United Steel v. Mine Safety & Health Admin.
925 F.3d 1279
D.C. Cir.2019Background
- MSHA promulgated a 2017 Standard requiring a competent person to examine each working place "before miners begin work" each shift and to record a description of each condition that may adversely affect miner safety or health.
- In 2018 MSHA amended the rule to allow examinations "before work begins or as miners begin work" and to limit recording to adverse conditions that are "not corrected promptly." The 2018 Amendment took effect June 2, 2018.
- Petitioners (United Steelworkers and United Mine Workers) challenged the 2018 Amendment as violating the Mine Act's no-less-protection rule (30 U.S.C. § 811(a)(9)) and the Administrative Procedure Act.
- The no-less-protection rule requires MSHA to "state the basis for its conclusion" that a new standard does not reduce protections; that statement must withstand arbitrary-and-capricious review under the APA.
- The D.C. Circuit majority found MSHA’s explanations inadequate because (1) the agency relied on a promise of notification before exposure even though the amended regulation did not require notification before miners could be exposed, and (2) MSHA failed to reconcile the amendments with factual findings underpinning the 2017 Standard (including that post-start examinations risk exposure and that comprehensive recording helps identify trends).
- The court vacated the 2018 Amendment and ordered reinstatement of the 2017 Standard; one judge concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing the examination change was unexplained but defending the recording change.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether allowing examinations "as miners begin work" violates no-less-protection rule | Change permits exposure before hazards are discovered and notification, so it reduces protection | Amendment still ensures adverse conditions are identified and miners notified before potential exposure | Vacated: MSHA's explanation was arbitrary and capricious because the rule does not require notification before exposure and MSHA failed to reconcile with prior findings |
| Whether excepting "promptly corrected" conditions from records violates no-less-protection rule | Excluding immediately corrected conditions undermines trend-identification and safety oversight | Exception encourages prompt correction and avoids cluttering records, yielding equal or greater safety benefits | Vacated: Majority found MSHA's justification conclusory and lacking comparative analysis; concurrence would have upheld this part |
| Whether agency provided reasoned explanation satisfying APA's arbitrary-and-capricious standard | Agency failed to give reasoned basis for net-safety effect and ignored its own prior factual findings | Agency's balancing of competing safety considerations is entitled to deference | Court: Agency failed to engage in reasoned decisionmaking as to both amendments; remand would be inappropriate without clearer justifications |
| Remedy: vacatur vs. remand without vacatur | Petitioners sought vacatur of 2018 Amendment | MSHA urged remand without vacatur citing disruption | Court vacated the 2018 Amendment and ordered reinstatement of the 2017 Standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (agency action arbitrary and capricious standard)
- Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. MSHA, 116 F.3d 520 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (no-less-protection rule requires agency to state basis for conclusion)
- United Mine Workers of Am. v. Dole, 870 F.2d 662 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (no reductions in safety below existing levels permitted)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502 (2009) (agency changing course must supply reasoned explanation)
- Amerijet Int'l, Inc. v. Pistole, 753 F.3d 1343 (conclusory statements insufficient under arbitrary-and-capricious review)
- Heartland Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Sebelius, 566 F.3d 193 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (factors for remand without vacatur)
- PG&E Gas Transmission, Nw. Corp. v. FERC, 315 F.3d 383 (must not consider post-hoc agency rationalizations)
- Chenery Corp. v. SEC, 318 U.S. 80 (1943) (courts review the grounds the agency relied on, not post-hoc justifications)
- Press Commc'ns LLC v. FCC, 875 F.3d 1117 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (agencies' path may be upheld even if less than ideally clear)
- Saint Francis Med. Ctr. v. Azar, 894 F.3d 290 (preamble statements lack force of law)