American Mining Congress v. Mine Safety & Health Administration
995 F.2d 1106 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An agency rule is interpretive and exempt from notice-and-comment requirements if it does not have legal effect, which is determined by a four-part test: (1) whether the rule is a necessary predicate to enforcement, (2) whether it was published in the Code of Federal Regulations, (3) whether the agency explicitly invoked legislative authority, and (4) whether it amends a prior legislative rule.
Facts:
- The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act requires mine operators to report occupational illnesses to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA).
- Pursuant to the Act, MSHA enacted a regulation through notice-and-comment rulemaking, known as Part 50, which requires operators to report whenever certain occupational illnesses are 'diagnosed.'
- The Part 50 regulation did not define the term 'diagnosed,' leading to inquiries from mine operators about its meaning.
- In response, MSHA issued a series of Program Policy Letters (PPLs) without undergoing notice-and-comment rulemaking.
- The PPLs stated that a chest X-ray reading of 1/0 or higher on the International Labor Office (ILO) classification system constituted a 'diagnosis' of pneumoconiosis for the purposes of the Part 50 reporting requirement.
- The PPLs also established a procedure allowing operators to seek second or third opinions from more qualified readers if they disputed an initial reading.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners, representing mine operators, filed petitions for review directly in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- The petitioners challenged the validity of MSHA's Program Policy Letters, arguing they were legislative rules issued without the required notice-and-comment procedure under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are the Program Policy Letters issued by the Mine Safety and Health Administration, which define a specific X-ray reading as a 'diagnosis' of lung disease for reporting purposes, interpretive rules exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act's notice-and-comment requirements?
Opinions:
Majority - Williams, J.
Yes, the Program Policy Letters are interpretive rules exempt from notice-and-comment requirements. A rule is interpretive if it does not create new legal duties but instead clarifies a pre-existing legal duty established by statute or a legislative rule. The court established a four-factor test to determine if a rule has the requisite 'legal effect' to be considered legislative: (1) whether the rule is a necessary predicate for enforcement action, (2) whether the agency published it in the Code of Federal Regulations, (3) whether the agency explicitly invoked its legislative authority, or (4) whether the rule effectively amends a prior legislative rule. Here, the PPLs fail all four parts of this test. The underlying Part 50 regulation already created the duty to report a 'diagnosis,' so the PPLs were not needed for enforcement. MSHA did not publish the PPLs in the CFR, nor did it invoke its legislative authority; rather, it explicitly characterized them as interpretations. Finally, the PPLs do not amend Part 50 because defining a 1/0 X-ray as a 'diagnosis' is a reasonable clarification of the existing rule, not a repudiation of it. Supplying 'crisper and more detailed lines' does not transform an interpretation into a legislative amendment.
Analysis:
This case is significant for administrative law because it clarifies the often-muddled distinction between legislative and interpretive rules in the D.C. Circuit. It synthesizes previous case law into a coherent, four-factor test focused on whether a rule has 'legal effect.' This framework provides agencies with clearer guidance on when they can issue interpretive rules, like policy statements or guidance documents, without undergoing the lengthy notice-and-comment process. The decision reinforces the principle that agencies can provide detailed, bright-line interpretations of existing regulations so long as they do not create new legal obligations from whole cloth or substantively amend prior legislative rules.
Unlock the full brief for American Mining Congress v. Mine Safety & Health Administration