Secretary of Labor v. Cranesville Aggregate Companies, Inc.
878 F.3d 25
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Cranesville operates a sand and gravel mine (Scotia Mine) with a separate Bag Plant ~600 feet from the quarry where sand is dried, mixed, and bagged for sale. The Bag Plant also houses a maintenance shop that repairs mining equipment.
- OSHA inspected the Bag Plant after complaints and issued multiple citations for workplace safety and health violations; Cranesville contested, claiming MSHA has exclusive jurisdiction under the Mine Act.
- An ALJ vacated the OSHA citations, concluding the Bag Plant’s drying constituted "milling" and the presence of the maintenance shop brought the Plant under the Mine Act; the Commission split 1–1, leaving the ALJ decision final.
- The Secretary of Labor appealed, arguing the Secretary reasonably determined the Bag Plant’s activities fall under OSHA (manufacturing), not MSHA (mining/milling).
- The Second Circuit held the Secretary’s position was embodied in citations and thus entitled to Chevron deference, and concluded the functional analysis supports OSHA jurisdiction over the cited conditions at the Bag Plant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Secretary) | Defendant's Argument (Cranesville) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bag Plant operations (including drying) are subject to MSHA as "milling" or OSHA as manufacturing | Bag Plant activities are functionally manufacturing (bagging/mixing of finished sand); drying was incidental to manufacturing; Secretary’s line drawing is reasonable | Drying upgrades/prepares sand for commerce and, together with on-site maintenance of mining equipment, makes the Bag Plant part of "mining/milling" under the Mine Act | Held for Secretary: the Secretary’s functional determination is reasonable; OSHA governs cited conditions |
| Whether presence of a maintenance shop on-site brings entire Bag Plant under Mine Act | Secretary: one portion can be MSHA-covered without converting whole facility; may distinguish activities by function and geography | Cranesville/ALJ: maintenance activities supporting mining make entire Plant a mine subject to MSHA | Held for Secretary: maintenance shop alone did not convert facility; Secretary may distinguish activities and apply OSHA to nonmining parts |
| Level of deference owed to Secretary’s interpretation of Mine Act | Secretary: position embodied in OSHA citations and enforcement, warranting Chevron deference | Cranesville: (implicitly) deference should be limited or ALJ may independently interpret scope | Held: Chevron deference applies because interpretation was embodied in citation/adjudication; agency construction is reasonable |
| Whether Commission/ALJ properly reviewed Secretary’s determination | Secretary: Commission/ALJ failed to afford proper deference and substituted their own view | ALJ/Commission: interpreted Mine Act differently and found inclusion under Mine Act | Held: Commission/ALJ erred by not deferring to Secretary; decision reversed and remanded to uphold OSHA citations |
Key Cases Cited
- Chao v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc., 534 U.S. 235 (2002) (OSH Act inapplicable where another federal agency has statutory authority and has issued regulations)
- Martin v. OSHRC, 499 U.S. 144 (1991) (Secretary’s interpretation embodied in citation is an administrative adjudication entitled to deference)
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001) (degree of deference depends on whether interpretation stems from delegated authority and formal process)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (two-step framework for reviewing agency statutory interpretations)
- Russell P. Le Frois Builder, Inc. v. Chao, 291 F.3d 219 (2d Cir. 2002) (distinguishing Skidmore deference for litigation positions from higher deference when embodied in agency action)
- Nat’l Cement Co. of Cal. v. Sec’y of Labor, 494 F.3d 1066 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Secretary’s adjudicative positions under Mine Act can merit Chevron deference)
- Donovan v. Caroline Stalite Co., 734 F.2d 1547 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (convenience-of-administration clause gives Secretary discretion to allocate MSHA vs OSHA jurisdiction)