Skip to content
Surf Wiki
Save to docs
general/mine-safety

From Surf Wiki (app.surf) — the open knowledge base

American Mining Congress v. Mine Safety & Health Administration


FieldValue
LitigantsAmerican Mining Congress v. Mine Safety & Health Administration
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
ArgueDateNovember 10,
ArgueYear1992
DecideDateJune 15,
DecideYear1993
FullNameAmerican Mining Congress v. Mine Safety & Health Administration
Citations995 F.2d 1106; 302 U.S. App. D.C. 38, 1993 O.S.H.D. (CCH) ¶ 30,096
HoldingThe 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.
JudgesStephen F. Williams, David B. Sentelle, A. Raymond Randolph
MajorityWilliams
JoinMajoritya unanimous court
LawsAppliedAdministrative Procedure Act
keywordsAdministrative 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, the American Mining Congress, 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.

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):

  1. 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;
  2. Whether the agency has published the rule in the code of federal regulations;
  3. Whether the agency has explicitly invoked its general legislative authority;
  4. Whether the rule effectively amends a prior legislative rule. Subsequent caselaw has minimized the importance of the second factor.

References

References

  1. Circuit, District of Columbia. (10 November 1992). "995 F2d 1106 American Mining Congress v. Mine Safety & Health Administration US American Mining Congress".
Info: Wikipedia Source

This article was imported from Wikipedia and is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Content has been adapted to SurfDoc format. Original contributors can be found on the article history page.

Want to explore this topic further?

Ask Mako anything about American Mining Congress v. Mine Safety & Health Administration — get instant answers, deeper analysis, and related topics.

Research with Mako

Free with your Surf account

Content sourced from Wikipedia, available under CC BY-SA 4.0.

This content may have been generated or modified by AI. CloudSurf Software LLC is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of AI-generated content. Always verify important information from primary sources.

Report