{"id":4088,"date":"2026-04-23T09:44:36","date_gmt":"2026-04-23T13:44:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/?p=4088"},"modified":"2026-04-23T11:26:10","modified_gmt":"2026-04-23T15:26:10","slug":"d-c-circuit-says-off-site-facilities-are-mines","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/d-c-circuit-says-off-site-facilities-are-mines\/","title":{"rendered":"D.C. Circuit Says Off-Site Facilities Are \u201cMines\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

On Friday, April 17, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a major decision, Secretary of Labor v. KC Transport<\/em><\/a>, addressing the extent of MSHA\u2019s jurisdiction over buildings and facilities that are used to support mining activities, but not located on an active mine site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background \u2013 contractor trucks and maintenance shops<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The case involves a contractor, KC Transport, that contracted with a mining company in West Virginia to provide trucking services. (It contracted with other companies as well; 60% of its work was for the mine company.) KC Transport built a maintenance shop for its trucks, located off a private road owned by the mining company. The maintenance shop was about a mile from the company\u2019s coal processing plant and 4-6 miles from several underground and surface mines. The trucks serviced at the shop were a mix of off-road trucks that serviced the mines\u2014notably haul trucks\u2014and trucks used for other purposes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MSHA inspectors were in the area looking for the trucks to terminate previously issued citations\u2014issued while the trucks were working within the footprint of an active mine\u2014when they went to the facility and saw maintenance being performed on two trucks without all the raised components on the trucks being blocked against motion. MSHA issued two citations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

KC Transport contested the citations before the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (the \u201cCommission\u201d), arguing that the maintenance shop was not a \u201cmine\u201d as defined in the Mine Act, and therefore MSHA did not have jurisdiction to inspect the maintenance shop or authority to issue enforcement on the shop or the equipment located at the shop.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MSHA, on the other hand, argued that the trucks themselves were \u201cmines.\u201d (The Mine Act defines \u201cmine\u201d to include facilities and equipment used in, to be used in, or resulting from mining.) KC Transport relied on a 2017 decision from the Sixth Circuit, Maxxim Rebuild Company v. FMSHRC<\/em><\/a>, 848 F.3d 737 (6th Cir. 2017), which disagreed with longstanding Commission decisions finding that offsite facilities can be \u201cmines\u201d and held that facilities used in mining, such as maintenance shops, are not \u201cmines\u201d unless they are adjacent to or part of an extraction area.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Commission Administrative Law Judge held that the shop was a \u201cmine\u201d and that the trucks, at least while parked there, were also \u201cmines\u201d because they were used in mining. KC Transport appealed, and the Commission agreed with the operator\u2019s arguments, holding that facilities and equipment used in mining are not \u201cmines\u201d unless they are on or adjacent to an extraction site\u2014the same language used to define what is a mine in Maxxim<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MSHA appealed that decision to the D.C. Circuit. MSHA\u2019s position was that trucks and facilities used in mining are \u201cmines\u201d even if not located on or adjacent to extraction sites; instead, MSHA said, the focus should be on the function of the trucks and facilities\u2014whether they were used in mining. Concerningly, MSHA did not articulate an outer limit; for example, it did not explain when a truck used to haul coal would stop being a \u201cmine\u201d or whether a hammer that would one day be used in mining was also a \u201cmine.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The D.C. Circuit partly agrees with MSHA<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

After prolonged litigation, the D.C. Circuit sided\u2014partially\u2014with MSHA. The court largely accepted MSHA\u2019s function-focused definition. It agreed that facilities and shops can be \u201cmines\u201d even if they are not<\/em><\/strong> on or adjacent to an extraction site. The court said that the statute defines a \u201cfacility\u201d as a \u201cmine\u201d when it is necessarily connected with the use and operation of extracting, milling, or processing coal and other minerals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court agreed that KC Transport\u2019s maintenance shop was a \u201cmine,\u201d noting several facts that made it \u201ceasy\u201d to make that call:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  • Location:<\/strong> the shop was close to the private haul road, a mile from a processing plant, and less than five miles from the nearest extraction site<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Permission:<\/strong> the shop was built with the coal company\u2019s permission<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Majority of services: <\/strong>most of KC Transport\u2019s services based at the site (60%) were for the coal company, and the cited trucks were exclusively used to haul coal<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Activities: <\/strong>the trucks operated on mine roads and to\/from extraction and processing sites, and were actively used to haul coal<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

    Mine operators and other employers who are unsure whether they have facilities that may be \u201cmines\u201d would do well to consider whether their operations are similar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Mine operators in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee (which are the states covered by the Sixth Circuit\u2019s Maxxim Rebuild<\/em> decision) should take note as well. If MSHA had previously stopped inspecting certain offsite facilities, it may begin inspections again after this decision. This split between the Sixth and DC Circuit Courts decisions has the potential to cause confusion nationwide, depending on which definition MSHA decides to apply.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Decision does not adopt MSHA\u2019s extreme view but does not provide much-needed clarity<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Crucially, the D.C. Circuit did not adopt MSHA\u2019s position that the trucks were also mines. This important aspect of the decision should not be overlooked. This decision should provide some relief from concerns that the agency will inspect any vehicle, tool, or equipment that was once used in mining, no matter where it is located.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    But the decision does not answer every question on MSHA\u2019s jurisdiction over offsite facilities and equipment. The D.C. Circuit\u2019s rule\u2014that a facility is a \u201cmine\u201d if it is \u201cnecessarily connected with the use and operation\u201d of mining activities\u2014does not seem to provide much more clarity than the statutory language. And the court even said that, after its decision, it may still be difficult for employers and contractors to determine whether they operate a \u201cmine\u201d:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Admittedly, the statute\u2019s text does not provide a framework from which regulated parties can perfectly predict the scope of MSHA\u2019s jurisdiction with respect to all movable objects that are, have been, or could be used in mining. While that may be frustrating for KC Transport and similar businesses servicing mines, we have no need to reach all of those questions today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What\u2019s next for MSHA and for operators after this decision?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    The D.C. Circuit notes that MSHA is permitted to exercise its authority over offsite facilities. Whether and to what extent it will do so is a different question. During the first Trump administration, the agency did not aggressively assert its jurisdiction around the edges; it may take a similar approach during this administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    And this decision may not be the last word in this case. The mine operator sought Supreme Court review once already during this litigation and may do so again. Will the Department of Justice encourage the Supreme Court to review the decision, especially since it conflicts with the Sixth Circuit? Will the Department of Justice defend the D.C. Circuit\u2019s decision? The parties\u2019 litigation decisions over the next few months will tell.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    If you find yourself in a situation where you believe MSHA is inspecting your facility or equipment, or issuing citations without authority, whether by location or operation, it is imperative to challenge the agency. Whether by filing contests of the citations or orders issued, and\/or by memorializing your objection to the inspection with MSHA leadership at the district or national level. MSHA has warrantless authority to inspect mines, but it is a critical aspect of challenging the agency on jurisdiction grounds to assert this challenge clearly and as soon as possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    No doubt, even nearly 50 years after the Mine Act of 1977, questions about the limits of MSHA\u2019s jurisdiction will continue to arise and be litigated, as we have yet to agree upon what constitutes a mine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit takes a broad view of the boundaries of MSHA\u2019s authority\u2014and raises new questions for mine operators and contractors alike. In Secretary of Labor v. KC Transport, the court weighed whether offsite facilities that support mining operations can themselves be deemed \u201cmines\u201d under the Mine Act, even when they are miles from active extraction sites. The ruling partially endorses MSHA\u2019s function-based approach while stopping short of the agency\u2019s most expansive jurisdictional claims. The decision carries important consequences for how MSHA jurisdiction may be asserted and challenged going forward.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":32,"featured_media":4090,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[161],"class_list":["post-4088","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general-msha-law-trends","tag-mobile-equipment-haulage"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nD.C. Circuit Says Off-Site Facilities Are \u201cMines\u201d - MSHA Defense Report<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/d-c-circuit-says-off-site-facilities-are-mines\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"D.C. Circuit Says Off-Site Facilities Are \u201cMines\u201d - MSHA Defense Report\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit takes a broad view of the boundaries of MSHA\u2019s authority\u2014and raises new questions for mine operators and contractors alike. In Secretary of Labor v. KC Transport, the court weighed whether offsite facilities that support mining operations can themselves be deemed \u201cmines\u201d under the Mine Act, even when they are miles from active extraction sites. The ruling partially endorses MSHA\u2019s function-based approach while stopping short of the agency\u2019s most expansive jurisdictional claims. The decision carries important consequences for how MSHA jurisdiction may be asserted and challenged going forward.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/d-c-circuit-says-off-site-facilities-are-mines\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"MSHA Defense Report\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-04-23T13:44:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-04-23T15:26:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2026\/04\/iStock-172431410-1024x683.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1024\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"683\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Erin Maglione\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Erin Maglione\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/msha-defense-report\\\/d-c-circuit-says-off-site-facilities-are-mines\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/msha-defense-report\\\/d-c-circuit-says-off-site-facilities-are-mines\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Erin Maglione\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/msha-defense-report\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/bed1120e107105e74b5bbfb7cfb1780c\"},\"headline\":\"D.C. Circuit Says Off-Site Facilities Are \u201cMines\u201d\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-23T13:44:36+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-23T15:26:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/msha-defense-report\\\/d-c-circuit-says-off-site-facilities-are-mines\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1302,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/msha-defense-report\\\/d-c-circuit-says-off-site-facilities-are-mines\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/msha-defense-report\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/iStock-172431410.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Mobile Equipment & Haulage\"],\"articleSection\":[\"General MSHA Law Trends\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/msha-defense-report\\\/d-c-circuit-says-off-site-facilities-are-mines\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/msha-defense-report\\\/d-c-circuit-says-off-site-facilities-are-mines\\\/\",\"name\":\"D.C. Circuit Says Off-Site Facilities Are \u201cMines\u201d - MSHA Defense Report\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/msha-defense-report\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/msha-defense-report\\\/d-c-circuit-says-off-site-facilities-are-mines\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/msha-defense-report\\\/d-c-circuit-says-off-site-facilities-are-mines\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/msha-defense-report\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/iStock-172431410.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-23T13:44:36+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-23T15:26:10+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/msha-defense-report\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/bed1120e107105e74b5bbfb7cfb1780c\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/msha-defense-report\\\/d-c-circuit-says-off-site-facilities-are-mines\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/msha-defense-report\\\/d-c-circuit-says-off-site-facilities-are-mines\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/msha-defense-report\\\/d-c-circuit-says-off-site-facilities-are-mines\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/msha-defense-report\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/iStock-172431410.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/msha-defense-report\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/iStock-172431410.jpg\",\"width\":2119,\"height\":1414,\"caption\":\"Dump Truck on Haul Road\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/msha-defense-report\\\/d-c-circuit-says-off-site-facilities-are-mines\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/msha-defense-report\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"D.C. Circuit Says Off-Site Facilities Are \u201cMines\u201d\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/msha-defense-report\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/msha-defense-report\\\/\",\"name\":\"MSHA Defense Report\",\"description\":\"Conn Maciel Carey\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/msha-defense-report\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/msha-defense-report\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/bed1120e107105e74b5bbfb7cfb1780c\",\"name\":\"Erin Maglione\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/bc7555a8f60374b16a0025b11a069a44f13e5a2878c076f7cdd77f46a576e604?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/bc7555a8f60374b16a0025b11a069a44f13e5a2878c076f7cdd77f46a576e604?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/bc7555a8f60374b16a0025b11a069a44f13e5a2878c076f7cdd77f46a576e604?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Erin Maglione\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/msha-defense-report\\\/author\\\/erinmaglione\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"D.C. Circuit Says Off-Site Facilities Are \u201cMines\u201d - MSHA Defense Report","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/d-c-circuit-says-off-site-facilities-are-mines\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"D.C. Circuit Says Off-Site Facilities Are \u201cMines\u201d - MSHA Defense Report","og_description":"A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit takes a broad view of the boundaries of MSHA\u2019s authority\u2014and raises new questions for mine operators and contractors alike. In Secretary of Labor v. KC Transport, the court weighed whether offsite facilities that support mining operations can themselves be deemed \u201cmines\u201d under the Mine Act, even when they are miles from active extraction sites. The ruling partially endorses MSHA\u2019s function-based approach while stopping short of the agency\u2019s most expansive jurisdictional claims. The decision carries important consequences for how MSHA jurisdiction may be asserted and challenged going forward.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/d-c-circuit-says-off-site-facilities-are-mines\/","og_site_name":"MSHA Defense Report","article_published_time":"2026-04-23T13:44:36+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-04-23T15:26:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1024,"height":683,"url":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2026\/04\/iStock-172431410-1024x683.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Erin Maglione","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Erin Maglione","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/d-c-circuit-says-off-site-facilities-are-mines\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/d-c-circuit-says-off-site-facilities-are-mines\/"},"author":{"name":"Erin Maglione","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/#\/schema\/person\/bed1120e107105e74b5bbfb7cfb1780c"},"headline":"D.C. Circuit Says Off-Site Facilities Are \u201cMines\u201d","datePublished":"2026-04-23T13:44:36+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-23T15:26:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/d-c-circuit-says-off-site-facilities-are-mines\/"},"wordCount":1302,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/d-c-circuit-says-off-site-facilities-are-mines\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2026\/04\/iStock-172431410.jpg","keywords":["Mobile Equipment & Haulage"],"articleSection":["General MSHA Law Trends"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/d-c-circuit-says-off-site-facilities-are-mines\/","url":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/d-c-circuit-says-off-site-facilities-are-mines\/","name":"D.C. Circuit Says Off-Site Facilities Are \u201cMines\u201d - MSHA Defense Report","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/d-c-circuit-says-off-site-facilities-are-mines\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/d-c-circuit-says-off-site-facilities-are-mines\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2026\/04\/iStock-172431410.jpg","datePublished":"2026-04-23T13:44:36+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-23T15:26:10+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/#\/schema\/person\/bed1120e107105e74b5bbfb7cfb1780c"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/d-c-circuit-says-off-site-facilities-are-mines\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/d-c-circuit-says-off-site-facilities-are-mines\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/d-c-circuit-says-off-site-facilities-are-mines\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2026\/04\/iStock-172431410.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2026\/04\/iStock-172431410.jpg","width":2119,"height":1414,"caption":"Dump Truck on Haul Road"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/d-c-circuit-says-off-site-facilities-are-mines\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"D.C. Circuit Says Off-Site Facilities Are \u201cMines\u201d"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/","name":"MSHA Defense Report","description":"Conn Maciel Carey","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/#\/schema\/person\/bed1120e107105e74b5bbfb7cfb1780c","name":"Erin Maglione","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/bc7555a8f60374b16a0025b11a069a44f13e5a2878c076f7cdd77f46a576e604?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/bc7555a8f60374b16a0025b11a069a44f13e5a2878c076f7cdd77f46a576e604?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/bc7555a8f60374b16a0025b11a069a44f13e5a2878c076f7cdd77f46a576e604?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Erin Maglione"},"url":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/author\/erinmaglione\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4088","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/32"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4088"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4088\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4098,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4088\/revisions\/4098"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4090"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4088"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4088"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/msha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4088"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}