(a)(1) Each mine operator shall develop and follow a roof control plan, approved by the District Manager, that is suitable to the prevailing geological conditions, and the mining system to be used at the mine. Additional measures shall be taken to protect persons if unusual hazards are encountered.
(2) The proposed roof control plan and any revisions to the plan shall be submitted, in writing, to the District Manager. When revisions to a roof control plan are proposed, only the revised pages need to be submitted unless otherwise specified by the District Manager.
(b)(1) The mine operator will be notified in writing of the approval or denial of approval of a proposed roof control plan or proposed revision.
(2) When approval of a proposed plan or revision is denied, the deficiencies of the plan or revision and recommended changes will be specified and the mine operator will be afforded an opportunity to discuss the deficiencies and changes with the District Manager.
(3) Before new support materials, devices or systems other than roof bolts and accessories, are used as the only means of roof support, the District Manager may require that their effectiveness be demonstrated by experimental installations.
(c) No proposed roof control plan or revision to a roof control plan shall be implemented before it is approved.
(d) Before implementing an approved revision to a roof control plan, all persons who are affected by the revision shall be instructed in its provisions.
(e) The approved roof control plan and any revisions shall be available to the miners and representative of miners at the mine.
[53 FR 2375, Jan. 27, 1988; 53 FR 11395, Apr. 6, 1988, as amended at 60 FR 33723, June 29, 1995; 71 FR 16668, Apr. 3, 2006]
Notes of Decisions
Chaney v. Dags Branch Coal Co., 244 S.W.3d 95 (Ky. 2008).
“First, it was cited for violating 30 C.F.R. § 75.220 (a)(1) by failing to comply with the approved roof control plan.”
Merrill v. Lone Mt Processing, 118 F. App'x 37 (6th Cir. 2004).
· cites it 2× “” 30 C.F.R. § 75.220 (a)(1) (2004). Lone Mountain was responsible for submitting its own roof control plan to MSHA for approval.”
McCoy Elkhorn Coal Corp. v. Sargent, 553 S.W.3d 802 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).
“202(a) pertinent to adequate support of ribs, 30 CFR 75.220(a)(1) pertaining to compliance with the approved roof control plan, and 30 CFR 75.”
Morris v. Mingo Logan Coal LLC (S.D.W. Va 2023).
· cites it 2× “1-1 at 4, ¶17); 30 C.F.R. § 75.220 (a)(1), (b)(1). Violating such regulations results in a citation, and these citations are only given to mine operators.”
Morris v. Mingo Logan Coal LLC (S.D.W. Va 2024).
“Those facts are: (1) unbolted “middle rock” constitutes a specific unsafe working condition; (2) Defendant possessed actual knowledge that unbolted “middle rock” constitutes a specific unsafe working condition; and (3) that the failure to bolt “middle rock” violates state and…”
Excel Mining, LLC v. Dep't of Labor, 497 F. App'x 78 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
“30 C.F.R. § 75.220 . In July 2008, MSHA inspectors cited Excel Mining, LLC, for violations of its roof control plan and proposed a penalty.”
— 30 C.F.R. § 75.220(a)(1) — 1 case
McCoy Elkhorn Coal Corp. v. Sargent, 553 S.W.3d 802 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).
“202(a) pertinent to adequate support of ribs, 30 CFR 75.220(a)(1) pertaining to compliance with the approved roof control plan, and 30 CFR 75.”
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.