Morton Salt, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor

Plain-English summary

MSHA issued Morton Salt a pattern-of-violations notice and later nine section 104(e) withdrawal orders. Morton contested the withdrawal orders and referenced the POV notice in each contest but acknowledged that it had not directly contested the notice itself. Under Commission precedent, a POV notice cannot be challenged in a standalone docket, although its validity may be reviewed indirectly when the operator contests a related withdrawal order. The Judge therefore dismissed docket CENT 2023-0069 but refused to strike references to the POV notice from the nine continuing withdrawal-order contests.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provision: 30 U.S.C. § 814(e)
• Outcome: Docket No. CENT 2023-0069 was dismissed; Docket Nos. CENT 2023-0070 through 0078 continued.
• Key point: A POV notice is not directly reviewable, but an operator may challenge it through contests of resulting section 104(e) withdrawal orders.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW
COMMISSION

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

721 19th ST.
SUITE 443

DENVER, CO 80202-2500

TELEPHONE: 303-844-5266 / FAX: 303-844-5268

|
MORTON SALT, INC., Contestant,
v.
SECRETARY OF LABOR, MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, (MSHA), Respondent. |
|
|
CONTEST PROCEEDINGS
Docket No. CENT 2023-0069 POV Notice 9679401; 12/01/2022
Docket No. CENT 2023-0070 Order No. 9673196; 12/12/2022
Docket No. CENT 2023-0071 Order No. 9674873; 12/07/2022
Docket No. CENT 2023-0072 Order No. 9674876; 12/12/2022
Docket No. CENT 2023-0073 Order No. 9674877; 12/12/2022
Docket No. CENT 2023-0074 Order No. 9674883; 12/14/2022
Docket No. CENT 2023-0075 Order No. 9674887; 12/14/2022
Docket No. CENT 2023-0076 Order No. 9674888; 12/20/2022
Docket No. CENT 2023-0077 Order No. 9674891; 12/20/2022
Docket No. CENT 2023-0078 Order No. 9674895; 12/28/2022
Mine: Weeks Island Mine and Mill Mine ID: 16-00970 |

__ORDER GRANTING
IN PART SECRETARY OF LABOR’S __

MOTION TO
DISMISS CONTEST TO POV NOTICE

ORDER OF
DISMISSAL

Before: Judge Simonton

These cases are before me upon notices
of contest filed by Morton Salt Inc. (“Morton”) under Section 105(d) of the
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (“Mine Act”), 30 U.S.C. § 801 et
seq. Docket No. CENT 2023-0069 was assigned by the Commission’s docket office to
a contest of a Pattern of Violations (POV) Notice, which was issued by MSHA on December
1, 2022.[1] Notably, however,
Morton did not contest the POV Notice itself. Instead, it contested nine Section
104(e) withdrawal orders issued following the POV Notice and simply referenced
the POV Notice, No. 9679401, in each of those notices of contest.[2]
See, e.g., Notice of Contest, CENT 2023-0070. Accordingly, it appears
that Docket No. CENT 2023-0069 may have been created in error.

On January 24, 2023, the Secretary moved
to dismiss CENT 2023-0069 and to strike any reference to Morton’s contest of
the POV Notice in each 104(e) Notice of Contest filed in Docket Nos. CENT
2023-0070, CENT 2023-0071, CENT 2023-0072, CENT 2023-0073, CENT 2023-0074, CENT
2023-0075, CENT 2023-0076, CENT 2023-0077, and CENT 2023-0078. The Secretary
argues that the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission lacks
jurisdiction over a contest to a POV Notice pursuant to the Commission’s
holding in Pocahontas Coal Co., LLC, 38 FMSHRC 176 (Feb. 2016). Sec’y of
Labor’s Mot. to Dismiss Contest to POV Notice at 2. According to the Secretary,
Morton cannot establish the Commission’s jurisdiction over its contest of the
POV Notice. Id. at 4.

Morton filed a Statement in Opposition
to the Secretary’s Motion to Dismiss on February 3, 2023. In its statement, Morton
confirms that it “did not file a Notice of Contest to the POV Notice; it did
not directly challenge or contest the POV notice.” Contestant’s Statement in
Opp’n to Sec’y of Labor’s Mot. to Dismiss Contest to POV Notice at 2. Morton argues
that the POV notice, since it is joined by the nine Section 104(e) withdrawal
orders MSHA issued after the POV Notice, does not stand alone. Id. Morton
asserts that because it is indirectly challenging the POV Notice by contesting
the withdrawal orders, the court does not need to dismiss Docket No. CENT 2023-0069
but should instead consolidate it with the contests of the nine Section 104(e)
withdrawal orders and issue an order confirming that Morton seeks review of the
POV Notice during the contest of those orders. Id. at 3-5.

In Pocahontas Coal Co., LLC,
the Commission held that “the language of section 105(d) does not give the
Commission authority to review a direct challenge to a POV notice.” 38 FMSHRC
176 at 182. However, an operator may obtain Commission review of a POV notice during
a contest of a related withdrawal order issued under Section 104(e). Id. at

184. Accordingly, Morton will be able to challenge the validity of the POV Notice
     during the contest proceedings for the nine dockets challenging the Section
     104(e) withdrawal orders. I thus see no legitimate reason to grant the portion
     of the Secretary’s motion that requests the court strike any reference to Morton’s
     contest of the POV Notice in the Notices of Contest in Docket Nos. CENT
     2023-0070 through CENT 2023-0078. I do find, however, that dismissal of Docket
     No. CENT 2023-0069 is appropriate. Both parties recognize that the Commission
     does not have jurisdiction to review a POV notice standing alone, and, procedurally,
     it stands alone in Docket No. CENT 2023-0069. It is properly challenged indirectly
     in Docket Nos. CENT 2023-0070 through CENT 2023-0078 and I will hear arguments
     about its validity in those proceedings.

Accordingly, the Secretary’s Motion
to Dismiss Contest to POV Notice is hereby GRANTED IN PART. It is ORDERED
that Docket No. CENT 2023-0069 is DISMISSED.

/s/
David P. Simonton

David P. Simonton

Administrative Law Judge

Distribution: (Electronic and Certified Mail)

Brian Hendrix, Husch Blackwell LLP, 1801 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW, Suite 1000, Washington, D.C. 20006, [email protected]

Donna Pryor, Husch Blackwell LLP, 1801 Wewatta Street, Suite
1000, Denver, CO 80202, [email protected]

Mia F. Terrell, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the
Solicitor, 525 S. Griffin Street, Suite 501, Dallas, TX 75202, [email protected]

Tyler Nash, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the
Solicitor, 525 S. Griffin Street, Suite 501, Dallas, TX 75202, [email protected]

Josh Bernstein, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the
Solicitor, 525 S. Griffin Street, Suite 501, Dallas, TX 75202, [email protected]

[1] If an operator
has a patten a pattern of violations of mandatory health or safety standards that
could significantly and substantially contribute to the cause and effect of
coal or other mine health or safety standards, Section 104(e)(1) of the Mine
Act directs MSHA to issue a notice of such pattern to the operator. 30 U.S.C. §
814(e)(1). If any inspection within 90 days following the notice reveals a significant
and substantial violation of a mandatory health or safety standard, MSHA must
issue a withdrawal order. Id. Section 104(e) also provides for MSHA’s issuance
of additional withdrawal orders for subsequent significant and substantial violations
discovered until an inspection of the entire mine reveals no significant and
substantial violations of mandatory health or safety standards. Id. § 814(e)(2)-(3).

[2] The contest cases,
Docket Nos. CENT 2023-0070 through CENT 2023-0078, were assigned to me alongside
Docket No. CENT 2023-0069.