Secretary of Labor v. Greenbrier Minerals, LLC

Plain-English summary

Greenbrier Minerals and the Secretary proposed settling six citations by vacating two, leaving four unchanged, and reducing total penalties from $1,960 to $1,213. The Secretary relied only on asserted prosecutorial discretion as the explanation for the vacaturs. Judge Michael G. Young held that citations vacated as part of a settlement package were subject to Commission approval under section 110(k) and required enough information for the judge to evaluate the settlement. He certified for interlocutory review the question whether the Secretary has unreviewable discretion to vacate a contested citation without Commission approval. The Commission later affirmed the settlement denial and remanded this case with four related proceedings.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 C.F.R. §§ 2700.31(g) and 2700.76; 30 U.S.C. §§ 815(d) and 820(k)
• Outcome: The legal question over citation vacaturs within a settlement was certified for interlocutory Commission review.
• Subsequent review: The Commission affirmed the settlement denial and remanded in lake-2021-0145-commission.
• Key point: A contested citation vacated as part of a settlement package requires Commission approval and supporting information.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW JUDGES

1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVE.,
N.W., SUITE 1400

WASHINGTON, DC
20004-1710

TELEPHONE: 202 434-9987
/ FAX 202 434-9949

SECRETARY
OF LABOR,

MINE
SAFETY AND HEALTH       

ADMINISTRATION
(MSHA),

Petitioner

v.

GREENBRIER
MINERALS, LLC,

Respondent

CIVIL
PENALTY PROCEEDING

Docket
No. WEVA 2021-0294

A.C.
No. 46-09563-532369

Mine:
Eagle No. 1 Mine

ORDER CERTIFYING CASE FOR
INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW

Before:  Judge
Young

This
case is before me on a Petition for the Assessment of Civil Penalty under
section 105(d) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (“Mine Act”),
30 U.S.C. § 815(d). I denied a motion to approve settlement of this docket, and
four similarly situated proceedings. [1] The Secretary
seeks interlocutory review of all five proceedings, [2]
pursuant to Commission Procedural Rule 76, 29 C.F.R. § 2700.76.

I
agree with the Secretary that this interlocutory ruling involves a controlling
question of law, and that immediate review will materially advance the final
disposition of this proceeding and the other four similar cases. I certify for
review this question: Whether the Secretary has unreviewable discretion to
vacate a contested citation without the Commission’s approval.

This
docket includes six citations issued pursuant to Section 104(a) of the Mine
Act. On August 5, 2021, the Secretary submitted a motion to approve settlement.
The motion proposed vacating two citations, leaving the remaining four citations
undisturbed and reducing the total penalty from $1,960.00 to $1,213.00. See
S. Mot. to Approve Settlement at 2 (Aug. 5, 2021). In support of these
modifications, the Secretary offered only the following:

The Secretary has determined that
this violation should be vacated in an exercise of his prosecutorial discretion
recognized by the Commission in RBK Construction, Inc. , 15 FMSHRC 2099
(October 1993).

Id. at 3. [3]

I
denied approval of the settlement—specifying that the asserted unreviewable
discretion is contrary to the Mine Act’s requirement that the Commission
approve all settlements, as these vacaturs were proposed within a motion to
approve settlement. See Unpublished Order at 1 (Sept. 30, 2021) (“Order”). [4]
The Order, however, provided possible resolution—either a certification
or a detailed explanation—rather than Commission review. See id. at 3. [5]

In
a phone conference on October 14, 2021, regarding a similarly situated
docket—YORK 2021-0023—the Solicitor maintained her reliance on the Secretary’s
asserted authority to vacate citations without the approval of a Commission
Judge, even when done as part of a settlement proposal. [6]
Parties agreed that interlocutory review was an appropriate means of resolution,
and the undersigned agreed to grant certification. See Stay Order at 2.

Section
110(k) of the Mine Act provides, “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.” 30 U.S.C. § 820(k). The
standard for Commission evaluation is whether the proposed settlement is “fair,
reasonable, appropriate under the facts, and protects the public interest.” Am.
Coal Co. , 40 FMSHRC 983, 987 (Aug. 2018).

To
effectively apply this standard, Commission Judges must have “sufficient
information” upon which to base this evaluation. Id. (quoting Black
Beauty Coal Co. , 34 FMSHRC 1856, 1862 (Aug. 2012)); see also 29
C.F.R. § 2700.31(g) (“Any order by the Judge approving a settlement shall set
forth the reasons for approval and shall be supported by the record.”).

The
Secretary here has chosen not to provide information supporting the vacatur of
contested citations within a motion to approve settlement, instead invoking unreviewable
discretion to vacate citations under RBK Construction, Inc. See 15
FMSHRC 2099, 2101 (Oct. 1993) (“ RBK ”). In the Order, I held that RBK
does not control the resolution of this issue. I found that RBK ’s reasoning
and provenance distinguish that case from the case at bar.

First,
RBK recognizes that Section 110(k) of the Mine Act “only applies to
settlements of penalties, not to vacations of citations and orders.” Id.
Here, the Secretary vacated citations within a motion to approve settlement, leaving
others undisturbed. See Order at 1, 3 (noting the suggestion of a quid
pro quo —vacating relatively large penalties in return for agreement to pay
those remaining).

Second,
the Supreme Court decision upon which RBK is grounded reinforces the
requirement for Commission review by contrast to the Occupational Safety and
Health Act (“OSHA”). See Cuyahoga Valley Ry. Co. v. United Transp. Union ,
474 U.S. 3, 6–7 (1985) (holding that the Secretary had unlimited discretion to
vacate citations under OSHA and requiring no settlement approval by OSHRC). In
direct contrast to OSHA, the Mine Act expressly requires Commission
approval for settlement of contested citations. See Order at 2
(describing OSHA language granting sole discretion to the Secretary where the
Mine Act does not, rendering the Cuyahoga Valley Railway Co. decision
irrelevant to FMSHRC settlements).

Because
the Secretary declined an offer to certify or explain his decision to vacate
the settlement as either independent of the disposition of the other citations
or as a justifiable compromise, I have considered his vacatur as part of a
settlement, rendering RBK inapplicable. [7]
I also acknowledge the Secretary’s prosecutorial discretion in two prior
instances—the authorized representative’s decision to cite the violation, and
the Secretary’s decision to petition for penalty. Each citation in this docket
has now, therefore, been contested before the Commission and requires approval
for settlement. See Order at 2–3.

Under
Commission Procedural Rule 76, 29 C.F.R. § 2700.76, I certify that this
interlocutory ruling involves a controlling question of law—whether the
Secretary has unreviewable discretion to vacate a contested citation without
the Commission’s approval—and that immediate review will materially advance the
final disposition of the proceeding.

This
interlocutory ruling is hereby CERTIFIED .

/s/
Michael G. Young

Michael G. Young

Administrative Law Judge

Distribution
(by email):

Alexandra J. Gilewicz, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Dep’t
of Labor, [email protected]

Emily Toler Scott, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Dep’t of
Labor, [email protected]

Lorna M. Waddell, Counsel for
Respondent, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, [email protected]

Attachments:

Appendix
A: Order Denying Motion to Approve Settlement, Docket No. WEVA 2021-0294 (Sept.
30, 2021)

Appendix
B: Order Staying Proceedings, Docket No. WEVA 2021-0294 (Oct. 19, 2021)

[1] The others are Docket
Nos. YORK 2021-0023, LAKE 2021-0145, SE 2021-0134, and SE 2021-0112, all of
which were similarly stayed pending certification. See Unpublished Order
at 1 n.1 (Oct. 19, 2021) (“Stay Order”).

[2]
I deferred
to the Secretary which case to submit for interlocutory review. See Stay
Order at 2 n.2. I suggested that it was not necessary to certify all five
cases. The Secretary has elected to petition for review of all of them. The
other four will be certified in separate orders. I infer from his choice that
there may be distinctions in one or more of the other cases that the Secretary
wishes to bring to the attention of the Commission.

[3] This identical
language, provided as the only explanation for vacatur, was used for both
citations in paragraphs 6(A) and 6(B) to “assist the Commission in evaluating
whether the proposed penalty reductions are fair, reasonable, adequate under
the facts, and in the public interest.” S. Mot. at 2–3.

[4] The Order, and
the Stay Order, are attached as Appendices “A” and “B” and incorporated in this
order by reference.

[5] The same offer was provided before
the Secretary’s request that the undersigned reduce the denial to a formal
order. See E-mail from Kirsten Brown, Attorney Advisor to Administrative
Law Judge Michael G. Young, to MSHA Conference and Litigation Representative
Donald R. Hayhurst, Jr. (Aug. 26, 2021, 7:29 PM EDT).

[6] The Solicitor
asserted the authority for all associated dockets, including this one. See
supra note 1.

[7] I recognize that
the Secretary may have decided to challenge my decision on principle, even if
he had sought to vacate the penalty on independent grounds. Nothing in this
order prejudices the Secretary’s ability to certify that he decided to vacate
penalties in any of the affected dockets for reasons independent of the
settlement, should the Commission affirm my order.