Big Ridge, Inc. v. Fed. Mine Safety

Decision Date26 April 2013
Docket Number12–2460.,Nos. 12–2316,s. 12–2316
Citation715 F.3d 631
PartiesBIG RIDGE, INC., Jerad Bickett, et al., Petitioners, v. FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION, et al., Respondents.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Daniel W. Wolff (argued), Attorney, Crowell & Moring LLP, James A. Lastowka (argued), Arthur Grushkow Sapper, Attorneys, McDermott, Will & Emery, Washington, DC, for Petitioners.

Robin A. Rosenbluth (argued), Attorney, Department of Labor, Arlington, VA, M. Patricia Smith, Attorney, Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, John T. Sullivan, Attorney, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondents.

Henry Chajet, Attorney, Patton Boggs, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae.

Before BAUER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and THARP, District Judge. *

HAMILTON, Circuit Judge.

Under the Federal Mine Safety & Health Act of 1977 (“the Mine Safety Act”), the Secretary of Labor is charged with protecting the health and safety of the nation's miners, acting through the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). Regulations issued under the Mine Safety Act require mine operators to report to MSHA all mine-related injuries and illnesses suffered by mine employees. In October 2010, MSHA acted on a new and broader interpretation of existing regulations. It informed thirty-nine mine operators that, in addition to providing the injury and illness reports, they would be required to permit an MSHA inspector to review employee medical and personnel records during their next inspections. Reviewing employee medical and personnel records would enable MSHA to verify that the mines have not been under-reporting miners' injuries and illnesses.

Two mine operators refused to provide the records. MSHA issued citations and imposed monetary penalties for failing to comply with the demand for the records. The mine operators challenged MSHA's authority to demand the records and to impose penalties under the Mine Safety Act and relevant regulations. The mine operators argued that MSHA is not authorized to require them to produce records beyond those that regulations specifically require them to maintain. The challenge was heard by an administrative law judge and reviewed by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (“the Commission”), both of which found that the document demands and enforcement were lawful under 30 U.S.C. § 813(h) and 30 C.F.R. § 50.41. The mine operators petitioned for review by this court, joined by a group of mine employees who intervened before the Commission to raise personal privacy challenges to the document demands.

On petitions for judicial review, the mine operators and miners challenge the document demands on several grounds. They contend: (1) that MSHA does not have the authority to require mines to comply with the demands under the Mine Safety Act or relevant regulations; (2) that the relevant regulation, 30 C.F.R. § 50.41, is not a reasonable interpretation of the Mine Safety Act and was not properly promulgated; (3) that the document demands infringe the mine operators' Fourth Amendment right not to be searched without a warrant; (4) that the demands violate the miners' Fourth Amendment privacy rights in their medical records; (5) that the daily penalties MSHA imposed for failure to comply violate the mine operators' Fifth Amendment right to due process of law; and (6) that the demands conflict with a variety of other federal and state laws.

We agree with the Commission that MSHA acted within its statutory and constitutional authority both in demanding information that would permit MSHA to verify the accuracy of mine operators' injury reports and in issuing citations and monetary penalties when mine operators refused to comply. We deny this petition for review of the judgment of the Commission.

I. Regulatory and Factual BackgroundA. Federal Regulation of Mine Safety

The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, Pub.L. No. 95–164, superseded two prior pieces of mine legislation, the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 (“the Coal Act”), Pub.L. No. 91–173, and the Federal Metal and Nonmetallic Mine Safety Act of 1966 (“the Metal Act”), Pub.L. No. 89–577. The 1977 Mine Safety Act covers all types of mines addressed by these prior acts. In passing the new Mine Safety Act, Congress acted to strengthen the government's authority to regulate mines in response to a joint committee of Congress finding that after “ten years of enforcement of the Metal [A]ct, and six years of enforcement of the Coal Act ... fatalities and disabling injuries in our nation's mines are still unacceptably and unconscionably high.” S.Rep. No. 95–181, at 7 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3401, 3407. Recognizing “an urgent need to provide more effective means and measures for improving the working conditions and practices in the Nation's coal or other mines in order to prevent death and serious physical harm, and in order to prevent occupational diseases originating in such mines,” Congress passed the 1977 Mine Safety Act to strengthen the government's ability to ensure mine safety. 30 U.S.C. § 801(c). Congress found that the stronger Mine Safety Act was needed because earlier laws had proven too weak and mines still had appalling safety records. At the time the Mine Safety Act passed, an average of one miner died and sixty-six miners were injured each day, and the incidence of work-related injuries and illnesses for miners exceeded the “all-industry” rate at the time by about 14 percent. S.Rep. No. 95–181, at 4, 7, 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3404, 3407.

The Mine Safety Act created the Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration (“MESA”), which has been renamed the Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”). The Act gave MSHA broad authority to ensure the safety of mines, including the authority to inspect mines and collect records and reports, 30 U.S.C. § 813, to promulgate mandatory health and safety standards and rules, § 811, and to enforce safety standards and rules through citations and penalties, § 814. Most relevant here, section 813(a) authorizes MSHA to inspect and investigate mines, and section 813(h) imposes reporting and record-keeping requirements upon mine operators.

Sections 813(a) and 813(h) provide the statutory basis for MSHA's collection and reporting of data relating to mine safety and health. To implement these sections, regulations were promulgated detailing a system of required reporting for mines. Under the Part 50 regulations, mines must immediately report serious injuries or incidents, 30 C.F.R. § 50.10; must report all mine accidents, injuries, and occupational illnesses as they occur on forms called 7000–1 reports, § 50.20; and must report employee work hours and total coal production for each quarter on forms called 7000–2 reports, § 50.30. MSHA uses Part 50 reports to calculate for all mines the “Incidence Rates,” which are the number of injuries or illnesses per employee hour worked, and “Severity Measures,” which take into account the severity of injuries per employee hour worked. See 30 C.F.R. § 50.1. These reports permit MSHA “to investigate, and to obtain and utilize information pertaining to, accidents, injuries, and illnesses occurring or originating in mines.” Id. MSHA also makes all of this compiled data publicly available on its website. See MSHA Statistics, www. msha. gov/ stats/ statinfo. htm (last visited April 24, 2013).

In addition to requiring mine operators to submit the 7000–1 and 7000–2 reports, the Part 50 regulations require mine operators to maintain copies of those records and to permit MSHA to verify the information in those reports. The provision at the center of the controversy here is section 50.41, which permits MSHA to verify the information in the reports:

Upon request by MSHA, an operator shall allow MSHA to inspect and copy information related to an accident, injury or illnesses which MSHA considers relevant and necessary to verify a report of investigation required by § 50.11 of this part or relevant and necessary to a determination of compliance with the reporting requirements of this part.

30 C.F.R. § 50.41.

The Mine Safety Act authorizes MSHA to enforce these reporting requirements through citations and orders, 30 U.S.C. § 814(a), “failure to abate” penalty fees when a mine has not abated a previously-cited violation, § 814(b), and withdrawal orders, which require a mine to be evacuated and shut down, § 814(d). Mine operators can challenge citations and orders in a hearing before an administrative law judge whose decision is appealable to the Commission. § 815(d). While the contest hearing is pending, mine operators can request temporary relief from certain penalties and other orders. § 815(b)(2). Mine operators can petition for review of final orders of the Commission by a federalcourt of appeals, § 816(a)(1), as petitioners have done here.

B. Part 50 Audits

During inspections of several mines in October 2010, MSHA inspectors presented letters ordering the mine operators to have several pieces of information and documents related to the 7000–1 and 7000–2 reports from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010 “available for review” during their next inspections. The demanded documents included:

1. All MSHA Form 7000–1 Accident Reports

2. All quarterly MSHA Form 7000–2 Employment and Production Reports

3. All payroll records and time sheets for all individuals working at your mine for the covered time period

4. The number of employees working at the mine for each quarter

5. All medical records, doctor's slips, worker compensation filings, sick leave requests or reports, drug testing documents, emergency medical transportation records, and medical claims forms in your possession relating to accidents, injuries, or illnesses that occurred at the mine or may have resulted from work at the mine for all individuals...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • United States v. Zadeh
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • April 21, 2016
    ...567 (1984).55 Id. at 415, 104 S.Ct. 769.56 289 F.3d 843 (6th Cir.2001).57 Id. at 845.58 See Big Ridge, Inc. v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 715 F.3d 631, 645–48 (7th Cir.2013) (applying reasonable relevance test to an administrative demand for miners' medical records in connecti......
  • Free Speech Coal., Inc. v. Holder
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • July 18, 2013
    ...a judge has ruled an administrative search warrant is required merely for a record inspection. Cf. Big Ridge, Inc. v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 715 F.3d 631, 646 (7th Cir.2013) (holding that records demands of mine operators, pursuant to the Mine Health Safety Act, complied w......
  • In re Leopold
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • August 16, 2018
    ...rather than how an Act nominally refers to those powers." Leopold , 300 F.Supp.3d at 88 (quoting Big Ridge, Inc. v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm'n , 715 F.3d 631, 646 (7th Cir. 2013) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted) ). To determine whether an SCA warrant is analog......
  • Microsoft Corp. v. United States (In re a Warrant to Search a Certain E–Mail Account Controlled & Maintained by Microsoft Corp.)
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • July 14, 2016
    ...search warrant, because, for the reasons given above, that label should not be controlling. Cf. Big Ridge, Inc. v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm'n , 715 F.3d 631, 645–46 (7th Cir. 2013) (explaining that “we look to the substance of [the government's] inspection power rather than how......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT