Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01659/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01659-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American Mining Congress
Amicus Curiae
Emery Mining Corporation
Petitioner
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Respondent
Secretary of Labor
Respondent
United Mine Workers of America
Intervenor

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UTAH POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, Substituted) 

for Emery Mining Corporation, ) 

) 

Petitioner, ) 

) 

FI LED 

U!litcd Srntes 0:>Urt of Appeals 

'teorh Ci ····,,,;t 

FEB 2 G 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

V • ) 

) 

SECRETARY OF LABOR, FEDERAL MINE & ) 

Nos. 88-1655 

& 

88-1659 

SAFETY. REVIEW COMMISSION, ) 

) 

Respondents, ) 

) ' 

UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Intervenor, ) 

) 

) 

AMERICAN MINING CONGRESS, ) 

) 

Amicus Curiae. ) 

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER 

OF THE FEDERAL MINE SAFETY 

AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 

(Nos. West 86-126-~, 

West 86-131-R, 

West 86-140-R, and 

West 86-141-R) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

John A. Macleod, Thomas C. Means, and Ellen B. Moran, Crowell & 

Moring, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. 

George R. Salem, Solicitor of Labor, Edward P. Clair, Associate 

Solicitor, Dennis D. Clark, Counsel, Appellate Litigation, and 

Barry F. Wisor, Attorney, United States Department of Labor, 

Arlington, Virginia, for Respondent. 

Michael H. Holland, and Mary Lu Jordan, Washington, D.C., for 

Intervenor. 

Appellate Case: 88-1659 Document: 010110191577 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 1 
Charles w. Newcom, and Susan K. Grebeldinger, Sherman & Howard, 

Denver, Colorado, Edward M. Green, and Mark G. Ellis, American 

Mining Congress, Washington, D.C., filed an Amicus Curiae Brief 

for American Mining Congress. 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cases are therefore ordered 

These cases present two issues of first impression in this 

circuit: 

1. Whether walkaround rights established in§ 103(f) 

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

30 u.s.c. § 813(f), extend to miners' representatives 

who are not employees of the mine operator? 

2. Whether a miners' representative seeking to 

exercise walkaround rights under § 103(f) of the· Act 

must first comply with the requirements of 30 C.F.R., 

Part 40? 

The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission) 

answered the first question in the affirmative and the second in 

the negative. 

second. 

We affirm on the first issue and reverse on the 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-1659 Document: 010110191577 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 2 
On the morning of April 15, 1986, Vern Boston, a Mine Safety 

and Health Administration (MSHA) inspector, arrived at the Deer 

Creek Mine, an underground coal mine in Utah, to conduct an 

inspection. Deer Creek Mine was owned by Utah Power & Light Co. 

(.UPL} and operated by Emery Mining Corporation (Emery). Inspector 

Boston was met at the gates of the mine by Tom Rabbitt, a member 

of the International Health and Safety Department of the United 

Mine Workers of America (UMWA), who introduced himself to the 

inspector and asked to accompany him on the inspection. 

Boston agreed that Rabbitt could accompany him on the 

inspection, and he and Rabbitt entered the premises to get 

clearance for Rabbitt. The mine manager, Earl White, met with 

Rabbitt and told him he could enter the mine pursuant to the 

collective bargaining agreement with the UMWA but for the fact 

that he had not given the twenty-four hour advance notice re·quired 

by Emery. Rabbitt then said he was seeking entrance under 

§ 103(f) of the Act, which provides for walkaround rights. 1 

1 Section 103(f) of the Act provides: 

Participation of representatives of operators and 

miners in inspections 

Subject to regulations issued by the Secretary, a 

representative of the operator and a representative 

authorized by his miners shall be given an opportunity 

to accompany the Secretary or his authorized 

representative during the physical inspection of any 

coal or other mine made pursuant to the provisions of 

subsection (a) of this section, for the purpose of 

aiding such inspection and to participate in 

pre- or post-inspection conferences held at the mine. 

Where there is no authorized miner representative, the 

Secretary or his authorized representative shall consult 

with a reasonable number of miners concerning matters of 

health and safety in such mine. Such representative of 

(Continued on next page.) 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-1659 Document: 010110191577 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 3 
White, Rabbitt, and Boston discussed the scope of walkaround 

rights under§ 103(f). White was of the opinion that since 

Rabbitt was not an Emery employee, he had no walkaround rights 

under the Act. Boston disagreed, saying that Rabbitt had 

walka~ound rights because he was a member of the UMWA 

International. Boston then wrote White a citation under § 104(a) 

of the Act, 30 U.S.C. § 814(a), for violating§ 103(f). He gave 

White ten minutes to abate the violation. 

White, fearing that Boston might issue a withdrawal order if 

White did not abate the violation, agreed to let Rabbitt 

participate in the inspection, but said he must first sign a 

hazard recognition and waiver of liability form that Emery 

required nonemployees to sign before entering the mine. Rabbitt 

refused to sign the form. Boston then called his supervisor, who 

was not familiar with Emery's waiver form. Based on his belief 

that a representative of the UMWA International had an unlimited 

right of access to a mine under § 103(f), the supervisor 

(Continued from previous page.) 

miners who is also an employee of .the operator shall 

suffer no loss of pay during the period of his 

participation in the inspection made under this 

subsection. To the extent that the Secretary or 

authorized representative of the Secretary determines 

that more than one representative from each party would 

further aid the inspection, he can permit each party to 

have an equal number of such additional representatives. 

However, only one such representative of miners who is 

an employee of the operator shall be entitled to suffer 

no loss of pay during the period of such participation 

under the provisions of this subsection. Compliance 

with this subsection shall not be a jurisdictional 

prerequisite to the enforcement of any provision of this 

chapter. 

4 

Appellate Case: 88-1659 Document: 010110191577 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 4 
instructed Boston to proceed with Rabbitt on the inspection. 

Boston then informed White that his refusal to permit Rabbitt to 

participate in the inspection unless Rabbitt signed a waiver of 

liability was in violation of§ 103(f). Boston added a second 

violation of§ 103(f) to the original citation. 

Thereafter, White agreed to abate the alleged violation by 

allowing Rabbitt to accompany the inspector without signing the 

waiver of liability. The inspection party, consisting of Boston, 

Rabbitt, Mark Larsen, a representative of miners from the safety 

committee, and Terry Jordan and Dixon Peacock, representatives of 

Emery, then proceeded underground. 

On April 17, 1986, pursuant to § 105(d) of the Act, 

30 u.s.c. § 815(d), Emery filed a notice of contest of the 

citation issued April 15, 1986. Shortly thereafter, the UMWA 

moved to intervene in the proceedings. On April 24, 1986, Emery's 

contract with UPL was terminated and UPL took over the operation 

of its mines, including the Deer Creek Mine. UPL subsequently 

received three more citations from the MSHA for violations of 

§ 103(f) ~imilar to Emery's. UPL filed a timely notice pf contest 

with respect to each citation. The parties agreed to try the 

citation issued to Emery and to have the administrative law 

judge's (ALJ) ruling on that citation control the disposition of 

the three citations issued to UPL. 

The ALJ held an evidentiary hearing on May 14 and 15, 1986. 

The issues before him were the two under consideration in this 

appeal, as well as a third, concerning whether an operator can 

require a nonemployee representative of miners to sign a waiver of 

5 

Appellate Case: 88-1659 Document: 010110191577 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 5 
liability before exercising walkaround rights. On August 7, 1986, 

the ALJ ruled against Emery on all three issues. Emery Mining 

Corp., 8 F.M.S.H.R.C. 1192 (1986). 

Thereafter, the Commission granted discretionary review of 

the ALJ's decision-.pursuant to 30 u.s.c. § 823(d)(2)(A)(i). After 

briefing and oral arguments, the Commission issued its decision on 

Emery's citation on March 29, 1988. Emery Mining Corp., 10 

F.M.S.H.R.C. 276 (1988). The Commission also issued a 

consolidated summary opinion on UPL's three citations the same 

day. Utah Power & Light Co., 10 F.M.S.H.R.C. 302 (1988). The 

Commission affirmed the ALJ on the first two issues and reversed 

him on the third issue concerning the waiver of liability. 

Emery and UPL petitioned this court for review of the 

Commission's decisions pursuant to § 106(a) of the Act, 

30 u.s.c. § 816(a). They challenge the Commission's rulings with 

respect to nonemployee walkaround rights and compliance with the 

requirements of 30 C.F.R., Part 40. We consolidated the petitions 

under the caption Utah Power & Light Co. v. Secretary of Labor. 

Since UPL has been substituted for Emery on appeal, we will refer 

to the arguments of UPL hereinafter. 

I. 

We first address UPL's contention that § 103(f) walkaround 

rights do not extend to nonemployee representatives of miners. In 

reviewing the interpretation of§ 103(f) asserted by the Secretary 

of Labor (Secretary) and the Commission, we are mindful of the 

6 

Appellate Case: 88-1659 Document: 010110191577 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 6 
United States Supreme Court's directions in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. 

v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). 

When a court reviews an agency's construction of 

the statute which it administers, it is confronted with 

two questions. First, always, is the question whether 

Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at 

.issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the 

end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, 

must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent 

of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress 

has not directly addressed the precise question at 

issue, the court does not simply impose its own 

construction on the statute, as would be necessary in 

the absence of an aoministrative interpretation. 

Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with 

respect to the specific issue, the question for the 

court is whether the agency's answer is based on a 

permissible construction of the statute. 

Id. at 842-43 (footnotes omitted). 

We have held that an agency's interpretation of a statute 

entrusted to that agency for administration should be accepted if 

it is a reasonable one, even if another interpretation may exist 

that is equally reasonable. Jones v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 

748 F.2d 1400, 1405 (10th Cir. 1984); Brennan v. Occupational 

Safety and Health Comm'n, 513 F.2d 553, 554 (10th Cir. 1975), 

Congress did not speak to the precise issue before us when it 

drafted § 103(f) of the· Act. Nonetheless, we, like the 

Commission, find the language of § 103(f) dispositive. See 

Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 

108 (1980)("[T]he starting point for interpreting a statute is the 

language of the statute itself. Absent a clearly expressed 

legislative intention to the contrary, that language must 

ordinarily be regarded as conclusive."); Colorado Property 

Acquisitions, Inc. v. United States, No. 87-2564, slip op. at 4 

7 

Appellate Case: 88-1659 Document: 010110191577 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 7 
(10th Cir. Jan. 24, 1990)("When the meaning of a statute is clear 

from its face, resort to rules of statutory construction or 

legislative intent is unnecessary."). 

The first sentence of § 103(f) provides that "a 

representative authorized by [the operator's] miners shall be 

given an opportunity to accompany the Secretary or his authorized 

representative during the physical inspection of any coal or other 

mine made pursuant to the provisions of subsection (a) of this 

section." This sentence confers upon the miners the right to 

authorize a representative for walkaround purposes without any 

limitation on the employment status of the representative. See 

Council of s. Mountains, Inc. v. Federal Mine Safety and Health 

Review Comm'n, 751 F.2d 1418, 1421 n.18 (D.C. Cir. 1985)("The Mine 

Act, however, merely refers 

articulate any distinction 

to 'repre~entatives' and does not 

between the rights of employee and 

nonemployee :r:epresentatives."). 

The third sentence of § 103(f) provides that "[s]uch 

representative of miners who is also an employee of the operator 

shall suffer no loss of pay during the period of his participation 

in the inspection ·made under this subsection." (Emphasis added.) 

As noted by the Commission, "also" means "in addition," "as well," 

"besid.es," and "too." Emery Mining Corp., 10 F.M.S.H.R.C. at 284 

(quoting Webster's Third Int'l Dictionary 62 (Unabridged ed. 

1971)). Put in other words, the third sentence of§ 103(f) reads: 

"A representative of miners who, in addition to being a 

representative, is an employee of the operator shall suffer no 

8 

Appellate Case: 88-1659 Document: 010110191577 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 8 
loss of pay during the period of his participation in the 

inspection • II 

By creating a subclass of representatives who are entitled to 

compensation while exercising walkaround rights under § 103(f), 

.Congress clearly recognized that some miners.' representatives may 

be employees of the operator and some may not. Those who are 

employees are entitled to compensation. Those who are not 

employees may participate in the inspection, but are not entitled 

to compensation from the operator under § 103(f) for their 

participation. 

UPL argues that the Commission ignored other reasonable 

interpretations of the third sentence of§ 103(f). Specifically, 

UPL contends that the third ,sentence represents a congressional 

recognition that 

there would be situations in which mine operators might 

consent to walkarounds by non-employee representatives 

of miners, or in which non-employee representatives had 

contractual rights to enter upon mine property for the 

purpose of accompanying inspectors. [Congress] simply 

wanted to be clear that the compensation right under 

§ 103(f) did not attach in those circumstances. 

Brief of Petitioner Utah. Power & Light Co. at 19-20. 

We are not persuaded by UPL's argument. UPL would have us 

read a limitation into the statute that has no basis in the 

statutory language. Furthermore, if a nonemployee representative 

could exercise walkaround rights only if the operator so consented 

or the parties' contractual rights so provided, and could not 

exercise walkaround rights under§ 103(f), Congress would have no 

reason to clarify that a nonemployee representative is not 

entitled to compensation from the operator under§ 103(f). 

9 

Appellate Case: 88-1659 Document: 010110191577 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 9 
UPL asserts that selected excerpts from the Act's legislative 

history support its theory that Congress did not intend to extend 

walkaround rights to nonemployee representatives. In particular, 

UPL cites to a debate between Senator Javits, who was a sponsor of 

the Senate bill that eventually became the Act, and Senator Helms. 

See 123 Cong. Rec. 20,019-20 (1977). 

While we agree with UPL that the Senators' debate focused on 

the importance of miners participating in inspections of the mines 

in which they work, 2 that focus is explained by the context of the 

Senators' debate. Senator Helms had introduced an amendment that 

would strike the third and fifth sentences of the present 

§ 103(f), thereby deleting the provisions concerning compensation 

for employee representatives. Senator Javits opposed the 

amendment. See 123 Cong. Rec. 20,019 (1977). The two Senators, 

therefore, were debating the merits of compensating employee 

representatives. They were not concerned with whether 

2 For instance, 

participation in 

essential in order 

health problems 

(1977). 

Senator Javits remarked: "[G]reater miner 

health and safety matters, we believe, is 

to increase miner awareness of the safety and 

in the mine " 123 Cong. Rec. 20,019 

Senator Javits also said: 

If miners are going to accompany inspectors, they are 

going to learn a lot about mine safety, and that will be 

helpful to other employees and to the mine operator. 

In addition, if the worker is along he knows a lot 

about the premises upon which he works and, therefore, 

the inspection can be much more thorough. We want to 

encourage that because we want to avoid, not incur, 

accidents. 

123 Cong. Rec. 20,020 (1977). 

10 

Appellate Case: 88-1659 Document: 010110191577 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 10 
nonemployees, who would not be compensated by the operator, could 

be miners' representatives for purposes of walkaround rights. 3 

UPL also argues that the purposes of§ 103(f), which include 

encouraging miners to participate in inspections and enhancing 

miners' understanding and awareness of the health and safety 

requirements of the Act, 4 will not be furthered by allowing 

nonemployees to act as miners' representatives under§ 103(f). We 

disagree. A congressional desire to increase miners' knowledge 

about health and safety issues does not require the exclusion of 

nonemployees as miners' representatives for walkaround purposes. 

Miners may benefit in a number of ways from nonemployee 

representatives participating in walkarounds. For instance, the 

ALJ in this case found that Rabbitt had held virtually every job 

in a coal mine and had received special t~aining in health and 

safety matters, including seminars sponsored by the MSHA that are 

given to federal inspectors. Furthermore, Rabbitt had 

investigated "accidents, disasters, fires, and explosions'' in 

various mines. Emery Mining Corp., 8 F.M.S.H.R.C. at 1186. These 

findings. illustrate that a nonemployee representative may have 

greater expertise in health and safety matters than an employee 

representative. 

3 Senator Helms, himself, appeared to recognize that a 

representative of miners might not be an employee of the operator. 

In arguing for the adoption of his amendment, the Senator said: 

"As written, the act states that the representative of the miners, 

if he 'is also an employee of the operator shall suffer no loss of 

pay as a result of his participation in the inspection."' 123 

Cong. Rec. 20,019 (1977) (emphasis added). 

4 See S. Rep. No. 181, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 28, 

1977 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 3401, 3428. 

11 

reprinted in 

Appellate Case: 88-1659 Document: 010110191577 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 11 
In addition, if a nonemployee representative has inspected 

other mines, his knowledge of those mines may increase his ability 

to spot problems and to suggest solutions in the mine under 

consideration. Furthermore, a nonemployee representative is not 

subject to the same pressures that can be exerted by an operator 

on an employee representative. Therefore, the underlying purposes 

of § 103(f), and the Act in general, can be furthered by allowing 

both employees and nonemployees to act.as miners' representatives 

for walkaround purposes. 

UPL contends that statements in an interpretive bulleti~ 

issued by the Secretary in April of 1978 support its position that 

walkaround rights were not intended to extend to nonemployee 

representatives. 5 While isolated comments in the bulletin may 

support, UPL's position, other comments support the present 

position·of the Secretary, that walkaround rights do extend to 

nonemployee representatives. The interpretive bulletin is 

inconclusive on the issue before us. Neither the ·bulletin nor the 

legislative history .convince us that the interpretation accorded 

the statute by the agency is unreasonable or unsupportable. 

Finally, UPL argues that permitting nonemployees to exercise 

walkaround rights under § 103(f) impermissibly infringes on an 

operator's property rights. UPL relies on a number of fourth 

amendment cases which express the United States Supreme Court's 

concern with the infringement of property rights by federal 

inspections. In particular, UPL cites Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S. 

594, 605 (1981), in which the Court held that warrantless 

5 See 43 Fed. Reg. 17,546 (1978). 

12 

Appellate Case: 88-1659 Document: 010110191577 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 12 
inspections of mines by federal inspectors under the Federal Mine 

Safety and Health Act are not unreasonable. 

UPL contends that although the Act ''establishes a predictable 

and guided federal regulatory presence" so that "the operator of a 

mine 'is not left. to wonder. about the purposes· .of the inspector or 

the limits of his task,'" id. at 604 (quoting United States v. 

Biswell, 406 U.S. 311, 316 (1972)), the same cannot be said of a 

nonemployee miners' representative. UPL cautions that "[t]he Mine 

Act presents an inherent temptation for abuse by non-employee 

union representatives," and cites as an example a case in which 

the UMWA acknowledged that "its designation of walkaround 

representatives 'was made for purposes unrelated to the Act's 

safety objectives and thereby constituted an inappropriate 

exercise of the UMWA's de~ignatio_n right under § 103(f). '" Brief 

of Petitioner Utah Power & Light Co. at 35 n.21 (quoting Nacco 

Mining Co., 6 F.M.S.H.R.C. 2734, 2738 (1984)). 

UPL's argument ignores the fact that, as with a federal 

inspector, the Act clearly spells out the purpose of a miners' 

representative's participation in an inspection. Section 103(f) 

provides that an authorized miners' representative shall have the 

opportunity to accompany a federal inspector during the inspection 

0£ a mine "for the purpose of aiding such inspection." While we 

recognize UPL's concern that walkaround rights may be abused by 

nonemployee representatives, the potential for abuse does not 

require a construction of the Act that would exclude nonemployee 

representatives from exercising walkaround rights altogether. The 

13 

Appellate Case: 88-1659 Document: 010110191577 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 13 
solution is for the operator to take action against individual 

instances of abuse when it discovers them. 

In sum, we conclude that the Secretary's and the Commission's 

interpretation of the Act is both reasonable and supportable, and 

we hold that miners may authorize nonemployees to act as their 

representatives under§ 103(f) of the Act. 

II. 

The second issue we must address concerns the Commission's 

holding that "an operator may not refuse a miner's (sic) 

representative access to a mine for walkaround purposes solely 

because the representative has not filed identifying information 

under [30 C.F.R.,] Part 40." Emery Mining Corp., 10 F.M.S.H.R.C. 

at 279. 

The regulations set forth in 30 C.F.R., Part 40 provide as 

follows: 

S 40.1 Definitions. 

As used in this Part 40: 

(a) "Act" means the Federal Mine Safety and Health 

Act of 1977. 

(b) "Representative of miners" means: 

(1) Any person or organization which represents 

two or more miners at a coal or other mine for the 

purposes of the Act, and 

(2) "Representatives authorized by the miners", 

"miners or their representative", "authorized miner 

representative", and other similar terms as they appear 

in the Act. 

S 40.2 Requirements. 

(a) A representative of miners shall file with the 

Mine Safety and Health Administration District Manager 

for the district in which the mine is located the 

14 

Appellate Case: 88-1659 Document: 010110191577 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 14 
information required by 

Concurrently, a copy of 

provided to the operator. 

representative of miners. 

§ 40.3 of this part. 

this information shall be 

of the mine by the 

(b} Miners or their representative organization 

may appoint or designate different persons to represent 

them under various sections of the act relating to 

representatives of miners. 

(-c) All information filed pursuant to this part 

shall be maintained by the appropriate Mine Safety and 

Health Administration District Office and shall be made 

available for public inspection. 

S 40.3 Filing procedures. 

(a) The following information shall be filed by a 

representative of miners with the appropriate District 

Manager, with copies to· the operators of the affected 

mines. This information shall be kept current: 

(1) The name, address, and telephone number of the 

representative of miners. If the representative is an 

organization, the name, address, and telephone number of 

the organization and the title of the official or 

position, who is to serve as the representative and his 

or her telephone number. 

(2) The name and address of the operator of the 

mine where the represented miners work and the name, 

addre~s, and· Mine Safety and Health Administration 

identification number, if known, of the mine. 

(3) A copy of the document evidencing the 

designation of the representative of miners. 

(4) A statement that the person or position named 

as the representative of miners is the representative 

for all purposes of the Act; or if the representative's 

authority is limited, a statement of the limitation. 

(5) The names, addresses, and telephone numbers, 

of any representative to serve in his absence. 

(6) A statement that copies of all information 

filed pursuant to this section have been delivered to 

the operator of the affected mine, prior to or 

concurrently with the filing of this statement. 

(7) A statement certifying that all information 

filed is true and correct followed by the signature of 

the representative of miners. 

- ( b) The representative of miners shall be 

responsible for ensuring that the appropriate District 

Manager and operator have received all of the 

information required by this part and informing such 

District Manager. and operator of any subsequent changes 

in the information. 

15 

Appellate Case: 88-1659 Document: 010110191577 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 15 
S 40.4 Posting at mine. 

A copy of the information provided the operator 

pursuant to§ 40.3 of this part shall be posted upon 

receipt by the operator on the mine bulletin board and 

maintained in a current status. 

S 40.5 Termination of designation as representative of 

miners. 

(a) A representative of miners who becomes unable 

to comply with the requirements of this part shall file 

a statement with the appropriate District Manager 

terminating his ·or her designation. 

(b) The Mine Safety and Health Administration 

shall terminate and remove from its files all 

designations of representatives of miners which have 

been terminated pursuant to paragraph (a) of this 

section or which are not_ in compliance with the 

requirements of this part. The Mine Safety and Health 

Administration shall notify the operator of such 

termination. 

The Commission, in holding that Emery could not refuse 

Rabbitt admission to the mine for walkatound purposes just because 

neither he nor his position were listed on .the documents filed 

with Emery pursuant to Part 40, 6 relied on its holding in 

Consolidation Coal· Co., 3 F.M.S.H.R.C. 617 (1981), which it found 

"to represent a sound interpretation of section 103(f) and to 

accurately reflect the Secretary's clearly expressed intent in 

promulgating his Part 40 regulations." Emery Mining Corp., 10 

F.M.S.H.R.C. at 287. 

6 The information submitted to Emery under Part 40 listed Frank 

Fitzek as the selected representative of miners and listed 

thirteen other people, including Mark Larsen, as selected multiple 

representatives. In the space provided for listing the 

organization, if any, with which the representative is associated, 

the document listed the UMWA and reflected that Frank Fitzek, 

safety chairman, was the representative associated with that 

organization. 

16 

Appellate Case: 88-1659 Document: 010110191577 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 16 
The "Secretary's clearly expressed intent" to which the 

Commission referred, arose from the preamble to the final Part 40 

regulations which stated in part: "However, it should be noted 

that miners and.their representatives do not lose their statutory 

rights under section 103(f) by their failure to file as 

representatives of miners under this part.'' 43 Fed. Reg~ 29,508 

(1978). The Secretary argues on appeal that the foregoing 

language "is dispositive of the Secretary's intent in promulgating 

the Part 40 regulations." Brief for the Secretary of Labor at 26. 

In reviewing the Secretary's interpretation of the Part 40 

regulations, we are mindful of two rules. First, an agency's 

regulation "is entitled to deference unless it can be said not to 

be a reasoned and supportable interpretation of the Act." 

Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall, 445 u.s~ 1, 11 (1980). Second, " ' a 

regulation must be interpreted so as to harmonize with and further 

and not to conflict with the objective of the statute it 

implements.'" Emery Mining Corp. v. Secretary of Labor, 744 F.2d 

1411, 1414 (10th Cir. 1984)(quoting Trustees of Ind. Univ. v. 

United States, 618 F.2d 736, 739 (Ct. Cl. 1980)). 

The Part 40 regulations themselves do not make any exception 

for representatives of miners who desire to be authorized 

representatives for § 103(f) purposes. The only place such an 

exception is set forth is in the aforementioned preamble to the 

regulations, which is not part of the regulations as published in 

the Code of Federal Regulations. Neither the preamble nor the 

Secretary's interpretive bulletin to which it refers, 7 cite any 

7 43 Fed. Reg. 17,546 (1978). ' ., ... ' 

Appellate Case: 88-1659 Document: 010110191577 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 17 
reasons for making an exception to the regulations for purposes .of 

§ 103(f). Likewise, the Secretary, here, gives no explanation for 

such an exception. 

Section 103(f) of the Act provides that "[s]ubject to 

regulations issued by the Secretary, ••• a representative 

authorized by [the] miners shall be given the opportunity to 

accompany the Secretary or his authorized representative during 

the physical inspection of any coal or other mine." (Emphasis 

added.) As both the Secretary and the Commission have 

acknowledged, the Part 40 regulations were implemented pursuant to 

the authority delegated to the Secretary in§ 103(f) of the Act. 

See Brief for Secretary of Labor at 15-16; Emery Mining Corp., 10 

F.M.S.H.R.C. at 285. On their face, the regulations apply to all 

representatives of miners for all purposes under the Act. Thus, 

the Secretary's interpretation of the regulations is at odds with 

both the Act and the plain language of the regulations themselves. 

Furthermore, valid reasons exist for requiring compliance 

with the Part 40 regulations for§ 103(f) purposes. As Chairman 

Ford pointed out in his dissent below, the information required to 

be filed by Part 40 establishes the identity and bona fides of 

each miners' representative, as well as the scope of his 

authority. See Emery Mining Corp., 10 F.M.S.H.R.C. at 294-95; __ 

30 C.F.R. § 40.3. The information must be provided to both the 

MSHA district manager and the operator of the affected mine. 30 

C.F.R. § 40.3(a). The operator, in turn, is required to post a 

copy of the information filed on the mine bulletin board, and to 

keep the information current. Id. at§ 40.4. 

18 

Appellate Case: 88-1659 Document: 010110191577 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 18 
The Secretary has explained the importance of posting the 

Part 40 information on the mine bulletin board. as follows: 

The posting of "Representative of Min~r'' information 

will keep the miners abreast of who their. 

representatives are, and for what purpose under the act 

their representatives serve. This knowledge will better 

acquaint the miner with MSHA's health and safety 

programs which will further promote an awareness among 

the miners of the importance of health and safety at the 

mine. 

43 Fed. Reg. 29,508, 29,509 (1978). 

The Secretary and the Commission have stressed the importance 

walkaround rights throughout this litigation, and the 

legislative history of the Act reflects that Congress, too, 

thought walkaround rights to be important in increasing miner 

awareness and knowledge of health and safety ·conditions and 

requirements. See s. Rep. No. 181, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 28, 

reprinted in 1977 U.S •. Code Cong. & Ad. News 3401, 3428; ·secretary 

of Labor ex rel. 1Truex, 8 F.M.S.H.R.C. 1293,· 1299 (1986). 

Every miner cannot participate in a federal inspection. 

Therefore, § 103(f) provides that miners may authorize 

representatives who will participate in the inspection on their 

behalf. Pursuant to 30 C.F.R. § 40.l(b), any person or 

organization who represents two or more miners is considered a 

"miners' representative.''· The regulatory scheme contemplates that 

the miners at a mine may have more than one representative for 

walkaround purposes and may have different representatives for 

other purposes under the Act. See id. at§ 40.2(b). 

Under such a scheme, it is imperative that both the miners 

and the operator know who the miners' representatives are and the 

19 

Appellate Case: 88-1659 Document: 010110191577 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 19 
scope of their authority. As the Secretary has said, knowledge on 

the part of the miners of the identity, whereabouts, and scope of 

responsibility of their representatives promotes the purposes of 

the Act. See 43 Fed. Reg. 29,508, 29,509 (1978). Allowing people 

~o act .as representatives of miners unde~ § 103(f) does little to 

further the purposes of the Act unless the miners know who their 

§ 103(f) representatives are so that they may communicate with 

them regarding health and safety issues related to the 

inspections. 

Furthermore, since a person need only represent two miners to 

qualify as a "miners' representative," compliance with the 

requirements of Part 40 is necessary to ensure that a person who 

attempts to exercise walkaround rights on behalf of miners is in 

fact ''authorized" by the miners to do so, as required by•§ 103(f) 

of the Act. 

In addition, the Secretary's interpretation of the Part 40 

regulations places the operator in a precarious and untenable 

position. If an operator cannot rely on the Part 40 information 

to determine whether someone is an authorized representative of 

miners for walkaround purposes, he has no settled criteria· by 

which to judge an alleged representative's authority. 

As the Secretary has recognized, an operator's refusal to 

permit an authorized miners' representative to exercise the 

walkaround rights provided in§ 103(f) is a violation of the Act 

for which the operator is subject to a citation under§ 104 and a 

civil penalty under § 105 of the Act. See 43 Fed. Reg. 17,546, 

17,547 (1978). Furthermore, if the operator fails to abate the 

20 

Appellate Case: 88-1659 Document: 010110191577 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 20 
violation of § 103(f), not only will it be subject to additional 

civil penalties for each day of nonabatement, but the inspector 

may issue a withdrawal order pursuant to§ 104(b) of the Act. See 

43 Fed. Reg. 17,546, 17,547 (1978). 

Thus, the consequences of an operator's refusal to permit an 

authorized miners' representative to exercise walkaround rights 

under§ 103(f) are quite severe. This severity requires that an 

operator have a sure and settled method by which to determine who 

is an authorized miners' representative for walkaround purposes. 

Under the method adopted by the Commission in Consolidation 

Coal Co., and reaffirmed below, whether an operator is justified 

in denying a purported miners' representative walkaround rights 

depends on the circumstances of the particular case. See 

Consolidation Coal Co., 3 F.M.S.H.R.C. at 619. If the inspector 

does not agree with the operator's determination that someone is 

not an authorized miners' representative for§ 103(f) purposes, as 

happened in the present case, the operator must risk the issuance 

of a citation, the assessment of civil penalties, and the possible 

closure of a portion of the mine before it can get a determination 

from the Commission whether it was justified in refusing to allow 

the purported representative to exercise walkaround rights. 8 

8 In contrast, if an operator. refuses to allow a federal 

inspector to inspect a mine, the inspector cannot gain immediate 

access. Instead, the Secretary must bring a civil suit against 

the operator to enjoin future refusals of admission. See 

30 u.s.c. § 818(a)(l). Thus, the operator is furnished a forum 

prior to the inspection in which "to show that a specific search 

is outside the federal regulatory authority, or to seek from the 

district court an order accommodating any unusual privacy 

interests that the mineowner might have." Donovan, 452 U.S. at 

605. 

21 

Appellate Case: 88-1659 Document: 010110191577 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 21 
The interpretation of the Part 40 regulations asserted by the 

Secretary and adopted.by the Commission is contrary to the plain 

language of the regulations, fails to further the purposes of the 

Act, and puts the operator in an untenable position. We therefore 

reject the Secretary's interpretation and hold that the mandatory 

requirements of the Part 40 regulations apply to miners' 

representatives for § 103(f) purposes. Thus, a miners' 

representative's failure to comply with the regulations entitles 

an operator to refuse the representative access to the mine for 

walkaround purposes. Our holding will not work a great hardship 

on the miners since the requirements of Part 40 are 

straightforward, and if a miners' representative fails to comply 

with them and, therefore, cannot exercise walkaround rights, the 

Act requires the federal inspector to "consult with a reasonable 

number of miners concerning matters of health and safety in such 

mine." 30 U.S.C. § 813(f). 

In the present case, the parties do not dispute that on 

April 15, 1986, Rabbitt was not listed as an authorized miners' 

representative for walkaround purposes on the documents filed with 

Emery pursuant to Part 40. Therefore, Emery.did not violate the 

Act by refusing Rabbitt access to the mine for walkaround purposes 

under§ 103(f). 

22 

Appellate Case: 88-1659 Document: 010110191577 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 22 
The Corru:nission's 

F.M.S.H.R.C. 276 (1988), 

III. 

decisions in _E_m_e_r..._y __ M_i_n_i_n_g..___c_o_r_p_. , 

and Utah Power & Light Co., 

10 

10 

F.M.S.H.R.C. 302 (1988), are AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in 

part. The.citations at issue in those cases are hereby VACATED. 

23 

Appellate Case: 88-1659 Document: 010110191577 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 23