Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-00-01010/USCOURTS-caDC-00-01010-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
International Union, United Mine Workers of America
Petitioner

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 October 24, 2000 Decided November 17, 2000

No. 00-1010

In re: International Union,

United Mine Workers of America,

Petitioner

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Judith Rivlin argued the cause for petitioner. With her on

the brief was Grant Crandall.

Robin A. Rosenbluth, Attorney, United States Department

of Labor, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the

brief was W. Christian Schumann, Counsel.

Michael F. Duffy was on the brief for intervenor National

Mining Association.

USCA Case #00-1010 Document #557094 Filed: 11/17/2000 Page 1 of 6
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Rogers and Garland,

Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge Edwards.

Edwards, Chief Judge: The United Mine Workers of

America ("UMWA" or "Petitioner") petitioned this court for a

writ of mandamus to compel the Mine Safety and Health

Administration ("MSHA") of the Department of Labor to

promulgate an emergency temporary standard, or in the

alternative, to engage in rulemaking, to protect mine workers

from exposure to respirable coal mine dust. UMWA premised its request on a claim that the agency had unreasonably

delayed its rulemaking. Six months after UMWA filed its

petition, MSHA published notices of two proposed rulemakings which, the agency contends, address the specific concerns raised by UMWA in its petition. In light of the

proposed rules, we conclude that petitioner's request for

mandamus is moot.

Long-term exposure to excessive levels of respirable coal

mine dust can cause coal workers' pneumoconiosis ("black

lung") and silicosis, which are potentially disabling and can

lead to premature death. See 65 Fed. Reg. 23,049, 23,051

(2000). In recognition of these dangers, the Federal Mine

Safety and Health Act of 1977, s 101(a), 30 U.S.C. s 811(a)

(1994), ("Mine Act") directs the Secretary of Labor ("Secretary") to develop, promulgate, and revise health and safety

standards in coal and other mines.

In January 1995, the Secretary established an Advisory

Committee on the Elimination of Pneumoconiosis Among

Coal Mine Workers ("Advisory Committee") to "make recommendations ... for improved standards, or other appropriate

actions," to eliminate pneumoconiosis and silicosis through the

control of respirable coal mine dust. 60 Fed. Reg. 5947, 5948

(1995). Later that year, in September 1995, the National

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health ("NIOSH") issued a criteria document recommending standards "to reduce

or eliminate health impairment from exposure to respirable

coal mine dust." Education and Information Division, U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, Pub. No. 95-106,

USCA Case #00-1010 Document #557094 Filed: 11/17/2000 Page 2 of 6
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Exposure to Respirable Coal Mine Dust 9 (1995) [hereinafter

NIOSH Criteria Document].

MSHA published a response to the NIOSH Criteria Document on April 25, 1996, announcing its intentions to develop a

proposed rule "derived from the recommendations in the

Document" that would "address enhanced protections for

surface and underground coal miners from exposure to respirable coal mine dust and crystalline silica." 61 Fed. Reg.

18,308 (1996). The agency stated that it would "defer full

development" of the proposed rule until it could consider the

recommendations of the Advisory Committee. Id. at 18,309.

The Advisory Committee submitted its report to the Secretary on November 14, 1996. See 62 Fed. Reg. 3717 (1997).

The report contained 20 wide-ranging recommendations

aimed at eliminating coal miners' pneumoconiosis and silicosis. See Advisory Committee on the Elimination of Pneumoconiosis Among Coal Mine Workers, Report of the Secretary

of Labor's Advisory Committee on the Elimination of Pneumoconiosis Among Coal Mine Workers (Oct. 1996). On January 24, 1997, MSHA published a response to the Advisory

Committee Report, stating that the agency was considering

both rulemaking and other actions, such as internal administrative or policy changes. See 62 Fed. Reg. 3717 (1997).

MSHA observed that "[m]any of the recommendations [were]

general in nature and would require further development by

MSHA to be suitable for publication as a proposed rule." Id.

On January 13, 2000, UMWA petitioned this court to

compel MSHA to issue an emergency temporary standard to

protect miners, or to engage in rulemaking to address a

subset of the recommendations proposed by the Advisory

Committee. In particular, UMWA proposed: (1) that MSHA

assume full responsibility for all respirable coal mine dust

compliance sampling; (2) that there be continuous monitoring

for respirable coal mine dust; (3) that miners have full rights

to participate in the dust sampling program; and (4) that

sampling contemplate miners' full exposure to respirable dust

(i.e. beyond 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week).

USCA Case #00-1010 Document #557094 Filed: 11/17/2000 Page 3 of 6
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

On July 7, 2000, the Secretary published notices of two

proposed rulemakings aimed at restructuring the respirable

dust program for underground coal mines. Specifically, the

proposed rules would (i) permit MSHA to use a single, fullshift sample to determine whether coal mine operators are in

compliance with the permissible exposure limit for respirable

coal mine dust, see 65 Fed. Reg. 42,068 (2000) (to be codified

at 30 C.F.R. pt. 72) (proposed July 7, 2000), and (ii) require

each underground coal mine operator to have a verified mine

ventilation plan. See 65 Fed. Reg. 42,122 (2000) (to be

codified at 30 C.F.R. pts. 70, 75, 90) (proposed July 7, 2000).

According to the Secretary, all of the concerns raised by the

UMWA petition are within the compass of the proposed

rulemakings. Indeed, the Federal Register notice does address each of the four UMWA proposals. See 65 Fed. Reg. at

42,129, 42,133 (proposing that MSHA assume full responsibility for all compliance sampling); id. at 42,138-39 (determining

that technology has not yet advanced to the point that

promulgation of a rule requiring continuous monitoring for

respirable coal mine dust would be appropriate); id. at

42,129, 42,134 and n.4 (proposing that miners' representatives

have participation rights in the dust sampling program); id.

at 42,140, 42,141 (proposing definitions of terms "concentration" and "full shift" intended to assure that sampling contemplates miners' full exposure to respirable dust).

Under section 101(b)(1) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C.

s 811(b)(1) (1994), the Secretary must issue an emergency

temporary standard if she finds that "miners are exposed to

grave danger" and that an "emergency standard is necessary

to protect miners from such danger." It is undisputed here

that respirable coal mine dust is a serious occupational hazard

in the mining industry. See 65 Fed. Reg. 23,049, 23,051

(2000). Nonetheless, we find that UMWA has failed to

satisfy its burden of showing that an emergency temporary

standard is warranted at this time. See Northern States

Power Co. v. United States Dep't of Energy, 128 F.3d 754, 758

(D.C. Cir. 1997) ("The party seeking mandamus has the

burden of showing that 'its right to issuance of the writ is

clear and indisputable.' " (quoting Gulfstream Aerospace

USCA Case #00-1010 Document #557094 Filed: 11/17/2000 Page 4 of 6
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Corp. v. Mayacamus Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988))), cert.

denied, 525 U.S. 1016 (1998). It is far from clear at this

juncture what standards should be adopted to address the

problem of respirable coal mine dust. This is a matter that is

committed to the agency's expertise in the first instance, and

this court is in no position to pretermit the prescribed statutory process. UMWA's request for an emergency temporary

standard must therefore be denied.

It is unnecessary for us to reach the merits of petitioner's

claim that MSHA has unreasonably delayed rulemaking on

respirable coal mine dust. An agency's notice of proposed

rulemaking necessarily moots a petitioner's claim of unreasonable delay if that claim is based upon (1) a period of delay

occurring prior to the agency's issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking, and (2) a matter that the agency proposes

to regulate in that rulemaking. See Action on Smoking and

Health v. Department of Labor, 28 F.3d 162, 164 (D.C. Cir.

1994); United Steelworkers of America v. Rubber Mfrs.

Ass'n, 783 F.2d 1117, 1120 (D.C. Cir. 1986). Six months after

UMWA filed its petition to compel MSHA to promulgate four

standards recommended by the Secretary's Advisory Committee, the agency issued two notices of proposed rulemaking.

Although the UMWA disputes the sufficiency of the manner

in which the agency has addressed its concerns, it would be

premature for us to consider its objections to the merits of

the proposed rules. See Action on Smoking and Health, 28

F.3d at 165. Agency counsel conceded at oral argument that

the standards sought by UMWA could be a "logical outgrowth" of the proposed rules. We agree. Accordingly, we

find that petitioner's claim of unreasonable delay is moot.

The agency acknowledges that it has 90 days within which

to "promulgate, modify, or revoke" the proposed standards,

and "publish [the] reasons therefor." 30 U.S.C.

s 811(a)(4)(B) (1994). In the event that the agency fails to

act within the statutory period, UMWA may file a petition for

review under Telecommunications Research and Action Center v. FCC ("TRAC"), 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984). And, of

course, UMWA and other parties with standing may seek

USCA Case #00-1010 Document #557094 Filed: 11/17/2000 Page 5 of 6
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

judicial review of the final rules adopted by the agency in the

event that they object to the outcome of the rulemakings.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied.

USCA Case #00-1010 Document #557094 Filed: 11/17/2000 Page 6 of 6