Sixth Circuit Without Jurisdiction To Hear Challenge To MSHA Rules On Pattern Of Violations Regulations

The Mine Safety and Health Administration and the Secretary for the U.S. Department of Labor issued a final rule in January 2013 comprising a new pattern of violation regulation.  Under the Mine Act, the Secretary can “make such rules as he deems necessary to establish criteria for determining when a pattern of violations of mandatory health or safety standards exist.”  After the Secretary issued the final rule relating to MSHA’s powers regarding inspecting, defining, and following up on a pattern of safety violations, a group of coal associations and mining companies brought suit challenging the final rule.  They filed the suit in the U.S. Court Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, but the Secretary challenged the circuit court’s jurisdiction because the rule was not a “mandatory health or safety standard.”

The Mine Act vests jurisdiction in the U.S. Courts of Appeals in two situations: 1) if a party is cited for a Mine Act violation, the agency action can be challenged within MSHA and then appealed to a U.S. Court of Appeals, or 2) any person adversely affected by a “mandatory health or safety standard” promulgated under the Mine Act can challenge the standard in the D.C. Circuit or in the circuit where the person resides or has a principal place of business.  See 30 U.S.C. § 811(d).  On Tuesday, the Sixth Circuit agreed that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because like the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Mine Act did not explicitly provide for court of appeals jurisdiction for regulations that are not mandatory health or safety standards, and that this particular rule was not a mandatory health or safety standard.

The Sixth Circuit did not reach the issue as to whether the rule first needed to be challenged within MSHA’s administrative review scheme before being challenged in a U.S. District Court and declined to transfer the case to a U.S. District Court.