Opinion ID: 3013517
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: If your review decision affirms the

Text: assignment(s); Then notify the assignee that the request for review has been denied because it was not timely filed. (App. 482.) Appellants’ argument fails for two reasons. First, we held in Lindsey Coal Mining Co. v. Chater that the Commissioner’s internal Coal Act guidelines “lack the force of law,” and “[t]herefore, the agency is not bound to follow them and [coal operators are] not entitled to rely on them.” 90 F.3d 688, 693 (3d Cir. 1996). The cases cited by appellants are not to the contrary, as they hold only that an agency must provide an explanation when failing to follow its prior, established precedent. See Borough of Columbia v. Surface Transp. Bd., 342 F.3d 222, 229 (3d Cir. 2003); Fertilizer Inst. v. Browner, 163 F.3d 774, 778 (3d Cir. 1998); Stardyne, Inc. v. NLRB, 41 F.3d 141, 153 (3d Cir. 1994). Second, the procedure quoted above was not in effect when, in 1997, the Commissioner denied appellants’ appeals. Rather, the procedures in force in 1997 state that “[i]f the request is not timely filed . . . [d]o not review the request.” (App. 490.) Therefore, the 13 Commissioner’s decision was consistent with the internal procedures in effect at the time of the disputed decision.5