Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-04-01165/USCOURTS-caDC-04-01165-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jim Walter Resources, Inc.
Petitioner
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Respondent
National Mining Association
Amicus Curiae for Petitioner
Secretary of Labor
Respondent

Document Text:

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in

the Federal Reporter or U.S.App.D.C. Reports. Users are requested to

notify the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be made

before the bound volumes go to press.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued March 11, 2005 Decided May 24, 2005

No. 04-1164

INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF

AMERICA,

PETITIONER

v.

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION AND

ELAINE CHAO, SECRETARY OF LABOR,

RESPONDENTS

Consolidated with

No. 04-1165

On Petitions for Review of an Order of the

Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration

Judith E. Rivlin argued the cause for petitioner

International Union, United Mine Workers of America. With

her on the briefs was Grant F. Crandall.

USCA Case #04-1165 Document #896214 Filed: 05/24/2005 Page 1 of 21
2

Guy W. Hensley argued the cause and filed the briefs for

petitioner Jim Walter Resources, Inc.

Harold P. Quinn, Jr., Ralph H. Moore, Karen L.

Johnston, and Trisha L. Culp were on the brief for amicus

curiae National Mining Association in support of petitioner.

Jerald S. Feingold, Attorney, Mine Safety & Health

Administration, argued the cause for respondents. With him

on the brief was W. Christian Schumann, Counsel.

Before: SENTELLE, HENDERSON and ROGERS, Circuit

Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge ROGERS.

ROGERS, Circuit Judge: Two petitions for review

challenge the Secretary of Labor’s promulgation of the final

rule entitled “Underground Coal Mine Ventilation Safety

Standards for the Use of a Belt Entry as an Intake Air Course

to Ventilate Working Sections and Areas Where Mechanized

Mining Equipment is Being Installed or Removed,” 69 Fed.

Reg. 17,480-530 (Apr. 2, 2004) (codified at 30 C.F.R. pt. 75)

(“Belt Air Rule”). In No. 04-1164, the International Union,

United Mine Workers of America (“the Union”) contends that

the Secretary, by failing to grandfather existing mine-specific

health and safety protections, has promulgated a belt air

standard that is contrary to the “no-less protection”

requirement of section 101(a)(9) of the Federal Mine Safety

and Health Act of 1977 (“Mine Act”), 30 U.S.C. §§ 801-962

(2000). It maintains this failure compromises the Secretary’s

“net effects” analysis, and because some miners will lose

enhanced protections they previously enjoyed, the Secretary

acted arbitrarily and capriciously. Although the Union’s

interpretation is compatible with the Mine Act’s purpose to

USCA Case #04-1165 Document #896214 Filed: 05/24/2005 Page 2 of 21
3

protect the health and safety of miners, the Secretary’s “net

effects” analysis is consistent with the purpose, the statutory

text, and the statutory scheme enacted by Congress.

Accordingly, we deny the Union’s petition for review.

In No. 04-1165, Jim Walter Resources, Inc. (“JWR”), a

coal mining company, challenges the Secretary’s

promulgation of 30 C.F.R. § 75.350(a)(2), which sets a

velocity cap of 500 feet per minute (“fpm”). It contends the

cap is invalid because the Secretary failed to comply with the

notice-and-comment requirements of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C.

§ 811(a), and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5

U.S.C. § 553(b) (2000). While the Secretary purports to rely

on the “logical outgrowth” doctrine, that doctrine cannot be

stretched as far as the Secretary suggests. In the notice of

proposed rulemaking, the Secretary stated that she was not

proposing a velocity cap because empirical research indicated

a cap would increase safety problems, 68 Fed. Reg. 3,936,

3,950 (Jan. 27, 2003) (“NOPR”), and she failed to give notice,

with an opportunity for comment, prior to promulgating the

final rule, that she was considering imposing a cap, much less

a cap of 500 fpm. Accordingly, we grant JWR’s petition,

vacate section 75.350(a)(2) of the Belt Air Rule, and remand

the matter to the Secretary. 

I. 

Subchapter I of the Mine Act sets forth the procedures for

the Secretary to follow in developing a proposed rule for

establishing a new mandatory national health and safety

standard, and establishes various standards that are to be met

based upon the consideration of certain factors. 30 U.S.C. §

811(a)(1)-(4). The term “mandatory health or safety

standard” is defined in the Mine Act as the “interim

mandatory health or safety standards established by

subchapters II and III of this chapter, and the standards

USCA Case #04-1165 Document #896214 Filed: 05/24/2005 Page 3 of 21
4

promulgated pursuant to subchapter I of this chapter.” Id. §

802(l). In enacting the Mine Act, Congress addressed certain

mine safety concerns by establishing interim mandatory

national health and safety standards, to remain in effect until

replaced or superceded by the Secretary. See id. §§ 841, 862-

78. Section 101(a) of the Mine Act directs 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 or

other mines.” Id. § 811(a). Section 101(a)(9), the “no-less

protection” rule, provides that “[n]o mandatory health or

safety standard promulgated under this subtitle shall reduce

the protection afforded miners by an existing mandatory

health or safety standard.” Id. § 811(a)(9).

Under appropriate circumstances, the Secretary may

exempt a mine from the mandatory national health and safety

standards. Section 101(c) authorizes the Secretary to modify

the application of any mandatory safety standard to a

particular mine upon finding 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, or that the application of

such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of

safety to the miners of such mine [and mine-specific

conditions are required to ensure miner health and safety

equivalent to the national standard]. 

Id. § 811(c).

The relevant interim belt air mandatory national standard

enacted by Congress provides that:

USCA Case #04-1165 Document #896214 Filed: 05/24/2005 Page 4 of 21
5

In any coal mine opened after the operative date of this

subchapter, the entries used as intake and return

aircourses shall be separated from belt haulage entries,

and each operator of such mine shall limit the velocity of

the air coursed through belt haulage entries to the amount

necessary to provide an adequate supply of oxygen in

such entries, and to insure that the air therein shall

contain less than 1.0 volume per centum of methane, and

such air shall not be used to ventilate active working

places. . . . 

Id. § 863(y)(1). While barring use of belt air ventilation of

working areas, the interim standard permitted existing mines,

opened on or before March 30, 1970, that were using belt air

to continue doing so upon petition for modification of the

interim standard. 30 C.F.R. § 75.326 (1991). During the

fifteen-year period prior to 2003, the Secretary, acting through

the Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”), 29

U.S.C. § 557a (2000), had granted approximately 90 such

petitions, finding, after on site inspections, that the

modifications provide “the same measure of safety protection

as the existing standard,” 68 Fed. Reg. at 3,937, by use of “the

proper installation, operation, examination, and maintenance

of [atmospheric monitoring systems (“AMS”)] as part of a

comprehensive safety program that contains other

requirements,” id. Generally, MSHA noted, mine operators

have requested “the use of belt air to ventilate working places

dependent upon the installation of an AMS with [carbon

monoxide (“CO”)] sensors for early-warning fire detection in

the belt entry,” id. at 3,938, to comply with MSHA’s

regulatory requirements on automatic fire warning devices, 30

C.F.R. § 75.1103, and as a regulatory option for monitoring

methane, CO, and smoke, 68 Fed. Reg. at 3,938. 

In January 1988, MSHA first proposed to revise the

USCA Case #04-1165 Document #896214 Filed: 05/24/2005 Page 5 of 21
6

interim air belt standard to allow air coursed through the belt

entry to ventilate working places where mine operators had

installed CO sensors in the belt entry. Id. at 3,937. After a

series of public hearings, the Assistant Secretary for Mine

Safety and Health called for a review of the safety factors

associated with the use of such belt air. Id. The review

culminated in the Belt Entry Ventilation Review (“BEVR”) of

August 1989, which concluded that “. . . directing belt entry

air to the face can be at least as safe as other ventilation

methods provided carbon monoxide monitors or smoke

detectors are installed in the belt entry.” Id. However, in

light of the divergent views of industry and academia

compared to those of labor representatives in response to

publication of the report, 54 Fed. Reg. 35,356 (Aug. 25,

1989), no revisions were made to the interim standard. 68

Fed. Reg. at 3,937.

MSHA continued to be of the view that the interim belt

air standard should be revised, and in January 1992, the

Secretary appointed an Advisory Committee to make

recommendations concerning the necessary conditions under

which air in the belt entry could be safely used in the working

areas of underground mines. Id. The Advisory Committee,

following public meetings, issued a final report concluding

that air in the belt entry could be safely used to ventilate

working places in underground coal mines provided certain

conditions are met. Id. MSHA also published this report. 57

Fed. Reg. 57,078 (Dec. 2, 1992).

Then, in January 2003, MSHA issued a NOPR, 68 Fed.

Reg. at 3,936, to “allow the use of intake air passing through

belt air coursers (belt air) to ventilate working sections and

areas where mechanized mining equipment is being installed

or removed in underground coal mines,” id. According to

MSHA, under the conditions set forth in the proposed rule,

USCA Case #04-1165 Document #896214 Filed: 05/24/2005 Page 6 of 21
7

use of belt air “would maintain the level of safety in

underground mines while implementing advances in mining

technology.” Id. After public hearings and receipt of

comments, MSHA promulgated the final rule, permitting

mines using three or more entries to use air coursed through

belt entries to ventilate working areas, when used with CO

monitors and AMSs for fire detection, and conforming with

new mandatory safety standards as well as existing standards

regarding mine-specific ventilation plans in light of the actual

safety needs created by the specific circumstances at

individual mines. 69 Fed. Reg. at 17,482. The preamble

stated:

New technology has proven safe and effective in quickly

and reliably detecting the products of combustion and

providing early warning to miners. The use of belt air

under this final rule will increase protection compared to

mines that use only point-type heat sensors by quickly

detecting products of combustion in the belt entry at an

early stage of fire development and by rapidly providing

warning . . . .

. . . Advances in computer-operated atmospheric

monitoring systems (AMS) have led to the acceptance of

AMSs as an effective tool to monitor conditions in mine

entries and detect the products of combustion at an early

stage of fire development. 

Id. at 17,481. The final rule, for example, prescribes specific

requirements necessary for a mine operator to use the belt air

course to ventilate working sections, including: (1)

monitoring the air current passing through a point-feed

regulator, see 68 Fed. Reg. at 17,526, for carbon monoxide or

smoke; (2) monitoring the air with sensors in the belt air

course for carbon monoxide or smoke; (3) installing a

USCA Case #04-1165 Document #896214 Filed: 05/24/2005 Page 7 of 21
8

mechanism by which the point-feed regulator may be closed

from the intake air course without requiring a person to enter

the crosscut where the point-feed regulator is located, and also

with a means to close the regulator from a location in the belt

air course immediately upwind of the crosscut containing the

regulator; (4) maintaining a minimum air velocity of 300 fpm

through the point-feed regulator; (5) obtaining approval of the

locations of point-feed regulator(s), and; (6) installing an

AMS as specified in section 75.351. 69 Fed. Reg. at 17,527.

MSHA also addressed specific mine safety issues, such as

separation of the primary escapeway from the belt entry, the

average concentration of respirable dust in the intake airways,

and stopping construction and maintenance, by noting the

interrelationship between the various standards, and citing

specific regulations addressing each of these concerns. E.g.,

69 Fed. Reg. at 17,494, 17,496-97 (citing 30 C.F.R. §§

70.100(b), 75.380(g), 75.333, 75.383, 75.1502).

II. 

In No. 04-1164, the Union contends that the Secretary’s

revision of section § 75.350 in the Belt Air Rule violates the

“no-less protection” provision of section 101(a)(9) of the

Mine Act because it fails to grandfather each of the safety and

health protections that had been included in mine-specific

petitions approved under the interim standard. It cites several

opinions of the court as suggesting that the Secretary’s new

regulation must achieve both the “general results” of the

previously applicable standard and produce “a net gain” in the

miners’ overall safety and health. See Int’l Union, United

Mine Workers of Am. v. MSHA, 920 F.2d 960, 964 (D.C. Cir.

1990) (“Int’l Union”). It then interprets the phrase “existing

mandatory health or safety standard[s]” in section 101(a)(9) to

require an analysis comparing the new rule against both

Congress’s interim standard barring the use of the belt air in

working areas as well as the mine-specific conditions

USCA Case #04-1165 Document #896214 Filed: 05/24/2005 Page 8 of 21
9

previously in place affording miners “additional mine-specific

protections.” Br. of Pet’r at 8. Because the Secretary failed to

consider mine specific modifications, the Union contends the

Secretary was arbitrary and capricious, and abused her

discretion in revising section 75.350 in the final rule. 

In the final rule MSHA stated that:

[S]ection 101(a)(9) requires that, in promulgating a new

rule permitting the use of belt air, the Secretary weigh the

net effect on safety under the new rule against the net

effect on safety under the existing standard limiting the

use of belt air. In promulgating this final rule, MSHA

has done just that. MSHA has compared the protections

provided by this final rule with the protections afforded

by the existing standard and has concluded that . . . the

final rule does not reduce the protection afforded by the

existing standard.

69 Fed. Reg. at 17,485. Responding to objections that the

“final rule did not address mine-specific concerns which were

better addressed in petitions for modification,” id., MSHA

noted that “petition language is proposed by mine operators . .

. . [T]he ‘alternative method’ . . . need only . . . achieve[] the

result of the [national] standard and guarantee[] a net

‘equivalence’ in mine safety, taking all effects on mine safety

into account,” id., and further explained that mine-specific

modifications “have never been held to constitute a

mandatory safety standard of general application,” id. MSHA

also noted that it had determined that other safety and health

provisions that may have been included in the petition as a

result of negotiations between miner operators and miners’

representatives “are not germane to the safe use of belt air,”

id., and hence it is neither appropriate nor legally required to

include them in the final rule, id. 

USCA Case #04-1165 Document #896214 Filed: 05/24/2005 Page 9 of 21
10

On appeal, the Secretary maintains her interpretation of

section 101(a)(9) as requiring a weighing of the net effect on

safety under the new rule against the net effect on safety

under the existing standard limiting use of belt air is

consistent with its plain language and placement within

section 101(a). She further maintains that, in any event, were

she required to weigh previous modifications against the new

rule, she adequately did so by comparing the differences

between requirements under the final rule and requirements

found in either granted petitions for modification of the

interim standard or previously approved ventilation plans. 

In addressing the Union’s challenge to the Secretary’s

interpretation of section 101(a)(9), the court applies the

familiar two-step analysis established in Chevron U.S.A. Inc.

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

(1984). The court first must ask “whether Congress has

directly spoken to the precise question at issue,” and if it has,

“give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of

Congress.” Id. at 842-43. If Congress has not clearly spoken,

the question for the court is whether the Secretary’s

interpretation is “a permissible construction of the statute.”

Id. at 843; see Sec’y of Labor, MSHA v. Excel Mining, LLC,

334 F.3d 1, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2003). 

The plain language of the no-less protection provision

requires only that “[n]o [new] mandatory health or safety

standard . . . reduce the protection afforded miners by an

existing mandatory health or safety standard.” 30 U.S.C. §

811(a)(9). By its terms, section 101(a)(9) applies only to

mandatory standards, not to mine-specific modifications. The

structure of the Mine Act is consistent with this interpretation,

for section 101(a) addresses the promulgation, enforcement

and applicability of mandatory health and safety standards.

The language of section 101(a)(9) is also consistent with

USCA Case #04-1165 Document #896214 Filed: 05/24/2005 Page 10 of 21
11

Congress’s intent in the Mine Act to establish a regulatory

program that would be uniform nationwide. S. REP. NO. 95-

181, at 13l (1977); see United Mine Workers of Am., Int’l

Union v. Dole, 870 F.2d 662, 672 (D.C. Cir. 1989)

(“UMWA”). Section 101(c), by contrast, provides the

mechanism to enable the Secretary, consistent with the

purpose of the Mine Act to protect the health and safety of

miners, 30 U.S.C. § 801(a), to grant modifications from the

national health and safety standard upon petition by a mine

operator to implement an “alternative method,” 30 U.S.C. §

811(c), that achieves “net [safety] ‘equivalence,’” 69 Fed.

Reg. at 17,485, with the existing national standard, or by

petition of a miner or the miner’s representative to prevent

diminution of pre-existing levels of mine safety, 30 U.S.C. §

811(c).

 

Thus, a literal reading of the statute would appear to

support the Secretary’s view that section 101(c) modifications

are not a mandatory safety standard and she therefore is not

required under section 101(a)(9) to compare new mandatory

standards against mine-specific modifications. Accordingly,

the Secretary compared the safety of the work environment

created by compliance with the new Belt Air Rule with the

previous interim standard. Calling attention to the advances

in mining technology, allowing reliable and quick detection of

products of combustion, MSHA followed with a section-bysection analysis to demonstrate that through new

technological advances and the interrelationship between the

various existing and new standards under the new Belt Air

Rule, the new rule maintained or improved miner safety. 

However, the court need not rely on “a strict literal

reading” of the Mine Act, Zeigler Coal Co. v. Kleppe, 536

F.2d 398, 405 (D.C. Cir. 1976), to conclude that the

Secretary’s interpretation does not impair “the statute’s

USCA Case #04-1165 Document #896214 Filed: 05/24/2005 Page 11 of 21
12

effectiveness as a tool for bringing about improvements in

mine health and safety conditions,” id. The court has

previously deferred to the Secretary’s “net effects” approach

in the context of section 101(c), see Int’l Union, 920 F.2d at

963-64, and we conclude that approach is reasonable in this

context as well. Under the “net effects” approach, the

Secretary compares, for purposes of evaluating a petition

under section 101(c), “all safety benefits resulting from the

standard and all the safety benefits resulting from the

alternative method,” based, in part, on the “interrelationship

of the various standards with one another.” Id. at 963. The

Secretary invoked the “net effects” analysis here, evaluating

whether the net safety and health effects of the new Belt Air

Rule are equivalent or better than the protection afforded

under the interim belt air standard and the mine-specific

modifications. In the preamble to the proposed rule, which

included a table comparing the proposed rule to the conditions

contained in the twenty most recently granted petitions for

modifications, 68 Fed. Reg. at 3,937, 3,945-48, 3,962, and in

the preamble to the final rule, which explained that MSHA

“reviewed nearly all of the petitions granted since 1978,”

MSHA compared the “net effects” of the new belt air standard

relative to the interim standard and the mine-specific

conditions set forth in previously granted petitions for

modification of the application of the interim standard, 69

Fed. Reg. at 17,485, 17,486-95, 17,498, 17,508. For example,

in addition to a condition-by-condition “net effects analysis”

of twenty previously granted mine-specific conditions, id. at

17,486-92, MSHA also addressed mine-specific conditions

raised by commentators throughout the preamble to the final

rule, such as the mine-specific requirement for an intake

travelway on a longwall tailgate, by noting that existing

standard 30 C.F.R. § 75.384 already required travelways, id.

at 17,485. 

USCA Case #04-1165 Document #896214 Filed: 05/24/2005 Page 12 of 21
13

The Union challenges the Secretary’s “net effects”

analysis on the ground that “[w]ithout considering each and

every one of those pre-existing mine-specific modifications,

[the Secretary] cannot resolve if any miner suffered a

diminution when the new rule eliminated the mine-specific

modifications.” Reply Br. of Pet’r UMWA at 5. For

example, the Union maintains that miners at the Cumberland

Mine in Pennsylvania now enjoy less protection than before

the Belt Air Rule took effect, pointing to a 1999 modification

to the interim standard that allowed Cumberland to use belt

air to ventilate the working places subject to, inter alia, a

velocity cap, audible and visual alarms, a maximum

concentration of respirable dust at or below 1.0 milligrams per

cubic meter of air within 15 feet of the working section belt

tailpiece, and maintenance of the belt entry, to the extent

practical, at the lowest pressure of all intake air courses. 

However, the Union’s challenge to the “net effects”

approach is based on a flawed interpretation of mine-specific

modifications under section 101(c) as involving health and

safety protections that exceed the mandatory national

standard, something the plain language of section 101(c) does

not require and thus does not underlie our deference to the

“net effects” approach. The “net effects” analysis is a means

to assess “whether the modification achieves a net gain in

mine safety (or at least equivalence), taking all effects into

account.” Int’l Union, 920 F.2d at 963. As a matter of “a

strict literal reading” of the language of the Mine Act, Zeigler

Coal Co., 536 F.2d at 405, then, because modifications under

section 101(c) need only be equivalent to the existing

mandatory standard in terms of net health and safety, it could

be said that it was permissible for the Secretary to invoke her

“net effects” analysis simply to compare the new mandatory

standard against the protection afforded by the interim

standard. However, the Secretary in fact addressed mineUSCA Case #04-1165 Document #896214 Filed: 05/24/2005 Page 13 of 21
14

specific conditions, as, for example, each of the conditions in

the modification allowing the Cumberland Mine to use belt air

to ventilate working areas to ensure there was no diminution

in health or safety for the miners provided under the existing

national standard. E.g., 69 Fed. Reg. at 17,494-97. MSHA

thus pointed to modern technology, including advances in

computer-operated AMSs that enable early warning of fires

and combustion levels as achieving net equivalence in health

and safety through the reduction of false alarms and whistles

and detection failures. 69 Fed. Reg. at 17,481, 17,483. While

acknowledging that some mine-specific modifications

contained conditions that exceeded what was required to

achieve net health and safety equivalence with the previously

existing interim standard, the Secretary determined that such

measures are not required to achieve health and safety levels

deemed adequate under the existing standard and the new

rule. 60 Fed. Reg. at 17,485. 

Under the circumstances, the Union fails to explain how,

under a “net effects” approach, allowing belt air ventilation of

working areas under certain conditions diminishes the safety

and health conditions of the miners at the Cumberland mine.

To the extent the Union takes issue with the ultimate

conclusion of what is necessary to ensure equivalent safety,

the Union invades an area within the Secretary’s expertise.

Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. MSHA, 116 F.3d 520, 543 (D.C. Cir.

1997) (citing Int’l Union, 920 F.2d at 963-64). To the extent

the Union relies on statements in the court’s opinions that the

mine-specific conditions established by a petition have the

same effect as a mandatory standard, it fails to acknowledge

the enforcement context. MSHA regulations provide that “[a]

modification, together with any conditions, [has] the same

effect as a mandatory safety standard.” 30 C.F.R. § 44.4(c).

For example, in Energy West Mining Co. v. MSHA, 16

F.M.S.H.R.C. 1414, 1994 WL 380387, *2 (1994), a mine

USCA Case #04-1165 Document #896214 Filed: 05/24/2005 Page 14 of 21
15

operator was cited by MSHA for failing to abide by the

mine’s approved petition for an “alternative method” to

satisfy the requirements of 30 C.F.R. § 75.326, by using

unapproved diesel-powered trucks in the mine, contravening

the condition requiring that MSHA approve all dieselpowered equipment operated at particular sites within that

mine. Id. at *2. In other words, a modification is minespecific, and with respect to that mine it has the same effect

on a mine operator as a mandatory standard for purposes of

required compliance with safety standards. Int’l Union,

United Mine Workers of Am. v. MSHA (Jim Walter Res., Inc),

931 F.2d 908, 909 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Int’l Union, United Mine

Workers of Am. v. MSHA (Emerald Mine Corp.), 830 F.2d

289, 290-91 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Int’l Union, United Mine

Workers of Am. v. MSHA (Kaiser Coal Corp.), 823 F.2d 608,

610 (D.C. Cir. 1987); MSHA v. Peabody Coal Co., 1994 WL

395108 (F.M.S.H.R.C.), *5 (1993). 

For these reasons, the Secretary could reasonably

conclude under a “net effects” approach that previous minespecific modifications were adequately addressed by the final

rule or existing standards under which appropriate minespecific requirements are adopted through the ventilation plan

process, or were the result of negotiations between the union

and mine operator, and extended beyond what was required to

provide the same degree of safety as the previous standard.

See 69 Fed. Reg. at 17,494, 17,496-97; see also UMWA, 870

F.2d at 672. Although the Union’s interpretation of section

101(a)(9) requiring enhanced mine specific modifications to

be grandfathered in any new mandatory national standard is

consistent with the purpose of the Mine Act to protect the

safety and health of miners, 30 U.S.C. § 801(a), the

Secretary’s “net effects” interpretation also is consistent with

the statutory scheme. Instead of requiring the grandfathering

of enhanced mine-specific protections, the statutory scheme

USCA Case #04-1165 Document #896214 Filed: 05/24/2005 Page 15 of 21
16

enacted by Congress contemplates that the Secretary will

promulgate mandatory national health and safety standards

while mine-specific protections will be established through a

petitioning process. Under section 101(c), Congress placed

the burden on the mine operator to comply with the

Secretary’s mandatory national standards or seek a net

equivalent modification, and on the miner or the miner’s

representative to petition for the imposition of mine-specific

conditions to ensure those miners are not subject to

diminution of their safety and health by a new national

standard. While some miners also may enjoy enhanced safety

conditions, either as a result of a modification or a collective

bargaining agreement or otherwise, Congress did not require

that they receive protections above and beyond those set by

the national standards and left to the Secretary to determine

the appropriate adjustments to the interim standards. See 30

U.S.C. § 811(c). Even if, as the Union implies, Congress

might have better achieved its purpose to protect the safety

and health of miners by adopting the Union’s interpretation of

section 101(a)(9), the statutory language indicates that

Congress has chosen a different path that does not leave

miners who enjoyed enhanced protections without recourse. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review in No. 04-

1164.

III. 

Jim Walter Resources, Inc., (“JWR”), challenges the

Secretary’s decision to include a maximum air velocity cap in

its Final Rule, 30 C.F.R. § 75.350(a)(2), contending that the

Secretary failed to provide notice and the opportunity to be

heard before including the cap in its final rule. The proposed

rule provided that “[a] minimum air velocity of 300 feet per

minute must be maintained through the point-feed regulator.”

68 Fed. Reg. at 3,965 (emphasis added). The final rule

USCA Case #04-1165 Document #896214 Filed: 05/24/2005 Page 16 of 21
17

provides that “[t]he maximum air velocity in the belt entry

must be no greater than 500 feet per minute, unless otherwise

approved in the mine ventilation plan.” 69 Fed. Reg. at

17,526 (emphasis added). On appeal, the Secretary

recognizes the differences but maintains the notice

requirements were nonetheless satisfied because the final rule

is a “logical outgrowth” of the proposed rule. Whether

governed by the more stringent requirement under section

101(a)(2) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 811(a)(2), or section 4

of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 553(b), see Zeigler Coal Co., 536 F.2d

at 404, we hold that the maximum cap provision of the final

rule was not a “logical outgrowth” of the proposed rule.

Notice requirements are designed (1) to ensure that

agency regulations are tested via exposure to diverse public

comment, (2) to ensure fairness to affected parties, and (3) to

give affected parties an opportunity to develop evidence in the

record to support their objections to the rule and thereby

enhance the quality of judicial review. Small Refiner Lead

Phase-Down Task Force v. EPA, 705 F.2d 506, 547 (D.C. Cir.

1983). While an agency may promulgate final rules that

differ from the proposed rule, Shell Oil Co. v. EPA, 950 F.2d

741, 750 (D.C. Cir. 1991), a final rule is a “logical outgrowth”

of a proposed rule only if interested parties “‘should have

anticipated’ that the change was possible, and thus reasonably

should have filed their comments on the subject during the

notice-and-comment period,” Northeast Md. Waste Disposal

Auth. v. EPA, 358 F.3d 936, 952 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (citing City

of Waukesha v. EPA, 320 F.3d 228, 245 (D.C. Cir. 2003)).

The “logical outgrowth” doctrine does not extend to a final

rule that is a brand new rule, since “[s]omething is not a

logical outgrowth of nothing,” Kooritzky v. Reich, 17 F.3d

1509, 1513 (D.C. Cir. 1994), nor does it apply where

interested parties would have had to “divine [the Agency’s]

unspoken thoughts,” Ariz. Pub. Serv. Co. v. EPA, 211 F.3d

USCA Case #04-1165 Document #896214 Filed: 05/24/2005 Page 17 of 21
18

1280, 1299 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (quoting Shell Oil Co., 950 F.2d

at 751) because the final rule was “surprisingly distant” from

the proposed rule, cf. id.

The Secretary acknowledges that the premise of the

“logical outgrowth” doctrine is that “the agency has alerted

interested parties to the possibility of the agency’s adopting a

rule different than the one proposed.” Br. of Resp’t at 29-30

(quoting Kooritzky v. Reich, 17 F.3d at 1513). Yet the

preamble to the proposed rule stated that it did not include a

maximum velocity air cap. MSHA referred to the Advisory

Committee’s Recommendation that “Velocities, both

minimum and maximum, should provide air that is capable of

containing methane and dust levels at or below the levels

specified in the standards,” 68 Fed. Reg. at 3,944, but

determined it would “not include language to require limits on

the air quantity carried in the belt entry or air course,” id. at

3,946. MSHA proposed to eliminate, rather than include a

maximum velocity air cap, explaining that:

Existing § 75.350 requires that the air velocity in the belt

entries be limited to the amount necessary to provide an

adequate supply of oxygen in these entries and to assure

that the air contains less than 1.0 percent methane. We

have not included in the proposed rule the provision in

existing § 75.350 that limits the air velocity in the belt

entry. . . . Research has shown that higher velocities have

a cooling effect on developing fires, and higher quantities

reduce concentrations of volatile gases. In effect, the

restriction of velocity creates additional potential hazards

of smoke rollback, methane and hydrogen layering, and

development of fuel-rich fires.

Id. at 3,950. Other references in the preamble to a velocity

cap did not indicate the possibility of a maximum cap much

USCA Case #04-1165 Document #896214 Filed: 05/24/2005 Page 18 of 21
19

less one set at 500 fpm. See, e.g., id. at 3,946. Neither of the

two reports on belt air previously published by MSHA

indicated the possibility of a maximum velocity cap of 500

fpm: The BEVR stated that “[t]est data do not support

limiting belt entry air velocity” and concluded that “there is

no reason to limit the velocity of air in the belt entry provided

that the belt entry does not become the primary intake

aircourse,” Joint Appendix at 70, while the Advisory

Committee Report addressed only maximum air velocities of

1200, 1500, and 2000 fpm, id. at 66, velocities more than

twice the cap in the final rule.

In Shell Oil Co., 950 F.2d at 751, the proposed rule

included a provision for listing hazardous waste where the

agency had data indicating the waste met identified

characteristics, with listing to play a supplementary function

to increase certainty of the process. Id. at 751-52. The final

rule, by contrast, placed a heavy emphasis on listing,

rendering the final rule more expansive, more specific, and

having a different emphasis in the regulatory structure. Id. at

752. The court invalidated the rule for lack of actual notice or

satisfaction of the “logical outgrowth” test, observing that “an

unexpressed intention cannot convert a final rule into a

‘logical outgrowth’ that the public should have anticipated.”

Id. at 751. The inclusion of a maximum velocity cap here

represents a similar “unexpressed intention,” id., and the

Secretary could not have expected interested parties to realize

that she would consider abandoning her proposed regulatory

approach based on empirical research indicating such a cap

was potentially dangerous to miners, simply because she

invited commentary on a proposed rule that included a

minimum air velocity, see Nat’l Mining Ass’n, 116 F.3d at

531. 

In terms presaging the Secretary’s argument that JWR

USCA Case #04-1165 Document #896214 Filed: 05/24/2005 Page 19 of 21
20

received notice through its participation in the rulemaking, the

court in Shell Oil explained that while parties involved in

public hearings might have anticipated the potential for

avoiding regulation, “it was the business of the [Agency], and

not the public, to foresee that possibility and to address it in

its proposed regulations.” Shell Oil, 950 F.2d at 751. The

court also rejected the notion, suggested by the Secretary here,

that comment evidencing recognition of a problem can inform

the public “of how, or even whether, the agency will choose

to address it.” Id. There were some comments during the

hearings urging the Secretary to set a maximum velocity cap,

but no indication by the Secretary that she was intending to do

so. As the court observed in Shell Oil, “ambiguous comments

and weak signals from the agency gave petitioners no such

opportunity to anticipate and criticize the rules or to offer

alternatives. Under these circumstances, the . . . rules exceed

the limits of a ‘logical outgrowth.’” Id. While there are

circumstances when public comments may raise a foreseeable

possibility of agency action, NRDC v. Thomas, 838 F.2d

1224, 1243 (D.C. Cir. 1988), cert. denied sub nom, Ala.

Power Co. v. Thomas, 488 U.S. 888 (1988), illustrates the

outer limits of the “logical outgrowth” doctrine. In that case,

which the court acknowledged “stretche[d] the concept of

‘logical outgrowth’ to its limits,” a comment on a proposed

rule suggested a regulatory approach similar to the approach

ultimately adopted by the agency. The agency issued a public

notice advising of the new approach two weeks prior to final

promulgation of the rule, and the interested parties were

afforded the opportunity to file objections prior to final

promulgation of the rule. By contrast, here no comments

suggested a maximum velocity cap of 500 fpm, and more

importantly, MSHA did not afford a comparable public notice

of its intent to adopt, much less an opportunity to comment

on, such a cap. See also Am. Fed’n of Labor & Cong. of

Indus. Orgs. v. Donovan, 757 F.2d 330, 340 (D.C. Cir. 1985). 

USCA Case #04-1165 Document #896214 Filed: 05/24/2005 Page 20 of 21
21

The Secretary suggests that any error is harmless, see 5

U.S.C. § 706, because JWR has obtained a modification to the

final rule, allowing it to operate with a ventilation plan that

exceeds the maximum air velocity cap. However, according

to the Secretary’s brief, MSHA cited JWR for exceeding the

500 fpm velocity cap at its belt entries without an approved

plan, and required JWR to submit a ventilation plan if it

wanted to continue mining in excess of 500 fpm. JWR, in

turn, states in its brief that the plan is subject to six month

review, and approval could be revoked upon subsequent

review, and points to other evidence of prejudice, including

the loss of an opportunity to offer comments, in light of its

experience, on the cap set at 500 fpm. 

Because the maximum velocity cap of 500 fpm was not a

“logical outgrowth” of the proposed rule, we grant the petition

in No. 04-1165, vacate section 75.350(a)(2) of the Belt Air

Rule, and remand the matter to the Secretary. See

Allied-Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 988

F.2d 146, 150 (D.C. Cir. 1993). 

USCA Case #04-1165 Document #896214 Filed: 05/24/2005 Page 21 of 21