Aggregates Manager Digital Magazine
Issue link: http://read.dmtmag.com/i/562664
39 AGGREGATES MANAGER September 2015 there is "nothing new" in the PPL, the PPL does more than simply clar- ify the standard — it substantively changes it. Most notably, the PPL changes the definition of "working place." While the term "working place" is defined as "any place in or about a mine where work is being performed" (see 30 C.F.R. §§ 56/57.2), the PPL states that "working place" includes "areas where work is performed on an infrequent basis, such as areas accessed primarily during periods of maintenance or clean-up" and that "all such working places must be examined by a competent person at least once per shift." Thus, areas or places not nor- mally traveled or accessed would, at least according to the PPL, require a workplace examination at least once per shift. Set aside the fact that no one may work in the area during that particular shift — as the PPL suggests — the area would still require examination by a "competent person." Besides the impracticality of such requirement, the PPL makes a work- place examination more onerous than preshift or onshift examina- tions conducted in underground coal mines. Preshift and onshift ex- aminations are only required when persons are or will be working and only include areas where persons regularly work or travel. Areas of underground coal mines that do not meet such requirements are exam- ined weekly. The PPL also states that a "best practice" for conducting workplace examinations is for a foreman or other supervisor to do so, which ostensibly increases the operator's exposure to heightened negligence designations such as "unwarrant- able failure." Moreover, the PPL specifically states that a failure to identify safety hazards "may indi- cate that task training as required under parts 46 and 48 was inad- equate or did not occur," resulting in a "basis for MSHA to require training plan revisions under part 46 (30 C.F.R. § 46.3(a) and (b)(3)) or part 48 (30 C.F.R. §§ 48.3(c) (8)/48.23(c)(8))." What operators can expect, then, is for MSHA to have the ability to write three viola- tions for one condition: one for the condition found, one for an inad- equate workplace examination, and, potentially, one for a task training violation. The workplace examination PPL is indicative of MSHA's rulemaking without input from the industry. Clearly, as indicated in the regula- tory agendas, such rulemaking was in MSHA's sights. But rather than conducting rulemaking, it has at- tempted, through the use of policy, to shoehorn requirements into a standard that does not fit the lan- guage or the intent of the standard. Until the courts decide to hold such rulemaking in check, one can expect to see increased instances of sub- stantive changes to laws without the use of procedural safeguards afforded by proper rulemaking pro- cedures. AM ROCKLAW Evoco Partners was established in late 2014 to help business owners successfully manage the o en complex process of acquisitions and divestitures. With over 20 years of M&A experience, including more than 10 years for one of the largest construction materials companies in the U.S., we understand what it takes to help buyers and sellers execute their growth and exit strategies. Evoco Partners is passionate about honesty, integrity, and personalized service. We act as trusted advisors and business partners to help our clients successfully meet their goals. Please contact us to discuss how we can be come a valued business partner for you. Evoco Partners, LLC Closes First Transaction Contact: Nathan Green Managing Partner 979-595-6811 nathan.green@evocopartners.com Evoco Partners acted as a financial advisor to Lewis and Lewis in its sale to Summit Materials acquired by EvocoPartners_AGRM0915.indd 1 8/17/15 3:19 PM