Consol Buchanan Mining Company, LLC v. Secretary of Labor

PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1321

CONSOL BUCHANAN MINING COMPANY, LLC,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF LABOR; FEDERAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW
COMMISSION; FEDERAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH ADMINISTRATION,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Federal Mine Safety
and Health Review Commission. (VA 2013-190)

Argued: September 22, 2016 Decided: November 10, 2016

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition for review denied by published opinion. Judge Wynn
wrote the opinion, in which Judge Wilkinson and Judge Duncan
joined.

ARGUED: Billy Ray Shelton, JONES, WALTERS, TURNER & SHELTON
PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for Petitioner. Cheryl C. Blair-
Kijewski, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Arlington,
Virginia, for Respondents. ON BRIEF: Randall C. Eads, EADS &
EADS, Abingdon, Virginia, for Petitioner. M. Patricia Smith,
Solicitor of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, Washington, D.C.,
Heidi W. Strassler, Associate Solicitor, Office of Civil Penalty
Compliance, MSHA, W. Christian Schumann, Appellate Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Arlington, Virginia, for
Respondent, Secretary of Labor.

2
WYNN, Circuit Judge:

Following a fatal accident in a coal mine operated by

Consol Buchanan Mining Co. (“Consol”), the Federal Mine Safety

and Health Review Commission (the “Commission”) determined that

the accident resulted from Consol’s “unwarrantable failure” to

ensure that certain equipment in the mine was maintained in a

safe, working condition. Seeking review by this Court, Consol

argues that it lacked notice that hazardous conditions in the

mine violated applicable mine safety regulations. Further,

Consol asserts that the agency erred in concluding that the

company demonstrated aggravated negligence in failing to rectify

evident safety concerns. We disagree and therefore deny

Consol’s petition for review.

I.

A.

Consol operates a large underground coal mine in Buchanan,

Virginia. On January 11, 2012, acting Shift Foreman Lynn

Semones directed Section Foreman Gregory Addington and miners

David Green and Joseph Saunders to move a shuttle car from one

part of the mine to another. In general, foremen were not

assigned to assist with such a move. Recognizing Addington’s

lack of experience moving equipment, however, Semones assigned

Addington to oversee this particular move to “get him some

3
experience” with the process. J.A. 656. Semones directed

Addington to “[f]ollow [Green and Saunders], learn from them,

[and] help them [move the car] through tight places.” Id.

At the time of the accident, a six-inch water supply line

ran along the mine floor immediately adjacent to the trackway on

which miners moved equipment through the mine. Though

originally situated above the mine floor, this waterline was

effectively buried by the accumulation of years of dust and

debris from the mine. As the mine’s main water supply, the line

supplied water for various uses throughout the mine, including

firefighting and the suppression of coal dust generated through

the mining process.

To enable these distinct uses, multi-outlet water manifolds

were installed at regular intervals along the line. Connected

to each manifold were valves, each of which could be adjusted to

control the flow of water for a designated purpose. Separately,

to stem the flow of water entirely, the main six-inch waterline

included larger shutoff valves. These valves were arranged in a

“ladder system,” such that three separate valves had to be

closed to fully stop the flow of water to a particular section

of the line. J.A. 40.

Due to their proximity to the trackway, machinery regularly

struck the manifolds and valves extending from the main

waterline as the machinery moved through the mine. Though aware

4
that fire valves were occasionally damaged by moving equipment,

Semones did not instruct Addington on how to respond to such an

incident, instead relying on the miners’ prior experience to

ensure that the move was accomplished safely. Nonetheless,

aware of the possibility that the passing shuttle car may damage

a protruding valve, Addington looked unsuccessfully for

replacement valves before joining the move crew.

B.

Soon after the crew began to move the shuttle car, the car

struck a fire valve connected to a manifold extending from the

main waterline, breaking the valve in two and leaving a fountain

of water shooting from the manifold. While Addington dried

himself, Green and Saunders set about to stop the flow of water

and repair the broken valve. To do so, Green and Saunders,

along with a third miner, first sought to close the shutoff

valves on the main six-inch waterline. Because Consol had

removed the “leverage bars” provided by the valve manufacturer

to assist in opening and closing the valves, the miners

attempted to close the valve using a nearby steel bar.

As the miners worked to close the shutoff valves, Addington

contacted Semones to report the accident. Semones later

recounted that he directed Addington to continue moving the

shuttle car to allow a second crew to repair the damaged valve.

5
Addington testified, however, that he did not hear Semones’s

instruction. At any rate, rather than following this direction,

Addington returned to the scene of the accident and found Green

and Saunders working to reassemble the broken fire valve.

Assuming the miners knew how to repair the valve, Addington

watched as Green and Saunders worked to reattach the valve to

the manifold.

Unfortunately, due to the accretion of debris on the main

waterline, the miners were unable to fully close one of the

shutoff valves. With the valve partially open, water continued

to flow through the manifold as the miners attempted to reattach

the broken fire valve. 1 At the same time, the dislocation of the

fire valve from the manifold damaged the valve’s threading such

that it could no longer bear the level of water pressure it was

designed to withstand. Although the miners visually inspected

the threading before attempting to reattach the valve,

investigators later determined that the damage to the threading

was difficult to detect without magnification. Saunders was

unable, however, to reattach the valve by hand and instead used

a pipe wrench to attempt to tighten the valve into place.

Ultimately, the damage to the threading, coupled with the

building water pressure, caused the valve to fail. As a result,

1Addington later testified that he believed that water
flowing through the manifold was simply a reservoir in the
waterline that remained after the shutoff valves were closed.
6
the valve was suddenly ejected from the manifold, striking

Saunders and fatally injuring him. A Mine Safety & Health

Administration (“MSHA”) investigator who arrived at the scene

soon thereafter observed a fountain of water flowing from the

manifold and concluded that one of the shutoff valves was not

fully closed. Upon further inspection, the investigator noted

that the shutoff valve remained visually and audibly (that is,

making a hissing sound) open. A more extensive MSHA inquiry

followed, with investigators concluding that the accident

resulted from the failure to ensure that the shutoff valve was

fully closed before attempting to reattach the inoperable fire

valve.

C.

Following its investigation, MSHA petitioned the Commission

to assess civil penalties against Consol for violations of two

mine safety regulations: (1) 30 C.F.R. § 75.1725(a) (the “Mining

Equipment Rule”), which requires mine operators to remove unsafe

mining machinery or equipment from service, for reusing the

damaged fire valve after it was dislocated from the water

manifold; and (2) 30 C.F.R. § 75.1100-3 (the “Fire Equipment

Rule”), which requires all firefighting equipment to be

maintained in a usable and operative condition, for failing to

ensure leverage bars were available to be used to close the

7
shutoff valves and otherwise failing to ensure that the valves

could be fully closed.

After conducting an evidentiary hearing, at which the

parties presented testimony from MSHA inspectors and the miners

involved in the accident, an MSHA Administrative Law Judge

(“ALJ”) upheld the investigators’ findings and concluded that

each of the violations stemmed from Consol’s “unwarrantable

failure” to comply with the identified MSHA regulations.

Pursuant to Section 104(d)(1) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. §

814(d)(1), the ALJ imposed a civil penalty of $70,000 for each

violation. The Commission subsequently denied Consol’s petition

for discretionary review, and the ALJ’s decision thus became a

final Commission order on March 4, 2015.

Consol now petitions this Court for review and challenges

the Commission’s final order on three grounds. First, the

company contends that it lacked fair notice that using an

inoperable shutoff valve violated the Fire Equipment Rule

because MSHA had not previously cited Consol for failing to

ensure that shutoff valves on the mine’s central waterline could

be closed. Second, asserting that Addington was not responsible

for supervising Green and Saunders in their efforts to repair

the damaged fire valve, Consol challenges the ALJ’s conclusion

that Addington served as Consol’s agent, such that any

negligence attributable to him may be imputed to Consol. Last,

8
Consol contests the ALJ’s ultimate finding that Consol

demonstrated heightened negligence in failing to comply with

applicable MSHA regulations.

II.

Because the Commission adopted the ALJ’s factual findings,

we review those findings under a substantial evidence standard.

Knox Creek Coal Corp. v. Sec’y of Labor, Mine Safety & Health

Admin., 811 F.3d 148, 157 (4th Cir. 2016); see also 30 U.S.C. §

816(a)(1) (providing that the Commission’s findings are

“conclusive” if they are “supported by substantial evidence on

the record considered as a whole”). Substantial evidence means

“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as

adequate to support a conclusion.” Almy v. Sebelius, 679 F.3d

297, 301 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting

Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). We

review the Commission’s legal conclusions de novo, affording

deference when appropriate to the Secretary's interpretations of

ambiguous statutory language. Knox Creek Coal, 811 F.3d at 157

(citing Sec’y of Labor ex rel. Wamsley v. Mut. Mining, Inc., 80

F.3d 110, 113–15 (4th Cir. 1996)).

9
 A.

Congress enacted the Mine Act to address the “urgent need

to provide more effective means and measures for improving the

working conditions and practices” in the nation’s mines. 30

U.S.C. § 801(c). In so doing, Congress made plain that the

“first priority and concern of all in the coal . . . mining

industry must be the health and safety of its most precious

resource—the miner.” Id. § 801(a). To that end, Congress

explained that mine operators “have the primary responsibility

to prevent the existence of” dangerous conditions in their

mines. Id. § 801(e). The Act also authorizes the Secretary of

Labor to adopt “mandatory health or safety standards for the

protection of life and prevention of injuries in coal or other

mines.” Id. § 811(a).

Promulgated pursuant to this rulemaking authority, the Fire

Equipment Rule requires mine operators to ensure that “[a]ll

firefighting equipment . . . be maintained in a usable and

operative condition.” 30 C.F.R. § 75.1100-3. MSHA regulations

explicitly include “waterlines” among designated “firefighting

equipment” that must be installed in all covered mines. See id.

§ 75.1100-1(a) (requiring lines capable of delivering 50 gallons

of water a minute at a nozzle pressure of 50 pounds per square

inch). Similarly, the Mining Equipment Rule provides that all

“[m]obile and stationary machinery and equipment shall be

10
maintained in safe operating condition and machinery or

equipment in unsafe condition shall be removed from service

immediately.” Id. § 75.1725(a).

The Mine Act further authorizes the Secretary, acting

through MSHA, to conduct inspections to assess compliance with

mine safety regulations. 30 U.S.C. § 813(a). Beyond these

regular inspections, the Act mandates quarterly inspections of

each underground coal mine “in its entirety.” Id. MSHA

inspectors are responsible for issuing citations for any

identified violations and otherwise assisting mine operators in

complying with applicable regulations. Id. §§ 813(a), 814(a).

Where, as here, investigators determine that a violation is

either “of such a nature as could significantly and

substantially contribute to the cause and effect of a . . . mine

safety or health hazard” or otherwise “caused by an

unwarrantable failure of [the] operator to comply with [MSHA]

mandatory health or safety standards,” these findings must be

included in any resulting citation and may lead to enhanced

penalties and other potential sanctions. See id. §§ 814(d)(1),

(d)(2), (e).

B.

Consol first contends that it lacked adequate notice that

MSHA interpreted the Fire Equipment Rule to require mine

11
operators to maintain shutoff valves on central waterlines in

operable condition. As a result, Consol asserts that it was

deprived of due process before facing civil penalties for

failing to ensure that the damaged shutoff valve at issue here

could be fully closed. We disagree.

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects

parties from being deprived of property without fair notice.

U.S. Const. amend. V; United States v. Hoechst Celanese Corp.,

128 F.3d 216, 224 (4th Cir. 1997). For this reason, and in

light of the “quasi-criminal” nature of civil penalties, we have

long recognized that “parties subject to . . . administrative

sanctions are entitled to . . . ‘clear notice’” of what conduct

is proscribed by a regulation before being subject to monetary

penalties for a particular violation. Id. (quoting First Am.

Bank of Va. v. Dole, 763 F.2d 644, 651 n.6 (4th Cir. 1985)).

Whether a sanctioned party had adequate notice of a particular

violation turns on the “relevant facts of each case.” Id.

(citing United States v. Bennett, 984 F.2d 597, 605 (4th Cir.

1993)).

Here, the ALJ explained that the Consol’s violation of the

Fire Equipment Rule involved two interrelated issues. First,

and most significantly, accumulated material on the exterior of

a shutoff valve on the main six-inch waterline prevented the

valve from fully closing, permitting water to continue to flow

12
into the damaged manifold as the miners attempted to reassemble

the severed fire valve. Second, lacking manufacturer-provided

leverage bars, the miners were unable to close the valve fully

before attempting to reinstall the fire valve.

The parties agree that, prior to the accident, MSHA never

alerted Consol that the agency viewed the condition of shutoff

valves in the mine as a violation of the Fire Equipment Rule.

Absent explicit prior notice, the Commission employs a

“reasonably prudent miner” test to determine whether the

operator nonetheless had sufficient notice of the risk of civil

penalties arising from a violative condition. DQ Fire &

Explosion Consultants, Inc., 36 FMSHRC 3083, 3087–88 (Dec.

2014); LaFarge N. Am., 35 FMSHRC 3497, 3499–500 (Dec. 2013).

Under this standard, the Commission considers “whether a

reasonably prudent person familiar with the mining industry and

the protective purposes of the standard would have recognized

the specific prohibition or requirement of the standard.” DQ

Fire & Explosion Consultants, 36 FMSHRC at 3087 (internal

quotations omitted) (quoting Ideal Cement Co., 12 FMSHRC 2409,

2416 (Nov. 1990)).

Although we have yet to adopt the reasonably prudent miner

test, our Sister Circuits have used this objective test in

considering whether MSHA regulations provide adequate notice of

proscribed conduct. See, e.g., Black Beauty Coal Co. v. Fed.

13
Mine Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 703 F.3d 553, 558 (D.C. Cir.

2012); Mainline Rock & Ballast, Inc. v. Sec'y of Labor, 693 F.3d

1181, 1187 (10th Cir. 2012); Stillwater Min. Co. v. Fed. Mine

Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 142 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.

1998). This test’s emphasis on the reasonably foreseeable scope

of regulatory directives derives in part from the recognition

that administrative agencies tasked with carrying out wide-

ranging health and safety statutes cannot anticipate every

danger that may arise under their purview. See Freeman United

Coal Min. Co. v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 108

F.3d 358, 362 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

By the same token, a rule requiring explicit notice of any

conceivable violation as a condition of imposing civil sanctions

would leave open “large loopholes allowing conduct which should

be regulated to escape regulation.” Id. (internal quotations

omitted) (quoting Ray Evers Welding Co. v. OSHRC, 625 F.2d 726,

730 (6th Cir. 1980)); Phillips v. Interior Bd. of Mine

Operations Appeals, 500 F.2d 772, 778 (D.C. Cir. 1974)

(“Sporadic federal inspections can never be frequent or thorough

enough to insure compliance.”). Such a rule likewise would

contradict Congress’s admonition that miners and mine operators

themselves are primarily responsible for ensuring that their

mines are safe. 30 U.S.C. § 801(e); Power Fuels, LLC v. Fed.

Mine Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 777 F.3d 214, 217 (4th Cir.

14
2015); see also Dickenson-Russell Coal Co., LLC v. Sec'y of

Labor, 747 F.3d 251, 254 (4th Cir. 2014) (observing that a rule

holding MSHA inspectors principally responsible for mine safety

“would be manifestly unreasonable and unjustified in light of

the clear Congressional purpose to ensure that the primary

responsibility for safety remains with the mine owners and

miners”) (internal quotations and alterations omitted) (quoting

Myers v. United States, 17 F.3d 890, 904 (6th Cir. 1994))). For

these reasons, we agree with the Commission and our Sister

Circuits that MSHA regulations that permit a reasonably prudent

person familiar with the mining industry and the health and

safety objectives of the Mine Act to determine what conduct is

required or prohibited provide sufficient notice to mine

operators to satisfy due process and support potential

sanctions.

Acknowledging that this objective standard applies, Consol

nonetheless argues that it lacked fair notice that its conduct

violated the Fire Equipment Rule in this case. Specifically,

Consol argues that MSHA inspectors were aware that Consul

removed leverage bars provided by the shutoff valve manufacturer

soon after the valves were installed. Yet, according to Consol,

MSHA inspectors had never identified the bars’ absence as a

violation of the rule prior to the accident. According to

Consol, the agency’s failure to identify this known condition as

15
a violation left Consol without fair notice that failing to

provide the bars would result in civil sanctions.

In support, Consol notes that the Commission has held that

prior inconsistent enforcement has a role, in appropriate

circumstances, in determining whether a mine operator has fair

notice of a potential violation. See Alan Lee Good, 23 FMSHRC

995, 1005 (Sept. 2001) (explaining that “the consistency of the

agency’s enforcement” is one of a “wide variety of factors”

considered by the Commission). We agree that an affirmative

statement from a regulatory body empowered to implement and

enforce a particular regulatory scheme may be sufficient to

deprive regulated parties of clear notice of a later,

conflicting interpretation. See Hoechst Celanese Corp., 128

F.3d at 224-27 (finding lack of fair notice where state agency

exercising delegated federal authority provided waiver of

federal air quality standards based on interpretation later

rejected by federal regulators).

Here, however, Consol asks us to go a step further by

suggesting that prior inaction is sufficient to deprive an

operator of notice. We decline to do so. As previously noted,

it is the operator that bears principal responsibility for

providing safe working conditions in a mine. 30 U.S.C. §

801(e). Although MSHA investigators are required to issue

citations for known violations, id. §§ 813(a), 814(a), Consol

16
offers no support for the proposition that, absent prior

enforcement, the agency is precluded from seeking civil

penalties related to a particular violation. Quite the

opposite: because even the most stringent investigation may fail

to identify every potential violation, the objective test we

adopt today ensures that MSHA may take action to correct

violations that would be apparent to a reasonably prudent miner.

Moreover, although the lack of leverage bars contributed to

the miners’ inability to close the valve fully, the ALJ

concluded that the “sole reason the valve did not close . . .

was the accumulation of material around the handle stop.” J.A.

858 (emphasis added). In fact, investigators determined after

the accident that the valve could not be fully closed even under

significant force. For this reason, MSHA’s failure to recognize

the absence of leverage bars prior to the accident does not call

into question the ALJ’s finding that a reasonably prudent miner

would have recognized that an inoperable shutoff valve must be

replaced under MSHA’s Fire Equipment Rule.

Resisting this conclusion, Consol argues that it lacked

notice that the shutoff valves themselves qualified as

“firefighting equipment” within the meaning of the rule.

Specifically, Consol emphasizes that the valves control the flow

of water through the mine’s central waterline, which delivers

water for a variety of purposes throughout the mine. In

17
Consol’s view, the valves thus do not qualify as “firefighting

equipment” and, to the extent that MSHA now contends that they

do, Consol lacked notice that the agency interpreted the Fire

Equipment Rule to encompass the valves.

As an initial matter, we reject Consol’s contention that

shutoff valves on a mine’s central waterline do not qualify as

“firefighting equipment.” There is ample evidence in the record

to demonstrate that such valves are an integral element of a

mine’s fire suppression system. For example, the ALJ noted that

the valve involved in the accident at issue was included on the

mine’s fire protection map. Further, as previously explained,

MSHA regulations specifically include waterlines among required

firefighting equipment, with MSHA requiring that these lines be

capable of delivering specified flow-rates to ensure that fires

may be effectively extinguished. 30 C.F.R. § 75.1100-1(a). At

oral argument, counsel for Consol acknowledged that, had miners

been unable to fully open a shutoff valve, the flow of water may

fall below these minimum thresholds, violating the Fire

Equipment Rule. Much the same, here, damage to the shutoff

valve led directly to a catastrophic failure of the fire valve,

which Consol acknowledges constitutes a piece of “firefighting

equipment.” For this reason, Consol’s effort to distinguish

between covered waterlines and the valves that control the flow

of water through those lines is unavailing.

18
 Moreover, we are unpersuaded that Consol lacked fair notice

that the failure to replace an inoperable shutoff valve would

violate the Fire Equipment Rule. Unlike the leverage bars,

Consol does not suggest that MSHA was aware that shutoff valves

could not be fully closed. On the contrary, the evidence

demonstrates that the valve’s defective condition became

reasonably apparent only after miners attempted to close the

valves at the time of the accident. Nonetheless, Consol’s

assertion that the ALJ improperly focused on the moments

immediately preceding the accident misses the mark. Indeed, it

is likely often the case that the specific conditions rendering

a piece of equipment inoperable become apparent only under

certain circumstances. As such, that neither MSHA nor the

operator previously noted a particular violation has little

bearing on whether, upon realizing that a valve could not be

fully closed, a reasonably prudent miner would recognize that

the valve was inoperable and must be removed from service.

In sum, the record evidence demonstrates that a reasonably

prudent miner would recognize that using inoperative shutoff

valves violated MSHA regulations and placed miners at risk.

Consequently, Consol had fair notice that the failure to replace

defective shutoff valves raised the possibility of sanctions,

and MSHA is therefore not barred from seeking civil penalties in

connection with this violation.

19
 C.

Consol next challenges the ALJ’s conclusion that Addington

was acting as Consol’s agent at the time of the accident, such

that any negligence attributable to him in connection with the

accident may be imputed to Consol. Again, Consol is mistaken.

Under the Mine Act, a mine operator may be held responsible

for the knowledge and negligence of any person who qualifies as

the operator’s “agent” within the meaning of the statute. See

Capitol Cement Corp. v. Sec’y of Labor, Mine Safety & Health

Admin., 229 F.3d 1141, 2000 WL 1205389 at *4 (4th Cir. 2000)

(per curiam) (citing Sec’y of Labor v. Southern Ohio Coal Co., 4

FMSHRC 1458, 1463 (Aug. 1982)). The Act defines “agent” to mean

“any person charged with responsibility for the operation of all

or a part of a coal or other mine or the supervision of the

miners in a coal or other mine.” 30 U.S.C. § 802(e).

We have explained that this “broad definition of agent

indicates that Congress did not intend to limit the vicarious

liability of an owner or lessee to common law concepts of

agency.” Bituminous Coal Operators’ Ass’n v. Sec’y of Interior,

547 F.2d 240, 247 (4th Cir. 1977). And, in applying this

definition, the Commission and other Circuits have focused on

whether the miner exercised managerial or supervisory

responsibilities at the time of his negligent conduct.

Martin Marietta Aggregates, 22 FMSHRC 633, 637-38 (May 2000));

20
see also Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc. v. Fed. Mine Safety

& Health Admin., 175 F. App’x 825, 827 (9th Cir. 2006).

Applying this standard here, the ALJ concluded that

Addington served as a supervisor—and therefore was Consol’s

“agent”—when he oversaw the miners’ efforts to repair the

damaged fire valve. In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ

acknowledged that Addington had never overseen an equipment

move, but noted that Semones expected Addington to act as a

foreman during the move. The ALJ further observed that the

other testifying miners referred to Addington as the “boss” and

agreed that he was in charge of Green and Saunders as they moved

the shuttle car through the mine. J.A. 855. Finally, the ALJ

rejected the Consol’s suggestion that, because Addington lacked

experience moving equipment, he was not in a position to oversee

Green and Saunders as they attempted to repair the damaged

valve. To so hold, the ALJ explained, would allow mine

operators to avoid liability by assigning untrained foreman to

oversee tasks with which they are unfamiliar.

On appeal, Consol renews its argument that, lacking

experience moving equipment, Addington was not in a position to

act as a supervisor at the time of the accident. Consol further

notes that miners frequently moved equipment through the mine

without the assistance of a foreman, and Addington was assigned

to assist Green and Saunders merely to act as an “extra set of

21
eyes” and learn more about moving equipment through the mine.

Appellant’s Br. at 16. In light of this evidence, Consol faults

the ALJ’s “conclusory” finding that Addington was acting as

Consol’s agent at the time of the accident and suggests that the

ALJ simply assumed that, as a foreman, Addington was by

definition an agent within the meaning of the Mine Act. Id. at

17.

We disagree. The ALJ’s conclusion that Addington acted as

Consol’s agent in responding to the damaged valves is amply

supported by the evidence. Importantly, to determine whether

Addington’s negligence may be imputed to Consol, the parties

agree that we must consider whether he “exercised managerial

responsibilities at the time of his negligent conduct.”

Martin Marietta Aggregates, 22 FMSHRC at 638 (citing Rochester &

Pittsburgh Coal Corp., 13 FMSHRC 189, 194 (Feb. 1991)). In this

light, Consol misplaces reliance on Addington’s authority to

direct the movement of the shuttle car. Instead, the relevant

question is whether the ALJ properly held Consol responsible for

Addington’s failure to recognize the danger presented by the

damaged valves and subsequent failure to respond appropriately

to that danger. Pocahontas Fuel Co. v. Andrus, 590 F.2d 95 (4th

Cir. 1979) (per curiam) (upholding MSHA orders attributing

knowledge of rank-and-file miner assigned to conduct pre-shift

safety examination to operator).

22
 With this in mind, testimony elicited from the miners

provides significant support for the ALJ’s findings. In

particular, although Semones testified that he did not expect

Addington to direct Green and Saunders as they moved the shuttle

car, he acknowledged that he expected Addington to act as a

foreman during the move. Semones testified that he expected

Addington to assign tasks to the other miners; ensure compliance

with company policies; remind the other miners to wear safety

gear; and, most important, alert Semones in the event of an

emergency. See J.A. 686-89. Similarly, although Green and

Saunders did not await instructions from Addington before

attempting to reassemble the broken fire valve, Green testified

that he would not have ignored instructions from Addington and

would have stopped working to repair the valve if Addington had

directed him to do so. Thus, Green testified that, because

Addington did not provide any direction to the contrary, he

assumed Addington approved of the miners’ efforts to reattach

the valve.

In the end, Green’s testimony that he would have followed

Addington’s instructions in the most critical moments preceding

the accident—that is, while the miners attempted to repair the

damaged fire valve—supports the ALJ’s finding that Addington was

acting as a supervisor “at the time of his negligent conduct.”

Original Sixteen to One Mine, 175 F. App’x at 827. Likewise,

23
Addington’s testimony that he contacted Semones to report the

damaged valve indicates that he understood that he was

responsible for managing the miners’ response. Finally, the ALJ

correctly dismissed Consol’s suggestion that, because Addington

failed to supervise Green and Saunders more closely as they

attempted to repair the valve, he cannot be viewed as Consol’s

agent.

As such, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s

conclusions, and therefore those conclusions are conclusive.

Almy, 679 F.3d at 301-02. Accordingly, because Addington was

acting as Consol’s agent in connection with the accident

response, the ALJ properly imputed his knowledge and negligence

in connection with the accident to Consol.

D.

Finally, Consol contests the ALJ’s finding that both of the

violations resulted from Consol’s unwarrantable failure to

comply with MSHA regulations. As noted, we review these

findings “to determine if they are supported by substantial

evidence in the record.” Windsor Coal Co. v. Sec’y of Labor,

166 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (citing authorities).

Under § 104(d) of the Mine Act, civil sanctions resulting

from the failure to comply with MSHA health and safety

regulations are determined based on the significance of the

24
violation and the degree of negligence exhibited by the

operator. See 30 U.S.C. § 814(d)(1). Violations found to be

“significant and substantial” or to have resulted from an

operator’s “unwarrantable failure” to comply with MSHA

regulations lead to increased fines and other penalties. Id. §§

814(d); 30 C.F.R. § 100.3(a), (d), (e); Knox Creek Coal, 811

F.3d at 153; Eagle Energy, Inc. v. Sec’y of Labor, 240 F.3d 319,

321-22 (4th Cir. 2001).

Here, the ALJ found that both of the charged violations

resulted from Consol’s unwarrantable failure to comply with

applicable MSHA regulations. 2 In so doing, the ALJ considered a

variety of “aggravating factors” identified by the Commission as

relevant to determining whether an operator demonstrates at

least a “serious lack of reasonable care” in failing to abide by

a particular regulation. J.A. 844.

In general, an “unwarrantable failure” involves “conduct

that is ‘not justifiable’ or is ‘inexcusable,’” Windsor Coal

Co., 166 F.3d at 337 (quoting Sec’y of Labor v. S & H Mining,

Inc., 15 FMSHRC 2387, 2390 (1993))—that is, an operator’s

“aggravating conduct constituting more than ordinary

negligence,” Eagle Energy, 240 F.3d at 321-22. The Commission

has identified a variety of factors to be considered in

2The ALJ also found that each of the charged violations was
significant and substantial, and Consol does not contest that
finding on appeal.
25
determining whether a violation constitutes an unwarrantable

failure to comply. These factors include: “(1) the extent of

the violative condition, (2) the length of time that the

violative condition existed, (3) whether the violation posed a

high degree of danger, (4) whether the violation was obvious,

(5) the operator’s knowledge of the existence of the violation,

(6) the operator’s efforts in abating the violative condition,

and (7) whether the operator had been placed on notice that

greater efforts were necessary for compliance.” Wolf Run Mining

Co., 35 FMSHRC 3512, 3520 (Dec. 2013) (citing authorities);

Black Beauty Coal Co., 703 F.3d at 560.

After reviewing each of these factors in this case, the ALJ

concluded that each violation resulted from an unwarranted

failure to comply with MSHA regulations. As to the fire

equipment violation, the ALJ concluded that the failure to

ensure that all shutoff valves on the main waterline could be

fully closed “stemmed from extensive underlying negligence.”

J.A. 866. In particular, the ALJ noted that Consol had long

failed to maintain the valve in a clean condition and removed

the leverage bars soon after the valve was installed. Moreover,

the ALJ explained that, at the time of the accident, the

inoperable shutoff valve was obviously open, posing significant

danger to surrounding miners. Finally, the ALJ cited

Addington’s failure to recognize and properly address this

26
danger—negligence, which the ALJ properly imputed to Consul, see

supra Part II.C, as further evidence of Consol’s negligent

failure to replace the damaged shutoff valve before attempting

to repair the severed fire valve. Thus, although MSHA had never

previously cited Consol’s failure to provide leverage bars, the

ALJ concluded that this lack of notice was “outweighed by the

very significant aggravating factors” counseling in favor of an

enhanced penalty. Id.

Likewise, with respect to the Mining Equipment Rule

violation, the ALJ explained that, though relatively brief in

duration and small in scale, the damage to the fire valve was

obvious and presented significant danger to numerous miners.

Given that passing machinery frequently struck protruding valves

(including at least one prior incident involving a similar, if

less severe, injury) and that Addington was aware that this

particular valve was damaged but failed to more closely

supervise Green and Saunders, the ALJ found that Consol

displayed an aggravated lack of due care in failing to remove

the damaged valve from service.

Consol contests these findings on two bases. First, Consol

argues that the ALJ’s finding that the fire valve’s

inoperability was obvious is not supported by the record.

Specifically, Consol notes that the miners were initially able

to reattach the valve with a pipe wrench and that MSHA’s expert

27
testified that the damage to the valves was apparent only upon

closer investigation. Consol further suggests that signs that

the shutoff valve was not fully closed at the time of the

accident would not have been apparent in the mine setting.

Again, however, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s

conclusions, and thus we may not set them aside on appeal.

Windsor Coal Co., 166 F.3d at 337. As to the fire valve, the

ALJ relied on testimony from Green that he had to forcibly

reattach the damaged valve, as well as testimony from the MSHA

inspector that anyone familiar with such a valve would

understand that it likely would be damaged under the

circumstances, to find that the damage to the threading would

have been obvious at the time of the accident. Likewise, the

ALJ noted that the valve manufacturer’s manual suggests that

disassembly of the valve may damage the valve and render it

inoperable. The ALJ also relied on the MSHA investigator’s

testimony that the damaged shutoff valve was audibly and visibly

open at the time of the accident, as well as the miners’

testimony that water continued to flow out of the manifold as

they began to reattach the broken fire valve, to conclude that

the shutoff valve was obviously not functioning at the time of

the accident. The MSHA inspector likewise testified that a

second mine foreman confirmed that the valve was “audibly

leaking” soon after the accident. J.A. 86.

28
 Second, relying on its earlier argument that Addington did

not serve as Consol’s agent, Consol suggests that the ALJ

improperly considered Addington’s knowledge and actions in

assessing Consol’s negligence in connection with the accident.

As previously explained, however, the ALJ did not reversibly err

in concluding that Addington qualified as Consol’s agent with

respect to the miners’ response to the damaged fire valve.

Supra Part II.C. Moreover, even absent such imputation, the

ALJ’s unwarranted-failure findings are supported by substantial

evidence. As the ALJ explained, the present accident followed

an extensive history of similar incidents in the mine. For

instance, the mine’s safety supervisor testified that he was

aware of the risk of damaging fire valves while moving

equipment. And other miners agreed that valves were struck

frequently by moving equipment. Similarly, the ALJ reasonably

concluded that the material on the inoperable shutoff valve

would have accumulated over time and would have been readily

apparent upon close inspection. In fact, following the

accident, Consol took steps to ensure that leverage bars are

accessible throughout the mine and rerouted the entire waterline

to move it farther away from the haulage track.

In light of the record evidence showing that Consol was or

should have been aware of the conditions that led to the

accident well before the accident, the ALJ’s conclusion that

29
Consol demonstrated more than ordinary negligence in failing to

address these conditions is supported by substantial evidence.

Windsor Coal Co., 166 F.3d at 337 (upholding unwarrantable-

failure finding where the operator “knew of the problems with

[mine equipment, but] failed to take adequate measures to . . .

prevent” an obvious danger). Consequently, we affirm the ALJ’s

findings that the challenged violations stemmed from Consol’s

unwarrantable failure to comply with applicable MSHA health and

safety regulations.

III.

After carefully considering the record as a whole, we

conclude that the ALJ did not err in finding that Consol had

fair notice that the dangerous conditions that ultimately led to

the avoidable death of a miner constituted an “unwarrantable

failure” to comply with applicable mine safety regulations.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the petition for review

is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

30