Articles
Attorneys
Eastman & Smith Wins Landmark FMSHRC Decision Rejecting MSHA's Interpretation of Portable Equipment Requirements Under the Mine Act
An administrative law judge’s decision imposing separate workplace examination recordkeeping requirements on a portable crusher operating within an existing mine was reversed by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (“Commission”). The decision represents one of the most significant recent Mine Act rulings concerning the scope of MSHA's regulatory authority over portable equipment. Eastman & Smith represented the operator facing the recordkeeping requirement, The National Lime and Stone Company.
Details of the Decision
In a published decision issued August 19, 2026, a majority of the Commission held that MSHA improperly treated National Lime's portable crusher as an independent mine requiring separate workplace examination records. The Commission reversed the judge's decision and vacated Citation No. 9717266 in its entirety.
The case arose after MSHA issued citations alleging that National Lime was required to maintain separate workplace examination records, hazard communication documentation and training plans for a portable crusher that had been moved between company operations. National Lime challenged MSHA's position, arguing that the crusher was operating as part of a larger mine and that the Mine Act did not require portable equipment to be treated as a separate mine subject to independent regulatory compliance.
Effect of Loper Decision
Of particular importance to the mining industry, the Commission's decision is among the first Mine Act appellate decisions to directly apply the United States Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which eliminated Chevron deference and requires courts and adjudicatory bodies to exercise independent judgment when interpreting federal statutes. The Commission relied extensively on Loper Bright in concluding that MSHA's interpretation was not the "best" reading of the Mine Act and could not be sustained merely because it reflected the agency's preferred policy approach.
The Commission further held that MSHA's interpretation could produce "absurd results" by potentially treating movable mining equipment as separate mines subject to independent regulatory obligations. In rejecting the agency's position, the Commission emphasized that neither the Mine Act nor Commission precedent supports treating portable equipment located within an existing mine as a separate and independent mine.
Key Takeaways
The ruling provides important guidance to mining operators nationwide that utilize portable crushers, screening plants and other movable processing equipment. More broadly, the decision signals that Mine Act disputes involving novel agency interpretations will now be evaluated under the Supreme Court's post-Loper Bright framework, with greater scrutiny of MSHA's statutory authority and less deference to agency interpretations.
Should you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Mr. Long.
_____________________
Disclaimer: This alert has been prepared by Eastman & Smith Ltd. for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney/client relationship.
