American Mining Congress v. MSHA
Citation: 995 F.2d 1106 (D.C. Cir. 1993)
Facts
The Mine Safety and Health Administration issued a program policy letter stating that certain mine operators must report a miner’s illness when diagnosed. The American Mining Congress argued this was a legislative rule requiring notice-and-comment, not an exempt interpretive rule.
Issue
When is an agency pronouncement a legislative rule (requiring notice-and-comment) versus an interpretive rule (exempt from notice-and-comment)?
Holding
The D.C. Circuit articulated a multi-factor test for distinguishing legislative from interpretive rules. A rule is legislative (requiring notice-and-comment) if it: (1) has the force of law, (2) amends or supersedes prior legislative rules, (3) is something the agency is directed to publish in the Code of Federal Regulations, or (4) grants rights or imposes obligations.
Rule
Legislative vs. interpretive rule distinction: A rule is interpretive if it merely “advises the public of the agency’s construction of the statutes and rules it administers” — it derives its legal force from the underlying statute, not from the rule itself. A rule is legislative if it creates new legal obligations beyond what the statute itself requires or modifies prior legislative rules.
Significance
- Leading D.C. Circuit case on the legislative/interpretive rule distinction
- The distinction is critical because legislative rules have the force of law and may be enforced like statutes; interpretive rules have no independent legal force
- Courts have struggled to articulate a clear test; AMC provides one widely cited framework
- If a rule is legislative but issued without notice-and-comment, it is void — a significant consequence