Secretary of Labor v. The American Coal Company (Commission decision, November 18, 2014)

Secretary of Labor v. The American Coal Company (FMSHRC LAKE 2008-38, et al.): Safeguard challenge barred and settlement affirmed

Decision type
Commission decision
Dockets
LAKE 2008-38, LAKE 2008-142, LAKE 2008-525
Decided
November 18, 2014
Outcome
Settled
Precedential status
Citable Commission precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-02

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 2014, 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 2014
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

The American Coal Company settled four citations based on three mine-specific safeguards for a total penalty of $9,640 while preserving a challenge to the safeguards' facial validity. After the settlement, the Commission decided in a separate American Coal case that the same three safeguards were facially valid. The Commission held that res judicata prevented the company from litigating that issue again. It lifted the briefing stay and affirmed the Judge's settlement decision, while reminding the parties that future settlement motions must state the proposed and agreed penalty for each citation.

Decision snapshot

  • Governing authority: 30 U.S.C. § 874(b); 29 C.F.R. § 2700.31(b)
  • Outcome: The facial-validity challenge was barred, and the settlement of four citations for $9,640 was affirmed.
  • Key point: A final Commission ruling on the same safeguards prevents the same operator from relitigating their facial validity in a later proceeding.

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,                                      :           Docket Nos.    LAKE 2008-38

MINE SAFETY
AND HEALTH                            :                                   LAKE 2008-142

ADMINISTRATION
(MSHA)                               :                                   LAKE 2008-525

:          

v.                                                         :

:

THE AMERICAN
COAL COMPANY                    :

BEFORE: Nakamura, Acting Chairman; Cohen and Althen,
Commissioners

DECISION

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 Commission’s partial grant of The American Coal Company’s (“American”) petition for discretionary review. Subsequent to our partial grant of review, we stayed briefing pending further order by the Commission.

In its petition, American contends that three notices to provide safeguard (“safeguards”)

that were issued by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to section 314(b) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 874(b), are facially invalid: Safeguard Nos. 3538483, 7568565, and 7577893. PDR at 2. American requests that the Commission vacate citations issued by the Secretary that allege violations of these safeguards.[1] Id.

The Judge concluded that these safeguards are facially valid and denied American’s motion for summary decision on the issue. The American Coal Co., 33 FMSHRC 2636 (Oct. 2011) (ALJ). The parties then filed a motion to approve settlement of the citations contingent upon the understanding that American was not waiving its right to subsequently file a petition for discretionary review with the Commission that challenged the facial validity of the underlying safeguards. On November 14, 2011, the Judge issued a decision approving the parties’ agreement to settle the citations. The American Coal Co., 33 FMSHRC 2803, 2833-34

(Nov. 2011) (ALJ). The Judge ordered payment of a total amended penalty of $9,640 in satisfaction of the four citations at issue.[2] Id. at 2833.

On August 30, 2012, the Commission issued a decision in a separate case involving American in which we concluded that Safeguard Nos. 3538483, 7568565, and 7577893 are each facially valid.  The American Coal Co., 34 FMSHRC 1963, 1972-80 (Aug. 2012). The principle of res judicata precludes American from again challenging the facial validity of these safeguards before the Commission. Faith Coal Co., 19 FMSHRC 1357, 1365 (Aug. 1997). Safeguard Nos. 3538483, 7568565, and 7577893 are each facially valid.

We hereby lift the stay in these cases. The Judge’s decision approving settlement of Citation Nos. 6667312, 7490989, 7490559, and 7490851 is affirmed.

/s/ Patrick K. Nakamura

Patrick K. Nakamura, Acting Chairman

/s/ Robert F. Cohen, Jr.

Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner

/s/ William I. Althen

William I. Althen, Commissioner

[1]
A total of four citations are at issue. Citation Nos. 6667312 and 7490989 allege violations of Safeguard No. 3538483. Citation No. 7490559 alleges a violation of Safeguard

No. 7568565. Citation No. 7490851 alleges a violation of Safeguard No. 7577893.

[2]
The record does not clearly establish the amended penalty amount for each individual citation. The Commission’s Procedural Rules require settlement motions to include the amount of the penalty proposed by the Secretary and the amount of the penalty agreed to in settlement for each violation. Commission Procedural Rule 31(b), 29 C.F.R. § 2700.31(b). We remind the parties that compliance with our procedural rules is required.

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