Secretary of Labor v. County Line Stone Co., Inc., et al. (Commission decision, August 5, 2022)

Plain-English summary

The Secretary sought approval of settlements involving County Line Stone, Consol Pennsylvania Coal, and Ramaco Resources, with each proposal calling for at least one citation to be vacated. The judge asked the Secretary to confirm that each vacatur was independent of the compromise of other citations, then denied the renewed settlement motions and requests to certify the issue for interlocutory review. The Commission granted the Secretary's second petition to review whether section 110(k) permits scrutiny of a citation vacatur that is contingent on resolving other citations. It consolidated the three cases, stayed the proceedings before the judge, and set a briefing schedule without deciding the ultimate settlement question.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 820(k); 29 C.F.R. § 2700.76(a)
• Outcome: Interlocutory review was granted, the cases were consolidated, and proceedings before the judge were stayed.
• Key point: The Commission agreed to decide whether section 110(k) authorizes review of citation vacaturs that are part of a broader settlement bargain.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

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

WASHINGTON,
DC 20004-1710

SECRETARY
OF LABOR,

MINE
SAFETY AND HEALTH       

ADMINISTRATION
(MSHA)           

v.

COUNTY
LINE STONE CO INC.

SECRETARY
OF LABOR,

MINE
SAFETY AND HEALTH       

ADMINISTRATION
(MSHA)           

v.

CONSOL
PENNSYLVANIA COAL

COMPANY
LLC

SECRETARY
OF LABOR,

MINE
SAFETY AND HEALTH       

ADMINISTRATION
(MSHA)           

v.

RAMACO
RESOURCES, LLC

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket
No. YORK 2022-0003

A.C.
No. 30-00026-541944

Docket
No. PENN 2021-0108

A.C.
No. 36-07416-539405

Docket
No. WEVA 2022-0260

A.C.
No. 46-09495-549775

BEFORE:  Traynor, Chair;
Althen and Rajkovich, Commissioners

ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION:

These
captioned cases arise under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. (2018) (“Mine Act”), and are currently before Administrative Law Judge Michael G. Young. The Secretary of Labor has now filed a second Petition for Interlocutory Review of these cases pursuant to Commission Procedural Rule 76(a)(1)(ii), 29 C.F.R. § 2700.76(a)(1)(ii) (“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.”). [1]

The Commission denied the Secretary’s
first Petition for Interlocutory Review, finding that the Secretary’s petition was filed prematurely as the Judge had yet to issue an order either granting or denying the subject motions to approve settlement.

Thereafter, the Secretary filed renewed
motions with the Judge. On August 2, 2022, the Judge issued three separate orders, each denying the Secretary’s renewed motions to approve settlement and for certification of interlocutory review.

The
Secretary’s motions to approve settlement were filed with the Judge in accordance with section 110(k) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 820(k). [2] Each motion to approve settlement contains a proposal to vacate one or more of the citations at issue. In consideration of the motion, the Judge asked if the Secretary’s representative could attest that the decision to vacate any citation was independent from, and not contingent upon, the compromise or settlement of other citations in that case. Instead of providing the Judge with his requested assurance, the Secretary filed motions for certification of interlocutory review with the Judge, requesting that the Judge certify to the Commission the question of whether the Secretary has unreviewable discretion to vacate a contested citation as part of a settlement.

As the Secretary’s petition recognizes, a
similar controlling question of law is currently on review before the Commission in Crimson Oak Grove Resources , SE 2021-0112, et al. Specifically, in Crimson Oak , on March 2, 2022, the Commission granted interluctory review of “the Judge’s orders denying the motions and the issue of whether section 110(k) of the Mine Act authorizes review of the Secretary’s decision to vacate a citation in the context of a settlement, when the vacatur is contingent upon the resolution of other citations.”

Commission Procedural Rule 76 provides
that “the Commission, by a majority vote . . . may grant interlocutory review upon a determination that the Judge’s interlocutory ruling involves a controlling question of law and that immediate review may materially advance the final disposition of the proceeding.” 29 C.F.R. § 2700.76(a)(2). Rule 76 further provides that “[i]nterlocutory review by the Commission shall not be a matter of right but of the sound discretion of the Commission.” 29 C.F.R. § 2700.76(a).

Upon consideration of the Secretary’s petition, we hereby grant review of the Judge’s orders and the issue of whether section 110(k) of the Mine Act authorizes review of the Secretary’s decision to vacate a citation in the context of a settlement, when the vacatur is contingent upon the resolution of other citations. [3]

The Secretary’s petition also contains an unopposed motion to hold the cases in abeyance. We grant the Secretary’s motion in part and order all proceedings before the Judge to be stayed pending futher order of the Commission. No hearing on these captioned matters shall commence without further order of the Commission.

The Secretary shall file an opening brief
with the Commission within 30 days of this order. Any operator wishing to file a brief shall file that brief 30 days after the filing of the Secretary’s brief.

/s/ Arthur R. Traynor,
III

Arthur R. Traynor, III, Chair

/s/ William I. Althen

William I. Althen, Commissioner

/s/ Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr.

Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr., Commissioner

Distribution
(by email):

Emily Toler-Scott, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

201 12th St. South, Suite 401

Arlington, VA 22202-5450

[email protected]

April Nelson, Esq. Associate Solicitor

Office
of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

201 12th St. South, Suite 401

Arlington, VA 22202-5450

[email protected]

Norman C. Ridley,
CLR

U.S. Department of Labor, MSHA

Thorn Hill Industrial Park

178 Thorn Hill Road, Suite
100

Warrendale, PA 15086

[email protected]

Douglas
Sciotto, CLR

U.S. Department of Labor, MSHA

631 Excel Drive, Suite 100

Mt. Pleasant, PA 15666

[email protected]

Chris A. Weaver,
CLR

U.S. Department of Labor, MSHA

604 Cheat Road

Morgantown, WV 26508

[email protected]

Paul T. Sharlow, Esq.

Sharlow
Law Firm, P.C.

P.O. Box
641

Jamesville, NY 13078

[email protected]

Craig Aaron

CONSOL
Energy Inc.

10000 CONSOL Energy Drive, Suite 100

Canonsburg, PA 15317

[email protected]

Jonathan R. Ellis, Esq.

Steptoe
& Johnson PLLC

Chase Tower, Seventeenth Floor

P.O. Box
1588

Charleston, WV 25326

[email protected]

Colton C. Parsons, Esq.

Steptoe
& Johnson PLLC

Chase Tower, Seventeenth Floor

P.O. Box
1588

Charleston, WV 25326

[email protected]

Administrative Law Judge Michael G. Young

Federal
Mine Safety & Health Review
Commission

1331 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Suite 520N

Washington, DC 20004-1710

[email protected]

Chief Administrative Law Judge Glynn
Voisin

Federal
Mine Safety & Health Review
Commission

1331 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Suite 520N

Washington, DC 20004-1710

[email protected]

Melanie
Garris

Office of Civil Penalty Compliance

Mine Safety and Health Administration

U.S. Department of Labor

201 12th St. South, Suite 401

Arlington, VA 22202-5450

[email protected]

[1]
On June 28,
2022, the Judge issued three separate orders, each denying the Secretary of Labor’s respective motion for certification of an interlocutory ruling.

[2]
Section
110(k) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 820(k), provides, in pertinent part, that “no proposed penalty which has been contested before the Commission under section 105(a) shall be compromised, mitigated, or settled except with the approval of the Commission.”

[3] Pursuant to
Commission Procedural Rule 12, 29 C.F.R. § 2700.12, we hereby consolidate these three captioned proceedings: County Line Stone Co., Inc ., YORK 2022-0003, Consol Pennsylvania Coal Co ., LLC, PENN 2021-0108, and Ramaco Resources, LLC, WEVA 2022-0260.