Within days of the disastrous explosion that killed 29 men at its Upper Big Branch Mine, Massey Energy began issuing news releases declaring its grief, demanding a wide-open public inquiry and blaming the federal agency assigned to ensure underground safety.

Earlier this week, Massey also took a bold step. The company on Tuesday filed suit against the Mine Safety and Health Administration, challenging its authority to overrule crucial mine ventilation plans and impose its own. Such plans determine how a steady flow of air will be assured in the mine's working areas, delivering fresh air to miners and carrying out accumulations of dust and explosive methane.

The aggressive public stand, in the pressroom and the courtroom, points to a company long accustomed to steering discussion its way through careful practice. News releases, often quoting company chairman Don Blankenship, ordinarily don't include a phone number or contact for reporters seeking more information. As Upper Big Branch unfolded, a receptionist at company headquarters in Virginia said she wasn't authorized to identify the company's spokesman.

In its lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, Massey now hopes to establish that MSHA's mine ventilation policies go beyond the agency's legislative mandate.

"It matches the blame-shifting pattern that I'm intimately familiar with in other litigation that I've been involved with with Massey," said David B. Fawcett, a Pittsburgh attorney who has gone head-to-head with the coal giant on two occasions.

Spokesmen for Massey, including one at a Washington public relations firm hired to handle inquiries, either did not return calls or said they were not authorized to speak for the record.

At MSHA, officials contend that the agency's role with ventilation consists of reviewing plans submitted by the company to ensure that they effectively protect miners, and to offer technical assistance when it is requested. Officials at MSHA's Arlington office say Massey had a series of documented ventilation problems at Upper Big Branch, which forced them to submit a large number of changes to MSHA.

"Massey is well aware that MSHA doesn't 'draft ventilation plans,' and it's curious that the company is only raising these objections after the explosion, and as they face civil and criminal investigations over their safety practices," said one MSHA official familiar with the matter.

The firm's head-on approach with MSHA and others finds some supporters within an industry that often feels itself under attack.

"I like their straightforward approach, there's no doubt about it," said Michael Carey, president of the Ohio Coal Association. "They're saying, 'Look, this is what we believe and we're going to take that straight at you.' And I think in an era when everybody's trying to be politically correct all the time it's refreshing."

Bruce Stanley, a Pittsburgh attorney who has represented families of miners killed at another Massey facility, likened Massey's approach to a technique used by photographers capturing a portrait of a child.

"It's a classic 'watch the birdie' campaign. The whole notion is they're trying to get people to focus on something other than what needs to be focused on," he said.

The lawsuit challenging MSHA's right to dictate a ventilation plan was filed on behalf of six Massey subsidiaries -- Elk Run Coal, Independence Coal, Mammoth Coal, Spartan Mining, and White Buck Coal, all in West Virginia, and Martin County Coal, in Inez, Ky.

It makes no mention of Upper Big Branch. Massey general counsel M. Shane Harvey did not return calls from the Post-Gazette seeking comment.

"They pretty clearly have had a PR campaign launched since the time of the disaster and I would say this is just part of that campaign," said Tony Oppegard, a Kentucky lawyer and former MSHA official.

Part of Massey's argument regarding the April 5 disaster has centered on company complaints that MSHA officials forbade them to use so-called "scrubbers," devices that collect coal dust on continuous mining machines. They complained, too, that MSHA insisted on a ventilation plan that they said was less effective than the one proposed by Massey engineers.

MSHA spokeswoman Amy Louviere said the agency was not prepared to comment at length on the suit. "While we find the timing and substance of some of the arguments curious, we generally do not comment on pending or ongoing litigation," she said.

As to Massey's complaint about being refused the use of scrubbers at Upper Big Branch, she said no blanket policy exists, "as evidenced by the fact that 50 percent of Massey mining units are permitted to operate their dust scrubbers on continuous mining machines."

She said the ventilation plans at some operations utilizing the scrubbers "did not comply with basic dust control and other regulatory requirements. MSHA continues to monitor their compliance performance."

Massey's lawsuit suggests that MSHA's standards on ventilation plan approval contradicts the need for each plan to be tailored to the unique configuration and conditions of each coal mine.

Massey's suit does not impress some others with oversight of coal safety.

"They seem to be more concerned with public relations than miner safety," said Aaron Albright, spokesman for Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the chairman of the U.S. House Education and Labor Committee.

Mr. Miller plans to introduce new mine safety legislation early this week, as MSHA begins its underground investigation at Upper Big Branch. Hazardous conditions at the mine had prevented investigators from going underground to determine the cause of the April 5 explosion, the deadliest mine disaster in 40 years.

"Money Q&A" and "Company Town" are featured exclusively at PG+, a members-only web site of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Our introduction to PG+ gives you all the details.