Court Opinion

ID: 9460397
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:49:05.665774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:35.991088
License: Public Domain

PHILIP PRATT, District Judge
(concurring) .
While I concur in the result reached by the majority, I disagree to some extent with the approach.
As I read the opinion, the majority determines that it was the purpose of the Secretary to amend and revise the statutory Interim Mandatory Safety Standards with the promulgation of regulations on November 20, 1970. Reliance is placed on the language contained in the promulgation notice quoted in full in the majority opinion (pp. 289-290, supra.) and on the nature and content of those regulations, codified at 30 C.F.R. § 75.400 et seq. It then concludes that all such regulations are invalid because of the failure to conform to the requirements of 30 U.S.C. § 811(c).
It appears to me, however, that the purpose of the regulations issued in November, 1970 was not to amend and revise the statutory interim standards of the Act but rather that the Secretary intended to amend and revise the regulations which had been published on March 28, 1970. In March, as well as in November, 1970, the recitations of authority clearly indicate that the Secretary intended to publish for inclusion in the Code of Federal Regulations the statutory interim standards (e. g. § 75.-400) and to promulgate the standards under Sections 811(j) and 861(d) and interpretative regulations under Section 957.1 I can find no manifestation of in*292tention by the Secretary to amend, revise or improve the statutory Interim Mandatory Safety Standard, nor do I find that such was the effect:
My concurrence in the result is based on the conclusion that, in the posture of this case, the particular regulations at issue here (§§ 75.400-1 and 75.400-2) are infirm because they substantively alter the interim standards on the subject and, perforce, their promulgation required conformance with Section 811(a)-(g).2 Since the Secretary admittedly did not utilize Section 811, and since, in my opinion, other rulemaking grants in the Act do .not permit such substantive alterations, Sections 75.400-1 and 75.400-2 are invalid.
This was not to say, however, that other regulations contained in 30 C.F.R. Part 75 would necessarily be invalid, because they might be sustainable under the other rulemaking grants in the Act. This determination could only be made after consideration of individual regulations with reference to the other appropriate rulemaking grants of the Act, i. e. §§811(j), 861(d), and 957.
Thus, I am unable to concur in the majority opinion insofar as it may be read to hold that the Secretary’s admitted failure to follow the provisions of Section 811(a)-(g) results in the invalidity of all regulations promulgated in November, 1970, which are codified at 30 C.F.R. Part 75.

. The promulgation statement of the Secretary appearing on March 28, 1970 in the Federal Register reads as follows:
“Part 75 — -Mandatory Safety Standards, Underground Coal Mines.
“Part 75 — Mandatory Safety Standards, Underground Coal Mines, reading as set fortli below, is added to Subchapter O of Chapter I, Title 30, Code of Federal Regulations. This part includes mandatory safety standards for underground coal mines which are set forth in Title III of the Federal Goal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, other mandatory safety standards issued pursuant to that title and section 101 (j) [30 V.S.G. § 811 (m of the aet, and interpretations and supplementary regulations. Because Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 becomes effective on March 30, 1970, it is impracticable either to give notice of proposed rulemaking on, or to *292delay the effective date of, any of the provisions of the part. Part 75 shall become effective on March 30, 1970.
Walter J. Hickel
Secretary of the Interior”
(emphasis supplied) 35 Fed.Reg. 5221
sjt «i* *1*
“Authority: The mandatory safety standards in this Part 75 either appear in, or are issued pursuant to, Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, Public Law 91-173; other sections in this part are issued pursuant to § 101 (j) and § 508 of that Act.
“Note: The provisions of this part marked [statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.” 35 Fed.Reg. at 5223

. I have no difficulty determining that the “clean-up program” requirement appearing in Section 75.400-2 is “substantive” in nature and thus beyond the permissible scope of his rule-making authority under the Act. The definitions contained in Section 75.400-1 present a much closer question. On this appeal, however, the government concedes that it could not make a prima facie case against defendants in Count VII of the indictment without both regulations. On that basis, then, given the fact that we must apply the principle of strict construction in criminal matters, I conclude that these definitions also impose an additional burden on coal mine operators and therefore the regulation cannot be sustained as being merely interpretative. See Gibson Wine Co. v. Snyder, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 135, 194 F.2d 329 (1952).