985 F.3d 1309
11th Cir.2021Background
- The Mine Act (30 U.S.C. § 811) directs MSHA to promulgate and revise mandatory health and safety standards for metal and nonmetal mines; MSHA made advisory 1979 examination standards mandatory.
- 1979 standards required a competent person to examine each working place at least once per shift, prompt corrective action, and one-year retention of examination records.
- MSHA promulgated the 2017 Final Rule strengthening the 1979 standards by requiring: pre-shift examinations (before miners begin work), prompt notification to miners of adverse conditions, and more detailed, contemporaneous examination records.
- MSHA’s rulemaking relied on public comment, four hearings, and a review of accident investigation reports (MSHA cited 16 accidents/18 fatalities it considered relevant).
- Petitioners (mining trade associations) sought review under the APA and the Mine Act, arguing MSHA lacked required findings (e.g., significant risk), failed to show the Rule improves the prior standard, acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and raised vagueness and Executive Order/cost-benefit objections.
- The 11th Circuit majority denied the petition; Judge Lagoa dissented, arguing MSHA’s reliance on unspecified ‘‘experience’’ and the accident record did not provide a rational connection to the new requirements and thus the Rule was arbitrary and capricious.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Mine Act requires a threshold "significant risk" finding (as under the OSH Act/Benzene) before promulgating standards | The Mine Act, like the OSH Act, requires MSHA to find a significant risk under the preexisting standard that the new rule will reduce | The Mine Act uses different language and congressional findings; it authorizes periodic "improved" standards without imposing Benzene-like risk-finding | No: the Mine Act does not impose a Benzene-style significant-risk threshold. |
| Whether MSHA adequately demonstrated the Final Rule is an improvement over the 1979 standard | MSHA failed to show the Final Rule actually improves safety or that the changes address risks not already covered | MSHA explained how pre-shift exams, notification, and enhanced records reduce exposure, enable protective measures, and incentivize corrective action | Yes: the court found MSHA’s findings sufficient that the Final Rule improves the prior standard. |
| Whether the Final Rule is arbitrary and capricious (pre-shift exam, notification, recordkeeping) | The Rule rests on conclusory reliance on MSHA’s unspecified "experience" and accident reports that actually show noncompliance with the 1979 rule, not its inadequacy | MSHA relied on its field experience, accident history, and commonsense rationale that earlier exams, notice, and records reduce harm and spur corrections | No: majority held the Rule was not arbitrary or capricious; dissent would vacate as arbitrary and capricious. |
| Vagueness and Executive Order / cost-benefit challenges | Terms ("adversely," "working place," "affected area") are unconstitutionally vague; MSHA’s cost-benefit analysis violates Exec. Orders and is reviewable | Terms are sufficiently clear in context; Executive Orders do not create private rights enforceable in court | Rejected: terms not unconstitutionally vague; compliance with Executive Orders not judicially reviewable here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Industrial Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607 (1980) (Benzene plurality establishing a "significant risk" finding under the OSH Act)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary-and-capricious review requires a rational connection between facts and agency action)
- Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Labor, 812 F.3d 843 (11th Cir. 2016) (discussing deference and agency decisionmaking under the Mine Act)
- Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 116 F.3d 520 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (agency may rely on experience but must explain it)
- Int'l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 626 F.3d 84 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (rejecting conclusory reliance on agency "experience" without explanation)
- Kennecott Greens Creek Mining Co. v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 476 F.3d 946 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (interpretation that Mine Act's "appropriate" does not necessarily require full cost-benefit analysis)
- United Steel v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 925 F.3d 1279 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (invalidating a later MSHA amendment under the Mine Act's no-less-protection rule)