30 C.F.R. § 44.4

Standard of evaluation of petitions; effect of petitions granted

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A petition for modification of application of a mandatory safety standard may be granted upon a determination that—

(1) An alternative method of achieving the result of the standard exists that will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the standard, or

(2) Application of the standard will result in a diminution of safety to the miners.

(b) Except as may be provided in § 44.16 for relief to give effect to a proposed decision and order, a decision of an Administrator or an administrative law judge granting or denying a petition for modification shall not be effective until time for appeal has expired under § 44.14 or § 44.33, as appropriate.

(c) All petitions for modification granted pursuant to this part shall have only future effect: Provided, That the granting of the modification under this part shall be considered as a factor in the resolution of any enforcement action previously initiated for claimed violation of the subsequently modified mandatory safety standard. Orders granting petitions for modification may contain special terms and conditions to assure adequate protection to miners. The modification, together with any conditions, shall have the same effect as a mandatory safety standard.

[43 FR 29518, July 7, 1978, as amended at 55 FR 53440, Dec. 28, 1990]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1991–2008 · leading case: Int'l Union, United Mine Workers v. Mine Saf. & Health Admin., 407 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Int'l Union, United Mine Workers v. Mine Saf. & Health Admin., 407 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2005). “” 30 C.F.R. § 44.4 (c). For example, in Energy West Mining Co.”

Plateau Mining Corp. v. Fed. Mine Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 519 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir. 2008). “See 30 C.F.R. § 44.4 . Plateau petitioned for and was granted permission to use a two-entry system at Willow Creek.”

Int'l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Fed. Mine Saf. & Health Admin., 931 F.2d 908 (D.C. Cir. 1991). “§ 811(c); see also 30 C.F.R. § 44.4 (a)(1). 1 “The modification, together with any conditions, [has] the same effect as a mandatory safety standard.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.