Secretary of Labor v. Ohio Valley Coal Co., 03-1070.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
| Citation | 359 F.3d 531 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-1070.,03-1070. |
| Parties | SECRETARY OF LABOR, Petitioner, v. OHIO VALLEY COAL COMPANY and Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 24 February 2004 |
v.
OHIO VALLEY COAL COMPANY and Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, Respondents.
Page 532
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.
Robin A. Rosenbluth, Attorney, U.S. Department of Labor, argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs was W. Christian Schumann, Counsel.
Melanie J. Kilpatrick argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief was Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr.
Before: EDWARDS, SENTELLE, and TATEL, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge HARRY T. EDWARDS.
HARRY T. EDWARDS, Circuit Judge:
This case arises out of a fatal accident in a mine owned and operated by the Ohio Valley Coal Company ("Ohio Valley"). Thomas Ciszewski, a mine belt foreman for Ohio Valley, had his arm severed by moving machinery while he was assessing necessary maintenance and repairs on the equipment. The injury resulted in his death shortly after the accident. The Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA") issued a citation against Ohio Valley for violating a regulation providing that "repairs or maintenance shall not be performed on machinery until the power is off and the machinery is blocked against motion." 30 C.F.R. § 75.1725(c) (2003). The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission ("FMSHRC" or "Commission") vacated the citation, holding that Mr. Ciszewski did not violate the regulation because he was not performing repair or maintenance when he was injured. Sec'y of Labor v. Ohio Valley Coal Co., 24 F.M.S.H.R.C. 1072, 1077 (2002). The Secretary of Labor ("Secretary") petitions for review of the Commission's decision, claiming that the disputed safety standard clearly applies when a miner is at the location of running machinery to assess what repair or maintenance is necessary to correct an apparent problem. We defer to the Secretary's reasonable interpretation of the regulation and grant the petition for review.
A. Statutory Background
The Mine Safety and Health Act ("Mine Act" or "Act"), 30 U.S.C. § 801-962 (2000), authorizes the Secretary of Labor to promulgate mandatory health and safety standards for the nation's mines. See 30 U.S.C. § 811. The Mine Safety and Health Administration acts on behalf of the Secretary to assure compliance with these health and safety standards by issuing citations for violations. See 30 U.S.C. § 814(a). MSHA also investigates mine accidents to determine the cause and the means of preventing recurrence. See 30 U.S.C. § 813(d). The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission adjudicates disputes arising under the Act, see 30 U.S.C. § 823, including challenges by mine operators to citations issued by the Secretary of Labor. See RAG Cumberland Res.
Page 533
LP v. FMSHRC, 272 F.3d 590, 595 (D.C.Cir.2001).
At issue in this case is the interpretation of a safety regulation addressing repairs and maintenance on moving machinery. The regulation states that
[r]epairs or maintenance shall not be performed on machinery until the power is off and the machinery is blocked against motion, except where machinery motion is necessary to make adjustments.
B. Factual Background
The facts in this case are largely undisputed and set forth in full in the Commission's decision. See Ohio Valley Coal Co., 24 F.M.S.H.R.C. at 1072-74. We will therefore only briefly summarize the facts before turning to the issues presented by the petition for review.
The Ohio Valley Coal Company owns and operates Powhatan No. 6 Mine, an underground coal mine in Belmont County, Ohio. Thomas M. Ciszewski, a belt foreman employed by Ohio Valley, was responsible for the operation of the belts at the Powhatan No. 6 Mine. On April 19, 2001, at around 5:15 p.m., Ohio Valley's pre-shift examiners heard a flapping noise near the stationary take-up roller at break 62 while examining the Second Main North Belt. They reported that the guarding around the belt take-up unit was in place; but they did not report the noise. Ohio Valley Coal Co., 24 F.M.S.H.R.C. at 1072-73; see also Joint Stipulation of Facts ("Joint Stip.") ¶¶ c, k-n, u-v, mm, Joint Appendix ("J.A.") 198-200.
At around 8:30 p.m. on April 19, two belt repairmen for Ohio Valley performed some repairs on the First Main North belt wings, near break 61. After finishing the repairs, they heard a voice calling for help nearby. They then saw a man stagger and fall. They ran to the man and found Thomas Ciszewski on the ground, missing his left arm, and suffering facial cuts. One repairman went to the accident site and found the arm lying outside the guarding in the walkway on the return side of the Second Main North belt conveyor. He brought the arm back to where Ciszewski had fallen. At 9:00 p.m., Ciszewski was pronounced dead. Ohio Valley Coal Co., 24 F.M.S.H.R.C. at 1073; see also Joint Stip. ¶¶ o, t, aa, cc, J.A. 199-201.
MSHA was notified of the accident at 9:20 p.m., and an initial response team arrived at the mine at 10:15 p.m. The response team then investigated the accident, taking photographs and measurements, and making drawings. The investigation was continued the following day. The MSHA investigators ultimately determined that a grease hose was inadvertently wrapped around the shaft of the stationary take-up roller on the track side of the belt, causing the flapping noise that had been heard by the pre-shift examiners. They reported that the guard panels that had been in place during the pre-shift examination had been removed. On the basis of their investigation, the MSHA team concluded that, while assessing the problem, Ciszewski's left arm had contacted and gotten caught in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murray Energy Corp. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, s. 14–1112
...“would have authority to review the agency's final decision,” we have authority to issue a writ of prohibition in the interim. Tennant, 359 F.3d at 531 ; see also FTC v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 603, 86 S.Ct. 1738, 16 L.Ed.2d 802 (1966) (authority to grant writ “extends to the potentia......
-
Dodson Int'l Parts, Inc. v. Williams Int'l Co., 20-3193
...Estimates" constituted "maintenance." Aplt. Br. at 31 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Sec'y of Lab. v. Ohio Valley Coal Co. , 359 F.3d 531, 535 (D.C. Cir. 2004) 12 F.4th 1221 (performing maintenance included assessing machinery to determine what repair may be needed).3 This concepti......
-
Jory v. Sec'y U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., Civil Action No. 11–2213(CKK).
...this Court has jurisdiction to review the decision of whatever body the Court orders to review the Commandant's decision. In re Tennant, 359 F.3d at 531. The allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint fail to meet this burden for the same reason relief is not available under the Mandamus Act: at ......
-
Pendley v. FEDERAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW, 09-3213.
...to use its expertise to "develop a uniform and comprehensive interpretation of the Mine Act"); Sec'y of Labor v. Ohio Valley Coal Co., 359 F.3d 531, 534-35 (D.C.Cir.2004) (noting that Congress intended that "the Secretary's interpretation of the Mine Act shall be given weight by both the Co......