frequently examined, tested, and properly maintained by a qualified person to assure safe
operating conditions.” 30 C.F.R. § 75.512 (emphasis added).

In the context of high-voltage longwall equipment, however, the Secretary elected to
promulgate a standard that complemented existing regulations by imposing stricter requirements
for examinations of longwall electrical equipment but did not create an additional maintenance
requirement.

The standards governing high-voltage electrical equipment are part of a total set of
regulations to protect miners’ safety. As 30 C.F.R. § 75.813 clearly states, “[a]ll other existing
standards . . . must also apply to these longwall circuits and equipment where appropriate.”
Thus, the Secretary could have looked beyond section 75.821 for a standard more appropriately
suited to the facts of the case, such as section 75.512. He did not do so.

Instead, the Secretary proceeded to present his case at hearing on a theory not supported
by the evidence. The Secretary alleged a violation of section 75.821(a), which requires a weekly
examination of electrical longwall equipment, but failed to provide any evidence that adequate
examinations were not performed. The Secretary did not submit Mach’s examination records as
evidence nor did he attempt to elicit testimony from adverse witnesses. The only evidence that
the Secretary presented was the testimony of Inspector Butcher, and he testified that Mach had
unquestionably performed the tests required by section 75.821(a).

Because an operator has an ongoing duty under Section 75.512 to maintain its equipment
to protect miner health and safety, it appears that the inspector could have issued citations under
that section. The Commission’s procedural rules provide that petitions for assessment of
penalties by the Secretary shall identify the section of the Mine Act or regulations alleged to
have been violated. 29 C.F.R. § 2700.28(b)(1). These rules reflect the fundamental
requirements of due process that an operator charged with a violation of the Act be given fair
notice of the standard that it has allegedly violated. Neither the citation nor the penalty petition
in this case refers to, let alone asserts, a violation of section 75.512.

Here, after filing the penalty petition, the Secretary could have moved to amend the
citations. In the interest of justice, Judges freely grant such motions absent a showing of
prejudice. See, e.g., Cyprus Empire Corp., 12 FMSHRC 911, 916 (May 1990); El Paso Rock
Quarries, Inc., 3 FMSHRC 35, 38 (Jan. 1981). However, the Secretary never made such a
motion prior to resting his case. Quite reasonably, Mach mounted its defense against the
Secretary’s allegations that the operator violated section 75.821. The Secretary’s citation of a
violation of section 75.821 (a) went to a directed verdict without any mention of section 75.51 28

® Our colleague points to Faith Coal Co., 19 FMSHRC 1357 (Aug. 1997), to suggest this
matter should be remanded for the judge to consider whether Mach violated section 75.512. Slip
op. at 10. In Faith Coal, the inspector mistakenly entered an outdated number for the cited
regulation in the citation paperwork. Neither party noticed the error and proceeded to try the
case at hearing under the correct safety standard, which still existed under a different number in
the Secretary’s safety regulations. The Commission therefore determined that the operator had
suffered no prejudice from the Secretary’s pleading deficiencies and that the Secretary’s request

5


in Faith Coal Co., 19 FASHRC 1357 (Aug. 1997). In that case, the citation alleged a violation
of the wrong standard (the cited standard had previously applied to methane monitors but had
been amended and renumbered). The Judge vacated the citation on the ground that it alleged a
violation of the wrong standard and was never modified to assert a violation of the correct
standard. The Commission reversed the Judge’s decision to vacate the citation, holding that the
Judge erred by vacating the citation on the basis of the Secretary’s pleading error. We remanded
for a determination of whether Faith’s conduct violated the correct standard. /d. at 1361-62.
Given that the majority’s central complaint here appears to be that the inspector should have
written section 75.512 on the citation instead of section 75.821(a), we should follow our case
precedent and remand to the Judge.

My colleagues’ concern that such an approach would violate the requirements of due
process is unfounded. Of course, due process requires that an operator receive adequate notice
of charges made against it. Here, Mach was on notice from the time it was first cited that the
inspector considered the violative conduct to be a failure to maintain electrical equipment as
evidenced by the defective chirpers. The citations allege that the volt disconnect box and power
center are “not being properly maintained to prevent electrical shock hazards” and that the “chirp
alerts fail[ ] to emit any audible sound to signal that the [equipment] is energized.” S. Exs. 111,
112. Both citations were abated when new chip alerts were installed. Jd.

The Judge recognized that MSHA was charging the operator with failing to properly
maintain the electrical equipment. He emphasized that the inspector stated “it wasn’t his
contention it was a test and examination requirement. He was saying the chirp alerts didn’t
work. It was a maintenance requirement. . . . It’s the inspector’s theory of the case... .” Tr.
258.° Although I believe it to be entirely reasonable and appropriate for the inspector to have
referenced the high voltage longwall standard at 30 C.F.R. § 75.821(a), it would hardly be
prejudicial to amend the citation to refer instead to the requirement at section 75.512.

Mine operators have long been aware of their obligation to maintain electrical equipment.
Section 305(g) of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, 30 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.
(1976), used language identical to that of section 75.512 to mandate that “[a]ll electric equipment
shall be frequently examined, tested, and properly maintained by a qualified person to assure safe
operating conditions.” Pub. L. No. 91-173, § 305(g), 83 Stat. 742, 778 (1969). This language
requirement was retained in section 305(g) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 865(g).

The Commission long ago made clear that an operator’s requirement to maintain mine
equipment is an ongoing responsibility. As we observed in Nally v. Hamilton Enterprises, Inc.,
33 FMSHRC 1759, 1763 (Aug. 2011), a case involving a back-up alarm on a truck, we have
“consistently construed ‘maintain’ . . . to require a continuing functioning condition.” See also
Lopke Quarries, Inc.,23 FMSHRC 705, 707-08 (July 2001) (“[t]he inclusion of the word
‘maintain’ in the standard . . . incorporates an on-going responsibility on the part of the
operator”). In sum, Mach was well aware of its legal duty to properly maintain the chirpers.

> The Judge also told counsel for the Secretary: “You proved that there was a defect.” Tr.
251.

10


Commissioner Jordan, dissenting:

This case arose when an MSHA inspector determined that two “chirp alerts” on the high
voltage longwall equipment failed to emit any audible sound. Without proper notification from a
functioning chirp alert that certain equipment is energized, miners are at risk of fatal injuries
from electrocution. 38 FMSHRC 1379, 1381 n.2 (June 2016) (ALJ); Tr. 74-75.

The inspector issued two citations, each referencing a violation of 30 C.F.R.
§ 75.821(a).' The judge below dismissed the challenged citations. He determined that the
standard relied upon by the inspector required tests and examinations of the equipment, but did
not require that the equipment be properly maintained. According to the Judge, unless MSHA
could show that the operator had failed to conduct the mandatory tests and examinations, the
agency could not sustain a violation of this standard. Since the inspector’s testimony did not
contain such proof, the Judge granted the operator’s motion for a directed verdict and dismissed
the two challenged citations. My colleagues have agreed with this narrow construction of
section 75.821(a).

I. Section 75.821(a) requires operators to properly maintain high voltage
equipment,

As the Judge and my colleagues correctly note, the standard in question explicitly
mandates periodic testing and examination of the longwall equipment and circuits. Contrary to
my colleagues’ contention, this instruction does not equate to “clear and unambiguous regulatory
language” restricting the scope of the standard to those specified activities. Slip op. at 4. My
colleagues have chosen to ignore the language explaining that the reason for these exams and
tests is “to determine that electrical protection, equipment grounding, permissibility, cable
insulation, and control devices are being properly maintained to prevent fire, electrical shock,
ignition, or operational hazards from existing on the equipment.” 30 C.F.R. § 75.821(a)
(emphasis added).

' The standard states:
Testing, examination and maintenance.

(a) At least once every 7 days, a person qualified in
accordance with § 75.153 to perform electrical work on all circuits
and equipment must test and examine each unit of high-voltage
longwall equipment and circuits to determine that electrical
protection, equipment grounding, permissibility, cable insulation,
and control devices are being properly maintained to prevent fire,
electrical shock, ignition, or operational hazards from existing on
the equipment. Tests must include activating the ground-fault test
circuit as required by § 75.814(c).

30 C.F.R. § 75.821(a) (emphasis added).


Thus, we are left to adjudge only the Secretary’s allegations under section 75.821(a). Given the
lack of evidence of a violation of that section, the Judge correctly vacated the citations upon
Mach’s motion for a directed verdict.”

Il.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the Judge’s decision.

We L Qc

William I. Althen, Acting Chairman

Y) -
Michgél G. Yqjifg, missioner
Poon

Wy eal

Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner

to amend the citation should be allowed. 17 FMSHRC at 1362. Here, in contrast, Mach directed
its defense against a citation under section 75.821 (a) and the Secretary’s novel, expansive
reading of that standard. Mach has not had the opportunity to defend against allegations that it
violated section 75.512. Thus, the procedural history of Faith Coal renders it inapposite to the
case at hand. We decline to send this case back to the judge to consider whether the operator has
violated a standard the Secretary has never sought to allege.

° This decision is not criticism of Inspector Butcher. We recognize that MSHA
inspectors have difficult jobs and must make quick determinations in the field when issuing
citations. Inspector Butcher identified defects in the chirp alerts and issued citations to remedy
what he saw as a danger to miner safety. Inspectors may not have the legal expertise required to
always select the appropriate standard when issuing a citation. However, after a citation has
been initially issued, it will be reviewed again by MSHA staff in the process of preparing the
petition for assessment of penalties. Then, if the operator contests the penalty, it is reviewed
again by the Secretary’s trial counsel in preparation for the hearing. Trial counsel must
determine that the facts alleged in the citation constitute a violation of the section of the
regulations cited and, if not, should seek to amend the citation as appropriate. It is incumbent on
the Secretary to make corrections to his pleadings before hearing to ensure the correct violation
is charged and to provide due process.


the Secretary’s evidence was adequate to sustain a violation.

Section 75.821(a) requires that a qualified person test and examine each unit of high-
voltage longwall equipment and circuits “/a/t least once every 7 days.” 30 C.F.R. § 75.821(a)
(emphasis added). The referenced language implies an obligation to examine the equipment
more frequently under certain circumstances. Surely one such circumstance occurs when the
equipment develops a visible defect. In this case the inspector arrived at the site and observed
that two separate warning devices were not functioning.

The inspector testified that miners frequented the area where this equipment was located
and would have noticed the fact the chirpers did not work.

[A]nybody that is around that longwall train should notice that
chirp alert is not working, because, you know, they’re on all the
time there’s power. They’re on—every day when a crew goes—
goes in and gets out of the truck and walks by the disconnect and
the power centers, they’re walking by it and those are chirping and
also the light is flashing. . . . There’s people come there at the
beginning of every shift and there’s electricians walk by, the
foreman walks by, the maintenance foremens walk by, and it’s
noticeable when those chirp alerts are working that they’re
working, and in this case, you know, both boxes, they weren’t
working.

Tr. 76, 91-2.

The existence of the hazardous condition, of which the operator was aware or should
have been aware, would trigger the requirement to test and examine the chirp alerts. Since
failing to take steps to address the defective warning devices could constitute a violation of
section 75.821(a), even under the narrow construction adopted by the Judge and my colleagues,
the Judge erred in issuing a directed verdict at the close of the Secretary’s case.

II. Even if the majority ruling that the operator should have been cited under

section 75.512 were correct, the Commission should remand the case instead of vacating
the citation.

My colleagues in the majority vote to vacate these citations because they conclude the
inspector listed the wrong safety standard on the citation. They believe he should have written
30 C.F.R. § 75.512 on the citation form, instead of section 30 C.F.R. § 75.821(a). Slip op. at 5.

Even if the majority’s determination that section 75.512 is the relevant standard is correct,
the appropriate response would be to remand this matter in order for the Judge to consider
whether the operator violated that section. This approach would be consistent with our decision

With respect, I suggest that the miners’ safety may suffer to the extent enforcement of mandatory
standards is dependent on inspectors needing sufficient “legal expertise.”

9


FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 520N
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004-1710

SECRETARY OF LABOR, AUG 2 9 2018
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) : Docket Nos. LAKE 2014-77
: LAKE 2014-132
v.
MACH MINING, LLC

BEFORE: Althen, Acting Chairman; Jordan, Young, and Cohen, Commissioners
DECISION
BY: Althen, Acting Chairman; Young and Cohen, Commissioners

This proceeding arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C.
§ 801 et seq. (2012) (“Mine Act”), and involves two citations issued by the Department of
Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) to Mach Mining, LLC (“Mach”).
The citations allege that Mach violated 30 C.F.R. § 75.821(a) by failing to maintain chirp alerts
on a disconnect box and power center.'

Mach contested the citations and the associated civil penalties. The case proceeded to a
hearing before a Commission Administrative Law Judge. After counsel for the Secretary of
Labor presented his case, Mach’s attorney moved for a directed verdict. The Judge granted
Mach’s motion and vacated both citations. 38 FMSHRC 1379 (June 2016) (ALJ). Thereafter,
the Secretary filed a petition for discretionary review challenging the Judge’s grant of directed
verdict in favor of Respondent.

' Section 75.821 is entitled “Testing, examination and maintenance.” Subsection (a)
requires that:

At least once every 7 days, a person qualified in accordance with

§ 75.153 to perform electrical work on all circuits and equipment
must test and examine each unit of high-voltage longwall
equipment and circuits to determine that electrical protection,
equipment grounding, permissibility, cable insulation, and control
devices are being properly maintained to prevent fire, electrical
shock, ignition, or operational hazards from existing on the
equipment. Tests must include activating the ground-fault test
circuit as required by § 75.814(c).


Distribution:

Christopher D. Pence, Esq.
Hardy Pence PLLC

500 Lee Street, East, Suite 701
P.O. Box 2548

Charleston, WV 25329

Emily Toler Scott, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

201 12th Street South, Suite 401
Arlington, VA 22202-5450

Ali Beydoun, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

US Department of Labor
201 12th St. South, Suite 401
Arlington, VA 22202-5450

April Nelson, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

US Department of Labor
201 12th St. South, Suite 401
Arlington, VA 22202-5450

Melanie Garris

Office of Civil Penalty Compliance, MSHA
U.S. Department of Labor

201 12th Street South, Suite 401

Arlington, VA 22202-5450

Administrative Law Judge Thomas McCarthy
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Office of Administrative Law Judges

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 520N
Washington, DC 20004-1710


IV. Conclusion

I would vacate the Judge’s decision and remand this case for further proceedings.

tage

11


A standard that mandates certain steps be carried out on equipment for the purpose of
determining that such equipment is being properly maintained, necessarily imposes an obligation
on the operator to maintain that equipment. This is made evident when one considers the entire
standard. The purpose of section 75.821(a) is not simply to perform tests and examinations. The
purpose, as the standard states, is “to prevent fire, electrical shock, ignition, or operational
hazards from existing on the equipment.” 30 C.F.R. § 75.821(a). In order to prevent these
operational hazards, the equipment must be “properly maintained.” Id.

The standard the inspector referenced in citing Mach is one of a group of regulations
promulgated in 2002 directed at high voltage longwalls. In proposing these standards the
Secretary explained that “[pJroper testing, examination, and maintenance of high voltage
longwall systems would assure that they would not pose increased hazards to miners.” 57 Fed.
Reg. 39,041, 39,047 (proposed Aug. 27, 1992) (emphasis added). By promulgating standards
“related specifically to the safe use of high-voltage longwall equipment,” 67 Fed. Reg. 10,972
(Mar. 11, 2002), MSHA envisioned “increased protection from electrical hazards” (id. at 10,973).

Despite the efforts of the Secretary to create a comprehensive and focused regulatory
scheme relevant to high-voltage longwall equipment, our colleagues insist that only the more
generic standard at 30 C.F.R. § 75.512 may be used to enforce a maintenance requirement in this
case.” The majority relies on 30 C.F.R. § 75.813 for this holding.» However, that standard
simply clarifies that, in addition to the specific safety standards that apply to high-voltage
longwall circuits and equipment, other existing MSHA safety standards continue to apply.
MSHA did not want the mining community to conclude that the new standards were the
exclusive means of regulating high-voltage longwall equipment—section 75.813 means no more
than that. Unfortunately, however, the measure that was included so as to avoid any gaps in the
miners’ protection is being used instead to restrict the Secretary’s prosecutorial discretion and
provide a rationale for vacating citations.*

? Section 75.512 states in relevant part that “[aJll electric equipment shall be frequently
examined, tested, and properly maintained by a qualified person to assure safe operating
conditions.”

330 CFR. § 75.813 states: “Sections 75.814 through 75.822 of this part are electrical
safety standards that apply to high-voltage longwall circuits and equipment. All other existing
standards in 30 CFR must also apply to these longwall circuits and equipment where appropriate.”

* According to my colleagues, because operators had an ongoing duty to maintain
equipment under section 75.512, and because section75.821(a) should be read to supplement
rather than supplant this obligation, the “standard more appropriately suited to the facts of the
case” is 75.512. Slip op. at 5. The mental acrobatics that will be required of inspectors as a
result of this decision seems daunting.

Indeed, the majority acknowledges that “[i]nspectors may not have the legal expertise
required to always select the appropriate standard when issuing a citation.” Jd. at 6 n.9.

8


In 1992, MSHA proposed a new rule to address these deficiencies. The 1992 proposed
rule included a new section 75.821to address testing and examination requirements of high
voltage longwall electrical equipment. Jd. at 39,047-48. MSHA stated that section 75.821 was
to be “used in conjunction” with other regulations requiring maintenance, specifically section
75.1002.> Id. at 39,047. Moreover, the 1992 proposed rule created section 75.813,° which
requires that all other existing electrical standards apply to longwall circuits and equipment
where appropriate. /d. at 39,043. The final rule, which included section 75.821, was issued on
March 11, 2002, after an extended notice-and-comment period. 67 Fed. Reg. 10,972, 10,992-95.

Consistent with its history and placement, the plain language of section 75.821(a)
specifically requires periodic examinations of longwall electrical equipment. Section 75.821(a)
does not require maintenance of electrical equipment. By its clear and unambiguous terms, it
requires only that:

At least once every 7 days, a person qualified in accordance with

§ 75.153 to perform electrical work on all circuits and equipment
must test and examine each unit of high-voltage longwall
equipment and circuits. . . .

30 CER. § 75.821(a).

In light of the clear and unambiguous regulatory language, we decline the Secretary’s
invitation to read a requirement for maintenance into the standard where one simply does not
exist.’ Had the Secretary intended the standard to contain an ongoing maintenance requirement,
he surely would have done so, as is evident in the numerous regulations that expressly require
maintenance. See, e.g., 30 C.F.R. §§ 75.503, 75.506(a), 75.506-1(a), 75.1002(a), 75.512,
75.1725(a). Indeed, section 75.512 provides, in pertinent part: “All electric equipment shall be

530 CFR. § 75.821(a) states that “Electric equipment must be permissible and
maintained in a permissible condition when such equipment is located within 150 feet of pillar
workings or longwall faces.”

630 C.F.R. § 75.813 states that: “Sections 75.814 through 75.822 of this part are
electrical safety standards that apply to high-voltage longwall circuits and equipment. All other
existing standards in 30 CFR must also apply to these longwall circuits and equipment where
appropriate.”

7 The Secretary cites the Commission’s decision in Nally & Hamilton Enterprises, Inc.,
33 FMSHRC 1759, 1763 (Aug. 2011), as supporting his reading that section 75.821(a)
establishes a duty to maintain. However, the Secretary’s reliance on Nally & Hamilton is
inapposite. In that case, the Commission found that the inclusion of the term “maintain” in 30
C.F.R. § 77.410(c) imposed a continuing responsibility on the operator to ensure that warning
devices were maintained in working condition at all times. Jd. at 1763. By contrast, section
75.821(a) contains no such explicit maintenance requirement.


The Secretary contended that it was reasonable to infer from Butcher’s testimony that the
chirp alerts had not been tested, since two were inoperative at the time of the inspection.
Moreover, the Secretary argued that the standard required an ongoing duty of maintenance that
required Mach to maintain the chirp alerts in working condition.

The Judge orally granted Mach’s motion at the hearing. In his written decision, the Judge
explained that he had granted the motion because Inspector Butcher’s allegation rested solely on
the fact that he believed the chirp alerts were not properly maintained. The Judge noted that the
inspector had answered in the affirmative when asked if there was “no dispute in your mind that
the tests that are required by [Section] 75.821(a) were actually performed at the times required,
correct?” 38 FMSHRC at 1382 n.2 (quoting Tr. 109). Because the Secretary had failed to
establish that a qualified person had not tested and examined the chirp alerts within the last seven
days to ensure that the equipment was being properly maintained, the Judge granted the motion
for directed verdict and vacated the citations.

Il.

Disposition

On appeal, the Secretary argues that the Judge erred in finding that section 75.821(a) does
not require operators to maintain electrical protection devices on high-voltage longwall
equipment. According to the Secretary, such a reading would allow operators to ignore
nonfunctional electrical equipment for up to an entire seven days, until the operator is required to
perform the next examination. Instead, the Secretary claims that the standard’s regulatory
history and placement strongly supports a plain reading of the standard requiring an ongoing
duty to maintain the chirp alerts.

We find the Secretary’s arguments unconvincing. The Secretary’s characterization of the
regulatory history presupposes that section 75.821(a) was intended to replace the multiple
requirements contained in other regulations that impose a duty to maintain electrical equipment.
However, the standard’s history and context make clear that section 75.821(a) was intended to
supplement, not supplant, existing examination and maintenance requirements.

Prior to the promulgation of section 75.821, mine operators were required to petition for a
modification of 30 C.F.R. § 75.1002 before high-voltage cables could be used to supply power to
their longwall operations. 57 Fed. Reg. 39,041, 39,041-42, 39,047-48 (proposed Aug. 27, 1992).
In 1989, MSHA proposed significant revisions to the existing electrical standards in 30 C.F.R.
Part 75. The proposed revisions would have allowed the use of high-voltage cables without
petitioning for a modification, in exchange for more stringent rules governing electrical longwall
equipment. See 54 Fed. Reg. 50,062-01, 50,122 (proposed Dec. 4, 1989). The proposal, which
did not contain an analog to section 75.821, did not become a final rule. MSHA later said that its
withdrawal of the proposed rule was due, in part, to the fact that the 1989 proposed rule
“specifically focuse[d] on the safety issues related to use of high-voltage with longwall mining
systems and [was] not incorporated within the context of an overall revision to the electrical
safety standards.” 57 Fed. Reg. at 39,042.


We find that substantial evidence supports the Judge’s conclusion: The Secretary did not
present evidence demonstrating that Mach failed to perform the testing and examination required
by section 75.821(a). Jd. at 1381-82 n.2. Accordingly, we affirm the Judge’s decision.

I.

Factual and Procedural Background

Mach operates an underground bituminous coal mine in Williamson County, Illinois. On
June 18, 2013, MSHA Inspectors Britt Belford and John Butcher conducted a quarterly longwall
inspection at the mine, accompanied by Parker Phipps, the Mach longwall coordinator.

When the inspectors reached the headgate in the No. 2 entry outby the longwall face, they
began to examine the mule train.” Inspector Butcher observed that two of the mule train’s chirp
alerts? were inoperative. According to Inspector Butcher, the chirp alerts should have been both
flashing and producing a high-pitched noise every two to three seconds. However, Butcher
observed that the chip alerts on the disconnect box and 4000 KVA power center were silent and
did not flash.

Butcher then issued two citations alleging violations of section 75.821(a). Both citations
were designated as “significant and substantial” (“S&S”), and the result of a moderate degree
of negligence.

A hearing was held before a Commission Administrative Law Judge. At the conclusion
of the Secretary’s case, Mach made a motion for directed verdict as to the two citations in
question. Mach argued that section 75.821(a) requires that a qualified person must test and
examine each unit of high-voltage longwall equipment and circuits at least once every seven
days. Mach noted that Inspector Butcher testified that the examinations had in fact been
performed. In addition, Mach noted that the Secretary had failed to offer any evidence about the
required seven-day examination of electrical equipment at the longwall.

2 A “mule train” is a colloquial name for the collection of equipment, including
disconnect boxes, pumps, and power centers, that are used to distribute electric and hydraulic
power to the longwall. A “disconnect box” is an electrical box where high voltage cables bring
power into the mule train. The box has a switch that allows miners to cut all power to the entire
mule train. From the disconnect box, power is transferred to power centers and ultimately onto
the electrical equipment used on the longwall.

3A “chirp alert” is a safety feature on an electrical box that provides an auditory and
visual warning when equipment is energized, thereby reducing the risk of electric shock or
electrocution.

* The S&S terminology is taken from section 104(d)(1) of the Act, 30 U.S.C. § 814(d)(1),
which distinguishes as more serious any violation that “could significantly and substantially
contribute to the cause and effect of a. . . mine safety or health hazard.”