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. 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. 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. 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.