Pursuant to F eder al Rule of Civil P roce dure 25( d)(1) , Hilda L . Solis , Secre tary of L abor, 1 is substi tuted for he r pre dece ssor, Elaine L . Chao. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

) NA TIO NA L A SSOC IA TIO N O F WA TER F RO NT EM P LOY ER S , ) ) ) P la in t if f, and OLD REPU BLIC INSURANCE COMP ANY and BIT UMINOUS CONTRACTORS, INC., Int e r ve nor s, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 07-2250 (RM C) ) HILDA L. S OLIS , Secre tary of Labor , ) ) Defendan t. )

1 )

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Plaintiff and I nterve nors cha ll en ge the De partment of L abor’ s adoption of an administrative rule r equiring use of c laimants’ initia l s instead of their f ull names in decisions and

or de rs of a dmi nis tr a tiv e law j ud g e s in c a se s und er th e L on g sh or e and Ha rb or Wor ke rs ’ Compe n s a ti o nA c t ( “ L o n g s h o r e A c t” ) , 3 3 U
. S. C. § § 9 0 1

- 9 5 0 , an d th e B la c k

Lu n g B e n e f

it s Act (“B lack L ung Act”) , 30 U.S. C

. §§ 901-944. SeeAR 282-83 (Memor andum dated July 3, 2006, pr omu lg a tin g the “ Rul e ” ). Pla int if f an d I nte rv e no rs c on te nd that the Rul e is ar bit ra ry and c a pr ic iou s, that it violates the Administrative Procedur e Ac t (“APA” ), 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. , the Fr eedom of I nformation Ac t (“F OI A”) , 5 U.S.C. § 552, the L ong shore Ac t, the Bla ck L ung Act, common law,The Bla ck Lung Act g ener ally incorporates the adjudicative proce dures of the L ong shore 2 Act. See 30 U.S.C. § 932(a) (inc orporating 33 U.S.C. §§ 919 & 921, except as otherw ise provided)

. An AL J ’s dec ision is reviewable by the B enef

its Review B oard a

nd those dec isions are 3 subject to revie w in the fe dera l circuit cour ts of appea l. See 33 U.S.C. § 921. I n Aug ust of 2007, -2- and the F irst a

nd Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Sec reta ry moves to dismis s or for summary judgme nt, and Plaintiff and I nterve nors also move for summary judgme nt. As expl ained be lo w, th e mot ion s w ill be g ra nte d in pa rt and de nie d in

pa rt . T he Rul e wi ll b e se t a sid e and its enfor ceme nt enjoined bec ause it wa s not properly promulg ated unde r the APA. I. F AC TS The L ong shore Ac t and the Bl ac k L u ng Act esta blish workers’ compensation pr og ra ms t o p ay be ne fi ts to ce rt a in mari tim e wo rk e rs and c oa l mi ne e mpl oye e s, re sp e c tiv e ly . T he se pro gra m s require employ ers or their insuranc e ca

rrier s to pay

benef its to eligible cla imants at g ov e rnme nt m and a te d r a te s, and the pr og ra

ms s ha re a sta tut or y sy ste m fo r a dju dic a tio n o f b e ne fi t claims. The Department of L abor’ s Offic e of Workers’ Com pensation P rog rams (“ OWCP ”) c arr ies out th e in it ia l p r o c e s s in g o f c la im s an d ma in ta in s r e c o r d s o f th e a d mi n is tr a ti o n o f th e s e and other compensation prog rams. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 1.1, 1.2, & 701.201.

I f cla ims are not re sol v ed ad m i nistratively by OWCP , they

are adjudicate d by Depa rtment of L abor a dminist rative la w j udg es (“AL J s”). Under the L ong shore Act and the B lack Lung Act , if a

worke r’s c laim for bene fits is c ontested by the employ er or

by the employ er’ s insurer,

u p o nre qu es to f a n y

p ar t y t h e m at t er i s re fe rr edt o t h e O ff i ce o f t h e C h i ef

Ad m i n i s t ra t i v e Law J u d ge of the De partment of L abor for a hear ing by an AL J
. See 33 U.S.C. § 919(d); 20 C.F.R. §§ 725.451- .452 & 702.331. After a hear ing, the AL J issues a decision and order awa rding benef

its or rejec ting 2 the wo rk e r’ s c la im. 3the B enef

its Review Boa

rd instituted its own rule requiring that decisions and order s issued by the B oa rd us e c la ima

nts ’ i nit ia ls. See Electronic Fr eedom of I nformation Act Amendments of 1996, Pub. L . 104-231, 110 4 Stat. 3028, codified in various sections of 5 U.S.C. § 552, including § 552( a)( 2). F inal decisions by AL J s in L ong shore Ac t and B lack L ung Act ca ses ar e published on the Interne t at http:// www.oa lj.dol.gov. The Rule purpor

ts to address only

decisions and or d er s p o s t ed on the I nterne t, but it has 5 been a pplied to hard c opy

order s as well. See Klaus Aff . [Dkt. # 41] ¶ 5. -3- The Chief A dminist rative L aw Judge of the De partment of L abor de clar ed by memorandum that as of Aug ust 1, 2006, decisions and orde rs by AL J s involving the L ong shore Ac t

and the B la c k L

un g Ac t w ou ld n o lo ng e r di sp lay th e c la ima nt’ s f ull name in t

he c a pti on and te xt. AR at 282-83. Instead, c laimants would be identified by their first and la st init ials. Id. The Chief AL J instit uted the Rule due to c oncer ns about a claimant’s privac y when AL J order s and opinions

are po ste d o n th e I nte rn e t. H e e xpla ine d in the me mor and

um: Th e 19 96 e -F OIA am e ndme nts re qu ir e d a g e nc ie s to pu bli sh a dju dic a tor

y de c isi on s o n th e I nte rn e t. A co ns e qu e nc e of that la w i s 4 that commerc i al I nterne t searc h eng ines neg ated a ny “pra ctical obscurity ” that wa s previously true of a g ency decisions re lating to the [B la c k L un g Ac t] and

the [L on g sh or e Ac t]. T hu s, to l imi t a claiman t’ s e xp o s u r e o n th e I n te r n e t, th e D e p artm e n t o f L a b o r has de c ide d th a t it

wi ll a vo id re fe rr ing dir e c tly to the c la ima nt’ s n a me in decisions and other

order s that are require d to be posted on the D OL web site on or a fter Aug ust 1, 2006. Id . at 282. Ev e n th ou g h c la ima nts ’ n a me s a

re c on c e a le d o n a ll A L J dec isi on and or de rs , c la ima

nts ’ 5

names are not c onsidered secr et. Parties to the administrative proce eding have no t i ce o f t he claimant’s f

ull name. As the memora ndum indicated fur

ther: The c aption will displ ay

the claimants initials. .

. . A cove r or r efe rra l me mor and

um, no t pa

rt of the de c isi on , wi ll be se nt o nly to t he pa rt ie s. That memo will identify

the claimant’ s full name.Reg ulations that g overn the filing and adjudication of claims for benefits are found at 20 6 C.F.R. §§ 7 0 2

. 3 0 1 - 7 0 2.394 (L ong shore Ac t claims) and 20 C.F .R. §§ 725.301 - 725.483 (B lack Lung Act cla ims). The re g ulations promulgated under the L ong shore Act wer e and are silent on the iss ue of c la ima nt n a me s. Othe r t ha n th e de le tio n o f t

he ph ra se “ the name s o f t he pa rt ies, ” th e new § 7 25 .4 77 (b ) i s 7 identical to the prior ve rsion. Plaintiff and I nterve nors re fer to the Rule as the “Anony mous Claimant Rule.” The Court 8 declines to a dopt this nomenclatur e, as it is misleading

. The Rule at issue doe s not permit a claimant t o p r o c e e d

an o n ym o u s l y, a s t h e p art i e s t o t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e e d i n g k

n o w t h e c l a i m an t ’ s i d e n t i t y. Also, the Rule does not requir e close d proce edin gs o r s ea l ed filings. I t only require s the use of initials in AL J decisions and order s; a ll other filings in an a dminist rative c ase c ontain the claimant’ s full name. -4- Id . at 283

. A ls o , h e ar in g s u n d e r th e B la c k Lu n g A c t an d th e L o n g s h o r e A c t r e ma in o p e n to the public. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 702.344 & 725.464.

The Chief A L J issued the Rule as a ru l e of ag ency proce dure, w ithout noti ce a nd comment. See 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3)( A). The Secre tary of L abor did not publish a proposed r ule and invite public comment and did not publish the final Rule in the Fe dera l Reg ister.

A p r e e x i s t i n g r

u l e t h a ta p p l i e d t o c l a i m s u n d e r

t h e B l a c k Lu n g A c tp r o v i d e d

t h a tA LJ decisions “sha ll contain a stateme nt of the basis of the orde r, the names of the parties , finding s of fac t, conclusions of law . . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 7 2 5
. 4 7 7 (b ) (version effe ctive prior to Jan. 30, 2007) (empha sis added). After the adoption of the Rule at issue he re, § 725.477( b) wa s replac ed with one 6 that did not require AL J decisions to c ontain party names. See 72 Fe d. Reg
. 4204 (Jan. 30, 2007); 20 C.F .R. § 72 5. 47 7( b)

. Th e ne w re g ulatio n wa s pu bli sh e d in the F e de ra l Re g ist e r a s a fi na l r ule 7 without opportunity fo r n o t i ce a nd comment bec ause it alleg edly perta ined “solely

to the Depa rtment’s for

matting of

decisions and or ders.” 72 Fe d. Reg . at 4204-05. Pla int if f a nd I nt erve no rs o bj ectto th e R

ul e creat ed b y

th e C hi ef AL J ’s m emo randu m. 8The Court ha s fede ral question jurisdiction in this case

. See 2 8 U. S

. C

. § 1 3 3 1

. E v en t h o u gh 9 the APA does not provide a n independe nt basis for subjec t matter jurisdiction, Cal ifa no v . S an de rs , 430 U.S. 99, 1 0 7 (1977), f inal ag ency

action is subject to judicial re view whe n there is no other a de qu a te re me dy . 5 U. S.C. § 7 04 ; see City of Chicago v. Int’l Col lege of Surgeons , 522 U.S. 156, 183 (JJ . Ginsburg & Steve ns, dissenting) ( under Sa nd e rs , district courts may

revie w administrative -5- Plaintiff is the National Association of Water front Empl oy ers ( “NAWE”) , a tra de assoc iation that repr esents steve doring companies a nd marine te rminal operators on issues under the L ong shore Ac t and other fede ral law s. NAWE members ar e employ ers unde r t h e L o ng shore Ac t, see 33 U. S.C. § 902(4), a

nd some members a

re a lso insurance car

riers unde r the L ong shore Ac t. See id . § 902(5). NAWE also publishes a monthly newsletter

. I nterve nors are Old Republic I nsuranc e Company and the As s o ci ation of B ituminous Contractors, Inc. (“ AB C”). See Orde r [Dkt. # 5] (g ranting motion to intervene as plaintiffs). O ld Republic I nsuranc e Company is a worke rs ’ co m p ensation and

e mpl oy er li abi li ty ins ur e r, ins ur inglia bil iti e s und e r t

he B la c k L

un g Ac t. It a lso a c ts a s c la ims administrator for

self-insure d coal mine ope rators. A BC is an e mploy er a ssociation , a n d its membe rs
are contra ctors who pe rfor m construction work f

or coa l companies. S uch construc tion companies

are potentially liable under the Black L ung Act to employ ees whose work involves e x posure to coa l du st a nd wh o b e c ome dis a

ble d a s a re su lt. AB C a lso pu bli sh e s a ne ws le tte r r e g ard ingde ve lop me nts
un de r t he B la c k L

un g Ac t. NA WE f ile d a n ame nd e d c omp la int alleg ingfo ur c ounts a g a ins t th e Se c re tary : (1) the a doption of the Rule violates the proc edura l require ments of the L ong shore Ac t and the APA; (2) the Rule is arbitra

ry and capricious bec ause the Chief AL J adopted it without the authority to do

so ; ( 3) the Rul e vio la te s th e L on g sh or e Ac t, t he AP A, th e comm on

law, and the F ir st a

nd F if th Amendments to the U.S. Constit ution; and (4) if the Rule i s lawful, then the “ Four teen Da y Rule,” 3 3 U
. S. C. § 9 1 4 ( b ) & ( e ) , v io late s th e F if th A me n d me nt. See Am

. Compl. [ Dkt. # 32]. The 9action under the fe dera l question jurisdi ct i o n s t atute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, when Cong ress ha s not specific ally

presc ribed a

nother re view route or pre cluded r eview.) Previously

in this case, the Court g rante d in part and de nied in part the Secreta ry ’s motion 10 to dismi ss NAWE and the Interve nors’ original c omplaints. See M e m. O p . [D kt. # 2 1 ]. Subsequently , NAWE and Int er v en ors re quested lea ve to amend the ir complaints, and the Court gra n t ed t h ei r re quests. Thus, the Court now re visits t he issues pre sented in the c ontext of the Am e nd e d Co mpl a int

and the I nte rv e no rs ’ A me nd e d Co mpl a int

.

-6- I nterve nors’ amended c omplaint adds alleg ations that the Rule violates the B lack L ung Act and FOIA. See I n te r

v e n o r s ’ A m. Co mp l. [D kt. # 3 3 ]. 10 NA WE a lle g e s th a t th e Se c re tary did no t id e nti fy

thi rd pa rt ie s w ho have an in te re st in knowing the claimants’ identities in AL J order s and dec isions, the Secreta ry did not balance the interests of suc h third parties ag ainst claimants’ interests, and the Secre tary did not consider a mor e
na rr ow ly ta ilo re d r ule . A m. C omp l. ¶

¶ 2 3- 25 , 3 5. NA WE a sse rt s that it ne e ds to kn owthe ide nti ty of cla imants for a va

riety of reasons i ncluding , for e x ample, the ne ed to deter mine: whether

a cur rent claimant pre viously

was de nied bene fits for the same or similar injury , whether a pay ment owed by

a sec ond employ er should be r educed b y compensation alrea dy

paid for the injury

by a prior employ er, a

nd whether

a cla im should be paid out of a “spe cial fund” for e mploy ees w ho wer e previously

injured. Id . ¶¶ 64, 66, 68. I nterve nors s imilarly asser t that the Rule prevents them “fr om obtaining the claims history of i ndividual claimants on a timely basis for the pur

pose of investig ating

and de fe nd ing c la ims wi thi n the re g ulator y tim e lim its .” I nte rv e no r’ s A m. C omp l. ¶ 15 . B e c a us e both NAWE and AB C publish newsletters, they also asser

t that as members of the pre ss they need to know the identity

of cla imants. Se e id . ¶¶ 16- 17, 49; Am. Compl . ¶¶ 75- 79 NAWE and I nterve nors s eek a declaratory judgme nt that the Rule vi olates the law , and they seek an injunction requiring the Secr etar y to withdraw the Rule, pr ohibiting the Secr etar y-7-

from adopting a new rule unless the S ecr etar y uses forma l rulemaking proce dures, a nd prohibiting t he Secr etar

y from adoptinga new

rule re quiring conce alment of c laimant names e x cept whe n anony mity is based on individual specia l circumstanc es. The Sec reta ry moves t o d i s m iss or for

su mma ry jud g me nt. NA WE a

nd I nte rv e no rs a lso mov e fo r s umm ary jud g me nt. II. LEGAL STANDARD Th e Se c re tary

mov e s to dis mis s f

or fa ilure to s ta te a c la im und e r F e de ra l Rule of Civ il Pr oc e dure 12 (b )( 6) , o r i n th e a lte rn a tiv e , f or su mma ry jud g me nt u

nd e r F eder a l Ru le of

Civ il Procedur e 56. Where matters outside the pleading s are prese nted in a motion to dism iss, the court must treat the motion as one for summary judgme nt under Rule 56. F ed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). Here , the Court looks to t he plea dings a s well as the Administrative Recor d. Be cause the Court examines

matt e r s o u ts id e th e p le a d in g s , it tr e a ts th e Se c r e ta

r y ’ s mo ti o na s o n e f

o r s u mm ar

y ju d g me n t. N A WE

and I nte rv e no rs a lso fi le d a

mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt. Under Rule 56 of the F eder al Rules of Civil Procedur e, summary judgme nt must be grante d wh en “t h e p l ea d i n gs , d ep o s i t i o n s , an s we rs t o i n t erro gat o ri es , an d ad m i ssions on file, toge ther with the aff

idavits, if any , show that there is no ge n u i ne issue as to a ny materia l fac t and that the

mov ingpa

rt y is en tit le d to a judg me nt as a ma tte r of law. ” F e d. R. C iv. P. 5 6( c ); An de rso n v . Li be rty Lobby, Inc. , 4 77 U. S. 2 42 , 2 47 (1 98 6) ; se e als o Cel ote x Cor p. v . Ca tre tt , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Diamond v. Atwood , 4 3 F .3 d 1 53 8, 15 40 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 5) . M or e ov e r, su mma ry jud g me nt is pr op e rl y g rante d ag ainst a par

ty that “af ter a dequate time for discove ry and upon motion . .

. fails to make a sh o w in g s u f

f ic ie n t to e s ta

b li s h th e e xis te n c e o f an e le me n t e s s e n ti a l to th a t p arty ’ s c a s e , an d on which that par

ty will bear the b u rd en o f proof at trial.” Celotex , 477 U.S. at 322 (1986). To de te rm ine wh ic h f

a c ts ar e “ ma te ri a l,” a c ourt mus t look to the su bs tanti ve law o n w hic h e a c h c la im-8-

rests. Anderson , 477 U.S. at 248. A “g enuine i s s u e” i s one whose r esolution could establish an element of

a cla im or defe nse and, the ref ore, a ffe ct the outcome of the ac tion. Celotex , 477 U.S. at 32 2; Anderson , 477 U.S. at 248.

I n r uli ngon a mot ion fo r s um mar

y jud g me nt, the c ourt

mus t dr aw a ll j us tif

ia ble infere nces in the nonmoving part y ’s favor and ac cept the nonmovingparty ’s evidenc e as true
. Anderson , 477 U.S. at 255. A nonmoving pa rty , h o we v er , m ust establish more than “the mere exis tence of a scintilla of evidenc e” in suppor t of its posit ion. Id. at 252. To pre vail on a motion for summary ju d gm en t , t h e movi ng party must show that the nonmoving par ty “fa il[ ed] to make a showing sufficie nt to establish the exi stence o f an element essential to that par ty ’s ca se, and on which that party will be ar the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex , 477 U.S. at 322. By pointing to the absenc e of e vid en ce p ro ffe red by the nonmoving pa

rty , a moving party

may succe ed on summary judgme nt. Id. I n addit ion, the nonmoving pa rty may not rely solely on alleg ations or conc lusory statements. Gree ne v. D alton , 16 4 F .3 d 6 71 , 6 75 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 9) ; Harding v. Gray , 9 F.3d 150, 154 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Rather , the nonmovin g party must present spec ific fa cts that would ena ble a

rea sonable jury to f

ind in its favor

. Gree ne , 164 F.3d at 675. I f the e vidence “is mere ly colora ble, or is not signific antly probative, summar y judgme nt may

be g rante d.” Anderson , 477 U.S. at 249-50 (citations omitted). III . A NA LY SIS

NAWE and I nterve nors broug ht the ir claims under the APA, which waives t he

so ve re ig n im mun ity

of the Un ite d St a te s and

perm it s a

c ourt to s e t a sid e a g e nc y

a c tio n th a t is

arb itr ary , c a

pr ic iou s, an ab us e of dis c re tio n, or oth e rw ise no t in a c c or da nc e wi th the law. 5 U .S. C. § 7 06 (2 ). NA WE a

nd I nte rv e no rs c on te nd

that th e Rul e is “ no t in a c c or da nc e wi th the law” be c a

us e-9-

it v iol a te s th e APA , F OIA, the L on g sh or e Ac t, the B la c k Lun g Ac t, the c omm on law, and the F ir st and F ifth Amendments to the U.S. Constit ution.

A. No ti ce a n d Co mmen t u n d er th e A PA NA WE a nd I nte rv e no rs c on te nd

that th e ir ri g ht t o n oti c e and

c o mm e nt u n d e r t h e APA was violated w hen the Sec reta ry instit uted the Rule regar d i ng the use of c laimants’ initials by memorandum. See 5 U .S. C. § 55 3( b) & (c ) ( re qu ir ingno tic e and pu bli c c omm e nt) ; Bat t er t o n v. Ma rsh all , 648 F.2d 694, 703 ( D.C. Cir. 1980) (the re quirement of notice an d comment ensure s public participation and fairne ss to affe cted pa rties). The Secre tary

conten d s t hat the notice a nd comment proc edure s did not need to be followe d beca use t he Rule is mere ly

proce dural. See 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(A) (exempting rules of ag ency proce dure a nd prac tice fr om the notice and c omment proce ss). The Sec reta

ry argues t hat t he Rule i s not substantive beca use i t does not aff

ect the filing of a c laim or the pre sentation of evide nce, it mer ely aff ects the “ formatting ” of A L J decisions and

or de rs . To deter

mine whether

a rule is substantive or proc edura l, courts examine whether the

r u le “ e n c o d e s a s u

b s ta n ti v e v a lu e ju d g me nt.” Pu bli c Citi ze n v . D e p’ t of Sta te , 276 F.3d 634, 640 (D.C. Cir. 2002). In Public Citiz en , t h e D
. C

. C i r c u i t c o n s i d e r e d a r u l e a d o p t i n g t h e d a t e o f

a F O IA reque st as the date to c utoff an a g ency ’s sea rch f or re cords. The court found t h at the rule w as proce dural be cause it applied to all FOIA requests, made no distinction based on subjec t matter, and thus encode d no value judg ment. Id . at 641. I n contra st to the r ule examined in Public Citiz en , the Rule requiringAL J s to use only claimants’ init ials encode s a value judgme nt — the deter mination that, in all claims for be nefits under the L ong shore Act and the Bla ck L ung Act, cla imants’ privac y interests trump any

interest that the public or the pre ss may have in a cce ss to the claims history ofTh e F ir st Ame ndme nt pr ote c ts pub lic a c c e ss to co ur t re c or ds and pr oc e e din g s if th e a c c e ss 11 has bee n historically available and if such ac cess “ play s a sig nificant positive role in the f unctioning of the pa rticular pr ocess in question.” Pr ess-En te r. Co. v . S up e rio r Co ur t , 478 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1986). Th e ri g ht i s q

ua lif ie d, ho we ve r, and

it m ay be ov e rc ome by an ov e rr idi ngint e re st i n c los ur e that is narr owly tailored to ser

ve such ove rriding interest. Pr ess-En te r. Co . v . S up e rio r Co ur t , 4 64 U. S. 50 1, 51 0 ( 19 84 ); se e, e. g. , Pho e nix Ne wsp ap e rs, In c . v. U. S. Di str ic t Co ur t , 15 6 F .3 d 94 0, 94 9 ( 9th Cir . 1 99 8) ; Do e v . S

te ga ll , 653 F.2d 180, 185-86 (5th Cir. 1981)

. Whil e the D.C. Circuit ha s been sil e nt r e g ard ing a c c e ss to civ il pr oc e e din g s and re c or ds , “o the r Cir c uit s hav e op ine d a nd un if or mly held that the public has a First Amendme nt rig h t o f ac cess to civil proc eeding s and re cords.” See In re Guantanamo B ay De tainee Litig. , 62 4 F
. Sup p. 2d 27 , 35 (D .D .C. 20 09 ) ( c oll e c tin g c a se s) ; In re Guantanamo Bay

DetaineeLiti

g. , 630 F. Supp. 2d 1, 9 (D.D.C. 2009) (same)

. The Court does

-10- wo rk e rs , a s sh ow n in

AL J dec isi on s and

or de rs . Fur ther, infor

mational rig hts are substantive, thus meri t ing A PA protections. See Chr y sle r Co rp . v . B ro wn , 441 U.S. 281, 302-03 (1979) . I n Chrysler , the Supreme Court found that regulations promulgated by the Depa

rtment of L abor’ s Offic e of F eder al Contract Compliance , which re quire that re ports related to aff irmative ac tion prog rams be ma de ava ilable to the public, ar e subst an t i v e rules. Id . at 302. “[T]he promulgation of these re g ulations must conform with any pr oc e dura l r e qu ir e me nts imp os e d b y Con g re ss. . . . The pe rt ine nt p ro c e dura l li mit a tio ns in t his c a se
are those found in the APA.” Id . at 303.

The intere sts that NAWE an d I nterve nors asser t here are informational intere sts. Public policy

favor s public acc ess to administrative proc eeding s. See, e.g., FCC v. Schre iber , 381 U. S. 2 79 , 2 93 (1 96 5) ; Fitzgerald v. Hampton , 4 67 F .2 d 75 5, 76 4 (D .C. Cir

. 19 72 ). An d the same public policy favor s public acc ess to administrative re cords. Graber Mfg. Co. v. Dix on , 223 F. Supp. 10 20 , 1 02 2 ( D. D. C. 1 96 3) . A lso , th e c omm on law pr ov ide s th e pr e ss a lim ite d r ig ht o f a c c e ss t o judicial rec ords. Ap

pli c ati on of A .H

. B e lo Cor p. ( U. S. v . Ci sn e ro s) , 6 6 F . Su

pp . 2 d 4 7, 48 (D .D .C. 1999). T h e s e in f

o r mati o n a l in te r e s ts ar e s u b s ta n ti v e an d ar e e n ti tl e d to A PA p r o te c ti on. See Chrysler , 441 U.S. at 302-03. 11not rea ch the issue of whether the intere st in acc ess to administrative dec isions and orders pr esente d here constitutes a rig ht protecte d by the Fir st Amendment or whe ther the Rule r equiring the use of c la ima nts ’ i nit ial s in fring e s o n F ir st A me ndme nt r ig hts . T he Court ho lds on ly

that a c c e ss t o a dmi nis tr a tiv e re c or ds is fa vo re d by pu bli c po lic y

and that th is i nte re st i s su

bs tanti ve and

e nti tle d to APA protec tion. Under the L ong shore Ac t and the B lack L ung Act, the Secr etar

y is authorized to make rules 12 and re g ulations. See 33 U.S.C. § 939(a)(1) (L ong shore Ac t); 30 U.S.C. § 936(a) (Blac k Lung Act). The Sec reta

ry assig ned the authority

to administer these Ac ts to the Assistant S ecr etar y of L abor f

or Employ ment Standards, who de leg ated the a uthority to administer t he Acts and to cre ate r eg ulations t o t h e O W C P
. 2 0 C

. F
. R
. § § 1

. 2

. , 1

. 2 ( e ) & ( f ) , & 7 0 1

. 2 0 1

. T h u s , t h e O W C P , an d n o tt h e C h i e f

A L J, ha s th e a uth or ity to e ng a g e in s ub sta

nti ve ru le ma

kin g un de r t

he L on g sh or e and

B la c k L un g Ac ts. -11- I n s um, the Rul e sh ou ld h a ve be e n s ub je c t to APA for ma l r

ule makin g pr oc e dure s. Be cause the Secr etar

y did n o t eng ag e in forma l notice and c omment rulemaking , the Rule will be set aside a

nd its enforc ement enjoined. B. Authority of Ch ief ALJ to Ins titute R ule Change NA WE a nd I nte rv e no rs a lso c ha lle ng e the a uth or ity of the Chi e f A L J to pr omu lg a te the Ru l e. The Sec reta

ry contends that the Chief

AL J has the a

uthority to administer the ag ency website be cause the Secr etar y deleg ated to ag ency heads the responsibility for the ma

nag ement of Depa rtment of L abor c ommunications service s, including w ebsites. See 70 F e d. Re g . 5 9, 20 0 ( Oc t. 11 , 2 00 5) . H ow e ve r, a s e xpla ine d a bo ve , the Rul e is no t a me re pr oc e dura l or a dmi nis tr a tiv e ru le reg ardingthe formatting o f d o cu m ents on a we bsite. I t is subst antive bec ause it enc odes a va lue judgme nt. The S ecr etar

y ’s delega

tion of authority to ag ency heads to a dminist er w ebsites did not inc lud e the a

uth or ity to i ns tit ute the fo rm a l A PA r

ule makin g that is re qu ir e d f or su bs tanti ve ru le s. Acc ording ly , the Chief AL J did not have author ity to promulgate the Rule. 12 C. F ree dom of In form ation Act I nterve nors alleg e that the Rule violates § 552(a) of FOIA. FOIA require s that whenNAWE and I nterve nors also point out that a statute does not abr og ate t h e common law 13 unless it does t o direc tly

. See U nited States v. Texas , 507 U.S. 529, 534 (1993). The y then re ason, err oneously , that beca

use the Ac ts do not abrog ate the c ommon law that they s o m ehow c reate a cause of ac tion under the c ommon law. -12- an a g e nc y make s in fo rm a tio n ava ila ble or pu bli sh e s an op ini on , it may de le te ide nti fy

ingde ta ils to preve nt a n unwar rante d invasion of privac y , but in each c ase must explain in writing the justification fo r t h e d eletion. 5 U.S .C. § 552(a)( 2). F OI A g overns how a n ag ency reda cts information fr om do c ume nts th at are ma de pu bli c ly a va ila ble , b ut n ot h owdo c ume nts are c re a te d in iti a lly . T hu s, FOIA does not control how a n ag ency cre ates its documents, and it d o es not apply to the

c i r c u m s t an c e s a t i s s u e h e r e . B e c a u s e F O IA d o e s n o ta

p p l y , In t e r

v e n o r s h a v e f

a i l e d t o s t a t e a F O IA

c la im. D. Longsh ore and Black Lu ng Acts

NAWE and I nterve nors allege that the adoption of the Rule violates the L ong shore Act and the Bla ck L

ung Act bec ause the Rule was not adopted in accor dance with the “proc edura l require ments” of the A cts and be cause the Rule v i olates these A cts. Howe ver, N AWE and I nterve nors fa il to identify any portion o f t h es e Ac ts that sets forth such alleg ed proc edura l

r e qu i r e m e n t s o r

t h a tr e qu i r e s t h e D e p ar t m e n to f La b o r t o p u b l i s h c l a i m an t s ’ f

u l l n a m e s i n A LJ decisions and or ders. Thus, NA WE and I nterve nors have not pointed to any cause of action ar ising under the provisions of these Ac ts. Bec ause the y have not stated a cla im for re lief, the c laims under the L ong shore Ac t and the B lack L ung Act will be dismissed. 13 E . Re mai n i n g Cl a i ms NA WE an d I n te r

v e n o r s a ls o a ll e g e th a t th e ir c o mm o n la w r ig h t to a c cess c ourt
re c or ds and

the ir ri g hts un de r t

he F ir st A me ndme nt a

nd the Due Pr oc e ss C la

us e of the F if thThe Sec re t ar y also filed a c orre cted memor andum in support of its motion t o dismiss or 14 for summary

judgme nt. See Dkt. # 46. -13- Amendment we re violate d by the promulg ation of the Rule. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 108-111 (Count 3) & ¶ 1 12 (C ount 4 ); I nte rv e no rs ’ A m. C omp l. ¶ 57 (C ount 3 ). I t is we ll- se ttled th at court s sh ou ld avoid unnec essar ily

decidingconstitutional questions. N a t ’l Black PoliceAss’n v. District of Col um bia , 108 F.3d 346, 353-54 (D.C. Cir. 1997). And w hen a pla intiff rec eives a ll relief r equeste d based on other considera

tions, ther e is no nee d to rea ch additional issues. See United Seniors Ass’n, In c . v. Sh al ala , 1 82 F .3 d 9 65 , 9 69 -7 0 ( D. C. C ir . 1 99 9) (b e c a us e c a se re so lve d o n o the r g ro un ds , the re wa s n o n e e d to re a c h the c on sti tut ion a l is su e s r a ise d in the c omp la int ). B e c a

us e the Court

wi ll set aside the Rule a

nd enjoin its e nforc ement under the APA, NAWE and Interve nors’ re quests for relief are full y s at i s fi ed. The Court need not re ach the common law cla im or the constitutional

c la ims

. IV . C ON CL USI ON

For the re asons explained a

bove, the Secre tary ’s motion to dismiss or for summary jud g me nt [D kt. # 3 5 & 3 6] wi ll b e g ra nte d in pa rt a nd de nie d in pa rt , a nd Pla int if f a nd I nte rv e no rs ’ 14 motion for summary

judgme nt [ Dkt. # 40] wi l l be g rante d in part and de nied in part. While the claims under FOIA, the L ong shore Act, and the Bla ck Lung Act will be dismis s ed , s ummary judgme nt will be g rante d in f avor of Plaintiff a

nd I nterve nors with reg ard to their c laims under the APA. The Rule re quiringthe use of c laimants’ initials in AL J decisions and or ders unde r the L ong shore Ac t and the B lack L ung Act will be set a side and its enfor ceme nt will be enjoined. A memorializing Orde r ac companies this Memora ndum Opinion.-14-

Date: Oc tober 27, 2009 __________/s/______________________________ ROSEMARY M. COL L YER Un i t edS t at es Di s t ri ct J u d ge