Secretary of Labor v. The American Coal Company
Secretary of Labor v. The American Coal Company (FMSHRC LAKE 2007-171, et al.): Operator's appeal dismissed and safeguard issues remanded
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Commission precedent from 2015, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The Commission had granted American Coal's petition to review proceedings covering more than 70 citations and then stayed briefing. American Coal later moved without opposition to dismiss its appeal, agreed to pay penalties consistent with three 2011 ALJ decisions, and said the parties had amicably resolved remaining safeguard-related issues. The Commission dismissed review and remanded for any further proceedings needed on those issues. Commissioner Robert F. Cohen separately noted that the settlement reduced penalties from $362,515 to $193,330, but the spreadsheet explained only one reduction and the record contained no transcript or other account of the judge's reasons for approving the settlement.
Decision snapshot
- Governing authority: Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.
- Outcome: The operator's appeal was dismissed and the consolidated proceedings were remanded for any appropriate action on remaining safeguard issues.
- Key point: Dismissal of Commission review can return unresolved implementation issues to the judge, while an unexplained settlement record may leave the Commission unable to evaluate the basis for penalty reductions.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
REVIEW COMMISSION
1331 PENNSYLVANIA
AVENUE, NW, SUITE 520N
WASHINGTON, D.C.
20004-1710
SECRETARY OF LABOR, :
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
Docket Nos. LAKE 2007-171, et al.1
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) :
:
v.
:
:
THE AMERICAN COAL COMPANY
:
BEFORE: Jordan, Chairman;
Young, Cohen, Nakamura, and Althen, Commissioners
ORDER
BY THE COMMISSION:
These
captioned proceedings arising under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of
1977, 30 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. (2012) (“Mine Act”), are before the Commission
pursuant to the granting of The American Coal Company’s petition for
discretionary review.2
Subsequent to our granting of review, we stayed briefing pending further order
by the Commission.
On March 31,
2015, American filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its appeal of these
proceedings and represented that it has agreed to pay penalties “consistent
with [Judge] Manning’s October 24, 2011 Decision Approving Settlement, October
24, 2011 Decision, and November 9, 2011 Decision Approving Settlement.” Mot.
at 1. American indicated in its motion that it agreed “to amicably resolve any
issues that remain regarding the safeguard-related violations in these matters.”
Id. Upon consideration of the motion, the Commission dismisses the
review of these cases and remands the proceedings to the Administrative Law
Judge for further proceedings, as appropriate, with respect to “any issues that
remain regarding the safeguard-related violations in these matters.” Id.
/s/ Mary Lu Jordan
Mary
Lu Jordan, Chairman
/s/
Michael G. Young
Michael
G. Young, Commissioner
/s/
Robert F. Cohen, Jr.
Robert
F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner
/s/
Patrick K. Nakamura
Patrick
K. Nakamura, Commissioner
/s/
William I. Althen
William
I. Althen, Commissioner
Appendix
Docket Nos.
LAKE
2007-215-R
LAKE
2007-216-R
LAKE 2007-172
LAKE 2007-202
LAKE
2007-205
LAKE 2008-004
LAKE
2008-037
LAKE
2008-080
LAKE
2008-082
LAKE
2008-120
LAKE
2008-139
LAKE
2008-140
LAKE
2008-141
LAKE
2008-143
LAKE
2008-231
LAKE
2008-232
LAKE
2008-234
LAKE
2008-235
LAKE
2008-239
LAKE
2008-526-A
LAKE
2008-528
LAKE
2008-529
LAKE
2008-531
LAKE
2008-582
LAKE
2008-583
LAKE
2008-584
LAKE
2008-585
LAKE
2008-624
LAKE
2008-625
LAKE
2008-626
LAKE
2009-007
LAKE
2009-008
LAKE 2009-206
LAKE
2009-445
LAKE
2009-546
1 The additional docket numbers at issue are set forth
in the attached Appendix.
2
Commissioner Cohen notes that these proceedings involve decisions approving
settlement of more than 70 citations. The parties moved for approval of
settlement of the citations during a conference call with the Judge. 33 FMSHRC
2574, 2593-94 (Oct. 2011) (ALJ); Unpublished Order at 2 n.1 (Oct. 2011);
Unpublished Order at 2 (Nov. 2011). “The written motion [for settlement]
consists of a spreadsheet setting forth the terms of the settlement reached by
the parties.” Unpublished Order at 2 n.1 (Oct. 2011); see also
Unpublished Order at 2 (Nov. 2011). That spreadsheet lists the originally
proposed penalty and the agreed upon amended penalty for each citation.
Overall, the penalties were reduced by 46.7%, from $362,515 to $193,330. The
spreadsheet indicates that every one of the penalties was reduced. The only
justification for the reductions noted on the spreadsheet was that one of the
citations, Citation No. 6683836 in Docket No. LAKE 2009-546, was “modif[ied] to
Permanently Disabling.” No justification at all was provided for the reduction
of the other penalties.
The
Judge’s reasons for accepting the proposed settlement do not appear in the
record. Perhaps they were set forth during the conference call.
Unfortunately, no transcript was made of the conference call, and so the
Commission has no basis for knowing the Judge’s consideration in accepting the
settlement.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read Commission precedent from 2015. Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.