Court Opinion

ID: 73217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-26 07:58:16+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:27.642061
License: Public Domain

PUBLISH

                  IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

                             -------------------------------------------
                                          No. 98-6159                                FILED
                            --------------------------------------------
                                             U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           Rule No. 68372      ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                                                    09/04/98
                                                THOMAS K. KAHN
                                                     CLERK
NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION, ALABAMA COAL ASSOCIATION,

                                                               Petitioners,

     versus

SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, et al.,

                                                               Respondents.

                  ----------------------------------------------------------------

                          Petition for Review of an Order
                  of the Mining Safety and Health Administration

                  ----------------------------------------------------------------

                                   (September 4, 1998)

Before EDMONDSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges, and STAFFORD*, Senior
District Judge.

_______________
*    Honorable William Stafford, Senior U.S. District Judge for the
     Northern District of Florida, sitting by designation.
EDMONDSON, Circuit Judge:

    The National Mining Association and

the Alabama Coal Association (“NMA”)

dispute a finding of the Mining Safety

and Health Administration (“MSHA”) that

allows testing the amount of coal dust in

mines by using measurements taken

over a single shift, rather than

traditional multi-shift measurements.

NMA challenges the new sampling method

on substantive and procedural grounds.

We vacate the finding.

                            2
                   Background

      One of the reasons Congress passed the

Federal Coal Mine and Safety Act (“the Coal

Act”) in 1969 was to reduce the amount of

coal dust inhaled by coal miners.           The dust

was known to cause Black Lung Disease. The

Coal Act provided interim standards for

the    maximum       amount       of    coal       dust

permitted     in   coal       mines    as   well    as

guidance on how to measure the level of

                          3
coal dust in a mine’s atmosphere.           The

interim standards were effective until

                   1
the Secretaries        created improved health

standards. Relevant provisions of the Coal

Act were re-enacted in the Federal Mine

Safety and Health Act of 1977 (“the Mine

Act”).   See 30 U.S.C. §§ 801-962 (1994).

 1
  Throughout this opinion, “the Secretary”
normally means the Secretary of Labor.
MSHA is part of the Department of
Labor. Under the Coal Act, however, the
Secretaries meant the Secretary of the
Interior and Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare.
                          4
   This dispute revolves around several

provisions of the Mine Act. Under 30 U.S.C.

§ 841(a) the Secretary has authority to

supersede the “interim mandatory health

and safety standards” of the Mine Act

with   “improved       mandatory    health   and

safety standards.” But the Secretary must

enact the new standards according to the

provisions of Section 811.       See 30 U.S.C. §

811(a). Section 811(a)(6) is at the heart of the

current     controversy.       It   states    the

Secretary     “shall    set   standards”     that
                         5
adequately assure, on the basis of the “best

available evidence” that no miner will

suffer “material impairment of health”

under   the    new   standard   and   that     the

Secretary shall also consider the “latest

available scientific data in the field, the

feasibility     of    the    standards,        and

experience gained under this and other

health and safety laws.”

   Other      pertinent     provisions    of   the

Mine Act include Section 842(b)(2) which

requires that the “average concentration”
                        6
of coal dust to which a miner is exposed

during        each     shift      not       exceed   2.0

milligrams per cubic meter of air (2.0

mg/m ). Average concentration is defined
        3

as a concentration that

   accurately               represents            the
   atmospheric conditions with regard
   to       respirable     dust     to    which   each
   miner . . . is exposed . . . over a
   single          shift    only,        unless   [the
   Secretary] finds in accordance with
   . . . Section 811 . . . that such single
   shift measurement will not, after
   applying valid statistical techniques
   to       such   measurement,            accurately
   represent               such     atmospheric
   conditions during such shift.

                             7
30 U.S.C. § 842(f).

   In 1971, MSHA’s predecessor, the Bureau

of Mines, proposed a finding that single-

shift   sampling      would   not   accurately

represent the atmospheric conditions of a

mine.    See 36 Fed. Reg. 13286 (1971).    The

proposed finding was made final in 1972.

See 37 Fed. Reg. 3833 (1972).       MSHA now

wishes to rescind the 1971/72 finding and

to begin single-shift sampling.

   In attempting to rescind the 1971/72

finding, MSHA published two notices in the
                        8
Federal Register.     The first, published in

February    1994,   stated   MSHA’s    plan   to

rescind the 1971/72 finding and replace it

with a single, full-shift measurement of the

atmospheric conditions.         See 59 Fed. Reg.

8357    (1994).       The    second,   published

simultaneously, stated that citations would

be issued based on single-shift sampling.

See 59 Fed. Reg. 8356 (1994).

   Single-shift sampling -- in part -- grew

out of MSHA’s Spot Inspection Program

(“SIP”), itself designed to defeat suspected
                        9
tampering      of    dust    samples       by    mine

operators. See 63 Fed. Reg. 5664, 5667 (1998).

After the SIP, MSHA concluded that multi-

shift   sampling     was     inaccurate         because

multi-shift    sampling       did    not    lead    to

citations     in   places    where   the    SIP    had

shown miners to be overexposed. See id. at

5668.   The Federal Mine Safety and Health

Review    Commission,         however,      vacated

citations issued under the SIP because of

MSHA’s    failure     to     comply        with     the

rulemaking procedures in Section 811.               See
                        10
Secretary     of    Labor    v.   Keystone        Coal

Mining Corp., 16 FMSHRC 6 (1994).

   Another reason given by MSHA for

rescinding    the   1971/72       finding    is   the

improvement in air sampling technology.

See 63 Fed. Reg. 5664, 5666 (1998).    Since 1971,

significant    improvements           have    been

made to calibration procedures, weighing

accuracy, and sampling pumps.          See id.

   The accuracy of single-shift sampling is

hotly debated by the parties.       NMA argues

                        11
that single-shift sampling is so inaccurate

that a large number of citations will be

erroneously issued to coal mine operators.

MSHA        counters        that     single-shift

measurements are more accurate because

they tend to expose spatial or temporal

peaks in dust levels that would, under a

multi-shift   measurement,         be   masked    by

some measurements below the 2.0 mg/m
                                                   3

threshold   when   averaged        with   the   peak

values. See id. at 5689. MSHA supports this

                       12
conclusion by pointing out that multi-shift

measurements were always highest during

the first measured shift:               it was only

after     the   first   shift,   says   MSHA,    that

operators       had     time     to     affect   dust

production.     See id. at 5668.

    Because of this debate, the period for

public    comment       was      extended   several

months, and two public hearings were held

about the notices.       See, e.g., 61 Fed. Reg. 18158

(1996).   As a result of the comments, MSHA

                          13
defined “accurately represent[]” (as used in

30 U.S.C. § 842(f)), re-opened the comment

period, and held a public hearing on the new

definition. See 61 Fed. Reg. 10012, 10013 (1996).

In February 1998, MSHA issued the subject

of   our   review,   the        Joint   Finding   and

Noncompliance        Determination           Notice

(“the Joint Finding”) which rescinded the

1971/72 finding. See 63 Fed. Reg. 5664 (1998).

                           14
                Discussion

     NMA raises procedural objections

under the Mine Act, the Administrative

Procedure Act (“APA”), and the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (“RFA”), and substantive

objections to the Joint Finding.   We will

address only the procedural objections.

A.   The Mine Act

                     15
     NMA           says      that     the      procedural

requirements of the Mine Act, in 30 U.S.C.

§   811,    were    not      met    by    MSHA’s    Joint

Finding.       MSHA makes two arguments in

response.           First,   the    use   of   single-shift

measurements is no mandatory health

and safety standard and, therefore, does

not need to comply with Section 811. Second,

if the Joint Finding is a mandatory health

and        safety    standard,      MSHA       argues,   the

Joint Finding complied with the procedural

                              16
requirements of Section 811.       In arguing

that   the   Joint   Notice      complied     with

Section 811, however, MSHA insists that

portions of Section 811 do not contain

procedural requirements.

   An   agency’s     interpretation      of    its

governing     statute       is   often      given

significant deference.      See Chevron, U.S.A.,

Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,

467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984).         But, when

applying Chevron’s first step, we do not

                       17
need to defer when the issue is a “pure

question of statutory construction.”     See

INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 446

(1987). Likewise, we need not defer to issues

beyond the agency’s expertise. See Morris

v. CFTC, 980 F.2d 1289, 1293 (9th Cir. 1992);

see also Colorado Public Utils. Comm’n v.

Harmon, 951 F.2d 1571, 1579 (10th Cir. 1991)

(not deferring on issue of preemption);

Lynch v. Lyng, 872 F.2d 718, 724 (6th Cir.

                     18
1989) (not deferring on issue of statute’s

effective date).

     Because deciding if MSHA must address

the requirements of Section 811(a)(6) is a

question of pure statutory construction,

we     need        not      defer     to      MSHA’s

interpretation.          We conclude that MSHA’s

various          interpretations       of     Section

811(a)(6)   --    as   we   shall   explain   --   are

incorrect.

                            19
   Use of single-shift measurements by

MSHA is a health and safety standard.

Mandatory health and safety standard is

defined, in Section 802(l) as “the interim

mandatory health or safety standards”

between     Section   841    and    Section    846.

Section 842(f) is the basis for single-shift

sampling.     Furthermore,         Section    841(a)

refers to Sections 842-846 as “interim

mandatory      health    standards.”         At   a

minimum, therefore, Section 842(f) is an

                        20
interim       mandatory       health    standard.

Section 841(a) continues, however, to say

that    the   interim        mandatory      health

standards      of   Sections      842-846      are

effective “until superseded in whole or in

part    by    improved       mandatory      health

standards.”         Single-shift        sampling

supersedes multi-shift sampling, which was

based   on    Section   842(f).        Single-shift

sampling,     therefore,     is   an    “improved

mandatory health standard.”            See United

                        21
Mine Workers v. Dole, 870 F.2d 662, 671

(D.C.   Cir.   1989)   (the    term    “mandatory

standard” includes standards adopted to

replace an existing mandatory standard);

id. at 672 (concluding Section 811(a)(9) is a

mandatory           standard).        According   to

Section 841(a), any new standard must be

“promulgated . . . under the provisions of

                2
Section 811.”

 2
  MSHA argues that not all the
provisions of Sections 842-846 can
require rulemaking in accordance with
Section 811.    But, Section 841 makes no
distinction between the provisions in
                          22
   The   reasoning   of   the   Federal   Mine

Safety and Health Review Commission (“the

Commission”) in Secretary of Labor v.

Keystone Coal Mining Corp., 16 FMSHRC 6, 13

(1994) supports our conclusion that MSHA’s

new sampling method is a mandatory

Sections 842-846 when it requires the
Secretary to comply with Section 811
requirements.   Also, Section 842(f) is
distinct from the other provisions in
that it contains an explicit
requirement for the Secretary to comply
with Section 811 procedures.    See 30 U.S.C. §
842(f). Still, these provisions are not at
issue today, and we do not decide if
Section 811 requirements apply to them.
                     23
health    standard.          In     Keystone,   the

Commission      rejected     MSHA’s     argument

that single-shift measurements did not

require following Section 811 procedures.

Section     842(f),   said    the    Commission,

explicitly requires MSHA to follow Section

811 procedures if the Secretary decides not

to use single-shift measurements.               This

intent -- to use Section 811 procedures if

rejecting    single-shift     measurements        --

“bespeaks an equal intent that, once such a

                        24
finding is made, it may be rescinded only”

by following Section 811 procedures.      Id.

     MSHA next argues that it did comply

with Section 811, but that MSHA must only

comply with the procedure-setting portions

of Section 811.       MSHA says Section 811(a)(6)

                                                 3
contains no procedure-setting provisions.

 3
  In the alternative, MSHA argues that
the 2.0 mg/m standard encompasses the
                  3

Section 811(a)(6) requirements.       In other
words, MSHA argues that, so long as they
do not alter the 2.0 mg/m standard,
                                 3

then the improved mandatory health
standard is automatically feasible, does
not materially impair miners’ health,
and is based on the best available
                           25
We       think   MSHA’s        interpretation   is

incorrect.

        The plain language of Sections 842(f)

and 841(a) requires mandatory health or

safety standards to be made “under” or “in

accordance with” the “provisions of section

811.”     No restriction suggests that MSHA

must comply only with the procedures in

Section 811. Where Congress sought to refer

scientific evidence.      The plain language of
Section 841(a), however, states that
Section 811 standards apply to Sections
“842 through 846.”     30 U.S.C. § 841(a)
(emphasis added).
                          26
only to the procedural aspects of Section 811,

it did so clearly.   See 29 U.S.C. § 811(b)(2) (“A

temporary mandatory health or safety

standard shall be effective until superseded

by a mandatory standard promulgated in

accordance with the procedures prescribed

in [Section 811(a)(3)].”) (emphasis added).

   Our conclusion using the statute’s plain

meaning is supported by three additional

points.   First, Section 811(a)(6) says that

MSHA shall consider the feasibility of the

                         27
standards.             The        language     is    not

discretionary.          Second,      MSHA,    in    more

recent        rulemakings,          recognizes         the

requirement to address feasibility. See 63

Fed.   Reg.   17492,   17558       (1998)    (addressing

feasibility     of     proposed       rule    on    diesel

                                     4
engine exhaust in mines).                Third, MSHA is

 4
  We fail to understand MSHA’s
argument that the diesel rulemaking is
inapplicable because it applies to
operators, whereas single-shift sampling
applies to MSHA inspectors.              Section 811
makes no such distinction.               In addition,
MSHA uses inspector sampling to cite
and fine mine operators so, in this
respect, changes to the inspector
                             28
reversing its prior policy on sampling.

Proper      procedures        are     particularly

important       where,        as     here,   MSHA’s

predecessor studied and rejected single-shift

sampling.

      To use single-shift measurements, then,

MSHA must follow all the provisions of

Section 811. We conclude MSHA has not done

so.

      Section   811   requires        notice,     the

opportunity     for   public       comment,     public

sampling program do apply to operators.
                         29
hearings if requested, and final publication

in the Federal Register.   There can be little

doubt, as detailed in the facts above, that

MSHA satisfied these requirements. But as

we have explained, MSHA must also satisfy

the   requirements    of    Section   811(a)(6).

Therefore, MSHA must demonstrate that

the new standard (a) adequately assures

that no miner will suffer a material

impairment of health, on the basis of the

best available evidence; (b) uses the latest

                     30
available scientific data in the field; (c) is

            5
feasible;       and (d) is based on experience

gained      under      the   Mine        Act   and    other

health and safety laws.                  See 30 U.S.C. §

811(a)(6)(A).

     After       a   review       of    the    record,   we

conclude        that   the   record        contains      no

finding         of   economic          feasibility.      The

 5
  "Feasibility” under OSHA means
technological and economic feasibility.
See Color Pigments Mfrs. Ass’n v. OSHA, 16
F.3d 1157, 1161 (11th Cir. 1994).       We believe the
Mine Act term “feasibility” includes these
concepts as well, but we do not otherwise
address the applicability of OSHA.
                             31
absence    of   a   showing    of   economic

feasibility is not surprising because MSHA

insisted, in the Joint Finding, that “there

is no need to address feasibility.”     63 Fed.

                          6
Reg. 5664, 5669 (1998).

 6
  At oral argument, MSHA’s counsel
suggested that the Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (discussed in note 7) contained
a study of economic feasibility.    But,
“[b]urdened by the view that [Section
811(a)(6)] was advisory, MSHA neither
explored for itself nor elicited
comments” regarding the economic
feasibility of single-shift sampling.
United Mine Workers, 870 F.2d at 674.
Determining if a regulation will have a
“significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small [or large]
                          32
   We conclude, therefore, that MSHA failed

to comply with Section 811(a)(6) of the Mine

entities,” under the RFA, is not the same
as deciding if the rule is economically
feasible.
                     33
                                             7
Act. So we must vacate the Joint Finding.

 7
  We will address NMA’s other procedural
objections.       NMA makes two challenges
under the Administrative Procedure Act.
We reject NMA’s first argument that
MSHA failed to provide notice of its plan
to apply the Joint Finding to surface
mines.     MSHA’s inspector sampling
program -- the program altered by single-
shift sampling -- has applied to surface
mines since the program’s inception.
Also, MSHA referred to 30 C.F.R. § 71 --
regulating surface mines but not
underground mines -- several times
during the rulemaking.        We note that
NMA submitted comments referencing
30 C.F.R. § 71.   We also reject NMA’s second
argument, that MSHA relied on
undisclosed material for the Joint
Finding.    The information used by MSHA
after the record closed was not new or
critical to the Joint Finding.
                         34
   VACATED.

   NMA also challenges the Joint
Finding under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 603 (West Supp. 1998) (“RFA”).
We reject this argument.      We find the
Secretary’s certification that single-
shift sampling will not have a
“significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities”
meets the requirements of Section
605(b), but -- as discussed in note 6 -- does
not demonstrate the rule’s economic
feasibility.
                       35