Spring Creek Materials, Inc. (Commission decision, July 27, 2011)

Spring Creek Materials, Inc. (FMSHRC CENT 2010-317-M and CENT 2010-318-M): Interlocutory review denied

Decision type
Commission decision
Dockets
CENT 2010-317-M, CENT 2010-318-M
Decided
July 27, 2011
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Citable Commission precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-03

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 2011, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 2011
The MSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Decision of the Commission
This is a decision of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, the highest level of agency review, citable as Commission precedent. It may have been appealed to a U.S. Court of Appeals after issuance under 30 U.S.C. § 816; check subsequent history before relying on it. The full text below is from the official FMSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FMSHRC release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

An ALJ accepted penalty petitions filed months after the 45-day deadline and denied Spring Creek Materials' motions to dismiss. Spring Creek sought discretionary review, but the Commission held that the ALJ's ruling was interlocutory because the penalty cases remained pending. The request therefore had to satisfy Commission Rule 76 for interlocutory review. Because the judge had neither certified the ruling nor denied a certification request followed by a timely petition, the Commission denied review.

Decision snapshot

  • Governing provisions: 30 U.S.C. § 823(d); 29 C.F.R. § 2700.76
  • Outcome: Spring Creek's petition for review was denied.
  • Key point: A nonfinal ruling cannot receive discretionary review as a final decision, and interlocutory review requires compliance with Rule 76's certification process.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

601 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, NW

SUITE 9500

WASHINGTON, DC 20001

July 27, 2011

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

SPRING CREEK MATERIALS, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No.CENT 2010-317-M

CENT 2010-318-M

BEFORE: Jordan, Chairman; Duffy, Young, Cohen, and Nakamura, Commissioners

ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION:

This matter arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. (2006). On July 14, 2011, Spring Creek Materials, Inc. (“Spring Creek”) filed with the Commission a document entitled “Petition for Discretionary Review.” Spring Creek seeks review of an order issued by Chief Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Lesnick on June 24, 2011, in which he ruled that the Secretary’s late filed penalty petitions were accepted and that Spring Creek’s Motions to Dismiss were denied.

We have determined that the judge’s June 24, 2011, decision is not a final decision ending his jurisdiction over this matter. In his decision, the judge found that the Secretary’s petitions for assessment of civil penalty should have been filed by May 3, 2010, but were filed on January 31, 2011. The judge determined that “given the unprecedented number of cases currently before the Commission, as well as the unprecedented number of penalty petitions pending before the Secretary, strict adherence to the 45-day time line is unrealistic.” Order at 2. Consequently, his decision is interlocutory in nature. As a result, Spring Creek’s petition is not a valid petition for discretionary review of a final decision under section 113(d) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 823(d), but rather is in the nature of a petition for interlocutory review.Pursuant to Commission Procedural Rule 76, 29 C.F.R. § 2700.76, the Commission may only grant interlocutory review if certain conditions are met. First, it may grant review if the judge has certified that his or her interlocutory ruling involves a controlling question of law and that immediate review will materially advance the final disposition of the proceeding. Second, it may grant review if the judge has denied a party’s motion for certification of the interlocutory ruling to the Commission and the party files with the Commission a petition for interlocutory review within 30 days of the judge’s denial of such motion for certification.

We have determined that neither condition set forth in Rule 76 has been met in this case. Accordingly, the petition filed by Spring Creek is denied.


Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman


Michael F. Duffy, Commissioner


Michael G. Young, Commissioner


Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner


Patrick K. Nakamura, Commissioner

Distribution:

Michael Curtis, Esq.

1814 Porter Wagoner Blvd.

West Plains, MO 65775

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2220

Arlington, VA 22209-2296

Melanie Garris

Office of Civil Penalty Compliance

MSHA

U.S. Dept. Of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., 25th Floor

Arlington, VA 22209-3939

Chief Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Lesnick

Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Suite 9500

Washington, D.C. 20001-2021

Does this precedent still control your case?

Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace