I’ve often suspected that some federal agencies apply very broad definitionsÂ to the exemptionsÂ provided under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).Â Now,Â thanks to one diligent journalist I can judge for myself whether the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is an offender.Â
Ellen Smith of Mine Safety and Health News requested records from MSHA and the Solicitor’s Office (SOL) about itsÂ legal determination that theÂ haulage road on which coal-truck drive Chad Cook, 25, died, was under MSHA jurisdication.Â MSHA had made a grossÂ error in 2005-2006 when it concluded that the road was private property.Â (In November 2007, the senior officials reversed themselves, but it was too late to get justice for Chad Cook.)Â Â Smith made her FOIA request for the legal determinationÂ in August 2008, andÂ MSHA responded 7 months later.Â Â They provided aÂ four-page memo written by SOL, butÂ redacted certain portionsÂ under FOIA Exemption 4.Â Â This exemptionÂ is allowed to protect
“trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person [that is] privileged or confidential.”
When MSHA sent the redacted version to the journalist in March, the agency’sÂ cover letter said
“some of the information is potentially protected under FOIA exemption 4”
and that they were providing her with thisÂ redacted versionÂ while they proceeded with the “submitter notification process.”Â Â Â This is step that the Labor Department follows before releasing information thatÂ an individual, employer or other entity has previously provided to the Department ANDÂ had designated itÂ “confidential business information” (CBI)Â orÂ “protected from disclosure under Exemption 4.”Â Â (SeeÂ DOL’s rules at 29 CFR 70.26Â )Â
When I read MSHA’s March 2009 response to Ellen Smith and saw the redacted memo, I was very curious to see what the company could possibly have considered CBI or a trade secret.Â This was a haulage road, for goodness sakes.Â
Here’s the unredacted version, just now released by MSHA.Â Â See for yourself; theÂ sentences appearingÂ in yellow highlightÂ are those that had beenÂ redacted under FOIAÂ Exemption 4.Â None of it seems worthy to me of a “trade secret” or “commerical or financial” designation. Items like:
“About 1500 truck trips per day take place over the road.”
“Metikki asserts that the road is owned by Western Pocohontas Properties and RDC Projects.Â Metikki has an easement to use the haulage road and Mettiki has the right to upgrade, repair and maintain the road as well as other obligations and authority.”
“Although the majority of the traffic on the road is coal haulage traffic, there has been some additional use for logging, allowed under the easement, and other occasional users such as hunters.Â According to Mettiki, one of these users hauled over 1 million board feet of logs and 14,000 cords of pulpwood from 2005 to 2006.”
Are worthy of “commercial or financial interest” designation???
When I read the Dept of Justice’s interpretation of the case law on FOIA Exemption 4, it hardly clears things up for me.Â Â One judicial decision says “records are commercial so long as the submitter has a ‘commercial interest’ in them.”Â Â That’s pretty darn broad.
The full release of this memo not only makes me wonder about the application of FOIA Exemption 4 and its implications for worker health and safety, but alsoÂ raises questions closer to home about Chad Cook’s death.Â Â Specifically,Â questionsÂ about MSHA’s determination way back in November 2005Â that theÂ roadway on which Chad CookÂ was killed was notÂ mine property.Â Â Â
It also makes me wonder whether the company’s secrecy, demonstrated inÂ their claims ofÂ CBI, played a role in MSHA’s original grave error in failing to investigate Chad Cook’s fatality.Â Â Or, was MSHA making its own decisions about the company’s commercial or financial interest, deciding not to disclose the items marked in yellow highlight until they checked first with Mettiki?Â Could it be that Mettiki hadn’t actuallyÂ “designated, by appropriateÂ markings”Â this information as protected from disclosure under FOIA exemption 4, but MSHA felt compelled to check with the mine operator before releasing it.Â Is that why MSHA’s March 2009 response to Ellen Smith said:
“…a determination was made that some information is potentially protected under FOIA Exemption 4.” [emphasis added]Â
So that was written in March 2009, and Labor Secretary Solis had only been on the job for a month.Â It’s now late June.Â Perhaps Attorney General Holder’s memo on FOIAÂ has made its way to MSHA and the release of this memo last week signals a new wave of transparency.Â Â I’m not willing to hold my breath on it, but hope it is so.