F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
NOV 29 1999
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
L & T FABRICATION &
CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Petitioner,
v. No. 99-9523
THE SECRETARY OF LABOR;
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND
HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION,
Respondent.
PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
(Petition No. EAJ 99-1)
ORDER
Before ANDERSON, EBEL and MURPHY, Circuit Judges
This is a direct appeal from an order of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
denying the petitioner attorney fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice
Act (EAJA), 5 U.S.C. § 504. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
The petitioner was cited for a violation of a safety standard under the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. The petitioner contested the citation and the
accompanying civil penalty proposal. The ALJ affirmed the citation but reduced the
proposed penalty. Neither the Secretary of Labor nor the petitioner appealed to the
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. After the decision became
final pursuant to 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1), the petitioner moved under the EAJA for
attorney fees and expenses. The ALJ denied the application, concluding that the
proposed penalty was neither substantially in excess of the of the penalty assessed
nor unreasonable when compared to that decision. 5 U.S.C. § 504(a)(4). The
petitioner then filed this appeal as well as a petition for review with the
Commission.
The EAJA provides that:
[a]n agency that conducts an adversary adjudication shall
award, to a prevailing party other than the United States,
fees and other expenses incurred by that party in
connection with that proceeding, unless the adjudicative
officer of the agency finds that the position of the agency
was substantially justified or that special circumstances
make an award unjust.
5 U.S.C. § 504(a)(1). The Act goes on to provide that:
(3) The adjudicative officer of the agency may reduce the
amount to be awarded, or deny an award, to the extent that
the party during the course of the proceedings engaged in
conduct which unduly and unreasonably protracted the
final resolution of the matter in controversy. The decision
of the adjudicative officer of the agency under this section
shall be made a part of the record containing the final
2
decision of the agency and shall include written findings
and conclusions and the reason or basis therefor. The
decision of the agency on the application for fees and
other expenses shall be the final administrative decision
under this section.
(4) If, in an adversary adjudication arising from an agency
action to enforce a party's compliance with a statutory or
regulatory requirement, the demand by the agency is
substantially in excess of the decision of the adjudicative
officer and is unreasonable when compared with such
decision, under the facts and circumstances of the case,
the adjudicative officer shall award to the party the fees
and other expenses related to defending against the
excessive demand, unless the party has committed a
willful violation of law or otherwise acted in bad faith, or
special circumstances make an award unjust. Fees and
expenses awarded under this paragraph shall be paid only
as a consequence of appropriations provided in advance.
5 U.S.C. § 504(a)(3) and (4)(emphasis added).
The petitioner argues that, because under the statutory language found in
subsection (1), that “unless the adjudicative officer of the agency finds,” and in
subsection (3), that the “decision of the adjudicative officer shall be made part of
the record containing the final decision of the agency,”, the decision of the ALJ is
the final agency decision and is therefore immediately appealable to this court. This
argument is without merit.
It is clear from the emphasized language of the statute above that the final
decision is not that of the ALJ , but rather that of the agency.
The petitioner contends that the legislative history supports its position. We
3
disagree. “When the terms of the statute are clear and unambiguous, that language
is controlling absent rare and exceptional circumstances.” True Oil Co. v.
Commissioner, 170 F.3d 1294, 1299 (10th Cir. 1999) (citation and quotation
omitted). However, even upon review of the legislative history, we conclude that
the history accompanying the 1985 amendments supports our interpretation.
The legislation allows the agency rather than the
adjudicative officer to make the final decision on the fee
award at the agency level.
H.R. Rep. No. 99-120 (I), reprinted in 1985 U.S.C.C.A.N. 132, 135. The addition
of the last sentence to § 504(a)(3), which is emphasized above,
explicitly adopts the view that the agency makes the final
decision in the award of fees in administrative
proceedings under section 504. This follows the view
adopted by the Administrative Conference and recognizes
the fact that decisions in administrative proceedings are
generally not final until they have been adopted by the
agency.
Id. at 142. Moreover, “[u]nder the provisions of the bill the government may not
appeal fee decisions by the agency.” Id. at 145.
The petitioner makes much of the reference to McDonald v. Schweiker, 726
F.2d 311 (7th Cir. 1983) and Mass. Union Public Housing Tenants v. Pierce, 755
F.2d 177 (D.C. Cir. 1985) on page 14 of the House Report. However, this reference
sentence was deleted in the supplemental House Report. H.R. Supp. Rep. No. 99-
4
120 (II), reprinted in 1985 U.S.C.C.A.N. 151, 155.
Our reading of the statute is also supported by case law. In Smith v. NTSB,
992 F.2d 849, 852 (8th Cir. 1993), the court, citing to § 504(a)(3), held that the
decision of the Board and not the ALJ was the final decision subject to review. The
Sixth Circuit came to the same conclusion in Lion Uniform, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 905
F.2d 120, 123 (6th Cir.) (“While the decision on an application for fees is initially
made by the adjudicative officer, the final administrative decision is that of the
agency.”), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 992 (1990).
APPEAL DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
PER CURIAM
5