Opinion ID: 520277
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Conflict with Statute

Text: 67 The Union first contends that the new longwall regulations are unlawful because they conflict with an existing regulation. This regulation, drawn directly from the interim standards established in the Act, provides in relevant part: 68 [E]xaminations for hazardous conditions, including tests for methane, and for compliance with the mandatory health or safety standards, shall be made at least once each week by a certified person designated by the operator in ... at least one entry of each intake and return aircourse in its entirety. ... [I]f any hazardous condition is found, such condition shall be reported to the operator promptly. Any hazardous condition shall be corrected immediately. If such condition creates an imminent danger, the operator shall withdraw all persons from the area affected by such condition to a safe area ... until such danger is abated. 69 30 C.F.R. Sec. 75.305 (1988); 30 U.S.C.A. Sec. 863(f) (interim standard) (emphasis added). 70 Relying on the language highlighted, supra, the Union argues that this weekly examination regulation requires that tailgate entries (which are either intake or return aircourses, 53 Fed.Reg. at 2,369) be travelable at all times and that should the tailgate become blocked, mining must cease in the longwall section until the blockage is cleared. It contends that the new longwall mining regulations violate a cessation-of-mining requirement in the weekly examination rule: the Union reads the new regulations to allow mining to continue despite a blockage in the tailgate entry because they provide for emergency procedures to be put into effect when a blockage occurs and to continue throughout the duration of the blockage. 71 The complaint is oddly framed. The weekly examination regulation is still in effect. Whatever it requires in terms of maintaining travel through the tailgate is still required. The new regulations merely supplement that regulation with details on emergency procedures to be followed once a blockage in the tailgate is discovered. 72 Admittedly, the precise effect of the weekly examination regulation is somewhat ambiguous, and MSHA has not provided us with a definitive interpretation of how it is being implemented. As we read the regulation, however, it requires that the tailgate entry be capable of travel each week in order to test for hazardous conditions. 23 What the mine operator is required to do once an examination reveals a blockage or other hazardous condition also seems clear enough: Any hazardous condition shall be corrected immediately. If such condition creates an imminent danger, the operator shall withdraw all persons from the area affected by such condition to a safe area ... until such danger is abated. 30 C.F.R. Sec. 75.305 (1988). We cannot find, nor has the Union shown us, in this language any requirement that mining stop whenever any blockage is discovered. Only if the blockage poses an imminent danger must miners be withdrawn from the area. MSHA's new regulations appear only to supplement that requirement by stating that while correction of any tailgate blockage is underway, certain emergency precautions will be in effect. 73 Were MSHA urging the court to accept an interpretation of the new regulations which did not require immediate correction of any hazardous condition or withdrawal of miners in the face of imminent danger created by a blockage of the tailgate, the Union would be on stronger ground. We do not, however, understand MSHA to be urging any such interpretation and consequently we reject the Union's challenge that the new regulations are inconsistent with the weekly examination regulation.