Mine Safety: MSHA's and Other Federal Agencies' Improved Oversight Could Enhance Safety for Coal Miners
Published: 2007-05-16T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, the Department of Labor's Office of the Solicitor, the states, and the mining industry share responsibility for ensuring mine safety. In two reports released today, GAO examined the challenges underground coal mines face in preparing for emergencies, how well MSHA oversees mine operators' training efforts, how well MSHA and NIOSH coordinate to enhance the development and approval of mine safety technology, MSHA's coal mine inspector recruiting efforts, and how civil penalties are assessed.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Underground coal mine operators reported facing significant challenges in preparing for emergencies, including ensuring that miners receive realistic training and organizing mine rescue teams that satisfy new requirements. While mine operators recognize the importance of providing training in an environment that simulates an emergency, many of them reported challenges such as limited access to special training facilities and the cost of providing such training. In addition, mine operators reported that they anticipate challenges in implementing new mine rescue team requirements, such as conducting training annually at each mine the rescue team services. MSHA approves mine operators' training plans and inspects their training records, but its oversight of miner training is hampered by several factors. For example, MSHA does not have current information on its instructors and does not ensure that they keep their knowledge and skills up to date. In addition, MSHA does not adequately monitor instructors or evaluate training sessions, and does not assess how well miners are learning the skills being taught. MSHA and NIOSH have a common mission to improve the safety and health of coal miners, but they do not have a current memorandum of understanding to guide their coordination efforts. As a result, most of the coordination that occurs is initiated by individual staff members or by outside parties. Such informal coordination may not be sufficient given the pending retirements of many MSHA and NIOSH engineers and scientists and other challenges both agencies face. In 2004, MSHA began a new process for hiring mine inspectors, which has led to a number of improvements, such as being able to identify applicants who possess the basic skills needed to be successful inspectors and decreasing the time it takes to hire new inspectors. However, MSHA's human capital plan does not include a strategic approach for addressing the large number of retirements expected in the next 5 years. While most of the penalties proposed by MSHA are paid by mine operators without opposition, a small percentage of the cases involving more serious and higher dollar penalties are appealed, and those appealed are often reduced significantly. MSHA uses a standard formula to propose penalties, but the other entities involved in the appeals process use considerable discretion in deciding on the final penalty amount. Approximately 6 percent of the 506,707 penalties proposed by MSHA between 1996 and 2006 were appealed by mine operators. About half of the penalties for the appealed violations were reduced by an average of 49 percent, regardless of the level of gravity of the violation initially cited by MSHA or the degree of the mine operator's negligence initially cited.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss worker safety in  underground coal mines. As you are aware, the tragic accidents that  occurred early last year brought the nation’s attention to the perils  workers face in underground coal mining. In response, the Congress and  the Department of Labor’s (Labor) Mine Safety and Health Administration  (MSHA) took steps to try to prevent future fatalities. The Mine  Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006 (MINER Act)  required mine operators and MSHA to undertake a variety of reforms,  including enhancing mine rescue teams, developing up-to-date accident  response plans, and instituting tougher penalties—including a criminal  penalty—for mine operators who violate health and safety standards. In  addition, MSHA implemented new standards aimed at instituting  immediate safety and health improvements, including requiring operators  to provide safety training on evacuation routes and opportunities for  miners to learn how to react in certain kinds of simulated emergency  situations.  Other federal agencies share responsibilities for improving  mine safety. These agencies include the Office of Mine Safety and Health  of the Department of Health and Human Services’ National Institute for  Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the Department of Labor’s  Office of the Solicitor, and the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review  Commission.
In response to concerns about the safety of underground coal mines, my  testimony today will focus on five key issues:  1.  the challenges underground coal mines face in preparing for mine  2.  how well MSHA oversees mine operators’ training efforts,  3.  how well MSHA and NIOSH coordinate their efforts to enhance the  development and approval of mine safety technology,  4.  how MSHA has revised its recruiting and hiring of underground  coal mine inspectors, and  5.  how civil penalties are assessed when underground coal mine  operators violate safety and health standards.
My comments are based on the findings of two reports to be released  today. We conducted all of our work in accordance with generally  accepted government auditing standards.
Underground coal mine operators reported facing significant  challenges in preparing for emergencies, including ensuring that  miners receive realistic training and organizing mine rescue teams  that satisfy new requirements. While mine operators recognize the  importance of providing training in an environment that simulates  an emergency, many of them reported challenges such as having  limited access to special training facilities and the cost of providing  such training. In addition, mine operators reported that they  anticipate challenges in implementing new mine rescue team  requirements, such as conducting training at least annually at each  mine the rescue team services.
MSHA approves mine operators’ training plans and inspects their  training records, but its oversight of miner training is hampered by  several factors. For example, MSHA does not have current  information on its instructors and does not ensure that they keep  their knowledge and skills up to date. In addition, MSHA does not  adequately monitor instructors or evaluate training sessions, and it  does not assess how well miners are learning the skills being taught.
MSHA and NIOSH have a common mission to improve the safety  and health of coal miners, but they do not have a current  memorandum of understanding to guide their coordination efforts.  As a result, most of the coordination that occurs is initiated by  individual staff members or by outside parties. Such informal  coordination may not be sufficient given the pending retirements of  many MSHA and NIOSH engineers and scientists and other  challenges both agencies face.
In 2004, MSHA began a new process for hiring mine inspectors,  which has led to a number of improvements, such as being able to  identify applicants who possess the basic skills needed to be  successful inspectors and decreasing the time it takes to hire new  inspectors. However, MSHA’s human capital plan does not include a  strategic approach for addressing the large number of retirements  expected in the next 5 years.
While most of the penalties proposed by MSHA are paid by mine  operators without opposition, a small percentage of the cases  involving more serious and higher-dollar penalties are appealed, and  those appealed are often reduced substantially. MSHA uses a  standard formula to propose penalties, but the other entities  involved in the appeals process use considerable discretion in  deciding on the final penalty amount. Approximately 6 percent of  the 506,707 penalties proposed by MSHA between 1996 and 2006  were appealed by mine operators. About half of the penalties for the  appealed violations were reduced regardless of the level of gravity  of the violation initially cited by MSHA or the degree of the mine  operator’s negligence initially cited. Appealed penalties were  reduced by an average of 49 percent.
In our reports released today, we are making a number of  recommendations to improve mine operators’ access to information and  tools for training their workers, strengthen MSHA’s oversight of training,  improve the effectiveness of information sharing between MSHA and  NIOSH, strengthen MSHA’s workforce planning, and ensure transparency  in penalty appeal determinations.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: MSHA’s Coal Mine Safety and Health Administration is responsible for  carrying out enforcement activities related to surface and underground  coal mines. As of January 2007, MSHA employed approximately   550 underground coal inspectors in its 11 coal districts. MSHA’s principal  enforcement responsibility for underground coal mines is fulfilled by  conducting a minimum of four comprehensive inspections of every  underground coal mine each year. When MSHA inspectors observe  violations of federal health and safety standards, they are required to issue  a citation to the coal mine operator. Even if an operator does not agree  with the violation or the penalty amount, the operator must resolve the  problems within the time frame set by the inspector.
In assessing penalties, the Mine Act requires both the Commission and  MSHA to consider six statutory factors:  1.  the mine operator’s history of previous violations,  2.  the appropriateness of the penalty to the size of the mine,  3.  whether the mine operator was negligent,  4.  the effect on the operator’s ability to continue in business,  5.  the gravity of the violation, and  6.  the demonstrated good faith of the mine operator charged in  quickly remedying the situation after being notified of a violation.
section_title: Underground Coal Mines Face Challenges in Preparing Mine Workers and Rescue Teams for Emergencies
paragraphs: Underground coal mine operators face significant challenges preparing for  emergencies, including ensuring that miners receive realistic training and  organizing mine rescue teams that satisfy new requirements. MSHA issued  new requirements in March 2006 that direct mine operators to conduct  mine emergency evacuation drills every 90 days, including drills that  simulate actual emergency conditions; install directional lifelines to help  miners find their way out of a dark mine; and instruct miners in the  procedures for evacuating the mine in emergencies, such as those  involving fires or explosions. Based on our survey completed in February  2007, almost all mines had conducted evacuation drills and installed  lifelines, but we estimate that half of the mines had not conducted drills in  environments that simulated actual emergency situations. According to  the survey, simulated mine emergency training presents the greatest  challenge in preparing miners for and responding to mine emergencies.  Specifically, the most common challenges were the availability of training  centers that can simulate an emergency situation, the availability of  training in a simulated mine emergency situation, and the cost associated  with providing simulated mine emergency training (see fig. 1).
Although MSHA has materials that mine operators can use to provide  hands-on training on specific topics, it does not provide all mine operators  with information and tools for training under simulated emergency  conditions. MSHA has a catalog of various training tools, including  classroom exercises, that mine operators can obtain upon request. For  example, to support the new standards issued in March that require miners  to train with breathing devices, MSHA distributed a training packet to all  underground coal mines and appropriate state grantees. However, MSHA  does not provide all mine operators with critical information on how to  provide training in simulated emergency environments such as smoke- filled mines or information on resources that are available for providing  such training. Some mine operators use a number of techniques to  simulate emergency conditions, but other mine operators may be unaware  of them.
Based on our survey, cost concerns and opportunities for conducting  simulated training with all stakeholders are the greatest challenges in  preparing rescue teams for mine emergencies (see fig. 2).
Mine operators also reported that they anticipated further challenges  stemming from new requirements in the MINER Act. We estimate that half  of underground coal mines anticipate changing the composition of at least  one of their designated mine rescue teams as a result of the MINER Act.
Specifically, mine operators pointed to the requirement that teams train at  least annually at the mines they are responsible for covering. This change  could present a particular challenge for mine rescue teams in several key  coal mining states that serve many or all of the states’ mines. According to  respective state officials, all mines in Kentucky and many in Virginia and  Pennsylvania rely on the state to provide or arrange for mine rescue  services. In Kentucky, for example, mines receive rescue services from  state teams composed of state mine inspectors whose primary duties are  to inspect coal mines. According to a state official, a Kentucky team would  be required to conduct 120 training exercises annually under the MINER  Act, compared to the 12 exercises it currently conducts. Depending on the  final regulations developed by MSHA to implement the requirements of the  MINER Act, officials in Kentucky said they might stop offering mine  rescue services because of the amount of time that will be needed to meet  the training requirements.
Some mine operators have already started making changes to their mine  rescue teams based on the MINER Act, while others are taking a more  cautious approach, given the costs of training and equipping new rescue  teams. For example, one company that operates multiple mines reported  that it was creating new backup mine rescue teams to satisfy the new  requirement that rescue teams be within 1 hour travel time from the mines  they serve. In other cases, however, according to mine and industry  officials, mines were waiting to see how MSHA implements the new mine  rescue requirements before changing their team designations. For  example, the extent of the required training at each mine could affect how  mine operators designate rescue teams.
section_title: MSHA Reviews Mines’ Training Plans and Inspects Training Records but Does Not Adequately Monitor Instructors or Training
paragraphs: MSHA has the authority to oversee certain aspects of miner training to  help ensure that miners work safely and are prepared for potential  emergencies, but its oversight of training is hindered by several factors.
To become an approved instructor, MSHA requires that an applicant prove  his or her mining and teaching experience in one of three ways: by (1)  submitting written qualifications, (2) attending new instructor training, or  (3) teaching a class monitored by MSHA under provisional approval from  an MSHA district manager. MSHA suggests factors that district managers  may use in determining an applicant’s skills, but it does not have firm  criteria that new instructors must meet. In addition, the approval  procedures are not standardized across MSHA’s 11 coal districts,  according to MSHA officials. For example, some districts grant provisional  authority to new instructors only if they can be monitored by MSHA staff.  Other districts grant provisional approval for individuals to teach specific  courses but, according to MSHA officials, may not monitor these  instructors’ teaching skills. According to MSHA officials, staff resources  limit districts’ ability to monitor applicants’ teaching skills.
Lack of up-to-date information on approved instructors  MSHA maintains a database of approved instructors that includes contact  information for each instructor, the courses they are approved to teach,  and whether they have full or provisional authority to teach the courses.  But according to MSHA officials, the database contains outdated contact  information because some instructors move without notifying MSHA.  Without accurate information on its instructors, MSHA cannot ensure that  instructors receive training policy updates and cannot determine whether  there are enough qualified instructors to meet mine operators’ needs.
No continuing education requirements for approved instructors  Once instructors are approved, according to an MSHA official, they are not  required to demonstrate that they are staying current on emerging mining  issues. As a result, MSHA cannot ensure that instructors are keeping their  mining knowledge and skills up to date, including their knowledge of  emerging safety and health issues and new training tools.
Limited monitoring and evaluation of training sessions  According to MSHA officials, the agency monitors few miner training  sessions relative to the number conducted, and instructor evaluations  occur on an ad hoc basis. According to mine operators and trainers, MSHA  rarely oversees training, and it monitors sessions primarily for  enforcement purposes rather than to enhance instructors’ knowledge and  abilities. In addition, many of the training sessions occur on the weekends,  when MSHA staff do not normally work, limiting their ability to monitor  training. MSHA does not collect or analyze training evaluations obtained  from miners to help gauge whether learning objectives are taught  effectively, and an estimate of 80 percent of mines do not seek feedback  on training sessions from their workers. As a result, MSHA cannot  determine how well miners are learning the skills taught by MSHA- approved trainers and recommend corrective measures as necessary.
section_title: MSHA and NIOSH Lack a Formal Agreement to Guide Mine Safety Coordination
paragraphs: MSHA and NIOSH have complementary roles in improving the safety and  health of coal miners, but coordination between the two agencies is  largely informal and inconsistent due to a lack of a formal agreement or  policies to guide their efforts. MSHA is primarily involved in setting health  and safety standards and enforcing them through mine inspections that  can result in citations and penalties, whereas NIOSH’s mining program is  focused on research into the causes of and ways to prevent the safety and  health hazards miners face.
MSHA and NIOSH currently lack a formal agreement, such as a  memorandum of understanding or other policy to guide their coordination  efforts, a practice we have identified as effective in prior work. In 1978,  NIOSH’s predecessor and MSHA had a signed memorandum of  understanding that specified how they would coordinate to ensure that  technology resulting from mine safety research would be used to the  fullest extent. The memorandum embodied many of the key practices  identified in prior GAO work that can help federal agencies enhance and  sustain their collaborative efforts, such as defining roles and  responsibilities and developing joint strategies. However, the  memorandum is no longer used, and MSHA officials were unaware of any  plan to update the document. As a result of not having a formal agreement  or policies to guide their activities, coordination between MSHA and  NIOSH is primarily driven by informal relationships between staff at both  agencies. Officials from both agencies and labor union representatives told  us that coordination has been primarily at the initiative of individuals at  both agencies and, as such has not always been consistent across the  agencies.
NIOSH and MSHA face a potentially large workforce turnover in coming  years, and informal coordination based on working relationships between  staff members may not continue when the individuals leave. As at many  federal agencies, MSHA and NIOSH have a large proportion of employees,  including many engineers and scientists, who are eligible to retire over the  next several years. MSHA data show that more than 50 percent of its   140 engineers and scientists will be eligible for retirement within the next  10 years, with 31 percent eligible within 5 years. Similarly, about half of  NIOSH’s employees—most of whom are scientists and engineers—are  eligible to retire in 5 years.
In addition, MSHA and NIOSH face other challenges that require them to  work more closely together, particularly in developing and approving  safety technologies under tight time frames. An influx of new and  inexperienced miners brought on due to the increased demand for coal  and the aging of the workforce, rising dangers as miners go deeper  underground to mine coal, and recent mine disasters have heightened  interest in promising new safety technology. The MINER Act addresses  some of these issues and underscores NIOSH’s and MSHA’s roles in  developing and approving safety technologies. For example, the act  requires NIOSH to study the use of refuge chambers for miners and  requires MSHA to review the results of NIOSH’s work to determine what  actions, such as making regulatory changes, are appropriate. Both  agencies must take action within a relatively short period of time.
section_title: MSHA Has Improved Its Hiring Process, but Its Human Capital Strategic Plan Does Not Adequately Project or Address Its Future Workforce Needs
paragraphs: While MSHA has taken significant steps to improve its hiring process, the  agency’s human capital plan does not include a strategic approach for  addressing the large number of retirements expected over the next 5 years.  In 2004, MSHA began using the Federal Career Intern Program (FCIP) to  hire new mine inspectors, which has resulted in a number of  improvements to the hiring and recruitment process, such as hiring new  inspectors more quickly. Since it began using the program, MSHA has  hired 301 interns, 236 of whom are coal mine inspector trainees. Through  the FCIP, MSHA developed a process for assessing applicants’ skills,  conducting interviews, and providing applicants with immediate feedback  on their aptitude during 1-day job fairs held in locations around the  country. As of October 2004, all applicants for inspector positions must  attend job fairs and pass a test on basic math and writing skills before  interviewing with MSHA. MSHA reported that this screening process has  helped the agency maximize its resources, since the exams identify  applicants who do not have the basic skills needed to become a successful  inspector at an early stage of the hiring process. For example, of the   1,256 applicants tested in 2005 and 2006, 49 percent failed either the math  or written exam, or both. MSHA’s previous hiring process considered  experience over basic skills, and officials told us that this resulted in some  new hires with significant mining experience but weak reading and writing  skills. As a result, MSHA spent time during new mine inspector training  teaching these basic skills.
MSHA officials reported that this new approach has reduced the amount  of time it takes to hire a new mine inspector from up to 180 days to   45 days or less. In addition, the Office of Personnel Management  approved MSHA’s request to hire mine inspectors through the FCIP under  a broader range of pay scale levels, which allows the agency to hire  individuals with different experiences. For example, an applicant might  have little experience in mining but possess relevant experience in  construction and electrical engineering. This applicant would be hired as a  mine inspector trainee at the lower end of the pay scale and be given  additional training in areas specific to mine health and safety. Further,  MSHA officials commented that the job fairs have helped the agency  reduce the number of interagency transfers that occurred under its old  hiring process, which was a significant problem. Since job fairs are held in  the locations where applicants are being sought and applicants must  attend the job fairs in person, they tend to live in those communities and  are less likely to request a transfer to another location once they are  hired.
Appointments to the FCIP are generally for 2 years, at which point the  intern may be offered a permanent position. During the internship, new  hires are required to participate in a formal training program, which  consists of training provided by the Mine Academy and structured on-the- job training. However, district managers and Mine Academy officials  agreed that, realistically, new inspectors can take up to 5 years to become  fully competent and confident in their roles as underground coal mine  inspectors.
While the improvements MSHA has made to its recruiting process are an  important part of addressing impending retirements, the agency has not  developed a long-term strategy for replacing mine inspectors. MSHA  estimates that over 40 percent of its inspectors will be eligible for  retirement by 2012 (see table 1), and agency officials told us that in the last  3 years, between 32 and 47 percent of the coal mine enforcement  employees eligible to retire actually did so in the first year of eligibility.
District officials expressed concern over loss of highly experienced coal  mine inspectors and the impact such retirements can have on achieving  the goals of the agency. For example, one district official told us that  recent retirements have left the district short-handed and expressed  concern over the inspectors’ ability to complete the required annual mine  inspections on time.
While MSHA human resources officials told us about steps they are taking  to mitigate the turnover, the agency has not developed a strategic plan that  clearly links measurable outcomes to the mission and goals of the agency.  In our review of the plan and discussions with MSHA officials, the agency  has not yet demonstrated how it is planning for its future needs, what  targets and goals are established to meet those needs, and how the goals  will be monitored. For example, given the amount of time needed to train  new inspectors, it is not clear how the agency will take into account the  potential increases in future hiring and the time necessary to fully train  replacements.
GAO has reported on effective strategies for workforce planning that  require a more strategic approach to meeting the challenges of the future.  Among other elements, strategic planning serves as a tool to help agencies  address challenges in a manner that is clearly linked to achieving their  mission and goals. For example, by using data to make long-term  projections, an agency can design a transition program to ensure that  experienced employees are available in critical areas of the agency and  that the institutional knowledge would not be lost because of turnover.  Further, the agency can revisit the projections on a regular basis and use  the information to address broader agency goals for improvement.
section_title: Most Penalties Assessed by MSHA Are Paid without Opposition, but Many of Those Appealed Are Reduced Significantly
paragraphs: Most of the penalties proposed by MSHA are paid by mine operators  without opposition, but a small percentage of more serious and higher- dollar penalties are appealed, and many of those appealed are reduced  significantly. In order to determine the amount of a proposed penalty,  MSHA uses a standard formula that generally results in larger penalties  being proposed for more serious violations. MSHA assigns point values to  each of the six broad factors outlined in the Mine Act, and two of these  factors—whether the operator was negligent and the gravity of the  violation—carry the greatest weight in deciding the amount of the  proposed penalty. MSHA inspectors are responsible for making an initial  determination regarding the magnitude of these two elements during their  inspections. After an inspector issues a citation and makes an initial  finding regarding the gravity and negligence of the violation, MSHA  determines the magnitude of the remaining four factors and tallies the  points to determine the proposed penalty amount. Between 1996 and 2006,  MSHA proposed 506,707 penalties for safety and health violations, and the  average penalty was $234 per violation. Table 2 details the range of  average penalties, by degree of gravity and negligence, proposed by MSHA  from 1996 through 2006.
MSHA recently changed its regulations governing civil penalty  assessments to update them and increase proposed penalty amounts, and  to implement the new civil penalty requirement of the MINER Act. The  new regulations will increase the points for most of the six statutory  factors, and MSHA officials predicted that the new penalty structure will  increase total proposed penalties by 234 percent. For example, these  changes will increase the maximum points allotted for gravity from 30 to  88 points. MSHA officials asserted that these changes will likely lead to  greater rates of compliance and subsequently a safer working environment  for the nation’s miners.
Between 1996 and 2006, approximately 6 percent (31,589) of the penalties  proposed by MSHA for violations of underground coal mine safety and  health standards were contested by mine operators, and about half of the  contested penalties were reduced. The average amount of a contested  penalty was $1,107, compared to an average of $176 for a noncontested  penalty, and more than half of all contested penalties were for the most  serious violations. Almost half of all penalties contested by underground  coal mine operators are reduced through the appeals process, even those  involving the highest levels of gravity and negligence. From 1996 to 2006,  47 percent of all contested penalties (14,723 penalties) were decreased  from the amount originally proposed by MSHA. On average, these  penalties were reduced by about half of the amount initially proposed by  MSHA using its standard formula.
While all of the entities involved in the appeals process—the Labor’s  Solicitor’s Office, MSHA’s conference litigation representatives (CLR),  and the Commission’s administrative law judges (ALJ)—are required by  law to apply the six statutory factors specified in the Mine Act, they are  not legally obligated to use any particular method to determine a final  penalty amount when they determine that a reduction from MSHA’s  proposed penalty is appropriate. As a result, they have considerable  discretion in deciding on the final penalty amount. Officials from all three  of the entities involved in the appeals process told us that in determining  the size of a final penalty, they apply the six statutory factors on a case-by- case basis and use their professional judgment. For example, officials from  the Solicitor’s Office and CLRs told us that, when appropriate, the  Department of Labor generally views penalty settlements as being in the  best interest of both the agency and the mine operators because  settlements allow them to avoid costly litigation. Attorneys from the  Solicitor’s Office also told us that they analyze the evidence presented by  MSHA inspectors and mine operators and assess their chances of winning  the case in deciding whether to settle a case or go to trial.
Prior decisions by the Commission require ALJ decisions to be sufficiently  explained. However, in some cases we reviewed, while the reasons  supporting a reduction from MSHA’s proposed penalty are clearly  explained, the rationale for the final penalty amount is not always well  documented. For example, in one case decided in October 2005, the ALJ  reduced MSHA’s proposed penalty from $50,000 to $10,000. Although the  judge concluded that the gravity of the violation was less than MSHA had  originally found, thereby supporting a penalty reduction, he appeared to  agree with MSHA’s assessment regarding the other five statutory factors,  including MSHA’s finding that the operator’s degree of negligence was  high.
In conclusion, the events of the last year heightened interest in protecting  miners and preparing them for the perils in their workplace. While  Congress, federal and state officials, mine operators, miners and their  representatives have taken important steps to improve safety in mines,  more can be done in several areas. First, without assistance for mine  operators in providing training under simulated emergency conditions and  adequate monitoring of instructors and the training miners receive, miners  may not be able to safely and confidently escape a mine. Further, the high  rates of retirement eligibility among MSHA and NIOSH scientists and  engineers as well as the need to work together under tight time frames  may render current informal coordination ineffective, thus hampering the  agencies’ efforts to speed the implementation of new safety technology in  mines. Similarly, the expected high attrition among MSHA’s inspector  corps, coupled with the amount of time needed to train new inspectors to  become proficient at their duties, calls for a more strategic approach.  Absent a clear plan to address expected turnover, MSHA could jeopardize  its success to date in reforming the inspector recruitment and hiring  process.
Finally, given the trends over the past 10 years, the higher proposed  penalties under MSHA’s new penalty structure will likely lead more  operators to appeal. As a result, it is important that decisions on contested  penalties are transparent and contain the necessary information to  understand how final penalty amounts are determined. Without such  information, it will be difficult to monitor their decisions over time to  ensure that all of the entities involved in the appeals process are  appropriately and consistently applying the six statutory factors in altering  penalty amounts and that the impact of penalties in protecting miners’  safety through greater compliance by mine operators is not diminished.
In the reports, we made recommendations to the Secretaries of Labor and  Health and Human Services, and the Chairman of the Federal Mine Safety  and Health Review Commission. These recommendations are designed to  strengthen the efforts of Labor, MSHA, NIOSH, and the Commission by  improving mine operators’ access to information and tools for  training their workers,    strengthening MSHA’s oversight of training,  improving the effectiveness of information sharing between MSHA  and NIOSH,    strengthening MSHA’ s human capital strategic planning efforts, and    ensuring that there is transparency in final penalty amounts for  appealed cases.
Each agency generally agreed with the recommendations after reviewing a  draft of the reports.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be pleased to respond to  any questions you or other members of the committee may have.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information, please contact Daniel Bertoni at (202) 512-7215.  Individuals making key contributions to this testimony include   Revae Moran, Sara L. Schibanoff, and Rachael C. Valliere.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.