Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-96-01243/USCOURTS-caDC-96-01243-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Energy West Mining Company
Petitioner
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Respondent
Secretary of Labor
Respondent

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued February 4, 1997 Decided April 25, 1997

No. 96-1243

ENERGY WEST MINING COMPANY,

PETITIONER

v.

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 

AND SECRETARY OF LABOR,

RESPONDENTS

On Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

Timothy M. Biddle argued the cause for the petitioner. 

Thomas C. Means was on brief.

Yoora Kim, Attorney, United States Department of Labor, 

argued the cause for the respondents. J. Davitt McAteer,

Acting Solicitor of Labor, and W. Christian Schumann,

Counsel, United States Department of Labor, were on brief. 

USCA Case #96-1243 Document #268283 Filed: 04/25/1997 Page 1 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

1Each operator must also "take one valid respirable dust sample 

from each designated area on a production shift during each 

bimonthly period beginning with the bimonthly period of December 

1, 1980." 70 C.F.R. § 70.208(a) (emphasis added). 

Norman M. Gleichman, General Counsel, Mine Safety and 

Health Review Commission, entered an appearance.

Before: EDWARDS, Chief Judge; HENDERSON and ROGERS, 

Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.

KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge: Petitioner Energy West Mining Co. (Energy West) seeks review of a 

decision of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review 

Commission (FMSHRC or Commission) affirming the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to uphold a 

withdrawal order issued to Energy West under section 104(b) 

of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine 

Act), 30 U.S.C. § 814(b), for failure to abate a previously cited 

violation of 30 C.F.R. § 70.100(a). Secretary of Labor v. 

Energy West Mining Co., 18 F.M.S.H.R.C. 565 (1996). Because the Commission reasonably construed and applied section 104(b), we conclude that no review is warranted.

Section 5 of the Mine Act requires the Secretary of the 

Department of Labor (Secretary) to "develop, promulgate, 

and revise as may be appropriate, improved mandatory health 

or safety standards for the protection of life and prevention of 

injuries in coal or other mines." 30 U.S.C. § 811. The 

standards require that each mine operator "continuously 

maintain the average concentration of respirable dust in the 

mine atmosphere during each shift to which each miner in the 

active workings of each mine is exposed at or below 2.0 

milligrams of respirable dust per cubic meter of air." 30 

C.F.R. § 70.100(a). To monitor compliance with the standard 

the Secretary has required each operator to "take five valid 

respirable dust samples from the designated occupation in 

each mechanized mining unit during each bimonthly period 

beginning with the bimonthly period of November 1, 1980." 

30 C.F.R. § 70.207(a).1In April 1992 Energy West submitUSCA Case #96-1243 Document #268283 Filed: 04/25/1997 Page 2 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

2This section provides:

(1) If, upon any inspection of a coal or other mine, an 

authorized representative of the Secretary finds that there has 

been a violation of any mandatory health or safety standard, 

and if he also finds that, while the conditions created by such 

violation do not cause imminent danger, such violation is of 

such nature as could significantly and substantially contribute 

to the cause and effect of a coal or other mine safety or health 

hazard, and if he finds such violation to be caused by an 

unwarrantable failure of such operator to comply with such 

mandatory health or safety standards, he shall include such 

finding in any citation given to the operator under this chapter. 

If, during the same inspection or any subsequent inspection of 

such mine within 90 days after the issuance of such citation, an 

authorized representative of the Secretary finds another violation of any mandatory health or safety standard and finds such 

violation to be also caused by an unwarrantable failure of such 

operator to so comply, he shall forthwith issue an order requiring the operator to cause all persons in the area affected by 

such violation, except those persons referred to in subsection 

(c) of this section to be withdrawn from, and to be prohibited 

from entering, such area until an authorized representative of 

the Secretary determines that such violation has been abated.

30 U.S.C. § 814(d)(1). 

ted to the Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (MSHA) its first bimonthly coal dust level 

samples for Mechanized Mining Unit 015 (MMU 015), then 

operating in the 4th West longwall section of the Cottonwood 

mine in central Utah. The sampling revealed an average 

dust concentration of 1.4 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m 3), 

below the maximum permissible level of 2.0 mg/m 3. The 

next sampling, however, taken in June 1992, showed an 

average concentration of 2.2 mg/m 3, over the legal limit. 

Accordingly, on June 25, 1992 MSHA cited Energy West 

under section 104(d)(1) of the Mine Act2for a "significant and 

substantial" violation of the standard in 30 C.F.R. § 70.100(a). 

The citation provided that "Management shall take corrective 

action to lower the respirable dust and then sample each 

production shift until five valid samples are taken and submitUSCA Case #96-1243 Document #268283 Filed: 04/25/1997 Page 3 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

3The ALJ found: "Conditions on 11th Right were dramatically 

different from 4th West. Most notably, where 4th West was dry, 

11th Right was very wet. In addition, unlike 4th West, where face 

burst and rock in the roof were problems, on 11th Right, problems 

were encountered with the top, resulting in lower production." 

Secretary of Labor v. Energy West Mining Co., 16 F.M.S.H.R.C. 

835, 843 (1994) (record citations omitted). 

4According to the ALJ, "[t]hese helmets provide a virtually dustfree air supply to miners, reducing respirable dust exposure to 

insignificant levels." 16 F.M.S.H.R.C. at 843. 

ted" and gave Energy West until July 14, 1992 to abate the 

violation. Joint Appendix (JA) 12.

After attempting some abatement measures Energy West 

took new samples on July 1, 2, and 3, 1992, as required by the 

citation, and submitted them to MSHA. On July 10, 1992, 

without waiting for the sample results, Energy West moved 

MMU 015 from 4th West about two miles away to the 11th 

Right section of the mine, where, according to testimony 

before the ALJ, different roof conditions and greater moisture would reduce the respirable dust level problem.3 As an 

added precaution, Energy West provided workers at the site 

with "RACAL airstream helmets" to filter dust from the air 

they breathed.4

On July 15, while examining records during a regularly 

scheduled inspection of the mine, MSHA Inspector Fred 

Marietti was recalled to the MSHA field office and advised 

that the July 1, 2 and 3 samples showed increases both in the 

average dust concentration level, from 2.2 to 2.3 mg/m 3, and 

in the number of samples registering over 2.0 mg/m 3, from

two to three. Marietti immediately issued and personally 

delivered a section 104(b) withdrawal order based on Energy 

West's failure to abate the section 70.100(a) violation, directing that MMU-015 cease operation "until the operator submitts [sic] a plan to the District Nine Manager for approval to 

lower the average concentration of respirable dust to the 

required level." JA 13. In the order, Marietti expressly 

found: "Due to the obvious lack of effort by the operator to 

control the respirable dust, the period of reasonable time for 

USCA Case #96-1243 Document #268283 Filed: 04/25/1997 Page 4 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

5The ALJ explained: "The Secretary agreed to such an amendment based upon affidavits submitted by the operator showing that 

the miners who were exposed to the levels of respirable dust listed 

in the citation were all wearing personal protective equipment." 16 

F.M.S.H.R.C. at 837. 

abatement cannot be extended." Id. Later the same day, 

Marietti amended the order to permit mining to resume 

provided Energy West complied with a dust reduction plan 

approved by the MSHA district manager. The amended 

order also called for increased air velocity and water pressure 

and additional spraying as well as the continued use of 

airstream helmets. JA 14. The order was terminated on 

July 22, 1992 after sampling at 11th Right showed an average 

respirable dust concentration of 1.8 mg/m 3. JA 15.

Energy West contested the citation and withdrawal order 

and a hearing was held before the ALJ on August 31 and 

September 1, 1993, during which the ALJ, with MSHA's 

consent, eliminated the "significant and substantial" designation from the citation.5 On April 18, 1994 the ALJ affirmed 

the July 15, 1992 withdrawal order and imposed a penalty of 

$3,000. Secretary of Labor v. Energy West Mining Co., 16 

F.M.S.H.R.C. 835 (1994). In affirming the withdrawal order, 

the ALJ stated:

Inspector Marietti realized, upon review of the records, 

that during the 21-day abatement period, the level of 

respirable dust had not been diminished in any respect, 

but indeed had climbed. It is more than reasonable to 

assume that if a diligent effort had been made that it 

would be reflected in the sample results. That is, the 

abatement samples would show a decline in respirable 

dust, rather than an increase. In addition, if a diligent 

effort to control dust had been made by the operator, the 

individual samples should have improved over the abatement time. Instead, the individual samples that were out 

of compliance had increased from two to three. An 

increase in the average concentration and an increase in 

the individual concentrations clearly indicate that the 

USCA Case #96-1243 Document #268283 Filed: 04/25/1997 Page 5 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

6Two of the four commissioners wrote separately. Commissioner 

Marks concurred in the affirmance of the withdrawal order and 

dissented from the penalty remand, while Commissioner Holen 

concurred in the penalty remand and dissented from the withdrawal 

order affirmance. 

mine made little effective effort to correct the respirable 

dust violation.

16 F.M.S.H.R.C. at 849.

Energy West sought and obtained discretionary review 

from the Commission which affirmed the ALJ's disposition of 

the withdrawal order, concluding that "substantial evidence 

supports the judge's determination that Inspector Marietti 

did not abuse his discretion when he issued the order" and 

that "substantial evidence supports the judge's finding that 

Energy West "made only a minimal and inadequate effort to 

control dust.' " 18 F.M.S.H.R.C. at 569-70 (quoting 16 

F.M.S.H.R.C. at 847). The Commission expressly "reject[ed] 

Energy West's argument that the judge erred in failing to 

consider its move of the MMU as part of its abatement 

efforts," observing that "[a]pparently the inspector was unaware of the movement of MMU 015-0 at the time he issued 

the order" and that "[i]f the MMU was moved as a further 

abatement measure, that fact could have been brought to 

MSHA's attention at the time of the move." 18 F.M.S.H.R.C. 

at 570. Nevertheless, the Commission remanded for redetermination of the penalty in light of the mitigating factor that 

Energy West required workers to wear airstream helmets 

throughout the violation period.6 On remand the ALJ decreased the penalty to $850, pursuant to the parties' stipulation. Secretary of Labor v. Energy West Mining Co., 18 

F.M.S.H.R.C. 887 (1996). Energy West again petitioned the 

Commission for discretionary review which was summarily 

denied on June 12, 1996. Secretary of Labor v. Energy West 

Mining Co., 1996 WL 324725 (F.M.S.H.R.C.) (1996). Energy

West petitions the court for review of the Commission's 

decision to uphold the section 104(b) withdrawal order.

Section 104(b) of the Mine Act provides:

USCA Case #96-1243 Document #268283 Filed: 04/25/1997 Page 6 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

If, upon any follow-up inspection of a coal or other 

mine, an authorized representative of the Secretary finds 

(1) that a violation described in a citation issued pursuant 

to subsection (a) of this section has not been totally 

abated within the period of time as originally fixed 

therein or as subsequently extended, and (2) that the 

period of time for the abatement should not be further 

extended, he shall determine the extent of the area 

affected by the violation and shall promptly issue an 

order requiring the operator of such mine or his agent to 

immediately cause all persons, except those persons referred to in subsection (c) of this section, to be withdrawn 

from, and to be prohibited from entering, such area until 

an authorized representative of the Secretary determines 

that such violation has been abated.

30 U.S.C. § 814(b). Energy West asserts that Marietti failed 

to make a sufficient "follow-up inspection" to support a finding that the abatement period should not be extended. According to Energy West, Marietti was under a statutory duty 

to personally inspect the cited MMU, or at least to make 

some independent inquiry into the abatement measures taken, before he issued the section 104(b) withdrawal order. If 

he had conducted such an inspection, Energy West maintains, 

he would have discovered that substantial, effective efforts to 

abate the hazard had been taken, notably the relocation of 

MMU 015, and consequently would have found that the 

abatement period should be extended. We uphold the Commission's decision because it reflects a reasonable construction of section 104(b).

As the Commission observed below: "The Act does not 

address the extent of an inspector's inquiry in making the 

determination of whether abatement time should be extended. 

Nor is the extent of inquiry addressed in legislative history." 

18 F.M.S.H.R.C. at 569 (citations omitted). This court has 

acknowledged that the term "inspection" has no "plain meaning" in other related sections of the Mine Act and we have in 

fact concluded that, as used in section 104(d), the term "must 

cover more than direct observation." Emerald Mines Co. v. 

USCA Case #96-1243 Document #268283 Filed: 04/25/1997 Page 7 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

7Marietti testified that Energy West's chief safety engineer, 

Randy Tatton, had told him the operator "didn't want to include" 

measures such as additional sprays, increased air and different 

locations "because they didn't want to get violations, and if they did, 

that they would have nowhere to go to abate the violations." 

Tatton himself testified that "if we were to get parameters in our 

plan that were at the very max, then, you know, we have nowhere 

to go." 16 F.M.S.H.R.C. at 847-48. 

FMSHRC, 863 F.2d 51, 55 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Here, as in 

Emerald Mines, because "the Mine Act is "silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue,' " we "need ask only 

whether the FMSHRC's interpretation is "rational and consistent with the statute,' ... according deference to "reasonably 

defensible' constructions of the Mine Act by the Commission." 

863 F.2d at 53 (quoting Simpson v. FMSHRC, 842 F.2d 453, 

458 (D.C. Cir. 1988)) (ellipsis in original). Further, "[t]he 

respect due to FMSHRC is heightened in this case because 

the Secretary agrees with the Commission." Id. (citing 

Simpson, 863 F.2d at 53). We find the Commission's decision 

passes muster under our highly deferential standard of review.

The Commission concluded that Marietti's inspection was 

adequate because he "considered the fact that, during the 

three week abatement period, excessive dust concentrations 

had not diminished but had, in fact, increased; that the 

number of individual samples out of compliance had increased 

from two out of five to three out of five, and that Energy 

West had been cited frequently for failure to comply with 

section 70.100(a)." 18 F.M.S.H.R.C. at 569-70. We agree 

with the Commission that these facts permitted Marietti 

without further inquiry to "find," as the statute requires, that 

the abatement period should not be extended. As the inspector, the ALJ and the Commission all concluded, a rise during 

the abatement period in the average concentration level and 

the number of samples in violation inferentially supports the 

finding that no effective abatement measures had been undertaken, as does Marietti's familiarity with Energy West's 

history of violations and its apparent unwillingness to incorporate into its ventilation plan measures it knew to be palliative.7 That Marietti looked no further than the sample test 

USCA Case #96-1243 Document #268283 Filed: 04/25/1997 Page 8 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

8Given the evidence of increased hazard during the abatement 

period we need not address Energy West's contention that mere 

continuation of a violation cannot support a finding that the abatement period should not be extended. 

results was understandable given that both the Secretary's 

regulations and the withdrawal order prescribe sample testing as the appropriate means for ascertaining respirable dust 

concentration levels.8

We also agree with the Commission that the burden rested 

on Energy West to bring to MSHA's attention any specific 

abatement measures justifying extension of the abatement 

period, particularly in the face of what appeared to be deteriorating mine conditions. Energy West knew that MMU 015's 

respirable dust levels remained high at least until its relocation on July 10 and that the July 1, 2 and 3 samples the 

petitioner submitted to MSHA would no doubt reflect that 

fact. If Energy West believed that moving the MMU justified an extension of the abatement period despite the high 

dust levels, it should have brought those actions to MSHA's 

attention before the abatement period ended and the withdrawal order issued. It could easily have done so during 

Marietti's July 15, 1992 mine visits and it apparently did not 

do soat its own peril.

For the preceding reasons, the petition for review is

Denied.

USCA Case #96-1243 Document #268283 Filed: 04/25/1997 Page 9 of 9