Secretary of Labor v. The American Coal Company

Plain-English summary

The Secretary sought interlocutory review after Judge William B. Moran denied approval of a proposed settlement and rejected reconsideration. The Judge declined to certify the Secretary's three framed questions because he found that they misstated and improperly narrowed the dispute over the Commission's settlement-review authority under section 110(k). On his own motion, however, he certified the broader controlling question presented by the May 13 order because immediate review could advance this case and similar matters. He also denied a stay and directed the parties to prepare for a prompt hearing while review was pending. The Commission later addressed the settlement-review issue in lake-2011-13-commission-2.

Decision snapshot

• Governing authority: 30 U.S.C. § 820(k); 29 C.F.R. § 2700.76
• Outcome: The Secretary's requested certification and stay were denied, but the Judge certified the controlling settlement-review question on his own motion.
• Subsequent review: The Commission later decided the interlocutory appeal in lake-2011-13-commission-2.
• Key point: A Judge may reject a party's narrowly framed questions yet independently certify the controlling legal issue for immediate Commission review.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FO#5D.WPD

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
REVIEW COMMISSION

OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

1331 PENNSYLVANIA
AVE., N.W., SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON, DC
20004-1710

TELEPHONE:
202-434-9933 / FAX: 202-434-9949

July
1, 2014

SECRETARY
OF LABOR

MINE
SAFETY AND HEALTH  

ADMINISTRATION
(MSHA),

Petitioner

v.

THE
AMERICAN COAL COMPANY,

Respondent

CIVIL
PENALTY PROCEEDING

Docket
No. LAKE 2011-13

A.C.
No. 11-02752-232235

Mine:
New Era Mine

ORDER DENYING
PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION FOR INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW

CERTIFICATION BY
THE COURT UPON ITS OWN MOTION THAT ITS INTERLOCUTORY RULING INVOLVES A
CONTROLLING QUESTION OF LAW

Before:
Judge Moran

Order
denying petitioner's motion for certification for interlocutory review

This
matter involves, in part, the Secretary’s Motion to Certify for interlocutory
review this Court’s May 13, 2014 Order Denying the Secretary’s Motion for
approval of settlement upon the Secretary’s Motion for reconsideration.
(“Motion to Certify”). A Motion to stay the May 13, 2014 Order accompanied the
Motion to Certify.1 For the reasons which follow, the
Secretary’s Motion to Certify is DENIED.

Concomitantly,
the Court certifies upon its own motion that its interlocutory ruling involves
a controlling question of law and that, in its opinion, immediate review will
materially advance the final disposition of the proceeding.

In
its Motion to Certify, the Secretary of Labor requested “that the Court certify,
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 2700.76(a)(l)(i), that its May 13, 2014 Order involves
three questions appropriate for the Commission's interlocutory appellate
review.” The Secretary framed the issues it seeks for certification as follows:

“I. Does Section 110(k) provide any
meaningful standards to limit the Secretary's prosecutorial discretion to
settle Mine Act enforcement actions?

II. In the absence of any meaningful
standard in Section 110(k), what standard of review applies when the Commission
or a court of appeals reviews the Secretary's settlement agreements under
Section 110(k)?

III. Does the settlement the Secretary
proposes here satisfy the standard that applies?”

Motion
to Certify at 3.

Each
of these three questions posed for certification are denied because they
ask the wrong questions and attempt to limit the scope of interlocutory review,
should the Commission, in the exercise of its sound discretion, grant such
review. The Secretary contended in its Motion to Certify that this Court did
not answer the questions it posed and now it seeks to have the Commission
answer those questions, again confining the questions in issue according to its
terms. This is significant, because the “Scope of Review” subsection, § 2700.76(d),
provides “Unless otherwise specified in the Commission’s order granting
interlocutory review, review shall be confined to the issues raised in
the Judge’s certification or to the issues raised in the petition for
interlocutory review.”

Certification by the court upon its own
motion that its interlocutory ruling involves a controlling question of law

As
noted above, the Court certifies upon its own motion that its interlocutory
ruling involves a controlling question of law and that, in its opinion,
immediate review will materially advance the final disposition of the
proceeding. The issues have already been clearly expressed by the Court in its
May 13, 2014 Order Denying [the Secretary’s] Motion for Approval of Settlement
upon the Secretary’s Motion for Reconsideration and need not be repeated here. That
Order is incorporated by reference in this document. At its core, the Court’s
May 13, 2014 Order involves the Commission’s role, and indeed its statutory
duty, under section 110(k). The Secretary persists in its debilitating
interpretation of that provision and it does this, despite the Commission’s
decision in Secretary of Labor v. Black Beauty Coal Co., 34 FMSHRC 1856,
2012 WL 4026640 (Aug. 2012), and in other decisions the Commission has issued,
which clearly identify, and set forth, its review role under the statutory
provision.

Here,
the Secretary, disregarding the plain command of section 110(k), continues to
assert that it “has the ‘prosecutorial discretion to negotiate
percentage-reduction settlements’ and that it is under no obligation to do more
than to announce that the Commission.” Order Denying Motion for Approval of
Settlement upon Secretary’s Motion for Reconsideration at 10. As this Court
observed, the Secretary's Motion “asserts that the Commission's approval
authority is a ministerial task [and that] a uniform across-the-board reduction
is within the Secretary's authority to present to the Commission and [that] the
Commission, [is] unauthorized to do anything except approve such a settlement,
as long as it is clear and transparent to the public, [and that] the Secretary,
without more, may always enter a uniform percentage reduction, apparently of
any amount.” Id. at 11.  

On
the basis of the express words in section 110(k) of the Mine Act, the
legislative history pertaining to that provision, and the decisions of the
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, the Secretary is flatly
incorrect about the asserted feeble nature of the Commission’s role in these
matters.

Accordingly,
the Court certifies that its interlocutory ruling involves a controlling
question of law and, in the Court’s opinion, immediate review will materially
advance the final disposition of the present case, and many others like it.

Denial
of the Secretary’s Motion to Stay

As noted in footnote 1, the Court DENIES
the Secretary’s Motion to stay. The parties are directed to participate in a
conference call on July 15, 2014 at 1 p.m. EDT for the purpose of setting this
matter for a prompt hearing. The parties are directed to email the Court
confirming the date and time of this conference call. The Court will then
provide call-in instructions for the call.

So
Ordered,

/s/
William B. Moran

William
B. Moran

Administrative
Law Judge

1 Absent contrary direction from the Commission, the
Secretary’s accompanying motion to stay is denied.  This is because, if
interlocutory review is granted, a significant period of time may elapse
between the time review is granted and a decision is issued.  During that
interval, of uncertain duration, witnesses may be lost, memories may fade and
other evidentiary infirmities may ensue.  It is noted that the provision
addressing interlocutory review, 29 C.F.R. Section 2700.76, arguably
anticipates such problems by providing: “Interlocutory Review by the Commission
shall not operate to suspend the hearing unless otherwise ordered by the
Commission.”  (emphasis added).