Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-97-01100/USCOURTS-caDC-97-01100-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Consolidation Coal 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 January 14, 1998 Decided February 27, 1998 

No. 97-1100

CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY,

PETITIONER

v.

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION AND 

THE SECRETARY OF LABOR,

RESPONDENTS

On Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

Elizabeth S. Chamberlin argued the cause and filed the 

briefs for petitioner.

Yoora Kim, Attorney, U.S. Department of Labor, argued 

the cause for respondents, with whom W. Christian Schumann, Counsel, was on the brief. Norman M. Gleichman,

General Counsel, Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, entered an appearance.

USCA Case #97-1100 Document #333690 Filed: 02/27/1998 Page 1 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Before: ROGERS and GARLAND, Circuit Judges and BUCKLEY, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge ROGERS.

ROGERS, Circuit Judge: Consolidation Coal Company petitions the court for review of a decision of the Mine Safety and 

Health Review Commission upholding a citation by the Mine 

Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) for failure to 

ensure that any of its miners could at all times see a warning 

signal mounted on a methane monitor in one of its mines, in 

contravention of 30 C.F.R. § 75.342(b)(2). Consolidation concedes that its miners could not see the warning signal at all 

times, but contends that because its mine automatically shut 

down whenever the methane levels reached the point where 

the warning signal was to be triggered, it was in compliance 

with the regulation. Mindful of the substantial deference we 

owe the Secretary in the interpretation of her own regulations, we deny the petition for review.

I.

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

"Mine Act"), 30 U.S.C. §§ 801 et seq. (1988), Congress directed the Secretary of Labor 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 ... mines." 30 U.S.C. § 811(a) (1988). Concerned 

about the accumulation of methane gas and ignition sources 

that could spark explosions, Congress directed the Secretary 

to require that mine operators install monitors "for detecting 

concentrations of methane" on "any electric face cutting 

equipment," including "longwall face equipment." 30 U.S.C. 

§ 863(l). Pursuant to this congressional delegation, the Secretary of Labor has promulgated regulations requiring the 

installation of methane monitors on, inter alia, "all ... longwall face equipment." 30 C.F.R. § 75.342(a)(1) (1997). The 

Secretary requires each of the methane monitors to include a 

warning signal. In 1994, the regulations provided:

USCA Case #97-1100 Document #333690 Filed: 02/27/1998 Page 2 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

(1) When the methane concentration at any methane 

monitor reaches 1.0 percent the monitor shall give a 

warning signal.

(2) The warning signal device of the methane monitor 

shall be visible to a person who can deenergize the 

equipment on which the monitor is mounted.

30 C.F.R. § 75.342(b) (1994).1 The Secretary at that time 

also required all longwall machinery to shut down when the 

methane concentration in the mine reached 2.0%. 30 C.F.R. 

§ 75.342(c) (1994).2

Consolidation uses the longwall mining system to extract 

coal from its Robinson Run No. 95 mine in West Virginia. A 

longwall is created by digging two parallel, vertical tunnels 

and a third horizontal connector tunnel. See International 

Union, United Mine Workers v. FMSHA, 931 F.2d 908, 910 

(D.C. Cir. 1991). The horizontal connector is the longwall; 

its ceiling "exposes the face of rock from which coal will be 

extracted by a shearer moving back and forth across the 

face." United Mine Workers v. Dole, 870 F.2d 662, 675 (D.C. 

Cir. 1989). The shearing process not only cuts coal, but 

releases methane contained in the coal seams. Methane is an 

odorless, colorless, tasteless, and highly explosive gas that 

emanates naturally from the seams. S. Rep. No. 95-181, at 

41 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3401, 3441.

Longwall face 2-D in Consolidation's West Virginia mine 

contains two methane sensors, placed at the middle and one 

end (the "tailgate") of the longwall. These sensors are 

connected to a methane monitor located at the other end of 

__________

1 The regulations do not differ in any relevant way today. See 

30 C.F.R. § 75.342(b) (1997).

2

In 1994, 30 C.F.R. § 75.342(c) provided:

The methane monitor shall automatically deenergize the machine on which it is mounted when

(1) The methane concentration at any methane monitor 

reaches 2.0 percent; or

(2) The monitor is not operating properly.

USCA Case #97-1100 Document #333690 Filed: 02/27/1998 Page 3 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

the longwall (the "headgate"). The monitor contains a panel 

with a yellow warning light that flashes when methane reaches a level of 1.0% of the atmosphere as well as a red "trip 

light" that will activate at the same time. It also contains two 

digital displays that provide readouts of the methane levels 

along the longwall face. Whenever the warning lights are 

triggered, the lighting on petitioner's longwall face goes out 

and all the equipment electrically connected to the longwall 

automatically deenergizes, with the exception of the methane 

monitors and face telephone system.3In this way, Consolidation's mine automatically shuts down before federal regulations require it to do so, at 1.0% methane, rather than at 2.0% 

methane. See 30 C.F.R. § 75.342(c)(1) (1997).

After promulgating section 75.342(b), MSHA inspectors 

notified Consolidation seven times that its mine did not 

comply with the regulation. In 1993, MSHA sent two letters 

to Consolidation discussing the regulation's visibility requirements. The company took no action in response to the letters 

and warnings. On April 19, 1994, a MSHA inspector visited 

Consolidation's West Virginia mine. The inspector could not 

see the warning lights on the system's methane monitor from 

the position of the "headgate operator," who was the miner 

closest to the monitor. The monitor was located approximately thirty feet from the place where the headgate operator would shovel spilled coal onto the conveyor belt that took 

the coal to the surface. Accordingly, the MSHA inspector 

issued a citation for failure to comply with section 

75.342(b)(2).

Consolidation contested the citation, and an Administrative 

Law Judge vacated it. Although there was no doubt that the 

headgate operator could not see the warning lights of the 

methane monitor at all times, the judge concluded that the 

deenergization of the longwall mining equipment and nearby 

lighting when the methane level reached 1.0% constituted a 

"visible signal to the headgate operator and other miners 

__________

3 According to the parties' briefs, to a person standing where 

the headgate operator was, automatic deenergization appears virtually identical to a power outage.

USCA Case #97-1100 Document #333690 Filed: 02/27/1998 Page 4 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

authorized to deenergize the longwall ... that methane may 

have reached 1.0%," as required by section 75.342(b)(2). Consolidation Coal Co. v. Secretary of Labor, 16 FMSHRC 1241, 

1246 (1994). The automatic shut down met this warning 

function because

the headgate operator [then] must return to the master 

control box to restart the power. When the operator 

arrives at the control box after a methane shutdown, he 

will be confronted by computer [sic] display that will 

advise him in plain english [sic] that there has been a 

"methane monitor fault."

Id. at 1243-44 (citations omitted).

The Secretary appealed to the Commission, arguing that 

the "evidence was undisputed that the warning signal device 

on the methane monitor was not visible to a person who could 

deenergize the longwall," and that that fact was determinative 

of noncompliance with section 75.342(b)(2). Consolidation 

Coal Co. v. Secretary of Labor, 18 FMSHRC 1903, 1906 

(1996). By a 2-1 vote, the Commission accepted the Secretary's interpretation of the regulation and reinstated the 

citation. Id. at 1906. Regarding Consolidation's automatic 

deenergization at 1.0% methane, the Commission observed 

that "[t]he Secretary's regulatory scheme requires human 

intervention when methane levels reach 1 percent and automatic deenergization of equipment at 2 percent methane. 

Consol[idation] has, in effect, eliminated the requirement for 

human intervention" in contravention of section 75.342(b)(2). 

Id.

II.

Whether Consolidation's methane monitoring system complies with section 75.342(b)(2) turns on the Secretary's analysis of the regulation that was accepted by the Commission. 

"We accord great deference to interpretations ... advanced 

by the Secretary and accepted by the Commission." Energy 

West Mining Co. v. FMSHRC, 40 F.3d 457, 462 (D.C. Cir. 

1994). The court "must defer" to their interpretations "unless an 'alternative reading is compelled by the regulation's 

USCA Case #97-1100 Document #333690 Filed: 02/27/1998 Page 5 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

plain language or by other indications of the Secretary's 

intent at the time of the regulation's promulgation.' " Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504, 512 (1994) 

(quoting Gardebring v. Jenkins, 485 U.S. 415, 430 (1988)). 

Likewise, if the administrative interpretation of the regulation is "clearly erroneous," the court must reject it. See, e.g., 

Jim Walter Resources, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, 103 F.3d 

1020, 1024 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

Contrary to Consolidation's contention, we conclude, first, 

that the Secretary's interpretation of section 75.342(b) does 

not conflict with its plain meaning. Under the Secretary's 

interpretation, the monitor warning signal at all times must 

be visible to a miner who could respond if the light is 

triggered by a concentration of 1.0% methane on the longwall 

face. The interpretation requires not just a warning signal, 

but a signal that is a "device of" the methane monitor and a 

signal that is visible at all times to a miner who can react to 

increasing methane levels and, if necessary, deenergize the 

mining equipment. Through this interpretation, the Secretary has appropriately construed section 75.342(b) to give 

effect to all of its provisions. Cf. Otis Elevator Co. v. 

Secretary of Labor, 921 F.2d 1285, 1289 (D.C. Cir. 1990). It 

is an interpretation that requires a visible signal that would 

be triggered whenever methane levels exceed 1.0%, regardless of what other safety measures may be activated by the 

rise in methane. Consolidation does not have such a signal in 

its West Virginia mine. Its methane warning device is the 

longwall equipment. Thus, if Consolidation's equipment fails 

to deenergize when methane reached 1.0%, its miners might 

never know, because the methane monitor warning lights are 

not always visible to the headgate operator.

Consolidation contends that its methane monitoring device 

could also comport with section 75.342(b)(2). But this alternate reading is not compelled by the regulation. See Thomas 

Jefferson Univ., 512 U.S. at 512. Consolidation's attempt to 

construe the deenergization of all of its mining machinery as 

"the warning signal device of the methane monitor" is implausible. Although such a large-scale response might effectively 

warn the miners that something is wrong, be it a power 

USCA Case #97-1100 Document #333690 Filed: 02/27/1998 Page 6 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

outage or an increased concentration of methane in the mine, 

the longwall machinery can hardly be characterized as a 

"device of" the monitor. The machinery operates to extract 

coal, rather than to measure methane levels. It does not in 

some way belong to the methane monitor, although such 

belonging is what the term "of" suggests the regulation 

means.4 Nor does the machinery serve the purposes of the 

monitor, at least not exclusively, although that is often the 

function filled by a "device." 5 Consolidation's approach thus 

did not clearly comply with section 75.342(b), as it urges.

Nor did the Secretary intend to cover methane monitoring 

devices like the one located in Consolidation's mine when she 

promulgated section 75.342(b)(2). See Gardebring, 485 U.S. 

at 430. As the Secretary explained in the Federal Register 

upon promulgating section 75.342(b)(2),

paragraph (b)(2) requires the warning signal device of 

the methane monitor to be visible to a person capable of 

deenergizing the equipment on which the monitor is 

mounted. This allows the operator of the face equipment, or other person, to deenergize the equipment at 

1.0 percent, if necessary.

57 Fed. Reg. 20,868, 20,891 (May 15, 1992). The Secretary's 

explanation does not suggest any expansive intent to cover 

visible warning signals not covered by the plain language of 

the regulation. Consolidation offers no evidence that the 

__________

4 The word "of" is "used as a function word to indicate the 

material, parts, or elements composing something or the contents 

held by something." Webster's Third New International Dictionary Unabridged 1565 (1981). The longwall machinery is not an 

element of the methane monitor.

5 The term "device" means "a piece of equipment or a mechanism designed to serve a special purpose or perform a special 

function." Webster's Third New International Dictionary Unabridged 618 (1981). The longwall machinery in this sense is not a 

device meant to warn the headgate operator that methane levels 

have reached 1.0%. Its special purpose or function is not to issue 

methane level warnings. The machinery instead mines coal, and 

was installed along the longwall for that purpose.

USCA Case #97-1100 Document #333690 Filed: 02/27/1998 Page 7 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Secretary has ever adopted a different interpretation of the 

regulation, or that she has contradicted her position on 

appeal. See National Wildlife Fed'n v. Browner, 127 F.3d 

1126, 1130 (D.C. Cir. 1997). Hence, there are no "other 

indications of the Secretary's intent at the time of the regulation's promulgation" to suggest that the interpretation taken 

by the Secretary here marks a departure from her stated 

prior understanding in enacting the regulation. See Thomas 

Jefferson Univ., 512 U.S. at 512.

Consolidation, and the dissenting commissioner, see Consolidation Coal Co., 18 FMSHRC at 1908-10 (Jordan, Chair, 

dissenting), suggest that the Secretary's construction is inconsistent with the Mine Act's purpose of increasing miner 

safety, and therefore is unreasonable. See United States v. 

Larionoff, 431 U.S. 864, 872 (1977); Energy West Mining Co.,

40 F.3d at 462; San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC,

789 F.2d 26, 36 (1986). Yet neither Consolidation nor the 

dissent suggest that there can never be a need for a fail safe 

mechanism. By interpreting the regulation to require a 

visible warning signal, the Secretary has assured the existence of a check on rising methane levels in addition to the 

check provided by the automatic shutdown process. If the 

equipment fails for some reason to shut down at 1.0% methane, the Secretary's interpretation ensures that the headgate 

operator will still be warned, after which he can make adjustments to reduce methane levels, thereby avoiding a potentially hazardous situation. This fail-safe, is, presumably, in the 

operator's as well as the miners' interest. While there may 

be contrary arguments based on technological advances or 

the desirability of reducing labor costs, the Secretary's interpretation gives weight to other benefits and in so doing her 

interpretation cannot be deemed clearly erroneous. See Jim 

Walter Resources, Inc., 103 F.3d at 1024.

Early deenergization of the longwall upon the detection of 

1.0% methane may well have its own safety advantages. As 

the Tenth Circuit has explained, "[a]utomatic deenergization 

prevents the electrical equipment from sparking, which could 

ignite the gas and result in an explosion." Ayala v. United 

States, 49 F.3d 607, 609 (10th Cir. 1995). If so, then early 

USCA Case #97-1100 Document #333690 Filed: 02/27/1998 Page 8 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

deenergization may be even safer than later deenergization. 

It may be so safe that the human fail-safe required by the 

Secretary's interpretation of the regulation proves to be 

unnecessary. Yet a contest hearing before an administrative 

law judge or appeal to this court are not the places to 

evaluate alternatives to regulatory requirements. On appeal, 

the Secretary's "plausible and sensible reading of [her] own 

regulation would prevail even if the company had presented 

an equally plausible alternative construction." Cold Spring 

Granite Co. v. FMSHRC, 98 F.3d 1376, 1378 (D.C. Cir. 1996). 

Consolidation had an option to ensure that its safety innovation complied with the Secretary's regulatory scheme by 

petitioning the Secretary for modification of the safety standard, but did not pursue it.6 The court has previously 

recognized that the modification process usefully involves the 

Secretary, who writes the regulations and to whom the court 

must defer in interpreting them, in the process of tailoring 

regulations to fit the particular requirements of mine operators. See Otis Elevator Co., 921 F.2d at 1293. The needs of 

mine operators such as Consolidation can be met through this 

normal regulatory process without stifling technological innovation, much less circumventing the enforcement scheme that 

Congress has authorized the Secretary to establish to carry 

out the safety mandates of the Mine Act.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

__________

6 The Mine Act provides:

Upon petition by the operator ... the Secretary may modify 

the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or 

other mine if the Secretary determines that an alternative 

method of achieving the result of such standard exists which 

will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of 

protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard....

30 U.S.C. § 811(c).

USCA Case #97-1100 Document #333690 Filed: 02/27/1998 Page 9 of 9