Court Opinion

ID: 9501003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 18:49:33.631739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:16.176167
License: Public Domain

SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I am pleased to concur with the majority’s opinion in this case, except as to Section III, to which I respectfully dissent.
As the majority explains, whether the Commission has the authority to modify the Secretary’s section 103(k) order is a question of first impression in our Court and in all other federal courts of appeals. While there appears to be ample authority regarding the Commission’s ability to administratively review a section 103(k) order and either affirm or vacate the order, the majority’s opinion expands this basic review to bestow upon the Commission the authority to modify orders. Absent any support for such authority in the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act, this expansion exceeds the authority granted to the Commission by Congress.
Pattison argues that support for the Commission’s ability to modify a section 103(k) order is found in section 105(b)(2)’s “of any order” language. Section 105(b)(2) states, “the Commission [may] grant temporary relief from any modification or termination of any order or from any order issued under [Section 104] of the Act.” 30 U.S.C. § 815(b)(2). The meaning of this section is plain and clear. The Commission may grant temporary relief from a part “of any order,” including a section 103(k) order, that has been modified or *518terminated. Congress did not grant unto the Commission the authority to grant temporary relief from those parts of section 103(k) orders that have not been modified or terminated. Pattison contends “there is no conceivably logical explanation” for this interpretation of the Act. However, when we are given statutory text that is plain and clear, our obligation is to apply the text as written. See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984) (“If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.”).
Accordingly, because the Act does not grant to the Commission the authority to modify section 103(k) orders and the plain language of section 105(b)(2) states that the Commission may only grant temporary relief from those parts of a section 103(k) order that have been modified or terminated, I would deny the petition for review in total.