709 F.3d 706
8th Cir.2013Background
- Northshore challenged an MSHA citation under 30 C.F.R. § 56.12016 for a lockout procedure during maintenance on a large P&H 2800XPC shovel.
- Inspector observed a bull gang mechanic working on the shovel's Dutchman; only the control power was deenergized/locked out, not main power.
- MSHA argued the lockout procedure violated § 56.12016 because it failed to deenergize main power at the transformer knife switches.
- ALJ held Northshore violated § 56.12016; the Commission denied discretionary review.
- The court concludes MSHA erred in relying on § 56.12016 for the mechanical-movement hazard and vacates the Commission’s decision and the citation.
- Regulatory context shows § 56.12016 targets electrical shock hazards, not mechanical movement hazards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 56.12016 governs mechanical movement hazards | Northshore: § 56.12016 applies to hazards from electrical shock, not mechanical movement | MSHA: § 56.12016 covers hazards from electrical equipment regardless of the hazard type | § 56.12016 does not reach the mechanical-movement hazard here |
| Whether MSHA's interpretation of § 56.12016 is entitled to deference | MSHA's interpretation is not persuasive given ambiguity and context | Agency interpretation deserves Chevron/Auer deference when regulation is ambiguous | MSHA's interpretation not entitled to deference; vacate based on ambiguity in context |
Key Cases Cited
- Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Fed. Mine Safety and Health Review Comm'n, 681 F.2d 1189 (9th Cir. 1982) (regulation targets electrical hazards, not mechanical hazards)
- United States v. May, 535 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2008) (ambiguity and placement used to resolve regulatory meaning)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1997) (agency interpretation controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent)
- Advanta USA, Inc. v. Chao, 350 F.3d 726 (8th Cir. 2003) (interpreting ambiguous regulation in context)
- Pattison Sand Co. v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 688 F.3d 507 (8th Cir. 2012) (uses agency position to assess reasonableness of interpretation)
- Davis v. Michigan Dep't of the Treasury, 489 U.S. 803 (1989) (words read in context and within overall statutory scheme)
- Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Research v. United States, 568 F.3d 675 (8th Cir. 2009) (agency interpretation refined by subsequent judicial interpretation)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1997) (controlling for ambiguous regulations)