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

November 19, 2021

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, pursuant to Commission 

Procedural Rule 76, 29 C.F.R. § 2700.76.

This docket includes thirteen citations issued pursuant to Section 104(a) of the Mine Act. 

On August 3, 2021, the Secretary submitted a motion to approve settlement. The motion 

proposed vacating four citations, while modifying or leaving undisturbed the remaining nine 

citations and reducing the total penalty from $28,148.00 to $17,843.00. See S. Mot. to Approve 

Settlement at 2 (Aug. 3, 2021).

The question certified for review and my position have been clearly expressed in the 

Order Certifying Case for Interlocutory Review for Docket No. WEVA 2021-0294 (Appendix 

C). As in each associated docket, the Secretary chose not to provide information supporting the 

vacatur of the contested citations or certify that vacatur was not contingent upon resolution of the 

remaining citations. Instead, he invoked unreviewable discretion under RBK Construction, Inc.2 

See 15 FMSHRC 2099, 2101 (Oct. 1993) (“RBK”). I found that RBK does not control the 

resolution of this issue, and that the citations proposed to be vacated have been contested before 

1 The others are Docket Nos. WEVA 2021-0294, 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 See Unpublished Order at 1 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) (Appendix B). 2 “It is undisputed that the Secretary has prosecutorial discretion to vacate a citation. Secretary of 

Labor (MSHA) v. RBK Construction, Inc., 15 FMSHRC 2099 (October 1993).” S. Mot. at 3–4.

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

 MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

 ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),

 Petitioner

v.

HOLCIM (US) INC.,

 Respondent

 CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING

 Docket No. YORK 2021-0023

 A.C. No. 18-00019-527910

 Mine: Holcim (US) Inc Hagerstown

 Facility
2 

the Commission and are subject to my approval. See Unpublished Order at 2–3 (Sept. 28, 2021) 

(Appendix A).

 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.

For the reasons stated herein, and in my order certifying interlocutory review in WEVA 

2021-0294, this interlocutory ruling is hereby CERTIFIED. 

Michael G. Young 

Administrative Law Judge

Distribution (by email):

Emily Toler Scott, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Scott.Emily.T@dol.gov 

Alexandra J. Gilewicz, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 

Gilewicz.Alexandra.J@dol.gov 

John Jerrels, Safety Representative, LafargeHolcim, john.jerrels@lafargeholcim.com 

Attachments:

Appendix A: Order Denying Motion to Approve Settlement, Docket No. YORK 2021-0023 

(Sept. 28, 2021) 

Appendix B: Order Staying Proceedings, Docket No. YORK 2021-0023 (Oct. 19, 2021) 

Appendix C: Order Certifying Case for Interlocutory Review, Docket No. WEVA 2021-0294 

(November 19, 2021)