United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued October 24, 2000 Decided November 17, 2000
No. 00-1010
In re: International Union,
United Mine Workers of America,
Petitioner
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Judith Rivlin argued the cause for petitioner. With her on
the brief was Grant Crandall.
Robin A. Rosenbluth, Attorney, United States Department
of Labor, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the
brief was W. Christian Schumann, Counsel.
Michael F. Duffy was on the brief for intervenor National
Mining Association.
Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Rogers and Garland,
Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge Edwards.
Edwards, Chief Judge: The United Mine Workers of
America ("UMWA" or "Petitioner") petitioned this court for a
writ of mandamus to compel the Mine Safety and Health
Administration ("MSHA") of the Department of Labor to
promulgate an emergency temporary standard, or in the
alternative, to engage in rulemaking, to protect mine workers
from exposure to respirable coal mine dust. UMWA prem-
ised its request on a claim that the agency had unreasonably
delayed its rulemaking. Six months after UMWA filed its
petition, MSHA published notices of two proposed rulemak-
ings which, the agency contends, address the specific con-
cerns raised by UMWA in its petition. In light of the
proposed rules, we conclude that petitioner's request for
mandamus is moot.
Long-term exposure to excessive levels of respirable coal
mine dust can cause coal workers' pneumoconiosis ("black
lung") and silicosis, which are potentially disabling and can
lead to premature death. See 65 Fed. Reg. 23,049, 23,051
(2000). In recognition of these dangers, the Federal Mine
Safety and Health Act of 1977, s 101(a), 30 U.S.C. s 811(a)
(1994), ("Mine Act") directs the Secretary of Labor ("Secre-
tary") to develop, promulgate, and revise health and safety
standards in coal and other mines.
In January 1995, the Secretary established an Advisory
Committee on the Elimination of Pneumoconiosis Among
Coal Mine Workers ("Advisory Committee") to "make recom-
mendations ... for improved standards, or other appropriate
actions," to eliminate pneumoconiosis and silicosis through the
control of respirable coal mine dust. 60 Fed. Reg. 5947, 5948
(1995). Later that year, in September 1995, the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health ("NIOSH") is-
sued a criteria document recommending standards "to reduce
or eliminate health impairment from exposure to respirable
coal mine dust." Education and Information Division, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Pub. No. 95-106,
Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Expo-
sure to Respirable Coal Mine Dust 9 (1995) [hereinafter
NIOSH Criteria Document].
MSHA published a response to the NIOSH Criteria Docu-
ment on April 25, 1996, announcing its intentions to develop a
proposed rule "derived from the recommendations in the
Document" that would "address enhanced protections for
surface and underground coal miners from exposure to res-
pirable coal mine dust and crystalline silica." 61 Fed. Reg.
18,308 (1996). The agency stated that it would "defer full
development" of the proposed rule until it could consider the
recommendations of the Advisory Committee. Id. at 18,309.
The Advisory Committee submitted its report to the Secre-
tary on November 14, 1996. See 62 Fed. Reg. 3717 (1997).
The report contained 20 wide-ranging recommendations
aimed at eliminating coal miners' pneumoconiosis and silico-
sis. See Advisory Committee on the Elimination of Pneumo-
coniosis Among Coal Mine Workers, Report of the Secretary
of Labor's Advisory Committee on the Elimination of Pneu-
moconiosis Among Coal Mine Workers (Oct. 1996). On Janu-
ary 24, 1997, MSHA published a response to the Advisory
Committee Report, stating that the agency was considering
both rulemaking and other actions, such as internal adminis-
trative or policy changes. See 62 Fed. Reg. 3717 (1997).
MSHA observed that "[m]any of the recommendations [were]
general in nature and would require further development by
MSHA to be suitable for publication as a proposed rule." Id.
On January 13, 2000, UMWA petitioned this court to
compel MSHA to issue an emergency temporary standard to
protect miners, or to engage in rulemaking to address a
subset of the recommendations proposed by the Advisory
Committee. In particular, UMWA proposed: (1) that MSHA
assume full responsibility for all respirable coal mine dust
compliance sampling; (2) that there be continuous monitoring
for respirable coal mine dust; (3) that miners have full rights
to participate in the dust sampling program; and (4) that
sampling contemplate miners' full exposure to respirable dust
(i.e. beyond 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week).
On July 7, 2000, the Secretary published notices of two
proposed rulemakings aimed at restructuring the respirable
dust program for underground coal mines. Specifically, the
proposed rules would (i) permit MSHA to use a single, full-
shift sample to determine whether coal mine operators are in
compliance with the permissible exposure limit for respirable
coal mine dust, see 65 Fed. Reg. 42,068 (2000) (to be codified
at 30 C.F.R. pt. 72) (proposed July 7, 2000), and (ii) require
each underground coal mine operator to have a verified mine
ventilation plan. See 65 Fed. Reg. 42,122 (2000) (to be
codified at 30 C.F.R. pts. 70, 75, 90) (proposed July 7, 2000).
According to the Secretary, all of the concerns raised by the
UMWA petition are within the compass of the proposed
rulemakings. Indeed, the Federal Register notice does ad-
dress each of the four UMWA proposals. See 65 Fed. Reg. at
42,129, 42,133 (proposing that MSHA assume full responsibili-
ty for all compliance sampling); id. at 42,138-39 (determining
that technology has not yet advanced to the point that
promulgation of a rule requiring continuous monitoring for
respirable coal mine dust would be appropriate); id. at
42,129, 42,134 and n.4 (proposing that miners' representatives
have participation rights in the dust sampling program); id.
at 42,140, 42,141 (proposing definitions of terms "concentra-
tion" and "full shift" intended to assure that sampling con-
templates miners' full exposure to respirable dust).
Under section 101(b)(1) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C.
s 811(b)(1) (1994), the Secretary must issue an emergency
temporary standard if she finds that "miners are exposed to
grave danger" and that an "emergency standard is necessary
to protect miners from such danger." It is undisputed here
that respirable coal mine dust is a serious occupational hazard
in the mining industry. See 65 Fed. Reg. 23,049, 23,051
(2000). Nonetheless, we find that UMWA has failed to
satisfy its burden of showing that an emergency temporary
standard is warranted at this time. See Northern States
Power Co. v. United States Dep't of Energy, 128 F.3d 754, 758
(D.C. Cir. 1997) ("The party seeking mandamus has the
burden of showing that 'its right to issuance of the writ is
clear and indisputable.' " (quoting Gulfstream Aerospace
Corp. v. Mayacamus Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988))), cert.
denied, 525 U.S. 1016 (1998). It is far from clear at this
juncture what standards should be adopted to address the
problem of respirable coal mine dust. This is a matter that is
committed to the agency's expertise in the first instance, and
this court is in no position to pretermit the prescribed statu-
tory process. UMWA's request for an emergency temporary
standard must therefore be denied.
It is unnecessary for us to reach the merits of petitioner's
claim that MSHA has unreasonably delayed rulemaking on
respirable coal mine dust. An agency's notice of proposed
rulemaking necessarily moots a petitioner's claim of unrea-
sonable delay if that claim is based upon (1) a period of delay
occurring prior to the agency's issuance of a notice of pro-
posed rulemaking, and (2) a matter that the agency proposes
to regulate in that rulemaking. See Action on Smoking and
Health v. Department of Labor, 28 F.3d 162, 164 (D.C. Cir.
1994); United Steelworkers of America v. Rubber Mfrs.
Ass'n, 783 F.2d 1117, 1120 (D.C. Cir. 1986). Six months after
UMWA filed its petition to compel MSHA to promulgate four
standards recommended by the Secretary's Advisory Com-
mittee, the agency issued two notices of proposed rulemaking.
Although the UMWA disputes the sufficiency of the manner
in which the agency has addressed its concerns, it would be
premature for us to consider its objections to the merits of
the proposed rules. See Action on Smoking and Health, 28
F.3d at 165. Agency counsel conceded at oral argument that
the standards sought by UMWA could be a "logical out-
growth" of the proposed rules. We agree. Accordingly, we
find that petitioner's claim of unreasonable delay is moot.
The agency acknowledges that it has 90 days within which
to "promulgate, modify, or revoke" the proposed standards,
and "publish [the] reasons therefor." 30 U.S.C.
s 811(a)(4)(B) (1994). In the event that the agency fails to
act within the statutory period, UMWA may file a petition for
review under Telecommunications Research and Action Cen-
ter v. FCC ("TRAC"), 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984). And, of
course, UMWA and other parties with standing may seek
judicial review of the final rules adopted by the agency in the
event that they object to the outcome of the rulemakings.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.