## Facts

- The Department of Labor (DOL) administers regulations implementing the Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA), which provides benefits to miners (and eligible survivors) for disability or death caused by pneumoconiosis arising from coal mine work.
- DOL undertook a major revision of the BLBA regulations and issued proposed rules with an invitation for public comment and submission of scientific and medical evidence.
- During rule development, DOL retained outside consultants to review submitted materials and the scientific literature and to prepare written reports summarizing and analyzing that evidence.
- The consultants’ reports were used internally in formulating the final rules but were not placed in the public rulemaking docket during the comment period.
- Coal-industry trade associations and mine operators sued to enjoin enforcement of the revised regulations, alleging (1) an APA notice-and-comment violation and (2) substantive invalidity of various provisions as arbitrary and capricious, beyond statutory authority, or otherwise unlawful.
- The case was resolved on cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether DOL violated the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements by relying on consultants’ written summary reports that were not disclosed in the rulemaking docket.
2. Whether particular revised BLBA regulations were arbitrary and capricious or inconsistent with the BLBA, including rules reflecting DOL’s medical conclusions about pneumoconiosis and coal-dust-related disease.
3. Whether any provisions exceeded DOL’s statutory authority or improperly altered burdens or presumptions under the BLBA.

## Decision

- The court rejected the plaintiffs’ procedural APA challenge based on DOL’s use of undisclosed consultant summary reports.
- The court upheld most of the revised BLBA regulations as supported by the administrative record and within DOL’s statutory authority.
- The court set aside and/or remanded certain discrete regulatory provisions that it concluded were unsupported by the record or beyond the statute.
- The court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ summary-judgment motions, leaving the regulatory overhaul largely intact with targeted provisions invalidated.

## Legal Principles

- APA notice-and-comment requires disclosure of critical factual material on which an agency relies, but it does not require disclosure of internal deliberative documents or consultant analyses that merely synthesize and evaluate evidence already available for public comment.
- An agency’s scientific and medical judgments in rulemaking are reviewed under the APA’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard; courts assess whether the agency examined relevant data and reasonably explained its choices without reweighing competing evidence.
- Conflicting scientific evidence does not itself render a rule invalid if the agency offers a reasoned explanation for crediting particular evidence and the record reasonably supports the agency’s conclusions.
- Regulations must stay within the authorizing statute; provisions that impose requirements, burdens, or presumptions inconsistent with statutory structure or lacking record support may be vacated or remanded even if the broader rulemaking is upheld.

## Conclusion

The court held that DOL’s reliance on undisclosed consultant summaries did not invalidate the BLBA rulemaking under the APA because the underlying evidence was available for comment, and it largely deferred to DOL’s reasoned scientific judgments; however, it still vacated or remanded specific regulatory provisions that exceeded statutory limits or lacked adequate record support.


Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. Chao, 160 F. Supp. 2d 47 (D.D.C. 2001)