American Mining Congress v. Mine Safety & Health Administration
| American Mining Congress v. Mine Safety & Health Administration | |
|---|---|
| United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.D.C.) | |
| Full case name | American Mining Congress v. Mine Safety & Health Administration |
| Date decided | June 15, 1993 |
| Citations | 995 F.2d 1106 |
| Judge sitting | Stephen F. Williams |
| Case history | |
| Subsequent actions | United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit |
| Case holding | |
| The Program Policy letters of the mine Safety and Health Administration which stated the agency's position that certain X - Ray readings were qualified as diagnoses of lung diseases within the meaning of agency regulations were interpretive rules under the Administrative Procedure Act. | |
| Keywords | |
| Administrative Law | |
American Mining Congress v. Mine Safety & Health Administration, 995 F.2d 1106 (1993) is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concerning the issues of administrative law and agency oversight.
Overview
In this case, a miners' organizations petitioned for review of Program Policy Letters (PPL) of Mine Safety and Health Administration, stating agency's position that certain x-ray readings qualified as diagnoses of lung disease within meaning of agency reporting regulations.[1]
Holding
The Court was called upon to determine whether the PPL on the issue of x-rays was an interpretive rule, in which case it would be valid, or a legislative rule, in which case it would be invalid (for not being enacted in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act). The Court used a four-part test to determine whether the rule was legislative (an affirmative answer to any one means the rule is legislative):
- Whether in the absence of the rule there would not be an adequate legislative basis for enforcement action or other agency action to confer benefits or ensure the performance of duties;
- Whether the agency has published the rule in the code of federal regulations;
- Whether the agency has explicitly invoked its general legislative authority;
- Whether the rule effectively amends a prior legislative rule. Subsequent caselaw has minimized the importance of the second factor.
References
External links
- Full text of DC Circuit Opinion
- Case Brief for use in an Administrative Law Class
- Link to Opinion on WestLaw
United States district and territorial courts | |
|---|---|
 | |
| District Courts |
|
| Territorial courts | |
| Extinct courts | |