U

N

 

Office of Inspector General—Office of Audit 

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH 

ADMINISTRATION 

MSHA MUST MORE CONSISTENTLY 

DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED 

INSPECTIONS AND MORE TRANSPARENTLY 

REPORT INSPECTION RESULTS FOR METAL 

AND NONMETAL MINES 

Date Issued: September 29, 2011 

Report Number: 05-11-004-06-001 
 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Office of Inspector General 

Office of Audit 

BRIEFLY... 

Highlights of Report Number 05-11-004-06-001, 

issued to the Assistant Secretary of Mine Safety 

and Health. 

WHY READ THE REPORT 

Under provisions of the Federal Mine Safety and Health 

Act of 1977, as amended (Mine Act), MSHA is 

mandated to conduct regular inspections of all mines. 

During fiscal year (FY) 2010, MSHA’s Office of Metal 

and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health (MNMS&H) 

conducted 16,143 regular safety and health inspections 

at 11,068 mines. 

Between October 2007 and April 2011, the OIG 

received four separate, but similar written complaints 

related to MNMS&H’s completion of regular safety and 

health inspections. These complaints alleged that 

MNMS&H was (a) intentionally leaving active mines “off 

the books” or misclassifying the operating status of 

mines to reduce the number of required inspections and 

(b) recording a completed inspection when no 

inspection had been performed. 

WHY OIG CONDUCTED THE AUDIT 

As part of our audit oversight responsibility and in 

response to the complaints we received, the OIG 

performed work to answer the following questions: 

1.	 Did MNMS&H assign the appropriate 

operating status to each mine? 

2.	 Did MNMS&H conduct the correct number of 

required regular safety and health inspections 

for each mine? 

3.	 Was there evidence that each recorded 

regular safety and health inspection was 

performed? 

Our audit work covered all regular safety and health 

inspections mandated by the Mine Act for 

metal/nonmetal mines during FY 2010. 

READ THE FULL REPORT 

To view the report, including the scope, methodology, 

and full agency response, go to: 

http://www.oig.dol.gov/public/reports/oa/2011/05-11-

004-06-001.pdf.

 September 2011 

MSHA MUST MORE CONSISTENTLY 

DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED 

INSPECTIONS AND MORE TRANSPARENTLY 

REPORT INSPECTION RESULTS FOR METAL 

AND NONMETAL MINES 

WHAT OIG FOUND 

We found no evidence that individual MNMS&H 

inspectors or supervisors had intentionally manipulated 

the mine inventory or mine status assignments to 

reduce the number of required inspections. However, 

MNMS&H’s policies and practices resulted in the 

understatement of the number of required regular safety 

and health inspections and the overstatement of the 

reported inspection completion rate. Specifically, 

•	 We could not determine the appropriateness of 

MNMS&H’s assignments of mine status because it 

did not issue clear, objective criteria for 

determining a mine’s status. 

•	 MNMS&H’s business rules allowed an “attempted 

inspection” to eliminate the requirement to 

complete a regular safety and health inspection at 

732 mines that reported mining activity. 

•	 MNMS&H often counted inspections in its 

computation of the inspection completion rate 

before they received supervisory review. 

WHAT OIG RECOMMENDED 

We recommended the Assistant Secretary for Mine 

Safety and Health direct MNMS&H to: 

•	 design objective criteria for assigning a mine status 

and implement a system of controls to assure the 

consistent implementation of these criteria; 

•	 design and implement procedures to assure that 

information on all new mines is communicated to 

the responsible field office in a timely manner; 

•	 examine and implement ways to increase the 

probability that inspectors will arrive for regular 

safety and health inspections on days that a mine is 

operational; 

•	 more clearly and completely report the actual 

results of its efforts to conduct regular safety and 

health inspections; 

•	 require supervisors to document their review and 

acceptance of each regular safety and health 

inspection report before it is included in MNMS&H’s 

computation of its inspection completion rate. 

The Assistant Secretary agreed with our 

recommendations and committed to developing and 

implementing corrective actions. 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Table of Contents 

Assistant Inspector General’s Report ......................................................................... 1
 

Results in Brief.............................................................................................................. 2
 

Objective 1 — Did MNMS&H assign the appropriate operating status to each 

mine?..................................................................................................... 4
 

MNMS&H lacked assurance it was computing the number of required 

regular safety and health inspections based on an appropriate mine 

status.................................................................................................................... 4
 

Finding 1 — The validity of MNMS&H's mine status assignments could not 

be confirmed. .................................................................................... 4
 

Objective 2 — Did MNMS&H conduct the correct number of required regular 

safety and health inspections for each mine?................................... 8
 

MNMS&H's business rules inappropriately reduced the number of regular 

safety and health inspections required. ................................................................ 8
 

Finding 2 — MNMS&H did not complete required regular safety and health 

inspections at all metal/nonmetal mines. .......................................... 8
 

Objective 3 — Was there evidence that each recorded regular safety and health 

inspection was performed?............................................................... 12
 

MNMS&H counted inspections as completed before they received 

supervisory review.............................................................................................. 12
 

Finding 3 — Mine files contained evidence that regular safety and health 

inspections recorded had been performed, but supervisory 

review was not timely...................................................................... 12
 

Appendices 

Appendix A Background ..................................................................................... 17
 

Appendix B Objectives, Scope, Methodology, and Criteria ................................ 19
 

Appendix C Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................................................... 25
 

Appendix D MSHA Response to Draft Report .................................................... 27
 

Appendix E Acknowledgements ......................................................................... 31
 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

 

 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General 

Washington, D.C. 20210 

September 29, 2011 

Assistant Inspector General’s Report 

Joseph A. Main 

Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health 

U.S. Department of Labor 

1100 Wilson Boulevard 

Arlington, Va. 22209 

The Office of Inspector General (OIG), Office of Audit, conducted a performance audit 

of the regular safety and health inspection process managed by the Mine Safety and 

Health Administration’s (MSHA) Office of Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health 

(MNMS&H). 

MNMS&H performs these inspections to protect miner safety and health. The Federal 

Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), as amended, requires MNMS&H to 

conduct regular safety and health inspections of the Nation’s metal/nonmetal mines— 

four times per year at underground mines and twice per year at surface mines. During 

fiscal year (FY) 2010, MNMS&H conducted 16,143 regular safety and health 

inspections1

 at 11,068 mines. 

For each year from 1977 to 2007, MNMS&H reported that it had not completed all of the 

required regular safety and health inspections. In October 2007, MSHA implemented 

the “100 Percent Plan” to ensure the agency completed all mandatory inspections by 

the end of each FY. In each subsequent FY (2008 – 2010), MNMS&H has reported 

completing all required regular safety and health inspections. See Appendix A for more 

background information. 

Between October 2007 and April 2011, the OIG received four separate, but similar 

written complaints related to MNMS&H’s completion of regular safety and health 

inspections. These complaints alleged that MNMS&H was (a) intentionally leaving 

active mines “off the books” or misclassifying the operating status of mines to reduce 

the number of required inspections and (b) recording a completed inspection when no 

inspection had been performed. 

As part of our audit oversight responsibility and in response to the complaints we 

received, the OIG performed work to answer the following questions: 

1 MSHA identifies varying inspection activities with specific “activity codes”. This audit focused on Regular 

Safety and Health inspections, coded as E01 activities. 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

1 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

1. Did MNMS&H assign the appropriate operating status to each mine? 

2. Did MNMS&H conduct the correct number of required regular safety and health 

inspections for each mine? 

3. Was there evidence that each recorded regular safety and health inspection 

was performed? 

Our audit work covered all regular safety and health inspections mandated by the Mine 

Act for metal/nonmetal mines during FY 2010. To gain an understanding of MNMS&H’s 

inspection process, we reviewed federal laws and regulations and MNMS&H policies 

and procedures; interviewed key MNMS&H headquarters, district, and field office 

officials; and analyzed and identified key processes and critical decision and control 

points. For a random sample of 182 mines, we reviewed mine operating statuses, the 

number of regular safety and health inspections required, and inspection documents. 

Our objectives, scope, methodology, and criteria are detailed in Appendix B. 

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our 

audit objectives. 

RESULTS IN BRIEF 

The audit found no evidence that individual MNMS&H inspectors or supervisors had 

intentionally manipulated the mine inventory or mine status assignments to reduce the 

number of required inspections. However, MNMS&H’s policies and practices resulted in 

the understatement of the number of required regular safety and health inspections and 

the overstatement of the reported inspection completion rate. This occurred because 

the mine status definitions established by MNMS&H national office were interpreted 

differently by individual districts and because MNMS&H “business rules” reduced the 

number of regular safety and health inspections required. In addition, MNMS&H 

counted inspections as completed prior to supervisory review. As a result, although 

MNMS&H reported an inspection completion rate of 100 percent in FY 2010, 732 out of 

13,081 mines (5.6 percent) the OIG determined to be in an inspectable status received 

only an “attempted inspection.” 

We could not determine the appropriateness of the “mine status” assigned and used by 

MNMS&H to determine the number of required regular safety and health inspections at 

each mine. This occurred because vague national definitions resulted in districts using 

varied criteria to make mine status determinations, and because MNMS&H did not 

require districts to document the rationale for setting or changing a mine’s status. In 

addition, a problem with MSHA’s online process for registering new mines may have 

diminished the ability of field offices to timely monitor these mines. As a result, 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

2 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

MNMS&H had no assurance that it was computing the correct number of required 

inspections at each mine. 

In addition, MNMS&H’s business rules allowed an “attempted inspection”2

 to eliminate 

the requirement to complete a regular safety and health inspection. An attempted 

inspection was typically recorded when the inspector found no one at the mine during 

the unannounced visit to conduct a regular safety and health inspection. This occurred 

because many metal/nonmetal mines operate on an irregular or less-than-full-time 

schedule. While inspectors often returned and conducted an inspection at these mines 

at a later date, MNMS&H policy did not require them to do so. During FY 2010, 

MNMS&H recorded attempted inspections at 2,226 mines. Of these, 732 mines (33 

percent) with reported miner work hours did not receive a regular safety and health 

inspection during the year. 

Regular safety and health inspections recorded in MSHA’s inspection database were 

documented by inspector notes and reports. However, in 29 out of 32 (91 percent) of 

the cases that we reviewed, MNMS&H included the inspections in its computation of its 

inspection completion rate prior to supervisory review. Since supervisory review can 

result in a determination that additional inspection work should be performed, 

inspections should not be included in the computation of MNMS&H’s inspection 

completion rate until a supervisor has reviewed and accepted the work. 

We made five recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health. 

In summary, we recommended that MNMS&H design objective criteria for assigning a 

mine status; implement procedures to assure that information on all new mines is 

communicated to the responsible field office; examine and implement ways to increase 

the probability that inspectors will arrive for regular safety and health inspections on 

days that a mine is operational; more completely report the actual results of its efforts to 

conduct regular safety and health inspections; and require supervisors to document 

their review and acceptance of each regular safety and health inspection report before it 

is included in MNMS&H’s computation of its inspection completion rate. 

In responding to our draft report, the Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health 

agreed with all of our recommendations and stated that MSHA was fully committed to 

addressing the issues that are identified in this report. His response pointed out the 

MNMS&H had begun developing a plan for determining mine status classification based 

on objective criteria prior to our audit and they are working with MSHA’s Program 

Evaluation and Information Resources (PEIR) to develop a report (Mine Status Review 

Report) that identifies mine status using these objective criteria. He also stated that in 

the future MNMS&H will report the number of completed inspections and the number of 

attempted inspections to present more transparency in the agencies inspection 

completion rate. 

2 An event identified in this report as an attempted inspection is referred to by MSHA as a Mine Idle 

activity and coded as an E28 event. 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

3 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

The Assistant Secretary expressed concern with our statement that MNMS&H performs 

inspections to protect miner safety and health. He emphasized that Congress gave 

“mine operators with the assistance of miners the primary responsibility to prevent 

unsafe and unhealthful conditions and practices in mines.” Our statement and 

conclusion are based on the requirements of the Mine Act that describe MSHA’s roles 

and responsibilities in setting safety and health standards, identifying instances of 

noncompliance (including patterns of violations), and compelling mine operators to take 

timely corrective actions. These are integral components of the overall system for 

providing miners with a safe and healthy work environment. 

The Assistant Secretary’s entire response is contained in Appendix D. 

RESULTS AND FINDINGS 

We found no evidence that individual MNMS&H inspectors or supervisors had 

intentionally manipulated the mine inventory or mine status assignments to reduce the 

number of required inspections. However, MNMS&H’s policies and practices resulted in 

the overstatement of the reported inspection completion rate. Although MNMS&H 

reported an inspection completion rate of 100 percent in FY 2010, 732 mines (5.6 

percent) received only an “attempted inspection.” 

Objective 1 — Did MNMS&H assign the appropriate operating status to each 

mine? 

 MNMS&H lacked assurance it was computing the number of required regular 

safety and health inspections based on an appropriate mine status. 

Finding 1 — The validity of MNMS&H's mine status assignments could not be 

confirmed. 

We could not determine the appropriateness of MNMS&H’s assignments of mine status 

because it did not issue clear, objective criteria for determining a mine’s status, and did 

not require inspectors to justify the basis for changes in a mine status. Moreover, a 

problem in the online system for registering new mines may diminish the ability of the 

appropriate field office from timely monitoring these mines for changes in operating 

status. As a result, MNMS&H lacked assurance it was computing and performing the 

correct number of required regular safety and health inspections. 

MNMS&H Policy Lacked Clear Objective Criteria 

MNMS&H policy defined five possible mine status designations as follows (underlining 

added for emphasis): 

Active - A mine that operates on a full-time basis. Temporary closure due 

to unusual or unforeseen circumstances, such as strikes, mine disasters, 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

4 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

temporary maintenance shutdowns, etc. does not change this status. 

These are mines/mills where you could reasonably expect to conduct the 

statutory four or two regular inspections. 

Intermittent - An intermittent mine can reasonably be expected to operate 

sometime during the year. These operation times will vary due to the 

demand for the product(s) or seasonal conditions. These are operations 

where two inspections per year for underground mines and one per year for 

surface mines and/or facilities would reasonably be expected to occur. 

Non-Producing - A non-producing mine is an operation where production 

has not yet begun or has ceased, but employees perform some work at the 

mine/mill. These are operations where two inspections per year for 

underground mines and one per year for surface mines and/or facilities 

would reasonably be expected to occur. 

New Mine - A new mine has been assigned a mine identification number 

but no work has begun at the mine site. Once physical development has 

begun, a status change is required. 

Abandoned - An abandoned mine will be abandoned for the foreseeable 

future. 

These definitions were subject to individual interpretation. As a result, MNMS&H 

districts used their own unwritten criteria for defining a mine’s operating status. Districts 

defined a mine status based on one or more factors, such as mine employee hours, 

number of mine employees, or conditions related to the weather or economy. A number 

of MNMS&H district and field office officials stated that individual inspector judgment 

also played a role in determining each mine’s operating status. Table 1 illustrates the 

varying criteria used by three districts to define an active mine. 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

5 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Table 1 

Districts Defined Active Status Differently 

(FY 2010) 

MNMS&H District Criteria Used to Define Active Mine 

Rocky Mountain 520 mine employee hours or greater per quarter 

Consistent number of mine hours and employees 

North Central reported per quarter 

Southeastern Any mine employee hours reported per quarter 

Within the same district, field offices were also inconsistent in their definitions of mine 

operating statuses. Table 2 illustrates the inconsistent criteria used by two field offices 

within the same district to define an intermittent mine. 

Table 2 

Field Offices Defined Intermittent Status Differently 

(FY 2010) 

North Central Field 

Offices Criteria Used to Define Intermittent Mine 

No mine employee hours reported for 1 or 2 

Fort Dodge, Iowa quarters 

Peru, Illinois Mine shut down during the winter 

As a result of these varying criteria, MNMS&H assigned different mine statuses to 

mines with similar operating characteristics. Table 3 illustrates examples of this 

inconsistency. 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

6 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Table 3 

Miner Work Hours (# of Miners) 

District 

Quarter 1 

FY 2010 

Quarter 2 

FY 2010 

Quarter 3 

FY 2010 

Quarter 4 

FY 2010 

Assigned Mine Status 

(Required Inspections) 

Southeast 3,325 (7) 2,417 (6) 4,187 (6) 2,868 (5) Active (2) 

N. Central 4,192 (7) 2,037 (5) 3,489 (7) 3,809 (7) Intermittent (1) 

Southeast 1,107 (2) 1,092 (6) 1,813 (3) 1,069 (2) Active (2) 

N. Central 2,072 (6) 2,523 (5) 1,838 (5) 2,351 (5) Intermittent (1) 

MNMS&H officials stated that they have been working for the past 7 months to develop 

more specific, data driven criteria for assigning a mine’s status. This effort has been 

aimed at reducing the inconsistency in mine status determinations, reducing and 

providing better oversight of the discretion exercised by district officials in assigning a 

mine status, and more effectively allocating inspection resources. MNMS&H anticipates 

implementing these criteria following the issuance of our audit report. 

Mine Status Changes Lacked Adequate Documentation 

MNMS&H policy does not require (a) inspectors to justify setting or changing a mine 

status, and (b) field office supervisors to approve mine status changes made by 

inspectors. Since mine status changes impact the number of required regular safety and 

health inspections, the absence of these controls creates a risk that inspectors could 

inappropriately reduce their workloads by changing a mine status without justification or 

oversight. 

For 96 of 108 mines3

 (89 percent), we found that inspectors did not justify the basis for 

setting or changing a mine’s operating status by attaching supporting source 

documentation (such as copies of emails or summaries of telephone calls from mine 

operators). 

Inspectors set or change a mine status simply by checking a box on the mine 

information form. This form does not require any explanation to justify the basis for a 

mine status change and an inspector may change a mine’s operating status without 

physically visiting a mine in order to validate information provided by the mine operator. 

While we were told that field office supervisors review and approve a sample of mine 

status changes, we found no evidence to support this. In fact, the form itself has no 

place to record supervisory review or concurrence. 

3

 Of the 182 mine files sampled, 108 contained an MSHA Form 2000-209 documenting the mine’s 

operating status. 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

7 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

MNMS&H Field Offices May Not Have Been Aware of All New Mines Registrations 

A deficiency in the online process that operators may use to request a Mine ID for a 

new mine may result in MNMS&H field offices being unaware of some new mines. This 

reduces the ability of field office inspectors to monitor these mines and identify changes 

in operational status that would initiate required safety and health inspections. 

When an operator notifies MSHA of the intention to open a new metal or nonmetal 

mine, MSHA issues a Mine ID and assigns the new mine to the appropriate MNMS&H 

district and related field office. The operator has 30 days to complete a legal identity 

document (LID) and is obligated to notify MNMS&H when site development begins. 

Although new mines do not require a regular safety and health inspection, site 

development would cause a change in the mine’s operating status and initiate 

inspections. MNMS&H uses the “Mines without LID Submitted” report to identify and 

monitor the status of new mines that have not submitted an LID. However, according to 

MSHA officials, the MSHA Standardized Information System (MSIS) e-gov interface for 

Mine ID requests submitted online does not include an ability to assign the mine to a 

field office at the time the request is processed. In turn, the absence of a field office 

designation results in the mine being incorrectly omitted from the “Mines without LID 

Submitted” report. This creates a risk that new mines will not be identified and 

monitored in a timely manner by the appropriate field office. 

For six new mines in our audit sample, the Southeastern District could locate only the 

electronic document requesting the Mine ID, but no corresponding LID. Yet, none of 

these mines appeared on the “Mines without LID Submitted” report. Based on our 

inquiry, MNMS&H identified 126 new mines, as of July 6, 2011, that were incorrectly 

omitted from this management report. As a result, the ability of the responsible field 

office to monitor the mine for changes in its operational status was diminished. 

Objective 2 — Did MNMS&H conduct the correct number of required regular 

safety and health inspections for each mine? 

 MNMS&H's business rules inappropriately reduced the number of regular safety 

and health inspections required. 

Finding 2 — MNMS&H did not complete required regular safety and health 

inspections at all metal/nonmetal mines. 

MNMS&H’s business rules understated the number of required regular safety and 

health inspections for 732 mines because they automatically removed the requirement 

to complete a regular safety and health inspection when an attempted inspection was 

recorded. As a result, MNMS&H’s inspection completion rate was overstated by 5.6 

percent. Missed inspections potentially place miners at risk because hazardous 

conditions in the mines may not be identified and corrected. 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

8 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Attempted Inspections Removed the Requirement for a Regular Safety and Health 

Inspection 

MNMS&H attempted but did not conduct regular safety and health inspections during 

FY 2010 at 732 mines that reported mining activity. However, because its policy allowed 

attempted inspections to remove the regular safety and health inspection requirement, 

MNMS&H reported an inspection completion rate of 100 percent. This practice resulted 

in some of these mines not receiving a regular safety and health inspection for multiple, 

consecutive years. 

Many metal/nonmetal mines operate on an irregular or less than-full-time schedule. This 

means that an inspector arriving unannounced at a mine site to conduct a regular safety 

and health inspection, may be unable to perform the inspection because the mine is not 

operating on that day. In the case of these “attempted inspections,” MNMS&H’s 

business rules removed the requirement for that regular safety and health inspection. 

While inspectors could, and often did, return to the mine at another time to conduct a 

regular safety and health inspection, MNMS&H’s policy did not require them to do so. In 

FY 2010, MNMS&H inspectors recorded attempted inspections at 2,226 mines. We 

determined that 881 of these mines (40 percent) did not receive a regular safety and 

health inspection. As shown in Table 4, the number of times each district recorded 

attempted inspections and the frequency with which they successfully returned to 

complete a regular safety and health inspection varied. 

Table 4 

Mines with an Attempted Inspection Recorded during FY 2010 

Mines having Mines having an Attempted 

an Attempted Inspection, but no Regular 

Inspection Safety and Health Inspection 

District Number Number Percentage 

Northeastern 568 243 43 

Southeastern 112 8 7 

North Central 564 343 61 

South Central 441 63 14 

Rocky Mountain 219 76 35 

Western 322 148 46 

TOTAL 2226 881 40 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

9 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Of the 881 mines where the required regular safety and health inspection was removed 

by an attempted inspection, 149 mines reported no miner work hours for the entire year. 

Therefore, the eliminated regular safety and health inspection posed no risk to miners. 

However, the remaining 732 mines all reported varying levels of mining activity during 

the year as summarized in the following table. 

Table 5 

Indicators of Mining Activity Levels at Mines Receiving Only an Attempted 

Inspection 

# of Miner Hours Worked # of Miners Employed 

Total Average Total Average Range Range per Mine per Mine (732 Mines) (732 Mines) 

1st Quarter 314,643 429.8 0 – 8,485 1,408 1.9 0 - 27 

2nd Quarter 135,823 185.6 0 – 5,753 731 1.0 0 - 15 

3rd Quarter 307,678 420.3 0 – 7,571 1,239 1.7 0 - 13 

4th Quarter 343,683 469.5 0 – 8,164 1,223 1.7 0 - 12 

FY 2010 1,101,827 1,505.2 

Total 

Average per 275,457 376.3 1,150 1.6 

Quarter 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

10 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

 

 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Table 6 shows a breakdown of these 732 mines by the total miner work hours reported 

by each mine for FY 2010. 

Table 6 

Breakdown of Mines Missing Regular Safety and Health Inspections 

by Total Miner Hours 

Number 

FY 2010 Reported Miner Hours of Mines 

1 – 200 202 

201 – 500 124 

501 – 1000 125 

1001 – 5000 238 

5001 or more 43 

TOTAL 732 

This practice can result in individual mines operating for long time periods without a 

regular safety and health inspection because (a) MSHA’s business rules require only 

one regular safety and health inspection per year at mines designated as “intermittent” 

and (b) attempted inspections could recur in consecutive inspection cycles. An analysis 

of a judgmental sample4

 of 71 out of the 881 mines determined that as of July 26, 2011, 

the number of days that had elapsed since MNMS&H had completed a regular safety 

and health inspection at these mines ranged from 387 to 1,511 days with an average of 

821 days. For example, MNMS&H recorded a completed regular safety and health 

inspection at an intermittent mine on November 26, 2008. It recorded an attempted 

inspection on July 13, 2010. The next regular safety and health inspection was recorded 

on October 12, 2010. This represented a span of 685 days between the two regular 

safety and health inspections. During FY 2010, this mine employed an average of 10 

miners and reported a total of 25,728 miner work hours. 

4

 To obtain the 71 mines, we selected the first two (2) mines from each field office that missed an E01 

inspection during FY 2010. If a field office did not have two (2) mines that missed an E01 inspection 

during FY 2010, then the one (1) mine that missed an E01 inspection was selected. The results of a 

judgmental sample cannot be statistically projected to the universe of 881 mines. 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

11 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Objective 3 — Was there evidence that each recorded regular safety and health 

inspection was performed? 

 MNMS&H counted inspections as completed before they received supervisory 

review. 

Finding 3 — Mine files contained evidence that regular safety and health 

inspections recorded had been performed, but supervisory review 

was not timely. 

There were documents in MNMS&H mine files to show that regular safety and health 

inspections recorded in MSIS had been performed. However, MNMS&H often counted 

inspections in its computation of the inspection completion rate before they received 

supervisory review. This occurred because MNMS&H policy did not require supervisors 

to review and accept inspection reports before they became part of the inspection 

completion calculation. 

Inspectors and field office supervisors explained that at the completion of inspection 

tasks, an inspector enters information into the Inspectors’ Portable Applications for 

Laptop (IPAL) where it is subsequently uploaded into MSIS and becomes part of the FY 

completion rate. They stated that the upload of this information typically occurs before 

review and acceptance of the inspection report by a supervisor. Our audit work 

confirmed their explanation. We found evidence of supervisory review for 138 out of 142 

regular safety and health inspections in our sample. However, analysis of a judgmental 

sample of inspection reports that contained both evidence of supervisory review and the 

date of that review, revealed that 29 of 32 (91 percent) were uploaded to MSIS (and 

therefore included in the inspection completion rate) prior to the date of the supervisory 

review. Since supervisors did sometimes require inspectors to perform additional 

inspection work as a result of their reviews, inspections should not be included in 

MNMS&H’s computation of its regular safety and health inspection completion rate prior 

to final supervisory acceptance. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health Administration: 

1.	 Design objective, national criteria for assigning a mine status and implement a 

system of controls to assure the consistent implementation of these criteria; 

2.	 Design and implement procedures to assure that information on all new mines is 

communicated to the responsible field office in a timely manner; 

3.	 Examine and implement ways to increase the probability that inspectors will arrive 

for regular safety and health inspections on days that a mine is operational; 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

12 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

4.	 More clearly and completely report the actual results of its efforts to conduct regular 

safety and health inspections, including the number of mines that reported miner 

work hours, but did not receive a regular safety and health inspection; and 

5.	 Require supervisors to document their review and acceptance of each regular 

safety and health inspection report before it is included in MNMS&H’s computation 

of its inspection completion rate. 

We appreciate the cooperation and courtesies that MSHA personnel extended to the 

Office of Inspector General during this audit. OIG personnel who made major 

contributions to this report are listed in Appendix E. 

Elliot P. Lewis 

Assistant Inspector General 

for Audit 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

13 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

14 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Appendices 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

15 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

16 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Appendix A 

Background 

Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) 

MSHA’s purpose is to prevent death, disease, and injury from mining and to promote 

safe and healthful workplaces for the Nation's miners. Under provisions of the Federal 

Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended, MSHA is mandated to (a) conduct 

regular inspections of all mines; (b) investigate mine accidents, complaints of retaliatory 

discrimination filed by miners, hazardous condition complaints, and petitions for 

modification of mandatory safety standards; (c) develop improved mandatory safety and 

health standards; (d) assess and collect civil monetary penalties for violations of mine 

safety and health standards; and (e) review for approval mine operators' mining plans 

and education and training programs. 

MSHA’s Office of Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health (MNMS&H) enforces the 

Mine Act at all metal/nonmetal mining operations in the United States. MNMS&H 

consists of a small headquarters office in Arlington, Va., 6 district offices, and 47 field 

offices and field duty stations located throughout the United States and Puerto Rico. 

During calendar year (CY) 2010, there were approximately 12,000 mines that employed 

over 225,000 miners and produced about 80 minerals and commodities. 

Regular Safety and Health Inspections 

Inspections are an important part of MSHA’s oversight program. During unannounced 

visits to mine sites, MSHA inspectors verify mine operators’ compliance with statutory 

requirements and determine whether an imminent danger exists. When inspectors 

observe violations of safety or health standards, they issue citations and/or orders to 

mine operators. Operators are required to correct the violation and may be assessed a 

monetary penalty. 

Section 103(a) of the Mine Act requires MSHA to conduct regular safety and health 

inspections of the Nation’s mines in their entirety—four times per year at underground 

mines and twice per year at surface mines. To effectively allocate its inspection 

resources, MSHA assigns and considers each mine’s “status” in implementing this 

inspection requirement. MNMS&H policy establishes five different mine status 

classifications – active, intermittent, non-producing, new, and abandoned. Active mines 

receive the full complement of regular safety and health inspections prescribed in the 

Mine Act. Intermittent and non-producing mines receive half the number of regular 

safety and health inspections referenced in the Mine Act. New and abandoned mines do 

not receive regular safety and health inspections. 

For each year from 1977 to 2007, MSHA did not complete all of the inspections 

mandated by law. In October 2007, MSHA implemented the “100 Percent Plan” to 

ensure the agency completed all mandatory inspections by the end of each fiscal year 

(FY). In each subsequent FY (2008 – 2010), MSHA has reported completing all 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

17 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

mandatory mine inspections. In addition, during CY 2010, MSHA reported that 

mandatory inspections at the Nation's more than 14,000 surface and underground 

mines resulted in 172,035 citations/orders and assessed monetary fines of $146.4 

million. 

OIG Hotline Complaints 

Between October 2007 and April 2011, the OIG received four separate, but similar 

complaints related to MNMS&H’s completion of required regular safety and health 

inspections. In summary, the complaints alleged that: 

•	 An MSHA supervisor was intentionally leaving new or operating mines “off the 

books” and misclassifying a mine’s operating status as “intermittent” or 

“abandoned” to reduce the number of required inspections; 

•	 MNMS&H officials had instructed supervisors to count an attempted 

inspection as a regular safety and health inspection; and 

•	 MNMS&H inspectors did not inspect every mine in its entirety. 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

18 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Appendix B 

Objectives, Scope, Methodology, and Criteria 

Objectives 

We performed audit work to determine whether MNMS&H performed all of the regular 

safety and health inspections required by the Mine Act during FY 2010. Specifically, we 

answered the following questions: 

1. Did MNMS&H assign the appropriate operating status to each mine? 

2. Did MNMS&H conduct the correct number of required regular safety and health 

inspections for each mine? 

3. Was there evidence that each recorded regular safety and health inspection 

was performed? 

Scope 

Our audit included MNMS&H inspection and oversight activity occurring in FY 2010. 

MNMS&H conducts 27 types of inspections. To answer our audit objectives, we focused 

on the specific inspection performed by MNMS&H inspectors to comply with Section 

103(a) of the Mine Act, the regular safety and health inspection. Regular safety and 

health inspections are the most comprehensive inspections conducted of 

metal/nonmetal mines. 

For objective 1, our scope covered an analysis of the operating statuses assigned by 

MNMS&H to a statistical sample of 182 mines for FY 2010. We also reviewed mine 

status data for (a) these 182 mines for FYs 2007-2010 and (b) a listing of 126 new 

mines provided by MNMS&H for FYs 2010-2011. 

For objective 2, our scope covered an analysis of the regular safety and health 

inspections computed by MNMS&H for a statistical sample of 182 mines. We also 

reviewed 881 mines that received an attempted inspection but no corresponding regular 

safety and health inspection during FY 2010. 

For objective 3, our scope covered an analysis of mine information forms, inspection 

reports, and inspector field notes for the 182 mines statistically sampled for FY 2010. 

From these 182 we also reviewed IPAL inspection upload dates, provided by MNMS&H, 

for a judgmental sample of 45 regular health and safety inspections conducted during 

FY 2010 at these mines. 

To accomplish our audit objectives, we focused our review on whether there was any 

evidence to support that a regular safety and health inspection was performed. We did 

not address the thoroughness of an inspection, such as whether all required regular 

safety and health inspection procedures and activities were performed. 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

19 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Methodology 

To accomplish our objectives, we obtained an understanding of MNMS&H’s regular 

safety and health inspection process. We reviewed federal laws and regulations and 

MNMS&H policies and procedures; interviewed key MNMS&H headquarters, district, 

and field office officials; and analyzed and identified key processes and critical decision 

and control points. In addition, we selected random samples of regular safety and health 

inspections and tested various attributes of the inspection process. 

Data Reliability 

In planning and performing the audit, we relied on computer-generated data from MSIS. 

For a sample of the mines listed in MSIS, we compared the information in selected data 

fields — mine identification number, mine name, mine status, mine status date(s), and 

regular safety and health inspections — with source documents in the mine files to 

assess the data’s reliability. We determined the data to be sufficient and appropriate for 

the purpose of our audit. 

Site Visits 

We conducted site visits at MNMS&H’s headquarters (Arlington, Va.), and three district 

offices - Rocky Mountain (Denver, Colo); North Central (Duluth, Minn); and 

Southeastern (Birmingham, Ala). 

Sampling 

To determine whether MNMS&H completed all regular safety and health inspections 

during FY 2010, we reviewed a stratified random sample of metal/nonmetal mines. The 

audit universe, based on a listing provided to us by MSHA, consisted of 16,456 mines 

assigned to six MNMS&H districts. We used a two-stage risk-based sampling approach. 

In the first stage, we grouped the six districts into three strata – high risk, medium risk, 

and low risk – based on five factors related to the risk that regular safety and health 

inspections might not be performed. These risk factors included the a) ratio of required 

inspections to inspectors; b) number of abandoned mines; c) number of mine status 

changes leading to a decrease in the number of required inspections; d) number of 

mine idle inspections; and e) number of complaints received by the OIG. From each 

stratum, we randomly sampled one district: North Central (high risk), Rocky Mountain 

(medium risk), and Southeastern (low risk). 

In the second stage, we stratified each of these three district’s population of surface and 

underground mines into six strata based on their mine operating status as of 

September 30, 2010. These strata included mines classified as (i) active; (ii) nonproducing active; (iii) new; (iv) intermittent; (v) abandoned during FY 2010; and 

(vi) abandoned during FYs 2007 through 2009. We eliminated from our universe mines 

that have been in an abandoned status prior to FY 2007 (i.e., before October 1, 2006). 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

20 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Since these mines were in an abandoned status before the implementation of MSHA’s 

100 Percent Plan in FY 2008, we judged that there was a low risk that MNMS&H 

personnel had manipulated their operating status to benefit inspection completion rates. 

We randomly selected a statistical sample of mines from each of these six strata 

resulting in a sample of 60-61 mines per district and a combined sample of 182 mines 

from all three districts for testing purposes. The table below shows our sample of 182 

mines by district and mine status. 

Audit Sample Composition 

Risk Level MNM 

Districts 

Mine Status 

Active 

NonProducing 

Active 

New Intermittent 

Abandoned 

10/01/09 to 

09/30/10 

Abandoned 

10/01/06 to 

09/30/09 

Total 

High North 

Central 10 5 5 21 10 10 61 

Medium Rocky 

Mountain 11 6 8 15 10 11 61 

Low Southeast 15 7 8 10 10 10 60 

Total 36 18 21 46 30 31 182 

For each mine in the sample, we determined if MNMS&H (1) assigned the appropriate 

mine operating status (per MSHA’s criteria); (2) conducted the correct number of regular 

safety and health inspections based on our review of the Data Retrieval System mine 

employee and hours reported data; and (3) had documentation to indicate that each 

regular safety and health inspection recorded in its database had been performed. 

Specifically, we reviewed each mine’s correspondence and inspection files. 

Assignment of Mine Operating Status 

To understand how MNMS&H assigned an operating status to a mine, we interviewed 

MNMS&H headquarters and district officials, reviewed definitions established in MSHA 

Form 2000-209 (Mine Information Form), and recorded specific criteria identified to us 

by officials in each district we visited. Based on this information, we independently 

determined an operating status for each of the 182 mines in the audit sample and 

compared it to the operating status MNMS&H had assigned. We sought explanations 

from district officials for any variances we identified. 

Correct Number of Required Inspections 

To evaluate if MNMS&H conducted the correct number of required inspections for a 

mine, we reviewed criteria established in MSHA’s business rules, and interviewed 

MNMS&H headquarters and district officials. 

For each of the 182 selected mines, we reviewed and compared the operating status, 

as determined by the OIG; the number of required inspections based on an application 

of the business rules; and the number of regular safety and health inspections 

conducted, as provided by MNMS&H. 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

21 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

We also received from MNMS&H a list of attempted inspections conducted at 2,226 

mines for FY 2010. We analyzed mine and inspection activity data for FY 2010 for 881 

of these mines that received an attempted inspection but no corresponding regular 

safety and health inspection. 

Evidence that Each Mandatory Inspection was Performed 

To evaluate if MNMS&H documented that each regular safety and health inspection 

was performed, we reviewed inspection and oversight criteria established in the Mine 

Act and MSHA policy (e.g., inspection and supervisor handbooks) and interviewed 

MNMS&H headquarters and district officials. For each of the 182 selected mines, we 

determined whether there was documentation in the MNMS&H inspection files to 

indicate that an inspection was performed. Specifically, we reviewed the physical folder 

for each regular safety and health inspection conducted and checked for an inspection 

event report, inspector field notes, and evidence of supervisory review. 

In addition, we evaluated whether regular safety and health inspections were reviewed 

by a supervisor prior to being included in MNMS&H’s calculation of its inspection 

completion rate. To accomplish this, we selected a judgmental sample of 45 completed 

regular safety and health inspections from the 3 districts we visited, and compared the 

date of supervisory review with the date the completed regular safety and health 

inspection was uploaded to MSIS from IPAL. Of these, only 32 had a corresponding 

supervisory review date that we were able to compare to the IPAL upload date provided 

by MNMS&H. 

In planning and performing our audit, we considered MSHA’s internal controls that were 

relevant to our audit objectives by obtaining an understanding of those controls, and 

assessing control risk for the purposes of achieving our objectives. The objective of our 

audit was not to provide assurance on the internal controls. Therefore, we did not 

express an opinion on the internal controls as a whole. Our consideration of MSHA’s 

internal controls relevant to our audit objectives would not necessarily disclose all 

matters that might be reportable conditions. Because of the inherent limitations on 

internal controls, noncompliance may nevertheless occur and not be detected. 

We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards for performance audits. Those standards require that we plan and perform 

the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a sufficient basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives. 

Criteria 

We used the following criteria to perform this audit: 

•	 Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, Section 103 (a) and (h), as 

amended 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

22 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

•	 Title 30 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 41, Notification of Legal Identity 

•	 Title 30 CFR Part 50, Notification, Investigation, Reports and Records of 

Accidents, Injuries, Illnesses, Employment, and Coal Production in Mines 

•	 Title 30 CFR Part 56, Safety and Health Standards -- Surface Metal and 

Nonmetal Mines 

•	 Title 30 CFR Part 57, Safety and Health Standards -- Underground Metal and 

Nonmetal Mines 

•	 Title 30 CFR Part 58, Health Standards for Metal and Nonmetal Mines 

•	 General Accountability Office, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government, dated November 1999 

•	 MSHA Program Policy Manual, Volumes I and IV, dated February 2003 

•	 MSHA Regular Safety and Health Inspection Business Rules, dated March 2005 

•	 MSHA Form 2000-209, dated September 2006 

•	 MSHA 100 Percent Inspection Completion Plan, dated February 2008 

•	 MSHA Accountability Program Handbook, dated March 2008 

•	 MSHA Metal and Nonmetal Supervisors’ Handbook, dated June 2009 

•	 MSHA Performance Management Plan for Managers and Supervisors, dated 

September 2009 

•	 MSHA Metal and Nonmetal General Inspection Procedures Handbook, dated 

October 2009 

•	 Inspectors’ Portable Applications for Laptop (IPAL) User’s Manual, dated April 

2011 

•	 MNMS&H Proposed Mine Classification Status Matrix and Definitions, dated 

June 2011 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

23 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

24 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Appendix C 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

CY Calendar Year 

e-gov Electronic Government 

FY Fiscal Year 

IPAL Inspector’s Portable Application for Laptop 

LID Legal Identity 

Mine ID Mine Identification 

MNMS&H Office of Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health 

MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration 

MSIS MSHA Standardized Information System 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

25 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

26 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

U.S. Department of Labor Mine Salety and Health Administration 

1100 Wilson Boulevard 

Arlington. Virginia 22209·3939 

. 

'rJ)" ~" '" . '-. !;';9 .' , .~ ~, 

, ""~' 

SEP 27 2011 

MEMORANDUM FOR ELLIOT P. LEWIS 

Assistant Inspector General of Audit 

FROM: 

Assistant 

JOSEPH A. 

Secretary 

MAIN 

of labo;fu,."\ C\ ~ f\ ~ 

SUBJECT: 

Mine Safety and Health 

Response to DIG Draft Audit Report No. 05-11-004-06.Q01 : 

MSHA Must More Consistently Determine the Number of 

Required Inspections and More Transparently Report Inspection 

Results for Metal and Nonmetal Mines 

Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft audit report. The Mine Safety and 

Health Administration (MSHA) will use the audit results to help the Agency improve the 

monitoring and completion of Metal and Nonmetal's (MNM) mandatory regular safety 

and health inspections. We are fully committed to addressing the issues identified in 

your report. 

Below are specific responses to your recommendations. 

OIG Recommendation No 1: Design objective, national criteria for assigning a mine 

status and implement a system of controls to assure the consistent implementation of 

these criteria. 

AGREE 

We agree with your recommendation , but it is important to note that the existing 

definitions for mine classification for MNM mines have been in effect for over 30 years. 

Since I became Assistant Secretary, we have been reviewing policies and procedures 

to update and improve them. As noted in your report, many mines work intermittently, 

some less than 1000 hours a year and several less than 200 hours a year. This creates 

a real challenge for MSHA because it is difficult for inspectors to find these intermittent 

mines in an operational status when miners are working and potentially exposed to 

safety and health hazards. 

Consistent with our ongoing review of MSHA policies and procedures, MNM began an 

analysis in February 2011, to develop a plan for determining mine status classification 

based on objective criteria. As you recognize in your report, this effort began before the 

You can now l ile)'OU. MSHA lorms online at WNW MSHA goy. ~'s easy, ~'s last. and it saves you m01l8y1 

U.S. Department of Labor Mine Salety and Health AdminlSlration 

1100 Wilson Boulevard 

Arlington. Virginia 22209·3939 'rJJ"~" . .. . \ J;";9 .' , ~ .. ' 

""" ~ . 

SEP 27 2011 

MEMORANDUM FOR ELLIOT P. LEWIS 

Assistant Inspector General of Audit 

FROM: 

Assistant 

JOSEPH A. 

Secretary 

MAIN 

of labo;t;\ C\ ~ f\ ~ 

SUBJECT: 

Mine Safety and Health 

Response to OIG Draft Audit Report No. 05-11-004-06.Q01 : 

MSHA Must More Consistently Determine the Number of 

Required Inspections and More Transparently Report Inspection 

Results for Metal and Nonmetal Mines 

Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft audit report. The Mine Safety and 

Health Administration (MSHA) will use the audit results to help the Agency improve the 

monitoring and completion of Metal and Nonmetal's (MNM) mandatory regular safety 

and health inspections. We are fully committed to addressing the issues identified in 

your report. 

Below are specific responses to your recommendations. 

OIG Recommendation No 1: Design objective, national criteria for assigning a mine 

status and impl8ment a system of controls to assure the consistent implementation of 

these criteria. 

AGREE 

We agree with your recommendation , but it is important to note that the existing 

definitions for mine classification for MNM mines have been in effect for over 30 years. 

Since 1 became Assistant Secretary, we have been reviewing policies and procedures 

to update and improve them. As noted in your report, many mines wor!< intermittently, 

some less than 1000 hours a year and several less than 200 hours a year. This creates 

a real challenge for MSHA because it is difficult for inspectors to find these intermittent 

mines in an operational status when miners are wor!<ing and potentially exposed to 

safety and health hazards. 

Consistent with our ongoing review of MSHA policies and procedures, MNM began an 

analysis in February 2011, to develop a plan for determining mine status classification 

based on objective criteria. As you recognize in your report, this effort began before the 

You can now l ile )'Our MSHA lorms online at WWW MSHA ~. ~'s easy, ~'s lasl. and ~ saves you mooeyl 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Appendix D 

MSHA Response to Draft Report 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

27 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

2 

DIG audit. MSHA provided the DIG the draft "Mine Status Criteria" for review and 

appreciates the audit team's feedback on the draft criteria. 

MNM is wor1dng with MSHA's Program Evaluation and Information Resources (PEIR) 

Directorate to develop a report (Mine Status Review Report) that identifieS mine status 

using these objective criteria. The report will generate a list of mines and display the 

existing designated mine status as well as the revised status using the objective criteria. 

MNM senior management will review the report on a quarterty basis to determine 

appropriate mine status changes. 

OIG Recommendation NO.2: Design and implement procedures to assure that 

information on all new mines is communicated to the responsible fieJd office in 8 timely 

manner. 

AGREE 

MSHA is aware of minor issues in MSHA's Standardized Information System (MSIS) 

associated with mine identification numbers requested by mine operators online and 

with an internal report to identify mine operators that have not submitted legal identity 

reports. MNM is currently working with PEIR to correct these issues. Additionally. 

mines assigned New Mine status will be included in the planned Mine Status Review 

Report to assure that mines reporting hours will be included. Mines identified as a 

result of these changes will receive a status change, as appropriate. and be included in 

inspection calculations. 

It is important to note that mines assigned an MSHA identification number may never 

begin operating or report hours. For example, a mine in the South Central District 

involved an operator who was unable to obtain financing and never began operation. 

OIG Recommendation NO.3: Examine and implement ways to increase the 

probability that inspectors will arrive for regular safety and health inspections on days 

that a mine is operational. 

AGREE 

Existing MNM standard, 30 CFR §§56/57.1 000 (Notification of commencement of 

operations and closing of mines) requires mine operators to notify MSHA of their mining 

operational status, whether temporary or permanent. MSHA will reiterate, to the metal 

and nonmetal mining community, an operator's responsibility under the existing 

standard. Many mine operators comply with the standard by contacting the district or 

field office directly via phone, fax, or mail. MSHA will provide additional altematives for 

operators to notify the Agency of operating status changes. One alternative available to 

mine operators will be a web-based reporting interface. The other altemative will use 

MSHA's toll free number. This One Call Does It All" approach will allow a mine 

2 

DIG audit. MSHA provided the OIG the draft "Mine Status Criteria" for review and 

appreciates the audit team's feedback on the draft criteria. 

MNM is wor1<ing with MSHA's Program Evaluation and [ntannation Resources (PEIR) 

Directorate to develop a report (Mine Status Review Report) that identifieS mine status 

using these objective criteria. The report will generate a list of mines and display the 

existing designated mine status as well as the revised status using the objective criteria. 

MNM senior management will review the report on a quarterty basis to determine 

appropriate mine status changes. 

OIG Recommendation NO.2: Design and implement procedures to assure that 

information on all new mines is communicated to the responsible field office in 8 timely 

manner. 

AGREE 

MSHA is aware of minor issues in MSHA's Standardized Information System (MSIS) 

associated with mine identification numbers requested by mine operators online and 

with an internal report to identify mine operators that have not submitted legal identity 

reports. MNM is currently working with PEIR to correct these issues. Additionally, 

mines assigned New Mine status will be included in the planned Mine Status Review 

Report to assure that mines reporting hours will be included. Mines identified as a 

result of these changes will receive a status change, as appropriate, and be included in 

inspection calculations. 

It is important to note that mines assigned an MSHA identification number may never 

begin operating or report hoors. For example, a mine in the South Central District 

involved an operator who was unable to obtain financing and never began operation. 

OIG Recommendation No.3: Examine and implement ways to increase the 

probability that inspectors will arrive for regular safety and health inspections on days 

that 8 mine is operational. 

AGREE 

Existing MNM standard, 30 CFR §§56/57.1 000 (Notification of commencement of 

operations and closing of mines) requires mine operators to notify MSHA of their mining 

operational status, whether temporary or permanent. MSHA will reiterate, to the metal 

and nonmetal mining community, an operator's responsibility under the existing 

standard. Many mine operators comply with the standard by contacting the district or 

field office directly via phone, fax, or mail. MSHA will provide additional alternatives for 

operators to notify the Agency of operating status changes. One alternative available to 

mine operators will be a web-based reporting interface. The other alternative will use 

MSHA's toll free number. This One Call Does It All" approach will allow a mine 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

28 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

3 

operator to call the toll free number and provide their start-up or shut-down information. 

A customer service representative at the National Contact Center will receive and 

process the information. MNM will explore other alternatives to assist the Agency in 

identifying operating mines, including collaborating with state and local entities. MSHA 

will conduct outreach activities to make the mining community aware of these 

alternatives. 

OIG Recommendation No.4: More clearly and completely report the actual resufts of 

its efforts to conduct regular safety and health inspections, including the number of 

mines that reported miner walk hours, but did not receive 8 regular safety and health 

inspection. 

AGREE 

We believe that our responses to recommendations 1 through 3 help address this 

recommendation. However, MNM will report the number of completed inspections and 

the number of attempted inspections in order to present more transparency in the 

Agency's inspection completion rate. 

OIG Recommendation No.5: Require supervisors to document their review and 

acceptance of each regular safety and health inspection report before it is included in 

MNMS&H's computation of its inspection completion rate. 

AGREE 

While we agree with your recommendation, it is important that we clarify how we plan to 

change our existing procedure to respond to the recommendation. 

In accordance with Agency policy and procedures, MNM supervisors review all 

inspection reports for compliance with policies and procedures; supervisors initial the 

reports to indicate that the review and inspection was conducted. MNM policy does not 

require supervisors to review these reports prior to the inspector's upload into the data 

base. Inspectors are authorized representatives of the Secretary of Labor and 

journeyman level professionals trained to conduct complete inspections as required by 

the Mine Act. Upon completion of the inspection, the inspector conducts a close-out 

conference with the mine operator and miners' representative, as appropriate, to review 

all enforcement actions. A submitted inspection report documents the inspection and 

the data are entered into MSIS. 

In response to the recommendation of the IG, MSHA will consider inspection data 

preliminary until the supervisor can validate the inspection report. MSHA is exploring 

ways to expedite the supervisor's review and final data entry. 

We appreciate your acknowledgement that MSHA officials had identified mine status 

classifications as an issue and have been working for the past 7 months to develop 

3 

operator to call the toll free number and provide their start-up or shut-down information. 

A customer service representative at the National Contact Center will receive and 

process the information. MNM will explore other alternatives to assist the Agency in 

identifying operating mines, including collaborating with state and local entities. MSHA 

will conduct outreach activities to make the mining community aware of these 

alternatives. 

OIG Recommendation No.4: More clearly and completely report the actual resufts of 

its efforts to conduct regular safety and health inspections, including the number of 

mines that reported miner work hours, but did not receive 8 regular safety and health 

inspection. 

AGREE 

We believe that our responses to recommendations 1 through 3 help address this 

recommendation. However, MNM will report the number of completed inspections and 

the number of attempted inspections in order to present more transparency in the 

Agency's inspection completion rate. 

OIG Recommendation No.5: Require supeNisors to document their review and 

acceptance of each regular safety and health inspection report before it is included in 

MNMS&H's computation of its inspection completion rate. 

AGREE 

While we agree with your recommendation , it is important that we clarify how we plan to 

change our existing procedure to respond to the recommendation. 

In accordance with Agency policy and procedures, MNM supervisors review all 

inspection reports for compliance with policies and procedures; supervisors initial the 

reports to indicate that the review and inspection was conducted. MNM policy does not 

require supervisors to review these reports prior to the inspector's upload into the data 

base. Inspectors are authorized representatives of the Secretary of Labor and 

journeyman level professionals trained to conduct complete inspections as required by 

the Mine Act. Upon completion of the inspection, the inspector conducts a close-out 

conference with the mine operator and miners' representative, as appropriate, to review 

all enforcement actions. A submitted inspection report documents the inspection and 

the data are entered into MSIS. 

In response to the recommendation of the IG, MSHA will consider inspection data 

preliminary until the supervisor can validate the inspection report. MSHA is exploring 

ways to expedite the supervisor'S review and final data entry. 

We appreciate your acknowledgement that MSHA officials had identified mine status 

classifications as an issue and have been working for the past 7 months to develop 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

29 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

4 

more objective, data driven criteria for assigning a mine's status. This effort will 

promote consistency in mine status determinations and allow MSHA to more effectively 

allocate limited inspection resources. 

Although we welcome the independent analysis provided by the DIG. we would like to 

clarify one statement in your report. The draft report stated that ~MNMS&H pelfonns 

these inspections to protect miner safety and health.· Although all of MSHA's activities 

are taken to protect miner safety and health, Congress gave -mine operators, with the 

assistance of miners, the primary responsibility to prevent unsafe and unhealthful 

conditions and practices in mines. ~ We are concerned that your characterization of 

MSHA's responsibilities may convey the wrong message relative to primary 

responsibility for miners' safety and health. MSHA cannot be in every mine, every day, 

on every shift. That is why miners are safest when operators take responsibility for 

antiCipating, recognizing, and eliminating or controlling hazards. Operators cannot wait 

to correct hazards until after MSHA cites them. Operators' failure to recognize and 

eliminate or control hazards - whether MSHA cites them or not - is what puts miners at 

risk. A more appropriate statement would be: "MNMS&H performs these inspections to 

promote safe and healthful workplaces for the Nation's miners." 

On page 7 in the second paragraph you identified the Southwest District, which should 

be corrected as South Central District. 

4 

more objective, data driven criteria for assigning a mine's status. This effort will 

promote consistency in mine status determinations and allow MSHA to more effectively 

allocate limited inspection resources. 

Although we welcome the independent analysis provided by the DIG, we would like to 

clarify one statement in your report. The draft report stated that KMNMS&H pelfonns 

these inspections to protect miner safety and health.· Although all of MSHA's activities 

are taken to protect miner safety and health, Congress gave "mine operators, with the 

assistance of miners, the primary responsibility to prevent unsafe and unhealthful 

conditions and practices in mines.- We are concerned that your characterization of 

MSHA's responsibilities may convey the wrong message relative to primary 

responsibility for miners' safety and health. MSHA cannot be in every mine, every day, 

on every shift. That is why miners are safest when operators take responsibility for 

anticipating, recognizing , and eliminating or controlling hazards. Operators cannot wait 

to correct hazards until after MSHA cites them. Operators' failure to recognize and 

eliminate or control hazards - whether MSHA cites them or not - is what puts miners at 

risk. A more appropriate statement would be: "MNMS&H performs these inspections to 

promote safe and healthful workplaces for the Nation's miners.· 

On page 7 in the second paragraph you identified the Southwest District, which should 

be corrected as South Central District. 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

30 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Appendix E 

Acknowledgements 

Key contributors to this report were Charles Allberry (Audit Director), S. Marisela 

Sookraj (Audit Manager), Eric Rann, Charmane Miller, Kathleen Mitomi, Cassie Galang, 

Carmelle Paytes, Mary Lou Casazza, and Ajit Buttar. 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

31 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

MNM Safety and Health Inspections 

32 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001 
 

 

TO REPORT FRAUD, WASTE OR ABUSE, PLEASE CONTACT: 

Online: http://www.oig.dol.gov/hotlineform.htm 

Email: hotline@oig.dol.gov 

Telephone: 1-800-347-3756 

202-693-6999 

Fax: 202-693-7020 

Address: Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Labor 

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. 

 Room S-5506 

Washington, D.C. 20210