By Kara M. Maciel and Eric J. Conn

The Trump Administration submitted a blueprint budget for 2018 to Congress proposing $2.5 Billion in cuts to the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) operating budget.  The President’s proposed budget expressly calls for reduced funding for grant programs, job training programs for seniors and disadvantaged youth, and support for international labor efforts.  It also proposes to entirely defund and eliminate the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (“CSB”) – an independent, federal, non-enforcement agency that investigates chemical accidents at fixed facilities.  The budget plan also purports to shift more funding responsibility to the states with labor related programs.  Finally, although less explicit, the budget blueprint appears to deliver on promises from Trump’s campaign trail that rulemaking and regulatory enforcement efforts under the myriad laws and regulations enforced by the sub-agencies, such as the Wage and Hour Division and OSHA would be slashed.

These proposed budget cuts at DOL and other agencies are all part of a plan to offset the White House’s intent to increase defense and security spending by $54 billion.  Overall, Trump requested $1.065 Trillion in total discretionary spending, with $603 billion going to Defense.

The proposal would shrink DOL’s budget to $9.6 Billion – down 21% from the $12.2 Billion budget for 2017. Trump’s planned reductions announced on March 16, 2017 – while not really surprising in the context of his view toward federal spending on non-defense agencies – would have a seismic impact on DOL’s ability to carry out both policy initiatives under former President Obama as well as many of the Department’s longstanding programs.

The business community welcomes Trump’s effort to rein in what has been viewed as an intrusive, enforcement-heavy Labor Department, but we caution not to count chickens yet. These proposed cuts will undergo heavy scrutiny by Congress before any budget is finalized. The President’s spending plan is only the first step in months of negotiations between the White House and both houses (and parties) in Congress. Pres. Trump will put forward a more detailed spending proposal in May, and various legislative committees will scrutinize his requests, calling on Cabinet Secretaries, Agency Heads, and others in the Administration to testify about or otherwise explain their spending needs and requests.

Key Takeaways from Trump’s Budget Blueprint

While the administration provided estimates for some of the proposed cuts, it did not specify where the majority of the budget cuts would come from.  Continue reading →

On March 16, 2017, Nick Scala of Conn Maciel Carey’s national MSHA Practice, presented a webinar regarding How to Contest MSHA Citations and Orders.

As MSHA continues to issue citations and orders, it is essential that mine operators are aware of their contest rights. Just as important, operators need to know how to contest MSHA issuances while adhering to contest process deadlines.

Currently, operators can request informal contests through district offices and/or proceed through formal contest via the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. However, every contest option has its unique steps and deadlines. Understanding these procedures is the best way to move quickly and effectively through the contest process.

 During this webinar, participants will learn about:

• Procedures for initially contesting citations and orders, including the formal and informal contest options;

• The contest deadlines and timeframes for specific types of citations and orders; and

• The formal contest process and essential elements steps before the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.

Here is a link to a recording of the webinar with slides and audio. This was the third webinar event in the 2017 Conn Maciel Carey MSHA Webinar Series. Plan to join us for the remaining webinar in the 2017 series, send an email to info@connmaciel.com to be registered for the remaining MSHA webinars.

By: Nicholas W. Scala

A key federal appeals court decision has rejected MSHA’s argument that the Mine Act gave it authority to take enforcement against a manufacturing plant making and repairing mine equipment, saying that instead the shop falls under OSHA jurisdiction.

The decision is an important one insofar as it limits the scope of what is defined as a mine operation under federal law and therefore what types of workplaces MSHA can inspect and issue citations, essentially restricting the scope to actual mining-related activities.

Also, the decision is noteworthy in the fact that it peels back an earlier ruling on a similar subject by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (the Commission) known as the Jim Walter Resources ruling that is often cited by MSHA to support arguments in related matters before administrative law judges, the commissioners and appellate courts.

At Issue In The Case

The primary legal question before for consideration by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was whether Maxxim Rebuild Co., an equipment and parts shop located in Sidney, Kentucky, is a “coal or other mine” subject to regulation by MSHA.

This question followed a legal dispute that arose from several MSHA citations on the shop. An administrative law judge at the Commission ruled that it did meet that definition, an opinion upheld by the full Commission, but the Sixth Circuit in its recent decision reversed that ruling. Continue reading →

By: Nicholas W. Scala

An impending decision by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (the Commission) reveals a split among members as to the safety risks posed by violations of a roof control plan, though they agreed the company in question had violated the relevant standard.

This decision will be closely watched for how commissioners address the issue of “significant and substantial” violations of mining standards, which is the larger issue in play that divided commissioners in their Jan. 19 meeting.

“Significant and substantial” violations are an important legal issue for mining companies to observe since the S&S designation can lead to elevated actions if cited repeatedly and can be pre-qualification red flags for contracting companies. How the Commission rules with respect to whether a regulatory violation rises to the level of S&S is crucial. In this case the panel was divided, leading to an unusually tense exchange among members (audio of the meeting can be found here).

The debate was concerning an administrative law judge (ALJ) ruling in Consolidation Coal Co., in which MSHA found the employer to have violated its control plan. The inspector issued the violation as “significant and substantial,” Continue reading →