United States Steel Corp. v. Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

Eighth Circuit

United States Steel Corp. v. Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

756 F.2d 658

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 6, 1985

DocketNo. 84-1889

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 756 F.2d 658 (United States Steel Corp. v. Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States Steel Corp. v. Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission, 756 F.2d 658 (8th Cir. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In December 1980 a Mine Safety and Health Administration inspector observed five employees of United States Steel at the Minntac mine on the Minnesota Iron Range manually moving a high voltage cable which powered a drill. A citation was issued for violating 30 C.F.R. § 55.12-14.¹ United States Steel contested the citation before an administrative law judge (AU) who concluded there was a violation and assessed a penalty of $345. The Mine Safety and Health Review Commission agreed to review the ease but later recused itself because of an ex parte contact by its staff. United States Steel filed this petition to review.

The controversy centers on the method of protecting workers from hazardous electrical shocks when handling cables which power the drills and shovels at the Minntac mine. The cables in use normally carry a current of 2,300 volts. Each cable consists of three phase conductors housed in insulating material covered by a braid wire mesh which is in contact with two ground wires. The hazard results from the possible “leakage” of current. Normally, current which escapes from the phase conductors — due to damaged wire to insulation, or a bad splice — flows to the ground wires. A ground fault protection system is designed to detect the flow of current in the ground wires and shut off the power.

While a contrary conclusion might be supported by the evidence presented, the AU’s finding that the ground fault protection system does not constitute “suitable protection” as required by 30 C.F.R. § 55.12-14 has substantial support in the record as a whole. 5 U.S.C. § 706 (1982). The scope of our review is narrow and this court will not substitute its judgment for that of the AU. See Humphrey v. United States, 745 F.2d 1166, 1169-70 (8th Cir. 1984). We defer to the AU’s expert interpretation of 30 C.F.R. § 55.12-14. See E.I. duPont deNemours & Co. v. Collins, 432 U.S. 46, 54-55, 97 S.Ct. 2229, 2234, 53 L.Ed.2d 100 (1977). In addition, the AU’s assessment of the $345 penalty was proper under 30 U.S.C. § 820®. See B.L. Anderson, Inc. v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, 668 F.2d 442, 443-44 (8th Cir.1982). The AU’s order is enforced.

ORDER ENFORCED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In December 1980 a Mine Safety and Health Administration inspector observed five employees of United States Steel at the Minntac mine on the Minnesota Iron Range manually moving a high voltage cable which powered a drill. A citation was issued for violating 30 C.F.R. § 55.12-14.¹ United States Steel contested the citation before an administrative law judge (AU) who concluded there was a violation and assessed a penalty of $345. The Mine Safety and Health Review Commission agreed to review the ease but later recused itself because of an ex parte contact by its staff. United States Steel filed this petition to review.

The controversy centers on the method of protecting workers from hazardous electrical shocks when handling cables which power the drills and shovels at the Minntac mine. The cables in use normally carry a current of 2,300 volts. Each cable consists of three phase conductors housed in insulating material covered by a braid wire mesh which is in contact with two ground wires. The hazard results from the possible “leakage” of current. Normally, current which escapes from the phase conductors — due to damaged wire to insulation, or a bad splice — flows to the ground wires. A ground fault protection system is designed to detect the flow of current in the ground wires and shut off the power.

While a contrary conclusion might be supported by the evidence presented, the AU’s finding that the ground fault protection system does not constitute “suitable protection” as required by 30 C.F.R. § 55.12-14 has substantial support in the record as a whole. 5 U.S.C. § 706 (1982). The scope of our review is narrow and this court will not substitute its judgment for that of the AU. See Humphrey v. United States, 745 F.2d 1166, 1169-70 (8th Cir. 1984). We defer to the AU’s expert interpretation of 30 C.F.R. § 55.12-14. See E.I. duPont deNemours & Co. v. Collins, 432 U.S. 46, 54-55, 97 S.Ct. 2229, 2234, 53 L.Ed.2d 100 (1977). In addition, the AU’s assessment of the $345 penalty was proper under 30 U.S.C. § 820®. See B.L. Anderson, Inc. v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, 668 F.2d 442, 443-44 (8th Cir.1982). The AU’s order is enforced.

ORDER ENFORCED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

756 F.2d 658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-steel-corp-v-federal-mine-safety-health-review-commission-ca8-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack