i 

July 2022 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

COMMISSION ORDERS 

07-29-22 COUNTY LINE STONE CO., INC. YORK 2022-0003 Page 507 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ORDERS 

07-11-22 HEARING ORDER Page 511
ii 

Review Was Granted In The Following Cases During The Month of July 2022 

Secretary of Labor v. Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC, 

Docket No. PENN 2021-0084 (Judge Young, 6/8/2022) 

Secretary of Labor obo Alvaro Saldivar v. Grimes Rock, Inc., 

Docket No. WEST 2021-0178 DM (Judge Miller, 6/17/2022) 

Review Was Denied In The Following Cases During The Month of July 2022 

Secretary of Labor v. County Line Stone Co., Inc., et al., 

Docket Nos. YORK 2022-0003 et al. (PIR Judge Young, 6/28/2022) 
COMMISSION ORDERS

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

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

WASHINGTON, DC 20004-1710 

July 29, 2022 

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 filed a Petition for Interlocutory Review with the Commission 

pursuant to Commission Procedural Rule 76, 29 C.F.R. § 2700.76. The Secretary’s petition seeks 

review of the Judge’s apparent intention to not grant the Secretary’s motions to approve 

settlement. Upon consideration of this petition and the case records, we conclude that because 

the Judge has yet to rule upon the Secretary’s motions, the Secretary’s petition is premature. In 

the absence of an interlocutory ruling by the Judge, we deny the Secretary’s Petition for 

Interlocutory Review. 

 

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 

44 FMSHRC Page 507
More specifically, before the Judge, the Secretary filed motions to approve settlement 

which contained a proposal to vacate one or more citations. In response, the Judge asked if the 

Secretary could certify 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 the Secretary’s discretion to vacate a contested citation as part of a settlement. 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. 

As the Secretary’s petition to the Commission recognizes, the same 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, the Commission granted interlocutory review of 

“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.” Crimson Oak, 

Order at 2 (March 2, 2022) (emphasis added). Notably, in these captioned cases which are the 

subject of the Secretary’s petition before us, the Judge has yet to issue an order either granting or 

denying the Secretary’s motions to approve settlement. 

For these reasons, the Secretary’s petition is denied without prejudice. 

/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 

 

44 FMSHRC Page 508
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 

Scott.emily.T@dol.gov 

April Nelson, Esq. Associate Solicitor 

 Office of the Solicitor 

U.S. Department of Labor 

201 12th St. South, Suite 401 

Arlington, VA 22202-5450 

Nelson.April@dol.gov 

Norman C. Ridley, CLR 

U.S. Department of Labor, MSHA 

Thorn Hill Industrial Park 

178 Thorn Hill Road, Suite 100 

Warrendale, PA 15086 

Ridley.Norman@dol.gov 

Douglas Sciotto, CLR 

U.S. Department of Labor, MSHA 

631 Excel Drive, Suite 100 

Mt. Pleasant, PA 15666 

Sciotto.Douglas@dol.gov 

Chris A. Weaver, CLR 

U.S. Department of Labor, MSHA 

604 Cheat Road 

Morgantown, WV 26508 

Weaver.Chris@dol.gov 

Paul T. Sharlow, Esq. 

Sharlow Law Firm, P.C. 

P.O. Box 641 

Jamesville, NY 13078 

psharlow@sharlowlaw.com 

Craig Aaron 

CONSOL Energy Inc. 

10000 CONSOL Energy Drive, Suite 100 

Canonsburg, PA 15317 

craigaaron@consolenergy.com 

44 FMSHRC Page 509
Jonathan R. Ellis, Esq. 

Steptoe & Johnson PLLC 

Chase Tower, Seventeenth Floor 

P.O. Box 1588 

Charleston, WV 25326 

Jonathan.Ellis@steptoe-johnson.com 

Colton C. Parsons, Esq. 

Steptoe & Johnson PLLC 

Chase Tower, Seventeenth Floor 

P.O. Box 1588 

Charleston, WV 25326 

Colton.Parsons@steptoe-johnson.com 

Administrative Law Judge Michael G. Young 

Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission 

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

Washington, DC 20004-1710 

myoung@fmshrc.gov 

Chief Administrative Law Judge Glynn Voisin 

Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission 

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

Washington, DC 20004-1710 

GVoisin@fmshrc.gov 

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 

Garris.Melanie@dol.gov 

44 FMSHRC Page 510
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ORDERS

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., NW, SUITE N520 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004-1720 

July 11, 2022 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE HEARINGS ORDER

Glynn F. Voisin, Chief Administrative Law Judge: 

 Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Administrative Law Judges are 

committed to a high standard to protect the health and safety of all persons who may appear 

before them, during the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, while continuing the agency’s 

mission. As of January 3, 2022, the Commission has resumed in-person hearings, but for the 

duration of this order all hearings are subject to its terms. 

Commission Judges may, at their sole discretion, hold remote hearings (e.g. via Zoom) 

and in-person hearings. Judges also have the discretion to hold a hybrid hearing, that includes 

both in-person and video participation. Commission Judges shall exercise this discretion within 

uniform parameters as set forth herein. Each Judge shall determine (1) when to use remote 

hearings in lieu of in-person hearings and (2) specific safety procedures to be used at a hybrid or 

in-person hearing. 

In determining the type of hearing, Judges will consider current guidance and safety 

factors on a case-by-case basis. Judges will ensure all parties appearing pro se who are required 

to participate in a remote hearing have access to equipment, an internet connection, and other 

appropriate technology. Prior to conducting an in-person hearing, Judges will schedule a 

conference call with the attorneys and representatives of each of the parties to discuss, among 

other things, safety considerations for the in-person hearing. Persons who are not comfortable 

with travel or appearing in person, may request to attend the hearing via remote access (e.g. via 

Zoom). Judges may discuss the agency’s workplace safety plan that outlines travel guidelines, 

protocols, and safety measures in conjunction with the CDC Community Levels1

. 

The Judge will set a hearing location after considering CDC Community Levels using the 

CDC COVID Data Tracker2

 and the safety and health rules currently in place by the state and 

local public health entities. Where community levels are HIGH, Judges are discouraged from 

setting in-person hearings. If in-person participants are traveling to attend a hearing, the 

community levels of where they are traveling from need to be taken into account as well. In 

choosing a courtroom, the Judge will take into consideration the rules and requirements of the 

court or hearing facility, as well as all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and 

guidelines. If the hearing is to be a hybrid hearing, the Judge will also consider the availability of 

internet and technology needs in the courtroom. 

1

 See https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/community-levels.html 

2

 See https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#countyview?list_select_state=all_states&list_select_county=all_counties&data-type=CommunityLevels 

44 FMSHRC Page 511
During the prehearing conference, the Judge will consider federal, state, local and 

courtroom requirements and inform the parties of such requirements. The requirements apply to 

all persons attending the in-person hearing. The discussion will also address who may enter the 

courtroom, when, and what safety measures, such as masks and physical distancing, must be 

implemented. No person may enter the courtroom, or the witness room without the permission of 

the Judge. 

In addition to any federal, state, local and facility safety and health rules, all persons 

attending in-person hearings are also subject to the below requirements: 

• FMSHRC employees: 

o All FMSHRC employees must adhere to the workplace safety plan and CDC guidance 

on physical distancing, mask wearing, vaccination attestation, and testing as well as 

quarantine, isolation, and official travel requirements.3

• Visitors and Contractors: 

o Visitors are defined as federal employees from other agencies such as the Department 

of Labor, spectators, and press. Contractors, for purposes of this order, are defined as 

individuals who have been contracted by FMSHRC to attend an in-person hearing for 

a specific purpose (e.g. a court reporter creating a transcript).

o Visitors and contractors must attest to their vaccination status using the Certificate of 

Vaccination Form when Community Levels are MEDIUM or HIGH. 4 Visitors and 

contractors who are considered not fully vaccinated (as defined by the CDC) shall 

show proof of a negative COVID-19 test result from a Food and Drug Administration 

authorized test taken within three days prior to entry to the in-person hearing when 

Community Levels are MEDIUM or HIGH. The Judge shall neither collect 

documentation to verify their vaccination attestation nor collect documentation to 

verify COVID-19 test results. Additionally, all visitors and contractors must adhere to 

the agency’s workplace safety plan and CDC guidance on physical distancing and 

mask wearing.

• Non-government Parties, Representatives and Witnesses: 

o Persons who are not visitors or contractors as defined above, and who are parties, 

representatives of parties, or witnesses do not need to attest to their vaccination status 

3

 The employee vaccination requirement in Executive Order 14043 and the contractor 

vaccination requirement in Executive Order 14042 are the subject of an injunction issued by a 

Federal court. In accordance with OMB Guidance, and pending further notice, FMSHRC will 

take no action to enforce the vaccination requirements in those executive orders. The Office of 

the Chief Administrative Law Judge will continue to monitor developments on this issue and will 

comply with current vaccination policies. 

4

 The vaccination attestation form can be found on the Safer Federal Workforce website 

at https://www.saferfederalworkforce.gov/downloads/CertificationVaccinationPRAv7.pdf.

44 FMSHRC Page 512
to attend an in-person FMSHRC hearing, and Judges shall not inquire into their 

vaccination status. However, they must adhere to the agency’s workplace safety plan 

and CDC guidance on physical distancing and mask wearing. 

Furthermore, in the event an in-person hearing is held in a location where the CDC 

Community Level is MEDIUM or HIGH, all persons attending the hearing, including visitors 

and contractors, as well as non-government parties, representatives, and witnesses, must present 

a completed FMSHRC COVID-19 Screening Tool form for review.5 

The Judge may consider all factors, in totality, in determining if a remote hearing will be 

held and who may be present for the hearing. No single factor is dispositive. 

These procedures shall remain in place until this order is vacated or otherwise modified 

by subsequent order. 

SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ Glynn F. Voisin 

 Glynn F. Voisin 

 Chief Administrative Law Judge 

5

 The FMSHRC COVID-19 Screening Tool form is available in Appendix C of the 

agency’s workplace safety plan. Individuals who plan to attend a hearing can also obtain a copy 

of the form by contacting a Judge’s office. 

44 FMSHRC Page 513