The Problem of Regulatory Revision and Review

In 1987, MSHA proposed a series of draft revisions to ventilation standards in methane-producing mines. MSHA circulated copies of the draft revisions along with the original standard and comments justifying the proposed change. An excerpt ftom the document appears in Fig. 1.4. As the document circulated among interested parties, each new reader commented upon revisions and responded to comments of previous reviewers. 

As the excerpt in Fig. 1.4 illustrates, the layering of responses within the document becomes increasingly more complex as respondents react to comments from previous commentators. As the number of commentators and interpretations increases with each new review, it becomes increasingly difficult to separate writer, respondent, and audience within the text. 

To challenge a revision, reviewers must demonstrate the flaws in their opponent s interpretation of the evidence. Each commentator raises new questions about the uncertainty of new technologies and the efficacy of standards that were in effect at the time of previous disasters. In one memo, Bernard (1987) challenges the results of a technical review of the issues raised in previous memos. Bernard s handwritten comments above the typed text make explicit his alternative conception of Utah mining law. Bernard draws upon a previous accident to challenge the agency s representation that these events were rare. He argues instead that the same standards were in effect in a previous accident when MSHA and Co. personel [sic] were killed [in] 

In the Cane creek explosion, gases liberated during blasting 

NO metal and noniaetal rulemaking effort has ever addressed 

---