1 

 FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

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

WASHINGTON, DC 20004-1710

TELEPHONE: 202-434-9933

FAX: 202-434-9949

May 23, 2023 

 

 AMENDED DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Moran 

This case is before the Court upon a Petition for Assessment of a Civil Penalties filed 

under section 105(d) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 815(d). 

The motion is brought by a non-attorney representative, known as “conference and litigation 

representative (“CLR”). The CLR has filed a motion to approve settlement of the violations 

involved in this matter. The parties have moved to approve the proposed settlement as follows: 

Citation/Order

No.

MSHA’s

Proposed 

Assessment

Settlement

Amount Modification 

WEVA 2023-0166 

9568959 $1,069.00 $535.00 

Modified from “Reasonably Likely”

to “Unlikely”, and consequentially 

removing the “Significant and 

Substantial” designation

TOTAL $1,069.00 $535.00 50% reduction in penalty from 

regular assessment figure

Involved in this matter is a section 104(a) citation for a now-admitted violation of 30 

C.F.R. §75.1725(a). That standard, titled “Machinery and equipment; operation and 

maintenance,” provides at the cited subsection that “Mobile and stationary machinery and 

equipment shall be maintained in safe operating condition and machinery or equipment in 

unsafe condition shall be removed from service immediately.” 

SECRETARY OF LABOR

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),

 Petitioner

 v. 

GREENBRIER MINERALS, LLC, 

Respondent

CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING

Docket No. WEVA 2023-0166 

A.C. No. 46-09514-569163 

Mine: Muddy Bridge 
2 

In issuing the citation, MSHA Inspector Emory Pack found that a Mac 12 emergency 

ride, company number 001, had a non-functioning parking brake. The inspector noted that the 

machine is used to transport miners from the end of the track to the No. 1 section. Petition for 

Civil Penalty at 17. As the inspector marked the violation as reasonably likely to result in an 

injury producing lost workdays or restricted duty, he properly designated it as significant and 

substantial. The negligence was listed as moderate. Id. 

That the inspector properly so evaluated the non-functioning brake was borne out by the 

fact that the parking brake was replaced. Id at 18. 

The Motion asserts the following in support of the modification and the 50% penalty 

reduction: 

Respondent disputes the level of likelihood of injury characterized by the citation. 

Respondent contends the service brakes1 on the personnel carrier were working 

properly when tested. Respondent further contends the terrain the personnel 

carrier travels is slightly rolling and not very steep. When the personnel 

carrier is parked and unattended, the transmission is left in reverse, and the

wheels are turned into the rib. Respondent states this citation does not have a 

confluence of factors to support the S&S determination. The Secretary does not 

necessarily agree with Respondent’s position but does recognize a legitimate 

factual and legal dispute and believes that settlement of the civil money penalty is

consistent with his enforcement responsibility under the Mine Act. Therefore, the 

Secretary agrees to modify the citation from “Reasonably Likely” to “Unlikely” 

and to delete the “Significant and Substantial” designation. The Secretary also 

agrees to accept a reduced penalty, which reflects the modification to the issuance.

Motion at 3 (emphasis added). 

Analysis 

The support offered is a display of irrelevant considerations, because it is entirely 

composed of factors that are not to be considered, per the clear directions from the United 

States Courts of Appeals. Those Courts have rejected the ‘alternative safety measures’ 

raised by the Respondent when analyzing the significant and substantial designation. 

Accordingly, redundant safety measures are not to be considered in evaluating a hazard.

 For example, in Knox Creek Coal, 811 F.3d 148 (4th Cir. 2016), that Court 

observed: 

“[i]f mine operators could avoid S & S liability—which is the primary sanction 

they fear under the Mine Act—by complying with redundant safety standards, 

operators could pick and choose the standards with which they wished to 

comply.”...Such a policy would make such standards “mandatory” in name only. 

It is therefore unsurprising that other appellate courts have concluded that 

‘[b]ecause redundant safety measures have nothing to do with the violation, they 

1 The citation was for the non-functioning parking brake, not the service brake. 
3

are irrelevant to the [S & S] inquiry.’ Cumberland Coal, 717 F.3d at 1029; see 

also Buck Creek, 52 F.3d at 136.

Knox Creek Coal, 811 F.3d 148, 162 (4th Cir. 2016).

Further regarding this issue, in Consolidation Coal, 895 F.3d 113, (D.C. Cir. 2018), the 

D.C. Circuit, referring to its decision in Cumberland Coal Resources, LP v. Federal Mine Safety 

& Health Review Commission, 717 F.3d 1020 (D.C. Cir. 2013), noted that it:

interpreted the statutory text to focus on the “nature” of “the violation” rather than 

any surrounding circumstances. More to the point, the court held that 

“consideration of redundant safety measures,”—that is, “preventative measures 

that would have rendered both injuries from an emergency and the occurrence of 

an emergency in the first place less likely”—“is inconsistent with the language of 

[Section] 814(d)(1).” Id. at 1028–1029. 

Id. at 118-119. 

Such irrelevancies do not acquire legitimacy in the context of settlements because 

to do so, would mean that a lesser standard is applied. It is disconcerting that the 

Secretary’s non-attorney representatives continue to advance these rejected justifications2

for penalty reductions, as it displays a lack of respect for the holdings of the Courts of 

Appeals and Congress’ explicit direction that penalties must be sufficient to encourage 

operators to comply with safety and health standards, as opposed to noncompliance with 

the attendant benefit of paying greatly reduced penalties. 

Despite the above observations, the Court is not permitted to make reasonable inquiry 

about settlement motions. With that restriction, the Court has considered the Secretary’s Motion 

and approves it solely on the basis of the Commission’s decisions in The American Coal Co., 40 

FMSHRC 983 (Aug. 2018) and Rockwell Mining, LLC, 40 FMSHRC 994 (Aug. 2018) for the 

standard to be applied by Commission administrative law judges when reviewing such settlement 

motions under the Commission’s interpretation of section 110(k) of the Mine Act. The Court 

must and does fully adhere to all Commission precedent. Per the Commission’s decisions on the 

scope of a judge’s review authority of settlements, the “information” presented in this settlement 

motion is sufficient for approval. 

2 As the CLRs are not attorneys, the Court realizes they simply follow the orders from the 

Solicitor as to the claimed justifications, even if they are without merit. 
4 

Accordingly, the motion to approve settlement is GRANTED, the citation contained in 

this docket is MODIFIED as set forth above, and it is ORDERED that Greenbrier Minerals, 

LLC pay the Secretary of Labor the sum of $535.00 within 30 days of this order.3

 

 

 ____________________ 

 William B. Moran

 Administrative Law Judge 

Distribution:

Ray A. Cartwright, Conference & Litigation Representative, U.S. Department of Labor, MSHA, 

100 YMCA Drive, Madisonville, KY 42431 cartwright.ray@dol.gov 

Lorna Waddell, Legal Counsel, DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP, 215 Don Knotts Blvd., Suite 310, 

Morgantown, WV 26501 lorna.waddell@dinsmore.com

3 Penalties may be paid electronically at Pay.Gov, a service of the U.S. Department of the 

Treasury, at https://www.pay.gov/public/form/start/67564508. Alternatively, send payment 

(check or money order) to: U.S. Department of Treasury, Mine Safety and Health 

Administration, P.O. Box 790390, St. Louis, MO 63179-0390. 

It is vital to include Docket and A.C. Numbers when remitting payments.