Opinion ID: 3039629
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cumberland’s Compliance with an Approved

Text: Ventilation Plan is Not a Defense to a Violation of Section 75.334(b)(1) Cumberland argues that the ALJ and the Commission erred in determining that section 75.334(b)(1) could be 14 violated even when a mine operator is complying with an approved ventilation plan. Cumberland’s theory is that section 75.334(b)(1) imposes no duty on mine operators beyond compliance with a ventilation plan submitted pursuant to section 75.370(a). In other words, Cumberland asserts that compliance with section 75.370(a) constitutes an absolute defense to an alleged violation of section 75.334(b)(1). The Secretary responds that Cumberland’s argument cannot be correct because it would render section 75.334(b)(1) superfluous. The ALJ rejected Cumberland’s position, following an earlier administrative decision in Sec’y of Labor, Mine Safety & Health Admin. v. Plateau Mining Corp., 25 F.M.S.H.R.C. 738, 746 (2003), aff’d, 28 F.M.S.H.R.C. 501, 2006 FMSHRC LEXIS 152 (2006).10 Cumberland I, 27 F.M.S.H.R.C. at 311. The ALJ stated that Cumberland’s ventilation plan for LW49 may have represented its “best educated prediction” of how the panel could be ventilated in conformance with mandatory safety standards, but, despite MSHA’s approval of the plan, “there was no guarantee that [the plan] would work effectively ... .” Id. The ALJ ultimately determined that, independent of the ventilation plan approval process, Cumberland was obligated to comply with section 75.334(b)(1) and could be charged with violating that 10 The Commission’s decision in Plateau Mining is currently under review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Sec’y of Labor, Mine Safety & Health Admin. v. Plateau Mining Corp., No. 06-9582 (10 th Cir.). 15 regulation even while fully complying with the approved ventilation plan. Id. (citing Utah Power & Light Co. v. Sec’y of Labor, 12 F.M.S.H.R.C. 965, 969, aff’d, 951 F.2d 292 (10th Cir. 1991)). The Commission unanimously affirmed the ALJ’s decision in that regard. Cumberland II, 28 FMSHRC at 553. It agreed that “an operator cannot avoid a finding of violation of section 75.334(b)(1) by arguing that it was complying with the provisions of its ventilation plan.” Id. The Commission characterized section 75.334 as containing “general provisions ... which set forth a level of safety required at all mines,” and concluded that, because conditions in a mine may change unexpectedly, “compliance with specific ventilation plan provisions may not necessarily assure that the general protections afforded by ventilation regulations are being met.” Id. at 553-54. The ALJ here relied on the opinion expressed by another ALJ in the Plateau Mining case: [A] mine’s approved ventilation plan represents the minimum specifications for ventilating the mine. A mine operator may violate section 75.334(b)(1) even though it is fully complying with the approved ventilation plan. First, the mine operator has better knowledge of the conditions that will be encountered when mining commences. More importantly, because an underground coal mine is a dynamic environment, a mine operator must be 16 constantly vigilant when monitoring the conditions underground and it must make changes to its ventilation system as conditions warrant. Plateau Mining, 25 FMSHRC 738, 759. On review of the Plateau Mining decision, the Commission endorsed that reasoning, analogizing to another administrative decision, Utah Power & Light, 12 FMSHRC at 969, and stating: [We have] previously held that compliance with a mine’s roof or dust control plan does not preclude a finding of violation of the underlying roof or dust control regulations [in Utah Power & Light] ... . Similarly, an operator cannot avoid a finding of violation of section 75.344(b)(1) by arguing that it was complying with the provisions of its ventilation plan. Rather, an operator is required to comply with ventilation plan provisions, which encompass conditions specific to a mine, in addition to the more general requirements of section 75.334, which establish a general baseline which all mines must meet. Conditions in a mine may change unexpectedly so that compliance with specific ventilation plan provisions may not necessarily assure that the general protections imposed by ventilation regulations are being met. Thus, an operator is required to address its bleeder system if the bleeder system is not effectively controlling air through the worked- 17 out area as required by section 75.334, even if the operator is complying with the terms of its ventilation plan. 2006 FMSHRC LEXIS 152 at -28; see also id. at  (“... [W]e do not agree with Plateau’s position that complying with an approved ventilation plan is an absolute defense to a citation under section 75.334(b)(1) ... .”). During oral argument, Cumberland’s counsel conceded that, were we to find the Plateau Mining case persuasive, Cumberland’s argument that compliance with an approved ventilation plan constitutes a defense to a violation of section 75.334(b)(1) would fail. We do indeed find the reasoning in Plateau Mining persuasive, conclusively so, and we thus find the reasoning and analyses of the ALJ and the Commission in this case to be sound. Principles of statutory construction dictate that a regulatory scheme should be read as a whole, so that “effect is given to all its provisions ... .” Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F.3d 28, 31 (3d Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Sections 75.730 and 75.334(b)(1) by their terms impose different responsibilities on mine operators – the former to prepare and submit a ventilation plan for approval, and the latter to ensure that methane is being effectively removed from the gob by a bleeder system. Following the Commission’s decisions in Plateau Mining and Utah Power & Light, and considering the reasoning set forth in the record, we hold that the Commission did not err in affirming the ALJ’s decision that compliance with an approved ventilation plan pursuant to section 75.370 is not a defense to a violation of section 75.334(b)(1). 18