Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-14-01170/USCOURTS-caDC-14-01170-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Respondent
Secretary of Labor
Respondent
Tilden Mining Company, Inc.
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued December 11, 2015 Decided August 12, 2016

No. 14-1170

TILDEN MINING COMPANY, INC.,

PETITIONER

v.

SECRETARY OF LABOR AND FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND 

HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION,

RESPONDENTS

On Petition for Review of a Decision of the 

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

Ralph Henry Moore II argued the cause for petitioner. 

With him on the briefs was Patrick W. Dennison.

Sara L. Johnson, Attorney, U.S. Department of Labor, 

argued the cause for respondents. With her on the brief was

W. Christian Schumann, Counsel, Appellate Litigation. John 

T. Sullivan, Attorney, Mine Safety and Health Review 

Commission, entered an appearance.

Before: GARLAND, Chief Judge∗

, MILLETT, Circuit 

Judge, and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.

 ∗ Chief Judge Garland was a member of the panel at the time the 

case was argued but did not participate in this opinion.

USCA Case #14-1170 Document #1630013 Filed: 08/12/2016 Page 1 of 13
2

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge MILLETT.

MILLETT, Circuit Judge: As Benjamin Franklin knew, 

equipment that conducts electricity is safest when 

“grounded”—physically connected to the earth.1 Among 

other things, grounding prevents exposed metal in equipment

from remaining electrically charged in the event of a power 

failure, thereby preventing accidental shock or electrocution. 

Grounding works most effectively when every component of

an electrical circuit is continuous and has low resistance. See 

Secretary of Labor v. Tilden Mining Company, LC, 36 

F.M.S.H.R.C. 1965, 1967 (2014); see generally 8 McGrawHill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology 237–238 (6th ed. 

1987). Those two features allow any built-up electrical 

charge to dissipate swiftly via a grounding conductor into the 

earth the moment a power failure occurs.

Miners operate all sorts of electrical equipment as part of 

their work. The Secretary of Labor accordingly exercised his 

authority under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 

1977, Pub. L. No. 95-164, 91 Stat. 1290, to promulgate 

regulations that require mine operators to test the continuity 

and resistance of “grounding systems” for mining equipment. 

30 C.F.R. § 56.12028; see generally 30 C.F.R. Part 56, 

Subpart K. The question in this case is whether the Secretary 

properly determined that power cables and extension cords

are regulated parts of those “grounding systems.” We uphold 

the Secretary’s decision because, under the regulations’ plain 

language, power cables and extension cords are most 

naturally considered components of “grounding systems.” 

 1 See generally I. Bernard Cohen, Benjamin Franklin’s Science 66–

109 (1990). 

USCA Case #14-1170 Document #1630013 Filed: 08/12/2016 Page 2 of 13
3

I

A

The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 requires 

the Secretary of Labor “to develop detailed mandatory health 

and safety standards to govern the operation of the Nation’s 

mines.” Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S. 594, 596 (1981); see 

also 30 U.S.C. § 811(a). The Act also created the Mine 

Safety and Health Administration within the Department to 

carry out the Secretary’s mine-safety duties. 29 U.S.C. 

§ 557a. Administration inspectors may issue citations to mine 

operators who fail to abide by the Department’s standards. 30 

U.S.C. § 814. Citations can result in civil penalties of up to 

$50,000 for each violation. Id. § 820(a)(1). Mine operators 

may contest any citations they receive before Federal Mine 

Safety and Health Review Commission administrative law 

judges, who conduct hearings and make findings of fact. See 

id. § 823(d)–(e). Mine operators can then seek discretionary 

review by the Commission. Id. § 823(d)(2)(A)(i). 

Commission decisions, in turn, may be reviewed in this court. 

Id. § 816(a)(1).

Pursuant to his statutory authority, the Secretary has 

promulgated mandatory standards designed to address and 

prevent electrical hazards at mines. Relevant here is a set of

four regulations that requires mine owners to ground certain 

electrical devices and other objects to prevent electrical 

shock. First, “[a]ll metal enclosing or encasing electrical 

circuits shall be grounded or provided with equivalent 

protection.” 30 C.F.R. § 56.12025. Second, “[m]etal fencing 

and metal buildings enclosing transformers and switchgear 

shall be grounded.” Id. § 56.12026. Third, “[f]rame 

grounding or equivalent protection shall be provided for 

mobile equipment powered through trailing cables.” Id. 

§ 56.12027. Finally, 30 C.F.R. § 56.12028 directs that

“[c]ontinuity and resistance of grounding systems shall be 

USCA Case #14-1170 Document #1630013 Filed: 08/12/2016 Page 3 of 13
4

tested immediately after installation, repair, and modification; 

and annually thereafter,” and records of those tests must be 

preserved for federal inspection.

Since at least 1993, the Secretary’s Program Policy 

Manuals have expressly applied the continuity and resistance

testing requirement to power cables and extension cords, 

explaining that “[t]he grounding conductors in trailing cables, 

power cables, and cords which supply power to portable or 

mobile equipment should be tested more frequently than 

stationary grounding conductors.” Mine Safety and Health 

Administration, Program Policy Manual Vol. IV (April 1993, 

Release IV-12) at 52. Indeed, even five years earlier in 1988, 

the Program Policy Manual had presumed that cables and 

extension cords were subject to testing, explaining that “[t]he 

annual test does not apply to grounding conductors in trailing 

cables, power cables and cords which supply power to 

portable or mobile equipment” because “[t]he grounding 

conductors in these cables require more frequent testing.” 

Mine Safety and Health Administration, Program Policy 

Manual Vol. IV (July 1988, Release IV-1) at 52. Again, in 

1994, the Manual underscored that “[g]rounding conductors 

in trailing cables, power cables, and cords that supply power 

to tools and portable or mobile equipment must be tested as 

prescribed in the regulation.” Mine Safety and Health 

Administration, Program Policy Letter No. P94-IV-1 (Jan. 31, 

1994) at 2. The Secretary restated that language verbatim in 

the 1996 and 2003 Program Policy Manuals. See Mine Safety 

and Health Administration, Program Policy Manual Vol. IV 

(February 2003, Release IV-21) at 45; Mine Safety and 

Health Administration, Program Policy Manual Vol. IV 

(April 1, 1996, Release IV-16) at 52.

B

In April 2008, a Mine Safety and Health Administration 

Inspector issued two citations to the Tilden Mine in Michigan 

USCA Case #14-1170 Document #1630013 Filed: 08/12/2016 Page 4 of 13
5

for failure to perform continuity and resistance testing on 

certain equipment and extension cords. Tilden contested 

those citations before an ALJ, arguing that power cables and 

extension cords do not fall within the regulatory term 

“grounding systems,” and that even if they did, the 

Secretary’s application of the term to extension cords and 

power cables was unlawful because that position was not 

adopted through notice-and-comment rulemaking. The ALJ 

upheld the citations, reasoning that, “[d]ue to their function 

and the importance of preventing electric shock to miners, 

continuity testing must be performed on all aspects of the 

grounding system, including grounding conductors in 

extension cords.” J.A. 16. 

The Commission affirmed. It held that “grounding 

systems” was an ambiguous term and that the Secretary’s 

interpretation was reasonable and entitled to deference. J.A.

6. Specifically, the Commission reasoned: 

Conducting a continuity test assures that the 

equipment being used is connected directly to the 

ground prong, and that the grounding circuit is 

complete. A grounding system is only as protective 

as its weakest link, which is why it is critical to 

ensure that all the necessary components of the 

grounding system are fully functional, including 

extension cords and cables. Otherwise, the 

grounding system will cease to function.

Id. The Commission further explained that the Secretary’s 

position does not unduly burden mine operators because 

testing is only required annually and upon “installation,” 30

C.F.R. § 56.12028, which the Secretary has determined 

means only when “an extension cord or cable is first put into 

use, [not] every time the cord or cable is subsequently 

plugged in.” J.A. 7 n.3.

USCA Case #14-1170 Document #1630013 Filed: 08/12/2016 Page 5 of 13
6

The Commission held, secondly, that the Secretary’s 

reading of his regulation did not have to go through noticeand-comment rulemaking because, whatever ambiguity the 

1988 Manual’s discussion of testing frequency might have 

created, no prior position of the Secretary had held that 

extension cords were exempt from testing. J.A. 8–9.

C

Tilden timely petitioned for review. While that petition 

was pending, the Supreme Court decided Perez v. Mortgage

Bankers Association, 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015). Mortgage 

Bankers held that “[b]ecause an agency is not required to use 

notice-and-comment procedures to issue an initial interpretive 

rule, it is also not required to use those procedures when it 

amends or repeals that interpretive rule.” Id. at 1206. In 

simple terms, the Court held that if an agency’s interpretation

of a statute or regulation does not require notice-and-comment 

rulemaking procedures in the first instance, a change in that 

interpretation does not require notice-and-comment 

rulemaking procedures merely because it is a change. In light 

of that decision, Tilden has appropriately abandoned its 

argument that any arguable change in the Secretary’s 

interpretation between the 1988 and 1994 versions of the 

Program Policy Manual in and of itself required notice-andcomment rulemaking. See Oral Arg. Tr. 3–4.

II

Tilden argues that the Secretary’s application of the 

testing requirements for “grounding systems” to power cables 

and extension cords was an unreasonable interpretation of 

Department regulations because extension cords and power 

cables are “not logically included within the standard.” Pet’r

Br. 15. Tilden alternatively argues that the application of 

testing requirements to power cables and extension cords is a 

legislative, not an interpretive, rule that required the agency to 

USCA Case #14-1170 Document #1630013 Filed: 08/12/2016 Page 6 of 13
7

engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking. In Tilden’s view, 

requiring the testing of cables and cords was legislative 

because it is a “substantive change” that is “not logically 

included within” the Secretary’s regulations. Id. at 31. 

Tilden concedes, however, that if the testing requirement 

instead is a logical and reasonable reading of the regulation, 

that would “be the end of the case,” Oral Arg. Tr. 16, since

the Secretary’s position would neither be unreasonable nor 

would it be a legislative rule requiring notice-and-comment 

rulemaking procedures.

Ordinarily, “[t]his Court affords great deference to an 

agency’s interpretation of its own regulation.” Secretary of 

Labor v. Twentymile Coal Co., 411 F.3d 256, 260 (D.C. Cir. 

2005). We afford such deference based on the Supreme 

Court’s decisions in Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997),

and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 

(1945). However, we need not rely on Auer deference where 

an agency’s interpretation is the fairest reading of a 

regulation. See, e.g., Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell 

Telephone Co., 564 U.S. 50, 67–68 (2011) (Scalia, J., 

concurring) (“I have no need to rely on Auer deference, 

because I believe the FCC’s interpretation is the fairest 

reading.”); cf. International Internship Program v. 

Napolitano, 718 F.3d 986, 987 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (“Because 

we conclude that the agency’s interpretation of the statute is 

the better reading, we need not determine whether the 

agency’s interpretation is entitled to Chevron deference.”).

In this case, the better and most natural reading of the 

regulatory text includes power cables and extension cords 

appended to electrical appliances as part of the regulated 

“grounding systems.”

We begin, and for the most part end, with the text of the 

key regulation. See In re England, 375 F.3d 1169, 1177 (D.C. 

Cir. 2004). Section 56.12028 reads:

USCA Case #14-1170 Document #1630013 Filed: 08/12/2016 Page 7 of 13
8

Continuity and resistance of grounding systems shall 

be tested immediately after installation, repair, and 

modification; and annually thereafter. A record of 

the resistance measured during the most recent tests 

shall be made available on a request by the Secretary 

or his duly authorized representative.

30 C.F.R. § 56.12028. 

The regulation then defines “electrical grounding [to] 

mean[] to connect with the ground to make the earth part of 

the circuit.” 30 C.F.R. § 56.2. The term “grounding systems”

thus encompasses all of the related parts of the electrical 

circuit—all of the parts in the system—that together are

grounded to the earth. For that reason, extension cords and 

power cables are naturally understood to be components of 

the grounded electrical circuit. If the equipment is not 

plugged into an electrical power source through a cable or 

extension cord, there is no continuous electrical circuit and 

therefore no grounding system. On the other hand, when the 

cable or cord is plugged in, the entire functional point of the 

cable or cord is to facilitate the movement of electricity from 

the power source to the piece of equipment, which creates a 

continuous, grounded electrical circuit.

That makes the testing of power cables and extension 

cords textually logical. “A grounding system is only as 

protective as its weakest link,” so it is “critical to ensure that 

all the necessary components of the grounding system are 

fully functional, including extension cords and cables.” J.A. 

6 (Commission decision). As a Department of Labor 

inspector elaborated during the agency proceedings: 

The idea behind grounding is to protect the people 

who use metal-encased equipment from electric 

shock. * * * If an extension cord is being used, it, 

too, must be grounded for the same reasons that the 

USCA Case #14-1170 Document #1630013 Filed: 08/12/2016 Page 8 of 13
9

metal-encased equipment itself should be grounded. 

The extension cord has now extended the circuit to 

the end of the extension cord. Conducting a 

continuity test assures one that the extension cord is 

connected directly to the ground prong and thus, the 

grounding circuit is complete, including the 

extension cord.

Id. at 79. In short, the fairest reading of the text mirrors its 

purpose: miners cannot be protected from electrical shock if a

necessary component of a grounded electrical circuit has high 

resistance or is not continuous. 

Tilden argues that “the terms extension cord or power 

cable are not found in the standard.” Pet’r Br. 16. True 

enough. But outlets, power sources, and other conductors of 

electricity are not mentioned by name either, yet Tilden does 

not and could not dispute that they are indispensable 

components of a grounding system. What is critical is that the 

cords and cables fall within the natural compass of the phrase 

“grounding system,” an expansive term that includes multiple 

constituent components. Cf. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 

497, 529 (2007) (“On its face, the definition [of ‘air 

pollutant’] embraces all airborne compounds of whatever 

stripe.”); CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Alabama Dep’t of 

Revenue, 562 U.S. 277, 284 (2011) (Though “the statute [does 

not] place any matters within, or exclude any matters from, 

the term’s ambit, * * * the meaning of ‘tax’ is expansive.”).

The Secretary’s Program Policy Manual confirms that 

“grounding systems” encompasses power cables and 

extension cords through its identification of categories of 

devices that are included within “grounding systems.” The 

2003 Manual (like all preceding iterations) explains that 

“[g]rounding systems typically include” three components: 

(i) “grounding electrodes,” (ii) “grounding electrode 

conductors,” and (iii) “equipment grounding conductors.”

USCA Case #14-1170 Document #1630013 Filed: 08/12/2016 Page 9 of 13
10

Mine Safety and Health Administration, Program Policy 

Manual Vol. IV (February 2003, Release IV-21) at 44. As the 

name suggests, grounding electrodes are the end device in the 

system where the grounding occurs: they are “usually driven 

rods connected to each other by suitable means, buried metal, 

or other effective methods located at the source, to provide a 

low resistance earth connection.” Id. The grounding 

electrodes then connect to “grounding electrode conductors,” 

which in turn connect to “equipment grounding conductors.” 

Id. And, most relevantly here, “equipment grounding 

conductors” are defined as “the conductors used to connect 

the metal frames or enclosures of electrical equipment to the 

grounding electrode conductor.” Id. 

Power cables and extension cords, at a minimum, qualify 

as equipment grounding conductors: they are part of a series 

of conductors that link electrical equipment (through 

attachment to its outside metal frame or its enclosure) to the 

grounding electrode conductor—a connection that typically 

occurs at a circuit breaker or fuse box. That grounding 

electrode conductor then links up directly to the grounding 

electrode in the earth. Voilà—a grounding system.

At oral argument, Tilden argued that extension cords are 

grounding electrode conductors. See Oral Arg. Tr. 7. No 

matter. Either way the cords are a recognized component of a 

“grounding system” under the regulation. 

Tilden also argues that interpreting “grounding systems” 

to include extension cords and power cables does not comport 

with the broader regulatory scheme. But Tilden’s structural 

objections do not hold up. First, Tilden says that, because the 

rule requires testing “after installation,” 30 C.F.R. § 56.12028, 

the Secretary’s position would mean that power cables and 

extension cords have to be tested every single time they are 

plugged in. Not so. The Secretary has interpreted 

“installation” in this context to “only require[] that continuity 

USCA Case #14-1170 Document #1630013 Filed: 08/12/2016 Page 10 of 13
11

and resistance testing be done when an extension cord or 

cable is first put into use, as opposed to every time the cord or 

cable is subsequently plugged in.” J.A. 7 n.3; see also Supp. 

App. 47 (documenting Secretary’s position before the 

Commission). That is because the threat a power cable or

extension cord poses to a grounding system derives not from 

being plugged in improperly, but from internal wiring that is 

flawed or damaged by vibration, flexing, or corrosive 

environments like those found in mines. Accordingly, testing 

the integrity of the installed wiring need not occur every time 

the cord is plugged in. 

Changing tacks, Tilden argues (Pet’r Br. 19) that 

extension cords and power cables require no “installation.” 

But the “installation” referenced in the regulation is of the 

“grounding system,” 30 C.F.R. § 56.12028, and in that 

context the cords are installed when they are first connected to 

equipment and conductors creating a grounding system.

Anyhow, both of those arguments go to the ambiguity of 

the term “installation” not “grounding systems.” Whatever 

ambiguity or confusion Tilden perceives in the Secretary’s 

interpretation of “installation,” that does nothing to detract 

from the logical compass of the phrase “grounding systems.” 

Second, Tilden argues that the application of the 

“grounding systems” language to extension cords and power 

cables makes no sense because the regulation requires both 

continuity and resistance testing of grounding systems, yet 

only continuity—not resistance—testing is required for power 

cables and extension cords. No again. In fact, testing 

resistance is very much necessary for extension cords because 

a high resistance would mean that “it would take longer for 

[a] message to get back to the circuit breaker or fuse box * * * 

when the equipment is energized through [an] electrical 

fault.” Oral Arg. Tr. 31–32. Moreover, the Secretary 

explained that only resistance—not continuity—is directly 

USCA Case #14-1170 Document #1630013 Filed: 08/12/2016 Page 11 of 13
12

recorded during testing, because the resistance reading 

simultaneously shows whether the electrical circuit is 

continuous. Id. at 32–34.

Third, Tilden argues that power cables and extension 

cords, as temporary pieces of equipment, do not fit 

comfortably within the regulations’ categories of permanent

pieces of equipment for which direct grounding is required: 

(i) “[a]ll metal enclosing or encasing electrical circuits,” 30 

C.F.R. § 56.12025, (ii) “[m]etal fencing and metal buildings 

enclosing transformers and switchgear,” id. § 56.12026, and 

(iii) “mobile equipment powered through trailing cables,” id. 

§ 56.12027. But those provisions identify which equipment 

must be connected to the ground; they do not purport to list 

every object that must be tested as part of a grounding system.

Moreover, the fact that the “mobile equipment powered 

through trailing cables,” 30 C.F.R. § 56.12027, can be 

detached from electrical systems—a point Tilden conceded at 

oral argument, see Oral Arg. Tr. 14—means that Tilden’s 

proposed distinction between temporary and permanent 

installations does not hold together. 

Finally, Tilden argues that the plain meaning of the term 

“grounding systems” cannot include extension cords and 

power cables because the industry did not understand that 

term to include those devices. But a regulation’s ambit comes 

from the natural import of its text. Disavowals by those on 

the receiving end of regulation cannot, by themselves, alter a 

regulation’s natural meaning. 

III

In sum, because the fairest reading of the regulation 

embraces power cables and extension cords used as part of an 

electrical grounding system, the Secretary’s reading of the 

regulation was reasonable and non-legislative, making noticeUSCA Case #14-1170 Document #1630013 Filed: 08/12/2016 Page 12 of 13
13

and-comment rulemaking unnecessary. The petition for 

review is denied.

So ordered.

USCA Case #14-1170 Document #1630013 Filed: 08/12/2016 Page 13 of 13