Mainline Rock v. MSHA

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
May 24, 2012
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
MAINLINE ROCK AND BALLAST,
INC.,
Petitioner,
v. No. 11-9525
(Petition for Review)
SECRETARY OF LABOR, MINE
SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA);
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND
HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION,
Respondents.
ORDER
Before KELLY, MURPHY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
Before the court is the Secretary of Labor’s motion to publish our Order
and Judgment in this case, Mainline Rock & Ballast, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor,
No. 11-9525, 2012 WL 1111258 (10th Cir. Apr. 4, 2012). Petitioner objects to
the motion. Upon consideration, the court has modified its decision as reflected
in the attached revised decision. With these modifications, the motion to publish
is GRANTED. The Order and Judgment originally filed on April 4, 2012 is
withdrawn, and the clerk is directed to issue the attached opinion as a substitute
for the withdrawn Order and Judgment. The modified opinion does not trigger a
new period for filing a petition for rehearing.
Entered for the Court
ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk
2
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
April 4, 2012
PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
MAINLINE ROCK AND BALLAST,
INC.,
Petitioner,
v. No. 11-9525
SECRETARY OF LABOR, MINE
SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA);
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND
HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION,
Respondents.
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM A DECISION BY THE
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
Submitted on the briefs: *
Ralph Henry Moore II, Patrick W. Dennison, Jackson Kelly, PLLC, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, Christopher Peterson, Jackson Kelly, PLLC, Denver, Colorado, for
Petitioner.
M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor of Labor, Heidi W. Strassler, Associate Solicitor, W.
Christian Schumann, Counsel, Appellate Litigation, Cheryl C. Blair-Kijewski,
Attorney, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, Arlington, Virginia,
for Respondents.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Before KELLY, MURPHY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
MURPHY, Circuit Judge.
Mainline Rock and Ballast, Inc. (“Mainline Rock”) seeks review of two
civil penalties assessed by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”)
for regulatory violations stemming from an accident at Mainline Rock’s Torrance
Quarry. The accident resulted in serious injuries to a miner who contacted a
moving part of a conveyor belt. An MSHA inspector cited Mainline Rock for
failing to install a protective guard around the moving part as required by
30 C.F.R. § 56.14107(a), and for failing to timely notify the MSHA of the
accident pursuant to 30 C.F.R. § 50.10. Mainline Rock challenged the citations,
but an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health
Review Commission (“Commission”) affirmed the penalties, and the Commission
declined review. We have jurisdiction under 30 U.S.C. § 816(a)(1) and affirm the
penalty assessments.
BACKGROUND
Mainline Rock operates a ballast quarry in New Mexico known as the
Torrance Quarry. To transport ballast from the quarry, Mainline Rock uses
conveyor belts constructed of steel I-beams and spinning metal rollers. The
conveyor belt implicated in this case, known as the Grizzly Conveyor, is four feet
-2-
wide and stands thirty-three inches above the ground. Steel I-beams frame the
belt, which runs along a series of four-foot wide metal rollers. The rollers
suspend the belt and ballast, and after rock is delivered from the belt, the belt
returns along the undercarriage of the conveyer suspended by five-inch diameter
spinning “return rollers.” The accident that gave rise to this case occurred when a
miner, Edelberto Avitia, was pulled into the conveyor by one of these return
rollers.
The precise manner in which Avitia was drawn into the conveyor by the
roller was the subject of some controversy. Before the ALJ, Avitia testified that a
coworker, Jeremiah Carpio, had told him that Mine Superintendent Mike Harris
wanted him to shovel dirt and rock that fell off the Grizzly Conveyor. To do this
job, which was a routine task, Avitia knelt next to the conveyor and shoveled
beneath it by extending his arms up to his shoulders. He did not know how he
was caught by the roller, but he speculated that his clothing or shovel must have
come into contact with it. The ALJ, however, found that Avitia had positioned
himself underneath the conveyor to remove rock or material that had become
lodged in the conveyor frame. The ALJ determined that while under the
conveyor, Avitia’s shovel contacted the spinning roller, which instantly drew him
in between the belt and roller. Avitia testified that when contact was made, he
felt the impact and blacked out. When he regained consciousness, he found
himself pinned in the air between the return roller and the belt, with the roller
-3-
below his stomach and the belt still running along his back. His head and torso
had passed through a seven-inch space.
Avitia estimated that he spent the next twenty minutes trying to signal for
help. Because he was trapped under the conveyor frame, within reach of the
ground, Avitia managed to retrieve his radio and tell other miners to stop the
conveyor. He testified that he yelled, “Stop everything . . . . I’m dying. I’m
stuck in a belt.” R., Vol. 2 at 70. Another miner heard his pleas, stopped the
conveyor, and unsuccessfully tried to extricate Avitia by cutting the belt. Carpio,
meanwhile, called 911, and another miner used a torch to cut the roller from the
conveyor. When Avitia was finally freed, the other miners began removing his
clothes, while Harris, who had arrived on the scene, began administering oxygen.
Harris told Avitia that he would be all right, but Avitia replied, “No, I’m in very
bad shape.” R., Vol. 2 at 106 (internal quotation marks omitted).
During the ordeal, Mine Load-out Superintendent Dwayne Olsen learned
there had been an accident. Olsen had been working some 1500 feet away, and
when he arrived on scene, Avitia was laying on the ground with his head in
another miner’s lap. Olsen took a “quick glance” at Avitia, id., Vol. 3 at 460, and
noticed that he looked pale. Olsen described Avitia’s face as “kind of swollen”
and his head as “misshaped.” Id. at 461. Olsen spoke to no one and asked no
questions. After staying at the scene for “[s]econds,” id. at 460, he went to his
office to call Mainline Rock’s corporate counsel, the company’s compliance
-4-
officer, and 911. At no point did Olsen make any inquiries of Avitia’s condition.
Nor did he report the accident to MSHA until after Avitia was airlifted to a
hospital. By Olsen’s account, the total time from when he first learned of the
accident until he reported it to MSHA was approximately one hour and
thirty-eight minutes. See Joint App. at 90-91.
Avitia spent two-and-a-half months in the hospital recovering. He
sustained severe internal injuries requiring a tracheotomy and surgery to his
pelvis, pancreas, hip, and spleen. Avitia suffered permanent damage to his
kidneys and also broke his arm, his collarbone, and all of his ribs.
The ensuing MSHA investigation resulted in two citations against Mainline
Rock. The first was for a violation of the mandatory safety standard imposed by
30 C.F.R. § 56.14107(a), which requires that all moving machine parts be
guarded. An MSHA inspector determined that Mainline Rock should have had a
guard installed around the return roller. The ALJ affirmed the citation and
concluded that Mainline Rock exhibited high negligence by failing to guard the
roller given testimony that shoveling beneath the conveyor was a routine task and
inspectors had previously warned the company to guard its return rollers. The
second citation was assessed for failing to report the accident to MSHA within
fifteen minutes, as required by 30 C.F.R. § 50.10. In affirming this citation, the
ALJ similarly determined that Mainline Rock exhibited high negligence because a
reasonable person would have called MSHA upon seeing Avitia at the scene, but
-5-
Olsen remained “remarkably non-inquisitive about Avitia’s condition and
injuries.” Joint. App. at 130. The two penalties totaled $66,000.
DISCUSSION
Because the Commission declined to review the ALJ’s decision, the ALJ’s
decision stands as the final administrative order. 30 U.S.C. § 823(d). We review
the ALJ’s factual findings to ensure they are supported by substantial evidence.
Id. § 816(a)(1); Plateau Mining Corp. v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review
Comm’n, 519 F.3d 1176, 1191 (10th Cir. 2008). We review the ALJ’s legal
conclusions de novo. Olson v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm’n,
381 F.3d 1007, 1011 (10th Cir. 2004).
A. 30 C.F.R. § 56.14107 - Failure to Guard Moving Machine Parts
1. Applicability of Mandatory Safety Standard
We first consider Mainline Rock’s contention that the mandatory safety
standard of 30 C.F.R. § 56.14107(a) does not apply to the roller cited in this case.
The full text of the regulation provides:
30 C.F.R. § 56.14107 Moving Machine Parts
(a) Moving machine parts shall be guarded to protect persons from
contacting gears, sprockets, chains, drive, head, tail, and takeup
pulleys, fly-wheels, couplings, shafts, fan blades, and similar moving
parts that can cause injury.
(b) Guards shall not be required where the exposed moving parts are
at least seven feet away from walking or working surfaces.
-6-
The agency has explained that this “standard requires the installation of
guards to protect persons from coming into contact with hazardous moving
machine parts. The standard clarifies that the objective is to prevent contact with
these machine parts. The guard must enclose the moving parts to the extent
necessary to achieve this objective.” Safety Standards For Loading, Hauling,
and Dumping and Machinery and Equipment at Metal and Nonmetal Mines,
53 Fed. Reg. 32496, 32509 (Aug. 25, 1988). Both the regulation and the
explanation clearly require guards around moving parts, and “[w]hen the meaning
of a regulatory provision is clear on its face, the regulation must be enforced in
accordance with its plain meaning,” Walker Stone Co. v. Sec’y of Labor, 156 F.3d
1076, 1080 (10th Cir. 1998).
Mainline Rock argues, however, that the standard does not apply to this
specific roller because Avitia was trained not to dig under the conveyor while it
was operating, but he intentionally stuck his shovel into the conveyor. Mainline
Rock interprets the standard to exclude intentional conduct because contact is
always possible through intentional conduct.
To the extent Mainline Rock attempts to equate intentional conduct with
intentional contact, its interpretation is absurd. See id. at 1082 (rejecting
interpretation that would lead to “anomalous results”). Avitia may have exhibited
intentional conduct by going beneath the conveyor and attempting to dislodge a
rock, but that does not mean he intentionally contacted the roller in disregard of
-7-
the near-lethal consequences. Simply put, the standard’s objective is to prevent
injuries from contact with moving machine parts, most of which occur when
“persons [are] performing deliberate or purposeful work-related actions with the
machinery.” 53 Fed. Reg. 32509. Mainline Rock’s interpretation would
disregard this objective and leave unprotected those workers who accidentally
contact a hazardous moving machine part while performing some intentional
work-related activity. We decline to adopt an interpretation that “would defeat
the safety promoting purposes of the regulation.” Walker, 156 F.3d at 1082.
Moreover, while Mainline Rock insists that an employee’s intentional
contact is not covered by the standard, its authorities deal with regular inspection
or maintenance of the hazardous machine part. See, e.g., Sec’y of Labor v. Brown
Bros. Sand Co., 17 FMSHRC 578, 579-80 (1995). But even in the maintenance
context, if an employee is subjected to a reasonable possibility of contact and
injury, the guarding standard remains applicable. See, e.g., Sec’y of Labor v.
Thompson Bros. Coal Co., 6 FMSHRC 2094, 2097 (1984) (affirming guarding
violation of similar regulation). Of course, there are some instances in which a
guard would serve almost no purpose because maintenance personnel must, by the
nature of their work, intentionally access the hazardous part to perform their job;
under those circumstances, the guarding standard is inapplicable so long as the
employee has mitigated any reasonable possibility of injury. See Brown Bros.
-8-
Sand, 17 FMSHRC at 579-80 (vacating guarding citation under another
regulation, where hazardous parts were accessed exclusively by maintenance
personnel who could perform the required task only by shutting down machine).
But those circumstances differ markedly from the ones before us, which fall
squarely within the standard, see id. at 581 (stating that “inadvertent contact”
with a moving part is “the precise hazard . . . the guarding standard seeks to
prevent”).
Additionally, the ALJ’s conclusion is bolstered by the Commission’s
interpretation of a similar regulation, 30 C.F.R. § 77.400, which requires that
guards be installed around moving machine parts at surface coal mines. 1
Recognizing that this regulation applies where moving parts “‘may be contacted’”
and “‘may cause injury,’” the Commission explained that the standard “imports
the concepts of reasonable possibility of contact and injury, including contact
stemming from inadvertent stumbling or falling, momentary inattention, or
ordinary human carelessness.” Thompson Bros. Coal, 6 FMSHRC at 2097. To
determine whether the standard applies, the Commission outlined several factors,
1
The relevant portion of the regulation provides:
§ 77.400 Mechanical equipment guards.
(a) Gears; sprockets; chains; drive, head, tail, and takeup pulleys;
flywheels; couplings; shafts; sawblades; fan inlets; and similar exposed
moving machine parts which may be contacted by persons, and which may
cause injury to persons shall be guarded.
-9-
including the “accessibility of the machine parts, work areas, ingress and egress,
work duties, and, as noted, the vagaries of human conduct.” Id.
Avitia testified that he was instructed to shovel dirt and rock that fell off
the conveyor. He stated that this was a routine task he performed by kneeling
beside the conveyor to shovel beneath it. The ALJ found that Avitia went under
the conveyor, which, given its height (33 inches), was not a difficult place to be:
“[T]he only impediment to access the return roller was minimal and insubstantial;
simply bending over at the waist, not crawling, afforded access.” Joint App. at
121. Given these facts, it was entirely foreseeable that a miner could contact the
roller.
Still, Mainline Rock asserts the roller was exempt from the standard under
30 C.F.R. § 56.14107(b), which provides an exception for “exposed moving parts
[that] are at least seven feet away from walking or working surfaces.” According
to Mainline Rock, the roller was “guarded by location” because it was situated
within the I-beam structure of the conveyor. This argument is meritless, however,
because there is no evidence that the roller was seven feet from walking or
working surfaces. See 53 Fed. Reg. 32509 (“[G]uarding by location is recognized
as an alternative to a physical guard in instances where the exposed moving parts
are elevated at least seven feet above walking or working surfaces.”). Rather, the
roller was a mere 33 inches off the ground, located in close proximity to where
Avitia worked, and almost entirely exposed beneath the conveyor. Mainline Rock
-10-
suggests that the roller was inaccessible because it was located out of reach, but
the agency has rejected that interpretation as well. See id. (explaining that the
phrase “located out of reach” “would create uncertainty as to the standard’s
application” and that “[u]nder the final rule, the standard applies where the
moving machine parts can be contacted and cause injury” (internal quotation
marks omitted)). In any event, the ALJ recognized that Mainline Rock’s
photographs of the conveyor demonstrated that the roller was not located out of
reach, but rather was quite easily accessible. See Joint App. at 121.
Mainline Rock also contends that the standard does not apply because a
return roller is not a specifically enumerated part under 30 C.F.R. § 56.14107(a).
This argument is readily defeated, however, because in addition to those parts
specifically listed, the regulation also applies to “similar moving parts.” Id. And,
the Commission has previously recognized that return rollers are precisely the
type of hazardous moving machine part covered by the regulation. See, e.g.,
Sec’y of Labor v. Sangravl Co., 30 FMSHRC 1111, 1112 (2008). 2
2
Mainline Rock reiterates an argument rejected by the ALJ, that the MSHA
Program Policy Manual provides an exception from the guarding standard for
return rollers where skirt boards are present. The ALJ rejected this argument
because it was undisputed that no skirt boards were present at the location of the
accident. In this court, Mainline Rock claims that Harris actually testified that
there were skirt boards on the conveyor. The record indicates, however, that
Harris was referring to a “skirt board of the belt and [seven troughing] rollers
where the receiving box [was] at.” R., Vol. 3 at 320. He was not referring to the
location of the conveyor where Avitia was injured, which Mainline Rock’s photo
clearly depicts without any skirt boarding. See id., Vol. 4, Ex. R-6.
-11-
2. Notice of Guarding Requirement
Alternatively, Mainline Rock contends that it had inadequate notice that the
mandatory safety standard was applicable because MSHA inspectors had never
previously cited the company for failing to guard its return rollers and instead
indicated that similarly located rollers did not need to be guarded. We reject this
argument for three reasons. First, the MSHA cannot be estopped from enforcing
its regulations simply because it did not previously cite the mine operator. See
Emery Mining Corp. v. Sec’y of Labor, 744 F.2d 1411, 1416-1417 (10th Cir.
1984). “[T]hose who deal with the Government are expected to know the law and
may not rely on the conduct of government agents contrary to law.” Id. at 1416(quotation omitted). Therefore, even if Mainline Rock had been told it did not
need to guard the rollers, it would not be absolved of its duty to do so.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, we have explained that regulations
provide adequate notice of the regulated conduct, and thus satisfy due process
requirements, “so long as they are sufficiently specific that a reasonably prudent
person, familiar with the conditions the regulations are meant to address and the
objectives the regulations are meant to achieve, would have fair warning of what
the regulations require.” Walker, 156 F.3d at 1083-84. Here, we have little
difficulty concluding that Mainline Rock had adequate notice of the regulatory
-12-
requirements from both the plain language of the regulation and the explanatory
notice published by the MSHA. 3
Third, Mainline Rock had actual notice that the standard applied to return
rollers. Indeed, contrary to Mainline Rock’s assertion, the record indicates that
the MSHA had previously warned the company to guard return rollers. An
MSHA supervisor testified that he instructed the inspector to direct Mainline
Rock to “start guarding return rollers.” R., Vol. 3 at 550. The inspector’s
subsequent report indicated that Mainline Rock was put on notice of the guarding
requirement. See id. at 551-53. And Mainline Rock’s operations manager
confirmed that the inspector had alerted them to the requirement for return rollers
and that the company actually installed twenty to thirty guards. Id. at 600. 4
3
We recognize the Commission has previously determined that 30 C.F.R.
§ 56.14107(a) is ambiguous and failed to afford a mine operator adequate notice
of the extent of the guarding requirement. See Sec’y of Labor v. Alan Lee Good,
23 FMSHRC 995 (2001). That case is distinguishable, however, because the
ambiguity related to the extent of the guarding requirement, not whether a guard
was required at all, which is the issue we confront here. See id. at 1004
(“[regulation] does not specify the extent of guarding required or explain how
moving parts should be guarded”); 1008 (“[regulation] does not make clear how
or the extent to which the moving parts should be guarded”).
4
Mainline Rock contends the government withdrew its argument relating to
the notice provided during a February 2009 inspection. See Pet’r’s Br. at 36 n.13.
The ALJ did not deem the argument withdrawn, however; rather, the ALJ
observed that the government simply withdrew an exhibit, P-11. See R., Vol. 3 at
553-54. The point is inconsequential in any event, because Mainline Rock’s
operations manager confirmed that the company was put on notice of the guarding
requirement at the February 2009 inspection. Mainline Rock’s assertion that such
notice was insufficient as to the particular roller involved here because it was not
identified with the twenty to thirty other rollers is foreclosed by our analysis.
-13-
3. High Negligence
Next, Mainline Rock contends the ALJ erred in concluding that the
company exhibited high negligence in failing to install a guard around the return
roller. The only argument advanced by Mainline Rock meriting discussion is that
the ALJ erred in dismissing its claim that its lock-out/tag-out policy should
reduce its level of negligence. The ALJ rejected this argument, finding that an
employee’s failure to follow lock-out/tag-out procedures has no impact on a
guarding violation. The ALJ recognized that Harris testified that Mainline Rock’s
lock-out/tag-out policy did not apply when an employee was shoveling under an
operating conveyor, which Harris readily admitted was a daily job. See R., Vol. 2
at 303-04. Given this evidence and other testimony establishing that Mainline
Rock knew of the guarding violation, the ALJ’s finding of high negligence is
supported by substantial evidence.
B. 30 C.F.R. § 50.10 - Failure to Report Accident
We next consider Mainline Rock’s challenge to the citation assessed for
violating 30 C.F.R. § 50.10, which, as is relevant here, requires a mine operator to
report an accident to the MSHA within fifteen minutes of an accident that has a
reasonable potential to cause death. The citation indicates that the accident
occurred at 12:50 PM, Harris learned of the accident at 1:00 PM, but the accident
was not reported to the MSHA until 2:42 PM. The text of the regulation states:
-14-
§ 50.10 Immediate notification
The operator shall immediately contact MSHA at once without delay
and within 15 minutes at the toll-free number, 1-800-746-1553, once
the operator knows or should know that an accident has occurred
involving:
(a) A death of an individual at the mine;
(b) An injury of an individual at the mine which has a reasonable
potential to cause death;
(c) An entrapment of an individual at the mine which has a
reasonable potential to cause death; or
(d) Any other accident.
The Commission has previously explained the degree of latitude afforded
by § 50.10, balanced against its directive that mine operators act quickly to assess
the severity of an accident that may require reporting:
Section 50.10 . . . necessarily accords operators a reasonable
opportunity for investigation into an event prior to reporting to
MSHA. Such internal investigation, however, must be carried out by
operators in good faith without delay and in light of the regulation’s
command of prompt, vigorous action. The immediateness of an
operator’s notification under section 50.10 must be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis, taking into account the nature of the accident and
all relevant variables affecting reaction and reporting.
Sec’y of Labor v. Consol. Coal Co., 11 FMSHRC 1935, 1938 (1989).
Mainline Rock argues that the ALJ erred in affirming the citation because
when Olsen saw Avitia, there were no obvious signs of trauma to signal that he
had suffered an accident with a reasonable potential to cause death. And when
the life-flight medics informed Olsen of the nature of Avitia’s injuries, Olsen
-15-
called the MSHA within fifteen minutes. The ALJ rejected this argument, finding
that Olsen remained “remarkably non-inquisitive about Avitia’s condition and
injuries.” Joint. App. at 130. The ALJ explained that § 50.10 affords an operator
a degree of discretion, but Olsen did not “have the discretion to remain
uninformed about the circumstances of the accident and then assert that the
reasonable potential for the accident to cause death was unknown.” Id.
The ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. After arriving on
scene, Olsen merely glanced at Avitia and left seconds later without asking a
single question. Despite calling 911 and noting that Avitia’s head was misshaped,
Olsen never sought an update on Avitia’s condition from Harris or anyone else.
Mainline Rock asserts that Olsen timely reported the accident after medics told
him that Avitia was “in tough shape and had some internal bleeding.” R., Vol. 3
at 484. But Harris recounted things differently. Harris said he was frustrated
with how uninformed Olsen was when, after Avitia was air-lifted from the mine,
he told Olsen that he would “be surprised if [Avitia] live[d] to make it to the
hospital.” R., Vol. 3 at 400 (internal quotation marks omitted). Olsen was
“shocked.” Id. at 401. And yet it was not until after Harris told him, “We need to
get a hold of MSHA,” that Olsen finally made the call. Id. (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Olsen had a reasonable opportunity for investigation but failed to seize it.
He easily could have asked what happened and immediately learned that Avitia
-16-
had been pulled through the roller. That knowledge alone would have alerted him
to the severity of the accident and the potential for death. Another miner at the
scene actually thought Olsen left to get more help while he continued “working
on trying to save [Avitia’s] life.” Id., Vol. 2 at 220-21. As the ALJ recognized,
the obvious circumstances of the accident would have triggered some minimal
degree of inquiry in a reasonable person, thus prompting a call to the MSHA. But
Olsen chose to remain blind to those circumstances. Olsen’s ignorance of the
severity of Avitia’s condition did not excuse Mainline Rock’s failure to timely
report the accident.
CONCLUSION
The ALJ’s civil penalty assessments are AFFIRMED.
-17-