1

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

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

WASHINGTON, DC 20004-1710

 

 

BEFORE: Jordan, Chair; Althen, Rajkovich, and Baker, Commissioners

DECISION

BY THE COMMISSION:

This proceeding arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C.

§ 801 et seq. (2018) (“Mine Act”). On July 27, 2023, the Commission granted interlocutory 

review pursuant to Commission Procedural Rule 76, 29 C.F.R. § 2700.76, to consider inter alia 

whether the Judge assigned to this matter abused his discretion when he struck an argument and 

related caselaw citations from the Secretary’s motion to approve settlement. 

For the reasons which follow, we conclude that the Judge acted upon an improper 

understanding of his authority under the Mine Act and the Commission’s Procedural Rules and, 

therefore, abused his discretion. 

I. Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns citations issued by an inspector from the Department of Labor’s Mine 

Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) to Consol Mining Company pursuant to section 

104(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 814(a). The citations allege violations of mandatory safety 

standards. The settlement motion reflects Consol’s agreement to pay civil penalties in exchange 

for the Secretary of Labor’s agreement to modify several citations, including the removal of a 

significant and substantial (“S&S”) designation in one citation. The “significant and substantial” 

terminology is taken from section 104(d)(1) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 814(d)(1), which 

distinguished as more serious in nature any violation that “could significantly and substantially 

contribute to the cause and effect of a . . . mine safety or health hazard.”

In the subject motion to approve settlement, the Secretary claimed that she has the 

unilateral authority to modify citations contested before the Commission, citing American 

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

 MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

 ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) 

v.

CONSOL MINING COMPANY LLC

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. WEVA 2023-0141

August 31, 2023
2

Aggregates of Michigan, Inc., 42 FMSHRC 570 (Aug. 2020) and Mechanicsville Concrete, Inc., 

18 FMSHRC 877 (June 1996). The Judge believed that the Secretary’s legal argument directly

conflicts with the language of section 110(k) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 820(k), which 

allocates authority to the Commission to review proposed penalty settlements between the 

Secretary and mine operators.

1 The Judge found that the Commission decisions cited by the 

Secretary in support of her alleged authority “cannot support the premise for which they have 

been cited.” Order at 1 (May 11, 2023) (citations omitted). Accordingly, the Judge denied the 

motion without reviewing the settlement agreement and, as a sanction, ordered that the offending

argument and citations be struck from the Secretary’s motion. Id. at 2 n.2. Specifically, the 

Judge struck the following passage from the Secretary’s motion: 

Taking into account the uncertainty of the outcome of these issues 

at trial, the Secretary has decided to exercise her discretion to 

modify the gravity to unlikely and not S&S as recognized in Am. 

Aggregates of Michigan, Inc., 42 FMSHRC 570, 576-79 (Aug. 

2020) (citing Mechanicsville Concrete, Inc., 18 FMSHRC 877, 

879-80 (June 1996)).

Id.

2

 

On July 7, 2023, the Judge certified to the Commission for interlocutory review the 

question of his authority to strike material from the record, stating that the “question [is]

impeding consideration of the motion to approve settlement.” Order at 1 (July 7, 2023). 

II. Disposition

We conclude that the Judge abused his discretion when he struck the Secretary’s 

argument and citations to American Aggregates and Mechanicsville Concrete from the record. 

The Judge lacks authority to impose such sanctions.

In making an argument and filing a motion, a representative of the Secretary must certify 

pursuant to Commission Procedural Rule 6(b)(2), that it “is warranted by existing law or a good 

faith argument for extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.” 29 C.F.R. 

§ 2700.6(b)(2). We find that neither the presentation of the argument nor the Secretary’s citation 

to Commission caselaw violates the requirements of Procedural Rule 6.3 

1 In pertinent part, 30 U.S.C. § 820(k) provides, “[n]o proposed penalty which has been

contested before the Commission under section 815(a) of this title shall be compromised,

mitigated, or settled except with the approval of the Commission.”

2 The Judge had previously ordered the Secretary to cease citing the aforementioned 

cases as authority to remove a S&S designation. Order at 1 (May 11, 2023) (“a conference and 

litigation representative who submitted a motion with such citations would be barred from 

practice before me.”) (citation omitted). 

3 In coming to this conclusion, we rely on the Commission’s prior grant of interlocutory 

review of the identical issue in multiple separate proceedings, which are currently pending on the 
3

Further, by disallowing the Secretary from presenting certain arguments or citing 

particular cases, the Judge’s order improperly prevented the Secretary from preserving issues on 

appeal. The Mine Act generally limits the Commission’s jurisdiction to questions that were first 

reviewed by the Judge. See 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(2). The Secretary must cite to cases and make 

arguments that she believes are meritorious, even if the Judge does not agree, if she desires to 

preserve them for consideration before the Commission or federal courts. See Midwest Minerals, 

Inc., 12 FMSHRC 1375, 1378 (July 1990) (stating that matters not raised before the Judge and 

instead set forth for the first time on review “cannot be considered by the Commission.”)

(citations omitted). In short, if a Judge “strikes” an argument (and the cases that argument relies 

upon), the Secretary may find it impossible to receive review regarding that argument later.

We understand a Judge may become frustrated with the repetitive recitation of arguments 

and citations the Judge does not find relevant. Pending resolution of the underlying issue, 

however, the Secretary does not act in bad faith in continuing to present the argument or in citing 

Commission cases in an attempt to support her argument. 

Even if a Judge believes that a party representative has failed to “conform to the 

standards of ethical conduct required of practitioners in the courts of the United States,” the 

proper course of action is not to strike arguments or case citations but instead to refer the 

practitioner to the Commission in writing. 29 C.F.R. § 2700.80. Here, the Judge did not submit 

a written referral to the Commisison and, accordingly, we find it unnecessary to consider any 

disciplinary proceedings against the Secretary’s representative in this instance. 

We conclude that the Judge relied upon an improper understanding of his authority under 

the Mine Act and the Commission’s Procedural Rules and abused his discretion. See Sec’y of 

Labor on behalf of Shemwell v. Armstrong Coal Co., 36 FMSHRC 1097, 1101 (May 2014)

(stating that a Judge abuses his discretion when he issues a decision based upon an improper 

understanding of the law). 

In so finding, we do not address the merits of the Secretary’s own claim of authority. 

The Commission will address whether the Secretary has unreviewable discretion to remove an 

S&S designation from a contested citation without the Commission’s approval in one of the 

aforementioned pending cases in which the issue arises. 

Commission’s docket. See e.g., Knight Hawk Coal, LLC, LAKE 2021-0160 (Apr. 2022); 

Greenbrier Minerals, LLC, 44 FMSHRC 706 (Dec. 2022) (“whether the Secretary has 

unreviewable discretion to remove an S&S designation from a contested citation without the 

Commission’s approval under section 110(k) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 820(k).”) (footnote 

omitted); Bluestone Oil Corp., 44 FMSHRC 709 (Dec. 2022); Rulon Harper Constr., Inc., 44 

FMSHRC 717 & n.1 (Dec. 2022).
4

In the interim, the Judge retains jurisdiction over this captioned proceeding. He should

now consider whether the proposed settlement in the motion to approve settlement “is fair, 

reasonable, appropriate under the facts, and protects the public interest” as required by the 

Commission in American Coal Co., 38 FMSHRC 1972, 1976 (Aug. 2016). 

_________________________________

Mary Lu Jordan, Chair

_________________________________ 

William I. Althen, Commissioner 

_________________________________ 

Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr., Commissioner

_________________________________ 

Timothy J. Baker, Commissioner 
5

Distribution:

Emily Toler Scott, Esq.

Counsel for Appellate Litigation

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of the Solicitor

Division of Mine Safety & Health

201 12th Street South, Suite 401

Arlington, VA 22202

scott.emily.t@dol.gov

Robert S. Wilson

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor, MSHA

201 12th Street, Suite 401

Arlington, VA 22202

wilson.robert.s@dol.gov

D. Cass Trent, CLR

U.S. Department of Labor, MSHA

4499 Appalachian Hwy

Pineville, WV 24874

trent.david@dol.gov

Jame McHugh, Esq.

Hardy Pence LLC

10 Hale Street, 4th Floor

P.O. Box 2548

Charleston, WV 25329

jmchugh@hardypence.com

Craig Aaron

CONSOL Energy Inc.

275 Technolgy Drive, Suite 101

Canonsburg, PA 15317

craigaaron@consolenergy.com

Michael G. Young,

Administrative Law Judge

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge

1331 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 520N

Washington, DC 20004

myoung@fmshrc.gov