Opinion ID: 399950
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Are the Area Sampling Regulations Procedurally Invalid?

Text: 44 A. Did the Secretary comply with the procedural requirements of the MSHA and APA in promulgating the regulations? 45 Petitioner contends that the Secretary's rulemaking was procedurally defective because (1) documents were not date-stamped as they were received, (2) the index of record omitted some documents in the record and included some documents dated after the close of the comment period, and (3) the reasons for the rule were not adequately stated. Petitioner argues that these deficiencies deprived it of its right to comment granted by the MSHA and the APA, and made meaningful judicial review impossible. Petitioner's Brief at 11, 12, 14. 46 The MSHA prescribes an informal rulemaking process in rulemaking proceedings under its authority. 30 U.S.C. § 811(a). 21 The procedures necessary in informal rulemaking are set forth in § 553 of the APA. There must be a notice of proposed rulemaking; interested parties must be given an opportunity to participate through submission of written comments; and the final rule must contain a concise general statement of (its) basis and purpose. 5 U.S.C. § 553(b), (c). There is no requirement of a formal record, oral presentation of arguments, cross-examination, or formal findings and conclusions. There is no requirement that documents be date-stamped as they are received, or that the record be restricted to documents dated prior to the close of the comment period. For this court to impose those requirements would be to disregard the Supreme Court's holding in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 98 S.Ct. 1197, 55 L.Ed.2d 460 (1978). There the Court stated that the formulation of procedures (beyond those required by the APA is) basically to be left within the discretion of the agencies to which Congress (has) confided the responsibility for substantive judgments. Id. at 524, 98 S.Ct. at 1202. 47 It is true that nine documents 22 (in a record containing hundreds of documents) were not exposed to adversarial comment because they became part of the record after the close of the comment period. These documents consist of background information and data as well as several internal memoranda. There is nothing to indicate that the Secretary actually relied on any of these documents in promulgating the rule or that the data they contain was critical to the formulation of the rule. See Portland Cement Association v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 392 (D.C.Cir.1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 921, 94 S.Ct. 2628, 41 L.Ed.2d 226 (1974). 48 Nevertheless, petitioner argues its right to comment was denied. Petitioner's Brief at 12. We disagree. It is clear that all interested parties were given a full and fair opportunity to comment on all the significant issues in this rulemaking proceeding. The proposed rule and notice of rulemaking were published in November of 1977. 42 Fed.Reg. 59,294-300 (Nov. 16, 1977). The initial 30-day comment period was extended through February, 1978. 43 Fed.Reg. 979 (Jan. 5, 1978). In June, 1978 the Secretary published a notice of public hearing, listing 53 major issues on which testimony was desired. 43 Fed.Reg. 26,454-56 (June 20, 1978). Hearings were held during the summer of 1978 in Washington, D.C., Pittsburgh, Denver, Charleston and Lexington. Robert Vines represented petitioner at the Lexington hearing. The opportunity for comment afforded to petitioner was more than that required by the APA, 23 and provided a substantial record on which to review the regulations. 49 Petitioner has failed to grasp the distinction between the notice of proposed rulemaking and the rulemaking record. It is the former to which the statutory right of comment applies, not the latter. The (APA) does not require that every bit of background information used by an administrative agency be published for public comment. B. F. Goodrich Co. v. Department of Transportation, 541 F.2d 1178, 1184 (6th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 930, 97 S.Ct. 1549, 51 L.Ed.2d 773 (1977). We hold that the Secretary's failure to expose the nine documents to adversarial comment does not invalidate the area sampling regulations. 24 50 B. Was the Secretary's Strategy for Implementation a rule to which the notice and commennt requirement applies? 51 In July 1980, after promulgation of the final rule, the Mine Safety and Health Administration issued a Strategy for Implementation of the Designated Area Sampling Program to mine operators. Addendum to Petitioner's Brief, Ex. F. The Strategy consists of a list of potential dust generation sources, guidelines for placement of sampling devices at each source, and suggestions for designating sampling locations in dust control plans. Petitioner contends that the Strategy was a substantive rule and therefore should have been promulgated in accordance with the procedures required by § 553 of the APA and § 811(a) of the MSHA. Petitioner's Brief at 16. The Secretary argues that the Strategy cannot be reviewed by this court under § 811(d) of the MSHA because it is not a mandatory health or safety standard promulgated under (§ 811). 25 Respondent's Brief at 38. 52 We agree with respondent that the Strategy is not a mandatory health or safety standard within the meaning of § 811(d) and is therefore not reviewable by this court. See National Industrial Sand Association v. Marshall, 601 F.2d 689, 711-12 (3rd Cir. 1979). The designated area sampling rule was the mandatory health or safety standard; the Strategy is merely a statement of policy informing mine operators how the Secretary plans to enforce the mandatory standard. The rule itself established only the skeleton of the new sampling program, while the Strategy filled in the details of administration. The rule requires the operator to submit a dust control plan to the Secretary for approval; the Strategy merely sets forth certain features which will, if incorporated in a plan, ensure approval of the plan in most cases. The Strategy is not binding on operators and is not intended to cover all cases. 26 If the Secretary refuses to approve a dust control plan on the ground that the operator has failed to follow the Strategy's guidelines, the operator will receive a citation for failure to have an approved plan. 30 U.S.C. § 814(a) (Supp. III 1979); see 30 C.F.R. § 75.316 (1980). The citation can then be contested in an administrative adjudicatory proceeding on the ground that the operator's plan will adequately control dust even though it does not conform to the Strategy. 30 U.S.C. § 815 (Supp. III 1979); see 30 C.F.R. § 75.316-2 (1980). The Commission's final decision is then subject to judicial review. 30 U.S.C. § 816 (Supp. III 1979). Petitioner's challenge to the Strategy is therefore premature. 53 General notice of proposed rulemaking shall be published in the Federal Register .... Except when notice or hearing is required by statute, this subsection does not apply- 54 (A) to interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice .... 55 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(A) (emphasis added). The except clause does not apply here because the MSHA requires notice and hearing only when the Secretary seeks to promulgate mandatory health or safety standards. 30 U.S.C. § 811(a) (Supp. III 1979). 56 In Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 506 F.2d 33 (D.C.Cir.1974), the court explained the distinction between a substantive rule and a general statement of policy: 57 A properly adopted substantive rule establishes a standard of conduct which has the force of law. In subsequent administrative proceedings involving a substantive rule, the issues are whether the adjudicated facts conform to the rule and whether the rule should be waived or applied in that particular instance. The underlying policy embodied in the rule is not generally subject to challenge before the agency. 58 A general statement of policy, on the other hand, does not establish a binding norm. It is not finally determinative of the issues or rights to which it is addressed. The agency cannot apply or rely upon a general statement of policy as law because a general statement of policy only announces what the agency seeks to establish as policy. A policy statement announces the agency's tentative intentions for the future. When the agency applies the policy in a particular situation, it must be prepared to support the policy just as if the policy statement had never been issued. 59 Id. at 38 (footnotes omitted). As we have already explained, the Strategy is not binding on mine operators. Its purpose is to give operators advance notice of the general policy the Secretary intends to follow in approving dust control plans. See id. at 40. Operators will have an opportunity to challenge this policy if and when the Secretary refuses to approve a proposed plan. Because the Strategy does not finally affect operators' rights and obligations, we hold that it is a general statement of policy exempt from the procedural requirements of § 553. Therefore, the Secretary was not required to afford notice and an opportunity for comment before adopting the Strategy.