192 F. Supp. 3d 882
S.D. Ohio2016Background
- Plaintiffs (multiple coal operators and trade associations) challenge MSHA’s 2013 Pattern-of-Violations (POV) Rule, alleging it (a) treats non-final citations as the basis for POV notices, (b) removed the prior potential-POV (PPOV) warning process, and (c) published numerical screening (POV/CAP) criteria on MSHA’s website without notice-and-comment.
- Plaintiffs bring APA claims (ultra vires; notice-and-comment; arbitrary and capricious) and a procedural due-process claim; they also seek declaratory relief.
- Defendants (Secretary of Labor and MSHA) moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (arguing the Mine Act’s review scheme precludes district court review), lack of standing, and failure to state a claim.
- The administrative review mechanism under the Mine Act generally routes disputes over citations/orders to the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission and then to the courts of appeals; district courts have limited statutory roles.
- The Sixth Circuit previously held it lacked jurisdiction to review the 2013 POV Rule as a mandatory standard in Nat’l Mining Ass’n; related cases before the Commission produced mixed rulings on the POV notice process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Mine Act’s statutory review scheme precludes district-court jurisdiction over these APA and Due Process challenges | The claims are “wholly collateral” to the Mine Act’s enforcement-review scheme because they challenge rulemaking procedure and rule content, not any enforcement order | The Mine Act’s comprehensive review process channels all challenges into the Commission and courts of appeals; allowing district-court review would permit an end-run around that scheme | Court: Jurisdiction exists — the claims are wholly collateral, outside the Commission’s expertise, and preclusion would foreclose meaningful judicial review |
| Standing (injury-in-fact) for regulated parties and associations | The Rule reshapes the regulatory environment, causing increased compliance costs and risk of severe sanctions (withdrawal orders); associations have representational standing | Plaintiffs lack a concrete, imminent injury because they have no POV notices/withdrawal orders and risk is speculative | Court: Plaintiffs pleaded sufficient injury (regulated-party/procedural-violation standing); associations satisfy representational/prudential standing |
| Facial due-process challenge to the 2013 POV Rule | The Rule eliminates procedural protections (PPOV and reliance on final violations) and therefore deprives property without process | The Rule can be applied in ways that satisfy due process; facial challenge is foreclosed by the no-set-of-circumstances standard | Court: Due-process facial challenge dismissed — plaintiffs did not meet the Salerno no-set-of-circumstances standard |
| APA challenges (ultra vires; notice-and-comment; arbitrary and capricious) | The Rule exceeds statutory authority by focusing on citations (not violations); MSHA failed to subject POV/CAP numerical criteria to notice-and-comment; economic analysis was flawed | Defendants: rulemaking authority is broad; the posted criteria are nonbinding policy or interpretive guidance not subject to notice-and-comment; economic analysis adequate | Court: APA claims (ultra vires; notice-and-comment question reserved for further development; arbitrary-and-capricious adequately pleaded) — overall APA claims survive (except the due-process facial claim) |
Key Cases Cited
- Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200 (statutory review-scheme preclusion framework; factors for deciding whether district-court review is barred)
- Elgin v. Department of the Treasury, 567 U.S. 1 (delayed-review schemes can preclude district-court jurisdiction when fairly discernible)
- Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477 (courts should not force plaintiffs to "bet the farm" by risking sanctions before judicial review)
- National Mining Ass’n v. Secretary of Labor, 763 F.3d 627 (6th Cir.) (holding courts of appeals lacked jurisdiction to review the POV rule as a mandatory health-or-safety standard)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (facial-challenge no-set-of-circumstances test cited for constitutional facial challenges)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (arbitrary-and-capricious standard for agency action)