FirstAlerts

MSHA Reopens Comment Record on Mine Ventilation Plan Rule, Schedules Virtual Hearing

A Federal Register notice published August 3, 2026 says the agency acted in response to a public request, with comments closing September 30, 2026.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 7, 2026, 11:00 a.m. ET
The Mine Safety and Health Administration is reopening the rulemaking record and scheduling a virtual public hearing on its titled "Ventilation Plan Approval Criteria," according to a notice published in the Federal Register on August 3, 2026. The notice, issued by the and MSHA, states that the step was taken in response to a public request. The at issue was published on July 1, 2025, according to the notice. The document is classified as a and carries the Federal Register reference number . The record lists a comment closing date of September 30, 2026. The notice as recorded does not give a date for the virtual public hearing, and it does not describe the substance of the public request that prompted the reopening. The rulemaking is a developing matter and further material may be added to the docket.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 27 Aug 2026, 15:00current

    No new facts; clarified that the issuing bodies are the Labor Department and MSHA and that the notice as recorded gives no hearing date, and noted the matter is developing.

  2. Version 17 Aug 2026, 14:57

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.