Performance Coal Co. v. Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission
395 U.S. App. D.C. 235
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- April 5, 2010: Upper Big Branch Mine disaster killed 29 miners.
- MSHA issued a § 103(k) order seizing control of the mine to ensure safety.
- Order was repeatedly modified in the following months, initially for rescue, then for investigation.
- Restrictions were added (no photographs, dust samples, mine mapping tech, destructive testing).
- Performance Coal sought temporary relief under § 105(b)(2); ALJ and Commission denied relief.
- Performance Coal sought review in the D.C. Circuit; issue centered on whether §105(b)(2) permits relief from §103(k) orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §105(b)(2) permit temporary relief from §103(k) orders? | Performance Coal: §105(b)(2) allows relief from any order, including §103(k). | Secretary: §105(b)(2) authorizes relief only from §104 orders, not §103(k). | Yes; §105(b)(2) allows relief from modifications/terminations or orders under §104, including §103(k). |
| Is the case moot despite subsequent modification of the order? | Performance Coal: capable-of-repetition mootness exception applies because actions recur and expire quickly. | Secretary: modifications resolve the dispute; no live controversy. | Not moot; capable-of-repetition exception applies due to frequent modifications of §103(k) orders. |
Key Cases Cited
- Del Monte Fresh Produce v. United States, 570 F.3d 316 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (capable-of-repetition mootness applies when action is short-lived)
- Pub. Utils. Comm'n v. FERC, 236 F.3d 708 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (two-year rule for short-lived agency actions)
- Christian Knights of Ku Klux Klan Invisible Empire, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 972 F.2d 365 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (reasonably likely repetition based on party's averments)
- In re Espy, 80 F.3d 501 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (use of disjunctive language as evidence of legislative intent)
- Chao v. Day, 436 F.3d 234 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (bifurcated subsections and parallel structure reflect intent)
- Meredith v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 177 F.3d 1042 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (statutory interpretation and agency construction of Mine Act language)
- Engine Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 88 F.3d 1075 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (plain meaning and structure of statute govern interpretation)