ELR Citation: 41 ELR 20205
No(s). 10-1280 (D.C. Cir. Jun 10, 2011)

The D.C. Circuit set aside an order of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission denying a mining company's application for temporary relief from restrictions that the Mine Safety and Health Administration imposed on it in conjunction with its investigation of an explosion at one of its mines. Within hours of the explosion, the MSHA issued an order seizing control of the mine under §103(k) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act. A few months later, as the company was preparing for a formal investigation of the disaster, the MSHA modified the §103(k) order to incorporate an evidentiary protocol that imposed various restrictions on the company. The company then sought temporary relief, but the Commission held that §105(b)(2) of the Mine Act does not offer relief from §103(k) orders—or from any other order, except one pursuant to §104. The company then filed the instant petition for review, and the court disagreed with the Commission's interpretation of the statute. Section 105(b)(2) of the Mine Act is not ambiguous and subject to deference. Rather, the court noted that it was a "marvel of congressional clarity." Under §105, the company is clearly entitled to seek temporary relief from a modification or termination of any order, including a §103 order. The court, therefore, set aside the commission's order.