Zeigler Coal Company
Zeigler Coal Company (FMSHRC LAKE 91-636): Power-connection violation affirmed with $275 penalty
What's the rule today?
This ALJ decision was superseded by the Commission's decision in the same case. Ezel starts from the controlling decision and answers your situation under current law, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Zeigler Coal Company operated the Murdock Mine, an underground bituminous coal mine. MSHA cited the company after return air was coursed over nonpermissible power connection points outby the last open crosscut, in violation of 30 C.F.R. § 75.507. Judge George A. Koutras found the violation significant and substantial, found moderate negligence, and assessed a $275 civil penalty. The Commission later affirmed the violation, vacated the S&S finding, and remanded that issue for further analysis.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standard: 30 C.F.R. § 75.507
- Outcome: The violation and S&S finding were affirmed, and a $275 civil penalty was assessed in the ALJ decision. The Commission later vacated the S&S finding and remanded that issue.
- Key point: The judge treated air that had ventilated a working face as return air for purposes of the power-connection standard, even though the operator argued it remained intake air until it passed the last working place.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
CCASE:
MSHA V. ZEIGLER COAL
DDATE:
19920212
TTEXT:
Page 2
~304
SECRETARY OF LABOR, : CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. LAKE 91-636
Petitioner : A.C. No. 11-00586-03654
v. :
: Murdock Mine
ZEIGLER COAL COMPANY, :
Respondent :
DECISION
Appearances: Rafael Alvarez, Esq., U.S. Department of Labor,
Office of the Solicitor, Chicago, Illinois, for
Petitioner;
Gregory S. Keltner, Esq., Zeigler Coal Company,
Fairview Heights, Illinois, for the Respondent.
Before: Judge Koutras
Statement of the Case
This proceeding concerns a proposal for assessment of civil
penalty filed by the petitioner against the respondent pursuant
to section 110(a) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of
1977, 30 U.S.C. 820(a), seeking a civil penalty assessment of
$329, for an alleged violation of mandatory safety standard 30
C.F.R. 75.507. A hearing was held in St. Louis, Missouri, and
the parties waived the filing of posthearing briefs. However, I
have considered their oral arguments made on the record during
the hearing in my adjudication of this matter.
Issues
The issues presented in this proceeding are (1) whether the
conditions or practices cited by the inspector constitute a
violation of the cited mandatory safety standard, (2), whether
the violation was "significant and substantial," and (3) the
appropriate civil penalty to be assessed for the violation,
taking into account the statutory civil penalty criteria found in
section 110(i) of the Act. Additional issues raised by the
parties are identified and disposed of in the course of this
decision.
Page 3
~305
Applicable Statutory and Regulatory Provisions
1. The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977,
30 U.S.C. 801 et seq.
2. Commission Rules, 29 C.F.R. 2700.1, et seq.
3. Mandatory safety standard 30 C.F.R. 75.507.
Stipulations
The parties stipulated to the following (Exhibit ALJ-1):
1. The Commission has jurisdiction in this proceeding.
2. The respondent owns and operates the Murdock Mine, an
underground mine extracting bituminous coal, and the mine
affects interstate commerce.
3. The respondent extracted 14,918,109 tons of coal at all
of its mines ending on February 5, 1991. The Murdock Mine
extracted 994,759 tons of coal from February 5, 1990 to
February 5, 1991.
4. Respondent had 183 violations in the preceding 24 months
ending on May 30, 1991, at the Murdock Mine and Mine No. 11.
5. The payment of the full civil penalty assessment for the
citation in question will not impair the respondent's
ability to continue in business.
6. On May 1, 1991, Mine Engineers Richard Gates and Mark
Eslinger conducted a petition investigation of the Murdock
mine. A chemical smoke cloud was used to trace air from the
No. 1 and No. 2 working places through the check curtain in
the No. 3 entry and outby in the No. 3 entry over golf carts
parked in the entry. The golf carts were located outby the
last open crosscut. This condition was in unit 2 which was
driving 1 main west entries off the 2 north off the 3 main
west off the main south. Mr. Gates issued Citation
No. 3535675 for an alleged violation of 30 C.F.R. 75.507.
Discussion
Section 104(a) S&S" Citation No. 3535675, issued on May 1,
1991, cites an alleged violation of 30 C.F.R. 75.507, and the
cited condition or practice states as follows:
The air current used to ventilate the working places of
unit No. 2, ID 002, was being coursed over non-
permissible power points outby the last open crosscut.
Page 4
~306
A chemical smoke cloud was used to trace the aircurrent from
the No. 1 and No. 2 working places through the check curtain
in the No. 3 entry and outby in the No. 3 entry over golf
carts parked in the entry. The golf carts were located
outby the last open crosscut.
Petitioner's Testimony and Evidence
MSHA Supervisory Engineer, Mark O. Eslinger testified that
he is a ventilation supervisor and his duties include supervising
three ventilation inspectors, and evaluating and approving mine
ventilation plans. He also serves as a member of an MSHA
committee that is revising subpart D of the ventilation
regulations, and he holds a college degree in civil engineering
and is a registered professional engineer in the State of
Indiana. Mr. Eslinger confirmed that he was at the mine on
May 1, 1991, with MSHA engineer Richard Gates conducting an
investigation in connection with a section 101(c) modification
petition concerning the application of section 75.1105, and the
ventilation of transformer stations (Tr. 4-8).
Mr. Eslinger confirmed that Mr. Gates issued the citation,
and that he is his supervisor and was with him at all times.
Mr. Eslinger stated that upon arriving on the No. 2 unit he
observed that the check curtains that were placed across the
neutral entries were "standing out like a sheet in the wind" and
were leaning in an outby direction away from the face, which
indicated that air was coming in and around and under the
curtain. He identified Exhibit R-7 as a sketch of the prevailing
conditions as he observed them, and he confirmed that the air was
blowing in the outby direction away from the face at the "pull-
through curtain" and he marked the location of that curtain on
the sketch (Tr. 8-12).
Mr. Eslinger stated that he traced the movement of the air
with a smoke tube test to verify that it was pulling through the
curtain in question in an outby direction in the direction of the
arrows shown in entry No. 3 as shown on the sketch. He also
found air flowing in, around, and under another curtain in the
entry and it was standing out "like a sheet in the wind on a
clothes line". Two company officials were present when he
performed his tests. He also determined that the air was flowing
from the last open crosscut into the No. 3 entry, and he traced
the air between the No. 2 and No. 3 entry and found that the air
was coming out of the working place of the No. 2 entry into the
last open crosscut (Tr. 13-15). He further explained the smoke
tests which he conducted to confirm where the ventilation air was
coursing through the entries, and he marked these locations on
his sketch (Tr. 15-18).
Mr. Eslinger stated that after conducting the tests he
informed mine superintendent Russ Carpenter that "I have a
Page 5
~307
problem here. You've got a violation of 75.507". Mr. Carpenter
questioned his test results, and Mr. Eslinger then decided to
conduct a tracer gas study to determine the actual course of the
air and to confirm his belief that the air was coming out of the
No. 2 entry working place and was flowing into the neutral
returns (Tr. 19). Mr. Eslinger explained how he and Mr. Gates
conducted the tracer gas test, including the collection of bottle
samples to test the atmosphere. He identified exhibit P-4 as the
laboratory results of this testing, and he confirmed that they
established that there was a violation of section 75.507, because
air had passed the working faces and was being coursed over
nonpermissible power connection points, which he identified as
carts, rectifiers, belt drives, transformers, and starter boxes.
In short, the air was passing over all of this nonpermissible
equipment and power points located in the neutral entries
(Tr. 19-23).
Mr. Eslinger stated that the air coming off the face was
return air which was coursing over and into the mine.
Section 75.507, provides that all power connection points outby
the last open crosscut shall be in intake air. Since the air had
passed two working faces, it would be considered return air for
purposes of section 75.507, and a violation. He explained the
location of the last open crosscut, and marked it on the sketch
(Tr. 24),
Mr. Eslinger stated that after informing Mr. Carpenter of
the violation, Mr. Carpenter opened a door in the No. 3 travel
entry, and this permitted more air to flow in the neutral entries
and it put pressure against the pull-through curtain.
Mr. Eslinger confirmed that he then determined that the air no
longer pulled under and around the curtain. He also determined
with a smoke test that the air no longer coursed down the No. 3
entry. He considered this to be abatement, and Mr. Gates abated
the violation (Tr. 25-26).
Mr. Eslinger stated that the violation was the result of
moderate negligence because the unit was new and mining had just
started at that location and management should have taken care to
see that the air was coursed in the proper direction (Tr. 26).
He believed that the likelihood of an injury was "reasonably
likely" because less than two months earlier there was an
ignition in the same part of the mine, and an investigation of
that incident disclosed that there was in excess of one percent
methane in the working places and in the neutral entries.
However, he found no excessive levels of methane on the section
on the day of his inspection (Tr. 27).
Mr. Eslinger stated that he considered the violation to be
significant and substantial because he believed there was a
possibility of an explosion, and there was a reasonably likely
chance of this happening because of the methane which was found
Page 6
~308
two months earlier in all of the sections driving in a westerly
direction. He also confirmed that he considered the "real
seriousness" of the situation in light of the fact that methane
is produced in the working places and it could drift over the
non-permissible power points in the neutral entries in question.
He confirmed that the pre-shift and on-shift books were checked
on the day of the inspection and there was no indications of any
excessive methane violations (Tr. 29-31).
Mr. Eslinger stated that the No. 6 and No. 7 entries were
return air courses, and that entries No. 2 thru 5 were neutral
entries (Tr. 32-43). He confirmed that a violation of
section 75.507, rather than the ventilation plan, was cited
because the air was coming from the last open crosscut and
flowing over power connection points (Tr. 35). After the door
was opened, the pressure was going in the other direction and the
air was coursed down the last open crosscuts. He confirmed that
with the door closed, the air coursing down and across the non-
permissible power points had already passed working faces and it
was therefore return air at that point coursing down over the
non-permissible equipment (Tr. 36). For purposes of section
75.507, the air that has passed a working face is considered to
be return air (Tr. 37). Mr. Eslinger described the door which
was open and subsequently closed to abate the violation, and he
stated that "I was told that the door was normally left closed"
(Tr. 38).
On cross-examination, Mr. Eslinger confirmed that once the
intake air in the No. 1 entry passes the first working face in
that entry it is considered return air for purposes of
section 75.507, but not for the purposes of separate splits, and
separate intake splits would not be necessary for the other
entries. He explained that one continuous air split can be used
for the one unit in question, which is comprised of seven
entries, but all of the equipment inby the last open crosscut has
to be permissible, and he further explained as follows at
(Tr. 39-41):
Q. Well, permissibility aside for just a moment, if I
understand your testimony correctly then, as soon as we hit
entry No. 1 we've got return air for purposes of 507?
A. Correct.
Q. We don't have return air for purposes of ventilating the
remaining 5, 6 working faces?
A. For the purposes of separate splits you do not have. It
is still intake air, sir.
Q. I thought intake and return had to be separate. They're
not here though, are they?
Page 7
~309
A. Intake and return air courses have to be separated by
stoppings.
Q. Well, it sounds to me like there are two different
definitions of return air then, is that fair to say?
A. No, I think there is one definition of return.
Q. And what is that definition?
A. I think -- well, excuse me for a second. You know,
I look at return air as air that has ventilated the last
working place on any split of any working section, any work
that area, whether pillar or non-pillar.
If air mixes with air that has ventilated the last working
place on any split on -- of any working section or any work
area, whether pillared or non pillared, it is considered
return air.
For the purpose of the existing 75.507, air that has been
used to ventilate any working place in a coal mine producing
section of pillared air or air that has been used to
ventilate any working space, if such air is directed away
from the immediate return is return air.
Q. Where are you coming up with that second definition of
return air?
A. Out of the -- our program policy manual.
And, at (Tr. 45, 51):
Q. Now, for purposes of the citation in 75.507, the air
that went over those golf carts you've told us would be
considered return air?
A. That's correct.
Q. What about for purposes of ventilation?
What would the air be considered?
A. That air is return air, sir.
Q. It's past all the working faces when it got to the
golf carts?
A. No. I'm going off of 507. Really there is no
definition of that air between those -- between those
two check points. That is to me return air because it
came off the last open cross-cut.
Page 8
~310
Q. But you yourself described earlier in your direct
testimony that the air in these neutrals was I believe
neutral intake air.
A. Yes. The air that traveled in outby this first main
west working unit was intake -- neutral intake air.
Q. So what do you call the air that passes over the golf
carts is all I want to know.
A. I call it return air, sir.
Q. And that is for purposes of 75.507?
A. That's correct. We have a problem here. The air is
coming off the last open cross-cut. If the air was flowing
in the other direction, yes, then it would have been intake.
But then the air would have been going to the working places
and you had a violation of 75.326.
Mr. Eslinger confirmed that in the context of ventilation,
and for purposes of separate air splits, the intake air passing
the No. 1 entry from the No. 1A entry remains intake air until it
travels outby and down the No. 6 and No. 7 entries. However, for
purposes of permissibility and section 75.507, the air is
considered return air after it passes over the first working face
(Tr. 57). He explained that this air is gaining methane and coal
dust as it goes across the face and it is important that it not
flow over nonpermissible power points (Tr. 58).
Mr. Eslinger stated that he found no deliberate attempt by
the respondent to course the air down the No. 3 entry, and he
confirmed that the ventilation check curtains and stoppings were
properly located pursuant to the mine ventilation plan (Tr. 42).
Mr. Eslinger confirmed that the problem concerning the
violation was return air leakage from the No. 1 and No. 2 entries
into the No. 3 entry (Tr. 43). He confirmed that the golf carts
referred to in the citation were the first power connection
points that the return air flowed over, and this was the most
serious aspect of the violation because people could drive into a
possible explosive mixture of gas and ignite the methane
(Tr. 45). Methane could have come out of the No. 1 or No. 2
entries and flowed over the golf carts (Tr. 52).
Mr. Eslinger confirmed that tests were made to determine the
volume of air-passing the check curtain and that the tracer gas
essentially showed that air was moving from one location to
another. Conceding that air leakage around check curtains is not
Page 9
~311
unusual, he would, however, not expect to find tracer gas outby
two sets of curtains if the section were properly ventilated
(Tr. 55-56). He also confirmed that he made no tests to
determine the amount of coal dust in suspension, and that the
methane he found was less than one percent and was not in the
explosive range (Tr. 56).
Respondent's Testimony and Evidence
Michael L. Woods, section foreman, stated that at the time
the citation was issued he was serving as the mine manager of
safety and training (Tr. 71). He confirmed that he was with
Mr. Eslinger and Mr. Gates the entire time during their
inspection and he explained what transpired, including the gas
tests. He confirmed that he took an air quantity reading in the
last open crosscut before the citation was issued and found
"29,500 and something". He confirmed that Mr. Eslinger informed
Mr. Carpenter that "we had a problem, that there was return air.
The air that had swept rooms 1 and 2 was going outby over power
connection points which is a violation" (Tr. 74). Mr. Eslinger
then told Mr. Gates "I'll have you write this" (Tr. 74).
Mr. Woods stated that attempts were made to put a solid
curtain across the No. 2 entry and putting up a curtain regulator
across the No. 1 entry. However, this did not correct the
problem and the only way to correct it was to open the door and
this took care of the problem to the inspectors satisfaction
(Tr. 76). Mr. Woods stated that the door was normally kept
closed "to hold the air". The door was on a haulage room, and
after equipment passed in and out, the door would be opened and
then closed (Tr. 77).
Mr. Woods stated that he did not discuss whether he believed
there was a violation with Mr. Eslinger or Mr. Gates, but that
Mr. Carpenter did. Mr Woods did not believe that there was a
violation because he was always taught that intake air does not
become return air until it passes the last working place. He
considered the air passing over the golf carts to still be intake
air (Tr. 78).
On cross-examination, Mr. Woods stated that he saw nothing
wrong in the air passing through working entries No. 1 and No. 2,
and then going over non-permissible points because "It's intake
air. It's not return air yet" (Tr. 80). He believed that this
was an acceptable mining practice and that he would not knowingly
allow return air to pass over power connection points (Tr. 81).
Mr. Woods stated that methane monitors are located on the
continuous mining machines and the monitor will shut down a
machine if excess methane is liberated (Tr. 81-82). The machines
will deenergize before a methane problem develops (Tr. 84).
Page 10
~312
David Stritzel, respondent's director of health and safety,
testified that he has been involved in coal mining for 24 years
and that he designed the mine ventilation system and plan. He
testified that it is common knowledge that "return air" is air
"that has passed the last working place on a section and it exits
the mine toward the mine fan" (Tr. 89). This was the definition
he learned from an "engineering standpoint" while in college and
during his prior employment with MSHA. He stated that although
the air in the No. 3 entry where the golf carts were located is
termed "neutral air", it is nonetheless "all in the same as
intake air" because of its location and proximity to the return
air course and intake air course and the direction that the air
courses in those set of entries" (Tr. 90).
Mr. Stritzel was of the opinion that the section 75.507
application of the definition of return air, if applied in a
general mining context, would cause severe problems throughout
the industry with respect to the location of underground power
distribution, belt lines, leakage, and stoppings. Most of the
problems would center around mines employing a blowing
ventilation system operating off positive pressure. The natural
air flow direction on a positive system forces the air in an
outward direction on neutral entries and it is physically
impossible to maintain absolute control over the ventilation
movement through the mine, and there will be leakages (Tr. 91).
Mr. Stritzel stated that the intent of the law is that it is
to be applied in a practical sense manner so that mine operators
can comply and stay in business. In his opinion, compliance with
section 75.507, as interpreted by MSHA in this case, would
basically put a mine operator who employs the blowing ventilation
system out of business. He stated that the respondent has such a
mine in Illinois (Tr. 91-92).
Mr. Stritzel stated that sections 75.308 and 75.309 refer to
specific mine locations where air quality and methane tests must
be made, and section 75.309 requires methane tests to be made
from the last working place outby where the air returns from the
section out to the point where it enters another return air
split. At that point, the air is considered to be return air
(Tr. 93).
Mr. Stritzel stated that the prior methane ignition referred
to by the inspector was not remotely similar to the existing
conditions at the time the citation in this case was issued and
be explained the differences (Tr. 93-94).
Mr. Stritzel stated that according to the mine ventilation
plan the air traversing across the last open crosscut is
classified as intake air because "its specified in the plan and
it meets the definition outlined in the law" (Tr. 94). He
believed that opening the door or putting up regulators to abate
Page 11
~313
the violation presented problems. He stated that opening the
door was a direct violation of state law and "goes against all of
our training Programs that we've had in existence for years
whereby we've preached to our people to always close the door"
(Tr. 95). He further stated that there have been many instances
where ventilation doors were inadvertently left open and the air
was short circuited throughout the mine, resulting in fatal
methane ignitions and explosions. The erection of intake
regulators or curtains which would result in the elimination of
30% of the ventilation being delivered to the section, poses a
methane control risk at the face area because of lower air
velocities. There was no doubt in his mind, within a reasonable
degree of engineering certainty, that the air coursing over the
golf carts was intake air (Tr. 96).
On cross-examination, Mr. Stritzel acknowledged that he
would be concerned about air that has passed by the first entry
working face passing over nonpermissible power points or
equipment because it could contain methane, and he indicated that
methane tests are made for this reason (Tr. 98). Referring to
the sketch which depicted the section or unit at the time the
citation was issued (exhibit R-7), Mr. Stritzel stated that the
air passing the No. 1 entry working face would not cause him
great concern because the ventilation is sufficient in those
areas and methane which may be liberated is diluted (Tr. 100).
He stated that he would not place nonpermissible equipment in
that area because the law prohibits it, but under proper testing
procedures, he would not be concerned (Tr. 101). However, there
is always the possibility of a methane ignition, and methane may
be liberated at higher concentrations (Tr. 103).
Mr. Stritzel confirmed that some of the air coursing across
the No. 1 and No. 2 working faces was coursing down the No. 3
entry and making the curtains stand out, but that the majority of
the air was still sweeping the other faces (Tr. 106). He
characterized the air coursing down the No. 3 entry as "an
imbalance in the pressure", and he explained that it was near
impossible to have absolute control over all of the air because
of the presence of two splits of air at one location within three
or four crosscuts of the face and the air is going in many
different directions and is regulated by pressure. He did not
disagree with the inspector's finding with respect to the
direction of the air as confirmed by his smoke tests, and he did
not dispute the fact that the air was passing over the
nonpermissible golf carts (Tr. 108).
Mr. Stritzel stated his position as follows at (Tr. 108-
110):
THE WITNESS: I didn't feel there was a violation of
of law or a problem to start with, that there was a need for
Page 12
~314
anything. The imbalance would be corrected as we further
developed those entries and got them away from that split.
JUDGE: Is the reason that you though that there was
not any problem or not any ventilation because of your
definition of intake air?
THE WITNESS: No, sir. It was because of what the
definition is explained in the law of return air as well as
what we outlined in our ventilation plan where we identify
on the sketches the location for the 9,000 CFM air reading
on the unit on each unit.
And that area under 301 of the law specifies that air
is to be taken in the line of pillars that separates the
intake from the return. At that point it doesn't become
return air until it passes that point.
* * * * * * *
JUDGE: In other words, does your ventilation plan
allow for air that has passed over two working faces to
course down a neutral entry and over nonpermissible
equipment? Is that allowable under your ventilation plan?
THE WITNESS: I don't think it's spelled out anywhere
even in the law.
Mr. Stritzel further believed that the air coursing over the
golf carts was still intake air, and not return air, and that
under these circumstances, there was no violation of
section 75.507 (Tr. 111-112).
Petitioner's Arguments
Petitioner asserted that the facts in this case are not in
dispute and that the crucial issue is the question of what
constitutes intake air and what constitutes return air.
Petitioner argued that pursuant to the mine ventilation plan,
when mining is taking place in the seven entries, the air
sweeping through entries No. 1 through No. 7 is recognized by
MSHA as intake air so that the respondent does not have to
establish air splits at the different intake entries.
Petitioner asserted that it is recognized that when air
passes through a working face it becomes contaminated. If this
contaminated air seeps down to the neutral areas where non-
permissible equipment is located, miners would be exposed to a
methane ignition hazard because contaminated air sweeping the
face and then passing over nonpermissible equipment can cause an
explosion. Petitioner concludes that regardless of whether the
Page 13
~315
air is characterized as "intake, neutral, A,B,C,D, whatever word
you want to give that air", for purposes of section 75.507, the
contaminated air is no longer intake air. It is return air
(Tr. 118-120).
Respondent's Arguments
Respondent disagreed with the petitioner "calling the air
what we like". Respondent argued that pursuant to
section 75.507, there must be a standard by which an operator can
determine whether not it is in compliance with the law.
Respondent asserted that one cannot say that "it doesn't
matter if this is intake or return air. It's just possibly got
methane in it and that potentially leads to an explosion"
(Tr. 121). Respondent agreed that the issue here is "what is
return air", and it pointed out that Judge Weisberger considered
the definition of "return air" in Secretary of Labor v. Shamrock
Coal Company, 10 FMSHRC 2098, 2105, and relied on the definition
found in the Dictionary of Mining, Minerals, and Related Terms.
Respondent asserted that the dictionary definition of return
air "is air which has circulated the workings and is flowing
towards the main mine fan". Respondent stated that "that's not
what we have here", and it took the position that in this case
the air has not circulated the workings, and at most, it had only
passed by two or three working places. (Tr. 121-122).
Respondent concluded that MSHA's reliance on the definition
of return air in its policy manual is not necessarily enforceable
and places the respondent at a great disadvantage "because it
essentially allows MSHA to fliplop its interpretation of terms".
Respondent concluded further that with respect to the air going
by two or three working places "all of a sudden its return air
when its' clear that when this particular issue has come up
before the definition that Mr. Stritzel talked about, the common
sense description definition, is the one that has been fallen
back on " (Tr. 121-122).
Findings and Conclusions
The respondent is charged with a violation of mandatory
safety standard 30 C.F.R. 75.507, which provides as follows:
"Except where permissible power connection units are used, all
power-connection points outby the last open crosscut shall be in
intake air". The inspector issued the citation after finding
that the air current used to ventilate the working places was
being coursed over non-permissible power points (golf carts)
outby the last open crosscut. The citation reflects that a smoke
cloud test was conducted to trace the air current from the No.1
and No. 2 working places through a check curtain in the No. 3
entry and outby over the golf carts parked in that entry.
Page 14
~316
The record reflects that in the course of an inspection on
May 1, 1991, in connection with a section 101(c) modification
petition, MSHA mining engineers and authorized representatives of
the Secretary Mark Eslinger and Richard Gates observed the
conditions which resulted in the citation issued by Mr. Gates.
Although Mr. Gates did not testify in this case, Mr. Eslinger,
who is Mr. Gates' supervisor, and who was with him when the
citation was issued, testified credibly as to the conditions
which they jointly observed, and Mr. Eslinger concurred that the
cited conditions constituted a violation of section 75.507.
Although the narrative description of the alleged violative
conditions is not a model of clarity, it seems clear to me that
the parties are in agreement as to the critical issues presented
in this case, including their respective positions concerning the
alleged violation.
The record establishes that the area where the alleged
violation occurred consisted of seven entries as shown on a map
and sketch (Exhibit R-7), referred to by the witnesses. The No.
1 and 1A entries were intake entries, entries No. 2 through No. 5
were neutral entries, and the No. 6 and No. 7 entries were return
air courses. The petitioner takes the position that the intake
air which passed through the No. 1 and No. 2 working places and
faces, and then coursed its way outby the last open crosscut and
down the No. 3 neutral entry through some check curtains and over
nonpermissible power connection points (golf carts and other
electrical equipment described by Mr. Eslinger) was return air
for purposes of section 75.507. Since that regulatory section
requires that all power connection points be located in intake
air, the petitioner concludes that a violation occurred when the
return air passed over the nonpermissible equipment, and that the
citation should be affirmed.
The respondent takes the position that the air passing over
the nonpermissible power connection points outby the last open
crosscut in the No. 3 neutral entry was intake air when it passed
through the No. 1 and No. 2 working places and remained intake
air as it was coursed through the No. 3 entry and through the
check curtains in question. Respondent characterized the air as
"leakage" which often occurs in a mine because of pressure
changes, and it insists that the intake air did not become return
air until it passed by and through all of the remaining working
places and reached the return entries. Under these circum-
stances, the respondent concludes that a violation did not occur
and that the citation should be vacated.
The parties are in agreement that the critical issue in this
case lies in the definition of "return air". In this regard, the
Dictionary of Mining, Mineral, and Related Terms, U.S. Department
Page 15
~317
of the Interior, 1968 Edition, provides the following relevant
definitions:
Intake. The passage by which the ventilation current enter
a mine. * * * Any roadway underground through
which fresh air is conducted to the working face.
* * * Ventilating passage through which fresh air
is conducted . . . . to the workings.
Return. Any airway in which vapid air flows from the
workings to the upcast shaft or fan. * * * Any
airway which carries the ventilating air outby and
out of the mine.
Return air. Air traveling in a return. * * * Air which has
circulated the workings and is flowing towards
the main mine fan; vitiated or foul air.
Return aircourse. Portion of ventilation system of mine
through which contaminated air is withdrawn and
evacuated to surface.
MSHA's July 1, 1988, Program Policy Manual, Volume V,
Part 75, page 55, provides the following definition of the term
"return air" as used in section 75.507, as well as other guidance
for the application of this section:
"Return air" . . . . means air that has been used to
ventilate any working face in a coal-producing section
or pillard area, or air that has been used to ventilate
any working face if such air is directed away from the
immediate return. (Emphasis added).
In Shamrock Coal Company, Inc., 12 FMSHRC 2098 (October
1990), Judge Weisberger affirmed a citation which was issued to
the mine operator for a violation of 30 C.F.R. 75.507-1, for
locating a nonpermissible power center in a return entry
ventilated by return air. In affirming the citation, the judge
held that the dictionary definition of "return air" (Air which
has circulated the workings and is flowing towards the main mine
fan) was consistent with the inspector's credible and unrebutted
observation, that the power center was located in an entry
through which return air from the working section was being
coursed in violation of the cited standard.
In Eastover Mining Company, 4 FMSHRC 123 (February 1982),
the Commission affirmed a violation of 30 C.F.R. 75.507,
because the mine operator placed a nonpermissible pump control
box in a return airway. Although the box was not energized, the
Commission nonetheless affirmed the violation and pointed out
that the record did not show that the equipment could not or
Page 16
~318
would not have been energized in return air. In this regard, the
Commission stated as follows at 4 FMSHRC 123-124:
The purpose of this regulation is to prevent methane
gas explosions. In the presence of methane gas, a
source of ignition, such as arriving from power
connections, can course an explosion.
In Pyro Mining Company, 7 FMSHRC 517, (April 1985),
Judge Fauver affirmed two violations of 30 C.F.R. 75.507, after
finding that the mine operator allowed return air that had been
used to ventilate the active mine workings to mix with neutral
air flowing through two track entries where nonpermissible
electrical equipment (conveyor belt drive motors, battery
charger, water pumps) were located. In one instance, return air
was mixing with neutral air in part because stoppings had been
removed and were not replaced, and in the second case, return air
was being dumped into neutral air at a damaged overcast.
In Southern Ohio Coal Company, 1 FMSHRC 1642, 1663 (October
1979), I affirmed a violation of section 75.507, after finding
that a nonpermissible battery charging unit was located in a
return air course. I rejected the operator's contention that the
unit was located in intake air. The unit was located in an area
where a curtain had been installed as a temporary stopping in
order to separate the intake from the return. The inspector
testified that the crux of the violation was the fact that the
air sweeping over the battery charging unit was return air, and
that it prevented or reduced intake airflow over the charger.
The inspector concluded that ventilating the nonpermissible
charger in return air posed an explosion hazard. I concluded
that the positioning of the curtain determined whether the unit
was located in intake or return air.
Mr. Eslinger's hearing testimony regarding the essence of
the violation in this case is consistent with his pretrial
deposition testimony of October 31, 1991 (Exhibit R-4). At
deposition Mr. Eslinger testified that the path of the intake air
which had traveled up the intake entries and past the No. 1 and
No. 2 working places was such that it flowed over nonpermissible
power connection points. He stated that a violation of section
75.507 occurred when he determined by a smoke test that the air
which had passed through the two working places in question was
going down and through a check curtain in the No. 3 neutral entry
and over the nonpermissible electrical equipment (Dep. Tr. 4, 9-
11). He took no tests to determine the air volume passing
through the curtain because "The violation exists when the air
goes from the working place into the neutral entry"
(Dep. Tr. 25).
At the hearing, Mr. Eslinger testified that for purposes of
section 75.507, and in connection with the definition and
Page 17
~319
application of the term "intake air", once the intake air in the
No. 1 entry passed the first working face in that entry, it is
considered return air and remained return air as it passed by the
No. 2 place and down the No. 3 entry through the curtain and over
the nonpermissible equipment. Mr. Eslinger relied on MSHA's
section 75.507 policy definition of "return air" which defines
such air as "air that has been used to ventilate any working face
in a coal producing section". In support of the policy
definition, petitioner's counsel relied on the fact that intake
clean air which has passed by one or more working faces where
coal is being mined has become contaminated air which can longer
be considered clean intake air. Counsel characterized this air
as return air, and he maintained that this contaminated air poses
a potential explosion hazard when it passes over nonpermissible
electrical power connection points.
Mr. Eslinger testified at hearing that the definition of
return air in connection with the application of the requirements
of section 75.507 (air which has passed any working face), does
not apply in the context of ventilation on separate air splits.
In this context, he stated that return air is air which has
ventilated the last working place on any split (Tr. 39-41; 57-
58). This testimony is consistent with Mr. Eslinger's deposition
testimony where he offered several definitions of "return air",
in other contexts, as follows at (Tr. 12-13):
Q52. Okay. What -- tell me if you will what constitutes
return air?
A. Return air for the purposes of 507 is air that has
ventilated a working place.
Q53. You said for purposes of 507 it's air that's
ventilated a working place. Does return air have a
different meaning in another context?
A. There is another context that talks about air that goes
all the way across the faces or the places as -- as not
being return air until it passes -- passes the last working
place. And that's for the purposes of ventilating where
you're mining coal.
Q54. So there's two different definitions of return air?
A. Well, I could see the policy under 507, the definition
there.
Q55. Right.
A. I believe there's another accepted definition. I --
you, know, I don't find it written.
Page 18
~320
Q56. Was -- where is that definition coming from?
A. That's just a general use definition. I mean, that's
what we've been taught, that it's not return air until it
passes the last working place on a section.
The other definition of -- of return air provides from
the fact that you have to use intake air to ventilate
your faces, which means that you cannot take return air
from other -- some other unit.
So it's just a -- the definition that's used to say
that when you're mining, let's say in -- on -- I don't
know what you're calling this, Sketch No. 8 page 17.
When you're mining coal in face number nine, you don't
have a different split from mining face number nine
versus face number eight and face number seven. That's
so you can use one continuous split of air across all
the faces.
Q58. Okay. And that's -- that's another definition -- I
mean, that's separate from the definition of return air that
you're using for Section 507?
A. That's correct.
Referring to Sketch No. 8, page 17, of the mine ventilation
plan (exhibit R-1), which depicts a nine entry section,
Mr. Eslinger explained that in the context of an idle section and
without regard to section 75.507, the air traveling up the No. 1
intake entry and then sweeping across all of the nine working
faces is considered intake air for the purpose of ventilating a
unit with a separate intake air split, and it does not become
return air until it passes the last working place at the No. 9
return. If active mining were taking place, the intake air would
still be considered intake air until it sweeps past the last
No. 9 working place, and it may be used to ventilate any mining
machine cutting at the face (Depo. Tr. 14-17). However, for
purposes of section 75.507, the intake air which has ventilated
the No. 1 working place is considered return air, and he
explained in relevant part as follows at (Depo. Tr. 17-20):
Q84. Tell me when this intake air becomes return air that's
coming down entry one.
A. When it reaches number one working place because that
air is used to ventilate number one working face. So that
air that has entered into this working place here passes a
face and becomes return air for the purposes of 507. Any
Page 19
~321
equipment that is inby this rib line right here has to be
permissible equipment.
Q88. All right. So we can have a situation then where if
we're mining coal in one of these nine entries, we don't
have return air for purposes of ventilating the working
place, but we do have return air for purposes of 75.507 and
permissibility?
A. Correct.
Q89. (By Mr. Keltner) Okay. What are the -- will you tell
me what -- and I guess pick your definition and tell me
which one you're talking about -- what are the
characteristics of return air? What do you find in return
air? What do you expect to find in return air?
* * * * * * *
A. Well, first of all, different rules apply to return air.
Return air is carrying away from a working section the
gases, such as methane, dust, respirable dust, float dust.
Carrying those dusts away from where the mining is taking
place.
Q92. Well, for purposes of 75.507, what -- what makes it
return air? I mean, is it --
A. Well, it makes it return air when it's ventilated one
working face.
Q93. Okay. And -- and if you were to do an analysis of
that air, I mean, what -- what kinds of things could you
expect to find in it? And I'm speaking in terms of
generalities.
A. Well, return air can carry methane --
Q94. (By Mr. Keltner) Okay.
A. -- and respirable and float dust.
Q95. Do you think anything else that you can -- that you
find in return air?
A. Just air from the --
Q96. Oxygen you mean?
A. Well, you have your, you know, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon
dioxide, may be carbon monoxide, a few PPM carbon monoxide
in coal mines.
Page 20
~322
Q97. Any other harm -- harmful or explosive gases that you
might find in it?
A. Ethane. Ethane is found. Usually other than methane
and ethane, we don't find them. That doesn't mean you can't
find them, but generally all you ever see is methane and
ethane.
In Jim Walter Resources, Inc., 11 FMSHRC 21 (January 1989),
the critical issue presented was the definition of the term "last
open crosscut". In the absence of any statutory or regulatory
definition of that term, the Commission applied one of the
definitions of "crosscut" found in the Mining Dictionary to the
mining configuration which existed at the time the violation was
issued. In the instant case, the terms "return air" and "intake
air" are not defined in the mine Act or in MSHA's part 75
regulations. They are also not defined in the applicable
ventilation plan.
Section foreman Woods testified that he "was always taught"
that intake air does not become return air until it passed the
last working place. He relied on this interpretation of "intake"
and "return" air in forming his opinion that the intake air which
had initially swept by the No. 1 and No. 2 entries and then
passed outby down the No. 3 neutral air entry and over the
nonpermissible golf carts and other electrical equipment was
still intake air and remained intake air until it passed the last
working places at the No. 6 and No. 7 return entries. Mr. Woods
saw nothing wrong with using the air which had passed by the
No. 1 and No. 2 working places to ventilate the no. 3 working
places where the nonpermissible electrical equipment was located,
and he believed that this was an acceptable mining practice.
Safety director Stritzel testified that it was "common
knowledge" that "return air" is defined as "air that has passed
the last working place on a section and it exits the mine toward
the mine fan", and that he learned this "engineering standpoint"
definition while in college and during his prior employment with
MSHA. Thus, Mr. Stritzel agreed with Mr. Woods that intake air
does not become return air until it has passed by the last
working place. However, unlike Mr. Woods, Mr. Stritzel
acknowledged his concern that air which has passed by the No. 1
entry face and then found its way outby over nonpermissible power
points might contain methane, and he indicated that he would not
locate nonpermissible equipment in that area because "the law
prohibits it". Further, Mr. Stritzel did not disagree with the
inspector's smoke tests, which confirmed the direction of air
travel after it swept the two working faces in question, nor did
he dispute the fact that the air was indeed passing over the
nonpermissible golf carts.
Page 21
~323
Mr. Eslinger acknowledged that he too "was taught" that
intake air does not become return air until it passed the last
working place on a section. Although he characterized this
definition as an acceptable "general use definition", he
indicated that pursuant to MSHA's policy definition, and insofar
as section 75.507, is concerned, "return air" is considered air
which has ventilated a working place or one working face. In
short, Mr. Eslinger relied on the 1988 policy definition of
return air (air which has been used to ventilate any working
face) to support the violation.
I take official notice of the fact that MSHA's Underground
Inspection Manual, March 9, 1978, states in relevant part that
"For the purpose of Sections 75.507 and 75.507-1, return air
means air that has been used to ventilate the last working face
in a coal producing section or pillared area, . . ." (emphasis
added). Every prior underground coal manual from December 1971
through June 1974, also define "return air" for purposes of
section 75.507, as air that has been used to ventilate the last
working face in a coal producing section. Thus, it would appear
that MSHA's longstanding inspector's manual definition of "return
air", prior to the current 1988 policy manual definition, was
identical to the "general use" and "common knowledge" definition
which all of the witnesses were "taught" during their mining
careers, but contrary to the current policy definition. However,
the parties offered no background information or explanation for
the initial policy definition of the term "return air" or for the
change of definition which apparently became effective when the
July 1, 1988, manual was published.
In Old Ben Coal Company, 2 FMSHRC 2806, 2809 (October 1980),
and King Knob Coal Company, Inc., 3 FMSHRC 1417, 1420 (June
1981), the Commission held that instructions and directives found
in MSHA's inspectors' manuals are not officially promulgated and
do not prescribe rules of law binding on an agency. In King
Knob, the Commission noted that the Manual "is a relatively
informal compilation not published in the Federal Register, and
those factors weigh against deference", 3 FMSHRC 420 fn.3.
However, the Commission also stated that in appropriate
situations "Cases may arise where the manual . . . . reflects a
genuine interpretation or general statement of policy whose
soundness commends deference and therefore results in our
according it legal effect", 3 FMSHRC 1420. Likewise in Coal
Employment Project v. Dole, 889 F.2d 1127, 1130 n.5 (D.C. Cir.
1989), the Court stated that while MSHA's policy manual may not
be binding on the agency "we consider the MSHA Manual to be an
accurate guide to current MSHA policies and practices".
In support of its defense in this case, the respondent
relies on the Mining Dictionary definition of "return air" (air
which has circulated the workings and is flowing towards the main
mine fan) applied by Judge Weisberger in Shamrock Coal Company,
Page 22
~324
supra. During closing arguments at the hearing, respondent's
counsel pointed out that the application of the definition of
return air in Shamrock Coal, is consistent with the common sense
definition advanced by Mr. Stritzel, and that it should be
followed and applied in the instant case.
The Mining Dictionary definition relied on by Judge
Weisberger in Shamrock Coal is but one of several relevant
definitions of "intake" and "return". The term "intake" is
defined as "Any roadway underground through which fresh air is
conducted to the working face". The term "return" is defined in
part as any airway in which vapid air flows from the workings,
outby and out of the mine. "Return air" is also defined as
vitiated or foul air, and "return aircourse" is defined as a
portion of the ventilation system through which contaminated air
is withdrawn. The common thread in all of these definitions is
the fact that ventilation air which has circulated or passed by
active working places is not fresh air, but air which is fouled
or contaminated. In short, intake air is "clean and
uncontaminated", while return air is "dirty and contaminated".
The respondent does not dispute the fact that the air which
had passed the No. 1 and No. 2 working places and faces was
passing over nonpermissible electrical equipment. Further, the
respondent has not rebutted Mr. Eslinger's credible testimony
that air which has passed any working face is carrying away
contaminants such as methane, coal dust, and other mine gasses,
and that such air poses a potential explosion hazard if it were
to sweep over nonpermissible electrical power-connection points
and equipment. Indeed, respondent's safety director Stritzel
agreed that methane ignitions are always possible and that he
would be concerned about air which has passed one working face
passing over nonpermissible power points.
On the facts of this case, and taking into account all of
the aforementioned circumstances, the respondent's assertion that
the intake air which had swept only one or two working places and
faces, remained intake air at all times and under all
circumstances until it had swept all of the working places and
faces and exited out of the returns IS REJECTED. The intent and
purpose of section 75.507, is to insure that nonpermissible
electrical power connection points, which are potential sources
of ignition, are located only in areas which are ventilated by
uncontaminated and clean intake air. Although I recognize the
fact that methane tests, proper ventilation, and other
precautionary measures may be taken to insure against potential
explosions or fires, the acceptance of the respondent's
interpretation of "return air" would permit the use of
contaminated air to ventilate nonpermissible electrical equipment
which is a recognized potential source of ignition, particularly
where unexpected levels of methane may be released at any time
during mining. Under the circumstances, I conclude and find that
Page 23
~325
MSHA's policy definition and application of the term "return
air", for purposes of section 75.507, is reasonably sound and not
inconsistent with the aforementioned dictionary definitions. I
further conclude and find that the inspector's reliance on MSHA's
policy definition was reasonable and proper, and that the
petitioner has established a violation of section 75.507, by a
preponderance of all of the credible evidence adduced in this
case. The contested citation is therefore AFFIRMED.
Significant and Substantial Violation
A "significant and substantial" violation is described in
section 104(d)(1) of the Mine Act as a violation "of such nature
as could significantly and substantially contribute to the cause
and effect of a coal or other mine safety or health hazard."
30 C.F.R. 814(d)(1). A violation is properly designated
significant and substantial "if, based upon the particular facts
surrounding the violation there exists a reasonable likelihood
that the hazard contributed to will result in an injury or
illness of a reasonably serious nature." Cement Division,
National Gypsum Co., 3 FMSHRC 822, 825 (April 1981).
In Mathies Coal Co., 6 FMSHRC 1, 3-4 (January 1984), the
Commission explained its interpretation of the term "significant
and substantial" as follows:
In order to establish that a violation of a mandatory
safety standard is significant and substantial under
National Gypsum the Secretary of Labor must prove: (1)
the underlying violation of a mandatory safety
standard; (2) a discrete safety hazard--that is, a
measure of danger to safety-contributed to by the
violation; (3) a reasonable likelihood that the hazard
contributed to by the violation; (3) a reasonable
likelihood that the hazard contributed to will result
in an injury; and (4) a reasonable likelihood that the
injury in question will be of a reasonably serious
nature.
In United States Steel Mining Company, Inc., 7 FMSHRC 1125,
1129 (August 1985), the Commission stated further as follows:
We have explained further that the third element of the
Mathies formula "requires that the Secretary establish
a reasonable likelihood that the hazard contributed to
will result in an event in which there is an injury."
U.S. Steel Mining Co., 6 FMSHRC 1834, 1836 (August
1984). We have emphasized that, in accordance with the
language of section 104(d)(1), it is the contribution
of a violation to the cause and effect of a hazard that
must be significant and substantial. U.S. Steel Mining
Page 24
~326
Company, Inc., 6 FMSHRC 1866, 1868 (August 1984); U.S.
Steel Mining Company, Inc., 6 FMSHRC 1573, 1574-75
(July 1984).
In United States Steel Mining Company, Inc., 7 FMSHRC 327,
(March 1985), the Commission reaffirmed its previous holding in
U.S. Steel Mining Co., 6 FMSHRC 1834, 1836 (August 1984) that it
is the contribution of a violation to the cause and effect of a
hazard that must be significant and substantial, and that a
determination of the significant and substantial nature of a
violation must be made in the context of continued normal mining
operations, including the question of whether if left
uncorrected, the cited condition would reasonably likely result
in an accident of injury.
Mr. Eslinger confirmed that he found no excessive levels of
methane on the section on the day of his inspection, and that his
review of the pre-shift and on-shift books did not reflect any
excessive methane violations. Mr. Woods confirmed that methane
monitors located on the mining machines would shut down a machine
in the event excess methane were liberated, and Mr. Stritzel
believed that the ventilation was sufficient.
Mr. Eslinger's opinion that the violation was significant
and substantial was based in part on the fact that two months
prior to his inspection an ignition occurred in the same mine
area and an investigation disclosed in excess of one percent
methane in the working places and neutral entries. He believed
that it was reasonably likely that this would occur again and
that a possibility of an explosion existed. Mr. Stritzel
disagreed and he pointed out that the conditions which prevailed
with respect to this past event were different from the ones
present at the time of Mr. Eslinger's inspection.
Mr. Eslinger also based his significant and substantial
opinion on the fact that methane is produced in the working
places, and he was concerned that it could drift outby over the
nonpermissible electrical golf carts and power points. He also
stated that the golf carts are usually pulled in and parked
before any methane tests are made with the push-button methane
detectors, and he was concerned about gas coming from the working
places, belt drives, and transformers (Tr. 30-31). He stated
that "some of the more serious aspects of it (sic) because people
could drive into a possible explosive mixture of gas and ignite
the methane" (Tr. 45). He also indicated that the air is gaining
methane and coal dust as it sweeps across the face, and it is
important that it not flow over nonpermissible power points
(Tr. 58).
As noted earlier, Mr. Stritzel did not dispute the fact that
the air which the inspector believed was return air was passing
Page 25
~327
over nonpermissible power points, and Mr. Stritzel conceded that
there is always the possibility of a methane ignition, and that
methane may be liberated at higher concentrations. Under the
circumstances, and in the context of continued normal mining
operations, I conclude and find that a measure of danger to
safety was contributed to by the violation, and that it was
reasonably likely that an ignition resulting from the presence of
nonpermissible electrical power connection points in contaminated
return air would result in injuries of a reasonably serious
nature. Accordingly, the Significant and Substantial (S&S)
finding IS AFFIRMED.
Size of Business and Effect of Civil Penalty Assessments on the
Respondent's Ability to Continue in Business
I conclude and find that the respondent is a large mine
operator. I adopt as my finding the stipulation by the parties
that the payment of the full civil penalty assessment for the
violation in question will not adversely affect the respondent's
ability to continue in business.
History of Prior Violations
Taking into account the fact that the respondent is a large
mine operator, and in the absence of any further evidence to the
contrary, I cannot conclude that the respondent's compliance
record is such as to warrant any additional increases in the
civil penalty which I have assessed for the violation which has
been affirmed.
Gravity
I conclude and find that the violation was serious.
Negligence
Mr. Eslinger testified that he found no deliberate attempt
by the respondent to course the air down the No. 3 entry, and he
confirmed that the violation was the result of air ventilation
leakage. The citation reflects a finding of "moderate
negligence", which I find is appropriate, and it is affirmed.
Good Faith Compliance
The record reflects that the cited condition was immediately
corrected and the citation was terminated within an hour of its
issuance. Under the circumstances, I conclude and find that the
respondent exercised rapid good faith compliance in correcting
the cited condition.
Page 26
~328
Civil Penalty Assessment
On the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions, I
conclude and find that a civil penalty assessment of $275 is
reasonable and appropriate for the violation which has been
affirmed.
ORDER
The respondent IS ORDERED to pay a civil penalty assessment
in the amount of $275, for Section 104(a) "S&S" Citation
No. 35335675, May 1, 1991, 30 C.F.R. 75.507. Payment shall be
made to the petitioner (MSHA) within thirty (30) days of the date
of this decision and order, and upon receipt of payment, this
matter is dismissed.
George A. Koutras
Administrative Law Judge
Distribution:
Rafael Alvarez, Esq. Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of
Labor, 230 S. Dearborn St., 8th Floor, Chicago, IL 60604
(Certified Mail)
Gregory S. Keltner, Esq., Zeigler Coal Company, 50 Jerome Lane,
Fairview Heights, IL 62208 (Certified Mail)
/ml
Find out what applies today
This decision wasn't the final word: the Commission reviewed the case, and its decision is the one that controls. Ezel starts from the controlling decision and answers your specific situation under current law, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.