operator does not check the right box for
which citations it wants to have reviewed, penalties proposed for the
citations by MSHA will become final and unreviewable orders of the
Commission by reason of a legal fiction.
Summary Penalty Proposals by MSHA
In connection with Congress's authorization of the Secretary of
Labor (acting through MSHA) to propose penalties, Congress basically
removed from the Secretary burdens of detailed review of relevant
facts. The law states:
In proposing civil penalties under this Act, the Secretary may rely
upon a summary review and shall not be required to make findings of
fact concerning the above factors.
In practice, the Secretary's (MSHA's) review of facts is limited.
Penalty proposals are primarily calculated on the basis of points
assigned to subjective and often speculative conclusions of the
individual inspector issuing the citation. As a practical matter,
individual inspectors are actually determining the amount of most
proposed penalties. Each inspector finding on every citation and order,
along with information from MSHA's files regarding size of the company
and history of violations, constitute the sum total of what goes into a
proposed monetary penalty calculation. With limited exceptions for
``special assessments.'' the information provided by the inspector and
taken from the files is summarily assessed by MSHA's civil penalty
computer program. The penalty calculation variables for each citation
are more numerous than the six criteria listed for Commission
determinations under the Act. The variables include all of the
following:
Type of Mine or Contractor
Production or Hours Worked
Size of Controlling Entity
History of Previous Violations
Time Period during which History Calculated
Repeat Violations per Inspection Day
Less than six
How many more than six
Negligence
None
Low
Moderate
High
Reckless Disregard
Likelihood of Injury of Illness
None
Unlikely
Reasonably Likely
Highly Likely
Occurred
Gravity of Possible Injury
No lost work days
Lost work days or restricted duty
Permanently Disabling
Fatal
Number of Persons Potentially Affected
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven
Eight
Nine
Ten or More
Good Faith of Operator in correcting alleged violation
Whether the Operator failed to timely abate the violation
Whether the alleged violation was ``Significant and
Substantial''
Whether the alleged violation was due to ``Unwarrantable
Failure''
Whether the alleged violation was associated with an
imminent danger
Because of the subjectivity inherent in so many of the findings
that are translated into points for penalty calculations, penalty
amounts can vary widely--all depending on what particular subjective
conclusions inspectors include as findings in their citations. Small
companies can end up with a hundred thousand dollar total penalty from
a relatively few violations over the course of a couple of inspections.
A large company could end up with a five thousand dollar penalty for
many more violations issued over many days. It mostly depends on the
subjective findings of inspectors as to what is a violation and what
findings are to be associated with a violation. In many respects, if it
were not for Commission review, the inspector would be the judge and
jury. Depending on temperament, the inspector could exercise power well
outside his or her job description.
A factor which is not part of the Secretary of Labor's calculation
is one of the six criteria which Congress requires the Commission to
consider in assessing any penalty. That is ``ability to continue in
business.'' Clearly, it was not Congress's intention to drive companies
out of business with excessive civil penalties. For small companies,
the size of their final penalties can be the difference between
surviving and not surviving, particularly in this difficult economy.
Large companies, on the other hand, usually can survive because all of
their business is not typically tied up in a single mine, but penalties
in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per mine per year does take a
toll on any mine.
Practical Aspects of Case Processing--How the System Really Works
The fact is that a hearing is not needed in most cases. What is
needed is a fair exchange of information--a dialog. Formal case
procedures provide an opportunity for just that. Before a case proceeds
very far, each side has to evaluate the strength of their respective
cases. Judges direct the parties to talk to one another. Then each
party can explain to the other what its position is on the issues in
the case and what evidence will be introduced in support. Both sides
will discover weaknesses in their separate cases. There will be dialog
and a compromise may be reached. The compromise will be presented to
the Commission administrative law judge in a motion to approve
settlement. Generally, the motion is written and submitted by the
government. In most cases, because good reasons are given for the
settlement, the judge will approve it. Case closed. Further expenditure
of resources is unnecessary. The interests of judicial economy are
served. This really is no different from case handling in tribunals
everywhere.
How the System Might be Improved
MSHA has tried to improve the review system by inserting a
conference opportunity at the front end of the formal review procedure.
Because of the volume of cases, MSHA is relying to a great extent on
its own employees serving as Conference and Litigation Representatives
(CLRs) rather than attorneys from the Labor Department Solicitor's
office. Certainly, companies have endeavored to enter into negotiations
with CLRs or attorneys to see if issues can be resolved before the
cases become subject to formal Commission procedures. To this end, CLRs
typically request a ninety day extension from the Commission to see if
the case can be settled before a formal Petition for Assessment of
Civil Penalty is filed and the case is subject to all Commission
formalities.
A general trend in negotiations with MSHA is that CLRs, like
inspectors, do not take into account what can and cannot be proved.
Typically, they are refusing to address the issues that will be front
and center in a trial. Instead, they assume a position of intransigence
and rely on a percentage of operators becoming discouraged and giving
up. Consequently, nothing gets resolved--unless the operator backs down
and goes away. Most operators know that this is not a fair review and
they are going to have to stay the course to protect their rights.
Of course, the problem is not always necessarily solved when
attorneys have the case. It can become a game of negotiations rather
than a determination of what is right--what should be recommended to
the judge as a resolution. As a result, neither side can get serious
until right before trial. That is when what can be proved becomes more
important than insisting that the inspector was right in all respects.
This is not what operators expect when they seek review. They believe
that if given a fair review, the validity of their position will be
recognized and citations will be adjusted accordingly.
Obviously, I am generalizing to make a point. In many instances,
the negotiation process is the key to effective and efficient
resolution. So what can enhance the effectiveness of negotiations? Here
is my list of items for consideration.
Reinstate the Pre-penalty Conference Process--This can
restore MSHA's ability to promptly address issues arising in the field,
and should help operators feel like they can get true consideration of
their issues and concerns by the agency. When matters are resolved
early, parties are less likely to get into a litigation stand-off.
Reduce Discovery--Too much time and effort goes into
discovery that serves little purpose other than to force up the cost of
efforts to get review. If operators are willing to forego discovery,
the government should also. (The Labor Department has made provision
for ``Simplified Proceedings'' to expedite OSHA cases in this way.)
Allow Elective Mini-trials--Parties could go to hearing
with just one witness on each side and with exhibits submitted in
advance, for example.
Allow Simplified Written Submittals--In many cases, there
is little disagreement as to facts, and issues can be narrowed by
agreement of the parties. What they cannot agree on is the appropriate
result. Judges could decide cases based on simplified submittals and
perhaps query the parties in a telephone conference regarding any
apparent factual differences.
Provide for Mediation--Former solicitors, former judges
and other attorneys may be willing to serve on a panel to mediate
cases. The parties could share the costs. (With the substantial
increase in penalties going into the federal Treasury, there ought to
be a way for the government to fund its part of the bill.)
Consider Global Settlement Conferences in which companies
could bring all their issues to the government for fair consideration,
without having to go through a long drawn-out piecemeal conflict
approach.
Conclusion
I do not presume to have the answers, but I do offer my suggestions
as a possible starting point. There are things wrong with the current
system that need to be fixed, or at least improved. In the meantime,
the only way operators have a chance of getting things changed is to
broadly contest current enforcement and the associated penalties.
Managing Shareholder of the Washington DC office of Ogletree
Deakins, Michael Heenan has had a long career representing companies in
mine safety and health cases. He has authored multiple articles,
treatise chapters and books on mine safety. His books include Safety
and Health at Mines and MSHA--The Mine Operator and the Law. He is also
Legal Editor of Pit & Quarry magazine.
January 15, 2010--Michael T. Heenan, Ogletree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak & Stewart PC
______
[Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]