## Facts

- A federal mine inspector inspected Princess Elkhorn Coal Company’s Princess No. 2 mine under the Federal Coal Mine Safety Act.
- The inspector measured methane at or above 0.25% and issued an order classifying the mine as “gassy,” triggering additional safety requirements.
- The Act and regulations required methane air samples to be taken at least 12 inches from the coal “face.”
- Evidence before the Federal Coal Mine Safety Board of Review indicated the sample was taken roughly six inches above loose, machine-cut coal cuttings.
- The Director of the U.S. Bureau of Mines denied the operator’s request to void the order, construing “face” narrowly to mean only solid coal, not loose cuttings.
- The Board, after receiving lay and expert testimony and applying its technical experience, concluded the sampling method violated the 12-inch requirement and voided the inspector’s order.
- The Director petitioned for judicial review of the Board’s decision in the Sixth Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether an air sample taken approximately six inches above loose machine-cut coal cuttings satisfied the statutory requirement that sampling occur at least 12 inches from the coal “face.”
2. Whether the reviewing court should uphold the Board’s technical interpretation of “face” and its finding that the sample was procedurally noncompliant.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision annulling the Director’s refusal to void the inspector’s order.
- The court accepted the Board’s determination that the sample was taken within the prohibited 12-inch zone and therefore did not comply with the statutory sampling method.
- The court upheld the Board’s interpretation of “face” to include loose, machine-cut coal in this safety context.
- Because the methane reading was obtained through a nonconforming sampling procedure, the “gassy” classification based on that sample could not stand.

## Legal Principles

- An inspector’s methane-based “gassy” classification under § 203(d) is valid only if the air sample is taken in the manner required by statute and regulation, including the minimum distance from the coal “face.”
- Technical terms in a safety statute may be construed in a functional way consistent with the statute’s safety purpose, rather than by a narrow literal distinction lacking safety significance.
- Courts give substantial weight to a specialized administrative board’s fact-finding and technically grounded statutory interpretation when supported by the record and reasonably explained.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld the Board’s annulment of the methane order because the inspector’s sample was taken too close to coal cuttings, violating the Act’s standardized sampling requirement, and the court deferred to the Board’s reasonable, safety-based reading of “face” and its technical evaluation of the evidence.


Dir., U.S. Bureau of Mines v. Princess Elkhorn Coal Co., 226 F.2d 570 (6th Cir. 1955)